Delhi District Court
State vs Sahab Singh on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS VASUNDHARA AZAD, CJM, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-000084-2000
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. : 704/1999
Police Station : Moti Nagar
Under Section : 420/468/471/120-B IPC
Date of institution : 21.12.2000
Date of pronouncement : 16.02.2026
JUDGMENT
a) Cr. Cases number of the case 68896/2016
b) Date of commission of offence 29.09.1999
c) Name of the complainant Bhura Singh
d) Name, parentage and address of the (1) Sahab Singh accused S/o Sh. Madho Singh R/o C-19. Mukherji Park, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
(2) Gyan Singh S/o Sh. Harnam Singh R/o B-88, Tagore Garden, Delhi.
(3) Kuldeep Singh S/o Late Sh. Jaswant Singh R/o E-131, Vishwa Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(4) Sarabjeet Singh State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.1/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:31:13 +0530 S/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh R/o WZ-67A, Mukherji Park, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
(5) Baldev Singh S/o Sh. Ratan Singh R/o 14/73, Subhash Nagar, Delhi.
(6) Khubi Ram S/o Sh. Kalu Ram R/o H. No. 190, Police Line Area, Hissar, Haryana.
e) Offence complained of 420/468/471/411/120-B IPC f) Plea of the accused Pleaded Not guilty g) Final order 16.02.2026
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 29.09.1999 at about 06:00 PM, Tura Mandi, Zakhira, Delhi, accused persons Sahab Singh, Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Sarabjeet Singh, Baldev Singh and Khubi Ram, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy committed cheating by robbing truck bearing no. DIG-6488 of complainant Bhura Singh and thereafter deciphered its chasis number and engine number and forged documents to get the same registered at Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number HR-38BG-0103 in the name of of accused Sahab Singh. Further, all the accused persons Sahab Singh, Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Sarabjeet Singh, Baldev Singh and Khubi Singh sold the said truck State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.2/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:31:21 +0530 to Surender Singh through accused Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh and therefore, the accused persons are guilty of offence u/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC. [It is to be noted that accused Baldev Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Gyan Singh were convicted and sentenced by plea bargaining court vide order dated 18.08.2010] ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 22.04.2010 of this court, notice for offence under Section 120 B read with section 420/468/471 IPC was framed against accused persons Sahab Singh, Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Sarabjeet Singh, Baldev Singh and Khubi Ram to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. In order to prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution in all examined 37 witnesses. A chart specifying their role is appended below, which is thereafter followed with a chart of exhibited documents and then brief description of the testimony of PWs in court.
Prosecution Name of witnesses Description witness no.
PW-1 HC Jai Ram Formal witness
PW-2 Sh. Bhura Singh Complainant
PW-3 Sh. Surender Singh Owner of truck bearing no.
HR-38BG-0103
PW-4 Sh. Vijender Singh Owner of truck bearing no. DIG-6488
PW-5 ASI Rajesh Formal witness (Duty officer with
respect to the present FIR no. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar) PW-6 Sh. Ramsukh Record Keeper, PNB, Sabzi Mandi State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.3/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:31:30 +0530 Prosecution Name of witnesses Description witness no.
Branch, Delhi with respect to cheque no. 74894 dated 07.02.1998 PW-7 Sh. Virender Kumar LDC, MLO Hqrs, Transport Department Rajpur Road with respect to temporary regn.
MLO/HQ/TRL/DL1/TEMP/F-2605 PW-8 Sh. Rajesh Kumar MLO, Headquarters, Rajpur Road, Delhi PW-9 Sh. S. K. Mishra Sr. Manager, Vehicle Sales, TATA Motors Ltd. Jamshedpur, Jharkhand with respect signature of Sh. P.K. Mishra on a letter regarding to chasis no.
36405286643 and engine no.
697D02294778
PW-10 Sh. J. K. Jadhav AGM, Auto Dispatch, TATA Motors,
Pune
PW-11 Sh. U. P. Singh Regional Sales Officer, TML
Distribution Co. Ltd. Dappar, Punjab PW-12 Sh. Jogender Singh Medical Record Clerk, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh Public witness PW-15 Sh. Kawaljeet Singh Public witness (PW 14 examined as Sethi PW15 due to typographical error) PW-16 Dr. Rajender Singh Director CFSL, CBI, New Delhi with respect to truckTATA 1210 PW-17 Sh. Dharampal Assistant RTO Office, Kaithal, Haryana PW-18 Sh. ASI Lalu Uraon Formal witness PW-19 Sh. Dharam Pal Retd. SDM Singh Yadav PW-20 Sh. Srikant Mishra MLO, Vasant Vihar Authority PW-21 Sh. Kamal Kishor Assistant Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Rajouri Garden, Delhi with respect to account no. 18400 of Baldev Singh PW-22 Sh. Ramesh Chand Public witness the then inspector MLO Verma Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi with respect to vehicle DL-1TF-2605 PW-23 Sh. Prawin Desai MLO, Hqrs. Civil Lines, Delhi with respect totemporary registration State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.4/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:31:38 +0530 Prosecution Name of witnesses Description witness no.
