Delhi District Court
State vs . Harpal & Ors. on 30 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MR. GAURAV SHARMA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Harpal & Ors.
FIR No. 17/2000
PS: Timarpur
U/s 420/468/471/473/120B IPC
a. Comp. ID No. of the case 290070/2016
b. Date of commission of offence. 10.01.2000
c. Date of institution of the case 10.01.2000
d. Name of complainant SI Tilak Chand
e. Name of accused ALIVE
1. Mohd. Salman
2.Suresh Lal
3.Surender@ Bittoo
4.K C Chandi
5.Jai Prakash
NOW DECEASED
1.Harpal Singh
2.Gaurav Sharma
3.Shankar Lal
4.Banarsi Dass Sharma
5.Unni Krishan
Digitally signed
Pg No. 1 of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV
SHARMA
SHARMA 2021.10.30
Date:
16:01:42 +05'30'
ABSCONDER
1.Rakesh Dhingra
f. Offence complained of U/s 420/468/471/473/120B IPC
g. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
h. Arguments heard on 08.10.21
i. Final order All accused Convicted
j. Date of judgement 30.10.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Pithily put, the case as per prosecution is that all the accused persons, acting in concert, entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat common people by preparing forged and had in their possession/fabricated certificates of various universities/boards, knowing them to be not genuine, purportedly signed by officials concerned, induced the decoy customer to purchase such fake degrees, thereby committing offences punishable U/s 420/468/471/473/120B IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Upon taking cognizance of the offence, accused persons were summoned and supplied copy of charge-sheet in compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charges were Pg No. 2 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30 16:02:08 +05'30' thereafter framed against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Rakesh Dhingra stands declared an absconder.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. of accused persons were recorded. At the time of recording of such statements, accused Harpal Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Shankar Lal and Uni Krishan had already expired. Subsequently, even accused Banarsi Dass Sharma passed away. No evidence was led in defense. Final arguments were thereafter led.
4. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and counsels for the accused persons, perused the record and have gone through the relevant provisions of the law.
5. At this juncture it is relevant to delineate the relevant provisions of law, which we shall be concerned with while appreciating the testimony on record :
• Section 415. Cheating. - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation. - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
Pg No. 3 of 22 Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30
16:02:29 +05'30'
• Section 420:- 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 • Section 464 Making a false document. - [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First. - Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of adocument;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of anyelectronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document orthe authenticity of the ][electronic signature].
With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly. - Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly. - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.] Explanation 1. - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Digitally signed Pg No. 4 of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30
16:02:50 +05'30'
Explanation 2. - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
[Explanation 3. - For the purpose of this section, the expression "affixing [electronic signature] shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.] • Section 468:- Forgery for purpose of cheating Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 471:- Using as genuine a forged document Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
• Section 473:- Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable otherwise Whoever makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for making an impression, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing any forgery which would be punishable under any section of this Chapter other than section 467, or, with such intent, has in his possession any such seal, plate or other instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy :
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the Digitally signed Pg No. 5 of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA 16:03:07 Date: 2021.10.30 +05'30' agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation. - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
• Section 120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. - (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
6. Having outlined the relevant provisions of law as above, it shall be proper to look at the allegations made against the accused in two parts, qua Sections falling under Chapter XVIII of the IPC, being 468/471/473 IPC on the one hand and qua Section 420/120B IPC on the other. This is so since the basis upon which the former category is to be established requires a common minimum ingredient to be made out first as a pre-requisite (there being a false document) and if it is indeed so established, then the same shall be utilized, together with the evidence on record, for the purposes of affixing criminality under the latter category.
7. The crux of the case against the accused persons is that they used to get prepared forged and fabricated degrees dubiously using fake rubber stamps and instruments of like nature and sell them off for consideration. As per the provisions of law outlined above, it is clear that unless a person is established to have made a false document or electronic record, Section 463 does not get attracted at all. In turn, the making of a "false document" itself, is dealt Digitally signed Pg No. 6 of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30 16:03:35 +05'30' with in Section 464 of the IPC. On the facts of the present case, one is not concerned with the categories of false documents identified under the heads "Secondly" and "Thirdly" of Section 464. What has been alleged by the prosecution is that the making of the fake/forged cheque by the accused in order to falsely claim the amount would fall within the "First" category under Section 464.The said "First" category of Section 464 makes it clear that anyone who dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, can be said to make a false document. Several judgments of the superior courts have time and again held that assuming dishonesty or fraud, the second ingredient of the "First" category of Section 464 is that the document itself must be made by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority the person who creates the forgery knows that it was not made. If the second ingredient is found missing, the offence of forgery is not made out at all.
