Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1963 (HP)

State Of H P v. Kiran Dadwal

2019-12-19

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Una, vis--vis, charges, framed against, the, accused, and, constituting therein offences, under Sections 419,420,468,471 and 120-B, of, the Indian Penal Code, hence pronounced an order of conviction, upon, both the co-accused, and also imposed consequent therewith sentence, of, imprisonment, and, of, fine, upon both. Both the co-accused, becoming aggrieved therefrom, instituted thereagainst, two, separate appeals, respectively bearing No. Cr. appeal No. 748 of 2008, and, criminal appeal No. 749 of 2008, hence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una. Both the afore appeals became accepted, under, a common verdict, pronounced thereon(s), on, 28.7.2008. 2. The State of H.P. becoming aggrieved therefrom, has, thereagainst reared, the, instant appeal, before this Court. However, during, the pendency of the criminal appeal No. 748 of 2008, co-accused Bal Krishan, died, and hence, the afore appeal, under, an order recorded, on, 3.4.2017, became dismissed as abated. Consequently, only criminal appeal No. 749 of 2008, survives for an adjudication being meted thereon. 3. The apposite complained hence registered deed of conveyance, became executed, interse accused Kiran Dadwal, and, one Gopala, son of Rirku, and, the latter became, in contemporaniety, vis--vis, its becoming accepted, for, registration, hence dentified by co-accused, Bal Krishan, who, during, the pendency, of, criminal appeal bearing No. 748 of 2008, had died, and, the afore criminal appeal, became hence dismissed, as, abated. The registered deed of conveyance, was, executed, vis--vis, land, comprised in khewat No. 198,khatauni No. 438 and khasra No. 2881, measuring 0-00-54 hectares. The prosecution, on anvil of, Ext. PW7/A, exhibit whereof, comprises the death certificate, of, the afore Gopala Ram, had alleged, that the latter, in contemporaneity, vis--vis, the execution, of, the complained registered deed of conveyance,as, became purportedly drawn interse him, and, coaccused Kiran Dadwal, was not alive, and, hence, the, afore charge(s) became framed, against, her, as well as against co-accused. The afore identifier, of, afore Gopala, son of Rirku, did not, accept,qua his mis-identifying Gopala Ram, nor did he deny, that, the latter was, not alive, in contemporaniety, vis--vis, the, execution, of, a registered deed, of, conveyance, interse him, and, co-accused Kiran Dadwal. Since, as aforestated, and obviously, as, the, accused became charged, on anvil of, Ext. The afore identifier, of, afore Gopala, son of Rirku, did not, accept,qua his mis-identifying Gopala Ram, nor did he deny, that, the latter was, not alive, in contemporaniety, vis--vis, the, execution, of, a registered deed, of, conveyance, interse him, and, co-accused Kiran Dadwal. Since, as aforestated, and obviously, as, the, accused became charged, on anvil of, Ext. PW7/A, exhibit whereof, comprises the death certificate, of, Gopala Ram, and, wherein, it has become pronounced, qua in contemporaneity, vis--vis, execution, of, a registered deed of conveyance, interse him and, co-accused Kiran Dadwal, his not being alive. However, when Ext. PW7/A, does not, make depictions, vis--vis, Gopala, as becoming fathered by Rirku, rather it makes depictions, vis--vis, one Gopala, who becomes, enunciated therein, rather becoming fathered, by one Khirku, and, when, the, complained registered deed, of, conveyance, became drawn, interse Gopala, s/o of Rirku, and, the latter, in, contemporaniety, therewith become identified, by co-accused Bal Krishan, (i) thereupon, on anvil of, Ext. PW7/A, it cannot become unflinchingly, concluded, vis--vis, in contemporaneity, qua the execution, of, the apposite registered deed of conveyance, interse him, and one Kiran Dadwal, his not surviving therebefore, nor it can be concluded with any formidability, qua his becoming misidentified, by, co-accused Bal Krishan. 