The State of H.P vs Charan Dass and Others

R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2000, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, in case No. 122-1 of 1994, convicting Kishan Chand, Punya Devi, Bal Krishan and Hoshiar Singh under Sections 419, 420, 423, 467 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act and acquitting the accused-respondents Charan Dass, Panjab Devi and Kamla Devi under the aforesaid sections.

The prosecution case is that complainant Satya Devi filed a complaint for alleged involvement of the accused persons in the aforesaid offences alleging that she is daughter of late Shri Karam Singh, s/o Mahan Singh, r/o Village Nangal Jarialan, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. and she is married with Ran Singh, s/o Sant Ram, r/o Village Talpa, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. and at the relevant time, she was residing in her in-laws'' house with her husband. Complainant was educated up to middle standard and she used to sign in Hindi and never puts her thumb impression on any documents. The complainant that she succeeded to the estate of her deceased father, Shri Karam Singh, alongwith her sister and mother in village Nangal Jarialan, Harwal, Amboa, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., she alongwith her mother, sister, Charan Dass and Hoshiar Singh are co-sharers in possession alongwith other co-sharers in Khewats No. 533 min, 59, 150, 151, respectively, in the aforesaid village. Satya Devi, complainant, on 18.08.1992, came to village Nangal Jarlian alongwith her husband and was surprised to know that Charan Dass and Hoshiar Singh were proclaiming that they have transferred the share of the complainant in the aforesaid villages in their favour. On suspicion, complainant alongwith her husband and uncle came to Amb and made inquiries in the matter in the office of Sub Registrar Amb. She also applied for certified copies of the documents fraudulently got registered by the accused persons. Complainant also noticed that the accused persons with an intention and knowledge to cause wrongful loss, damage and to grab the property and rights of the complainant, fraudulently connived and conspired together and got substituted another person in place of the complainant, got scribed / executed and got registered three release deed in the name of the complainant bearing registration No. 552, 553 and 554, dated 22.05.1992 in favour of Charan Dass and Hoshiar Singh, by presenting and putting thumb impression alleged to be of the complainant. On such complaint, FIR, Ex. PW-6/A was registered and after investigation, accused respondents were charged and tried for the aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses, whereas, accused through their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and have examined DW-1, S.D. Sharma, as defence witness.

PW-1, Satya Devi, is the complainant, who in her endeavour to support the prosecution has narrated her allegations and tried to prove it on the basis of documents.

PW-2, R.R. Sharma, Tehsildar, has stated that in the year 1992, he was Naib Tehsildar, Amb and on 22.05.1992, Guddi came to his office and asked him for registration of release deeds, Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C bearing No. 552 to 554 and in the aforesaid release deeds, land was given to Kishan Chand. PW-2 has further stated that he knows both the witnesses personally. In view of the testimony of PW-2, Guddi etc. have executed release deeds bearing No. 552 to 554 and in that release deeds, Guddi etc. have produced a woman on behalf of complainant Satya Devi and got prepared the release deeds on 22.05.1992 fraudulently. As such, PW-2 has supported the prosecution case.

PW-3, Balwan Singh, has deposed that after registration of the FIR, he handed over the case file to ASI Sadhu Ram. PW-4, Shri B.L. Soni, the then Judicial Magistrate, Amb, has deposed that the police moved an application for getting thumb impression, specimen handwriting and signatures of Punya Devi, Panjab Devi, Satya Devi, Bal Kishan, Kamla Devi, Kishan Chand and Hoshiar Singh and they were identified before him by Tara Chand, Namberdar, Dhussara and Shamsher Singh, Namberdar, Karoa and after obtaining their thumb impressions, specimen handwritings and signatures, these were handed over to the police.

PW-5, Jagdish Chand, stated that he prepared the challan in this matter. PW-6, ASI Prithvi Raj, stated that he recorded FIR, Ex. PW-6/A and made an endorsement on application, Ex. PW-6/B. PW-7, SI Rulia Ram, stated that he partly investigated the case and took into possession the copies of release deeds, Ex. PW-7/A to C from the office of Tehsildar, Amb. Thereafter, he took specimen of thumb impression of Satya Devi, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amb. PW-8, HC Chaman Lal stated that he partly investigated the case and produced the case file before the learned Sessions Judge, Una, where accused Kishan Chand and Charan Dass were released on bail. PW-8 on 30.03.1993 obtained the specimen of signatures and thumb impressions of accused persons in the presence of Shri B.L. Soni, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amb.

PW-9, Balwant Singh, stated that he was posted as Director, Finger Prints and on 05.05.1994 he sent reports, which is Ex. PW-9/A. PW-10, SIR Sadhu Ram, stated that he partly investigated the case. PW-11, Dr. B.A. Vaid, A.G.E.Q.D., Shimla, has stated that he received the documents in his laboratory from SP Una for the purpose of examination of signatures, which are Ex. PW-1/A to C and after examining, he gave report.

On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses and the material on record, learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that complainant Satya Devi is co-sharer alongwith other co-sharers, like Panjab Devi, Guddi etc. Ex. PW-6/H also clearly shows that mutation No. 10 has been mutated on the basis of release deeds executed by Guddi, Satya Devi and Panjab Devi and they have relinquished their shares in favour of Krishan Chand qua equal 1/10 share.

On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that Punya Devi put her thumb impression upon Ex. PW-2/A as Q-II and on Ex. PW-2/C as Q-II/B. Learned trial court after analyzing material on record has held Kishan Chand, Punya Devi, Bal Krishan and Hoshiar Singh guilt for the aforesaid offences, whereas, accused-respondents Charan Dass, Punjab Devi and Kamla Devi have no motive and not involved in fraudulently transferring the land and making the registration of the land and they have rightly been acquitted.

The role of accused-respondent Charan Dass has not been explained by the prosecution by any reliable evidence and accused-respondents Panjab Devi and Kamla Devi being mohter and sister of the complainant have also relinquished their shares to Kishan Chand through relinquishment deeds Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/C, as such, Punjab Devi and Kamla Devi have their shares in khewat No. 533 Ex. PW-6/F, Khewat No. 151 Ex. PW-6/G and khewat No. 59 Ex. PW-6/H. However, in our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused-respondents Panjab Devi and Kamla Devi had mala fide intention to transfer their own share in favour of Kishan Chand and has rightly decided point No. 1 in favour of the present accusedrespondents Charan Dass, Panjab Devi and Kamla Devi.

On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has rightly found that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused-respondents. In these circumstances, criminal appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.