Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
GWALIOR BENCH
SINGLE BENCH
JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018
Dharmendra
Vs.
State of M.P.
&
Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018
Ramjilal
Vs.
State of M.P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.S. Rawat, Counsel for the appellant in Cr.A. No.4688/2018.
Shri Vivek Vyas, Counsel for the appellant in Cr.A. No.4529/2018.
Shri Rohit Mishra, Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 29/03/2022
Date of Judgment/Order : 05th/04/2022
Whether Approved for Reporting :
JUDGMENT
05th- APRIL- 2022 By this common judgment Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) and Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) shall be decided.
2. Both the criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 29/5/2018 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in ST No.276/2011, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 471/120-B of 2 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 420/120-B of IPC and rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 467/120-B of IPC with default rigorous imprisonment of three months on each count.
3. Since the appellants have been convicted under Section 467/120-B of IPC, therefore, no separate sentence has been awarded under Section 471/120-B of IPC.
4. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeals in short are that on 9/8/2008 the co-accused Dimna Jatav (who has expired) by impersonating himself as Sitaram Kirar executed eight sale deeds in respect of survey nos.335, 338, 339/2, 340, 341/2, 36/2, 41, 91/2, 5/2, 11, 12, 984, 1099, 1186, 98, 100/2, 120/2, 183/2, 186/2, 223 and 329 belonging to Sitaram. The said sale deeds were executed in favour of Vikas Thakur and the appellants had stood as witnesses. It is alleged that although appellant-Ramjilal signed the sale deed by putting his original signatures, but the appellant-Dharmendra signed the sale deed as a witness by impersonating himself as Rajesh S/o Mangal Singh. On the complaint made by Sitaram, the police registered Crime No.199/2009 at Police Station Badarvas, District Shivpuri for offence under Sections 420, 467, 471, 34 of IPC. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Eight sale deeds were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/18. The admitted handwritings of the appellant 3 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) Dharmendra Patwari were seized. Similarly, the admitted signatures of Rajesh Ateriya were obtained vide document Ex.P/35. The thumb impression and specimen signatures of accused Dimna Jata, Dharmendra and Ramjilal were obtained. They were sent for examination. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet under Sections 420, 467, 471, 34 of IPC.
5. The Trial Court by order dated 19/7/2013 framed charges under Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 471/120-B of IPC.
6. The appellants and the co-accused Dimna Jatav abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
7. The prosecution examined Sitaram Dhakad (PW-1), Kamal Singh Dhakad (PW-2), Hanif Khan (PW-3), Rupesh Chauksey (PW-
4), Premsingh Kushwah (PW-5), Ramsevak Chaturvedi (PW-6), Indrakumar Shukla (PW-7), Virendra Dhakad (PW-8), Vikas Rana (PW-9), Rajesh Kumar Ateriya (PW-10), Harcharan Jatav (PW-11), Ranveer Singh (PW-12), Satyendra Kumar Mishra (PW-13), Santosh Kumar Goud (PW-14), G.S. Tiwari (PW-15), Jitendra Sagar (PW-16), Raghuvir Singh (PW-17), Dinesh Tomar (PW-18), S.S. Tomar (PW-
19), Guruvachan Singh (PW-20), A.K. Pouranik (PW-21).
8. The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
9. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the above-mentioned offences.
10. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court 4 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the case is primarily based on the evidence of handwriting expert. The appellants were not aware of the fact that the person who is executing the sale deed, is not Sitaram, but Dimna. They had no mensrea. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence already undergone by them is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
11. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that 70 Bigha land of Sitaram Dhakad was fraudulently sold by the co-accused Dimna with active connivance of the appellants. The appellants were aware of the fact that the seller is not the owner of the land in dispute and even the name of the original owner is different and the person who had appeared for executing the sale deed was not Sitaram, in spite of that appellants identified the co- accused Dimna as Sitaram. Only because of the active connivance of the appellants, the sale deeds were executed.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. Sitaram Dhakad (PW-1) has stated that he is having 70 Bigha of land in Village Bamor Majda Umari, District Shivpuri. He came to know that Dimna Jatav has executed sale deeds in favour of Vikas in respect of his land and in those sale deeds the appellants Ramjilal and Dharmendra Patwari had stood as a witness. He had never sold his land to Vikas. Dimna Jatav had sold his land by impersonating himself as Sitaram Dhakad. After about one year of execution of the sale 5 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) deeds, he came to know that his land has been sold by Dimna Jatav in favour of Vikas and, therefore, he obtained the certified copy of the sale deeds and then made a complaint to SHO, Police Station Badarvas. His written complaint is Ex.P/1. The Regitrar Shukla has fraudulently executed the sale deeds in question, whereas Dimna, Ramjilal and Dharmendra, who was earlier posted as Patwari in his village, as well as Registrar Shukla and purchaser Vikas were aware of the fact that in the revenue record the said land is recorded in his name. Dimna Jatav had affixed his own photographs on the disputed sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9, whereas he has never gone to the Registrar Office or any other office to register the sale deeds. It is further stated by this witness that he can sign and he has never put his thumb impression. He further stated that ID proof Ex.P/10 does not belong to him. He had also made a written complaint to the office of Sub Registrar Kolaras in respect of forged sale deeds, which is Ex.P/11. He has never executed any affidavit. The affidavit Ex.P/13 neither contains his photographs nor his signatures. On Ex.P/13 the photograph which is affixed is that of Dimna Jatav. His thumb impressions were obtained in Tahsil Office, which is Ex.P/14. He further stated that the accused persons who are present in the Court are Ramjilal and Dharmendra Patwari. Ramjilal had signed the disputed sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 as a witness, whereas Dharmendra had signed the disputed sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 by impersonating himself as 6 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) Rajesh S/o Mangal Singh. This witness was cross-examined and a suggestion was given that he was not present at the time of execution of sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9, which was admitted by him. He also admitted that he cannot say who had signed the disputed sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9.
14. Kamal Singh Dhakad (PW-2) has stated that Sitaram (PW-1) is his uncle, who had informed him that forged sale deeds have been executed in respect of his land and the copy of the forged sale deeds was also shown to him on which the photograph of Dimna Jatav was affixed as a seller. On the sale deeds, the thumb impression of seller was affixed, whereas Sitaram never puts his thumb impression, but he always signs. In the sale deeds the names of witnesses were mentioned as Ramjilal and Rajesh Ateriya. Dimna Jatav had executed the sale deeds in favour of Vikas, which are completely forged. Sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 do not contain the photograph of Sitaram. Similarly, Ex.P/10 also does not contain the photograph of Sitaram. Similarly, affidavit Ex.P/13 also does not contain the photograph of Sitaram, whereas Ex.P/13 contains the photograph of Dimna Jatav and on affidavit Ex.P/15 also the photograph of Dimna Jatav is affixed. In cross-examination he admitted that the sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 were not executed in his presence.
15. Hanif Khan (PW-3) is a Peon posted in the office of Sub Registrar. He has stated that his duty was to obtain the thumb 7 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) impression on the sale deeds. R.S. Chaturvedi was the Sub Registrar. Indra Kumar Shukla was a Clerk posted in the Registrar Office. He has obtained the thumb impression of seller and purchaser on the instructions of Chaturvedi, although he further stated that he cannot identify that who had put their thumb impressions. His cross- examination was deferred and he was cross-examined on 12/12/2013 and he stated that he never went to Bamor alongwith Sub Registrar and in the cross-examination he turned hostile and resiled from his examination-in-chief recorded on 13/11/2013.
16. Premsingh Kushwah (PW-5) is an Advocate, who has stated that at 6 PM the appellant Dharmendra Patwari came to his office alongwith Khasra, Bhu-Adhikar Rin Pustika as well as typed stamp of registry and requested him to draft the same, accordingly, he had drafted all the sale deeds after going through the same. In the sale deeds the name of the purchaser was mentioned as Vikas Thakur and the seller was Sitaram. He further stated that he never went to Registrar Office for execution of the sale deeds. He had merely signed the sale deeds in the capacity of a Draftsman. The registered sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 contain his signatures at 'A to A'. He does not know that from where the sale deeds were got typed. Dharmendra had brought typed sale deeds to him. He also identified Dharmendra in the dock. He further stated that no witness had signed in his presence. In cross-examination, he stated that since Dharmendra is a Patwari, 8 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) therefore, he is known to him. He further stated that when drafts of Ex.P/2 to P/9 were brought to his office, neither the photographs of seller and purchaser were affixed nor the sale deeds were containing the signatures of seller and purchaser. He denied that Dharmendra had not brought the sale deeds to his office. He denied that Indra Kumar Shukla had brought the sale deeds and on his instructions, he had signed the sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9.