certificate DL/TEMP/F-2605 PW-24 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Record Clerk, Transport Department, Haryana-Chandigarh with respect to joining of accused Khubi Ram at that department, Haryana, Chandigarh PW-25 Sh. Gopal Chand Administrative Officer, Branch Officer, Mani Majra, Chandigarh with respect to insurance policy of HR-38GB-0103 PW-26 ASI Rameshwar First Investigating officer PW-27 HC Sunil Formal witness PW-28 HC Dinesh Formal witness PW-29 HC Nihal Formal witness PW-30 HC Ram Niwas Formal witness PW-31 Inspector Ram Investigating Officer Kishan PW-32 SI Dharshan Kumar Investigating Officer PW-33 Inspector Sajjan Investigating Officer Singh PW-34 Inspector Ramesh Formal witness Lamba PW-35 Ms. Deepa Verma Director FSL, Rohini, Delhi PW-36 Sh. M. C. Meena Investigating Officer (Retd.ACP) PW-37 Sh. Harish Chandra Sr. Material Assistant Legal Cell, CVD, Ministry of Defence, Delhi Cantt. Delhi Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No. Ex.PW1/A Copy of FIR no. 950/1996 u/s 392 IPC PW-1 Ex.PW2/A Statement of Sh. Bhura Singh u/s 161 PW-2 Cr.PC Ex.PW2/B Seizure memo of truck DIG-6488 PW-2 Ex.PW2/C Documents of truck bearing registration PW-2 to no. DIG 6488 Ex.PW2/G State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.5/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:31:45 +0530 Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No. Ex.PW3/A Ownership documents of truck PW-3 HR-28BG-0103 Ex.PW3/B Documents related to truck bearing no. PW-3 to HR-38BG-0103 Ex.PW3/F Ex.PW5/A Endorsement on rukka & copy of FIR PW-5 & Ex.PW5/B Mark X Photocopy of order with respect to PW-5 destrucition of DD no. 15A dated 01.12.1999 Ex.PW6/A Letter regarding destruction of record PW-6 with respect to cheque bearing no. 74894 dated 07.02.1998 Ex.PW7/A Report of MLO, Hq. Transport PW-7 department, Rajpur Road in response to IO regarding the verification of temporary registration no.
MLO/HQ/TRL/DL1/TEMP/F-2605 dated 29.09.1997 Ex.PW8/A Photocopy of temporary registration PW-8 (OSR) certificate no. HNL-5104/8 dated 13.07.1988 with respect to vehicle bearing no. DIG-6488 Ex.PW8/B Photocopy of Form E with respect to PW-8 (OSR) vehicle bearing no. DIG-6488 Ex.PW8/C Photocopy of sale letter with respect to PW-8 (OSR) vehicle bearing no. DIG-6488 Ex.PW8/D Photocopy of Form F with respect to PW-8 (OSR) vehicle bearing no. DIG-6488 Ex.PW9/A Letter of Sh. P. K. Mishra regarding PW-9 verification of chasis number 364052286643 and engine number 69TD02294778 Ex.PW10/ Letter regarding verification of chasis PW-10 A number 364052844009 Ex.PW11/ Reply of Letter regarding verification of PW-11 A chasis number 364052844009 Ex.PW11/ Letter written to Insp. AH Section Crime PW-11 State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.6/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:32:00 +0530 Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No. B Branch regarding verification of chasis number 364052844009 Ex.PW12/ MLC 88931 dated 13.11.2000 of patient PW-12 A Gyan Singh Ex.PW15/ Photocopies of transaction documents of PW-15 A (colly) hytopthecation & photocopies of finance (OSR) documents of truck no. HR-38BG-0103 Ex.PW16/ Report dated 27.12.1999 regarding PW-16 A inspection of truck TATA 1210 Ex.PW17/ Report of secretary with respect to PW-17 A destruction of document with respect to vehicle bearing no. HR-38BG-0103 in a fire incident Ex.PW17/ Copy of report regarding destruction of PW-17 B document with respect to vehicle bearing no. HR-38BG-0103 in a fire incident which was registered at PS sector 07, Faridabad Ex.PW18/ Relevant entry made in register no 19 PW-18 A (OSR) with respect to deposit of truck no.
HR-28BG-0103 Ex.PW20/ Letter dated 24.01.2002 and letter dated PW-20 A and 27.04.2002 written by the then MLO, Hq Ex.PW20/ to ACP EOW B Ex.PW21/ Copy of account opening form of account PW-21 A (OSR) no. 18400 in the name of Baldev Singh in P & Sind Bank Ex.PW21/ Copy of statement of account no. 18400 PW-21 B for the period of 01.01.2007 to 29.02.2016 Certificate u/s 65B of IEA regaring its generation Ex.PW24/ Documents relating to joining of accused PW-24 A to Khubi Ram as MVI at Gurgaon on Ex.PW24/ 15.04.1998 as WM (work Manager) at D Charkhi Dadari, Haryana & certified copies of promotion order of Khubi Ram Ex.PW25/ Authorization letter by assisatant PW-25 A manager to depose in court regarding State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.7/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:32:08 +0530 Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No. Ex.PW25/ Documents regarding insurance policy of PW-25 B truck bearing no. HR-38GB-0103 Ex.PW27/ Arrest memo of accused Sahib Singh PW-27 A Ex.PW27/ Body Inspection report and disclosure PW-27 B and statement of accused Sahab Singh Ex.PW27/ B1 Ex.PW27/ Pointing out memo with respect to place PW-27 C where accused Sahab Singh got number of chasis plate engraved Ex.PW27/ Seizure memo with respect to PW-27 D handwriting specimen signature of accused Sahab Singh Ex.PW27/ Specimen handwriting of accused Sahab PW-27 D1 Singh Ex.PW27/ Seizure memo with respect to Specimen PW-27 E handwriting of accused Sarabjeet Singh Ex.PW27/ Specimen handwriting of accused PW-27 F Sarabjeet Singh Ex.PW27/ Arrest memo of accused Gyan Singh PW-27 G Ex.PW27/ Body inspection memo of accused Gyan PW-27 H Singh Ex.PW28/ Affidavit relating to truck no. PW-28 A HR-38BG-0103 Ex.PW29/ Copy of FIR and other related documents PW-29 A of truck HR 38BG 0103 (memo regarding deposit of truck no. HR 38BG-0103 and other related documents of said vehicle) Ex Disclosure statement of accused Baldev PW-32 PW32/A Singh Ex.PW32/ Arrest memo of accused Khubi Ram PW-32 B Ex.PW32/ Personal search memo of accused Khubi PW-32 C Ram Ex.PW32/ Specimen signature of accused Khubi PW-32 State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.8/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:32:18 +0530 Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No. D Ram Ex.PW32/ Arrest memo of accused Kuldeep Singh PW-32 E Ex.PW32/ Personal search memo of accused PW-32 F Kuldeep Singh Ex.PW32/ Specimen handwriting signature of PW-32 G accused Kuldeep Singh Ex.PW32/ Specimen signature of accused Kuldeep PW-32 H Singh PW33/A DD entry no. 44B PW-33 Ex.PW33/ Letter with respect to seizure of stolen PW-33 B vehicle i.e. truck bearing no. DIG-6488 Ex.PW33/ Reply of Faridabad ITO regarding PW-33 C offending vehicle i.e. truck Ex.PW33/ Tehrir prepared on complaint given by PW-33 D Sh. Bhura Singh Ex.PW33/ Affidavit seized from Gyan Singh PW-33 E Ex.PW33/ Report from TALCO, Jamshedpur, Bihar PW-33 F regarding manufacturing of truck Ex.PW33/ Seizure memo with respect to registration PW-33 G documents of truck bearing registration no. HR 38BG 0103 Ex.PW33/ Reply of Kartar Leasing Finance PW-33 H Ex.PW33/ Verification report regarding payment of PW-33 I Rs. 1 lakh from the account of accused Baldev Singh at PNB Ex.PW33/ Arrest information of accused Sahab PW-33 J Singh (information regarding arrest of accused Sahab Singh to his wife Satnam Kaur) Ex.PW33/ Personal search memo of accused Sahab PW-33 K Singh Ex.PW35/ Report dated 21.03.2001 regarding PW-35 A specimen writings of accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.9/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:32:25 +0530 Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No. Ex.PW37/ Inspection and maintenance of fitness of PW-37 A vehicle with signature of Sh. A. P. Singh Ex.PW37/ Authority letter tto depose in court on PW-37 B behalf of officiating commandant, CVD Delhi Cant Ex.X-1 Opinion of government examiner of U/s 294 Cr.PC questioned documents, Government of India, Shimla
4. Brief summary of the testimonies of the above stated witnesses is as follows:
(i) PW-1 HC Jai Ram, who has proved that FIR No. 950/96 (Ex.
PW1/A) was registered at PS Tilak Nagar u/s 392 IPC. PW-HC Jai Ram was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(ii) PW-2 Bhura Singh, who has deposed that truck bearing no.
DIG-6488 was taken on contractual basis by his elder brother Sh. Asudha Singh from Bijender Singh S/o Sh. Sadora Singh who is a relative of PW-2 Bhura Singh. PW-2 Bhura Singh has further deposed that although his brother was plying the truck in his transport business, he was taking care of the truck and on the intervening night of 11-12/12/1996, when the truck was parked in Chand Nagar area, some persons came and took it away forcefully from the driver and conductor who were sleeping in it. PW-2 Bhura Singh has also deposed that he got FIR registered regarding this incident on 19.12.1996 and that he found one truck State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.10/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:32:32 +0530 loaded with iron scraps bearing registration no. HR-38BG-0103 on 29.09.1999 which he identified to be the same truck as was stolen. However, upon checking the chasis number of the truck, he found the same to be deleted/erased by a person through grinder and consequently, he informed police officials regarding the same who recorded his statement (Ex. PW2/A) and also seized the truck vide seizure memo (Ex. PW2/B). PW-2 Bhura Singh was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons Khubi Ram, Sahab Singh & Sarabjeet Singh and discharged.
(iii) PW-3 Surender Singh, who has deposed that he purchased truck bearing no. HR-38BG-0103 in 1998 which was in the name of Gyan Singh for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- after checking the engine number and chasis number of the same from its RC. PW-3 Surender Singh has also deposed that in September 1999, truck bearing no. HR-38BG-0103 was caught by officials of crime branch and he gave ownership documents of the truck to the police which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW3/A). PW-3 Surender Singh has also deposed that he did not make any changes in the truck . PW-3 Sh. Surender Singh also deposed that truck bearing registration no. HR-38BG-0103 was financed from Kartar Leasing for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for which cheque was prepared in the name of Sh. Baldev Singh. PW-3 Sh. Surender Singh further deposed that he was cheated by accused Gyan Singh, Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh and was not aware that chasis number of the above said truck was changed by them.
PW-3 Surender Singh was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.11/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:32:39 +0530 accused persons Sarabjeet Singh, Sahab Singh and Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(iv) PW-4 Vijender Singh, who has deposed that he is the registered owner of vehcile bearing number DIG-6488 which was purchased by him in 1988 and given to Bhura Singh and Asudha Singh for possession on contractual basis in 1991. PW-4 Vijender Singh has further deposed that the above stated truck was stolen in 1999 from the possession of Bhura Singh and Asudha Singh which was recovered later by the officials of PS Lodhi Road with a forged registration number HR-38BG-0103. PW-4 Vijender Singh was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons Sahab Singh, Sharabjeet Singh and Khubi Ram despite opportunity and hence discharged.
(v) PW-5 ASI Rajesh, who has deposed that on receipt of rukka on 01.12.1999, he registered the present FIR and made endorsement on rukka (Ex. PW5/A). PW-5 ASI Rajesh was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons Sahib Singh and Sarabjeet Singh. However, PW-5 ASI Rajesh was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(vi) PW-6 Sh. Ramsukh, who has deposed that record of cheque bearing number 74894 dated 07.02.1998 of Kartar Leasing Pvt. Ltd. has been destroyed. PW-6 Sh. Ramsukh was not cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons Sahib Singh, Sharabjeet Singh and by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(vii) PW-7 Sh. Virender Kumar, UDC, who has deposed that record of State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.12/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:32:48 +0530 1997 is not traceable and hence temporary registration number MLO/HQ/TRL/DL1/TEMP/F-2605 dated 29.09.1997 could not be verified. PW-7 Sh. Virender Kumar was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons Sahib Singh, Sarabjeet Singh and by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(viii) PW-8 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, MLO, Headquarters, had deposed that as per report of MLO, vehicle bearing registration no.
