Delhi District Court
State vs Varun Sharma And Ors on 4 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. : Varun Sharma and others
FIR No : 111/2005 Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH KAPOOR
U/s : 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC KAPOOR Date:
2025.09.04
15:16:36
+0530
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 6574/2019 2. Date of commission of offence : 01.03.2005 3. Date of institution of the case : 28.08.2006 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused :-1. Varun Sharma s/o Sh.
Devki Nandan Sharma (since convicted and sentenced vide order dated 09.04.2014.)
2.Rajat Kohli s/o Sh.
Gurpreet Singh Kohli (since convicted and sentenced vide order dated 09.04.2014.)
3. Ashish Gupta s/o Sh.
Mukesh Kumar Gupta (since convicted and sentenced vide order dated 09.04.2014).
4. Hari Nath s/o Sh.
Rambahar (since convicted and sentenced vide order dated 13.08.2016).
4. Manoj Kumar Tiwari s/o Late Bala Dutt.
State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 1
5. Anand Kumar s/o Late Ram Prasad
6. Amit Kapoor s/o Late Surjeet Singh
6. Offence complained or proved :u/s 120B, 420 /511, 468/471 r/w 120B IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 02.07.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 04.09.2025
1. The accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor, Manoj and Anand Kumar are facing trial for the offences u/s 120B, 420/511, 468/471 r/w 120B IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 01.03.2005, accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta (since all convicted and sentenced) were found appearing in Class 12th examination of CBSE as the regular students of New Delhi Public School at the examination center i.e. Oxford. Sr. Secondary School Vikas Puri, Delhi. During the course of routine checking of the candidates appearing for the examination, Principal of Oxford School Ms. Kokila Prabhakar entertained some doubts over the authenticity of the admit cards produced by accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta as same were found having the signatures of the Principal of New Delhi Public School in blue ink and whereas, the admit cards of other candidates were having the signatures of the Principal with the green ink and the signatures on the impugned admit cards of State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 2 above-named three accused persons were also found quite different. Thereafter Ms. Kokila Prabhakar, Principal Oxford School called the Principal of New Delhi Public School Ms. Sankalita Mudgil at the examination center, where the latter verified that accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were not the regular students of New Delhi Public School and also that the signatures on their admit cards and photographs were not genuine. Thereafter, the matter was reported to police and upon arrival of police, statement of Ms. Kokila Prabhakar Principal Oxford School was taken, on the basis of which the criminal law as set into motion vide registration of the present case FIR.
2. Thereafter, the investigation into the case began and during its course, the above-named three accused persons disclosed that they had approached accused Amit Kapoor who was running an institute in the name of Asian Academy, for the purpose of procuring the admit cards for taking the class 12 th examination as regular students. It further divulged during the investigation that accused Amit Kapoor approached accused Hari Nath who was known to him for arranging the admit cards for the above-named three accused persons and also to provide them with the way out for taking the examination as regular students. The accused Hari Nath who was working as a clerk in Happy Sr. Secondary School Kirti Nagar, introduced the above-named three accused persons and accused Amit Kapoor to accused Anand Kumar who was working in CBSE. The accused Anand Kumar allegedly introduced the above-named accused persons with accused Manoj who was working at New Delhi Public School.
State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 3
3. Allegedly, all the accused persons conspired with each other and formulated a plan to fabricate the list of regular students who were eligible for taking the class 12 th examination from New Delhi Public School and in furtherance of such plan, accused Manoj Tiwari fabricated the records of New Delhi Public School for showing accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta as the regular students of New Delhi Public School. The fabricated list of students with the name of above-named three accused persons were sent by accused Manoj Tiwari to CBSE and on the basis of same, accused Anand Kumar in furtherance of the aforesaid plan formulated by him with the other accused persons, got issued the admit cards in favor of the three accused persons namely, Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta so as to enable them for taking the class 12th examination as regular students of New Delhi Public School. The investigation further disclosed that during the course of proceedings of investigation, when accused Manoj Tiwari visited PS Vikas Puri along with the documents sent by Principal of New Delhi Public School, he was identified by accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. The accused Amit Kapoor was also allegedly apprehended at the instance of accused Manoj Tiwari and the recovery of some incriminating documents pertaining to Jagat Convent School, Anglo Arabic Sr. Secondary School etc. along with some allegedly fabricated stamps was also affected from him.
4. Thereafter, accused Hari Nath was also arrested at the instance of the above-named accused Manoj Tiwari and Amit State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 4 Kapoor. The accused Anand Kumar was admitted to anticipatory bail and was thereafter, made to join the investigation of the case. The specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Manoj Tiwari were also obtained during investigation and same were sent to FSL Rohini for comparison with the handwriting/ signatures on impugned documents i.e. the list of students pertaining to New Delhi Public School as well as the impugned admit cards of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. The role of Principal of New Delhi Public School Ms. Sankalita Mudgil was also found dubious during the investigation and the documents containing her admitted handwriting/signatures were also obtained during the investigation and same were also sent to FSL for comparison and analysis with the impugned documents. The FSL result was received which indicted the accused Manoj Tiwari. The concrete evidences had surfaced against accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari, Hari Nath and Anand Kumar during investigation and thus, they were charge-sheeted for the alleged offences. While no concrete evidences for charge-sheeting suspect Sankalita Mudgil surfaced during the investigation, thus she was kept in column no. 2 of the charge-sheet.
5. The cognizance of the offences was taken vide order dated 28.08.2006 and in pursuance of the same, all the accused persons except suspect Sankalita Mudgil were summoned for the alleged offences. Subsequently vide order dated 11.10.2007, the cognizance was also taken against accused Saknkalita Mudgil and she was also summoned to face trial for the alleged offences. The State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 5 presence of all accused persons was obtained through instrumentality of Court and in compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., copies of chargesheet and documents were supplied to accused persons. The order dated 11.10.2007 was assailed by accused Sankalita Mudgil before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in pursuant to order dated 23.07.2010, the matter was remanded back with the directions by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the material on record against accused Sankalita Mudgil shall be re- considered and thereafter, she may be summoned only after assigning reasons for such summoning. The Ld. Predecessor court vide its order dated 21.04.2012 observed that there was no sufficient material against accused Sankalita Mudgil, thus she was not summoned as an accused to face the trial of the case. The matter proceeded further against all other accused persons.
6. The arguments on charges were heard and vide order dated 19.10.2013, charges for offences u/s 120B, 420/511, 468 and 471 r/w Section 120B IPC were framed against all accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, separate plea-bargaining applications came to be filed by accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Hari Nath. During the course of plea bargaining proceedings, accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Hari Nath admitted their guilt and upon such plea of guilt made by them, they were convicted and sentenced for the alleged offences u/s 420 r/w 511, 468/471/120 B IPC vide orders dated 09.04.2014 and 13.08.2016 respectively. Thereafter, the matter proceeded further trial of accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar for the State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6 alleged offences and the prosecution evidence began.
7. In order to establish guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in all. After prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused persons. The accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor and Manoj Tiwari did not opt to lead evidence in their defense. Whereas, accused Anand Kumar also led evidence his defense and examined one defense witness. Thereafter the final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the prosecution and defense and have also gone through the case file carefully.
9. The allegations leveled against the accused persons are that on or before 01.03.2005, accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Hari Nath (since all convicted and sentenced) to cheat the school authorities i.e. New Delhi Public School and CBSE by fabricating the school records and admit cards pertaining to accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta so as to enable them to appear as regular students of New Delhi Public school in the class 12 th examination conducted by CBSE and in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, accused Manoj Tiwari allegedly fabricated the records of New Delhi Public School showing that accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were the regular students of New State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 7 Delhi Public School and accused Anand Kumar allegedly facilitated the issuance of admit cards of the afore-named three accused persons by CBSE and by using the said fabricated admit cards, accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were found appearing as regular students of New Delhi Public School in the class 12th CBSE Examination Center at Oxford School Vikas Puri, where they were caught by the complainant i.e. Principal of Oxford Public School Vikas Puri.
10. It has been contended by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubts that accused persons have attempted to cheat the New Delhi Public School and CBSE by fabricating the school records including the impugned admit cards and thereby have committed offences punishable u/s 120B, 420/511, 468/471 r/w 120B IPC. Ld. APP for State further submits that the accused persons deserve to be convicted for the alleged offences.
11. Per contra, Ld. Defense counsel has argued that there are no evidences led by the prosecution establishing existence of any conspiracy or alleged plan hatched by accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar to indulge in the acts of fabrication of the school records and impugned admit cards with the other accused persons namely, Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Hari Nath. It has also been argued on behalf of accused persons that there exist material contradictions in the version of prosecution witnesses and the necessary dots connecting the accused persons with the other co-accused State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 8 persons are missing in the present case, hence, the accused persons deserve to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
12. Prior to delving into the merits of the present case, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of material prosecution witnesses, in brief.
(i) PW-1 Smt. Kokila Prabhakar is the complainant in the present case. She deposed that on 01.03.2005, she was appointed as Center Superintendent at Oxford Senior Secondary School, E-Block, Vikas Puri where the students of New Delhi Public School A-Block Vikas Puri were appearing or All India Senior School Certificate Examination of Class 12 th which was conducted by CBSE. She further deposed that while checking the admit cards of the candidates, the admit Cards of three candidates were found to be doubtful as the Principal signature of New Delhi Public School, Vikas Puri were not tallying with rest of the students appearing for physics subject examination dated 01.03.2005 in the said admit cards. She further deposed that Principal of New Delhi Public School A-Block, Vikas Puri was called by her to verify the signatures of those three candidates and also to identify the candidates namely, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Varun Sharma, to which she arrived there and disclosed that the above-named candidates i.e. Rajat Kohli, Varun Sharma and Ashish Gupta were not the students of New Delhi Public School nor their admit cards were bearing her signatures. She further deposed that during the said proceedings, Mr. A.K. Kaushal, Deputy Education Officer and Mr. A.N. Sharma, S.P.E. Zone-18, Distt. West-B also arrived at the Center. She further deposed that thereafter, Police Station Vikas State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 9 Puri was informed about the incident and SI Chauhan came to the examination center. She further deposed that original admit cards and the above-mentioned three candidates were handed over to SI Chauhan and the FIR was registered on the same day against abovesaid persons upon her complaint dated 01.03.2005 which is Ex. PW1/A.
(ii). PW-2 Sh. Dharampal Singh is the Retired Director CBSE. He deposed that the record pertaining to file number ROD/AI.Sr. /XII/2005/22841 dated 18.03.2005 was not available in the department concerned and filed the reply Ex. PW 2/A in that regard. He also deposed of having written letter to SHO vide Ex.
PW 2/B during the course of the investigation.
(iii). PW- 3 Sh. P. I. Sabu was the director from CBSE, who deposed of having given the opinion on the sanction for prosecution of accused Sh. Anand Kumar which is Ex. PW 3/A.
(iv). PW-4 Dr Prahlad Pareek is the Administrative Officer from New Delhi Public School, who deposed that the record vide reference no. NDPS/160/05 dated 01.03.2005 was not available at the school. He further deposed that as per the admission and withdrawal register of the school, no students in the name of Rajat Kohli, Varun Sharma, and Ashish Gupta have ever attended or studied in New Delhi Public School in year 2004-2005 of class 12 th. He stated that the letter with reference no. NDPS/160/05 was not issued by the New Delhi Public School.
(v). PW-5 ASI Bala Rani is the duty officer. She deposed that on 01.03.2005, upon receiving rukka through HC Jai Bhagwan she registered FIR Ex. PW 5/A and made endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW 5/B. She further deposed that on the same day at State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 10 around 11:42 AM, one call was received by her regarding apprehension of three children appearing for class 12th board examination at Oxford School with forged admitted cards to which she recorded DD no. 11A Ex. PW 5/C and handed over the same to Ct. Rajender with direction to give the same to SI Narottam.
(vi). PW-6 SI Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 01.03.2005, pursuant to receipt of DD no. 11A by SI N.S. Chouhan, he along with SI N.S. Chouhan, Ct. Satyadev and Ct. Rajender went to spot i.e. Oxford School. Vikas Puri. Delhi, where they met complainant Kokila Prabhakar, who produced three persons along-with admits cards. He further deposed that complainant Kokila Prabhakar also gave a complaint to SI N.S. Chouhan and thereafter, SI N.S. Chauhan made an endorsement and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he left the spot and went to PS Vikas Puri for registration of PS Vikas Puri and after getting FIR registered, he returned to spot and handed over the copy of FIR and the original rukka to IO/SI N.S. Chouhan. He further deposed that thereafter, IO/SI N. S. Chauhan interrogated all the three persons namely, Rajat Kohli, Varun Sharma and Ashish Gupta in his presence and thereafter, all the three above- named accused persons were arrested and personally searched by SI N. S. Chauhan vide memos Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/F respectively. He further deposed that the disclosure statements of above-mentioned three accused persons were also recorded by SI N. S. Chauhan which are Ex.PW6/G to Ex.PW6/I respectively. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith the above-named police officials, SI N. S. Chauhan and the three accused persons went to New Delhi Public School, Vikas Puri and accused Manoj State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 11 was arrested from the school premises at the instance of the above-mentioned three accused persons vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/J and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 6/K. He further deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Manoj Tiwari was recorded vide Ex.PW6/L and IO prepared identification memo of accused Manoj Tiwari which is Ex.PW6/L-1. He further deposed that thereafter, they along-with other accused persons went to J-3/187, Top Floor. Rajouri Garden and there accused Amit Kapoor was arrested at the instance of above-named accused persons and his arrest and personal search memos vide Ex. PW6/M and Ex.PW6/N, were prepared. He further deposed that disclosure statement of accused Amit Kapoor was recorded by IO vide Ex. PW 6/O and accused Amit Kapoor also produced two admission forms in the name of Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/P. He further deposed that IO also prepared identification memo of accused Amit Kapoor vide Ex.PW6/P-1 and at the instance of arrested accused persons, they went to the house of another accused namely, Hari Nath at G-28/86, Sector 3. Rohini, from where accused Hari Nath was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 6/Q and his personally search was conducted vide Ex. PW 6/R. He further deposed that IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Hari Nath vide Ex. PW6/S. He further deposed that on 02.03.2005, specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Manoj Tiwari were taken by the IO in his presence. He identified the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Manoj Tiwari as Ex. PW 6/T (Colly). He further deposed that on 03.03.2005, supplementary disclosure statement of accused Manoj Tiwari was State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 12 also recorded vide Ex. PW6/U. He further deposed that on 09.04.2005, the disclosure statement of accused Anand was also recorded by the IO vide Ex. PW 6/V and on 02.03.2005, the pamphlets and stamps were also seized by the IO from the house of accused Amit Kapoor vide memo Ex. PW 6/W. During his cross-examination, he stated that disclosure statements of accused Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Varun Kumar were recorded in the school. He denied that accused Amit Kapoor came to PS and got himself arrested. He could not state whether any other official from CBSE was present at the spot or not. He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Amit Kapoor.
(vii). PW 7 Ct. Satyadev deposed that on 01.03.2005, he was on patrolling duty along with HC Jai Bhagwan and SI Narottam and on that day, when they all were present near PVR, Ct. Rajender came there and handed over DD no.11A to SI Narottam, pursuant to which they all along with Ct. Rajender went to Oxford Sr. Secondary School Vikas Puri, Delhi.
(viii). PW-8 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 03.03.2005 he had joined the investigation of the case and on that day, accused Amit Kapoor while in police custody took IO/SI Narottam Singh to House no. AL-138, Second Floor Shalimar Bagh, Delhi from where he got recovered has proved the photocopy of property documents and educational certificates vide seizure memo Ex PW 8/A.
(ix). PW-9 Sh. Chander Shekhar is the Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. He deposed that the CDR of mobile no. 9810204998 w.e.f. 01.02.2005 to 28.02.2005 is not available in the State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 13 records of Bharti Airtel. He identified the copy of the aforesaid CDRs as Mark A (Colly.) and submitted the reply Ex. PW 9/A. During his cross-examination, he admitted that no document is available with the company to suggest as to whom the mobile no. 9810204998 belongs.
(x). PW-10 Sh. Dhruv Narayan was the Superintendent from CBSE Regional Office. He deposed that original record of list of candidates of New Delhi Public School A-Block, Vikas Puri for the year 2005 with the letter ROD / AISr. GR2 / 2005 dated 03.03.2005 has been weeded out as per CBSE rules and filed reply of Section Officer vide Ex. PW 10/A During his cross examination, he stated of not having any personal knowledge regarding the present case or about the procedure which was followed while preparing the list of students appearing for class 10th and 12th examination conducted by CBSE.
(xi). PW -11 Sh. N. P. Kainthola is the Retired Section Officer CBSE. He deposed that on 03.02.2005, he had supplied the documents sought by the IO and same were sent by him along with covering letter no. ROD/A.I.SR./Gr.2/2005, addressed to the SHO PS Vikas Puri dated 03.03.2005 which is Ex. PW 11/A. He also identified total 84 pages of the documents sent by him to the police as Ex. PW11/B (Colly).
(xii). PW-12 Retired SI Narottam Singh was the IO in the present case. During the course of his examination in chief, he explained about the proceedings of the investigation conducted by him. His testimony is similar to that of PW-6 and hence, same is not being reproduced to avoid repetition. Through him rukka was exhibited as Ex. PW 12/A, identification memo of accused Hari State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 14 Nath as Ex. PW 12/B, application sent by him to CBSE for production of documents pertaining to the accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta as Ex. PW 12/C, letter sent to Principal Jagat Convent School for supplying the documents and information as Ex. PW 12/D, letter sent to Principal Anglo Arabic SS School, Ajmeri Gate for supplying the documents and information as Ex. PW 12/E, specimen signatures of accused Manoj Kumar as Ex. PW 12/F (Colly), sample of stamp impression of Principal of New Delhi Public School as Ex. PW 12/G. During his cross-examination, he could not state about the time of receipt of PCR Call or about the time of recording the DD entry. He could not state about the date since when he remained posted at PS Vikas Puri. He admitted that the signature of S. Mudgil were taken and sent to FSL for expert opinion. He deposed that he was not aware who had made the PCR Call. He could not state about the time when they left for the spot, however he stated of having left the spot in a government vehicle. He further stated that when he reached the spot, class 12th examination was going on however, he could not state about the subject of such examination. He could not state as to in how many rooms class, 12 th examination was conducted. He could not state about the number of persons who were present in the examination hall where the accused persons were found. He could not state whether it was the first paper/exam or subsequent paper on that day. He could not state whether the students have started writing the exam by the time when he reached at the spot or not. He admitted of having not collected the examination sheets of Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. He denied that there was a complaint against State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 15 one Agya Singh on the similar allegations. He deposed that he had inquired about the said Agya Singh on receiving information against him from CBSE and on inquiry, the above-named Agya Singh could not be found at the said address. He admitted that no further efforts were made by him for tracing Agya Singh. He further admitted that the address of Agya Singh was provided by CBSE. He could not state how he ascertained that the said given address as provided by CBSE was not of Agya Singh. He admitted of having never inquired about the said Agya Singh either from the person residing at the said address or from the neighborhood. He could not state about the distance between the Principal office and the examination hall. He could not state if all three students were seated in the same room or in different rooms. He stated that the Principal had checked the admits cards of all students entering in the examination hall. He admitted that the board examination was of class 12th only. He could not state if the answer sheet and question papers for 12th class comes always in a sealed cover. He could not state whether the same are opened prior to examination when students are seated. He could not state about the size of examination hall and also that as to how many students were seated in the room. He admitted that he did not inquire as to how many teachers were on duty in the said room or in the said school for the purpose of examination. He admitted of having not seized the register which can show the number of teachers present on the duty. He could not state if there were any teachers for invigilator duty or not nor any inquiry was made by him from any such teacher. He stated that the other staff officials might have been present at the examination center but he did not make any inquiry State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 16 from such staff officials. He admitted that he did not inquire about the present case from any other teachers, staff members or students present at the examination center. He could not state about the timing as well as duration of the examination. He could not state whether the students were taking exam paper of same subject or different subjects. He could not state about the name of school where he went for investigation. He could not state about the time taken by him for conducting investigation at the examination center. He admitted that he never inquired how and when did Ms. Kokila Prabhakar called the Principal of New Delhi Public School. He admitted that he did not seize any CCTV footage of the school/examination center nor he did make any efforts for finding the availability of any such CCTV footage. He admitted that he had not checked or visited any place except the principal room in the said premises. He admitted of having not seen the admit cards of any other students except Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. He stated to have inquired about the fees deposited of said Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta in New Delhi Public School on the same day and that the Principal of New Delhi Public School denied that they were the students of her school. He admitted that he had not verified the aforesaid facts by seeing any school records. He admitted that Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were taken to police station on the basis of version narrated by Ms. Kokila Prabhakar and Principal of New Delhi Public School without verification of the school records. He admitted that he had never inquired from any other person either from New Delhi Public Schoolor Oxford Public School except the said two principles. He could not state whether State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 17 Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were having mobile phones with them or not. He could not state about the distance between PS Vikas Puri and Oxford Public School. He could not state about the distance between New Delhi Public School and Oxford Public School. He could not state about the distance between PS Vikas Puri and New Delhi Public School. He could not state about the mode of conveyance used by Principal of New Delhi Public School when she traveled to PS Vikas Puri. He admitted that of having not checked any fees deposit documents of the above-named students. He also admitted of having not checked or inquired about the procedure prescribed for deposition of fees. He admitted of having not inquired about the procedure of filling the forms for CBSE. He stated to have obtained the record pertaining to the above-named students from Principal of New Delhi Public School by way of a written correspondence. He could not state about date of sending such correspondence. He could not state about the approximate days after which such correspondence was sent. He could not state about the date or about the days after which such reply from New Delhi Public School was received by him. He stated that the reply was sent by New Delhi Public School through one of their staff member. He could not state about the name of or designation of that staff member. He could not state who all accused persons were carrying the mobile phones or that if they were having mobile phones or not. He could not state about the date, place and time which was disclosed by accused persons regarding receipt of admit cards by them. He admitted of having not recorded any statement of Manoj Tiwari. He denied that the accused persons State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 18 never disclosed about handing over admit cards to them by Manoj Tiwari or that due to such reason he never recorded statement of Manoj Tiwari. He admitted that he had not inquired as to how the accused persons managed to receive the question papers and answer sheets despite the fact that they were not enrolled with CBSE. He admitted that he had not collected the question papers and answer sheets pertaining to accused persons during the aforesaid investigation. He stated of having not tallied/matched the admit cards of accused persons with the admit cards of other students. He stated that the investigation was conducted by him on the basis of information given by the Principal of Oxford Public school. He stated that on 02.03.2005, he along with three students, HC Jai Bhagwan and SI J. K. Bhardwaj went to J-3/187, Rajouri Garden. He stated that he had collected the pamphlets pertaining to the said academy. He admitted that he had not collected any documentary records to verify the aforesaid fact. He stated to have not made any inquiry about the teachers who were visiting the Asian Academy nor he did made inquiry about the classes, their timings etc. at such academy. He admitted that no bank account statements or any of the documents pertaining to the Asian Academy were obtained by him. He could not state about the sitting capacity of gypsy in which he went to Asian Academy. He then stated that at around 5-6 persons could comfortably sit in the gypsy. He stated that Asian Academy was being run from top floor. He could not remember about the number of rooms in Asian Academy. He could not state about the number of floors in said building. He denied that the pamphlets and stamps were not recovered from the office of Asian Academy. He stated that at the State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 19 time of seizure of the pamphlets and stamps, only HC Jai Bhagwan and accused Amit Kapoor were present with him and that SI J. K. Bhardwaj was present along with the students in the same room. He could not state about the time for which he remained in the office of Asian Academy. He could not state about the articles which were lying in the said room. He stated that public persons were asked to witness the search proceedings but they refused to join the proceedings citing valid excuses. He could not state whether any laptop/computers were also lying in the said room. He stated that the stamps pertained to Anglo Arabic School and one other school at Paschim Vihar. He admitted that he did not conduct any investigation regarding the vendor by whom said stamps were prepared. He admitted that no stamps pertaining to New Delhi Public School were found from Asian Academy. He admitted that no documents relating to CBSE were recovered from Asian Academy. He admitted that no documents relating to New Delhi Public School were recovered from the Asian Academy. He admitted that no documents relating to Oxford Public school were recovered from Asian Academy. He admitted that the copies of admit cards of accused Varun, Ashish and Rajat were not recovered from Asian Academy. He admitted that no other documents pertaining to accused Varun, Ashish and Rajat were recovered from Asian Academy. He stated that accused Amit Kapoor was identified first by the students and thereafter, the remaining proceedings were conducted at the Asian Academy. He could not state about the distance between PS Vikas Puri and Asian Academy Rajouri Garden. He stated that the branch of Asian Academy was also located at AL-138, Pitam Pura, Delhi and State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 20 he came to know about the said branch of the academy from the documents found at the Asian Academy office at Rajouri Garden. He admitted that no investigation was conducted qua the person incharge of said branch office at Pitampura. He stated to have visited the branch office of Asian Academy at Pitampura on 03.03.2005. He could not state about the number of floors of the building where the branch office was located. He could not state about the distance between the branch office of Academy at Pitampura and PS Vikas Puri. He stated that certain pamphlets were also found at the branch office of the academy which were also seized by him. He stated that he had not conducted the videography or photography proceedings at the branch office. He stated to have asked public persons to join the proceedings but they denied to do so. He admitted that he had not served any notice in writing upon any such public person. He could not state about the distance between house of Harinath and branch office of Asian Academy at Pitampura. He could not state about the time which took place at branch office of Asian Academy for conducting the investigation. He admitted that he had not searched anything at the house of Harinath and only arrested him. He stated that thereafter, he returned to the PS and with him, SI J. K. Bhardwaj, HC Jai Bhagwan, three students, Hari Nath and Amit Kapoor were there in the said jeep. He could not state about the date when the specimen handwriting/signatures of Manoj Tiwari were taken. He volunteered that same were taken after obtaining permission from the Court. He admitted that he did not confirm the procedure for filling the form of class 12 th. He also admitted to having not obtained any documents qua the practice or procedure of board State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 21 exams. He could not state whether it was a prescribed procedure that the list of students eligible for appearing in board examination of CBSE is prepared by the school itself or that such list is sent to the CBSE by the school only. He could not state about the person from school who took the list of the students to CBSE. He admitted that he had not seized the dispatch register reflecting the entry qua the sending of the list of students by school to CBSE. He could not state whether the list from the school is sent to CBSE along with the covering letter from the Principal or not. He further stated that he had not inquired from the concerned class teacher of New Delhi Public School as to whether the students actually studied in the school or not and that was not aware about the receipt register maintained at CBSE in which the entries qua the receipt of the list from the school are reflected. He could not state that when the list is sent from school to CBSE, proper entries in the register are made or not. He could not state that who made the entries regarding sending of list to CBSE in the present case. He could not state that the lists are sent to the school for verification of the details of the students including their date of birth, name, parentage and the subject or that such details are checked by the students themselves and thereafter sent by the school to the CBSE. He could not state that the lists after rectifications if any are sent by the Principal of the school to the CBSE. He could not state about the date when rectified list was sent by school to CBSE. He could not state whether any such rectified list was seized by him or not. He could not state about the officials who signed the rectified final list of students. He state to have not verified the final list of students sent by New Delhi Public School State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 22 and that no such such list was seized by him. He could not state about procedure followed by the CBSE once the final list was received from the school. He could not state whether the admit cards are issued by CBSE on the basis of the final list which was sent by the school under the signatures of Principal concerned. He could not state about the name/designation of the persons at the school who was authorized to receive the admit cards sent by the CBSE. He admitted that he had not seized any register reflecting the transmission of the final list to CBSE or reflecting the entry qua the receipt of the admit cards from CBSE during the investigation. He could not state whether the photographs of the students were affixed on the lists sent by the New Delhi Public School to CBSE. He could not state as to who used to collect the photographs from the students when the lists are prepared. He could not state when and by whom were the photographs collected in the present case. He could not state who affixed the photographs on the admit cards. He could not admit or deny the fact that the class teacher of the concerned class affixes the photographs of the students on the admit card. He stated that all the records maintained by New Delhi Public School were under Manoj Tiwari. He admitted of having not seized the joining letter of Manoj Tiwari. He could not state about the designation of Manoj Tiwari. He could not state if any persons namely A. K. Kaushal or A. N. Sharma or any other person was there on 01.03.2005 when he reached at Oxford Sr. Secondary School. He admitted of having not inquired as to how many schools does Amit Kapoor have links with. He could not state as to when how many times or where Amit Kapoor has met the Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. He could not state when State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 23 Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta had made payment to Amit Kapoor. He further stated that he had not inquired from the parents if they had given the cash or not. He then stated that he had verified from the parents of Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta who admitted to have given the cash to them. He admitted that he had not collected the bank statement and ITRs of the parents of such students nor he had verified from where such money was obtained by parents. He also admitted that he had not verified what were the occupations of parents of Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. He admitted of having not collected the bank statements and ITRs of accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Kumar, Anand and Harinath. He further stated that Harinath was clerk at school at Kirti Nagar but he had not verified the said fact. He admitted that he had not collected the appointment letter of Harinath. He admitted that he had not taken any statement of any person from Happy Public School and that does not even know where Happy English School is situated. He could not state what work was assigned to Harinath as clerk. He admitted that Harinath had received the money. He could not state when did he get the money. He stated that Harinath received the money from Amit Kapoor. He admitted that he had not inquired when and how the said money was given to Harinath. He stated that Manoj Tiwari, Amit Kapoor and Harinath used to contact each other telephonically and Anand also used to connect telephonically. He stated that Harinath had given money to Anand. He could not state when the said money was given to Anand. He further stated that he had not collected the CCTV footage of CBSE office. He could not state where, how and when did Amit Kapoor used to meet State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 24 Harinath, Anand and Manoj Tiwari. He could not state where, how and when did Harinath used to meet Amit Kapoor, Anand and Manoj Tiwari. He could not state where, how and when did Anand used to meet Harinath, Amit Kapoor and Manoj Tiwari. He could not state where, how and when did Manoj Tiwari used to meet Amit Kapoor, Harinath and Anand. He stated that Anand was working at CBSE at the post of clerk but he could not state what was the role and responsibilities of Anand at CBSE office. He admitted that he had never seized the appointment letter of Anand during investigation. He admitted of not knowing about name and designation of Reporting Authority of Anand. He could not state whether any disciplinary proceedings relating to the present case were initiated against Anand or not. He could not state whether accused Anand was exonerated in such disciplinary proceedings or not. He further deposed that accused Anand and Manoj Tiwari met at PVR Vikas Puri prior to examination. He could not state about exact date of their meeting. He admitted that he had not collected any CCTV footage of PVR Cinema, Vikas Puri. He stated that he had never seized the mobile phones of accused persons during investigation and that same might have been seized in the jamatalashi. He admitted that no mobile phones were sent by him to FSL. He admitted that no application was ever filed by him with CBSE or school for seeking preservation of records. He could not state as to whom the mobile phone number 9810204998 belongs. He could not state about the date when he obtained the details of the aforesaid mobile phone number. He admitted that he had not sought CDRs of any of the accused persons during the investigation of the present case. He admitted that no CDRs or State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 25 mobile phone locations were received by him. He admitted that he had not conducted any investigation with respect to the identity related documents which were submitted at the time of issuance of the aforesaid mobile phone numbers. He admitted that he has never received any documents reflecting that Manoj Tiwari was responsible for conducting the class 12th examination. He admitted that he had not obtained any documents qua the exchange messages between the accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari, Anand Kumar and Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta or qua the exchange of messages between the parent of Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta and accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari, Anand Kumar. He admitted that he had not obtained any details regarding the calls or any sort of communications between Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta, their parents and the accused persons. He stated that the cheating was done against the Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta, who were also charge-sheeted as accused persons in the present case. He admitted that he never received any complaint from the students against the accused persons. He could not state about the usage of the stamps for Jagat Convent and Anglo Arabic S. S. School by the accused persons. He denied that the stamps were never recovered from the office of accused Amit. He stated that he was not informed about the holders of the said mobile phone numbers and that the details of the holders of the numbers were never verified by him.
(xiii). PW-13 HC Prahlad is the MHCM from PS Vikas Puri, who produced the record of summoned Register no. 19 and stated that as per entry no. 2213/2216 dated 01.03.2005 in the said State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 26 register vide Ex.PW13/A (Colly.), IO/SI Narottam Singh had deposited the case property seized by him through seizure memo in the Malkhana. He also produced the Register no. 21 and proved the Road Certificate no. 29/21/2009 which is Ex. PW 13/B.
13. As stated earlier, the defense evidence was also led by accused Anand Kumar wherein, he has examined only one defense witness. The testimony of defense witness examined by the accused Anand Kumar reads as under:-
(i). DW-1 Sh. Manoj Kumar is the Under Secretary Vigilance from CBSE who produced the record relating to proceedings pertaining to accused Anand Kumar. He stated that the said record contains the memorandum vide serial no. CBSE/(A & L)/F155/2005/1150 dated 20/22.07.2005 along with its annexures which is Ex DW 1/A (Colly.). He also stated that the said record also contains the report dated 20.12.2005 regarding the departmental inquiry against Anand Kumar which is Ex. DW 1/B (Colly) and the order dated 25.10.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority in the aforesaid inquiry proceedings is also annexed in the aforesaid record and same is Ex. DW 1/C (Colly).
14. This is the entire evidence on record.
15. Having discussed the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses, now let us advert to the merits of the present case.
State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 27
16. The gist of allegations levelled against the accused persons relates to offences U/s 120B, 420/511 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC, 468 r/w Section 120B IPC and 471 r/w 120B IPC.
17. The joint liability for the alleged offences has been imputed upon all the accused persons with the aid of section 120B IPC. The record is self-explanatory of the fact that in so far the accused persons namely Rajat Kohli, Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta and Harinath are concerned, all the above-named four accused persons have already been convicted and sentenced in the present case vide orders dated 09.04.2014 and 13.08.2016 respectively. More specifically, the afore-named four accused persons were convicted and sentenced during the course of the plea-bargaining proceedings in which they have admitted their guilt for the alleged offences and in view of such plea of guilt made by afore-named four accused persons, the commission of the alleged offences by them stands established. The fact that afore- named four accused persons have admitted their plea of guilt on the basis of which they have been convicted is sufficient to presume the commission of alleged offences of attempted cheating, fabrication of the documents and dishonest use of the fabricated admitted cards by accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta and also the underlying criminal conspiracy between the aforenamed three accused persons as well as accused Harinath. However, the fact that the accused persons namely, Manoj Tiwari, Amit Kapoor and Anand Kumar were also privy to the aforesaid criminal conspiracy with the afore-named four accused persons was required to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of aforesaid three accused State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 28 persons who have faced the trial for the alleged offences.
18. In so far as the allegations with respect to offence U/s 120B IPC are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that these allegations relate to the alleged offence of criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons for committing the offences of attempting cheating, fabrication of the records of New Delhi Public School and dishonest use of the fabricated admit cards for deceiving the school authorities and CBSE. More specifically, it is alleged that on or before 01.03.2005, the accused persons namely, Manoj Kumar, Amit Kapoor and Anand Kumar along with accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Harinath have formulated a plan to do an illegal act i.e to cheat the school authorities and CBSE by tampering the records of New Delhi Public School Vikas Puri, so as to enable the accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish to appear as regular students of New Delhi Public School in the class 12th examination conducted by CBSE and in pursuance of such plan, accused Manoj Tiwari fabricated/tampered the records of New Delhi Public School and on the basis of such tampered records, accused Anand Kumar facilitated the issuance of admit cards from the office of CBSE in favor of accused Varun, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta and thereafter, the said three accused persons appeared as regular students of afore-named school in the Class 12th CBSE examination which was being held at Oxford School, Vikas Puri on 01.03.2005, where they were caught by the complainant i..e the Principal of Oxford school. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the offence of criminal conspiracy has been made as an act indictable under law by virtue of Section 120B IPC.
State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 29
19. The position of law with respect to the offence of criminal conspiracy is discussed here-in-after:-
A conspiracy generally is hatched in secrecy. It is very difficult to adduce direct evidence thereto. Often, the prosecution relies on evidence of various acts of the parties as parts of the conspiracy to infer their complicity to commit the particular crime. The prosecution therefore would almost necessarily adduce circumstantial evidence. As a rule of evidence, it is well established that the conspiracy can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence but there is a pregnant obligation upon the court to inquire whether the parties to the conspiracy were pursuing the same end.
In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005 SC 3820, it was held that a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy. Also, in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa &Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 659, it was observed that for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the co- conspirators were wanting to achieve and thereafter having the intent to further the illegal act takes recourse to a course of conduct to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its accomplishment. In Subramaniam Swamy v. A Raja, (2012) 9 SCC 257, it was held that, suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof and existence of a meeting between the accused persons is not by itself sufficient to infer the existence of criminal conspiracy.
State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 30
20. It has never been easy to get direct evidence for proving an offence under Section 120-A, which defines criminal conspiracy. Considering this fact, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play. This section can be divided into two parts, firstly, where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. Only when this condition precedent is satisfied, the second part of the section comes into operation i.e. anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to the common intention after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them is a relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy. It is therefore necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to be established for application of Section 10. The second part of section permits the use of evidence which otherwise could not be used against the accused person (References drawn from Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra [(1964) 2 SCR 378)
21. In the present case, in order to establish the existence of criminal conspiracy between accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar along with the accused persons namely Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Harinath, prosecution is primarily relying upon testimony of PW-6 SI Jai Bhagwan, PW-9 Chander Shekhar Nodal officer Bharti Airtel and PW-12 Retired SI Narottam Singh. Pertinently, on careful perusal of testimony of PW-6, it is seen that the afore-named witness has deposed that the complicity of accused Amit Kapoor, Hari Nath, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar in the alleged offence was traced out pursuant State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 31 to the disclosure statements made by accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta and Rajat Kohli while they were in police custody. It is a settled position in law that the disclosure statements of accused persons which are recorded by the police are not relevant unless same has led to discovery of some other incriminating facts. In the present case also, from the testimony of PW-6 it divulges that except the alleged disclosure statements of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta, no other evidences showing the complicity of accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar have surfaced during the investigation of the case. Further, PW-12 has deposed that during the course of investigation the CDRs pertaining to one mobile no. 9810204998 for a period w.e.f. 01.02.2005 to 28.02.2005 were obtained by him from the concerned Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel and same have also been placed on record along with the charge-sheet. The careful scrutiny of testimony of PW-12 would reveal that during the course of investigation, he could not state about the name of person to whom the aforesaid mobile phone number belonged. He rather admitted that the aforesaid mobile number does not belong to any of the accused persons.
22. Possibly, the exercise of procuring the CDRs of the aforesaid mobile phone number was done by PW-12 during the investigation, so as to establish the telephonic contact between the accused persons, which was crucial to show the underlying conspiracy between them to commit the alleged offences. However, the said exercise could not be completed by the PW-12 in effective manner. The mere placing on record CDRs of one mobile phone number without establishing the fact that said mobile State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 32 phone number pertained to any of the accused persons who have been indicted in the present case, is of no avail to establish the case of prosecution. Even, the Nodal Officer i.e. PW-9 has also failed to produce any record including the details of the subscriber of the aforesaid mobile phone number as well as the CDRs obtained by the IO, stating that the said record was weeded out during the routine exercise. Again, it is seen that IO has failed to act diligently during the investigation stage as he ought to have sought the preservation of the relevant record pertaining to the subscriber of the aforesaid given mobile phone number as well as the CDRs in question during the investigation stage by taking necessary steps in that regard but he has even failed to do so without assigning any reasonable ground for such lapse. In nutshell, the copy of CDR pertaining to mobile phone number 9810204998 (Mark A) relied upon by the prosecution is of no avail to show that the accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar were in contact with each other or that they were in contact of the other accused persons namely, Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Harinath during the relevant time period. Further, PW-12 during his testimony also narrated that the investigation of the case divulged that accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta came in contact with accused Amit Kapoor as he was running one institute in the name of Asian Academy.
23. The prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidences establishing the fact that accused Amit Kapoor was the owner or proprietor of the afore-named Asian Academy or that accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were the State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 33 students in the said institute. Admittedly, PW-12 during the course of investigation has not collected any documentary records showing that the aforesaid Asian Academy was run by accused Amit Kapoor nor any documentary records in the nature of admission forms etc. of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were found or seized from the alleged offices of the Asian Academy at Rajouri Garden and Shalimar Bagh. The case of prosecution is further based on the premise that accused Amit Kapoor was knowing accused Harinath (since convicted) and the latter introduced the former and the other three accused persons namely, Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta with accused Anand Kumar who was working with CBSE and who in turn introduced all other accused persons with accused Manoj Tiwari who was working with New Delhi public school and had allegedly facilitated the tampering of the school records and preparation of fabricated ID cards of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. However, again the record is evident of the fact that no evidences have surfaced during the course of investigation establishing that accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were introduced with accused Harinath by accused Amit Kapoor, who then introduced them with accused Anand Kumar and the chain then reached to accused Manoj Tiwari. PW-12 in his testimony could not even state about the name of the school where accused Harinath was allegedly working or the nature of duties performed by him.
24. Similarly, PW-12 even could not state about the nature of duties as well as the designation of accused Manoj Tiwari as well as accused Anand Kumar in New Delhi Public School and CBSE State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 34 respectively. Even though, PW-12 has stated during his deposition that a meeting between the accused Manoj Tiwari, Amit Kapoor and Anand was held at office of CBSE prior to the examination where the cash received from accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta was allegedly handed over to Anand Kumar but admittedly, prosecution has not led any evidences to establish such facts. In a similar manner, PW-12 has again stated that the investigation divulged about a meeting between accused Anand and Manoj Tiwari at PVR Vikas Puri prior to the date of examination but again, no evidence has been led by prosecution to establish the aforesaid fact. PW-12 has failed to render any reasonable explanation about the pressing circumstances under which he could not obtain the CCTV footage of the office of CBSE as well as that of PVR Vikas Puri where the aforesaid meetings between the accused persons had taken place. Further, it has also been asserted by the prosecution that the cash received by accused Amit Kapoor from accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta was appropriated amongst the accused persons namely, Harinath, Amit Kapoor, Anand Kumar and Manoj Tiwari.
25. Again, the prosecution has failed to lead any evidences showing the delivery of cash by accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta to accused Amit Kapoor and further appropriation of the said cash amount between accused Amit Kapoor and accused Harinath, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar. PW-12 has again admitted the fact that he had not recorded the statements of family members or parents of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta qua giving the cash amount to the afore-named accused persons for the purpose of State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 35 securing the admit cards to take the class 12th CBSE examination as a regular students of New Delhi Public School. Likewise, PW-12 has even failed to explain the reasons under which he not only failed to record the statement of above-named parents and family members of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta, but he has not even obtained the bank account statements and ITRs of above-named three accused persons, their parents/family members and also that of accused Harinath, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has even failed to establish the factum of meetings convened by the accused persons prior to the date of incident and also about the handing over of cash by accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta in favor of accused Amit Kapoor and further appropriation of the same between accused Amit Kapoor, Harinath, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar.
26. It has also been asserted by the prosecution that even some incriminating articles i.e. the pamphlets and stamps pertaining to some schools were obtained from the premises of Asian Academy which belonged to accused Amit Kapoor. In this regard it is pertinent to state that the foregoing discussion clearly suggests that no evidence has been led by prosecution to establish that accused Amit Kapoor was owner or proprietor of Asian Academy or that accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were students in the said institute. An attempt has been made by the prosecuting agency to give the corroboration to the alleged disclosure statements of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta by showing recovery of the aforesaid alleged State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 36 incriminating pamphlets and stamps from the possession or at the instance of accused Amit Kapoor. However, on careful perusal of record, it divulges that during the course of the alleged recovery of the aforesaid stamps and pamphlets at the instance of accused Amit Kapoor, PW-12 has failed to associate any public persons during such proceedings despite their availability. Not only this, PW-12 could not state about the exact distance from PS Vikas Puri to the office of Asian Academy at Rajouri Garden and Branch office at Shalimar Bagh from where the aforesaid recoveries are shown to be affected. Not only this, as per PW-12 himself, at the time of such recovery proceedings, apart from accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta, he along with one HC Jai Bhagwan, one other constable and one SI J. K. Bhardwaj were present. Surprisingly, the statements of aforesaid constable and the SI J. K. Bhardwaj who have also witnessed the said recovery proceedings were not recorded by PW-12 during the course of investigation nor their names have been cited as the prosecution witnesses.There is no reasonable explanation given by the prosecution qua the aforesaid lapses and due to the said reasons, the credibility of the alleged recovery proceedings at the instance of accused Amit Kapoor stands impeached and thus, such facts are also of no avail to establish the prosecution story.
27. Even assuming the fact that the aforesaid alleged pamphlets and stamps were recovered at the instance of accused Amit Kapoor from the alleged premises of Asian Academy at Rajouri Garden and Shalimar Bagh, still the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the stamps etc. were fabricated in nature. Even though, the names of Smt. Madhu Suri Principal of Jagat State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 37 Convent School and one Akhtar-Ul-Jama Principal Anglo Arabic Sr. Secondary School were cited in the list of prosecution witnesses for proving that the alleged stamps stated to be recovered from accused Amit Kapoor, are false and fabricated in nature. However, the prosecuting agency failed to prove the said facts as Smt. Madhu Suri could not step into witness box as her whereabouts remained untraceable and Sh. Akhtar-Ul-Jama unfortunately passed away due to which their names were struck from the list of witnesses. In short, the prosecution has even failed to establish the recovery of the alleged pamphlets and fabricated stamps at the instance of accused Amit Kapoor and due to said reasons, there is nothing incriminating on record against the accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar for showing that they were also privies to the criminal conspiracy entertained by the other accused persons namely, Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Harinath.
28. The foregoing discussion suggests that there does not exist any direct or circumstantial evidence on record to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar have conspired with accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli and Harinath to deceive the school authorities and CBSE by tampering the records of New Delhi Public School so as to facilitate issuance of the fabricated admit cards of the accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli and Harinath enabling them to take class 12 th CBSE examination as regular students of New Delhi Public School. There has to be some material on record connecting the accused State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 38 persons with each other or to establish necessary nexus between them so as to hold them liable for offence of criminal conspiracy but such evidences are clearly missing in the present case, therefore, the allegations leveled against the accused persons with respect to offence u/s 120B IPC appears to be unfounded and hence, accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar deserves to be acquitted for such offence.
29. Moving further, the other allegations against accused persons pertain to offence of attempt to cheating i.e offence u/s 420 r/w 511 IPC and offence of dishonest use of the fabricated admit cards by accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli and Harinath i.e. offense u/s 471 r/w 120B IPC. More specifically, the accused persons have also been charged for offence u/s 420/511 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC and section 471/r/w 120 B IPC with the allegations that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli and Harinath had appeared in the Class 12 th CBSE Examination which was being held at Oxford Public School on 01.03.2005 and have used the fabricated admit cards for such purpose. The discussion made in the preceding part of the judgment clearly suggests that in view of the plea of guilt made by accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli and Harinath, the commission of offences of attempted cheating i.e. offense u/s 420 r/w 511 and dishonest use of the fabricated admit cards by accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli and the underlying criminal conspiracy between accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli and Harinath have been State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 39 established, therefore, there lies no question of delving further on such aspects. However, the fact remains that there is no iota of evidence on record to establish the criminal conspiracy inter-se the accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar and accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli and Harinath, therefore, the liability of accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar with respect to offences U/s 420/511 and 471 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC cannot be fastened and hence, the allegations with respect to offences u/s 420/511 and 471 r/w Section 120B IPC levelled against accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar also appears to be unfounded and the accused persons deserves to be acquitted for such offences also.
30. The accused persons have also been charged for offence U/s 468 r/w Section 120B IPC and the allegations of said offence are on the based on the premise that accused Manoj Tiwari being the Clerk in New Delhi Public School has tampered with the records of school including the list of candidates appearing for Class 12th examination from the aforesaid school and added the names of accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli in the said list and accused Anand Kumar on the basis of said tampered list, facilitated the issuance of the admit cards of accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli, which were signed by the accused Manoj Tiwari without having any right or authority to do so. In so far as accused Amit Kapoor is concerned, the discussion made above clearly suggests that for the want of any incriminating evidence showing the existence of criminal conspiracy between him and the other accused persons in the alleged crime, the afore-
State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 40 named accused cannot be held liable even for the offence u/s 468 r/w 120B IPC as the said allegations does not directly pertain to him. In so far as the liability of accused Anand Kumar is concerned, the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence showing that accused Anand Kumar was responsible in finalizing the list of eligible candidates for the Class 12th examination of CBSE or that he in any manner has connived with accused Manoj Tiwari in facilitating the issuance of the impugned admit cards of Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli. PW-12 could not state as to whether accused Anand Kumar was responsible for looking after the work relating to finalizing the list of candidates pertaining to CBSE class 12th examination.
31. The original list of the candidates which was allegedly fabricated by accused Manoj Tiwari and on the basis of which accused Anand Kumar allegedly facilitated the issuance of admit cards of accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli, has not seen the light of the day as the record of such list was stated to be weeded out (as deposed by PW-10). Again, prosecution has failed to explain as to what prevented the IO (PW-12) to seek the preservation of record of the said original list of the candidates as same was required to be produced so as to show that tampering and additions were made by accused Manoj Tiwari in the same so as to enable accused Varun Sharma, Ashish Gupta, Rajat Kohli to take the Class 12th CBSE Examination as regular students of New Delhi Public School. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that even there are no incriminating evidences on record as against accused Anand Kumar for making him liable for commission of offence u/s 468 r/w 120B IPC.
State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 41
32. In so far as the liability of accused Manoj Kumar for commission of the offence u/s 468/120B IPC is concerned, the main premise on which the accused Manoj Tiwari has been charged for this offence is that the impugned admit cards of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were signed by him without having any authority to do so with no intention but to facilitate the commission of offence of cheating by the above-named three accused persons. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of investigation of the case, the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Manoj Tiwari as well as the impugned admit cards pertaining to accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were sent to FSL for comparison and analysis with the questioned documents and the FSL report dated 31.10.2006 came to be filed on record. Even though, on cursory perusal of the said FSL report, it reflects that the handwriting/signatures on the questioned documents i.e. impugned admit cards of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta tallied with the handwriting/signatures of accused Manoj Tiwari on the specimen documents. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the testimony of IO i.e. PW-12 states that the specimen signatures and the handwriting of the accused were taken by him with the permission of the Court and same were sent to FSL for analysis with the questioned documents. Pertinently, accused Manoj Tiwari has raised dispute with respect to the conclusions stated in the afore-mentioned FSL result dated 31.10.2006 stating that the specimen handwriting and signatures i.e. Mark 'S1' to 'S20' does not belong to him and same have been planted by the IO to falsely implicate him in the present case.
State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 42
33. This Court is well conscious of the fact that at the time when the specimen handwriting/signatures of accused were taken by the IO, the provisions of Section 311A IPC were not in existence in the statue book and hence, there was no embargo on the part of IO to obtain the specimen signatures/handwriting of the accused without the permission of the Court but the prosecution was duty bound to establish that such specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused were taken by the IO without any compulsion, pressure, coercion etc. exercised upon the accused and also that same belonged to the accused only and were not the planted documents. The testimonies of PW-12 is vague in this regard as it simply stated that the specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused Manoj Tiwari were taken by him after seeking permission from the court but the place of such exercise, the date, the time and other necessary details thereof have not been mentioned in the testimony of the afore-named witness, therefore, the version of the accused that the said specimen signatures/ handwriting does not belong to him, cannot be completely ruled out.
34. It is also worthwhile to point here that as per the expressed provisions of Section 293 Cr.PC, even though the FSL report dated 31.10.2006 appears to be a document not requiring a formal proof thereof but in the considered opinion of this Court, the examination of the author of such report i.e. Sh. Anurag Sharma , Senior Scientific officer (Documents FSL) Govt. of NCT of Delhi, was necessary in the present case in accordance with Section 293 (2) Cr.PC as the accused has raised dispute regarding giving any specimen handwriting/signatures to the IO during the investigation State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 43 of the case. However, it is a matter of record that the prosecution has not examined the above-named expert from FSL as a witness in the present case and even his name was not cited in the list of prosecution witnesses and due to such reasons, the entire FSL report dated 31.10.2006 cannot be relied upon to hold the accused Manoj Tiwari liable for the alleged offences. As the prosecution has not established that the impugned admit cards were forged by the accused Manoj Tiwari, hence, the accused Manoj Tiwari also cannot be held liable for offence U/s 468 r/w 120 B IPC.
35. The discussion made above is clearly suggestive of the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar have entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli, Ashish Gupta and Harinath to commit the offences of cheating and in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, they have tampered with the list of candidates of Class 12 th in New Delhi Public School so as to facilitate the issuance of admit cards by CBSE in favor of accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta and thereafter, the said admit cards were in fact fabricated by the accused Manoj Kumar in furtherance of such conspiracy, which were also dishonestly used by the accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta for taking the CBSE class 12 th Examination at Oxford School Vikas Puri on 01.03.2005, during the course of which they were caught by the complainant and hence, the above-named three accused persons deserve to be acquitted for the alleged offences. Accordingly, accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari and Anand Kumar are held not guilty and are thus, acquitted for offences State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 44 u/s 120B IPC, 420/511 r/w Section 120B IPC, 468 r/w 120B IPC and 471 r/w 120 B IPC.
Announced in the open court on 04.09.2025.
(Rishabh Kapoor) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 (South-West)/Dwarka 04.09.2025 State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 45