Delhi District Court
Fir No. 189/1995, State vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. on 21 August, 2019
FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors.
PS : Roop Nagar
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors.
FIR No. 189/1995
PS : Roop Nagar
U/s : 420/468/471/34 IPC.
Date of Institution : 18.01.1996
Date of reserving of order : 21.08.2019
Date of Judgment : Oral
CNR No. DLCT020000221996
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 290476/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : SI Sanjay Sharma
3. Date of incident : 12.07.1995
4. Name of accused person :
Raj Kumar Tokas S/o Late. Anand Singh, R/o 216/D/2, Munirka Village, Delhi67.
5. Offence for which chargesheet filed : 420/468/471/34 IPC
6. Offence for which charge has been framed : 120B/420/468/471 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty Page 1 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Judgment : 21.08.2019 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Mr. Raj Kumar Tokas , the accused herein, has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 420/468/471/34 Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. The case of the prosecution is that one secret information was received at PS Roop Nagar that one racket of preparing forged certificates was working in the area of Delhi which was related to one lady named Vandana, who was associated with J.P College, Model Town3. Thereafter, one team was prepared. SI Sanjay Sharma was made Incharge of the team. Ct. Rohtas was prepared as decoy customer. Ct Rohtash, the decoy customer, had met with accused Vandana Pamnani (since PO), the Principal of J.P College. She had agreed to provide a certificate of 10th class and marksheet in the name of Rohtash for a sum of Rs. 8000/. The decoy customer had paid him Rs. 2000/ as advanced. Accused Smt. Vandana (since PO) had also introduced the decoy Page 2 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors.
PS : Roop Nagar customer with accused Smt Sujata Sharma ( since PO). It was agreed that the certificate and marksheet would be provided on next day at Gupta Provisional store, Chandrawan Delhi and the remaining amount would be paid at the time of handing over of the documents. The decoy customer had shared the information with the complainant. A raiding party was prepared. On next day, at about 4:05 pm, Pardeep Singh ( already convicted) and Sant Lal Kalra (already expired) had come to deliver the documents and to receive the remaining payment. They were apprehended by the raiding party. The documents were seized from their possession. On the basis of complaint, present FIR was registered. The arrested persons had disclosed about their involvement. Raids were conducted and various rubber stamps and forged certificates were recovered at their instances from different places. Sant Lal Kalra (since expired) had made disclosure statement regarding involvement of accused Raj Kumar Tokas. At his instance, accused Raj Kumar Tokas was arrested from his office. The accused got recovered various metal blocks related to various universities and two rubber Page 3 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar stamps . The items were seized. The accused was arrested. The investigation was completed. Accused Vandana and Sujata had absconded during the investigation and they were declared absconder by the court. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and accused Raj Kumar Tokas was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 420/468/471/34, IPC. Pardeep Singh and Sant Lal Kalra were also chargesheeted for the said offences.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC, 420/120 B IPC, 468/120 B IPC , and 471/120B IPC was framed against accused Raj Kumar Tokas, Sant Lal Kalra and Pardeep Singh. It was read over to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial Pardeep Singh had moved an application for plea bargaining. The plea bargaining court had Page 4 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar convicted accused Pardeep Singh vide order dated 22.6.2015. During the trial accused Sant Lal Kalra had expired and therefore, criminal proceedings were abated against him vide order dated 10.7.2014.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Sh. Rajeev Bhardwaj, Administrative Officer, UP Education Board, RO, Meerut has produced the record of High School 1987 bearing roll No. 1064125 namely Inderjeet S/o Khoob Chand, DOB 05.01.1996. Result of the above said student namely Inderjeet was announced "Passed, 3rd division, marks obtained 263, out of 600. The said record bearing roll No. 1064125 after verification revealed that it was not of Rohitash Kumar S/o Sh. Bhola Singh, DOB 04.02.1968, marks obtained 337/600, 2nd division rather it was of Inderjeet. He has produced the authority letter No. 2859 dated 12.08.2014 of his office which is Ex.PW1/A alongwith copy of tabulation register of the aforementioned roll number. .
