Delhi District Court
State vs Amarnath Ghosh Dastidar on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TAPASYA AGARWAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. AMARNATH GHOSH
FIR No. 171/2006
PS (C.R. PARK)
u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC
JUDGMENT :
–
Srl. No. of the case
Cr. CASES No. 88454/2016
& Date of institution 17.08.2007.
Name of the com- Sh. BIMALENDU GHOSH DASTI-
plainant DAR
1.AMARNATH GHOSH DASTIDAR
Name of the accused 2. Dr. PRASHANT KUMAR
persons CHAKRABORTY
3. RAVI MOHAN ANAND
Charges framed: u/s 420/467/468/120B IPC
Plea of the accused
Accused pleaded not guilty
person
Date of reserving or-
20.03.2026
der
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:18:11
+0530
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.1
1. All accused are acquitted u/s
420/468 IPC
2. All accused are convicted u/s
Final Order 467/120 B IPC
3. Accused Amarnath is convicted
u/s 471 IPC. Other two accused
are acquitted u/s 471 IPC.
Date of order 02.04.2026
1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
1.1) Briefly, the facts of the case are that complainant’s father Sh.
Amulya Chandra Ghosh Dastidar (hereinfter referred to as the testator) was
working as Office Asstt. in DGS&D, Govt. of India and had a family of 8
persons to lookafter, i.e., his wife and 7 children(5 daughters and two
sons). His father retired in 1971. In the year 1973 the property bearing No.
G-1224, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110 019 ad-measuring 160 sq yds.
was handed over to the testator by the D.D.A. under the East Pakistani Dis-
placed Persons (E.P.D.P) scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “said prop-
erty”). At the time of allotment of the said property the Complainant was
working, after graduating in 1967 from the Indian Institute of Technology
(I.I.T) with a Multi-National Company since 1969 and he bore the entire
costs of construction of the said house and paid the installments alongwith
interest to the DDA. The complainant and accused Amarnath Ghosh are
real brothers. At that time when the said property was constructed and
handed over to his father the entire expenses were borne by the com-
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.2 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:18:17
+0530
plainant and Amarnath Ghosh Dastidar was merely a student studying in
school all the expenses for the education and all other expenses being hos-
tel, clothes, food etc. of Amamath Ghosh Dastidar were borne by the com-
plainant being the only earning member in the family. Mr. Amarnath
Ghosh never took any family responsibilities and even after he got job he
never paid any money to their parents and complainant used to send money
to his father for the household expenses and some money to his mother.
The testator during his lifetime executed a Will and codicil dt. 07.08.1986
as modified on 31.12.1989 which was opened by Ms. M. Jayashree, Advo-
cate, G-1269, CR.Park, New Delhi-110019 on 06.12.1997 in the presence
of all the above legal heirs including Sh. Amarnath Ghosh Dastidar except
Smt. Dipti Dutta who was not in town. As per his last Will Sh. Amulya
Chandra Ghosh Dastidar had bequeathed one-half of his property to his
wife Smt. Usha Ghosh Dastidar and the other one-half to the complainant.
No objection to the said Will was raised by Mr. Amarnath Ghosh to the
said last Will and testament of Sh. Amulya Chander Ghosh and no Will
was claimed or propounded by Amarnath Ghosh. Thereafter, his mother
Smt. Usha Ghosh Dastidar, who left for her heavenly abode on 27.05.1998,
vide her last Will and testamentary disposition dt. 12.01.1998, duly regis-
tered with the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances-V, New Delhi, be-
queathed all her one-half share in the house property beating, No. G-1224,
CR. Park, New Delhi 110019 in favour of the complainant. The said Will
was also opened by Ms. M. Jayashree, Advocate. G 1269. CR Park New
Delhi-110019 on 23.11.1999 in the presence of all legal heirs including
Mr. Amarnath. No objection was raised to the said Will of mother and no
other Will was produced or propounded by Amamath Ghosh or any other
person at any point of time. It came as a rude shock and surprise when the
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.3 TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:18:23
+0530
complainant received summons from the court of Sh. J.P. Singh, district &
sessions judge, delhi in probate case titled as “AMARNATH GHOSH
DASTIDAR V/S STATE & ORS.” wherein accused Amarnath Ghosh
Dastidar malafidely has forged, fabricated and created a Will dt.
10.05.1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Will in question) allegedly made
by his late father and on the basis of the same has filed for probate/letter of
Administration of the same. As per the prosecution case, the signatures on
the said Will are not of his father Late Sh. Amulya Chandra Ghosh Dasti-
dar and are forged and fabricated and can be compared with his admitted
signatures on Will dt. 07.08.1986 modified on 31.12.1989. The witnesses
shown in the said Will are co-accused Dr. Prashanta K. Chakraborty and
Mr. Ravi Mohan Anand who are friends of Amarnath Ghosh. The said
Will has been allegedly registered with SR-VII, East Distt. Delhi by Mr.
Amarnath. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint, present FIR was reg-
istered u/s 420/467/468/120B IPC.
1.2) During the course of investigation, accused Amarnath Ghosh Dasti-
dar was granted anticipatory bail on 24.07.2006 by Hon’ble Delhi High
Court. As such accused was arrested formally in the present case on
21.03.2007 and released as per the directions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Chargesheet was filed wherein the remaining two accused were not ar-
rested.
1.3) During the course of the trial, cognizance of the offences u/s
420/467/468/120B IPC was taken against the accused persons vide order
dated 17.08.2007. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.02.2011, charges u/s
420/467/468/120B IPC were framed against the accused persons. The mat-
ter then proceeded for prosecution evidence. Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:18:29
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.4 +0530
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
2.1) PW-1, the complainant deposed that in 2003-2004 he and his sisters
received summons from Tis Hazari Courts in a probate case filed by ac-
cused Amarnath Ghosh, whereupon they first became aware of an alleged
forged Will dated May 1996. They appeared before the Probate Court and
objected, producing original Wills of their father dated 07.08.1986 and
codicil dated 31.12.1989, along with their mother’s Will (January 1998).
He stated that after his father’s death on 16.12.1996, the Will was opened
about a year later by Advocate Jayashree in the presence of all family
members, and no objections were raised. Similarly, after his mother’s
death in May 1998, her Will was opened in November 1999, read out to all
heirs, and accepted without objection. PW-1 further deposed regarding the
allotment and construction of property at C.R. Park, New Delhi, and his fi-
nancial contribution towards the family, including supporting his father
post-retirement and funding the education of accused Amarnath Ghosh. He
stated that during probate proceedings, he recognized the Will submitted
by the accused as forged, being familiar with his father’s signatures. He
filed a complaint with EOW in May 2005 and provided supporting docu-
ments, including signed cheques and DDA records. He also alleged that
during his time abroad, he received letters from his parents complaining of
the accused’s repeated misbehavior towards family members.
2.2) PW-2 Sh. Ajeet Singh from Sub Registrar office deposed that he had
appeared before the court to produce the documents as sought by the court
and he had been verbally authorized by the record keeper, Sub-Registrar V,
Mehruali to appear before the Court and furnish the relevant documents.
He had brought a true copy of Will having registered no.112, book no. 3,
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.5 2026.04.02
17:18:36
+0530
volume no. 755, page 1-4 dated 12.01.1998 along with the original register
having office copy of the above said Will. The true copy of the Will is as
Ex.PW2/A(colly) (OSR).
