Delhi District Court
State vs Ranbir Singh on 22 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJEET SINGH JASPAL:
LD. ACMM-04, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT12-001404-2019
Cr.C. No.:127/2019
FIR No.761/2007
PS : EOW (Uttam Nagar)
U/s: 409/420/120 B IPC, Section
506 IPC & Section 174-A IPC
State Vs Ranbir Singh
Kharb & Others
JUDGMENT
1. Date of the commission of offence : From 1998 to 2004
2. Name & address of the Complainant:Sh. A.S. Hooda S/o R.R. Hooda R/o H.No.R-12, Block-R, Opp.
Bank of Baroda, Uttam Nagar,New Delhi-59
3. Name of the accused and address :i)Ranbir Singh Kharb S/o Ch. Kartar Singh R/o Village Mundhela Khurd, PS Jaffarpur, Delhi
ii)Anita Kharb W/o Ranbir Singh Kharb R/o Village Mundhela Khurd, PS Jaffarpur, Delhi
iii)Rakesh Lakra S/o Sh. Sat Prakash R/o G-1/589, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
iv)Hoshiyar Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh R/o G-1/586, Uttam Nagar, Delhi Present Address:B-5T, Sector-13, Vivayta Vihar, Dwarka, Delhi Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 1 of 103
v)Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Santosh Kumar Sharma R/o RZ-B8, Shish Ram Park, New Delhi
4. Offence complained of : 409/420/120 B IPC, Sec.506 IPC & Section 174-A IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb are convicted.
Accused Hoshiyar Singh, Rakesh Lakra and Rajesh Kumar are acquitted.
7. Date of such order : 22.12.2022 Date of Institution of case : 17.08.2009 Date of decision of the case : 22.12.2022 Date of conclusion of final : 16.12.2022 arguments
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the aforementioned matter, which has remained a pendency for 14 long years, starting from the registration of FIR. The matter at hand alleges that the accused persons namely Ranbir Singh Kharb, Anita Kharb, Rakesh Lakra, Hoshiyar Singh and Rajesh Kumar have inter-alia committed offences of cheating, misappropriation, criminal breach of trust.
2. It is worth mentioning here that this is a special court constituted by the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 2 of 103 Circular No. 68/DHC/Gaz./G-7/VI.E.2(A)/2020, Dated 03.10.2020, to try the cases of Members of Parliament/ Members of Legislative Assemblies. In the matter at hand, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was the sitting MLA of the area from 1998 to 2003. The allegations of the prosecution also pertain to the same period.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the accused persons, as aforementioned, during the period of 1998 to 2004 hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the general public, by way of a scheme floated through a finance company called M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the company). As per the prosecution, the accused persons, in the furtherance of their criminal conspiracy induced the general public to invest money in the company by alluring them with high interest and monetary gains, however, the accused persons never had the intention to return the money. Whatever payments, if at all made, were made to further lure/induce the innocent investors to make further investments. As per the prosecution, most of the victims are kith and kin of the accused persons.
4. It is alleged that the accused persons, despite repeated demands and requests never returned the money and eventually they closed the entire business, made false promises and commitments and even threatened the victims, if they asked for the return of the money. The accused persons are Directors/ employees of the aforementioned company, except for the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, who even though did not hold any position in the aforesaid company however, as per the prosecution, he latently used to run the said company, without Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 3 of 103 wearing any hat of Director/employee etc.
5. Further, as per the prosecution story, the accused persons, in the course of their criminal conspiracy induced the complainant A.S. Hooda, victim Gajey Singh to invest money in the aforementioned company and in consequence thereof, the said persons invested a sum of Rs.95 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs respectively, without getting any return or refund. Similarly, victim Ajmer Singh, Nishant, Bal Kishan, Shamsher Singh, Rajbir, Ram Niwas, Kishan Singh and Ajeet Singh, Kanwar Singh, Satwanti Dahiya and R.P. Dahiya were also defrauded by the accused persons and they too, in the course of aforementioned criminal conspiracy, were made to deliver various sums of money to the accused persons. For the sake of convenience, I deem it appropriate to take on record a tabulation of various investments made by the victims, as apparent from the police report.
Sl. Name of Victim Amount
No.
1. Anand Singh Hooda Rs.95,00,000/-
2. Gajey Singh Rs.20,00,000/-
3. Ajmer Singh Rs.3,50,000/-
4. Nishant Rs.3,00,000/-
5. Bal Kishan Rs.2,00,000/-
6. Shamsher Singh Rs.12,00,000/-
7. Rajbir Rs.4,50,000/-
8. Ram Niwas Rs.2,00,000/-
9. Kishan Singh Rs.11,00,000/-
10. Ajeet Rs.4,50,000/-
11. Kanwar Singh Rs.9,50,000/-
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 4 of 103
12. Satwanti Dahiya Rs.9,50,000/-
13. Col. R.P. Dahiya Rs.4,50,000/-
6. The police investigation revealed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, in course of criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, abused his position as local MLA and induced people to invest money in the aforesaid company.
7. Further more, accused Rajesh, though joined the investigation (charge sheet was filed without his arrest, he was bound down by the IO), never joined the court proceedings and vide order dated 14.01.2013, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court, he was declared a proclaimed person and thus the said accused, apart from the aforementioned allegations , has faced trial for offence u/s 174 A IPC as well.
8. Vide various orders, the following charges were framed against the accused persons :
Sl. No. Name of the accused Charge
1. Ranbir Singh Kharb Section 420/506/409 IPC r/w 120-B IPC
2. Anita Kharb Section 420/409 IPC r/w 120-B IPC
3. Rakesh Lakra Section 420/409 IPC r/w 120-B IPC
4. Hoshiyar Singh Section 420/409 IPC r/w 120-B IPC
5. Rajesh Section 420/409 IPC r/w 120-B IPC and 174-A IPC Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 5 of 103
9. The Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the aforementioned charges and claimed trial.
10. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined in total 42 witnesses. Vide statement dated 07.06.2022 the Ld. APP dropped PW Bal Kishan Gehlot and vide statement dated 01.09.2022 he dropped PW-16 Surender Singh, PW-19 ASI Tanvir Ahmed, PW-23 ASI Prem Singh and PW-24 SI Sneh Lata qua accused Rajesh, as the said witnesses had no role concerning accused Rajesh.
11. Vide statement dated 01.09.2022 and 13.12.2022 accused Rajesh, through his counsel admitted the following documents :
i) Copy of the FIR i.e Ex.PW1/A
ii) Copy of the bank account of saving bank account
no.29762 and the cheque of the same i.e Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C.
iii) Copies of the documents related to the account of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Co. are Ex.PW7/A to Ex.
PW7/E.
iv) Copy of the bank account no.SB1550 and SB810
i.e Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/F.
v) Copy of bank account statement i.e.
Ex.PW21/A to Ex.PW21/C.
vi) Copy of the bank account no. SB/01/000810
and SB/01/000900 i.e. Ex.PW37/A1 to Ex.PW37/A4.
vii) Copy of the bank report pertaining to SB
No.14557 i.e. Ex.PW38/A.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 6 of 103
viii) FSL report Ex.PW18/A.
12. Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to take on record the gist of testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
13. PW1 ASI Dharamvir Singh proved the registration of FIR, being the duty officer of PS Uttam Nagar. The present FIR was proved as Ex.PW1/A.
14. PW-2 Sh. Ajmer Singh is amongst prime prosecution witnesses. He deposed that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is his nephew and the house of Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb is situated near his house in village Mundhela Khurd. In the month of September, 2001, the said accused persons approached his wife and him and told them about their finance company in the name of Jyoti Fair Finance Company and allured him to invest some money in the said company. The said accused persons promised to give return of 2.5% per month or double the amount in three years.
14.1 As per the said witness, on 07.09.2001, 02.11.2001 and 02.01.2002 he gave Rs.50,000/- each to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb by way of cash. Further, in the year 2002, he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to Ranbir Singh Kharb and in lieu thereof he received a receipt from accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on a non judicial stamp paper (Ex.PW2/A) and from Anita Kharb on the letter head of the company (Ex.PW2/B). Besides aforesaid amount PW2 gave a cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 7 of 10314.2 PW-2 deposed that after becoming MLA, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb refused to return the money and thus a recovery suit was filed which was decreed by the Ld. Court and in execution thereof the said accused promised to make the payment by way of monthly installment of Rs.50,000/- each, however, after May 2009 even the monthly installments have stopped. He proved his complaint to police as document Ex.PW2/C. He handed over all the documents to the police and the same were seized vide document Ex.PW2/D. He proved his signatures on document Ex.PW2/B. He further proved the document Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F as hand written receipt given by one Ram Prasad, the visiting card of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as Ex.PW2/G, the certified copy of order passed by Sh. B.S. Chumbak, Ld. ADJ, Delhi vide which salary of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was attached as Ex.PW2/H. 14.3 He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb before the court, however, no question was asked by the prosecution qua the identity of accused Hoshiyar Singh and Rakesh Lakra. After the apprehension of accused Rajesh the said witness could not be called before the court on account of his death.
14.4 The said witness was cross examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsel. It was repeatedly suggested that absence of receipts qua aforementioned payment shows falsity however, he explained that though he demanded the receipts against aforementioned payments but due to cordial relations with the accused persons, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb made excuses Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 8 of 103 that he will issue receipts later. It was further suggested that the document Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B are fabricated documents. PW2 admitted that in the recovery suit filed in the year 2005, he only sought a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- but did not mention anything about the remaining amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs. He admitted that accused Anita Kharb observes parda in the village.
15. PW3 Sh. Harish Sharma, Senior Manager from PNB, Janpath proved his reply against the letter of the EOW, same was proved by him as Ex.PW3/A. He further proved a bank account documents of victim Gajey Singh as Ex.PW3/B and the bank statement as Ex.PW3/C.
16. PW-4 and PW-6 are the same persons i.e. Sh. Gajey Singh. Inadvertently the said witness has been mentioned as PW-4 and also as PW-6. He deposed that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is his childhood friend, they both were in Army together. He deposed that before contesting the elections for MLA, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was having a finance company in the name of Jyoti Fair Finance Company, situated at Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that he had given an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (in installments, on various dates, from the money received from Army on retirement) to the said accused. Despite demands the said accused did not return the money and finally the said accused gave a cheque of Rs.20 lakhs to PW-4 but on presentation, the cheque got dishonoured. He filed a criminal case for dishonour of cheque and said matter was settled between the parties i.e. PW Gajey Singh and accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for an amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 9 of 10316.1 Whereas in his examination dated 06.09.2010 the said witness has stated that he gave Rs.20 lakhs to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as he wanted to contest the assembly elections, on the other hand in his examination dated 24.03.2015 the witness has categorically deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb induced him to invest money in the company and in consequence thereof, the witness invested Rs.15 lakhs with the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on different occasions till January 2003. Additionally, the witness gave a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the said accused, as the said accused wanted to contest the assembly elections. It has come in the testimony of PW4/PW6 that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told the said witness that he will get 2% per month interest and that the principle amount can be withdrawn at any time, upon giving one month notice. The witness deposed that for some period of time he even got monthly interest from the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however, later it was discontinued.
16.2 It has further come in the testimony of PW4/PW6 that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb used to collect signed cheques, without any name of the drawer, from the said witness and no receipt etc. was given in return of the money received.
16.3 PW4/PW6 correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and accused Rajesh before the court. His complaint is on record as Ex.PW06/A and the photocopy of the cheque given by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is on record as Mark P6/A.
17. PW-5 Sh. Anand Singh Hooda is the complainant in Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 10 of 103 the present matter and arguably amongst important prosecution witnesses. He deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb started a finance business and constituted the company. In the year 2000 the accused Anita Kharb became Director of the company and accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was the Director till 30.06.2000, thereafter, he left the Fire Services and made his wife the Director.
17.1 PW-5 deposed that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb asked him to invest money in the company against promised returns of 2-2.5 %, thereafter he made the first investment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.11.1998 and continued making investments. As per him, he invested Rs.41,00,000/- in the company. He further deposed that he had given the said amounts to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb personally, though some amount was given to Rajesh also, who was PA to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. As per him, a passbook was also issued by the company to keep record of invested money. The investments were mentioned in the said passbook, photocopy of passbook is already on record. The original two passbooks which were in his name were given by him to IO of the case. It is worth mentioning here that the originals of the said two passbooks are on record in connected matter i.e. FIR no. 329/06, pending trial before the undersigned.
17.2 PW-5 stated on oath that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb also started committees/chit fund in the name of the company and the said witness became a member thereof. Upon allurement of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, he invested Rs.5 lakhs in the committee/chit fund and later gave Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.5 lakh, Rs.2 lakh and Rs.2 lakhs for further chit funds. He deposed Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 11 of 103 that apart from himself and the company, all accused persons, except accused Anita Kharb, were part of chit fund, alongwith many other persons. As per him, the first committee (chit fund) was successful and amount was paid to all members as per the commitment but subsequent committees flopped after 14-18 months and he paid around Rs.15,00,000/- as a member of different committees and the abovesaid amount was not received back as the committees (chit fund) flopped.
17.3 PW-5 deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharab was the Manager of the abovesaid committees and all the invested amounts were received by the employees of the company and he gave details of the committees and also provided the photocopies of the list of the members of the committees and details of the amounts invested to the IO.
17.4 PW-5 further deposed that when he demanded the money of the committees from the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb he said that he will pay the money after the election of Delhi Assembly and in the month of December, 2003 said accused won the election of Delhi Assembly from the area of Najafgarh however, still the money was not returned.
17.5 On 28.08.2005, as per PW-5, a Panchayat was called and similarly on 05.09.2005 another Panchayat was called. In both the Panchayats the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb admitted that he owes a sum of Rs.38,08,000/-, Rs.41,00,000/-, Rs.16,45,000/- towards PW5 and promised that he will return the money after the right time.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 12 of 10317.6 PW-5 divulged that many prominent persons of the village were present in the Panchayats and after Panchayat one Pehlwan/muscleman of village threatened him that no money will be paid and also threatened that if he demanded the money from the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb then there will be blood shed.
17.7 PW-5 explained his solvency/source of money invested by deposing that he borrowed money from his relatives and also sold his three plots, one shop and he was also having some cash and all the said money was invested in the company and the Chit Funds, as aforementioned.
17.8 The complaint made by PW-5, before EOW is on record as Ex.PW05/A. He proved the seizure memo Ex. PW 5/B and receipt dated 20.07.2002, on the letter head of the company, signed by accused Anita Kharb as Ex. PW 5/C and the visiting card of accused Ranbir Singh Kharab as Ex.PW5/D. The photocopies of the passbooks seized by the IO are Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F (Original is on record in connected matter i.e. FIR No. 329/06) 17.9 PW-5 further deposed that he was cheated by the accused persons and both the accused persons induced him to make investment in their company on the promise of high returns but they were not having intention to return. He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb before the court.
17.10 PW-5 was recalled after apprehension of the accused Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 13 of 103 Rajesh. He deposed that accused Rajesh used to collect money from his house and used to give it to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. He did not know if accused Rajesh was part of conspiracy to defraud the investors of the company. He further deposed that the accused Rajesh was introduced to him by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and that he informed him that in future accused Rajesh will collect money on his behalf. He further deposed that against the collected money, accused Rajesh used to put his signatures on the passbook.
17.11 He identified document marked as Ex.PW5/A1 and Ex.PW5/A2 as the same passbook on which accused Rajesh used to sign at the time of collection of the money. He identified the accused Rajesh and his signatures on document Mark PW5/A1.
18. PW-7 Sunil Kumar Kundra, Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar, Delhi proved document Mark PW7/Al i.e. the letter vide which information was sought by the police regarding bank account of the company and the same was replied vide document Mark PW7/A2. He brought original account opening form of the accused Anita Kharb, on record as Ex.PW7/A (OSR) and account statement of the company on record as Ex.PW7/B. He placed on record the bank account statement of accused Anita Kharb as Ex.PW7/C and corresponding certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW7/D. Lastly, he produced account opening form of the company as Ex.PW7/E.
19. PW-8 Rajender gave evidence of Panchayat which Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 14 of 103 was held on 05.09.2005 and deposed that in the said Panchayat accused Ranbir Singh Kharb promised to pay a sum of Rs. 95 lakhs to Anand Hooda and acknowledged the debt before the Panchayat. As per him, one more Panchayat was held at the office of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, wherein the said accused again acknowledged the debt and promised to pay the amount in next few days. He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court.
20. PW-9 Sh. Anar Singh deposed that he knows the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as he was inhabitant of nearby village and was also remained MLA in the past. He also deposed on the lines of the deposition of PW-8 Rajender and said that on 05.09.2005, a Panchayat was held at his village for settling the money dispute of Anand Huda with accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb admitted his liability of Rs.95,53,000/- towards Anand Huda and promised to return the money soon. He further deposed that several Panchayats were held for this purpose and lastly important members of the Panchayat went to the house of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb where he categorically denied the payment to Anand Huda. He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court.
21. PW-10 Sh. Dayanand turned hostile and thus he was cross examined by the Ld. APP. He denied the suggestion that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb owes money to Anand Huda. He further denied that any Panchyat was held and further denied the suggestion that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb admitted his liability of Rs. 95 lakhs before the Panchayat. He correctly Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 15 of 103 identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court
22. PW-11 Sh. Pawan Kumar deposed on the lines of the deposition of PW-8 Rajender and PW-9 Anar Singh to say that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb owed Rs. 95 Lakhs to Anand Hudda. He too deposed about the Panchayats and the admission of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb qua sum of Rs.95 lakhs before the Panchayat.
23. PW-12 Sh. Joginder too turned hostile and thus he also was cross examined by the Ld. APP. He denied the suggestion that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb owes money to Anand Huda and that there were two Panchayats wherein the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb admitted his liability of Rs.95 lakhs towards Anand Singh Huda.
24. PW-13 Sh. Krishan Singh deposed that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, being a distant relative, allured him to invest money in the company, against promised returns of 2% per month interest and the double amount in three years. He deposed that he alongwith his family members invested a total sum of Rs.28.5 lacs. In the said investment, Rs.11 lacs were of his elder son namely Ajit Singh, Rs.4 lacs of his younger son Kanwar Singh and 9.5 lacs of his daughter Satwanti Dahiya and Rs.4 lacs were invested by Col. R.P.Dahiya, who is father in law of her grand daughter.
24.1 As per PW-13, accused Ranbir Singh Kharb paid some interest for sometime but then he stopped and did not return the money despite repeated requests. His complaint to the Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 16 of 103 police is on record as Ex.PW13/A. He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb before the court.
25. PW14 Ajit Singh s/o Kishan Singh deposed on the lines of the deposition of his father i.e. PW-13 Sh. Krishan Singh. As per him, 'upon saying of his father', he gave an amount of Rs.11 lacs to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. On 11.03.1997, he paid an amount of Rs.5 lacs to the said accused in cash and said amount was given as a loan as accused would pay interest at 2% per month. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb gave a receipt for the said amount, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A (said document got exhibited in case FIR no.55/14 PS EOW).
25.1 He further deposed that he paid an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs by way of cheque of his wife's (Smt. Vedo Devi) account and the said amount went into the account of the accused Anita Kharb, the said amount was paid in three installments, first of 90,000/- paid on 04.06.1999 vide cheque no, 738087, second payment of Rs.60,000/- on 07.04.3001 vide cheque no.738089 and last payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.02.2002 vide cheque no.738090. Thereafter, he paid an amount of Rs.3.5 lacs in cash, from 2002 to 2003. Thus, in total he paid an amount of Rs.1l lacs but did not get back the principal amount as well as the interest amount. The details of the aforementioned cheques were mentioned on the piece of paper, given to the IO, the same is on record as Ex.PW14/A. He proved the bank statements indicating aforementioned payments as Ex.PW2/A1. He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb in the court.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 17 of 10326. PW-15 Sh. Kanwar Singh. His deposition is also on the lines of the deposition of his father PW-13 Krishan Singh and his brother PW-14 Ajit Singh. He deposed that upon saying of his father, he made payment of Rs.4 lacs on loan basis to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb upon his allurement that he will get 2 per cent rate of interest per month.
26.1 PW-15 further deposed that he made payment of Rs.2.5 lacs by two cheques in the year 2002. First cheque was of Rs.2 lacs dated 02.08.2002 and second payment was made of amount Rs.50,000/- through cheque of Central Bank of India. Both these two cheques were blank and only figures were mentioned on them. Apart from this he also made payment of Rs.1.5 lacs by way of cash and thus, he made total payment of Rs.4 lacs. After some time, accused persons neither gave them the principal amount nor the interest amount. He proved the seizure memo as Ex.PW3/A. 26.2 He also brought passbook of SBI having a/c no.01190023961, new account no.10440115405 wherein an entry dated 05.08.2002, Rs.2 lacs had been withdrawn vide cheque no.00355158. Photocopy of the same is Ex.PW3/B (OS&R). He also brought passbook of Central Bank of India of a/c no.004179 wherein entry dated 05.08.2002 of Rs.50,000/- has been shown as withdrawn vide cheque no.174899. Photocopy of same is Ex.PW3/C (OS&R). Witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir singh Kharb and Anita Kharb.
27. PW-16 ASI Surender Singh received the rukka from Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 18 of 103 the IO and got the FIR registered at PS Uttam Nagar and thereafter returned to EOW office with tehrir.
28. PW-17 Sh. Beghraj @ Meghraj deposed on the lines of testimonies of PW-8 Rajender, PW-9 Anar Singh and PW-11 Sh. Pawan Kumar, to say that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb owed money to Anand Hudda. He further deposed that he too gave a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
28.1 Before the cross-examination of this witness he expired and thus he could not be cross examined. Needless to say, the testimony of this witness shall not be read in evidence.
29. PW-18, Forensic Expert Sh. N.L. Paite, Scientist B (documents), CFSL, Kolkata, West Bengal. He proved the FSL report as Ex. PW18/A (OSR) (original FSL report is in FIR no. 329/06, the photocopy is on record in the present matter) and proved the supplementary report as Ex.PW18/G. The investigating agency initially sought opinion on a total of 15 questioned signatures. These are as under, alongwith the opinion given :
Questioned Signatures FSL Opinion Q.1 does not pertain to present matter. N.A.
Q.2 is questioned signature of accused Affirmed to be that Anita Kharb on document Ex.PW2/B i.e. of accused Anita receipt of victim Ajmer Singh on Kharb letterhead of the company, issued by Anita Kharb.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 19 of 103Q.3 is questioned signature of accused No opinion given Anita Kharb on receipt produced by victim/PW A.S. Hooda Q.4 to Q.7 are questioned signatures of Affirmed to be that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on of accused Ranbir documents pertaining to sale of car. Singh Kharb Q.8 is questioned signature of accused No opinion given. Ranbir Singh Kharb on document Ex.PW2/A i.e. receipt cum declaration of victim Ajmer Singh on non judicial stamp paper, issued by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb Q.9, Q.10 and Q.11 do not pertain to N.A matter at hand Q.12 to Q.15 are questioned signatures of No opinion given. accused Rajesh on passbooks produced by victim A.S. Hooda
30. PW-19 ASI Tanvir Ahmed. He deposed that he joined the investigation of present matter and in his presence both the accused persons i.e. accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb gave specimen signatures. The original specimen signatures, collected by the said witness, on the instructions of the IO, are on record in FIR No. 95/11 (already decided by this court). He submitted that he can identify both the accused persons namely Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, however, on the day of testimony of this witness both accused persons namely Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb were not present and their identity was not disputed by the defence.
31. AW-1 Sh. Mohit, Mauza Clerk, Record Room (Criminal), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. He deposed that as per Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 20 of 103 record, the file of case bearing CC no. 425/1/09, PS Karol Bagh, U/s 138 N1 Act, decided by Sh. Ajay Garg, then Ld. MM, Central as compounded on 29.04.2011, has already been destroyed vide order dated 26.09.2015. The photocopy of relevant page of the register is Ex. AW-1/A (OSR).
32. PW-20 Sh. K.G. Balasubramanian. He deposed that the document no. OR/564/WR/146/2007 and 2008, dated 19.12.2007 was issued by him and he identified the same as Ex. PW20/A. The attested bank account opening form bearing account no. SB1550 and SB810 are Ex. PW20/B and Ex. PW20/C respectively. The document containing particulars of the cheque book details is Ex. PW20/D. Photocopies of cheques running in two pages are Ex. PW20/E. Account statement of account no. 1550 of Kanta Rani (running in 19 pages). The same is Ex. PW20/F (Colly).
33. PW-21 Sh. Alok Kumar Gupta proved letter dated 10.02.2006 as Ex.PW21/A, the account statement of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 as Ex.PW21/B and the account statement of the said accused from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 as Ex. PW21/C (Colly).
34. PW-22 Inspector Sher Singh is the IO of the case. After the initial enquiry, he made an endorsement on the complaint and registered the FIR. The said rukka is on record as Ex.PW22/A. During the investigation, he examined the complainant and three more victims and recorded their statements. The documents of the complainant were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B and the documents of other three Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 21 of 103 victims were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/D. He issued notices to the banks of the complainant and the accused persons to provide the account details regarding the payment and other details. The notices issued to bank are Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW22/D and Ex.PW22/E (also marked Ex.PW7/A1), the notices were served through Inspector EOW and a reply thereof was received as Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/D, Ex.PW7/E and Mark PW7/A2 and other documents i.e. remaining replies received from bank are marked as X2, X3 (colly. five pages). PW 22, being IO, collected the documents from ROC, on record as Mark X4 (colly. running into 61 pages).
34.1 The accused persons were interrogated and their specimen signatures were sent to FSL for examination. The record regarding FSL examination is on the court file of FIR No. 329/06 (pending trial before this court) and FIR No. 95/11 (already disposed of by this court, however the record is still present with the court).
34.2 He identified the specimen signatures (collected for the purpose of FSL examination) of accused Anita as Ex. PW 22/H (record present in FIR No. 329/06), Ex. PW 22/K and Ex. PW 22/K1.
34.3 PW 22, being the IO, collected the specimen signatures of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as Ex.PW22/I (on record in connected matter FIR No. 95/11, already disposed of by this court, however the record is still present with the court) and as Ex.PW 22/J .
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 22 of 10334.4 He identified the receipt-cum-declaration dated 06.06.2001 as document Ex.PW22/F and identified the photocopy of the bank passbook of complainant Anand Singh Hooda as Ex.PW22/G(colly 29 pages).
34.5 During investigation, he obtained the original account opening form of the company and personal saving account opening form of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb which is the part of judicial file and same are Mark X6 and Mark X7 (colly running into three pages).
34.6 During investigation, PW 22 obtained the specimen signature of accused Hoshiyar Singh, the same are on record as Ex.PW22/L (on record on FIR No. 329/06).
34.7 PW 22 further deposed that after obtaining the specimen signatures, the same were sent for FSL examination and the FSL results were received as Ex. PW18/A. 34.8 He correctly identified accused Rajesh, Ranbir Singh Kharb, Hoshiyar Singh and Rakesh Lakra before the court. He deposed that he can identify accused Anita, however on the day of the testimony of the said witness, the accused Anita was not present, an exemption application was moved by the defence, without disputing the identity.
35. PW-23 ASI Prem Singh deposed that on 17.06.2009, having received DD No. 32A, he along with the IO SI Anil Kumar, SI Vijay Senwal, SI Ashu Gehrotra, Ct. Rajinder and Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 23 of 103 W/Ct. Alka went to PS Jaffarpur to arrest accused Ranbir Singh Kharab and Anita Kharab. After making due entry at PS Jaffarpur, the said team along with the local police went to village Mundhela Khurd (i.e., the village of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb) to arrest the accused persons and searched the local area and the house of the accused persons but their efforts were in vain.
35.1 PW 23 further deposed that the IO received an information that the accused persons have reached Tis Hazari Metro Station. At around 1.25 p.m., they took their position near the Tis Hazari Metro Station and after about one hour, the accused Ranbir Kharb was apprehended by them.
35.2 The said accused was interrogated and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW23/A. The said accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW23/B. Thereafter, the accused was brought to EOW office.
35.3 PW 23 further deposed that during the investigation, the IO Inspector K.K. Maheshwari, obtained the specimen signature of the accused Rajesh. The said witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court, however he was not questioned qua the identification of any other accused.
36. PW24 W/SI Sneh Lata deposed that in the year 2006, she was posted at EOW Cell. She deposed that she was made to join the investigation by the IO and that she was present when accused Anita Kharb was being interrogated. The Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 24 of 103 specimen signatures of the said accused were taken in her presence, she identified the said signatures as Ex.PW22/K. She further deposed that she could identify the accused Anita Kharb however, on the day of testimony of this witness, the said accused was not present, the defence had moved an exemption application without disputing the identity of the said accused.
37. PW25 Inspector (Vigilance) Manmohan Singh was also one of the IO of the case. He obtained search warrant for three properties of the accused persons, vide an application Ex. PW 25/1, before the court of the then Ld. ACMM, West Delhi. The said application was allowed vide order Ex. PW 25/2. He further deposed that after obtaining the court orders, three teams were constituted for conducting the search, headed by himself, Inspector Vivek Maheshwari and Inspector Sunil.
