Delhi District Court
State vs . Pritam Kumar on 27 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SNEHIL SHARMA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH-EAST) -08
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
State Vs. Pritam Kumar
FIR no. 224 /2010
PS Jamia Nagar
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 96460/2016 b The date of commission : 18.06.2010 c The date of Institution of the : 23.07.2016 case d The name of complainant : Mohd. Masood Alam, HOD JMI
e The names of accused and his : 1. Pritam Kumar s/o Sh. Ram parentage Narayan Mehta, 2. Gulam Ahmed Raza s/o Sh. Mohd. Noor Uzzama F The offence complained of : 419/420/468/471 IPC r.w. 120(B) IPC g The plea of accused : Not guilty h Orders reserved on : 31.03.2023 i The final order : Accused Pritam Kumar is convicted u/s 419/420/468/471 IPC r.w. 120(B) IPC and accused Gulam Ahmed Raza convicted for offence u/s 420/468/471 IPC r.w.
120(B) IPC
j The date of judgment : 27.04.2023
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.06.2010 at FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 1 OF PAGE 37 unknown time at Jamia University, both accused Pritam Kumar and Gulam Ahmed in furtherance of their common intention fraudulently and dishonestly induced the Proctor, Jamia Milia University and pasted photograph of Pritam on Hall Ticket and prepared false and fabricated document i.e. Hall Ticket and on that Hall Ticket accused Pritam appeared on behalf of Gulam Ahmed Raza, and signed on his behalf on the verification slip and used it with intention to give benefit to accused Gulam Mohd. Raza. Further on 18.06.2010 at unknown time at Jamia University, accused Pritam Kumar appeared before the interview committee for admission in the course of B Tech. in the name of Gulam Ahmed Raza. On the complaint of the complainant, an FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. On completion of the investigation and necessary formalities, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 419/420/468/471 IPC r.w. 120(B) IPC.
2. The Court took cognizance of the offences on the charge-
sheet filed by the police. After hearing both the parties, Court framed charge against the accused Pritam Kumar for the offences punishable u/s 419 IPC and accused Pritam Kumar and Gulam Ahmed for the offence u/s 420/468/471 IPC r.w. 120(B) IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the offences and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case.
PW1/ Professor Masood Alam deposed that on 18.06.2010, there FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 2 OF PAGE 37 was interview for B.Tech. Entrance Exam at Jamia Millia Islamia University. On that day PW1 was a member of the Interview Committee, whose chairman was Dean Faculty of Engineering and Technology. They also had forms of all the candidates filled by them for the said entrance exam. The said forms also contained one photograph of the candidate. One of the candidate Gulam Ahmad Raza appeared before the Committee. However, the person who had appeared before them did not match with the photograph on the form of Gulam Ahmad Raza. Upon inquiry, the said candidate accepted that he was not Gulam Ahmad Raza and was impersonating him and that his real name was Preetam Kumar. They thereafter, called the police. Police came to the spot and took the said impersonator with them. PW1 also gave complaint dated 18.06.2010 bearing signatures of PW1 at points A. The said complaint is now Ex.PW 1/A. PW1 cannot identify the person who had impersonated Gulam Ahmad Raza and appeared before the committee on 18.06.2010 as almost 10 years have lapsed.
4. Ld. APP for the State put leading questions to the PW1 wherein after specifically pointing out towards the accused, PW1 was asked whether accused is the same person (Pritam), who had impersonated Gulam Ahmad Raza on the date of interview. PW1 has stated that he cannot identify the accused because of lapse of time. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein PW1 admitted that correct roll number of the Gulam Ahmad Raza FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 3 OF PAGE 37 was 66605 and the centre number was 18 of Faculty of Education, Jamia Milian Islamia University and that during interrogation by the interview committee the person Pritam confessed that he was hired by Irshad @ Lakki to impersonate the accused Gulam Ahmad Raza for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and the amount of Rs. 1000/- was received from Irshad @ Lakki. PW1 denied all the suggestions put to him.
5. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Gulam Ahmad Raza wherein PW1 deposed that interview committee comprised of Dean Professor Nabi, Professor Sufiyan, Prof. Naseem, Prof. Akhtar and PW1. PW1 does not remember names of other members. PW1 does not remember whether police recorded statement of PW1 during investigation. Police did not record statement of any member of interview committee in presence of PW1. PW1 had given statement dated 18.06.2010 to the police. PW1 admitted that PW1 have never seen candidate Gulam Ahmad Raza. PW1 denied all the suggestions put to him.
6. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused Pritam wherein PW1 deposed that PW1 do not remember the time when Police had reached at interview centre or had left the spot. Police had interrogated from the impersonator in my presence and thereafter took him away. Statement of PW1 was recorded by the police either at the spot or in the office of Proctor. PW1 does not remember whether PW1 joined the investigation after 18.06.2010.
FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 4 OF PAGE 37
7. PW1 cannot say whether accused Pritam Kumar had appeared before the interview committee by impersonating to be Gulam Ahmad.
