Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. on 1 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-5/CENTRAL: DELHI
STATE VS. SANJAY CHAUDHARY & Ors.
FIR NO. 07/99
P. S. NABI KARIM
Date of institution of case : 17.04.1999
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 25.09.2013
Date of judgment : 01.10.2013
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 02.01.1999
b) Offence complained of : U/s 468/420/471 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Mehtab Singh
d) Name of accused no.1, : Sanjay Chaudhary
his parentage : S/o Sh. Raghunath
Chaudhary
local & permanent residence : R/o:-village, PO
and Thana Nirmali,
District Shahersa,
Bihar.
e) Name of accused no.2, : Rajesh Kumar
Mourya
his parentage : S/o Sh. Shiv
Charan Mourya
local & permanent residence : R/o:- Village
Shahjhanpur,
Dak Khana Bata
Karan Ganj,
Jilla Pratap Garg,
U.P.
(Proclaimed
Offender)
FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 1/17
f) Name of accused no.3, : Dhirender Singh
his parentage : S/o Sh.
local & permanent residence : R/o:- Village
Haribanspur,
PO Karampur,
Thana
Akbarpur,
Jilla Ambedkar
Nagar, U.P.
(discharged)
g) Plea of accused Sanjay Chaudhary : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Final Order against accused Sanjay
Chaudhary : Convicted
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case accused Rajesh Kumar Mourya had already been declared proclaimed offender vide order dt. 28.05.2012 and accused Dhirender had already been discharged from the present case vide order dated 27.09.1999 so the present judgment is only against accused Sanjay Chaudhary. In brief the case of prosecution against accused Sanjay Chaudhary is that on or before 02.01.1999 he had committed forgery by preparing false challans of Associated Road Carriers dated 27.11.1998 along with truck arrival reports dated 18.12.1998 intending that these forged document shall be used for the purpose of cheating and accordingly he cheated Associates Road Carriers Ltd. by presenting these challans and truck arrival reports for payment at its office at 10 Qutub Road, Ram Nagar, Nabi Karim, Delhi and dishonestly induced Mehtab Singh Sangwan, Senior Manager of Associated Road Carriers Ltd. to deliver payment of Rs. 42,140/- for FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 2/17 these four challans in the form of two cheques and fraudulently and dishonestly used the above stated forged challans as genuine which he knew or had reason to believe to be forged documents and thereby he committed offences punishable u/s 468/420/471 IPC.
2. Accordingly, on 28.09.1999 charge u/s 468/420/471 IPC was framed against the accused Sanjay Chaudhary to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined nine witnesses.
A. Paip Singh Rathore was examined as PW1. This witness has deposed that he was working as a clerk with Associated Tpt. Carriers Ltd., Qutub Road, Ram Nagar, 1995 and on 02.01.999 he was working with Tpt. Office as Traffic Incharge. He deposed that on that day he was present in the office of Tpt. along with Sh. M.S. Sangwan, Branch Manager and Sh. S. B. Bedi of Personnel department. He deposed that at about 5.30 pm their Senior Branch Manager called him and gave instructions to him on telephone to call back Sanjay Chaudhary who had just collected the payment. He deposed that he saw accused Sanjay Chaudhary at the gate of the office and he took him to the cabin of Sr. Branch Manager where Sr. Branch Manager inquired from the accused about the cheques given to him from the Carrier office and the accused Sanjay told him that said cheques were given by him to co accused Rajesh (who is proclaimed offender) and these cheques were issued with respect to challan. He deposed that in his presence both accused presented four challans for receiving the payment but he do not remember the number of said challans and he also do not know what was written in the said challans. The challans are Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/A1, Ex.PW1/A2 and Ex.PW1/A3. He deposed that both the accused had received the payment of Rs.
FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 3/17 42,140/- against these four bills by way of two cheques issued by cashier S. B. Goyal. He deposed that along with these, accused persons produced truck arrival reports Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/B1, Ex.PW1/B2 and Ex.PW1/B3. He deposed that when he had seen the truck arrival reports he got suspicious about the genuineness of the challans Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/A1, Ex.PW1/A2 and Ex.PW1/A3. He deposed that he got suspicious of the genuineness of these documents after both the accused had taken the amount mentioned in these challans by way of cheques from the cashier by using these four challans and Truck arrivials reports as genuine. He deposed that above challans and truck arrivals report were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW1/C. This witness correctly identified the accused Sanjay present in the court.
