Delhi District Court
State vs . Navratan Singh on 30 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH
MM(East) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. NAVRATAN SINGH
FIR No. : 331/07
PS : Gandhi Nagar
Sr. No of the case : 1176/16
Date of Institution : 19.01.2009
Date of commission of Offence : 16.10.2007
Name of complainant : Anil Kumar Jain
Name of accused, their parentage : Nav Ratan Singh @ Ratan Singh
and address S/o Dal Chand
R/o Village Badnora, PO Mala Gargh, PS
Salem Pur, Distt. Bulandshehar, UP
Offence Complained of : 419/420/384/170 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date of reserving judgment/order : 05.10.2018
Date of pronouncement : 30.10.2018
Brief reasons for the decision of the case:
1.The factual matrix of the case as per FIR bearing no. 331/07 lodged at PS Gandhi Nagar registered on the complaint of the complainant Sh. Anil Kumar Jain is that on 16.10.2007 when the complainant was present at his shop bearing no. 180, Shiv Gali, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, at about 03:00 pm the present accused reached at the shop of the complainant and represented himself as one Rajesh Tyagi, JE in Delhi Jal Board (hereinafter referred to as DJB) and told the complainant that he has not deposited the development charges and therefore penalty will be FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 1 of 13 imposed upon him. The accused disclosed that an amount of Rs. 1700/ towards road cutting charge, Rs. 160/ per sq. metrs. towards development charge and Rs. 6,000/ as penalty shall be charged on the complainant. He also asked the complainant to produce some documents regarding his identity proof as the owner of the premises/shop and further asked him to pay Rs. 3,700/ threatening that if the said amount is not paid, he will file a wrong report with the concerned Department. The complainant handed over an election ID Card photocopy of his mother Smt. Sushila Jain to the accused who after writing the above said amount of Rs. 3,700/ on its back returned the same to the complainant. However, due to the demand of the accused, the complainant got suspicious and called one social activists of the area namely Sh. Purshottam to his shop who was the frequent visitor of DJB Office. When Sh. Purshottam after his arrival at the shop of complainant started enquiring from the accused, the accused got nervous and scared and disclosed his real name as Navratan Singh @ Ratan Singh and also failed to produce any identify card of DJB. Accordingly, the matter was reported to the police whereupon the present FIR was registered against the accused for the commission of offence u/s 419/420/384/170 IPC. Later on, a charge sheet for the said offences was also filed against the accused in the court on 19.01.2009 and the cognizance was taken by the court.
2. However, the accused Navratan Singh was formally charged only for the commission of offence u/s 419/384 read with section 511 IPC and section 170 of IPC on 19.01.2011. Thereafter, the prosecution was called to lead evidence to prove its case.
3. During prosecution evidence, total eight witnesses were examined by the FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 2 of 13 prosecution to prove its case. However, it is pertinent to mention here that due to typographical mistake both PWs SI Brij Bhushan and complainant Sh. Anil Kumar Jain have been wrongly mentioned as PW2.
4. The first witness examined by the prosecution is Sh. Purshottam Sharma, PW1 who deposed that on the day of incident complainant Anil Kumar Jain made a call to him and called him to his shop informing that one person had come to his shop and is introducing himself as officer of DJB. Accordingly, PW1 went to the shop of complainant where he introduced one person and informed that he is offering the complainant that he can get arranged some concessions regarding sewer charges to him otherwise the complainant would be penalized. PW1 further deposed that he interrogated the said person and asked him to which department he belongs whereupon he replied that he is from DJB. Accordingly, PW1 made a call to DJB. After some time the officials of DJB came at the spot and interrogate the said person and found that he is not an employee of DJB.
5. However, it is pertinent to mention here that PW1 failed to identify the accused as the said person due to which he was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for State. During his crossexamination also PW1 failed to identify the accused after his attention was drawn towards the accused by the Ld. APP. However, the PW1 admitted that the person who visited the shop had demanded bribe from the complainant and on his interrogation by PW1 had replied him that he has come thereto collect the charges of sewer development. It was further admitted by PW1 that the said person had introduced himself as Rajesh Tyagi, JE in DJB.
FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 3 of 13
6. The second witness which was examined on behalf of prosecution is SI Brij Bhushan, the Duty Officer who registered the present FIR Ex. PW2/A on the basis of rukka sent by SI Mangesh Tyagi through Ct. Surender.
7. The third witness examined on behalf of prosecution is complainant Sh.
Anil Kumar Jain PW2 (though the witness should have been shown as PW3 in his deposition, however inadvertently has been shown as PW2 due to typographical mistake). PW Sh. Anil Kumar Jain reiterated the same facts in his deposition as disclosed by him in his complaint made to the police and Ex. PW2/B and correctly identified the accused as the person who visited the shop on the day of incident and introduced himself as Rajesh Tyagi, JE in DJB and demanded the money on false pretext of sewer charges etc.
8. The fourth witness examined on behalf of prosecution is PW3 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Upadhyaya, Asstt. Engineer, DJB who deposed that one JE Sh. Rakesh Tyagi is working as JE in DJB in Shahdara Constituency. PW3 further deposed that there is no JE in the name of Nav Ratan Singh in DJB.
9. The fifth witness examined on behalf of prosecution is PW4 Rajesh Tyagi, JE, NE1, GTB Enclave near Tahir Pur, OHT Nand Nagari, Delhi and he deposed that he was posted for about three years in Sewer Department in Gandhi Nagar constituency as JE. In the month of October, 2007 he came to know through some newspaper that a person was extorting money by using his name. PW4 also denied that he knows any person with the name of Nav Ratan @ Ratan Singh.
FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 4 of 13
10. The sixth witness examined by the prosecution is PW5 Dr. Shyam Vir Singh who deposed that on the day of incident he had medically examined the accused vide his MLC Ex. PW5/A.
11. The seventh witness examined by the prosecution is PW6 HC Surender Kumar who joined the investigation of the case with IO Inspector Mangesh Tyagi (the then SI) and deposed that on the receipt of DD No. 24A he along with IO reached at the spot and met with the complainant and some other public persons. As per PW6 present accused was also present at the spot and the complainant produced him before the IO. PW6 further deposed about the proceedings conducted by the IO during the course of investigation.
12. The eighth and last witness examined by the prosecution is PW7 Inspector Mangesh Tyagi who also deposed that after receiving DD No. 24A he along with Ct. Surender reached at the spot and met with the complainant who produced the accused Nav Ratan Singh before him and stated that he introduced himself as JE of DJB and tried to extort money from him. PW further deposed about the recording of the statement of the complainant, the formal arrest of the accused, his personal search, preparation of the site plan at the instance of complainant, the recording of statement of eye witness Sh. Purshottam, the seizure of photocopy of voter identity card in the name of Smt. Sushila Jain produced by the complainant and other proceedings conducted by him during the course of investigation.
13. Thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 17.04.2017. However, during his examination the FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 5 of 13 accused denied all the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated by the police after being lifted from his house in the presence of his wife and children on the pretext that he has been called by SHO for some enquiry. Accused further claimed that in the PS he was severely beaten by the police and his signatures were taken on some blank documents. Thereafter, the matter was listed for defence evidence (hereinafter as DE).
14. During DE the accused examined one witness namely DW1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, son of the accused who deposed that on 16.10.2007 at about 04:30 pm to 05:50 pm some police officials visited his house and took his father i.e. the present accused, in government vehicle. As per DW1 on the same day at about 06:30 to 07:00 pm he reached at PS Gandhi Nagar to know the reason of apprehension of his father whereupon he came to know that his father would be released from the court and thereafter he left the PS.
15. Thereafter, final arguments were heard from both the sides.
16. While arguing on behalf of accused, it was argued by his Ld. Counsel during final arguments that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts as firstly, the only independent eye witness of the incident namely Sh. Purshottam Kumar PW1 has already failed to identify the accused during his evidence in the court. Secondly, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the accused which may show that actually he was representing himself as a JE in DJB as is claimed by the prosecution as neither any forged identity card nor any alleged demanded bribe has been FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 6 of 13 recovered from his possession. Thirdly, the Ld. Counsel has argued that the non joining of any other public witness except PW Sh. Anil Kumar who has leveled false allegations against the accused, despite the availability of the public witnesses as all the prosecution witnesses have deposed in their evidence that public persons were present at the spot, further creates serious suspicion in the story of prosecution. Fourthly, the ld. Counsel has argued that the testimony of DW1 also proves that the accused was forcefully lifted from his house by the police officials and was later on falsely implicated in the present case. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
17. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State has argued that there is no merits in the submissions of Ld. Counsel as in view of testimony of prosecution witnesses the case of the prosecution stands proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that the contention of the defence that as PW1 Sh. Purshottam has failed to identify the accused during his deposition in the court and therefore the case of the prosecution has failed, is without any merits as the mere failure of PW1 to identify the accused in the court does not itself proves that the case of the prosecution is false. The Ld. State counsel has argued that though PW1 has failed to identify the accused in the court, however, he has categorically deposed that on the day of incident he was called by the complainant to his shop where he met with the person who was representing himself as JE and was also told that he was demanding bribe from the complainant for saving him from a penalty to be imposed for non payment of sewer development and other charges. Ld. APP has further argued that even during his crossexamination PW1 has admitted that such person was representing himself as JE and was demanding the FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 7 of 13 bribe. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the main complainant of the case has correctly identified the accused during his deposition in the court and has remained consistent and unimpeached during the course of his testimony in the court. It is further argued that the presence of the accused at the spot also sufficiently stands proves in view of the testimony of the main complainant Anil Kumar Jain and other police witnesses who have also corroborated the version of the complainant that he was arrested from the spot. Similarly, the Ld. State counsel has further submitted that the failure on the part of the accused to discharge the burden to prove the plea of alibi as was raised by him during his examination in the court u/s 313 Cr. PC also clearly proves that he has just created a false story in order to create a false defence which did not help him. Accordingly, Ld. State counsel has prayed that in view of the testimony of the complainant Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, the supported testimony of PW1 Sh. Purshottam Kumar which proves that the person present on the spot represented himself as JE and demanded bribe from the complainant and the unimpeached and consistent testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses who have also corroborated the version of complainant, the case of the prosecution against the accused stands prove beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, he deserves to be convicted for all the charged offences.
18. In the instant case, the accused has been charged for the commission of offence u/s 170, 419 and 384 read with 511 IPC.
Section 170 reads as "Personating a public servantWhoever pretends to hold any particular FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 8 of 13 office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 419 IPC reads as "Punishment for cheating by personation Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both."
The offence of cheating is defined u/s 415 IPC which reads as "Cheating Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat."
Explanation A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
19. The offence of cheating by personation is defined u/s 416 IPC which reads as FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 9 of 13 Cheating by personation A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such person really is.
Explanation The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person.
20. Now coming to the present case in order to prove its case to prove the commission of the offence by the accused u/s 170 IPC the prosecution is required to prove that the accused was falsely personating himself as a public servant i.e. a JE in DJB. Similarly, for proving the commission of offence u/s 419 read with section 511 IPC the prosecution is required to prove that by so falsely personating himself as a JE in DJB, the accused tried to deceive the complainant so as to dishonestly induce him to deliver any property or to consent that he or any person shall retain any property or intentionally induced him to do or omit to do something which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and such act or omission is likely to cause damage or harm to the complainant in his body, mind, reputation or property. For proving the commission of offence u/s 384 read with section 511 IPC the prosecution is also required to prove that the accused tried to intentionally put the complainant in fear of any injury and thereby induced him to deliver any property or valuable security.
21. To discharge the above said burden and to prove its case, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of PW Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, PW1 Sh. Purshottam Singh and other prosecution witnesses. The case of the prosecution is that PW/complainant Anil Kumar Jain has remained FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 10 of 13 consistent in his testimony throughout the trial and has also correctly identified the accused during his deposition in the court. It is further submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the testimony of PW Anil Kumar Jain has remained unimpeached and has also gained support from the other prosecution witnesses who have also deposed about the arrest of the accused from the place of incident. Further, the testimony of PW1 also sufficiently proves that one person came to the shop of the complainant on the day of incident and represented himself as a JE in DJB and demanded money from the complainant and also threatened that if the same is not paid he would be penalized. Though, it is correct that PW 1 has failed to identify the accused in the court however, the identity of the accused, his presence and arrest from the spot is sufficiently proved by the prosecution through the testimony of PW Anil Kumar Jain, PW Ct. Surender Kumar and PW/IO Inspector Mangesh Tyagi. Further, the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses namely PW Rajesh Tyagi, JE and PW Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay further proves that there was no person with the name of accused as JE posted in DJB on the day of incident or at any point of time prior to the alleged incident. The fact that the accused was personating himself JE Rajesh Tyagi sufficiently stands proved in view of the testimony of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Further , the fact that he was dishonestly inducing the complainant to part with his money by so personating himself also stands proved in view of the testimony of PW Anil Kumar Jain and PW6 and PW7 and the seizure memo Ex.PW2/A which contains some entry/writing about an amount of Rs. 3700/ on its back. Similarly, the fact that the complainant was so threatened to part with his money in order to save himself from penalty also stands proved in view of the testimony of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses as the complainant/PW Anil Jain as well as PW1 FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 11 of 13 have categorically deposed in their depositions that the accused said that if the complainant did not pay the money he will prepare a false report. Further the fact that despite taking the plea of alibi during his examination u/s 313 Cr. PC. before the court, the accused could not lead any cogent evidence to discharge his burden, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution more particularly when the complainant has no reason, ill will or false motive to falsely implicated the accused. As far the testimony of DW1 is concerned, since he is a related witness to the accused and his testimony as such also does not convince the court as despite the allegation that his father was forcefully lifted from his house and was later on falsely implicated in the present case, not a single complaint was ever made to any authority, his testimony is totally unreliable so as to help the accused in discharging his burden.
22. However, it is important to see here that though the accused has been charged only for the attempt to commit offence under section 419 IPC apart from other offences, but the evidence that has come on record proves that the accused has gone much beyond the stage of attempt and is liable for the main offence under section 419 IPC itself. As already observed in the abovesaid para the accused has not only falsely represented himself to be a JE in DJB but also dishonestly induced the complainant to pay him money and further demanded ownership proof of the premises from the complainant and even also wrote details of the money to be received on the photocopy Ex.PW2/A so as to make the complainant believe that the money is being charged towards sewer charges and to save him from penalty. Further as section 419 is an aggravated form of section 415 IPC which does not require that due to deception and dishonest/intentional inducement the property or money FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 12 of 13 should also exchange hands as section 420 IPC takes care of such case, the fact that deception and dishonest/intentional inducement has been sufficiently proved by the prosecution, the court holds the accused guilty for commission of offence under 419 IPC alongwith for commission of offences under section 170 IPC and 384 read with sec.511 IPC.
23. In view of above said discussions, the court finds that the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Nav Ratan Singh is hereby convicted for offences punishable u/s 170 IPC, 419 IPC and 384 IPC read with section 511 IPC. Accused shall be heard separately on the point of sentence. Copy of the judgment be given dasti free of cost.
Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be given dasti free of cost.
Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH
Announced in open court SINGH Date: 2018.11.01
17:39:47 +0530
on Dated: 30.10.2018
(BALWINDER SINGH)
MM(E)/KKD/DELHI/30.10.2018
FIR No. 331/07 PS Gandhi Nagar State Vs. Navratan Singh Page No. 13 of 13