Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Azimuddin on 9 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018
STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
FIR NO. 345/2016
PS KOTLAMUBARAKPUR
U/S 279/337/471 IPC & SECTION 146/196 MV ACT
JUDGMENT
a. CNR NO. DLSE020212062018
b. Name of the Complainant ASI Ashok Kumar
c. Name of the accused & his (1) Mohd. Azimuddin
parentage and address S/o Sh. Abdul Kasim
R/o H.No. T-86, C/o Hani
Choudhary Ka Makan, Sarai
Kale Khan, New Delhi
(2) Umar Ali
S/o Sh. Sabir Ali
Already discharged vide order
dated 12.07.2019.
(3) Mukesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Chaman
R/o H. no. 135, Taimur Nagar,
near Nala, New Friends
Colony, New Delhi
(4) Joginder
S/o Sh. Vikram Singh
Already discharged vide order
dated 12.07.2019.
Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 1 OF 23
STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
FIR NO. 345/2016
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09
16:16:54 +0530
d. Offence charged U/s 279/337/471 IPC &
SECTION 146/196 MV ACT
e. Date of commission of 17.04.2016
offence
f. Date of Institution 10.07.2018
g. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
h. Order Reserved on 23.01.2026
i. Date of Pronouncement 09.02.2026
j. Final Order ACQUITTED
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Accused Mohd. Azimuddin and Mukesh Kumar in person with Ld. counsel Sh. Suresh Kumar BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. It is alleged that on 17.04.2016, at around 10.00 a.m., at Shri Chand Sharma Marg, near Peshab Ghar, Sukhdev Nagar, K.M. Pur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS KM Pur, accused Mohd. Azimuddin was driving the offending truck no. HR-38-P3907 used to carry garbage in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the aforesaid vehicle (truck), he hit the scooter bearing registration no. DL-3SAQ-0157 and caused simple injuries to the complainant Ramesh Kumar, and accused Mohd. Azimuddin was driving the aforesaid truck bearing no. DL-3SAQ-0157 without any valid Insurance and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 2 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09 16:16:59 +0530 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR Section 279/337 IPC & Section 146/196 of M.V. Act.
2. It is further alleged that on 17.04.2016, at around 10.00 a.m., at Shri Chand Sharma Marg, near Peshab Ghar, Sukhdev Nagar, K.M. Pur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS KM Pur, it was found that accused Mukesh Kumar had used forged insurance for truck no. HR-38-P3907 which he used fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine which he knew or had reason to believe to be forged and he allowed to drive the afore-said offending vehicle without valid insurance and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC & Section 146/196 respectively of M. V. Act, 1988.
3. The present case was registered on the statement of injured Ramesh Kumar who stated that he runs a flower shop at Kalkaji and on 17.04.2016 at around 10.00 am, he was going to his shop on his scooter bearing registration no. DL3SAQ0157 make Bajaj Chetak. While going from Gurudwara to Arya Samaj Mandir red light near one peshab ghar, one machine was parked and due to the traffic jam, he was also standing there and one garbage truck bearing registration no. HR38P3907 was also parked next to him. Suddenly, the truck driver started the said truck. Injured Ramesh Kumar further stated that the truck driver, without looking to the left side, drove the truck, due to which he along with his scooter and machine came on the rear wheel of the said truck and when he put left leg to save himself from the machine, he got injured and he along with his scooter fell down. Thereafter, the public persons present at the spot pulled him out. The Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 3 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
FIR NO. 345/2016 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09 16:17:08 +0530 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR truck driver first came to him, however, he fled away from the spot along with the truck. He called his nephew Amit who got him admitted at AIIMS trauma center. So, on the basis of statement of injured Ramesh Kumar and on the basis of MLC, the present case FIR was registered under Section 279/337 IPC. During the course of investigation, the name of owner of offending truck was revealed as Umar Ali and Mukesh Kumar and they both produced the driver of the offending vehicle Mohd. Azimuddin before the IO. During the course of further investigation, the insurance documents of offending truck were found to be fake, hence Section 471 IPC was added. Thereafter, accused Mohd. Azimuddin, Umar Ali, Mukesh Kumar and Joginder were arrested. After completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/471 IPC.
During the course of further investigation, supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused Mohd. Azimuddin for offence under Section 279/337 IPC, against accused Mukesh Kumar for offence u/s 468/471 IPC and since no incriminating evidence came against accused Umar Ali and Sabir, hence, they were kept in the list of prosecution witnesses in the supplementary chargesheet and the same was forwarded to the Court against the accused persons for trial.
4. Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 13.11.2018, cognizance of the offences under Section 279/337/471/474 IPC and under Section 146/196 MV Act were taken by the Ld. Predecessor the court against accused persons namely Md.
Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 4 OF 23
STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
FIR NO. 345/2016 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09
16:17:13 +0530
Azimuddin, Jogender and Mukesh and accordingly, they were
summoned and Umar Ali was directed to be treated as witness. Pursuant to their appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copy of charge sheet was supplied to them.
5. During the course of trial, supplementary chargesheet against accused Mohd. Azimuddin and Mukesh was filed for offence under Section 468 IPC. Accordingly, cognizance of offence u/s 468 IPC was taken against accused persons.
6. Subsequently, after perusal of the judicial file and hearing the parties, a prima facie case against the accused Mohd. Azimuddin for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/337 IPC & 146/196 MV Act and against accused Mukesh Kumar, offence punishable under Section 471 IPC & Section 146/196 MV Act was found to be made out. Accordingly, on 12.07.2019, formal notice of accusation for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/337 IPC & 146/196 MV Act was served upon the accused Mohd. Azimuddin and charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 471 IPC & 146/196 MV Act was framed against the accused Mukesh Kumar, to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 12.07.2019, accused Umar Ali and and Joginder were discharged by Ld. Predecessor stating that there was no evidence on record against them.
7. During the course of prosecution evidence, vide order Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 5 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
FIR NO. 345/2016SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09 16:17:17 +0530 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR dated 13.09.2019, complainant/injured Ramesh Kumar had settled the present matter with both the accused persons namely Mohd. Azimuddin and Mukesh Kumar for offence punishable under Section 337 IPC for compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Statement of Ramesh Kumar to this effect was also recorded on 13.09.2019 and accordingly, accused persons namely Mohd. Azimuddin and Mukesh Kumar were acquitted for offence under Section 337 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
8. Thereafter, the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
9. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, examined the following witnesses:
i) PW-1 Sh. Ramesh Kumar (injured),
ii) PW-2 SI Vershketu (witness to ownership document of
offending vehicle bearing no. HR38P3907)
iii) PW3 ASI Janardan Singh (1st IO),
iv) PW-4 Sh. Hemant Kumar ( witness to Insurance policy no.
91567678),
v) PW-5 Sh. T.U Siddiqui (mechanical inspector),
vi) PW-6 HC Giriraj (police witness),
vii) PW-7 HC Ravi Kumar (police witness),
viii) PW-8 Sh. Jogender Singh ( witness to sale-purchase documents of offending truck) Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 6 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL 16:17:21 +0530 Date: 2026.02.09 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
ix) PW-9 Retd. SI Ashok Kumar (IO)
10. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1. statement of injured Ramesh Kumar as Ex. PW1/A,
2. site plan as Ex. PW1/B,
3. seizure memo of offending truck as Ex. PW1/C,
4. arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW1/D,
5. ownership documents of vehicle bearing no. HR38P3907 as Ex. PW2/A,
6. Rukka as Ex. PW3/A,
7. site plan as Ex. PW3/B,
8. seizure memo of scooter of injured as Ex. PW3/C,
9. 04 photographs of accidental scooter as Ex. P-1,
10. certified copy of insurance policy no.
91567678 in respect of Scooter make Honda Activa along with covering letter and authority letter in the name of Hemant Kumar as Mark A colly (running into 07 pages),
11. Mechanical inspection report of accidental scooter bearing no. DL3SAQ0157 as Ex. PW5/B,
12. Mechanical inspection report of offending truck bearing no. HR38P3907 as Ex. PW5/A, Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 7 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL 16:17:25 +0530 Date: 2026.02.09 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
13. arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Mohd. Azimuddin as Ex. PW6/A & Ex. PW6/B respectively,
14. ownership documents of offending vehicle as Ex. PW6/C,
15. seizure memo of offending truck as Ex.
PW6/D,
16. seizure memo of DL of accused as Ex. PW6/E,
17. Notice u/s 133 MV Act upon owner of offending truck namely Mukesh Kumar as Ex. PW9/A,
18. Disclosure statement of accused persons as Ex. PW9/B, Ex. PW9/C, Ex. PW9/D and Ex. PW9/E respectively,
19. arrest memo of accused persons namely Umar Ali, Mukesh Kumar and Jogender as Ex. PW9/F, Ex. PW9/G, Ex. PW9/H respectively and their personal search as Ex. PW9/I, Ex. PW9/J & Ex. PW9/K respectively.
11. In addition to the above-mentioned witnesses, accused persons also admitted factum of registration of FIR No.345/16, PS KM Pur, DD no.23A dated 17.04.2016, mechanical inspection report, ownership of the offending vehicle, MLC bearing no. 554436/17 as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-5 respectively, in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C vide order dated 20.12.2019, hence, the said witnesses were dropped on the submissions of Ld. APP for State.
Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 8 OF 23
STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL 16:17:30 +0530
Date: 2026.02.09
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
12. After prosecution evidence, statement of accused Mohd.
Azimuddin and Mukesh Kumar were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating circumstance led against them during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to them, affording them an opportunity to give their explanation, if any. The accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, they preferred not to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, DE was closed and the matter was posted for final arguments.
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully. After hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State cannot be accepted for the reasons given below.
14. Coming to the facts of the present case, 279/337 IPC & 146/196 MV Act was served upon the accused Mohd. Azimuddin. vide order dated the offence under section 337 IPC was compounded vide order dated 13.09.2019 by the accused persons with the complainant and all accused persons have already been aquitted of the offence under section 337 IPC. Now, the accused Mohd. Azimuddin has been charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. Before proceeding further, for reference Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 9 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 345/2016 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:17:33
Date: 2026.02.09
+0530
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
Section 279 IPC is reproduced as under:-
279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.--
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are:
(i) driving of a vehicle or riding on a public way,
(ii) such driving or riding must be so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
15. To bring home the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, first of all, the identity of the author of rash or negligent act must be fixed. Coming back to the facts of present case, it is registered on the statement of complainant/injured who stated that he runs a flower shop at Kalkaji and on 17.04.2016 at around 10.00 am, he was going to his shop on his scooter bearing registration no. DL3SAQ0157 make Bajaj Chetak. While going from Gurudwara to Arya Samaj Mandir red light near one peshab ghar, one machine was parked and due to Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 10 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
FIR NO. 345/2016 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:17:38 +0530 Date: 2026.02.09 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR the traffic jam, he was also standing there and one garbage truck bearing registration no. HR38P3907 was also parked next to him. Suddenly, the truck driver started the said truck. Injured Ramesh Kumar further stated that the truck driver, without looking to the left side, drove the truck, due to which he along with his scooter and machine came on the rear wheel of the said truck and when he put left leg to save himself from the machine, he got injured and he along with his scooter fell down. Thereafter, the public persons present at the spot pulled him out. The truck driver first came to him, however, he fled away from the spot along with the truck. He called his nephew Amit who got him admitted at AIIMS Trauma Centre. However, in examination before the court he on 17.04 2016 at 10 am he was going on his scooter and at Arya Samaj Mandir red light, it was heavy traffic on the road. Suddenly one vehicle started moving and that vehicle hit his scooter, and he received injuries. he further said he does not remember the registration number of the said vechicle as he had not seen the same. He further stated that after hitting his scooter alleged vehicle fled away, and he had not seen the accused driver. Further there is no other eyewitness of the the said offence. Thus identitiy of accused Azimuddin as the driver of the offending vehicle as well as identity of the offending vehicle itself is not proved on record for the purpose of offence under section 279 IPC.
16. Further accused Mukesh Kumar has been charged under section 471 IPC as he was found in possession of forged insurance of the alleged offending vehicle i.e. bearing registration number Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 11 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
FIR NO. 345/2016 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09 16:17:42 +0530 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR HR38P3907, which is alleged to be used by him fraudulently and dishonestly, as genuine which he knew or had reason to believe to be forged.
17. For the purpose of invoking section 471 IPC following ingredients needs to be fulfilled; -
(i) fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document as genuine
(ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is a forged one.
18. Therefore, there must be material to show that a particular document is a forged one. Section 470 of the Indian Penal Code states that a false document made wholly or in part by forgery is designated "a forged document". The person using the document must have specific knowledge or reasonable belief that it is a forged one. Making a false document is enumerated under section 464 IPC. In case of Md. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751, it is held as follows:-
"10. An analysis of Section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
a) The first is where a person 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 some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 12 OF 23
STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR. Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09
16:17:46 +0530
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
b) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
c) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
19. In short, a person is said to have made a 'false document', if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
20. In case of A.S. Krishnan vs. State of Kerala (2004) 28 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 113, it is held as follows:-
"8. Section 471 is intended to apply to persons other than forger himself, but the forger himself is not excluded from the operation of the section. To attract Section 471, it is not necessary that the person held guilty under the provision must have forged the document himself or that the person independently charged for forgery of the document must of necessity be convicted, before the person using the forged document, knowing it to be a Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 13 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL 16:17:49 +0530 Date: 2026.02.09 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR forged one can be convicted, as long as the fact that the document used stood established or proved to be a forged one. The act or acts which constitute the commission of the offence of forgery are quite different from the act of making use of a forged document. The expression 'fraudulently and dishonestly' are defined in Sections 25 and 24 IPC respectively. For an offence under Section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent. The use of document as contemplated by Section 471 must be voluntary one. For sustaining conviction under Section 471, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused knew or had reason to believe that the document to be a forged one. Whether the accused knew or had reason to believe the document in question to be a forged has to be adjudicated on the basis of materials and the finding recorded in that regard is essentially factual."
21. Further, to bring home an offence under section 471 of IPC the prosecution is to prove that the document concerned was forged and that accused used such document and that he knew or had reason to believe that the same was forged and he nevertheless used the same as genuine one fraudulently or dishonestly. Perusal of the seizure memo of the said insurance policy Ex.PW6/C would reflect that the Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 14 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 345/2016 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:17:54
Date: 2026.02.09
+0530
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
alleged insurance policy was seized by the IO PW-9 from the accused Mukesh as the same also bears the signatures of accused Mukesh. However, IO/PW-9 Retr. ASI ashok has stated in his cross examination that he had served notice under section 133 to Umar Ali and it was revealed that he had purchased said offending vehicle from Jogender and Jogender had disclosed in his disclosure statement (Ex.PW9/C) that he had got prepared the said insurance from agent namely Satte. Furthermore, the said seizure memo does not bear the signatures of any private independent witness thereby bringing a doubt over the circumstances under which the said fake insurance police from accused Mukesh was seized.
22. As far as offence u/s 471 IPC is concerned. The allegations against accused Mukesh had produced the same to the investigating officer during the course of investigation of the present case. It a settled proposition that a person who uses a forged document as genuine must have knowledge or reason to believe that the document was forged. Also, mere possession of a forged document is not enough. An offence under section 471 IPC is established whenever a document is used as genuine with the intention that some person thereby should be deceived. Knowledge is a state of mind that cannot be proved by way of direct evidence. Knowledge is to be gathered from attending circumstances proved on record.
Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 15 OF 23
STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR. Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09
16:17:59 +0530
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
23. To prove the alleged insurance policy bearing no. 91567678 to be a fake/forged prosecution has examined PW-4 Sh.Hemant Kumar, management trainee from IFFCO Tokio General Insurance, who has stated the abovesaid policy number was issued to two wheeler Honda Activa, having engine number 83745, and Chassis number 281981 one person namely Deepak Kumar Dagdi for the period from 10.03.2015 to 09.03.2016. He further stated that they tried to search for policy for vehicle bearing number HR38P3907, however no such valid policy is found in their record. The witness has not been cross- examined by ld. Counsel for the accused persons. Thus, the fact of said policy being fake is admitted by the prosecution and it can be said that prosecution has proved that said insurance policy is fake/forged policy.
24. However, even though prosecution has proved that said policy is fake insurance policy, to convict the accused guilty under section 471 IPC, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the said policy was in name of the accused Mukesh and the accused knew or had reason to believe the said insurance policy to be fake/forged policy, has to be proved by the prosecution. As per the statement of PW-2 SI Vershketu, from RTA Faridabad, he has produced the document with respect to ownership of the offending vehicle i.e. bearing registration no. HR38P3907 (Ex. PW2/A), and he stated that the vehicle is registered in the name of SRS construction. As per order dated 20.12.2019 ownership of offending vehicle has been admitted by the accused persons but Ex. PW2/A does not mention as who is the Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 16 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL 16:18:05 +0530 Date: 2026.02.09 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR proprietor of the said firm/company and the said company is not arrayed as an accused in the present matter. As per the examination in chief of PW-9 IO/SI Ashok Kumar, he has stated that Mukesh kumar is manager of the SRS Construction and he had only provided the documents. Further reply filed to notices under section 133 MV Act , has not been proved as per law.
25. Now even if said document presumed to be in the name of accused Mukesh Kumar, for the conviction of the accused it is duty of the prosecution to prove that accused Mukesh knew or had reason to believe that said insurance policy of same is forged document and the same was used as genuine. Perusal of ownership documents of vehicle bearing number HR38P3907(Ex. PW2/A) shows that SRS construction is the second owner and the previous owner of the said vehicle is Joginder Kumar and the same document also mentions the date of transfer as 10.02.2016. As per the fake insurance policy Mark- A (colly) the date of issuance of such policy is from 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2015 in the name of Joginder Singh. Thus it cannot be decisively said that the fake policy was prepared by accused Mukesh. Accused Joginder has already been discharged vide order dated 12.07.2019 by Ld. Predecessor of this court, and the same have attained finality now as the order has not been assailed by the prosecution. Further, he has appeared as prosecution witness PW-8 Joginder Singh. In his cross-examination suggestion has been given by Ld. APP for the state that to which witness replied 'it is correct that I had transferred the abovementioned vehicle in the name of Umar Ali Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 17 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09 16:18:09 +0530 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR who was supposedly the owner of the m/s SRS Construction. Further Umar Ali has already been discharged, vide order dated 12.07.2019 by Ld. Predecessor of this court, and the same have attained finality now as the order has not been assailed by the prosecution. In any case prosecution has failed to prove as who is the owner of the SRS Construction. Further no evidence has been led by prosecution to prove mens rea i.e. accused Mukesh knew or had reason to believe that said document is forged document and the same was used as genuine.
26. Thus, from the abovesaid facts it is clear that the fake insurance policy Mark-A(colly) was cannot be said to be prepared/used as genuine, by accused Mukesh as on the said date from the Vehicle was not in the name of the accused Mukesh Kumar. Prosecution has failed to prove as to who prepared the said document and also failed to prove that mens rea of 471 IPC.
27. As already discussed above, prosecution has proved that insurance policy no. 91567678 of the accused was forged as PW2 categorically deposed to this effect. In the present case, for examining the mens rea or knowledge of the accused regarding the forged/ fake insurance policy no. 91567678, actions of the accused are to be examined which can be ascertained from the fact that accused Mukesh himself submitted his insurance policy to IO at the time of investigation. The insurance policy does not bear his details but the Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 18 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 345/2016 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09
16:18:13 +0530
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
same bears the details of the offending vehicle i.e HR38P3907 and thereby it is clear that accused was using the same as the insurance policy of his vehicle as being the second owner of the vehicle and when the same was asked for by the IO during the investigation but he never desisted from withholding the same. In all probabilities there is no evidence given by any of the prosecution witness which shows that accused had prior knowledge about the forgery of the insurance policy no. 91567678 as used by the accused or that there had been circumstances present which may have shown that accused had reasons to believe that the same was forged. Admittedly, accused himself had provided the said policy to the IO. The prosecution has failed to show the requisite mens rea on the part of accused i.e. knowledge of accused as to the fact that the insurance policy was not genuine. The allegation of the prosecution regarding intentionally or having knowledge of false document i.e insurance policy no. 91567678 in the name of previous owner ,by accused is anyways not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
28. Here it is relevant to mention the findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 4 SCC 161, which are as follows: -
"A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 19 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL 16:18:18 +0530 Date: 2026.02.09 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation."
29. In B.N. Mutto & Another v. Dr. T.K. Nandi (1979) 1 SCC 361, the Court observed thus:
"It stems out of the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable doubt. But fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essential Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 20 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR. Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL 16:18:21 Date: 2026.02.09 +0530 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable. "A reasonable doubt", it has been remarked, "does not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other, it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons. [Salmond J. in his charge to the jury in R.V. Fantle reported in 1959 Criminal Law Review 584.]"
30. In our administration of criminal justice an accused is presumed to be innocent unless such a presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by producing the evidence to show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Further if two views are possible on the evidence produced in the case, one indicating to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. In cases where the Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the accused. At the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution taking it as false, untrustworthy or unreliable on fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 21 OF 23
STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
Digitally signed
FIR NO. 345/2016 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09
16:18:25 +0530
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
31. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the evidence, the approach of the court must be integrated not truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of the evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the Court has to appreciate, analyse and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. It must be added that ultimately and finally the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each case.
32. In the present case, reasonable doubt has certainly arisen as to the version stated by the IO in getting the forged insurance policy from accused Mukesh. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, even the involvement of the offending vehicle qua which the alleged fake insurance policy was generated is not established.
33. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on 'Anil s/o Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541'.
Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 22 OF 23
STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 345/2016 NIRMAL 16:18:30 +0530
Date: 2026.02.09
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
34. In the light of above discussion and reasons, this Court is of the considered view that evidence led by the prosecution is highly insufficient and is discrepant on the material aspects of this case. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused present in the Court beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts. In the instant case prosecution has failed to prove its case and accordingly, accused persons Mohd. Azimuddin and Mukesh Kumar are hereby acquitted of the charges leveled against them by the prosecution. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. SEEMA by Digitally signed SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.02.09 16:18:37 +0530 Announced in the Open (SEEMA NIRMAL) Court on 09.02.2026 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/ 09.02.2026 It is certified by me that this judgment contains 23 pages and each page is personally signed by me. SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:18:40 +0530 Date: 2026.02.09 (SEEMA NIRMAL) JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/09.02.2026 Cr CASE NO. 4095/2018 PAGE 23 OF 23 STATE Vs. MOHD. AZIMUDDIN & ANR.
FIR NO. 345/2016PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR