Delhi District Court
State vs . Sheela Etc. on 24 April, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA : ACMM/
NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Sheela etc.
FIR No. 103/92
U/S: 465/468/471/417/511/120B/34
IPC
PS Shahdara
Date of Institution of case:20.9.93
Date on which judgment is reserved: 24.4.09
Date on which judgment is delivered: 24.4.09
J U D G M E N T
a) Sl. no. of the case 38/09
b) Date of commission of offence On or before 23.1.1992
c) Name of complainant Shri P.R. Thakur, Addl. Sessions
Judge, Shahdara, Delhi.
d) Name of accused, their parentage 1. Mrs. Sheila w/o Shri Satya Parkash r/o KU87, Pitampura, Delhi.
2. Mrs. Bimla Rani w/o Shri Balwant Rai, r/o WZ90, Janak 2 Park, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
3. Satish Goel s/o Shri Balwant Rai, r/o WZ90, Janak Park, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
4. Balwant Rai s/o Atma Ram r/o WZ90, Janak Park, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
5.Parmanand @ Promod s/o Balwant Rai r/o WZ90, Janak Park, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
6. Mrs. Shashi Goel w/o Shri Satish Goel, r/o WZ90, Janak Park, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
7. Dr. Rajender Prasad Yadav s/o Omkar Singh Yadav r/o RZ 34A/4, Main Road, Indra Park, Delhi45.
e) Offence complained of or proved U/S:
465/468/471/417/511/120B/34
IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted.
h) Date of such order :24.4.09
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
1. As per the story put forth by prosecution on record is that accused 3 Promod Kumar was married to PW 13 Vandana on 1.6.91 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter due to some matrimonial discord between the two on the alleged dowry demands raised by the family of accused including accused himself, his wife was compelled to leave the matrimonial house allegedly being thrown out of the same. At her instance, a case for dowry harassment u/s 406/498A IPC was registered at PS Seelampur vide FIR No.735/91 against accused persons no.1 to 6. In the said case, all the accused persons No.1 to 6 had applied for their anticipatory bail thrice but every time same was declined to them. Thereafter on 23.1.92, the aforesaid accused persons moved their fourth anticipatory bail application which was listed for hearing before Shri P.R. Thakur, the then Ld. ASJ for its disposal. Along with the said application, the accused had also placed on record photo copies of four papers purported to have been executed and issued by accused no.7 regarding the premarital conception and 4 pregnancy of Smt. Vandana as well as pertaining to completion of her incomplete abortion by accused no.7. The said documents also revealed that Smt. Vandana had remained admitted in the clinic of accused no.7 from 30.6.91 to 2.7.91 for completion of her treatment/abortion.
2. During the course of hearing on said bail application by the then Ld. ASJ Shri P.R. Thakur, Shri B.K. Sharma, Advocate appearing for Smt. Vandana, complainant in the said case had made a submission regarding falsity and forgery of the aforesaid documents before the court on 7.2.92. Besides this, Ld. Counsel for the complainant Smt. Vandana had also placed on record two certificates purported to have been issued by the same doctor (accused no.7) wherein it was so mentioned that the lady (Vandana) whose photograph was affixed on one of those certificates, had never been admitted in the said clinic of accused no.7 nor she was ever administered any treatment by him nor she 5 had undergone any abortion operation at his clinic. Upon filing of the aforesaid documents by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant therein, Ld. ASJ was pleased to direct both the parties to file original of the same. However, the present accused no.1 to 6 failed to file originals of the documents placed on record by them till 10.3.91 and had also stopped appearing in the said bail application case since 24.2.92 and due to this conduct on the part of present accused persons, Ld. ASJ formed an opinion that the documents filed along with the bail application by them were forged and fabricated documents and hence, vide orders dt. 10.3.91, he was pleased to issue directions to SHO PS Shahdara for registration of a case against the aforesaid persons and assign its investigation to Crime Branch.
3. After receiving the aforesaid orders, SHO PS Shahdara had registered the present FIR bearing no.103/92 vide DD No.12A at 7.10 PM dt. 10.3.92 and investigation of the same was assigned to 6 Crime Branch.
4. After completion of its investigation in the present case, charge sheet was filed in this case on 20.9.93. Accused were arrested in this case and were later on released on bail. Detailed arguments were addressed on behalf of accused persons on the point of framing of charge which were dealt by Ld. Predecessor of this court and were decided vide a detailed order dt. 12.5.95 whereby Ld. Predecessor had arrived at a conclusion that prima facie case u/s 465/468/471/417/511 read with Section 120B IPC was made out against the said accused persons and accordingly, charge against the accused persons for offence u/s 465/468/471/417/511 read with Section 120B IPC was framed on 15.5.95.
5. In order to substantiate its version, the prosecution had examined 16 witnesses.
6. PW 1 is none other than the star witness of the prosecution who also happened to be the complainant in the present case i.e. Shri 7 P.R. Thakur, the then Ld. ASJ, Delhi who had deposed that in March, 1991 he was working as ASJ, Shahdara and had passed the aforesaid order dt. 10.3.91 which was detailed and self speaking one and order has been placed and proved on record by him as Ex.PW 1/A. An order dt. 18.3.92 passed by PW 1 on an application moved by Inspector Mahender Sharma of Crime Branch for supply of photo stat copies has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/B and original documents placed on record on behalf of Smt. Vandana have been identified and placed on record by PW 1 as Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively. Photo copies of the medical documents filed on behalf of accused no.1 to 6 have been placed on record as Ex.PW1/E to Ex.PW1/H and original anticipatory bail application moved on their behalf is Ex.PW1/J on record.
7. The witness was crossexamined at length by the Ld. Defence counsels. During his crossexamination, PW 1 admitted that 8 anticipatory bail application Ex.PW 1/J was moved in a State case u/s 406/498A IPC by the accused persons in which one Shri B.K. Sharma, Advocate had also appeared on behalf of the complainant and was allowed by court to assist the Ld. APP. He further admitted it to be correct that it was only on 7.2.92 that Ld. Counsel for complainant namely Shri B.K. Sharma had pointed out to him regarding falsity of the documents. PW 1 had categorically stated further that originals of Ex.PW 1/E to Ex.PW 1/H were never produced before him and hence, he was not concerned with the same. However, the said originals were available on judicial record as having been procured by the IO during investigation of this case. Upon a direct question put to witness PW 1 regarding his competence to refer a case directly for registration of FIR to police authorities without referring it to the Magistrate concerned, the witness had replied that he had done so because whenever any fraud was being brought to the notice of a 9 court, then the court had implicit inherent powers to refer such matter to police for investigation after registration of the case and by inherent powers, he did not mean the power available to the court u/s 482 Cr.P.C rather the inherent power based on the principle of equity, justice and good conscience.
PW 1 had further admitted it to be correct that he himself had not conducted any inquiry or had ordered for an inquiry to be conducted prior to registration of the present case as he was prima facie satisfied in respect of fraud in question. He had also admitted it to be correct that before issuing directions of getting the case registered against the accused persons, he had not issued any notice to counsel for accused no.1 to 6 namely Shri P.K. Chaudhary, Advocate nor any verification was got done by him from the doctor concerned with regard to the contents of the two different set of medical papers produced before him by the 10 contesting parties as this question was left open to the wisdom of IO investigating the case. It is worth while to mention here that the doctor concerned who is allegedly the author of both set of documents is none other than the accused no.7 himself who was the best person to have resolved the controversy at its initial stages itself.
8. PW 1 had also admitted in his crossexamination that no comparison of handwriting appearing on the respective set of documents produced by the present accused as well as Smt. Vandana was got conducted by him to find out whether same had been written by one and the same person or by two different persons. He had also not recorded statement of Shri B.K. Sharma, Advocate either by way of any enquiry or before getting the case registered nor he had issued any notice or called upon any of the accused persons to explain the controversy and its surrounding circumstances. PW 1 had deposed further that it was not true that 11 ordinarily such a complaint should have been raised at the first instance in the court of concerned MM and went on to state further that he as a court of Sessions thought it proper to refer the matter directly to SHO for registration of a case and if after investigation, no offence was found to have been committed in the present case, then SHO was at liberty to file cancellation report. He had also admitted it to be correct that he himself had not proceeded against accused persons either u/s 340 or u/s 195 Cr.P.C.
When PW 1 was questioned about the basis on which he had formed his opinion and had arrived at the conclusion of documents being forged, he had replied to the same that said conclusion was arrived by him on the basis of certificate given by doctor (accused no.7) carrying photograph of Smt. Vandana specifying therein that she had never conceived or had been aborted whereas the photo copies of certificates filed on behalf of accused were carrying an entirely different story. He further 12 admitted that he had not conducted any inquiry or ever summoned any record from the concerned doctor nor even the complainant had ever made any written complaint to him. Not only this but also, Smt. Vandana was stated to have never appeared in the court personally. He has admitted that certificates Ex.PW 1/D and Ex.PW 1/C produced by and on behalf of Smt. Vandana were not carrying her signatures and even her attested photographs did not bear her name. PW 1 further stated that he could not say whether any writing of Ex.PW 1/C and Ex.PW 1/D on one hand and remaining documents Ex.PW 1/E to Ex.PW 1/H on the other hand was same or not. He had stated further that he had not made any efforts to find out the veracity of contents of documents either from the concerned doctor or from Smt. Vandana herself. He had also stated that he had not asked for any expert opinion about the documents in question. At last, PW 1 stated that he was not in a position to say as to whether the complainant party had threatened 13 the doctor in question and had got the documents prepared in their favour after putting him under threat.
9. PW 2 HC Shahid Ahmed is a formal witness who was posted as DO at the relevant point of time and proved carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW 2/A bearing endorsement Ex.PW 1/A on tehrir.
10. PW 3 is Ranjit Singh, the then SHO PS Shahdara who has placed on record an endorsement on Ex.PW 1/A by way of which investigation was transferred to Crime Branch vide endorsement Ex.PW 3/A. During his crossexamination, he had stated that no report either of Vandana or her brothers was made before him prior to the orders passed by Shri P.R. Thakur.
11. PW 4 is Mithan Lal s/o Swaran Lal who happened to be one of the brothers of Smt. Vandana who had deposed that on 10.3.92, present FIR was registered at PS Shahdara. He had received a report from accused Dr. Rajender Prasad Yadav which he had handed over to the officials of Crime Branch at PHQ and had 14 obtained a receipt for the same.
12. During his crossexamination, he had failed to remember the exact date when the aforesaid documents were handed over by him at Crime Branch office nor he could remember the date when the said documents were prepared by Dr. Rajender Prasad. He had, however, stated that he had not visited the doctor personally when the said documents were prepared. Not only this but also he had stated that even his sister Smt. Vandana had also not visited the said doctor. He had failed to remember if he had given any receipt to Dr. Rajender Prasad at the time of obtaining documents from him nor he had seen any entry regarding the preparation or dispatch pertaining to said documents. He had expressed his inability to recall as to how many cases in total were registered against the accused persons no.1 to 6 at his instance. However, he had admitted it to be correct that proceedings against accused persons u/s 498A/406 IPC were got quashed by Hon'ble High 15 Court along with another complaint filed by him against the accused which was pending in the court of Shri Ashwani Sarpal, the then Ld. MM, Shahdara. A case u/s 506 IPC bearing FIR no. 683/92 PS Gandhi Nagar was also got quashed. He had also admitted it to be correct that Raja Ram and Sat Narain were his real brothers but denied the fact that a Fiat car and cash of Rs. 80,000/ were received by them on 17.10.95 from accused persons. He had expressed his inability to tell if his brothers had signed the compromise deed with the accused persons as the same was not effected in his presence. So far as documents Ex.PW 1/C and Ex.PW 1/D are concerned, PW 4 in his crossexamination had stated that the same were prepared by the nurse and not by Dr. Rajender Prasad.
13. PW 5 is Raja Ram s/o Swaran Lal, another brother of Vandana who had also deposed on similar lines on which the story of prosecution goes. He had also placed on record the memo Ex.PW 16 5/A by which photo copy of petition u/s 12 HMA filed by accused Promod Kumar, notice sent by Shri R.P. Bhardwaj and bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C dt. 23.1.92 was handed over by him to IO.
14. During his crossexamination, he had also admitted the factum of withdrawal and quashing of all the proceedings which were pending earlier between the parties. Besides this, it has also been admitted by him that compromise was reached between the parties wherein it was agreed that all the cases against the accused persons including the present one shall be withdrawn by them. Quite contrary to the version of PW 4, this witness had admitted the fact that Fiat car was also returned back to them by the accused persons which was later on transferred in the name of his brother Mithan Lal. He had denied receipt of Rs. 80,000/ from accused persons pursuant to the said compromise. However, he admitted that accused had agreed to pay the said amount to them. 17 He had expressed his inability to tell whether his sister Vandana remained admitted in the hospital of accused no.7 during the period from 30.6.91 to 1.7.91. However, he had admitted that his sister had come to their house on 2.7.91. Further he had deposed that he along with his brother Moti Ram and uncle Mani Ram and sister had visited the hospital of accused no.7 on 29.1.92 along with one another brother whose name he could not recall fully on the date of his deposition. He had denied to the suggestion that signatures of accused no.7 on Ex.CW1/C and Ex.CW1/D were obtained by them by threatening him. He had also stated that said doctor had signed the certificate in his presence and admitted it to be correct that after one year of the registration of the present case, accused no.7 had also made a complaint against them in the Home Ministry. He had expressed his inability to tell further if there was any receipt issued to them by the accused no.7 regarding medical certificate. He had also denied the suggestion put to him by the 18 defence counsel during his crossexamination that the medical record filed by the accused persons along with their anticipatory bail application was genuine one. Further he had deposed that he could not say whether such certificate was also filed along with the divorce petition by the accused persons which was filed about four months prior to the bail application which was forming subject matter of the present case. He had also expressed his inability to say if the accused persons were present at the time of hearing of bail application or not. However, he had admitted it to be correct that he had not seen any of those accused persons in the court during the hearing of their bail application. He had also admitted it to be correct that at the time of present case, his brother Sat Narain was having a revolver in his name. further he had stated that Dr. Promod Taneja was known to him but he did not remember as to whether on 8.7.91, he had taken his sister to Dr. Promod Taneja for her medical check up.
19
15. PW 6 is SI Ram Kewal Pathak who had deposed that on 31.3.92, he had joined investigation with the IO of present case namely Inspector M.K. Sharma and had seized some documents produced by accused no.7 Dr. Rajender Prasad. On 17.8.92, Dr. Rajender Prasad was stated to have been arrested by the IO in his presence when he had made a disclosure statement before IO and his specimen handwriting and signatures were also obtained by the IO and same were later on sent to CFSL. He had placed on record the personal search memo of accused no.7 as Ex.PW 6/A and disclosure statement Ex.PW 6/B signed by him as a witness at point A.
16. PW 7 SI Pradeep Sharma is again a formal witness who had joined investigation with IO Inspector M.K. Sharma on 17.8.92 and he had identified his signatures on disclosure statement of accused no.7 which is Ex.PW 6/B.
17. During his crossexamination, he had deposed that he was 20 accompanying the IO on the said date in civil dress and he did not remember whether IO and other persons accompanying him were in police uniform or not. He had failed to recall the exact time at which the said disclosure statement was made by the accused or the time taken by the IO in recording the same. Although he had stated that IO had requested some persons to join investigation but he had failed to tell the exact number of persons who were so requested by the IO to join proceedings nor he had been able to tell the reason of their nonjoinder furnished by those who had refused to join the proceedings. As per PW 7, no written notice was given by the IO to those who had refused to join the proceedings.
18. PW 8 is Sohan Pal, Reader in the court of Shri Sanjeev Jain, the then Ld. MM, Shahdara. He had placed on record the seizure memo Ex.PW 8/A by way of which two certificates in original dt. 29.1.92 and medical record dt. 23.1.92 were taken into possession 21 by IO.
19. PW 9 is M.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Scientific Officer from CFSL, CBI.
He had placed on record the admitted documents executed by accused no.7 along with the questioned documents and has placed the same on record as Ex.PW 9/1 to Ex.PW 9/33 and admitted signatures and hand writing as mark S1 to S144 and A1 to A7. He had also placed on record his report as Ex.PW 9/A. During his crossexamination, he had deposed that he had not examined the entry at srl.no. 3246 relating to Vandana Goel in register Ex.PW 16/B as same was not specifically referred to him for examination by the IO. He had admitted it to be correct that he was not able to point out the duration of restitched pages in respect of Q22 and Q23 mentioned at point IV of page no.6 of his report Ex.PW 9/A rather he had stated further that it was not possible to express any opinion on duration of restitching. To a question put to this witness regarding use of different ink with 22 respect to entry Q1, he had deposed that he was unable to tell if the said entry was in the same hand writing or not as he was not assigned with this query at the time of examination of the document. He had further deposed that said entry was examined by him only from the point of ink shade and not on the point of same hand writing. He had also stated that it was not his duty to examine the whole entry on the point of its authorship and had admitted the existence of a possibility that since more than one pen was lying at the table of the doctor while making entry in the register, hence two different inks might have been used. He had admitted it to be correct that no opinion was given by him regarding signatures of accused no.7 at Q21 on Ex.PW 9/21 i.e. Ex.PW 1/D and admitted further that IO had not asked him for any investigation regarding authorship of the entire contents from point A to A1 of Ex.PW 1/D on both the pages. Same was his admission regarding authorship of contents of Ex.PW 1/C as well. 23
20. PW 10 is Madan Lal s/o Swaran Lal, another brother of Vandana Goel who had deposed on similar lines as deposed earlier by PW 4 in his examinationinchief and during his crossexamination, he had also admitted the correctness of factum regarding quashing of proceedings u/s 498A IPC by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but had expressed his ignorance regarding fact that the said quashing was done on the basis of a compromise arrived between the parties by mutual consent. He had further shown his ignorance regarding petition u/s 12 of H.M.A filed by present accused Promod Kumar against his wife Vandana in Tis Hazari on 24.10.91 or filing of any documents relating to incomplete abortion of Vandana in the said petition by accused Promod Kumar.
He had also admitted the factum of remarriage of his sister Vandana and her having children out of her second wedlock as on date of his deposition. It was also admitted by him that the entire litigation between the parties except the present case had already 24 been disposed of as a result of settlement arrived between the parties. He had further admitted the factum of return of Fiat car registered in the name of his brother by the accused persons. He had shown his ignorance regarding receipt of Rs. 80,000/ from accused persons pursuant to compromise arrived between them. Ignorance has also been shown by PW 10 with respect to the joint statement made by Promod and his sister before Ld. ASJ on 20.10.95 for obtaining divorce by mutual consent. He deposed further that Mani Ram and Moti Ram had never accompanied him for any kind of proceedings relating to the present case. Possession of a licensed revolver by his brother Sat Narain was admitted by him but ignorance was expressed by him regarding lodging of a case u/s 394/307 IPC by his brother Sat Narain against accused Satish and Promod.
Witness had also expressed his ignorance regarding visit of his brother Sat Narain along with other brothers on 29.1.92 at clinic of 25 accused no.7 with his licensed revolver to forcibly obtain the signatures of accused no.7 on blank letter heads procured by them from his clinic. Since the said certificates were not issued in the presence of PW 10, hence he was not in a position to say whether same were written by accused Rajender Prasad himself or were got written by him from some one else. He had admitted the fact that he along with his sister Vandana had attended the court of Shri P.R. Thakur at the time of hearing of bail application of accused persons and expressed his helplessness to tell if the other persons had also attended the said proceedings or not. None of the present accused persons was stated to be present in the court at the time of hearing of their bail application. Further he had deposed that they had come to know about the fact regarding filing of forged certificates by the accused persons in the court of Shri P.R. Thakur and despite that, they had not filed any written complaint either in the court or with the police. He had also shown his 26 ignorance regarding the fact that the accused persons had also annexed the same certificates along with their divorce petition as well.
From the deposition of this witness, it appears that very cleverly he had tried to hide the factual truth by expressing his lack of knowledge to majority of the vital questions which were put to him during his crossexamination on the pretext of lapse of time. It shall also be pertinent to mention here itself that during his examinationinchief, he was able to remember each and every minor fact but when he was exposed to crossexamination by defence, all of a sudden, his memory had started shaking and ditched him on vital issues.
21. PW 11 is one M.C. Verma s/o Gulab Chand Verma. He was stated to be working as Superintendent in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. He had deposed that application filed by the accused persons along with its annexures was assigned to 27 court of Shri P.R. Thakur, the then Ld. ASJ, Shahdara which was filed by Shri S.D.R. Sethi and Shri P.K. Chaudhary, Advocates on behalf of accused persons. In his crossexamination, he had expressed his inability to tell whether the said application was filed personally by Shri S.D.R. Sethi, Advocate or by Shri P.K. Chaudhary, Advocate. Shri S.D.R. Sethi, Advocate was stated to be known to him even prior to filing of the application. He had admitted it to be correct that the said bail application Ex.PW 1/J was not accompanied by any vakalatnama of Ld. Counsels.
22. PW 12 Shri Duli Chand s/o Shri Deep Chand had claimed himself to be one of the friends of Mithan Lal and further claimed himself to be a witness of handing over of documents by Mithan Lal to the officials of Crime Branch which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 12/A bearing his signatures at point A. The documents seized by police were stated to be Ex.PW 12/B to Ex.PW 12/G also bearing his signatures at point A. In his cross 28 examination, he had admitted it to be correct that neither documents Ex.PW 12/B to Ex.PW 12/G were prepared nor were signed by accused no.7 in his presence. He had also shown his inability to tell the source of procurement of these documents by Mithan Lal. He had deposed further that police had not recorded his statement but had only obtained his signatures. He had further shown his ignorance about contents of documents as same were stated to be never ever read over to him by police at the time of their seizure. In his presence, police was stated to have never enquired Vandana regarding genuineness or otherwise of aforesaid documents. He had even gone to the extent of deposing that he did not even know any lady by the name of Vandana.
23. PW 13 is another star witness of prosecution namely Vandana who is erstwhile wife of accused Promod and presently married to one Dinesh Kumar who had also stated the same story as deposed earlier by her brothers and had also added some spicy incidents to 29 make her story of torture look more grievous in nature. During her examinationinchief, she had deposed that she along with her brother Raja Ram and uncle Mani Ram had gone to see the accused no.7 who had even examined her and thereafter issued a certificate in writing that no such abortion as alleged had ever taken place with respect to her.
During her crossexamination, she had stated that she had no knowledge as to when reply to the divorce petition was filed by her because her brother was solely looking after her case. She had also expressed her inability to tell if the alleged false documents regarding her pregnancy were also filed by her erstwhile husband i.e. Promod Kumar in the aforesaid divorce petition. Further she had deposed that she herself had gone to dowry cell along with her brothers but she could not tell the contents of her complaint as same was prepared by her brother. She did not even know if the said complaint was hand written or a typed one. She had also 30 admitted the factum of quashing of proceedings and withdrawal of all other cases by mutual consent between the parties. She had further admitted it to be correct that since the present case was not initiated by her or her family members, hence it was not included in the list of cases which was agreed to be finally brought to an end by the parties. Quite contrary to the version of her brothers, PW 13 had categorically admitted that after compromise between the parties, not only the Fiat car was returned back to them by the accused persons but also a lump sum payment of Rs. 80,000/ was also made by them. She had admitted the correctness of contents of petition u/s 13B and an affidavit filed along with the same which are Ex.PW 13/DA and Ex.PW 13/DB on record along with joint statements of the parties placed on record as Ex.PW 13/DC.
24. Exhibition of aforesaid documents was objected by the Ld. APP for State on the ground that same were only the photo copies of the certified copies. Upon this objection raised by Ld. APP for 31 State, original certified copies were also produced for the perusal of the court which were returned to the Ld. counsel after perusal. Hence, this objection no more remained sustainable.
25. She had also admitted further that she along with her brother Mithan Lal, uncle Mani Ram and Moti Ram had gone to doctor i.e. accused no.7 for her medical check up, along with the fact that it was stated by her in the FIR that Rs. 25,000/ in cash brought by her from her parents' home was given by her to her husband. Further she had deposed that she could not remember if she had stated in the court that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,000/ was actually given by her to her jeth (brotherinlaw). However, again she had tried to justify her version by adding that the aforesaid amount was handed over by her husband Promod to her jeth. However, no such statement has come on record during her confrontation with the statement recorded on 28.2.02. Further she had stated that she had not made any complaint regarding any 32 threat of throwing kerosene upon her by her husband on inlaws. Not only this, but also, it was admitted by her that she had already forgone all the allegations against the accused persons while she had arrived at the compromise before Hon'ble High Court for quashing of proceedings u/s 406/498A IPC. Interestingly, she had admitted in her further crossexamination that her brother Mithan, neighbour Moti Ram and uncle Mani Ram had visited accused no.7 when she had gone there for check up about her abortion for the second time.
26. This is for the first time ever that admission regarding her visit to doctor for the purpose of abortions has been admitted on record by any of the prosecution witnesses.
27. She had stated further that accused no.7 had prepared the documents regarding her check up in his own hand writing and had denied to the suggestion that accused no.7 had only signed and had not prepared the documents regarding her abortion in his 33 own hand.
Quite contrary to her version in examinationinchief, she had deposed in her crossexamination that accused no.7 had not medically checked her up physically and what he had actually done was nothing beyond making certain queries from her. Firstly, she was stated to have visited the doctor only for the purpose of discussion and thereafter she had gone there 23 times more. She had expressed her inability to tell as to how much money was paid on her each visit towards consultation to the doctor. She had further stated that she had never taken any document along with her whenever she had gone to the doctor for consultation nor she had taken any document prepared by doctor Taneja of Navin Shahdara regarding her abortion. She had expressed her inability to tell if any vakalatnama was signed by her in favour of Shri B.K. Sharma, Advocate at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail application of accused persons. Not only this, but also, she had 34 admitted it to be correct that she had not given any written complaint or statement to Shri P.R. Thakur, the then Ld. ASJ at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail application nor any complaint or statement was made by her in the said court on any of the subsequent dates as well. She had further expressed her inability to tell the dates whenever she was taken by her previous husband i.e. accused Promod Kumar to her matrimonial house. Similarly she could not remember the time or date when her brother took her to her parents house from her matrimonial house or left her back at her matrimonial home. Be that as it may, this deposition of the witness is very important in as much as to show the fact that it was her husband and her brothers who were taking her from matrimonial home to her parents home or vice versa. Hence, all the allegations of the alleged cruel treatment on the part of present accused persons are washed off in view of this admission of PW 13 because had it been a case of her torture and 35 committing cruelty upon her for a dowry demand, then neither her brothers nor her previous husband would have ever dared to visit each other's house.
28. PW 14 and PW 15 happened to be none other than the counsels who had moved the impugned anticipatory bail application.
29. PW 14 is Shri P.K. Chaudhary, Advocate who had deposed that same was drafted by Shri S.D.R. Sethi being senior advocate and upon his instructions, he had mentioned on the application that same was drafted by him. He had also stated that documents Ex.PW 12/B to Ex.PW 12/E were attested by him after comparing the same from their originals which were produced by accused Promod Kumar. Since the witness had resiled from his earlier version, hence he was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State to confront him with his statement. However, nothing material could have been extracted in his crossexamination by Ld. APP for State.
36
30. In his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he had admitted it to be correct that in the year 1992, he was a new entrant to the profession whereas Mr. S.D.R. Sethi, Advocate was the senior advocate with established practice. He had also stated that he himself had personally not approached Shri S.D.R. Sethi to appear in the bail matter and one of the accused persons might have approached him. Further he had stated that during his visit at the seat of Shri S.D.R. Sethi, Shri P.D. Jarwal, the then Ld. MM was not accompanying them. He had also admitted it to be correct that no notice was ever issued to him by Shri P.R. Thakur, the then Ld. ASJ in connection with this case nor any queries pertaining to documents filed along with the said bail application were made by Shri P.R. Thakur. He had reiterated his version regarding attestation of photo copies of medical documents after seeing their originals. Further he had deposed that on the first day of hearing on bail application, he along with Shri S.D.R. Sethi had attended 37 the court and there were some talks of compromise as well between the accused and the complainants and thereafter, case was adjourned after granting interim bail to the accused persons. Further he had stated that on the first date of hearing, the complainant or his counsel Shri B.K. Sharma had not raised any doubts/objections about the genuineness and authenticity of medical documents filed along with the bail application. Quite contrary to the version of PW 1, PW 14 had categorically stated that Shri P.R. Thakur had never asked him either to produce original of the medical certificates or the applicants in person.
31. PW 15 is Shri S.D.R. Sethi, Advocate who had deposed that bail application was brought to him by Shri P.D. Jarwal, the then sitting MM which was already drafted and he was asked/requested to argue the application by Shri P.D. Jarwal on the pretext that accused persons were related to him or were from his native village. Further he had deposed that applicants had not signed the 38 bail application in his presence rather it was already signed when the same was brought to him. He had expressed his inability to tell if counsel Shri P.K. Chaudhary had signed the bail application prior to his signing the same or not. Further he had stated that he did not know Shri P.K. Chaudhary, Advocate who might have come along with Shri P.D. Jarwal. It is interesting to note here that PW 14 had categorically stated that Shri P.D. Jarwal was not accompanying him during his visit at the seat of Shri S.D.R. Sethi whereas PW 15 Shri S.D.R. Sethi had stated that Shri P.K. Chaudhary was accompanying Shri P.D. Jarwal to his seat.
32. PW 15 had admitted the possibility that bail application might have been drafted by Shri P.K. Chaudhary. To a specific question put by Ld. APP for State during crossexamination of Shri S.D.R. Sethi, he had denied the suggestion as incorrect that the story pertaining to the medical documents was not believed by him to be correct and stated that if he had any doubts with respect to 39 those documents, then he would not have argued the bail application. During his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he had admitted it to be correct that application Ex.PW 1/J was already typed when it was produced before him and admitted the possibility that Shri P.K. Chaudhary might have made the endorsement on the same regarding his being the drafting counsel at the instance of PW 15 himself. Further he had deposed that no notice was ever served upon him by Shri P.R. Thakur in connection with the present case.
33. PW 16 is M.K. Sharma, ACP IO in the present case. He had placed on record the seizure memo of documents seized from possession of accused no.7 as Ex.PW 16/A. Relevant entry in the register of doctor pertaining to medical examination of Vandana Goel is Ex.PW 16/B and laboratory register of accused no.7 has been placed on record as Ex.PW 16/C.
34. Arrest memos of accused persons have been placed on record as 40 Ex.PW 16/D to Ex.PW 16/H. On 17.9.92, the seized documents were deposited by the IO vide docket Ex.PW 16/J when details of documents were mentioned in Ex.PW 16/K. During his cross examination, he had categorically stated that at the time of his receiving the file of this case from SHO PS Shahdara, there was no written complaint made to him by the brothers of Vandana Goel. Vakalatnama in favour of Shri B.K. Sharma, Advocate executed by Vandana Goel or her brothers was not received by him with the file. He had further admitted it to be correct that documents were taken into possession by him only on 31.3.92 which were sent to CFSL for examination on 17.9.92. He had also admitted the fact that the writer of letter Ex.PW 9/13 and Ex.PW 9/20, Ex.PW 1/D, Ex.PW 9/21 were different persons but same were signed by the same doctor i.e. accused no.7. Further it has been deposed by PW 16 that due to nonavailability of the writer of document Ex.PW 9/13, he could not get the same clarified from 41 CFSL. Further, the witness had expressed his inability to recall as to whether he had visited the Safdarjung Hospital on 13.4.92 for taking an expert opinion from different doctors regarding abortion of Vandana Goel. He had also failed to recall if he had met doctor Chander Kant at Safdarjung Hospital who had told him that after 15 days of abortion, no check up regarding abortion is possible and hence, no opinion in that regard could have been given. Similarly, PW 16 had also failed to recall his meeting with one Dr. Anita Saxena, Gynecologist. Further he had deposed that the girl allegedly produced by accused Promod before accused no.7 could not be traced. He had denied to the suggestion that since the complainant in this case was a sitting Addl. Sessions Judge, hence, he had not conducted deep investigation in this case. He had admitted it to be correct that Vandana Goel was never taken for a medical check up by him.
35. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of 42 accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and the entire incriminating evidence against them was put to each of them specifically to which they had denied as incorrect and false and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Vandana Goel and her family members but later on, all the matters were amicably settled and compromised amongst them and all proceedings except the present one were got quashed by the Hon'ble High Court Delhi.
36. Accused no.7 Dr. Rajender Prasad in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C had categorically stated that it was incorrect that he had prepared the urine test report of Vandana Goel in connivance with accused persons and stated further that it was a genuine report prepared by him after medical examination of urine of Vandana Goel. Further he had stated that signatures of Vandana Goel or any of her family members were not taken by him because he used to obtain such signatures only in such cases where the abortion could 43 be done under general anesthesia. He has also admitted the fact that documents Ex.PW 9/20 and Ex.PW 9/21 both were bearing his seal and signatures and belonged to his hospital. Besides this, he had also admitted the fact of having attested photograph of Vandana Goel but stated that the contents of the same were not in his handwriting. So far as his disclosure statement is concerned, he had admitted the signatures on the said statement to be his but stated further that same were obtained by the IO on blank papers and lastly he had stated that certificate dt. 29.1.92 was not issued by him nor it was written in his handwriting nor he had conducted any medical examination of patient Smt. Vandana on said date rather the said documents were procured from him at gun point by one Sat Narain who happened to be the brother of Vandana Goel.
37. Not only this but also accused persons had adduced defence evidence in their favour and examined four witnesses.
38. DW 1 is Shri M.S. Tanwar, Public Relation Inspector from Maya 44 Puri post office. However, this witness could not depose anything effective in favour of the accused persons because the record sought to be produced by him had already been destroyed by his department. the letter regarding destruction of record has been placed on record by witness as Ex.DW1/A. The witness has been formally crossexamined by Ld. APP for State wherein he had deposed that he was never posted at post office Palam village nor he could tell as to whose initials were appearing on mark A to E. Originals of mark A to E were stated to be not prepared in his presence.
39. DW 2 is one HC Rajender Kumar no.14 from Vigilance Department, PHQ Delhi. This witness also could not produce the record as same had been destroyed vide order Ex.DW2/B.
40. DW 3 is one ASI Suresh Sharma from office of DCP Complaint Branch. This witness also could not produce the record as same was destroyed vide letter Ex.DW3/C. 45
41. DW 4 is none other than accused no.7 Dr. Rajender Yadav himself. In his examinationinchief, he had stated that photograph of Vandana Goel appearing on Ex.PW 1/C was of the same lady who had come to his clinic on 6.6.91 and had remained admitted in his hospital. Documents Ex.PW 1/C and Ex.PW 1/D though were stated to be bearing his signatures at point Q20 and Q21 but same were stated to have been taken forcibly at instance of Sat Narain, brother of Vandana Goel. Witness has categorically stated that documents Ex.PW 9/10, Ex.PW 9/13, Ex.PW 9/15, Ex.PW 9/16, Ex.PW 9/17 and Ex.PW 9/18 were in his handwriting and were prepared by him under his own signatures when Vandana Goel was admitted and discharged from his hospital. Further he had deposed that on 29.1.92, 56 persons along with Vandana Goel came to his clinic and threatened him to show the documents regarding Vandana and when he had refused to show the aforesaid documents, then Sat Narain had taken out a revolver and put it on 46 his temple and extended him life threat. Thereafter, Vandana Goel induced Raja Ram to extend threat of kidnapping of children of Dr. Rajender Prasad. Due to this threat, DW 4 felt perplexed and in the meantime, Vandana Goel opened drawers of his table and took out the documents, blank letter head, stamp pad of his clinic and herself obtained his signatures on 56 blank papers as well as on the photograph affixed on the document Ex.PW 1/C.
42. The witness had been crossexamined at length by Ld. APP for State. However, the crossexamination by the Ld. APP for State had remained confined to the fact of testing the medical intellect and competence of the witness rather than touching upon the merits of the present case relating to the offences allegedly committed by the accused persons. DW 4 even in his cross examination had categorically denied the suggestion that entry Ex.PW 9/A was a false entry made by him in collusion with other co accused persons.
