DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Darshan Singh, Raghbir Singh and Pritam Singh have filed this petition against State of Punjab under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 10.09.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga.

(2.) IT is mainly stated in the petition that judgment dated 25.10.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga and judgment dated 10.09.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga, convicting the petitioners under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC are erroneous in law as well as against the facts on the record. It is further stated in the petition that the whole case rests on single documentary evidence i.e. death certificate Ex.PW6/A. The two witnesses namely PW -1 Nachattar Singh and PW -2 Harnek Singh were interested witnesses and they wanted to take back the land sold by their father as the prices of the land had appreciated considerably since 1995. All of a sudden, a false complaint was lodged against the petitioners and it has been admitted in the evidence by these witnesses that the mutation of the above -said land was entered in favour of the accused Pritam Singh and it is also admitted fact in the cross -examination that the complainant party has lodged a civil case concerning the above -said land and they have lost the above -said case and it has also been admitted that this happened 4/5 years ago. It is further stated in the petition that original alleged forged sale deed has not seen the light of the day and thus there was presumption that no forgery has been committed. No original document was ever sent for comparison of thumb impressions of Gurdev Singh with admitted thumb impressions and this serious lacuna in case of the prosecution has been over looked by both the Courts below. It is also stated in the petition that PW -1 Nachattar Singh and PW -2 Harnek Singh alleged that Pritam Singh accused got one sale deed executed in his favour from the father of Nachattar Singh namely Gurdev Singh on 31.03.1995 and it is alleged that father of Nachattar Singh expired on 06.07.1993 and in support of this, they have produced death certificate Ex.PW6/A. They further stated that alleged sale deed was witnessed by accused Darshan Singh and Arjan Singh Namberdar.

(3.) NOTICE was given to the respondent -State and learned Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab appeared and contested this petition. I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel. From the record, I find that, prosecution witness Nachattar Singh, complainant, who is son of Gurdev Singh, deposed as per prosecution version that his father died on 06.07.1993 and Pritam Singh got executed the sale deed on 31.03.1995 and Darshan Singh and Arjan Singh, who are the attesting witnesses, have wrongly attested the sale deed. PW -2 Harnek Singh mainly deposed that Gurdev Singh was owner of the land in question and Pritam Singh has got executed forged sale deed by putting thumb impressions of someone else and also getting attested the same from Darshan Singh and Arjan Singh. PW -3 Mehal Singh mainly deposed that Vasika in question was scribed by him on 31.03.1995. In cross -examination, he stated that police never met him regarding this case and whatever statement he has given in the Court, is after seeing his register. The police has never shown him any registry. PW -4 SI Darshan Singh, official witness, deposed regarding arrest of the accused. PW -5 Mohinder Singh, is the Investigating Officer. PW -6 Bhupesh Chander, Clerk Office of Civil Surgeon Moga mainly deposed regarding death certificate Ex.PW6/A. There is no other evidence on the record in this case.