Delhi District Court
State vs Narinder Singh on 4 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI KAPIL GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT: NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 313/06
PS : Tilak Marg
State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr.
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification 44077/16
Number
B Name of the Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, the then Ld.
Complainant MM
C Name of the accused 1. Narinder Singh
2. Kundan Singh
D Date of Institution 02.06.2008
E Offence Charged U/s 420/467/468/471/34 IPC
F Plea of accused accused pleaded not guilty
G Order Reserved on 20.11.2023
H Date of Pronouncement 04.01.2024
I Final Order Accused Kundan is acquitted for
the offence punishable U/s
420/467/468/471/34 IPC.
Accused Narinder Singh is
convicted for the offence
punishable U/s 420/511 IPC &
U/s 471 IPC.
FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 1 of 21
1. In brief, facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, the then Ld. MM was dealing with an application for release of vehicle number DL 1VA 1708 in another case bearing FIR No. 135/2006 PS Jaffarpur Kalan and in such application, accused Narinder Singh filed RC of such car, however, upon verification, such RC was found to be forged and it was disclosed by Narinder Singh that he had obtained such duplicate/forged RC from accused Kundan. Upon completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge-sheet was forwarded to the Court for trial of accused persons.
2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused were summoned and after compliance of Section 207 CrPC and after hearing the parties concerned, charge for commission of offence under Section U/s 420/467/468/471/34 IPC was framed upon the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. No witness was examined as PW 4.
4. Ct. Vinod Kumar was examined as PW-1 who deposed that on 18.08.2006 accused Narinder Singh made his disclosure statement Ex. PW1/A. He was cross-examined on behalf of both accused.
5. HC Rakesh Kumar was examined as PW 2 who deposed that on 18.08.2006 he was posted as Naib Court in the Court of Sh. Sunil Choudhary, the then Ld. MM, New Delhi and on such day, accused namely Narinder Singh, who was correctly identified by the witness, alongwith written order of the Court were handed over to him with the direction to FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 2 of 21 produce the accused Narinder Singh in PS Tilak Marg and he had handed over accused Narinder Singh to DO, PS Tilak Marg and case was registered and investigation of the case was handed over to SI Dharam Dev. He further deposed that the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and personal search of accused was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/B. Witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity being given to accused persons.
6. Sh. Narinder S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh was examined as PW-3 who deposed that he knew Narinder S/o Sh. Rajinder as he was from the same village. He further deposed that Narinder had given money to Kundan for getting RC of RTV which Narinder had bought from Najafgarh. He also deposed that he alongwith Narinder and Devender had gone to Transport Authority, Rajpur Road where Kundan had met them and handed over one RC of vehicle no.DL-1VA-1708 to Narinder and then he alongwith Narinder had come to Patiala House Courts. He identified accused Kundan and Narinder who were present in the Court.
7. During cross-examination of the witness on behalf of accused Kundan, he admitted that Kundan had worked for transferring the RC etc. and stated that on 03.08.2006, he alongwith Narinder and Devender had gone to the authority. He admitted that some conversations had taken place about the transfer of RC which had been taken from Suresh Kumar. Upon being confronted with his statement under Section 161 CrPC Mark A, witness denied that only Narinder had come to the Court and he had left for the authority. He admitted that no form for transfer of RC was filled in his presence.
FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 3 of 218. During cross-examination of the witness on behalf of accused Narinder Singh, witness stated that the RC was handed over by Kundan to Narinder at Rajpur Authority.
9. Sh. Rajesh Kumar was examined as PW- 5 who brought the detailed particulars of vehicle bearing no. DL-1V-1708 Ex PW5/A and record of RC bearing no. 0784614 issued in favour of Mr. Narinder Singh S/o Sh. Rajender Singh against fee receipt no. 798260 dated 07.08.2006. He placed on record photocopy of sale letter and fee receipt Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C (OSR) respectively. He deposed that the record of RC bearing no. 0571896 was not available in the authority. Witness was not cross- examined despite opportunity being given to accused persons.
10. Sh. Jagbir Singh was examined as PW-6 who deposed that on 26.07.2006, he moved an application Ex. PW6/A for release of vehicle bearing no. DL 1VA 1708 on superdari on behalf of the accused Narinder Singh and filed his Vakalatmama Ex. PW6/B. He further deposed that the same was fixed for hearing on 03.08.2006 upon which a verification report was sought by the IO/SHO of PS Jaffarpur Kalan and after going through the verification report, Ld. MM observed that the RC was registered in the name of some other person and the same was exhibited as Ex PW6/C. Accused Narinder was present in the court and was correctly identified by the witness.
11. In cross examination of the witness on behalf of accused Narinder Singh he stated that he did not remember at present whether the accused Narinder informed him about the change of name in the RC at the authority. He further stated that he had not seen the RC and did not FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 4 of 21 remember whether the photocopy of RC was attached with the application or not and stated that the same was produced directly by the accused in the court. He also stated that it was not disclosed to him by the accused whether the same had been prepared and obtained through tout/agent and Narinder himself had appeared before the Hon'ble Court with him. He was not cross-examined on behalf of accused Kundan despite opportunity being given.
12. Sh. Suresh Kumar was examined as PW-7 who deposed that in the year 2006, he had sold his vehicle bearing no. DL 1VA 1708 to Narinder Kumar of Dasha Village, New Delhi and he along with Narinder Kumar (purchaser of the said vehicle) went to the Authority, Rajpura where they signed the paper through form no. 29.
13. Ld. APP for the State sought to cross-examine the witness as witness was not narrating the entire facts of the case and the same was allowed. Witness stated that he sold his RTV no. DL 1VA 1708 to Narinder Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Singh Village Dasha, New Delhi and executed GPA in favour of Narinder Kumar as the permit of the said vehicle had expired since 3-4 months. He identified accused Narinder Kumar who was present in the court.
14. In cross-examination on behalf of accused Kundan, witness stated that he had signed paper for transfer of vehicle outside the authority premises where agent/tout used to sit and accused Narinder Kumar had handed over some rupees to agent/ tout with whom accused Narinder Kumar was dealing in relation with the papers but he cannot say the exact amount which was handed over to agent / tout. After being shown FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 5 of 21 photocopies of Form no. 29, 30 Mark A and B from the judicial file, he stated that such forms for transfer of vehicle number DL 1VA 1708 bears his signatures. He also stated that when he signed the said forms, they were already duly filled. He did not remember whether accused Narinder signed simultaneously with him or not.
15. In cross-examination on behalf of accused Narinder Singh, witness stated that he signed 15-20 papers outside the authority premises where agent / tout used to sit and he was present along with accused Narinder Kumar and the agent when the papers were signed. He identified the agent who was dealing with the accused Narinder being present in the court.
16. Insp. Birender Singh was examined as PW-8 who deposed that on 30.08.2006, further investigation of the present case was handed over to him during which he interrogated accused Kundan, who was present in the court and was correctly identified by the witness, and formally arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/A as he had been granted anticipatory bail and recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC.
17. In cross-examination on behalf of accused Narinder Singh, he stated that he had recorded the statement of MLO in his office on 16.10.2006. He was not cross-examined on behalf of accused Kundan despite opportunity being given.
18. Sh. Sunil Chaudhary was examined as PW-9 who deposed that on 26.07.2006, an application for release of vehicle bearing no. DL 1VA 1708 Ex PW6/A was moved in the Court by Narinder Singh claiming himself as a GPA holder which was dealt by Link MM and Ld. Link MM directed the FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 6 of 21 SHO to report and fixed the matter for 03.08.2006. He further deposed that on 03.08.2006, applicant had produced registration certificate of vehicle number DL 1VA 1708 showing himself as a registered owner of the vehicle and on perusal of the same it was revealed that same was not original RC and appeared to be a photocopy and he directed that the same be verified by concerned authority through IO and fixed the matter on 05.08.2006. He proved attested order dated 03.08.2006 as Mark Y and the photocopy of such order Ex. PW9/B. He deposed that on 05.08.2006, IO SI Mohinder Singh filed a verification report before him disclosing that vehicle no. DL 1VA 1708 was registered in the name of Suresh Kumar s/o Raj Singh and the registration certificate produced by Narinder Singh was forged and on such date, none appeared for the applicant and the matter was adjourned for 18.08.2006. He proved photocopy of the order dated 05.08.2006 as Ex. PW9/C. He also deposed that on 18.08.2006, after perusal of the application of the applicant Narinder Singh and report, it appeared to him that applicant Narinder Singh has committed offence U/s 420/467/471 IPC and that he should be tried as per law and moved a complaint PW-9/A before Ld. ACMM. He deposed that on 18.08.2006, another application in the name of same applicant i.e. Narinder dated 14.08.2006 was put before him and after consideration, he ordered the same to be put before Ld. ACMM alongwith the complaint. He proved order dated 18.08.2006 as Ex. PW9/D, report of SI Mohinder Singh Ex. PW9/C and the application of 14.08.2006 as Mark X. He identified accused Narinder Singh who was present in the court. Witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity being given.
19. Insp. Dharamdev was examined as PW-10 who deposed that on 18.08.2006 certain documents alongwith a complaint Ex PW-9/A was FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 7 of 21 received by him from the court of Sh. Sunil Chaudhary and he prepared rukka Ex.PW-10/A on the basis of the said complaint for the registration of FIR. He proved arrest memo of accused Narinder Singh Ex.PW-2/A, his personal search memo Ex. PW-2/B and his disclosure statement PW-1/A. He deposed that the accused was brought to the police station by naib court. He further deposed that he went to the RTO (Rajpura Road Authority) and moved two applications Ex.PX1 and Ex.PX2 (colly) to the MLO of the said authority for getting the details of vehicle number DL 1VA 1708 and for getting the RC verified and obtained the reports Mark A, Mark B and Mark C and necessary details from the concerned MLO. He identified the accused Narinder Singh who was present in the court.
20. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Narinder Singh witness stated that the naib court Rakesh brought the accused Narinder Singh to the PS Tilak Marg at about 5:15 pm on 18.08.2006. He further stated that at the time of filing the application with the MLO for obtaining details and getting the RC verified, he also submitted the RC which was received by him from the court. He also stated that he came to know that the name of the real owner of the said vehicle was Suresh Kumar.
21. In cross-examination on behalf of accused Kundan, cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Narinder Singh was adopted and the witness was further cross-examined wherein witness stated he did not verify the signature of the accused on form 29 and 30. He further stated that the report Mark B mentions that RC bearing serial no. 0784614 was genuine whereas RC bearing no. 0571896 was not issued in the name of Narinder Singh and the RC was fake.
FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 8 of 2122. The statement of the both accused U/s 313 CrPC was recorded separately and all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused persons. Accused Kundan stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and had not forged any RC. Accused Narinder Singh stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he was not aware if the RC was forged or not at the time when it was submitted in the court of Sh. Sunil Chaudhary. He further stated that he had already applied for transfer of RC in his name and Suresh Kumar and he had also signed in MLO office for transfer of RC in his name and he had engaged Kundan to transfer the RC for which he had paid him Rs. 13,000/-. Both accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
23. I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Defence Counsel for both accused. I have also perused the material available on record.
24. Ld. APP argued that prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and there is sufficient material on record to prove the guilt of the accused and prayed that the accused be convicted.
25. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for both the accused argued that the prosecution had not brought on record single piece of credible evidence to prove that the accused had committed the alleged offence and moreover, the ingredients of the offences alleged have not been fulfilled. It was further argued that case of the prosecution is full of contradictions and prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly accused be given benefit of doubt and be acquitted of all the charges.
FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 9 of 2126. It is settled principle of criminal law that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt by bringing on record reliable and credible evidence. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond reasonable doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute.
27. Section 415 IPC provides as follows:
Section 415 Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
28. Section 420 IPC provides as follows:
Section 420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property -Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 10 of 21 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
29. Section 467 IPC provides as follows:
Section 467 Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. - Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
30. Section 468 IPC provides as follows:
Section 468 IPC Forgery for purpose of cheating - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 11 of 21
31. Section 471 IPC provides as follows:
Section 471 IPC Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
32. Section 34 IPC provides as follows:
Section 34 IPC Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention - When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
33. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC as per judgement of V.Y. Jose & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.; 2009 (1) RCR (criminal) 869 (SC) are:
(a) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission;
(b) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 12 of 21
(c) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.
In view of the above discussion it is observed that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had the burden to prove that there was a dishonest inducement on part of the accused which lead to delivery of property by the complainant.
34. The Principles of Law governing the offence of forgery under Section 467/468/471 IPC as can be culled out from their definition is as follows:
a) The accused must have made a forged document or a part of such document.
b) The false document was made to deceive or with the intention to deceive and secondly, actual or possible injury has been caused to some person or persons.
c) The document was prepared for the purpose of cheating.
d) The forged document is used as genuine.
35. The judgement shall first deal with the role of accused Narinder Singh. Accused Narinder Singh has been charged with Section 420/467/468/471/34 IPC. The allegation against accused Narinder Singh are that he had moved an application seeking release of a vehicle in the court presided over by the complainant and had produced a forged RC in such court in order to cheat the complainant.
36. Perusal of record reveals that it is not in dispute that the RC FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 13 of 21 produced by accused Narinder Singh in the court was forged. Even the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC has stated that he was not aware if the RC was forged or not at the time when it was submitted in the court.
37. Complainant Sh. Sunil Chaudhary who was examined as PW-9 deposed that on 26.07.2006 an application for release of vehicle bearing no. DL 1VA 1708 Ex PW6/A was moved in the Court by Narinder Singh claiming himself as a GPA holder and on 03.08.2006, accused Narinder Singh had produced registration certificate of vehicle number DL 1VA 1708 showing himself as a registered owner of the vehicle and on perusal of the same it was revealed that same was not original RC and appeared to be a photocopy and he directed that the same be verified by concerned authority through IO and on 05.08.2006, IO SI Mohinder Singh filed a verification report before him disclosing that vehicle no. DL 1VA 1708 was registered in the name of Suresh Kumar s/o Raj Singh and the registration certificate produced by Narinder Singh was forged. It is pertinent to mention that the witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused Narinder Singh despite opportunity being given.
38. Effect of non cross-examination of a witness is no more Res Integra. Non cross-examination of a witness despite opportunity would only point towards one conclusion viz. the accused has accepted the version of the witness as correct and is not disputing the same. Thus, in the present case it can be concluded that the accused has accepted and admitted that he had filed a forged RC in the court presided over by the complainant while the complainant was dealing with an application for release of vehicle bearing no. DL 1VA 1708 Ex PW6/A moved by accused Narinder Singh. In view of FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 14 of 21 such facts and circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the accused had used a forged RC as genuine by filing the same in court of law and is thus liable for offence under Section 471 IPC.
39. The next aspect which needs consideration is that the accused had filed the forged RC in the court in order to mislead the complainant by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the complainant to believe that the vehicle belonged to the accused and to get the vehicle delivered to him and intentionally induced the complainant to pass an order in his favour to release the vehicle by filing a forged RC. It is pertinent to mention that the accused could not succeed in cheating the complaint as it came into the knowledge of the complainant that the RC was forged before passing any order in the application seeking release of the vehicle, however, it remains that the accused had attempted to commit such offence.
40. At this juncture, it is pertinent to discuss Section 222 of CrPC which provides as follows:
Section 222 When offence proved included in offence charged -
(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 15 of 21 separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.
Thus, it can be observed that an accused can be convicted of a minor offence though the accused has not been specifically charged with it.
41. It is now pertinent to discuss Section 511 IPC which is provided as follows:
Section 511 Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment - Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
42. As observed earlier, accused Narinder Singh had filed the forged RC in the court in order to intentionally mislead the complainant by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the complainant to believe that the FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 16 of 21 vehicle belonged to the accused and to get the vehicle delivered to him and intentionally induced the complainant to pass an order in his favour to release the vehicle in his favour by filing a forged RC. The same is evident as the accused by not cross-examining the complainant had admitted the allegation and deposition of the complainant that on 26.07.2006 an application for release of vehicle bearing no. DL 1VA 1708 Ex PW6/A was moved in the Court by Narinder Singh claiming himself as a GPA holder and on 03.08.2006, accused Narinder Singh had produced registration certificate of vehicle number DL 1VA 1708 which was found to be forged. Though, the accused could not succeed in cheating the complaint as the vehicle was not directed to be released to the accused, yet accused Narinder Singh attempted cheat the complainant to dishonestly induce him to deliver the vehicle and accused is thus liable for offence under Section 420/511 IPC.
43. It is now pertinent to discuss the liability of the accused qua offence under Section 467/468 IPC. Perusal of record reveals that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to suggest that accused Narider Singh had forged the RC which was produced in the court. In view of lack of any evidence to support the case of the prosecution under Section 467/468 IPC, accused Narinder Singh is held to be not liable for offence under 467/468 IPC. Further, there are no allegations whatsoever against the accused for committing offence under Section 34 IPC and thus, he is held to be not liable for offence under Section 34 IPC.
44. It is relevant to discuss that this is not a case wherein the complainant had some bias or enmity with the accused. There was no reason or motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused in the FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 17 of 21 present case. Further, the complainant and the other witnesses have consistently deposed in the present case and there are no major contradictions in their testimonies. Documents such as the application seeking release of vehicle, copy of the admittedly forged RC amongst other documents have not been challenged by the accused. No cogent reason has been put forward by the accused for not believing the testimony of the complainant who is the eye witness.
45. As such, prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of accused Narinder Singh for the offences punishable u/s 420/511 IPC and u/s 471 IPC through the testimonies of examined witnesses and further has established the ingredients of such offences against the accused in the present matter beyond reasonable doubt.
46. The judgement shall now deal with the role of accused Kundan. Accused Kundan has also been charged with Section 420/467/468/471/34 IPC. The allegation against accused Kundan are that accused Narinder Singh had disclosed that he had obtained the duplicate/forged RC from accused Kundan.
47. PW-3 Narinder S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh deposed that accused Kundan handed over the RC of vehicle no.DL-1VA-1708 to accused Narinder and such RC is admittedly forged as observed earlier. To utter shock and surprise, the witness did not identify the RC which was produced by accused Narinder Singh in the court as being the same RC which was allegedly given by accused Kundan to accused Narinder Singh. Thus, even if deposition of PW-3 is to be believed, it is still unclear as to which RC accused Kundan had handed over to accused Narinder Singh and FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 18 of 21 whether it was the same RC which was produced by accused Narinder Singh in the court presided over by the complainant. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused Kudan had handed over the forged RC to accused Narinder Singh.
48. Moreover, prosecution has not examined any other witness or brought any other evidence to support the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus, it can be seen that there is no incriminating evidence against accused Kundan.
49. It is relevant to discuss the admissibility of disclosure statement of a co-accused. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984 as follows:
"24. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements of co-accused too is settled; the courts have hesitated to place reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used them merely to support the conviction or, as Sir Lawrence Jenkins observed in Emperor v. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty, to "lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused". In Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar6, this Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench, elaborated upon the approach to be adopted by courts when dealing with disclosure statements:
13. ...In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused person against FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 19 of 21 another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused person, the court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right."
Thus, the disclosure statement of co-accused Narinder Singh is also not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused Kundan.
50. Thus, the prosecution failed to successfully bring home the guilt of accused Kundan for the offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC through the testimonies of examined witnesses and further failed to establish the ingredients of offence alleged against the accused in the present matter beyond reasonable doubt. Again, there are no allegations whatsoever against the accused for offence under Section 34 IPC and thus, he is held to be not liable for offence under Section 34 IPC.
51. In view of the evidence adduced, documents put forth and arguments advanced by the parties and further in view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the accused Narinder Singh is guilty of offence punishable U/s 420/511 IPC and U/s 471 IPC and accordingly, is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s 420/511 IPC and U/s 471 IPC and is not guilty for offence punishable under Section 467/468/34 IPC and further, the court is of the considered opinion that the accused Kundan is not guilty of offence punishable U/s 420/467/468/471/34 IPC and accordingly, is hereby acquitted for the FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 20 of 21 offence punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/34 IPC.
Accused Narinder Singh shall be heard on the point of sentence.
Copy of the judgement be provided to the convict Narinder Singh, free of cost.
Announced in the (Kapil Gupta)
court on 04.01.2024 Metropolitan Magistrate - 07
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
FIR No. 313/03 State Vs. Narinder Singh & Anr. Page 21 of 21