JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 28.06.2011 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti in criminal appeal No. 89/2009 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.05.2009 passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Khunti corresponding to G.R. No. 140/2000, T.R. No. 548/2009, wherein the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two and half years with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence u/s 467 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine further to undergo S.I. for seven months. However, the learned trial court did not pass any separate sentence for the other offence in view of Section 71 of the IPC and opined that the passed sentence would meet the ends of justice, has been affirmed with modification that the petitioners shall undergo S.l. for 2 months in place of 7 months in case of default of payment of fine under Section 467 IPC and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the mother of the informant after taking V.R.S. from H.E.C. Hatia, received an amount of Rs. 1,92,000/ pursuant to which she opened an account on 30.05.1997 in the Post Office, H.E.C. Ranchi. Later on the said account was transferred to Khuti Post Office. It has been further alleged that the mother of the informant used to visit the house of Mukund Munda, who was her brother, for the purpose of purchasing a land. One day, petitioner no. 1, who was her nephew and petitioner no. 4, who was the Agent of Post Office, Khunti, Ranchi, along with Mukund Munda (brother) forcefully took thumb impression of mother of the informant on different papers and fraudulently withdrew Rs.1,82,400/ from M.I.S. Account of the mother of the informant with connivance with other petitioners. It has further been alleged by the informant that her mother had also sent a petition to the S.S.P. Ranchi, which was also sent to Police Station, but no action was taken and the informant’s mother expired on 25.06.1999.

4. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned judgment and submits that the mother of the informant, who was said to be a victim died on 25.06.1999 and during her lifetime she has not made any complain before the Police for lodging any F.I.R. The present case has been lodged by daughter of the victim, who is the informant in the present case after an inordinate delay of approx nine months i.e. on 18.03.2000, although she has categorically stated in her deposition that her mother had narrated the entire allegations to her during her lifetime, but still the informant did not made any complain before the Police.

Further, that mother of the informant had made an application for withdrawal of Rs. 1,92,000/- on 06.02.1999 and on 09.02.1999 after deduction of penalty amount of Rs. 9,600/- the balance amount of Rs. 1,82,400/- was withdrawn by her, as is evident from Exhibit-3 and further, out of said amount of Rs. 1,82,400/- she again deposited an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- in the account of Post Office, Khunti, Ranchi on 20.12.1999. Thereafter, on 03.01.2000, after adding an interest of Rs.7,280/- in the principal amount of Rs.1,02,000/- and deducting an amount of Rs.200/ as penalty, the total amount of Rs.1,09,086/ was withdrawn by the informant, Rani Sahdeo herself, as is evident from Exhibit-3 and informant has herself categorically stated that the such amount was withdrawn by herself.

Further, except the oral evidences of seven witnesses PW 1 to PW 7, who have stated that deceased Nandi Devi was illiterate lady and her thumb impression was forged one, there was no other evidence to corroborate the truth regarding the thumb impression. Though, initially the case was instituted against Mukund Munda (died), Dharamnath Purti and Kandru Mahto but later on by supplementa