Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh Kumar Etc on 2 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR-I
ACMM: NORTH-WEST: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 72/2001
PS: Shalimar Bagh
U/s 419/420/467/468/471/447/120B IPC IPC
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc
Date of Institution of case : 29.06.2004
Date of Judgment reserved : 25.08.2022
Date on which judgment pronounced : 02.09.2022
JUDGMENT
1) Unique ID no. of the case : 536983/2016
2) Date of commission of offence: On or before 21.01.2001
3) Name of complainant : VIRENDER KUMAR ARORA S/o- Late M.R. Arora R/o- 150, Mukherjee Nagar, West, Delhi.
4) Name and address of accused : (1) RAJESH KUMAR S/o Late Kashmiri Lal, R/o- M-71, 2nd Floor, Hari Nagar, Ghanta Ghar, Delhi.
(2) BALRAM GILHOTRA S/o- Sh. Ram Kishan, R/o- H.No. 740/1, Street No. 5, Govind Nagar, Abhor, Punjab
5) Offence complained of : U/s 419/420/467/468/471/ or proved 447/120B IPC IPC
6) Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order : Both accused acquitted for DEEPAK the offence U/s 419/420/ KUMAR 467/468/471/447/120B Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR IPC. Accused Balram Date: 2022.09.02 17:15:10 +0530 Gilhotra convicted for the offence U/s 174A IPC.
CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 1/21
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on or before 21.01.2001 in the area of Pitampura, Delhi, accused Rajesh alongwith accused Balram and other co-accused persons who could not be arrested, conspired to grab plot No. 189 situated in Pitam Pura, Delhi belonging to complainant Virender Kumar Arora and attempted to cheat him. Further, accused persons cheated the complainant Virender Kumar Arora by impersonation and prepared forged documents of the aforesaid property and dishonestly induced him to give the said plot of land to the accused persons. Accused persons are also alleged to have cheated the complainant by preparing forged documents which could be converted into valuable security. They also forged the documents of the aforesaid property and used the said documents as genuine for the purpose of cheating the complainant and further criminally trespassed in the said plot belonging to the complainant. On the basis of the above allegations, the present FIR bearing No. 72/2001 was registered at police station Shalimar Bagh and the accused persons have been charged with the above offence.
2. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet against accused Rajesh Kumar for offences U/s 419/420/467/468/471/ 447/120B IPC was filed in the Court and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C, arguments on charge were heard. Charge was framed U/s 419/420/467/468/471/447/120B IPC against the accused Rajesh Kumar vide order dated 04.08.2005 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally
signed by
DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02
3. Since, accused Balram Gilhotra was declared proclaimed 17:15:15 +0530 CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 2/21 offender and was arrested lateron, supplementary charge-sheet for the offence U/s 174A IPC was also filed against him. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.03.2013, charge for the offence U/s 419/420/467/468/471/447/120B IPC was framed against accused Balram Gilhotra for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Vide order dated 25.08.2022, accused Blaram Gilhotra voluntarily pleaded guilty for the offence U/s 174A IPC and accordingly, he was convicted for the same.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and also perused the record carefully.
6. PW1 Ct. Dilbagh Singh deposed that on 07.02.2001, he was posted in Crime Branch and on that he joined the investigation of this case. The IO Anil Samota recorded the complaint of complainant Virender Kumar Arora and got the case registered. After getting the case registered, he handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka to the IO. On 14.01.2002, he again joined the investigation of this case. The accused Rakesh Kumar who was present in the court was formally arrested by Digitally DEEPAK signed by DEEPAK KUMAR the IO vide memo Ex. PW-1/A and his personal search memo KUMAR Date:
Ex. PW-1/8 were prepared. The accused was also interrogated in 2022.09.02 17:15:20 +0530 CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 3/21 his presence who made his disclosure statement Ex. PW-1/C without any pressure. The pointing memo Ex. PW-1/D was also prepared by IO.
7. PW2 HC Rajender deposed that on 07.02.2001, he was posted in PS Shalimar Bagh and working as DO from 08.00 am to 04.00 pm and on that day a rukka was brought by Ct. Dilbagh which was sent by SI Anil Samota and he made his endorsement at point A and recorded the formal FIR of the case. The correct carbon copy of the FIR is Ex. PW-2/A which bears his signatures at point A.
8. PW3 R. Chandra deposed that he is M.Sc. in Chemistry. He had received three years Specialized training in the field of identification of science of handwriting and detection of forgery from the government of India Laboratory. Since last 17 years, he was in this job. He deposed that he had examined large number of documents and expressed independent opinion on those documents. He had also tendered his evidence in various courts of law. He further deposed that his office received this case from Addl. DCP (EOW) Crime Branch, New Delhi vide his letter No. 157/ACP/LBR/EOW dated 19.02.2004. As per the forwarding letter, they received disputed writings and signatures Mark Q-1 to Q-19 along with specimen handwriting and signatures of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mark S-1 to S4 and Dr. V.K. Arora, Mark S5 to S8. He further deposed that after thorough examination and scientific evaluation, he came to the conclusion that the person who wrote the enclosed signatures, stamped and marked S5 to Digitally signed by S8 did not write the enclosed signatures similarly stamped and DEEPAK DEEPAK marked Q-14 to Q-19. His opinion is Ex. PW-3/A. It also bears KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 17:15:24 +0530 CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 4/21 the signatures of Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents Sh. I.K. Arora at point B. He has also independently examined this case and came to the same conclusion. He can identify his signatures as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duties. He further deposed that he is submitting the detailed reasons for his opinion along with one copy for the accused which is Ex. PW-3/B, signed by him on both the pages at point A. He further deposed that the documents bearing Q-14 to Q-19 are Ex. PW-3/C1 to C6, all bearing stamp of their office at point A. Specimen signatures of Dr. V.K. Arora Mark S5 to S8 which is Ex. PW-3/D-1 to D-4 and it bears the stamp of his office at point A.
9. PW4 Dr. Virender Kumar Arora deposed that a plot bearing No. CP-189. Pitampura was allotted to him by DDA and possession was handed over on 14.05.76. Lease deed was executed on 07.02.77 and same was registered on 01.03.77 in the Office of Sub-Registrar. On 21.01.2001, he visited his said plot and found that construction work was going on over the said plot allotted to him. Being surprised, he inquired the matter and made a complaint to SHO, Shalimar Bagh (Pitampura) in this regard. Copy of the same is available on the judicial file Ex. PW-4/A. He further deposed to have inquired the matter personally and came to know that the said construction work was going on under the supervision of one architect Adesh Sharma. He approached him regarding this matter but he did not disclose anything. Later on, it was revealed to him that one Rajesh Sharma accused was behind the conspiracy and the conspirator Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR DEEPAK KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 had submitted a forged lease deed in the MCD and other 17:15:28 government offices in his name to grab his said property.
+0530
CASE No. 536983/2016
FIR No. 72/2001
PS- Shalimar Bagh
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 5/21
Thereafter, the matter was transferred to EOW, Crime Branch and his statement on the basis of which FIR was recorded is Ex. PW-4/B. PW-4 further deposed that the possession slip dated 14.05.76 is Ex. PW-4/C. The perpetual lease deed executed on 07.02.77 running in 8 pages along with one additional sheet is Ex. PW-4/D and the site plan of the property is Ex. PW-4/E (all the original documents produced by Sh. Sneh Pal Sahni, the present owner of the property of CP-189, Pitampura seen and returned). He further deposed to have handed over the photocopy of the lease deed 13.08.1979 regarding plot No. 150, Dr. Mukherji Nagar, Delhi which was allotted to his father Sh. M.R. Arora. Same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/F. He had also signed on all the pages of the said lease deed Ex. PW-4/G. He further deposed that he had never sold or agreed to sell the plot No. CP-189 to Ved Prakash S/oi Bhagat Ram rather he had sold the same to Smt. Urvashi, W/o R.K. Khurana by way of registered sale deed dated 10.01.2006.
