Delhi District Court
State vs . Angoori Devi on 9 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKRAM, MM03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 156/04
U/s : 419/420/467/468/471 IPC
P.S. : J.P. Kalan
State Vs. Angoori Devi
JUDGMENT:
a) Sl. No. of the Case : 205/2
b) Name & address of the : Kabool Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh
complainant. R/o SCO 143, Sector24, Chandigarh
c) Name & address of : Angoori Devi W/o Late Sh. Jug Lal
accused R/o Village Kazipur, Post Ujwa, Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of : 27.11.2004 (Date of complaint)
offence
e) Offence complained off : U/s 419/420/467/468/471 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 09.04.2014
Date of Institution : 20.05.2005
Final arguments heard on : 09.04.2014
Judgment Pronounced on : 09.04.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Kabool Singh, the complainant, is the father in law of late Hira Nand, the son of accused.
FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.1/192. On 27.11.04, Kabool Singh filed a complaint before SHO PS J P Kalan stating; that there is a lady in village Kazi Pur whose name is Angoori Devi and for last 20 years she is withdrawing pension in the name of Sarti Devi by cheating Indian Army, whereas Sarti Devi w/o Jug Lal has expired 50 years back. Now this lady by impersonating herself as Sarti Devi is withdrawing pension from government treasury. She has succeeded in cheating Indian Army with the help of her son Brahma Nand.
After succeeding in taking pension she had got so much self confidence that she, once again claiming to be Sarti Devi, got transferred in her name property of her two parentless minor granddaughters by filing false affidavit, with the help of same Brahma Nand, against which those minor girls have filed Court case for recovery of possession through their maternal grand father. Annexed.
The real daughter of Angoori Devi, Kamlesh, has given me her affidavit where she has exposed her cheating and stated that her name is Angoori Devi and not Sarti Devi. Annexed.
Sarti Devi was born in village Sadrana of Haryana. The Sarpanch of that village and brother of Angoori Devi along with other citizens have given to me in writing that Sarti Devi has expired more than 50 years back. Annexed.
Here, cheater Angoori Devi's brother in law Dalel Singh, nephew Kishan Chand and various other people of Kazipur Village have also given in writing that Sarti Devi has expired more than 50 years back and Angoori Devi is taking pension by claiming her to be Sarti Devi. Annexed.
Name of fictitious Sarti Devi is registered as Angoori in the voter list of Kazipur village at serial number 144. Annexed.
Therefore, you are requested to take criminal action against Angoori Devi who is taking pension by claiming herself to be Sarti Devi, along with her son Brahma Nand for illegally withdrawing funds from government exchequer. They be also booked for offence of waging war against country as pension from Army is available only on account of service of nation.
At present this women is taking pension from Allahabad Bank, Dhansa Village Branch.
3. ASI Lakhi Ram was assigned the complaint for spot inquiry FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.2/19 and to file report in 3 days. On 30.11.2004 vide DD no.12 A at 1:30 PM FIR No. 156/04 was registered on the basis of this complaint for offfences u/S 419/420/467/468/471/34 IPC.
4. As per summary of charge sheet, ASI Lakhi Ram started investigation and during investigation he inquired about Sarti Devi and Angoori Devi form Sarpanch of Sardana Village. As per that inquiry it was revealed that deceased Jug Lal was serving in Army who had married Sarti Devi but in 1950 Sarti Devi expired leaving one daughter Omvati. After death of Sarti Devi after about 23 years Jug Lal Married to her cousin Angoori Devi. After marriage villager of Kazipur and her in laws started calling Angoori Devi in the name of first wife of Jug Lal. However in voter list her name was registered as Angoori Devi. Name of Angoori Devi is shown in Rashan Card as Sarti Devi. In 1980 after death of Gunner Jug Lal, Angoori Devi applied for family pension of Jug Lal in the name of Sarti Devi by placing her photo and since then she started receiving pension from Armi as Sarti Devi.
5. The charge sheet also takes note that though Angoori Devi is entitled to family pension but she should have applied for family pension by giving correct information. Angoori Devi had 7 children from Jug Lal out of those one Hira Nand was their son who had married to daughter of complainant. He was serving in BSF who expired in 2003 and after his death his gratuity was received by his wife Sunita. In 2004 Sunita expired leaving two minor daughters. The complainant took them with him to FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.3/19 Chandigarh. A dispute started between complainant and Angoori Devi for the share of late Hira Nand and due to that complainant filed this complaint.
6. Complainant had also filed complaint in pension department Indian Army and on that complaint her family pension was stopped. During investigation IO went to collect the pension documents from DPDO, but as the matter was pending in Army Board Tis Hazari he could not collect the documents, however, he received a letter from DPDO wherein it was written that " through the correspondence and petition, it is also learnt that Smt. Angoori Devi had solemnized her marriage with ex soldier after death of his first wife i.e. Smt. Sarti Devi. If the fact is true, she is fully entitled for family pension as a second wife of deceased soldier after his death. On the basis of that letter IO filed cancellation report.
7. As the complainant was not satisfied from cancellation report Ld. Predecessor ordered further investigation and the matter was investigated again. This was marked to Inspt. Bhim Singh.
8. During further investigation IO collected election roll of Kazipur Village and he came in possession of two letters of army inquiry. In one of those letters Angoori Devi was declared to be entitled for pension but in other letter there was a recommendation for taking action against Angoori Devi for withdrawing pension by impersonation. IO wrote to Indian Army FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.4/19 for clarification but did not get any satisfactory answer neither got the original documents of family pension. IO came to know that by another letter dated 05.08.05 Army had recommended action against Angoori Devi and her witnesses but those witnesses have already expired. Later IO collected the documents from Allahabad Bank, where pension was credited. After taking specimen signatures of Angoori Devi, IO sent it for opinion of finger print expert. After concluding the investigation accused was charge sheeted without arrest, on 12.07.07 and after taking cognizance for offence u/S 419/420/467/468/471 accused was summoned.
9. Accused appeared in the court and on application she was released on bail. After supplying the copy of challan in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C accused was heard on charge and finding prima facie case, accused was charged for offence u/S 419/420/467/468 and 471 IPC to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. To prove its case prosecution produced 21 witnesses.
Pw1 Dilbag Singh Dahia produced death registration form of Hira Nand. An immaterial evidence.
Pw2 R.K. Bhandari proved letters dated 30.11.04 and 15.12.04 issued by manager of Allahabad Bank wherein he gave information about family pension account number of Sarti Devi. These letters were taken on record as Ex.Pw2/B and Ex.Pw2/C. However Pw2 failed to identify the signatures of the Manager FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.5/19 who issued Ex.Pw2/B and Ex.Pw2/C. Pw2 also produced statement of account from 08.04.2000 to 02.12.08 which was taken on record as Ex.Pw2/A. Pw3 Tej Ram is resident of village Kazi Pur, he deposed that Smt. Sarti Devi Expired in the year 1950 and Jug Lal married to angoori Devi. He also deposed that in the village people used to call Angoori Devi as Sharti Devi. He also deposed that Sh. Jug lal expired in the year 1980 and present complaint was filed because of civil dispute between complainant and accused. Pw3 also deposed that accused was known as Sarti Devi and as well as Angoori Devi.
Pw4 is complainant. He deposed that his son in law Hira Nand was son of accused. Hira Nand had married to daughter of Pw4 (Sunita) and was residing at village Kazi Pur. After death of Hira Nand Sunita was tortured by her in laws therefore she expired. Hira Nand owned two acres of land and after his death he tried to transfer his land in the name of two minor daughter of Hira Nand but he came to know that said land has already been transferred in the name of accused. On seeing the documents Pw4 came to know that accused has shown herself as Sarti Devi and she had filed a false affidavit at Tehsil office Najafgarh. Pw4 deposed that he made complaint regarding change of name. Pw4 then deposed that he came to know that accused is drawing pension in the name of Sarti Devi whereas her name is Angoori Devi as shown in voter list. He deposed that relatives of real Sarti Devi FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.6/19 and Angoori Devi had given him certificates that accused was drawing pension in the name of Sarti Devi. Pw4 also deposed that the documents of Hira Nand in BSF where he worked shows that his mother's name is Angoori Devi. Pw4 also deposed that name of accused in Ration card was shown as Sarti Devi just to draw pension and this was done in conspiracy of Brahma Nand. Pw4 proved his complaint Ex.Pw4/A, seizure memo of death certificate of Hira Nand Ex.Pw4/B. Pw4 also deposed that death certificate of Brahma Nand prepared in Delhi was forged and accused has committed forgery by affixing her photographs in the pension claim documents and claimed herself to be Sarti Devi and cheated the Government.
