Delhi District Court
Date vs . Reena Sharma & Anr. A on 23 June, 2020
& eg IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUMEET ANAND * METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI DISTRICT: NEW DELHI : FIR No. : 01/2006 _ Cr. Case No: 41580/2016 PS : Tilak Marg u/s : 471/34 IPC 6 A |Case Identification | 41580/2016 _ | Number o B | Name of the Const. Raj Kumar Complainant © ,} Name of the accused & | 1. Reena Sharma, W/o Dr. his parentage and Nageshwar Kumar, RioH. No ; address 2990/2 Sant Nagar,Rani Bagh, n New Delhi. 2. Sunil Kumar, S/o Naresh Chander, R/o H. No. 2990/2] - Sant Nagar,Rani Bagh, New Dethi. _ Offence complained of | 471 Read with section 34 IPC E |Date of commission of | 02.01.2006 offence | F | Date of Institution 27.10.2007 | G | Offence Charged 471 Read with 34 IPC --H [Plea of accused Not Guilty i Order Reserved on 20.08.2020 * date Vs. Reena Sharma & Anr. a FIR NO.01/2006 Cr, Case No. 41580/2016 PS Tilak Marg UsS: 477/34 IPC. Page 1 of 16 Scannec with CamScanner &F | a [date of » | 23.06.2020 | Pronouncement _ . 7 K Final Order Both accused Acquitted | 1. Prosecution alleges that on 02.01.2006, the accused Reena _ , Sharma, while by driving the car, make Tata Indica, bearing registration No. DL4CU 2789, registered in the name of co- accused Sunil Sharma, at about 09:15 AM reached the parking of ' Jaisalmer House, situated at India Gate, along with another woman and a boy for the purpose of visiting. the Visa section, _ situated at Jaisalmer House. *
~
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the abovementioned car =.
a forged sticker, i.e. Mark-X, later exhibited as EX-P1 was affixed. ° It is further the case of the prosecution that EX-P1 was infact | issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to a government vehicle, make Maruti Van, bearing registration No. DL-1V-4138. It is alsos . the case of the prosecution that EX-P1 is a color photocopy of the original sticker issued to vehicle No. DL-1V- 4138 that was being.
'unauthorizedly and fraudulently being used by the accused 'persons by affixing it on their car knowing fully it to be a forged sticker, é %
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 02, 01, 2006 the accused Reena Sharma, by driving the car bearing the forged 'State Vs. Reena Sharma & Ann, ~ FIRNo.O1/2006 - Cr. Case No. 41580/2016 pS Tilak Marg - UIs: 471/34 IPC / Page 2of16 | Scannec with CamScanner . , Page 3 of 16 a - sticker reached the Jaisalmer House along with two companions, ° one lady and a boy, where she parked the said car, bearing the forged sticker in the parking in front of office of the complainant (PW-2). a 4, It is further the case of the prosecution that after parking the vehicle in the parking of Jaisalmer house, the accused Reena Sharma enquired about the visa section from the complainant (PW-2) who routed her.to the concerned office.
e S. It is further the case of the prosecution that the attention of the complainant (PW-2) was drawn towards the sticker EX. P1-affixed .
-on the car, parked in front of his office, and he became suspicious about the authenticity of the sticker affixed on the car, as it , appeared to light in color in comparison to 'the other stickers. issued by the same department. The suspicion of 'the - complainant (PW-2) compelled him to approach the concerned . offi cer in the Label section, where he made enquiries regarding -- | the sticker affixed on Tata Indica car and found that according to - the serial number of the sticker it was issued to Government © .
Vehicle No. DL-1V-4138, but not to the said Tata Indica Car.
6. it. is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant . (PW-2) brought his findings about the forged sticker of Ministry being used by the accused persons to the knowledge of his " \.. .superiors; and he also informed the police, a ' | .
FIR No.01/2006 Cr. Case No. 41580/2016 PS Tilak Marg «US: 471/34 IPC Scannec with CamScanner "ge. the present case was 'registered upon the written complaint of --
- PW-2. His complaint is on record, The same is. exhibited as EX. PW-2/A. During the course of investigation the driver of the Tata Indica car, bearing the forged sticker, i.e. Reena Sharma as well as. the registered owner of the said case, i.e. Sunil Sharma both , were apprehended. a ~ of : ON | "8. After the conclusion of investigation a Final report in the form of charge sheet was forwarded to the court against both~ the accused persons, Reena Sharma and Sunil Sharma_ for trial, under section 471 read with section 34 IPC.
9. Accordingly, the court after taking the cognizance of the offence summoned_both the accused persons and after their appearance and compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C a formal charge for offence . under section 471 IPC read with section 34 IPC was served upon both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and " ws claimed trial.
10. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused ' beyond all reasonable doubts, examined the following 8 (eight) witnesses, VIZ.
()- PW-1 (HC Hira Lal) - Duty Officer (Registered FIR on the basis of Rukka) .
a " (if) -PW-2 (Ct. Raj Kumar) - Complainant |
ii) pw-3 (Alam Singh Bisht) _ - Handed over - the record of . | _ State Vs, Reena Sharma & Anr.
" FIR'No.01/2006 | Cr. Case No.41580/2016 PS Tilak Marg UTS: 471134 IPC 5 ' . Page 4o0f 16 © Scannec with CamScanner "e 7 stickers, i.e. EX. PW-3/A, issued during the concerned | period, including the allegedly forged stickers to police.
: (iv) PwW-4 (Ram Narain Singh) - Driver of Government vehicle | No. Dit V-4138 to which the original sticker was issued. |
(v) PW-5 (Const. Saroj Mishra) - Assisted the IO in investigation | ~
(vi) PW-6 (SI Sanjay Singh) - Investigating Officer
(vii) PW-7 (Arvind Singh) - Vendor from whom accused Sunil Sharma purchased the Tata Indica Car, on which the alleged forged sticker was affixed. |
(viii) PW-8 (Manoj Kumar Rajak) - Also the driver of Government vehicle No. DL-1V-4138 to which the original sticker was issued.
11.The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also filed and relied upon the =.
following documents, viz. a
(i), Mark-X1 & EX, Pl - the allegedly forged parking sticker oe (Case Property). ; - . "
(ii) EX. PW-1/A - FIR.
| (iii) EX. PW- -1/B - Endorsement made by, the Duty officer on the a Original Complaint.
". (iv) EX. PW-2/A - The Original Complaint. EX. PW-3/A ~ Office Memorandum of requisition for (y) 'igsuance of car sticker and the details of the offi cials and ane their: car numbers to which the oPfcial stickers were issued State vt Reena Sharma & Ant. | _ FIR No.01/2006 - Cr. Case No. 41580/2016 PS Tilak Marg U/S: 471/34 IPC Page 5 of 16 = . « y Scannec with CamScanner £F vide this communication.
(vi) "EX. PW-5/A - Arrest memo of accused Sunil Sharma.
(vii) EX. PW-5/B - Arrest memo of accused Reena sharma.
(viii) EX.PW-5/C - Personal Search memo (of accused Reena Sharma. |
(ix) EX. PW-5/D - Personal Search memo of accused Sunil Sharma.
(x) EX. PW-5/E - Seizure memo of Tata Indica Car.
(xi). EX. PW-6/A - DD No, 13 A dated 02.01.2006. (xl) EX. Pw- "G/A ~ (24 document having same exhibit) ~ copy of . RC of Vehicle No.DL-1V-4138. |
(xiii) Mark PW-6/B - handwritten list of vehicle numbers along"
' with the serial number of the stickers issued to them. {xiv} EX. PW-6/B -- Endorsement made on the Original Complaint .
- by Police. .
(xv) Mark PW-6/C - copy of RC of Vehicle No. DL 4CU 2789.. (xvi) EX. PW-6/C -- Site Plan. .
(xvii) EX, PW-6/D -Seizure memo of Forged parking Sticker. (xvili)EX. PW-6/D - (Colly.) (2-4 document having same exhibit)
-- Interrogation report. , | re (xix) EX. PW-6/E - (Colly.) - Photographs of Vehicle No. DL 4CuU 2789 showing affixed allegedly forged sticker on its |
- - windscreen, | (xx) EX. PW-6/F - Disclosure statement of accused Sunil _.. .Sharma. | | _ oxi EX. PW-6/G - (Colty.) _ Superdatinama of vehicle No. State Vs, Reena Sharma & Anr.
FIR No.01/2006 Cr. Case No. 41580/2016 PS Tilak Marg "is 471134 IPC"
Page Gof 16 - ae -
Scannec with CamScanner a -- DL-4CU-2789.
| 12. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of both the aceused persons was recorded under section 313 CrP.C, wherein all the incriminating evidences lead against them during the. course of the trial were put to them, affording them an. opportunity to give their explanation, if any. Both the accused persons, in their statements, pleaded their innocence and false implication by the police. However, despite opportunity the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
13.At the stage of final arguments Learned APP for the state and the Learned Counsel for the accused were heard at length through video conferencing on Cisco Webex. This court has perused the entire judicial record and has carefully takerr into consideration.
the evidence lead by the prosecution.
14.The accused persons have faced trial for offence under section 471 Read with 34 IPC. Section 471 IPC reads, 'S. 471 Using as genuine a forged Fdocument_or electronic record] whoever , fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document _or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be 7:
a forged Tdecument or electronic record], shall be punished in _ the same _manner_as_if he had forged such [document or e lectronic re . . L-
a ™~% :
'45. Hence, for application of section 471 IPC the use of a forged décument has to be. coupled with fraudulent or dishonest State. Vs. Reena Sharma & Ann _ FIRNo.01/2006 -- - Cr, Case No. 41580/2016 . PS Tilak Marg u/s: 471/34 PC. ~ Page Fof 16 -- _ Scannec with CamScanner ook intention. Moreover, for application of section 471 IPC the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the person using the document knew or had a reason to believe that it was a forged one,
16.The term Dishonestly has been defined in section 24 o€ the IPC and the term Fraudulently has been defined under section 25 of IPC. They read as, 'S. 24 Dishonestly. Whoever d nythin with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to other person, is said to do that thing fraudulently, if he does that thing with the intent to defraud but not otherwise.
17.The definition of Fraudulently and the offence of section 471 IPC also requires appreciation of the definition of Forgery, as defined under section 463 IPC. It reads, 'S. 463 Forgery. - Whoever makes any false document or fal lectronic record or part of document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or a, title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into_any express or implied contracts, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
oo 18.The term Injury is also defined under section 44 of the IPC. It . reads, *' 44 Injury. -_ the w 'iniury' denotes an re s '-. « whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, .. State yd | Reena Sharma & Anr.
FIR No.01/2006 Cr. Case No.41580/2016 PS Tilak Mars U/S: 471/34 IPC Page 8 of 16 Scannec with CamScanner ft ti rope & 19, Now, even of for a moment it is presumed that indeed the parking sticker affixed on the Tata Indica car, bearing registration No.DL- 4CU-2789 was a forged one, still for proving the commission of offence under section 47 IPC the prosecution had to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that, the forged sticker was affixed on the car to cause any wrongful gain to one person, or to cause any wrongful loss to another person; or it was' sO affixed to defraud someone with an intent to damage or injure --
him.
20.However, despite the mere narration of the fact that an allegedly forged sticker was affixed on the Tata Indica car, bearing * registration No. DL-4CU-2789, which is registered in the name of accused "Sunil Sharma; and which was being driven by the co-
accused Reena Sharma, the prosecution has failed to bring on record, let along proving the same to even remotely attract any of the essential ingredient of either acting dishonestly or fraudulently, or doing of any act after putting the allegedly forged sticker on the car to defraud, or damage or cause any injury to « .
anyone.
*
21.At the time when PW-2 got suspicious about the sticker affixed on the Tata Indica car it was parked in the parking of Jaisalmer House. It is not the case of the prosecution and no evidence has | been lead to this effect that the said jata Indica car was let Ok State Vs. Reena Sharma & Anr.
FIR,No.01/ 2006 Cr. Case No.41580/2016 PS Tilak Marg UIS: 471/34 IPC Page 9 of 16 a Scannec with CamScanner inside the Jaisalmer House only because of the forged sticker affixed on it; and had no such forged sticker been affixed on it 'then the said car would not have been let inside.
22. It is also not the case of the prosecution and no evidence has
- been lead to this effect that some parking is charged for parking vehicle inside Jaisalmer House and this Tata Indica Car was so ~ exempted for it was bearing the forged sticker.
23.1t is also not' the case of the prosecution and no evidence has been jead to the effect that on any other previous occasion any act had been done with the Tata Indica car bearing the sticker that would attract the ingredients 'of defrauding or acting . fraudulently or causing any damage or injury to anyone.
