Delhi District Court
State vs B.M Manoj Kr. Etc on 28 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA ARORA:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 88/2010
PS Aman Vihar
State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc.
Date of Institution: 24.05.2010
Date of Judgment : 28.01.2025.
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 531769/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : May 2008 to December 2009,
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Sandeep Singh
(d) Name of Accused persons, :(1) B.M. Manoj their parentage & residence S/o Sh. B. Damu Sharma, R/o: Village Kakechin, District Thobal, Manipur.
(2) Joginder Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Chandra Sharma, R/o: A-1851, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC (f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) Final order : Acquittal
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The present case arises out of allegations that the accused per-
sons, namely B.M. Manoj S/o Sh. B. Damu Sharma, and (2) FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 1 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:47:08 +0530 Joginder Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, along with co-accused T. Ranjeet Methai (who has been declared a proclaimed offender), entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainants Sandeep, Manoj, and Rajesh. In further- ance of the said conspiracy, the accused persons fraudulently induced the complainants to pay a total sum of ₹6 lakhs on the pretext of providing them employment in the Indian Army. The prosecution alleges that the accused persons forged documents, including school certificates and domicile certificates, knowing fully well that the complainants were not qualified for the said employment. Thus, the accused have been charged with of- fences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court, cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned. After they entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents was supplied to the ac- cused persons in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against the accused B.M. Manoj and Joginder Kumar Sharma on 06.01.2012 for the commission of offences under Section 420/468/471/120-B IPC to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.
FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 2 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:47:15 +0530 5) PW1 Sh. Sandeep deposed that in the month of May 2008 he
alongwith Rajesh and Manoj had gone to the house of accused Joginder where accused B.M Manoj was also present. Deal was struck for the Rs. 2,20,000/- for the each of them. They also stated to accused B.M Manoj that they were not 12 th passed and on which accused B.M Manoj said that he was having a person known in Imphal who would prepared the documents of 12th class and also recruit them to the army. We gave their address, date of birth to them. After about 15-20 days later accused Manoj returned from Manipur and handed over educations cer- tificates to three of them and the accused Manoj also took Rs. 10,000/- from each of them for the said documents. Thereafter accused Manoj had called Sandeep to the house of accused Joginder. Where one other person was also sitting and accused Manoj and Joginder introduced him as T.H Ranjeet Metai an Army Officer in the Imphal and also told them that the said T.H Ranjeet Metai had prepared our documents and he would also recruit them to the army. Accused T.H. Ranjeet Metai also said them that their physical were OK and he would do their work. He further deposed that on 19, December 2008 accused Manoj had also booked their plane ticket and one other boy also ac- companied three of them in the flight and they also asked him about the money and he told that he would give money after re- cruitment. They had also taken Rs. 1,20,000/- with them to the Imphal. They reached Imphal on 24.12.2008. Accused Manoj took them on that day to the house of accused T.H. Ranjeet Metal which was situated at Khatam Mayam Ladai, Imphal. Accused T.H Ranjeet Metai told them that their medical will be FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 3 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:47:23 +0530 done on next date. Accused also measured their chest and height and other measurement and they handed over Rs. 1,20,000/- to him and he also shown to them army center which was located near in the house and told them that a training will be done there. He also suggested them not to go inside the cen- ter. Thereafter accused Manoj and T.H. Ranjeet Metai assured them that they would soon get a joining letter. Thereafter they returned to home. Later in January. 2009 accused Joginder and Manoj told them about the place Rangiya near Ghuhati and also said that army center was located at Rangiya. They all three went to Guwahati alongwith accused Manoj and stayed near in a hotel near railway stations. They also handed over remaining Rs. 3,00,000/- to him and he also handed over three joining let- ters as per which we were supposed to join at Hyderabaad. They also told to the accused T.H. Rajeet Metai that joining date had already been passed. Upon which accused told to go after 3-4 days and he also told that he would meet us Hyder- abaad at army headquarter near the railway station. They went to the Hyderabaad where they were told that the joining letter was forged. On 24.03.2010 the documents were handed over to the IO vide memo Ex.PW1/B. The documents are Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A13. The said exhibits documents were prepared by the accused Manoj. Sandeep identified the accused B.M Manoj and Joginder in the court. Accused T.H Ranjeet Metai was de- clared a P.O. Accused B.M Manoj was arrested on 25.03.2013 vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was done vide Ex.PW1/D, and his disclosure was also recorded by the IO vide memo Ex.PW1/E. FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 4 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:47:32 +0530
6) PW2 HC Balwan deposed that on 23.03.2010 he was posted at PS Aman Vihar as Duty Officer and on that day at about 10.30 pm, present complaint was handed over to him and on the basis of same, he registered the FIR which is Ex.PW2/A (OSR). He also made endorsement the on the complaint which is Ex.PW2/B. After registration of FIR, he handed over the same to SI Rajesh Kumar.
7) PW-3 Rajesh Kumar deposed that during the year 2010, he was a student and had got compartment in class 12. His maternal Aunt (Mausi) Smt. Sunita lived in Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III with her husband Gurdas. His Mausi told him that one Joginder and his wife Kavita lived in front of her house and one of their brother B. M. Manoj was working in Army in Manipur and that he secures jobs for people for money, upon which Rajesh Ku- mar agreed to give money. In May, 2008, he along with Sandeep, Manoj (Cousin Mama) went to the house of Joginder. B. M. Manoj was also present there. It was settled between all of them that Rajesh Kumar, Sandeep and Manoj will pay Rs. 2 lakhs each to the accused persons upon which they will get a job for them in the Army. All of them had also disclosed that they are not 12th Pass. However, the accused persons stated that some known person at Imphal, Manipur will get prepared forged documents / certificates of class 12th. Thereafter, the ac- cused persons noted their complete particulars. After 15-20 days, accused Manoj returned from Manipur and handed over education certificates for all three of them and in turn he took Rs. 10,000/- each from them. After about 15 days accused FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 5 of 21 Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA DIVYA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:47:45 +0530 Manoj called them at the house of Joginder and when they reached there one more person namely Ranjeet Mittai was also present there. Accused stated that he was an army officer in Im- phal and that the above said forged documents were prepared through him. Ranjeet Mittai also stated that they were physi- cally fit and that there will be no problem for our job in the army. Thereafter, accused Manoj asked all of them to deposit certain amount in the account of army officers. From Septem- ber, 2008 to December, 2008, they deposited Rs. 1,80,000/- in eight transactions. Accused Manoj stated that their physical test was to be conducted in Imphal on 24.12.2008. Accused Manoj booked train tickets for them for 19.12.2008. In the train they met one more person and he was also going to Imphal for phys- ical test. They reached Imphal on 24.12.2008. Accused Manoj took them to the house of Ranjeet and stated that their physical test will be conducted on 25.12.2008 and medical examination on the next date. He further deposed that on the next date Ran- jeet stated that they need not go to the Centre for physical test and that he will get conducted their physical test at his house it- self and they handed over Rs.1,20,000/- to him. He further de- posed that in the month of January, 2009, accused Manoj and Joginder stated that they will get their joining letters from the Army Center, situated at Rangia, near Guwahati. On 15/01/2009, they alongwith accused Maonj reached Guwahati and stayed in a hotel near the Railway Station. Ranjeet arrived at the hotel and gave three joining letters to them and took Rs. 03 lakhs from them. As per the joining letter, they were to join in Hyderabad. Ranjeet also stated that they should reached Hy-
FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 6 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:47:53 +0530
derabad within three-four days where he will meet them. They reached Hyderabad and entered the Army HQ where they were told by the Officers to return back as the said joining letter was forged. Thereafter, they returned to their village and met Jogin- der, and Joginder stated that they should not worry and that they guarantee that they will get job. Thereafter, they had de- manded our money from the accused persons several times but they denied that nothing is due from them. During investiga- tion, Rajesh Kumar had handed over to the IO the documents which were given to them by the accused persons. The docu- ments includes Migration Certificate, Character Certificate, Transfer Certificate, Mark-sheet and the Joining Letter. The said documents were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. The said documents are Ex. P1 (collectively). He also identified the accused Joginder and B. M. Manoj in the court.
8) PW-4 Gurdas Singh deposed that in May 2008, Jogender told him that his brother B.M. Manoj Kumar is in Army and can help anyone to get job in Army. He said to accused Jogender that his 3 relatives namely Sandeep, Manoj and Rajesh are will- ing to be recruited in Army. After that he called his relatives and met them and accused persons told that the relative of Gur- das Singh that they have good physique and that is why they can get job easily. It was decided between them that it shall cost Rs. 2,00,000/- per candidate. After that T.M Mithai went back to Manipur. After that Gurdas Singh told accused Manoj and Jogender that his relatives did not have tenth & twelfth certifi-
FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 7 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:48:02 +0530
cate but they assured him that T.M. Mithai shall arrange certifi- cates also. They demanded Rs. 10,000/- for each certificate. After that accused Manoj went back to Imphal (Manipur) and made the certificates of his relatives and came back to Delhi and handed over the certificates to them. In the account of ac- cused person about Rs. 1,80,000/- were deposited and after that all three relatives of Gurdas went to Imphal (Manipur) with ac- cused Manoj and gave Rs. 1,20,000/-. After that they said that their joining letter will be given to them Guwahati and they gave remaining Rs. 3,00,000/- to all the accused persons after going to Guwahati. Accused persons handed over joining letter in Guwahati for the posting at Hyderabad. After inquiry they found that cheating has been done with them and he started pressuring Jogender to return money. Initially he said that money will be returned back to him but later on he said that he got only Rs. 1,00,000/- and can return to you only that amount. Accused Jogender gave him only Rs. 90,000/- and remaining Rs. 10,000/- were to be given in future. He also identified the accused Manoj in the Court today.
9) PW-5 Smt. Sunita deposed that in the year 2008, her neighbour namely Joginder (accused) and Kavita told her that his brother- in-law namely Manoj is in army and he can help anyone to get job in army and if you have any relative then, he can help to get the job with the help of his senior officers. She said to the ac- cused Joginder that she has three relatives namely Sandeep, Manoj and her nephew Rajesh and they all are willing to re- cruited in army. Accused also stated that for job at least 2 lacs FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 8 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:48:09 +0530 per candidate has to be given. Thereafter, they gave Rs. 6 lacs to the accused persons. Some of amount was given in cash and some of through bank. But they did not provide any job to her relatives. They cheated sum of Rs. 6 lacs to her and her hus- band. She also identified the accused persons in the court.
10) PW-6 SI Sajjan Singh deposed that on 25.03.2010, he was posted as ASI at PS Aman Vihar, PP Prem Nagar and on that day on receiving DD no. 25-A regarding apprehension of one accused person at Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III, he alongwith Ct. Raghvinder went to the spot where he met the caller Sandeep who produced one person before him telling his name as B.M. Manoj. Further investigation was marked to SI Rajesh and therefore, he informed SI Rajesh regarding the apprehen- sion of B.M. Manoj. Thereafter, SI Rajesh came there and SI Sajjan Singh handed over the custody of B.M. Manoj to SI Ra- jesh. He also identified the accused B.M. Manoj in the court. Further SI Sajjan Singh has produced he copy of DD entry no. 25-A and original Rojnamcha containing the said DD entry. The photocopy of the said DD entry is Ex.PW6/A (OSR) (02 pages).
11) PW-7 Kh. Ashalata Devi deposed that on 04.04.2010, she was working as Principal. CC Higher Secondary School. Imphal. On that day, two Haryana Police officials came to her school and inquired about three students, who were not the students of CC Higher Secondary School, Imphal. Police officials provided their Roll numbers for verification and on verification, their FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 9 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:48:16 +0530 records were not found in her school and the same was fake. She gave her report to the police which is Ex.PW7/A. The po- lice officials had also brought their provisional certificate from CC Higher Secondary School, Imphal and Mark-sheets and cer- tificates from Board of Secondary Education, Manipur. Their Secondary Education Certificates were also fake and she veri- fied the same from the Controller of Examination.
12) PW-8 ASI Anil Kumar deposed that on 24.03.2010, he was posted at PS Aman Vihar and at around 12.00-1.00 pm, three persons i.e. complainants namely Manoj, Sandeep and Rajesh visited PS Aman Vihar and submitted few documents to SI Ra- jesh regarding the cheating which happened with them. The IO prepared seizure memo of the documents which is Ex.PW1/B. On 25.03.2010, he alongwith the IO went to Agar Nagar. Prem Nagar where IO arrested and personally searched the accused B.M. Manoj vide memos Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. The dis- closure statement of the accused was recorded on the spot which is Ex.PWI/E. He further deposed that on 28.03.2010, IO asked him to accompany regarding the investigation. The took the accused B.M. Manoj from PS Sultan Puri and went to O- Block, Mangol Puri, Delhi where the accused B.M. Manoj in- formed the IO that one Joginder (other accused) was involved with him in the cheating who lived at that place. They took the accused Joginder and went to the place of one of the com- plainant namely Sardara Singh where he recognized the ac- cused Joginder. Accused Joginder was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. The disclo-
FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 10 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:48:23 +0530
sure statement of the accused Joginder was recorded which is Ex.PW8/C. He also identified the accused persons in the Court.
13) PW-9 Abdus Salam (Retd. Joint Secretary, Government of Ma-
nipur) deposed that he was working during tenure from 2009 to 2010 as Addl. Deputy Commissioner / Addl. District Magis- trate, Imphal, East, Manipur. On 03.04.2010, one official namely SI Rajesh Kumar came to his office and requested for the verification of Domicile Certificates Serial no. 4136-B and 4139-B of Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Karan Singh, and Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Raje Ram respectively, and on verification it was found that the said domicile certificate were fake and the same certificates were not issued by his office. The domicile certificate bearing no. 4136-B and 4139-B of Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Karan Singh, and Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Raje Ram were issued before his tenure.
14) PW-10 Sh. Praveen Kumar, Reservation Supervisor, IRCA Of-
fice, Northern Railway, New Delhi deposed on behalf of the Railway Administration instead of Manushi Dutta which was cited as a witness in the present case. He deposed that he has been working in IRCA Office since 2001. The said document i.e. Dumb PNR (Passenger name record was maintained by IRCA Office). The said said document i.e. Dumb PNR is Ex.PW10/A bearing the name of Manushi Dutta at point A who was working as a Commercial Supervisor in Verification Cen- ter till 2013.
FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 11 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:48:30 +0530
15) PW-11 Inspector Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 23.03.2010 he was posted as SI at PS Aman Vihar and on that day, after the registration of the present FIR, investigation was assigned to him. On 24.03.2010, he took into police possession the forged and fabricated document which was handed over to com- plainant by the accused. The seizure memo of the same is Ex.PW11/A. Said documents in the form of migration certifi- cate in the name of Manoj Kumar Singh which is Ex.PW11/B, character certificate in the name of Manoj Kumar Singh which is Ex.PW11/C, Domicile certificate in the name of Manoj Ku- mar Singh which is Ex.PW11/D, Admit card in the name of Manoj Kumar Singh which is Ex.PW11/E, Transfer / provi- sional certificate in the name of Manoj Kumar Singh which is Ex.PW11/F, Certificate in the name of Manoj Kumar Singh which is Ex.PW7/A and joining letter in the name of Manoj Kumar Singh which is Ex.PW11/G. Documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. Migration certificate, character certificate, transfer / provisional certificate, and joining letter (report card) in the name of Rajesh Kumar are Ex.P-3. He de- posed that on 24.03.2010, he recorded the statement of wit- nesses namely Sandeep. Rajesh and Manoj Kumar. In the fur- ther course of investigation, the documents of Punjab National Bank i.e. details of Account Numbers i.e. 30128809934, 30415107178, 10992733874 and 20009404427 are Ex.PW11/H (colly). He further deposed that on 25.03.2010, accused B.M. Manoj was arrested and personally searched vide memos which are Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PWI/D. Disclosure statement of accused B.M. Manoj was also recorded, same is Ex.PW1/E. During the FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 12 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:48:38 +0530 course of investigation, on 28.03.2010, accused Joginder was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. Disclosure statement of accused Joginder was also recorded which is Ex.PW8/C. During the further course of in- vestigation, he alongwith the complainant Sandeep went to Im- phal, Manipur where two Letters i.e. one was verification for School Certificate which was sent to the Principal, Churachand Higher Secondary School, Imphal and the same Letter is Ex.PW11/I, and another Letter regarding verification of Domi- cile Certificate, which was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, and same is Ex.PW11/J. On the same day, he got both the reports from the concerned authorities which is are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW11/K. He searched the accused T.H. Ranjeet but he was found absconding. After completion of in- vestigation qua the accused B.M. Manoj and Joginder, he pre- pared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court. He also identified the accused persons namely B.M. Manoj and Joginder in the court.
16) PW-12 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Mahto, Branch Manager, SBI, Man-
gol Puri, Delhi identified two deposit slips dated 23.12.2008 of Rs. 20,000/- each which were deposited in State bank of India, Mangol Puri Branch stating that the stamp of the above said Branch is not visible on the said deposit slips, however, the name of the branch is mentioned on the above said deposit slips. Said slips are Ex.PW1/A8 and Ex.PW1/A10.
17) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the state-
FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 13 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:48:45 +0530
ment of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Sec- tion 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons who maintained his innocence. Accused B.M. Manoj stated that " I have been falsely implicated and as I visited the house of Joginder who know to me as he is from my native village. Not- ing has been recovered from me. I have not received any amount from the complainant. Even I do not know the com- plainant." Accused Joginder stated that "I have been falsely implicated in the present case as prior registration of this FIR, scuffle between the complainant and me arose on the issue of water Tanker and I never taken any money from the com- plainant and never introduced the complainant with any Army official. I know the complainant as he is my neighbour. " Ac- cused persons have not chosen to lead defence evidence.
18) Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the State wherein it has been argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the ac- cused persons be found guilty in the case. On the other hand, Ld. counsels for the accused persons have argued that sufficient material has not been brought on record to prove that the ac- cused persons committed the present offence.
19) The arguments as advanced by both the parties have been care-
fully considered along with the evidence on record.
20) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 14 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:48:55 +0530 the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by lead- ing reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Ac- cused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
21) Ld counsel for accused persons have argued that there is an inconsistency regarding the presence of co-accused T. Ranjeet Methai during the first meeting. The prosecution has failed to conclusively prove the aspect of forgery beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, it is argued that prosecution has not established the relationship between BM Manoj and Joginder, and thus their alleged collaboration in the offence is questionable.
Appraisal of Evidence:
22) The testimonies of PW1, PW3, PW4, and PW5 have been found to be consistent and corroborative with each other, effec-
tively establishing the sequence of events leading to the com- mission of the fraud. The minor discrepancies, particularly con- cerning the presence of the absconding accused, do not under- mine the prosecution's case, as the overall chain of events re- mains coherent and credible. The corroboration among the wit- nesses strengthens the prosecution's narrative, lending substan- tial weight to the allegations against the accused.
FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 15 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:49:02 +0530
23) Further, the fact that PW4 and PW5 cannot provide specific de-
tails regarding the financial transactions carried out by PW1 and PW3 does not, in itself, undermine the entire prosecution case. It is a well-settled principle that discrepancies or gaps in evidence by some witnesses do not necessarily render the entire case false, provided the core facts remain substantiated by other reliable evidence.
24) In State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 324, the Court observed that undue importance should not be given to minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prose- cution's case. Similarly, in Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 191, it was held that minor contradictions or in- significant discrepancies should not be a ground for rejecting the testimony of the prosecutrix. These precedents affirm that as long as the core facts remain consistent, minor contradictions do not undermine the credibility of witness testimonies.
25) The official reports given by school authorities and District Magistrate of Imphal ,through the testimonies of PW7 and PW9, conclusively establish that the educational and domicile certificates submitted during the process were forged.PW1 and PW3 have admitted during examination that they were not a 12th pass and did not possess any original certificates. This ad- mission does not exonerate the accused; instead, it underscores the fraudulent nature of the documents submitted. The act of FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 16 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:49:12 +0530 submitting forged certificates, regardless of the complainant's educational background, fulfills the criteria for forgery under the aforementioned sections.
26) In Satinder Singh Bhasin vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 197 of 2021, the Delhi High Court em- phasized that to prove the guilt of a person accused under Sec- tions 468 and 471 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused committed forgery with the intent to cheat and used the forged document as genuine.
27) Furthermore, in Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 551, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that forging certificates to gain admission in an educational institution constitutes an offence under Section 471 read with Section 465 IPC, highlighting the seriousness of using forged educational documents.
28) The prosecution has successfully demonstrated that the accused was aware of the forged nature of the documents and intention- ally used them to deceive authorities, thereby fulfilling the es- sential ingredients of the offences under section 468/471 IPC. The forged certificates were created with the intent to cheat, satisfying the legal requirements for forgery intended for the purpose of deception and wrongful gain. The accused's de- liberate use of these forged certificates as genuine, despite FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 17 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:49:19 +0530 knowing their falsified nature, establishes culpability under this provision.
29) The defence's inability to provide any credible explanation or rebut the authenticity of the prosecution's documentary evi- dence further strengthens the case for conviction.
30) The PNR records presented in evidence through examination of PW10, substantiate the prosecution's claim that the accused, BM Manoj, accompanied the complainants to Guwahati for the purported recruitment process. This travel detail corroborates the sequence of events outlined by the prosecution and estab- lishes the presence of the accused at crucial junctures.
31) Although the deposit slips are not directly in the name of the accused, their alignment with the timeline and circumstances provided by the prosecution strengthens the inference of the ac- cused's involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The pattern of deposits, combined with other evidence, creates a compelling link to the accused.
32) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in multiple precedents, has held that circumstantial evidence can form the basis for conviction if it establishes a complete and unbroken chain of events leading FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 18 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:49:27 +0530 to the guilt of the accused, ruling out any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
33) In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 SCR(1) 88, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the five golden principles, also known as the "Panchsheel" of circum- stantial evidence, which must be fully satisfied for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. These are:
(A). The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(B). The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
(C). The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(D). They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
(E). There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
34) In the present case, the circumstantial evidence, when viewed in conjunction with the witness testimonies and documentary proof, forms a coherent and convincing narrative that meets the FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 19 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:49:35 +0530 legal threshold for conviction. The absence of any plausible de-
fence explanation further reinforces the prosecution's case.
35) The accused persons, by taking money under false pretence and using forged documents to mislead the complainants, have committed the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. Their collective acts demonstrate a premeditated plan, at- tracting the provisions of Section 120B IPC (criminal conspir- acy).
36) The defence has failed to produce any cogent evidence to rebut the prosecution's claims or create reasonable doubt. The dis- crepancy regarding the presence of the proclaimed offender does not negate the liability of the present accused persons. The absence of direct deposit links is not a ground for acquittal, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence proving their involvement.
37) In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution has suc-
cessfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons BM Manoj and Joginder, in furtherance of a common intention and conspiracy, committed the offences of cheating, forgery, and using forged documents with intent to defraud the complainants.
FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 20 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:49:43 +0530
38) Accordingly, this court holds the accused persons B.M. Manoj S/o Sh. B. Damu Sharma, and (2) Joginder Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Chander Sharma guilty and stands convicted for the offenses punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120B IPC in FIR No. 88/2010 PS Aman Vihar.
39) Let the accused persons be heard on the quantum of sentence on the next date.
Announced in the open Court on 28.01.2025. DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:46:52 +0530 (DIVYA ARORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 21 pages and each page bears my signature.
DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.28 17:46:57 +0530 (DIVYA ARORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 88/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC State Vs. B.M. Manoj etc. Page No. 21 of 21