Delhi District Court
State vs Kanaklata Jain on 1 March, 2024
CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005
IN THE COURT OF MS. SONAM GUPTA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
State
Vs.
Kanaklata Jain and Ors
FIR No.821/2004
P.S Punjabi Bagh
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case 69267/2016 2. Date of institution 29.12.2008 3. Name of the complainant Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain
4. Date of commission of offence On or before 14.05.1998
5. Name of accused 1.Accused Kanaklata Jain
W/o Sh. Arun Jain
R/o 94, Darya Ganj, New
Delhi-110002.
2.Accused Arun Jain
S/o Late Sh. J. L. Jain
FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 1 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 (Proceeding abated).
3. Accused Kusum Gupta W/o Late Sh. R. C. Gupta (Proceeding abated).
6. Offence complained of U/s 420/477/34 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC.
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not gulity
8. Date of reserving the judgment 19.02.2024
9. Final order Acquitted 10 Date of such judgment 01.03.2024 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution is that an information was received in Anti Forgery Section, EOW, Crime Branch, Delhi that on or before 14.05.1998, accused Kanaklata Jain made a bogus and frivolous Will dated 10.01.1987 of Late Smt. Rajmati Jain w/o Late Sh. Jugmohinder Lal, R/o 94, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and sold the property bearing No. 16/17, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'property in question') through a sale deed dated 14.05.1998 to her husband Arun Jain and sister Kusumlata Gupta, FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 2 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 despite the fact that Late Sh. Jugmohinder Lal Jain husband of Late Sh. Rajmati Jain had de-barred Arun Jain and Kanaklata Jain from all his movable and immovable properties in his Will executed on 15.06.1987 due to ill-treatment and misbehavior towards Ms. Rajmati Jain by accused Arun Jain and Kanaklata Jain. The accused Kanaklata Jain sold the property in question worth Rs. 40 Lakhs, to her husband and sister Kusumlata Gupta for Rs.2 Lakhs in 1998. The accused persons Arun Jain and Kanaklata Jain also mistreated, abused, harassed and gave beatings to the complainant and other children of Ms. Rajmati and tried to de-bar them from other properties of Ms. Rajmati Jain on the basis of fake Will dated 10.01.1987, after which complainant Vijay Kumar Jain and Sudhir Jain made a police complaint upon which the present case FIR was registered. During investigation, IO verified the Sale deed dated 14.05.1998 and Will dated 15.06.1987. During investigation it was found that no Will dated 10.01.1987 was attached along with Sale deed dated 14.05.1998 and accused Kanaklata also failed to produce the Will dated 10.01.1987 in original form or a photocopy to IO and did not even file a police complaint for the same being misplaced/missing/stolen. During investigation, the officials of Sub-Registry office, Pitampura, Delhi were examined by the IO who gave statements that no Will dated 10.01.1987 was ever attached with the Sale deed dated 14.05.1998.
FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 3 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 Further, witnesses on Will dated 15.06.1987 were also examined by the IO who proved the genuineness of the same. During investigation, it was further revealed that a police complaint was also filed by Late Sh. Jugmohinder Lal Jain on 24.04.1987 against accused Arun Jain and Kanaklata Jain w.r.t. misbehavior and ill treatment done to Ms. Rajmati by the said accused persons. Upon completion of investigation into the allegations against the accused persons carried out by the Investigating Officer, a police report under Section 173 Cr.PC was filed in the court.
2. Provisions of Section of 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. On appearance of accused persons before Court and prima facie case having been made out, charge for the offence of under section 120 B/34 IPC, 420/34 IPC r/w 120B IPC and 447/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the trial of the present case, accused Arun Jain and Kusumlata Gupta expired and proceedings qua accused Arun Jain and Kusumlata Gupta were abated vide orders dated 09.09.2021 and 03.03.2022 respectively.
FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 4 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005
4. To prove the allegations against the accused persons, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses:-
(a). Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, was examined as PW1 who deposed that the property bearing No. 16/17, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi was in the name of his mother Late Smt. Rajmati Jain w/o Late Sh. Jugmohinder Lal Jain and they had 8 children (5 boys and 3 girls) who were alive at the time of her death. PW1 further deposed that his mother Smt. Rajmati Jain expired on 06.04.1987, name of her sons were Sh Jainender Kr Jain, himself, Arun Kumar Jain, Sudhir Kumar Jain and Anil Kumar Jain, whereas her daughters were Swaranlata Badjatya, Madhu Mehra and Meenu Jain. PW1 further deposed that in the summer season of 2003, he alongwith his wife, Sudhir Kumar Jain and his wife namely Smt. Anu Jain, went to the factory situated at 16/17, Golden Park, Rampura, New Delhi, there Arun Kumar Jain started beating them and he started quarreling saying that the said factory belongs to him and he is owner of the same, then Arun Kumar Jain made a complaint to police, in which he claimed that he is the sole owner of said premises. PW1 further deposed that then he came to know from the neighbourers that Smt Kanaklata Jain w/o Arun Kr Jain has become the owner of said property through one forged Will of Smt. Rajmati Jain, prepared on 10.01.1987, on which they started FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 5 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 making inquiry and they went to the office of Sub-Registrar, Pitampura, where they made a complaint that the said Will is a forged document and he also applied for copy of the said Will from Sub-
Registrar office, on which they sought one month's time, after one month, when they went there, the office of Sub-Registrar informed them that the said property in not in the name of Smt Kanaklata Jain and is in the name of Arun Kumar Jain and his sister-in-law (sister of his wife) namely Kusumlata Jain and the said ownership had devolved to them through a sale deed dated 14.05.1998 executed by Kanaklata Jain, copy of which is already on record. PW1 proved the Will of his father, late Sh Jugmohinder Lal Jain S/o Banwari Lal Jain bearing registration no. 2590 Additional Book No. 3, Volume no. 404, page no. 37 to 39 dated 15.06.1987 Ex.PW3/A (original from the file of civil suit no. 637/08/05 titled as Sudhir Kumar Jain & Ors vs Kanak Lata Jain & Ors.). PW1 further proved the photocopy of partnership deed dated 01.01.1978 between Sh. Jugmohinder Lala Jain, Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Sh. Sudhir Kumar Jain and Sh. Arun Kumar Jain as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 further proved photocopy of partnership deed dated 01.12.1997 between Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Sh. Arun Kumar Jain and Sh. Sudhir Kumar Jain as Mark X. PW1 further deposed that he made a complaint Ex. PW1/B regarding cheating by the accused persons. PW1 further deposed that the Will dated 10.01.1987, on the basis of FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 6 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 which the accused Kanak Lata Jain and Arun Kumar Jain were claiming property no. 16/17, Golden Park, Ram Pura, New Delhi was never shown to anyone of them including his other brothers and sisters. PW1 further proved the photocopy of death certificate bearing no.374471 issued from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital of Smt. Rajmati Jain who died on 06.04.1987 at about 07:00 a.m. as Ex.PW1/C (OSR) from the file produced by Ms. Urmila, Asstt. Ahlmad from the Court of Sh. Pitambar Dutt, Ld. ADJ, in Civil Suit no.637/08/05 titled as Sudhir Kumar Jain v. Kanak Lata Jain. It was observed by the Court that the document shall be deemed to be proved as it has been compared with the original documents, however its contents are required to be proved by calling the person concerned, who prepared this document or by summoning the official record containing original entries, on the basis of which such certificate was issued by LNJP Hospital and the prosecution shall take steps accordingly to prove the contents of this document. PW1 correctly identified the accused persons present the Court. PW1 was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
(b). Sh. Joginder Singh Rana was examined as PW2, who deposed that on 17.12.2004, he was working as Sub-Registrar, Sub- District-6, RU Pocket Pitam Pura Delhi, on that day, he gave reply to FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 7 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 the letter no. 1347/ACP/AF/EOW Crime Branch dated 29.11.2004 vide his reply bearing no.525 dated 17.12.2004 Ex. PW2/A. PW2 further deposed that on 25.02.2005, he was working as Sub-Registrar, Sub- District-6, RU Pocket Pitam Pura Delhi, on that day, he gave reply to the letter no. 1343/ACP/AF/EOW Crime Branch dated 29.11.2004 vide his reply bearing no.565SR6 dated 25.02.2005 Ex. PW2/B. PW2 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
(c). Sh. Satyapal, Record Attendant, Department of Delhi Archives 18A, Satsang Vihar Marg, Near JNU, New Delhi, was examined as PW3, who deposed that he has brought the original summoned record of registration no.2590, additional book no.3, volume no.404, page no. 37 to 39 dated 15.06.1987 in respect of registration of Will of Late Sh. Jugmohinder Lal Jain S/o Banwari Lal Jain R/o Ist Floor-94, Darya Ganj, New Delhi which he proved as Ex.PW3/A(OSR). PW3 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(d). Sh. Om Parkash, LDC Office of Sub-Registrar, 6A Pritam Pura, Delhi, was examined as PW4, who deposed that he has brought the original summoned record of registration no.3067, additional book FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 8 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 no.1, volume no.588, page no. 162 to 165 dated 14.05.1998 in respect of registration of Sale Deed between Kanaklata, Arun Jain and Kusum Gupta, which he proved as Ex.PW4/A (OSR). PW4 was not cross- examined by Ld. Cousnel for the accused persons.
(e). ASI Mahender Singh, was examined as PW5, who deposed that on 13.09.2004, he was posted at Anti forgery section as Head Constable, on that day, SI Sushil Kumar handed over to him one tehrir with instructions to go to P.S Punjabi Bagh and get the case registered, accordingly, he went to P.S Punjabi Bagh and got registered the FIR, then he came back at Anti Forgery Section Crime Branch and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. PW5 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
(f). HC Raj Singh, was examined as PW6, who deposed that on 13.09.2004, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Punjabi Bagh from 09:00a.m. to 05:00p.m., on that day, HC Mahender produced a rukka which was sent to him by SI Sushil Kumar, on the basis of which he recorded the FIR No. 821/04; U/s 420/468/471/120-B and put his endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW6/B and the carbon copy of FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 9 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 the FIR Ex. PW6/A which are on record. PW6 was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
(g). Sh. Sudhir Jain was examined as PW7, who deposed that Smt. Rajmati Jain was his mother and she was the absolute and sole owner of property bearing No. 16-17, Golden Park, Rampura, New Delhi. PW7 further deposed that he has four brothers and three sisters. PW7 further deposed that in the year 2000, he came to know through his brother Vijay Kumar Jain that his brother Arun Jain and his wife Smt. Kanak Lata Jain have made forged and fabricated Will and on the basis of the abovesaid forged Will, they had sold the property bearing No. 16-17, Golden Park, Rampura, New Delhi to Kusum Lata Gupta and Arun Jain. PW7 further deposed that his father had debarred Arun Jain and Mrs. Kanaklata Jain from all his movable and immovable properties through registered Will executed in the year 1987. PW7 further deposed that his brother Vijay Kumar Jain visited the abovesaid property, but he was not allowed to enter in the premises by his brother Arun Jain and Smt. Kanaklata Jain and they harassed his brother. PW7 further deposed that he alongwith his brother had made joint complaint Ex. PW1/B to DCP in this regard. PW7 further deposed that plot no.16 & 17, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi was in the name of his mother Smt. Rajmati. PW7 further FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 10 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 deposed that his father Sh. Jugmender Lal Jain alongwith his brother Vijay Kumar Jain, Arun Kumar Jain and himself were doing the business of surgical items at the abovesaid plot, later on from the year 1987, Arun Jain started working alone at the abovesaid plot. He stated that his mother had expired in the year of 1987 and he had taken care of his mother in the last days at the LNJP Hospital. PW7 further deposed that the family of Arun Jain had never arrived at the hospital to take care of his mother. PW7 further deposed that he cannot say why Arun Jain was debarred from the property acquired by his father by registered Will in the year of 1987 Ex. PW3/A. PW7 further proved the death certificate of his mother as Ex. PW1/C. PW7 correctly identified all the accused persons present in the Court. PW7 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. PW7 was re- examined by Ld. APP for the State with permission of the Court as PW7 was not able to recollect all the facts. PW7 denied the suggestion that the civil suit to which he was a party was filed by him after reading over the same and in a fit state of mind. PW7 further denied that during the period w.e.f. 2000 to 2005, he was in mild depression but he visited the factory and other places. PW7 further stated that he does not remember whether he has testified in the civil suit or not. PW7 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 11 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005
(h). Mrs. Surender Jain, was examined as PW8, who deposed that presently she has retired from SBI and the property bearing no.16/17, Golden Park, Ram Pura, Delhi was in the name of her mother-in-law Smt. Rajmati Jain, who expired on 15.04.1987 had 08 children. PW8 further deposed that in summer of year 2003, she alone went to their factory situated at 16/17, Golden Park, Ram Pura, Delhi, and on reaching there, she met Arun Kumar Jain who stated that the said factory entirely belongs to him and he started beating her. PW8 further deposed that she was surprised to hear that accused Arun Kumar Jain was the sole owner of the entire property i.e. 16/17, Golden Park, Ram Pura, Delhi as her late father-in-law had debarred the accused Arun Kumar Jain from the entire movable/immovable property belonging to him vide his Will dated 15.06.1987. PW8 further deposed that he informed about this incident to her late husband namely Vijay Kumar Jain and she got the case registered at PS Punjabi Bagh vide FIR No. 821/2004, then again she stated that her late husband namely Vijay Kumar Jain got the said case registered at PS Punjabi Bagh. PW8 further deposed that the police officials at PS Punjabi Bagh asked accused Arun Kumar Jain to produce any document pertaining to ownership of the said property, after sometime, the accused could not produce the document and the matter was transferred to SDM Nangloi. PW8 further deposed that after lot of FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 12 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 searching of documents, she found one sale deed which was prepared by accused Kanaklata Jain and the said property was transferred in favour of accused Arun Kumar Jain and Kusumlata Gupta. PW8 further deposed that it was revealed that a Will dated 10.01.1987 was made by her late mother-in-law Smt. Rajmati Jain wherein she had transferred the property in question to accused Kanaklata Jain. PW8 further deposed that then the said matter was brought to the notice of the then SDM, Nangloi and the SDM ordered vigilance inquiry and also initiated cases in Crime Branch and other agencies and also started a civil case, on inquiry in civil case no. 637/2008, it was revealed that no such Will as shown to have been made by her late mother-in-law existed and it was found that the said sale deed was fake and no such Will existed. PW8 further deposed that all the sons and daughters of her late mother-in-law have stated in the court that no such Will was ever made by her late mother-in-law. PW8 correctly identified the accused in the Court. PW8 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(i). Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta, was examined as PW9, who deposed that presently he is leading a retired life and sitting along with his children on their shop. He further deposed that he was posted as Sub-Registrar, Pitam Pura Office (VI) from October 1997 till FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 13 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 September 1999. PW9 further deposed that the IO of the present case inquired from him about a sale deed dated 14.05.1998, during the period of registration of said sale deed, he was posted in the above said office, the said sale deed was registered between Kanaklata Jain as vendor and Arun Jain and Kusum Gupta as vendee. PW9 further deposed that he had shown the said record to the IO of the case. PW9 further deposed that the sale deed was registered on the basis of Will dated 10.01.1987 executed by Smt. Rajmati Jain and the copy of the Will was not found in the office record. PW9 further deposed that it is possible that Kanaklata Jain might not have been given the copy of the Will in the record. PW9 further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO of the present case. PW9 was shown one sale deed dated 14.05.1998 Ex.PW4/A and after seeing the same, he correctly identified the sale deed and also identified his signatures on the same. PW9 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(j). Inspector Sher Singh, was examined as PW10, who deposed that on 22.07.2005, he was posted at EOW AFS Section as Sub-Inspector, on that day further investigation of the present case was marked to him and he collected the case file and inspected th same. PW10 further deposed that he found that the accused persons namely Kanaklata Jain, Arun Jain and Kusumlata were on interim FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 14 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 protection from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. PW10 further deposed that the major part of the investigation was completed by previous IO SI Sushil Kumar. PW10 further deposed that on 29.10.2005, he formally arrested accused Arun Jain, Kusumlata and Kanaklata Jain as they were granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court and the arrest memos of all the accused persons was proved as Ex PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C. PW10 further deposed that he conducted personal search of all three accused persons vide memo Ex.PW10/D. PW10 further deposed that the investigation was found to be complete and he prepared the charge-sheet after amending the status of accused, he filed the charge-sheet in the court. PW10 correctly identified the accused Kanaklata Jain in the Court. PW10 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(k). Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, was examined as PW11, who deposed that presently he is leading a retired life, his mother Smt. Rajmati Jain left for heavenly abode on 06.04.1987, and she was the owner of property WZ- 16/17, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi. PW11 further deposed that his brother Vijay Jain used to run family business from the said address. PW11 further deposed that his brother Arun Jain and his wife had prepared documents pertaining to the said property and illegally took the possession of the same. PW11 further FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 15 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 deposed that the views of the family were very negative qua accused Kanaklata Jain. PW11 further deposed that his late mother had never made any document as alleged in the present case on behalf of accused persons. PW11 further deposed that the alleged Will was never made in his presence and neither he was the signatory to the same as a witness, however, his mother in his opinion never made any such Will as alleged by the accused persons. PW11 correctly identified accused Kanaklata Jain present in the Court. PW11 was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
5. In her examination recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C, accused Kanaklata Jain denied the entire evidence put to her. Accused Kanaklata Jain deposed that she is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:-
6. Accused Kanaklata has been charged with offence under Section 120B IPC for conspiring with other accused persons Arun Kumar Jain (since deceased) and Kusumlata Gupta (since deceased) to get a fake Will prepared and then sale of Property bearing No. 16/17, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi in order to grab control over the FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 16 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 property. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. The essential ingredients to bring home the charge under section 120B/34 IPC are stated herein below:-
The essential ingredients of section 120B IPC are as under:
i). an agreement between two or more persons;
ii). an agreement should be to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal, by illegal means, provided that where the agreement is other than one to commit an offence, the prosecution must further prove;
(iii) that some act besides the agreement was done by or more of the parties in pursuance of it.
The essential ingredients of section 34 IPC are as under:-
(i) That the criminal act was done by more than one person;
(ii) That the said act was done, in furtherance of the common intention of all; (iii) Then, each of such persons is liable for the act done; and
(iv) The liability of each of such persons would be in the same manner as if the act was done by him alone.
"Criminal conspiracy differs from other offences in that mere agreement is made an offence even if no step is taken to carry out that agreement. Though there is close association of conspiracy with incitement and abetment the substantive offence of criminal conspiracy is somewhat wider in amplitude than abetment by conspiracy as contemplated by Section 107 IPC. A conspiracy from its FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 17 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 very nature is generally hatched in secret. It is, therefore, extremely rare that direct evidence in proof of conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholly disinterested quarters or from utter strangers. But, like other offences, criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed, in most cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material. In fact because of the difficulties in having direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, once reasonable ground is shown for believing that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence then anything done by anyone of them in reference to their common intention after the same is entertained becomes, according to the law of evidence, relevant for proving both conspiracy and the offences committed pursuant thereto." [Para 96, Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar].
7. Further the accused persons have been charged with the offence under Section 420 IPC r/w 120-B IPC. It is alleged against the accused Kanaklata Jain that she along with other accused persons criminally conspired fraudulently and dishonestly, cheated the complainant Vijay Jain and Sudhir Jain to deliver the Property i.e., FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 18 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 Premises No.WZ-16/17, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi to Arun Jain and a consequent wrongful loss was caused to them.
8. Before discerning the evidence against each individual led by the prosecution, it would be pertinent to understand the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC.
"Section 420 IPC : Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following facts beyond reasonable doubts :
(i) That the accused cheated another person.
(ii) That he thereby induced:-
(a) delivery of property to any person which property did not belong to the accused, or FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 19 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005
(b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
(c) anything which is signed or sealed and capable of being converted into a valuable security.
(iii) That he did so dishonestly.
Section 420, IPC deals with the certain specified classes of cheating. It deals with the cases of cheating whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to make, alter or destroy
(a) the whole or any part of a valuable security,
or
(b) anything which is signed or sealed and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security.
Burden of proof - It is for the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that at the time the accused entered into the transaction, he had no intention to pay the money and that he was actuated by a dishonest intention to cheat the complainant.
FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 20 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005
9. Further the accused persons have been charged with the offence under Section 477 IPC. It is alleged against the accused Kanaklata Jain that she along with other accused persons criminally conspired fraudulently and dishonestly with intent to cause damage or injury to the complainant Vijay Jain and Sudhir Jain, destroyed the document which purported to be a Will of Smt. Rajmati Jain dated 10.01.1987 and a consequent wrongful loss was caused to them.
10. Before discerning the evidence against each individual led by the prosecution, it would be pertinent to understand the essential ingredients of Section 477 IPC.
"Section 477 IPC : Fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc., of Will, authority to adopt, or valuable security - whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, cancels, destroys or defaces, or attempts to cancel, destroy or deface, or secretes or attempts to secrete any document which is or purports to be a Will, or an authority to adopt a son, or any valuable security, or commits mischief in respect of such document, shall be punished with (imprisonment of life), or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 21 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 Burden of proof - It is for the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that at the time the accused entered into the transaction, he had no intention to pay the money and that he was actuated by a dishonest intention to cheat the complainant.
11. In the light of law as discussed above, it is pertinent to discuss the facts and evidence adduced in the present case.
12. The case of the prosecution rests primarily on the statement of PW1 Vijay Kumar Jain wherein he has stated that in summer season of 2003, he went to the property in question along with his wife, Surender Kumar Jain and his wife namely Mrs. Anu Jain, where accused Arun Kumar Jain (since deceased) started beating them ad told them that he is the owner of the said property and they subsequently came to know that the said property has been transferred to Arun Kumar Jain by accused Kanaklata Jain on the basis of a Will purportedly executed by their mother Smt. Rajmati Jain. It is pertinent to mention herein with the said fact has been denied stated by Sudhir Jain, who has been examined as PW7 as he has stated that he had not visited the property in question and only PW1 had visited the same. Moreover, PW7 has denied lodging complaint Ex. PW1/B and has admitted that though it bears his signatures, however, he is not aware FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 22 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 about the contents of the same as he has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say whether contents of Ex. PW1/B are correct or not. It is pertinent to mention herein that in his cross- examination, PW1 has categorically stated that at the time of purchase of property in question, only a tin shed along with 6 rooms used to exist, however, in the year 2003, when the complaint was made, there was one big hall, three rooms at the ground floor and three room at the first floor which were constructed in the property in question. As the accused were stated to be in possession of the property in question, the construction on the same can be presumed to be carried out by them as from the death of mother of PW1 in the year 1987 till the year 2003, no complaint was made w.r.t. alleged illegal possession of the property in question by the accused persons.
13. The prosecution witness PW1 and PW7 have been harping upon the fact that their father Late Sh. Jugmohinder Lal Jain expired leaving behind a Will dated 15.06.1987 Ex. PW3/A wherein he de-barrred accused Kanaklata Jain and accused Arun Kumar Jain (since deceased) from all his movable and immovable properties, however, it is pertinent to mention herein that Late Sh. Jugmohinder Lal Jain has not mentioned anything about the property in question which points towards the fact that he had the knowledge of a Will FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 23 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 being executed by his late wife in favour of accused Kanaklata Jain w.r.t. which the property in question also finds support in the version of defence that Late Sh. Jugmohinder Lal Jain has stood as one of the witnesses of the said Will executed by Late Smt. Rajmati Devi in favour of accused Kanaklata Jain.
14. Further, Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta, Sub-Registrar of registered sale deed between accused Kanaklata Jain as Vendor and accused Arun Kumar Jain and Kususm Lata Gupta as Vendee has categorically stated that prior to registration of the said sale deed dated 14.05.1998, he had seen the Will on the basis of which the sale deed was registered. He has further stated that the copy of the Will was not found on the original record.
15. No evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution to support the allegation levelled against the accused persons of destruction of the Will and for the offence committed U/s 420 IPC r/w 120-B IPC. Nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution or has been brought out to link the involvement of the accused persons with the alleged crime. No evidence w.r.t. motive of accused persons to destroy the Will in question has been brought or placed on record by the prosecution. No covert or overt act has been FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 24 of25 CNR No. DLWT02-000282-2005 attributed to the accused persons by the prosecution w.r.t. committed cheating and destruction of Will. Thus, it can be safely stated that the prosecution has been unable to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
16. The prosecution has thus miserably failed to prove the allegations of cheating and destruction of Will against the accused persons.
17. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the benefit of which accrues in favour of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, hence all the accused are acquitted of the offences under Section 420/477/34 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC
18. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedSONAM by SONAM GUPTA GUPTA 16:20:48 Date: 2024.03.18 Announced in the open court (SONAM GUPTA) +0530 on 01.03.2024 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No.821/2004 PS Punjabi Bagh, EOW State Vs.Kanaklata Jain Page no. 25 of25