Delhi District Court
State vs . Trilochan Singh Etc. on 20 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI DISTRICT:
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO.: 57 of 2002
POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI
U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE
VS.
TRILOCHAN SINGH ETC.
(1) Trilochan Singh
S/o Sh. Jai Singh
R/o Village Kangmai P.O. & P.S. Hariyana, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab
(2) Bakhsish Singh
S/o Late Sh. Prithi Pal Singh
R/o Village Kangmai P.O. & P.S. Haryana, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab
(3)Paramjeet Singh Bharadwaj
S/o Sh. Gurdeep Singh
R/o Village Kangmai P.O. & P.S. Haryana, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab
Date of institution:28.10.2003
Date of reserving judgement/Order:28.10.2010
Date of Pronouncement of Judgement/Order:12.11.2010
State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc.
FIR NO.: 57 of 2002
POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI
U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC
1 of 14
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1.The brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2002 at Canadian High Commission, Chanakaya Puri, all the three accused persons namely Trilochan Singh, Bakhsish Singh and Paramjeet Singh Bharadwaj attempted to cheat said Commission for procuring visitor visa for themselves on the basis of false and fabricated documents namely a certificate issued by Dera Gurudwara Baba Manjhji.
2. After investigation, the chargesheet for offences U/s 420/468/471/511 IPC was filed against all the three accused persons namely Trilochan Singh, Bakhsish Singh and Gurdeep Singh. Thereafter, all the three accused persons were summoned and on 11.08.2006, charges for the offences U/s 420/471/511 IPC were framed against all the abovementioned three accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case against accused examined 10 witnesses.
4. Ct. Subramanian was examined as PW 1. He has stated that he was on patrolling duty with SI Mahender Singh and he reached Canadian Embassy at about 5.30 PM where they had been called by II Secretary Mr. Robert Racicot. The IO got the case registered through the witness. Documents handed over by the complainant were seized vide memo Ex. PW 1/A. Grounds of arrest were State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 2 of 14 disclosed to accused persons vide memo Ex. PW 1/B, Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. PW 1/D. Their personal search were conducted vide memo Ex. PW 1/E, Ex. PW 1/F and Ex. PW 1/G. Their disclosure statements were also recorded separately vide memo Ex. PW 1/H to Ex. PW 1/J. Their specimen handwriting were also obtained vide memo Ex. PW 1/K1 to Ex. PW 1/K12. Witness has identified all the three accused persons in the Court. In his cross examination, he inter-alia, stated that he alongwith the IO visited Village Kangmai and thereafter, they went to Gurudwara where the Incharge was not present and they met with the Second Incharge whose name he could not remember. He further stated that he did not make any entry in the register at RPO Jallandar when he visited there. He has also stated that they never met with the Chief of the Village Gurudwara.
5. ASI Deena Nath, who was DO was examined as PW 2. He recorded FIR No. 57/2002, on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Subramanian. Copy of FIR was exhibited as Ex. PW 2/A. Entry on rukka was exhibited as Ex. PW 2/B. He has not been cross examined.
6. Sh. Virender Singh Mahant, Loh Langar Gaddi, Gurudwara Manch Village Kangmai, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab was examined as PW 3. He stated that the Experience Certificate Mark A dated 11.08.2006 of accused Trilochan Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Bakhsish Singh was not on his letter head and the signatures and seals were also not his. The reply given by him in respect of the Fraudulent Employment Certificate to the Counsular Canadian High Commission was exhibited as Ex. PW 3/A which bears his signatures at Point A. The detailed reply given by Sh. Virender Singh Mahant regarding fraudulent employment State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 3 of 14 certificate to SI Saroj Tiwari was exhibited as Ex. PW 3/B. He further stated that all the accused persons confessed regarding the fake document in the Gram Panchayat. In his cross examination, he has inter-alia, stated that all the three accused persons were in Gurudwara since between the year 2000-2001. He further stated that the Gurudwara is a personal property and not governed by SGPC. Witness stated that he is not aware whether the news in the newspaper of Punjab Languages Ajeet, dated 15.04.2002, Monday regarding the change of name of Gurudwara is correct or not in Ex. PW 3/C from Mark A1 to A2 and from X-1 to X-2. He has further stated that the character of all three accused persons is good. He stated that a letter head is maintained by Gurudwara for 10-15 years which was printed at Hoshiarpur but he does not know the name of the printing press. He has stated similarly in respect of the stamps of the Gurudwara. He stated that in the year 2002, he had helped accused Bakhsish Singh by letter of reference and by giving Rs.5,000/-. The letter head dated 20.01.2002 was exhibited as Ex. PW 3/D. However, the witness has stated that the signatures at Point A are not his and are fake. He further states that the Granthi of the Gurudwara at the time when the accused persons were working there was Late Sh. Shyam Singh. He did not remember whether Late Sh. Shyam Singh talked to him regarding Experience certificates for the accused persons.
7. Sh. Ram Mehar Singh, UDC, Ministry of External Affairs, Passport Office, Jallandar on behalf of Passport Office, Jallandar was examined as PW 4. The verification report of passport no. 1101393 dated 24.09.1996 in favour of Trilochan Singh, passport no. R723460 dated 14.04.1994 in favour of Bakhsish Singh and another passport no. V034983 dated 26.10.1995 in favour of Paramjeet Singh Bharadwaj, all issued at Jalandhar was exhibited as Ex. PW 4/A. The State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 4 of 14 witness identified the signatures of the Superintendent, Passport Office, Jallandar on the report at Point A. Nothing material came from in his cross examination.
8. Sh. Surjeet Singh was examined as PW 5. He has stated in his testimony that all the three accused did Kirtan in the marriage of his nephew. The witness's younger brother namely Balbir Singh and one Khayada, Vice President of Gurudwara Canada also attended the marriage. Thereafter, Balbir Singh sent an invitation from the Said Vice President in favour of accused persons vide a registry address as requested by the accused. He handed over the invitation to accused Trilochan Singh. He has identified all the accused persons in the Court. In his cross examination, he has stated that all accused persons performed kirtan in the houses and Gurudwara at his village. He has also stated that the Mahant of the Gurudwara had contested election for Panchayat in the year 1998 and all the accused were against him and thus, the relations between them and the Mahant were not cordial.
9. Sh. Harsh Ohri was examined as PW 6. He stated that at about the time of the incident, two Sardars came to his shop and asked him to type some matter. He could not identify the accused. With the permission of the Court, he was cross examined by Ld. APP for State. He stated that it was correct that police made inquiry from him and recorded his statement vide memo Ex. PW 6/A. He did not remember the matter of the letter. The witness was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 6/A. He accepted to having stated the same to the police from the Point X-1 to X-2. In his cross examination, he has stated that he never prepared a letter pad or letter head for any Gurudwara. He did not remember State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 5 of 14 clearly how many police personnel came to his shop. He did not know the names of his customers who got the letter typed.
10. Sh. Vinod Kumar, Government Examiner of Questioned Document was examined as PW 7. He has stated that he had examined all the original questioned and standard document of the present case and gave his opinion vide memo Ex. PW 7/A signed by him at Point A. In his cross examination, he has stated that the standard writing and signatures Mark S-1 to S-3, S-4 to S-6, S-7 to S-9 did not match with Q-4.
11. Sh. Malkiat Singh, brother of accused Trilochan Singh was examined as PW 8. He accompanied all the three accused persons for interview at Canada Embassy where he waited outside. He states that accused Trilochan told him that the Embassy Officials had asked the accused persons to come after lunch. Thereafter, the Embassy personnel kept all the documents with them and took all the accused persons to PS Chanakaya Puri where the witness accompanied them. He states that the Sub Inspector allowed him to leave after signing one blank paper. The accused persons were not arrested in his presence. Ld. APP for State with the permission of the Court cross examined the witness. He stated that the arrest memos Ex. PW 1/B, Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. PW 1/D were signed by him at Point B. He denied making statement Ex. PW 8/A to the police from Point X-1 to X-2. In his cross examination by the Defence, he has reiterated that he signed some blank papers at behest of the police.
12. Inspector Mahender Singh was examined as PW 9. He has supported State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 6 of 14 the testimony of PW 1, Ct. Subramanian. He states that he was given complaint Ex. PW 9/A by II Secretary of Canadian High Commission and it bears his signature on the endorsement at Point A. He handed over the same to Ct. Subramanian for the registration of FIR. He states that the questioned experience letter was admitted to be forged by the accused persons. He seized the documents and passports vide memo Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signature at Point B. The arrest memo Ex. PW 1/B, Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. PW 1/D and statements Ex. PW 1/E, Ex. PW 1/F, Ex. PW 1/G, Ex. PW 1/H, Ex. PW 1/I and Ex. PW 1/J bear his signatures at Point B. He obtained specimen handwriting of the accused vide memo Ex. PW 1/K 1 to Ex. PW 1/K12 bearing his signature at Point B. He was later transferred. He identified all the accused persons in the Court. In his cross examination, he has stated that he did not know about any phone call made to the PS by the Canadian Embassy. He also did not remember whether anybody accompanied the accused persons at the time of their arrest. He also did not remember whether he made any inquiry from the Mahant of the Gurudwara. He also stated that he made inquiry from Commercial College of Computer Typing and from the person who prepared the stamps of the Gurudwara.
13. SI Saroj Tiwari was examined as PW 10. He was handed over the investigation from SI Mahender Singh. He went to the Gurudwara at Kangmai and inquired from the Mahant Virender Singh who stated that the letter in question was fake. He recorded statement of the Mahant and sent the questioned documents to GEQD, Kolkata for comparison. He prepared the chargesheet of the case and filed the same in the Court. In is cross examination, he has stated that he went to Gurudwara to verify the letter whether it was issued by the Mahant or not. He further submitted that as IO SI Mahender Singh had already investigated the State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 7 of 14 original of the document, he did not think it necessary to do it again.
14. Statements of all the three accused persons namely Bakhsish Singh, Paramjeet Singh Bharadwaj and Trilochan Singh U/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded separately on 20.07.2010.
Accused Bakhsish Singh and Paramjeet Singh Bharadwaj stated that they were doing kirtan along with other co-accused since 1993 since Baishakhi. Both the accused persons further stated that they along with co-accused got invitation from Gurudwara of Canada for doing kirtan / religious activities in the Gurudwara and then for visa, both accused alongwith other co-accused annexed the certificate issued by the Sh. Virender Singh Mahant of Gurudwara of Dera Gurudwara Baba Manjhji which Trilochan Singh, co-accused, received through Head Granthi Late Sh. Shyam Singh. Both accused further stated that they told all this to the police who arrested them at Embassy during arrest and investigation. Both accused further stated that they had not forged any document and they had not tried to cheat the Embassy because it was crystal clear that they alongwith other co-accused Trilochan Singh were doing the kirtan in above mentioned Gurudwara which delivered them certificate signed by Sh. Virender Singh. Both accused further stated that they had done no crime. Both accused further stated that they had signed some blank papers which police told them to sign. Both accused further stated that they along with co-accused already had got the same type of certificate from the Mehant Sh. Virender Singh in year 1996. Both accused further stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case and all the witnesses have deposed falsely against them. Both accused did not want to lead DE..