2.3) PW-3 Sh. Sunil Chandra Garhwal has deposed that he had appeared
before the court to furnish record of a letter dated 15.09.2006 along with
other documents as mentioned in the above said letter and he had been au-
thorized by the concerned officer. He had brought original file containing
the above said letter along with the other relevant documents (Will dated
10.05.1996 and Death Certificate of Amulya Chandra Ghosh) as men-
tioned in the letter. He had also brought the photocopies of the abovesaid
documents which are on judicial record as Ex.PW3/A (colly).
2.4) PW-4 Sh. Tarun Singh has deposed that he is working as record
clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar VIII, Geeta Colony. Summons were is-
sued by the court to furnish the relevant record pertaining to letter vide no.
F/SR-VIII/East/2006/72 dated 04.05.2006. Efforts were made to trace the
relevant record but despite making efforts no record was found. He had
brought the original dispatch register in which at serial no. 72 dated
04.05.2006, the said letter was dispatched to Sh. S. Mohan Sharma, Sub-
Inspector, LBR section, EOW Crime Branch. He had also brought a copy
of the same. The copy is as Ex.PW4/A (OSR).
2.5) PW-5 Ms. Shweta Ray deposed that she was a summoned witness.
She stated that her father, Mr. A.C. Ghosh Dastidar, had retired in 1971.
During his lifetime, he executed a Will dated 07.08.1986, followed by a
codicil dated 31.12.1989. He expired on 16.12.1996, and after his death,
the said Will was opened on his barsi by Advocate Ms. M. Jayashree. At
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.6 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:18:40
+0530
that time, all the legal heirs of the deceased, including the accused Amar-
nath Ghosh, were present. However, Ms. Deepti Dutta was not present as
she was out of town. As per the said Will, half of the property was be –
queathed to his wife, Smt. Usha Ghosh, and the remaining half was be-
queathed to his elder son, Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar. After the open-
ing of the Will, a copy thereof was provided to each of the legal heirs
present by Advocate Ms. M. Jayashree. She further deposed that on
27.05.1998, her mother, Smt. Usha Ghosh, expired. After her death, her
Will dated 12.01.1998, duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar,
was opened on her barsi by Advocate Ms. M. Jayashree in the presence of
all legal heirs, and copies of the same were distributed to them. As per the
said Will, the entire share inherited by Smt. Usha Ghosh from her husband
was transferred to Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar. It was further stated that
the accused Amarnath Ghosh was present at that time and did not raise any
objection.
2.6) PW-6 Smt. Rita Atorthy deposed that her father, Mr. A.C. Ghosh
Dastidar, had retired in 1971. She stated that during his lifetime, he exe-
cuted a Will dated 07.08.1986, which was followed by a codicil dated
31.12.1989. Her father expired on 16.12.1996, and after his death, the
aforesaid Will was opened on his barsi by Advocate Ms. M. Jayashree. At
that time, all the legal heirs of the deceased, including the accused Amar-
nath Ghosh, were present. However, Ms. Deepti Dutta was not present as
she was out of town. As per the said Will, half of the property was be –
queathed to his wife, Smt. Usha Ghosh, and the remaining half was be-
queathed to his elder son, Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar. It was further
deposed that as per the Will, the accused Amarnath Ghosh was permitted
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.7 TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:18:45
+0530
to construct the first floor on the said property, which had been transferred
to Smt. Usha Ghosh and Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar, subject to obtain-
ing prior permission from Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar. She further
stated that after the opening of the Will, a copy thereof was provided to
each and every legal heir, including the accused Amarnath Ghosh, who
was present, by Advocate Ms. M. Jayashree. She further deposed that on
27.05.1998, her mother, Smt. Usha Ghosh, expired, and after her death, her
Will dated 12.01.1998, duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar,
was opened on her barsi by Advocate Ms. M. Jayashree in the presence of
all legal heirs, including the accused, and copies thereof were distributed to
each of them. As per the said Will, the entire share which had been be-
queathed by her father to her mother was transferred to Sh. Bimalendu
Ghosh Dastidar. At that time, the accused Amarnath Ghosh was also
present and did not raise any objection. She further deposed that in the year
2003, she came to know that a case titled “Amarnath Ghosh Dastidar vs.
State & Ors.” had been filed by the accused Amarnath Ghosh, wherein the
accused was claiming rights over the aforesaid property on the basis of an
alleged forged Will, which, according to her, had not been executed by her
father.
2.7) PW-7 Smt. Tripati Saxena deposed that she was a summoned wit-
ness. She stated that her father, Mr. A.C. Ghosh Dastidar, had retired in
1971. During his lifetime, he executed a Will dated 07.08.1986, followed
by a codicil dated 31.12.1989. Her father expired on 16.12.1996, and after
his death, the aforesaid Will was opened on his barsi by Advocate Ms. M.
Jayashree. At that time, all the legal heirs of the deceased, including the ac-
cused Amarnath Ghosh, were present. However, Ms. Deepti Dutta was not
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.8
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:18:49
+0530
present as she was out of town. As per the said Will, half of the property
was bequeathed to his wife, Smt. Usha Ghosh, and the remaining half was
bequeathed to his elder son, Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar. It was further
deposed that as per the Will, the accused Amarnath Ghosh was permitted
to construct the first floor on the said property, which had been transferred
to Smt. Usha Ghosh and Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar, subject to obtain-
ing prior permission from Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar. She further de-
posed that after the opening of the Will, a copy thereof was provided to
each and every legal heir, including the accused Amarnath Ghosh, who
was present, by Advocate Ms. M. Jayashree. She further stated that on
27.05.1998, her mother, Smt. Usha Ghosh, expired, and after her death, her
Will dated 12.01.1998, duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar,
was opened on her barsi by Advocate Ms. M. Jayashree in the presence of
all legal heirs, including the accused Amarnath Ghosh, and copies thereof
were distributed to each of them. As per the said Will, the entire share
which had been bequeathed by her father to her mother was transferred to
Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar. At that time, the accused was also present
and did not raise any objection. She further deposed that in the year 2003,
she came to know that a case titled “Amarnath Ghosh Dastidar vs. State &
Ors.” had been filed by the accused Amarnath Ghosh, wherein the accused
was claiming rights over the aforesaid property on the basis of an alleged
forged Will, which, according to her, had not been executed by her father.
2.8) PW-8 Sh. Jagveer Singh has deposed that he had appeared before the
court to furnish the documents which were sought from his department i.e.,
Assessment and Collection, MCD, south zone. As per the directions, he
had brought the original file bearing no. G-1224 along with original NoticeDigitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.9 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:18:55
+0530
No. 3997 u/s 126 DMC Act, dated 03.08.1991 and Objection Letter of
Amulya Chandra Ghosh. He had also brought the photocopy of the same.
The photocopies of the entire case file along with notice and objection let-
ter are as Ex.PW8/A (colly) (OSR).
2.9) PW-9 Sh. Dhanpat has deposed that he had been directed by Sub-
Registrar Office, MCD to appear before this Court and furnish the docu-
ments which were sought from their office. He had brought a death record
register along with the certified copy of the relevant registration no. i.e.,
7465. As per the registration no. 7465 dated 17.12.1996, Sh. Amulaya
Chander Ghosh Dastidar, died on 16.12.1996. The certified copies are as
Ex.PW9/A (OSR).
