SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition raises a challenge to the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dtd. 1/6/2017 passed in the Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2013, as well as the judgment of conviction dtd. 20/11/2013 and order of sentence dtd. 22/11/2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur in Criminal Case No.248/1 of 2008 arising out of FIR No.85 dtd. 29/3/2006 under Ss. 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 423, 426 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Ganaur.

(2.) That briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17/8/2005, accused-Satish Kumar executed an agreement to sell for agricultural land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas being 24/3009 share, out of land measuring 150 Kanals 9 Marlas situated within the municipal limits of Ganaur, Tehsil Ganaur District Sonepat, in favour of the complainant-Ramesh and received an earnest money of Rs.1.00 lakh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 31/3/2006. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused had also executed another agreement to sell in favour of one Naresh Dhiman S/o Rambhaj dtd. 29/6/2005 and the said fact was not disclosed to the complainant. The complainant claims to have become aware of the said fact upon receipt of summons from the Court in civil suit titled as 'Naresh Dhiman Versus Satish Kumar', wherein the complainant had been impleaded as defendant No. 2. Upon completion of the investigation, final report under Sec. 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') was filed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Ss. 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 423 and 426 IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-

(3.) Upon conclusion of the evidence by the prosecution, the statement of the petitioner-accused was recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC and the entire incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to lead evidence in defence. The following evidence was lead in defence by the petitioner:-