17. Ramsevak Chaturvedi (PW-6) has stated that on 8/8/2008 he had received an application and accordingly, directed Indra Kumar Shukla to accept the documents on the holiday and the order is Ex.P/17. Its photocopy is Ex.P/17-C. The said order was acknowledged by Indra Kumar Shukla after putting his note "noted". On 9/8/2008 Indra Kumar Shukla alongwith Hanif had gone to village Bamor for execution of sale deeds, where total eight sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 were executed. Those sale deeds were brought before him and accordingly, on 18/8/2008 after depositing the stamp duty, sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 were registered by him. On 15/10/2009 the District Magistrate, Shivpuri directed for an enquiry by the District Registrar and accordingly, the District Registrar directed him to seize the sale deeds as well as the affidavit. On 16/11/2009 ASI Hukumchand had obtained the certified copy of the sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 vide seizure memo Ex.p/18. He further stated that at the time of registration of sale deeds, the seller, purchaser and witnesses were not present. On cross- 9 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) examination by the Public Prosecutor, he resiled from his police statement Ex.P/19, in which he had stated that Dimna Jatav resident of Bamor had fraudulently executed the sale deeds by impersonating himself as Sitaram Dhakad. This witness was cross-examined. He stated that whenever a person goes to the village for registration of sale deeds, then he can take the office seal with him and sometimes he does not take it and can make an endorsement in his handwriting. The statements of the witnesses are also recorded by the same person. The statements of the witnesses are mentioned on the back side of the sale deeds and no separate statements are recorded. It is the duty of the person who had gone to village for execution of the sale deeds to ensure that the seller and purchaser are identified by the witnesses. It is the duty of the person who had gone for registration of the sale deeds to compare the ID proof as well as the photographs of the seller affixed on the sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9. He further admitted that there is an overwriting on the Minute Register Book of the year 2009. He denied that the seals and names which are written in the handwriting on Ex.P/2 to P/9 were not written on 9/8/2008, but they were written on 18/8/2008. He further admitted that the registration certificate was given by him on 18/8/2008, however, he denied that the entire proceedings were done on 18/8/2008.
18. Indra Kumar Shukla (PW-7) has stated that on 8/8/2008 Sub Registrar Chaturvedi had directed him to accept the sale deeds by 10 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) visiting village Bamor and accordingly, on 9/8/2008 he went to village Bamor, where he collected the documents for registration of sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9. He had signed on the photographs of seller and purchaser affixed on Ex.P/2 to P/9. The seller and purchaser had put their signatures in the presence of Hanif Khan. The seller and purchaser had given their ID proof to this witness. The ID proof of Sitaram is Ex.P/10. He had not affixed the photograph of any witness on Ex.P/2 to P/9. Thereafter, he produced the documents Ex.P/2 to P/9 before the Sub Registrar. This witness was not in a position to say as to whether he would be able to identify the witness to Ex.P/2 to P/9 or not. On certain aspects this witness was declared hostile and on cross- examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that he had discharged his duties bonafidely under Section 86 of the Act. He further stated that he did not recollect as to whether he had stated to the police that he can identify the witness (accused) Ramjilal and Rajesh Ateriya. He denied that he had given such statement to the police in his police statement Ex.P/20. He denied that the accused person present in the Court is the same person, who had signed Ex.P/2 to P/9 as Rajesh. This witness was further examined on 13.11.2017. He stated that on 27/4/2009 the seller Dimna Jatav had executed a sale deed in favour of one Laljiram, which was also registered in the office of Sub Registrar. On the said date also, he was posted on the post of R.M. in the office of Sub Registrar. The registration number of the said document is 11 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) 2148 dated 27/4/2009 and the certified copy of the said sale deed is Ex.P/80. The co-accused Dimna Jatav had put his thumb impression and has also affixed his photograph. Thumb impression put by Dimna Jatav was attested by Sub Registrar Kolaras. In cross-examination, he stated that the witness had not signed on Ex.P/80 in his presence. He further stated that on Ex.P/80 photograph of the witnesses are not affixed. Even the ID proof of the witness is not mentioned. Similarly, on disputed sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 the photograph of the witnesses are not affixed. He also admitted that the ID proof of the witnesses are also not mentioned on the disputed sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9.