Pw5 Dalel Singh Deposed that Jug Lal was his cousin and he got married twice. First wife of Jug Lal was Sarti Devi who died in 1950. Jug Lal married to accused in 1953 which was attended by Pw5. Pw5 deposed that he never heard that accused was also called by the name Sarti Devi. Pw5 also deposed that name of accused in voter list is Angoori Devi. Pw5 also deposed that Angoori Devi has grabbed the property of Hira Nand by false claim.
Pw6 Mange Ram deposed that Jug Lal was his paternal uncle (chacha). He also deposed that after death of Sarti Devi Jug Lal married to accused. This witness deposed that after marriage in laws of accused named her as Sarti Devi and she was known by this name in the village. Pw5 also deposed that there are many FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.7/19 instances when after death of first wife second wife was called by the name of Sarti Devi.
Pw7 Daulat Ram deposed that he was 10 year old and accused was 14 years old when she was married to Jug Lal. Sarti Devi was Pw7's elder sister. He deposed that father of Jug Lal, Shri Yad Ram suggested at the time of marriage that she be named Sarti Devi.
Pw8 Omwati is daughter of Jug Lal and Sarti Devi. She deposed that she was 8 or 10 years old when her mother expired. She deposed that his father married to accused and he used to call her Sarti Devi. She also deposed that though accused is her maternal aunt but she calls her mother and know her by Sarti Devi.
Harkesh Singh was also examined as Pw8 (he is hereby treated as Pw8A). He deposed that he knew accused since his childhood and once she requested him to open account in bank for receiving pension. Pw8A deposed that the said request was made by Dalel Singh (Pw5) and since Pw8A was having his account in bank he became introducer to open bank account. Pw8A deposed that he later came to know that real name of accused is Angoori Devi.
Pw9 Smt. Kamlesh said that name of her mother is Sarti Devi and she was declared hostile.
Pw10 Yad Ram AO, DPDO Brar Square, produced ExPw10/A, Ex.Pw10/B, Ex.Pw10/C and Ex.Pw10/D. Ex.Pw10/A is pension payment order no. F/NA/PRE64/13454/89. As per that pension FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.8/19 was granted to Sari Devi. Pw10 deposed that pension was paid till 30.11.04. Ex.Pw10/B is letter no. 26/C/FP/RSB/424 dated 31.01.05 which mentions that name of pensioner is Angoori Devi and not Sarti Devi. E.Pw10/B was received from Rajya Sainik Board vide letter Ex.Pw10/C which was issued to Angoori Devi for depositing the over payment of pension amount of Rs. 2,65,444/. Ex.Pw10/D is letter dated 13.05.2011 from Bank Of Baroda returning the over payment through bankers cheque no. 291698. production of all these documents was objected as those documents were not the part of charge sheet and were never supplied to accused before the day it were produced in in evidence.
Pw11 HC Manoj was posted in DIU South West. On 28.11.06 he took notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C issued to Manager Allahabad Bank Dhansa under the authority Ex.Pw11/A. He collected the documents and handed over to IO who seized them vide memo Ex.Pw11/B. Pw12 Gulab Singh brought the birth and death register kept under his custody which shows that at serial no. 174 Hira Nand is recorded to have expired on 06.01.03 and date of registration is 13.01.03. Pw12 proved the death certificate of Hira Nand Ex.Pw12/A and certified copy of register was taken on record as Ex.Pw12/B Pw13 HC Nathi Lal was posted in DIU South West who was with IO when he obtained specimen Thumb Impression of Right FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.9/19 Thumb of accused.
Pw14 HC Lekh Ram was also posted in DIU who went to deposit sealed envelop vide RC No. 19/21/06, to Finger Print Bureau Malviya Nagar. Pw14 deposed that the envelop was in proper condition and seal was intact and it was not tempered with so long it remained in his possession. Original RC was not produced in Court. Prosecution placed relied on photocopy which is not legible.
Pw15 Retd. SI Lakhi Ram is First IO.
Pw16 Vinod Kumar Account Asstt. AERO 35 was summoned to produce electoral roll but could not produce as record was not available.
Pw17 Inst. Bhim Singh is Second IO.
ASI Vishram Lal proved the FIR Ex.Pw17/A and its endorsement on Rukka Ex.Pw17/B. He is also examined as Pw17.
Pw18 Inst. Ramesh Chander Meena is third IO who collected right thumb impressions of accused, Ex.18/A, Ex.!8/B and Ex.18/C. He also proved seizure memo of specimen signature card from Allahabad Bank Dhansa Ex.Pw18/D and proved original card Ex.Pw18/E. Pw18 also proved Ex.Pw18/F through which he sent exhibits to Finger Print Bureau for comparison and opinion. Pw18 filed charge sheet.
Pw 19 Ravinder Kumar is finger print expert. He proved report Ex.Pw19/A which says that thumb impression appearing in Ex.Pw18/A and Ex.Pw18/B are identical with that appearing in FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.10/19 original card Ex.Pw18/E.
11. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein she denied all the incriminating evidence against her and stated that she has not committed any offence and stated that she is widow of Sh. Jug Lal and legally entitled to his pension. Accused stated that she was know by both names i.e. Angoori Devi as well as Sarti Devi. He cousin Sarti Devi had already expired in the life time of Sh. Jug lal and after his death she applied for pension as Sarti Devi as she was known known as Sarti Devi. Accused also stated that she has been withdrawing pension but it was objected and later on she was given complete arrears and she is continuously receiving pension. However now she is receiving pension as Angoori Devi.
12. I have heard Ld. APP for State, Counsel for accused Maj. Siya Ram and carefully gone through file.
13. Ld. APP for state submitted that name of accused is Angoori Devi and Not Sarti Devi. It is submitted that accused is claiming herself to be Sarti Devi as well Angoori Devi but she has brought nothing on record to show that her name was changed to Sarti Devi at the time of marriage. There is no such custom and there is no record of change of name. It is submitted that though accused was entitled to take pension of Late Jug Lal and receiving the same till date, the act of opening an account in the name of Sarti Devi and applying for pension in the name of Sarti Devi has been proved on record and this act beyond reasonable doubt FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.11/19 forgery for the purpose of cheating and in fact she had succeeded in cheating the Government and received pension. It is also submitted that the pension in the name of Sarti Devi was not only stopped but recovered back. The fact that accused is receiving pension today also and she was given entire arrears does not absolve her cheting and committing forgery.
14. Defence on the other hand contends that complainant filed this complaint just to harass the accused out of his greed to take property of Late Hira Nand who had bequeathed his property in the name of accused. It is submitted that accused was known as Sarti Devi and it is out of that belief she applied for pension as Sarti Devi and opened bank account as Sarti Devi. It is submitted that except for Pw4 and Pw5 all the pubic witnesses have claimed that she was known as Sarti Devi and her name in Ration card is also shown as Sarti Devi. It is submitted that accused was entitled for pension. The first wife of Sh. Jug Lal expire in the year 1950 and he expired in the year 1980 therefore at no point anyone else could have claimed pension except accused. It is also submitted that the act of accused was innocent and and she has not caused any wronful loss to any one neither she made any wrongful gain, in fact by the act of complainant(Pw4) accused has suffered harassment for these many years. Defence places its reliance on Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572, Jibri Lal Diwan Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1997 SC 3424 and Dr. S. Dutt Vs. State FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.12/19 of UP AIR 1966 SC 523.
15. The accused is charged for offence u/S 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code 1860.
Section 419 provides punishment for cheating by impersonation and section 420 provides punishment for cheating. Cheating is defined under section 415 IPC. It reads:
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 is 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 deception within the meaning of this section.
Cheating by impersonation is defined in section 416 and it reads:
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 other person really is.
Explanation The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person.
The term forgery is defined under section 463 Indian Penal Code 1960 and it reads:
463. Forgery.Whoever makes any false document or part of FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.13/19 a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 464 Indian Penal Code 1860 defines making of false documents;
464. Making a false document.A person is said to make a false document First.Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or Secondly.Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.14/19 nature of the alteration.
Section 467, 468 and 471, with which accused is charged, provides punishment for the offence;
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished...........
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished.......
