Delhi District Court
State vs . : Satya Mani on 12 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. KRATIKA CHATURVEDI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Satya Mani
FIR No : 556/2004
U/s : 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC & 174A IPC
P.S. : Vikas Puri
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020071452019
2. Date of commission of offence : 28.12.2004
3. Date of institution of the case : 20.10.2010
4. Name of the complainant : HC Vijender Singh
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : Satya Mani, S/o Sh.
Balwant Singh, R/o RZ-
57,Durga Park, Gali No.1,
Behind Dabri,Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 420/468/472/471 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Convicted
9. Date of final order : 12.07.2023
FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 1 of 28
Argued by:- Mr. Manish Sidhawat, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. M K Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.12.2004 at about 1:00 p.m. at Main Nazafgarh road, near Dhouli Piyau temple, Delhi the accused had made false driving licenses and had cheated the complainant Ct. Dharamvir by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 200/- and that the seizure memos were forged in respect of driving licensee and also used false and counterfeit seal of metropolitan magistrate and used the same as genuine. As such, it is alleged that the accused Satya Muni has committed the offence punishable under section 420/468//472/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which FIR no. 556/2004 was registered at the police station Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 2 of 28 in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under section 420/468/471/472 of IPC was framed against the accused on 17.05.2018 wherein the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 31.01.2023, charge u/s 174A IPC was also framed against the accused and the accused pleaded guilty.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 HC Rajesh Kumar PW-2 HC Pankaj Kumar PW-3 Ct. Sumit PW-4 Retd. SI Mahender Singh PW-5 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar PW-6 Retd. SI Uday Singh PW-7 ASI Vijender Singh PW-8 Retd. SI Sita Ram PW-9 Retd. SI Birpal Singh PW-10 ASI Dharambir Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A FIR No. 278/2004, PS Kamla Market dated 15.06.2004 Ex. PW2/A FIR No. 278/2003, PS Rajouri Garden dated 15.04.2003 Ex. PW3/A FIR No. 278/2004, PS Vikas Puri dated 20.06.2004 Ex.PW4/A (OSR) FIR No. 556/2004 Ex. PW4/B Endorsement on rukka Ex. PW5/A Detailed FSL Report FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 3 of 28 Ex.PW5/B (colly) Question documents Ex.PW5/C (colly) Sample of the stamp used by the accused Ex.PW7/A Forged seizure memo made by the accused Ex. PW7/B Seizure memo of currency notes Ex. PW7/C Rukka Ex.PW8/A Reply to bail application Ex.PW9/A Site Plan Ex.PW9/B Seizure memo of 7 form of DL, 21 photographs of accused, 2 tamra patra yantra, one scissor,1 ID of accused, 2 seizure memo of Netrapal Singh and Ashok Kumar with round seal and long seal, 1 DTC pass of accused, 1 certificate of accused of High School, 1 certified issued by Human Resource Ministry, 1 stapler, and 1 glass alike stone.
Ex.PW9/C Arrest memo
Ex.PW9/D Personal search memo
Ex.PW9/E Disclosure statement
Ex.PW9/F Seizure memo of 2 seals and 1 blue pad
Ex.PW9/G & Seizure memo of Surjeet Kumar, Mukesh
Ex.P9 (colly) Chand Yadav and Parveen
Ex.PX1 (colly) Specimen handwriting of accused Ex.PX2(colly) Sample of seal Ex.PX 5 & Two currency notes Ex.PW6 Ex. P9 (colly) Three seizure memos in the name of Surjeet Kumar, Mukesh Chand Yadav and Parveen Ex.PX7 (colly) Two stamps, one pad and one pilot pen Ex.PX8 (colly) One bag containing certain articles
4. PW-1, HC Rajesh Kumar, had brought the summoned record with regard to the FIR no. 278/2004, PS Kamla Market dated 15.06.2004. PW-2, HC Pankaj Kumar, had brought the summoned record with regard to the FIR no. 278/2003, PS Rajouri Garden dated 15.04.2003 while PW-3, Ct. Sumit, had brought the FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 4 of 28 summoned record with regard to FIR No 278/2004, PS Vikas Puri dated 20.06.2004.
