Delhi District Court
State vs . Chander Prakash & Ors. on 1 February, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:ACMM-02
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. Chander Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/1992
New Case No. 289293/16
U/s : 420/468/471/120B IPC
P.S. : Bara Hindu Rao
Date of Institution : 06.01.1994
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 01.02.2019
Date of judgment : 01.02.2019
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 82/1992
2.Date of the Commission : During 1989-91
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : (1) Chander Prakash Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Bhishan Swaroop (Already
discharged vide order dated
20.10.2003)
(2) Murti Devi
W/o Sh. Chander Prakash Aggarwal
(Already discharged vide order
dated 20.10.2003)
(3) Rajender Prasad Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Shiv Lal Aggarwal
(Already discharged vide order
dated 20.10.2013)
(4) Manoj Naidu
S/o Sh. Madhav Ram Naidu
FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.1 /22
(Abated vide order dated
12.03.2004 )
4.Offence complained of : 420/468/471/120B IPC
5.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6.Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 07.11.1989 or around that period upto 19.01.1991, accused Chander Prakash, Murti Devi and Rajender Prasad Aggarwal (since discharged vide order dated 20.10.2003), entered into a conspiracy and forged documents pertaining to Plot No. 304, Sector-3, Pocket 9, Block B, Rohini, Delhi and used the above document i.e. agreement to sell, GPA etc for selling the same to H.C. Aggarwal and on 19.01.1991 while making false representation and executing documents wrongfully gain the sale consideration of Rs. 3,92,000/- and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 420/468/471/120-B of IPC. Accused Manoj Naidu (since expired vide order dated 12.03.2004) and Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar in conspiracy with Chander Prakash prepared forged documents, pertaining to plot no.304, Sector-3, Pocket-9, Block-B, Rohini, Delhi purported to having been sold by original allottee Chander Prakash in favour of accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 468/120-B of IPC.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charges of offences under section 468/120B of IPC were framed against the accused namely Gopal FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.2 /22 Bihari Lal Bhatnagar and the charge was duly explained to him in vernacular to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 28.04.2001. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses in total.
4. PW-1 Sh. Pardeep Kumar Kukreja deposed that on he was allotted a plot in pocket 3, Sector 16, Rohini and the said plot was sold by him through one property dealer Sh. Vijay Puri and regarding this case the police had met him around 1992 and had shown him the documents of plot No.35, Pocket S, Block A. He had told the police that those documents were not bearing his signatures and the signatures shown of himself and his wife were forged and the photo on the documents was also not of him. The GPA and other document Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/63 which do not bear his signatures. He further deposed that signatures shown in the name of Pardeep Kukreja are not of himself nor the signatures shown in the name of Shobha are of his wife and in fact he deposed that the name of his wife is Neelam Kukreja.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
5. PW-2 Sh. Hukam Chand Aggarwal deposed that in the year 1991 he had purchased one plot bearing No. 60, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi from Gupta Properties and this plot was purchased from Chander FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.3 /22 Parkash Aggarwal. At the time of sale, power of attorney, agreement, sale receipt, will etc were executed by Chander Parkash, Murti Devi and one Rajinder Pd. Aggarwal in his favour for a consideration of Rs.80,000/- and the payment was made to Chander Parkash. Earlier, the said plot was in the name of G.B.L. Bhatnagar who had purchased the same from Chander Parkash Minocha. From G.B.L. In the year 1992 a complaint was made to DCP Crime which is Ex.PW2/A, bearing his signatures at point A. He had produced the documents handed over to him by Chander Prakash Aggarwal to the police which were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/B, bearing his signatures at point A and the documents handed over to police are collectively Ex.PW2/C1 to Ex.PW2/C129.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
6. PW-3 W/SI Rajesh Sharma deposed that on 18.03.1992 she was posted at PS Bara Hindu Rao and was working as duty officer from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM. On that day on receipt of rukka from constable Ranjit of Crime Branch sent by SI Rajinder Bhatti, she recorded the formal FIR of this case and carbon copy of the same is Ex.PW3/A, bearing her signatures at point A. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
7. PW-4 Sh. Mukesh Goyal deposed that before 11/12 years ago the house search of Chander Parkash Aggarwal who was a tenant in their house no. 25/3883, Ragarpura, Karol Bagh and search was obtained in his presence and the documents i.e. one receipt and some FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.4 /22 documents regarding one car and one GPA etc were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/A, bearing his signatures at point A. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
8. PW-5 Ct. Ramkishan deposed that on 08.05.1992, he was posted in Crime Branch A&G Section and on that day specimen signatures of Chander Parkash were obtained on three leaves which is Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A3 and all the three leaves bear his signatures at point A. The signatures given by Sh. Chander Parkash without any pressure and similarly, the specimen signatures of Om Pal Singh were also obtained on three leaves which are Ex.PW5/B1 to Ex.PW5/B3, all three leaves bearing his signatures.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
9. PW-6 Ct. Saheb Singh deposed that on 27.06.1998 the IO SI Hari Ram had interrogated the accused Rajinder Prasad S/o Sh. Shiv Lal Yadav and Rajinder Prasad Aggarwal had given his specimen signatures on 6 leaves. The specimen signatures of Rajinder Prasad Aggarwal are Ex.PW6/A on 6 leaves collectively and the specimen signatures of accused Manoj Naidu were also obtained on 8 leaves which are collectively Ex.PW6/B, all bearing his signatures. The specimen signatures of Manoj Naidu and Vinod Minocha were also obtained on 4 leaves which are collectively Ex.PW6/C and specimen writing of Manoj Naidu and Rajinder Prasad Aggarwal were obtained on 4 leaves which are collectively Ex.PW6/D. The specimen handwriting of alphabet in FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.5 /22 English in small and Capital alphabet were also obtained on 4 leaves collectively Ex.PW6/E and the specimen handwriting of accused Manoj Naidu were also obtained collectively Ex.PW6/F on 3 leaves and the specimen writing of Manoj Naidu were also obtained on 5 leaves which are collectively Ex.PW6/G. He further deposed that the specimen handwriting of accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar which are collectively Ex.PW6/H on 18 leaves. He also deposed that signatures/writing of Gopal Bihari Bhatnagar were obtained on 29.06.1998 and disclosure statement of accused Manoj Naidu is Ex.PW6/J, which also bears his signatures.
This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
10. PW-7 Ct. Vijender deposed that on 26.06.1998, he was posted as constable in LBR Section of Crime Branch and he joined the investigation alongwith SI Hari Ram and in his presence, SI Hari Ram interrogated the accused Rajender Prasad Aggarwal (since discharged). During the interrogation, accused disclosed that he alongwith his brother in law Chander Parkash Aggarwal and his sister Murti Devi hatched a conspiracy and forged the documents of plot No.60, Pocket-IV, Sector
-16, Block-A, Rohini, Delhi. He further disclosed that he signed the receipt of Rs.80,000/- as executant and on that document, the photographs of some one else alongwith his sister was already affixed. He further deposed that these documents were prepared in connivance with one Manoj Naidu and GBL Bhatnagar. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused in his presence and the same is Ex.PW7/A, bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter he again joined the investigation of this FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.6 /22 case on 28.06.1998 and the body inspection memo of accused GBL Bhatnagar by IO in his presence was prepared which Ex.PW7/B, bearing his signatures at point A. These witnesses were not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
11. PW-8 Ct. Vinod Kumar deposed that on 28.06.1998, he was posted as constable in LBR Section, EOW Crime Branch and he joined investigation alongwith SI Hari Ram and constable Vijender. Accused Manoj Naidu made pointing out in his presence of house of one Chaudhary Lakhan situated at Vijay Vihar, Rithala and he told to IO that his friend namely Dr. Gopal Behari Bhatnagar used to reside as a tenant in the said house but he was not found there. IO prepared pointing out memo which is Ex.PW8/A in this regard, bearing his signatures at point X and thereafter accused Manoj Naidu led the police party at Balaji Hospital Pitampura, Delhi from where he got apprehended the accused namely Dr. Gopal Behari Bhatnagar upon pointing out memo which is Ex.PW8/B and both the accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D, both bearing his signatures at point A respectively and personal search of both accused persons were conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/F, both bearing his signatures at point X respectively.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite opportunity given.