37.1 PW 25 further deposed that in raid at village Mundhela Khurd, nothing related to case was recovered. The search memo was prepared which is Ex.PW25/3, four independent witnesses and one police official also signed the said memo in his presence. After that he handed over the case file to Inspector Anil.
37.2 PW 25 was recalled after apprehension of the accused Rajesh and he deposed that qua accused Rajesh, he had not done any investigation as he was IO for a very short period i.e. from 09.06.2009 to about one week thereafter. He failed to identify accused Rajesh.
38. PW-26 Inspector Anil Kumar deposed that on Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 25 of 103 02.03.2009, the present case and one another connected case bearing FIR no. 329/06, PS Uttam Nagar was marked to him for investigation. From 29.05.2009 to 12.06.2009, he was on training and thus the matter was handed over to Inspector Manmohan Singh and when he returned from the training, the present case was again marked to him for further investigation.
38.1 On 17.06.2009, he prepared a raiding team to conduct the raid and arrested accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb. After making entry in DD no.32 in EOW Cell he along with his team went to PS Jaffarpur where they made their arrival entry and reported the matter to SHO PS Jaffarpur. Local staff of PS Jaffarpur also joined their raiding team. Thereafter, he alongwith the team went to village Mundela Khurd, however despite efforts, the accused persons could not be found. Thereafter, they went to the office of the company at Uttam Nagar, but there also accused persons were not found.
38.2 PW 26 further deposed that upon receiving information that the accused persons might surrender before the court, they reached at Tis Hazari Court and deputed different teams at different spots and apprehended the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. After interrogation, he arrested the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in the present case vide memo Ex.PW23/A and personally searched him vide memo Ex.PW23/B. He made the arrest of the said accused in one connected matter i.e in FIR No.329/06 as well.
38.3 PW-26 further deposed that in the course of seven days police custody the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 26 of 103 extensively interrogated. As per him, Inspector Vivek Maheshwari filed the chargesheet however, the responsibility of further investigation again came to the said witness. During further investigation, he found that various complaints of the victims were annexed with the file of the present case and in FIR No.329/06 he called the victims and joined them in investigation. He recorded their statements and collected the documents. He collected the documents from the victims namely Kishan Singh, Ajeet Singh, Kanwal Singh, Satyawati Dahiya, retired col. R.P. Dahiya, Shamsher Singh, Ram Niwas, Rajbir, Kamlesh, Satbir and some other whose names he does not remember. He recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.PC and seized the documents collected from Ajeet Singh, Satyawati Dahiya and Shamsher Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/C bears signature at point A, already Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW2/B both bears signatures at point B. Thereafter, he handed over the case file to Inspector Manoj Tyagi as he was on medical leave for six months.
38.4 PW-26 deposed that he could correctly identify the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb however, on the day of testimony of this witness accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was not present and his identity was not disputed by the defence.
38.5 The said witness was recalled after apprehension of the accused Rajesh. He deposed that he had conducted the search at the house of the said accused, during the PC remand of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb but the said accused Rajesh could not be found and his house was found locked.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 27 of 10338.6 He further deposed that the previous IO SI Sher Singh had obtained the specimen signature of accused Rajesh.
39. PW-27 Inspector Sanjay Kumar. He too was IO of the case however, the investigation remained with him for about three months only. During that period, he examined nine persons. He deposed that he seized the documents provided by one Rajbir Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/A and he identified the bank account statement of the said victim as Mark 27/A1. Similarly, the said witness seized the bank account statement (Mark PW2/A1) of victim Ajeet vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. 39.1 PW-27 further deposed that he seized the bank account statement (Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C) of victim Kanwar Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and similarly the bank account statement (Mark 27/B1) of victim Satwanti Dahiya was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/B.
40. PW-28 ACP Vivek Maheshwari deposed that he was the IO of the present matter after IO Anil Jindal. He interrogated the accused when the accused was in police custody. On 10.06.2009 he conducted a search at the office of the accused company at Uttam Nagar, Dalmil Road and the recovered articles were taken into custody vide memo Ex.PW28/A4.
40.1 He arrested the accused Anita Kharb vide memo Ex. PW28/A1, upon her surrender at EOW office. The said accused was personally searched by W. Ct. Anita @ Alka vide memo Ex.PW28/A2. Thereafter, he obtained two days police custody of Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 28 of 103 the accused and extensively interrogated the accused Anita Kharb.
40.2 PW-28 correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however, on the day of testimony of this witness accused Anita Kharb was not present, the defence had moved an exemption application without disputing the identity of the said accused. Witness failed to identify the accused Hoshiyar Singh and accused Rajesh. He further deposed that he does not know any one by the name of Rakesh Lakra.
41. PW-29 Sh. Nishant Shokeen is one of the victims in the present matter. He deposed on oath that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is his distant relative and that he used to run the company, at the residence of Sat Prakash, who is also a relative of the said witness. As per him, he used to frequently visit the aforesaid place of Sat Prakash. He further deposed that he met the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for the first time at the said office and the said accused induced him to invest money in the company and in return either the accused will pay 2% interest per month or in the time of three years the invested amount will be doubled.
41.1 PW-29 deposed on oath that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb repeatedly insisted and thus he decided to invest a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the company. Accordingly, in the year 2001 he gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb by way of cheque bearing no.615008 (dated 30.01.2001) however, after three years when the witness demanded the money back, the same was refused by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and he also Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 29 of 103 threatened to implicate the witness in false cases if the money was demanded.
41.2 PW-29 proved his complaint to the police as Ex. PW- 29/A, his statement of bank account is on record as Mark PW- 29/A1.
41.3 He correctly identified the accused Hoshiyar Singh before the court and deposed that he could identify the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, Anita Kharb and Rakesh Lakra, if shown to him, however, on the day of examination of the said witness the aforesaid accused persons were not present, an exemption application was filed by the Ld. Counsel for accused without disputing their identity. Similarly he correctly identified the accused Rajesh and deposed that the said accused used to collect money on behalf of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
42. PW-30 Sh. Shamsher Singh is yet another victim. He deposed that one Satprakash, who is husband of the real sister of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb (Satprakash is accused in FIR No.329/06 and in the present matter he has already been discharged) and who is a colleague of the said witness, told him that he had opened the company called M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company and that the said company was run by the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb, Hoshiyar Singh and Rakesh Lakra.
42.1 As per the said witness, in the month of February 1999, accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was present at the house of Satprakash, when Satprakash told him to invest money in the company and he told him that he will give 3% interest per month Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 30 of 103 or double his amount in three years.
42.2 The said witness was told by Satprakash that his money will be doubled in three years or in the alternative 3% per month interest will be paid.
42.3 PW-30 further deposed that on the inducement of the accused persons he invested Rs.1,50,000/- in the month of February 1999, against which he got a receipt, on record as Ex.PW-30/A. The money was given in the presence of all the accused persons except for accused Anita Kharb. He got interest on this investment for few months @ 4,500/- per month.
42.4 On 09.02.2001, he again invested Rs.1,50,000/- in the month of February 2001. On this investment also he received the interest for few months.
42.5 In the year 2001, PW-30 again invested Rs.9,00,000/-, after taking the said money from his relative Bijender Singh. On this investment too he got interest for few months however, when the witnesses demanded his money back from Sat Prakash, he was told by Sat Prakash that he too will commit suicide like his brother and he was further told that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb will pay back the money after the elections.
42.6 PW-30 proved his complaint to EOW as Ex.PW-30/B (running into two pages) and proved the seizure memo vide which his receipt of Rs.1.5 lakh was seized by the police as document Ex.PW26/C. Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 31 of 103 42.7 He correctly identified the accused Hoshiyar Singh before the court and deposed that he could identify the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, Anita Kharb and Rakesh Lakra, if shown to him, however, on the day of examination of the said witness the aforesaid accused persons were not present, an exemption application was filed by the Ld. Counsel for accused without disputing their identity. He failed to identify the accused Rajesh.
43. PW-31 Col. Ram Prakash Dahiya is also a victim in the present matter. He deposed that he was introduced to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in the year 2001, in the marriage of his son and thereafter again in the marriage of brother of his daughter in law. As per him, the said accused is a relative to Kishan Singh i.e. the grand father of his daughter in law.
43.1 PW-31 further deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb explained to him that the said accused was running a finance company and that if he is interested he may also invest some money in it and against the same the said witness will get 2% per month interest, on 6th of every month. PW-31 stated that the statement of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was duly supported by Sh. Ajeet Singh. i.e. father of his daughter in law.
43.2 PW-31 deposed that in the last week of July 2002, he gave a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at the house of his relative Ajeet Singh s/o Kishan Singh, in their presence, however, no receipt etc. was given to him by the said accused and no documentation was executed.
43.3 As per the testimony of PW-31, on 01.09.2002, he Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 32 of 103 once again went to the house of his relative Ajeet Singh and Kishan Singh alongwith two cheques, of Rs.56,000/- and Rs.40,000/-, drawn from his and his son's account respectively. Similarly, the said witness on 01.10.2002 gave the cheques of Rs. 34,000/- and Rs.30,000/- from his account, a cheque of Rs.20,000/- from the account of his son and a cheque of Rs.30,000/- from the account of his daughter in law. In total he invested a sum of Rs.4 lakhs. As per PW-31, all the aforementioned four cheques were bearers cheques, I.e no names were written on the said cheques and they were handed over to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at the residence of his relative Ajeet Singh.
43.4 PW-31 stated that he got the interest for sometime by way of cash and cheques. In November 2002, the said witness got to know from his relative that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is a fraud.
43.5 He proved his documents i.e. the copy of cheques and the certificates as Mark 31/A1 to Mark 31/A7. He identified the signatures of his son Rajesh Kumar Dahiya on document Mark 31/A1 and Mark 31/A2.
43.6 The said witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court, however, qua the other accused persons, the witness stated that he has never seen the said accused persons.
44. PW-32, Smt. Satwanti Dahiya is one of the victims in the present matter. As per her, accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 33 of 103 a distant relative and he used to address her mother as his Bhua. She stated that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told her that he had started a finance company in the name of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company and induced her to invest money in the said company against assured returns of 2% per month.
44.1 She stated on oath that on the assurance of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, she gave him a total sum of Rs. 9.50 lakhs i.e. Rs. 4.75 lakhs in cash and Rs. 4.75 lakhs through cheque.
44.2 PW-32 further deposed that she gave a cheque of Rs.3 lakhs bearing 235682, a cheque of Rs.1 lakh bearing no. 235688 and a cheque of Rs.75,000/- bearing cheque number 235689 and further gave Rs.4.75 lakhs in cash, in various installments. As per her, for some period, till 2001, she used to get interest on monthly basis and thereafter, the accused persons stopped giving interest, when they realised that the said witness does not have more money to invest.
44.3 She correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and submitted that she can identify the accused Anita Kharb as well, however, on the day of testimony of this witness accused Anita Kharb was not present, the defence had moved an exemption application without disputing the identity of the said accused. She deposed that she does not know anyone by the name of Hoshiyar Singh or Rakesh Lakra or Rajesh.
44.4 She further deposed that during investigation, she handed over the photocopies of her bank statement (Mark Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 34 of 103 27/B1), to the police which was seized by them vide seizure memo Ex. PW47/B. She also handed over to the police the receipts handed to her by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the same was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/B and the said receipts are now Ex. PW32/A and Ex. PW 32/B. 44.5 Witness was recalled after apprehension of accused Rajesh and deposed that she does not know accused Rajesh and have nothing to say against the said accused.
45. PW-33 Sh. Rajbir Singh is also a victim as per prosecution. He deposed that in the year 2002, Gunpal and accused Ranbir Singh Kharb came to his house at Najafgarh and told him about the company. They told him that if he invests money in the company, he will get 2% per month interest i.e. 24% annual interest or double the amount in 3 years.
45.1 As per PW 33, on inducement of Gunpal and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, he invested Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- in the year 2002, in cash. He explained the source of the aforesaid money by deposing that Rs.1,50,000/- was given to him by his relative Bijender Singh, in cash, in two installments of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-.
45.2 He further deposed that he handed over the aforementioned Rs.3,50,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in the presence of Gunpal, in cash, however, he was not given any receipt. He gave money without any receipt because he trusted the accused persons.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 35 of 10345.3 He proved his complaint to EOW as document Ex.PW33/A, his bank account statements as Mark 27/A1 and proved the seizure memo vide which the said bank statement was seized, as document Ex. PW 27/A. 45.4 He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and submitted that he can identify the accused Anita Kharb as well, however, on the day of testimony of this witness accused Anita Kharb was not present, the defence had moved an exemption application without disputing the identity of the said accused. Qua accused Hoshiyar Singh, he stated that he has seen him in the bus, however, he does not know the said accused and qua accused Rakesh Lakra and Rajesh, the witness stated that he does not know the said accused persons.
46. PW-34 Sh. Gunpal Singh corroborated the statement of PW-33 Rajbir. He deposed that PW Rajbir gave a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in his presence, in two installments. He categorically deposed that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told PW Rajbir that if he invests money in the company of the said accused, he will get 2% per month interest and/or double the amount in three years. He proved his signatures on seizure memo Ex.PW27/A. 46.1 He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and submitted that he can identify the accused Anita Kharb as well, however, on the day of testimony of this witness accused Anita Kharb was not present, the defence had moved an exemption application without disputing the identity of the said accused. Witness failed to identify the accused Hoshiyar Singh Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 36 of 103 and Rakesh Lakra.
46.2 Witness was recalled after apprehension of accused Rajesh and deposed that he does not know the said accused and have nothing to say against him.
47. PW-35 Sh. Ram Niwas is also a victim as per prosecution. He deposed that his father Sh. Begh Raj gave a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, on his inducement that he will give 2% per month interest or double the amount in 3 years, by investing the said money in his finance company at Uttam Nagar. He deposed that the said money was given in his presence, by his father from his personal savings.
47.1 PW 35 further deposed that against the aforesaid payment, his father received a receipt from accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. Upon being given an opportunity to produce the said receipt, PW 35 produced a photocopied document i.e., document Mark 35/A and stated that the said document was given to him by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
47.2 He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and submitted that he can identify the accused Anita Kharb as well, however, on the day of testimony of this witness, accused Anita Kharb was not present, the defence had moved an exemption application without disputing the identity of the said accused. Witness failed to identify the accused Hoshiyar Singh and Rakesh Lakra.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 37 of 10347.3 He further deposed that the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was given to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb by him, even though the money belonged to his father, the same was given to him by his father and he further gave it to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. As per him, he initially deposited the money which his father gave in bank, later he withdrew it and gave it to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and stated that the receipt-cum-declaration which accused Ranbir Singh Kharb gave was in the name of his father, because the said receipt was given in Panchayat and he was not present when the said Panchayat took place. The interest which the accused promised to give was 2% per month.
47.4 He proved his police complaint as Ex. PW 35/B1.
47.5 Witness was recalled after apprehension of accused Rajesh and deposed that he does not know the accused Rajesh and have nothing to say against him.
48. PW-36 Sh. Randhir deposed on the lines of testimonies of PW-8 Rajender, PW-9 Anar Singh and PW-11 Sh. Pawan Kumar, to say that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb owed a sum of Rs.96 lakhs approximately to Anand Singh Hudda and he admitted the same before village Panchyat on two separate occasions.
48.1 He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and submitted that he can identify the accused Anita Kharb as well, however, on the day of testimony of this witness accused Anita Kharb was not present, the defence had moved an Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 38 of 103 exemption application without disputing the identity of the said accused. Witness failed to identify the accused Hoshiyar Singh and Rakesh Lakra.
48.2 Witness was recalled after apprehension of accused Rajesh and deposed that he does not know him.
49. PW-37 Sh. Vinay Kumar, Branch Head, Vasant Vihar, Union Bank of India, Delhi. He proved the record of account of Kanta Rani and Surender Kumar as document Ex.PW37/A1 and Ex.PW37/A3 and further proved the computer generated record of account of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as Ex.PW37/A2. He placed on record and proved the certificates u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the aforementioned computer generated records as Ex.PW37/A4 to Ex.PW37/A6.
50. PW-38 Sh. Suresh Gade. He deposed that a cheque bearing no. 615008 in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs was encashed in the account of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on 30.01.2001. His report to this effect is on record as Ex.PW38/A.
51. After apprehension of accused Rajesh, a separate charges were framed against him on 22.08.2022 and consequently even the PWs were summoned afresh. It is thus logical to take on record a brief of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses qua accused Rajesh.
52. PW-1 was not summoned, as the accused Rajesh admitted the factum of registration of present FIR. PW-2 could Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 39 of 103 not be examined as he had expired. PW-4 Gajey Singh stated that even though he knows accused Rajesh, he has nothing to say against the said accused. PW-5 Anand Singh Hooda stated that accused Rajesh used to collect money from his house and used to hand over the said money to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. He categorically stated that he does not know if the accused Rajesh was part of the conspiracy to defraud the investors of the company. He identified the signatures of accused Rajesh on document Mark PW5/A1 and PW5/A2.
53. PW-3, PW-7, PW-18, PW-20, PW-21, PW-37 and PW- 38 were not recalled after the apprehension of accused Rajesh as the said accused admitted the documents which were proved/produced by the said witnesses.
54. PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-14, PW-30, PW-31, PW-32, PW-33, PW-34, PW-35 and PW-36 failed to identify the accused Rajesh and stated that they have nothing to say against him.
55. PW-13, PW-15 and PW-17 had expired and hence they could not be recalled to the witness box after apprehension of accused Rajesh.
56. PW-16, PW-19, PW-23 and PW-24 were not called as prosecution witness, after apprehension of accused Rajesh, in view of the statement (dated 01.09.2022) given by Ld. APP.
57. PW-22 being the IO of the case deposed against accused Rajesh that he obtained the specimen signature of said Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 40 of 103 accused and the same were attached in FIR no. 329/06. It is worth mentioning that in the present matter the said specimen signatures and even the photocopies thereof are not forming part of the physical record, the said document was read from the record of the connected matter itself i.e. FIR no. 329/06 and there it is mentioned as Ex.PW34/AH. The said witness correctly identified the accused Rajesh before the court. Similarly, PW-28, IO ACP Vivek Maheshwari also stated that he collected the specimen signature of accused Rajesh and attached the same with FIR no. 329/06 however, inadvertently the same could not be attached to the present case.
58. PW-26, being the second IO of the case conducted search the house of the accused Rajesh, during the PC remand of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however, accused Rajesh could not be found and his house was found locked.
59. PW-25 and PW-27 also IOs of the matter, stated that they have done no investigation qua accused Rajesh and they even failed to identify the said accused.
60. PW-29 Nishant Shokeen deposed that accused Rajesh used to work for accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and used to collect money on behalf of the said accused. He correctly identified the accused Rajesh before the court.
61. PW-39 onwards are witnesses qua apprehension of accused Rajesh, subsequent to him being declared a proclaimed person. A gist of their testimonies is as under.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 41 of 10362. PW-39, ASI Surender Singh deposed that on 28.07.2022 a secret information was received qua accused Rajesh who was a proclaimed person at that time. He alongwith his team apprehended the said accused and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW39/A. The said accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW39/B. He correctly identified the accused before the court.
63. PW-40 ASI Satender deposed on the lines of testimony of PW-39 ASI Surender Singh.
64. PW-41 ASI Jawaharlal deposed that on 18.07.2012, a warrant was marked to him in the name of accused Rajesh, S/o Kishan Singh, thereafter, on that day, he went to the house of the said accused and enquired about his whereabouts from the neighbours but no fruitful information was received and he also enquired from Anand Singh Hooda and Ajmer Singh, who were the victims of the present case but they also had no information regarding the whereabouts of the accused Rajesh, thereafter, he prepared the report and the same was produced to Inspector, EOW and the same is Ex. PW 41/A. 64.1 He further deposed that the proceeding u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was marked to IO Insp. Manoj Kumar and same was conducted by him. On 12.11.2012, the publication in respect to the proclamation of the accused Rajesh was published in Hindi and English newspaper and copy of both the newspapers are Ex. PW 41/P1 and Ex. PW 41/P2. One copy was pasted outside the house of the accused and one copy was affixed on the notice board of the court. He prepared the report in respect to the Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 42 of 103 abovementioned proceeding and the same is Ex. PW41/B, which bears signature at point A1. He submitted the report to Inspector EOW.
65. PW-42 Insp. Manoj Kumar deposed on the lines of testimony of PW-41 ASI Jawahar Lal.
66. No other witness was examined in PE and PE was closed and the matter was proceeded to the stage of examination of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC.
67. As is mandated by Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons were given due opportunity to personally explain circumstances appearing against them in evidence, in the matter at hand. They were questioned generally on the case. All the incriminating facts and circumstances were put to them, as appeared in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the corresponding documents.
68. In the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons stated that they are being falsely implicated and that they do not even know the complainant or the victims in the present matter. They denied inducing any person to invest money in the company.
69. Accused Anita Kharb stated, without oath, in the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that she does not know anything about the company as she is a housewife. She stated that even though she was the Director of the company, she has never undertaken any financial transaction for or on behalf of Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 43 of 103 the company. She denied taking any money from any victim/complainant. She stated that she never used to go to the office of the company and her brother Ranbir Singh Dahiya (who is one of the victims in connected matter FIR no. 329/06) used to look after the work of the company. Upon being questioned about any document executed in favour of complainant/victims, she denied any such execution and categorically stated that neither she nor her husband have ever executed any document in the favour of the complainant/victims/any other person. She denied receiving any cheque from PW Ajeet. She stated that she does not even know most of the prosecution witnesses and they were able to identify her only because her husband was MLA and people have seen her with him. She denied signing any of the documents put forth by the prosecution. Lastly she stated that people have falsely implicated her and her husband due to political rivalries.
70. Similarly, even accused Ranbir Singh Kharb stated that he does not even know most of the prosecution witnesses and that all prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely. He denied inducing anyone for investing money in the company. Qua PW Gajey Singh and PW Ajmer Singh he stated that some money was taken by him from them which he has already returned. He further stated that the blank cheque given to Gajey Singh was misused by him and he filled Rs.20,00,000/- instead of the actual loan amount i.e. Rs.1.5 lakhs. He denied executing any document in favour of any other victim/prosecution witnesses and further denied knowing/meeting the complainant Anand Singh Hooda. He denied receiving any cheque/cash from any of the victims. He further stated that the investigation is Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 44 of 103 false and frivolous and the IO was guided by the political rivals, all recoveries were planted to falsely implicate him. He denied threatening any person ever and further denied having any connection with the company. He denied owing any money to any person and stated that he has been falsely implicated because of political rivalries and that the victims are merely trying to extort money out of them.
71. Accused Hoshiyar Singh also stated that he is innocent. Even though, as per him, he was the Director of the company and used to look after the day to day work of the company, he never induced anyone to invest any money in the company. Hoshiyar Singh stated that it was the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb who used to induce the people to invest money in the accused company. He denied receiving any money from any person and further denied executing any document in favour of any person. He said that he was the Director of the company but only on papers and it was infact accused Ranbir Singh Kharb who used to look after the working of the company.
72. Accused Rakesh Lakra also stated on the lines of accused Hoshiyar Singh and claimed his innocence. As per him, he was the Directors of the company only on the papers and it was accused Ranbir Singh Kharb who used to deal with the affairs of the company.
73. Accused Rajesh, upon being questioned about the matter at hand and the evidence produced by the prosecution, stated that he used to work for accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on monthly salary in capacity of being his servant. His salary was Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 45 of 103 Rs.5000/- per month and he never used to get any commission etc. He stated that he performed his duty as per the instructions of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. He did not have any knowledge about the affairs of the company. Claiming his innocence, he stated that he has no knowledge about anything being done at the office of the company or anything done by the accused persons. Upon being questioned about his concealment of himself (consequent to which he was declared a proclaimed person), he stated that he shifted his address and never received any summons or warrants. As per him, he went to the EOW office in the year 2007 and before changing his address he did inform his neighbours. He stated that the son of the complainant A.S. Hooda is known to him and the y both worked in the same building and even accused Ranbir Singh Kharb knew about his current address. AS per him, police never came to his house and that he had no intention of escaping or concealing himself.
74. Only accused Rajesh chose to lead DE and other accused persons did not opt for the same.
75. Consequent to the order on application u/s 315 Cr.PC, accused Rajesh examined himself as DW-1.
76. DW-1, accused Rajesh deposed that he is innocent and that he never deliberately concealed himself, he merely changed address. He deposed on oath that before changing address he did inform his neighbours. He placed on record copy of his Adhar Card and property purchased documents. He stated that he never received the notice from the IO nor was he aware of any pending proceedings, he never received any pabandinama. He Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 46 of 103 deposed that he informed his neighbors when he changed his address and he used to often go to his old address to enquire about any pending post etc and he he never received any court notice nor was it affixed on his address.
76.1 He further deposed that he obtained voter Id-card bearing number DL03/027/309528 on 11.07.2013 from his present address and same is Mark D1/A3. Sh. Sunil Hooda, the son of the complainant was earlier working in Sri Ram Finance, Flat No. 304, Suneja-II Janakpuri District Center and he used to meet him often but he never informed him that he had been declared PO by this court. Even the other accused persons used to meet him often but they also did not inform him that he had been declared PO by this court.
77. No other DW was examined and thus the DE was closed and the matter was proceeded to final arguments. Due opportunity was given to both the sides. Oral arguments were heard at length. The arguments continued for more than 10 dates, however, despite grant of time and opportunity, neither side filed written arguments.
78. Whereas the Prosecution has argued that through witnesses examined and through the documents placed on record, the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and thus the accused persons ought to be convicted and punished, the defence on the other hand, has argued that the accused persons are innocent and deserve acquittal.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 47 of 10379. Ld. APP argued that the defence has failed to point out any irregularities/contradictions in the testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses and the said testimonies do inspire confidence and thus, they ought to be believed in entirety. To the contrary, the defence argued on behalf of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb that there are umpteen contradictions in the testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses, none of the testimony is supported by documentary evidence and wherever there is any document, it has no verification from the FSL and thus, as per the defence counsels, no case is made out. Ld. Counsels representing accused Hoshiyar Singh, Rakesh Lakra and accused Rajesh argued that there is hardly any role attributable to the said accused persons. As per them, most of the prosecution witnesses have failed to identify the said accused persons and thus, they ought to be acquitted.
80. Considering the enormous volume of the record and the number of PWs, at request of Ld. Counsels for the accused persons and Ld. APP, the final arguments were addressed separately qua each victim and each witness. The said arguments were duly noted and due opportunity was given to all the Counsels to rebut.
81. At this juncture, this court places on record its appreciation for Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. Defence Counsels for their cooperation in taking this trial to its logical end.
82. Having considered the entire record and having heard at length arguments, I shall now proceed to decide the matter on Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 48 of 103 its merits.
82.1 In the matter at hand, in total three supplementary charge sheets have been filed and accordingly separate charges were framed on 04.11.2009, 22.03.2012, 21.06.2014 and finally on 22.08.2022 against accused Rajesh, on his apprehension. These subsequent charge sheets are in nature of supplementary chargesheets and not separate chargesheets and therefore, there was no order of separation of trial qua each chargesheet. It is a settled principle of criminal law that a trial or any event thereof which causes prejudice to the accused in defending himself or which takes away the very opportunity of defending cannot be called a fair trial. In the matter at hand, no prejudice has been caused to the accused, all the evidence , documentary and oral were duly put to the accused and this court has no reason to doubt that the accused was prejudiced in any manner.
82.2 It may further be noted that in total four connected matters concerning the same accused persons were being tried simultaneously i.e. FIR no. 329/06, FIR No.761/07, FIR No.55/14 and FIR N.95/11. Certain record/certain documents which formed the part of connected matters were also relied upon and were duly put to the accused persons in their personal examination as well. These documents were relied upon in their original form, as filed by the investigating agency, from the connected matters themselves as all the said connected matter were pending trial before this court.
83. Before proceeding further, for the sake of convenience, I deem it appropriate to take on record a tabulation of the Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 49 of 103 documents, placed on record by the prosecution and the defence, the same is as under :
Sl. Name and Description Proved by :
No Exhibit
1. Ex.PW1/A Original FIR, PW1 ASI
Dharamvir Singh
2. Ex.PW2/A Receipt cum declaration issued by accused PW2 Ajmer
Ranbir Singh Kharb on non judicial stamp Singh
paper
Original is in
case FIR No.
329/06
3. Ex.PW2/B Receipt issued by Anita Kharb on the letter PW2 Ajmer
head of the company Singh
4. Ex.PW2/C Complaint made by Ajmer Singh, given to PW2 Ajmer
EOW Singh
5. Ex.PW2/D Seizure memo PW2 Ajmer
Singh
6. Ex.PW2/E Receipt issued by one Ram Prasad to show PW2 Ajmer
solvency of PW Ajmer Singh Singh
7. Ex.PW2/F Receipt issued by one Ram Prasad to show PW2 Ajmer
solvency of PW Ajmer Singh Singh
8. Ex.PW2/G Visiting card of accused Ranbir Singh PW2 Ajmer
Kharb Singh
9. Ex.PW2/H Certified copy of order of court of Sh. B.S. PW2 Ajmer
Chumbak, ADJ Singh
10. Ex.PW3/A Reply of Bank Manager, PNB PW3 Harish
Sharma
11. Ex.PW3/B Bank Account document of victim Gajey PW3 Harish
Singh Sharma
12 Ex.PW3/C Bank Account statement of victim Gajey PW3 Harish
Singh Sharma
13 Ex.PW06/A Complaint filed by the witness PW4/PW6 Gajey
Singh
14 Mark P6/A Photocopy of the cheque given by the PW4/PW6 Gajey
accused Ranbir Singh Kharb Singh
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 50 of 103
15 Ex.PW05/A Complaint made by the witness before PW5 Sh. Anand
EOW Singh Hooda
16 Ex. PW5/B Seizure Memo PW5 Sh. Anand
Singh Hooda
17 Ex. PW5/C Receipt dated 20.07.2002, on the letter head PW5 Sh. Anand
of the company, signed by accused Anita Singh Hooda Kharb 18 Ex.PW5/D The visiting card of the accused Ranbir PW5 Sh. Anand Singh Kharab Singh Hooda 19 Ex.PW5/E & Photocopies of the passbooks seized by the PW5 Sh. Anand Ex.PW5/F IO Singh Hooda (Original is in case FIR No. 329/06) 20 Ex.PW5/A1 & Passbook on which accused Rajesh used to PW5 Sh. Anand Ex.PW5/A2 sign at the time of collection of the money Singh Hooda 21 Mark PW7/Al Letter vide which information was sought PW7 Sunil by the police regarding bank account of Kumar Kundra, Jyoti Fair Finance Co. bank official 22 Mark Reply to above said letter. PW7 Sunil PW7/A2 Kumar Kundra, bank official 23 Ex.PW7/A Original account opening form of the PW7 Sunil (OSR) accused Anita Kharb Kumar Kundra, bank official 24 Ex.PW7/B Account statement of the company PW7 Sunil Kumar Kundra, bank official 25 Ex.PW7/C Bank account statement of the accused PW7 Sunil Anita Kharb Kumar Kundra, bank official 26 Ex.PW7/D Corresponding certificate u/s 65 B of Indian PW7 Sunil Evidence Act Kumar Kundra, bank official 27 Ex.PW7/E Account opening form of the company. PW7 Sunil Kumar Kundra, bank official 28 Ex.PW13/A Complaint of PW13 Krishan Singh to the PW13 Sh.
police. Krishan Singh
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 51 of 103
29 Ex.PW2/A Seizure memo vide which receipt given by PW14 Ajit Singh
(said the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for the
document got amount paid by PW14 Ajit Singh was exhibited in seized.
case FIR
no.55/14)
30 Ex.PW3/A Seizure memo PW15 Sh.
Kanwar Singh.
31 Ex.PW3/B Photocopy of the passbook of SBI having PW15 Sh.
a/c no.01190023961, new account Kanwar Singh.
(OS&R)
no.10440115405 wherein an entry dated
05.08.2002, Rs.2 lacs had been withdrawn vide cheque no.00355158.
32 Ex.PW3/C Photocopy of passbook of Central Bank of PW15 Sh.
India of a/c no.004179 wherein entry dated Kanwar Singh. (OS&R) 05.08.2002 of Rs.50,000/ has been shown as withdrawn vide cheque no.174899.
33 Ex. PW18/A FSL report PW18, Forensic Expert Sh. N.L. (OSR) Paite (original FSL report is in FIR no.
329/06, the
photocopy is
on record in
the present
matter)
34. Ex.PW18/G The supplementary report of FSL PW18, Forensic
Expert Sh. N.L.
Paite
35. Ex. AW1/A The photocopy of relevant page of the AW1 Sh. Mohit
register mentioning the entry regarding file (OSR) of case bearing CC no. 425/1/09, PS Karol Bagh, U/s 138 N1 Act, decided by Sh. Ajay Garg, then Ld. MM, Central as compounded on 29.04.2011 which has already been destroyed vide order dated 26.09.2015.
36 Ex. PW20/A Document no. OR/564/WR/146/2007 and PW20 Sh. K.G. 2008, dated 19.12.2007 issued by PW20. Balasubramanian Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 52 of 103 37 Ex. PW20/B The attested bank account opening form PW20 Sh. K.G. bearing account no. SB1550. Balasubramanian 38 Ex. PW20/C The attested bank account opening form PW20 Sh. K.G. bearing account no. SB810. Balasubramanian 39 Ex. PW20/D Document containing particulars of the PW20 Sh. K.G. cheque book details. Balasubramanian 40 Ex. PW20/E Photocopies of cheques running in two PW20 Sh. K.G. pages. Balasubramanian 41 Ex. PW20/F Account statement of account no. 1550 of PW20 Sh. K.G. Kanta Rani. Balasubramanian (Colly) 42 Ex.PW21/A Letter dated 10.02.2006 PW21 Sh. Alok Kumar Gupta 43 Ex.PW21/B The account statement of the accused PW21 Sh. Alok Ranbir Singh Kharab for the period Kumar Gupta 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 44 Ex.PW21/C The account statement of the accused from PW21 Sh. Alok (Colly.) 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 Kumar Gupta 45 Ex. PW 22/A Rukka PW22 Inspector Sher Singh 46 Ex.PW5/B The documents of the complainant which PW22 Inspector were seized by the IO Sher Singh 47 Ex.PW2/D The documents of other three victims seized PW22 Inspector by the IO Sher Singh 48 Ex.PW22/B, The notices issued to bank to provide bank PW22 Inspector Ex.PW22/C, details of the complainant and the accused Sher Singh Ex.PW22/D persons.
& Ex.PW22/E (also marked Ex.PW7/A1) Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 53 of 103 49 Ex. PW 22/L Specimen signature of accused Hoshiyar PW22 Inspector (in FIR No. Singh Sher Singh 329/06).
50 Ex. PW 18/A FSL results of specimen signature of PW22 Inspector
accused Ex. PW 18/A. Sher Singh
51 Ex.PW3/A, Reply received to the notices issued to bank PW22 Inspector
Ex.PW21/A, to provide bank details of the complainant Sher Singh
Ex.PW20/A to and the accused persons.
Ex.PW20/D,
Ex.PW7/E &
Mark
PW7/A2
52 Mark X2, X3 Other documents i.e. remaining replies PW22 Inspector (colly.five received from the bank. Sher Singh pages) 53 Mark X4 Documents collected from ROC PW22 Inspector (colly.61 . Sher Singh pages) 54 Ex. PW 22/H Specimen signatures of (collected for the PW22 Inspector (in FIR No. purpose of FSL examination) accused Anita Sher Singh 329/06) and .
Ex. PW 22/K and Ex. PW 22/K1 55 Ex. PW 22/I Specimen signatures of the accused Ranbir PW22 Inspector (in FIR No. Singh Kharb. Sher Singh 95/11, already disposed of) and as Ex.PW 22/J 56 Ex. PW 22/F Receiptcumdeclaration dated 06.06.2001 PW22 Inspector Sher Singh Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 54 of 103 57 Ex. PW 22/G Photocopy of the bank passbook of PW22 Inspector (colly.29 complainant Anand Singh Hooda. Sher Singh pages) 58 Mark X6 and Original account opening form of the PW22 Inspector Mark X7 company and personal saving account Sher Singh (colly running opening form of accused Ranbir Singh into three Kharb pages).
59 Ex PW23/A Arrest memo of accused Ranbir Singh PW23 ASI Prem
Kharb Singh
60 Ex PW23/B Search memo of accused Ranbir Singh PW23 ASI Prem
Kharb. Singh
61 Ex.PW 22/K Specimen signatures of accused Anita PW24 W/SI
Kharb Sneh Lata
62 Ex. PW 25/1 Application vide which search warrant for PW25 Inspector
three properties of the accused persons were (Vigilance) obtained Ex. PW 25/1 Manmohan Singh 63 Ex. PW 25/2 Order vide which the said application was PW25 Inspector allowed. (Vigilance) Manmohan Singh 64 Ex.PW25/3 The search memo vide which raid at village PW25 Inspector Mundhela Khurd was conducted (Vigilance) Manmohan Singh 65 Ex PW23/A Arrest memo of accused Ranbir Singh PW26 Inspector Kharb Anil Kumar 66 Ex PW23/B Search memo of accused Ranbir Singh PW26 Inspector Kharb. Anil Kumar Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 55 of 103 67 Ex.PW26/C Seizure memo vide which he seized the PW26 Inspector (already documents collected from Ajeet Singh, Anil Kumar Ex.PW4/B & Satyawati Dahiya and Shamsher Singh Ex.PW2/B) 68 Ex.PW27/A Seizure memo vide which he seized the PW27 Inspector documents provided by one Rajbir Singh Sanjay Kumar 69 Mark 27/A1 Bank account statement of victim Satwanti PW27 Inspector Dahiya. Sanjay Kumar 70 Ex.PW2/A Seizure memo vide which he seized the PW27 Inspector bank account statement (Mark PW2/A1) of Sanjay Kumar victim Ajeet.
71 Ex.PW3/A Seizure memo vide which he seized the PW27 Inspector bank account statement (Ex.PW3/B and Sanjay Kumar Ex.PW3/C) of victim Kanwar Singh.
72 Ex.PW27/B Seizure memo vide which the bank account PW27 Inspector statement (Mark 27/B1) of victim Satwanti Sanjay Kumar Dahiya was seized.
73 Ex.PW28/A4 Memo vide which during search at the PW28 ACP office of the accused company at Uttam Vivek Nagar, Dalmil Road the recovered articles Maheshwari were taken into custody 74 Ex. PW28/A1 Arrest memo vide which he arrested the PW28 ACP accused Anita Kharb. Vivek Maheshwari Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 56 of 103 75 Ex.PW28/A2 Search memo vide which accused Anita PW28 ACP Kharb was personally searched by W. Ct. Vivek Anita @ Alka. Maheshwari 76 Ex.PW29/A Complaint of Nishant Shokeen to the police PW29 Sh.
Nishant Shokeen 77 Mark PW Statement of bank account of Nishant PW29 Sh.
29/A1 Shokeen. Nishant Shokeen 78 Ex.PW30/A Receipt issued by the accused persons PW30 Sh.
against a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ in the month Shamsher Singh of February 1999 given by Shamsher Singh Ex.PW30/A 79 Ex.PW30/B Complaint of Shamsher Singh to EOW PW30 Sh.
Shamsher Singh 80 Ex.PW26/C The seizure memo vide which receipt of PW30 Sh.
Rs.1.5 lakh was seized by the police Shamsher Singh 81 Mark 31/A1 Copies of cheques (of the account of Col. PW-31 Col.
to Mark Ram Prakash Dahiay, his son and daughter Ram Prakash 31/A7 in law) and certificates. Col. Ram Prakash Dahiya Dahiya identified the signatures of his son Rajesh Kumar Dahiya on document Mark 31/A1 and Mark 31/A2.
82 Mark 27/B1 Photocopies of bank account statement of PW-32, Smt. Smt. Satwanti Dahiya (Ex. PW32/A and Satwanti Dahiya Ex. PW 32/B).
83 Ex. PW47/B. Seizure memo vide which Smt. Satwanti PW-32, Smt. Dahiya handed over the photocopies of her Satwanti Dahiya bank statement (Mark 27/B1) 84 Ex. PW4/B Seizure memo vide which police seized the PW-32, Smt. also exhibited receipts handed to Smt. Satwanti Dahiya Satwanti Dahiya as Ex by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb PW32/A &Ex.PW 32/B Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 57 of 103 85 Ex.PW33/A Complaint of Sh. Rajbir Singh to EOW PW-33 Sh. Rajbir Singh 86 Mark 27/A1 Bank account statements of Sh. Rajbir PW-33 Sh. Rajbir Singh Singh 87 Ex. PW 27/A Seizure memo vide which the bank PW-33 Sh. Rajbir statement of Sh. Rajbir Singh was seized. Singh 88 He proved his signatures on seizure memo PW-34 Sh.
Ex.PW27/A. Gunpal Singh
89 Ex. PW 35/B1 Police complaint of Sh. Ram Niwas PW-35 Sh. Ram
Niwas
90 Ex.PW37/A1 Bank account record of Kanta Rani PW-37 Sh. Vinay
Kumar, Branch
Head, Vasant
Vihar, Union
Bank of India,
Delhi
91 Ex.PW37/A3 Bank account record of Surender Kumar PW-37 Sh. Vinay
Kumar, Branch
Head, Vasant
Vihar, Union
Bank of India,
Delhi
92 Ex.PW37/A2 Computer generated record of bank account PW-37 Sh. Vinay
of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. Kumar, Branch
Head, Vasant
Vihar, Union
Bank of India,
Delhi
93 Ex.PW37/A4 Certificates u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act PW-37 Sh. Vinay
to in support of the aforementioned computer Kumar, Branch
Ex.PW37/A6. generated records Head, Vasant
Vihar, Union
Bank of India,
Delhi
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 58 of 103
94 Ex.PW38/A Report regarding encashment of cheque PW38 Sh.
bearing no. 615008 in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs Suresh Gade in the account of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on 30.01.2001.
95 Ex.PW39/A Arrest memo vide which accused Rajesh PW39, ASI
was arrested. Surender Singh
96 Ex.PW39/B Search memo of accused Rajesh. PW39, ASI
Surender Singh
97 Ex. PW 41/A Report regarding warrants marked to him PW41 ASI
with respect to accused Rajesh, S/o Kishan Jawaharlal Singh.
98 Ex.PW41/P1 Copy of Newspapers dated 12.11.2012 PW41 ASI & Ex.PW Hindi and English in which publication in Jawaharlal 41/P2 respect to the proclamation of the accused Rajesh was published 99 Ex. PW41/B Report regarding proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C PW41 ASI against accused Rajesh. Jawaharlal
84. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons, in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, cheated innocent investors by inducing them to invest money in the company, against huge returns of 2% per month interest and double amount in 3 years, without having intention of ever repaying the investment money or the interest thereof. As per the prosecution, the accused persons acting in course of criminal conspiracy, being directors of the company and committed offences u/s 406/409/420/120 B IPC.
85. Before moving to the appreciation of the evidence and Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 59 of 103 the adjudicatory discussion, I deem it appropriate to take on record the relevant law on the subject. The law on conspiracy is abundantly clear and for a refresher I deem it appropriate to cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India on 20 th August 2001) it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that :
Interpreting the provisions in Section 120A and 120B of the IPC, this Court in the case of Saju vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 1 SCC 378 held:
To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not legal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member to a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. This Court in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 540 held: (SCC p.543-44, para 9) The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter V-A of the Penal Code. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are con-conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 60 of 103 without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. The significance of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is brought out pithily by this Court in E.G.Barsay v. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR 195 (SCR at p.228) thus:
The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused are charged with having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts, and the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individual offences all of them may not be liable.
We are in respectful agreement with the above observations with regard to the offence of criminal conspiracy.
86. It has thus to be established that the accused charged with criminal conspiracy had agreed to pursue a course of conduct which he knew was leading to the commission of a crime by one or more persons to the agreement, of that offence. Besides the fact of agreement the necessary mens rea of the crime is also required to be established.
87. The law regarding cheating has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases. In case titled Hridaya Rangan Pd. Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & another (Supreme Court of India on 31 st March 2000) it has been held that:
Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Code as, "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 61 of 103 dishonestly induces the person so 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. The section requires - (1) Deception of any person. (2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person
(i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) intentionally inducing that person 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.
On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. in the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.
In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.
88. In Ram Jas v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 62 of 103 Court enumerated the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating as follows:
(1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person deceiving him; (2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (3) in cases covered by (2) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
89. It is necessary to consider that for the offence of cheating to be made out, the inducement by the accused to the complainant must have been in the initial or early part of the transaction itself. Here too, what is important is to prove that at or about the time that the person induced was made to part with money, the respondents (ie, alleged accused persons) ought to have known that their representation was false and that the representation was made with the intention of deceiving the other person. if this is not shown, then the dispute is only civil in nature. Thus, in Hari Prasad Chamaria v Bhisun Kumar Surekha (AIR 1974 SC 301), the Supreme Court held that the fact that subsequent to the transaction, the respondents did not honour their promises would only create a civil liability, and criminal liability cannot be fastened on the accused.
90. Section 420 deals with certain aggravated forms or specified classes of cheating. Thus, s 420 deals with cases of cheating, whereby, the deceived person is dishonestly induced:
(a) To deliver any property to any person; or
(b) To make, alter or destroy:Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 63 of 103
(i) the whole or any part of a valuable security; or
(ii) anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
91. Qua the offence of criminal breach of trust what is most important is entrustment of property and a subsequent misappropriation at the hands of the accused. As the title to the offence itself suggests, entrustment of property is an essential requirement before any offence under this section takes place. The language of the section is very wide. The words used are 'in any manner entrusted with property'. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds-whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of 'trust'. In common parlance, it embraces all cases in which a thing handed over by one person to another for specific purpose.
92. In respect of criminal breach of trust by public servants, a much more stringent punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years with fine is provided. This is because of the special status and the trust which a public servant enjoys in the eyes of the public as a representative of the government owned enterprises. Under s 409, IPC, the entrustment of property or dominion should be in the capacity of the accused as a public servant, or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, broker, etc. The entrustment should have nexus to the office held by the public servant as a public servant.
93. The prosecution dealing with cases of criminal breach of trust by a public servant is required to prove not only that the accused was a public servant but also was in such a capacity Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 64 of 103 entrusted with property or with domination over the same and he committed breach of trust in respect of that property.
94. Keeping in mind the enormity of the trial (the first PW was examined on 27.11.2009 and the last DW was examined on 17.11.2022), the volume of the record, the number of witnesses and the complexity of the matter, in my considered opinion, it will be best suited if the appreciation of the evidence is done qua each victim separately.
94.1 Following are the victims as per the prosecution story:
i) PW-2 Ajmer Singh ii) PW-4/6 Gajey Singh iii) PW-5 Anand Singh Hooda iv) PW-13 Krishan Singh v) PW-14 Ajit Singh vi) PW-15 Kanwar Singh vii) PW-17 Beghraj @ Meghraj viii) PW-29 Nishant Shokeen ix) PW-30 Shamsher Singh x) PW-31 Col. Ram Prakash Dahiya xi) PW-32 Satwanti Dahiya xii) PW-33 Rajbir Singh xiii) PW-35 Ram Niwas
95. PW-2 Sh. Ajmer Singh is amongst prime prosecution witnesses. As per him, the accused persons allured him to invest money in the company, against high returns. In total, he invested Rs.3.5 lakhs by way of cash, the money was handed over to Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 65 of 103 accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. Further, in the year 2002, he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and in lieu thereof he received a receipt from the said accused on a non judicial stamp paper (Ex.PW2/A) and from the accused Anita Kharb on the letter head of the company (Ex.PW2/B). Besides aforesaid amount PW2 gave a cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. PW-2 deposed that after becoming MLA accused Ranbir Singh Kharb refused to return the money and thus a recovery suit was filed which was decreed by the Ld. Court.
96. The said witness was cross examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsels. It was repeatedly suggested that absence of receipts qua aforementioned payment shows falsity however, he explained that though he demanded the receipts against aforementioned payments however, due to cordial relations with the accused persons, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb made excuses that he will issue receipts later. It was further suggested that the document Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B are fabricated documents. He admitted that in the recovery suit filed in the year 2005, he only sought a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- but did not mention anything about the remaining amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs. He admitted that accused Anita Kharb observes parda in the village.
97. Qua PW 2, Ld. Counsel for accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb argued that the said witness merely has a civil dispute with the accused persons and he has not leveled any allegations of inducement or fraudulent investment in the company. Ld. Counsel argued that the said witness gave complaint to the EOW only because he did not receive money Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 66 of 103 from accused Ranbir Singh Kharb which was ordered to be given in the civil suit. Mr. Aggarwal further reasoned that the documents put forth by the said witness have found no verification from the FSL and thus the said documents have no value.
98. Ld. APP argued that the testimony of PW-2 clearly shows that there was inducement by the accused persons and the documents given by the said witness show a clinching evidence against the said accused, in view of the FSL report.
99. A careful scrutiny of the testimony of PW-2, including the cross conducted, lucidly shows the guilt of the accused persons. At the outset, the roles of the accused persons, namely Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb are clearly and specifically highlighted to say that the said accused persons allured the said victim to invest money in the company. The factum of investment gets duly corroborated by the documents produced by the victim. Ex.PW2/A which is a non judicial stamp paper purportedly executed by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, as an acknowledgement of the received sum and document Ex.PW2/B which is an acknowledgment of liability given by accused Anita Kharb on the letter head of the company.
100. The document Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B were both sent to the FSL. Whereas, a specific opinion has come on the latter, no opinion has been given on the former i.e. Ex.PW2/A. The perusal of FSL report i.e. DXC-192-193/2008/1071 dated 31.07.2008 (The original result is attached to the record of FIR No.329/06 PS Uttam Nagar, pending trial before the court of Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 67 of 103 undersigned) Ex.PW18/A, clearly shows that upon FSL examination i.e. upon comparison of sample signatures with the questioned signatures (Q2), the FSL opined that the questioned signatures on document Ex.PW2/B were that of accused Anita Kharb. It is essential to mention here that, for the reasons unknown, the FSL has given no opinion qua questioned signatures (Q8) on document Ex.PW2/A i.e. the signatures of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. However, qua accused Anita Kharb there is indeed a clinching evidence to show that she received the money from PW/victim Ajmer Singh for investment in the company and indeed received money thereof, which has never been returned. Reading the evidence i.e. the testimony of PW Ajmer Singh in toto clearly reflects a nexus between accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and accused Anita Kharb, whereas accused Ranbir Singh Kharb induced the victim to invest money in the company, it was indeed accused Anita Kharb who received money in her account in consequence of the inducement caused and thus it can be said that there is indeed a clinching evidence against both the said accused persons.
101. Keeping in mind the length of the trial, the lengthy list of victims, for better understanding and for the sake of convenience I deem it appropriate to take on record a tabulation of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The said tabulation will also serve as a ready reckoner qua the identification of the accused persons, the documents proved by the victims (including the FSL reports on the said documents), the cheated amounts etc. Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 68 of 103 Name of the victim & PW-2 Ajmer Singh amount Rs.3,50,000/-
Ranbir Anita Hoshiyar Rakesh Rajesh
Singh Kharb Singh Lakra
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes - - -
Inducement or not Yes No No No No
Documents of Yes, Yes, No No No
acknowledgment/ Ex.PW2/ Ex.PW
Receipts of payment A 2/B
FSL opinion on Document Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B were sent
documents/ for FSL examination. No opinion has been
receipts expressed by FSL on Ex.PW2/A however,
document Ex.PW2/B i.e. an acknowledgment executed by accused Anita Kharb on the letterhead of the company, upon FSL examination, was found to bear the signatures of accused Anita Kharb.
Money trail None.
102. Qua second victim i.e. PW-4 Gajey Singh (also inadvertently referred as PW-6), Mr. Aggarwal submitted that the said witness has merely given a friendly loan to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the said loan has already been repaid. It was pointed out that in the course of proceedings before Ld. Court at Tis Hazari, the said witness, vide his statement dated 29.04.2011, clearly stated that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb has no liability towards him.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 69 of 103103. Ld. APP, on the other hand, argued that the matter of dishonour of cheque has nothing to do with the matter at hand. As per Ld. APP, the testimony of PW4/6 Gajey Singh is in two parts. Firstly where he says that Rs. 15 lakhs were invested in the company upon the inducement of Ranbir Singh Kharb and secondly where he says that a sum of Rs.5 lakh was given to help accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in contesting the assembly elections.
104. The testimony of PW-4/6 is closely scrutinized. The said witness is not in possession of any documentation which shows that the money was ever handed over to the accused persons for the purpose of investment in the company, upon the inducement of accused persons, however still there is a clear trail of money which corroborates the testimony of PW Gajey Singh that he handed over money to the accused persons against promised high returns.
105. It has been stated by PW Gajey Singh that Rs. 1.5 lakhs were transferred from his bank account to the account of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however there is no evidence on record to the said effect. Further, as per the said witness, he gave a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for the purpose of investment in the company and the money was transferred from the bank account of the wife of the said witness in the account of the company. The prosecution has proved the said transaction through PW 20. A perusal of document Ex. PW 20/F i.e., bank account statement of Smt. Kanta Rani, wife of PW Gajey Singh, of Corporation Bank shows that through 5 entries of various dates, a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs was transferred Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 70 of 103 from her bank account to the bank account of the company, i.e., a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of 2 installments of Rs. 50,000/- each was transferred in the bank account of the company on 11.08.2000, similarly, another installment of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited on 26.07.2000, Rs. 2,00,000/- were deposited on 01.05.2001 and lastly, Rs. 1,00,000/- were deposited on 22.05.2001.
106. The perusal of the record further reveals that the aforesaid sums of money were withdrawn from the account of the company and were deposited in the bank account of accused Anita Kharb in same sums, as they were deposited, on future dates. A perusal of document Ex. PW 7/C and Ex. 7/E i.e., bank account statement of accused Anita Kharb and the company respectively shows that Rs. 50,000/- were withdrawn on two occasions i.e., on 12.12.2000 and 13.12.2000 and further a sum of Rs. 2 lakh and Rs. 1 lakh were withdrawn on 04.05.2001 and 25.05.2001 respectively. Whereas it cannot be said that transfer of money from the bank account of the company to the bank account of accused Anita Kharb is a clinching evidence against accused Anita Kharb, it can be said that these facts do lend a corroborative support to the testimony of PW Gajey Singh.
107. Furthermore, it cannot be forgotten that conspiracies are hatched behind closed doors and often there may not be a direct evidence, yet if the guilt of an accused is sufficiently proved by a chain of evidence, the benefit cannot be given to the defence only on account of absence of direct evidence. The aforementioned trail of money from the bank account of wife of PW Gajey Singh to the bank account of the company Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 71 of 103 sufficiently corroborates the version of PW Gajey Singh.
108. This court finds merits in the submissions of Ld. APP that the matter under section 138 NI Act cannot be confused with the present case as the same are two separate acts of crimes and settlement in one matter does not exonerate the accused persons in another connected matter. Having considered the facts in totality, it can be said that the defence has failed to raise a plausible doubt in the testimony of PW Gajey Singh.
109. Qua accused Hoshiyar Singh, Rajesh and Rakesh Lakra PW-4 has not deposed anything, specific or otherwise. Thus, it can be said that there is nothing incriminating in the testimony of PW Gajey Singh against accused Hoshiyar Singh, Rajesh and Rakesh Lakra.
109.1 Tabulation of testimony of PW Gajey Singh is as under:
Name of the victim & PW 4/6 Gajey Singh
amount Rs.15 lakhs+ Rs. 5 lakhs (given for elections)
Ranbir Anita Hoshiy Rakesh Rajesh
Singh Kharb ar singh Lakra
Kharb
Identified or not Yes - - - Yes
Inducement or not Yes No No No No
Documents of No No No No No
acknowledgment/
Receipts of payment
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 72 of 103
FSL opinion on Not applicable, since no document of PW
documents/ Gajey Singh was sent to FSL
receipts
Money trail A sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs from the bank account
of wife of PW Gajey Singh was transferred to the bank account of the company and from there, it was transferred to bank account of accused Anita Kharb.
110. PW-5, Victim A.S. Hooda is the complainant in the matter at hand. As per Mr. Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, the said PW was partner in the company and in fact, it was him who used to run the affairs of the company and also used to run a chit fund business. As per the defence, the said witness kept changing his statements qua the invested/cheated amount and different versions have come on record on various dates. It has been argued that the said witness cannot be believed for the fact that he is unworthy of any credit on account of changing statements and further on account of his self incrimination qua participation in chit funds.
111. Mr. Aggarwal has further argued that the complainant has not pointed out at any inducement etc. by accused Anita Kharb and even the documents produced by the said witness are unworthy of any credit, as there is no supporting FSL opinion on the said documents. Further more, it has been argued that there is no document in possession of PW-5/complainant or any other person which shows that any payment was ever made to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, similarly there is no money trail to Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 73 of 103 show any banking transactions between the complainant and the accused persons.
112. Lastly, Mr. Aggarwal has argued that the only witness to the charge of threat i.e. Section 506 IPC, against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is PW5/the complainant and he clearly states that he was threatened by one Kanwal Pehlwan however, the said person has not been made an accused in the chargesheet and there is no investigation qua him. In such circumstances, as per Mr. Aggarwal, the allegation of threat and the act of threatening itself remains far from being proved.
113. Ld. APP on the other hand has argued that there are no contradictions in the testimony of PW5/the complainant and the various sums of money quoted by the said witness differ because of difference of calculation of interest amount, that is to say, that the interest amount kept accumulating and it is because of this added/accumulated interest the total cheated amount kept rising. Ld. APP has submitted that the actual cheated amount is about Rs. 41 lakhs however, upon adding interest the said amount escalates to Rs.95 lakhs.
114. As per Ld. APP there are various witnesses, illustratively PW8, PW9, PW36 and PW11 who corroborate the testimony of PW5/the complainant to the effect that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb admitted before the Panchayat, on multiple occasions that he owes a liability towards the complainant/PW5. Similarly, it has been argued that there are various witnesses who corroborate that the complainant was threatened at the instance of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb by one Pehlwan Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 74 of 103 (muscleman).
115. The testimony of PW5/the complainant was carefully examined in utmost detail. To begin with, the documents produced/sought to be proved by the said witness need to be examined. PW5/the complainant in particular produced three documents, which as per the prosecution are the clinching evidence against the accused persons. These documents are Ex.PW5/C i.e. a receipt issued by the accused Anita Kharb on the letterhead of the company, secondly Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F i.e. copies of the passbook of the company, on which periodic invested amounts were mentioned and the amounts were collected under the signature of accused Rajesh.
116. The said three documents are carefully perused. It is worthy to mention here that there is no document on record which purportedly is signed/issued by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, Ex. PW5/C, Ex. PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F, even as per the prosecution, pertain to accused Anita Kharb and accused Rajesh and no other accused persons. The said three documents were sent to FSL for forensic examination and consequent opinion, however, the FSL report Ex.PW18/A is silent about the questioned signatures on the said three documents. The alleged signatures of accused Anita on document Ex. PW 5/C were questioned as Q5 and similarly, the alleged signatures of accused Rajesh on Ex. PW 5/E and F were questioned as Q12- Q15.
117. At this juncture, it is essential to take on record the contextually relevant portion of the FSL report i.e. document Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 75 of 103 Ex.PW18/A. The same is as under:
"The documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined.
2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S26 to S35 and AS1 to AS9 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q2.
3. The person who wrote the blue enclosed Writings and signatures stamped and marked S9 to S25 and AS10 to AS12 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q4 to Q7.
4. It has not been possible to express any opinion on rest of the items on the basis of material at hand.
118. The FSL result does not disclose any reason why it was not possible to express opinion on rest of the items on the basis of material at hand. This court is at failure to understand as to why the IO did not resend the documents to FSL for a specific opinion. The FSL opinions are sought to strengthen the investigation by way of scientific methods of investigation, however where the FSL fails to discharge its duties with diligence it rather weakens the case of the investigating agency. Albeit, in absence of corroboration by scientific methods of investigation, the benefit ought to go to the accused persons. In absence of a definitive scientific opinion, this court is constrained to agree with the defence that the documents put forth by the complainant/PW 5 have no value and the said evidence is liable to be viewed with suspicion.
119. Coming to the ocular portion of the testimony of PW- 5/the complainant, the assertion that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb owes liability to the said witness is corroborated by the testimonies of PW-8, PW-9, PW-36 and PW-11. These witnesses have deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb admitted before the panchayats, on multiple occasions, that he owes a Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 76 of 103 liability towards PW-5/the complainant, however, the extent of liability is not lucid.
120. Furthermore, PW5/the complainant has not stated anything against any other accused persons, apart from accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. No inducement etc. has been attributed to accused Anita Kharb as well.
121. A tabulation of his testimony is as under:
Name of the victim & A.S. Hooda
amount Rs. 95 lakhs
Ranbir Anita Hoshiyar Rakesh Rajesh
Singh Kharb singh Lakra
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes - - Yes
Inducement or not Yes Yes - - No
Documents of No Yes No No Passbook
acknowledgment/ signed
Receipts of payment by
Rajesh
FSL opinion on No opinion given by FSL on the passbooks,
documents/ as aforementioned, purportedly signed by
receipts accused Rajesh.
Money trail None, as per the said victim he made all
payments in cash.
Allegations u/s 506 IPC
122. Apart from the allegations of cheating and
misappropriation of funds, PW-5/complainant has also leveled allegations of criminal intimidation against accused Ranbir Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 77 of 103 Singh Kharb. It has been alleged that the said accused through a muscleman (pehalwan) of the area threatened the complainant that if he demanded money there will be blood shed.
123. In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution was under obligation to show that :
i) That there was threat/criminal intimidation to the complainant.
ii) That the said threat/criminal intimidation to the complainant was caused at the instance of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
124. The said allegation of threat by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb has only come in the testimony of PW-5. Even though the other prosecution witnesses namely PW-8, PW-9, PW-11 and PW-36 have also deposed that they were present in the Panchayats alongwith accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and PW/complainant A.S. Hooda, yet there is nothing in their testimonies qua the said threat by a muscleman of the village. This does create a doubt.
125. Furthermore, I find merits in the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no evidence on record to show that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb ever instructed some one to threaten the complainant. It cannot be forgotten that identity of the said muscleman was also known to the investigating agency however still, for the reasons best known to the investigating agency, the said muscleman has not been made an accused. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt ought to go to the accused and it can be concluded that prosecution has failed to prove the allegations u/s 506 IPC.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 78 of 103126. The next victim is PW Kishan Singh and his family. As per the prosecution, PW Kishan, his two sons Ajit Singh and Kanwar Singh and his daughter Satwanti Dahiya were cheated by the accused persons. Further, the father-in-law of grand daughter of PW Kishan Singh i.e., PW Col. R.P. Dahiya was also duped by the accused persons.
127. Whereas, PW Kishan Singh, PW Ajeet, PW Satwanti and PW Col. R.P. Dahiya say that they alongwith their family(consisting of the aforementioned persons i.e. PW13, PW14, PW15, PW31 and PW32) invested a consolidated sum of Rs.28.5 lakhs in the company upon allurement of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, against promise return of 2% per month interest or double the amount in three years. Their testimonies find corroboration in the testimonies of their family members, as aforementioned, however, they do not have any document or receipt to support their claim of periodic investments, further more, there is no evidence of trail of money which can be linked to the accused persons or the company. Even though PW31- Col. R.P. Dahiya and PW-32 Satwanti Dahiya say that various payments were made by them through cheques however, none of these cheques have been encashed in the account of accused persons or the company. The case of PW Ajeet stands at no different footing. Even though he deposed that three cheques from account of his wife were encashed in the bank account of accused Anita Kharb, however, the prosecution has not placed on record any evidence qua the same. Even the bank account statement of accused Anita Kharb does not pertain to the alleged period of transaction. Thus, it can be said that these banking Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 79 of 103 transactions stand not proved. In such circumstances, the benefit can be given to the defence.
128. On the other hand, the son of PW Kishan Singh i.e. Kanwar Singh has deposed that he gave a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on 'loan basis' upon an 'allurement' that he will get 2% per month interest. He has categorically stated that he made payment to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb upon 'saying of his father'. A careful examination of his testimony shows that his two cheques were encashed in the account of Ranbir Singh Kharb. Cheque bearing no. 00355158 and cheque no. 174899 of Rs.2 Lakhs and Rs.50,000/- respectively are shown to be encashed in the account of said accused. The testimony of PW-21 and document Ex.PW21/B i.e. account statement of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb sufficiently prove and corroborate the factum of encashment in the account of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on 06.08.2022 (both cheques encashed on the same day).
129. The defence here has argued that PW-15 Kanwar Singh has given a 'loan' to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the same cannot be considered as cheating or entrustment for investment in the company. It is pointed out that the said witness uses a word 'loan' and thus his intentions are abundantly clear. As per Mr. Aggarwal a simple transaction of friendly loan cannot be confused with the act of cheating.
130. At this juncture, it is relevant to take on record the testimony of PW-15 which is as under :
"Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb belongs to same village as my mother and thus known to me. Upon saying of Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 80 of 103 my father, I made payment of Rs. 4 lacs on loan basis to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb upon his allurement that he will get 2 per cent rate of interest per month. I made payment of Rs. 2.5 lacs dated 02.08.2002 and second payment was made of amount Rs. 50,000/- through cheque of Central Bank of India. Both these two cheques were blank and only figures were mentioned on them. Apart from this I also made payment of Rs. 1.5 lacs by way of cash and thus, I made total payment of Rs. 4 lacs. After some time, accused persons neither gave us the principal amount nor the interest amount."
131. Falsus in uno, falsus omnibus is not a rule of evidence in the Indian Legal System and it is the duty of the court to extract truth from falsehood, to shift grain from chaff (reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Triloki Nath Vs. State of UP AIR 2006 SC 321). It is once again a settled principal of law that the words may not be construed in their literal sense rather the testimonies ought to be read in toto, in the context deposed by the witness, taking in account the entire evidence from top to bottom.
132. The aforementioned testimony of PW Kanwar Singh has to be read in the background of testimony of PW-13 Kishan Singh, wherein he says that his son Kanwar Singh made an investment of Rs.4 lakhs in the company upon allurement of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. PW Kanwar Singh also has specifically said that the money was handed over to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb through his father, furthermore, the banking transactions proved by document Ex.PW21/B sufficiently corroborate the testimony of PW Kanwar Singh. In such circumstances, it can be said that the testimony of PW Kanwar Singh is worthy of credence and thus the aforementioned arguments of defence hold scant value.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 81 of 103133. The aforesaid victims i.e. PW13, PW14, PW15, PW31 and PW32 did not depose anything against accused Anita Kharb, Hoshiyar Singh, Rajesh and Rakesh Lakra.
134. The tabulation of the aforementioned victims/witnesses is as under:
Name of the victim & PW-13 Kishan Singh amount In total Rs.28 lakhs which includes
investments made by his family as well i.e. investments of PW-14, PW-15, PW-31 and PW-32.
Ranbir Anita Hoshiyar Rakesh Rajesh
Singh Kharb singh Lakra
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes - - -
Inducement or not Yes No No No No
Documents of No No No No No
acknowledgment/
Receipts of payment
FSL opinion on Not applicable
documents/
receipts
Money trail No money trail.
Name of the victim & PW-14 Ajit Singh
amount In total Rs.11 lakhs.
Ranbir Anita Hoshiyar Rakesh Rajesh
Singh Kharb singh Lakra
Kharb
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 82 of 103
Identified or not Yes Yes No No No
Inducement or not Yes No No No No
Documents of No No No No No
acknowledgment/
Receipts of payment
FSL opinion on Not applicable
documents/
receipts
Money trail Rs.2.5 lakhs from account of wife of PW Ajit
was transferred in the account of accused Anita Kharb in three installments vide cheque no.738087, cheque no. 738089 and cheque no.738090, however there is no evidence, from bank record or otherwise to prove the said transactions.
Name of the victim & PW-15 Kanwar Singh
amount In total Rs. 4 lakhs.
Ranbir Anita Hoshiyar Rakesh Rajesh
Singh Kharb singh Lakra
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No No No
Inducement or not Yes No No No No
Documents of No No No No No
acknowledgment/
Receipts of payment
FSL opinion on Not applicable
documents/
receipts
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 83 of 103
Money trail Rs.2.5 lakhs was transferred to accused
Ranbir Singh Kharb through cheques bearing no.0035518 and cheque no. 174899, both encashed in the account of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. The said encashment stands proved vide document Ex. PW 21/B. Name of the victim & PW-31 Col. R.P. Dahiya amount In total Rs. 4 lakhs.
Ranbir Anita Hoshiyar Rakesh Rajesh
Singh Kharb singh Lakra
Kharb
Identified or not Yes No No No No
Inducement or not Yes No No No No
Documents of No No No No No
acknowledgment/
Receipts of payment
FSL opinion on Not applicable
documents/
receipts
Money trail No money trail.
Name of the PW-32 Satwanti Dahiya
victim & amount In total Rs.9.5 lakhs.
Ranbir Singh Anita Hoshiya Rakesh Rajesh
Kharb Kharb r singh Lakra
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 84 of 103
Identified or not Yes Identity No No No
not
disputed
Inducement or Yes No No No No
not
Documents of Yes i.e. No No No No
acknowledgment/ document
Receipts of Ex.PW32/A and
payment document
Ex.PW32/B
given by accused
Ranbir Singh
Kharb
FSL opinion on No FSL opinion on document Ex.PW32/A and
documents/ Ex.PW32/B.
receipts
Money trail No money trail.
135. Next victim to be examined is PW-17 Begh Raj. The said witness was examined in chief on 24.07.2018, however, he could never be cross examined, on account of his death and thus his testimony shall not be read in evidence. His son namely PW- 35 Ram Niwas deposed that his father Begh Raj gave a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in cash to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and money was given in his presence. In support of his testimony the said witness produced a photocopy of a document I./e a receipt cum declaration of Rs. 2 lakhs, purportedly executed by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. The said photocopy is on record as Mark 35/A. The original of the said document never came on record Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 85 of 103 nor there is any FSL examination of the said document. The defence repeatedly suggested in the cross examination that the said document is forged and fabricated and i.e. why the original could never be produced, the same was denied.
136. Examination of testimony of PW-35 reveals contradictions. Whereas initially he said that the money was given to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb by his father, in his presence, later he changed his statement to say that it was him who handed over money to the said accused. There is no document or any other witness to corroborate the testimony of PW-Ram Niwas. In such circumstance, the court is bound to look at the said testimony with suspicion.
137. Victim PW-35 Ram Niwas did not depose anything against accused Anita Kharb, Hoshiyar Singh, Rajesh and Rakesh Lakra.
138. The next is PW-29/victim Nishant Shokeen.
139. He deposed that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb induced him to invest money in the company, at 2% per month interest or double the amount in three years and it was the said accused who was running the company. As per him, he invested a sum of Rs.3 lakhs in the company upon repeated insistence by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. He categorically deposed that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him that he had invested the amount in a scheme in which it will be doubled in three years, however, upon lapse of three years the said accused refused to return the money.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 86 of 103140. Whereas the defence has argued that the said witness cannot be believed in the absence of a concrete proof/documentation/receipt etc., the prosecution on the other hand, through Ld. APP, has argued that there is a clear trail of money which shows that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs was transferred in the account of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb through cheque bearing no. 615008.
141. The perusal of the testimony of the said victim/PW shows that there are clear allegations of inducements at the hands of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and of delivery of Rs.3 lakhs and these are corroborated by documentary evidence in the form of account statements which shows an encashment of a cheque of Rs.3 lakhs in the account of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. Document Ex. PW38/A i.e. account statement of PW Victim Nishant Shokeen and document Ex. PW37/A2 account statement of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb leave no space of suspicion in the testimony of PW Nishant Shokeen. The cross examination at the hands of Ld. Defence Counsel does not highlight any contradiction which can be called material or major and thus it can be said that the said witness has withstood the test of cross-examination, his testimony is worthy of credence.