PW-4 further deposed that he had seen Q-14 to Q-19 on documents Ex. PW-3/C1, Ex. PW-3/C2, PW-3/C3, Ex. PW-3/C4, Ex. PW-3/C5 and Ex. PW-3/C6. These are his forged signature and he had never signed these documents. Except Ex. PW-4/B no other statement of him was recorded by the police.
He adopted the examination in chief recorded on 05.03.2008 for accused Balram Gilhotra.
10. PW-5 Raj Kumar deposed that he was Architect/Supervisor by profession and have office at 487/39, DEEPAK National market, Peera Garhi, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. He does not KUMAR Digitally signed by remember the exact date and month, however, in the year 2001 DEEPAK KUMAR Date: 2022.09.02 17:15:33 +0530 or 2002, he received telephone call from police from PS CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 6/21 Shalimar Bagh and he was enquired as to whether he had prepared any submission drawing for plot no. CP-189, Pitam Pura as per sanctioned building by laws or not. When he agreed that he had prepared the drawing, he was called at PS Shalimar Bagh and was asked as to who had visited him for preparation of submission drawing for the said plot. He stated that he had to check the records for this purpose lying in his office. Then he came to his office and checked the record. Thereafter, he again went to PS. He does not remember the name of that person who had come to his office for preparation of drawing and.gave police the telephone number of that person who came to his office for this purpose. Thereafter, he was discharged from the investigation on that day. He was also called in the office of Crime Branch situated in South Delhi. He was again enquired for above said fact to which he told the police that he could identify that person. Thereafter one person was produced before him, probably his name was Rajesh. Witness volunteered to have deposed the name of that person during his testimony recorded before this Hon'ble Court. He does not remember as to whether Rajesh came alone or accompanied with someone else due to lapse of long time. He told him the size of the plot and thereafter, he prepared the site plan/submission drawing as per sanctioned by laws. Accused Rajesh shown him the complete file containing the documents regarding site layout plan/key plan of Govt. and thereafter he prepared the site plan. He identified other accused Rajesh present before the Court but could not identify accused Balram. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he deposed that his statement was recorded by the police during investigation of this case. He does not remember as to whether Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 17:15:37 +0530 he read his statement or not or whether it was read over to him CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 7/21 by the police or not. At that stage the statement mark X1 of the witness was shown to him. Witness stated that he does not remember as to whether Rajesh was accompanied with one Ved Prakash and introduced him to be his Mausa. Witness denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for the state that accused Rajesh had shown him the perpetual lease in the name of Virender Kumar Arora. Again said, Rajesh shown him the original/photocopy of the perpetual lease issued by DDA in name of Virender Kumar Arora. Witness further denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for the state that accused Rajesh also shown him the original documents pertaining to the sale of plot in question to Ved Prakash by Virender Kumar. He further denied the suggestion that he has shown him the GPA, Agreement to sell etc. in favour of Ved Prakash by Virender Kumar. At this stage, portion A1 to A2 and A3 to A4 of the statement mark X1 read over to the witness to which he deposed that he had not stated this to police. Witness further denied the suggestion that accused Rajesh came to his office alongwith accused Balram Gilhotra present before the Court today and introduced him as Ved Prakash, his Mausa before him. He further denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP for the state that he is not identifying accused Balram Gilhotra today deliberately as he has been won over. Witness was further questioned as follows: -
Q. Is it correct that during examination in chief recorded on 05.03.2008, you have deposed that accused Rajesh came to your office alongwith one Ved Prakash and shown you the GPA, agreement to sell, in favour of Ved Prakash?
