The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of expert reports, thumb impressions, and the dismissal of a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed in the context of forgery and impersonation in executing sale deeds.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Tract Court No.2, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2019 (Har Prakash Shukla and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as impugned order dated 29.1.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah in Criminal Case No. 1952 of 1998, arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 1985 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Vidhoona, District Etawah.

2. The facts in brief is that the informant Lalman S/o Ram Charan r/o Jagipur,Mauza Devrau, Police Station-Vidhuna, District-Etawah aged about 70-75 years lodged a First Information Report on 2.11.1985 that he is neither married nor has any other successor. He is the land holder in possession of Khata Khatuni No. 634-A comprising three plots of land having area of one acre and 1/2 portion of land of Khata Khatuni no. nil comprising two plots having area of 4.01 acres. His relatives accused Krishna Dutt, Prabhudayal and Vinod Kumar and others used to pressurize him to execute the sale deed of his land in their favour. Thereafter, they threatened the informant that if he did not execute a sale deed they will kill him and will get the sale deed executed by impersonating any other person in his place as Vendor, due to threat of aforesaid accused and their companion ante-social elements, the informant got frightened and started living with his nephew (Bhanja) Sri Narayan at Hisawa, Police Station-Mangalpur, District-Kanpur Dehat.

3. On 3.10.201985, the informant without any pressure and free will executed two sale deeds of the aforesaid plots for Rs. 2,00,000/-(two lacs) and 39,000/-respectively in favour of Hari Prakash and Ved Prakash s/o Vijay Bahadur Shukla and a house for Rs. 8000/-in favour of Ramswaroop Shukla s/o Dularelal.

4. On 29.10.1988, the informant was informed that the accused Krishna Dutt told that on 27.7.1985, the informant had already executed a sale deed of his entire property in favour of his brother Prabhu Dayal and his nephew (Bhatija) Vinod Kumar. When the informant made an inquiry in Tehsil-Vidhuna, it was found that accused Krishna Dutt with the help of co-accused Ram Singh, deed writer and clerk Amar Singh, Sarwanam Singh and Vijendra Pratap Singh in conspiracy with his brother Prabhu Dayal and nephew Vinod Kumar by impersonating him by some other person as Vendor presented a forged sale deed in the Registrar office on 27.7.1985 which was registered on 29.9.1985. The accused Brijendra Pratap Singh and Sarnath Singh are the attesting witnesses of the said sale deed.

5. On the basis of written report a FIR Case Crime No. 191 of 1985, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120-B I.P.C was registered in Police Station Vidhoona, the then District Etawah now District-Auraiya. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons namely Krishna Dutta, Prabhu Dayal, Vinod Kumar, Brijendra Pratap Singh @ Lalli Singh, Sarnam Singh @ Rajpal Singh, Amar Singh and Ram Singh. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court no.2, Etawah tried the accused in charge framed under the aforesaid sections. The accused were acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 29.1.2019.

6. Against the acquittal order dated 29.1.2019, Ashok Kumar Shukla who is the purchaser of the portion of land from the informant filed an appeal in the Court of Session which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Tract Court No.2, Etawah.

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court without considering the evidence on record has illegally acquitted the accused on the ground that the original suit filed by the informant against accused for cancellation of sale-deed was dismissed by the civil court and that the decision of the civil court was binding on the criminal court. It has been further submitt