2.10) PW-10 Sh. S. Ahmad has deposed that he was posted as Assistant
Government Examiner of Question Documents at GEQD, Shimla. At the
relevant time, certain documents were received at his office and the same
was given to him for forensic examinations. The documents, which were
given to him were a document pertaining to MCD (A-1), Objection letter
(A-2), Indane Customer Subscription Voucher (C-18), Cheque of UBI (C-
1), Form A DDA (C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-14, C-15), Deed of
dedication (C-9, C-10), Agreement (C-11, C-12, C-13), Form of option (C-
16), Affidavit cum consent of legal heir (C-17), Representation to Hon-
orary Secretary of EPDP Association (C-19), letter dated 15.10.1994 (C-
20) along with a Will dated 10.05.1996 (Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3). He examined
all the signatures which were there on the abovesaid documents with scien-
tific instruments and he came to a conclusion that the person who signed
the documents marked as A-1, A-2 and C-1 to C-20 has not signed the doc-
uments i.e. Will dated 10.05.1996 marked as Q-1 to Q-3. Hence, it is clear
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.10 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:19:00
+0530
that the admitted signatures marked A-1, A-2 and C-1 to C-20 do not
match with the signatures marked as Q-1 to Q-3. His report having his
abovesaid conclusion and reasoning is Ex. PW10/A (colly).
2.11) PW-11 Sh. S.M. Sharma deposed that on 24.05.2005, he was posted
as Sub-Inspector at EOW (LBR Section). On that day, he received a com-
plaint against the accused Amarnath Ghosh and other co-accused persons.
Upon receipt of the complaint, he initiated an inquiry and, after being satis-
fied that a prima facie case was made out, prepared a rukka (Ex. PW11/A)
and handed over the same to Ct. Veer Singh for further proceedings. Ct.
Veer Singh presented the rukka before the Duty Officer for registration of
the FIR, and after due endorsement, the FIR was registered. He further de-
posed that the investigation of the case was assigned to him. He received a
copy of the FIR along with the complaint and tehrir from Ct. Veer Singh
and thereafter commenced the investigation. During the course of investi-
gation, he examined the complainant along with his sisters and recorded
their statements, which are on record. He further stated that during investi-
gation, it came to his knowledge that the accused Amarnath Ghosh had al-
ready filed a probate case before the Court of the Hon’ble District Judge.
He then moved an application to obtain the original allegedly forged Will
so that it could be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for exam-
ination. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble District Judge, he ob-
tained the original alleged forged Will. Thereafter, he collected admitted
signatures of the deceased, Amulaya Chander Ghosh Dastidar, from the ac-
cused Amarnath Ghosh, the complainant, and the Office of the Assistant
Assessor and Collector, MCD. The said original Will along with admitted
signatures was sent to GEQD for forensic examination. He further deposed
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.11 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:19:05
+0530
that he examined the stamp vendor, Sh. Tarun Malhotra, on whose stamp
paper the alleged forged Will was executed. During investigation, he col-
lected property-related details from L&DO and also corresponded with the
Sub-Registrar’s Office. The letter sent to the Sub-Registrar and the reply
received from the Sub-Registrar, Mehrauli, along with documents includ-
ing the Will of Smt. Usha Ghosh, are exhibited as Ex. PW11/B (colly). He
also received a reply from the Sub-Registrar, East, along with relevant doc-
uments, which is exhibited as Ex. PW11/C (colly). He further deposed that
during investigation, letters were sent to L&DO (Ex. PW11/D (colly)), and
a reply dated 15.09.2006 along with relevant documents was received and
exhibited as Ex. PW11/E (colly). He also corresponded with the Collector
of Stamps, and the letters in this regard are exhibited as Ex. PW11/F
(colly), while the reply dated 14.09.2006 is exhibited as Ex. PW11/G. He
further sent a letter to the Registrar of Births and Deaths to verify the death
of Amulaya Chandra Ghosh Dastidar, which is exhibited as Ex. PW11/H
(colly), and the reply received is exhibited as Ex. PW11/I. He further stated
that he obtained the GEQD report, which is on record as Ex. PW10/A.
During the course of investigation, he collected all relevant documents
from the concerned departments. He also examined Advocate Ms.
Jayashree and other relevant witnesses, and their statements are on record.
He further deposed that he interrogated the accused Amarnath Ghosh and
co-accused persons, namely Dr. Prashant K. Chakravorty and Ravi Mohan
Anand. He arrested the accused Amarnath Ghosh vide arrest memo
Ex.PW11/J and thereafter released him on bail, as anticipatory bail had al-
ready been granted in his favour. The bail bonds are exhibited as Ex.
PW11/K. He concluded by stating that after examining the material on
record, he reached the conclusion that an offence of forgery had been com-
Digitally signed
by TAPASYA
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.12 TAPASYA AGARWAL
Date:
AGARWAL 2026.04.02
17:19:10
+0530
mitted. Accordingly, he completed the investigation, prepared the charge-
sheet, and submitted the same before the competent authority for further
proceedings. He correctly identified the accused.
2.12) PW-12 Sh. Mohinder Singh has deposed that he was a summoned
witness and he has been working as COS/SDM-I (HQ). In the year 2006, a
letter from a police official was received at his office for furnishing the in-
formation pertaining to the stamp paper vide Srl. No. 017 dated 01.04.1996
sold by the concerned vendor namely Sh. Tarun Malhotra. After having
confirmed from the record available by the dealing assistant concerned, the
requisite information was provided based on the facts available, which is
very much evident from his reply dated 14.09.2006 provided to the con-
cerned police official. As per his reply, it was clear that the sale register
pertaining to stamp vendor namely Tarun Malhotra was not available in the
branch for the period 29.11.1995 to 09.02.1998. His reply is as
Ex.PW11/G.
2.13) PW-13 Ms. Jayashree deposed that she had opened two Wills on two
different dates. She stated that one of the Wills opened by her pertained to
a person named Ghosh Dastidar; however, she did not remember the exact
date when the said Will was opened. She stated that the Will of Ghosh
Dastidar was opened at his residence. She further deposed that she did not
recall who all were present at the time of opening of the Will, though the
legal heirs would have been present. She further stated that upon opening
the said Will, she supplied copies thereof to each of the legal heirs who
were present at that time. She also stated that she had given her statement
to the police during the course of investigation, which is exhibited as Ex.
PW13/A. She deposed that the name of the testator was Amulya Chandra
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.13 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:19:15
+0530
Ghosh Dastidar. She further stated that she did not remember the complete
sequence of events and that she did not personally know Amarnath Ghosh;
however, if it was so mentioned in her statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C., then he must have been present at the relevant time. She stated
that after opening the Will, she prepared a certificate dated 06.12.1997 in
her own handwriting, marked as Mark X2 and exhibited as Ex. PW13/B.
She further deposed that if it is recorded in her certificate that both the sons
of the testator were present at the time of opening of the Will, then they
were indeed present at that time. She further stated that she had read over
the Will and codicil of Amulya Chandra Ghosh Dastidar in the presence of
all the legal heirs who were present at that time. She also deposed that she
opened the Will of Smt. Usha Ghosh, wife of late Sh. Amulya Chandra
Ghosh, in the year 1999. After opening the said Will, she prepared a cer-
tificate on her letterhead dated 23.11.1999, which is exhibited as Ex.
PW13/C. She further stated that she might have provided true copies of the
said Will, as it was her duty to do so.
3) Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. After closure of prose-
cution evidence, the entire incriminating evidence which has come on the
judicial record was put to each of the accused and their statement recorded
u/s 313 Cr.PC on 19.12.2025. Accused chose to lead defence evidence. To
prove case, defence examined 3 witnesses.
3.1) DW-1 Sh. Amarnath Ghosh Dastidar deposed that he hailed from a
middle-class family in Delhi. He stated that he completed his B.Tech in
Chemical Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kar-
nataka, thereafter, obtained an MBA degree from the Faculty of Manage-
ment Studies, University of Delhi, and also completed a Ph.D. in Manage-
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.14 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:19:19
+0530
ment. He deposed that during his engineering studies, his father used to
send him Rs. 35/- per month, and he also received a college scholarship
which was sufficient to meet his expenses. He further stated that all his ed-
ucational qualifications were self-financed. He deposed that his father was
receiving a pension of approximately Rs. 615/- per month in the 1980s and
about Rs. 1150/- per month in the 1990s. The pension passbooks of his fa-
ther bearing account no. 1295 are exhibited as Ex. DW1/1 (OSR) (colly).