Ans: I had not given any such statement on 05.03.2008. Digitally DEEPAK signed by DEEPAK KUMAR Court Q: Have you been examined as witness on 05.03.2008?
KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02
17:15:41
+0530
Ans. It is correct.
CASE No. 536983/2016
FIR No. 72/2001
PS- Shalimar Bagh
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 8/21
Q. Whether your statement dt. 05.03.2008 bears your
signatures at point A & B?
Ans. My statement dt. 05.03.08 does not bear my signature at point A & B.
11. PW6 Mahesh Kumar brought the summoned record of sanctioned building plan file no. 418/B/RZ/2000/473 dated 31.08.2000 and D form file No. 428/D-1/RZ/B/2000 dated 19.10.2000 pertaining to property No. CP-189, Pitampura, New Delhi. Perpetual lease deed Ex. PW4/D, site plan of DDA Ex. PW4/E, sanctioned plan Ex. PW5/A, D form Ex. PW 3/C4, another annexure (pershist-ka) are Ex. PW3/C5 and Ex. PW3/C6.
He adopted the examination in chief recorded on 04.09.2008 against accused Rajesh Kumar for accused Balram Gilhotra.
12. PW7 R.B. Singh brought the summoned record i.e., house tax in respect of H. No. CP-189, Pitampura, New Delhi. Some documents as mentioned in the seizure memo Ex. PW7/A were taken into police possession through Raj Singh Mathur, Assistant Zonal Inspector and the said seizure memo bears the signature of Raj Singh Mathur at point A. Raj Singh expired in year 2004 and he can identify his signatures as he had seen him writing and signing in the course of official duties. Photocopy of two letters of Ved Prakash are Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B. The No Due certificate issued by Assistant Assessor & Collector, Pitampura regarding property No. CP-189, Pitampura is Ex. PW7/C, the agreement to sale and receipt dated 08.06.1980 are Ex. PW7/D Digitally and Ex. PW7/E and the perpetual lease running in five pages in signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 17:15:46 +0530 CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 9/21 favour of Virender Kumar Arora by DDA is Ex. PW7/F (OSR).
13. PW8 Raj Kumar brought the summoned record i.e. DDA Allotment file No. F.30(828)76/LAB(R) DDA in respect of plot No. CP-189, Pitampura, New Delhi. The photocopy of the possession slip dated 14.05.1976 is Ex. PW4/C, the perpetual lease deed executed on 07.02.1977 running into 08 pages alongwith one additional sheet is Ex. PW4/D and site plan of the property is Ex. PW4/E (All original documents seen and returned). As per record, the aforesaid file was sent to Vijay Malik, ACP EOW Crime Branch vide letter No. F.25(1)01/Vig./Pt/CP-189/4380 dated 17.05.2001. The said letter is Ex. PW8/A. Vide letter No. 140R.CAP/LBR/EOW Crime Branch, New Delhi dated 17.02.2004 Ex. PW8/B, the said file was received back by DDA after retaining the original documents containing page no. 26,31, 32, 45 to 54. The abovesaid documents retained on record are Ex. PW8/C (Colly running into 13 pages). As per record, Virender Kumar Arora was the original allottee of property no. CP-189, Pitampura, Delhi.
He adopted the examination in chief recorded on 06.04.2009 against accused Rajesh Kumar for accused Balram Gilhotra.
14. PW9 Adesh Kumar deposed that he and his father Sh. M.P. Sharma were Architect/ Draftsman by profession and during the period from 1982 to 2003, their office was situated at CP-186, Pitampura, Delhi. During the year 2001, the plot No. Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR DEEPAK KUMAR Date:
CP-189, Pitampura was vacant. The said plot was situated near 2022.09.02 17:15:50 +0530 their office. About 7-8 years ago, the construction work was CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 10/21 carried out at the abovesaid vacant plot. He does not know by whom the construction work was done. However, he knew that the construction work was done by contractor Kalpu Ram who was known to him as he had taken contract of his abovesaid residence prior to the incident. He does not know who was the actual owner of the plot No. 189, Pitampura, Delhi and he does not know by whom and by how many persons construction work was done. During his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he denied the suggestion that construction work was done by one Rajesh and one old aged person. He also denied the suggestion that he identified the accused in the office of EOW or that he has been won over by the accused, therefore, he is not deposing against him. He also denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the accused or that accused Rajesh had shown him the perpetual lease in respect of property No. CP-189, Pitampura, Delhi.
He adopted the examination in chief recorded on 06.04.2009 against accused Rajesh Kumar for accused Balram Gilhotra.
15. PW10 Satya Pal deposed that he was posted as Record Attendant, Department of Delhi Archives. He brought the original register containing original papers pertaining to a lease deed dated 13.08.1978 executed between MCD through its Assistant Commissioner and Mengha Ram S/o- Devi Ram, R/o- Quarter No. 175E, Outram Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi 9. The certified true copy placed in the file is Ex. PW10/A running into five pages. The lease deed was registered vide Registration No. Digitally DEEPAK signed by DEEPAK KUMAR 3048 in Additional Book No. 1 Volume No. 3749 on pages from KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 17:15:55 +0530 143 to 147 on 13.08.1979.CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001
PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 11/21 He adopted the examination in chief recorded on 12.01.2010 against accused Rajesh Kumar for accused Balram Gilhotra. He also rectified the year 1979 which was mistakenly typed as 1978.
16. PW11 Smt. Kamla deposed that in year 2001, one Ved Prakash used to reside at the ground floor of her house as tenant. He resided in the tenanted premises for about 4-5 months. He used to reside alone in the house. Two three other persons used to visit him but she cannot identify them as she used to stay at the first floor of the house. She does not know about the reason as to why he vacated after stay of 4-5 months in her house. Police came to her house and made enquiry about Ved Prakash. During cross-examination by Ld APP for the State, she admitted to have been informed by Ved Prakash that he was constructing a house in Pitampura. She does not know if a person by the name of Rajesh used to visit Ved Prakash while he was staying in her house. She does not know if accused Rajesh used to visit Ved Prakash. Vol. She used to remain present at the first floor and does not know about the persons who were visiting the house of Ved Prakash. She denied the suggestion that she stated to the police that she can identify Rajesh. She also denied the suggestion that she is not identifying accused Rajesh deliberately as she has been won over by accused.
17. PW11 Mukesh Gupta (due to inadvertance, similar number was given to this witness) deposed that he was an Architect/ liasioning as profession. On 19/02/2004, police Digitally official came to his office at sector-6, Rohini and shown him the signed by "D" Form in respect of the property bearing no. CP-189, DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 17:15:59 +0530 CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 12/21 Pitampura. He identified his signatures and seal on that "D" Form. He had signed the "D" Form after the adequate inspection. Due to lapse of time, he could not identify who took him at the site at CP-189, Pitampura. He could not identify the accused persons present in the court. During his cross-examination by, Ld. APP for State he denied the suggestion that IO showed him the photographs of Ved Prakash and he identified the accused Ved Prakash and that one person Rajesh visited his office. He also denied the suggestion that he came to know from the police that the real name of Ved Prakash was Balram Gilhotra. He joined the investigation in the present case in 2011. He denied the suggestion that police official came to his office with accused Balram who visited to his office with one Rajesh regarding the D form of property bearing no. CP-189, Pitampura and that he is deliberately not identifying the accused persons as being won over by the accused persons.
18. PW12 Ct. Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 27/05/2011, he was posted at ALBR section EOW, Crime Branch. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector Anil Samota and SI Kamlesh. On that day, accused Balram was formally arrested before the court vide memo Ex. PW-12/A and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW-12/B. Thereafter, accused Balram was taken to F-17/43, Sector-8, Rohini and he pointed out that he was residing on the ground floor of the said address from December 2000 to January 2001, IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW-12/C. After that the accused was taken to CP-189, Pitampura, where he pointed out and explained that the said building was constructed by him and Rajesh Kumar in the year 2001.
Digitally
19. PW-13 SI Ombir Singh deposed that on 19.05.2011, he signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 CASE No. 536983/2016 17:16:03 FIR No. 72/2001 +0530 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 13/21 was posted as ASI at PS Mahendra Park. He was working in PO staff. On 19.05.2011, he along with HC Anil went to Abohar, Punjab in search of PO Balram S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan after taking permission from the Sr. Officers. After getting the secret information from a secret informer at Abohar, he along with HC Anil and secret informer went to the Local Police for taking their assistance and thereafter went to Bheem Sain Tambakhu Wali Dukaan, Bazaar no.9 near Ghanta Ghar, Abohar, where upon the signal of secret informer accused Balram, who was PO, was apprehended by him with the help of the staff. Accused Balram was the PO in the present case FIR no. 72/01 PS Shalimar Bagh vide order dated 14.02.2004. Accused was arrested and personally searched by him. The original Kalandra vide which accused Balram was produced before the Court is not traceable. However, the photocopy of the same on record is MARK 13/A and DD No. 19B MARK 13/B is the same which was made by him regarding the arrest of accused Balram.
20. PW14 ACP Anil Samota deposed that on 24.01.2001, he was posted as SI in EOW Cell and one photocopy in form of complainant was received by LBR Section of EOW and same was marked to him. As the said complaint was photocopy, therefore on 07.02.2001, he alongwith Ct. Dilbagh went to the house of complainant. On 07.02.2001, the statement of complainant Ex. PW4/B was recorded by him. He prepared rukka Ex. PW14/A and handed over the same to Ct. Dilbagh for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Dilbagh came back to EOW Cell and handed over copy of FIR and original Digitally rukka to him. On 05.06.2001, photo copy of lease deed dated signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
13.08.1979 Ex. PW4/G was seized by him vide seizure memo 2022.09.02 17:16:07 +0530 Ex. PW4/F. Mr. Raj Kumar, City designer was examined by him and his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded.CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001
PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 14/21 According to his statement, he prepared site plan of the property in dispute for accused persons namely Rajesh and Ved Prakash @ Balram. The record of said City Designer namely Raj Kumar pertaining to abovesaid site plan Ex. PW14/B was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. For the enquiry, he went to the spot i.e., property in dispute at CP 189, Pitampura, Delhi and examined two persons namely M. P. Sharma and Adesh Sharma who were residing in the nearby vicinity of the said property and he recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 14.01.2002, accused Rajesh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/A, and his personal search memo was prepared Ex. PW1/B. His body inspection memo was prepared as Ex. PW14/C. His disclosure statement was recorded as Ex. PW1/C. Accused Rajesh was produced before the Court and his police remand was taken. On 17.01.2002, he alongwith Ct. Dilbagh and accused Rajesh went to Abhor in Punjab, in the search of another accused namely Balram. At the instance of accused Rajesh, pointing out memo Ex. PW1/D of the house of accused Balram was prepared. On that day, accused Balram was not present at his house, therefore, they came back to Delhi. Subsequently, he went to F-17/143, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi where accused Balram was residing on rent and at the said place, accused was residing with the fake name as Ved Prakash. He examined the landlady Smt. Kamla and she told that accused Ved Prakash was residing at her house on rent and accused Rajesh used to visit Ved Prakash. One person namely Mukesh Gupta was examined. Mukesh Gupta attested the form D at the request of both accused persons, namely, Rajesh and Balram @ Ved Prakash. The said Form D is used in MCD for the purpose of having sanction pertaining to Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK construction work. Form D is Ex. PW3/C-4. On the said exhibit KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.09.02
17:16:11
+0530