DIG-6588 was initially registered with Kartar Motor Registration Authority vide temporary registration no. HNL-5104/8 dated 13.07.1988 which was later registered with Rajpur Authority vide registration no. DIG-6488 in the name of Sh. Vijender Singh on 05.08.1988. PW-8 Sh. Rajesh Kumar has exhibited temporary registration certificate as Ex.PW8/A (OSR), photocopy of Form E as Ex.PW8/B (OSR) photocopy of sale letter as Ex.PW8/C (OSR) and photocopy of Form F as Ex.PW8/D (OSR). PW-8 Sh. Rajesh Kumar was not cross- examined by counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(ix) PW-9 Sh. S. K. Mishra, Sr. Manager, Vehicle Sales, TATA Motors Ltd. who identified the hand writing of Sh. P. K. Mishra on letter bearing no. MISC/VST/951/99-2000 (Ex.PW9/A). PW-8 Sh. S. K. Mishra was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and was not cross- examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.13/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:32:55 +0530
(x) PW-10 Sh. R. K. Jadhav, AGM, Auto Dispatch, TATA Motors had deposed that on 05.04.2000, he wrote a letter bearing no.
AVS/INQ/002 dated 05.04.2000 to Anti Homicide Section of Crime Branch for verification of chasis no. 364052844009 (Ex.PW10/A). PW-10 Sh. R. K. Jadhav was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xi) PW-11 Sh. U.P. Singh, Regional Sales Officer, TML Distribution Co. Ltd, Dappar, Punjab, who has deposed that as per letter (Ex.PW11/A), vehicle bearing chasis no. 364052844009 pertains to the year 1986-87 and it was not possible to check the record of the same. PW-11 Sh. U. P. Singh has further in his deposition identified signature of Rajiv Kher in letter dated 30.01.1999 regarding verification of the above stated chasis number (Ex.PW11/B). It was also deposed by PW-11 that as per reply of Sh. Rajiv Kher vehicle bearing chasis number 364052844009 was sold to Sh. Bijender Singh vide Telco Invoice number 538 dated 31.05.1988. PW-11 Sh. U.P. Singh, Regional Sales Officer, was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjit Singh and was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xii) PW-12 Sh. Jogender Singh, Medical Record Clerk, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi who has deposed that he could not identify the signature of Casualty Medical Officer on CX32834 dated 17.10.2000 and CX339308 dated 19.10.2000 (Mark A-1). PW-12 State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.14/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:33:01 +0530 Sh. Jogender Singh, however, identified signature of Dr. Anshu Aggrawal on MLC No. 88931 dated 13.11.2000 of patient Gyan Singh (Ex.PW12/A). PW-12 Sh. Jogender Singh was not cross- examined by counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xiii) PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh who had deposed that his younger brother late Sh. Randhir Singh used to work as a mechanic at Lucky Body Builder at BA-62, Mangolpuri Industrial Area and used to repair parts of vehicles like engine, etc. PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh has also deposed his brother Sh. Randhir Singh expired in June/July 1997 and that he does not know anything else about the present case. Thereafter, PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh was cross-
examined at length by Ld. APP for the state despite which nothing incriminating was deposed in testimony PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh. PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjit Singh and was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xiv) It is to be noted that on account of typographical error, PW14 was examined as PW15 Sh. Kawaljeet, whose testimony is as follows.
(xv) PW-15 Sh. Kawaljeet who had deposed that his finance company, Kartar Leasing Finance Ltd., financed truck bearing no. HR-38BG- 0103 on 07.02.1998 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to Sh. Surender Kumar Singh for which Sh. Baldev Singh stood as surety. PW-15 Sh. Kawaljeet exhibited original documents of hypothecation and photocopies of the same as Ex.PW15/A State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.15/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:33:08 +0530 (colly). PW-15 Sh. Kawaljeet Singh was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xvi) PW-16 Dr. Rajender Singh, Director CFSL, CBI, Delhi who had deposed that on 27.12.1999, he examined truck TATA 1210 for genuineness of its engine and chasis number and found that the chasis number was not genuine which is stated in his detailed report dated 27.12.1999 (Ex.PW16/A). PW-16 Sh. Dr. Rajender Singh was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and was not cross-examined by other accused persons despite opportunity. However, PW-16 was thereafter re-examined by Ld. APP for the State and was then discharged.
(xvii) PW-17 Sh. Dharampal, Assistant RTO office, Kaithal, Haryana had deposed that as per the report of Secretary, RTO office, Faridabad, the documents of vehicle bearing no. HR-38BG-0103 were destroyed in a fire on 11.05.2002 regarding which report was registered at PS Sector 07, Faridabad (Ex.PW17/B). PW-17 Sh. Dharampal was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite opportunity and was hence discharged. (xviii) PW-18 ASI Lalu Uraon had deposed that on 29.09.1999, ASI Sajjan Singh deposited one truck bearing no. HR-38BG-0103 regarding which PW-18 ASI Lalu Uraon made relevant entry in register no. 19 (Ex.PW18/A (OSR). PW-18 ASI Laly Uraon was not cross-examined by accused persons despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.16/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:33:16 +0530 (xix) PW-19 Sh. Dharam Pal Singh Yadav, Retd. SDM, who has deposed that vehicle bearing number HR-38BG-0103 was inspected by Motor Vehicle Inspector although he does not remember the name of Motor Vehicle Inspector at that time.
PW-19 Sh. Dharam Pal Singh Yadav was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and was also cross-examined by counsel for accused Khubi Ram and was thereafter hence discharged. (xx) PW-20 Sh. Srikant Mishra, MLO, Vasant Vihar Authority, who has deposed that the temporary registration certificate of vehicle number DL-1TF-2605 dated 29.09.1997 does not bear his signature (Mark B). PW-20 Sh. Srikant Mishra who further deposed that the original of the abovesaid temporary registration certificate is not available as the documents were destroyed after one year at the office of MLO, Headquarters, Civil Lines, Delhi. PW-20 Sh. Srikant Mishra was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjit Singh and was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was thereafter discharged. (xxi) PW-21 Sh. Kamal Kishor, Assistant Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Rajouri Garden who has tendered certified copy of account opening form of account number 18400 (Ex.PW20/A) as well as account statement of the same account for the period between 01.01.2007 and 29.02.2016 (Ex.PW20/C). PW-21 Sh. Kamal Kishor was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and also by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.17/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:33:23 +0530 discharged.
