CHANDRA PRABHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in pursuance of leave granted by this Court on 11.1.2012 in S.L.A. No. 34 of 2001. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.3.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 119(c)/1993/Tr. No. 34 of 2001 by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sheikhpura, has acquitted the respondents 2nd set from the charges levelled against them for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 423, 464 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE father of the appellant, namely, Hardeo Narayan Singh had filed a petition of complaint in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, stating therein, interalia, that on 20.8.1990, all the accused persons being in collusion with each other by impersonating brought a sale deed into existence with respect to 10.54 1/2 acres of land including a pucca residential house of the complainant. It has been alleged in the complaint that the sale deed is forged and fabricated one and the complainant did neither execute the sale deed nor purchased the stamp nor represented or admitted before the Registrar for registration nor endorsed the registration receipt to the best of his knowledge. According to the complainant, the sale price of the land has been shown only Rs. 21,000.00 though, the price is much higher. It has been alleged that on 20.10.1991, Sri Parmanand Prasad Singh (P.W. 1), informed the complainant about the said forged and fabricated and surreptitious sale deed and, thereafter, the complainant informed his sole son-in-law Dr. Vijay Nandan Singh and the sole legal heir Smt. Chandra Prabha Singh (P.W.4), who came and on 23.10.1991 they applied for urgent certified copy which was supplied on 24.10.1991 and only then, the complainant could come to know about the fraud, forgery and impersonation committed by the accused persons in bringing the sale deed in the name of respondent nos. 5 and 7. It has been further alleged that respondent no. 3 Anandi Singh has impersonated the complainant and respondent no. 4 Bijay Singh became identifier, whereas, respondent no. 6 Surendra Singh and respondent no. 8 Ram Prakash Singh became the witnesses and respondent no. 2 had scribed the deed. Thus, it was alleged in the complaint that all the accused persons in collusion with each other got the sale deed prepared, executed, presented and admitted for registration knowing it well to be forged and fabricated with dishonest intention to grab the property including the house of the complainant and the complainant did not receive any consideration money nor he ever intended to sale the lands. Lastly, it has been stated in the complaint that right from 21.10.1991 till the date of filing the complaint, the respondent no. 5 and 7 told before the Panches of the village to execute a Bazidawa deed (deed of relinquishment) of the aforesaid land but, they failed to do so.

(3.) ON behalf of the defence, one Jai Jai Ram Kumar, has been examined who has formally proved Sanha No. 272/1991 dated 22.10.1991, which has been marked as Ext. A in course of trial.