HARISH CHANDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 4th February 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, III, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 1988, confirming the judgment of the trial court dated 20th April 1988 passed by the S.D.J.M., Samastipur in CR. Complaint Case No. 386 of 1976/Tr. No. 647 of 1988. The revisionists were convicted under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years.

(2.) IT was alleged by the complainant Hari Charan Manjhi that accused revisionist Harish Chandra Jha obtained his L.T.I. on an unwritten stamped paper on the pretext that he will get his son released on bail in some criminal case. These papers were later converted into a sale -deed dated 6th June 1978 in respect of the land of the complainant having an area of 3 katha 16 dhurs. When the complainant learnt this fraud, he filed the complaint in the court in the year 1979, and the revisionists were put on trial and subsequently were convicted, as stated above.

(3.) I find further that six witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. P.W. 2 was the complainant and P.W. 5 was a witness to support the fact that his father had filed a complaint case against the complainant and his son. P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 6 were the Ranches over a dispute relating to dues. Harish Chandra Jha was doing Pairavi on behalf of the complainant in some criminal case. During the Panchayati, these witnesses came to learn that Harish Chandra Jha had obtained certain sale -deed from the complainant which was allegedly forged. So these witnesses were simply hearsay witnesses about the alleged forged sale -deed (Ext - A). So far RW. 5 is concerned, he was simply a witness to the effect that some criminal case was filed by his father against the complainant and his son. So the evidence of P.W. 2 only was relevant to prove the alleged forgery in respect of Ext -A. It has been stated in the trial court 'sjudgment that P.W 2, the complainant, had admitted that Harish Chandra Jha, Karapradaj, was not doing Pairavi on his behalf in the concerned criminal case. In such a circumstance, it is not understandable as to how the court came to the conclusion that Harish Chandra Jha might have obtained L.T.I. of the complainant on the pretext that he would get his son released on bail. The complainant had clearly admitted at Page 6 of his deposition that in none of his cases, Harish Chandra Jha was acting as Karapradaj. He further admitted at Page -5 Para -6 that he apprehended something foul when his L. T.Is were taken on plain papers. The evidence of P.W. 2, the complainant, would show that he was accused in several cases filed by other persons, as also by Harish Chandra Jha himself. In such a circumstance it is not probable that the complainant was such an innocent person as to be beguiled into giving his L.T.I. on plain papers. Moreover, the complainant in his complaint petition stated that his L.T.Is were taken on unwritten stamped papers, whereas in his evidence before the court, he did not say that his L.T.Is were taken on stamped paper. The sale -deed (Ext -A) was apparently on stamped paper. The alleged forgery began when the L.T.Is of the complainant were taken on plain papers. Besides this, there is no other witness on this point, except the complainant himself and in view of the admissions of the complainant in his evidence, there were clear improbabilities regarding the fact of his giving L.T.I.on the pretext of obtaining bail for his son. The two courts below have recorded the orders of conviction on certain circumstances which were the following; Firstly, the consideration money of the concerned sale -deed is Rs. 200/ - for a piece of land measuring 3 katha and odd dhurs. The sale -deed was executed in the year 1978 and the courts held that it was improbable that the land in question would fetch only Rs. 200/ - as price. In this connection, the consideration is a matter between the vendor and the vendee and it depends on the nature of the land. So inadequacy of consideration money itself cannot be a circumstance indicating forgery or fraudulent nature of transaction. Secondly, the courts below held the sale - deed to be forged and fraudulent on the ground that the complainant was an illiterate and a rustic person and member of the Scheduled caste. So chance of his being deceived was very much there. This finding of the courts below is also not supported by the circumstances on the record. I have already held above that in view of his own evidence, the complainant did not appear to be a simpleton. Thus, this circumstance was also not supportive of the findings of the courts below. The trial court rather held that the Sale -deed (Ext -A) indicated that the identifier and witnesses had went away without authenticating their signatures on the sale - deed. But the sale -deed does not show that the witnesses and the identifier of the deed had went away without appearing before the Registrar. The endorsement dated 17th October 1978 shows that it was the complainant and the so called executor of the deed who went away without admitting the execution before the Registrar. The sale -deed was executed on 6th June 1978 and it was registered on 17th October 1978. So it appears that it was registered compulsorily by the Registrar as it had been submitted. Ext -B was filed to show that the name of vendee Harish Chandra Jha was also mutated for the vended land. So the finding of the trial court regarding registration is also neither here nor there. The document does not show that some person impersonated the complainant and admitted the execution on his behalf, because the admission portion shows that the executor went away without affixing his L.T.I. or signature etc. So it does not appear from the registration portion of the deed that somebody purportedly in the name of the complainant admitted the execution of the deed.