Delhi District Court
State vs . Yogesh Kumar on 12 January, 2009
1 FIR No.114/2000
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
FIR No. 114/2000
State Vs. Yogesh Kumar
U/s. 406/201 IPC
PS. M S Park
1. Sl. No. of the case 94M/08 dtd 18.11.08 RBT
192/2 dtd 25.07.01 Original
2. Date of commission of offence 29.04.00
3. Date of Institution 25.07.01
4. Name of the complainant Mrs. Jyotsna Saxena, Centre
Superintendent, Kala Niketan
Bal Vidhalaya, Durga Puri Extn,
Delhi110 093
5. Name of the accused Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri
Prakash Naryan, R/o 4146,
Tikona Building, Teliwara,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi
6. Offence Complained or proved U/s 406/201 IPC
7. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Arguments heard /Order reserved on 02.01.09
9. Date of such order 12.01.09
10.Final Order Convicted
2 FIR No.114/2000
J U D G M E N T
1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are like this. Mrs. Jyotsna Saxena, Center Superintendent, Kala Niketan Bal Vidhalaya, Durga Puri Extn, Delhi gave a written complaint dated 29.04.00 to the police with the allegations that her school is a center for conducting the examination of class 10th of National Open School. On 24.04.00 students were writing the examination. The paper of Business Study was in progress from 2.00 PM to 5.00 PM. Yogesh Kumar, one of the students, was writing the examination against Roll No.77366228 who was given answer sheet bearing No.648436. Yogesh Kumar torn the answer sheet at the time of collecting the same by invigilator and fled with answer sheet. Yogesh Kumar did not hand over the answer sheet to Invigilator. The chowkidar at the main gate tried to stop the accused but to no avail. The accused left his admit card in the center. On her written complaint, the FIR was registered. After usual investigation, charge sheet U/s 406/201 IPC was submitted in the court for trial.
2. Accused put his appearance. Copies of challan were supplied to him. After hearing, charge U/s 406/201 IPC was framed on 28.11.01 by my Ld. predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Prosecution evidence was closed by the order of the court on 15.01.08. Accused was examined U/s 281 Cr.P.C. by my Ld. predecessor on 15.01.08. His defence is of denial simplicitor. However, no defence evidence was led.
3. Prosecution examined 5 witnesses. PW1 Kumari Nutan Jain stated that she was TGT of Social Science in Kala Niketan Bal Vidhalaya, Durga Puri 3 FIR No.114/2000 Extn, Delhi. In April 2000, the examination were going on. She was invigilator in one of the examination rooms of class 10th. 20 out of 24 students were in the room. He did not allow Yogesh Kumar to copy the answer sheet which enraged him. Yogesh Kumar fled from the back door with the answer sheet. She was alone in the room as such she was not in a position to leave the examination room. Yogesh Kumar left his Identity Card in the examination room. She handed over the same to the Principal. Identity Card was taken into possession vide fard Ex.PW1/B. Ex.PW1/C is the seating plan of the examination room. She cannot identify the accused. In the cross examination, it is admitted that no other student is cited as a witness. No paper or slip was seized from the accused when he tried to copy. She did not hand over any documentary proof regarding her duty as invigilator. She handed over the Identity Card to Mrs. Jyotsna Saxena.
4. PW2 Jyotsna Saxena stated that she was Vice Principal at Kala Niketan Bal Vidhalaya, Durga Puri Extn, Delhi. The examination of class 10th & 12th were in progress in April 2000. On 29.04.00, 20 out of 24 students were present in the examination room No.10 of class 10th. Ms. Nutan Jain and Mrs. Sarda were the invigilators. Ms. Nutan Jain told her after the examination that one of the students namely Yogesh Kumar has fled with the answer sheet. She reported the matter to the police vide complaint Ex.PW2/A. The Identity Card was left in the room by Yogesh Kumar which was taken into possession by police vide fard Ex.PW2/B. Ex.PW 1/C is the seating plan of the examination room. The Roll No. of Yogesh 4 FIR No.114/2000 Kumar was 773662228. In the cross examination she stated that the incident did not take place in her presence. It was reported to her. The suggestion is denied that they used to deposit Identity Card prior to examination. Ms. Nutan Jain reported the matter to her immediately after the examination. The watchman had told that one of the students fled from the examination room who also informed her. She does not know whether watchman was examined by the police or not.
5. PW3 HC Rohtash Kumar has proved FIR Ex.PW3/A.
6. PW4 Ct Amar Pal stated that he was associated in the investigation by the IO. On 16.06.01 at 10.30 AM at Bhola Nath Nagar, Teliwara, Delhi accused was apprehended at the instance of secret informer. His personal search memo Ex.PW4/A was prepared. His disclosure statement Ex.PW 4/B was recorded. In the cross examination he stated that no answer sheet was recovered from the possession of the accused.
7. PW6 HC Mahender Kumar stated that on 03.05.00 he was associated in the investigation by the IO. They reached at Kala Niketan Bal Vidhalaya, Durga Puri Extn, Delhi where Ms. Nutan Jain met them and produced one Identity Card which was taken into possession vide fard Ex.PW1/B. The seating plan Ex.PW1/C was produced by Superintendent of the Center.
8. I have heard Ld. APP and accused and perused the entire evidence on record. Prosecution examined 5 witnesses in order to prove its case. The testimony of PW1&2 is material in order to prove the prosecution case. PW1 was invigilator in the examination room No.10. PW2 was Superintendent of the examination on the day of incident. 5 FIR No.114/2000
9. PW1 categorically stated that she was invigilator in the examination room. Yogesh Kumar was writing the examination of class 10th. His Roll was No.773662228. The answer sheet was given to Yogesh Kumar / accused. The accused did not hand over the answer sheet after the examination was over. The accused damaged the answer sheet and fled from the spot with answer sheet.
10. The accused left behind his Identity card. The matter was reported to PW2. The Identity Card was handed over to PW2 who gave a written complaint Ex.PW2/A to the police which led to registration of FIR Ex.PW 3/A.
11. The statement of the accused recorded U/s 281 Cr.P.C., clearly shows that he was writing the examination on the day of incident. The answer sheet was given to him. This shows his presence in the room as well as handing over the answer sheet to him by invigilator. There remains no dispute with respect to this preposition. So, the point that PW1 did not identify the accused does not carry any weight.
12. The testimony of PW1 clearly shows that accused fled with the answer sheet by leaving his Identity card at the spot. The Identity card was handed over to PW2. The matter was reported to PW2. There was no occasion for the accused to leave the Identity card at the spot. The Identity card authorizes the bearer to appear in the examination. No explanation is forthcoming on the record why he left the Identity card at the spot. He did not report the matter to the Superintendent, examination center or to authorities of National Open School which issued the Identity Card. The 6 FIR No.114/2000 said Identity card was handed over by PW2 to the police and the recovery stands proved by the examination of PWS. There is no motive on the part of PW1 to implicate the accused.
13. The defence of the accused is that he handed over the answer sheet to PW1 does not inspire confidence as no question or suggestion is put by him either to PW1 or to PW2 for the reasons best known to him. The defence is taken later on at the time of recording of his statement U/s 281 Cr.P.C. which is after thought and has no legs to stand.
14. PW1 has no motive to implicate the accused. She has no axe to grind. Her statement is consistent. The testimony of PW2 is also consistent as there is nothing on the record to create doubt over their testimony. There is no enmity so the question of false implication does not arise at all. The entire evidence on the file clearly shows that accused fled from the examination center with answer sheet which he was supposed to return after the examination was over. The answer sheet was not recovered from the accused and possibility cannot be ruled out that he might have knowingly destroyed the same.
15. Hence, in the light of my aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and accordingly accused is held guilty U/s 406/201 IPC and convicted. Put up for quantum of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SURESH KUMAR GUPTA COURT ON 12.01.09 MM / KKD / 12.01.09