Delhi District Court
In Crl. Appeal No. 193 Of 2006 Titled As ... vs . Sidhartha on 17 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL); DELHI
In the matter of:
CBI
Versus
1. Gurdeep Singh
S/o Late Sh. Lallu Ram,
Sr. Telecom Office Assistant,
O/o Telecom District Engineer,
Chattarpur, M.P.
2. Sanjay
S/o Kishan Lal,
R/o No. 216, Karkardooma,
Delhi92.
3. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Sohan Lal,
ClassIV employee,
NHRC, Sardar Patel Bhawan,
New Delhi.
R/o D51/5, Harijan Basti,
Gali No. 1, Kondli, Delhi96
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 1
4. Manoj
S/o Late Sh. Hoti Lal,
R/o H. No. C9, Chander Vihar,
Mandawali, Fazalpur, Shahdara Zone,
Delhi92
......Accused persons
S. C. No. 38/2010
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV
Under Section 420/511/468/471 IPC
Date of Institution : 28.01.2000
Date of Judgment : 17.01.2012
JUDGMENT
Accused Gurdeep Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Ashok Kumar have been facing trial for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420, 511 468, 471 of IPC on the accusation that they entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other to do illegal act i.e. to forge the recommendatory letters dated 16.10.1998, 30.10.1998 and 25.02.1999 to get one of them accused Gurdeep Singh, Sr. Telecom Assistant transferred from Chattapur to Sagar, M. P., where his wife was posted and residing. FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 2
Further they are alleged to have committed forgery of the aforesaid, three letters by cut and past trick and lifting of signatures of Sh. Atal Behari Vajpayae and Sh. H.D. Deve Gowda and Emblem from original letters of Prime Minister.
They are also alleged to have attempted to cheat Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, MP Circle, Bhopal to seek transfer of said Gurdeep Singh (accused) from Chattarpur to Sagar (MP) by faxing aforesaid three letters to his office.
They are further alleged to have fraudulently used the aforesaid three letters as genuine and then sent the same to the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, M.P. Circle, Bhopal with a view to seek transfer of said Gurdeep Singh accused.
Present case came to be registered on the basis of letter Nos. C.11011/51/99PMA, New Delhi dated 13.01.1999 and dated 16.02.1999 addressed to the Director, CBI, New Delhi, Vide letter dated 16.12.1999, the Director, Prime Minister's Office informed Director, CBI that the letter dated 16.10.1998 was a forged one.
Vide letter dated 18.02.1999, Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIC sought for original papers/documents from the Director, Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi. Thereupon, five documents mentioned therein, running into 14 pages were sent by the Section Officer of Prime Minister's Office to the Superintendent of Police FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 3 vide letter dated 18.02.1999.
Investigation revealed that Gurdeep (accused) was working as Sr. Telecome Assistant in the Office of Telecome Distt. Engineer, Chattapur, M.P. He being permanent resident of Sagar, and the place of posting of his wife, a teacher being in a village near Sagar, Gurdeep Singh was unable to look after his family from Chattarpur, the distance between the two places of 100 kms and as such he wanted his transfer from Chattarpur to Sagar.
Investigation further revealed that Gurdeep Singh had approached the Head Office at Bhopal through proper channel but his transfer did not materialize. Ultimately, sometimes in the middle of 1998, he approached Sanjay Kumar son of Kishan Lal (brother's son in law) to arrange for his transfer through his links at Delhi.
Tara Chand now arrayed as a prosecution witness is alleged to have signed as Gurdeep Singh on application for reallotment of Sagar Telecom Division in the cadre of TOA Case of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, TOA Officer the T. D. E. Chatarpur (MP). On 03.12.1999, Tara Chand admitted to have signed as Gurdeep Singh on the said application addressed to Hon'ble Minister of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
It is case of the prosecution that accused Sanjay Kumar in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with accused Manoj Kumar got FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 4 signed another transfer application of accused Gurdeep Singh from Tara Chand "as Gurdeep Singh" and said application was later on got forwarded from Sh. K. R. Shiv Kumar, Addl. PStoformer PM, Shri H.D.Deve Gowda vide letter dated 15.09.98 addressed to Sh. A.K.Sachan, PS to Minister of State for Communications, Govt. of India, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi, for transfer of accused Gurdeep Singh from Chattarpur to Sagar (MP).
Many documents were collected from the office of Telecommunication, MP Circle, Bhopal (MP).
During investigation, opinion of the expert was obtained and it was found that letter dated 16.10.1998 addressed to CGM Bhopal, containing signature of Sh. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and National Emblem, was prepared by adopting cut and paste trick and lifting the genuine signatures and National Emblem from letter dated 22.09.1998 of Sh. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, sent to Chairperson, NHRC, New Delhi.
It is further the case of prosecution that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy accused Sanjay Kumar in connivance with Manoj Kumar and Ashok Kumar also prepared two forged recommendatory letters dated 30.10.98 and 25.2.99 purported to have been signed by Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda, former Prime Minister of India and then sent the letter dated 25.2.99 through fax along with application of Gurdeep Singh, for transfer from Chattarpur to FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 5 Sagar Division. A copy of the forged letter dated 8.10.98 of Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda was also sent to CGM, Office, Telecommunication, Bhopal by fax from fax machine of NHRC by alteration/addition of date from 30.10.98 to 8.10.98.
During investigation, Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda, the then Prime Minister disowned his signatures on the said letters.
The expert also opined that letters dated 30.10.1998 and 25.02.1999 purportedly signed by Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda former Prime Minister of India addressed to CGM Bhopal did not contain signatures of Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda.
Investigation further revealed that accused Manoj Kumar had got typed letter dated 30.10.1998 on computer printer of M/s Harish Chandra, of Mandawali, Delhi whereas accused Sanjay got typed letter dated 25.02.1999 from computer printer of M/s Chiti Communications of Sh. Manoj Sharma R/o 2, Vigyan Lok, Delhi.
On completion of investigation, challan was put in Court. It may be mentioned here that Tara Chand was tendered pardon and as such he was cited as prosecution witness and case came to be committed to the Hon'ble Court of Session.
Charge
2. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offences under Section punishable under Section 120 B read with Section 420, 468, 471 and Section 511 of IPC were framed against the FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 6 accused. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead defence evidence.
Prosecution Evidence 3 .
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following 25 witnesses:
PW1 Sh. Tara Chand To prove having signed as Gurdeep Singh, as requested by Sanjay Kumar, on application for transfer of Gurdeep Singh PW2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta the then Assistant with NHRC on deputation.
PW3 K. R. Shiva Kumar the then Addl. Private Secretary to Former Prime Minister Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda.
PW4 Sh. Arun Singh Rajput the then Supervisor in BSNL, Sagar (MP) PW5 Sh. Devi Dass Patel Peon in the office of SDO, Telegraph, Dama, Madhya Pradesh.
PW6 Sh. Hari Shankar Arya, the then Forensic Mechanic TDM Officer Sagar MP was initially given up.
PW7 Sh. Shiv Shanakar the then Assistant Director Ramakant Grover, (Staff) in Department of Telecom, Bhopal Circle.
