Delhi District Court
As Per Prosecution Version vs N. Sharma on 17 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI, CMM, EAST
DISTRICT, KKD COURTS DELHI
FIR No. 386/01
PS New Ashok Nagar
(Crime Branch)
JUDGMENT
UID No. 02402R0076022002 a. Sl. No. of the case : C69/13 b. Date of commission of offence : 15.02.1983 to 1994 c. Name of the complainant : Mohd. Zahid Khan d. Name of the accused, their : 1. Sarda Ram parentage and addresses S/o Hari Chand R/o Village Chilla Saronda, Delhi91.
2. Jai Chand S/o Ram Saran R/o Village Chilla Saronda, FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 1/25 Bangar, Dallupura, Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi.
(proceedings against him
already abated)
e. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f. Offence complained of or proved: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC
g. Final order : Acquitted
h. Date of Institution : 20.12.2002
i. Judgment reserved on : 11.12.2014
j. Judgment delivered on : 17.12.2014
Brief Facts
1. As per prosecution version, one complaint made by Samaj Unyan Kalyan Samiti (Regd.), Block BII, New Ashok Nagar was received in Crime Branch. It is stated that during inquiry of the complaint, FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 2/25 complainant Mohd. Zahid Khan gave his statement to ASI Dhan Singh.
2. Complainant in his statement stated that he basically belongs to State of Bihar and he came to Delhi in 1976. He stated that he is engaged in business of selling fruits and vegetables. He stated that one O. P. Khan belonging to Gorakhpur was also with him who used to do work of stitching. He stated that both of them thought of building their own house after purchasing land in Delhi. He stated that both of them contacted Sarda Ram and Jai Chand who were doing work of property dealer in name and style of Jamidar and Company. He stated that both those persons disclosed themselves to be owner of the said company and also disclosed themselves to be owner of land in khasra No. 391/263, Village Chilla Saronda, Delhi. He stated that the said land is known by name of New Ashok Nagar and that colonies are being developed in this area after selling of plots. He stated that after talks they agreed to purchase 100 yards of plot in khasra No. 391/263, Village Chilla Saronda, Delhi for sum of Rs. 4,000/. He stated that they were told that documents with regard to the plot shall be made after complete payment. He stated that they were told that FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 3/25 receipt for the amount given shall be issued. He stated that they did not enter into written agreement because of faith they had in Sarda Ram and Jai Chand. He stated that they gave Rs. 500/ as earnest money on 15.02.1983 to Sarda Ram and Jai Chand for which receipt number 3722 dated 15.02.1983 was issued by Sarda Ram bearing his signatures. He stated that he and O. P. Khan gave Rs, 2700/ on 28.02.1983 to Sarda Ram and Jai Chand towards completion of payment towards purchase of aforesaid plot. He stated that receipt bearing No. 3769 dated 28.02.1983 was issued by one person sitting in the office of company at instance of Sarda Ram bearing his signatures. He stated that rest of amount of purchase money of Rs. 1300/ was paid in installments till March 1987 to Sarda Ram and Jai Chand. He stated that in between, O. P. Khan changed his mind to purchase the land and half of the money which was given by O. P. Khan was returned to him. He stated that complete payment towards purchase of the land was made till March 1987. He stated that Sarda Ram and Jai Chand did not issue any receipt of Rs. 1300/. He stated that he was told that papers in his name shall be made on complete payment. He stated that on 23.03.1987, GPA in his name was got FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 4/25 executed by Sarda Ram and Jai Chand through their man Raj Kumar. He stated that Raj Kumar gave him complete receipt of payment of Rs. 4,000/. He stated that he was given possession of the plot. He stated that he constructed house on the said plot. He stated that like him, many other poor people purchased plots of 50/100 yards. He stated that all of the people who purchased plot suffered great jolt in September, 1994 when DDA demolished all the houses. He stated that they were told that DDA has already acquired the said land by notification in year 198283. He stated that later on he came to know that Sarda Ram and Jai Chand were not owner of khasra No. 391/363. He stated that in this manner, Sarda Ram, Jai Chand and Raj Kumar cheated him and other people after making forged documents.
3. It is stated that aforesaid statement of complainant was recorded on 06.12.2001 and present FIR was got lodged. It is stated that ASI Dhan Singh carried out investigation after registration of FIR. It is stated that during investigation, IO collected evidence, arrested accused Sarda Ram and recorded his disclosure. It is stated that specimen handwriting of accused Sarda Ram was taken. It is stated that thereafter IO took into possession various documents of various other FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 5/25 people including complainant herein. It is stated that thereafter IO procured documents with regard to khasra No. 391/263, Village Chilla Saronda. It is stated that thereafter IO recorded statement of Mr. P. L. Nagpal, Deputy Director DDA. It is stated that thereafter IO recorded further statements u/sec 161 Cr. P. C. and took into possession documents produced by Laxmi Devi. It is stated that thereafter IO procured photocopy of demolition report from Mr. S. D. Arora, Joint Director, LM, DDA and procured copy of letter No. 746 dated 14.12.2001 from Tehsildar and recorded their statement u/sec 161 Cr. P. C. It is stated that during investigation, Smt. Ram Kaur, Ravi Kumar and Smt. Shibran also produced their documents to IO which were taken into possession vide separate memo and IO recorded their statements and statement of one Sunil Mistry u/sec 161 Cr. P. C. It is stated that accused Raj Kanwar Singh @ Raj Kumar was interrogated in the case and his specimen signatures were taken. It is stated that thereafter documents presented by various other people were taken into possession which were executed by accused Raj Kumar vide separate memos and their statements u/sec 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded. It is stated that thereafter accused Raj Kanwar FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 6/25 Singh @ Raj Kumar was formally arrested and released on bail in terms of order of Ld. ASJ Sh. J. P. Singh.
4. It is stated that further investigation was assigned to Inspector M. C. Meena. It is stated that IO Inspector M. C. Meena interrogated in detail accused Raj Kanwar Singh @ Raj Kumar, Sardar Ram and Jai Chand. It is stated that certain witnesses including complainant were examined again by second IO and their supplementary statements u/sec 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded. It is stated that further investigation was assigned to Inspector B. M. Sharma.
5. It is stated that during investigation, 3rd IO sent documents seized in present case to FSL for comparison and expert opinion. It is stated that 3rd IO formally arrested accused Jai Chand and released him on anticipatory bail in terms of order of Ld. ASJ Sh. J. P. Singh. It is stated that accused Raj Kanwar Singh @ Raj Kumar has expired. It is stated that accused Sarda Ram, Jai Chand and Raj Kanwar Singh @ Raj Kumar during investigation told that their accomplices namely Tilak Singh and B. Chakraborty who were working with them in Jamidar and Company had expired. It is stated that factum of their death was tried to be verified but their whereabouts could not be FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 7/25 traced and they death certificates also could not be obtained. It is stated that in case any clue is found regarding Tilak Singh and B. Chakraborty, appropriate proceedings shall be taken up against them. It is stated that accused Sarda Ram, Jai Chand and Raj Kanwar Singh @ Raj Kumar while working as property dealer in name and style of Jamidar and Company have cheated people by selling land already acquired by DDA and have thus caused wrongful loss to people and have wrongfully gained themselves. It is stated that FSL result is yet to be obtained as soon as the same is obtained, same shall be filed before court.
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before court on 20.12.2002.
7. Provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P. C. were complied with on appearance of accused and prima facie case having been made out, charge u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC was framed against accused Sarda Ram and Jai Chand on 03.11.2007 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following witnesses: FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 8/25 PW 1 Ghanshyam Jha PW 2 Mohd. Zahid Khan PW3 Tinku Viswas PW4 Charan Singh PW5 Jai Dev PW6 Mohd. Mainuddin PW7 Ravi Mandal PW8 ACP M. C. Meena PW9 HC Inderpal Singh PW10 HC Gajan Singh PW11 Ct. Mohd. Fazal PW12 Inderjeet PW13 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar PW14 Brij Mohan Sharma (Retd. ACP) PW15 SI Dhan Singh PW16 S. D. Arora PW17 P. L. Nagpal
8. PE was closed vide order dated 29.08.2014 on submissions made by Ld. APP for state.
FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 9/25
9. Before SA was recorded, it was brought into notice of court that accused Jai Chand has expired upon which his death verification report was called and case was abated against him on 17.11.2014.
