GURDEV SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two identical criminal revision petitions bearing CRR -863 -2006 (Gurdev Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab) and CRR -950 -2006 (Khan Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab), at the hands of the convicts, directed against the same impugned judgment, are being decided together, vide this common order, as both are based on same set of allegations arising out of the same FIR. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CRR -863 -2006.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are that on the application of Mahinder Ram son of Jattu Ram, resident of Village Pindi, the present case was registered after the enquiry conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur and after getting the legal opinion from the A.D.A. (Legal). The accusation against the accused -appellants was that land measuring 24 Kanals, bearing khasra No. 24 Killa No. 23, 24 & 25, situated in a Village Chak Megha Viran was under his ownership and his brother Mehanga Ram. The accused persons Gurdev Singh son of Ganga Singh, Khan Singh Sarpanch. Jagir Singh son of Inder Singh, forged registered sale deed in their own names by impersonating the complainant and his brother Mehanga Ram. Accused Khan Singh Sarpanch and accused Jagir Singh were the witnesses of the abovesaid forged sale deed and it was also in their knowledge that the vendors were not Mohinder Ram and Mehanga Ram. The complainant party came to know about the forged registered sale deed, when they approached to the Patwari for the delivery of Jamabandi, who disclosed them that the land had already been sold and consequent to that, the accused - appellants had already secured loan from the Kapurthala Bank and mutation qua the sale had already been sanctioned. Then the complainant party moved an application to the sub -Registrar for obtaining the photographs of their forged signatures from the office copy, which had been lying in the office of the sub -Registrar. They also sought the report of handwriting and fingerprint expert regarding the alleged forged signatures on the sale deed. During the course of investigation, original sale deed dated 17.08.1988 was also taken into police possession. Besides the said sale deed, two more registered sale deeds dated 25.09.1987 and 11.05.1989 were also taken into police possession, which were bearing the signatures of Mehanga Ram and Mohinder Ram (complainant party) and the date sheet of Gurdev Singh accused -appellant was also taken into possession, on which signatures appended by Gurdev Singh were his admitted signatures. Specimen signatures of Mohinder Ram and Mehanga Ram and thumb impressions of Khan Singh and Jagir Singh were also obtained. On affirmation of the allegations of the prosecution and after completion of investigation formalities, challan against the accused was presented in the Court of trial.

(3.) WITH a view to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 18 PWs, besides producing on record other relevant documentary evidence. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material brought on record, was put to the accused. Accused denied the allegations, alleged false implication and pleaded complete innocence. Opting to lead evidence, accused examined one DW, besides producing other relevant documentary evidence in their defence.