Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Etc on 20 November, 2013
THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 11, CENTRAL,
ROOM NO. 266, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
PAWAN ETC.
FIR No. 54/2011
P.S.: SUBZI MANDI
U/S: 181/205/468/471/34 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02401R032942011
2. Date of commission of offence : 08.11.2010
3. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Hemraj, Ld.MM
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
4. Name of the accused, and 1. Pawan Kumar varnwal
his parentage and residence : S/o Sh. Ramji Lal,
R/o H.No. 208, Gali No. 22,
Khajori Delhi.
Also R/o VPO+PS Behri,
Dharbhanga, Bihar.
2. Manoj@Munna@Jatin
S/o Sh. Nathu Ram
R/o 3052, Gali Mandi Wali,
Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
5. Date when judgment : 18.11.2013
was reserved
6. Date when Judgment : 20.11.2013
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section181/205/468/471/34
or proved IPC
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Final Judgment : Both convicted for offence
under Section 181/205/ 468/
471/34 IPC
FIR No. 54/11
PS- Subzi Mandi
State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 1/15
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that in furtherance of their common intention accused Manoj @ Munna prepared forged voter Election ID Card, ID card of Hindu Rao Hospital alongwith fake payslip and filled the Form 45 and accused Pawan stood as surety on such fake documents on 08.11.2010 in the court of Sh. Hemraj, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Court in case FIR No. 235/10, PS Vikaspuri seeking release of accused Manish by impersonating one Vijay Bansal claiming to be working in Hindu Rao Hospital as Storekeeper. The above forgery was detected by Ld MM when the actual Vijay Bansal appeared in the said Court pursuant to notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. and deposed that his voter ID card has been forged and he never worked in Hindu Rao Hospital. Thereafter. Ld. MM ordered for registration of FIR and accused persons were arrested.
2. After hearing arguments charge was framed against both the accused for offences U/s 181/205/468/471 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses namely PW1 SI Rampal, PW2 Sh. Hemraj, Ld MM, PW3 Vijay Bansal, PW4 Ct Mahipal, PW5 HC Khushal Singh, PW6 Sh. Ghanshyam, PW7 Sh. S.N Dobhal and PW8 SI Rajesh Kumar to prove the case against the accused. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places.
FIR No. 54/11PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 2/15
4. After the Prosecution evidence was closed the statement of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal and Manoj Kumar @ Munna were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence were put to them where accused denied the allegations and stated that the were falsely implicated. Both accused stated by separate statement that they do not want to lead evidence in their defence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
5. Ld APP for the State has argued that all the witnesses have deposed in favour of the prosecution case and the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused persons. He prays for conviction.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Legal Aid counsel for the accused persons argued that the initiation of criminal proceedings itself is not in accordance of law and relied upon the judgment in the matter of Neeraj Kumar vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the question of whether the District Judge can on an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. instead of himself conducting a preliminary enquiry directed for registration of FIR is justified and sustainable in law. The High Court held that in the scheme of procedure u/s 340 Cr.P.C., the Ld. District Judge should have himself conducted the preliminary enquiry and after forming a prima facia opinion of proceeding further against the accused should have made a complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate. The reliance of Ld. Counsel on the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case as in the present case, their was no proceeding u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 54/11PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 3/15 initiated and it was only when the accused in FIR No. 235/10, PS Vikaspuri failed to appear and on receiving notice to the surety issued u/s 446 Cr.P.C. the actual Vijay Bansal appeared and then the said forgery was detected by the court. Hence the above submission of the Ld. Counsel is rejected. Ld. Counsel further argued that both accused are innocent and prays of their acquittal.
7. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
7.1 PW1 deposed that on 03.03.2011 at about 4.15 pm, he received the rukka and thereafter he registered the present FIR No. 54/11 vide Ex. PW1/A on the basis of such rukka and endorsed the same vide Ex.PW1/B. 7.2 PW2 is the Ld. MM. He deposed that on 25.02.2011, he was posted at Tis Hazari Courts and holding the court of PS Vikaspuri.
On 09.11.2010, one bail bond Mark A was furnished in case FIR No. 235/10 PS Vikaspuri which was accepted by him bearing his signature at Point A. He further stated that he passed the orders dated 25.02.2011 vide Ex.PW2/A in his judicial capacity. 7.3 PW3 Vijay Bansal deposed that on 16.04.2011 IO had shown documents Mark A to him and after seeing the same, he had told the IO that it does not bear his photograph and he do not identify the photograph. He further deposed that some other person had taken bail after using his name and address wrongfully and he do not know Manish whose bail had been taken and the said person whose photograph is affixed on Mark A had taken false bail by cheating his name and address and also he had not given any affidavit Mark B in FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 4/15 this regard. He further deposed that Voter ID card Mark C, salary slip of September, 2010 Mark D which was furnished by fake surety also does not belongs to him and he had not worked as storekeeper and do private work.
7.4 PW4 Ct Mahipal deposed about the arrest and disclosure of accused Pawan Kumar. He stated that on 28.05.2011, he alongwith IO SI Rajesh Kumar went to Rohini Jail and interrogated and arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW4/B. He also stated that IO moved an application before the Jail Superintendent for producing the accused before the Court. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by the accused in his presence and signatures were obtained on blank papers. 7.5 PW5 HC Khushal Singh stated about the arrest and disclosure of accused Manoj @ Monu. He deposed that on 01.06.2011, he alongwith IO SI Rajesh Kumar went to Tihar Jail and arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and interrogated and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW5/B. He also stated that IO moved an application before the Jail Superintendent for producing the accused before the Court on 02.06.2011. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that he had not joined investigation of the present case at any point of time. 7.5 PW6 stated that since 30.06.2011 he was posted at AERO, AC19, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and has brought the record in respect of verification of electoral photo identity card in the name of Vijay FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 5/15 Bansal s/o Laxmi Narayan R/o L2/45, Block 2, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. He further stated that EPIC no. SNJ0273854 was issued to Vijay Bansal and same bears his photograph as he is a registered voter in AC19, Sadar Bazar in part no. 42, Sr. No. 117 for the year 2011. The above report was proved a Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that card No. SNJ0273854 was issued to Vijay Kumar Bansal and not HMC0537288 and the copy of Election card No. SNJ0273854 is tendered as Mark 6A.
7.6 PW7 is the Clerk in the office of Chief Election Officer, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and produced the detailed report regarding Voter ID Card No. HMC0537288 which is Ex. PW7/A. He stated that as per record, no such voter Icard number has been issued to anyone.
7.7 PW8 SI Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 03.03.2011, further investigation of the present case was marked to him and he obtained the questioned documents from the Court of Sh. Hemraj, Ld MM, Tis Hazari and which were seized vide memo Ex. PW8/A. The original bail bonds Ex. PW8/B. He further stated that since accused Pawan was already arrested in case FIR No. 48/11, PS Subzi Mandi, he moved an application before the Court seeking production of accused and after obtaining permission of the Court went to Rohini Jail alongwith Ct Mahipal and interrogated and formally arrested accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal vide memo Ex. PW4/A and after interrogation and he also recorded his disclosure statement vide disclosure memo and Ex.PW4/B. He also stated that accused Pawan FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 6/15 disclosed that coaccused Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin used to prepared forged and fabricated documents and Pawan used to put his signatures and thumb impression on the same. He further stated that he moved production application of accused before the Court and obtained specimen signature, handwriting and thumb impression of accused Pawan Kumar vide Ex. PW8/C and Ex. PW8/D. He further deposed that after obtaining the production warrant of accused Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin, he alongwith HC Khushal Singh went to Tihar Jail and interrogated and arrested accused Manoj vide Ex. PW5/A and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW5/B and took specimen handwriting, signatures and thumb impression of accused Pawan Kumar were obtained vide Ex. PW8/E and Ex. PW8/F before the Court. He further stated that he moved an application Mark 8B to Medical Superintendent, HRH regarding verification of the pay slip Mark 8A. The report regarding the questioned documents from the Hindu Rao Hospital has been admitted by the accused persons U/s 294 Cr.P.C. He also stated that he moved an application Mark C to Electoral Registrar regarding verification of the Voter ID card No. HMC0537288 in the name of Vijay Bansal Mark C and obtained report from the O/o AERO, Assembly Constituency 19, Sadar Bazar7, Kali Das Marg, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi in the Vijay Bansal and it was reported that the photograph appearing on the same is different from one whose photocopy has been provided and the voter ID card number in the name of Vijay Bansal is SNJ0273854 and not HMC0537288 and FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 7/15 Vijay Bansal is genuine holder of card No. SNJ0273854. He further stated that thumb impression of the accused persons and original questioned bail bonds were sent to Fingerprint Bureau for comparison. He also stated that after obtaining report from Fingerprint Bureau, the said bail bonds, specimen signatures of accused persons were sent to FSL Rohini for comparison. PW8 identified both the accused persons as the person arrested by him in the present case. During cross examination by Ld counsel for accused Pawan, he denied the suggestion that all incriminating papers were prepared in order to frame the accused and his investigation is tainted one. He also denied the suggestion that actual culprits have been let off and accused has been falsely implicated. During cross examination by Ld counsel for the accused Manoj, he stated that he interrogated accused Pawan in Rohini Jail and no other person was present during interrogation except him and Ct Mahipal. He further stated that he informed the Jail Superintendent regarding his visit and shown the order of the Court and did not ask any jail employee to become witness of the accused of accused but stated that he formally arrested accused Pawan. He denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement regarding the involvement of accused Manoj was made by accused Pawan. He stated that accused Manoj was arrested and interrogated in Tihar Jail and no other person was present during interrogation except him and HC Khushal Singh at the time of interrogation. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
FIR No. 54/11PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 8/15 7.8 Both the accused persons have not disputed the genuineness of FSL result, report of Fingerprint Bureau and report of Administrative Officer, Hindu Rao Hospital which are Ex. P1 to P3 in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C.
8. In the present case, the accused persons have prepared and used forged and fake documents in order to cheat the Court itself. They managed to get released an accused from the judicial custody on the basis of such fake documents which not only compromised the trial of a particular case but also cheated the criminal justice system and thereby put at risk the very existence of the system. 8.1 In the present case eventhough the initial order of directing registration of FIR against the accused persons was based on the enquiry conducted by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and therefore, in my humble opinion the absence of specific complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The initial order of registration of FIR is ipso facto a complaint which came to this Court alongwith the Chargesheet and not separately as would be the case in case a separate complaint was filed by the Court. Moreover, the Ld. MM appeared in the witness box as PW2 and proved order directing SHO, Subzi Mandi for registration of FIR vide Ex. PW2/C. 8.2 The fabrication and forgery of documents were done outside the Court i.e before their production before the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that bar under Section 195(1)(a) and (b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 9/15 after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. My opinion is fortified by the judgment in the matter of Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah & Another, 2005(2) Crimes 11 (SC) wherein it was held that if the forgery was committed outside the Court and thereafter, those forged documents were produced. The bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence .
8.3 Section 181 IPC provides for punishment for giving false statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorized to administer an oath or affirmation .
In the present case accused Pawan Kumar has given the statement by impersonating that he was Vijay Bansal and working at Hindu Rao Hospital as Storekeeper on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in connivance with coaccused Manoj @ Munna. He also stated that he has close family relation with accused Manish of FIR 235/10 PS Vikaspuri. He affixed his Thumb impression at the bail bonds and also at the verification of the Affidavit claiming that the contents of the Affidavit are true and correct.