(xxii) PW-22 Sh. Ramesh Chand Verma, who has deposed that temporary registration certificate of vehicle DL-1TF-2605 (Mark 22/A) bears his signature. PW-22 Sh. Ramesh Chand Verma was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and discharged and was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged. (xxiii) PW-23 Sh. Prawin Desai, MLO, HQ, Civil Lines, who has deposed that the documents of vehicle bearing temporary number were not available at his office when the IO inquired from him about the present case. PW-23 Sh. Prawin Desai was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh and was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged. (xxiv) PW-24 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Record Clerk Transport Department, Haryana, who tendered certified copy of joining document dated 14.08.1997 of accused Khubi Ram at Transport Department, Chandigarh, certified copy of joining on 15.04.1998 as work manager at Charkhi Dadari, Haryana Roadways, certified copies of promotion order of Khubi Ram dated 16.03.1998 (Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B, Ex.PW24/C and Ex.PW24/D). PW-24 Sh. Ravinder Kumar was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjeet as well as by counsel for accused Khubi Ram and was hence discharged. (xxv) PW-25 Sh. Gopal Chand, Administrative Officer, Branch Office, Mani Majra, Chandigardh, who in his deposition identified signatures of Senior Branch Manager Sanjeev Sood on State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.18/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:33:31 +0530 information with respect to insurance policy of vehicle bearing no. HR-38GB-0103 (Ex.PW25/B). It is further deposed that as per the above stated information, no claim has been paid on policy no.110301/31/21/11/7703 of vehicle bearing no. HR-38GB-0103. PW-25 Sh. Gopal Chand was not cross- examined by Ld. counsels for accused Saahab Singh, Sarabjeet Singh and Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xxvi) PW-26 ASI Rameshwar, who has deposed that on 29.09.1999, he was on patrolling duty with SI Sajjan Singh, HC Surender and Ct.
Nihal Singh in the area of Tura Mandi, Zakhira, when one person viz. Bhura Singh informed them that his truck bearing no. DIG-6488 which was stolen in 1996 is parked at Tura Mandi with registration no. HR-38BG-0103 and requested for seizure of that truck. It is further deposed by PW-26 ASI Rameshwar after inspection of the said truck, when the chasis of the same was found to be doubtful, IO SI Sajjan Singh seized the same u/s 102 Cr.PC. and deposited the same in the malkhana of PS Moti Nagar vide a seizure memo (already Ex.PW2/B). PW-26 ASI Rameshwar has also deposed that the abovesaid truck was released on superdari to Bijender Singh which was later on disposed by him. PW-26 ASI Rameshwar was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh and by counsel for accused Khubi Ram and was thereafter discharged.
(xxvii) PW-27 HC Sunil, who has deposed with respect to arrest of accused Sahab Singh and accused Gyan Singh vide requisite State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.19/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:33:39 +0530 arrest memos (Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/G respectively). PW-27 HC Sunil has further deposed that specimen signature of accused Sahab Singh and accused Gyan Singh were deposited at FSL on 16.11.2000. PW-27 HC Sunil was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh and by counsel for accused Khubi Ram and was thereafter discharged.
(xxviii) PW-28 HC Dinesh, who has deposed that on 19.02.2000, he alongwith SI Sajjan Singh went to Tura Mandi, Zakhira, Delhi where Gyan Singh handed over one affidavit relating to truck no. HR-38GB-0103, which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW28/A). PW-28 HC Dinesh was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh and by accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity given and was thereafter discharged.
(xxix) PW-29 HC Nihal Singh, who has deposed that on 29.09.1999 when he was posted at Anti-Homicide Section, Crime Branch as Constable, one person viz. Bhura Singh met him as well as SI Sajjan Singh, HC Rameshwar, Ct. Surender and stated that his stolen truck bearing no. HR-38GB-0103 is standing in the Zakhira Mandi. PW-29 HC Nihal Singh has further deposed that on the above stated information, he searched the truck and found that its engine number was grinded and was not legible consequent to which the said truck was seized u/s 102 Cr.PC vide seizure memo (Ex.PW2/B). Thereafter, PW-29 HC Nihan Singh on 01.12.1999 upon receipt of rukka from IO went to PS Moti Nagar and got FIR registered in the present matter, consequent to which on 03.12.1999 service book and other documents of stolen State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.20/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:33:45 +0530 truck bearing no. DIG-6488 handed over by complainant Bhura Singh were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW2/C). PW-29 HC Nihal Singh was cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for accused Sahab Singh, Sarabjeet Singh and Khubi Ram and was thereafter discharged.
(xxx) PW-30 HC Ram Niwas, who has deposed that on 30.09.1999 when he was posted at Anti-Homicide Section, Crime Branch as Constable, he went to Transport Authority, Faridabad to verify NOC of Truck no. HR-38GB-0103, which, however, could not be verified as the dealing clerk there stated that the NOC is misplaced. PW-30 HC Ram Niwas was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh and also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity given and was thereafter discharged.
(xxxi) PW-31 Inspector Ram Kishan, who has deposed that he arrested accused Sahab Singh, Chintamani Pandey, Kashmira Singh and Kallu in FIR no. 950/96 concerning theft of one truck bearing no.
