Delhi District Court
State vs Smt. Sukhpal Kaur on 21 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. TANVI KHURANA,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLST020313582018
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE Vs. SMT. SUKHPAL KAUR
FIR No. 555 /2005
PS Mehrauli (EOW)
U/s 471/120B IPC
JUDGMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : CR No. 2034116/2016 B) The date of commission of : 2005 offence C) The name of the : Sh. Harvinder Singh complainant
D) The name and address of : 1. Sukhpal Kaur W/o Sh. Gurdarshan
accused Singh Brar, R/o Village Abul Khurana,
PS Lambi, Distt. Muktsar, Punjab;
Also at 2862B, Sector-42, Chandigarh;
Also at 6045, Pocket 6/7, Sec. C,
Vasant Kunj, new Delhi. (since
deceased; proceedings were abated)
2. Amrit Brar W/o Sh Tejpreet Singh,
R/o 28668 B, Sector-42, Chandigarh.
E) Offence complained of : 471/120B IPC
F) The plea of accused : Not Guilty
G) Final Order : ACQUITTED
H) The date of such Order : 21.08.2024
FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.1 of 26
PS Mehrauli (EOW)
Digitally signed by
TANVI TANVI KHURANA
KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21
15:52:05 +0530
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 06.10.2018
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 17.08.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 21.08.2024
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. The accused persons had been sent to face trial before this court upon allegations of commission of offences punishable under Section 471, 120B of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC).
The case of the prosecution
2. It is the case of the prosecution as reported in the charge sheet that accused Amrit Brar along with Smt. Sukhpal Kaur, raised a false claim of ownership in respect of property in question comprising in Khasra No.374/1 and 374/2, Village Gaidha Mehrauli, New Delhi belonging to Baba Virsa Singh and used forged document purporting to be a sale document dated 11.06.1991 executed by a person namely Sukhdev Singh as attorney holder of Baba Virsa Singh in two different civil suits bearing no.1022/2006 and 1023/2006 titled as Baba Virsa Singh v. Ranjeet Singh Pradhan & Anr and Ashok Sharma v. Baba Virsa Singh & Anr. in 2005 at Tis Hazari Courts respectively through their representative -Sh. Ashok Sharma, hence, it was alleged that they were involved in criminal conspiracy to commit an offence and used a forged document as authentic in the Court of law. Upon such allegations, FIR was registered. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the court.
Proceedings before the Court FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.2 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:52:12 +0530
3. Cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 30.05.2011. Prior to that, copy of the charge-sheet was already supplied to accused Sukhpal Kaur and later copy of the charge sheet was also supplied to accused Amrit Brar who was summoned vide order dated 30.05.2011. it is pertinent here that she was earlier arrayed as a suspect in column no.12 in the charge-sheet. The complainant had preferred a protest petition wherein Ld. Predecessor summoned her. Vide order dated 20.01.2015, Ld. Predecessor framed charge under Sections 471/120B IPC against accused Sukhpal Kaur and Section 120B of IPC against accused Amrit Brar to which they maintained their innocence and claimed trial. During the pendency of this case, accused Sukhpal Kaur expired and the proceedings were abated qua her.
Evidence adduced by the Prosecution
4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
4.1. PW-1 Ranvir Singh Khanna deposed that he was the member of Gobind Sadan Management Committee being a disciple of Baba Virsa Singh Ji who expired on 24.12.2007 and on 16.03.2000, Baba Virsa Singh had executed a GPA of his land in the favour of the witness which was produced by him during the examination in chief [Ex.PW-1/A (Colly) (OSR)]. He deposed that Baba Virsa Singh had never executed any other GPA in favour of any other person. He also deposed that accused person had prepared forged documents in respect of land bearing Khasra no.374/1 and 374/2 situated in Village Gadaipur, Delhi belonging to Baba Virsa Singh. He also alleged that FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.3 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:52:18 +0530 accused used forged signatures of Gurdev Singh and Joginder Singh on these documents and filed the forged documents in the Court in case titled as Ashok Sharma v. Baba Virsa Singh. He also mentioned that Gurdarshan Singh Brar was also involved in the conspiracy along with Amrit Brar and Sukhpal Kaur who had falsely claimed making payment to Gurdev Singh but no such money or deal ever took place. He had filed the written complaints Mark-PW-
1/A and Mark PW-1/B and had also filed a complaint before the Court along with application under Section 156(3) CrPC upon which the FIR was registered.
