Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sham Sunder, J.
Budh Ram
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Revision No. 2800 of 2009,2953 of 2009,
Decided On : DECEMBER 9, 2009
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.417--Forgery--Impersonation--Acquittal--Sale deed--Original owners who were allegedly impersonated not examined by prosecution--No efforts made to summon these witnesses--They could be said to be material witnesses to prove that they never executed sale deed in respect of property in dispute--No evidence produced to prove that photo impressions of photographs on copies of sale deeds were not of original owners--No effort made to get compared questioned thumb impressions of alleged vendors on copies of sale deeds with standard or specimen thumb impressions of original owners--Statement of witnesses that original owners were not living in village and their whereabouts were not known could not be said to be sufficient to prove that they did not execute sale deed--They were not attesting witnesses of sale deeds--Their evidence of no avail to prove that original owners were impersonated-Court below wrong in coming to conclusion that it was duty of accused to produce original owners--Findings, that accused committed offence u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B without any evidence liable to be set aside.
(C) Evidence Act, 1872, S.43--Forgery--Sale deed--Binding effect of Civil Court Judgment in Criminal Trial--Merely, on the basis of the Civil Court judgments, it could not be conclusively held, in the Criminal Trial, that the sale deeds were the result of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation--Under these circumstances, the judgments of the Civil Court, cannot be said to be binding, on the Criminal Court, for the purpose of deciding the guilt of the accused, in a criminal case.
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision No. 2800 of 2009, filed by Budh Ram and another and Criminal Revision No. 2953 of 2009, filed by Karam Singh, accused/revision-petitioners, against the judgment dated 30.09.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, Haryana, vide which it partly accepted and partly dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2007 and the order of sentence dated 28.02.2007, convicting them for the offences, punishable under Sections 419, 467, 420,468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and awarding them sentence.
2. The facts, in brief are that Satya Parkash and Barkha Ram sons of Phagu Ram, rs/o village Hangoli are agriculturists. Their grand-father Malagarh had four brothers. Inder Ram, brother of their grandfather, was having two sons and grand daughters, who were owners of half share of the total land, measuring 82 kanals 10 marlas. The complainants claimed that they were cultivating their own land and also the land of Inder Ram. It was stated that Malagarh, their grandfather, had mortgaged his one acre of land with his brother. After the death of Inder, his property devolved on Banarsi. It was further stated that after the death of Banarsi, the land was inherited by his wife Ram Piari, his sons Muni Ram and Ravi Chand, and daughter Bimla Devi. It was further stated that the plaintiffs wanted to re-deem it, after paying the mortgage money, but they couid not trace the real owners. It was further stated that munadi was effected. Notice was published, in the newspaper, but Ram Piari, Muni Lal, Ravi Chand and Bimla Devi, could not be located, as Inder was serving at some unknown place. The complainants deposited mortgage money, in the treasury, and got a conveyance deed executed, in their favour. It was further stated that on 16.06.1996, the complainants came to know that Babu Ram son of Karta Ram r/o Hangoli, and Kulwant Singh r/o Mani Majra, Chandigarh, got the sale deeds of 18 kanals and 23 kanais of land respectively, executed in their favour. The complainants, on enquiry, found that the sale deeds were got forged in connivance with the Sarpanch of Hangoli, Budh Ram son of Karta Ram, Rameshwar Namberdar, Karam Singh r/o Mani Majra, Ram Pal r/o Raipur Rani and Sham Lal, r/o Hangoli, by putting up impostors. It was further stated that they also made false identification of the vendors namely Muni Lal, Ravi Chand and Bimla Devi. It was further stated that the complainants made an application to the Tehsildar, Raipur Rani, for action in the matter. It was further stated that, on the basis of written complaint, made by the complainants, FIR was got registered. The matter was investigated. During the course of investigation, the land was taken into possession. Dhani Devi wife of Multan Singh r/o Hangoli, who impersonated as Bimla, Budh Ram son of Karta, r/o Shajhanpur, Babu Ram s/o Karta Ram r/o Hangoli, Sham Lal s/o Rattan Lal, r/o Hangoli, Rameshwar s/o Banarsi Dass, r/o Narainpur and Ram Pal s/o Padam Singh, r/o Raipur Rani, were arrested in this case, for getting forged the sale deeds, in respect of land of Muni Lal, Ravi Chand and Bimla Devi. It was further stated that Kulwant Singh son of Ujagar Singh r/o Mani Majra sold the property. Karam Singh s/o Narinder r/o Manl Majra, attested the said sale deed, as a witness. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.
3. On their appearance, in the Court the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution/Charge under Sections 419,420,467,468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined, Basheshar, Ex-Sarpanch, (PW1), Raj Kumar, (PW2), Pawan Kumar, (PW3), Harpal Registration Clerk, (PW4) Sat Parkash, complainant, (PW5), Om Parkash, Inspector (Retd.), (PW6), Barkha Ram, (PW7) and Jagmal Inspecto
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