12. PW-9 Sh. Vijay Kumar Taneja deposed that in the year between 1989-1991, one person namely Chander Parkash Minocha FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.7 /22 resident of Punjabi Bagh had requested him to sell his plot no.60, Pocket- A-4, Sector-16, Rohini and intimated the dealers in this regard. On 08.05.1992, he was called at Crime Branch office where some documents were shown to him wherein his name V.K. Taneja S/o Sh. Sh. M.L. Taneja r/o A-1/102, Paschim Vihar, Delhi were written and someone had signed on the abovesaid of his name and the same documents are ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A3. Police officials obtained his specimen signatures on the papers which are Ex.PW9/B-1 and Ex.PW9/B2 and also obtained his thumb impression which is Ex.PW3/C-1 to Ex.PW9/C-3. He deposed that he did not sign or thumb impression on any power of attorney executed in favour of accused or his associate. IO interrogated him and recorded his statement.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
13. PW-10 Sh. S.S. Nagar deposed that from the year 1987 to 1990, he was posted as UDC, DDA branch, Rohini, where he was posted in the branch for execution of lease Deed etc. he joined investigations of this case with the IO and IO had shown him the document which was copy of perpetual lease no. F-15(629)-84/LAB in the name of Chander Parkash S/o Late Sh. B.R. Minocha and Smt. Vinod Minocha wife of Sh. Chander Parkash, both resident of 43/44, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and carffuly gone through the said perpetual lease containing nine pages which is Ex.PW10/A. He had also seen signatures of Sh. O.P. Singh, Lease Administrative Officer and Sh. H.S. Siddique, Superintendent of their Department on on the same and H.S. Sidduque forged the said one. He deposed that he had seen them writing and signing during the course FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.8 /22 of their duties.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
14. PW-11 Sh. B.S. Sharma (inadvertently mentioned as PW10) deposed that in the year 1992, he was working as Joint Director Lease Administration branch DDA, Rohini and during investigation of this case, he received one letter from the IO wherein IO had asked for information in respect of plot No.060, Pocket-4, Sector-16 in Rohini. In response of letter of IO, he enclosed a photocopy of the lease deed by their office and also informed to the IO that Sh. Om Pal Singh and H.S. Siddiqui as on 22.04.1992 were posted in Housing Department DDA and also informed the IO that the positing of Chander Bhan Rathi JE may kindly be enquired from personal Branch-II of DDA. The reply dated 22.04.1992 given by him to IO is Ex.PW10/A, bearing his signatures at point A and attested copy of perpetual lease submitting alongwith reply is marked P10.
This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
15. PW-12 Dr. M.A. Ali (inadvertently mentioned as PW11) deposed that during the investigation their office received material submitted for the purpose of examination vide memo No.105 dated 21.10.1993 and also received material submitted for examination vide memo no. 110 dated. 01.11.1993 and vide memo no.322 dated 02.02.1999. The documents of the case have been examined by him carefully with the scientific aids and upon examination, he prepared FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.9 /22 detailed report alongwith the reasons for arriving at the such opinion. The report No.93-D-1960 dated 22.06.1994 is Ex.PW11/A which is in 3 sheets and each sheet bears his signatures at point A. Report bearing No. 93/D- 1991 dated 22.06.1994 is Ex.PW11/B, which is in 4 pages and each page bears his signatures at point A. His report dated 18.05.199 bearing no.99/D65 is Ex.PW11/C which is in two pages each page bears his signatures at point A (photocopy). The questioned documents are examined by him which bears his office stamp. He further deposed that he had also seen the sheets of ledger bearing no.S24 to S31 sent to him for examination purposes i.e. specimen handwriting of Chandera Prakash Aggarwal in 4 pages which is collectively Ex.PW11/D and specimen handwriting of Chandra Prakash having sheet no. S32 to S35 which is collectively Ex.PW11/E each page bears his official stamp. He had also seen sheets bearing No. S36 to S39 i.e. Specimen signature of Vinod Minocha which is collectively Ex.PW11/F each page bearing his officials stamp. He had also seen specimen signatures of Vijay Kumar bearing sheet No.S40 and S41 which are Ex.PW9/B1 and B2, the specimen signatures of S.H. Siddiqui on sheet no. S45 to S48 which are collectively Ex.PW11/G each page bears his official stamp.
This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
16. PW-13 Sh. Tarif Singh (inadvertently mentioned as PW12) deposed that he purchased the plot no. 60, Pocket A4, Sector 16, Rohini from Ajit Singh in the year 1990 who was residing at Village and Post office Badli and the said power of attorney was executed by Sh. Ajit Singh in his favour and same was purchased for a consideration of Rs.55,000/-
FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.10 /22and this payment was made to Sh. Ajit Singh by cheque bearing No.753080. Thereafter he started construction of the house and in the meantime some police officials came to his village alongwith original allottee of the said plot where he was residing and interrogated regarding purchasing of the above said plot. He deposed that he handed over photocopy of the documents of said plot i.e. perpetual lease mark A, GPA Mark B executed by Chander Prakash S/o late Sh. B.R. Manocha and Smt. Vinod Manocha w/o Sh. Chander Prakash, R/o 43/44, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in favour of Sh. Ajit Singh s/o Sh. Khazan Singh Yadav, special power of attorney executed by Chander Prakash and Vinod Manocha in favour of Ajit Singh is Mark C, one will which is executed at Delhi on 25.04.1989 by Sh. Chander Prakash S/o Sh. B.R. Manocha in favour of Ajit Singh Yadav which is Mark D and another will is executed at Delhi on 25.04.1989 by Smt. Vinod Manocha w/o Chander Prakash in favour of Ajit Singh. One receipt of sum of Rs.55,000/- for consideration of said plot from himself in favour of Ajit Singh Ex.PW12A and Ajit Singh executed power of attorney in his favour in respect of said plot. Original is in his possession and photocopy of same is Ex.PW12/B. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
17. PW-14 Sh. Nand Kishore (inadvertently mentioned as PW13) deposed that in the year 1991, he was working as property dealer and was operating from Sector-8 Rohini. During that period they had arranged a deal of property no. 60, A-4, Sector-16, Rohini. The plot in question has been sold by Chander Prakash Aggarwal and his wife Murti Devi to one HC Aggarwal. He stood the dealer on the side of the seller.
FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.11 /22The total sale consideration of the plot was agreed at Rs.3,92,000/-. However, it was decided that on the document that said consideration will be shown as Rs.80,000/- only. The construction agreement is Ex.PW13/A, running into two pages, agreement to sale is Ex.PW13/B, running into two page, rent agreement is Ex.PW13/C running into two pages, agreement to appoint arbitrator is Ex.PW13/D, and receipt Ex.PW13/E, all these documents bear his signatures at point A. One receipt purported to be written and signed by witness i.e. Nand Kishore which is Ex.PW13/F. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
18. PW-15 Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta (inadvertently mentioned as PW14) deposed that in the year 1991, he was working as property dealer and was operating from Sector-8 Rohini. During that period they had arranged a deal of property no. 60, A-4, Sector-16, Rohini. The plot in question has been sold by Chander Prakash Aggarwal and his wife Murti Devi to one H.C. Aggarwal. He stood the dealer on the side of the seller. The total sale consideration of the plot was agreed at Rs.3,92,000/-. However, it was decided that on the document that said consideration will be shown as Rs.80,000/- only. Initially purchaser gave Rs.1,000/- as a token money in the presence of himself and the dealer Nanad Kishore who stood the dealer on the side of the seller.
This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.12 /2219. PW-16 Sh. Om Pal Singh (inadvertently mentioned as PW15) deposed that on 26.11.1993, he was working as Deputy Director Enforcement in DDA and before that he was working as Lease Administrative officer at Vikas Sadan, C-Block. At the first instance the plot was allotted by land sale branch thereafter the papers pertaining to the plots are given to LAB after seeing the original plot was executed in favour of original allottee who produce documents for his/her originality. On that perpetual lease the signature was signed by dealing assistant, superintendent, allottee and wife of allottee and other two witnesses. On seeing the documents i.e. perpetual lease are executed available in the court record and this was not executed under his signatures.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
20. PW-17 Sh. R.K. Singhal (inadvertently mentioned as PW16) deposed that he was posted as Assistant at Land Sales Branch (Rohini) since April, 1986 approximately till August, 1989 and produced file No.F- 15(629) (8-4) plot No.60, Pocket No.4 Block No.A, Sector 16, Rohini to IO on his demand letter dated 31.07.1985 was not signed by him as he joined there in April, 1986. He prepared reminder letter dated 08.09.1987 regarding submission of documents for getting possession to Chander Prakash. Such letter was signed by Sh. N.C. Gupta, Assistant Director (Rohini) which is identified by him as he had worked with him during course of his tenure. The said letter is Ex.PW16/A bearing signature of Assistant Director (Rohini) at point A. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.13 /22 brevity.
21. PW-18 Sh. Anup Singh (inadvertently mentioned as PW17) deposed that he was posted as Record Keeper at the office of SR-II, Kashmere Gate, Delhi since 31.12.2015. He brought the summoned record i.e. Book 1 Vol. No.6063 for the year 1989 containing the original perpetual lease deed registered vide document no. 4766 from pages no.13 to 18 dated 25.04.1989 registered in the name of Chander Prakash S/o Lt. Sh. B.R. Minocha and Smt. Vinod Minocha W/o Chander Prakash, both residents of 43/44, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi which is Ex.PW17/A and book 1 vol. No. 5998 for the year 1989 containing the original conveyance deed registered vide document no. 2052 in additional book no.1 from pages no. 171-176 dated 21.02.1989 registered in the name of G.L. Malhotra S/o Lt. Sh. Dasu Ram resident C-2/D/21C, Pankha Road, New Delhi. Copy of the same is filed which is Ex.PW17/B. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
22. PW-19 Sh. Bijender Singh (inadvertently mentioned as PW18) deposed that he had produced the original record of plot bearing no. 60, Pocket-4, Block A, Sector-16, Rohini, Measuring 90 Sq. Mtrs. He had also brought the copy of the same which is Ex.PW18/A. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
23. As all witnesses were examined by the prosecution, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 15.12.2018. Statement FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.14 /22 of the accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 01.02.2019 and as no defence evidence was lead, matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on 01.02.2019.
24. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
25. It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar in conspiracy with co-accused Chander Prakash Aggarwal (already discharged vide order dated 20.10.2003) prepared forged documents pertaining to plot NO. 304, Sector-3, Pocket-9, Block- B, Rohini, Delhi and thus committed offence punishable under Section 468/120B of IPC.
26. In order to prove its case prosecution has sited 27 witnesses in total out of which 19 witnesses have been examined and the remaining witnesses were either dropped from the list of witnesses on account of their unavailability or could not be examined on account of their death.
27. In order to analyze the guilt of accused persons for commission of offence of forgery, it would be pertinent to understand the necessary ingredients of offence of 'Forgery' by referring to the relevant statutory provisions.
28. Offence of forgery is statutorily defined under Section 463 IPC. It is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.15 /22"Section 463 of IPC: Forgery- Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any 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, commits forgery."
29. Perusal of section 463 reveals that preparation of a false document is the foremost necessary ingredient for commission of the offence of forgery. False documents is statutorily defined under Section 464 IPC which is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"Section 464 of IPC: Making of false document- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- Firstly- 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 FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.16 /22 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, signed, 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 alteration."
30. Evidently accused cannot be convicted for the offence of forgery unless the prosecution is able to prove the preparation of false documents.
31. Now I move on to analyse the material available on record for FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.17 /22 commission of offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC.
32. The offence of criminal conspiracy is statutorily defined under Section 120A IPC. Section 120A IPC is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
Section 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 an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. "
33. The necessary ingredients required to bring home charge for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy is enlisted herein as under:-
(A) That there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire:
(B) That the agreement should be: (i) for doing of an illegal act, or (ii) for doing by illegal means an act which may not itself be illegal.
34. I accordingly propose to analyse the prosecution evidence with respect to the above said ingredients.
FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.18 /22(A) Agreement between parties The gist of the offence of conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. To constitute conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition. The existence of an unlawful agreement is the sine qua non for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy.
However, it is a settled proposition of law that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. Direct evidence for the offence of conspiracy is seldom forthcoming.
35. Coleridge, J. while summing up the case to the jury in R Vs Murphy (1873) 173 ER 502 states:
"...... although the common design is the root of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that these two parties came together and actually agreed in terms to have this common design and to pursue it by common means, and so to carry it into execution. This is not necessary, because in many cases of the most clearly established conspiracies there are no means of proving any such thing, and neither law nor common sense requires that it should be proved. If you find that these two persons pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part of an act, and the other another FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.19 /22 part of the same act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing, you will be at liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. The question you have to ask yourselves is, had they this common design, and did they pursue it by these common means- the design being unlawful?"
36. At the outset, it is clear that many of the material witnesses could not be examined by the prosecution to prove its case. Even otherwise, the testimony of remaining PWs who have been examined also did not incriminate accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar.
37. It is mainly alleged by the prosecution that accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar in conspiracy with other accused persons committed forgery. The forged documents were prepared in favour of original allottee Chander Prakash in conspiracy with accused Manoj Naidu (since expired) who was a property dealer and who was instrumentally forged the documents of the said plot No. 304, Sector-3, Block B, Rohini, Delhi thereafter sold to the complainant H.C. Aggarwal.
38. A perusal of the testimony material witness such as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 reveals that no allegations have been made against the accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar. The complainant also stated that at the time of sale Power of Attorney, Agreement to sell, Sale Receipt, Will etc. were executed by accused Chander Prakash, Murti Devi, Rajender FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.20 /22 Prasad Aggarwal (since discharged vide order dated 20.10.2003) in his favour. The complainant/PW-2 deposed only as regards Chander Prakash Aggarwal, Murti Devi, Rajender Prasad Aggarwal and he did not identify the accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar or deposed anything against the accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar.
39. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar had committed forgery in conspiracy with other co-accused persons. In this regard, prosecution merely obtained the disclosure statements of the accused persons who have since been discharged. The other formal witnesses who have been examined such as PW-12 Tarif Singh refused to identify the accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar. PW-14 Anand Prakash Gupta examined by the prosecution who was working as property dealer also did not make any allegations against accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar. PW-13 Nand Kishore Jain who was another property dealer stated that he never met accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar who was seeing him for the first time in the court.
40. Apart from this witness, the main witness such as PW Chander Prakash Minocha, Vinod Minocha, Ramdhari, Inderjeet Sharma, Mohan Prasad, Harish Chander, M.S. Chopra, H.S. Siddique, Ranvir Singh,, S.S. Nagar, B.P. Singh, R.K. Singhal and M.S. Mehta could not be examined on account of their unavailability or death.
41. Thus on the basis of above mentioned reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar in conspiracy with other accused persons have committed FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.21 /22 forgery of the documents of plot No. 304, Sector-3, Pocket-9, Block- B, Rohini, Delhi and thus I have no hesitation in holding that there is no iota of evidence against accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar in the instant matter to suggest that he was conspiring together or that he was forging any document and thus benefit of doubt is required to be given to the accused Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar.
42. It has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
"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."
43. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused namely Gopal Bihari Lal Bhatnagar is acquitted for the offence under Section 468/120B IPC for the charges levelled against them.
44. Ordered accordingly.
CHETNA Digitally signed by CHETNA
Announced in the open SINGH
SINGH
Date: 2019.02.04 16:25:51 +0530
Court on 01.02.2019
(Chetna Singh)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/01.02.2019 FIR No. 82/1992 State Vs Chander Praksh & Ors. PS: B.H. Rao Page No.22 /22