Delhi District Court
Accused Along With Other Certificates ... vs . on 27 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
F.I.R. No. 806/1991
Police Station: Rajouri Garden
Under Section 420/471/468 IPC
COMMON JUDGMENT FOR SEVEN CASES
(a) Computer ID No.. : 02401R0650872009
02401R0016091994
02401R0016111994
02401R0016081994
02401R0016011994
02401R0687442009
02401R0015861994
FIR No. : No. 806/1991
No. 806/1991
No. 806/1991
No. 806/1991
No. 806/1991
No. 806/1991
No. 806/1991
(b) Date of commission of the : On 01/10/91
offence
(c) The name of the : Sh. K. P. Panually, Asstt.
complainant Director(Examinations)
Rashtriya Sanaskrit
Sansthan, A40, Vishal
Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
Delhi.
FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 1 of 15
(d) The name of the accused : 1. Satyawan S/o Sh. Dalip
persons, their parentage Singh R/o VPO, Makrauli,
and residence District Rohtak, Haryana.
2. Udaiveer S/o Sh. Ishwar
Singh R/o RZ D1617, Main
Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh,
Delhi.
3. Bhagwan Singh S/o Sh.
Ram R/o VPO, Guriali,
Tehsil Kosli, District
Rewari, Haryana.
4. Dev Sharma S/o Sh.
Mukhram Sharma R/o
Village Boria Kamalpur,
District and Tehsil Rewari,
Haryana.
5. Krishan Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma
R/o Sh. Raghunath Mandir,
Narela, Delhi.
6. Krishan Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Lakhi Chand R/o
Village Kalwa, Tehsil
Safido, District Jind,
Haryana.
7. Prem Lata D/o Sh.
Vidyanand R/o Plot No. 5,
Shanker Bihar Vistar,
Charan Nadi, Murlipura,
Jaipur.
FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 2 of 15
(e) The offence complained of : Section 420, 468 & 471 IPC.
(f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : All accused are acquitted
(h) The date of such order : 27.09.12
Challan was filed on: 02.07.1994
Final arguments were heard on: 15.09.2012
Judgment is announced on: 27.09.2012
JUDGMENT
Brief facts: Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, an autonomous organization of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Govt. of India imparts education for many programmes and the course of B.Ed (known as Siksha Shashtri) was inter alia one of them. The said course enables the successful candidates eligible for recruitment for the posts of Teacher. For obtaining admission in the said course, an entrance test was used to be held. The successful candidates were given admission in the said B.Ed. course. A complaint dt. 20.9.1991 was filed by Dr. P.K. Panually, Assistant Director (Examination) of the said Sansthan to the effect that on or before 18.09.1991 at A48, Vishal Enclave, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Raja Garden, Delhi, 09 FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 3 of 15 candidates produced forged nishkarman parman patram (migration certificate) and mark sheets for obtaining admission in the said course of Shiksha Shastri (B. Ed.) and the said certificates and marksheets on verification were not found to be genuine and thus it is alleged that the accused persons cheated the said Sansthan. It is also alleged that accused persons fraudulently and dishonestly used these certificates as genuine which they knew or had reason to believe at the time when they were used, to be the forged documents. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. In the instant case, although only one FIR was registered but for the sake of convenience, the prosecution filed 8 separate challans against each accused. The trials of all these cases were conducted simultaneously and even evidence were also led on consolidated basis. Till the time, the undersigned took over charge of this court in the month of January, 2012, one of the accused persons, namely, Ashok had already been acquitted.
3. The present seven cases were earmarked as the oldest identified cases as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 4 of 15 Delhi. All these cases were at the stage of prosecution's evidence and as such further evidence was led and the trial was concluded in a speedy manner. As facts of these seven cases are similar, I propose to decide these cases vide this common judgment.
4. On the basis of material on record, separate but similar charges were framed against each accused person for the offences under Sections 420, 471 and 468 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined total eight witnesses but they are numbered as PW1 to PW9. Record reveals that due to inadvertence the PW Shri Prabhat Ranjan was examined twice but two separate numbers as PW6 and PW8 were given. The depositions of the said witnesses, in brief, are as under:
DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES
6. PW1 Rajbeer was the Principal of Arya Mahavidyalya, Keral, Meerut. He deposed that no body by the name of accused Bhagwan Singh had given the exam of Shastri (B. Ed.) from the above said Mahavidyalya and his written report in this regard is Ex. PW1/A. FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 5 of 15
7. PW2 Smt. Kanchan was posted as Assistant at Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Vishal Enclave, Delhi. She deposed that on 28.02.1992 she handed over the marksheet and migration certificate to the police and a seizure memo was prepared and her statement was recorded. The seizure memo was proved as Ex. PW2/A. She proved the documents (migration certificates and marksheets) and the verification letters as original certificate bearing serial no. 451 is Ex. PW2/B, serial no. 456 is Ex. PW2/C, letter is Ex. PW2/D, letter of Baldev Sahai Sanskrit Mahavidyalya is Ex. PW2/E, marksheet of Sampurannand Sanskrit Mahavidyalya is Ex. PW2/F. She has also proved on record the certificates/marksheets submitted by accused along with other certificates as in case of State vs. Premlata is Ex. PW2/G, certificate in S vs. Bhagwan Singh is Ex. PW2/H, certificate in S vs. Dev Sharma is Ex. PW2/I, certificate in S vs. Satyawan is Ex. PW2/J, certificate in S vs. Udaiveer is Ex. PW2/K and letter in case S vs. Kishan Kumar Sharma is Ex. PW2/L. She has also proved on record the verification letters issued by the concerned authority and the said letters are marked as letter in case State vs. Kishan Kumar Sharma is Ex. PW2/L, copy of Ex. PW2/F in State vs. Kishan Kumar Sharma is mark 'A', copy of Ex. PW2/D in case of State vs. Prem Lata is mark 'A' and copy of Ex. PW2/E in all other cases is mark 'A'.
8. PW3 ASI Sunita Rawat is the Duty Officer who FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 6 of 15 proved on record the FIR as Ex. X1.
9. PW4 Inspector Om Prakash is a police official who deposed that on 23.09.1991, a complaint no. RSS/P/565/20/1256 dated 20.09.1991 was marked to him and on 01.10.1991 he got registered the said complaint by making an endorsement on it and the same is Ex. PW4/A.
10. PW5 Retd. SI Madan Lal is a police official who deposed that on 01.09.1991, he recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested all the accused persons.
11. PW6 Prabhat Ranjan is the Controller of Examination, University of Allahabad. He deposed that in reference to a letter sent by SHO, PS Rajouri Garden, Delhi regarding some clarifications about marksheets and migration certificates, he gave the details as per record through letter no. 547/92 dated 01.04.1992. He further stated that as per record the migration certificate bearing no. 24473 dated 15.11.1989 (Ex. PW2/J) as well as the marksheet bearing the said number in the name of accused were not issued from above said institution and the photocopy of said marksheet is Ex. PW6/A and his detailed report is Ex. PW6/B.
12. PW7 R.K. Tripathy was a Principal in Yogender FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 7 of 15 Nath Shastri Sansthan. He deposed that on 09.04.1992, he was working as Principal in Yogender Nath Shastri and he had gone through the certificate already Ex. PW2/E. He further stated that photocopy of the aforesaid documents is Ex. PW7/A.
13. PW8 Prabhat Ranjan was the Deputy Registrar Examination in Sampuranand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, U.P. He deposed that on 01.04.1992 he sent a detailed report by post dated 01.04.1992 vide letter no. 547/92 in reference to a letter sent by SHO, Rajouri Garden seeking clarification about marksheet and migration certificate. He further stated that the above said certificate and mark sheet in respect of accused were not issued from the institute called Sampuranand Sanskrit Vishvidyalya as per the verification letter Ex. PW8/A dated 01.04.1992 and another letter dated 18.02.1994.
14. PW9 Kamleshwar Prasad Penually is the complainant. He deposed that in the year 1991 he was Assistant Director of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Raja Garden, Delhi and there was great rush during that period for admission and some of the students submitted forged documents to support their candidature. He further stated that there were nine students whose applications were found dubious and accordingly they forwarded their applications to Sanskrit University, Varanasi for verification. He further stated that Sanskrit University, Varanasi FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 8 of 15 communicated to them that these certificates in that applications were not issued by their department. He further stated that thereafter the applications for admission were rejected and he moved a complaint regarding the same to Police and the same is Ex. PW3/A. He further stated that he did not remember the name of such persons due to lapse of time but he further stated that their names are mentioned in his complaint.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
15. In the statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused persons denied that they have filed any forged documents or the forged certificate/marksheet. They specifically took the defence that they were falsely implicated in the present case as they failed to pay the donation amount. Out of seven, three accused persons also led defence evidence and filed copies of certain certificates/marksheets.
16. I have heard learned APP for the State and two counsel for the accused persons. Record perused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS FOR DECISION
17. All the accused persons are charged for the offences u/s. 420, 471 and 468 IPC. In order to prove said offences, FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 9 of 15 prosecution is required to prove the identity of the accused as well as essential ingredients of the said offences.
18. Section 468 IPC provides punishment for the commission of offence of forgery of some document or electronic record for the purpose of cheating. The definition of 'forgery' is given in Section 473 IPC. It provides that "Whosoever makes any false document or part of it with intention to cause damage to any public or person, or to support any claim or title with intention to commit fraud or forgery is said to commit forgery. Thus, Section 468 IPC envisages an act of 'preparation' or 'making' or 'construction' of a fake document and the same is a distinct act from other acts like 'possession' or 'usage' of a forged document which are distinctly defined in other Sections of IPC. In the present case, the primary allegations against the accused persons are that the accused persons used forged documents for obtaining admission in the B. Ed Course. The investigating agency did not collect any evidence to show that the alleged forged documents were prepared or made by the accused persons only. None of the prosecution's witnesses are the eye witnesses when the alleged forged documents were made or prepared. Prosecution has also not brought on record any direct or circumstantial evidence to prove such facts. Accordingly, I hold that prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of offence u/s. 468 IPC against the accused persons.
FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 10 of 1519. As far as Section 420 and 471 IPC are concerned, the counsel for the accused persons vehemently argued that the prosecution did not prove the identity of the accused persons as the persons who sought admission in the B. Ed Course or as the persons who filed such alleged forged documents. The counsel for accused persons also filed certified copy of the judgment passed by my Ld. Predecessor MM whereby accused Ashok was acquitted on the ground of missing link or failure of identity of accused. It is further submitted that none of the prosecution's witnesses (including the complainant/PW9 K.P. Penually and PW2 Smt. Kanchan) identified the accused persons as the candidates who had filed or used such alleged forged documents. To counter this argument, Ld. APP for the State argued that the incident is very old pertaining to the year 1991 and when complainant was examined in court in the year 2012, he was 80 years of age and it shows that he was examined after 21 years of the incident and, as such, complainant was not in a position to identify or remember the names of such candidates. PW9 K.P. Penually (complainant) also specifically deposed in his evidence that he does not remember the names of such students due to lapse of time. It is the case of the prosecution that forged certificate/marksheets were filed by accused persons for taking admission in the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. The aforesaid certificates/marksheets were supplied to the IO by PW2 Smt. FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 11 of 15 Kanchan who was working as Assistant in the said Sansthan. But in her crossexamination, she clearly admitted that she has no personal knowledge of the present case nor she can identify the accused persons. Thus from the aforesaid contentions of the parties, the most crucial question for determination is the identity of the accused persons.
20. Generally an offender is identified through an eye witness who had seen such offender at the time of commission of offence. In the present case, the alleged offences are not against human body e.g. murder, robbery, assault etc. but they are for filing of forged documents in an educational institution i.e. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. Accordingly under these circumstances, the identity of accused persons cannot be proved in the same manner as is done in the former case. Nevertheless, the fact of identification through the public witnesses (PW2 and PW9) is one of the important relevant factors. Had the said public witnesses identified the accused persons in the court, the case of the prosecution would be on stronger footing. But when the said witnesses did not identify the accused persons as the candidates who had filed the forged documents, then identify of the accused persons is required to be proved by circumstantial or documentary evidence. It is a settled law that in a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 12 of 15 and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Ld. APP for State argued that the identity of the accused persons are proved from their names and particulars mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW9/A. In this regard, I am of the opinion that merely on the basis of such details, the link between the accused persons and the action of filing of or using forged documents is not established. Some cogent proof are required to be brought on record and the accused persons cannot be convicted solely on the basis of doubt, howsoever strong it may be.
21. In the instant case, the best way of proving the identity of the accused persons could be through the documents submitted at the time of admission, e.g. the admission form, photograph attached on the application form, signature or handwriting of the accused on the application form or I.D. Card, payment receipt, or by any such document or by seeking expert opinion from Forensic Science Laboratory. But surprisingly in the instant case, the investigation agency did not collect any such document. The case was investigated initially by S.I. Om Prakash and as per his deposition he remained I.O. of this case from 23.09.1991 to March, 1993. He specifically deposed that during his period as I.O. the complainant did not supply any document and thereafter he was transferred. The second I.O. SI Madan Lal simply stated he recorded statements of witnesses and filed the FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 13 of 15 present challan. He is silent on the point of obtaining or filing of any such documents which can connect the accused persons with the present case. The investigation agency merely filed the forged documents (migration certificate/marksheet) and the verification reports on record and there is no other linking evidence. There is not even a single document belonging to the accused persons which can connect them with the alleged forged documents. Accordingly, in the light of above evidence, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused persons or to link them with the alleged forged documents.
22. The counsel for the accused persons also raised serious objections on point of mode of proving the migration certificate, marksheets and the verification reports. It is specifically contended that in all the cases only photocopies of marksheets are filed on record and the offence of forging a document cannot be proved on the basis of mere photocopy. It is further argued that the document Ex.PW7/A (verification letter) is not proved as the witness PW7 admitted that he was not the concerned official at the relevant time and he had never seen the author of the said letter writing or signing. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW8 cannot be read in evidence as he was not called for crossexamination and accordingly the document proved as Ex.PW8/A (verification report) also cannot be read in evidence. Although the abovesaid objections are very FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 14 of 15 material but I do not propose to discuss these objections as it will be mere an academic exercise when it is already held that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused persons.
23. The accused persons also specifically took the defence that they did not file any forged document and they were falsely implicated in this case because they failed to pay donation amount. In the light of aforesaid weaknesses in the case of prosecution and the defence of the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused persons are also entitled to benefit of doubt.
24. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the offences under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused persons are accordingly acquitted for the said offences.
25. As this is a common judgment, copy of judgment be placed in all the seven cases. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 27.09.2012 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 806/91 PS Rajouri Garden Page 15 of 15