He further stated that property bearing no. G-1224, C.R. Park, Delhi, was
constructed through a Hire Purchase Agreement involving an EMI of Rs.
283/- per month payable to DDA over a period of 20 years. After complet-
ing his engineering, he secured employment in Delhi and started paying
the said EMI. The certified copies of the receipts are exhibited as Ex.
DW1/2 (colly) (objected to by the State as to admissibility). He further de-
posed that after obtaining employment, he started residing in the said prop-
erty along with his parents and two sisters and bore all household ex-
penses. To repay the house loan and arrange for the marriages of his sis-
ters, he went abroad on a contractual assignment from November 1982 to
1984. He arranged funds and settled the DDA account, the receipt of which
is Ex. DW1/3 (OSR). He further obtained a no-dues certificate from DDA,
exhibited as Ex. DW1/4 (OSR) (objected to by the State as to admissibil-
ity). He deposed that he got his sisters, namely Ms. Dipty Dutta and Smt.
Rita Atorthy, married in the years 1987 and 1985 respectively. Thereafter,
he got married and resided with his wife and parents in the said house. He
stated that both he and his wife were working and contributed financially
to the household. He further stated that the family lived harmoniously, cel-
ebrated festivals together, and his sisters used to visit them. The photo-
graphs of his sister Dipty Dutta’s marriage are exhibited as Ex. DW1/5
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.15 TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:19:24
+0530
(colly) (objected to by the State as to admissibility), and photographs of
family functions are exhibited as Ex. DW1/6 (colly) (objected to by the
State as to admissibility). He further deposed that he had been paying
house tax, water, telephone, and electricity bills for the property for the last
40 years. He stated that although such records were not available with
MCD, the receipts are exhibited as Ex. DW1/7 (colly) (objected to by the
State as to admissibility). He also stated that he maintained joint accounts
with his father in Punjab National Bank and Union Bank of India, and the
passbooks are exhibited as Ex. DW1/8 (OSR) (colly). He further deposed
that his brother, Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar, had been settled in the
Middle East from 1978 to 2004, living a luxurious life, and returned to In-
dia only after the demise of their parents. During his stay abroad, his
brother acquired several properties in India and sought his assistance for
the same, even granting him powers of attorney, which are exhibited as Ex.
DW1/9 (colly). He also stated that at his brother’s request, he paid Rs.
94,000/- as possession charges for a flat at Alaknanda, and the receipts are
exhibited as Ex. DW1/10 (OSR) (colly). He further deposed that his father
had intended to transfer property no. G-1224, C.R. Park, Delhi, in his
favour and took steps accordingly. In 1987, his father and sisters gave con-
sent for transfer of a residential telephone connection in his name, and the
consent letters are exhibited as Ex. DW1/11 (colly). In 1992, his father re-
quested the RWA to transfer membership in his name, and the request let-
ter is exhibited as Ex. DW1/12. He further stated that in 1987, his father
executed a deed of dedication, exhibited as Ex. DW1/13. He deposed that
his uncle, Sh. P.K. Ghosh, had filed an affidavit in a probate case at Tis
Hazari Courts, and the certified copy along with cross-examination is ex-
hibited as Ex. DW1/14 (colly). He also referred to a complaint dated
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.16 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:19:29
+0530
02.10.2006 filed by his brother-in-law, Sh. Arun Kumar Dutta, exhibited as
Ex. DW1/15 (objected to and not read in evidence). He further deposed
that as per his father’s wishes, he performed his last rites, and the photo-
graphs are exhibited as Ex. DW1/16 (colly) (objected to by the State as to
admissibility). He stated that his mother expired in the year 1998 while vis-
iting Kolkata, and he also performed her last rites and cleared hospital
dues, the receipts of which are exhibited as Ex. DW1/17 (colly). He further
stated that in 2001, he wrote a letter to L&DO regarding the death of his
father and a Will executed in his favour, exhibited as Ex. DW1/18. Prior to
that, he informed his sisters and brother about the said Will and sent copies
through UPC, the receipt of which is exhibited as Ex. DW1/19. He re-
quested them to provide NOC, and upon receiving no response, he filed a
probate case in 2003 at Tis Hazari Courts. He further deposed that during
the probate proceedings, the matter was referred to mediation, and the or-
ders are exhibited as Ex. DW1/20 (colly). He alleged that during media-
tion, he received calls from EOW officials pressuring him to settle the dis-
pute with his brother, which he refused. He further alleged that he was
threatened with false implication if he did not comply. He further deposed
that Dr. P.K. Chakraborty used to frequently visit his house and treated his
parents and had issued the death certificate of his father on 16.12.1996,
which is exhibited as Ex. DW1/21. He also stated that Mr. Ravi Mohan
Anand used to visit his house and was acquainted with his family. He con-
cluded by stating that he was not aware of the alleged Will of 1986 and
came to know about the same only when his brother filed a probate case at
Tis Hazari Courts. He further stated that his parents had never informed
him about executing any Will in favour of his brother. Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:19:38
+0530
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.17
3.2) DW-2 Sh. Lakhan Rana (private handwriting expert) has deposed
that he has done his Masters in Forensic Science from Amity University,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh. He has done his training in Questioned Document
Division from CBI, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi and
another training from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Chanakya
Puri, New Delhi. He had qualified for FACT, conducted by National
Forensic Science University. He is currently working as Private Forensic
Expert since 2022 and given his expert opinion in various Courts of India.
In this matter, he was engaged by Dr. Amarnath Ghosh. He further state
that with the permission of Hon’ble Court of Ms. Shivali Sharma, District
Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on dated 29.11.2025 and 20.01.2026, certi-
fied copies of Orders Ex.DW2/1 (colly). He had taken photographs of doc-
uments having disputed signatures of Sh. Amulya Chandra Ghosh on Will
dated 10.05.1996, the admitted signature of Sh. A. C. Ghosh taken from
document (1) Will Part – II dated 31.12.1989, (2) DDA Challan dated
15.05.1973, (3) DDA Challan dated 07.12.1976, (4) DDA Challan dated
07.11.1977, (4) DDA Challan dated 28.04.1984, (5) Letter to the Secretary
of Government of India with subject to allotment of residential plot in
EPDP Colony at Kalkaji Plot No. 1224 dated 04.05.1970, (6) application
for grant of permission to lease dated 19.02.1971, (7) application form
dated 23.02.1966 and (8) rent receipt dated 01.04.1990 (provided to him by
Dr. Amarnath Ghosh). He had examined the disputed signatures and ad-
mitted signatures of Sh. A. C. Ghosh using Scientific Tools and Technique
and came up with the opinion that disputed signatures of Sh. A. C. Ghosh
on Will dated 10.05.1996 are matching with his respective admitted signa-
tures. The detailed description is present in his report having reference no.
