Delhi District Court
State vs Parkash Rani on 6 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. HARSHITA MISHRA Digitally
signed by
HARSHITA
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CENTRAL DISTRICT,HARSHITA
MISHRA
MISHRA
Date:
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI 2026.02.09
15:09:59
+0530
CNR No. DLCT020008102010
CR. CASE NO. 299636/2016
STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI
FIR No. 265/2008
PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD
U/s: 120B/420/467/468/471/474 IPC
THIS IS A MORE THAN 15 YEARS OLD CASE.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 299636/2016
(b) Date of offence On or Before 21.12.2008
(c) Complainant Sh. Metha Ram Rijumal Khiani
(d) Accused Smt. Prakash Rani, W/o Late Sh. Ashok Sharma, R/o 60/6, Parbhat Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
(e) Offence 120B/420/468/471/474 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 09.12.2010
(I) Date when judgment 06.02.2026
was reserved
(j) Date of judgment 06.02.2026
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose Digitally signed of the present case registered on the complaint of Sh. Metha by HARSHITA HARSHITA MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2026.02.09 17:34:29 +0530 Ram Rijumal Khiani, lodged in the year 2008, alleging that STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 1 of 10 Ashok Sharma, in connivance with his associates had forged the Will of complainant and also used the same to forge a sale deed, pertaining to property No. 60/6, Prabhat Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. It was alleged that the accused Prakash Rani, who was the wife of Ashok Sharma, had acted in concert with him and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy with dishonest intention, she had gotten the said property transferred in her name.
2. Based on the complaint made, the FIR was registered and investigation undertaken. Accused persons were arrested and accused Ashok Sharma, passed away while in judicial custody in July, 2009. The sole surviving accused in the present case was Smt. Prakash Rani. Vikram and Deepak Sharma, were kept in the suspects column as there was insufficient evidence available on record against them.
3. After conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 09.12.2010. Cognizance was taken and the accused was summoned. She was provided the copy of the chargesheet, on appearance. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.11.2015, charge was first framed under Section 120B/468/471/474 IPC against the accused for forging and fabricating a Will of the complainant, for usurping the property in question. Later, allowing an STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 2 of 10 application for amendment of charge, vide order dated 06.06.2017, the charge was amended by the Ld. Predecessor and charge under Section 120B/467/468/471/474 IPC was also framed against the accused for having forged and fabricated a sale deed vide which she had derived title of the disputed property in her name. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Ever since 2015, the matter had been lingering at the stage of recording of Prosecution Evidence. PW/ Complainant Metha Ram was partly examined in chief and his further examination in chief as well as cross examination could not be conducted as he passed away in the interregnum. In his examination in chief, he had stated that his father had purchased the property in question and after the demise of his father, the afore-mentioned property had come to him by Probate. He stated that the afore- mentioned property had been given on rent as he had shifted to Mumbai with his family. He stated that his tenant Ashok Pandit had fabricated the documents pertaining to the said property and when he came to know about this, he registered the present case. He stated that the said Ashok had shown the complainant to be dead and forged the complainant's Will. After consulting his lawyer, the complainant lodged the complaint formally with the Police. After the Will was challenged, the Probate granted in STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 3 of 10 favour of the said Ashok Kumar had also been cancelled by the Court. he had made no allegation against the accused Prakash Rani in his deposition.
5. PW Sunil Marwah had appeared and stated that his late father was a tenant in property in question and in 2008, it came to their knowledge that Ashok Sharma had usurped the said property, which was originally in the name of the complainant Metha Ram Khaini. He stated that his father also used to pay rent to the complainant and mother of the said Ashok Sharma, namely Kaushlaya Devi, had been a tenant in the said property. He stated that he had come to know that Ashok Sharma had got the said Meetha Ram declared dead and obtained a Probate and Letter of Administration of the above-said property. He stated that he had filed an RTI in DDA to obtain information about the said property and then he came to know through RTI reply that the said Ashok Sharma had given an application in DDA to get the said property registered in his own name. he stated that he had come to know that on 05.12.2005, Ashok Sharma had gotten the registry of the said property done in the name of his wife Smt. Prakash Rani (accused). He had correctly identified accused Prakash Rani. He mentioned that he had handed over documents pertaining to the litigations pending in connection with the said property to the IO. He levelled no categorical allegations against the STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 4 of 10 accused Prakash Rani and only mentioned that Ashok Sharma had forged the documents in question.
6. PW Sunil Marwah was dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined as his counsel submitted in Court that he shall not be appearing again and has expressed reluctance to testify. Inspector Sandeep Gupta was also summoned on successive dates but he remained absent. Accordingly, this Court was constrained to drop these witnesses from the list of witnesses to be examined.
7. PW Sh. Baldev Nihalani deposed that he used to work as a Manager at Vali Ram Sons, the firm of the complainant at Shop No. 867, Chandni Chowk and that the complainant had given a complaint to the police then. He stated that he had accompanied the complainant to the Police Station and in his presence, the complainant had given the property documents of the disputed property to the police. He stated that he had given his statement to the police. In his cross- examination, he could not remember the exact date when he visited the police station and he admitted that he was not the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant in the present case.
8. The other witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses were also dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined as they were witnesses for bringing certain STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 5 of 10 records/ official/ formal witnesses, whose testimonies would be inconsequential in the absence of the complainant's testimony. The prosecution evidence was closed on 06.02.2026.
9. Considering that there was no incriminating material on record against the accused, the recording of the statement of the accused person under S. 313 (2) CrPC was dispensed with. Similarly, without any evidence implicating the accused, no purpose was to be served by requiring them to lead defence evidence. Accused Prakash Rani submitted that she did not wish to lead any defence evidence. Therefore, right to lead DE was closed.
10. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Substitute APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
11. The following point arises for determination in the present case: Whether the accused had forged and fabricated the complainant's will and subsequently forged and fabricated a sale deed in connection with property bearing no. 60/6, Prabhat Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi, with an intent to wrongfully usurp the said property by defrauding the complainant?
12. The present case was instituted on the STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 6 of 10 complaint of the complainant, who was also the principal and star witness for the prosecution. During the pendency of the trial, it has been brought on record that the complainant has unfortunately expired. Only a part of his examination in chief was recorded and even in that, he had not made any categorical allegation against the accused Prakash Rani. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had entered the witness box and his examination-in-chief was recorded; however, his cross-examination could not be conducted. Owing to his demise, the testimony of the complainant has remained incomplete and untested by cross-examination. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination cannot be safely relied upon, particularly when such evidence emanates from the main witness whose testimony forms the very foundation of the prosecution case. The right of cross-examination is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive right flowing from the principles of fair trial.
13. The remaining witnesses cited by the prosecution are only formal and supporting witnesses. Their testimony was entirely derivative and dependent upon the version of the complainant. In the absence of the complainant's complete and tested testimony, the evidence of such supporting witnesses, by itself, cannot sustain the STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 7 of 10 prosecution case.
14. The demise of the complainant has, therefore, struck at the root of the prosecution story. The substratum of the case no longer survives, and there remains no legally admissible and reliable evidence on record which could be put to the accused for the purpose of establishing guilt.
15. In these circumstances, this Court was of the view that continuation of the trial would be an exercise in futility and would amount to abuse of the process of law, as the case has effectively collapsed with the death of the main witness.
16. Seeing this case, which could have secured conviction of the accused, had the complainant been examined in time, flounder and flail, the Court deems it necessary to observe that the timely examination of witnesses is of paramount importance in criminal trials. Delay in recording evidence often proves fatal to the prosecution case, as human life is uncertain and witnesses, including complainants and crucial eye-witnesses, may pass away before their testimony is completed or tested by cross-examination. Even in otherwise strong and well- founded cases such as this, where there was a judicial record of another case, which could have supported the STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 8 of 10 version of the complainant, undue delay in examining the material witness can result in an irreparable prejudice to the prosecution, culminating in acquittal--not on account of lack of merits, but due to the absence of legally admissible and reliable evidence. The death of a crucial witness during trial strikes at the very root of the case and leaves the Court with no option but to discard untested testimony. The administration of criminal justice, therefore, mandates that investigating agencies and prosecuting authorities act with due diligence to ensure that material witnesses are examined at the earliest possible stage. Prompt recording of evidence not only safeguards the rights of the accused but also preserves the integrity of the prosecution case and serves the larger interests of justice. In the present case, the Prosecution Evidence went on for almost a decade and in this time span, the most crucial limb of the prosecution expired, thereby dealing a fatal blow to the prosecution's case.
17. It also bears mentioning here that in none of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police, there is any direct allegation levelled against the accused Prakash Rani. The allegations were primarily levelled against the accused Ashok Kumar, who has expired already. Any allegation against the accused Prakash Rani were only derivative and tangential in nature.
STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 9 of 10
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. The benefit of doubt, which is not a matter of charity but a matter of right, must necessarily go to the accused Prakash Rani. Accordingly, she is hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 120B/420/468/471/474 IPC levelled against her.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
20. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the accused/ her counsel against due acknowledgment.
Announced and Signed in the Open Court on 06th February, 2026 (Harshita Mishra) Chief Judicial Magistrate Central/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 06.02.2026 STATE VS. PRAKASH RANI FIR No. 265/2008 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/s: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 10 of 10