Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
TEJINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
GOVINDER SINGH AND ORS – Respondent
Revision No. 1517 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.L. Sood, Y.P. Sood
For the Respondents: Ajay Kochhar, Varun Chauhan, Rajiv Sirkeck, Ajit Sharma
The court upheld that without credible evidence linking forged documents to fraudulent actions, acquittal in criminal cases cannot be overturned on appeal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B - H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act - Section 118 - Accused acquitted of fraudulently acquiring land using forged agriculturist certificates. No evidence showed certificates were annexed to sale deeds, undermining prosecution's case - Trial and Appellate Courts upheld the acquittal due to lack of credible evidence. (Paras 8, 10, 56, 60)
(B) Legal principles on revisional jurisdiction - High Court cannot substitute verdicts of trial courts unless based on manifest error or miscarriage of justice. (Para 60)
Facts of the case:
The accused were charged with fraud for acquiring land using allegedly forged agriculturist certificates. Allegations lacked substantiation regarding the certificates being attached to purchase documents. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court and Appellate Court found no evidence proving the certificates were validly produced, leading to acquittal of the accused. (Paras 8, 10)
Issues: Determination of the reliability of agriculturist certificates and the legality of the accused's acquisition of land under the Tenancy Act. (Para 54)
Ratio Decidendi: Legal validity of the proceedings requires demonstration of fraudulent intent; acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 40, 48)
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charge against the accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court's proceedings and witness testimonies. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. defendant's assertions and defense arguments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. allegations of fraud and evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. procedural law regarding the provision of additional evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. revisiting evidence requirements in criminal proceedings. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. rights and limitations in revisional jurisdiction. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. definition and scope of 'agriculturist' under law. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. implications of witness testimonials on evidence credibility. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 10. analysis of forgery claims in land transactions. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. effect of credibility of documentary evidence. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 12. assessment of the burden of proof in criminal cases. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 54) |
| 13. limits of appellate review in criminal justice. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 14. final judgment and dismissal of the revision. (Para 60) |
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2021, passed by learned Sessions Judge, (Forests), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment dated 28.8.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court. for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. It was asserted that the complainant, Tejinder Singh (PW1), made a complaint (Ex.PW1/A) stating that the accused, Govinder Singh, purchased two parcels of land in Village Durgapur, Pargana Chota bal, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla, HP, vide two separate sale deeds dated 10.4.2008 and 24.6.2008. Two Krishak Praman Patras (agriculturist certificates)-one dated 13.11.2007 and another dated 10.6.2008, were attached to the sale deeds. One Krishank Praman Patra, dated 13.11.2007, was purportedly issued by the Patwari, Patwar Circle Malat, Sub Tehsil Kupvi, District Shimla and another Krishak Praman Patra, dated 10.6.2008, was purportedly issued by Patwari Patwar Circle Madhana. Ram Lal Sharma (PW2) was posted as Patwari in Charoli on 13.11.2007. He did not issue the Krishak Praman Patra and stated that Govinder Singh did not own any land in Chak Dochi, Patwar Circle Malat, Sub Tehsil Kupvi. Similarly, Lach.mi Singh (PW20), who is stated to have issued Krishak Praman Patra, dated 10.4.2008, denied that he had issued Krishak Praman Patra. There was no Chak Dochi in P atwar Circle, Malat. Govinder Singh did not have any land oin Village Dochi, Patwar Circle Malat, and he was not a res ident of said place. Govinder Singh was not a bona fide agricrulturist, and he fabricated Krishak Praman Patras dated 13.11.2007 and 10.6.2008 attached to the sale deeds dated 10.4.2008 and 24.6.2008. He had no right to purchase the land as per the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (Tenancy Act). Therefore, it was prayed that the action be taken as per the law.
4. The police registered an FIR and conducted the investigation. SI Shyam Sunder (PW27) conducted the initial investigation. He wrote an application (Ex.PW27/A) to inquire whether Village/Chak Dochi falls within the jurisdiction of Patwar Circle Madhana. Udey Singh (PW14), Naib Tehsildar, issued a report (Ex.PW14/A) that the said chak did not fall in the Patwar Circle of Madhana. Inspector Shyam Sunder also obtained a certificate (Ex.PW25/D) from the Patwari. Inspector Shyam Sunder wrote another application (Ex.PW27/B) to Naib Tehsildar, Kupvi, to inqu
