Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The allegations against the accused and the charges framed are primarily in regard to forgery of documents and criminal conspiracy. A thorough appreciation of prosecution evidence establishes that accused themselves did not forged any document for the purpose of Section 464 IPC. The only contention which was raised forcefully by leanred counsel for complainant and learned APP was that Rapat roznamcha Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C was got incorporated showing Rameshwar son of Dhansi ram to be the lone successor but how that makes a case of forgery remains unexplained by the prosecution. Even if any false claim was raised by accused Ramniwas before revenue authorities about being the lone successor of Jamni Shai that does not make out any offence as alleged by the prosecution and to my mind it was only revenue officials who if had found the claim false could have initiated the prosecution. The sale of land showing himself to be rightful owner by way of sale deeds also does not make out any offence as alleged by the prosecution since admittedly accused Rameshwar was one of the legal heirs and if wrong recital is made same may give rise to civil consequences but not the criminal specially when the vendees under the sale deed were not joined in investigation or produced as prosecution witnesses to depose that they were dishonestly induced by accused Rameshwar or his GPA accused Prem Singh.

The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondents, are sound reasons.

The case set up by the appellant Shyam Sunder was that the land in question had come to him in a family settlement. The said family settlement put up by respondent Rameshwar Dayal was duly supported by the other legal heirs of deceased Jamni Shai. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence led on record has given a finding that the appellant had failed to establish forgery of documents.