Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1576 (PAT)

Chandra Prabha Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-11-23

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in pursuance of leave granted by this Court on 11.1.2012 in S.L.A. No. 34 of 2001. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.3.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 119(c)/1993/Tr. No. 34 of 2001 by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sheikhpura, has acquitted the respondents 2nd set from the charges levelled against them for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 423, 464 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The father of the appellant, namely, Hardeo Narayan Singh had filed a petition of complaint in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, stating therein, interalia, that on 20.8.1990, all the accused persons being in collusion with each other by impersonating brought a sale deed into existence with respect to 10.54 ½ acres of land including a pucca residential house of the complainant. It has been alleged in the complaint that the sale deed is forged and fabricated one and the complainant did neither execute the sale deed nor purchased the stamp nor represented or admitted before the Registrar for registration nor endorsed the registration receipt to the best of his knowledge. According to the complainant, the sale price of the land has been shown only Rs. 21,000/- though, the price is much higher. It has been alleged that on 20.10.1991, Sri Parmanand Prasad Singh (P.W. 1), informed the complainant about the said forged and fabricated and surreptitious sale deed and, thereafter, the complainant informed his sole son-in-law Dr. Vijay Nandan Singh and the sole legal heir Smt. Chandra Prabha Singh (P.W.4), who came and on 23.10.1991 they applied for urgent certified copy which was supplied on 24.10.1991 and only then, the complainant could come to know about the fraud, forgery and impersonation committed by the accused persons in bringing the sale deed in the name of respondent nos. 5 and 7. It has been further alleged that respondent no. 3 Anandi Singh has impersonated the complainant and respondent no. 4 Bijay Singh became identifier, whereas, respondent no. 6 Surendra Singh and respondent no. 8 Ram Prakash Singh became the witnesses and respondent no. 2 had scribed the deed. 5 and 7. It has been further alleged that respondent no. 3 Anandi Singh has impersonated the complainant and respondent no. 4 Bijay Singh became identifier, whereas, respondent no. 6 Surendra Singh and respondent no. 8 Ram Prakash Singh became the witnesses and respondent no. 2 had scribed the deed. Thus, it was alleged in the complaint that all the accused persons in collusion with each other got the sale deed prepared, executed, presented and admitted for registration knowing it well to be forged and fabricated with dishonest intention to grab the property including the house of the complainant and the complainant did not receive any consideration money nor he ever intended to sale the lands. Lastly, it has been stated in the complaint that right from 21.10.1991 till the date of filing the complaint, the respondent no. 5 and 7 told before the Panches of the village to execute a Bazidawa deed (deed of relinquishment) of the aforesaid land but, they failed to do so. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid petition, Complaint Case No. 119(c) of 1993 was instituted on 9.12.1993. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and after inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summons were issued to the accused persons for facing trial. Subsequently, charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 419, 420, 423, 464 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, in all, five witnesses were examined in order to substantiate the charges. Out of them, P.W. 1 Parmanand Prasad Singh, P.W. 2 Rajendra Singh, P.W. 3 Kedar Singh and P.W. 4 Chandra Prabha Singh are material witnesses. P.W.-5 Janardan Prasad Singh is a formal witness. Some documents were also adduced in evidence on behalf of the prosecution. 4. On behalf of the defence, one Jai Jai Ram Kumar, has been examined who has formally proved Sanha No. 272/1991 dated 22.10.1991, which has been marked as Ext. A in course of trial. 5. P.W. 1 Parmanand Prasad Singh is nephew of the complainant. He is a hearsay witness. In cross-examination, he admits that a title suit is pending between the complainant and the accused persons with respect to the land in question. He also admits that the complainant had subsequently executed sale deed in favour of his daughter in respect to the land in dispute. He is a hearsay witness. In cross-examination, he admits that a title suit is pending between the complainant and the accused persons with respect to the land in question. He also admits that the complainant had subsequently executed sale deed in favour of his daughter in respect to the land in dispute. He admits that on the date of occurrence the complainant had gone to the registry office to execute sale deed. He also states that he can not say regarding the nature of forgery. He failed to disclose the name of the person from whom, he came to know regarding the forgery in question. He admits that the complainant had gone to execute sale deed of one katha land. According to him, he executed another sale deed of 10 kathas. He states that he came to know regarding the forgery after almost three years of execution of the deed in question. 6. P.W. 2 Rajendra Singh is agnate of the complainant. In cross-examination, he clearly concedes that he knows nothing about the “kewala” in question. He states that he does not know the khata and khesra no. of the land in question. He admits that he had not seen the “kewala”. He admits that he is a witness in the title suit between the parties. He states that on the relevant date, when the complainant had gone to execute the sale deed for one katha land, he was drunk. 7. P.W. 3 Kedar Singh is nephew of the complainant. He is also a hearsay witness. In his examination-in-chief, he states that on the date of execution of sale deed accused Devendra Kumar and Chandra Shekhar Singh (respondent nos. 5 & 7) had taken the complainant to registry office, Sheikhpura for execution of 3 decimal land but, they got executed 10 acres land deceitfully from him. In cross-examination, he admits that on the sale deed in question, the complainant himself had signed. A rumour spread, subsequently after 5-6 months that the accused persons had deceitfully got the sale deed executed for more land and for that an altercation had taken place. He admits that he knew nothing about the contents of the deed. 8. P.W. 4 Chandra Prabha Singh, the sole heir of the complainant, in her cross-examination, clearly admits that she has no knowledge that the accused persons committed any forgery in execution of the deed. He admits that he knew nothing about the contents of the deed. 8. P.W. 4 Chandra Prabha Singh, the sole heir of the complainant, in her cross-examination, clearly admits that she has no knowledge that the accused persons committed any forgery in execution of the deed. She further admits that she is not aware as to how many deeds were executed by her father on the date of execution of the sale deed in question. She goes to the extent of saying that her father had never disclosed her regarding the execution of the deed in question. 9. Such being the quality of evidence, the trial court found that the complainant had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. The trial court, while recording acquittal, has given clear, cogent and convincing reasons. The findings of the trial court are neither erroneous nor perverse. 11. I find from the evidence that only a suspicion has been cast against the accused persons. P.W. 3 clearly admits that the sale deed in question contains the signature of the complainant. P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly admit that the complainant has gone to the registry office on the date the alleged deed is said to have been executed to execute sale deed. P.W. 2 states in his deposition that on that day the complainant has drunk. P.W. 4 Chandra Prabha Singh, the sole heir of the complainant is also not sure about the alleged forgery. She states that her father had never disclosed her regarding the execution of the deed in question. 12. Having heard the parties and perused the record, I find no merit in the present appeal. It is dismissed, accordingly.