Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1304 (PAT)

Bachu Singh And Others v. State Of Bihar

2002-11-27

S.N.PATHAK

body2002
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 13-7-2000, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad; in Cr. Appeal No. 66 of 1997/22 of 2000, confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 28-8-1997 rendered by Shri Basant Kumar Dikshit, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Jehanabad. The revisionists were convicted under Secs. 419, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and they were awarded a composite sentence of two years R.I. 2. The case was initiated by the informant, PW 3, on his complaint which was referred to the police for investigation and in the complaint petition it was alleged that the informants uncle Sakaldeep Singh was taken ill in the year 1989 and was removed to Khijarsarai Hospital for treatment. He died on 1-2-1989. However, the revisionist who are collaterals of the deceased obtained fake and forged deed of gift dated 9-2-1989 from the deceased by impersonating him by some one else. The informant came to know of this deed of gift some time in the year 1990 and after obtaining copy of the alleged deed of gift, he filed the complaint which followed the reference to the police and investigation and submission of charge-sheet etc. 3. It transpired during the course of evidence that Sakaldeep Singh died on 1-2-1989 was disclosed by Ext. 3 which was a death certificate from the concerned Municipality so if the deed of gift was obtained on 9-2-1989, prime facie it was forged because no dead person can be supposed to execute deed of gift to any body. This circumstance is sufficient to corroborate the evidence of PW 3, the informant, and the other witnesses who spoke of the death of Sakaldeep Singh in the hospital and his cremation at Fatuha. The doctor who had treated the deceased in the case at the hospital was also examined as PW 6 and he supported the fact that the deceased died on 1-2-1989 for which he issued a certificate on 28-2-1989 (Ext. 2). 4. The facts stated above clearly indicate that the deed of gift, which the accused revisionist admitted to have obtained purportedly from the deceased, was a forged one. From this finding, it would also follow that some one else must have impersonated the deceased to admit the alleged registration of the deed of gift. 5. 2). 4. The facts stated above clearly indicate that the deed of gift, which the accused revisionist admitted to have obtained purportedly from the deceased, was a forged one. From this finding, it would also follow that some one else must have impersonated the deceased to admit the alleged registration of the deed of gift. 5. Concurrent finding of facts have been recorded by the two Courts below and findings to not appear to have been vitiated by an illegal approach to the facts on records nor there was any illegality committed so far the procedure law is concerned. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this is not a good case for this Court calling for any interference in the findings of the two Court below. Of course a title suit, perhaps has been filed by the informant seeking setting aside of the deed of gift; but the facts disclosed by the evidence on record and corroborated by the circumstances which have already been set forth above would also bring the revisionist under the mischief of Secs. 420, 467 and also 419 I PC l am, therefore, of the opinion that this Court is not impelled to interfere with the order of conviction. So far the sentence is concerned the maximum sentence provided u/s. 467 is ten years imprisonment and the Court was rather lenient in awarding a composite sentence of two years R.I. only to the revisionist. I do not think this Court can interfere with the order of sentence as well as because obtaining a forged sale-deed of gift is not an offence which the Courts of law cannot take lightly. 6. In the result, this revision is dismissed.