Patna High Court - Orders
Vijay Shankar Shukla vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 October, 2016
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SLA No.32 of 2016
======================================================
Vijay Shankar Shukla, son of Shree Rama Shankar Shukla, resident of
village Tenua, P.S. Guthani and District- Siwan.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lakshmi Kant Shukla, son of Late Hari Narayan Shukla resident of
village Tenua, P.S. Guthani and District- Siwan.
3. Harendra Shukla, son of Ramadhar Shukla, resident of village Tenua,
P.S. Guthani and District- Siwan.
4. Badri Narayan Shukla, son of Late Ram Sewak Shukla, resident of
village Tenua, P.S. Guthani and District- Siwan.
5. Birendra Gond, son of Kashi Gond, resident of village Selur, P.S.
Guthani and District- Siwan.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 19-10-2016By way of the present application preferred under sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „CrPC‟), the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th March, 2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan in Trial No. 12 of 2016 arising out of C.R. No. 509 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the opposite parties no.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 465 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short „IPC‟).
2. The petitioner had earlier filed criminal appeal before Patna High Court SLA No.32 of 2016 (2) dt.19-10-2016 2/5 this Court against the impugned judgment vide Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 439 of 2016. The said criminal appeal was withdrawn by the appellant in order to file special leave petition.
3. The petitioner-complainant filed a complaint petition dated 15th April, 2005 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan against the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 bearing Complaint Case No. 509 of 2005 alleging, inter alia, that 2 dhur land under khata no. 336, khesra no. 617 situated under village Tenuwa belonged to one Chandramali Shukla. The said Chandramali Shukla executed a registered deed of gift dated 21.06.1997 with respect to the said land and other lands in favour of the complainant and others and handed over the possession of the lands to them. Total area of plot no. 617 was 1 katha 18 dhurs, out of which only 8 dhur land was gifted by Chandramali Shukla to the complainant and others. On the said land the complainant constructed his house with boundary. It is further alleged that accused Laxmi Kant Shukla executed a forged sale deed in favour of accused Harendra Shukla and accused Badri Narayan Shukla and Birendra Gond are identifier and witness to the deed. The complainant came to know about the said forged deed on 12th April, 2005 and obtained certified copy of the sale deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Darauli. It is alleged that the Patna High Court SLA No.32 of 2016 (2) dt.19-10-2016 3/5 complainant asked the accused persons to leave the claim from the land but they refused and accordingly the present complaint was filed.
4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate made over the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan in exercise of power conferred under Section 192(1) of the Cr.P.C. for inquiry and disposal.
4. During inquiry, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. One Kailash Shukla was also examined on behalf of the complainant. After inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate finding a prima facie case to be made out against the accused persons, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 465 and 471/34 of the IPC and summoned them to face trial.
5. After appearance, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.. They denied the charges and pleaded their innocence and claimed to be tried.
6. During trial, the complainant produced only two witnesses. They are C.W.1 Vijay Shankar Shukla, the complainant himself and C.W.2 Kailash Shukla. The defence did not produce any witness.
Patna High Court SLA No.32 of 2016 (2) dt.19-10-20164/5
7. Having considered the evidence and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. The findings of the trial Magistrate as recorded in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment are as under :
"7. So far as evidence led by the complainant in support of the case, the court finds that the complainant has produced only two witnesses. CW1 Vijay Shankar Shukla, the complainant himself stated in his chief examination that 8 dhur land area under khata No. 336, survey No. 617 was primarily belonged to one Chandra Mohan Shukla, who executed a gift deed dated 21.6.1997 in his favour and gave title and possession over that piece of land to him. He his palani and boundary on that piece of land. Further stated that Mohan Shukla, Shiv Shankar Shukla, Uma Shankar Shukla and Hari Shankar Shukla are also second party with him in the said gift deed. The accused persons had knowledge of the said gift deed. In spite of their knowledge, the accused Laxmi Kant Shukla executed a sale deed in favour of Harendra Shukla with respect to 2 dhur land. On 12.4.2005, he came to know about that forged deed.
8. CW2 Kailash Shukla stated in his chief- examination that the impugned land belonged to Chandra Mohan Shukla who gave it to the complainant through a gift deed. Accused Laxmi Narayan Shukla sold the same land to accused Harendra Shukla. Badri Narayan Shukla and Birendra Gond are witness and identifier of the forged sale deed.
9. On perusal of the record, the court finds that the complainant did not produce the alleged Patna High Court SLA No.32 of 2016 (2) dt.19-10-2016 5/5 forged document dated 2.4.2005 in evidence. Further the evidence on record are not sufficient to prove the ingredient or element of making false document as mentioned under sec. 464 IPC and forgery as mentioned under sec. 463 IPC.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances discussed above and also on the basis of the materials available on the record, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 465, 471/34 IPC beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the court finds it reasonable to acquit the accused persons from the charge leveled against them by giving them benefit of doubt."
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
9. I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Magistrate are neither ill-founded nor perverse. In that view of the matter, I see no merit in this application. Accordingly, leave to appeal is rejected.
10. The application stands dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/-
U