Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjeev Kumar on 29 June, 2024
1 / 42
IN THE COURT OF MS NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA
ACMM (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS:NEW DELHI
Cr. Case no. 5288549/2016
STATE Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
FIR no. 498/2003
PS Crime Branch
Unique ID no. of the DLNT02-000214-2006
case :
Date of commission of 23.08.2003
offence :
Name of complainant : Sh. Surinder Kumar Arora
Name and address of (1) Sanjeev Kumar @ Chikoo@ Maik @ Gatti Desilva, S/o
accused : Sh. , R/o 23/680, DDA Flat, Madangarhi, Delhi. (declared PO)
(2) Krishan Kant Sharma, S/o Hardeep Kumar, R/o 9/200, DD
Fats, Madangiri, Delhi.
(3) Hira Lal Shaw, S/o late Sh. Sarju Shaw, R/o 292, Taiya
Para, Gouripur, PS Nehhati, Dist. North-24. Pargana, West
Bengol.
Offence complained of : U/s 120-B/420/468/471 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Institution of case: 22.10.2003
FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.1/42
2 / 42
Date of reserving the 29.06.2024
order:
Final order : 1) Accused Hira Lal Shaw is acquitted for the offence
punishable u/s 120,B, 420,468 & 471 IPC
2) Krishankant Sharma is acquitted for the offence punishable
u/s 420 IPC and convicted u/s 120B, 468 & 471 IPC
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 120-B/420/468/471 IPC
1.FACTS OF THE CASE - The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that for consideration that on 23.08.2003 all accused Sanjeev Kumar, KK Sharma, Prakash and Hira Lal Shaw entered into a conspiracy i.e. to do an illegal act of cheating the complainant on the pretext of providing admission of his daughter Sonia Arora in Medical College for MBBS and consequently a sum of Rs. 13 lacs, Rs. 4.5 lacs and Rs. 46,000/- were delivered to accused Prakash (PO), Sanjeev(PO) and KK Sharma on different date and place. Further, during this transaction in frutherance of criminal conspiracy a forged cash receipt of Rs. 46,000/- issued in the name of Sonia Arora was handed over to the complainant stating that her admission is confirmed in MBBS course in Calcutta National Medical College and other documents like i.e. library card, student identity card, will be provided during the parent's meet. Thereafter, the complainant had a suscpicion and he had got the receipt verified and get to know that the address of college stated in the receipt is incorrect. It was also verified from the Principal of FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.2/42 3 / 42 Calcutta National Medical College and he was apprised that no person in the name of Sonia Arora has got admission in the said college. Thereafter, the complainant made a police complaint and FIR was registered against accused Sanjeev (PO), Prakash (PO) and KK Sharma u/s 120 B, 420, 468 & 471 IPC. Accused Prakash was declared PO during investigation.
2. After filing of the charge sheet in the case, all three accused were supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C and after hearing arguments on charge vide order dated 01.06.2004, charge U/s 120-B/420/468/471 IPC was framed against accused Sanjeev (PO), KK Sharma and Hira Lal, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Sanjeev stopped appearing during PE and was declared as PO.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined twelve witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed and statement of accused 313 CrPC was recorded, wherein accused Hira Lal and KK Sharma pleaded innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused stated that he does not want to lead any DE.
4. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
5. PW-1 Sh. Anil Juneja deposed that accused Sanjeev (PO) was residing at the 2nd floor, H.No. 9/200, DDA Flats, Madangir, Delhi since the last 10-12 years. This flat is in the name of his wife Smt. Adrash around May/June 2003. He had let out FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.3/42 4 / 42 2nd floor of his said house to Sanjeev at a rent of Rs. 300/- per month. He had taken the premises on rent for study purpose. One more boy whose name was Kishan Kumar was also living with him. Witness correctly identified accused Sanjeev present in the court, however, witness could not identify Krishan Kumar.
6. PW-2 Kumari Sonia Arora deposed that she had passed her 12th examination in 2003. Around December, 2002, one B.K Gupta who runs a tutorial had met his father Sh. S.K. Arora and had talked about her admissions in Medical College and thereafter he had assured that he would get her admitted in Calcutta National Medical College in MBBS Course. Thereafter on 14.08.2003 she alongwtih his father and Mr. K.K. Sharma had gone to Calcutta for that purpose. There at the airport one Parkash had met them. Thereafter they went to the a hotel situated near the airport. Thereafter said Parkash left the hotel and returned back after two hours and he got filled some forms by her. Parkash had also taken original certificate of 12 standard and some other photo copies, he returned back to the hotel. He returned my documents except the 12 th class original document. He had also shown a receipt of Calcutta National College showing her admission there. Witness do not remember about the money transaction. Thereafter he had taken some amount from her father and he had also took them in a taxi to show the abovesaid medical college in Calcutta. He had pointed out the college from outside from the road. Thereafter, said Parkash left us and she alongwith her father and K.K. Sharma returned back to the hotel. In the hotel one person namely Sanjiv had also met us. Thereafter accused Sanjiv and K.K Sharma left them and FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.4/42 5 / 42 again met them at the airport. Thereafter they returned back to Delhi. Thereafter on the day when they returned back to Delhi abovesaid Sanjiv and K.K. Sharma came at their house. One of the neighborers Sh. Satish Aggarwal was also present there. My father paid about Rs. 12 lacs something to them. She do not remember the exact amount. They had given a receipt of yellow colour to her father stating that he have been admitted in the Calcutta National Medical College. After one or two days her father came to know that she has got admission in the said college. Her father had made a complaint to the police and had inquired about these persons. Her 12th certificate was also not returned back to her. The abovesaid persons had not returned back the amount. Her father had paid to them a total amount of Rs. 18 lacs. Witness identified the accused persons. K.K. Sharma and Sanjiv Kumar also were present in the court. Witness stated that she cannot identify B.K. Gupta.
7. PW- 3 Sh. Satish Aggarwal deposed that he was residing at the abovesaid address for the last six years. S.K. Arora was his neighbours and was residing in his adjoining house. He stated that S.K. Arora had gone to Calcutta regarding admission of his daughter in medical college and had returned back to home on 14.08.2003 at around 10.30 PM. Two more persons Sanjiv and K.K. Sharma had also come there and Sh. S.K. Arora had told him that these two persons had gone with him to Calcutta and had got admission of his daughter in Calcutta Medical College. The said Sanjiv and K.K. Sharma were identified by the witness in the court. Thereafter S.K. Arora had handed over an amount of Rs. 13 lacs to these FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.5/42 6 / 42 two accused. This amount was in denomination of Rs. 500/- currency notes. The packets of the notes mostly were having the slip of Bank of Rajasthan. Thereafter the accused ha handed over a slip of yellow colour which was of Rs. 46,000/- as fees of admission of medical college. After taking the said amount both the accused left. This amount was handed over by S.K. Arora to these accused regarding the admission of his daughter in medical college in Calcutta.