8. In view of the above, making of any false document, considering the definition of "forgery" is the sine qua non. And in terms of Section 464 IPC, what is therefore necessary is to execute a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document, inter alia, was made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made.
Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
SHARMA
Pg No. 7 of 22 SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30
16:04:04 +05'30'
9. In Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI (2009) 15 SCC 643, the position in law was discussed at length and ultimately vouchers that were made dishonestly by employees of the bank concerned, to profit a co-accused were held not to be "false documents" within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC, as they were not made with the intention of causing it to be believed that the vouchers were made by or under the authority of somebody else. The facts necessary to attract Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC were set out by the Hon'ble SC therein as follows:
"3. Accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 in their capacity as public servants, were working in Fort Branch of Andhra Bank. They were charged with abuse of their position and acting dishonestly and fraudulently, as a result whereof undue pecuniary advantage is said to have been procured by Accused 3 by way of crediting banker's cheques without them having been presented or sent for clearance and, thus, cheating Andhra Bank and dishonestly permitting substantial withdrawals from his current account by Accused 3. They are said to have prepared false documents and used them as genuine ones, with the intention to defraud and falsify entries in the books of accounts of the Bank. They are also charged with entering into the criminal conspiracy, as they, having been entrusted with the property of Andhra Bank, prepared credit and debit vouchers in favor of Accused 3, authorizing credit of amounts of Digitally signed Pg No. 8 of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA 16:04:22 Date: 2021.10.30 +05'30' various cheques to the account of Accused 3 without having actually received any banker's cheques."
10. Given the facts as stated above, the Hon'ble SC held that Section 464 of the IPC was not attracted, reasoning as follows :
"164. A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said Section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else. The second criterion of the Section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore, in our opinion the second criterion of the said Section is also not applicable to the present case. The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e. because of Digitally signed Pg No. 9 of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30 16:04:43 +05'30' intoxication or unsoundness of mind, etc. Such is also not the case before us. Indisputably therefore the accused before us could not have been convicted with the making of a false document. 165. The learned Special Judge, therefore, in our opinion, erred in holding that the accused had prepared a false document, which clearly, having regard to the provisions of the law, could not have been done. 166. Further, the offence of forgery deals with making of a false document with the specific intentions enumerated therein. The said Section has been reproduced below. "463. Forgery.--Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
However, since we have already held that the commission of the said offence has not been convincingly established, the accused could not have been convicted for the offence of forgery. The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. [Vimla (Dr.) v. Delhi Admn. [AIR 1963 SC 1572] Accordingly, the accused could not have been tried for offence under Section 467 which deals with forgery of valuable securities, will, etc. or Section 471 i.e. using as genuine a forged document or Section 477-A i.e. Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA Pg No. 10 of 22 SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30 16:05:03 +05'30' falsification of accounts. The conviction of the accused for the said offences is accordingly set aside."
11. It is thus clear, that in the present case as well, the purported fake/forged degrees/certificates in question that are said to have been "created/issued"
by the accused persons, acting in concert, can indeed be regarded as "false document" under Section 464 of the IPC, in as much as they all had been made with the intention of causing them to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of some other person, being the respective institutions eligible to issues such degrees/certificates in question. All recoveries made from the accused persons are admissible u/s 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the manner and circumstances under which they were so recovered notwithstanding. And from the evidence adduced on record, they indeed have been found to be fake. Clearly in such a scenario therefore, all such degrees/certificates can be regarded as 'false document' within the meaning of Section 464 IPC and resultantly, the consequent provisions of law for forgery, that the accused persons are sought to be charged under in Chapter XVIII of the IPC are found to be invoked correctly given the evidence placed before the court.
12. Reliance for the above line of reasoning can also be placed upon the detailed judgment of the Hon'ble SC in Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and Another Versus Prasad Vassudev Keni, etc. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 707. Considering the Digitally signed Pg No. 11 of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA 2021.10.30 Date:
16:05:21 +05'30' totality of circumstances therefore, case of the prosecution against the accused persons u/s 468/471/473 IPC does seem to stand.
13. The above conclusion is borne out from the material on record as well, the evidence is found to be sufficient to secure a conviction of the accused persons. The same can be seen from a perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses which can be noted sequentially as follows.
