Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajinder Mandal & Ors. on 1 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR STATE VS. Rajinder Mandal & Ors. FIR NO. 378/2004 PS: NDRS U/S: 420/467/468/47 1/47 4/34 IPC JUDGMENT
CIS No. : 289751/2016 Date of commission of offence : 23.09.2004 Date of institution of the case : 20.11.2004 Name of the complainant : Sh. Subhas Nirmal Name of accused and address : (1) Rajinder Mandal S/o Sh. Sarju Mandal, R/o H. No. B-6/60, Rahul Garden, Behta Hazipur, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. (2) Doodh Nath Yadav S/o Sh. Gokul Yadav, R/o H. No. B-75, Gali No. 16, Jagatpuri Extension, Delhi -93 (3) Ram Babu S/o Sh, Sita Ram, Rio H. No. B-71, Gali No. 16, Jagatpuri, Shahdara, Delhi-93.
(4) Pyare Lal é tate ¥s Rajinder Mandal & Ors. -- PSy NORS Page 12d FIR No. 3278/2004, -- State ff . 0 ee se S/o Sh. Hari Lal Yadav, R/o Village Suithakhurd, PS Khuthan, Distt.
Jaunpur, U-P. Offence complained of or proved : U/s 420/467 /468/47 1/474/34 IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Final order : Acquitted Date on which reserved for judgment: 01.07.2020 Date of judgment | : 01.07.2020 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1, This is the prosecution of accused persons pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS Railway Main Delhi U/s 420/467/468/471/474/34 IPC subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No.378/2004.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the TTE Subhash Nirmal was on checking duty on 23.09.2004 at 02:15PM alongwith other TTEs Ajay Mishra and Dharampal Singh at East Foot over Bridge. During the said checking when he asked a passenger to show the tickets the passenger has shown a paper ticket bearing No. 977828 which was till Ghonda Junctions. The ticket was fake and forged one as apparent from looking at the same from bare eyes as it was not having water mark of Indian Railways. On suspicion, the said passenger whose name revealed as Ram Babu was inquired, on that he told the complainant that he had purchased this ticket from his known person namely Rajinder Kumar Mandal who fives in Jagatpuri, Delhi. It is apprised that he has purchased that ticket for Rs. 90/-. It was stated by accused Ram Babu that he had used such tickets on a number of occasion. While the railway staff was interrogating accused Ram Babu, in the meantime HC Ram Avtar reached FIR No. 378/2004 State Vs Rafinder Mandal & Ors. iM" Page 2/24 the spot. Accused Ram Babu was handed over to HC Ram Avtar alongwith forged ticket. During investigation police took accused Ram Babu to H. No. B-200, Gali No. 7, Jagatpuri from where accused Rajinder Mandal was apprehended who got recovered from a almirah in his house 9 forged tickets bearing S. No. 977748 to 977756 on each tickets the words "two adult only Delhi to Jaunpur" were written. The tickets were having stamp of Ticket Ghar, Narela, Northern Railway, he also got recovered 53 blank railway tickets having S. No. 977800 ta 977825, 978133 to 978157 and S. No. 977825 to 977827. He also got recovered two rubber stamps bearing mark of Ticket Ghar, Narela, Northern Railway and Northern Railway Jaunpur. The said articles were seized. Accused Rajender Mandal disclosed about the involvement of accused Pyare Lal. Thereafter, Accused Pyare Lal was also apprehended, Pyare lal got recovered from a briefcase kept in his room following articles i.e railway tickets bearing No. 978036 and 978039 on these tickets words "two adults from Delhi to Jaunpur" were written and stamp of Northern Railway was affixed. He also got recovered 15 blank ticket papers having S. No. 978117 to 978131. On the disclosure of accused Pyare Lal and accused Rajinder, accused Dood Nath Yadav was also apprehended from his house. Accusede Doodh Nath got recovered from the pillow kept in his room four paper tickets issued from Jaunpur bearing S. No. 978043 to 9778046. He also got recovered 20 blank railway tickets having S. No. 977829 to 977849, the same were stamped with the stamp of Northern Railway, Narela. They were also bearing words "two adult male". There was no date on the tickets. However, the sare were from Delhi to Jaunpur in the name of Dood Nath. All the recovered tickets were sent for checking to Northern Railway ticket printing press at Shakurpur Basti. From the result it was revealed that the said tickets were not printed by the Northern Railway. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused persons for commission of offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/47 1/474/34 of IPC.
FIR No. 379/204, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors. PS: NPRS Page 3/24a
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused persons. After hearing arguments, charges for offence punishable under section 420/467/468/471/474/34 of IPC were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4, The prosecution in support of their case has examined twelve witnesses in total.
