Delhi District Court
State vs Jhinaku Prasad on 6 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Jhinaku Prasad
FIR No. : 297/2022
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 420/468/471/474/260 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 6445/2022 DLST020353902022
B. Date of Commission of offence 30.07.2022
C. Date of FIR 30.07.2022
D. Date of charge-sheet 28.09.2022
E. Name of the complainant Sudesh Kumar
F. Name of the accused persons, their parentage Jhinaku Prasad S/o Shankar, R/o Village Bheusa Urf
and residence Bankata, Bari Gaon, Gorakhpur, UP
G. Offence complained of or proved 420/468/471/474/260 IPC
H. Date of framing of charges 22.03.2023
I. Date of commencement of evidence 29.08.2023
J. Plea of the accused Not guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 14.03.2024
L. Final Order Convicted
M. Date of Judgment 06.04.2024
State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.1 of 18
Brief facts of the present case
1. As per the prosecution case, on 30.07.2022 at about 09.25 am accused Jhinku Prasad was caught red handed when he was making the OPD card from counter no. 23 and 24 of New RAK OPD with forged stamped & signature of PA to Director AIIMS New Delhi. Two appointment slips in the name of Sarita Devi (UHID 106128319) Mob. no. 8920942346 and Mr. Surendra Kumar S/o Fuda Singh age 58 years R/o Vill. Jarany, Muzaffarpur, Bihar mobile no. 6205680820 with forged signature and stamp of PA to Director was found from his possession. On enquiry it was revealed that he works as casual a labor in AIIMS and Safdarjung Campus. He also disclosed that approx. one & half month back he met a person namely Ravi near Gate no.
01. Ravi used to give him the forged slips to make the OPD cards of different OPDs and give him Rs. 100/- per card as commission. The six forged appointment slips were found from the data of his mobile no. 9599652959. On the basis of complaint the FIR was registered in the case. Site plan was prepared. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo and disclosure statement was recorded. The mobile phone was seized vide separate pullinda. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses were recorded. Search of co-accused Ravi was conducted but he could not be traced. CDR of accused was obtained. Seized mobile phone was sent to forensic department for extraction of data. Sample stamps of PA to Director AIIMS, New Delhi and specimen signature of PA to Director AIIM New Delhi were sent to FSL for analysis alongwith OPD slips and forged stamp. FSl results were obtained. After completing investigation, State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.2 of 18 charge-sheet was filed. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 22.03.2023 charge was framed against accused Jhinaku Prasad for the offence u/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses. PW1 is Prakash Kandpal, PW2 is Sudesh Kumar, PW3 is Veer Bahadur, PW4 is HC Rakesh Kumar, PW5 is Gupta Manish, PW6 is HC Mukesh, PW7 is SI Salman Ahmed and PW8 is Alok Kumar Mehta.
4. PW1 Prakash Kandpal had deposed in his testimony that in the year 2022, he got to know that people were getting new OPD cards on the basis of his forged signatures. He had further deposed that he had sent a boy from his office to check as to who was making said forged cards. He had further deposed that he was able to apprehend one boy who revealed that there were 2-3 people who were making such cards. He had further deposed that he asked for cards of the previous one wherein he got to know that a lot of cards were forged with forged seal and forged signature and copy of said forged cards are Mark A (colly). He had further deposed that security officials called the police. He had further deposed that after some days a police official had visited him and State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.3 of 18 requested him to furnish sample signatures. He had further deposed that he gave the sample signatures vide Mark B.
5. PW2 Sudesh Kumar had deposed in his testimony that on 30.07.2022 he was on duty from 2 pm to 10 pm and at about 2 pm Deputy CSO had called him and informed him that a person has been apprehended pertaining to forging OPD cards at about 09.30 am. He had further deposed that he was asked to look into the matter. He had further deposed that he inquired from accused and accused told him that a person named Ravi had given accused a slip to make OPD cards at Gate no.1 AIIMS. Ravi had offered Rs. 100/- per card to the accused. He had further deposed that he asked accused to call Ravi, upon which accused said that he had tried to call him at 11 am but since then his phone is switched off. He had further deposed that accused was handed over to Officials of PP AIIMS. He had further deposed that he gave a written complaint at PS Hauz Khas vide Ex.PW2/A. He had further deposed that police officials had not prepared the site plan in his presence. Witness had correctly identified the accused.
6. PW3 Veer Bahadur deposed in his testimony that in the year 2022 he was in the QRT team and at counter no. 23-24 of the OPDs, there was some ruckus. He had further deposed that he went there to check as what was the matter, upon which he got to know that the OPD slip brought by the patient was not matching with the record and the said OPD slips are Mark A. He had State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.4 of 18 further deposed that since they were receiving the complaints for so many days, he took the alleged forged OPD slip for matching the same with the sample slip and signature and stamp. He had further deposed that upon comparison the OPD slip brought by the patient was found to be forged. He had further deposed that the patient was taken to control room wherein accused identified himself as Jhinaku Prasad and from there accused was sent to CSO Office. He had further deposed that thereafter accused was handed over to the officials of PS Hauz Khas. Witness had correctly identified the accused.
7. PW5 Gupta Manish deposed in his testimony that in the year 2022 he was in the QRT team and at counter no. 23-24 of the OPDs, there was some ruckus. He had further deposed that he went there to check as what was the matter, upon which he got to know that the OPD slip brought by the patient was not matching with the record and the said OPD slips are Mark A. He had further deposed that since they were receiving the complaints for so many days, he took the alleged forged OPD slip for matching the same with the sample slip and signature and stamp. He had further deposed that upon comparison the OPD slip brought by the patient was found to be forged. He had further deposed that the patient was taken to control room wherein accused identified himself as Jhinaku Prasad and from there accused was sent to CSO Office. He had further deposed that thereafter accused was handed over to the officials of PS Hauz Khas. Witness had correctly identified the accused.
State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.5 of 18
8. PW6 HC Mukesh deposed in his testimony that on 30.07.2022 at about 9 pm, he was called by the IO SI Salman Ahmed to join the investigation. He had further deposed that accused was already in the custody of the IO. He had further deposed that accused was interrogated by the IO vide Ex.PW6/A and IO arrested the accused vide Ex.PW6/B. He had further deposed that personal search of accused was conducted vide Ex.PW6/C. He had further deposed that thereafter they went to the spot wherein IO prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW6/D. He had further deposed that one mobile was recovered from the accused and same is seized by IO Ex.PW6/E. He had further deposed that thereafter they came back to the PS. He had further deposed that IO recorded his statement in this regard. Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property Ex.P2.
9. PW7 SI Salman Ahmed deposed in his testimony that at about 07.15 pm AIIMS Security officer Sudesh came to the PS alongwith accused and furnished a written complaint. He had further deposed that he inquired from accused as to whether accused had committed any offence. He had further deposed that he endorsed the said complaint vide Ex.PW7/A. He had further deposed that DO registered the FIR and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him. He had further deposed that he made HC Mukesh join the investigation. He had further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW6/A and arrested him vide Ex.PW6/B. He had further deposed that personal search of accused was conducted vide Ex.PW6/C. He State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.6 of 18 had further deposed that thereafter they took accused to spot where he prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/D. He had further deposed that thereafter they returned back to the PS and accused was detained in the lockup. He had further deposed that accused was produced before the concerned Court and one day PC was obtained. He had further deposed that he alongwith HC Rakesh took accused to gate no. 1. He had further deposed that accused got recovered a bag from a public toilet near the police booth. He had further deposed that inside the bag, there was a transparent polybag inside which there were 5 OPD slips upon which the stamp of PA to Director,AIIMS was present. He had further deposed that one stamp pad and one stamp of PA to Director, AIIMS were also present in the bag. He had further deposed that a pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused vide Ex.PW4/A. He had further deposed that the aforesaid slips and stamps were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. He had further deposed that they searched for co-accused Ravi but he could not be found. He had further deposed that they checked the CCTV footage but no trace of co-accused Ravi was found. He had further deposed that he prepared the recovery site plan vide Ex.PW4/C. He had further deposed that thereafter, they returned back to PS. He recorded the statement of witnesses. He had further deposed that he had given notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to concerned officials of AIIMS to provide sample OPD slips and stamp and sample signature of PA to Director of AIIMS and same were seizued by him vide Ex.PW7/B. He had further deposed that the seized forged documents and the sample documents taken from AIIMS alongwith the stamps were sent to FSL for examination. Witness State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.7 of 18 had correctly identified accused as well as the case property is Ex.P1 and stamp on paper is Ex.P2. PW4 HC Rakesh Kumar had also deposed the same as he was alongwith SI Salman Ahmed.