B. Mehtab Singh Sangwan was examined as PW2. This witness has deposed that he was working as Senior Branch Manager with Associated Road Carrier Ltd. since 01.07.1989. He deposed that on 02.01.1999 at 5.15 pm accused Sanjay came to the office of company along with co accused Rajesh (who is PO) and gave him four challans, four truck arrival reports Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/B1, Ex.PW1/B2 and Ex.PW1/B3 and demanded payment of amount mentioned in these challans i.e. Rs. 42,140/-. He deposed that he gave two cheques Ex.PW2/A1 and Ex.PW2/A2 to both the accused persons. He deposed that when he had seen the above said four challans he got suspicious as destination on the challans was shown from Batala but the goods have been shown loaded from REDI. He deposed that he further noticed that there was no name of the broker on these challans rather it showed that vehicle was produced directly whereas whenever they procure a vehicle to send the goods they get the vehicle through broker always and mention the name of the broker in the challan at point A. He deposed that furthermore rate of per tonne was shown as Rs. 1200/- whereas at FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 4/17 that time the rate for per tonne cartage was Rs.1500/-. He deposed that he immediately enquired from accused Sanjay and as such he rang up the Bangalore office of Associated Road Carriers from where he came to know that challans bearing the numbers mentioned on these challans with many other challans, truck arrival report and consignment notes had been stolen from Margoa office of the company and in that regard they lodged a report with the police at Margoa itself. He deposed that accused Sanjay was with them and they handed him over to the police. He deposed that he made a complaint Ex.PW2/B and gave the above said four challans with truck arrival reports to the police which were seized by them vide Ex.PW1/C. He deposed that he do not know if police had seized any cheques from anybody. He deposed that memo Mark X bears his signatures but he do not know what was written on this memo but the cheques marked X1, X2 and X3 (cheques recovered from accused Dhirender Singh) do not belong to the present case neither it bears his signatures at point A of these cheques. He deposed that police had seized two cheques Ex.PW2/A1 and Ex.PW2/A2 vide memo Ex.PW2/C from accused Rajesh and he signed on this memo at point A. He deposed that he had given four photocopies of documents containing the details of the misplacement of consignment notes, challan and truck arrival reports with numbers which were misplaced from Margoa, to the police which they seized vide Ex.PW2/D and these four photocopies are mark Y1 to Y4. He deposed that he do not have the original of these, probably originals were with their Margoa Office and he cannot produce the original. He deposed that police arrested accused Sanjay vide Ex.PW2/E. He deposed that in his presence no other accused was arrested and they did not make any disclosure to the police. This witness correctly identified the accused Sanjay present in the court.
FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 5/17 C. HC Bhim Singh was examined as PW3. This witness has deposed that on 07.01.1999 he along with SI Raj Kumar, Ct. Richpal and Dhirender Kumar went to village Hari Vansh Puri Rafni Akbar Pur PS District Ambedkar Nagar U.P. for investigation of present case. He deposed that in the village SI inquired and searched for accused Sanjay (another suspect of same name) but no information was found there and on 08.01.1999 SI recorded his statement at Railway Station Akbar Pur.
D. S. N. Diwedi was examined as PW4. This witness has deposed that he was working as supervisor with Associated Road Carriers Ltd. This witness deposed on the same lines as PW2 and corroborated the case of prosecution as stated by PW2. Besides that this witness deposed that police seized three cheques mark X1, X2 and X3 from Dhirender Singh and these cheques though were shown to be issued from their company but in reality they were not issued by their company and they were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. As per him accused Sanjay gave disclosure statement Ex.PW4/B, and his personal search was taken vide memos Ex.PW4/D. He deposed that accused Sanjay Chaudhary gave specimen handwriting on many papers. The witness identified 35 such papers, same are mark S1 to S35 collectively as A1 bearing the handwriting of accused Sanjay. This witness correctly identified the accused Sanjay present in the court.