=
24. Hence, on: the basis of the abovedone discussion this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 471 IPC.
25.Furthermore, it is the case of the prosecution that the alleged sticker EX P1 affixed on Tata Indica Car bearing Registration Nos . DL-4CU-2789 is a color photocopy of the original sticker issued for the government vehicle i.e. Maruti van bearing Registration No. DL-1V-4138. However, although the allegedly forged sticker has been seized by the Investigating officer, however, no attempt was made to seize the original sticker from car No. DL-1V-4138. Moreover, no attempt was made by 'the investigatiny officer to send the allegedly forged sticker to FSL for examination for State Vs. Reena Sharma & Anr.
FIR No.01/2006 ; Cr. Case No.41580/2016 PS Tilak Mar USS: 479/34 IPC . | Page 10 0f 16.
Scannec with CamScanner ascertaining whether it is actually a forged photocopy of original or not.
=
26.A perusal of EX. PW-1 i.e. the alleged forged sticker it can be seen that it was valid only upto 31st December 2005. However, the present FIR has been registered in the year "2006. The investigating officer had not made any attempt to seize the sticker that was issued for affixing of Government vehicle No. DL-iV-4138. There is nothing on record, except for mere statements of drivers, in the form of photographs etc. to show that the original sticker was indeed. affixed on the government vehicle no. DL-1V-4138.
27.Presuming that after its expiry the original sticker from the government vehicle No. DL-1V-4138 was removed, still the investigating officer ought to have collect the relevant record regarding the removal of said sticker, its destruction as per rules and issuance of new sticker to government vehicle No. DL-1V-4138. This aspect is essential as this puts in doubt that whether the alleged sticker was actually a photocopy, or it was affixed on Tata Indica Car after removal from the government vehicle after its expiry on 31st December 2005. This aspect and 'non sending of the alleged forged sticker to FSL drags the case of the prosecution within the ambit of reasonable doubts.
28.Even of it is presumed that the orjginal sticker was, due to ™ whatsoever reason, not available for sending for examination to state. Vs. Reena Sharma & Anr.
.. FIR No.01/2006 Cr. Case No.41580/2016 PS Tilak Margp, ---U/S: 471/34 IPC '. Page 11 of 16 Scannec with CamScanner ee FSL alongwith the alleged forged sticker, still some other Sticker from another government car could have been obteined and sent to FSL for examination.
29.The sending of the alleged forged sticker to FSL was of utmost ---
. necessity in this case, as it is the case of the prosesution that PW-2 became suspicious about the forged sticker as its color was - light in comparison to the original one. Hence, this comparison ought to have been conducted through FSL for according it sanctity, or atleast a dark color sticker ought to have been placed on record for the comparison by the court in exercise of its powers under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, 'the Investigating Officer has not made any such 'endeavors. Such lacunas in the investigation bring the case of the prosecution under the cloud of reasonable doubts, the benefit of which has to be extended to the accused. oe -
30.Furthermore, PW-2 in his testimony has deposed that after becoming suspicious about the allegedly forged sticker affixed on the Tata Indica car, he went to the Label Section and enquired * about the sticker, only to find that it was 'issued to the government vehicle. Here, the PW-2 has not even given the _ name of the official whom he met, he has not given the details of | 'the documents referred by such official for ascertaining the | issuance of the original sticker. | i % .
'31.PW-3 in his testimony has stated that he handed over the.
o ' ' . State Vs. Reena Sharma & Anr. . a FIR No.01f 2006 Cr. Case No.41380/2016 - PS Tilak Marg . Page 120f 16. .
ee U/S: 479/34 IPC Scannec with CamScanner relevant record relating to the issuance of the parking stickers to the investigating officer. The record handed over by him to the "investigating officer is EX. PW-3/A. A perusal of EX. PW-3/A *~merely shows that a sticker was issued toa the government vehicle No. DL-1V-4138. However, from EX. PW-3/A it cannot be | made out, as it dees not bear particulars, that actually which sticker was issued to the government vehicle DL-1V-4138.
32.The allegedly forged sticker on Tata Indica Car Ie. EX. PW- 1 - bears the serial No. ''2099". However, from EX. PW-3/A it cannot be made out that sticker serial No. '2099' was issued to government vehicle DL-1V-4138. However, the Investigating officer, during his testimony has: Marked one hand written document i.e. Mark PW-6/B. This hand written document, which | is a copy does not bear the name of department it relates to; it also does not bear any stamp or seal of any department. It also \ :
SS Se.
Ne does not bear the signatures of any official issuing it. This copy _ Mark PW-6/B at an entry merely records *2099' in front of | DL-1V-4138 Maruti. The original of this document has' neither ~ been brought on record, nor proved as per jaw. Its maker: is ~ unknown. Hence, no reliance can be placed on such document.
