The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence, including oral testimonies and documentary proof, to establish the guilt of the accused in fabricating the power of attorney and executing the sale deed based on the forged document.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

Both these revision petitions challenge the judgments and orders of the appellate Court, i.e. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, dated 17.02.2017 and the trial Court, i.e. the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hathin, dated 24.03.2014.

Vide the judgment of the learned appellate Court, the petitioners in both these petitions, i.e. Subhash and Jayanti Prashad (petitioners in CRR no.772 of 2017) and Rajesh Kumar (petitioner in CRR no.854 of 2017), have been held guilty of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, both read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

Vide the judgment of the trial Court, the three petitioners herein as also another co-accused, Deepak, were found guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.

The petitioners and their co-accused Deepak were all sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment for the commission of each of the aforesaid offences, with all the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

They were also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in respect of each offence.

2. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted co-accused Deepak altogether, holding that his involvement in the conspiracy was not proved in executing a forged power of attorney in favour of petitioner Rajesh Kumar, on the basis of which a sale deed was got executed by Rajesh Kumar in favour of petitioner Jayanti Prashad, who was found to be the maternal nephew (sisters' son) of Rajesh Kumar. Deepak was found to be only an attesting witness to a sale deed of which he was not the beneficiary, nor was he a witness to the GPA shown to be executed in favour of Rajesh Kumar by one Moharli.

One Budhan son of Kanhi Ram was also arraigned as an accused before the trial Court, but had died during the course of the trial.

3. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners and their co-accused Deepak, emanated from a letter received at Police Station Hathin (now District Palwal), on 05.06.2007, from the Tehsildar Hathin, stating therein that all the accused got registered a sale deed bearing Vasika no.3524 dated 15.02.2006, thereby transferring property situated in village Swamika, Tehsil Hathin, on the basis of a general power of attorney bearing no.1535 dated 07.02.2006, registered at Mubena, District Bhind (MP).

It was further stated by the Tehsildar, that upon query it was found that the alleged executrix of the GPA, Smt. Moharli, had died in 1988 in village Tijara (Rajasthan), and therefore, the sale deed was executed on the basis of a forged and fabricated instrument of power of attorney.

4. Consequently, FIR no.117 dated 05.06.2007 was registered at Police Station Hathin, alleging against the accused the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

5. Upon a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. having been filed, the accused were all eventually charged by the trial Court of having committed offences punishable under Sections 468 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 471, again read with Section 120-B of the IPC, as stated by the learned appellate Court.

6. The accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as follows:-    

Statements of the accused having been recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., they again pleaded their innocence and false implication, after which they examined the following three witnesses:-