Supreme Court Acquits Accused in IPC Section 218 Case Due to Lack of Criminal Intention. The prosecution failed to establish the necessary criminal intention required for conviction under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code.

In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by Raghubansh Lal, a Patwari, convicted under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code for making incorrect entries regarding land possession. The appellant was accused of intentionally framing the khasra for the year 1358 F incorrectly, which allegedly caused loss to Smt. Mahura Kuar. The background included a dispute over land ownership following the deaths of two brothers, Mahadeo and Sahdeo, and subsequent legal proceedings. The appellant's defense argued that he acted based on the information available to him and did not intend to cause any loss. The trial court convicted him, but the High Court upheld this conviction. The Supreme Court, however, found that the prosecution did not prove the necessary criminal intention required for a conviction under Section 218. The court noted that the incorrect entry could not have caused any loss to the complainant since the relevant legal proceedings had already been decided in her favor before the entry was made. Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant and set aside the conviction, cancelling the bail bond. The judgment emphasized the need for direct evidence of intention, which was lacking in this case.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Incorrect Entries by Public Servant - Requirement of Criminal Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 218 - Conviction under Section 218 requires proof of intention to cause loss or injury, which was not established in this case as the incorrect entry could not have caused any loss to the complainant. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary criminal intention, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant made incorrect entries with the intent to cause loss or injury under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, cancelling the bail bond.

Law Points

  • criminal intention
  • incorrect entries
  • public servant duties
  • IPC Section 218
  • evidence of possession
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1955

1957-02-20

Kapur J.

H. J. Umrigar, G. C. Mathur, C. P. Lal

Raghubansh Lal

The State of U.P.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction under IPC.

Remedy Sought

Acquittal of the appellant.

Filing Reason

Conviction for making incorrect entries as a Patwari.

Previous Decisions

Conviction upheld by the High Court.

Issues

Whether the incorrect entries were made with criminal intent. Whether the prosecution proved the necessary intention under IPC Section 218.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that he acted based on available information and did not intend to cause loss. The prosecution claimed that the incorrect entries were made with intent to harm the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction under Section 218 of the IPC requires proof of criminal intention to cause loss or injury, which was not established in this case.

Judgment Excerpts

Held, that in order to sustain a conviction under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code it is not sufficient that the entry is incorrect, it is essential that the entry should have been made with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause, loss or injury to some person. In these circumstances, we would allow the appeal, set aside the order of conviction and acquit the accused.

Procedural History

The case began with a complaint filed by Smt. Mahura Kuar in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Ghazipur, leading to a conviction in the Sessions Court, which was upheld by the High Court before reaching the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code: 218
  • Criminal Procedure Code: 145
  • U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act: 16
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Forgery Case Due to Inadmissible Handwriting Expert Evidence. Conviction under Sections 120B, 468, 471 IPC set aside as expert opinion lacked proper foundation and corroboration.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Income Tax Prosecution Case — Tribunal's Findings on Concealment Prevail. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation of penalties under the Income Tax Act affects the validity of concurrent criminal prosecution for...