Delhi District Court
State vs Yogesh Kumar Etc on 30 April, 2025
THE COURT OF MS SANGHMITRA, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-01, KARKARDOOMA COURTS/SHAHDARA, DELHI.
CR Cases 79879/2016
State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 177/2003
PS: GTB Enclave
U/S: 468/471/120B IPC
ID number of the case : DLSH02-000360-2004
Date of commission of offence : On or before 01.10.1999
Date of institution of the case : 05.07.2004
Name of the complainant : Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma
Name of accused, address and his : 1. Shoran Singh
parentage S/o Sh. Tuki Ram,
R/o D-1/128, Gali No. 3, Ashok
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
2. Yogesh Kumar S/o Sh. Puran
Chand (already convicted vide
judgement dated 23.12.2019 for
offence 471/120B & 120B IPC)
3. Shobha Ram
S/o Sh. Dalpat Singh (already
acquitted vide judgement dated
23.12.2019)
Offence complained of : 468/471/120B & 120B IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Offence proved 471/120B & 120B IPC
Digitally
signed by
SANGHMITRA
SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30
17:04:06
+0530
FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.1 of 14
Offence not proved 468/120B IPC
Final order : Convicted for offence u/s 471/120B
& 120B IPC and acquitted for
offence u/s468/120B IPC
Date of judgment : 30.04.2025
JUDGMENT
I. Brief Background of the case -
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on or before 01.10.1999 at Govt. Boys Sr. Secondary School, DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi, accused Soran Singh along with others accused persons conspired and forged a document/certificate of 10th standard of Yogesh Kumar to do an illegal act i.e. admission of Yogesh in Govt. Sr. Secondary School by using a forged document. Further, in furtherance of abovesaid conspiracy all accused persons fraudulently or dishonestly used the aforesaid forged document as genuine which they knew or had reason to believe at the time when they used it to be a forged document on record. Thus, accused Soran Singh is alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s 468/471/120B & 120B IPC.
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (herein after IO) undertook the investigation and on culmination of the same, the charge- sheet was filed against the accused and Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the said offence vide order dated 05.07.2004 and issued process against the accused Soran Singh along with other accused. Pursuant to the appearance of the accused Soran Singh, he was supplied Digitally the copy of chargesheet in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Upon signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:12 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.2 of 14 hearing the arguments, vide order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, charge under Section 468/471/120B and 120B IPC was ordered to be framed against accused accused Shoran Singh. The accused pleaded not guilty and the matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence ('PE').
3. At this point, it is important to note Ld. predecessor of this court vide judgment dated 23.12.2019, had decided the present case and acquitted the accused Shobha Ram. Further, acquitted the accused Soran Singh and Yogesh Kumar for the offence under section 468/120B IPC but convicted them for the offence under section 471/120B & section 120B IPC. Thereafter, accused Soran Singh preferred an appeal and vide judgment dated 09.01.2023 passed by Ld. ASJ-04, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, the judgment dated 23.12.2019 passed by Ld. predecessor of this court, was set aside qua accused Soran Singh and matter was remanded back.
II. Prosecution Evidence -
4. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in evidence. PW1 is Duty Officer W/ASI Madhwi Bisth, PW-2 is complainant Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma, Retired Principal, Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, Janta Flats, Nand Nagri, PW3 is Chander Pal, PW4 is Sh. Sanjeev Tyagi, PW5 is Sh. Ajay Dubey, TGT in GBSSS, DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, PW6 is Ms. Mandakini Thakur, Retd. Deputy Director of Education, PW7 is Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Deputy Education Officer, PW8 IO Retd. SI Dharambir Singh, PW9 Sh. Rajender Kumar, the then Director of Education, PW10 is Sh. Pok Pal Singh, PGT teacher Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, Janta Flats, Nand Nagri, PW11 is Sh. Gajraj Sharma, TGT Teacher of the said school, PW12 is Sh. Mahender Pal Tyagi, TGT Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:17 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.3 of 14 Teacher of the said school, PW-13 is SI Kishan Sahai, PW-14 is HC Sanjeev Kumar, and one CW1 Sh. G. S. Tyagi Principal Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi was also examined.
III. Statement / Defence of the Accused -
5. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in evidence were put to him. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence by stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he had not taken any responsibility for the admission of Yogesh and the endorsement on the photocopy of ration card is not written by him as the same is in English language and he does not know how to write English. Accused did not lead defence evidence and accordingly, DE was closed.
IV. Arguments Advanced by the Parties -
6. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the duty of the prosecution is to prove the facts in issue of the offences in question punishable under section 468/471/120B and 120B IPC. There is clear evidence on record to show that the documents of Yogesh Kumar (already convicted) qua the genuineness of which accused Soran Singh took guarantee before the teachers of the school in which convict Yogesh Kumar got admitted were found to be forged. Further, accused Soran Singh used the said forged document as genuine. The testimonies of the teachers of the said school is consistent on this aspect. Thus, it is prayed that the accused be convicted of alleged offences.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that that the accused Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:22 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.4 of 14 has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused never visited the school in question for the purpose of admission of any student. It has also been argued that accused Soran Singh has no relation with convict Yogesh Kumar. There is no evidence on record which shows accused participated in forgery of the document in question. The accused was not aware of any forgery. Further, in cross examination the teachers of the concerned school have stated that there is no rule or regulation that on the basis of guarantee given any another staff, the genuineness of the documents can be relied upon. Thus, he prayed that the accused be acquitted of the charges.
V. Appreciation of evidence -
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless provided otherwise by the Statute.
9. The accused Soran Singh has been tried for offences under section 468/471/120B IPC and section 120B IPC. Section 468 IPC provides as follows -
"463. Forgery. - Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a 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."
Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:27 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.5 of 14
10. The term 'making a false document' is defined under section 464 IPC and the same read as follows -
"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 electronic signature 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 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. Explanation 1. - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Explanation 2. - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may Digitally signed by amount to forgery.
SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:31 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.6 of 14 Explanation 3. - For the purpose of this section, the expression "affixing [electronic signature] shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000."
11. Further, section 470 IPC and 471 IPC provides as follows -
"470. Forged [document or electronic record. - A false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery is designated "a forged document or electronic record.
471. Using as genuine a forged document [document or electronic record. - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record] shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
12. Further, section 120B IPC provides for the punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy the definition of which is provided under section 120A IPC. The said provisions read as under -
"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, -
(1) an illegal act, or (2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy :
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation. - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. - (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same 2025.04.30 17:04:36 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.7 of 14 manner as if he had abetted such offence."
13. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Soran Singh in conspiracy with other persons had forged the documents/ certificates of convict Yogesh Kumar and used the said certificate as genuine and has got convict Yogesh Kumar admitted in Class XIth on the basis of the said documents/ certificates in the Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi.
14. In the present case PW1 deposed that on 01.10.1999 student Yogesh got admitted in class 11 by PGT teacher Shobha Ram. The last date for admission was in the school was 30.09.1999, and after the said date, he had no right to get the admission of the students. He also testified that along with the admission form of Yogesh (already convicted), his migration certificate was not annexed, thus, he told accused Shobha Ram that migration certificate of the student is necessary because he had passed class 10th privately. Thereafter a letter was written to his senior authorities regarding the admission of convict Yogesh on 01.10.1999, and thereafter the documents of convict Yogesh got verified from KV Inter College, Machhra, Meerut, UP and he received a letter from the Principal, KV Inter College, Machhra, Meerut, UP Ex.PW3/D stating that the said Mark sheet was forged and no such records are there in the school. He further deposed that on the written directions from the office of deputy director of education he got the present FIR registered.
15. Further, PW4 Sanjeev Tyagi brought the original Board gazette for the year 1999 showing the details of all the students of class 10th in the KV Inter College, Machhra, Meerut, UP. He deposed that in the year 1999, no Digitally signed by private student had appeared in 10th board examination and as per the SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:40 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.8 of 14 record, no student in the name Yogesh Kumar was admitted or appeared in 10th board exam from their school. He also brought on record certificate issued by Principal, KV inter College, Machra, Meerut, UP, Ex. PW4/XY stating that the school had no record regarding the student Yogesh Kumar appearing in board examination in the year 1999.
16. Thus, Ex.PW3/D proves that the documents in question, on the basis of which convict Yogesh was given admission in the Delhi School, was forged as it clearly provides that convict Yogesh did not pass high school from KV inter College, Machra, Meerut, UP in the year 1999.
17. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Soran Singh along with other accused had entered in the conspiracy to forge the mark sheet in question and resultantly in fact had forged the same. No evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to show the documents of convict Yogesh were forged by accused Soran Singh and other accused persons or that they conspired to commit the said forgery. Thus, in absence of any evidence for the offence of forgery, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the said offence punishable under section 468/120B IPC against Soran Singh.
