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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.01.2001passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar in G.R. No. 470 of 1983 / T.R. No. 01/2001 (arising out of Jasidih P.S. Case No. 80/1983 dated 01.07.1983) had convicted the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and the Petitioner No.4 under Sections 465, 468 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

4. The learned trial court had sentenced the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months each under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code; 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each, 06 months each under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court had sentenced the Petitioner No.4 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, 01 year under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 02 years under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. All the sentences of the petitioners were directed to run concurrently.

5. The petitioners had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 16/2001 against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in which the learned appellate court vide Judgment dated 24.07.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar acquitted the Petitioner No.4 from the charges under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and upheld her conviction for the offences under Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and she was ordered to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act after furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period for the offences under Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but considering their age and the long period in contesting the case, reduced their sentence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code to 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month each and maintained their sentences under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissed the appeal with modification.

6. The petitioners have preferred the present criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 24.07.2014 passed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2001 as well as the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.01.2001passed by the learned trial court in G.R. No. 470 of 1983 / T.R. No. 01/2001.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as under:-

a. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and the most important witness namely, Shanti Devi @ Shakuntala Devi W/o Hari Narayan Modi, who was aggrieved by the act of the petitioners, as well as the Investigating Officer of the case have not been examined which caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. He further submitted that non-examination of the aforesaid material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case.

b. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that the basic ingredient of Section 109 of IPC has not been proved. The prosecution has failed to prove conspiracy, instigation and participation of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 in the sa