Raghubansh Lal vs The State Of U. P

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1955

Decision Date: 20 February, 1957

Coram: J. L. Kapur, B. Jagannadhadas, Syed Jaffer Imam, P. Govinda Menon

In the case titled Raghubansh Lal versus the State of U P, the judgment was delivered on 20 February 1957 by a bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Justice J L Kapur, Justice B Jagannadhadas, Justice Syed Jaffer Imam, and Justice P Govinda Menon. The petitioner was Raghubansh Lal and the respondent was the State of U P. The citation of the decision is reported as 1957 AIR 486 and 1957 SCR 696. The matter concerned an offence under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the intentional framing of a record in an incorrect manner with the purpose of causing loss or injury. The headnote of the judgment explained that the appellant, who held the position of Patwari, had entered an incorrect entry concerning possession of certain disputed plots in the khasra for the year 1358 F. The Court held that a conviction under section 218 requires not merely an erroneous entry but also the presence of intent to cause loss or knowledge that such loss was likely. The Court observed that the erroneous entry for the year 1358 F could not have caused any loss to the complainant because the case under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code had already been decided when the entry was alleged to have been made, and consequently the entry could not confer hereditary tenancy. Moreover, section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act conferred benefits only on persons recorded as being in possession in the year 1356 F, not the year 1358 F.

The appeal arose under criminal appellate jurisdiction as Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1955, filed by special leave under article 136 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and order dated 7 September 1954 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 1952. That judgment had affirmed the conviction of the appellant by the Court of Sessions Judge at Ghazipur on 7 June 1952 in S. T. No. 11 of 1952. The appellant was represented by counsel, while the respondent was also represented by counsel. The Supreme Court’s judgment was delivered by Justice Kapur. The factual backdrop of the appeal was that the appellant, a Patwari of the village Arazi Mafi Pandai and therefore a public servant, had framed the khasra of 1358 F concerning plots numbered 170 and 74/1 in the same village, knowing that the entry was incorrect and intending, or being aware that it was likely, to cause undue loss to Smt Mahura Kunwar. The Court recounted that the dispute originated from a joint Hindu family in which two brothers, Mahadeo and Sahdeo, owned land. After their deaths, various litigations concerning possession and inheritance, including suits filed by Ram Sewak Pande, Adit Pande, Ganga Pande, and Smt Mahura Kuar, resulted in a decree on 1 August 1941 and subsequent possession obtained by Smt Mahura Kuar on 31 May 1943. On 25 February 1950, Smt Mahura Kuar made an application to the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate for proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which formed the basis for the later criminal charges against the appellant. The Supreme Court examined these facts and concluded that the legal requirements for conviction under section 218 were not satisfied, leading to the reversal of the earlier conviction.

In the matter before the Court, it was established that two brothers, Mahadeo and Sahdeo, who were members of a joint Hindu family, owned several plots of land. Mahadeo died leaving a widow named Basera Kunwar, a son identified as Damodar Pande, and a daughter called Mahura Kunwar. Sahdeo died leaving a widow named Sundra Kunwar. Following the death of Damodar Pande, an individual named Ram Sewak Pande instituted a suit against Basera Kunwar and Sundra Kunwar for possession of zamindari property, including the rights of sir and sayar that had been bequeathed by Damodar Pande; that suit was dismissed. After Basera Kunwar passed away, two persons—Adit Pande, the son of Ram Sewak, and Ganga Pande—sought to have their names entered as owners of the same property. Subsequently, Mahura Kunwar filed a suit seeking possession of the estate left by Basera Kunwar against Adit Pande and Ganga Pande, and the Court decreed in her favour on 1 August 1941. On 31 May 1943, the Court ordered that Mahura Kunwar be given possession of that estate, which included two specific plots identified as numbers 170 and 74/1.

On 25 February 1950, Mahura Kunwar applied to the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate for proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code against Adit Pande and Ganga Pande. The Magistrate directed that the land, including the two disputed plots, be attached, and it was alleged that the possession of those plots was then entrusted to a custodian named Shubh Karan. The attachment remained in force from 15 March 1950 until 18 December 1950, covering portions of parcels 1357 F and 1358 F. On 18 December 1950, the Magistrate concluded that Mahura Kunwar’s possession had been established, ordered the attachment to cease, and directed that the possession of the disputed plots be restored to her, restraining Adit Pande and Ganga Pande from further interference. The aggrieved party appealed this order to the District Magistrate, whose revision was dismissed on 28 March 1951; actual delivery of possession was reportedly effected in April 1951, although it remained stayed pending the District Magistrate’s order. Finally, on 31 July 1951, Mahura Kunwar lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate at Ghazipur under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the Patwari of the village had deliberately entered incorrect entries for plots 170 and 74/1, recording Adit Pande as being in possession, thereby committing an offence under the cited penal provision. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Mahura Kunwar testified as the first witness, supported by two additional witnesses, Gouri Shankar (second witness) and Naresh (third witness).

