Delhi District Court
State vs Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 1 Of 9 on 19 January, 2011
FIR No.87/2001: PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC DOD: 19.01.2011 IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI FIR No.: 87/2001 PS: Special Cell U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC Unique ID No.: 02401R0128432001 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 122/2001
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, the then Ld. MM, THC, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 27.09.1999
(d) Name of the accused : Mewa Ram
S/o Sh. Chan Ram
R/o E521, Ashok Gali, Jagjeet
Nagar, Tisra Pusta, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 191/193/205/420/417/468/471
IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 10.01.2011
(h) Final Order : Convicted
(i) Date of such order : 19.01.2011
______________________________________________________________ State V/s Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 9 FIR No.87/2001: PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC DOD: 19.01.2011 BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The facts of the case in brief are that during the course of trial of case FIR No.530/99 U/s 379/411 IPC, P S Kotwali, by PW1 Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, accused Ajay Dass in that case was released on bail on furnishing of surety bond by accused in this case impersonating as Om Prakash s/o Sh. Vinod Kumar. The bail bond in the said case containing the surety bond was accepted by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 27.09.1999. Alongwith the surety bond, the accused had annexed an FDR from Dena Bank and photocopy of ration card. Pursuant to the acceptance of the bail bond, accused Ajay Dass in that case was ordered to be released, however lateron the said accused absconded and on notice to his surety i.e. accused in this case (who impersonated as Om Prakash in said case) report was received that "the address given in the surety bond was not correct". The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate got suspicious of the identity of the surety in the said case and as such he sent FDR for verification to the Dena Bank from where report was received by him that the same was forged one. Even the copy of the ration card was also found to be bogus. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate showing the presence of mind, called for the dossier of bogus sureties from the office of DCP (North) and compared the photographs therein with the photograph of the surety appearing on the copy of ration card and found that accused Mewa Ram in this case had impersonated as surety Om Prakash in the said case. Ld. State V/s Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 9 FIR No.87/2001: PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC DOD: 19.01.2011 Metropolitan Magistrate, accordingly sent a complaint u/s 195 CrPC on 07.03.2001 to this court. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, the case FIR in the matter was registered. During the course of investigation, IO SI Vineet Soni collected the documents i.e original bail bond containing the surety bond, the affidavit of surety, the FDR and copy of ration card and obtained fresh report from the concerned bank and the Food and Supply Department with regard the FDR and ration card respectively. Thereafter, further investigation in the matter was transferred to SI Khalid Akhtar, who arrested the accused in the matter, recorded his disclosure statement, obtained his specimen signatures, handwriting and thumb impressions and sent the original documents containing the signatures and handwriting of the accused alongwith the specimen handwriting to FSL, Calcutta and obtained report thereupon and filed the chargesheet.
2. After filing of the chargesheet, the accused was summoned in this court, compliance of section 207 CrPC was made and after hearing arguments on charge vide order dated 03.07.2002, charges u/s 191/193/205/419/420/468/471 IPC were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined eight witnesses whereafter the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of the accused U/s 313 CrPC was recorded wherein he claimed to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not examine any witness in his defense despite opportunity. State V/s Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 9 FIR No.87/2001: PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC DOD: 19.01.2011
4. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by Ld. APP for the State and Ms. Seema Gupta, counsel for the accused and perused the entire material on record.
5. Before adverting to the adjudication on the rival contentions of both the sides it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidences recorded in the matter.
6. PW1, Shri Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, the then Ld. MM, Delhi in his evidence has proved the bail bond as Ex.PW1/A, fake FDR as Ex.PW1/B, his complaint in this regard to this court as Ex.PW1/C and copy of ration card as Mark A. The evidence of this witness has gone unrebutted, as despite opportunity, he was not crossexamined.
7. PW2, ASI Nanu Ram was posted as Duty Officer in PS Subzi Mandi at the relevant time and he has proved the case FIR in the matter as Ex.PW2/A.
8. PW3 Ct. Sheesh Pal, has proved the pointing out memo as Ex.PW3/A.
9. PW4, HC Satpal deposed that on 09.05.2001 he was posted at P S Subzi Mandi and in order to verify the particulars mentioned in the ration card, he had gone to the office of Food and Supply office and collected the report of concerned official namely Raj Kumar vide Ex. PW4/A. As per the said report, the said ration card was found to be forged one. He recorded statement of Sh. Raj Kumar as Mark A. PW4 HC Satpal was cross examined by Ld. Defense counsel, wherein he stated that he was not the IO of the case State V/s Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 9 FIR No.87/2001: PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC DOD: 19.01.2011 and went for the verification of the ration card to the concerned Food and Supply office on his own and without any written direction from the IO. Further, that his statement was not recorded by the IO.
10. PW 4 Const. Ashok Rai was one of the witnesses of the investigation who proved the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure memo of accused Mewa Ram as Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C respectively. He further stated that specimen handwriting of accused Mewa Ram Ex.PW4/D1 to D5 and his thumb impression Ex.PW4/E1 to E6 were taken.
11. SI Khalid Akhtar was the IO of the case who deposed that further investigation of the matter was assigned to him. He along with Ct. Ashok went to the house of the accused, arrested him and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C respectively.
12. PW6 SI Vineet Soni deposed that on 14.03.2001 he was posted at PP Tis Hazari P S Subzi Mandi as Incharge. That on that day he received the FIR of the present case for investigation. That on 22.03.2001 he collected documents of the case from the court of the complainant Sh. A.K. Sarpal, the then Ld. MM, Delhi. That on 24.04.2001 he wrote an application, Ex.PW4/A, for verification of ration card and another application Ex.PW6/A for verification of FDR deposited by the accused before the court of complainant. He recorded the statement u/s 161 CrPC of Manager of Dena Bank.
13. PW7 Sh. Bhairo Prasad was the Branch Manager of Dena Bank and he has proved his report as Ex.PW7/A to the effect that FDR Ex.PW1/B State V/s Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 9 FIR No.87/2001: PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC DOD: 19.01.2011 was not issued by Dena Bank and further stated that at the relevant time, there was no branch of Dena Bank at Ashok Vihar.
14. PW8 Sh. Raj Kumar Bajaj who at the relevant period was posted at Circle No.28 Food and Supply Department, Nazafgarh as Inspector deposed that he received a request letter from the police with regard to the verification of the ration card, upon which he made his report, Ex.PW8/A, to the effect that the said Ration Card was not issued by his Circle and the same was false and fabricated.
15. The accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC by this court abjured all the allegations and claimed himself to have been falsely implicated in this case, however he did not examine any witness in his defense.
16. The Ld. Defense counsel Ms. Seema Gupta, advocate has very vehemently argued that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused in the matter. It is further argued that the only evidence which has been cited against the accused in the matter is the report of government Examiner of questioned document (GEQD Ex.CW1), whereby it was opined that accused signed as Om Prakash in the surety bond as also on the accompanying affidavit (Ex.PW1/A). She further argued that firstly the GEQD report has not been proved in accordance with law and secondly there is no independent corroboration of the said opinion and as such no explicit reliance can be placed upon the said document.
17. Per contra, Ld. APP has very vehemently argued that in this case before filing complaint u/s 195 CrPC, PW1 Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, the State V/s Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 9 FIR No.87/2001: PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC DOD: 19.01.2011 then Ld. MM, Delhi had conducted an inquiry with regard to the copy of ration card (Mark A) and the FDR (Ex.PW1/B), which were found to be forged during that inquiry. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate was smart enough to have called for the dossier of persons who were habitual in impersonation in courts and were engaged in standing fake sureties. He identified the accused from his photograph appearing in the said dossier after duly comparing it with the photograph on Mark A. As such the identity of the accused was duly established in the inquiry u/s 340 CrPC conducted by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. PW1 has also duly proved in his evidence, the bail bond Ex.PW1/A and the forged document filed along therewith. The accused was arrested in the matter on 11.07.2001 and while in police custody he made disclosure statement (Ex.PW4/C) with regard to using forged FDR and ration card and he having stood false surety in the assumed name of Om Prakash before the court.
18. The Ld. APP has further argued that there is enough corroboration of the GEQD report with the other independent evidence in the matter.
19. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at Bar. In this case, it has been amply proved through evidence of PW1 that the accused had stood fake surety in his court and had furnished false surety bond in case FIR No. 530/99 u/s 379/411 IPC P S Kotwali and had secured bail for accused Ajay Dass. From the evidence of PW7 Sh. Bhairo Prasad, the branch manager of Dena Bank and his report Ex.PW7/A, it has State V/s Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 9 FIR No.87/2001: PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC DOD: 19.01.2011 been clearly proved by the prosecution that the FDR (Ex.PW1/B) used as genuine by the accused in court, in fact was a forged document. From the evidence of PW8 Sh. Raj Kumar Bajaj, it has been proved by the prosecution that the copy of the ration card used as genuine by the accused in the matter was also forged.
20. The law with regard to the Expert opinion to be used as evidence is now fairly settled. In case reported as AIR 2003 SC 282 titled as Alamgir Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), it has been held that : "it is unsafe to base conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration thereof from independent source."
21. In this case there is overwhelming evidence against the accused establishing his identity as fake surety, swearing false affidavit, giving false evidence, impersonation, cheating the court and using forged documents as genuine in judicial proceedings. The scientific evidence has corroborated the other evidence that accused was the one who had impersonated as Om Prakash and in that assumed character he had furnished the surety bond and had also sworn an affidavit therewith. Therefore, the GEQD report Ex.CW1, can be relied by this court in corroboration to the other evidence.
22. As regard the arguments of Ld. Defense counsel that the GEQD report in the matter has not been proved in accordance with law, I again do not find any substance therein. The GEQD opinion is admissible in evidence State V/s Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 9 FIR No.87/2001: PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC DOD: 19.01.2011 u/s 293 CrPC. The said report was received by the IO in this matter and was duly placed on record.
23. From the aforesaid discussions, it is clearly apparent that the prosecution has proved through cogent evidence the guilt of accused for offences punishable u/s 191/193/204/419/471 IPC. However, the prosecution has not been able to establish that it was the accused who had forged the FDR (Ex.PW1/B) and ration card (Mark A) as the handwriting on these documents was not sent to GEQD for comparing the same with specimen handwriting of accused and for giving opinion thereupon.
24. The accused accordingly stands convicted. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
25. Copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost.
Announced in the open court (Vinod Yadav)
on 19.01.2011. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Delhi
State V/s Suraj Prakash ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 9