6. PW2 Retd. Principal Sh. Vishan Swaroop Yadav has deposed that on 01.11.1995, he was posted as Page 5 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar Principle at Nehru Smarak Inter college, Phulera, Meerut, U.P. On that day, he had sent a letter to SHO PS Roop Nagar, Delhi regarding the reply of the letter dated 25.10.1995. As per available record at that time no candidates namely Rohtash Kumar with Roll No. 1064125 had taken the exam from the said college. The letter is Ex. PW2/C.
7. PW3 Ct. Veer Singh is police official who had participated in the investigation. He has deposed that on 25.10.1995, SI Sanjay Sharma, the IO, had handed over him one marksheet and one high school passing certificate i.e., Sanad of Rohtash Kumar. Thereafter, he went to Nehru Smarak College, Phulera, Meerut U.P., and met with the Principle. He had shown him the said documents. Those documents were not bearing signatures. Thereafter, he also gave him written reply which is Ex. PW2/C. The marksheet and the passing certificate are Ex. PW2/B.
8. PW4 SI Shyam Sunder was the Duty Officer at the relevant time at PS Roop Nagar. He had registered the FIR on the rukka sent by SI Sanjay Sharma. Copy of the FIR is Ex. PW4/A (OSR). He made endorsement which is Page 6 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar Ex. PW4/B.
9. PW5 HC Atul Kumar is the police official who had participated in the investigation. He has deposed that on 21.07.1995, SI Sanjay Sharma handed over him one Tehrir for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to PS and got the FIR registered, returned at the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and original Tehrir to SI Sanjay Sharma.
10. PW6 HC Rohtash Kumar is the police official who had worked as decoy customer and participated in the investigation. He has deposed that on 21.07.1995, a secret information regarding preparation of fake education certificates by one lady namely Vandana, employee of the JP College, Model Town, Delhi, was received by the then SHO. He alongwith SI Sanjay Sharma and Ct. Ram Saran were deployed to develop the said secret information. He was deputed as decoy customer by SI Sanjay Sharma. He alonwith Ct. Ram Charan went to JP College, Model Town III where he and Ct. Ram Charan had met with Smt.Vandana, the Principal of the College. Smt. Vandana had agreed to procure 10th class marksheet and certificate Page 7 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar in his name for a sum of ₹8000/. On 21.07.1995, ₹2000/ was given as advance money to Smt. Vandana. Smt. Vandana also introduced one lady namely Sujata Sharma and told that she would provide the certificate and marksheet. It was also agreed that the certificate and marksheet would be provided at Gupta Provisional Store, Chandrawal at about 6 p.m. Smt. Vandana also told him to give the remaining amount at the store i.e., ₹6000/. Thereafter, the owner of the Gupta Provisional Store had telephoned them and told that the certificate of Rohtas was ready and one person namely Sant Lal Kalra would come to deliver the certificate. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Prem, Ct. Murlidhar and Ct. Atul and SI Sanjay Sharma in the civil dress reached at Gupta Provisional Chandrawal and SI Sanjay Sharma led a trap. Thereafter, at about 4:05 p.m., Pradeep Singh alongwith Sant Lal Kalra came and delivered the certificate and marksheet to him. Thereafter, both of them were apprehended by him with the help of the other staff. Thereafter, the forged documents given by the accused were vide memo Ex. PW8/E. Thereafter, IO SI Sanjay Sharma prepared a rukka Page 8 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar and handed over the same to Ct. Atul for registration of FIR. IO interrogated both of them. They were arrested vide memos Ex. PW8/F and Ex. PW8/G and their personal searches were also conducted vide memos Ex. PW8/H and Ex. PW8/I. Ct. Atul came back at the spot alongwith the rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO SI Sanjay Sharma. IO recorded the disclosure statement of Sant Lal Kalra which is Ex.PW7/A. Thereafter they reached at South Delhi Public College Situated at Mohamadpur Village, near Bhikaji Kama Place where accused had pointed towards his Office at first floor and produced one polythene bag containing 11 rubber stamps from the drawer of the table of the office. IO took the impression of the rubber stamps on a sheet and put all the rubber stamps in a polythene and prepared a pullanda. The pullanda was sealed with the seal of SS and seized vide memo Ex PW7/B. The seal was handed over to him after use. Accused Sant Lal Kalra produced one brown colour bag from the drawer of the table and several forged certificates were recovered. IO seized the same vide memo Ex. PW7/C. IO recorded his statement. Thereafter they came Page 9 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar back at PS and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
