Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Dilawar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of forgery via sale deed impersonation after death. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. accused argue misappreciation of evidence, no forgery intent or liability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. revisional court limits interference to perversity or jurisdictional errors. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. death register admissible under s.35 evidence act; contradictions don't rebut. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. wrong identification of impersonator before sub-registrar is forgery. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. attesting witnesses not liable for sale deed forgery sans benefit. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 7. convictions upheld except witness; sentence not excessive. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
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
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....
Forgery – There is presumption of correctness attached to certificate.
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.
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....
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.
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 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.
The execution of a forged sale deed constitutes conspiracy and forgery under IPC, supported by forensic evidence confirming the identity of the imposter.
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
