Delhi District Court
State vs . Asha on 20 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA:
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :
CENTRAL DISTRICT :
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR No.: 80/2001
PS: Subzi Mandi
U/s 379/411 IPC
State Vs. Asha
Unique ID No.: 02401R0098802001
Court Complaint No. 11/2016
J U D G M E N T:
_____________________________________________________________
(a) S. No. of the case : 11/2016
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. Jawahar Lal, Reader, in the court of Shri A.S Dateer, the then Ld. MM, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of : 13.10.1999
offence
(d) Name of the accused : Asha
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar
Rathore
R/o P-88, Krishan
Vihar, Budh Vihar,
Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 193/420/468/471
IPC
State v. Asha
FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 1 of 21
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 13.07.2016
(h) Final Order : Accused Asha is
convicted.
(i) Date of such order : 20.07.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The accused Asha was sent up for trial for the alleged offences under sections 193/420/468/471 IPC.
2. The version of the prosecution is that the accused Asha stood as surety for accused Ganga Ram in case FIR No. 326/1997 P.S. Vikas Puri titled as "State v. Ganga Ram"
in the Court of Shri A.S. Dateer, the then Ld. MM and had furnished FDR No. 66632054 for an Rs.10,000/- purportedly issued by Dena Bank and her ration card in support of her Surety Bond. However afterwards it was reported that the FDR was a bogus FDR. The present FIR was accordingly registered on the complaint made by the reader of the Court State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 2 of 21 pursuant to the directions of the Ld. Presiding Officer.
3. Thereafter, investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed against the accused. A separate complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. was also made by the reader on behalf of the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Court. The accused appeared before the Court and on 13.02.2004 charges for the offences under sections 193/420/468/471 IPC were framed against the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 08 witnesses.
5. PW-1, ASI Nanu Ram has deposed that on 08.03.2001 he was posted at P.S Subzi Mandi as Duty Officer and on that day a complaint was marked to him for registering the FIR. He further deposed that he received the same vide Mark X and made endorsement at point A and on the basis of the complaint he recorded FIR No. 80/2001. State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 3 of 21 Carbon copy of the FIR is Ex. PW1/A.
6. PW2, Shri Jawahar Lal, has deposed that on 08.03.2001 he was posted as Reader in the court of Shri Ajaib Singh Dateer, the then Ld. MM, Delhi. He further deposed that on that day he made a complaint against surety Asha on behalf of Shri A.S Dateer, Ld. MM. He further deposed that Smt Asha stood surety for accused Ganga Ram in case FIR No. 326/1997 P.S Vikas Puri and she submitted a FDR purported to have been issued by Dena Bank in support of the bail bond and afterwards it was reported that the FDR was a bogus one. The complaint is Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that on 25.08.2001 he made a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C on behalf of Shri P.D. Gupta, the then Ld. MM as Shri P.D Gupta had taken the charge of the court of Shri A.S Dateer. The complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C is Ex. PW2/B.
7. PW3, Shri Krishan Kumar, has deposed that on State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 4 of 21 15.03.2001 he was working as Ahlmad in the court of Shri A.S Dateer, the then Ld. MM and on the directions of the Court he had handed over FDR Mark Y to the IO and the same was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW3/A and a copy of the bail bond Mark Z was also handed over to the IO.
8. PW4 HC Asha has deposed on 20.08.2001 she was posted at P.S. Kotwali and on that day she had conducted the personal search of the accused but nothing was recovered.
9. PW5, Shri S.M. Bansal, Branch Officer, Dena Bank, Ashok Vihar, Delhi deposed that he received a notice from the court in respect of FDR No. 6632054, Account No. 56503 but there was no such account number in the branch and no such FDR was ever issued by the bank. He further deposed that he has seen the said FDR on record and he categorically stated that it is a forged and fabricated document and it does not bear the signatures of any officer State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 5 of 21 from the branch. He further deposed that the FDR is not in the writing of any employee of his branch and he does not have any record of the said FDR. Copy of the FDR is Ex. PW5/A.
10. PW6, Shri T.S Mutti, deposed that on 19.07.2001 he was posted as SDM and was designated as Electoral Registration Officer, AC-3, Minto Road, New Delhi and on that day he had given the verification report of Identity card bearing no. DL/01/003/213680 of Smt. Asha W/o Suresh Kumar in response to the application of the IO. His report in this regard is Ex. PW6/A and the application of the IO is Ex. PW6/B. He further deposed that as per the Electoral roll the name of Smt Asha W/o Suresh Kumar is at serial no. 415 in part no. 72 of Assembly Constituency No. 3.
11. PW7 Inspector Ramesh Thakur deposed that on 08.03.2001 he was posted at District Crime Cell, North District and on that day, after registration of the present FIR State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 6 of 21 Ex. PW1/A, the investigation of the case was handed over to him as per the directions of ACP, Crime Cell. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had collected the relevant papers i.e. FDR, bail bond, ration card and election card from the court of Sh. P D Gupta, the then Ld. MM, Tis Hazari vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that the aforementioned bail bond and documents were filed by the surety of accused Ganga Ram in case FIR No. 326/1997 u/s 323/324 IPC PS Vikaspuri. He further deposed that he had got verified the aforementioned FDR bearing number 6632054 purportedly issued by Dena Bank and during verification, it was revealed that Dena Bank, Branch Ashok Vihar as mentioned on the FDR had not issued the aforementioned FDR and it was a forged FDR. The verification report of the FDR is Ex. PW7/A. He further deposed that the aforementioned ration card was also verified from FSO, Najafgarh and it was confirmed that the aforementioned ration card was also a forged one. The verification report of ration card is Ex. PW7/B. He further State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 7 of 21 deposed that the voter card of the surety Asha was also verified, however it was found to be genuine. He further deposed that on 28.06.2001 upon secret information accused Asha was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/C and her personal search was conducted by Lady Ct. Asha and the personal search memo is Ex. PW7/D. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex. PW7/E. He identified the accused in the court. He further deposed that he had taken the specimen signatures of accused Asha in the presence of Ct. Ravinder Kumar running into three pages and the same are Ex. S1 to S3. He further deposed that the specimen signatures of accused, alongwith original bail bond (Ex. PW7/F) and original FDR (Ex. PW7/G) were sent to FSL and the FSL result is Ex. PW7/H. He further deposed that during investigation, he had recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he had filed the chargesheet before the Court for judicial verdict. State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 8 of 21
12. PW8 Sh. Harsh Vardhan deposed that he was on deputation to FSL, Delhi as Sr. Scientific Officer (Documents) from 03.11.1995 to 13.11.2001 and during that period the documents of this case were forwarded by ACP, DIU/North, Delhi vide Memo No. 903-014/ACP/DIU/N dated 18.10.2001 which were received in the documents division of FSL, Delhi on 19.10.2001. He further deposed that after careful and thorough examination of the supplied questioned and standard documents he opined that: the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1 to S3 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q4. He further deposed that the detailed reasons for the said opinion are expressed in his report Ex. PW7/H. He further deposed that the details of the questioned and standard documents have been mentioned in his report Ex. PW7/H. The red enclosed questioned Hindi signatures of Asha are Mark Q1 to Q3 on Ex. PW7/F and Mark Q4 on Ex. PW7/G. The specimen signatures stated to be of accused Asha which are Mark S1 State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 9 of 21 to S3 are Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C. Thereafter PE was closed.
13. Thereafter the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the prosecution version and stated that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further stated that she does not know Ganga Ram. She further stated that she had not furnished the bail bond for any person namely Ganga Ram. She further stated that she had not appeared before the court prior to this case nor she had furnished any FDR before the court. She further stated that she is not having any bank account at Dena Bank, Ashok vihar. She further stated that she has no connection with the FDR in question. She further stated that she has been falsely implicated in the present case.
14. I have heard arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also perused the record.
State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 10 of 21
15. The version of the prosecution is that the accused Asha stood as surety for accused Ganga Ram in case FIR No. 326/1997 P.S. Vikas Puri titled as "State v. Ganga Ram"
in the Court of Shri A.S. Dateer, the then Ld. MM and had furnished FDR No. 66632054 for an Rs.10,000/- purportedly issued by Dena Bank and her ration card in support of her Surety Bond. However afterwards it was reported that the FDR was a bogus FDR. The prosecution has contended that the accused had given a false statement being legally bound by oath to make a true statement and the accused presented and forged the aforesaid FDR for the purpose of cheating and cheated the court and used a forged FDR and thereby committed offences under sections 193/420/468/471 IPC. As against this the accused has denied the prosecution version and has contended that she has been falsely implicated.
16. PW2 Shri Jawahar Lal, has deposed that on 08.03.2001 he was working as Reader in the court of Shri State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 11 of 21 Ajaib Singh Dateer, the then Ld. MM, Delhi and on that day he had made a police complaint against surety Asha. He further deposed that accused Asha stood as surety for accused Ganga Ram in case FIR No. 326/1997 P.S Vikas Puri. He further deposed that the accused had submitted a FDR purported to have been issued by Dena Bank in support of the bail bond and afterwards it was revealed that the FDR was a bogus one. Accordingly, PW 2 made complaint Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that on 25.08.2001 he made a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C on behalf of Shri P.D Gupta, the then Ld. MM and the said complaint is Ex.PW2/B.
17. Thus PW2 has clearly proved that the accused had furnished surety bond for accused Ganga Ram in case FIR No. 326/1997 P.S Vikas Puri before the court of Shri A.S Dateer, the then Ld. MM.
18. Further more during the course of investigation specimen signatures of accused Asha were taken and the State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 12 of 21 same are Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C. The said specimen signatures were sent to FSL for analysis. The FSL report is Ex.PW7/H. PW 8 Dr. Harsh Vardhan, retired Assistant Director (documents) has deposed that it was opined that the signatures on the bail bond Ex. PW7/F at points Q1 to Q3 have been written by the same person who had written the specimen signatures Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C. Thus FSL report and the testimony of PW 8 corroborates the version of PW 2 that the accused had furnished the said surety bond (along with affidavit) in the Court.
19. As per the testimony of PW6 the election identity card furnished by the accused with the bail bond was found to be genuine. This again corroborates the fact that the said bail bond was furnished by the accused. However there is no cogent and viable evidence to establish forgery of ration card by the accused.
State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 13 of 21
20. PW 2 has further deposed that the accused had furnished a FDR issued by Dena Bank along with the surety bond. This fact also stands corroborated by PW8 who has deposed that it was opined that the signatures on the FDR Ex. PW7/G at point Q4 have been written by the same person who had written the specimen signatures Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C.
21. The bank official from Dena Bank has been examined as PW5. He has categorically deposed that FDR No. 6632054, Account No. 56503 has not been issued by their branch and there is no such bank account in their branch. He further deposed that the said FDR is a forged forged document and it does not bear the signatures of any bank official and they have no record of the said FDR. The testimony of PW 5 therefore clearly proves that the said FDR was a forged and bogus FDR.
22. Ld. Counsel for the accused could not elicit State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 14 of 21 anything substantial in the cross examination of the PWs so as to discredit their testimonies.
23. Further there are no material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Further in so far as minor discrepancies in the testimonies of PWs are concerned I am of the opinion that the same are totally inconsequential and do not affect the prosecution case. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is bound to be some discrepancy between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. A witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 15 of 21 the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder. Trivial discrepancies and minor embellishments ought not to obliterate evidence which has otherwise been found to be reliable. The court can also sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat reported as (1983) 3 SCC 217, Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, reported as A.I.R. 1999 SC 3717, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony reported as AIR 1985 SC 48, Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as A.I.R. 1999 SC 3544 and Appabhai v. State of Gujarat reported as AIR 1988 SC 696.
24. Further the foundation of the defence of any accused is required to be laid down during the course of cross examination of Prosecution witnesses. The defence of State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 16 of 21 the accused must be suggested to the prosecution witnesses during the course of cross examination. In case a new line of defence, is sought to be introduced during the course of defence evidence or statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. whose foundation has not been laid during the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, such defence cannot be accorded much credibility and viability.
25. Reference may be made to the judgement titled as Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana, reported as 2000(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 158 (P&H) wherein it was observed:
".....7. Some defence witnesses had been examined so as to indicate that the version of the petitioner is correct that the was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. But this was entirely a new case that had been set up. It had never been so suggested to the witnesses of the prosecution. It was clearly an after-thought and thus the defence was rightly rejected...."
State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 17 of 21
26. The statement of the accused has been recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. Accused has stated that she does not know Ganga Ram and she had not furnished any bail bond for any person namely Ganga Ram. She further stated that she had not appeared before the court prior to this case nor she had furnished any FDR before the court. She further stated that she is not having any bank account at Dena Bank, Ashok Vihar. She further stated that she has no connection with the FDR in question. She further stated that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. However this defence has not been suggested to the prosecution witnesses during their cross examination. The assertion made by the accused has otherwise also not been proved by her. No cogent reasons or explanation has been given by the accused to establish that why the Court or the police would falsely implicate her in the present case.
27. Thus the prosecution has established beyond State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 18 of 21 reasonable doubt that the accused had furnished bail bond Ex. PW7/F before the Court supported with her affidavit falsely stating that the accused is the holder of the FDR Ex. PW 7/G and had furnished FDR Ex. PW 7/G with the bail bond and the said FDR was a forged FDR.
28. Now section 415 reads as under:
415. Cheating. - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation. - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 19 of 21 It is clear that in order cheat the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Court, the accused misrepresented before the Court that she was the holder of the aforesaid FDR and furnished a bogus FDR along with the bail bond and used it for securing bail for accused Ganga Ram. The accused by making fraudulent representations and dishonestly concealing vital material facts which she was bound to disclose, had dishonestly induced the Ld. Presiding officer of the Court to accept the surety bond, which the Ld. Presiding officer would not have done if he were not so deceived. Since the Ld. Presiding Officer was not induced to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security the offence u/s 420 IPC is not made out. The charge was framed for the offence u/s 420 IPC but by virtue of the provisions of section 222 Cr.P.C. the accused is liable for the offence punishable under section 417 IPC.
29. The accused also used the forged FDR as genuine knowing the same to be forged and accordingly the accused State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 20 of 21 is liable for the offence under section 471 IPC. Since the FDR bears the signatures of the accused the necessary concomitant is that the accused had forged the FDR with the intention to use the same for the purpose of cheating. The accused gave false information by furnishing a false affidavit in support of the surety bond and is thereby liable for the offence punishable under section 193 r/w section 199 IPC.
30. Considering the material on record and in view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and accordingly the accused Asha is convicted for the offences punishable under section 193 IPC r/w section 199 IPC, 417 IPC and section 468/471 IPC.
Announced in the open ( Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha ) court on 20.07.2016. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Central District Tis Hazari Courts Delhi State v. Asha FIR NO. 80/2001, P.S. Subzi Mandi Page No. 21 of 21