Honble TATIA, J.–The facts of the case are that the complainant Manga Ram submitted a criminal complaint under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467 and 468, I.P.C. read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. against the 11 persons alleging therein that the complainant and the accused Nos. 1 to 4, namely, Ramu, Chauthu, Sua and Chhotu were the co-sharers in agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 231/1, 432/1, 426, 381 and 189 situated in village Sunariya and Dalatpura. Since the complainant Mangla Ram was not keeping the good health, therefore, his all four brothers (accused) were cultivating the land. The complainant, in his complainant, stated that the accused No. 2 to 4 were not giving share in the crop also and they started quarreling with him. Not only this but the accused persons by forging thump impression of the complainant, sold the land by registered sale deed dated 14.7.1982. In the complaint, it is submitted that out of two accused, Jeevan and Kushla, one put his thump impression representing himself to be the complainant. The complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. To the concerned police station, upon which Case No. 86/1982 was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed against seven accused persons, namely, Chauthu, Chhotu, Sua, Jeewan, Mal Singh, Kushala Ram and Shanker Puri for offences under Sections 465, 466, 467, 419, 420 and 120B, I.P.C. On 30.11.1984, cognizance against three more persons was taken by the court. Those were Sohan, Bhag Chand and Madan Lal. Accused Kushal Ram died and proceedings against him was dropped by the Trial Court vide order dated 1.9.1988. After hearing the arguments for framing the charge, the Trial Court vide order dated 14.12.1988 framed the charges against the above persons except Kushala Ram for offences under section 468 read with Section 120B and 419 read with Section 120B I.P.C. only.

(2). The prosecution produced witness P.W.1 Balwant Singh, who was Tehsildar at the relevant time when the sale-deed Ex.P.1 was registered, P.W.2 Kana Ram s/o complainant Manga Ram, P.W. 3 Bhagwan Sahai, Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, P.W.4 Mohan Lal, Deed Writer, P.W.5 Hanuman Singh, P.W.6 Magan Singh, P.W.7 Ganesh, P.W.8 Amar Singh, P.W.9 Gheesa Lal and P.W.10 Banshidhar, Patwari. The accused persons were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The accused persons produce no evidence in defence.

(3). The Trial Court vide judgment dated 14.8.1991 acquitted the accused Sohan Lal, Bhag Chand and Madan Lal from the charge under Section 468/120B, 419/120B I.P.C. The Trial Court also acquitted accused Chautu, Sau, Mal Singh and Shanker Puri from the charge under Section 419/120B and acquitted Jeewan from the charge of offence under Section 468/120B I.P.C.

(4). The accused Chauthu, Sua, Chhotu, Mal Singh and Shanker Puri were convicted under Section 468/120B and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment and convicted Jeewan under Section 419/120B, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment.

(5). The main witness and complainant Mangla Ram and Ramu Ram whose thumb impressions are alleged to have been forged on the sale deeds died, hence their statements were not recorded. The Trial Court considered the statements of the witnesses but more relied upon the statement of P.W.2 Kana Ram son of complainant. He stated that the land in question was the joint property of accused-persons and of his father. His statement finds support from statement of P.W.10 Banshi Dhar who was the Patwari of the area and who produced copy of the Jamabandi of the land in dispute Ex.P.8 wherein names of Ramu, Chautu, Mangala, Sua and Chhottu all sons of Mewa were entered as Khatedar tenants. In the Trial Court, the prosecution did not produce finger print expert nor t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document