Name of the victim & PW-29/victim Nishant Shokeen
amount Rs. 3 lakhs
Ranbir Anita Hoshiyar Rakesh Rajesh
Singh Kharb singh Lakra
Kharb
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 87 of 103
Identified or not Yes Identity Yes Identity Yes
not not
disputed disputed
Inducement or not Yes No No No No
Documents of None
acknowledgment/
Receipts of payment
FSL opinion on Not applicable
documents/
receipts
Money trail There is a clear money trail. Cheque of Rs.3
lakhs from account of PW Nishant was encashed in the account of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. It stands proved by document Ex. PW 38/A and document Ex. PW 37/A2.
142. Further, apart from accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, the said witness has not said anything against the other accused persons.
143. PW Shamsher is the next victim to be examined. As per him, he invested a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs in the company, however in his case, the inducement was not caused by any of the accused persons, rather it was one Satprakash (already discharged) who told him about the company. It was Satprakash who told him that the company was being run by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, Rakesh Lakra and Hoshiyar Singh and further told him that the company will double the invested amount in 3 years Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 88 of 103 and will give 3% interest per month. He initially invested a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs in the company against which he received a receipt, document Ex. PW 30/A and on this amount, he received interest for few months. Later in the year 2001, he again invested a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs in the company and again invested Rs. 1.5 lakhs on 09.02.2001, thus in total, he invested Rs. 12 lakhs.
144. A careful perusal of the testimony of the said witness reveals that he invested money in the company at the instance of Satprakash and in fact the money was also handed over to Satprakash himself, though accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Rakesh Lakra were also present. In his crossexamination, he admitted that there were no inducements by any of the accused persons, namely Ranbir Singh Kharb, Hoshiyar Singh, Anita Kharb and Rakesh Lakra and he even failed to identify accused Rajesh.
145. Qua document Ex. PW 30/A, there is no supporting FSL opinion. The said document i.e., PW 30/A which is receipt cumdeclaration on the letterhead of the company, purportedly executed by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, was sent for FSL examination with point Q23 and Q24 as questioned signatures of the said accused, however the FSL has failed to give any opinion on the said questioned signatures. In absence of a definitive scientific opinion, on the said documents, qua the questioned signatures, the benefit ought to go to the defence.
146. To sum up, it can be said that the testimony of PW Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 89 of 103 Shamsher is not incriminating against any of the accused persons. Tabulation of his testimony is as under:
Name of the victim & Shamsher
amount
Rs. 12,00,000
Ranbir Singh Anita Hoshi Rakesh Rajesh
Kharab Kharb yar Lakra
singh
Identified or not Yes Not Yes Not No
disputed dispute
d
Inducement or not Yes No Yes Yes No
Documents of Yes No No No No
acknowledgment/
Receipts of payment
FSL opinion on documents/ No opinion _ _ _ _
receipts
147. Finally coming to the last victim, i.e., PW33, Rajbir. He deposed that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb along with PW Gunpal came to his house and told him about the company and that he will get 2% per month interest or double the amount in 3 years, if he invested money in the company. He categorically deposed that he invested Rs.1,00,000/, Rs.50,000/, Rs. 2,00,000/ in the year 2002 in cash, upon inducement of PW Gunpal and accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the said money was handed over to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, in presence of PW Gunpal, in cash. He admitted that he is not in possession of any receipt or documentation to show that any money was ever handed over to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for the purpose of investing in the company and he explained the same by saying that since he trusted accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, he did not Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 90 of 103 press for receipt.
148. The defence Counsel, Sh. Aggarwal, repeatedly suggested to the said witness that the money was in fact taken by PW Gunpal and not by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however the same was denied by the witness. It was argued by the defence that the testimony of PW Rajbir is of no value as it is not supported by any written documentation.
149. Ld. APP, on the other hand, argued that even without presence of written documentation, the testimony of PW Rajbir finds due support/corroboration from the testimony of PW Gunpal.
150. Perusal of testimony of PW Gunpal shows merits in the submissions of Ld. APP. Even though the defence has tried to impeach the credit of the witness by suggesting that it was he who usurped the money of PW Rajbir, however the said suggestions were denied. Upon careful examination, it appears that PW Gunpal has withstood the test of crossexamination and there are no material contradictions in his testimony. Reading testimonies of PW Rajbir and PW Gunpal together shows that the said two witnesses have corroborated each other's testimonies and that there are no material contradictions.
151. A question which needs to be settled at this stage is whether an evidence or testimony of a victim is unworthy to be believed in absence of written documentation/receipt. In my Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 91 of 103 considered opinion, the answer is a resounding no. There is no principle of law or practice which mandates that every transaction has to be proved by written documentation. The law in fact does allow oral contracts as well, subject to them being proved otherwise than by written documentation. In the matter at hand, the witnesses have repeatedly deposed that no receipts were issued by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, against money collected by him/investments received by him as they trusted him being relatives and also because of the fact that the said accused had good image/reputation in the area, as well as because he was a local MLA. This explanation by the victims in itself is selfexplanatory and is worthy of belief, being plausible. The tabulation of the testimony is as under:
Name of Rajbir
the victim Rs. 3,50,000/
& amount
Ranbir Anita Hoshiyar Rakesh Rajesh
Singh Kharb singh Lakra
Kharab
Identified Yes Identity not No No No
or not disputed
Inducemen Yes No No No No
t or not
Documents No _ _ _ _
of
acknowled
gment/
Receipts of
payment
FSL _ _ _ _ _
opinion on
documents/
receipts
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 92 of 103
Allegations against accused Rajesh qua Section 174 A IPC.
152. The next to be discussed is the role of accused Rajesh. Even though most witnesses have even failed to identify the said accused and almost all witnesses have deposed that in their knowledge, accused Rajesh had no participation in the affairs of the company, yet the charge u/s 174A IPC stands at different footing and needs to be probed separately.
153. To begin with, the legislative mandate as contained in Section 174A IPC needs to be taken on record. The same is as under:
"whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
154. This section should be read along with sec. 82(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsection (1) of sec. 82 provides that if any court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant of arrest has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 93 of 103 be executed, such court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
155. Thus, the court which issued the warrant of arrest is only competent to publish a proclamation.
156. The person against whom the proclamation has been issued, fails to comply with the requirements of the proclamation, shall be punished under sec. 174A, IPC with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
157. Where a person is declared as a proclaimed offender under subsec. (4) of sec. 82 Cr.P. Code his failure to comply with the requirements of the proclamation issued under sec. 82(1) shall be made him liable for enhanced punishment under the last part of sec. 174A, IPC and he shall then be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
158. Ingredients of the offence The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 174A are as follows:
(i) that despite a warrant the accused has absconded or is concealing, and thereby preventing execution of the warrant;
(ii) that a proclamation has been issued under sec.Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 94 of 103
82(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the accused;
(iii) that the accused has been asked by the proclamation to appear at a specified place and at a specified time;
(iv) that the accused has failed to comply with the requirements of the proclamation.
159. Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 14.01.2013, accused Rajesh was declared as a proclaimed person by the order of the court of Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari. Despite opportunities and notices, the said accused failed to appear before the concerned court and warrants issued against him could not be executed, as the accused absconded and concealed himself. Proclamation in writing was issued by various means, including by way of publication in newspapers, however still the said accused chose to remain absent from the court proceedings and thus the court declared him a proclaimed person.
160. On 28.07.2022, the said accused was apprehended and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW39/A after a gap of about nine years.
161. Upon apprehension, the said accused was put to trial, consequent to framing of charge on 22.08.2022. Charges were framed u/s 420/409/120B and Section 174A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 95 of 103162. PW39 to PW42 were the witnesses to apprehension and arrest of the said accused and in defence evidence accused examined himself as DW1. The perusal of testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the defence taken by the accused , on careful examination and on appreciation of evidence, reveals that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the said accused qua the charge of Section 174A IPC and the accused has successfully raised a plausible defence.
163. The defence has put forth the following lines of arguments :
i) Firstly, that the chargesheet was filed without arrest of the accused Rajesh because the said accused duly cooperated in the entire investigation and that is why he was not arrested. This as per defence shows good intentions and good conduct of the accused.
ii) Secondly, no pabandinama was given to him so as to obligate and mandate him to appear before the court, in such circumstances, as per the defence, it may be assumed that the accused was not aware that he was to appear before the court.
Iii) Thirdly, the accused merely changed his address but never tried to conceal himself and in the course of the past he did update his documents including Aadhar card and voter identity card. This as per defence shows his intention to not conceal himself.
iv) Lastly, the defence has argued that the Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 96 of 103 investigating agency with reasonable efforts could have discovered the new address of the accused through channels of election commission, by inquiry from the school of the children of the accused etc. however, since no efforts were made, the accused could not be discovered.
164. Having considered the record in detail, it appears that the IO at the time of filing of the chargesheet issued no pabandinama etc. to accused Rajesh. It also appears that the said accused duly cooperated in the investigation and that is why the chargesheet was filed without his arrest. Considering the facts in their entirety, I am of the considered opinion that benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
165. Ignorantia juris non excusat is a settled principle of law meaning that ignorance of the law is not an excuse however, still ignorance of fact is an excuse. The defence taken that the accused was not aware of the fact that he was to appear before the court seems plausible in the light of his testimony as DW1 and the document put forth by him including updated voter identity card (updated in the year 2013) etc. Conclusion:
166. Having considered the case in its entirety, the testimonies of the witnesses, the cross conducted, the documents put forth by the prosecution, their scientific evaluation, the testimony of the defence witness, the statement of the accused Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 97 of 103 persons u/s 313 Cr.PC and the arguments advanced by all the counsels from both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb beyond reasonable doubts.
167. Seeing the facts in their entirety, in the light of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and documents placed on record, it appears, beyond reasonable doubts, that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb canvassed himself as the owner of the company, whereas on paper he never held any post of Director or any other position of responsibility in the company and induced the general public, more particularly his kith and kin to invest money in the company against fictitious lucrative claims of 2% per month interest or double the amount in three years. It will not be an over statement to say that accused Ranbir singh Kharb was in fact the face of the company.
168. Accused Anita Kharb on the other hand, acted in the background and was the Director of the company on the papers. She facilitated banking transactions and allowed transfers from the account of the company to her personal account. She issued acknowledgments, receipts and other documentation under her signatures on the letterhead of the company to make people believe of her claims and to lend support to the promises made by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, her husband. She signed in English language and admittedly used to canvas for her husband for political purposes, in her own words she is a known figure in Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 98 of 103 the area, merely saying that she is an illiterate lady does not exonerate her from the liability specially considering the documents issued by her to PWAjmer Singh (under her signatures and duly proved by FSL), a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs from the bank account of wife of PW Gajey Singh was transferred to the bank account of the company and from there, it was transferred to bank account of accused Anita Kharb, amongst other evidences. The testimony of PW Ajmer and PW A.S. Hooda further indicts accused Anita Kharb. Through various documentary evidence including bank account statements, the prosecution has successfully proved the banking transactions from her account, under her signatures.
169. The accused persons issued receipts/acknowledgment under the title called receiptcumdeclaration on letterheads of the company and on non judicial stamp papers and freely gave them to the victims as acknowledgment of their liability, this shows audacious nature of the accused persons and scant regard for law.
170. The magnanimity of the promised interest rates i.e. 24% per annum interest, against the prevalent banking rates of interest of 6 to 8% per annum, speaks volumes about their correctness and also about the intention of the accused persons in fulfilling their promises. Thus paving a path for conviction u/s 420 IPC.
171. It is settled law that offence of cheating is established Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 99 of 103 when it is proved that the accused have induced a person to deliver any property or to do or omit to do something, which he would have otherwise not done or omitted. In the matter at hand, there is clear evidence that the accused persons induced the victims to invest money in the name of the company by promising extremely high, fictional returns and in consequence received huge sums of the money. Thus it can be said that the ingredients of offence of cheating are duly fulfilled and proved.
171.1. The testimony and the documents produced by PW Ajmer Singh, i.e., document Ex. PW 2/B, signed by accused Anita Kharb and verified by FSL, the money trail proved by PW Gajey Singh wherein a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs from the bank account of the wife of the said witness was transferred to the bank account of the company and from there, it was transferred to bank account of accused Anita Kharb, the testimony and banking transactions proved by PW- Nishant Shokeen and similarly, the money trail proved by PW- Kanwar Singh are clinching evidences against the accused persons and these evidences taken together prove the offence of cheating by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, beyond reasonable doubts.
171.2 Further since the charge of criminal misappropriation (u/s 409 IPC) was framed in alternative to the charge of cheating and since the charge of cheating has been proved beyond reasonable doubts, the later charge is of no avail and even otherwise, it does not stand proved.
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 100 of 103172. As defined by Halsbury's law, a criminal conspiracy consist of an agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration or however it may be. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose.
173. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no effective part in the crime. Reliance is placed on observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State vs Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253.
174. It is wrong to think that every one of the conspirators must have taken active part in the commission of each and every Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 101 of 103 one of the conspiratorial acts. The offence of criminal conspiracy consists in a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and the performance of an act in terms thereof. If pursuant to the criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit several offences, then all of them will be liable for the offences even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission of the offences. Reliance is placed on observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State v Krishan Lal AIR 1987 SC 773.
175. Criminal conspiracy can be drawn from surrounding circumstances since normally no direct evidence is available. Reliance is placed on observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suman Sood v State of Rajasthan (2007)5 SCC 634. In the same case Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the agreement which in the eye of law amounts to conspiracy may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties. There is no difference between mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any other offence: it can be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
176. Coming to the matter at hand, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly show that the accused persons namely Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb acted in the course of common design to cheat innocent investors by painting a picture of lucrative interest scheme. It can be said that they never had any intention of paying back the money of the investors. They acted in the course of this criminal conspiracy and induced Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 102 of 103 investors/victims, took money from them and executed written acknowledgments. The trail of money from the bank accounts of the victims to the bank accounts of the said accused persons and also the company, various documentary evidence show a clear and common path taken by both the accused persons to defraud the general public and from these agreement or conspiracy can be inferred, beyond reasonable doubts.
177. Qua other accused persons there is nothing on record to show their involvement, directly or indirectly in the criminal conspiracy.
178. Ergo, in conclusion it can be said that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb beyond reasonable doubts for offences u/s 420 r/w Sec. 120B IPC. Accordingly, these two accused persons namely accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb are hereby convicted for the offences u/s 420 r/w Section 120B IPC. On the other hand, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the other accused persons and thus the said accused persons namely accused Hoshiyar Singh, Rakesh Lakra and Rajesh are hereby acquitted. Copy of the order be given free of cost to the convicted persons.
Announced in open court
on 22.12.2022 (Harjeet Singh Jaspal)
ACMM-04, RADC, New Delhi
Cr.C.No.127/2019; FIR No. 761/2007; State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharab & Ors. PS Uttam Nagar Page 103 of 103