MALKIAT SINGH Vs. JANAK RAJ AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 04.08.2012, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, in the complaint filed by Smt. Raj Kaur, mother of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are that the complainant Raj Kaur filed complaint against Didar Singh and other accused with the allegations that accused No.1 Didar Singh was her Devar, accused No.2 Janak Singh was Sarpanch of the village, accused No.3 was ex-Member and accused No.4 & 5 belonged to adjoining village and they were known to one another. Accused No.2 to 5 knew that name of accused No.1 was Didar Singh as they used to contest Panchayat elections. It was alleged that fatherin-law of the complainant namely Puran Singh, owned some property in his name and after the death of Puran Singh, the property was to be mutated in the name of husband of the complainant and name of his brothers Didar Singh and Bhupinder Singh, but due to some mistake, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Bhupinder Singh and one Roora Singh sons of Puran Singh, whereas husband of the complainant had a right to inherit 1/3rd share of the property of Puran Singh. However, all the accused, in connivance with each other, Didar Singh impersonated himself as Roora Singh and sold the property to accused No.4 & 5 and he was identified by accused No.2 & 3 and sale deed was thus executed by Didar Singh impersonating as Roora Singh, whereas Didar Singh was never known as Roora Singh. Thereafter, she moved application to the revenue authorities for inquiry, but no action was taken. After considering the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the learned trial Court summoned the accused to face criminal trial for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). In the pre-charge evidence, complainant produced three witnesses, besides producing other documentary evidence. Charges were framed. After closing the evidence by the complainant, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the allegations, pleaded false implication and claimed complete innocence. They also examined one defence witness, besides producing other documentary evidence.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to bring home the guilt against the accused. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed and accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 04.08.2012.