5. PW-4, Retd. SI Mahender Singh, has deposed that on 28.12.2004, he was posted as duty officer at PS Vikas Puri and his duty hours were 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM and on that day at about 3.20 PM, he received rukka through Ct Dharambir sent by HC Bijender Singh. On the basis of same, he registered the present FIR and after registration, copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to the Ct Dharambir for handing over the same to ASI Veer Pal. He further deposed that the present FIR is in his handwriting and he has brought the original record and he also made endorsement on rukka.
6. PW-5, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, has deposed that he is MSC in Applied Physics. He joined FSL Delhi in Document Division in the year 1999. He has more than 18 years of experience in the field of document examination. He served FSL Delhi at the post of Senior Scientific officer from October 2006 to March 2008. The documents for examination of FSL case 2007/D-0767 were forwarded with memo no. 237/SHO/Vikas Puri Delhi dated 28.02.2007 and received by the documents division, FSL Rohini on 01.03.2007. There were total four sheets of questioned documents which were sent for examination and there were 9 sheets of standards which were sent for comparison. The documents for examination were marked as Q1 to Q8, Q9 to Q12 and Q13 to Q16. Similarly, standards were stamped and marked as S1, S2, S3 to S8 and A1. He further deposed that he has given his opinion in report no. FSL2007/D-767 dated 30.04.2007.
FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 5 of 287. PW-6, Retd. SI Uday Singh, has deposed that on 01.10.2005, he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as SI and on that day further investigation of the case was marked to him. He had gone through the entire file and obtained priority letter from the department and got deposited the specimen signature/stamp at FSL Rohini for comparison along with the questioned documents and thereafter, after sometime, he also obtained the result of FSL. He further deposed that he tried to search other co-accused persons but all his efforts went in vain. Thereafter, he obtained the different FIRs from different police stations i.e., Vikas Puri, Daya Basti, Rajouri Garden and Kamla Market. He obtained the statement of the then, Ld. MM Sh. S. K. Gautam whose false signature and stamps were used by the accused Satya Mani. Thereafter, he concluded his investigation and submitted the charge-sheet before the court. He has correctly identified the accused Satya Mani.
8. PW-7, SI Vijender Singh, has deposed that on 28.12.2004, he was posted as HC at PS Vikas Puri and on that day, he was present in the police station. One secret informer came at the PS and informed him that one person namely, Satyamani make fake driving licenses by the name of Judge and he further informed that he also had fake stamp of Magistrate. He apprised the fact to the SHO concerned. Thereafter, in this regard DD no. 17 A was reduced to writing in the rojnamcha. Thereafter, Ct Dharambir had joined the investigation. He handed over two notes of Rs.100 denominations to Ct. Dharambir after signing the same. The number of the said notes were 6HE 694796 & 7LL 240233. Thereafter, he asked Ct.
FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 6 of 28Dharambir Singh to give signal by putting in his hand on the head. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Dharambir Singh and the informer reached at main Najafgarh road, Near Dholi Piaon, Near Temple, Delhi. One person was standing near the wall of the temple and on seeing that person, secret informer told that he is the same person. The said person was carrying red colour bag having Bhagwati Jewellers written on it. Thereafter, Ct. Dharambir Singh was made a decoy customer and he was sent to the accused Satyamani. Thereafter, Ct. Dharambir Singh talked to him and handed over one photograph and Rs. 200 (Two notes of Rs.100 denomination) to the accused Satyamani and made a deal. Accused Satyamani asked Ct. Dharmabir to come at the same place after one hour. Accused Satyamani went away from there. Thereafter, he asked some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without disclosing the name and identity. At around 2.00 PM, the accused returned back to the spot. Thereafter, Ct. Dharambir went to the accused Satyamani. Accused Satyamani handed over a seizure memo of the court of Sh. S.K. Gautam, the then Ld. MM, Delhi to Ct. Dharambir Singh. Thereafter, Ct. Dharambir Singh gave signal by putting his hand on the head and they apprehended the accused. Thereafter, Ct. Dharambir Singh handed over the seizure memo given by the accused to Ct. Dharambir Singh to him. Thereafter, he checked the seizure memo and found that the same bears the name of the then Ld. MM, Sh. S. K Gautam and seal of Metropolitan Magistrate. The seizure memo was also having the photograph of the Ct. Dharambir Singh stamped by round seal of the Metropolitan Magistrate. In the seizure memo, FIR No. 278/2004, U/s 279/337 FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 7 of 28 IPC, PS Vikas Puri was also mentioned. Thereafter, he enquired about the FIR No. 278/2004, PS Vikas Puri and came to know that the FIR belongs to section 379 IPC. He had seized the forged seizure memo made by accused and other forged seizure memos. He also seized the two currency notes which were given to accused by Ct Dharambir as decoy customer. The number of the currency notes were 6HE 694796 and 7LL 240233. He put the currency notes in white pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of 'VSK' and after using the seal, the same was handed over to Ct. Dharambir. He prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct Dharambir for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and after getting the FIR registered, he returned back at the spot along with ASI Birpal Singh as the investigation was marked to him. He handed over the case property, documents prepared by him and accused to ASI Birpal Singh. IO prepared the site plan at his instance. He has correctly identified the accused and both currency notes bear the same number i.e., 6HE 694796 and 7LL 240233. In his cross- examination, he stated that he had made the departure entry at about 12.30 PM before leaving the PS. They went to the spot on his personal scooter and they reached at the spot within 7 minutes. He had not served notice on any public person. He does not remember what colour dress were worn by the accused on 28.12.2004. The spot is at the distance for about 1 Km from PS and he remained at the spot from 12.55 PM to 5.00 PM. He prepared the rukka at about 3.10 PM and handed over the same to the Ct Dharambir.
9. PW-8 Retired SI Sita Ram, has deposed that in FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 8 of 28 January 2005, he was posted as SI at PS Vikas Puri. In the said month, the investigation of the present matter was marked to him. During investigation he gave a reply on the bail application of accused Satya Mani and he also searched for Pawan, Mukesh and TSR Driver but he could not find them. Thereafter, he got transferred and he handed over the file to MHC(R).
10. PW-9 Retired SI Birpal Singh, has deposed that on 28.12.2004 he was posted as ASI at PS Vikas Puri. On that day, the present case was marked to him for the investigation. He along with Ct. Dharamvir Singh went to the spot i.e., Dholi Piaon, near Mandir Main Najafgarh Road, Vikas Puri. He met HC Vijender Singh at the spot who had apprehended the accused Satya Muni. HC Vijender Singh handed over to him accused and one hand bag. He prepared the site plan and he also searched the bag on which Bhagwati jewellers was written. He recovered eleven articles from the bag i.e., 7 forms of driving license, 21 photographs of accused, 2 tamra patra yantra, one scissor, one ID of accused, 2 seizure memos of Netrapal Singh and Ashok Kumar with round seal and long seal, one DTC pass of accused, one certificate of accused of High School, one certificate issued by Human Resource Ministry, one stapler and one glass alike stone. He seized the same and arrested and conducted the personal search of the accused. He also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and deposited the case property with MHCM. On 29.12.2004, he along with Ct. Dharamvir and accused went to the house of the accused i.e., RZ-57, Durga Park, Gali no. 1, Dabri, New Delhi and there they FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 9 of 28 recovered two seals and one blue pad at the instance of the accused and he sealed the same with the seal of BPS and thereafter, same were seized by him. He also recovered seizure memos of Surjeet Kumar, Mukesh Chand Yadav and Parveen and he seized the same and also obtained the specimen handwriting of accused Satya Muni. He had also taken the samples of the seals seized by him on the white paper. He recorded the statement of witnesses during investigation. He has correctly identified the accused, the case property and the three seizure memos in question. He had also seized two stamp, one pad and one pilot pen and one bag on which Bhagwati Jewellers was written which contained certain articles mentioned in Ex.PW9/B. During investigation in 2005, he was transferred to ATS West District so he submitted the case file to MHC(M) and the present case was marked to some other police officer for remaining investigation. In his cross-examination, he stated that he reached at the spot at about 4.00 PM. He was on emergency duty at that time. He reached there on foot. He took 15 minutes to reach the spot.
