Delhi District Court
State vs Bhagwan Dass on 6 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH VAIBHAV CHAURASIA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 135/2000
PS Shalimar Bagh
State Vs Bhagwan Dass
Date of Institution: 07.01.2002
Date of Judgment: 06.10.2022
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 532929/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 19.06.1997
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Ram Babu
(d) Name of Accused, his : Mahender Singh
parentage & residence S/o Prabhu Singh
R/o H.No. 59, Chaupal Wali Gali No.2,
Village Badhola
Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : Under Section 420/120B IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquittal
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The accused Bhagwan Dass, S/o, Late Prabhu Singh and Mahender Singh, S/o. Late Prabhu has been sent to face trial for commission of offences under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') upon the allegations that both entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant and pursuant to the said conspiracy in particular Bhagwan Dass on 19/06/97, entered into an agreement with complainant Ram Babu for the FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 1 of 17 sale of Plot No. 46, Pocket 4 A, Sector 23, Raqba 207 sq. meter which was proposed to be alloted by DDA in favour of Bhagwan Dass vide letter No. F-11 (10) 90/LSB (R) 767 dated 14.01.1993 and for the purpose of selling the aforesaid plot, that in particular Bhagwan Dass misrepresented that as per the relinquishment deed all the brothers have relinquished their right in aforesaid plot in favour of Bhagwan Dass. Bhagwan Dass further concealed the fact regarding the share of her sisters being legal heirs in aforesaid plot by giving a false affidavit and by the aforesaid dishonest and fraudulent misrepresention an concealment Bhagwan Dass cheated complainant Ram Babu by executing agreement to sell, power of attorney and will in favour of the complainant and dishonestly induced him to deliver an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and thereby both Bhagwan Dass and Mahender Singh committed an offence punishable under section 420 r/w 120B of IPC.
2) Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court, accused were summoned by the Ld Predecessor and the accused was admitted to bail after he entered appearance. Copy of the charge-sheet alongwith the documents was also supplied to the accused in compliance of provisions of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) After consideration of submissions, charges were framed against the accused for the commission of offence under Section 420/120B IPC by Ld Predecessor to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to mention herein that accused Bhagwan Dass, S/o, Late Prabhu Singh expired on 17.10.2020 which was duly verified and therefore proceedings against him stood abated. As far as accused Mahender Singh, S/o. Late Prabhu is concerned, the only allegations on part of accused Mahender Singh, S/o. Late Prabhu is that of Criminal conspiracy qua cheating along with accused Bhagwan Dass upon complainant Ram Babu
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 08 witnesses.
FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 2 of 175) PW-1 DO/ASI Hasnam Singh deposed that on 26/02/2000 he was posted at P.S. Shalimar Bagh as head constable. he was working as as duty officer and his duty hours was 5.00pm to 1 am. On receipt of rukka after endorsement of SHO Shalimar Bagh. he recorded FIR in the present case. After registration of FIR, the original rukka and copy of FIR was handed over to SI Tejpal for investigation. That day he have brought the original FIR registered. Same is in his handwriting. Copy of FIR is Ex PW 1/ A bearing his signature at point A. (OSR) The endorsment on rukka is Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point B
6) PW-2: Const. Nihal Singh, PIS no. 28881164, deposed that On 27.08.2000, he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh. On that day, he joined investigation with SI Amleshwar and reached at village Jharola. Where they met accused Mahender Singh (present before the Court, correctly identified). He was enquired and after that he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/A bears his signatures at point A. His personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW- 2/B bears his signatures at point A. His disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex. PW-2/C bears his signatures at point A. After that his statement was recorded.
