Delhi District Court
State vs . Harbans Singh & Ors. on 3 November, 2007
State Vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 211/90
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : ROHINI: DELHI.
State Vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 211/90
PS : Janak Puri
U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC
JUDGMENT :-
(a) Sl. No. of the case : 289/02 of 2003
(b) Date of commission of the offence : 11.05.1990
(c) Name of the complainant if any : State
(d) Name of the accused person,
and his parentage and Address : Harbans Singh
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o H.No. A-38A Old
Mahabir Nagar, Tilak Nagar
Delhi.
ii).Pratap Singh @ Mannu
S/o Sh. Bansidhar
R/o H.No. 78 to 80
Pratap Pura Agra.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC
(f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final Order : Acquitted.
(h) The date of such order : 03.11.2007
Date on which judgment reserved: 03.11.2007 Date of judgment : 03.11.2007 State Vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 211/90 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION:
The prosecution case in brief is, that on 11.05.1990 at about 7.30 P.M. at compound Transport Authority, Janakpuri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Janakpuri accused Harbans Singh and Pratap Singh @ Mannu in furtherance of their common intention deceived or cheated Jagir Singh and dishonestly induced him to deliver a sum of Rs. 1,700/- in connection with the transfer of Fiat car No. RSZ 2211 in his name at Janakpuri Authority and had also committed forgery intending that the forged NOC and other documents shall be used for the purpose of cheating and fraudulently or dishonestly used the forged NOC and other forged documents as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe the same to the be forged documents and thereby committed offences punishable U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC.
2. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined six witnesses namely PW-1 Sh. T.R. Nehra, Principal Scientific Officer (Documents) cum Assistant Chemical Examiner to Govt. of India CFSL CBI Lodi Road, Delhi, PW-2 HC Suraj Bhan, PW-3 Insp. Rajbir Singh, IGI Airport, New Delhi, PW-4 HC Rambir Singh, PW-5 B.S. Shekhawat and PW-6 Chen Singh Panwar, Dy. Commissioner Sales Tax, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Statements of accused Harbans Singh and Pratap Singh @ Mannu were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they have denied the allegations of the prosecution State Vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 211/90 and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
Accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
4. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law.
5. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on record I find that no corroborative, consistent, reliable and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case has been produced by the prosecution. Moreover the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
6. The accused has no way to prove his innocence or to show that false case has been foisted on him except by pointing out vital discrepancies in the police evidence. Hon'ble Sh. P.K. Bahri, J in the case of Mohd. Shamim Vs. State 1991 Drugs cases Page-82, observed that material aspects of the case are how the secret information was received and raiding party was formed, what efforts were made to join the public witnesses and in what manner proceedings were carried out at the spot.
7. During the investigation of the case no public witnesses were joined nor there are seems to be any sincere efforts made in this regard, when it was possible to State Vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 211/90 do so, which makes the case of the prosecution weak and suspicion.
8. PW-3 Insp. Rajbir Singh in his examination-in-chief has inter-alia deposed that "I handed over Rs. 200/- to Jagir Singh and instructed Jagir Singh to hand over Rs. 200/- to him and demand his document and he was further instructed that after handing over currency note and taking back file he be signalled to police."
From above it is indicated that Jagir Singh was deputed as decoy customer. Admittedly no shadow witness has been deputed. Why no shadow witness has been appointed? It is the evidence of the bogus customer which is to be corroborated by other witnesses. Even the uncorroborated evidence of decoy customer was held to be not sufficient to sustain conviction. In my this view I am fortified by case 1988 (1) Crime 709 wherein it was held that "non-examination of IO in a criminal trial causes serious lacuna in prosecution case and prejudice to accused. The tendency of IO's to keep away from the court is not good." and in case 1964 (a) Cril.J. 455 the non-examination of IO was held to be a serious omission.
Moreover non-examination of Jagir Singh, the decoy customer has knocked out the bottom of the case of the prosecution.
9. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined six witnesses.
State Vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 211/90 PW-1 T.R. Nehra, who is the documents examination expert (GEOD) and proved his report and forwarding letter Ex.PW-1/C, Ex.PW-1/D respectively, rubber stamp impression Marked Q1, Q2 Ex.PW-1/A, rubber stamp impression Marked S1 Ex.PW-1/B. PW-2 HC Suraj Bhan, who is the Duty Officer, who proved the copy of the FIR Ex.PW-2/A. PW-3 Insp. Rajbir Singh, who is the initial and last IO of the case and proved the seizure memo of the recovered currency note Ex.PW-3/A, seizure memo of the duplicate RC of the Car No. RSZ-2211 and three papers of ration card Ex.PW-
3/B, rukka Ex.PW-3/C, disclosure statement of accused Harbans Singh Ex.PW-3/D, disclosure statement of accused Pratap Singh @ Mannu Ex.PW-3/E, two other disclosure statements of accused Pratap Singh Ex.PW-3/F & Ex.PW-3/G, pointing out memo at the instance of accused Pratap Singh and seizure memo of the seals for preparation of NOC etc. Ex.PW-3/H, seizure memo of the documents of the Transport Authority Agra at the instance accused Pratap Singh @ Manju Ex.PW-3/I, verification report from Ajmer Transport Authority Ex.PW-3/J. PW-4 HC Rambir Singh, who deposed that on 12.05.90 he joined investigation with ASI Chand Singh and deposed on the investigational aspects besides proving other memos.
State Vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 211/90 PW-5 B.S. Shekhawat, who deposed that he checked the record and informed the police that NOC No. 4211 dt. 02.11.1989 was not issued from the office of DTO Ajmer and the seal and signatures on the NOC were not related to the office concerned.
PW-6 Chen Singlh Panwar, who deposed that he was posted at District Transport Officer, Ajmer in between 23.06.1990 to 01.04.1991. All the proceedings regarding vehicle no. RSZ-2211 (Fiat Car) were completed on or before 27.06.1987 and proved the attested copy of the letter dt. 08.04.2005 written to him by District Transport Officer Ex.PW-6/A. This is the entire evidence on record. This evidence no where suggests the complicity or involvement of the accused for the offences charged. At the cost of repetition due to the non-examination of the Jagir Singh, the complainant, who was alleged to have been cheated, has knocked out the bottom of the prosecution.
In view of above, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Harbans Singlh and Partap Singh @ Mannu. They are given the benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the offences State Vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 211/90 punishable U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC. Accused are on bail. Their bail bonds cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
Announced in the open Court This on the 3rd Day of November, 2007 (Two spare copies attached) (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI, DELHI.
State Vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 211/90
FIR No. 211/90
PS Janakpuri
03.11.2007
Present : APP for the State
Accused Harbans Singh and Pratap Singh @ Mannu on bail, with Counsel.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced after dictation both the accused Harbans Singh and Pratap Singh @ Mannu are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ACMM/Delhi 03.11.2007