Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.2 of 2000 ***** Against the judgment and order dated 7.7.1999 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 08/98/53/97 and Cr.Appeal No.24/98/52/97 by Sri Uday Narain Singh, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad =================================================== The State of Bihar .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Raj Kumar Singh 2. Nawal Kishore Dubey 3. Jitendra Nath Duivedi .... .... Respondents =================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-07-2012 Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Deep Rani Kuer widow of Devan Tiwary got the property under a family arrangement mentioned in the complaint petition. She came to know on 9.4.1988 that accused persons in connivance of each other got executed a forged deed of gift by fictitious lady impersonating her as Deep Rani Kuer for the property detailed in the complaint petition. She obtained its certified copy which confirmed the forgery. In the deed Sashi Bhusahan Devedi was shown attesting witness who was a non-existing person. Specifically it is submitted that no deed was ever executed by complainant and forgery was committed in the way mentioned above to grab her property. Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.2 of 2000 dt.30-07-2012 2 After trial the case ended in conviction and sentence under [STATUTE] and appeal was filed against the order of conviction and sentence which is allowed by passing the impugned order/judgment against which this appeal is filed on behalf of State of Bihar. There is no dispute on the point that complainant died before commencement of the trial and none of concerned persons was allowed to prosecute the case but it remained pending to be prosecuted by the public prosecutor. A civil suit was filed on behalf of Ashok Kumar Dwevedi and others. Most important and crucial point was taken by the appellate court that the deed of gift in question was executed by Deep Rani Kuer or not. Save and except non-execution of the deed on her behalf no other type of forgery is alleged. Her thumb impression was there on the gift deed. Complaint was filed on her behalf even after executing Vakalatnama bearing her signature (thumb impression), another admitted document was family arrangement of Deep Rani Kuer’s family. So, there were sufficient documents to get thumb impression compared by expert with disputed one on gift deed which has not been done in the case, in absence of which execution of gift deed in question by Deep Rani Kuer cannot be doubted. So, the conclusion reached by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad suffers with no mistake. Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.2 of 2000 dt.30-07-2012 3 On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstance of the case, Government Appeal is dismissed. Judgment and order dated 7.7.1999 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 08/98/53/97 and Cr.Appeal No. 24/98/52/97 is affirmed. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court records be sent back to the court below forthwith. A.I./- (Mandhata Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 419

Statute Text:
Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating by personation. Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.