Delhi District Court
State vs Rajinder Kumar Etc on 2 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Rajender Kumar & Ors.
FIR No : 274/1996
U/s : 420/468/471/34 IPC
P.S. : Rohini
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 528260/2016
2. Date of commission of offence : 19.07.1996, 20.07.1996,
29.11.1996.
3. Date of institution of the case : 30.03.1999
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : 1) Rajender Kumar
S/o Sh. Naphe Singh
2) Rajesh Sharma
S/o Sh. Radhey
Shyam
(Since already P.O
vide order dated
14.05.2003)
3) Mohan Lal
S/o Sh. Ram Nath
4) Suresh Yadav
FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
S/o Sh. Hari Ram
5) Suresh Kumar Gaur
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand.
6) Priyavrat Mishra
S/o Sh. Jagdish
Mishra
(since already P.O
vide order dated
17.08.2013).
6. Offense complained or proved : 474 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 30.10.2023
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 02.12.2023
FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF SUMMARY OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND
ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE
1. The accused persons are facing trial for offences u/s 474 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 19.07.1996, when the police team comprising SI Neeraj Kumar, Ct. Rajender Kumar and Ct. Rakesh was present at near Tip Top Dry Cleaner Shop at Rohini, a secret information was received by them that a person would be arriving there who is making claims for securing the 10th class, B.A and Shastri Course certificates to the various persons and if apprehended, fabricated course certificates and marksheets can be recovered from him. Thereafter, SI Neeraj Kumar sent the information to police station and formulated a raiding party in which one public person namely Asghar Ali Khan was also associated. The raiding party went to the place of probable arrival of accused at near Sai Baba Chowk, Rohini from where accused Rajender Kumar was apprehended at around 7.00 PM and certain blank documents in the nature of marksheet of Senior Secondary School, CBSE Board for the Examination Year 1996, two certificates of Senior School Examination CBSE Board, Two certificates of Sampoorananand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalya Varanasi, U.P. imprinted with Uttar Madhymam Pariksha were recovered from him. During the course of investigation, accused Rajender Kumar disclosed that FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. he alongwith his associates Suresh Kumar and Suresh Yadav procures the blank certificates and marksheets from Delhi, Haryana, Bihar and U.P and thereafter sells the same for Rs. 3,000/- each after filling the necessary details. It was also disclosed that accused Suresh Kumar and Suresh Yadav are operating their office from Paschim Vihar, Delhi. On the basis of said disclosure made by accused Rajender Kumar, accused Suresh Kumar Gaur and Suresh Yadav were also apprehended by the police on 20.07.1996. The blank documents in the nature of marksheet of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya Bihar, certificate pertaining to Nishkarman Sampoorananand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalya Varanasi, provisional certificate of sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalya Varanasi, Certificate of Shastri Pariksha of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalya Varanasi, Certificate of Poorv Madhymam Pariksha of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalya, Varanasi were recovered from accused Suresh Kumar Gaur and whereas, the recovery of certain blank documents i.e. marksheet of Magadh University Bodh Gaya Bihar, Certificate of Nishkarman Sampoornanad Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya, Varanasi alongwith the three provisional certificates of the same University, certificate of Shastri Pariksha of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalya, Varanasi, certificate of Poorva Madhymam Pariksha of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalya, Varanasi and certificate of Poorva Madhymam Pariksha of Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalya, Varanasi U.P. for the Year, 1994 in the name of Kamlesh Sejwal were recovered from accused Suresh Yadav. During the course of further investigation, accused Suresh Kumar Gaur and Suresh Yadav had made further disclosures regarding FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. the involvement of accused Rajesh Kumar and Mohan Lal in the alleged offences, who were also apprehended by the police. The accused Rajesh Kumar also disclosed about the complicity of accused Priyavrat Mishra in the alleged offences, pursuant to which he was also apprehended by the police. During the course of investigation, certain fabricated documents were also allegedly recovered from accused Rajesh Kumar and Priyavrat Mishra and whereas, fabricated documents in the nature of migration certificate pertaining to Board of School Education Haryana, in the name of one Vijay Kumar S/o Mehar Chand, Registration No. 93 HHB8463 dated 25.05.1995, one matriculation marksheet in the name of said person pertaining to the Board of School Education Haryana alongwith one certificate of National Trade Certificate imprinted with Govt. of India and Ministry of Labour on it was also recovered from accused Mohan Lal. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed by police for conducting trial of accused persons for offences U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. During the course of proceedings of case, accused Rajesh was declared as a P.O vide order dated 14.05.2003 and accused Priyavrat Mishra was declared as P.O on 17.08.2013. The arguments on charges were heard and charges for offence u/s 474 IPC were framed against remaining accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed and trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused persons, FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. prosecution has examined eight prosecution witnesses.
4. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, it leaves no room for doubt that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences and hence, they deserve to be indicted for the same.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons have stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. Arguing further, Ld. counsel have inter-alia submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the recoveries of the alleged fabricated marksheets and certificates from the possession of the accused persons with any concreate evidence. It has further been argued that even the prosecution has also failed to establish the fact that the alleged documents which were recovered from accused persons were in fact the fabricated documents as no investigation in that regard was ever conducted by the IO from the concerned institutions to which the documents belonged. It is also argued that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons showing their complicity in the alleged offences. It is further argued that due to the inherent lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused persons be given the benefit of doubt and are therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE IN BRIEF FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
6. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
PW-1 Ct. Devender Kumar deposed that on 20.11.1996, he had joined the investigation with SI Neeraj Kumar and went to Varanasi, U.P. from where accused Rajesh Sharma (since P.O) was arrested and after his personal search, memo Ex.PW-1/A was prepared. He further deposed that IO recorded the statement of accused Rajesh Sharma which is Ex. PW-1/B and also recovered five provisional certificates of Sampoornanand Vishwavidhyalya, Varanasi, which were blank, two certificates of Poorv Madhya Pariksha of Sampoornanand Vishwavidhyalya, Varanasi, which were also blank, three blank certificates of Nishkarman pertaining to Sampoornanand Vishwavidhyalya Varanasi, one certificate of B.ed pertaining to the same institution which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. He further deposed that as per disclosure made by accused Rajesh, he had collected the said certificates from accused Priyavrat (since P.O) and after collecting the same, he used to supply the same to accused Suresh Yadav and Suresh Gaur. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Priyavrat was also arrested by IO but no recovery was made from him and his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-1/X was also conducted. He further deposed that on 29.11.1996 he alongwith IO SI Neeraj Kumar and Ct. Ram Phal went to PS Rewari City, Rewari Haryana, for execution of arrest warrants against accused Mohan Lal after which accused Mohan Lal was arrested from his house and upon his personal search, memo Ex. PW-1/X1 was prepared. He further deposed that IO FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. also recorded disclosure statement of accused Mohan Lal Ex. PW-1/D and the recovery of certificates in the nature of migration certificates pertaining to CBSE Haryana in the name of one Vijay Kumar, marksheet of CBSE in the same name alongwith certificate in the name of National Trade Certificate Govt. of India and Ministry of Labour was effected from the steel almirah lying in the house of accused Mohan Lal and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/E. He further deposed that accused Mohan Lal had disclosed that he used to get the certificates from Sonipat, Haryana and gave them to accused Suresh Gaur and Suresh Yadav. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had reached to the address of accused Mohan Lal in the car of IO. He further deposed that the name "Vijay" was hand written in the certificate recovered from accused Mohan Lal and the other particulars were imprinted. He stated that no public persons were joined by the IO at the time of recovery of the certificates from accused Mohan Lal.
PW-2 Ct. Rajender Kumar is one of the member of patrolling team which allegedly apprehended accused Rajender Kumar with the fabricated documents. He deposed that on 19.07.1996, he alongwith SI Neeraj and Ct. Rakesh were on patrolling duty at near Tip Top Dry Cleaner, Rohini and one secret informer met SI Neeraj and disclosed him that a person was roaming in the area who has assured to some persons to supply some fake marksheets of different classes for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and he can be apprehended red handed. He further deposed that IO requested some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed, however, one FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. public person Asghar Ali Khan got ready to join the investigation and was joined in the raiding party, after which the police team and the said public person reached Sai Baba Chowk Rohini, from where, upon the pointing out of secret informer accused Rajender @ Raje was apprehended. He further deposed that upon search of accused Rajender, one marksheet of senior school was recovered from right pocket of his trouser and in further search, total four marksheets/certificates were recovered from him which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. He further deposed that accused Rajender had disclosed about involvement of accused Suresh Kumar Yadav and Suresh Gaur vide his disclosure statement Ex. PW-2/B. He was also cross-examined by prosecution and stated that after apprehending accused Suresh Yadav, he led the police team to his Academy at Flat No. A/129, Peera Garhi Delhi and got recovered the documents which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/G. He further deposed that the documents were also recovered at the instance of accused Suresh Kumar Gaur from his office at District Center, Janakpuri, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/H. He further deposed that IO recorded disclosure statements of accused Suresh Yadav and Suresh Kumar Gaur which are Ex. PW-3/E and Ex. PW-3/F respectively, and also prepared the search memo(s) of accused Suresh Kumar Gaur and Suresh Yadav which are Ex. PW-3/C and Ex. PW-3/D, respectively. During his cross-examination, he could not state whether IO had collected the identity card of public witness Asghar Ali. He stated that IO did not serve any notice upon public persons who refused to join the investigation. He could not state about the documents which were recovered from the accused Suresh Yadav and Suresh Kumar Gaur. He FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. denied that he never joined the raiding party and due to said reason, his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC was never recorded.
PW-3 Insp. Neeraj Kumar is the IO and one of the member of the raiding party which allegedly apprehended the accused Rajender @ Raje. He also deposed on the same lines as that of PW-2 and his entire examination is not being reproduced to avoid any repetition. Through his testimony rukka Ex. PW-3/A was proved. He also proved personal search memo of accused Rajender which is Ex. PW-3/B, personal search memo of accused Suresh Yadav Ex. PW-3/C and personal search memo of accused Suresh Gaur Ex. PW-3/D. He also proved the disclosure statements of accused Suresh Yadav and Suresh Gaur which are Ex. PW-3/Eand Ex. PW-3/F respectively. He also proved the seizure memo with respect to the recovered documents at the instance of accused Suresh Yadav as Ex. PW-3/G and qua the alleged documents recovered at the instance of accused Suresh Gaur as Ex. PW-3/H. During his cross-examination, he stated that the accused Mohan Lal was arrested at Police Station when he was called for interrogation. He deposed of having gone to Rewari, Haryana at the house of accused Mohan Lal in a private vehicle but could not state about the fair paid for same. He stated that the house of accused Mohan Lal was in residential area but he could not tell about the floor on which it was situated. He admitted that no notice was given to any public person prior to arresting accused Mohan Lal. During his further cross- examination, he also could not state about the floor on which office of accused Suresh Yadav was situated nor could state about the other persons present there. He denied that the alleged FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. documents have been planted upon on accused persons so as to falsely implicate them in the present case.
PW-4 Retd. ASI Satbir Singh is a formal witness who deposed of having registered FIR Ex. PW-4/A vide endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-4/B. PW-5 Insp. Vikram Singh Chauhan is another formal witness, who deposed that on 28.04.1998, the investigation was assigned to him but he did not conduct any investigation and after discussion with SHO, the case file was handed over by him on the same day.
PW-6 Insp. Dhananjay Gupta deposed that on 04.10.1997, the investigation was assigned to him and during the investigation, he had made search of remaining accused persons but in vain and upon his transfer from PS Rohini on 17.01.1998, the case file was handed over by him to MHC(R) PS Rohini.
PW-7 ASI Ram Phal deposed that on 29.11.2006 he went to Rewari Haryana, alongwith Ct. Devender and SI Neeraj for execution of arrest warrants against accused Mohan Lal. He further deposed about arrest of accused Mohan Lal, his personal search, recording of his disclosure statement by IO and the recovery of alleged fabricated documents from him in his presence. During his cross-examination, he stated to have visited the house of accused Mohan Lal on a government vehicle i.e. TATA 407 Van. He could not state whether IO had given notice to FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. any public person. He stated that there were 3-4 public persons present at that time.
PW-8 Manjeet Kumar is the official from Board of School Education Haryana, who deposed that the relevant record pertaining to the migration certificate in the name of Vijay S/o Mehar Chand is not available as same has been destroyed pursuant to the destruction order issued by the competent authority which is Ex. PW-8/A. Pertinently, PWs Asghar Ali Khan and Ct. Rakesh could not be examined in the present case as the former was untraceable despite various efforts and the latter unfortunately passed away during the course of the present case proceedings. It is also pertinent to mention that upon application U/s 311 Cr.PC moved by prosecution, the processes were also issued to the concerned official from Samproonanand Vishwavishdyalya, Varanasi, U.P. but despite numerous attempts the presence of said witness or service of processes upon him could not be secured by prosecuting agency and hence, said witness was also dropped vide order dated 27.07.2023.
This is the entire prosecution evidence.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
7. Statements of all the accused persons u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences were put to them. The accused persons controverted and denied the allegations levelled FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused persons further opted to not lead evidence in their defence, hence, DE was closed.
GIST OF ALLEGATIONS LEVELED AGAINST ACCUSED PERSONS
8. Prior to delving further into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of the prosecution and defence, it would be apposite to mention the gist of allegations and the developments which was unfolded during the course of investigation and trial of the case for better appreciation of the evidences led by the prosecution. The chronology of events which is unfolded from the allegations, the investigation and the evidences on record is as under:-
a). The team of police comprising of SI Neeraj, Ct. Rakesh and Ct. Rajender whilst on patrolling duty received a secret information that the accused Rajender Kumar @ Raje will be arriving at Sai Baba Chowk, Rohini alongwith the fabricated certificates and marksheets and pursuant thereto, raiding party was formulated with one public person namely Asghar Ali as its member.
b). The accused Rajender @ Raje was apprehended by the police team and some fabricated certificates and marksheets were recovered from him pursuant to which, he disclosed about the involvements of accused Suresh Kumar and Suresh Yadav in the alleged offence.
c). The accused persons namely, Suresh Kumar and Suresh Yadav were apprehended from their offices and some fabricated certificates and marksheets were also recovered from them.
FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
d). The complicity of accused Rajesh Kumar and Mohan Lal was discovered in the alleged offences from the disclosure statements of accused Suresh Kumar and Suresh Yadav and they were also apprehended by the police after which recovery of certain fabricated documents in the nature of certificates/marksheets were also effected from them and the involvement of accused Priyavrat Mishra was also discovered in the alleged offence, who was also subsequently arrested by the police.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
9. Prior to delving into the merits of the present case, let us briefly discuss the provisions of Section 474 IPC for which the accused persons have been charged. The provisions of Section 474 IPC makes indictable an act of coming into possession of a document as described U/s 466 or 467 of the Code with a knowledge that the said document is forged alongwith the intention that same may be used as a genuine document. The careful analysis of this provision makes it amply clear that any person having possession of any document or any electronic record knowing that same is a forged document and intending that same shall be used as genuine one shall be punishable under this provision. The punishments laid down for said act are however different with respect to the nature of documents as specified U/s 466 and 467 IPC, as the case may be.
FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
In order to constitute the offence U/s 474 IPC, it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish the following:-
(i). That the document or electronic record so recovered from the accused is a forged document. The definition of forgery has been incorporated U/s 463 IPC as making of any forged document or an electronic record or part thereof with an intent to cause damage or injury to public or any other person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with any property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with an intent to commit a fraud. The term falsification of document has been defined U/s 464 IPC.
(ii). That the document so recovered from accused was the nature as specified U/s 466 or 467 IPC. The provisions of Section 466 and 467 IPC lays down the aggravated forms of offence of forgery. The provisions of Section 466 IPC deals with forgery related to court record or public documents in the nature of birth registers, baptism record, marriage or burial records etc. and whereas, Section 467 IPC deals with forgery of valuable securities in the nature of Wills, authorities to adopt son, receipts or acknowledgments of money or property etc.
(iii). That the accused was holding the possession of said documents as specified under Clause- i and ii above with the knowledge that same were forged documents and also with an intention to use the same as genuine.
If the prosecution successfully establishes the above mentioned conditions as laid down under clauses i, ii and iii , the accused can be held liable for offence U/s 474 IPC.
Having discussed the provisions of Section 474 IPC and other ancillary provisions involved in the present case, now let us FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. advert ourselves to the merits of the present case so as to ascertain whether the prosecution has successfully proved the essential ingredients for offence U/s 474 IPC so as to hold the accused liable for said offence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
10. The careful perusal of the case record would reflect that during the course of investigation of the present case, IO has surprisingly not made any efforts for conducting the verification of the documents allegedly recovered from accused persons so as to ascertain whether same were fabricated documents or not.
There is no explanation regarding the aforesaid crucial omission on the part of IO. IO/SI Neeraj examined as PW-3 failed to explain the reasons for above mentioned lapse on his part nor the subsequent IOs i.e. PW-5 Insp. Vikram Singh Chauhan, PW-6 Insp. Dhananjay Gupta explained about the reasons for said crucial omission and even no explanation has come from prosecution regarding the aforesaid serious loopholes left out in the prosecution case. The careful scrutiny of record though reveals that during the course of prosecution evidence, an application U/s 311 Cr.PC was filed by prosecution in which the officials/clerks from Samproonanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalya Varanasi, Magadh University Bodh Gaya and School Education of Haryana Board were cited as witnesses alongwith relevant records so as to establish the facts that the documents allegedly recovered from accused persons were in fact forged documents. It is also evident from record that the said application U/s 311 FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. Cr.PC came to be allowed vide order dated 01.08.2022 and the summons were subsequently issued to the concerned record clerks/officials but despite availing numerous opportunities, prosecuting agencies miserably failed to secure presence of all the said record clerks/officials except one from Board of School Education Haryana, who was examined as PW-8. Even the examination of PW-8 also could not yield any fruitful result for the prosecution due to the reason that he could not bring the relevant record pertaining to the migration certificate in the name of one Vijay Kumar which was allegedly recovered from accused Mohan Lal as the same was destroyed pursuant to official order Ex. PW-8/A. In nutshell, there is no evidence to any extent establishing the fact that the documents so recovered from accused persons were in fact the forged documents and hence, it clearly perceives that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the said documents were in the nature of documents as specified U/s 466 or 467 IPC as the case may be and hence, one of the essential ingredients for offence U/s 474 IPC appears to be missing in the present case.
