Anmol Mahato & Ors. vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that original petitioner no. 1 namely, Ram Bharat Mahato has died on 22.04.2017 during pendency of this criminal revision, as such, the criminal revision on his behalf was abated in terms of order dated 13.05.2024 and his name was deleted from the cause title.

Heard, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. Nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, inspite of valid service of notice.

The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 06.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby the learned trial court has convicted the petitioners for the offence under Sections 419, 467, 468, 120B of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two and half years along with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 467 of the I.P.C., R.I. for two years and four months along with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 468 of the I.P.C., R.I. for one year each for the offence under Section 419 of I.P.C. and R.I. for two year each for the offence under Section 120B of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant Belas Yadav has instituted the Complaint Case No. 451 of 1999 against the present petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj stating inter alia that his father Mahangu Mahato died before 1982, leaving behind four sons, out of them only three are alive. It is alleged that in the year 1982, the accused persons (petitioners) by way of imposter presenting fake person as Mahangu Mahato to be issueless got a gift deed executed and registered on 21.10.1982 in their name. In the said gift deed, one Nepal Mahato was identifier, but his address has not been mentioned. It is further alleged that the complainant got knowledge about execution of the aforesaid forged gift deed on 15.07.1999 that the accused nos. 1 to 5 came over the land and started threatening to dispossess the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of Registrar and got certified copy of the alleged forged gift deed and filed this complaint case.

The learned trial court, after conducting enquiry into the complaint, summoned the accused persons for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. All the five accused persons appeared and contested the case, denied the charges leveled against them.

In course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined by complainant apart from following documentary evidence:-Exhibit-1 : Death Certificate of Mahangu Mahato.

Exhibit-2 : Registered deed of Gift No. 8275 dated 15.07.1999.

On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from execution of gift deed in their favour. It is also denied that the petitioners have never claimed the land in question and had no knowledge about the execution of any gift deed by the father of the complainant in their favour. The defence has also examined one witness namely, Ishwar Dayal Singh (D.W.-1).

The learned trial court appreciating the evidence adduced by the complainant both oral and documentary arrived at conclusion that the father of the complainant Mahangu Mahato died on 22.10.1981 and the registered Gift Deed alleged to be executed by Mahangu Mahato on 21.10.1982 in favour of accused persons was admittedly executed after death of Mahangu Mahato. It was also concluded that obviously Exhibit-2 is a forged document and it is immaterial whether the damage or injury has actually been caused or not by creation of such false gift deed. The accused persons have fraudulently brought in existence a registered deed of gift said to have been executed by Mahangu Mahato (a dead person), intending to deceive and also to injure the real successor of the intestate. Therefore, the offence comes within the purview of forgery. The accused persons with their common design prepared the alleged forged deed of gift. It was further observed that Madan Prasad (since deceased) has stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that at the instance of Nepal Mahato, he wrote the deed of gift, but the address of Nepal Mahato has not been mentioned. It was further held that since the actual owner of the property have sustained no pecuniary loss as property is still in possession of them, hence, no case is made out under Section 420 of the I.P.C. The accused persons have also not used the alleged deed of gift as genuine, hence, no offence is made out under Section 471 of the I.P.C. Therefore, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 419, 467, 468 read with 120B of I.P.C. and acquitted from the charges under Sections 420 and 471 of the I.P.C.

The convicts namely, Madan Prasad has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2006, which was allowed vide judgment dated 29.11.2006 and the said Madan Prasad was acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

The convicts namely, Ram Barat Mahto, Anmol Mahto, Deoraj Mahto and Rupan Mahto preferred Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2006, which was heard and disposed of by Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj and vide judgment dated 06.02.2016 upheld and confirmed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants / petitioners and dismissed the appeal, which has been assailed in this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both, the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have committed serious error of law and arrived at perverse finding while holding the petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 419, 467, 468 read with 120B of the I.P.C. There is no iota of evidence at all that under the conspiracy of present petitioners, the purported forged gift deed was get executed and registered in favour of the petitioners. There is no evidence that present petitioners ever purchased the stamp paper or managed any person to scribe the gift deed or anywhere they have put their signature. It is also admitted fact on the record that the petitioners never claimed the land in question belonging to complainant on the strength of alleged forged gift deed, which was never produced or relied upon by the petitioners before any authority or court to substantiate their purported right accrued through gift deed in respect of the properties mentioned in the gift deed. Therefore, admittedly there was no inducement or any fraud or any preparation for making a false or forged document on the part of the petitioners. Merely because a gift deed was registered in the name of petitioners as beneficiary without any evidence that they ever accepted any gift or in any manner, where privy to the said document showing their desire, no adverse presumption can be raised against the petitioners that they have prepared a false document to the detriment of interest of any other persons causing him wrongful loss or injury. It is further submitted that the accused no. 5 in the original trial namely, Madan Prasad is resident of another village having no relation with the present petitioners. The learned trial court has been much impressed by the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the said Madan Prasad that the purported gift deed of this case was scribed by Nepal Mahato on his dictation. Therefore, unless the complainant proves any nexus with Madan Prasad and Nepal Mahato of the petitioners, the involvement in making the alleged forged document of the petitioners cannot be presumed or assumed to be substantiated. It is also not brought on record as to who was presented before the Registrar at the time of execution of the gift deed at the place of Mahangu Mahato and put his signature on the deed of gift purported to be signed by Mahangu Mahato, therefore, there is no iota of evidence at all constituting the ingredients of offence under Sections 419, 467, 468 read with Section 120B of I.P.C. against the present petitioners. The learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have miserably failed to properly prove the charges leveled against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned judgments and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners being absolutely illegal, perverse, beyond the weightage of evidence is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion holding the petitioners to be guilty for the offences charged against them and adequately passed the impugned judgments, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in impugned judgments, calling for any interference, by way of this revision, which is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the judgment of trial court as well as appellate court and also considered the argument raised on behalf of both the sides and perused the record of the case.