During the cross-examination, the witness provided the copies of his voter ID and Aadhaar card which were Ex.PW-1/D1 and Ex.PW-1/D2. He mentioned that he lost his previous ID card but had not lodged any complaint qua the same. He denied having any ration card but voluntarily stated that he had a general ration card in the name of various persons, the copy of which could be available at Gobind Sadan Gurudwara. He confirmed that he graduated from Roorkee Collage and also pursued law course from Mujaffar Nagar, UP. He mentioned that Power of Attorney Ex.PW-1/A expired after the death of Baba Virsa Singh on 24.12.2007. He stated that he was not aware how Baba Virsa Singh gained possession of land at Mehrauli and he was also not aware about the total land in possession of Gurudwara Gobind Sadan. The Court had observed during the cross-examination that the said document Ex.PW-1/A had correctional fluid applied on the first stage at point X, X1 and point Y. The witness admitted that the name mentioned on Ex.PW-1/A was Baba Varsha and not Baba Virsa. He voluntarily stated that there was a FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.4 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:52:24 +0530 typographical error. Accused had also admitted that the spelling of "Shri" & "Govind Sadan" was also incorrectly recorded in the said document. It was specifically asked from the witness that whether the date on the document mentioned as 24.02.2000 was changed to 24.03.2000. The witness stated that he had not corrected the date rather the date would have been corrected by the Court. He also admitted that the photograph on Ex.PW-1/A was not passport- size photograph but was a photograph clicked from afar. He mentioned that the document was not typed or executed in his presence but was handed over to him by Baba Virsa Singh however, he stated that no one was present when the document was handed over to him. He again mentioned that he was not aware that how much land was owned by Gobind Sadan Gurudwara or the sect. He then mentioned that it must be around 35 to 40 acres but he was not certain about the exact area owned and possessed by Baba Virsa Singh. He stated that he knew Balwant Singh S/o Sh. Mal Singh who according to him had expired in 2007. He also knew Kamal S/o Sh. O.P. Sharma but was not aware about his whereabouts. He volunteered that he must be the deed writer. He was not aware about the date mentioned on the document Ex.PW-1/A. He was also not aware that whether 1617/IV is a book number or not. He stated that he is not aware whether the signatures on all the pages of Ex.PW-1/A were identical or different. He volunteered that the signatures were of Baba Virsa Singh. He admitted that the signatures were in Urdu Language and he did not know Urdu Language. He was not aware that who affixed the stamp on the said document. He could not say that whether the document was signed by Advocate Lalit Kumar Malik. He was not aware that what was written FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.5 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:52:32 +0530 along with word "Lahore" on the first page. He was not aware that while the document had a purchase date of 14.02.2000 and signed by the witnesses on 16.03.2000 and then why was the document dated 24.03.2020 which was altered from 24.02.2000 on the first page. He was not aware that who had erased the contents using correctional fluid. He denied making the said changes and stated that these were present at the time the document was handed over to him. After seeing the document, he mentioned that the document was purchased in the name of Baba Varsha Singh however, the name according to him was Baba Virsa Singh. He stated that he was not aware that whether the GPA was executed by one Varsha Singh. He responded that he knew Gyani Gurdev Singh since 1981 but he was not aware that whether he used to prefix his name with "Gyani". He mentioned that he was his friend (guru bhai). He mentioned that he was not aware about the family of Gurdev Singh but he knew that he had three sons and one of them was Hardeep Singh, he was not aware about the rest of them. When asked about the documents filed by Ashok Sharma with regard to dispute of property before the Civil Court at Tis Hazari, he mentioned that he was not aware but then said he had seen one document stamped at Rs.2/- but he was not aware about any sale deed filed in the Court. He stated that he was not aware whether he had mentioned in his statement to the police that it was "documents" or "document" at the time of filing the complaint and he was not able to recollect that whether there was only one document or multiple. He though volunteered that the suit was dismissed. He denied all the rest of the suggestions put to him by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.6 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:52:39 +0530 4.2. PW-2 Sh. Gurdev Singh s/o Gopal Singh deposed that he resides at the Ashram of Baba Virsa Singh. He denied the signatures on Mark PW- 2/A to be written or appended by him. He mentioned that he had never received any payment regarding the sale and purchase of property bearing Khasra No.374/1, 374/2 situated at Village Gadaipur, tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi measuring 4 bighas and 16 marlas in area and having two kaccha built rooms. He mentioned that Ranvir Singh was dealing with the property matters with the permission of Baba Virsa Singh and he had nothing to do with the property. He mentioned that he did not know anything about Mark PW-2/A except that accused Amrit Brar, Sukhpal Kaur and Gurdarshan Singh had committed forgery pertaining to the property belonging to Baba Virsa Singh.
