Harprasad Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2025 passed by the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No.101/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 04 years, 07 years, 04 years and 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulations.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant, Harprasad, was the recorded owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.92/10 situated at Village Badoraghat, District Tikamgarh. The complainants, Smt. Kamala Pateria and Shri Ankit Pateria, entered into an agreement to purchase a portion of the said land for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. On 09.03.2022, a registered sale deed was executed in their favour, and the consideration amount was paid. Subsequently, when the purchasers initiated mutation proceedings, they came to know that the very same portion of land had already been sold by the appellant through an earlier registered sale deed dated 16.06.2011 in favour of another purchaser. It was alleged that despite having already transferred the property, the appellant dishonestly executed a second sale deed dated 24.09.2021 in respect of the same land, thereby inducing the complainants to part with their money and causing wrongful loss. During the investigation, both the sale deeds and other documents seized by the police and was sent to the state examiner. On completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The Trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted the appellant while acquitting the co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the controversy essentially relates to title and validity of sale deeds and, therefore, is purely civil in nature. Mere execution of a subsequent sale deed does not constitute the offence of forgery unless the statutory ingredients of making a "false document" are satisfied. It was further argued that the prosecution case of criminal conspiracy itself stands demolished since the co-accused have been acquitted by the Trial Court. The appellant maintained that there was no dishonest intention from the inception and that the transaction arose due to complexities in the revenue records and his bona fide belief regarding his share in the ancestral property. It was also submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding payment of the sale consideration and no reliable independent witness has corroborated the alleged cash payment. On these grounds, it was prayed that the conviction and sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.

In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon Md. Ibrahim & Others v. State of Bihar & Another, (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere execution of a sale deed by a person claiming ownership over property does not amount to making a "false document" within the meaning of Section 464 IPC and, consequently, does not constitute forgery merely because the executant had no valid title over the property.

Learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has successfully established that the appellant, despite having already sold the disputed portion of land through an earlier registered sale deed, knowingly executed another registered sale deed in favour of the complainants and received substantial sale consideration. It was argued that the evidence of the complainants, documentary evidence including the registered sale deeds, mutation proceedings and other prosecution witnesses clearly establish that the appellant intentionally deceived the purchasers and caused wrongful loss to them. It was further submitted that the Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the appellant while extending the benefit of doubt to the co-accused. Therefore, no interference with the impugned judgment is warranted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

The prosecution evidence further establishes that between 24.09.2021 and 09.03.2022, at the complainants' residence as well as at the Joint Office Building situated within the Collectorate Campus, Tikamgarh, the appellant dishonestly induced the complainants to purchase one-fifth share (0.384 hectares) out of Khasra No.92/10 measuring 1.922 hectares, despite having previously sold the entire land. For accomplishing this fraudulent design, the appellant got prepared a forged registered sale deed bearing No. MP421162021A1819302 Ex.P-18A in favour of Ankit Pateria, received Rs.3,50,208/- from the complainants and fraudulently used the forged document as a genuine registered instrument. These circumstances collectively establish a carefully planned fraudulent transaction rather than a mere civil dispute relating to title.

The prosecution case also receives complete corroboration from the scientific evidence of the State Examiner's Report dated 20.02.2025 Ex.P-22 categorically opines that the left thumb impression appearing on both the registered sale deeds, namely Ex.P-18A and Ex.P-20, belongs to one and the same person, namely the appellant. This expert opinion completely demolishes the defence sought to be raised by the appellant and conclusively proves that he himself executed both registered sale deeds. The scientific evidence, therefore, lends complete assurance to the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 Kamla Pateria, PW-2 Ankit Pateria and PW-3 Krishna Pratap Singh and conclusively establishes the appellant's active participation in the commission of the offences.

