Delhi District Court
Fir No.257 /1996, Ps : Roop Nagar State vs Madan Lal & Ors. on 30 October, 2019
FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Madan Lal & Ors.
FIR No. 257/1996
PS : Roop Nagar
U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 23.04.1997
Date of reserving of order : 21.10.2019
Date of Judgment : 30.10.2019
CNR No. DLCT020000471997
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 290004/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : SI Bachchu Singh
3. Date of incident : 02.08.1996
4. Name of accused persons :
1. Madan Lal Sharma, S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Sharma R/o Flat no.17, Sector 1, Pocket 1, SFS Flats, Dwarka, New Delhi
2. S. Ganeshwar Rao, S/o S. Appala Swami, R/o RZD3/33, Gali no.8, Mahavir Enclave, Palam, New Delhi Page 1 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
5. Offence for which chargesheet was filed :420/468/471/34 IPC
6. Offence for which charge has been framed : 420/468/471/34 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Judgment : 30.10.2019 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Mr. Madan Lal Sharma and Mr. S. Ganeshwar Rao have been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 420/468/471/34, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. The case of the prosecution is that SI Bachchu Singh received a secret information that some person was selling forged documents of gas connections in Kamla Nagar. This information was conveyed to the SHO concerned. Thereafter, the SHO prepared a raiding party which was headed by him and comprised of SI Bachchu Singh, HC Shyam Sundar, Ct. Rohtas, Ct. Himmat Singh and Ct. Brijbir Singh. On 01.08.1996, all members of the raiding party, except SHO, went to Chhota Gol Chakkar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. At about 2.30 PM, Ganeshwar Rao Page 2 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
met SI Bachchu Singh and told him that a gas connection could be provided for Rs.1,800/. SI Bachchu Singh told Ganeshwar Rao that he would inform him as and when he needed a gas connection. SI Bachchu Singh informed about the same to the SHO, who asked him to procure a gas connection in the name of Pradeep Srivastav, resident of 1, Ashoka Line. Thereafter, SI Bachchu Singh along with the rest of the raiding party went to Sagar Restaurant, Kamla Nagar, where they met Ganeshwar Rao at about 6.00 pm. SI Bachchu Singh asked Ganeshwar Rao to procure a gas connection in the name of Pradeep Srivastav. Ganeshwar Rao asked for some advance money and SI Bachchu Singh paid Rs.500/ to him. Ganeshwar Rao promised to bring the gas connection at about 9.00 pm. At about 9.15 PM, SI Bachchu Singh met Ganeshwar Rao, where he apologized for not having the gas connection papers ready and promised to give them on the next day i.e. 02.08.1996 at about 5.30 PM in front of Sagar Restaurant. On 02.08.1996, the said raiding party reached opposite Sagar Restaurant at about 5.20 PM. One public person, namely Sanjay, joined the raiding party. At Page 3 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
about 5.35 PM, Ganeshwar Rao and Madan Lal Sharma came opposite Sagar Restaurant. Ganeshwar Rao gave SI Bachchu Singh gas connection papers and SI Bachchu Singh gave Ganeshwar Rao a yellow colour closed envelope containing five blank papers of the size of currency notes. Thereafter SI Bachchu Singh signaled the other members of the raiding party who apprehended both Ganeshwar Rao and Madan Lal Sharma and SI Bachchu Singh recovered the yellow colour envelope from Madan Lal Sharma. Thereafter, SI Bachchu Singh seized both, the envelope and the gas connection papers in the name of Pradeep Srivastav, from Ganeshwar Rao vide separate seizure memos. Thereafter, an FIR was registered on 02.08.1996. Disclosure statements of accused S. Ganeshwar Rao and Madan Lal Sharma were recorded by SI Bachchu Singh and they were arrested by him. Thereafter, several documents pertaining to the case were recovered from the house of Madan Lal Sharma and S. Ganeshwar Rao. Several documents pertaining to the case were also recovered from the houses of Subhash Asthana (since deceased) and Devender Narayan Singh (since Page 4 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
deceased), associates of S. Ganeshwar Rao and Madan Lal Sharma. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Madan Lal Sharma, S. Ganeshwar Rao, Subhash Asthana (since deceased) and Devender Narayan Singh (since deceased). The accused persons were charge sheeted for offences under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Court. All the accused persons appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons. The charge was read over to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, Devender Narayan Singh and Subhash Asthana had expired and criminal proceedings were abated against them.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses to prove its case against the accused persons.
