Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder Kumar Verma on 23 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS EKTA GAUBA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL06): DELHI
State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma
FIR No. 201/00
U/s 420/464/465/468/471 IPC
PS I. P. Estate
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case : 46/2/00/10
2. Date of commission of offence : 21.09.1999
3. Name of complainant : Dr. S. K. Mukherjee, Deputy
Secretary, MCI
4. Name, parentage and address
of the accused : Ravinder Kumar Verma S/o Sh.
Jaipal Singh, R/o P4/1, J. C.O's
Quarters, Uri Enclave,
Delhi Cantt, New Delhi
5. Offence complained of : 420/468/471 IPC
6. Plea of accused. : Pleaded Not Guilty
7. Final order : Acquitted
8. Date of such order : 23.01.2012
BREIF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. Accused has been forwarded by SHO of the Police Station I. P. Estate to face trial U/s 420/464/465/468/471 IPC.
2. In a nut shell, the prosecution story is that a complaint was made by PW State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 1 Dr. S. K. Mukherjee, Deputy Secretary, MCI that on 21.09.1999 at the office of Medical Council of India, Delhi, accused Ravinder Kumar Verma submitted an application alongwith the documents including marksheet of 10+2 Central Board of Secondary Education, Senior Secondary, Delhi for seeking registration and on verification the marksheet furnished by the accused was reported to be false/tampered with, which was used by accused knowing or having reasons to believe that the same to be a forged one and accused thus cheated the Medical Council of India. On this complaint, FIR was registered accused was arrested and after completion of remaining investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court.
3. Copy of chargesheet supplied to the accused free of cost U/s 207 Cr.PC.
4. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, accused was charged U/s 420/468/471 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined following seven witnesses: PW1 HC Masood Ahmad, PW2 Ct. Anil Kumar, PW3 Dr. A. S. Rahi, Deputy Secretary (Retd.), MCI, Delhi, PW4 HC Madan Singh, PW5 R. K. Sharma, Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Delhi, PW6 Inspector Ram Chander and PW7 Ramesh Chand, Section Officer, MCI, Delhi.
6. Statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded separately wherein State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 2 accused denied the allegations levelled against him and accused stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated and the alleged fake marksheet was given to him by the Authorities and that it was never in his knowledge that there was some discrepancy about the marks in certain subjects at any occasion either at the time of his admission in MBBS Course in a foreign country (Russia) or thereafter he applied for registration/enrollment as medical practitioner on the basis of his MBBS degree and the alleged original marksheet produced in the court may have been subsequently manipulated and his career has been doom but for this false case. Accused also stated that the complaint appears to have been made on the basis of some misconceived and misinformation and the marksheet in question is genuine issued by the CBSE Board and no tampering was done in it. Accused also chose to lead defence evidence but no defence witness was examined and accused has closed his defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel and also gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
8. Prosecution in order to prove its case examine formal witnesses like PW1 HC Masood Ahmad and he stated that on 12.05.2000, at about 06.10 PM he registered the FIR on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Anil Kumar State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 3 and carbon copy of the same is Ex.PW1/A. PW2 Ct. Anil Kumar was also examined and he stated that on 12.05.2000 at about 06.00 PM at chowki JPN, a rukka mark 'X' had been handed over by SI Ram Chander to him for getting the case registered and he took the rukka to PS IP Estate and get the case registered vide FIR No.201/00 and he returned to Chowki and handed over copies of FIR with original rukka to SI Ram Chander.
9. Prosecution also examined PW7 Sh. Ramesh Chand and he stated that he has been deputed to identify the signature of Dr. S. K. Mukherjee, the then Deputy Secretary, MCI, Delhi who since had been expired. Hefurther stated that he had worked with him and he can identify the signature of Dr. S. K. Mukherjee. He further stated that the complaint dated 09.03.2000 bears signature of Dr. S. K. Mukherjee at point A which is Ex.PW7/A.
10. Prosecution examined PW3 Dr. A. S. Rahi, Deputy Secretary (Retd.), MCI, Delhi and he stated that on 13.11.2000 while he was working as Deputy Secretary, MCI, he had handed over to the police documents in respect of Dr. Ravinder Kumar Verma including his mark sheet of 10+2 bearing No. S192/000115986. He further stated that the documents were handed over vide letter Ex.PW3/A and application form for registration U/s 13 (3) of IMC Act was also forwarded and the application for registration submitted by Dr. Ravinder Kumar Verma is Ex. P1 which was forwarded to the police alongwith mark sheet Ex. P2.
State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 4
11. Prosecution has also examined PW5 Sh. R. K. Sharma, Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Preet Vihar, Delhi and he stated that in the year 2000, he was posted as Assistant Secretary, CBSE in the regional office at Ajmer, Rajasthan and letter No. CBSE/RO (AJM)/VER/208/2000 dated 07.02.2000 was written by him to Sh. S. K. Mukherjee, Deputy Secretary, MCI regarding the verification of the 10+2 mark sheet of one Ravinder Kumar Verma and as per their record, the mark sheet sent for verification was forged and the actual numbers obtained by the candidate were reflected by him in his letter. He further stated that he has brought the office copy today of said letter as well as official record regarding the marks obtained by Ravinder Kumar Verma bearing Roll No.6615418 in the year 1992 and the copy of letter is Ex.PW5/A and signed by him at point A and the copy of the original record (Tabulation Register) is Ex.PW5/B.
12. Prosecution examined PW4 HC Madan Singh and he stated that on 12.05.2000, he along with SI Ram Chander went to MCI where they met Yassi Bhardwaj, Deputy Secretary and an application was given to Deputy Secretary for supply of original mark sheet of 10+2 of Dr. Ravinder. He further stated that Deputy Secretary handed over attested photocopy of the mark sheet and photocopy of the letter issued by CBSE and SI Ram Chander seized the supplied documents vide memo Ex.PW4/A which bears his signatures at point A. He further stated that copy of letter issued by CBSE is Mark 'L1' and copy of mark sheet is Mark 'L2'. PW6 Inspector State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 5 Ram Chander, Investigating Officer was examined and he stated that on 12.05.2000 he received one complaint from MCI and he had made endorsement on same and handed over to Ct. Anil Kumar for getting case registered and the endorsement is Ex.PW6/A. He further stated that after registration of FIR Ct. Anil came to him with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him and he recorded the statement of Ct. Anil. He further stated that during investigation he obtained the original mark sheet of accused i.e. Ravinder Kumar Verma and attested photocopy of complaint vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at Point A. He further stated that he also obtained the application form of accused from MCI which was Ex.P1 vide memo which was already Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at Point B. He further stated that during investigation he formally arrested the accused present in the court today vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/B and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW6/C as accused had already obtained anticipatory bail. He also proved the remaining investigation conducted by him. Ld. APP for the state contended that prosecution is able to prove its case and accused should be accordingly convicted.
13. On the other hand, accused has raised the only defence that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated and the alleged fake marksheet was given to him by the Authorities and that it was never in his knowledge that there was some discrepancy about the marks in certain subjects at any State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 6 occasion either at the time of his admission in MBBS course in a Foreign country (Russia) or thereafter he applied for registration/enrollment as medical practitioner on the basis of his MBBS degree. Accused has also alleged that the alleged original mark sheet produced in the court may have been subsequently manipulated and the complaint appears to have been made on the basis of some misconceived and misinformation and the marksheet in question is genuine issued by the CBSE Board and no tampering was done in it. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that if there was any dishonest intention on the part of the accused or if the accused have tampered with the marksheet Ex. P2 then accused would not have furnished the tampered marksheet at the time of getting enrolled in the Medical Council of India because by that time accused had already passed the MBBS Course from Russian University. Ld. Defence Council contended that the marksheet Ex. P2 given to the accused by CBSE was furnished by the accused at the time of being enrolled in the Medical Council of India, so this goes to show in favour of the accused that accused has not tampered with the marksheet Ex. P2 till the time marksheet remained with the accused.
14. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that perusal of document Ex.PW5/A shows that it is mentioned in it by CBSE that "it appears that the marks in the subjects English Core, Maths and Biology have been forged or tampered and made it different to that of board's record". Ld. Defence Counsel further State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 7 contended that thus CBSE have not proved that the said marks are forged but CBSE have only stated that it appears that marks have been forged. Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashish Batham vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 (3) JCC 1883 wherein it has been held that " the basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused. The mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. The Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' ". Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that bare perusal of the alleged mark sheet Ex. P2 does not show that there is any cutting or any tampering in the alleged mark sheet. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that it is also nowhere alleged by the CBSE that the signature of Controller of Examination is forged. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that as per the section 115 of Indian Evidence Act, there is law of Estoppel that whatever has taken place inside the department of CBSE and after the mark sheet has been given to the accused, it shall be presumed that marksheet given to accused is correct as the alleged mark sheet was given to the accused by CBSE only and accused has acted on the basis of the said marksheet by pursuing the MBBS Course and the CBSE is estopped from denying the genuineness of the said marksheet. Also, Ld. State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 8 Counsel for accused further contended that no one from the Department of CBSE has deposed that the signature of the Controller of Examination on the said marksheet or the serial number of the said mark sheet is forged one. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the alleged mark sheet of 10+2 was false or tampered with but prosecution has not placed on record any evidence to show that the said mark sheet was false or forged one. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that PW3 Dr. A. S. Rahi, Deputy Secretary, (Retd.), MCI, Delhi in his cross examination admitted that candidates of reserved categories i.e. SC/ST/OBC have concessions to apply for admission public test at 40% marks obtained by such candidates in 10+2 examinations. He further stated that earlier the concessions was available to only SC/ST candidates and later on it was extended to OBC candidates. He further stated that he does not remember the year when this concession was extended to OBC candidates. He further stated that Ex. P2 is the same original certificate which the candidate had submitted in the Council alongwith his application. He further stated that without verifying the record, he cannot say anything regarding the fact that there is no interpolation, erasion etc., in the mark sheet Ex. P2. He further admitted that form Ex. P1 and marsheet Ex. P2 does not bear any signature or endorsement by him.
15. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that PW5 R. K. Sharma, Assistant State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 9 Secretary, CBSE in his cross examination admitted that the list of marks is prepared by the Examiner of the Papers of the relevant subjects and after due verification of the marks, the same is authenticated by the Examiner and the Supervision at the time of examination/evaluation of the papers/answer sheets of examiner. He further admitted that he had not recorded the statement of marks, sent by the respective examiners at the time of sending his report Ex. PW5/A. He further admitted that entry regarding Ravinder Kumar Verma now Ex. PW5/B is not in his hand nor typed by him as the entries are not written in hand but are computerised. He further stated that he also do not know who had computerised the entries in the Tabulation Register. He further admitted that the computerised entry regarding Ravinder Kumar Verma is not signed by any one. He further admitted that there is no endorsement against the said entry that the same has been correctly made in tabulation register vis a vis Ravinder Kumar Verma. He further admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the examiner who prepared the list. He further admitted that there is no information or knowledge to him regarding any change of numbers in the mark sheet or wrong entry in the mark sheet. He further stated that he had not seen the original mark sheet at the time of verification from the record. He further voluntarily stated that only photocopy of the mark sheet was supplied to him by the MCI alongwith request for verification. He further admitted that he has written in his letter that the marks in the subjects English Core, Maths and Biology have been State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 10 forged. He further stated that he did not remember the exact date when IO visited him. He further stated that he did not remember whether police had recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC on 19.10.2000. He further admitted that he has not mentioned the subjectwise marks alleged to have been tampered. He further stated that he does not remember whether at that time original mark sheet was shown to him or not. He further admitted that he has not stated in his statement to the police that there was any tampering in the original mark sheet issued by the Board.
16. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that PW6 Inspector Ram Chander in his cross examination stated that he did not sought or obtained any opinion of the handwriting expert to ascertain if there was any manipulation or interpolation or forgery or erasion in any part of this mark sheet Ex. P2. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that FSL report of any forgery on the said mark sheet has not been called for by the Investigating Officer. This fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that PW6 Inspector Ram Chander in his cross examination further stated that he did not personally verify the tabulation register marks from the board in respect of accused. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the original mark sheet issued to the accused was different from marksheet Ex. P2 or the original mark sheet was later on tampered with by the accused. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that all these facts throws doubts on the prosecution story and State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 11 accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and accused should be accordingly acquitted.
17. Considering the allegations made by prosecution against the accused U/s 420/468/471 IPC that accused dishonestly to deceive the Medical Council of India furnished application for seeking registration at MCI alongwith the marksheet of 10+2 i.e. Ex. P2 and the said marksheet was found false/tampered with and the said marksheet was used by the accused knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the dishonest intention of the accused. But, Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Medical Council of India vs. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Associations & Ors. 2002 (3) SCC 696 wherein it has been held that as per the guidelines of Government of India "all the students who have completed their degree abroad prior to 15.03.2001 and applied for registration to MCI prior to 15.03.2001 shall be dealt with according to provisions of the Act as existing prior to commencement of IMC Amendment Act 2001 subject to the fact that where students who did not meet the minimum admission norms of MCI for joining undergraduate medical course, were admitted to foreign institutes recognized by MCI, this irregularity be condoned. In other words, the degree of such students be treated as eligible for registration with MCI". Considering the fact that even if the percentage of marks of accused in 10+2 State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 12 was less than the criteria for getting admission in MBBS Course in India and accused had completed the medical course from abroad, then also accused would have been eligible for registration with MCI in the light of aforesaid judgment. So, no dishonest intention was proved by the prosecution to show that accused would get any wrongful gain from the Medical Council of India by manipulating the numbers in the marksheet of 10+2 i.e. Ex. P2. Also, considering the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that if assuming the marksheet was forged by accused then at the time of getting registered in the Medical Council of India, accused would have furnished the original correct marksheet. This contention of Ld. Defence Counsel holds good due to the reason that if any forgery or fraud has been done by the accused, then at the time of getting enrolled in the Medical Council of India, accused would have furnished the correct marksheet and not the forged marksheet. So, this fact further proves that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the accused. Also, accused have completed twelth class in the year 1992 and Medical Course in the year 1999 and no rule of Medical Council of India has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove dishonest intention of the accused in furnishing the false marksheet of twelth class for getting registration in Medical Council of India. Also, considering the fact that as per document Ex. PW5/A the interpolation are alleged in subjects English Core, Maths and Biology. While, the four subjects which are required for the minimum criteria for seeking admission in MBBS Course in India in the year 1997 as per State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 13 Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 were English, Biology, Chemistry and Physics, So, this fact further proves that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the accused because accused would get no wrongful gain by manipulating the number in subject Maths. Thus, prosecution has miserably failed to prove any dishonest intention on the part of the accused. This fact throws doubt on the prosecution story.
18. Also, the bare perusal of marksheet Ex. P2 does not show any manipulation or erasion or interpolation or any cutting or forgery to have occurred in the said marksheet. Also, PW5 Sh. R.K. Sharma, Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Delhi in his cross examination admitted that entry regarding Ravinder Kumar Verma Ex. PW5/B is not in his hand nor typed by him as the entries are not written in hand but are computerized. He further stated that he also do not know who had computerized the entries in the tabulation register. He further admitted that computerized entry regarding Ravinder Kumar Verma is not signed by anyone. He further admitted that there is no endorsement against the said entry that the same has been correctly made in the tabulation register vis a vis Ravinder Kumar Verma. This admission by PW5 Sh. R.K. Sharma, Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Delhi has disproved the copy of original record Ex. PW5/B. This fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. PW5 Sh. R.K. Sharma, Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Delhi further admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the examiner who prepared the list. He further stated that State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 14 he do not remember the exact date when IO visited him and he did not remember whether police has recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC on 19.10.2000. This fact further throws doubts on the prosecution story. PW5 Sh. R.K. Sharma, Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Delhi in his cross examination stated that there is no information or knowledge to him regarding any change of numbers in the marksheet or wrong entry in the marksheet. He further admitted that he has not stated in his statement to the Police that there was any tampering in the original marksheet issued by the Board. This shows that even the prosecution witness from the CBSE Department has not proved the fact that the alleged marksheet Ex. P2 is forged. This fact also throws doubt on the prosecution story. Also, perusal of document Ex.PW5/A shows that it is mentioned in it by CBSE that " it appears that the marks in the subjects English Core, Maths and Biology have been forged or tampered and made it different to that of board's record". Also, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashish Batham vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) wherein it has been held that "the Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' ". This shows that even CBSE in their letter Ex. PW5/A have not proved that the said marks are forged but CBSE have only proved that it appears that marks have been forged. So, prosecution has failed to establish even the allegation that the marksheet is forged. This fact throws doubt on the prosecution story.
State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 15
19. Also considering the fact that PW5 R. K. Sharma, Assistant Secretary, CBSE in his cross examination admitted that there is no information or knowledge to him regarding any change of numbers in the mark sheet or wrong entry in the marksheet. This admission by the prosecution witness from CBSE has proved the defence taken by the accused that he has received from the CBSE the marksheet Ex. P2 in same form as it is. Relying upon the Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which lays down the law of Estoppel. Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that "when one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing". Thus, Under Section of 115 Indian Evidence Act, CBSE is estopped from denying the genuineness of the marksheet Ex. P2 because accused on the basis of the said marksheet have completed the MBBS Course from abroad and CBSE could not deny any entry in the said marksheet Ex. P2 due to the mistake in the entry of marks made by CBSE itself because accused has considered the said marksheet to be genuine and thereupon acted upon the basis of the said marksheet by pursuing the MBBS Course. This fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 16
20. Also, PW6 Inspector Ram Chander, Investigating Officer in his cross examination stated that he did not sought or obtained any opinion of the handwriting expert to ascertain if there was any manipulation or interpolation or forgery or erasion in any part of this marksheet Ex. P2 and he did not personally verify the tabulation register marks from the board in respect of accused. Also, no FSL Report has been called by the Investigating Officer to prove that the marksheet Ex. P2 was forged. This shows that no step has been taken by the Investigating Officer to prove that the marksheet Ex. P2 was forged. This lacuna on the part of investigation goes to the root of prosecution story and erodes the credibility of the prosecution case. Thus, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 420/468/471 IPC that the alleged marksheet of 10+2 i.e. Ex. P2 is forged. This fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. Further, nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove that mark sheet Ex.P2 was manipulated or interpolated or forged by the accused or accused has used the said marksheet knowing that it was forged. This fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Further, the Controller of Examinations whose signatures are present on the said mark sheet Ex. P2 was neither examined by the prosecution nor made a witness by the prosecution to ascertain whether the marksheet was forged or not. This fact also throws doubt on the prosecution story. Further, nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove that the Sr. No. 000115986 of the said marksheet Ex. P2, was not issued to the accused State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 17 Ravinder Kumar Verma by the CBSE. This fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Also no specific role has been alleged against the accused. Also, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. All these aforesaid facts throws doubt on the prosecution story. Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, accused is hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt. His bail bonds and surety bonds stands discharged. Case property if any be dealt with as per law.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (EKTA GAUBA)
today i.e. 23.01.2012 MM06,Central/Delhi/23.01.2012
State Vs Ravinder Kumar Verma 18