2026:HHC:34779 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2025 Reserved on 12.8.2026 Date of Decision: 18.8.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Soma Devi ……...Appellant Versus Dina Nath and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Jeewan Lal Sharma and Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocates, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant appeal filed under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 10.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022, reversing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2022/18.07.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned trial court while holding the accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC read with Section 120-B 2026:HHC:34779 - 2 - IPC, convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission offence punishable under Section 467 IPC and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months; Simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and in default of making payment of fine convict will be liable for further simple imprisonment of one month; simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and in default of making payment of fine convict will be liable for further simple imprisonment of one month; and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and in default of making payment of fine convict will be liable for further simple imprisonment of two months. 2. For having bird's eye view, facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal, as emerge from the record, are that on 15.07.2014, one complaint Ext. PW-2/A was received from Prem Singh (PW-2) for registration of FIR, alleging therein that his wife Soma Devi (PW-1) had a case pertaining to land pending adjudication before Revenue Commissioner, Mandi. Complainant alleged that on 21.09.2012, Lekh Ram, ACO, Mandi (since deceased) visited the village Bastla and recorded the statement of his wife Smt. Soma Devi, wherein she stated 2026:HHC:34779 - 3 - that deficiency of land be made good and her signature was obtained upon the statement of his wife as witness. Complainant alleged that when they obtained a copy of her statement and copy of order, it came to be transpired that statement of Soma Devi (PW-1) has been changed and in her changed statement, it has been mentioned that she wants to withdraw the case. Complainant alleged that aforesaid statement has been changed by ACO Lekh Ram and this fact came to their knowledge after obtaining the copy of statement of Soma Devi and copy of order and in copy of statement obtained, his signature was also changed. He further alleged that his wife Soma Devi only knows how to put her signature, otherwise she is illiterate. He further disclosed to police that an appeal was filed by his wife Soma Devi pertaining to their land against Dina Nath, which was pending and ACO Lekh Ram changed this statement in order to provide wrongful benefit to Dina Nath. In the aforesaid background, FIR Ext. PW-5/B came to be lodged against ACO Lekh Ram and present respondent- accused Dina Nath under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station, Sarkaghat. 3. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent Court of law. It is apt to take note of the fact that before cognizance upon the challan could be taken, co-accused Lekh Ram, who had allegedly changed the statement of PW-1 Soma Devi, 2026:HHC:34779 - 4 - expired, as a result thereof, proceedings qua him stood abated vide order dated 01.09.2018. 4. Learned court, being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against present respondent-accused, proceeded to frame charges against him under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined ten witnesses in all. Respondent-accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of prosecution in toto and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. While claiming himself to be innocent, he opted to lead defence evidence and examined himself in his defence. 6. After conclusion of trial, learned trial court convicted the respondent-accused and sentenced him as per description given hereinabove. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by trial court, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 10.11.2023. Vide aforesaid judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat acquitted the respondent-accused and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below. In the aforesaid 2026:HHC:34779 - 5 - background, complainant Soma Devi has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for restoration of judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial court after setting aside judgment passed by learned appellate court. 8. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant-complainant is that learned appellate court has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective, as a result thereof, well-reasoned judgment of conviction passed by court below came to be set aside. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel representing appellant-complainant, submitted that there are two statements in dispute. First statement given by appellant Soma Devi was admitted to be correct, but second statement, which was actually placed on record, is the forged one. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that ACO came alone to the appellant's house and took the statement and signature of the appellant and her husband. However, later on, when the appellant's husband applied for the copies of statements which were recorded by ACO, he found the same to be changed and forged. He submitted that finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat that prosecution must have placed the original statement on record, is totally absurd. He submitted that person, who had authority and responsibility to place the statement, simply recorded it himself and committed the offence of forgery, then why would he place original statement on record? He further submitted that finding and observation given by learned Additional 2026:HHC:34779 - 6 - Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat that mere oral evidence will not prove that document was changed and forged, is totally incorrect, as these statements corroborate with the SFFSL report Ext. PW-7/A, which clearly states that signatures of appellant Soma Devi and her husband Prem Singh were not appended by the appellant Soma Devi and her husband Prem Singh in disputed statement Ext. PW-4/D. He submitted that it was never the case of the appellant that Dina Nath forged the signature. In fact, it was Lekh Ram who was alleged to have changed and forged the documents in connivance with Dina Nath. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, failed to appreciate that Dina Nath-accused was the main beneficiary of the whole offence. He submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge further erred in recording a finding in Para-24 of the judgment that it is amply clear from the order of Divisional Commissioner, Mandi that appeal of PW-1 Soma Devi has been dismissed on merits and not solely on her disputed statement Ext. PW-4/D. He submitted that bare perusal of order of Divisional Commissioner dated 26.12.2013 reveals that from third paragraph onwards, the disputed statement given before ACO Lekh Ram was discussed and appeal was dismissed subsequently. He submitted that since judgment dated 10.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat is against law and facts of the case, same is liable to be set aside. He submitted that since there is ample material adduced on record showing the fact that 2026:HHC:34779 - 7 - late Lekh Ram, ACO, committed forgery only with the purpose to give undue benefit to the present accused Dina Nath, as such, judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent-accused Dina Nath deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. To the contrary, Shri Jiwan Lal Sharma, learned counsel representing accused Dina Nath, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat. He submitted that though there is no evidence to prove forgery, if any, committed by ACO Lekh Ram, but even if it is presumed that aforesaid person had changed the statement of Soma Devi coupled with the fact that he forged the statement and signature of Soma Devi and Prem Singh, such fact, if any, could not render present respondent-accused liable to be punished under aforesaid provisions of law. While referring to the report of FSL, Mr. Jiwan Lal Sharma, learned counsel, vehemently argued that there is no finding in the report that signatures were forged by present accused Dina Nath. Even I.O. PW-7 SI Rakesh Kumar has admitted that in SFFSL report, specimen handwriting and signature of accused Dina Nath did not match with any handwriting or signature. Thus, it is proved that accused Dina Nath did not forge signature of Soma Devi or Prem Singh. He submitted that no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be adduced on record with regard to connivance, if any, inter se ACO Lekh Ram and respondent-accused Dina Nath, rather, ACO Lekh Ram 2026:HHC:34779 - 8 - proceeded to record the statement of Soma Devi on the direction issued by Revenue Commissioner, Mandi, wherein she stated that she wants to withdraw the case. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 11. Precisely, the case of the prosecution, as emerges from pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, is that complainant Prem Singh (PW-2) submitted an application Ext. PW-2/A, alleging therein that his wife Soma Devi was having a case pertaining to a landed dispute, which was pending in the court of Revenue Commissioner, Mandi. On 21.09.2012, accused Lekh Ram, ACO, Mandi (now deceased) came to the village Bastla and recorded statement of his wife Soma Devi. Though wife of the complainant had given statement that deficit area of her land may be made good and upon such statement, complainant Prem Singh had also put his signature as witness, however, on obtaining the copy of such statement, it was found that statement of his wife has been changed by accused Lekh Ram (now deceased), to close the appeal of his wife Soma Devi. He alleged that his as well as his wife’s signatures were forged on such statement by ACO Lekh Ram to give undue benefit to accused Dina Nath. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR Ext. PW- 5/B was registered. 2026:HHC:34779 - 9 - 12. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined Soma Devi as PW-1, who deposed that she was having land dispute with accused Dina Nath and she had filed the appeal at Mandi. She deposed that accused Lekh Ram, Tehsildar, had come to her village recorded her statement and obtained her signature as well as signature of her husband. She deposed that when her husband obtained copies of statements, he found that accused Lekh Ram had not recorded her statement to the effect that deficiency of five and a half biswas of land be made good, rather he changed her statement and recorded that demarcation is acceptable to her and her case may be closed. Aforesaid witness further deposed that she had not given any such statement to accused Lekh Ram, rather Lekh Ram committed forgery to give benefit to accused Dina Nath. Aforesaid witness was declared hostile for the reason that she had stated that accused Lekh Ram, Tehsildar, had obtained her signature as well as signature of her husband on the statement. During cross-examination by learned A.P.P., aforesaid witness admitted that accused Lekh Ram had recorded of his own in her statement that she has no objection to have the land of double area and that her appeal be consigned to the record room. She admitted that factum of forging of her signatures as well as her husband came to her notice on receipt of copies of the statement. Husband of Soma Devi, who otherwise is complainant in the case i.e. PW2 deposed that case pertaining to land belonging to his 2026:HHC:34779 - 10 - wife was pending before Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He also stated that on 21.09.2012, accused Lekh Ram came to their village to record the statement of his wife. He deposed that his wife had given the statement that area of her land be completed, but when he obtained copies of the statement, it transpired that his as well as his wife’s signatures were forged and appeal of his wife was consigned to record room. He deposed that his wife had not given any such statement to the accused Lekh Ram that her appeal may be consigned to record room. He also stated that when accused Lekh Ram recorded statement of his wife, he along with his wife had put their signatures, but when he obtained copies, then their statement and signatures were found to be forged. If the statements made by both the aforesaid witnesses are read in conjunction, it clearly reveals that on 21.09.2012, accused Lekh Ram came to village Bastla and recorded statement of PW-1 Soma Devi. Though Soma Devi had given statement that five and a half biswas of land may be given to her, but such statement of her was allegedly changed by ACO Lekh Ram and in changed statement, it came to be recorded that she accepts the demarcation and her case may be consigned to record room. Both the aforesaid witnesses have admitted that at the time of recording of statement of Soma Devi, both Soma Devi and Prem Singh had appended their signatures on the same. PW-1 Soma Devi in her cross- examination admitted that accused Lekh Ram had recorded statement 2026:HHC:34779 - 11 - on the spot and she also signed the same. Such admission on the part of Soma Devi clearly suggests that statement of Soma Devi was recorded on the spot and it was signed by her. Though it has been alleged at the behest of the complainant that statement of his wife PW- 1 Soma Devi, which is on record and is exhibited as Ext. PW-4/D, was changed and her signature upon the same was forged, but once it is not in dispute that at the time of recording of the statement, ACO Lekh Ram had obtained signatures of complainant as well as his wife, it was incumbent upon prosecution to produce on record the earlier statement of Soma Devi, which was recorded on spot, to prove forgery. Though PW-1 and PW-2 stated that Soma Devi had not given such statement to the accused Lekh Ram that she accepts demarcation and her file may be sent to the record room, but afore oral statement may not be sufficient to conclude the guilt of ACO Lekh Ram. To prove that her statement was changed, prosecution ought to have placed on record copy of statement which was recorded by ACO Lekh Ram on spot and same was also signed by both Soma Devi and her husband Prem Singh. In the case at hand, it came to be alleged that accused Dina Nath forged the signature of Soma Devi and Prem Singh on statement Ext. PW-4/D in connivance with accused Lekh Ram and in order to prove aforesaid allegation, prosecution examined PW-7 SI Rakesh Kumar, who deposed that he had procured the specimen handwriting and signature of accused Dina Nath and specimen 2026:HHC:34779 - 12 - handwriting and signature of accused Lekh Ram were already procured by I.O., who was earlier investigating the case. He deposed that aforesaid specimen handwriting and signatures of both accused were sent to RFSL for examination and its report Ext. PW-7/A were obtained. Specimen