Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Kumar on 26 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 495/96
U/s. 420/471 IPC.
PS Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
a) The sl. no. of the case : 197/2.
b) The Unique ID No. of the case : 02401R0796882003.
c) The date of commission of the : 08/12/1996.
offence
d) The date of institution of case : 30/08/1997.
e) The name of the complainant : Sh. Sanjeet Kumar.
f) The name & address of accused : Vinod Kumar S/o.
Sh. Hanuwant Singh
R/o. V & P.O. Tihara Khurd,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
g) The offence complained of : U/s. 420/471 IPC.
h) The plea of the accused : pleaded not guilty
i) The date of reserving the order : 11/05/2012.
j) The final order : Acquitted.
k) The date of such order : 26/05/2012.
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13/01/1988 accused Vinod Kumar enlisted as constable in Delhi Police by dishonestly producing a forged FIR No. 495/96 PS Mukharjee Nagar 1 matriculation certificate as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged one and thus cheated the Recruitment Agency. The accused was arrested and after investigation, the challan was filed by the police.
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused and after hearing arguments, charge was framed against the accused for trial of offence U/s. 420/471 IPC by my Ld. Predecessor to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 HC Randhir Singh, Duty Officer, who has proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW1/A. PW.2 is Sanjeet Kumar, who made the complaint against accused Vinod Kumar to DCPII, Kingsway Camp, Delhi regarding his enlistment as constable in Delhi Police by producing a forged matriculation certificate as genuine. PW.3 is Smt. Kamla Devi, H.M.M.B., Govt. High School, Bhatt Gaon, Sonipat, Haryana, who had brought the record of said school containing detail of roll number 792460. PW.4 is O.P. Saneja, Asstt. Secretary, HEB, Bhiwani, who, on receipt of letter No. 4939/CRII, DAP dated 14/10/1996 Ex. PW4/A of Ishwar Singh, ACP, 2nd BTN, DAP, Delhi, produced the record of letter issued by the then Asstt. Secretary, Examination. PW.5 is HC Om Prakash, who had produced the certificate of matriculation examination of accused of Rajkiya Uch Vidhalaya, Bhat Gaon, Sonipat, Haryana and proved its copy vide Ex. PW5/A. PW.6 is K.D. Tripathi, Head Clerk, DCP, 2nd BTN, DAP, who had produced / identified the matriculation certificate of accused vide FIR No. 495/96 PS Mukharjee Nagar 2 Ex. PW6/A. PW.7 is Ct. Sumit, who has proved the declaration given by the accused at the time of recruitment vide Ex. PW7/A. However, the testimony of PW7 Ct. Sumit cannot be read in evidence against the accused as he has not completed his testimony on the dates deferred for his cross examination. PW.8 is J.K. Sharma, Jt. C.P., Delhi Police, who has proved his complaint vide Ex. PW8/A. PW.9 is Constable Kabir, who had produced the ACR report of the accused.
4. Statement of accused was recorded U/s. 313 CrPC, wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication in this case, however, he did not wish to examine any witness in support of his defence.
5. I have heard arguments from Ld. APP for State, Ld. Counsel for accused and have also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
6. In order to prove its case, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to lead evidence to the effect that the accused was enlisted as constable in Delhi Police by dishonestly producing a forged matriculation certificate as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged one and thus cheated the Recruitment Agency. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in total.
7. The prosecution has examined PW2 Sanjeet Kumar, who deposed that on 20/09/1996 he made a complaint to DCP, 2nd BTN, Kingsway Camp, Delhi FIR No. 495/96 PS Mukharjee Nagar 3 regarding commission of forgery by constable Vinod Kumar having number 1806, DAP stating that Ct. Vinod Kumar, resident of his village Andhe was known to him very well who was enlisted in Delhi Police on the basis of forged matriculation certificate. He deposed that accused Vinod Kumar had passed his matriculation examination from Govt. High School Bhatt Gaon, Sonipat, Haryana in the year March 1998. He deposed that he was allotted roll number 792460 for the said examination and secured total marks off 497/900 and also secured 95 marks in his six optional drawing subject. He further deposed that he made inquiry from Haryana Education Board Bhiwani about the details of education record of constable Vinod Kumar and found that in March 1978 roll number 792460 was not allotted to any candidate for the matriculation examination, however, in March 1979 roll number 792460 was alloted to Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Hanumant Singh from Govt. High School, Bhatt Gaon, Sonipat, and the said candidate had failed in the said examination. He further deposed that as per the fact collected by him and the photocopy of the certificate attached with the complaint clearly show that accused Vinod Kumar had got the forged matriculation certificate and used the same as genuine and on the basis of which he was enlisted in Delhi Police as constable and thus Vinod Kumar cheated Delhi Police by using forged certificate as genuine. He further deposed that on 18/02/1997 police recorded his statement.
8. PW8 J.K. Sharma, Jt. C.P., Delhi Police, deposed that on 08/12/1996 after perusal of complaint filed by PW2 Sanjeet Kumar, verification report of FIR No. 495/96 PS Mukharjee Nagar 4 Education Board, B.S.E.H., Bhiwani and matriculation certificate used by constable Vinod Kumar in securing recruitment in Delhi Police, he made a complaint Ex. PW8/A against accused constable Vinod Kumar for using forged documents for securing recruitment in Delhi Police and forwarded the document at the time of making the said complaint recommending initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused constable Vinod Kumar.
The testimony of PW8 shows that original complaint Ex. PW8/A does not mention the certificate number or the roll number on the matriculation certificate used by the accused for recruitment in Delhi Police. Even in his testimony, the complainant i.e. PW8 did not depose about the roll number of the allegedly forged matriculation certificate used/deposited by the accused. Further, neither the original matriculation certificate nor the original recruitment record of the accused was produced in the court. The case of prosecution cannot be believed on the basis of the photocopies of the documents only.
The testimony of PW7 Ct. Sumit is incomplete and cannot be read in evidence against the accused as he has not completed his testimony on the dates deferred for his cross examination.
The very basis of the prosecution case is a forged educational certificate used by the accused to gain recruitment in Delhi Police. However, the very fundamental proof in the form of recruitment record is missing. FIR No. 495/96 PS Mukharjee Nagar 5 Furthermore, the prosecution is silent on the point that whether matriculation was a basic educational requirement of the post to which the accused was recruited.
9. The police department may have conducted its own detailed inquiry into the forgery committed by the accused. However, in order to prove the present criminal case, all the relevant original recruitment record of the accused should have been produced and proved by the prosecution. All the evidence led by the prosecution was dependent upon the proof of recruitment record of the accused. However, such proof is missing/wanting in the case file.
10.In these circumstances, in my opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, I hereby acquit the accused of the charge U/s. 420/471 IPC. He is on bail. His bail bond shall remain bound for another six months U/s. 437A CrPC. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL SINGH) COURT ON 26/05/2012 Metropolitan Magistrate (Copies 1 + 1) Delhi FIR No. 495/96 PS Mukharjee Nagar 6