SADANANDA GURU AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners along with another were charged under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code for forging a document purporting to be an authority to adopt said to have been executed by one Krushna Chandra Guru in favour of his wife Tikei. They were further charged under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for having fabricated false evidence for being used in a title suit relating to a dispute of adoption. Petitioners 2 and 4 Dhaneswar and Benudhar respectively were individually charged under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally giving false evidence in the said suit. Petitioner Sadananda was charged under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for having used the said document (Ext. 1) in the litigation knowing it to be a forged document. The learned trial judge acquitted Madhab, who was a co -accused and convicted all the four Petitioners under Sections 461 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and six months respectively. Petitioners Dhaneswar and Benu were also convicted for having given false evidence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Petitioner Sadananda was convicted under Section 465 read with Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months ' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The learned appellate judge has dismissed their appeal and affirmed the convictions and the sentences.

(2.) THE short facts necessary to dispose of this revision application may now be stated. Title Suit No. 67 of 1967 was instituted by Petitioner Sadananda against Tikei and another in the Court of the Munsif at Nayagarh for declaration that he was the adopted son of Krushna Chandra, husband of Tikei. The suit was posted to 18 -5 -1968 for ex parte hearing. That day Sadananda filed Ext. 1 and examined himself in support of his case. Petitioner Dhaneswar was also examined as a witness on his behalf. Ext. 1 which purported to be an authority of Kurshna Chandra in favour of his wife dated 18 -9 -1946 to adopt the Petitioner Sadananda was thus relied upon in support of the claim. The suit was decreed ex parte on 11 -5 -1968. Ext. 1 was taken back by the Petitioner Sadananda. At Tikei 's instance the ex parte decree was set aside by the Subordinate Judge of Nayagarh to whom the record was transferred and the suit was posted to 22 -9 -1969 for hearing. Ext. 1 was re -filed. Petitioners Dhaneswar and Benu were examined, as witnesses on the Plaintiff 's side on 23.9.1969 and the document was again marked as Ext. 1. On 24 -9 -1969, Sadananda applied for withdrawal of the suit. On 4 -11 -1969, the suit was permitted to be withdrawn but the learned Subordinate Judge came to hold vide his order (Ext. 16/6):

(3.) TWO contentions have been mainly pressed before me at the time of hearing by learned Counsel for the Petitioners.