4. Be that as it may, even if assuming, the, afore reflection(s), cast in Ext. PW7/A, qua Gopala being fathered by Khirku, whereas, the vendor, of, the apposite registered deed, of, conveyance, is, Gopala, son of Rirku, and the latter whereof became identified, at the relevant time, by co-accused Bal Krishan, may be hence amenable for, explication, (a) yet, the prosecution, was, enjoined, to, mete a tangible explication(s), vis--vis, the afore interse distinctivity, appertaining, vis--vis, one Gopala, reflected, in the apposite registered deed of conveyance, hence becoming fathered by Rhirku, and, vis--vis, Ext. PW7/A, rather describing his hence to be fathered, by, one Khirkhu. However, no explication, became adduced, vis--vis, the afore difference, interse, the afore, reflections, borne in, Ext. PW7/A, and, in the registered deed of conveyance. PW7/A, rather describing his hence to be fathered, by, one Khirkhu. However, no explication, became adduced, vis--vis, the afore difference, interse, the afore, reflections, borne in, Ext. PW7/A, and, in the registered deed of conveyance. (b) rather, with the prosecution, giving up, one Gur Dei, successor-in-interest, of, deceased, Gopala, whereas, she constituted, the, best evidence, to, make disclosure(s), vis--vis, in contemporaniety, vis--vis, the execution, of, the registered deed, of, conveyance, interse Gopala s/o Rhirku, and, with co-accused Kiran Dadwal, the, afore being not alive, (i) thereupon, the non-examining, of, the afore successor-in-interest, of, Gopala, son of Rirhku, entails, the, drawing, of, an inference, vis--vis, the afore Gopala, s/o of Rhirku, being alive, in contemporaniety, vis--vis, the execution, of, the registered deed of conveyance, interse him, and co-accused, Kiran Dadwal, and also, hence no reliance being meteable, vis--vis, Ext. PW7/A. 5. The prosecution was also enjoined, to place on record, the, mutation, as become attested, vis--vis, the, estate, of, Gopala, son of Rhirku, especially the one attested, in, contemporaneity, vis--vis, the execution, of, the registered deed of conveyance, interse him, and, one co-accused Kiran Dadwal. However, even the apposite mutation, recorded, vis--vis, the estate of Gopala, son of Rhirku, remains, un-adduced into evidence, rather by the prosecution, thereupon, this Court, is, constrained to conclude, vis--vis, the charge against the accused, rather, staggering and collapsing. 6. In addition, the prosecution, was, also enjoined to ensure, the, apposite comparing(s), of, the, signatures, and, the thumb impressions, of, the afore Gopala, s/o of Rhirku, as, borne in the apposite registered deed, of, conveyance, executed interse him, and, the co-accused, Kiran Dadwal, vis--vis, his admitted handwritings, or, thumb impressions. However, the afore imperative collections, remained, rather un-endeavoured, by the Investigating Officer concerned, nor also the handwriting(s)'' or the finger prints'' expert(s), obviously, rendered any formidable opinion, vis--vis, there occurring or not occurring rather any interse compatibility, interse, the, admitted thumb impressions, or, signatures, of Gopala, son of Rhirku, vis--vis, the ones, as, occurring, on, the complained registered deed, of, conveyance. Consequently, for want, of, the afore imperative collection, hence the afore best evidence, as, comprised in the opinion(s), thereon(s) hence becoming recorded, rather by the experts concerned, rather remained unadduced, thereupon, this Court, is, constrained to conclude, that, there is no merit, in, the appeal. 7. Consequently, for want, of, the afore imperative collection, hence the afore best evidence, as, comprised in the opinion(s), thereon(s) hence becoming recorded, rather by the experts concerned, rather remained unadduced, thereupon, this Court, is, constrained to conclude, that, there is no merit, in, the appeal. 7. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom, the, analysis of the material, on record, by the learned appellate Court, does not suffer, from, any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation, of, evidence on record. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.