DIG-6488. PW-31 Inspector Ram Kishan has further deposed that he was aware that accused Balbir Singh had fled away with the above said truck and that IO in the present case enquired the above said facts from him and also recorded his statement. PW-31 Inspector Ram Kishan was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh. However, PW-31 Inspector Ram Kishan was not cross- examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity given and was hence discharged. (xxxii) PW-32 SI Darshan Kumar, who has deposed that on 05.06.2002 State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.21/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:33:52 +0530 when he was posted at Crime Branch, F&C Section, Delhi as Head Constable, he arrested accused Khubi Ram vide arrest memo (Ex.PW32/B) and personally searched himvide personal search memo (Ex.PW32/C). PW-32 SI Darshan Kumar has further deposed that he also obtained specimen signature of accused Khubi Ram (Ex.PW32/D) and on 08.10.2002 accused Kuldeep Singh, who came to the office of Crime Branch, was also arrested and personally searched vide memos (Ex.PW32/E & Ex.PW32/F respectively) and his specimen signatures were also obtained (Ex.PW32/G-Colly.). PW-32 SI Darshan Kumar has also deposed that on 09.10.2002 accused Baldev Singh also came to the office of Crime Branch, whose disclosure statement was recorded vide memo (Ex.PW32/A). PW-32 SI Darshan Kumar was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xxxiii) PW-33 Inspector Sajjan Singh, who is the IO in the present matter, has deposed in detail that with respect to the investigation done by him in the present matter. PW-33 Inspector Sajjan Singh has tendered in evidence copy of DD no. 44B (Ex.PW33/A), information letter regarding seizure of the concerned vehicle to the court (Ex.PW33/B), reply received from RTO, Faridabad (Ex.PW33/C), tehrir on complaint of Sh. Bhura Singh (Ex.PW33/D), original affidavit seizued from Gyan Singh (Ex.PW33/E), report from Talco Authority, Jamshedpur (Ex.PW33/F), seizing memo with respect to photocopy of registration documents of truck bearing number HR-38BG-0103 State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.22/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:34:00 +0530 (Ex.PW33/G, reply of owner of Kartar Leasing Finance (Ex.PW33/H), verification report from PNB (Ex.PW33/I, intimation of arrest of accused Sahab Singh to his wife Satnam Kaur (Ex.PW33/J), personal search memo of accused Sahab Singh (Ex.PW33/K). PW-33 Inspector Sajjan Singh was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sarabjeet Singh and counsel for accused Khubi Ram and was thereafter discharged. (xxxiv) PW-34 Inspector Ramesh Lamba, who has deposed that he deposited the sealed envelope (given to him by IO SI Ved Prakash) at GEQD, Shimla on 15.03.2002 and gave receipt of the same to IO SI Ved Prakash on his return. PW-34 Inspector Ramesh Lamba was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sarabjeet Singh. However, PW-34 Inspector Ramesh Lamba was not cross-examined by accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity given and was thereafter discharged. (xxxv) PW-35 Ms. Deepa Verma, who has deposed that on 16.11.2000 when she was working as Sr. Scientific Officer (Documents) at FSL Lab, Delhi, he received exhibits in the present case FIR of which he gave his detailed report dated 21.03.2001 (Ex.PW35/A and already Ex.PW33/A and already Ex.PW27/D-1). PW-35 Ms. Deepa Verma was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Khubi Ram as well as by accused Sarabjeet Singh despite opportunity granted and was thereafter discharged. (xxxvi) PW-36 Sh. M. C. Meena, Retd. ACP, who has deposed that he conducted further investigation in the present matter when in November, 2000 the present case file was marked to him thereafter which he filed the present charge sheet on 29.11.2000.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.23/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:34:06 +0530 PW- 6 Sh. M. C. Meena was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sarabjeet Singh and by accused Khubi Ram and was hence discharged.
(xxxvii) PW-37 Sh. Harish Chandra, Sr. Material Assistant Legal Cell, CVD, Ministry of Defence, Delhi Cantt. Delhi, who identified the signature of Sh. A. P. Singh, CSO, OIC, Ex. Branch on documents Ex.PW37/A & Ex.PW37/B. PW-37 Harish Chandra was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sarabjeet Singh and Khubi Ram and was hence discharged.
5. It is noted that as per statement of accused recorded under Sec. 294 Cr.PC on 15.02.2020, 'Opinion of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Govt. of India, Shimla' was admitted by the accused as Ex X1.
6. Since all the prosecution witnesses were examinationed, at request of Ld. APP for the State, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was fixed for recording statement of the accused persons U/s.313 Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
7. In their examination under Section 313 CrPC., accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram denied the entire evidence put to them and opted not to lead DE. Therefore, DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.24/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:34:14 +0530
8. Final arguments advanced by Ld. Substitue APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused Khubi Ram as well as Ld. Counsel for accused Sarabjeet heard. Case file perused carefully.
9. It is argued by Ld. Substitute APP for State that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Sarabjeet and Khubi Ram and hence they be convicted for the offences alleged.
10. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused persons that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as there is nothing on record to show link of accused persons Sarabjeet and Khubi Ram with the offences alleged and hence, accused persons be acquitted.
11. In the present matter, accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram have been charged for the offences punishable under 420/468/471 IPC.
12. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the allegation that accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram alongwith other co-accused persons viz. Sahab Singh (proceedings already abated), Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh (already convicted vide plea bargaining order dated 18.08.2010) were involved in cheating by robbing truck bearing number DIG-6488 and in preparation of forged documents for registration of the above stated truck at Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number HR-38BG-0103 and thereafter selling the said truck to Surender Singh are hence are guilty of offences u/s 420/120B IPC and u/s State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.25/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:34:22 +0530 468/471 IPC.
13. The cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence which form the foundation of every criminal trial are that in every criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty.
Secondly, in every criminal trial, prosecution is duty bound to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and prosecution's case has to stand on its own legs. It cannot derive any benefit/ advantage whatsoever, from the weaknesses in the defence of the accused. Lastly, if there exist reasonable doubts in the prosecution's story, then such reasonable doubts entitle the accused to be acquitted from the case. It is apt to refer to the following observation of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of 'Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab' [1997 (3) Crime 55]:
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 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. Now, in the instant case, accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram have been put on trial for allegedly cheating after conspiring with other co-accused persons viz. Sahab Singh (proceedings already abated), Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh (already convicted upon plea bargaining vide order dated 18.08.2010) by robbing truck bearing no. DIG-6488 of complainant Bhura Singh and also tampering with its chasis number and engine number and forging documents for getting it registered with Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.26/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:34:31 +0530 HR-38BG-0103 in the name of accused Sarabjeet Singh. Allegations against the accused were thus of committing offences punishable under Sections 420/120B IPC and Section 468/471 IPC qua which charge against them was framed.