CASE No. 536983/2016
FIR No. 72/2001
PS- Shalimar Bagh
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 15/21
at point B, Mukesh Gupta told that these are his signatures with stamp. One person namely Ashok Kapoor, who was government approved plumber was also examined by him who told that at the same form D i.e. PW3/C-4, he also make attestation at point C at the instance of both accused persons, namely Rajesh & Balram @ Ved Prakash. In front of abovesaid persons namely Mukesh Gupta, Ashok Kapoor & Smt. Bimla, accused Balram disclosed himself as Ved Prakash. He made a requisition in DDA pertaining to the file related to property in dispute and said file was received by him from DDA. He examined the file and relevant documents were retained by him and remaining file was returned back to DDA. These documents were different forms or applications moved by the accused persons which are Ex. PW14/D, Ex. PW8/C, Ex. PW14/E bearing photo of accused Balram @ Ved Prakash, affidavit Ex. PW14/F,, undertaking Ex. PW14/G, ,identity form Ex. PW14/H, Form bearing photo and signature of accused Balram @ Ved Prakash Ex. PW14/1, Ex. PW3/C-2, Ex. PW2/C-3,Ex. PW14/J, Ex. PW14/K, Ex.PW3/C-
1. In the similar way, he also received documents from MCD file as Ex. PW3/C-5 & Ex. PW3/C-6. During the police remand of accused Rajesh, he was identified by abovesaid witnesses namely Raj Kumar, M.P. Sharma & Adesh Sharma. In the forged undertaking Ex. PW14/G and indemnity bond Ex. PW14/H, there was a witness namely Vijay Kumar whose address was verified through Ct. Bijender upon which he came to know that it was a non existing address. On the forged undertaking Ex. PW3/C-1, one witness K.K. Kapoor and his address was also Digitally signed by DEEPAK found to be a non-existing address. The documents from MCD DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 17:16:15 were seized by him vide seizure memo PW7/A. The certified +0530 copy of the agreement to sell from complainant to accused Ved CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 16/21 Prakash is already PW7/D & regarding the alleged sale, the forged receipt is Ex. DWZJE. On the said forged receipt Ex. PW7/E, the address of complainant was verified but it was also a non-existing address. On the said forged receipt, address of one witness P.K. Gupta was also found non-existing. In the course of investigation, specimen signatures and handwritings of complainant and accused Rajesh were taken. The specimen of complainant is already Ex. PW3/D-1 (colly., running into four pages). The specimen of accused Rajesh are Ex. PW14/L (colly., running into 4 pages). The questioned documents alongwith specimens were sent to GEQD, Chandigarh.. The signatures of complainant were not matching with the questioned signatures as per expert opinion. During the whole course of investigation, efforts were continuously made to arrest accused Balram @ Ved Prakash but he could not arrest him and he was declared as P.O. On 27.05.2011, accused was formally arrested in the Court vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/A and his personal search memo was prepared vide memo Ex. PW12/B. His physical inspection memo was prepared as Ex. PW14/M. One day PC remand of accused Balram was taken by him. At the instance of accused Balram, pointing out memo of property in question was prepared as Ex. PW12/D & pointing out memo of the place of residence of accused Balram and Ved Prakash was prepared as Ex.
PW12/C. During the police remand of accused Balram, he was identified by said Mukesh Gupta as the same person at whose instance accused attested said form D and who used to meet said Mukesh Gupta as Ved Prakash. Specimen signature and Digitally signed by handwriting of accused Balram were taken as Ex. PW 14/N DEEPAK DEEPAK before the Court, which are running into two pages. Said KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 17:16:19 +0530 documents were also sent to FSL for opinion, but FSL could not CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 17/21 express any opinion regarding the signature/ writing on the documents of the accused Balram @ Ved Prakash. Regarding accused Rajesh was already filed before the arrest of accused Balram @ Ved Prakash (sic). After arrest of accused Balram@Ved Praksh, supplementary charge-sheet was filed by him.
21. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons U/s 313Cr.P.C. were recorded in which accused persons have denied all the allegations leveled against them. Accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence.
22. I have heard argument addressed by Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record carefully.
23. In the present case, it is matter of record that handwritings and signatures of accused persons did not affirmatively match with what appearing on the impugned documents during its FSL examination. Except the oral assertions of the complainant, no public witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in its material particulars and identified the accused persons as offenders. There is no independent witness to prove the charges of forgery against the accused persons. Evidently, there is no evidence on record to show that accused persons were even remotely involved in falsifying the impugned documents.
Digitally DEEPAK signed by DEEPAK KUMAR Neither there is any evidence to prove that it was the accused KUMAR Date:
persons who submitted/ deposited the impugned documents with 2022.09.02 17:16:23 +0530 the concerned authority. Similarly, the charges of impersonation CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 18/21 and trespass also falls flat in view of the absence of any evidence of cogent and credible value. The mere assertion of PW-11 that she was informed by one Ved Prakash that he was constructing a house in Pitampura, in no way, prove the charges against the accused persons as alleged even by prepondarance of probabilities as the same is vague and does not lead to any definite conclusion.
24. Ld. APP for the state has sought to take refuge into the deposition of PW-5 Raj Kumar who was stated to have prepared the site plan/submission drawing of the plot in question as per sanctioned by-laws. During his examination-in-chief, this witness has claimed to have been approached and shown the complete file containing the documents regarding site layout plan/ key plan of Government by the accused Rajesh. He deposed to have prepared the site plan accordingly. PW-5 identified the accused Rajesh but failed to identify accused Balram. It is to be noted that this witness later retracted his depositions in its entirety to the extent that he disowned his own statement recorded in the court. In such circumstances, the depositions of this witness become doubtful and unworthy to be believed upon.
25. Moreover, investigating authority has failed to investigate the source from which the impugned documents were got prepared and printed. Neither, there is any iota of evidence to identify and establish the identity of persons who authored and Digitally signed the documents. There are no materials of cogent and signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 credible nature to believe that impugned documents were 17:16:27 +0530 prepared at the instance of the accused persons. Court can not CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 19/21 proceed on the basis of surmises and conjectures bereft of any evidence of probative value.
26. In the case of 'Kulwinder Singh Vs. Kafeel Ahmad' Cr.
L.P. No. 478 of 2011, decided on 04.01.2013 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the basic principle in criminal law is that the guilt of the respondent/accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any slightest doubt about the commission of an offence then the benefit has to accrue him.
27. Thus, in view of the totality of circumstances and the settled legal positions as discussed above, the case attempted to be built by the prosecution, appears to be suffering from fatal infirmities so much so that it goes directly to the root of the case and shakes the very edifice on which the case of the complainant rests. It appears also relevant to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that criminal conviction entails enigmatic and stigmatic experiences and exposures for the accused and thus it becomes of paramount importance to demand evidence of unimpeachable character and of unambiguous nature. From the above discussion and findings, in my considered view accused persons deserve to be given benefit of doubt.
28. In view of the above analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons namely Rajesh Kumar and Balram Gilhotra Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons namely KUMAR Date:
2022.09.02 17:16:32 +0530 Rajesh Kumar and Balram Gilhotra are acquitted of the offences U/s 419/420/467/468/471/ 447/120B IPC charged against them.CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001
PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 20/21
29. Bail bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.PC have already been obtained from the accused persons (since acquitted) in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I A.D (Del.) 389.
30. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed byAnnounced in open Court DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR On this day i.e. 02.09.2022 KUMAR Date: 2022.09.02 17:16:37 +0530 (DEEPAK KUMAR-I) ACMM (NORTH-WEST) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CASE No. 536983/2016 FIR No. 72/2001PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Etc page 21/21