The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for admissible evidence to prove criminal charges, emphasizing the standards for proving documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

The challenge in this revision is made to the following :-

(1) The judgment and order dated 08.10.2012, passed in Criminal Case No. 480 of 2011, State Vs. Ranveer Singh, by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and sentenced as hereunder :-

(2) Judgment and order dated 07.12.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2012, Ranveer Singh Vs. State, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the judgment and order dated 08.10.2012 passed in the case has been upheld.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows:-

PW1 Pramjeet Singh filed an application under Section 153 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) which is basis of the case. According to it, his wife had purchased certain property from one Harvinder Singh through power of attorney holder Manjeet Kaur for Rs. 25 Lakh. One Jaswant Singh had also purchased certain property from its owner Swaraj Singh through power of attorney holder Manjeet Kaur for Rs.11,66,000/-. But, according to the application, the revisionist alongwith coaccused, under a conspiracy, in order to grab the property purchased by Gurjeet Kaur and Jaswant Singh, prepared a forged agreement to sale on 10.12.1995 (for short “the agreement to sale”) purported to have been executed by Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh. The signatures of Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh were forged on the agreement to sale. This agreement to sale was placed in a proceedings under Section 229 B of the Uttar Pradesh Abolition and Lard Reforms Act, 1950 (“the Act”). According to the application, on 10.12.1995, Swaraj Singh and Harvinder Singh were not in India. They were in England. This application was allowed and FIR was registered. The Investigating Officer collected information and after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the revisionist, which is basis of the case. On 25.04.2012, charge under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC were framed against the revisionist. To which, he declined and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, PW1 Paramjeet Singh, PW-2 Hem Chandra Sharma, PW3 Smt. Poonam Mehrotra, PW4 Kheem Singh Adhikari, PW5 Mohd. Yameen and PW6 Ravindra Singh Toliya.

5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, he has been falsely implicated. In his defence, the revisionist produced two witnesses, namely, DW1 Arun Kumar and DW2 V.K. Agarwal.

6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. The judgment and order dated 08.10.2012 has been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal. Hence, the revision.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist