FORM A

            IN THE COURT OF  SUBJUDGE 4 CUM ADDITIONAL     
            CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTARTE, SASARAM,ROHTAS
                              Present: Sri Devesh kumar
                          Date of Judgment­ 13/07/2023
                                 Complaint. Case NO. 1080/2016
                              Registration Number: 3420 /2016
      Complaint. Case Number 1080/2016
  Complaint under sections 465,467, 468, 470, 471, 420, 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code.

       
        Complainant  Musmat   Kalawati   Kuer,   W/O   Late   Raghuveer
Ram R/o Kaithi, PS Chenari, District­Rohtas.
       Represented by         Sri   Ld. Adv Kamlesh Pd.
         Accused 1 Nathuni Ram, aged 65 years 
2 Jokhni Devi aged about 60 years
3 Vinod Singh aged about 57 years. 

Represented by    Sri Bhola nath bhaskar  Ld. Adv.

                      

                                            FORM B
               Date of offence 30­05­14

           Date of complaint 25­11­16

        Date of Charge sheet NA

      Date of framing of Charges 11­06­19

  Date of commencement of evidence 9­01­18

Page 1 of 7
   Date on which judgment reserved 13/07/2023.

    Date of the Judgment  13/07/2023.

  Date of the sentencing order, if any  Not applicable.

                                        Details of the Accused 

Rank   of   the Accused Accusd Accusd Accus Accuse

accused Number  Number 2 Number 3 ed d
1 Numb Number
er 4 5
Name   of   the Nathuni Jokhni Devi Vinod
accused
Ram   ,   aged aged   about Singh   aged
65 years   60 years  about   57
Years
Date of arrest  N.A. NA
Date   of 13­10­17 13­10­17 13­10­17
release on bail
Offences S   465,   467, S   465,   467, S   465,   467,
Charged with 120B IPC. 120B IPC. 120B IPC.

Whether Acquitted Acquitted Acquitted

Acquitted   or
convicted
Sentence N.A. N.A. N.A.
Imposed
Period   of N.A. N.A. N.A.
Detention
undergone
during   trial
for   the
purpose   of
section 428 of
Cr.P.C. 

         FORM C

Page 2 of 7
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES: ­ 

A Prosecution  
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT   WITNESS,   MEDICAL
WITNESS,   PANCH   WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
nil nil

B Defence Witnesses, if any: ­Nil 

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE   WITNESS,   POLICE
WITNESS,   EXPERT   WITNESS,
MEDICAL   WITNESS,   PANCH
WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)
     Not applicable Not applicable
  
 C  Court Witnesses, if any: Nil

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE   WITNESS,   POLICE   WITNESS,
EXPERT   WITNESS,   MEDICAL
WITNESS,   PANCH   WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
CW1 Not applicable Not applicable

Page 3 of 7
 LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
    C.A.   Prosecution: 

Sr. Exhibit           Description

No Number
1. nil
2
3.
4.
5. 
6.
7. 

C.B.      Defence: 

Sr. Exhibit              Description

No. Number

1
2
3.
           

• C.C.      Court Exhibits – Nil

Sr. Exhibit              Description

No. Number

1 Not Not applicable
applicable
     

C. D.         Material Objects – Nil

Sr. Material              Description

Page 4 of 7
 No. Object
Number
1 Not Not applicable
applicable

 
           JUDGMENT

1 The present case emerges from the complaint filed u/s   465,467,
468, 470, 471, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code  at  Sasaram.

2 The   case   of   the   complainant   in   brief     is   that   Jokhan   Devi   got

executed sale deed by impersonating some other person in place of
complainant. Complainant came to know about the same after 3­4
month   from   date   of   occurrence.   Complainant   has   two   dismil   of
land over which home is situated.   

3 The charges were framed under sections 465, 467, 120B IPC on
11/06/2019.   The   same   was   read   and   explained   over   accused
persons  in Hindi to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.

4 The statement of accused persons under section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were also be recorded on 28/02/2023
in which they claimed themselves to be innocent.  

5 The case of the defense is one of the denial of the alleged offense
and innocence of the accused persons. 

                      POINT FOR DETERMINATION

6 Now, the question which fells for consideration before this court is
that   whether   the   prosecution   has   been   able   to   prove   its   case
beyond the shadow of the reasonable doubt.

Page 5 of 7
 FINDINGS, MARSHALLING AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

7 Complainant produced altogether three witnesses namely PW1

Lalmuni Ram, PW2- Haribansh Ram and PW-3 Kalawati Kuwar, the
complainant herself.
8 P.W.-3 the complainant herself supported her case and stated in

examination in chief that she filed this case for her land. Vinod,
Nathuni, Jokhani got executed the sale deed fraudulently. Her home is
situated on that land. She did not produced herself for after charge
cross-examination.
9 P.W.-1 supported the case of complainant in his examination in chief

and he did not produce himself for after charge cross-examination.

10 PW-2 supported the case of complainant and he stated nothing in his

cross examination upon which he could be disbelieved.

11 Argument advanced by defence is that accused persons are innocent

and have committed no offence. They falsely implicated in this case

as accused persons. Complainant herself did not produce herself of
after charge cross examination. Hence her statement cannot be treated
as evidence for want of full cross-examination. Therefore accused
persons are entitled for acquittal.
12 Heard, perused the case record, it appears that complainant and sole

victim of this case has not produced himself for after chearge cross
examination. Hence her statement cannot be treated as evidence for
want of full cross-examination. Prosecution has failed to prove the
charges levelled against accused persons beyond the shadow of all
reasonable doubt. Hence offfence under   sections   465,   467,   120B
IPC is not proved in light of evidence available on record.

Accordingly accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

Page 6 of 7
 ORDER
13 Therefore, the accused namely Nathuni Ram,  Jokhni Devi , Vinod

Singh   are hereby acquitted from charges of offenses u/s   465, 467,

120B IPC. for want of evidence. All accused persons are on bail, they

and their bail bonds are also discharged from their respective
liabilities.
 Pronounced in open court.
          Typed and Corrected by me                Pronounced by me 

      (SRI DEVESH KUMAR), ACJM                 (SRI DEVESH KUMAR), ACJM,
           SASARAM                                                       SASARAM
     Dated 13­07­2023                                              Dated 13­07­2023

Page 7 of 7