Before imparting my verdict, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial.

It appears that altogether 06 witnesses have been examined in this case.

C.W.-1 Parikha Mahato is brother of complainant. According to his evidence, he came to know about the forged gift deed executed imposter after death of his father in the year 1999. He does not know the name and address of the identifier in the Bakshisnama, whose address was missing. He also admits that the property involved in the gift deed is still in possession of his brother Belas Yadav (complainant) and the accused persons are his cousins.

C.W.-2 Laxman Yadav is also acquainted with both parties. He has also stated in general terms that the accused persons have got registered a gift deed of the property of complainant’s father after his death by placing another person and showing that the said Mahangu Mahato is issueless. He has also stated that for the first time in the year 1999, the accused persons started raising their claim over the land in question and threatening to dispossess the complainant, then this case was lodged and the knowledge of Bakshishnama and also get knowledge about the Bakshishnama.

C.W.-3 Ram Chandra Yadav and C.W.-4 Ram Bilas Yadav have not been examined after charge, hence, their evidence has not been considered.

C.W.-5 Dhaneshwar Ram has also stated that the accused persons got a gift deed executed in their favour as imposter after death of complainant’s father.

C.W.-6 Surendra Kumar Paswan is the Panchayat Sewak and formal witness, who proved the death certificate of deceased Mahangu Mahato (Exhibit-1).

On the other hand, D.W.-1 Ishwar Dayal Singh, examined on behalf of the accused persons, has specifically stated that the accused persons never claimed over the land in question nor they are in possession of the same. They had no knowledge as to how the gift deed came in existence in their favour, but he came to know about the alleged forged gift deed through rumour in the village.

Before appreciating the aforesaid evidence, for better appreciation of the case, the relevant provisions, under which the petitioners were convicted appears to be extracted hereunder:-

For charge under Sections 419, 467 and 468 of I.P.C., the prosecution must prove that the accused have made a false document not only this, the prosecution must have also proved that there is dishonest intention. Mere execution without dishonest intention does not suffice to convict the accused for forgery. The key ingredients include the intention to commit forgery, the act of making or altering a document and the intent to use the forged document as if it were genuine.

In view of the above legal position, if this Court go through the facts of the present case, there is no iota of evidence at all that under the conspiracy of present petitioners, the purported forged gift deed was get executed and registered in favour of the petitioners. There is no evidence that present petitioners ever purchased the stamp paper or managed any person to scribe the gift deed or anywhere they have put their signature. It is also admitted fact on the record that the petitioners never claimed the land in question belonging to complainant on the strength of alleged forged gift deed, which was never produced or relied upon by the petitioners before any authority or court to substantiate their purported right accrued through gift deed in respect of the properties mentioned in the gift deed. Thus, in my opinion, the offence under Section 467 of IPC and the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC cannot be said to have been made out and the same are liable to be set aside.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC is concerned, it is also not brought on record as to who was presented before the Registrar at the time of execution of the gift deed at the place of Mahangu Mahato and put his signature on the deed of gift purported to be signed by Mahangu Mahato, therefore, there is no iota of evidence at all constituting the ingredients of offence under Section 419 of I.P.C.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC is concerned, that too also does not appear to have been made out as the ingredients necessary to constitute this offence is not available in the present case. For constituting conspiracy there must be at least two or more persons agreed to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means and because there is nothing on the record to indicate that any other person conspired with the petitioners there can be no question of constituting the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and the same is also liable to be set aside.

In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find that both learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence available on record and passed the impugned judgment only influenced by their emotions. Therefore, I find legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioners and merits in this revision. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed.

Pending I.As., if any, stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.