Delhi District Court
State vs . Meera on 22 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Meera
FIR No. 66/13
U/s 420/468/471/201 IPC
P.S. G.K.1
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 276/2/14
Unique Identification No. : 02406R1002282004
Date of Institution : 26/06/2004
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 18/05/2015
Date of judgment : 21/05/2015
Name of the complainant : Sh. Brahma Chand
s/o Lt. Shri Khem Chand
r/o J13, Palika Lodhi
Colony, New Delhi.
FIR No. 66/2013
P.S. G.K.1 Page No.1 of 13
Date of the commission of offence : During year 2003
Name of accused : Kumari Meera
D/o Sh. Kali Ram
r/o House No. 44, Prem
Nagar, Subhash Market,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New
Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 420/468/471/201 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 420/468/471/201 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of Institution : 26/06/2004
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 18/05/2015
Date of judgment : 21/05/2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
Briefly the present FIR was registered upon the complaint of FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.2 of 13 complainant namely Brahma Chand upon his application moved U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C which was allowed on 31.03.2003. Complainant has stated in his complaint that the accused had committed the act of cheating, forgery and impersonation. Complainant had stated that accused who at the time of incident was pursuing B.Com Pass, First year, at Kamla Nehru College had procured forged documents by concealing the material facts and her date of birth and educational qualification, for her sole benefit and had taken admission in the National Open College and consequently also took admission at Delhi University. It was stated by complainant in his complaint that accused being a student in class four at MCD Primary School, Bapu park, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi vide admission roll number 2673 and was admitted to School on 20.07.1987 and as per the said school record the genuine date of birth of the accused was 15.06.1980 and i.e. when the accused with ulterior motive procured forged certificate and student registration cum migration dated 10.07.1984 from one Megha Nand, Inter College, Sarai Ghasi, Bulandsher, U.P. which was actually not issued from the aforesaid college. As per the forged migration certificate the date of birth of accused was stated to be 10.02.1977 and the registration number was shown as 4127. That complainant came to know about the aforesaid fact and thereafter investigated regarding the same with the principal of Megha Nand FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.3 of 13 Inter College and that found that the accused on the basis of the forged and bogus migration certificate had taken admission in National Open College and thereafter continued her studies and passed her senior secondary school examination in November 1999 and also her senior secondary school examination in October 20012002. Further that accused Meera got the same attested by a Government Doctor and produced the same before different authorities. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint FIR was registered.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 420/468/471/201 IPC to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. To prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses. PE was closed on 01.04.2015 and subsequently statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.04.2015. FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.4 of 13
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter.
PW 1 Satish Kumar, teacher at MCD Primary School, Bapu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur deposed that he had brought original admission register record. Further that the attested photocopy of the document relating to accused Meera was on record which was Ex. PW1/A and that he document Ex. PW1/A bears the signature of the then principal Smt. Krishna Kalidhar at point A. During the crossexamination, PW1 deposed that it was correct to state that the document Ex. PW1/A was prepared at the time of accused Meera.
PW2 Sh. Praveen Saini , assistant NIOS NOIDA deposed on behalf of Sh. S.K. Mishra, Regional Director that he was working as assistant in the office of regional director NIOS and was authorized to depose on behalf of Sh. S.K. Mishra, vide authority letter Ex. PW2/A and as per the direction of his officers he was deposing before the court that as per NIOS norms they used to keep the records of the candidates along with their documents for five years only and the rest of the record had to be destroyed. Further that accused Meera D/o Sh. Kalu Ram with roll number 271582295 was admitted in the year 1998 and that the admission form was not available in the regional FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.5 of 13 centre of NIOS.
Opportunity to crossexamine PW4 was granted to the accused but she did not question anything to PW2.
PW 3 Sh. Yogender Kumar principal Megha Nand inter college from sarai ghasi, Bulandsher, U.P. has deposed that he had came to depose on behalf of Sh. D.S. Rawal, who was the then principal of the aforesaid college in the year 2003 and they had left the college and his present whereabouts were not known. Further that he had brought the original record of the registration number 4127 and there college which was in the name of Sh. Rameshwar S/o Rajpal Singh R/o Chandrawali, Sarai Ghasi with date of birth as 25.08.1976. The photocopy of the same is Ex. PW3/A that the above said registration number was not in the name of accused Meera. Further that no transfer certificate was further issued from their college in the name of accused Meera.
Opportunity to crossexamine PW4 was granted to the accused but she did not question anything to PW3.
PW4 SI Rati Ram deposed that on 10.04.2003 he was posted at PS G.K.1 and was working as duty officer from 12 midnight to 08:00 AM and at about 12:05 AM upon receiving rukka from the SI Kulbir Singh present FIR was registered vide Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.6 of 13 Opportunity to crossexamine PW4 was granted to the accused but she did not question anything to PW4.
PW5 Inspector Kulbir Singh deposed that in the year 2003 he was posted at PS G.K.1 and upon receiving directions from the Ld. MM U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C he endorsed the complaint vide Ex. PW5/A and thereafter seized the photocopy and documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B from Sh. Deepal Singh and National Open School. The photocopy of the application form enrollment number 271582295 was marked A and was running into 02 pages and the photocopy of caste certificate was marked B. Transfer certificate was marked C and copy of the letter dated 12.11.2002 was marked D. As per version of the complainant document that was forged and therefore PW5 obtained a certificate copy of the original record and student having registration number 4127 from principal of M.N. Inter College, Bulandsher, U.P. The copy of the relevant record running into 04 pages was marked E. PW5 verified records of the accused from MCD Primary school at Bapu Park Kotla Mubarakpur, and had seized the certificate copy of admission register record which was marked vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/C. Further he had confirmed on the basis of record seized by him that accused had used forged documents in respect to her date of birth accused was formally arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/D and thereafter he examined the witnesses and filed the FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.7 of 13 charge sheet in the Court.
During his crossexamination PW5, stated that he had no knowledge if the accused was ever a student of Megha Nand Inter college at Bulandsher, UP and it was incorrect to state that document Mark E (transfer certificate) was not in the hand writing of the accused or that she had ever made or use the same.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 CrPC was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused for explanation.
6. Accused did not examine any witness in her defence.
7. Before appreciating the evidence, I would like to have a glance at relevant statutory provisions necessary for the disposal of this case.
As per Section 420 IPC :
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 FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.8 of 13 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.
As per 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.
As per Section 471 IPC:
Using as genuine a forged document--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record forged] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record forged], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record forged] As per Section 201 IPC:
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender : Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.9 of 13 he knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
If punishable with imprisonment for life and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to onefourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
8. Learned APP for the State had argued that all the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and all the witnesses in their testimonies have very clearly deposed that the accused in the present matter has committed cheating by forgery and in liable to be convicted for the offences alleged.
FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.10 of 13
9. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case since the prosecution did not examine the complainant in the present matter. He is further argued that none of the witnesses have corroborated the story of prosecution and the documents relied upon by the prosecution have not been proved. He is further argued that in the present matter accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant with the malafide intention and also the principal who had stated to the complainant regarding the false documents was never examined as a witness by the prosecution. He has further argued that in the present matter there are glaring contradictions in the testimony of all the witnesses, therefore accused is liable to be acquitted.
10. I have heard Learned Counsel for accused and Learned APP for the State and gone through the material available on record and has considered the testimony of various witnesses and gone through the evidence on record. I am of the considered view that in the present matter the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present matter, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses among which PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the witnesses who had brought the record but the same could not be proved to be either false or FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.11 of 13 forged by accused and even the maker of the same was never examined to establish the chain of events as none of the documents were sent to FSL for opinion. Further, PW4 and PW5 are formal witnesses. The star witness of prosecution, i.e. the complainant could not be examined as he had expired and therefore the alleged offence have not be proved by the prosecution. The witnesses examined by the prosecution could not corroborate the story of prosecution in material facts and the alleged offence of forgery, cheating or disappearance of evidence have not been proved.
11. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every FIR No. 66/2013 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.12 of 13 reasonable doubt.
12. On the basis of facts and circumstances, the charge against the accused does not stand proved. Accordingly, accused Kumari Meera, D/o Kali Ram, is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 420/468/471/201 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN)
on 21.05.2015 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:21.05.2015
FIR No. 66/2013
P.S. G.K.1 Page No.13 of 13