STATE OF H.P. Vs. KIRAN DADWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Una, vis--?-vis, charges, framed against, the, accused, and, to constituting offences, under Sections 419,420,468,471 and 120-B, of, the Indian Penal Code , hence pronounced an order of conviction, upon, both the co-accused, and also imposed consequent therewith sentence, of, imprisonment, and, of, fine, upon both. Both the co-accused, becoming aggrieved therefrom, instituted thereagainst, two, separate appeals, respectively bearing No. Cr. appeal No. 748 of 2008, and, criminal appeal No. 749 of 2008, hence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una. Both the afore appeals became accepted, under, a common verdict, pronounced thereon(s), on, 28.7.2008.

(2.) The State of H.P. becoming aggrieved therefrom, has, thereagainst reared, the, instant appeal, before this Court. However, during, the pendency of the criminal appeal No. 748 of 2008, co-accused Bal Krishan, died, and hence, the afore appeal, under, an order recorded, on, 3.4.2017, became dismissed as abated. Consequently, only criminal appeal No. 749 of 2008, survives for an adjudication being meted thereon.

(3.) The apposite complained hence registered deed of conveyance, became executed, interse accused Kiran Dadwal, and, became, in one Gopala, son of Rirku, and, the latter contemporaniety, vis--?-vis, its becoming accepted, for, registration, hence dentified by co-accused, Bal Krishan, who, during, the pendency, of, criminal appeal bearing No. 748 of 2008, had died, and, the afore criminal appeal, became hence dismissed, as, abated. The registered deed of conveyance, was, executed, vis--?-vis, land, comprised in khewat No. 198,khatauni No. 438 and khasra No. 2881, measuring 0-00-54 hectares. The prosecution, on anvil of, Ext. PW7/A, exhibit whereof, comprises the death certificate, of, the afore Gopala Ram, had -?-vis, the execution, r to alleged, that the latter, in contemporaneity, vis- of, the complained registered deed of conveyance,as, became purportedly drawn interse him, and, co- accused Kiran Dadwal, was not alive, and, hence, the, afore charge(s) became framed, against, her, as well as against co-accused. The afore identifier, of, afore Gopala, son of Rirku, did not, accept,qua his mis-identifying Gopala Ram, nor did he deny, that, the latter was, not alive, in contemporaniety, vis--?-vis, the, execution, of, a registered deed, of, conveyance, interse him, and, co-accused Kiran Dadwal. Since, as aforestated, and obviously, as, the, accused became charged, on anvil of, Ext. PW7/A, exhibit whereof, comprises the death certificate, of, Gopala Ram, and, wherein, it has become pronounced, qua in contemporaneity, vis--?-vis, execution, of, a registered deed of conveyance, interse him and, co-accused Kiran Dadwal, his not being alive. However, when Ext. PW7/A, does not, make depictions, vis--?-vis, Gopala, as becoming fathered by Rirku, rather it makes depictions, vis--?-vis, one Gopala, who becomes, enunciated therein, rather becoming fathered, by one Khirku, and, when, the, complained registered deed, of, s/o of Rirku, conveyance, became drawn, interse Gopala, and, the latter, in, contemporaniety, therewith become identified, by co-accused Bal Krishan, (i) thereupon, on anvil of, Ext. PW7/A, it cannot become unflinchingly, concluded, vis--?-vis, in contemporaneity, qua the execution, of, the apposite registered deed of conveyance, interse him, and one Kiran Dadwal, his not surviving therebefore, nor it can be concluded with any formidability, qua his becoming mis- identified, by, co-accused Bal Krishan.