1. The prosecution in this case has reference to a document registered on the 10th of July 1919 by the person Ahi Lal, against whose acquittal the present appeal has been preferred by Government. The document purports to be a conveyance transferring to one Marium Bibi four bighas of land in lieu of a sum of Rs. 49 said to be due to her on account of dower, The document describes Marium as the wife of Ahi Lal and recites that the marriage was celebrated on the date borne by the document, namely, the 12th of Baisakh.
2. It has been found by both the Courts below that this document was executed by the accused Ahi Lal, that no marriage between Ahi Lal and Marium ever took place, and that, in fait, Marium was and is the wife of one Moti Mandal of village Idolpore.
3.We have been taken over the whole of the evidence in the case, and we are satisfied that the findings of the Courts below are correct. The question in this appeal then is whether the accused has committed the offences punishable under sections 193 and 423 of the Code.
4. We have found that the statements made in this document are false. There is extraneous evidence that the accused is on bad terms with the father of the woman Marium, and also that he his sought to obtain her in marriage, With what intention, then, did the accused fabricate this document? It is suggested on his behalf in the course of argument that he was merely perpetrating a bad practical joke. He himself has offered no explanation. The only possible inference, therefore, is that he was acting in furtherance of his desire to secure the person of this woman, and this, in the circumstances, he could only do by judicial proceedings. We can only conclude, therefore, that his intention was to use this document and the false statement therein in judicial proceedings and thereby mislead the Judge.
5. We, therefore, find him guilty of the offense of fabricating false evidence, punish able under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. He is also, in our opinion, guilty under Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code. The Statements in the document relating to the consideration for the transfer are false, and the only question then is whether the accused in making the document was acting fraudulently. Here the contention advanced on behalf nf the accused is that the words 'fraud,' 'fraudulently' and 'to defraud' connote deprivation of property, and the deception of the person so deprived. We are unable to confine the words in question to this restricted meaning. We are not of opinion that deprivation of property, actual or intended, is an essential ingredient in fraud, or the intention to defraud, and we are further of opinion that it is not essential that the person deceived or to be deceived and the person injured or intended to be injured should be one and the game. In the present case we have already found an intention to deceive and mislead. The further intention to cause injury to the woman and her true husband, and to support accused's own false claim to that status is clearly to be deduced from the facts. The language of the section (Section 423) is thus satisfied, and we find the accused guilty of the offense punishable thereunder. We, therefore, restore the order bf the First Court and sentence the accused under each section to nine months' rigorous imprisonment: the two sentences, to run concurrently.