RAM JI DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc Fast Track Court), Hoshiarpur on 04.01.2014 whereby the judgment dated 25.11.2011 passed by learned trial Court convicting the respondents for the offences under Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 419, 120 -B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') was set aside and the respondents were acquitted.

(2.) FIRST Information Report (for short 'FIR') was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by present appellant pointing out that the respondent -Joginder Pal executed a forged and fabricated sale deed dated 07.04.2004 presented through unknown lady pretending to be Manso Devi, though she has died in the year 1969. The appellant claims to be son of Manso Devi. It has also come on record that the vendee filed a civil suit for declaration claiming title over the suit property wherein the present appellant raised a counter claim to claim decree for permanent injunction. The counter claim of the appellant was allowed by the Civil Court on 25.01.2013 but before that day, the plaintiff has withdrawn his suit for declaration.

(3.) BEFORE learned trial Court, the appellant appeared as his own witness as PW -2 and also examined Mohinder Singh as PW3, the witness of an affidavit alleged to be executed by Joginder Pal and some other formal witnesses. The appellant relied upon an affidavit Ex.PW2/A dated 05.08.2004 said to be executed by Joginder Pal in support of his allegations. Though, learned trial Court passed an order of conviction but learned first Appellate Court returned a finding that there is absolutely no evidence to prove even date of death of Manso Devi. No death certificate has been produced on file. It has also been found that the complainant has failed to prove that he is son of Manso Devi. No ration card or any other document has been produced on record to prove the relationship of Manso Devi with the present complainant. In fact, the pedigree table shows that Manso Devi is not the mother of the complainant. Manso Devi was identified by Raghunath Singh and Budh Singh at the time of execution of the sale deed but such witnesses have not been examined. It has also been found that the complainant has not filed any suit disputing the sale deed in question. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the alleged forgery.