Delhi District Court
State vs Bhim Singh Etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 1 Of ... on 16 December, 2013
FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 IN THE COURT OF VIDYA PRAKASH: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.: 187/1994 PS: DBG Road U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC Unique ID No.: 02401R1327562008 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 130/2
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. A.C. Talwar r/o 65/58, New Rohtak, Road, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : Intervening night of 17.06.1994 and 18.06.1994.
(d) Name of the accused : (1) Bhim Singh
s/o Sh. Bhure Lal,
r/o WP382, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
(Declared Proclaimed offender
vide order dated 11.11.99 )
(2) Deep Narain
s/o Sh. Ram Awadh,
r/o WP382, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
( Proclaimed offender
(3) Daleep Kumar
s/o Sh. Jai Kishor,
r/o Village Bhola Nagar, P.O.
Tendwa Nafi Nagar, Aurangabad.
(4) Rajiv Aggarwal
s/o Late Sh. K.C. Aggarwal
(5)S.P. Singh
State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 1 of 31
FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013
s/o Sh. Chunni Lal
(6) P.S. Sehrawat
s/o Sh. Nand Singh
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 411/167/120B IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 16.12.2013
(h) Final Order : Acquitted
(i) Date of such order : 16.12.2013
A. BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
Initially, chargesheet in the matter was filed before the Court against accused persons namely 1). Bhim Singh s/o Sh. Bhure Lal, 2). Deep Narain s/o Sh. Ram Awadh and 3). Daleep Kumar s/o Sh. Jai Kishor. However, record reveals that Ld. Predecessor had been pleased to summon six witnesses as Court witnesses whereafter he reached to the conclusion that besides aforesaid accused persons, other persons namely S.P. Singh s/o Sh. Chuni Lal and P.S. Sehrawat s/o Sh. Nanda Singh and Rajeev Aggarwal s/o Late Sh. R.C. Aggarwal were also involved in the criminal conspiracy with the accused persons chargesheeted in the case, vide order dated 16.08.1996. Therefore, the aforesaid persons were summoned as an accused persons in respect of offences u/s 120B read with Section 465/467/471/411/414 IPC & Substantive offences or U/s 411/414 IPC against the accused Rajiv Aggarwal and offencess U/s 167/411/414/465/467/471 IPC against accused S.P Singh and P.S Sehrawat. State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 2 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 In brief, the facts of the case as emanating from the record are that complainant namely Sh. A.C. Talwar lodged report with regard to theft of his Maruti Car bearing registration no.DLICC3555, having chasis no. 526846 and engine no.779300 in the intervening night of 1718.06.1994 from outside his house no.65/58, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. During investigation, a car bearing the same chasis number and engine number but different registration no. i.e. DLICC8742 was recovered on 10.07.1995 in front of printing press near Sawan Park, Burji Wala at the instance of accused Bhim Singh by the IO of case FIR No.675/95 PS Mangol Puri. Investigation further revealed that accused Rajiv Aggarwal had purchased the said car from Anil Kumar @ Dalip Kumar. Accused Anil Kumar had obtained different registration number of the same car in collusion with officials of the Transport Authority i.e. S.P. Singh and P.S. Sehrawat. On the basis of said complaint, FIR in the matter was got registered and after completion of investigation including arrest of accused persons, preparation of site plan, relevant memos etc., chargesheet in the matter was filed in the court through SHO concerned.
Detail of Court Proceedings:
2. After filing of charge sheet in the case, all the accused persons were supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. However, two accused persons namely Bhim Singh and Deep Narain stopped appearing before the Court and they were declared proclaimed offenders. After hearing State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 3 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 arguments on charge, vide order dated 02.05.2008, charge u/s 167/120B IPC was framed against accused persons namely S.P. Singh, P.S. Sehrawat, Dalip Kumar and Rajeev Aggarwal whereas separate charge u/s 411 IPC was framed against accused Rajeev Aggarwal to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Evidence Held:
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed and statements of the accused persons namely Rajiv Aggarwal, Dalip Kumar, S.P. Singh and P.S. Sehrawat were recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w S.313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication in the present matter. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defense.
4. Before embarking upon appreciating the material available on record, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter.
5. PW01 SI Santosh Kumar was the Duty Officer at the relevant time who proved the factum of registration of FIR in the matter. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A as also the endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex.PW1/B. This witness was not at all cross examined on behalf of accused State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 4 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 persons despite being afforded opportunity in this regard.