14. PW1 Vishal Kumar, PW2 Amit Trikha and PW3 Naubbat Singh all resulted from their statements given to the police during investigation and were cross examined by the Ld. APP. In a case of the present kind however, where such people are alleged to have secured forged degrees from the accused persons, such conduct may not be considered entirely unnatural for fear of self-implication. The testimonies of such witnesses not sticking to the version of the prosecution does indeed level a hard blow to the case of the prosecution, but not enough to completely discard it's version, as brought out by other prosecution witnesses. Having said so, one among these three witnesses, PW3 Naubbat Singh, at least conceded that one of the accused persons Suresh did indeed approach him for preparing 3-4 metal blocks, which were duly made and handed over to the accused. The said deposition is inculpatory in nature and supports the prosecution version. The witness was not even cross examined on this aspect and therefore his such admission stands unrebutted, to the benefit of the prosecution.
Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
SHARMA
Pg No. 12 of 22 SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30
16:05:43 +05'30'
15. PW4 HC Som Pal Singh was a formal witness who deposed as to the factum of the registration of the subject FIR and the same is not disputed.
16. PW5 ASI Rambir Singh, one amongst raiding party witnesses, thereafter deposed and his version is rather instructive. He deposed as to receipt of information about selling of fake degrees and it's sharing with higher authorities. He then stated thereafter he alongwith Ct. Jitender had gone as decoy customers for purchase of the fake certificates to unravel the conspiracy. Such degrees as per the witness were agreed to be delivered for advance of Rs. 500/- at Patrachar Vidyalaya at 4pm. Such details were shared again with the higher authorities as per the witness and a raiding party was made which ultimately caught the accused persons purporting to hand over the fake degrees red handed. The witness then narrated in lucid detail, as to how the other accused persons were caught one after the other, spread across over a period of time, at the instance of the already accused persons at each stage, and in the process, how several fake degrees were recovered from them at the time of each such apprehension. The witness was thereafter cross examined but nothing could be extracted out of him of such substantial nature, which could be said to have dislodged, either any part of his deposition or the otherwise overall case of the prosecution. Most of the cross examination concentrated on enquiring about the specific times/dates of various events as they occurred, which were though not always replied to Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA Pg No. 13 of 22 SHARMA 2021.10.30 Date:
16:06:01 +05'30' with exactitude by the witness, but which nevertheless can not be said to have undermined the facts as narrated by the witness on material aspects. The other major thrust of the cross examination of the witness on the aspect of non-inclusion of public witnesses at stage. It is true that the credibility of investigation gets increased by virtue of such inclusion but it equally, nowhere it is stated to be the case that if such public witnesses are not examined, the evidence collected, otherwise credible, can be completely discarded. The nature of investigation, the promptness/alacrity required for conducting the same, the delay that may be caused in getting joined public witnesses etc. are several factors which may lean in favor of adjudging the non examination of public witnesses not entirely unreasonable in fit circumstances. This court is of the opinion that the facts of the case did pose one such scenario where non inclusion of public witnesses at every stage of a complex investigation can be said to have vitiated the evidence collected. The accused persons cannot be therefore said to have accrued any advantage in this regard as to their involvement. What is instead more important is that the witness was never cross examined, with equal vigor, as to the recoveries of fake certificates/degrees made from several of the accused persons. The same was crucial for the accused persons to demolish the case of the state, but not to be. No recovery was sufficiently challenged to suggest that they were either not fake or not so recovered and were planted. In such circumstances, from the testimony of the witness, the Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA 16:06:21 Date: 2021.10.30 +05'30' Pg No. 14 of 22 charges under the forgery and conspiracy to cheat by preparation of fake stamps get proved, remaining more or less un-impugned.
17. PW6 SI Devender was a summoned witness to produce record of DD entry no. 4,11,12 and 16 dated 09.01.2000. The same was however not brought as having been already destroyed vide official process. The said witness therefore cannot be said to have entailed any advantage to the case of the accused persons.
18. PW7 Insp. K G Tyagi, Incharge Raiding Party stated in his examination that upon receipt of information about the alleged racket indulging in issuing fake degrees/certificates to different people, he gave directions for the lead to be developed and on 10.01.2000 further directed the IO herein SI Tilak Chand prepare a raiding party to nab the accused persons. The said witness was cross examined but practically noting contradictory was extracted out from him, thereby confirming the turn of events as they unfolded as to the raid conducted which ultimately resulted in the arrest of the accused persons. The said testimony also therefore plugs together the version of the prosecution one step further against the accused persons.
