MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA Vs. DAROPADI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents herein were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 120B/34, 420/34, 467/34 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code on accusation of getting deed of sale executed without payment of consideration money from Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra and his mother Mst. Sumitra Devi, by forging the documents. After trial commenced against the respondents, altogether 12 witnesses were examined including Sumitra Devi and Manoj Kumar Mishra who were shown to have executed sale deeds, photographers who took photographs of the disputed signatures and also admitted signatures of the executants, handwriting expert and also most of witnesses, including some formal witnesses who brought deed of sale on the record. THE defence too examined two witnesses including photographer and handwriting expert ostensibly for countering the allegations attributed to them. It would seem that Devendra Mohan Dutta P.W. 6, Md. Zeenat Hussain P.W. 7, Dinesh Mishra, P.W. 8, Tarkeshwar Pandey P.W. 9 and Sunil Kumar P.W. 12 happen to be the formal witnesses who brought documents on the record which are sale deeds allegedly executed by Manoj Kumar Mishra and his mother. THE prosecution also examined Brahmanand Pandey P.W. 1, Chhuni Lal Rai P.W. 2, Krishna Nand Mishra P.W. 3, Manoj Kumar Mishra P.W. 4 and Sumitra Devi P.W. 5 who stated to be conversant with the accusations attributed to the respondents. As has been stated, Manoj Kumar Mishra P.W. 4 and Sumitra Devi P.W. 5, are executants of the deed of sale. THE explicit case of the appellant before the trial Court and also this Court had been that proceeding execution of the documents, there had been negotiation for sale of 2 kathas and 19 dhurs of land between Manoj Kumar Mishra and the respondents. After the appellant purchased stamp papers, that was given in custody of the respondents on false pretext made by them, and while appellant had been waiting for execution of deed of sale, he came to know about their execution which was found true, on getting copy from the registration office. Dev Narain Prasad was suggested to be the scribe of the documents. THE prosecution relied also on the endorsement made on the deed of sale by the Registrar, that after executant did not appear before him on repeated calls, one Shivji Prasad put his L.T.I, in place of the executant on the documents which bore the signature of the executants. THE respondents too examined two witnesses at trial, who were photographers and the Handwriting Expert. THE trial Court took into consideration the evidences placed on the record and also attending circumstances of the case, and while negativing contentions raised on behalf of the prosecution, accepted the case of the respondents and acquitted them of the charges.

(2.) THE aggrieved complainant has carried the matter before this forum with leave of the Court, assailing finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. THE respondents too have appeared on issuance of notice to them to answer the question posed by the appellant. Contentions raised at bar on behalf of the appellant was that as the finding of the trial Court was based simply on opinion of the Handwriting expert who happens to be D.W. 1, there has not been meticulous appreciation of evidence placed on the record. It is sought to be urged that though Handwriting expert examined by the State had found the disputed signature and admitted signature of the executant, different, ignoring mass of evidence on the record, the trial Court had chosen to place reliance on the handwriting expert examined by the defence and consequently rushed to an erroneous consideration. Different valuation for similar nature of land in different sale deeds were also taken to be a ground to assail the contention raised at baron behalf of the respondents.

(3.) COURTS are not expected to impose its views which are not borne out from the record. However, if two views are available before the Court, it can accept one of them which appears to be rational, as the Court is expert of the experts. The trial Court as has been stated has chosen to accept the view of the handwriting expert, examined by the respondents, and had also taken into consideration other attending circumstances of the case. While appreciating the contention raised at bar on behalf of the appellant, broad principle should not be lost sight of that to upset the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, there must be strong and mitigating circumstances to annul the finding of the trial Court and when two views are possible, admittedly view favourable to the accused had to be adopted by the Court and on consideration of this cannon of law and also the evidence placed on the record, I do not feel persuaded to reverse the finding recorded by the trial Court. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.