Delhi District Court
State vs . Nitin Kumar on 24 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Nitin Kumar
FIR No. : 410/2017
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 170/171/420/468 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 284/2018
B. Date of Commission of offence 08.11.2017
C. Date of FIR 08.11.2017
D. Date of charge-sheet 17.01.2018
E. Name of the complainant Sudesh Kumar, Assistant Security Officer,
AIIMS, New Delhi
F. Name of the accused persons, their Nitin Kumar S/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar, R/o
parentage and residence D-49, Shiv Ram Park, Gali No. 9, Hanuman
Mandir, Nangloi, New Delhi
G. Offence complained of or proved 171/471 IPC
H. Date of framing of charges 25.07.2018
I. Date of commencement of evidence 16.11.2018
J. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 15.04.2023.
L. Final Order Acquitted
M. Date of Judgment 24.04.2023
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.1 of 15
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the complainant arises out of complaint dt. 08.11.2017 of complainant Sudesh Kumar who is Assistant Security Officer in AIIMS hospital that on that day at about 4 PM accused Nitin Kumar was apprehended in surgery OPD, 5th floor of AIIMS Hospital impersonating as Senior Resident CTVS AIIMS New Delhi. He was wearing a white coat apron with AIIMS logo embroided on his pocket and one stethoscope hanging around his neck. The security guard on duty Santosh Kumar informed complainant and also Amir Mohd Security Manager on which they reached and brought accused to the office of Chief Security Officer. During interrogation accused informed that he came to see Dr. Piyush Ranjan in connection with treatment of Hernia. A few ID cards, Pan card, DL and I-card of Nanak Darbar Charitable Hospital on which designation as Dr. Nitin Kumar MBBS, AIIMS were recovered from his possession. He also told that he visited AIIMS in year 2017 in connection with the treatment of his mother Chaya Devi who is patient of breast cancer. On his examination he could not give any satisfactory reply and admitted that he is not an MBBS doctor and he is supposing doctor merely to get the priority in treatment of his mother. On the basis of complaint FIR was registered. I-card, apron, stethoscope were seized. Accused was arrested. I-card was verified from Nanak Dar- bar Charitable hospital which was found fake. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 25.07.2018 charge was framed against accused Nitin Kumar for the offence u/s 171/471 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.2 of 15
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined 7 witnesses. PW1 is Sudesh Kumar, PW2 is Amir Mohd., PW3 is Santosh, PW4 is Ct. Pooranmal, PW5 is Amit Vohra, PW6 is HC Brahma Nand and PW7 is ASI Surender Singh.
4. PW1 Sudesh Kumar had deposed in his testimony that he has been working in the AIIMS hospital since 25 years and for the last 4 years, he is working for the post of Asst. Security Officer. He had further deposed that on 08.11.2017 at about 04.00 pm, one person namely Nitin Kumar was apprehended in Surgery OPD V Floor of AIIMS Hospital while he was impersonating as Senior Resident, CTVS, AIIMS New Delhi. He had further deposed that he was wearing a white coat with AIIMS logo embroided on his pocket and one stethoscope was also hanging around his neck. He had further deposed that the security guard on duty Santosh Kumar had apprehended the accused on suspicion. He had further deposed that after apprehension of the accused, information was given to him on telephone. He had further deposed that thereafter, he along with security manager Mohd. Amir reached the spot and thereafter, accused was handed over to them. He had further deposed that thereafter, they took him to the office of their Deputy Chief Security Officer. He had further deposed that thereafter, he was interrogated and his personal search was got conducted. He had further deposed that thereafter, few ID cards were recovered from his possession i.e. Adhar Card, DL, PAN Card and one ID card of Nanak Darbar Charitable Hospital on which, "doctor Nitin Kumar, doctor MBBS, AIIMS" was written. He had further deposed that on interrogation, the accused revealed that he used to visit AIIMS prior to the incident with regard to treatment of his mother. He had further deposed that thereafter, on interrogation, he could not give any satisfactory reply. He had further deposed that thereafter, they figured out that State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.3 of 15 accused was using fake ID cards and was impersonating himself as a doctor. He had further deposed that thereafter, he took the accused to AIIMS Police Chowki and thereafter, he was handed over to the police official. He had further deposed that thereafter, a complaint was given to the police which is Ex. PW1/A. He had further deposed that thereafter, police seized the stethoscope, apron (coat) and ID card from the possession of the accused. He had further deposed that thereafter, police prepared the seizure memo to that effect and the same is Ex. PW1/B. He had further deposed that thereafter, police arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C and his personal search was got conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/D. The witness had correctly identified the accused and also case properties i.e. one white coat (apron) having the logo of AIIMS embroided on the same, one stethoscope, one I Card of Nanak Darba Charitable hospital. The said case properties are kept in a cotton bag in an unsealed condition.
5. PW2 Amir Mohd. had deposed in his testimony that on 08.11.2017, he was working as security Manager at AIIMS. He had further deposed that on that day, he was on duty at control room. He had further deposed that Security guard Santosh called him from 5th floor (surgery OPD) and told him that they have caught a person who was impersonating as doctor. He had further deposed that thereafter, he called Sudesh Kumar who was Asstt. Security Officer and told him about the fake document. He had further deposed that thereafter they both went to 5th floor where Santosh Kumar had apprehended accused Nitin and told him that accused was impersonating as doctor. He had further deposed that accused was also wearing apron at that time and also wearing stethoscope. He had further deposed that accused was also wearing one fake identity card. He had further deposed that thereafter they took accused to control room, from there they took accused to Mr. Rawat who was State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.4 of 15 working as Chief Security Officer. He had further deposed that thereafter, the police officers from police post were informed and accused was taken to PP AIIMS. He had further deposed that accused was handed over to police and the items recovered from accused were also handed over to police which was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW1/B. He had further deposed that accused was arrested by police, his arrest memo and personal search memo is Ex PW1/C and Ex PW1/D. The witness had correctly identified the case property i.e., one stethoscope, ID Card of Nanak Darbar Charitable Hospital & one white apron which is Ex P1, Ex P2 and Ex P3 respectively.
6. PW3 Santosh had deposed in his testimony that on 8.11.2017, he was working as security guard at AIIMS Hospital. He had further deposed that at about 3.30 PM, Dr. Piyush Ranjan told him that this person was seeming to be a fake doctor. He had further deposed that the name of that fake doctor was revealed as Nitin. He had further deposed that he asked Nitin to produce an I/Card, after which he gave an I/Card which was found to be fake. He had further deposed that thereafter, he called at control room from where Mr. Amir and Mr. Sudesh came and accused was handed over to them, who took him to police post.
7. PW5 Amit Vohra had deposed in his testimony that he is a businessman He had further deposed that he was also sevadar of Sant Kirandas Charitable, Chander Vihar, Nilothi. He had further deposed that in November 2003, one police official came at aforesaid charitable and he had enquired about the accused Nitin Kumar from Sant Kiran Das, at that time he was ill therefore, he directed him to tell the police official that accused Nitin Kumar was not working in the aforesaid charitable and the identity card (which was shown by the IO to Sant Kiran Das) was not issued by the Charitable society. He had further deposed that he gave in writing State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.5 of 15 that accused was not working in the said premises. He had further deposed that the said letter is Ex.PW-5/A bearing his signature at point A.
8. PW4 Ct. Pooranmal had deposed in his testimony that on 08.11.2017, he was posted at PS Hauz Khas and that he alongwith HC Brahmanand went to the Fifth floor as they were called by ASO Sudesh. He had further deposed that there, he saw the accused wearing an apron with the logo of AIIMS. He had further deposed that he was asked to show his I-card. He had further deposed that the I -card was of Gurunanak Charitable Hospital. He had further deposed that he was taken to the Police Chowki. He was sent to the PS for registration of FIR on the complaint by ASO Sudesh. He had further deposed that after registration of FIR, he returned to the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and original tehrir. He had further deposed that the investigation was marked to ASI Surender. He had further deposed that the personal search memo of accused was prepared in his presence which is Ex.PW-1/D and accused was arrested vide Ex.PW-1/C. The witness had also deposed that the I-card and accessories were seized in his presence vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-1/B.
9. PW6 HC Brahma Nand had deposed in his testimony that on 08.11.2017 he was posted as a HC at PS. Hauz Khas and he received one written complaint through ASO (security officer AIIMS), Sudesh and he also produced the accused Nitin Kumar before him. He had further deposed that thereafter he prepared the rukka on the basis of the complainant, which is already PW-1/A and handed over the same to the Ct.Puran for registration of FIR. He had further deposed that thereafter, he went to the PS after lodging the FIR. He had further deposed that further investigation of the case was Marked to ASI Surender. So, Ct. Puran Mal and ASI Surender came at the PP AIIMS and the copy of FIR and original rukka were State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.6 of 15 handed over to ASI Surender.
10. PW7 ASI Surender Singh had deposed in his testimony that on 08.11.2017, he was posted as ASI at PP, AIIMS, PS Hauz Khas and at about 07.15 pm, Ct. Puran came at the PP AIIMS and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him as the investigation was marked to him by the order of concerned SHO. ASO (Assistant Security Officer) of AIIMS namely Sudesh Kumar, the SIS Manager Ameer Khan and guard Santosh Kumar produced the accused Nitin Kumar before him along with the fake ID card of Dr. Nitin Kumar, apron, stethoscope and he recorded the disclosure statement which is Ex.PW7/A and he arrested him vide arrest memo a Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point D and he got conducted the medical examination of the accused. He had further deposed that he also conducted the personal search of the accused and he seized the fake ID Card, stethoscope, apron vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He had further deposed that thereafter he along with Ct. Puran went to the PS with accused and accused was sent to the lockup. He had further deposed that the copy of the fake ID card is marked as Mark A. He had further deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Bharmanand, Ct. Puran, Guard Santosh Kumar and supplementary statement of Sudesh Kumar and Ameer Khan. He had further deposed that after few days, he went to the Nanak Darbar Charitable Hospital, Nangloi, Delhi where he met the concerned person Amit Vohara and he was the incharge of the aforesaid Charitable hospital. He had further deposed that he recorded his statement and he gave the written report that the accused was not working as a doctor there. The witness had correctly identified the accused present before the court and also case property.
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.7 of 15
Statement of accused
11. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is falsely implicated in the case. Treatment was going of his mother for breast cancer who is at the 4th stage of cancer and he took his mother in evening OPD and she was senior citizen and guard were taking few patients in the name that they were from staff. When he objected hot talks took place between him and guard. He went for treatment of his mother as the BCC Clinic held every Wednesday on 5th floor. He reached there at about 4 pm as he was held in traffic. At about 5.15 pm he had arguments with guard.
12. Accused did not lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
13. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
14. It is argued on behalf of the Ld. APP for the State that there is sufficient material available against the accused that he was impersonating as a doctor wearing white apron of AIIMS logo and & further he was also carrying forged ID card and said apron and ID card was also seized. Thus, it is a fit case of conviction.
15. It is argued on behalf of Ld. counsel for the accused that no statement of doctor has been recorded in the case. If the accused had gone for treatment of his mother, those treatment papers should have been recovered from doctor. The prosecution had to prove that accused was carrying I-card with fraudulent intention. Section 471 is not proved in the case. There is no evidence in the case on record to show that accused had fabricated false documents and there is also no evidence to State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.8 of 15 show that the forged document has been used by accused. None of the witness has stated that accused had ID card of AIIMS hospital and he used the same. The complainant in the present case is made on letter head of AIIMS hospital. Prosecution has failed to show that complainant was entitled to use the AIIMS letter head. There is no allegation against accused that he represented himself as a doctor. The only allegation is that he was wearing apron and carrying stethoscope. No entry has been made in the log-book by the complainant. Stethoscope and apron are easily available. IO did not recover any medical prescription, OPD card to show that accused had visited hospital for treatment and use of document is signed on for proving allegation u/s 471 IPC. The card recovered from accused is allegedly not of AIIMS hospital. Officials of Nanak Darbar Charitable hospital could have filed complaint against accused if he represented himself as officer of Nanak Darbar Charitable Trust but no such complaint has been filed by them. Complainant was in the obligation to make entry in the log-book but no entry has been made. None of the witness had stated that accused represented himself as doctor.
16. Before proceeding further, I would retireate the relevant provisions involved in the case.
Section 171 IPC prescribes punishment for wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent. Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants is liable to be punished under said provision.
17. Section 471 provides punishment for using forged document as State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.9 of 15 genuine. The provision reads as - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any or document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged or document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
18. The case of the prosecution is that on alleged date of incident, accused had impersonated himself as Senior Resident, CTVS AIIMS New Delhi by wearing white coat with AIIMS Logo and stethoscope around his neck. On checking one ID card of Nanak Darbar Charitable Hospital on which, "doctor Nitin Kumar, doctor MBBS, AIIMS" was recovered from him and the same was found to be fake. In this regard, complainant Sudesh had deposed that accused was apprehended in surgery OPD, 5th floor, AIIMS hospital wearing white coat with AIIMS logo embroided on its pocket and one stethoscope hanging around his neck. According to him, Santosh Kumar security guard had apprehended the accused on suspicion. Only after apprehending him he received the information about the same. As per the version of PW3 Santosh, Dr. Piyush Ranjan had told him that person (accused) was seeming to be a fake doctor and on inquiry accused Nitin produced the I-card after which I-card was found to be fake. It is pertinent to mention that Dr. Piyush Ranjan had not been examined in the case. If Dr. Piyush Ranjan had found suspicion with accused representing himself as doctor of AIIMS, he should have been examined by the prosecution as he was the material witness. In what circumstances accused was found as fake doctor must be within the knowledge of Dr. Piyush Ranjan itself. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused had falsely represented or personated himself before Security guard Santosh Kumar or complainant Sudesh Kumar. If the representation was made before Dr. Piyush Ranjan, his testimony should have been brought on record by the prosecution deposing categorically before the Court how the State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.10 of 15 accused had falsely personated as doctor before him and had used the forged identity card for the same.
19. PW3 Santosh had admitted in his cross-examination that Dr. Piyush Ranjan did not give any written instructions to check if accused is a fake doctor or not. He further stated that doctor at anesthesia were called and accused told that he was from Anesthesia Department and then he came to know that no such doctor was working in that department. Neither the prosecution had examined Dr. Piyush nor any doctor of anesthesia department or any concerned person of said department before whom accused had personated himself as doctor of AIIMS. This is also material flaw in the prosecution story as it is not clear from record whether accused had pretended himself to be fake doctor.
20. PW Amir Mohd. had admitted that accused did not represent himself as doctor before him nor before anyone in his presence. Further PW3 complainant Santosh had also nowhere deposed that accused had represented before him as a doctor. In his cross-examination he had admitted that on the basis of information of Santosh Kumar, he had made complaint to the police against the accused. There is nothing in the testimony of Security guard Santosh to show that accused was falsely representing himself as doctor before him. If the wrongful representation was not made before either of the witnesses, the entire thrust of the prosecution story becomes unreliable and shaky.
21. In his cross-examination PW1 Sudesh Kumar had admitted that he took into possession alleged recovered articles in the office of R.S. Rawat, Deputy Chief Security Officer. He admitted that he did not prepare any separate list of recovered articles. He had also admitted that he did not make any inquiry from any patients or State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.11 of 15 from any doctors who were on duty on the alleged date, time of incident to ascertain whether the accused had falsely represented himself as a doctor. He had further admitted that he did not record the statement of any patient or document on duty on the alleged date of incident. Further, PW1 Sudesh himself had admitted that the coat with AIIMS Logo and stethoscope are easily available. Though the alleged case property white apron and stethoscope is alleged to have been seized from the possession of accused vide seizure memo but the possibility of falsely planting the white coat with AIIMS logo and stethoscope cannot be denied. Further in the absence of any substantive evidence as to misrepresentation or impersonation mere recovery of white apron and stethoscope cannot go on to prove that accused was pretending to be a doctor.