471. Using as genuine a forged document.Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished.........
16. Except for Pw4 who is complainant and Pw5 who is cousin brother in law of accused, no witness has stated that accused has impersonated Sarti Devi. In fact all the public witnesses, except Pw4 and Pw5, have stated that they know accused as Sarti Devi. Pw8 is the man who claims to have known accused since his child hood and it is him who became introducer for opening the FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.15/19 bank account of accused for taking pension. Pw8 no where says that he knew that accused was Angoori Devi and she deliberately opened account in the name of Sarti Devi. Rather his testimony is that accused was known to him since his childhood and he came to know the name of accused as Angoori Devi after the complaint. Pw8 admits that when he introduced accused to open her bank account he believed that she is Sarti Devi. Why would Pw8 believe that accused is Sarti Devi unless she is known as Sarti Devi. Pw8 was 50 years old when he testified in court. The bank account was opened somewhere in 1980. that means at the time when Pw8 introduced accused to open bank account, he was about 27 years old. For 27 years Pw8 knew accused as Sarti Devi. There was no occasion or reason for Pw8 not to believe that she is not Sarti Devi or that she is Angoori Devi. Pw8 also deposed that whole village used to know accused as Sarti Devi.
17. Be it an offence of cheating or forgery or using a forged document, one of the basic requirement of the law is that the act of accused must be either dishonest or fraudulent.
18. The terms dishonestly and fraudulently are defined under section 24 and 25 of Indian Penal Code and the sections read;
24. "Dishonestly".Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly"
FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.16/1925. "Fraudulently".A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise'.
19. 'Wrongful gain' as per section 23 is a gain by unlawful means of property which the person gaining is not entitled and 'wrongful loss' is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
20. In the case in hand, the accused was legally entitled to get the pension of late Jug Lal. Her right to get pension was not because her name was Sarti Devi or XYZ, but because she is a widow of late Jag Lal. Therefore whatever might her name have been she was legally entitled to pension of late Jug Lal and similarly Indian Army was bound to provide pension to accused, being widow of late Jug lal. Therefore the accused has not gained wrongfully neither any wrongful loss has occurred to Indian Army.
21. Only controversy in this case is that accused claimed pension claiming herself to be Sarti Devi and the contention of state is that she has impersonated a dead man and cheated the Indian Army and for doing that she forged documents to open bank account in the name of Sarti Devi.
22. The contention of prosecution that Angoori Devi never change her name as Sarti Devi and her claim in the name of Sarti FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.17/19 Devi makes her liable for the offences charged is totally misconceived. The question here is that whether it was the belief of accused that she is Sarti Devi even though her name was Angoori Devi. There are testimonies of witnesses which proves that Jug lal used to call her Sarti Devi. The daughter of Sarti Devi has also deposed that she calls accused her mother even though she is step mother and she knows her as Sarti Devi. Therefore when accused has reason to believe that her name is Sarti Devi as she was known as Sarti Devi after her marriage in 1953 till 1980 when her husband died, why would she file pension claim as Angoori Devi. Even if accused has not formally published her change of name but there was no need for her to file claim as Angoori Devi when she was known as Sarti Devi.
23. The way this complaint was filed shows how outrageous it is. The complainant, despite that he is a relative of accused, has no where mentioned that accused is known to her. In fact he filed complaint as if he is making a complaint against anonymous person. There is civil litigation pending between complainant and accused and he has admitted in cross examination that he filed this complaint because of that.
24. For whatever the complainant filed this complaint, the prosecution has failed to meet the requirement of offence. There is no evidence to show that accused acted out of dishonesty or committed any fraud, neither the prosecution has brought FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.18/19 evidence that accused ever tried to deceive anyone, specially Indian Army. Why would one claim in the name of other one when one can get it in his own name? It the belief of accused that she is Sarti Devi. That belief is supported by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
25. On the basis of above discussion I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution had no case against accused but for the protest of complainant and the notings of DPDO in pension claim and subsequent proceeding, which in fact resulted in continuation of pension to accused, this prosecution was continued. Hence I find that accused is innocent of all the charges levelled against her. Therefore she is acquitted of all the charges.
Dictated & Announced in Open Court (Vikram) On the 9 day of April, 2014 MM03/SouthWest/Delhi th 09.04.2014 FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.19/19