Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh @ Guddu Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730
1 CRA-10973-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 19th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10973 of 2024
MUKESH @ GUDDU DWIVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Kumar Mukhraiya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anil Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, herein after referred to as the Code) has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.09.2024 in S.T. No.84 of 2019 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori (MP) whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 120-B read with Section 465 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 06 months with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. In this case, accused persons, namely, Ajmer Das, Arti Mongre, Santu Singh, Devendra @ Deepak Burman and the present appellant Mukesh @ Guddu Dwivedi are charged under sections 120-B r/w Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC that between the year 2007 to 2014, they had conspired together in Districts Dindori and Katni to forge the D.Ed. mark sheet, which Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 2 CRA-10973-2024 is a valuable security, to defraud the Government and to use the forged mark sheet as genuine. In furtherance of which, accused Devendra forged the mark sheets of accused Ajmerdas, Santu Markam and Aarti Mongre and the said accused used the same as genuine. Accused Ajmerdas, Aarti Mongre and Santu Markam are also charged under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC that during the said period, accused Ajmerdas defrauded the government by submitting forged mark sheets and obtaining appointment (absorption) from the Assistant Teacher cadre to the post of Teacher, and accused Aarti Mongre and Santu Markam defrauded the government by obtaining appointment (absorption) from the post of Contract School Teacher Class-3 to the Assistant Teacher cadre, and knowingly using the forged D.Ed. mark sheets as genuine. Accused Devendra alias Deepak is also charged under Section 467 of IPC for forging the D.Ed. mark sheets of co-accused Ajmerdas, Santu Markam, and Aarti Mongre at his residence in village Balhi, district Katni, during the said period.
3. The prosecution story in short is that Ajmer Singh was posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 in the Primary School Dhanauli Development Block Samanpur and in the year 2007 he took the benefit of absorption as Assistant Teacher, thereafter in the year 2014 he took the benefit of promotion from Assistant Teacher to Teacher by attaching fake D.Ed mark sheet. The enrollment number of the accused in the D.Ed mark sheet was nil, hence the complainant Madhav Singh Tekam submitted a written complaint of these facts before the Collector Dindori, on the basis of which the Superintendent of Police, Dindori got the complaint investigated by the Sub-Divisional Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 3 CRA-10973-2024 Officer (Police) Shahpura and obtained the report and on the basis of the said report, a case has been registered against accused Ajmer Singh at Crime No.95/18 for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC. The crime was registered and during investigation, it was found that accused/present appellant Mukesh Dwivedi, after taking money from other accused persons and other teachers, got a fake D.Ed mark sheet prepared from accused Deepak. Fake mark sheet (original) was seized from accused Ajmerdas, after getting it verified from the Board, it was found to be fake. Computer and other material of accused Devendra alias Deepak were seized and got it examined by FSL. As per FSL report Ex.P.41, D.Ed. mark sheets of Ajmerdas, Bahadur Singh, Santu Markam, Sajjan Singh Dhurve and B.A. marksheet in the name of Mukesh Dwivedi were found in computer software and also the software for the purpose of editing was also found in the computer. From the possession of Sajan Singh Dhurve (PW-3), his fake marksheet of D.Ed. was also seized vide Ex.P/5.
4 . After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the competent court, which, on its turn, committed the case to the court of sessions from where it was made over to First Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori for trial.
5. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of averments made against the accused persons in the charge sheet framed charges. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. They took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the matter but they have not chosen to adduce any evidence in their defence.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 4 CRA-10973-2024
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, which are Ashok Das Mongre (PW-1), Madhav Singh Tekam (PW-2), Sajjan Singh Dhurve (PW-3), Roop Singh Maravi (PW-4), Bahadur Singh (PW-5), Sushila Bhansur (PW-6), Balram Singh (PW-7), Anurag Jamdar (PW-8), Phoolsingh Tekam (PW-9), Chhediprasad Saket (PW-10), Ramjeevan Kumar Verma (PW-11), P.L. Kokadiya (PW-12) and Parmanand Pachole (PW-13) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/69 and Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4 the documents on record.
