RAMARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has been directed to be heard afresh and disposed in accordance with law by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in C. A. No. 904 of 1998 as per judgment dated 11. 3. 2005.

(2.) THE Revision petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 505 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Srivilliputhur, who was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offences under Section 467 and 471 I. P. C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence under Section 467 I. P. C. and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 506 (ii) I. P. C. as per judgment dated 29. 11. 1995, which was confirmed by the first Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1995 as per judgment dated 07. 01. 1996 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. This revision is filed challenging the above said conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner as per judgment dated 29. 11. 1995 in C. C. No. 505 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Srivilliputhur, as confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputhur, in C. A. No. 143 of 1995 as per judgment dated 07. 01. 1996.

(3.) AS per the case of prosecution, P. W. 1 is the younger brother of P. W. 2; an extent of 49 acres and 12 cents in Ayan Kollakondan Village belonged to them; on 09. 02. 1991 the accused entered into an agreement of sale with P. W. 2 for purchasing the said land and as per agreement Ex. P. 3 dated 09. 2. 1991, he paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as advance and the sale had to be completed on or before 24. 6. 1991; since the accused did not complete the sale within the stipulated time, P. W. 2 gave lawyer's notice dated 17. 7. 1991 to him cancelling the agreement and thereafter, the land was conveyed as per the registered sale deed dated 16. 2. 1992 in favour of P. W. 3; after purchase, on 17. 2. 1992, P. W. 3 went to the land purchased by him during which time, P. W. 3 noticed the accused standing in that land and stated that since P. W. 3 purchased the land, which the accused wanted to buy, he must be done away with if he enters into the land; P. W. 3 informed the same to P. W. 1 and on 17. 02. 1992, P. W. 3 received summons in a suit in O. S. No. 104 of 1992 filed by the accused on the file of the District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, along with documents enclosing the agreement Ex. P. 1 dated 06. 01. 1991 as if it was entered into between P. W. 1 and the accused in respect of the above said land by forging the signature of P. W. 1 in which he also obtained temporary injunction by filing petition in I. A. No. 414 of 1992 restraining P. W. 1 and his men from entering into the land pursuant to which, charge sheet was filed under Sections 467, 471, 341 and 506 (ii) I. P. C.