11. PW6 has further deposed that on 22.07.1995 during interrogation accused Sant Lal Kalra had made a disclosure statement regarding the forged documents kept in the godown at Village Mohamadpur and had also disclosed the involvement of accused Raj Kumar Tokas. The disclosure statement is Ex. PW7/D. He alongwith accused Sant Lal Kalra, SI Ajay, Ct. Murlidhar and SI Sanjay Sharma reached at the said godown situated at F 124, Second Floor, Village Mohamadpur where the accused had identified one trunk and 99 types of forged certificates and marksheets of different boards and universities were recovered. IO recovered 19 bundles of blank and used answersheets of UP education board. IO seized the trunk vide memo Ex. PW7/E. Polythene bag was also seized vide memo Ex. PW7/F. At the instance of accused Sant Lal Kalra, accused Raj Kumar Tokas was arrested from the Office M/s Onkas Group, 31 Mohamadpur vide memo Ex. PW8/J. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/J. Thereafter IO Page 10 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar recorded the disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar Tokas vide memo Ex. PW7/H. Accused Raj Kumar Tokas produced a polythene bag from the drawer of the table of his Office from which five blocks of metal pertaining to various universities and two rubber stamps were recovered. IO took the impression of all the seven articles on a separate sheet and gave the number AL1 to AL5 to blocks and A6 to A7 to the impression of the rubber stamps. IO kept the recovered articles in a pullanda and sealed it with the seal of SS. The seal was handed over to him after use. IO seized the same vide memo Ex. PW7/I. They came back at PS and the seized property were deposited in the Malkhana.
12. PW7 Inspector Ajay Gupta is the police official who had joined the investigation with the IO. He has deposed that on 21.7.1995, IO SI Sanjay Sharma was having custody of two accused namely Pradeep and Sant Lal Kalra. On that day, accused Sant Lal Kalra made a voluntarily disclosure statement which is Ex. PW7/A. Accused Sant Lal Kalra took the police party at 39, Village Mohammadpur and identified his office at first floor. He Page 11 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar also produced one polythene bag containing 11 rubber stamps from the drawer of the table kept in the room. IO took the impressions of the rubber stamps on a sheet and gave the number 1 to 11 to the recovered stamps. The rubbers stamps were kept in the polythene and IO prepared a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of SS. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 7/B. After that accused Sant Lal Kalra produced a brown colour raxine bag from the drawer of the table in which several forged certificates were recovered. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C. On 22.07.1995, accused Sant Lal Kalra further made a voluntarily disclosure which was reduced by the IO in the form of disclosure statement which is Ex. PW7/D. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Sant Lal Kalra a raid was conducted at 124, village Mohammadpur where at the second floor of the said building accused Sant Lal Kalra identified one trunk containing 99 forged certificates. The trunk alongwith the certificates were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/E. In the same premises, 19 bundles of blank and used answer sheets of U.P. Education Page 12 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar board were also recovered and IO seized the same by keeping them into PVC bags vide seizure memo Ex. PW 7/F. Thereafter, on the identification of accused Sant Lal Kalra, accused Raj Kumar Tokas was arrested. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/G. Subsequently, during the interrogation, accused Raj Kumar Tokas made a voluntarily disclosure statement which was reduced into writing by the IO which is Ex. PW7/H. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar Tokas produced a polythene bag from the drawer of the table kept in the office of M/s Onkar Groups. On search of the polythene bag, 5 blocks of metal pertaining to various universities and two rubber stamps were recovered. IO took the impression of all the 7 recovered articles on a separate sheet and gave the number from AL1 to AL5 to the said blocks and A6 and A7 to the impression of rubber stamps. IO kept the same in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SS. IO seized the said articles vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/I. IO recorded his statement.
