Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh Kumar on 31 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
DLSE020001442002
Cr. Case No. -: 90815/2016
FIR No. -: 121/2001
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 420/467/468/120-B/34 IPC
STATE
VS.
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
1. Name of Complainant :- Babu Ram S/o Lt. Sh.
Dalip Singh
2. Name of Accused Person :- 1) Rajesh Kumar S/o
Sh. Ramesh Chand,
2) Ramesh Chand S/o
Lt. Sh. Dalip Singh
&
3) Chhotey Lal S/o ANEEZA
Sh. Hari Kishan BISHNOI
3. Offence complained of or proved :- 420/467/468/120-B/ Digitally signed by
ANEEZA BISHNOI
Date: 2025.10.31
34 IPC 16:46:42 +0530
4. Plea of Accused Person :- Not guilty
5. Date of Commission of offence :- 18.10.1983
6. Date of Filing of case :- 21.02.2002
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 23.12.2024
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 31.10.2025
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 1 of 60
9. Final Order :- All accused persons
are AQUITTED
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 18.10.1983 at unknown time and place you all entered into the criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the complainant Sh. Babu Ram S/o Lt. Sh. Dali Singh and wrongful gain to yourselves by forging the Will of Lt Sh. Dalip Singh which is valuable security and also signatures of Lt. Sh. Dalip Singh on the said Will and thereby committed the offences punishable under section 420/467/468/120-B/34 IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Sarita Vihar.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal ANEEZA Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). Relevant record was collected. BISHNOI Digitally signed by Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:44 +0530 abovenamed Accused persons and chargesheet was presented in the court on 21.02.2002. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Accused persons were summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet were supplied to accused persons in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the Accused persons, charge under section 420/467/468/120-B/34 IPC was served upon against the Accused FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 2 of 60 persons on 16.03.2013. The Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the evidence against the Accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
5. PW-1/Sh. Babu Ram, he deposed that he was residing in the above said property since 1962. He and his father had purchased the said property in 1970 from Rajender Prasad. The certified copy of the same is Ex.PW-1/A. His father expired on 03.05.1986. His father had executed one will on 17.05.1981. The accused Ramesh Chand is his brother and he had separated in 1964 itself by taking his share. His brother Ramesh Chand had made criminal conspiracy with other accused Rajesh Kumar and Chhotey Lal and prepared a forged will dated 18.10.1983. The attested copy of the said forged will is Ex.PW-1/B and filed a probate proceeding before the court of Sh. R.C. Jain District Judge and the said probate proceedings was dismissed by ANEEZA BISHNOI the said court. The certified copy of said judgment is Ex.PW-1/C. He Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 had given a complaint to the police. His complaint is Ex.PW-1/D. He 16:46:38 +0530 also conducted the examination of Ex.PW-1/B through a private handwriting expert R.P. Singh and he had given his report that the said will were forged. The report of handwriting expert is Ex.PW-1/E. He also gave photocopies of documents of the will and opinion of the expert, sale deed pertaining to the said property and copy of order of Sh. R.C. Jain District Judge. Police arrested the accused persons.
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 3 of 60Accused persons who were present in the court (correctly identified by the witness).
He was cross-examined on behalf of accused No.2 and 3 on 13.08.2013 as per which PW-1 has stated that his father expired on 03.05.1986 and the initial dispute regarding the property was between his father and himself in 1975. The dispute was regarding the front portion of the said property and also the portion to be alloted to each person. His father was claiming 141 Sq. Yards out of 171 Sq. Yards. There was a litigation pending between PW-1 and his father. When his father expired and the case was settled before the court of Sh. R.S. Khanna between the parties involved. He and his father were the parties to the litigation regarding the said property and after the death of his father Vikrant Singh was made a party.
He does not remember whether he had filed Will dated 17.05.1981 alongwith his complaint. The said property was purchased by him and his father jointly in August, 1970. He has resided in the said property for 10 years till 1970 but did not prepare any ID proof.
ANEEZA He has further admitted that he cannot produce the Will dated BISHNOI Digitally signed by 17.05.1981 which his father had left in the favour of Vikrant. He does ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:42 +0530 remember whether any FIR was filed against him on 02.06.1985 in PS Hazarat Nizamuddin vide FIR no. 293. Initially he was residing as a tenant in the said property. The property was a lease hold property which was cancelled in 1980 but was restored in 2003. He has further admitted that he was not having original document at the time of seeking of opinion on documents as the same were not in his possession. There is another case pending between him and Rajender FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 4 of 60 Prasad Saini regarding the rectification deed. He has admitted that he is in possession of 55 Sq. Yards of the said property.
He was further cross-examined on 13.04.2015, in which he has admitted that he became owner of 30 Sq. Yards of the property as per sale deed and he had never challenged the sale deed Ex.PW1/A. He has further admitted that his father had filed a Civil Suit bearing CS No. 655/1975 seeking injunction against him. He was confronted with rectification deed dated 28.11.1983 and was asked that whether that rectification deed bears the signature of his father, to which he had replied in affirmative. He had denied the suggestion that he claims 50% share in the suit property only on the basis of this rectification. He was further confronted with the sale deed Ex.PW1/A wherein it is recorded that an amount of Rs.16,490/- was paid by Dilip Singh and Rs.3510/- by Baburam to which he stated that the amount was altered later on. He was confronted with an application dated 08.10.1986 Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC filed before the court of Sh. R.S. Khanna the Ld. Sub Judge Ex.PW1/A to which he has admitted. He was also confronted with another application dated 08.10.1986 filed by Suresh ANEEZA BISHNOI Chand on behalf of minor Vikran Singh Under O 32 Rule & CPC, to Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:39 +0530 which he has identified the signature of Suresh Chand. PW-1 stated that he does not remember whether the factum of other brothers and sisters being alive was brought to the notice of concerned Civil Court by him or Suresh Chand. He denied the suggestion that he in connivance with Suresh Chand did not bring the remaining legal heirs on record before the concerned Civil Court.
He has admitted in his cross-examination that Suresh Chand filed a Civil Suit for minor Vikrant against accused Ramesh Chand FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 5 of 60 wherein PW-1 appeared as an attorney of Suresh Chand. Vikrant had passed away in the year 2004. He has denied the suggestion that he is the attorney of all the legal heirs who were brought on record after the death of Vikrant Singh. He has admitted that accused Rajesh Kumar and Ramesh Chand have separately filed Civil suit for declaration qua the disputed property against him, Vikrant Singh and Suresh Chand. He has further admitted that he is appearing as an attorney of Vikrant Singh in an appeal preferred by Ramesh Chand against Vikran Singh which was pending in the court of Ms. Savita Rao (Ld. ADJ, THC).
He was further cross-examined on 30.05.2015 in which he has further stated that he did not file any suit against Suresh Chand and Omwati. He did not file any probate on the basis of Will dated 17.05.1981. The said original Will is not attached to the file of any pending case. He denied the suggestion that Dilip Singh did not execute any Will dated 17.05.1981.
PW-1 was further cross-examined on behalf of accused no.3 on 30.05.2015 in which he has admitted that he appeared as an attorney of ANEEZA Vikran Singh in the probate proceedings initiated by Rajesh Kumar. He BISHNOI Digitally signed by has further admitted that his father used to run a shop under the name ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:39 +0530 of Azad General Store at Jungpura, Central Road, Bhogal. The said shop is operational till today. He further stated that he can identify the signature of his father but when confronted with the original /carbon copy documents marked as Mark L, M and N. The witness could not identify those signatures. He was also confronted by the copy of GPA dated 01.08.2005 (Ex.PW1/D2) to which witness has admitted that the same was executed by Omwati in his favour. The share of Vikrant Singh is correctly mentioned in Will dated 17.05.1981 as 141 Sq.
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 6 of 60Yards. PW-1 and Vikrant Singh through his guardian Suresh Chand was party to the compromise dated 18.10.1986. He denied the suggestion that he had filed a false case against the accused as no Will was forged by the accused. He denied the suggestion that he does not have any claim over the disputed property for a portion more than 30 Sq. Yards.
PW-1 was further cross-examined on behalf of accused no.1 on 24.09.2015 in which he has stated that he had proved Will of 1981 in the court of Ld. Civil Judge in the year 1987 by examining himself and other attesting witnesses. The civil suit filed by PW-1 in the year 1987 was only against the accused Ramesh Chand, his brother and no other family member was made party to that case. He has admitted that he did not file any case particularly to prove the Will of 1981 but had filed a Civil Suit for possession against Ramesh Chand in the year 1987 and his those proceedings he proved the said Will. He has further admitted that he filed the complaint regarding the forged Will in 1983 in the year 2001 at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin. He has denied the suggestion that the complaint was motivated with a view to save himself from the ANEEZA BISHNOI foregery of another document to increase the area of the property in Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:38 +0530 dispute in his possession. He had not filed any application before the Ld. District Judge to obtain the original alleged forged Will for the investigation of FIR no. 121/01 and the same was filed by IO. It is wrong to suggest that he had filed a false and frivulous complaint only to implicate the accused Rajesh Kumar. He has further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-2/ Krishan Gopal deposed that he does not remember exact year and month but it releates to year 1987/1988, he was friends with FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 7 of 60 Ramesh for last about 40 years. Ramesh was a little upset those day. He came to his house and was carrying some papers. He told PW-2 that he intended to transfer a house, which was given to him by his father, to his son Rajesh. He requested PW-2 to sign on a document which PW-2 accordingly signed the same out of sheer friendship. PW-2 did not go through the document before signing as he was not that literate being 5th fail. At that time, Ramesh was alone and was not accompanied by Rajesh. To his memory, the said document was written in English. PW-2 was shown one Will (Ex.PW1/B) (certified copy) and PW-2 correctly identified his signatures at point X. PW-2 stated that when he signed the document, it did not bear signatures of any other person. After 2 to 3 years of the aforsaid incident, his relations with Ramesh became strained. He does not know anything else. He identified accused Ramesh and Rajesh who were present in the court.
In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused No.2 Ramesh Chand, PW2 deposed that he did not know any family member of Ramesh Chand. PW2 voluntarily deposed that he had ANEEZA BISHNOI friendship with Ramesh Chand. Ramesh Chand used to reside at Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:41 +0530 Jangpura Road (Mandir Marg), Bhogal, Delhi. PW2 identified the house where he used to reside. PW2 admitted that he used to reside near his house in Bhogal itself. Ramesh Chand used to visit PW2 at times. PW2 also used to visit his place. PW2 deposed that he knew Babu Ram. PW2 voluntarily deposed that Babu Ram is brother of Ramesh Chand. Both Babu Ram and Ramesh Chand used to reside in the same property. As far as PW2 remember, he last visited the house of Ramesh Chand about 25 years ago. PW2 admitted that Ramesh FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 8 of 60 Chand accompanied me to the engagement of his sister at Meera Pur, Mujafarnagar, UP. PW2 had good relation with Ramesh Chand till that time. She got married in the year 1989. PW2 admitted that during the ceremony, Ramesh Chand suffered burns as the petromax (Kerosine oil lamp) burst and that after initial treatment at the local hospital, he was shifted to Safdurjung Hospital where he remained admitted. PW2 deposed that he did not know the exact period for which he was admitted in the said hospital. PW2 admitted that he was shifted to Delhi by some other individuals and he remained busy with the ceremony. PW2 denied the suggestion that he never visited hospital to see the recovery of accused or to ask his well being. PW2 admitted that his relations with accused Ramesh Chand became strained after the aforesaid incident. PW2 denied the suggestion that because he or his family member refused to look after the accused after the aforesaid incident, a quarrel took place between his family and the family of accused. PW2 deposed that he did not know what all documents was accused Ramesh Chand carrying when he visited his house. PW2 denied the suggestion that that accused Rajesh used to take tuitions for ANEEZA BISHNOI his children. PW2 voluntarily deposed that his sister used to teach Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI children of PW2. PW2 denied the suggestion that because of this Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:47 +0530 reason, he used to come across and meet accused Rajesh. PW2 never met the father of accused Ramesh Chand. PW2 did not knew any Rajender Prasad. PW2 stayed at my Bhogal address since his birth till year 2006. To the best of his knowledge, accused Ramesh Chand was residing in the said property prior to year 1980. PW2 denied the suggestion that accused Ramesh Chand told PW2 that he intended to transfer a house which was given to him by his father, to his son FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 9 of 60 Rajesh and that accused Ramesh Chand never visited his house with some documents, as alleged and that Ramesh Chand visited PW2 with a request to accompany him to Tis Hazari Court to be a witness to will intended to be executed by his father and he accordingly accompanied him to the said court and that the said incident pertains to the year 1983. PW2 voluntarily deposed that he did not exactly remember the year of the said visit and it cannot be 1983. PW2 denied the suggestion that he visited Tis Hazari Court on 18.10.1983, with accused Ramesh Chand and that will Ex. PW1/B was got prepared by Sh. Dilip Singh at Tis Hazari Court in his presence and that Dilip Singh signed the said will after duly understanding the same in his presence prior to his signatures and that witness Kartar Singh also signed the said will in his presence. PW2 volunatarily deposed that he did not know Kartar Singh. PW2 denied the suggestion that there after witness Chote Lal signed the said will in his presence and that he put his signatures as witness number 3 lastly and that thereafter Dilip Singh got the will notorized in his presence. Ld. Defence counsel had confronted PW2 with certified copy of probate petition dated 28.09.1988, filed before ANEEZA BISHNOI then Ld. District Judge Delhi and asked him if it bears his signatures at Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI point A. After checking the same, PW2 admitted that the document Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:43 +0530 bears his signature at point A. The document is Ex.PW2/D1 (running into 11 pages) (colly). PW2 cannot recollect where did he sign this document. PW2 voluntarily deposed that but PW2 never visited Tis Hazari Court to sign this document. PW2 deposed that he did not know which document did he put his signatures upon. PW2 denied the suggestions that he signed Ex.PW2/D1 in Tis Hazari Court in the presence of accused Rajesh and Chote Lal. Babu Ram did not help FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 10 of 60 PW2 financially during marriage of his sister. PW2 denied the suggestion that that he deliberately denying his visit to Tis Hazari Court to sign the aforesaid documents and that he was made to understand the contents of will Ex.PW1/B and probate petition Ex.PW2/D1 before obtaining his signatures on the same and that he is deliberately and falsely denying my knowledge about the contents of both these documents. The police officials must have visited PW2 in the year 1990/91. He voluntarily deposed that he did not remember the exact year. They told PW2 that there was a case against PW2 and asked me to visit police station to make statement. They did not inform PW2 about the nature of the case. PW2 did not come across Babu Ram in connection with this case either in the police station or outside. PW2 had visited police station once and gave his statement in writing to police. No other statement was recorded by police either in police station or at his house. After confronting PW2 with his statement U/s 161 Cr.p.c and was asked if the same was in his hand writing. PW2 denied the statement to be in his own hand writing. The statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C was read over to PW2 by Ld. APP for the state on the ANEEZA BISHNOI request of Ld.defence counsel and he admitted the same to be his Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI statement. The statement is Ex.PW2/D2. PW2 did not remember Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:40 +0530 whether the statement given by him in writing and Ex.PW2/D2 was same. PW2 deposed that he did not remember where was statement Ex. PW2/D2 recorded. PW2 or his family member did not received any summons from any court in connection to the aforesaid probate petition. PW2 deposed that he knew Dilip Singh, father of accused Ramesh Chand and complainant. cannot identify his signatures and he had never seen him putting his signatures of any document. Ld. FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 11 of 60 Defence counsel confronted the witness with statement at point X on Ex.PW2/D where the factum of identification of signatures of Dilip Singh by him is recorded. Ld. Defence counsel confronted PW2 with statement at point y on Ex.PW2/D where it is recorded that the witness did not know Dilip Singh. Ld. Defence counsel confronted PW2 with statement at point Z to Z1 and Z2 to Z3 on Ex. PW2/D2. Witness denied having made this part of statement. PW2 denied the suggestion that his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C regarding visit of accused Ramesh Chand regarding obtaining of his signatures on a will regarding property No.48, Jangpura Road, Bhogal, Delhi which did not bear any other signature till that time, is false and that his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C regarding putting his signatures on the will out of mere friendship and non receipt of summons from any court, is false and that he was duly served the summons by the concerned court at Tis Hazari in probate proceedings and he deliberately did not appear before court. PW2 denied the suggestion that the fact that signatures of PW2 were obtained fraudulently is also false. PW2 was never threatened either by Babu Ram or his sons. PW2 denied the suggestion ANEEZA BISHNOI that he have deposed at the instance of Babu Ram as he intends to grab Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI the property. PW2 deposed that he did not know any Vikrant. PW2 Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:46 +0530 denied the suggestion that he had made false statement/deposition against accused Ramesh Chand and others owing to his strained relations with accused Ramesh Chand. PW2 never (till date or at any stage) filed any police complaint against Ramesh Chand for obtaining his signatures allegedly without disclosing contents of Ex.PW1/B. PW2 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. Ld. counsel for FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 12 of 60 accused Rajesh Kumar had adopted the cross examination on behalf of accused Rajesh Kumar as well.
7. PW-3/ SI Suraj Mal deposed that on 01.03.2001, he was posted at PS H.N.Din as DO from 04:00PM to 12 midnight. On that day, at about 04:10PM, he received a rukka brought by Inspector Gurucharan Das and on the basis of which he registered the present FIR No.121/2001. Thereafter, he handed a copy of FIR (Ex.PW3/A) to SI Praveen Kumar. He made endorsement on rukka (Ex.PW3/B)at point X to X1.
He was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given.
8. PW-4/ Inspector Praveen Kumar, he deposed that on 01.03.2001, he was posted at PS Harzrat nizamuddin as SI. On the same day case was marked to him after registration of FIR for investigation. On that day, he informally examined the complainant regarding the present case.
On 01.05.2001, he collected two pages of original Will, five ANEEZA BISHNOI pages of original sale deed, four pages of original lease deed from the Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:42 +0530 court of Sh. R.C.Jain, the then Ld. District Judge, Tis Hazari Court by prpared seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He sent these original documents to CFSL, Hyderabad for exper examination and received their opinion dated 15.11.2001.
On 23.11.2001, complainant produced 15 certifies copies statement of accused which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. On 24.11.2001, he alongwith Ct. Anil went to the house of accused Rajesh and Ramesh. PW-4 arrested and personally searched them vide FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 13 of 60 memo Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F. PW-4 recorded the statements u/s 161 Cr.PC of the witnesses of the case. He moved necessary application before court for initiating proceeding u/s 82 Cr.PC against accused Chhotey Lal as he could not be arrested. Before he could be declared PO, he filed chargesheet before the court. Accused Chhotey Lal surrendered before the court after filing of chargesheet. PW-4 arrested accused Chhotey Lal (Ex.PW4/G) and personally searched (Ex.PW4/H). He obtained one day PC remand of accused. He recorded disclosure statement of the accused (Ex.PW4/I). He prepared and filed supplementary chargesheet qua accused Chhotey Lal. All the three accused were present in the court that day and correctly identified by PW-4.
In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajesh Kumar, PW4 admitted that that he received the case after FIR was registered. PW4 admitted that he informally examine the complainant to know about the case and he did not examine any of the witnesses between 01.03.2001 and 01.05.2001 and he obtained certain documents or materials from the complainant upto 01.05.2001 against ANEEZA BISHNOI the seizure memo and he did not have the original documents like the Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:41 +0530 original will, original sale deed and original lease deed until he applied to the concerned Court of Ld. District Judge for releasing the original documents. This was based on the information derived out of the version of the complainant Babu Ram. As PW4 remember the documents were ordered to be released for a period of six months for him to return the same in the Court of the Ld. District Judge. PW4 deposed that he could not return the documents within stipulated time on account of expectation of the report of the CSFL, Hyderabad. An FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 14 of 60 application was moved by the accused no. 1 taking objection for his not filing the documents on time in the Court of La. District Judge. PW4 deposed that he had orally submit to the Ld. Judge and explain the reason for delay in submitting the documents on time and he cannot say whether he filed a written reply in this regard or not. Shown a document Ex.PW4/D1. PW4 admits this documents. PW4 deposed that he did not remember the reasons for the CFSL returning the documents without any opinion and he had not taken any permission to again send these documents back to the CFSL Hyderabad for opinion. PW4 denied the suggestion that these documents were mutilated, tampered or edited. PW4 deposed that the documents like original lease deed and sale deed were shown to the accused persons but they did not agree to the genuineness of these documents and he did not obtain any sample handwriting of any of the accused persons including signatures matching on the original will. PW4 denied the suggestion that he had purposely withheld making an application before the Ld. District Judge and that the accused no. 1 & 2 were arrested pursuant to the opinion of the CFSL dated 24.11.2001. PW4 deposed that he had ANEEZA BISHNOI arrested the accused persons on the basis of the opinion of the CFSL Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI and the other original documents as described above and he had seized Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:44 +0530 these documents (15 pages) as per seizure memo already Ex. PW4/B and he had not described these documents in the seizure memo but they are part of the record. In the complaint of the complainant Babu Ram, four living persons have been named as accused but only three were arrested and chargesheeted. PW4 deposed that he had examined Kishan Gopal but did not find anything worth to implicate him and he did not make any application or suggest about the same to make the FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 15 of 60 accused Kishan Gopal as an approval to depose as a prosecution witnesses. The Ex.PW2/D2 is the document that PW4 rely on the aspect of examination of Kishan Gopal. PW4 deposed that he is aware that the entire case relates to apportionment of property of Late Sh. Dalip Singh who is the father of the complainant and the accused no. 2 and he was not aware of any proceedings initiated by Late Sh. Dalip Singh against the complainant Babu Ram and he was not aware of any documents beyond what has been filed on record. During investigation proceedings only when the CFSL had returned the documents without any opinion PW4 had resent the documents after removing the objection, if any, made by CFSL. The report vide which the documents were returned by the CFSL would be on Police file. PW4 deposed that he can Show them from Police file. PW4 was shown the Police file to identify those documents. PW4 had pointed out to the application from the police vide which, he had resent the document to the CFSL after removing objections. Copy of same is placed on the Court file and is Ex.PW4/D2. PW4 deposed that he did not find the letter as received from CFSL returning the documents without opinion. PW4 denied the ANEEZA BISHNOI suggestion that the documents was not in a position to be examined Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI since the same was not capable of being so as it was covered in a Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:39 +0530 cellophone paper and the same was incapable being examined and that the said documents, the original will was tampered or edited in any manner as suggested or that the cellophine sheet was removed therefrom. PW4 deposed that he is aware that the complainant Babu Ram had got the original will examined by his private examiner and he did not examined that private examiner. The original document were sent through messenger for examination by the CFSL Hyderabed. He FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 16 of 60 did not examined one Rajender Pershad Saini whose name appears in the rectification deed that was appended to the complaint of the complainant. PW4 denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated all the accused persons in the present case and at his wisdom he had exonerated the accused Kishan Gopal. PW4 denied the suggestion that he had colluded with the complainant to choose the accused as also the witnesses and that there was no material to implicate the accused persons particularly when their sample handwriting was no obtained and there was nothing to bring them on book. PW4 deposed that he had brought the original documents from the Probate Court only and these were the only documents he had forwarded to the CFSL for examination on the basis that these documents were bearing admitted signatures of the deceased Dalip Singh and he did not make any attempt to obtain any other signatures of the deceased. There was no bank account brought to his notice of the deceased and he believed the complainant Babu Ram for the admitted signatures. To his knowledge, apart from two brothers that PW4 knew, there was one more brother of the complainant and he had no knowledge about the sisters. PW4 ANEEZA BISHNOI deposed that he did not take any statement of any other brother of the Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI complainant. After receipt of the CFSL report, PW4 implicated the Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:42 +0530 accused persons and initially arrested accused Rajesh Kumar and Ramesh Chand. Accused Chote Lal was arrested at a later point in time. PW4 denied the suggestion that he had arrested the accused persons only on the basis of the complainant's complaint and that as per CFSL report, there was material to implicate the accused persons. PW4 deposed that he did not examine Vikrant Singh who is alleged to be equal share holder of the property in question. am not aware if he FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 17 of 60 had called Suresh Kumar the father of Vikrant Singh for any statement and he did not examine any documents pertaining to any suit, petition or Appeal pending in any Courts between the complainant Babu Ram, Ramesh Chand, Rajesh Kumar or Vikrant Singh and he was aware of cases pending in various Courts between the aforesaid parties but he did not deem it necessary to obtain copies of any such documents for the purpose of investigation which pertained to the property in question. To his knowledge, one portion of the property in question is occupied by the complainant Babu Ram where as the remaining portion was occupied by accused no. 1 and 2. PW4 deposed that he had made inquiries with regard to the signatures of the deceased Dalip Singh about whether they were forged or not and he did not examine the owner of the property in question who executed the lease deed as also the sale deed of the year 1970 and he did no go into the aspect of legality and validity of the rectification deed which was produced by complainant Babu Ram alongwith the sale deed. PW4 denied the suggestion that that he helped and assisted complainant Babu Ram to grab property beyond what he was legally entitled to, i.e 30 Sq. yards ANEEZA BISHNOI and that Vikrant Singh was not the owner of the property and PW4 had Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI investigated the documents pertaining to forgery as regards the Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:46 +0530 property in question on the basis of the complaint as also the documents he obtained from the probate Court and that he did not do my duties properly to investigate this case in the manner it should have been and he had nothing to do with the Probate Case and he have no knowledge of the fact that the Appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. To his knowledge, the property in question which is owned by the complainant is occupied by the complainant and his FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 18 of 60 brother and his Son Rajesh Kumar. PW4 denied the suggestion that the complainant Babu Ram is not the owner of the entire property and that whatever has been stated by the complainant in the complaint as regards the ownership was never investigated by PW4. PW4 deposed that he cannot say that the original will produced by accused Rajesh Kumar before the probate Court is genuine and that on account of the said will, accused Rajesh Kumar becomes owner of 141 Sq. Yard of the property in question, or that Vikrant SIngh was the owner of any part of the property by virtue of any document. PW4 denied the suggestion that accused persons have falsely implicated in the present case and that he did not carry the investigation correctly to bring out the truth in this case.
Ld. Counsel for accused Ramesh Kumar had adopted the above said cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajesh Kumar.
Ld. Counsel for accused Chotte Lal. Had adopted the above said cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajesh ANEEZA Kumar. BISHNOI Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:43 +0530
9. PW-5/ Sh. Ghanshyam (Assistant to Mauza Clerk JJA), on 28.10.2017, he deposed that he had brought a report (Ex.PW5/A) stating that the case file bearing PC No. 13/2000, Goshwara No.105/D titled as Rajesh Kumar Vs. State has been sent to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in FAO No. 506/2000 titled Rajesh Kumar Vs. State & Anr. For actual hearing on 17.10.2016 and till date the same had not been received back by the record room, sessions, Tis Hazari Courts.
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 19 of 60He was not cross-examined on behalf of any accused despite opportunity given.
10. PW-6/ Sh. Narender Singh (retired Govt. Examiner of questioned documents), deposed that on 29.10.2001, he was posted as Deputy Govt. Examiner of questioned documents at Hyderabad. On that day, he received documents i.e. questioned Will of Mr. Dalip Singh dated 18.10.1983 containing disputed signatures of Dalip Singh as Q-1 and Q-2. The said Will contained disputed stamp impression as Q-3. He also received standard signatures of Mr. Dalip Singh on page-1,2,3,5&6 on lease deed dated 19.02.1972 as A1, A2, A3, A5 & A6. Page no.4 of abovesaid lease deed contained standard signature of Dalip Singh as A-4. Back side of page no.2 of abovesaid lease deed also contained standard signature of Dalip Singh as A-7. The abovesaid documents were forwarded by DCP SED, New Delhi, to Laboratory vide letter dated 22.10.2001. He carefully and thoroughly examined the abovesaid documents with the help of Scientific ANEEZA instruments and after examination, he expressed his opinion which is BISHNOI Digitally signed by Ex.PW6/A. The said opinion was forwarded to DCP concerned vide ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:39 +0530 letter dated 15.11.2001. He also forwarded his reasons for opinion which are Ex.PW6/B. Said reasons were also forwarded to DCP concerned vide letter dated 19.11.2001. As per his opinion, question signature did not match standard signatures of Dalip Singh.
In the cross examination of PW6 Sh. Narender Singh, he deposed that he is filing the photocopy of letter of requisition forwarded for examination from the office of Deputy Commissioner of FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 20 of 60 police on 22.10.2001 which is Ex-PW6/D1 (OSR). Prior to this, his office had received letter dated 15.05.2001 from the office of Deputy Commissioner of police seeking opinion with regard to the documents appended thereto. However, vide our office letter dated 24.07.2001 the documents were returned as it was not possible to accept the documents because the same were addressed to Director CFSL and GEQD, Hyderabad and also because the draft was not properly in favour of our department. Copies of the documents dated 15.05.2001 and 24.07.2001 are ExPW/D2 & ExPW6/D (OSR) respectively. PW6 deposed that he was shown the photocopies of the questioned documents as also the standard documents. However, the originals are not available on record. PW6 deposed that he was agreed that the lease deed is of the year 1972 while the Sale Deed is of the year 1970. There may be variations in the writing and signatures in the passage of time but there will not be difference in the signature and writing. PW6 did not receive any other standard or specimen sample signatures alongwith the abovesaid documents. As an expert, he is nobody to state that which document would be standard and admitted document and he ANEEZA BISHNOI would normally rely on the letters sent by police to be so. PW6 denied Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI the suggestion that the reasoning given in support of his opinion are Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:38 +0530 improbable and unbelievable and that his opinion in respect of the signatures of Dalip Singh on the questioned document namely the will is not correct and that the differences as given in his reasoning are not fundamental in nature and they are not due to intended disguise or natural variations or that when considered collectively they lead to the said opinion. PW6 deposed that he had also studied the evidence of tracing and flow on the signatures but he did not find any evidence FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 21 of 60 with respect to the same and he deposed that it is incorrect that the document in question was dilapidated or damaged condition which was not capable of examination. PW6 deposed that the opinion is dated 15.11.2001 and the same was dispatched vide covering letter dated 15/19.11.2001. PW6 denied the suggestion that his opinion was influenced on account of the copy of FIR appended alongwith the letter dated 15.05.2001.
Ld. Counsel for the accused Ramesh Chand had adopted the abovesaid cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1 and he did not want to ask any further question.
Ld. Counsel for the accused Chhote Lal had adopted the abovesaid cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1 and he did not want to ask any further question.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
11. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to ANEEZA allow the Accused persons to personally explain the incriminating BISHNOI Digitally signed by circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:46 +0530 Accused persons were recorded separately without oath on 18.05.2018 under section 313 CrPC in which they stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case only to encroach upon the and get the illegal possession of the property. They further stated that they wish to lead DE.
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 22 of 6012. DW1 Ramesh Chand, It has stated by DW1 Sh. Ramesh Chand in his cross-examination that Property no. 48, Jagpura Road, Bhogal, Delhi measuring 171 square yards was purchased by his father late Sh. Dalip Singh, S/o Late Lallu Singh from Rajender Prasad Saini, S/o Mam Chand Saini on 14.08.1970 through a registered Sale Deed out of which 30 square yards was purchased in the name of his brother Babu Ram and 141 square yards in the name of Sh. Dalip Singh. He has further stated that Babu Ram was residing as a tenant in this property as measuring 30 square yards before purchasing this property by his father and Babu Ram. His father was doing business in the name of Azad General Store at 5/7, Central Road, Bhogal. At the time of purchasing of property no. 48, Jangpura Road, Delhi his father was living at 37A, Bhagwan Nagar, Delhi.
He has further stated that his father had two wives namely Mohini Devi and Sohini Devi. From Mohini Devi his father had two children namely Naresh Chand and Ram Kishori and from Sohini Devi had eight children namely Babu Ram, Ramesh Chand, Suresh Chand, Om Prakash, Azad Singh, Urmila Devi, Leela Wati and Sushila Devi. ANEEZA BISHNOI Mohini Devi and Sohini Devi were two real sisters. His father started Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:43 +0530 construction in this property around year 1972 and 1973. Babu Ram was encroaching upon the portion of property of his father. The portion of Babu Ram as measuring 30 square yards which is towards Bhogal lane and the portion of his father had measuring 141 square yards is towards Jangpura Road. The entry to the portion of Babu Ram is from the side of Bhogal Lane and that of his father was from Jangpura Road. While his father started construction in his portion, Babu Ram had encroached upon approximately 30 square yards of his father's portion.
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 23 of 60His father objected to Babu Ram's encroachment over the portion of his property but he did not vacated the encroached area of approximately 30 square yards.
He has further stated that when half of the construction was complete in the year 1973, his father had sent his elder mother Mohini Devi to reside there in order to stop Babu Ram from further encroachment over his father's portion, his father had filed a civil suit before the court of Sub Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, bearing suit no. 655/75 which is already marked as mark A. His father himself was contesting the suit against Babu Ram, but around year 1984-85, he had executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother Suresh Chand in respect of contesting the suit on his behalf, but his father was cross examined in this suit in the year 1985. Suresh Chand was appearing as Attorney of his father in the suit. He was living with his father at 37A, Bhagwan Nagar when the property no. 48, Jangpura Road, Delhi was purchased by his father and Babu Ram. His father had called him to live in property no. 48, Jangpura Road, Delhi and he shifted to this property along with his family in the year 1977. ANEEZA BISHNOI Digitally signed by DW1 has further stated that in the month of mid October 1983, ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:42 +0530 his father expressed his desire to execute a Will in favour of his son Rajesh Kumar in front of his mother and had asked him to request Chote Lal and Krishan Gopal to consent to be a witness to the said Will. His father wanted to execute Will in respect of his property at 48, Jungpura Road, Bhogal On 18.11.1983, on the request of his father, He accompanied his father alongwith Krishan Gopal and Chote Lal and reached at Central FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 24 of 60 Hall, Tis Hazari Courts. Later on, Rajesh also reached there. His father got the Will typed from a Typist by dictating him. The typed Will was read to his father in presence of all of them. His father thereafter signed the Will dated 18.10.1983. Thereafter, the said Will was notarized by the Oath Commissioner. Again said, the said Will was also signed by the witnesses. After signing and attesting the Will, they all came back. This Will remained with his father. When they returned back and reached at 48, Jungpura Road, Bhogal, the said Will was handed over by his father to his mother Smt. Mohini Devi.
He has further stated that his father expired on 03.05.1986 at 37A, Bhagwan Nagar, Ashram. When his father expired, he was not aware that his father had filed any Suit for injunction against Babu Ram in which in later years Suresh Chand was appearing as Attorney of his father. They came to know regarding the suit of his father against Babu Ram only when a Suit for possession was filed by Babu Ram against him. Babu Ram had filed claiming possession of 30 Sq Yard from him. He further stated that in this suit, Babu Ram raised his claim of possession in respect of additional 30 Sq Yard on the basis of ANEEZA BISHNOI compromise arrived at between Suresh Chand Babu Ram in Civil Suit Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:38 +0530 filed by his father against Babu Ram. Secondly, no Rectification Deed was mentioned in the said Suit by the Babu Ram. DW1 again said, Babu Ram had also disclosed in that Suit that one Rectification Deed was also executed by Rajender Prasad Saini dated 28.11.1983 wherein it was claimed that property was sold by Rajender Prasad Saini to Late Sh. Dilip Singh and Babu Ram in equal proportions i.e., 50-50 in the Ratio of 85 Sq Yard Each. He further stated that without impleading any Legal Heir of Late Sh. Dilip Singh, Suresh Chand and Babu Ram FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 25 of 60 compromised the Suit dividing the property in the Ratio of 50-50 illegally Suresh Chand who had been appearing as a Attorney of his Father in the suit of his Father against Babu Ram, after the death of his father claimed that Late Sh. Dilip Singh had executed a Will in favour of his minor Son Vikrant Singh and appeared in that suit as Natural Guardian of Sh. Vikrant Singh and compromised in that Suit with Babu Ram without impleading the other Legal Heirs of Late Sh. Dilip Singh Babu Ram had filed a suit against him for possession in the year 1986 after the death of his father. DW1 received the summons in the said Suit in April 1987.
He further stated that in the year 1989, Vikrant Singh filed a suit for possession against DW1 and his son through his natural guardian. The said Suit was contested by Vikrant through Babu Ram as Babu Ram was his Attorney. Vikrant Singh never appeared in that Suit even after attaining majority. Vikrant Singh expired in the year 2004. DW1 did not know how he got expired. However, his death was reported to Police ANEEZA He further stated that in the year 2016, he came to know that BISHNOI Digitally signed by before his death said Vikrant Singh has sold his share to someone else. ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:37 +0530 He voluntarily stated that the Vikrant Singh sold the said property illegally. Babu Ram appeared as Attorney of legal heirs of Vikrant Singh after his death in the Suit filed by said Vikrant Singh against him. Vikrant Singh through Guardian and through Attorney had filed a Suit for possession in respect of 85 Sq Yard as claimed by him.
DW1 further stated that in the year 1988, his son had filed a Probate Petition on the basis of Will executed by his father to his son.
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 26 of 60The aforesaid Will was handed over to his son in the year 1988 by his mother Mohini Devi. Said Probate Petition was contested by him for Rajesh Kumar as his Attorney. The said petition was also signed by aforesaid Chote Lal and Krishan Gopal i.e., the witnesses to Will of his father at the time of filing of Probate petition. All Legal Heirs of Dilip Singh were made as Respondents. All respondents were duly served and appeared in the said Probate petition. Babu Ram had filed objections in the said Probate Petition. The said Probate petition having old no. 282/88 was dismissed by the Court of Sh. R. C. Jain the then Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts observing that the signatures on the Will in favour of Rajesh Kumar had not appeared to be Similar to that of Sale Deed, conveyance Deed produced by Babu Ram. Appeal was filed by Prajesh Kumar against the abovesaid Dismissal Order of Probate Petition. For the last three years, Rajesh Kumar himself has been prosecuted the Appeal in probate case before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Suit filed by Babu Ram against him and Rajesh Kumar and also the suit filed by Vikrant Singh through Natural Guardian through Attorney Babu Ram has been pending Appeal before the Court ANEEZA BISHNOI of Sh. Harish Kumar, Ld. ADJ. Tis Hazari Courts and another before Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Ms. Vandana Chauhan, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts in Appeals. One Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:45 +0530 Suit was filed by him for declaration against Babu Ram and Vikrant Singh & Others for declaration and another Suit was filed by Rajesh Kumar against Babu Ram and Vikrant Singh & Others for declaration which both suits has been pending appeal before the Court of Sh. Vishal Singh, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
DW1 further stated that in the year 1988, while attending the Marriage ceremonies of Sister of Krishan Gopal, who was his good FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 27 of 60 friend at that time, at Village Mirzpur Jansat, Muzaffar Nagar, U.P, he suffered severe burn injuries and he was shifted to hospital where at Krishan Gopal never came to meet him and take care of him for which there was quarrel took place between Krishan Gopal and DW1 family for not taking care off and bearing treatment expenses and thereafter, he became inimical to DW1 and Babu Ram thereafter took advantage of their inimical relations. DW1 stated that the Will dated 18.10.1983 is the genuine Will of his father bearing the signatures of his father and the signatures of the witnesses in his presence also. He stated that the case filed by the Babu Ram was a false case and from the documents Babu Ram had not right in the portion of property of his father. He stated that he alongwith his family was residing as on today in the portion of his father's property.
He has further stated that the Will claimed by Suresh Chand executed by his father in the year 1981 in favour of Vikrant Singh has not seen by him nor the same is produced before any Court in the Victiln Cases pending between us. He stated that the claim of Babu Ram and Vikrant Singh in the suits is illegal and wrong in respect of ANEEZA BISHNOI portion of property of my father Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:43 +0530 DW1 further stated that the prior to year 1977, he used to live with his father at 37 A, Bhagwan Nagar, Delhi. At that time, his brother Suresh Chand, Om Prakash, Azad Singh and his mother Sohini Devi used to reside at 37 A, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi. He shifted to 48, Jungpura road, Delhi alongwith his family. DW1 has voluntarily stated that he shifted at 48, Jungpura on request of his father. His father never stayed at 48, Jungpura, Delhi.
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 28 of 60DW1 further stated that his father selected his brother Suresh Chand as DW1 father's attorney in the suit between his father and his brother Babu Ram as his father was staying with his brother Suresh Chand and he was taken care of by him and his family. He has volunatrily stated that he also used to meet his father at Bhagwan Nagar. He stated that at the time when he started staying at 48, Jungpura road, Delhi his brother Babu Ram had already encroached upon 25-30 extra square yards by putting tin shades. He denied the suggestion that the Rectification Deed dated 28.11.1983 has been executed between Rajender Singh and his father. He also denied the suggestion that the Probate Petition filed by his son Rajesh Kumar through him was dismissed by the court of Sh. R. C. Jain on the comparison of disputed Will with original Sale Deed holding that the signatures of executant of the Will are different with that of signatures of Dalip Singh present on the Sale Deed dated 14.08.1970. He admitted that the Sale Deed dated 14.08.1970 was not witnessed by Chhote Lal, Kartar Singh and Krishan Gopal. He admitted that his father never stayed with my mother Mohini Devi after she started ANEEZA BISHNOI staying at 48, Jungpura Road. He voluntarily stated that his father Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI used to come to 48, Jungpura property and his mother Mohini Devi Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:44 +0530 used to cook his lunch everyday for him. He denied the suggestion that his father handed over any Will or other property documents to his mother Mohini Devi. He denied the suggestion that he was not constituted and appointed Attorney by his father in respect of case against Babu Ram filed by him for the reason that he was not keeping good relations with him. He denied the suggestion that he had gone or entered into property 48, Jungpura road of his own with his family. He FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 29 of 60 denied the suggestion that he entered into property no. 48, Jungpura road after 1981 of his own and against the Will of his father on coming to know regarding execution of Will by his father in the year 1981, in favour of son of Suresh Chand namely Vikrant Singh. He further stated that he never accompanied his father to the court regarding case filed by his father against Babu Ram. All the members of the family including Babu Ram was in knowledge of Will executed by his father in favour of his son Rajesh Kumar. He stated that he was not aware about any case between his father and brother Babu Ram in the year 1977, when he shifted in 48, Jungpura road, Delhi. He admitted that his father never discussed about any case between him and his brother Babu Ram. He used to take food for his father everyday at his shop at 5/7, Central Road, Bhogal, Delhi. All his relatives i.e. sons of his uncle and his sisters were aware of about the execution of Will prepared by his father in favour of his son. He has voluntarily stated that his sisters did not contest the Probate Petition filed by his son Rajesh. He denied the suggestion that the alleged Will was not witnessed by Krishan Gopal. He denied the suggestion that he had given correct statement ANEEZA BISHNOI regarding non witnessing of alleged Will by him. He denied he Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI suggestino that the Will executed in favour of Rajesh Kumar forged Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:40 +0530 and fabricated and the signatures are not in the writing of his father and it does not bear the signatures of witness namely Krishan Gopal and Kartar Singh. He admitted that his father had executed a general Will in the year 1981. He voluntarily stated that he had never seen the same nor filed by any of the parties in any of the cases pending amongst them. He denied the suggestion that no Will dated 18.10.1983 was executed by his father in favour of his son Rajesh Kumar. He FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 30 of 60 admitted that no Will dated 18.11.1983 was executed by his father in favour of his son Rajesh Kumar. He admitted that he came to know that Suresh Chand was the Attorney in the suit between his father and against Babu Ram filed by his father. He has further stated that he came to know about it after the death of his father in 1986. He denied the suggestion that he was aware about the suit between his father and his brother Babu Ram and he also Suresh Chand was appointed as Attorney by his father in the said suit. He further stated that he cannot say whether any of the other family members of his father was aware of the suit between his father and his brother Babu Ram regarding property no. 48, Jungpura road, Delhi. He admitted that at present 116 square yards out of 141 square yards is in his possession. His son Rajesh Kumar alongwith his family is also staying in the said 116 square yards. He denied the suggestion that he or his son are in wrongful possession of 116 square yards. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
ANEEZA
13. DW-2 Sh. Rajender Prasad Saini has deposed that Late Sh. Dilip BISHNOI Digitally signed by Singh was related to him as being uncle (chacha) of my mother, ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:45 +0530 because of this relationship, Dilip Singh was his Nana and Babu Ram was his Mama in relation. He further deposed that he was owner of property no.48, Jangpura Road, Bhogal, Delhi. He further deposed that the entire plot area of his property was 344 sq. yards and out of this 171 sq yards, he had sold 30 sq yards to Babu Ram and 141 sq. yards to Dilip Singh by Single registered Sale Deed on 11.08.1970 and was executed on 14.08.1970. He was shown certified copy of copy of the court record obtained from District & Session Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 31 of 60 to which he admitted to be the same Sale Deed which is already Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that if original sale deed shown to him his stand on the sale deed will be same as stated by him here. Original Sale deed is not on record. He further deposed that prior to execution of sale deed by him, Babu Ram was his tenant in respect of one room out of the protion of 30 sq yards sold to him by him later. He further deposed that Babu Ram was disowned by his father and was accommodated by him as a tenant but he was not paying rent on time to him and on demand of rent, he used to fight with him also and he did not pay the rent for two years to him. He further deposed that he had complained to his fahter also and for this reason this was agreed to be purchased by him in the proportion as stated above. He further deposed that he signed in his full name as "Rajendra Prasad Saini" as style of his signature. He further deposed that after the execution of the Sale Deed, he did not execute any document of any nature at any point of time. He further deposed that he had not executed Rectification Deed dated 28.11.1983. The witness was shown a copy of Rectification Deed dated 28.11.1983. After seeing this document, he ANEEZA BISHNOI denies having executed this document. He denies the signature Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI appearing on the copy of Rectification Deed. Copy of Rectification Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:40 +0530 Deed in the record file was Ex.DW2/A. The witness was shown signature on the Rectification Deed which he denied as his signatures at encircled points A1 to A7. He further deposed that he never appeared before Sub Registrar-III, New Delhi for execution of any such kind of document. He further deposed that if original of this document is shown to him, his stand will be same to this document. Original Recitification Deed is not on record. Witness was shown FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 32 of 60 Ex.P1, which is certified copy of record from filed of District & Session Judge, Tis Hazari, New Delhi. Original of the same not on record. Witness was shown the document Lease Deed dated 19.02.1972 which is already Ex.P-1. He deposed that he signatures encircled at points B1 to B5 on Ex.P1 are not his signatures. This is not even his style of signatures. Babu Ram and his counsel Sh. S.C. Vats had threatened him from deposing against them when he received a summon from the Civil Court. Witness was shown tow documents (photocopies) which are Ex.DW2/B and Ex.DW2/C. It is the letter head of the same Advocate who had threatened him. The contents also appears to be same but since he do not have original at present, he cannot confirm. He further deposed that he do not remember whether he initiated any proceedings in respect of the said threats. The witness was shown document i.e. copy of complaint dated 28.07.2005, which is Ex.DW2/D and the signatures at point a are signatures of him. On 12.11.2018, DW-2 was again recalled for examination in chief. Witness was shown certified true copy of his statement recorded in Suit No.887/2000 recorded on 04.07.2006. he admits having made this ANEEZA BISHNOI statement before the court of CCJB on 04.07.2006 in this suit. Witness Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI was shown his signatures/on the said statement to which he admits as Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:37 +0530 his signatures at point A and B. Certified copy of said statement is Ex.DW2/E. Witness was shown certified copy of his statement recorded in Suit No.699/2006 recorded on 26.04.2007. He admits having made this statement before the court of Civil Judge on 26.04.2007 in this suit. Witness is shown his signatures/on the said statement to which he admits as his signatures at point A. Certified copy of said statement is Ex.DW2/F. He further deposed that he can FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 33 of 60 identify the signature of Dilip Singh, if shown to him. Witness was shown Ex.PW1/A i.e. Sale Deed dated 17.08.1970. Witness identifies the signatures of Dalip Singh at point D on document Ex.PW1/A. Witness was shown Ex.PW1/B i.e. Will dated 18.10.1983. He would not be able to tell whether the signatures appearing at point X2 on Ex.PW1/B is of Sh. Dalip Singh as it was not signed before him. However, it appears to be the signatures of Dalip Singh. He further deposed that police never inquired from him in this case FIR regarding anything or any documents. He further deposed that because Dalip Singh was his Nana, so he used to meet him once or twice in a year. He further deposed that said Dalip Singh never discussed his family matters him as he was too young for him but he used to discuss with his father. He was cross examined by counsel for State. He deposed that he do not remember the year in which he have lent his property to Babu Ram. He further deposed that he did not lent the alleged property to said Babu Ram as at that point of time, he was minor and the same was lent to him by his father. He further deposed that he do not know whether said Daleep Singh had one wife or two wifes. He further ANEEZA BISHNOI deposed that he do not know how many children Daleep Singh had. Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI However, he know his four sons and one daughter. He further deposed Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:44 +0530 that out of sold property of 171 Sq Yards, Babu Ram was tenant occupying two rooms in 30 Sq Yards. The rooms were covered by tin shed. He further deposed that there was one Bathroom in the vacant plot. He further deposed that again said but it was in 30 Sq Yard portion. He further deposed that the fact that the Babu Ram was disowned by his father was told to him by his father. He further deposed that the rental was Rs. 15/-approximately per month which FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 34 of 60 was used to be collected by his parents from Babu Ram. He further deposed that he or hisfather did not file any suit for recovery arrears of rent outstanding against Babu Ram of approximately two years. He further deposed that he came to know about rectification deed only when he got summons from Civil Courts in Tis Hazari Courts in suit no. 699/2006 and 887/2000. He further deposed that he did not file any suit for cancellation of rectification deed and or any criminal complaint. He further deposed that he do not know full name and Chamber Number of Sh. S. C. Vats, Advocate of Babu Ram. He further deposed that he had seen him in the Civil Courts while appearing on behalf of Babu Ram during my evidence. He further deposed that he saw Dilip Singh signing once only during execution of the Sale Deed. Prior to or thereafter, he had never seen him signing. He denied the suggestion that he and his parents had any kind of enmity or dispute on account non payment of arrears of rental by Babu Ram. He denied the suggestion that aforesaid rectification deed and lease deed was duly executed by him. He denied the suggestion that rectification deed and conveyance deed bears signatures in his writing. He denied the ANEEZA BISHNOI suggestion that he was present in the Sub Registrar Office at the time Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI of execution of the rectification deed. He denied the suggestion that he Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:46 +0530 was deposing falsely at the instance of accused Ramesh Chand and his son Rajesh Kumar. He denied the suggestion that had deposed falsely at the instance of aforesaid accused persons in Civil Suit no. 699/2006 and 887/2000. He voluntarily stated that he further deposed that he was a summoned witness in above stated Civil suits. He denied the suggestion that whatever was stated by him before those courts and this Court was specifically regarding identification of signatures of FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 35 of 60 said Dilip Singh and as to the fact that said Babu Ram was disowned by his father at the instance of the accused persons and that he was under the influence of accused persons. He admitted that he had cordial relations with the accused persons only. He voluntarily stated that he also have good relations with Babu Ram. He further deposed that he does not remember as to the date, time and year when he last met Babu Ram before his death. He further deposed that he do not have knowledge about the year of death of Babu Ram. He further deposed that he did not attend Babu Ram's funeral and other last rites.
14) DW-3 Sh. Inderjeet Saini has deposed that he can identify the signatures of his late father. He further deposed that he had seen him sigining and writing. Witness was shown Rectification Deed Ex.DW2/A to see if this document bear signature of his late father at any point. After seen Ex.DW2/A, witness deny containing signatures of his Late father. He further deposed that the signatures at encircled points 'XX' and point 'YY' are not of his late father as he used to sign in Hindi. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for State. He desposed that last time, he had seen his late father signing in the year ANEEZA BISHNOI 1975. He further deposed that thereafter, he had not seen him signing Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:47 +0530 till his death. He further deposed that he do not know what was the qualifications of his father. He further deposed that he had never seen his father reading and writing in Urdu Language. He further admitted that document Ex.DW2/A was not executed in his presence. He further deposed that he cannot say whether his father could read or write Urdu Language. He further deposed that he does not have any document pertained to the signatures of his late father in his possession and for that reason he cannot produce any such document. He further denied FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 36 of 60 the suggestion that he was deposing falsely with respect to the signatures of his father at the aforesaid points at the instance of the accused. He further denied the suggestion that he cannot identify the signatures of his father for the reason he had seen him signing only once and twice and his whole life and long ago in the year 1975. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to the fact that he was not having in possession of any documents containment signatures of his late father. He further denied the suggestion that he intentionally not producing the original documents containing signatures of his late father at the behest of accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that his father used to sign in Urdu Language.
15) DW-4 Sh. D.R. Handa has deposed that he worked 36 years in the above mentioned organization and retired on 31.12.2018. He further deposed that during the period of 36 years, he examined more than four thousand cases containing more than 4.5 Lakhs of exhibits. He further deposed that he tendered his evidence in more than one thousand & Five Hundred Courts all over India. He further deposed that he delivered training to more than Ten Thousand personnels which ANEEZA BISHNOI are coming from Judiciary, Police, CBI, Public Sector Undertakings, Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:46 +0530 Banks, BSF, NIA etc. He further deposed that he had written more than four dozens Research Publications which were published in National and International Journalist. He got about three dozen appreciations during his period of 36 years without being disbelieved in any of the case. He further deposed that he is first class MSc and in MSc Forensic Sciences and he also did certificate course in Forensic Science from Delhi University in 1983-1984. He further deposed that he also wrote Master thesis entitled investigation of documents, FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 37 of 60 Detection of Forgery. He further deposed that the said summons for today was received by perfect forensic services wherein he is working as consultant and he was assigned & authorized to appear before the Hon'ble Court today and depose. He further deposed that he was submitting his Authority letter which was issued by Perfect Forensic Services which is Ex.DW4/A. Witness was asked that what procedure oridinarily to corporate admitted documents executed in the year 1970 and 1972 with a disputed document executed in the year 1983 with regard to handwriting and signatures to which he answered that handwriting was a neuro muscular coordination where brain works with hand. Either of that if not functioning properly because of medical illness, brain disorder, muscular disorder or old age, the handwriting is bound to change. Many a books reflected the same for examination of handwriting signatures. He further deposed that it is stated in Albert S. Osborn wherein it was clearly mentioned that comparision of admitted and disputed documents were of around same period. Gragory also stated the same the other reowned Author Kopper Havour clearly reflected that the comparision must be of around same period. It is ANEEZA BISHNOI further reflected that maximum 2 to 3 year time period is considered to Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI be same period. However, positive opinion can be given with many a Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:42 +0530 years gap but it is dangerous to give negative opinion. His research paper which he co-authored in year 2006 and is titled as 'Effect on handwriting due to Brain Malfunctioning etc' also clearly mentioned while examed the Live Person who met with Brain Stroke. His writing was totally changed and after 2 to 3 years he reattained his original writing.
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 38 of 60He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for State. The witness denied the suggestion that he has restricted his depsoition with respect to people suffering from Brain Stroke of illness only at the instance of accsued persons. He voluntarily stated that it was purely on the basis of what he had learned from the books. He admitted that other factors which may relate to only neuro or muscular disorder may also influence the handwriting and signature of the person.
16) DW-5 Accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar has deposed that he was born in the year 1964 and was residing at 37A Bhagwan Nagar, Near Bhogal alongwith his grandfather. He further deposed that he resided with his grandfather at different places all through out his life. He further deposed that complainant Babu Ram was staying at the rear portion of the property at H.No. 48, Jangpura Road, Bhogal, New Delhi-14 as a tenant. He further deposed that the front portion of the property was rented out to some other person by the owner. He further deposed that his grandfather had purchased this property from one Rajender Prasad in the year 1970 which admeasured 141 sq yards. He further deposed that since then, his grandfather and himself has been ANEEZA BISHNOI staying in the said front portion of the property while the complainant Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:45 +0530 stayed on the rear portion of the said property. He further deposed that the complainant had strained relationship with his grand father. He further deposed that even though, he was the eldest son of his grand father and he was his tauji. He further deposed that the complainant had begun to encroach upon the property owned by his grand father for which his grand father filed a Suit no.655/1975 for possession against the complainant. His grand father had disowned the complainant from his family and property. He further deposed that during the life time of FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 39 of 60 his grand father, the above suit was pending. He further deposed that his grand father expired on 03.05.1986. He further deposed that the complainant had fabricated some documents like a lease deed of 1972 and rectification deed of 1983 He further deposed that the signatures of his grand father were not appearing on the rectification deed. He further deposed that after the death of his grand father the complainant incollision with his one uncle Sh. Suresh Chand had moved an application in the siad suit no. 655/1975 wherein, they propounded a Will of the year 1981 which was never proved in any court of law, but on misleading fact that there were no other heirs and legal representatives, got a collusive order in their favour to the extent that the property was apportioned half half. Sh. Suresh Chand was a constituted attorney of my grandfather during his life time, but he continued to act as his attorney even after his death and amended the suit by incorporating a minor namely Sh. Vikrant (who is since died) as his LR. He further deposed that no other LRs were joined as party in that suit even when there were as many as 12 other legal heirs were alive at that time. He further deposed that after the death of his ANEEZA BISHNOI grandfather, his grandmother Smt. Mohini Devi @ Morni Devi Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI discovered some documents which were handed over to him by her. He Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:43 +0530 further deposed that amongst those documents a Will was also discovered and on perusal thereof it was found that the deceased had left a Will in his favour. He further deposed that he thereafter filed a probate case before the Ld. District Judge, Tis Hazari in the year 1988. He further deposed that he had joined all the LRs as party respondents who were iced by the Ld. District Judge and through publication also. He further deposed that only Babu Ram the complainant had objected FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 40 of 60 to the Will being probated. He further deposed that the complainant had produced some documents in that proceedings and obtained permission of the court to have this Will examined by his private examiner. He further deposed that these documents which Babu Ram had produced were never admitted by him. He further deposed that he have suspicion that during the time when the original documents were permitted to be taken by the complainant, the same were tempered by the complainant. He further deposed that he is producing documents to show his place of residence at the same place where his grandfather resided. He further deposed that these documents are marked as Mark DW5/A and Mark DW5/B (OSR). He further deposed that he is also producing the photocopy of the documents pertaining to a FIR no. 293/85 of PS HN Din which is marked as Mark DW5/C. He further deposed that this document related to the complainant having hurled acid on him and threw bricks on his father. He further deposed that he is also producing photocopy of a document of the DDA dated 29.12.1980 addressed to his grand father whereby the lease Deed of 1972 was cancelled. He further deposed that on the date when the ANEEZA BISHNOI present FIR was lodged by the complainant this lease deed was still Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI cancelled and not restored. He further deposed that this document is Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:47 +0530 Mark DW5/D. He further deposed that the appeal in that probate case is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court. He further deposed that he is producing a document to show that he had joined other LRs as party and that he had inspected the records before the Hon'ble High Court registry to find that the document Will of 1983, alleged lease deed and sale deed and rectification deed were mutilated conditio and the Will was wrapped in Cellphane paper. He further deposed that he is FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 41 of 60 producing the certified copy of this document is Ex. DW5/A (four pages in all). He further deposed that the said probate case was dismissed by the Ld. District Judge in the year 2000 and appeal against the same is pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He further deposed that the present FIR was then lodged on the complaint of the said Babu Ram. Since the original documents like Will, the lease deed, the sale deed and the rectification deed were in the record of the Ld. District Judge, the IO had applied for seeking the original documents so that the same could be sent for examination by CFSL. He further deposed that IO had undertaken before the Ld. District Judge to resubmit the said documents to the court. He further deposed that the documents were delayed for resubmission due to which he had taken out an application for breach of undertaking by the IO. The IO then informed the court that for some reasons the documents were returned back by the CFSL and the delay occurred due to this reason. He further deposed that in that explanation no specification were given as to why the documents were returned by the CFSL. He further deposed that his application before the Ld. Distrct judge was disposed off wherein, the ANEEZA BISHNOI Ld. DJ had observed that as and when the documents are required by Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI the Ld. MM, the same may be requisitioned. He further deposed that Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:44 +0530 on the lodgement of the present FIR, the IO did not call him by any notice u/s 41 Cr.PC for any explanation, statement or any other investigation either by way of taking my sample handwriting including signatures or any other documents for his confirmation. Similarly, the IO also did not call any other LRs of his grand father including his father. He further deposed that he say the complainant Baburam was disowned by his grand father Lt. Sh. Dilip Singh and he was fighting a FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 42 of 60 case against Baburam till he was alive i.e. 03.05.1986. He further deposed that his grand father used to run a General Store namely Ajad General Store in Central Road, Bhogal and he was operating various bank accounts and also maintained a life insurance policy. He further deposed that these facts were informed by him to the investigating officer but he did not cared to investigate those bank for obtaining specimen signature of his grand father under the influence of complainant Sh. Baburam. He further stated that the Will dated 18.10.1983 is an original Will and the authenticity of the same is yet to be decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 506/2000 titled as Rajesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State and put following questions to the witness:-
He was asked whether he could produce the rental receipts of the abovesaid property to which he answered he could not produce it. However, owner has already deposed before the court about the same.
He was further asked if he can produce the ownership details of ANEEZA the property to which he answered his grandfather was the owner of BISHNOI Digitally signed by the property and all the documents related to the property are already ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:40 +0530 in the judicial file.
He was further asked what does he mean by strained relationship with your grandfather to which he answered that Civil litigation was going between complainant and his grandfather and the relation between them were not good.
He was again asked the question did he/his grandfather filed any police complaint regarding the fight you mentioned in your chief FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 43 of 60 to which he answered affimatively and stated that his father informed the same to the police.
He was again aasked the question how does he say that order of the court was collusive to which he answered after the death of his grandfather, the complainant Baburam never informed the court about the other legal heirs and got matter settled with Suresh Chand (his uncle).
He was against asked the question whether he filed any complaint with respect to the conspiracy or collusiveness to which he answered they filed the suit for declaration.
He was again asked the question if he had filed any police case or police complaint with respect to Acid Attack on him and his father to which he answered affirmatively and stated that it was informed to the police and an FIR was registered against the complainant (Baburam).
He was again asked the question whether any section pertaining to the acid attack was imposed to the complainant Baburam or not ANEEZA BISHNOI to which he answered he does not remember now. Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:43 +0530 He was again asked the question whether it was correct that a Probate Suit filed by him was dismissed by Hon'ble District Court to which he answered affirmatively and stated that the appeal is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
17. During the course of trial, accused had admitted FIR no. 351/2018 PS Sarita Vihar, certificate u/s 65-B of IEA, endorsement on FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 44 of 60 rukka, GD No. 42A & 54A both Dt. 22.10.2018, GD No. 31A Dt. 28.10.2018 and DD NO. 67A Dt. 29.10.2018, mechanical inspection report Dt. 01.11.2018, TIP proceedings of accused Dt. 02.11.2018, MLC NO. 500132278/18 and PM Report No. 2478/18 Dt. 30.10.2018, Superdarinama of vehicle bearing no. DL 1RTB 2465 Dt. 05.11.2018, Testimony of PW Naresh Kumar (photographer), testimony of PW Santosh Kumar (Dead Body identification) and testimony of PW Anish Kumar (Dead Body identification) without admitting the contents of the same. Accordingly, corresponding witness no. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were dropped from the list of witnesses, pursuant to the statement of the Accused recorded u/s 294 CrPC.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
18. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and the accused and perused the records carefully. Ld. APP for the State has stated that there are clear allegations against the accsued persons for committal of offence punishable u/s 420/467/468/120-B/34 IPC as they have committed the offence of hatching a criminal conspiracy to ANEEZA cause wrongful loss to complainant and wrongful gain to themselves BISHNOI Digitally signed by by forging the Will and signature of Lt. Sh. Dilip Singh which is a ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:39 +0530 valuable security.
19. Ld. Counsel for accused persons No.1 Rajesh Kumar and accused No.3 Chhotey Lal has submitted that the Civil Litigations are already pending between most of the LR's of Late Sh. Dalip Singh with regard to the same property i.e. 48, Jangupra, Bhogal, Delhi. He further submitted that the case of the complainant is that, complainant and his father Late. Sh. Dalip Singh purchased the property in question FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 45 of 60 in equal share by virtue of sale deed 14.08.1970. However, as per the sale deed the share of the complainant given 30 Sq. Yards out of 171 Sq Yards and 141 Sq Yards was given to Lt. Sh. Dalip Singh as complainant paid the amount of Rs. 3510/- and Lt. Sh. Dalip Singh paid the amount of Rs. 16490/-.
20. Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that the complainant claimed that due some error in the sale deed dated 14.08.1970 a rectification deed was made and errors made in the sale deed was rectified in the said rectification deed, wherein, share of the complainant in the property written as 50% of the property out of 171 Sq Yards. However, there is no signature on the said rectification deed of Lt. Sh. Dalip Singh and interestingly erstwhile owner of the property has also deposed before the Hon'ble Court that "have not signed the rectification deed dated 28.11.1983 and my signature has been forged by the babu ram on the said deed." Further, complainant also relied upon a lease deed dated 19.02.1972. However, the said lease deed was cancelled by the DDA in the year 1980 as claimed by the complainant in his cross-examination. Furthermore, the erstwhile ANEEZA BISHNOI owner of the property i.e. Rajender Prasad Saini has categorically Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:41 +0530 deposed before this Hon'ble Court that he has not signed the said lease deed. On the basis of the said statement, a FIR bearing no.121/2001 was registered against the Babu Ram. He further submitted that the accused no. 1, filed a probate case before the Ld. Trial Court after the demise of his grandfather Lt. Sh.Dalip Singh on the basis of a will dated 18.10.1983 in favour of him with regard to the property bearing no. 48, Jangpura, Bhogal, Delhi through his father accused no.2. During the pendency of the probate proceedings, the complainant FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 46 of 60 objected the said will as an attorney of Late Sh.Vikrant (nephew of complainant and grandson of Lt. Sh.Dalip Singh) on the ground that there is a registered of the year 1981, in favour of the Lt. Vikrant with regard to the same property. However, the said will of the year 1981, was never produced before any Court of Law, but during the pendency of probate proceedings, complainant got the original documents including the will in question from the District Court for comparison of signature and to take private handwriting expert opinion meaning thereby, before. registration of present FIR, complainant was having the original will in question in his possession for N number of days. Therefore, the possibility of tampering the will in question and other documents cannot be ruled out because of personal gain. Further, after obtaining the bias report from private hand writing expert, the same was filed before the District Court before pronouncement of the Judgment and the District Court under the influence of the said report, dismissed the probate petition which is totally contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein, it was held that Court and cannot sit as an expert to given its own opinion." ANEEZA BISHNOI Furthermore, the said judgment has already been challenged by the Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI accused no. 1 before the Hon'ble High Court of FAO Delhi by way of Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:45 +0530 FAO 506/2000, titled as Rajesh Vs State & ors and the same is pending for adjudication, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has to answerhether the will in question is genuine or not. The complainant is also a party to the said proceedings
21. Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that it is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the said appeal, the complainant filed the present complaint alongwith the judgment dated 16/09/2000 passed by FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 47 of 60 the District Court and private handwriting expert opinion with photocopy of sale deed, lease deed, rectification deed and will in question and on the basis of the said complaint present FIR was lodged without any preliminary inquiry and complainant was well aware about the the fact that the said judgment has already been challenged before the High Court and the same is pending.
22. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment titled as MD. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 1695 of 2009, in which he stated that:
...."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;
ANEEZA BISHNOI
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:37 +0530
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital 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 FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 48 of 60 document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; 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 digital 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.
The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document.
Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no ANEEZA forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are BISHNOI Digitally signed by attracted. ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:39 +0530 To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person.
When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 49 of 60 representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.
23. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment titled as Vijay Pal Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 3194/2016, in which he stated that:
".... On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity at the time of hearing of the arguments by the Ld. Revisional Court. He further submitted that the Ld. Revisional Court has rightly relied upon ANEEZA the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. BISHNOI Digitally signed by State of Bihar and Ors. (2009) 8 SCC 751, while dropping the sections ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:38 +0530 467/468/471 IPC.
23. Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC reads as follows:
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 50 of 60 money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[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.
471. Using as genuine a forged 1[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].
ANEEZA BISHNOI
25. In Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Criminal Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Appeal No. 1695 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 6211 of Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:44 +0530 2007), decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.09.2009, it was observed and held as under:
"11. In short, 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 FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 51 of 60
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted."
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 ANEEZA made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the BISHNOI Digitally signed by accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery. ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:41 +0530 In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that to attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document.
Therefore, in my considered opinion, as the charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the forged document, the Revisional Court has rightly deleted the charges framed against the respondent no. 2 under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 52 of 60 from the original charges framed by the Trial Court under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, based on the settled legal position and I find no reason to interfere with the same....."
24. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment titled as Guru Bipin Singh vs Sh. Chongtham Manihar Singh& Anr., in which he stated that:
"....In view of all the above, we agree with Shri Jethmalani that the allegations made in the complaint, even if true, do not make out the case of forgery. Now, if forgery be not there, allegations under section 420 would fail because the allegation in para 5 of the complaint is that by "forging the said book" deception was caused and members of the public were induced to purchase the same. So, forgery is the principal allegation; cheating being a consequential offence. If forgery goes, cheating cannot stand. So,the complaint sections, namely 420, 465 and 468. It may be pointed out that 468 is intimately connected with 420 and 465."
25. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment titled ANEEZA BISHNOI as Ram Narain v. State of Rajasthan, in which he stated that: Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 ".....The second point strongly pressed by Shri Nuruddin 16:46:46 +0530 Ahmed is that the appellant's conviction is based solely on the testimony of Banwari Lal (P.W. 1), the approver, whose evidence has not been corroborated in material particulars, connecting the appellant with the alleged offence in question. The appellant's conviction is, therefore, unsustainable. P.W. 1, according to the appellant's submission, is a wholly unreliable witness and his evidence is so seriously discrepant and unconvincing on vital points that it is highly FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 53 of 60 dangerous to place any reliance on it. The sustenance of the appellant's conviction on the approver's evidence in this case would be a travesty of justice, said the counsel. We were taken through the relevant record of the evidence by the counsel for both sides on this part of the case.
We now turn to the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B, I.P.C. as a separate and distinct offence independent of the offence under Section 467, I.P.C. No doubt in almost every case of conspiracy it is generally a matter of inference, direct independent evidence being seldom, if ever, forthcoming. But inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of apparent criminal purpose in common between them. Of such criminal acts the evidence in the case under appeal has not been accepted by us. The evidence of the approver (P.W. 1) who would of course be competent to prove the substantive charge of conspiracy, which has not been believed by us with respect to forgery is not easy to accept with respect to the charge of conspiracy. His version with regard to it is far from convincing. Though he claims to have prepared 200 pottos and order sheets, evidence regarding only four was led and that too not ANEEZA BISHNOI trustworthy. For the first time he disclosed the story to the police after Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 arrest in expectation of help from them. On his evidence 16:46:40 +0530 uncorroborated as it is, the charge of conspiracy as framed cannot be sustained. We have, therefore, no option but to allow this appeal, quash the appellant's conviction and acquit him..."
26. Ld. Counsel for accused no.3 has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Wolfgang Reim & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. (Crl. M.C. No. 1942 of 2004), Raghvendra Singh & Ors Vs. State of UP & Anr of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 54 of 60 Allahabad (application u/s 482 no. 2300 of 2016), Sheila Sebastian Vs. R.Jawaharaj of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (AIR 2018 SC(CRI) 731, Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. Passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1570 of 2021), Randheer Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Arising out of SLP (crl.) no. 1190 of 2021), Vishal Noble Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2389/2023), Pancho Vs. State of Haryana passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (AIR 2012 Supreme Court 523.
27. Now coming to the case at hand, it is pertinent to mention here that the main witness of prosecution is PW-1 i.e. the complainant himself. It is so for the reason that PW-2 namely Krishan Gopal has admitted that he does not know the nature of the document on which he had signed on asking of accused Ramesh. Further, PW-2 has also failed to state as to in whose presence the said document was signed by ANEEZA him and if it was so that person has not been brought before the court BISHNOI Digitally signed by to corroborate the statement of PW-2. ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:45 +0530
28. Now coming to the testimony of PW-1, the accused has admitted that he has not filed the original Will dated 17.05.1981 alongwith his complaint and neither is the same present with him. It is important for this case to have the original Will dated 17.05.1981, as these are the allegations of the complainant himself that after the aforementioned Will was made by his late father, the accused forged the Will and framed the forged one on 18.10.1983. Further, he has also FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 55 of 60 stated that he got his actual share in the property after a rectification deed which was dated 28.11.1983, however in his cross-examination he has admitted that the said rectification deed does not bears his signature of his father. Further, he has also admitted in his cross- examination that no probate was filed on the basis of Will dated 17.05.1981. Also during this cross-examination, the complainant positively stated that he can identify the signature of his father, however, on being confronted with three original/carbon copy documents/invoices which were allegedly bearing signatures of his father, the witness could not identify the signatures of his father. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that the present complaint filed by him relates to the share of his and Vikrant Singh in the property in dispute. It is pertinent to mention here that throughout the cross-examination of the complainant he has merely talked about his share in the disputed property rather than to show as to how and when the alleged forgery of the Will in question was done in conspiracy by the accused persons.
29. The other witness on which the prosecution has relied upon is ANEEZA BISHNOI PW-2 who has admitted in his cross-examination that relationship Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:41 +0530 between him and accused Ramesh Chand have been estranged and were not cordial at the time of giving the deposition. Further, he has also admitted that he cannot identify the signatures of father of complainant Lt. Sh. Dilip Singh and have never seen him putting signatures on any documents.
30. Now the other main prosecution witness is PW-4 who was the IO in this case and during his cross-examination he has admitted that he has not examined the rectification deed which was related to FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 56 of 60 complainant. He had stated that the seized Will was in the old condition. He has also admitted that the documents in question were sent to CFSL Hyderabad and were returned by them to be submitted to GQED. However, at this stage, he admitted that no directions in writing were given to them in this respect and the said documents were with Ct. Rajvir during this time for 4-5 days without any written orders. He has also admitted that the said documents remained in his custody for 3-4 months. Further, it is pertinent here to mention that the IO was not informed by the complainant that there is another registered Will in the name of his nephew Lt. Sh. Vikrant during investigation. Further, it is very important to mention that PW-4 has admitted that he had not obtained the specimen signatures of complainant and also obtained signatures of Lt. Sh. Dilip Singh from the documents available in the court records and from nowhere else at all. He has also been unable to tell whether any bank accounts of Lt. Sh. Dilip Singh were there and he has admitted that he has not inquired any about the same and also did not inquire about any LIC policy and passport of Lt. Sh. Dilip Singh. Further, IO has denied having any ANEEZA BISHNOI knowledge of when Sh. Dilip Singh has passed away and neither did Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI he inquire the same from the complainant. He also admitted that the Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:41 +0530 documents obtained in respect of Sh. Dilip Singh belonged to the year 1970 and 1972 and that they were compared with the documents belonging to year 1982-1983. Further, he has also stated that he did not examine the vendor of rectification deed and also did not inquire about the same from the registrar office.
31. The other prosecution witness namely Narender Singh was examined as PW-6 who was posted as Deputy Government examiner FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 57 of 60 of questioned documents at Hyderabad. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the lease date is of the year 1972 while the sale deed is of the year 1970. He also admitted that there may be variations in writing and signatures in the passage of time but there will be no differences in the signatures and writing. He also admitted that he did not receive any other standard or specimen sample signatures alongwith the documents in question. He also stated that he cannot state as to which document would be standard and admitted document and would rely upon the letter sent by police to be so.
32. Hence, in view of the above discussion, it can be reasonably concluded that the prosecution has failed to place on record the original Will of the year 1981, on which this case is relied upon. The complainant has also failed to place on record the rectification deed which bears the signature of his father as well and has admitted that the one present on record does not bears the signatures of his father. Even the investigative officer has failed to verify the documents as per ANEEZA law and appropriate rules and regulations and has admitted that he has BISHNOI Digitally signed by not made proper efforts to gather the original signatures of Lt. Sh. ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:45 +0530 Dilip Singh to compare with the alleged forged signatures on the basis of which this whole case is hinging. Further, even the handwriting expert has stated that over the years there are variations in writing and signatures of a person and to add to it he was not given any standard or specimen sample signatures to compare with. Hence, the testimony of handwritting expert cannot be made the sole basis of proving the allegations of forgery against the accused persons. Hence, it can be reasonably concluded that the prosecution has failed to show as to how FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 58 of 60 the criminal conspiracy had hatched between the accused persons in order to make a forged Will by forging the signatures of Lt. Sh. Dilip Singh and thereby causing wrongfull loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused persons.
33. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus proving the ingredients of offence and thus, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.
34. Further, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the ANEEZA defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every BISHNOI Digitally signed by reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:45 +0530 prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
35. After going through the complete record, documents and testimonies alongwith the relevant judgements pronounced by the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 59 of 6036. As per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 19.01.2023, Investigative Officer/Inspector PS Hazrat Nizamuddin is directed to deposit the original documents present on the record in a sealed cover in intact condition with the registry of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
37. Therefore, in ultimate analysis as a result of trial, accused persons namely Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, 2) Ramesh Chand S/o Lt. Sh. Dalip Singh and 3) Chotey Lal s/o Sh. Hari Kishan are ACQUITTED for the offences u/s 420/467/468/120-B/34 IPC.
Digitally (Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi) ANEEZA signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI BISHNOI Date:
JMFC-05, South East District, 2025.10.31 16:47:04 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi 31.10.2025 The judgment contains 60 pages and each page have been digitally signed by the undersigned.
(Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi) JMFC-05, South East District, ANEEZA Saket Courts, New Delhi BISHNOI 31.10.2025 Digitally signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI Date: 2025.10.31 16:46:40 +0530 FIR No. 121/2001 State vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 60 of 60