The reliance placed by the appellant upon Md. Ibrahim (supra) , is wholly misplaced. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the executant merely claimed ownership over the property and executed a document in his own name without impersonation or fabrication of a false document. The present case stands on an entirely different footing. Here, the appellant had admittedly already conveyed the disputed property through an earlier registered sale deed and, with full knowledge of such previous transfer, deliberately executed another registered sale deed in respect of the same property for obtaining unlawful monetary gain. The oral as well as documentary evidence clearly establishes fraudulent intention from the inception coupled with preparation and use of a forged valuable security for cheating the complainants. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Md. Ibrahim does not advance the case of the appellant.

The prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, despite having already executed a registered sale deed dated 16.06.2011 (Ex.P-20) in respect of the disputed land, knowingly executed another registered sale deed dated 24.09.2021 (Ex.P-18A) in favour of the complainants. The evidence unmistakably demonstrates that the appellant was fully conscious that he had already alienated his rights in the property and yet deliberately represented himself as the owner competent to transfer the very same land once again. Pursuant to the execution of the second sale deed, the appellant dishonestly received a sum of Rs.3,50,208/- from the complainants. Such conduct clearly establishes dishonest inducement from the very inception and squarely satisfies all the ingredients of the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

The evidence further establishes that the second sale deed Ex.P-18A is a registered sale deed constituting a valuable security within the meaning of the IPC. Having already divested himself of all rights over the property by virtue of the earlier registered sale deed, the appellant had no lawful authority to execute another conveyance in respect of the same property. The execution of such a false valuable security with the object of causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the purchasers/complainants clearly attracts the offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the nature of the document and correctly recorded the finding of guilt under the said provision.

The prosecution has also succeeded in proving the offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC. The testimonies of PW-1 Kamla Pateria, PW-2 Ankit Pateria and PW-3 Krishna Pratap Singh, read conjointly with the documentary evidence, clearly establish that the appellant intentionally prepared and executed the second registered sale deed solely with the object of fraudulently obtaining illegal monetary gain from the complainants. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that the document was fabricated not for any bona fide transaction but specifically for the purpose of cheating the complainants. The essential ingredients of forgery for the purpose of cheating, therefore, stand fully established.

As regard, the conviction under Section 471 of the IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients of the said provision require that the accused must fraudulently or dishonestly use a forged document as genuine while knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that the appellant was fully aware that he had already sold his right, title and interest in the disputed land by earlier sale deed Ex.P-20. Despite such knowledge, he projected the subsequent sale deed Ex.P-18A as a genuine document before the complainants and induced them to part with a substantial amount by representing that he possessed a valid and transferable title.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The findings recorded by the learned trial court are based upon proper appreciation of the oral, documentary and scientific evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in appeal. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed, and the appeal, so far as it challenges the findings of guilt, stands dismissed.

However, considering the advanced age of the appellant, the lapse of considerable time since the commission of the offence, and with a view to ensuring adequate restitution to the complainants, this Court is of the considered opinion that while the conviction of the appellant deserves to be maintained, the quantum of substantive sentence warrants limited modification. Accordingly, the sentence awarded under Section 420 of the IPC is reduced from four years' rigorous imprisonment to three years' rigorous imprisonment, while the fine is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Likewise, the sentence awarded under Section 467 of the IPC is reduced from seven years' rigorous imprisonment to three years' rigorous imprisonment, with enhancement of fine from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, the sentence imposed under Section 468 of the IPC is reduced from four years' rigorous imprisonment to three years' rigorous imprisonment, and the fine is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The sentence imposed under Section 471 of the IPC shall remain unaltered. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. It is further directed that if the appellant fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine, he shall undergo the default sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court. The enhanced amount of fine, upon its deposit or recovery from the appellant, shall be paid to the complainants as compensation, when deposited. It is further directed that in the event any Civil Court passes an order regarding recovery or payment arising out of the same transaction, the amount of compensation paid pursuant to this order shall be duly adjusted.

Subject to the aforesaid modification and enhancement of fine, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed and the criminal appeal stands disposed of.