Delhi District Court
State vs Shivanshu Trivedi on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KARANBIR SINGH, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI
FIR NO. 44 / 2011
POLICE STATION MAURICE NAGAR
U/S 419/ 468/471/511/120-B IPC
Date of institution of the case : 03.08.2011.
Date of judgment reserved : 28.03.2026.
CIS NO. : 288292/2016
Name of the complainant : Ajay S/o Sh. Sushil
Name of the accused : Shivanshu Trivedi S/o Late Sh.
Rajkumar R/o H.No. 14/7, Court
Road, Near Shani Dev Mandir,
Bulandshehar, UP.
Offence complained of : 419/468/471/511/120-B IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 30.03.2026.
Final order : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
1. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 01.05.2011 at 03:00 p.m. Law Centre-I, Law Faculty, Delhi University, accused was caught in attempt to cheat by impersonation the examiner/invigilator of examination room no. 6 by replacing his photograph upon the AILET admit card and thereby he committed an offence punishable u/s 419/511 IPC.
Secondly, that on the same date time and place the accused produced one forged admit card by replacing the original photograph with his photograph to the examiner/ invigilator of examination room no. 6 at Law Center-I, Law Faculty Delhi University and thereby he committed an offence punishable u/s 468/471 IPC.
KARANBIR STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 1 / 12 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 16:33:30 +0530 Thirdly, that on or before 01.05.2011, at unknown time and unknown place, accused along with CCL Aneesh Sawhney and two persons Ganesh Pandey and Ramanand Pandey (yet to traced) conspired to cheat by impersonation the NLC, Delhi and examiner/ invigilator of Law Center-I, Law Faculty, Delhi University and the above said acts were done by him in pursuance of the abovesaid agreement and thereby he committed an offence u/s 120-B IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Upon completion of investigation, police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed. The copy of the police report and annexed documents were supplied to the accused persons in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
CHARGE :
3. Vide order dated 25.01.2024 order was passed vide which accused was charged for offence u/s 419/ 468/471/511/120-B IPC. Formal charge was framed against accused to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
5. PW: 1 Ajay deposed that on 01.05.2011, he was working as Ad-hoc Asst. Prof. at LC-1 Faculty of Law, DU. On the said day NLU-Delhi entrance exam was conducted and LC-1 Faculty of Law was entrance exam center for the same. He was on invigilation duty at Room no. 6 along with Sh. Kalyan chand and Ms. Anushka. The exam was to start at 3 PM. He was checking the admit card of the candidates, one candidate arrived and upon checking the name upon admit card was Aneesh Sawhney but the photo was not matching with the duplicate admit card provided by the University. The candidate who had appeared for the exam had pasted his photograph upon the admit card. He informed the incident to the exam superintendent Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal. After verification of the impersonation wherein the candidate admitted his guilt, the superintendent informed the police.
Thereafter Police arrived and conducted investigation. He recorded my statement KARANBIR STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 2 / 12 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 16:33:34 +0530 Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point A. He prepared site plan upon his instance. He arrested the accused in his presence, He is not sure whether he signed the arrest memo or not. The arrest memo of the accused is Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signature at point A, conducted personal search of the accused vide Ex. PW-1/C bearing his signature at point A. One wrist watch and one metro card among other things were recovered from the possession of the accused. He seized the admit cards, original and the forged vide Ex. PW-1/D bearing his signature at point A.
6. PW-2 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 01.05.2011 Ganesh Pandey and Shivanshu Trivedi were residing on the second floor of his house as tenant for the purpose of studying. On 01.05.2011, he had handed over tenant verification forms to the he and same are now Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B both bearing his signatures at points A.
7. PW-3: ASI Surender Singh deposed that on 01.05.2011, he was posted as Constable at PS Maurice Nagar and his duty hours from 8:00 a.m to 4:00 p.m (Emergency duty). On that day, he joined the investigation with IO / W ASI Seema. Upon receiving DD No. 14 A, they both had reached at Law Faculty, Delhi University, North Campus, where Assistant Professor Ajay produced the accused before them on the allegations of appearing in the law entrance exam by impersonating the actual candidate which may be Anish. Thereafter, he inquired the accused and the accused admitted that he was appearing on behalf of some other person in the entrance exam. He recorded the statement of assistant professor Ajay. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka and handed over it to him for registration of the FIR, he went to the PS for registration of the FIR and thereupon, reached at the spot and handed over copy of the FIR as well as the original rukka to the IO. Thereafter, he arrested, personally searched the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C respectively bearing his signature at point B on both the documents. Disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded which is now exbhibited as Ex. PW- 3/A bearing his signature at point A. Accused is present today in the Court and correctly identified by the witness.
KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 3 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 16:33:42 +0530
8. PW-4 ASI Vijay deposed that on 02.05.2011, he was posted as Constable at PS Maurice Nagar. On that day, he join the investigation of the present case alongwith the W/ASI Seema. The accused Shivanshu Trivedi was produced before the Ld. MM and with the permission of the court, IO/ASI Seema obtained the specimen handwriting of the accused Shivanshu Trivedi on 10 pages. The specimen handwriting of the accused is exhibited as Ex. PW4/A (colly) 1-10 each page bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he recorded his statement u/s 161Cr.P.C. and discharged him.
9. PW-5: W-SI Devki deposed that on 01.05.2011, she was posted at PS Maurice Nagar as Duty officer and her duty hours were from 4PM to 12 midnight. On that day, at about 4:45PM, Ct. Surender handed over the rukka to her sent by W-ASI Seema. On the basis of which, she registered the FIR Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. The FIR was registered through computer installed at PS Maurice Nagar. The said computer was under her lawful control at that time and the FIR Ex. PW5/A was registered. The computer was being used in routine manner for similar purpose. After registration of FIR Ex. PW5/A, print out of the same was obtained running in two pages bearing her signatures at point A. Nothing adverse took place so as to affect the correctness of the information so fed in the computer. He also made endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW5/B. Another print of FIR Ex. PW5/A was also obtained which was tagged in the FIR register as per rules. He has brought the FIR, it is compared and returned. After registration of FIR, He handed over the original rukka with copy of FIR to Ct. Surender to be handed over to IO ASI Seema for further investigation.
10. PW-6: W-SI Seema deposed that on 01.05.2011, she was posted as ASI at PS Maurice Nagar. On that day, she received the DD entry no. 14-A which is Ex. PW6/A1. Thereafter, she along with Ct. Surender reached at the spot i.e., law center 1, faculty of law, DU. Where she met the complainant Ajay and he produced accused Shivanshu Trivedi before her. She recorded the statement of the complainant Ajay which is already Ex. PW1/A bearing her signature at point B. Thereafter, she prepared tehrir which is Ex. PW6/A bearing her signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Surender for registration of FIR. She left the spot and after registration of FIR returned back and handed over the copy of FIR KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 4 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 16:33:46 +0530 and original tehrir to her. Thereafter, professor Ashwani Kumar Bansal handed over an application against the accused to her which is Ex. PW6/B bearing her signature at point A. Thereafter, complainant Ajay handed over to her the forged and original admit card already Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F respectively which she seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/D bearing her signature at point B. She prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant which is Ex. PW6/C bearing her signature at point A. She made inquiry with the accused, arrested him and conducted personal search vide memos already Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C both bearing her signature at point C and recorded his disclosure statement already Ex. PW3/A bearing her signature at point B. She recorded the statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Ajay and Ashwini Kumar Bansal and discharged them. Thereafter, She along with the accused went in search of co-accused persons namely Ganesh Pandey and Anil Sawhney at the house of accused Shivanshu Trivedi but they were not found. She recorded the statement of the owner of the house namely Sanjeev Kumar. Thereafter, the accused was lodged in the lockup after his medical examination and case property was deposited in the malkhana.
On 02.05.2011, she along with accused went to dossier cell and dossier of the accused was prepared. Thereafter, they reached at THC and he moved an application before the concerned court for obtaining specimen handwriting samples of accused Shivanshu which is Ex. PW6/D bearing her signature at point A which was allowed. She obtained the specimen handwriting samples of accused Shivanshu which are already Ex. PW4/A(colly)(1-10) bearing her signature at point B on each page. SI Amit obtained 5 day PC remand of the accused Shivanshu. Thereafter, we tried to search for co-accused persons but none could be found. Accused was lodged in the lockup after his medical examination. On 03.05.2011, the case file was transferred to SI Naseeb Singh.
11. PW-7: Retired ASI Phirtu Ram deposed that on 07.05.2011, he was posted as PS Maurice Nagar and he conducted the proceedings regarding the juvenile Aneesh Swahney as JWO. He prepared the documents of the Juvenile Aneesh Swahney and filed the same before the JJB. Thereafter, the investigation of the present case was marked to him after the transfer of the SI Nasib Singh on 10.07.2011. During investigation, he searched for the accused Ganesh Pandey and KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 5 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 16:33:50 +0530 Ramanand Pandey but they were not found. Result of the documents submitted to the FSL was not received and thereafter he prepared the charge sheet against the accused Shivanshu Trivedi and filed the same before the concerned court for the judicial verdict. He went to law center 1, DU and seized some documents from its Principal office vide seizure memo now Ex. PW7/A bearing his signature at point A and also visited career point, center of excellence for civil services, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and seized some documents from its office vide seizure memo now Ex. PW7/B bearing his signature at point A. On 30.05.2011, he went to the accommodation of accused Shivanshu Trivedi and made inquiry about Ganesh Pandey and Ramanand Pandey.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS :
12. After conclusion of this evidence, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
He pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely roped in this case. He preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
13. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of accused persons and Ld. APP for State and carefully gone through the material on record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
14. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
15. At the outset, it is to be noted that as per the supplementary charge sheet, no opinion has been expressed by the forensic expert to prove that the accused is the maker of the forged admit card. The FSL report states that it is not possible to KARANBIR STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 6 / 12 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 16:33:53 +0530 express any opinion on the handwriting of Shivanshu Trivedi on the admit card in comparison with the admitted handwritings.
16. I shall discuss offence under section 468/471 IPC. It is the case of prosecution that accused the accused forged admit card by replacing the original photograph with his photograph. In Sheila Sebastian vs R.Jawaharaj AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2434, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme court that:
19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC.
Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and untill ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete.
20. The key to unfold the present dispute lies in understanding Explanation 2 as given in Section 464 of IPC. As Collin J., puts it precisely in Dickins v. Gill, (1896) 2 QB 310, a case dealing with the possession and making of fictitious stamp wherein he stated that "to make", in itself involves conscious act on the part of the maker. Therefore, an offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it.
KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 7 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 16:33:56 +0530
21. It is observed in the case Md. Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 that-
"a person is said to have made a `false document', if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
22. In Md. Ibrahim (supra), this Court had the occasion to examine forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security (Section 467, IPC) and using of forged document as genuine (Section 471, IPC). While considering the basic ingredients of both the offences,this Court observed that to attract the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463, IPC depends upon creation of a document as defined under Section 464, IPC. It is further observed that mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant's property, did not amount to commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 471, IPC even if title of property did not vest in the executant.
23. The Court in Md. Ibrahim (supra) observed that:
"There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually KARANBIR STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 8 / 12 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 16:34:00 +0530 belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted."
17. Since there is no evidence on record to show that he is the maker of forged admit card, he stands acquitted for offence u/s 468/471 IPC.
18. Coming to Section 120B IPC, it is to be noted that there is no evidence of prior meeting of minds and there is no investigation on the aspect of prior meeting of minds between accused, Ganesh Pandey, Ramanand Pandey and CCL Anish. IO has failed to place on record any CDR or location chart to establish that the accused persons were in contact with each other or that they entered into any illegal agreement. Further, the version of juvenile in the PIR does not name the accused. The statement of juvenile only names Ganesh and Ramanand. In the absence of the clear cut evidence of prior meeting of minds between the CCL and accused, the conviction cannot be maintained for offence u/s 120B IPC and accused stands acquitted for the same.
KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 9 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 16:34:04 +0530
19. Now, coming to Section 419/511 IPC, it is to be noted that during the course of trial, PW Ashwani Kumar Bansal passed away and could not be examined the result of this is that the absence of his testimony leaves a natural gap in the case of the prosecution. The star witness of prosecution with respect to the aforesaid offence is PW1 Ajay. It was argued by defence that there is nothing on record to show that he was on duty as invigilator on the said date. It was further submitted that there is no document on record to show that he worked as an Ad-hoc professor in DU. On perusal of record it is observed that IO seized the duty chart vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. However, the duty chart itself was never exhibited in evidence by the prosecution. In any case, the aforesaid duty chart shows that there was duty of one Mr. Ajay in room no. 6, however, there are no further details of Mr. Ajay. Since Professor Ashwani had died, the prosecution should have called the concerned Prof. Incharge of law centre-I to prove this document as per the IEA. The court is of the view that though the veiw may appeared to be technical but mere exhibiting of seizure memo is not sufficient. The prosecution had the burden to prove the duty chart to establish that PW1 was on duty on the date of exam. Since the same has not been done this is a major lapse in the case of prosecuiton.
20. Further, PW1 in his testimony states that he was checking the admit card of the candidates and when he was on duty at room no. 6. However, in his cross- examination, he stated that he checked the admit cards on the designated seat and not on the entry of exam hall. He stated that the accused was seated in the fourth raw last seat and he checked his admit card at his seat. The same is a material contradiction as in his earlier statement which is Ex. PW1/A. The witness states that he was checking the admit card when the students were entering the room. It raises a doubt on the story of the prosecution as if the student had already entered and set on the seat, then he must have surpassed first level of checking. However, if he was caught on the entry of the examination hall itself, then it means that he was never allowed to enter and sit in the examination hall. In any case, the witness in his cross-examination has resiled from his earlier statement and it raises a doubt on his testimony. Further, the exam was to start at 03:00 p.m. and if the student had already sat on fourth raw in the last seat then it means that the checking took place after 03:00 p.m. However, PW3 ASI Surender Singh in his cross- STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 10 / 12 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 16:34:07 +0530 examination stated that they departed for law faculty at 03:00 p.m. and reached there within 5-10 minutes. PW6 in her cross-examination stated that she was present in room no. 6 from 03:30 p.m. to 06:00 p.m.
21. PW1 further deposed that upon finding that the photo of the candidate was not matching, he informed the same to superintendent of exam and superintendent informed the police and thereafter, police arrived. However, PW6 in her cross- examination has deposed that she was doing duty at law faculty and PW1 Mr. Ajay came to her and narrated the entire story. This is another material contradiction in the case of prosecution as it goes to the root of the case. On the one hand, PW1 states that he informed the superintendent and superintendent then called the police whereas IO states that PW1 came to her and narrated the entire story. This raises a doubt on the testimony of PW1 as if he was present with the superintendent then how could he call the IO and narrate the story to her.
22. There is one more aspect. PW6 IO deposed that she received DD No. 14A and thereafter, she along with Ct. Surender reached at the spot i.e. LC-I Faculty of Law DU. DD No. 14A which is on record states that at around 01:55 p.m., one lady is fighting at Shriram College Gate No. 4 and the aforesaid DD No was marked to IO/ASI Seema. If the IO had gone to Shriram College Gate No. 4 then how could she already reach at the gate of the law faculty. PW1 deposes that the exam superintendent informed the police. However, there is no PCR call or DD entry on record to show that the exam superintendent informed the police. IO in her cross-examination deposed that she arrested the accused in the office of superintendent. She improved her statement and stated that she arrested the accused in Room NO. 6 in the examination hall whereas the place of arrest in the arrest memo Ex. PW1/B is law Centre-I Law Faculty. If the version of PW1 that the student was caught before entering the room is to be accepted then the same is in contradiction with the testimony of IO which states that she arrested the accsued in room no. 6. The site plan does not mention anything about the office of the superintendent. No effort has been made to collect any CCTV footage and no public witnesses have been joined in the investigation. Further, while the tehrir has been prepared on the statement of PW1, the IO in her testimony stated that no KARANBIR written complaint was given by Ajay about the incident. However, the statement of SINGH STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 11 / 12 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 16:34:10 +0530 PW1 Ajay which is Ex. PW1/A is written complaint in itself. It appears that either this statement was taken later on or this statement was written while sitting at the PS and only the signatures of PW Ajay were taken. There are material contradictions in the testimony of IO and PW Ajay and the court is of the view that these contradictions are not sufficient to sustain conviction. The testimony of PW Ajay is not corroborative and it raises a doubt in the mind of the court as to the truth of the statement of PW Ajay. Result of aforesaid discussion is that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond shadow of doubt. Therefore, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and he is accordingly acquitted of the offences alleged against him.
Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH KARANBIR Date: SINGH 2026.03.30 16:34:14 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (KARANBIR SINGH) COURT ON 30TH MARCH 2026. JMFC-02, Central District Tis Hazari Courts/30.03.2026.
This judgment consists of 12 pages and each and every page of this judgment is digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed
KARANBIR by KARANBIR
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.03.30
16:34:18 +0530
(KARANBIR SINGH)
JMFC-02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/30.03.2026.
STATE VS. SHIVANSHU TRIVEDI FIR NO.44 /2011 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 12 / 12