- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 4-2-1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2/95, by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 22-4-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 7723/94 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner in the following manner :- Name of accused petitioner Convicted under section Sentence awarded Jagdish 120-B, IPC Three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three months. 471, IPC Three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three months. 204, IPC One year RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month. All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) It may be stated here that in this case apart from the accused petitioner Jagdish, accused Ramdas, Badrinarain, Badridas and Girdharilal also faced trial for various offences and during trial before the learned Magistrate, three accused persons, namely, Ramdas, Badrinarain and Girdharilal died and therefore, proceedings against them were dropped and by the same judgment, the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted another accused Badridas of the charges for the offence under Ss. 120B, 467, 471/34, IPC and also acquitted the present accused petitioner of the charge for the offence under S. 199, IPC.
(3.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition, in short, are as follows :- PW. 3 Smt. Jani W/o Ganesh Das lodged a written report Ex. P/28 before the Police Station Division-A, Jodhpur stating inter alia that she was the second wife of Genesh Das, who died in Samvat 2007 (year 1950) and when Ganesh Das died, he left two daughters only. It was further stated in the report that accused Badrinarain (died) was her Devar, who used to look after the property of her husband deceased Ganesh Das and after the death of her husband Ganesh Das, accused petitioner Jagdish was brought by accused Badrinarain for the purpose of doing Seva Pooja in the temple and the accused petitioner Jagdish was got married by accused Badrinarain (died) with the daughter of his brother-in-law. It was further stated in the report that during the lifetime of her husband Ganesh Das, she did not adopt anybody nor anybody was taken in adoption after the death of her husband Genesh Das. It was further stated in the report that she came to know from another accused Badridas that her Devar Badrinarain (died) prepared a forged Will (Ex. P/75 Photocopy of the original Will) and he had also forged signatures of Ganesh Das on that Will and it was also stated that the said Will pertained to the period when Ganesh Das was alive and through that Will, accused petitioner was made owner of the properties both movable and immovable belonging to Ganesh Das. It was further reported that the said forged Will (Ex. P/75) was presented in the office of Tehsildar for the purpose of registration by the accused petitioner after making conspiracy with accused Badrinarain (died) and further that forged Will (Ex. P/75) was got attested by three witnesses, namely, Badridas, Girdharilal (died) and Ramdas (died). It was further stated in the report that accused Badridas and Girdharilal (died) told PW. 3 Jani that their signatures were got by accused Badrinarain (died) on the pretext that it was a rent deed, but when they came to know that their signatures were obtained by accused Badrinarain (died) on the forged Will, they informed the office of Sub-Registrar through applications and these applications were marked as Ex. P/72 presented by accused Badridas and Ex. P/73 presented by accused Girdharilal (died). Thus, a forged Will (Ex. P/75) was got prepared by accused Badrinarain (died) pertaining to the period when Ganesh Das was alive and signatures of Ganesh Das were also forged by accused Badrinarain (died) on the said Will (Ex. P/75). It was further stated in the report that since the said Will (Ex. P/75) was forged one, therefore, accused petitioner and accused Badrinarain (died) tried to take that Will back from the office of the Sub Registrar, Jodhpur. Thus, according to the complainant PW. 3 Jani, the accused persons had committed the offence punishable under Ss. 193/199, 467, 468, 471, IPC. The said complaint Ex. P/28 was presented by PW/3 Jani on 29-10-1975 before the Court, though it was addressed to SHO, Police Station Division-A, Jodhpur and on 31-10-1975, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 2, Jodhpur sent the original complaint under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. to the SHO, Police Station Division-A, Jodhpur for investigation and that complaint was received by SHO, Police Station Division-A, Jodhpur on 7-11-1975, where the case was registered and investigation was started. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against five accused persons, namely, Jagdish (present accused petitioner), Badrinarain (died), Ramdas (died), Badridas, and Girdharilal (died) in the Court of Magistrate, Jodhpur. On 13-9-1993, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 5, Jodhpur framed the charges against the accused persons in the following manner :- Name of accused persons Charges Jagdish 120-B, 199, 204, 471, IPC Ramdas 120-B, 467, 471/34, 199, (died) IPC Badrinarain 120-B, 199, 204, 467, (died) 471/34, 468, IPC Girdharilal 120-B, 467, 471/34,IPC (died) Badridas 120-B, 467, 471/34, IPC The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons. They denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under S. 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded. In defence, three witnesses were produced by the accused persons. After conclusion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur through his judgment and order dated 22-4-1995 acquitted the accused Badridas of the charges framed against him, but convicted the present accused petitioner Jagdish of the charges for the offence under Section 120-B, 471 and 204, IPC and sentenced in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia:- 1. That it is an admitted fact of the case that disputed forged Will (Ex. P/75) was alleged to have been executed by Ganesh Das in favour of the accused petitioner Jagdish and the same was presented for registration in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur by the accused petitioner. 2. That the writings on the forged Will (Ex. P/75) were of accused Badrinarain (died) as the same were got proved by the Expert Report Ex. P/82 and they were not in the hand-writing of deceased Ganesh Das and thus, the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that Ex. P/75 was a forged Will. 3. That Ex. P/75 was a forged Will and the same was prepared by accused Badrinarain (died), but in making that forged Will (Ex. P/75), the accused petitioner Jagdish was also a party in conspiracy and thus, the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused petitioner Jagdish for the offence punishable under S. 120-B, IPC. 4. That through application Ex. P/69, the forged Will Ex. P/75 was presented by the accused petitioner before the Sub-Registrar for registration and that forged Will was prepared after the death of Ganesh Das and the accused petitioner was having full knowledge that forged Will of Ganesh Das was being prepared and by producing his affidavit Ex. P/32, the accused petitioner presented the forged Will as genuine one and by doing so, he has committed the offence punishable under S. 471, IPC. 5. That prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused petitioner Jagdish for the offence under S. 204, IPC. 6. That prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused Badridas for the offence under Ss. 120-B, 467, 471/34, IPC and thus, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted accused Badridas of the said charges. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 22-4-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur, the accused petitioner has preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and that appeal was transferred to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur through his judgment dated 4-2-1997 dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 22-4-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 4-2-1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner.;