Delhi District Court
Sh. Dipesh Chhabdi vs V E R S U S on 7 September, 2016
In the Court of Ms. Asha Menon, District & Sessions Judge
South East : Saket Court, New Delhi.
In the matter of :
Crl. Appeal No. 16/16
Dipesh Chabdi V. State
FIR No. 09/2009
PS : Lodhi Colony
U/s 466/471/420 IPC
Sh. Dipesh Chhabdi
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh
R/o H.No. 38, Village Molar Band
Badarpur, New Delhi. .... Appellant
V E R S U S
The State (NCT of Delhi) .... Respondent
Appeal presented on : 26.07.2016
Arguments concluded on : 05.09.2016
Judgment on : 07.09.2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by Sh. Dipesh Chhabdi, who was convicted by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for having committed offences under Section 420/471 IPC read with 466 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to the simple imprisonment for the period of two years each for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and 471 read with Section 466 IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ qua the offence punishable Crl. Appeal No. 16/16 Dipesh Chhabdi V. State Page 1 of 6 under Section 420 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/ qua the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 466 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant to undergo further imprisonment of 15 days.
2. The facts of the case, as set out by the prosecution, are that in the academic year 200708, the appellant obtained the admission in B.A. History (Hons), offered by Dayal Singh College on the basis of a forged document namely 12 th class marksheet of the National Institute of Open Schooling. The prosecution examined six witnesses and on the basis of the evidence that has come on record, the Ld. Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the use of the forged document by the accused knowing that the marksheet was not genuine, to obtain admission. Accordingly, the Ld. Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 420/471 IPC read with Section 466 IPC. Vide Order on Sentence dated 28.06.2016, the Ld. Trial Court was of the view after considering the facts of the case, nature of offence, age of convict and socioeconomic background of the appellant that it was appropriate to sentence him to simple imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine as mentioned aforesaid.
3. By means of this present appeal, the appellant has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court had based the conclusion on unreliable evidence and had overlooked the fact that even the complainant PW1, Principal of Dayal Singh College, had admitted Crl. Appeal No. 16/16 Dipesh Chhabdi V. State Page 2 of 6 in his crossexamination that before giving the complaint on 11.10.2007, the accused had already withdrawn his admission from the Dayal Singh College on 14.08.2007. Moreover, the FIR on the basis of the complaint was registered only on 10.01.2009 and that there was no document placed on the record to reflect that permission from the DCP had been sought and therefore the delay of almost 1&1/2 years in registration of the FIR has not been explained.
4. It is also submitted that the Ld. Trial Court had overlooked the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that when he had filled the form to contest election, the other persons who have since been discharged from this case namely Amit Chauhan, Manoj Chauhan, and Anil Nagar had informed him that they had got the admission on forged marksheet and they would implicate him in a false case and it was therefore he withdrew from the college. It is further submitted that the sentence was excessive in view of the fact that the appellant was 28 years of age having a family with two minor children and was a respectable member of the society and that the appellant was a first time offender with a large family to take care of.
5. While the appeal has been filed challenging both the conviction as well as the sentence, in the course of the arguments, the challenge was restricted to the sentence only. This court therefore called for the report of the Probation Officer and the report Crl. Appeal No. 16/16 Dipesh Chhabdi V. State Page 3 of 6 has been considered.
6. While sentencing, the court has to weigh the extenuating and the aggravating circumstances. The Ld. Trial Court has observed that the convict was having the responsibility of his family including two minor children and that at the time of the incident, the convict was only 18 years of age and that a lenient view be taken. It is not clear that any background information was obtained by the Ld. Trial Court before sentencing and therefore, it does seems somewhat curious that the socioeconomic background of the convict was considered to sentence him to two years of imprisonment.
7. It must be seen that the offence had taken place at the time of the admission to the academic year of 200708 in the year 2007. The allegations are that the accused/appellant had obtained admission into the BA History (Hon.) Course 1st year in the year 2007 on the basis of forged 12th class marksheet of the National Institute of Open Schooling. He was also charged with having used the forged document as genuine and thus, he was charged for the offence under Section 420/471 of the IPC. At the time of the occurrence, the appellant was only about 19 years of age. In the testimony/statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, no admission has come on record that he himself has actually forged the document. No doubt, he had used it. There is no dispute that, and as has been confirmed by the Principal of the Dayal Singh College Crl. Appeal No. 16/16 Dipesh Chhabdi V. State Page 4 of 6 as PW1, the appellant had withdrawn his admission on 14.08.2007 and his admission's fees were also returned to him. There has been only a short term benefit for the appellant and what needs to be seen is whether he has learnt his lessons.
8. The Probation Officer's report reveals that no other criminal case has been registered against the appellant. It is clear from the Probation Officer's report that he is presently leading a normal life in the society and is not indulging in any bad habits and socially deprecated behaviour. He is also earning regular income of Rs.25,000/ per month and is taking care of his wife, who is a housewife and educated only up to 10th class, a daughter of 8 years in the 3rd class and a son aged 6 years studying in the first standard. He has a large family in which he has one elder brother and 5 sisters, who are also living stable lives. The aged parents of the appellant are also alive and the report reveals that there is a strong bonding amongst the large family group. The neighbours, whose statements have been recorded, have also only positive things to state about the appellant. In the last about 89 years, the appellant would have understood the consequences of breaking the law and the Probation Officer's report does reflect that the appellant is stressed out on ground of these criminal proceedings.
9. Thus, after taking into consideration the Probation Officer's report and the age at the time when the offence was committed, this Court considers it appropriate to grant the benefit of Crl. Appeal No. 16/16 Dipesh Chhabdi V. State Page 5 of 6 probation to the appellant. He needs to be given one opportunity to establish that he is now a law abiding citizen with no proclivity, hidden or otherwise, towards crime. Thus, the sentence imposed by the Ld. Trial Court is set aside and the appellant is granted the benefit of probation on his furnishing a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/ each with an undertaking to keep good behaviour and peace and be not involved in any criminal or illegal activity for a period of two years from the date of this order. Bail bond be furnished to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court. The appellant shall undertake to appear before the Ld. Trial Court and receive sentence as determined by the Ld. Trial Court in the event he is involved in an offence or an act of breach of peace and good behaviour within the said period of two years along with forfeiture of the bail bond.
10. The appeal is partly allowed.
11. The file be returned to the Ld. Trial Court with a copy of this order.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced (Asha Menon) District & Sessions Judge SouthEast, Saket Courts New Delhi/07.09.2016 Crl. Appeal No. 16/16 Dipesh Chhabdi V. State Page 6 of 6