The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious discrepancies and contradictions in witness statements can cast doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.11.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that complainant- petitioner (hereinafter known as 'the complainant') Usha Rani filed the criminal complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and120B of IPC against the accused Smt. Monika Sharma, Vishwas Sharma, Vikas Sharma and Dharmender. The said complaint was sent for investigation by the Illaqa Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.PC to the concerned police station. It was submitted in the complaint that the complainant had entered into an agreement to sell with accused No. 1 Monika Sharma on 20.06.2009 for purchasing a plot for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,25,000/- out of which the amount of Rs.14,75,000/- was paid to accused No. 1 on 20.06.2010. Accused No. 1 Monika Sharma signed the receipt of payment dated 20.06.2010. Accused No. 2 Vishwas Sharma husband of accused No. I stood as a witness of the said receipt. The said agreement to sell dated 20.06.2009 was notarized by a public notary on 24.06.2009 and was also registered on 24.06.2009. Accused No. 1 handed over the original sale deed of her plot to the complainant. The due date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 02.07.2009. On the date fixed the complainant remained at the Office of Sub- Registrar, Ballabgarh for execution and registration of the sale deed with the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- of the sale consideration. But the accused Monika Sharma did not turn up at the office. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to accused Monika Sharma and called her to execute the sale deed on 17.08.2009. On 18.08.2009 complainant personally met accused Monika Sharma and requested her to execute the sale deed on 18.08.2009. On 18.08.2009 also, accused Monika Sharma did not turn up at the Office of the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, on several occasions, the complainant made a request to the accused for execution of sale deed. On 21.07.2010 accused No. 2 flatly refused to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that accused No. 1 had fraudulently executed the sale deed on 22.06.2009 in favour of accused No. 4 Dharmender. Accused No. 3 drafted the said sale deed and he was close relative of accused No. 1. Accused No. 4 had the knowledge of the agreement to sell in favour of complainant and he was present in the Court on 20.06.2009 and assured that the said property was free from all sorts of encumbrance. In this manner all the accused had cheated the complainant and had forged the sale deed in favour of accused No. 4 in consequence of a criminal conspiracy.

3. The formal FIR was registered and investigation was conducted by SI Somdutt. The relevant records of the case were collected and accused Vishwas Sharma and Monika Sharma were arrested in the case. Accused Vikas and Dharmender were found innocent and after completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused Vishwas Sharma and Monika Sharma by the SHO concerned.

4. The copy of the challan were supplied to the accused free of cost as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C and the charges against the accused were framed for the offences under sections 420, 406, 506, 120B of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. PW Sarwan Kumar Gaur, Advocate has already been died and PWs Ajit Singh, SHO Narender Singh and Tek Chand were given up by Ld. APP. Thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was closed by the APP, vide his separate statement on 02.09.2016.

6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused denied the allegati