Delhi District Court
State vs Lavesh Sen on 8 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
Cr. Cases : 41402/2016
State Vs. Lovesh Sen & Ors
FIR No. : 179/2011
Police Station : Vasant Kunj (North)
Under Section(s) : 419/420/448/468/471/467/474/120B/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 17.10.2011 Name of the complainant : Sh. Sudhir Hardyal Date of Commission of offence :419/420/448/468/471/467/474/120B/34 IPC Name of the accused : 1) Lavesh Sen @ Rajesh @ Amit (Abated) 2) Umesh Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Hukum Singh, R/o Village Charaura, District Bu land Shehar, Uttar Pradesh. 3) Deepak, S/o Late SH. Ajay KUmar, R/o H. No. C-132, Sangam Vihar, Delhi Offence complained of : 419/420/448/468/471/467/474/120B/34 IPC Plea of accused : Not guilty Case reserved for orders : 29.05.2025 Final Order : Convicted (Deepak) Acquitted (Umesh Kumar) Date of orders : 08.05.2026 FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 1 of 67 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.05.08 18:46:01 +0530 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused persons namely Umesh Kumar and Deepak for having committed the offence punishable under Section(s) 419/420/448/467/468/471/474/120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC"). Although, the charge-sheet was also filed against accused Lavesh Sen @ Rajesh @ Amit, however, he passed away during the pendency of the trial. Thus, the proceeding qua him got abated vide order dated 01.03.2021.
2. Briefly stating, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by Sh. Sudhir Hardyal. It is the case of the prosecution that one property situated at B-10/7025, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi belonged to one person namely Sujata Parashar who is the resident of Canada. She had appointed the complainant (who was her brother) as her power of attorney holder in relation to the said property. In the year 2011, the accused persons namely Lavesh Sen @ Rajesh, Umesh Kumar and Deepak hatched a criminal conspiracy in furtherance of which the accused Deepak impersonated himself as Rajender Malik and claimed himself to be the owner of the property situated at B-10/7025, Vasant FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 2 of 67 Kunj, New Delhi. Thereafter, they met one person namely Rajender Singh Tyagi who was looking for a property in Vasant Kunj on rent. They met Rajender Tyagi several times and made inducements that the property in question actually belonged to Rajender Malik. They also produced photocopies of property documents in favour of Rajender Tyagi and also produced electricity connection document as per which the electricity connection was taken on the property in question in the name of Rajender Malik. They induced Rajender Tyagi to believe that the said property actually belonged to Rajender Malik and further induced him to take that property on rent. They also induced Rajender Tyagi to pay an advance rent of Rs. 25,000/- and to undertake repair and renovation works in the said property. They also executed a rent agreement with the daughter of Rajender Tyagi on which the accused Deepak signed as Rajender Malik.
3. After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Vasant Kunj (North) and a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. Thereafter, charge for the offence punishable u/s 419/420/448/468/471/467/474/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 3 of 67 framed upon the accused persons vide order dated 12.11.2013, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCES LED BY THE PARTIES
4. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
• Sh. Sudhir Haryal, deposed as PW-1;
• HC Kailash Chand, deposed as PW-2;
• Rajendra Singh Tyagi, deposed as PW-3;
• Sh. Saurabh Sharma, deposed as PW-4;
• Sh. C.S. Negi, deposed as PW-5;
• Sh. Bijender Singh, deposed as PW-6;
• Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal, deposed as PW-7;
• Rtd. IO/SI Mahender Singh, deposed as PW-8;
• HC Vikas Kumar, deposed as PW-9;
• Inspector Kuldeep Kumar, deposed as PW-10;
• Sh. Sandeep Gautam, deposed as PW-11(inadvertently mentioned as PW10); and • Sh. Jai Ram, deposed as PW-11,
5. PW-1 Sudhir Hardyal is the complainant of the present case. In the examination in chief, he deposed that on 15.07.2011, he had gone to visit his flat no. B-10/7025 situated in Vasant Kunj which was owned by his sister Sujata Parashar who was the resident of Canada. PW-1 had FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 4 of 67 general power of attorney executed in his favour. Upon reaching there, he was told by his neighbour that some persons were trying to sell the said property. He immediately informed PS Vasant Kunj and gave his complaint Ex. PW-1/A on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. Thereafter, he along with the police officials reached at the spot where they found some labourers painting/white washing the said flat. Upon inquiry, one person namely Mr. Tyagi told that he was the tenant of the said premise. PW-1 submitted that photocopies of the documents i.e. GPA Ex. PW-1/B (OSR), agreement to sell and purchase Ex. PW-1/C (OSR), DDA MIG demand letter Ex. PW-1/D (OSR), allotment letter dated 16.08.1989 Ex. PW-1/E (OSR). These documents were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/F.
5. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Deepak, he stated that he did not remember the exact date when he and his staff had visited the above said flat prior to the complaint. However, they used to visit once or twice in a month. He did not mention the fact that sometime his staff also used to visit/check the said flat. He did not remember the name of his neighbour. He also stated that the police officials did not FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 5 of 67 record the statement of the neighbours in his presence. He did not know the names of the labourers who were working in in the said flat. He also did not know whether their statements were recorded or not. He further stated that he had told to the police official that some persons were trying to sell his flat as told to him by his neighbours.
6. During the cross-examination of PW-1 on behalf of accused Lovesh Sen, he stated that he used to visit the flat of his sister namely Sujata once or twice in a month or two month regularly. One neighbour informed him that somebody bought the flat of his sister Sujata and was further trying to sell the same. He further stated that on 15.07.2011, after getting the said information, he visited the flat of his sister. He also stated that some labours were doing white wash in the said flat. He did not enquire from the labours and immediately went to the police station and filed his complaint. He along with police visited the flat on the same day. He further stated that the police took the labours to the police station. He also stated that the police enquired from the labours as to the person on whose direction the work of white wash was being carried out by them. He further deposed that the police called Mr. Tyagi to the police Station after taking his mobile number from the labours. He also stated that Mr. FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 6 of 67 Tyagi visited the police station in his presence. He also stated that no documents were shown by Mr. Tyagi to the police in his presence.
7. PW-2 deposed proved the registration of FIR Ex. PW-2/A on the basis of rukka which was handed over by SI Mahender on 16.07.2011 and its endorsement Ex. PW-2/B. He was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the fact that opportunity was provided to them.
5. PW-3 Rajendra Singh Tyagi deposed that in the month of May, 2011, he was looking for a ground floor accommodation in Vasant Kunj. He had received a call from a property dealer regarding availability of an accommodation in Sector-B, Pocket-10, Vasant Kunj. Thereafter, the accused Umesh met PW-3 and informed him about the terms and conditions of the rent of the said accommodation. Accused Umesh told PW-3 that the rent would be Rs. 25,000/- per month and also informed that lot of work would be required to be done in the said flat as the same was raw flat. Accused Umesh also told him to bear the expenses for the repair work and the expenses would be treated ass advance rent. Accused Umesh also told PW 3 that he would come later with the ownership documents related to the said flat.
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 7 of 67
6. PW-3 further deposed in his examination in chief that the co-accused Rajesh along with another person namely Rajender Malik came to his residence and they also took him to the said flat situated at B-7205, Vasant Kunj. Thereafter, the accused Umesh Kumar along with co- accused persons again visited the house of PW-3 for signing of the rent agreement. PW-3 was also told that whatever expense he would be incurring for repairing the flat would be considered as advance rent. The rent agreement was signed by the daughter of the complainant namely, Seema Tyagi and owner Rajender Malik. The accused Umesh Kumar signed on the rent agreement as one of the witnesses. Thereafter, the complainant started the repair work done of the said flat.
7. In the examination in chief, he further deposed that one day, he got to know that the labourers working in the said fast were taken by the police officials to PS Vasant Kunj. When he went to the police station, he got to know that the original owner of the flat had filed a complaint. He informed the police that he had taken the said flat on rent. He also handed over the original rent agreement pertaining to the flat, copy of voter ID of Rajender Malik, letter of electricity connection. These documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A. Thereafter, during the course of FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 8 of 67 the investigation, PW-3 was called by the IO to the police station where he identified the accused Deepak as the person who was part of the rent transaction. Thereafter, the accused persons were arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/C. He had identified the accused Deepak as Rajender Malik during his examination. However, he failed to identify the accused Umesh in the Court. He had stated that person who had met him as Umesh was having long beard and long hair.
8. PW-3 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused Lovesh Sen, he stated that he received the information regarding this flat in question through telephone. He also stated that he had told the accused Umesh regarding the need of the flat. He further stated that he had received the telephone call from one Rajesh regarding letting of the flat in question. He also stated that the accused Lovesh Sen first met him with respect to hiring of the flat in question with the documents of the said flat. He also stated that the accused Lovesh Sen came to him with the keys of the said flat and showed him the flat in question. Thereafter, the accused Lovesh Sen and Rajender Malik also took him to show the flat. He verified the ownership of the flat by seeing electricity connection as FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 9 of 67 per the file record shown by the accused Lovesh and identified owner Rajender Malik by voter ID. He further stated that the repair work of the said flat was stopped by the police after one month of his commencement.
9. During the cross-examination by the accused Lovesh Sen, PW-3 further deposed that the agreement was prepared by the accused Lovesh Sen and signed by Rajender Malik as owner and witnessed by Mr. Rajesh (Lovesh Sen) and Mr. Umesh Aggarwal. The rent agreement was executed at his home written by him. He paid 75,000/- and it was agreed that the money was spent for repair work will be adjusted against rent and advanced. He did not remember the bank but the cheque was not presented. After going through the rent agreement between Rajender Malik and Seema Tyagi, PW-3 deposed that this was the same agreement which was executed in his house and he mistakenly, due to lapse of four years, stated that rent agreement was hand written by him. He did not remember the date of arrest of accused Umesh and Deepak but stated that they were arrested within a week after the arrest of the accused Lovesh. He also stated that his daughter Seema Tyagi had seen FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 10 of 67 the accused Lovesh, Rajender Malik and Umesh at the time of signing the rent agreement.
10. In the cross-examination conducted by the accused Deepak, PW-3 deposed that the statement recorded by the police was read over to him. He did not remember the date when his first statement was recorded by the police but it was on the same day when repair work was stopped by the police. He further stated that his statement was recorded in the police station. He had told the police that he was working for private company situated in Dwarka. He again said that he did not say the said fact because it was not asked by the police. He also stated that he had told to the police that since his mother was 90 years old, therefore, he was looking for ground floor flat on rent in Vasant Kunj. PW-3 was confronted with his statement Mark A, B and C where it was not so recorded. He did not remember the name of the property dealer in Dwarka and Vasant Kunj. He denied the suggestion that after retirement he was not working with the private company and instead he was working as property dealer. He further stated that the documents shown to him were relating to the allotment of the flat in the name of Rajender Malik, his voter ID and electric connection of the said flat. He also stated that the conveyance FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 11 of 67 deed was shown to him. He further stated that the affidavit dated 06.05.2011 of Rajender Malik was not shown to him. He could not say whether the conveyance deed dated 07.01.2011 was shown to him or not. He also stated that he did not see the power of attorney between Pritam Pal Singh and Rajender Malik. He denied the suggestion that he purchased the affidavit for preparing the rent agreement. He admitted that rent agreement bearing date 27.05.2011 was executed between Rajender Malik and Seema Tyagi. He also stated that statement of his daughter Seema Tyagi was not recorded in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had put the signatures as Seema Tyagi on the said rent agreement.
11. PW-3 during the further cross-examination stated that the original documents of the said flat which were shown to him by the accused Lovesh were bearing the signature of Rajender Malik. He further stated that the rent agreement was not attested by the notary public because there was some more work to be done in that flat by the owner such as water connection and shifting of some luggage which was lying that flat. He admitted that in the said agreement at para no. 10 it was mentioned that flat was in good condition. He voluntarily deposed that due to over FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 12 of 67 sight it was not noticed. He further stated that he had told the police that the flat was in raw condition.
12. During the further cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that rent agreement between Rajendra Malik and Smt. Seema Tyagi was prepared by the accused Lovesh Sen. He admitted that stamp paper bearing serial no. 67560 dated 1.03.2011 was purchased by the accused Lovesh Sen. He also admitted that the stamp paper was purchased by accused Lovesh Sen in the name of Rana Pabal Bahadur; that rent agreement was brought by accused Lovesh Sen at his his house duly signed by Rajendra Malik and that he had paid Rs 25,000/- to the accused Lovesh Sen in cash. He further stated that he did not take any receipt of the rent of Rs. 25,000/- from the accused Lovesh Sen. He admitted that he never visited along with the police and the accused Lovesh Sen to arrest the co accused Deepak and Umesh from their residences. He also stated that he has seen the accused Deepak in the court first time. He further deposed that the accused Deepak was never involved in the present case. He denied the suggestion he was deposing falsely to implicate the accused persons in the present case.
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 13 of 67
13. PW-4 is Sh. Saurabh Sharma. During examination in chief, he deposed that the application number 1000676287, request no. 8000043115 were received on 07.05.2011 and after receiving the same, their executive went to the premises/site at Flat no. 7025, Sector B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. After verifying all the necessary documents, the electricity meter was installed at the above mentioned address in the name of Mr. Rajender Malik. He had brought the copy of site visit report, check list, application form, affidavit submitted by Rajender Malik, copy of SPA, agreement to sale and purchased, DDA record and GPA of Vijay Pal Goyal in the favour of Rajender Malik Mark-A (colly).
14. PW-4 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused Lovesh Sen, PW-4 admitted that no date of attestation by notary was mentioned on the GPA and SPA. He also stated that he did not have any personal knowledge of the present case. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
15. PW-5 C.S Negi proved the original file bearing no. 126 (1522)83/DFS/ BK3 related to Flat no. 7025, Pocket 10, Sector B, Ground Floor, Category 3, SFS. As per the record, the possession of the said flat was FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 14 of 67 allotted to Sh. Vishwa Pal Goel on 16.08.1989 who further sold the same to Ms. Sujata Parashar on the basis of sale agreement and general power of attorney. The purchaser had applied for conversion vide conversion application no. 113592 dated 12.08.2011 from lease hold to free hold. The conversion was allowed on 08.11.2012. The said documents are Ex. PW-5/A (OSR).
16. PW-5 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. During the cross-examination on behalf of the accused Lovesh Sen, PW5- admitted that as per the record, except the above said application no. 113592 dated 12.08.2011, no any other application was filed for conversion of the above said flat to his office.
17. PW-6 Bijender deposed that that during the course of the investigation, IO had shown some documents i.e. general power of attorney and affidavits Mark A-1 and A-2. He saw the said documents and informed the IO that there were fake signatures as well as fake attestation on the said documents. He told the IO that his signatures on the said documents were forged and he did not attest the said documents. He also stated that he was not appointed as notary on the date when these documents were shown to have been executed. He had also brought the FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 15 of 67 original seal Ex. PW-1A (OSR). The samples of seal impression were taken on plain paper EX. PW-6/A.
18. PW-6 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. During the cross-examination on behalf of the accused Lovesh Sen, he deposed that he was appointed as a notary by the Delhi Administration on 13.12.2004 for 05 years and the same was valid upto 12.12.2009. He also stated that he had submitted for extension of his notary license. He did not give any document i.e. records of his notary attestation register to the IO. He also stated that the IO did not ask for any documents from him. He did not remember whether IO had taken his sample signatures or not. He further stated that he did not lodge any complaint in the police for misusing his signatures as well as his stamp. He further stated that his license was not extended after 2009.
19. PW-7 Saurabh Agarwal proved the CDR of mobile number 7838924048 for period from 01.05.2011 & 20.08.2011, certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-7/A and the customer application form which was issued in the name of Umesh Kumar as Ex. PW-7/A-1. FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 16 of 67
20. PW-7 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. During the cross-examination on behalf of the accused Lovesh Sen, he admitted that he could not identify the signature of accused Rajender Malik and Umesh. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
21. PW-8 IO SI Mahender Singh is the first investigating officer of the present case. In the examination in chief, he deposed that the complaint Ex, PW 1/A was handed over to him for the investigation. With the permission of the DCP, he prepared rukka Ex. PW-8/A on 16.07.2011 and got the present FIR registered. During the course of the investigation, on 23.08.2011, he along with police officials went to the house of Umesh Kumar situated at Dilshad Garden but he was not present there. Thereafter, on 25.08.2011, accused Umesh Kumar was arrested. Thereafter, he conducted his personal search Ex. PW-8/I and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-8/L. On 30.09.2011, all the relevant documents along with specimen signatures of the accused Umesh Kumar were sent to FSL Rohini for examination. He also got verified the stamp which was used by accused Umesh Kumar and the said stamps were found to be fake.
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 17 of 67
22. PW-8 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused Umesh, he denied the suggestion that accused Umesh was arrested by him was not the real person who had committed the offence alongwith other accused persons.
23. PW-9 HC Vikash Kumar is one of the police officials who was involved in the investigation. He deposed that the PC remand of the accused Lavesh Sen was taken during which he was taken to Dilshad Colony where they found the accused Umesh Kumar. He further stated that they interrogated the accused Umesh Kumar. The accused Umesh was arrested in his presence. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Mahender Singh took both the accused namely Lavesh Sen and Umesh Kumar to JJ Colony Tikri, Delhi where they found the third accused Deepak @ Rajender Malik. After interrogation, they arrested the accused Deepak @ Rajender Malik for which they prepared the arrest memo Ex.PW8/G, personal search memo Ex.PW8/J and recorded disclosure statement of accused Deepak @ Rajender Malik Ex.PW8/K. They took the accused persons Deepak and Umesh Kumar to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, they produced all three accused persons before FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 18 of 67 the Court. The accused Umesh and Deepak @ Rajender Malik were correctly identified by the witness in the court
24. PW-9 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused Umesh Kumar, he deposed that they used the personal car of SI Mahender Singh to visit Dilshad Colony. He also stated that SI Mahender Singh made the entry in the DD register for going to Dilshad Colony. B-92 was the address of accused Umesh where they went to interrogate him. He did not remember the floor of the abovesaid address. He admitted that his signatures on the disclosure statement, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Umesh apparently looked different. He denied the suggestion that the signature on the above said documents were not made by him; that he was not with the SI Mahender Singh during the investigation and all the documents singed by him were prepared at the police station because the accused Umesh had surrendered at the police station and that he was deposing falsely.
25. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused Deepak @ Rajender Malik, PW-9 further deposed that at about 12.45 PM, he reached at house No. 131, JJ Colony, Tigri. He did not know the exact size of the FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 19 of 67 house of the accused Deepak when he made arrest of accused Deepak. He further stated that there were 3-4 family members were present during the arrest of the accused Deepak. He also stated that the house of accused Deepak situated at thickly populated area. He further stated that IO might have prepared the site plan of the house of the accused Deepak. He denied the suggestion that accused Deepak did not give any disclosure statement voluntary to him; that he did not join the investigation with IO at any point of time in this case; that all the documents were prepared in the police station and that he was deposing falsely.
26. PW-10 is Inspector Kuldeep Kumar. He deposed that on 20.08.2011, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj North, as a probationary Sub-inspector. On that day, he alognwith SI Mahender, SI Ravi joined the investigation and he went alongwith them at Janakpuri i.e. C-6/A/61A where a person was found who disclosed his name Lavesh Sen @ Rajesh Kumar. He was taken to the PS for interrogation. During the interrogation, the complainant Rajinder Tyagi also came to the police station and after seeing Lavesh Sen, he had identified him and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D and his personal search was conducted vide FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 20 of 67 memo Ex.PW8/D. On 22.08.2011, he alongwith IO, SI Ravi with accused Lavesh Sen reached at the house of the accused i.e. C-6/A/61A, Janakpuri where total 10 documents were seized which were produced by the accused and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/F. Thereafter, his statements were recorded by the IO.
27. PW-11 (inadvertently mentioned as PW-10) Sandeep Gautam deposed that he was authorised by the concerned VREC Department to appear before this Court. The authority letter in this regard was taken on record and Ex. PW10/A. Department has issued the reply pertaining to verification of Voter Card no. UYV090887666 Ex.PW10/B and the same also bears the stamp and signature of concerned official of AERO. The witness correctly identified the stamps, however witness could not identify the signature of the concerned officer bears on stamp.
28. PW-11 during cross examination on behalf of accused Deepak deposed that he joined the above department 20.02.2024. He did not have any personal knowledge of this case. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 21 of 67
29. PW11 is Sh. Jai Ram, Alternate Nodal officer Vodafone idea Pvt. Ltd.
proved the CDR, Cell ID Chart, Subscribers details of mobile no. 9873577564 along with certificate u/s 65B evidence Act. The witness also proved the guide line pertaining to this permanent disconnection of CAF/other documents as Ex.PW11/A (colly).
30. During cross examination, he deposed that he has no personal information qua the present case. He has been autorized by the GM Circle Regulatory & Nodal Affiars Delhi, Vodafone Idea to bring the documents before the Court. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
31. The accused persons Umesh Kumar and Deepak had admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C the FSL Report dated 31.01.2013 Ex.X1 and copy of specimen handwriting Ex. Mark A (colly).
32. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, prosecution evidence was closed on 09.12.2024. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons namely Umesh and Deepak were recorded on 07.02.2025 under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") wherein they deposed that they were falsely implicated in this FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 22 of 67 case. They also stated that the did not know any person in the name of Rajender Tyagi and Rajender Malik. They did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
33. During the final arguments, the Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross- examination and there was no reason to doubt their testimonies. PW-1 i.e. the complainant and PW-3 Rajender Tyagi had completely supported the case of the prosecution. The testimony of PW-3 also gets corroborated with the FSL Report as per which the specimen signatures of the accused Deepak and Umesh matched with the signatures and handwritings of Rajender Malik and Umesh Kumar on the rent agreement respectively. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubts in the present case.
34. The Ld. Counsel for the accused Umesh Kumar submitted that the said accused was falsely implicated in the present case. He was not even identified by PW-3 in the Court during the trial. He cannot be convicted solely on the basis of FSL Report that his specimen handwriting matched FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 23 of 67 with the handwriting of Umesh Kumar on the rent agreement. Even if it is believed that the accused Umesh had signed the said rent agreement, then also he could not be automatically convicted as he had put his signature only as a witness and did not impersonate any person. Thus, the accused Umesh should be acquitted in the present case.
35. Ld. Counsel for the accused Deepak also submitted that the said accused was falsely implicated in the present case. There are many contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and the investigating officer. One of the most important witnesses namely Seema Tyagi i.e. the daughter of Rajender Tyagi who had signed the rent agreement was not even examined by the prosecution. No money was given to the accused Deepak by Rajender Tyagi. It was further argued that even the identity of the accused Deepak would be doubtful in the present case in light of the statement made by PW-3 in his cross- examination wherein he had stated that he had seen the said accused first time in the Court. Further, there are many other loopholes in the case of the prosecution. The signature of the accused Deepak appearing on the rent agreement and BSES connection form were different. The statement of HC Vikash Kumar given during his testimony is different FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 24 of 67 from his earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubts in the present case and benefit of doubts should be extended to the said accused.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
36. I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
37. It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution.FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 25 of 67
Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
38. In the instant case, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons Umesh, Deepak and Lavesh Sen had entered into a criminal conspiracy with intention to cheat the complainant and Rajender Tyagi and to dispossess the complainant from the property in question. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the accused persons had prepared certain forged documents and used the same in order to claim that the property in question belonged to one person namely Rajender Tyagi. They also impersonated the accused Deepak as Rajender Tyagi and induced Rajender Tyagi to take the property in question on rent. They also executed a rent agreement which was signed by the daughter of Rajender Tyagi and the accused Deepak (by impersonating himself as Rajender Tyagi). They also illegally trespassed in the property in question.
39. Therefore, the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 120B r/w 34 IPC, section 120B r/w 34 IPC and section 448 r/w 120B r/w 34 IPC.
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 26 of 67
40. For the sake of the convenience, I shall be examining the guilt of the accused persons Deepak and Umesh separately.
CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED UMESH KUMAR
41. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that it is duty of the prosecution to duly establish the identity of an accused in a criminal trial beyond reasonable doubts. Any dent made in establishing the identity of an accused during the trial would be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
42. In the present case, perusal of the testimony of PW-3 would show that he failed to identify the accused Umesh as the person who was involved in the present case along with other co-accused persons. It should be noted that PW-3 had seen one person Umesh in the present case as he met him multiple times along with co-accused persons. In fact, the information regarding the availability of the property in question on rent was brought to him by Umesh only. Despite the same, PW-3 could not identify the accused Umesh during the trial. He had categorically stated that the person Umesh whom he had met during the transaction was different person as he was having beard and long hair. FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 27 of 67
43. The only incriminating evidence appearing against the accused Umesh is that his specimen handwriting matched with the handwriting of Umesh appearing on the forged rent agreement. Now a question would arise as to whether the accused Umesh could be convicted solely on the basis of FSL Report i.e. report of hand writing expert.
44. It is settled proposition of law that before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the Court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. The evidence of an expert is rather a weak piece of evidence, and, therefore, should not be considered as "conclusive" proof in the absence of any independent and reliable corroboration. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, wherein while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, the Apex Court Court opined that:
"... We think it would be extremely hazardous to con- demn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert.FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 28 of 67
There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evi- dence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert evi- dence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reit- erated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evi- dence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of ex- pert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting ex- pert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial."
45. This ratio was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704, wherein while discussing reliability of evidence of hand writing expert, the Apex Court held as under:
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 29 of 67
"4. .......True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting ex- pert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable wit- nesses -- the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses -- but because all human judgment is fallible and an ex- pert may go wrong because of some defect of obser- vation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incor- rect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a hand- writing expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the accept- ability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty "is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence (Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v. Edindurgh Magis- trate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in his ev- idence).
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 30 of 67 opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person "specially skilled" "in questions as to identity of handwriting" is expressly made a relevant fact......... So, corroboration may not invariably be in- sisted upon before acting on the opinion of an hand- writing expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may re- quire corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejec- tion of the opinion of an expert supported by unchal- lenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not cor- roborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to pro- ceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it."
46. Recently, in the case of Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 3 SCC 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined in detail the relevancy and reliability of the evidence of hand writing expert and reiterated that such evidences are relatively weak piece of evidences which need to be corroborated from other evidences available on record.
47. In the instant case, the FSL Report qua the accused Umesh could not be corroborated from any other material on record. PW-3 who is the most important witness of the present case failed to identify the accused Umesh in the Court. There is no other incriminating material appearing against the accused Umesh. Even if it is believed that the accused FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 31 of 67 Umesh had signed the rent agreement as witness, the same would not be sufficient to convict him in the present case.
48. In the recent judgment passed in the case of Surendra Koli vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 1308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the fundamental principle of the criminal jurisprudence that the criminal law does not permit conviction on conjectures or grave suspicions. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"It is a matter of deep regret that despite prolonged investigation, the identity of the actual perpetrator has not been established in a manner that meets the legal standards. Criminal law does not permit conviction on conjecture or on a hunch. Suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. Courts cannot prefer expediency over legality. The presumption of innocence endures until guilt is proved through admissible and reliable evidence, and when the proof fails the only lawful outcome is to set aside the conviction even in a case involving horrific crimes."
49. In view of the above discussions, while there are indeed grave suspicions against the accused Umesh for having involved in the criminal conspiracy to cheat the PW-3 and having committed the offence involved in the present case, however, mere suspicion against the accused would not result in his conviction in a criminal case. It is the responsibility of the FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 32 of 67 prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt which has not been done in the present case. His identity has not been duly established by the prosecution. Thus, benefit of doubts needs to be extended to the accused Umesh.
CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED DEEPAK
50. As per the prosecution, the accused Deepak in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons namely Lavesh Sen and Umesh had impersonated himself as Rajender Tyagi and fraudulently represented himself to be owner of the property in question situated at B-10/7025, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi before one person namely Rajender Tyagi. He had also forged certain property documents of the property in question, got electricity connection in the name of Rajender Tyagi on the property in question on the basis of forged documents and also got SIM card in the name of Rajender Tyagi on the basis of forged voter ID card. By making fraudulent presentations, he induced Rajender Tyagi to take the property in question on rent, to pay advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- and to undertake repair work started on the said property. In this manner, he caused wrongful loss to Rajender Tyagi and wrongful gain to himself and the other co-accused persons. He also criminally trespassed in the FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 33 of 67 property in question when he took Rajender Tyagi there in order to commit offence i.e. to cheat PW-3. For the sake of convenience, I shall be discussing the culpability of the accused Deepak for each offence separately.
Culpability for the offence punishable u/s 120B r/w 34 IPC
51. Section 120B makes the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable. It is an independent offence. "Criminal conspiracy" is defined u/s 120A IPC in the following manner:
"Definition of criminal conspiracy- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- An illegal act, or An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy"
52. The essential ingredients to attract section 120A is as follows:
• There should be two or more persons.
• There should be an agreement between themselves.
• The agreement must be to do or cause to be done: an illegal act;
or a legal act by illegal means.FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 34 of 67
53. Section 120A is a substantive offence. It is a settled proposition of law that in case of a conspiracy to commit an offence, the mere agreement is sufficient to impose liability without the requirement that some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy should have been committed.
54. Where their common object or design is itself to do an unlawful act, the specification of such act itself which formed their common design would suffice and it would even be unnecessary or superfluous to further substantiate the means adopted by all or any of them to achieve such object. Further, where the agreement is one to do or cause to be done an act which is itself an offence, no over act, i.e., any act by one of the parties to the agreement in pursuance of it, need to be proved. Proof of overt acts committed by the accused or any of them is not strictly necessary for this offence, but proof that the accused or some of them were concerned in the overt acts alleged would go far to establish that the agreement alleged was in fact made by them. Though, proof of overt acts is not necessary in a case, yet it may well be that if such acts are proved, the Court will be bound to infer that they are not unconnected and isolated acts, but acts which must have been committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused. FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 35 of 67
55. Hence, in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the existence of a common object or design to do an unlawful act.
56. In the present case, in order to prove the culpability of the accused Deepak for the offence punishable u/s 120B r/w 34 IPC, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of PW-3 Rajender Tyagi. Perusal of the testimony of PW-3 would show that he had completely supported the case of the prosecution on this aspect. He gave a detailed account of the manner in which he was approached by the accused persons to get the property in question on rent in Vasant Kunj. He had categorically stated that (i) the accused persons Deepak, Umesh and Lavesh Sen had approached him by claiming that the property in question belonged to one person namely Rajender Malik, (ii) the accused persons had shown him property papers of the said property in question as per which it belonged to Rajender Tyagi; (iii) the accused persons had shown electricity connection papers of the property in question which was in the name of Rajender Tyagi; (iv) the accused persons had got executed rent agreement for the property in question which was signed by his daughter Seema Tyagi; (v) the accused persons visited his house multiple times to FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 36 of 67 make fraudulent inducements regarding the property in question; and (v) he identified the accused Deepak as Rajender Malik.
57. The testimony of PW-3 is required to be read in the backdrop of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5 as per which it would be clear that the property in question actually belonged to the sister of PW-1 who was resident of Canada and he was the power of attorney holder of the said property and the accused persons had no right over the said property. PW-1 had produced before the Court the original property documents pertaining to the property in question.
58. Thus, it would clear that the property in question did not belong to any person namely Rajender Tyagi and the accused persons had actually conspired amongst themselves to cheat Rajender Tyagi by claiming that the said property belonged to Rajender Tyagi. The accused Deepak had also signed on the rent agreement Mark X-1 by impersonating himself to be Rajender Malik.. This would be evident from the FSL Report dated 30.03.2012 as per which the signature of Rajender Malik appearing on the rent agreement matched with the specimen signature of the accused Deepak. Although, the said rent agreement was marked during the PW, however, it should be noted that even the original rent agreement (which FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 37 of 67 was sent to FSL) is also available on record. Thus, marking the rent agreement as Mark X-1 would not make any difference qua its admissibility.
59. Also, the FSL Report dated 30.03.2012 was prepared by Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL, Delhi cum Ex Officio Chemical Examiner to the Government of Delhi. Although, the said report was not separately proved on record by the prosecution, however, the same would be admissible u/s 293 Cr.P.C.
60. As per section 293 Cr.P.C, reports of certain government scientific experts are per se admissible in evidence without examining the author. There are six categories of experts whose reports are admissible in evidence u/s 293 Cr.P.C. which interalia includes Director, Deputy Director or Additional Director of a Central Forensic science Laboratory and State Forensic Science Laboratory, Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government.
61. The scope of section 293 Cr.P.C has been explained in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 38 of 67 Mast Ram, (2004) 8 SCC 660 wherein the Apex Court has held interalia the following:
"6. Secondly, the ground on which the High Court has thrown out the prosecution story is the report of the ballistic expert. The report of the ballistic expert (Ext. PX) was signed by one Junior Scientific Officer. Ac-
cording to the High Court, a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) is not the officer enumerated under sub-sec- tion (4) of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure and, therefore, in the absence of his examination such report cannot be read in evidence. This reason of the High Court, in our view, is also fallacious. Firstly, the forensic science laboratory report (Ext. P-X) has been submitted under the signatures of a Junior Scien- tific Officer (Ballistic) of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. There is no dispute that the report was submitted under the hand of a government scientific expert. Section 293(1) of the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure enjoins that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government scientific expert under the section, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and re- port in the course of any proceeding under the Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. The High Court has com-
pletely overlooked the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 293 and arrived at a fallacious conclusion that a Junior Scientific Officer is not an officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293. What sub-sec- tion (4) of Section 293 envisages is that the court is to accept the documents issued by any of the six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examin- ing the author of the documents."6. Secondly, the ground on which the High Court has thrown out the prosecution story is the report of the ballistic expert. FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 39 of 67 The report of the ballistic expert (Ext. PX) was signed by one Junior Scientific Officer. According to the High Court, a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) is not the of- ficer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, in the absence of his examination such report cannot be read in evidence. This reason of the High Court, in our view, is also fallacious. Firstly, the forensic science laboratory report (Ext. P-X) has been submitted under the signatures of a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. There is no dispute that the report was submitted un- der the hand of a government scientific expert. Section 293(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government scientific expert under the section, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for ex- amination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under the Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. The High Court has completely overlooked the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 293 and arrived at a fallacious conclusion that a Junior Scientific Offi- cer is not an officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293. What sub-section (4) of Section 293 envisages is that the court is to accept the documents issued by any of the six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examining the author of the documents."
62. In the instant case, it should be noted that the FSL Report dated 30.03.2012 was prepared by Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL, Delhi cum Ex Officio Chemical Examiner to the Government of Delhi. Hence, the author of the FSL Report, being one of the officers listed FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 40 of 67 under section 293 Cr.PC, the FSL Reports dated 30.03.2012 would be per se admissible in evidence without the examination of its author.
63. Thus, perusal of the testimony of PW-3 and FSL Report dated 30.03.2012 would show that the accused Deepak had actually played a very active role in this criminal conspiracy by doing certain acts i.e. (i) he impersonated himself to be Rajender Tyagi; (ii) he went to the residence of the PW-3 along with other co-accused persons with forged property documents in order to show that the property in question actually belonged to Rajender Tyagi; (iii) he took PW-3 to the property in question along with the accused Lavesh Sen and shown him the property and electricity connection document which was in the name of Rajender Tyagi; (iv) he went to the house of Rajender Tyagi for executing the rent agreement; and (v) he signed on the rent agreement by claiming himself to be Rajender Tyagi.
64. It should be noted that PW-3 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel appearing for the accused Deepak and no material contradictions were initially seen in his testimony qua the role of the accused Deepak. However, when PW-3 was recalled for further cross- examination on the application filed u/s 311 Cr.P.C on behalf of the FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 41 of 67 accused Deepak, he interalia stated that he had seen the accused Deepak for the first time in the Court and the said accused was not arrested in his presence. During the final arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused Deepak submitted that this would be a material contradiction in the testimony of PW-3 as he failed to property identify the accused Deepak as Rajender Malik as he had seen him for the first time in the Court.
65. It is a matter of fact that PW-3 in the later part of his cross-examination has indeed stated that he has seen the accused Deepak for the first time in the Court. Thus, it would seem to indicate at the first instance that PW-3 had turned hostile qua the identity of the accused Deepak as he could not have identified him as Rajender Tyagi if he would have seen him for the first time in the Court. However, the manner in which PW-3 had turned hostile on this aspect would be very interesting. PW-3 had completely supported the case of the prosecution in his examination in chief and cross-examination initially. He had also identified the accused Deepak as Rajender Malik. However, he turned hostile only when he was recalled for further cross-examination by the accused Deepak on an application filed u/s 311 Cr.P.C in the year 2025. It would appear that the FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 42 of 67 said application was filed only to bring the said contradiction in the testimony of PW-3.
66. Be that as it may, it is a settled proposition of law that even the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon by the Court in order to convict an accused. The fact that the witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined by them would not automatically discard their whole testimonies. Evidence of such witnesses can be accepted to the extent their versions are found to be dependable on careful scrutiny. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1976 SC 294.
67. Further, in the case of Koli Lakshmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the above stated ration has held that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 43 of 67
68. In the instant case, after going through the entire testimony of PW-3, I find that his examination in chief and his initial cross-examination during which he identified the accused Deepak as Rajender Malik is safe to be relied upon. It would appear that the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C was filed by the accused Deepak only to bring contradiction in the testimony of PW-3 as the question as to whether he saw the accused Deepak first time in the Court could have been asked in his initial cross-examination only which was in fact done in detail.
69. Also, the testimony of PW-3 qua the role of the accused Deepak in the present case could also get corroborated from the FSL Report dated 30.03.2012 as per which it would become clear that it was the accused Deepak only who had signed on the rent agreement executed with the daughter of PW-3 by impersonating himself as Rajender Tyagi. Interestingly, when the incriminating materials were put before the accused Deepak at the stage of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, he simple denied them and remained silent as to how his specimen signature matched with the signature of Rajender Tyagi appearing on the rent agreement in question.
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 44 of 67
70. Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has successfully established the presence of criminal conspiracy in the present case beyond reasonable doubts. It also successfully proved that the accused Deepak had played a very active role in this conspiracy. Thus, the guilt of the accused Deepak for the offence punishable u/s 120N r/w 34 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubts.
Culpability for the offence punishable u/s 419 IPC
71. Section 419 IPC provides for the offence of "cheating by personation". It is punishable u/s 419 IPC. It reads as under:
"416. Cheating by personation.--A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Explanation.--The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person."
72. In the present case, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused Deepak has impersonated himself as another person namely Rajender Malik before the PW-3.
73. In order to prove this, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of PW-3 who had identified the accused Deepak as Rajender FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 45 of 67 Malik in the Court. This would also get corroborated from the FSL Report dated 30.03.2012 as per which the specimen signature of the accused Deepak had matched with the signature of Rajender Malik appearing on the rent agreement Mark X-1.
74. Thus, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused Deepak for the offence punishable u/s 419 IPC beyond reasonable doubts.
Culpability for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC
75. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused Deepak in furtherance of his criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has cheated the PW-3 by inducing him to enter into a rent agreement with them by claiming that the property in question actually belonged to one person namely Rajender Malik. He had also shown some forged property papers and electricity connection document in order show that the property in question actually belonged to Rajender Malik. The accused Deepak had also actually impersonated himself as Rajender Malik.
76. Section 420 IPC provides for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Simple cheating is punishable u/s 417 IPC. FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 46 of 67 But where there is delivery or destruction of any property or alteration or destruction of any valuable security resulting from the act of person deceiving, the same falls under the ambit of section 420. It reads as under:
"S.420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being con- verted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine"
77. The essential ingredients to attract section 420 IPC are:
• Cheating;
• Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or is capable of be-
ing converted into a valuable security; and • Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement
78. In order to apply section 420 of the IPC, namely cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, the ingredients of section 415 of the IPC FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 47 of 67 have to be satisfied. To constitute an offence of cheating under section 415 of the IPC, a person should be induced, either fraudulently or dishonestly, to deliver any property to any person, or consent that any person shall retain any property. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the intentional inducement of doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do, if she were not so deceived. Thus, the sine qua non of section 415 the IPC is "fraudulent", "dishonesty", or "intentional inducement", and the absence of these elements would not constitute the offence of cheating. Reference can be taken from the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gaba & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3 decided on 02.01.2023.
79. It should also be noted that accused should have dishonest intention to cheat right at the time of making the promise or representation. If he does not have any such intention at the very outset and if he subsequently fails to fulfil the said promise, then he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal vs. CBI (2003) 5 SCC 257.
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 48 of 67
80. In order to prove the culpability of the accused Deepak for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, the prosecution again relied upon the testimony of PW-3 and the FSL Report dated 30.03.2012. As discussed in the preceding part of this judgement, the PW-3 in his testimony has deposed in detail in which manner the fraudulent inducements were made by the accused Deepak. Perusal of his testimony would show that it was the accused Deepak who impersonated himself to be Rajender Malik and also claimed that the property in question actually belonged to him. The accused Deepak actually visited the residence of PW-3 multiple times and made these inducements. He even signed on the rent agreement by claiming himself to be Rajender Malik. He also had shown some forged property documents in order to make these fraudulent inducements. As per PW-4, even the electricity connection which was taken on the property in question was in the name of Rajender Malik. PW-3 in his testimony had correctly identified the accused Deepak as Rajender Malik in his testimony.
81. Thus, it would become very clear that the accused Deepak had played a very active role in making fraudulent inducements to the PW-3. He had even called the PW-3 from his mobile number 9873577564 which was FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 49 of 67 found to be registered in the name of Rajender Malik. The fact that the accused Deepak had impersonated himself as Rajender Malik from the very beginning while making these inducements would show that he always had mens rea to cheat the complainant. The accused Deepak even signed on the rent agreement by impersonating himself as Rajender Tyagi. Based on these inducements, the PW-3 had paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as advance rent to the accused Lavesh Sen and also started repairing work on the property in question. Thus, wrongful loss was caused to PW-3.
82. Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused Deepak has indeed cheated the PW-3 in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy.
Culpability for the offence punishable u/s 467 & 468 IPC
83. Section 467 of the IPC deals with the offence of forgery of valuable security or will etc. It is an aggravated form of forgery. It reads as under:
"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 re- ceive or deliver any money, movable property, or valu-FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 50 of 67
able security, or any document purporting to be an ac- quittance 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 imprison- ment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
84. Similarly, section 468 of the IPC also provides for an aggravated form of forgery. It deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. It reads as under:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. --Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.."
85. Therefore, the primary ingredient which needs to be proved by the prosecution in order to attract section 467/468 IPC is the existence of a "forgery". Forgery is defined in section 463 IPC as the making of a false document or false electronic record with any of intentions mentioned therein. Section 464 defines the making of false document or false electronic record.
"Section 463 reads as under:
"Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 51 of 67 record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
Section 464 reads as under:
"Making a false document- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- First- Who dishonestly or fraudulently- Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
Affixes any electronic signature or any electronic record;
Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or authenticity of the electronic signature, With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed, or affixed; or Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed pr affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 52 of 67 other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
86. Therefore, a combined reading of the provisions enshrined in section 463 and 464 suggests that in addition to prove the making/existence of a false document by the accused, the prosecution is also required to establish that the said document or electronic record as the case may be, was forged to achieve any of the intentions enumerated in section 463 i.e. (i) to cause damage or injury to the public, or to any person; or (ii) to support any claim or title; or (iii) to cause any person to part with property; or (iv) to enter into any express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Therefore, in order to convict an accused for the offence punishable u/s 467/468 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove/establish the making of a false document mentioned therein.
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 53 of 67
87. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the foremost ingredient which needs to be established by the prosecution in order to prove the culpability of an accused for the offence punishable u/s 467 IPC is the "existence of a forged specified documents i.e. valuable security, will etc.". Similarly, in order to attract an offence punishable u/s 468 IPC is the "existence of a forged document' which must be made in furtherance to cheat any other persons. In other words, the prosecution needs to establish the fact that the accused made a false document which is a valuable security or other documents as mentioned u/s 467 IPC with an intention to cheat.
88. In the present case, as per the prosecution, the following documents have been found to be forged in the present case:
(i) Rent agreement Mark X-1 executed between Rajender Malik and the daughter of PW-3 namely Seema; and
(ii) Ownership documents of property in question Mark A-1 & A-2; and
(iii)Voter Id card of Rajender Malik.
89. First and foremost, it should be noted that the rent agreement Mark X-1 was executed between Rajender Malik and daughter of PW-3 namely FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 54 of 67 Seema Tyagi. The said rent agreement was actually signed by the ac- cused Deepak who impersonated himself to be the owner of the property in question i.e. Rajender Malik. This would be evident from the FSL Re- port dated 30.03.2012 as per which the specimen signature of the ac- cused Deepak matched with the signature of Rajender Malik appearing on the said rent agreement.
90. It would mean that the accused Deepak while signing the rent agreement by impersonating himself as Rajender Malik, the owner of the property in question, had the intention of causing it to be believed that the said agreement was signed by the actual owner of the property in question i.e. Rajender Malik. This signature was made by the accused Deepak with a fraudulent intention to (i) to support the claim that Rajender Malik was the owner of the property in question; (ii) to cause PW-3 to enter into rent agreement; iii) to cause PW-3 to pay advance rent amount; and (iv) to commit fraud upon PW-3. This would make the rent agreement in question a false document a defined us/ 464 IPC.
91. As discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, as per the FSL Re-
port, it would become clear that it was the accused Deepak who had FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 55 of 67 signed the said rent agreement as Rajender Malik. Thus, I find that the accused Deepak is the maker of the said forged document.
92. Further, it should be noted that the rent agreement in question is also a valuable security u/s 467 IPC. The term "valuable security" is defined u/s 30 of IPC as any document by way of which any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or where by an person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not cer- tain legal right.
93. In the case of Preeti Gautam vs. Central Bureau pf Investigation, Criminal Revision No. 3929 of 2012, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court while discussing the contours of section 467 IPC has held that for the said offence, only restricted documents which are stated u/s 467 IPC are not only required to be considered rather the meaning of "valuable security" itself needs to be considered as many documents could the considered as "valuable security" in course of the time. It also held that if the tampering has taken place in order to receive a benefit by the other co-accused, it has to be read as a valuable security. FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 56 of 67
94. In the present case, the forged document is basically a rent agreement by way of which a right is being conferred upon the tenant i.e. PW-3 and his family members to have possession over the property in question and to reside therein. In fact, possession was also handed over to PW-3 who also started renovation and repair work over the said property. Thus, the said rent agreement has indeed created a legal right in favour of the ten- ant i.e. PW-3. The accused persons had also benefitted from the said document i.e. rent agreement as they successfully induced PW-3 in tak- ing the property in question on rent. Therefore, it is a valuable security as defined u/s 30 IPC.
95. Since, the accused Deepak has created the said forged rent agreement by affixing the signature of Rajender Malik on the same by claiming him to be the owner of the property in question thereby creating legal right in favour of the PW-3 and the said agreement has also been used for the purpose of cheating, therefore, I find that the prosecution has successful- ly proved the guilt of the accused Deepak for the offence punishable u/s 467 & 471 IPC beyond reasonable doubts.
FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 57 of 67
96. In so far as other forged documents are concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove that it is the accused Deepak who has forged the said documents.
Culpability for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC
97. As per the case of prosecution, the accused Deepak in furtherance of his criminal conspiracy with other co-accused Lavesh @ Rajesh had used the forged property documents of the property in question Mark A-1 and A-2 and forged rent agreement Mark X-1 as the genuine documents in order to cheat the PW-3 and his daughter despite knowing that the said documents were false and fabricated.
98. Section 471 IPC provides for the offence of using as genuine a forged document. It reads as under:
"471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record]."