7) PW-3 Complainant Sh. Ram Babu S/o Sh. Radha Raman, R/o A-1/92, Paschim Vihar, Delhi deposed that he live at the above said address and he work as an electrician. On 19.06.1997 he had entered into an agreement with accused Bhagwan Das for purchasing of yet to be alloted DDA plot no. 46, pocket 4A, Sector -23, measuring 207 sq. meter for Rs. 1.20 lacs. The plot was to be alloted in the name of Bhagwan Das. The deal was finalized through the property dealer Ashok Negi. As per the dealer stated to him he came to know that certain land of Bhagwan Das was acquired by the Govt. for Azadpur Mandi and in lieu of that, the said DDA plot was to be alloted to him. Before entering into the agreement with him, Bhagwan Das had stated that he had the complete right to sell the said plot to him. He had further stated that his brothers namely Kishan Singh, Inder Singh and Mahender Singh had FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 3 of 17 relinquished their share in the said plot in his favour vide a relinquishment deed. On 19.06.1997 accused Bhagwan executed agreement to sell, SPA, GPA and will in his favour and he handed Rs. 1.20 lacs cash to him and a receipt in this regard was issued by the accused. The SPA, GPA and will were duly registered at the office of Sub registrar, Pitampura, Delhi. Till this time, the physical possession of the plot was not handed over to him by the accused. In the meantime, the market rates of said plot went up. The three sisters namely Kela Devi, Rajwanti and Rajo Devi and the brothers Mahender Singh and the wives of brothers Inder Singh and Kishan Singh of the accused Bhagwan Das pressurized him to pay Rs. 60 thousand more for the said plot. Sometimes they demanded Rs. 80 thousand from time to time and stated that only when he gave the desired amount to them, they will get the plot alloted in favour of Bhagwan Das. However he refused to pay the said amount as he had already paid the amount which was firstly agreed to between him and the accused. Upon this, the said relatives filed an application before the L&B Department to not allot the plot in favour of Bhagwan Das and accordingly the concerned department issued a notice in the name of accused. The accused Bhagwan Das had concealed the fact to him that his sisters also had share in the said plot and that his brothers had relinquished their respective share whereas actually they had not. The accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves to cheat him and grab his Rs. 1.20 lacs and till date his amount has not been returned to him and no plot had been delivered to him by the accused. he gave a handwritten complaint to the SHO concerned. The said complaint is Ex.PW3/A which bears his signature at point A. On the basis of said complaint present FIR was registered against the accused persons. Alongwith the complaint he had filed photocopy of the agreement to sell, GPA, SPA, will, receipt executed by the accused Bhagwan Das in his favour and also the relevant papers from the DDA relating to the said allotment and the relinquishment deed alongwith several other documents which were given to him by accused Bhagwan Das at the time of execution of the agreement in his favour. That day he have brought all the original documents. The agreement to FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 4 of 17 sell, GPA, SPA, Will and receipt, all dated 19.06.1997 executed by Bhagwan Das in his favour areEx.PW3/B to Ex.PW3/F (OSR). All the said documents were signed by accused Bhagwan Das in his presence. The relinquishment deed is Ex.PW3/G (OSR) and the other documents are collectively Ex.PW3/H(OSR). The accused Mahender and Bhagwan Das are present in the court that day (correctly identified).
8) PW: 4 HC Ashok Kumar No. 1429/W, PS Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi deposed that On 14.11.2000, he was posted as constable at PS Shalimar Bagh. On that day, accused Bhagwan Dass was arrested and personally searched by the 10 vide memos Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively, both bearing his signature at point A. 10 recorded his statement in this regard. Accused Bhagwan Dass is present in court That day (correctly identified by the witness).
9) PW5 HC Sarla testified that on 23.06.2008, she was working as Duty Officer and at about 11.40 a.m. Ct. Kanwar Singh came to the police station alongwith the rukka sent by SI Jagdish Chand upon which she registered the present case FIR, copy of which is Ex. PW-5/A. Thereafter she had handed over the copy of FIR to Ct. Kanwar Singh. She was also not cross-examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
10) PW 5 Retd SI Tejpal s/o Late Sh Nar Singh r/o Vill/PO: Chhaprauli, Distt: Baghpat (UP) deposed that on 01/03/2000 he was posted as SI in PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. On that day investigation of the present case was marked to him and FIR no. 135/2000, original complaint of Rambabu and one relinquishment deed in favour of Bhagwan Singh executed by Kishan Singh, Inder Singh, Mahender Singh and Smt Kishan Devi were handed over to him by the duty officer. Thereafter he made enquiries from the family members of Mahender Singh about the allotment of the plot in question and it was revealed that no plot had been allotted to Bhagwan Dass till that day. he also made enquiries from the DDA however DDA officials told him that no plot had been FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 5 of 17 allotted to Bhagwan Dass as some complaint had been made the sisters of Bhagwan Dass in the DDA. It was further revealed that the sisters of accused Bhagwan Dass had also filed a case in the court against him for not allotting any plot to accused Bhagwan Dass as they had not received their share of money. Thereafter he arrested the accused Mahender Singh on 27/08/2000 vide arrest memo already Ex PW2/A bearing his signature at point B. he also conducted the personal search of the accused Mahender which is already Ex PW2/B bearing his signature at point B. he also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Mahender already Ex PW2/C bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter he recorded the statement of SI Amleshwar Rai and Ct Nihal Singh. Thereafter he was put in the lock up and from there he was produced before the court. Thereafter on 14/11/2000 he arrested accused Bhagwan Dass vide arrest memo already Ex PW4/A bearing his signature at point B. he also carried out personal search of the accused Bhagwan Dass vide personal search memo already Ex PW4/B bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter he was got medically examined and thereafter produced before the court. Thereafter photocopy of one relinquishment deed executed by Sh Kishan, Mahender Singh, Inder Singh and Smt Kishan Devi in favour of Bhagwan Dass was also received from the DDA vide which is already Ex PW3/G. At the time, he received investigation of the present case he had also received only the photocopy of the said relinquishment deed. Some other documents were also received from the DDA vide its Ltr No. F.33(2)9/88/L&B/Alt/1742 dated 15/05/2000. which is now marked Z1 and documents sent by DDA ie photocopy of affidavit filed by Bhagwan Dass, photocopy of complaint by Smt Rajwanti Devi and Rajo Devi. Photocopy of the abovesaid affidavit is now marked Z2. Photocopy of the one of the handwritten complaint is now marked Z3. Photocopy of one other complaint is now marked Z4 and the photocopies of two other documents which were received from DDA are now marked Z5 & Z6. Thereafter he obtained sample signatures of accused Mahender Singh andBhagwan Dass on total six pages which are now marked Ex PW5/A (colly) bearing his signature on each page at point A. Thereafter he FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 6 of 17 sent the abovesaid sample signatures and the photocopies of relinquishment deed, affidavit and one hand written complaint to FSL Hyderabad for matching the signatures of the accused persons. However FSL Hyderabad refused to receive the said documents and returned the said documents to PS Shalimar Bagh. Thereafter the said sample signatures and the abovesaid photocopies of relinquishment deed, affidavit and one handwritten complaint (total 4 pages) marked Z7 (colly) were sent to FSL Malviya nagar, Delhi. Thereafter he prepared the challan and filed the same in the court. Both the accused are present in the court That day and have been correctly identified by the witness. Witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. APP wherein he deposed that it is correct that at the time when he received investigation of the present case, he also received 16 photocopies of documents pertaining to the plot in question ie GPA, receipt, affidavit, agreement to sell, SPA. The document ieshow cause notice to Bhagwan Dass which is now marked Z8 was also put in the file by him which he had received from the reader of SHO PS Shalimar Bagh (which might have come to Reader of SHO from DDA). Photocopy of document no. F11(10)90/L&B(R) 767 dt 14/01/1993 which is now mark Z9 (colly) 3 pages and photocopy of the document no. F 33(2)/9/88-L&B/Alt dt 09/02/1990 now mark Z10 were also placed on record by him.
11) PW-6: Inspector Amleshwar Rai, No. D-1/830, Crime Branch, Delhi deposed that On 27.08.2000, he was posted as SI at PS Shalimar Bagh. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case along with the IO SI Tejpal and Ct. Nihal Singh, and went to Village Bhadola, Azad Pur Mandi where there was a street called "Chaupal wali Gali", in which the house of the Mahender Singh was situated and they reached at his house and accused Mahender Singh was found present there who was interrogated by the IO and thereafter, arrested by the IO vide arrest memo already Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point C. Accused Mahender Singh was also personally searched vide memo which is already Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point C. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by the IO which is now Ex.PW2/C FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 7 of 17 bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter, the accused was taken to PS and put in the lockup. Accused Mahender Singh is present in the court That day and correctly identified by the witness.
12) PW-7: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Junior Assistant, Land and Building Department, B-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, Delhi-110002 deposed that That day he have brought the record of recommendation letter no.
F.33(2)/9/88-L&B/Alt./3685-86 dated 09.02.1990 for allotment of alternative plot to Sh. Bhagwan Das S/o Sh. Prabhu Singh of Village Bharola, Delhi. Photocopy of the said Recommendation Letter already marked as Mark-Z-10 and now Ex.PW7/A (OSR).
13) PW-8: Smt. Rashmi Gulati, Advocate, W/o Sh. V.K. Gulati, R/o: F-60, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi-110001. Notary Licence No. 771, Government of India deposed that in the year 1997, She was Notary. She had Notarized the documents already Ex.PW3/B, bearing her signatures at point A. The said documents also bears her seal on all the pages at point X, Y and Z respectively. The document Ex.PW3/F also bears her attestation as Notary Officer bearing her signature at point A and seal at point A1. That day She cannot bring the original records of both the said Notarized documents done by him in the year 1997, the old documents have been damaged in her High Court Chamber as during Covid period her chamber was damaged by termites and all the records were damaged and could not be traced out since it is very old as approximately 25 years old record. However, it is correct that the said documents bears her signatures and stamps.
14) Thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence stating that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He never executed any agreement with the FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 8 of 17 complainant. The complainant deposed against him as he is interested witness. He had no concern with the present case. He do not know any person as Ram Babu and had no concern with the present case. However, the accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
15) Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the State wherein it has been argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused be found guilty in the case. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that sufficient material has not been brought on record to prove that the accident took place due to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused as the eye-witness did not support the case of the prosecution being a planted witness, hence the accused be acquitted.
16) The arguments as advanced by both the parties have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
17) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
18) In the present case, it is imperative that appreciation of evidence has to be done with respect to accused Mahender Singh, S/o. Late Prabhu with respect to his involvement with the deceased accused Bhagwan Dass and whether the charges of criminal conspiracy qua cheating has been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Appreciation of evidence FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 9 of 17
19) To prove its case, it has been held in State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 691 : 1999 SCC On Line SC 571 at page 515
583. Some of the broad principles governing the law of conspiracy may be summarized though, as the name implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive of the principles.
1. Under Section 120-A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is a legal act by illegal means overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The question for consideration in a case is did all the accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever horrendous it may be, that offence be committed.
2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was party to the conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not make the accused a part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder.
3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
4. Conspirators may for example, be enrolled in a chain - A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and all will be members of a single conspiracy if they so intend and agree, even though each member knows only the person who enrolled him and the person whom he enrols. There may be a kind of umbrella-spoke enrollment, where a single person at the centre does the enrolling and all the other members are unknown to each other, though they know that there are to be other members. These are theories and in practice it may be difficult to tell which conspiracy in a particular case falls into which category. It may however, even overlap. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 10 of 17 the identity of many others who may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role.
5. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy.
6. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused has knowledge of the object of conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the charge of conspiracy the court has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence against some may result in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any other substantive offence prosecution tries to implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but also in the substantive crime of the alleged conspirators. There is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy. As observed by Judge Learned Hand "this distinction is important today when many prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders".
8. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen of the crime FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 11 of 17 of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy.
9. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefor. This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done or written by each of them. And this joint responsibility extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral acts incidental to and growing out of the original purpose. A conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by a co- conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The joinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not create a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of the other conspirators, and the mere fact that conspirators individually or in groups perform different tasks to a common end does not split up a conspiracy into several different conspiracies.
10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime.
20) It is pertinent to note the testimony of PW-3 i.e. Ram Babu (Complainant him- self). He was examined in chief on 02.11.2015 and was cross-examined on 08.01.2019 and 23.04.2019.
21) The Complainant had categorically stated in his examination in chief that "The accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves to cheat me and grab my Rs. 1.20 lacs and till date my FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 12 of 17 amount has not been returned to me and no plot had been delivered to me by the accused." and complainant has duly identified both the accused. The com- plainant was cross-examined on two dates i.e 08/01/2019 and 23.04.2019 and it is important to reproduce the same to appreciate the case and same has been emphasized :-
PW-3: Statement of Sh Ram Babu s/o Sh Radha Raman, R/o A-1/92, Paschim Vihar, Delhi (Recalled for cross examination after 02/11/2015). On S.A. XXXX by Sh. Yashpal Singh Ld Counsel for the accused, Mahender.
That prior to filing this complaint, I had not filed any civil litigation in respect of the plot in question. It is wrong to suggest that I had filed a civil suit prior to filing of the present complaint against the accused persons as well as DDA or that the said civil suit was dismissed. It is correct that the alternative plot was recommended in favour of the accused Bhagwan Dass from DDA (Land and Building). It is correct that when I entered into the agreement for purchasing exhibit PW3/B, the accused Bhagwan Dass was not in posession of the property in question. It is correct that all the dealings conducted between me and Bhagwan Dass through a property dealer. It is correct that I had never made any payment for purchase of plot in question to Mahender. It is correct that I had seen the allotment letter prior to the purchase of plot in question. The said document was verified by me and I was satisfied with the documents is correct show by the accused Bhagwan Dass and thereafter I purchased/entered the On the basis of the allotment letter Bhagwan Dass executed the requisite documents in my favour. It is correct that Mahender had never executed any document in respect of the plot in my favour. It is also correct that Mahender did not witnessed any of the document exhibit PW3/B to PW3/F. It is correct that at the time of purchase of the plot in question, Bhagwan Dass showed me relinquishment deed executed by Shri Krishan, Inder Singh, Mahender Singh, and Smt Kishan Devi w/o Parbhu in favour of Bhagwan Dass. It is correct that FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 13 of 17 as per the relinquishment deed, accused Mahender relinquished his share the land which was acquired and the alternate plot to be allotted in lieu thereof in favour of Bhagwan Dass. At the time of purchase of plot, I met accused Mahender but at that time he did not make any demand for money.
Q. I put to you whether accused Mahender had executed any false and frivilous document in your favour?
Reply Accused Mahender did not execute any document in my favour.
It is wrong to suggest that Mahender and his family members never demanded money from me. It is wrong to suggest that the accused Mahender did not meet me after the purchase of plot in question or that Mahender did not demand any money. It is wrong to suggest that accused Mahender had not entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Bhagwan Dass. It is wrong to suggest that the accused and his family members never demanded 60 and 80 thousand after the purchase of plot. I do not remember the date month and year when the accused and his family members demanded extra money from me (voluntary). The said demand was made by the accused persons after the purchase of plot. It is wrong to suggest that I do not remember date month and year of the demand of extra money as no such demand was ever made by the accused Mahender and his family. That I have no document to show that accused Mahender had not executed any relinquishment deed in favour of accused Bhagwan Dass. That the plot was not alloted to Bhagwan Dass as the share of sisters was not disclosed before DDA. It is wrong to suggest that the accused Mahender Singh alongwith the co accused had not entered into a conspiracy. Further cross examination deferred."
22) Thereafter Ram Babu was cross-examined on 23.04.2019 which is being reproduced here:-FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 14 of 17
PW-3, Statement of Sh. Ram Babu, S/o Sh. Radha Rani, recalled for further cross-examination after 08.01.2019.
On SA XXX by Sh. Narender Singh, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the accused Mahender. In and with the permission of the accused Mahender.
Nil. Opportunity given.
XXXX by Sh. Tarun Shokeen, Ld. Counsel for the accused Bhagwan Dass. I adopt the cross-examination conducted by Advocate Yashpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused Mahender.
I cannot say whether I have handed over the original of document Ex.PW-3/D to the IO. It is wrong to suggest that I have never shown or handed over the original of documents Ex.PW-3/D. I do not know the witness Krishan Kumar who has signed as a witness on document Ex.PW-3/E. Vol. I had purchased the plot in question through dealer. It is correct that the deal regarding the plot in question was settled only through the said deed. Vol. Bhagwan Dass told me that the plot in question belonged only to him and no one else including his brother and sister had any share in the said plot. It is correct that accused Bhagwan Dass had given a copy of relinquishment deed Ex.PW-3/G to me before entering into the sale proceedings or before making payment of the said plot. It is correct that after the brothers and sister of accused Bhagwan Dass demanded more money from me and on my refusal to pay extra money, the brothers and sisters of accused Bhagwan Dass made a complaint to the land and building department, DDA and thereafter on the complaint of the brothers and sisters of accused Bhagwan Dass the said plot was cancelled and prior to the said cancellation of the plot there was no dispute on the plot in question. It is correct that the land and building department, DDA has cancelled the said plot and it is for this reason that the accused Bhagwan Dass cannot hand over the possession to me. It is correct that if the said plot was not cancelled by the Land and Building Department, DDA, accused Bhagwan Dass would have FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 15 of 17 handed over the possession to me as he has already executed the documents . It is wrong to suggest that I have filed this false and frivilous complaint against the accused persons in order to recover my Bayana Money. It is wrong to suggest that the accused persons never intend to cheat me. It is wrong to suggest that the accused Bhagwan Dass has executed the sale document with a clear and bonafide and honest intention of selling the said plot.
23) In view of above testimony, it is clear that there is no representation on the part of accused Mahender or have executed any document or have not reliquished his share to accused Bhagwan Dass. When all the dealings has been conducted by Accused Bhagwan Dass (since deceased), to rope in accused Ma-
hender in some sort of criminal conspiracy can be only through the stretch of imagination. It is interesting to note that in tehrir Ex. PW3/A, there is no slight mentioning of accused Mahendra or any voluntary act on his part. The accused Mahendra is in same position as other three sister and there is no allegation that he demanded money from the complainant herein. What also cast doubts upon the case of prosecution is that if accused Mahendra is guilty of Criminal conspiracy, what ground should be afforded to three sisters who have been al- leged to have committed crime against the complainant in the tehrir and had not been made accused. It is also not clear as to why IO has selectively chosen Mahendra as part and parcel of Criminal Conspiracy(though there is no evid- ence on record after the complete trial against accused Mahendra) and has in its arbitrary decision has missed the three sisters. Though in tehrir and in evid- ence, there are specific allegation against accused Bhagwan Dass(since de- ceased) but nothing against Mahender. Since nothing is on record to prove criminal conspiracy on the part of accused Mahender, nor any inference can be drawn against him from set of documents placed on record, not there is any testimony with respect that accused Mahender was beneficiary, and as on date when incident took place, he had no share in the property suit, nor, as per own deposition of Complainant, accused Mahender has not executed any document in his favour, nor witnessed, nor made the demand of the money, nor he re-
FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 16 of 17member or have slight idea when any demand of money was made, accused Mahender Singh, S/o. Late Prabhu is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted. Decision
24) In view of the aforesaid discussion, with the prosecution failing to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, the accused Mahender Singh, S/o. Late Prabhu is given the benefit of the doubt and is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 420/120B IPC in FIR no. 135/2000 PS Shalimar Bagh.
25) He is directed to furnish bail bond/surety bond for Rs. 10,000/- each under section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon him.
26) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on 06.10.2022
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
CHAURASIA Date: 2022.10.06
17:57:19 +0530
(VAIBHAV CHAURASIA)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District
Rohini District Court/New Delhi
Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
CHAURASIA Date: 2022.10.06
17:57:26 +0530
(VAIBHAV CHAURASIA)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District
Rohini District Court/New Delhi
FIR No. 135/2000 State Vs Bhagwan Dass Page 17 of 17