7 . The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence vide impugned judgment has convicted the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 465 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 06 months with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. Hence, this appeal.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that present appellant Mukesh @ Guddu Dwivedi has served the entire sentence of six months R.I. awarded under Section 120-B read with Section 465 of IPC. Since the appellant wishes to assail the judgment of conviction, therefore, he is pressing the present appeal. It is also submitted that the allegation against the present appellant is that he has forged the mark-sheet of Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) in the name of Ajmerdas Sonwani (Ex.P/28) but Ex.P/28 has never been sent to the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal for verifying its genuineness. It is stated that an unknown person Madhav Singh Tekam has submitted a Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 5 CRA-10973-2024 written complaint to the Collector, Dindori on 18.01.2017 (Ex./P/4) and a doubt about forged document has been raised in the complaint, therefore, the police has registered an FIR and the criminal law was set into motion. A copy of the D.Ed. mark-sheet is stated to have been annexed along with this complaint but that photocopy is not on record and has not been exhibited by the prosecution which was an important document. No explanation for such omission has been put forth by the prosecution.
9 . It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellant that a memorandum (Ex.P/1) of Ajmerdas Sonwani, who is said to have been a beneficiary in this case, has been taken by the police wherein it is stated by Ajmerdas Sonwani that the said forged marksheet of Diploma in Education has been submitted to SDO (P) Shahpura, Dindori for enquiry, meaning thereby the original copy of marksheet was submitted by Ajmerdas Sonwani to SDO (P) Shahpura Dindori but on the same day when the memorandum has been taken by the police i.e. 04.05.2019, the police seized this mark-sheet in original from the possession of Ajmerdas Sonwani and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/2) which was quite impossible as the original D.Ed. mark-sheet was with the SDO (P) Shahpura Dindori. How the police just after taking memorandum of Ajmerdas Sonwani at 11.40 p.m. on 04.05.2019 has seized the mark-sheet at 11.50 p.m. on the same day i.e. just after 10 minutes of preparing memorandum (Ex.P/1), is not clarified by the evidence on record.
10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellant that the report of SDO (P) Shahpura, Dindori is Ex.P/8 wherein it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 6 CRA-10973-2024 stated that the marksheet of D.Ed. was sent to the District Education and Training Centre, Jabalpur (Jila Shiksha Evam Prashikshan Sansthan, Jabalpur) and got the information in relation to that mark-sheet and it is found that this mark-sheet was false and forged. In this report (Ex.P/8), the appended document No.7 has clearly stated that other papers are also annexed with it. However, original copy of the marksheet was ostensibly not sent to the aforesaid center as inasmuch as a photocopy has been submitted along with the complaint (Ex.P/4) in relation to which an enquiry has been made by SDO(P) Shahpura.
11. It further contended by learned counsel for the present appellant that the report of Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal is Ex.P/69 which shows that this marksheet of D.Ed. has not been issued by it and the record in that respect is not available. This report also shows that a photocopy of that mark-sheet has been sent to them for information but that photocopy of the marksheet is not filed along with this document and it is not otherwise available on the record. Therefore, the photocopy of the document which was got examined by SDO, (P) Shahpura Dindori in respect of which Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal has given its report has not ever been filed before the Court.
12. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellant that though a report (Ex.P/41) of Central Forensic Laboratory is also on record, which shows the result of examination in para 11(2) i.e. the softcopy of Ex.P/3 (P-20-19 HD-1/F/Backup Data/8 G data/1.psd)) found in Ex.HD-1 is attached vide Annexure -1. Soft copy of other marksheets found Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 7 CRA-10973-2024 in Ex.HD-1 is provided in the same hard disk, but that expert who has issued this report (Ex.P/41) has not been examined before the Court. It is exhibited by Anurag Jamdar, Police Sub Inspector, who only marked an exhibit over there. Therefore, this report is not got proved appropriately by the prosecution. For the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that as per report of Ex.P/41, the document Ex P/3 is available in the Hard-Disk-I, it is not established that Ex.P/3 was document which has been seized from present appellant Mukesh Dwivedi and was in relation to mark sheet Ex.P/28. In para 22 the learned Trial Court has found that the mark-sheets Ex.P/5 is a forged document and since Sajjan Singh Dhurve (PW-3) has stated that the present appellant Mukesh has given him Ex.P/5 and took Rs.40,000/- from him, therefore the offence under Section 465 of IPC is made out against the present appellant. However, the mark-sheet (Ex.P/5) has not been got verified from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal. Only the aforesaid Institution (said Mandal) was able to point out as to whether the mark-sheet was forged or not. Therefore, the observation of Trial Court in this respect is erroneous.
13. It is also submitted that in para 19 the learned Trial Court has mentioned this fact that the mark-sheet Ex.P/5 has not been got verified from the Board but since Sajjan Singh Dhurve (PW-3) himself said that this mark- sheet is forged, therefore, no further evidence is necessary, however the said observation of learned Trial Court in this respect is erroneous. To implicate any person for the offence of forgery, there must be some cogent and reliable evidence. In addition to the statement of Sajjan Singh Dhurve (PW-3), it was Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 8 CRA-10973-2024 incumbent upon the prosecution to get this mark-sheet (Ex.P/5) verified from the Board whether it was forged or not. Similarly, in absence of evidence of expert who has given report (Ex.P/41), the presence of soft copy of this mark-sheet in the software, which is said to have been seized from Devendra is also not established beyond doubt.