13. PW8 ACP Sanjay Sharma was the IO. He has deposed that on 12.07.1995, he was posted as SI at PS :
Page 13 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar Roop Nagar. On that day, SHO Sh. Ashok Saxena had called him alongwith Ct. Rohtas and Ct. Shiv Charan in his office and informed him about the secret information regarding the false certificates and marksheets and the involvement of Principal of J.P. College, Model TownIII. He instructed him to develop the information. He had recorded a DD entry No. 9A in the PS regarding the same which is Ex. PW8/A. Thereafter, on that day they went to J.P. College Model TownIII and deputed Ct. Rohtas as decoy customer and Constable Shiv Charan as shadow witness. At the college, Ct.Rohtas and Ct. Shiv Charan met with the Principal of JP College namely Smt. Vandana Pamnani. The principal had agreed that she would procure a class 10th marksheet and certificate in a sum of Rs.8000/. He made a DD entry number 28 regarding this fact, same is Ex.PW8/B. On 21.07.1995, they gave ₹2000/ as advance from the source money to Smt. Vandana. Smt. Vandana had introduced one lady namely Smt. Sujata Sharma, who would provide the certificate. It was agreed that the said certificate and marksheet would be provided at Gupta Provisional Store at Chandrawal by Page 14 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar both of them at about 6 p.m. Smt. Vandana had also told the decoy customer to pay the remaining amount of Rs.6000/ at the said store. He made the DD entry no. 17A dated 21.07.1995 to this effect in the PS which is Ex. PW8/C. At about 3:25 p.m., they received the telephone call from Ramjee Lal Gupta, owner of Gupta Provisional Store and told that he had received the call from Sujata who told him that the certificate of Rohtas was ready and one S.L. Kalra would come at the shop to deliver the certificate and marksheet and Rohtas should meet him at the said store at about 3:45 p.m. He made a DD entry no. 23A regarding the said fact which is Ex. PW8/D. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Prem, Ct. Murlidhar, Ct. Atul and Ct. Rohtas (all in civil dress) reached at 5469/5, Gupta Provisional Store at Chandrawal and laid a trap. At about 4:05 p.m., accused Pradeep Singh alongwith accused Sant Lal Kalra came and delivered the certificate and marksheet to decoy customer Ct. Rohtas. Thereafter, they apprehended both the accused and seized the forged marksheet vide memo Ex. PW8/E. Thereafter, he prepared a rukka and handed over to Ct. Atul for registration of FIR.Page 15 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019
FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar The rukka is Ex. PW8/J. Thereafter, he interrogated accused namely Pradeep Singh and Sant Lal Kalra and had arrested both vide memos Ex. PW8/F and PW8/G. Their personal search were conducted vide memos. Ex.PW8/H and Ex. PW8/I. Ct. Atul came back at the spot alongwith the original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. After the interrogation of accused Sant Lal Kalra, he recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW7/A. As per his disclosure, they raided his official address at South Delhi Public College situated at Village Mohamadpur, near Bhikaji Cama Place where he identified his office at First Floor and produced one polythene bag containing 11 rubber stamps from the drawer of the table kept in the office. Thereafter, he took the impression of the rubber stamps on a sheet and gave number 1 to 11 to the recovered stamps. Thereafter, he kept the rubber stamps in a polythene and prepared a pullanda and sealed it with the seal of SS and thereafter he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. 7/B. Thereafter, accused Sant Lal Kalra also produced brown colour bag from the drawer of the table in which several forged certificates were recovered. He Page 16 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C. He recorded the statements of raiding parties and deposited the case properties in the malkhana. On 22.07.1995 accused Sant Lal Kalra had made a disclosure statement regarding the forged documents kept in the godown at Village Mohammadpur and the involvement of accused Raj Kumar Tokas in the present case. He recorded his disclosure statement, same is Ex. PW7/D. Thereafter, he alongwith accused Sant Lal Kalra, SI Ajay, Ct. Rohtas and Ct. Murlidhar reached at the said godown situated at F 124, Second Floor, Village Mohamadpur where accused where accused Sant Lal Kalra had identified one trunk which after opening found 99 types of forged certificates and marksheets of different Boards and Universities. Thereafter, the trunk alongwith the certificates were seized by him vide memo Ex. PW7/E. He also recovered 19 bundles of blank and used answer sheets of UP Education Board and seized the same by keeping them into a polythene bag vide memo Ex. PW7/F. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Sant Lal Kalra, accused Raj Kumar Tokas was arrested from his office M/s Onkas Group at 31 Page 17 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar Mohammadpur. Thereafter, he was arrested vide memo Ex. PW8/J. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/J. Thereafter, he recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. P7/H. Accused Raj Kumar Tokas produced a polythene bag from the drawer of the table of his office. On the search of polythene bag, 5 blocks of metal pertaining to various universities and two rubber stamps were recovered. He took the impression of all the seven articles in a separate sheet and gave the number AL 1 to AL5 to the blocks and A6 to A7 to the impression of the rubber stamps. Thereafter, he kept the same in a pullanda and sealed it with the seal of SS. Thereafter, he seized the same vide memo Ex. PW7/I. Thereafter, they came back at the PS alongwith the seized properties. The seized properties were deposited in the Malkhana and the accused persons were put in the lockup and later sent them in J/C. He recorded the statement of all the raiding parties. During course of investigation on 25.10.1995, he wrote a letter to the Secretary, Madhmik Siksha Parishad, UP and to the Principal, Nehru Samark Inter College, Pulera, Meerut and requested to verify the genuineness of Page 18 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors.
PS : Roop Nagar marksheets and certificates. The said letter is Ex. PW8/K and Ex. PW8/L. The abovesaid authorities had replied on 27.10.1995 by a letter Ex. PW8/M and had produced a certificate register which bears the name as Inderjeet instead of Rohtas Kumar in their verification report and same was found to be forged certificate and marksheet. He also searched for the other conspirator of the present case, however, they were not identified. He had prepared the challan and filed in the Court.
14. The witnesses were cross examined. The prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr. P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence against him. He would state that he was falsely implicated. The accused did not lead any evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
15. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The identity of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. It has also been proved that the accused had entered into criminal conspiracy with other Page 19 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar accused persons. Decoy customer was cheated. Various forged blocks and stamps were recovered from the Office of the accused. Hence, all the ingredients of the offences have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed that accused may be convicted.
16. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. None of the prosecution witness has been able to prove that the accused was involved in any offence. All the witnesses are police official and they are interested witnesses. There testimonies can not be believed. No public person has been examined. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
17. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
18. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of Page 20 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
19. In the present case, the accused has been charged for committing the offences punishable under Section 120B, 420/120B,468/120B & 471/120 B IPC.
20. Section 120 B IPC provides punishment for offence of criminal conspiracy. Section 120A IPC defines criminal conspiracy. For the purpose of proving criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the following:
1. that the accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act;
2. that such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means; and
3. that some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement.Page 21 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019
FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Baliya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012(9) SCC 696 has held that the offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence or to achieve a lawful object through unlawful means. Such a conspiracy would rarely be hatched in the open and, therefore, direct evidence to establish the same may not be always forthcoming. Proof or otherwise of such conspiracy is a matter of inference and the court in drawing such an inference must consider whether the basic facts i.e. circumstances from which the inference is to be drawn have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and thereafter, whether from such proved and established circumstances no other conclusion except that the accused had agreed to commit an offence can be drawn. Naturally 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.
22. Similarly the Hon'ble Apex Court, again in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs K. Narayana Rao, 2012(9) SCC 512 has held that the Page 22 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established Page 23 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence.
23. Section 420, IPC provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In order to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused had deceived the complainant dishonestly inducing him to part with any property in his favour which he would not have parted but for the deception played on him. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence is that there must be dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the time of making the representation to the complainant / victims on the basis which the complainant / victims part with his / their property. Intention must be dishonest and there must also be mens rea.