8. PW2/ Sh. SS Nabi, deposed that PW2 have retired from the post of Professor Deen faculty of Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia. PW2 does not remember the exact date, moth or year of the incident. However, on the date of incident interview were being conducted for B.Tech. Entrance and PW2 was the Chairman of the said Committee and also Deen of the Faculty of Engineering. PW2 cannot identify the accused.
9. Ld. APP for the State has cross examined PW2 wherein PW2 deposed that date of incident is 18.06.2010. On that day interview for admission of the B. Tech Entrance was going on. One candidate appeared in the name of Gulam Ahmad Raza. His photograph were not matching with the candidate who had given his application for said Entrance Exam. PW2 does not remember if the roll number of the said candidate was 66605. PW2 does not remember whether the candidate who had appeared for the interview disclosed his name as Pritam Kumar. PW2 denied suggestions put to him. After specifically pointing out towards the accused Pritam Kumar, PW2 is asked, if accused is the same person who had appeared for the interview and witness states that though accused resembles the said person, PW2 cannot say with any certainty, if accused Pritam Kumar was the same person who FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 5 OF PAGE 37 had appeared for the interview. Again said, it was Pritam Kumar who had appeared for the interview on the relevant date.
10. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for Pritam Kumar wherein he deposed that incident in question took place in presence of PW2. PW2 does not remember the exact time. There was no CCTV Cameras in the interview hall. PW2 have identified the accused on the basis of his memory. The photograph on the application form was probably of the accused who is in black jacket. (Court observation: PW2 has pointed towards accused Pritam Kumar). PW2 do not remember the exact place or date when statement of PW2 was recorded by the police. PW2 does not remember whether police had recorded statement of any other staff member in presence of PW2.
11. PW2 was cross examined by Ld.Counsel for accused Gulam Ahmad Raza. PW2 denied suggestions put to him. PW2 do not remember the name of the person who had informed the police. (Vol. Police must have been informed by someone from staff).
12. PW3/Professor Khalid Moin deposed that PW3 is working as Professor, Department of Civil Engineering in Jamia Millia Islamia since 1985. On 18.06.2010, PW3 was the convener of the admission committee for B.Tech Entrance Exam and on that day interview of the admission of B.Tech was going on. The photograph on the admission form of the candidate appeared in the name of Gulam Ahmad Raza did not match with the person FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 6 OF PAGE 37 appearing against the said candidate. The said candidate who appeared before the interview committee was asked about other details of actual candidate Gulam Ahmad Raza such as his address and father's name and he could not state the said details correctly. Thereafter some further questioning the said person admitted that he was not Gulam Ahmad Raza and that his name was Pritam Kumar. They then informed about the incident to the office of Proctor vide application Ex.PW1/A bearing signatures of PW3 at point B. Thereafter police came to the spot and took the said Pritam Kumar with them. PW3 has correctly identified the application form of the accused which is Ex.PW 3/A. Hall ticket for interview is now Ex.PW 3/B was issued by Jamia University. PW3 was shown verification slip of Gulam Ahmad Raza, PW3 has correctly identified the same and stated that VC Nominee Professor S. Akhtar Hussain had written on it 'it seems a case of impersonation...' from point A to A and the said verification slip is Ex.PW 3/C. PW3 can identify signatures of Professor S. Akhtar Hussain. Verification slip Ex.PW 3/C bears signatures of PW3 at point B. The said candidate Pritam Kumar also gave a written confession Ex.PW 3/D. PW3 cannot identify the said Pritam Kumar as the matter is quite old. Ld. APP for the State asked leading questions. After specifically pointing out towards the accused Pritam Kumar, PW3 is asked, if accused is the same person who had appeared for the interview and PW3 states that he FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 7 OF PAGE 37 cannot say as to whether accused Pritam Kumar is the same person who had appeared before the interview committee on the relevant date. PW3 deposed that he cannot identify accused Gulam Ahmad Raza as he never appeared before the interview committee. Interview committee has application form of each candidate and photograph of the candidate is already affixed on the said application form. When candidate appears for the interview, he brings with him verification slip and admit card and his photograph is already affixed on verification slip as well as admit card. In the instant case, photograph of the candidate as affixed on the application form did not match with the person who was actually appearing for the interview. PW3 denied all the suggestions put to him.
13. PW3 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for Pritam Kumar wherein PW3 deposed that PW3 do not remember the exact time when the incident in question occurred. Around 8 members were present in the interview committee at the time of incident in question. Professor SS Nabi was present in the interview room at the time of incident in question. PW3 does not remember the time when police came to the spot. Statement of PW3 was recorded by the police in the office of Dean. Police had recorded statement of PW3 on another occasion as well. PW3 does not remember the exact date when statement of PW3 was recorded by the police. Police had not recorded statement of any other person in presence FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 8 OF PAGE 37 of PW3. PW3 deposed that application form remains in the custody of University and that as per record photograph as appearing on application form Ex.PW 3/A and Admit card Ex.PW 3/B is of the same person and that verification slip Ex.PW3/C does not contain any photograph. PW3 do not remember whether they had taken any ID proof from the person who had appeared for the interview and who had disclosed his name as Pritam Kumar. Confession Ex.PW 3/D was written in presence of PW3.
