Delhi District Court
State vs Hemlata Bisht @ Hema on 31 May, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF AISHWARYA SHARMA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
1. Cr. Case No. : 429122/2016
2. Date of Institution : 27.09.2011
3. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Kuldeep Singh
S/o Sh. Jagat Ram R/O H. NO.A/2,
Mahavir Vihar, Palam, New Delhi.
4. Name, address and parentage of : 1) Hemlata Bist @ Hema W/O Sh.
Accused persons Dharmender Singh
2) Subh Prabha W/O late Sh. Rohit
Kumar
5. Charge framed against accused : U/S 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B, 506,34
persons IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
8. Date of reserve for orders : 02.05.2024
9. Date for announcing the orders : 31.05.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Hem Lata Bisht @ Hema and Subh Prabha are facing trial for offence U/S 420, 468, 471, 506 R/W120 B IPC. The genesis of Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 FIR NO. 30/2010 16:35:28 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
2the prosecution story as narrated in the complaint is that both the accused persons were known to the complainant and they approached the complainant and represented that the accused No.1 can arrange a confirmed suitable Job for the complainant or any of his known persons in various departments like Banks, DDA, University and other departments using her links with various senior Govt. Officers. It is stated that both these accused persons stated that interested persons for getting the job shall have to make initial payment of Rs. 1,50,000/ each to them towards commission as well as service charges and relying upon the words of accused persons the complainant and his close relatives namely Sh. Balwinder Singh, Smt. Saroj Bala, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sh. Nitesh Kumar and Sh. Amit Kumar, paid a total sum of Rs. 7,50,000/ to both the accused persons in the month of October & November, 2009. It is stated that the said payment was made to accused NO. 1 through Accused NO.2 who gave her personal guarantee that accused No.1would get the job to the complainant and his relatives. It is stated that both the accused persons later on delivered fake identity Cards issued by State Bank of India, DDA and Indian Airlines and joining schedule and when the complainant and his friends contacted respective departments and showed their ID Cards to the concerned officials of concerned departments, they confirmed that they had not issued any such I Cards and no person by such name was selected or supposed to join their organization and both the accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, cheated and defrauded the complainant and his friends/ relatives and caused wrongful loss to them and wrongful gain to themselves. It is stated that when the complainant served a legal notice upon both Digitally signed by FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:35:34 +0530 3 the accused persons demanding his money back, they failed to return the amount and instead of replying the same, both the accused persons started threatening the complainant to face dire consequences at their hands in case they demand their money back from them. With these allegations, the complainant has made a complaint dated 21.12.2009 to SHO P.S. Palam Village against the accused persons with prayer for indicting the accused persons for offences U/SS 420, 468, 471 R/W 120 B & U/S 506 R/W 34 IPC, however, no action was taken, thus, complainant approached the court and the present case FIR was registered vide order dated 18.01.2010. After completion of the investigation, the present charge sheet was filed for conducting trial of the accusedpersons for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charge were heard by my Ld. Predecessor and the charge for offence U/S 420, 468, 471 read with 120 B and U/S 506 R/W 34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons vide order dated 23.08.2013. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused persons, prosecution has examined 13 prosecution witnesses.
4. PW1 Kuldeep Singh who is complainant in the present case deposed that he correctly identified the accused Hemlata Bisht in the court today and stated that he knew accused Hemlata Bisht since she was residing in his neighborhood and used to wear Airport Uniform. He further deposed that in the year, 2007 in the Digitally signed by FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. 16:35:41 +0530 4 month of NovemberDecember, his wife came into contact with Hemlata Bisht and they became known to each other. He further deposed that at that time, he was doing the job of electrician at Manglapuri mod and sealing of the shops were going on by MCD and there was possibility of sealing of his shop also. He further deposed that accused Hemlata Bisht asked his wife about his profession and his wife informed her about his profession and about the sealing in the end of the year 2007 then accused Hemlata Bisht informed his wife that she can arrange job in DDA, Bank, Airport and Railway as she was having a job in airport and her husband was also working there and she had shown the I Cards of her and her husband and the I Card of her husband was bearing the number 56290. He further deposed that the accused Hemlata Bisht had told him that for the job Rs. 1,50,000/ were to be paid for one person and Rs. 75,000/ were to be paid in advance and remaining Rs. 75,000/ were to be paid after joining/ receiving of I cards when the job will be provided after threefour months. He further deposed that in the month of February, 2008, accused Hemlata Bisht informed him that five persons were required for the jobs in the various departments i.e. DDA, Bank, Airport and Railway and later on, she gave him a list informing that 12 persons were required and that the list was having 11 persons, out of which 6 were relating to the accused Hemlata Bisht and 5 persons were from complainant's side namely Saroj Bala, Baljinder Singh, Amit Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar and himself (witness). He further deposed that the advance payment of Rs.75,000/ each from six of them was given at the house of Hemlata Bisht situated at House No. RZ45, Harijan Basti, Nasirpur Road in the month of February 2008 and Hemlata Bisht FIR NO. 30/2010 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:35:48 +0530 5 had shown the list of 12 persons selected in the various departments that is why they made the advance payment. He further stated that accused Hemlata Bisht had told them that remaining payment of Rs. 75,000/ each from six of them was to be paid after their I Cards will be received by them. He further stated that for the threefour months, Hemlata Bisht used to show them one paper or other paper by telling that they have been selected by the various departments but they did not get any job and after the lapse of three months, when they repeatedly asked Hemlata Bisht that why they were not getting the jobs then she introduced them to accused Subprabha (correctly identified by the witness) and told them that it is she who will arrange the jobs and when this witness contacted the accused Subprabha, she gave one I Card of AAJ Tak News Channel to him and informed him that she works in the Aaj Tak News Channel and she will provide the job in the various departments i.e. in DDA, bank, Railway and Airport. He further deposed that both the accused persons contacted each of them individually and informed them that their jobs are arranged and bring the payment. He further stated that firstly, his sisterinlaw Saroj Bala was called to DDA in Vikas Sadan, where accused