Dismissed

Prahlad Singh Sikarwar v. Krishna Kumar Singh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Nov 2023ACQA/64/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 378 CrPC regarding the fraudulent selling of ancestral land, the High Court of Chhattisgarh considered the lower court's acquittal. The High Court found the trial court's conclusion proper, noting lack of evidence regarding the transaction amount and failure to examine the mother, dismissing the appeal against acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against acquittal is dismissed; the impugned judgment of acquittal is upheld.

Prahlad Singh Sikarwar Vs Krishna Kumar Singh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Acquittal Appeal No. 64 of 2012

¶5

Prahlad Singh Sikarwar S/o late Jagannath Singh, aged about 64 years, R/o Priydarshini Nagar, Krishna Talkies Road, Resali, Bhilai, District Durg (CG)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Krishna Kumar Singh S/o late Jagannath Singh, aged about 68 years, R/o Titurdih, Nayapara, Tahsil & District Durg, CG

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : None For Respondent : None

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgement On Board

¶12

23.11.2023

¶13

1. In this appeal filed under Section-378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur on 23.06.2011 in Complaint Case No.393/2010 has been challenged whereby the respondent/accused Krishna Kumar Singh was acquitted of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Hereinafter referred to as 'the judgment of acquittal in question'.

¶14

2. It is an undisputed fact that appellant/complainant Prahlad Singh Sikarwar and accused/respondent Krishna Kumar Singh are real brothers whose other brothers are Narendra Singh and Surendra Singh. Their mother is Hemant Bai and father Jagannath Singh died on 30/07/1966. The land measuring 3½ decimals situated in village Sarkanda, Patwari Halka No. 109, Khasra No. 1108/25 was

¶15

¶16

ancestral land which was sold on 18/07/1969 vide sale deed Ex. P- 1.

¶17

3. The case in brief is that after the death of Jagannath Singh, the said land was looked after by accused Krishna Kumar Singh. complainant Prahlad Singh Sikarwar received information in February 2010 that accused Krishna Kumar Singh by showing the age of complainant as 17 years and presenting someone else in place of his mother had fraudulently sold the said ancestral land for Rs. 4500/- in the year 1969. Whereas at the time of sale, in the year 1969, the age of complainant Prahlad was 23 years and he was born in the year 1946. Accused Krishna Kumar Singh had not even informed his mother and other brothers about the sale of land. Thus, after getting information about the fraud, he gave written information to Sarkanda police station on 10/03/2010 but no action was taken and then he filed a complaint in the court. Taking action on this, the complaint was registered, trial was conducted and the impugned judgment of acquittal was passed.

¶18

4. In support of his case, the complainant has presented the certified copy of the said Sale Deed Ex.P-1 and Marksheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination regarding his date of birth Ex.P-2. The complainant has also got examined himself and Kumud Solanki (sister of the parties) in support of his case. Accused Krishna Kumar Singh, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denying the statement of the contrary witnesses, has stated that he lodged a report in the police station against the son of complainant Prahlad Singh Sikarwar with regard to fraud and therefore in order to implicate

¶19

¶20

him, a false complaint has been filed. In support of his case, the respondent/accused has presented certified copy of the plaint of the civil suit filed by him Ex.D-1, copy of the final report of the police Ex. D-2, the copy of written report made at PS Supela against the son of complainant namely Naveen Singh Ex.D-3, the copy of sale deed regarding Naveen Singh selling his land to others by appointing another person in place of Krishna Kumar Singh Ex. D-4 and the copy of the complaint given to In-charge, PS Mohan Nagar, Durg as Exhibit D-5. The respondent/accused has also got himself as well as his brother Surendra Singh examined.

¶21

5. After hearing both the parties, the trial court has passed the judgment of acquittal in question which has been challenged in this appeal.

¶22

6. No one appeared from either side for arguments.

¶23

7. According to the appeal memorandum, the complainant’s stand is that this conclusion of the trial court that the complainant has not duly proved his age is not justified whereas he has presented documentary evidence to this effect. The complainant has also proved his case and the trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence. Thus, the judgment of acquittal in question is contrary to law and therefore the same should be set aside and the accused should be convicted.

¶24

8. On the basis of the evidence presented by both the parties, the trial court has given the conclusion that the marksheet Ex. P-2 presented by the complainant is secondary evidence and as long as the primary evidence is available, the secondary evidence cannot be accepted. The primary evidence could have been the

¶25

¶26

Dakhil Kharij register or Kotwari register regarding the date of birth, which has not been presented. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove his correct date of birth.

¶27

9. The above conclusion of the trial court is not found to be proper. In the sale deed in question Ex. P-1, the age of complainant Prahlad Singh Sikarwar is recorded as 17 years whereas Prahlad Singh Sikarwar has said that his date of birth as shown in the mark sheet Ex. P-2 is 27/03/1946, which is not rebutted by the accused party. Accused Krishna Kumar Singh himself has admitted in his crossexamination that when the land was sold in the year 1969, he was 27 years old and the complainant was 03 years younger than him. Thus, at the time of sale deed Ex.P-1 which was executed in 1969, the age of complainant was 23-24 years. Even under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has accepted the statement of complainant in question number 7 that the date of birth of complainant was 27/03/1946 and his age at the time of sale deed i.e. 1969 was 23 years. In such a situation, the finding of the trial Court that the complainant has failed to prove his age is not justified.

¶28

10. So far as the allegation of accused Krishna Kumar Singh fraudulently selling the land without knowledge of his family members and receiving the consideration amount is concerned, in this regard, it is clear from the sale deed Ex. P-1 that at that time, accused Krishna Kumar Singh and his mother Hemant Bai had been mentioned as the sellers whereas complainant Prahlad Singh Sikarwar and his brothers Narendra Singh and Surendra Singh had been mentioned as minors and the land has been sold on behalf of their mother as guardian. There is no clear evidence in this

¶29

¶30

regard that the consideration amount was given only to accused Krishna Kumar Singh. If there was any kind of fraud, its important witness was mother Hemant Bai, but she has not been examined.

¶31

11. As a defense witness, Surendra Singh, the younger brother of the parties, supporting the accused side, has stated that the land in question was purchased by his grandfather and after the death of his father, the land was sold by his mother for the marriage of his sister. Thus, when the said land is said to belong to a joint family and the mother was also among the sellers, then it does not appear that accused Krishna Kumar Singh has cheated the complainant in any manner.

¶32

12. The trial Court has found in its decision that the land in question is situated in Sarkanda, Bilaspur, near where the complainant has been visiting his niece's house many times. He filed the complaint against the accused in the year 2010 i.e. about 40 years after the sale of the land. The complainant has stated that he came to know about the fraudulent sale of land by the accused through Rao Tailors in February 2010. It is noteworthy that no mention of information from Rao Tailors has been found in his complaint letter. It is also noteworthy that the complaint was filed after accused Krishna Kumar Singh lodged a report to the police against the complainant’s sons Dhaniram and Naveen. In such a situation, the intention of the complainant does not appear to be bona fide. It is also noteworthy that the seller of the land in question was also the mother of the parties. If the elder brother Krishna Kumar Singh had committed fraud, it was necessary to get the statement of the seller mother recorded for it, but the mother has not been examined by the complainant. The land is

¶33

¶34

said to be ancestral land. The purpose of selling is said to get the sister married. At that time the father had died. On all these grounds, the trial Court has not found it proved that the accused had cheated the complainant by inducing him.

¶35

13. On the basis of the above discussion, it is found that there is no illegality in the conclusion given by the trial Court regarding the offence of fraud not being proved. Therefore, there is no need for any intervention in it.

¶36

14. Thus, this appeal against the acquittal is dismissed.

¶37

15. The records of the trial Court along with the copy of this judgment be sent back as early as possible.

¶38

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶39

Khatai

Prahlad Singh Sikarwar v. Krishna Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Singh Sikarwar v. Krishna Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunt @ Kunto Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Sahu Vs Ramesh Kumar Mishra

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohan Lalwani

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Dayalani Vs Lakhan Malang

Shankar Dayalani Vs Lakhan Malang