The judgment emphasizes the importance of definite evidence, the requirement of a complaint in writing by the Court under Section 195 Cr.P.C., and the interpretation of legal provisions related to fraud and conspiracy.

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been filed by petitioner-Jai Bhagwan (complainant) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which criminal appeal filed by Satbir, against the judgment and order dated 28/29.07.2008 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh, whereby he was convicted under Section 420 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for three months, had been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of Jai Bhagwan, adopted son of Sheo Chand, FIR No.451, dated 30.10.1992 under Sections 192/196/199/205/467/468/420/120-B IPC, was registered at Police Station Mohindergarh against Satbir, Jhabdu Ram and Rajbir Singh. As per complainant-Jai Bhagwan, during his lifetime, Sheo Chand had adopted the complainant as his son. When Sheo Chand was alive, the complainant used to provide him all the services. Sheo Chand expired on 20.04.1992. Satbir and Jhabdu Ram would nurse a grudge in their mind against the complainant on the aforesaid count. Vide judgment and decree dated 01.06.1972 passed in a civil suit filed by Sheo Chand, half of his land (Sheo Chand's) was transferred in favour of complainant-Jai Bhagwan. Jhabdu Ram had a bad eye on the property of the Sheo Chand and he wanted to grab the same. A fake and frivolous civil suit No. 305/72 was got filed through Sheo Chand. However, when complainant-Jai Bhagwan came to know about this fact, the same was dismissed after recording his statement. Later on, Satbir by way of fraud obtained a Will from Sheo Chand, which was later on revoked and cancelled by Sheo Chand himself on 12.01.1998.

3. Again Satbir and Jhabdu Ram conspired to grab the property of Sheo Chand. Jhabdu Ram through Satbir, had filed Civil Suit No.194 in the year 1989 by impersonating some other person in place of Sheo Chand. By way of fraud and mis-representation, Satbir filed written statement on behalf of Sheo Chand admitting the claim in the suit, whereas as a matter of fact Sheo Chand had never appeared in the Court nor did he engage any Advocate. Even Vakalatnama was filed in the said suit by Satbir showing himself to be the son of Sheo Chand. Thus, the judgment and decree dated 08.04.1989 obtained by Satbir and Jhabdu Ram was on the basis of fraud and mis-representation as both had obtained the said judgment and decree by hatching a conspiracy. On the basis of said judgment and decree, the mutation was sanctioned qua half of the property of Sheo Chand. Thus, by doing this, it was alleged in the complaint the accused had committed fraud. Accordingly, the above noted FIR had been registered against Satbir, Jhabdu Ram and Rajbir Singh.

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record acquitted Jhabdu Ram and Rajbir whereas respondent-Satbir was convicted under Section 420 IPC and accordingly, sentenced as noticed above.

5. Against the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, respondent-Satbir, had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal by holding that prosecution had failed to prove its case against Satbir beyond reasonable doubt, vide judgment dated 30.11.2009.

6. Aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.11.2009, complainant-Jai Bhgwan approached this Court by way of present criminal revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has argued that guilt of the accused has been duly proved from the prosecution evidence including PW1 to PW7. He has submitted that on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, complaint Ex. PW7/A, recovery memo of the documents Ex. P1, FIR Ex. P2 and FSL reports Ex. PX and Ex.PY, stood duly proved on record. It has also been argued that in fact, respondent-Satbir accused wanted to grab the land of Sheo Chand whereas, it was complainant Jai Bhagwan, who was entitled to inherent the land of Sheo Chand, being his ado