persons informed Saroj Bala that as she had not passed matriculation examination so she will not get the job but she was told that they will arrange the matriculation certificate for Saroj Bala for Rs. 20,000/ then she can join the job in DDA, Rs. 75,000/ were also taken from Saroj Bala by the accused persons and Accused persons had prepared the affidavit of Saroj Bal regarding the matriculation but that was not valid so they had demanded Rs.20,000/ for preparing the matriculation certificate and Accused persons gave them the time of one month for the jobs. He further deposed that he Digitally signed by FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:35:55 +0530 6 along with his sister in law were present at the Vikas Sadan and both the accused persons had gone inside the DDA Office and they brought some diary from inside and took the signatures of his sister in law and told her that it was attendance as she was not posted as regular employee and that his sister in law used to be taken by the accused persons every day and her attendance were taken on a diary telling her that since is not a permanent employee, her attendance is to be taken on a diary until she becomes permanent employee and she was made to return home around 11'O Clock 12 'O Clock each day by the accused persons. He further stated that after one month, accused Subprabha handed over one envelop of DDA containing Rs. 5,500/ to his sisterinlaw Saroj Bala telling her that it is her payment and she will get increased salary once she gets permanent into the job. He further deposed that the accused Hemlata Bisht gave blue coloured suit and one pair of ladies shoes by telling her that it was the uniform of DDA. He further deposed that Accused persons took each of them to the bank, airport, DDA and handed over to them the I Cards and joining letter, cheques of salary and they gave them the remaining payment of Rs. 75,000/ from each person and at the airport, accused persons used to take the attendance on the letter of MGR and this continued for one month and when they got suspicious, they made inquiries from the respective Bank at Cannaught Place, Airport and DDA and they were informed that there exists no such jobs and they were cheated by the accused persons and on coming to know that they will not get any job as they were cheated, they started demanding money back from the accused persons upon this, the accused persons told them that they have to write one application for taking back their money and to deposit the same Digitally signed by AISHWARYA FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. 16:36:02 +0530 7 in the various departments only then they will get their money back. He further stated that Accused Hemlata Bisht on 04.08.2011, again said 04.11.2008 wrote a letter on his behalf regarding the return of money which was signed by this witness and Accused Subrapha gave one blank paper Signed by her and having revenue stamp and told him that if the payment is not returned then show this letter to anybody and she will be responsible for the payment and Accused Subrapha also gave a Cheque of Rs. 50,000/ bearing NO. 621263 of SBI to him which got bounced upon presentation and when he did not receive payment from the accused persons or departments, he gave complaint Ex. PW1/A to the police. He further deposed that when the accused persons did not return the payment made by him, he made a call on 100 number and police had arrived and took him along with both the accused to Police Station where SHO informed him that he cannot extract money from the accused persons and advised him that he should take recourse of Court. He deposed that accused Shubprabha told Hema Bisht to prepare an affidavit regarding the payment made by Kuldeep Singh which is to be Submitted before concerned department for reimbursement of the payment and accused Shubprabha gave him one affidavit in his shop showing the payment made by Hema to her and that she asked him how much payment was made by him to Hema and he told her that he had paid Rs.1,50,000/ per person to Hema. He further deposed that accused Shubprabha further told him that she will return the payment mentioned in the affidavit to him and she requested him not to file a case against her and file the case against Hemlata and he went to Hemlata for demanding payment made to her but she quarreled with him and refused to make Digitally signed by FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:36:09 +0530 8 the payment to him and Shubprabha gave him one blank paper signed by her and stamped with revenue stamp saying that he can write anything on it and also gave him one card of AAJ Tak news channel saying that she works in the said channel. This witness has produced a blank paper signed on a revenue stamp by accused Shubprabha purportedly give to the witness as a security for repayment with an implied authority to fill the contents on the blank paper and a visiting card was also given along with the blank signed document i.e. Mark A1 and Mark A2. He further deposed that he told her that he will not name her in the case and also discussed the matter with his counsel telephonically and after discussing with his counsel Suprabha was kept as accused no.2 in his complaint Ex. PW1/B in the court against Hem Lata and Suprabha and thereafter, Suprabha went undergone. He further stated that Hemlata Bisht had given Icards bearing no. 38410 and no. 56290 of her husband Dharmender Bisht Mark A3 & Mark A4 and her photograph with uniform Mark A5 and that Shubprabha also gave him one I card bearing No. 6930294 Mark A6. He further deposed that accused Hemlata used to call them at the airport in a restaurant and she has received the half payment there. He stated that he handed over to the IO all the documents which Accused persons had given them regarding the job like I cards, during the investigation on different dates and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex PW 1/C, Ex. PW 1/D, Ex. PW 1/E and Ex. PW 2/A. He further deposed that on 09.08.2011, IO along with Woman Const. Gayatri came at his house and thereafter, they arrested Hem Lata Bisht vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/F and his specimen handwriting was also taken by IO i.e. Ex. X1 to Ex. X7. He correctly identified both the accused in the Court.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA by AISHWARYA
SHARMA
St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31
16:36:39 +0530
9
5. PW2 Sh. Rakesh Kumar deposed that in the year 2008, his maternal uncle namely Charan Singh residing at Nasirpur Village, called him telephonically regarding the job and he told him to bring documents and firstly they went to meet Kuldip Singh i.e. friend of his maternal uncle, who told him to provide the job in DDA as Driver, if he is having DL of driving heavy vehicle and thereafter, they all three went to Hemlata Bisht and Suprabha and they checked his driving license and certificate of 10th class and told him that his documents are correct and they demanded Rs. 1,50,000/ for getting the job of driver in DDA and they also told him that he has to pay Rs. 75,000/ as advance and remaining Rs. 75,000/ would be paid after getting the job. He further deposed that in the February 2008, he made the payment of Rs. 75,000/ at the house of Hemlata Bisht to her and Hemlata Bisht had shown the documents of her husband i.e. I Card bearing number 56290 showing he was the employee at airport and she informed that her husband will arrange the job and after seeing the said I Card of Dharmender Bisht i.e. husband of Hemlata, he made the payment and she further informed him that she will get the job within the period of 3 to 6 months and after two months, Hemlata Bisht made a call to him that his job was arranged and she demanded the remaining amount of Rs. 75,000/ and he along with Kuldeep went to DDA office at INA and Hemlata Bisht along with Suprabha met them there and they were made to sit in the office and Hemlata Bisht along with Suprabha went inside and came outside after 2025 minutes and showed him a letter reportedly issued by DDA having seal of DDA and told him that his work was done and he will get the joining letter after some days and even she asked from him as to where he want the posting Digitally signed by FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:36:45 +0530 10 and at that time, he was not aware about the office of DDA, so he consulted with some persons from his village who were working in the DDA and accordingly he informed that he want to get posted at DDA office, Deepali Chowk, Rohini and they were assured by them that the job will be arranged soon. He further stated that he did not get any job for twothree months and he used to visit every week at the DDA office INA where he used to wait for 23 hours and both the accused persons Hemlata Bisht and Suprabha used to meet him and they used to assure him that he will get his posting in next week or other and that he was also given cloth for dress by the accused persons and he was told to get it stitch it as uniform and on one occasion, he was also paid Rs. 450/ for purchasing the shoes and on several occasions, he used to make the call to the accused persons and they used to put him on one pretext or other and he had to return without getting any job. He further stated that when he did not get any job, he demanded his money back and he pressurized the accused persons, then they gave him one appointment letter of job in DDA and when he went to the office of DDA at Deepali Chowk and showed the same to one officer, he informed him that the appointment letter was not genuine and it was fake and he asked Hemlata Bisht and Suprabha that the appointment letter was fake and then they told him that they will provide another joining letter to him. He further stated that again they called him at the INA office of DDA where they used to take his attendance on blank paper and he was informed that his salary has started and after few days they gave him Rs. 4,500/ in cash as payment of his salary and they had also given him a cheque of Rs. 20,000/ and when he deposited the same with his bank at his village, same was bounced Digitally signed by FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:37:11 +0530 11 and he took the cheque to the Kuldip and told him to return his money back from Hemlata Bisht and Suprabha and he received his money back but he is not aware as to whether the money was paid by Kuldip or by accused persons. He further deposed that he had handed over the documents given to him by accused persons to Kuldip Singh, who might have given the same to the police and identified his signatures at point A upon the seizure memo of the documents i.e. Ex. PW2/A. He stated that his specimen handwriting was also taken by the IO during investigation i.e. Ex.P1, Ex. P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4 & Ex.P5.
6. PW3 Sh. Surender Kumar who deposed that on 15.02.2010, Kuldeep handed over the I Card, Appointment letter and other documents to IO which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/C bearing his signatures at point B.
7. PW4 Smt. Saroj Bala, who deposed that Kuldeep Singh is her brotherin law and in the last December 2007, her brotherinlaw Kuldeep Singh informed her that one lady namely Hemalta Bisht provides job in DDA. She further stated she had given Rs. 1,50,000/ to said Hemlata Bisht for providing the job to her which were paid by her in installments of Rs. 75,000/ in the month of August and November 2008. She further deposed that the first installment was paid to Hemlata at her house and the second installment was given in the DDA office. She further stated that for the three months, Hemlata Bisht used to take her to DDA and sometime to Airport and there, she used to write applications and she used to go inside and when she used to return after 1520 minutes, she used to tell her that her attendance was recorded and thereafter, she used to return back and that Hemlata Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:37:18 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
12Bisht had also given her Khaki Envelope containing Rs. 5,500/ which she told her that it was in lieu of her salary and thereafter, she also gave her one cheque of Rs. 30,000/ and an appointment letter by saying that her joining will be arranged shortly. She further stated the appointment letter was given to her by Hemlata Bisht at her house and she had informed her that Suprabha had arranged the same as she was dealing the matter. She further stated that Hemlata Bisht had also given her I Card of Air India and also entry pass and both Suprabha and Hemlata Bisht used to give assurance to her that she will be provided job and they did the same for two years but they did not provide her any job. She further stated both of these accused persons used to take her to DDA and Airport and used to assure that she will be provided job there but she did not get the job anywhere neither in DDA nor at Airport. She further stated that she had handed over the proofs/documents given to her by accused persons to her brotherinlaw, who gave the same to police and were seized by the police vide Ex. PW1/D bearing her signatures at point B and also proved the documents i.e. DDA Letter is Mark C1, I Card of DDA is mark C 2, Khaki Envelop Mark C3, Photocopy of Cheque Amounting to Rs. 30,000/ Mark Z3, and I Card of Indian Airlines is Mark C4 and she correctly identified both the accused persons in the court.
8. PW5 Sh. Amit Kumar Rana, deposed that in the year 2008, he was student and was pursuing his graduation and was unemployed and he had contacted his maternal uncle (mamaji) Kuldeep Singh for a job who informed him that Hema and Suprabha will provide job to him and he met them in January, 2008 at the Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:37:54 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
13house of his maternal Uncle Kuldeep Singh and accused persons promised that they will arrange a job for him in banking sector and also told me that for the job he has to pay Rs. 1,50,000/. He further stated that in the month of February, he paid Rs. 75,000/ in cash to Hemlata Bisht at Balaji Hotel at Delhi Airport. He further deposed that on 10.03.2008, when he asked Hemlata Bisht about his job, she gave him one affidavit but he did not get any job and on 20.11.2008, Hemlata Bisht gave him another Affidavit. He further deposed that on 17.12.2008, accused Hemlata Bisht provided him joining letter of SBI with one I Card of Junior Clerk of SBI and again on 13.03.2009 one more I Card of SBI for Junior Clerk was provided to him but he did not get any job and Hemlata Bisht used to take him to the bank and Suprabha had also once taken him to the SBI Bank at Cannaught Place. He stated that he had handed all the documents to the police during investigation on 27.11.2020, which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/E bearing his signatures at point B. He correctly identified both the accused in the court. He also proved the joining letter of SBI in his name as Mark P1, Two I Cards in the name of Amit Kumar as P2 & P3. With the permission of the court, the Ld. APP had put some leading question from this witness on the point of payment to which witness stated that he had paid the second installment of Rs. 75,000/ in the month of May 2008 to Hemlata.
9. PW6 HC Shyam Dhari deposed that on 07.09.2011, he took the exhibits to FSL Rohini and deposited them there and after depositing the documents with Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:38:00 +0530 FIR NO. 30/2010 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
14FSL, he took receiving Ex. PW6/A and deposited the same with MHCM and stated that as long as the documents remained in his custody, nobody tempered the same.
10. PW7 SI Jagdish Singh deposed that on 02.02.2010, he was posted as duty officer at PS Palam Village and on the basis of complaint Ex. PW1/A handed over to him by SHO Insp. Satyabir Singh, he registered the present case FIR i.e. Ex. PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A (OSR) and that he made his endorsement i.e. Ex. PW7/B on the said complaint and handed over the complaint and copy of FIR to SI Chattar Singh as further investigation was marked to him.
11. PW8 Sh. Satish Kumar deposed that in the year 2010, he was working as Deputy Manager Personnel in Air India and on 07.05.2010, one letter Mark PW 8/A, from SI Chattar Singh PS Palam Village, forwarded by SHO concerned was received in their office for providing the details of I Card in respect of one Kuldeep Singh having Employee Code 38410, Designation Technician Junior, details/ true copies of letter NO. Admn/Personal/ Airlines India/2009200107400 dated 25th February, 2009 issued in respect of one employee Sh. Kuldeep Singh Employee Code 693294 Technical and details of I Card issued dated 28.02.2007 valid up to 28.02.2011 in respect of Kuldeep Singh having Emp. Code 6930294 technical service and copies of said documents were attached with the said letter. He further deposed that after collecting the requisite information from concerned officer/ department, he sent his reply vide letter dated 24.05.2010 having reference No. DPE/MISC/750 to the IO i.e. Ex. PW8/B bearing his signatures at point B. Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:38:21 +0530 FIR NO. 30/2010 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
1512. PW 9 Insp. Chattar Singh, deposed that on 02.02.2010, after registration of FIR no. 30/10, DO handed over to him a complaint EX PW1/A along with copy of FIR as further investigation was marked to him, thereafter, he issued notice U/S 91 Cr.P.C. to the complainant Kuldeep Singh for production of documents and on 15.02.2010, Kuldeep Singh produced following documents:
1) One photo of Hema Bist i.e. Ex. PW9/1.
2) One ICard with employee code 38410 in the name of Kuldeep Singh of Indian Airlines i.e. Ex. PW9/2.
3) . One confirm posting letter of Indian Airlines dated 25.09.2009i.e. Ex. PW9/3.
4) One ICard having employee code 6930294 dt 28.09.2009 in the name of Kuldeep Singh of Indian Airlines i.e. Ex. PW9/4.
5) One letter in the writing of Hema Bist regarding the returning the payment in 25 days .i.e. Ex. PW9/5
6) One cheque bearing no 621623 dt 16.12.2008 of SBI amounting to Rs 50,000/ along with cheque returning memo i.e. Ex. PW9/6
7) One affidavit dt 13.03.2009 along with one written stamp paper dt 02.03.2009 i.e. Ex. PW9/7.
He deposed that he seized these documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C in the presence of the witness namely Surinder Kumar. He further deposed that Smt Saroj Bala also handed over the following documents:
Digitally signed by AISHWARYAAISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:38:28 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.16
1) One letter from DDA dated 25.07.2008 which also mentioned dated 04.08.2008 i.e. Ex. PW9/8.
2) One I Card having Employee Code 827130 in respect of Saroj Bala from DDA i.e. Ex. PW9/9
3) One Envelope of DDA Vikas Sadan datd 23.07.2008 with mentioning of amount Rs. 5,500/ on it i.e. Ex. PW9/10
4) Photocopy of cheque No. 075991 dated 03.11.2008 of Bank of Baroda amounting Rs. 30,000/. i.e. Ex. PW9/11.
5) One I Card having employee code 6982424 in the name of Saroj Bala of Indian Airlines. i.e. Ex. PW9/12.
He further deposed that these documents were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/D bearing his signatures at point C in presence of witness Sh. Kuldeep Singh. He further deposed that on 27.03.2010, Amit Kumar also produced following documents:
1) Photocopy of I Card of Dharmender Singh Bist with Employee Code 56290 of AAI Ex. PW9/13.
2) Original Affidavit dated 10.03.2008 Ex. PW9/14.
3) Letter of SBI dated 03.10.2008 in the name of Amit Kumar Ex. PW9/15
4) Original Joining letter of SBI dated 17.12.2008 in the name of Amit Kumar Ex. Digitally signed by
PW9/16 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31
FIR NO. 30/2010 16:38:52 +0530
St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
17
5) I Card in the name of Amit Kumar having employee code 9300497 of SBI Ex.
PW9/17.
6) I Card in the name of Amit Kr. Rana having employee code 07756 of SBI dated 13.05.2009 and valid upto 13.03.2011 Ex PW9/18.
He further deposed that these documents were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/E bearing his signatures at point C. He further stated that on 27.03.2010, Rakesh Kumar also produced following documents:
1) Photocopy of I Card of Dharmender Singh Bist with Employee Code 56290 of AAI Ex. PW9/19.
2) Original Joining/Posting Letter in the name of Rakesh Kumar dated 23.06.2008 of DDA Ex. PW9/20.
3) Original Letter of DDA in the name of Rakesh Kumar dated 07.11.2008 Ex.
PW9/21.
4) Photocopy of certificate of posting and transfer letter dated 13.03.2009 of DDA in the name of Rakesh Kumar Ex. PW9/22.
5) Original letter written in the name of Rakesh Kumar by Hema Lata Bist dated 10.11.2008 i.e. Ex. PW9/23.
He further deposed that these documents were seized in the presence of the witness namely Kuldeep Singh vide seizure memo Ex PW2/A bearing his signature at point C. He further deposed that he had also issued notice U/S 91 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:39:35 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
18Cr.P.C Ex PW9/24 to HRD SBI, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Ex PW 9/25 to HRD DDA, INA Market Vikas Sadan, New Delhi & Ex. PW9/26 to HRD, Indian Airlines mentioning the details of the documents and providing the reply regarding those documents and reply dated 12.04.2010 to Ex. PW9/24 and Ex.PW9/25 were received on the same and Reply dated 24.05.2010 from Air India was received i.e. Ex PW8/B and kept on file and Reply from DDA and SBI were also received. He further stated that he recorded the statement of the witnesses Kuldeep Singh, Saroj Bala, Surinder Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Amit Kumar Rana & Virender Kumar Chaudhary. He further stated that on 05.07.2010, he was transferred from P.S. Palam Village and thus, he case file was handed over to MHC(R) for further investigation.
13. PW10 Sh. Amalendu Nath Upadhyaya Chief Manager at Ajmal Khan Road, SBI Karol Bagh, Branch deposed that in April, 2010, IO of the present case visited the branch for verification of I Card of one Amit Kumar Ex. PW9/17 having designation of Junior Clerk posted at Ajmal Khan Road Branch and served one notice Ex. PW9/24 to him and after going through the I Card, he replied on the notice i.e. Ex. PW10/A bearing his signatures at point A, that I Card in the name of Amit Kumar was not issued by SBI and no such person was working at their branch office.
14. PW11 Sh. Anand Singh, Assistant Director (P), DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi deposed that on 08.04.2010 SI Chattar Singh had served notice U/S 91 Cr.P.C along with photocopy of certificate of posting and transfer of one Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:39:44 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
19employee namely Rakesh Kumar designation as driver and had asked for the details/copies of joining/posting letter in respect of said employee. He further deposed that after going through the office record, it was found that the certificate of posting and transfer letters in respect of such employee Rakesh Kumar were not issued by DDA and no such employee was found working with DDA and he filed his reply from point A to A in his hand writing having signatures and stamp at point X which was countersigned by the then Deputy Director, upon the said notice i.e. Ex. PW9/25.
15. PW12 Retd. SI Kailash Chand Mehta deposed that on 12.08.2010, further investigation of this case was marked to him and he received the case file from MHCR. He further deposed that during investigation he recorded statements of A.N. Upaydhaya Manager recovery SBI Bank Najafgarh, Anand Singh Deputy Director in DDA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and Satish Kumar National Aviation Manager, Indian Airlines IGI Airport during investigation. He further deposed that on 09.08.2011 complainant came in the P.S. and at his instance, he arrested accused Hem Lata Bisht from her address WZ 45, PartII, Harijan Basti, Nasirpur Road, Palam vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/F and W/ct. Gayatri and Ct. Ram Niwas were also with him at the time of arrest of the accused Hem Lata Bisht. He further deposed that accused was personally searched by Lady Constable and he prepared personal search memo Ex.PW12/A bearing his signature at Point A and he recorded her disclosure statement Ex.PW12/B and Accused was produced in the court and was sent to JC. He deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses. He Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 Date: 2024.05.31 16:40:46 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
20further deposed that he took specimen handwriting of accused Hem Lata Bisht, Rakesh Kumar and Kuldeep Singh on 12 sheets and Specimen handwriting of the accused Hem Lata Bisht i.e. Ex.PW12/1, Ex.PW12/2 already Ex.X1,Ex.X2, Ex.X3 taken by previous IO & Ex.P1 taken by previous IO, Specimen handwriting of Rakesh Kumar is already Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex. P5 and Specimen handwriting of complainant Kuldeep Singh is already Ex.X4Ex.X7. He further deposed that he sent the Exhibits to FSL Rohini through HC Shyamdhri on 07.09.2011 vide forwarding letter Marked PW12/3 and he after depositing the Exhibits in FSL Rohini took the acknowledgment Ex.PW6/A and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that he recorded statement of HC Shyamdhari. He further deposed that on 12.09.2011 Suprabha @ Prabha surrender before the court and after taking permission of the court, he interrogated accused Suprabha and thereafter formally arrested her vide arrest męmo Ex.PW12/C and prepared her personal search memo Ex.PW12/D and Accused was sent to JC. He further stated that he recorded statement of witnesses during investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet without FSL result and that he had filed the FSL result in the court on 08.10.2012 vide application Ex.PW12/D. He correctly identified the accused Hemlata Bisht and Suprabha @ Prabha in the court.
16. PW13 Shri Virender Kumar Chaudhary deposed that in the year 2010, he was residing at RZF/1316, Gali no.2, Mahavir Enclave along with his family. He further deposed that he knows complainant Kuldeep Singh, accused Hemlata Bisht and Suprabha and correctly identified the accused in the court stating that they Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 FIR NO. 30/2010 16:40:53 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
21used to reside in his neighborhood. He further deposed that they used to visit his house as he had met with an accident and he was bed ridden. He stated that he is having bank account in State Bank of India, Palam Colony having account no.300416361 60 and he was also issued cheque book with respect to the said account and that Cheque Mark Z2 and Ex.PW9/6 belongs to him, however, the signature at point "A" are not his signatures as he used to sign in Hindi and not in English. He further deposed that he has not given the said cheque to anyone and that he does not know how it came into possession of Hemlata Bisht or Kuldeep Singh. He further deposed that he does not know whether the said cheque was taken by anyone without his knowledge or he had lost the same.
17. Thereafter, PE was closed and the matter was listed for recording of Statement of accused persons.
18. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons namely Hemlata Bisht @ Hema and Subh Prabha U/S 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 15.10.2022 wherein, they controverted and denied the allegations leveled against them. The accused persons stated that they are innocent and do not know the complainant or other witnesses and they were arrested and later on told about this case. They stated that they have not dealt with any of the complainant or witness before and have seen them before this court during this case only. The accused persons reiterated their defence and opted to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was listed for Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA defence evidence. SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:41:00 +0530 FIR NO. 30/2010 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
2219. The accused persons in their defence have examined DW1 Sh. Chain Singh, Asstt. Engineer, RMDI, DDA, Deepali Chowk Office Complex, Sector 3 Rohini, New Delhi, who deposed that he does not know if during the period of 20082009 in DDA Offices there was any procedure of maintaining any entry/exit register for the public as well as the employees. He further deposed that he is not aware if any public dealing is held at Vikas Sadan or not and also not aware about the days, which were reserved for public dealing. He stated that at their office at Deepali Chowk, there is no procedure for obtaining any entry pass to enter the premises and anyone can enter their office without any entry pass on verbal request. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for state whereby he admitted that he is not the right authority to depose with respect to the maintenance of any entry/exit register for the public as well as the employees. He also admitted that he joined the DDA in the year 2018 and the summoned records in the present matter pertains to the year 20082009. He stated that he is not aware about the public dealings or the meetings which takes in the Vikas Sadan.
20. DW2 Sh. Raunak Yadav, Jr. Secretariat Asst. (Personnel Department), DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, Delhi who deposed that he has not brought the summoned record as the same is not available in their office being destroyed as per the procedure. He stated that he is not aware, if during the period 20082009 in DDA Vikas Sadan as well as in Deepali Chowk, what was the procedure of entry/ exit of the employees/ public persons entering into the DDA Office at Vikas Sadan as well as Deepali Chowk. He stated that at present i.e. 29.05.2023 the Digitally public signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:41:07 +0530 FIR NO. 30/2010 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
23dealing is being held on Monday, Thursday and only the person (public) who are having visiting pass issued as per rules can enter into the premise of DDA Office, Vikas Sadan. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP for state whereby, he stated that he joined services in DDA Vikas Sadan in the year 2021 and that he is not aware of the procedure of entry/exit of the employees/public persons entering into the DDA Office at Vikas Sadan stating that he is not the right authority to depose for the period 20082009. He stated that the right authority to depose with respect to the matter is Chief Security Officer. He stated that he is not the right person to depose on behalf of the officials/employees who were working for the period 20082009 as some of them have retired from the services also. Thereafter, DE was closed and matter is listed for final arguments.
21. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence U/S 420, 468, 471, 120 B, 506 read with Section 34 IPC has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
22. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons argued that there is nothing on record to establish that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences, more specifically, it has inter alia been argued that there is no evidence on record to establish the fact that the witnesses gave any amount to the accused Hemlata and it has also not been established that the alleged fabricated appointment letter etc. were handed over by the accused persons to the complainant and other so called Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. 16:41:35 +0530 24 victims. Further, Ld. Defence counsels also pointed out the contradictions in the testimony of complainant and victims regarding the time of alleged transactions and relying upon the same, submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the liability of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt in alleged offences, thus, entitling them for acquittal in the present case.
23. The gist of the allegations levelled against the accused persons are that in the months of October November 2009, both the accused persons in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with each other dishonestly induced the complainant Kuldeep Singh and his close wellknown persons namely Saroj Bala, Rakesh Kumar, Amit and others on the pretext of providing them jobs with State Bank of India, DDA, Indian Airlines and Airport Authority of India and extracted total amount of Rs. 7,50,000/ from them by handing over the forged ICard, joining letter, confirm posting letter, duty letter purportedly issued by the abovenamed institutions. The allegations are also to the extent that when the complainant perused the accused persons and demanded back the amount paid by the complainant, both the accused persons threatened him of dire consequences. The accused persons are facing trial for offences U/S 420, 468, 471, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
24. For the sake of brevity, I shall be discussing the allegations with respect to offences under Section 420, 471, 120 B, 506 read with section 34 IPC separately as these allegations involves the appreciation of the common evidences, whereas, the allegations with respect to offence Under Section 468 IPC will be discussed separately as same involves appreciation of the different set of facts and evidences.
Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:41:42 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. 25
So far as the allegations with respect to offence under Section 468 IPC are concerned, it is reiterated that the accused persons have been charged for this offence on the premise that the alleged fabricated documents in the nature of ID cards, joining letter, posting letter, duty letters etc. pertaining to SBI, DDA, Indian Airlines and Airport Authority of India were prepared by the accused persons.
25. Section 468 IPC deals with forgery of documents for the purpose of cheating. This provision makes an act of fabrication of documents as defined U/S 463 IPC, an indictable act entailing punishment of up to 7 years imprisonment when the intention behind the act of such forgery is of using the said document to commit the offence of cheating. The offence under this section does not require that the accused should actually commit the offence of cheating, what matters here is the intention or the purpose of the person committing such an act of forgery. The bare reading of section 468 IPC makes it amply clear that in order to hold a person liable for this offence, apart from establishing that the person so charged is the maker of the forged document, it is also necessary to establish that the intention behind such forgery of document was to the offence of cheating. Needlessly, simultaneous satisfaction of both the conditions above is necessary prerequisite for holding a person liable for this offence. In the present case, the prosecution has examined PW8, PW10 and PW11 to establish the fact that the documents in the nature of I card, appointment letter, posting order etc. purportedly issued by SBI, DDA, Airport Authority of India were fabricated, more specifically PW8 Satish Kumar who is the senior manager personnel from Air India Services Limited Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:41:47 +0530 FIR NO. 30/2010 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
26proved on record the reply Ex. PW8/B testifying that the ID card in the name of Kuldeep Singh, appointment letter dated 25.02.2009 and details of ID card issued dated 28.02.2007 valid up to 28.02.2011 were not in fact issued by the Air India. Similarly, PW10 Amalendu Nath Upadhyay is the AGM from SBI who proved on record the reply Ex. PW10/A testifying that the id card of Amit Kumar was not issued by the said bank, whereas, PW11 Anand Singh is the retired Deputy Director from DDA who proved on record the reply Ex. PW9/25 stating that the certificate of posting and transfer of Rakesh Kumar as driver and copies of joining/posting letter pertaining were not issued by DDA nor any such person ever worked with the department. The testimony of above mentioned three witnesses clearly establish that the documents in the nature of ID cards, appointment letters, joining letters, posting letters etc. pertaining to Air India, DDA and SBI purportedly issued in the name of Kuldeep Singh, Amit Kumar and Rakesh Kumar were fabricated in nature, however, as stated earlier in order to bring home the culpability of accused persons for offence under Section 468 IPC, mere establishing the fact that the impugned documents were fabricated, it is also required to be established that the accused persons were maker of such documents. It is a matter of record that during the course of investigation, no efforts were made by the IO to collect any evidences to the extent that the accused persons have forged the said impugned documents. Surprisingly, the specimen handwriting/ signatures of the accused persons or alternatively, the admitted handwriting/signatures of the accused persons were never sent to FSL for comparison/analysis with the abovementioned impugned documents nor there is Digitally signed by FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:42:15 +0530 27 any other evidence on record connecting the accused persons as the makers of the said impugned documents, hence, it cannot be any stretch of imagination be presumed that the accused persons are makers of the impugned documents and thus, they cannot be held liable for commission of offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and the accused persons accordingly deserves to be acquitted for this offence.
26. So far as the offences under Section 420, 471, 120 B IPC and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC are concerned, the accused persons have been charged for these offences under the premise that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by both the accused persons prior to OctoberNovember 2009, they dishonestly induced the complainant Kuldeep Singh and his close well known persons namely Saroj Bala, Rakesh Kumar, Amit and others on the pretext of providing them jobs in SBI, DDA, Indian Airlines and extracted total amount of Rs. 7,50,000/ from them on the strength forged I card, joining letter, posting letter, duty letters of the abovenamed institutions knowingly that the said documents were forged and subsequently, when the complainant demanded back the amount paid by him to the accused persons, they both threatened him of dire consequences. In order to establish these allegations, the prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimony of the complainant/ PW1 Kuldeep Singh and other socalled victims i.e. PW2 Rakesh Kumar, PW 4 Saroj Bala and PW5 Amit Kumar Rana. Pertinently, during his deposition as PW1, the complainant Kuldeep Singh stated that the accused Hemlata Bisht assured of providing jobs to five persons including him viz. Saroj Bala, Baljinder Singh, Amit Kumar and Rakesh Kumar and Rs. 1,50,000/ Digitally signed by FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. 16:42:21 +0530 28 each by the said persons was paid in favor of the accused persons for securing the jobs. It is pertinent to point out that the abovenamed socalled victims Baljinder Singh and Naresh Kumar were never associated in the investigation of the case nor were examined as witnesses in the present case for the reasons unexplained. There is no mention in the testimony of IO's i.e. PW9 Inspector Chattar Singh and PW 12 retired SI Kailash Chand Meena with respect to the abovenamed persons Baljinder Singh and Naresh Kumar nor there is any other material collected which surfaced during the investigation of the case establishing that the above named Baljinder Singh and Naresh Kumar were also infact the victims who were duped by the accused persons, therefore, it perceives that the aforesaid version of the complainant/ PW1 during his deposition before the court is nothing but an attempt to exaggerate the allegations against the accused persons so as to give more gravity to the matter. The careful perusal of the record further suggests that in the complaint Ex. PW1/B which is the basis of the registration of present case FIR, complainant/PW1 Kuldeep has raised specific allegations to the extent that he was duped by the accused persons on the pretext of providing job to him and to his acquaintances however, the complainant has not mentioned anything about the day, month or year of the alleged incident. It transpires that during the course of investigation, the complainant has mentioned that the alleged incident pertains to October November 2009, however, quite surprisingly, during his deposition as PW1, the complainant narrated of having come into contact with the accused Hemlata in NovemberDecember 2007, when she informed his wife that a job can be arranged for the complainant in airport. The complainant again during the Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:42:30 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
29deposition as PW1 has further confirmed that he along with his acquaintances namely Saroj Bala, Baljinder Singh, Amit Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Naresh Kumar made the advance payment of Rs. 70,000/ each to the accused Hemlata in February 2008. The further scrutiny of case record also goes on to suggest that while his crossexamination, the complainant again changed his version by narrating that his sisterinlaw/PW 4 Saroj Bala was accompanied by the accused Suprabha at Vikas Sadan on the pretext of her socalled employment with DDA in AprilMay 2008. Again, on careful reading of testimony of PW2 Rakesh Kumar who is also one of the alleged victims of the cheating committed by the accused persons narrated that the advance payment of Rs. 75,000/ to accused Hemlata for securing job with DDA was made by him February 2008 and during his cross examination, his stance saw another shift when he narrated that the first instalment was paid by him in favor of accused Hemlata in August 2008. In a similar manner, the testimony of PW4 Saroj Bala who is also cited a s one of the victims who fell into prey due to the acts of the accused persons reads that she was lured by the accused Hemlata for providing job with DDA in year 2008 pursuant to which the payment of advance consideration amount of Rs. 75,000/ was made by her in favor of the accused in August and November 2008, however, her stance again got changed during her crossexamination where she deposed that it was in December 2007 when she met with the accused Hemlata at house of Kuldeep Singh where the accused made representation of arranging a job for her. Another material witness and the alleged victim i.e. PW5 Amit Kumar Rana who also happens to be the nephew of the complainant Kuldeep Singh deposed of having paid Rs. 75,000/ in Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:42:37 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
30cash to the accused Hemlata Bisht in February 2008 for securing job for him with SBI. The careful reading of the testimonies of the above named witnesses including that of the complainant reveals that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant that the accused persons approached and induced him in OctoberNovember 2009 on the pretext of providing job to the complainant and his acquaintances and rather from the testimonies discussed above, it surfaces that the complainant was knowing Hemlata Bisht much prior to the year 2009 and the alleged meetings between the complainant and the accused persons and PW 4 Saroj Bala, PW2 Rakesh Kumar and PW5 Amit Kumar Rana had taken place prior to the year 2009.
27. It is worth mentioning the fact that the defence of the accused persons revolves around the fact that both of them have been falsely implicated by the complainant so as to evade his legal liability, more specifically, it is the defence of the accused persons that it was rather the complainant/ PW1 Kuldeep Singh himself who deceived the several other persons and usurped their money on the pretext of providing them jobs. On perusal of the testimony of PW2 Rakesh Kumar, it reflects that he was not directly known to the accused persons and his meeting with the accused persons was organized through complainant/PW1 Kuldeep Singh. Similarly, PW4 Saroj Bala and PW5 Amit Kumar Rana were also not known to or acquainted with the accused persons and rather they were called to Delhi upon the persuasion made by the complainant/PW1 Kuldeep Singh that jobs will be provided to them in lieu of consideration. The combined reading of testimony of PW2, 4 and 5 also suggests that the complainant/ PW1 Kuldeep Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO. 30/2010 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:42:45 +0530 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
31Singh has even played in active role in persuading them to exchange the socalled consideration amount with the accused persons on the pretext of providing jobs to them and hence, the fact that the complainant might have implicated the accused persons to evade his legal liability towards PW2, PW4 and PW5 cannot be ruled out. PW2 Rakesh Kumar has even went on to state that the money paid by him to the accused persons was returned by the complainant/ PW1 Kuldeep Singh. There lies no justification on the part of complainant/ PW1 Kuldeep Singh in making repayment of the alleged cheated sum of money in favor of PW2 and the only perceivable inference which can be drawn from such fact is that the complainant might himself have been a privy to the transaction of deceit and in order to escape the legal liability, he has made such repayment in favor of the abovenamed witness. This inference further gains strength from the fact that PW13 Virender Kumar Chaudhary to whom the alleged cheque Ex. PW9/6 amounting Rs. 50,000/ stated to be handed over to the complainant by the accused persons belongs went on to state that the said cheque even though pertains to him but he was unaware as to how the accused Hemlata or Kuldeep Singh acquired it's possession. During his crossexamination, this witness even went on to categorically admit the fact that it was the complainant Kuldeep Singh who forced him to take the name of accused persons before the police with regard to stealing of the cheque for which he was also threatened by the complainant , therefore, these crucial infirmities in the prosecution evidence probabilizes the defence of the accused persons qua their false implication in the present case at the behest of the complainant and also creates a grave doubt with respect to the complicity of the Digitally signed by AISHWARYA FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:42:51 +0530 32 accused persons in the alleged crime, the benefit of which deserves to be inevitably granted to the accused persons.
28. Even though, the prosecution has tried to fasten the liability upon the accused persons for the alleged offences through the FSL result dated 28.09.2012 in which the findings qua similarity of handwriting of the accused Hemlata Bisht with the questioned documents was observed. More specifically, as per the above stated FSL report, the questioned documents i.e. Q1 and Q2 tallied with specimen handwriting of the accused Hemlata. For the sake of brevity, it is succinct to point out that the questioned document Q1 is the alleged receipt stated to be prepared by the accused Hemlata in the name of PW2 Rakesh Kumar whereby, he requested for return of the amount paid by him expressing his inability to perform the job for which he was selected. Similarly, Q2 is the questioned receipt/undertaking stated to be prepared by the accused Hemlata in the name of complainant/ PW1 Kuldeep Singh requesting for return of amount paid by him for securing the job. It is pertinent to mention that the handwriting/signature on both the abovementioned receipts tallied with those of the accused Hemlata as reflected in FSL report dated 28.09.2012 but in this regard, it is pertinent to mention that it is apparent on the face of record that the specimen signature/ handwriting of the accused Hemlata were surprisingly obtained by the investigating officer without complying with the mandatory provision under Section 311 A Cr.P.C., thereby impeaching the credibility of the said proceedings due to which the said FSL result appears to be worthy of no credence. In this regard the reliance can be placed on the case titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State Crl. A.No.68/2002, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Digitally signed by FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:42:59 +0530 33 Delhi observed that "...Moreover, the alleged specimen signature/handwriting/Thumb/ Fingerprint impression of appellant Chandra Shekhar and Sri Chand were obtained during investigation by the IO without permission from the Court. Facts in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCR 1061 were that specimen handwriting of appellant were taken under direction of the Executive Magistrate during investigation when no inquiry or trial was pending in his Court. The accused person did not raise any objection thereto yet Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that such specimen writing of accused person could not be made use of during the trial and the report of handwriting expert is thus rendered of no consequence at all and could not be used against the accused to connect him with the crime. In the present case, the specimen signature/writing/thumb impressions were obtained during investigation without any permission from Court. Therefore, the case in hand stand on a weaker footing then that of Sukhwinder Singh (supra). Therefore, in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh (supra) it follows that the specimen/writing/thumb impression /fingerprint impression of the appellant could not be used of during the trial. The report of the handwriting expert/finger print beaureu is thus rendered of no consequence at all and cannot be used to connect appellants with crime..."
The authority cited above clearly reflects that whole process of obtaining the specimen handwriting/signature of the accused is improper and illegal as the same was not obtained with the permission of the court in terms of Section 311 A Cr.P.C. and even no reasonable explanation has come from IO's PW9 Inspector Chattar Singh and PW12 Retired SI Kailash Chand qua reasons for such non compliance, thereby running the risk of loss to the evidentiary value of Digitally the FSL signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:43:06 +0530 FIR NO. 30/2010 St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.
34result dated 28.09.2012. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the FSL result and hence, such evidence cannot be relied upon to hold the accused persons liable for the alleged offences.
29. The discussion made above suggests that the accused persons have probabilized their defence by creating a strong doubt on the prosecution story or conversely the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the version of the complainant/ PW1 Kuldeep Singh that the accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with each other dishonestly induced him and his acquaintances namely Saroj Bala, Rakesh Kumar and Amit on the pretext of securing jobs for them with SBI, DDA, Indian Airlines and Airport Authority of India and extracted Rs. 7,50,000/ from them on the strength of forged I card, joining letter, posting letter, duty letter etc., hence, the allegations of complainant with respect to offences U/S 420, 471,120 B IPC also remains not proved and hence, the accused persons deserve to be acquitted for such offences.
30. The version of the complainant qua imputation of threats of dire consequences upon him by the accused persons in case of demand for return of money paid by him also appears to be not proved as there is no evidence to such extent in entire case record. Even the complainant examined as PW1 himself failed to reiterate any such allegations during his deposition before the court, hence, such allegations also have remained not proved, due to which the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted for offence Under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
31. In view of the discussion made above, the accused persons namely FIR NO. 30/2010 AISHWARYA Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors. SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:43:13 +0530 35 Hemlata Bist @ Hema and Subh Prabha are hereby acquitted for offence under section 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B, 506,34 IPC. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused persons at the time of commencement of trial stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to it's rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed AISHWARYA by AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31 16:43:18 +0530 Announced in Open Court (Aishwarya Sharma) on this 31st day of May,2024 MM01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 35 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.05.31
16:43:23 +0530
(Aishwarya Sharma)
MM01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
FIR NO. 30/2010
St. Vs. Hemlata Bisht & ors.