6. PW2 Sh. Satish Chandra was the concerned Record Clerk from Regional Transport Authority, Mall Road, Delhi who produced the file of vehicle no. DL1CC3555 and DL1CC4742 before the Court and proved the computerized copy of RC of both the aforesaid vehicles as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively. He deposed that as per the relevant records, M/s Jay Cee Industries was the registered owner of vehicle no.DL1CC4742 and National Insurance Company was the registered owner of vehicle no.
DL1CC3555.
During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused P.S. Seharawat, he stated that he had no personal knowledge with regard to the records. He had not seen the RC originally issued to the aforementioned vehicles. He stated that in one of the files produced by him pertaining to vehicle DL1CC4742, form no.20 did not bear signature of any of the Inspector and form no.21 was the sale letter whereas form no.22 pertains to the completion of compliance of pollution, safety standard, invoice in the name of Vikas Motor Limited.
This witness was not at all cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
7. PW3 Smt. Neelam was the purchaser of Maruti Car from National Insurance Company in the year 1997 who furnished superdarinama Ex.PW3/A before the Court in respect of vehicle no.DL1CC3555. This State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 5 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 witness produced the said vehicle during her statement and proved the same as Ex.P1.
During her cross examination conducted on behalf of accused P.S. Sehrawat, she stated that she had not received the claim from the Insurance Company. She did not know if the vehicle was transferred in the name of Insurance Company. She purchased the said vehicle from the Insurance Company but she did not remember date of purchase. However, she again stated that it was in the year 1996.
Cross examination conducted on behalf of remaining accused persons was NIL despite grant of opportunity in this regard.
8. PW4 Constable Anand deposed that on 12.07.1995, he alongwith SI Ishwar Singh were investigating this case and during investigation, arrested accused Deep Narayan and Bhim Singh from Ashok Vihar in case FIR No. 675/1995 PS Mangolpuri. Both accused made disclosure statement. He proved the copy of disclosure statement of accused Deep Narayan as Ex.PW4/A. Said accused also pointed out spot of theft vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Taking lead from the disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A, accused Dalip was arrested from Rajiv Nagar, Begam Pur, Delhi on 21.07.1995 who also disclosed his involvement in this case vide disclosure statement Ex.PW4/C. This witness correctly identified accused Dalip before the Court.
This witness was not at all cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons despite grant of necessary opportunity. State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 6 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013
9. PW5 Rajiv Jain deposed that during the relevant period i.e. 1994, he was dealing with the sale & purchase of old and new vehicles alongwith Sh. Shanker Lal at Ashok Vihar. Accused Rajiv Aggarwal and his partners organised a small party at Sawan Park in which he was introduced to two persons who wanted to sell their vehicle, however he refused their offer on the ground that he did not want to purchase accidental vehicle. Rajiv Aggarwal asked him to check the engine of the said vehicle just to verify its condition on the pretext of purchasing the same on his certification, after verifying the same from the Authority. He checked the engine and declared the engine of the car as good. Rajiv Aggarwal himself verified the documents from the Authority and he never accompanied accused Rajiv to the Authority. Rajiv Aggarwal gave some money to said two persons but he did not know the exact amount.
However, this witness turned hostile on the aspect of identification of said two persons. Thus, Ld. APP after due permission of the Court, cross examined this witness wherein he stated that he could not say whether accused Dalip present in Court was one of the said persons who came in the said party to sell the vehicle in question on the pretext of lapse of time and medical ground.
This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of accused Rajiv Aggarwal wherein he stated that Rajiv Bhasin, partner of Rajiv Aggarwal was also present in the said party. After checking the engine, Rajiv Aggarwal was ready to purchase the vehicle. He could not disclose the value of a second State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 7 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 hand Maruti Car in 1994, however he admitted that the said vehicle was purchased against consideration.
During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused S.P. Singh, P.S. Ahlawat and Dalip, he stated that he did not remember whether police recorded his statement at any point of time or not.
10. PW6 Ms. Swatantar, Superintendent, Jail No.6, Tihar, Delhi deposed that in the year 19951996, she was posted as MLO in Transport Authority, Rajpur Road, Delhi. She did not remember the exact date when she appeared before the Court with original record of one RC, number of which she did not recollect. She produced the relevant records and relied upon her previous statement given in pre summoning evidence.
During cross examination done on behalf of accused S.P. Singh, she admitted that there was no computerisation in the year 199596 in the Transport Department. The Department was still in the process of computerisation. She was not posted in the Department at the relevant time when the incident took place. She was not aware if any such incident took place. She came to know only when she received summons from the court. The booklets of RC, i.e Registration Certificate, used to be in custody of Caretaking Branch. They used to issue the same to the Dealing Assistant of MLO Branch in bunch of 100 or 200 RC books. There was no record in the Transport Department nor they received any communication that certain RC books were missing. She pleaded unawareness as to how many bunch of State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 8 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 aforesaid RC books was handled by the Dealing Clerk and about their keeping. The RC books were numbered. She stated that she could not differentiate between an RC book in duplicate but printed in the same manner as printed for the Transport Department. She had not identified the RC book in the court. She did not identify the signatures of accused P.S. Sehrwat and SP Singh. She identified Ex.CW1/A on the basis of the record that the number of said RC was issued by Caretaking Department to her branch. She had only identified the document with the number put on that, otherwise she would have not been in a position to identify the same. She could not admit or deny the suggestion that document Ex.CW1/A was a forged RC book, prepared by the person from whose possession it was recovered. The RCs were not in possession of Motor Vehicle Inspector. P.S. Sehrawat never worked under her. After the file of any vehicle was handled by Dealing Clerk, it used to be handed over to ClassIV employee, who put the same in Record Room of the Transport Authority.
No question/suggestion was put to this witness during cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Dilip.
During cross examination conducted on behalf of P.S. Sehrawat, she admitted that her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C was not recorded. She further admitted that Caretaking Branch was an independent Section. Neither she nor PS Sehrawat were Incharge and member of Caretaking Section. She stated that register was not prepared by her and accused PS Sehrawat. She further stated that entries in RC register were not written or maintained by her and PS State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 9 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 Sehrawat. She admitted that MLO had no direct dealing with the public. She further stated that dealing clerk used to make the entry in the register and not the MLO. She could not say if Anil Kumar had obtained different Registration Number from the Transport Authority in respect of vehicle in question. She further stated that once registration number was allotted to the vehicle, same is not allotted to any other vehicle. After seeing Ex.CW1/A, she stated that the RC book did belong to their office. On confronting with the second page of Form No.23 of Ex.CW1/A where at point A word "attested" was there, she could not tell who had signed it. She stated that the word "attestation" is recorded when duplicate RC is issued by the Department. She volunteered that the word "duplicate" is also mentioned on the front page of RC in such case. In case, the word "duplicate" remained to be written on the RC then that might mean that it was a duplicate RC from the word "attestation". Merely by seeing Ex.CW1/A, she could not tell whether any loss was caused to the Transport Authority. She again stated that word "OTT paid" was written thereupon which showed that the fees in respect of this RC was paid. She again stated that "OTT paid" indicated that one time tax had been paid at the time of original registration, but she could not tell whether tax pursuant to the issuance of duplicate RC in this case was paid or not. She admitted that Ex.CW1/A was a case of TODC (Transfer of Ownership of Duplicate Certificate) to one Shri Rajeev Aggarwal. She had no knowledge whether the transfer of ownership was recorded in any register. MLO had no concern with this. She had not worked with Shri Sehrawat. She could not State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 10 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 identify his signatures. She admitted that MLO had no concern with Re Registration Register. She could not tell if any technical qualification was required for MLO. Shri Tokas was working under her. She had no personal knowledge regarding this case. She had also not dealt with documents referred to in this case. She did not know if Shri Sehrawat was transferred prior to her joining, as he was not in her Branch.
No cross examination was done on behalf of remaining accused persons despite grant of opportunity in this regard.
11. PW7 Retired SI Nand Ram deposed that on 18.06.1994, on the complaint of Sh. A.C. Talwar regarding theft of Maruti Car, he prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A, upon which FIR was registered. He prepared site plan Ex.PW7/B at the instance of complainant. During investigation, neither car was recovered nor accused was arrested and he filed untrace report on 01.08.1994 thorugh SHO concerned.
All the accused persons opted not to cross examine this witness despite grant of opportunity in this regard.
12. PW8 HC Bhagwat Singh deposed that on 10.07.1995, he was posted at PS Mangolpuri as Constable. On that day, complainant Prakash Pandey made a complaint in police station upon which IO prepared rukka. Complainant produced some documents and the same were seized by IO who went to Durga Travel Agency and arrested accused Bheem Singh and conducted his State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 11 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 personal search. IO also recorded his disclosure statement and pointed the spot and car was also recovered. On 12.07.1995, he joined the investigation with SI Ishwar Singh. He alongwith IO, Constable Anand and accused Bheem Singh went to WP382, Village Wazirpur, Ashok Vihar and apprehended two persons namely Deepa Narayan and Anand Sharma and arrested both of them and conducted their personal search. IO also recorded the disclosure statement and prepared pointed out memo of the place. IO separately recorded a disclosure statement of Anand Sharma and pointed out memo Ex. PW8/C and PW4/D of the spot. This witness identified accused person before the Court. However, identity of the car was not disputed by any of accused persons.