22. PW1 Sudesh Kumar had admitted in his cross-examination that he was not authorized to use letter head of AIIMS hospital. He further admitted that complaint was typed by clerk Kuldeep Singh at the instance of R.S. Rawat Deputy Chief Security Officer. He had further stated that to the best of his knowledge, R.S. Rawat is not authorized to use the letter head of AIIMS. He had further admitted that complaint Ex.PW1/A is typed at AIIMS hospital. In his cross-examination PW2 Amir Mohd. had stated that there is log-book kept in control room wherein complaint regarding breach of security was recorded. He further stated that he cannot say if the complaint regarding fake doctor was recorded in the log-book or not. He had admitted that he did not give any written information to Rajdeep, Administrator Officer, AIIMS hospital regarding the present case nor did he receive written instructions regarding the present case. Perusal of the entire record makes it clear that Sudesh Kumar was not authorized to use the letter head of AIIMS hospital. Sudesh Kumar was merely Assistance Security Officer in the AIIMS at the time of alleged incident. Though, he State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.12 of 15 had stated that complaint was typed at the instance of R.S. Rawat who was Deputy Chief Security Officer but admittedly, Deputy Chief Security Officer is not examined by the prosecution to prove authenticity of the present complaint. Further PW2 Amir Mohd who was also working as Security Manager at the time of alleged incident had also admitted that he did not give any any written information to R.S. Rawat nor had received any written instructions from him. In the absence of any written instructions of R.S. Rawat who is allegedly administrator of Security in AIIMS hospital, the contents of present complaint becomes unreliable. As the complainant himself is not authorized to use the authority letter of AIIMS how and in what circumstances he had forwarded the complaint against accused cannot be deciphered. Further PW2 Amir Mohd. had also admitted that he had not made any entry in the log-book kept in control room regarding the breach of security. No such entry is placed on record to corroborate the fact that any breach of security issue had occurred following the misrepresentation by accused.
23. PW1 Sudesh further admitted that all the OPDs are under CCTV footage but at the time of registration of FIR CCTV was not installed in the OPD. He further admitted that police officials did not accompany him to the alleged place of incident. He further admitted that he did not recover the treatment documents of accused regarding the treatment of hernia. He further admitted that no treatment paper regarding treatment of cancer of mother of accused was recovered from the possession of the accused. Thus it is clear from record that no CCTV footage is placed on record which could further corroborate the fact that accused was personating as a fake doctor on the alleged date.
24. From the examination of PW security guard Santosh Kumar it is clear State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.13 of 15 that only on the suspicion of Dr. Piyush that accused is appearing to be fake doctor, they had checked accused on which they had found certain identity cards including one ID card of Nanak Darbar Charitable Trust. On careful perusal of the copy of ID card of accused as is placed on record, shows that the validity of said ID card was from the period 1.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. Further, in the instructions mentioned in the card, it is mentioned that the card can be used only for Nanak Darbar Charitable Hospital. The case of prosecution is not that accused had knowingly shown the said ID card of Nanak Darbar Charitable Hospital to security guard Santosh. It was alleged to have been recovered only on his personal search. If the said card was recovered only during personal search, it is clear that accused was not using fraudulently or dishonestly said card alleged to have been forged. Further the incident alleged is of the year 2018. The validity of the card is till march 2016. In such circumstances, when the card was not valid beyond march 2016 and the accused had not shown the card on his own, there appears no reason for security guard to believe that accused is using the said identity card as valid. Probably accused was not working in said Nanak Darbar Charitable Trust in the year 2018 and therefore his record could not be found there. The prosecution had failed to prove that the said card seized from accused was a forged one. The testimony of PW5 Amit Vohra also becomes irrelevant as he was sevadar of Sant Kiran Das Charitable Trust and not of Nanak Darbar Charitable Trust from whom IO had verified the ID of accused.
25. There are many material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which make their testimony difficult to reply up for proving guilt of accused. It is well settled that in a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Any contradiction or iota of proof in favour of accused can completely dismantle the case of prosecution. In the State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.14 of 15 present case there are no cogent material available on record to suggest that accused had used the forged ID card of Nanak Darbar Charitable Hospital by showing it to Security Guard at Santosh Kumar. There is also no evidence on record to show that accused was acting as a doctor wearing by wearing the white apron with AIIMS logo on it . Thus it is also not proved that accused was acting as public servants by wearing garb or carries resembling to the one used by that class of public servants. The elements of forgery is missing in the case. In such circumstances, allegations of using forged documents can also not be proved.
Conclusion & Decision
26. Considering the above discussion and all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that prosecution had failed to prove guilt against accused beyond reasonable doubts. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned discussion, accused is acquitted for the commission of the offence U/s 171/471 IPC.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 24.04.2023. MM-06,SOUTH/SAKET DELHI State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. : 410/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 170/171/420/468 IPC Page no.15 of 15