JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant criminal revision, the petitioners have challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 22.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No. 81 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed, upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in G.R. Case No. 19 of 1990 corresponding to Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 1 of 1990, whereby the petitioners have been held guilty for commission of the offences under Sections 419, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of two years for the offence under Section 419/120B of I.P.C., R.I. of three years for the offence under Section 468/120B of I.P.C. and R.I. of six months for the offence under Section 471/120B of I.P.C. along with fine with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the learned appellate court has modified the sentence awarded to the petitioners to the extent of R.I. of one year for the offence under Section 419/120B of I.P.C., R.I. of 2½ years for the offence under Section 468/120B of I.P.C. enhancing the fine amount to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and maintaining the sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence under Section 471/120B of I.P.C. 2. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. Factual Matrix 3. As per F.I.R., Most. Purni Devi (informant) has claimed to be recorded owner and in possession of lands appertaining to Khata No. 42, 76, 105, 105/135, 105/134, 18, 16, 35/50 and 35, admeasuring total area 7.05 acres situated in Village – Katkamsandi, District – Hazaribag. It is alleged that the said land was inherited by the informant from her husband Jagdish Pandey. All of a sudden, informant came to know that her gotni Kapurni Devi (petitioner no. 1) in connivance with other accused persons namely, Dinta Devi, Nageshwar Pandey, Rama Pandey, Binay Pandey, Mahendra Pandey and Jharwa Bhuiyan has executed sale deed in respect of the aforesaid lands belonging to the informant through registered sale deed appearing as imposter in place of informant and posing herself to be Purni Devi (informant). 1) in connivance with other accused persons namely, Dinta Devi, Nageshwar Pandey, Rama Pandey, Binay Pandey, Mahendra Pandey and Jharwa Bhuiyan has executed sale deed in respect of the aforesaid lands belonging to the informant through registered sale deed appearing as imposter in place of informant and posing herself to be Purni Devi (informant). Thereafter, informant applied for certified copy of the impugned sale deeds from the office of Registrar and found the forged sale deed was executed by Kapurni Devi in favour of other accused persons and scribed and witnessed by other co-accused persons. 4. On the basis of above information, Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 01 of 1990 was registered for commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C. and after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against eight accused persons including the present petitioners. The accused Dhiraj Nath Rai was discharged vide order 24.06.1994 by the concerned trial court and the case of Binay Pandey was split up vide order dated 06.06.1995 and rest six accused were charged for the offence under Sections 419, 468, 471, 120B of the I.P.C. which they denied and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, all the six accused persons were held guilty and sentenced as stated above. 6. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioners have preferred Cr. Appeal No. 81 of 2004 and the same was dismissed on 22.07.2013 with modification in sentence, which has been assailed in this revision. 7. A separate criminal revision i.e. Criminal Revision No. 761 of 2015 was filed by the convicts namely, Mahendra Pandey, Nageshwar Pandey and Rama Pandey, which has been disposed of as abated vide order dated 28.06.2024 on receiving report of their death. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in order to substantiate the charge levelled against the petitioners, altogether four witnesses including the informant were examined by the prosecution. Later on, three court witnesses were also examined. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. The defence has also examined four witnesses namely, Balmukund Pandey (D.W.-1), Budhan Bhuiyan (D.W.-2), Kedarnath Choubey (D.W.-3) and Bajrang Pandey (D.W.-4). It is further stated that P.W.-1 Jagdish Pandey has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-2 namely, Dhurub Narayan Singh and P.W.-3 Nakul Tiwary (son-in-law of the informant) are hearsay witnesses. The defence has also examined four witnesses namely, Balmukund Pandey (D.W.-1), Budhan Bhuiyan (D.W.-2), Kedarnath Choubey (D.W.-3) and Bajrang Pandey (D.W.-4). It is further stated that P.W.-1 Jagdish Pandey has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-2 namely, Dhurub Narayan Singh and P.W.-3 Nakul Tiwary (son-in-law of the informant) are hearsay witnesses. It is further submitted that in respect of disputed land, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was instituted between the parties and a civil suit is also filed by the informant. The sole witness supporting the prosecution case is informant Kapurni Devi herself, whose testimony is not reliable for the following reasons:- (i) Original Sale Deed has not been produced in evidence. (ii) Inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been properly explained. (iii) The informant relies upon convening of Panchayati, but no document of Panchayati has been filed and no member of Panchayat has been examined. (iv) Title suit filed by the informant is also pending for adjudication. (v) The prosecution has not adduced any evidence showing exclusive right, title and interest of the informant over the land in question. (vi) I.O. of the case has not been examined. (vii) The learned trial court as well as appellate court without elaborately appreciating the evidence on record and ingredients of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioners has recorded finding of guilt beyond