Delhi District Court
State vs Loka Nath Kabi on 29 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHAV SHRAMA, JMFC06, SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Loka Nath Kabi & Anr
FIR NO: 11/2011
P.S. Kalkaji
U/s 465/467/471/34 IPC
Crc No. 86230/2016
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 06.04.2013
Name of the complainant : Sh. Ram Nath Kumar,
S/o Lt. Sh. Buta Ram Kumar,
R/o H.NO.G6/92, Deepali
Building, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 27.09.2006
Name of the accused : (1) Lok Nath Kabi,
S/o Sh. Shambhu Nath,
R/o H.No.J2/73A, DDA Flats,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
(2) Kamla Devi,
W/o Lt. Inderjeet Kaur,
R/o L1/19A, DDA Flats, Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 06.08.2024
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of orders : 29.10.2024 RAGHAV by
Digitally signed
RAGHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29
14:37:08 +0530
FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 1 of 14
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Lok Nath Kabi and Kamla for having committed the offences punishable u/s 465/467/471/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 27.09.2006 both accused persons in furtherence of thier common intention while being the tenants of the complainant Ram Nath Kumar made two forged mutual agreements (valuable security signatures) bearing forged signatures dated 02.03.2007 and 04.01.2008 and claimed to be the owner of the property bearing no. J2/73A, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi, belonging to the complainant, thereby both accused persons committed an offence u/s 465/471/34 IPC. Further, both accused persons dishonestly used the said forged mutual agreements which they knew or had reason to believe to be forged document and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471/34 IPC.
3. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed accused persons and chargesheet was presented in the court. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused persons were summoned to face trial. Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.10.29 14:37:16 +0530 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 2 of 14
4. On appearance of accused persons, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to them in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, notice under section 465/467/471/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 19.06.2015. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution, to prove above charges against the accused, tendered oral as well as documentary evidence. In all nine witnesses were examined.
6. PW1 deposed that he was having joint property at Janta Flat Bearing No. J2/73 A Double Storey. On 27.11.2006 he made a lease agreement with accused persons for a period of 11 months but after completion of 11 months no lease agreement was extended. In December 2009 he requested accused persons to vacate the premises. On 10.01.2010 he along with his son and friend again went to the said premises but accused persons refused to vacate the same. On 17.01.2010 he along with his son and brother namely Gulzar Lal and Kewal Kishan Kumar again visited the house but accused persons assured that they will vacate the premises in 23 months. During that period, accused told PW1 that they have purchased the said property. PW1 filed the case before civil court where accused submitted some forged documents relating to the property where court directed to match the signature and authenticity of the documents. Thereafter, PW1 collected the certified copy from Civil Court and filed a complaint before the SHO for taking legal actions against accused persons, complaint is Ex. PW1/A. During investigation police recovered 2 original forged mutual agreement dated 02.03.2007 and another dated 04.01.2008 to the IO Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C both contains forged signature of PW1. PW1 also given his specimen signature before the court. PW1 also submitted certified copyDigitally of signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29 14:37:27 +0530 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 3 of 14 conveyance deed 29.12.2009 Ex. PW1/D regarding the ownership of the joint property situated at Kalkaji. PW1 also handed over one CD to IO Ex. PW1/E. During investigation IO also collected tax receipts of property and ownership detials from the MCD office. IO also submitted verified information of RTI documents regarding the forged 2 non judicial stamp dated 02.03.2007 and another 04.01.2008 where the PIO SDM, HQ, Sh. D S Gahlot stated that two non judicial stamp are not valid Ex. PW1/F. IO also collected complaint stating as accused persons were tenant and the landlord PW1 harass accused persons. The said complaint Mark Q. IO also submitted one written complaint given by accused where accused disclosed to SHO that accused is not the owner of the said property.
7. PW2 deposed that police enquired from him about the owner of the property but he was not aware of the same. Further, he stated that he saw accused in the property.
8. PW3 deposed that in the month of March 2007 an agreement was executed between accused persons and complainant. PW3 further stated that accused persons were purchasing the flat in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ which accused paid in the month of January 2008. Further, accused paid Rs. 2 lac to the complainant. Both payments were made in the presence of PW3 in the office of DDA Flat Kalkaji.
9. PW4 deposed that on 31.01.2013 he joined investigation with IO. IO had prepared arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Lok Nath Kabi Ex.
PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. Digitally signed by
RAGHAV RAGHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29
14:37:35 +0530
FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 4 of 14
10. PW5 deposed that Sh. Anurag Sharma prepared the FSL report dated 21.12.2012 and said report is Ex. PW5/A.
11. PW6 (inadvertently deposed as PW5) deposed that on 11.03.2013, he received a notice from the IO for supplying documents of property no.J2/73A, DDA Flats Kalkaji, pertinent to case FIR No.11/11 and he given the relevant documents i.e. demandcumallotment letter, possession letter, NOC for obtaining electricity connection and copy of conveyance deed vide reply Ex.PW 5/A duly signed by Assistant Director, Lease Admin. Branch Housing. The documents are certified copy duly certified by Assistant Director, Lease Admin. Branch Housing. The documents are already Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW 5/C and Ex.PW5/D.
12. PW7 (inadvertently deposed as PW6) deposed that on 25.08.2011, he was asked by MHC(R) to deposit one case property which was sealed and kept inside an envelope at FSL, Rohini. MHC(R) had handed over him a road certificate and thereafter, he went to FSL, Rohini and got deposit the same and got receipt i.e. acknowledgment of case acceptance and return back to PS and handed over the same to MHC(R). The same are now Ex.PW6/A.
13. PW8 (inadvertently deposed as PW7) deposed that on 11.1.2011, at about 7 pm, SI Janak Singh came and handed over Rukka for registration of case. On the basis of Rukka, he recored FIR No. 11/11 after making endorsement on rukka Ex. PW7/A, Copy of FIR is Ex. PW7/B. After registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR with certificate u/s 65B IEA, issued by concerned SHO, to SI Janak Singh. Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29 14:37:45 +0530 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 5 of 14
14. PW9 (inadvertently deposed as PW8) deposed that on 03.01.2011 he received order u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC from the court for registration of FIR and investigation. On 11.01.2011 he registered the present FIR in the present case which is Ex. PW8/A. He obtained two mutual agreement from accused which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C. Mutual agreements are already Ex. PW1/ B and Ex. PW1/C. After enquiry, he also obtained specimen signature and handwriting of accused and complainant in a court which are Ex. PW8/D. Thereafter, he sent the original mutual agreement and signature and handwriting for FSL. Thereafter, he received the FSL report in which the signature of Ram Nath Kumar was forged. In the mean time, he called accused and other witness for interrogation. During interrogation accuseed revealed that the mutual agreement were genuine and the signature done by both parties was done in her presence. Thereafter, he enquired about stamp vendor by licencing authority. Thereafter, he came to know that the licence has already been expired in the year 2005. Thereafter, he obtained property tax receipts from MCD which was found to be registered in the name of complainant and his brother. Thereafter, accused was interrogated and were formally arrested and were released on bail. Thereafter, he prepared arrest memo and personal search memo which are Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. In the meantime, he also recorded disclosure statement of accused Lok Nath Kabi which is Ex. PW8/E. Thereafter, he filed charge sheet against accused.
15. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was closed on 07.02.2023. Thereafter, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to them which they denied and took a Digitally signed defence that they were falsely implicated in the present case. RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29 14:37:52 +0530 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 6 of 14
16. DW1 Ravinder Kabi was examined as DW1. He deposed in March, 2007 his brother Loka Nath Kabi made a payment of Rs.2,50,000/ to Ram Nath Kumar for purchasing the property bearing no.J273A, DDA flats, Kalkaji. The document regarding the transaction was prepared at the office of property dealer namely Fakirchand. The witness deposes that Fakir Chand died 57 years ago. After taking permission of the court, the witness gone through the judicial file to identify the documents prepared in his presence. After going through the judicial file witness pointed out documents already Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C and deposes that the documents were prepared in his presence. The witness further deposes that the documents bear the signature of property dealer Fakir Chand who is one of the witness of the documents. Ram Nath also signed the above mentioned documents in my presence. His brother paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ to Ram Nath Kumar for purchasing the property bearing no.J273A, DDA flats, Kalkaji in the month of January, 2008 in his presence.
17. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
18. Following are the facts in issue which emerge from the case of prosecution;
That both the accused persons were having common intention with each other for committing offence u/s 465/467/471/34 IPC. That both accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention while committing above mentioned offences.
That both the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, made false documents i.e. mutual agreements dated 02.03.2007 and 04.01.2008 with intention of causing it to be believed that the same was RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29 14:38:01 +0530 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 7 of 14 made, signed by complainant which they know that it was not so made and signed.
That both accused persons made the false document i.e. above mentioned mutual agreements with intention to cause damage or injury to the complainant and to cause him to part with his property. That both accused persons used the above mentioned false documents i.e. mutual agreements as genuine while having information that they were forged and fabricated.
19. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were tenant of the complainant who were inducted vide lease agreement dated 27.11.2006. The accused persons while being tenant, when asked by the complainant to vacate the property on non payment of rent, forged two mutual agreements dated 02.03.2007 and 04.01.2008 wherein they forged the signatures of the complainant. On the basis of these forged documents, the accused persons / tenants started claiming ownership of the leased property.
20. Complainant in his evidence has stated that accused persons were his tenants and they had forged his signatures on two mutual agreements dated 02.03.2007 and 04.01.2008 for claiming ownership on the property. During cross examination, accused did not dispute that he was tenant of the complainant, rather he himself brought on record one alleged agreement dated 27.11.2006 for confronting the complainant stating that it was a lease agreement through which he was inducted as a tenant. Though, this agreement was not accepted by the complainant, however, the fact that accused brought such agreement on record, Digitally signed by shows that he admits being inducted in the property as tenant. RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29 14:38:10 +0530 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 8 of 14
21. In his cross examination complainant denied the suggestion of accused that impugned agreements were signed by him. He denied that agreements were prepared by him for sale of property and that he had received Rs.10 lacs for the same. These suggestions disclose the defence of accused which is that the complainant had duly signed the impugned agreements, a payment of Rs. 10 lac was made to him and that impugned agreements were genuine.
22. To see whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the signatures of complainant on impugned agreements were forged, evidence of IO / PW8 and expert witness PW5 is crucial. Witness PW5 only identified the signatures of expert who prepared the report and as such there was nothing more in her testimony. Her testimony was essential only to prove the FSL report. Evidence of IO /PW8 is crucial as he is the one who conducted the investigation especially regarding the signatures of complainant.
23. IO / PW8 in his evidence admitted that he did not take / procure admitted signatures of complainant from any department. He disclosed that he only took specimen signature of complainant. This aspect is very important for giving finding on authenticity of complainants' signatures as in the FSL report, the examiner has given his conclusion on the basis of comparison of impugned signature with specimen signature. Expert opined in his FSL report that alleged signatures of complainant on impugned agreement did not match with the specimen signatures and he opined that the person who wrote the specimen signature did not write the signatures on impugned agreement. This opinion is not based on comparison with admitted signature made by him before complaint/FIR. For a more authentic finding on the genuinenss of signatures, IO ought to have taken admitted signature of the complainant made by him during Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29 14:38:18 +0530 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 9 of 14 the natural course, preferably before the registration of complaint/FIR or dispute. Such admitted signatures would have ruled out possibility of induced variations and alterations on the part of complainant for securing a favourable outcome in FSL. Only specimen signatures can not be the basis for saying that the complainant did not sign the impugned agreements. This conclusion could be arrived only when admitted signatures of complainant were procured and compared with impugned ones. As of now, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the specimen signatures did not match with impugned signatures of complainant, which fall short of proving that impugned signatures of complainant were not made by him as his admitted signatures done by him.
24. There remains a strong apprehension / doubt that specimen signature might be deliberately done with induced variations and alterations. The report of FSL does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that signatures of complainant were forged. Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that opinion of expert must always be received with greater caution and perhaps more so with more caution in cases of opinion of handwriting expert. Following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab, 1977, AIR 1091 is relevant in this regard.
...It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precendential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29 14:38:24 +0530 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 10 of 14 Ram Chandra v. State(1) that it is unsafe to treat expert hand- writing opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items o[ internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa(2) that expert evidence of hand- writing can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar (3) where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear_ direct evidence or by Circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value o[ expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State(4) and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evi- dence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence. the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial. It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and American courts. Vide Gurney v.
Langlands(5) and Matter of Alfred (1) AIR 1957 SC
381. (2) AIR 1963 SC 1728 (3) AIR 1964 SC 529 (4) AIR1967 SC 1326 (5) 1822, 5B & Qld 330 Fogter's Will(1). The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last mentioned case: Every one knows how Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29 14:38:31 +0530 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 11 of 14 very unsafe it is to rely upon any one's opinion concerning the nice- ties of penmanship--Opinions are necessarily evil" and may be valuable, but at best this kind of evidence, vii". We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form and the basis for a conviction. We must, therefore, try to see whether,in the present case, there is, apart from the evi- dence of the hand. writing expert B. Lal, any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offence.
25. Now it needs to be seen whether there is any other substantive evidence, ocular or otherwise, which supports the opinion of handwriting expert. Other than complainant himself, no other witness has been examined by prosecution who has deposed in its favour stating that signatures of complainant on the impugned agreements were forged by accused persons. Only two other non official witnesses have been examined i.e. PW3 and PW2. PW3 in his testimony did not support the prosecution's story rather he deposed completely opposite to prosecution's version and supported the defene of the accused. Surprisingly, this witness was not attempted to be got declare as hostile by Ld. APP nor any request was made to ask leading question to the witness as he had not supported the prosecution. PW2 in his evidence did not disclose anything regarding the agreement. This witness was only aware about the fact that accused Loka Nath Kabi was residing in the subject property, which fact was never in dispute. In his testimony, there is nothing which supports the RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA 14:38:38 +0530 Date: 2024.10.29 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 12 of 14 prosecution's story of forgery of complainant's signature on impugned agreement.
26. The only evidence against the accused available with the prosecution is the opinion of handwriting expert which itself can not become sole ground for proving that accused had forged the signatures of complainant. In order to say that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that signatures did not belong to complainant, it was imperative upon it to examine witness and bring forth such other independent substantive evidence which could have supported the opinion of expert. It is a settled proposition of law that without the support from other evidence, the opinion of expert itself can not become ground for conviction. Unless, it is of such high quality that it conclusively establishes the guilt of accused which can not be in the case of opinion of handwriting expert.
27. While the prosecution has failed to prove charge of forgery u/s 465/467 IPC upon the complainant and while a conclusion can be reached on the basis of same, however, it would be beneficial to mention that accused also lead evidence in his defence and examined his brother Ravinder Kabi as DW1. This witness in his evidence disclosed that complainant, accused and witnesses had signed the impugned agreements in his presence. He disclosed that there were total 67 persons present at the time of execution of agreements.
28. Charge of section 471 IPC i.e. dishonestly using forged document was also framed against the accused. However, prosecution has not brought any evidence whatsoever to prove that the accused had used the impugned documents anywhere. There is only an allegation that documents were used by the accused in a civil court. No record was brought in the evidence to prove that.
RAGHAV Digitally signed by
RAGHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29
14:38:46 +0530
FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 13 of 14
Even otherwise, as the allegation of forgery itself remains unestablished, the charge of section 471 IPC also falls flat.
29. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed an offence u/s 465/467/471/34 IPC. Accordingly, both accused persons namely Lok Nath Kabi and Kamla Devi stand acquitted.
Digitally signed
RAGHAV by RAGHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29
14:38:53 +0530
Announced in the open court (RAGHAV SHARMA)
on 29.10.2024 JMFC06, South East, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and eacenh page bears my signatures. RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29 14:38:58 +0530 (RAGHAV SHARMA) JMFC06, South East, New Delhi/29.10.2024 FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 14 of 14