All the accused persons opted not to cross examine this witness despite grant of opportunity in this regard.
13. PW9 SI Devender Rathi deposed that on 22.07.1995, he received one DD no.19 regarding arrest of accused person involved in FIR No.187/94 of PS DBG Road. Upon said information, he collected all the relevant documents of FIR No.675/95 PS Mangolpuri from SI Ishwar Singh. He seized the car bearing registration no. DL1CC8742, RC book in the name of Rajiv Aggarwal and one cash receipt vide Ex.PW9/A. He arrested the accused in the present case and during investigation, recorded statement of witnesses. On 26.09.1995, on being transferred, he handed over the case file. He identified the accused before the Court.
State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 12 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 All the accused persons opted not to cross examine this witness despite grant of opportunity in this regard.
14. PW10 ASI Ramesh Chander deposed that on 21.07.1995, he was posted at PS Mangolpuri as HC. On that day, he had joined the investigation pertaining to case FIR No.675/95, PS Mangolpuri. He alongwith SI Ishwar Singh, other staff and accused Bhim Singh reached at B16, Rajeev Nagar. On the pointing out of accused Bhim Singh, accused Dalip was arrested. Accused Dalip made a disclosure statement Ex.PW4/C in his presence. Many documents from his house were seized in the case pertaining to Transport Authority, i.e blank RCs, filled up RCs, stamps of Transport Authority, etc. Case property was sealed by the IO and was also seized vide Seizure Memo. This witness identified accused Dalip before the Court.
In the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused P.S. Sehrawat, he stated that the said house was rented accommodation. The wife and children of accused Dalip were present there.
Remaining accused persons opted not to put any question to this witness despite grant of opportunity in this regard.
15. PW11 ASI Sushil Kumar deposed that on 10.07.1995, he was posted at PS Mangolpuri as Constable and had joined the investigation pertaining to case FIR No.675/95, PS Mangolpuri. On that day, he alongwith SI Ishwar Singh and Constable Bhagwat had gone to Vikaspuri at the office of Durga State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 13 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 Travels where accused Bhim Singh was found. Enquiry was made from him and he was arrested in the said case. He had made a detailed disclosure statement Ex.PW8/B regarding his involvements in various cases wherein he disclosed his involvement in present case. He stated that he alongwith his accomplice Deep Narain had stolen one Maruti Car from New Rohtak Road and the fake documents with Registration Number DL1CC/8742 were got prepared and it was sold to one Rajeev, owner of printing press at Ashok Vihar. He further stated that in preparation of fake documents, help of agent Dalip was taken who resided at Rajeev Nagar, Begampur. Accused Bhim Singh got recovered the said vehicle from Shri Rajeev and had pointed out the place of occurrence. His statement was recorded by SI Ishwar Singh in the said case.
Remaining accused persons opted not to put any question to this witness despite grant of opportunity in this regard.
16. PW12 Inspector Ishwar Singh deposed that on 10.07.1995, he was posted at PS Mangolpuri as SI. On that day, he had conducted investigation pertaining to case FIR No.675/95, PS Mangolpuri. During investigation, accused Bhim Singh was arrested by him from Vikaspuri and his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/B was recorded, wherein besides other disclosures, he had disclosed about his involvement in theft of car No.DL1CC/3555, which was related to the present case. He stated that he alongwith his accomplice Deep Narain had stolen one Maruti Car from New Rohtak Road and the fake State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 14 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 documents with Registration Number DL1CC/8742 were got prepared and it was sold to one Rajeev, owner of printing press at Ashok Vihar. He further stated that in preparation of fake documents, help of agent Dalip was taken who resided at Rajeev Nagar, Begampur. Accused Bhim Singh got recovered the said vehicle vide Memo Ex.PW8/A. He also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW8/C. On 12.07.1995, he also arrested co accused Deep Narain. He had also made a disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A. He had pointed out the place of theft of vehicle vide memo Ex.PW4/B. On 21.07.1995, accused Dalip was arrested and his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/C was recorded by him. He had also made enquiry from Rajeev, who told that he had purchased this vehicle from one Mr.Rakesh @ Bhim Singh and produced the original RC of vehicle No.DL1CC/8742. On checking, he found that the engine and chasis number as mentioned on the said RC were same as of vehicle No.DL1CC/3555. He seized the said documents from Rajeev. Later on, he had given the said RC Ex.CW1/A with receipt Ex.PW9/B of Rajeev Aggarwal to IO of present case i.e. SI Devender Singh vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW9/A. He informed the concerned PS about the arrest of all the said accused persons. He had handed over photocopy of relevant documents to IO of present case. This witness correctly identified accused namely Dalip.
Remaining accused persons opted not to put any question to this witness despite grant of opportunity in this regard.
State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 15 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013
17. Before appreciating the evidence adduced by prosecution, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of evidence of Court witnesses examined before framing of charge.
18. CW1 Ms. Swatantar Kaur, concerned MLO from RTO, Rajpur Road, Delhi produced original record pertaining to the vehicle in question bearing registration no.DL1CC3555, chasis no.526846 which was registered in the name of Sh. A.C. Talwar. She deposed that the said vehicle was transferred in favour of National Insurance Co. on 28.10.1994. He proved the true copy of the said RC and the insurance certificate as Ex.PX and Ex.PY. She also produced the relevant registration register, however same did not bear any entry with regard to the vehicle bearing registration no.DL1CC8742. The said register showed blank space against this number and that the said number was not alloted to any vehicle by the concerned Authority. After going through the RC of vehicle no. DL1CC8742 and RC book no. A2/157893, she stated that she could not say anything without checking their records whether the same was a genuine RC book of their department. Without going through the relevant records, she could not say as to who filled up the entries in the said book and also whether the stamp used was of department or fake one. She could not remember the name of concerned MLO posted during relevant time i.e. on 06.07.1993 or the alleged initials. Original RC no.157893 copy of which is Ex.CW1/A, belonged to their department. The blank RC copies remained in the custody of Care taking State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 16 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 branch when RC CW1/A was issued. Mr. Samanti Singh, Superintendent of Care Taking Branch issued blank RC copies to MLO branch. The receipt register showed that blank RC no.157893 Ex.CW1/A was issued by care taking branch and received by MLO branch on 26.08.1994. She also proved the relevant receipt register as Ex.CW1/B which was received by Sh. M.S. Tokas, UDC and Mr. Tokas had initialed against the receipt of that RC. Mr. J.S. Dabas was the MLO and Sh. P.S. Sehrawat was the Motor Inspector. She stated that signatures at points A and B on Ex.CW1/A appeared to be that of Mr. P.S. Sehrawat. She could not tell as to who filled up Ex.CW1/A, however the same was the duty of concerned dealing Assistant. Mr. S.P. Singh was the dealing Assistant in 1994.
19. CW3 Sh. Mohinder Singh at the relevant period, was working as UDC in the Motor Licensing Branch (Head Quarter) of Transport Department of Delhi Government and was discharging the work of registration of new vehicles. On 26.08.1994, he was alloted a bunch of fresh blank RCs of one hundred bearing No.157801 to 157900. He proved the relevant entry in this regard as Ex.CW3/A. There were about 5 to 6 staff members in the said section to whom such blank bunch of RCs were allotted who could exchange the blank RCs as and when needed, as a matter of practice. In 1994, he had given blank RC bearing no.157893 Ex.CW1/A to Sh. S.P. Singh, LDC of the same section who dealt with other State registration of private vehicles. However, no such records of giving and taking of blank RCs were maintained. State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 17 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 He did not obtain the signature of Sh. S.P. Singh for having given him blank RC Ex.CW1/A.
20. CW4 Sh. S.P. Singh, deposed that he had received blank RC from CW3 Sh. Mohinder Singh Tokas on 31.08.1994. He disclosed the procedure of the department that owner of vehicle completes all the formalities by making a file and filling up the necessary forms and submits the same to him. He dealt with private vehicles, which were firstly registered outside State and then required for registration in Delhi after obtaining NOC from the concerned State. He could not recall who had actually come to him for registration of vehicle in question. The file was thoroughly checked up and after deposit of requisite fee, entry was made in the RR register by him. He forgot to make entry in the RR register due to rush of work. He orally told that person the running number upon which said person deposited the requisite fee to the Accounts Department. The file was deposited with him. However, the said file was not traceable. On 31.08.1994, after making the RC, he had sent the file to the record keeper namely Sh. Daya Chand, a classIV employee without obtaining any receipt thereof. All the entries in Ex.CW1/A were in his handwriting. RC bore his initials at mark X, Y and Z in Ex.CW1/A. He had given RC to the party.
21. CW5 Sh. P.S. Sehrawat, Inspector in the Transport Department during the relevant period, deposed that his duties included physical checking of the State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 18 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 vehicles for registration and thereafter, he signed on the file and on the RC on behalf of MLO. He did not remember if he had actually and physically checked vehicle no. DL1CC8742. He admitted that RC Ex.CW1/A bore his signatures at points A and B. He also admitted that his signatures also appeared on the concerned file and RC. The clerk brought the file and took back the same after signatures. He further stated that Sh. S.P. Singh, LDC concerned might have brought the file to him and took back the same file after his signatures.
22. CW6 Sh. Daya Chand deposed that in 1962, he joined as Sweeper and in 1991 became Peon in Transport Department. He worked with Sh. R.M. Pillai . He also remained posted in MLO branch with Mr. Wadhwa and Mr. Dass. He also used to work in record as peon. He stated that Sh. S.P. Singh was babu in the department. He further stated that Mr. S.P. Singh never gave any file to him for the purpose of keeping in the record room. Mr. S.P. Singh used to have his own almirahs wherein he used to keep files.
Arguments advanced and Court view
23. The first and foremost argument advanced by Ld APP is that the testimonies of all the Court witnesses i.e CW1 to CW6 should also be considered by the Court. Ld APP contended that out of said six Court witnesses, CW1 namely Ms. Swatantar Kaur also appeared as PW6 during trial. She further argued that accused S.P Singh and PS. Sehrawat who had State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 19 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 appeared as CW4 and CW5 before being summoned as additional accused persons, had made certain admissions at that time and same should also be considered against them. She further argued that relevant part of admission made by said accused are not hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act as both the said accused were not under any kind of influence or coercion at the time of making said admission. She further submitted that statements of CW2, CW3 & CW6 are admissible U/s 33 of Indian Evidence Act as they were not found traceable during the course of trial.
24. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of accused persons that the statements made by CW2 to CW6, are liable to be discarded as the accused persons namely Rajiv Aggarwal, S.P Singh and P.S Sehrawat who were summoned as an additional accused persons, were not in picture at the time when said witnesses were examined as Court witnesses. They further argued that none of the accused persons got any opportunity to test the veracity of the statements made by Court witnesses as they were examined during pre charge evidence stage. They also argued that Section 33 of Indian Evidence At is not applicable in such a situation.
25. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions contained in Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: "33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 20 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:
Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest;
that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to crossexamine;
that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.
Explanation A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section".
26. It is quite crystal clear from the perusal of aforesaid provision that same is applicable in case of evidence made by a witness in judicial proceeding when the presence of such witness in subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, cannot be secured on account of death of said witness or for other reasons as mentioned therein provided that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross examine such witness. In other words, it is only the testimony of that witness who was previously subjected to cross examination by the adverse party, can be considered under this provision when the presence of such witness cannot be secured either at later stage of the same judicial proceeding or in some other judicial proceeding for the reasons State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 21 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 mentioned therein.
27. Now adverting back to the facts of the present case. As already mentioned above, CW2 to CW6 were examined as Court witnesses at the stage when three of the accused namely Rajiv Aggarwal, S.P Singh and P.S Sehrawat had not even been summoned and charge had not been framed by that time. Keeping in view the fact that none of the accused persons had any right or opportunity to cross examine CW2, CW3 and CW6 during the relevant time, Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act has no application. Thus, their statements as available on record, are liable to be discarded in toto.
Likewise, the statements of CW4 and CW5 cannot be read against accused Rajiv Aggarwal for the similar reasons mentioned herein before.
So far as the submission of Ld APP that accused S.P Singh and P.S Sehrawat have made admissions in their respective statements and same should be read against them, is concerned, Court is unable to subscribe to the said submission. Even if the statements of CW4 and CW5 are considered as a whole, Court does not find any admission as such on the part of said two accused regarding their involvement in the commission of offences charged against them. Both the said accused in their respective testimonies as CW4 and CW5 simply testified that they were posted in Transport Department, Under Hill Road Authority, during the relevant period and dealt with the relevant file regarding issuance of RC of car in question. State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 22 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013
28. CW4 deposed about the procedure followed in the department at the time of transfer of vehicle from any State to Delhi. In this regard, he explained that after obtaining NOC from concerned State and completing certain other formalities including physical checking of such vehicle by concerned Inspector and deposit of fees, entry is made in the Record Room Register. He also explained that on 31.08.94, he had sent the file of vehicle in question to Record Keeper namely Sh Daya Chand and the relevant entries appearing on RC Ex CW1/A, are in his handwriting.
29. Accused P.S Sehrawat as CW5 simply deposed that he had signed on the relevant file pertaining to registration of vehicle in question as well as on the RC on behalf of Motor Licensing Officer(MLO) and identified his signatures at points A and B on RC Ex CW1/A and nothing beyond that.
30. The next submission made by Ld APP is that accused Rajiv Aggarwal was found in possession of stolen car bearing fake number DL1CC 8742 which he dishonestly received or retained despite having knowledge or reason to believe that the said car was stolen one. In this regard, Ld APP also referred to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as available on record. She heavily relied upon the testimony of PW5 Sh. Rajiv Jain as discussed herein before.
