Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1889 (JHR)

Ram Raj Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-11-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Abhishek Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1994 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in connection with G.R. Case No. 1551 of 1987 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 419, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for various terms has been affirmed. 3. At the outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 has already expired and, therefore, this application stands restricted only with respect to the petitioner No. 2. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant had purchased a piece of land in the name of his wife on 09.12.1987. It has been alleged that the accused persons had fraudulently transferred the land in the name of one of the accused namely Ramraj Mahato with the help of his wife Rukmani Devi. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation a complaint case was originally instituted which was referred to the police under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 leading to institution of G.R. Case No. 1551 of 1987. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and thereafter trial proceeded. 6. In course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-1, Bindesh Ram, has stated that he had come to know from the informant that Ramraj Mahato by making his wife impersonate Budhani Devi who is the wife of the informant had got the land registered. He has stated that the petitioner was the identifier. This witness has also stated that the wife of the informant was in her own house on the date of occurrence. P.W.-2, Rajmani Ram, had stated on similar terms to what has been stated by P.W.-1. P.W.-3, Budhani Devi, is the wife of the informant who had stated that Ramraj Mahato had got the land registered by making his wife impersonate her. She has further stated that the petitioner Nand Kishor Prasad was the identifier. P.W.-2, Rajmani Ram, had stated on similar terms to what has been stated by P.W.-1. P.W.-3, Budhani Devi, is the wife of the informant who had stated that Ramraj Mahato had got the land registered by making his wife impersonate her. She has further stated that the petitioner Nand Kishor Prasad was the identifier. She has further stated that she had purchased the land in question through registered sale deed from the Biswanath Saw. P.W.-4, Md. Yunush Ansari, has deposed that he was posted on 09.11.1987 as an Assistant in the District Registry Office. He has stated that Budhani Devi (P.W.-3) had filed an application and the purchaser was Ramraj Mahato. He has further deposed that so called Budhani Devi was identified by the petitioner. P.W.-5, Narad Ram, is the informant who has stated that the land was purchased by Ramraj Ram through a registered sale deed by making his wife impersonate Budhani Devi. He has stated that Budhani Devi had never sold any property through registered sale deed to any person. In cross-examination he has stated that Ramraj Mahato had never come in possession over the land in question. P.W.-6, Ram Nandan Singh, is the Investigating Officer who had taken the thumb impression of Rukmani Devi and Budhani Devi and sent it for verification to the Expert. This witness had verified the place of occurrence and taken the statement of the witnesses and after receiving the report from the C.I.D. had submitted charge-sheet against two accused persons. 7. The defence has examined two witnesses namely D.W.-1, Jagdish Ram and D.W.-2, Parasnath Prasad, who had denied the occurrence having taken place. 8. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the only allegation against the petitioners is of identifying Budhani Devi. It has further been stated that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It has also been stated that the report of the Expert does not reveal that it was the thumb impression of Rukmani Devi in the sale deed. It has been stated that in such circumstances the petitioners deserves acquittal from the prosecution case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the identifier of the sale deed being the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for which he has referred to the judgment in the case of Md. It has been stated that in such circumstances the petitioners deserves acquittal from the prosecution case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the identifier of the sale deed being the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for which he has referred to the judgment in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 but the facts of the present case and the facts of the cited case are quite different. 10. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner had identified an impersonator as Budhani Devi which fact has been established by virtue of Exhibit-6 and, therefore, the ingredients of cheating are clearly made out against the petitioners. 11. The allegation made in the First Information Report has been substantiated by the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-5, the informant. P.W.-5 had stated about the impersonation of his wife Budhani Devi being made by the wife of the accused Ramraj Mahato and who was identified by the petitioner Nand Kishore Prasad. The evidence of P.W.-5 has also been supported by P.W.-3 as she had denied to have sold the property to another person. The allegation made in the First Information Report also appears to have been sufficiently been corroborated by Exhibit-6 which is the report of the Expert and which reveals that the thumb impression on the registered sale deed does not match with the thumb impression of Budhani Devi. So far as the thumb impression of Rukmani Devi is concerned, the same could not be ascertained as the same person who had given her thumb impression in the sale deed as the thumb impression which was taken from her was blurred. It cannot be said, therefore, that the report of the Expert had given a clean chit that the thumb impression in the sale deed was not of that of Rukmani Devi. Admittedly, it was not Budhani Devi who had given a thumb impression in the registered sale deed and this fact coupled with the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution reveals the culpability of the petitioner Nand Kishor Prasad in identifying an impersonator as Budhani Devi. 12. Admittedly, it was not Budhani Devi who had given a thumb impression in the registered sale deed and this fact coupled with the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution reveals the culpability of the petitioner Nand Kishor Prasad in identifying an impersonator as Budhani Devi. 12. In such circumstance, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code which was affirmed in appeal and is sustained herein. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners seem to be facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1987. The petitioners have also remained in custody for sometime. 13. Regard being had to the aforesaid, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.