5. PW-1 HC Raijbir Singh exhibited copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PVV/1/B bearing his signature at point A. 6, PW-2 Sh. Ajay Mishra deposed that he was on duty as TTE alongwith Subhash Nirmal and Dharampal Singh. They were checking tickets at around 02:15PM, at East Foot Over Bridge one person had shown one blank paper ticket on that colleague of this witness got suspicious as the ticket was not bearing the water mark of Indian Railway.
On inquiry that persons stated that he bought the ticket for Rs. 90/- from one Rajinder Mandal. It is stated by that persons that he had traveled a number of time on the similar tickets which he got from his friend Rajinder Mandal and he also disclosed his name as Ram Babu. This witness identified the forged ticket Ex. P1 which was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. In his cross examination, it is stated by him that he and his colleague Subhash Nirmal were standing at a short distance as they were checking the passengers coming from both the directions. It is stated that Subhash Nirmal demanded ticket from accused, it is stated that he was not with Subhash Nirmal when he asked for ticket. it is stated that their Chief Ticket Officer allocated the place of railway station for checking the ticket. It is stated that their attendance were marked in the register. He could not tell if accused Ram Babu was having FIR No. 378/2004, State Vs Re. finder Mandal & Ors. a Page 4/24 Vs any luggage. It is stated by him that he has no extra qualification to examine the forged and genuine ticket. Though it is stated that he in routine examine the tickets and can tell the difference between forged and genuine.
7. PYV-3 Sh. Subhash Nirmal deposed that an 23.09.2004 he was posted as TTE at CTI/Station Deihi. On that day, he alongwith Dharampal! and Ajay were checking tickets at East Foot Over Bridge at about 02:15PM, accused Ram Babu (correctly identified by the witness in the court) produced one blank paper ticket. This witness could not tell the ticket number. It is stated by him that the said ticket was upto Ghonda junction and was looking like a fake tickel as the same was not having water mark of indian Railway. On inquiry, accused Ram Babu apprised this witness that he has taken the ticket from one of his friend living in Jagatpuri, Delhi. Thereafter, this witness called police officials and handed over accused Ram Babu and forged ticket to [0 who seized the same vide memo ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at paint B. itis stated that lO recorded his statament which Ex PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. This witness correctly identified the said fake Ucket as Ex. P14. In js cross examination, itis stated by him that his duly hours were from 09:00AM to 05:00PM. He could not tell the exact time about the roaster of his duty changing time. It is admitted by him that public persons were coming and going at the spot. It is stated by him that they were standing at platform No. 11. Again said at platform No. 17/12. It is stated that the Satyagrah train was scheduled to Gonda and the departure of the train was at 05:30PM. It is stated that said train used to go regularly. He demanded ticket from accused. He does not remember if accused was holding any luggage or not. It is stated by him that a number of persons were gathered there. It ig stated by him that his duty hours and the cuty hours of Ajay Mishra were same. ft is stated that they stayed at bridge for about 40minutes and written work was done during this period of 10 minutes only. [tis stated that they all signed the seizure memo of the said ticket. It EIR No. 79/2004, State ¥s Rajinder Mandal & Ors. = PS' NORS Page 5/24 ' Lf is admitted by this witness that except three of them no one else had signed the said document. It is stated that it was his routine duty to examine the tickets to see if the same were forged or genuine. It is stated that he was never called in police station for recording of his statement. { is denied by him that accused Ram Babu had never gone to railway station.
8. PW-4 Ct. Lal Ram exhibited the entry regarding departure of staff as Ex. PW4/A (colly) (OSR).
9, PW-5 Sh. R.V. Singh deposed that in the year 2004 he was posted as AMM, Printing Press, Shakur Basti. It is stated that police officials handed over some blank ticket for verification. After taking advice of printing and technical officer of printing press he made his opinion that the said tickets were not printed in Northern Railway Printing Press. He exhibited his opinion as Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. it is stated by him that total number of ticket were 107, photocopy of the original tickets were sent to him by the !O for taking his opinion. This witness could not tell whether the technician can give his opinion on the basis of examination of photocopy of a documents or not. It is admitted by him that he had given a report on the basis of the advice given by his technical officer. It is admitted by him that Ex. PW5/A does not bear signatures of any technical officer.
