Supreme Court acquits appellants due to lack of reliable evidence in criminal conspiracy case

HANUMANT GOVIND NARGUNDKAR Versus STATE OF MP.

HANUMANT GOVIND NARGUNDKAR Versus STATE OF MP. - 1952 AIR 343, 1952 (0) SCR 1091 Issues Involved:
1. Criminal conspiracy to secure a contract by forgery.
2. Forgery of tender documents (Exhibit P-3A and Exhibit P-24).
3. Antedating a letter (Exhibit P-24) to create evidence and cause injury.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Criminal Conspiracy to Secure a Contract by Forgery:
The appellants were initially convicted by the Special Magistrate for conspiring to secure the Seoni Distillery contract by forging tender documents. The Sessions Judge quashed this conviction under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court also did not find sufficient evidence to support the charge of conspiracy, noting the lack of direct evidence and the unreliable nature of the witness Gadgil, who was himself a suspect and accomplice in the case.

2. Forgery of Tender Documents (Exhibit P-3A and Exhibit P-24):
The prosecution alleged that Nargundkar took sealed tenders home, divulged the rates of Doongaji's tender to Patel, who then substituted his original tender with Exhibit P-3A containing lower rates. The Supreme Court found that the conviction was based on uncorroborated testimony of Gadgil, who was not a reliable witness. The Court emphasized the need for circumstantial evidence to be conclusive and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The Court found no such evidence and noted that the supposed peculiarities in Exhibit P-3A could be explained without assuming forgery. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts erred in accepting the prosecution's case without sufficient corroboration and set aside the convictions for forgery.

3. Antedating a Letter (Exhibit P-24) to Create Evidence and Cause Injury:
The prosecution claimed that Exhibit P-24 was antedated to implicate Amarnath and create a defense for the accused. The Supreme Court found no evidence to support this claim. The Court noted that the letter's content was consistent with the date it bore and that the overwriting of the year could have been an innocent mistake. The Court also found that the expert evidence used to claim the letter was typed on a typewriter not available at the time was inadmissible. The Court held that the letter was not written with the intention to defraud or injure Amarnath but to protect Patel's interests. Consequently, the convictions under this charge were also set aside.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the consolidated appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The Court emphasized the lack of reliable evidence and the need for circumstantial evidence to be conclusive and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The appellants were acquitted on all counts due to the failure of the prosecution to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt.