Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1660
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Dilawar Singh & another - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Revision Nos. 4159 and 4156 of 2013
Decided On : 01-12-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Forgery
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.313, S.437(a)
EVIDENCE ACT : S.114, S.35
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.481
Headnote
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - Revisional jurisdiction - Narrow scope - Not to reappreciate evidence or substitute views unless perversity, jurisdictional error or gross miscarriage of justice - Concurrent findings not to be upset lightly. (Paras 16-21)
Facts of the case:
Revision petitions against concurrent convictions under Section 468 IPC for forgery via impersonation in sale deed executed years after executant's death. Identifier facilitated by wrongly identifying impersonator; son knew of death; one accused merely attested deed. Death proved by register entry; contradictory witness testimony.
Findings of Court:
Convictions of identifier and son upheld under Section 468 IPC with three years' simple imprisonment and fine. Attesting witness acquitted as no benefit derived and attestation not required for sale deed validity.
Issues: Proof of executant's death via register entry; criminal liability of identifier, knowing son, and attesting witness in forged sale deed; scope of revisional interference with concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi: Death register entry by public officer admissible under Evidence Act Section 35, presumed correct under Section 114 without proving informant; identifier liable for wrong identification enabling registration; knowing son connived in impersonation; attesting witness to sale deed not liable for forgery sans benefit, as no legal attestation mandate; revisional court refrains from reanalysis absent perversity.
Result: Revisions dismissed for identifier and son; allowed for attesting witness with acquittal.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate
For the Respondent/ State:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General
| 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 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 (P