15. An overall assessment of the prosecution case, comprising the entire evidence brought on record, reveals the following points which have arisen for determination before this court. Whether accused Sahab Singh and accused Khubi Ram have in conspiracy with other co accused persons (Sahab Singh, Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh) cheated complainant Bhura Singh by robbing his truck bearing number DIG-6488 and have thereby committed offences punishable u/s 420/12B IPC?
Whether accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram in pursuant of the above stated conspiracy prepared forged documents to get truck bearing registration number DIG-6488 registered with Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number HR-38BG-0103 and have thereby committed offence punishable u/s 468 IPC?
Whether accused Sarabjeet Singh and Khubi Ram used as genuine forged documents knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be forged and thereby accused Sarabjeet Singh and Khubi Ram have committed offences punishable u/s 471 IPC?
16. In the ensuing analysis, I have dealt with analysis and conclusion with respect to guilt of accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.27/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:34:39 +0530 Ram with respect to each of the above stated sections invoked under IPC.
Charge qua offence under section 420/120B IPC
17. The allegations of attempt to cheat/deceive have been levelled against accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram in the present case. Accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram were accordingly charged under section 420 IPC. The term "cheating" has been defined under section 415 IPC and Section 420 IPC makes the offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto 7 years. All the relevant provisions with which the accused has been charged are reproduced as under:
"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".
"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 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
18. Further, in 'Samir Sahay @ Sameer Sahay vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Home', [Decided on 25 August, 2017], the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the law related to cheating observed:
"18. According to Section 415 IPC, the inducement must be fraudulent and dishonest which depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement. This Court had occasion State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.28/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:34:58 +0530 to consider Sections 415 and 420 IPC in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2000 (4) SCC
168. This Court after noticing the provisions of Section 415 and 420 IPC stated following in paragraph 14 and 22:
"14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived.
In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest."
19. In 'G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad', [2000 (3) SCC 693], this Court has held thus: (SCC pp. 69697, para 7) "7. As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently' induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional. As observed by this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575, a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating, 'mens rea' on the part of that person, must be established. It was also observed in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of W.B., AIR 1954 SC 724, that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered."
20. In the landmark judgment titled as'Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs Sudha Seetharam', [Decided on 15 February, 2019], the Hon'ble Apex Court enumerated the essential ingredients for proving the offence of cheating. It observed:
"15. i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415 &
ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to-
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.29/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:35:05 +0530
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
Cheating is thus an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420."
21. A meaningful reading of the law discussed in the afore-given decisions indicates that for proving the offence of cheating, there must be cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the act of cheating committed by the accused was backed by his intention to cheat. It must be established beyond doubts that the intention to cheat had existed from the very inception of the act. It must further be proved that the penultimate act committed by the cheated person, was solely the result of his deception by the accused and such penultimate act would not have been committed by him, had he not been so deceived by the accused. Thus, intention to cheat being the sine qua non must be established beyond all doubts by the prosecution for proving the offence of cheating, besides the actus reus constituting the offence.
22. Adverting now to the facts of the present case. For proving the offence of attempting to cheat against the accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram, prosecution has examined about 37 witnesses in its favour, out of which testimony of PW2 Bhura Singh and PW 33 Inspector Sajjan Singh are most crucial. All remaining witnesses are merely formal in nature.
23. From the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, it is very clear that no linkage between accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram and complainant Bhura Singh has been established qua truck bearing State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.30/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:35:12 +0530 no. DIG-6488. PW33 Inspector Sajjan Singh has very unequivocally admitted in his cross examination that he could not come across any evidence during investigation which would connect accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram to the present case. It has also been very unequivocally admitted by PW33 Inspector Sajjan Sing that even on the basis of FSL result filed on record, accused Sarabjeet Singh could not be connected to the present case.
24. Even for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the above said accused persons were involved in theft of the above said vehicle, it is very evident from the prosecution evidence on record, that there are no eye witnesses to the above said incident when on the intervening night of 11-12/12/1996, truck parked in Chand Nagar area, was allegedly forcefully taken away from the driver. Therefore, in my considered opinion, prosecution has failed to establish both the actus reus as well as the mens rea accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram to cheat.
25. In the present case, accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram have also been charged u/s 120B r/w section 420 IPC. It is settled proposition of law that for the offence u/s 120B of IPC i.e. for the purpose of conspiracy, there can be no direct evidence on record. Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120A of IPC which is being reproduced for ready reference:-
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, -(1) an illegal act, or (2)an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.31/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:35:20 +0530 Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation. - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
26. Thus, to prove the charge u/s 120B of IPC for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy, it is necessary to prove on record that there was an agreement to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. The prosecution is not required to prove that perpetrators agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act. Even the evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. Mere proof of such agreement is sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy. In such case the circumstances, when taken together on their face value, should indicate meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, committed by illegal means. A few bits here and there on which prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. Circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. No evidence oral or documentary has come forth in the trial which would prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram had conspired with other co accused persons to cheat Bhura Singh by State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.32/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date: 2026.02.16 16:35:29 +0530
robbing his truck bearing no DIG 6488 and thereafter forging documents to get it registered under another no HR-38BG-0103 and selling it to Surender Singh.
27. Therefore, in my considered opinion, since prosecution has been unsuccessful in establishing all the essential ingredients for proving the offence of cheating in furtherance of a conspiracy, accused Sarabjeet Singh and acused Khubi Ram are not found liable for the offences punishable under Section 420/120B IPC and are entitled to acquittal for the said offences.
Charge qua offence under section 468 IPC
28. Moving on, in the present case, accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram have also been charged with Section 468 IPC for committing the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating. The said provision is being reproduced, as under:
"468. 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."
29. The provision of Section 468 IPC penalizes any act of forgery committed by a person for cheating another person. But what constitutes 'forgery of a document' has been defined under Section 463 IPC. According to Section 463 IPC, 'Forgery' is constituted when a person makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intention to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.33/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:35:37 +0530 claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. The settled legal position is that when the above-mentioned ingredients are fulfilled, only then such person shall be said to have committed forgery and for proving offence against the accused, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution that the act of forgery or making of the false document was committed by the accused himself. Further, how can a false document/ electronic record be made has been enumerated under Section 464 IPC, which is reproduced as under:
"464. Making a false document-- [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-- First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, singed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.-- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.34/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:35:44 +0530
30. A close scrutiny of the above-mentioned provision further reveals that the proof of commission of 'forgery' by the accused himself is an essential pre-requisite/ ingredient for holding such person liable under Section 468 IPC. In the absence of the requisite proof having been brought on record and duly proved by prosecution, the accused cannot be held guilty of forgery. In the landmark judgment of'Md.
Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr.', [(2009) 8 SCC 751], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing about making of a false document, reiterated the relevant portion of the provision and observed:
"11.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."
31. Also in 'Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', [(2009) 15 SCC 643], Hon'ble Supreme Court, after analysing the facts of that case, came to observed:
"A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else."
32. In 'Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj', [Decided on 11 May, 2018], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 20 of the judgment referred to the decision in 'Dickins vs. Gill', [(1896) 2 QB 310], where the Court State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.35/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:35:54 +0530 was dealing with a case of fictitious stamps and observed "..an offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it." Going further, in para 25 of the said judgment of 'Sheila Sebastian' (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"25.Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery."
33. Thus, the legal position being unambiguously clear and it needs to be scrutinized whether prosecution has been able to prove the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating, against accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram or not.
34. If one is to scrutinize testimony of PW33 IO Inspector Sajjan Singh, it is observed that in his examination in chief he has deposed that truck bearing HR-38BG-0103 was initially registered in the name of accused Sarabjeet Singh and thereafter was transferred in favor of co accused Gyan Singh from whom it was ultimately transferred and registered in the name of Surender Singh. Surprisingly, during the course of his examination in chief, PW33 IO Inspector Sajjan Singh has also deposed that truck bearing HR-38VG-0103 was as per statement of Jagdish Singh@Tikka (commission agent) sold by Sahab Singh to Gyan Singh. The above said discrepancy in the testimomy of PW33 Inspector Sajjan Singh is crucial when one is to examine the role of accused Sarabjeet Singh qua the charges levelled against him in this case. Additionally, Jagdish Singh @ Tikka State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.36/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:36:02 +0530 (commission agent) on the basis of whose statement it was deposed by PW33 IO Inspector Sajjan Singh that truck bearing HR-38VG-0103 was sold by Sahab Singh to Gyan Singh has also not stepped into the witness box for reasons best known to the prosecution.
35. Be that as it may, there is also no documentary proof with respect to ownership of truck bearing no HR-38VG-0103 by accused Sarabjeet Singh at any point of time except affidavit (Ex PW33/E) of Sarabjeet Singh stating that he had sold the aforesaid truck to accused Gyan Singh. Further, even as per the FSL result dated 12.05.2003 (admitted by accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubiram under section 294 CrPC as Ex X-1), no opinion has been expressed with respect to writings on the above said affidavit.
36. There is no iota of evidence against accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubiram with respect to the charge of having committeed forgery of documents to get truck bearing no truck bearing no. DIG-6488 registered at Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number HR-38VG-0103. No documentary evidence has also produced to establish the offence of forgery by accused Sarabjeet and acused Khubi Ram . As per report of MLC Headquarter, Transport Department, Rajpur road, Delhi (Ex PW7/A), documents/ record of temporary registration of vehicle bearing no HR-38VG-0103 are not traceable. Secondly, even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram had forged documents to get truck bearing no truck bearing no. DIG-6488 registered at Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number HR-38VG-0103, not even a State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.37/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:36:12 +0530 single witness examined by prosecution has testified that the same were forged by accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram.Thus, in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence to prove beyond all doubts that the offence of forgery has been committed by the accused, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC. Accused Sarabjeet and acused Khubi Ram are thus entitled to be given benefit of doubt for the charge of committing forgery and is not found guilty for the offence under Section 468 IPC.
Charge qua offence under section 471 IPC
37. In the present matter, accused Sarabjeet and acused Khubi Ram have also been charged with Section 471 IPC. Section 471 IPC penalizes the act of using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. Section 471 IPC is reproduced as under:
"Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record]."
38. The term 'forged document' has been defined under Section 470 IPC as:
"A false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery is designated "a forged document or electronic record".
39. Prosecution's allegation is that accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram had forged documents and used the same as genuine for registration of the above truck bearing no HR-38BG-0103 at Faridabad Transport Authority and are hence are guilty of offences State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.38/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:36:21 +0530 u/s 471 IPC.
40. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that not even a single witness of prosecution has deposed that accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram had used forged documents knowing the same to be forged to get truck bearing no. DIG-6488 of complainant Bhura Singh registered at Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number HR-38VG-0103 after tampering with its chasis number and engine number.
41. There is no documentary or oral evidence to establish the offence of forgery or usage of forged documents as genuine with the knowledge of the same being forged by accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram. Hence prosecution has failed to establish the use of forged documents by accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram for getting truck bearing no. DIG-6488 registered at Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number HR-38VG-0103 after tampering with its chasis number and engine number and thereafter selling it to Surender Singh through co accused Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh. Accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram therefore cannot be convicted even for the offence of Section 471 IPC.
CONCLUSION
42. In the wake of an all-inclusive examination and analysis of the facts, circumstances and evidence led by prosecution in the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram for all the offences with which they were charged. Accused State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.39/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2026.02.16 16:36:28 +0530 Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram are therefore acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and Section 468/471 IPC.
Let digitally signed copy of this judgment be uploaded on the district court website.Digitally signed by
VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA Announced in open Court on 16.02.2026. AZAD AZAD Date: 2026.02.16 16:36:35 +0530 (VASUNDHARA AZAD) Chief Judicial Magistrate, West District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 16.02.2026 State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.40/40