Delhi District Court
State vs Ghanshyam on 29 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV GOYAL, MM-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM
FIR No. 167/2008
PS : Civil Lines
U/S : 420/468/471/120-B IPC
Date of institution of the case : 26.09.2008
Date of judgment reserved : Not reserved
CNR : DLCT02-000399-2008
Date of commission of offence : On or before 01.01.2008
Name of the complainant : Smt. Kailashwati W/o Late. Sh.
Mewa Ram.
Name of accused and address : 1. Sunita W/o Ghanshyam R/o H.
No. 2, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054.
2. Ghanshyam @ Kukku S/o Late
Sh. Govind Lal R/o H. No. 2,
Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-
110054.
Offence complained of : 420/468/471/120-B IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 29.06.2024
Final Order : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that they hatched a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy both accused entered into an agreement with complainant for the sake of property for consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/- and after receiving the consideration amount both accused persons prepared documents which were purported to be executed by M. L. Chhabra and the said documents were found to be forged and fabricated. Both the accused persons also forged the thumb impressions and signatures of M. L. Chhabra on the documents with the STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 1 / 16 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.06.29 18:18:13 +0530 intention of cheating the complainant. Both the accused persons used the documents as genuine when they both make the documents were forged documents and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420/468/471/120-B IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Investigation was completed and police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused persons.
CHARGE :
3. After hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated 30.05.2011 charge was ordered to be framed for the offence under Section 420/468/471/120-B IPC against the accused persons.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses.
5. PW-1 Smt. Kailash Wati deposed that in 2007, he was residing at P-14-A-1, Pocket P, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. She deposed that this property was sold by her in 2007 and therefore, she needed to purchase another property at a lower price. She further deposed that accused persons were having family relations with the complainant. She further deposed that she had discussed her intention of buying property with accused Ghanshyam who had shown the property to her.
Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.06.29 18:18:20 +0530 STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 2 / 16
6. PW-2 HC Brahm Pal Singh deposed that on 24.06.2008, he was posted as PS Civil Lines when SI Satya Prakash produced one tehrir before him. He further deposed that he recorded the FIR No. 167/2008.
7. PW-3 Naresh Kumar Duggal deposed that on 11.07.2008, he was working as Senior Manager at Syndicate Bank. He further deposed that he provided the cheques of the complainant after one police official had requested him to provide the same and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A.
8. PW 4 Md. Anishtaz deposed that he has been appointed as notary vide registration no. 3779 dated 12.01.2007. He further deposed that though he had gone through the documents, but he had not signed the documents and had not appended any notary stamps on the documents.
9. PW-5 Inspector Narender Singh deposed that on 30.08.2008, he was posted as SI at PS Civil Lines and the case was received by him for further investigation. He further deposed that he interrogated co-accused Sunita and arrested her vide arrest memo PW-5/A and also conducted personal search Ex. PW-5/B and seized the documents Ex. PW-5/C.
10. PW-6 ASI Rajender Kumar deposed that on 01.07.2008, he was posted as HC at PS Civil Lines and he had joined the investigation along with SI Satya Prakash Singh. He further deposed that they visited the house of the complainant and seized the documents. Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
11. PW-7 Vijay Kumar deposed that he had clicked the photographs at the instance of the IO.
Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.06.29 18:18:26 +0530 STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 3 / 16
12. PW-8 HC Sudesh deposed that on 29.07.2008, he was posted as Ct. At PP MKT. He further deposed that on application to interrogate accused Ghanshyam he had arrested accused Ghanshyam vide arrest memo Ex. PW-8/A and had also obtained the thumb impression of accused Ghanshyam after the permission of the court. The witness correctly identified the accused before the court.
13. PW-9 Inspector Satya Prakash deposed that on 24.06.2008, he was posted as SI at PP MKT and he had received the complaint Ex. PW-9/A. He further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW-9/B and had also taken the specimen signatures of Manohar Lal Chhabra Ex. PW-9/M and had also taken specimen signature of complainant Ex. PW-9/X. He further deposed that he had taken the specimen thumb impression of accused Ghanshyam Ex. PW-9/E and had also taken specimen handwrinting of accused Ghanshyam Ex. PW-9/N and had sent all the documents for FSL examination. Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
14. PW-10 Sh. K. N. Singh deposed that the present case was marked to him on 18.08.2008 by Director Finger Print Bureau for comparison of thumb impression.
15. PW-11 Sh. Anurag Sharma deposed that in the year 2010 he was posted as Senior Scientifice Officer at FSL Rohini and on 25.09.2008, documents were received from FIR No. 167/2008 PS Civil Lines for examination and he had examined all the documents.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
16. In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused persons pleaded their innocence in the present case. However, they did not prefer to lead any evidence in defence.
Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.06.29 18:18:34 +0530 STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 4 / 16
17. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have perused the record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
18. Before proceeding further with discussing the present case on merits, it becomes inevitable to discuss here the settled legal position in criminal cases. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favour the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
19. The offences for which the accused persons have been charged with are Section 420/468/471/120B IPC. So broadly the offences for which the accused persons have been charged with can be divided in three categories i.e.
(i) cheating as punishable U/s 420 IPC,
(ii) forgery as punishable U/s 468/471 IPC and
(iii) criminal conspiracy U/s 120B IPC
20. The first offence for which accused has been charged with is offence under Section 420 IPC. Before proceeding further with the factual position/findings qua commission of the offence U/s 420 IPC, it become inevitable to deal with the basic legal principle as enumerated u/s 420 IPC r/w Section 415 IPC.
21. Section 420 of IPC deals with "cheating" which has been defined in Section 415 of IPC. Section 415 IPC reads as under :
"415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 5 / 16 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.06.29 18:18:40 +0530 deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
22. After going through the abovementioned definition U/s 415 IPC it can be deduced that in order to attract allegations of "cheating", following ingredients must exist :
(i) deception of a person;
(ii) (A) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person,
(a) to deliver any property to any person; or,
(b) to consent that any person shall retain any property, (B) intentional inducing that person to do or omit to do any thing,
(a) which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived, and,
(b) such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.Digitally signed
Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.06.29 18:18:46 +0530 STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 6 / 16
23. Section 420 IPC reads as under :
"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 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."
24. After going through the abovementioned definition as provided U/s 420 IPC, it can be said that in order to attract Section 420 IPC, following essential ingredients must be shown to be existed :
(i) cheating;
(ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make or destroy any valuable security or any thing which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and,
(iii) mens rea of accused at the time of making inducement and which act of omission.
25. After going through the essential legal ingredients which are required to be proved for commission of the offence U/s 420 IPC, the Court deem it fit to discuss here the settled legal principals as decided by Hon'ble Digitally signed Apex Court. Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.06.29 18:18:53 +0530 STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 7 / 16 25.1 In Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724 it was observed that to constitute offence of cheating, intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was offered.
25.2 In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575, Court said that a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. For the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established.
25.3 In G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others, 2000(3) SCC 693, Court said that Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property and in the second part the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. In other words in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent while in the second part, inducement should be intentional.
26. After going through the settled legal principals with respect to commission of cheating and coming to the factual matrix of the case, it is observed by the court that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons conspired to cheat the complainant as the complainant was not able to be thoroughly examined and cross-examined.
27. The second set of offence for which the accused has been charged with are Sections 468/471 IPC. All these sections punish commission of forgery. Before starting the discussion on the commission of the offence U/s 468/471 IPC, it would be relevant to take note of Section 463 and 464 of IPC which defines commission of offence of forgery.
STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 8 / 16 Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.06.29 18:19:04 +0530
28. 463 IPC defines "forgery" which reads as under :-
Whoever makes any false documents or electronic record part of a document or electronic 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.
29. 464 IPC defines "making a false document" which reads as under :-
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was make, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted 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 STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 9 / 16 Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date: Goyal 2024.06.29 18:19:09 +0530 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 or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any 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 to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of unsoundness of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alterations.
30. Basic ingredients of the offence under Section 468 and 471 IPC are that there should be forgery under Section 463 and forgery in turn depends upon creation of a false document as defined in Section 464 IPC.
31. Section 471 IPC 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].
STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 10 / 16 Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.06.29 18:19:15 +0530 31.1 As far as commission of the offence U/s 471 IPC is concerned, the Court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as both the complainant and witness M. L. Chhabra were not examined.
32. Section 468 IPC provides:
"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."
33. To substantiate the commission of offence U/s 468 IPC, the prosecution was duty bound to prove the following ingredients :
1. The accused is found to be possession of some documents.
2. The impugned documents are forged documents.
3. The accused forged these documents and the forgery is for the purpose of cheating.
34. After going through the settled legal principal which are required to prove the commission of the offence of forgery U/s 468 IPC and coming to the factual matrix of the present case, the court deems it fit to mention here that the prosecution case is that accused persons forged the signatures of M. L. Chhabra and conspired to cheat the complainant by forging and fabricating the documents of the property. However, as both the complainant and M. L. STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 11 / 16 Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.06.29 18:19:21 +0530 Chhabra were not examined, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons forged the property documents and presented them as genuine to the complainant.
35. The third set of offence for which the accused has been charged with are Sections 120-B IPC. Section 120A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy as :
Section 120A: Definition of criminal conspiracy:-When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-
(1) and illegal act, or (2) and act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation-It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
35.1 Section 120B reads as under :
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 12 / 16 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.06.29 18:19:29 +0530 (2) Whoever is a party to criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
36. In Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1993 (3) SCC 609 Hon'ble Apex Court indicated the conspiracy is having conceived as having three elements: (1) agreement (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the' agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects. It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy.
37. In Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 443 it was held that for an offence under Section 120B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirator expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.
38. In R.K. Dalmia Etc. Vs. Delhi Administration 1963 SCR (1) 253 Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that it is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of conspiracy.
39. To find the accused persons guilty under Section 120B IPC, the prosecution should prove the meeting of minds. However, it is well settled law STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 13 / 16 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.06.29 18:19:35 +0530 that conspiracies are often hatched in secracy and direct evidence of conspiracy is seldom available. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 had stated that the meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances by the prosecution if the inference is possible. The prosecution has failed to prove that both accused persons conspired to cheat the complainant as both the complainant and witness M. L. Chhabra were not examined. Accordingly, accused persons are found guilty of offence u/s 120-B IPC.
40. The Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and pleaded for the conviction of the accused.
Per contra, it is contended by Ld. defence counsel that the accused has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused and thus a reasonable shadow of doubt is cast upon the prosecution version.
41. Before proceeding with the appreciation of evidence, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is to be borne in mind, that prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have and accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubts in the prosecution story and any such doubts in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 14 / 16 Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.06.29 18:19:40 +0530
42. In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it 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. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution.."
43. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused was upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused.
It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and for this the prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
Digitally signedGaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.06.29 18:19:46 +0530 STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 15 / 16
44. Result of aforesaid discussion is that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons Ghanshyam and Sunita are acquitted of offences u/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
45. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused persons at the time of commencement of trial stand cancelled. Surety bonds, if any, stands discharged. Documents, if any, shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any, stands cancelled. Case property, if any, shall be disposed of as per rules after expiration of period to assail this judgement and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Gaurav Digitally signed
by Gaurav Goyal
Goyal Date: 2024.06.29
18:19:53 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Gaurav Goyal)
COURT ON 29th JUNE, 2024 MM-06, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/29.06.2024
This judgment consists of 16 pages and each and every page of this Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal judgment is signed by me.
Goyal Date: 2024.06.29
18:20:00 +0530
(Gaurav Goyal)
MM-06, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/29.06.2024
STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM FIR No. 167/2008 PS CIVIL LINES PAGE NO. 16 / 16