PW8 Sh. Harish Chand Computer typist at 410, Aggarwal Chamber4, 2720, Sawarkar Block, Sakarpur, Delhi92, to prove matter typed on a letterhead brought by Manoj Kumar accused.FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 7
PW9 Sh. Manoj Kumar Computer typist to prove that Sanjay Kumar accused had brought to him one blank letterhead for typing of some material.
PW10 Sh. C. S. Porter, the then Assistant on Deputation at NHRC, to prove to have drafted matter on a plain paper regarding transfer of colleague of Ashok Kumar accused.
PW11 Sh. Daulat Ram the then Personal Assistant in the Establishment Section of NHRC, who was looking after the Fax machine installed there.
PW12 Sh. P. L. N. Murthy the the Section Officer in the Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi.
PW13 Sh. S. V. Jayasheela the then Private Secretary to Rao the then former Prime Minister Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda, to prove the specimen signatures of Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda.
PW14 Sh. Arun Golas, the concerned DGM
(Administration),
Telecommunication, MP, to
prove receipt of Faxed
material and the
correspondence with Prime
Minister's Office.
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 8
PW15 Sh. M. Dilip Kumar the then Section Officer
(Personal Section) of the office
of Prime Minister, South
Telecommunication, Bhopal,
to prove the correspondence
with PW14 and action taken
thereof.
PW16 Smt. Raj Laxmi Rama Sr. P. A. to Chief General Chandaran Manager,Telecommunication, Bhopal, M.P., to prove receipt of Faxed material and the correspondence with Prime Minister's Office.
PW17 Sh. Hari Shankar Arya Phone Mechanic in the office of TDM, District Sagar, M. P., who placed on record the service, to prove the document contained in the personal file and to prove making of request by Gurdeep Singh for his transfer.
PW 18 Sh. Hari Prakash To prove relationship of Sanjay and Ashok Kumar accused.
PW 19 Sh. Debojyoti Biswas the then Section Officer,
Establishment Section,
NHRC, to prove installation of
a fax machine at NHRC.
PW20 Sh. V. Anand Rajan the then Additional Private
Secretary in the office of
Prime Minister, to prove
correspondence pertaining to
the case.
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 9
PW21 Ms. Archana Ranjan, the then Director in the
office of Prime Minister, to
prove the correspondence
and the steps taken.
PW22 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, the then Section Officer,
Coordination, NHRC, to prove
specimen type impression of
computer printer installed in
his section.
PW23 Sh. Hari Kishan to prove specimen type
impression of computer
printer installed in the office
of BTech, Data International.
PW24 HC Subhash Chander to prove specimen
signatures of Tara Chand PW
collected during investigation.
PW25 Sh. Ravi Gambhir Investigating Officer
Statement of accused
4. Statement of accused were persons recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and claimed false implication.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
Posting of Gurdeep Singh accused
6. It is case of the prosecution that Gurdeep Singh (accused) was serving as Telecom Office Assistant, with Telecommunication (MP Circle), Husangabad, Bhopal with his place of posting at Chatarpur. This fact has been admitted by accused Gurdeep Singh. Admittedly, in the year 1998, he had applied for his FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 10 transfer from Chatarpur (MP) to Sagar (MP) where his family used to live.
PW5 Sh. Devi Dass Patel from the office of Telecom, District Engineer, Damu, MP has been examined to prove posting of Gurdeep Singh accused in the same department where this witness used to work. He has proved personal file (D53) Ex PW5/A pertaining to Gurdeep Singh.
PW17 Sh. Hari Shankar Arya has also been examined to prove documents lying in the personal file of Gurdeep Singh accused.
As regards statement of this witness, ld. defence counsel has submitted that prosecution as opted to examine only a labourer and that instead of PW 7 some Superintendent of the concerned office should have been examined to prove the documents available in the service book/record of Guprdeep Singh.
PW17 was a phone mechanic in June 1998 and at the time of recording of the evidence was serving in General Section of TDM, Sagar. It is not that he was only a labourer at the time his evidence was recorded.
PW4 Sh. Arjun Singh Rajput, coemployee of Gurdeep Singh has deposed about posting of Gurdeep Singh accused and further that in the year 1998, he came to know from Gurdeep Singh that he had applied for his transfer. He further deposed that during his FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 11 posting at Chatarpur, Gurdeep Singh was not so regular in attending his office.
Posting of Sanjay Kumar accused , Ashok Kumar accused and their interse relationship
7. Sanjay Kumar accused was serving as a sweeper with NHRC. He is brother in law of Manoj Kumar accused.
Ashok Kumar accused was working as safai karamchari in the office of NHRC in the year 1998. He has admitted this fact.
As per prosecution version Ashok Kumar is relative of Gurdeep Singh accused, but Ashok Kumar accused has denied this relationship.
Prosecution has examined PW18 Sh. Hari Prakash to prove relationship of Sanjay and Ashok Kumar accused. According to this witness, his younger brother Suresh Pal got married to Smt. Meena. Further according to the witness, accused Sanjay is the brother of Smt. Meena and he used to reside at house no. 216, Karkardooma, situated adjacent of his own house. The witness also identified photograph of Sanjay accused Ex PW8/B. As regards, Ashok Kumar accused, PW18 stated that he knew him, he being brother in law (jija) of Sanjay accused resident of Mandawli, Delhi. Statement of PW18 has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination.
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 12
Substance of accusation
8. As noticed above allegations levelled against the accused persons is that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy entered into between them they forged letters dated 16.10.1998, 30.10.1998 and 25.02.1999, purported to have been written by Prime Minister of India and then used the same as genuine to seek transfer of one of them namely Gurdeep Singh from Chatarpur (MP) to Sagar (MP).
In the course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that letter dated 08.10.1998 and 30.10.1998 contain same matter.
In the course of arguments, learned defence counsel that there is no letter dated 25.02.1999, which finds mention in the charge, but learned Public Prosecutor has disputed this submission. A perusal of the charge would reveal that allegation regarding letter dated 25.02.1999 also finds specifically mentioned therein.
This Court proceeds to find out if letter dated 16.10.1998 and 08.10.1998/30.10.1998 and 25.02.1998 were ever forged and used by the accused persons in pursuance of any such criminal conspiracy, in order to cheat Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, MP Circle, Bhopal with a view to seek transfer of Gurdeep Singh from Chatarpur to Sagar.
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 13
Posting of Manoj Kumar Accused and his relations with Gurdeep Singh accused
9. Prosecution has examined PW3 Sh. K R Shivkumar, Addl. Private Secretary to the Former Prime Minister Sh. H.D. Deve Gowda to prove letter Ex. PW 3/A (D14), dated 15.09.1998. He is stated to have prepared this letter Ex. PW3/A to recommend transfer of Gurdeep Singh, accused who was related to Manoj Kumar accused. Manoj Kumar accused was posted as Driver cum Peon in the office. Along with this letter, the witness is stated to have enclosed application of accused Gurdeep Singh containing request for his transfer and forwarded the same to private secretary of Telecom Minister.