31. On other other hand, Ld counsel of accused Rajiv Aggarwal argued that State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 23 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence U/s 411 IPC against the said accused, beyond shadow of doubt. In this regard, he took the Court to order dt. 11.4.08 directing framing of charge U/s 411 IPC against said accused. Ld counsel referred to relevant portion of the said order wherein Court has referred to the disclosure statement of said accused wherein he told the police that he had purchased the car in question from accused Dalip Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/ and RC of the car was also handed over to him by accused Dalip Singh. Ld defence counsel of accused Rajiv Aggarwal also referred to receipt Ex PW8/B in support of his contention that he is the bonafide purchaser of the car in question as he had purchased the same against payment of market value of Rs. 1,35,000/ to Dalip Singh as mentioned therein.
32. I have gone through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as available on record more particularly the testimony of PW5 namely Sh. Rajiv Jain. No doubt, it stands proved from the testimony of PW5 that accused Rajiv Aggarwal had purchased the car in question on his introduction but the testimony of said witness, if considered as a whole, does not indict the said accused either in respect of offence U/s 411 IPC or even in respect of offence of conspiracy charged against him. The relevant portion of the testimony of this witness that accused Rajiv Aggarwal himself had verified the documents from the Authority, nowhere proves or even suggests that he was well within the knowledge that car in question was stolen one. This is more so when the State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 24 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 same witness admitted during cross examination that the said car was purchased by accused Rajiv Aggarwal against consideration as also that after his assurance that engine of the said car was in proper condition, accused Rajiv Aggarwal had agreed to purchase the same. None of the other prosecution witnesses examined in this case, threw any light regarding involvement of accused Rajiv Aggarwal in respect of offence U/s 411 IPC as none of the prosecution witnesses dared to depose that the said accused had dishonestly received or retained the car in question with due knowledge or belief that same is the stolen car. Even otherwise, the very fact that the said accused had purchased the car against valuable consideration of Rs. 1,35,000/ as proved from the receipt Ex. PW8/B, goes to show that he was bonafide purchaser for consideration. The disclosure statements of the accused persons also do not help the case of prosecution for the purpose of proving the said offence. Moreover, it is is highly improbable that a person who had knowingly purchased the stolen car, would keep the same at his house.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the offence U/s 411 IPC against accused Rajiv Aggarwal beyond reasonable doubt.
State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 25 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013
34. As regards the other offence U/s 167/120B IPC, it would be relevant to note that substantive offence U/s 167 IPC cannot be charged against accused Dalip Kumar and Rajiiv Aggarwal as the said offence is attracted only against public servant who frames an incorrect document during discharge of official duty. Undisputedly, accused Dalip Kumar and Rajiv Aggarwal were not public servants during the relevant period. Ld APP argued that substantive offence U/s 167 IPC stands proved against accused S.P Singh and P. S Sehrawat whereas offence of conspiracy U/s 120B IPC read with Section 167 IPC stand proved against accused Dalip Kumar and Rajiv Aggarwal as both the said accused were in active conspiracy with accused S.P Singh and P.S Sehrawat in framing fake RC of car in question belonging to Sh. A.C Talwar. In this regard, Ld APP also referred to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. She argued that accused P.S Sehrawat was working as Motor Licensing Officer whereas accused S.P Singh was working as Dealing Clerk in the Transport Authority during the relevant period when fake RC of the car in question was prepared on the basis of which car was sold with different registration number of DL1C 8472. Therefore, prosecution has been able to establish the charges levelled against them.
35. However, Ld defence counsel argued that there is no evidence whatsoever available on record which may prove the evidence of conspiracy between the accused persons.
State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 26 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013
36. It is well settled law that the offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in a design to commit an offence or to achieve a lawful object through unlawful means. Such design or meeting of minds creates offence of criminal conspiracy and regardless of proof or otherwise of the main offence to commit which the conspiracy may have been hatched, once the unlawful combination of minds is complete, the offence of criminal conspiracy stands committed. More often than not, direct evidence of the offence of criminal conspiracy is not willing to be forthcoming and proof of such an offence has to be determined by a process of influence from the established circumstances of a given case. Only in evaluating the proved circumstances for the purposes of drawing any inference adverse to the accused, the benefit of any doubt that may creep in must go to the accused. While taking this view, I am also fortified by the recent pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " Baliya Alias Bal Kishan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" reported at (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 696.