8.4 The report of Fingerprint Bureau has come against the accused persons as the thumb impression Marked Q1 to Q5 on the bailbonds were found inter se identical means those are the impressions of a same finger of the same person and are Identical with left thumb FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 10/15 impression of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal taken before Ld. Link MM and marked as S6 to S10. The report of the expert who is Officer in Fingerprint Bureau is admissible u/s 293 Cr.P.C and neither accused persons nor their counsels requested for calling him for deposing before the Court. Morever, in view of the judgment in the matter of Visakha Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. Fertilizer InspectorcumAssistant Director of Agriculture (regular) 1997 2 Crimes (AP), I did not find it necessary to summon and examine the Director Fingerprint Bureau as the science of fingerprint analysis have reached an advanced stage of evolution and fingerprint impression of a human being is never identical with another human being as all human beings carry distinct fingerprint impression which can never be matched with any other impression except the fingerprint impression of such human being. This implies that the thumb impression found on the bailbonds are of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal and none else could have put those impressions. 8.5 The writing on the bailbonds proved as Ex. PW8/B are alleged to be the handiwork of accused Manoj @ Munna and Pawan Kumar Varnwal. To prove this the IO had taken the sample handwriting and signatures of accused Pawan and Manoj after complying with the legal requirement and same were taken in the presence of Ld. Link MM who had also endorsed the same and were sent to FSL laboratory for comparison with the questioned handwriting and signatures which are found on the bailbonds i.e Ex.PW8/B. As per FSL result, the writing work found on the bailbonds marked as Q6 FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 11/15 to Q8 were compared with the specimen writing/signature marked S1 to S5 of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal and writing mark Q10 with S16 to S20 of accused Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin. The examiner has mentioned in his report that he carefully and thoroughly examined the same with scientific instruments such as Stereo Microscope, Documenter and different magnifying glasses and thereafter opined about the similarity or otherwise noted between the writing on the questioned documents and specimens sent for comparison. The examiner who is a Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) at FSL, Rohini a Government Laboratory opined as follows:
a) The person who wrote the writing marked and stamped as S1 to S5 also wrote the writing marked and stamped as Q6 and Q8. The Q6 and Q8 are signatures on the bailbond and specimen marked S1 to S5 are the specimen taken of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal.
b) The person who wrote the writing marked and stamped as S16 to S20 also wrote the writing marked and stamped as Q10. The Q10 is the name of Vijay Bansal on the bail bonds and specimen marked S16 to S20 are the specimen taken of accused Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin 8.6 The opinion of examiner is based on the similarities found in the formation of alphabets as well as in numerals. The examiner has FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 12/15 also mentioned that their was no divergence observed between the questioned and specimen writings and the similarities observed by him are significant and sufficient and cannot be attributed to accidental coincidence. I myself has also perused the questioned and the specimen signatures/writings. I find no ground to disagree with the opinion of handwriting expert which is admissible inter se in terms of section 293 Cr.P.C. This implies that the bailbonds was filled in and prepared by accused Manoj @ Munna and signature and thumb impression was put by coaccused Pawan Kumar Varnwal. 8.7 Section 205 deals with false personation by another person and in such assumed character either makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
In the present case the accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal has stood surety by impersonating Vijay Bansal on the basis of forged and fabricated documents prepared by Manoj @ Munna eventhough he has the knowledge that he was not Vijay Bansal R/o H.No. L2/45, L Block Shatri Nagar, Delhi. The actual Vijay Bansal examined as PW3 has stated on Oath that he has never stand as surety and also do not know either accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal or Manoj@Munna. He also stated that he do not know how accused forged his Election ID card having his name. He also produced his FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 13/15 original voter ID card. His testimony was also corroborated by PW6 and PW7 who were the officials from the Election Office of Assembly Constituency. PW7 categorically stated that EPIC No. HMCO537288 has not been issued from his office to anybody and is a fake one and bearing fake number and is quite different from the genuine I card of Vijay Bansal. The version of the prosecution was also corroborated by the report of the Administrative Officer, Hindu Rao Hospital as per which no person by the name of Vijay Bansal had worked in the Hindu Rao Hospital as Storekeeper and the payslip and ID card of Hindu Rao Hospital was also found fake. The Bail bonds Ex. PW8/B is having the photograph of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal wherein he claimed himself as Vijay Bansal. This also gives credence to the story of the prosecution that accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal in furtherance of his common intention with coaccused Manoj impersonated Vijay Bansal while tendering the bailbonds Ex.PW8/B seeking release of an accused on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
8.8 The impersonation and fabrication of fake documents was done by both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention for the purpose of cheating the Court itself and they were initially succeeded in doing so as the bailbonds furnished by them were accepted and the forgery and impersonation was only detected when actual Vijay Bansal appeared and stated about the said forgery. The forged and fabricated documents were fraudulently used by the accused persons claiming them to be genuine for the purpose of FIR No. 54/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 14/15 cheating the Court.
9. On the basis of evidence on record and above discussion, I am satisfied that prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal and Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin in furtherance of their common intention has committed the offences u/s 181/205/468/471 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
10. Accordingly, Pawan Kumar Varnwal and Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin are convicted for offences u/s 181/205/468/471 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to both the convicts.
Put up at 2pm for arguments on sentencing
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
COURT ON 20.11.2013 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE11(C)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 54/11
PS- Subzi Mandi
State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 15/15