47
43. After conclusion of the evidence of respective parties, both parties have placed on record their written arguments as well. The main thrust of the complainant has been on the legal proposition that a private complaint for an offence of forgery is perfectly maintainable and legal especially when the forgery has not been done during the period when that particular document has remained in custody of court rather it was already forged when produced before court in evidence.
44. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Iqbal Singh vs Meenakshi Marwah reported in 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 178 (SC). Same is the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1998 (SC) 1121 and Umed Singh Panwar vs Krishan Kumar Sharma reported in 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 313, Punjab and Haryana, Jitendra Chandra Kant Mehta vs M/s Shamrock Impex, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 652, Radha and another vs State of Rajasthan, 2003(4) RCR 48 (Criminal) 781 and AIR 1994, SC 1549 Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra, Harbans Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1987, Punjab and Haryana (Full Bench).
45. In their written submissions filed in the court, accused had taken multiple pleas. the first plea taken by them is regarding resjudicata and doctrine of issue estoppal. It has been submitted on behalf of accused persons that once a compromise had been arrived between the parties in case FIR no.735/91 u/s 406/498A/506/34 IPC, then the said allegations cannot be adjudicated afresh in the present proceedings. However, I do not find myself in agreement with this contention of accused persons because for the applicability of doctrine of resjudicata, it is a precondition that issue in subsistence decided in a previous litigation between the parties or those claiming under them by a competent court must be the same which is the issue in subsistence in the subsequent litigation. From the bare nature of offences involved in two different cases, it 49 becomes amply clear that the issue in subsistence was not same in FIR no. 735/91 as well as in present FIR bearing no. 103/92.
46. Next argument taken by accused persons is that the lodging of FIR in the present case is illegal and thus, all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including investigation and trial were also void ab initio as the order dt. 10.3.92 passed by Ld. ASJ was illegal and unwarranted because Ld. ASJ had no power to issue directions for registration of FIR as this power is exclusively vested in a Magistrate by virtue of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as well as Section 190 Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard has been placed by Ld. counsel on case titled Thankamani vs I.G Police, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) page 470, Kerala High Court wherein it has been categorically held that Sessions Judge cannot direct a Magistrate or police to make any inquiry or investigation. Sessions Judge can only make a complaint in writing to Magistrate as inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C are not available to Sessions Court. 50
47. Same is the version of Hon'ble Punjab Chief Court in case titled as Emperor Vs. Ali reported in 1910 (11) Crl.L.J. 322 (Punjab).
48. Further it has been stated that after appraisal of the testimonies of the parties, even the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. Reliance in this case has also been placed on citation in case titled Gulab Singh vs State of Punjab, 1984(2) Crimes 869, wherein it has been held that to constitute an offence u/s 464 IPC, it is essential that accused must make a document with the intention of inducing belief that it was signed by or authorized by some one else. The Section cannot be invoked where a public officer intentionally makes false entries in his own authority.
49. Citation of Gulab Chand Sharma vs H.P. Sharma reported in ILR 1974(1) Delhi 190(DB) pertains to the applicability of doctrine of resjudicata in criminal proceedings. However, as held earlier, the said citation is distinguishable on the facts of the case and is thus, 51 not applicable to the facts of present case.
50. After appreciation of the entire testimonies of the PWs as well as the documents placed and proved on record by the prosecution as well as defence and the written submissions filed by respective parties, the only inevitable question which remains to be determined is whether the documents Ex.PW 1/E to Ex.PW 1/H filed on record by the accused no.1 to 6 along with their anticipatory bail application Ex.PW 1/J were forged and fabricated or were genuine one. In this regard, I have no hesitation in holding that once the author of the documents in question i.e. accused no.7 himself had categorically stated that he had prepared the same after proper examination of Vandana Goel, then there remains not even an iota of any doubt to suspect their genuinety and authenticity.
51. So far as role of accused no.7 in preparing two different sets of documents at the instance of two different parties suiting their 52 alleged conveniences is concerned, the same could have landed him in trouble had it been a case that author of Ex.CW1/C and Ex.CW1/D would have been the accused no.7 himself. Although the story put forth by the accused no.7 in his defence regarding obtaining his signatures at gun point by complainant party does not inspire any confidence and appears prima facie to be an after thought and concocted story because it was raised at a highly belated stage but still in the absence of any concrete opinion with respect to the handwriting appearing on Ex.PW 1/C and Ex.PW 1/D, all the benefits of doubts arising out of the same must be awarded to accused no.7.
52. So far as origin of this complaint is concerned, it shall be against all the settled principles, norms and ethics of judicial propriety for this court to cast any remarks on the actions of a superior court. However, I am compelled to observe here that prima facie it appears that the orders for registration of FIR were passed in an 53 unduly hasty manner without even conducting the formal preliminary inquiry/ investigation with respect to the documents in question. Had it been done earlier, same would have saved the much precious time of court as well as ordeal of the accused persons which has last for 17 long years.
53. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it could be presumed that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the present accused persons so as to bring their acts and conduct within the ambit of those provisions constituting any such offence warranting their conviction in the present case. It is the cardinal principle of law that every benefit of doubt must be given to accused who is presumed innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
54. After appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the material placed on record by the prosecution, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to 54 prove the case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, all the accused persons stand acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 465/468/471/417/511/120B/34 IPC. Their PBs and SBs stand cancelled and discharged. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24.4.09) (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ACMM/02, North East, KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI