Delhi District Court
State vs . Pop Singh on 7 August, 2012
State vs. Pop Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: MM01(SE) /
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Pop Singh
FIR NO. : 78/99
U/S : 420/468/471/473 IPC
PS : Badarpur
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 3500/2
b) Date of institution of the case : 03.03.01
c) Date of commission of offence : Between 19981999
d) Name of the complainant : Ch. Ram Singh Netaji, MLA,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
e) Name & address of the : Pop Singh @ Pappu @ Kalu
accused S/o Phool Singh R/o B132A, Hari
Nagar Extn, PartII, Badarpur,
New Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 420/476/464 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 07.08.12
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 07.08.12
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused Pop Singh has been sent to face trial
FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 1 of 11
State vs. Pop Singh
with the allegations that sometime in the year 19981999 at H.No. 132, Hari Nagar, PartII, Badarpur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, accused cheated Upender Singh by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 300/ thereby alleged to have committed the offence U/sec. 420 IPC. It has further been alleged that on 21.2.99 on the aforesaid place, accused was found in possession of eight counterfeit rubber seal, with the intent that same shall be used for the purpose of forgery, knowing the same to be counterfeit and therefore alleged to have committed offence U/sec. 476 IPC. It is also the case of prosecution that on 21.02.99 at the aforesaid place, accused was found in possession of 73 forged ration cards and some other forged documents as mentioned in seizure memo knowing them to be forged, purported to have been made by a public servant and intending that the same shall fraudulently and dishonesty be used as genuine and thereby alleged to have committed offence U/sec. 474 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 420/468/471/473 IPC was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused was consequently summoned. Record however transpires that on the basis of material available on record, charges U/sec. 420/476/474 IPC was framed against accused by my Ld. Predecessor to which he FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 2 of 11 State vs. Pop Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
4. PW1 Ch. Ram Singh is the complainant in the present case who has deposed that he was MLA from Badarpur constituency. He has further deposed that on 20.02.99 he came to know that somebody with the help of his forged seal and signature is making ration cards and he directed his PA Anil Kumar Saxena to find out the matter. He has further deposed that he went to the office of food and supply, Okhla PhaseI and checked the records. He has further deposed that he brought one ration card form Ex.PW1/A, in the name of Umed Singh on which his seal and signatures was forged. He has further deposed that he had given his written complaint Ex.PW1/B. He has further deposed that police came to him and they have taken specimen of his seal and signatures. He has further deposed that he came to know later on that police had arrested one person namely Pop Singh who had committed the offence.
5. PW2 is Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena who has deposed that in the year 1999 he was working as PA of MLA Ch. Ram Singh. He has further deposed that on 20.02.99 he was sent to office of Food & FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 3 of 11 State vs. Pop Singh Supply, Okhla PhaseI to find out whether somebody is forging seal and signature of Ch. Ram Singh in order to make ration cards. He has further deposed that he talked to officer of Food & Supply where he saw forms on the records and brought one photocopy of ration card form and handed over the same to Ch. Ram Singh, upon which latter told him that signatures and seal on ration cards are forged. He has further deposed that Sh. Ram Singh wrote a complaint to police. He has further deposed that on 21.02.99 one person namely Pop Singh was brought by police and it was told to them that he is culprit.
6. PW3 is Sh. Upender Singh who has deposed that in the year 1996 he was tenant in H.No. H39, Molarband Village, Badarpur, New Delhi. He has further deposed that he had contacted his landlord Sanju Choudhary for making ration card upon which latter suggested him to contact one Pop Singh, who used to make the ration cards. He has further deposed that Sanju Chaudhary called Pop Singh at his house and he delivered Rs. 300/ to accused Pop Singh. He has further deposed that accused delivered him a ration card in his name. He has further deposed that he doesn't know how the accused had arranged the ration card but in lieu of Rs. 300/ accused had got prepared his ration card. He has further deposed that in the year 2000 FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 4 of 11 State vs. Pop Singh he came to know that accused had used fake seal of local MLA on his application from of ration card then he got prepared his ration card. He correctly identified the accused.
7. PW4 is Sh. Bhoop Singh. Record further transpires that he was partly examined in chief and his further examination in chief was deferred for want of case property on 17.05.08. However, thereafter he was never examined by prosecution, therefore his testimony cannot be read into evidence being incomplete.
8. PW5 is Ct. Dal Chand who has deposed that on 21.02.99 he alongwith SI Ram Sahay, reached at house of complainant where his statement was recorded and latter also handed over one paper upon which his stamp was affixed. He has further deposed that IO recorded the statement of Anil Kumar Saxena. He has further deposed that he alongwith IO were investigating in the market where Bhoop Singh met them and told about the Pop Singh. He has further deposed that thereafter they all reached at Meethapur chowk at about 1.30 PM and accused was stopped at the instance of Bhoop Singh. He has further deposed that disclosure statement Ex.PW4/C was recorded and accused was arrested. He duly proved arrest memo, personal search memo Ex.PW4/A and B. He has further deposed that thereafter they FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 5 of 11 State vs. Pop Singh went to house of accused and took into possession the seal, ink pad, passport size photographs, parchi with regard to deposit of ration card and related documents after sealing with the seal of RS vide memo Ex.PW4/D. He has further deposed that seal after use was handed over to him. He duly proved pointing out memo Ex.PW4/E. He correctly identified the accused.
9. PW6 HC Harphul Singh is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW 6/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW6/B.
10. PW7 is Sh. Sanju Choudhary who had deposed that they used to reside at H.No. 38, Molarband. He has further deposed that one Upender was his tenant who enquired about ration card and he told the latter that same can be made from one person at Hari Nagar. He has further deposed that he had not told anybody's name to Upender in respect of ration Card. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP with the permission of court. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he had not given any statement to police, however, he admitted it to be correct that he had told the name of a person namely Pop Singh.
11. PE was closed by order of this court on 30.06.12.
FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 6 of 11
State vs. Pop Singh
Memorandum of statement of accused was recorded wherein he refuted all the allegations levelled against him. Accused chose not to lead any evidence in his favour.
12. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
13. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
14. In the instant case, the first charge against accused is U/sec. 420 IPC. As per the prosecution, the accused had cheated Upender Singh by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 300/. However, perusal of testimony of Sh. Upender Singh who was examined as PW3 reveals that there is nothing in his testimony to support the allegation of cheating against the accused. In his testimony he has simply deposed that he delivered Rs. 300/ to accused Pop Singh for making a ration card which was delivered to him. He has further deposed that in the year 2000 ,he came to know that accused used fake seal of FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 7 of 11 State vs. Pop Singh MLA on his application form of ration card. Therefore it is clear that the part of testimony of PW3 ( that he came to know accused had used fake seal of local MLA on his ration card form) is inadmissible being hearsay. Apart from that, there is nothing in his testimony to prove that any deception was caused to him by the accused. PW3 has simply deposed that he delivered Rs. 300/ to accused and accused delivered a complete ration card in his name to him. Therefore there is nothing in the testimony of PW3 to substantiate the allegations of cheating against accused. Hence the charges for offence U/sec. 420 IPC against accused fails.
15. Further, the accused has been charged for offence U/sec. 476/474 IPC for possessing counterfeit rubber seal with the intent to use the same for the purpose of forgery and for possessing forged ration cards and other forged documents (as per seizure memo Ex.PW4/D) intending to use them fraudulently and dishonestly as genuine. I shall now adjudicate whether the charges for said offences have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused on the basis of evidence which is available on record.
16. PW1 Sh. Ram Singh who is the complainant in the present case has not deposed anything on basis of which the charges U/sec.
FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 8 of 11
State vs. Pop Singh
474/476 IPC can be substantiated against accused. A perusal of his testimony reveals that he has simply depose that he came to know that somebody with the help of his forged seal and signatures is making ration card and he directed his PA to find out the truth who brought one ration card form Ex.PW1/B in the name of Upender Singh from office of food and supply. He has further deposed that his signatures and seal were forged on the Ex.PW1/B. He has further deposed that he gave complaint Ex.PW1/B to police and later came to know that police had arrested accused for the offence. Therefore, it is clear that the Ex.PW1/A i.e. alleged forged ration card form was not recovered from possession of accused but it was obtained from office of food and supply. Regretfully the concerned IO never sent Ex.PW1/A for any scientific or expert opinion to find out the author of alleged forgery. Therefore in the absence of any scientific / expert evidence, there is nothing on record to prove that it was accused who had forged Ex.PW1/A. There is nothing in the testimony of other witnesses i.e PW2 to PW7 also to prove the allegations against the accused.
17. Ld. APP for state has heavily relied upon testimony of PW5 i.e. Ct. Dal Chand. It has been submitted by Ld. APP that the seizure memo Ex.PW4/D on the basis of which the recovery was effected from FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 9 of 11 State vs. Pop Singh accused has been duly proved by Ct. Dal Chand and therefore it has been proved that the accused was in possession of forged ration cards/ counterfeit seals and other forged documents. I cannot but disagree with Ld. APP for state. Though the factum of recovery at the instance of accused has been proved by PW5, however, in my considered view in absence of any scientific/ expert evidence, very recovery from accused becomes innocuous. It was incumbent upon prosecution to send the recovered seals/ ration cards and other documents for expert opinion like CFSL to prove that the same were forged and counterfeit or at least put them to the person to whom the same purports to belongs. However, nothing of this sort was done in the present case. In the absence of any scientific and expert evidence, there is nothing on record to prove that the recovered articles were actually forged or counterfeit one and therefore charges U/sec. 474/476 IPC also fails against accused.
18. Before parting, I may express my serious displeasure over the manner in which the investigation has been conducted in the present case. The concerned investigating officer took no pains whatsoever in collecting any scientific /expert evidence qua forged documents/ counterfeit seals. The conduct of concerned investigating officer is FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 10 of 11 State vs. Pop Singh negligent to say the least. It seems that either he was not competent to investigate the matter or he conducted the investigation with ulterior motive.
19. Hence, in view of the above said discussions and the evidence as well as the material available on the record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused Pop Singh is hereby acquitted of offence U/sec. 420/476/474 IPC. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court (Anuj Agarwal) on 07.08.2012 MM01(SE)/Delhi / 07.08.12 FIR No. 78/99 PS Badarpur 11 of 11