Delhi District Court
State vs Tejwant Singh Gill) on 29 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (SFTC) :
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSW010080072022
CA No: 242/2022
U/s: 420/471 IPC
PS: Palam Village
(In FIR No: 90/2013
State v/s Tejwant Singh Gill)
Tejwant Singh Gill
S/o Sh. Gurnam Singh Gill
R/o: Vill and PO Gill,
Near City Gate,
Ludhiana, Punjab - 141116
....APPELLANT
Versus
State
(NCT of Delhi)
....RESPONDENT
Date of Institution : 05.08.2022
Judgment reserved on : 29.11.2022
Date of Decision : 29.11.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2022 as well as consequent order on sentence dated 15.07.2022, passed by the court of Sh. Paras Dalal, ld. MM01, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in case titled as State v/s Tejwant Singh CA No: 193/2022 Page 1 of 23 Gill, Crl. Case no. 2918/2017, FIR No: 90/2013, registered at Police Station Palam Village, U/s: 420/468/471 IPC, wherein, ld. MM had convicted the appellant for offence(s) u/s 420/471 IPC and awarded him a sentence to undergo SI for a period of 2 years for each offence as well as sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 7,000/ to the State covering the costs of proceedings owned by the State. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the following amongst other grounds :
(i) that the ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate the contradictions in the case of prosecution as well as in the cross examination of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and had without examining the evidence in its correct perspective and without appreciating the facts available on record, convicted the appellant in a mechanical manner.
(ii) That the impugned judgment was passed against the provisions of law and the factual contradictions were evident in the case of the prosecution, as the facts of the case did not contain the ingredients to attract the offences of cheating under Section 420 r/w Sect. 415 IPC and 471 IPC.
CA No: 193/2022 Page 2 of 23(iii) The ld. MM had also completely lost sight of the fact that no original document in question was filed along with the charge sheet and the entire trial was concluded on the basis of the photocopy of the document despite the fact that it was prosecution's own case that the original document was submitted with the complainant MCI. Thus, during the existence of primary evidence, the secondary evidence in respect of the said document in the form of photocopy was inadmissible in evidence, unless suitable explanation had come on record for its nonproduction.
(iv) Ld. MM had also failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant had made a glaring mistake while writing a letter to Bihar Education Board, regarding verification of alleged marksheet of 10+2, wherein, intentionally it had mentioned the roll no. of the appellant allotted to him in class 11 th and deliberately omitted to mention his roll no. in Class 12th.
3. Besides the above mentioned grounds, the appellant had also posed few questions of law, such as :
(1) Whether the ld. MM was justified in convicting the appellant, when the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance has also been placed by ld. Counsel on the citation of Hon'ble CA No: 193/2022 Page 3 of 23 Supreme Court in case titled as Babu Bhai v/s State of Kerala, 2010 (9) SCC 189.
(2) Whether the ld. MM was justified in convicting the appellant without any cogent, probable and unimpeachable evidence adduced on record as well as the testimony of PW4 Inspr. Surender Singh Chahal, wherein, the IO had stated that he had seized the original marksheet, however, the same was never found on the court record, nor, its seizure memo was also filed on record, which fact was completely overlooked by the ld. Trial Court, in convicting the appellant.
(3) Another question of law put forth is, whether the offence of cheating as well as its definition u/s 415 IPC could be given a go by, actually when the appellant had already surrendered his provisional registration and had applied for permanent registration which he was never allotted.
(4) Whether the ld. Trial Court could have been permitted to allow its imagination to run wild and record conviction on the basis of those improbable possibilities in the absence of any legally admissible evidence. Reliance also been placed by ld. Counsel for appellant on the citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Soma Chakravarty v/s State through CBI, 2007 SC 2149.CA No: 193/2022 Page 4 of 23
(5) Whether the appellant is not entitled to get the benefit in a case where the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and where there were two views possible, shouldn't the trial court had taken into consideration, the view favoring the accused.
(6) Whether the prosecution is relieved from the burden to establish the guilt of the accused, where the chain of events had not been successfully established. Reliance in this regard has been placed by appellant in case titled as Sabitri Samantary v/s State of Odisha, Crl. Appeal No. 988 of 2017.
4. Briefly stated the facts that had given rise to the filing of present appeal are succinctly given as under :
The appellant was a permanent citizen of India and residing at Ludhiana, Punjab. He had joined Kuban State Medical Academy, in Krasanadar City, Russia, in the year 1995 for M.D (General Medicine). He completed his qualification of Doctor of Medicine in specialty of General Medicine in the year 2001. Thereafter he obtained a Post Graduate Diploma in Public Services Management from United Kingdom, in 2005 and had worked as Research Associate in Canada since 2005 till 2011, when he had returned back to India.CA No: 193/2022 Page 5 of 23
After his return to India, he had applied for his registration with Medical Council of India and had also appeared in the screening test conducted by National Board of Examination, on 27.03.2011 and had also qualified the same. It was stated further that the pass percentage in respect of said examination was only 4.5%. Thereafter appellant was issued provisional registration certificate by Medical Council of India on 08.06.2011, so as to enable him to complete his internship training. After which, appellant remained attached with Government Multi Speciality Hospital, Sector - 16, Chandigarh, during 20112012 and his internship training came to an end on 26.11.2012, against which a certificate dated 03.02.2012 was issued to him, along with a certificate of appreciation dated 09.11.2012, issued by Competent Authority in his favour.
On 05.12.2012, appellant had further applied for his permanent registration with the complainant Medical Council of India. On one of his visits to the office of MCI, he came to know that his application was not processed for want of his past certificate of Class 10+2. However, as per the notification dated 13.02.2002, this step on part of MCI was contrary to the directions contained therein. Once his words had fallen into deaf ears, then accused had also given a legal representation to MCI on 29.01.2013, and thereafter he was constrained to file a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana bearing no. 8231 of 2013. The said petition was disposed of by CA No: 193/2022 Page 6 of 23 Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 22.04.2013, whereby it had directed the MCI to consider and decide the issue raised by the appellant herein in his representation filed before MCI as well as contentions raised in the said writ petition.
Pursuant to the said directions, the appellant had submitted his testimonials with the MCI who in turn had sent the same to the concerned Education Board for verification. The concerned Board had replied to the MCI that the particulars of the person did not match with the details furnished in the letter as per their own records. Hence a complaint dated 14.02.2013, was made by the Secretary of MCI, to SHO PS Sector 23, Dwarka on the basis of which present FIR was registered.
5. After conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused without arrest and he was admitted to bail by the Court of ld. MM, vide order dated 06.06.2017. On 22.07.2017, charge for offence(s) u/s 420/471 IPC was framed against the accused (appellant herein), to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt on record, the prosecution had examined seven witnesses in all. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded by ld. MM under Section 313 CrPC, in which he had claimed his false implication as well as cited his CA No: 193/2022 Page 7 of 23 innocence. However, after appreciation of the evidence available on record and considering the rival submissions, the ld. MM was pleased to hold him guilty and convicted him for the offence(s) u/s 420/471 IPC vide impugned judgment and was further pleased to award him the aforesaid sentences vide impugned order.
7. I have heard the ld. Counsel(s) namely Sh. Jagmeet Singh Randhawa and Sh. Inderjeet representing the appellant as well as ld. Addl. PP for State.
8. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties in a better perspective, it shall be pertinent to revisit the evidence available in the trial court record.
PW1 examined by prosecution before ld. Trial Court is one Dr. Sanjay Shrivastava s/o Late Mahabir Prasad Shrivastava, who was working as Secretary of Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee on MCI and had deposed that after completion of his tenure of deputation in Government of India, he was working as Prof. of Ophthalmology, at Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Bhopal, and had retired from the government job on dated 06.03.2017. As on the date of his deposition, he was working as Secretary, Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee on MCI since 24.08.2017.
CA No: 193/2022 Page 8 of 23In the year 2013, he was stated to be posted in MCI as Secretary and had remained there from 06.06.2012 till 17.04.2013, and again from 17.09.2013 till 20.12.2013. The letter Ex. PW1/A, on the basis of which present case was registered against the accused, was stated to have been issued by him bearing his signatures at pt. A, to register the case against accused for submitting forged marksheet issued by Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. Copy of which was exhibited Ex. PW1/B as certified by the State Council.
A letter received by him from the said Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, was placed on record as Mark PW1/2, which was received by them in response to MCI's letter Ex. PW1/C. Thereafter corrigendum letter was also issued by MCI vide Ex. PW1/A1, in which they had rectified their mistake committed in their earlier letter Ex. PW1/A, wherein, the marksheet submitted by accused pertaining to his 10+2 marksheet was stated to have been issued by Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, whereas, in fact it was issued by Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. After that, they had also issued a letter Ex. PW1/D under his signature to accused informing him about the result of verification of his marksheet.
In his cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, it was stated that MCI was not conducting any examination which was conducted by National Board of CA No: 193/2022 Page 9 of 23 Examination under the provisions of IMC Act, 1956. However, the documents and other testimonials were stated to be verified by MCI. The screening test of candidate was stated to be one of the requirements for registration with MCI and was not the only requirement and as per the provision of Graduate Medical Regulations, 1997, any candidate desirous of pursuing MBBS course must have passed 10+2 examination with detailed conditions as stipulated in those regulations.
As per his record, accused was never issued any notice by MCI, rather only an intimation letter was issued to him regarding his negative verification report in respect of the marksheet of 10+2 and he was also informed about cancellation of his provisional registration. The formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
PW2 is one Sh. L.S.Yadav S/o Late Sukhram Yadav, R/o: RZ673/24, Gali no. 18A, Sadh Nagar - II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 110045, Retd. Assistant Secretary, MCI, who had stated that in the year 2011 he was posted as Asst. Secretary, in MCI and letter Ex. PW1/C was sent by him under his signatures. After which letter Mark PW1/2 was received in the office of MCI regarding verification report of the accused.
In his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, he was stated to be matric pass and had no knowledge about the number of candidates appearing in the CA No: 193/2022 Page 10 of 23 screening test. However, it was mandatory for every candidate to get his/ her 10+2 qualification verified and he himself had not verified any degree or qualification document. It was also volunteered by him that those were got verified from concerned Board/ University. He had no knowledge about expiry of provisional registration of accused, however, it was admitted by him that the said provisional registration was valid only for a period of one year for doing internship. The registration form was stated to be not filled before him. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
PW3 is Sh. Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, R/o: 34/12, Gali no. 14, Sanjay Colony, Safiabad Road, Narela, Delhi - 110040, who was then posted as LDC in MCI. He had stated that on 06.06.2013, he had handed over the original documents relating to this case to the IO/SI Surinder Chahal, which were seized by him on his notice under Section 91 CrPC and were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at pt. A. In his cross examination, he had admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the case and had handed over the documents to IO as per the instruction of his senior officers.
PW4 is Inspr. Surender Singh Chahal, No. DI1266, IO of the case. He had deposed that on 25.03.2013, he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Palam, when this case CA No: 193/2022 Page 11 of 23 FIR was registered on the direction of SHO and investigation of this case was handed over to him.
During the course of investigation, he had seized the original documents on 06.06.2013, supplied to him by one Sh. Navin Kumar, which were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW3/A. A notice under Section 91 CrPC Ex. PW4/A was stated to be bearing his signatures at pt. A. The original documents which were taken into possession by IO were Ex. PW4/1 to Ex. PW4/5.
On 26.06.2013, he had received a corrigendum letter from MCI, which is already Ex. PW1/A1. On 05.11.2013, he had sent notice u/s 91 CrPC dated 25.10.2013 through speed post to Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, which is Ex. PW4/B along with its postal receipts Ex. PW4/C. On 30.01.2014, he had received the reply to the said notice which was placed on record is Ex. PW4/D. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, he had stated that he had not collected the marksheet of 12th Class from Bihar Educational Board as infact the said marksheet was provided to him by the MCI. He was stated to have got the said marksheet verified from Bihar Education Board by sending only a notice u/s 91 CrPC and had admitted further that he himself had not physically got verified the remaining CA No: 193/2022 Page 12 of 23 educational documents of the accused from the concerned Institute nor he had specifically asked MCI to provide information on criteria of enrollment of the foreign medical student. During his tenure as IO, he had never sent the handwriting and signature of accused for comparison by an expert.
PW5 is SI Sanjay Panghal, No. D4699, who was second IO of the case. After receiving investigation of this case, he had served notices u/s 41(a) CrPC Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B respectively to the accused through his father, however, accused had not appeared before him for investigation. Thereafter he got transferred from Police Station Palam in November 2014 and had handed over the file to MHC(R).
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel, he had deposed that father of accused had appeared before him at Police Station, where, he had served him with notice and apart from serving him the notice, he had not conducted any other investigation in this case.
PW6 is third IO SI Sandeep, No. D4240, who had stated that on 05.12.2014, he was posted at Police Station Palam, when the investigation of this case was marked to him, search of accused was conducted by him by visiting his native village in Ludhiana in September 2015, when he came to know that accused had already gone to Canada. Accused had thereafter CA No: 193/2022 Page 13 of 23 joined the investigation in April 2013 and he was interrogated by him in which accused had given his written statement Ex. PW6/A. He had made efforts to search the tout as mentioned by accused but he could not find him. Thereafter charge sheet was filed by him in the case.
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel, he had admitted that prior to his taking over the investigation, the accused was not examined by any previous IO, neither any notice was personally served upon the accused to join the investigation, which was though served upon his brother as well as his father. He had further admitted that he had not forwarded document Ex. PW6/A along with other questioned documents for comparison of handwriting of the accused. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
PW7 is Sh. Sunil Srivastava S/o Sh. Ram Lakhan Prasad, R/o: Mitra Mandal Colony, B322, Anishabad, Patna - II, Bihar, who was stated to have retired from Bihar Vidhalyaa Pariksha Samiti (Uchch Madyamik Budh Marg Patna) (Bihar Intermediate Education Council Patna) as Section Officer and in the year 2012, he was working as Officer Incharge (verification) in the said institution, when one letter dated 20.09.2011, issued by Asst. Secretary, MCI along with copy of intermediate marksheet for the examination in Science in the year 1992 of one candidate Tejwant Singh Gill, was received by his office for CA No: 193/2022 Page 14 of 23 verification. After verification of the said marksheet of the candidate from the record, no such roll code 116 No. 11052 in the name of the candidate was showing for the relevant year. Thereafter he had written a letter already Ex. PW4/2to the MCI.
In his cross examination, he was stated to be a Graduate but he could not remember the duration of his posting as Section Officer in Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. Many other persons were also stated to be working on the same post in the same Department. He could not remember the date of receipt of letter for verification as he had not received it personally. The documents received for verifcation were only photocopies attached with the verification letter and he had replied the said verification letter on the same day on which it was rceived but he had no personal knowledge of this case. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein, entire incriminating circumstances and evidence as appearing against him on record were put to him and except the facts which were either specifically admitted to be correct by him or were purely a matter of record, accused had denied the rest as wrong and incorrect and had pleaded his innocence and false implication in this case.
CA No: 193/2022 Page 15 of 23Based upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses available on record, ld. Magistrate was pleased to convict the appellant while holding as under : ".......
21. At this stage, the written arguments of the accused are perused wherein he admits that he appeared for screening test conducted by National Board of Examination on 27.03.2011, qualified and passed the said test. On the basis of said test accused applied for provisional registration certificate dated 08.06.2011. At this stage, there was no challenge to the eligibility criteria. It was when accused applied for permanent registration and was asked to fulfill the eligibility criteria, that the accused challenged the applicability of such criteria. From the records it is clear that accused when he applied for provisional registration in May 2011 was not challenging the applicability of eligibility criteria. Therefore, accused in his written reply Ex.PW6/A has taken an afterthought defence that in May 2011 he challenged the eligibility criteria and therefore, he signed blank form and gave one photograph to one tout to complete the formalities including mentioning details of education qualification.
22. PW4 was the IO who deposed that he collected the application form submitted by the accused from the Medical Council of India. PW7 has already exhibited the negative verification report of the marksheet in question. Another important piece of evidence exhibited by the IO was disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW6/A wherein he disclosed that he had met one person outside the MCI Office to whom he gave blank signed application form and photograph. At this junction, CA No: 193/2022 Page 16 of 23 attention is drawn to the application form at page 3 wherein the applicant has solemnly affirmed and declared that the entries made by him are correct and any of the entries being found incorrect at any period of time, the candidate takes responsibility to answer in Court of Law.
23. The prosecution has been able to establish that accused applied for provisional registration which was seized Ex.PW4/4. In the said application, accused stated himself to have passed his 10+2 from Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna vide roll no. EPT 1300 code 116 no. 11052. Upon verification this document was found to have not been issued by the Board as per the deposition of PW7. The said set of documents, seizure memo as well as deposition is sufficient to conclude that prosecution has established its case.
24. Once the prosecution has been able to discharge its primary function in the present case, Section 106 of the Evidence Act, can come in aid of the prosecution i.e. any fact being especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is a presumed fact that one is privy to his/her qualification and accused when put in such a situation by the prosecution, ought to have come out clean with his education qualifications. The accused not only applied to the MCI, but also underwent internship following the Provisional Registration granted. Subsequent to his internship, the accused even admittedly applied for Permanent Registration. The accused did not put a single question to PW1 or to PW2 in crossexamination and did not even rebut having applied to the MCI. Accused even cunningly tried to deny having applied on his own and stated this form was in blank with his signature and photographs. It is immaterial if the accused himself filled the form or filled it CA No: 193/2022 Page 17 of 23 through someone else, the form categorically states that candidates solemnly affirm that particulars mentioned are true. Also the provisional registration was applied in May 2011 and accused only challenged the application of eligibility criteria in the year 2013 when same was verbally denied to accused for not having met the required qualification.
25. The prosecution thus having been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt shifted burden on the accused to prove his innocence and even prove his 10+2 credentials. The knowledge of the said fact was exclusive to the accused and the burden thus was on him to prove. Also nowhere it has come on record that the original marksheet was seized. The marksheet in original, if any was within the possession of the accused, as neither the MCI nor the Council, Patna retained the original marksheet. It is judicial noticeable fact that one would possess his own original education credentials. True, that the IO ought to have served notice on the accused to produce the original, yet the same does not absolve the accused under Section 106 Evidence Act, to prove a fact within his personal knowledge i.e. his education qualification. Section 66 Evidence Act also casts a duty upon the accused to produce the original. Since the 10+2 marksheet of accused Tejwant Singh Gill is pivotal in this case, and as per Section 66(2) a duty is cast upon him, considering the nature of the case that he was required to produce the original.
26. From the discussion above, the accused is proved to have fraudulently induced the MCI to deliver his provisional registration, which if not for the deception of fake marksheet, the MCI would not have delivered. The accused has thus cheated the MCI by furnishing fake marksheet. Further, because CA No: 193/2022 Page 18 of 23 of the said cheating, the MCI having been deceived has delivered the marksheet to the accused. Also, the accused had knowledge that the marksheet was false and yet he fraudulently and with dishonest intention used the same as genuine. It is true that not much effort was made to trace the person who forged the marksheet in question for the accused, however the same does not absolve the accused of his actions."
However, after appreciation of evidence, I do not find myself in agreement with the findings rendered by the ld. Trial Court which in my opinion were based upon wrong appreciation of the material available on record.
Firstly, the ld. Trial Court had committed a grave error while mentioning in para no. 8 of the impugned judgment that PW4 (wrongly mentioned as PW5) was cross examined as 'Nil', whereas, the cross examination of the aforesaid PW is very much available on record, though, it is another thing that it has been tied in between the miscellaneous ordersheets, wherein, PW4 had categorically mentioned that he had collected the original marksheet as provided to him by MCI. This deposition negates the finding of Ld. MM and his discussion on Section 66 r/w Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act, that it was the duty of the appellant to have produced the original marksheet.
It is also interesting to see that despite the IO having claimed to have collected the original marksheet, the entire case had rotated upon and revolved around the photocopy of the said CA No: 193/2022 Page 19 of 23 marksheet and the original was never brought forth before the Court at any point of time whatsoever, nor, any explanation had come forward from the prosecution side for nonproduction thereof. However, ld. MM seems to have lost sight of the fact that it was not prudent and safe to base the conviction of a person on the basis of photocopy alone in the absence of original document, particularly when its existence was not denied.
Though, the ld. MM had rightly observed in the impugned judgment that the marksheet and the particulars mentioned therein had a pivotal role in this case and although the appellant had denied having filled any form for the purpose of applying for permanent registration with MCI. However, even if we presume it for the sake of arguments that the said registration form was filled by the appellant herein in his own handwriting, then also I have no hesitation in holding that the ld. MM had not gone through the said form carefully, as if we examine the said registration form Ex. PW4/4 even with bare eyes, then also, in the column pertaining to the particulars of his Class 11 th he had mentioned his roll no. to be 11052 with certificate no. EPT1300 43945. It is pertinent to mention here that no code number was mentioned in the said column. It was only in the column pertaining to his Class 12th particulars that his roll no., was mentioned as EPT1300 and school code no. was mentioned as 116, whereas, in the photocopy of said marksheet, the school code of his Class 12th with his Class 11th roll number has been CA No: 193/2022 Page 20 of 23 mentioned, in which he was shown to have passed the Class 12th in June 1992, whereas, in his registration form itself, he had mentioned to have passed Class 12th on 28.10.1992, therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that by no stretch of imagination, it could have been presumed that the particulars of his class 11 th examination were going to match with the records of the concerned examination authority i.e., Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, pertaining to his actual particulars of class 12th. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that though the marksheet pertained to the said Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, however, the verification report in this regard was sent by one Bihar Vidhalya Pariksha Samiti (Uchch Madhyamik), Budh Marg, Patna, which meant to be Bihar School Examination Committee (Higher Secondary), Patna, which was an altogether different body from the one who had conducted the exam or had issued the said marksheet which was allegedly found to be forged.
It is also to be seen here that in its reply furnished to MCI in respect of its verification of the particulars of appellant, the said committee had also mentioned only about the non availability of the name of appellant in its records against those particulars. However, it had nowhere denied its authenticity or had termed it to be forged or fabricated. It appears that appellant herein had suffered this ordeal due to irresponsible and negligent conduct of the MCI itself who in order to hide and shield the CA No: 193/2022 Page 21 of 23 incompetency of its own employees, had passed on and shifted the entire burden on him making him appear like the main culprit.
All these shortfalls appearing in the prosecution case had lost the sharp eyes of ld. Magistrate, due to which he had convicted the appellant and imposed the impugned sentence. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that ld. Magistrate had not correctly appreciated the material before him. Since the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused before ld. Trial Court, beyond any reasonable doubt, hence, he could not have been convicted and sentenced in this case.
Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and consequent order on sentence are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted honorably. He is directed to furnish bonds u/s 437A CrPC in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount within three days of pronouncement of its judgment.
It is needless to mention here that appellant shall have a right to recover damages and compensation from MCI for his prolonged ordeal and sufferings due to this case.
CA No: 193/2022 Page 22 of 23Copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the ld. Trial Court for information and compliance. Appeal file be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary legal formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 29.11.2022 Digitally signed by LOKESH LOKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.11.29 SHARMA 15:57:33 +0530 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (SFTC) DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI CA No: 193/2022 Page 23 of 23