Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ladu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 April, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1988(1)WLN713
JUDGMENT D.L. Mehta, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31-3-1983, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, in Cr. Appeal No. 89/1981, whereby he upheld the judgment passed by the learned C.J.M. Sikar dated 28-4-1981 in criminal case No. 118/1978 (142/1976).
2. The prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that the complainant lodged FIR at Police Station Lakshmangarh, stating therein that a false and fictitious adoption and gift deed has been executed and got registered before the Registrar, Laxmangarh. The complainant further stated that he has not placed any thumb impression or signature on the document. It was further stated that Sultana Ram and Dungar Ram have signed as witnesses. On that basis of the FIR a case under Section 467, 471 and 420, IPC was registered against the accused petitioners. In fact, during the trial it was found that it was not an adoption deed but it was a gift deed about the land bearing Khasra No. 15/17 measuring 76 bighas. In that gift deed it has been mentioned that the land was gifted to Kesar son of Shri Ladu Ram. During the investigation finger print was taken and it was found that the finger print was that of Ladu Ram. It was also found by the hand writing expert that Sultana Ram, has signed his witness on the date and has wrongly identified the person.
3. On behalf of the prosecution the statement of 6 witnesses namly PW 1 Kashi Prasad, PW 2 Govind Lal Sharma, PW 3 A.T. Khan, PW 4 Mahipal, PW 5 Nazir Ahmed, PW 6 Mahavir were recorded.
4. The complainant accused party belongs to one family and it was pointed out during the course of arguments that if the parties come to the settlement a lenient view can be taken in the matter of awarding the sentence. Accused party is made to hand over land to the complainant side and the complainant side demanded Rs. 33,000/- from the accused.
5. I have gone through the record of the case, and I am satisfied that the conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the finger expert and there is nothing on record by which any other presumption can be drawn in the matter of Laduram. As far as accused petitioner Sultana Ram is, concerned there is evidence that he had signed as witness and he wrongly identified the person who made the thumb impression. On the point of conviction that I am fully satisfied that the court-below was justified in convicting both the accused. Both the accused have been convicted under Section 467 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Taking into consideration the submission made during the course of arguments and the revenue dispute which is going on between the parties. It was also submitted that the revenue matter has been decided by the revenue authorities in favour of the accused appellant. In spite of that the accused appellants have been punished and now they want to handover the land to the complainant party by way of repentance. In such circumstances, I consider it just and proper that the lenient view should be taken in the matter. As the matter relates to the year 1968 and it was reported in 1974. After a period of more than 15 years it would not be advisable to send the accused back to jail. Mr. Dhankar, has prayed that in view of the reduction of sentence the fine should be enhanced. In the light of the submission made by Mr. Dhankar, the amount of fine of Rs. 500/- is increased to Rs. 11,000/-. Out of Rs. 11,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant by the court-below. The revision is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. The amount of fine shall be paid within two months. In case, the amount of fine is not paid within two months, the accused petitioners will have to undesgo sentence as awarded by the court-below.