Delhi District Court
State vs Puran Singh Etc. on 28 October, 2010
FIR No.: 194/2000, PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w 120 B IPC DOD: 28.10.2010 IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI FIR No.: 194/2010 PS: Subzi Mandi U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 r/w 120 B IPC State V/s Puran Singh Etc. Unique ID No.: 02401R0013082000 J U D G M E N T:
________________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 132/2
(b) Name of complainant : Shri M.S Rohilla, Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 01.10.1999
(d) Name of the accused : (i) Puran Singh,
S/o Shri Kacheru Mal,
R/o H.No.: K109, 3 ½ Pusta,
Gautam Vihar, Delhi.
(ii) Ram Avtar,
S/o Shri Udai Ram,
R/o F78, Shastri Park,
Seelampur, Shahdara, Delhi.
(iii) Rakesh Kumar,
S/o Shri Krishan Lal,
R/o A135/14, South Gamri Extn.,
Bhajanpura, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC
r/w 120 B IPC.
State V/s Puran Singh Etc. ("Accd. Puran Convicted; Other two accd. Acquitted") Page 1 of 9
FIR No.: 194/2000, PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w 120 B IPC DOD: 28.10.2010
(f) Plea of accused : All pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
(g) Final arguments heard on : 20.10.2010
(h) Final Order : Accused Ram Avtar and Rakesh
acquitted from the charges in this
case.
Accused Puran Singh convicted
U/s 205/471/181/193/417 IPC.
(i) Date of such order : 28.10.2010
State V/s Puran Singh Etc. ("Accd. Puran Convicted; Other two accd. Acquitted") Page 2 of 9
FIR No.: 194/2000, PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w 120 B IPC DOD: 28.10.2010
A. BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
One Maqsood Alam, S/o Shri AzizurRehman was an undetrial in case FIR No.: 138/1998, U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS Jama Masjid, in the court of Shri M.S Rohilla, the then Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate. In the said case, the aforesaid accused was released on bail, on furnishing of surety bond by one Mohd. Javed, S/o Mohd. Iqbal. Alongwith the surety bond, the said surety furnished an FDR bearing No.1239856, for a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), purportedly issued by UCO Bank, Ashok Vihar Branch and Ration Card bearing No.002486, purportedly issued by Circle38, Food & Supplies Department. When the said documents were sent for verification, then it transpired that both the said documents were false and fabricated. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate made a complaint to this court U/s 195 Cr.P.C and also made a complaint to DCP (North District) on 10.05.2000, pursuent whereto present case FIR in this case U/s 461/420/468/ 471/181/193/196/199/419/171 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, it was found that in the said case, accused Puran Singh had impersonated as Mohd. Javed and had stood surety for accused Maqsood Alam in that assumed character, and had furnished false and fabricated FDR and ration card alongwith the surety bond and affidavit. Accused Puran Singh while in police custody made disclosure statement that he alongwith other two accused namely Ram Avtar and Rakesh had forged the aforesaid documents on the basis of which he State V/s Puran Singh Etc. ("Accd. Puran Convicted; Other two accd. Acquitted") Page 3 of 9 FIR No.: 194/2000, PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w 120 B IPC DOD: 28.10.2010 had stood surety for accused Maqsood Alam in the aforesaid case. On the basis of aforesaid disclosure statement of accused Puran Singh, the other two accused persons were also arrested and during investigation, the handwriting samples of accused Puran Singh and Rakesh were taken and the same were sent to FSL alongwith the original documents filed by accused Puran Singh alongwith the surety bond and opinion of FSL thereupon was obtained, whereby the handwriting of accused Rakesh Kumar did not match with the writing on the aforesaid two documents; whereas the handwriting of accused Puran Singh duly matched with his signatures on the surety bond and the accompanying affidavit thereto. However, the handwriting of accused persons in this case did not match with the handwriting on FDR and ration card. The accused stood chargesheeted in the matter and after finding prima facie material against them, charge U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined nine witnesses, whereafter the PE was closed and statements of all the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein accused Puran Singh confessed to his guilt and further stated that aforesaid false and fabricated documents were handed over to him by accused Ram Avtar. He also admitted that he was engaged in the business of standing fake surety, whereas accused Ram Avtar in his statement denied having supplied the false and fabricated documents to accused Puran; whereas accused Rakesh Kumar denied the entire State V/s Puran Singh Etc. ("Accd. Puran Convicted; Other two accd. Acquitted") Page 4 of 9 FIR No.: 194/2000, PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w 120 B IPC DOD: 28.10.2010 case against him and he being in conspiracy with other two accused persons for standing fake surety. He further stated that he and accused Puran Singh were working as "Munshis" with lawyers in District Court Complex Tis Hazari and accused Puran Singh got him falsely implicated in this case. None of the accused persons lead defence evidence in the matter.
3. Despite opportunity, accused Puran Singh and Ram Avtar did not advance final arguments and rather filed applications for releasing them from the case on the sentence for the period already undergone in J.C by them as undertrial, whereas Shri G.P Aditya, advocate, learned counsel for accused Rakesh Kumar advanced final arguments on his behalf. Before adverting to the arguments advanced at bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter, which is as under.
4. PW1, HC Anita was posted as Duty Officer in PS Subzi Mandi at the relevant time and she has proved the case FIR in the matter as Ex.PW1/A.
5. PW2, Shri M.S Rohilla, the then Ld.MM, Delhi in his evidence has proved the fake surety bond as Ex.PW2/A, fake FDR as Ex.PW2/B, his complaint in this regard to DCP (North) as well as to this court as Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D respectively. The evidence of this witness has gone unrebutted, as despite opportunity, he was not crossexamined.
State V/s Puran Singh Etc. ("Accd. Puran Convicted; Other two accd. Acquitted") Page 5 of 9 FIR No.: 194/2000, PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w 120 B IPC DOD: 28.10.2010
6. PW3 Ct.Mahesh Kumar, PW6 ASI Azad Singh, PW8 Ct.Ajay Kumar and PW9 Inspector Ramesh Chand have deposed about the investigation in the matter.
7. PW4, Shri D.P Singh was posted as Food & Supplies Officer in Circle No.38 at the relevant time and he has proved his report as Ex.PW4/B to the effect that Ration Card Ex.PW4/A was not issued by his Circle and the same was false and fabricated.
8. PW5 Shri Kuldeep Sharma, the then Ahlmad posted in the court of PW2 has proved the Seizure Memo vide which the original FDR Ex.PW2/B (Ex.P1) and original Ration Card Ex.PW4/A (Ex.P2) were seized by IO in this case.
9. PW7, Shri N.K Gandhi, in his evidence has stated that at the relevant time, he was posted as Deputy Chief Officer (Inspection) at Zonal Office of UCO Bank, Parliament Chowk, and he has proved his report as Ex.PW7/A to the effect that FDR Ex.PW2/B (Ex.P1) was not issued by UCO Bank and further stated that at the relevant time, there was no branch of UCO Bank at Ashok Vihar.
10. The learned defence counsel, Shri G.P Aditya, advocate has very vehemently argued that accused Rakesh Kumar was arrested in this matter only State V/s Puran Singh Etc. ("Accd. Puran Convicted; Other two accd. Acquitted") Page 6 of 9 FIR No.: 194/2000, PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w 120 B IPC DOD: 28.10.2010 on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Puran Singh and there is no legally sustainable evidence against this accused for having either acted as "conspirator" with other two accused persons for forging the documents or producing the aforesaid documents alongwith surety bond. It is further argued that from the report of "Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD)", Hyderbad, dated 07.11.2000, his handwriting sample has not matched with the handwriting on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
11. Per contra, the learned APP has very vehemently argued that this accused was in active conspiracy with two other accused persons for standing fake surety on the basis of false and fabricated documents. He has relied upon the disclosure statement of accused Puran Singh, to press forward a point that accused Rakesh and Ram Avtar procured Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and then made accused Puran Singh to stand as fake surety in the court on the basis of aforesaid documents. The learned APP has further emphasised the conduct of this accused, whereby he after being released on bail misused the concession and lateron could be apprehended by taking recourse to coercive measures and a supplementary chargesheet in the matter in this regard was filed.
12. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar. In my considered opinion, except for the disclosure statement of accused Puran Singh, there is no other evidence to connect this accused with the commission of offence in this case. As per the GEQD Report, dated 07.11.2000, State V/s Puran Singh Etc. ("Accd. Puran Convicted; Other two accd. Acquitted") Page 7 of 9 FIR No.: 194/2000, PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w 120 B IPC DOD: 28.10.2010 which is admissible in evidence U/s 293 Cr.P.C, the handwriting of this accused has not matched with the handwriting on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and as such, the authorship of aforesaid two documents cannot be imputed to him. As regards, this accused being instrumental in procuring Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 is concerned, again there is no evidence on record. This court is conscious that the criminal conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and the possibility of direct evidence thereof is always very bleak. Even then, there has to be some semblance of evidence to connect the accused with the conspiracy. In this case, there is no such evidence on record. Therefore, accused Rakesh stands acquitted in this case.
13. Although, accused Ram Avtar has not argued the matter and has moved an application, thereby admitting his guilt and seeking release from this case on the basis of he having undergone substantial sentence as an undertrial in this case, yet the case of this accused is not different from that of accused Rakesh and there is no legally sustainable evidence against him in this matter. He also stands acquitted in this case.
14. As regards accused Puran Singh, there is clear cut evidence of he having used the forged documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 alongwith surety bond Ex.PW2/A in the court of PW2, Shri M.S Rohilla, the then Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate. He also impersonated as Mohd. Javed in the said court. From the perusal of reports Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW7/A, it has been amply proved on record that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were forged documents, however, there is no State V/s Puran Singh Etc. ("Accd. Puran Convicted; Other two accd. Acquitted") Page 8 of 9 FIR No.: 194/2000, PS Subzi Mandi: U/s 205/468/471/181/193/417 IPC r/w 120 B IPC DOD: 28.10.2010 material on record as to whether this accused himself forged these documents. However, one thing has been clearly established on record that he used as genuine those forged documents for the purpose of cheating the court to seek release of accused Maqsood Alam in case FIR No.138/1998, U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS Jama Masjid. He deceived the court to believe the documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 produced by him alongwith his surety bond to be genuine and got accused Maqsood Alam released on bail on the basis thereof, which the court would not have done had it not been so deceived. The criminal conspiracy in the matter has not been proved by the prosecution. Accordingly, accused Puran Singh stands convicted for offence punishable U/s 205/471/181/193/417 IPC. Let he heard on the point of sentence on 30.10.2010.
Announced in the open court (Vinod Yadav)
on 28.10.2010 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Delhi
State V/s Puran Singh Etc. ("Accd. Puran Convicted; Other two accd. Acquitted") Page 9 of 9