19. Virendra Dhakad (PW-8) is the son of Sitaram (PW-1). He has stated that the appellant Dharmendra Patwari is known to him and even the appellant-Ramjilal who was not present in the Court on the said day is also known to him. In the year 2008 the co-accused Dimna Jatav had executed forged sale deeds in respect of the agricultural fields of his father by impersonating himself as Sitaram. In the year 2009 also Dimna Jatav had gone to the office of Registrar to sell his one Bigha of land, then the Registrar had informed Dimna Jatav that he should not sell his one Bigha of land as he has already sold 75 Bigha of land by impersonating himself as Sitaram, however, the said one Bigha of land belonging to Dimna Jatav was purchased by Laljiram Chidar. In the month of August, 2009 he came to know about the fraudulent transaction by Dimna Jatav, then he went to the 12 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) Registrar Office and obtained the photocopies of the forged sale deeds of the land belonging to his father and he found that the forged sale deeds were containing the photographs of Dimna Jatav. Those forged sale deeds are Ex.P/2 to P/9 and Ramjilal and Rajesh Ateriya have signed as witness. Thereafter, he and his father lodged the report. Dimna Jatav is the resident of village Bamor. Dimna Jatav as well as the appellants had fraudulently sold the property. The appellant Ramjilal, who is not present in the Court, has identified Dimna Jatav as Sitaram. Rajesh S/o Mangal Singh was the Patwari of village Bamor at the time when the forged sale deeds were executed. However, he expressed his ignorance as to whether the appellant Dharmendra Patwari had signed the sale deed as a witness by impersonating himself as Rajesh or not. It was further alleged that the appellant Ramjilal has extended threat that he can purchase anything by money. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had not seen the appellants signing any document. He further admitted that the appellant Dharmendra was not the Patwari of the village at the time of execution of forged sale deeds. He further admitted that he himself is in possession of the land in question and the purchaser Vikas never came to his land for cultivating the same.
20. Vikas Rana (PW-9) is the person by whom the land was purchased. He is the resident of Mohali, Punjab. He stated that in the year 2008 he met appellant Dharmendra in Shivpuri. He expressed his 13 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) willingness to Dharmendra to purchase land, then Dharmendra arranged meeting with Sitaram. Dharmendra informed that the land belongs to Sitaram. Sitaram had executed a sale deed in his favour and thereafter, he was informed that since sale deed has been executed, therefore, he may go. Dimna has expired. Later on, he came to know that the person to whom he had given the money was not the owner of the land. Sitaram, Dharmendra and Dimna have cheated him. He also identified the appellant Dharmendra as well as appellant Ramjilal in the dock. He had lodged a written complaint Ex.P/21. This witness was cross-examined and he stated that in the year 2008 he had come to Shivpuri for purchasing the land. He further stated that he had given an amount of Rs.8,22,000/- to the person who had impersonating himself as Sitaram. He further admitted that photograph of the said fake person is also affixed on the sale deed. He admitted that later on he came to know that the name of said fake person is Dimna Jatav. He admitted that just one day prior to execution of the sale deed, Dharmendra, Ramjilal and Dimna Jatav had shown him the land. He further admitted that after execution of the sale deed, he could not get his name mutated because he was busy and also could not take possession. In the month of May when the police came to Mohali, then he came to know that he has been cheated. He also admitted that he enquired form Registrar Office, Kolaras, then he came to know that in fact Dimna Jatav had executed the sale deed by impersonating himself 14 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) as Sitaram. He also admitted that Dharmendra Ahirvar, who at present is not in job, had impersonated himself as Rajesh Ateriya Patwari. He further admitted that Ramjilal had falsely identified Dimna Jatav as Sitaram. He further admitted that all the three persons had cheated him. He further admitted that an amount of Rs.8,22,000/- as well as registration expenses were born by him. The forged sale deeds Ex.P/2 to P/9 were executed in Kolaras and they contain his photographs. He further admitted that the appellant Dharmendra had identified the seller as Sitaram by impersonating himself as Rajesh. He further admitted that the land was shown to him by appellant Dharmendra and Ramjilal. He further admitted that on the sale deeds photograph of Dimna Jatav is affixed. This witness was cross-examined by the defence and he stated that he had come to Kolaras for execution of the sale deeds. He further stated that he met with Dharmendra and Rakesh in Kolaras. Thereafter, he clarified that the persons, who are present in the Court, i.e. Dharmendra and Ramjilal had met him. After 2-3 months of the execution of sale deed he came to know that forged sale deeds have been executed in his favour. The original sale deeds are in his house. After the sale deeds were executed, he did not go to the land as he was busy in election as well as other works. Thus, it is clear that this witness has specifically stated that it was Dharmendra Patwari who had signed as a witness by impersonating himself as Rajesh and it was the appellant Dharmendra Patwari and Ramjilal who had 15 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) introduced him with Dimna Jatav for sale of the land belonging to Sitaram.
21. Rajesh Kumar Ateriya (PW-10) is the Patwari and he has stated that in the year 2005 he was given the additional charge of Bamor. The complainant Sitaram had informed him that forged sale deeds have been executed. The photocopy of the said sale deeds were shown to him, in which the names of the witnesses were mentioned as Rajesh Kumar S/o Mangal Singh Ateriya and Ramjilal. Although in the forged sale deeds the name of the seller was mentioned as Sitaram, but on the said sale deeds photograph of Dimna Jatav was affixed. He had not signed the sale deeds in the capacity of a witness and his father's name is also wrongly mentioned. He was told by his seniors and members of the staff that the writing is that of Dharmendra Patwari. The police vide seizure memo Ex.P/22 had seized the documents containing the handwriting of Dharmendra Patwari. The said documents are in the admitted handwriting of the appellant Dharmendra Patwari. The documents are Ex.P/23 to P/32. Since this witness did not depose in respect of certain aspects and, therefore, he was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he has stated that about 4 years prior to his joining, Dharmendra Ahirvar was the Patwari. He also admitted that he had also informed the police that at present Dharmendra Ahirvar is under suspension. He also admitted that he had informed the police that Dharmendra Ahirvar is in the habit of 16 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) manipulating records. He also admitted that he had informed the police that on earlier occasion also Dharmendra Ahirvar had faced cases for manipulating the official record. He also admitted that he had informed the police that another witness Ramjilal is the old friend of Dharmendra Patwari. He also admitted that he had informed the police that the name Rajesh is probably in the handwriting Dharmendra Patwari. This witness was cross-examined and he admitted that Dharmendra Patwari was never posted alongwith him and the documents Ex.P/23 to P/32 were not prepared in his presence. He also admitted that he cannot identify the handwriting of Dharmendra Patwari.
22. Harcharan Jatav (PW-11) has turned hostile.
23. Ranveer Singh (PW-12) has turned hostile.
24. Satyendra Kumar Mishra (PW-13) has stated that on 14/9/2009 and on 22/9/2009 the appellant-Dharmendra Ahirvar and Ramjilal were arrested by T.I., S.S. Tomar vide arrest memo Ex.P/33 and Ex.P/34. He further stated that on 1/9/2009 Jitendra Sengar Patwari, Tahsil Badarvas, District Shivpuri alongwith Revenue Inspector, Circle 4, Badarvas had brought six documents containing the admitted handwriting of Rajesh Ateriya (PW-10), which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/15. The application dated 1/9/2009 is Ex.P/6 and six documents which were produced are Ex.P/37 to P/42. In cross- examination, he admitted that the place from where Dharmendra was 17 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) arrested is not mentioned. Similarly the place from where Ramjilal was arrested is also not mentioned, however, he admitted that Ex.P/33 and 34 were signed in police station. He admitted that in the seizure memo Ex.P/35 the place of seizure is mentioned as Badarvas, but the specific place of town Badarvas is not mentioned. He further denied that he had signed the seizure memo Ex.P/35 without verifying the nature of documents. He further stated that Ex.P/37 to P/40 are the documents pertaining to forged sale deeds.
