Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1219 (PAT)

Tufail Ahmad v. State Of Bihar

2012-08-31

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Accordingly, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this appeal on behalf of the appellant. State is represented by Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.08.2001 acquitting the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation is that Kishori Devi claiming to be the daughter of Jugeshwar Kanu had executed a sale deed in favour of several persons. The other accused persons are either purchasers or the scribes of the sale deed. According to the complainant, Tapeshwar Kanu and Jugeshwar Kanu were own brothers. Jugeshwar Kanu died in the lifetime of Tapeshwar Kanu. The wife of Jugeshwar Kanu pre-deceased her husband. It is said that Jugeshwar Kanu died issueless and as such, Kishori Devi was not the daughter of the said Jugeshwar Kanu. According to the complainant, he learnt about execution of the sale deed from Lalan Parbat (PW 1) on 31.07.1992, after which he approached Kishori Devi. It is said that there was a Panchayat when that failed, this complaint case was filed. 4. In this case, a defence has been taken that the case is absolutely false. There was a partition suit pending with respect to the same lands. Exhibits A, B, C, D and E would indicate that Kishori Devi had a valid title to the suits land in question. Exhibit-A is the original copy of the sale deed produced on behalf of the defence. Exhibit-B is the order sheet of the Court of Sub Judge VII, Siwan with respect to Title Suit No. 66 of 1989. The order has been passed on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, injuncting the defendants from constructing or from selling/dispossessing the plaintiffs Md. Hasnain (also accused in this case). Exhibit-C is the Khatiyan of the lands in question. Exhibit-D is the written statement filed on behalf of Ram Shakhiya with respect to the suit lands in which there is no claim of fraud or forgery. It may be noted that there are 12 defendants in the said suit. Hasnain (also accused in this case). Exhibit-C is the Khatiyan of the lands in question. Exhibit-D is the written statement filed on behalf of Ram Shakhiya with respect to the suit lands in which there is no claim of fraud or forgery. It may be noted that there are 12 defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff has also filed as many as 12 exhibits, Exhibits 1 to 7 are sale deeds with respect to different plots of land. Exhibit-8 is the written statement filed in Title Suit No. 66 of 1989, whereas Exhibits 10 to 12 are the sale deeds filed in the case which were purportedly executed by Tapeshwar Kanu and his successor-in-interest at various times. 5. On perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, it appears that the Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of all the witnesses. PW 1 Lalan Parbat has been disbelieved on the ground that he is the interested witness and there is a proceeding under Section 107 of the Civil Procedure Code pending between him and Husnain, one of the accused persons. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the evidence of PW 2 Bacchu Mahto as he has not been produced for cross-examination. The Trial Court has also rightly rejected the evidence of PW 3 Vikrama Giri as she has not contributed anything with respect to the preparation of the sale deed or has been able to disclose the relationship of Kishori Devi with Jugeshwar Kanu. PW 3 has denied the relationship of Jugeshwar Kanu with Kishori Devi but has not been able to substantiate the reasons for denying this aspect of the matter. In the cross-examination, this witness states that she does not remember whether a Panchayat was held to resolve the matter. PW 4 Tufail Ahmad is the main interested party in this case and the appellant before this Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had purchased the disputed land from Dwarika Sah on 15.03.1991 and 29.02.1992. He admits that accused Hasnain had purchased the land on 04.05.1987. He also admits that Title Suit No. 66 of 1989 has been filed with respect to the same land in which Hasnain is a party and he is the defendant. It is admitted by him that he had lost in the suit and thereafter filed Appeal No. 15 of 1995 against the judgment of the first court. He also admits that Title Suit No. 66 of 1989 has been filed with respect to the same land in which Hasnain is a party and he is the defendant. It is admitted by him that he had lost in the suit and thereafter filed Appeal No. 15 of 1995 against the judgment of the first court. 6. Witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence as well to show that the sale deed has been executed in a proper manner which was in the knowledge of DWs 1 and 2. 7. The Trial Court while considering the evidence of both the parties has discussed in detail the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the complaint has been filed after a delay of six months from the date of knowledge which was as per the case of the complainant on 31.07.1992. The explanation given for the delay in filing the case is that a Panchayat was held between the parties to settle the matter out of the Court, which failed. The Trial Court has rightly held that the witnesses have not been able to substantiate the explanation given by the complainant regarding the delay in lodging the complaint petition. The Trial Court goes on to discuss the findings of the civil court and on the basis of the fact that no plea was taken during the trial with respect to the document being forged, the Court has concluded that the complainant has not been able to prove his case. 8. I find that there are no defects or lacunae in the reasoning of the Trial Court. While considering the evidence of the parties and the exhibits, the Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case which could not be faulted with. 9. In the result, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 60 of 1993/Trial No. 144 of 2001. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.