Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Kumar @ Boxer Ors on 11 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Cr. CASES 85952/2016
STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014
PS GREATER KAILASH
JUDGMENT
a. CNR NO. DLSE020002132015
b. Name of the Complainant Ms. Kamal Jeet Kaur
W/o Sh. Hardeep Singh
c. Name of the accused & his (1) Rohit Kumar @ Boxer
parentage and address S/o Sh. Vikram Singh
R/o H.no.118, Gali no.3,
Shakti Vihar, Badarpur, New
Delhi.
(2) Nitesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Babu
R/o H.no.217, Shyam Colony
Part-II, Sehat Pur, Faridabad.
d. Offence charged 465/471/34 IPC
e. Date of commission of 10.08.2013
offence
f. Date of Institution 05.02.2015
g. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
h. Order Reserved on 13.02.2026
CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 1 OF 23
STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014
PS GREATER KAILASH
i. Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2026 (order was
reserved for 03.03.2026
however the same was
declared holiday by Hon'ble
High Court)
j. Final Order Acquittal
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Accused Nitesh Goel in person.
Accused Rohit in person along with Sh. Nihal Hussain, Ld. Counsel.
Mohd. Usman, Ld. Counsel for the accused Nitesh Goel. BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.2013, at unknown time, accused Rohit Kumar @ Boxer and Nitesh Kumar, both in furtherance of their common intention, forged ID proof (election ID card) of Kamaljit Kaur with intend to commit fraud and that both of them fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the abovesaid forged ID, which they knew or had reason to believe at the time they used it to be a forged document by using the same in issuance of mobile number 9990888189 and the abovesaid mobile number was used in stolen mobile make NOKΙΑ Χ3 having IMEI number 353770040756315 which was reported to be stolen from CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 2 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH C-204, GK1, New Delhi and both the accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 465/471/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of investigation of case FIR No 242/14, u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC, accused Rohit Kumar@Boxer was found using the mobile number 9990888189 on a the robbed mobile phone make Nokia X-3 Black Colour IMEI No 353770040756315. The said mobile number was registered in the name of Kamal Jeet Kaur w/o Hardeep Singh R/o 7/1 Lakhpat Colony Gagan Vihar Badarpur New Delhi. During investigation, Mrs. Kamaljeet Kaur stated that she had not issued the aforesaid mobile number in her name and someone has used her photo and forged the Voter I-Card. Statement of Mrs. Kamaljeet Kaur w/o Hardeep Singh was recorded and she stated that on 22.7.2014, IO had come to her house and shown one application form of one mobile number 9990888189 along with voter ID Card. The said application form bears her photograph and ID, however, the voter ID card bears wrong address and the same is forged. She had not put her signatures on the application form and Voter ID and nor she signs in Hindi".
3. So, on the basis of statement of complainant Kamal Jeet Kaur, present case FIR No 313/14 u/s 465/468/471/34 IPC was CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 3 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH registered and investigation was carried out by SI Sandeep Panwar and later investigation was entrusted to SI Sanjay Bhatt. During investigation, the Original Consumer Application Form of mobile no 9990888189, SIM No 89910434061379580758 was seized from the Nodal Officer Idea. The certified copy of CDR of 9990888189 was also obtained. Accused Rohit Kumar was arrested in this case on 08/12/14 in the court as he was in judicial custody in case FIR No 242/14 u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC. He disclosed that he had taken the SIM card from one Raj Kumar who met him at Meethapur Chowk. Search of co-accused Raj Kumar was made but he could not be traced as there was no address. During investigation, the admitted handwriting of accused Rohit Kumar was seized and his specimen handwriting in 8 pages were taken with the permission of Court. Further, during investigation on 19/12/14, retailer of mobile number Nitesh Kumar S/o Shyam Babu R/o H.N. 217 Shyam Colony Part-II Sehat Pur Faridabad was traced and he joined investigation and produced one rubber stamp of "Bansal Communication shop no 2 Satya Vihar, Meetha Pur Badarpur-4 DLARV10078019" which was seized. Accused Nitesh stated that the Consumer Application Form of mobile no 9990888189 bears the stamp of Bansal Communication. He CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 4 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH further stated that he had not issued this mobile connection. He stated that one Sanjesh @ Damodar who works with the distributor and comes for the collection, he might have got issued this number and put his stamp on it. The alleged Sanjesh Damodar S/o Radhey Shyam R/o Village Paharpur PS Sayal Distt Etavah U.P., examined in this case and search of his house was made but nothing could be recovered. He stated that he was working with the distributor and used to collect the payments from the retailer with regard to load. He stated that he has not got issued this mobile number and sometimes, on the request of Nitesh owner of Bansal Communication, he filled up the forms of customer and Nitesh put the stamp on CAF and always keeps the stamp in his possession. The CAF bears the stamp of Bansal Communication. The Sanjesh @ Damodar's name was kept in the column no 12 as there was no evidence against him. The specimen handwriting of Sanjesh were taken. The specimen handwriting of accused Nitesh Kumar were obtained from the with the permission of the court. During investigation, it was found out that the original CAF bears the applicant's alternate number 8287827282. The CDR and CAF of aforesaid number were obtained which revealed that the same Voter ID Card was used in taking the aforesaid mobile number. The CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 5 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH said number was issued from Sony Music & Telecom Center Khan Pur New Delhi -62. The search of retailer mention above was made but the shop could not be traced. During further investigation, the Voter ID Card of complainant bearing number WGL1879097 and purported forged Voter ID Card no JKK1484823 were got verified from the AERO Assembly Constituency 53 Badarpur New Delhi and Mr. A.E.Toppo AERO AC-53 opined that the Voter ID Card no WGL1879097 is genuine and Voter ID Card No JKK1484823 does not exist in VREC-53, Badarpur New Delhi. The forged documents i.e. CAF, Specimen and admitted handwriting were sent to FSL. Rohini for expert opinion. So, on the material available on record, chargesheet against the accused person namely Rohit Kumar and Nitesh Kumar u/s 465/468/471/34 IPC was forwarded to the Court against the accused persons for trial.
4. After taking cognizance of the offences by the court, the accused persons were summoned. Pursuant to their appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., copy of charge sheet was supplied to them. Subsequently, after perusal of the judicial file and hearing the parties, a prima facie case against both the accused persons for commission of offence punishable u/s 465/471/34 IPC was found to be CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 6 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH made out. Accordingly, on 12.07.2016, formal charge of accusation for commission of offence under Sections 465/471/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons, to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, examined the following witnesses; viz.
i) PW-1 Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur (complainant),
ii) PW-2 Sh. Hardeep Singh (public witness/ Husband of the complainant),
iii) PW-3 Shyam Babu (recovery witness),
iv) PW-4 HC Daryav Singh (Duty Officer),
v) PW-5 Anil Kumar (public witness/ Idea distributer),
vi) PW-6 Vikas Mehra (Nodal officer/ to prove CAF of mobile bumber 9990888189),
vii) PW-7 Ct. Jitender (police witness),
viii) PW-8 Inspector Sanjay Bhatt (IO)
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1) CAF pertaining to mobile no.9990888189 is Ex.
PW1/A, CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 7 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH
2) Alleged forged Voter ID card in the name of complainant Kamaljeet Kaur as Ex. PW1/B,
3) Complaint of complainant as Ex. PW1/C,
4) seizure memo of photocopy of voter ID card and Aadhar card of complainant Kamaljeet Kaur as Ex. PW2/A,
5) photocopy of voter ID card and Aadhar card of complainant as Ex. P-X and Ex. P-Y (OSR),
6) photocopy of paper sheets containing specimen signature and handwriting of complainant as Mark A colly,
7) Seizure memo of rubber stamp bearing Bansal Communication as Ex. PW3/A,
8) endorsement on DD no. 34A as Ex. PW4/A,
9) copy of FIR no. 313/2014, PS GK-I, as Ex. PW4/B (OSR),
10) certificate u/s 65B IE Act as Ex. PW4/C,
11) paper sheets containing handwriting of Sanjesh as Ex. PW5/A (Colly),
12) certified copy of CAF pertaining to mobile no. 8287827282 along with photocopy of voter ID card as Ex. PW6/A,
13) CDR along with certificate u/s 65B IE Act as PW6/B (running into 155 pages),
14) Arrest memo of accused Rohit Kumar as Ex. PW7/A,
15) Disclosure statement of accused Rohit Kumar as Ex.
PW7/B,
CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 8 OF 23
STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014
PS GREATER KAILASH
16) seizure memo of admitted handwriting of accused Rohit as Ex. PW7/C,
17) 10 pages of admitted handwriting are Ex. PX (running into 10 pages),
18) Tehrir as Ex. PW8/A,
19) seizure memo of original CAF related to mobile no. 9990888189 as Ex. PW8/B,
20) seizure memo of original CAF of alternative mobile number as Ex. PW8/C,
21) seizure memo of mobile phone seized from accused Rohit as Ex. PW8/D,
22) letter sent to AERO/ERO Badarpur as Ex. PW8/E and report qua the same as Ex. PW8/F,
23) written reply of distributor as Ex. PW8/G,
24) rubber stamp is Ex. PY
7. In addition to the above-mentioned witnesses, the accused persons also admitted FSL report prepared by Syed Ahmar Ali Hashmi, CDR & CAF along with certificate u/s 65B IE Act as Ex.A-1 to Ex. A-2 respectively, in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.07.2018 hence, the said witnesses were dropped on the submissions of Ld. APP for State.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 9 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH incriminating circumstances led against them during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to them, affording them an opportunity to give their explanation, if any. Accused pleaded innocence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons preferred to lead defence evidence. In their defence evidence, accused Nitesh Kumar examined himself as DW1 and accused Rohit Kumar @ Boxer examined himself as DW2. Thereafter, DE was closed and the matter was posted for final arguments.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and minutely. After hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the state cannot be accepted for the reasons given below.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
10. In the instant case, the accused persons have been charged for the offence under section 465, and 471 read with section 34 of the IPC. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant sections. These run as under:
CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 10 OF 23
STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014
PS GREATER KAILASH
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 commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 465 - Punishment for forgery; "Whoever commits forgery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or both."
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.
11. Section 465 IPC relates to Punishment for forgery and the ingredients of offences under Section 465 IPC are -- (i) The accused prepared a false document or electronic record; (ii) The accused did it CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 11 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH with for the purpose of fraud or deceit; (iii) The document or electronic record was prepared dishonestly or fraudulently and (iv) The accused did it which the intention of causing wrongful gain to someone and wrongful loss to another.
12. Section 471 IPC pertains to Using as genuine a forged document. The ingredients of offences under Section 471 IPC are -- (i) The accused fraudulently or dishonestly used a document or electronic record as genuine and (ii) The accused new or had reason to believe that the document or electronic record was forged one.
13. The basic elements of forgery are:
(a) The making of a false document or part of it and;
(b) Such making should be with such intention as is specified in section, viz.,
(i) To cause damage or infringe to the public or any person.
(ii) To support any claim or title.
(iii) To cause any person to part with any property.
(iv) To cause any person to enter into expressed or implied contract or;
(v) To commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
The making of false documents by a person is defined u/s 464 IPC.
CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 12 OF 23
STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014
PS GREATER KAILASH
14. In the present matter the duty of prosecution was to prove beyond reasonable doubt following facts for the offence under section 465 IPC read with section 34 IPC ; -
i. That the voter ID card of the complainant and Customer Application Form (CAF) used for the purpose of issuance of mobile no. 9990888189 are false and fabricated document, ii. The abovesaid documents were made by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, iii. The abovesaid documents were made by the accused persons with intent to cause damage injury, or infringe to the public or any person to support any claim or title, or cause any person to part with any property or to cause any person to enter into expressed or implied contract or to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
15. For the offence under section 471 IPC read with section 34, the duty of prosecution was to prove beyond reasonable doubt following facts;-
i. The both accused in furtherance of their common intention CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 13 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH ii. fraudulently or dishonestly, used as genuine the above said alleged forged documents, iii. which they knew or had reason to be believe to be forged.
16. Now coming back to the present case, the present complaint has been registered on the complaint of PW-1 Ms. Kamaljeet Kaur who has stated in her original statement PW1/C that On 22.7.2014, IO had come to her house and shown one application form of one mobile number 9990888189 along with voter ID Card. The said application form bears her photograph and ID, however, the voter ID card bears wrong address and the same is forged. She had not put her signatures on the application form and Voter ID and nor she sign in Hindi. In her examination in court she has stated that on 22.07.2014 police official came at her residence and shown her CAF (ExPW1/A) pertaining to mobile number 9990888189 alongwith one voter ID (ExPW1/B) card in her name and her photograph which was used for taking abovesaid mobile number. She further stated that she had never applied for said mobile number and had not used said id for the same. She has only stated that the CAF (ExPW1/A) pertaining to mobile number 9990888189 alongwith one voter ID (ExPW1/B) card do not CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 14 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH belong to her and the signature at said CAF (ExPW1/A) are not hers. She has Further stated that address mentioned in voter ID card is also wrong. Thus she has not stated the the abovesaid two documents are fake and forged. Now the alleged original Voter id has not been tendered in evidence by the complainant. It is only during the testimony of the husband of the complainant/PW-2 Hardeep Singh that the Voter ID card (Ex.P-X) belonging to the complainant is tendered in evidence, however he is not executant of the said document and his evidence is only hearsay evidence. Further, the alleged document i.e. original voter ID (Ex.P-X) or alleged fake voter ID (ExPW1/B) are not proved as per law as none has appeared before the court qua the verification of the alleged documents from the concerned department. Also, the prosecution had failed to prove the record the reply to Letter of verification of voter ID cards dated 12.01.2015 vide which the verification report qua the alleged fake Voter ID Card bearing number JKK1484823 given as a proof to with the alleged CAF or the alleged original voter ID card WGL1879097, was to be proved. In absence of the same it cannot be presumed the document voter id (Ex. P-X) if an original document or voter ID (ExPW1/B), is fake document.
17. Further with respect to alleged CAF (ExPW1/A) being a CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 15 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH fake document, which as per prosecution story, bears the rubber stamp of Bansal communication, shop no. 2, Satya Vihar, Meethappur, Badarpur-44, and the accused no.2 is, being retailer of the same, has allegedly prepared, it is alleged that the abovesaid rubber stamp was recovered from the possession of the accused Nitesh Kumar. Now PW-5 Anil Kumar is a prosecution witness who has stated in his examination in chief that he is having the distribution-ship of Idea company. Retailer namely accused Nitesh Kumar is also doing work under him in a shop with the name and Style Bansal Communication Satya Vihar, Badarpur. He further stated that Sanjesh @ Damodar is also working at his shop as helper and his work to collect the payment as well as to collect the forms from the retailers and to deposit the same with me. He sends the same to the company and company activates the number after verification. He further stated Sanjesh told him that when the retailer seems busy to him, he used to help the retailer by filling up the application form. On 31.01.2015, IO called Sanjesh for his handwriting. On that day, he and Sanjesh went to 1O and Sanjesh gave his handwriting to IO. Now said person Sanjesh has never been examined as a witness. PW-5 has not stated that the it is the accused Nitesh or accused Rohit, who had filled up the alleged CAF or CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 16 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH prepared such document or that it was their work to prepare such documents. However, doubt is created in the prosecution story that even Sanjesh used to fill the said form. Thus, from the testimony of PW-5 it cannot be said the alleged CAF (ExPW1/A) was prepared by any of the accused persons.
18. Further It is the case of the prosecution that said alleged rubber stamp was recovered from the possession of the accused Nitesh vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A, however PW-3 Shyam Babu has appeared as a prosecution witness qua recovery proceedings of said rubber stamp and he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he was threatened by the police persons and was made to sign 4-5 blank papers in the police station. The fact that only independent witness Shyam Babu has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner casts serious doubts on the prosecution story as a whole including the veracity of seizure of Rubber stamp from accused.
19. In absence of corroboration by any independent public witness, the burden upon the prosecution increases multifold to rule out all possibilities of false implication of the accused. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case titled Roop Chand Vs. State of CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 17 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH Haryana, 1999 (1)C.L.R 69 observed;
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 18 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.FIR NO. 313/2014
PS GREATER KAILASH relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful...".
20. The seizure of the alleged fabricated rubber stamp from accused Nitesh was quintessential for proving the offence u/s 471 IPC by the accused. It is unclear from the record as to whether apart from Shyam Babu, any other independent public persons were also present at the time of seizure of the rubber stamp from the accused Nitesh. The fact that only independent witness Shyam Babu has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner casts serious doubts on the prosecution story as a whole including the veracity of seizure of rubber stamp from accused Nitesh. FORENSIC/ SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
21. FSL report is in the nature of evidence of hand writing expert which is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is admissible per se u/s 293 Cr.P.C. also and can be used as evidence during the course of trial without it being formally CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 19 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH proved.
22. However, it is settled proposition of law that before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. The evidence of an expert is rather a weak piece of evidence, and, therefore, should not be considered as "conclusive" poof in the absence of any independent and reliable corroboration. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magan Bihari Vs. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, wherein while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, the Apex Court opined that "........... We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which hold that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 20 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence.
23. Now, in the instant case, the FSL Report is Ex. A1 and perusal of the same reflects that it bears an observation "It has not been possible to express any opinion on red enclosed portion stamped and marked Q1 to Q3 & Q1/1 in comparison with the red enclosed portion similarly stamped & marked S1 to S10; S11 to S18 & A1 to A14; S19/1 to S21/1 as well as S27 to S31 on the basis of material at hand."
24. It is pertinent to note that as per the observation of the handwriting expert, the questioned signatures do not match with the specimen signatures/ handwriting of the accused Rohit and Nitesh. But the said report i.e. Ex. PWA1, nowhere suggests that the questioned signatures and the specimen signatures/ hand-writing of accused persons are identical. Meaning thereby, the FSL Report could not suggest the link of accused persons with the present case.
25. Further report of FSL with respect to alleged rubber stamp is tallying with the stamp on alleged forged CAF and voter ID card i.e Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. however as the fact of recovery of the CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 21 OF 23 STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014PS GREATER KAILASH alleged rubber stamp from the accused Nitesh is not corroborated by any independent witness, the FSL lacks substantial corroboration from independent evidence, and the same is not sufficient for conviction of the accused persons.
26. It is the story if the prosecution that Sanjesh also used to work at the shop of the accused Nitesh alongside accused Nitesh but he has not been examined as a prosecution witness. Thus, the prosecution had material witnesses to support the case of the prosecution but their names have not even been cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses and as such best witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution and benefit of the same shall go to the accused. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Amit Kantiwal v. Mukesh Mittal (Punjab And Haryana) CRM-A No.863-MA of 2014 (O&M). D/d. 30.03.2015.
27. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Anil s/o Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541.
CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 22 OF 23
STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014
PS GREATER KAILASH
28. Further, even though it is presumed that the CAF and Voter ID card are forged documents, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had forged the said document with intent to commit fraud and fraudulently or dishonestly, used as genuine the above said forged documents. However, no evidence has been put forth by the prosecution to prove any such intent to commit fraud and use as genuine a forged document.
29. Accordingly, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons, they are acquitted of the charges framed upon them in this case. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after expiry of period of appeal/revision.
Announced in the Open (SEEMA NIRMAL)
Court on 11.04.2026 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts,
New Delhi/11.04.2026
It is certified by me that this judgment contains 23 pages and each page is personally signed by me.
(SEEMA NIRMAL)
JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts,
New Delhi/11.04.2026
CCr. CASES 85952/2016 PAGE 23 OF 23
STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR @ BOXER & ANR.
FIR NO. 313/2014
PS GREATER KAILASH