RAJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, who have been charged under Section 419, 467 & 468 IPC, challenge their conviction and sentence of 2 years RI under Section 467 and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence and 2 years RI under Section 468 IPC with Rs.1000/- fine with default sentence and 2 years RI under Section 419 IPC passed in S.C.No.192 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that both A1 and A2 have forged an agreement of sale dated 18.6.1994 as though it was executed by one Thimiyammal, the aunt of A2, in order to grab at the property of the deceased Thimiyammal. THE accused have also been charged under Sections 302, 404 & 201 IPC. But the trial Court has acquitted both the accused against the charge under Section 302, 404 & 201 IPC on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 302, 404 & 201 IPC.

(3.) P.W.1 is a nephew of the deceased Thimiyammal. He is the son of the complainant Raji Naidu. He would admit that the deceased Thimiyammal was the sister of Raji Naidu, his father, and that the deceased Thimiyammal was a widow and she had no issues and that he (P.W.1) and his sister A2 were brought up by the deceased Thimiyammal. He would admit that A1 is also the son of his another aunt to whom A2, his sister, was given in marriage. He would further admit that his aunt Thimiyammal was given in marriage to one Govindasamy as a second wife and when A1 tried to plough the land belonging to Thimiyammal, the son born to Govindarajan, husband of Thimiyammal, through his first wife obstructed and there is a civil suit pending between A1 and Murugesan, the son born to Govindarajan through his first wife. There was also a panchayat took place in this regard and in the panchayat it was decided that the land conveyed by Govindarajan in favour of the deceased Thimiyammal should be reconveyed in the name of Murugesan, the son born through the first wife of Govindarajan and it has further been resolved in the said panchayat that 50 cents of lands shall be conveyed in favour of A1 and also a sum of Rs.12,000/- to be given by Thimiyammal in favour of A1 for he having borne the medical expenses of Thimiyammal and her husband Govindarajan. He would further depose that his father came to his house at Hosur and enquired whether Thimiyammal came to his house and further informed that her whereabouts were not known for the past one week. According to P.W.1, the information he had received from his father was that on 17.6.1994, A1 had invited Thimiyammal to Hosur. He would further depose that his uncle Megalai Naidu also enqired about Thimiyammal with A1, but A1 had replied that his aunt Thimiyammal had already conveyed her land in his name, but he did not know the whereabouts of Thimiyammal. On suspicion his father had preferred Ex.P.1-complaint against the accused and that his father is also now no more. According to him, on 26.7.1994 he saw A1 in Burgoor police Station at about 9.00 am while he was giving confession statement before the Inspector of Police and that he also accompanied with the Inspector of Police and other witnesses along with A1 to the place of occurrence where he had identified the corpse of his aunt Thimiyammal through the wearing apparels of the deceased and also identified the hair of Thimiyammal. M.O.1 & M.O.2 are the wearing apparels of Thimiyammal and M.O.3 is the hair of Thimiyammal. According to him, even while his aunt Thimiyammal was alive she had conveyed her ear-stud and gold thali chain weighing about 9 soverigns to A1.