8. PW- 4 Constable Pardeep deposed that on 23.08.2003 he was posted in Aito Extortion Cell of Crime Branch. On that day around 10 PM. SI Sunil Kumar handed over a tehrir to him for registration of the case. He took the same to PS Prashant Vihar and got the case registered and thereafter after talking with SI Sunil Kumar on phone as per his instructions, witness reached at main road Madangir, near Gali No. 9. I reached there around 12.30 AM. There IO alongwith other staff SI Rajiv, complainant Arora, Constable Yashpal met him. Tehrir and copy of the FIR were handed over to SI Sunil Kumar.
9. PW- 5 Sh. Surinder Kumar Arora deposed that he made a complaint which was proved as Ex.PW5/A to the DCP Crime Branch. He came in touch with Mr. B.K. Gupta in November 2002 regarding the admission of his daughter Ms. Sonia Arora in medical college in Delhi. He came in touch with Mr. B.K. Gupta through a newspaper as he had to get a tutor for his daughter but he do not remember their telephone number. Mr. B.K Gupta stated that he can the admission of his daughter Sonia Arora in MBBS through CBSE or DPMT and for that Rs. 22 lacs will be charge from the witness but the deal was struck for Rs. 20 lacs. Mr. B.K Gupta FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.6/42 7 / 42 had filled for form of his daughter of DPMT for CBSE. She could not succeed in the CBSE examination. In DPMT she could not succeed. When witness contacted Mr. Gupta he replied that he got examination in Kolkata medical College in management Kota. Meanwhile one Sanjeev contacted witness that he can get the admision in National Medical College Kolkata for Rs. 18 lacs. This information was given to witness by Accused Sanjeev on telephone. On inquiry witness asked Mr. Sanjeev then he told the witness that he was given the telephone number by Mr. B.K. Gupta. Witness gave his consent ready to give the said amount for the admission of his daughter. On 14.08.2003 on the asking of Mr. Sanjeev and they went in Kolkata by Air alongwith my daughter and Mr. K.K. Sharma. After getting down from the flight he met Mr. Parkash and after hiring a taxi they went in hotel namely MBD and were stayed room no.418. In the hotel they filled the application form and demanded a sum of Rs. 46,000/- by Mr. Prakash and K.K. Sharma. And the accused KK Sharma present in the court. And the amount of Rs. 46,000/- to be deposited in the medical college. Mr. Parkash had taken away the original mark sheet and the certificate and the amount of Rs. 46,000/-. After two hours Mr. Parkash returned in the hotel and told that his daughter had been admitted in the college. The certificate of his daughter was returned to them and certificate had stamp of the National Medical College. He was also shown a cash receipt of Rs. 46,000/- which was also stamped with the stamp of college. Thereafter, Mr. KK Sharma and Mr. Parkash demanded four lack fifty thousand on the pretext work had been done. He was also told that the meetings of the parents had been done in the college and there I card, library card and other document would be given later on. And he was told the meetings of parents will FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.7/42 8 / 42 be held on 24.08.2004. Again said, he do not remember the date on which day the parents of meeting will be held. Therefore, he telephoned call of Mr. Sanjeev came to him in the hotel and inquired about whereabouts of them and they told that they were staying in the hotel. Thereafter, he returned at his house in Delhi alongwith Sh. KK Sharma and his daughter. The receipt of of Rs. 46,000/- was retained by the accused KK Sharma alongwith the folder and he was given the receipt after giving Rs. 13 lacs in Delhi. The amount was paid to KK Sharma and Mr. Sanjeev. Sanjeev and KK Sharma were present identified by the witness. After that witnes became suspicious and he contacted a Mr. AK Dev and Mr. Adhikari in Kolkata. They had told him as he had already faxed the receipts to them and on inquiry they told that the address of the receipt in the residents of some doctors and the receipt is forged. They also inquired from the Principal National Medical College and informed them no admission of his daughter had been given by the college. When he demanded the money back but the accused persons had refused to return the money back. All the above stated amount was withdrawn by him from his account no. 1010811. All the currency notes were of 500 denomination. Late on, he went to the police and FIR of this case has been registered. His complaint was already Ex.PW5/C. In this case. He have handed over all the air tickets to the police officials and police officials seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. He have also handed over 12 th class marksheet alongwith 12th class certificate of his daughter Sonia Arora to IO and both documents were having seal of National Medical College, Calcutta and it were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. He has also handed over the bills of the hotel alongwith the telephone bill of the hotel to IO who seized the same FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.8/42 9 / 42 vide seizure memo proved as Ex.PW5/D. He had also handed over receipt of Rs. 46,000/- to the IO. The abovementioned receipt was of Calcutta National Medical College which was issued in the name of his daughter Sonia Arora. IO seized the same vide seiure memo which was proved as Ex.PW5/E. He do not remember the exact date but during investigation, accused Sanjeev Kumar and K.K. Sharma were called at Mathura Road near Petrol Pump where police arrested them. Thereafter, they went to Madangir at the house of accused Sanjeev. There, police carried out the search and cash around Rs.12 lacs were recovered from the said house. All cash was in the denomination of Rs. 500/-. Other different types of documents including copies of documents of his daughter and briefcase were also recovered from there. He do not remember the details of all the documents. The documents and the briefcase were seized vide seizure memo already proved as Ex PW5/F and Ex.PW5/F-1. The cash along with the briefcase were seized vide seizure memo already plroved as Ex PW5/G. Arrest memos of accused Sanjeev and K.K. Sharma which were already proved as Ex.PW5/H and Ex.PW5/1 respectively. The aforesaid accused persons had come to Mathura Road on a bike and the bike along with keys was also seized vide seizure memo which was already proved as Ex.PW5/J. The accused persons had disclosed that they have purchased the said bike from Ghaziabad and it was without number plate at the time of recovery. After about one month, perhaps, on 23.09.2003, I alongwith police officials went to Calcutta in Rajdhani train. After reaching there, they searched for the other other accused Parkash in the area of PS something Teetu Nagar. They also went to the house of accused Prakash where he was found present and he was arrested. Some documents were also recovered from his FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.9/42 10 / 42 possession. Witness was questioned if there was any other person accompanied Prakash at the house. To this the witness replied that Accused Hira Lal was with him and he was arrested by the police. Accused Prakash was found present at this house when they reached there but he fled from there. Arrest memo of accused Hira Lal was already proved as Ex.PW6/B. Some documents were recovered from accused Hira Lal and same were seized vide seizure memo which was already Ex.PW6/A. The documents seizued vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW5/D are receipts of Hotel MBD which are already proved as Ex.PW5/X-1 to Ex.PW5/X-6, documents seized vide seizure memo which was already proved as Ex.PW5/C are marksheet which was already proved as Ex.PW5/K and Certificate was also proved as Ex.PW5/K-1, both bearing stamp of Medical College, Calcutta, Receipt of Rs. 46,000/- seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/K-2. Air Tickets seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B are Ex.PW5/K-3 to Ex.PW5/K-7. Thereafter, MHC(M) produced two sealed pullandas and one sealed envelope with the seal of RKD and other articles in unsealed condition. The envelope is opened after breaking the seal and found containing photocopies and originals of Marksheet, Provisional Certificate, Certificate, Prospectus of Vardhman Medical College and AIIMS and Entrance Test Form filled in the name of Kishan Kant Sharma and bearing his photograph, of the desrciption as mentioned in seizure memo which was proved as Ex.PW5/F. The same correctly identified by the witness which was proved as Ex.PW5/K- 8(colly). First pullanda sealed with the seal of RKD which was opened after breaking the seal and found containing one suitcase containing stamp of Principal of SRP Inter College, duplicate passbook, one chequebook of SBI, Loose cheques FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.10/42 11 / 42 of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- and other documents as mentioned in seizure memo which was proved as Ex.PW5/F-1. The witness has correctly identified the suitcase and the documents which were proved as Ex.PW5/K-9(colly). Second Pullanda sealed with the seal of SC was opened after breaking the seal and found containing one suitcase bearing the name S.K. Arora. Suitcase is empty and witness had correctly identified the same which was proved as Ex.PW5/K-10 stating that he had given the cash to accused persons in the said suitcae and it was seized vide seizure memo which was proved as Ex.PW5/G.
10. PW- 6 Sh. Prashant Chand deposed that he put his signature on seizure memo of documents which was proved as Ex.PW6/A. He put his signature on arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Hira Lal which was already proved as Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C. He cannot identify the accused Hira Lal. He do not want to say anything more. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State. Witness denied that accused Hira Lal was arrested on 22.09.2003 in his presence. It is wrong to suggest that he had joined the investigation alongwith the IO. It is wrong to suggest that during the investigation, one person Surender Arora was also with IO. It is wrong to suggest that IO made the interrogation from the accused Hira Lal. Witness denied that had IO seized the documents. Witness declined to identify accused Heera Lal in the court.
11. PW- 7 Sh. Arun, Sr. Officer, ICICI Bank deposed that he had brought the statement of account no. 2490901010811 of M/s Kamlesh Engineering Works, 3/42, DSIDC Shed, D-Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.11/42 12 / 42 Indian Evidence Act. The statement which was Ex.PW7/A (colly running into ten pages) and the certificate which was proved as Ex.PW7/B. Earlier the present account was with the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and after merger of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. with ICICI Bank, it had now been maintained by the aforesaid ICICI Bank. He had worked with Sh. Jaipal Deswal, the Sr. Manager of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. In the year 2003 and he could identify his signature. The letter dated 02.09.2003 which was proved as Ex.PW7/C.
12. PW- 8 Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Nodal Officer deposed that the call detail record and CAF in respect of mobile no. 9831393665 had already been weeded out and the same was not available in his office either in Kolkata or in Delhi. The letter written by Sh. Rajan De, the then Sr. Executive, Customer Service Delivery, Bharti, Cellular Ltd. Kolkata which was Mark PW8/A and copy of CDR was Mark PW8/X-1(colly running into twelve pages). Sh. Rajan De had already left the service of his company and his present wherebaout are not available in their office. His letter Ex.PW8/B alongwith copy of instructions in regard to destruction of CAF documents after permanent disconnection was Mark PW8/X-
2. There is no person available in their office who had worked with Sh. Rajan De.
13. PW- 9 Inspector Sunil Kumar deposed that on 21.08.2007, he was posted as SI AEC, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram Delhi. On thay day, complaint of Sh. S.K. Arora which was already proved as Ex.PW5/A was marked to him. He made his endorsement on the said complaint which was proved as Ex.PW9/A. He got entered the present case and carried out investigation. During investigation, FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.12/42 13 / 42 complainant handed over five boarding passes which were taken into police possession vide seizure memo already proved as Ex PW5/B. Complainant also handed over educational certificate of his daughter Sonia Arora which were taken into police possession vide memo already proved as Ex.PW5/C. He also handed over witness hotel/telephone bills. Same were taken into possession and seized vide memo already proved as Ex. PW5/D and receipt of Rs.46,000/- handed over by complainant was taken into police possession vide memo already proved as Ex. PW5/E. The boarding passes/air tickets given by complainant which were already proved as Ex.PW5/K-3 to ExPW5/K-7. Original marksheet and original school certificate which were already ExPW5/K & Ex.PW5/K-1. Original cash receipt which was already proved as Ex.PW5/K-2. The hotel bill which were already Ex. PW5/X-1 to X-6. On 24.08.2003, on secret information at about 12.30 a.m., he apprehended two persons who were identified by complainant as K.K. Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar. Accused K.K. Sharma was present in the court correctly identified. Arrest memo of accused K.K. Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar which were already Ex PW5/H and Ex PW5/I. Their personal search was conducted vide memo which were already Ex. PW5/N and Ex.PW9/C. One mobile phone and boarding pass was recovered from accused K.K. Sharma. Same were taken into police possession vide memo which was already Ex. PW5/P. The boarding pass which was already proved as Ex.PW9/D. The seizure memo of mobile phone of accused K.K. Sharma which was already Ex.PW5/M. Seizure memo of mobile phone recovered from accused Sanjeev Kumar which was already Ex.PW5/L. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused K.K. Sharma and Sanjeev Kuamr which were already proved Ex.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/F. The FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.13/42 14 / 42 motorcycle on which both accused were apprehended was also seized along with documents vide seizure memo already proved as Ex. PW5/J. On 22.09.2003, on sufficient grounds, he arrested accused Hira Lal Shah from Titagarh, West Bengal vide memo already proved as Ex.PW6/B. His personal search was conducted vide memo already proved as Ex.PW6/B. From his possession, one folder containing the document pertaining to Sonia Arora were taken. Same were taken into police possession vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW6/A. On 24.08.2003, at the instance of accused K.K. Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar, he had recovered one suitcase containing Rs. 12.40 lacs cash as well as documents taken into police possession vide seizure memo already proved as Ex. PW5/G and PW5/F. Another suitcase made Arestocrat containing some documents was also recovered at their instance which was seized vide seizure memo already proved as Ex. PW5/F-1.The above exhibits were converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of RKD. One library card, college I-card, one pink colour fee-book of college and one hostel allotment form are Ex.PW9/G-1 to Ex.PW9/G-4 which were recovered from the possession of accused Hira Lal. The recovered document of Sonia Arora were got verified from the Calcutta National Medical College. Reports issued by the then Principal Prof. B. Saha Dalal and Satyajeet Maiti, Account Officer are Ex.PW9/H-1 and Ex.PW9/H-2. As per the report, the recovered documents were fake and were not issued by the Calcutta National Medical College in favour of Sonia Arora. (collected the account detail as well as report regarding the recovered cash from Bank of Rajasthan, Shalimar Bagh Branch. Delhi. The report was already proved as Ex.PW7/C. The account maintained in the Bank of Rajasthan was of complainant. The bank gave the detail of withdrawal of money FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.14/42 15 / 42 which was already proved as Ex.PW7/C. The detail in the report matched with the cash recovered from the possession of accused Sanjeev Kumar and K.K. Sharma. The suitcase in which the cash was recovered also identified by the complainant. I collected the call detail of the relevant mobile phone numbers which were used in the present case by the accused persons. CDR of Mob. No.9831393665 which was issued in the name of accused Hira Lal already Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/X-1. The certificate and CDR of another mobile number ie. 9830494420 are Ex.PW9/I and Ex.PW9/I-1 (colly). I collected the report regarding the verification of documents/bills of MBD Hotel Airpor Hotel, Dudum Airport, Calcutta. The same was already proved as Ex.PW9/J. The bills of the Hotel provided by the MBD Hotel were already proved as Ex.PW5/X-1 to Ex.PW5/X-6 proving the stay of complainant in the hotel and use of landline number by the accused persons from the said hotel. Witness had recorded the statements of the witnesses on relevant dates and time and had submitted the chargesheet against accused K.K. Sharma, Sanjeev and Hira Lal Shah before the Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, MHC(M) produced the case property i.e. mobile phone of make Motorola. Witness stated that same was recovered from the possession of accused Sanjeev Kumar. Same was proved Ex.P-1. MHC(M) also produced another mobile of make Sony Ericson. Witness stated that the same was recovered from the possession of accused K.K. Sharma. Same was proved as Ex.P-2. MHC(M) also produced another pouch containing documents of the motorcycle. Witness has identified the documents. Same was proved as Ex.P-3. MHC(M) also produced one sealed envelope with court seal. Same was containing documents which were recovered at the instance of accused K.