Judgment

Mohapatra, J

[1] This criminal appeal has been filed by the three appellants against the judgment dated 24-9-1955 of Shri B.K. Das, Assistant Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj wherein appellant Bhaluka has been convicted under Section 467 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more. He has also been convicted under Section 82(c) of the Indian Registration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant Kalichasan stands convicted under Section 82(d) of the Indian Registration Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant Madhusudan has been convicted under Section 474 of the I. P. C. and sentenced" to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The offences have been committed in respect of a sale deed (Ex. 14(4) ) dated 11-12-53 which purports to have been executed by one Chandramohan Behera in favour of appellant Madhusudan. This Chandramohan was ailing for a long time and in fact he died on 15-12-53, four days after the execution and registration of the document. The property stands recorded in the name of Chandramohan. (see Ex. 26). The prosecution case is that appellant Bhaluka fasely personated himself as Chandramohan and put his thumb Impression in evidence of the execution of the document and also personated himself as Chandramohan before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the document. He put his thumb Impression also at the time of admitting the execution before the Sub-Registrar. Kalicharan is the identifier of Bhaluka as Chandramohan at the time of registration of the document. The document is in favour of appellant Madhusudan as the vendee and the prosecution case is that in fact it is Madhusudan who is responsible for the entire machination for getting this forged document, evidently before the death of the real owner Chandramohan, with the dishonest intention of acquiring his properties. Madhusudan got possession of the Kabala after registration and started a case for mutation of his own name in place of Chandramohan on 5-1-54. Notice was taken out as against the widow of Chandramohan (P. W. 1) but Madhusudan fraudulently suppressed the due publication of the processes. In the meantime the Choukidar of the village (P. W. 2) could get information about the mutation case and on enquiry he ascertained from the widow of Madhusudan that her husband had never executed the sale deed (Ex 14(4) ). The widow (P. W. 1) thus having been informed of the mutation case appeared through a lawyer and prayed for time to file objection. The case was thereafter adjourned to 10-2-54. Madhusudan immediately realising the complications persuaded the widow (P. W. 1). to settle the matter; but as the matter was not immediately settled the widow lodged the First information Report (Ex 1) on 8-2-54. But eventually the mutation case was compromised by P. W. 1 and appellant Madhusudan and it was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter Madhusudan wanted to take back the document filed in the mutation case. The entire records were, however, seized by the investigating officer and the thumb-impressions of appellant Bhaluka, the signature and thumb impression of appellant Kalicharan and the signature of Madhusudan were taken before the Magistrate (P. W. 13) and were sent to two experts, P. W. 18 being the Hand Writing expert and P. W. ID being the Fingerprint expert. According to the experts, the specimen thumb impressions of Bhaluka and Kalicharan taken before the Magistrate (P. W. 13) are identical with the thumb impressions appearing on the document, Ex. 14(4). It is to be noted that on 10-2-1954 appellants Kalicharan and Madhusudan. were produced for making confessional statements before th