State of Punjab vs Gurjant Singh and ors.

S.D. Bajaj

Bhura Singh, author of First Information Report No. 96 recorded in Police Station, Sardulgarh, district Bhatinda of Punjab State at 9.05 A.M. on 11th May, 1982 addressed to S.H.O. Sardulgarh, an application which reads :

"To.

The S.H.O.,

Sardulgarh,

Shrimanji,

I, the applicant, submit as under :

Sr. Hakam Singh Meean, Member Parliament, who is a member of Lok Sabha of India, having put pressure on Naib Tehsildaar, Sardulgarh, District Bhatinda and having produced some other person in my place to impersonate me, the applicant, got the forged sale deed in respect of my entire land measuring 57 kanals 7 marlas situated in village Lalian Wali register in the name of Ajaib Singh s/o Karnail Singh, Nazar Singh s/o Hazara Singh, residents of Meean and Gurjant Singh s/o Jangir Singh resident of village Lalian Wali. The witnesses have wrongly identified the same intentionally and my entire land has been transferred through a forged saledeed. I have not executed any saledeed uptil today. The photostat copy of the forged registered saledeed is attached herewith. Chhota Singh s.o Jodh Singh, resident of village Bhundar has seen the entire occurrence with his own eyes.

In the presence of Chhota Singh, aforesaid, S. Hakam Singh Meean, M.P. was telling to the Naib Tehsildar, Sadulgarh that my prestige was involved and even if the sale deed was false, he should register the same and that he would have to do so and that he (Hakam Singh) would himself deal with the matter at a later stage. Gamdoor Singh s/o Naranjan Singh, resident of village Ramsara and Jagdev Singh, Lambardar, resident of village Ulak, Tehsil Mansa, have also wrongly identified some other person as Bhura Singh. These witnesses had full knowledge that the said person was not the real Bhura Singh s/o Amar Singh r/o village Lalian Wali even then they intentionally and knowing everything identified some other person as Bhura Singh and thus also committed fraud with the Naib Tehsildar. Hence, a prima facie cause U/ss 467/468/419/420/109 of the Indian Penal Code is fully made out against S. Hakam Singh, Member Parliament, the witnesses of the sale deed and the vendees. Justice may be imparted to me by registering a case against them.

Application of :

Bhura Singh s/o Amar Singh,

s/o Hira Singh,

resident of village Lalianwali,

District Bhatinda,

at present c/o Gurdev Singh, Sarpanch,

Village Malri, Teh., and dist. Sarsa.

Sd/

Bhua Singh s/o Amar Singh,

(with his thumb mark)".

On being charged with the commission of offences under sections 120B, 467, 419 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code all the five accused pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated 20th August 1987, learned trial court acquitted all the five accused of the commission of the offences with which they stood charged. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 28DBA of 1988 in this Court. Author of the First Information report has also filed Criminal Revision No. 60 of 1988 against it.

We have heard Shri S.S. Kang, D.A. G. Punjab for the appellant State assisted by Shri G.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the complainant part, Shri J.S. Chowdhary, Advocate of the respondents and have perused the relevant material on record very carefully.

Acquittal of the five accused by the learned trial court is based on the following grounds :

(i) Non production of allegedly forged original sale deed before the learned trail court. On this account the link evidence is not complete regarding the taking of relevant document to the expert for purposes of comparison;

(ii) Evidence of Harbant Singh P.W. 4 is based on hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible. It is valueless and is, therefore, to be excluded from consideration;

(iii) Deposition of Chhota Singh P.W. 5 is also of no avail to the prosecution because he had admittedly not gone inside the office of the Sub Registrar at the time of the registeration of the document and, therefore, did not know who impersonated Bhura Singh complainant before the Sub Registrar at that time;and

(iv) that the conviction for forgery cannot be based on the expert opinion of Director, Finger Print Bureau alone.

Finding recorded by the learned trial court having proceeded on rational, cogent and convincing reasoning aforesaid, we see no ground to differ therefrom and therefore, affirm it. In result the appeal filed by the State and Revision filed by the author of the First Information Report both get completely berefet of any merit therein and are consequently dismissed.