E. ASI Ravi Shankar was examined as PW5. This witness deposed that on 07.01.1999 he along with SI Raj Kumar had gone to village Harora, Noida along with accused Sanjay and the complainant for search of accused Rajesh. He deposed that accused Sanjay led the police party to the house of Rajesh and accused Rajesh was apprehended on the pointing out of accused Sanjay. He deposed that accused Rajesh handed over two cheques to the IO which were FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 6/17 seized by him vide memo Ex.PW2/A and the cheques are Ex.PW2/A1 and Ex.PW2/A2. He deposed that accused Rajesh was arrested and thereafter he was brought back to the police station and the information of his arrest was given to his relatives. He deposed that IO recorded the statement of accompanying complainant and the police officials.
F. Ct. Adesh was examined as PW6. This witness has deposed that on 02.01.1999 on receipt of DD No. 38-A he along with SI Raj Kumar went to the spot i.e. the office of M/s. Associated Road Carriers Ltd. where they met the complainant Mehtab Singh. He deposed that complainant got his complaint recorded through IO and IO made his endorsement on the same and sent him to police station for getting the case registered. He deposed that after getting the case registered he came back at the spot and handed over original complaint and copy of FIR to the IO. He deposed that IO recorded statement of two employees of the complainant. He deposed that accused Sanjay was handed over to the IO. He deposed that accused Sanjay was taken to the police station and thereafter to Lady Hardinge hospital for his medical examination. He deposed that IO recorded statement of accused Sanjay Ex.PW4/B and thereafter accused Sanjay was sent to Paharganj P.S. PW6 deposed that he had signed the arrest memo of accused Sanjay Ex.PW2/E. He deposed that he also signed the personal search memo of accused Sanjay Ex.PW4/D. He deposed that no other investigation was done by him. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State. Thereafter he admitted that he had stated in his statement that IO had seized the challan and truck arrival report and specimen handwriting of accused Sanjay were obtained.
G. HC Brij Mohan was examined as PW7. This is a formal witness, being a duty officer who recorded the FIR of present case Ex.PW7/A and also FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 7/17 made endorsement on rukka.
H. Ct. Richpal Singh was examined as PW8. This witness has deposed that on 07.01.1999 he along with HC Bhim Singh and SI Raj Kumar reached at Akbar Pur District, Ambedkar Nagar, U.P. to trace out the accused Sanjay( another suspect of same name) but he was not traceable and thereafter they came back on the next day.
I. SI Raj Kumar was examined as PW9. This witness has deposed that on 02.01.1999 DD No.38A was marked to him and on receiving the same he along with Ct. Adesh reached at Associated Road Carrier Limited where complainant Mehtab Singh Sangwan handed over to him truck arrival reports with their challan forms and also handed over accused Sanjay Chaudhary and told him that accused Sanjay Chaudhary along with co accused Rajesh Kumar Maurya had come to the complainant office for the payment against the said challan and the complainant had made payment by way of two cheques of Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 21,140/-. He deposed that after handing over the said cheques to the accused persons the complainant had gone through the documents carefully and he got suspicion as there was 'direct' retained whereas the complainant used to deal through a broker and not on direct terms. He deposed that complainant called both the accused back at this office and inquired about the said documents from the accused and in the meantime accused Rajesh slipped from there. He deposed that accused Sanjay Chaudhary confidently told him that he had brought the said documents from the place i.e. Reddy in Maharasthra. He deposed that complainant confirmed the said facts from Reddy Branch and found that documents were not issued by Reddy Branch whereas the same challan were issued by Margova Branch and the said challan were misplaced by the said FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 8/17 branch. He deposed that complainant inquired the accused forcibly and he stated that one Mr. Sanjay who used to work in ARC had handed over the said challan to the accused persons by giving assurance to them that they will pay Rs. 10,000/- to both the accused out of the payment which was to be received on the basis of the challan. He deposed that both accused persons along with co accused Sanjay and Rakesh (both not arrested) had forged the said documents as the same were stolen from MT from the said branch. He deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant Ex.PW2/B and took the said truck arrival report into his possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. He deposed that he made endorsement Ex.PW9/A and got the present case registered through Constable Adesh. He deposed that said truck arrival report was already Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/B3 and