STATE OF H.P. Vs. GORKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. State is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court whereby the respondents were sent up for trial for allegedly forging two wills, one dated 7-4-1983 Exhibit PW6/A and the other dated 16-10-1988 Exhibit PW5/A in the name of deceased Mahanti Devi, mother of Bakshi Ram (PW1) as also of respondents Gorkh Ram, Banto Ram and Dhani Ram. It was alleged that on will Exhibit PW6/A dated 7-4-1983, both the thumb impressions appearing in the will were of respondent Kisso Ram instead of deceased Mahanti, the alleged testatrix, as per the report of Finger Print Expert and thus it was established that the said will was a forged one. As regards the second will dated 16-10-1988, it is alleged that the said will cannot be said to be Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? genuine because it purports to have been executed on 16-10-1988, whereas Mahanti Devi died on 12-10-1988.

(2.) TRIAL Court has acquitted all the respondents holding that the evidence on record shows that Mahanti Devi died either on 12th or 20th October, 1988 and that because the evidence on record leads to two inferences, one favouring the prosecution and the other favouring the respondents, the one favourable to the respondents has to be accepted, as per settled proposition of law. As regards the other will, the trial Court has observed that there is no evidence on record showing that Kisso Ram had put the thumb impression on the will, in place of that of Mahanti Devi.

(3.) AS regards the will dated 16.10.1988 Exhibit PW5/A, the fact by which the same was sought to be proved as a forged document was that Mahanati Devi had died on 12-10-1988 while the will purports to have been executed by her on 16-10-1988. The thumb impression on the will has not been opined to be a forged one by the Finger Print Expert. The opinion of the Finger Print Expert is that the impression being ink smudged does not permit of comparison.