The accused called two defence witnesses, namely Adit Pande as defence witness I and Ram Swarup as defence witness II. In his defence before the Sessions Court, the accused explained that he had learned from Shubh Karan Chowkidar that Smt Mahura Kuar had obtained a decree under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He further asserted that, despite that decree and the order of the magistrate, he had found the possession “on the spot” to belong to Adit Pande. The accused claimed that he had not complied with the magistrate’s order because he had never received any such order, and that he had not found Smt Mahura Kuar, in whose favour the magistrate’s order was passed, actually in possession of the land. The trial court examined the material and concluded that the accused had deliberately entered wrong entries in the land record, fully aware that those entries were false, and that his purpose was to create a gain for Adit Pande and a loss for Smt Mahura Kuar. Consequently, the court convicted the accused, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs 200, with default punishment of four months’ rigorous imprisonment if the fine were not paid. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. In doing so, it relied on the statements of Smt Mahura Kuar herself and those of two corroborating witnesses, Gauri Shankar and Naresh Gadaria, who supported her version that Shubh Karan, a sapurdar, had sown barley in one field and paddy in another and that the actual physical possession of the land was delivered to her in April 1951. After evaluating the evidence, the High Court held that the entries in the khasra were incorrect and were made with the intention of injuring Smt Mahura Kuar. The Court referred to Rule 60 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual, which governs the preparation of khasras. The rule specifies that the khasra contains columns indicating the cultivator’s name, the name of the sub‑tenant or tenants, and details of the crops. It mandates that entries must reflect the actual facts, that the Patwari is responsible for all entries, and that the Patwari must verify the facts through inquiry of the concerned persons and field inspection, completing the khasra by 30 April. The remarks column for the years 1357 F and 1358 F was recorded as “qabiz badastur” (possession as before), as shown by the order of commitment. In arriving at the conclusion that the entries were false and made to harm Smt Mahura Kuar, the lower courts considered the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Although the magistrate’s finding in those proceedings favored Smt Mahura Kuar, the land in dispute had been attached and allotted for cultivation to Shubh Karan Chowkidar, and even the prosecution’s case acknowledged that the actual physical possession did not pass to Smt Mahura Kuar until April 1951. The sapurdar, Shubh Karan, had not been examined as a witness, a circumstance noted by the courts.

The matter related to the then‑existing dispute between Mahura Kuar and Shubhkaran concerning the produce of the land during Shubhkaran’s period of custodianship. Although the records state that possession of the disputed plots was transferred to the complainant in April 1951, she did not actually hold physical possession before that date, as the land remained under attachment. Therefore the prosecution needed to show that the accused deliberately made a false entry and that he acted with intention or knowledge of causing loss or injury to the public or to Smt. Mahura Kuar. The High Court observed that the accused was aware of the litigation between Mahura Kuar and Adit Pande and nevertheless entered the record incorrectly. However, sustaining a conviction under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code required more than merely incorrect entries; it demanded proof that the entry was made with the specific malicious intent prescribed by that provision. The Court found that direct evidence of such intention was absent and that the circumstantial material presented was too scant to permit a safe conclusion about the accused’s motive. The appellant contended that the sapurdar, Shubhkaran, never actually obtained possession from Adit Pande, and that because Shubhkaran had not been interviewed as a witness, the prosecution case remained doubtful. Nevertheless, the lower courts examined this aspect, considered all surrounding circumstances, and ultimately ruled in favour of the complainant on the issue of possession.

The remaining question was whether the false entries had been made with the intention or the knowledge that they would likely cause loss or injury to the complainant. The Court observed that it was hard to comprehend how an erroneous entry for the year 1358 F could result in any detriment to Mahura Kuar. Consequently, the intention behind the entry had to be inferred from the accused’s overall conduct rather than from any demonstrable effect of the entry itself. The prosecution argued that the entry might have been intended to create evidence that could be used against the complainant in proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the record showed that the entries were made in March, a time when the magistrate had decided the section 145 matter in December 1950 and had ordered possession to be delivered to the complainant. Accordingly, the entry could not have influenced the outcome of those proceedings, and therefore could not be said to have been made with a malicious purpose. Counsel for the appellant also relied on section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, passed in 1951, which dealt with the determination of hereditary tenancy. That provision, however, applied only to entries for the year 1356 F, whereas the disputed entry concerned the year 1358 F and thus could not have benefited Adit Pande under that statute. In view of these considerations the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the requisite criminal intent and that no offence under section 218 had been committed. Accordingly, the appeal was permitted, the conviction set aside and the accused acquitted, and the bail bond was ordered to be cancelled. The Court further observed that the absence of Shubhkaran’s testimony, although raised by the defence, did not render the finding on possession uncertain, because the lower courts had carefully evaluated all other evidence. The Court stressed that for a conviction under section 218, the prosecution must establish the specific malicious intent beyond reasonable doubt, and conjecture based on ancillary facts was insufficient.

In the judgment, the Court explained that the provision in the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act stipulates that a person who is recorded as an occupant of a piece of land for the year 1356 F and who, on the date specified in that provision, actually holds possession of the land, shall be treated as a hereditary tenant of that land. The Court then observed that the entry which formed the basis of the complaint did not relate to the year 1356 F; rather, it concerned the year 1358 F. Because the entry was made for a later year, it could not have been useful to Adit Pande for invoking the rights or protections granted under section 16 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. Consequently, the Court held that the circumstances did not support a finding that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under section 218, since, in the Court’s view, the prosecution had failed to establish the requisite criminal intention. On that basis, the Court decided to allow the appeal, to set aside the order of conviction, and to acquit the accused. As a further consequence, the bail bond that had been executed was ordered to stand cancelled. The appeal was therefore allowed.