IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 306 of 2001(A)
1. MUHAMMED KUNJU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SULEKHA BEEVI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
For Respondent :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :27/08/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------------------
CRL.A.NO.306 of 2001
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The complainant in C.C.No.229/98 on the
files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First
Class-II (Forest Offences), Punalur, is the
appellant herein.
2. The complaint was filed alleging that
the complainant and the first accused were
husband and wife. But later, they divorced. 19
cents of property had actually been conveyed in
favour of the complainant and the 1st accused as
“streedhanam” at the time of their marriage.
After the parties had separated, both of them
had remarried and are living separately. The
complainant did not at any point of time, claim
a right over the 19 cents, though the document
of title stood in his name. He had not claimed
possession over the same, nor had he taken any
usufructs from it. But the accused conspired
together and caused the original of Ext.P1
document to be executed, making it appear that
the complainant had also joined in the execution
of the same. This act, the appellant says, had
Cr.A.NO.306/01
:: 2 ::
tarnished his reputation and image. Though he
did not claim any specific right over the
property as such after the divorce, the accused
had abetted each other and executed a sale deed
by making the complainant a party to the
document by affixing a false thump impression
without his consent and knowledge, thereby they
had tarnished his reputation and hence the
complaint, alleging that the accused have
committed offences punishable under Sections
114, 120B, 419, 465, 469 and 500 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The evidence in the case consisted of
the testimony of Pws.1 to 5. The court below,
on an appreciation of the evidence, acquitted
the accused finding that the complainant has not
been able to prove that the accused have
committed the offences as such. Hence, this
appeal by the complainant challenging the order
of acquittal of the accused.
4. I heard learned counsel for the
appellant and I have perused the records.
5. What is to be noted, at the outset,
is that the specific case of the complainant is
Cr.A.NO.306/01
:: 3 ::
that though the 19 cents of property had been
conveyed in favour of him and the 1st accused, at
the time of their marriage, the complainant
specifically refused to assert any right over
the property. According to him, he did not
claim any right over the property, which has
been obtained by the 1st accused as
“Streedhanam”. In the circumstance, the
complainant does not seem to be correct in
saying that, by an act of forgery the accused
had committed the offences alleged by hatching a
criminal conspiracy between them and caused the
execution of the original of Ext.P1 and deprived
him of the valuable right, which he had asserted
over the property. He had specifically asserted
that he does not have right over the property.
But he is aggrieved by the loss of reputation
suffered by him in describing him as Executant
No.1 and the 1st accused as Executant No.3, as
husband and wife. Hence he was constrained to
lodge the criminal prosecution.
6. I have gone through the evidence and
I find that the complainant, who as PW.1 has not
been able to specifically say, who exactly was
Cr.A.NO.306/01
:: 4 ::
responsible for the forgery and who had abetted
the same. Significantly Executant No.1 was the
2nd accused. Obviously, the 2nd accused cannot be
considered as having either committed forgery or
abetted the same because he had executed the
document in respect of item No.1 in the
document, another 20 cents of property, over
which the complainant did not claim any right.
Executant No.1, the 2nd accused also did not
claim any right over the 19 cents of property
which is item No.2 therein. In other words, the
presence of the 2nd accused in the document or at
the time of actual transaction has nothing to do
with the conveyance of the property having an
extent of 19 cents of property, described as
Item No.2 in the document. Insofar as accused 6
and 7 are concerned, they were only witnesses to
the document. The property in question was
purchased by accused 4 and 5 and 3rd accused is
alleged to be the person, who presented the
document before the Sub Registrar for
registration. PW.1 has not been able to say
with any degree of certainty as to who is
responsible for the forgery and who had abetted
Cr.A.NO.306/01
:: 5 ::
the person who had committed forgery. The
allegation simplicitor will not strike against
the 2nd accused because he was the executant of
the document, but he was the vendor of one item
of property unrelated to the appellant. Accused
6 and 7 cannot be considered as having committed
the act of forgery.
7. In short, the evidence before the
court below was so vague as regards the other
allegations of forgery or abetment. In the
circumstance, the court below had apparently no
option, but to acquit the accused.
8. I am in agreement with the findings
of the court below that no offence has been made
out against any of the accused. The evidence is
scanty. The court below took serious note of the
fact that according to the complainant, he had
specifically refused to assert any right over 19
cents of property forming the subject matter of
the original of Ext.P1 since divorce between him
and the 1st accused. It cannot be said that his
reputation has been tarnished by reason of the
execution of the document. In the circumstance,
I do not find any grounds at all to interfere
Cr.A.NO.306/01
:: 6 ::
with the order of acquittal. I am in full
agreement with the findings of the court below.
For all these reasons, I find that the
appeal is bereft of any merit and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge
V.GIRI, J.
———————————————-
CRL.A.No.306 of 2001
JUDGMENT
27th August, 2008.
————————————————