10.S/A u/s 313 Cr. PC against accused Sarda Ram was recorded on 11.12.2014 in which all incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused were put to accused to which accused admitted that he was apprehended by police in this case but that he did not give any disclosure statement to police but however during his police custody, police officials obtained his signatures on many blank papers. He further admitted that his specimen signatures were obtained by police during his police custody in this case. He stated that present case is a false case and that he is innocent. He stated that he has been falsely implicated by police in this case alongwith his uncle Jai Chand, however he does not have any concern with this case. Accused did not led defence evidence.
I have heard final arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record.
Decision and Brief Reasons for the Same FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 10/25 Before disclosing my opinion on merits, I will discuss evidence led by prosecution and defence.
PW1 Ghanshyam Das exhibited copy of agreement, receipt, GPA purportedly executed by one Suresh Dass in favour of his mother Smt. Ram Dana Devi alongwith GPA and agreement purportedly executed by Tilak Singh in favour of Suresh Dass property number B2/98, Village Chilla Saronda, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi vide Ex. PW1/A and seizure memo of all the documents produced by him to IO ASI Dhan Singh vide Ex. PW1/B. PW2 Mohd. Zahid Khan is complainant who has exhibited his statement on basis of which FIR in present case was lodged vide Ex. PW2/A. He turned hostile before court and denied to have made major portion of statement in Ex. PW2/A. He exhibited receipts of payment vide Ex. PA and PB. He failed to identify accused Sarda Ram before court.
PW3 Tinku Viswas also turned hostile with regard to identity of accused Sarda Ram but he has exhibited seizure memo of one receipt (as per his deposition, it was photocopy of receipts) purportedly handed over by him to IO vide Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that his father in law Sunil Mistry was working as Chowkidar with Raj Kumar and other associates who were dealing in the property. He deposed that later on he heard after demolition FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 11/25 took place that Sarda Ram was the owner of land which was allegedly sold to him through his father in law. He deposed that the payment was made by him to his father in law who told him that plot shall be given by Raj Kumar. He deposed that no transaction took place between him, Sarda Ram and Jai Chand.
PW4 Charan Singh is Patwari of DDA who has exhibited and proved on record letter No. F4(22) 2000 /CRC /DDA/East/108 dated 10.12.2001 of Sh. P. L. Nagpal, Deputy Director vide Ex. PW4/A, copy of record of possession of mauja chilla Saronda Bangar vide award number 39/8283 dated 01.10.1982 vide Ex. PW4/B and record of notification no. F.8 (67)/76L & B dated 14.10.1982 with regard to Village Chilla Saronda Banger relating to khasra No. 391/263 vide Ex. PW4/C. PW5 Jai Dev in his deposition initially did not disclose complete facts on account of which Ld. APP for state cross examined him. He in his deposition identified accused Sarda Ram before court. He deposed that in 1980, he purchased land from accused Sarda Ram and initially made payment of Rs. 5,000/ to him. He deposed that he paid total amount of Rs. 24,000/. He deposed that in 1994, DDA demolished his house at the above said land. He in his cross examination by state has stated that accused FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 12/25 persons told him that they were owner of land bearing No. B2, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi and also told that they were owner of Jamidar and Company. He admitted that he paid Rs. 13,900/ to accused Sarda Ram from 10.12.1980 to 19.09.1992. He admitted that after taking complete payment, accused Sarda Ram and Jai Chand transferred plot measuring 32 sq yards at B2, New Ashok Nagar in his name but they did not hand over GPA. He admitted that on 16.09.1985, after his repeated, accused persons handed over him a GPA of Ashid Kumar Mujumdar in which khasra No. 389/263 measuring 32 sq yards was shown as transferred in his name. He exhibited GPA in his favour vide Ex. PW5/A, agreement in his favour vide Ex. PW5/B, one page containing receipt of various payments made by him to accused vide Ex. PW5/C and seizure memo vide which all these documents were handed over by him to IO vide Ex. PW5/D. In cross examination of PW5 by defence, Ex. PW5/DA was exhibited which is certified copy of WS filed by various people including PW5 in suit filed by M/s Ashok Nagar Welfare Association.
PW6 Mohd. Mainuddin also did not disclose much in his examination in chief and he was cross examined by state. He in his cross examination by state stated that accused Sarda Ram and Jai Chand assured FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 13/25 them that they would provide them the plot in installment. He identified accused Sarda Ram before court. He stated that both accused told that they were real owner of the land. He stated that on 24.08.1992, he handed over Rs. 4,000/ to accused as advance regarding plot of 60 yards and accused got issued receipt of Rs. 4,000/ from one person namely Tilak Singh who was present with the accused. He admitted that later on, he asked accused to give only 35 yards of plot in Rs. 21,000/. He stated that on 02.02.1994, he handed over Rs. 17,000/ to accused and accused issued receipt for the same bearing name and signatures of Rajesh Pandey. He stated that after it, accused persons handed over to him plot of 35 yards in New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. He stated that he built that plot but in 1994, his house was demolished by DDA. He has denied to have made statement mark X to police. He has exhibited the receipt bearing signatures of himself as well as purported signatures of accused Sarda Ram dated 24.08.1992 vide Ex. PW6/A, receipt purportedly issued by one Rajesh Pandey vide Ex. PW6/B, GPA in his favour of plot measuring 35 sq yards in khasra No. 388/263 in plot No. B2/106 purportedly executed by one Rajesh Pandey vide Ex. PW6/C, seizure memo of documents handed over by him to IO vide Ex. PW6/D, sale agreement purportedly executed by Mr. Rajesh FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 14/25 Pandey in his favour with regard to aforesaid property vide Ex. PW6/E. PW7 Ravi Mandal has not supported prosecution version and was declared hostile. He in his cross examination by state has exhibited seizure memo of documents given by him to IO vide Ex. PW7/A but he refused that he had handed over to police any documents regarding this case. He failed to identify accused before court.
PW8 ACP M. C. Meena is second IO of the case. He identified accused Sarda Ram before court. He has not exhibited or proved any documents on record but has supported prosecution version. He deposed that during interrogation, accused Jai Chand and Raj Kanwar admitted that they were running Jamidar & Company Pvt Ltd. and sold some plots to the people in the land which had already been acquired by DDA in 1982.
PW9 HC Inderpal Singh is witness to disclosure statement of accused Sarda Ram vide Ex. PW9/A, personal search memo of accused Sarda Ram vide Ex. PW9/B, arrest memo of accused Sarda Ram vide Ex PW9/C, specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Sarda Ram vide Ex. PW9/D1 to Ex. PW9/D18 and seizure memo of documents produced by one Rajesh Yadav vide Ex. PW9/E. He identified accused Sarda Ram before court.
FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 15/25 PW10 HC Gajan Singh is police official who got lodged FIR by taking rukka in the PS and came back at office of Crime Branch alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed it over to 1st IO ASI Dhan Singh.
PW11 Ct. Mohd. Faizal is the police official who handed over copy of postmortem report of accused Raj Kanwar Singh @ Raj Kumar to 3rd IO Inspector B. M. Sharma.
PW12 Inderjeet is Patwari who in his deposition exhibited notification dated 29.09.1981 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act including acquisition of Khasra No. 391/263, Village Chilla Saronda Bangar vide Ex. PW12/A. PW13 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar is the police official who marked letter of one V. N. Sharma, Assistant Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana with regard to non incorporation of M/s Jamidar and Company in NCT of Delhi vide Mark PW13/A. PW14 Retd. ACP Brij Mohan Sharma is 3 rd IO of the case. He has exhibited one letter written by him to Registrar of Companies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi with regard to registration of Jamidar and Company in record of Registrar of Companies vide Ex. PW14/A, specimen signatures and FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 16/25 handwriting of accused Sarda Ram vide Ex. PW14/B1 to Ex. PW14/B35. He identified accused Sarda Ram before court.
PW15 SI Dhan Singh is 1st IO of a case who has exhibited seizure memos of various documents seized by him from various persons vide Ex. PW15/A to Ex. PW15/M. PW16 S. D. Arora is Retd. Joint Director of DDA who has exhibited his letter written to ACP Crime Branch dated 14.12.2001 vide Ex. PW16/A and another letter written by him to ACP (CBT), Crime Branch dated 19.12.2001 vide Ex. PW16/B. He has exhibited site plan of Shajra of village Chilla Saronda Bangar vide Ex. PWPB.
