JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Tarun Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.

3. Heard Ms. Mahua Palit, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

4. The present criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 08.06.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 58/2011, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner confirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.11.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Complaint Case No. 996/2000, T.R. No. 14/2011.

5. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. However, the learned trial court acquitted the petitioner from the charges under Sections 417 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments of conviction for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that the petitioner, having been acquitted for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel referred to the findings of the learned trial court recorded at Para-15 of the impugned judgment as well as the findings recorded by the learned appellate court to submit that the allegations against the petitioner was that by hook or by crook, the Complainant namely, Gayatri Devi was made to believe by the petitioner and the petitioner got his name entered with Gayatri Devi and purchased the land of Gayatri Devi. He submitted that another lady Gayatri Devi was the wife of the petitioner and the Complainant is different Gayatri Devi. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property jointly in his name and in the name of Gayatri Devi-his wife from one Mira Sinha and the Complainant Gayatri Devi is widow of another person namely, Rami Rai. He submitted that as the name of the actual wife of the petitioner was also Gayatri Devi, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that considering this aspect of the matter, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.

Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that if there was another person called Gayatri Devi, who was wife of the petitioner, such person has not been examined before the learned trial court. He submitted that in fact, the petitioner cheated the Complainant-Gayatri Devi by purchasing the property from Mira Sinha by showing Gayatri Devi-the Complainant as his wife. He submitted that considering the entire materials on record, the learned courts below have passed speaking judgments which do not call for any interference.

8. During the course of argument, it was pointed out that Exhibit-A/1 is a sale deed executed by the Complainant in favour of the petitioner and Exhibit-A/5 is a sale deed executed by one Meera Sinha in the name of the petitioner as well as Gayatri Devi who is said to be the wife of the petitioner. Exhibit-A/4 is a rectification deed, wherein the caste of the petitioner declared in Exhibit-A/5 has been rectified by declaring that the p