the said challans are Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/A3. He deposed that he interrogated the accused Sanjay Chaudhary and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW4/D. He deposed that he also recorded the statement of Sanjay Chaudhary vide Ex.PW4/B and also recorded supplementary statement of complainant and thereafter he along with complainant, constable and accused Sanjay Chaudhary reached at Qutub Road where accused Sanjay Chaudhary pointed out towards accused Girender(Dhirender) Singh and they apprehended accused Girender(Dhirender) Singh and interrogated him who made disclosure statement Ex.PW4/C and he arrested him and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW4/D1 and Ex.PW6/A. He deposed that he conducted formal search of accused Dhirender Singh and recovered three cheques already Ex.P1 to P3 from his possession and accused Dhirender disclosed that the same were stolen from ARC Limited. He deposed that thereafter he produced both accused before Ld. ACMM and obtained their three days JC. He deposed that on on 05.01.1999 they arrested the accused Rajesh on the pointing out of complainant as well as accused Sanjay Chaudhary and interrogated accused Rajesh who produced two FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 9/17 cheques Ex.PW2/A1 and Ex.PW2/A2. He deposed that the said cheques were the same which were given by the complainant to both the accused persons on 02.01.1999 against the said challan. He deposed that there was a cutting at two places on each cheques. He arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW9/D and Ex.PW9/E1. He deposed that he produced all the accused persons in the concerned court and obtained PC against the accused persons to arrest the co accused person but in vain. He deposed that he sent the Exhibits/ the said forged documents along with specimen handwriting signatures of accused Sanjay which were taken on 03.01.1999 to CFSL for examination and the said specimen handwriting of accused Sanjay Chaudhary on 35 sheets are Ex.PW9/1 to Ex.PW9/35. He deposed that thereafter he conducted the investigation and obtained process u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. against accused Sanjay Kumar and Rakesh Kumar (suspects not arrested) and thereafter he filed the challan. The CFSL report Ex.PW9/F was filed later on.
4. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and the incriminating circumstances were explained to the accused Sanjay Chaudhary. In his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. accused Sanjay Chaudhary stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that in the year 1999 he was residing in Noida along with Dhirender who had been discharged in the present case and who was the brother of Sanjay Singh and Rakesh Singh. He stated that since he was unemployed at that time and was searching employment for himself, so Dhirender took him to the office of the said transport company for providing him a job where his interview was taken by one official of the said company whose name he do not remember and that official demanded Rs. 25,000/- for providing a job in the said transport company but he refused and told that he will make a complaint against the said official and on this some odd FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 10/17 talk took place between him and the said official and in the meantime said official called the police officials and implicated him falsely in the present case. Accused chose to lead any defence evidence and examined one defence witness in his favour as under:
A. Vimal Kumar Jha was examined as DW1. This witness has deposed that accused Sanjay Chaudhary was his nephew and since childhood he was residing with their family at Noida. He deposed that father of accused Sanjay Chaudhary was in Army and was posted at Sikandrabad. He deposed that in January, 1998 accused Sanjay Chaudhary was at Sikandrabad, Andhra Pradesh along with his father and at the request of father of accused Sanjay Chaudhary he was sent to him in February, 1998 and from February, 1998 to June, 1998 accused Sanjay Chaudhary resided with him and during that period he occasionally used to take accused Sanjay Chaudhary to his factory where he was employed. He deposed that in June, 1998 accused Sanjay Chaudhary was employed at Paan Parag Factory at Noida and in December, 1998 accused Sanjay Chaudhary told him that he was called for an interview at one Godrej Company. He deposed that after said interview accused Sanjay Chaudhary informed him that he joined the job on 25.12.1998 with the said company as a clerk and he will reside at Paharganj in rented room along with the co employees namely Hirender, Sanjay and Rajesh as Noida was far away from the place of his employment. He deposed that thereafter in May, June, 1998 he received a letter written by the father of accused Sanjay Chaudhary that Sanjay Chaudhary was in Tihar Jail and accordingly he along with his father came to Delhi and met accused Sanjay Chaudhary at Tihar Jail and made arrangement for his bail. He deposed that so far his knowledge there is no other criminal case against the accused Sanjay Chaudhary.
FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 11/17 DECISION OF THE CASE AND REASONS THEREOF
5. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused Sanjay Chaudhary beyond reasonable doubts. The reasons for aforesaid conclusion are as follows:
A. Testimony of Complainant:- The main witness of the case is complainant i.e. PW2 Mehtab Singh Sangwan. He has proved the ingredients of offence u/s 420 IPC against the accused Sanjay Chaudhary. He has specifically stated that accused Sanjay Chaudhary and accused Rajesh Kumar came to his office and gave him four challans along with truck arrival reports and demanded the payment of amount mentioned in the challans. He has deposed that on the demand of the accused persons he made payment of amount mentioned in those challans i.e. Rs. 42,140/- through two cheques Ex.PW2/A1 and Ex.PW2/A2 . He has deposed that on verification the said challans were found to be stolen ones. As per him on suspicion regarding the challan he inquired from Bangalore office and came to know that said challans were stolen from Margoa office of the complainant. His testimony is credit worthy and he has stood the test of cross examination. No material falsehood/inconsistency/contradiction could be pointed out in the same. Though there are certain lapses in the testimony of said witness but none of them are material in nature. PW2 has failed to produce the original complaint made regarding the theft/loss of the blank challans from their Margoa office. However, same does not help the accused as the same was only a corroborative piece of evidence and accused persons were not charged with the offence u/s 411 IPC. The same has also to be seen in the backdrop of the fact that accused never raised the defence that the challans in question were genuine.
FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 12/17 It may also be pointed out that PW2 deposed that accused Rajesh Kumar was not arrested in his presence and he (Rajesh Kumar) did not give any statement to the police in his presence. However, same is not material in nature as the arrest of Rajesh and disclosure given by him are not incriminating piece of evidence against accused Sanjay Chaudhry. Court is not oblivious of police practices of getting the documents signed by participants of investigation without explaining their import. However the same does not undermines the case of prosecution in its entirety. It may also be pointed out that during his cross examination PW2 failed to tell the exact number and date of the challan and the serial number of cheques. However, it has to be seen in the light of the fact that he was examined around two years after the incident. Moreover the case of prosecution has to be seen in its totality. As discussed in succeeding paras the testimony of PW2 gets sufficient corroboration from other facts of the case.
B. Corroboration from other witnesses:- PW2's testimony has got ample corroboration from other eye witnesses. PW1 Paip Singh Rathore has deposed that PW2 instructed him about 5.30 pm on 02.01.1999 to call back Sanjay Chaudhary who had just collected the payment and he saw Sanjay Chaudhary at the gate of office and he took accused Sanjay Chaudhary to the cabin of PW2. He has corroborated the fact that accused Sanjay Chaudhary and Rajesh presented four challans for receiving the payment and received the payment of Rs. 42,140/- against the same by way of two cheques. He has also identified the challans and the truck arrival reports in the court. Even PW4 S. N. Diwedi has also corroborated the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. He has deposed on the same lines as that of PW1 and PW2. He also identified the challans and the signatures of the Manager on the same. There is no major contradiction in the testimonies of said witnesses also.
FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 13/17 C. Strong corroboration from documentary evidence:- Furthermore, the allegations leveled by the eye witnesses are strongly corroborated by the circumstantial facts and the documentary evidence of the case. The challans were seized by the police immediately after the incident and the cheques were recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh. The original challans and cheques have been filed on record. The payment of challans has been indicated on them and it refers to same cheque numbers. It has been vehemently argued by counsel for accused that the said cheques were not in favour of accused persons so accused can't be said have wrongfully gained anything out of alleged transaction. Court is not swayed by said argument for the reason that a cheque itself is a property, therefore gaining possession of a cheque by dishonest inducement suffices for the wrongful gain. Further the most important evidence has come against the accused Sanjay Chaudhry by way of expert's evidence i.e. the report of handwriting expert Harsh Vardhan. Though the said witness has not been examined as PW, however, his report is admissible u/s 293 Cr.P.C. as Mr. Harsh Vardhan has the designation of Chemical Examiner to the Government of NCT. In his report dated 30.07.1999 he has given an opinion that contents of the challans in question and the truck arrival reports have been filled in the handwriting of accused Sanjay Chaudhary. He has given detailed reasoning in support of his conclusion and court has not found any reason to disagree with the same. Further, he has given an opinion that the signature appearing that of Birender (at the column provided for payee name) on the said challans Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/A1 have been matched with the specimen handwriting of the accused Rajesh Maurya. Court has considered the same and has found no reason to disagree with the same. Thus, this a clinching piece of evidence against the accused Sanjay Chaudhary and goes a far way in proving his culpability. The details filled in by Sanjay Chaudhry in said challans include inter alia the challan FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 14/17 date, lorry number, lorry make, loading place, destination, material loaded, its weight, rate per ton, driver name, owner name. In the circumstances of the case no other inference can be drawn except that Sanjay Chaudhry made the challan with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made by the persons mentioned therein or by their authority, having full knowledge that the said entries were not made by said persons or by their authority. It is further established from oral testimony of prosecution witnesses that said challans were so filled up only to defraud the ARC officials. Accordingly ingredients of forgery stand established against accused Sanjay Chaudhry. As the said documents were used in cheating by their creator i.e. Sanjay Chaudhry, therefore even offence u/s 471 IPC is also attracted.
