IO 'fhr: trial Court opined that A1 and A2 .attempted to sell duplicate Degree certificates to needy persons as genuine. So, in these type of cases it is ve5. difficult to secure rndependent evidence and no pcrson, who attemptecl to purchase a fake certificate, rvill come forward to give evidence against the seller of those fake certificates. Further, A1 and ,{2 did not give any explanation as to how thev came. into possession of those fake certificates. It is not possible that pWl will secure 4s rrrany as 22 stamps and 66 dor:L1mg61a from different sources and rvill l,enture to foist a false case against the accused. The euidence of PW I alone is sufficient that he conducted scarch and found A I and A.2 are in possession of blank certificates and stamps. Tl-re evidence of pWs.4 and 5 supports tlte version of PW I that the seized documents are fakc. The prosecution failed to prove that guilt of Al and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 4Zt of IpC and accordingly, acquitted them for the said offence.