PW17 P. L. Nagpal was working as Deputy Director (NL) at DDA. He has deposed with regard to his reply already exhibited as Ex. PW4/A. Accused admitted FSL report in present case in his statement recorded u/sec 294 Cr. P. C. on 26.04.2014 vide Mark A. After going through evidence as adduced by prosecution on court record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove guilt of accused Sarda Ram beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons as to why I have arrived at such a conclusion are as follows: FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 17/25 Firstly, version of prosecution starts with receiving of one complaint from Samaj Unyan Kalyan Samiti (Regd.) but this complaint has not been exhibited or proved on record by state. It is an important missing link in story of prosecution as as per body of charge sheet, statement of complainant Mohd. Zahid Khan was recorded during inquiry of this complaint only.
Secondly, complainant Mohd. Zahid Khan /PW2 is star witness of prosecution being complainant. He has been declared hostile by State and he in his cross examination by state has denied to have made major portion of his statement Ex. PW2/A to police on basis of which FIR in present case was lodged. He has failed to identify accused Sarda Ram before court.
Further, PW1 Ghyanshyam Jha who though has exhibited certain documents with regard to ownership of land measuring 50 sq yards out of khasra No. 262/391 bearing property number B2/98, in village Chilla Saronda Bangar by one Suresh Dass in favour of his mother in law and chain of this property in favour of Suresh Dass purportedly by one Tilak Singh vide Ex. PW1/A but has not been able to prove the same as he is as per these documents is neither a party nor witness to the same. He though in his examination in chief has stated that at the time of execution of the FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 18/25 documents, Sarda Ram and Tilak Singh were also present and they stated that property in question belonged to their ancestor but he has not been able to show as to what was the relation between accused Sarda Ram and Tilak Singh. For sake of arguments, if it is considered that it was Tilak Singh who initially sold property to Suresh Dass, then it is only Tilak Singh who can be taken to task for the same and in absence of any documentary proof with regard to ownership of land purportedly purchased by mother of PW1, culpability cannot be attributed to accused Sarda Ram. Further, PW1 in his cross examination has stated that the documents were executed at office of Sub Registrar, Seelampur, Delhi but perusal of Ex. PW1/A shows that the documents are not registered and that they are merely notarized. PW1 in his cross examination has stated that no khasra Number was mentioned but he was informed that khasra No. 391/263 of Village Chilla Saronda Bangar whereas perusal of Ex. PW1/A shows that khasra number has been mentioned in the same. PW1 in his cross examination has stated that he confirmed from one Ashok Singh and Dablu Singh regarding ownership of the plot and they also stated that land in question belongs to Sarda Ram and Tilak Singh and on that basis he purchased land in question. IO has not cited any one in name of Ashok Singh and Dablu Singh as witness in FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 19/25 present case and it appears that a make belief story has been weaved by PW1. Perusal of Ex. PW1/A shows that the documents were executed in year 1989 and as per PW1 the demolition by DDA took place in November, 1994. PW1 in his cross examination stated that he did not personally gave complaint at the PS or before any other authority after his house was demolished. He further stated that he did not personally lodged any complaint against Suresh Dass. He further stated that he also did not make any personal complaint against Sarda Ram. He admitted that Sarda Ram is not attesting witness of the documents. Conduct of PW1 is bereft of conduct of a man of ordinary prudence as man of ordinary prudence in case of cheating and consequential loss of property would definitely have lodged complaint against cheaters. All this demolishes credit of PW1 as witness.
Further, PW3 failed to identify accused Sarda Ram before court. PW3 in his deposition before court has stated that he made payment to his father in law Sunil Mistry and that he was told by his father in law that plot shall be given by Raj Kumar. He deposed that no transaction had taken place between him, Sarda Ram and Jai Chand nor he made any payment to them for any transaction of plot. Testimony of PW3 has weakened case of state.
FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 20/25 PW5 though has identified accused Sarda Ram before court and in his cross examination by state he stated that accused Sarda Ram and Jai Chand told him that they were owner of land bearing No. B2, New Ashok Nagar and also told that they were owner of Jamindar and Company. None of the IOs has established that accused Sarda Ram was owner/partner or had something to do with Jaminder and Company. As per Mark PW13/A i.e. letter of Assistant Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, Jamindar and Company Pvt Ltd has not be incorporated in NCT of Delhi. Except disclosure statement of accused, there is nothing to link accused Sarda Ram with Jamindar and Company and disclosure statement of accused cannot be read in evidence against him because of embargo laid down in Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. PW5 in his cross examination by defence has admitted that Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B bears no name and signatures of accused Sarda Ram and Jai Chand. He in his cross examination further stated that he is 5th class passed and he knows English and he signed the documents in English. He further stated that he had signed Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B without understanding them. He in his cross examination stated that he does not remember who had affixed thumb impression at point X and X1 on Ex. PW5/A and at point X2 and X3 at Ex. FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 21/25 PW5/B. He further stated that he never got documents verified regarding its contents and details since the time of execution till today. Conduct of PW5 again is bereft of conduct of a man of ordinary prudence. Further as admitted by PW5 himself in his cross examination, Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B bears no name and signatures of accused Sarda Ram and Jai Chand over them. In these circumstances, it is difficult to link accused Sarda Ram with alleged cheating committed with PW5 and version of PW5 cannot be believed and accused Sarda Ram cannot be convicted.