D. Corroboration from investigating officials:- The police witnesses have also corroborated the facts as per the testimonies of public witnesses. PW5 ASI Ravi Shankar have deposed regarding arrest of accused Rajesh at the instance of accused Sanjay and the recovery of two cheques from the possession of accused Rajesh. Further PW6 Ct. Adesh have corroborated the fact that matter was reported on 02.01.1999 as alleged by the public witnesses. He has corroborated the fact that IO recorded statement of two employees of the company and complainant gave his complaint through IO. He has corroborated the fact of arrest of accused Sanjay. PW7 HC Brij Mohan deposed regarding receiving of rukka at 2.15 am. Further PW9 SI Raj Kumar has deposed in detail regarding investigation of the case. He has corroborated the fact that accused Sanjay Chaudhary, challan forms and truck arrival reports were handed over to him by Mehtab Singh Sangwan on 02.01.1999. He has specifically deposed regarding recovery of the cheques from accused Rajesh and his arrest at the instance of accused Sanjay Chaudhary. No material contradiction has appeared FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 15/17 in the testimonies of said police witnesses also. It may be pointed out that there appears time difference regarding the arrival of police officers at the spot as stated by the public witnesses and as that stated by police witnesses. The public witnesses have deposed that police arrived soon after the incident which happened around 5.15 pm whereas the police officers have deposed that they arrived around 11.30 pm. However, it is to be noted that public witnesses PW4 and PW2 have deposed that PW2 along with his employees went to the police after half an hour and they stayed in the PS for about two and a half hour. Thus, it appears that police witnesses have not deposed the correct time at which they were seized of the matter to justify the time of FIR which was lodged in the early hours of 03.01.1999. However, the same merely points out the working style of the police which is in habit of carrying out the procedure in the PS and describes the time as per the FIR and other documents. The same does not dis credit the prosecution case in its entirety as the same is based on documentary evidence as well as the evidence of public witnesses.
E. Improbability of defence of accused:- There was no previous enmity between the complainant or the other public witnesses and the accused persons. The accused Sanjay Chaudhary has stated in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he went to the office of the Transport Company (ARC) and his interview was taken by one official of the company who demanded Rs. 25,000/- for providing him a job in the said company but he refused and thereafter some odd talking took place between them and he called the police and falsely implicated him in the present case. It is to be noted that accused failed to recall the name of said official. More surprisingly, the said defence was not put to any of the prosecution witnesses during their cross examination nor the defence witness examined by the accused Sanjay Chaudhary has corroborated the same. Rather the defence witness has FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 16/17 stated an altogether a different story than that stated by the accused himself. DW1 Vimal Kumar Jha has deposed that accused had joined the job on 25.12.1998 as that of clerk in one Godrej company. He has not uttered a single word regarding the demand of gratification during the interview as alleged by the accused himself. He has not deposed anything regarding the alleged quarrel at the time of interview. It is to be noted that he has stated that accused was employed around the time of incident which is contrary to the stand of accused who has stated that he was unemployed at the relevant time and thus appeared for alleged interview. Thus, the said inconsistencies show nothing else except that the accused has no defence and has tried to concoct a false story.
Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused Sanjay Chaudhary beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he is convicted for offences u/s 420,468,471 of IPC.
(Announced in the Sachin Sangwan
open Court on Metropolitan Magistrate-05/Central:
01st October, 2013) THC:Delhi.
Room No. 349
FIR No. 7/99 State v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. Pages 17/17