Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.7 of 1999 (S. L. A. No. 83/98) Against the order of acquittal passed by Shri Pramod Kumar Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad, in Complaint Case No. 16 of 1989/ Trial No. 981 of 1998. Bhim Ram, son of Late Mahabir Ram, resident of Village- Kalanaur, Tola- maniyar Ganj, P.S.- Makdhumpur, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. Kaushlya Devi, wife of Krishna Prasad Yadav. 2. Krishna Prasad Yadav, son of Rambarat Yadav. Both residents of Village- Chhariyari, Tola- Nababganj Bazar, P.S.- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. 3. The State of Bihar. .... .... Respondents. For the Appellant : Mr. Vidya Sagar, Advocate. Mr. Samir Kr. Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondent State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by Shri Pramod Kumar, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jehanabad, in Complaint Case No. 16/89 by which he acquitted the appellant of the charge for offence under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case as alleged that accused persons in collusion with each other dishonestly and 2 fraudulently got two forged sale deeds executed and registered on 16. 01. 1986 by impersonating Sohago Kuer by some other lady and the witness Shambhu Nath who happens to be grand son of Sohago Kuer in the name of Kaushalya Devi and one Gangajali Devi. It is alleged that Gangajali Devi, later, executed one ‘Bajidawa’ (deed of disclaimer) on 12. 03. 1986, which is Ext. 3 over the said land. However, the complainant stated that Sohago Kuer sold the land to the complainant and his family members by sale deed dated 14. 12. 1987 which has been proved as Ext. 2 and 2/1 and the complaint petition filed by the complainant which is Ext. 1. 4. On the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on taking cognizance and notices were issued. During trial ten witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 has stated that he is hearsay witness and he is not witness to the execution. P.W. 2 has also stated that he has never seen the alleged forged sale deed. P.W. 3 is also not eye witness to the alleged said forgery and has only witness to have known Sohago Kuer. P.W. 4 has also stated that at the time of alleged forged sale deed he is not at the registry office, 3 though, stated Title Suit has been filed for cancellation of said forged sale deed. The evidence of P.W. 5 has not supported the case with regard to the forged deed, though, he claimed to have purchased the land by forged sale deed alleged to have been executed and Sohago Kuer has not filed any case for cancellation of the said sale deed. P.W. 6, Sohago Kuer, though, stated about the alleged fact in chief, but has failed to turn up for her cross-examination after charge . P.W. 10, Shambhu Nath, grand son of Sohago Kuer and one of the person who has also been impersonated as witness in the said forged sale deed and has stated that he and other P.Ws. have got knowledge about the alleged occurrence after 10-15 days. 5. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence that witnesses are hearsay and Sohago Kuer not turning up for cross-examination after charge held that prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond all reason circumstance and hence ordered that charge has not been established against the person and hence acquittal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant however, contends that a Civil Suit has been filed by the 4 complainant. One Gangajali Devi executed Bazidawa and hence it was incumbent on the accused Kaushalya Devi also to execute Bazidawa and since she has not executed Bazidawa and hence held guilty. However, to prove that the document is forged, it has to brought in evidence the document. It has to be proved that document does not bear the signature of Sohago Kuer. It has to be proved that some one impersonated has signed the document in place of Sohago. 7. The said document alleged to be forged has not brought in evidence or on record. It has not been brought in evidence that signature of Sohago Kuer on the said deed is not the signature of Sohago Kuer. There is no evidence that who sign or impersonated for Sohago Kuer. All the witnesses who have been examined are hearsay. There is no witness of the execution of the document. There is nothing in evidence that signature of said sale deed was not the signature of Sohago Kuer who impersonated in place of Sohago Kuer. 8. However, merely because one of the beneficiary or the vendee in whose favour deed was executed Bazidawa does not infer that alleged deed forged 5 and fabricated and vendee accused Kaushalya Devi and others cannot be convicted or hold guilty for offence under Section 471 and 467 I.P.C. merely because Gangajali Devi executed Bazidawa in favour of Sohago Kuer. 9. Hence taking into consideration the entire evidence and submission, I do not find any merit to interfere with order of acquittal of the trial court. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant however stated that he has filed a suit in Civil Court and criminal court has no concern with the civil suit. However, there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly this is dismissed. Patna High Court. The 24th November, 2011. NAFR/m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)