STATE OF M.P. Vs. TULSIRAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal dated 7-11-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari (MP now CG) in Criminal Case No.254 of 1997, whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted the accused/respondents (including respondent No.5 Sugan Chand s/o Champalal, who died on 13-12-2000 during pendency of this appeal) of the charges of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC for alleged offence of use of a forged Will dated 12-04-1991 (Ex.P/11) as a genuine document fraudulently and dishonestly in relation to Jhummarlal Jain, resident of Village Khisora, Police Station, Magarlod.

(2.) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 7-11-1997 is impugned on the ground that even there being sufficient evidence available for holding the respondents/accused guilty of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, the Court below acquitted them, and thereby committed illegality.

(3.) As per the case of prosecution, on 20-10-1991, Jhamku Bai (PW/6), wife of late Jhummarlal Jain gave a written complaint (Ex.P/2) to the then SDO(P), Dhamtari in which she stated that the Tahsildar, Dhamtari had instructed to provide her immediately a true copy of mutation after the death of her husband Jhummarlal. The said instruction was issued to Patwari, Halka No. 78. Initially, concerned Patwari did not comply the said instruction, but subsequently, on making a complaint to the Tahsildar, Dhamtari, a copy of the Mutation was given to her on 19-10-1991. She, after-examination of the Mutation document, came to know that on the basis of a Will presented on 13-8-1991, a mention of publication of a notice on 13-8-1991 itself was made and thereafter on 1-9-1991, the land belonging to her husband Jhummarlal was mutated in the names of respondent No. 5 Sugan Chand and others. As per the written complaint (Ex.P/2), no publication of any notice was made nor any announcement was made by way of beating of drum regarding the so called notice. She further stated that her husband was-not keeping good health, he was incapable to move outside the house and he died on 8-5-1991. Had he executed any Will on 10-4-1991, she would have come to know regarding execution thereof and. therefore, the Will is under cloud. She also stated that three acres of land bearing Khasra No. 1/8 was already sold by her husband through a registered sale-deed on 12-6-1990 much before execution of the forged Will on 10-4-1991. She prayed for conducting an inquiry over the said Will and other concerned record, for necessary action against all concerned, for return of her property and for police protection for her safety on her own costs. Under the written instruction of SDO(P), Dhamtari dated 20-10-1991, Police Station, Magarlod lodged First Information Report (Ex.P/1) on 21-10-1991 by registering Crime No.124 of 1991 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and started investigation. During the course of investigation, Police seized Mutation register vide Ex.P/3 and gave it to Patwari on Supurdnama. Police also seized three original registered sale-deeds (Exs.P/8, 9 and 10). From complainant Jhamku Bai, Police seized a copy (Ex.P/7) containing handwriting of her husband Jhummarlal. The questioned document said to be a forged Will (Ex.P/11) was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6). Seized Will (Ex.P/11) and other documents in respect of handwriting and signature of deceased Jhummarlal were sent to State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of MP for examination. The Additional State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of MP, after examination thereof, gave his opinion vide Ex.P/12 that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked as A-1 to A-11, B1 to 87 and C-1 to C-8 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked as Q1 and Q2.