Delhi District Court
State vs Siya Ram Etc on 2 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. APOORV GUPTA, MM02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. SIYA RAM
FIR No. 18 / 2010
POLICE STATION KAROL BAGH
U/S 419 / 420 / 452 / 471 / 323 / 34 IPC
Date of institution of the case : 15.04.2011
Date of judgment reserved : 29.01.2024
CNR : DLCT020003232011
Date of commission of offence : 03.02.2010
Name of the complainant : Sh. Naval Kishore.
Name and address of accused : SIYA RAM
S/o Sh. Murli Kumar,
R/o B5/372, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : 419/420/452/468/471/323/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 02.04.2024
Final order : CONVICTION
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
1. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 03.02.2010 at about 03:15 PM at House No. 18/3747A, Regar Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Karol Bagh, accused Siya Ram alongwith his associates Sandeep, Amit and Raju (since not arrested) trespassed into the house of Naval Kishore after making preparation for causing hurt and, thereafter, intentionally caused simple injuries to STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 1 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:28:13 +0530 Naval Kishore. Further, accused Siya Ram alongwith his associates Sandeep, Amit and Raju in furtherance of common intention cheated Naval Kishore by pretending himself to be an employee of BSES and by deceiving him fraudulently and inducing him to deliver Rs.500/. The accused prepared the forged Icard of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. as genuine knowing and having reason to believe to be forged and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323/419/420/452/471/34 IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Investigation was completed and police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed for the commission of offences punishable under sections 323/419/420/452/468/471/34 IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused.
CHARGE :
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, charge for the offence under Sections 323/419/420/452/471/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses.
5. PW1 Vishal Acharya has deposed that on 26.03.2010 he was posted as Sr. Manager (HR) BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi. In compliance of letter dated 22.02.2010 regarding accused, he replied vide Ex. PW1/A by mentioning that no person with the name of Siya Ram Chauhan was STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 2 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:28:19 +0530 ever posted / working as Sr. technician in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.. The ID card Ex. P1 bearing No. 02109 which was in possession of accused was quite fictitious / bogus.
6. PW2 Naval Kishore is the complainant. He has deposed that on 03.02.2010 at about 03:15 P.M four persons came at his house and told him that they had come from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. One of them namely Siyaram introduced himself as Jr. Engineer from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and told him that he has tampered the Electricity Meter installed by BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and they had come to check the same. He told them that he has not tampered with the meter. Other accused persons told him that Siyaram is "Bade Sahab" and he would prepare a report after checking the meter. On this, Siyaram told him that he would prepare the bill of Rs. 810 lakhs. He told the accused that he had not committed any fault on which Siyaram told him that if he would give him Rs 40,000/ then he would prepare report in his favour. Accused persons started pressurizing him to give money. He gave Rs. 500/ to accused Siyaram who took the money but told him that "issey kuch nahi hoga aur Rs. 40,000/ lagege". He again told them that he had not committed any mistake and want to see the ICard on which accused Siyaram had shown him one ICard of BSES on which "on duty" was written and also bears his name with his address and was valid upto 10.12.09 and 10.11.08. As two dates were mentioned, it raised suspicion in his mind and he asked the other three persons to show their I Cards on which they got scared and did not show any ICard and started running away from his house. He apprehended Siyaram. One of the other three accused attacked him with "plas" due to which he sustained injuries on his forehead. He did not let go Siyaram and shouted "Pakado Pakado". Remaining three accused ran away. Two or three persons from neighbourhood came to the spot and one of them called on 100 number. HC Jagsir came to his house and interrogated accused Siyaram. Accused STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 3 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:28:25 +0530 did not any satisfactory answer. HC Jagsir took them for medical examination to Lady Harding Medical College where they were medically examined. Rs 500/ which he had handed over to the accused Siyaram and one torn bag bearing BSES Yamuna was recovered from accused Siyaram. The bag was torn as he tried to run away from the spot. The bag contained a report book of meter change of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., three seal stickers having hologram of BSES etc. His statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded. Rs. 500/ note was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. ICard of the accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. Bag containing the aforesaid articles like bill and meter testing was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D. Site plan Ex. PW2/E was prepared at his instance. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/F and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/G. He handed over electricity bill Ex. PW2/H.
7. PW3 HC Mahender Singh was working as duty officer on 03.02.2010.
On receiving rukka FIR Ex. PW3/A was registered and an endorsement was made on rukka Ex. PW3/C. Certificate U/s 65B Ex. PW3/B was issued.
8. PW4 SI Jagsir Singh has deposed that on 03.02.2010 while patrolling, he reached Gali No. 3 and met Naval Kishore, who produced one person namely Siya Ram before him and told him that accused demanded Rs. 40,000/ from him and told him that he will repair the tampered meter. The complainant further told that accused claimed himself as JE of BSES. The complainant further told him that he requested accused that he cannot pay such a huge amount and handed over Rs. 500/ to him. Complainant further told that accused was accompanied by three persons. One of them hit the complainant with a 'plaas' due to which he sustained injuries on his forehead. He took accused Siya Ram and complainant Naval Kishore to the hospital for their medical examination. He then joined investigation with SI Mahipal and is a STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 4 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:28:30 +0530 witness to arrest of accused and other proceedings conducted by the investigating officer.
9. PW5 Tushar Sharma stated that despite his efforts, record pertaining to MCR Book Sr. No.07/20045351 to 20045400 (Meter Change Report) dated 17.06.2010 was not traceable. He also made enquiries from the concerned Department i.e. Meter Management Group (MMG) regarding availability of record / register, however, the same was not traceable. He produced the letter Ex.PW5/B of the concerned official of MMG, MVR 1 & 2, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. wherein it is mentioned that the said record is not traceable. The letter pertaining to his report is Ex.PW5/A.
10. PW6 SI Mahipal Singh is the investigating officer. He has deposed that on 03.02.2010 HC Jagsir came along with the complainant and also produced accused. Statement of the complainant Naval Kishore Ex. PW2/A was recorded. Tehrir Ex. PW6/A was prepared and same was handed over to the duty officer. HC Jagsir also produced rupee 500 note and one bag containing ICard BSES, meter change report book, 3 sealed stickers having hologram of BSES and some old electricity bill. The rupees 500 note was kept in the white envelope and pullinda was prepared and sealed with the seal of MPS and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B. ICard recovered from the possession of the accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. One blue colour torned cloth bag, on which BSES Yamuna was printed, containing one file on which BSES Yamuna Power Limited was written and the said file contained one book meter change report and 3 sealed stickers having hologram of BSES and old electricity bill and 3 meter testing photocopy was put into a white cloth and pullinda was prepared and sealed with the seal of MPS and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D. He along with HC Jagsir, complainant Naval STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 5 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:28:37 +0530 Kishore, accused Siya Ram went to the spot i.e. 37/47/18, Raigar Pura, Karol Bagh. Site plan Ex. PW2/E was prepared at the instance of the complainant. Accused was arrested vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/F and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/G. During his personal search one mobile phone TATA Indicom, rupees 120, one pan card, one state Bank shopping car, one purse and other documents were found out. His disclosure statement Ex. PW4/A and supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW4/B was recorded. All the possible efforts to trace the coaccused were made but all the efforts went in vain. On 26.03.2010, he went to the office of BSES and submitted an application to verify the ICard of BSES which was being carried by the accused. On the same day, vide letter no. HR(BYPL)200910/ senior manager informed that no such person with the name of Siya Ram Chauhan has been working in BSES Yamuna Pvt. Ltd. and the ICard bearing no. 02109 which was being carried by the accused is a forged one. Notice was served upon the concerned BSES Officer regarding meter book which was recovered from the possession of the accused. On 03.11.2010 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Storekeeper, BSES came to PS Karol Bagh but could not give any satisfactory answer about the meter book and stated that he already left the job with BSES and 'no dues certificate' had been given by the Department. On 01.03.2011 specimen signatures of accused was obtained on 11 sheets in sealed condition and on 17.03.2011 same were deposited at FSL. He received the acknowledgement receipt Ex. PW6/B. After completion of formalities he filed the chargesheet.
11. PW7 ASI Azad Singh produced register No.19 for the year 2010 in which SI Mahipal deposited the case property i.e. one bag (thaila) blue colour on which BSES Yamuna Power Ltd was printed and it was containing one currency note of Rs.500/ and one file on which BSES Yamuna Power Ltd was printed. The said file contains one meter change report, three stickers, electricity bill, three meter STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 6 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:28:42 +0530 testing photocopy. Personal search articles of accused were also deposited. Case property was deposited vide entry no.2484 Ex. PW7/A. He also produced one letter Ex. PW7/B of HC Vinod Kumar (MHCM), duly forwarded by concerned SHO of PS Karol Bagh stating that the case properties in the present matter was deposited with District Nazir concerned vide RC No.75/21/20 dated 21.08.2020 Ex. PW7/C and the said case property has been disposed of.
12. PW8 Sanjay Kumar has deposed that he was working as lineman trainee on contractual basis in the ADICO Flexion Workforce Solutions Ltd. He was posted at Mayur Vihar Phase I & II in the BSES Yamuna Power. He provided the copy of the clearance form/checklist for the contractual employees as the original was submitted by him in the ADICO Flexion workforce solutions limited for claiming the funds. The said copy of checklist is Mark 'Z'.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS :
13. Accused, in his statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. did not dispute the genuineness and correctness of FSL Report No.2011/D1295 dated 08.11.2012 alongwith its annexure Ex.AD1, DD No.25B dated 03.02.2010 Ex.AD2 and MLC No.4173 dated 03.02.2010 Ex.AD3. In view thereof, evidence of witnesses namely Dr. Arunima Malik and W/Ct. Bimla was dispensed with.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
14. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Siya Ram has admitted that :
(I) PW4 SI Jagsir Singh took him and PW2 Naval Kishore for medical examination.
STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 7 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:28:48 +0530 (II) He was arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/F and his personal search was conducted, in which one TATA Indicom mobile phone, Rs. 120/, one PAN card, one state bank shopping car, one purse and other documents, vide memo Ex. PW2/G. He pleaded innocence and has alleged false implication in this case. He stated that complainant is property dealer. He had given him Rs. 50,000/ towards advance token money for purchase of flat. Total sale consideration was of Rs. 25 Lacs and banaya amount was Rs. 5,00,000/. No receipt of Rs. 50,000/ was given to him and the complainant asked him to make complete payment of banaya amount. At that time complainant had taken his 2 photographs and signature. Due to certain reason he had to go to Uttar Pradesh and when he returned, complainant refused to execute the papers for sale of flat due to rising of price of the property. When he asked the complainant to return the same he did not return and got the present case lodged against him. He chose to lead evidence in his defence.
15. DW1 Jagat Mohan Singh has deposed that accused Siya Ram, in September, 2009, borrowed a loan of Rs.50,000/ from him to purchase a property / flat. After few days, he informed him that he has given Rs.50,000/ to Naval Kishore who is a property dealer. He further informed him that Naval Kishore is not ready to transfer the flat in his name due to hike of price.
16. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for State and carefully gone through the material on record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
17. Before proceeding with the factual position/findings qua commission of the offence U/s 419/420/471 IPC, it will be advantageous to reproduce the sections and to deal with the basic legal principle enunciated in these sections.
STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 8 / 19
APOORV Digitally signed by
APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02
15:28:53 +0530
18. Section 419 of IPC provides for punishment for cheating by personation which has been defined in Section 416 of IPC. Section 416 IPC reads as under :
"416. Cheating by personation A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
Explanation.-- The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person."
19. Section 419 IPC reads as under :
"419. Punishment for cheating by personation -- Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
20. For the offence of cheating by impersonation, it has to be proved that the accused Siya Ram knowingly represented himself to be an employee of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., in order to commit cheating.
21. Section 420 of IPC deals with "cheating" which has been defined in Section 415 of IPC. Section 415 IPC 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 STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 9 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:29:00 +0530 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."
22. After going through the abovementioned definition U/s 415 IPC, it can be deduced that in order to attract allegations of "cheating", following ingredients must exist :
(i) deception of a person;
(ii) (A) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person,
(a) to deliver any property to any person; or,
(b) to consent that any person shall retain any property, (B) intentional inducing that person to do or omit to do any thing,
(a) which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived, and,
(b) such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
23. Section 420 IPC reads as under :
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 10 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:29:06 +0530 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
24. After going through the abovementioned definition as provided U/s 420 IPC, it can be said that in order to attract Section 420 IPC, following essential ingredients must be shown to be existed :
(i) cheating;
(ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make or destroy any valuable security or any thing which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and,
(iii) mens rea of accused at the time of making inducement and which act of omission.
25. After going through the essential legal ingredients which are required to be proved for commission of the offence U/s 420 IPC, the Court deem it fit to discuss here the settled legal principals as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court.
25.1 In Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724 it was observed that to constitute offence of cheating, intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was offered.
25.2 In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575, Court said that a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. For the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established.
STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 11 / 19
APOORV Digitally signed by
APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02
15:29:13 +0530
25.3 In G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others, 2000(3) SCC 693, Court
said that Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property and in the second part the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. In other words in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent while in the second part, inducement should be intentional.
25.4 Hon'ble Supreme Court culled out the essential ingredients of S.420 IPC 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.
17. 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."
STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 12 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:29:22 +0530
26. Section 471 IPC punishes commission of forgery. Before starting the discussion on the commission of the offence U/s 471 IPC, it would be relevant to take note of Section 463 and 464 of IPC which defines commission of offence of forgery.
27. Section 463 IPC defines "forgery" which reads as under : Whoever makes any false documents or electronic record 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.
28. Section 464 IPC defines "making a false document" which reads as under : A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First Who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was make, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 13 / 19 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:29:29 +0530 authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of unsoundness of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alterations.
29. Section 471 IPC reads as under :
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].
30. This being the legal position, now I shall revert to the factual matrix of the case.
STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 14 / 19
APOORV Digitally signed by
APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02
15:29:35 +0530
31. It has come in the statement of PW2 Naval Kishore that on 03.02.2010 at about 03:15 P.M four persons came at his house and told him that they had come from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. One of them namely Siyaram introduced himself as Jr. Engineer from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and told him that he has tampered the electricity meter installed by BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and they had come to check the same. He told them that he had not tampered with the meter. Other accused persons told him that Siyaram is "Bade Sahab" and he would prepare a report after checking the meter. On this, Siyaram told him that he would prepare the bill of Rs. 8 10 lakhs. He told the accused that he had not committed any fault on which Siyaram told him that if he would give him Rs 40,000/ then he would prepare report in his favour. Accused persons started pressurizing him to give money. He gave Rs. 500/ to accused Siyaram who took the money but told him that "issey kuch nahi hoga aur Rs. 40,000/ lagege". He again told them that he had not committed any mistake and want to see the ICard on which accused Siyaram had shown him one ICard of BSES on which "on duty" was written and also bears his name with his address and was valid upto 10.12.09 and 10.11.08. As two dates were mentioned, it raised suspicion in his mind and he asked the other three persons to show their ICards on which they got scared and did not show any ICard and started running away from his house. He apprehended Siyaram. One of the other three accused attacked him with "plas" due to which he sustained injuries on his forehead.
32. From the testimony of this witness, it stands proved that accused introduced himself as Jr. Engineer from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. He had also shown him one Icard of BSES on which "on duty" was written and bore his name and address and validity period. After the arrest of accused and recovery of this Icard from his possession, PW6 SI Mahipal Singh went to the office of BSES and submitted an application to verify the said Icard on which PW1 Vishal Acharya, Sr. STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 15 / 19 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:29:42 +0530 manager (HR) BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. gave a reply Ex. PW1/A that no person with the name of Siya Ram Chauhan was ever posted / working as Sr. technician in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.. The ID card Ex. P1 bearing No. 02109 which was in possession of accused was quite fictitious / bogus. Thus it stands proved that accused cheated complainant by impersonating himself as JE of BSES although he was not an employee of BSES. As such offence u/s 419 IPC stands proved.
33. It further stands proved from the testimony of PW1 that when accused alongwith his 3 associates came to his house representing himself as Jr. Engineer of BSES, he was informed that he has tempered with electricity meter and they have come to check. He (PW1) told them that he had not tempered the meter on which the associates of accused told him that accused will check the meter and would prepare a report. Accused told him that he would prepare a bill of Rs. 810 lacs. On this, complainant told him that he has not committed any fault on which accused demanded Rs. 40,000/ for preparing a report in his favour. Accused and his associates pressurized him to pay Rs. 40,000/ on which complainant paid Rs. 500/. However, they were not satisfied and stated that this amount is not sufficient and he will have to pay Rs. 40,000/. Thereafter, complainant asked accused to show his I card. On checking the same, name and address of accused was mentioned. However, against the validity, 2 dates were mentioned as such complainant got suspicious and asked the three associates of accused to show their Icards. On this, they got scared and ran away.
34. The above narration of facts clearly goes to show that the accused had the requisite "mensrea" to cheat the complainant when he induced the complainant to deliver Rs. 40,000/ to him. Due to threat administered by accused and his associates that a bill for Rs. 810 lacs would otherwise be prepared, complainant STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 16 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:29:49 +0530 parted with a sum of Rs. 500/ which was ultimately recovered from the accused. Thus offence u/s 420 IPC is also proved.
35. As regards forging the "Icard", same is not proved. During the course of investigation, SI Mahipal had taken specimen signature of accused on 10 sheets and sent the same to FSL, Rohini for comparison with Icard. However, as per report Ex. AD1 given by Dr. Virender Singh, Asstt. Director, it was not possible to express any opinion on the basis of material at hand. Thus, it is not established by reasonable doubt the Icard was forged by the accused.
36. However, it stands proved that the Icard was bogus/fictitious as per the testimony of PW1 Vishal Acharya and accused fraudulently/dishonestly used the same as genuine. Hence, offence u/s 471 IPC is made out against the accused.
37. It further stands proved from the testimony of the complainant that accused and his associates trespassed into his house and while running away, one of the associates of accused attacked him with "plas" due to which he sustained injuries on his forehead. Ocular testimony of witness in this regard is corroborated by medical evidence as per which PW2 Naval Kishore was brought to hospital by HC Jagsir with alleged history of assault. On local examination abrasions were found on forehead. As per MLC Ex. AD3, injuries were simple in nature caused by blunt object.
38. Thus offence u/s 323/452/34 IPC is also made out.
39. While pleading his innocence, accused has taken the defence that complainant is property dealer. He had given him Rs. 50,000/ towards advance token STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 17 / 19 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 15:29:56 +0530 money for purchase of flat. Total sale consideration was of Rs. 25 Lacs and banaya amount was Rs. 5,00,000/. No receipt of Rs. 50,000/ was given to him and the complainant asked him to make complete payment of banaya amount. At that time complainant had taken his 2 photographs and signature. Due to certain reason he had to go to Uttar Pradesh and when he returned, complainant refused to execute the papers for sale of flat due to rising of price of the property. When he asked the complainant to return the same he did not return and got the present case lodged against him. He examined DW1 Jagat Mohan Singh who deposed that accused Siya Ram, in September, 2009, borrowed a loan of Rs.50,000/ from him to purchase a property / flat. After few days, he informed him that he has given Rs.50,000/ to Naval Kishore who is a property dealer. He further informed him that Naval Kishore is not ready to transfer the flat in his name due to hike of price.
40. This defence taken by the accused does not inspire confidence because he has not stated as to when the deal for purchase of property was struck between him and complainant when Rs. 50,000/ was paid by him. DW2 could not say in his cross examination as to how he arranged the sum of Rs. 50,000/ and whether it was reflected in his income tax return. The complainant has denied that any such deal was struck between them. Moreover, recovery of Icrad, one blue colour bag on which BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. was written containing one file on which also BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. was written containing one book meter change report, 3 sealed stickers having hologram of BSES, old electricity bill and 3 meter testing photocopy from the possession of accused belied his version. Despite cross examination nothing material could be elicited o discredit the testimony of complainant which find corroboration from subsequent recovery, verification report from BSES and medical evidence.
STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 18 / 19
Digitally signed by
APOORV APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02
15:30:03 +0530
41. Under the circumstances, I hold that prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is held guilty of offences u/s 323/419/420/452/471/34 IPC.
Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV
GUPTA
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02
(Apoorv Gupta)
15:30:09 +0530
ON 02nd APRIL, 2024 MM02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/02.04.2024
This judgment consists of 19 pages and each page of this judgment is digitally signed by me.
APOORV Digitally signed by
APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02
(Apoorv15:30:13
Gupta)+0530
MM02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/02.04.2024
STATE VS. SIYA RAM FIR NO. 18 / 2010 PS KAROL BAGH PAGE NO. 19 / 19