24. Section 468 IPC provides punishment for offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating. Section 463 IPC defines 'forgery' while Section 464 IPC defines 'making of false documents'. The Sections read as under : "463. Forgery.--Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a Page 24 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. "464 Making a false document. --A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record "First --Who dishonestly or fraudulently--
"(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
"(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
"(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
"(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or "Secondly --Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether Page 25 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors.
PS : Roop Nagar such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or "Thirdly --Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
25. In order to prove forgery, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubts:
1. that the document or electronic record or the part of it was false in fact;
2. that it had been made dishonestly or fraudulently within the meaning of the words used in Section 464, IPC; and
3. that the making of false document or electronic record was with intent to:
4. Cause danger or injury to: (i) the public, or (ii) to any person; or
5. Support any claim or title; or
6. Cause any person to part with property; or Page 26 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors.
PS : Roop Nagar
7. Enter into any express or implied contract; or
8. Commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
26. The term 'fraud' in Section 463 implies an infringement of someone's legal right though not necessarily connected with deprivation of property. Intent to defraud implies (a) an intention to deceive and (b) such deception involving the causing of legal injury. Unless there is an element of fraud, the making of a false document would not amount to a forgery. It is worth noting that intention to cause injury is not an essential ingredient of the offence of forgery. As per Section 463, intention to cause damage or injury to the public or person is only one of the five situations. The other situations being: (i) to support any claim or title (ii) cause any person to part with property; (iii) enter into any implied or express contract; or (iv) with intent to commit fraud. The first component, namely, intention to cause damage is intent complete in itself. The definition in Section 463 is itself subject to the definition in Section 464, in which the two essential elements are that the act should be done 'dishonestly and fraudulently'. In other words, whichever Page 27 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar of the intents as provided in Section 463 are applicable, the act itself must be done dishonestly and fraudulently to sustain the allegation of forgery.
27. Section 471 IPC provides punishment for using as genuine any forged document knowingly or having reason to believe to be a forged document.
28. In the present case, it has been alleged by the prosecution that accused Raj Kumar Tokas had entered into criminal conspiracy alongwith accused Vandana (Since PO), Sujata (Since PO) and other two associates to cheat Constable Rohtas. However, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that accused Rohtas had ever met with any of other accused or Pradeep Singh (Since convicted) or Sant Lal Kalra (since expired). It is settled position of law that disclosure statement of a co accused made in the police custody does not have any evidential value. Therefore, the alleged disclosure statement made by any of the accused can not be considered as an evidence against accused Raj Kumar Tokas. No witness has been produced by the prosecution who had seen accused Raj Kumar Tokas in contact with Page 28 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar any of other accused at any point of time by whatever means of communication. In these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Raj Kumar Tokas had entered into any criminal conspiracy with any person including other accused persons. The accused therefore can not be held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.
29. It has been further alleged that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy accused Vandana (Since PO) and Sujana (Since PO) had dishonestly induced the decoy customer to take Rs.2000/ to obtain a forged marksheet and certificate and therefore the accused was guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 420/120B IPC.
30. As discussed herein above, there is no material on record to show that the accused was part of any such criminal conspiracy. The decoy customer had no dealing with accused Raj Kumar Tokas at any point of time. None of the witness had seen accused Raj Kumar Tokas at the spot of crime. Therefore, I hold that there is no material on Court record to show beyond reasonable doubts that Page 29 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar accused Raj Kumar Tokas had cheated and deceived the decoy customer Ct. Rohtas. It is also worth noting that there was no cheating or deceiving at any point of time. Admittedly, decoy customer Ct. Rohtas was aware at the time of handing over money to accused Vandana (Since PO) that the certificate which was to be provided to him would be a forged document. Therefore, it can not be said that Ct.Rohtas was cheated and deceived as alleged.