Even for the sake of arguments, assuming that the documents which were allegedly recovered from accused persons were fabricated/forged but again so as to hold the accused persons liable for offence U/s 474 IPC, it was also imperative on the part of prosecution to establish the recovery of the said allegedly forged documents from accused persons with some cogent and clinching evidences. Even though, one independent public person namely Asghar Ali has been cited as a witness, he being the member of the raiding party which allegedly apprehended accused Rajender Kumar @ Raje with the alleged FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. forged documents but despite numerous opportunities, the prosecution also failed to examine said independent public person/member of raiding party so as to establish the alleged recovery of forged documents from the accused. The only witnesses examined by the prosecution so as to establish the recovery of the alleged fabricated documents from the accused persons are PW-1 Ct. Devender Kumar, PW-2 Ct. Rajender Kumar and PW-3 Insp. Neeraj. The PWs Ct. Rajender and Insp. Neeraj were the members of the raiding party which apprehended accused Rajender Kumar @ Raje and PW Ct. Devender Kumar was associated in the investigation at the time of effecting raid on the house of accused Mohan Lal from where the alleged fabricated certificates were recovered. The careful perusal of testimonies of PW- 1 and PW-3 would reflect that there are certain material contradictions which makes the recovery of alleged fabricated documents from the possession of accused Mohan Lal highly doubtful. PW-1 has stated that he accompanied PW-3 on a car belonging to IO/PW-3 to residence of accused Mohan Lal at Rewari Haryana which is in clear contradiction with the version of IO Insp. Neeraj Kumar examined as PW-3 who stated that he had gone to the house of accused Mohan Lal on a private vehicle. One another witness examined by prosecution to establish the recovery of alleged fabricated documents from accused Mohan Lal is PW-7 ASI Ram Phal who also contradicted PW-1 Ct. Devender Kumar by stating that he had accompanied the team of police including IO i.e. PW-3 on a government vehicle i.e. TATA 407 Van. It also clearly perceives from the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 & PW-7 that at the time when accused Rajender was apprehended from public place FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. i.e. Sai Baba Chowk, Rohini, and even prior thereto i.e. the time when the information was received by the patrolling team near Shop of Tip Top Dry Cleaners Rohini, there were several public persons present who could have been associated in the raiding party but no sincere efforts appear to be made by the IO to associate in two or more such public persons as recovery witnesses as per the mandate of Section 100 (4) Cr.PC. In a similar manner, the testimonies of the above mentioned witnesses further reflects that the possibility of presence of public persons at the time of apprehension of accused Suresh Kumar, Suresh Yadav and Mohan Lal at the respective places of the alleged recoveries of the documents from them i.e. at District Center Janakpuri, Jawala Heri Paschim Vihar and Rewari Haryana, could not be ruled out but again no sincere efforts were made by the IO to associate any such public persons as recovery witnesses. The explanation which the IO has tried to put forth regarding such non-compliance is that the public persons were either not available and those who were available failed to join the investigation and left without disclosing their names. This justification given by the IO also does not appears to be plausible and raises serious doubts on the prosecution story as whole and impeaches the credibility of the alleged recovery of documents shown to be effected from the accused persons. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has even failed to establish the alleged recovery of the forged documents from the accused persons with any cogent and convincing evidences and hence, one and only irresistible conclusion arises that the alleged forged documents were either not recovered from the accused FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors. persons or same were planted upon them so as to falsely implicate them in the present case.
It is also a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to an irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidences in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused persons for offence u/s 474 IPC beyond reasonable doubts, thus, entitling the accused persons to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
VERDICT
11. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused persons for the offence u/s 474 IPC and holds the accused persons not guilty. Hence, accused persons namely, Rajender Kumar @ Raje, Suresh Kumar Gaur, Suresh Yadav and Mohan Lal are acquitted of the offence u/s 474 IPC.
FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
12. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused persons at the time of commencement of trail stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 2nd Day of December, 2023. (Rishabh Kapoor) MM-05 North West District Rohini Courts, Delhi FIR No.274/1996 State Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.