19. PW8 HC Tajinder Singh deposed about depositing the sealed pulinda containing some of the the alleged forged/fake degrees/certificates at Punjab School Education Board, Mohali and Punjab University, Chandigarh.
Pg No. 15 of 22 Digitally signedGAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30 16:06:40 +05'30' It is to be noted here that the said witness was not cross examined on the aspect of tampering even one bit. In such a scenario, the recovery made stands fortified and the subsequent confirmation obtained for the same as being fake also assumes credibility, to the benefit of the case set up by the prosecution.
20. PW9 Ravinder Singh assumes importance as a witness as he confirmed the substratum of transactions of forgery as alleged against the accused persons acting in concert. He stated that he had failed in class 12th and one person by the name of Bhupinder told him that he could secure for him pass certificate for class 12thfor which he introduced the witness to one of the accused persons Rakesh, who took Rs. 4500/- and delivered to him the certificate, as promised. Copy of the said certificate was also produced and placed on case file. The version of the witness clearly established the factum of forgery practiced by the accused persons, acting by way of conspiracy as their modus operandi. Other than pointing out that the original of such certificate was not in record, the witness was not cross examined on any other material aspect, thereby knitting together the prosecution story even further.
21. PW10 Giriraj Sharma appeared on behalf of Sh. H R Khayumaria, Assistant Passport Officer, RPO, Bhikaji Cama Place, R K Puram, Delhi as he had expired. The witness identified the signatures of the deceased on the report filed by him as to confirmation of fake documents, Ex. PW10/A and proved Pg No. 16 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA 2021.10.30 Date:
16:06:58 +05'30' the same. In the cross examination of the witness, no contradiction was brought to the fore, which again can be said to have confirmed the factum of forgery, as alleged against the accused persons.
22. PW11 Kulwant Singh also similarly was summoned to produce the record as to the verification of qualification letters issued by the CBSE for confirmation of the allegedly fake degrees/certificates. The said record was however stated to have been destroyed.
23. PW12 Ms. Rita was thereafter examined for proving the verification of stamps recovered, as being used to run the racket of issuing fake degrees/certificates. The witness seemed unsure as to the seals therein, but it's attention was drawn to such seal impressions taken by HC Ravi on 07.03.2020 Ex. PW12/B and Ex. PW12/C containing her signatures. Even then, the witness did not confirm the documents to bear her seal impressions. Be that as it may, the report furnished Ex. PW12/A was not disputed and as such, the factum of the certificates/degrees being fake stood reaffirmed.
24. PW13 SI Ravi Dutt was examined and he deposed as to going to GEQD, Hyderabad and depositing the questioned documents alongwith specimen signatures of the accused persons. The witness further stated that they had also visited Indian Womens P Q College Dist. Tunkoor Karnataka and got Pg No. 17 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30 16:07:18 +05'30' verified the recovered rubber stamps Ex. PW12/B and Ex. PW12/C. Subsequently, the witness stated that they visited Trivandrum, Kerala Office of Commissioner Government Examination, Pariskha Bhawan and got verified the rubber stamps of the Office of Secretary Board of Public Examination, Kerala and obtained report Ex. PW13/A. All such reports were handed over to the IO with the report from GEQD Hyderabad having come later. It is to be noted that no part of deposition of such witness was objected to in cross examination. In such scenario, whatever doubt, as may have arisen in view of the testimony of PW 12 noted above, got cleared as the witness herein stuck to his version. Given the same, the version of the prosecution got fortified one step further.
25. PW14 Sh. Kainthola was examined next as being Section Officer CBSE at the time. He also proved the verification report given Ex. PW14/A and the statement of verification of documents Ex. PW14/B, which were prepared after due verification from old records of candidates. Attested copy of such record upon which the reports were prepared were taken in record as PW14/C. The same was objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. However, tis court is of the view that there was no legal impediment in taking such documents on record after obtaining permission. Considering the same, the objection raised is hereby discarded. The witness even identified the signatures of Ms. Beeru Kora, who had given verification report regarding particulars of marks obtained by give candidates Ex. PW14/D and Digitally signed Pg No. 18 of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30 16:07:35 +05'30' statement of verification from Regional Office at Delhi Ex. PW14/E. The witness was not cross examined as to any of the stated particulars and therefore, the allegation levelled against the accused persons got ratified even more in view of his deposition remaining insufficiently challenged.