QD/JAN/2026/105 dated 12.01.2026, running into 25 pages. The certifi-
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.18 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:19:56
+0530
cate of Section 63 of BSA is also attached with the said report Ex.DW2/2
(colly). Certified copy of the (1) Will dated 10.05.1996, (2) certified copy
of Will (part-II dated 31.12.1989), (3) certified copies of DDA Challan
dated 15.05.1973, (4) DDA Challan dated 07.11.1977, (5) DDA Challan
dated 28.04.1984 (OSR) (6) Letter to the Secretary of Government of India
with subject allotment of residential plot in EPDP Colony at Kalkaji Plot
No. 1224 dated 04.05.1970, (7) application for grant of permission to lease
dated 19.02.1971 and (8) application form dated 23.02.1966 are on record
as Ex.DW2/3 to Ex.DW2/10. Copy of DDA Challan dated 07.12.1976 are
Mark DW2/A. Also copy of rent receipt dated 01.04.1990, are as
Ex.DW2/11 (OSR).
3.3) DW-3 Sh. Jawahar Goyal deposed that he had attested the Deed of
Dedication (Ex.PW1/D2) and the same bears the seal at point X1 and X2
and signatures at X3 and X4. He also attested the photograph which also
bears his signature dated 21.12.1993.
Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and final arguments at length
were heard from both the sides. Both the sides also filed written argu-
ments.
4. Appreciation of evidence
4.1) To encapsulate briefly the facts of the case once again before appre-
ciation of evidence, the complainant Sh. Bimlendu Ghosh is in possession
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.19 TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:20:04
+0530
of a Will dated 07.08.1988 PW1/A along with codicil dated 31.12.1989
PW1/B executed by the testator). Complainant is also in possession of Will
propounded by his mother dated 12.01.1998 Mark A. Against these two
Wills, a Will has been set up by the complainant’s real brother and one of
the accused namely, Sh. Amarnath Ghosh allegedly executed in his favor
by the testator which has been alleged to be forged and fabricated with an
intention to cheat. The Will dated 10.05.1996 Ex. DW2/3 (Will in ques-
tion) bears signatures of one Dr. Prashant Kumar Chakravarti and Ravi
Mohan Anand as witnesses and thus both the witnesses have also been
made accused in the present matter.
4.2) Now, first and foremost it is pertinent to note that the complainant
herein has been held entitled to grant of probate of Will dated 07.08.1986
and codicil dated 31.12.1999 executed by the testator by Ld. Competent
Court vide order dated 28.02.3026. He has also been entitled for grant of
probate for Will dated 12.01.1998 of his mother Smt. Usha Ghosh. On the
other hand, the probate petition filed by the accused Sh. Amarnath Ghosh
with respect to will dated 10.05.1996 was dismissed with the observation
that the said Will is surrounded by various suspicious circumstances and
the propounder of the will has failed to dispel the same. In light of the
judgment of the Ld. Probate Court, Section 41 of Indian Evidence Act be-
comes relevant.
Section 41 : Relevancy of certain judgments in probate etc. jurisdiction
A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the
exercise of probate,matrimonial admiralty or insolvency jurisdic-
tion which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal
character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such
character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the exis- TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:20:15
+0530
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.20
tence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person
to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgment, order or decree is
conclusive proof– that any legal character which it confers ac-
crued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into
operation; that any legal character, to which it declares any such
person to be entitled, accrued, to that person at the time when
such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that
person; that any legal character which it takes away from any
such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order
or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease; and that
anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the
property of that person at the time from which such judgment,
order or decree declares that it had been or should be his prop-
erty.
4.3) Thus, Judgment of Probate Court is a judgment in rem and vide or-
der dated 28.02.2026, the Ld. Probate Court has granted probate to the
Wills put forth by complainant herein. Thus, it is to be presumed that the
Wills of the complainant are genuine and have been executed by the testa-
tor and his mother as detailed above, whereas the will dated 10.05.1996
which was held not entitled for grant of probate is not genuine. However, it
has been observed by the Ld. Probate Court that the Will in favour of ac-
cused Amarnath Ghosh is surrounded with various suspicious circum-
stances which he has failed to dispel but no finding of forgery specifically
has been rendered by the Court. Thus, for the purpose of criminal liability,
the judgment alone cannot not suffice and it needs to be seen whether the
State has been able to prove it case beyond reasonable doubts against the
accused persons. Ref: Iqbal Singh Marwah v Meenakshi Marwah 2005 4
SCC 370 (relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused)
4.4) However, once it has been established, as mentioned above, that the
Will dated 7th August ’86 and codicil dated 31st December ’89 of the testa-
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.21
2026.04.02
17:20:19
+0530
tor are genuine, as certified by the learned probate court, it is found very
suspicious that the Will in question Ex DW2/3, in favor of the accused
Amarnath Ghosh, does not advert to the Wills mentioned above. Even if it
is to be believed that the Will in favor of the accused was executed later
than the wills executed in favor of the complainant, it is not believable that
the testator would not mention the Wills executed earlier or that the latest
Will in supercession or in addition to already existing Wills. Moreover, the
registered will of the mother of the parties, Mark A (held entitled for grant
of probate), is also in continuation of the Will and Codicil in favor of the
complainant and does not find any mention of the Will in favor of the ac-
cused. As per the Will of the testator PW1/A and PW1/B, he had be-
queathed one half of the ground floor of the property to the complainant
and remaining half to his wife. The wife of the testator and mother of the
parties herein has simply bequeathed the entire share granted to her by the
testator in favor of the complainant. Thus, a reasonable conclusion can be
drawn that there was no other Will in existence signed by the testator be-
tween the Will Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B and Will of the testator’s wife
Mark A.4.5) Having said that, Now let us examine whether the evidence brought
forth by both the parties. Two opinions of handwriting experts are avail-
able with the Court, one being from GEQD Shimla, relied upon by the
State Ex. PW10/A, and the other by Private Handwriting Expert, relied
upon by the defence Ex DW2/2 . As per the report of GEQD Shimla
PW10/A, certain documents bearing the signatures of the testator were col-
lected from the complainant i.e., C1 to C8, other documents were collected
from the accused i.e. C9 to C20 along with admitted signatures of the testa-
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.22 2026.04.02
17:20:25
+0530
tor obtained from MCD A1 and A2. All the signatures were sent for exam-
ination to be compared with questioned signatures on the Will dated
10.05.1996 Q1 to Q3. Upon examination, it was opined in the report ten-
dered by GEQD Shimla that the questioned signatures do not match the
signatures C1 to C8, C9 to C20 and A1 and A2. The detailed reason for
opinion is signed by one Dr. S. Ahmed, Assistant Govt. Examiner and the
outcome of the report is signed by Sh. S. Ahmed along with Sh. Mohinder
Singh, Deputy Govt. Examiner of questioned documents which forms part
of Ex. PW 10/A (colly)
4.6) It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the report
Ex. PW10/A cannot be relied upon, as it is not signed by an official men-
tioned in Section 293(4) CrPC and is thus not entitled to benefit u/s 293 (1)
Cr.P.C This Court is not in agreement with the submission of counsel for
the accused, as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mast Ram JT 2004 (7 SC 617).
6. Secondly, the ground on which the High Court has thrown out
the prosecution story is the report of ballistic expert. The report
of ballistic expert (exhibit P-X) was signed by one junior scien-
tific officer. According to the High Court, a junior scientific offi-
cer (Ballistic) is not the officer enumerated under sub-section (4)
of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and , there-
fore, in the absence of his examination such report cannot be
read in evidence. This report of the High Court, in our view, is
also fallacious. Firstly, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report
(exhibit P-X) has been submitted under the signatures of junior
scientific officer (Ballistic) of the Central Forensic Science Lab-
oratory, Chandigarh. There is no dispute that the report was sub-
mitted under the hand of a Government scientific expert. Section
293(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that any docu-
ments purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government
scientific expert under the section, upon any matter or thing duly
submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the
course of any proceeding under the Code, may be used as evi- Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.23
2026.04.02
17:20:30
+0530
dence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code.
