Delhi District Court
Ca No. 54/12. State vs . Chandrika Ram. on 6 November, 2013
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
Criminal Appeal No. 54/2012.
State of NCT of Delhi,
Through Public Prosecutor. ... Appellant.
Vs.
Chandrika Ram,
S/o Late Sh. Bageshwar Ram,
R/o 40B, PS New Friends Colony,
New Delhi. ... Respondent.
Date of Institution. : 1.10.2012. Arguments Advanced On. : 31.10.2013. Date of Order. : 6.11.2013. 6.11.2013. Present: Sh. Pramod Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for State/appellant.
Respondent (who was accused and was acquitted by the ld. Trial Court) with ld. counsel Sh. Shakeel Ahmad.
The present criminal appeal is fixed for orders, for today.
Arguments on the present appeal were addressed by Sh. Pramod Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for State/appellant and Sh. Ravinder Narayan, ld. counsel for respondent, on 31.10.2013. Page No. 1 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
Perused the entire record, including TCR, carefully.
:: ORDER ::
1. The challenge in the present criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 16.7.2012 of Sh. Sameer Bajpai, ld. ACMM2, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in case titled as "State Vs. Chandrika Ram", FIR No. 496/2000, u/s 420/120B IPC of PS IGI Airport, whereby the accused Chandrika Ram (respondent herein) was acquitted for the charges u/s 420/120B IPC.
2. Although, from the material on record, the ld. Trial Court ought to have framed a separate charge u/s 120B IPC, which is a substantive offence, but since neither the State/appellant had challenged the order dated 16.11.2004 of the ld. Trial Court, for framing of charge for the offence u/s 420 r/w/s 120B IPC nor the said charge was suo motu amended by the ld. Trial Court and the finding of acquittal u/s 420 r/w/s 120B IPC, has been given by the ld. Trial Court and, hence, the said order dated 16.11.2004 of framing of charge has attained finality. Further, the said error/omission in framing of charge has not resulted into a failure of justice and, hence, as per Section 464 CrPC, the finding of the ld. Trial Court cannot be deemed invalid on that ground. In Page No. 2 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
para no. 25 of the impugned judgment, the ld. Trial Court has held as under: "25. Thus, it is fair to conclude that the evidence brought forth by the prosecution does not establish either the allegations of criminal conspiracy as required by section 120B IPC or of cheating as mandated by section 420 and 415 IPC."
3. Thus, it appears that the ld. Trial Court has given finding on the separate offence u/s 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy against the accused and has also held that no offence u/s 420 IPC is established against the accused, whereas while deciding the case, it should have held that no offence u/s 120B IPC, u/s 420 r/w/s 120B IPC, is proved against the accused. However, since no failure of justice has occasioned by the same, therefore, the impugned finding cannot be reversed or altered by this Appellate Court, as per Section 465 CrPC.
4. On merits of appeal, ld. Addl. PP for State/appellant has submitted that the ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the testimony of PW16, to the effect that he has specifically stated that the flats in question were belonging to United India Insurance Company and the same were allotted to the officer of the company and Sh. K.K. Mishra was residing in flat no. R201, Ground Floor, GK1, and no Page No. 3 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
person in the name of Basanti Chopra ever resided in the said flat. He has further submitted that the testimony of PW16 was further corroborated by PW15, as PW15 also stated that no person in the name of Harbans Lal (who was shown as witness in the police verification report regarding issuance of passport to Basanti Chopra, given by the respondent), also never resided at the address in question. Ld. Addl. PP for State/appellant has further submitted that it is also categorically established by PW3 that no person/official from the office of passport came to her house for making any sort of inquiry in respect of Basnti Chopra. He has further submitted that witnesses cited by the accused in the police verification report given by him, were also found fake and PW3 has categorically stated that no person by the name of Krishan Lal Sharma (who was shown as witness in police verification report), ever resided in any of the floors of the said house i.e. R206, GK1. Ld. Addl. PP for State/appellant has also argued that the ld. Trial Court has wrongly held that the accused had issued the verification report on good faith on the basis of ration card of Basanti Chopra or that it is not uncommon for police official to act upon the address of some person. He has further submitted that from the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it stands proved that the accused did not visit the house of applicant Basanti Chopra for verifying her address, as had he visited Page No. 4 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
residential address of Basanti Chopra, as mentioned in the copy of ration card furnished by him, he (respondent) would have found that Basanti Chopra was not residing at the given address in question. Ld. Addl. PP for State/appellant has further submitted that the ld. Trial Court has further failed to appreciate the fact the physical verification of the address of applicant has to be conducted by the concerned police official, prior to the preparation of police verification report, for the issuance of passport in the name of any applicant. He has further submitted that the preparation of false police verification report on the basis of the ration card only, is blatant violation of the rules and regulation in respect of police verification report. He has further argued that it is categorically proved by cojointly reading the testimonies of witnesses that the respondent did not visit the purported houses of the applicant and witnesses and gave false police verification report. Ld. Addl. PP for State/appellant has further urged that the ld. Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the evidence in respect of criminal conspiracy, is not always direct, as the conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy behind the closed doors. He has further submitted that the evidence qua criminal conspiracy is to be gathered from the given circumstance and connecting evidence, which could establish the guilt of the accused. The mere fact that Page No. 5 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
there is no evidence on record in respect of giving Rs. 4,000/ to the accused Chandrika Ram, would not obliterate the fact that the accused has furnished the false verification report without physically verifying the address of Basanti Chopra. He has further submitted that the beneficiary of the said act of the accused, is Basanti Chopra and she was able to get an Indian Passport on the basis of the false police verification report and same would only bring the conclusion that both these person had conspired with each other and succeeded in cheating the Indian Passport Authorities, to issue a passport in favour of Basanti Chopra. Ld. Addl. PP for State/appellant has further averred that the ld. Trial Court has also misread the testimony of PW17 that the ration card was issued in the name of Basanti Chopra. He has further submitted that the ld. Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that a suggestion was also put to this witness in his cross examination by the accused that the fake ration card was issued in the name of Basanti Chopra, which the said witness admitted, thus, there is admission on the part of accused that the said ration card was fake. The same coupled with aforesaid facts, categorically prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was indeed a criminal conspiracy between both of them. He has lastly prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal of the ld. Trial Court be set aside and the Page No. 6 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
respondent herein be convicted as per law.
5. Per contra, ld. counsel for respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment of acquittal of the ld. Trial Court and the same has been passed, considering the material on record, on sound principles of law and no interference, in the same, is required or called for by this Court.
6. In nutshell what was proved by the prosecution before the ld. Trial Court, was that the accused Chandrika Ram (respondent herein) while being posted in CID Office, South Zone, Defence Colony, New Delhi, was assigned the work of verification of the address R201, GK1, New Delhi, of applicant Basanti Chopra for issuance of passport in the name of Basanti Chopra by the Passport Authorities and that he (respondent) had given the wrong verification report, on the basis of copy of ration card of the said address in the name of Basanti Chopra and further, the said verification report was given on the basis of statements of purported neighbours Krishan Lal Sharma and Harbans Lal, who were purportedly residing at R206 and R209, GK1, New Delhi, respectively, on the basis of copies of their respective ration card, although, neither the applicant Basanti Chopra nor the aforesaid two witnesses, had ever resided at the given addresses. It Page No. 7 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
has been further established that the passport was wrongly issued to the applicant Basanti Chopra, on the basis of aforesaid false verification report, although, the said Basanti Chopra, was an Afgan national. The case of the prosecution is further that the accused Chandrika Ram had taken a sum of Rs. 4,000/ from the applicant Basanti Chopra, for giving the said false police verification report. There is no doubt that the respondent, who was a police official (now retired), was supposed to personally visit the said premises of the applicant Basanti Chopra for verification of her address, before giving his report. From the material on record, it appears that he did not visit the said address. Also, the respondent was supposed to personally visit the aforesaid two addresses of the two witnesses and only if they were found residing there and made inquires from them, then, he should have cited them as witnesses in his report, which is not the case herein. However, it has not been proved that the copies of the ration card furnished by the applicant as well as the said two witnesses, were found fake or were forged, as the IO has admitted in his cross examination that he did not verify the same. Admittedly, there is no admissible evidence that the respondent took a sum of Rs. 4,000/ from Basanti Chopra for giving any false police verification report regarding her residential about issuance of passport and disclosure statement to police in this regard Page No. 8 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
is inadmissible. Further, once the photocopies of the ration card have not been proved to be forged and there is no evidence that the respondent had taken a sum of Rs. 4,000/ from the applicant Basanti Chopra for giving the said false verification report, therefore, merely on this basis that a verification report was given, which was found to be incorrect, it cannot be inferred that there was any criminality in the acts of the respondent. The mens rea to commit a criminal act is not made out from the material on record, although, it creates suspicion in the mind of this Court that the respondent had not done his duty diligently by not properly identifying the address of the applicant and witnesses and based his report on the photocopies of their ration cards, but the same could be due to lethargy or inefficiency. It is well settled that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take the place of proof. Further, for holding guilty, the offence against an accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and an accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, howsoever, strong.
7. Further, it is also well settled law that if an accused has been acquitted by a Trial Court, the Appellate Court should not set aside the said order of acquittal, merely on the ground that other view is possible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case tilted as "State of UP Vs. Page No. 9 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
Gobardhan & Others", 2013 IV AD (CRI) (SC) 541, in para no. 10, has held as under: "10. This Court has laid down sufficient guidelines for interference by the superior court against the order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances to interfere and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the order of the ld. Trial Court and no good reason to interfere in the impugned judgment is there. Hence, the appeal of the State/appellant is dismissed. However, the conduct of the respondent, in not personally visiting the aforesaid premises for verifying the addresses of the applicant Basanti Chopra and the aforesaid two witnesses, for issuance of passport in the name of applicant, prima facie amounts to dereliction of duty. Accordingly, a copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for taking appropriate action against the respondent, as per law/rules. Page No. 10 of 11. Contd... ... ...
CA No. 54/12. State Vs. Chandrika Ram.
9. A copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent to the ld. Trial Court or Successor Court, for information and consignment.
10. Appeal file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 6.11.2013.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI Page No. 11 of 11. Contd... ... ...