37. In the case in hand, there is not even an iota of evidence which may show that all the said four accused persons came into contact with each other at any point of time or were previously known to each other prior to the date of commission of alleged offence. There is no evidence whatsoever available on record which may show that there was an agreement of mind between the said accused persons to commit any offence or to achieve lawful object through unlawful means. No doubt, there may not be direct evidence to State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 27 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 establish the offence of conspiracy in all cases as contended by Ld APP and the existence of conspiracy may be inferred from the facts and circumstances established on record. But none of the prosecution witnesses examined in this case, has whispered about the offence of conspiracy throughout the trial. Accused Dilip Kumar is the person who had allegedly sold the car in question to accused Rajiv Aggarwal whereas accused S.P. Singh and P.S. Sehrawat were the officials posted in Transport Authority situated at Under Hill Road, Delhi. There is no piece of evidence available on record qua accused Dalip Kumar for the offence of conspiracy. His name surfaced only in the disclosure statement made by co accused before the police. There is no evidence on record to prove that either accused Dilip Kumar or accused Rajiv Aggarwal approached accused S.P. Singh or PS Sehrawat in order to commit any offence whatsoever at any point of time. In fact, the entire record is completely silent and does not even show that either accused Dilip Kumar or accused Rajiv Aggarwal had visited the office of Motor Licensing Officer, (HQ), Under Hill Road for the purpose of transfer of vehicle in question in the name of Rajiv Aggarwal. No particular circumstance has been pointed out before the Court from which inference can be drawn regarding existence of conspiracy between the accused persons. In these facts and circumstances, Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence of conspiracy against either of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
38. In so far as the substantive offence U/s 167 IPC is concerned, it was alleged against accused S.P Singh and P.S Sehrawat that they had prepared a State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 28 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 false document i.e fake RC of the car in question with intent to cause injury to the actual owner thereof i.e Sh. A.C Talwar. It needs no emphasise that offence U/s 167 IPC would attract only when it has been proved beyond doubt that any public servant during discharge of official duty framed, prepared or translated any official document or electronic record deliberately or knowingly with intent to cause injury to any person. Thus, presence of mense rea is one of the essential ingredients for holding any person guilty in respect of said offence.
39. In the case in hand, there is no evidence which shows that either accused S.P Singh or accused P.S Sehrawat were having any knowledge that car in question was stolen one or that there was any incorrect information mentioned in RC Ex CW1/A. Instead, PW6 admitted during her cross examination recorded on 19.08.11 that there was no communication received in the Transport Department that certain RC Books were missing. She could not dare to depose that RC Ex CW1/A was forged one. Rather, she explained that RCs are not in possession of Motor Vehicle Inspector and explained that after handling of file of any vehicle by Dealing Clerk, it used to be handed over to Class IV employee who was supposed to put the same in the Record Room of the Transport Authority. She also admitted during her cross examination on behalf of accused P.S Sehrawat that RC Register maintained in the Care Taking Branch, was not prepared by accused P.S Sehrawat as also that the entries in RC Register were neither written nor maintained by said accused. She also admitted that MLO has no direct dealing with the public State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 29 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 and it is only dealing clerk who used to make the entry in the register. She is categorical in her statement recorded on 23.2.12 that RC Ex CW1/A did belong to their office. She explained that Ex CW1/A was duplicate RC issued by the department as the word " Attested" is mentioned at point A. She also clarified that in view of the fact that words "OTT paid" is written on RC Ex CW1/A, it shows that transfer fee in respect of said RC was also paid. She also admitted that MLO has no concern with ReRegistration register.
40. Except PW6, there is no other prosecution witness examined in this case whose testimony is either relevant or may have thrown any light on the aspect of framing of incorrect record/document within the purview of Section 167 IPC. There is nothing on record which may show that any blank RC was stolen from the Transport Department or that any departmental inquiry was initiated in the department as such. Rather, the fact is that entire file in respect of RC of the car in question did not see the light of the day and was not produced before the Court throughout the trial. The said document would have definitely thrown sufficient light on this aspect but unfortunately, same could not be produced in the present case without which it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of any accused in respect of offence U/s 167 IPC.
41. In the light of aforesaid discussion, all the four accused persons namely S.P Singh, P.S Sehrawat, Dalip Kumar and Rajiv Aggarwal are acquitted in State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 30 of 31 FIR No. 187/94: PS DBG Road : U/s 379/411/167/120B IPC DOD: 16.12.2013 respect of offences charged against them. However, all the said four accused persons are directed to furnish their respective bail bonds in terms of provisions contained in Section 437A Cr.PC as well as in terms of directions issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dt. 22.10.13 passed in Criminal L.P No. 356/2012 titled as " State Vs. Virender Yadav & Anr."
Announced in the open Court (Vidya Prakash)
on 16.12.2013 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Bhim Singh etc. (" Acquitted ") Page 31 of 31