the materials and evidence available on record. (viii) There is no evidence at all to prove that the alleged sale deed was executed by the petitioner no. 1. (ix) The learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has wrongly relied upon the evidence of handwriting/finger print expert. In view of above factual and legal aspects of the case, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners is absolutely illegal and fit to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently argued that there is no legal sanctity in the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is definite case of the prosecution that imposter sale deed was executed by petitioner no. 1 Kapurni Devi in favour of purported purchaser in connivance with the deed writer and witnesses, who identified the vendor knowing that she was not Purni Devi, but Kapurni Devi. Petitioner no. It is definite case of the prosecution that imposter sale deed was executed by petitioner no. 1 Kapurni Devi in favour of purported purchaser in connivance with the deed writer and witnesses, who identified the vendor knowing that she was not Purni Devi, but Kapurni Devi. Petitioner no. 1 has signed over the sale deed (Exhibit-7) in the name of Purni Devi concealing her real name to be Kapurni Devi. There is no defence plea that the land belongs to Kapurni Devi in any capacity, rather all the disputes regarding the said lands arose after execution of alleged forged sale deed, resulting in proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. as well as filing of Civil Suit. Both the courts below have very wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion holding the petitioners to be guilty for the offences charged against them and adequately passed the order of sentence, which warrants no interference by this Court. The present criminal revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order passed against the petitioners and the materials available on record in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. The gist of the prosecution case is that petitioner no. 1 has executed a registered sale deed in respect of lands pertaining to Khata and Plot numbers mentioned in the F.I.R., total measuring area of 7.05 acres (approx.) in favour of petitioner no. 2 Dinta Devi & Others (Exhibit-7). There is no dispute that the petitioner no. 1 has executed the aforesaid sale deed in the name of Purni Devi, but in fact her name is Kapurni Devi. The name of her husband was Late Govind Pandey, but in the alleged sale deed, she has disclosed the name of her husband as Late Jagdish Pandey, who was husband of the informant Purni Devi. P.W.-4 Purni Devi (informant) has categorically deposed that she has acquired the disputed land through registered sale deed executed by her husband in her favour and since the date of execution of sale deed, she is in cultivatory possession of the same. She has not sold the land to any person up till now. 11. C.W.-1 Md. P.W.-4 Purni Devi (informant) has categorically deposed that she has acquired the disputed land through registered sale deed executed by her husband in her favour and since the date of execution of sale deed, she is in cultivatory possession of the same. She has not sold the land to any person up till now. 11. C.W.-1 Md. Shamim Alam is a Court Witness and posted as State Examiner of Finger Prints, CID, Bihar, Patna. According to his evidence, he obtained specimen right thumb impression and left thumb impression along with copy of sale deed allegedly executed by Kapurni Devi in the name of Purni Devi. Deed No. 9903 dated 16/17.08.1989 the examination of thumb impression was conducted by six experts separately under supervision of Director Mahendra Nath Sinha. The examination report (Exhibit-1) shows that the specimen thumb impression and the thumb impression appearing on the sale deed and registers at Registrar Office exactly tally with each other and belongs to same person, who is accused Kapurni Devi in this case. C.W.-2 State Photo Examiner, CID, Patna is also a Court Witness for prosecution and corroborates the specimen thumb impression of the accused and also appearing in the sale deed. Both specimens have been marked Exhibit-A & B. He has also proved the photo taken by him of the thumb impression as Exhibit-3 & 3/1 and Exhibit-4 & 4/1. 12. On the other hand, four witnesses have been examined by the defence stating inter alia that the land under dispute has been purchased by Nagendra Pandey through registered sale deed from Purni Devi, but the Original Purni Devi has executed no sale deed, rather the impugned sale deed allegedly executed imposter by the Kapurni Devi has been relied to be genuine by defence. Therefore, there is no legal sanctity in the defence version. Admittedly, the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and later on Civil suit filed by the informant Purni Devi against accused persons in this case are also consequential and has been instituted subsequent to the alleged forged sale deed executed by the Kapurni Devi posing herself to be Purni Devi. 13. Admittedly, the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and later on Civil suit filed by the informant Purni Devi against accused persons in this case are also consequential and has been instituted subsequent to the alleged forged sale deed executed by the Kapurni Devi posing herself to be Purni Devi. 13. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, I am of the firm view that the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court are based upon sound reasons and concreate evidence available on record showing conspiracy between the petitioner no.1 and other accused persons and execution of a forged sale deed as imposter by the petitioner no. 1 in favour of other co-accused persons. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments and order and it is not a fit case to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioners. 14. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision, which stands dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court for information and needful.