PW6 in his cross examination by state has identified accused Sarda Ram before court. He has deposed that receipt of Rs.4,000/ was got issued by accused Sarda Ram from one Tilak Singh and later on receipt for amount of Rs. 17,000/ was bearing name and signatures of one Rajesh Pandey. It is difficult to comprehend as to how PW6 accepted receipts executed by different persons for same piece of land. PW6 in his cross examination by defence has admitted that on Ex. PW6/C i.e GPA, executant Rajesh and witness Jai Kumar not singed in his presence. He further stated that he does not remember address of Jamindar and Company. He further stated that he had not got verified ownership of land from Revenue Authorities. He further stated that he had not complained to any authority or police that FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 22/25 accused persons handed him over GPA which was executed by one Rajesh. He further stated that he had not complained to the authorities or police between year 1993 to 2001 about cheating by accused. He stated that accused Sarda Ram had signed receipt Ex. PW6/A in his presence at point Q6 and that he had read contents of receipt in which name of seller of land Tilak Ram is mentioned. Act and conduct of PW6 are not of a reasonable man. A reasonable man would not have kept mum and would have complained to the authorities had any cheating took place with him and would have inquired about ownership of land before purchasing the same. PW6 is not aware of address of Jamindar and Company. PW6 is going ahead with the alleged deed despite coming to know that Tilak Ram is mentioned as seller in Ex. PW6/A and further receipt is being given by one Rajesh Pandey. All this discredits PW6 as witness.
PW7 again is hostile and has not supported version of prosecution. PW8 in his cross examination has stated that he did not collect any documentary evidence regarding ownership of Jamindar and Company till investigation remained with him.
Last and not the least is that report of examiner of documents which has been admitted by accused u/sec 294 Cr. P. C vide Mark A but Mark A FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 23/25 does not support case of state in any manner. As per it, no opinion has been expressed by expert with regard to writing and signatures which are questioned writing signatures and standard writing and signatures /specimen signatures.
Offence of cheating U/sec 420 IPC entails delivery of property but in circumstances of present case, state has not been able to show that accused received any consideration from witnesses examined by state except some oral assertions of some PWs examined by state in the scenario when it is well settled that payment is best evidenced by way of writing and witnesses who have made oral assertions are devoid of any credit as discussed by me in various paras of this judgment.
For offences u/sec 467 and 468 IPC, forgery on part of accused was required to be proved by state but state has not been able to prove the same as no document has been proved by state to be in handwriting of accused Sarda Ram and bearing signatures of accused Sarda Ram (in view of report of document examiner Mark A). No document brought and exhibited on record even mentions name of accused Sarda Ram. No witness examined by state has stated that he saw name of accused Sarda Ram in chain of documents with regard to property purchased by him. Oral assertions in FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 24/25 these circumstances is not enough. Further as discussed above, none of the IOs has established link of accused Sarda Ram with Jamindar and Company. When forgery on part of accused has not been proved, offence u/sec 471 IPC does not come into play.
For offence of conspiracy u/sec 120B IPC, no document against accused Sarda Ram has been proved by state on record. Even documents exhibited on record are not proved in accordance with law. No receipt of money by accused Sarda Ram in writing from alleged victims has been proved on record by state. Accused Sarda Ram cannot be held guilty for offence of criminal conspiracy in these circumstances.
In these circumstances, I am of the view that state has failed to prove its case against accused Sarda Ram beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Sarda Ram is acquitted for offences u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
Announced in the open court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
Dt. 17.12.2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
District East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 386/01 PS New Ashok Nagar (Crime Branch) 25/25