10. PW8 Alok Kumar Mehta had deposed in his testimony that on 08.12.2022 he received 7 OPD slips for comparison of signatures and stamp impression alongwith one rubber stamp also from HC Ashwani Kumar. He had further deposed that he also received sample signatures as well as sample rubber stamp impression for comparison. He had further deposed that after going through all these above-mentioned documents, he prepared the opinion on the basis of scientific examination which is Ex.PW8/A. Statement of accused
11. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that on the alleged day, he was present in the AIIMS hospital for his own T.B. treatment. Suddenly some alarm was raised and everybody started to run here and there and he also started to run. The security persons of AIIMS were searching for some gang who used to forge the documents in AIIMS for which the alarm was raised. Later some security person apprehended him and asked him why he was present there and he showed them his OPD slips. There were certain other OPD slips fallen on the ground and those security personnel falsely planted those slip on him as they could not catch the real culprit as he is illiterate and he could not satisfactory answer they took him State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.8 of 18 to the PS and handed over him to the police. At the time of apprehension nothing was recovered from him apart from his own OPD slips. When police officials took him to AIIMS hospital certain seals were falsely planted upon him which were already placed in the public toilet about which he is not aware. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case.
12. Accused led defence evidence in which he examined himself as DW1 and stated that on the alleged day, he was present in the AIIMS hospital for my own T.B. treatment. Suddenly some alarm was raised and everybody started to run here and there and he also started to run. The security persons of AIIMS were searching for some gang who used to forge the documents in AIIMS for which the alarm was raised. Later some security person apprehended him and asked him why he was present there and he showed them his OPD slips. There were certain other OPD slips fallen on the ground and those security personnel falsely planted those slip on him as they could not catch the real culprit as he is illiterate and he could not satisfactory answer they took him to the PS and handed over him to the police. At the time of apprehension nothing was recovered from him apart from his own OPD slips. When police officials took him to AIIMS hospital certain seals were falsely planted upon him which were already placed in the public toilet about which he is not aware. He is innocent. He have been falsely implicated in the case.
13.. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.9 of 18
14. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
15. It is argued on behalf of accused that accused was arrested in the case as he could not give satisfactory answer to the security guards in respect of the forged OPD slips. Since accused was illiterate he was falsely implicated in the case. All the forged stamps are falsely planted upon him. Thus prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.
16. Firstly I would reiterate the relevant provisions of law involved in the case. Section 420 Indian Penal Code deals with Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The provision reads as -
"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 converted 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."
17. Forgery is defined under Section 463 of Indian Penal Code. The section reads as "Whosoever makes any fake document or incorrect electronic record or part of a document with an intention to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.10 of 18 person to share with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with purpose to commit fraud or that fraud may be accomplished, commits forgery."
In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that-
a. the accused should have made a false document.
b. And secondly, the false document must be made with an
intention to cause harm or injury to the public or to any class of society or to any community.
18. 'False document' is dealt under section 464 IPC. The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. An analysis of section 464 of Indian Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.11 of 18
3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
19. Section 471 IPC prescribes punishment for 'using forged document'. According to the said section using a forged document as genuine is a cognizable offence. It states that 'whoever fraudulently or dishonestly accepts as the genuine document which he knows or has ground to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the corresponding manner as if he had forged such document.' 20 'Forgery' and 'Fraud' are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts.
21. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2022 at about 09.25 am accused was caught red with forged OPD cards from counter no. 23 & 24 and also forged stamp and signature of PA to Director AIIMS were recovered from him. Further two forged appointment slips in the name of Sarita Devi and Surender Kumar was also recovered from him. In this regard PW2 complainant Sudesh Kumar Asst. Security Officer AIIMS had deposed that on 30.07.2022 at about 2 pm Deputy CSO had called him and informed him that a person has State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.12 of 18 been apprehended pertaining to forged OPD cards at about 09.30 am and he was asked to looking into the matter. On making inquiry from the accused Jhinaku Prasad he disclosed that person named Ravi had given him a slip to make OPD cards at gate no. 1 AIIMS. Ravi had offered him Rs. 100 per card. He tried to call Ravi but his number was switched off. Thereafter he made a written complaint against the accused. The witness admitted in the cross- examination that he do not remember exactly on whose name the OPD slips were issued. He also admitted that nothing was recovered from accused in his presence. He also admitted that he cannot tell if the accused had forged the OPD slips. It is clear from the record that the complainant Sudesh Kumar had not apprehended the accused with forged OPD slips. He was merely handed over accused immediately after the incident. Thus his testimony shows that immediately after the recovery of forged OPD slips from the accused, he was handed over to him by the CSO and he made complaint against the accused in this regard.
22. PW1 Prakash Kandpal, who is also PA to Director AIIMS had deposed that when he got to know that people were getting new OPD cards on the basis of his forged signature, he sent a boy from his office to check the person making forged cards. The said boy apprehended a person who revealed that 2-3 persons are making such cards. In his cross-examination, PW1 Prakash Kandpal had stated that he do not recall the name of boy from his office whom he had sent to check the forged OPD card. He also stated that his office staff State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.13 of 18 had informed the security about the forged OPD slip. He had admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot tell if the accused had forged aforesaid OPD slip. Since PW1 Prakash Kandpal had not apprehended the accused and had not seen him standing in the line with the forged OPD card, it is clear that he is not the eye witness to the incident. However, his testimony shows that accused was making forged OPD cards under his seal and signature and he was receiving information regarding the same.
23. PW3 Veer Bahadur and PW5 Gupta Manish are the main prosecution witness as they had apprehended the accused with the forged OPD slips. PW3 Veer Bahadur, Security Guard at AIIMS and PW5 Gupta Manish who were in the QRT team had deposed that at counter no. 23&24 at the OPD there was some ruckus. When they went to check the matter, they got to know that OPD slip brought by the patient was not matching with the record. He took the forged OPD slip for matching the same with the sample slip, signature and stamp. Upon comparison the OPD slip brought by the patient was found to be forged. The both the witnesses had identified accused Jhinaku as the person who had brought the forged OPD slip.