Κ. Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar from house No.9/200, FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.15/42 16 / 42 second floor. DDA Flats, Madangir. Same was proved as Ex.P-4(colly). MHC(M) also produced two sealed pullandas with court seal. Both the pullandas are containing suitcase. One cherry brown colour suitcase with name of sticker of complainant S.K. Arora was given by the complainant to accused K.K. Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar and the same was recovered from the possession of accused persons from which cash of Rs.12.40 lacs was recovered. The suitcase was opened with the password 999. Same was proved as Ex.P-5. Another suitcase receoved from the possession of accused K.K. Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar containing documents of various colleges were recovered from the suitcase. Same was proved as Ex.P-6. Suitcase was containing the documents as mentioned in seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW5/F-1. MHC(M) submitted that the motorcycle has been deposited in the District malkhana. PS Narela.
14. PW- 10 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternative Nodal Officer, Vodafone deposed that he had appeared on behalf of Sh. S.K. Deb who was posted in the then Hutch Company and who had signed the letter already proved as Ex.PW9/I and provided the CDR Ex.PW9/I-1 to the IO during investigation. He had left the services and now residing somewhere in Kolkata. Signature at point A on letter Ex.PW9/I is of Sh. S.K. Deb. He had brought one another letter form the record of office signed by Sh. S.K. Deb for comparison of signature. Said letter was already proved as Ex.PW10/A.
15. PW- 11 Inspector Rajeev Kumar deposed that on 23.08.2003, he was posted as SI in Anti Extortion Cell, Crime Branch, Sector-8. R.K. Puram, Delhi. On that day, FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.16/42 17 / 42 he joined the investigation with the IO SI Sunil Kumar. During the investigation on 23.08.2003, complainant produced documents before the IO i.e. five air tickets. IO seized the same vide seizure memo which was already proved as Ex.PW5/B. Complainant also produced original educational certificate of his daughter as mentioned in seizure memo which was already proved as Ex.PW5/C. Complainant also produced hotel bills and telephone bills, same were seized by IO vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW5/D. Complainant also produced receipt of Rs. 46000/-, IO seized the same vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW5/E. On 24.08.2003, accused Sanjeev Kumar and Krishan Kant Sharma were apprehended at about 12.30 midnight from Gali no. 9, Main Road, Madangir DDA Flats, Delhi) After interrogation, both of them arrested by the IO vide memo already proved as Ex.PW5/H and Ex.PW5/1. 1O also conducted personal search of accused Krishan Kant Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar vide memo already proved as Ex.PW5/N and Ex.PW9/C. IO seized the motorcycle alongwith documents and key of the same on which accused persons were found vide memo already proved as Ex.PW5/J. IO also seized one mobile phone from the possession of accused Sanjeev Kumar make Motorola with SIM vide memo already proved as Ex.PW5/L. IO also seized one mobile phone from the possession of accused Krishan Kant Sharma make Sony Ericson with SIM vide memo already proved as Ex.PW5/M. IO also seized one boarding pass from the possession of accused Krishan Kant vide memo already proved as Ex.PW5/P. IO also recorded disclosure statements of both the accused vide memos already proved as Ex.PW9/E and Ex. PW9/E1. At the instance of accused Sanjeev Kumar and Krishan Kant, IO recovered and seized one cherry colour suit case make FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.17/42 18 / 42 ECHOLAC containing Rs.12.40 lacs and some documents vide seizure memo already Ex.PW5/G. The said suit case was protected with inbuilt password (combination lock of triple nine). The documents which were found in the suit case were also seized vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW5/F. Aforesaid articles i.e. suit case and documents and cash were recovered from one of the room situated at the second floor of the house bearing no. 200. Gali No. 9. DDA Flats, Madangir. Delhi. The said suit case and cash was sealed by IO with the seal of RKD. At the aforesaid house, one another room was also searched at the instance of both the accused, one suit case make Aristocrat was also seized vide selare memo already proved as Ex.PW5/F, detailed particulars of the documents and suit case as mentioned in the seizure memo. Thereafter. he alongwith accused persons and IO came to the office Crime Branch where IO recorded his statement. Accused Krishan Kant present today in the court, correctly identified by the witness. Accused Sanjeev Kumar is PO. Witness stated that he can identify the case properties if shown to him. Case properties were already proved as Ex.PW5/K8 (Colly), Ex.PW5/K9 (Colly), & Ex.PW5/K10 (Colly).
16. PW- 12 Sh. Ajay Kumar Ray, Principal Calcutta National Medical College deposed that he was presently posted at aforesaid post in aforesaid college. He was summoned witness. He had brought original dispatch register containing detail of dispatch of letter No.CNMC/3095/P dated 24.09.2003 and Better No.CNMC/6346/P dated 29.08.2003 and correct dispatch number of this letter was CNMC/546/P dated 29.08.2003 as mentioned in record register of dispatch. Both the letters were issued on behalf of the then Principals. Letters are already FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.18/42 19 / 42 proved as Ex.PW9/H-1 and Ex.PW9/H-2. He was submitting photocopy of dispatch register containing details of both the letters. Both the copies were already proved as Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B (OSR). The aforesaid letters were issued by the then Principal after verification of documents of the FIR in question sent by IO and as per said letters dispatched from his college, the said documents were found fake. He had also brought original Receipt Form book which was being used in the year 2003. Photocopy of First page and last page of the said Receipt Form book which were already proved as Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D (OSR). Said receipt was being issued to the students on payment of their fee. Thereafter, recovered Receipt Book already proved as Ex.PW9/G-3 shown to the witnes who compared the same with original/genuine bill book of college and stated that Ex.PW9/G-3 was fake.
17.When prosecution concluded its evidence, the accused was afforded an opportunity by the court to explain all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him in terms of Section 313 of the Crpc. The accused denied the allegations and claimed innocence. They alleged that they were falsely implicated in the case. All accused were given opportunity to lead defence evidence, but they refused to lead evidence. On statement of accused persons, their opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed.
18.The matter was thereafter fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard from Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused Hiral Lal and accused Kishankant Sharma.
FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.19/42 20 / 42
19.I have heard the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the accused Kishankant Sharma and have also carefully perused the record of the case.
20.I have heard final arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and also have perused the entire judicial records, carefully.
21.It is argued on behalf of Ld. APP that in view of the testimonies of Ms. Sonia Arora and PW Surender Arora and other witnesses prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also argued that the testimonies of these witnesses remain unimpeachable even during cross examination. Hence, it is argued that accused be convicted for the offence charged and sentenced as per law. Ld. APP for the State argued that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the accused should be convicted. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused as there are numerous loopholes in the prosecution's story. He argued that in view of the shortcomings in prosecution's case, the accused ought to be acquitted.
22.Per contra, it is argued on behalf of accused KK Sharma that he was not part of the criminal conspiracy and was acting on the instruction of accused Sanjeev Kumar. Accused Sanjeev and Prakash are the main culprist in this case. It is also FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.20/42 21 / 42 argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted.
23.I perused the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and also perused the statement of accused. Accused was charged for the offence u/s 120-b, 420,468 and 471 IPC.
24.ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS a. On 01.06.2004, charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 420/120B/468/471 IPC. The issue whether the prosecution has been able to drive home the culpability of the accused persons under the above said sections shall be assessed separately herein below. b. The primary allegation against both the accused persons is that they in furtherance of their common intention hatched a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the same deceived the complainant by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the complainant to pay Rs.17,96000/- as earnest money for securing admission of daughter of the complainant Ms Sonia Arora in the Kolkata Medical College without having any intention right from the beginning to secure admission favour of the complainant. Thereafter the accused persons prepared a forged fee receipt and ID Card in the name of daughter of the complainant and delivered it to the complainant on the pretext that the daughter has secured the admission and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420/120B/468/471 IPC. c. Firstly the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120 A and 120 b FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.21/42 22 / 42 will be discussed. As defined under Section 120A of the IPC, the act of agreeing by two or more persons to commit or cause to commit an illegal activity or a legal activity, which is accomplished through an unlawful method, is regarded as a criminal conspiracy. Mere intention to commit a crime by one person is not being punished, but it is punished as a criminal conspiracy when such a mental element takes the form of a physical act of an agreement between two or more persons. Hence the two elements required to prove the act of conspiracy as firstly, Agreement. The first ingredient of a criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons. This agreement is the crux of the offence and can be explicit or implicit, written or oral. The second element is the intention to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The intent should directly relate to the outcome that the conspirators plan to achieve. In the present case the conspiracy was of doing an illegal act of cheating the complainant on the pretext of proving an admission to his daughter in Calcutta Medical college and thereby taking the money but not providing the admission.
d. For proving the conspiracy the prosecution had to prove that there was a conspiracy by all the three accused persons i.e agreement or meeting to do the unlawful act of the cheating of the complainant prior to attempting cheating.The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made, and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration, however, it may be. The actus reus in a FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.22/42 23 / 42 conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful act at the same time or in the same place, it is necessary to say a meeting of mind, a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose. There is no direct evidence( written or oral) for conspiracy in the present case as the accused Heera lal and KK Sharma clearly stated that they have no knowledge regarding the conspiracy. No doubt in the case of conspiracy, the direct evidence is difficult to found. In such a case a conspiracy can be inferred by the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide the complicity of the accused. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purpose of drawing an inference should be prior on point of time, then the actual commission of the offences in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
e. In the present case, it has come in the story of the prosecution that accusedSanjeev(PO), Prakash(PO), KK Sharma and Heera lal conspired to cheat the complainant for getting her admission in MBBS course in Calcutta National Medical College and took the complainant to Calcutta, and showed her that she is admitted in the said medical college by providing Free deposit receipt, library card, student id card and affixing stamp of the college on her mark sheet and 12th class certificate. f. Firstly, the aspect of meeting of minds for the conspiracy will is analysed.
The PW5 (Surender Arora) stated in his examination in chief that he FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.23/42 24 / 42 contacted BK Gupta to get the admission of his daughter in MBBS Course in a medical college and he was asking for the sum of Rs.22,00,000/-. In the meanwhile accused Sanjeev called him and offered the admission in Calcutta National College and he was asking for the sum of Rs.18,00,000/- Accused Sanjeev informed him that he got his number from BK Gupta. Hence, at this stage no other accused was in picture. PW1 Anil Juneja stated in his examination that he had rented out in May/june 2003 second floor of flat number 9/200 DDA flats,Madangir Delhi to one Sanjeev and one KK Sharma also used to live with him. He declined to identify accused KK Sharma but at the time of his arrest the keys of the said flat were seized from the possession of accused KK Sharma as per the seizure memo/jama talashi PW5/N. During SA accused KK Sharma did not dispute the fact that he was in possession of the keys of the house. Accused KK Sharma during his statement under section 313 CrPC stated that he never resided on the said address however no explanation is brought fourth by the accused KK Sharma if he was not residing in the second floor of flat number 9/200 DDA flats,Madangir Delhi, why was he having the keys of the same. In boarding pass bearing Ex.PW5/K7 of accused KK Sharma was also handed over to the IO from the said residence. As per seizure memo PW5/F entrance form bearing photographs of the accused KK Sharma was also seized from the same residence. The accused did not show his actual residence to the police if he was not staying at the given address. Hence, considering the circumstantial evidence prosecution is able to prove that accused KK Sharma was living at the second floor of flat number 9/200 FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.24/42 25 / 42 DDA flats,Madangir Delhi. This is important because it is accused KK Sharma who accompanied Sonia Arora and Devender Arora on 14.09.2024 The fact that that he travelled to Calcutta with Surender Aroroa and Sonia Arora is proved via boarding pass bearing Ex.PW5/K4 and boarding pass of Surender Arora is PW5/K6. Library card, student ID card was also recoved which also shows that all documents were prepared before7hand as a part of conspiracy. The act of approaching the complainant and booking tickets to travel together preparing college documents requires prior planning. This also proves that accused Sanjeev(PO) and KK Sharma acted upon the conspiracy.
g. Cash amounting to Rs.12.40 lakhs was also recovered from the possession of accused Sanjeev and K Shrama and same is proved by the seizure memo EX PW-5/G bearing signature of accused Sanjeev Kumar (PO). As per the statement of PW-5 a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- was given by the complainant to accused Sanjeev Kumar (PO) and KK Sharma by way of cash in a red suitcase. The cash was in the denomination of Rs.500/- and the same was withdrawn from the Rajasthan Bank from his account no. 1010811. The prosecution has proved that the complainant has withdrawn the money from his bank account by examining PW-7. PW-7 confirmed that earlier the bank account was with Bank of Rajasthan. PW-7 produced the bank account statement of the complainant and the details of the withdrawal of money matched with the cash recovered from the possession of accused Sanjeev Kumar and KK Sharma. The briefcase Ex. P-5 was also recovered from the FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.25/42 26 / 42 flat at Madangiri at the instance of Sanjeev Kumar and KK Sharma and the same was duly identified by the complainant. The briefcase was bearing an initial of SK. The money seized from accused Sanjeev Kumar and KK Sharma was also in the denomination of Rs. 500/-. Accused KK Sharma in his defence u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that money was not recovered from his possession but from the possession of mother of accused Sanjeev Kumar. This defence appears to be very misplaced in the facts and given circumstances as PW 6 stated that accused Sanjeev Kumar was residing at 2nd floor, 9/200, DDA flats, Madangir, Delhi. No other address of the mother of the accused Sanjeev Kumar was stated at any other stage of the proceedings. PW-5 also confirmed that the cash was recovered in his presence. PW-5 was not cross examined by accused KK Sharma on this aspect. Hence, the prosecution is able to prove that the money which was recovered at the instance of accused Sanjeev Kumar (PO) and KK Sharma is the same money that was given by the complainant to the accused persons to securing the admission of his daughter.
h. Accused KK Sharma admitted his presence in Calcutta alongwith Accused Sanjeev(PO) and Accused Prakash(PO) with Surender Arora and Sonia Arora. All three accused Sanjeev, Prakash and Krishan Kumar were in Calcutta at the time of admission were actively taking part in getting the complainant and his daughter to Calcutta, getting the documents filled for the admission, accepting the money for the admission and showing the complainant and his daughter the Calcutta Medical College where accused FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.26/42 27 / 42 KK Sharma stated that daughter of the complainant will be going to this college. This clearly shows that Accused Sanjeev, Prakash and Krishan Kumar were acting with prior meeting of minds towards the agreement and were actively involved in the execution of the conspiracy. Even after commission of the offence, fact that accused KK Sharma and Sanjeev were arrested from the same house and accused KK Sharma was having the keys of the said home also shows that they continued the conspiracy and were sharing the proceeds of the same.
i. Now the circumstances in Calcutta are considered. As per PW2-Sonia Arora, she went to Calcutta with her father and Accused KK Sharma and that she met Prakash on 14.08.2002 in Calcutta. He dropped them to the hotel and left. Prakash also came and got some forms filled and took her original 12th class certificate. He also showed the receipt of Rs. 46,000/- bearing Ex.PW-5/K2 showing her admission in the college and had shown witness and her father the medical college. Accused KK Sharma had also accompanied them and witness returned to Delhi with her father and accused KK Sharma. Witness also correctly identified accused KK Sharma and stated that they also met accused Sanjeev at the hotel in the presence of KK Sharma and accused KK Sharma and Sanjeev left together. Upon return to Delhi as well accused Sanjeev and KK Sharma came to the house of the complainant and Rs.12 lacs were handed over to both accused Sanjeev and KK Sharma in presence of a nebighour Sh. Satish Aggarwal(PW-3).Both accused gave yellow receipt to PW5 confirming the admission of the FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.27/42 28 / 42 witness. PW3 Satish Aggarwal as well, identified accused KK Sharma and Sanjeev and stated that PW5 gave them 13 lakhs in cash and a yellow colour receipt of Rs. 46,000/- was handed over to PW5 as admission fees to the medical college. PW3 also confirmed that this amount was given to accused Sanjeev and KK Sharma for securing an admission of PW-2 in medical college. This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity. The defence of accused KK Sharma is that he was simply accompanying the complainant and his daughter and was working on the instructions of accused Sanjeev and was not part of any planning of criminal conspiracy. In the present case Accused Sanjeev(PO), Prakash(PO) and accused KK Sharma are three persons who have appeared from the beginning till the time of their arrest. In fact role of accused KK Sharma is same as accused Sanjeev(PO). The act of accompanying Surender Arora and Sonia Arora to Calcutta, showing the medical college in Calcutta and accepting money in Calcutta and Delhi are all the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Accused KK Sharma stated in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC that he did not anything about the conspiracy and was acting on the instructions of the accused Sanjeev. This submission seems abrupt in the light of overall facts of the case. The accused KK Sharma has not given any reasonable explantation if why he was witnessing exchange of money for admission of a student in a medical college.. The entire procedure of admission has taken place inside a hotel room and accused KK Sharma was present there at all times but he seems to be unaware what is happening all around when in fact he himself was appearing foe entrance exams as his entrance form was FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.28/42 29 / 42 recovered from the flat in Madangir. Accused KK Sharma has shown the college recipt to the Sonia Arora and no explantation is given as to how he came in possession of the same. The defence taken by the accused KK Sharma by merely denying the allegations without giving any reasonable explanation is extremely weak. Accused has not given any explanation as to how the mark sheet of Sonia Arora was bearing the stamp of Calcutta National Medical College. If the defence of the accused KK Sharma is taken as it is, it appears he was a simply doing all the illegal acts he was delegated to do without questioning its legality which also makes him a passive participant in the conspiracy. However considering the facts of the present case accused KK Sharma was present from the initiation till his arrest in this case hence, prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Accused KK Sharma was one of the conspirators.
j. Role of Heera lal is required to be seen in the present conspiracy. During final arguments it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that he is brother in law of accused Prakash and on the day of his arrest since police was not able to arrest Prakash, they had arrested accused Heera Lal instead and planted the documents on him which were originally brought by accused Prakash. He was not part of the conspiracy.PW5 stated in his cross examination that neother him nor his daughter made any deal with the accused Heera lal and he alongwith Police had gone to the house of Prakash to arrest Prakash. In this light it is important to see if at all accused Heera law was in fact part of the criminal conspiracy in the present case or not.
FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.29/42 30 / 42 Communication and acquaintances among all the conspirators is not neccessary. Supreme Court inChaman Lal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2009). There may be a common leader who communicates or passes commands to succeed in the commission of a crime which they are planning. Thus, consensus among parties is important, not communication and acquaintance.The Supreme Court, in K. R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (2006), mentioned that, to punish someone under Section 120B of the IPC, such a person need not take part from the beginning to the end of the whole plan that was conspired by them. Some of the parties may even give up the risk in the middle. If a few conspirators did not actively indulge in the commission of the offence or do a legal act with illegal methods but tacitly agreed to the central conspiracy and did not give up the risk by quitting, they will obtain a conviction from the court and be punished under Section 120B of the IPC.The proximity of time when the accused Prakash was present at the house of the accused heera lal is relevant. PW Prashant Chand is a witness who was witness to the document(Ex. PW 6/C) which were seized from accused Heera Lal. However witness declined to identify the accused Heera Lal. The witness has admitted his signatures on the personal search memo(PW6/B) and arrest memo(PW6/C) of accused Heera Lal. Witness did not stated that the some other person was personally searched and arrested by the IO and the arrest memo and personal search memo pertains to some other person other than the accused. Prosecution has not able to show that on the basis of the CDR there was a regular communication of accused Heera Lal with either Co-accused Sanjeev, FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.30/42 31 / 42 Prakash and KK Sharma at the time of commission of the offence or at the time of hatching the conspiracy. PW9 admitted in his cross examination that accused Sanjeev and KK sharma did not name Hira lal Shaw in their respective disclosure statements.Complainant Surender Arora and well as his The CDR of the phone connection used by accused Prakash was also not in the name of accused Hira lal. Hence, prosecution is not able to prove that Accused Heera lal was part of the conspiracy.
k. Now the second offence charged under section 420 of IPC will be discussed. Section 420 IPC defines cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property which reads as under:- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
l. In Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal [(2022) 7 SCC 124], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the State vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr following ingredients need to be proved:-a) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and b) the person cheated must be FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.31/42 32 / 42 dishonestly induced to; (i) deliver property to any person; or (ii) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
m. Hence , considering the above discussion, it is clear that deception is an essential ingredient of commission of offence of cheating. In common parlance, deception is understood to mean intentionally leading someone to believe something that is not true or false. This deliberate leading may be direct or indirect and by words or conduct. It may be expressed or implied in the nature of a transaction. For an offence under Section 420, the fraudulent or dishonest intention to conceal facts must be present at the time of making a promise or representation. The prosecution needs to prove that the offender had known or ought to have known that the representation made by them was false. Moreover, the representation has to be made specifically with the intent to deceive another person. According to the explanation under Section 415, dishonest concealment of facts is deception. This concealment itself need not be illegal and can even be practised when there is no legal obligation to speak. A case where the accused makes a promise that they had no intention to keep would fall under cheating. This lack of intention must be proved at the time the representation was made or when the inducement was offered by an accused. How a deception is conducted upon the complainant differs from fats and circumstances of the each case.
n. Coming to the facts of the present case. Complainant admitted that he paid FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.32/42 33 / 42 money to the accused to secure admission for his daughter in Kolkata Medical College. It is not a disputed fact that this college is a Government Medical College. As per the complainant he wanted to secure admission for her daughter in the management quota.
o. It is stated during final arguments that it was in the knowledge of the complainant that there is no seat of Management quota in the said college else he would have applied into the college directly as his son is also perusing MBBS course from a private Medical College in Maharastra. What we have to see in the present case whether the complainant was deceived in the first place or not. If that complainant was pursuing for the Management quota seat and he applied for the same by way of admission form then there is a deception but if the complainant was aware that there is no seat of Management quota in the college then there is no point in seeking admission for the said seat.
p. If the version of the complainant is taken, there must be a specific procedure for the students to secure an admission by management quota in this college. Admission in the medical colleges is either by open competition or by management quota. The prosecution have not placed on record the notification/advertisement of the relevant year of the college in response to which the complainant applied for his daughter which would clearly show the distribution of the seats in MBBS course. No witness is examined by the Prosecution from the Calcutta National medical College to prove that there were seats available in the management quota in the said FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.33/42 34 / 42 college. Complainant did not state that he has mentioned in the admission form that he applied for the seat of Management quota. In fact the application form is an important document in this regard. As per the statement of PW Sonia Arora and PW Devender Arora, the admission form was filled by her in the hotel in Calcutta and it was taken by the accused Prakash(PO) and KK Sharma. Nothing is stated by these witnesses that they had retained a copy of the same or under what category the admission was applied. No witness is examined from the Calcutta National medical College to prove that there was a provision of admission by management quota and number of seats per course assigned for the same. Hence, the prosecution is not able to prove that there was the seat of management quota in Calcutta National Medical College in the Academic Year 2003-04. Since there was no seat of Management quota, there is no possibility of complainant to apply for the same. Hence, the prosecution is not able to prove to establish the complainant was deceived to believe that admission can be secured for his daughter Sonia Arora in the management quota.
q. With respect to the false misrepresentation and delivery of property the evidence on record is examined. It is clear from the record that the accused persons were not the appropriate authority to grant the admission to the daughter of the complainant in the Calcutta National Medical College yet they assured to the complainant that they can assure admission for her. Believing the same, the complainant proceeded to Calcutta alongwith his daughter. Hence, prosecution is able to prove sufficient that accused FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.34/42 35 / 42 persons also misrepresented to the complainant that they can get admission of her daughter. With respect to the delivery of property, the same has occurred on three instances. Rs. 46,000/- and Rs. 4.5 lacs were handed over in Calcutta and Rs. 13 lacs were handed over in Delhi. Rs. 46,000/- and Rs. 4.5 lacs were given in the presence of Ms. Sonia Arora (PW-2) and Rs. 13 lacs was given in the presence of PW-2 and PW-3 Sh. Satish Aggarwal. Both the witness have stood constant with their statement before the police and before the court and there is no contradiction in their statement. Presence of accused KK Sharma alongwith complainant and Ms. Sonia Arora and Satish Aggarwal is not disputed by accused KK Sharma. Accused was identified by PW-3. Further, as far as delivery of the money is concerned, the same is discussed in detail in the above paragraph (26-h). hence, prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the delivery of property took place between the complainant and accused persons. However, delivery of property is one of the elements to prove the offence of cheating, however, mere delivery will not be prove the offence of cheating as already discussed above. The prosecution is unable to prove that the delivery of property was on account of deception. Therefore, the offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC is not proved.
r. Now the offence under section 468 IPC will be examined. As per section 468 of IPC, Forgery for purpose of cheating.-- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.35/42 36 / 42 description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove that the documents in question were forged. This requires demonstrating that the documents were not issued by the relevant authority and that the signatures were not put by authorized persons . In the present case the said offence is stated to be committed by the accused for the preparation of forged Library case , student identity card, recipt of Rs.46,000/- showing admission of the Sonia arora in Calcutta national medical College and receipt book of Calcutta National Medical College, hence the concerned witness from the Calcutta National Medical College is the best witness to prove the same. The documents receipt of Rs.46,000/- showing admission of the Sonia Arora in Calcutta national medical College was handed over by the complainant to the IO. Rest of the documents Library case , student identity card, and recipt book of Calcutta National Medical College were recovered from the possession of the Accused Heera lal who got it from accused Prakash(PO).
s. Firstly it will be analysed from the record it the prosecution is able to prove that the documents are forged or not. As per the charge the accused persons committed forgery of a cash receipt of Rs.46,000/- showing the same as the fees of Calcutta National Medical College and identity card issued in the name of Ms. Sonia Arora, daughter of the complainant. Prosecution has relied upon document PW9/H1which is a letter dated 24.09.2003 sent by Principal , Calcutta national Medical College, Calcutta. As per this FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.36/42 37 / 42 document, five documents submitted for verification were (1)library card in the name of Sonia Arora, (2)Identity card in the name of Sonia Arora, (3)Prescribed form of Hostel accommodation,(4) the fee book issued to Sonia Arora and a (5)plastic folder mentioning the name of Calcutta National Medical College. It is stated in this letter itself that these documents are not genuine and not issued to Ms. Sonia Arora from this end. Further by another letter Following was the query put for the purpose of investigation to the Principal of Calcutta National Medical College and the respose was receive vide letter dated 29.08.2003 Ex. PW9/H2.
Query Response
Whether the stamp affixed on The stamp affixed is not
back of mark sheet and genuine and it is not our
certificate of Sonia Arora is practice to affix stamp on the
genuine or otherwise? back of mark sheet.
Whether the money receipt This document is not
bearing number 36 dated genuine. Money receipt
14.08.2023 has been issued by issued by the college is quiet
your college? different.
Whether the address Address is not genuine and
mentioned in the money money receipt issued by the
receipt (Calcutta National college do not bears such
Medical College, 32 Sundari name and address, actually
Mohan Avenue) is genuine or address of college is 32,Gora
FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.37/42
38 / 42
otherwise? Chand Road, Calcutta-14.
Whether admission of Sonia No such name i.e.Sonia Arora
Arora has been done in your found admitted in the College
college this year? in the said year.
t. PW-12 Ajay Kumar Ray, Principal, Calcutta National Medical College was examined to prove Ex.PW9/H1.Witness admitted that the letter bearing EX.PW9/H1 and PW9/H2 was dispatched from the college as per the dispatch registers. The dispatch entry was also stated in the evidence and its copy was filed and exhibited as PW12/A and PW12/B. Witness also stated that the letters were issued by the then Principal after verification of the documents. It was also stated that both these letters were issued on behalf of the then Principals. Witness also brought the original receipt book form for comparing it with the receipt book PW9/G3.Upon comparison of the same from record, witness stated that PW9/G3 is fake. This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of Accused Heera Lal and not cross examined by accused KK Sharma. The accused persons are not able to raise any doubt testimony of the said witness. On the basis of the testimony of PW12 and Ex. PW9/HI the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that library card in the name of SoniAa Arora( Ex.PW9/G1),Identity card in the name of Sonia Arora (PW9/G2),Prescribed form of Hostel accommodation(PW9/G4),the fee book issued to Sonia Arora(PW9/G3) were forged documents. What is important is the intention at the time of FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.38/42 39 / 42 creation of such forged documents As per the section 468 IPC the forged documents should have been created with the intention to be used to commit the offence of cheating. Accused persons Sanjeev(PO), Prakahs(PO) and KK Sharma were knew that that on the basis of these documents the admission cannot be secured in the Calcutta national Medical College nor they were created upon the instructions of the college. It is not disputed by the accused KK Sharma that these documents were handed over to the Complainant, which also proves that they were created to assure that Sonia Arora has secured an admission in Calcutta national medical College. It is proved from the testimony of Sonia Arora, Satish and Surender Aroroa that on the basis of these documents they presumed that Sonia Arora has secured the admission in teh college. After showing the documents Accused KK Sharma has shown the complainant and Sonia Arora , the medical college from outside stating that she will be studying in the said college. The intention to create the documents to cheat the complainant and his daughter is proved by the prosecution. Hence prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that offence under 468 IPC was committed by the Accused KK Sharma.
u. Now commission of offence under section 471 IPC will be examined. As per the charge during the transactions in furtherance of criminal conspiracy accused persons under forged cash receipt of Rs.46,000/- and a forged ID Card as genuine by delivering the same to the complainant having reason to believe that the same was forged. As per section 471 IPC. Using as genuine FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.39/42 40 / 42 a forged document or electronic record - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
v. Accused KK Sharma at not stage denied the knowledge that the documents supplied to the complainant and her daughter were forged. It is clear from the record that the documents were prepared to show that Ms. Sonia Arora has secured admission in Calcutta National Medical College. If the sequence in which the documents are handed over is seen from the record, becomes clear that the same were delivered to convince the complainant regarding the admission of his daughter in Calcutta National Medical College. Ex. PW-5/K2 (receipt of Rs. 46,000/-) was shown to the complainant after the admission form was filled and the accused Prakash (PO) and KK Sharma left with Rs. 46,000/- stating that it is required to deposit as the admission fees and the same was handed over stating that by way of this receipt the admission of Ms. Sonia Arora is confirmed in Calcutta National Medical College. It is stated by PW-5 that after the payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- in Calcutta, he was informed by accused Prakash and KK Sharma that the meeting will be held in college, an ID card and library card will be given later. All the other documents i.e. library card (PW-9/G1), student identity card (PW-9/G2), hostel allotment form (PW- 9/G-4), fee book of college (PW-9/G-3) were also recovered which clearly FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.40/42 41 / 42 shows that all the documents which are usually required for any student after the admission in an educational institute were forged and prepared by the accused persons. All the documents are already proved as forged on the basis of testimony of PW-12 (Ex. PW-12/A and Ex. PW-12/B). At no stage it is brought out by either the accused or the complainant that the documents were prepared for any other purpose other than to show that Ms. Sonia Arora has secured admission in Calcutta National Medical College. Accused KK Sharma stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that he does not know anything about the conspiracy and was working on the instructions of accused Sanjeev, however, accused did not explain as to why no questions were raised by him when these documents were not procured from the college itself. This clearly proves that accused KK Sharma had reason to believe that the documents were forged. Hence, prosecution is able to prove that the documents i.e. library card (PW-9/G1), student identity card (PW- 9/G2), hostel allotment form (PW-9/G-4), fee book of college (PW-9/G-3) and receipt of Rs. 46,000/(Ex. PW-5/K2) which are the forged documents were used by accused KK Sharma knowingly/having reason to believe that it is a forged document.
25.Therefore, in light of the above stated facts, circumstances and evaluation of evidence in its totality, I am of the considered opinion that the accused Krishankant Sharma be acquitted for offence u/s 420 IPC and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B/468 & 471 IPC and accused Hira Lal FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.41/42 42 / 42 Shaw is acquitted for the offence u/s 120B,420,468 & 471 IPC
26.Let the accused Krishankant Sharma be heard on the point of sentence. Let a copy of this judgment and order be supplied to the accused free of cost.
NIHARIKA Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.06.29
23:43:01 +0530
(This judgment contains 42 pages and (Niharika Kumar Sharma) all have been signed by undersigned) A.C.M.M. (North)/Rohini Courts Delhi/29.06.2024 FIR No.498/2003 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no.42/42