The High Court has completely over-looked the provision of
sub-section (1) of Section 293 and arrived at a fallacious conclu-
sion that a junior scientific officer is not an officer enumerated
under sub-section 4 of Section 293. What sub-section 4 of Sec-
tion 293 envisages is that the court to accept the documents is-
sued by any of six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence
without examining the author of the documents.
(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)
4.7) Thus, since the prosecution has examined Dr. S. Ahmed in PE as PW
10, there is no reason to discard his report solely on the ground that he is
not an officer mentioned in S 293(4) Cr.P.C. Reasoning for the conclusion
drawn by Dr. S. Ahmed PW10 has duly been stated in this report. In his
cross-examination PW10 stated that he did not have any specific academic
qualification in forensic science however, he received in service training in
GEQD Calcutta in the examination of forensic documents. He has categor-
ically stated that he has examined the admitted signatures of the testators
along with the signatures provided by both the parties against the ques-
tioned signatures and has come to the conclusion that they were not written
by the same person. Counsel for accused has also argued that the report of
PW10 does not bear reference to letters sent by the IO dated 14.02.2006
vide which the admitted signatures of the testators were sent for examina-
tion instead the report only bears reference to letter dated 16.03.2006 of the
IO which only forwarded the signatures provided by the parties and thus
conclusion can be drawn that the admitted signatures of the testators have
not been examined by PW10 before furnishing his opinion. I am not in
agreement with the submission counsel for accused as the same question
Digitally signed
by TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.24 Date:
AGARWAL 2026.04.02
17:20:34
+0530
has categorically been put the witnesses during cross-examination to which
the witness has replied ” I have not only examined the documents which
were sent along with the letters dated 16.03.2006 rather I have also consid-
ered the documents marked as A1 and A2 while examining the documents
as the same were already on record “.Simply because the witness has not
adverted to an earlier letter of the IO, it cannot be said that the witness has
not examined the exhibits sent along with the letter.
4.8) Another argument raised by counsel for the accused for discarding the
report Ex. PW 10/A was that the report does not provide answer to one of
the questions raised by the IO and only answers the second question. The
same question has been put to the witness in cross-examination to which
he has replied that he compared the exhibits C1 to C20 inter se and found
consistency and that they were written by the same person. No further
questions on this aspect were put to the witness and thus the argument of
counsel for accused does not bear any merit.
4.9) The witness has given detailed reasons for his opinion as stated in his
cross-examination that he has used various scientific aids such as video
spectral comparator, stereo zoom microscope and hand magnifier for com-
ing to the conclusion. Numerous questions were put to the witness on the
aspect of variation to which he has replied that they are natural varia-
tions and that his report is correct. Thus, in my considered opinion, the wit-
ness has duly stood the test of cross examination and nothing adverse
comes out form a reading of the same.
4.10) Against this, report of private handwriting expert namely Sh. Lakhan
Rana / DW2 was exhibited as DW2/2 (colly). He testified that he was
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.25 2026.04.02
17:20:39
+0530
working as a private forensic expert since 2022 and that the signatures on
the questioned documents i.e. Will in question were written by the same
person with the admitted signature. During his cross-examination, the wit-
ness submitted that he used a free tool ” fotoforensic” to examine the sig-
natures. Further, he also stated in his cross-examination that ” I randomly
selected the documents for examination. Accused Amarnath Ghosh told
me that the signatures on the above said selected documents were the ad-
mitted signatures of Lt. Sh. Amulya Chandra Ghosh” . Thus, the witness
has selected the documents for comparison at the instance of the accused.
Moreover, witness has also stated in his cross-examination that ” It is cor-
rect that I captured the photo of the photocopy of will part 2 dated
31.12.1989, marked as S1 at page no. 17 of the record “. Thus, this Court is
filled with hesitation in relying upon the opinion of handwriting expert
DW2, as he has given his opinion on the basis of documents shown to him
solely by the accused and that too , copy of a photocopy. The signatures
have been compared using a free digital tool by an expert, who has experi-
ence of 2.5 years in the field. In view of the reasons as stated above, this
Court is not inclined to place much reliance on the report of DW2, Ex.
DW2/2.
4.11) In view of the discussion above, even if the Court has come to a con-
clusion that reliance may be placed on the report submitted by GEQD
Shima, Ex. PW10/A of handwriting expert, it is settled law that only the
opinion of handwriting expert cannot be the basis of a conviction or acquit-
tal and has to be corroborated with sufficient independent evidence.Ref.
Yogarani v State by Inspector of Police 2024 4.12) SCALE, SPS Rathore v
CBI 2017 5 SCC 817, Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v Subodh Kumar
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.26 2026.04.02
17:20:46
+0530
Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529, Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab 1977 AIR
1091, Ishawari Prasad Mishra v Mohammad Isa 1967 SC 1326 8 (relied
upon by Ld. Counsel for accused). In light of this, the Court now proceeds
to discuss other evidence produced by both the sides..
4.13) It has been argued by counsel for the accused that the accused Amar-
nath Ghosh was not present at the time of opening of the Wills in favour of
the complainant and thus did not have any knowledge of the said Wills. To
further his argument, he has drawn the attention of this Court to cross-ex-
amination of PW-1, wherein he has stated that he had written a letter to the
accused to remain present on the occasion of death anniversary of their fa-
ther. He further stated that the envelop containing the Will of the testator
was opened before the death anniversary of their father. Thus, the accused
has taken a stand that since letter was written to him by the complainant to
remain present on the occasion on the death anniversary but the Will was
opened in advance, he was not present at the time of opening of the Will.
Against this, the State has produced witnesses PW5, PW6 and PW7 , (all
sisters of the complainant and accused Amarnath Ghosh) and also PW 13
who have all stated that the accused Amarnath Ghosh was present at the
time of opening of the Will of the testator. PW-5, PW6, PW7 and PW 13
were all summoned witnesses and have no apparent reason to testify
against the accused. Even PW 13, who opened the Will stated that the ac-
cused was present at the time of opening of the Will and she supplied copy
of the Will to all the legal heirs. She further stated that she prepared pro-
ceedings sheets Ex. PW13/B, wherein it is stated that both the sons of the
testator were present at the time of opening of the Will. In fact, she has
mentioned the name of the only daughter who was absent from the scene in
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.27 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:20:50
+0530
her proceedings sheets as absent. The argument raised by counsel for the
accused that no signatures were obtained from the accused on the proceed-
ings sheets to certify that he was present does not bear any merit as signa-
tures of none of the parties were present were obtained and there was no
requirement to do so. In fact, once all the witnesses called by the State tes-
tify that accused was present at the time of opening of the Will of the testa-
tor, it was upon the accused to show that he was actually in Ahmedabad (as
mentioned in cross examination of PW 13 by Counsel for accused) , How-
ever, no evidence to that effect has been led by the defence and thus the
prosecution has established that the accused Amarnath Ghosh was present
at the time of opening of the Will of the testator and also opening of the
Will of his mother. Minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses re-
garding date of death anniversary of the testator are not sufficient to dis-
place the overwhelming evidence regarding presence of the accused at the
time of opening of the Wills.
4.14) It has been argued by Ld. counsel for the accused that the prosecu-
tion dropped certain witnesses, who were the sisters of the parties herein,
as they were going to testify against the prosecution case. It is settled law
that the mere dropping of witnesses by either of the parties cannot be held
to be conclusive proof of their hostility. In fact, if that were the case, it was
incumbent upon the accused to call the witnesses, and indeed, examine
them on oath, which has admittedly not been done. Thus, this argument of
the accused side bears no merit.
4.15) The accused have relied heavily upon a deed of dedication, Exhibit
PW1/D1, allegedly executed by the testator in favor of the accused, Amar-
nath Ghosh, granting him limited rights to construct a first floor upon the
Digitally signed
by TAPASYA
AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.28 TAPASYA
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:20:57
+0530
property in question.. One of the witnesses to the said deed of dedication is
one of the sisters of the parties herein, namely, Ms. Shweta Rai, who has
testified that, at the relevant date of execution of the deed of dedication,
she was not in India, and had affixed her signature on the said deed later
on. She has placed on record copy of her passport of the relevant time Ex
PW5/E to prove that she was not in India at the time of alleged execution
of deed of dedication. She testified that she neither saw her father affect his
signatures on the said deed. The other two witnesses to the deed of dedica-
tion have not been examined by the defense. Defence examined DW 3, Ad-
vocate who attested the deed of dedication. However, his testimony has
caused more harm that benefit to the authenticity of PW1/D1. He has cate-
gorically stated that “it is correct that all the persons who are the signato-
ries to the above said document were not present at the time when I nota-
rized the document'”, “it is correct that Sh. R.L. Arora and Gita Guha Roy
did not come and sign the above said document in my presence”, “it is cor-
rect that it is a mandatory provision to maintain a register and make an en-
try in the register with regard to the notarization. I do not have the above
said register with me and I have nothing to show that I made the entry in
the above said register.” Thus, the defence has miserably failed to prove
the execution of Ex. PW1/D1.
4.16) However, even if it is to be believed that the deed of dedication was
indeed executed by the testator, it does not further the case of the accused,
as it grants only limited rights to the accused, qua construction of the first
floor of the property in question. In fact, the interesting point to note herein
is that, even in the deed of dedication, the testator has mentioned that the
accused, Amarnath Ghosh, shall not dispose of or mortgage the first floor
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWALFIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.29 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:02
+0530
of the property without the permission of the complainant herein. Thus,
this fortifies the view that the testator wanted to leave the control of his
property with the complainant and not the accused.
4.17) A grave suspicion regarding the authenticity of the Will in question
also arises from the fact that the accused, Amarnath Ghosh, did not tell any
of the family members regarding the existence of the Will in question. It
has been stated categorically by all the witnesses, who are also the family
members of the accused, that they had no knowledge about the existence of
the Will in question until they received summons from the learned probate
court in the year 2003-2004. Although accused Amarnath has stated that he
sent letters to all the legal heirs regarding the Will in his favor and he has
relied upon receipt of the same Ex. DW1/19, there is no evidence that the
envelopes contained the Will in question for information of all legal heirs.
In fact, it raises a further question as to why the accused waited for nearly
4 years to inform the remaining legal heirs of his Will. As per the version
of the accused, his relations with his family were not strained and all the
legal heirs except one were present at the time of opening of the Will of the
testator in 1997, it is not believable that none of the legal heirs told the ac-
cused about the Will of the testator opened in their presence.
4.18) Moreover, the accused has placed reliance upon certain photographs
wherein he is seen celebrating festivals with his family and also conducting
the last rites of his parents Ex DW1/5, Ex. DW1/6 to bring home the point
that he was taking good care oh his family and his father had every reason
to bequeath his property in the name of the accused. However, the said
photographs are not accompanied by relevant certificate under the Indian
Evidence Act and thus are not admissible. Even if the court were to look at
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.30 TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:06
+0530
these photographs, such photographs drawn across multiple years are of no
help to the accused, especially in view of the testimony tendered by his sis-
ters against him. Further accused has relied upon payments made by him
qua the property Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/3, Ex. DW1/4, Ex. DW1/7 and Ex.
DW1/11. Even if the Court was to consider these receipts, there is still no
explanation as to why the testator would have only granted limited right to
the accused in construction of the first floor on the property which is part
of document relied upon by the accused himself Ex PW1/D1. If the pay-
ments qua the property by the accused had any bearing on the decision of
the testator, why would he have left control of the even the first floor in the
hands of the complainant as per Ex. PW1/D1.
4.19) Another suspicious circumstance which surrounds the Will in ques-
tion is purchase of the stamp paper from Asaf Ali Road in 1996 when the
testator was 83 years old. It cannot be explained why the testator would
travel such a great distance from CR Park to Asaf Ali Road that too in
1996 at the age of 83 when there were so many known stamp vendors in
his close vicinity.
4.20) Another argument raised by Ld. Counsel for accused is regarding the
report of GEQD Shimla being tendered before registration of FIR. How-
ever, I find no infirmity in the action of the IO as IO is well within his
powers to conduct inquiry before lodging of FIR. Moreover even the argu-
ment of the defence regarding delay in lodging FIR is without any merit as
the allegedly the complainant received knowledge of the Will in question
only after receiving summons from the Probate Court after which the par-
ties attempted to settle the matter by way of medication. It is not uncom-
mon for brothers to attempt to settle a dispute before putting into motion
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.31 TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:11
+0530
the criminal law machinery. When the matter could not be settled in medi-
ation, the Complainant filed a complaint, which formed the basis of the
present FIR. Thus, nothing suspicious comes out from the conduct of the
complainant with regards to timing of lodging complaint.
4.21) As regards the role of the co-accused i.e. signatories to the Will in
question Dr. Prashant Kumar Chakraborty and Sh. Ravi Mohan Anand, all
the legal heirs of the testator have testified that they were friends of ac-
cused Amarnath and were seen around the house on account of their
friendship with him. No evidence worthy of any discussion has been
brought on record to show that they had any relationship with the testator
so as to compel the testator to enjoin them as witnesses to his Will. There
is no gainsaying that just because the testator had medically consulted Dr.
Prashant Chakraborty once or twice, there must be presumed to exist any
relationship between them. In fact, it is very common for parents to seek
medical advice from friends of their children or for children to take their
parents for treatment to their doctor friends. Thus, nothing substantial
about the relationship between the testator and co accused can be brought
out from the evidence on record.
4.22) The law with respect to the burden of proof in criminal cases is
fairly well settled. Prosecution is required to prove its case against the ac-
cused persons beyond every reasonable doubt, and not beyond every
doubt. The meaning of expression “Reasonable Doubt” has been explained
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. The
State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66 thus:
“In our opinion, an ingenious mind can question any- Digitally
thing and, on the other hand, there is nothing which it cannot signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:18
+0530
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.32
convince. When you consider the facts, you have a reasonable
doubt as to whether the matter is proved or whether it is not a
reasonable doubt in this sense. The reasonableness of a doubt
must be a practical one and not on an abstract theoretical hypoth-
esis. Reasonableness is a virtue that forms as a mean between ex-
cessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt.”
4.24) Thus, in view of the discussion above and in light of the report of
handwriting experts coupled with the circumstances surrounding the al-
leged execution of the Will in question, it can safely be concluded that
prosecution has successfully proved that the signatures on the Will in ques-
tion Ex. DW2/3 are not that of the testator, Sh. Amulya Chandra Ghosh
and the said Will was not executed by the testator in favor of Sh. Amarnath
Ghosh.
5 FINDINGS UPON CHARGES FRMAED
5.1) Based on the conclusion arrived and in the backdrop of the finding
that the Will in question does not bear the signatures of the testator, this
Court now proceeds to discuss whether the charges framed against the
three accused are made out:
Section 420 IPC
Section 420 IPC provides for the offence of cheating. It provides
that where one person has fraudulently or dishonestly induced
another person by deceiving him to deliver any property to any
person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. It
is also cheating if the person so induced has been intentionally
induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not have
done or omitted to done if he were not so deceived. Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:22
+0530FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.33
The scope of section 420 IPC was succinctly explained by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent pronouncement title Professor
RK Vijayasarthi Vs. Sudha Sitaraman, 2019 16 SCC 739,
wherein it was held as follows:
“18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. –
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person de-
ceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being con-
verted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprison-
ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420
are as follows:
19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Sec-
tion 415; and
19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or
sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an
offence under Section 420.”
