Delhi District Court
State vs . Kashi Ram & Ors on 29 January, 2022
State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA : ACMM(East)
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors.
FIR No. : 319/03
U/S : 420/468/471/120B IPC
PS : Preet Vihar
CNR NO. DLET020003192005
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 8631/2016
b) Date of institution of the case : 23.07.2005
c) Date of commission of offence : Unknown
d) Name of the complainant : Dr. Nand Kishore
e) Name & parentage of the :1) Kashi Ram S/o Sh. Taj Ram
accused persons 2) Harish Kumar S/o Sh.Nand
Ram
3) Dalbir Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder
Singh
4) Dhanpat Rai S/o Sh. Inder Sain
5)Chhabi Ram S/o Sh. B.L. Bhasker
6) Raj Kumar S/o Sh. P.I. Raju
FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 1 of 20
State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors
7)Surender Paul S/o Sh. Jai Krishan
8) Gyan Singh S/o Sh. Chhote Lal
9) Hardayal Singh S/o Sh. Sohan
Singh
10) Nawab Mohd. S/o Sh. Kabir
Mohd.
f) Offence complained off : 420/468/471/120B IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 29.01.2022
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 29.01.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on unknown date and time, above mentioned accused persons had applied for the registration at Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad (DBCP), New Delhi on the basis of fake and false certificates and tried to cheat DBCP by deceiving it fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver the registration certificate and accused persons used fake and false certificates as genuine for getting registration certificate and thereby alleged to have committed offences U/sec. 420/468/471/120B IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of IO and the accused were consequently summoned. Perusal of record reveals that though the charge sheet in the present case was filed FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 2 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors U/sec. 420/468/471/120B IPC, however the charges for commission of offence U/s 417/471 (r/w Section 466 IPC) r/w Sec. 511 IPC only were ordered to be framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 03.11.2011. Accordingly charges for the offences punishable U/s 417/471 (r/w Section 466 IPC) r/w Sec. 511 IPC were framed on 14.05.2012, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, twelve witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 HC Jagvir Singh is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR. He proved copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B. He was crossexamined, but nothing material came out in his cross examination.
5. PW2 Sh. Yuvraj Kumar Tyagi who deposed that he had worked as President at Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad (DBCP) from year 2001 to 2005, that some persons had applied for the registration at DBCP on basis of degree of BAMS from Sampurnanand Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and also submitted the application form along with the degree, marksheet, internship certificate and draft of prescribed fee, that as per procedure, they got verification of the above mentioned documents from the concerned Vishwavidyalaya which were found fake and no such candidate ever studied in Government Ayurvedic College, Varanasi. He further deposed that thereafter he met with the Chancellor of the University who checked the FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 3 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors record and found that the said degrees were not issued by the University, that the information was given to the DCP East along with the list of candidates whose degrees and certificate were found fake.
PW2 was crossexamined and during crossexamination, he stated that the concerned dealing clerk received the aforesaid application form. However, he could not tell the name of the clerk, who accepted the application form in question. In his presence, no form was submitted. He could not tell as to which documents were submitted by which of the applicant. He even could not identity the accused persons in the court by their names. He termed it correct that no Registration Form was submitted in his presence by any person during his tenure. The clerical staff prepared the list of those persons. He had physically checked the list of those persons. He had not signed on the record after going through the same because there was no such procedure.
6. PW3 Dr. Nand Kishore is the complainant in the instant case who deposed that he remained Registrar of DBCP from 2001 to 200506, that in the year 200203, Kashi Ram along with other persons applied for registration for doing medical practice as doctor in Ayurveda in Delhi State, that as per procedure, they verified the qualification certificates of the persons which were found fake and no such degrees/certificates were issued by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. He further deposed that he reported the matter with Delhi Police by writing the application Ex. PW3/A and also attached the list Mark X of those persons/applicants with the application.
During crossexamination, PW3 admitted that all the applicant within his FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 4 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors service tenure did not fill up the impugned application form nor signed in his presence. In reply to a question, he specifically stated that he did not have any such record to ascertain as to in which year the impugned applications were submitted by the accused persons and same was with the office of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. He further stated that he had taken only one name that of Kashi Ram and he had not filed and not signed the application in his presence.
