Delhi District Court
State vs Surender Pal on 28 May, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF AISHWARYA SHARMA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
1. Cr. C No. : 427932/2016
2. Date of Institution: : 29.08.2013
3. Name of the Complainant : State
4. Name, address and parentage of : Surender Pal Singh S/O Sh. Nirmal
Singh
R/O B86, Mahavir Enclave,
New Delhi.
5. Charge framed against accused : U/S 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
8. Date of reserve for orders : 22.04.2024
9. Date for announcing the orders : 28.05.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Surender Pal is facing trial for offence U/S 467, 468, 471, 474, IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 21.07.2009, at 5:45 PM, in front of Reliance Fresh Palam Dabri Road, accused handed over forged marksheet of Class Xth having role number 6617458 and Class Xth Certificate issued by CBSE to decoy customer Mr. Mahesh Kumar on the payment of remaining amount Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO.226/2009 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:00:12 +0530 St. Vs. Surender Pal 2 of Rs. 2,000/ and total deal to procure those documents between the decoy customer Mahesh Kumar and accused was fixed for Rs. 10,000/ and out of which, Rs. 8,000/ was paid in advance to the accused as the accused agreed to deliver the certificates on 21.07.2009. Further, the computer Scanner, CPU and Printer of the accused having fake degree certificate and marksheet were also found and seized and printout of those fake certificates and marksheet were taken and were verified from the concerned department and they were found to be forged which accused used as genuine documents to cheat, thus, the accused was chargesheeted for the offene U/SS 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC. The criminal law was set into motion by registration of FIR against the accused and investigation into the case began. After completion of the investigation, the present chargesheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused persons for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offence vide order dated 29.08.2013, the copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charge were heard by my Ld. Predecessor and the charge for offence U/S 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 23.01.2016. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused persons, prosecution has examined total six prosecution witnesses.
4. PW1 Retd. SI Naresh Chander deposed that on 21.07.2009 Ct. Mahesh from Special Staff was having information regarding one person namely Surender Pal who provide fake certificates/documents on payment of money and Digitally signed by FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:00:19 +0530 3 this information was being developed and Ct. Mahesh had contacted Surender Pal prior to 21.07.2009 as decoy customer and had asked him who provide 10th Marksheet/certificate in the name of Mahesh and the deal was finalized for Rs.10,000/ and Ct. Mahesh had given Rs.8,000/ to Surender Pal and remaining payment of Rs.2000/ was to be paid on 21.07.2009 after handing over 10 th Marksheet/certificate. He further deposed that on 21.07.2009 balance payment and delivery of 10th Marksheet/certificate was to be made on foot path in front of Reliance Fresh main Palam Dabri Road at around 5:306:00pm and these facts were brought in the knowledge of Inspector Ranjeet Singh and on his direction, he constituted the raiding party consisting of himself, Ct. Mahesh, Ct. Dharam Şingh, Cr Surender and Ct. Mukesh in special staff office and all raiding party members were briefed about the facts and Ct. Mahesh was given two Currency notes of denomination Rs. 1000/ having last four digits of serial no. 9913 and 9549 and instructed him that when he will give these notes to Surender Pal and he will give signal by waving his hand over his head and thereafter, at 4:15pm, they left special staff office in private car for spot and at around 4:30pm when they reached below Palam flyover on Palam Dabri Road, he asked 67 public persons to join the raiding party after sharing the facts of the case with them but none agreed and the went away without disclosing their names and addresses and by citing their reasons. He further stated that thereafter, they proceeded towards Reliance Fresh on Palam Dabri Road and they reached there at around 4:45pm and Ct. Mahesh stood in front of Reliance Fresh on foot path and they took their position near and around the spot. At 5:45pm, accused Surender Pal came in front of Reliance Fresh Digitally signed by FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:00:25 +0530 4 on foot and met Ct. Mahesh and they had conversion and Ct. Mahesh handed over Rs.2000/ (two currency notes of Rs.1000/) to Surender Pal and thereafter, he gave signal to them and Accused Surender Pal was apprehended by them and from accused Surender Pal one Marksheet and one certificate of 10th class of CBSE Board in name of Mahesh were found which he was holding in his right hand and upon on cursory search of Surender Pal, two currency notes of Rs. 1000/ which were given by Ct. Mahesh to him were found for his chest pocket and he seized those two Currency notes of Rs.1000/ vide seizure memo Ex.PW 1/A and also seized certificate and Marksheet of 10th class in the name of Mahesh vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and 10th marksheet and certificate in the name of Mahesh Kumar are now Ex.P1 and P2 and handing over memo in respect of currency notes of Rs. 1000/ to Mahesh Kumar is Ex.PW1/C and he prepared tehrir Ex.PW1/D and sent Ct. Mahesh to PS Dabri with tehrir for registration of FIR and Ct. Mahesh went to PS and got the present registered and returned to spot with original tehrir and copy of FIR and handed over the same to this witness and during that interval, he interrogated accused Surender Pal. He further stated that after the return Ct. Mahesh he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/E and he arrested accused Surender Pal vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/F and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/G and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW1/H wherein accused had disclosed that he can get recovered instrument used for the preparation of fake documents i.e Marksheet and certificate, Stamps etc. from his residential house B86 Mahavir Enclave Palam, New Delhi and currency notes and personal articles were deposited iņ malkhana of P.S. Dabri and accused got medically Digitally signed by FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:00:32 +0530 5 examined in DDU Hospital and thereafter, accused led them to his residence i.e. at B86, Mahavir Enclave, Dabri where four stamps of different authority including one stamp of Serial number were recovered from drawer of a table which was recovered below the staircase. He further deposed that he took the impressions seal of those four stamps on blank paper which are already Ex.PW2/8 (colly8pages) and sealed those stamps in a pullanda with the seal of NC and pullanda was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that from a room in the house of the accused one certificate of Ministry of Labour, certificate of DU and certificate of Delhi Directorate of Education which were not filled were also recovered which were seized by him through seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and Unfilled certificate are Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/4 and from other room certificates/marksheet in the name of Baljeet Singh and in the name of Anil Verma of Ministry of Labour were recovered which were seized through seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and certificates and marksheets are Ex.PW2/5 to Ex.PW2/7. He further stated that from the back side room of the house computer, monitor, Scanner, printer etc. were recovered which were Converted into pullandas separately and they were sealed with the seal of NC and these articles were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/D. He further deposed that from computer table kept in a room few stickers in the name of Election Commission of India, Ministry of External Affair and Government of India and letter pads in the name of Sevti Devi Memorial Shishu Vidya Mandir were recovered from the drawer of the table and he kept one four stickers and one letter pad in plastic foil and remaining stickers and letter pad were converted in the pullanda which was sealed with the seal of NC Digitally signed by FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 St. Vs. Surender Pal 16:00:44 +0530 6 and he prepared the seizure memo of these items already Ex.P2/E, Four stickers and one letter head of Sevti Devi Memorial Shishu Vidya Mandir are Ex.PW2/9 (colly). He further stated that all the seized case property was deposited in malkhana. He stated that he also recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/F and also recorded statement of the raiding party members. He further stated that on next day the case file was transferred to SI Ashok for further investigation. He correctly identified the accused Surender Pal Singh in the court as well as the case property as Ex.P3 (colly), Ex.P4 (colly), Ex.P5 (colly), Ex.P6 (G) and Ex.P7 (colly).
5. PW2 Statement of ASI Mahesh deposed that prior to 21.07.2009, he had received information through secret informer that one Surender Pal Singh is involved in making of false CBSE and Delhi University certificate and marksheet in lieu of money which he shared with Inspector Ranjit Singh Daka and he instructed him to develop the said information and to carry out further dealing regarding the information which he had received through secret informer. He further deposed that thereafter, he met with Surender Pal Singh and fixed deal with him for preparing false certificate and marksheet of 10th class of CBSE Board in his name and Surender Pal Singh and demanded Rs.10,000/ for providing the false certificate and marksheet and he had paid him Rs.8000/ as advance and balance payment of Rs.2000,/ was decided to be paid on 21.07.2009 on delivery of false certificate or markesheet on foot path in front of Reliance Fresh on Palam Dabri Road in between 5:306:00pm and he appraised Inspector Ranjit Singh Daka Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO.226/2009 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:00:52 +0530 St. Vs. Surender Pal 7 about all these facts who on 21.07.2009 directed him to constitute a raiding party under ASI Naresh Chander and a raiding party was consisting of Ct. Dhan Singh, Ct. Mukesh, Ct. Surender, ASI Naresh Chander and himself and raiding party was briefed by ASI Naresh Chander and ASI Naresh Chander handed over to him two currency notes of denomination Rs.1000/ with serial no. 3BL 269913 and 4BU 479549 again said 4BV 479549 vide handing over memo already Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that ASI Naresh Chander instructed him to give signal by waving hand over his head after handing over currency notes to Surender Pal Singh and they left Special Staff office in private car at 4:15pm for spot and at 4:30pm, they reached below Palam Flyover on Palam Dabri Road where ASI Naresh Chander asked few public persons to join the raiding party after sharing the information with them but none agreed and they left without disclosing their names and addresses and thus, thereafter, without wasting time they proceed towards Reliance Fresh and reached there at 4:45pm. He further stated that he was instructed to stand on foot path in front of Reliance Fresh and remaining raiding party took their position near the Reliance Fresh and at around 5:45pm one person came to him and had conversation with him and he handed over two currency notes of Rs.1000/ to him and gave the signal to the raiding party member and that person was apprehended by them who was holding 10th certificate having no. 068016, Roll No. 6617458 dated 30.05.2013 and having no. 012657 and Roll No. 6617458 dated 30.05.2013 in his name in his right hand. He further deposed that he did not remember exactly year mentioned in the marksheet and certificate now, Certificate and marksheet were seized by ASI Naresh Chander vide seizure memo already Digitally signed FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA by AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal Date: 2024.05.28 16:00:59 +0530 8 Ex.PW 1/B and on cursory searched of that person, two currency notes of Rs.1000/ were recovered from his chest pocket which were given by this witness to him and those notes were also seized by ASI Naresh Chander vide seizure memo Ex.PW 1/A and 10th Marksheet and certificate in the name of this witness is Ex.P1 and P2. He further stated that name of that person was revealed as Surender Pal Singh and he was interrogated by ASI Naresh Chander. ASI Naresh Chander prepared tehrir Ex. PW1/D to this witness and he got the present case registered and returned to spot and handed over original tehrir and copy of FIR to ASI Naresh Chander. He further deposed that Accused was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/F and ASI Naresh Chander recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/H and he prepared the site plan already Ex.PW1/E. He further stated that the Accused was also personal searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW 1/G and Personal search articles and currency notes seized by ASI Naresh Chand were deposited in malkhana in PS Dabri. He further stated that Accused was got medically examined in DDU Hospital. He further deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement of accused he had led them to his house in Mahavir Enclave and from a room, accused got recovered from the drawer of a table one certificate of Ministry of Labour, three certificates of Delhi University and one certificate of Directorate of Education Delhi which were unfilled and they were seized by ASI Naresh Chander vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and Certificates are Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/4. He further stated that from second room one certificate and marksheet of CBSE in the name of Baljeet Singh and one certificate in the name of Anil Verma of Ministry of Labour were found which were seized by ASI FIR NO.226/2009 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:01:05 +0530 9 Naresh Chander vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B, Marksheet and certificate in the name of Baljeet Singh and certificate in the name of Anil Verma are Ex.PW2/5 to Ex.PW2/7 and from the drawer of a table below staircase four stamps out of which three were of Education Officers and one was of Serial number were recovered. He further deposed that ASI Naresh Chander took impression of those seals on blank paper and thereafter prepared the pullanda of those seals and sealed the pullanda with seal of NS. He further stated that ASI Naresh Chander seized the pullanda of seals vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C and took the Impression of the seals on blank paper bearing his signature at Point A on each page respectively and same are Ex.PW2/8 (colly8pages). He further deposed that from another room computers monitor, Scanner, printer, web cam etc. were recovered with which accused disclosed that he used to prepare the false documents and those computers, printer, scanner, etc. were wrapped in separate white clothes and they were sealed with the seal of NC by ASI Naresh Chander and these articles were seized through seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. He further from another room stickers of Election Commission of India, Government of India and 30 letter pads of Sevti Devi Memorial Shishu Vidhya Mandir were recovered from a drawer of computer table and four stickers of different sizes of Election Commission of India and Government of India and one letter head of Sevti Devi Memorial Shishu Vidhya Mandir were kept in plastic foil as sample and remaining stickers and letter pads were converted into pullanda and same was sealed with the seal of NC. He further deposed that ASI Naresh Chander prepared the seizure memo of the sealed pullanda and stickers kept in plastic foils and sample Ex.PW2/E and Four stickers Digitally signed by FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:01:12 +0530 10 of Election Commission of India, Government of India and letter head of Sevti Devi Memorial Shishu Vidhya Mandir are collectively Ex.PW2/9 (colly). He further stated that all the case property was brought to PS Dabri were deposited to malkhana. He further that IO also recorded supplementary disclosure of the statement of the accused Ex.PW2/F. He identified the accused in the court. He correctly identified the case property i.e. Ex.P3, Four seals are Ex.P4 (colly), Ex.P5 (colly), Ex.P6 (colly) and Ex.P7 (colly).
6. PW3 Ct. Sushil proved the register No. 19 containing the entries NO. 5467 dated 21.07.2009, 5468 dated 22.07.2009 and 5469 dated 23.07.2009 as Ex. PW3/A (OSR) vide which the case properties were deposited in the Malkhana by the IO's.
7. PW4 Sh. Anil Kumar Nahar proved the authority letter issued by Smt. Satpal Kaur, Regional Officer, Ajmer, CBSE as Ex .M1, verification report dated 10.07.2015 as Ex PW3/A issued by Section Officer Sh. Radha Krishna Balani to the query of SI Ashok Kumar and identified the signatures of concerned officer at point X. He also proved the certified copy of record maintained in their office regarding Role No. 6217458 of the year 1996 which was allotted to one Sh. Amit Khanna S/o Sh. Mool Chand and the said certified copy in the form of Marksheet and Migration tabulation is Ex. M2 (running in two pages).
8. PW 4 SI Jagat Singh (wrongly numbered as PW4) who proved the rukka Ex. PW4/A on the basis of information received from Ct. Mahesh.
Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:01:19 +0530 FIR NO.226/2009 St. Vs. Surender Pal 11
9. PW5 Insp. Ashok Kumar deposed that on 22.07.2009, ASI Naresh Kumar handed over the present case file along with the accused Surender Pal to him and he visited the residence of the accused at Mahavir Enclave and recovered one pen drive, from the room at the right side of first floor at the instance of accused and he seized the same vide memo Ex. PW5/A and took out the print out of the date contained in the said pen drive and seized the said print vide Ex. PW5/B (Colly) and also copied the data of pen drive in a sample drive and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/C and thereafter, he sent a letter to CBSE requesting verification of documents already seized by previous IO ASI Naresh Kumar and received verification report from CBSE as Ex. PW5/D and PW3/A and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet before the court.
10. Thereafter, PE was closed on 02.01.2024 and the matter was listed for recording of Statement of accused. Thereafter, statement of the accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 01.02.2024 wherein he denied the allegations leveled against him and stated that he never handed over any marksheet or certificate to any such person and no recovery of Computer Scanner, CPU and Printer containing fake degree, certificates and marksheet was affected from him. He also stated that his brotherinlaw namely Sh. Vijay Naru, is Inspector in Delhi Police and his sister is ASI in Delhi Police who married with Insp. Sh. Vijay Naru, against his wishes and later on, his sister and brotherinlaw had matrimonial disputes and his brotherinlaw wanted her to return to his house but she was not inclined to do so, due to which he has been falsely implicated in this present case at Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 FIR NO.226/2009 16:01:27 +0530 St. Vs. Surender Pal 12 behest of his brotherinlaw. He stated that on one day he was called by Ct.Mahesh to Special Cell and there he met SI Gyanender, who asked him to reconcile the dispute between his sister and brotherinlaw and then again on 21.07.2009, he was again called at P.S. and was arrested by the police officials and implicated in the present case and he was also made to sign on some blank papers. The accused examined himself as DW1 in his defence.
11. DW1 Sh. Surender Pal has tendered certified copy of FIR as EX. DW1/1 and certified Copy of judgment passed by Ld. Principal Judge Family Court Ex. DW1/2. Thereafter, he closed his defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
12. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence U/SS 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated. Arguing further, Ld. Counsel for accused has interalia submitted that the entire story of prosecution is concoction of facts which have been manipulated by one Inspector Ranjeet Singh Dhaka who in connivance with the so called members of the raiding team and IO's of the case have planted recovery of the alleged fabricated certificates and marksheets upon the accused so as to bring him Digitally signed by FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:01:34 +0530 13 at a receiving end and force him to affect the settlement of the matrimonial disputes between his sister ASI Arvinder Kaur and Brotherinlaw SI Vijay Naru. It has further been argued by the defence that even the alleged recovery of marksheet and certificate has not been established by the prosecution through any concrete evidence and due to the inherent lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
14. The gist of the allegations leveled against the accused is that a secret information was received by Ct. Mahesh prior to 21.07.2009 that the accused was involved in making false CBSE and Delhi University Certificates / Marksheets in lieu of money and upon sharing the said information by the aforenamed Ct. Mahesh with Insp. Ranjeet Singh Dhaka, the instructions were given for working upon the said information, pursuant thereto the secret informer again informed Ct. Mahesh about the veracity of the information and the meeting between him and the accused Surender Pal Singh was organized. The meeting materialized with a deal in which the accused assured of preparing false certificate and marksheet pertaining to 10th class of CBSE board in the name of Mahesh for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/ out of which Rs. 8,000/ was paid in advance by Ct. Mahesh and the balance payment of Rs. 2,000/ was agreed to be made on 21.07.2009 at the time of the delivery of the said false certificate and marksheet on footpath in front of Reliance Fresh at Palam Dabri road. Apprising the developments to Insp. Ranjeet Singh Dhaka by the Ct. Mahesh led to the constitution of raiding party Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 FIR NO.226/2009 16:01:41 +0530 St. Vs. Surender Pal 14 under the supervision of ASI Naresh Chander with Ct. Dhan Singh, Ct. Mukesh, Ct. Surender and Ct. Mahesh as it's members. The plan to catch hold of the accused was finalized with handing over of two currency notes of Rs. 1,000/ each by ASI Naresh Chander to Ct. Mahesh and on the fateful day of the alleged occurrence i.e. 21.07.2009 at 5:45 P.M., the accused alleged handed over the fabricated marksheet and certificate to Ct. Mahesh at near Reliance Fresh store, Palam Dabri Road with a simultaneous payment of remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/ in his favor out of the above mentioned two currency notes earmarked for the purpose and upon the signal made by the constable Mahesh, raiding party which was present nearby apprehended the accused with the said currency notes and fabricated certificates and marksheets. It is also in the allegations that during the course of the investigation, the search of the house of accused was also conducted and certificates pertaining to Ministry of Labor, Delhi University, Directorate of Education, Delhi, Certificates in the name of persons namely Anil Verma and Baljeet Singh along with four stamps of education officers, computer, monitor, scanner, web cam, stickers of Election Commission of India, govt. Of India, letterhead of one Sevti Devi memorial Shishu Vidhya Mandir etc. were also recovered. The investigation of the case culminated with filing of the present chargesheet against the accused and upon the material on record, charges for offences U/SS 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC were framed against the accused.
15. Prior to delving into the merits of the present case, let us briefly discuss the provisions of Section 474 IPC for which the accused has been charged. The provisions of Section 474 IPC make indictable an act of coming into possession of FIR NO.226/2009 Digitally signed by AISHWARYA St. Vs. Surender Pal AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:01:48 +0530 15 a document as described U/s 466 or 467 of the Code with a knowledge that the said document is forged along with the intention that same may be used as a genuine document. The careful analysis of this provision makes it amply clear that any person having possession of any document or any electronic record knowing that same is a forged document and intending that same shall be used as genuine one shall be punishable under this provision. The punishments laid down for said act are however different with respect to the nature of documents as specified U/s 466 and 467 IPC, as the case may be. In order to constitute the offence U/s 474 IPC, it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish the following-
(i) That the document or electronic record so recovered from the accused is a forged document. The definition of forgery has been incorporated U/s 463 IPC as making of any forged document or an electronic record or part thereof with an intent to cause damage or injury to public or any other person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with any property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with an intent to commit a fraud. The term falsification of document has been defined U/s 464 IPC.
(ii) That the document so recovered from accused was the nature as specified U/s 466 or 467 IPC. The provisions of Section 466 and 467 IPC lays down the aggravated forms of offence of forgery. The provisions of Section 466 IPC deals with forgery related to court record or public documents in the nature of birth registers, baptism record, marriage or burial records etc., whereas, Section 467 IPC deals with forgery of valuable securities in the nature of Will, authorities to adopt son, receipts or acknowledgments of money or property etc.
(iii) That the accused was holding the possession of said documents as specified Digitally signed by AISHWARYA FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:01:55 +0530 16 under Clause- i and ii above with the knowledge that same were forged documents and also with an intention to use the same as genuine.
If the prosecution successfully establishes the above-mentioned conditions as laid down under clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), the accused can be held liable for offence U/s 474 IPC.
16. Besides, the accused has also been charged for commission of offence U/ S 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The offence U/S 467 IPC relates to forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security, will etc. This provision makes an act of forgery of document as defined Under section 463 IPC an indictable act entailing punishment for imprisonment extending up to life imprisonment when said act of forgery pertains to documents in the nature of valuable security, Will, adoption authority, authorization for financial transaction, property exchanges. Whereas, Section 468 IPC deals with forgery of documents for the purpose of cheating. This provision makes an act of fabrication of documents as defined U/S 463 IPC, an indictable act entailing punishment of up to 7 years imprisonment when the intention behind the act of such forgery is of using the said document to commit the offence of cheating. The offence under this section does not require that the accused should actually commit the offence of cheating, what matters here is the intention or the purpose of the person committing such an act of forgery. Section 471 IPC deals with the offence of using a forged document as a genuine one. In order to hold a person liable for this offence, what is required to be established is that either the accused has himself made a forged document or he was having reason to believe or knowledge that such document was forged and having such knowledge or reason to believe, the accused has used the said document as a Digitally signed by FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:02:01 +0530 17 genuine one.
17. Having discussed the abovementioned provisions, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the present case so as to ascertain whether the prosecution has successfully proved the essential ingredients of the offences for which the accused has been charged. As far as the offence Under Section 467 IPC is concerned, the careful analysis of the legal provisions hereinbefore reflects that in order to hold a person liable for this offence, the falsification of document in the nature of valuable security, will, authority to adopt a son, authority for transfer of valuable security, receipt acknowledging the payment of money etc. is required to be established. Admittedly, as per the allegations levelled in the chargesheet and overall evidence led during the investigation of the case clearly suggests that the documents alleged to be fabricated by the accused in the present case are the marksheets and certificates pertaining to CBSE. Even the alleged subsequent recovery of the documents effected from the accused involves documents in nature of certificates/ marksheets pertaining to Delhi University, Directorate of Education, school letter head and stickers of Election Commission and Government of India. Hence, none of the such documents allegedly recovered from the accused falls under the purview of a document or a legal instrument in the nature of valuable security, Will, authority to adopt a son, authority to receive interest, dividends, authority to receive or deliver any movable property or receipt acknowledging payment of money, hence, the charge for offence U/S 467 IPC appears to be unfounded and thus, accused cannot be held liable for the same.
18. So far as charge for the offence U/S 468 IPC is concerned, the discussion made in the preceding part of this judgment suggests that to make a person liable Digitally signed by FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:02:09 +0530 18 for this offence, the forgery of a document by the accused must be accompanied necessarily with an intention of cheating on the part of such person. Succinctly, for holding a person guilty under the ambit of this section, it has to be proved that such person has made a wrongful gain by deceiving the person or other entity. It is necessary that some kind of advantage is enjoyed by such person deceiving the other. In the present case, the allegations and the evidences led by the prosecution on the face of it suggests that upon deriving the knowledge regarding the making of fabricated marksheet/certificates for consideration by the accused, PW 2 ASI Mahesh posed himself as a decoy customer and approached the accused for procuring the 10th class marksheet and certificate pertaining to CBSE for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the above-named PW-2 ASI Mahesh was having a categorical knowledge regarding the fact that the documents so received by him from the accused were the fabricated documents. In fact such documents were obtained by abovenamed PW-2 by way of a decoy set up to apprehend the accused red handed and hence, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be presumed that PW-2 ASI Mahesh was deceived by the accused by handing over the forged 10th class marksheet and certificate of CBSE to him and has derived wrongful gain by such deception. In a situation where presumably, the accused might have represented to PW-2 that the documents so delivered to him were in fact genuine documents and acting on such belief, PW-2 had paid the consideration amount of RS. 10,000/- to the accused, charged Under section 468 IPC might have been established subject of course to the fact that the prosecution was also successful in proving that accused himself was the maker of said documents. Having said so, the above-mentioned essential ingredients for Digitally signed by AISHWARYA FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal Date: 2024.05.28 16:02:15 +0530 19 establishing the offence under Section 468 IPC appears to be clearly lacking in the present case, hence, such charge against the accused also appears to be completely unfounded.
19. This court is well conscious of the fact that there lies no embargo in simultaneously appreciating the evidences on record qua the complicity of accused with respect to offence under Section 466 IPC which deals with forgery of court records, public register etc. More specifically it being a minor offence when compared with the offence under Section 467 IPC for which the accused is charged, the appreciation of evidences on record with respect of such offences is completely permissible as per section 222 of Cr.P.C but upon careful analysis and appreciation of the prosecution evidence, it clearly perceives that there is no iota of evidence on record that the alleged fabricated 10 th class marksheet and certificate were in fact forged by the accused himself or in other words, that the accused was the maker of such impugned documents. The perusal of the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 even though suggests that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused, the recovery of certain other incriminating documents along with the stamps, computer, CPU, scanner, printer, webcam etc. was allegedly effected from the house of accused but such recovery per se is not sufficient to presume that the impugned documents were fabricated by the accused himself. It was imperative on the part of IO to take the specimen signature and handwriting of the accused in accordance with Section 311 Cr.P.C. and verify the same with those on the impugned certificate and marksheet. It was also incumbent on the part of the IO to send the computer system and other devices including scanner as well as the stamps allegedly recovered from the accused to the FSL or seek some other expert Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO.226/2009 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 St. Vs. Surender Pal 16:02:22 +0530 20 opinion in that regard so as to verify that the impugned documents were prepared using the said computer devices and stamps etc. but such mandatory course was not adopted by the IO for the reasons unexplained. There is no justification with respect to such lapses given by PW-1 and PW-5 and even, no justification in that regard has been offered by the prosecution and hence, merely on the premise that the impugned documents as per the testimony of PW-4 remained unverified, the accused cannot be presumed to be the maker of such documents. Accordingly, the charge for minor offence under Section 466 IPC also cannot be said to be established in the present case.
20. As far as offence under section 471 IPC is concerned, it has already been discussed hereinbefore that a person can be held liable for this offence if he knowingly or having reason to believe that a document is a forged one uses the same. The crucial ingredient of this offence is that a document so used by the accused is forged one as per the knowledge or reason to believe with the accused but inspite knowing such facts, the accused uses the document as a genuine one. Illustratively, A who is having a fake passport uses it in order to gain entry into Indian territory will be liable for this offence as he knew that the passport was fake and he still tried to use it as a genuine one, however, in the instant case, it is evident from record that the accused never used the impugned marksheet and certificate of 10th class as genuine documents and rather, it is apparent on the face of the record that even the PW-2 ASI Mahesh was also well within the knowledge of the fact that the said documents were fabricated in nature, had deliberately managed a decoy set up to nab the accused, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused ever used the said forged marksheet and certificate as genuine documents.
Digitally signed byAISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO.226/2009 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:02:30 +0530 St. Vs. Surender Pal 21
Therefore, charge for offence U/S 471 IPC also appears to be unsustainable and the accused cannot be held liable for the same.
21. As far as offence U/S 474 IPC is concerned, it is clear from the discussion made in the preceding part of this judgment that this provision makes offence an act of coming into possession of a document described Under Section 466 or 467 IPC with the knowledge that the said document is forged along with the intention that the same may be used as a genuine document. Even though, from the testimony of PW-Anil Kumar Nahara who is the official from CBSE, it is established that the impugned certificate and marksheet upon their verification were found to be fabricated as per the report dated 10.07.2015 i.e. Ex. PW3/A but establishing such fact by the prosecution only satisfies the first limb of the offence under Section 474 IPC that is the documents allegedly recovered from the accused were forged and were of description as mentioned under Section 466 IPC, it being a public record. But apart from such facts, it was also imperative on the part of prosecution to establish the recovery of said fabricated documents with some cogent and clinching evidence. It was admitted by PW-1 Retired SI Naresh Chander and PW-2 ASI Mahesh that at the time of the alleged recovery of the impugned marksheet and certificate from the accused, independent public persons were present and were in fact asked to join the recovery proceedings but they refused to do so. It has also been admitted by both the above-named witnesses that even at the time of subsequent recovery of some alleged forged material and articles made from the house of accused, family members of the accused including his sister who was also undisputedly working with Delhi police was also present but they were never joined in the investigation, nor were made the witnesses to Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA FIR NO.226/2009 SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 St. Vs. Surender Pal 16:02:36 +0530 22 such recovery for the reasons unexplained. There appears no sincere effort on the part of PW-1 Retired SI Naresh Chander and PW-5 Inspector Ashok Kumar either at the time of alleged recovery at the spot or at the time of subsequent recovery from the house of accused to join in two or more public persons as recovery witnesses as per mandate of Section 100 (4) Cr. P.C. despite the availability of public persons/ independent witnesses. The explanations which PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 have tried to put forth regarding such non-compliance is that the public persons were either not available or those who were available failed to join the investigation and left without disclosing their names and addresses , this justification given by the abovementioned witnesses does not appear to be plausible and not only raises serious doubts on the prosecution story as whole but also impeaches the credibility of the alleged recovery of documents shown to be effected from the accused. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has even failed to establish the alleged recovery of the forged documents and other incriminating articles from the accused with any cogent and convincing evidences and hence, one and only irresistible conclusion arises that the alleged forged documents and articles were either not recovered from the accused persons or same were planted upon them so as to falsely implicate him in the present case. This inference further gains strength from the fact that there is a glaring contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 as PW-1 during the course of his deposition stated that PW-2 was not reporting the progress of the secret information relating to forgery of documents by the accused to him as such progress was being reported to Inspector Ranjeet Dhaka under whom the entire decoy set up and raiding team was constituted and also that, he transpired about the Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO.226/2009 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 St. Vs. Surender Pal 16:02:44 +0530 23 information only on 21.07.2009. There is a self-contradiction on the part of PW-1 in his own version that he was unaware of the information until 21.07.2009 as he himself stated that the prior payment of Rs. 8,000/- made by PW-2 to accused as an advance amount for procuring the fabricated marksheet/certificate was arranged by collecting contribution from the staff in which he contributed amount of Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000/. The testimony of PW-2 ASI Mahesh clearly states the information was received by him on 12.07.2019 and on the same day itself, advance payment of Rs. 8,000/- was made by him to the accused for procuring the fabricated marksheet/certificate in pursuance of the decoy set up for nabbing the accused. Therefore, it clearly perceives that PW-1 having contributed the amount of Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000/- out of the advance amount of Rs. 8,000/- given to the accused by PW-2 on 12.07.2009, was well within the knowledge regarding such alleged information and has made false deposition in that regard before the court. Pertinently, even the above-named Insp. Ranjeet Dhaka being the overall supervising officer of the entire decoy plan and also having allegedly constituted raiding party comprising of PW-1, PW-2 along with other officials namely Ct. Dharma Singh and Ct. Mukesh, was never associated in the investigation of the case nor have been cited as a prosecution witness. Even the above-named Ct. Mukesh being a member of the raiding team was neither cited nor examined as a prosecution witness in the present case for the reasons unexplained. The only reason of such crucial omission and lapses which can be foreseen is that the recovery of the alleged fabricated documents was planted upon the accused either by or at the instance of the above-named Insp. Ranjeet Dhaka or the so called raiding team of police so as to bring the accused at a receiving end for effecting the Digitally signed by FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 St. Vs. Surender Pal 16:02:50 +0530 24 settlement of matrimonial disputed between the sister of accused namely ASI Arvinder Kaur and her brother-in-law SI Vijay Naru, who were also working with Delhi Police. This defence of accused has also been probabilized by him through the certified copy of the record of chargesheet pertaining to FIR number 156/2008, P.S. Dabri and the copy of the judgments and orders dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Ld. Judge Family Court, Dwarka in the petition for dissolution of marriage of the sister and brother-in-law of the accused. The said records which are EX. DW- 1/1 and Ex. DW-1/2 respectively relates to the contemporaneous time period and sufficiently probablizes the defence of the accused. Therefore, charge for offence U/S 474 IPC also appears to be unsustainable and the accused cannot be held liable for the same.
22. It is also a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The aforementioned lacunaes in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to an irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidences in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused for offence U/S 474 IPC beyond reasonable doubts, thus, entitling the accused to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
23. In view of discussion made above, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and holds the accused not guilty. Hence, accused Surender Pal is hereby acquitted for offence U/SS 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC IPC.
Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA FIR NO.226/2009 SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:02:58 +0530 St. Vs. Surender Pal 25
The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trial stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to it's rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28
16:03:04 +0530
Announced in Open Court (Aishwarya Sharma)
on this 28th day of May, 2024 MM01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 25 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed by AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28
16:03:08 +0530
(Aishwarya Sharma)
MM01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
FIR NO.226/2009
St. Vs. Surender Pal