40. PW-6 HC Rishi Pal deposed that on 12.10.2004 he took 41 sheets documents to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 99/21 after delivering the same in FSL. Rohini. He handed over the receipt to MHC (M). It is stated that the case property i.e. aforesaid documents were not tempered till the time the same remain in his possession, He marked the copy of RC as Mark X,
41. PW-7 Ct. Tilak Raj deposed that on 23.09.2004 he was posted as FIR. No. 3768/2004, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors. PS: NORS Page 6/24 Constable at PS Old Delhi Railway Station and his duty hours were from 08:00AM to 08:00PM at about 02:45PM, he was on patrolling duty near Foot Over Bridge East where he met HC Ram Avtar and ticket checker Ajay, Dharampal and Subhash Nirmal. It is stated that HC Ram Avtar handed over the tehrir Ex. PW2/A to him for registration of FIR on that he left the spot for police station and handed over the said tehrir to duty officer for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, copy of FIR was given to him which is already Ex. PW2/A which was handed over by him alongwith tehrir to ASI Ashok Kumar for further investigation.
12. Testimony of PW-8 ASI Ashok Kumar could not be completed due to his health condition, no opportunity was given to the accused person to cross examine this witness. Hence, his part testimony cannot be read in evidence. Thus, not reproduced here.
13. PW-S ASI Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 23.09.2004 he was posted as Constable at PS ODRS. On that day, he alongwith ASI Ashok Kumar, Ct. Lal Bahadur, Ct. Kishan Pal went to spot i.e. East Foot Over Bridge where they met HC Ram Avtar, TTE Ajay Mishra, Subhash Nirmal and Dharampa! Singh. They handed over accused Ram Babu (correctly identified by the witness in the court). It is stated that in the meantime Ct. Tilak Raj came to spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. Thereafter, |O prepared the seizure memo of paper ticket bearing No. 977828 which is Ex. PW2/A. lO recorded statement of TTEs. |O arrested accused Ram Babu vide memo Ex. PW8/J bearing his signature at point B. [O recorded disclosure statement of accused Ram Babu which is Ex. PW8/A bearing signature of this witness at point B. Thereafter, accused Ram Babu took them to the house of accused Rajinder Mandal situated at H. No. B/200, Gali No. 7, Jagatpuri, Dethi. It is stated that accused Ram Babu apprised the IO that certain tickets are kept in almirah and thereafter from the said almirah accused Rajinder Mandal (correctly identified by the witness in the court) took out some paper tickets FIR No. 378/2004, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors. ul Page W/24 yy bearing S. No. 977748 to 977756 on which "two adults only Delhi to Jaunpur" and "Narela Uttar Railway" seal was affixed. It is stated that some plain tickets were also produced by accused Rajinder Mandal. It is stated that accused Rajinder Mandal also produced two stamps of Narela, Uttar Railway and Uttar Railway Jaunpur alongwith one stamp pad. It is stated that 10 sealed the same with the seal of AP and the same were seized vide memo Ex. PW9/A bearing his signature at point A. lO arrested the accused Rajinder Mandal vide memo Ex. PW8/! and his disclosure statement is Ex. PW8/B. It is stated that accused Rajinder Mandal disclosed that he had handed over some tickets to one Pyare Lal Yadav. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Pyare Lal Yadav (correctly identified by this witness in the court) situated at B-3-431, Gali No. 1, Nand Nagri, Delhi. It is stated that from the house of accused Pyare Lal some blank and some prepared tickets bearing NO. 978036 to 978039 on which words "two adults from Delhi to Jaunpur" were written and the stamp of 'Narela Uttar Railway" was affixed. It is stated that the blank tickets recovered were bearing No. 978117 to 978131 and the stamp of "Narela Uttar Railway" was affixed which were seized vide memo Ex. PW9/B. Accused Pyare Lal was arrested vide memo Ex. PW8/G and his disclosure statement is Ex. PW8/C bearing signatures of this witness at point B on each document. It is stated that accused Pyare Lal disclosed that some more such tickets can be recovered from the house of one Doodh Nath Yadav (correctly identified by the witness in the court). Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Doodh Nath Yadav situated at B-61, Gali No. 14, 30feet road, Jagatpuri, Delhi. It is stated that from the house of accused Doodh Nath railway tickets bearing No. 978043 to 978046 of Rs. 380/- on which "Uttar Railway Jaunpur' seal was affixed and 21 blank tickets bearing No. 977829-977849 bearing seal of "Narela Uttar Railway"
were recovered. The said tickets were seized vide memo Ex. PW9/C bearing signatures of this witness at point B. Accused Doodh Nath Yadav was arrested vide memo Ex. PW8/H and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW8/D. This witness identified the stamp pad, two rubber seals recovered from accused persons. The stamp pad is Ex. P2, FIR No. 378/2004, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors. -- PS: NORS Page 8/24 yond va seal are Ex. P3, Ex. P4 and pullanda is Ex. P65, ticket bearing No. 977828 is Ex. P1, recovered blank tickets are Ex. P6 (colly) and the carbon copy of tickets and blank tickets which were sent to FSL for expert opinion are Ex. P7 (colly). In his cross examination, it is stated by him that on receiving information at about 04:20PM, they reached the spot in about 10-15 minutes. {tis admitted by him that many public persons were passing over the bridge and were making inquiry. However, JO did not give any written notice to any of such public person. It is stated that 1|O recorded statement of TTE, Ct. Tilak Raj in presence of this witness after 15-20 minutes on reaching the spot. It is stated that |O recorded disclosure statement of accused Ram Babu at the spot. It is stated that they remain at foot over bridge for about 1-1 % hours. It is stated that they went to the house of other accused persons in a Government vehicle. However, this witness could not tell the registration number of the said vehicle. It is stated by him that no family members of accused met them at the time of raid in the house of accused persons. lt is admitted by him that the house of accused persons were situated in congested residential area. It is stated that he did not join any neighbour in the investigation. It is denied that nothing incriminating was recovered from accused persons. It is stated that they returned to their office at about 12:00 midnight. It is stated that he does not remember whether IO had given information to the concerned police station qua the recovery and arrest of accused persons. It is stated that no assistance of local police was taken. It is denied by him that one Mewa Lal was apprehended by the police officials. It is denied by him that the then DCP Crime & Railways released a Press Note regarding apprehension of Mewa Lal and Manju.