During the cross-examination, the witness mentioned that one another Gurdev Singh s/o Jagat Singh was living with Baba Virsa Singh who according to him did not reside permanently in Gobind Sadan but used to visit frequently but the witness denied to the suggestion that this Gurdev Singh had any authority to deal with the properties prior to the authority given to Ranvir Singh Khanna. He mentioned that Gurdev Singh was from Malout, Punjab. He was not aware whether Baba Virsa Singh had any land in Sarwan, Bodla, Malout but he volunteered that there was a "dera" of Baba Virsa Singh located near Malout. He mentioned that he had land in Meerut by the name of Shiv Sadan Dera which originally belonged to Baba Virsa Singh but purchased in his name by Ranvir Singh Khanna on behalf of Baba Virsa Singh. He produced the copy of sale deed Mark PW2/B and his ration card- Mark PW2/C. He admitted that the Ration Card did not contain the name of FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.7 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:52:45 +0530 Gurdev Singh S/o Jagat Singh but the name of his son was mentioned on the document. He deposed about the legatees of Baba Virsa Singh and also mentioned that the original complainant- Sardar Harvinder Singh (one of the legatees) was murdered on 26.10.2012. He admitted filing a civil suit at Malout with regard to the property of Gobind Sadan through Harvinder Singh on the basis of will of Baba Virsa Singh. He mentioned that their guru was Baba Virsa Singh and not Varsha Singh. He was not aware that who was the powere of attorney of Baba Virsa Singh prior to 2000. He mentioned that he can identify the signatures of Gurdev Singh who used to only write his name in his signatures. He was not aware that whether the land in question was purchased by Gurdev Singh s/o Jagat Singh on behalf of Baba Virsa Singh in 1980 vide Mark PW2/D. He then said that he had never seen Gurdev Singh s/o Jagat Singh signing and therefore, he could not comment on his signatures. He denied to the rest of the suggestions.
4.3. PW-3 Sh. Joginder Singh deposed that he had never stood a witness to the document dated 11.06.1991 wherein it is mentioned that Gurdev Singh Mukhtiyar of Baba Virsa Singh had received Rs.9,66,000/- on behalf of Baba Virsa Singh from Sukhpal Kaur as full and final payment for Khasra no.374/1 and 374/2 measuring 4 bighas and 16 malas situated in Village Gadaipur (Mark PW-2/1). He denied the signatures on the said document to be appended by him.
During his cross examination, he mentioned that the name of his father was Sunder Singh and not Surinder Singh. He mentioned that he was illiterate and used to append his signatures in Gurmukhi script. He also FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.8 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA 15:52:52 Date: 2024.08.21 +0530 confirmed that the name of the Guru was Baba Virsa Singh and not Varsha Singh. According to him, no one was appointed as the power of attorney holder prior to 2000 by Baba Virsa Singh and Gurdev Singh never used to buy or sell any land on behalf of their guru. He was connected with the sect since 1960. He mentioned that the land of Gobind Sadan was given by Bibi Nirlep Kaur. He also mentioned that Gurdev used to live at Gobind Sadan and had 2- 3 sons from whom he only knew the name of Hardeep Singh. He was not a legatee of Baba Virsa Singh. Though he admitted that there was a dispute with regard to the will between the brother of Baba Virsa Singh and others pending in different courts in Delhi and Punjab. The witness was shown Mark PW2/A and he stated that the signatures were identical to his signatures. He denied to the suggestions put to him by the defence.
4.4. Hardeep Singh S/o Late Gurdev Singh (claimed to be the signatory of Mark PW2/A) was examined as PW4. He deposed that the police had enquired from him about his father who had expired on 03.04.2003. He also mentioned that he had informed the police that he did not have the power to execute any agreement to sell or sign any document on behalf of the land owner. He mentioned that his father only used to perform/offer ardas. He further mentioned that he had told the police that the document shown to him did not contain the signatures of his father. After seeing the document Mark- PW-2/A, he mentioned that the document did not have any signatures belonging to his father.
In his cross examination, he responded that his father knew English, Urdu and Punjabi and in the year 1991, his family used to reside in FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.9 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:52:58 +0530 Gobind Sadan in a quarter. He father had shifted to Gobind Sadan in 1968 and was a trusted person of Baba Virsa Singh but according to him, Baba Virsa Singh had not authorized his father to purchase or sell any land on behalf of Gobind Sadan and his father had not purchased the property in question. He stated that his father used to discuss everything with him but had never discussed anything about any property deal. He mentioned that his father had not handed him any chain of documents for the property in question and he was not aware about any power of attorney of Baba Virsa Singh. He responded that he knew Ranvir Singh Khanna who was also referred as "Vakil Sahab" as his father was referred as "Gyani Ji". He stated that he was one of the trustees of Gobind Sadan but he had not filed any case individually. He produced the Senior Citizen Card issued by Indian Airlines- Ex. PW4/X1 (OSR) to show the signatures of his father.
4.5. Sh. Leeladhar Sharma, Patwari, tehsil Mehrauli Mehrauli brought the summoned record ie. Original register containing jamabandi of the year 1985-86 containing khata number 12, khasra no.374 / 1 and 374/2 the copy of which was Ex.PW-5/A and the photocopy was Ex.PW-5/B (OSR).
4.6. PW-6 Sh. Amit Kumar Yadav, Kanoongo deposed that he had prepared the nakal jamabandi of Khasra no.374/1 and 374/2 i.e. Ex.PW-6/A. 4.7. PW-7 Sh. Narender Kumar, Kanoongo deposed that he had prepared the nakal jamabandi of Khasra no.374/1 and 374/2 i.e. Ex.PW-7/A. 4.8. PW-8 Sh. Naveen, Record Keeper, Department of Delhi Archives brought the sale deed registered vide registration number 8, book no.1, FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.10 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:53:04 +0530 volume number 4215, pages 49 to 54 dated 02.01.1980 which was Mark PW- 2/D and became Ex.PW-8/A (OSR) (Colly).
4.9. PW-9 Retired SI Preetam Chand deposed that on 16.09.2005, complaint Ex.PW-9/A as marked to him. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW-9/B and got the FIR registered. He had served notice upon accused Sukhpal Kaur which was received by accused Amrit Brar on 20.03.2006 (Ex.PW-9/C). He mentioned that he was not able to trace accused Sukhpal Kaur during his tenure.
In cross examination, he responded that the FIR was registered on the complaint made by Sh. Harvinder Singh dated 01.09.2005. He stated that he was aware that accused Amrit Brar was a public servant.
4.10. PW-10 Inspector Girish Gothwal deposed that on 10.09.2007, he was marked the investigation and he sent SI Adesh Prakash and HC Rajbir Singh on 24.10.2007 to Punjab for investigation and it was reported that they did not find anyone. On 31.10.2007, the investigation was handed over to Inspector Manmohan. The notices issued by him were Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B. 4.11. PW-11 SI Adesh Prakash deposed that on 24.10.2007, on instructions of SI Girish Gothwal (PW-10), he had gone to village Abul Khurana, Punjab for service of notice but did not find anyone and the notice could not be served even at Chandigarh the DD entries at PS Lambi and PS Sector 36 Chandigarh were Mark-X and Mark-Xi.
In his cross examination, he stated that the notices were to be FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.11 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:53:10 +0530 served upon accused Sukhpal Kaur only.
4.12. PW-12 Vishwajeet Singh, Judicial Assistant, Record Room (Civil), THC brought the original case record of case number 1022/20016 and 1023/2006 titled as Sant Baba Virsa Singh v. Chaudhary Ranjeet Singh and Ashok Sharma v. Baba Virsa Singh decided on 12.03.2013 and 18.03.2009 respectively. The amended memo of party, daily order dated 18.08.2006 were Ex.PW-12/A (Colly) (OSR) (38 pages).
