Delhi District Court
Digitally vs . Sh. Prem Singh & Ors." Containing The ... on 12 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH)
SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
Digitally
signed by
State POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2018.12.13
Vs.
16:14:17
+0530
Kamlesh Sharma & Ors.
FIR No. 785/1997
P.S R.K. Puram (EOW)
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case 2032915/2016
2. Date of institution 08.08.2000
3. Name of the complainant Sh. R.K. Sethi
S/o Late Jagan Nath Sethi
FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 1 of 69
R/o B-2, Pusa Road, New Delhi.
4. Date of commission of offence Between or on or about 1992 to 1997 5. Name of accused 1. Kamlesh Sharma W/o Sh. Rishi Kumar Sharma R/o C-265, Majlis Park, Delhi. 2. Yotsana Atri W/o Sh. Rajiv Atri R/o M-83, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. 3. Rajiv Atri S/o Sh. Kishan Sahai Atri R/o M-83, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. 4. Manish Sharma S/o Sh. Rishi Kumar Sharma R/o House No. C-265, Street No. 8, Majlis Park, Delhi. 5. Rajiv Sharma @ Rajiv Lochan Sharma S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma R/o House No. C-265, Street No. 8, Majlis Park, Delhi. 7. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Dhani Ram @ Singh R/o House No. 565, Sector-VII, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. And also E-12/3C, Jahapannah Colony, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (PO vide FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 2 of 69 order dated 19.08.2000). 8. Om Prakash S/o Daulat Ram R/o D-22, Gupta Colony, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. (PO vide order dated 21.09.2004). 6. Offence complained of U/s 420/467/468/471/201/120B IPC 7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the judgment 07.12.2018
9. Final order Acquitted
10 Date of such judgment 12.12.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The story of the prosecution is that a complaint dated 02.04.1997 was received from one Sh. R.K. Sethi alleging that an organized gang of persons have tried to grab the property of his sister Ms. Rachna Sethi and have also attempted to illegally trespass into the property. The gang includes one Prem Singh, Kamlesh Sharma, Yotsana Atri and other accomplices. The FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 3 of 69 gang has not only attempted illegal trespass but also extended threats. They have been repeatedly visiting the property and making false claims of ownership by fabrication of documents. Kamlesh Sharma impersonated herself as Rachna Sethi at Anand Niketan Society office to fraudulently obtained society record file and documents pertaining to the property of his sister but she was caught by the staff members of the society. They also attempted to get the mutation of property done in the name of Yotsana Atri of the property belonging to his sister on the basis of forged documents. Ms. Rachna Sethi is the lawful owner of the property since the registration of same in her name by the DDA. The physical possession of the same has always been with her. She had also carried out construction after obtaining approval from MCD and a completion certificate was issued in 1977. Ms. Rachna Sethi never sold the property to anyone. On the complaint, FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation, it was revealed that initially the property was allotted to Sh. R.K. Sethi. Subsequently the same was transferred by Sh. R.K. Sethi in the name of his sister Ms. Rachna Sethi. Ms. Rachna Sethi constructed habitable dwelling after obtaining requisite FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 4 of 69 sanction. It was further revealed that Kamlesh Sharma had fraudulently applied with DDA for conversion of the said plot from lease hold to free hold in favour of her daughter Yotsana Atri on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. During investigation, the GPA dated 05.03.1974 was found which was executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of Prem Singh. The same was verified and was found to be fake. During further investigation, it was revealed that the age of Prem Singh at the time of execution of alleged GPA was 12 to 14 years. He could not have executed the alleged GPA. The witnesses on the said GPA were also found to be fictitious. The perpetual lease documents submitted by the Kamlesh Sharma with the DDA were forged and the original lease deed was in possession of Ms. Rachna Sethi. Investigation was concluded and the chargesheet was filed against six accused persons namely Kamlesh Sharma, Yotsana Atri, Rajiv Atri, Manish Sharma, Rajiv Lochan Sharma, Mahabir Prasad Sharma. Accused Prem Singh and Om Prakash were declared absconders.
2. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. On appearance of accused persons before Court and prima facie case having been made out, charge for the offence of under FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 5 of 69 section 467/468/471/420/511 IPC read with section 120B IPC.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 35 witnesses in all.
4. Complainant Sh. Raj Kumar Sethi was examined as PW1.
He deposed on same lines as stated in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that the said property belonged absolutely and solely to his younger sister Ms. Rachna Sethi and she had never sold or signed or transferred the said property to anyone. He produced copies of complaint addressed to police authorities at R.K. Puram which are marked as Mark A to C and also handed over the copies of applications addressed in the name of DDA to police which are marked as Mark D and E. He also handed over the certified copies of Sub Lease Deed earlier addressed in the name of Raj Kumar Sethi and subsequently issued in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi. The original perpetual lease deed in the name of Sh. Raj Kumar Sethi is Ex.PW1/B. He produced the original lease deed in the favour of Ms. Rachna Sethi. Photocopy of the same is Ex.PW1/C. The photocopy of Completion certificate was also handed over to police and photocopy of same is marked as Mark F. He also handed over the photocopies of certificates dated 09.10.1996 FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 6 of 69 and 22.10.1996 which are marked as Mark G and H and three photocopies of the property tax receipts for the period of 1998- 1999 and the two tax bills of MCD dated 28.07.1998 and a receipt issued by the MCD. The two original receipts of MCD bearing No. 925088 and 413030 and the third receipt bearing No. 776078, the original bill bearing No. 169684 and photocopies of same are Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/G. The two property tax bills of MCD and photocopies of the same are Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/I. The photocopy dated 05.10.1981 issued by the MCD was also handed over to police which is Ex.PW/J alongwith assessment letter of MCD which is Ex.PW1/K. The photocopies of the certificates dated 09.01.1997 and assessment and collection allotment letter dated 08.01.1997 are marked as Mark I and J. He also produced undertaking and SPA given by his sister Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of their father Sh. J.N. Sethi to police which are Ex.PW1/L and Ex.PW1/M. When her sister came to know from the DDA that a GPA bearing SR II Registration No. 1449 dated 05.03.1974 had been received by them from accused Kamlesh Sharma, they examined the documents Thereafter, accused Kamlesh Sharma filed copy of alleged fake GPA 1449 dated FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 7 of 69 05.03.1974 and other fake documents in the SDMs Court. He further deposed that he handed over the documents which were filed before the Delhi High Court and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/N. The certified copies of documents mentioned in seizure memo dated 13.02.2000 Ex.PW1/N, memo of parties Ex.PW1/N1 and list of documents filed on behalf of accused Yotsana Atri is Ex.PW1/N2 and order of Delhi High Court dated 02.09.1998 is Ex.PW1/N3. Copy of application under section 151 CPC dated 06.10.1998 is Ex.PW1/N4 and affidavit dated 06.10.1998 is Ex.PW1/N5 of accused Yotsana Atri. Affidavit of accused Prem Singh dated 08.10.1998 is Ex.PW1/N6 and complaint lodged by accused Kamlesh Sharma dated 17.09.1997 is Ex.PW1/N7. Certified copy of GPA is Ex.PW1/N8, certified copy of police report is Ex.PW1/N-9. He also handed over the documents mentioned in seizure memo dated 04.07.2000 which is Ex.PW1/O, original stamp paper dated 11.02.1997 is Ex.PW1/O1 alongwith photocopy of GPA dated 07.10.1996 executed by accused Prem Singh is marked as Mark A. Photocopy of SPA executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma is marked as Mark A1 and photocopy of Will is marked as Mark FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 8 of 69 A2 and photocopy of certified copy of order of Ld. SDM, Kapeshera dated 29.05.2000 is Ex.PW1/O2.
5. Sh. Narayan Dass, UDC, PAO IV, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was examined as PW2. He produced Volume No. 285 Additional Book No.4 regarding receipt bearing Registration No. 1448 which is Ex.PW2/A and Registration No. 1449 is Ex.PW2/A-1 from page No.9 to 10 dated 05.03.1974 from the Office of Sub Registrar II Kashmere Gate, Delhi regarding the registration of GPA executed by Sh. Hukam Chand Baweja in favour of Sh. Jugal Dass S/o Sh. Dolulat Ram. As per record, the documents bearing Registration No.1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454 and 1455 were registered with their office of Sub Registrar II Kashmere Gate. Photocopies of the same are Ex.PW2/B1 to Ex.PW2/B5 and copy of registration No. 1455 alongwith its receipt is Ex.PW2/B-6. The receipts bearing registration No. 1456 to 1460 were also registered with their Office in Volume No. 285 Book No.4 which are Ex.PW2/B7 to Ex.PW2/B11.
6. Ms. Rachna Sethi was examined as PW3. She corroborated the testimony of his brother PW1 and deposed on same lines. During investigation, police obtained her specimen writings and FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 9 of 69 signatures on three papers which are Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A3. Power Of Attorney is marked as Mark C1, Inemnity Bond as Mark C2, Agreement to Sell as Mark C3 and Will as Mark C4. The undertaking dated 22.09.1976 is Ex.PW3/B, the Special Power of Attorney dated 01.12.76 is Ex.PW3/C.
7. Sh. Vishwanath Nag was examined as PW4. He produced the membership Register of the Society. Plot No. D-125, Anand Niketan, New Delhi was allotted to Sh. Raj Kumar Sethi and an entry in Membership Register was made to this effect at Serial No. 434 and thereafter, the said plot was transferred in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi and entry to this effect was also made in the Membership Register vide entry No. 703. The copy of relevant entries is Ex.PW4/A.
8. Sh. Moti Lal, Peon, Co-operative Society, DDA, INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi was examined as PW5. He produced file bearing No. F-14 (D-125) 78/AN/CS/DDA pertaining to property plot No. D-125, Anand Niketan, New Delhi.
9. Sh. Ram Singar, Assistant, DDA, Cooperative Society Cell, C-Block, 2nd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi was FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 10 of 69 examined as PW5. He deposed that as per the record, the first allottee from the DDA of the property i.e. Plot No. D-125, Anand Niketan, New Delhi was Sh. Raj Kumar Sethi. Later on the perpetual sub lease in the name of Sh. Raj Kumar Sethi was cancelled. Thereafter, the perpetual sub lease executed by DDA on 03.04.1971 in favour of Ms. Rachna Sethi was registered on 24.09.1971. As per the record, an application No. 3600613 dated 11.12.1996 was moved by accused Kamlesh Sharma for getting the above mentioned property converted from lease hold to free hold. She annexed GPA executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi dated 05.03.1974 in favour of accused Prem Singh, Agreement to Sell dated 29.06.1996 between accused Prem Singh and Yotsana Atri and other documents. He further deposed that as per the record, on 05.03.1999, Ms. Rachna Sethi applied for conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold. One more application was also moved by Sh. Harish Bhardwaj for conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold.
10. Sh. Madan Kumar Thakur, Branch Manager, SBI, Majlis Park, Delhi was examined as PW6. He produced the original documents of account of accused Kamlesh Sharma. However, the above said records were not traceable in their department FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 11 of 69 despite their best efforts. As per the available bank record, one banker cheque No. 753108 dated 29.06.1996 of Rs. 2 lacs in favour of accused Prem Singh was debited from this account. The certificate issued with regard to the above said banker cheque is Ex.PW6/A.
11. Sh. Gurdip Singh was examined as PW7. He deposed that in the present case, he signed on the papers of sub lease with regard to the property No. D-125, Anand Niketan in the office of Sub-Registrar at Asaf Ali Road on behalf of Ms. Rachna Sethi, who at that time was in Calcutta as she was unwell. She had sent SPA for the above said purpose to him. He signed form-A of DDA which is Ex.PW7/A and possession slip as Ex.PW7/B. During the course of investigation, he was called by police officials at PS Hauz Khas and obtained his specimen signatures for comparison with the relevant documents. His specimen signatures are Ex.PW7/C. The photocopy of documents which were taken into possession by police officers vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/D.
12. SI Ravinder Kumar was examined as PW8. He deposed that on 20.10.1999, he was posted at Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as Finger Print Expert. That day, he received FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 12 of 69 the documents i.e. GPA dated 07.10.1996, Special Power of Attorney, Will and Affidavit alongwith two photographs and negatives. He prepared the report which is Ex.PW8/A. The documents examined by him are marked as Mark PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/4.
13. Sh. Nitin Kumar, Junior Judicial Assistant, Original Branch, Delhi High Court was examined as PW9. He produced the original file of CS (OS) No. 2030/1997 titled as ". Yotsana Atri vs. Sh. Prem Singh & Ors." containing the original documents i.e. SPA dated 07.10.1996, Affidavit dated 07.10.1996, Original Receipt dated 20.07.1996, Agreement to Sell dated 29.06.1996, GPA dated 05.03.1974, Two acknowledgments No. 360613, Original cheque of Rs. 2.50 lacs, Receipt dated 11.12.1996, Receipt dated 29.10.1996, original registered perpetual sub- lease dated 03.04.1971. Photocopy of SPA dated 07.10.1996 is Ex.PW9/A, GPA dated 07.10.1996 is Ex.PW9/B, Receipt dated 11.12.1996 alongwith cheque of Rs.2.50 lacs are Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D, Perpetual sub-lease dated 03.04.1971 is already Ex.PW5/D2, Receipt dated 20.07.1996 is Ex.PW9/E and receipt dated 29.10.1996 is Ex.PW9/F.
14. Ms. Deepa Verma, Deputy Director, Forensics Science FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 13 of 69 Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi was examined as PW10. The documents of present case were received in the above said Laboratory from the office of Inspector, LBR Section, Crime Branch, Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi. The questioned documents and the standard documents were examined by her and details of which were mentioned in her report No.FSL99/D-1379 dated 27.09.2000. After examination, she furnished her report which is Ex.PW10/A.
15. Ct. Kuldeep Singh was examined as PW11. He deposed that on 02.03.1998, he joined the investigation with IO Inspector Ranvir Singh, who took the specimen signatures of accused persons namely Kamlesh Sharma, Yotsana Atri and Rajeev Atri. The same are Ex.PW11/A to Ex.PW11/I. Witness correctly identified the accused Kamlesh Sharma, Yotsana Atri and Rajeev Atri before the Court.
16. HC Man Singh was examined as PW12. He deposed that on 13.09.1997, he was posted at LBR Section, EOW as Constable. That day, IO Inspector Ranvir Singh handed over to him one rukka for registration of FIR. He took the rukka to PS R.K. Puram and got the FIR registered through Duty Officer. After registration of FIR, he came back to the office where he handed FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 14 of 69 over copy of FIR and rukka to IO. IO recorded his statement.
17. HC Sahab Singh was examined as PW13. He deposed that on 02.03.1998, he joined the investigation with IO Inspector Ranvir Singh, who took the specimen signatures of accused persons namely Kamlesh Sharma, Yotsana Atri and Rajeev Atri. On 09.06.1998, accused Manish Sharma was arrested by IO in his presence. IO prepared arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement. Thumb impression and specimen signatures of accused Manish Sharma were taken. Thumb impressions of accused Mahabir Prasad Sharma were also taken by IO. During the course of investigation, he went to INA, Vikas Sadan with IO where he seized the documents from the UDC namely Sh. Surender Kumar. Witness correctly identified accused Kamlesh Sharma, Yotsana Atri, Rajeev Atri, Manish Sharma and Mahabir Prasad Sharma before the Court.
18. Sh. S.P. Singh, Public Notary was examined as PW14. He deposed that the original documents i.e. the indemnity bond dated 11.12.1996, undertaking dated 11.12.1996, affidavit, indemnity bond dated 11.12.1996 executed by accused Yotsana Atri, specimen signatures and photograph of accused Yotsana Atri were notarized by him. The indemnity bond is Ex.PW14/A, FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 15 of 69 undertaking is Ex.PW14/B, affidavit is Ex.PW14/C, indemnity bond is Ex.PW14/D and specimen signatures and photograph of accused Yotsana Atri are Ex.PW14/E. The photocopy of document i.e. GPA, agreement to sell and purchase, GPA dated 07.10.1996 executed by accused Prem Singh, Agreement to sell dated 29.06.1996 which were shown to him and he stated that the same were notarized by him. Photocopy of GPA executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi is marked as Mark PW14/F, photocopy of Agreement to sell and purchase as Mark PW14/G, photocopy of GPA executed by accused Prem Singh as Mark PW14/H and photocopy of Agreement to Sell dated 29.06.1996 as Mark PW14/I.
19. Sh. Dhurender Singh Dalal, Advocate was examined as PW15. He deposed that his father Sh. Daljeet Singh was also an Advocate who was also appointed as Notary Public by Delhi Administration and was practicing as Notary Public. His father expired on 20.05.1993. He was shown few documents to identify the signatures of his father to which he denied the signatures of his father on documents.
20. Sh. M.K. Sharma, retired Deputy Director, DDA was examined as PW16. He deposed that in the year 2000, he was FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 16 of 69 posted as Assistant in DDA, Vikas Sadan. He saw the letter dated 09.03.2000 issued by Sh. Vinay Bhushan, Deputy Director, Co-operative Society to ACP, LBR, EOW, Crime Branch, C-22, Qutab Institutional Area vide which a notification No. J-2011/12/77-III dated 14.02.1992 regarding conversion of lease hold system to free hold in Delhi, issued by Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development. He deposed that the conversion policy was started after issuance of this notification i.e. 14.02.1992. Before this notification, there was no policy for conversion of lease hold to free hold in DDA.
21. Sh. Prem Chand Bhutani was examined as PW17. He deposed that he worked as Stamp Vendor from 1983 to 2007. He was shown one photocopy of stamp paper which is already Ex.PW1/N8 to which he told that this stamp paper neither bears his signatures and handwriting encircled portion at point A nor he had sold the same.
22. Sh. Rajbir Singh was examined as PW18. He deposed that he was working as Stamp Vendor from 1981 to 2011 and was allotted stamp vendor licence No.171, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He was shown document already Mark PW14/I to which he FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 17 of 69 correctly identified his signatures at point B and admitted that the stamp paper was sold by him.
23. Sh. Shivraj Singh, Steno Grade-II posted in GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi was examined as PW19. He deposed that on 27.10.1999, he was posted with the Director Professor and HOD, Department of Orthopedics, LNJP Hospital, Delhi Gate, New Delhi. He correctly identified signatures of Dr. B.K. Dhaon, Director Professor and HOD on document Ex.PW19/A at point A. He stated that he does not remember about the physically handicapped certificate issued by Dr. S.S. Yadav. He remained posted at LNJP Hospital from 1998 to 2000. He failed to identify signatures of Dr. S.S. Yadav and Dr. Sitha Gupta on the physically handicapped certificate No. 735 dated 08.06.1984 which is marked as Mark X. The said physically handicapped certificate was issued by the Medical Superintendent of LNJP Hospital.
24. Sh. Mokhtar Mahto, Record Keeper, Office of Sub-
Registrar-II, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi was examined as PW20. He produced the original register pertaining to book-IV. The said register having the original documents of receipt from No.1458 to 1460. These documents bearing the signatures of Sub- FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 18 of 69 Registrar namely Sh. Braham Singh. He failed to identify the signatures of Sub-Registrar Sh. Braham Singh as he never worked with him. All the receipts from 1458 to 1460 were executed by Sh. Hukam Chand Baweja. These receipts are Ex.PW20/A1 to Ex.PW20/A3.
25. Sh. Naveen, Record Lifter, Department of Delhi Archives, 18-A, Satsang Vihar Marg, Special Institutional Area, New Delhi was examined as PW21. He produced the original Perpetual Lease Deed vide registration No.7390, Addl. Book No.1, Vol. No.2087, page No.84-90 dated 11.12.1968 and original perpetual lease deed registration No.6342, Addl. Book No.1, Vol. No. 2732, page No.91-103 dated 25.09.1971 in respect of Sh. R.K. Sethi and Ms. Rachna Sethi. The photocopies of above said documents are Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B.
26. Sh. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Junior Judicial Assistant, Delhi High Court, New Delhi was examined as PW22. He produced the original summoned record i.e. Civil Suit (OS) No. 2030/97 titled as "Yotsna Atri vs. Prem Singh & Ors." containing original documents i.e. memo of parties of suit No. 2030/97 dated 22.09.1997 which is already Ex.PW1/N1 and list of FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 19 of 69 documents filed on behalf of accused Yotsana Atri in Suit No. 2030/97 dated 22.09.1997 is already Ex.PW1/N2 and order of Delhi High Court dated 02.09.1998 is already Ex.PW1/N3 and application I.A. No. 8773/98 dated 06.10.1998 is already Ex.PW1/N4 given by accused Yotsana Atri regarding the filing of original documents in the said suit alongwith affidavit dated 06.10.1998 of accused Yotsana Atri which is already Ex.PW1/N5 and affidavit 08.10.1998 given by accused Prem Singh in the said suit is already Ex.PW1/N6.
27. Sh. Vijay Kumar, Superintendent. SDMC A & D Department R.K. Puram, New Delhi was examined as PW23. As per property tax assessment file, he told the IO that from the year 1986 and 1987 the above said property was recorded in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi who had been paying the house tax of this property since 1979. He produced the assessment file and house tax payment receipt record for the year 1986, 1997 and 1998. The file containing the original carbon receipt no. 413030 for Rs.11,076/- dated 31.10.1986 is already Ex.PW1/F, receipt no. 925088 for Rs.704/- dated 15.07.1997 is already Ex.PW1/E, receipt no. 778062 for Rs.704/- dated 18.09.1998 is already Ex.PW1/D of property tax of property bearing no. D- FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 20 of 69 125 Anand Niketan, New Delhi. The photocopy of house tax bill bearing no. 169684 dated 31.10.1986 in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi present property occupier of D-125 Anand Niketan, New Delhi was issued by their department and the original of same was in the possession of the assessee which is already Ex.PW1/G. The photocopy of house tax bill dated 04.07.1997 in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi was also issued by his department and the original of the same was in the possession of the assessee and the same is already Ex.PW1/I. The photocopy of house tax bill dated 17.08.1998 in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi was also issued by his department and the original of the same was in the possession of the assessee and the same is already Ex.PW1/H. The General Objection pertaining to rateable value of property bearing no. D-125 Anand Niketan, New Delhi issued in the name of Kumari R. Sethi by their department is already Ex. PW1/K. Letter regarding information pertaining to general objection dated 05.10.1981 issued to assessee Ms. R. Sethi by their department is already Ex.PW1/J. Copy of no due certificate of property no. D-125 Anand Niketan, New Delhi issued to assessee Ms. Rachna Sethi is Ex.PW23/A. FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 21 of 69
28. Inspector Swadesh Prakash was examined as PW24. He deposed that on 13.10.1998, he was posted as SI at LBR Section EOW, Crime Branch and joined the investigation alongwith Inspector T.R. Mongia. On that day accused Kamlesh Sharma and Yotsana Atri came to their office and handed over photocopies of documents to IO and stated that the original of the same were lying in the Hon'ble High Court in Suit no. 2030/1997 deposited on 07.10.1998 vide covering letter given by accused Kamlesh Sharma which is Ex. PW24/A. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/B. These documents are marked as Mark PW24/A1, PW24/A2, PW24/A3 to Mark PW24/A20.
29. Retired ACP Ranvir Singh was examined as PW25. He deposed that in the year 1997, he was posted as Inspector in LBR Section of EOW. He received a complaint of Sh. R.K. Sethi through senior officials for inquiry and necessary actions. He inquired about the allegations of complainant and also inquired from the complainant. After inquiry, he prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW25/A and registered the FIR regarding the same. He obtained all the documents regarding the property in question and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/B. FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 22 of 69 Copy of application of conversion is Ex.PW25/C. Copy of undertaking and affidavit of accused Yotsna Atri are Ex.PW25/D and Ex.PW25/E respectively. Copy of indemnity bond executed by accused Yotsna Atri is Ex.PW25/F and the copy of four photographs duly attested by Notary, Public is Ex.PW25/G. Indemnity bond executed by accused Kamlesh Sharma is Ex.PW25/H. Copy of perpetual sub-lease deed between Raj Kumar Sethi and DDA is Ex.PW25/I. He also recorded his statement and obtained his report regarding the same. Thereafter he visited the office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate to inquire about the fact whether Ms. Rachna Sethi had registered any instrument regarding the property in question in favor of accused Prem Singh or not. But no registration of any instrument was found in record in favour of accused Prem Singh by Ms. Rachna Sethi. He obtained the report regarding the same from the concerned LDC in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate. He also recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.PC. Even at the entry number purported by accused Kamlesh Sharma the entry was in name of Sh. Hukam Singh. He tried to search Sh. Hukam Singh but in vain. He gave notice to accused Kamlesh Sharma to produce FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 23 of 69 all the original documents pertaining to property in question. He also visited office of Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road and contacted Sh. Rajinder Singh, Sub-Registrar and inquired about the status of property in question from him. He told that firstly the property was registered in the name of Sh. R.K. Sethi and later on it was transferred in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi. He recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter he inquired from the Secretary of Anand Niketan Housing Cooperative Society who stated that firstly this property was registered in the name of Sh. R.K. Sethi and later on it was transferred in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi. He recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Then he came to know from P.S. R.K. Puram that accused Kamlesh Sharma had been arrested in a land grabbing case. He tried to search accused Prem Singh but in vain. Thereafter he was transferred from LBR Section to Homicide Section, therefore, on 21.09.1998 he handed over the case file to Inspector T.R. Mongia as per directions of Senior officials for further investigation. He further deposed that during investigation, he interrogated accused Yotsna Atri and Kamlesh Sharma. One notice was given to accused Kamlesh Sharma for production of all FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 24 of 69 documents pertaining to property in question but the accused did not produce the same. Report of Sh. Narain Dass, LDC posted in Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi is Ex.PW25/J. He moved an application to the office of Sub-Registrar-III, Asaf Ali Road which is Ex.PW25/K. Witness correctly identified accused Kamlesh and Yotsana Atri before the Court.
30. Retired Additional DCP Rajender Singh Chhikara was examined as PW26.. He deposed that on 29.01.1999, this case was marked to him for further investigation. That day after receiving the case file he discussed the case with ACP, LBR and came to know that one of the accused namely Prem Singh was still absconder in this case. During the investigation he visited Tis Hazari Courts, the office of Stamp, Auditor and contacted Sh. G.K. Behal and asked him to produce the stamp vendor register of Sh. P.C. Bhutani from whom the Rs. 2 non-judicial stamp was purchased for preparing the forged GPA. The concerned officer of the branch produced before him the said register of Sh. P.C Bhutani for that relevant period and on the scrutiny of said register, it was revealed that said stamp paper was not sold by Sh. P.C. Bhutani to Ms. Rachna Sethi. He examined Sh. P.C. Behal under section 161 Cr.PC and recorded FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 25 of 69 his statement. Thereafter he also contacted Sh. P.C. Bhutani and examined him in this case under section 161 Cr.P.C. and recorded his statement. During his statement he stated that the stamp paper in question did not bear his signatures nor his stamp. He also searched for accued Prem Singh but in vain.
31. Retired ACP C.S. Rathi was examined as PW27. He deposed that on 06.06.1999 the present case file for further investigation of case was handed over to him by ACP concerned. On 06.07.1999, he received some documents i.e. photocopies of credit voucher slip No. 784 dated 10.05.1997 vide MCD account No.1501 alongwith list of cheques, list of returning cheque, ledger sheet No.197 dated 10.05.1997 vide account No.1501 from Chandi Chowk Branch, SBI through post. Witness correctly identified certain documents which were received by him alongwith covering letter of SBI from the Chandni Chowk Branch through post in response of his letter which is Ex.PW27/A. The covering letter is Ex.PW27/A1. The documents mentioned in the covering letter are Ex.PW27/A2. On 05.08.1999, a letter was sent to Commissioner, South Zone through office dak by him regarding to know the details of a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- of Canara Bank and for receiving the FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 26 of 69 copy of the same from the office of Commissioner, South Zone. He received the photocopy of the cheque alongwith relevant details from the abovesaid office. He correctly identified the document as Ex.PW27/B sent by him. Rest of the documents sent to him by the office are marked as Mark PW27/A1. On 06.08.1999, complainant Sh. R.K. Sethi visited his office and met him. He gave him certain documents i.e undertaking of Ms. Rachna Sethi in respect of D-125, Anand Niketan and SPA in favour of her father Sh. J.N. Sethi in respect of D-125, Anand Niketan, Delhi. The photocopies of same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/C. The documents are marked as Mark PW27/B. He further deposed that on the same day, one Sh. Gurdip Singh visited his office and gave him photocopy of possession letter of Flat No. N-13, DDA Flat, MIG, Prasad Nagar and its form A which were duly signed by Sh. Gurdip Singh. The same were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW7/D. Statement of Sh. Gurdip Singh was recorded. He correctly identified certain documents as mentioned in the abovesaid seizure memo Ex.PW27/D. These documents are marked as Mark PW27/C. On 14.07.1999, he wrote a letter to Account Officer, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 27 of 69 for supplying of certain documents. The letter is Ex.PW27/E. The same day, reply of the office was received on the same letter which is at point X. On 16.09.1999, he joined four FSL officials i.e, Mrs. Deepa Verma (Handwriting expert), Mr. Ami Lal (Finger print expert), Sh. Gyanender Singh (Finger print bureau) and SI Ram Chander (Incharge, photo section) to examine the documents filed in a writ petition. As per the orders of Hon'ble Court, the same were got examined and photographed. The documents were perpetual lease deed, GPA by Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of accused Prem Singh, GPA by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma and Agreement to sell by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Yotsna Atri. On 27.08.1999, certain documents were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar. The certificate dated 26.08.1999 in this regard is Ex.PW27/F. He sent the documents as mentioned in his forwarding letter Ex.PW27/G and the documents Ex.PW27/H to the FSL. He also got the photography of some documents from judicial file of Yotsana Atri Vs. Prem Singh & Ors before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Suit No. CS (OS) 2030/97. The documents which were photographed by him for comparison of handwriting and signatures were Agreement to FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 28 of 69 Sell dated 29.06.1996 from accused Prem Singh to accused Yotsana Atri, GPA dated 05.03.1974 by Ms. Rachna Sethi to accused Prem Singh, GPA dated 07.10.1996 from accused Prem Singh to accused Kamlesh Sharma and Perpetual Sub Lease dated 03.04.1971 in favour of Ms. Rachna Sethi. The Agreement to Sell dated 29.06.1996 is Ex.PW27/I, GPA dated 05.03.1974 is Ex.PW27/J, GPA dated 07.10.1996 is Ex.PW27/K and the Perpetual Sub Lease dated 03.04.1971 is Ex.PW27/L. Witness correctly identified the photographs which were clicked at that time by the FSL officials before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. These documents are Ex.PW27/M. During his investigation, he also took the specimen signatures of Ms. Rachna Sethi and Sh. Gurdip Singh. The specimen signatures of Sh. Gurdip Singh are Ex.PW27/N. He also recorded the statement of Sh. R.K. Sethi and Sh. Gurdip Singh under section 161 Cr.PC on 06.08.1999.
32. Sh. M.N. Khan, Professor and Head, Department of Arabic, University of Delhi, New Delhi was examined as PW28. He deposed that he did not know any person namely Prem Singh. He never identified any person namely Prem Singh S/o Sh. Dhani Ram R/o House No. 565, Sector-7, Pushp Vihar, New FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 29 of 69 Delhi as a witness in any will, Special Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney or any other document. Witness failed to identify the documents i.e Will, SPA already Ex.PW9/A and GPA already Ex.PW9/B as these documents were never prepared/executed in his presence or in his knowledge. The Will is Ex.PW28/A.
33. Sh. Vijay Chaudhary was inadvertently examined as PW28.
He correctly identified the signatures of his father Sh. Braham Singh on documents Q48 and Q49. However, he failed to identify the admitted signatures of his father from A-6 to A-19. He also failed to identify the specimen signatures of his father from S-16 to S-19. He deposed that his father expired in the year 2002 and retired as Sub-registrar in the year 1981. His father was posted at Kashmere Gate Sub-registrar office.
34. HC Ratan Lal was examined as PW29. He produced the FIR Register containing the detail/entry of FIR no. 732/1997, P.S R K Puram filed by complainant Sh. Ram Kewal Mandal against accused Kamlesh Sharma, Mukhiya Gujjar and Shiv Kumar. Copy of the same is Ex.PW29/A.
35. Retired ACP Tilak Raj Mongia was examined as PW30. He FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 30 of 69 deposed that he retired as ACP on 31.07.2011. While he was in service, he was assigned the investigation of present case on 22.09.1998. During his investigation on 13.10.1998, accused Kamlesh Sharma, Yotsana Atri and Rajiv Atri joined the investigation and handed over photocopies of 21 documents in presence of the then SI Sawdesh Kumar related to the case which were seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex.PW24/B. He also recorded the statement of the then SI Sawdesh Kumar to this effect. On 21.10.1998, he went to SBI, Majlis Park and met the Manager there. He was informed with the facts of the case and enquired about the banker cheque no. 753108 issued by the bank dated 29.06.1996. He gave him all the documents related to the case which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A. The covering letter of the then Branch Manager is Ex.PW30/B. On 26.10.1998, he visited the Canara Bank, Triveni Apartment, Phase-II, Sheikh Sarai where he met Manager Sh. V.K. Bhasin and enquired from him about the depositing of said banker cheque in the account of accused Prem Singh having account no. 8676. The documents produced by Bank Manager were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/C. He also FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 31 of 69 recorded the statement of the Manager. During further investigation, on 12.11.1998, he formally arrested abovesaid accused persons and released them on bail as directed by the Hon'ble Court. Upon his transfer to PS Parliament Street, he handed over the case file to ACP, LBR on 09.12.1998 for further investigation. Witness correctly identified accused Kamlesh Sharma and Rajiv Atri before the Court.
36. Sh. Akhlesh Kumar, Graduate Engineer, BSES, R.K. Puram, New Delhi was examined as PW31. He produced the original file of electricity connection in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi, D-125, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. He deposed that the initial connection was issued in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi vide file no. 318/C-9A/DR-II/856 dated 08.12.1977. Copy of same is Ex.PW31/A. Thereafter, in 1998 two more connections were issued in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi, D-125, Anand Niketan, New Delhi vide application form and agreement K No. 702/128806/DX and K No. 702128807/DX. The same are Ex.PW31/B and Ex.PW31/C. In 1998 application for enhancement of the load was received from Ms. Rachna Sethi on the basis of which application, load was enhanced vide application form and agreement K. No. 183K8450726/DX. The FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 32 of 69 same is Ex.PW31/D. In 1977 electricity distribution branch in the name of electricity supply undertaking, in 1997, its name changed from Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking to Delhi Vidhyut Board and in 2002 from Delhi Vidhyut Board to BSES. Ms. Rachna Sethi paid the bill from the period October, 1996 to 29.11.1996 for Rs. 26,333/-, 29.01.1998 Rs. 36,133/-, 05.06.1998 to 04.09.1998 Rs. 2,950/- and Rs. 3,180/-. Photocopy of same are Ex.PW31/E to Ex.PW31/G.
37. Sh. Parveen Kumar Rana, UDC, Office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi was examined as PW32. He produced one register containing GPA in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma and registered vide registration No. 29090 in additional Book No.4 Volume No. 4123 on pages 153 to 155 registered on 07.10.1996 which is Ex.PW32/A. He also produced one SPA from the said register in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma and registered vide registration No.29091 in additional Book No. 4 Volume No.4123 on page 156 registered on 07.10.1996 which is Ex.PW32/B. He produced another register containing Will in favour of accused Yotsana Athri and registered vide registration No. 34814 in additional Book No.3 Volume No.2750 on page 125 registered on 07.10.1996 which FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 33 of 69 is Ex.PW32/C.
38. Sh. Satish Tyagi, Assistant Section Officer, AERO, Voter Centre, AC-48, RPS Colony, New Delhi was examined as PW33 He produced the record i.e. the electoral roll 1999- (U05)Delhi,Part No.41. The certified copy of the electoral roll and the certified copy of the page showing the entry of accused Prem Singh at serial no.582 was also attached. These certified copies duly certified by Sh. Anil Verma, AERO, Ambedkar Nagar, Voter Centre. Certified copies of the same are Ex.PW33/A. He deposed that he had been authorized to depose in this case by Sh. Anil Verma and his authority letter is Ex.PW33/B.
39. Retired Inspector Hari Ram was examined as PW34. He deposed that on 08.10.1999, he was posted at LBR Cell, EOW as SI. That day, investigation of the present case was assigned to him. During his investigation, he enquired about the status and whereabouts of accused Prem Singh. During investigation, he came to know that accused Prem Singh was an employee of one Mehtab Singh S/o Jugal Kishore. Mehtab Singh was having a tea stall. Accused Prem Singh was handicapped and got his handicap certificate from LNJP Hospital at the age of 22 years FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 34 of 69 as on 08.06.1984. He came to know that as per GPA which was executed on 05.03.1974, accused Prem Singh was minor at the time of alleged execution of GPA. Mehtab Singh also gave him the photocopy of medical certificate issued by LNJP Hospital in the name of accused Prem Singh. He seized the said copy vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/A. He sent this certificate Mark X for verification to LNJP through letter through the then Inspector C.S. Rathi vide Ex.PW34/B. The reply received from LNJP and same was also supported by handicap certificate Mark X1. On 24.02.2000, he examined one Sh. Sarvesh Sharma son of Sh. Hukum Chand, who was one of the witnesses to GPA and other documents. Sh. Sarvesh Sharma told him that the signatures appearing on the GPA and other documents did not pertain to his father. He recorded his statement. He also gave the death certificate of his father Sh. Hukum Chand Sharma. He seized the said certificate vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/C. The death certificate of accused Hukum Chand Sharma vide Mark X2. On 08.06.2008, he wrote a letter to Sub Registrar-I through Inspector, LBR to provide him the GPA and SPA dated 07.10.1996 executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma and Will executed by accused Prem FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 35 of 69 Singh in favour of accused Yotsana Atri dated 07.10.1996. The said letter is Ex.PW34/D. Thereafter, one letter was written to Joint Director, DDA through ACP Harmeet Singh and it was replied by the DDA that the conversion of lease hold into free hold was started only after February, 1992. The letter of the then written by ACP Harmeet Singh is Ex.PW34/E. The reply given by the DDA is Ex.PW34/F and the copy of the notification Mark X3. On 03.12.1999, complainant R.K. Sethi met him and gave 21 documents relating to property bearing no. D-125, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. He seized those documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/G. These documents already Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/J, Mark F, Ex.PW1/K, Mark G, Mark H, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/I, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW31/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW34/H. On 13.02.2000, complainant Sh. R.K. Sethi gave him the documents which were vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/I. On 04.07.2000, complainant Sh. R.K. Sethi gave him original application dated 11.02.1997 for certified copies to Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate, photocopy of GPA and SPA dated 07.10.1997 executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma with respect to property bearing no. FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 36 of 69 D-125, Anand Niketan, photocopy of Will dated 07.10.1996 executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Yotsana Atri and photocopy of order dated 29.05.2000 of SDM, Vasant Vihar in case titled as "Kamlesh Sharma Vs. R.K. Sethi." He seized these documents. On 01.12.1999, he got the documents of electoral roll Ex.PW34/J produced by R.K. Sethi. He took specimen signatures of Biram Singh which are Ex.PW34/K. He also took his admitted handwriting which was pertaining to his tenure at Sub Registrar office. He wrote a letter to Sub Registrar-II, Kashmere Gate for providing him the admitted handwriting and signatures of Sh. Biram Singh. The reply from the office of Sub Registrar-II is Ex.PW34/L. During investigation, he came to know that one another case FIR No. 732/1997 under section 452/342/506/427/34 IPC also pending against the accused persons. The copy of said FIR is marked as Mark X4. Thereafter, he sent the questioned documents, specimen documents and admitted documents and the finger prints of accused persons to FSL and Finger Prints Bureau. During investigation, he enquired from the Notary Public Sh. M.S. Mehta, Kashmere Gate who was shown to have notarized the agreement to sell Mark X5. He also arrested accused FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 37 of 69 Manish Sharma and recorded his disclosure statement on 09.06.2000. The disclosure statement of accused Manish Sharma is Ex.PW34/M. He took the specimen signature and writing of accused Manish Sharma vide memo Ex.PW34/N. On 12.06.2000, he took the specimen signature and handwriting of accused Mahabir Prasad Sharma which is Ex.PW34/O. On 01.08.2000, he formally arrested accused Rajiv Lochan Sharma who was the son of accused Kamlesh Sharma. He concluded the investigation and prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court. Witness correctly identified all the accused persons before the Court.
40. Sh. Vilas Kulkarni, Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Triveni-
II, Sheikh Sarai Branch, New Delhi was examined as PW35. He produced the account opening form of accused Prem Singh. The said account opening form alongwith available statement of account is Ex.PW35/A. His reply is Ex.PW35/B. The certificate under the Banker Book Evidence Act in support of the documents is Ex.PW35/C.
41. The entire incriminating evidence brought on record against the accused persons were put to them and their statements under section 313 Cr.PC were recorded separately. It is stated FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 38 of 69 by all the accused persons that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
42. Accused persons examined Sh. Deepak Kaushik, JJA/Ahlmad, posted in the Court of Sh. H.S. Jaggi, Ld. ADJ-02, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi as DW1 who produced the original case file of case bearing CS No. 515705/2016 titled as "Yotsana Atri Vs. Prem Singh & Ors." The same contained the copy of plaint which is Ex.DW1/A (colly), the copy of Written Statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 which is Ex.DW1/B (colly), the deposition of Ms. Rachna Sethi which is Ex.DW1/C (colly), one complaint to DCP by accused Kamlesh Sharma dated 09.01.1997 which is Ex.DW1/D (colly). Copy of deposition of Mrs. Geeta Sharma which is Ex.DW1/E (colly), copy of deposition of Nand Kishore which is Ex.DW1/F, certified copy of deposition of Babban Giri, Hira Lal, Satish Tyagi and P.S. Thakral, Sh. Anoop Singh. Same are Ex.DW1/G, Ex.DW1/H, Ex.DW1/I and Ex.DW1/J. The file also contained one copy of reply of public notice issued by Sh. R.K. Sethi in Hindustan Times. The certified copy of same is marked as Mark D1. The file also contained one certified copy of judgment in FIR No. 732/1997 FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 39 of 69 PS R.K. Puram in the Court of Sh. Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler, MM-03, South. Copy of the same is already Mark PW34/D3.
43. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsels for the accused persons and have also perused the judicial file carefully.
44. It is alleged against the accused persons that all accused persons alongwith accused Prem Singh entered into criminal conspiracy to forge one GPA, Agreement to Sell and other documents of property D-125, Anand Niketan purported to have been executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of accused Prem Singh and thereby committed offence under section 120B/467/468/471/420 IPC.
45. Further, it is alleged against the accused persons that they forged the signatures of Ms. Rachna Sethi, Sub-Registrar Sh. Biram Singh and Advocate Sh. D.S. Dalal and prepared forged documents i.e perpetual lease deed dated 03.04.1971 filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and DDA and thereby committed the offence under section 467/468 IPC read with section 120B IPC. The accused persons knowingly used the FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 40 of 69 forged documents as genuine and thereby committed offence under section 471 IPC read with section 120 B IPC. Lastly, it is alleged against accused that they attempted to cheat the owner of the property and also the DDA by tendering forged documents and thereby committed offence under section 420/511 IPC read with section 120B IPC.
46. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined complainant/PW1 Sh. R.K. Sethi and PW3 Ms. Rachna Sethi. Both these witnesses corroborated the testimony of each other and deposed that the property in question was owned by Ms. Rachna Sethi. The property was always in possession of Ms. Rachna Sethi. Both these witnesses deposed that the property was never sold by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Yotsana Atri. The documents filed by accused Kamlesh Sharma with DDA are forged and fabricated. He produced the original lease deed in favour of Ms. Rachna Sethi which is Ex.PW1/C. He also produced two property tax bills of MCD Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/I. Assessment letter of MCD is Ex.PW1/K. On the basis of documents so produced by PW1 Sh. R.K. Sethi, a claim of ownership of Ms. Rachna Sethi is raised by him. He further deposed that no GPA was executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi dated FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 41 of 69 05.03.1974 in favour of accused Prem Singh and that the said document is forged. Accused Prem Singh was aged 12-14 years in the year 1974 hence, he could not have purchased the property being minor from Ms. Rachna Sethi.
47. In order to prove that the possession of property was always with Ms. Rachna Sethi, PW1 Sh. R.K. Sethi deposed that Ms Rachna Sethi carried out constructions on her plot in 1976-77 and a completion certificate was issued by the MCD in November, 1977. It is also deposed that the documents filed by accused Kamlesh Sharma with DDA are forged and fabricated which is evident from the fact that the said documents have not been registered with the Registrar and secondly clause 12 of the said GPA dated 05.03.1974 which authorized the purchaser of the property to convert the same from lease hold to free hold could not have been added as in 1974 there was no such scheme of conversion. Hence, it can be concluded that the documents were prepared subsequent to the introduction of the said clause in the year 1992. The said witness could not be cross examined as during the pendency of trial, he expired.
48. PW3 Ms. Rachna Sethi corroborated the testimony of PW1 and was extensively cross examined by the counsel for accused FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 42 of 69 persons.
49. PW2 Sh. Narayan Dass, UDC from Registrar office was examined to prove that registration no. 1448 was assigned to one GPA executed by Hukum Chand Baweja in favour of Sh. Jugal Dass and that one 1449 was not assigned to GPA allegedly executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of accused Prem Singh dated 05.03.1974.
50. PW4 Sh. Vishwanath Nag is the Vice President of Anand Niketan Housing Cooperative Society where the property was situated. As per the register, the property was transferred in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi vide entry no. 703. As per the register, the property stands registered in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi.
51. PW5 Sh. Moti Lal, Peon, Co-operative Society, DDA produced the record as per which, the property stands in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi. On 05.03.1999 Ms. Rachna Sethi applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold and the property accordingly converted. In his cross examination, he stated that for registration of sub lease by DDA four sets are required. All the four sets are sent to Collector of Stamps for FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 43 of 69 stamping. After stamping, the collector retained one set and three sets are returned. One set is retained by DDA and two sets sent to Sub Registrar for registration. As per the said witness, the original set of lease deed was not available in the DDA file but a true copy was found. He admitted that the original set should have been in the record but the same was missing from the file. He further stated that Ex.PW1/CA is unregistered sub lease deed. It could not be in possession of the owner or any other private party. He further admitted that Ex.PW1/CA could be the part of record of DDA file which is missing. He also admitted that document Ex.PW1/D1 is the same as document Ex.PW5/D2. He further admitted that document Ex.PW5/D2 is the copy of the registered lease deed which should have been in possession of a allottee or subsequent purchaser.
52. PW6 Sh. Madan Kumar Thakur produced the account statement of accused Kamlesh Sharma.
53. PW7 Sh. Gurdip Singh is the Power of Attorney Holder of Ms. Rachna Sethi. He had signed on the sub lease deed paper of the property as Ms. Rachna Sethi was in Kolkata at that time.
54. PW8 SI Ravinder Kumar is the Finger Print Expert who FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 44 of 69 opined that questioned thumb impression mark Q1 and Q2 on the back side of GPA are identical i.e of the same person.
55. PW9 Sh. Nitin Kumar produced the documents filed in the suit titled as "Yotsana Atri Vs. Prem Singh and Ors."
56. PW10 Ms. Deepa Verma, Forensic Expert produced the report which is Ex.PW10/A. She opined that the disputed signatures Q1 to Q8 do not match the specimen signatures of Ms. Rachna Sethi.
57. PW14 S.P. Singh was the Notary Public. He admitted having attesting documents Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/I which are documents executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma as well as Yotsana Atri.
58. PW15 Sh. Dhurender Singh Dalal, son of Notary Public stated that documents Mark C2 to C4 do not bear the signatures of his father.
59. PW16 Sh. M.K. Sharma, retired Deputy Director from DDA was examined to prove that the conversion policy from lease hold to free hold started after issuance of notification dated 14.02.1992.
60. PW17 Sh. Prem Chand Bhutani was the Stamp Vendor. He FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 45 of 69 denied the signatures on the document Ex.PW1/N8. He even denied the sale of the stamp paper.
61. PW18 Sh. Rajbir Singh was the Stamp Vendor who identified his signatures on document Mark PW14/1. He further admitted that the stamp paper was sold by him.
62. PW19 Sh. Shivraj Singh was the Steno from GTB Hospital.
He identified the signatures of Dr. B.K. Dhaon on document Ex.PW19/A. He could not identify the signatures of doctor on handicap certificate dated 08.06.1984. In his cross examination, he stated that photograph of the handicap person to whom the certificate was issued is pasted on the certificate. He could not depose whether documentary evidence was taken in support of age of patient. This document is hence not a substantive proof of age of accused Prem Singh.
63. PW20 Sh. Mohit Mahto, Record Keeper, office of Sub Registrar-II produced original register pertaining to book IV having original documents bearing no. 1458 to 1460.
64. PW21 Sh. Naveen, Record Lifter from Archives Department produced the original perpetual lease deed dated 11.12.1968 and 25.09.1971.
FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 46 of 69
65. PW22 Sh. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Junior Judicial Assistant JA from Delhi High Court produced original file of case title "Yotsana Atri Vs. Prem Singh."
66. PW23 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Superintendent from SDMC produced the property tax bills issued in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi. This witness in his cross examination admitted that the assessee in the record maintained by House Tax Department was Ms. Rachna Sethi but the said witness could not verify whether the payment was actually made by Ms. Rachna Sethi herself.
67. PW24 Inspector Swadesh Prakash was examined to prove that documents were seized from accused Kamlesh Sharma and Yotsana Atri.
68. PW25 ACP Ranvir Singh got the FIR registered and seized various documents and carried out initial investigation. This witness admitted that no original perpetual lease deed in favour of Ms. Rachna Sethi was provided to him during the investigation. Even original SPA issued by Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of Sh. R.K. Sethi and Sh. Gurdip Singh was not provided to him. He further admitted that he did not collect any FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 47 of 69 document from RWA of Anand Niketan Housing Cooperative Society in respect of possession of property between 1974- 1996.
69. PW26 retired Additional DCP Rajender Singh Chhikara carried out the further investigation. Even this witness admitted that he does not remember if any original GPA was shown to him during investigation.
70. PW27 retired ACP C.S. Rathi carried out further investigation. This witness too stated that he did not collect any SPA issued by Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of Sh. Gurdip Singh. He did not remember if he collected any ID proof of Ms. Rachna Sethi.
71. PW28 Professor Sh. M.N. Khan was allegedly a witness to a Will, SPA and GPA Ex.PW9/B. He denied his signatures on the aforesaid documents. He denied knowing any person named Prem Singh.
72. PW28 Sh. Vijay Chaudhary was the son of Registrar. He identified the signatures of his father Braham Singh on questioned documents Q48 and Q49 but denied signatures on admitted documents A6 to A19 and specimen signatures of his FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 48 of 69 father on S-16 to S-19.
73. PW29 HC Ratan Lal was called to produce the copy of FIR Ex.PW29/A.
74. PW30 retired ACP T.R. Mongia carried out further investigation. He stated in his testimony that he did not verify any documents seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/B.
75. PW31 Sh. Akhlesh Kumar was examined from BSES to prove that the electricity connection was in the name of Ms. Rachna Sethi. He even stated that the bill for the period 1996 to 1998 was paid by Ms. Rachna Sethi. It is stated by the witness that no address proof or ownership proof filed alongwith the application for connection is not available in the file.
76. PW32 Sh. Parveen Kumar Rana, UDC from the office of Sub Registrar-I proved registration of GPA in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma, SPA in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma, Will in favour of accused Yotsana Atri
77. PW33 Sh. Satish Tyagi, Assistant Section Officer, AERO Voter Centre entered the witness box. He produced the entry showing the name of Prem Singh at serial no. 582. he admitted that he had not produced the complete file in the Court. He did FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 49 of 69 not even produce the original file where the entry in the name of accused Prem Singh was recorded. He did not tell if the department had date of birth certificate or any other proof showing the date of birth of accused Prem Singh. Hence, the records so produced do not conclusively proves the age of accused Prem Singh
78. PW34 retired Inspector Hari Ram was the last IO in the present case. This witness stated that one original lease deed was filed by accused Yotsana Atri before the hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is different from Ex.PW1/C.
79. PW35 Sh. Vilas Kulkarni, Senior Manager produced the account opening form of accused Prem Singh.
80. It is alleged against the accused persons that they in connivance with accused Prem Singh have forged the documents allegedly executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of accused Prem Singh.
81. Evidence has been led by prosecution to prove that the document dated 05.03.1974 was not executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi and that the signatures of Ms. Rachna Sethi have been forged.
FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 50 of 69
82. PW1 Sh. R.K. Sethi, PW2 Sh. Narayan Dass from Registrar Office, PW3 Ms. Rachna Sethi, PW4 Sh. Vishwanath Nag from Anand Niketan Housing Cooperative Society, Ram Singer from DDA, Sh. Gurdip Singh, SPA of Ms. Rachna Sethi and other witnesses who were part of the investigating team alongwith the IOs were examined to prove that no document i.e GPA dated 05.03.1974 and other connected documents pertaining to sale of property by Ms. Rachna Sethi to accused Prem Singh were ever executed.
83. All the aforesaid witnesses who have been examined have collectively been able to prove that GPA dated 05.03.1974 was not genuine.
84. As per the prosecution story, all the accused persons conspired with accused Prem Singh and prepared false documents back dated in the year 1996 and thereafter documents were executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma and Yotsana Atri.
85. In order to prove the same, PW16 Sh. M.K. Sharma was examined who deposed that the conversion policy was started after the notification dated 14.02.1992. Whereas, GPA dated FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 51 of 69 05.03.1974 contains a conversion clause which could not have been inserted in the year 1974 when the said policy was not in force.
86. The prosecution has been able to establish from the evidence so led that the documents executed in favour of accused Prem Singh were not genuine but the ones executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma and Yotsana Atri have been properly executed as per the requirement of law.
87. Once the prosecution has been able to establish that no documents were executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of accused Prem Singh now the question which needs deliberation is as to whether forgery is committed by accused persons in connivance with accused Prem Singh.
88. This question may be answered in the light of law as laid down in the landmark judgment of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported as Crl Appeal no. 1695/2009.
89. Let us first consider whether the complaint averments even assuming to be true make out the ingredients of the offence punishable either under section 467 or section 471 of Penal FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 52 of 69 Code. Section 467 (in so far as it is relevant to this case) provides that whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security,s hall be punished with 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 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery.
90. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in section 463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 defining "making a false document" is extracted below :
"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 53 of 69 or false electronic record---First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--
Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.--Who FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 54 of 69 dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
[Note: The words `digital signature' wherever it occurs were substituted by the words `electronic signature' by Amendment Act 10 of 2009]."
The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery.
The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 55 of 69 case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.
10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
10.2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 56 of 69 person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
12. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of `false documents'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 57 of 69 the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a person FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 58 of 69 claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted. Section 420 IPC.
13. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 59 of 69 cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).
14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration.
But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 60 of 69 to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code.
A clarification
15. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 61 of 69 and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. The term `fraud' is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of `fraud' is "deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage".
Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines `fraud' with reference to a party to a contract. In Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration - AIR 1963 SC 1572, this Court explained the meaning of the expression `defraud' thus "The expression "defraud" involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss.
A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 62 of 69 those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied."
91. Adverting to the facts of present case, it is alleged that accused Kamlesh Sharma applied for conversion of property n question from lease hold to free hold in the name of her daughter accused Yotsana Atri. She annexed various documents I.e GPA executed by accused Prem Singh in her favour and Agreement to Sell executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Yotsana Atri alongwith Will. She also annexed perpetual lease deed in favour of Ms. Rachna Sethi as well as GPA executed by Ms. Rachna Sethi in favour of accused Prem Singh. A notice was issued to Ms. Rachna Sethi by DDA as she was the registered owner in the records of DDA. On receipt of said notice, a complaint was filed by Sh. R.K. Sethi.
92. It is further the case of prosecution that consideration was paid to accused Prem Singh for purchase of property by all the other accused persons being family members other than Mahabir Prasad Sharma and Rajiv Atri who were the attesting witnesses to the documents executed by accused Prem Singh in FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 63 of 69 favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma and Yotsana Atri.
93. In order to prove that the documents in favour of accused Prem Singh were actually got prepared by accused Prem Singh in connivance with other accused persons, some cogent evidence should have been led. Since money has exchanged hands between accused Prem Singh and Yotsana Atri hence, the possibility of accused Yotsana Atri being a bonafide purchaser is not ruled out.
94. Admittedly, the documents executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Yotsana Atri meet the requirement of law and have been properly executed.
95. In order to prove the contrary, the onus was on the prosecution. Prosecution has not been able to lead any cogent evidence to explicitly prove conspiracy between accused Prem Singh and the others for the following reasons:-
(a) It is alleged against accused Kamlesh Sharma and Yotsana Atri that both of them in conspiracy with accused Prem Singh (since PO) forged the documents. The payment made to FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 64 of 69 accused Prem Singh was made through cheque issued from the account of accused Rajiv Lochan Sharma and Manish Sharma, both sons of accused Kamlesh Sharma and allegations against accused Mahabir Prasad Sharma and Rajiv Atri are that they were the attesting witness to the forged documents.
(b) As far as accused Rajiv Lochan Sharma, Manish Sharma, Rajiv Atri and Mahabir Prasad Sharma are concerned, there is no ocular or documentary evidence to show that there was any connivance with accused Kamlesh Sharma, Yotsana Atri and Prem Singh by whom the documents were allegedly forged. Admittedly, money has exchanged hands between accused Kamlesh Sharma and Yotsana Atri on one side and accused Prem Singh on the FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 65 of 69 other side. In order to prove the charge of conspiracy, the prosecution is required to prove at least through circumstantial evidence, if not direct that all the accused persons possessed requisite mens rea to commit the offence.
(c) As far as accused Mahabir Prasad Sharma and Rajiv Atri are concerned, the only role attributed to them is that they signed as witnesses to the Agreement to Sell executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Yotsana Atri. There is no evidence led against both the said accused persons that they in any way conspired with the other accused.
(d) As far as accused Manish Sharma and Rajiv Lochan Sharma are concerned, accused Manish Sharma has attested certain documents submitted to FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 66 of 69 DDA by accused Kamlesh Sharma/Yotsana Atri on 11.12.1996 and had issued a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of accused Prem Singh. Accused Rajiv Lochan Sharma is a joint account holder with accused Manish Sharma and the cheque was issued by accused Manish Sharma from the joint account of both accused Manish Sharma and Rajiv Lochan Sharma.
96. Prosecution has failed miserably to prove that there was prior meeting of minds between the parties at the time of execution of document dated 05.03.1974 which was executed allegedly in favour of accused Prem Singh. Admittedly, accused Manish Sharma, Rajiv Lochan Sharma, Rajiv Atri and Mahabir Prasad Sharma came into picture only when the documents were executed by accused Prem Singh in favour of accused Kamlesh Sharma and Yotsana Atri. The documents so executed were found to be genuine and have been executed as per the requirement of law. No evidence has come on record to prove FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 67 of 69 that all the aforesaid accused persons connived with accused Prem Singh.
97. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that forgery or cheating was committed by accused, they cannot be burdened with the offence of conspiracy to commit an offence.
98. Thus the averments in the complaint even if assumed to be true, that the documents relied upon by accused persons are not genuine do not make out any offence under section 420/467/468/471 IPC. Even prosecution has failed to prove charge under section 120B IPC.
99. From the entire evidence led by the prosecution, it stands disproved that any offence was committed by the accused persons. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused persons, the benefit of which accrues in their favour. They are accordingly acquitted for the offence under section 467/468/471/420/511 IPC read with section 120B IPC Announced in the open Court on 12.12.2018 (POOJA TALWAR) CMM (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 68 of 69 Certified that this Judgment contains 69 pages and each page is signed by me.
(POOJA TALWAR) CMM (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 785/1997 PS R.K. Puram (EOW) Page- 69 of 69