In the course of arguments Ld. defence counsel has not advanced any argument challenging the testimony of this witness except that according to this witness, no despatch register was being maintained regarding inward and outward correspondence.
From the testimony of this witness, this court finds no ground to disbelieve his version regarding letter dated 15.09.98 sent by him to Sh. A.K.Sachan, private secretary to Minister of State for Communication, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi simply because it does not bear any despatch number. The letter was received in the office of Private Secretary of Minister for State Communications on 05.10.1998 as is available from the FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 14 endorsement made in its margin. Accused has not led any evidence in defence or brought anything in the testimony of this witness to show that this letter dated 15.09.1998 or the endorsement available in the margin are forged and fabricated. There is nothing on record to suggest that CBI has got this letter fabricated to falsely implicate the accused. This letter having been sent even prior to the correspondence in dispute, there is not reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecution regarding its despatch by the witness. Accused Manoj Kumar or Gurdeep Singh have not brought on record anything to show that PW3 was inimical against any one of them so as to falsely depose about the despatch of this recommendatory letter.
This goes to show relation of Manoj Kumar with Gurdeep and that steps were taken by Gurdeep Singh and Manoj Kumar accused who was posted as Driver cum peon in the office of PW3, for transfer of Gurdeep Singh from Chattarpur to Shahdra even in September 1998.
Letter dated 16.10.1998 (D25) (Ex PW2/1)
10. On 21.10.1998, the DGM (A), MP Circle received fax letter dated 16.10.1998 Ex PW2/1. This letter is purported to have been signed on 16.10.1998 by Sh. A. B. Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India and addressed to Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, MP Circle, Husangabad, Bhopal462916, MP, FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 15 enclosing therewith an application (D11) Ex PW14/10 of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Assistant, Department of Telecom, for his transfer from Chatapur to Sagar, with recommendations to see the case personally and to expedite it immediately.
PW5 Sh. Devi Dass Patel has proved applications and application forms available at page no. 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 31, 33, 35, 44, 45, 46, 59 & 69 available in personal file Ex PW5/A pertaining to Gurdeep Singh accused.
Prosecution has examined PW7 Sh. Shiv Shankar Ramakant Grover, then posted in the office of CGM, Bhopal as Assistant Director (Staff). According to PW7 in the year 1998, upto next two years, transfers of employees were banned vide office order of the department. He has also proved that during his tenure, transfer application of Gurdeep Singh was received in their office, for his transfer from Chatapur (MP) to Sagar (MP). He has also deposed about receipt of two faxed letters, one from the office of Sh. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the other from the office of Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda. He has proved seizure memos dated 20.04.1999 regarding the documents (mentioned at Sl. No. 6(a) to 6(j)) handed over by him to the police. Seizure memo is Ex PW7/A. The witness has also proved production of file Ex PW7/A1 containing documents D24 to D33 (19 pages) to the police vide the aforesaid seizure memo. The witness further proved seizure memo Ex PW7/B FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 16 regarding production of documents at Sl. No. 6(a) to 6(d) mentioned therein, before the police.
As regards testimony of this witness, learned defence counsel has contended that if it be assumed that two letters were faxed to the office of Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunication, Bhopal. There is nothing in his statement to suggest as to who had actually faxed these two letters (Ex PW7/B1) and as such, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the crime.
A perusal of the statement of PW7 would reveal that the only suggestion put to him in his cross examination was admitted by the witness. He admitted to have not personally received the fax and volunteered that fax were received in the office of CGM and then marked to concerned Sections. Nothing else has been pointed in the statement of PW7 so as to disbelieve the version narrated by him. Although there is nothing in the statement of PW7 as to by whom these two letters were faxed, accused cannot take advantage from this fact as the witness was not supposed to depose about the person who faxed the same. Testimony of this witness is only regarding receipt of the two faxed letters. Prosecution has fully proved receipt of two faxed letters in the office of CGM, as is going to be discussed in the evidence.
PW14 Sh. Arun Golas, the concerned DGM (A) of FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 17 Telecommunication Circle, Bhopal, at the relevant time, has proved receipt of fax letter dated 16.10.1998 (D25) (Ex PW2/1) purported to have been issued from the office of Sh. A. B. Vajpayee, alongwith copy of application dated 06.09.1998 (D26) Ex PW14/10. This letter was received by Smt. Raj Laxmi, Sr. PA to then CGM,Bhopal. PW14 doubted on the mode of receipt of the letter and also from the language used in it and as such directed Smt. Raj Laxmi to inquire if this letter had been issued by PMO or not. On inquiry, it transpired that no such letter had been issued. In this regard, PW14 stated to have what he further learnt from Sh. Dilip Kumar, Section office of PMO. Similarly, statement of PW14 Sh. Arun Golas has also gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination, despite opportunity.
Smt. Raj Laxmi Rama Chandaran (PW16) has also proved the aforesaid fact. According to PW16, this fax letter was received on 21.10.1998. She has also proved to have put up this letter before PW14 Sh. Arun Golas, as the CGM was on tour. It is also in her statement that as directed, she had a telephonic with Sh. Dilip Kumar of PMO and thereupon she faxed the questioned letter to PMO. According to PW16 only then she came to know that letter Ex PW2/1 was a forged letter, the same having not been issued by PMO. Testimony of PW16 Smt. Raj Laxmi Rama also remains unchallenged for want of any cross examination by the accused FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 18 despite opportunity.
Evidence would reveal that on receipt of the letter DGM (A), MP Circle put a note underneath the letter that CGM had desired to know whether the letter was genuine or not, so that further necessary action could be taken. Thereupon, PW15 Sh. M. Dilip Kumar, Section Officer, (Personal Section) of the office of Prime Minister, South Block, New Delhi was contacted by the Personal Assistant attached to CGM, Telecommunication, Bhopal.
According to PW15, this matter was brought to the notice of PS to the Prime Minister, who in turn directed him to obtain a copy of the letter for verification. It was thereafter that the letter with enclosure was obtained by fax and submitted to PS to the Prime Minister. Ex PW15/A is the faxed letter. PW15 has proved his endorsement at point A on this letter.
It is in the statement of PW15 that on 09.11.1998, he received letter dated 30.10.1998 Ex PW14/5 sent by Sh. Arun Golas, DGM for inquiry about action to be taken by PMO. This letter was forwarded to OSD (Security) for necessary action. PW15 has proved his endorsement at point B in the margin of this letter Ex PW14/5. Statement of PW15 has not been subjected to any cross examination and as such his testimony has gone unchallenged.
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 19
As to How Ex PW2/1 came to be prepared?
11. Prosecution has examined PW2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Dass Gupta, who was posted with NHRC, New Delhi, as Assistant, on deputation. According to this witness, Ashok Kumar accused was working as a safai karamchari in the said office of NHRC. According to, PW2, in the month of September/October 1998, in between 9.4510 am, Ashok Kumar accused came to him with a hand written piece of paper, which was actually request for transfer of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Assistant in the Department of Telecommunication.
According to the witness, Ashok Kumar accused asked him to type the matter which was hand written. The witness explained that there was no mention of name of designation of the addressee. Ashok Kumar accused requested him to type the subject matter in the middle of the paper and also told the witness that the missing portion, pertaining to the addressee would be mentioned later on.
PW Sanjay Kumar Dass Gupta has thus proved document (D25) Ex PW2/1, typed by him to the extent mentioned above and to have returned the hand written paper with the typed material to Ashok Kumar.
Learned defence counsel pointed out that PW2 has not proved complete document Ex PW2/1.
It is true that PW2 has not proved execution of the entire FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 20 document Ex PW2/1, but he was not supposed to prove the entire document, when it is the case of the prosecution that only the portion from A to 'A1' was typed by him at the request of Ashok Kumar accused. No other arguments has been advanced by learned defence counsel, challenging the testimony of PW2.
From the statement of PW2, it stands established that portion to A to A1 of Ex PW2/A i.e. letter dated 16.10.1998 containing the matter for transfer of Gurdeep Singh accused came to be typed by this witness on the request of Ashok Kumar accused. This goes to show conspiracy between Ashok Kumar and Gurdeep Singh accused in order to forge letter Ex PW2/A dated 16.10.1998 to get him transferred from Chatapur to Sagar (MP).
It may be mentioned here that Ex PW14/10 is the copy of the application Ex PW14/4 which came to be faxed alongwith the forwarding letter Ex PW2/1.
Ex PW14/4
PW1 Sh. Tara Chand has been examined by the prosecution to prove that in the month of June/July 1998 accused Sanjay Kumar came to him with an application, already typed in English but not bearing any signatures. According to the witness, Sanjay Kumar asked him to write Gurdeep Singh in English on the said application which is Ex P1, representing that the application was on behalf of one of his relatives. According to the witness, when he FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 21 asked Sanjay Kumar that he should himself write the name, he replied that he did not know how to write. So according to PW1 Tara Chand, he wrote word 'Gurdeep Singh' on application Ex P1. Even otherwise, on 03.12.1999, the witness admitted to have signed as Gurdeep Singh on this document, when his statement was recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate.
The other contention as regards testimony of PW1 Tara Chand is that his specimen signatures are alleged to have been obtained on 23.03.1999 whereas the witness is alleged to have admitted his signatures before Metropolitan Magistrate on 03.12.1999. The submission is that prosecution has failed to explain delay in admission of the signatures by this witness as Gurdeep Singh on 03.12.1999. It has further been submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest as to why any person like PW1 would sign any document in this manner for nothing.
It is in the statement of PW1 Tara Chand that Sanjay Kumar accused was residing in his neighborhood i.e. H216, Karkardooma, Delhi i.e. at the house of his relative SH. Suresh Pal, for the last 10 years. In his cross examination, PW1 stated that Sanjay accused being his neighbour, he (witness) used to visit him off and on. There is nothing in the statement of PW1 to discard his testimony. No allegation of enmity or or illwill has been levelled against PW1. As such, this Court does not find any merit in the FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 22 contention of learned Defence counsel that statement of PW1 cannot be relied upon.
Prosecution has examined PW24 HC Subhash Chander to prove that on 23.03.1999 Inspector S. K. Shah obtained specimen signatures and had writing of Sh. Tara Chand on 4 different paper sheets. The witness identified his signatures in proof of obtaining of specimen signatures and writing of Sh. Tara Chand, on document collectively Ex PW24/A. He also proved attestation of the other witness Inspector D. K. Bali on this document. Statement of PW24 has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination.
It may be mentioned here that specimen signatures S37, 38 & 39 on Ex PW24/A of PW1 Tara Chand were obtained during investigation and sent to expert for analysis. On comparison of the specimen signatures with the questioned signatures as Gurdeep Singh on application Ex PW14/4, opined that these were written by one and the same person.
The report Ex PPX/1 reveals that authorship of the questioned signature marked Q8 could not be connected with the writer of the specimen signatures marked S26 to S29 Purported to be of Sh. Gurdeep Singh.
Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen signature marked S37 to S40 reading gurdeep singh written by FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 23 Sh. Tara Chand is being the person responsible for writing the questioned signature marked Q8.
This establishes truthfulness in the statement of PW1 Tara Chand who was granted pardon.
Drafting of application ExP1 (Ex PW14/4) copy of whereof is Ex PW14/10
12. To prove execution of this application (D15 Ex.PW14/4), prosecution has examined PW10, Sh. C.S.Poster, who was posted as Assistant during the period from March 1998 to November 1998 on deputation with NHRC, Patel Bhawan, New Delhi. According to this witness, Ashok Kumar accused was serving as a sweeper in the said department in the year 1998.
According to PW 10, one day Ashok Kumar accused came to him and requested for drafting an application for transfer of his relative who was from Madhya Pradesh. So he drafted a matter on a plain paper on narration of facts by Ashok Kumar and then handed over application, so drafted to Ashok Kumar. The witness explained that the application so drafted, was hand written. He was shown document D15 and questioned as to whether the contents of the transfer application are the same as of the application drafted by him. Thereupon, the witness stated that contents of document D15 are exactly not the same which were prepared by him. The witness stated that he had prepared the draft which was FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 24 short.
Learned Defence counsel has referred to the statement of PW10 and submitted that prosecution has not placed on record the application alleged to have been drafted by this witness at the instance of Ashok Kumar accused and as such his testimony does not connect Ashok Kumar with commission of any crime.
Reference has also been made to the statement of this witness wherein on seeing document D15 (Ex PW14/4) he stated that its contents are exactly not the same which was the contents of the draft application prepared by him.
It is true that prosecution has not been able to place on record the matter which was actually drafted by PW10, but the same does not adversely affect the case of prosecution or help the accused in any manner as prosecution has placed on record document D15 (Ex PW14/4) to prove that Gurdeep Singh accused has been taking steps for his transfer from Chatarpur to Sagar, even prior to the questioned documents purported to have been signed by the two Prime Ministers. Even the accused could to place on record original draft as the same was handed over to him. However, no such draft has been produced by the accused. In the given situation, it was also for the accused to prove as to from whom Ex PW14/4 was got typed after draft was prepared by PW10. But accused have not led any such evidence.
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 25
From the statement of PW10 prosecution has been able to establish allegations that Ashok Kumar accused got prepared a draft application for transfer of his relative who was from Madhya Pradesh, from this witness who was serving with NHRC where Ashok Kumar accused was serving as a sweeper.
PW20, Sh. V. Anandrajan is the concerned private secretary to Sh. A.B.Vajpayee. The witness has identified the specimen signatures of Sh. A.B.Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister available on sheet Ex. PW16/1. He has been seeing the then Prime Minister signing and writing. Therefore, according to the witness, he could identify signatures of the then Prime Minister.
It is in his evidence that he obtained specimen signatures of Sh. A.B.Vajpayee, on receipt of letter dated 11.03.99 from Smt. Archana Ranjan, Director (Administration), PMO, South Block, New Delhi.
In addition to the aforesaid specimen signatures PW20 also proved, specimen of 3 letterheads, which were being used during the relevant period in the office of the then Prime Minister, Sh. A.B. Vajpayee. These letterheads are exhibited PW16/2 to PW16/4.
Contention of learned defence counsel is that there is nothing in the statement of this witness as to in whose presence, the specimen signatures of the then Prime Minister were obtained on Ex PW16/1 and as such no reliance can be placed on the FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 26 specimen signatures.
On the other Ld. APP has submitted that these specimen signatures were given by Sh. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister in presence of PW20 as is available from his statement.
There is nothing in the statement of PW20 to disbelieve his testimony regarding the specimen signatures, specimens of letterheads and the correspondence with Smt. Archana Ranjan.
Witness has also proved Ex. PW16/5, the letter dated 11.3.99 addressed to Smt. Archana Ranjan.
Prosecution proved Ex. PW16/5, received from Sh. Sharad Kumar, DIG, CBI, SIC II, New Delhi, whereby she was requested to send the documents mentioned in this letter. She has also deposed to have instructed Sh. Roy, UnderSecretary, Administration to do the needful. She further supported statement of PW20 regarding specimen signatures and specimen letterheads of Sh. A.B.Vajpayee and the specimen letters of the office of Prime Minister, being used by the said office at the relevant time.
Ex. PW 25/F is letter dated 22.09.98 seized by the Investigating Officer on its production by the Office of NHRC, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi. This letter is original letter sent by Sh. A.B.Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister to the Hon'ble M. N. Venkatachaliyah, Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi, in reply to letter FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 27 from the Investigation Officer.
Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that actually signatures of Sh. A.B. Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister were copied from this letter Ex. PW25/F and pasted on letter Ex. PW2/1 which was faxed from the office of NHRC to CGM Bhopal.
Nowhere it has been suggested during the trial or in the course of argument that this letter Ex. PW25/F sent from the office of Prime Minister on 22.09.98 was not available in the office of NHRC, New Delhi and that it was not seized when produced by the Under Secretary of NHRC.
Specimen type impression from the computer printer installed at NHRC, New Delhi to prove drafting of Ex PW2/1
13. In this regard prosecution has examined PW22 Sanjay Kumar, Under Secretary, NHRC, New Delhi. According to this witness, on 11.06.1999 CBI officer came to his office and obtained specimen type impression from the computer printer installed in his section. He has proved the specimen printout available in sheet (D47) Ex PW22/A and EX PW22/B. The witness also proved signatures of the other attesting witness Sh. R. Krishnamurthy on these sheets.
Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that the specimen impression of the computer print alleged to have been taken was never sealed before the same was sent to CFSL so as to rule out the FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 28 possibility of its having been tampered with. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness as well as on the FSL report regarding analysis of the two prints.
File would reveal that statements of these witnesses have not been subjected to any cross examination on the point of obtaining of specimen type impression. Moreover, specimen impression are not required to be scaled when duly collected. Therefore, contentions raised is without merit.
Evidence in proof of fax machine installed in the establishment section of NHRC, New Delhi.
14. PW11 Sh. Daulat Ram was serving in establishment section of NHRC, New Delhi. According to this witness, he also used to look after the fax machine for incoming and outgoing fax messages. He used to maintain register in this regard. That register is Ex PW11/A (D38). It runs into 12 pages.
Ashok Kumar accused was serving as sweeper with NHRC, New Delhi. According to the witness Ashok Kumar accused used to stay in the office during the whole day. The witness further deposed that in the month of October, 1998, he never faxed any message of any document handed over to him by Ashok Kumar accused. The fax machine installed there used to remain opened and anybody could come and fax.
As regards statement of PW11 Daulat Ram in the FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 29 establishment section of NHRC, learned counsel has submitted that in his statement, he admitted to have never faxed any message or any document handed over to him by Ashok Kumar in the month of October, 1998.
However it is in the statement of this witness that the fax machine installed in the establishment section of NHRC, used to remain open and anybody could come and fax message. Therefore, the contention of learned defence counsel is that there being no evidence on record to suggest that it is Ashok Kumar accused who had faxed Ex PW2/1 and as such prosecution has not been able to substantiate allegations levelled against accused Ashok Kumar.
It may be mentioned here that statement of PW11 has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination.
Prosecution has established from the statement of PW11 that no document was given to him by Ashok Kumar accused, who was serving in the same office i.e. NHRC, New Delhi for being faxed.
In support of statement of PW11, prosecution has examined PW19 Sh. Debojyoti Biswas, Section Officer working in establishment section of NHRC since September 1997 to September 2000. He has deposed that besides Sh. Daulat Ram no one could have assess to the fax machine installed in their office. The witness also identified the signatures of Sh. Joes Thomas, Under Secretary, NHRC, at point A of Ex PW11/A. He further FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 30 deposed after going through the out going fax register that no fax message was sent to Bhopal from telephone/fax no. 0755550011. Statement of PW19 has also gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination.
PW25 Sh. Ravi Gambhir, IO of the case has proved seizure of telephone bill in respect of telephone no. 340016, which was being used as a fax machine from October 1998. Document D38 are the telephone bills. The relevant entries in the bills are dated 21.10.1998 and 26.10.1998 which reveal that some matter was faxed from this very machine having telephone no. 340016 to 0755550011. These documents were seized by the IO from the office of NHRC, New Delhi vide application copy Ex PW25/C. A perusal of report Ex PPX/1, would reveal that the expert analyzed questioned matter marked as Q4, Q15, Q21 and questioned signatures Q5 and opined as under:
"On superimposition the questioned photo copied signature marked Q5 matches with the standard signature marked A7 as revealed by Video Spectral Comparator (VSC.IV) and their same size transparencies examination indicating that the questioned photocopied signature marked Q5 has been produced by the method of cut and paste trick.
On superimposition the questioned photo copied signature marked Q4 matches with the standard printed matter marked A8 as revealed by their same size transparencies examination and VSC.IV examination, indicating that the photocopied printed matter marked Q4 could very well have been prepared using A8 by cut and paste trick. Similar matching has also been observed between Q4 and standard printed matter marked S42.FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 31
The print out characters of the fax copy marked Q15 and the specimen print outs marked S59 and S60 show similarity in the general size and design of characters comprising these print outs as revealed by Video Spectral Comparator and same size transparencies examination on superimposition."
From the report of the expert and the above discussion this court finds that letter Ex. PW2/1 and accompanying application Ex. PW14/10 were forged, used and faxed from the office of NHRC, New Delhi to office of CGM Bhopal, as a result of conspiracy between Gurdeep Singh accused, Sanjay accused and Ashok Kumar accused, to get Gurdeep Singh accused transferred from Chatarpur to Sagar (MP).
Document D16, D12 & D28
15. It is in the statement of PW14 Sh. Arun Golas, then DGM (A), telecommunication, Bhopal Circle that on 20.10.1998 another fax letter dated 08.10.1998 purported to be issued from office of then Prime Minister Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda alongwith copy of transfer application, addressed to Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar, CGM, Bhopal, was received in his office by fax This letter was processed and information was received from Smt. Archana Ranjan, Director (Administration), Office of Prime Minister confirming that this letter for transfer application were never issued or faxed from PMO. This faxed letter is Ex PW14/7 and the application Ex PW14/8. PW21 Smt. Archana Ranjan has supported the statement of PW14 in this FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 32 regard.
Ex PW14/7 is copy of letter dated 08.10.1998 purported to have been signed by Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda.
Learned Defence counsel has submitted that in the charge there is no mention about letter dated 08.10.1998 which the witness is stated to have received from the office of the then Prime Minister Sh. H. D. Dev Gowda on 20.10.1998 alongwith copy of transfer application of an employee Gurdeep Singh.
A perusal of Ex PW14/7 would reveal that this letter dated 08.10.1998 sent by fax was received on 26.10.1998. PW14 has proved that this letter purported to have been issued from the office of Prime Minister and addressed to Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar, CGM, Bhopal and further that on receipt of this letter, the same was processed in the office file. It is also in his statement that letter was received from Smt. Archana Ranjan, Director (Administration) in Prime Minister's office that no such letter or directions were ever issued from their office.
It may be mentioned here that letter dated 08.10.1998 (D16) Ex PW14/7 and letter dated 30.10.1998 (D28) Ex PW14/12 are copies of one and the same letter (D12) Ex PW8/A=Ex PW14/9 purported to have been sent from the office Prime Minister to the office of Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar. Faxed letter dated 08.10.1998 was FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 33 received in the office of CGM on 26.10.1998 and the faxed letter dated 30.10.1998 was received in the office of CGM on 13.11.1998 whereas Ex PW8/A=Ex PW14/9 was received in the office of CGM on 24.11.1998. All these letters contain the same contents and having been received in the office of CGM, nonmentioning of letter dated 08.10.1998 in the charge sheet does not adversely affect the case of prosecution.
It is in the statement of PW14 Sh. Arun Golas that letter dated 30.10.1998 Ex PW14/9 (D12), purported to have been issued by the former Prime Minister Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda was received in their office and he sent the same to the office of Prime Minister.
Letter Ex PW14/2 is reply dated 07.12.1998 from SH. D. P. Singh, OSD, PM Office to Sh. Arun Golas (PW14), in response to his letter dated 30.10.1998, vide which Sh. D. P. Singh sought the original letter from the office of CGM to take action into the matter. Further correspondence is contained in letter dated 11.12.1998 in response to letter Ex PW14/2.
Ex PW14/3 is the faxed covering letter accompanied by faxed application of Gurdeep Singh for transfer. Prosecution has alleged that both these are also forged documents and that no such recommendation was made by Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda, the then Prime Minister.
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 34
Ex PW 14/9 is another letter dated 30.10.1998 which according to the prosecution is also forged one. It was received in the office of CGM, Bhopal on 01.12.1998. In this regard prosecution has examined PW14.
PW14 has also deposed that faxed letter Ex PW14/7 was received in their office and they sent the same to the office of Sh. M. Dilip Kumar, Section Officer, PMO. He has proved faxed copy of transfer application of Gurdeep Singh Ex PW14/8.
PW14 has also deposed about receipt of letter dated 30.10.98 (D12) Ex. PW8/A = Ex. PW14/9. Statement of PW14 has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination.
As to How Ex PW8/A=Ex PW14/9 came to be prepared?
16. Prosecution has examined PW8 Sh. Harish Chandra Singh who was working at 229/A9, Sl. No.2, Railway Colony, Mandawali, Delhi 8 in the name and style of BTech data International in the month of October 1998.
Learned Defence counsel has submitted that statement of PW8 Sh. Harish Chand Singh does not connect Manoj Kumar accused with commission of any crime as witness has deposed only to have typed this letter Ex PW8/A at the instance of Manoj. Counsel has further submitted that to establish the identity of Manoj, prosecution showed to the witness only photograph but no reliance can be placed on such identification when no Test FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 35 Identification Proceedings was held. Further it has been submitted that Manoj accused was not accompanying the police at the time PW8 was contacted and shown the photograph. At that time, the letter in question is also not alleged to have been shown to the witness.
It has further been contended that hard disk was also not seized to take out concerned data so as to establish that the said letter was typed at any of the computers of this witness.
According to PW8, one person, namely, Manoj Kumar came to his shop for some typing work. The witness then identified Manoj Kumar accused as the person who had visited his shop in October 1998. According to the witness, Manoj Kumar accused had brought to him one blank letterhead of former Prime Minister Sh. H.D.Deve Gowda along with the matter to be typed there on. He then typed the matter on the letterhead. Same is Ex. PW8/A. Manoj Kumar accused took away this matter that was typed on the letterhead.
So far as identity of Manoj Kumar accused, the witness deposed that during investigation he had verified identity of this accused from the photograph shown to him. The said photograph is PW8/B. In Crl. Appeal No. 193 of 2006 titled as State vs. Sidhartha Vashisht & Ors. decided on 18.12.2006 by our own Hon'ble High FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 36 Court, so far as identification of the accused from his photograph is concerned, it has been held that there was nothing objectionable in such an action on the part of the investigating agency.
Test Identification Parade is for the assistance of Investigation officer that investigation is going in right direction. When PW8 identified Manoj accused in Court, his identity stands established on record. Reference in this regard may be made to decision in Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 SCC (Cri) 859.
Ex. PW25/J is the seizure memo vide which photograph of Manoj Kumar was seized by the Investigating officer on 09.08.99. As PW25 Investigating officer has deposed about this fact in his statement.
It is also in his statement that CBI officials had taken computer typing impression on two sheets Ex. PW8/C & D. Although investigating officer should have got the hard disk analyzed in the laboratory, its nonanalysis does not help the accused or adversely affect the case of prosecution in view of the cogent and convincing statement of PW8 Harish Chand. There is nothing in the statement of PW8 to suggest that he has any motive to depose against Manoj Kumar accused or to support the case of prosecution.
PW23 Sh. Hari Kishan has proved the case of prosecution FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 37 regarding obtaining of impression of the computer typing taken from the computer printer installed at BTech, Data International, on 21.06.1999. These impressions are available in sheets Ex PW8/C and PW8/D. Witness has identified his signatures at point B on these sheets.
Ld. Defence counsel has submitted the specimen impressions of the computer print alleged to have been taken were never sealed before the same were sent to CFSL so as to rule out the possibility of its having been tampered with. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness as well as on the expert report regarding analysis of the two prints.
It is true that in his cross examination the witness is stated to have not sought Icard of CBI Officer who contacted him on 21.06.199 but the same does not come to the aid of the accused, when PW25 Investigating Officer and PW8 Sh. Harish Chand Singh have also deposed about this fact.
It is true that the witness stated in his cross examination that typing was not done in his presence, but he categorically stated that print was taken out in his presence. However, no such suggestion was put to PW8 Sh. Harish Chand Singh, the other witness, in whose presence the specimen impressions were obtained on sheet Ex PW8/C and Ex PW8/D. He denied to have made statement under compulsion of CBI. There is nothing on FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 38 record to suggest that PW 23 was inimical against Manoj Kumar accused, so as to falsely depose against him.
Ex. PW 8/C and Ex. PW8/D are the 2 sample impressions of the computerized printer seized by the Investigating Officer on 21.06.99. These were given no. S54 and S55, by the expert. The matter typed in letter Ex. PW8/A and also Ex. PW14/9 was given questioned document no. Q16.
As regards comparison of signatures of Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda on letter Ex. PW 8/A = Ex. PW14/9, prosecution has examined PW13 Sh. S.V.Jaya Sheela Rao, the then private secretary to the office of the Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda PW13 has deposed that Manoj Kumar accused was serving is peon in the office of the former Prime Minister at 5, Safdarjang Lane, New Delhi. He was also performing duty as a driver. The witness identified Manoj Kumar accused present in Court.
Contention of learned defence counsel is that there is nothing in the statement of this witness as to in whose presence, the specimen signatures of Sh. H. D. Gowda, the then Prime Minister were obtained on sheet D48 (Ex PW13/C) and as such no reliance can be placed on the specimen signatures.
On the other Ld. PP has submitted that these specimen signatures were given by Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda, the then Prime Minister in presence of PW13 as is available from his statement. FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 39
Learned Defence counsel has submitted that reply Ex PW13/B sent by the witness to the Deputy Inspector General of Police does not bear any despatch no. and as such neither it can be said that these specimen signatures were ever sent to the office of CBI from the office of this witness nor any reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness.
It is also in his testimony that in response to letter Ex. PW 13/A dated 27.05.99 from DIGCBI, he sent reply vide letter Ex. PW13/B along with specimen signatures of H.D.Deve Gowda, the then Prime Minister. The witness further stated that these specimen signatures were taken in his presence. The witness has proved the specimen signatures at PX3 on sheet Ex. PW13/C. The witness further confirmed that letter dated 30.10.98 was never sent from their office i.e. Office of Prime Minister, at any point of time and that he never made any recommendation on the request of Manoj Kumar. Therefore, contention raised by learned defence counsel is without any merit.
The questioned document PW8/AEx PW14/9 was sent to the expert alongwith specimen signatures of Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda as contained in the sheets and given mark S54 & S55, and the specimen type impression of computer printer.
The specimen signatures and prints were compared with disputed signatures and prints and the expert opined in the FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 40 manner as under:
1. The authorship of the questioned signature marked Q7 could not be connected with the writer of the specimen signatures marked S45 purported to be of Shr. H.D. Deve Gowda.
2. The questioned print out marked Q16 and the specimen print out marked S54 and S55 show similarity in general size and design of characters comprising these print outs as revealed by Video Spectral Comparator and the same size transparencies examination on superimposition.
3. Interse comparison as well as superimposition of same size transparencies of the questioned signatures marked Q7 and Q13 reveal suspicious matching of strokes at the corresponding places indicating that the questioned photocopied signature marked Q13 could very well have been prepared using the model of the signature appearing in Q7 by cut and paste trick.
Their exist a close suspicious matching of strokes of the fax photocopied available strokes of signatures marked Q9 and photocopied signature marked Q13 as well as original signature marked Q7 indicating that the fax copy signature marked Q9 could have been produced by using the signature marked Q7 or through its photo copy.
From the report of the expert and the above discussion this court finds that letter Ex. PW8/A=Ex PW14/9 was forged, used and sent to the office of CGM Bhopal, as a result of conspiracy between Gurdeep Singh accused and Manoj Kumar accused, to get Gurdeep Singh accused transferred from Chatarpur to Sagar (MP).
Letter dated 25.02.1999 Ex PW9/A (D21)
17. Sh. Arun Golas (PW14) deposed that D28 is fax copy of recommendatory letter purported to have been issued from the office of Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda from their office and received in his FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 41 office by fax. The same has been exhibited as Ex PW14/12. Statement of PW14 has gone unchallenged.
PW9 Manoj Kumar was doing the job of computer typing at G1, Gupta Academy, Local Shopping Center, Shreshta Vihar in the month of February 1999, one person, namely, Sanjay Kumar came to me for some typing work. The witness identified Sanjay Kumar, accused present in the court and further stated that he had brought one blank letterhead of Former Prime Minister, Sh. H.D. Deve Gowda along with matter to be typed in the letterhead. The witness then proved the matter on document (D21) Ex. PW9/A i.e. faxed copy of the letter and stated this matter was typed by him. The witness further deposed to have identified Sanjay, on seeing his photograph shown to him by CBI officer during investigation. The photograph is Ex. PW9/B. As regards testimony of PW9, learned defence counsel has submitted that prosecution has failed to establish that it is Sanjay who contacted PW9 and got typed matter on D21.
Learned defence counsel submitted that at the time PW Manoj Kumar is alleged to have been inquired about Sanjay, he was shown only his photographs and no TIP having been got conducted regarding his identification, statement of PW9 does not come to the aid of the prosecution.
Learned defence counsel has further submitted that hard FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 42 disk of the computer of PW9 Manoj Kumar was not seized so as to verify his version that actually matter on D21 was got typed from him. There is nothing on record suggest that at the time police contacted PW9 Manoj Kumar, document D21 i.e. Letter dated 25.02.1999 was shown to this witness in absence whereof statement of PW9 does not come to the aid of the prosecution.
Although investigating officer should have got the hard disk analyzed in the laboratory, its nonanalysis does not help the accused or adversely affect the case of prosecution in view of the cogent and convincing statement of PW9 Manoj Kumar. There is nothing in the statement of PW8 to suggest that he had any motive to depose against Sanjay Kumar accused or to support the case of prosecution.
In his cross examination, the witness admitted that the original letterhead was shown to him on that day i.e. 6 June 2009 when his statement was recorded in court. He further stated that the letterhead was not faxed in his presence. Further, he denied to have made false statement regarding arrival of Sanjay at his place of work or to have got the matter typed on the letterhead or that he identified Sanjay accused from the photograph under compulsion of CBI.
Ex. PW 25/01 is seizure memo dated 9.8.99 vide which photograph of Ex. PW5/B Sanjay accused was seized by the FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 43 Investigating officer PW25.
In Crl. Appeal No. 193 of 2006 titled as State vs. Sidhartha Vashisht & Ors. decided on 18.12.2006 by our own Hon'ble High Court, so far as identification of the accused from his photograph is concerned, it has been held that there was nothing objectionable in such an action on the part of the investigating agency.
Test Identification Parade is for the assistance of Investigation officer that investigation is going in right direction. When PW25 identified Sanjay accused in Court, his identity stands established on record.
According to PW9, the sample impression of computer typing taken by the CBI officials on 3 sheets is available in sheets is available in sheets Ex. 9/C to PW9/E. PW9/C, PW9/G, PW9/E are the sheets containing specimen type impression of computer printer, collected at the work place of PW9 in presence of Hitesh Khanna and Sanjeev Minocha. These were sent for comparison with the questioned print.
As regard comparison of signatures of Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda on letter Ex. PW 9/A, prosecution has examined PW13 Sh. S. V. Jaya Sheela Rao, the then private secretary to the office of the Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda. The witness further stated that these specimen signatures were taken in his presence. The witness has proved the specimen signatures at PX3 on sheet Ex. PW13/C. FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 44 Specimen signatures of Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda were also sent to laboratory for analysis. The expert opined as under: "Similarities have also been observed in the design of characters comprising the print outs marked S56 to S58 with the characters of photocopied print outs appearing in red encircled portion marked Q18.
Interse comparison as well as superimposition of same size transparencies of the questioned signatures marked Q7 and Q13 reveal suspicious matching of strokes at the corresponding places indicating that the questioned photocopied signature marked Q13 could very well have been prepared using the model of the signature appearing in Q7 by cut and paste trick.
Their exist a close suspicious matching of strokes of the fax photocopied available strokes of signatures marked Q9 and photocopied signature marked Q13 as well as original signature marked Q7 indicating that the fax copy signature marked Q9 could have been produced by using the signature marked Q7 or through its photo copy."
From the report of the expert and the above discussion this court finds that letter Ex.PW9/A was forged, used and sent to the office of CGM Bhopal, as a result of conspiracy between Gurdeep Singh accused and Sanjay Kumar accused, to get Gurdeep Singh accused transferred from Chatarpur to Sagar (MP).
Result
18. From the report of the expert and the above finds this court comes to the conclusion that letter Ex. PW2/1 and accompanying application Ex. PW14/10 were forged, used and faxed from the office of NHRC, New Delhi to office of CGM Bhopal, as a result of conspiracy between Gurdeep Singh accused, Sanjay accused and FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 45 Ashok Kumar accused, to get Gurdeep Singh accused transferred from Chatarpur to Sagar (MP) and thereby all of them committed offences under Section 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and an offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 120B IPC.
Accordingly, this Court holds Gurdeep Singh, Ashok Kumar and Sanjay Kumar accused guilty of the offences under under Section 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 120B IPC. They are convicted thereunder.
From the report of the expert and the above findings, this court comes to the conclusion that letter dt.30.10.1998 Ex. PW8/A=Ex PW14/9 was forged, used and sent to the office of CGM Bhopal, as a result of conspiracy between Gurdeep Singh accused and Manoj Kumar accused, to get Gurdeep Singh accused transferred from Chatarpur to Sagar (MP) and thereby both of them committed offences under Section 468, 471 read with Section 120 B IPC and Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 120B IPC.
Accordingly, this Court holds Gurdeep Singh and Manoj Kumar accused guilty of the offences under Section 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 120B IPC. They are convicted thereunder.
From the report of the expert and the above findings this FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 46 court comes to the conclusion that letter Ex.PW9/A was forged, used and sent to the office of CGM Bhopal, as a result of conspiracy between Gurdeep Singh accused and Sanjay Kumar accused, to get Gurdeep Singh accused transferred from Chatarpur to Sagar (MP) and thereby both of them committed offences under Section 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 120B IPC.
Accordingly, this Court holds Gurdeep Singh and Sanjay Kumar accused guilty of the offences under Section 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 120B IPC. They are convicted thereunder.
Let convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in Open Court
on 17.01.2012 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 47
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL); DELHI In the matter of: CBI Versus
1. Gurdeep Singh S/o Late Sh. Lallu Ram, Sr. Telecom Office Assistant, O/o Telecom District Engineer, Chattarpur, M.P.
2. Sanjay S/o Kishan Lal, R/o No. 216, Karkardooma, Delhi92.
3. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, ClassIV employee, NHRC, Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi.
R/o D51/5, Harijan Basti, Gali No. 1, Kondli, Delhi96
4. Manoj FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 48 S/o Late Sh. Hoti Lal, R/o H. No. C9, Chander Vihar, Mandawali, Fazalpur, Shahdara Zone, Delhi92 ......Accused persons S. C. No. 38/2010 FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV Under Section 420/511/468/471 IPC Date of Institution : 28.01.2000 Date of Judgment : 17.01.2012 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Sh. Dhan Kishore, PP for CBI All the convicts with Sh. Ajay Singh, proxy counsel for Sh. Ashok Verma, Advocate.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Sh. Ajay Singh, learned proxy counsel for convicts has submitted that convicts belong to poor families and have to support their families and that leniency be shown on the point of sentence.
Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI submits that mere question that convicts have to take care of their families is no ground for leniency on the point of sentence when the allegations proved against them are serious in nature, and that they do not FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 49 deserve any leniency on the point of sentence.
As noticed above, initially convict Gurdeep Singh took steps for his transfer from Chattarpur to Sagar (MP) through proper channel but when he found that he was unsuccessful in achieving his object, he entered into criminal conspiracy with his coaccused convicts and in prosecution thereof, they forged the signatures of Sh. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Sh. H. D. Deve Gowda, the then Prime Ministers of India, on their letterheads, to put pressure on the concerned officers. The crime committed by the convicts is undoubtedly of grave nature.
Case pertains to the year 1999. Challan was presented in the Court in the year 2000 and since then the convictsaccused have been facing trial.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, the gravity of the offences and the modus operandi adopted by them in commission of crime, even by going to the extent of forging signatures of the two Prime Ministers of India, this Court hereby awards them sentence in the manner as: FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 50 Name of Offences Rigorous Fine Further Imprisonment in Convict Imprisonment default of payment of fine.
(Rs)
1. Gurdeep (In respect of letter Singh dated 16.10.1998 and transfer application D15) 468 r.w.s. 120B IPC, 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 471 r.w.s. 120B IPC 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 420 r.w.s 511 IPC and 3 years xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 120B IPC (In respect of letter dated 30.10.1998) 468 r.w.s. 120B IPC, 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 471 r.w.s. 120B IPC 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 420 r.w.s 511 IPC and 3 years xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 120B IPC (In respect of letter dated 25.02.1999) 468 r.w.s. 120B IPC, 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 471 r.w.s. 120B IPC 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 420 r.w.s 511 IPC and 3 years xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 120B IPC
2. Sanjay (In respect of transfer Kumar application (D15) and letter dated 16.10.1998) 468 r.w.s. 120B IPC, 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 471 r.w.s. 120B IPC 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 420 r.w.s 511 IPC and 3 years xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 120B IPC (In respect of letter dated 25.02.1999) 468 r.w.s. 120B IPC, 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 471 r.w.s. 120B IPC 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 420 r.w.s 511 IPC and 3 years xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 120B FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 51
3. Ashok (In respect of transfer Kumar application (D15) and letter dated 16.10.1998) 468 r.w.s. 120B IPC, 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 471 r.w.s. 120B IPC 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 420 r.w.s 511 IPC and 3 years xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 120B
4. Manoj (In respect of letter Kumar dated 30.10.1998) 468 r.w.s. 120B IPC, 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 471 r.w.s. 120B IPC 3 ½ years Rs. 5000/ One month 420 r.w.s 511 IPC and 3 years xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 120B IPC It is made clear that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
The period of imprisonment already undergone during investigation, inquiry and trial to be set off against the period of sentence awarded vide this judgment.
Benefits of Section 428 CrPC is extended to convicts. Case property be disposed of in accordance with law on expiry of period for Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court
on 17.01.2012 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
FIR No. RC2(S)99/SIVV 52