1 2025:CGHC:6282-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 285 of 2024 Brijbhushan Verma S/o Pardesiram Verma Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Aaurda, Post Dhumka, Tehsil And District Rajnandgoan (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 - K Padma W/o K Shrinivasullu presently Aged About 60 Years R/o Panchasheel Nagar, East Charoda, Bhilai- 03, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents ACQA No. 286 of 2024 Brijbhushan Verma S/o Pardesiram Verma Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Aaurda, Post Dhumka, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1. Sohanlal @ Sohan Das S/o Bhagwat Das presently Aged About 43 Years R/o Iraikhurd, P.S. Dhumka, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.02.05 15:37:50 +0530 2 ACQA No. 289 of 2024 Brijbhushan Verma S/o Pardesiram Verma Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Aaurda Post Dhumka, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Shashikant Markande S/o Chatrapati Markande presently Aged About 56 Years R/o Bodegaon, P.S. - Nandini Nagar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Appellants :Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate in all the Acquittal Appeals For Respondent 1 :None in all the Acquittal Appeals For State/Respondent No. 2 :Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General in all the Acquittal Appeals Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 04.02.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. Heard on admission. 1. Since, all these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 23.03.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (CG) in Criminal Appeal Nos. 256/2023, 273/2023 and 274/2023, whereby, the appellants in the said appeals, the respondents herein, have been acquitted in Criminal Case No.31889/2011 (Crime No.53/2010, registered at Police Station Bori, District Durg) from commission of the officence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 3 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant – Brijbhushan Verma lodged a written report (Ex.P-14) on 09.06.2010 before the Superintendent of Police, Durg under Section 420 of IPC, alleging inter alia, that the land bearing Khasra No. 692/1, admeasuring 0.91 hectares (2.27 acres), situated at village Doma, Tahsil Dhamda, District Durg, owned by him was, however, sold by the respondents fraudulently to accused No.3- K. Padma by executing a registered deed of sale (Ex.D-1) dated 10.11.2008. According to him, he was involved in brick-work business, but since there was some recession in the business, he shifted to Durg and when he came back in November, 2009 and unloaded the soils on his alleged land, it was, however, resisted by the said accused - K. Padma saying that she has purchased the alleged land. It is alleged further that upon knowing the said fact, he obtained the copy of the alleged deed of sale on 23.01.2010 and lodged the report before the Police Station- Bori on 10.02.2010 and when no action was taken, therefore, he has lodged this written complaint for taking an appropriate action against the respondents. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report (Ex. P-14), an FIR (Ex. P-25) was registered on 28.06.2010 against an unknown person and three others’ with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC in connection with Crime 4 No.53/2010, and after due investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the respondents before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg with regard to the alleged offence mentioned herein-above and, during the course of trial, one of the accused persons, namely, K. Prasad Rao was absconded and, therefore, in his absence, the trial was conducted by the concerned trial Court and after considering the evidence led by the prosecution and that by placing reliance upon the opinion given by the Handwriting Expert, namely, Manisha Dubey, the respondents, except accused No.2- Bhagwat Das, have been convicted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by them, wherein, the appellate court vide its judgment impugned, has acquitted the respondents while setting aside the judgment of conviction, as passed by the concerned trial Court on 13.09.2023. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the instant appeals have been preferred by the complainant- Brijbhushan Verma under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in all the acquittal appeals submits that the finding of the appellate court acquitting the respondents by reversing the finding of the trial Court, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the opinion given by the Handwriting Expert, has not been considered in its proper perspective and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents, as such. 5 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has supported the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P-14) lodged by the complainant- Brijbhushan Verma on 09.06.2010. According to the alleged report (Ex.P-14), it appears that when he returned in the month of November, 2009, he came to know that the alleged land owned by him was sold by the respondents fraudulently to accused No.3- K. Padma, while affixing the photo in the alleged sale of someone else which he does not know, while accused Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Sohanlal and Bhagwat have been shown to be witnesses. It appears further from the alleged report that the copy of the sale deed was obtained by him on 23.01.2010 and on 10.02.2010, a report in this regard was lodged before the Police Station- Bori and, since no action was taken, therefore, the alleged written report (Ex.P-14) was lodged by him. It, however, stated by him (PW/1-A) at paragraph 32, that he lodged the alleged report six months after knowing the said fact. No explanation to this effect has, however, been offered by him as to why the report was lodged after passing of such a considerable period of six months, 6 despite the fact that he came to know regarding the alleged sale in the month of November, 2009 and also on 23.01.2010, when the copy of the alleged sale was obtained by him. Although, it was stated by him that neither his signature and the thumb impression is there on the alleged registered deed of sale (Ex.D-1) nor the photograph affixed in the alleged document is of him, but the said fact was, however, not found to be corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. It reveals further from his testimony that the Rin Pustika of the alleged land was stolen by accused No.2 - Bhagwat Das, who has already been acquitted, but no report has, however, been lodged by him in this regard. It appears further from the statement of Shravan Kumar Agrawal (PW-13), the Stamp Vendor that the alleged document was typed at the instance of the complainant - Brijbhushan Verma and the purchaser- K. Padma and was found to be executed in presence of the Deputy Registrar, namely, A.K. Shrivastava (PW-15). That apart, it appears from the statement of S.K. Gupta (PW-6), the another Stamp Vendor, that he was not aware that who purchased the alleged stamp paper and, a perusal of the back portion of the said stamp paper would show that it was purchased by Brijbhushan Verma S/o Pardesi. Since the said Stamp Vendor (PW-6) was unable to state that who purchased the said stamp paper, therefore, the burden was heavily lies upon the prosecution to establish the fact that the alleged stamp paper was purchased by someone else instead of said Brijbhushan Verma. However, no cogent and reliable evidence has been led by the prosecution to this effect. In view thereof, it is difficult to hold that the alleged stamp paper was not purchased by said Brijbhushan Verma. 7 9. It is to be seen further that although an opinion given by one Manisha Dubey, the Handwriting Expert, was placed on record revealing the fact that neither the signature nor the thumb impression of complainant- Brijbhushan Verma is there on the alleged registered deed of sale (Ex.D-1), but, neither the said Handwriting Expert was examined nor the report submitted by her was confronted to the accused persons when their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as such, no reliance can be placed upon it, as was relied by the trial Court while convicting the respondents. The appellate Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in reversing the finding of the trial Court while acquitting the accused persons- Sohanlal @ Sohan Das, K. Padma and Shashikant Markande from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in these appeals. 10. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita