Delhi District Court
State vs Gurdeep Singh on 30 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K.AGRAWAL,
MM-04 (East) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 180/94
PS: Shakarpur
Offence Complained of : 420 IPC
Date of commission of Offence : 11.02.1994
Unique Case I.D. No. : 02402R0030762000
Serial No. of the case : 582/09
JUDGMENT
STATE VS GURDEEP SINGH Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh R/o Sambi Market, Goraya, District Jalandhar, Punjab ...................Accused C.S. Chaudhary S/o Sh. Ved Ram R/o C-4/339, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi ...........Complainant Date of Institution : 17.11.1995 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Date of reserving judgment/order : 26.09.2013 Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2013 Final order : Acquitted Brief reasons for the decision of the case: -
1. In brief the story of the prosecution is that on 11.02.1994 an agreement was executed between complainant C.S. Chaudhary and accused FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.1 of 14 Gurdeep for the purchase of one Maruti Car bearing No.PB13C 4141 from the accused for a consideration amount of Rs.1,55,000/- in the office of one G.N. Tiwari, which was situated at House No. 148, Gali No. 10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The payment was made in cash by the complainant at his home at C-4/339, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in the evening on the same day and possession of car was also taken by the complainant at the spot. At the time of delivery, the accused gave one slip of District Transport Officer Sangroor and form No. 29 & 30 with respect to said car. Accused also promised to hand over the registration certificate (RC) of the vehicle within seven days. However, the accused failed to deliver the RC despite repeated demands of complainant. On suspicion, complainant did an enquiry and then came to know that the aforesaid vehicle was a stolen vehicle and was not in the name of accused Gurdeep. Thereby, the accused cheated the complainant by selling the car which did not belong to him. Accordingly, on the complaint of complainant, the present FIR was registered against the accused for offence punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC. Thereafter accused was arrested in this case and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against him on 17.11.1995.
2. Charge was framed against the accused only for offence punishable u/s 420 IPC on 01.09.1997, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During PE, ten witnesses were examined by prosecution.
4. PW1 is C.S. Chaudhary who deposed that on 11.02.1994, an agreement took place in the office of G.N. Tiwari between him and the accused for purchase of Maruti Car bearing No. PB13C 4141 for an amount of Rs.
1,55,000/- in the presence of his son Surender Kumar and one Gyanender and G.N. Tiwari. On the same evening, he (this witness) gave the aforesaid purchase amount to the accused at his (this witness's) home and after payment the accused delivered a slip of District Transport Office FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.2 of 14 Sangroor which is Ex.PW1/A and form No. 29 & 30 of vehicle which are Ex.PW1/B & C respectively. Cash receipt regarding payment of money was also delivered by the accused which is Ex.PW1/D. The witness further deposed that the accused told him that he will deliver the RC of car within seven days but despite repeated demands, the accused failed to do so. Thereafter, on suspicion, he enquired from Transport Authority, Sangroor, regarding ownership of the car and then came to know that no Maruti car of such number was given by the said authority. Thereafter, he made complaint to police on 27.04.1994 vide his complaint Ex.PW1/A. The witness also deposed that later on he came to know that car was involved in theft. On 24.09.1994, police took possession of said car vide memo Ex. PW1/F. The accused was arrested in his presence vide Ex.PW1/G. The original documents given by this witness was seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H during investigation. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. The Car in question is Ex. P-1.
5. PW2 is HC Manoj who deposed that on 30.04.1994, he went to house No. 148, Gali No.10, Laxmi Nagar alongwith SI Roop Singh and there they met complainant C.S. Chaudhary. This witness got the FIR registered on the direction of IO/SI Roop Singh. IO also prepared site plan Ex.PW2/A in his presence.
6. PW3 is Inspector Surender Kumar, who deposed that his father C.S. Chaudhary had purchased the present car on 11.02.1994 from accused in his presence and payment of Rs. 1,55,000/- was also made to accused at their house. Accused handed over slip of DTO Sangroor (Ex.PW1/A), form No.29 (Ex. PW1/B) & form No. 30 (Ex. PW1/C) and cash receipt (Ex. PW1/D) which bears signatures of accused. The possession of car was taken on the spot by them. The witness further deposed that accused did not deliver the RC despite several demands and in the meantime, on verification by his father, it was found that the car was in the name of some FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.3 of 14 other person from whom it was snatched by some terrorists and a criminal case was pending with respect to this vehicle at Jalandhar. Thereafter, he (this witness) went to Jalandhar, Chandigrah and Sangroor Authority where he found that the vehicle was not registered in the name of accused. Thereafter, his father got the present FIR registered. The witness further deposed that on 24.09.1994, he alongwith IO/SI Roop Singh and other police officials went to Jalandhar where the accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/G from a place namely, Guraya. The accused also made disclosure about his involvement in this case vide Ex.PW3/A. Witness correctly identified the accused as well as car which is Ex. P-1.
