Delhi District Court
Ram Kumar Yadav vs State Of Delhi (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 20 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DR.JAGMINDER SINGH:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 - (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.62/2020
CNR No. DLSW01001692-2020
Ram Kumar Yadav,
S/o Sh. Devi Ram Yadav,
R/o RZ21A, Kamla Park,
Dharampura Extn., Najafgarh,
New Delhi110043
.....Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
.....Respondent
Date of Institution of the appeal : 10.02.2020
Date of Arguments : 20.03.2023
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 20.03.2023
Final Order : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused against the judgment and order on sentence dated 18.01.2020 and 06.02.2020 respectively passed in case FIR No.21/2007 PS Dwarka whereby the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 474 r/w Section 467 IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for a period of three months.
2. For the sake of convenience, the nomenclature of the CA No.62/2020 Page No. 1 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State parties for the purpose of this appeal shall be referred as same as before learned Trial Court i.e. the appellant herein shall be termed as 'accused' and respondent herein shall be termed as 'State'.
3. Briefly stating, the facts relevant and necessary for deciding the present appeal are that on 24.12.2006 the complainant Dr. Anil Bansal, Member Delhi Medical Council made a complaint to ACP (Operations) seeking legal action against a quack operating from flat no.302 Pocket-A, Phase-II, Sector-13, Dwarka under the name and style M/s.Unique Health Care, representing himself to be an MBBS Doctor and giving allopathic treatment without requisite qualification. On the basis of said complaint, inquiries were made by IO ASI Naresh Chander during which it was revealed that real name of aforesaid person namely Dr. Anil Kumar Aggarwal was Ram Kumar Yadav who was a resident of RZ-12A, Kamal Park, Dharampura Extension, Najafgarh and had been running clinics under the name of "Ashirvad International Medical Society" and "Ashirvad Nirog Dham" and had run away from there after cheating many people. Thereafter, on the instructions of Insp. Rajpal Dabas, on 08.01.2007 a raiding party was constituted by IO/ASI Naresh Chander consisting of HC Bachchu Singh, HC Ombeer Singh, HC Randhawa, Ct. Manoj Kumar, Ct. Suresh Kumar and Ct. Zafar Khan and at about 06.40 PM, the aforesaid raiding team visited the Flat No.302 where a board of 'Unique Health Care' was found installed outside the flat. Upon enquiry, accused Ram Kumar Yadav had CA No.62/2020 Page No. 2 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State represented himself as Dr. Anil Kumar Aggarwal, MBBS. On demanding the documents by ASI Naresh, he had handed over one MCI Registration Certificate bearing no.MCI- 7660 dated 10.04.1989 and one photocopy of MBBS Degree of 1987 alongwith MAMC Certificate No.2250 dated 10.04.1989, reflecting that Dr. Anil Kumar Aggarwal had undertaken the course of MBBS during 1983-1988 and had passed with Ist Division. Upon enquiry about the original MBBS degree, accused Ram Kumar Yadav started avoiding and got nervous. On interrogation, he admitted himself to be Ram Kumar Yadav R/o RZ-12A, Kamal Park, Dharampura Extension, Najafgarh and had handed over several documents to the IO reflecting his name as Ram Kumar Yadav on the same. He had confessed that he is holder of certificate of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines and is representing himself to be an MBBS doctor so as to earn more money. On the basis of above interrogation, ASI Naresh Kumar got registered the FIR No.21/2007 u/s 419/420/467/468/470/471/474/120B IPC, PS Dwarka against the accused. During further investigation, the MCI certificate produced by accused Ram Kumar Yadav alongwith the MAMC Certificate and degree were found to be forged and it was also revealed that the documents produced by the accused were got prepared by him through accused Harpreet Singh and Gurdeep Singh @ Tony. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Ram Kumar Yadav, co-accused Harpreet Singh was arrested alongwith several forged driving licenses and co-accused Gurdeep @ Tony, who was running a Cyber Cafe, was also arrested. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed CA No.62/2020 Page No. 3 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State against all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 419/420/467/468/470/471/474/120B IPC.
4. On receipt of chargesheet, the learned Trial Court summoned the accused vide order dated 22.07.2011. Accused Ram Kumar Yadav and accused Gurdeep Singh @ Tony put their appearance in the Court whereas accused Harpreet was declared PO vide order dated 29.11.2012.
5. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 CrPC, upon hearing arguments on the point of charge, charges u/s 120B IPC, u/s 419/120B IPC, u/s 468/120B IPC, u/s 474/120B IPC and u/s 471/120B IPC were framed against accused persons Ram Kumar Yadav and Gurdeep Singh vide order dated 26.07.2015 to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution had examined seven witnesses. Thereafter, statements under Section 313 CrPC of accused Ram Kumar Yadav and Gurdeep were recorded wherein all incriminating evidence which came on record was put to them and they had denied the same. Both the aforesaid accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
7. After trial, co-accused Gurdeep @ Tony was acquitted of the charges framed. Accused Ram Kumar Yadav was also acquitted for the other offences charged against him, however, he was convicted for the offence punishable under CA No.62/2020 Page No. 4 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State Section 474 r/w Section 467 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for a period of three months.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the accused had assailed the judgment and order on sentence dated 18.01.2020 and 06.02.2020 respectively by way of present appeal on the ground that the learned Trial Court had ignored the true facts of the present case, the accused had been convicted on the basis of conjectures and surmises, there are no ingredients or charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC for which he had been convicted, there was no public witness joined by the IO at the time of alleged recovery, the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged raid and recovery are contradictory and untrustworthy, the alleged recovery is planted upon the accused and that the accused is having nothing to do with the alleged documents of Dr. Anil Kumar Aggarwal or the alleged clinic in the name and style of Unique Health Care.
9. Ld. counsel for accused further argued that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The statements of witnesses are contradictory to each other. There was no any raiding party. The signature on all the documents are only of PW5 but there is no any name or signature of any of the other alleged raiding party person. The IO had CA No.62/2020 Page No. 5 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State lifted the accused from his house and implicated him in this false case and prepared all the documents while sitting in PS. The alleged recovery is planted upon him. Therefore, he is liable to be acquitted in this case.
10. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State opposed the appeal. He argued that prosecution had successfully established its case against the accused for the offence of which he is convicted. Official witnesses had given corroborative statement regarding raid and seizure of forged documents. There are only minor natural contradictions in their statements. The grounds in the present appeal are not having any merit. The order passed by learned Trial Court is a well reasoned order and there is no any illegality or infirmity in the same. He further requested that present appeal may be dismissed.
11. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties and perused the appeal file, ld. Trial Court Record as well as other relevant documents.
12. Admittedly, present appeal has been filed by only accused Ram Kumar Yadav who had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 474 r/w 467 IPC. Therefore, this appeal is only against the contents of the impugned judgment whereby the accused had been convicted. Although, charge was framed against the accused alongwith his co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, 419/120B IPC, 468/120B IPC, 474/120B IPC and 471/120B IPC; however, the CA No.62/2020 Page No. 6 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State accused had been acquitted for all other offences but convicted for the offences only under Section 474 r/w 467 IPC. For clarifications, both the provisions are reproduced here as under:-
"474. Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine.--[Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code], be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 467, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
"467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
13. As far as the arguments of learned counsel for the accused that the accused was not charged for the offence CA No.62/2020 Page No. 7 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State punishable under Section 467 IPC but he was convicted for that, it is hereby clarified that the accused had been convicted for the main Section 474 IPC i.e. having possession of certain forged documents. Section 474 IPC itself prescribes that the said forged documents may be of either of two types i.e. as described in Section 466 IPC or as described in Section 467 IPC. Ld. Trial Court had found that the documents allegedly recovered from the accused comes under the purview of Section 467 IPC and accordingly, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 474 IPC and only read with Section 467 IPC. However, there is no substantial sentence or conviction for the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC.
14. As per the prosecution case, the accused was found in possession of certain forged certificates/documents allegedly issued by MCI or the concerned Medical College. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kansaheb Kalu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 80 that the certificates which are found as forged for being admitted in the college could be described as 'valuable security'. Section 467 IPC talks about the documents which are valuable security, will etc. Therefore, the educational qualification documents can be described as 'valuable security' in view of Kansaheb Kalu Patil's case (Supra).
15. The question in the present matter is that whether the accused was found in possession of the alleged forged documents as mentioned in seizure memos Ex.PW5/A as well as Ex.PW5/B. CA No.62/2020 Page No. 8 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State As per settled principles of criminal justice, it is upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged forged documents were recovered from the possession or at the instance of accused.
16. In view of the statement of witnesses i.e. PW2 & PW4 from Maulana Azad Medical College and PW6 from Medical Council of India, it has been proved by the prosecution that the MCI certificate i.e. Ex.P7/A, certificate of MAMC Ex.P7/B and the photocopy of MBBS Degree from MAMC Ex.P7/C are forged documents as same were never issued by the concerned Authority. Now, it has to be seen through the evidence produced by the prosecution that whether or not these documents were recovered from the possession or at the instance of accused.
17. Regarding recovery of Ex.P7/A to C, prosecution had examined only two recovery witnesses i.e. PW5 & PW7. Therefore, statements of these both witnesses are liable to be thoroughly scrutinized. As per the chargesheet, the raiding party which raided the clinic of the accused was formed of seven officials i.e. IO/ASI Naresh Chander, HC Bachchu Singh, HC Ombir Singh, HC Randhawa, Ct. Manoj Kumar, Ct. Suresh and Ct. Zafar Khan. However, prosecution had neither cited in the list of witnesses nor examined any other official of the raiding party except IO/ASI Naresh Chander and HC Ombir.
18. During examination-in-chief when IO/SI Naresh (then ASI) was examined as PW7, he had specifically stated that CA No.62/2020 Page No. 9 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State the raiding party was consisted of HC Bachchu Singh, HC Randhawa, Ct. Manoj, Ct. Zafar and Ct. Suresh including ASI Naresh himself. Therefore, PW7 had not stated name of HC Ombir that he was also in the raiding party and according to him, the raiding party was of only six persons.
19. As per PW7/IO, the raid was conducted on the third floor in Flat No.302 in Sector-13 where accused was found sitting. On the other hand, as per PW5 they conducted the raid at Flat No.202 where accused was found. PW5 had not mentioned about any floor of the said flat. In arrest memo Ex.PW3/C there is no mention of any floor of the flat but there is only mention of H.No.302, Pocket-A, Phase-II, Sector-13, Dwarka.
20. As per the statements of PW5 & PW7, all the documents were seized from the accused vide two separate seizure memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. Perusal of Ex.PW5/A reveals that three documents i.e. MCI Registration Certificate, photocopy of MBBS Degree and one MAMC certificate were found from the drawer of the table in the clinic. Thereafter, accused was further interrogated and he had furnished four more documents i.e. one Ration Card, Election Card, LIC Receipt and Ayurvedic and Unani Certificate, which were seized. But it is not clarified in Ex.PW5/A that from which part of his clinic or his flat, the accused had allegedly furnished the said four documents as mentioned regarding first three documents that they were found in the drawer of the table. Thereafter, more documents i.e. 14 in number were seized vide seizure memo CA No.62/2020 Page No. 10 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State Ex.PW5/B and in this seizure memo, it is mentioned that these documents were furnished by the accused from inside the bed from his bedroom in the said flat.
21. Both the seizure memos are having name and signature of only one witness from the raiding party i.e. HC Ombir Singh. There is no any explanation from the prosecution that why there is no any other witness from the other five persons who were there in the raiding party in any of the seizure memo. Regarding public witnesses, IO stated that despite his request no one came to join investigation. But IO had not even made witness from the officials allegedly present with him in the raiding party other than HC Ombir Singh.
22. As per the prosecution story, both seizure memos, arrest memos & personal search memo of the accused were prepared at the spot. However, perusal of these documents i.e. Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D reveals that none of these documents is having name or signature of any other witness from the raiding party except HC Ombir Singh. It creates doubt that whether actually there was a raiding party of seven police officials or even whether the alleged raid was actually conducted or not.
23. As per statement of PW5 and PW7, at the time of raid no person from the neighbouring flats or even from management committee/office bearer of the concerned RWA or any security guard was told about the raid or joined into CA No.62/2020 Page No. 11 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State investigation. As per the allegations, the accused was found running a clinic in the name and style of Unique Health Care. It is admitted by the IO in his cross examination that he had not seized the board mentioning 'Unique Health Care' and even he had not taken photograph of the said board. This fact further creates doubt on the prosecution story that accused was running a clinic under the name and style of Unique Health Care. No any prescription slip or Unique Health Care having the signature or handwriting of the accused was recovered from the clinic or from any patient showing that the accused was doing medical practice by way of running clinic as aforesaid.
24. During cross examination, PW5 stated that he do not remember the name of the alleged clinic where raid was conducted by them. PW5 and PW7 even could not tell colour of the flat/clinic where they conducted the raid. PW7/IO could not tell that how many rooms were there in the flat of the accused.
25. PW5 in his cross examination stated that the raiding party left the office for conducting the raid in one government vehicle i.e. gypsy and on private motorcycle. On the other hand, PW7/IO stated in his examination-in-chief that all members of the raiding party went to the place to be raided only in government gypsy. PW7 had not mentioned about any private motorcycle.
26. PW7/IO stated in his cross examination that he do not know by which mode of transportation, HC Ombir had gone to PS for registration of FIR. He further clarified that the said CA No.62/2020 Page No. 12 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State government gypsy remained at the spot from the time they reached at the spot and finally left the spot and in between, the said gypsy was not taken anywhere by anyone. On the contrary, PW5 stated that he had gone to PS for registration of FIR in the said government gypsy driven by himself.
27. PW7/IO had stated in his cross examination that after conducting the raid, they had left the spot at 9.30 pm and reached at their Special Staff Office at 10.30 pm. However, time of arrest in the arrest memo which was allegedly prepared at the spot is mentioned as 10.40 pm.
28. Statements of these witnesses shows that these are suffering from various material contradictions. It is held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sikandar Kumar Vs. State 1998 (3) Crimes 69 that material contradictions in the statements of witnesses creates doubt in the prosecution version and it would be unsafe to place total reliance on their testimony.
29. PW7/IO stated in cross examination that he himself prepared the site plan and he had obtained signature of the accused at the site plan. However, when PW7 was confronted with the site plan Ex.PW7/B, there is no any signature of the accused. Moreover, the site plan Ex.PW7/B further reveals that there is no any name or signature of any of the member of the raiding party as a witness showing their presence at the spot.
30. As it is clear from seizure memos of the documents CA No.62/2020 Page No. 13 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, none of the document allegedly recovered from the accused was sealed by the IO at the spot. It is mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW5/B that part documents will be deposited in the malkhana. There is no any evidence on record as to when the said part documents were deposited in the malkhana. Therefore, possibility of tampering with the documents or their false plantation cannot be ruled out.
31. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 11 SCC 106 that where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the Court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.
32. The aforesaid discussion regarding both of the material recovery witnesses reveals that there are major contradictions in their statements which are sufficient to render the statements of the recovery witnesses as unreliable in the absence of any other corroborative or circumstantial or scientific evidence.
33. This appeal is not before this Court either from the prosecution or from the accused regarding other part of the impugned judgment except the conviction of the accused under Section 474 r/w 467 IPC.
34. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, CA No.62/2020 Page No. 14 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State conviction of accused Ram Kumar Yadav under Section 474 r/w 467 IPC through the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2020 is set aside. Order on sentence dated 06.02.2020 also stands set aside. Appeal stands allowed. Accused Ram Kumar Yadav is acquitted in the present case. His bailbonds stand cancelled and his surety stands discharged. Original documents, if any, submitted by the surety be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any, and as per rules.
35. Trial Court record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signedPronounced in the open court on JAGMINDER by JAGMINDER SINGH Dated : 20.03.2023 SINGH Date: 2023.03.20 16:19:40 +0530 (DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/20.03.2023 Note: This judgment contains fifteen (15) pages and having Digitally signed by my signature on each page. JAGMINDER JAGMINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.03.20 16:19:46 +0530 (DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/20.03.2023 CA No.62/2020 Page No. 15 of 15 Ram Kumar Yadav v. State