14. PW4/Professor Sayed Akhtar Husain deposed that on 18.06.2010, PW4 was VC nominee of interview Committee for the interview of B.Tech. Admission in the office of Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia. The interview started at 10 am. In the interview accused Gulam Ahmad Raza was to be interviewed by the Board as per list however, accused Pritam Kumar appeared in place of Gulam Ahmad Raza. During interview they came to know that the person who was appearing before Interview Board, was not actual candidate as the photograph of the actual candidate was affixed on entrance form and the same was being displayed during the interview on the projector. The same could not match with the person who was appearing in the interview i.e. Pritam. After suspicion they inquired from accused Pritam on which he disclosed that he had appeared for impersonation of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza, for which he had been assured Rs.25000/- out of which Rs.1000/- was FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 9 OF PAGE 37 paid to accused Pritam in advance. Accused Pritam had also informed that he had been hired by one person namely Irshad @ Lucky to appear in the aforesaid interview. Accused Pritam had also gave a written statement to Dean in this regard. Matter was then reported to Proctors' office, who then called the police. Dean had handed over accused Pritam to Proctor. PW4 cannot identify the accused Pritam as the matter is more than 10 years old. (Court observation: accused is absent today and exemption application moved on his behalf was allowed subject to the condition that he shall not dispute his identity).
15. PW4 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused Pritam wherein PW4 does not remember where, when or how many times was his statement recorded by the police. PW4 does not remember number of candidates who appeared for the interview. Accused Pritam gave his confession to the Dean in his presence and in the presence of other members of the Board. The statement was written by accused Pritam in his own hand. Document Ex.DW 3/D wherein PW4 was asked if signatures of Dean or your or any other witness are there or not, to which witness has stated that the said document is written by accused Pritam however, there is no signature of any persons aforesaid. PW4 was denied all the suggestions put to him. Apart from photograph on the form Ex.PW3/B, there was no other document with the interview committee to identify the accused. PW4 FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 10 OF PAGE 37 admitted that that photograph on Ex.PW 3/B is of Gulam Ahmad Raza. PW4 cannot say whether photograph on Ex.PW 3/B is of the accused Gulam Ahmad Raza who was present in the court. PW4 cannot say whether photograph on Ex.PW 3/B is not of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza. PW4 does not remember whether police had come in presence of PW4 or not or whether any investigation was conducted in presence of PW4 or not.
16. PW4 in cross examination deposed that there were 7 members in the interview board. PW4 cannot tell at what time accused Pritam Kumar appeared before the interview board. PW4 have never seen Gulam Ahmad Raza. PW4 cannot say whether photograph on Ex.PW 3/B is not of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza.
17. PW5/Sh. Syed Naseem Ahmad deposed that on 18.06.2010, PW5 was working as Head of Electronics Department, Jamia University. On the said day, there was an interview for B.Tech. Course and PW5 was a member of the interview committee. Photograph of one of the candidate Gulam Ahmad Raza (Roll no. 66605) as appearing on the application form did not match with the face of the actual candidate who appeared before us. When he was asked about this, he admitted that he was not Gulam Ahmad Raza and disclosed that his real name was Pritam Kumar. Pritam Kumar gave his written statement in this regard in his own hand. He signed the said statement and also put his thumb impression on the same. Thereafter, Dean informed the Proctors' Office and FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 11 OF PAGE 37 further proceedings were carried out and accused Pritam Kumar was handed over to Proctors office. PW5 cannot identify accused Pritam Kumar as the matter is more than 10 years old. (Court observation accused is absent today and exemption application moved on his behalf was allowed subject to the condition that he shall not dispute his identity).
18. PW5 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused Pritam wherein PW5 deposed that PW5 does not remember where, when or how many times was my statement recorded by the police. PW5 does not remember number of candidates who appeared for the interview. Accused Pritam gave his confession to the Dean in presence of PW5 and in the presence of other members of the Board. The statement was written by accused Pritam in his own hand. PW5 does not remember whether PW5 had signed the said statement or not. PW5 denied all the suggestions put to him. Apart from photograph on the form Ex.PW3/B, there was no other document with the interview committee to identify the accused. The form from which photograph was found to be different from the actual candidate appearing was form Ex.PW3/A. PW5 admitted that photograph on Ex.PW 3/B and Ex. PW3/ A is of same person. PW5 cannot say whether photograph on Ex.PW 3/A is of the accused Gulam Ahmad Raza, who is present in the court. PW5 cannot say whether photograph on Ex.PW 3/A is not of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza.
FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 12 OF PAGE 37 PW5 does not remember whether police had come in presence of PW5 or not. No investigation was conducted in presence of PW5. PW5 had not gone to the PS after the date of incident.
19. PW5 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Gulam Ahmad Raza wherein PW5 deposed that letter has been issued for appointment of PW5 as member in the Interview Board. PW5 had not given the said letter to the police. IO had not recorded statement of PW5. PW5 have never seen accused Gulam Ahmad Raza. PW5 have never seen Gulam Ahmad Raza. PW5 cannot say whether photograph on Ex.PW 3/A and Ex. PW 3/B is not of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza.