6. PW1 SI Ram Ratan is the Duty officer. He has deposed that on 02.08.1996, he had registered the present Page 5 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
FIR No. 257/96 on rukka received from Ct. Rohtash sent by SI Bacchu Singh. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/A (OSR).
7. PW2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar is stated to be an eye witness. He has deposed that in year 1996 month of July August, he was coming to his home from the side of Kamla Nagar. It was evening time. He does not remember the exact location, but near Gol Chakker, he saw some public persons were gathered there and some police officials were also there. He also stopped there to see about the matter. He knew the police official. He asked police about the matter. They told him that they had caught some persons. They also told that those persons used to make forged documents regarding gas connection. They were three/four persons and the police officials got his signatures on three or four blank papers. His address was also asked by police officers. Thereafter, he returned to home.
8. The witness was declared hostile by the State. He was crossexamined by Ld.APP. However, he denied all the relevant suggestions given to him by Ld. APP.
9. PW3 HC Shyam Sunder is the police official Page 6 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
who had participated in the investigation with the IO. He has deposed that on 01.08.1996, SI Bachchu Singh received some information regarding a person who used to roam around gas agency for soliciting public persons and offering them to provide gas connection. This information was conveyed to SHO by SI Bachchu Singh and SHO instructed SI Bachchu Singh to organize a raiding party. SHO was not a member of the raiding party. At about 2:30 p.m., he alognwith SI Bachchu Singh, Constable Rohtash, Constable Brij Vir went to Kamla Nagar Chota Gol Chakkar and there they found one person aged about 40/45 years. That person met Bachchu Singh while they were waiting at some distance. That person offered to provide a gas connection in the name of Pradeep Srivastva, the then DCP for Rs.1800/ and demanded Rs.500/ as advance. SI Bachchu Singh gave Rs.500/ to that person. That person was accused Ganeshwar Nath (sic). That person had promised to provide a gas connection on that day in the evening at about 6/6:30 p.m., on the same place. At about 9 p.m., that person met again with them and informed that the gas connection papers were not ready and he Page 7 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
promised that he would deliver the same to SI Bachchu Singh on 02.08.1996. On next day, SI Bachchu Singh alongwith them went to Sagar Restaurant Chhota Gol Chakkar and at about 5:30 p.m., accused and one other accomplice Madan Lal came over there. They handed over the documents to SI Bachchu Singh. Thereafter, SI gave a signal to them and all members of the raiding party apprehended the accused persons. The accused persons had handed over the transfer voucher of the gas connection which were prepared in the name of Pradeep Srivastava resident to No.1 Ashoka Line. The said documents were taken into possession by SI Bachchu Singh. After handing over the accused and the documents to SI Bachchu Singh, he left the spot.
10. The witness identified the transfer vouchers which are Ex. C1 and Ex. C2.
11. Witness PW3 had been crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court as he had resiled from his previous statement. The witness admitted that SI Bachchu Singh had handed over one yellow colour envelop to the accused, however, he did not Page 8 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
know whether it contained currency notes or not. He does not remember whether he had joined the investigation on 04.08.1996 or not. However, he has stated that on that day accused Madan Lal had produced certain documents from a trunk lying in his house. Those documents were seized vide memo Ex.PW3/C. He also admitted the suggestion that on 04.08.1996 accused Gyaneshwar had produced one bag from his house which contained documents. The said bag was seized vide memo Ex. PW3/D. Various other documents were also seized from the house of Ganeshwar Rao vide memo Ex. PW3/B. The witness identified 16 seals/stamps recovered from the house of Ganeshwar which are Ex. P1 to P16. He identified four stamps which are Ex. P17 to Ex. P20. Two transfer vouchers are Ex. P22 and Ex. P23. Letter addressed to Sharma is Ex. P24. The customer book is Ex. P25. The witness identified 16 different file covers containing transfer vouchers which are Ex.P26 to Ex. P
43. He has stated that they were recovered from the house of Ganeshwar Rao. The witness admitted the suggestion that on 04.08.1996, 21 post cards were also recovered Page 9 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
from the house of Ganeshwar which are Ex. P46 and that they were seized vide memo Ex.PW3/H.