24. In the cross-examination of both the witnesses the fact had remained consistent that they had handed over the slip and accused to CSO office. This fact had also remained consistent that OPD slips were recovered from the possession of accused on the date of incident. There is no State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.14 of 18 contradiction in the testimony of said witnesses. Thus, both the witnesses had duly corroborated the prosecution that on the date of incident, accused was found using forged OPD slip and the same was recovered from his possession. Their testimony had remained consistent in this regard. [
25. IO PW7 SI Salman Ahmad had testified that he alongwith HC Rajesh took the accused to gate no. 1 where the accused got recovered a bag from public toilet near the police booth. Inside the bag there was a transparent poly bag inside which there were 5 OPD slips, upon which stamp of PA to Director AIIMS was present. One stampad and one stamp of PA to Director AIIMS was also recovered from the bag. He had duly prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW4/A. He also seized slips and stamps vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. PW HC4 Rajesh had also deposed the same as PW7 SI Salman. [
26. In cross-examination of PW7 SI Salman and PW4 HC Rajesh, both the witnesses had admitted that the place of recovery was public toilet and there are footfall of public persons. They also admitted that no public person joined the investigation and left the spot without giving their details. Public persons are generally reluctant joining the investigation. The prosecution case cannot be thrown out of doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves from the Court unless it is inevitable. The public witnesses were not joined in the recovery proceedings in State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.15 of 18 the present case. It is well settled that the testimony of police officials need not be completely discarded merely because public persons refused to join the investigation. If the testimony of police officials appears to be reliable as that of independent witness, it can definitely be relied upon. The testimony of PW4 HC Rajesh and IO PW7 SI Salman Ahmad appears to be as reliable that of independent witness. There is not contradiction in the testimony. They had duly proved the recovery of stamp and 5 OPD slips which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 from the public toilet at the instance of the accused.
27. PW7 IO SI Salman Ahmad had also deposed that he gave notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to the concerned officials of AIIMS to provide sample OPD slips and stamp and sample signature of PA to Director of AIIMS and was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. The seized forged signature and sample documents taken from AIIMS alongwith stamp were sent to FSL by him for FSL examination. PW1 Prakash Kandpal had also deposed that he gave the sample signature vide Mark B signed by me at point A to point P to the police officials on their request. PW8 Alok Srivastava Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), RFSL had deposed that on 08.12.2022 he received 7 OPD slips for comparison of signatures and stamp impression alongwith one rubber stamp. He also received sample signature as well as sample rubber stamp for comparison. After going through all the documents he prepared the opinion on the basis of scientific examination which is Ex.PW8/A. State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.16 of 18
28. Perusal of the report of Scientific Officer Alok Srivastava shows that question signature marked Q1 and Q2 with the standard signature marked as S1 to S18 does not appear to be written by a person. The stamps impressions marked Q3 to Q9 and the blue enclosed standard stamp impressions marked S19 to S21 have been executed using two different rubber stamp. Further he also made observation that the stamp impressions executed from the questioned rubber stamp marked Q10 and the blue enclosed standard stamp impressions marked S19 to S21 have been executed using two different rubber stamps. Thus, the report Ex.PW8/A prepared by scientific officer proves that the signatures on OPD slips recovered from the possession of the accused alongwith rubber stamp were forged ones.
29. The fact that the forged OPD slips were recovered from the possession of accused and also the fact that forged rubber stamp and inkpad was recovered from the possession of accused, shows that he himself was making the forged OPD slips. Thus, it is proved in teh case that the accused had been dishonestly making/executing forged OPD slips with the intention that the said OPD slip be believed as the one which was made by PA to Director AIIMS. Hence, it is proved in the case that accused had made a false OPD slips and had thereby committed forgery. Further, the fact that he was standing in the line at counter no. 23 & 24 of OPD as a patient for his checkup, shows that he was using the forged OPD slips as the genuine one.
State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.17 of 18
30. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. In the case of Karan Singh Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (Arising out of SLP Crl. No. 717/2020), it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that - "The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt". In the present case there are sufficient ground to show that accused had committed cheating and had also committed forgery of OPD slips. However there is nothing on record to show the involvement of accused in offence u/s 260 IPC. It is apparent from the above discussion that the allegations against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion & Decision
31. Thus, considering the entire material on record I am of the considered view that the prosecution had proved its case u/s 420/468/471/474 IPC against the accused Jhinaku Prasad beyond reasonable doubt. Thus accused Jhinaku Prasad is convicted u/s 420/468/471/474 IPC. However accused is acquitted u/s 260 IPC. Accused shall be heard separately on sentencing.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 06.04.2024. MM-06,SOUTH/SAKET DELHI State Vs. Jhinaku Prasad FIR No. : 297/2022 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/468/471/474/260 IPC Page no.18 of 18