Delhi District Court
State vs Bhupender Chauhan on 6 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PANDEY, MM-06 (N)
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs Bhupender Chauhan
FIR No. : 345/2002
U/S : 506(II)/420/34 IPC
P.S. : Adarsh Nagar
JUDGMENT
a) CIS No. of the case : 5287962/2016
b) CNR number of the case : DLNT02-000157-2003
c) Date of institution of the case : 03.06.2003
d) Date of commission of offence : In the year 2000
e) Name of the complainant : Shri VP Aggarwal
f) Name & address of the : (1) Bhupender Singh Chauhan
Accused S/o Jagdish Chauhan R/o H.
No. 121A, First floor, Majlis
Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
(2) Rajbir Sharma S/o Sh.
Tularam Sharma
(3) Kishore Gandhi S/o Sh.
Mulkraj Gandhi R/o 13/1,
Ashok Nagar, Sonipat,
Haryana.
(4) Sumitra W/o Sh. Rajbir
Sharma
FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 1 of 16
(5) Smt. Mamta W/o Kishore
Gandhi R/o 13/1, Ashok
Nagar, Sonipat, Haryana.
f) Offence charged with : 506/420/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Arguments heard on : 30.04.2022
i) Final order : acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 06.05.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly stated, accused persons have been sent to face trial with the allegations that in the year 2000 within the jurisdiction of PS Adarsh Nagar, all the accused persons cheated the complainant/victim namely Shri VP Aggarwal on the pretext of selling agricultural land situated at village Alipur, Delhi which had already been been sold to one Smt. Lalita Aggarwal by accused Bhupender in the year 1999 of which property neither of you had any title by committing the offence u/s 420/34IPC and also you all threatened the complainant to cause his death to restrain him to approach the police from filing the complaint against you all and thus you all he committed the offence of 506(II)/34 IPC. Investigation was carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. A charge u/s 506(II)/420/34 IPC was framed against all accused persons on 11.10.2012 to which they pleaded not FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 2 of 16 guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined total of 11 witnesses and exhibited documents.
4. The testimony of the prosecution witness in brief is discussed here as follows:
5. PW-1 Sh. Jaswant Singh, stated on oath that he did not remember the date, month and year specifically but 17-18 years back. I had purchased land in village Alipur from Ved Park. I do not know remember the specific area but it was 4 bigha and few bisa today I do not remember the Khasra number. I had sold the same to Bhupender Singh. I do not remember the specific amount, but it was around Rs. 1- 1.5 lacs. I had registered the ownership paper in the name of Bhupender Singh. Sale deed was signed by Raj Pal and Om Prakash as witnesses and I and Bhupender Singh also signed the same. Copy of the sale deed is Ex.PW1/A which bears my signature at point A A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, and A7, Bhupender Singh is present in the Court today(correctly identified).
On cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons Bhupender Singh and Smt. Sashi, Jaswant Singh, he admitted that all the chain documents pertaining the aforesaid land was handed over to Bhupender Singh by him. He admitted that he handed over possession of the aforesaid land to Bhupender Singh. He admitted that the notice was served upon him by the police but he did not brought the same. He does not remember the specific date but almost17-18 years back, at the police station he was asked whether he FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 3 of 16 had sold the aforesaid land to Bhupender Singh or not. He had not given any written statement. He admitted that he had received full and final consideration from Sh. Bhupender Singh in regard aforesaid sale deed. Witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons Mamta, Kishore Gandhi, Rajbir sharma and Sumitra Sharma.
6. PW 2 Sh. Raj Pal stated on oath that he did not remember the specific date, month and year but incident pertains to year 1997-
98. Jaswant Singh who is resident of my village had sold his land about 4 bigha and few bisa to Bhupender Singh. He had signed the sale deed as witness. Copy of the same is already Ex.PW1/A bears his signature at point B. Om prakash also signed the aforesaid sale deed as witness. Bhupender Singh was present in the Court that day and correctly identified.
On cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons Bhupender Singh and Smt. Sashi, he admitted that all the chain documents pertaining the aforesaid land was handed over to Bhupender Singh by Jaswant Singh(Seller). He admitted that Jaswant Singh handed over possession of the aforesaid land to Bhupender Singh. He had not given any written statement. He admitted that Jaswant Singh had received full and final consideration from Sh. Bhupender Singh in regard aforesaid sale deed.
FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 4 of 16
7. PW 3 Shri Anil Khatri is posted at Sub Registrar Office, Pitampura as Junior Assistant since Feb 2018 till date. That day, he had brought the GPA executed by Sh. Bhupender Singh S/o Sh. Jagdish Chauhan in favour of Sh. Ved Prakash Aggarwal S/o Sh. Gian Chand Gupta registered vide registration no. 13299 in additional book
- 4 having volume no. 3859 on pages 189 to 190 registered on dt. 04.05.2001. The said GPA was Ex. PW3/A (OSR). He had also brought the deed of Will executed by Sh. Bhupender Singh S/o Sh. Jagdish Chauhan in favour of Sh. Ved Prakash Aggarwal S/o Sh. Gian Chand Gupta registered vide registration No. 15093 in additional Book - 3 having Volume No. 1600 on pages 80 registered on dt. 04.05.2001. The copy of the same is Ex.PW2/B (OSR). As per the record, both documents are regarding Khasra No. 102/23 (1-4), 24 (1-
4), 25(1-3), 109/2 MIN. (0-16), situated in the Revenue Estate of village Alipur, Delhi.
8. PW-4 Shri Om Prakash stated that he did remember regarding the facts of the case as the case is about 18-20 years old. He did not remember regarding the transactions taken place between the parties in his presence. The witness on application of Ld. APP was declared hostile.
On cross-examination by Ld. APP for the stated he stated that on sale deed dated 13.07.1998 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- taken place between Sh. Jaswant Singh and Bhpinder Singh along with his signatures on the same is shown to the witness who stated that he had FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 5 of 16 put his signatures on the said sale deed as witness and he correctly identified his signatures on the documents already Ex. PW1/A at point C. Bhupender Singh was present in the court that day, correctly identified by the witness. Witness was not cross-examined by defence counsel.
9. PW-5 Shri R. S. Beniwal an advocate n the year 2003, he was having his office at shop no. 16 R.U Market Pritampura. Document(photocopy) I.e, GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipts, possession letter executed by Bhupender Singh in favour of Ved Parkash Aggarwal were shown to witness and he was specifically asked whether the said document bears his signature and stamps to which witness replied in negative. He stated that he never gave any statement to any police official nor he was shown any documents. The witness was declared hostile on application and did not support the prosecution even in cross examination by Ld.APP.
10. PW-6 SI Harpal Singh is a formal witness of arrest of accused Bhupender. On cross-examination by the defence counsel he stated that they received the information regarding the presence of the accused after living the PS by the SI Ishwar Singh. They reached the spot of arrest of accused on foot from the place where we received the information. It took about only 5 minutes to reach the spot. The spot arrest the accused is residential area. Gurudwara was just adjacent to the place of arrest of accused. IO had asked 3-4 public persons to join the investigation but none had joined while stating there reasonable excuses. He denied that IO sited him as witness just FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 6 of 16 to fill the lacuna in the investigation. He denied that IO took his signature on difference papers while filling the challan in the present case. He denied that Bhupender Singh Chauhan was not arrested in my presence.
11. PW-7 Ex. HC Surender Singh is a formal witness wh registered the FIR Ex.PW7/A. The said witness was not cross- examined.
12. PW-8 W/HC Raj Bala is also a formal witness of arrest of accused Shaibala vide arrest memo Ex. PW5A bearing her signature at point A. He cannot tell who all were present at the house of accused at time of her arrest. He denied that he never visited the house of accused Shashi or that she was not arrested in his presence or that arrest memo was prepared later on and the same was got signed by the IO from him.
13. PW-9/Rt. ACP Sh. Bharat Singh stated that on 27.02.2003, he was posted at DIU/NW as inspector. On that day, the investigation of the present case was transferred to him. He carried out further investigation and during that he recorded that statement of six witnesses. On 13.03.2003, the case file was transferred to PS Adarsh Nagar therefore, he handed over the complete file to reader DIU/NW. Said witness was not cross examined by defence counsel.
14. PW-10 IO Retired SI Ishwar Singh stated that investigation FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 7 of 16 of the present case was transferred to him, he carried out further investigation and during that on 19.03.2003, the accused namely Bhupender Singh Chauhan was arrested by him vide arrest memo already Ex. PW6/A. His personal search was conducted vide body inspection memo Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Bhupender Singh Chauhan vide already Ex PW6/B. Thereafter, accused Bhupender singh Chauhan was produced before the court and two days PC remand was obtained. Thereafter, as per the disclosure statement of the accused his office at 9 Panchwati Adarsh Nagar was searched from where he had seized the visiting card in the name of Moonbeam (india) Associates on which the name of Bhupender Singh Chauhan R.B. Sharma and Kisore Gandhi ( all accused in the present case) were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at point A and the visiting card is now Ex. PW8/X1 (colly). Thereafter, accused was produced before the court from where he was sent to JC.
Thereafter, the accused Rajbir Sharma was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/C, Sumitra Sharma was formerly arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/D. On 30.04.2003, accused Kishore Gandhi surrendered before the court where he was arrested after interrogation vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/E. Accused Mamta was formerly arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/G. Thereafter, he visited the property in question situated in the Revenue Estate of village Alipur where he prepared site plan at the FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 8 of 16 instance of Ilaka Patwari, the site plan is now Ex. PW8/H and recorded the statement of witness in this regard. Thereafter, he seized the photograph vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/I. After perusal of the documents it was found out that the property in question was registered in the name of Lalita Aggarwal and her husband. Thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet and then filed the charge-sheet.
On cross-examination by defence counsel he admitted that no public witness was cited as attesting witness of arrest of accused Bhupender Singh Chauhan. He had recorded the statement of one of the officials at 9 Panchwati Adarsh Nagar and also cited him as a witness in the present case, however, he does not remember the name of the said official. He does not remember whether accused Rajbir Sharma was arrested at PS Adarsh Nagar or not, however, accused Sumitra Sharma was arrested in the PS. Accused Mamta was arrested formerly in PS Adarsh Nagar. Statement of Ilaka Patwari was recorded while preparing site plan. After that, witness was shown to the judicial file and witness was asked to point out the statement of Patwari. After perusing the file, the witness stated that instead the statement of Patwari, he recorded statement of assistant Sub-registrar, Alipur. However, the statement of assistant Sub-registrar was not available on record. He admitted that Ex. PW8/H does not bear signature of any other witness I.e, Patwari or any official from Sub-registrar. He denied that he had prepared all the ante dated documents in the police station under the direction FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 9 of 16 of SHO. He denied that he obtained the signature of accused persons on blank paper and converted them into statement of accused and other document to fill up lacuna of the present case. He further denied that he had arrested all the accused persons on the police station on the instruction of SHO or that he prepared the charge-sheet according to the instruction of the SHO to impelad the accused persons in the false and fabricate case.
15. PW-11/ACP Bhawan Singh is also a formal witness who got registered the present FIR through DO. Thereafter, on 06.12.2002, he arrested the accused Shashi from her house vide arrest memo already Ex. PW5/A. On 21.01.2003, the investigation of the present FIR from him was transferred to some other IO. On cross-examination by defence counsel he stated that he had made a departure entry while leaving the PS of to arrest accused Shashi. However, he do not remember the by which DD number he made the entry. He denied that no enquiry was made from him with regard to the arrest of accused Shashi. He denied that he never visited the house of accused that she was called in PS where she was made to sign some documents which was later converted into an incriminating evidence or that no complaint was forwarded to him.
16. Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
17. Statement of all accused persons namely Sumitra, Kishor Gandhi, Bhupender Singh Chauhan, Rajveer Sharma and Mamta were FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 10 of 16 recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 13.12.2021 wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to all the accused persons and they denied the same as incorrect and they stated that they are innocent.
18. Final Arguments heard on 30.04.2022. Case file perused.
19. Short point for determination before the court is as under -
"Whether in the year 2000 within the jurisdiction of PS Adarsh Nagar, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention has cheated the complainant/victim namely Ved Prakash Aggarwal on the pretext of selling agricultural land situated at Alipur, Delhi which was already sold to one lalita Aggarwal by accused Bhupender in the year 1999 and induced the complainant to give 2 lacs rupees as sale consideration for above and thereby they committed the offence of 420/34 IPC and whether the accused persons in furtherance of common intention threatened the complainant to cause his death and restrained him from approaching the police and thus committed offence u/s 506(II)/34 IPC or not?"
20. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that from the ocular and documentary evidence on record, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed the present offence of cheating and thus he submitted that accused persons be convicted of the offence charged.
FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 11 of 16
21. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Bhupender that the accused is completely innocent as he executed the GPA and the deed of will in favour of the complainant under the power of the same given by Lalita Aggarwal to the accused Bhupender in view of GPA Ex.A1 dated 02.02.2000.Also, it is alternatinvely argued that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any title document showing that Lalita Aggarwal was the owner of the property in question on date transfer of property in question by accused in favour of the complainant and accused has cheated the complainant. It is also argued by Ld. Counsel for remaining accused persons that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any oral or documentary evidence implicating them with the offence of cheating sought to be committed in furtherance of intention by accused Bhupender. At the end, submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted of the alleged offence.
22. I have heard the rival submissions and have also carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evidence led on behalf of the prosecution. My findings on the point for determination and brief reasons for the same are now being discussed in following paragraphs.
23. In present case, prosecution was first duty bound to prove FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 12 of 16 its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person.
24. In the present case, the testimony of the complainant who is the material witness has never been recorded as the complainant got expired during the trial and no LR's of the complainant was brought on record by the prosecution to prove its case.
25. The testimony of PW-1 Jaswant Singh corroborates the defence of the accused that he was owner of the property in question and the execution of GPA/deed of will Ex.PW3/B by him in favour of the complainant does not amount to any cheating. The PW-1 in his testimony has clearly stated that he transferred the property in question in favour of the accused Bhupender in year 1998 through sale deed and in cross-examination by the defence counsel he admitted that the chain documents of the said property were duly handed over to accused Bhupender by him. The said sale deed transferred by PW1 in favour of accused Bhupender is Ex.PW1/A whose genuineness is also supported by testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajpal who was the attesting witness to document ExPW1/A and stated on oath that the document Ex.PW1/A was executed in his presence by PW1 in favour of accused Bhupender. The testimony of the PW-1 and PW-2 goes on to prove that accused Bhupender was the owner of property in question.
26. The testimony of PW3 has discussed above pertains to the FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 13 of 16 genuineness of the GPA executed by the accused Bhupender in favour of complainant Ved Prakash Aggarwal which is Ex.PW3/A deed of will Ex. PW3/B and it is not disputed by either of the accused persons.
27. The prosecution was under burden to prove that accused Bhupender was not authorised to execute the GPA Ex.PW3/A and deed of will Ex.PW3/B in favour of complainant by showing that on said date Lalita Aggarwal was the real owner of the property in question. But the said witness Lalita Aggarwal who the complainant says was the real owner of the property in question and the accused Bhupender was not authorised to transfer the same in favour of the complainant was never examined by the prosecution. The said witness Lalita Aggarwal and her husband Kanhaiya Aggarwal were dropped from the list of witnesses by this court vide order dated 15.02.2020. The accused Bhupender produced GPA executed between and Lalita Aggarwal dated 02.02.2000 Ex. A considering which the witnesses Lalita Aggarwal was dropped from the prosecution list but the prosecution in these years had made no efforts to dispute title of the property in question in favour of the accused Bhupender by examining the witness Lalita Aggarwal or by bringing on record any title document in favour of Lalita Aggarwal executed by accused Bhupender in the year 1999 as alleged by the prosecution.
28. Ever if we ignore the document Ex.A1 since the same was FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 14 of 16 not subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, the material available on record on behalf of the prosecution that is the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the documents filed by the prosecution does not prove the case of the prosecution that the Lalita Aggarwal was the actual owner of the property in question. Further, from the perusal of the charge-sheet, a photocopy document dated 18.06.2002 showing some mutation in favour of Lalita Aggarwal in the year 1999 by Bhupender but the prosecution has failed to prove the said document by examining the concerned patwari. Also this court is in agreement with ld. Counsel of accused Bhupender that mutation perse do not create any title in favour of the person as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suman Vema Vs UOI.
29. Hence, the above-mentioned facts create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution and this court does not find any act of cheating being committed by accused Bhupender with the complainant as from the material available on record, the ownership of accused Bhupender on the date he transferred property in question to the complainant has no been disputed by prosecution. The chain of circumstances essential to prove guilt of accused stands incomplete. Apart from accused Bhupender nothing has been stated by prosecution witness against the other co-accused persons who faced the trial for so many years. Also, nothing has come on record regarding the threats given by accused persons to the FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 15 of 16 complainant.
30. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. The testimony of the IO/PW-10 is full of contradiction as discussed above. 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 persons.
31. Therefore, in view of the discussions made herein above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused persons namely 1.Bhupender Singh Chauhan, 2.Rajbir Sharma,
3.Kishore Gandhi, 4.Sumitra and 5.Smt. Mamta are stands acquitted for the offences under section 420/506(II)/34 IPC they have been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court (NEHA PANDEY)
on 06.05.2022 MM-06/North/Rohini
Delhi/06.05.2022
FIR No. 345/2002 PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Bhupender Chauhan etc page 16 of 16