JUDGMENT

THAKKAR, J.:—Whether the courts below were right in convicting the appellants under Section 120B of I. P. C. for being parties to a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently deprive an illiterate woman of her agricultural lands by deceiving her into affixing her thumb mark on a document under a misrepresentation and for offences under various other provisions is the problem posed before this Court in these three allied appeals by special leave.

2. The prosecution culminating in these appeals was initiated by a F. I. R., instituted on January 15, 1969 on an allegation that a fraud had been practised in respect of a sale deed purporting to have been executed by one Smt. Ghogari for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- on November 18, 1968 in respect of about 36 kilas of land situated in village Mehrana in Haryana. The thumb impression of Smt. Ghogari was obtained under the misrepresentation that she was affixing her thumb impression on a complaint to be lodged with the police in regard to the unlawful entry made by one Lacchi and others on her land without any legal right or authority. These offences were said to have been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by P. W. 5, Bhimal, who at the material time enjoyed the confidence of Smt. Ghogari and as acting as her Pairokar, and seven others including Tehsildar Lal Chand before whom the document was presented for registration. In respect of this document registered on November 19, 1968, a written complaint was lodged by Smt. Ghogari on November 23, 1968. with the then Chief Minister who happened to visit village Imlota near Dadri. The written complaint was handed over to P. W. 13 Gupta, who was at the material time Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Mahendragarh District. He in turn passed on the same to P., W. 1, Superintendent of Police Kalyan Rudra, and instructed him to make a confidential enquiry. Ultimately, P. W. 1 passed order Ext. PA-5 on January 7, 1969, directing the registration, of the case and making of investigation. And pursuant thereto a F. I. R. was lodged at the police station on January 15, 1969, that is to say, some two months after the commission of the offence.

3. It may be mentioned that Bhimal, who was accused of being one of the conspirators, had meanwhile made an application for becoming an approver. The application was made on July 21, 1970 and pardon was tender on Aug. 6, 1970. Under the circumstances, Bhimal was one of the witnesses (P. W. 5) at the trial whereat the seven persons said to have been his co-conspirators were tried by the learned Special Judge.

4. The learned Special Judge by his judgment and order dated October 28, 1975 accorded benefit of doubt to original accused No. 1, Lacchi Ram, original accused No. 4, Manohar Lal, and original accused No. 7, Shiv Narain. and acquitted them. He recorded a finding of guilt as against original accused No. 2, Sumer Singh, original accused NO. 3 Lal Chand (Tehsildar under suspension), and original accused Nos. 5, 6 and 8. He convicted them for various offences including offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467 of the Penal Code and imposed a sentence of imprisonment ranging from 2 years R. I, to 4 years R. I. and a sentence of fine on each of them.

5. The five convicts approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by three separate appeals. The High Court disposed of the said appeals by a common judgment dated August 6, 1976, whereby the order of conviction was confirmed. The sentence was however modified in respect of two of the convicts, namely, Kanhi Ram and Harbans, by reducing the substantive term of imprisonment imposed on them by the trial Court. This judgment rendered by the High Court has given rise to the present group of appeals by special leave. For the sake of convenience the appeals will be disposed of by this common judgment.

6. The facts have been fully recounted and the evidence has been elaborately set out in the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court. It is not n