Srinagar court acquits man After 13 Years in Forgery Case, cites lack of key evidence

Srinagar: A trial Court at Srinagar on Monday acquitted a person from charges of forgery and cheating nearly after a decade. The Court said that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt.

In the matter of State through Police Station Batmaloo vs. Abdul Latief Lone, the accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), arising out of FIR No. 80/2012. 

The prosecution alleged that the accused, Abdul Latief Lone, had dishonestly induced the complainant by handing over a forged appointment order purportedly issued by a government department, thereby committing the offence of forgery and cheating.

The core allegation rested upon the claim that the accused had delivered a forged document to the complainant in exchange for monetary gain of nearly 150000.

Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Anjum Ara while going through the details of the case said that the document in question—a purported appointment letter—was not seized in its original form. 

“Instead, the prosecution produced only a photocopy (xerox) of the alleged document and placed reliance on the expert opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), which opined that the signatures on the photocopy matched those of the accused,” Ara said.

However, Court noted that the foundation of the prosecution’s case was inherently defective as the original alleged forged document was never produced before the court.

 It was recorded that it is a settled principle of law that, in cases involving allegations of forgery, the primary document alleged to be forged must be brought on record to establish its authenticity or falsity. 

“A photocopy, being secondary evidence, cannot be relied upon to prove the act of forgery unless the original is accounted for and its absence duly explained under Sections 61 to 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provisions are applicable mutatis mutandis to criminal trials in Jammu & Kashmir under the RPC,” court said.

Furthermore, court said that the expert opinion rendered by the FSL was based solely on a comparison of signatures on the photocopy of the document, rather than the original. 

“In the absence of the original document, such an expert opinion carries no probative value.  It is trite law that for an expert opinion to be admissible and reliable in a case of forgery, the comparison must be made with the original disputed document, failing which, the report is rendered inconclusive and inadmissible,” court held.

Additionally, court said there is a significant lapse in the prosecution’s case as there was the non-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO). 

“The IO, being a material witness, was responsible for collecting the alleged document, forwarding it to the FSL, and preparing the seizure memo. His testimony was crucial to establish the chain of custody, mode of collection, and procedural compliance. His absence from the witness stand deprived the court of insight into how the investigation was conducted and whether the evidence was lawfully obtained and preserved,” court said.

Justice Ara said that the failure to examine the IO amounted to a fatal infirmity in the prosecution’s case.Moreover, other independent witnesses cited in the charge sheet—specifically Witnesses No. 2 and 3—were also not examined. 

“These witnesses, reportedly present during the alleged transaction and listed in the seizure memo, could have lent corroborative value to the prosecution’s version. Their non-examination created further doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution’s claims. The seizure memo, not being proved through its signatories, remained unsubstantiated,” court said.

The Court further said that the prosecution also failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR. 

“While the complainant alleged that the incident occurred in January 2012, the FIR was lodged only in August 2012. This unexplained delay further weakened the prosecution’s case,” court noted.

In totality, the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 467, and 468 RPC. The absence of the original forged document, reliance on a xerox copy, non-examination of the IO and other material witnesses, and the unexplained delay in FIR registration cumulatively rendered the prosecution’s case weak, inconsistent, and legally untenable.

Accordingly, the Magistrate extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, Abdul Latief Lone, and acquitted him of all charges.The bail bonds stood cancelled, and sureties discharged. The case file was directed to be consigned to records after due formalities.