Delhi District Court
State vs Harsh Yadav on 28 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s Harsh Yadav
FIR No. 136/94
PS : Ashok Vihar
U/s 419/420/468/471/120-B IPC.
JUDGMENT
A) Sr. No. of the Case : 776/2/06
B) The date of commission : 02/05/1994
of offence.
C) Name of the complainant : Dr. K.P. Bhatt, Principle,
Satyawati College, Ph-III,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
D) Name of accused : 1. Rakesh Kumar (since P.O.).
2. Harsh Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Gajraj Singh
E) Offence complained of : U/s 419/420/468/471/120-B IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G) Final order : Accused Harsh Yadav acquitted.
H) The date of such order : 28/04/2012
Date of Institution : 18/01/1995
Judgment reserved on : Not reserved
Judgment announced on : 28/04/2012
State V/s Harsh Yadav FIR No. 136/94 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 1/9
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that one Rakesh (since PO) appeared by impersonation as accused Harsh Yadav in his place in B.A. Pass 1st Year examination in paper 1 English A/B (New Course/Old course) on roll No.4161 on 02/05/94 at Satyawati college Ashok Vihar.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s 419/420/468/471/120-B IPC of which cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
3. Initially challan was filed against the accused Rakesh Kumar who never appeared before the court and was declared PO on 14/01/1997. Vide order dated 04/09/1997 Ld. Predecessor of this court ordered for further investigation to examine the role of accused Harsh Yadav and on 28/12/1997 supplentary challan qua accused Harsh Yadav was filed.
4. Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents was supplied to the accused .
5. On 10/08/99 charge U/s 419/420/468/471/120B IPC was framed against the accused Harsh Yadav to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Aggrieved by the said order the accused filed a petition before Ld. Sessions Court who was pleased to set aside the order of Ld. Predecessor for further investigation of the case but gave liberty to proceed against the accused State V/s Harsh Yadav FIR No. 136/94 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 2/9 Harsh Yadav on the basis of material already on record and in the absence of any material to deal with the case accordingly, as per law.
6. Consequent there upon vide order dated 15/09/05 charge U/s. 419/420/468/471/120-B IPC was again framed against the accused Harsh Yadav to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined four witnesses.
PW-1 is K.P. Bhatt Retd. Principal Satyawati College, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and the complainant in the present case deposed that on 02/05/94 he was Principal of Satyawati College and on that day he was also working as Superintendent examination. He deposed that on that day at about 3:30pm deputy Superintendent C.R. Dass reported a case of impersonation in the room No.14 of examination center of Satyawati College. He further deposed that Mr. C.R. Dass found a student whose name was Rakesh Singh S/o Naresh Kr. Singh, was appearing on behalf of Harsh Yadav S/o Gajraj Singh Yadav roll No.4161 in examination paper-Ist English. Further he informed regarding impersonation by the accused Rakesh Singh (since PO) and produced before him. He made a complaint Ex.PW-1/X to SHO Ashok Vihar. He deposed that he handed over the custody of accused Rakesh Singh to IO SI R.S. Maan. Later on he also handed over the documents regarding the admission of accused Harsh Yadav (i.e. Admission Form, photocopy of concerned page of admission and examination register showing the admission of accused Harsh Yadav in B.A. 1st year, photocopy of certificate of Secondary examination 1990 and Mark Sheet of Higher Secondary School State V/s Harsh Yadav FIR No. 136/94 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 3/9 examination 1992) to IO which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/Y. He further deposed that admission form of accused Harsh Yadav Mark-X1, photocopy of concerned page of admission and examination register showing the admission of accused Harsh Yadav in B.A. 1st year, photocopy of certificate of Secondary examination 1990 is mark X-2 and Mark Sheet of Higher Secondary School examination 1992 is mark-X3. He sent a letter dated 24/12/97 regarding the admission accused Harsh Yadav to SHO which is Ex. PW-1/Z. He deposed that original admission Card / admission Ticket which was produced by the accused Rakesh Singh when he was apprehended was also handed over to IO. He deposed that the admission ticket is Ex. PW-1/X1. He deposed that in the admission ticket Ex. PW-1/X1, photographs of accused Rakesh was not attested by him hence the signatures at point B in the Ex. PW-1/X1 is not his and the same is forged one. He deposed that Question paper of English paper-1st and answer sheet was also handed over to IO, question paper is Ex. PW-1/X2 and photocopy of answer sheet is Mark-X4. He deposed that he can identify the accused Rakesh Singh (since PO) if produced before him. He further deposed that he cannot identify the accused Harsh Yadav as he was not arrested before him. He further deposed that he had only seen accused Harsh Yadav in the court during his deposition on 06/06/00.
This witness was cross examined by Sh. D.N. Joshi Ld. Counsel for the accused Harsh Yadav where he deposed that police never produced accused Harsh Yadav before him for identification. He deposed that it is correct that in admission ticket Ex.PW-1/X1 photograph of accused Rakesh Singh is pasted. He Vol. Deposed that Perusal of the admission ticket clearly shows that the photograph of accused Rakesh Singh was pasted in place of photographs of accused Harsh Yadav as the photograph of accused Rakesh Singh is not attested by him. He further deposed that it is correct that while State V/s Harsh Yadav FIR No. 136/94 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 4/9 giving the examination ticket to the students they took signatures of examinee in the register. He deposed that it is correct that neither the IO/police officials took in possession the register vide which admission tickets were issued nor he had given the same to IO. He deposed that he cannot say whether the admission ticket was issued to Harsh Yadav or not without perusing the records i.e. said register. He deposed that IO did not take any specimen handwriting or signatures of accused Harsh Yadav in his presence. He further deposed that he cannot admit or deny that accused Rakesh Singh appeared in the examination for falsely implicating the accused Harsh Yadav by obtaining forged admission ticket.
PW-2 is M.K. Bhatnagar deposed that on 06/06/94 he was working as Controller of Examination Delhi University. He deposed that on that day he handed over the original Answer Sheet of Harsh Yadav Roll No.4161, at which place the accused Rakesh Singh was appeared in the examination of English Paper-Ist in Satyawati College, which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A1 and photocopy of the said answer sheet is mark-X4.
This witness was cross examined by Sh. D.N. Joshi Ld. Counsel for the accused Harsh Yadav where he deposed that it is correct that photocopy of answer Sheet mark-X4 is not attested by him. He further deposed that it is correct that the original answer sheet is not on the record.
PW-3 is HC Mohd. Tahir deposed that on 02/05/94 he was posted at PS Ashok Vihar as Ct. He deposed that on that day he along with IO SI R.S. Maan and with accused Rakesh (since PO) reached at Satyawati College but the college was closed at that time and the principal was not available in the State V/s Harsh Yadav FIR No. 136/94 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 5/9 college. He deposed that IO took in possession the photocopy of documents i.e. Admission Ticket of Harsh Yadav, question paper, answer sheet vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A. He further deposed that on interrogation accused Rakesh confessed his offence and IO arrested the accused Rakesh vide personal search memo Ex. PW-3/B. This witness further deposed that on 03/05/94 IO took the specimen hand writing of accused Rakesh while he was in custody.
This witness was cross examined by Sh. D.N. Joshi Ld. Counsel for the accused Harsh Yadav where he deposed that IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Rakesh. The judicial record was shown to the witness but no disclosure statement of accused Rakesh was found on the record. He denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement of accused Rakesh was recorded.
PW-4 is Inspector R.S. Mann first IO of the present case has detailed about the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. He proved the complaint of complainant as Ex. PW-1/X, seizure memo of documents as Ex. PW-3/A, personal search memo of accused Rakesh as Ex. PW-3/B. This witness was cross examined by Sh. D.N. Joshi Ld. Counsel for the accused Harsh Yadav where he deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Rakesh. The judicial record was shown to the witness but no disclosure statement of accused Rakesh found on the record. He deposed that he cannot say as to where the disclosure statement of accused Rakesh as he has handed over the case file to DO on 03/05/94. He further deposed that he has inquired about the issue of roll number register (wherein the signatures of the students are used to taken at the time of issuing the same) from the principal but the principal said that all the record has been State V/s Harsh Yadav FIR No. 136/94 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 6/9 submitted with the Proctor to Delhi University. He denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement of accused Rakesh was recorded. He further denied the suggestion that the admission ticket was not taken by the accused Harsh Yadav even the same was taken by some other person or accused Rakesh and he appeared himself in place of accused Harsh Yadav. He further denied the suggestion that accused Harsh Yadav falsely implicated in this case.
8. P.E. was closed on 01.03.2012. After perusal of the case file, since nothing incriminating had come against accused Harsh Yadav, his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused Harsh Yadav and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record.
10. The witnesses examined by the prosecution did not utter anything incriminating against the accused Harsh Yadav except that the accused Rakesh Kumar(since P.O) appeared in his place in B.A. Examination. There is nothing on record which could suggest anything about the involvement of the accused Harsh Yadav as any conspirator or or forging of the documents using which accused Rakesh Kumar appeared for taking the exam.
State V/s Harsh Yadav FIR No. 136/94 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 7/911. PW-1 Sh. K.P. Bhatt Retd. Principal Satyawati College wherein the said incident is alleged to have been taken place deposed about the involvement of the accused Rakesh Singh (Since PO) who sat in place of the accused Harsh Yadav to appear in the examination. On being cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that he cannot say whether the admission ticket was issued to accused Harsh Yadav or not without perusing the said register in which the signatures of the students/examinee are taken while giving the examination ticket. He admitted that the said register was neither given to him by the IO nor it was taken and seized by the IO.
12. PW-4 first IO of the case deposed that the accused Rakesh (since PO) had confessed his offence but the disclosure statement of him were not found on record. He deposed that he had given the disclosure statement to the 2nd IO SI Bhanwar Singh who could not be examined since he unfortunately expired before being called in the witness box.
13. In view of the above the allegations of the accused Harsh Yadav being entering into a conspiracy with the accused Rakesh Kr, since PO, and forging the documents which could be used as genuine and of impersonation could not be substantiated. The prosecution has failed to show that it was indeed the accused Harsh Yadav who had taken the admit card /examination ticket and pass it over to accused Rakesh Kumar ,since the register in which the signatures of the examinee / student is taken while issuing the admit card was not collected as evidence.
State V/s Harsh Yadav FIR No. 136/94 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 8/914. The prosecution has also failed to show whether the accused Harsh Yadav appeared in any other examination apart from the one in which the incident took place on the basis of the said admit card which is claimed to have been misused by the accused Rakesh Kr. If someone appears without the consent of a person in an examination with ulterior motive, the person on whose behalf that person is appearing cannot be held guilty in absence of any clear and cogent reasons, which is missing in this case.
15. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence alleged against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Suspicion how so ever strong it may be, cannot replace the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge its onus. The evidence available on record is not sufficient to substantiate the guilt of the accused. Neither the incident nor the identity of the accused could be proved. Accordingly the accused Harsh Yadav deserves acquittal.
16. It is ordered accordingly.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on April 28th, 2012.
State V/s Harsh Yadav FIR No. 136/94 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 9/9