Full Judgment
M.Cr.C.No.10167/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the applicant- State.
Heard on admission.
This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 28/6/2012 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.657/09, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Section 419, in alternative, 419/34 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”.).Prosecution case, in brief, is that, Ghanshyam, brother of complainant Ramesh Prasad Dubey along with the respondents and other accused persons, in furtherance of a conspiracy to misappropriate 0.40 hectares of land belonging to the complainant, impersonated as complainant and executed a sale deed corresponding to the said land in favour of respondent no.2 Kasturi Bai by affixing his photograph on the same.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have perused the impugned judgment.
Complainant Ramesh (PW3).in paragraph 6 of his cross- examination, admitted that fact of execution of the sale deed had come to his knowledge 2-3 months prior to lodging of complaint (Ex.P/9) dated 12/2/2009.
According to him, he had not initiated any proceedings for annulling the sale deed.
In paragraph 7 he admitted that he had moved for compromising the matter before Superintendent of Police.
In para 9 he deposed that he and his brothers were inclined for a partition by way of compromise.
His mother Kamalrani (DW1) testified that the disputed sale deed was executed by Ramesh only.
Trial Court found the evidence of his mother to be trustworthy.
Moreover, the sale deed, was strangely seized from the possession of Ramesh vide seizure memo (Ex.P/10).Had there been any involvement of respondents, the sale deed would have been seized from the possession of respondent no.2, in whose favour, it was executed.
FiRs.Information Report was lodged quite belatedly and the delay was not explained.
Looking to the evidence of Komal Chand Jain (PW1).Abdul (PW2).Rameh (PW3).Laxmi Prasad (PW4).Ghanshyam (PW5).Suman (PW6) and that of other witnesses including those of defence, we fully agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that there was no evidence against the respondents.
It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perveRs.or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
As such, no interference is called for with the judgment of acquittal in question.
The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)