25. Santosh Kumar Goud (PW-14) had stated that on 16/11/2009 he had gone to the office of Sub Registrar, Kolaras in connection with his some work and Sub Registrar Chaturvedi had produced the sale deeds before him and Dinesh Tomar, which were total eight in number and the same were seized by ASI, Hukumchand Jatav vide seizure memo Ex.P/18 and the sale deeds which were seized are Ex.P/2 to P/9.
26. G.S. Timari (PW-15) is the handwriting expert and he had submitted the report Ex.P/46. He further stated that the disputed thumb impressions were that of the co-accused Dimna as well as the appellant Ramjilal. His report with regard to the comparison of thumb impression of Sitaram is Ex.P/45.
27. Jitendra Sagar (PW-16) has stated that he had produced the specimen signatures of the suspected accused persons Ex.P/36, which were seized by SHO, S.S. Tomar vide seizure memo Ex.P/35. He further stated that the documents Ex.P/37 to P/42 were produced by 18 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) him, which were seized vide seizure memo. P/36.
28. Raghuvir Singh (PW-17) has also stated that on 1/9/2009 he has produced six documents containing admitted signatures of Rajesh Ateriya (PW-10), which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/35.
29. Dinesh Tomar (PW-18) is an Advoate by profession. He has turned hostile.
30. S.S. Tomar (PW-19) is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that on 21/8/2009 he had received the complaint made by Sitaram Kirar, Ex.P/1 and accordingly, Crime No.199/2009 was registered by him under Sections 420, 467, 471/34 of IPC and the FIR is Ex.P/49. The offence was registered against Dimna and Vikas Thakur. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The admitted handwriting of Rajesh Ateriya (PW-10) were obtained vide seizure memo Ex.P/35. Letter Ex.P/36 and admitted documents Ex.P/37 to P/42 were seized. On 14/9/2009 the specimen signatures of appellant Dharmendra Ahirvar were obtained, which are Ex.P/50 to P/61. On 8/9/2009 the accused Dimna Jatav was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/62. On 14/9/2009 the appellant Dharmendra was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/33 and on 22/9/2009 the appellant Ramjilal was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/34.
31. Guruvachan Singh (PW-20) was posted as SHO, Police Station Badarvas, District Shivpuri. On 13/7/2011 he had collected the documents which were in the handwriting of Rajesh Ateriya (PW-10) 19 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) vide seizure memo Ex.P/22.
32. A.K. Pouranik (PW-21) is working on the post of Additional State Examiner of Quested Documents and he has stated that he had examined the disputed documents which were received vide letter dated 21/9/2011 vide Ex.P/64. He had received total eight sale deeds. The admitted handwriting of the appellant Dharmendra were received which are Ex.P/50 to P/61. The specimen handwriting and signatures of Rajesh Ateriya (PW-10) were received, which are Ex.P/65 to P/76. Similarly, the admitted handwriting and signatures of Dharmendra Ahirvar were received which are Ex.P/23 to P/32. The admitted handwriting of Rajesh Ateriya (PW-10) were received vide Ex.P/37 to P/42. All these documents were minutely examined by him. His report is Ex.P/77 and his opinion is Ex.P/78. Similarity was found in the admitted specimen of Dharmendra Ex.P/50 with the questioned signature Ex.Q/84.
33. Thus, it is clear that the sale deeds Ex.p/2-A to P/9-A were not executed by Sitaram. The sale deeds contain the photograph of Dimna. The thumb impressions of Sitaram were not found on any of the sale deeds. The appellant Ramjilal had signed the said sale deeds in the capacity of a witness and put his original signatures, whereas Dharmendra signed as a witness by impersonating himself as Rajesh S/o Mangal Singh. The signatures of Dharmendra has also matched with the signatures which were found on the disputed sale deeds. 20 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.)
34. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant Dharmendra that merely because the signature of an accused was found on the disputed document, is not sufficient to convict him. In support of his submission, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Padum Kumar Vs. State of UP passed on 14/1/2020 in Criminal Appeal No.87/2020.
35. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant Dharmendra.
36. Premsingh Kushwah (PW5) has stated that it was Dharmendra Patwari, who had brought the draft sale deeds to his office. Vikas Rana (PW-9), the person in whose favour the sale deeds have been executed, has also stated that it was Dharmendra who had introduced with Sitaram, who was subsequently found to be Dimna. Further he has stated that Dharmendra had signed as a witness and Dharmendra was also identified in Dock. Thus, it is clear that Dharmendra who was earlier posted as Patwari in the same locality was aware of the fact that Dimna is not Sitaram and he is not the owner of the land in dispute, but in spite of that by introducing Dimna as Sitaram he had not only cheated the purchaser Vikas Rana (PW-9), but he also arranged for draft of the sale deeds, as it is evident from the evidence of Premsingh Kushwah (PW-5). It is not out of place to mention here that all the sale deeds were drafted by Premsingh Kushwah (PW-5) and he had signed those sale deeds in the said capacity. Thus, it is clear that appellant 21 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) Dharmendra played a very important role in the entire episode. In the light of the evidence of Premsingh Kushwah (PW-5) and Vikas Rana (PW-9), it is clear that it was the appellant Dharmendra who played an important role and it can also be said that he was the mastermind behind every manipulation. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the allegations against Dharmendra are based on solitary evidence of the report of handwriting expert.
37. It is next contended by the counsel for the appellants that since the appellant Ramjilal is not the maker of the forged documents, therefore, it cannot be said that he has committed any offence. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581 and submitted that since the appellants Ramjilal and Dharmendra have not prepared the forged documents, therefore, their conviction is bad.
38. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants.
39. In the present case, the allegations are that the appellants had signed forged sale deeds as witnesses. Thus, they had played an important role in preparation of forged/false documents. Therefore, the facts of present case are distinguishable from the facts of the judgment passed in the case of Sheila Sebastian (supra).
40. It is next contended by the counsel for the appellants that the 22 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.) sentence awarded by the Trial Court is on a higher side and it may be reduced.
41. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
42. It is true that Ramjilal was aged about 65 years at the time of his arrest, but in the present case the entire 70 Bigha of land belonging to Sitaram was forgedly sold by executing eight forged sale deeds by producing Diman as Sitaram and appellant Ramjilal and Dharmendra were well aware of the fact that Dimna is not Sitaram, even then they identified Dimna as Sitaram and signed the sale deeds as witnesses. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that merely because they had signed as witnesses, therefore, they were not the beneficiary, cannot be accepted. The conspiracies are never hatched in open and it is not known as to what persuaded the appellants to falsely identify Dimna as Sitaram. There is sufficient material on record to show that the appellant Dharmendra was the mastermind behind the entire forged transaction. The appellant Ramjilal can explain as to why he joined hands with the appellant Dharmendra Patwari. But, the crux of the matter is that the appellants had tried to deprive one innocent person from his entire agricultural fields by executing eight different forged sale deeds in respect of total 70 Bigha of land of Sitaram. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no leniency can be shown to the appellants in respect of the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
23 Criminal Appeal No.4688/2018 (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.4529/2018 (Ramjilal Vs. State of M.P.)
43. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B and 471/120-B of IPC is hereby affirmed. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court is also hereby affirmed, as it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated 29/5/2018 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in ST No.276/2011 is hereby affirmed.
44. The appellant Dharmendra is in jail. He shall undergo the remaining jail sentence.
45. The appellant Ramjilal is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. He is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing remaining jail sentence.
46. Let a copy of this judgment, be provided immediately to the appellants, free of cost.
47. The record of the Trial Court be sent back along with copy of this judgment for necessary information and compliance.
48. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.04.05 14:22:11 +05'30'