12. PW4 SI Bachhu Singh is complainant and the IO. He has deposed that on 01.08.1996 he had received one information that a person was selling forged gas connections. The information was shared with SHO who organized a raiding party consisting HC Shyam Sunder, Ct. Rohtas, Ct. Himmath Singh, Ct. Brijbir Singh and himself. The members of raiding party, except SHO, went to Chhota Gol Chakkar, Kamla Nagar. They all were in civil dress. At about 2:20 p.m., accused Ganeshwar Rao met him and told that if he needed a gas connection that could be provided for Rs.1800/. He had told accused Ganeshwar Rao that he would inform him as and when a gas connection was required. He shared this fact with the SHO who asked him to procure a gas connection in the name of Pradeep Srivastva, R/o 1, Ashoka Line. He alongwith the raiding party members again reached at Sagar Restaurant Kamla Nagar. Accused Ganeswar Rao was asked to procure a gas connection in the name of Pradeep Srivastva. He asked some advance money. He was Page 10 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
given Rs.500/ and he promised that he would bring the gas connection at about 9 p.m. However, at about 9 :15 p.m., the accused told that the papers were not ready and he promised to handover the documents on next day at about 5 :30 p.m., in front of Sagar Restaurant.
13. PW4 has further deposed that on next day i.e., 02.08.1996 he alongwith other police officials reached at opposite Sagar Restaurant at about 5:40 p.m. He had requested 34 public persons to join the raiding party. One person named Sanjay had agreed to join them. They did nakabandi at about 5:35 p.m., accused S. Ganeshwar Rao had come there alongwith accused Madan Lal Sharma. Accused Ganeshwar Rao gave him gas connection papers and he gave to the accused one yellow colour envelop containing five blank papers of the size of currency notes. He signaled the members of raiding party. They apprehended both the accused persons. Yellow coloured envelop was recovered from accused S.Ganeshwar Rao. He seized the envelop and the gas connection papers in the name of Pradeep Srivastiva vide memo Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. The gas connection papers in duplicate are Ex. C Page 11 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
1 and Ex. C2. The yellow coloured envelop is Ex. C3. The blank papers of the size of currency notes are Ex. C4 (colly).
14. PW4 has further deposed that he had prepared a tehrir which is Ex.PW4/C and got the FIR registered through Constable Rohtas. Thereafter he had prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW4/D. He interrogated the accused persons. The disclosure statement of accused S. Ganeswar Rao is Ex.PW4/D. The disclosure statement of accused Madan Lal Sharma is Ex. PW4/F. Both the accused were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/E and Ex. PW4/G. The accused were produced in the Court on next day and they were taken on police custody remand. On 03.08.1996 one employee of Indian Oil had informed that the transfer voucher in the name of Pradeep Srivastva was forged.
15. PW4 has further deposed that on 04.08.1996 accused Madan Lal had got recovered various documents from his house which were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/C. Thereafter S. Ganeshwar Rao had got recovered various documents from his house which were seized vide memo Page 12 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
Ex.PW3/H. 16 stamps were recovered from the house of accused S. Ganeshwar Rao which were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/D. Total 444 transfer vouchers were also seized vide memo Ex. PW3/E.
16. PW4 has further deposed that on 05.08.1996 the accused persons had led them to house of Subhash Ashthana (since deceased). He got recovered various documents which were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter they went to the house of D. N. Singh (Since deceased). He also got recovered various documents which were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/B. They were arrested.
17. The witness was shown the case property. He identified the case property. The witness has also proved the seizure memo Ex. PW4/J.
18. PW5 Sh. K.V. Singh is the Medical Record Clerk, Hindu Rao Hospital who has proved the MLC of accused Madan Lal Sharma. The MLC is Ex. PW5/A.
19. PW6 Smt. Sukh Versa Sharma was employee of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. She has deposed that on 03.08.1996 she had verified the termination voucher no 559674 dated 07.07.1996 in the name of Pradeep Page 13 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
Srivastva. She had reported after verification that the document was a forged one and that there was no agency in the name of M/s Ranvir Enterprises.
20. PW7 HC Rohtas is the police official who had participated in the investigation. He has deposed similar to PW3 and PW4.
21. PW8 Sh. A.K. Gupta is the forensic handwriting expert. He had examined the handwriting on questioned documents with specimen handwriting stating to be of accused S. Ganeshwar Rao and provided his report which is Ex.PW8/A.
22. The witnesses were cross examined. The prosecution evidence was closed. The accused were examined U/s 313 Cr PC r/w Section 281 Cr. P.C. The accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence. They would state that they were falsely implicated in the present case.
23. The accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
Page 14 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
24. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The identity of the accused persons has been established beyond reasonable doubts. The testimonies of the witnesses have proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention had cheated and dishonestly induced SI Bachchu Singh to deliver money in lieu of transfer voucher which was a forged document. It has also been proved that the accused persons had forged various documents for the purpose of cheating. It is also proved that they had used forged documents as genuine. Hence, the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences for which the accused are charged with. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
25. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against any of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. The accused persons were falsely implicated. They are the victims. It has been Page 15 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
argued that some quarrel had taken place between the accused persons and some students. The police was called. They were taken to the PS. Thereafter they were falsely implicated at the instance of those students. It is clear from the material on record that the accused persons were implicated and that they had not committed any crime. There is no record of any secret information received by the concerned police officials. No public person was ever joined by the police officials in the present case. Testimony of PW2 has proved that he was planted by the IO to create false evidence. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the police officials. SI Bachchu Singh was the complainant in the present case. Even thereafter he conducted the entire investigation. He was interested in conviction of the accused persons. Therefore, he created various false documents in support of his case. The entire investigation was vitiated due to said fact.
26. Ld. counsel for accused S. Ganeswar Rao would argue that there is no material on record to show that any handwriting of accused S.Ganeswar Rao was ever taken by the police official for sending to FSL. No Page 16 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
permission of the Court is shown to be taken before obtaining the alleged specimen handwriting of the accused. Therefore, the alleged fact of obtaining specimen handwritings of the accused has come under the clouds of reasonable doubts. None of the witness has deposed in the Court as to who had taken the specimen handwritings of the accused. Therefore, the report of handwriting expert can not be read against the accused.
27. Ld. counsel for the accused persons have submitted that the benefit of reasonable doubts may be given to the accused persons and they may be acquitted.
28. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
29. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the Page 17 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
30. The accused persons have been charged for committing offence punishable under Section 420/34, 468/34, & 471/34 IPC.
31. Section 420, IPC provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In order to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused had deceived the complainant dishonestly inducing him to part with any property in his favour which he would not have parted but for the deception played on him. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence is that there must be dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the time of making the representation to the complainant/victims on the basis which the complainant/victims part with his/their property. Intention must be dishonest and there must also be mens rea.
32. In the present case, the story of the prosecution is that the accused persons had deceived SI Bachchu Singh Page 18 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
when they had delivered forged documents to the SI after receiving money from him. Be that as it may, as per the prosecution itself, SI Bachchu Singh was always aware that the accused persons had to deliver forged transfer vouchers. Thus, even if the story is presumed to be true, there was no deception when SI Bachchu Singh had allegedly handed over Rs.500/ note to accused S. Ganeswar. Similarly there was no deception when the accused persons had allegedly handed over forged transfer voucher to SI Bachchu Singh and when he had handed over blank papers in a yellow colour envelop to the accused persons. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 420/34, IPC against any of the accused. In the aforementioned circumstances, any of the accused can not be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
33. It has further been alleged that the accused persons had used forged documents as genuine when they had handed over those documents to SI Bachchu Singh. It has also been alleged that they had forged those documents for the purpose of cheating. Various forged Page 19 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
documents were also allegedly got recovered by the accused persons from their respective houses. These allegations have been the basis of charge for committing offences punishable under Section 468/34 IPC and Section 471/34 IPC.
34. Section 471 IPC provides punishment for using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. Section 468 IPC provides punishment for committing forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Before discussing further, it would be relevant to discuss the law relating to forgery. Section 463 IPC defines forgery while Section 464 IPC defines making a false document. The Sections read as under : "463. Forgery--Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. "464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently Page 20 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
"(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
"(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
"(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
"(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.--
Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
Page 21 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
"Explanation 1.--A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
"Explanation 2.--The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
"Explanation 3.--For the purposes of this section, the expression "affixing electronic signature" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000."
35. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj, Crl. Appeal nos. 359 360/2010, decided on 11 May, 2018, has discussed the law relating to forgery. It has been held as under : "19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction Page 22 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and untill ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete.
"20. The key to unfold the present dispute lies in understanding Explanation 2 as given in Section 464 of IPC. As Collin J., puts it precisely in Dickins v. Gill, (1896) 2 QB 310, a case dealing with the possession and making of fictitious stamp wherein he stated that "to make", in itself involves conscious act on the part of the maker. Therefore, an offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it.
"21. It is observed in the case Md. Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 that "a person is said to have made a `false document', if "(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or "(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or "(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
"22. In Md. Ibrahim (supra), this Court had the occasion to examine forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security (Section 467, Page 23 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
IPC) and using of forged document as genuine (Section 471, IPC). While considering the basic ingredients of both the offences,this Court observed that to attract the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463, IPC depends upon creation of a document as defined under Section 464, IPC. It is further observed that mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant's property, did not amount to commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 471, IPC even if title of property did not vest in the executant. "23. The Court in Md. Ibrahim (supra) observed that:
"There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the Page 24 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted."
"24. In Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643, this Court, after analysing the facts of that case, came to observe as follows:
"A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else.Page 25 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019
FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
"The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore, in our opinion the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case.
"The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e. because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind, etc. Such is also not the case before us. Indisputably therefore the accused before us could not have been convicted with the making of a false document.
"25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery. "26. The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. 'Forgery' and 'Fraud' are essentially Page 26 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that 'false document'. Hence, neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same.
"27. A reasonable doubt has already been thoroughly explained in the case of Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66 wherein 'reasonable doubt' has been enunciated by this Court as "a mean between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt, further it has been elaborated that reasonable doubt must be a practical one and not an abstract theoretical hypothesis." In this case at hand, the imposter has not been found or investigated into by the concerned officer. Nothing has been spilled on the relationship between the imposter and respondent no.1. Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof.Page 27 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019
FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the place of proof. Always a duty is cast upon the Courts to ensure that suspicion does not take place of the legal proof. In this case, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court carried away by the fact that accused is the beneficiary or the executant of the mortgage deed, where the prosecution miserably failed to prove the first transaction i.e POA as a fraudulent and forged transaction. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt because the right to personal liberty of a citizen can never be taken away by the standard of preponderance of probability." (Emphasis supplied)
36. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that the accused persons had used forged documents as genuine. They had also forged documents for the purpose of cheating. However the accused persons have denied of any dealing with any of the police officials as alleged. They have also denied any recovery from their possession or at their instances. Therefore the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused persons had dealing with SI Bachchu Singh as alleged and that they had handed over forged documents to SI Bachchu Singh. It is also for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the recovery were made Page 28 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
from their houses as alleged. If the prosecution is able to prove these facts beyond reasonable doubts, the Court shall proceed further to decide whether the offences punishable under Section 468 and 471 IPC are proved or not.
37. PW3, PW4 and PW7 are the police officials who were part of the raiding team which had apprehended the accused persons. All the three witnesses have deposed that a secret information was received that some persons was involved in forging the documents for issuing domestic LPG connections. Thereafter a raiding team was prepared. The members of the raiding team had left for Kamla Nagar to search such person. The present case rests on the alleged recovery of case property from the possession of the accused and the transaction with SI Bachchu Singh.
38. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads as under:
Page 29 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II " The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered "(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
"Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
39. In the present case, as the record would reveal, no DD entry is brought on record to show that the police officials who were the member of raiding team had left the police station for Kamla Nagar. There is no record produced in the Court in relation to the alleged secret information. A prudent police official would have recorded the fact of the secret information and preparation of raiding team in the record so as to prove the fact during the trial. However, no such record has been brought in the Court by way of evidence. Similarly no DD entry record of the police official leaving the police station on different occasion to deal with the accused persons at Kamla Nagar Page 30 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
has been brought on judicial record. No such record in relation to leaving for the houses of the accused persons has been brought on record. All these circumstances have also created reasonable doubts on the presence of the police officials at Kamla Nagar and dealing with the accused persons.
40. There are other aspects also. PW3 HC Shyam Sunder has specifically stated in his examination in chief that the SHO was not member of the raiding party. However, PW4 SI Bachchu Singh has stated that the SHO was the member of the raiding team and that he was the leader.
41. Further, the police officials have stated in their examinations that SI Bachchu Singh had handed over a currency note of Rs.500/ to accused S. Ganeswar Rao at the time of meeting when he had promised to provide gas connection in the name of Pradeep Srivastva. As per the witnesses this was the second meeting between SI Bachchu Singh and the accused. In the very first meeting SI Bachchu Singh had allegedly come to know that accused S. Ganeswar had been involved in preparation of forged Page 31 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
documents. Thus he was the person who was to be apprehended and regarding whom secret information was received. Despite that no documentary evidence in relation to the said information is shown to be recorded by the police officials. No memo regarding the said currency note is brought on record.
42. Further, PW03 HC Shyam Sunder has stated in his crossexamination that all the members of raiding party and SHO PS Roop Nagar had reached at the spot. However, PW4 SI Bachchu Singh has stated in his cross examination that the SHO was not with them on that day. This is a material contradiction which creates doubts on the case of the prosecution.
43. IO SI Bachchu Singh has stated in his examination that public persons named Sanjay was joined in the raiding party at the time of apprehension of the accused persons. The said person Sanjay Kumar has been examined as PW2. However, the witness has been declared hostile by the State. He has not supported the story of investigating agency. He has stated that his signatures were taken on blank papers.
Page 32 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
44. PW1 SI Ram Ratan is the police official who was the Duty Officer on 02.08.1996 and he has stated that he had received the rukka from Constable Rohtas which was sent by SI Bachchu Singh. After receiving the rukka he had recorded the FIR No. 297/96, PS Roop Nagar. He has specifically stated in his examination that he had received the rukka at about 3:30 p.m., however, PW4 SI Bachchu Singh has stated in his cross examination that he had started writing tehrir/rukka at about 5:45 p.m. It is unbelievable that the rukka was presented to the Duty Officer at 3:30 p.m., when the IO had started writing the same at 5:45 p.m. This fact also creates doubts on the facts of the case as narrated by the witnesses.
45. Perusal of record would show that the witnesses have stated that after apprehension of the accused persons, yellow colored envelop was recovered from the accused and it was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A. The voucher which were handed over by the accused to SI Bachchu Singh were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Thereafter SI Bachchu Singh had prepared the rukka/tehrir which is Ex. PW4/C and handed over to Ct.
Page 33 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
Rohtas for registration of FIR at the PS. Ct. Rohtas had thereafter taken the rukka to the PS and got the FIR registered. It is, therefore, clear that the seizure memos of the case property Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B were prepared before the rukka was handed over to the police official for registration of the FIR. The FIR was, therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of the memos. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge of SI Bachchu Singh only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memos which came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, interestingly, seizure memos Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B bear the FIR number and case details in the same handwritings and ink. The IO has not mentioned in the evidence that he had mentioned the FIR number on documents later on. The same indicates that FIR number was mentioned on the said documents while preparing the same. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, has observed in paragraph 5 as under:
Page 34 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
"... Learned counsel for the State concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex. PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused."
46. In Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:
Page 35 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the SubInspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under State v. Om Prakash Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
47. In the present case also, no explanation is available on record as to how the FIR number and case details had appeared on the memos Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. The same leads to only one conclusion that either Page 36 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
the said documents were prepared later on or that the FIR had been registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid cases a reasonable doubt has been raised on the case of the prosecution.
48. It is also note worthy that one FSL report has been proved by PW8 Sh. A.K. Gupta, the forensic handwriting expert. The report is Ex. PW8/A. Perusal of the record would show that the handwriting of the questioned document was found matched with the specimen handwritings. The case of the prosecution is that the questioned document was prepared by accused S.Ganeshwar Rao. It has been argued by Ld. APP that the specimen handwriting was of accused S. Ganeswar Rao. However, Ld. APP has failed to show any evidence on record to show beyond reasonable doubts that the specimen handwritings was of accused S. Ganeswar Rao. IO SI Bachchu Singh has no where stated in his testimony that he had obtained the specimen handwriting of the accused at any point of time. No other witness has stated that he had obtained the specimen handwriting of the accused. No application is shown to be moved before an Page 37 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
MM to obtain the specimen handwriting of the accused. The alleged specimen handwriting of the accused is not shown to be obtained in the presence of any magistrate or under his authorization. In such circumstances the fact that the alleged specimen handwriting is of accused S. Ganeswar Rao has remained not proved beyond reasonable doubts. The benefit of reasonable doubts is to be given to the accused as per law.
49. Further, the case of the prosecution is that various documents were recovered at the instance of the accused persons from their houses. The accused were allegedly taken to their houses during police custody remand. However, no DD entry record of leaving for the houses of the accused persons is brought on record. Further, as the record would reveal, all the prosecution witnesses of the alleged recovery are police officials. No independent public witness had joined the investigation at any point of time. There was sufficient time with the IO to join the public persons in the alleged proceedings of recovery from the houses of the accused persons as mandated under Section 100 Cr.P.C. The places of Page 38 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
recovery i.e., houses of the accused persons are clearly shown to be located in areas where public persons were easily available. From a perusal of the record, no serious efforts for joining public witnesses appears to have been made. It is a well settled proposition that nonjoining of public witnesses during search proceedings shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. In the case titled as Nank Chand Vs. State of Delhi, Crl. Revision No. 169/81, decided on 07.11.1990, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under: "The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola.'' Page 39 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
50. I also get strength from the case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State, 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC) in which Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigors of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."(emphasis supplied)
51. Further, in Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 1999(1) C.L.R.69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held as under:
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it Page 40 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner.
"4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police of officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating of officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by Page 41 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
the police of officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".(emphasis supplied)
52. In the present case, nonjoining of any public person as a witness creates doubt on the case of the prosecution regarding the alleged recovery from the houses of the accused persons as narrated by the police officials. Even though the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of nonjoining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. I get strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court of India in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, as discussed hereinabove, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution case. There are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
53. SI Bachchu Singh, PW4, has stated in his examination that after the accused were taken on PC Page 42 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
remand, they were taken to the house of accused Madan Lal. After the alleged recovery from his house they had gone to the house of S.Ganeshwar Rao and made the recovery at the instance of the accused. However, PW3 HC Shyam Sunder has stated in his crossexamination that they had gone to the house of accused S. Ganeswar Rao first and thereafter they had gone to the house of accused Madan Lal Sharma. PW7 HC Rohtas has also stated that they had first gone to the house of accused S. Ganeswar Rao and thereafter to the house of accused Madan Lal Sharma. Now, this is such a fact that a person who was part of the raiding party would never forget. Despite that two contradictory statements are made by two witnesses in relation to the said fact. The contradiction material in nature which creates reasonable doubts on the visit of the raiding party at the houses of the accused persons and the alleged recovery.
54. Perusal of the record would show that the case property was produced in the Court in unsealed condition. IO PW4 SI Bachchu Singh has not stated in his testimony that after the alleged recoveries at any point of time, he Page 43 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
had sealed the case property so as to rule out any possibility of forgery. It was the duty of the IO to seal the case property immediately after it was recovered from the possession or at the instance of any of the accused. However, this procedure was not followed in the present case. There is no explanation available on record as to why the case property was not sealed immediately after its recoveries on different occasions.
55. It is also worth noting that the complainant in this case is SI Bachchu Singh. FIR was registered on the rukka prepared by him. He had remained the IO of the case during the entire investigation. Entire investigation was done by him. Even though there is no bar as such that a police officer who made the complaint can not conduct investigation. However, for fair investigation it become necessary that the investigation should be done by some other officer than the complainant. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Megha Singh vs State Of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339, had the occasion to discuss such a situation. After discussing the other reasonable doubts on the case of prosecution, the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:
Page 44 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
"4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that there is discrepancy in the depositions of the P.Ws. 2 and 3 and in the absence of any independent corroboration such discrepancy does not inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution case. We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. PW3, Siri Chand, head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation."
56. In the present case also, even though this fact alone may not be relevant, however, after considering the entire evidence on record and the way in which the investigation has been conducted this fact creates reasonable doubts on the entire story of recovery as stated in the final report and statements of police witnesses.
57. In the light of discussion hereinabove, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish any of the Page 45 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
charge against any of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is settled position of law that where two views are possible in a criminal trial, the view which favours the innocence of the accused has to be accepted by the Court of law. The benefit of doubts is given to the accused persons. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
58. The accused persons have already furnished bonds with one surety each under Section 437A, with photographs and copies of address proof.
Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2019.10.30
14:54:19
+0530
Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar)
this 30th day of October 2019. MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 46 of 46 MM08(C)/THC/30/10/2019