7. PW4 is HC Devender who deposed that on 24.09.1994, he alongwith SI Roop Singh, Ct.Mahesh Chand and Surender Kumar went to kasba Guraya, Jalandhar and at the instance of Surender, accused was arrested from Sambi Market. Further the accused produced RC of vehicle which was seized by IO vide Ex. PW4/A.
8. PW5 is ASI Om Prakash, Duty Officer, who registered the present FIR.
Copy of FIR is Ex.PW5/A and endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW5/B.
9. PW6 is Ct. Pitamber who deposed that in the year 1994, he was sent by IO to Amritsar to verify that a certain person resided on certain address or not. He went to that address and met that person who told that he had purchased the vehicle from Pasco Motors and before registration of vehicle, it was snatched by some armed criminals. The witness could not tell the name of that person or his address.
10. PW7 is Arjun Singh Bist who deposed that in the year 1994, he was working at Hindustan Tour and Travels. Accused Gurdeep Singh came in the office and gave one closed envelope to him with instructions to give the same to Surender. The witness further stated that he knew Surender FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.4 of 14 as he used to come to his office with the accused. The accused and Surender were friends. Thereafter, he (this witness) gave the envelope to Surender in the evening within one or two days. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP wherein the witness denied that he had given any statement to police. He stated that police came to his office as Surender had arrested the accused and brought him to the office. He denied that he gave photocopy of RC or the insurance papers of the present car to police on 24.09.1994. He stated that he merely handed over the envelope to police officials. He further admitted his signatures on document Ex. PW7/A but denied that he handed over the above documents to the police vide this memo.
11. PW8 is Yogender Sareen, who deposed that on 19.03.1994, when he was going to his site at Jalandhar from main road in a new Maruti car (which was unregistered at that time), some terrorists intercepted and took away his car on gun point. He was dropped at an isolated place by the terrorists after being kidnapped in the same car. The witness could not tell the FIR No., of the case vide which he got the matter reported to police. During cross examination by Ld. APP, witness admitted that he gave his statement to IO of this case and also handed over copy of insurance. The witness stated that he did not remember whether he gave the engine number and chassis number of his vehicle to the IO or not. The witness also expressed his inability to identify the car due to long passage of time.
12. PW9 is retired Brigadier Narender Bahari, who deposed that on 06.01.1995, he was working as Chief Vigilance Officer of Maruti Udhyog Ltd., Gurgaon. On that day, HC Kartar Singh made enquiry from him about the present car and after verification from computer records, he informed HC Kartar that the said car was sold by Maruti Udhyog Ltd. to Pasco Automobile, Chandigrah on 23.02.1993. The official letter issued by this witness regarding the above facts is Ex. PW9/A. FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.5 of 14
13. PW10 HC Jai Bhagwan, who deposed that in the year 1994, IO/SI Roop Singh sent him to Chandigrah to enquire about real chassis number of car bearing No. PB13C 4141. He went to Pasco Company, Chandigrah and after obtaining the real chassis number and engine number, he found out the real owner of vehicle who was one Yogender Sareen. Thereafter, he went to the house of Yogender who told that his vehicle was stolen three days after its purchase.
14. No other witness was produced despite repeated opportunities to the prosecution. Even application u/s 311 Cr.P.C., moved by prosecution was allowed but prosecution failed to produce any further evidence. Thereafter, PE was closed as this was a very old case.
15. Statement of accused was recorded on 14.03.2013 u/s 313 Cr.P.C., r/w 281 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused stated that he did not sell any car to complainant C.S. Chaudhary nor took any money from him. He further denied that documents Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D were issued by him. He stated that PW2 Surender was his friend and since Surender wanted to purchase a car, he referred him to J.B. Car Bazar who used to deal in cars. Surender purchased one car from Gurjeet Singh and it was later found that the real owner of the car was one DSP. The accused further stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case. No DE was led by accused despite opportunity being given to him.
16. During final arguments it was argued by the state counsel that in view of testimony of PW1 & PW3 who are victims and eye witnesses of this case, the case against the accused stands completely proved. He further submits that DTO Slip Ex. PW1/A, form No. 29 Ex. PW1/B, Form No. 30 Ex. PW1/C & Cash receipt Ex. PW1/D bear the signatures of accused himself which shows that he sold the car to the complainant and took money from him despite the fact that car never belonged to him. He also FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.6 of 14 argued that the report of forensic expert, FSL Malviya Nagar who examined the signatures of accused on documents Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/D is admissible per se u/s 293 Cr.P.C. He further submits that there is no requirement in law that each and every witness cited by prosecution has to be examined in order to prove the prosecution case. He also argued that the other prosecution witnesses have also supported the case. Accordingly, he has prayed for the conviction of the accused.
17. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel has stated that the case against the accused has not been proved. He argued that the delivery receipt purportedly issued by the accused has not been exhibited by prosecution which shows that there has been no delivery of car from the accused to the complainant. He further argued that credibility of document Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/D stands impeached in view of the fact that these documents have been seized after about one year of registration of this FIR which shows that documents are manipulated documents. He further argued that there is a delay in seizure of car as well as apprehension of accused for about five months which has also not been explained by prosecution. He further argued that two material witnesses namely, Gyanender Bharti and G.N. Tiwari who are the alleged eye witnesses of transaction have not been examined by prosecution. He further submits that IO of this case has also not been examined. He further submits that car was in the name of one Gurjeet Singh as per record even though this person has not been cited neither as an accused nor as a witness in this case. Lastly, he submits that PW3 who is son of complainant PW1 and accused were friends (which fact is admitted even by PW7), has falsely implicated the accused by misusing the colour of his office, after some dispute between them, as PW1 & PW3 are police officials. Accordingly, he has prayed for the acquittal of the accused. Thereafter final arguments were closed.
18. In the instant case, the accused is alleged to have committed offence FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.7 of 14 punishable u/s 420 IPC which reads as under:-
"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."
So the prosecution is required to prove three things in this case;- (1) Accused Gurdeep cheated the complainant by claiming himself to be the owner of the car (2) Accused dishonestly induced the complainant to enter into the agreement for purchase of car, which the complainant would not have done, if he were not so cheated and (3) the accused induced the complainant to deliver money after deceiving him.
19. Before proceeding with appreciation of evidence, I would refer to the judgment in a case titled as Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa 1977 AIR 170 wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"Three principles of criminal jurisprudence which are well settled are as under:(i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case; (ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty; and (iii) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts."
I shall proceed with appreciation of prosecution evidence in the light of the ratio of aforesaid judgement.
FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.8 of 14
20. The evidence lead by the prosecution has been carefully perused by me and the rival contentions duly considered. In the present case, PW1 is the complainant himself and a material witness. PW2 is HC who joined investigation with IO and is a formal witness. PW3 is eye witness of this case and also a material witness. PW4 is another HC who joined investigation with IO and he is also a formal witness. PW5 is Duty Officer who is also a formal witness. PW6 is also a formal witness. PW7 is a witness is a corroborating witness. PW8 is original purchaser of car and a corroborating witness. PW9 is again a formal witness. PW10 is also a formal witness. It is self evident that prosecution case primarily relies on testimony of PW1 & PW3 in order to prove its case.
21. At the outset while evaluating the evidence it is pertinent to keep in consideration that in the present case, the alleged victims are police officials themselves who are of the rank of Sub-inspector or above and it is far more difficult to cheat a high ranked police officer in comparison to a common man. Furthermore in such a case the evidence on record, requires far more careful scrutiny and the standard of proof has to be higher in these cases as compared to other cases because there is a reasonable likelihood that the evidence produced may have been doctored/altered with, to suit one's interest being a police official.
22. After due appreciation of evidence, I find the prosecution case not proved because of the following reasons:-
(a) Documents Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D on which the prosecution case primarily relies, allegedly bear the signature of accused but they are not in the handwriting of the accused. The material aspect is that these documents have been seized by IO after about one year of registration of FIR. No explanation has come forth from the prosecution regarding the delay in seizure of these documents specially considering the fact that FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.9 of 14 these documents were in possession of complainant from the beginning itself. Though this fact in itself cannot discredit the credibility of those documents but it does create reasonable suspicion. Furthermore since both PW1 & PW3 are police officials, manipulation of these documents during this long period cannot be entirely ruled out.
(b) It is also pertinent to mention here that as per FSL report the signatures on documents are that of the accused himself. However, the FSL report is based on the specimen signatures of accused taken by the IO twice, one in front of witness Gyanender Bharti and another in front of another witness Devender. However the genuineness of specimen signatures of accused stands materially affected due to the fact that the said signatures of accused have not been obtained by IO in the court but at some uuspecifed place. Further more, the IO as well as witnesses of specimen signatures have also not been examined in the court to prove the above facts. Hence, the credibility of specimen signatures itself is doubtful and any report based on those specimen signatures cannot be relied on.
(c) One more fact regarding the above documents is also worth mentioning that FSL expert who has examined these documents and verified the signatures of the accused has not been cited as a witness in the charge sheet by the prosecution for reasons best known to the IO.
Even the copy of FSL report has not been supplied to the accused during the whole trial. Moreover charge has also not been framed against the accused for offences punishable u/s 468/471 IPC by the then Ld. MM for creating and using forged documents. No revision was preferred by the prosecution against the said order. In these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be permitted to rely on these documents.
(d) It is also pertinent to mention that the DTO slip of Sangroor Transport FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.10 of 14 Authority Ex.PW1/A, on which the prosecution relies is in the name of one Gurmeet Singh and the same was handed over to PW1 at the time of making payment. It is surprising as to how PW1 & PW3 despite being police officials themselves did not notice the fact that the said slip was not in the name of accused Gurdeep but of some other person. It is worth mentioning that a common layman can be cheated in this manner but it is difficult to cheat police official who are the rank of Sub-Inspector and Inspector in this manner. In fact, PW1 & PW3 did not even ask for photocopy of RC of vehicle from accused, which is also surprising. All these facts creates further suspicion on the prosecution version.
(e) As per PW3 the delivery of vehicle was taken on the spot by him and PW1 after making payment. The accused also allegedly issued a delivery receipt of the car. But the said delivery receipt has not been exhibited by the prosecution to prove that there was delivery of car by the accused to PW1. Moreover, no explanation has come forth from the prosecution as to why the vehicle was seized after five months of registration of FIR even though it was lying with PW1, all this while.
(f) No recovery of money has been effected from the accused which was allegedly paid to him by PW1. The IO has also not given any reason as to why the money was not recovered. This fact also creates doubt on prosecution version.
(g) Two very vital witnesses namely, Gyanender Bharti and G.N. Tiwari have not been examined by prosecution despite repeated opportunities. The testimony of both the witnesses was very important for this case because of the reason that the alleged agreement took place in the office of G.N. Tiwari and as per PW1 and PW3, accused Gurdeep was introduced to them by Gyanender Bharti. Further more the money was given to accused in the presence of Gyanender at the house of PW1. The FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.11 of 14 examination of these witnesses could have provided the missing link as to how the accused came into contact with PW1 & PW3 and what really transpired between the accused and PW1 and PW3.
(h) It is also surprising as to why no investigation was conducted by IO on the role of one Gurmeet @ Gurjeet Singh in whose name the DTO slip Ex. PW1/A was issued and the vehicle was registered. As per charge sheet, IO wanted to investigate the role of this person and had even applied for NBW against the accused but since he was an influential person of the area no further action was taken by IO against him nor any investigation was done regarding his role in the entire matter. The reason appears amusing that since the said Gurmeet was an influential person no investigation was done by the IO. Infact such a police officer is not competent enough to become an IO in any case. IO has also not conducted any investigation to find out as to how the accused Gurdeep came into the possession of present vehicle. All these facts creates doubt on prosecution version.
(i) As per PW1, the accused was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex. PW1/G however, the said document does not bear the signatures of PW1. The accused is alleged to have been arrested from Goraya, Jalandhar. PW3 states that he went alongwith IO and other police officials for the purpose of arrest of accused. However, this witness or the other police witnesses examined by prosecution who went alongwith IO for arrest of accused, do not state that the complainant PW1 also went alongwith them for arrest of accused. It appears that PW1 is deposing incorrectly on this fact.
(j) PW7 who is alleged to have given the photocopy of RC and insurance of vehicle has infact turned hostile to prosecution and stated that the said documents were not handed by him to IO. He states that he merely gave a FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.12 of 14 closed envelope to PW3. PW7 also states the accused was arrested by PW3 himself. Infact from the material on record, it appears that PW3 was himself conducting all the investigation of this case despite the fact that he was son of the complainant himself. Such an investigation is not a fair investigation and it cannot be relied as planting of evidence cannot be ruled out.
(k) Lastly, in view of many investigation latches on the part of IO, it was imperative that the IO was examined in order to explain the short comings in the investigation conducted by him. However, despite the fact that the case was pending on PE for about 15 years, many important witnesses including the IO himself, have not been examined by prosecution which fact also goes in favour of the accused.
23. At this stage it would also be worthwhile to refer to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 regarding the nature of burden of proof on the prosecution to prove its case. The ratio of this judgement is applied with the same vigour even after passing of more than 50 years. It was held in this case that :-
"There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted."
24. Again in a very recent case of Jagdish Prasad vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) 2011 (9) LRC 206 (Del), the Hon'ble High of Delhi had observed FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.13 of 14 that:-
"It is well settled that in a criminal case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. If, on consideration of the prosecution evidence, a reasonable doubt remains in respect of culpability of the accused, he is entitled to benefit of doubt."
25. With these observations, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Gurdeep, beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is hereby acquitted of offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Bail bond of accused and his surety shall be discharged only after six months in view of section 437-A Cr. P.C. Ordered accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on Dated: 30.09.2013.
(A. K. AGRAWAL) MM(East)/KKD/30.09.2013 FIR No. 180/94 State Vs Gudeep Singh Page no.14 of 14