Crl.A. 10/2003 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY None appears for the appellant when the case is called. The respondents are repr esented by Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel. 2. The appellant challenges the judgment dated 14.8.2002 in Case No.2208C/1 995 rendered by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, whereby the respondents were found to be not guilty and were acquitted from the charge unde r Sections 468/420/457/380/34 IPC. 3. In the complaint filed by the appellant it is alleged that he purchased land measuring 3 kathas through a registered sale deed executed by the accused N o. 3 Babul Bordoloi as the attorney holder of his father. Subsequently through i nterpolation the original sale deed, the land area was reduced to 1‰ katha by re placing the figure 3 with the figure 1‰. This forgery in the sale deed was alleg edly committed by the accused persons in connivance with the staffs in the Offic e of the Sub Registrar. Complainant also alleged that the accused persons commit ted lurking house trespass at night and forcibly occupied the land sold by the c omplainant to Umesh Chandra Sarma, by demolishing Umesh Sarma’s house which was being looked after by the complainant. After taking cognizance of the complaint, the charge under Section 468/ 420/457/ 380/34 IPC was framed on 3.8.1999 agains t the 3 accused. 4. On behalf of the complainant 4 (four) witnesses were presented. In the s tatement given under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the charge. After eval uating the evidence, the learned Court gave the impugned judgment of acquittal i n favour of the respondents. 5. During the first part of the judgment, the Court examined the merit of t he charges under Section 463 and 420 of IPC. The evidence of the PW-1 (complaina nt) was considered in detail. The PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that he did not go through the sale deed which was alleged to have been tempered by sho wing a lesser land area than what was sold. The PW-1 admitted that the vendor Ba bul Bordoloi on the same date (7.8.1992) had also executed sale deed also in fav our of the accused No.2 Aradhana Das. The complainant did not adduce any evidenc e to show the extent of land under his possession nor had he examined the writer of the sale deed or its witnesses to prove,that 3 (three) kathas of land was so ld rather than the 1‰ kathas,as is reflected in the certified copy of the sale d eed executed by the accused No.3. 6. PW-4 Pabitra Kr. Das was an LDA in the Office of the Sub Registrar. He p roduced the office register of sale deeds, to show the land area sold to the com plainant. From the deposition of the PW-4, the learned Court found that the orig inal sale deeds are kept in the safe custody in the Office of the Sub Registrar and there is no possibility of tempering with registered sale deeds, by any outs ider. 7 The fact that the complainant had not made any complaint about manipulat ion of the land are mentioned in the registered sale deed, to either the Sub Reg istrar or to the Deputy Commissioner, was found to be a glaring omission on the part of the complainant by the Court as the complainant had alleged that he was cheated of 1‰ kathas land, by the accused by tempering with the registered sale deed. On this charge relating to discrepancy in the registered sale deed, since PW-3 Hadis Ali was absent on the date of sale 7.8.92, his evidence was found to b e of little value. 8. Considering that the date on which the accused dispossessed Umesh Chandr a Sarma from his land was not specified in the complaint and the fact that the d ispossessed person (Umesh Chandra Sarma) never complained himself against those, who had allegedly dispossessed him, the Court doubted the genuineness of the co mplaint made by the appellant. 9. Another significant discrepancy in the evidence of the complainant was f ound by the Court as the complainant had stated that Umesh Chandra Sarma (PW-2) was dispossessed of, that part of the land which the complainant had purchased f rom the accused No. 3 Babul Bordoloi, whereas in his cross-examination he stated that the land sold to Umesh Chandra Sarma was purchased by the complainant from , Runu Goswami and Babul Bordoloi. 10. Since the complainant did not prove the discrepancy in the original sale deed (Ext.-4) and the certified copy (Ext.-5) through expert evidence and sinc e only interested witnesses were presented without examining the writer or the w itnesses to the sale deed, the Court after noting that the complaint case was be latedly filed on 29.9.1995 despite the alleged forgery of the sale deed of 7.8.1 992 and dispossession of 30.3.1995, concluded that the prosecution failed to es tablish the charge under Section 468/420/34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. On the charge under Section 457 IPC, the learned Court noted from the ev idence of PW-2 Umesh Chandra Sarma that 15/20 persons entered his house at about 11-30 A.M. and he was informed about it at 3 P.M. and taking note of the fa ct that Umesh Chandra Sarma himself did not give any complaint against the accus ed persons, considering that the charging Section relates to house breaking at n ight time, held that the charge was not proved against the respondents.. 12. Since the witnesses testified that the area was a thickly populated and yet no neutral witness was presented to show forcible trespass and destruction o f the house of Umesh Chandra Sarma and taking into account that the aggrieved Um esh Chandra Sarma lived elsewhere at a distance of 1 km from the place of occur rence, the Court found the complaint case to be a fabricated as significantly th e complaint was filed not by the aggrieved party but by the appellant Ramjan Ali . The delay in lodging the complaint - 6 months after the occurrence of 30.3.199 5, was given as an additional ground, to doubt to veracity of the complaint. 13. On re-examination of the evidence in the case with the assistance of Mr. BM Choudhury appearing for the respondents (in the absence of the appellant’s l awyer), I am of the considered view that the learned Court rightly held that evi dence is insufficient in the case, to prove the charges against the accused. Acc ordingly I see no scope to allow this Appeal against the order of acquittal. Thi s case is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed without any order of cost.