Delhi District Court
State vs Pushpender Ors on 25 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MRIDUL GUPTA
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT
In the matter of :
State
Vs.
1. Pushpender
S/o Sh. Gajender
R/o C-15, Amar Vihar, Karawal Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Ajay Kumar Tomar,
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash
R/o M-338, Sec 23, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Abdul Samad Khan @ Mamoo Khan (discharged vide order dated
12.10.2009)
R/o 259, Chati Bazari, Chakkiwali Gali, Ghaziabad, U.P.
DLND020005012004
Cr. Case No.48314/2016
FIR No.61/2003
P.S Special Cell
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case 48314/2016
FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-1 of 23
2. Date of institution 24.01.2004
3. Name of the complainant SI Vivekanand Jha
4. Date of commission of offence 23.07.2003
5. Name of accused 1) Pushpender
2) Ajay Kumar Tomar
6. Offence complained of S. 474 IPC
7. Plea of accused Both accused pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the judgment 02.05.2026
9. Final order Convicted
10 Date of such judgment 25.05.2026
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution is that accused persons, Pushpender and Ajay Kumar Tomar were engaged in the possession and supply of forged educational certificates and marksheets purportedly issued by the U.P. Board. As per the prosecution, SI Vivekanand Jha of PS Special Cell had received secret information that a gang was actively involved in preparation and sale of fake educational documents. In order to verify and develop the information, Ct. Ravinder Singh was deputed as a decoy customer under the assumed name of Aziz Ahmed. He contacted accused Pushpender for obtaining forged 10th and 12th class marksheets and certificates for his imaginary son namely Haseen Ahmed. Accused FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-2 of 23 Pushpender agreed to provide the forged documents in consideration of Rs.7,000/-, out of which Rs.2,000/- was to be paid initially for the 10th class documents. The delivery was fixed for 23.07.2003 near Ambedkar College, Wazirabad Road, Delhi at about 6:30 PM.
2. Prosecution alleged that pursuant thereto, SI Vivekanand Jha formed a raiding party comprising HC Dinesh, Ct. Sunil, Ct. Devdutt, Ct. Rajender and Ct. Ravinder Singh. The raiding party reached the spot and attempted to join public persons in the proceedings, however none agreed to participate. Four currency notes of Rs.500/- each bearing initials of SI Vivekanand Jha were handed over to Ct. Ravinder Singh for the trap proceedings. At about 6:30 PM, accused Pushpender arrived at the spot along with accused Ajay Kumar Tomar. According to the prosecution, accused Pushpender handed over forged Class X marksheet and certificate in the name of Haseen Ahmed to the decoy witness in exchange for Rs.2,000/-. Upon receiving the predetermined signal from Ct. Ravinder Singh, both accused were apprehended by the raiding party. The tainted currency notes were recovered from accused Pushpender, whereas forged Class XII marksheet and certificate in the name of Haseen Ahmed were recovered from accused Ajay Kumar Tomar. The documents and currency notes were seized and sealed at the spot.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-3 of 23 against accused Pushpender, Ajay Kumar Tomar and Abdul Samad @ Mammu Khan for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/474/120B IPC. However, vide order dated 12.10.2009, accused Abdul Samad was discharged as no incriminating evidence except disclosure statements of co-accused was available against him. Charge under Section 474 IPC alone was framed against accused Pushpender and Ajay Kumar Tomar vide order dated 12.10.2009 of Ld. Predecessor of this court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses.
4.1 PW-1: Inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey deposed that he submitted an application dated 30.09.2003 to the U.P. Board, Meerut for verification of the genuineness of educational certificates and mark sheets issued in the name of Haseen Ahmed. He proved the application and acknowledgment as Ex. PW1/A and identified the questioned documents Mark X-1 to X-4. He was not cross-examined despite grant of opportunity for the same.
4.2 PW-2: Inspector Vivekanand Jha, the first Investigating Officer, deposed that secret information was received regarding a gang preparing fake educational certificates. Ct. Ravinder was deputed as a decoy customer under the fictitious name "Aziz Ahmed"
FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-4 of 23 to procure forged Class X and XII certificates from accused Pushpender. On 23.07.2003, a raiding party was formed near Ambedkar College, Wazirabad Road. Currency notes of Rs. 2,000/-, signed by said witness, were handed to Ct. Ravinder. At about 6:30 PM, accused Pushpender and Ajay arrived on a motorcycle, where Pushpender exchanged forged Class X documents for the money and Ajay was found carrying forged Class XII documents. Both accused were apprehended, the forged documents and the marked currency notes were seized, rukka was prepared, and FIR was registered. During cross-examination, he admitted that no public witness joined the proceedings, no notice was served to refusing public persons, local police of Gokul Puri was not informed, and the motorcycle used by the accused was not seized.
4.3 PW-3: ASI Sunil Kumar corroborated the testimony of PW-2 regarding the formation of the raiding party, deployment of Ct. Ravinder as decoy customer, handing over of signed currency notes, apprehension of accused Pushpender and Ajay, recovery of forged documents and marked currency notes, and registration of FIR. In cross-examination, he admitted that no written order was issued for joining the raid, no local police intimation was given, public persons did not join upon request, however no notice was served upon those who refused to join investigation.
FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-5 of 23 4.4 PW-4: Munendra Kumar, Assistant Secretary of Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad Board, Meerut, produced the official record relating to the certificates and mark sheets in the name of Haseen Ahmad. He deposed that the mark sheets and certificates Ex. P1 to P4 were not issued by the Board and were forged and fabricated documents. He proved the verification report as Ex. PW4/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that he joined the Board only in 2023 and had no personal knowledge of records pertaining to the relevant years when the alleged certificates were issued.
4.5 PW-5: ASI Ravinder Singh, the decoy customer, deposed that acting on the instructions of SI Vivekanand Jha, he contacted accused Pushpender posing as "Aziz Ahmad" and negotiated for preparation of forged educational certificates in the name of "Haseen Ahmad." On 23.07.2003, at the predetermined spot near Ambedkar College, Pushpender handed over forged Class X documents to him in exchange for Rs. 2,000/-. After giving the pre-arranged signal, the raiding team apprehended Pushpender and Ajay. Marked currency notes were recovered from Pushpender and forged Class XII documents from Ajay. In cross-examination, he admitted that no public witness joined the proceedings, local police station was not informed, and no notice was served upon persons refusing to join investigation.
FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-6 of 23 4.6 PW-6: Inspector Yogeshwar Singh, the second Investigating
Officer, deposed that after registration of FIR, investigation was assigned to him. He reached the spot, took custody of accused persons, seized case property and documents, prepared the site plan, arrest memos, and personal search memos, and later obtained verification reports regarding the forged certificates from the Meerut Board. After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet. In cross-examination, he admitted that witness statements were recorded at the police station, no public witnesses were joined, local police station was not informed, the vehicle used by accused was not seized, and some members of the raiding party were not cited as prosecution witnesses.
5. Prosecution evidence was directed to be closed vide order dated 19.07.2025.
6. Statement of the accused persons U/s 313/281 Cr.P.C. was separately recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them for seeking his explanation. Both of them stated that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They stated that they wish to lead defence evidence.
7. Thereafter matter was fixed for defence evidence. The accused persons examined four witnesses.
7.1 DW-1 Bhopal Singh deposed that on the evening of FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-7 of 23
22.07.2003, he was present at the house of Jagprakash Tomar along with accused Ajay Tomar when 4-5 persons in civil clothes came and took Ajay with them on the pretext of discussing or enquiring about some case. On the next day, he came to know from Jagprakash Tomar that Ajay had allegedly been falsely implicated in a criminal case. He stated that Ajay was falsely implicated. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had no direct knowledge of the case, did not know the contents of the chargesheet, and his belief regarding false implication was based only on what he was told by Ajay's brother.
7.2 DW-2 Ajay Kumar Tomar (Accused) stated that on 22.07.2003, while he was present at his brother Jai Prakash Tomar's house with Bhopal Singh, 3-4 persons came and took him away on the pretext of discussing a case at Mohan Nagar but instead brought him to Special Cell, Lodhi Colony. He alleged that his signatures were obtained on blank papers and that he was falsely implicated in the present case. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not lodge any complaint regarding his alleged illegal detention and did not know the contents of the chargesheet. He denied the prosecution allegations and claimed false implication.
7.3 DW-3 Vijay Kumar deposed that he had visited Pushpender's house because Pushpender's brother had met with an accident. While he was sitting in the PCO booth downstairs and drinking tea, two FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-8 of 23 persons came and asked Pushpender to accompany them for some questioning. According to him, Pushpender did not return thereafter, and he left after waiting for about an hour. In cross-examination, he admitted that he could neither identify the two persons nor provide details of Pushpender's address and had no further knowledge of the incident.
7.4 DW-4 Lakshman testified on similar lines to DW-3. He stated that while visiting Pushpender's house to meet his injured brother, two persons came and took Pushpender away for questioning, after which Pushpender did not return for about an hour. He then left the place. In cross-examination, he admitted that he could not identify the persons who took Pushpender, did not know their identity, and had no knowledge of subsequent events. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the accused.
8. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. Ld. APP for State submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record for conviction of both the accused persons for the said alleged offence. Per contra, on behalf of the accused, it was submitted that there was no public witness to the alleged recovery of documents from the accused persons. The computer on which the accused Abdul Samad (since discharged) had prepared the forged documents had not been FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-9 of 23 seized. There is discrepancy in the version of the witnesses as to the vehicle on which the accused persons arrived at the spot, being a motorcycle or a scooter. The said vehicle was not seized by the police. The raiding party did not inform the local police station of the operation/raid. The arrest memo records time of arrest much later than time of actual apprehension. There was no complaint regarding the alleged fake racket of forged educational degrees and documents. All members of the raiding party were not examined as witnesses. There are inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses. There was inconsistency in version of PW-2 and PW-5 regarding the transfer and recovery of currency notes. The site plan was not prepared at the spot. There is no mention of the motorcycle in the site plan. Ld. Counsels for accused persons prayed for acquittal of both accused persons.
9. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the case file in light of the submissions advanced by the respective counsels.
Brief reasons for final decision
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. PW-1 Inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey proved that he had sent the questioned marksheets and certificates to the U.P. Board for verification. PW-2 Inspector Vivekanand Jha, who was the first FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-10 of 23 Investigating Officer and leader of the raiding team, fully supported the prosecution case and deposed regarding receipt of secret information, formation of raiding party, handing over of signed currency notes to the decoy witness, apprehension of accused persons, and recovery of forged documents and tainted currency notes. He correctly identified the accused persons as well as the recovered articles before the Court. PW-3 ASI Sunil Kumar also corroborated the testimony of PW-2 on all material particulars relating to the raid, recovery and arrest of accused persons. PW-5 ASI Ravinder Singh, who acted as the decoy customer, gave a detailed account of his meetings with accused Pushpender, the negotiation for preparation of forged documents, the trap proceedings, handing over of money, and subsequent apprehension of accused persons. PW-6 Inspector Yogeshwar Singh, the second Investigating Officer, deposed regarding further investigation conducted by him including arrest formalities, preparation of site plan, recording of statements and collection of verification reports from the U.P. Board.
11. Furthermore most importantly, PW-4 Munendra Kumar, Assistant Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Board, Meerut, categorically deposed that the seized marksheets and certificates Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were never issued by the Board and were forged and fabricated documents. He specifically stated that the roll numbers FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-11 of 23 mentioned on the documents had either never been issued or did not pertain to the district concerned. Though PW-4 joined the Board subsequently and did not possess personal knowledge regarding issuance of the documents at the relevant time, his testimony is based upon official records maintained by the Board in ordinary course of business. The verification report Ex. PW4/A has remained unchallenged on material particulars and nothing could be elicited in cross-examination to discredit the authenticity of the official record relied upon by him. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established that the documents recovered from accused persons were forged educational certificates and marksheets.
12. The defence has argued that no public witness was joined during the raid despite availability of public persons at the spot. It has further been contended that the vehicle allegedly used by accused persons was neither properly identified nor seized, there are contradictions regarding whether the accused arrived on a motorcycle or scooter, local police was not informed, and some members of the raiding party were not examined. The defence has also pointed out discrepancies in timing of arrest and deficiencies in preparation of the site plan.
13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by the defence. It is true that no independent public witness was FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-12 of 23 joined in the proceedings. However, it is a settled proposition of law that testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force, if their evidence is otherwise trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil & Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 652, held that there is no rule of law that evidence of police officials, unless supported by independent witnesses, is unworthy of acceptance. It was observed that public persons are often reluctant to join police proceedings and merely because no independent witness was joined, the prosecution case cannot be rejected if evidence of official witnesses is found cogent and reliable. Similarly, in Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that non-joining of independent witnesses is not fatal where the testimony of official witnesses is trustworthy and credible.
14. The position of law was elaborated in Sathyan v. State of Kerela, 2023 INSC 703, wherein it was held:
"22. Conviction being based solely on the evidence of police officials is no longer an issue on which the jury is out. In other words, the law is well settled that if the evidence of such a police officer is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on firm ground. This Court in Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
13. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-13 of 23 [1988 Supp SCC 686 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 48] , State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 248] and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar [(2006) 13 SCC 229 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 626] has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 595 : 2013 AIR SCW 3102] that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence.
23. Referring to State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab this court held that: -
"23. ... That apart, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground that independent witnesses have not been examined when, on the perusal of the evidence on record the Court finds that the case put forth by the prosecution is trustworthy. When the evidence of the official witnesses is trustworthy and credible, there is no reason not to rest the conviction on the basis of their evidence."
24. We must note, that in the former it was observed:-
"21... At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature... If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-14 of 23 approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."
15. In the present case, PW-2 Inspector Vivekanand Jha, PW-3 ASI Sunil Kumar and PW-5 ASI Ravinder Singh have consistently supported the prosecution version on all material particulars including receipt of secret information, constitution of raiding party, handing over of marked currency notes, recovery of forged educational certificates from accused persons and apprehension of accused persons at the spot. Their testimonies are materially consistent and withstand detailed cross-examination. No material contradiction or infirmity affecting the substratum of the prosecution case could be elicited by the defence. Thus, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the otherwise cogent and reliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses merely for want of independent corroboration. The acts performed by public officials during investigation also carry a presumption of regularity under Section 114 Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless rebutted by cogent material. In the present case, the defence has failed to produce any convincing material to rebut such presumption.
16. The defence has averred that there is inconsistency in version of PW-2 and PW-5 regarding the transfer and recovery of currency FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-15 of 23 notes. From the perusal of record it emerges that this inconsistency between PW-2 and PW-5 regarding whether the tainted currency notes were recovered from the shirt pocket or pant pocket of accused Pushpender is a minor discrepancy. Both witnesses have consistently deposed that PW-5 handed over four signed currency notes of ₹500/- each to accused Pushpender in exchange for forged documents and that the same notes were recovered from his possession immediately thereafter. The incident is of the year 2003 and the witnesses were examined after a considerable lapse of time. Minor variations regarding the exact pocket from which the currency notes were recovered are natural and attributable to lapse of memory. Such discrepancies, which do not touch the core of the prosecution case, are liable to be ignored. The recovery memo Ex. PW2/B contemporaneously records the recovery of the signed currency notes, which were duly identified in Court as Ex. P-5 (colly). Hence, the contradiction is merely peripheral and does not discredit the otherwise consistent prosecution version.
17. The discrepancy pointed out regarding whether the accused persons arrived at the spot on a motorcycle or scooter is also a minor inconsistency which does not affect the core of the prosecution case. PW-2 and PW-5 referred to the vehicle as a motorcycle, whereas PW-3 described it as a scooter. Such variation in nomenclature is FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-16 of 23 natural, particularly when the witnesses were deposing after a substantial lapse of time from the date of incident. What remains consistent in the testimony of all material witnesses is that both accused arrived together on a two-wheeler vehicle at the predetermined spot and immediately thereafter the transaction relating to forged documents was effected. The identity of the accused, the recovery of forged certificates and the recovery of tainted currency notes from accused Pushpender remain unimpeached. Therefore, the inconsistency regarding the description of the vehicle is merely trivial and does not go to the root of the matter or create any doubt about the prosecution version.
18. Similarly, the mere fact that the vehicle used by the accused persons was not seized during investigation does not render the prosecution case doubtful. The prosecution case is primarily based upon the direct evidence regarding the delivery of forged educational certificates and the recovery of tainted currency notes from accused Pushpender immediately after the transaction. The vehicle was only a mode of transportation and not the subject matter of the offence.
19. As regards the timing of arrest, no material discrepancy regarding the timing of arrest emerges from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. While certain witnesses did not remember the exact time of arrest, their versions are broadly consistent that:
FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-17 of 23
a) the accused persons were apprehended immediately after the transaction at about 6:30 PM;
b) thereafter recovery, seizure and rukka proceedings were conducted at the spot;
c) subsequently, after registration of FIR, PW-6/SI Yogeshwar Singh reached the spot and formally arrested the accused vide arrest memos Ex. PW2/H and Ex. PW2/J.
20. PW-3 specifically stated that he did not remember the exact time of arrest, which is not a contradiction. PW-6 stated that he reached the spot at about 10:30 PM and thereafter conducted the arrest proceedings. This is consistent with the prosecution case that formal arrest memos were prepared after completion of initial proceedings and after arrival of the second IO. Thus, there is no substantive inconsistency regarding the timing of arrest; at best, there is absence of precision as to exact timing, which is natural after lapse of time and does not affect the prosecution case.
21. It is settled law that trivial discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter are to be ignored. In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while appreciating evidence, the Court should not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, normal errors of observation or FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-18 of 23 trivial contradictions which do not materially affect the prosecution version. Likewise, in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241, it was observed that minor discrepancies are natural due to the human element involved and must be ignored unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story.
22. In the present case, the essential facts namely recovery of forged educational documents from accused persons, recovery of tainted currency notes from accused Pushpender, and apprehension of both accused persons at the spot remain consistent throughout the prosecution evidence. The defence has failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to the accused on account of non-seizure of vehicle or omission to inform the local police station. Mere inconsequential lapses or omissions in investigation cannot by themselves be made a ground to discard otherwise reliable prosecution evidence.
23. It is also settled law that lapses or deficiencies in investigation by themselves do not necessarily entitle the accused to acquittal unless prejudice is shown to have been caused or unless such lapses strike at the root of the prosecution case. In C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that defective investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal when there is otherwise reliable ocular and documentary evidence available on record. Similarly, in Dhanaj Singh @ Shera v. State of Punjab , (2004) FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-19 of 23 3 SCC 654, it was observed that negligence or omissions on the part of the investigating agency cannot by themselves demolish the prosecution case when substantive evidence inspires confidence.
24. The defence evidence led by accused persons also does not inspire confidence. DW-1 Bhopal Singh merely stated that some persons in civil dress had taken accused Ajay Kumar Tomar along with them one day prior to the incident. His testimony is admittedly based on hearsay and he had no direct knowledge regarding the allegations in the present case. DW-2 accused Ajay Kumar Tomar himself alleged false implication and illegal detention by unknown persons, however admittedly no complaint, representation or legal proceedings were initiated by him or his family members regarding such alleged illegal apprehension. DW-3 Vijay Kumar and DW-4 Lakshman also made vague assertions that some unidentified persons had taken accused Pushpender away from his residence, but neither of them could identify those persons or provide any material particulars. Their testimonies are generalized in nature and unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint or independent material. Where such defence version appears inherently improbable and unsupported by surrounding circumstances, the same cannot displace otherwise reliable prosecution evidence. In the present matter, the defence witnesses failed to probabilize the plea of false implication and their FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-20 of 23 testimonies do not create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
25. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to note the essential ingredients of Section 474 IPC. To bring home an offence under Section 474 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish: (i) possession of a forged document by the accused; (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the accused that the document is forged; and (iii) intention that the forged document shall be used as genuine. The possession contemplated under Section 474 IPC need not always be exclusive physical possession and can also be conscious and constructive possession established from surrounding circumstances. Knowledge and intention being states of mind are ordinarily inferred from conduct of the accused and attending circumstances of the case. Furthermore, direct evidence of knowledge is seldom available and the same can be inferred from surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused.
26. In the present case, the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pushpender negotiated for preparation and supply of forged educational certificates and accepted consideration amount from the decoy witness. It has further been proved that accused Pushpender delivered forged Class X marksheet and certificate in the name of Haseen Ahmed to PW-5 ASI Ravinder FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-21 of 23 Singh in exchange for marked currency notes. Simultaneously, accused Ajay Kumar Tomar was found in conscious possession of forged Class XII marksheet and certificate in the same name. The forged nature of the documents stands conclusively established from the testimony of PW-4 Munendra Kumar, Assistant Secretary of the U.P. Board, who categorically deposed that the questioned documents were never issued by the Board and were fabricated documents.
27. The surrounding circumstances unmistakably establish the requisite mens rea on the part of both accused persons. Accused Pushpender was not merely found in possession of forged documents but had actively negotiated the preparation and supply of fake educational certificates for monetary consideration and accepted the marked currency notes immediately before apprehension. Simultaneously, accused Ajay Kumar Tomar was found in conscious possession of forged Class XII documents in the same fictitious name intended to be delivered as genuine educational records. The coordinated conduct of both accused persons, coupled with simultaneous recovery of forged documents and tainted currency notes, clearly demonstrates prior concert, knowledge regarding forged nature of the documents and intention that such forged documents be used as genuine. Such circumstances are wholly inconsistent with innocence and conclusively establish the ingredients of Section 474 FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-22 of 23 IPC.
28. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pushpender and accused Ajay Kumar Tomar were found in conscious possession of forged educational certificates and marksheets knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged and intending that the said documents be used as genuine. The prosecution has successfully proved all ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 474 IPC. Consequently, both accused persons namely Pushpender and Ajay Kumar Tomar are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 474 IPC.
29. Let the convicts be heard separately on the point of sentence.
30. Copy of judgment be supplied to both the accused persons free of cost. Digitally signed by MRIDUL MRIDUL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.05.25 16:57:00 +0530 (Mridul Gupta) CJM, New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Announced in the open Court On 25th May 2026 FIR No.61/2003 PS Special Cell Page-23 of 23