5.2) Therefore, to constitute an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, there
should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the
accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver
any property to any person.
5.3) In the case at hand, the accused Amarnath Ghosh got the forged Will
registered with the office of the Sub Registrar and also wrote a letter to the
office of L & DO, Ex PW 11/E (colly) informing him about the demise of
his father and that a formal application to mutate the property in his name
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.34 TAPASYA
AGARWAL
AGARWAL
Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:27
+0530
shall be submitted after receiving no objection from his brother, the Com-
plainant herein. The accused then filed a probate petition before the Ld.
Competent Court which was dismissed as already mentioned above. Thus,
in totality, it cannot be said that the act of the accused persons induced the
complainant to deliver any property on the basis of the Will. In fact the ac-
cused duly approached the probate Court for grant of probate qua his Will.
As regards cheating against the Sub Registrar where the accused presented
the Will in question for registration, it cannot be said that he suffered any
loss or the accused suffered any gain on the basis of such registration as
mere Registration of Will doe not confer validity to the document in ab-
sence of proof of due execution. Thus, since the act of the accused persons
does not satisfy the essential ingredients of cheating, the charge u/s 420
IPC fails against the accused persons and is not made out.
Section 468 IPC
Section 468 IPC enumerates the offence of forgery for the purposes of
cheating. Once the accused are acquitted for cheating u/s 420 IPC, offence
u/s 468 cannot consequently be made out. Reliance is placed on judgment
of THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT in Criminal Appeal 23/2011 titled The
State of Assam v. Sri. Bupesh Chandra Biswa.”
Section 467/ 120 B IPC
Section 467 IPC prescribes for the punishment for the offence of forging a
valuable security or a Will. What is a forged document is itself defined in
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.35 2026.04.02
17:21:35
+0530
Section 464 IPC. For the purposes of the case incident, a person can be
said to forged a document if he dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs,
seals, or executes a document or part of document with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document or part of document was
made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted, or affixed by or by the author-
ity of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made,
signed, sealed, executed or affixed. In the case Md. Ibrahim and Ors. Vs.
State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751, it was held that:
“a person is said to have made a ‘false document’, if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone
else or authorised by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a
person not in control of his senses.”
Under the Section, it is the maker of the forged document who can be held
liable. Reliance is placed on Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj, AIR 2018
SC 2434, wherein it was held as under:
“25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e.,
referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are
preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed
on a person who is not the maker of the same.”
Section 120A IPC defines the offence of conspiracy, and punishment for
the same is provided u/s 120B IPC. In Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs.
State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 613 , the scope of offence punishable u/s
120B IPC was explained thus:
“23. In the said case it has been highlighted that in the case of
conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients
Digitally
of offence are that there should be an agreement between per- signed by
TAPASYA
sons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:40
+0530
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.36
be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act
which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of crimi-
nal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an
agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by cir-
cumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common
experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely
available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during
and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about
the complicity of the accused.”
5.4) In the case at hand, it has been established from the appreciation of
the evidence that the signatures of the testator on the Will in favor of ac-
cused Amarnath Ghosh have been forged. However, no direct evidence has
been led by the prosecution to prove as to who forged the signature of the
testator. However, it is settled law that there is no direct evidence for estab-
lishing conspiracy and the same needs to be deduced from circumstantial
evidence.
5.5) The accused Amarnath Ghosh is the sole beneficiary of the Will and
no one had knowledge of the Will apart from him and the witnesses
thereof. He also presented the Will for registration and filed a probate case
on the basis of the Will. As per Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, the bur-
den was upon the accused to prove as to who forged the signatures of the
testator, if not him as the Will was in his exclusive possession. No evi-
dence to that effect has been led by the accused. Thus, the undisputable
conclusion is that though the accused Amarnath Ghosh may not have him-
self forged the signatures, he has entered into a conspiracy with the co ac-
cused to forge the signatures of the testator on the Will in question and is
thus, liable for conviction under Section 467/120 B IPC.
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:44
+0530FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.37
5.6) As regards the remaining two accused namely Dr. Prashant
Chakraborty and Sh. Ravi Mohan Anand, it is not disputed that they have
affixed their signatures on the Will in question. It has also been stated by
both the witnesses to the Will in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the
testator signed the Will in their presence and they signed as witnesses in
his presence. Thus, it is apparent that both the accused persons have not
stated true facts before the Court and were a part of the conspiracy to forge
the Will in question. Since both the accused have conspired with accused
Amarnath in creation of a forged Will, they too are liable to be convicted
u/s Section 467/120 B IPC.
Section 471 IPC
.Section 471 IPC provides that any person who uses as genuine a
forged document shall be punished in the same manner as if they
had forged the document themselves.”
5.7) The present Section deals with a situation where a person uses a
forged document as genuine intentionally. In the instant case, the accused
have not been charged with the offence u/s 471 IPC. However, in view of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Charan v State of Ra-
jasthan pronounced on 05.02.1963, the accused can be convicted u/s 471
IPC also if they knew all along that they were also facing trial for usage of
the forged documents as genuine and that no prejudice would be caused to
them. In the present case, there is no doubt that the accused were well
aware that they were also facing trial for the using the forged Will as gen-
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.38 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:49
+0530
uine as during the course of arguments, Counsel for the accused has argued
extensively on why accused are not liable for conviction u/s 471 IPC. In
facts of the present case, accused Amarnath Ghosh got the forged will reg-
istered with the office of Sub Registrar and also filed a probate petition on
the basis of the forged will knowing the same to be forged. Although the
probate petition was ultimately dismissed but the accused already commit-
ted the offence envisaged under this Section and is thus liable to be con-
victed u/s 471 IPC.
5.8) As regards the remaining accused it has been stated by both the ac-
cused Dr. Prashant Kumar Chakraborty and Ravi Mohan Anand in their
statement u/s 313 (c) Cr.P.C that they alongwith accused Amarnath Ghosh
went to the office of Sub-Registrar Geeta Colony for getting the Will in
question. It is settled law that statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C cannot be treated as
substantive evidence. Mere appearing as witness in the probate case does
not attract the ingredients of Section 471 IPC. Nothing apart from the state-
ment has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove that these two
accused used the forged Will as genuine. Thus, accused Dr. Prashant
Chakraborty and Sh. Ravi Mohan Anand are not liable for conviction un-
der Section 471 IPC.
6. FINAL ORDER
6.1) In view of the findings above, it is concluded that State was
not able to prove that the actions of the accused persons satisfied the ingre-
dients of cheating and thus all the accused are liable for acquittal u/s
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.39
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:21:54
+0530
420/468 IPC. State has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt qua the li-
ability of accused u/s 467/120 B IPC. Thus, all the accused are convicted
u/s 467/120 B IPC. Accused Amarnath Ghosh is also convicted for offence
u/s 471 IPC. Accused Dr. Prashan Kumar Chakraborty and Ravi Mohan
Anand are acquitted for the offence u/s 471 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
TAPASYA
TAPASYA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.02
17:22:00
+0530
(Tapasya Agarwal)
Chief Judicial Magistrate
South East District
Saket Courts/New Delhi
FIR No. 171/2006 State Vs. Amarnath Gosh Page No.40