99. The essential ingredients of section 471 IPC are: (i) fraudulent or dishon-
est use of document as genuine, and (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 58 of 67 on the part of person using the document that it is forged one. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent. The use of document con- templated by this provision must be a voluntary one.
100. It should be noted that section 471 is intended to apply to persons other than the forger himself, but the forger himself is not excluded from the operation of this provision. In order to attract this provision, it is not nec- essary that the person held guilty under the provision must have forged the document himself or that the person independently charged for forgery of the document must of necessity be convicted before the per- son using the forged document, knowing it to be forged one can be con- victed, as long as the fact that the document used stood established or proved to be a forged one. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.S. Krishnan and Others vs. State of Kerala (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 576.
101. In the present case, as discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, the prosecution has successfully established that the rent agreement ex- ecuted between the daughter of PW-3 and Rajender Malik (impersonated by the accused Deepak) is a forged and fabricated document. FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 59 of 67
102. Similarly, the prosecution has also duly proved that the property docu- ments of the property in question i.e. GPA which is Mark A1 and affidavit which is Mark A2 are also forged documents. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of PW-6 Bijender i.e. notary. He had categorically stated that during the course of the in- vestigation, IO had shown some documents i.e. general power of attor- ney and affidavits Mark A-1 and A-2. He saw the said documents and in- formed the IO that there were fake signatures as well as fake attestation on the said documents. He told the IO that his signatures on the said documents were forged and he did not attest the said documents.
103. Thus, the prosecution has proved the existence of at least two forged documents in question i.e. property documents of the property in ques- tion Mark A1 and Mark A2 and rent agreement. While the prosecution also proved that the rent agreement was forged by the accused Deepak, however, it could not prove the maker of the other forged documents Mark A1 and Mark A2.
104. However, it cannot be ignored that the accused Deepak and Lavesh had used both these documents as genuine in order cheat the PW-3 and in- duce him to believe that the property in question actually belonged to Ra- FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 60 of 67 jender Malik and to further induce him to take the property in question on rent. As already discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, the ac- cused Deepak had played an active important role in the present case. He had visited the house of PW-3 and met him multiple times and had also shown the forged property documents to him as genuine.
105. Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has duly proved that the accused Deepak has used certain forged documents as genuine in order to cheat the PW-3.
Culpability for the offence punishable u/s 474 IPC
106. Section 474 IPC provides for the offence of having in possession of forged documents despite knowing them to be forged and intending to use them as genuine. It reads as under:
"Whoever has in his possession any document or elec- tronic record, knowing the same to be forged, and in- tending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electron- ic record, is one of the description mentioned in sec- tion 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 sec- tion 467, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description, for a term FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 61 of 67 which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
107. A bare reading of above mentioned provision would show that in order to prove the culpability of a person charged for the offence punishment u/s 474 IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the following es- sential ingredients:
(i) the forged document should be such documents as specified u/s 466 or 467 IPC i.e. it should be either appears as a record of a court, public register, or a document created by a public servant in their official capacity or a valuable security;
(ii) The accused should be in possession of such forged document;
(iii)The accused should have the knowledge that the said document is forged; and
(iv)The accused should have the intention to fraudulently or dishon- estly use the same as genuine
108. In the present case, it should be noted that the original forged property documents of the property in question Mark A1 and Mark A2 could never be recovered by the investigating agency. Their photocopies Mark A1 FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 62 of 67 and A2 were recovered and seized from the possession of the co- accused Lavesh Sen. Thus, the said forged document was not recovered from the possession of the accused Deepak. Similarly, another forged document i.e. rent agreement was not seized from the possession of the accused Deepak rather the same was produced by PW-3 from his possession.
109. Since, one of the essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 474 IPC could not be proved, therefore, the accused Deepak cannot be convicted for the substantive offence punishable u/s 474 IPC. Culpability for the offence punishable u/s 448/120B/34 IPC
110. Section 448 IPC provides for the punishment of house trespass which is said to have been committed when any person enters into or upon the building interalia used as human dwelling in the possession of another person interalia with an intention to commit an offence.
111. In the present case, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused Deepak in furtherance of his common intention with the accused Lavesh had entered into the house belonging to B-10/7025 situated in Vasant FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 63 of 67 Kun. The said property was in constructive possession of PW-1 who was the power of attorney holder of the registered owner.
112. In order to prove the culpability of the accused Deepak, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3. PW-1 had categorically stated in his testimony that the property in question be- longed to his sister Sujata Parashar and he had the general power of atoner executed in his favour. He used to take care of the said house and thus, was in constructive possession of the same. He also deposed that when he reached the house, he found that some labourers were painting/ white washing the said flat. He also stated that upon inquiry, one person namely Mr. Tyagi told that he was the tenant of the said premise.
113. From the perusal of PW-1, it would become clear that house trespass was committed in the property in question the moment other persons en- tered into that property. As per PW-3. Rajender Tyagi, he was taken to the said property by Rajender Malik and Lavesh Sen. He had categori- cally stated that the co-accused Rajesh along with another person name- ly Rajender Malik came to his residence and they also took him to the said flat situated at B-7205, Vasant Kunj. PW-3 was taken to the property in question by these accused persons in order induce him to believe that FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 64 of 67 the said property actually belonged to Rajender Malik and to induce him to take the same on rent i.e. with an intention to cheat the PW-3. Thus, house trespass was committed the moment the accused persons en- tered into the said property with PW-3 with an intention to cheat him.
114. Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has duly proved the culpability of the accused Deepak for the offence punishable u/s 448/120B/34 IPC.
ORDER
115. Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved (beyond reasonable doubts) that the accused Deepak was part of criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Lavesh to cheat the PW-3. He had played a very active role in the said conspiracy. He impersonated himself to be another person namely Rajender Malik and claimed himself to be the owner of the property in question. By way of impersonation and fraudulent representations, the accused Deepak induced the PW-3 to agree to take the property in question on rent and thereby cheated him. The accused Deepak also prepared forged rent agreement by affixing the signature of Rajender Malik and also used the FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 65 of 67 forged documents as genuine in order to cheat PW-3. He also criminally trespassed in the house of the complainant in order to cheat PW-3.
116. However, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused Deepak for the offence punishable u/s 474 IPC beyond reasonable doubts as no forged documents were recovered from his possession.
117. Further, while there are suspicions against the accused Umesh for having committed the offences in the present case, however, the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubts in the present case for any of the offences. Thus, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused Umesh Kumar.
118. Accordingly, the accused Deepak stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 419/420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC & 448/120B/34 IPC and stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 474 IPC. The accused Umesh Kumar stands acquitted for all the offences for which he has been charged.
Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH Announced in the open court on 08.05.2026 KUMAR Date: 2026.05.08 18:46:23 +0530 (Animesh Kumar) JMFC-02, Patiala House Courts FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 66 of 67
It is certified that this judgment contains 67 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.05.08 18:46:13 +0530 (Animesh Kumar) JMFC-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi 08.05.2026 FIR No. 179/2011 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 67 of 67