7. PW4 SI Krishan Pal deposed that on 11.10.2004, he was posted at Special Staff, East District and joined the investigation of the present case with ASI Ombir, that they reached at E6/479, Sultanpuri, Delhi where IO interrogated accused Gyan Singh and arrested and personally searched him vide memos Ex. PW4/B & PW4/C. PW4 has correctly identified the accused Gyan Singh before court.
He was crossexamined, but nothing material came out in his cross examination.
8. PW5 Ct. Subhash deposed that on 18.11.2004, he was posted at Special Staff and joined the investigation along with HC Amar Chand, HC Kishan Pal, Ct. Satbir and other police officials, that they went to ISBT Kashmiri Gate where accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW5/A & PW5/B. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for State on the point of identification of accused but he could not identify the accused and only stated the name of accused as Hardayal Singh.
He was crossexamined, but nothing material came out in his cross FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 5 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors examination.
9. PW6 Sh. Pratap deposed that Dr. Harish (accused in this case and since deceased) was running a clinic Sangh Health Clinic at Raghuvir Nagar, that he had taken the treatment from Dr. Harish for jaundice in year 2003, that he could not produce any treatment slip/prescription of the doctor as the same was lost.
He was crossexamined, but nothing material came out in his cross examination.
10. PW7 is Sh. R. Chandra, Scientist B, CFSL Chandigarh who had examined the questioned documents and signatures of accused persons and gave his opinion vide report Ex. PW7/XA & PW7/XB.
He was crossexamined, but nothing material came out in his cross examination.
11. PW8 Sh. Dr. B.P. Pandey, Principal D.Y. Patil Ayurvedic College, Pimpri, Pune who deposed that on 06.08.2002, he was posted as Principal in Govt. Ayurvedic College & Hospital, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, that during his tenure, Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad had sought verification regarding medical education degrees of some candidates and he submitted his verification report Ex. PW8/A in which he mentioned the name of those candidates who were registered or not registered with college.
He was crossexamined, but nothing material came out in his cross examination.
FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 6 of 20
State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors
12. PW9 is ASI Amar Chand whose testimony is in consonance with that of PW12/IO Insp. Virender Dalal.
13. PW10 SI Ombir Singh is the second IO. He deposed that on 11.09.2004, he was posted at Special Staff, East District and joined the investigation, that during course of investigation, he arrested and the accused Gyan Singh from his residence at Mangol Puri and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW4/B & PW4/C and obtained his specimen signature and handwriting, that during course of investigation, he also arrested accused Hardayal Singh from ISBT, Delhi and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW5/A & PW5/B, that during course of investigation, he collected documents from several banks pertaining to admitted signature of accused persons for expert opinion, that he prepared charge sheet and placed FSL result with the charge sheet. He further deposed that he cannot identify the accused persons due to lapse of time.
During crossexamination, he stated that no list of documents was prepared by Virender Dalal at the time of handing over of this present case. SI Virender had recorded the statement of clerk and dealing clerk of Bhartiya Chikitsha Parishad Office. No TIP of any of the accused present in the court was got conducted by him through the dealing clerk/clerk of Bhartiya Chikitsha Parishad having any link with the so called registration of them for any purpose.
14. PW11 Sh. Indupati Jha deposed that in year 2003, he was posted as Deputy Registrar Examination at Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, that he had verified the documents of all ten accused persons vide verification report Ex. PW11/A. FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 7 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors He was crossexamined, but nothing material came out in his cross examination.
