Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.12 of 1999 **** Against the judgment, dated 08.10.1997, passed by Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, in G.R. No. 877 of 1989/Tr. Case No. 856 of 1997 **** Smt. Savitri Devi, wife of Lakshmi Sah and daughter of late Mahabir Sah, resident of village Kasba, P.s. Ballia, district Begusarai .. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Smt. Chinta Devi, wife of Ramchandra Sah 3. Ram Chandra Sah, son of late Borhan Sah 4. Abul Fazil, son of late Md. Nazim All residents of village Bishunpur Ashok P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, district Begusarai .. Respondent **** For the Appellant .. Mr. Arun Kr. Tripathi, Adv. as Amicus Curiae For the State .. Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, APP For the respondents .. Mr. Abul Kalam, Adv. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. No one appears on behalf of the appellant. 2. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, prays and is granted leave to appear as amicus curiae in this case on behalf of the appellant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the State and 2 respondents 2, 3 and 4. 4. This appeal is against the order of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, on 08.10.1997 in G.R. No. 877 of 1989/Trial Case No. 856 of 1997. 5. The prosecution is that the complainant was the younger brother of accused, Ram Chandra Sah. The complainant is old, not mentally fit and had undergone operation of stomach. The accused, Ramchandra Sah got the thumb impression of complainant in pretext of getting old age pension and got executed a deed of gift on 12.08.1985 and, hence, the deed of gift is forged and fabricated. A panchayati convened, but, the accused person did not abide by the verdict of panches. A complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same was sent for lodging of first information report. The police investigated and submitted final form and recommended for institution of case under Sections 182 and 211 of the Penal Code. The case proceeded on complaint and charge framed under Section 420 of the Penal Code. 6. The case of the defence is that Mahabir Sah apparently executed the deed of gift in favour of Ram Chandra Sah and his wife. The defence has also adduced witnesses to support their case, who are D.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and asserted that in this connection a Panchayati was made and the Panches found the deed of gift as genuine and has drawn Panchayama, which has been marked as Exhibit “A” and it has been asserted that the deed of gift was executed in 1985 and the witnesses in the deposition has stated that the case was filed in 1990, which, itself, indicates that the case of the prosecution is not genuine. 3 7. The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence adduced by between the parties finds the case of the complainant as false. The trial Court found that there is oral evidence that Mahabir Sah was ill and was not in a fit state of mind and was operated, however, no document/evidence has been adduced regarding his illness or treatment or he has undergone operation of stomach or the fact that his mental condition was not fit prior to occurrence. The trial Court, further, taking into consideration regarding the evidence that the signature was taken on the chutkee, but, Exhibit “B”, the deed of gift, has been executed on stamp paper and the said deed of gift was duly registered, hence, held that if the deed of gift was duly executed having the thumb impression of Mahabir Sah on the deed of gift, which was duly registered, and the complainant went to the registry office to give his signature on the chutkee, hence, it can not be said that any fraud was permeated. 8. The trial Court, further, taken into consideration the fact that it is alleged that the signature was taken on the pretext of getting the old age pension, however, signature was given in 1980, but, he did not enquire anything about the same and remained in slumber over the same and the complaint petition was filed after about four years of the occurrence, hence, held that the contention deed of gift is forged or fraudulent is not sustainable. The trial Court, further, noticed that on the basis of said unregistered deed of gift of the year 1984, a sale deed executed by Savitri Devi, the daughter of Mahabir Sah to Gopal Sah on 03.02.1989 and also took into consideration the rent receipt and the mutation Exhibit “C” in favour of accused, Chinta Devi. Hence, trial Court held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges under Sections 420 4 and 468 of the Penal Code and acquitted the accused persons of the charges. 9. Taking into consideration the case of the complainant and perusing the record of the case as well as evidence and the materials on record, I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove that by cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence that the signature of Mahabir Sah was taken on the plain paper or any false document having been prepared nor there is any reliable evidence or documentary evidence to support the contention that Mahabir Sah had undergone operation of abdomen or was not in a fit stage of mind and, further, the witnesses are at variance about place where the signature was taken on paper and has not established that any forged document was prepared. However to the contrary the accused persons, the respondents, have been succeeded in showing that a deed of gift was duly executed on a stamp paper required for the deed of gift and was registered. 10. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity to interfere with the order of acquittal, recorded by the lower Court. 11. I do not find any merit in this appeal, hence, it is dismissed. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 18th day of November, 2011, N.A.F.R., S.A.