Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Asan Aliyar - Petitioner
Vs.
State through The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 378 of 2018
Decided On : 12-09-2018
Forgery - Property Dispute - IPC 471 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC 471 - The court discussed the elements required to prove the offence under Section 471 of IPC, emphasizing the need for the document to be forged and used dishonestly or fraudulently as genuine. The court highlighted the importance of proving mens rea and knowledge or reason to believe that the documents are forged. The judgment focused on the lack of evidence to establish the accused's knowledge or reason to believe that the documents were invalid, leading to the acquittal of the accused under Section 471 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the accused were alleged to have conspired to grab the property through impersonation and fabrication of documents. The accused were tried for various offences including forgery and impersonation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy and intention of cheating. It ruled out the accused's involvement in fabricating false documents and acquitted the accused under Section 471 of IPC due to lack of evidence to establish mens rea.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the alleged conspiracy, forgery, and impersonation in a property dispute, as well as the accused's knowledge or reason to believe that the documents were forged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to establish mens rea and knowledge or reason to believe that the documents were forged to prove the offence under Section 471 of IPC. It ruled that in the absence of proven mens rea, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 471 of IPC.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed, and the judgment of the trial court was set aside. The revision petitioner/accused was acquitted, and any bail bond or fine amount paid by him was ordered to be refunded.
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 06.07.2017 in C.A. No. 13 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner in C.C. No. 99 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, dated 30.08.2016.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.
3. This revision petitioner is directed against the Judgment made in C.A.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court passed in C.C.No.99 of 2012 dated 30.08.2016 holding the (Asan aliyar) revision petitioner herein guilty for offence under Section 471 of IPC, imposing fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default 3 months Simple Imprisonment.
4. Thajma beebi is the Defacto complainant. Her father Kammarudeen executed Inam settlement in her favour 77 cents of land in Sankarankottai kurup Vani Village, Survey No.436/3A under deed No.1391/1977. Noor Mohamed(A4) along with Thaslin and others, though knowing fully well that the property belongs to Thajmabeebi, conspired to grab it by impersonation and fabrication of documents. To wit, on 26.02.2002 they created sale deed in favour of Gajendiran a friend of Noor Mohamed by impersonating and forging Thajmabeebi. Not stopping with the act of forgery and impersonation. Noor Mohammed (A4) created document of sale deed, showing Thaslin (A1) the owner of the property and Asan Aliyar (A2) the purchaser. The said sale deed was registered as Document No.711 of 2003 and patta was transferred in the name of the second accused. After so creating a sham and nominal document of title in the name of second accused, the fourth accused created document as if the second accused sold the property to one Gajinin Mohammed who is none else than son of fourth accused. This sale deed was registered as Document No.4838 of 2006. Patta was also got transferred in the name of Gajani Mohammed. Later, Gajini Mohammed sold the property to Panjaraj (A3) binami to fourth accused, under Document No.5318 of 2007 and got the patta transferred in the name of Panjaraj.
5. A suit was by filed by Panjaraj against Thajmabeebi in O.S.No.109 of 2008 at District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram based on above said forged document got registered as genuine in order to cheat the defacto complainant Thajmabeebi. Meanwhile, the defacto complainant has alienated the property for valuable consideration to one Rama Subramaniam under sale deed Document No.2394 of 2008 he was shown as one of the defendant in the above suit. When she attempt to give complaint on coming to know about the fabrication of documents and fraudulent act of the accused persons, Noor Mohammed, his Son Gajini Mohammed and Panjaraj came to her house on 15.06.2008 at 8.00 a.m. and threatened her to kill. They wielded arrival and caused intimidation to cause death. Hence case against them was registered and tried.
6. Pending trial, Gajini Mohamed (A-3), Gulan Thasthagir (A-8) and Kamarudeen (A9) died. The ranking of the accused persons were rearranged.
7. The remaining accused were tried for the following charges :-
A-1 (Thasleen) and A-2 (Asan Aliyar) were tried for offences under Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC. A-3 (Panjaraj) was tried for offence under Sections 120(b) r/w. 420, 419, 465, 468, 506(ii) r/w. 34 IPC. A-4 (Noor Mohamed) was tried for offence under Sections 120(b) r/w with 419, 420, 465, 471, 506(ii) IPC, 120(b) r/w 109, 34 IPC and A-5 (Sekaran) for offences under Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 419, 465, 468 r/w 34 IPC.
8. Before the trial Court, prosecution examined 11 witnesses, 12 exhibits were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence 7 exhibits were marked and one witness Noor Mohammed (A-4) was examined as D.W.1.
9. The specific case of the prosecution is that, the proper
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