15. PW12 Insp. Virender Singh is the first IO in te present case who deposed that on 09.08.03, he was posted in Special Staff, East District and investigation of this case was marked to him from Special Saff, that he also received complaint Ex. PW3/A, that on 19.08.03, he made endorsement on the same and handed over to HC Hans Kumar who got registered the FIR Ex. PW12/A, that on 22.08.03, he handed over a letter Mark X to Registrar Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, UP regarding verification degrees, that Deputy Registrar Examination of abovesaid university handed over verification report Ex. PW11/A to him and as per report serial no. 1 to 10 Kashiram, Chhaviram, Surender Pal, Gyan Singh, Dhanpat Rai, Hardayal Singh, Dalbir Singh, Nawab Mohd., Harish Kumar Gupta and Raj Kumar were not registered in abovesaid university and no marksheet/degree was issued to them, that he recorded statement of Deputy Registrar Examination of the university. He further deposed that on 01.09.03, he went to the office of Bhartiya Chikitsha Parishad, Preet Vihar where President Sh. Yuvraj Tyagi handed over the documents to him and he recorded the statement of Sh. Yuvraj Tyagi, that on 03.09.03, he arrested the accused Dhanpat Rai, Dalbir Singh, Harish Kumar Gupta, Kashiram, Surender Pal, Raj Kumar, Chhavi Ram, Mubarak Ali and Dinesh Keshwani vide arrest memos Ex. PW12/B, Ex. PW9/C, Ex. PW9/A, Ex. PW9/F, Ex. PW12/C, Ex. PW12/D, Ex. PW12/E, Ex. PW12/F, Ex. PW12/G and personally searched the accused Surender Pal, Raj Kumar, Dalbir Singh, Chhavi Ram, Kashiram, Harish Kumar Gupta, Dhanpat Rai, Dinesh Kumar FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 8 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors and Mubarak Ali vide personal search memo Ex. PW12/H (colly). He further deposed that during the arrest of Dalbir Singh, he produced original degree of BAMS and marksheet from 1st to 5th year, Internship Certificate and leaving certificate issued by Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/D. He further deposed that during the arrest of Kashiram, he produced his original degree of BAMS and marksheet from 1st to 5th year, Internship Certificate and leaving certificate issued by Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and MTNL Bill to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/I, that he obtained specimen signature of accused Kashiram, Chhavi Ram, Surender Pal, Raj Kumar, Dhanpat Rai, Dalbeer Singh and Harish Kumar Gupta Mark A (colly), that on 04.09.03, he produced all abovesaid accused persons before Court and got PC remand of two accused persons Mubark Ali and Dinesh Kumar Keshwani and other accused persons were sent to JC. He further deposed that they searched remaining accused persons namely Ajay Rajeshwar and A.K. Pandey during PC but same are could not be traced, that on 30.09.03, he had arrested accused Ajay Rajeshwar vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/J and on 11.02.04, he had arrested accused Nawab Mohammad vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/K, that he obtained the specimen signatures of accused Nawab Mohammad and Ajay Rajeshwar Mark A, that he sent questioned documents and specimen signatures of accused persons to CFSL, Chandigarh for expert opinion, that during course of investigation he recorded statement of witnesses. PW12 correctly identified the accused persons before court.
During crossexamination, he admitted that complaint Ex. PW3/A FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 9 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors remained with him for about 10 days. He also admitted that during the period of 10 day, he had not contacted any dealing assistant of Bhartiya Chikitsha Parishad Office for the relevant period as mentioned in the complaint. Except the verification of the complaint Ex. PW3/A, he did not make any inquiry from the President as well as registrar of Bhartiya Chiktsha Parishad. He had not examined any dealing clerk at Varanasi, who might have been receiving the documents for registration sending them forverification. He had also not seized the dispatch register of the dealing clerk of BCP vide which record might have been sent for verification. He had not examined the concerned dealing assistant/clerk, who had received these forms. He had not seized any documentary evidence to show that accused Raj Kumar and Nawab Mohd. were residing at the stated address. He had not recorded the statement of any person of the neighbourhood to confirm that accused Raj Kumar and Nawab Mohd, are residing at the given address. He admitted that he had not investigated the facts and circumstances of the present case from the all dealing assistant remained in BCP office during different years. He also admitted that during investigation he did not obtain any attested copy of the official record of the BCP office from all the different dealing assistant posted in different year regarding the alleged depositing of the form. He also admitted that he had not recorded any statement of any dealing assistants posted during different year in presence of president and secretory. He also admitted that the original register and other original record with regard to the alleged deposit register were not seized by him. He had not inspected any original record from BCP office from all the dealing assistant that as to whether genuinely the alleged so called form and the so called enclosure if any were sent for verification to the concerned authority. He FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 10 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors also admitted that in the submitted record by the president Mr. Yuvraj the president of BCP were having any certificate of the concerned assistant of the particular year showing the genuineness of deposit if any. He also admitted that he had not obtained signature of any dealing assistant concerned of particular year to verify the genuineness of documents being produce by the president. He also admitted that at the investigation before the arrest of the accused persons, he had not got fixed the identity of the concerned person from the different assistants of different years alongwith president and secretary. He could not give any reason for the same. He had not called president, secretary, any of the dealing assistant from the office before the arrest of the accused persons. He also admitted that even at the time of arrest of accused from the alleged premises,he had not joined any independent public persons, neighbours etc. He also admitted that during investigation he could not say that he was not sure as to whether the present accused person or some one else might had deposited application for registration.
