The execution of a forged sale deed constitutes conspiracy and forgery under IPC, supported by forensic evidence confirming the identity of the imposter.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant criminal revision, the petitioners have challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 22.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No. 81 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed, upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in G.R. Case No. 19 of 1990 corresponding to Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 1 of 1990, whereby the petitioners have been held guilty for commission of the offences under Sections 419, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of two years for the offence under Section 419/120B of I.P.C., R.I. of three years for the offence under Section 468/120B of I.P.C. and R.I. of six months for the offence under Section 471/120B of I.P.C. along with fine with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the learned appellate court has modified the sentence awarded to the petitioners to the extent of R.I. of one year for the offence under Section 419/120B of I.P.C., R.I. of 2½ years for the offence under Section 468/120B of I.P.C. enhancing the fine amount to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and maintaining the sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence under Section 471/120B of I.P.C.

2. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

Factual Matrix

3. As per F.I.R., Most. Purni Devi (informant) has claimed to be recorded owner and in possession of lands appertaining to Khata No. 42, 76, 105, 105/135, 105/134, 18, 16, 35/50 and 35, admeasuring total area 7.05 acres situated in Village – Katkamsandi, District – Hazaribag. It is alleged that the said land was inherited by the informant from her husband Jagdish Pandey. All of a sudden, informant came to know that her gotni Kapurni Devi (petitioner no. 1) in connivance with other accused persons namely, Dinta Devi, Nageshwar Pandey, Rama Pandey, Binay Pandey, Mahendra Pandey and Jharwa Bhuiyan has executed sale deed in respect of the aforesaid lands belonging to the informant through registered sale deed appearing as imposter in place of informant and posing herself to be Purni Devi (informant). Thereafter, informant applied for certified copy of the impugned sale deeds from the office of Registrar and found the forged sale deed was executed by Kapurni Devi in favour of other accused persons and scribed and witnessed by other co-accused persons.

4. On the basis of above information, Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 01 of 1990 was registered for commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C. and after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against eight accused persons including the present petitioners. The accused Dhiraj Nath Rai was discharged vide order 24.06.1994 by the concerned trial court and the case of Binay Pandey was split up vide order dated 06.06.1995 and rest six accused were charged for the offence under Sections 419, 468, 471, 120B of the I.P.C. which they denied and claimed to be tried.

5. After conclusion of trial, all the six accused persons were held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

6. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioners have preferred Cr. Appeal No. 81 of 2004 and the same was dismissed on 22.07.2013 with modification in sentence, which has been assailed in this revision.

7. A separate criminal revision i.e. Criminal Revision No. 761 of 2015 was filed by the convicts namely, Mahendra Pandey, Nageshwar Pandey and Rama Pandey, which has been disposed of as abated vide order dated 28.06.2024 on receiving report of their death.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in order to substantiate the charge levelled against the petitioners, altogether four witne