Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (U/S) NO.15 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 22ND AUGUST, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI NASIRUDDIN, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1ST CLASS, GOPALGANJ IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 388 OF 1990 TRIAL NO. 377 OF 2000 =========================================================== 1. KANTI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE RADHA SAH, WIFE OF JOGENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF SASAMMA (PURANI BAZAAR, NEAR SHIV MANDIR), POST OFFICE SASAMUSA, POLICE STATION KUCHAIKOTA, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ 2. JANKI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE RADHA SAH, WIFE OF NAGENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF CHATTARPATTI, POST OFFICE KOT NAHARWAN, POLICE STATION GOPALPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS 1. KHENHAR SAH, SON OF LATE BENGALI SAH 2. GOPALJI SAH, SON OF KHENHAR SAH BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATOHWA, POLICE STATION KATEYA, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTIES =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S: MR. AKHILESHWAR PD. SINGH, SR. ADV. MR. RANJEET KUMAR PANDEY, ADV. FOR THE S T A T E : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-09-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Earlier, notices were issued to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. It has been reported that Opposite Party No. 1 is dead, whereas notice was validly served on Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Gopalji Sah on 28.08.2012, however, nobody has appeared on his behalf to pursue this matter. 2. This appeal has come up for consideration against the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.15 of 2000 dt.25-09-2012 2 / 5 2 Gopalganj on 22nd August, 2000 acquitting the accused persons, namely, Khenhar Sah and Gopalji Sah for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . 3. A complaint was filed by Phulmati Devi, wife of Late Radha Sah alleging therein that her husband had fallen sick on 08.05.1990. The son-in-law Yogendra Prasad took his father-in-law to Gopalganj Sadar Hospital on 11.05.1990 in an unconscious condition. The brother and the nephew of Radha Sah also accompanied him for the purpose of ensuring his treatment. On 11.05.1990, one Dr. B. K. Agrawal advised an E.C.G. and referred the patient to Dr. A. K. Ghosh. On 12.05.1990, after getting the E.C.G. report, the patient was referred to Gopalganj for treatment. However, his condition deteriorated and he was taken to Tamkuhi Sadar Hospital, where he died on 12.05.1990 at 11 PM. It is said that during the time when Radha Sah was ill, Gopalji Sah prepared a document by which Radha Sah is said to have gifted his house as well as his entire lands to his nephew, namely, Gopalji Sah. It transpired that stamp paper bearing number 866 to 871 were purchased in the name of Radha Sah and were entered in the sale register of the Stamp Vendor, namely, Abdul Wahab. The case of the complainant is that her husband was unconscious and unwell and the nephew Gopalji Sah had obtained the thumb impression of Radha Sah while he was in unconscious Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.15 of 2000 dt.25-09-2012 3 / 5 3 condition. After obtaining the thumb impression, he has got the gift deed presented in the registration office on 07.09.1990 i.e. much after the death of Radha Sah. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined seven witnesses in this case. On perusal of the evidence, it is apparent that it is not in dispute that Radha Sah died on 12.05.1990 and that he was treated by Dr. Agrawal who had deposed before the Trial Court that he had treated the deceased. PW 7 Anil Kumar Sinha has been examined to prove that the stamp papers were purchased in the name of Radha Sah. The main witnesses in this case are CW 1 Yogendra Prasad and CW 2, Phulmati Devi. CW 1 Yogendra Prasad, son-in-law of Radha Sah has supported the case that his father-in-law had fallen sick and that he was being treated by Dr. Agrawal and that he was told by his mother-in-law that the accused persons had taken the thumb impression of Radha Sah when he was in unconscious state on blank papers which ultimately was converted into a deed of gift. 5. CW 2 Phulmati Devi, who is the complainant of this case, has supported the allegation made in the complaint petition. She also has stated that the thumb impression of her husband was taken on blank papers which were converted into a deed of gift on 11.05.1990. 6. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have denied the case to be true and have stated that the deed of gift was Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.15 of 2000 dt.25-09-2012 4 / 5 4 prepared on 07.05.1990 and it was prepared when Radha Sah was in complete sense and there is no question that there is any forgery of the documents as the thumb impression of Radha Sah is genuine one. 7. A title suit was filed on behalf of Phulmati Devi in the Court of the Sub Judge-III, Gopalganj, numbered as Title Suit No. 365 of 1992. The complainant has succeeded in the suit. One of the issues in the suit was that whether the gift deed has been obtained by fraud. This suit was decided on 11.05.2012, whereas the judgment of the Trial Court came on 22nd August, 2000. 8. The Court while considering the issues has come to the conclusion that the defendants in the suit had obtained the thumb impression of Radha Sah when he was in unconscious state of mind and the document was registered after his death on 07.09.1990 without taking permission of the Consolidation Officer as required under the Consolidation Act. 9. Counsel for the appellants submits that the registration of the document is in itself a fraud. The document could not have been registered in the absence of the donee and as such, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are guilty of the offences under [STATUTE] . 10. This Court finds that the complainant h

Applicable IPC Section: 199

Statute Text:
Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code. False statement made in any declaration which by law receivable as evidence. Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.