31. It has also been alleged that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, accused Raj Kumar Tokas alongwith his associate had prepared forged documents and those documents were used for cheating. However, as discussed hereinabove, there is no evidence on record to show that accused Raj Kumar Tokas was part of any such conspiracy at any point of time. Hence, I hold that accused Raj Kumar Tokas can not be held guilty for offence punishable under Section 468/120B IPC also. For the similar reason, he can also not be held guilty for offence punishable under Section 471/120B IPC.
32. It has been alleged by the prosecution that at the time of arrest of the accused five blocks of metal Page 30 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar pertaining to various universities and two rubber stamps were recovered at his instance. PW6, PW7 and PW8 have deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement of Sant Lal Kalra they had apprehended accused Raj Kumar Tokas from his office and at that time he had got recovered abovementioned articles. The version of the prosecution witnesses is that Sant Lal Kalra had disclosed about the involvement of accused Raj Kumar Tokas and thereafter he had led them to the Office of accused Raj Kumar Tokas. Thus there was sufficient time for the IO to join some independent public witness before proceeding to the Office of accused Raj Kumar Tokas. However, no efforts to join any public persons as mandated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., are shown to be made by the IO. Even after reaching at the spot, before apprehending accused Raj Kumar Tokas no public witness was joined by the IO to fulfill the condition of the law. It is a well settled proposition that nonjoining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. also casts a Page 31 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. In the case titled as Nank Chand Vs. State of Delhi, Crl. Revision No. 169/81, decided on 07.11.1990, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under: "The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola.''
33. I also get strength from the case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State, 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC) in which Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly Page 32 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigors of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."(emphasis supplied)
34. Further, in Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 1999(1) C.L.R.69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held as under:
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner.Page 33 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019
FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar "4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police of officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating of officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police of officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".(emphasis supplied) Page 34 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar
35. In the present case, the PW6 has stated that public persons were present at the spot at the relevant time. Despite that the IO did not ask the public persons to join the proceedings. No explanation has been provided by the IO as to why he had not asked public persons to join the proceedings despite their availability. Non availability of a public person is one thing. However, when public persons are not joined by the police officials in the investigation despite their availability, a doubt comes in the mind of the Court in relation to the proceedings shown to be conducted by the police officials. In the present case also, for the abovementioned reason, the above mentioned facts create reasonable doubts on the case of the police officials regarding the recovery of the alleged items at the instance of the accused.
36. It is also worth mentioning here that PW6 has stated in his crossexamination that when they reached at the Office of accused Raj Kumar 24 persons were also present there. However, PW8 IO ACP Sanjay Sharma has stated in his crossexamination that the accused was alone when they reached there. He would also state that he did Page 35 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar not remember whether any other person had come to visit the accused during the relevant time. It is thus shown by the defence, on the preponderance of probabilities, that there is material contradiction in the testimonies of two witnesses which brings their presence on the spot, as alleged, under the clouds of reasonable doubts.
37. As per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PW6 and PW8, the IO had sealed the recovered items in a pullanda with the seal of SS and handed over the seal to Ct. Rohtas. However, there is no handing over memo of the seal to show that seal was so handed over. Thus, the possibility that the case property might have been tampered with cannot be ruled out.
38. It is also noteworthy that in his cross examination PW8 ACP Sanjay Sharma has stated that he had recorded a DD entry before leaving for the Office of Raj Kumar Tokas. However, the said DD entry has not been proved on record. It was the best evidence to prove the factum of leaving the police station for apprehension of the accused Raj Kumar Tokas. The fact that the best evidence was not produced in the Court for reason Page 36 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019 FIR No. 189/1995, State Vs Raj Kumar Tokas @ Dharamraj & Ors. PS : Roop Nagar unexplained creates reasonable doubts on the case as presented by the prosecution.
39. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of any of the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accused Raj Kumar Tokas is given benefit of reasonable doubts and he is accordingly acquitted.
40. The accused has already furnished bond under Section 437A, with one surety along with photographs and copies of address proof.
Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar) th this 21 day of August 2019. MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Page 37 of 37 MM08(C)THC/Delhi/21.08.2019