Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . A-1 Ramesh Kumar, S/O Ved Prakash, on 9 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-07
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11 - 001491-2019
New CC No. 383/2019
(old CC No. 68/2016)
RC No. 6(A)/2013/CBI/ACB/ND
CBI Vs. A-1 Ramesh Kumar, S/o Ved Prakash,
(The then Sub- Inspector, PS -
Jahangirpuri, New Delhi.)
R/o Flat No. 134-C, Platinum Enclave,
Sector -18, Rohini, Delhi - 85
A-2 Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh,
R/o Flat No. B-819, 1st Floor, Mangal
Bazar Road, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
A-3 Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh,
R/o Flat No. -A-8, Gali No. 16,
Mahendra Park, PS- Mahendra Park,
Delhi.
A-4 Ish Kumar Manchanda S/o Late
Sh.Diwan Chand Manchanda,
R/o Flat No. A-8, Gali No. 16,
Mahendra Park, PS - Mahendra Park,
New Delhi.
A-5 Lakhwinder Singh, S/o Gyan Singh,
Flat No. 220, Sanjay Enclave, GTK
Bus Depot, Bye Pass, New Delhi.
Date of institution : 01.07.2016
Judgment Reserved on : 28.04.2023
Date of Judgment : 09.05.2023
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 1 of 102
Memo of Appearance:
Sh. A. K. Kushwaha, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI.
Sh. Sandeep Sharma and Sh. Dharam Singh, Ld. Counsels for A-1.
Sh. Suresh Tomar, Ld. Counsels for A-2 to A-5.
Sh. Kulbhushan Mehta, Ld. Counsel for A-3 and A-4.
JUDGMENT
1. Factual matrix of the case, in brief are as under, that there were Sikh Riots in 1984. After such riots a number of riot victims were rendered homeless hence, they were looking for shelters. Some of such riot victims trespassed into flats at Jahangirpuri and other areas, so constructed by MCD (Slum and JJ). Such occupation, however, was considered unauthorised. Therefore, a verification survey was conducted as per directions of MCD, Commissioner. Door to door survey was conducted at the instance of Deputy Commissioner, North West. Classification of occupation was done as under:-
i. Those who are genuine victims of 1984 riots i.e. in whose cases some relatives were killed or their houses were damaged or burnt or both ii. Even though not affected directly by riots, those people belonging to Sikh community, due to terror had left their residence and taken shelter in these flats. iii. Others (non-Sikhs).
2. In this regard, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi considered the riots situation and called a meeting of Senior officers of Delhi CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 2 of 102 Government, MCD and Delhi Police on 17.07.2002, to frame a policy to give relief to riot affected families. As per the meeting, dated 13.08.2002, Divisional Commissioner, Revenue was authorised to scrutinize the case of riot victims for in situ regularization and eligibility letters to be issued to such riot victims. MCD, in its meeting, considered the issue regarding unauthorised occupation/trespassing of 503 Slum flats at Jahangirpuri by the Punjab migrants and self proclaimed riot victims of 1984.
3. Amongst, door to door survey so conducted, the present case pertains to Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri standing in the name of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh pertaining to which manipulation in conducting survey by police official and other private persons living in that area is stated to have done by creating false and fabricating record. Prescribed Information form of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in the name of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh was filled by Dilip Kumar Saxena, the then UDC, DUSIB, GNCTD. Photocopies of documents i.e. photocopy of police report, photocopy of Singh Relief Camp in respect of Manjeet Singh Talwar, S/o Sohan Singh in support of said form were collected. A file of each flat was prepared containing relevant documents submitted by occupants of respective flat.
4. After survey a report dated 19.12.2000, along with list of flats with categorization was submitted by O. P. Khanna, the then Tehsildar, Model Town. As per list 2A of such report, Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri mentioned at serial number 49 was shown under CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 3 of 102 occupancy of Smt. Kiran Bala, D/o Subhash Chand whereas Flat No. C-9Y, Jahangirpuri was shown under occupancy of Manjeet Singh. As per the file of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri, maintained by office of Deputy Commissioner, Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh was shown as its occupant. Name of Manjeet Singh existed in the survey list either at serial number 48 or 49 under list '2A' of such report but due to typographical error the Flat C-9Z was shown occupied by Kiran Bala, which was in actual possession of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and Kiran Bala was having occupation of Flat No. C-9Y, Jahangirpuri.
5. On the basis of name of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh in the list, a note dated 05.05.2007, was put by Krishan Pal, Head Clerk, office of SDM, Model Town for giving an opportunity to the occupant to prove that he is victim of 1984 riots. This note was further approved. A letter dated 05.05.2007, was addressed to occupant Manjeet Singh asking him to produce original documents to prove his claim as 1984, riot victim. Manjeet Singh appeared before SDM office and submitted documents in support of his claim. As per the documents, name of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh figured at serial number 1217 electoral list (AC-56, Aadarsh Nagar, Part - 53) against address Flat No. C-9Y, Jahangirpuri. Moreover in the photocopy of Singh Relief Camp Card, Subzi Mandi, the name of applicant was mentioned as 'Manjeet Singh Talwar, S/o Sohan Singh, R/o 213, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar', who was stated to have stayed in the said relief camp from 03.11.1984 to 10.11.1984.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 4 of 102
6. Investigation further revealed that a letter dated 03.11.1984, addressed to Incharge, PS - Jahangirpuri written by Manjeet Singh, R/o B-352, Jahangirpuri was actually written by Rajender Singh @ Raju impersonating himself as Manjeet Singh. Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh admitted that he has written this report and submitted false ration card and police report showing the name of Manjeet Singh, at the instance of Lakhwinder Singh. In the photocopy of ration card, name of wife of Manjeet Singh, is shown as Gurmeet Kaur but infact she is daughter of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh. Photograph appearing in the photocopy of ration card is that of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh which was identified by family members of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh and family members of Sarabjeet Singh, S/o Laabh Singh. The signature appended in the informative performa as Manjeet Singh has been written by Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh. Reference was sent to CFSL for expert opinion, wherein it is mentioned that signatures were put by Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh as Manjeet Singh.
7. File pertaining to Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri for provisional allotment to riot victims 1984 was transferred to SDM, Saraswati Vihar in the month of June, 2008. Ramesh Baliyan, the then UDC put up a letter to SHO, PS- Jahangirpuri and to SDM (SV/HQ) to ascertain the genuineness of claim of Manjeet Singh, that he was a victim of 1984 riots and residing with his family at Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. Ranjeet Singh, SDM (SV/HQ) had signed letter dated 01.07.2008, addressed to SHO, PS-Jahangirpuri. A verification report dated 18.09.2008, in respect of Manjeet Singh was received CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 5 of 102 from SHO, PS-Jahangirpuri. The inquiry was conducted by SI Ramesh Kumar, PS - Jahangirpuri and forwarded by Sundar Dev, the then Inspector (ATO) as SHO, Jahangirpuri. During verification SI Ramesh Kumar is stated to have recorded the statement of Champa, W/o Mukutdhari Sharma, R/o C-11Y, DDA Flat, Jahangirpuri and Kanwar Pal, S/o Ram Gopal, R/o C-3X, DDA Flat, Jahangirpuri in favour of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. In the verification report, SI Ramesh Kumar mentioned that above named persons were living in the locality since 1984, and were well known to Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and his family. SI Ramesh Kumar further mentioned in his report that claimant Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh is actually a victim of 1984 riots. Claimant produced some documents like ration card, voter ID card etc. as well as a photocopy attested by MLA/Counselor regarding complaint given by him in 1984 to the police department. Record pertaining to this complaint, however, was not available in police department at PS - Jahangirpuri. Claimant was shown as victim of 1984 riots and residing in Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri, since then.
8. Champa, W/o Mukutdhari Sharma, Manjeet Kaur, W/o Gurvinder Singh and Kanwar, S/o Ram Gopal have given their statement before IO CBI that they did not give any such statement to SI Ramesh Kumar regarding verification of occupancy of Flat No. C- 9Z, Jahangirpuri by Manjeet Singh nor they have submitted any documents to SI Ramesh Kumar regarding their own identity. Manjeet Kaur further stated that she does not know how to write in Hindi and had not signed her statement. Thumb impression of CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 6 of 102 Champa, on her statement, are either faint or blurred/smudged and do not contain sufficient number of clear ridge characteristics, as such no opinion was given by CFSL.
9. On the basis of information collected by SI Ramesh Kumar, Ramesh Baliyan the then UDC further put up a note dated 23.12.2008, along with verification report regarding Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and also put up provisional allotment letter along with photographs in his favour. On the basis of report and its enclosures, provisional letter dated 28.12.2008, duly signed by Ranjeet Singh, the then SDM was issued in the name of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh, Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri as 1984 riot victim with a copy to Deputy Director (Allotment), Slum and JJ, MCD. This provisional letter was received by Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh, R/o A-80, DDA Flat, Jahangirpuri from SDM office who impersonated himself as 'Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh' and also signed as 'Manjeet Singh' on said allotment letter. This letter was received in the office of Purushottam Kumar, Assistant Director (Allotment), Slum and JJ, MCD (now, DUSIB) on 06.01.2009. This provisional letter was put up by Mahavir Singh, UDC on 17.06.2009 to Head Clerk for calling the beneficiary to furnish the document for further process, as per policy. A.K. Mathur, AD (allotment) approved the note and signed the letter dated 09.07.2009, addressed to Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh, R/o Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri.
10.On the same day, documents were submitted by Manjeet Singh in CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 7 of 102 the office of Arun Mathur, AD (allotment) vide diary No. 958 dated 09.07.2009, through letter. This letter along with documents was put up by Mahavir Singh, LDC for issuance of demand letter to allotee, which was approved by Assistant Director A. K. Mathur for making payment of Rs.37,600/- with ground rent of Rs.130/- per annum along with some documents. Manjeet Singh submitted third copy of bank Challan dated 06.08.2009, regarding deposition of Rs.37,730/- against Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. Mahavir Singh, thereafter, put a note and proposed to issue temporary allotment order for Flat No.C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of Manjeet Singh to Head Clerk and Deputy Director (Allotment), who further approved the said note and signed and issued temporary allotment order dated 21.08.2009, of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. Junior Engineer is stated to have handed over the possession vide slip dated 09.09.2009.
11.The possession of the said flat was actually taken by Ish Kumar Manchanda, property dealer who signed as 'Manjeet Singh'. It is further reflected during investigation that Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri was purchased by Luv Kumar Manchanda, S/o Ish Kumar Manchanda from Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh for Rs.1,90,000/- on 28.10.2009. The sale documents were signed by Lakhwinder Singh and Kishor, as witness. On this sale deed, Lakhwinder Singh has identified Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh as Manjeet Singh and Kishor has identified Luv Kumar Manchanda. Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh is brother-in-law of Lakhwinder Singh, who obtained his photograph and submitted it in the office CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 8 of 102 of SDM.
12.The Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri was sold by Luv Kumar Manchanda to Ram Pareek. Documents were executed between Hansa Devi, W/o Ram Pareek and Luv Kumar Manchanda, S/o Ish Kumar Manchanda for Rs.2,10,000/- on 08.02.2010. Thus, as stated in the charge-sheet by the IO, Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-
2) in particular, along with Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) had impersonated themselves as 'Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh' by taking undue advantage of the survey conducted by the Government to grant relief to 1984 riots victim and in furtherance thereof Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri was sought to be allotted by Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) in his name which was facilitated by Ramesh Kumar (A-1), who was Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, PS- Jahangirpuri. SI Ramesh Kumar (A-1) is stated to have conducted survey regarding existence of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh, whether he was residing at Jahangirpuri and being 1984 riot victim was entitled to allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri or not. Thus, the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B IPC read with 419/420/467/468/471 IPC. There is sanction for prosecution to prosecute SI Ramesh Kumar obtained, as per procedure.
13.After filing of charge-sheet and compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 207 Cr.P.C. arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 23.02.2017, charge for the offences punishable CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 9 of 102 under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was framed against accused Ramesh Kumar (A-1), Rajender Singh S/o Inder Singh (A-2), Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Uttam Singh (A-3), Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4) and Lakhwinder Singh (A-5). An additional charge for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act and Section 218 IPC was framed against accused Ramesh Kumar (A-1) and charge for offence punishable under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was framed against accused Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh (A-2), also charge for the offence punishable under Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC was framed against Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Uttam Singh (A-3) and lastly, charge for the offence punishable under Section 467/468/471 IPC was framed against Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4). All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
14.Before proceeding further, it is important to mention here that prosecution has examined 47 witness in total and there is no evidence in defence from the side of accused persons. Statement of all the accused after conclusion of prosecution evidence were recorded on various dates i.e. 07.11.2022, 18.11.2022 and 19.11.2022.
15.Before proceeding further, considering the mandate laid down under Section 354 Cr.PC following are the points of determination which would be considered before arriving at any conclusion. i. Whether all the accused persons had hatched a criminal CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 10 of 102 conspiracy seeking unlawful allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of A-2 for which A-2 had impersonated and represented himself some other person i.e. Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh in connivance with other accused persons. ii. Whether A-2 after entering into a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons impersonated himself as Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and in furtherance thereof appeared before concerned authorities i.e. office of SDM, DUSIB etc. and knowingly give false information to A-1 being in active connivance with him and sought allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour which was got allotted in his name as well due to his impersonation and misrepresentation? iii. Whether A-1 who was assigned duty to give report regarding status of certain flats situated at Jahangirpuri including Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri which were earmarked to be allotted for victims of 1984 Sikh riots, but did not perform his duties diligently and being in active connivance with other accused persons, more particularly A-2 furnished false and incorrect report regarding actual status of possession of flat in question by giving false report in favour of A-2, thereby resulting in unlawful gain to A-2 as the flat in question was allotted to him, on the basis of report given by him.
iv. Whether A-2 after allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri sold it to Luv Kumar Manchanda (son of A-4), who further sold it to PW-45 Hansa Devi.
v. Whether A-3 also misrepresented himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and infurtherance thereof, in active connivance CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 11 of 102 with other accused persons also put his signature as Manjeet Singh being conscious of the fact that he was not known as Manjeet Singh at all.
16.Story of prosecution starts with the background that there was large scale violence and riots subsequent to unfortunate death of the then Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi on 31.10.1984. There were a number of riot victims, who had trespassed into flats at Jahangirpuri and other areas. Therefore, the government decided to conduct a survey of the flats unauthorisedly occupied by so called 1984 riot victims. Survey is stated to have been conducted by Deputy Commissioner, North West District, Kanjhawala under Divisional Commissioner, who ordered for door to door survey of flats at Jahangirpuri. Evidence led by prosecution is mentioned below which is according to the series of events taken place, as per charge- sheet.
17.In this regard, prosecution has examined PW-12 Dilip Kumar Saxena who was working as UDC in DUSIB. This witness has stated that the concerned Director has directed him and K.S. Premi, the then Superintendent to conduct door to door survey at Jahangirpuri Slum Tenements. This witness has stated that he and K. S. Premi vide order dated 30.08.2000 exhibited as Ex.PW12/A were authorised to conduct survey. They reported to O. P. Khanna, the then Tehsildar, office of SDM Model Town on 05.09.2000, in this regard and were provided details of unallotted 503 DDA Flats at Jahangirpuri for which inspection was to be conducted. The CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 12 of 102 report dated 19.12.2000 exhibited as Ex.PW12/B (D-18) (also exhibited as Ex.PW1/B) speaks about survey of unallotted flats of block A, B and C of Slum and JJ Department, Jahangirpuri. It is stated that during survey it was found that some Punjab migrants had also occupied unallotted flats of 'D' and 'E' block of Slum and JJ Department, Jahangirpuri. Thus, details of such Punjab migrants were also mentioned at para No. 3 (i) of survey report dated 19.12.2000.
18.During survey signature/thumb impression of the occupants available, photocopies of documents of 503 unallotted flats at Jahangirpuri Delhi were obtained. It was noticed that some occupants were genuine riot victims having genuine proof of their relatives being killed or house damaged or burnt supported with relevant documents. Besides this, it was felt that there was lot of variation in the documents collected. Thus, as per door to door survey report occupants mentioned in list '1-A' to '1-D' appeared to be genuine.
19.As per the list, '2-A' occupants were holding police reports obtained in recent past but not in related period. As per occupants mentioned in list '2-B', they were having police report appeared to be tampered. As per the third list, occupants were those who were not holding any documents relating to 1984 riots. List '4' and '5' of occupants pertaining to Block 'D' and 'E' was related to Punjab migrants. As per '6th' list, there were nine flats which were found sealed. The survey report is Ex.PW12/C bearing signature of O. P. CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 13 of 102 Khanna, Tehsildar.
20. The present case pertains to the manipulation regarding allotment of DDA, Flat to Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh, R/o Flat No. C- 9Z, Jahangirpuri. PW-12 has categorically stated that he had conducted door to door survey of this flat, as well, mentioning the details in his own handwriting that the flat in question Flat No. C- 9Z, Jahangirpuri in the name of 'Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh'. PW-12 also collected photocopy of police report and photocopy of Singh Relief Camp in respect of Manjeet Singh Talwar, S/o Sohan Singh, R/o 213, Krishna Park, Delhi. Copy of ration card in the name of 'Manjeet Singh' is also stated to have been obtained. There was a performa to be filled up by the occupant, which is stated to be signed by Manjeet Singh in the presence of PW-12. The name of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh is mentioned at 'Serial Number 48', against 'Flat No. C9-Y' in list '2A' of the report but at 'Serial Number 49' the name of occupant 'Kiran Bala, W/o Subhash Chand' is mentioned. PW-12 has further stated that a provisional allotment letter dated 28.12.2008, at page 2 - 4/C was issued to Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh, Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri by SDM (SV) HQ, O/o DC Kanjhawala, Delhi.
21. This witness has not been cross-examined on behalf of A-1, A-3 and A-4. A-2 has conducted cross-examination. It is reflected during cross-examination that in the said survey report the name mentioned at 'Serial No. 48' is 'Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh' against 'Flat No. C-9Y', however, this fact 'C-9Y' appears to be a CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 14 of 102 typographical error whereas it should be 'C-9Z'.
22.It is further reflected from the cross-examination of PW-12 that the initial survey at the instance of DC, Kanjhawala pertaining to occupants of flats at Jahangirpuri, who were claiming themselves to be 1984 Riot Victims, and the list as well as name of occupants against respective flat numbers has not been questioned. Thus, the reports Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, as not questioned, is presumed to be correct. There appears to be a typographical error pertaining to mentioning at 'Serial Number 48' in the said report against Flat No. C-9Y in list '2A' whereas, it is stated to be as 'C-9Z' occupied by 'Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh'.
23. The next witness examined by the prosecution in this regard is PW- 25 Budhi Singh Thakur, who is stated to be posted as SDM, Model Town during period 2005-2009. PW-25 deposed that before his posting certain riots victims illegally occupied the flats constructed by DDA for JJ Slum Department and on seeing file D-18, exhibited as Ex.PW1/B, PW-25 deposed that note 1/N exhibited as 'Ex.PW21/B' was put up by S. K. Paul asking the claimant Manjeet Singh to attend the office with original documents within 15 days of the receipt of the letter bearing his signature at point 'F'. Manjeet Singh appeared in the office on 26.05.2007. PW-25 further deposed after seeing the file (D-18) that documents placed on 23/C (Ex.PW12/B), 24/C (Ex.PW25/A) and 25/C (Ex. PW 25/B) were available when the note was put up before him and bears CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 15 of 102 endorsement dated 26.5.2007 of S. K. Paul at point 'B'.
24.During his cross-examination, PW-25 stated that there is no noting in file 'D-18' exhibited as Ex.PW1/B, as to when the claimant Manjeet Singh had appeared before SDM Office in compliance of note exhibited as Ex.21/B. PW-25, however, has stated that Manjeet Singh had appeared on 26.05.2007 and had shown the original documents. During cross-examination conducted on behalf of A-2 and A-5, PW-25 has stated that he knew Manjeet Singh, who used to come to his office i.e. office of SDM. PW-25 identified accused Manjeet Singh, who was present in the court alleging that it was he who had visited the office of SDM.
25. The next witness examined by prosecution, in this regard is PW-11 Diwan Singh, who was posted and working as process server in RP Cell, DUSIB, Vikas Kutir, IP Estate on 05.09.2013. His duty was to deliver outdoor official post to addressee including riot victims of 1984 in the area of Jahangirpuri. Besides this, he was doing other work as well. PW-11 deposed that a letter dated 09.07.2009 of Manjeet Singh along with original undertaking, family photo, two affidavits of Manjeet Singh, photocopy of call letter, original provisional letter dated 29.12.2008, photocopy of election voter card, police report, ration card danga pidit relief camp card etc. addressed to Assistant Director (Allotment) Slum JJ Department, MCD was received by Sia Ram. The letter dated 09.07.2009 of (page 25 to 40) vide diary no. 958 dated 09.07.2009 is exhibited as Ex.PW11/A (colly.).
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 16 of 102
26.PW-11 also identified letter dated 11.02.2010 of Manjeet Singh along with photocopy of temporary allotment order dated 21.08.2009 and possession slip dated 09.08.2009 received by him vide diary No. 224 dated 10.02.2010 exhibited as Ex.PW11/C (colly.) PW-11 also identified signatures of Arun Mathur at point B on Ex.PW11/D which is letter dated 08.03.2010, addressed to Chief Vigilance Officer, MCD. PW-11 Diwan Singh during his deposition also identified the letter of Manjeet Singh received by him vide diary No.R/455 dated 16.03.2010, exhibited as Ex.PW11/E. PW-11 further deposed that NOC was issued and dispatched vide No. D/101/DD (ALLOT)/06 dated 26.02.2010 exhibited as Ex.PW11/F. This witness was asked to identify accused Ish Kumar Manchanda and he correctly identified accused Ish Kumar Manchanda. This witness has not been cross-examined by the accused persons despite giving opportunity.
27.Another witness examined by prosecution regarding allotment of flat and issuance of allotment letter is PW-1 Ranbir Singh, Tehsildar Kanjhawala stated that vide seizure memo (D-17) dated 16.03.2013, exhibited as Ex.PW1/A, he had handed over file bearing no. F(2A-48)/DC(NW)/RIOT/J.PURI/ SDM(MT)/2006 in respect of allotment of DDA Flat to Manjeet Singh, S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, R/o C-9Z, DDA Flat, Jahangirpuri, Delhi (Ex. PW 1/B) along with other files. He stated that the file bearing No.F(2A-
48)/DC(NW)/RIOT/J. PURI /SDM(MT)/2006 in respect of allotment of DDA Flats bears his signatures at point 'A', on all CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 17 of 102 pages and now exhibited as Ex.PW1/B. In his cross-examination, nothing material fact has emerged.
28. PW-4 Narender Kumar Sharma is the next witness examined by prosecution, who is stated to be an LDC in the year 1987. He has deposed that he was transferred to allotment branch, DUSIB on 14.05.2012 as LDC and looked after the work of diary and dispatch. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW4/A, which is production cum seizure memo, vide which dispatch register exhibited as Ex.PW4/B bearing entry no. 420 dated 09.07.2009 at page no.79 along with letter was dispatched to Manjeet Singh regarding in-situ- regularization of occupants of Jahangirpuri, Delhi which was delivered by Mahavir Singh, LDC to Manjeet Singh by hand. PW4 Narender Kumar Sharma deposed that vide dispatch no. 463 dated 06.08.2009 at page no.90, a demand notice was dispatched and vide dispatch no. 485 dated 21.8.2009, at page no. 94 an allotment letter was dispatched to Manjeet Singh in respect of C-9-Z, Jahangirpuri. In his cross-examination, no material contradiction has been emerged.
29.The next witness examined by prosecution regarding conducting site inspection is PW-5 Rajender Khurana, from DUSIB. He has deposed that in the year, 2010 he was posted as Senior Investigator Officer (Property Cell) as Field Investigator. PW-5 Rajender Khurana identified file D-3 (Ex.PW3) relating to Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. PW-5 deposed that he along with K.P.Singh conducted site inspection on 05.04.2010 vide report Ex.PW5/A. CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 18 of 102 Arun Mathur vide diary no.F/Allot/DD (Allot)/D-143 dated 18.03.2010 requested Senior Investigator Officer (property) to conduct spot survey for ascertaining the eligibility of applicant in the prescribed proforma in respect of Flat C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. He further deposed that he along with K.P.Singh visited the said flat for purpose of investigation. Manjeet Singh was found at the flat and Manjeet Singh had shown electoral card, details of which were noted in inspection report exhibited as Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that no documents regarding occupancy of flat and identity of the occupant was collected in support of survey report dated 05.04.2010.
30.During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of A-1, PW-5 has stated that during site inspection they found Manjeet Singh, who met him in the Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri and had shown election card. On the basis of which the performa was filled up, besides A-1 this witness has not been cross-examined by other accused persons.
31.Next witness examined by prosecution is PW 8 Krishan Pal @ K. P. Singh, who is stated to have conducted the site inspection and had visited the spot in question along with PW-5. He deposed that he was working as Senior Investigator (Property), Sociology Division, DUSIB and identified site inspection report dated 05.04.2010, which was prepared by him and Rajender Khurana, his colleague, after inspecting Flat No. C/9-Z, Jahangirpuri. On 05.04.2010, he visited flat in question with Sh. Rajender Khurana, CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 19 of 102 where a person named Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh met him and introduced himself as allottee of the said flat and showed copy of his electoral card, details of which were noted down by Rajender Khurana in the survey form. PW-8 Krishan Pal identified his signatures on the survey report exhibited as Ex.PW5/A and signatures of Rajender Khurana at point 'C' relating to allotment of said flat in favour of Manjeet Singh.
32.During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of A-1, PW -8 has stated that he was not able to identify the person whom he had met on the day of the site inspection due to passage of time. Other accused persons have not cross-examined this witness.
33.Next witness examined by prosecution to establish the facts pertaining to allotment of flat in the name of 'Manjeet Singh' is PW-26 Shrikrishan Paul. He deposed that he was posted in the office of SDM, Model Town from 2005 to 2007 as Head Clerk and on seeing file (D-18) exhibited as Ex.PW1/B has deposed that he dealt with this file and note sheet 1/N exhibited as Ex.PW21/B was recorded by him on 05.05.2007 under his signature at point 'B' submitted to SDM through Naib Tehshildar R. P. Singh bearing the signature Naib Tehshildar at point 'C' and of SDM at point 'F' asking Manjeet Singh s/o Sohan Singh to attend office with original documents for verification. PW-26 has further deposed that Manjeet Singh appeared before him on 26.05.2007 with original ration card and original letter to Incharge, PS-Jahangirpuri and he verified the documents and made endorsement on the copies of documents CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 20 of 102 exhibited as Ex.PW25/A to Ex.PW25/B at point 'B' and also obtained signature of Manjeet Singh at point 'Q-9' on Ex.PW12/B and he also signed at point 'B'.
34.PW -26 further deposed that when Manjeet Singh appeared before him on 26.05.2007 with original ration card and original letter to Incharge, PS-Jahangirpuri and when his signatures were taken on Ex.PW12/B, PW-26 found that signature at encircled portion 'Q-9' and 'Q-8' were not tallying and upon inquiry Manjeet Singh was asked to produce original of Singh Relief Camp Card and when it was not produced, therefore, the case was transferred to SDM Headquarter, Kanjhawala. PW-26 has further deposed that name of Manjeet Singh/applicant was appearing at Serial No. 48 of the list '2-A' page 21/C (Ex.PW26/A) mentioning address as 'C-9-Z'.
35. During his cross-examination, PW-26 has stated that only the word 'provisional allotment' was used by his office and word 'temporary allotment' was not used. Provisional allotment letter was to be issued by SDM and final allotment letter was to be issued by DDA. PW-26 has categorically stated that temporary allotment letter was never issued in case of allotment of flat to riot victims, at any stage, during the period he remained in that office. Witness has further stated that in file D-5 at page 287 one temporary allotment letter dated 21.08.2009 already exhibited as Ex.PW18/D is available for which PW-26 has submitted that this was not issued from his office. It is further stated by PW-26 that no allotment of any nature can be done if during police verification, documents submitted by the claimant is found to be false.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 21 of 102
36. PW-26 has further stated that he has asked Manjeet Singh to submit affidavit of his two neighbours. Manjeet Singh had not submitted any affidavit to him as the case was transferred to SDM (HQ), Kanjhawala. During cross-examination, one question was put on behalf of accused persons, as to why PW-26 had not informed his senior officers regarding the difference in signature, surname and address of Manjeet Singh in documents submitted by him as well as the fact that original of Singh Relief Camp Card was not produced for which PW-26 has stated that he could inform his seniors only after processing of the case was complete.
37.During cross-examination of PW-26 conducted on behalf of A-2, PW-26 was asked to identify Manjeet Singh and he identified Rajender Singh (A-2) stating that he was the person, who used to appear before him as Manjeet Singh. There is a court observation in this regard as well as A-2 has submitted that he is also known as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh.
38.Next witness examined by prosecution in this regard is PW-27 Ramesh Chander Balyan, who was posted as Head Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner (North-West) Kanjhawala and attached with office of SDM, who was Incharge of various branches. PW-27 has deposed that a committee was appointed with the approval of LG for allotment of occupied flats to the riot victims. PW-27 on seeing file D-18 exhibited as Ex.PW1/B deposed that documents 21/C to 31/C were already in the file when CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 22 of 102 it was received by him and he wrote note Ex.PW27/A for police verification which was approved by SDM, Ranjit Singh vide his signature at point 'D' and in compliance of the letter for police verification as mentioned on page 6/C (Ex. PW 21/C). It is stated that in compliance to this letter the then SHO, Jahangirpuri forwarded a report prepared by SI Ramesh Kumar, PS-Jahangirpuri along with this report statement of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh, statement of Manjeet Kaur, W/o Gurwinder Singh, Statement of Kanwalpal S/o Ram Gopal, statement of Champa W/o M.D. Sharma, electoral card of Manjeet Singh, copy of Danga Pidit Relief Camp, copy of ration card of Manjeet Singh and other documents. Police verification report along with documents (5/C to 17/C) Ex.PW16/A (colly.) as mentioned above were prepared by Ramesh Kumar (A-1) which was received in dak bearing initials of Ranjeet Singh, SDM at point 'C'.
39.PW-27 has further deposed that he put up a note dated 23.12.2008, 1/N (Ex.PW 27/B) regarding offer of provisional allotment of flat to victim Manjeet Singh bearing his signature at point 'H' along with letter for approval of the SDM. He has further deposed that SDM approved the note vide his signature at point 'E' and office copy of letter dated 28.12.2008 (page 2/C to 4/C) bearing his signature at point 'C' and of SDM at point 'B' on 29.12.2008. He has further deposed that letter was sent by speed post to Deputy Director (Allotment), Slum & JJ Department MCD office copy of which is Ex.PW27/C, postal receipt (page 1/C)is Ex.PW27/D. PW-27 also deposed that photograph pasted on the original allotment letter CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 23 of 102 dated 28.12.2008, was provided along with police verification and he obtained affidavits from Manjeet Singh regarding his address C- 9-Z (page 18/C & 19/C).
40.During his cross-examination, PW-27 has stated that he was not informed by the office of SDM, Model Town that there was variation in title, address and signature of claimant Manjeet Singh nor he was informed that Manjeet Singh had not produced the original of Singh Relief Camp Card or was ever asked to produce the same. PW-27 has stated that on the basis of note dated 05.05.2007, a letter was written by the office to SHO, PS- Jahangirpuri for verification. Claimant Manjeet Singh had not appeared before him in compliance of note dated 05.05.2007. PW- 27 has stated that allotment letter was handed over to the claimant after it was signed by the then SDM. Besides, this no material contradiction has been emerged from the cross-examination of PW-
27.
41.PW-21 Ram Phal Singh deposed that during the period 2004-2008, he was working a Naib Tehsildar in the office of SDM, Model Town, Delhi. PW-21 had identified the signatures of Radhey Shyam at point 'A' on letter exhibited as Ex.PW21/A vide which a team comprising of himself and S. K. Paul HC, O. P. Khanna Tehshildar (Model Town) was constituted relating to issuance of letters to victims of 1984 riots and occupants of Slum flats at Jahangirpuri and verification of their documents and to issue allotment-cum-regularization letter. PW-21 on seeing file CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 24 of 102 Ex.PW1/B having note sheet 1/N dated 05.05.2007 (Ex.PW21/B) identified the handwriting and signature of S. K. Paul, Head Clerk recommending calling Manjeet Singh, S/o Sh.Sohan Singh occupant of flat, as per allotment letter, with original documents or to refer the case to SHO for furnishing a report. PW-21 has further deposed that SDM, Model Town made a noting in file D-18 to write a letter to SHO, PS-Jahangirpuri for verification of victim Manjeet Singh, 84 Riots Victim. The said letter Ex.PW21/C is dated 01.07.2008 bearing signature of Ranjeet Singh, the then SDM at point 'A'. PW-21 also deposed that as per list '2/A' attached with report the occupant of 'flat C/9Z' is mentioned as 'Kiran Bala, father/husband name Subhash Chand'. He also deposed that name of Manjeet Singh is appearing at 'serial No. 48' in respect of 'flat No. C/9Y'. This witness has not been cross-examined by any of the persons, therefore, the fact that vide note dated 05.05.2007 exhibited as Ex.PW21/B, it was recommended to call for verification of documents pertaining to Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri by concerned SHO and referring the case to concerned SHO for verification report vide Ex.PW21/C dated 01.07.2008, remain uncontroverted.
42.The next witness examined by prosecution is PW-28 Ranjeet Singh, who deposed that he had joined DANICS on 01.01.2004 and was posted as SDM SV/HQs from October, 2007 to February, 2010. PW28 on seeing file D-18 (Ex. PW 1/B), deposed that he had dealt with the file and he approved the letter for police verification vide his signature at point 'D' on note Ex.PW27/A and letter (Ex.PW6/C) CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 25 of 102 Ex.PW21/C in file D-18 which was sent to SHO, PS Jahangirpuri on 01.07.2008. PW-28 further deposed that on 29.12.2008 file was put up with police verification report and proposal to issue offer of provisional allotment of flat vide his signature at point 'E' on the note Ex. PW27/B and on letter Ex. PW 27/C at point 'B'. During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of A-1, no material contradiction has emerged. The fact that PW-28 Ranjeet Singh has dealt with the file as SDM has not been disputed.
43.Next witness examined by prosecution is PW-18 Ashok Chikara, who deposed that in September, 2013 he was posted as JE in office of Maintenance-IV, Sector -4, Pushp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi. PW- 18, on seeing D-5 file regarding handing over possession of flat No.C9-Z, Jahangirpuri, Delhi vide possession slip (Ex.PW 18/A) in the name of Manjeet Singh deposed that it was issued by him and signed by him at point 'A' and allottee had signed at two places at point 'B' and 'B-1' in his presence on it and also identified Rajender Singh, S/o Sh.Inder Singh (A-2) had represented himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh.
44.PW-18 has further deposed that on 08.09.2009, temporary allotment order (Ex.PW18/B) was marked by Sh.Shivender Gupta, AE to him. PW-18 has further deposed that Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh had been given photocopy of temporary allotment order, HSS credit voucher for Rs.37,730/-, copy of letter dated 06.08.2009 of Assistant Director (Allotment) copy of ration card, copy of voter card, which are Mark PW18/C(colly.). PW-18 had identified CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 26 of 102 temporary allotment order (D-10) Ex.PW2/C, allotment register (Ex.PW18/D) having entry at Sr. No. 33 regarding Flat C-9-Z with date of allotment dated 09.09.2009 in the name of Manjeet Singh and the witness had pointed out towards accused Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) who had approached him as 'Manjeet Singh' for allotment of flat in his favour.
45. During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of A-2, PW-18 has categorically stated after identifying Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) in the court that he was the person who came to his office and was handed over the allotment letter and given possession letter of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. During cross- examination, identity of A-2 as well as his visiting to the office of Slum and JJ Department seeking allotment letter and receiving possession and meeting with PW-18 has been sought to be disputed by defence counsel, however, all such suggestions given in this regard have been denied. Some of such suggestions which have been given to dispute the meeting of A-2 with PW-18 and handing over the possession to him as well as obtaining his signature against such handing over, are mentioned as under;
" It is wrong to suggest that I had never met Sh. Rajender Singh S/o Inder Singh while he represented himself as Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh. Vol. So far I am concerned the accused present in the court is Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh."
"It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh (Sh. Rajender Singh S/o Inder Singh, A-2, present in the court) had neither met me ever nor signed any document with regard to flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri."
"It is wrong to suggest that I am identifying the accused Sh.Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh as Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 27 of 102 Sh. Sohan Singh on the instructions of IO of the case."
"It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh, A-2 present in the court never visited DUSIB and met me impersonating as Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh."
46. Giving such suggestions from the side of A-2 reflects that he has been disputing the fact that he had ever visited the office of Slum & JJ Department and having ever met PW-18 or having impersonated and representing himself as Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh. The defence taken by and on behalf of A-2 is that he neither met with PW-18 nor had mis-represented himself as Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh.
This witness has not been cross examined by other accused persons.
47.Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are examined on the point of proving allotment proceedings of the flat, proving the sealing proceedings of the flat, seizing election ID Card of A-2 in his presence and identification of A-2 by private/independent witnesses.
48.In this regard, prosecution has examined PW 15 Hari Ram Mehto, who has deposed that on 15.5.2013, he was posted as Assistant Director (Demolition) and on seeing file Ex.PW15/A containing note dated 07.01.2008, he deposed that JE concerned had put up a note for sealing of 7 flats at Jahangirpuri including Flat No. C-9-Z, C-15-Z and C-16-Z which was approved by Sh.P. S. Tanwar and file was marked by Chief Engineer (Bldg.) to Sh. R. K. Prashar, Deputy Director (Demolition). PW-15 has further deposed that next sealing programme of Flat C-9Z was approved by competent CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 28 of 102 authority vide note sheet 5/N on 06.10.2008 which bears the signature of Sh.P.S. Tanwar, Additional Commissioner, Slum and JJ and the sealing date of above mentioned flat was re-fixed for 29.01.2009 and on this date PW-15 along with Pradeep Sharma and Labours visited Flat No. C-9Z with police force.
49.PW-15 has deposed that sealing programme of C-9-Z was approved by competent authority vide 5/N on 07.01.2008 and on 29.01.2009 occupant of the flat provided photocopy of provisional allotment letter (83C/84C) in the name of Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh. The page 7/N is the action taken report dated 04.02.2009, was prepared and signed by him at point 'A' and signature of Dy. Director (Demolition) Sh. Hitesh Saxena at point 'B', Sh. Kundal Lal, OSD and Sh.R.S. Meena, Dy. Director S&JJ at point D at 8/N. No material contradiction has emerged on behalf of the witness in this cross examination conducted on behalf of A-4. Other accused persons have not cross-examined the witness.
50.Next witness examined by prosecution is PW-17 Maan Singh, who deposed that on 14.11.2013, he was posted as Assistant, MMTC Ltd. Scope Complex and on seeing production-cum-seizure memo (Ex.PW17/A) deposed that the electoral voter card Ex.PW17/B of Rajender Singh, S/o Sh. Inder Singh (A-2) was seized by IO Inspt. Jagroop Singh in his presence and his colleague Charanjeet who also signed the memo at point 'B'. PW17 further identified the specimen sheets S-61 to S-71 in D-48 (Ex. PW 17/C) which is the specimen handwriting of accused Rajender Singh, who was asked CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 29 of 102 to write "Manjeet Singh" on specimen sheet.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
51.Next witness examined by prosecution is PW-13 Paramjeet Kaur, who is sister of Manjeet Singh. She further deposed that she had three sisters and three brothers namely, Jaspal Singh, Manjeet Singh and Paramjeet Singh. Manjeet Singh is also known as 'Rajender Singh' and Paramjeet Singh is also known as 'Pritam Singh'. PW13 on seeing Ex.PW3/A regarding allotment of flat no. C-9-Z, Jahangirpuri, DDA flats she identified the photographs of allottee as her brother Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh. However, she deposed that her father's name is Sh. Inder Singh.
52.This witness was found to be resailing from her earlier statement therefore, prosecution had sought permission to cross-examine PW13 and during her cross-examination by the prosecution PW-13 has stated certain corroborating facts that she and A-2 are brother and sister and name of their father is Inder Singh and not Sohan Singh. It is stated by PW-13 that A-2 during Sikh riots was terrified by violent mob and under that pressure he changed his name from Rajender Singh to Manjeet Singh and also get his hair cut. PW-13 has further stated that she, however, has no document to establish the fact that A-2 Rajender Singh has changed his name from Rajender Singh to Manjeet Singh.
No material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination conducted by A-2. Other accused persons have not cross examined the said witness.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 30 of 102
53.Next witness examined by prosecution is PW-19 Ms. Jasbir Kaur deposed that she was residing in Jahangirpuri as a tenant in a room. She further deposed that her husband had two other brothers namely Jaspal and Preetam Singh @ Paramjeet Singh, who died and her husband is the only surviving son of his parents. Her husband had three sisters namely Surinder Kaur, Paramjeet Kaur W/o Sarabjeet Singh. PW-19 deposed that her husband had four sisters. PW-19 on seeing photo at page no.2 of D-18 file (Ex.PW1/B) in respect of allotment of DDA Flat to Manjeet Singh s/o Sh. Sohan Singh, R/o C-9-Z, DDA Flats, Jahangirpuri, Delhi deposed that it was photo of her husband Manjeet Singh/Rajender Singh. She also identified photo of her husband on photocopy of Voter Card and family ration card. She also identified family photograph at page 38/C exhibited as Ex.PW19/A. She had also identified photograph of her husband on certificate of Danga Pidit Relief Camp. It is further stated by PW-19 that her husband is also known as Manjeet Singh and this name has been since the time of her marriage with him.
During her cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused persons no material contradiction has emerged.
54.Next witness examined by prosecution is PW-32 Guru Sewak Singh, who is stated to be the president of Riot Victims (1984) Association, Delhi which was formed in the year 1985. PW-32 upon seeing page 26/C (Ex.PW1/B) in file D-18 deposed that he did not know any person by the name of Manjeet Singh Talwar S/o CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 31 of 102 Sohan Singh resident of 2/C, Krishna Park, Delhi and he also identified his signature at points 'A' on the production-cum-seizure memo dated 23.8.2013 (D-35) Ex.PW32/A vide which he had handed over copy of order dated 12.7.2005 (Ex. PW 21/A part of D-
35) issued by SDM Model Town, Delhi to officer concerned and to him.
Ex.PW1/B is the file in respect of allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri to Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh.
55.During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of A-1, this witness identified accused Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh, accused Ramesh Kumar, accused Ish Kumar Manchanda, accused Sh.Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh and accused Lakhwinder Singh. It has also been observed during cross examination by court on the day of examination dated 20.09.2019, that when A-2 was asked to reveal his name he stated his name as Manjeet Singh and PW-32 also stated that he knew him my the name of Manjeet Singh. This witness has categorically stated that he knew A-2 to A- 5 as they were residing in the same area. This witness further stated that he knew accused Ramesh Kumar (A-1) as well as he was posted at PS-Jahangirpuri and was handling the inquiries regarding riot victims.
56.There is one witness PW-3 Madan Lal examined by the prosecution with regard to identification of A-2. This witness has stated that one Sikh gentleman was residing at Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri, who used to visit and stay occasionally there. PW-3 has stated that he came to know that he was known as 'Manjeet Singh'.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 32 of 102
57.This witness was found to be resailing from his statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C to the IO, hence he has been cross- examined by the public prosecutor but he has again stated that the person who used to visit and reside at Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri was Manjeet Singh. During cross-examination of this witness conducted on behalf of A-1, it is stated that the Sikh gentleman who used to visit Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri, occasionally, was known as 'Veer ji', whose name was Manjeet Singh and was the same person as A-2, who was present in the court at that time and PW-3 identified A-2 being the same person.
58. There is another witness PW-6 Chander Prakash Gaba examined by the prosecution who was asked to identify Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. This witness again, like PW-3 did not support the story of prosecution but has stated that he know one person by the name 'Veer ji' who was a Sikh turbaned gentleman but he do not know Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. This witness further stated that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) was the person whom he used to address as 'Veer ji'.
59.Next witness examined by prosecution is PW-31 Kuldeep Pakad, who has been examined to explain the procedure of allotment. PW31 Kuldeep Pakad deposed that he was posted in DUSIB from April, 2011 to March, 2014. PW 31 deposed that main objective of DUSIB is to provide basic facilities in JJ Clusters as well as the colonies where the flats were allotted under different schemes by DUSIB. PW31 on seeing Ex.PW12/C (D-25) deposed that it is CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 33 of 102 survey of unallotted flats of Slum & JJ Department MCD at Jahangirpuri occupied by the so called riot victims. PW-31 further on seeing minutes of meeting dated 13.8.2002 (D-28 part of PW 23/B) deposed that the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) GNCT, Delhi was authorised to scrutinize the cases of 1984 riot victims to recommend in-situ regularization and eligibility letters be issued to riot victims. PW-31 further on seeing copy of resolution no. 27 dated 7.4.2003 (part of D-23, part of Ex. PW 23/B colly.) deposed that this resolution was passed by MCD regarding in-situ regularization of occupants Jahangirpuri Slum trespass by the riots victims.
60.Further, on seeing letter dated 7.10.2002 written by Addl. Commissioner Slum & JJ to Municipal Secretary, MCD (D-22 part of Ex. PW 23/B) PW-31 deposed that the letter was written regarding in-situ regularization of occupants of Jahangirpuri Slum Flats trespassed by the self proclaimed riot victims of 1984. The witness also deposed that the terms and conditions are mentioned in the allotment letter as para (I) to (XII).
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
61.The next witness examined by prosecution is PW34 Sh.Shivendra Kumar pertaining to handing over the possession of flat in question. This witness has stated that he was posted as Executive Engineer in CPD, the then Slum & JJ Department, MCD. During his deposition PW 34 stated that allotment letter used to be received from the allotment department to concerned Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer marked the letter to Assistant CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 34 of 102 Engineer and then Assistant Engineer marked to Junior Engineer to handover the possession.. The identity of the allottee and address proof used to be checked before handing over the possession of the flat by the concerned JE.
62.PW34 further identified his signatures at point X on the production- cum-seizure memo dated 20.2.2013 Ex. PW 34/A (D-4) bearing his signature at point 'A' vide which file regarding handing over possession of flat no. C-9-Z (D-5) Ex. PW 34/B, allotment/possession register (D-6) Ex. PW 34/C (earlier marked as PW 18/E) and diary/receipt register (D-7) Ex. PW 34/D were handed over to the IO. The witness also identified the allotment letter already exhibited as Ex. PW 18/B. During his cross examination no material contraction had emerged.
63. Next witness examined by prosecution is PW33 Mangat Ram Singhal, who is stated to be the MLA of area for the 1998 to 2013. This witness had attested the documents i.e. electoral card of Manjeet Singh Ex.PW33/A, Danga Pidit Relief Camp Ex.PW33/B, Ration Card Ex.PW33/C, letter dated 03.11.1984 Ex.PW33/D, Election Card of Manjeet Kaur w/o Gurwinder Singh Ex. PW33/E and Electoral photo I-Card of Smt. Champa w/o Matkhu Dhari Sharma Ex.PW7//A available on pages 11 to 16 of D-18 already exhibited as Ex. PW18/B on 28.07.2008 after seeking originals of the same. The witness also stated that he do not know who had produced these documents for attestation and did not used to maintain any record of documents attested by him. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 35 of 102 of the said witness.
64.Next witness examined by prosecution is PW 41 Sh. Mahender Singh pertaining to procedure and proceedings conducted while handing over possession of flat in question. PW 41 deposed that he was posted as JE at CD-III, Rana Pratap Bagh and was looking after the work of handing over of possession of flats to the allottees. PW -41 identified the possession slip with regard to flat no. C-9-Z exhibited as Ex. PW 18/A bearing the signature of Ashok Chhikara as well as the possession register Ex. PW 34/C (D-6) showing entry Ex. PW 18/O at page no. 44 of Flat No. C-9-Z bearing signature of Ashok Chhikara JE at point 'B' along with the signature of allottee. No material contradiction had emerged during his cross examination.
65.Next witness examined by prosecution is PW23 Vijay Kumar Maggo, who had handed over all the documents pertaining to the flat in question to CBI. These documents are pertaining to details of 11 flats inspected along with occupancy status conducted on 17.12.2013. PW 23 Vijay Kumar Maggo had identified his signature on the production-cum-seizure memo dated 1.5.2013 Ex.PW23/A(D-19) vide which documents D-20 to D-25 (Ex. PW23/B colly. were handed over to CBI along with forwarding letter (D-20). PW 23 also identified his signatures on the production-cum-seizure memo dated 15.5.2013 Ex. PW 23/C (D-
26) vide which documents D-27 to D-34 (Ex. PW23/D colly. were handed over to CBI along with forwarding letters (D-27 & D-32) signed by Sh.Shiv Kumar, Asstt. Director (Allotment) at point 'A' CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 36 of 102 on the letters and documents. PW-23 further identified inspection memo dated 17.12.2013 Ex.PW23/E (D-40 page 3) along with annexure 'A' bearing his signature at point 'A' and of Sh.Rama Kant Sharma Head Clerk at point 'B'.
66.PW-23 also identified production-cum-seizure memo dated 17.12.2013 bearing his signature at point 'A' Ex. PW 23/F (D-41), vide which Ms. Gurmeet Kaur handed over self attested copy of Secondary School Examination Certificate (Ex. PW 23/F-1) and vide another production-cum-seizure memo dated 17.12.2013 Ex. PW 23/G (D-42), Harjeet Singh handed over self attested copy of Secondary School Examination Certificate (Ex. PW 23/G-1). PW 23 also deposed that thumb impression sheets of Smt. Champa Devi w/o Mukut Dhari Sharma (S-170 to S-173) Ex. PW23/H were taken in his presence.
No material contradiction emerged during his cross examination conducted on behalf of all the accused persons.
67.Prosecution has examined certain independent witnesses to identify the identity of A-2. These witnesses are mentioned in the following paras:-
68.PW-7 is Smt. Champa, who is stated to be allottee of Flat No. C- 11Y, Jahangirpuri which is in the same vicinity of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. As per story of prosecution, this witness is stated to have given her voter ID Card to A-1 but denied this fact during her examination and said that she had not given her Voter ID Card CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 37 of 102 Ex.PW7/A to A-1 but to some other person named Golgappa. As per story of prosecution, this witness has stated that Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh never resided at Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri but during her examination in the court she also denied this fact and stated to the contrary.
69. Next witness examined by prosecution is PW-20 Harjeet Singh, who is sated to be the son of Rajender Singh, S/o Sh. Inder Singh (A-2). He identified photograph of his father Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh pasted at page 2, the provisional allotment letter, photo copy of voter card page 11, photo copy of Danga Pirit Relief Camp, Jahangirpuri, Delhi page no.2, photo copy of ration card of file D-18 (Ex.PW1/B). PW-20 after perusing Ex.PW19/A, identified family photograph showing his father, mother, himself and his sister Gurpreet Kaur and deposed that his father is also known as 'Manjeet Singh'.
70.PW-20 deposed that his name is Harjeet Singh and Jeetu is his nick name. The witness deposed that he cannot say whether his father was using his name as Rajender Singh in all the documents. He also stated that his father was also known as 'Manjeet Singh'. PW-20 also stated that he and his elder sister had got written father's name as Rajender Singh in their school records. PW20 further deposed that name of his grand father is Sohan Singh also known as Inder Singh. This witness has not been cross examined by the accused person.
71.Next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-30 Vidhya Devi CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 38 of 102 who is stated to be residing in House No. B-352, Jahangirpuri, Delhi but had sold this house after 1984 riots. This witness was shown photograph pasted at point 'A' of Ex.PW27/C (File D-18 page 2) and she identified that person as Rajender Singh S/o Inder Singh (A-2), who was also known as 'Jinda' and also identified A- 2 present in the court being the same. A-2 is stated to have been tenant of PW-30.
No material contradiction has emerged during cross examination of PW-30.
72.With regard to A-1, in order to establish his liability a number of witnesses has been examined by the prosecution. PW-9 is the concerned DCP in this regard, who had granted sanction for prosecution of A-1. PW-9 Vijay Singh deposed that on 09.08.2016, he was posted as DCP, North West District and after perusal of documents provided by CBI and records he had given sanction for prosecution of Ramesh Kumar (A-1), vide sanction dated 09.08.2016, vide Ex.PW9/A. The sanction was conveyed vide letter dated 09.08.2016 bearing No. 8568/SO/North West District Delhi which is exhibited as Ex.PW 9/B. No material contradiction has emerged during cross examination of PW-9.
73.Next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-29 Rama Kant Sharma, who was stated to be Head Clerk in Vigilance Department DUSIB in 2013. He had identified his signatures at point B on Ex.PW23/E D-40, which was prepared after site inspection on CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 39 of 102 17.12.2013. He has deposed that site inspection of 11 flats was conducted by CBI along with Vijay Kumar Maggo, JLO V(g.) and Raj Kapoor (Mat.) on 17.12.2012 as per details given in Ex. PW 23/E (D-4) which bears his signature also at point 'B'. He has also identified his signature at point 'B' on the production-cum-seizure memos dated 17.12.2017 Ex.PW23/F and Ex.PW23/G vide which photo copy of Secondary School Examination of Gurmeet Kaur (Ex. PW 23/F-1) and Harjeet Singh were seized. He has also identified his signature on the production-cum-seizer memo (D-2) Ex. PW 29/A at point 'A'.
This witness was not cross examined by the accused persons.
74. Next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-14 Kanwar Pal, who as per the story of prosecution, is stated to be knowing Ramesh Kumar (A-1) and Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2). He, as per the story of prosecution, his elder brother Prem Kumar is stated to have allotted the flat No. C-19Z at Jahangirpuri in the year 1986 and flat No. C-3X has been allotted to his mother Anokhi Devi. A-1 is stated to have made inquiry pertaining to Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and stated to have obtained, as per story of prosecution, certain documents i.e. election card etc of this witness.
75.This witness however, has not supported the story of prosecution to this extent, as well as has disputed the fact that he had not handed over copy of his election card to A-1. It is stated by PW-14 that after death of his elder brother he started residing at C-19/Z, Jahangirpuri. PW-14 also deposed that he knew Manjeet Singh who was residing earlier at some other address at Jahangirpuri on rent.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 40 of 102
76. Next witness examined by prosecution is PW-16 Inspector Sunder Dev, who had forwarded the verification report given by A-1. He deposed that letter dated 01.08.2008 bearing no.F.(C/9Z) DC(NW)/RIOTS/J.Puri/SDM/SV/2059 dated 01.08.2008, under the signatures of Sh. Ranjeet Singh, SDM/SV/HQ was received in PS Jahangirpuri. He further deposed that he received a verification report dated 24.08.2008 in respect of Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, C-9-Z, DDA Flat which was placed before him by Ramesh Kumar, the then SI PS Jahangirpuri. The said verification report was forwarded to DC/NW by PW16 as SHO, Jahangirpuri was not available on that date and I was working as Incharge, PS - Jahangirpuri which is exhibited as Ex.PW16/A (colly.) along with annexures signed by Ramesh Kumar (A-1).
This witness was not cross examined by the accused persons.
77. After examination of these witnesses the next set of evidence mentioned below is the testimonies of witnesses pertaining to A-3, A-4 and A-5.
78. The witness examined by prosecution in this regard is PW-2 Ram Pareek, who is stated to be the husband of Hansa Devi, the purchaser of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. This witness is stated to have resided at J-17/48, Jahangirpuri till 2010. PW-2 Ram Pareek had handed over some documents as under to CBI vide production- cum-seizure memo dated 14.3.2013 (D-8) Ex.PW2/A, i.e. the original HSS Credit Note dated 6.8.2009 for Rs.37,713/- issued in the name of Manjeet Singh (D-9) Ex. PW 2/B, temporary allotment CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 41 of 102 order dated 21.8.2009 issued in favour of Manjeet Singh (D-10) Ex. PW 2/C, possession slip in respect of the said flat (D-11) Ex.PW2/D, letter (D-12) Ex. PW 2/E, title documents in respect of the said flat (D-13) (pages 1-15) Ex.PW2/F (colly.), E-stamp certificate (D-14) Ex. PW 2/G, original papers containing General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Affidavit, agreement to appoint arbitrator, indemnity bond, Will, receipt for Rs. 2,10,000/- and possession letter in respect of flat C-9-Z, DDA Flats Jahangirpuri (D-15 containing 1-15 pages) Ex. PW 2/H. PW-2 Ram Pareek further deposed that he handed over E-stamp certificate in favour of Hansa Devi, his wife, as purchaser and General Power of Attorney dated 8.2.2010 in respect of the said Flat (D-16 containing 1-9 pages) Ex.PW2/I. He further deposed that he knows Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-5), who is a property dealer at Jahangirpuri. The property C-9-Z, DDA Flats, Jahangirpuri was purchased in name of Smt. Hansa Devi to save the stamp duty.
79.PW-2 deposed that he came into contact with Ish Kumar Manchanda(A-5) through Sh.Goswami of M/s Balaji Properties at Jahangirpuri, New Delhi in connection with the purchase of the present Flat C-9Z, DDA Flats, Jahangirpuri. PW -2 had purchased the Flat C-9Z, DDA Flats, Jahangirpuri in the name of his wife for Rs.7,40,000/- from Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-5). PW-2 deposed that the value of the flat on document was shown as Rs.2,10,000/-. It is further stated that Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-5) had purchased the same for Rs.1,90,000/- and the entire payment was given in cash. It is further stated that all the documents were executed in the CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 42 of 102 name of Hansa Devi and Luv Manchanda S/o Ish Kumar Manchanda. PW -2 stated that he did not knew any Manjeet Singh however, all the documents in the name of Manjeet Singh were given by Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-5).
80.During his cross-examination conducted by A-1, PW-2, stated that he was not knowing Manjeet Singh at all and came to know about him during investigation of the present case. PW-2, on the day of his cross examination identified Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) by pointing out towards him that he is Manjeet Singh.
81.PW 22 Anil Sharma, Sr. Scientific Officer-II (Document), CFSL is an expert who has given his positive opinion regarding signature/handwriting of A-2, A-3 and A-4. He proved his report dated 10.12.2021, Ex.PW22/A forwarded to CBI vide letter dated 12.12.2021 Ex. PW22/B under the signature at point 'B' of Dr.Rajender Singh, Director. PW-22 has further proved CFSL report No. CFSL-2015/D0065 dated 13.02.2015 Ex.PW22/C forwarded to CBI vide letter of Dr.Rajender Singh Ex.PW22/D bearing his signature at point 'B'. PW-22 had also identified letter dated 19.2.2014 (D-43) Mark PW 22/X vide which questioned documents and specimen/standard documents were sent by CBI and received by CFSL having seal of CFSL at point 'A'. He has further identified the seal of CFSL on the documents received in CFSL on the pages marked as Mark PW 22/Y (colly.), PW 22/Z, Ex. PW 18/A, Ex. PW 18/B, Ex. PW 3/A, Ex. PW 11/E, Ex. PW 11/C (colly.), Ex. PW 11/B, Ex. PW 11/A, Ex. PW 2/B to 2/D, Ex. PW CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 43 of 102 2/F, Ex. PW2/G, Ex. PW 2/H, Ex. PW 2/I, Mark PW 18/E and Ex. PW 18/O. This witness has been cross examined at length and more particularly by A-4, however, no material contradiction has emerged from the cross examination of this witness and as per law pertaining to testimony of an expert as per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, such opinion is presumed to be correct unless and until proved to the contrary.
82.Another witness examined by prosecution is PW-24 B. Magesh Krishna Ratnam, SSO-II (Finger Print Division) proved his report Ex.PW24/A (D-45) forwarded to CBI vide letter dated Ex.PW24/A-
1. PW-24 also identified the thumb impressions i.e. S-59, S-60, S- 145 to S-150 (D-48) and S-170 to S-173 (Additional Documents) exhibited as Ex.PW24/B. He also identified his signatures at point A on Ex.PW24/C. This witness again, has been cross examined by accused persons, however, no material contradiction has emerged from the cross examination of this witness and as per law pertaining to testimony of an expert as per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, such opinion is presumed to be correct unless and until proved to the contrary.
83.PW-42 Sh. Dev Raj Murmu, Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda who was witness to the specimen signature of Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4).
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 44 of 102
84.The next witness examined by prosecution is PW-43 Sh.Nitesh Kumar Attri, who is stated to be working in DDA and stood witness to the specimen sheets of Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4) obtained during investigation. This witness stated that in the year 2013 he had visited the CBI office and on seeing the specimen/handwriting sheets of accused Ish Kumar Manchanda, S-53 to S-58 Ex. PW 43/A (colly) and thumb impression accused Ish Kumar Manchanda S-59 and S-60 (in D-48) Ex.PW 24/D identified his signatures at point 'B'. He deposed that the proceedings were conducted in his presence.
No material contraction has emerged during cross examination of this witness.
85.Another witness examined by prosecution is PW-44 Sh. Arun Kumar who stood witness to specimen/ handwriting accused Lakhwinder Singh (A-5) and had identified his signatures at point 'B' and deposed that the proceedings were conducted in his presence.
No material contraction has emerged during cross examination of this witness.
86.The next witness examined by prosecution is PW-45 Hansa, who is stated to be the purchaser of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri from Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4). She identified her photograph at point 'X' and photograph of Luv Manchanda s/o Ish Kumar Manchanda at point 'Y' and her signature at point 'B' on Ex.PW2/I (D-16).
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 45 of 102 PW-45 further identified her signatures at point 'B', 'B-1' as well as her photograph at point 'X' on Ex.PW38/A-1 (D-16). PW-45 also identified her photograph at point 'X' and photograph of Luv Manchanda at point 'Y' on document Ex.PW38/B (D-16). No material contraction has emerged during cross examination of this witness.
87. PW-47 Jagroop Singh is the first Investigating officer of the case. He deposed that in the year, 2013 he was posted in ACB, CBI, New Delhi as an Inspector. He deposed that FIR was marked to him by D.S.Shukla on 21.01.2013 for investigation thereafter he collected documents and recorded statements of various witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-47 Jagroop Singh deposed that documents to CFSL were sent by PW-47 for opinion. PW-47 had taken specimen signatures/handwriting of the witnesses and the accused persons. The case was related to the fraudulent regularization of flats including flat no. C-9Z, DDA Flats, Jahangirpuri. The flat was allotted on the basis of forged documents and impersonation, done by Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh in the name of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sh. Sohan Singh. The letter written to the SHO, Jahangirpuri.
88. PW-47 Jagroop Singh on seeing the FIR dated 21.01.2014 (D-1) Ex.PW47/A identified the signature of D.S.Shukla at point 'A'. PW- 47 Jagroop Singh seized various documents vide seizure memos. PW-47 identified the signatures of D. S. Shukla at point 'B' on letter dated 19.02.2014, Ex.PW47/B (D-43). PW-47 also identified his signatures at point A on annexures A, B and C, exhibited as CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 46 of 102 Ex.PW47/C (colly.). PW-47 vide letter dated 28.12.2013, collected the copy of school leaving certificate and copy of form for admission regarding Gurmeet Kaur and Jagjeet Kaur, D/o Rajender Singh exhibited as Ex.PW47/D. PW-47 identified the specimen signature and handwriting seeking (S6 to S9) of Manjeet Kaur, W/o Gurvinder Singh (part of D-48) and also identified the signatures of Rajender Singh at point D on Ex.PW47/E (colly.).
89. The witness also identified the signature, handwritings and thumb impression of Ish Kumar Manchanda, Rajender Singh S/o Uttam Singh, obtained by him during the course of investigation. PW47 also identified the specimen signature, thumb impression and handwriting sheets (S-133 to S-150) of Lakhwinder Singh, S/o Gyan Singh. He also identified the thumb impression sheets of (S- 170 to S-173) as obtained by him of Champa Devi, W/o Mukut Dhari Sharma and also recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C exhibited as Ex.PW47/F. He also identified the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC recorded by him of Kanwar Pal S/o Sh. Ram Gopal, Sukhjeet Kaur, Kiran Bala, Virender Singh and Karnai Singh. PW47 also identified the statement of Jasbir Kaur, Harjeet Singh recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C exhibited as Ex.PW47/G and Ex.PW47/H.
90. This witness has been cross examined by A-1 and has stated that Ramesh Kumar (A-1) had filed false report Ex.PW16/A stating that Manjeet Singh was victim of 1984 riots. PW-47 has further stated that during investigation he found that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) had falsely represented himself as Manjeet Singh S/o CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 47 of 102 Sohan Singh and Ramesh Kumar (A-1) has deliberately supported his submissions. It is further stated by PW-47 that photograph reflected on Ex.PW33/B which is the copy of 'Danga Pidit Relief Camp Certificate' was that of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-
2). It is further stated by PW-47 that as per serial number 1217 in list prepared by office of SDM, Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh was found in Flat No. C-9Y, Jahangirpuri instead of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri.
Besides, this no material contraction is found in the cross examination of this witness.
91. The next witness examined by prosecution is PW-46 N. C. Nawal, who is the second Investigating Officer of the present case. He has deposed that the present case was transferred to him on 26.5.2014 from Inspt. Jagroop Singh for further investigation. He identified the statement Madan Lal S/o late Sh. Jagan Nath exhibited as Ex.PW46/A. No material contradiction is found in cross-examination of this witness and he has corroborated whatever he has stated in his examination-in-chief.
92. The entire evidence lead during trial and mentioned above, is analyzed in the light of various sections under which accused persons have been charged with, and in the light of points of determination as per Section 354 (1) Cr.P.C.
Thus, the first point of determination as mentioned above, pertaining to criminal conspiracy is mentioned and discussed as CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 48 of 102 under :-
THE FIRST POINT OF DETERMINATION Whether all the accused persons had hatched a criminal conspiracy seeking unlawful allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of A-2 for which A-2 had impersonated and represented himself some other person i.e. Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh in connivance with other accused persons?
93.As per the story of prosecution all the accused persons are stated to have hatched a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC and having hands in gloves as well as with active connivance they managed to get Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri allotted in favour of A-
2. Section 120 IPC reads as under :-
"Section 120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, (imprisonment for life) or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both."
94. The essential ingredients of Section 120-B IPC are as under:
i. There is a conspiracy to commit a criminal act vide which all the accused persons have conspired with meeting of mind to commit an act which is criminal in nature.
ii. Such meeting of mind with agreement to do a criminal act is such which, if committed, is punishable with death or with life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 49 of 102 or more.
95.In order to establish a charge of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must prove an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means, provided that where the agreement is other than one to commit an offence, the prosecution must go further and prove that some act besides the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in pursuance of it. It is to be kept in mind that proof of overt act committed by the accused or any of them is not strictly necessary on this charge, but proof that accused or some of them were concerned in the overt act alleged would go far to establish that the agreement alleged was in fact made between them.
96.It has been categorically held in "Baccha Babu Vs. Empror", AIR 1935 All-162 that though proof of overt act is not necessary in a case, yet it may well be that if such acts are proved, the court will be bound to interfere that they are not unconnected and isolated acts but acts which must have been committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused.
97.Another case laid for reference is "Moti Lal Roy vs. Empror", 37 CrlJ 999 in which it has been held that where a conspiracy between several persons is alleged, it is not necessary for prosecution to prove, before it can be held established, that each conspirator knew and had personal communication with all the rest, because some of them might be intermediaries proof that accused entered into agreement to do unlawful act, is sufficient.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 50 of 102
98.In this regard, it is important to mention here that in such cases where criminal conspiracy is considered to have been proved, any direct evidence is seldom available. It is the conduct of the parties, which has to be inferred from the entire subsequent circumstances as alleged in the charge-sheet and narrated by the prosecution which has to be considered. No doubt, criminal conspiracy always take place in enclosed environment and in privacy, however, it is their subsequent conducted i.e. their overt act, which has been to seen and considered.
99.Now, coming to the evidence available on record and material filed along with the charge-sheet. It is reflected from the story of prosecution that the entire fact surround around seeking allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in question for which Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) has played an active role by not only representing himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh but has presented before Government authorities and made them believe that he was Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh.
100. The 'overt act' as essential ingredient of Section 120 B IPC as reflected from the evidence led and material placed on record during trial is that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) represented himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh(A-3) had also represented himself as Manjeet Singh at one place. From the evidence led by the prosecution it is reflected that this fact is not disputed that A-2 has CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 51 of 102 represented himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh on more than one occasion. Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) had also represented as Manjeet Singh as reflected from the evidence available on record. It is also a matter of record and not disputed by any of the accused persons that Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri was allotted in favour of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) but under the name, as per allotment letter exhibited as Ex.PW18/B. Prosecution has examined PW-22 from CFSL who has given a report that A-3 had signed as Manjeet Singh, as reflected from document Ex.PW37/A (colly.) and Ex.PW22/C(I). PW-22 has further stated in his evidence that in his report as handwriting expert, specimen signature of A-2 matched with questioned signature/handwriting of A-2 as reflected vide Ex.PW22/C(II). None of the accused persons have been able to point out any contradiction in the testimonies of witness PW-22, PW-24, PW-42, PW-43, PW-44, PW-45. The report given by expert i.e. PW-22 and PW-24 as well as other witnesses with regard to specimen handwriting/signature have deposed that questioned handwriting/signature of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh, Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh and Ish Kumar Manchanda have matched with sample handwriting/signature. This fact raises strong suspicion and the overt act of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-
2), Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) and Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4) of putting their handwriting/signature which resulted into allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour or Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) but in the name of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh, indicate that they are having a prior CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 52 of 102 meeting of mind and intention to get allotment of flat in question.
101. In order to establish the criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons, prosecution has stated during trial that not only Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) was having malafide intention seeking possession of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour but Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4 ) actively facilitated A-2 so that no doubt was left to represent (A-2) as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh despite cognizance of the fact that A-2 was in actual Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh. 'Overt act' indicating continuation of accused persons which indicate that they were working together with a prior meeting of mind or with a common understanding that the Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri was to be allotted in favour of A-2. Such 'overt act' is further reflected from the conduct of A-4 Ish Kumar Manchanda, who being a property dealer managed to transfer Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri through Sale Deed in favour of his son Luv Kumar Manchanda. Title Deeds transferred in favour of PW-45 Hansa Devi and Luv Kumar Manchanda are exhibited as Ex.PW38/A and Ex.PW38/B.
102. It has been argued on behalf of prosecution that such allotment was not possible without false and manipulated report pertaining to status of possession of the flat which was directed to be verified as per the directions of concerned SDM, who further directed SHO, Jahangirpuri to conduct inspection at site which was handed over to A-1. The report given by Ramesh Kumar (A-1), who is stated to be a Sub- Inspector posted at PS - Jahangirpuri is the main document which resulted into allotment of flat in favour of Rajender Singh, CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 53 of 102 S/o Inder Singh (A-2), however, under the name Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh.
103. It is the story of prosecution, as mentioned above that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) has mis-represented himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh which was facilitated by Ish Manchanda (A-4), who not only with his active connivance acted in consonance with Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) by showing on the record by putting his handwriting/signature in ExPW22/A but also after allotment of the Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri, managed to get transferred it in favour of his son by taking possession of the flat directly which is reflected from his handwriting which is established as per Ex.PW22/A. Such conduct on the part of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2), Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) and A-4 could only be possible provided A-1 could have furnished his report according to the manipulation done by other accused persons. In other words, the planning of A-2, A-3 and A-4 was subsequently dependent upon report of A-1. Thus, in my considered opinion this could not have been possible without the active connivance of A-2, A-3 and A-4 with A-1. The 'overt act' on the part of A-1, as per story of prosecution is the inquiry conducted by him and furnishing his report. Observations in this regard however, shall be given while discussing his role overall in the subsequent paras. With regard to role of A-5, the only facts reflected from the investigation conducted by the investigating officer against him are that he stood witness to document executed in favour of Hansa (PW-45). So far CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 54 of 102 as role of A-5 is concerned, there is no other evidence against A-5, which could connect him to the 'prior meeting of mind' with A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4. In my considered opinion, mere being a witness to a title deed executed in favour of purchaser Hansa is not suffice to said to include him in criminal conspiracy along with other accused persons. In other words, for 'overt act' the evidence against A-5 showing his conduct besides his being a witness is not sufficient to conclude that he was having prior meeting of mind and could hatch a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons. The evidence available on record therefore, is not sufficient to establish the liability of A-5 to this extent. Moreso, questioned handwriting/signature of A-5 have not matched with his sample handwriting/signature.
104. Thus, the conduct of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 as discussed above reflects that they were having prior meeting of mind seeking allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh(A-2) despite knowing the fact that he was not Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. This observation, however, is dependent upon the findings given regarding A-2 and A-3 that they misrepresented themselves as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh which they knew they were not and A-2 finally succeeded in allotment of flat in question in his favour and further sold the same thereby causing unlawful gain to himself and unlawful loss to any such needy person including real Manjeet Singh who was the real needy person being 1984 riot victims and government. Final observation in this regard, therefore, shall be given at the end of CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 55 of 102 discussion of the remaining points of determination.
SECOND POINT OF DETERMINATION Whether A-2 after entering into a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons impersonated himself as Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and in furtherance thereof appeared before concerned authorities i.e. office of SDM, DUSIB etc. and knowingly give false information to A-1 being in active connivance with him and sought allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour which was got allotted in his name as well due to his impersonation and misrepresentation?
105. The charge so framed against A-2 is 419/420/467/468/471 IPC. A-2 is stated to have impersonated as Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh. In my considered opinion, it is Section 419 IPC, being a species of cheating which is attracted here. Section 415 IPC defines cheating as under:-
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or 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."
106. Section 419 IPC is a species of cheating which reads as under:-
"419. Punishment for cheating by personation.--Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 56 of 102
107. Conjoint reading of 415 IPC and 419 IPC requires following essential ingredients to be established in order to prove the liability of an accused.
i. Deceiving by any person.
ii. Such deceiving is by impersonation.
iii. Inducing such other person fraudulently and dishonestly to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property.
iv. Intentionally inducing such person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not deceived.
v. Such act or mission is likely to cause damage or harm to such person in body mind, reputation or property.
108. The other sections under which A-2 has been charged with are 467/468/471 IPC which reads as under. :
Section 467 IPC "467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 468 IPC:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 57 of 102 forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 471 IPC:
"471. Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record]."
109. All these three Sections in nutshell requires the ingredients to be proved that a document being forged is used as genuine with fraudulent or dishonest intention by a person who believe it to be false and forged document.
110. As per story of prosecution, allegations of A-2 is that he mis- represented himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh despite knowing of the fact that he was not Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) has mis-represented three facts:
i. He was victim of 1984 Sikh riots. In this regard, he has presented before the authority one Danga Pirit Card which is found to be not correct but doubtful during investigation. ii. He was Manjeet Singh or known as Manjeet Singh as well besides Rajender Singh.
iii. He has also mis-represented that name of his father was Sohan Singh.
iv. While doing such mis-representation being conscious of the same he fraudulently used certain documents to represent CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 58 of 102 himself something which he was not.
111. It is needless to say that as per documents brought on record during his investigation filed along with the charge-sheet, his name is being reflected as Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh. The defence taken by A-2 is that he is also known as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. In his defence, it has been categorically stated that after 1984, Sikh Riots he was so terrified that he got his hair cut and begin to live like non Sikhs (mona). In this regard, prosecution has examined various witnesses. Most of them have been turned hostile. However, some part of testimonies of all such witnesses is relevant which does not prove the defence taken by A-2 that he was also known as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh.
112. PW-3 Madan Lal who is stated to be residing near Flat No. C- 9Z, Jahangirpuri has not supported the story of prosecution and has categorically stated during his examination that A-2 is the same person whose photograph is affixed on document Ex.PW3/A. PW- 3 has further stated that this person was also known as 'veer ji' and A-2 is the same person. This witness has been declared hostile by prosecution. There is another witness i.e. PW-6 Chander Prakash Gaba who has stated that the owner of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri was one Sikh gentleman who was known as 'veer ji'. PW6 is the person who was tenant of A-2 for some time. This witness however, has categorically stated that he do not know Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. During his cross examination, PW-6 identified Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) as the same person from whom he had taken the premises on rent.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 59 of 102
113. Other independent witness examined by prosecution is PW-13 Paramjeet Kaur, sister of A-2. PW-13 has stated that she has three other sisters and three brothers. One of her brother is stated to be Rajender Singh, who is also known as Manjeet Singh. PW-13 however, has stated that name of her father is Inder Singh. During her examination on 20.11.2017, it has been observed by the court and a court question was also put in this regard that how come the name of her father is Inder Singh and name of father of her brother i.e. A-2 is Sohan Singh for which PW-13 has categorically stated that due to Sikh riots her brothers were severely beaten in 1984, hence out of fear A-2 changed his name to Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. During her examination in chief, PW-13 stated that one of her brother Paramjeet Singh was also known as Pritam Singh, however, when this witness was declared hostile, she has stated during her cross examination that her brother Pramjeet Singh was never known as Pritam Singh. This witness has stated categorically that A-2 Rajender Singh is also known as Manjeet Singh but has not disputed the fact that the name of her father and father of Rajender Singh is same as Inder Singh.
114. Another witness PW-19 Jasbir Kaur, wife of A-2 has stated that name of her father in law is Inder Singh. This witness after perusing the allotment letter exhibited as Ex.PW27/C (D-18) (page
2), identified the photograph pasted thereon as the photograph of her husband. This witness further stated that her husband Rajender Singh was known as Manjeet Singh even at the time of her marriage. PW-19 also identified photograph upon the election card CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 60 of 102 exhibited as Ex.PW33/A (D-18) (page 11), family photograph exhibited as Ex.PW19/A (D-3) (page 38/C), photograph on Danga Pirit Relief Camp certificate at page No. 12 of D-18 exhibited as Ex.PW33/D, as well as ration card exhibited as Ex.PW33/C (D-18) (Page-13) as that of her husband Manjeet Singh/Rajender Singh.
115. During her examination, PW-19 at one place states that name of her father-in-law is Inder Singh but at other place she state that her father-in-law was also know as Sohan Singh. It is stated however, by her that her father-in-law had already died when she was married in 1990. Thus, whatever she has stated is nothing but on the basis of information received by her husband and other persons. Thus, the testimony of other witnesses has to be seen in this regard and this fact stated by PW-19 is nothing but an hearsay evidence which can only be considered provided it is corroborated by other witnesses or some documentary evidence is brought on record to that extent.
116. As per section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, any person who has alleged a certain fact within his specific knowledge has the onus to prove the same as per law. That PW-13, who is sister of A-2 has categorically stated that name of her father and father of accused No. 2 is Inder Singh. This submission is further strengthen from the fact that during examination of PW-13 court had raised query about name of her father being Inder Singh for which she said that A-2 had stated his name as Manjeet Singh and name of his father as Sohan Singh out of fear. Therefore, in my considered opinion the onus to prove this fact that A-2 is also known as Manjeet Singh and CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 61 of 102 name of his father is Sohan Singh is upon A-2, as per Indian Evidence Act. From the perusal of the entire document placed on record, A-2 has failed to bring on record any document to show that he was also known as Manjeet Singh and name of his father was also Sohan Singh besides Inder Singh.
117. Certain documents i.e. copy of ration card filed by A-2 which was got attested by him from the office of concerned MLA, PW-33 Mangat Ram Singhal is perused. From the careful perusal it is reflected that this document mentions the name of card holder as 'Manjeet Singh' and his father's name is mentioned as 'Sohan Singh'. The date of issue of the ration card is mentioned as '12.06.1995' and 'Jasbir Kaur' who is PW-19 and admittedly the wife of A-2 is shown as 'daughter' of the card holder aged '10 years' on the date of issue i.e. 12.06.1995. Either of the fact is not appearing to be correct. Jasbir Kaur is admittedly the wife of A-2 Rajender Singh then if she is shown as his 'daughter' in the ration card then this fact mentioned in the ration card seems to be wrong. Original of this ration card has never been produced during trial by accused persons nor this discrepancy has been sought to be clarified, at any point of time, from the side of accused persons. It is needless to say that onus to establish any fact pertaining to the document related to A-2 is always upon A-2. Thus, this copy of ration card cannot be considered to be stating true facts and does not seem to be a true document of the original. Copy of this ration card is one of the document by which A-2 has claimed himself to be Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 62 of 102
118. PW-20 is stated to be son of A-2 who has stated that name of his father is Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh. This witness has been shown the photograph of his father from the documents i.e. provisional allotment letter, election voter card, certificate of Danga Pirit Relief Camp and he has identified the same as that of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh. This witness however has stated that name of his father is Manjeet Singh, as well but has failed to produce any document in support with it, nor A-2 sought to bring any such document during examination or entire trial.
119. Prosecution has examined one witness PW-30 Smt. Vidya Devi who is stated to be the landlady of A-2. She has categorically stated that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh was her tenant prior to death of Smt. Indira Gandhi. This witness during her cross examination has denied the suggestion that she was aware that name of A-2 was Manjeet Singh.
120. The testimony of PW-30, who is an entirely independent witness brought by prosecution to identify Rajender Singh or Manjeet Singh reflects certain facts. If A-2 was tenant of PW-30 Smt. Vidya Devi prior to the death of Smt. Indira Gandhi then she must have been aware about some of his credentials. This witness has supported the story of prosecution and has denied that within her specific knowledge, Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh was known as Manjeet Singh.
121. PW-35 is the relative of A-2 who said that name of her CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 63 of 102 maternal grand father is Sohan Singh and Rajender Singh is maternal uncle. This witness has identified accused Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh as her maternal uncle. This witness however, corroborated the fact that Rajender Singh was residing at rent at B- 819, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
122. Another interesting witness who came to the witness box is PW-39 and who is stated to be the relative of A-2 has gone to a further extent by stating that he do not know any person by the name of Rajender Singh. Manjeet Singh is his maternal uncle and Jasbir Kaur is his maternal aunt. This witness has identified all the photographs available on record which are that of A-2 as that of Manjeet Singh. Thus, this witness narrated all together entire fact that he do not know any Rajender Singh while all other witnesses has alleged that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) was also known as Manjeet Singh.
123. PW-35 Smt. Sukhjeet Kaur @ Simran deposed that her father's name is Sarabjeet Singh and prior to her marriage, she was living in G-Block Gurdwara, Jahangirpuri. She further deposed that her mother's name is Paramjeet Kaur and had three maternal aunts and two maternal uncles. She also stated that her maternal grandfather's name is Sohan Singh. She also deposed that Manjeet Singh is her maternal uncle who was residing in C-9-Z DDA Flats Jahangirpuri. She further deposed that Rajender Singh s/o Sh. Inder Singh also known as 'Jinda' is her maternal uncle. She also identified the photograph of Rajender Singh s/o Sh. Inder Singh at point 'A' on the provisional allotment letter Ex. PW 27/C, temporary allotment CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 64 of 102 order Ex.PW11/B in file Ex.PW 3/A (D-3) as well as in the family photograph on 38/C exhibited as Ex. PW 19/A bearing her signature and handwriting at point 'A' on the backside of the photograph. PW-35 also deposed that her statement was recorded during investigation as Ex. PW 35/PX.
124. Besides these independent public witnesses, prosecution has examined a number of witnesses, who are stated to be holding public office and have dealt with the file pertaining to allotment of Flat no. C-9-Z, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. PW- 1 Ranjeet Singh, Tehshildar is the concerned tehshildar who provided the entire file of allotment forming part of D-18. This file contain the entire record pertaining to allotment of Flat no. C-9-Z, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. This file D-18 contain the documents submitted by and on behalf of Rajinder Singh (A-2) son of Sh. Inder Singh, who is stated to have represented himself as Manjeet Singh son of Sh.Sohan Singh. So far as filing of documents before concerned SDM is concerned for which, a number of witnesses have been examined including PW-1, it is not disputed by any of the accused persons. The defence taken on behalf of accused No. 2 as already stated above that he was also known as Manjeet Singh son of Sohan Singh.
125. From the careful perusal of all the independent witnesses pertaining to accused No.2 so examined, it is reflected that they all have not disputed the fact that name of father of accused No.2 Rajinder Singh is Inder Singh. In my considered opinion, it is highly probable that a person may be known by more than one CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 65 of 102 name amongst his acquaintances. Such other name as alias, has to be proved by such person only or by other persons who used to refer him with other name as alias. Such change of name in normal circumstances, in other words pertains to that person only and not to his father unless and until his father also uses another name as alias. In the present case, alleged use of name is not only Manjeet Singh used as alias but there is change of name of father of Rajender Singh (A-2) as well, i.e. as Sohan Singh besides Inder Singh.
126. Sister and wife of A-2 have stated that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) was also known as Manjeet Singh, however, these witnesses along with other independent witnesses as mentioned above have not been able to shift the onus of proving this specific knowledge upon them that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh was not only known as Manjeet Singh by another name but he also used to refer name of his father as Sohan Singh instead of Inder Singh. None of the documents which are stated to have been filed before concerned SDM by and on behalf of A-2 have been brought in original before the court. PW-19 Jasbir Kaur, stated to be wife of A-2, has categorically stated that name of her father-in- law is Inder Singh. She has stated to an extent that her husband A-2, was known as Manjeet Singh even at the time of marriage. She has not placed on record any proof in this regard. The onus as per law, is now upon A-2 as well as his wife PW-19 to show on record any such document. PW-20 Harjeet Singh son of Rajender Singh (A-2) has stated that name of his grand father i.e., father of A-2 was Inder CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 66 of 102 Singh. PW-6 Chander Prakash Gaba stated to be residing in neighbourhood of A-2 was not able to identify the photograph at page No.3, 33, 38 and 44 of file Ex.PW3/A (D-3). This photograph is stated to be photograph of A-2. PW-7 is another public witness who is stated to have been residing in Jahangirpuri area and her documents are stated to have been used in the inspection conducted by A-1 pertaining to Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. She has stated during her cross-examination conducted on 04.09.2017 that A-2 was not known by any other name though he was called as 'Veer ji'. PW-13 Paramjeet Kaur sister of A-2 has also stated that name of her father is Inder Singh. It has also been mentioned above that during examination of PW-13 on 20.11.2017 court query was raised to her regarding name of her father as 'Inder Singh' for which she initially said that A-2 at the time of Sikh riots was severely beaten up but later on upon raising a court query she has stated that her brother Rajender Singh (A-2) was not beaten during riots but he changed his name Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh out of fear. PW-13 seems to have changing her version while giving reason for change of name by A-2. She has stated that A-2 changed his name however, the defence taken by A-2 and facts stated by other independent witnesses is that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) was also known as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. This statement of PW-13 to this extent is different from other witnesses which appears to be, in my considered opinion, contrary to the defence taken by A-2.
127. There is another interesting fact available on record i.e. the CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 67 of 102 photocopy of the ration card filed by A-2 seeking allotment of flat in question i.e., Flat No.C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. In this ration card daughter is shown as wife and wife is shown as daughter. This again is raising a question upon the authenticity of the photocopy in the absence of original thereof. All these facts reflects that story narrated by prosecution that A-2 Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh has not been stating true facts and has manipulated and impersonated, seems to be probable which is supported with above mentioned testimonies and discrepancies in the version of independent witnesses which are also known to A-2. Thus, all this fact reflects that prosecution has been able to counter the defence taken by A-2 and shift the onus of the fact upon him that he has mis-represented and impersonated himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and has taken the benefit of the name of allottee Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh.
128. In this regard, it is important to mention here that anyone who alleges a fact which is within his specific knowledge then burden to prove such fact is always upon such person. Section 106 Indian Evidence Act is important to mention here which reads as under: -
129. Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
--When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 68 of 102 him.
130. There are number of landmark judgments on this aspect which are mentioned here for reference as under : -
i. "Dilip Mallick Vs. State of West Bengal", MANU SC 158 (2017).
In this case, the appellant took the cycle of deceased Shambhu Mallick and carried him on the cycle. As the deceased did not return home, PW-3 started searching for him in the evening. She went to the house of the appellant and was informed by the appellant's father that her husband and appellant went to clean a safety tank. The deceased did not return home that night. He was found on 04.02.2004 near Chandmuni Tea Estate Area. It is further observed that "Under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused denied any knowledge of the crime and alleged false implication. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act imposes an obligation on the accused to explain as to what happened after they were last seen together. No explanation was furnished, therefore, conviction was upheld.
ii. In case titled as "Virender Vs. State" MANU DE 1107 (2015), it has been held that if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer his explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 69 of 102 Indian Evidence Act. In case, resting on circumstantial evidence if accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him and the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. iii. In another case titled as, 'Chaman & Ors. Vs. State of Uttrakhand', AIR 2016 SC 1912, it has been held that:
"28. Adverting to the facts, this Court rules that as the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that the deceased had been abducted by the accused, they alone knew what happened to him until he was with them and if he was found murdered in a short time, after the abduction, the permitted reasoning process would enable the court to draw the presumption that the accused had murdered him. It was held that such inference can be disrupted, if the accused would tell the Court what else had happened to the deceased at least until he was in their custody.
131. At the outset, it is mentioned that allegation of 'impersonation' done by Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) has two aspects. One aspect is that he took the benefit of the name Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh despite knowing of the fact that his name was neither Manjeet Singh nor the name of his father was Sohan Singh and thus represented himself so with an ulterior motive to get the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour. The second aspect of his impersonation is that in this regard A-3 and A-4 actively connived with him, facilitated him in representing him as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh before Government authority as well as they took hands in gloves with Ramesh Kumar (A-1), who was a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, PS - Jahangirpuri who was assigned the task of conducting inquiry in this regard and who CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 70 of 102 having connived with other accused persons filed false report. Filing of incorrect report by A-1 has resulted into allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in the name of A-2. The first aspect has been dealt with in above mentioned paras. As per Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, in my considered opinion the burden is therefore upon Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) to prove that he was not only known as Manjeet Singh but name of his father was also Sohan Singh.
132. From the careful perusal of the entire record, it is reflected that A-2 has not been able to shift the onus of this fact upon the prosecution again that he was also known as Manjeet Singh and his father's name was also Sohan Singh. Hence, in my considered opinion as A-2 has not been successful to shift the onus upon the prosecution therefore, he cannot be said to have discharged the burden of proving the fact that he was also known as Manjeet Singh and the name of his father was Sohan Singh. It is needless to say that mere oral averment to allege that A-2 was also known as Manjeet Singh is not suffice. It is not just a fact or mere averment that someone is having another name as alias. Rajender Singh s/o Inder Singh (A-2) has alleged that he was known as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. He also stated that his father Inder Singh was also known as Sohan Singh but it is not supported with any documentary evidence. Family member of A-2 have also been examined and they have also stated differently which however, do not inspire their confidence and their testimony to this extent, in my considered opinion is not sufficient to establish the fact that Inder CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 71 of 102 Singh father of Rajender Singh was also known as Sohan Singh. During final arguments, A-2 was inquired as to when he was married for which he did not furnish any satisfactory answer. Jasbeer Kaur, wife of A-2 examined as PW-19 has stated in her testimony that her husband Rajender Singh (A-2) was known as Manjeet Singh prior to his marriage. She has also not stated as to when they got married. Even, as already stated above, photocopy of ration card also seems to have stated controverted facts in which wife is shown as daughter and daughter is shown as wife. Therefore, in my considered opinion, Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) manipulated documents and impersonated himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh hence he has not been able to discharge the burden of proving the fact that he was also known as Manjeet Singh as well as his father Inder Singh was also known as Sohan Singh.
133. Coming to the second aspect of his impersonation i.e. representation of this fact before concerned SDM, prosecution has been able to bring on record a number of documents which establish this fact that it was A-2, who has submitted these documents before office of concerned SDM.
134. PW-18 Ashok Chikara, who is JE in DUSIB, PW-23 Vijay Kumar Maggo, who is also stated to be working in DUSIB alongwith various other witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-8 etc. have established this fact that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) has furnished this information in the form of documentary evidence before them that he was Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 72 of 102
135. Thus, there are number of witnesses including IO of the case, who have categorically stated that A-2 has represented himself before the Government authority, i.e. officials of the concerned SDM and DUSIB that he was the same person, i.e Manjeet Singh s/o Sohan Singh despite the fact that he was aware that he was not so. Such misrepresentation made by Rajinder Singh s/o Inder Singh, (A-2 ) as already stated above has resulted into allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour.
136. It is also established by the prosecution by examining number of witnesses during trial as mentioned above that Rajinder Singh s/o Inder Singh (A-2) himself appeared before the concerned authorities on a number of occasions which has been identified by many prosecution witnesses.
137. One of the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution in this regard is the report of CFSL CBI. Vide this report, prosecution has brought on record and proved that not only A-2 had represented himself before the officials of concerned SDM and DUSIB but A-3 and A-4 have also facilitated him in this regard. Handwritings of A-2, A-3 and A-4 available on record, which is corroborated by the testimonies of PW-22 and PW-24, are indicate that A-2 along with A-3 and A-4 in their active connivance with prior meeting of mind with an intention to get the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri, Delhi in favour of A-2, put their handwritings at various places. The report furnished by PW-22 and PW-24 have opined that questioned handwriting and CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 73 of 102 signature of A-2, A-3 and A-4 have matched with their sample handwritings and signatures.
138. As per record, Connecting evidence related to sample and questioned handwritings/ signature pertaining to A-2, A-3 and A-4 are discussed as under:-
139. Evidence pertaining to A-2 is contained in file D-3. This file is pertaining to Slum & JJ Department which is now DUSIB and which is Ex. PW 3/A. This file is containing the number of documents vide which the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri, Delhi was processed in favour of A-2. This file also contains handwriting/signature of A-4. It is not dispute that file D-3 is pertaining to allotment of flat in question. The questioned signature/handwriting of A-2 are mentioned at Q-6, Q-7 and Q-12 to Q-18 (file D-3). Q-6 and Q-7 are affidavits given by A-2 to the office of SDM (file D-18) signed as Manjeet Singh wherein he claims to be a Danga Priti, occupant of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri since 1984. Further Q-12 to Q-18 are letters, affidavits along with annexures of A-2 filed and signed as Manjeet Singh, s/o Sohan Singh before concerned SDM. There is one letter given by Manjeet Singh under his signature, which is stated to be made by A- 2 as Q-18, to Assistant Director, Slum & JJ Department, MCD. The subject matter of this letter Ex. PW 11/A is self explanatory itself which reads as under:-
"Sub: Regarding in site regularization of occupants of Jahangirpuri Slum Flats trespassed by the self proclaimed Riot Victims of 1984".
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 74 of 102
140. Thus, this letter Ex. PW 11/A (colly.) is a letter written by self proclaimed Riot Victim, i.e. A-2, who has signed as Manjeet Singh. PW-26 Sh. Kishan Paul is the witness examined by the prosecution who has stated that Rajinder Singh s/o Inder Singh (A-2) was the person who appeared before him and stated himself as Manjeet Singh and submitted number of documents as per requirement vide Ex. PW 11/A. Vide this letter A-2 submitted number of documents, i.e. an undertaking under his signature which are Q-16 & Q-17, an affidavit under his signature which are Q-14, another affidavit under his signature which are Q-12 along with other documents forming part of file D-3.
