Delhi District Court
State vs Raju Ram on 19 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PANDEY, MM-06 (N)
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs Raju Ram
FIR No. : 184/2009
U/S : 419/120B IPC
P.S. : Adarsh Nagar
JUDGMENT
a) CIS No. of the case : 5285078/2016 b) CNR number of the case : DLNT02-000492-2009 c) Date of institution of the case : 29.02.2012 d) Date of commission of offence : 19.08.2009 e) Name of the complainant : SI Dhrampal f) Name of the accused : Raju Ram S/o Sh. Hira Ram f) Offence charged with : 419/120 B IPC g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty h) Arguments heard on : 22.08.2022 i) Final order : CONVICTED j) Date of Judgment : 17.09.2022 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly stated that on unknown date, time and place accused person along with other co accused Pukh Raj Bishonoi(PO) entered into a criminal conspiracy at unknown place in order to FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 1 of 10 commit cheating by impersonation during the Examination of Recruitment of Constables in Delhi Police and in pursuance of that conspiracy, on 19.08.2009 at 7:30 AM at Nirankari Ground, Delhi Jal Board Ground, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi the accused impersonated himself as Pukh Raj and also carrying Admit Card bearing Roll No. 439630 and thus the accused committed the offence of 419/120B IPC. Investigation was carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused person was consequently summoned. A charge u/s 419/120B IPC was framed against accused person on 30.06.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined total of 11 witnesses and exhibited documents.
4. The testimony of the prosecution witness in brief is discussed here as follows:
5. PW-1/ Inspector Dharmpal stated that on 19.08.2009 he was posted at PS Model Town as SI and was signed duty in the recruitment examination of constables at Nirankari Ground, Delhi, Adarsh Nagar. It is submitted that the said area was divided in various sections and Section "M" sector 3, Line 85 Roll No. 439625 to 439650 were assigned to him and as per his duty at around 7:30 AM he came to mark attendance of the roll no. 439630 and then the operator Manish Kumar informed him that the biometric of said person is not matching with the date base.
FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 2 of 10 Thereafter, immediately he informed his senior and the accused was taken into custody. He further stated to have handed over the accused with his admit card to SI Madan Mohan and he correctly identified the accused in the court. And also identified the admit card of the accused Ex. P1.
During crossÂexamination, by the defence counsel he stated that the present complaint was written in the presence of Inspector Lakhmichand and SI Madan Mohan along with one constable reached at the spot. He admitted that there were CCTV cameras were installed but the IO did not search any CCTV footage. He denied the suggestion that the quarrel took place between the biometric operator and the accused Pukh Raj.
6. PW 2 / ASI Prahlad is a formal witness and on 19.08.2009 he registered the FIR on handing over the rukka to him by Ct. Rajesh on the direction of SI Madan Mohan. He brought the original register in the court and the copy of FIR is Ex. PW2/A and he also made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/B. But the said witness was not cross-examined by the defence counsel.
7. PW 3/Inspector Madan Mohan stated that Inspector Mohan stated that on 19.08.2009 he was present at the PS and at about 7:30 AM he was called by the concerned SHO at Nirankari Grund. Thereafter he along with the Ct. Rajesh went to the the spot where FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 3 of 10 SI Dharmapal, SHO concerned and other police staff met with him. Thereafter SI Dharmpal handed over the accused to him. He prepared the rukka on the basis of the complaint which is Ex. PW3/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Rajesh. He seized the admission card vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex. PW3/C and he recorded the statement of all witnesses. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW3/D and personally search Ex. PW3/E in which Rs. 531/ two pencils, one eraser, one ball pen and one sharpener were recovered. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW3/F. Thereafter he collected the documents from the recruitment cell Delhi Police during investigation. The said documents along with covering letter is Mark X1 and X2.
During cross-examination by the defence counsel and he stated that he informed regarding the arrest of the accused Raju Ram to his brother telephonically. He denied that any information regarding the quarrel between the police and the accused was given to him and he also stated that he was not given any information regarding the presence of CCTV cameras at the spot. He admitted that he did not analyze the CCTV cameras installed at the spot of incident for the purpose of the investigation. He further stated that he met SI Dharmpal at the spot of the incident when he visited the place of the incident and the complaint was registered on his statement.
FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 4 of 10
8. PW-4 / ASI Arvind Kumar is also a formal witness and he stated that on 19.08.2009 at about 3:30 AM Ct. Virender who was working as DD writer on theat day recorded the departure entry of the police officials namely SI Dharam Pal, SI V.D. Pandey, ASI Jai Prakash, ASI Babu Lal, ASI Javinder Singh, ASI Sunder Lal and others as mentioned in the DD no. 6B dated 19.08.2009 for arrangement duty, written test Wazirabad, Delhi. The said witness brought the DD entry register vide DD which is Ex.PW4/A.
9. PW-5 / ACP Lakhmi Chand Stated that ACP Lakhmi Chand stated that on 19.08.2009 he was performing his duties as Incharge Sector no. 3, Nirankari Ground in connection with the written test of recruitment of Delhi Police constables from 4:00 AM to 11:00 AM. One SI Dharma Pal of PS Model Town was supervising one row of candidates. Ct. Manish was working as finger print/biometric checker of the candidates in the said sector. During the attendance of the candidates the finger print of accused were not matching with the record finger prints of the candidate namely Pukhraj which were being verified by Ct. Manish who informed regarding the same to SI Dharam Pal. SI Dharam Pal inquired about the antecedent of the candidates upon which it was found that the accused was impersonating as Pukhraj and appearing in the said examination in the place of the candidate Pukhraj. He was brought before him by SI Dharam Pal and Ct. Manish who informed him regarding the above said incident and verification. He also verified the said information which were found correct. The FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 5 of 10 loacl police was informed regarding the same upon which SI Madan Mohan of PS came at the spot. SI Dharam Pal had made complaint against the accused and he was handed over to SI Madan Mohan for necessary legal action at about 7:30 AM.
During the cross-examination by the defence counsel he stated that he was on duty on the date of examination at Nirankari Ground and during duty he got information from SI Dharmpal regarding the present incident. He denied having the knowledge of the installation of the CCTV cameras at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the Ct. Manish and other person had a quarrel and the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter. And he further denied that the accused Raju Ram have never gone for biometric. He denied the suggestion that the accused Raju Ram did not came to appear in examination for co accused Pukh Raj.
10. PW-6 Ct. Rajesh stated that on 19.08.2009 he joined the investigation with the IO and he along with IO went to Nirankari Ground where the written test of Delhi Police Recruitment was scheduled. Thereafter they had reached there at about 7:45 AM and SI Dharam Pal met with them. SI Dharam Pal handed over the accused to the IO. Thereafter IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the FIR registered and at about 10:45 AM he came back at the spot FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 6 of 10 and handed over the original rukka and copy of Fir to the IO and the site plan was also prepared by the IO at the instance of ASI Dharam Pal. IO had seized the admission card of the candidate Pukhraj from possession of the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/B and the admit card is already Ex. P1. Thereafter IO arrested you the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/D and IO recorded your disclosure statement Ex. PW3/F and IO conducted your personal search Ex. PW3/E and seized the articles recovered from your possession. Thereafter IO recorded his statement.
During the cross-examination he stated that he accompanied the IO at the spot and reached there at 7:45 AM and saw that the SI Dharmpal was present along with present accused Raju Ram.
11. PW-7 Inspector Karamvir stated that on 19.08.2009 he was posted as ASI in a rect. Cell. On the date of written examination the records of the candidates application were stored in the record in the computer. Thereafter on the request of the IO he provided the scanned copy of the application form of the accused/candidate namely Pukhraj bearing roll no. 439630 which is on record as mark A. During cross-examination he stated that the copy of the application form of candidate Pukh Raj is the scanned copy provided to the IO. As the scanned copies are provided to them by the outsourcing agency and he admitted that the IO never sought any certificate regarding the authenticity of the FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 7 of 10 said certificate.
12. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed on 26.07.2022.
17. Statement of accused Raju Ram was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 08.08.2022 wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to all the accused person and he denied the same as incorrect and they stated that he is innocent.
18. Final Arguments heard on 22.08.2022. Case file perused.
19. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that from the ocular and documentary evidence on record, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed the present offence of impersonation by cheating and thus he submitted that accused persons be convicted of the offence charged.
20. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter also the biometric person has not been examined by the prosecution. Ilt is also submitted that the CCTV cameras installed at the premises were not investigated by the IO and thus the whole investigate in the present matter is faulty and thus the accused should be acquitted in the present matter.
21. I have heard the rival submissions and have also carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evidence led on behalf of the prosecution. My findings on the point for determination and brief reasons for the same are now being discussed in following paragraphs.
FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 8 of 10
22. In the present case, the testimony of the complainant is a police officer of SI rank PW1 can not be doubted in the absence of non examination of biometric person. The accused Raju Ram was apprehended at the time of checking of the admit card of the candidates who have appeared for examination of constable recruitments. The presence of the accused at the examination centre has not been disputed by the defence and the mere suggestion that the accused was arrested there in the stampede does not come to the rescue of the present accused. The present accused was found to be having the possession of the admit card of the co accused Pukh Raj(since PO) also and no satisfactory explanation has been given by the defence as to how he got the possession of the said admit card of the co accused Pukh Raj. Even the photograph on the admit card of the accused Pukh Raj did not match with the accused Raju Ram. The not examination of the biometric personnel does not weaken the case of the prosecution when the presence of the accused on the spot has not been disputed. Also the defence has failed to bring anything on record as to under what circumstances the accused Raju was found to be present at the examination centre of constable recruitment examination. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are the police officers can not be doubted and the defence has failed to prove any malice or motive on the part of the said police officers for purpose of false implication of the present accused Raju Ram. Also the defence of the accused that no CCTV footage was examined by the IO is also of no FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 9 of 10 significance when the identity of presence the accused at the spot has not been disputed. The presence of the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses also can not be doubted on the date of the incident. Regarding the charge of section 120(B) IPC i.e. the conspiracy the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record regarding of mind and also the co accused Pukh Raj whom the accused came to the examination centre impersonating himself has been charge-sheeted as PO and was never arrested in the present matter.
23. Therefore, in view of the discussions made herein above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused Raju Ram beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused person stands convicted for the offences under section 419 IPC and acquitted u/s 120(B) IPC. Ordered accordingly.
10.
Announced in the open court (NEHA PANDEY) on 17.09.2022 MM-06/North/Rohini/17.09.2022
FIR No. 184/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Raju Ram page 10 of 10