Delhi District Court
State vs . Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal on 5 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR MALIK: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL)-04 TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal FIR No. : 232/09 PS : Sarai Rohilla U/s : 420/468/471/120 B IPC 1.Unique Case ID No. :02401R0257522011 2.Date of commission of offence :24.07.2009 3.Date of Institution of Case :01.06.2011 4.Date of reserving the case for :21.02.2015 Judgment 5.Date of judgment :05.03.2015 6.Name of the accused and :Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal S/o Sardar Gurbaksh Singh R/o SP-23, Maurya Enclave, PitamPura, Delhi. 7.Offence complained of or proved :U/S 420 r/w 511 & 471 IPC 8.Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty 9.Final Order :Accused Acquitted JUDGMENTFIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 1 of 21
ESCHEWING THE PROLEXED DETAILS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE :-
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 01.09.2009, an application was received for registration of FIR with the contents that a letter was received from Mr. Harbhajan Singh, Administration, Dr. Munjal's Clinic and Maternity Center, in DMC on 24.07.2009, seeking verification of registration of Doctors employed with Dr. Munjal Clinic and maternity center, B-1430, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi-52. On verification of the records it was found that Dr. Darshan D/o Sh. Pritam is not registered with the Delhi Medical Council under registration no. 12225 and her Delhi Medical council registration Certificate was found to be fake.
1.1 On the complaint, present FIR was registered and matter was investigated by ASI Ram Dhari and Inspector Naresh Chandra.
On investigation It was found by the IO that one Darshan Kaur came to Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal for the Job at which accused Darshan Kaur was asked Dr. Harbhajan Singh to come with DMC registration Certificate for verification but accused Darshan Kaur never turned back. On the basis of memory of Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjhal portrait of accused Darshan Kaur was prepared but no was FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 2 of 21 found. During investigation the police came to know through secret information that Darshan Kaur is closed relative of Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjhal. The matter was investigated and Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjhal gave disclosure statement. Dr. Harbhajan told the IO that accused Darshan kaur is none else but she is wife of Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjhal. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjhal further told the IO that the said DMC registration certificate was prepared by some Gupta Ji about whom he did not know anything. During investigation police made a fresh report further could not get the original DMC registration Certificate and arrested both the accused in present matter and filed the charge-sheet.
2. Accused has appeared before the court on 30.09.2011 and was supplied the copies of challan along with necessary documents U/S 207 Cr.P.C. Charge U/S 420 r/w 511 IPC & 471 IPC was framed against the accused on 20.01.2005 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in order to prove its case.
4. Prosecution examined Dr. Girish Tyagi, Registrar, Delhi FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 3 of 21 Medical Council as PW-1 who deposed that he is working as a Registrar/ Secretary at Delhi Medical Council since July 2007. PW1 further deposed that DMC received a letter for the verification of the doctors and their Registration certificates from Munjal Clinic, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi. There was a list of eight doctors along with the Bank draft of Rs.900/- (Rupees Nine Hundred). PW1 further deposed that on the verification of the said list it was found that all the doctors mentioned in the list were valid/genuine and same was communicated to Munjal Clinic, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi. PW1 further deposed that they again received a letter of Munjal Clinic stating therein that they had inadvertently not mentioned the name of one doctor namely, Mrs. Drashan Kaur in the list of eight doctor so they want to verify Dr. Drashan Kaur and her DMC certificate. On the verification it was found that Dr. Drashan Kaur's DMC certificate was fake and same information was conveyed to the police for registering an FIR. PW1 further deposed that he made complaint to the police and proved the same as Ex. PW1/A. Police came to PW1 and he handed over them two original letters sent from Munjal Clinic to DMC. PW1 also proved the seizure Memo as Ex.PW1/B. 4.1 During cross examination, PW1 admitted that the letter FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 4 of 21 was received from Munjal Clinic on 24.07.2009. PW1 stated that he had not mentioned the fact that initially a list of eight doctors was sent which they had verified to be correct and later on another letter was received from Munjal Clinic mentioning therein that inadvertently that the name of Dr. Darshan Kaur has been left out. The letter which was subsequently received in the DMC office was having only the name of Darshan Kaur and PW1 handed over the copy of the said letter to the police. PW1 also admitted that the application form along with the documents whenever came to the office of DMC, the same are duly stamped with the date of receipt and signature of the recipient. PW1 also stated that neither he had called accused to his office of DMC nor he had intimated to the accused about the fact that the DMC registration certificate of Dr. Darshan Kaur was not genuine even after the said fact came to his knowledge.
5. Sh. Kunal Tandon, Computer Operator, Delhi Medical Council was examined by the prosecution as PW2 who deposed that he is working as a Computer Operator at Delhi Medical Council since 2003. PW2 further deposed that IO seized two original letter of Dr. Harbhajan Singh (Munjal Clinic) in his presence from Dr. Girish Tyagi.
FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 5 of 21 5.1 During cross examination PW2 stated that he has seen Ex.PW1/B and the the over-writing on the point X, X1 and X2 already there. PW2 further stated that he do not know who had made the over-writings on point X, X1 and X2. PW2 also stated that Dr. Girish Tyagi had also signed in my presence and the Memo already Ex.PW1/B is in the hand of police official who seized the documents. PW2 further stated that now he has seen Ex.PW1/B where the receipt number is mentioned as 13408/01.09.2009 at point X2.
6. Prosecution got examined Ms. Jyoti Bhasin W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhasin as PW3 who deposed that she is working as Receptionist in the Munjal Clinic since 2003 and the said clinic belongs to accused Dr. Harbhajan Singh and he is suffering from Kidney disease and presently is on Dialysis. PW3 further deposed that she do not know the name of the wife of the accused. PW3 further deposed that she had never seen wife of the accused practicing as a doctor in the Munjal Clinic or examining any patient in the Munjal Clinic.
6.1 During cross examination by Ld. APP for state, PW3 denied the suggestion that wife of the accused used to visit the Munjal Clinic or she used to sit with the accused in the said clinic or FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 6 of 21 she looked after the work of Gynecology. PW3 also denied the suggestion that she had seen the wife of accused examining the patients.
6.2 During cross examination by Counsel for the accused, PW3 stated that she is acquainted with the hand writing of the accused Dr. Harbhajan Singh and she hasseen Ex. 1 and 2 and they are not in the hand writing of Dr. Harbhajan Singh nor bears his signatures.
7. Prosecution examined Sh. Rajat Jain S/o Sh. N.K. Jain as PW4 who deposed that he is running a Chemist shop in front of Munjal Clinic, Shashtri Nagar since 2003 and the said clinic belongs to accused Dr. Harbhajan Singh and he is suffering from Kidney disease and presently is on Dialysis. PW4 further deposed that he does not know the name of the wife of the accused and she comes rarely to the clinic. PW4 further deposed that he had never seen wife of the accused practicing as a doctor in the Munjal Clinic or examining any patient in the Munjal Clinic.
7.1 During cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, PW4 denied the suggestion that wife of the accused used to visit the Munjal Clinic or she used to sit with the accused in the said clinic or FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 7 of 21 she looked after the work of Gynecology. PW4 also denied the suggestion that he had seen the wife of accused examining the patients.
7.2 During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW4 stated that he is acquainted with the hand writing of the accused Dr. Harbhajan Singh and he has seen Ex. 1 and 2 and they are not in the hand writing of Dr. Harbhajan Singh nor bears his signatures.
8. Sh. Ajit Singh Handwriting Expert, FSL, Rohini was examined by the prosecution as PW5 who deposed that he received documents forwarded by SHO Sarai Rohilla on dated 30.04.2010 along with questioned documents Ex. 1A, 2A & 3A along with specimen hand writings of Sh. Harbhajan Singh Munjal and Darshan Kaur running into 13 pages and proved the same as Ex.PW5/A collectively. PW5 also proved his report dated 19.05.2014 as Ex.PW5/B. 8.1 During cross examination, PW5 stated that he has not taken enlarged photographs in this case for comparison. PW5 further stated that he has not mentioned about the power of magnifying glasses in his report nor he has mentioned about the power of stereo-microscope. PW5 admitted that he has not mentioned any FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 8 of 21 details of instrument namely docubox dragon and the condition of documents received by him in his report. PW5 further admitted that he has not mentioned in his report about the movements and slant and about the possible physical condition or the age of the writer of the document. PW5 also admitted that he has not mentioned the size of letters of the writing of the documents and about the condition of document with regard to whether there was any eraser or any alteration in the documents.
9. SI Ram Dhare was examined by the prosecution as PW6 who deposed that on 02.09.2009 he was posted at PS- Sarai Rohilla as a ASI. On that day investigation of the present case was marked to him. PW6 further deposed that during the investigation he enquired about the accused Darshan Kaur from the Nursing Home, Chemist shop, from shop staff of the Munjal Clinic and from the accused Harbhajan Singh but no clue of the accused Darshan Kaur was found. PW6 further deposed that portrait of the accused Darshan Kaur was prepared at the instance of the accused Harbhajan Singh. DMC registration certificate was sent to DMC for verification and it is found fake. PW6 correctly identified the accused Harbhajan Singh in the Court.
FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 9 of 21 9.1 During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 stated that he made enquiries with regard to Darshan Kaur from her husband Harbhajan Singh and also from the other staff members of the clinic including the lady receptionist there. PW6 further stated that he had not recorded that statements of those persons who had shown ignorance about Dr. Darshan Kaur. PW6 further stated that the portrait prepared by him was shown to the staff of Munjal Clinic but no one had identified the said Dr. Darshan Kaur. PW6 also stated that he had placed the said portrait in the police file but he do not know if the same has been filed along with the charge-sheet of this case. PW6 stated that he had given notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C. whenever he called accused Harbhajan Singh for enquiries but on going through the charge-sheets there is no such summon/notice issued in this regard.
10. Prosecution got examined Inspr. Naresh Chander as PW7 who deposed that investigation of the present case was marked to him. PW7 further deposed that he received a secret information that the accused Darshan Kaur is a near relative of accused Harbhajan Singh. PW7 interrogated the accused Harbhajan Singh and took him to his house i.e, SP23, Murya Enclave, FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 10 of 21 Pitampura, Delhi. PW7 interrogated the family members of the accused Harbhajan Singh. PW7 further deposed that during interrogation, wife of accused Harbhajan Singh disclosed her name as G.K. Munjal @ Guddi Kaur Munjal. PW7 got suspicious and checked the ration card and voter I-card of the accused Harbhajan Singh in which he found the name of the wife of the accused Harbhajan Singh as Darshan Kaur Munjal. Thereafter, both the accused admit there guilt. PW7 arrested the accused Harbhajan Singh. PW7 proved the arrest memo of accused - Harbhajan as Ex.PW7/B, personal search of the accused as Ex.PW7/C, disclosure statement of the accused Harbhajan Singh as Ex. PW7/A and seizure memo of voter I-card and Ration Card collectively as Ex.PW7/D. PW7 further deposed that he took specimen hand-writing of the accused Harbhajan Singh. PW7 further deposed that he took the search of the clinic and house of the accused and proved the memos as Ex.PW7/E and PW7/F. PW7 recorded the statement of the public witnesses. PW7 proved the arrest memo of the accused Darshan Kaur as Ex.PW7/G, personal search memo as Ex.PW7/H. PW7 further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Darshan Kaur and proved the same as Ex.PW7/I. PW7 FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 11 of 21 further deposed that search of the clinic and the house of the accused was conducted in her presence and proved the search memos as Ex.PW7/J and Ex.PW7/K. PW7 further deposed that he took the specimen signature of the accused Darshan Kaur and proved the same as Ex. PW7/L. PW7 correctly identified the accused Harbhajan Singh in the Court. PW7 further deposed that he seized the original letters written by accused Harbhajan Singh to DMC. PW7 recorded the statement of the witnesses. PW7 further deposed that question documents along with the specimen hand-writing of both the accused persons was sent to FSL for expert opinion. 10.1 During cross examination, PW7 stated that before receiving secret information he was not having any knowledge whether anything was investigated earlier by ASI Ram Dhare from the staff of Munjal Clinic or from the neighbourers of accused Harbhajan Singh about Dr. Darshan Kaur. PW7 further stated that he enquired from ASI Ram Dhare and he has told him that nobody from the clinic or from the neighourhood has told about Dr. Darshan Kaur. PW7 also stated that he did not make any enquiry from ASI Ram Dhare if he has tried to find out whether Darshan Kaur was related to Dr. Harbhajan Singh. PW7 further deposed that he received the FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 12 of 21 secret information in the month of February 2010, the day when the investigation was given to him. PW7 further stated that he had not recorded the said secret information in any DD entry. PW7 further stated that he thereafter again interrogated accused Harbhajan Singh but he was still denying about the whereabouts of Dr. Darshan Kaur and was reaffirming that she has already resigned. PW7 further stated that he had not recorded the statement of Dr. Harbhajan Singh in this regard. PW7 also stated that he had not called any person from the neighbourhood of the house of the accused to join the investigation on 05.02.2010. PW7 admitted that no incriminating article was recovered from the house of the accused on said date. PW7 also stated that he had not recorded statement of any neighbourer that whether any Dr. Darshan Kaur was residing in Maurya Enclave, Pitampura. PW7 further stated that the disclosure of the accused was recorded at the place of his arrest. The accused had not disclosed any residential address, mobile number or the description of the said Guptaji mentioned in his disclosure. PW7 further stated that he has seen the disclosure statement of the accused but this fact is not mentioned there. PW7 further stated that he had not collected any CDR of accused Harbhajan Singh to know FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 13 of 21 about the said Guptaji. PW7 further stated that he don't recollect as to where the specimen hand-writing of accused Harbhajan Singh was collected on 05.02.2010. PW7 also stated that he do not remember if he had moved any application before the Ld. MM for taking the specimen Hand-writing of accused Harbhajan Singh and admitted that the specimen hand-writing was not taken before the Ld. MM. PW7 further stated that he sent the specimen hand-writing to FSl on 30.04.2010. PW7 stated that since he has taken the letters written by the accused Harbhajan to DMC in the month of March 2010 as such he sent the documents to FSL, Rohini on 30.04.2010. PW7 stated that he can not assign any reason why he has not collected the documents from DMC prior to March 2010 and voluntarily stated that "Jab Muka Laga", as and when I got the chance. PW7 further stated that he has gone through the complaint Ex.1/A during his investigation. PW7 admitted that in the said complaint it is mentioned that the documents were received from Munjal Clinic in the office of DMC on 24.07.2009. PW7 also admitted that Ex.1/A is the application which was received by the DMC and its original was given to him and was seized by him. PW7 also admitted that the date of receipt of this application in the office of DMC is FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 14 of 21 mentioned as 22.07.2009 and he did not noticed during his investigation about the above said discrepancy and for this reason he did not make any enquiries from PW1 in this regard. PW7 also stated that he had also received Ex. 2/A from the office of DMC on the same date. PW7 further stated that he can not say even after looking at the document as to when this document was received in the office of DMC. PW7 had not noticed the discrepancy in the date of receipt of the Ex.2/A. PW7 was confronted with the Ex.2/A and asked to read the date mentioned at the point A to A1 and answered that he is unable to read the date being illegible and further answered that same is his reply with regard to date mentioned on point B on Ex.2/A. PW7 further stated that he has not kept investigation pending with regard to above said Guptaji due to his where abouts are not known.
11. Prosecution got examined Sh. Dinesh Kumar, L.D.C., Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad as PW8 who deposed that on 25.03.2010, a letter was received for the verification of the registration certificate bearing No. BU/4805, Serial No.000657 of Dr. Harbhajan Singh along with the photocopy of the certificate of DBCP of Harbhajan Singh and same is found to be correct. PW8 further FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 15 of 21 deposed that letter of verification was sent to the IO and proved the same as Ex.PW8/A. PW8 also proved the photocopy of the certificate of Harbhajan Singh as Ex.PW8/B.
12. P.E. was thereafter concluded.
13. All the incriminating evidence/material was then put to accused which he denied in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 20.02.2015 submitting the present case to be false and he not wished to lead defence evidence.
14. Final arguments were heard from both the sides.
15. It is observed by this court that PW1 Dr. Girish Tyagi while examining in the court has deposed that initially he has received a letter from Munjal Clinic and Maternity Centre, Shastri Nagar, Delhi consisting of names of 8 doctors and had verified that the names of the doctors were fond to be genuine being enrolled with Delhi Medical Council. PW1 also stated that thereafter, another application was received from Munjal Clinic wherein it was mentioned that one name has not been inadvertently mentioned in the earlier letter and the name of one Darshan Kaur D/o Pritam Singh was found to be false. It is further observed that during cross examination DW1 has admitted that the letter which was FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 16 of 21 subsequently received in the office of DMC was only having the name of Darshan Kaur and he has also stated that he had handed over both the letters i.e. the letter which was received earlier consisiting the names of eight doctors and subsequent letter containing the name of Darshan Kaur to the police. Perusal of the charge sheet reveal that there is no such two letters on the record but surprisingly only one letter which is Ex.P1 is filed with the charge sheet and the same mentions the name of nine doctors. It is also observed that as per Ex.PW1/A, letter which was received in the office of DMC from the said Munjal Clinic and Maternity Centre, Shastri Nagar, Delhi on 22.07.2009 which is Ex.P1 had a seal and receipt from the office of DMC which shows that the document Ex.P1 was received in the office of DMC on 24.07.2009. Perusal of Ex.P1 categorically shows that this document is manipulated document. It is further observed that there is other document Ex.P2 which is a letter allegedly written by the accused to Delhi Medical Council mentioning therein that Dr. Darshan Kaur has resigned from the Munjal Clinic and Maternity Centre. It is further observed that as per depositions of PW2, the said document was received as per the seal and receipt number on 01.01.2009 vide receipt No. 13408, but as FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 17 of 21 per the prosecution case, the said document was received on 01.09.2009. Both these discrepancies were put to the IO/PW7 but instead of explaining the said discrepancies, he had told a blatant lie in the court by mentioning that he did not observe any discrepancy because he is unable to read the date and the seal. In view of above observations, it is amply clear that both the documents on which the prosecution is heavily relying to involve the present accused is thus found to be fabricated and manipulated.
16. It is further observed that the prosecution has not produced the original document of the alleged forged document Ex.PW3A which is a certificate for registration alleged to be in the name of Darshan Kaur and no efforts have been made by the prosecution to prove the genuineness of the said document by leading the secondary evidence. In the absence of the original document on record, no reliance can be placed as the same cannot be read into evidence.
17. It is also observed that the prosecution has also relied upon the statement of PW5 and on his report Ex.PW5/A. The said report is also not admissible in evidence, firstly, because the alleged specimen writings (which has already been denied by the accused in FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 18 of 21 his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.) was not taken before the Magistrate or with his permission and as such, the same cannot be stated to be admissible in evidence. Besides this, as per the cross examination of PW5, it has emerged that he has very casually prepared the report without taking into consideration the scientific aspect for determining the comparison of handwritings. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in "AIR 1977, Supreme Court 1091, Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab" that any handwriting expert opinion is in fact a very weak piece of evidence and it is unsafe to base the conviction of the accused on the said opinion. It is further observed that both PW3 and PW4 had categorically stated that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are not the documents written in the hands of accused Harbhajan Singh, as they were well acquainted with his hand writing. In view of above observations, prosecution has failed to prove that the documents i.e. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 have been written by the accused.
18. It is observed that from the very inception, the investigation was found to be unfair, biased and lop sided. The initial investigation was conducted by PW6 who deposed in his examination in chief that "he has tried to know about the FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 19 of 21 whereabouts of Darshan Kaur, but he could not obtain any clue about the same either from the staff of Munjal Clinic or from its neighbourhood". PW6 also deposed that he he got prepared a portrait of Dr. Darshan Kaur, but very surprisingly no such portrait has been placed along with judicial file. It is further observed that as per the DMC certificate, Ex.P3, the name mentioned is Darshan Kaur D/o Pritam Singh. The prosecution has not collected any evidence to show that the wife of accused namely Darshan Kaur is having the parentage with the name of Pritam Singh. It is further observed that since Darshan Kaur, the wife and co-accused of the present accused Harbhajan Singh has since been discharged who could have been alleged to be the main beneficiary in the present case, no charge of conspiracy for commission of offence under Section 420/471 IPC is made out against the present accused. Also there is no evidence to show that accused was having any knowledge that document Ex.P3 is false document. It is observed that PW7 in his examination in chief deposed that he has recorded the disclosure statement of the accused and he has also admitted that he had not made any efforts to arrest Guptaji who alleged to have given the said Certificate to the present accused, nor he has made him accused in the present case FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 20 of 21 or got the investigations pending for him in the charge sheet, therefore, it is clear that the entire documentation including the disclosure statement of accused is under shadow of cloud of doubt. It is further observed that PW7 had collected the documents which were required to be sent to FSL in the month of March, 2010 but as per the prosecution case, the complaint was received on 01.09.2009 and no reason has been assigned by the I.O. for this except to say "Jab Muka Laga" as and when he got the chance and coupled with the fact that the documents were only sent to FSL on 30.04.2010 i.e. after about 8 months of the receipt of complaint from DMC in the police station Sarai Rohilla which is a serious lacuna on the part of the Investigating Officer.
19. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. In Batcu Venkateshwarlu v. Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. , (SC) 2009(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 290 : 2009(1) R.A.J. 251 : 2008(15) Scale 212, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
"A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 21 of 21 the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise particular to each case.......... Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over-emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case."
20. In view of above, the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and above observations do not inspire the confidence of the court and raises doubt in the mind of the court regarding story of prosecution. Benefit of doubt is given to the accused. Hence, Accused - Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal is acquitted from the charges U/s 420 r/w 511 IPC & 471 IPC. Announced in the open Court on this 05th Day of March, 2015 (AJAY KUMAR MALIK) MM(Central)-04/Tis Hazari Courts 05.03.2015.
FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 22 of 21 FIR No. 232/09 PS: Sarai Rohilla 05.03.2015 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused in person along with Ld. Counsel.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused -
Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 420 r/w 511 IPC & 471 IPC.
Bail bond already furnished by the accused is extended U/s 437 A Cr. P.C. till the limitation period for filing the appeal by the State.
Bail bond/surety bond discharged. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled.
Original documents, if any, be released to its rightful owner against counter singed photocopy of the same.
File be consigned to Record Room after due completion.
(AJAY KUMAR MALIK) MM (Central)-04/NEW DELHI 05.03.2015 FIR No. 232/09 State Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Munjal Page 23 of 21