4.13. PW13 Inspector Atul Kumar deposed that he received the investigation on 26.08.2006 and on 29.08.2006, he also issued notices to accused Amrit Brar and Sukhpal Kaur for production of documents and joining of investigation but the premises were found locked. He further deposed that on 04.10.2006, he went to the land in question where he found Ashok Sharma residing with his family. He questioned him about the whereabouts of the accused and Ashok Sharma informed that he was not aware about their address but he was residing in the property since 1991 on the instructions of the accused persons. Ashok Sharma also told the witness that there was a civil dispute but he was not aware about the facts. He mentioned that on 06.10.2006, he again sent notices to accused persons at Vasant Kunj address but they were not served. He also deposed that Sh. Ranbir was the attorney of Baba Virsa Singh and he told the witness that the details pertaining to the addresses of the accused persons would be with their Counsel and he also mentioned that the actual owner of the property is Baba Virsa Singh. He stated that Ranbir told him that he would provide the title documents. He further deposed that on 28.09.2006, the notice sent to accused FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.12 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA 15:53:15 Date: 2024.08.21 +0530 Sukhpal Kaur was Ex.PW-13/A. He also mentioned that on 23.11.2006, he deputed HC Dharamvir to inspect the Civil Suit and apply for certified copy. The copies were not ready even by 16.12.2006 and on 09.01.2007, he again found the premises at Vasant Kunj to be locked and he was told that accused Amrit Brar and Sukhpal Kaur stay in Punjab. On 10.01.2007, he issued the letter to Tehsildar, SDM Office which was Ex.PW-13/B and also sent a reminder-Ex.PW-13/C and the reply dated 02.04.2007 along with the Fard Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-7/A were received. Notices Ex.PW-13/D to Ex.PW- 13/G were also issued to accused persons. He visited Chandigarh where he met accused Amrit Brar and she received the notice and on behalf of her mother. He mentioned that he had interrogated accused Amrit Brar and she disclosed that she had no connection with the property and had not paid any money to anyone. The notice was thereafter issued by applying before the Court returnable for 07.06.2007. He further deposed that on 07.07.2007, one Suresh Kumar came with two replies from accused persons which were Ex.PW-13/H and Ex.PW-13/I. He mentioned that on 11.07.2007, Harnam Singh appeared before the Court on behalf of the accused persons and did not produce the original document. He mentioned that he had gone to Punjab on 10.07.2007, where he met accused Sukhpal Kaur and interrogated her. She sought some time to produce the document. He had also visited Gobind Sadan Gurudwara on 17.08.2007, where he met the attorney of Baba Virsa Singh, as Baba Virsa Singh was not well. Thereafter, he was transferred and therefore, he handed over the file on 24.08.2007.
In his cross examination, he responded that he had not seen the FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.13 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:53:20 +0530 power of attorney executed by Baba Virsa Singh authorizing Ranveer Singh and he had not asked Baba Virsa Singh about the said document. He volunteered that Baba Virsa Singh was unwell. He had not verified about his health from any doctor. He mentioned that he did not remember that the accused Amrit Brar was the party to the Civil Suit or not.
4.14. PW-14 ACP Manmohan deposed that he received the investigation on 12.12.2007 and on 04.02.2008, he recorded the statement of Sh. Gurdev Singh and Sh. Hardeep Singh, he mentioned that Kalandra under Section 174/175 CrPC (Ex.PW-14/A) was filed against accused Sukhpal Kaur on 05.02.2008 and he, thereafter, recorded the statements of Sh. Joginder, Notary Public, Sh. Harvind Singh, Sh. Ranvir Singh and the police witnesses.
During his cross examination, he mentioned that he had recorded the statement of notary public namely-Ishwar Dutt and he had confirmed the signatures and attestation on the document dated 11.06.1991. He stated that he had recorded the statement of Sh. Gurdev Singh s/o Sh. Gopal Singh and not Sh. Gurdev Singh s/o Sh. Jagat Singh. He had also not checked the power of attorney in favour of Sh. Ranveer Singh Khanna. He had not checked any official record of accused Amrit Brar to confirm that whether she was posted in CRPF. He denied the suggestions put to him by defence.
