Delhi District Court
State vs Naresh Kumar Etc on 27 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, (NEW DELHI), PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 93/2005
U/s 420, 468 & 471 r/w 511 r/w 34 IPC & 120B IPC
PS : Chanakyapuri
Date of Institution : 22.01.2008
Date of Judgment : 27.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 44583/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : Guido Beutler, Police Liaison Officer, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, New Delhi
3. Date of commission of offence : 13.04.2005
4. Name of accused : (1) Nareh Kumar, S/o Sh.
Om Prakash (2) Prem Kumar, S/o Sh.
Shyam Lal
5. Offence charged : 420, 468 & 471 r/w 511 r/w 34 IPC & 120B IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Sharvan
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.27 16:42:01 +0530 State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 1 of 32 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Briefly stating, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by Guido Beutler, Police Liaison Officer Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, New Delhi. As per the case of the prosecution, one person namely Rajinder Singh had applied for getting visa from German embassy on 01.04.2005. He had filed certain documents along with the application including a letter issued on the letter head of Ebica Trading Company (wherein the accused Rajinder Singh was shown as partner of the said firm), brochure of Engelfried Maschinentechnik etc. Upon inspecting the documents attached with the visa application form, it was found that the same were completed fake and forged. Thereafter, the German Embassy informed the police about the same.
2. Upon receiving the complaint / information from the German Embassy, the present FIR was registered. The investigation was conducted by the police officials of PS Chanakyapuri.
During the course of the investigation, the police officials caught one person namely Harvansh Singh who had come to the German Embassy to collect the passport of the accused Rajinder Singh. He informed that he was working in a company namely Uplift Tourism Private Limited as office clerk State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 2 of 32 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:42:09 +0530 and he was sent by the accused Naresh Kumar with an authority letter and slip to collect the passport and visa of the accused Rajinder Singh. Thereafter, the accused Rajinder Singh was apprehended who disclosed that the accused persons namely Prem Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Satish Kumar were involved in arranging visa on the basis of forged documents. He also stated that the forged documents of the present case were also provided by these accused persons. Thereafter, during the course of the investigation, the specimen signatures of the accused persons were collected and sent to FSL for forensic examination. It was found out that letter issued by Ebica Trading Company was fake and signature appearing on the said letter matched with the specimen signature of the accused Naresh Kumar whose specimen signature also matched with the handwriting appearing on the visa application form of the accused Rajinder Kumar. The accused Prem Kumar had issued cheque in the present case.
3.After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the present case by the investigating agency against the accused persons namely Naresh Kumar, Rajinder Singh and Prem Kumar. The accused persons namely Satish Kumar State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 3 of 32 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:42:16 +0530 and Rajesh Kumar were declared absconders. Thereafter, charge for the offence punishable u/s 420, 468 & 471 r/w 511 r/w 34 IPC & 120B IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Naresh Kumar and Prem Singh vide order dated 10.09.2015 to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial. The accused Rajender Kumar had pleaded guilty for the offence punishable u/s 420 r/w 511 IPC and 471 IPC r/ w 120B IPC, and, therefore, he was convicted for the said offence.
4.In order to bring home the guilt against the accused persons, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
5.ASI Heera Lal was examined by the prosecution as PW-1. In his examination in chief, he deposed that on 15.04.2005, he was posted at PS Chanakyapuri and was working as Duty Officer from 4 PM to 12 midnight. On that day, at about 6:15 PM, he had received rukka from SI Hari Singh. On the basis of the rukka, the present FIR Ex. PW-1/A was registered. After the registration of the FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Hari Singh for investigation. He was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite the fact that opportunity was provided to them. Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.03.27 16:42:21 +0530 State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 4 of 32
6.Sh. Manjeet Rai was examined as PW-2. He was the Senior Passport Assistant posted at Passport Office, Jalandhar, Punjab. He had proved on record the verification report of passport no. A-5971114 date 07.08.1998. He deposed that as per the office record, the said passport was issued in the name of Rajender Kumar S/o Sh. Jagat Ram, R/o Village Changarwal, PO & PS Talwar, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. He had identified the signature of Sohan Lal Kehlat, Superintendent, Passport Office, Jalandhar on the verification report Mark X. He also submitted the certified copy of the scanned documents of Rajender Singh Mark X-1 (colly). He was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite the fact that opportunity was provided to them.
7.HC Surender was examined by the prosecution as PW-3. In his examination in chief, he deposed that on 15.04.2005, he was posted as Constable at PS Chanakyapuri. On that day, he had joined the investigation along with the IO Hari Singh. IO interrogated the accused Naresh Kumar in his presence in which the accused had disclosed that he had received an amount of Rs. 60,000/- for preparation of visa of one person and prepared forged documents in this regard. Thereafter, the Digitally signed by ANIMESH State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.27 16:42:27 +0530 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 5 of 32 IO arrested the accused Naresh vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/ A. IO prepared personal search memo of the accused Naresh Ex. PW-3/B and also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Naresh Ex. PW-3/C. IO also recorded his statement regarding joining the investigation. He further stated that on 17.04.2005, he visited the house of the accused Naresh where nothing incriminating was found. IO prepared memo Ex. PW-3/D in this regard. On 18.04.2005, he against visited the office of the accused Naresh where nothing incriminating could be found in the said office. IO prepared memo Ex.
PW-3/E in this regard. He could not identify the accused Naresh due to lapse of time. When his attention was drawn towards the accused Naresh who was present in the Court, he stated that the said person might be the accused Naresh. He also stated that since the matter pertained to the year 2005, he could not recollect the face of the accused Naresh.
8.PW-2 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP with the permission of the Court wherein he denied the suggestion that he was not deliberately identifying the accused Naresh. He was also duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Naresh wherein he stated that he did not remember as to whether the IO had given notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C to the accused for joining State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 6 of 32 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:42:35 +0530 the investigation or not. He also stated that the accused Naresh came to the police station alone. He admitted that the IO had recorded disclosure statement of the accused Naresh after his arrest. He did not remember as to whether IO informed the family members or friends of the accused Naresh regarding the arrest. He further stated that the disclosure statement of the accused was in the handwriting IO Hari Singh. He did not know as to how many times did the IO record the disclosure statement of the accused Naresh. He did not remember as to whether IO produced the accused Naresh before the court or not. He also stated that he joined the investigation along with the IO on 15.04.2007, 17.04.2005 & 18.04.2005. He also stated that IO had recorded his statement on 15.04.2005 and later on IO did not record his statement. He did not remember as to whether he took the accused Naresh for medical examination or not. He further stated that on 17 April 2005, they went to the house of accused Naresh along with the said accused. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation along with IO and all the documents were prepared while sitting in the police station. He also denied the suggestion that the accused was not arrested in his presence. He further denied the ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 7 of 32 Date:
2025.03.27 16:42:43 +0530 suggestion that he did not join the investigation along with IO. He was not cross-examined by the accused Prem despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
9.Sh. Harbans Singh was examined as PW-4. In his examination in chief, he deposed that he is into the business of property dealing. In the year 2005, he was working as a computer operator along with the accused Naresh Kumar who was the owner of the company i.e. Uplift Courier having office at Palika Kendra, Panchkuiya Road, New Delhi. He was working as a data entry operator with the company and used to fill up visa application form which was given to him by the owner of the company. He further stated that he did not know anything else about the present case. He correctly identified the accused Naresh in the Court as his previous owner. He could not identify the accused Prem.
10.PW-4 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court. He denied the suggestion that on 12.04.2015, the accused Naresh hand handed over the receiving slip and authority letter of accused Rajender Kumar and sent him to German Embassy for collecting the passport and visa of Rajender Kumar. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestion ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 8 of 32 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date:
2025.03.27 16:42:48 +0530 that on the same day, he went to German Embassy where the official of Embassy stopped him, called the police and made him to sit. He also denied the suggestion that after reaching of the police officials, it was stated by the police officials that the documents submitted with the visa application of Rajender Kumar were forged. He further denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement that he had done the work on the directions of Naresh Kumar. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further denied the suggestion that he had told to the police that being an employee of the accused Naresh Kumar, he had come only to collect the passport and other documents of Rajender Kumar. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestion that he had told to the police that the accused Naresh Kumar knew all the facts regarding Rajender Kumar regarding receiving slip and authority letter. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further denied the suggestion that due to the fear and influence of the accused Naresh, he gave false evidence in his favour. He also denied the suggestion that due to the passage of time, he could not recollect his statement recorded by the police. He further denied the suggestion that he was ANIMESH State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 9 of 32 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:42:55 +0530 won over by the accused persons.
11.PW-4 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Naresh wherein he stated that he did not visit the police station in connection with the investigation of the present case. He admitted that in his presence, the police did not visit his office premise and also did not seize any electronic gadgets or documents in his presence. He was not cross-examined by the accused Prem despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
12.Retired SI Hari Singh was examined as PW-5. He was the first investigating officer of the present case. In his examination in chief, he deposed that on 13.04.2005, he was posted as SI at PS Chanakyapuri and one complaint was handed over to him for investigation. Thereafter, he went to German Embassy and the concerned officer of the German embassy handed over to him one person namely Harbans Singh. Upon interrogation, Harbans Singh informed him that one Naresh Kumar who was working in Uplift tourism Private Limited, Palika Place, Connaught Place had told him to collect passport and visa of one namely Rajinder Kumar. Thereafter, on 15 April 2005, he prepared rukka on the basis of the complainant got the present FII are registered. Thereafter, he ANIMESH State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 10 of 32 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:43:02 +0530 called Naresh Kumar to the police station and after interrogation, he arrested the said accused. He also recorded his disclosure statement. Thereafter on 16 April 2005, the accused Naresh Kumar was produced before the concerned court and two days police custody was obtained. On 18 April 2005, he recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused Naresh. He also prepared his personal search memo. Thereafter, He was transferred from the police station so he handed over the case file to MHC (R). He correctly identified the accused Naresh in the Court.
13.PW-5 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not record the statement of any person from the German embassy. He also stated that he did not verify from the German embassy under whose signature the present complaint was handed over to him. He further stated that he had interrogated Harbans Singh but did not record his statement. He also stated that there was no passport or visa lying in the German embassy for which tHarbans Singh went there to collect the document on behalf of the accused Naresh Kumar. He also stated that he did not know about the procedure followed by the German embassy. He denied that ANIMESH State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 11 of 32 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:43:30 +0530 German Embassy do not allow any authorised person to collect the passport. He denied the suggestion that he had planted false case upon the accused Naresh. He further stated that the disclosure statements of the accused Naresh Kumar was in his handwriting. He denied the suggestion that he had recorded the disclosure statement without verifying the facts from the accused and the same was recorded by him on hi own and he obtained the signature of the accused Naresh forcefully. He admitted that Harbans Singh was not made an accused in the present case. He also admitted that Harbans Singh was handed over to him by the German Embassy. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of the accused Harbans on 13.04.2013. He also stated that only Naresh Kumar was alleged by the said Harbans Singh. He did not remember as to whether document was presented by Harbans Singh or not. He also stated that he did not collect any CCTV footage. He did not remember when the documents was proceed by the accused Rajinder Singh in the Embassy and stated that he did not investigate the matter in this regard. He also stated that he had never met the accused Rajinder in connection with the investigation of the present case at any point of time. He denied the suggestion that he ANIMESH KUMAR Digitally signed by State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:43:35 +0530 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 12 of 32 was deposing falsely.
14.Inspector B M Bahuguna was second investigating officer of the present case. He was examined by the prosecution as PW-6. In his examination in chief, he deposed that on 22.09.2005, he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Chanakyapuri. The present case was handed over to him for investigation. He sent notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C to the accused Rajinder and he joined the investigation on 22.07.2006. After interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-6/A and his disclosure statement was also recorded Ex. PW-6/B. He was produced before the Court and his three days police custody was obtained. Thereafter, he along with the accused Rajinder and other police officials went to Jalandhar where he arrested the accused Prem Kumar at the instance of the accused Rajinder vide arrest memo Ex. PW-6/C. He also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Prem Kumar Ex. PW-6/D. He also stated that he also met one person namely Bhupender Singh in Jalandhar who handed over one original cheque to him which was already bounced.
The said cheque was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/E. The said cheque is Mark A1. Thereafter, he came back to Delhi along with the accused Rajinder and Prem. The alleged Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, KUMAR Date:
2025.03.27 16:43:41 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 13 of 32 +0530 documents were verified from the concerned office. He also got conducted the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C of the accused Satish Kumar and Rajesh Kumar and thereafter they were declared absconders. He also obtained the specimen signatures / handwriting of the accused Rajinder Kumar and Prem Kumar. He correctly identified the accused Prem and Naresh in the Court. He also stated that he had prepared the charge-sheet and filed before the Court.
15.PW-6 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Naresh. He stated that when the file was handed over to him, the file was hanving tehrir, copy of FIR, arrest memo, disclosure statement and other documents. He did not remember as to whether statement of public witnesses were attached with the case file or not. He further stated that he had issued notice / letter of request to German embassy for providing verification report but he did not remember the exact date and time. He also stated that after receiving the complaint, no person joined the investigation from German embassy. He also stated that the accused Prem Kumar was arrested from Jalandhar but he did not take transit remand from the local court. He also stated that information of arrest of the accused Prem Kumar was given to his brother and his ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 14 of 32 Date: 2025.03.27 16:43:46 +0530 disclosure statement was recorded in Jalandhar only. He also stated that he did not record other statement of the accused Prem Kumar. He could not say as to whether any Embassy could issue visa document to any person instead of the applicant or not. He also stated that he did not obtain the specimen signature of the accused Naresh. He denied the suggestion that he had taken specimen signature of the accused Naresh. He also denied the suggestion that all the documentation were done by him in the police station. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
16.PW-6 was also duly cross-examined by the accused Prem wherein he stated that he did not know as to whether the cheque was recovered from the possession of the father of the passenger was ever presented in the bank by him or by the passenger. He stated that he knew the cheque was issued "self". He further stated that the cheque was handed over to him by the father of the passenger namely Jagat Singh on 21.07.2006. He also stated that the accused Prem was arrested on 23.07.2006. He further stated that the accused Prem was arrested by him but he did not know who was with him at the time of his arrest. He voluntarily stated that there was witness to his arrest namely Ct. Satish and Ct. Moharpal.
State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 15 of 32 He further stated that he had given intimation in the concerned police station where the accused was residing. He admitted that the visa form submitted by the accused Rajinder had his signatures. He also stated that during the investigation, it came on record that the cheque of RS. 20,000/- was given to the accused Rajender. He denied the suggestion that he did not do the investigation properly. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not arrest the main accused in the present case and had implicated innocent persons. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
17.ASI Mohar Pal was examined as PW-7. He was with PW-6 during the course of the investigation. He stated that on 23.07.2006, he joined the investigation. The accused Prem was arrested from Pawan Movies, Old Railways Road, Jalandhar and his disclosure statement was recorded. One pointing out memo was also prepared at the instance of the accused Prem Singh who took them to the house of the accused Satish Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. He correctly identified the accused Prem in the Court.
18.PW-7 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Naresh wherein he denied the suggestion that he had never joined the investigation with the IO. He also denied State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 16 of 32 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:43:53 +0530 the suggestion that all the documents were signed by him while sitting in the police station at the instance of the IO. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He was not cross-examined by the accused Prem despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
19.Sh. Narender Kumar was examined as PW-8 as expert witness. He had examined the specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused persons and some documents and prepared his reports Ex. PW-8/A (colly) and Ex. PW-8/B (colly). The documents which were sent for forensic examination are Ex. PW-8/C (colly). PW-8 was duly cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
20.Thereafter, at the request of the Ld. APP, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein all the accused denied the incriminating materials against them and stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case. The accused Prem Kumar also stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case only because one of his cheques was found with the co-accused Satish Kumar who was already absconder. The accused Naresh Kumar also stated that he had never signed any document on the basis of ANIMESH KUMAR Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, Date: 2025.03.27 16:44:00 +0530 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 17 of 32 which FSL report was obtained by the IO. He further stated that he was apprehended by the police from his house and was not arrested from the German Embassy. The accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
21.During the final arguments, Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. The accused persons were duly identified by the police officials. The FSL Report would also show that the accused Naresh Kumar was maker of the forged documents involved in the present case.
22.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. The complainant i.e. the officials of German Embassy was never examined by the prosecution. Thus, the original complaint on the basis of which the present FIR was registered could never be proved by the prosecution. Also, no incriminating materials could be brought on record by the prosecution against the accused persons. The accused Naresh Kumar was allegedly implicated in the present case on the basis of statement made by one person namely Harbans Singh. However, the said person who was Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, 2025.03.27 16:44:05 +0530 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 18 of 32 examined as PW-4 by the prosecution turned completely hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Similarly, no incriminating materials were brought on record by the prosecution qua the accused Prem Kumar. It was argued that the said accused did not have any role in the present case and was not involved in any conspiracy. Further, it was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Naresh Kumar that the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of FSL Report as PW-8 was not a qualified person to file the said report. Thus, both the accused persons must be acquitted in the present case.
23.I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
24.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 19 of 32 Date: 2025.03.27 16:44:11 +0530 "i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
25.It is a settled law as well as matter of common knowledge that evidence of complainant/ victim and other public witnesses is the best available evidence and the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony of said witness only.
26.In the instant case, after perusing the materials available on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons in the present beyond reasonable doubts for the reasons discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
27.First and foremost, it should be noted that the complainant who gave complaint to the police was never examined by the prosecution despite the fact that multiple opportunities were Digitally signed by ANIMESH State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 20 of 32 2025.03.27 16:44:17 +0530 granted. Thus, the original complaint on the basis of which the present FIR was registered could never be proven on record.
28.The non-examination of the complainant would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution as the complainant was not only a formal witness rather he was the person who had found out that the accused Rajinder had filed forged documents along with his visa application form. Thus, it was the complainant who had all the knowledge and information about the present case.
29.Secondly, The witnesses examined by the prosecution except PW-4 and PW-8 were the police officials. They did not have any personal information about the present case. They were not witness to the visa interview process. They only relied upon the complaint filed by the complainant who was not examined.
30.Thirdly, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused Naresh Kumar was involved in the criminal conspiracy with the accused Rajender. The accused Naresh Kumar had provided forged documents to the accused Rajinder and had also arranged for collection of his passport and visa. The ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, Digitally signed PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 21 of 32 by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:44:26 +0530 case of the prosecution qua the accused Naresh Kumar was based on the statement given by PW-4 Harbans Singh to the police and on the basis of FSL Report. PW-4 Harbans Singh turned completely hostile in his testimony and did not support the case of the prosecution at all qua the allegations against the accused Naresh Kumar.
31.Further, as per the FSl Report Ex. PW-8/A, the specimen signatures/handwriting of the accused Naresh Kumar matched with the handwriting in which the visa application of the accused Rajinder Kumar was filled. As per the prosecution, this would show that it was the accused Naresh Kumar who had filled the visa application form of the accused Rajinder Kumar and was involved in the conspiracy. Also, the specimen signature of the accused Prem matched with the signature appearing in the cheque recovered from him.
32.In so far as culpability of the accused persons on the basis of sole testimony of the expert witness PW-8 who proved on record the FSL Reports Ex. PW-8/A & Ex. PW-8/B is concerned, it should be noted that while FSL Reports Ex. PW-8/A & Ex. PW-8/ per se may be admissible in evidence provided the specimen signatures of the accused persons have been collected in a proper manner by the investigating State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, Digitally signed by ANIMESH PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 22 of 32 ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.27 16:44:31 +0530 agency by following all the established norms and safeguards which would rule out all the possibilities of tampering.
33.In the instant case, perusal of the materials available on record would show that, the specimen signatures of the accused persons were not collected with the permission of the Magistrate. They were not even collected in the presence of the Magistrate. Dealing with similar set of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 SCC (Crl) 777, has held the following:
"8.....Even though the specimen finger prints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take fingerprints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate...."
34.Similarly, in the case of K. Dhanasekaran vs. State 2003 (1) CTC 223, the Hon'ble Madras High Court had reiterated that it would not be safe to rely upon the report/testimony of the handwriting expert if specimen signatures were not obtained as per the procedure laid down under Section 5 of the ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 23 of 32 Date: 2025.03.27 16:44:37 +0530 Identification of Prisoners Act. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
8. It is clear that in the light of the observation made in order to dispel suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence, it is desirable to get the specimen signatures from the accused before or under the order of a Magistrate. Admittedly, in our case, the Inspector has not obtained permission or any order from the Magistrate concerned to get the signatures from the accused as well as P.W.1 for sending the same to expert's opinion.
35.Perusal of the record would show that no permission of any Magistrate was taken by the IOs before taking the specimen signatures of the accused persons. Also, the specimen signatures were not collected in the presence of the Magistrate or any public persons. Both the IOs did not state in his testimony as to whether the documents seized from the accused persons were sent to the FSL Department in sealed condition or not. Hence, it would clearly appear that the specimen signatures of the accused persons were not collected in accordance with the established procedures.
36.Moreover, there are some other factors which would show that it would not be safe to solely rely upon the FSL Reports in order to convict the accused persons in the present case. It ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 24 of 32 Date: 2025.03.27 16:44:43 +0530 should be noted that as per the record, the specimen signatures of the accused Naresh Kumar were collected on 15.04.2005, however, the same were sent to FSL on 28.04.2006 i.e. after the expiry of one year. Similarly, the specimen signatures of the accused Prem and Rajinder were collected on 23.07.2006 and 21.07.2006, however, the same were sent to FSL on 13.07.2007 i.e. after the expiry of around one year.
37.Therefore, there is clearly a significant gap between the dates on which the specimen signatures of the accused persons were collected and date on which they were sent for forensic examination. No explanation could be provided by the prosecution or any of the PWs to explain the said delay in sending the documents and specimen signatures of the accused persons for forensic examination. Also, IOs did not state as to whether the documents were kept and sent in sealed condition or not. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the seized documents as well as specimen signatures and handwritings of the accused persons were not - or could not be - tampered with before it reached the FSL for examination.
ANIMESH
38.The above discussed circumstances would further make the KUMAR Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, 16:44:48 +0530 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 25 of 32 case of the prosecution doubtful. Documents seized from the German Embassy along with specimen signatures of accused persons were kept in the police station for several days without any justifiable reasons before they were sent to the FSL. IOs did not make any statement as to whether the documents seized in the present case and the specimen signatures of the accused persons were sent to FSL in sealed condition. The specimen signatures of the accused persons were not collected with the permission of the Magistrate or in the presence of the Magistrate or any independent person. These are some of the glaring missing links of the prosecution which would raise doubts over the reliability of the FSL Reports and testimony of expert witness PW-8.
39.Even if I ignore the missing links of the prosecution, then also, I find that the FSL Reports Ex. PW-8/A & Ex. PW-8/B could not be relied upon in order to convict the accused Naresh for the offence of forgery in the absence of any other corroborative materials. It is settled proposition of law that before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the Court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. The evidence of an expert is rather a Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, 2025.03.27 16:44:53 +0530 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 26 of 32 weak piece of evidence, and, therefore, should not be considered as "conclusive" proof in the absence of any independent and reliable corroboration. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, wherein while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, the Apex Court Court opined that:
"... We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert evidence of Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR handwriting can never be conclusive Date:
2025.03.27 16:44:59 +0530 because it is, after all, opinion evidence, State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 27 of 32 and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial."
40.This ratio was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704, wherein while discussing reliability of evidence of hand writing expert, the Apex Court held as under:
"4. .......True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses -- the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses -- but Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.27 16:45:04 +0530 State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 28 of 32 because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non- existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty "is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence (Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v. Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in his evidence).
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion ANIMESH KUMAR upon a point as to identity of handwriting, Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 the opinion of a person "specially skilled"
16:45:10 +0530 State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 29 of 32 "in questions as to identity of handwriting" is expressly made a relevant fact......... So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it."
41.Recently, in the case of Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 3 SCC 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined in detail the relevancy and reliability of the evidence of hand writing expert and reiterated that such evidences are relatively weak piece of evidences which need to be corroborated from other evidences available on record.
42.In the instant case, the prosecution could not bring on record any material which could corroborate the FSL Report Ex. PW-8/A (colly) as per which the specimen signature / handwriting of the accused Naresh Kumar matched with the handwriting in which the visa application form of the accused Digitall signed ANIME ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, KUMAR Date:
2025.03 16:45:1 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 30 of 32 +0530 Rajinder was filled and signature appearing on one alleged forged document i.e. letter issued to the Visa officer of German Embassy issued on the letterhead of Ebica Trading Company. In fact, the prosecution could not even properly prove that the said letter was actually a false document.
43.Further, the fact that the specimen signatures of the accused Prem matched with the handwriting and signature appearing on the cheque would not make any difference. Even if it is assumed that the accused Prem had issued cheque to the accused Rajinder that would not automatically make the accused Prem part of the conspiracy. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said cheque is forged. In fact, the said cheque was signed by the accused Prem only. He did not even dispute this fact. He could not be said to be involved in the conspiracy along with the accused Rajinder merely on the ground that he had signed the said cheque.
44.Therefore, in view of the above, I find that it would not be safe to solely rely upon the testimony of the expert witness PW-8 and FSL Reports to convict the accused persons in the present case in the absence of any corroborating evidence and especially in light of the fact that specimen signatures and handwritings of the accused persons were not collected Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, 2025.03.27 16:45:24 +0530 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 31 of 32 by following all the safeguards.
45.Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons in the present case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the accused namely Naresh Kumar and Prem Kumar are acquitted for the offences U/s 420, 468 & 471 r/w 511 r/w 34 IPC & 120B IPC Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 27th March, 2025.
This judgment consists of 32 signed pages.
(ANIMESH KUMAR) Judicial Magistrate First Class-02 New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.27 16:45:30 +0530 State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 93/2005, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 27.03.2025 Page No. 32 of 32