Sugriv Yadav, Birju Yadav, Ram Kishun Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav vs The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Chaturi Sao

Harish Chandra Mishra, J.—No one appears for the petitioners in spite of repeated calls. Learned A.P.P. for the State is present. Notice was issued to the complainant-O.P. No. 2 and the service report shows that the complainant had died. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 6.12.1999 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1991, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 7.8.1991, passed by Sri Vijay Narayan Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, in Case No. 41 (C) of 1988/T.R. No. 527 of 1991, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offence u/s 387 of the Indian Penal Code, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. It may be stated that all the petitioners have been found guilty for the offences u/s 387 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon hearing on the point of sentence, all of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 387 of the Indian Penal Code. In the appeal, the Appellate Court below, however, give the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner Ram Kishun Yadav and he was directed to execute the probation bond for maintaining good behavior for one year. But so far as the other petitioners are concerned, the sentence passed against them, by the Court below was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court below.

From perusal of the record, it appears that the complainant had filed the complaint petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 41 (C) of 1988. In the said complaint petition, it was alleged that the complainant had sold some land to the accused Ram Kishun Yadav and his wife for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and it was agreed between them that the consideration money would be paid after the registration of the sale deed. It is alleged that on 8.2.1988, the petitioner Birju Yadav went to the house of the complainant and told him that his father had called him along with the registration receipt to receive the consideration money. Thereafter, the complainant along with his son went to the house of the petitioner Ram Kishun Yadav for receiving the consideration money, and the petitioner Ram Kishun Yadav went inside his house on the pretext of bringing the money. The other accused persons, who were present there, got the endorsement from the complainant on the registration receipt for delivery of the sale deed in favour of the purchaser and in good faith, the complainant made the endorsement. It is alleged that thereafter, the petitioner Ram Kishun Yadav came out of his house armed with Garasa, and on his instigation, the registration receipt was snatched away from the complainant. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed in the Court below. It appears that the complainant supported his case in his statement recorded in the Court below on solemn affirmation and upon enquiry, prima facie offence u/s 387 of the Indian Penal Code was found, and ultimately, the accused petitioners were put to trial for the said offence.

The record shows that five witnesses have been examined in this case, out of whom C.W. 1, Raju Sao is the son of the complainant and C.W. 2 Chaturi Sao is the complainant himself, and both of them have supported the case in the Court below. C.W. 3, Ramashish Singh is a formal witness and C.W. 4 Sri Bijay Singh and C.W. 5 Mangal Pandey are the hearsay and chance witnesses, who have claimed that they were passing through the place of occurrence and they were informed by the complainant about the occurrence. These witnesses are not the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they are only the hearsay witnesses. The record shows that after closing of the prosecution witness, statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., and thereafter one defence witness was examined in this case, who is also a formal witness and he has proved the registered sale deeds as Exhibit-A Exhibit-A/2, which show that the consideration amount had already been paid to the complainant prior to registration of the sale deeds.

From the evidence brought on record, it is thus apparent that the case has been supported only by the complainant and his son and the other witnesses are either the formal witness or the hearsay witnesses. It is also apparent from the record that the matter relates to payment of consideration money of the land, which was sold by the complainant and sale deeds were executed in favour of the accused persons, by the complainant. It is also apparent that the endorsement was made on the registration receipt for handing over the sale deed to the purchaser, though, it is alleged that the endorsement was made on the registration receipt on the false assurance that the consideration money was being paid, but the same was snatched away.

Upon going through the record, I am of the considered view that since there is an averment in the registered sale deeds, about due payment of the consideration money, there is a presumption that the consideration money must have been paid to the complainant. Though, it is alleged that it was agreed between the parties that the consideration money would be paid, after the registration of the sale deed, and it is also alleged that on the false assurance the endorsement was made by the complainant on the registration receipt and it was snatched away from him, but in view of the averment in the registered sale deeds, it was for the complainant to prove all these facts, beyond all reasonable doubts. The record shows that only two witnesses have supported the case, who are the complainant himself and his son, who are highly interested witnesses and the other witnesses are only either the formal witness or the hearsay and chance witnesses. In my considered view, even though these witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but in the facts of this case, the petitioners could not be found guilty of the offence only the evidence of the interested witnesses, and they were entitled at least to the benefit of doubt.

In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 7.8.1991, passed by Sri Vijay Narayan Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, in Case No. 41 (C) of 1988/T.R. No. 527 of 1991, as also the Judgment dated 6.12.1999 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1991, are hereby, set aside. The petitioners are given the benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charge. The petitioners are on bail and they are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. This criminal revision application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.