1 4 . It is further submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, seizure memo and memo of arrest of the present appellant has been witnessed by Akash Namdeo and Kehar Singh but these witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution in the evidence for the reasons best known to the prosecution. The learned Trial Court in para 32 of the judgment has passed an stricture against the Investigating Officer that the lacuna left by him is fatal, hence in light of those observations no conviction could have been tenable. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment dated 14-02- 2025 passed by the Single Bench at Indore of this Court in the case of Cr.A. No.1264 of 2010 (Bharat Singh S/o Uma Singh Bhadoriya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh). The learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against present appellant.
15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer on the ground that in para 19 of the judgment, the learned Trial Court has categorically stated that as per the Forensic Lab report, a soft copy of the mark-sheet was found in the computer software which has been seized from the possession of co-accused Devendra, which Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 9 CRA-10973-2024 shows that mark-sheet Ex.P/5 was forged and fabricated and the said computer has been seized for that purpose. There is ample evidence to convict the present appellant under Section 120-B read with Section 465 of IPC. Thus, learned counsel for the State prays for rejection of the appeal.
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and material available on record.
17. As per the impugned judgment, the appellant has been charged under Section 120-B read with Section 465 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. The appellant has already served the entire jail sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court, however, he has pressed this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court.
18. On going through the record, it is revealed that initially a report was submitted by complainant Madhav Singh Tekam against Ajmerdas demanding an enquiry about the genuineness of his D.Ed. marksheet, on the basis of which he is said to have been promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher to Teacher.
19. Ashok Das Mongre (PW-1) has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Madhav Singh Tekam (PW-2) who had submitted the complaint stated in his examination-in-chief that he knows only accused Ajmerdas and Santu Singh. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not attached the certified copy of marksheet which he obtained under RTI, along with the complaint (Ex.P/4) rather he filed its photocopy. He admits that he has not given original or certified Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 10 CRA-10973-2024 copy of the marksheet to Police till date rather he had given only photocopy of the same to Police. In his entire examination, nothing has been alleged by this witness against the accused/present appellant - Mukesh @ Guddu Dixit.
20. Sajjan Singh Dhurve (PW-3) who is also a teacher, stated in his examination-in-chief that he had given Rs.20,000/- to present appellant Mukesh and in return he had given him D.Ed. marksheet (Ex.P/5). This witness further stated that on coming to know that the marksheet provided by accused Mukesh is forged, neither he used it nor he submitted the same in the office, however during investigation he deposited the same in the Amarpur Police Station. The aforesaid marksheet was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6). In para 7 of his cross-examination, this witness deposed that he never reported the matter about taking money by accused Mukesh Dwivedi and providing of forged mark-sheet by him. He further admits that the mark-sheet in question has not been seized from the possession of accused Mukesh. The cross-examination of this witness in para 7 and 8 shows that his testimony is full of contradictions and omissions.
21. Although Roopsingh Maravi (PW-4) was also declared hostile but at the request of Additional Public Prosecutor, this witness was permitted to be asked the question under Section 154 of the Indian Evidenced Act regarding absorption. Roopsingh Maravi (PW-4) in his cross-examination has admitted that he knew accused Mukesh Dwivedi but he denied that Mukesh Dwivedi has demanded Rs.40000/- for providing him the D.Ed. marksheet. He at his own stated that accused-Mukesh Dwivedi told him that Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 11 CRA-10973-2024 D.Ed. course takes two years' time and for which examination is required to be passed. This witness has specifically denied taking place of any transaction of Rs.40,000/- with the present appellant Mukesh Dwivedi in lieu of providing fake marksheet of D.Ed. Similarly Bahadur Singh (PW-5) and Sushila Bhansur (PW-6) have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. Both these witnesses have not deposed anything adverse against the present appellant.
22. Balram Singh (PW-7) was posted as Sub Inspector in Samnapur Police Station District Dindori. He has stated that complainant Madhav Singh had submitted a written complaint (Ex.P/4) before the Collector Dindori requesting him to enquire into the genuineness of D.Ed. mark- sheet, on the basis of which the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Shahpura after investigation prepared enquiry report (Ex.P-8) and submitted the same before Superintendent of Police Dindori. Thereafter, on the basis of order (Ex.P/9) passed by S.P., Dindori instructing the SHO, Samnapur to register the FIR, this witness prepared FIR (Ex.P/10) at Crime No.95/18 for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC.
