- (1.) THIS order will dispose of the above mentioned three criminal revision petitions i.e. Criminal Revision No.144 of 2014 filed by Munshi Ram; Criminal Revision No.244 of 2014 filed by Bhajan Lal and Criminal Revision No.596 of 2014 filed by Pyara Singh and Paro Devi under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the State of Haryana challenging the judgment and order dated 16.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa and the judgment and order 6.12.2012/7.12.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa.
(2.) NOTICE of these revision petitions was issued to the State of Haryana and the lower Courts record was also requisitioned. Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appeared on behalf of the respondent -State and contested these revision petitions. I have gone through the record to see whether there is any merit in the revision petitions or any illegality has been committed by the learned lower Courts.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case as noted down by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa in the judgment are as under: - "The brief facts of the present case are that the present case was registered on the complaint dated 6.07.2004 Ex.PW1/A made by Gurdev Singh son of Bhan Singh, Iqbal Singh son of Mewa Singh, Gurpreet Singh son of Shamsher Singh to SHO Police Station, City Sirsa against Munshi Ram son of Chamba Singh, Paro Devi Panch, Pyara Singh Member Block Samiti, all residents of Village Alanoor, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, making allegations therein that Gurdev Singh was owner of land measuring 38 kanals 16 marlas of land comprised in Rect. No.68 Killa No.11 (8 -0), Khatauni No.23 -min 142 as per Jamabandi for the year 1995 -96. Chamba Ram was cultivating the same on 1/3rd share. After his death, Munshi Ram, Harnam Singh sons of Chamba Ram came into possession to the extent of 1/8th share. Ram Chand, Karam Chand, Gobind Ram, Hari Chand, Raj Singh and Bhagwan Singh also came into the possession of the said land. It is further alleged that Mewa Singh father of Iqbal Singh was owner of 22 Kanal 16 Marla and after his death, Iqbal Singh and Megh Singh and Labh Singh became owners of the said land on the basis of Will dated 8.10.1995. It is further alleged that Shamsher Singh father of Gurpreet Singh was owner of 8 kanals of land situated in village Alanoor and after his death his mother, he (Gurpreet Singh) and his brother Harpreet Singh became owners of the said land. The accused are very clever persons. They in connivance with each other got registered a false sale deed in favour of Munshi Ram by impersonating them whereas they have never agreed to sell the suit land. After registration of the case further investigation was carried out. The sale deed was taken into police possession vide separate memo. The accused were arrested and their disclosure statements were got recorded. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. After completion of necessary investigation, challan was prepared by SHO, Police Station, City Sirsa and sent to the Court for commencement of the trial against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120 -B IPC." Learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of arguments argued that firstly original sale deeds have not been placed on record. Secondly, photographs of real owners are there on the sale deeds. Two persons had already died before the execution of the sale deeds as per the allegations of the prosecution but the third vendor, who is alive, did not appear in the witness box. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that there were cuttings on the death certificate which creates doubt in the prosecution version. Leaned counsel also argued that no warning was given to the accused before recording their statements in which they admitted their signatures on the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the attesting witnesses Pyara Singh and Paro Devi are not the beneficiaries. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners further argued that the judgments passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge in the appeal are against the evidence on record and not as per law. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioners have made prayer for reducing the sentence.;