20. PW6/ Professor M M Sufyan Beg deposed that on 18.06.2010 PW6 was working as Head of Department in Computer Engineering at Jamia University. On that date, there was B. Tech entrance exam. PW6 was the member of the interview board. One candidate appeared as Gulam Ahmed Raza. The said candidate did not resemble photograph on the application form, which was with them. When they questioned him, he admitted that he was not Gulam Ahmed Raza and that his name was Pritam Kumar. They then reported the matter to the Proctor, who filed the present complaint. They also handed over the custody of the said boy to the Proctor. PW6 can not identify the said Pritam Kumar as the matter is very old. PW6 deposed all that whatever PW6 remember, in his earlier examination in chief. PW6 was put leading questions FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 13 OF PAGE 37 with respect to the identity of the accused by Ld. APP and APP pointed out towards the Pritam Singh and asked if the said person who had appeared in the interview before the interview board and the name of the said person is Pritam and PW6 stated that he cannot identify the accused as the matter is now too old. PW6 was cross examined by Ld. APP where in statement mark PW-6/A is shown to the PW6, after seeing the same the PW6 stated that he had given the statement to the police. PW6 admitted that the accused Pritam had told PW6 that one person namely Irshad had hired him for Rs. 25000 also given Rs 1000 as advance and told that if the actual candidate got admission in B Tech, Rs. 25000 will be paid to the accused. PW6 admitted that the Accused Pritam Kumar had signed on the Hall Ticket as Gulam Ahmad Raza and that the interview committee had handed over the accused Pritam to the Police.
21. PW6 was cross examined by Ld Counsel for accused Pritam where PW6 deposed that his statement was recorded once by the IO in the college itself PW6 do not remember the exact date and time of recording of statement of PW6. At the time of interview, candidates were being interviewed at the same time before the Board IO had not recorded any disclosure statement of the accused Pritam in presence of PW6. PW6 was shown the Hall Ticket Ex.PW3/B, and asked about whose photograph is affixed on the document at point Ql. The PW6 states that he cannot identify the FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 14 OF PAGE 37 accused persons present in the court today by looking at the photograph of the hall ticket as the photograph affixed on the hall ticket is 11 years old and the face and appearance of the accused persons had grown and changed after 11 years. The photograph affixed on the document Ex. PW3/A & B are the same. PW6 admitted that as per record, the photo affixed to the Hall Ticket Ex. PW3/B must be of the Gulam Raza as Hall Ticket is in his name. PW6 admitted that the face of the accused present in the court does not match with the photo affixed on Ex. PW3/B as the photograph affixed on the hall ticket is 11 years old and the face and appearance of the accused persons had grown and changed after 11 years. The photograph affixed on the document Ex. PW3/A & B are the same. PW6 admitted that as per record, the photo affixed to the Hall Ticket Ex. PW3/B must be of the Gulam Raza as Hall Ticket is in his name. It is correct that the face of the accused present in the court does not match with the photo affixed on Ex. PW3/B as the photograph affixed on the hall ticket is 11 years old and the face and appearance of the accused persons had grown and changed after 11 years.
22. PW6 does not remember if the police had arrived in his presence or not. PW6 admitted that IO did not prepare any arrest document in his presence. PW6 further admitted that he did not visit the PS after the incident. PW6 denied all the suggestions put to him.
FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 15 OF PAGE 37
23. PW 7/ Professor AQ Ansari deposed that on 18.06.2010 He was working as Head of Department of Electric Engineering at Jamia University. On that day there was B. Tech entrance interviews. PW 7 was the member of the interview board. One candidate appeared as Gulam Ahmed Raza. However, the said candidate did not resemble photograph on the application form, which was with them. When they questioned him, PW7 admitted that PW7 was not Gulam Ahmed Raza and that his name was Pritam Kumar. They then reported the matter to the Proctor, who filed the present complaint. They also handed over the custody of the said boy to the Proctor. PW7 can not identify the said Pritam Kumar as the matter is very old. PW7 deposed all that whatever PW7 remember, in his earlier examination in chief. PW7 was put leading questions with respect to the identity of the accused by Ld. APP and APP pointed out towards the Pritam Singh and asked if the said person who had appeared in the interview before the interview board and the name of the said person is Pritam and PW7 stated that he cannot identify the accused as the matter is now too old. PW7 was cross examined by Ld. APP where in statement mark PW-7/A is shown to the PW7, after seeing the same the PW7 stated that he had given the statement to the police. PW7 admitted that the accused Pritam had told PW7 that one person namely Irshad had hired him for Rs. 25000 also given Rs 1000 as advance and told that if the actual candidate got admission FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 16 OF PAGE 37 in B Tech, Rs. 25000 will be paid to the accused. PW7 admitted that the Accused Pritam Kumar had signed on the Hall Ticket as Gulam Ahmad Raza and that the interview committee had handed over the accused Pritam to the Police.
24. PW7 was cross examined by Ld Counsel for accused Pritam where PW7 deposed that his statement was recorded once by the IO in the college itself PW7 do not remember the exact date and time of recording of statement of PW7. At the time of interview, candidates were being interviewed at the same time before the Board IO had not recorded any disclosure statement of the accused Pritam in presence of PW7. PW7 was shown the Hall Ticket Ex.PW3/B, and asked about whose photograph is affixed on the document at point Ql. The PW7 states that he cannot identify the accused persons present in the court today by looking at the photograph of the hall ticket as the photograph affixed on the hall ticket is 11 years old and the face and appearance of the accused persons had grown and changed after 11 years. The photograph affixed on the document Ex. PW3/A and B are the same. PW7 admitted that as per record, the photo affixed to the Hall Ticket Ex. PW3/B must be of the Gulam Raza as Hall Ticket is in his name. PW7 admitted that the face of the accused present in the court does not match with the photo affixed on Ex. PW3/B as the photograph affixed on the hall ticket is 11 years old and the face and appearance of the accused persons had grown and changed FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 17 OF PAGE 37 after 11 years. The photograph affixed on the document Ex. PW3/A and B are the same. PW7 admitted that as per record, the photo affixed to the Hall Ticket Ex. PW3/B must be of the Gulam Raza as Hall Ticket is in his name. PW7 admitted that the face of the accused present in the court does not match with the photo affixed on Ex. PW3/B as the photograph affixed on the hall ticket is 11 years old and the face and appearance of the accused persons had grown and changed after 11 years. PW7 does not remember if the police had arrived in his presence or not. PW7 admitted that IO did not prepare any arrest document in his presence. PW7 further admitted that he did not visit the PS after the incident. PW7 denied all the suggestions put to him.
25. PW8/ Prof. M.Shakeel, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, JMI, New Delhi deposed that In the year 2016, PW8 was posted as Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, JMI, New Delhi. PW8 does not remember the exact date. However, in the year 2016, PW8 had issued a letter to Chief Proctor, JMI, wherein, PW8 had mentioned that the desired documents were not available in the office after extensive search in the concerned departments. The letter is Ex. PW8/A bearing signature of PW8 at point A.
26. PW9/ Retd. Inspector Raj Kumar deposed that on 15.09.2015 PW9 was posted at DIU, South East as Inspector. On that day, PW9 received the case file of present case for further FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 18 OF PAGE 37 investigation. During the investigation PW9 tried to obtain original papers including OMR sheet etc. from Jamia University, however, PW9 could not received the same. PW9 had also tried to obtain the CDR of co-accused namely Irshad @ Lucky, however, PW9 could not found the same. Thereafter, PW9 had obtained the photographs and thumb impression of accused Gulam and sent the same to FSL along with other documents. PW9 prepared the challan and submitted before the concerned Court. PW9 identified accused Gulam.
27. PW9 was cross examined wherein PW9 deposed that PW9 does not know the date of the notice sent to the accused Gulam Ahmed Raza. PW9 had sent to the notice u/s 161 Cr.P.C to the accused. The accused had appeared before me on 11.04.2016. PW9 does not remember if PW9 had obtained the signature of accused Gulam Ahmed Raza. PW9 had sent the photographs to CFSL. PW9 does not remember the number of the forwarding letter of the CFSL. (Vol. PW9 can say after going through the file). PW9 had sent to CFSL Rohini. PW9 had matched the thumb impression of the accused from the form filled for the entrance exam. PW9 had prepared the questionnaire. PW9 can say the number of the questions prepared by PW9 as mentioned in FSL form. PW9 does not remember the colour of mark on question. PW9 had sealed the documents in an envelope while sending to FSL with the seal of 'RK'. PW9 had handed over seal of PW9 to FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 19 OF PAGE 37 the reader. PW9 denied all the suggestion.
28. PW10/ ASI Birjesh Kumar deposed that on 18.06.2010 PW10 was posted at PS Jamia Nagar as constable. The DO had handed over PW10 the copy of FIR and PW10 handed over the same to ASI Bani Singh. PW10 along with ASI Bani Singh went to PS. Bani Singh arrested the accused Preetam vide memo ExPW10/A, bearing signature of PW10 at point A, and also conducted his personal search vide memo ExPW10/B, bearing signature of PW10 at point A and also recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW10/C, bearing signature PW10 at point A. PW10 also got conducted the medical examination of accused Preetam in AIIMS. PW10 identified accused Preetam in court.
29. PW10 was cross examined wherein PW10 deposed that PW10 had handed over the copy of FIR to Bani Singh. PW10 does not remember at what time PW10 went at the spot along with ASI Bani Singh. Accused was arrested in presence of PW10 at the spot at about 08:45 PM. Statement of PW10 was recorded only once at the spot on 18.06.2010 by the IO. PW10 does not remember the exact time when PW10 left the spot. PW10 does not remember if anyone except Bani Singh was present at the spot or not. PW10 does not remember the time when PW10 went for the medical examination of accused. PW10 does not remember whether the arrest memo was prepared prior to medical examination or not. PW10 had not joined the investigation except abovesaid with the FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 20 OF PAGE 37 IO. PW10 denied all th suggestions put to him.
30. PW11 ASI Rukhamana Ram deposed that on 26.04.2011, PW11 was posted at PS Jamia Nagar as head constable. Accused Gulam Ahmed Raza came at PS and ASI Bani Singh arrested the accused Gulam Ahmed Raza vide memo ExPW11/A, bearing signature of PW11 at point A, and also recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW11/C. IO/ASI Bani Singh released the accused on police bail. PW11 identified accused Ahmed Raza in the court.
31. PW11 was cross examined wherein PW11 deposed that PW11 does not remember if accused Gulam Ahmed Raza had come to PS at his own or he was called by the IO. The accused came at PS at about 05:00-05:15 PM. PW11 had not joined the investigation except abovesaid with the IO. PW11 denied all the suggestions put to him.
32. PW12/ Retired SI Bani Singh deposed that on 18.06.2010, PW12 was posted as ASI at PS Jamia Nagar. On that day PW12 was present at the PS. Proctor of JMI University along with officials of interview committee and accused Pritam came at the PS and gave written complaint which Ex.PW1/A. On the basis of the said complaint present FIR was registered. PW12 had interrogated the accused Pritam and later on arrested him vide arrest memo already Ex.PW10/A bearing signature of PW12 at point B. PW12 prepared personal search memo Ex.PW10/ B FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 21 OF PAGE 37 bearing signature of PW12 at point B. PW12 recorded disclosure statement of the accused Pritam Kumar vide memo Ex.PW 10/C bearing signature of PW12 at point B. Proctor Maksoor Ahmad produced certain documents pertaining to present case which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A bearing signature of PW12 at point A. PW12 got conducted medical examination of the accused and prepared dossiers of the accused. PW12 deposed that on dated 26.04.2011 accused Gulam Ahmad came at the PS Jamia Nagar and PW12 formally arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/A bearing signature of PW12 at point B. PW12 also recorded disclosure statement of the accused Gulam Ahmad Raza vide memo Ex.PW 11/B bearing signature of PW12 at point B. Thereafter investigation of the present case was transferred to DIU. PW12 can identify the accused persons if produced before PW12. (Exemption application filed on behalf of both accused and same was allowed only subject to the condition that they shall not dispute their identities and shall not object to examination of PW being conducted in their absence).
33. PW12 was cross examined wherein PW12 deposed that accused Gulam Ahmad Raza was called by informing through somebody to the PS. Further it is accused Gulam Ahmad Raza called at the PS Jamia Nagar after serving notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. to join investigation. (However said notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. is not found in judicial file). PW12 admitted that PW12 had written the FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 22 OF PAGE 37 disclosure statement of the accused verbatim statement given by the accused. PW12 admitted that PW12 did not take signature of any public witness on the arrest memo of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza. PW12 did the formalities of the personal bond and surety bonds as accused was on anticipatory bail. PW12 denied all the suggestions put to him.
34. PW12 does not remember the time when the proctor of JMI University along with officials of interview committee along with the accused came at PS. Complaint Ex.PW 1/A written by proctor of JMI University before coming to PS. PW12 had gone to the spot after registration of the FIR. PW12 had not recorded statement of any public person regarding the complaint. PW12 recorded statement of proctor and members of interview committee in PS after registration of FIR. PW12 along with accused Pritam Kumar, HC Rukmana only were present at the spot. PW12 inquired from the public persons available at the spot regarding the complaint concerned but there was no such facts as alleged in the complaint was observed at the spot. PW12 admitted that accused Pritam was not arrested in the presence of any independent public person.
35. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, (accused Pritam Kumar) deposed he had been falsely implicated. He came to meet his brother near about 15.06.2010 who lives in Delhi. He give coaching to students of 12 th class for FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 23 OF PAGE 37 entrance test. He went to JMI University on 18.06.2010 to interact with students an to learn about the exam pattern of the exam. He was checking the notice board near the interview centre. Suddenly a professor came and started unnecessarily arguments with him. Then he made him sit there. He was not aware that he was professor at that time and in the last he called police. This case is against him in frustration of argument with the professor.
36. (accused Gulam Ahmad Raza) deposed that he have been falsely implicated. He was getting coaching in Allhabad, for B.Tech Entrance exam. He had not come/ visited JMI University. He had filled JMI B. Tech Entrance Exam but has not given the said exam. He does not know the co-accused Pritam. Neither he is aware about his role. He submitted his form in coaching institute and coaching institute i.e. Shahid Classes, Allahabad sent someone to deposit the form in JMI University. One day police came to his house and he got the information about this case.
37. No defence was led by the accused Gulam Ahmad Raza despite opportunity. But accused Pritam led DE.
38. DW1/ Pritam Kumar (accused) deposed that DW1 came to meet his brother namely Santosh Kumar 15.06.2010 who lives in Delhi. DW1 give coaching to students of 12 th class for entrance test. DW1 went to JMI University on 18.06.2010 to interact with students an to learn about the exam pattern of the exam. DW1 was checking the notice board near the interview center. Suddenly a FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 24 OF PAGE 37 professor came and started unnecessarily arguments with DW1. Then he made DW1 to sit there. DW1 was not aware that he was professor at that time and in the last he called police. This case is against DW1 in frustration of argument with the professor. DW1 has been falsely implicated.
39. DW1 was cross examined where DW1 deposed that in the year 2010 DW1 was residing in Patna and was running a personal coaching center there. DW1 denied suggestion that DW1 appeared before the interview commit for admission for B-Tech in the name of Gulam Ahmad Raza on 18.06.2010 or that DW1 fraudulently and dishonestly induced the proctor JMI University and pasted photograph of DW1 on Hall Ticket and appeared on behalf of Gulam Ahmad Raza. DW1 denied suggestion that DW1 signed on his behalf on verification slip and used it with intention to give benefit to accused Gulam Ahmad Raza. DW1 admitted that DW1 had not made any complaint to the police regarding misbehavior of aforesaid professor. DW1 denied suggestion that no such incident as mention in examination in chief had ever taken place or that DW1 was deposing falsely being accused in the present case.
40. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that case of the prosecution has been fully proved as all the evidences are in line with the prosecution story and all the circumstances are proving the same. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 25 OF PAGE 37 that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
41. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel for accused and considered the respective arguments as well as gone through case file very carefully.
42. Firstly undersigned discuss the offence u/s 419/468/471 IPC Perusal of the testimony of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW10, the undersigned found that all the witness have deposed the correct date of incident i.e. 18.06.2010 and same is also corroborated with verification slip Ex.PW1/3 on which VC nominee has signed the date as 18.06.2010 and date of interview is also marked as 18.06.2010. Moreover all the PWs specially the interviewing members (PW1 to PW7) has stated that there was interview of B. Tech entrance exam. Same is also corroborated with Ex.PW3/A that is application for admission filled by accused Gulam Ahmad Raza for the course of B. Tech. Therefore the date of incident and reason for presence of the witnesses at the place of incident is confirmed from the above discussed and also from FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 26 OF PAGE 37 their testimonies.
43. It is categorically stated by PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, that one of the candidate Gulam Ahmad Raza (accused) appeared before the committee. However the person who had appeared before them did not match with the photographs of Gulam Ahmad Raza on the form as they were having forms of all the candidates filled by them for admission. It is also categorically stated by the above said witnesses that upon inquiry the said candidate accepted that he was not Gulam Ahmad Raza and was impersonating him and his real name is Pritam Kumar (accused).
Despite thorough cross examination, witnesses remained unchallenged and unrebutted on this aspect.
44. Moreover FSL report also shows that thumb impression Q5 on application form for admission is of Gulam Ahmad Raza and thumb impression Q12 upon verification slip belongs to Pritam Kumar though the name of the candidate mentioned on verification slip is Gulam Ahmad Raza and it is also mentioned by VC nominee/ PW4 that this is a case of impersonation. Even the FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 27 OF PAGE 37 signature marked Q3 in verification slip and Mark Q2 on entrance test are opined to be written by the one and the same person. As opined after comparison with specimen signature S19/2, S20/2, S21/2 taken by interviewing committee on 18.06.2010 which is also corroborated by the confession made by accused Pritam Kumar Ex.PW3/D that he has given the entrance test and also appearing for the interview. Same is also corroborated with the testimony of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, who deposed that Pritam Kumar gave his written statement/ confession about wrongful act in his own handwriting to interviewing committee.
45. Perusal of the arrest memo of Pritam Kumar also shows that accused Pritam Kumar was arrested on 18.06.2010 from JMI University. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and 315 Cr.P.C.
accused has admitted his presence at the university near the interview centre and submits that he was checking the notice board. However he could not depose that why he was checking the notice board if he was not called by the interviewing committee for admission. It is also not the case of the accused Pritam that he FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 28 OF PAGE 37 was accompanying some other person in interview. Moreover it is also not the case of the wrong identity of the accused that on the same roll number two persons have appeared with the same name rather accused Gulam Ahmad Raza did not appear and at the same time accused Pritam Kumar appeared in disguise of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza. It is also not the case of the accused that the PWs were having any ill will against him so as to use university to falsely implicate him. Further, moreover as per the accused he is resident of Bihar and he could not answer satisfactory reason for being in interview on the given time and date and could not produce his brother namely Santosh Kumar as witness that he came to Delhi to meet him.
46. Moreover some of the witnesses have failed to identify the accused Pritam due to long lapse of time in between date of incident and in their testimony before the court but none has wrongly identified the accused and due to absence of the accused, some of the witnesses even did not get the chance to identify him and on those dates accused has not disputed his identity. It is also FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 29 OF PAGE 37 stated by all the PWs that more than 10 years have lapsed and appearance of the accused might have changed and PW2 who was also the member of the interviewing committee has first stated that accused resembles with the same person who had appeared for the interview and then again said with certainty that it is the accused.
Undersigned sees no circumstances in which witnesses can be doubted. Hence all the circumstances, evidences including FSL report are confirming presence of accused Pritam before the interviewing committee impersonating Gulam Ahmad Raza and created/ forged false document for the purpose of cheating and fraudulently / dishonestly use the same as genuine before interviewing committee.
47. In another decision reported in (2011) ACR 704 in the case of SK. YUSUF v/s STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 14 June, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has again held as under: "Extra judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. Extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 30 OF PAGE 37 it passes the test of credibility. Para 22"
48. As held by the Hon. Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal v.
State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 that"expert opinion must always be received with great caution........it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion with out substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law." Hon. The Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal no. 87 of 2020 Padum Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh has stated that 'It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence'.
49. In Ramesh Bhai & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan Cr. Apl NOs. 868-869 OF 2004 Hon. Supreme Court of India stated that 'there is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 31 OF PAGE 37 Court'.
50. For offence u/s 420/468/471 IPC read with 120 (B) IPC it is found from the testimony of all the PWs that they have all deposed the similar version of the incident as discussed above and stated that the photograph on the form of accused Gulam Ahmed Raza was not matching with the person appearing before the committee.
PW2 has deposed that photograph on the application was of the accused Pritam though the application is in the name of Gulam Ahmed Raza. PW3 has also deposed that whenever candidate appear for the interview he brings with him verification slip and admit card. Admittedly application form of Gulam Ahmad Raza was with the interview committee and the person (Pritam) who entered for interview with the verification slip and admit card was not matching with the application form and PW4 also deposed the same. PW5 also corroborated the same with similar deposition.
51. Additionally, it is categorically deposed by all the PWs including the PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7 that the person who appeared on behalf of Gulam Ahmad Raza told his name as Pritam FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 32 OF PAGE 37 Kumar. Even after long lapse of time and due to their old age PWs correctly said the name of the accused as Pritam Kumar and Gulam Ahmad Raza. Moreover PW3 categorically stated that accused Pritam could not state the basic details of Gulam Ahmad Raza correctly and after some questioning he admit that his name is Pritam Kumar. It is also deposed by all of the above including PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 that accused Pritam Kumar confessed that he was hired by Irshad Lucky to impersonate Gulam Ahmad Raza for amount of Rs.25000 and amount of Rs.1000 was received and Ex.PW1/A also mentions the same. Ex.PW3/D also corroborate with the same. Both have remained unchallenged and unrebutted.
52. The only purpose of accused Pritam to appear before the interview committee instead of Gulam Ahmed Raza was to secure admission of Gulam Ahmed Raza in JMI B. Tech course. No other purpose could be drawn. The purpose was to cheat and duping the university and confirm the selection of the accused in university.
The cheating was not only with the university but also with the genuine candidate who might not get the admission if both the FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 33 OF PAGE 37 accused succeeded in their motive to secure admission. The same is also cheating with the bright students and might be a demotivating factor.
53. Accused Gulam Ahmed Raza has no where stated that why he has not appeared in the university test/ interview on the given date and time and how his admit card and verification slip came into the possession of the other person (Pritam). Accused Gulam Ahmad Raza has failed to rebutt even allegation of the prosecution that he has not appeared in entrance test.In his statement 313 Cr.P.C. he has admitted that he had not visited the JMI University and has not given any exam. Gulam Ahmed Raza has no where shown any DD entry of the missing documents or any communication with the university of informing the same. FSL report is also against the accused persons. Same cannot be done without the conspiracy and after the planning that how University will be duped. In order to achieve the same accused Pritam in consent with the accused Gulam Ahmad Raza not only appeared in the interview but also signed on behalf of the Gulam Ahmad Raza FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 34 OF PAGE 37 on the verification slip. Copying the signature of the accused Gulam Ahmad Raza is possible only if Gulam Ahmad Raza has shown him his signatures and accused Pritam had practiced the same and this cannot be done without the conspiracy.
54. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
55. In Ram Sharan Chaturvedi Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh in The Supreme Court Of India, Cr.l APPEAL No. FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 35 OF PAGE 37 1066 of 2010 decided on 25.08.2022 that "The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence. Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence.
56. Here both the accused form the agreement to secure the admission and dupe the University and to do all possible efforts which is the core of the offence of conspiracy, and same is sufficiently surface in evidences through physical manifestation i.e. presence and verification slip and the above discussed act between accused are rightly found to do an illegal act. Here both were not working independently rather pursuing the same end together to pursue the unlawful object. The express agreement need not be proved. There may be minor contradictions and discrepancies but same are not fatal.
57. Therefore it is proved that accused Pritam Kumar and accused Gulam Ahmad Raza has cheated the university in which accused Pritam Kumar impersonated of being Gulam Ahmad Raza FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 36 OF PAGE 37 so as to dishonestly induce university to deliver university B. Tech seat to the Gulam Ahmad Raza and this wrongful act was done in lieu of the money and with intention to make loss to university and to genuine candidates and for the same after the conspiracy he also prepare false / forged documents for the purpose of cheating i.e. verification ticket and used the same as genuine before the interviewing committee after hatching a conspiracy with Gulam Ahmad Raza.
58. Therefore accused Pritam Kumar is convicted u/s 419/420/468/471 IPC r.w. 120(B) IPC and accused Gulam Ahmad Raza is convicted u/s 420/468/471 IPC r.w. 120(B) IPC.
Copy of judgment be given free of cost to convict.
Digitally signed by
SNEHIL SNEHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.04.27
18:19:03 +0530
Announced in the open (Snehil Sharma)
Court on 27.04.2023 MM-08, (SE) SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
FIR No. 224 /2010, PS Jamia Nagar
State vs. Pritam Kumar PAGE 37 OF PAGE 37