+
33. It is proved on record, and also not disputed that the Tata Indica car is registered in the name of the accused Sunil Sharma. Photographs show a sticker of Ministry of Home Affairs affixed on the wind screen of the said car. However, affixing a sticker on car '+ ig by no stretch an offence. However, forging such a sticker and Se te Vs. Reena Sharma & Anr.
'FIR No.01/2006 Cr. Case No.41580/2016 = PS Tilak Marg U/$: 477/34 IPC Page 13 of 16 Scannec with CamScanner affixing it is an offence. However, as discussed above the prosecution has failed to prove that the sticker affixed was a forged one. Now, using a sticker by unauthorized person may . 'become an offence only when the ingredients of section 463 or 471 as discussed above are proved to have existed. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any wrongful gain to any person or wrongful loss to anyone by affixatten of such sticker on the car. It has also not been able to prove that any one:
was defrauded, or any injury was caused to anyone by affixing of such sticker. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that any of the acctised persons, on the basis of the sticker affixed on the car were trying to personate to be the officials of the Ministry from which the sticker was issued, hence, although charge for offence under section 471 read with 34 IPC was formally framed Against the accused persons, still the minor offense, for want of any evidence under section 419 IPC is also not made out against the accused persons. 7
34.Moreover, the photographs showing the affixation of the alleged forged sticker on the Tata Indica car have not been proved as per law. The negatives, or the primary evidence of the photographs -
have neither been placed on record nor, proved. Moreover, who took the photographs of the car is unclear, rather contradictory. PW-5 (Cont. Saroj) has deposed that the photographs were taken _ by the photographer, whereas PW-6 (Investigating officer) has deposed that the photographs were taken by him from his .
- % +... personal mobile. Hence, in the event"of apparent contradiction State Vs. Reena Sharma & Anr.
FIR Na.01/2006 Cr. Case No.47580/ 2016 PS Tilak Marg U/S: 471/34 IPC ' Page 14 of 16 Scannec with CamScanner _* Page 15 of 16.
regarding the person who had taken the photographs and in the "absence of primary evidence and failure 'to prove the « photographs as per law no reliance can be placed upon them.
35.Furthermore, perusal of EX PW 1, i.e. the alleged forged sticker, shows that the vehicle number written on it has beef-written by hand, however, the investigating officer did not obtain the, specimen 'signatures of any of the accused persons during the course of investigation and did not refer them to FSL for examination
36.As far as section 34 IPC is concerned, there is no law that bars one person to drive the car of another. Moreover, the accused persons in this case are stated to be in a relation of brother and sister. Hence there was all the occasion-for Reena Sharma to _ drive the car of Sunil Sharma. However, merely driving the car . allegedly bearing a forged sticker is not sufficient to attract section 34 IPC qua the driver for offence under section 471 IPC. The onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Reena Sharma while driving the car knew or had reason to believe that the sticker affixed on it was a forged a one, if at all it was.
37.Section 34 IPC does not constitute a substantive offence. It is a rule of evidence. A mere averment that two persons acted in furtherance of common intention of each other is not sufficient to attract and prove section 34 IPC. It is the onus of the prosecution _-Stdte Vs. Reena Sharma & Anr.
FIR No.01/ 2006 Cr. Case No.41580/2016 PS Tilak Marg --_«U/S: 471/34 IPC Scannec with CamScanner OL IS 4 ba oe > 'to show by conduct, or through any other relevant fact that there .was meeting of minds of he accused persons and they acted in furtherance of common intention of each other. However, in the » case at hand there Is nothing on record to even remotely suggest ' that there was any meeting of mind of the accused™persons to use the forged sticker, if at all it was as genuine and to defraud anyone or to cause wrongful gain to any one or wrongful loss to anyone.
°
38.Based on the abovedone discussion, this court is of the firm opinion that there are glaring loopholes in the investigation conceiving reasonable doubts. Hence, the prosecution has not ~ been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts for commission of offences under section 471i read with section 34 IPC. es
39. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Reena Sharma and * Sunil Sharma ar uitt Announced in presence of accused persons and their counsel through vide conferencing | -on Cisco Webex.
on 23.06.2020 ~ State Vs. Reena Sharma f Ant | a Be Sa FIR No.01/2006 Cr. Case No. 4158012016 PS Tilak Marg «UNS: 471/34 IPC Page 16 of 16- Scannec with CamScanner