Kamlu Ram vs Dev Singh Salam on 7 April, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Kamlu Ram vs Dev Singh Salam on 7 April, 2026

2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant herein against the judgment dated 19.02.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.03/2016, whereby the learned appellate Court acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the charge under Sections 420 and 467 of IPC reversing judgment dated 05.01.2026 passed in Criminal Case No.155/2014 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.).

3. It has been informed to this Court by learned counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of the present appeal, the accused/respondent No.1-Devsingh Salam died on 30.09.2020. In this regard, death certificate has also been filed and the learned State counsel has also confirmed the death of accused/respondent No.1. Thus, in view of death of accused/respondent No.1, the acquittal appeal stands abated qua the deceased accused/respondent No.1.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused/respondent 3 No.1 Dev Singh Salam, in order to get the share in the property of complainant/appellant herein and gain benefits of Govt. scheme, in collusion with accused/respondent No.2 - Brijesh Tiwari, prepared a forged and fraudulent genealogy of complainant by adding the name of Mehattar, father of accused/respondent No.1. Upon coming to know about the said act of the accused/respondents, complainant/appellant Kamlu Ram lodged a report at police station Narayanpur. On the basis of said report, the police register an FIR (Ex.P-5) against the accused/respondents for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 34 of IPC. During investigation, upon finding the evidence by the investigating officer indicating that the accused/respondent No.1 and patwari accused/respondent No.1 had engaged in forgery of official record (misal) of complainant Kamlu Ram with intent to secure benefits under the Govt. scheme, prepared and filed a charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 34 followed by charge under Sections 420, 467, 468, 34 of IPC. The accused/respondents however denied the charge and pleaded for trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 4 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondents pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. No defence witness has been examined by the accused/respondents in the case.

6. The learned Magistrate Court, after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the judgment dated 05.01.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.155/2014, while acquitting the accused/respondent No.1 and 2 of the offence under Section 468, convicted them under Sections 420 and 467 of IPC. The said judgment of conviction was subjected to appeal and the learned Appellate Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the charges under Sections 420 and 467of IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal by the complainant/appellant herein.

7. Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 19.02.2016 is wholly contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is unsustainable in law, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence on record, particularly the testimony of PW-1 (complainant), whose cross-examination in paragraphs 2 and 3 clearly establishes 5 that a forged pedigree was prepared with the collision of accused/respondent No. 2, who was the then posted as Halka Patwari, by dishonestly incorporating the name of Mahettar, father of accused/respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of the IPC stand fully proved from the prosecution evidence. The learned Trial Court gravely erred in overlooking crucial documentary evidence, including the written report (Ex-P/1) and the forged pedigree document (Ex-P/3), which clearly substantiate the prosecution case and were sufficient to record conviction against the accused/respondents. Learned counsel also submits that the accused/respondents failed to produce any defence evidence or examine any witness to rebut or controvert the serious allegations levelled against them, which is sufficient to hold the accused/respondents guilty. Despite this, the learned Trial Court erroneously extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons. It is thus argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider both oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective. So, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

8. None appeared for respectfully Nos. 1 and 2. 6

9. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3 duly assisted the Court.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial court framed charges under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of IPC and the learned Magistrate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, while acquitting the accused/respondents of the charge under Section 468, convicted them under Sections 420a nd 467 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused/respondents filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/respondents of the said charges on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.

12. The prosecution alleged that the accused/respondents, while posted as Branch Manager of LAMPUS and Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Mukhpal respectively, committed embezzlement of Rs.2,77,94,186.38/- and Rs.25 Lakh by issuing fake and fabricated cheques to non-beneficiaries and thereafter set fire to the LAMPUS Office, Nakulnar, to destroy evidence.

13. Complainant - Kamlu Ram Salam (PW-1) has stated that accused Dev Singh was quarreling with him under the influence of liquor and uttering to kill him then he filed a written report (Ex.P-1) against accused Dev Singh at police station. He has also stated that the police had seized some papers under seizure memo (Ex.P-2). The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted that accused Dev Singh without his (this witness) knowledge had incorporated his (accused) father's name in his misal (land record) and he had also filed a report in this regard. He has also admitted this suggestion of defence in para 4 that accused Dev Singh was in the habit of quarrelling with him under the influence of alcohol, and that being fed up with such conduct, he had filed a written complaint against him at the police station.

14. The testimony of complainant (PW-1) statements reveal inconsistencies and also suggest prior enmity with accused Dev Singh arising out of frequent quarrels under the influence of liquor, thereby rendering his testimony unreliable for the purpose of sustaining conviction.

15. Mahadev Kumeti (PW-2), Ku. Dashri Nag (PW-4), Sukhchand Kumeti (PW-5), Ramdev Kumeti (PW-6) all the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the 8 prosecution and prosecution declared them hostile & cross- examined them but they denied all suggestions of the prosecution.

16. The main allegation of prosecution is that both the accused/respondents committed forgery and prepared forged revenue document (genealogy) of complainant incorporating the name of accused Dev Singh's father Mahettar but the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to demonstrate as to how the accused persons allegedly tampered with the revenue records or prepared the forged genealogy document. There is a clear absence of substantive proof connecting the accused with the alleged act of forgery or establishing the manner in which such forgery was committed for wrongful gain under any Government scheme.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mallappa and Ors.

Versus State of Karnataka, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 has held in para 42 as under:-

42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice.

The principles which come into play while 9 deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-

"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--

inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-

appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

18. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused/respondents of the charges under Sections 420, 467 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondents particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be 10 arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Appellate Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court.

19. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself.

                                   Sd/-                                  Sd/-
                             (Rajani Dubey)                     (Radhakishan Agrawal)
                                  JUDGE                                 JUDGE
       pekde
Digitally signed by
VIJAY BHARATRAO
PEKDE
Date: 2026.04.09
12:55:24 +0530

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court