Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Dilawar Singh and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of H.P. and Anr. – Respondents
Cr. Revision No. 4159 of 2013, Cr. Revision No.4156 of 2013
Decision on 1.12.2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 468 read with Section 34 – Forgery – Impersonation in execution of sale deed – Conviction and sentence – No provision of law was brought to notice of this Court which requires that Lambardar of area where parties are residing has to identify them – Presumption of correctness attached to certificate has not been rebutted – Sub-Registrar was to get executants identified from a person known to him and identification of petitioner was sufficient to prove identity of executants – It was duly proved on record that accused-petitioner had identified seller who was not alive on the date of execution of sale deed – However, there is no evidence that co-accused had benefited in any manner by execution of sale deed – Trial Court had rightly convicted petitioner for forging the document – Trial Court had rightly convicted petitioner and co-accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC – However, Trial Court erred in convicting co-accused of commission of offence under Section 468 of IPC – Revision filed by accused-petitioner and one co-accused dismissed, whereas revision filed by another co-accused allowed and he is acquitted of commission of offence punishable under Section 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. (Paras 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44 and 46)
Result: Criminal Revision Petitions Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.—Since both the revision petitions emanate out of a common judgment dated 04.10.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District, Una, H.P.; hence, they are being taken up together for consideration and disposal by way of a common judgment.
2. Both the revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 04.10.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. III, Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revisions are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the accused Dilawar Singh conspired with the co-accused Purshotam Singh and got the general power of attorney executed on behalf of Shiv Ram in favour of Purshotam Singh from Darbara Singh alias Dardi on 03.10.1988. A sale deed was executed on behalf of Tripta Devi, Jagan Nath and Swarni Devi in favour of Ram Piari on 06.02.1989, whereas Swarni Devi had died on 15.11.1983, much before the execution of the sale deed. Some woman had impersonated Swarni Devi, and Dilawar Singh had identified her. The matter was reported to the police by means of an application (Ext.PW12/C). The Police registered the F.I.R. (Ext.PW-12/B). Subhash Chand (PW-12) and Sansar Chand (PW-13) investigated the matter. Register of Vasika Navis was seized memo (Ext.PW-9/D). Fard Jamabandi (Ext.PW-1/A) and registered sale deed (Ext.PW-1/B) were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-1/C). The police seized the general power of attorney and cancellation deed (Ext.PW-6/B) vide memo (Ext.PW-6/A). The thumb impressions of Ram Piari (Ext.PW-4/A), Kaushlya Devi (Ext.PW-4/B), Gurdial Singh (Ext.PW-4/C) and Dilawar Singh (Ext.PW-4/D) were taken. Death certificate of Swarni Devi (Ext.PW-8/A) was seized. The specimen signatures of accused Dilawar Singh (Ext.S1 to S3), Arjun Singh (Ext.S4 to S6) were taken. The other accused refused to give their specimen signatures to the police. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.
4. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419 and 468 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to prove its case. Karam Singh (PW-1) is a witness to recovery. Tripta Devi (PW-2) did not support the prosecution’s case. Kewal Krishan (PW-3) was posted as the Sub Registrar, who registered the sale deed. Arjun Singh (PW-4) was posted as Executive Magistrate in whose presence thumb impressions and a specimen of handwriting were taken. Surinder Kumar (PW-5) produced a copy of Misal Hakiat Bandobast Jadeed. Ranjit Singh (PW-6) was posted as a clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, who proved the registration of the general power of attorney and produced the record. Mool Raj (PW-7) was posted as clerk to the Sub Registrar, who proved the registration of the Sale Deed. Kamal Dev (PW-8) produced the death certificate of Swarni Devi. Kamal Nath (PW-9) scribed the general power of attorney and produced his register. Subhash Chand (PW-10) was posted as Executive Magistrate before whom the accused refused to give their specimen signatures. Yogesh Kumar (PW-11) is the witness to recovery. Subhash Chand (PW-12) and Sansar Chand (PW- 13) investigated the matter.
6. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied th
Forgery – There is presumption of correctness attached to certificate.
Mere attesting witness to sale deed not liable for forgery by impersonation absent benefit; identifier and knowing son liable under Section 468 IPC. Death register entry admissible under Evidence Act....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that abetment and fraudulent execution of a sale deed constitute offenses under the Indian Penal Code, leading to conviction.
Execution of sale deeds exceeding a co-sharer’s share does not constitute forgery or cheating, reaffirming that civil disputes should not be criminalized without clear offences being present.
In backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of Code under Chapter XIV and of principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to exercise of extraordinary....
The execution of sale deeds by co-sharers exceeding their portion does not constitute forgery or criminal liability, reaffirming that such disputes are civil in nature.
The execution of a forged sale deed constitutes conspiracy and forgery under IPC, supported by forensic evidence confirming the identity of the imposter.
The propounder of a will must prove due execution and attestation, particularly when suspicious circumstances exist; mere registration does not guarantee authenticity.
The presumption of validity of registered documents places the burden of proof on the challenger, and civil court decisions can significantly impact the viability of subsequent criminal allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
