Delhi District Court
Sunita Devi vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) on 5 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP YADAV
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 354/17
Sunita Devi
W/o Sh.Mahender Pal
R/o. H.No. 19,
Old Roshan Pura, Najafgarh,
New Delhi110043.
.... Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
Plot No.5B, 10th Floor,
BWing, CGO Complex,
New Delhi110003.
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 31.08.2017
Date of Arguments : 23.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 05.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge is laid in this appeal to the judgment dated 10.08.2017 passed by Ld. CMM where under the appellant has been CA No. 354/17 1/7 Sunita Devi vs. CBI convicted U/s. 420/471 IPC and order on sentence dated 17.08.2017 whereunder the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 20,000/ for the offence U/s. 420 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year for the offence U/s. 471 IPC and default simple imprisonment of six months has also been passed against the appellant.
2. The prosecution version unfolded during the trial is that the appellant Sunita Devi was appointed as LDC on 15.06.1997 in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) Category in the office of Agricultural Promotion Marketing Committee, (APMC) Najafgarh, Delhi. The ST Certificate Ex.PW3/A furnished by the appellant at the time of her appointment was got verified from the concerned authority i.e. Tehsildar Bahrod, District Alwar, Rajasthan and it was revealed that the ST certificate is a forged document. Consequently, the complaint dated 19.02.2005, Ex.PW3/A was made by Mr. J.S.Sandhu, the then Secretary Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board to CBI and on the basis of this complaint FIR U/s. 420/468/471 IPC was registered. The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, the chargesheet was laid U/s 420/468/471 IPC.
3. During investigation the specimen signatures of appellant Sunita Devi and Narinder Singh Dabai (Tehsildar), Dausa were obtained and these specimen signatures alongwith admitted handwriting and signature of Sh. Narinder Singh Dabai were sent to GEQD Shimla for Expert opinion. After examination of the documents, GEQD Shimla sent its CA No. 354/17 2/7 Sunita Devi vs. CBI opinion Ex.PW15/7 alongwith reason of the opinion Ex.PW15/6. It was opined in the report/opinion Ex.PW15/5 that it is not possible to link the signatures appearing on the original caste certificate with the admitted signatures of Sh. Narinder Singh Dabai, Naib Tehsildar.
4. The appellant was ultimately charged U/s. 420/471 IPC. During trial the witnesses from the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, witnesses from the office of Tehsildar/Patwari, handwriting expert and the investigating officer of this case were examined.
5. While convicting the appellant, the Ld. CMM mainly relied upon the report of handwriting expert Ex.PW15/5 and the fact that the caste certificate Ex.PW3/A does not bear any dispatch number or entry as per the prescribed procedure.
6. I have heard Mr. Hitender Kapoor, Ld. counsel for appellant and Mr. Deep Narain, Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI at length and perused the trial court record.
7. Mr. Hitender Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that PW7 Vinod who handed over the documents containing purported admitted signature of Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai to the IO said many things in his statement U/s. 161 CrPC which have not come in his deposition before the court. Mr. Hitender Kapoor, further submitted that the prosecution has not explained as to how the purported signatures of Mr. CA No. 354/17 3/7 Sunita Devi vs. CBI Narinder Singh Dabai are his admitted signatures. Challenging the opinion of the handwriting expert Mr. Hitender Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that no definite and specific opinion has been given by the handwriting expert.
8. Mr. Deep Narain, Ld. Counsel for CBI heavily relied upon the opinion of handwriting expert Ex.PW15/5 and the deposition of PW9 Sh. Ram Niwas. Mr. Deep Narain, Ld. Counsel for CBI also invoked Section 114 (a) of Evidence Act submitted that a presumption may be drawn regarding the admitted signature of Tehsildar Sh. Narinder Singh Dabai obtained from Revenue Record. Mr. Deep Narain, Ld. Counsel for CBI further submitted that IO has proved that he took the admitted signatures of Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that Sh. Narinder Singh Dabai could not be examined as a witness as he died during the trial. It is observed in para No.25 of the impugned judgment that as per prosecution Sh. Narinder Singh Dabai was the Naib Tehsildar, Neemrana at the relevant point of time. The relevant time in para 25 refers to the date 4th December 1992 on which the caste certificate Ex.PW3/A was issued. The prosecution has not explained as to on what basis it is being claimed that Sh. Narinder Singh Dabai was the Naib Tehsildar, Neemrana during the time when caste certificate Ex.PW3/A was issued. PW6 Rehmat Khan who retired from the post of Tehsildar in July 2000 who was posted as Naib Tehsildar in Neemrana District, Bahrod in November 2005, PW7 Vinod, who was CA No. 354/17 4/7 Sunita Devi vs. CBI posted as LDC at SubTehsildar, Neemrana in the year 2006, PW8 Satish Chand who was posted as LDC in the office of Naib Tehsilder, Neemrana in the year 2006, PW11 Rajesh Kumar who was posted as Patwari at Village Manjari Kalan in the year 2005, PW13 Hira Lal who was employed as Clause 4 employed in the office of Tehsildar, Bahrod, District Alwar, Rajasthan. PW14 who was posted as Patwari in Tehsildar Neemrana in the year 2005 have nowhere deposed that Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai was the Naib Tehsildar, Neemrana at the relevant period of time. Even PW16 DSP K.S. Negi who is the IO of the case has not clarified as to how he got the information that Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai was working as Naib Tehsildar, Neemrana during the relevant period of time. Therefore, it as not proved during the trial as to who has issued the Caste Certificate Ex.PW3/A.
10. PW7 Vinod who handed over the documents containing the purported admitted signature of Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai to the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A has also not specified as to whether Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Neemrana during the relevant period. Infact, PW7 has merely deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted as LDC in SubTehsil, Neemrana and handed over the documents mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW7/A to the CBI. PW7 has not even clarified that these documents contained the admitted signature of Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai. In cross examination PW7 has deposed that the record maintained in his office is only upto period of ten years and thereafter same is destroyed and the documents which were handed over to him to the IO were taken out from Revenue Branch. No witness from the CA No. 354/17 5/7 Sunita Devi vs. CBI Revenue Branch was examined to throw some light on the contents of these documents, therefore, the purported signature of Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai on the documents which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A were not proved to be the admitted signature of Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai. It is observed in the impugned order that PW16 was not cross examined and as regards the veracity of admitted signature of Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai. The nonexamination of PW16 on this aspect will not prove the guilt of accused when the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the documents Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C contained the admitted signature of Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai.
11. It is therefore, obvious that prosecution failed to prove that Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai was the concerned official who issued the caste certificate. The prosecution has further failed to prove that the documents Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C which were handed over by PW7 Vino to the IO contained the admitted signature of Mr. Narinder Singh Dabai. Thus, the opinion of the handwriting expert Ex.PW15/5 is of no consequence as it has not proved that the handwriting expert compared the disputed signature of concerned officer on the Caste Certificate Ex.PW3/A with his admitted signatures.
12. In arriving at the conclusion that the standard practice/procedure prescribed for issuing the caste certificate was not followed in this case as the caste certificate Ex.PW3/A does not bear any dispatch number or any entry, Ld. CMM heavily relied upon the deposition CA No. 354/17 6/7 Sunita Devi vs. CBI of PW6 Rehmat Khan and deposition of PW8 Satish Chand. A standard practice/procedure for issuing a caste certificate cannot be inferred from the oral testimony of two officials who have never worked during the period when the caste certificate was issued. Even otherwise the court finds substance in the contention of the appellant that it is the duty of the court staff to put the dispatch number and it was not obligatory on the part of the accused to ensure that it bears a dispatch number. Even in cases where a genuine caste certificate is issued by the concerned officer in favour of an individual, that individual is not responsible for any deviation on the part of concerned official from the prescribed procedure for issuance of the caste certificate. The guilt of the accused must be proved on the basis of solid and cogent evidence and as person cannot be held guilty of offence of forgery on the basis of presumption and inferences.
13. The obvious conclusion is that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge U/s 420/471 IPC against the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and appellant is acquitted from all the charges. The appellant has already furnished the bail bonds U/s. 437A CrPC.
Trial court record be sent back with copy of this judgment. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court.
(Sandeep Yadav) ASJ02/South East District Saket Courts/New Delhi/05.11.2019 CA No. 354/17 7/7 Sunita Devi vs. CBI