of handwriting and signature sent in sealed envelope to RFSL Junga for analysis and its report Ext. PW-7/A were placed on record, perusal thereof clearly reveals that blue enclosed writing marked as S-1 to S-17, S-25 to S-30, which are specimen of handwriting and signature of accused Lekh Ram, tallied with red enclosed writing marked as Q-1 and Q-2 on the statement Ext. PW- 4/D. As per report, the person who wrote blue enclosed signature marked S-61 to S-70, which are specimen signatures of complainant Prem Singh, did not write red enclosed signature Q-3. It also came to be reported in the aforesaid report that person who wrote blue enclosed signature marked S-71 to S-80, which are specimen signature of Soma Devi, did not write red enclosed signature Q-4. There is a finding in report of SFSL Ext. PW-7/A that Q-1 and Q-2 on statement Ext. PW-4/D are written by accused Lekh Ram. Q-1 is statement of Soma Devi and Q-2 is signature of accused Lekh Ram. Since statement of Soma Devi Ext. PW-4/D is not proved to be changed or forged by accused Lekh Ram and Q-2 is itself signature of accused Lekh Ram only, no illegality otherwise can be said to have been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge while reversing 2026:HHC:34779 - 13 - the judgment of conviction recorded by court below. There is specific finding in SFSL report Ext. PW-7/A that signature in red circle Q-3 and red circle Q-4 on statement Ext. PW-4/D did not match with specimen signature of Prem Singh and Soma Devi. Though aforesaid signatures did not match with specimen signatures of Prem Singh and Soma Devi, but there is also no finding in report that such signatures were put by the accused Lekh Ram or by accused Dina Nath. There is no definite finding in report that such signatures are forged by present accused Dina Nath. 13. PW-7 SI Rakesh Kumar categorically admitted that in RFSL report, specimen of handwriting and signature of accused Dina Nath did not match with any handwriting or signature on questioned document, meaning thereby accused Dina Nath did not forge signature of Soma Devi or Prem Singh. 14. Prosecution attempted to prove that on 21.09.2012, accused Dina Nath entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused Lekh Ram and procured false statement Ext. PW-4/D of PW-1 Soma Devi and got order dated 26.12.2013 passed in his favour by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. Certified copy of order dated 26.12.2013 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, which is otherwise per se admissible document, reveals that appeal of Soma Devi was not dismissed solely on the basis of her statement Ext. PW- 4/D, which was claimed to be forged, rather, Divisional Commissioner 2026:HHC:34779 - 14 - took note of other material adduced on record and observed in the order that Khasra No. 625/521/1, measuring 0-02-25 hectares of PW1Soma Devi was allotted in consolidation to accused Dina Nath and in lieu of that, land of accused Dina Nath in Khasra No. 529 old, new Khasra 531 measuring 0-01-43 hectare and old Khasra 538, new Khasra 564 measuring 0-00-79 hectare, total land measuring 0-02-22 hectare, was allotted to Soma Devi as per her demand. Divisional Commissioner further observed in the order that it is not justifiable to give double area of land to Soma Devi. It also finds mention that Soma Devi had asked to conduct demarcation of Khasra 564 measuring 0- 00-79 hectare and she in that regard had right to file an application before Tehsildar, Sarkaghat. Leaving everything aside, PW1 Soma Devi in her cross-examination admitted that after exchange of land, she constructed house along with veranda on such land and land which is allotted to accused Dina Nath is still vacant, meaning thereby Soma Devi has already covered the land given to her in exchange. 15. Having scanned entire evidence laid on record by prosecution, this Court is persuaded to agree with Shri Jeewan Lal Sharma, learned counsel representing the accused, that no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be adduced at the behest of prosecution to prove connivance or criminal conspiracy, if any, inter-se accused Dina Nath and ACO Lekh Ram, who expired prior to judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial court. 2026:HHC:34779 - 15 - Once it is apparent from the report of FSL that specimen signatures of respondent-accused Dina Nath did not match with signatures appended upon the alleged forged document coupled with the fact that ACO Lekh Ram (now deceased) had visited village of Soma Devi for getting her statement recorded on the direction issued by Revenue Commissioner, Mandi, no illegality has been committed by learned appellate court while acquitting the accused. 16. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to differ with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sarkaghat, which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record and the same is accordingly upheld. Resultantly, present appeal fails and dismissed devoid of any merit along with pending applications, if any. August 18, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge