Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil Kumar Dhuriya on 24 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AASHISH GUPTA, ACMM
NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR Case No: 3243/2018
STATE Vs. SUNIL KUMAR DHURIYA
FIR No: 112 /2014
PS: SoniaVihar
1. FIR No. of the case : 112/2014
2. Date of commission of offence : 23.03.2014
3. Date of institution of the case : 21.12.2018
4. Name of the complainant/informant: Krishan Kant Sharma
5. Name of accused & address : Sunil Kumar Dhuriya
S/o Ram Ugrah Dhuriya
R/o Gonde Gaon Colony, Qtr
No. 35/4, Tehsil Pareoni Distt.
6. Offence charged with : 419/120B/511 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. .
8. Date of final arguments : 24.06.2023
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10. Date of Judgement : 24.06.2023.
JUDGEMENT:
1. It is the case of the prosecution herein that accused had State Vs. Sunil Kumar Dhuriya FIR no. 112/2014 Sonia Vihar Page no. 1/8 entered into a criminal conspiracy with an unknown person and thereafter, the said unknown person appeared in the physical test held on unknown date for the post of Temporary Constable (Dog Handler) in Delhi Police in his stead by impersonating accused Sunil Kumar Dhuriya and his bio- metric data/finger prints were captured on the said date. It is further alleged, that again in pursuance to the said conspiracy, on 23.03.2014, accused had dishonestly and fraudulently attempted to appear in written examination for Recruitment of Temporary Constable (Dog Handler) in Delhi Police for which his associate had already appeared in the physical examination of the said exam and cleared the same . At the time of bio- metric verification accused Sunil Kumar Dhuriya was caught as his bio- metric did not match with the recorded bio metric available with the examining authorities. Based on the aforesaid allegation, accused Sunil Kumar Dhuriya was arrested at the spot and has been charge sheeted u/s 419/420 IPC.
2. Accused appeared before this Court and after compliance under Section 207 IPC, charges U/s 419/120B/511 IPC qua accused were framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To discharge its onus, prosecution examined four witnesses. A brief summary of prosecution evidence is as follows: -
Sr. No. Witness name Witness Remarks no.
1 Krishan Kant PW-1 He was posted as biometric Incharge on State Vs. Sunil Kumar Dhuriya FIR no. 112/2014 Sonia Vihar Page no. 2/8 Sharma the date of incident (he did not remember the exact date, month and year) at PTS Wazirabad and was present for biometric checking of the candidates. He claimed that during checking, finger prints of one of the candidates did not match with the records and he had apprehended the said candidate and handed over him to the police. During his cross-examination by Ld. APP he submitted that he cannot identify the accused who was apprehended by him, due to lapse of time. He also failed to identity the admit card Mark-X in the name of Sunil Kumar Dhuriya bearing No. 716513 as the one which was recovered by him from the possession of accused on the date of incident.
2. HC Manoj PW-2 Ist IO of this case. He claimed that on Kumar 23.03.2014 he alongwith Ct. Virender were on duty at PTS Wazirabad, F-Ground where the examination of Delhi Police Exe Dog Handler was being conducted. He claimed that Biometric Incharge Sh. K.K. Sharma called him and told him that finger prints of one candidate namely Sunil were not matching with the bio matrics record and Sh. K.K. Sharma had handed over the custody of accused alongwith admit card to him. He seized the said admit card and conducted further investigation of the case. He identified the accused in the Court.
3. Sh. Sudhir PW-3 On 01.04.2016 he received the present case Bhalla, for comparison of the biometric report of Sunil Fingerprint Kumar Dhuriya with his computer generated Expert. finger print search slip. After comparing the same, he prepared the detailed report.
4. ASI Ravinder PW-4 IO of the case. He prepared the charge-sheet Kumar and filed the same in the Court.
State Vs. Sunil Kumar Dhuriya FIR no. 112/2014 Sonia Vihar Page no. 3/8
4. Prosecution has also relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Items Exhibits
1 Statement of Krishan Kant Sharma, Bio-metric Ex. PW1/A
Incharge recorded by IO.
2. Rukka of present case. Ex. PW2/A
3 Site plan of the spot. Ex. PW2/B
4. Seizure memo of admit card No. 716513. Ex. PW1/C
5. Seizure memo of biometric record of Sunil Kumar Ex. PW1/D Dhuriya.
6 Arrest memo of accused. Ex. PW1/B
7. Personal search memo of accused. Ex. PW2/C
8. Disclosure statement of accused. Ex. PW2/D
9. Report of comparison of biometric report of Sunil Ex. PW3/A Kumar Dhuriya with his computer generated finger print slip.
10. Admit card. Mark X
11. Finger print slip (8 pages). Ex. Y
12. Biometric record (4 pages). Ex. Z
13. Copy of FIR (without contents) (admitted by Ex. A1 accused).
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
6. Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and he had denied all the allegations and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He claimed that he himself had appeared in the physical examination of the exam for the post of Temporary Constable (Dog State Vs. Sunil Kumar Dhuriya FIR no. 112/2014 Sonia Vihar Page no. 4/8 Handler) in Delhi Police and he again went for the written exam on 23.03.2014. He further claimed that he had a verbal argument regarding the arrangements at the centre, because of which the examining authorities got annoyed and falsely implicated him in this case. He also claimed that he was physically fit and thus, there was no need for him to enter into any conspiracy as alleged and his identification marks were duly matched at the time of physical exam. Accused has not led any evidence in his defence.
7. I have heard final arguments and have perused the record.
8. Now to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW1/Krishan Kant Sharma (complainant/sole eye witness of the case) and that of the IO/PW2 HC Manoj Bhati.
9. It is pertinent to note that when PW1 stepped in the witness box he could not remember the facts of the case due to lapse of time and did not even identify the accused as the person who had given his bio-metrics at the examination center on the date of examination i.e 23.03.2014. It is pertinent to note that IO had cited only PW1 as the sole eye witness of the case as this witness had caught accused at the spot as the person whose finger prints did not match with the records, during bio-metric checking. Failure of this witness to say anything of record with respect to the case setup by the prosecution or his failure to even identify accused or the admit card, in my opinion, is fatal to the prosecution's story.
State Vs. Sunil Kumar Dhuriya FIR no. 112/2014 Sonia Vihar Page no. 5/8
10. Even otherwise, as per prosecution, accused had conspired to cause an unknown person to appear in his physical examination. IO has not bothered to collect any evidence with respect to date, time or place of the said physical examination conducted by Delhi Police. As per the initial complaint, the finger prints of the accused did not match with the earlier recorded finger prints of the accused and on the basis of the same, complainant/PW-1 suspected that possibly in the earlier physical examination, someone else appeared instead of the accused. But, neither the said earlier finger prints collected at the time of physical examination are part of record nor the date or time or place of the said physical examination is borne out from the record. It means that the IO has not bothered to find out as to which candidate actually appeared in the physical examination or even the date, time or place of the same. The entire case of the prosecution is dependent on one FSL report Ex. PW3/A (as per which the questioned signatures of accused did not match with the other finger prints of the accused). But, it is pertinent to note that when and where were the specimen finger prints of the accused taken is not clear from the record. It appears that one Mark B (prints of all 10 hand digits of the accused taken on 23.03.2014 itself) and one Mark A (prints of right and left index fingers and right and left thumb taken on the same date) were sent for FSL examination and the said prints were found to be non-identical. But, if both the said prints were taken on the same day, it cannot be said that some other candidate had appeared in the earlier physical examination conducted before 23.03.2014. It is pertinent to note that mark B is an undated document and is titled as 'candidate biometric report'. It appears that these are the thumb/finger impressions taken by the biometric State Vs. Sunil Kumar Dhuriya FIR no. 112/2014 Sonia Vihar Page no. 6/8 machine on 23.03.2014. In my opinion, to prove the allegations against the accused qua conspiracy and/or impersonation and/or attempt to cheat etc, the earlier finger prints of the candidate taken at the time of physical examination (i.e. prior to 23.03.2014) should have been sent for comparison to FSL alongwith the finger prints captured on 23.03.2014). Again, the said finger prints captured on 23.03.2014 should have been put to PW-1 (he being the witness who captured the finger prints of the candidate/accused on 23.03.2014 with the help of biometric machine) so that the finger prints taken on 23.03.2014 would have been admissible in evidence. In the present case, it appears that both Mark B and Mark A were taken on 24.03.2014 and 23.03.2014 respectively ( Mark B being finger prints slip of accused with complete case particulars and Mark A being candidate biometric report) and therefore, atleast from the record it appears that the earlier biometric finger prints captured on the physical examination day were not sent for FSL examination.
11. It can be argued that Mark B bears the date of 24.03.2014 as it is a print out taken on the said date by the IO. If that be the case, this fact should have been stated by the IO and necessary certificate U/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act should have been filed by the IO and proved on record so as to make Mark B admissible in evidence. If I presume that Mark B is only a print out, in the absence of any certificate U/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act, the said document has not been proved on record as per law. This document being thus inadmissible in law cannot be relied upon by prosecution, who argued that the finger prints contained on Mark B did not match with finger prints contained on Mark A. If Mark B is inadmissible, the State Vs. Sunil Kumar Dhuriya FIR no. 112/2014 Sonia Vihar Page no. 7/8 FSL report Ex. PW3/A is also rendered inadmissible as Mark B forms the basis of the said report.
12. Again, as already noted, for reasons best known to the IO, he did not even bother to find out the date, time or place of the physical examination [where the first limb of the alleged conspiracy to cause appearance of some other person (instead of the accused) in the physical examination took place]. He did not even procure any CCTV footage qua the same. The very document i.e. the FSL report Ex. PW3/A which forms the entire basis of the prosecution's case is not admissible in evidence. Even the sole eye-witness has not identified the accused before this Court.
13. Thus, if I take a holistic view of the case, prosecution has failed to collect the relevant evidence in this case and infact, its witnesses have also not supported its case. If that be the case, there is only one conclusion which can be drawn in this case. The prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of bringing home the guilt of either of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Neither the ingredients of section 419 IPC and/or section 120 B IPC and/or 511 IPC have been proved before this court and accordingly the accused herein is entitled to be acquitted in this case with respect to the offences alleged against him. It is ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed by AASHISH AASHISH GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2023.06.24 16:27:14 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AASHISH GUPTA On 24.06.2023 ACMM (NORTH EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Sunil Kumar Dhuriya FIR no. 112/2014 Sonia Vihar Page no. 8/8