26. PW ASI Jitender Singh, another member of the raiding party was examined. He reiterated the version of the prosecution in substantial detail as to the meeting the secret informer for the lead obtained as to the office in question, and apprising about the same to the superior authorities. He then deposed as to the raid that was subsequently conducted and the manner in which the accused persons, one after the other were apprehended. The witness thereafter seemed to be resuming from his previous version and was cross examined by the Ld. APP. Upon such cross examination, he stated and confirmed most of the version of the prosecution, consistent with the overall case. It is important to note that even though the witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP, the witness therefore gave consistent testimony. He confirmed that the statements given during investigation by him was indeed the correct version. More importantly, he identified himself to be the witness of all the seizure memos, identifying the documents noted serial wise in examination of the witness dated 03.09.2019 (46 documents) All case property produced by the MHC(M) was correctly identified by the witness as well, being stamps used for the offences of forgery Ex. X1, X2, X3. As prolix as the examination in chief of the witness was, it is important to note that Pg No. 19 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30 16:07:54 +05'30' the witness was not cross examined on any material aspect. It is noteworthy that it may be argued that since the witness initially seemed to resile from his previous version, his testimony may not be as trustworthy. The said argument however does not cut much ice for two reasons. One, upon cross examination of the witness, he did not deny any suggestion made to him as to the correctness of any and all documents seized and investigation done as put forth by the prosecution. Two, it is also settled that the testimony of a witness who resiles from his previous version has to be discarded in toto. The part of such testimony which is inculpatory and can be corroborated from the other evidence available on record, can still be relied upon. Given such position in law, the version of the witness is found to be corroborating the other evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and is hence, found to be admissible to such extent as found consistent with other testimony available on record. The entire evidence cannot be discarded in full and the part which is found to be reliable, goes against the version of the accused persons.
27. Finally, IO/PW16 SI Tilak Chand was examined. He deposed on similar lines, with each detail, on lines as is the case of the prosecution with all details. During his cross examination, it is found that by and large, his version remained intact. Exact timings of things as they happened were not recalled by the witness, but that is not something that is prejudicial to the prosecution version. Further, the witness's credibility was also sought to be impeached Pg No. 20 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA 16:08:12 Date: 2021.10.30 +05'30' on account of him not including public witnesses at various stages of the investigation. However, the said aspect, as being not entirely detrimental to the version of the state, has already been alluded to and discussed above in the testimony of PW5 ASI Rambir Singh and need not be related. The said line of objection therefore does not help the defense of the accused with other evidence supporting the prosecution version available on record for corroboration. Other than this, the witness was not cross examined on any other material aspects, apart from giving suggestions which were all denied. All in all therefore, the version of the witness/IO seemed to remain in sync with the case of the prosecution, implicating the accused persons.
28. As can be seen from the above therefore, there is clear-cut evidence on record which could be said to have established, with precision, as to the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons qua the offences alleged. The prosecution can be said to have stood it's ground as to its case against the accused persons.
29. The above analysis clearly depicts that there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons to form opinion of guilt against them. In a criminal trial the guilt of the accused person has to be established beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has succeeded in doing so. Consequently, accused Md. Salman is convicted for the offences u/s 120B IPC, 420/120B IPC, 468/120B IPC and 471/120B IPC, accused Suresh Lal for offences u/s 473 IPC, Pg No. 21 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.10.30 16:08:31 +05'30' 120B IPC, 420/120B IPC, 468/120B IPC and 471/120B IPC, accused Surender@ Bitto for offences u/s 473 IPC, 120B IPC, 420/120B IPC, 468/120B IPC and 471/120B IPC, accused K C Chandi for the offences u/s 473 IPC, 120B IPC, 420/120B IPC, 468/120B IPC and 471/120B IPC and accused Jai Prakash for the offences u/s 473 IPC, 120B IPC, 420/120B IPC, 468/120B IPC and 471/120B IPC. (Accused persons Harpal Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Shankar Lal, Banarsi Dass Sharma and Uni Krishan have already expired and proceedings against them stand abated. Finally, accused Rakesh Dhingra already stands an absconder) Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA 16:08:52 Date: 2021.10.30 +05'30' Announced in the open (GAURAV SHARMA) Court on 30.10.2021 Metropolitan Magistrate-05 Central District/THC/Delhi Judge Code: DL00855 Pg No. 22 of 22