IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.670-MA of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 30.01.2009 Jagar Singh Applicant Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Ms.Puja Chopra, Advocate for the applicant ….. Jasbir Singh, J. By filing this application under section 378(4) Cr.P.C., the applicant has laid challenge to the judgment dated 8.8.2008, acquitting respondent Nos.2 and 3 of the charges framed against them. It is apparent from the records that Jagar Singh filed a complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with Dial Singh son of Surjan Singh, Hardial Kaur wife of Gulzar Singh and Joginder Singh son of Kundan Singh, for commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. Complainant’s story as noticed by the trial Court in its judgment in paragraph Nos.1 to 4 reads thus:- “xxxxx that Smt.Anokhi was the wife of Ranjit Singh son of Waryam Singh and she gave birth to 4 children namely Jagar Singh complainant, Bahadur Singh, Nazar Singh and Rajinder Kaur. Jagar Singh complainant is the Criminal Misc. No.670 MA of 2008(O&M) 2 general attorney of Bahadur Singh and Nazir Singh is an innocent mind and is under the guardianship of Jagar Singh. There was land measuring 101 Bigha 91 Biswas at village Noorkheria, Tehsil and District Patiala out of ¾ share was owned by Jagar Singh and his brother Bahadur Singh and Nazir Singh and ¼ share was owned by their mother Smt.Anokhi. 2. It is further averred that Smt.Anokhi died on 8.12.1982 and her last rites were performed by the complainant. ¼ share of Anokhi in the entire land was inherited by Jagar Singh, Bahadur Singh, Nazir Singh and Rajinder Kaur in equal shares. Jagar Singh and his brothers were and are in possession of entire land. 3. The complainant has also averred that Dayal Singh and Hardial Kaur i.e. accused No.1 and 2 falsely started proclaiming to be son and daughter of Anokhi after about 12 years of her death and produced an un-registered and forged Will dated 15.11.1982 before the revenue authorities, Patiala in order to get the mutation of Smt.Anokhi entered in their favour as after the death of Anokhi, the complainant and his brothers and sisters had not got the mutation sanctioned. Infact Hardial Kaur and Dial Singh were not related to Smt.Anokhi in any manner. The forged Will alleged to have been executed on 15.11.1982 is shown to have been scribed by Gulzar Criminal Misc. No.670 MA of 2008(O&M) 3 Singh-accused who is husband of Hardial Kaur accused No.2. Gulzar Singh is also the attorney of Hardial Kaur and Dayal Singh. Jagir Singh and Joginder Singh accused have falsely been shown to be the attesting witnesses of the will alleged to have been executed by Smt.Anokhi. In fact no will has been scribed by Smt.Anokhi and Gulzar Singh in connivance with Hardial Kaur, Dial Singh, Jagir Sngh and Joginder Singh forged the will and tried to use it as a genuine document and thus, knew it to be a false document and tried to have valuable gain to themselves and caused wrongful loss to Jagar Singh and his brothers and sisters. All the accused in connivance with each other also produced a pedigree table before the revenue authorities in which Anokhi has been shown to be widow of Ranjit Singh as well as of Surjan Singh and one Ram Kaur has been shown to be the widow of Partap Singh. In fact Anokhi had never married Surjan Singh and the widow of Ranjit Singh. Ram Kaur has wrongly been shown to be the wife of Partap Singh, whereas she was widow of one Mannu. 4. The complainant also averred that the pedigree table and the Will produced before the Revenue Authorities were forged documents and the mutation has been rejected and the Will has been ignored. Joginder Singh, Jagir Singh and Gulzar Singh appeared as witnesses before revenue Criminal Misc. No.670 MA of 2008(O&M) 4 authorities during the inquiry for sanctioning of mutation and their version has been found to be false. All the accused in connivance with each other, have forged the alleged Will dated 15.11.1982 and the pedigree table with an intention to commit fraud and caused wrongful gain to others. All the accused in connivance with each others have used the forged documents for the purpose of cheating in order to get the land transferred in their names and caused loss to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.” After recording preliminary evidence, the accused, named in the complaint were ordered to be summoned to face trial. On their appearance, pre-charge evidence of the complainant was recorded. The complainant produced 5 witnesses to prove his case. It is necessary to mention here that during pendency of trial, Dial Singh, Hardial Kaur and Joginder Singh had died. On perusal of pre-charge evidence, accused/ respondents No.2 and 3 were charge sheeted on 6.12.2006, for commission of offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On request, they were given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant’s witnesses. On completion of complainant’s evidence, statements of the respondents-accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them which they denied, pleaded innocence and false implication. They also tried to support their version and led evidence in defence. Criminal Misc. No.670 MA of 2008(O&M) 5 The trial Court on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to make out a case against the respondents and accordingly they were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Counsel for the applicant has failed to show any misreading on the part of the trial Court, which may necessitate interference by us in this judgment. It is an admitted fact that original Will was not produced on record by both the parties, they relied upon Photostat copies of the alleged Will. There were contradictory opinion expressed by the experts produced by both the parties. The trial Court has rightly held that the complainant has failed to get compared thumb impression of the executant of the Will, namely, Anokhi with her admitted thumb impression. The Court has also noticed that the parties were litigating before the revenue Courts on the basis of disputed Will mentioned above. It was also noticed that the complaint was filed after about four years of coming to know of the existence of the Will in question. We feel that order passed is perfectly justified. There is no error apparent on record which may necessitate interference by us in judgment of acquittal. Even in cases where two views are possible, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. Criminal Misc. No.670 MA of 2008(O&M) 6 A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” In view of facts mentioned above, this application as also the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 30.01.2009 (Jora Singh) gk Judge