Mere registration of a forged gift deed in accused’s favour does not prove forgery or conspiracy.

The complainant, Belas Yadav, alleged that his father, Mahangu Mahato, had died before the execution of a registered gift deed dated 21.10.1982.

According to the complaint, the petitioners impersonated or procured an imposter to pose as Mahangu Mahato and caused a gift deed to be executed in their favour, falsely representing Mahangu as issueless.

The complainant claimed to have discovered the alleged forgery in 1999, obtained a certified copy of the deed, and instituted Complaint Case No. 451 of 1999.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 419, 467, 468 and 120B of the IPC, while acquitting them under Sections 420 and 471 IPC.

The appellate court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2006 and affirmed the conviction and sentences on 06.02.2016.

During pendency of the revision, original petitioner Ram Bharat Mahato died, and the proceedings on his behalf abated.

The remaining petitioners challenged the concurrent findings before the High Court.

Whether the evidence established that the petitioners made or participated in making a false gift deed with the dishonest intention necessary to constitute forgery under Sections 467 and 468 IPC.

Whether the ingredients of cheating by personation under Section 419 IPC were proved when the identity of the person who impersonated Mahangu Mahato before the Registrar was not established.

Whether the prosecution proved an agreement or meeting of minds sufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction suffered from legal or evidentiary perversity warranting interference in criminal revision.

The Court applied Section 419 IPC, which penalises cheating by personation; Sections 463, 467 and 468 IPC, which require the making of a false document, the requisite dishonest or fraudulent intention, and, under Section 468, an intention that the forged document be used for cheating.

Section 120B IPC, which requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or an otherwise lawful act by illegal means.

Mere existence of a document allegedly executed after the death of the purported executant, or the fact that the petitioners were named as beneficiaries, does not by itself prove that they made the document, participated in its creation, possessed the requisite dishonest intention, impersonated the deceased, or entered into a criminal conspiracy.

Although the alleged gift deed purportedly bore the name of Mahangu Mahato, the prosecution did not prove that the petitioners purchased the stamp paper, arranged for the deed to be written, procured the imposter, signed the document, or otherwise participated in its preparation.

The evidence also showed that the petitioners neither claimed the land on the basis of the deed nor produced or relied upon it before any authority or court.

Consequently, the essential ingredients of making a false document with dishonest intent, and of intending its use for cheating, were not established.

Section 419 IPC was also not made out because the prosecution failed to identify the person presented before the Registrar as Mahangu Mahato or prove that the petitioners were connected with the impersonation.

Finally, there was no evidence of an agreement or meeting of minds between the petitioners and any other person, making the conviction under Section 120B unsustainable.

The High Court therefore found that the courts below had misappreciated the evidence and had arrived at legally erroneous conclusions.

The petitioners were consequently acquitted of those offences.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of, and the judgment along with the trial court record was directed to be transmitted to the court concerned.