11. PW 10, ASI Dharambir Singh, has deposed that on 28.12.2004, he was posted as Ct. at PS Vikas Puri and on that day, when he was present at PS, one secret informer came at PS and informed HC Vijender about one person namely, Satya Mani who made fake driving license in the name of Judge and that person was also having the stamp of Magistrate. Thereafter, the SHO was made apprised about the same and DD No. 17 A was made in the roznamacha. Thereafter, he joined the investigation. Two FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 10 of 28 notes/denomination of 100 were handed over to him by HC Vijender Singh and he had signed the said notes. The number of the said notes were 6HE 694796 and 7LL 240233. Thereafter, he took one photograph of him. Thereafter, he along with HC Vijender Singh and secret informer reached near Dhauli Pion near temple, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. One person was present at the spot and secret informer told him that he is Satya Mani. The said person was carrying one red colour bag and on that bag Bhagwati Jewellers was written. Thereafter, he approached the accused Satya Mani as decoy customer and spoke to him about making of license documents and handed over to him one photograph and Rs. 200/- i.e., two currency of 100 rupees as a charge of making the said documents. He told me that he would hand him over the papers of the license after some time. He returned after one hour and gave him the papers. Accused Satya Mani handed over the seizure memo of the court of Sh. S K Gautam, the then Ld. MM, Delhi. Thereafter, he gave signal to HC Vijender. He immediately approached them and they apprehended the accused, thereafter, he handed over the seizure memo to HC Vijender Singh. The said seizure memo was having the name and stamp of the Ld. MM and it was also having his photograph pasted on it. On the seizure memo FIR No. 278/04, U/s 279/337 IPC, PS Vikas Puri was mentioned. The currency notes were recovered from the accused and they were seized by HC Vijender Singh, who also seized the forged the seizure memo and thereafter, HC Vijender Singh prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and after getting FIR registered, he along with ASI Bir Pal returned at the spot as FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 11 of 28 investigation was marked to ASI Bir Pal. The site plan was prepared at the spot by IO ASI Bir Pal. The bag which contained many articles of the accused was also seized and the accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted and disclosure statement of accused was also recorded. On 29.12.2004, he again joined the investigation in the present matter along with ASI Bir Pal and went to the residence of the accused i.e., RZ-57, Durga Park, Gali No. 1, Dabri, New Delhi and accused was accompanying them. The accused produced from his house two stamps, one round stamp of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari court, Delhi and another one of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. He also produced one pad on which Supreme Deluxe Stamp pad was written and one pilot pen. There were kept in one white cloth and sealed with the seal of BPS. IO also recovered forged seizure memos of Surjit Kumar, Mukesh Chand Yadav and Praveen and seized the same. He has correctly identified the fake/forged seizure memos of Surjit Kumar, Mukesh Chand Yadav and Praveen which are in his name. He has correctly identified the accused and two currency notes, two stamps, one pad, one pilot pen, one bag named Bhagwati Jeweller and many articles. In his cross-examination, he stated that the departure entry was made before leaving the PS at about 12.30 PM. They reached at the spot at about 1.00 PM on a scooter. The secret informer reached at the spot on his own vehicle i.e., two-wheeler. He does not remember the make, colour and registration number of that scooter and two- wheeler. 4-5 public persons were asked to join the proceedings but they refused to join and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses. No notice was served upon them by HC Vijender.
FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 12 of 28The accused met them at about 1.00 PM. He does not remember what clothes was worn by the accused at that time because of lapse of time. The spot is at a distance of 1 Km from the PS. No photograph was taken of the case property at the spot by HC Vijender. They reached at the house of the accused in the evening but he cannot tell the exact time. He does not remember in which direction the face of the house of the accused was. There was one room in the house of the accused. Accused was residing on the rent but he does not know the name of the owner. They remained at the spot till 5.15 PM. He went to the PS along with rukka at about 3.10 PM and returned to the spot at about 4.00 PM. IO prepared arrest memo, personal search memo, seizure memo of bag, site plan. He cannot tell the exact time of the making of these documents. IO sealed the case property at the spot. He cannot tell at what time the case property was handed over to the MHC(M).
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
12. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 20.02.2023 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 13 of 28ARGUMENTS
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
14. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
15. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
16. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 420, 468/472 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused Satya Muni cheated the complainant, Ct. Dharamvir by dishonestly FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 14 of 28 inducing him to deliver Rs. 200/- in lieu of providing the documents of driving license and the prosecution is also required to prove that he had forged the seizure memos and also used false and counterfeit seal/stamp of metropolitan magistrate and that the same were fraudulently used as genuine by the accused.
17. In the instant case, the accused has been charged for the offence under section 420, 468/472 and 471 of the IPC. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant sections. These run as under:
"Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 463 - Forgery: Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, 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 any express or implied contract, or with intent to FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 15 of 28 commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 465 - Forgery for the purpose of cheating :
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 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 - Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record: Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
Section 472 - Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable under section 467 : Whoever makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for making an impression, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing any forgery which would be punishable under section 467 of this Code, or, with such intent, has in his possession any such seal, plate or other instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
18. The accused has been charged for the offences of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (S. 420 IPC), forgery for the purpose of cheating (S. 468 IPC), using as genuine a forged document or electronic record (S. 471 IPC) and making or possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery (S. 472 IPC) in the present case. The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating, as punishable under Section 420 IPC were recently culled FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 16 of 28 out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. R.K Vijayasarathy Vs. Sudha Seetharam (2019) 16 SCC 739, in the following terms-:
"16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him:
16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property."
19. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. In order to prove the fact that accused had committed the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused has cheated the complainant, Ct. Dharambir to the tune of Rs. 200/- by dishonestly inducing the complainant to deliver Rs. 200/- to the accused for providing the documents of the driving license. In order to prove the offence punishable under section 468/472 and 471 of IPC, the prosecution is also required to prove that the accused had forged the seizure memos in respect of the driving license for the purpose of cheating by making a false document and had also used false and counterfeit seal of metropolitan magistrate and had fraudulently used the same as genuine despite the knowledge that the same were not genuine.
FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 17 of 2820. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
21. In order to prove the case of the prosecution for cheat- ing and forgery committed by the accused, Satya Muni punishable for the offence under section 420/468/472/471 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the ingredients of the offences in question. Be- fore appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecu- tion, a reference be made to the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 18 of 28 latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
22. In the case at hand, the star witnesses of the prosecution are PW-1, ASI Dharambir, being the complainant and PW-7, HC Vijender in the present matter. They have deposed that one secret informer came at the PS and informed HC Vijender that one person namely Satya Muni who makes fake driving license in the name of the Judge and that he was also having the stamp of a Magistrate. Thereafter, both PW-1 and PW-7 alongwith the secret informer reached at the spot while PW-1 approached the accused as a decoy customer and spoke to him about making of license documents and handed over to him, one photograph and Rs. 200/- as a charge for making of the license documents. After one hour, when PW-1 returned at the spot, the accused handed over the seizure memo vide Ex. PW-7/A which bears the signature of Sh. S K. Gautam, the then Ld. MM and also had the seal of metropolitan magistrate and it also mentioned the FIR No. 278/04 PS Vikaspuri u/sec 279/337 IPC on the said seizure memo. Thereafter, PW-1 gave the signal to PW-6 who had apprehended the accused at the spot. PW-6 then seized the currency notes and the forged seizure memo and accordingly prepared the rukka and handed over the same to PW-1 for registration of the FIR.
23. Moreover, the testimony of the IO PW-9, Retd. SI Birpal Singh has also corroborated the testimony of PW-7 and has deposed that when he searched the bag which was apprehended from the possession of the accused on which Bhagwati Jewellers was written, he recovered 11 articles from the bag i.e., 7 forms of FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 19 of 28 driving license, 21 photographs of accused, 2 tamra patra yantra, one scissor, one ID of accused, 2 seizure memo of Netrapal Singh and Ashok Kumar with round seal and long seal, one DTC pass of accused, one certificate of accused of High School and HR ministry, one stapler and one glass like stone and further on 29.12.2004, they recovered two seals and one blue pad at the instance of the accused and also recovered the seizure memos of Surjeet Kumar, Mukesh Yadav and Parveen. There was no improbable fact, which accused could cull out from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the articles mentioned in the seizure memo and the accused has not been able to adduce any evidence to show that these articles were not recovered from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are found to be trustworthy and reliable.
24. It is imperative to note that as per the testimony of PW- 6, Retd. SI Uday Singh, he had obtained the statement of the then Ld. MM, Sh. S.K. Gautam who has stated that the seizure memos in question i.e., FIR No. 278/04, u/sec 279/337 IPC PS Vikaspuri titled as State v Dharambir, FIR No. 278/03, u/sec 279/337 IPC PS Rajaouri Garden titled as State v Parveen, FIR No. 278/04, u/sec 279/337 IPC PS Daya Basti titled as State v Surjeet Kumar had neither been issued by nor bears the signature of the then Ld. MM, Sh. S.K. Gautam. Further, in order to corroborate the version of the prosecution, PW-1 HC Sher Pal Singh and HC Rajesh Kumar had brought the original FIR No. 278/04, PS Kamla Market dated 15.06.2004, u/sec 25/54/59 Arms Act and PW-2, HC Umed Singh FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 20 of 28 had brought the original FIR No. 278/03 PS Rajouri Garden u/sec 61/1/14 Excise Act, which proves that the seizure memos prepared the accused is false and fabricated.
25. Also, it is imperative to note that as per the FSL report vide Ex.PW-5/A which has been duly proved by PW-5 which further corroborates the case of the prosecution. The witness has opined that there is a possibility that the questioned signatures which were sent to FSL and the specimen signatures of the accused have been written by one and the same person, which further supports the case of the prosecution. So, there was nothing improbable in his testimony and thus, the same is trustworthy and reliable.
26. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has also contended that the testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon as all are interested witnesses being police officials. However, their testimony cannot be discarded merely because the prosecution witnesses are police witnesses who were on their official duty. The contention of the Ld. Counsel that no other independent public person was made a witness in the case or was joined by the IO during investigation is not acceptable as the prosecution has proved its case otherwise. In this regard, it would also be apposite to the reiterate the settled legal position that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another V. State of Gujarat [AIR 1988 SC 696]. Further, it has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Crl. Appeal No. 502 of 2015 that FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 21 of 28 non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution when other prosecution witnesses are found to be trustworthy and reliable. Further, the testimonies of the witnesses are indeed impeccable and corroborative of each other. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses when the same is found to be credible.
27. The Ld. Counsel for the accused that the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon as it is based on the testimony of a decoy/ trap witness and thus, the benefit of doubt be given to the accused. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Chand vs State (Delhi Administration) 1979 SCR (2) 330 has observed that, "... That a trap witness may perhaps be considered as a person interested in the success of the trap may entitle a Court to view his evidence as that of an interested witness. Where the circumstances justify it, a Court may refuse to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness. On the other hand, a Court may well be justified in acting upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness if the Court is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the witness is a witness of truth."
28. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the IO had not conducted a fair and proper investigation and there are material discrepancies in the investigation and that benefit of doubt be given to the accused. It is a settled law that defective/ improper investigation by the investigating agency is solely not a ground for acquittal as it would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designed to be defective. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Muniappan FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 22 of 28 and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 with regard to the defective investigation has observed as under, "Defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc., which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses carefully to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the objects of finding out the truth. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the Investigating Officer and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the fake and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded."
29. It is also pertinent to note that the Ld. Counsel has not been able to show any major contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimonies and even if he would have pointed out, it is a settled law that some minor con- tradictions are bound to occur when the witnesses are examined af- ter a long gap of time from the date of incident. However, such mi- nor contradictions cannot make the evidence unreliable. A reliance be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhag- wan Jagannath Markad and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537, wherein it has observed as under :
"19. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the court has to assess whether read as a whole, it is truthful. In doing so, the court has to keep in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness. Some discrepancies not touching the core of the case are not enough to reject the evidence as a whole. No true FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 23 of 28 witness can escape from giving some discrepant details. Only when discrepancies are so incompatible as to affect the credibility of the version of a witness, the court may reject the evidence. Section 155 of the Evidence Act enables the doubt to impeach the credibility of the witness by proof of former inconsistent statement. Section 145 of the Evidence Act lays down the procedure for contradicting a witness by drawing his attention to the part of the previous statement which is to be used for contradiction. The former statement should have the effect of discrediting the present statement but merely because the latter statement is at variance to the former to some extent, it is not enough to be treated as a contradiction. It is not every discrepancy which affects creditworthiness and trustworthiness of a witness. There may at times be exaggeration or embellishment not affecting credibility. The court has to sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth. A statement may be partly rejected or partly accepted. Want of independent witnesses or unusual behaviour of witnesses of a crime is not enough to reject evidence. A witness being a close relative is not enough to reject his testimony if it is otherwise credible. A relation may not conceal the actual culprit. The evidence may be closely scrutinized to assess whether an innocent person is falsely implicated. Mechanical rejection of evidence even of a 'partisan' or 'interested' witness may lead to failure of justice. It is well known that principle "
30. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 601] that, "normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."
31. In the present case also, there is no major contradiction noted in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Their testi- monies are cogent and convincing. There is no reason to doubt their testimonies. There appears no reason as to why the complainant FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 24 of 28 would falsely implicate innocent person while leaving the real cul- prit unpunished.
32. The accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated that he had not committed any offence. The bur- den to prove his defence was on the accused. The accused, however, has not led any evidence to prove his defence. It is settled position of law that statement made during examination under Section 313 Cr. PC is not evidence. It has not been made on oath and has not been tested on the touchstone of cross-examination. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.S.Yadav vs Reena, Crl. A. no. 1136/2010, decided on 21/09/2010, has discussed the scope of examination of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. It has held as under:
"5. It must be borne in mind that the statement of accused under Section 281 Cr. P.C. or under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is not the evidence of the accused and it cannot be read as part of evidence. The accused has an option to examine himself as a witness. Where the accused does not examine himself as a witness, his statement under Section 281 Cr. P.C. or 313 Cr. P.C. cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to be looked into only as an explanation of the incriminating circumstance and not as evidence. There is no presumption of law that explanation given by the accused was truthful...."
33. In the present case, for the aforesaid reason, the statement made by the accused person during his examination under Section 281 r/w 313 Cr.P.C. and in light of the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses, there is no specific reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses when the same is otherwise credible and trustworthy. Therefore, the lapses which have been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused does not materially affect the testimony of the prosecution FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 25 of 28 witnesses and the same leads to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offences in question.
34. It is a well settled law that mere deceit is not sufficient to prove the offence under section 420, rather the offence is committed when the effect of the fraudulent or dishonest act must be such that it induces the person deceived to deliver property or do something in the form of an act or omission. It is proved by the prosecution that the inducement by the accused to the complainant was made at the initial stage when the accused induced the complainant to deliver Rs.200/- for the purpose of making the fake documents of the driving license. The prosecution has been able to prove that the accused had no intention to prepare the original documents, rather his only intention was to take Rs. 200/- under the garb of fees for preparation of the forged documents of license, thus, cheating is established. The mens rea of the accused is also established by his conduct as he had an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself from the initial stage.
35. To constitute forgery for the purpose of cheating punishable under section 468 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecu- tion to prove that the accused must have made a false document. Apart from the necessity to prove this, it also has to establish that the document was to forged to achieve any of the intentions enu- merated under section 463 IPC i.e.,
(a) cause damage or injury to the public or to any person;
(b) support any claim or title;
FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 26 of 28(c) cause any person to part with the property;
(d) enter into any express or implied contract; or
(e) commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
36. In the present case, the seizure memos which have been seized from the possession of the accused are forged as has been proved by the prosecution. It has also been proved that the same were forged in order to commit fraud by taking Rs. 200/- from the complainant in lieu of fake seizure memo of the license of the complainant and other persons who had approached the accused for making of driving license. The fake seizure memos in question created by the accused were legally capable of effectuating the fraud intended. In addition to offence of cheating and forgery for the purpose of cheating, the accused had forged the signatures of the then Ld. MM, Sh. S.K. Gautam on the fake seizure memos and used the stamp of the metropolitan magistrate and counterfeit seal of the said seizure memo, knowing the same to be genuine. For the offence under section 471 IPC, it is not necessary that the person himself has forged the document, it is sufficient as long as it is proved that the accused knew it to be forged and used the same as genuine. In the present case, it is proved that the accused knew the seizure memo to be forged and then also used it to give it to the complainant and other persons who had approached him for the documents regarding the driving license. While in order to prove the offence under section 472 IPC, the prosecution has been able to prove that the seal which was used the accused is not genuine and had not been given by any authorized department/court. Thus, it can be said that the accused has miserably failed to rebut the case of the prosecution FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 27 of 28 and has failed to adduce any evidence in order to show his innocence.
CONCLUSION
37. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant and other witnesses is coherent and directly implicates the accused. The defence has failed to punch a hole in the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
38. Resultantly, the accused, Sh. Satya Mani is hereby found guilty for offences under section 420/468/471/472 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is convicted accordingly. Let the convict be heard separately on sentencing.
Announced in open court on 12.07.2023 in the presence of the accused.
(Kratika Chaturvedi) Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Dwarka, Delhi/12.07.2023 Note:- This judgment contains 28 pages and each page has been signed by me.
FIR No. 556/2004, PS Vikas Puri State vs. Satya Mani Page 28 of 28