SANJAY SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 06.02.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.), in Criminal Revision No.111/2016, whereby the revision preferred against framing of charge was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The charges were framed by an order dated 18.07.2016, in Criminal Case No.414/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raigarh, against the petitioner under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that one Shyam Singh Soni filed a complaint on 29.11.2010 alleging that the land bearing Kh.No.217/2, 217/3, 217/4, situated at village-Gopalpur was recorded in the name of Ramlal, S/o. Bhagirathi Yadav in the revenue record was manipulated and instead of Ramlal, name of Shyamlal was recorded, thereafter the purchasers and others including the petitioner has conspired and sale deed dated 06.03.2010 was executed in the name of Nitin Sinha and Laxman Chandra. Subsequently the purchasers got their name mutated in the revenue records, whereas Shyam Lal, the seller was not at all the owner of the land. It was further alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused personified and identified one Shyam Lal and got the sale deed registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other co-accused. Thereafter, the Court below has framed the charges under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons, which was subject of challenge before the revisional Court of Sessions Judge, Raigarh and the same was dismissed. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no iota of evidence against the present petitioner and only on the basis of the fact that the petitioner was the witnesses in another sale deed, he has been inculpated in the instant case and therefore, the charges as framed are not supported by any evidence. He further submits that the petitioner has also filed a criminal complaint case against the other co- accused before filing of the charge sheet and as such it would lead to show that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, the applicant may be discharged.