141. PW-11 is another witness in this regard examined by the prosecution, who delivered allotment letter to the addressee. In this regard the affidavit furnished by A-2 also appears to be falsely notarized by some other person as the concerned Notary who is stated to have notarized the affidavit furnished by A-2, has denied the attestation by him. PW-10 Azad Kumar is the concerned Notary Public. It is also part of record that Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4) had given his witness to an undertaking given by A-2 filed along with letter Ex. PW 11/A (D-3) (page No. 39/C). A-4 giving his witness to an undertaking again reflects that A-2 and A-4 were having prior meeting of mind and some ulterior motive with an object to get the allotment of flat C-9Z, Jahangirpuri, Delhi in favour of A-2. IO of the case Jagroop Singh, Dy. SP, CBI examined as PW-47 has taken the sample signatures/handwriting of A-2 as S- 61 to S-71 (part of D-48) which is Ex. PW 17/G. CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 75 of 102
142. PW-22 is the handwriting expert, as already stated above, who has given his opinion that sample specimen handwriting/signatures of the person matches with Q-6, Q-7, and Q-12 to Q-18 (D-3). These sample specimen handwriting/signatures as per record is pertaining to Rajinder Singh s/o Inder Singh (A-2).
143. During cross-examination of IO PW-47 and PW-22 no contradiction in this regard has emerged. Thus, the fact that A-2 Rajinder Singh s/o Inder Singh has put his signature/handwriting as Manjeet Singh and mentioned himself as son of Sohan Singh stands established by the prosecution and they have been able to shift the onus upon A-2 Rajainder Singh s/o Inder Singh. On the contrary A-2 Rajinder Singh s/o Inder Singh, though has alleged that he was known as Manjeet Singh and name of his father was Sohan Singh besides Inder Singh but his testimony remained oral and due to various contradictions more particularly when facts are scrutinized during investigation as well as reflected from the evidence mentioned above that name of his father of A-2 Rajinder Singh is not Sohan Singh but Inder Singh, remain uncontroverted.
144. Now coming to the role of Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4). He is stated to be a property dealer working in the same locality, i.e. area of Jahangirpuri. As per story of prosecution, A-4 had connived with A-2 and facilitated him in furnishing false/manipulated documents before concerned SDM and DUSIB with an object to get the allotment in the name of A-2 and later on selling the said immovable property in the name of his son, i.e. Luv Kumar Manchanda, who further, sold it to Smt. Hansa (PW-45).
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 76 of 102
145. The evidence available against A-4 to show that he was in active connivance with A-2, is forming part of file D-3 (page no.44/C) Ex. PW 11/B which is a temporary allotment order on which A-4 is stated to have put his signature as Manjeet Singh and took the letter by putting his signature as such. Such signature are Q-20 to Q-22. A-4 is stated to be a witness to undertaking given by A-2 filed along with letter Ex.PW11/A. (Q-189 and Q-190). (D-
3) (page No. 39/C). Another evidence available against A-4 is his signature as Manjeet Singh on temporary allotment order dated 21.08.2009 Ex.PW18/B (D-5) (page No. 2) which are Q-27 and Q-
28. Q-30 and Q-31 are the handwriting/signature of A-4 upon temporary allotment order dated 21.08.2009 Ex.PW2/C (D-10). There is another writing on letter as Ex.PW11/E written by A-4 (D-
3) (page no. 51/C) which is Q-66. Sample specimen handwriting/ signature of A-4 are S-41 to S-51 and S-61 to S-81 which are stated to have been taken in presence of PW-42 Deve Raj Murmu, Sr. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda. The report given by handwriting expert PW-22 in this regard is Ex.PW22/C which states that sample handwriting/signatures of the person matches with questioned handwriting/signature Q-27, Q-28, Q-30 and Q-31. There are another sample specimen handwriting/signature of A-4 taken in the presence of PW-42 and PW-43 which are S-22 to S-58 and they are stated to have been taken in pursuance to Q-66, Q-189 and Q-190 (part of file D-3). PW-22, handwriting expert has again stated that sample specimen writing and signature of the person matched with Q-66, Q-189 and Q-190.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 77 of 102
146. Prosecution has also placed on record a material piece of evidence pertaining to Rajinder Singh s/o Uttam Singh (A-3) showing that he also put his signature upon provisional allotment letter Ex. PW 27/C (D-18)(page no. 2 to 4). PW-37 is the public witness in whose presence sample specimen handwriting/signatures of A-3 were taken which are PW 37/A (colly.) Sample handwriting/signature pertaining to A-3 are S-82 to S-90, S-73, S- 78, S-79 and the questioned signature are Q-2 upon Ex. PW 27/C. As per the testimony of Handwriting Expert vide his report Ex. PW 22/C (I), questioned signature/handwriting Q-2, have matched with sample signatures/handwriting of A-3. There is no contradiction in the testimony of PW-22. Thus, the testimony of Handwriting Expert PW-22 cannot be denied and disputed, hence, it is relevant and admissible as per Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, thus, in my considered opinion whatever PW-22, as mentioned above, has stated stands established and corroborated.
147. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of accused persons, more particularly A-2 that he has done no impersonation and has not manipulated any document nor have furnished false information. The onus as well as burden of proving this fact is always upon the accused persons as it is their defence and they have alleged so.
148. It is further stated by A-2 while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C that his real name is Rajender Singh and due to 1984 Sikh Riots in order to save himself and his family, he took all of them to relief camp and changed identity to Manjeet Singh so CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 78 of 102 that no one could know about his past. It is reflected from the above discussion that this defence of A-2 has not been duly established by him. Thus, the only other reason for representing himself as Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh by A-2 appears to be to take benefit of the name Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and get the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour. This fact is further strengthen from the subsequent development after allotment of the above flat in his favour i.e. sale of the Flat No. C- 9Z, Jahangirpuri to Luv Kumar Manchanda S/o A-4 and further selling it of to Hansa (PW-45). Therefore, with regard to establishing the liability of A-2 that he had impersonated Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh, prosecution has brought on record ample evidence against Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2), against which, he in my considered opinion, has not been able to establish anything to the contrary. With regard to use of certain documents being not genuine but manipulated which are stated to be used as genuine, the prosecution, in my considered opinion has also brought on record various documents on the basis of which Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) got the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour. Accused, on the other hand has not been able to show anything contrary to this fact brought by prosecution. Subsequent concluding observations in this regard shall be given after giving opinion on the remaining points of determination.
THIRD POINT OF DETERMINATION Whether A-1 who was assigned duty to give CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 79 of 102 report regarding status of certain flats situated at Jahangirpuri including Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri which were earmarked to be allotted for victims of 1984 Sikh riots, but did not perform his duties diligently and being in active connivance with other accused persons, more particularly A-2 furnished false and incorrect report regarding actual status of possession of flat in question by giving false report in favour of A-2, thereby resulting in unlawful gain to A-2 as the flat in question was allotted to him, on the basis of report given by him.
149. As per the story of prosecution, Ramesh Kumar (A-1) being a government official working as Sub-Inspector Delhi Police, PS - Jahangirpuri was having criminal conspiracy with A-2 and other accused persons and in furtherance of that conspiracy he submitted false report favouring A-2 which resulted into allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2), who later on converted it into valuable currency i.e. selling it to son of A-4 who sold the property again to Smt. Champa (PW-
45).
150. In this regard, the defence taken by A-1 is he was not aware about any mis-representation or impersonation, if any done by Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) or his connivance with other accused persons nor he was acquainted with A-2. Whatever report was furnished by him, it was on the basis of inquiry conducted by him on the spot by collecting information available at the spot and whatever has been done by him, has been done in discharge of his official duties.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 80 of 102
151. Coming to the case in hand and the material available along with the charge-sheet supported with testimonies of prosecution witnesses, there are certain facts which are not disputed during trial. There was widespread trespass in the DDA Flats at Jahangirpuri after 1984 Sikh riots which were stated to be occupied by Sikh migrants, victims of riots. It is also not disputed that though the occupation of flats at Jahangirpuri were mostly done by genuine aggrieved persons however, discrepancies and irregularities were pointed out by the government authorities. In this regard, PW-21 Ram Phal Singh, Naib Tehsildar, SDM Office, PW-26 Shri Kishan Paul, Head Clerk from SDM Office, PW-27 Ramesh Chandra Balyan, Head Clerk Deputy Commissioner, North West. Ranjeet Singh, SDM have been examined by the prosecution to prove the procedure adopted in this regard.
152. PW-12 Dilip Kumar Saxena is an important witness examined in this regard who conducted joint inspection at Jahangirpuri regarding flats and filed his survey report. He prepared separate list of unallotted flats of block 'A', 'B' and 'C', Jahangirpuri occupied by unauthorised self proclaimed 1984 riot victims. This fact is mentioned in his report dated 19.12.2000, in its para 3 (i). PW-12 has further observed that some Punjab migrants had occupied some unallotted flats of 'D' and 'E' block, Jahangirpuri as well. PW-12 further collected information of unallotted flats which were occupied by self proclaimed riot victims.
153. In this regard, information was collected from the occupants of CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 81 of 102 503 unallotted flats of Jahangirpuri. It is further stated by PW-12 that a lot of variation was found in the documents collected for which certain categories of occupants were prepared. Door to door survey was conducted. As per list '1-A to 1-D', occupants were found to be genuine. Occupants mentioned in list '2-A' were holding police reports obtained in recent past but not in related period and occupants mentioned in list '2-B' were having police reports appeared to be tampered. There was also a list 3 of occupants, who were not holding any documents relating to 1984 riots. List 4 and 5 of Block 'D and 'E' was related to Punjab Migrants.
154. This witness was asked specific question in respect of allotment of DDA Flat to Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh for which PW-12 stated that survey was conducted and report was made in his own handwriting that Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri was in the name of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and PW-12 had collected photocopy of police report and copy of Singh relief camp in respect of Manjeet Singh Talwar, S/o Sohan Singh, R/o 213, Krishna Park, Delhi. PW-12 has stated that the performa was signed by Manjeet Singh in his presence.
155. It has reflected from the testimonies of PW-12 as well as from record that there was a typographical error in the list mentioned at Sr. No. 48 where address of flat is mentioned as Flat No. C9-Y in list 2-A and at Sr. No. 49 in the name of Smt. Kiran Bala. It is stated by PW-12 that this could be a typographical error and instead of C9-Y it should be C9-Z. This fact has also not been disputed by CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 82 of 102 any of the accused persons that mentioning of C9-Y at Sr. No. 48 in list 2-A is a mere typographical error. The prosecution story upto the stage, has not been disputed by any of the accused persons that certain list pertaining to occupants of flat were prepared and door to door survey was conducted.
156. It has been further alleged in the charge-sheet that certain discrepancies were found in some of the flats and its allotment as well as occupants thereof for which PW-28 is the concerned SDM. This person has dealt with file relating to allotment of flat to riot victim Manjeet Singh. It was opined that police verification is required to ascertain the facts pertaining to occupant and allotment of the flat. PW-27 Ramesh Chand Baliyan is the concerned Head Clerk who was also working with PW-28 Ranjeet Singh concerned SDM at that time. PW-27 is stated to have looking after the cases relating to allotment of flats to riot victim in the year 2008.
157. A committee is stated to have been appointed who submitted its report and categorised victims/claimants into three categories. Claimant of 'Category-I' were having all the papers and they were given allotment letters by SDM. Claimant of 'Category-II' were not having not proper documents and letters were written to SHO, PS Jahangirpuri for verification of their documents. Claimant of 'Category-III' were outrightly rejected. All such documents which have been considered for such inspection are forming part of file D-
18. As per note dated 01.07.2008 exhibited as Ex.PW27/A which was approved by PW-28, letter was written to SHO, PS Jahangirpuri and SHO, PS-Jahangirpuri is stated to have forwarded CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 83 of 102 the report to SI Ramesh Kumar, PS-Jahangirpuri. Along with the report, statement of Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh, statement of Smt. Manjeet Kaur, W/o Gurvinder Singh, statement of Kanwar Pal S/o Ram Gopal etc. attested by MLA Mangat Ram and other documents were received.
158. PW-16 Sundar Dev is the concerned SHO, PS-Jahangirpuri who received the letter exhibited as Ex.PW27/A. He is stated to have assigned the task of verification to A-1 SI Ramesh Kumar, who filed his verification report before him and which was forwarded to DC/North West by him. This report is stated to have been signed by A-1 Ramesh Kumar which is exhibited as Ex.PW16/A. It is needless to say again that facts upto this stage as mentioned in above stated three paras are not disputed by any of the accused persons.
159. Thus, vide this report Ex.PW16/A, the role of Ramesh Kumar (A-1) comes into picture. In this regard, there is report of list of flats and occupants dated 19.12.2000 and there is a note dated 05.05.2007 vide which a letter was sent to the occupants to submit their respective documents in respect of their claims. The findings pertaining to points of determination Nos. 1 and 2 are that A-2, A-3 and A-4 were having prior meeting of mind and were facilitating each other and interested in allottment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of A-2 which was allotted in favour of A-2 as well subsequent to filing of report by A-1. In other words, once certain discrepancies were pointed out and as stated by PW-27 and PW-28 that three categories of flats/occupants/family were CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 84 of 102 prepared and category no. II being required to be verified was containing the flat in question i.e. Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri. Thus, one of the most essential factor in which A-1 has contributed, in my considered opinion, is the report submitted by him. It is the story of prosecution, as stated in the charge-sheet as well as stated during arguments that the allotment of flat could not have been possible without confirming report of A-1 if A-1 would have conducted genuine inspection and verification and would have verified the facts correctly pertaining to correct identity of the occupant, in a right manner. This is first allegation made by prosecution qua A-1 for which the only reply furnished on his behalf is that whatever he observed on the spot, had mentioned in his report.
160. PW-16 Sunder Dev has categorically stated that as per requirement of concerned SDM, an inquiry was to be conducted to ascertain the factum of occupation and alleged claim of the persons stated to be residing or claiming their right in their respective flats at Jahangirpuri. A-1 is stated to have collected certain documents during his inspection conducted at the spot which are found not to be free from doubts. It was the duty of Ramesh Kumar (A-1) that he has to conduct a detailed inquiry to ascertain the status of occupants including claim qua Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri.
161. Before proceeding further it is important to throw some light upon the charges so framed against A-1. The relevant section under which the charge has been framed against A-1 is 218 IPC and Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (1) (d) PC Act and 120-B IPC CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 85 of 102 along with all the accused persons. Section 13 (2) (prior to amendment July, 2014) is the enabling provision of providing substantive imprisonment which is minimum for a period of 1 years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
162. Section 13 (1) (d) PC Act, The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is relevant to mention here which reads as under:
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct-
(d) if he,
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
163. Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (iii) PC Act, 1988 are not relevant here qua A-1 as there are no allegation against him that he obtained any unlawful or undue advantage or benefit nor there is any evidence to that extent available on record. Thus, Section 13 (1) (d)
(ii) PC Act, 1988 is attracted here against Ramesh Kumar (A-1). The essential ingredients of Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) PC Act, 1988 are: -
i. A public servant.
ii. Abuse of his position as public servant. iii. Obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 86 of 102
164. Ramesh Kumar (A-1) is a public servant working as a Sub Inspector at the relevant time is not disputed and it is matter of record. His report has resulted into allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) has also been shown by the prosecution by placing on record documentary evidence. It is the second essential requirement as mentioned above i.e. 'Abuse of his position as public servant' which is to be seen from the record whether prosecution has been able to establish this fact and has been able to shift the onus upon A-1 and thus, been able to discharge the burden of proving this fact upon them.
165. Ramesh Kumar (A-1) is stated to have submitted his verification report who is stated to have sent the report vide letter dated 01.07.2008 to Sh. Ranjeet Singh, SDM. Accused Ramesh Kumar is stated to have recorded the statement of Smt. Champa, who has been examined as PW-7. It is alleged by Ramesh Kumar (A-1) that she had given her ID exhibited as Ex.PW7/A to him. However, PW-7 in her examination-in-chief has stated that she had not given copy of her voter card to any person. However, she has been declared hostile by the prosecution and during her cross examination she has stated that she had given her ID proof to Ramesh Kumar (A-1).
166. Another person examined by Ramesh Kumar (A-1) during his inspection at the spot at relevant time is Kanwar Pal, who has been examined as PW-14. This witness again has turned hostile and has CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 87 of 102 not supported this theory of prosecution. There is another lady Manjeet Kaur, who is stated to have been examined by accused Ramesh Kumar (A-1) during his verification on this point, however, she has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, there are two independent witnesses examined by the prosecution namely PW-7, Smt. Champa and PW-14 Kanwar Pal who have stated that Ramesh Kumar (A-1) met them and they have told him that Manjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh was residing at flat C-9Z, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
167. Thus, most important aspect claimed by story of prosecution that accused Ramesh Kumar had manipulated the report by fabricating facts gathered from the spot and mentioning that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) was residing or having occupation of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri by the name Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. One of the allegation as per story of prosecution against Ramesh Kumar (A-1) is that he had connived and conspired with other accused persons and in furtherance thereof had submitted false report. All this facts, indicates two things:-
i. Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh along with other accused persons had conspired with each other and A-2 misrepresented/impersonated himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh.
ii. Ramesh Kumar (A-1) was aware of this fact and had also conspired with A-2 and other accused persons and in furtherance thereof, he submitted false report which resulted into allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of A-2.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 88 of 102
168. So far as the first aspect is concerned the prosecution has examined a number of witness indicating the role of A-2, A-3 and A-4, which is supported with report of handwriting expert from CFSL. With regard to second aspect the prosecution has to establish from the record that there was deliberate action on the part of Ramesh Kumar and he not only did not perform his duty diligently but deliberately gave false report favouring A-2 which resulted into undue advantage of valuable security to A-2. The entire evidence led by prosecution in this regard qua A-2, establishing his conduct and mens rea as well as knowledge, in my considered opinion do not inspire the confidence of any of the prosecution witness. The evidence in this regard against Ramesh Kumar (A-1) is therefore, not sufficient in my considered opinion to prove his guilt.
FOURTH AND FIFTH POINTS OF DETERMINATION Whether A-2 after allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri sold it to Luv Kumar Manchanda (son of A-4), who further sold it to PW-45 Hansa Devi.
Whether A-3 also misrepresented himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and infurtherance thereof, in active connivance with other accused persons also put his signature as Manjeet Singh being conscious of the fact that he was not known as Manjeet Singh at all.
169. The charge against Sh.Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 89 of 102 is under 419/420/468/471 IPC. In my considered opinion, though A-3 had also signed and represented himself at one place as per story of prosecution, as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh however, it is the allegation of impersonation of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) which is relevant here. Therefore, the act committed by A-3 falls purely under Section 420 IPC.
Section 420 IPC reads as under:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
170. At the outset, it is mentioned that it is a matter of record that after the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of A-2, he has sold the said property to Luv Kumar Manchanda S/o A-4, who has further sold the flat in question to PW 45 Hansa Devi . PW45 Hansa Devi has categorically stated that she had purchased the property from Luv Kumar Manchanda. Documents in favour of Smt. Hansa Devi also indicate and corroborate this fact. The date of sale of the properties, firstly, by A-2 Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh to Luv Kumar Manchanda S/o A-4 is dated 26.08.2009, exhibited as Ex.PW2/G and selling it further by Luv Kumar Manchanda S/o A-4 to Hansa Devi is 08.02.2010 exhibited as Ex.PW38/A-1, is a matter of record. The time gap in between all these transactions is an important factor to be noted down. Selling of the property by A-2 just after some time, after its allotement further corroborate that he was not at all interested in CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 90 of 102 keeping the property with him. If he really was a 1984 riot victim and was in need of the flat in question as he claimed to be homeless during 1984 Sikh Riots then in normal circumstances like other occupants he was supposed to keep the said flat with him at least for a sufficient number of period which has not been done by him. In my considered opinion element of greed in him seems to be more than need.
171. Thus, the conduct of A-2, by selling the flat to S/o A-4 further corroborate this fact that they were having hands in glove and had conspired with each other vide which A-2 misrepresented and impersonated himself as Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. Their main object, as per the story of prosecution, which stands corroborated from the testimonies of witnesses as mentioned above was to seek allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh, A-2.
172. There are number of evidences in the form of handwriting of A-2 and A-4 at more than one place and occasion which is supported with the report handwriting expert PW-22 corroborates this fact that A-2 and A-4 had played active role in getting the allotment favour of A-2 and their subsequent conduct further reflects the role of A-2 and A-4 that A-2 sold the property just after some time to son of A-4 Luv Kumar Manchanda who further sold it to Hansa Devi, PW-45. Thus, in the light of above discussion, in my considered opinion prosecution has been able to bring on record sufficient evidence to show the conduct of A-2 and A-4 that they have connived with each other and entered into a conspiracy vide CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 91 of 102 which Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) had misrepresented and impersonated as Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. A-3 also is stated to have played some role in the conspiracy and overt act done by A-2 and A-4 as his writing is also available on record vide which he had signed as Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh which is established by handwriting expert, PW-22. Therefore, in my considered opinion the prosecution has been able to discharge the burden of proving the fact that Sh.Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) had also manipulated facts and furnished false information before concerned SDM by which the Government Department was mislead and therefore formed an opinion in favour of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) in grant of allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour. Thus, the fourth point of determination, in my considered opinion. stands established by the prosecution against A-2, A-3 and A-4.
LIABILITY OF ISH KUMAR MANCHANDA (A-4)
173. The charge so framed against A-4 is for the offence punishable under Section 467/468/471 IPC. He, as per story of prosecution, is stated to have misrepresented facts and mislead the government authorities and office of concerned SDM, as already stated above. His mis-representation and misleading has resulted into allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of A-2. Evidence available against A-4 as per record, as already discussed above is that he under his writing/signature furnished false information with the Government Department being conscious of the fact that the CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 92 of 102 information so furnished was not true. None of the accused persons including A-4, in my considered opinion have been able to establish their defence in this regard. Role of A-2 supported with material available on record and evidence on that has resulted into discharge of burden of proving the fact against A-2 as already mentioned above. It is also reflected that from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, discussed above that A-4 has actively facilitated A-2 and A-3 in furtherance of their ulterior motive. There is no material available on record brought by A-4 by which onus can be said to be shifted again upon prosecution. Testimony of handwriting expert PW-22 and PW-24 establishes this fact.
ROLE OF LAKHWINDER SINGH (A-5)
174. From the the entire story of prosecution with regard to A-5 it is reflected that the allegation against him is that he stood as witness to the sale of property in favour of Hansa Devi by Luv Kumar Manchanda. His handwriting, however, has not been proved as per record which is reflected from the report of PW -22. Thus beside these facts available on record brought by prosecution qua A-5 that he was actively involved in these manipulations done by accused persons, are not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of any evidence in support thereof brought by prosecution. In these circumstances, therefore mere the allegation against A-5 which is not supported with any evidence is not sufficient to prove his guilt. Thus, so far as role of A-5 is concerned, in my considered opinion, prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden of proving his guilt beyond CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 93 of 102 reasonable doubt.
175. From the above discussion during points of determination and keeping in mind the material placed on record along with the charge-sheet as well as defence taken by the accused persons. It is reflected that prosecution has been able to shift the onus of proving the guilt upon A-2, A-3 and A-4. A-2, A-3 and A-4 have not been able to shift the onus again upon the prosecution nor they have been able to establish their plausible defence. A-2 has stated that he had not done any mis-representation or impersonation. Some of the witnesses have stated that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) was also known as Manjeet Singh, however, the name used by A-2 as per record is Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. This fact that name of father of A-2 is also known as Sohan Singh besides Inder Singh is not supported with any evidence from the side of accused persons. On the contrary, in my considered opinion the prosecution has been able to point out various discrepancies in the claim and defence taken by A-2. With regard to A-1, the testimonies of material witnesses namely PW-14 Kanwar Pal and PW-7 Champa have not supported the story of prosecution. Therefore, in my considered opinion, most essential ingredient to prove the liability of A-1 i.e. mens rea and a specific knowledge to facilitate other accused persons, is lacking here. Further, with regard to A-5 none of the witnesses examined by prosecution to establish the guilt of Lakhwinder Singh (A-5) seems to inspire their confidence. In terms of these observations, all the points of determination are decided accordingly and in the following paras, the final conclusion CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 94 of 102 is enshrined.
FINAL OBSERVATION
176. In the light of above discussion, the material brought on record by the prosecution against all the accused persons to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, arguments advanced by the parties and keeping in mind the various land mark authorities of higher courts following are the reasons on the basis of which prosecution have said to discharge the burden of proving the guilt upon the accused persons:-
i. With regard to allegation of conspiracy, it is reflected that prosecution has been able to establish from the testimonies of number of witnesses and material in support thereof, that Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2), Sh.Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) and Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4) had conspired with each other with a criminal intent to get the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2). The evidence available on record in this regard is the overt act committed by A-2, A-3 and A-4 that they had written letters to concerned authority under their signature/handwriting and in furtherance thereof Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) represented himself as Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh by taking the benefit of the name of the proposed allottee qua Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri being Manjeet Singh. A-2 has furnished a number of arguments representing himself and making believe the authority that he was Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. Ish Kumar Manchanda CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 95 of 102 (A-4) has also facilitated A-2 and his signature/handwriting are also available on record on a number of documents, on the basis of which the flat in question was allotted to A-2, under the name Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. The evidence against A-3 in this regard is also available as he has also put his signature at one point as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. Actions of A-2, A-3 and A-4 reflects that they were working for same cause. They are also stated to be residing in same locality and are known to each other. A-4 is a local property dealer. There is another evidence available on record that after the allotment of flat in favour of A-2, it was sold to son of A-4 who further sold it to PW-45 Hansa. The evidence available against A-1 and A-5 however, is not sufficient to establish on the record that they were having prior meeting of mind and had conspired with each other. A-1 is stated to be a sub inspector in Delhi police. As per charge sheet his role comes into picture after A-2 along with A- 3 and A-4 has submitted their documents with government authority and a doubt was created in the mind of concerned authorities for which an inquiry was directed to be initiated by concerned SDM. Similarly, with regard to A-5 the only evidence with regard to 'overt act', is that he stood witness to the sale deed of the Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of Hansa. Report of handwriting expert with regard to A-5 is not in favour of prosecution. Therefore, in my considered opinion all the ingredients of section 120 B IPC that A-2, A-3 and A-5, hatched a criminal conspiracy with an intent to manipulated documents, furnishing them to government authority and getting CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 96 of 102 the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh under the name Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh which was not possible without impersonation done by A-2.
ii. A-2 is Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh who is stated to have mis-represented himself and impersonated himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh and the purpose of such impersonation is to get the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour for which he was not entitled, if he was not able to represent himself as Manjeet Singh, S/o Sohan Singh. In this regard, he has communicated with the concerned SDM through various letters under his signature and writing which have been proved on record by prosecution through handwriting expert PW-22 Anil Sharma. The relevant documents in this regard are Ex.PW22/A to Ex.PW22/D (D-18).
iii. A-2 in furtherance of his ulterior motive has furnished a number of documents i.e. duly sworn affidavit attested by Notary Public. The Notary Public PW-10 Azad Kumar, however, has denied the execution of such affidavits. These documents are exhibited as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW10/DX-3 (being part of file D-3).
iv. As per story of prosecution, Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh had visited concerned government authority i.e. Office of concerned SDM and DUSIB. A number of prosecution witnesses have acknowledged this fact and identified A-2 stating that it was A-2, who had approached them at relevant point of time.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 97 of 102 v. There are number of official witnesses like PW-5, PW-8, PW-21, PW-30, who have corroborated this fact that accused Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh has misrepresented himself before government authorities and by his impersonation he was successful in getting the Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri alloted in his favour.
vi. The evidence pertaining to impersonation done by Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh that he not only represented himself as Manjeet Singh alleging that he was also known that Manjeet Singh besides Rajinder Singh, but he also changed the name of his father from Inder Singh to Sohan Singh, the evidence brought by prosecution in this regard is the manipulations being reflected in the ration card submitted by Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh A-2, in the photocopy ration card placed by A-2 it is reflected that his wife is shown as daughter and daughter is shown as wife, age of daughter is also not shown as correct. The wife of PW 19 Jasbir Kaur, wife of A-2 has corroborated the fact alleged by prosecution that the father of Accused Rajender Singh is Inder Singh and not Sohan Singh.
vii. There is another material piece of evidence brought by prosecution on record that the intention of A-2, having connived with A-2 and A-4 not only to get the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour but to sell it and converting the proeprty into valuable consideration. The purchaser of the flat is Luv Kumar Manchanda, son of A-4 who has sold the flat further to PW-45 Hansa Devi. The facts pertaining to sale of flat by A-2, to Luv Kumar Manchanda and sale by Luv Kumar CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 98 of 102 Manchanda to PW 45 Hansa is not disputed all these facts reflects and corroborate the criminal conspiracy in between the accused persons.
viii. The evidence qua A-3 brought on record by prosecution is that he also had put his signature /handwriting in one of the document which has been established by PW-22 the handwriting expert. Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) has not been able to bring any thing to the contrary. Thus, the burden of proving this fact upon prosecution qua A-3, in my considered opinion stands discharged.
ix. With regard to A-4 just like A-2 there are ample evidence against A-4 that he was instrumental in getting the allotment of flat firstly in favour of A-2, then converting it, by selling the same to his son Luv Kumar Manchanda. In this regard the questioned handwriting/signature/thumb impression of A-4 are Q-20 to Q-22, Q-27, Q-28, Q-30, Q-31, Q-66, Q-189 and Q-190 which are Ex.PW24/D. PW-22 has corroborated this fact that the handwriting of A-4 at above mentioned places matches with his specimen handwriting/signature. A-4 has not been able to prove to the contrary or not able to bring on record anything contrary to this fact that if he was not having any prior meeting of mind or connivance with A-2 and A-3 then how he had facilitated A-2 in getting the allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in his favour. Thus, with regard to A-4 the prosecution has been able to prove his liability beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proving the fact as as mentioned in the charge against A-4 stands discharged. It is CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 99 of 102 needless to say further that besides conduct of A-4 as mentioned above, his further actions that he was working as property dealer in the same area, and got transfer of Flat No. C- 9Z, Jahangirpuri by way of sale in favour of his son Luv Kumar Manchanda and further sold the property through his son to PW- 45 Hansa, further corroborate the story of prosecution against him.
x. With regard to A-5 however, it is reflected that with the reasons mentioned above there is no sufficient evidence available against him and the only material piece of evidence brought by prosecution against A-5 is that he stood as witness to the sale deed in favour of PW-45 has not been established, thus there is ntohing material piece of evidence available on record against A-5 vide which he could be said to be connected to be the part of criminal conspiracy with all the other accused persons. Hence, the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of A-5 beyond reasonable doubt.
xi. A-1 is stated to be a public servant. The allegation against him as per the FIR and charge-sheet are that he with an ulterior motive connived with A-2 and other accused persons and furnished false report in favour of A-2. There are two witnesses examined by the prosecution in this regard. These two witnesses namely PW-6 Chander Prakash Gaba and PW-7 Champa have turned hostile. There is no other evidence brought by prosecution on record against A-1 besides this vide which his intention that he was a part of conspiracy that he had facilitated the conversion of valuable security i.e. flat in question in favour CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 100 of 102 of A-2. Therefore, in my considered opinion the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of Ramesh Kumar (A-1) beyond reasonable doubt. The conduct of Ramesh Kumar (A-1) however, reflects that his report, which was not correct as per the record, which has resulted in allotment of Flat No. C-9Z, Jahangirpuri in favour of A-2. There appears to be some element of neglect of official duty on the part of A-1, however, the evidence available on record brought by the prosecution filed along with the charge-sheet is not sufficient to prove his guilt qua offence. Therefore, benefit of doubt is given to Ramesh Kumar (A-1).
FINAL CONCLUSION
177. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused namely, Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2), Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) and Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4) beyond reasonable doubt therefore, they are convicted accordingly.
178. Therefore, Rajender Singh, S/o Inder Singh (A-2) is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and Sections 419/467/468/471 IPC. Accused Rajender Singh, S/o Uttam Singh (A-3) is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and 420/467/468/471 IPC and lastly, Ish Kumar Manchanda (A-4) is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and 467/468/471 IPC.
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 101 of 102
179. Lakhwinder Singh (A-5) is however, acquitted of the charges under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and Ramesh Kumar (A-1) is also acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC as well as for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act and Section 218 IPC as benefit of doubt is given to him.
Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT KUMAR
Pronounced in the open court KUMAR Date: 2023.05.12
on 09th May, 2023 14:36:52 +0530
(PRASHANT KUMAR)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-07
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CC No. 383/2019 CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors. page 102 of 102