4.15. PW-15 Inspector Upender had received the investigation on 27.01.2009 and did not conduct any investigation and the matter was transferred on 10.04.2009.
4.16 Similarly, PW-16 Inspector Satvinder Singh did not conduct any FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.14 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:53:26 +0530 investigation in the present matter and had only attended the proceedings before Hon'ble High Court on 09.02.2009.
4.17. PW-17 Retired Inspector Chander Bhan Singh deposed that he had received the investigation on 10.04.2009 and sent a notice to the complainant and thereafter, he became aware that quashing petition was pending before the Hon'ble High Court. He had also visited village Abul Khurana but did not find accused Sukhpal. He was informed that accused Sukhpal was residing with accused Amrit Brar at Chandigarh and on 20.08.2009, he went to the house of accused Amrit Brar where he interrogated Gurdarshan Singh, accused Sukhpal Kaur and accused Amrit Brar were interrogated and asked to produce the documents. He mentioned that accused Sukhpal Kaur had stated that she had purchased the property from Sh. Gurdev Singh in presence of Sh. Joginder Singh but she stated that she cannot identify them. She stated that her caretaker was left at the property. He questioned accused Amrit Brar but she refused to join the investigation. He even visited the property in question and asked Ashok Kumar to join the investigation and his statement was recorded. He also recorded the statement of other witnesses and thereafter, filed the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet. The certified copies of the suits were Ex.PW-17/1 (Colly). He asked the office to preserve the documents vide Ex.PW-17/2.
In his cross examination, he responded that he could not recall whether complainant-Harvinder Singh had any GPA through Gobind Sadan. He had not seized any other document except the ones mentioned in his examination in chief. He was not aware that whether he had checked the FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.15 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:53:31 +0530 chain of documents. He was shown Ex, PW8/A but he could not recall seeing the document before or interrogating the signatories of the document. He had not examined Baba Virsa Singh as he had already expired by the time he received the investigation. He denied to the rest of the suggestions.
5. This is the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution evidence was therefore, closed accordingly. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused and her statement u/s 313 CrPC r/w 281 CrPC was recorded. The accused maintained her innocence and did not opt to lead any defence evidence.
Arguments advanced
6. Ld. APP for the State argued that the immovable property cannot be transferred by merely executing a receipt and in this case, the said receipt was never produced in original by the accused persons which shows their intention to hide the document. He further argued that the witness to the document- Sh. Joginder Singh and the son of the alleged executant both denied the signatures on the said document which clearly points out that the said document was forged by someone and the beneficiaries of the transaction were the accused persons hence, it shows that they were involved. It was also argued that the said document was produced before the Civil Court hence a forged document was used as genuine by the accused persons. He therefore, contended that the prosecution has established its case.
7. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused Amrit Brar, argued that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the accused Sukhpal FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.16 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:53:38 +0530 Kaur was in possession of the property in question as Sh. Ashok Sharma was residing in the property since 1992 and there was no objection raised by the people of the sect till 2005 and the alleged power of attorney holder- Sh. Ranveer Singh Khanna became the power of attorney holder in 2000 but the veracity of the said document was never established. He pointed out that during investigation, the IO had investigated the notary who had attested the document of the accused persons and the notary public had mentioned that his attestation was genuine but he was not examined by the prosecution. He pointed out that it has been contended that Sh. Gurdev Singh s/o Sh. Jagat Singh did not have any authority to enter into any property deals but he was the witness of the purchase of the said land on behalf of Baba Virsa Singh in 1980 as well. It was hence, contended that he was the "muktiyar" of Baba Virsa Singh. He also contended that the signatures of this person were identical on the documents. He also questioned the deposition of Sh. Joginder Singh as the list of witnesses showed him to be Sh. Joginder Singh s/o Sh. Surinder Singh while the witness examined was Sh. Joginder Singh s/o Sh. Sunder Singh. He further submitted that the document was not established to be forged document therefore, Section 471 IPC is not applicable and there is not criminal conspiracy proved in this case. He challenged the testimony of Sh. Ranveer Singh Khanna and the document produced by him on several counts of discrepancies in the names. He mentioned that nothing was concluded before the Civil Court as well. He questioned the investigation that no efforts were made by any of the IOs to examine Baba Virsa Singh. He pointed out ACP Manmohan deposed that notary public was Sh. Ishwar Dutt FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.17 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:53:43 +0530 but earlier it was mentioned that it was Sh. Nagpal which is also a material contradiction. Written Submissions were also filed wherein the locus of Ranveer Singh Khanna was challenged. It was also mentioned that the son of Sh. Gurdev Singh had mentioned that his father used to put "Gyani" before his name but the other witness- Gurdev mentioned that that Gurdev used to sign as Gurdev Singh only. It was submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce credible evidence that accused Amrit Brar had conspired with her mother to forge the documents and the case of the prosecution was based on presumptions and conjectures.
8. I have heard the final submissions advanced by Sh. Rajat Bansal, Ld. APP for State and Sh. H.S. Bhullar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have gone through the case record meticulously and have appreciated the evidence adduced in the present matter.
Findings of the Court
9. It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence should be of a quality that the chain of events should be complete. It is also established through catena of precedents that the evidence adduced should bring home the guilt of the accused leaving no room for any doubt. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.18 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:53:55 +0530 rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
10. There are allegations of commission of offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC against accused Amrit Brar and Section 471 and 120 B against the deceased accused Sukhpal Kaur. The said allegations stem from the complaint filed. To reach any conclusion, it is the bounden duty of the Court to appreciate the evidence adduced and sift through it. The complainant Sh. Harvinder lodged the complaint, alleging that the accused Amrit Brar using her position, had prepared forged documents pertaining to the property belonging to Baba Virsa Singh in connivance of her parents. The complainant could not be examined in this case as he had already expired by the time he could be summoned as a witness. The prosecution then relied on the next available witness that is PW1- Sh. Ranveer Singh Khanna who claimed himself to be the power of attorney holder on behalf of Baba Virsa Singh. This witness produced the power of attorney which by that time did not hold any value as the executant had already expired and hence, the power of attorney also would have ended with the executant. However, he deposed that Baba Virsa Singh had never made any other person as his power of attorney holder therefore challenging the claim of the accused that Sh. Gurdev Singh s/o Sh. Jagat Singh was the "mukhtiyar" of Baba Virsa Singh. It is pertinent here that the statement of the land owner- Baba Virsa Singh was never recorded by any of the investigating officers during his lifetime. Hence, whether there was any power of attorney in favour of Sh. Gurdev Singh S/o Sh. Jagat Singh or not was never established before this Court. The disciples FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.19 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA 15:54:01 Date: 2024.08.21 +0530 of Baba Virsa Singh could only depose as per the information revealed to them. Therefore, for this purpose, the testimony of both PW1 and PW2 that there was no other power of attorney is immaterial. Gurdev Singh also had expired before the case was registered. Hence, same could not be confirmed from him. It is though correct that investigation could not reveal the existence of any such document thereof as well. Hence, it cannot be held with certainty that Sh. Gurdev Singh did or did not have the authority in 1991 from Baba Virsa Singh to deal or transact on his behalf.
11. According to the landmark precedent of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, 2010 AIR SCW 405, it was held that:
"... Section 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery.
9. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in section:
463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 464 defining "making a false document" is extracted below:
"464. Making a false document.- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record---
FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.20 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:54:09 +0530 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;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(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 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.
Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.21 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:54:14 +0530 document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
... The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof).
... 10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
10.2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
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 (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.22 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:54:20 +0530 control of his senses. ..."
12. A propos, it was upon the prosecution to establish that the accused Sukhpal Kaur had used a forged document. The original document purporting to be a receipt or a document of title never saw the light of the day.
The said document could not be forensically analysed to conclude that the signatures were not of Sh. Gurdev Singh and Sh. Joginder. Sh. Gurdev Singh had already expired so his denial could not be recorded. However, Sh. Joginder had stepped into the witness box to deny his signatures but as the original document never surfaced, the signatures could never be opined by any expert to be genuine or otherwise. It is pertinent here that even Sh. Joginder Singh had admitted in the cross examination that the signatures were identical to his signatures. However, as the document was never produced on original even before the Civil Court, it cannot be conclusively opined that the document was forged. The notary public who according to the IO had stated that the attestation made by him was genuine was also never examined by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no cogent and credible evidence on record to show that the document was forged. Even if it is believed for the sake of argument that the document was forged, there is nothing on record to establish that the document was used in connivance or in association of the accused Amrit Brar. It is admitted that it was accused Sukhpal who claimed to be the owner of the property in question and it was she who had applied to be impleaded in the suit filed before Tis Hazari Courts and produced the document.
13. The Section 120B of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy as an FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.23 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA 15:54:26 Date: 2024.08.21 +0530 agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The essence of this offense lies in the agreement and the intention to commit the act. It is important to note that the act itself need not be executed for the offense to be established. The foundation of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the existence of an agreement between two or more individuals. The agreement does not need to be formal or explicit; it can be inferred from the actions or conduct of the parties involved. It is essential to prove that the individuals involved had a meeting of minds, intending to cooperate and pursue a common goal. The agreement may involve a single or multiple transactions, but the underlying intention to commit the act must be clear and consistent. It is not necessary for all conspirators to know every detail of the plan or every participant in the conspiracy. However, they must be aware of the overall objective and willingly participate in the agreement. The conspirators must share a common intention to either: a) Commit an act that is inherently unlawful, or b) Achieve a lawful objective through unlawful methods. The conspirators' intention can be inferred from their actions, statements, or other circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must establish that the accused persons shared a common purpose to commit the intended act. It has been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Thapa (1996), the importance of corroborative evidence in proving a criminal conspiracy. The court stated that while the prosecution need not necessarily prove the exact date or time of the agreement, it must present evidence that strongly suggests the existence of an agreement between the accused parties. The court further added that the FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.24 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21 15:54:31 +0530 conspiracy's objective must be clearly established through circumstantial evidence. In B. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988), the hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the intended offense is not committed, the mere agreement between conspirators constitutes a criminal conspiracy under section 120B IPC. In Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021) the hon'ble Supreme Court held that to establish a case of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must prove the existence of an agreement between the accused parties to commit the alleged offence. The court observed that the mere presence of circumstances that raise suspicion is not sufficient to prove criminal conspiracy. Further in State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan & Ors. (2021) the hon'ble Kerala High Court held that there is a need for independent evidence to corroborate the allegations of criminal conspiracy.
14. Hence, the prosecution was required to establish the agreement between the accused persons. Merely because accused Sukhpal Kaur was the mother of the accused Amrit Brar will not automatically result into a proof of agreement between them. Accused Amrit Brar was not a party to the suit so she had not produced the document before the Court. It has not been established that there was any role of the accused in creation of the alleged document under scrutiny. The only string attaching the case of the prosecution is that a person serving in CRPF was kept as a care taker by the accused which raises a presumption that the accused who happens to be a public servant employed in the Police Service would have a role in making Ashok Sharma as a care taker of the property in question. It is important here that Sh.
FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.25 of 26 PS Mehrauli (EOW) Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA KHURANA 15:54:40 Date: 2024.08.21 +0530 Ashok Sharma was never made a witness in this case. Hence, it could not be established that it was accused Amrit Brar who had inducted him as a caretaker. The court cannot give a finding merely based on the presumption that as he was also in the police force, the accused would be involved in the conspiracy to commit an offence or an illegal act. Moreover, a conclusive finding about the document to have been forged can also not be given in this case. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused Amrit Brar was involved in commission of criminal conspiracy made punishable under Section 120 B IPC beyond reasonable doubts.
15. In view of the above findings accused Amrit Brar is accordingly acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 120 B IPC. Her Bail Bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any, on proper receipt and identification.
16. Case property, if any, be confiscated to the State after the expiry of the period of the appeal. Accused is directed to furnish necessary personal bond under Section 437A CrPC.
17. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by TANVI TANVI KHURANA
KHURANA Date: 2024.08.21
15:54:46 +0530
(TANVI KHURANA)
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
DISTRICT SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
Announced in the open Court
On 21st August, 2024
FIR No.555/2005 State v. Sukhpal Kaur & Anr Page No.26 of 26
PS Mehrauli (EOW)