Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Etc on 20 February, 2014
THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, CENTRAL,
ROOM NO. 137, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
PAWAN ETC.
FIR No. 48/2011
P.S.: SUBZI MANDI
U/S: 181/205/468/471/34 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02401R0311922011
2. Date of commission of offence : 14.02.2011
3. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Amit Arora, Ld.MM
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
4. Name of the accused, and 1. Pawan Kumar varnwal
his parentage and residence : S/o Sh. Ramji Lal,
R/o H.No. 208, Gali No. 22,
Khajori Delhi.
Also R/o VPO+PS Behri,
Dharbhanga, Bihar.
2. Manoj@Munna@Jatin
S/o Sh. Nathu Ram
R/o 3052, Gali Mandi Wali,
Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
5. Date when judgment : 30.12.2013
was reserved
6. Date when Judgment : 20.02.2014
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section181/205/468/471/34
or proved IPC
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Final Judgment : Both accused convicted for
offence under Section 181/205
/468/471/34 IPC
FIR No.48/11
PS- Subzi Mandi
State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 1/13
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly case of the prosecution is that in furtherance of their common intention accused Manoj @ Munna prepared forged voter Election ID Card, ID card of Hindu Rao Hospital alongwith fake payslip and filled the Form 45 and accused Pawan stood as surety on such fake documents on 08.11.2010 in the court of Sh. Amit Arora, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Court in case FIR No. 124/10, PS Sarai Rohilla seeking release of accused Sunil @ Kalu by impersonating one Vijay Bansal claiming to be working in Hindu Rao Hospital as Storekeeper. The above forgery was detected by Ld MM when the bail bond were sent for verification and actual Vijay Bansal also appeared in the said Court and deposed that his voter ID card has been forged and he never worked in Hindu Rao Hospital. Thereafter. Ld. MM ordered for registration of FIR and accused persons were arrested.
2. After hearing arguments charge was framed against both the accused for offences U/s 181/205/468/471 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution has examined six witnesses namely PW1 SI Rampal, PW2 Sh. Hemraj, Ld MM, PW3 Vijay Bansal, PW4 Ct Mahipal, PW5 HC Khushal Singh, PW6 Sh. Ghanshyam, PW7 Sh. S.N Dobhal and PW8 SI Rajesh Kumar to prove the case against the accused persons. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places.
4. After the Prosecution evidence was closed the statement of FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 2/13 accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal and Manoj Kumar @ Munna were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence were put to them where accused denied the allegations and stated that they were falsely implicated. Both accused stated that they do not want to lead evidence in their defence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
5. Ld APP for the State has argued that all the witnesses have deposed in favour of the prosecution case and the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused persons. He prays for conviction.
On the other hand, Ld LAC for accused persons argued that accused were falsely implicated.
6. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6.1 PW1 deposed that on 23.02.2011 at about 8.00 pm, he received the rukka and thereafter he registered the present FIR No. 48/11 vide Ex. PW1/A on the basis of such rukka and endorsed the same vide Ex.PW1/B. 6.2 PW2 is the Ld. MM who gave directions for registration of FIR.
He stated that on 14.02.2011 while he was posted as MM, PS Sarai Rohilla, one bail bond Ex.PW2/A was furnished for accused Sunil @ Kalu in FIR No. 124/10, PS Sarai Rohilla which he sent for verification. He further stated that on 17.02.2011, IO filed verification report alongwith letter of Hindu Rao Hospital regarding Icard of Vijay Bansal as well as statement of one Vijay Bansal, S/o Laxmi Narayan. He further stated that as per the report of IO, the FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 3/13 person who presented himself as surety alongwith Icard of Hindu Rao Hospital and election Icard which are Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/D are forged and fabricated documents. He also stated that one person who stated himself as Vijay Bansal appeared before the Court and stated that he has not stood surety for any accused and came to know about the bail bond when police reached his house for verification. PW2 further stated that on the basis of facts and findings, he directed SHO, PS Sarai Rohilla to register FIR vide order dated 17.02.2011 but later since the jurisdiction of case falls in PS Subzi Mandi, he therefore, vide order dated 23.02.2011 Ex.PW2/C directed SHO, PS Subzi Mandi to register FIR. He further stated that on 23.06.2011 IO moved an application seeking original bail bond and other forged documents which were presented by the impersonator in the Court and required to be sent for opinion to FSL was allowed with the directions to Ahlmad to release the forged documents alongwith bail bonds to the IO and retain photocopies of the same. He identified accused Pawan as the person who stood surety in FIR No. 124/10, PS Sarai Rohilla for accused Sunil @ Kalu. This witness was not cross examined.
6.3 PW3 stated that he is real Vijay Bansal and he did not remember the date when he saw accused Pawan with the police official and police official informed that his forged voter Icard has been used in many cases by the accused. He further stated that he alongwith police official and accused Pawan searched for other accused Jatin in Tis Hazari Court premises and when they reached FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 4/13 Gate No. 2, accused Pawan pointed out towards one person as Jatin and at instance of accused Pawan, Jatin was apprehended who disclosed that his name is Manoj Kumar @ Munna @ Jatin. He further stated that police interrogated accused Manoj in his presence where he confessed his crime. He further stated his presence at the time of personal search and arrest of accused Manoj vide Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. PW3 also produced voter Icard No. SNJ0273854 electoral name Vijay Kumar Bansal, Son of Laxmi Narayan, R/o L2/45, L Block, Shastri Nagar, Delhi vide Ex. PW3/C. During cross examination by accused Manoj, he stated that he came to know about accused Manoj Kumar for the first time when he was apprehended and he admitted that he himself has not seen accused Manoj preparing forged Icard. He also stated that accused Pawan has disclosed that accused Manoj prepared the forged Icard. He denied the suggestion that he gave his original voter Icard to accused Manoj. During cross examination by Legal Aid Cousel for accused Pawan, he denied the suggestion that he alongwith police official did not go to Bar Office and he is deposing falsely at the behest of the IO and never joined the investigation. 6.4 PW4 stated that he is working in Hindu Rao Hospital as LDC and as per record there is no store keeper by the name of Vijay Bansal and therefore, Ex. PW4/D is forged and fabricated. He further stated that Ex. PW4/A i.e pay slip has not been issued and is a forged documents and report in this regard prepared by Administrative Officer, Hindu Rao Hospital is Ex. PW4/B. During FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 5/13 cross examination, he admitted that he do not have any personal knowledge of the matter.
6.5 PW5 stated that on 14.05.2011 he joined investigation of the present case alongwith IO SI Ram Kishan and on that day accused Pawan was taken out from lock up of PS Subzi Mandi and brought to Tis Hazari Courts complex in search of accused Jatin @ Manoj @ Munna and they met Vijay Bansal who also joined the investigation. He further stated that at about 6pm, accused Pawan pointed out towards one person standing near Gate No. 2, Tis Hazari Court as Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin. He further stated his presence at the time of arrest, personal search and disclosure of accused Manoj vide Ex.PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW5/A. This witness correctly identified both the accused persons. Both the accused persons objected that today in the morning, witness was asking them as to who is Pawan and who is Jatin. At this stage witness was asked to identify accused persons and witness correctly identified the accused persons and denied that he had inquired from the accused persons for their identity. During cross examination by both the accused persons he denied the suggestion that he cannot identify the accused persons and asked them about their identity in the morning. He also denied the suggestion that he had not joined investigation of the present case.
6.6 PW6 is the IO. He stated that on 23.02.2011 the present case was registered by order of the Court Room No. 268 for furnishing fake sureties and at that time he met Vijay Bansal whose identity FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 6/13 card was used for preparing documents who stated that he had not provided his Icard to anybody for preparing fake documents. He stated that on 11.05.2011 he received information that case in FIR No. 212/11, PS Prashant Vihar, one accused Pawan have been arrested who after obtaining permission from the Court was interrogated. PW6 also stated that Pawan disclosed that accused Manoj offered him to work as fake surety and Manoj use to prepare all fake documents and Pawan stood as surety. He proved the arrest of accused Pawan vide Ex. PW6/A. He further stated that on 14.05.2011 he alongwith Ct Naresh and Vijay Bansal went in search of accused Manoj and accused Manoj was arrested at the instance of accused Pawan who disclosed that he use to prepare fake documents. He also proved personal search and arrest of accused Manoj vide Ex.PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. He further stated that on 16.05.2011 after obtaining permission of the Court, he took specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Manoj vide Ex. PW6/A and specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Pawan vide Ex. PW6/B for the purpose of comparing them with signatures and handwriting on bail bond. He further stated that on 23.06.2011 he moved an application before the court for sending original bail bond Ex. PW2/A to FSL for comparison and on 29.06.2011 the specimen handwriting and documents in question were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. He also stated that on 04.07.2011 he moved an application Ex. PW6/C for verification of the documents to Hindu Rao Hospital and it was reported to him that no such person by FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 7/13 name of Vijay Bansal is working in the hospital. During cross examination by both accused persons, he stated that the information about the arrest of accused Manoj was given at his house at Subzi Mandi. He further stated that he interrogated accused Manoj for the source of fake documents and accused Manoj stated that he himself prepared the forged documents and did not reveal the exact source of documents.
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE 8.1 In the present case, the initial order of directing registration of FIR against the accused persons was based on the enquiry conducted by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and therefore, in my humble opinion the absence of specific complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as the order of registration of FIR is ipso facto a complaint which came to this Court alongwith the Chargesheet and not separately. Moreover, the Ld. MM appeared in the witness box as PW2 and proved his order directing SHO, Subzi Mandi for registration of FIR vide Ex. PW2/C. The fabrication and forgery of documents were done outside the Court i.e before their production before the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that bar under Section 195(1)(a) and (b)(ii) Cr.P.C is not attracted and it would be applicable only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in the Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. My opinion is fortified by the judgment in the matter of Iqbal Singh FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 8/13 Marwah & Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah & Another, 2005(2) Crimes 11 (SC) wherein it was held that if the forgery was committed outside the Court and thereafter, the forged documents were produced, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence and subsequent trial. 8.3 In the present case accused Pawan Kumar has impersonated Vijay Bansal working at Hindu Rao Hospital as Storekeeper on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in connivance with co accused Manoj @ Munna who prepared those documents. He also stated that he has close family relation with accused Sunil @ Kalu of FIR 124/10 PS Sarai Rohilla. He signed at the bail bonds and also at the verification of the Affidavit claiming that the contents of the Affidavit are true and correct.
8.4 The writing on the bailbonds proved as Ex. PW2/A are alleged to be the handiwork of accused Manoj @ Munna and Pawan Kumar Varnwal. To prove this the IO had taken the sample handwriting and signatures of accused Pawan and Manoj after complying with the legal requirement and same were taken in the presence of Ld. Link MM who had also endorsed the same and were sent to FSL laboratory for comparison with the questioned handwriting and signatures which are found on the bailbonds i.e Ex.PW2/A. The report of the expert who is Officer in CFSL is admissible u/s 293 Cr.P.C and neither accused persons nor their counsels requested for calling him for deposing before the Court. Moreover, in view of the FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 9/13 judgment in the matter of Visakha Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. Fertilizer InspectorcumAssistant Director of Agriculture (regular) 1997 2 Crimes (AP), I did not find it necessary to summon and examine the Director Fingerprint Bureau as the science of fingerprint analysis have reached an advanced stage of evolution and fingerprint impression of a human being is never identical with another human being as all human beings carry distinct fingerprint impression which can never be matched with any other impression except the fingerprint impression of such human being. The examiner has mentioned in his report that he carefully and thoroughly examined the same with scientific instruments such as Stereo Microscope, Documenter and different magnifying glasses and thereafter opined about the similarity or otherwise noted between the writing on the questioned documents and specimens sent for comparison. The examiner who is a Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) at FSL, Rohini a Government Laboratory opined as follows:
a) The person who wrote the writing marked and stamped as S1 to S6 also wrote the writing marked and stamped as Q3. The Q3 is signature on the bailbond and specimen marked S1 to S6 are the specimen taken of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal.
b) The person who wrote the writing marked and stamped as S7 to S11 also wrote the writing FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 10/13 marked and stamped as Q1 and Q2. The Q1 is the details of accused Sunil @ Kalu on the bail bonds and Q2 is the details of Vijay Bansal on the bail bonds and specimen marked S7 to S11 are the specimen taken of accused Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin.
8.5 The opinion of examiner is based on the similarities found in the formation of alphabets as well as in numerals. The examiner has also mentioned that their was no divergence observed between the questioned and specimen writings and the similarities observed by him are significant and sufficient and cannot be attributed to accidental coincidence. I myself has also perused the questioned and the specimen signatures/writings. I find no ground to disagree with the opinion of handwriting expert which is admissible inter se in terms of section 293 Cr.P.C. This implies that the bailbonds was filled in and prepared by accused Manoj @ Munna and signature was put by coaccused Pawan Kumar Varnwal.
8.6 In the present case the accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal has stood surety by impersonating Vijay Bansal on the basis of forged and fabricated documents prepared by Manoj @ Munna eventhough he has the knowledge that he was not Vijay Bansal R/o H.No. L2/45, L Block Shatri Nagar, Delhi. The actual Vijay Bansal examined as PW3 has stated on Oath that he has never stand as surety and also do not know either accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal or Manoj@Munna. He also stated that he do not know how accused FIR No.48/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 11/13 forged his Election ID card having his name. He also produced his original voter ID card. The version of the prosecution was also corroborated by the report of the Administrative Officer, Hindu Rao Hospital as per which no person by the name of Vijay Bansal had worked in the Hindu Rao Hospital as Storekeeper and the payslip and ID card of Hindu Rao Hospital was also found fake. The Bail bonds Ex. PW2/A is having the photograph of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal wherein he claimed himself as Vijay Bansal. This also gives credence to the story of the prosecution that accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal in furtherance of his common intention with coaccused Manoj impersonated Vijay Bansal while tendering the bailbonds Ex.PW2/A seeking release of an accused on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
8.7 The impersonation and fabrication of fake documents was done by both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention for the purpose of cheating the Court itself and the forgery and impersonation was only detected when bail bond was sent for verification. The forged and fabricated documents were fraudulently used by the accused persons claiming them to be genuine for the purpose of cheating the Court.
9. On the basis of evidence on record and above discussion, I am satisfied that prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal and Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin in furtherance of their common intention has committed the offences u/s 181/205/468/471 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
FIR No.48/11PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 12/13
10. Accordingly, Pawan Kumar Varnwal and Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin are convicted for offences u/s 181/205/468/471 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to both the convicts.
Put up at 2pm for arguments on sentencing.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
COURT ON 20.02.2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07(C)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No.48/11
PS- Subzi Mandi
State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 13/13