Accused Trilochan Singh stated that he was not aware about the above said facts. Accused Trilochan Singh further stated that he had not State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 8 of 14 attempted to cheat the Canadian High Commission on the basis of false and fabricated documents i.e. Certificate issued by Dera Gurudwara Baba Manjhji, for procuring visitor visa for himself. In fact, the document was issued by the Dera Gurudwara Baba Manjhji signed by Sh. Virender Singh, Mehant of the said Gurudwara through Head Granthi Late Sh. Syam Singh. Accused Trilochan Singh further stated that Shyam Singh handed over the above mentioned document to him at his residence and he alongwith other two accused got invitation from Canada Gurudwara for Kirtan. Accused Trilochan Singh further stated that after getting this invitation, he discussed with Mehant Virender Singh and asked him to give an experience certificate from the Gurudwara because he alongwith the other two accused was doing Kirtan since 1993 (from Baishakhi) and then Sh. Virender Singh told him that he will issue the certificate and Gaini Shyam Singh will hand over the same to him. Accused Trilochan Singh further stated that after that Gaini Shyam Singh handed over the certificate signed by Sh. Virender Singh Mehant to him at his residence in the village and he alongwith other two accused annexed that certificate with the visa papers through which they applied to the Canada High Commission for visa to Canada for religious activities / Kirtans.
Accused Trilochan Singh further stated that he was amazed to listen to and see the police and they were told in Embassy that they have forged some documents for getting visa and he signed blank papers which police told him to sign. Accused Trilochan Singh further stated that he had not done any crime and that is what he had stated in his statement, the same statement he had made to the police during his custody and investigation. Accused Trilochan Singh further stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case and all the witnesses have deposed falsely against him and he did not want to lead DE.
15. All concerned have been heard, including the final arguments led by State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 9 of 14 Ld. APP for State as well as and Ld. Counsel for accused. Material on record has been perused and submissions considered.
16. During the course of the arguments, the Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP' for the sake of brevity) has reiterated the version of events as portrayed by the chargesheet, as well as the prosecution witnesses' testimony. It has been submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated each other. It has further been contended that the defence has not examined any witnesses despite having the opportunity to do so. In all, the prosecution has tried to make out a case against all three accused for attempting to cheat the Canadian High Commission for procuring visitor visa for themselves by using false and fabricated documents namely a certificate purportedly issued by Dera Gurudwara Baba Manjhi, knowing the same to be forged.
17. The learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand has contended that there are numerous contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which create doubt. According to him, PW3 Varinder Singh, has stated that the three accused worked at the Gurudwara near about the time of the incident. He has also stated that about two-three years before 2002, he had helped accused Bakshish by giving him five thousand rupees and an experience letter who returned the money after returning from abroad. PW3 also did not remember from where he got his letter pad made and who made the stamp for the Gurudwara. Further, PW5 has stated that the three accused were infact invited to Canada for the purpose of kirtan. PW5 has further stated that the accused persons did not have cordial relations with PW3. It is further contended that PW6 who State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 10 of 14 allegedly typed the purportedly forged document, did not recognize whether it was the accused persons who came to him for typing the same. He also submits that he did not make any letter pad and the origins of the allegedly forged letter pad have not been investigated. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further contended that it was one Shyam Singh, who has since expired, who gave the letter to accused Trilochan. It is further contended that there are discrepancies in the testimonies of the investigating officers. PW1 has stated that they did not meet the mahant PW3 but met the second in-charge at the Gurudwara. Whereas, PW9 who was accompanied by PW1 did not remember whether he met PW3 and made inquiry from him. On the other hand, PW10 stated in his examination that he made inquiry from PW3, Mahant Virender Singh. While in his cross-examination he has stated that since the first IO had already made inquiries regarding the document in question, he did not think it necessary to the same again. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also highlighted the fact that accused persons have a good reputation and have travelled abroad many times for the same purpose and the present case was lodged as a conspiracy against the accused. Thus, according to ld. Counsel for the accused, no case can be made out against the accused persons. The prosecution has rebutted the said contentions. Arguments on both sides have been heard at length.
18. Before, deliberating further, it would be wise to discuss the provision for the offences under which the accused have been charged:-
Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 11 of 14 into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 471. Using as genuine a forged document:
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
Section 511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment:
Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with [imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
19. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do second each other to an extent. However, it is apparent that certain contradictions exist in their testimonies. It is noteworthy that the only eye witness to the alleged forgery, PW6, had resiled from his statement when he testified that he did not recognize the accused persons. He also stated that he did not make the letter pad of the forged document. The origins of the letter pad have not been investigated. His testimony, thus, cannot be relied upon. This deals a blow to the prosecution theory that the forged document was procured by the accused persons from PW6. PW8 has also resiled from his statement by testifying that he signed on blank papers. Thus, his testimony as relied upon by the prosecution is also not creditworthy. There is also doubt regarding whether the accused persons were doing kirtan at the Gurudwara State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 12 of 14 genuinely, as PW3 Varinder Singh has stated that the three accused worked at the Gurudwara near about the time of the incident. He has also stated that about two- three years before 2002, he had helped accused Bakshish by giving him five thousand rupees and a reference letter who returned the money after returning from abroad. Further, PW5 has stated that the three accused were infact invited to Canada for the purpose of kirtan. Irrespective of having observed that, it remains established that the letter used by the accused persons was infact forged. It is, however, to be noted that merely using a forged document is not enough. What is important is that the accused persons should have used the same intentionally. Further, it must be proved that the accused attempted to dishonestly induce the embassy in giving them the visa. Thus, it is the state of mind of the accused persons that has to be considered at the time of committing the alleged offence. The intention has to be gathered from circumstances of the case, which, in the case at hand, would include the documents on record and the testimonies of the other other witnesses. These circumstances, no doubt, must be brought out by the prosecution. In their statements, the accused have tried to explain their use of the incriminatory letter by saying that it was given by one Shyam Singh, who has since expired, to accused Trilochan. This is seconded by the testimony of PW3 who could not deny with certainty that Shyam Singh asked him about a letter for the accused persons. He has also admitted that Shyam Singh was a granthi at the Gurudwara at the time of the incident and remained so until his death. This does render the version of the accused persons believable. However, the said Shyam Singh has expired and cannot assist the Court by shedding light on the facts. The case could have shifted in favour of the prosecution if the testimony of PW6 was incriminating the accused persons. However, the same has already been rendered unreliable. The defence has also brought out the various discrepancies in the testimonies of the investigating officers. PW1 has stated that they did not meet the mahant PW3 but met the second in-charge at the Gurudwara. Whereas, PW9 who State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc. FIR NO.: 57 of 2002 POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC 13 of 14 was accompanied by PW1 did not remember whether he met PW3 and made inquiry from him. On the other hand, PW10 stated in his examination that he made inquiry from PW3, Mahant Virender Singh. While in his cross-examination he has stated that since the first IO had already made inquiries regarding the document in question, he did not think it necessary to the same again. Minor as they may seem, these contradictions do raise a doubt whether the matter was inquired from PW3 at the first instance, in whose name the forged document was allegedly signed. Given the circumstances and in view of all that has been discussed above, the accused persons cannot be said to have contemplated that the document they were using was a forged one.
20. The aforesaid discrepancies raise a reasonable doubt against the prosecution's version. It is settled law that the case of the prosecution has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, if there are any doubts in the theory of guilt of the accused, the then the benefit obviously has to accrue to the accused.
21. In totality, the prosecution has not been able to establish a strong case. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court finds merit in the defence's submissions and holds that the guilt of the accused cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, all three accused are hereby acquitted of the accusations under Section 420 read with 511 and Section 471 of the IPC.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 12st, November 2010)
This Judgment contains 14 pages
and each paper is signed by me. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Trilochan Singh etc.
FIR NO.: 57 of 2002
POLICE STATION:CHANAKAYA PURI
U/S: 420/468/471/511 IPC
14 of 14