BUDHIMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against order dated 29.9.2015 passed by the Court of 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.255/2015, whereby a multi-headed charge under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. was framed against the petitioner accused Bhudhiman Singh and coaccused persons Ashok Singh @ Satyabhan Singh, Narendra Yadav, Ganesh Sharma, Santosh Sharma and Prithiviraj Singh.

(2.) The case of the prosecution before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Complainant Hari Shanker Rawat is owner in occupation of plot no. E-2/11 Arera Colony, Bhopal, admeasuring 8400 sq. feet and the property constructed thereon. The accused persons conspired to sell that property and convert its proceeds to their own use. Keeping aforesaid object in view, they forged a General Power of Attorney purported to have been executed by complainant Hari Shanker Rawat in favour of coaccused Ashok Singh @ Satyabhan Singh dated 12.12.2013. On aforesaid forged General Power of Attorney, co-accused Ganesh Sharma forged the signatures of complainant Harishanker and affixed his photograph thereon in place of the complainant. Co-accused persons Prithivi Raj and Santosh Sharma were witnesses to the forged Power of Attorney and they affixed their photographs and signatures to the forged power of attorney. Ashok Singh @ Satyabhan Singh is younger brother of petitioner Bhudhiman Singh. As recipient of power of attorney, photographs and voter identification card of petitioner Bhudhiman Singh was affixed and the photograph was named as Ashok Singh S/o Prushottam Singh. The voter I.D. Card of petitioner/ accused Bhudhiman Singh was forged by his brother Ashok Singh @ Satyabhan Singh. Aforesaid forged general power of attorney was registered in the office of Registrar at Bhopal on 12.12.2013.

(3.) The framing of charge as aforesaid by the trial Court has been assailed on behalf of the petitioner accused Bhudhiman Singh mainly on the ground that he had no role to play in the alleged conspiracy and forgery to sell the property of the complainant. His brother and co-accused Ashok Singh has stated in his memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act that he had prepared forged voter I.D. of the petitioner Bhudhiman Singh. His photograph was misused by his brother Ashok Singh and was affixed on the General Oower of Attorney without his consent or knowledge. Thus, there is nothing on record to link the petitioner accused Bhudhiman Singh to the alleged conspiracy to commit the offence. As Such, learned trial judge grossly erred in framing charge against the petitioner accused Bhudiman Singh; therefore, it has been prayed that accused Bhudiman Singh be discharged.