23. Anurag Jamdar (PW-8) is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that during police custody, he recorded the memorandum statement (Ex.P/11) of accused Mukesh Dwivedi. This witness in his examination-in-chief has stated that he had seized original mark-sheets of Bahadur Singh Dhurve and Santosh Markam, Muween Khan's original member certificate of Association of Pharmacy Professional, marksheet of Ganesh Prasad and certain other documents from accused Mukesh Dwivedi. In para 4, this witness has stated Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 12 CRA-10973-2024 that he had prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/6) of mark-sheet (Ex.P/5) on being produced the same by Sajjan Singh Dhurve. He has further admitted that the enquiry was conducted by SDO (P) Shri P.S. Tekam and the enquiry report was submitted by him. He further admits that there is no mention in the report to the effect that original mark-sheet of Ex.P/28 is annexed. He stated that no document pertaining to Ex.P/28 has been seized from the possession of present appellant. In para 14 of his cross-examination, this witness admits that no document has been sent after 11.07.2019 for obtaining FSL report. He stated that the verification of D.Ed. marksheet of accused Mukesh has not been done by him. In para 15, he stated that neither he verified the mark- sheets of other persons which have been seized by him nor enquired as to whether those persons availed any benefit on the basis of these marksheets. He has also not verified the genuineness of D.Ed. marksheet of accused Mukesh Dwivedi. He himself accepts this fact that the genuineness of any document can be verified only from the Institution from where that document has been issued.
2 4 . S.D.O.(P) Phool Singh Tekam (PW-9) has stated that after enquiry he had submitted the enquiry report Ex.P/8. During investigation, he had seized photocopies of high school and diploma from Ajmerdas Sonwani. Since these documents were photocopies, therefore, the accused persons raised an objection that these documents cannot be exhibited but the learned Trial Court over ruled the said objection on the ground that since the photocopies have been seized from Ajmerdas, therefore, these documents can be exhibited.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 13 CRA-10973-2024
25. Chief Executive Officer Chhedi Prasad Saket (PW-10), Assistant Project Officer Ramjeevan Kumar (PW-11) and AG-2 P.L. Kokadiya (PW-
12) are the witnesses who have adduced the evidence in respect of absorption/promotion of accused persons. Parmanand Pachole (PW-13) who was posted as Assistant Secretary (Verification) in Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal has deposed that he found the mark-sheet of accused Ajmerdas Sonwani not to be issued from the Mandal.
2 6 . On close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it is revealed that the present appellant has been made accused on the basis of memorandum (Ex.P/1). Ashok Das Mogre (PW-1) is the witness to Ex.P/1 but he has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Another witness to Ex.P/1 is Manoj Kumar, who has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Although a copy of D.Ed. Marksheet has been stated to have been filed along with the complaint (Ex.P/4) but that photocopy is neither on record nor exhibited by the prosecution.
27. There is no explanation on the part of prosecution that when the original D.Ed. marksheet was with the SDO(P) then how the police after taking memorandum of Ajmerdas at 11.40 p.m. has seized the aforesaid marksheet at 11.50 p.m. on the same day, which renders the investigation doubtful. Though as per District Education and Training Center, Jabalpur, the mark-sheet sent to it has been found to be false and forged, but original copy of the marksheet has not been sent to the aforesaid center as inasmuch as only a photocopy has been submitted along with the complaint (Ex.P/4).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 14 CRA-10973-2024 The photocopy of the document which was being examined by SDO, (P) Shahpura Dindori in respect of which Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal has given its report has not ever been filed before the Court. The D.Ed. marksheet (Ex.P/5) which is alleged to have been given by present appellant to Sajjan Singh Dhurve, has not been sent to Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal for verifying its genuineness. Only the aforesaid institution could be in position to ascertain whether the marksheet (Ex.P/5) is forged or not. Akash Namdeo and Kehar Singh are the witnesses to memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, seizure memo and memo of arrest of the present appellant but they have not been produced by the prosecution for their examinations. In the light of the observations made by the learned Trial Court in para 32 of its judgment regarding the manner in which investigation has been carried out by the Investigating Officer, the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court holding the present appellant guilty of offence under Section 120-B r/w Section 165 of IPC suffers from illegality and perversity.
