RAM KISHUN LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER petitioner and one Munilal Yadav were put on trial on accusation of hatching conspiracy and executing a deed of sale on 16th April, 1990, the trial Court recorded verdict of guilt under Sections 467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced both of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. One thousand each, in default of which they were to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. When the matter was carried in appeal the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, while affirming the finding of the Court below under Section 467 IPC against the petitioner, acquitted him of the charges under Section 120-B IPC. As for Munilal Yadav, finding of guilt and also sentence recorded by the trial Court were set aside.

(2.) FOR appreciation of the issue involved in this proceeding, a brief narration of facts is being made which has also been broadly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below. A deed of sale (Exhibit-2) was executed on 16th April, 1990 by the petitioner allegedly projecting himself to be the son of Mastlal, in favour of Munilal Yadav for consideration of Rs. 15,000/- in respect of 6 dhurs of land, appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 278, and 16 dhurs of land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 889. It was alleged that shortly after Gulab Prasad (P.W. 4) came to know about execution of the deed by the petitioner, purporting himself to be the son of Mast Lal, he obtained copy of the deed of sale and was shocked to find that though the petitioner happened to be the son of Bharat Lal, who had no interest in the properties, purporting himself to be the son of Mast Lal, had executed the deed in question in favour of Munilal. At trial four witnesses were examined by the complainant including Gulab Prasad (P.W. 4). The witnesses sought to establish at trial that Mast Lal had only son namely, Bankey Bihari Lal and said Gulab Prasad was the only son of Bankey Bihari Lal, and consequently, the petitioner, who happened to be son of Bharat Lal had no interest in the landed property of Mast Lal. The defence of the opposite party at trial was that Mosst. Gangajala Devi was the second wife of Mast Lal and the petitioner Satya Narain Lal and Sudama were the sons of Mast Lal from his second wife, Mosst. Gangajala Devi.