16. PE was closed by order of this court on 06.10.2018. Statements of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the police, who had forcibly obtained their signatures on blank form and on some blank papers, when they were in custody of police and later on, they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no concern with the office of DBCP and never gone or submitted any document for any alleged purpose. Accused persons chose not to lead any defence evidence in his favour.
17. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 11 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors including the written arguments filed on behalf of the accused persons. It has been submitted by Ld. APP that prosecution has been able to prove guilt of accused. It has further been argued that testimonies of prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt.
18. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsels have argued that no incriminating material has come on the record against the accused persons and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. They further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence of forgery in as much as, there was no fraudulent or dishonest act on the part of the accused nor has it been proved on the record that the accused had any fraudulent or dishonest intention to forge the registration certificate. In short, it has been submitted that no offence of deceiving or forgery has been proved by the prosecution in this case. A prayer for acquittal of all the accused persons is made.
19. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
20. It is observed that vide order dated 03.11.2011, the accused persons were discharged for the offences punishable u/s 468/120B/34/420 IPC for the reason that no evidence indicating commission forgery of impugned FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 12 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors degree certificates, or conspiracy or common intention thereof, or delivery of any property had been collected by the investigating agency. Accused persons namely Mubarak Ali, Dinesh Kashvani and Ajay Rajeshwar were discharged as the evidence against them were their respective disclosure statements, which are not admissible in evidence.
21. Now, it has to be seen as to whether prosecution has been able to establish the fact that accused persons had attempted to cheat the DBCP to deliver the registration certificate to them. It is also to be seen as to whether the accused persons have fraudulently or dishonestly used the forged degree certificates as genuinein order to obtain registration under DBC Act.
22. It is observed that the prosecution has got examined only two witnesses who were the office bearers of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad i.e. PW2 Sh. Yuvraj Kumar Tyagi, who was the then President of DBCP and PW3 Dr. Nand Kishore, who was the registrar of DBCP during relevant period. It is pertinent to note that both PW2 and PW3 have not identified any of the accused persons by their physical appearance. PW2 in his cross examination specifically stated that he cannot tell as to which documents were submitted by which of the applicant. He even could not identify the accused persons in the court by their names. PW3 in his crossexamination also stated that all the applicants (accused persons herein), within his service tenure did not fill up any application form nor signed in his presence. He has also admitted the suggestion put by ld. Defence counsel that no impugned application was deposited in his presence. As per the version of PW3 Dr. Nand Kishore, the dealing hand must have received the impugned FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 13 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors application. Even as per the version of PW2 Yuvraj Kumar, the clerical staff had prepared the list of those persons, who had submitted the impugned fake certificates.
23. Further, from the crossexamination of PW12 Ins. Virender Dalal, the ld. Defence counsel has succeeded in eliciting the fact that IO had not examined the concerned the dealing clerk before whom the impugned application forms were submitted. Nor the IO had made the efforts to collect the relevant registers wherein the entry has been made regarding the submissions of the impugned application form.
24. The only evidence, which is being relied upon by the prosecution to prove the fact that accused persons have fraudulently or dishonestly used the fake degree certificates to obtain the registration under the DBC Act, are the FSL result Ex. PW7/XA, Ex. PW7/XB and Ex. PW8/A. It is well settled that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration.
25. At this stage it is pertinent to mention the case of S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "28. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 is not definite and cannot be said to be of a clinching nature to connect the appellant with the disputed letters. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering 'conclusive' proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. In Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, while dealing with the FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 14 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors evidence of a handwriting expert, this Court opined:
"... We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial."
16. Of course, it is not safe to base the conviction solely on the FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 15 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors evidence of the handwriting expert. As held by the Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 that "expert opinion must always be received with great caution........it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law."
17. It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the handwriting expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704, the Supreme Court held as under: "4. .......True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses
-- the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses -- but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically nonexistent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 16 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty "is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence (Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v. Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in his evidence)."
5. .......
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person "specially skilled"
"in questions as to identity of handwriting" is expressly made a relevant fact......... So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it."
26. In the present case also there is no evidence to indicate that impugned forged documents/degree certificates were filed in the office of DBCB by, or on behalf, of accused persons. It is further observed that before sending the specimen signatures and disputed signatures to FSL, the IO had not obtained any permission from the court.
FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 17 of 20
State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors
27. In case reported as, "109 (2004) DLT 130", titled as, "Rakesh Kumar Vs. State", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold that if the specimen signatures/handwriting/thumb impression/finger print impression of the accused are obtained during investigation by IO without the permission of the Court, then the same cannot be used against the accused and the report of handwriting expert thereupon would be of no consequences and the same cannot be used to connect the accused with the crime. In this regard, para 17 of the Judgment, containing the law on the aforesaid point is reproduced as under:
"17. Moreover, the alleged specimen signatures/handwriting/thumb/finger print impression of appellant Chandra Shekhar and Sri Chand were obtained during investigation by the IO without prior permission from the Court. Facts in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, II (1994) CCR 531 (SC)=(1994) 5SCC 152, were that specimen handwriting of the appellant were taken under the direction of the Executive Magistrate during the investigation when no inquiry or trial was pending in his Court. Accused person did not raise any objection thereto yet Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that such specimen writing of the accused persons could not be made use of during the trial and the report of the handwriting expert is thus rendered of no consequence at all and could not be used against the accused to connect him with crime. In the present case the specimen signatures/writing/thumb impressions were obtained during the investigation without any permission from the Court. Therefore, the case in hand stands on a weaker footing than that of Sukhwinder Singh (supra). Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh (supra) if follows that the specimen writing/thumb impression/finger print impression FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 18 of 20 State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors of the appellant Sri Chand, Chandra Shekhar could not be made use of during the trial. The report of the handwriting expert/Finger Print Bureau is thus rendered of no consequence at all and cannot be used to connect the appellants with crime".
28. Further, in case reported as, "2004 Cr.LJ 242", titled as, "M/s Durga Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradash", the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has been pleased to hold that if the specimen signatures of the accused were not obtained by the prosecution in presence of Presiding Officer and even if the signatures obtained by the police tally with that of signatures on the said documents, the same cannot be the basis of the conviction of the accused.
29. Thus, the mere fact that specimen signatures obtained by the IO tallied with the signatures on the impugned application form, cannot be the basis of the conviction of the accused persons.
30. In view of the abovementioned observations, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate allegations/charges against accused person beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, the accused namely Kashi Ram, Harish Kumar, Dalbir Singh, Chabbi Ram, Dhanpat Rai, Raj Kumar, Surender Lal, Nabab Mohd, Gian Singh and Hardayal are entitled to benefit of these reasonable doubts. The accused persons are therefore acquitted.
FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 19 of 20
State vs. Kashi Ram & Ors
31. Case file be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ ARORA
ARORA Date:
2022.01.29
15:33:36 +0530
Pronounced in the open Court on (Pankaj Arora)
this 29th day of January 2022 ACMM (East)/KKD COURTS/Delhi FIR No. 319/03 PS Preet Vihar 20 of 20