28. The present appellant is not named in the FIR (Ex.P/10). He has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum (Ex.P/1) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of Ajmerdas Sonwani. The mark-sheet (Ex.P/5) in relation to which it has been stated that this forged marksheet was given by the present appellant to Sajjan Singh Dhurve has never been sent to Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal for its verification. Sajjan Singh Dhurve (PW-3) in his cross-examination has admitted categorically that the mark-sheet was not seized from the possession of present appellant Mukesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 15 CRA-10973-2024 and also not seized from his possession and police did not record his statement. He has not communicated to anyone about mark-sheet given by Mukesh and in turn to give him money. No detail has been revealed from the evidence and material on record that when the present appellant has demanded money for issuing forged marksheet; when such marksheet has been handed over to Sajjan Singh Dhurve (PW-3); and when such amount by this witness has been given to the present appellant. The date, time and place of such transaction have not specifically come in evidence. No witness to the memorandum and seizure from present appellant Mukesh have been examined for the reasons best known to prosecution.
29. On the anvil of the foregoing discussion, it is revealed that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that some benefit has been taken by anyone on the basis of forged mark-sheet, the Trial Court has also observed as such in the impugned judgment. The computer has not been seized properly and as per rules as inasmuch as it was not got sealed at the time of seizure. Similarly, no verification of such marksheets was obtained from the concerned department too. The expert who has issued report (Ex.P/41) has also not been examined before the Court for the reasons best known to prosecution.
30. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13 & 14 of the decision of Bharat Singh S/o Uma Singh Bhadoriya (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are relevant, which read as under :
"11. Investigating Officer (IO) Sevaram Upchariya (PW-8) in paragraph No.4 of his statement has deposed that he has not received any document which would show that the appellant submitted the said mark sheet in the Department, therefore, it is not proved that it is the appellant who filed the mark sheet Ex.P/5 at the time of his recruitment.Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 16 CRA-10973-2024
12. The original of Ex.P/5 mark sheet which is a photocopy, has never been produced, therefore, as per provision of Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was not admissible as primary evidence and objection in this regard was raised at the time of its admission. Therefore, this photocopy of mark sheet could not have been admitted as primary evidence. No foundation for admitting this document as secondary evidence was laid before the trial Court, therefore, it cannot be admitted as a secondary evidence also. The aforesaid mark sheet is allegedly attested by the Commandant of CISF. In such a situation, the Commandant was competent to testify before the Court as to the admissibility of the document Ex.P5 as evidence. The Commandant has never been examined by the prosecution in support of the case. Therefore, this photocopy Ex.P/5 has any probative evidentiary value in the eye of law. Invalidly admitted document did not get any legal value.
13. It is well settled that even if any document is exhibited in Court and the contents of the said document, but if its contents have not been proved, the document cannot be used as evidence in the eye of law. For this purpose, a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of Smt. J. Jasoda v. Smt. K. Shobharani reported in AIR 2007 SC 1721 may be looked into.
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, in considered view of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, that he had forged Ex.P/5 and used it for obtaining an appointment on the post of Constable in CISF."
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Topandas Vs. State of Bombay, (1955) 2 SCC 254 while considering various judgments on the points has summed up in para 11 as follows :
"11. The position in law is, therefore, clear that on the charge as it was framed against Accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 in this case, Accused 1 could not be convicted of the offence under Section 120-B of the Penal Code when his alleged co- conspirators Accused 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted of that offence."
3 2 . In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14 SCC 151 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 17 CRA-10973-2024 605 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless finding of the trial Court is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same.
33. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the principles while deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-
"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 deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as :
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of all evidence, oral or 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 reappreciation 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."...
34. In the light of the foregoing discussion, material on record and the legal principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it can be safely held that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the offences charged against the present appellant. The finding recorded for the offence under Section 120-B of IPC is bereft of any cogent reasonings. Further the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 18 CRA-10973-2024 record does not disclose that accused/appellant created the documents in order to assist other accused persons in getting the benefits and as such the offence under Section 465 of IPC is also not established against him. The ingredients of offences charged against the present appellant could not be proved by prosecution with cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, the judgment under appeal convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for an order of acquittal.
35. Ex consequenti, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.09.2024 in S.T. No.84 of 2019 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori (MP) so far as it relates to the conviction of the accused/appellant Mukesh @ Guddu Dwivedi is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant Mukesh @ Guddu Dwivedi is hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 120-B read with Section 465 of IPC. The appellant has already served the entire sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court. The bail and surety bond of the accused/appellant Mukesh @ Guddu Dwivedi are hereby ordered to be discharged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant is ordered to be returned to him.
36. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the property is affirmed.
37. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be sent back to the court concerned.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59730 19 CRA-10973-2024 DV Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 03-12-2025 19:10:58