14. PW-10 HC Ishwar Prasad exhibited entry No. 2111 in register No. 19 as Ex. PWIO/A. It is stated that on 12.10.2004 vide RC No, 99/21/04, the case property was sent to FSL and copy of the same is Ex. PW10/B (OSR). It is stated that on 13.03.2006, Ct. Pravesh Kumar handed over him the result alongwith pullanda and he deposited the same in the FIR No. 3789/2004, State Vs Ra inder Mandal & Ors. -- P§: NORS Page 9/24 g ur Malkhana.
45. PW-11 ASI Ram Awtar deposed that on 23.09.2004 he was on patrolling duty at East Foot Over Bridge at about 12:15 PM, he saw the crowd gathered at foot over bridge on that he reached there and met three TTEs namely Subhash Nirmal, Ajay and Dharampal, TTE Dharampal apprised him that accused Ram Babu (correctly identified by the witness in the court) was traveling with a forged ticket who had been apprehended during checking. It is stated that accused Ram Babu alongwith ticket was handed over to him. In the meantime, Ct. Tilak Raj reached the spot. This witness recorded statement of complainant which is Ex. PW 1/A. He seized the ticket vide memo Ex. PW2/A. He prepared rukka which is Ex. PW14/A and handed over the same to Ct. Tilak Raj for registration of FIR. Thereafter, Ct. Suresh, Ct. Lal Bahadur and AS! Ashok Kumar reached the spot, this witness handed over the accused Ram Babu and seizure memo to IO ASI Ashok Kumar. In the meantime, Ct. Tak Raj came to spot with a copy of FIR and original rukka, he handed over the same to AS! Ashok for further investigation. It is stated that ASI Ashok recorded the statement of TTEs Subhash Nirmal, Ajay, Dharampal and Ct. Tilak Raj. It is stated by this witness that |O arrested the accused Ram Babu yide memo Ex. PW8/J and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/N. Disclosure statement of accused Ram Babu was recorded vide memo Ex. PW8/A. It is stated that accused Ram Babu disclosed about another accused Rajinder Mandal who was preparing forged tickets and also disclosed the address of Rajinder Mandal. Accordingly, at the instance of accused Ram Babu, accused Rajinder Mandal was arrested Vide memo Ex. PW8/ bearing his signature at point C, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/M. It is stated that [0 recovered some forged tickets from the house of accused Rajinder Mandal which were seized vide memo Ex. PW9/C bearing signature of this witness at point C. It is stated that |O recorded disclosure statement of accused Rajender Mandal who disclosed about accused Pyare Lal. Thereafter, this FIR No. 3278/2004, State Vs Ra. finder Wandal & Ors. "ok. Page 10/24 witness alongwith accused persons went to the house of accused Pyare Lal at Nand Nagri who was arrested vide memo Ex. PW8/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/K. IO recovered some blank forged paper tickets which are exhibited as Ex. PW9/B. It is stated that disclosure statement of accused Pyare Lal was recorded vide Ex. PW8/C. It is stated that accused Pyare Lal disclosed about one Doodh Nath Yadav and thereafter !O arrested accused Doodh Nath Yadav vide memo Ex. PW8/H and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/L. It is stated that |O recovered forged tickets from the house of accused Doodh Nath and seized the same vide vide memo Ex. PW9/C bearing his signature at point C. It is stated that thereafter he came back to police station and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. Accused persons were put in lock up. He correctly identified the case property Ex. P1 to Ex. P7. It is stated by this witness that all the accused persons are present in the court, however he could not tell their names due to lapse of time. in his cross examination, it is stated by this witness that no tickets were recovered in his presence from accused Ram Babu. He could not tell if the open tickets were available with the TTEs or any other officials of railways. It is stated that he had not given any written notice to the public persons who were present at the spot. It is voluntarily stated that they had not disclosed their names and addresses. It is stated that he recorded statement of Sh. Subhash at about 01:30PM. It is stated that Ct. Tilak Raj returned to spot after 1-1 % hours. It is stated that during this period he prepared seizure memo. It is stated that he had not made any addition/alteration in the seizure memo after returning of the Ct. Tilak Raj. He could not tell the exact time of arrest of accused Ram Babu. It is stated that it was about 04:30 PM. He could not tell the complete address of accused persons. It is admitted that neighbours of the accused persons had gathered when they reached the house of accused persons. He failed to remember if the 1O had given any notice to the public persons to join the investigation at the house of accused persons. It is stated that no family members of the accused persons were present at the time of their arrest and raid, It is denied by this witness that the real culprits Mewa Lal and % FIR No. 3794/2004, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors. nL" Page 11/24 "
Manju were released by him and present accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is denied by this witness that seals and stamps were planted upon the accused persons. It is stated by him that he alongwith ASI Ashok, Ct. Ramesh, Ct. Tilak Raj, one another constable and accused Ram Babu had left for Jagatpuri in a private vehicle at about 4:00PM. He could not tell the particulars of private vehicle. It is stated that no ownership proof of house of Rajinder Mandal has been obtained in his presence. Only accused Rajinder Mandal was present in his house. However, 9-10 public persons came later on. IO had not made any public persons as a witness. This witness could not tell the number of floors of the house of accused Rajinder and also could not tell the distance between the house of accused Rajender and Pyare Lal. It's stated that he finally came back to the police station after 4 1% hours in the same vehicle. It is stated that private vehicle was car and 6 persons of raiding party were seated in the car.
16. No other witness was left to be examined, hence PE was closed vide order dated 12.12.2019.
17. Thereafter, statement of accused persons was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 12.04.2019 in which all the incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused persons were put to them to which they stated that they are innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is stated by accused Rajinder Mandal that police demanded Rs. 25,000/- from him but he could not pay the same. Thereafter, police officials implicated him in the present matter. It is stated by accused Doodh Nath Yadav that police demanded Rs. 20,000/- from him but he could not pay the money. Police officials asked him to fill some ticket in the police station forcibly. Thereafter, police officials implicated him in the present matter. Accused Ram Babu deposed that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter as he has dispute with his neighbour Pramod who had links with police. It is stated by him that on 22.09.2004 FIR No. 378/2004, State Ve Rajinder Mandal & iV NORS Page 12/24 / he was at his home. He did not visit railway station on that day. At around 11-11:30 he was apprehended by two persons in civil dress from his house in front of his neighbour Pramod. It is also stated by accused Ram Babu that he had never travelled in train as he is resident of Kannauj and there are buses available from Delhi to Kannauj. Accused Pyare Lal deposed that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter and he is innocent. Accused persons opted to lead lead defence evidence.
18. DW-1 Sh. Jagdish deposed that accused Ram Babu is his neighbour. On 22.04.2004 at about 11:30-12:00 midnight, he heard some noise outside his house in the gali. He saw in the gali that wife of accused Ram Babu was weeping and saying "Bhai Sahab inhe kaha le ja rahe ho'. It is stated that there were two tall persons who were taking accused Ram Babu. It is stated that those two persons had seen him and told him that "tu niche aa tujhe bhi batate hai'. Thereafter, due to fear he stopped looking and went back. He stated that the wife of accused Ram Babu was saying "100 number per call karo". Later on he came to know that brother of accused Ram babu made a call at no. 100. In his cross examination, it is stated by him that he does not know anything about the persons who had taken away accused Ram Babu on the above mentioned date.
19. DW-2 Sh. Ram Rattan deposed that on 22.09.2004 he was sleeping in his house at B-71, Gali No. 16, Jagatpuri Extension. He heard the noise and saw that two persons were pulling his brother i.e. accused Ram Babu and his Bhabi was shouting "Kaun ho Kaun ho inhe kaha le ja rahe ho". Thereafter, he made a PCR call from his landline No, 22137334. it is stated that accused was taken in a private vehicle. Thereafter, he and his neighbour Pramod were taken to the PS GTB Enclave and police interrogated them. They left the police station at 04:00AM. In his crass it is stated by him that accused Ram Babu is his elder examination, brother. It is denied by him that on 23.09.2004, accused Ram Babu came at Delhi Railway Station from Gonda.
FIR No. 378/2004, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors. PS. MORS Page 1324 ow ' 20, Thereafter, on an application made under Section 311 of Cr. PC on behalf of Ld. APP for State, PYW-12 Sh. Devak Ram was examined as PW12.
24. PW-12 Sh. Devak Ram, Retd. Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 08.09.2005 he was posted as Sr. Scientific Assistant of document division. He received certain documents regarding present case vide letter No. 2482/R/SHO/RMD dated 11.10.2004. The letter was received on 12.10.2004. It is stated that questioned documents marked as O41 to Q13, Q13/A, Q14 to Q22, Q1/1 ta Q-17/1 and Q22/1. Specimen writings marked S1 to S5 of accused Doodh Nath Yadav, specimen wtitings of accused Rajender Mandal marked S6 to S10 and sample stamp impression of Ticket Ghar Narela marked S11 to S14 and Uttar Railway Jaunpur marked S15 to S19 were received alongwith the letter. tt is stated that this witness examined documents and gave his opinion which is Ex. PW12/A. It is stated that after examination of the case, report and documents were collected by authorized messenger of PS RMD. In his cross examination, it is admitted by this witness that questioned document Ex. P7 (colly) are carbon copies of the original. It is stated that original questioned documents were not sent for examination. It is admitted that the original rubber stamps were not sent to FSL for examination. It is voluntarily stated that the impression of rubber stamps in original were received at the FSL which were used for comparison. It is denied by this witness that original impression obtained on a paper cannot be examined with the forwarded sample impression. It is stated by him that stamps are not required in FSL. Only impression on the paper as well as sample obtained on the paper are sufficient to give a definite opinion. It is admitted by this witness that signatures of his assistant were not taken in the report Ex. PW12/A. In his cross examination, this witness could not tell whether the documents were received in a sealed condition or not, Though it is stated that he had received the same in opened condition. It FIR No. 3782004, State Vs Rafinder Manda! & Ors. = PS' NDRS Page 14/24 ul re is stated that he sent the documents along with report in a sealed envelope.
22. Thereafter, supplementary statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which all incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused persons was put to them to which they stated that they are innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons opted not to lead any further defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
23. Final arguments heard on behalf of Ld. APP for State as well as Ld. Defence counsel.
FINDINGS:
24. Section 420 IPC provides punishment for cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing the person deceived to deliver any property to any person. Section 466 IPC provides punishment for forging any document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity.
Section 468 IPC provides punishment for the offence of committing forgery with the intention that the document (forged) shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Section 471 IPC provides punishment for the offence whereby fraudulently or dishonestly one uses as genuine any document with the knowledge or the reason to believe the same to be a forged document. Section 474 IPC provides punishment for having in possession a document knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall be fraudulently, or dishonestly be used as genuine.
25 In the present matter, role of accused persons namely Rajinder Mandal, Doodh Nath Yadav and Pyare Lal is similar as the FIR No. 378/2004, State ¥s Rajinder Mandal & Ors. PS' HORS Page 15/24 a"
allegation against them is that from their respective houses certain forged tickets having seal of railway as well as stamp of railway were recovered, Further, it has been proved in the FSL report that the impression of the seal recovered from the accused persons and the impression found on forged tickets was same. However, following facts shows that the investigation conducted in respect of role of accused persons namely Rajinder Mandal, Doodh Nath Yadav and Pyare Lal was not proper and the recovery of alleged forged tickets and stamps from their houses is doubtful due to which they deserve to be acquitted :-
(i) Admittedly, houses of all the three accused persons namely Rajinder Mandal, Doodh Nath Yadav and Pyare Lal were located in thickly congested residential areas, however no neighbour of any of the accused persons had been joined in the investigation/ recovery of the articles frorn their houses. There is no mention of any family member of the accusec persons who might be present at the house of any of the accused at the time of alleged recovery. There is no sufficient explanation given for non joining of any public witness at the time of apprehension of accused persons, recovery of alleged articles and preparation of documents. No serious efforts are shown to be made to join the public witnesses. No notice in writing is shown to be given to those public persons. Even the names and addresses of those public persons are not available in the Court record. In the case where the public witness are easily available and they are not being joined without any justified reason, the statement of police witnesses only cannot be relied. The Court get strength from the case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State, 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC) in which Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18 it is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the poiice that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. in the present case, if is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two FIR No. 378/2004, State Ve Rajinder Mandal & Ors. PS. NDR. Page 1624 shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. in case any of the shopkeepers had declined fo join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigors of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the {IPC."(emphasis supplied).
Further, in Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 1999(1) C.L.R.69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held as under:
"2 } have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join [the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner.
"4 ft is well settled principle of the law that the investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves FIR Ne. B7E/ 2004, State Vs Rajinder Handa f Yo ~ in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given ihe names and addresses of the persons contacted fo join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police of officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled fo ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigating officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating of officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure fo do so by the police of officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful" (emphasis supplied).
In such circumstances, the recovery of the case property from the possession of the accused persons has come under the clouds of reasonable doubts,
(ii) None of the police officials who were members of the raiding party could tell descriptions of the houses of the accused persons to ascertain that they had infact visited the houses of the accused persons.
None of the police witness could not tell the number of floors in the house of accused Rajinder Mandal or in the house of any other accused. It is also very strange that no family member of any of the three accused persons could met the police officials.
(it) It is stated by 'police official PW9 that they went in a FIR No. 3768/2004, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors. = PS: MBRS Page 18/24 wh government vehicle to the houses of the accused persons per contra it is stated by PW11 that they went in a private car to the house of the accused persons. However, none of them could tell particulars or registration number of any such vehicle which was alleged used by them to visit houses of the accused persons.
(iv) Further, it is stated by PW-11 ASI Ram Awtar that he went to the houses of accused persons for recovery alongwith ASI Ashok Kumar, Ct. Ramesh Kumar (PW9), Ct. Tilak Raj, one more Ct. as well as alongwith accused Ram Babu in a private vehicle. It is also stated that they returned to the police station with other three accused persons in the same vehicle.
It is highly improbable that nine persons would have been accommodated in a single vehicle.
(v) No assistance of local police stations having jurisdiction in the area where houses of accused persons were located was taken by the raiding party. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest if any information qua alleged raid was communicated to the said local police stations.
26. In view of the above stated facts, the story of police officials that they went to the houses of the accused persons and recovered the alleged articles from their houses does not appears to be believable.
Role of accused Ram Babu Zt. The allegation of prosecution against accused Ram Babu is that he was caught by ticket checker Sh. Subhash Nirmal, TTE at the railway station and when TTE asked him about the ticket he handed over a forged ticket which was not bearing water mark of the railway. The accused Ram Babu was interrogated and was handed over to the police alongwith forged ticket. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of accused Ram Babu that story of the police and railway officials is not believable, rather it is contended that he was earlier lifted from his house and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Ram Babu examined two witnesses in his defence to show that he was lifted prior from his house. It FIR No. 3278/2004, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors. PS: NORS Page 19/24 4 f a is also contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that infact two other persons were arrested with the forged tickets, however for no rhyme and reason present accused has been implicated in the present matter. It is contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that there are a number of discrepancies in the testimonies of the railway officials and police officials as it is stated by the railway officials that they remained at the spot for 10 minutes, though it is stated by the police officials they remained at the spot for more than 1% hour. It is pointed out that the seizure memo of the alleged forged ticked recovered from accused Ram Babu was prepared prior to registration of FIR, however the same is bearing number of FIR which shows that proceedings were not conducted properly by the police. It is pointed out that though the railway station foot over bridge was having a number of public persons available, despite that no public persons was joined as a witness in the present matter. It is contended that accused Ram Babu has nothing to do with Ghonda as he is a native of Kannoj, U.P. The railway officials who had allegedly apprehended the accused Ram Babu could not tell, if he was carrying any luggage or not.
28. Though there is categorical statement of TTE Sh. Subhash Nirmal and TTE Sh. Ajay Mishra that they caught the accused Ram Babu with forged ticket from the Foot Over Bridge of railway station, however testimonies of these railway officials cannot be accepted as gospel truth due to the following reasons --
(i) There is no document on record to suggest that both these Railway officials ie PW2 and PW3 were on duty at the relevant time at relevant place.
(ii) It is not clear as to how HC Ram Avtar (ie. first police official who reached the spot) reached the spot as it is stated by complainant Sh. Subhash Nirmal that after apprehending accused Ram Babu he called the FIR No. 3768/2004, State ¥s Rafinder Mandal & Ors. PS. NORS Page 20/24 & a a police. Per contra, it is stated by PW-2 Sh. Ajay Mishra and PW-11 HC Ram Avtar himself reached the spot while he was on patrolling. Thus, there is apparent contradiction. It is to be noted that there is no document proved on record to show that HC Ram Avtar was on patrolling at that time.
(iii) Though it is stated by PW-3 Sh. Subhash Nirmal that he called the police, however he has not stated by which mode he called the police. Apparently HC Ram Avtar on his own reached the spot and It is not the case of the prosecution that on receiving the information of apprehension of a person with fake ticket the police official reached the spot. Thus, apart from the complaint made by TTE Sh. Subhash Nirmal on the basis of which rukka was prepared, there was no other information sent to the police station or police control room qua apprehension of accused Ram Babu. In these circumstances a suspicion arises, if accused Ram Babu was actually apprehended as stated or if he was apprehended at some other place & some other time and thereafter the complaint and all other police proceedings were done.
(iv) As per PW-2 Sh. Ajay Mishra and PW-3 Sh. Subhash Nirmal they checked accused Ram Babu at 2:15 pm and after that HC Ram Awtar reached the spot. Per contra, it is stated by HC Ram Avtar that accused was apprehended by complainant Sh. Subhash Nirmal and Sh. Ajay Mishra prior to 12:15 pm, ie when he reached the spot. It is not that HC Ram Avtar has mistakenly stated the incorrect time of his reaching the spot as it is further stated by him that he recorded the statement of TTE Sh. Subhash Nirmal at about 1:30 pm. Thus, there is apparent contradiction gua timing of apprehension of accused from the spot in the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and the first police official allegedly reached the spot ie. PW-11 HC Ram Avtar.
FIR No. 3786/2004, State Vs Rafinder Handel & Ors. PS. NORS Page 21/24Mn!
(v) From perusal of record, it appears that the FIR number was mentioned in the seizure memo in the same handwriting in which the seizure memo was prepared, however the FIR was registered after preparing the seizure memo and there is no evidence on record that the FIR number was mentioned later on on the seizure memo. Even ff, it is presumed that the FIR number was mentioned later on on the seizure memo, the same must be in different handwriting which is not in the present case, which creates doubt on the prosecution version.
(vi) Though, it is claimed that PW-2 and PW-3 apprehended the accused Ram Babu, however they could not tell if the accused was carrying any luggage or not. It is highly improbable that the officials who had apprehended a person could not even tell whether he was carrying any luggage or was without any luggage. Thus. this fact also raises doubt qua case of the prosecution.
(vit) It is claimed by the prosecution that the accused Ram Babu was having ticket in respect of a train which would have departed from New Delhi Railway Station at 5:30 pm. It is to be noted that as per case of prosecution accused was apprehended at 2:15 pm and as per HC Ram Avtar he was apprehended at 12:15 pm. Even if, we take that accused was apprehended at 2:15 pm still there was three hours' time in departure of the train the ticket of which was allegedly forged by accused. It is highly improbable that a person knowingly having a forged ticket of a train would reach the railway station three hours prior to departure time of train as a cunning criminal who ig about to use a forged train ticket would try to spend as much less time as he could at the railway station as if he would spend more time on the railway station there would be more chances of his apprehension.
(vill) There ig no tine schedule filed alongwith prosecution's case FIR No. 9778/2004, State Vs Rajinder Manda! & drs. PS. NORS Page 22/24 Wes to suggest if any such train was going to depart at 6:30 pm qua which accused Ram Babu was carrying forged ticket.
(ix) lt is stated by DW-2 Sh. Ram Rattan i.e. brother of accused Ram Babu that he had made a PCR call from his landline no. 22137334 on 22.09.2004 in the night at 11-11:30 pm qua lifting of his brother Ram Babu from the house. It is to be noted that no question or suggestion was put by Ld. APP for the State on this aspect during cross-examination of this witness. Thus, this fact has not been disputed by the prosecution.
(x) No sincere efforts have been made to join any public witness at the time of apprehension of accused Ram Babu though admittedly they were present at the Foot Over Bridge of railway station. In the case where the public witness are easily available and they are not being joined without any justified reason, the statement of police witnesses only cannot be relied. Reliance being placed upon case titled as Anoop Joshi Vs. State (supra) and Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana (supra).
29. In view of the above-stated circumstances, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Ram Babu beyond reasonable doubt. The story of prosecution that accused Ram Babu was apprehended at the railway station with forged ticket does not appear to be probable.
30. it is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution FIR No. 378/2004, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors.. PS: NORS Page 23/24 "
story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
31. In the present matter, in view of the above-stated discussions, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence coming on record entitles the accused persons for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, all the accused persons namely Rajinder Mandal, Doodh Nath Yadav, Ram Babu and Pyare Lal are hereby acquitted from charges leveled against them in the present matter. Requirements of Section 437-A CrPC have been complied with. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
' ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER'SI NAGAR} COURT ON 01.07.2020 ACMM-02 (CENTRAL)/DELHI Containing 24 pages all signed by the presiding officer. ae (GAJENDER GH\NAGAR) ACMM-02(CENTRAL)/DELHI FIR No. 378/2004, State Vs Rajinder Mandal & Ors. PS: NORS Page 24/24