Delhi District Court
State vs . Yogesh & Ors. on 9 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:ACMM-02
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. Yogesh & Ors.
FIR No. 35/2010
New Case No. 294110/16
U/s : 419/120B IPC
P.S. : Gulabi Bagh
Date of Institution : 18.05.2010
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 09.05.2019
Date of judgment : 09.05.2019
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 35/2010
2.Date of the Commission : 21.03.2010
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : (1) Yogesh
S/o Sh. Ram Dass,
R/o. VPO Rohna, Tehsil
Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana.
(2) Mahipal Yadav
S/o Sh. Satya Dev Yadav,
R/o. Flat No. 37, Sri Ram
Apartments, Sector-4, Dwarka,
Delhi.
(3) Satish
S/o Sh. Ram Narayan,
R/o. H.No. 237, Shri Lal Pradhan
Wali Gali, VPO Qutabgarh, Delhi-
FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.1 /20
110039.
4.Offence complained of : 419/120B IPC
5.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6.Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 21.03.2010 at Sarvodya Bal Vidyalya School No.1, Mori Gate, Delhi, time unknown, accused Yogesh in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched by himself alongwith co-accused Mahipal Yadav and Satish. Accused Yogesh impersonated as Satish, Invigilator for the DTC Driver Examination at aforesaid school in order to facilitate a candidate to solve the question paper, accused Satish gave his ID Card for the purpose of impersonation as Yogesh and accused Mahipal being the Principal of the aforesaid school allowed the accused Yogesh and Satish to enter in the school by impersonating as Assistant Teacher and thereby committed offence u/s 419/120-B IPC.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charges of offences under section 419/120B of IPC were framed against accused Yogesh and charge under Section 120B of IPC were framed against accused Mahipal and Satish and the charge was duly explained to them in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 15.11.2016. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.2 /20
3. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses in total.
4. PW-1 Sh. M.S. Yadav deposed that on 21.03.2010, there was DSSSB examination. On that day, he was examination Incharge and he was assisting the Superintendent Examination (Principal of SBV, Mori Gate No.1) in conducting of the exam. Principal, Mahipal Yadav, who was Superintendent Examination on that day (correctly identified by the witness in the court). One of the invigilator namely Satish presented himself for examination duty and he was allowed to mark his attendance in the register for examination duty. When he asked for his identity card, he said that he had forgotten his identity card in hurry. He asked him to sit in the staff room and he would call him as and when required because all the 32 invigilators (including Satish) deputed for the duty out of which 30 invigilators deployed in room duties excluding Satish because two extra persons were allowed therefore accused Satish was not deputed for duty in any room and was asked to wait in the staff room. At around 11.30 AM, principal called me in his office and told him to bring the duty register and to show the register to the person sitting in his office and later on he knew that the person was a police official. He shown him the duty register. When the examination over, at around 1.00 PM, the police official came to him with Mr. Satish and asked him if he was on duty. He agreed. They informed him that they had arrested Satish (correctly identified by the witness in the court). Police informed him that accused Satish was not the person in the name of Satish but he is Yogesh. His statement was recorded by the police. Police took that attendance register vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW1/A and the relevant page of the attendance for the FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.3 /20 day i.e. 21.03.2010 is Ex.PW1/A1 bearing his signature at point A. The list of invigilator provided by him to the police official is ExPW1/B bearing his signature at point A. The recovered Identity cards from the accused Yogesh (at the time he knew him as Satish) were seized by the police officials vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
5. PW-2 Sh. Sunil Shanwal deposed that on several occasion he had put his signatures on official documents during discharge of duties. Since he was in service from 1998, he knew that the consequences of signing any document. It is correct that he put his signatures on every document after carefully going through the contents of the document. In his service, he has not faced any situation in which he was asked to sign any official document without going through the contents of the documents. It is correct that he had put his signature on Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW2/B after going through the contents. It is correct that he found that contents Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B, Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/C correct and after that he put his signature. It is correct that the above said documents were contemporaneously prepared with the incident and thus bears testimony to the incident that transpired at that point of time. He did no know if one Yogesh was apprehended on the day of incident from the spot. On 21.03.2010, he was posted as Superintendent in the School namely R.P.V. Sankracharya Marg, Delhi. He had received a call from DSSSB that he has been deputed as Chief Invigilator at Govt. Boys Senior FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.4 /20 Secondary School, Mori Gate No. 1, Delhi, prior two/three days, on 21.03.2010. On 21.03.2010, the competitive exam of DTC Driver to be conducted by DSSSB, was to be held. He reported at around 09:00 AM at the said school on 21.03.2010. The attendance of invigilator had been done by Mr. M.S. Yadav who was examination Incharge/Assistant Center Superintendent. He had to deploy 32 invigilators in 16 rooms, two in each room. He checked the ID Cards of the invigilators and deployed them accordingly. Two invigilators were kept reserved. Mr. M.S. Yadav informed him that one of them had not brought his identity card hence he has not been deployed as an invigilator in any room and kept him reserved. After initiation of exam, flying squad also came and they alongwith flying squad inspected each room in which the examination was being held. After completion of examination, he had gone to the office of Principle Mr. M.P. Yadav (correctly identified by the witness in the court) to enquire about the official payment for the duty done by him as Chief Invigilator. Accused M. P. Yadav replied that he will get the same later on. When he was coming downstairs of the school, some police official stopped and asked him to accompany him and took him to a room in which accused M.P. Yadav was already present. The police official informed him that some paper has been leaked and he has to stay and later on he was required to be taken to the house of Principle. He had been taken to the house of Principle M.P. Yadav situated at Motiakhan and Rs. 2,00,000/- were recovered from his house. IO prepared seizure memo of the same and he put his signature on the same.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.5 /206. PW-3 Sh. R.K. Dabral deposed that on 17.05.2010, he was posted as Deputy Secretary (Admn). On that day, he handed over some documents to the IO vide letter no. 52 dated 17.05.2010 which is now Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. The attested photocopies of the documents which he supplied to the IO are Mark 3/A (colly) (running into 5 pages) each bearing his signatures at point A. These witnesses were not cross-examined by the defence counsel despite opportunity given.
7. PW-4 Sh. M.R. Kayasth deposed that he retired from Food and Supply Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. In the year 2010, he was posted as Superintendent with DSSSB, Karkardooma, Delhi. He did not remember anything about the present case. On 15.04.2010, he was posted as Superintendent with DSSSB, Karkardooma, Delhi. On that day, Sh. G.C. Lohani, Deputy Secretary had handed over him a covering letter and list of 21 candidates to hand over the same to IO. He handed over the same to IO and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel, however his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
8. PW-5 Smt. Shashi Varun deposed that on 27.03.2010, he was posted as Vice Principal in Sarvodya Co-ed Senior Secondary School, C-Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi. On that time, exams were going on in the school. Officials from Crime Branch came to their schools and met FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.6 /20 him and enquired about accused Satish (correctly identified by the witness in the court). They searched for accused Satish but could not find, however, they sent 4th class employee of their department for search of accused Satish but accused Satish could not found. He came to know that accused Satish marked false attendance of 2.00 PM in attendance register and left the school premises. He handed over photocopy of attendance register to the police officials. The certified copy of attendance register is Ex.PW5/A (OSR).
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
9. PW-9 Sh. O.P. Arora deposed that he am the resident of RP 78, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. In the year 2009-2010, he was posted as Principal at Sarvodya Co-ed, Senior Secondary School, C- Block Mangolpuri, Delhi. In the year 2010, he went to office of police officials and they showed him two I-cards of said schools. The first I-card was issued by him in the month of July, 2009 to Sh. Satish Kumar (correctly identified by the witness in the court) as he had joined in their school as Assistant Teacher. The said I-card bears his full signatures. The said I-card is Ex.PW9/A. The second I-card was also issued by their school under a process of new computerized I-card scheme. That I-card also bears his computerized initials. One Sh. Rampal, TGT was appointed by their school to co-ordinate the process of issuance of computerized I-cards to the teacher. The said I-card is Ex.PW9/B. He did not know how accused Satish Kumar got second I-card issued without prior sanction of issuing authority. IO recorded his statement.
FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.7 /20This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
10. PW-10 Sh. Rampal deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted as Hindi TGT at Sarvodya Co-ed, Senior Secondary School, C- Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He was deputed to co-ordinate the process of issuing of computerized I-cards of school's teachers and school's children. After the cards were prepared and received by their schools, he delivered the same to students as well to the teachers. He did not want to say anything else.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
11. PW-11 Retd. SI Rahul Kumar deposed that on 10.03.2010, he was posted as trainee sub-inspector with PS Chhawla, Delhi. On that day, he was performing the duty of a Duty officer. On that day, he received a complaint. Copy of the same was handed over to Reader/SHO for further investigation. The Same is Ex.PW11/A. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite opportunity given.
12. PW-12 Sh. G.C. Lohani deposed that on 15.04.2010, he was posted as Deputy Secretary, CC-II, DSSSB, Delhi. On that day, he handed over a letter dated 15.04.2010 to IO which is Ex.PW12/A, bearing his signature at point A alongwith list of candidates which is marked as FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.8 /20 Mark 12/A. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsels however, the same is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
13. PW-14 Sh. R.N. Sharma deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted as Assistant Director (Exam), DSSSB with Govt. of NCT of Delhi. On 21.03.2010, exam was scheduled for the post of drivers in DTC in various schools in Delhi. He got information from Chief Invigilator in Sarvodya Bal School No.1, Mori Gate, Delhi by telephone that after finishing of exam, officers from Crime Branch came and took away Mahipal Yadav who was the then principal of the school and center superintendent for said examination. He came to know telephonically that accused Mahipal Yadav (correctly identified by the witness in the court) had allowed one other person to be invigilator. He came to know telephonically from Chief Invigilator that the two spare invigilators were not checked by him and the principal and principal had used that spare invigilator as spare invigilator who was teacher from other school. The said person was only kept as spare invigilator and he was not given any duty of invigilator.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, the same is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
14. PW-15 Sh. Desh Bandhu deposed on that on 10.05.2010, he was posted as Assistant Secretary with STET Department with Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani. On that day, he handed over photocopies of 8 OMR sheets of the candidates alongwith his letter bearing No. 10941/STET dated 10.05.2010 to the IO. The letter is FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.9 /20 Ex.PW15/A, bearing his signature at point A and the photocopies of OMR sheets are Mark 15/A (colly), bearing his signature at point A on each page.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel however, the same is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
15. PW-16 ASI Chand Ram deposed that on 21.03.2010, he was posted as Duty Officer with PS Crime Branch, Nehru Place, Delhi from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. At about 3.00 PM, a rukka was received by him through HC Murlidhar sent by SI Ritesh Kumar for getting the case registered. On the basis of rukka he registered the case vide FIR No. 35/10 which is a computer generated and was typed verbatim under his supervision. One original copy of the print out has been taken out and the same has been placed in the FIR register. He had brought the original FIR Register containing the original FIR. The photocopy of FIR which is placed in the judicial file is true and correct copy of the original and the same is Ex. PW16/A (OSR) bearing his signature at point A. The copy of FIR alongwith original rukka was handed over to HC Murlidhar to hand over the same to SI Ritesh Kumar for further investigation. He also made endorsement on original rukka which is Ex. PW16/B bearing his signature at point A. On same day, he was posted as MHCM in PS Crime Branch. On that day, IO/SI Ritesh Kumar deposed with him one motorcycle bearing No. DL-4SBG-6127 make Hero Honda Karizma (Yellow colour) and two copies personal search memo and copy of seizure memo of said motorcycle. He deposited the same in the malkhana vide entry no. 81/10 in register no.19. Copy of the same is Ex.PW16/C (OSR). On 27.04.2010, IO/SI Ritesh Kumar also deposited with him copy of personal search FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.10 /20 memo with the malkhana. He deposited the same in the malkhana vide entry no. 133 of register no.19. Copy of same is Ex.PW16/D (OSR) Examination in chief of this witness cannot be read in evidence being incomplete.
16. PW-17 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad deposed that on 21.03.2010, he was posted as Inspector with Special Team, Crime branch. On that day, keeping in view the information of rampant use of malpratices in various competitive exams, they have deployed their sources and as one competitive exam of DTC drivers was scheduled for that day, they were in their office. At about 6.45 AM, one informer informed telephonically and as well as by visiting their office that for DTC drivers recruitment entrance examination, one of the centre is Govt. Sarvodya Bal Vidyalya No.1, Mori Gate, Delhi. One Yogesh who will impersonate as one teacher Satish in connivance and conspiracy with principal of the school Sh. Mahipal Yadav would enter the school and help some candidates with unfair means. The information was shared with senior officers and on the instructions of senior officials, a raiding team was constituted consisting himself, Inspector Rajiv Ratan, SI Ritesh, HC N.K. Pavitran, HC Murlidhar and constables Sanjay, Devender and Lakhvinder. The informer was also instructed to collect further information and to meet them near round about Mori Gate. Accordingly, He alongwith raiding team reached near round about at about 8.00 AM in a hired car i.e. Toyota Qualis. They waited at the spot and at about 11.00 AM, informer came to spot and informed them that accused Yogesh (Accused correctly identified by the witness in the court) has entered the school impersonating as Satish. On this, they immediately reached at the gate of FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.11 /20 the said school. IO/SI Ritesh informed the guards present at the gate about the information and were asked to call the principal of the school. Sh. Mahipal Singh Yadav (Accused correctly identified by the witness in the court) came to gate. He was also informed about the information and they entered the school. In the office of principal of the school, all the facts were reiterated to the principal. He called chief invigilator and chief examiner to his office. Chief invigilator told that one of the invigilator namely Satish is absent for the duty. In the meanwhile, one person was seen coming down from the stairs and on the basis of description provided by the secret informer they apprehended him and interrogated him. On interrogation, he disclosed his name as Satish, a teacher in Mangolpuri Govt. school. His cursory search was taken and one identity card issued by Education Department in the name of Satish Assistant Teacher was recovered from his possession. Another identity card issued by Central Bureau of Investigation in the name of Yogesh was also recovered from his possession bearing his photograph. The real name of the accused was revealed as Yogesh (Accused correctly identified by the witness in the court). IO seized the I-cards so recovered vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C, bearing his signature at point C. During this whole proceedings, principal Sh. Mahapal Yadav was visibly very uncomfortable and uneasy in his behaviour. Accused Yogesh revealed that the principal of the school is involved in the conspiracy of using unfair practices to facilitate candidates in the examination namely Sandeep, who was appearing in room no. 314 of the said school. Accused Yogesh also lead to recovery of his motorcycle make Hero Honda Karizma (Yellow Colour) bearing No. DL-6127 (he did not remember the complete number) parked in the school premises where only authorized vehicles FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.12 /20 were allowed to be parked for the purpose of examination. IO seized the said motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B, bearing his signature at point B. IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to HC Murlidhar for registration of FIR at PS Crime Branch. In the meanwhile, the IO prepared the site plan after examining the place of incident. He also interrogated the accused at length and recorded his disclosure statement which is now Ex.PW17/A, bearing his signature at point A. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Mahapal Yadav which is Ex.PW2/A, bearing his signature at point B. After sometime, HC Murlidhar returned to school with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. IO filled the FIR no. and case particulars upon the prepared documents. IO also accused arrested accused Yogesh and Mahapal Yadav vide arrest memos which are Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW17/C respectively, both bearing his signatures at point A. IO also conducted personal search memos of both accused persons vide memos Ex.PW17/D and Ex.PW17/E respectively, both bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter they returned to office of Crime Branch alongwith accused persons. IO deposited the case property in the Malkhan and accused persons put behind the bars after their medical examination. IO recorded his statement. On 23.03.2010, he again joined the investigation of the case. IO interrogated accused Yogesh who stated that he was running a teaching institute at Kanjhawla and he was selected in CBI in the year 2009. During his teaching tenure, he became acquainted with several persons who are willing to pay handsome money for getting selection in competitive examination. He facilitated certain students by alluring certain intelligent students to appear/impersonate them in competitive examinations. In this manner several students got selected in FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.13 /20 various competitive exams. IO recorded his supplementary disclosure statement which is now Ex.PW17/F, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, accused Yogesh lead the police team to the residence of co- accused Satish in village Qutub Garh. However, co-accused Satish was not found at his home. Thereafter accused Yogesh lead the police team to his typing institute situated near Kanjhawla Chowk. The key of the institute was called from the residence of his maternal uncle from village Ladpur, Kanjhawala. The institute was opened and the accused produced several incriminating documents from the office. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/G, bearing his signature at point A. The said documents contain photocopies of admit cards and some original certificate. The said documents are Ex.PW17/H (colly). (Objected to the mode of proof being photocopies). They returned to office and IO recorded his supplementary statement. On 24.03.2010, he had again joined the investigation of the present case. IO interrogated the accused in the case further. The accused Yogesh also revealed that he had met co-accused Satish while taking his identity card for impersonating as a teacher, accused Satish has told him that he had already used safeguards in case accused Yogesh is apprehended. He further disclosed that he had facilitated by unfair means certain candidates in a competitive examination. They have cleared the written part of the examination, but were not successful in typing part. As he has taken huge money from them, he promised them to get them cleared the DTC drivers examination to be held on 14.03.2010 and 21.03.2010. His intentions were to enter the examination hall, facilitate the candidate Sandeep and also sent the keys to other associates so that they can help other candidates. The supplementary disclosure of accused Yogesh is Ex.PW17/I, bearing his FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.14 /20 signature at point A. Thereafter, accused Yogesh took police team to the house of his maternal uncle at Ladpur, Kanjhawla and got recovered certain other incriminating evidence which apparently had some information about monetary transactions. IO seized the documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/J, bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, they returned to office of Crime Branch and IO recorded his supplementary statement. On 15.04.2010, he alongwith IO were present in their office of Crime Branch where officials from DSSSB came and produced some required documents related to DTC drivers examination. IO seized those documents vide seizure memo already Ex.PW4/A, bearing his signatures at point B. IO recorded his supplementary statement. On 19.04.2010, he was again joined in the investigation of the present case by the IO. On that day, co-accused Satish (Accused correctly identified by the witness in the court) joined the investigation and he produced his original I-card and lost report of his previous I-card. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/K, bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his supplementary statement.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
17. PW-18 ASI Murlidhar (inadvertently mentioned as P19) deposed that on 21.03.2010, he was posted as HC with Special Team, Crime Branch. On that day, he was present in the office and at about 6.45 AM, one secret informer came to office and shared some information with IO/SI Ritesh. Secret informer told that DTC Bus driver exam is to be conducted today and one of its centre is at Sarvodya Bal Vidyalya No.1, FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.15 /20 at Mori Gate, Delhi. One person in the name of Yogesh will help the candidates in their examination with the help of school principal. Secret informer was sent to near spot by IO and he was instructed to get more information. Thereafter IO constituted a raiding team after discussing senior officers consisting of himself, Inspector Rajeev Ratan, Inspector Bhagwati Prasad, HC Lakhvinder, HC N.K. Pavitran, Ct. Devender and Ct. Sanjay. They left their office at about 7.30 AM in private innova car and reached at about 8.00 AM at round about Mori Gate. They waited there for the secret informer and at about 11.00 AM, secret informer came there and shared further information with IO. He told that Yogesh had entered the school to help one Sandeep in his examination. Yogesh has entered the school on the pretext of one Satish and on his I-card. The team reached the gate of school and IO asked guard of the school that they want to meet the principal of the school. Guard went inside and called principal of the school at the gate and IO shared the information with the principal. Thereafter they reached at the office of principal. In the office of principal, principal called chief invigilator and chief examiner in the office and asked about list of invigilators. Chief invigilator namely Mr. Sunil showed the invigilator's list on which at serial no.14, name of Satish, Assistant Teacher was written and his signatures were not on the list. He further told that many invigilators had not come to school yet. Chief examiner Sh. M.S. Yadav also shown the list of attendance on which attendance of Satish was not there. In the meantime, they saw one young boy was coming down from stairs and he seems to be frightened and after seeing them he started climbing back the stairs. On suspicion, IO called him and made enquiries from him. The said boy revealed his name as Satish, a teacher in Mangolpuri Govt. School. IO searched accused FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.16 /20 Yogesh (Accused correctly identified by the witness in the court) and found two I-cards in his shirt's pocket. One of the I-card was in the name of Satish Kumar issued by Directorate of Education and the photo of accused was not matching on the said I-card. Second I-card was in the name of Yogesh issued by Central Bureau of Investigation. On interrogation, accused Yogesh disclosed that he had come to school to help candidate Sandeep in his examination. He further disclosed that accused M.P. Yadav (Accused correctly identified by the witness in the court) do have the knowledge about his presence in the school and his purpose. IO seized both the I-cards. Accused Yogesh told the IO that he was to be paid by Sandeep Rs.2 lakhs for the help in the said examination. Accused Yogesh further told that he came to the school on a motorcycle and IO seized the said motorcycle from the parking of the school. Interrogation was also conducted from accused M.P. Yadav and he confessed his involvement in the cheating. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. After sometime, he returned at the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. IO arrested accused M.P. Yadav and Yogesh vide arrest memos Ex.PW17/C and Ex.PW17/B, both bearing his signatures at point B respectively. Personal search of both the accused persons were conducted vide memos Ex.PW17/E and Ex.PW17/D, both bearing his signatures at point B respectively. Thereafter they returned to our office. IO recorded his statement in the office. On 26.04.2010, he again joined the investigation of the present case with IO. On that day, accused Satish (Accused correctly identified by the witness in the court) came to office of Crime Branch and told that he knew accused Yogesh and candidate Sandeep and he had handed over his I-card to accused Yogesh to help FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.17 /20 Sandeep in his examination. Thereafter IO arrested accused Satish in the office vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/A, bearing his signature at point A. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Satish. IO recorded his supplementary statement.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
18. PW-19 Sh. Ajeet Singh (inadvertently mentioned as PW20) deposed that he has brought the original CAF for the mobile no. 9811647272. As per their record, the said mobile no. is in the name of Satish S/o Sh. R.N. Singh, R/o VPO, Qutub Garh, Delhi-39. The certified copies of CAF is Ex.PW20/A (OSR). However, he has not brought the CDR of the said mobile number as the same is not available with their company being the year 2010.
This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
19. As all witnesses were examined by the prosecution, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 06.05.2019. Statement of the accused persons namely Yogesh, Mahipal Yadav and Satish U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 06.05.2019 and they pleaded innocence and opted not to lead defence evidence. Matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on 09.05.2019.
20. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.18 /20REASONS FOR DECISION
21. In order to prove it case, the prosecution has examined 19 witness in total out of said 19 witnesses 10 have resiled from their original statement being the main witness for the prosecution and PW-17 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad was not cross examined after his cross examination was deferred on 14.11.2018.
22. The prosecution was required to prove that the accused Yogesh impersonated himself as Invigilator for DTC Driver examination in conspiracy with accused Mahipal Yadav and Satish. However, all the material witnesses for the prosecution have resiled either on the point of identity of accused or on the point of recovery of the case property from the accused persons.
23. As all the material witnesses for the prosecution had resiled from their original statement, remaining witnesses were examined as they were formal police officials who could not prove the case of the prosecution. The other invigilator on duty also did not depose in favour of the prosecution and denied that the accused person were apprehended. The accused persons were not identified by the witnesses who were on duty on the day of exam and thus, case of the prosecution has fallen like a pack of cards in the absence of the testimony of material witnesses.
24. Thus on the basis of above mentioned reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused persons cheated FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.19 /20 the complainants for preparing false documents in conspiracy with each other and thus I have no hesitation in holding that there is no iota of evidence against accused Yogesh, Mahipal Yadav and Satish in the instant matter to suggest that they were conspiring together and thus they deserve to be acquitted.
25. It has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
26. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused persons namely Yogesh, Mahipal Yadav and are are acquitted for the offence under Section 419/120B IPC for the charges levelled against them.
27. Ordered accordingly.
CHETNA Digitally signed by
CHETNA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2019.05.20
Announced in the open
12:33:13 +0530
Court on 09.05.2019
(Chetna Singh)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/09.05.2019
FIR No. 35/2010 State Vs Yogesh & Ors. PS: Crime Branch Page No.20 /20