18. As regards the offence of using a forged document, in furtherance of the said conspiracy, punishable under section 471/120B IPC, PW 10 Pok Pal Singh, deposed that in September 1999, he was posted as teacher PGT (History) in Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi and in the said month, accused Soran Singh came in the school for admission of one boy in class 11th along with school leaving certificate and other documents and took guarantee/responsibility of the genuineness of the said documents brought by him. PW 11 Gajraj Sharma Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:45 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.9 of 14 also deposed that in 1999, he was posted as teacher TGT (Hindi) in the above said school and accused Soran Singh came to the school in question for admission of one boy in 11th class, along with school leaving certificate and other documents and took responsibility/guarantee of the genuineness of the said documents before him. The said documents were suspected. After enquiry, the said documents were declared irregular. Further, PW 12 Mahinder Pal Tyagi also deposed in the same line that in the year 1999 he was posted as teacher TGT (Mathematics) in the above said school and accused Soran Singh came to the school for admission of one boy in class 11th. Though PW 12 further deposed that accused Soran Singh never produced documents before him, he never disputed that the said accused never brought the documents before any other teacher of the said school. The testimonies of these witnesses on this point have remained consistent and there is no occasion to doubt their unimpeached testimonies. The accused on the other had has failed to bring cogent evidence on record to discredit the case of the prosecution on this point and to prove that he never went to the said school. Further, the attendance register of students in the school in question for October, 1999 of class XI-A Ex. PW3/B also reflects that the convict Yogesh Kumar was in fact got admitted in the said school on the basis of the documents which were found to be forged and he had also attended the school.
19. At this stage, it is important to note that for the first time during the course of final arguments it has been submitted by Ld. counsel for the accused that accused Soran Singh is not related to convict Yogesh, however, no evidence has been led by the accused on the said point. Even Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA if the said argument is considered, then, it was all the more imperative SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:49 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.10 of 14 upon the accused Soran Singh to explain as to how documents in question came in his possession and why he went to the school in question for the admission of someone he has no relation with and why he took guarantee of genuineness of the documents of such person. The accused has failed to explain as to why he went to the school for the admission of convict Yogesh when he had no relation with convict Yogesh and how come he came into the possession of such documents of convict Yogesh. Further, it is also not the case of the accused nor anything has been brought on record by him to show that the prosecution witnesses had any enmity against the accused Soran Singh, so as to falsely implicate him in the present case. In these circumstances as PW 10, 11 and 12 have clearly deposed that accused Soran Singh had come to the school for the admission of convict Yogesh Kumar along with his documents, which were forged, and took guarantee of the genuineness of the said documents and nothing has been brought on record by the accused to discredit the testimonies of these witnesses, their testimonies cannot be doubted upon.
20. Further, the accused in the cross examination of PWs 10, 11 and 12 had put to the witnesses that there is no rule/regulation that on the basis of guarantee of any other staff member, the genuineness of the documents can be relied upon. Thus, it has been argued that even though allegedly accused Soran Singh took guarantee of the documents of convict Yogesh, it was the duty of the school teachers to check the genuineness of the documents in question before giving admission to him and accused Soran Singh cannot be made liable for allegedly using the forged document as genuine. This argument of the accused cannot be accepted as it has been observed in Ramautar Mistri v. Rajindea Singh (1961) 2 CrLJ 139 that to Digitally signed by bring a person within the purview of section 471 IPC, it is enough if he SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:53 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.11 of 14 filed a forged documents, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged. Thus, it is the use of a forged document which has been made punishable under the above said provision and its effect on the person to whom such forged document is presented is not relevant. The offence stands committed the moment such a forged document was presented before the school concerned. Further, on cumulative reading of the evidence on record, it is clear that accused Soran Singh knowingly used forged documents as genuine in the school and successfully got convict Yogesh admitted in the school on the basis of said forged documents.
21. PW8 had deposed that he had seized the copy of ration card of the accused Soran Singh along with other documents such as copy of his posting order and his ID Card, vide seizure memo PW8/T. The accused in his statement recorded by section 313 Cr.P.C has stated that the endorsement on the photocopy of ration card is not in his writing as the same as in English language and he does not know how to write in English. Perusal said ration card having endorsement reflects that it is written at the bottom of the said ration card that Yogesh is residing with accused Soran Singh. In this regard, the stand of the accused that he has not given the said endorsement as he does not know how to write in English does not inspire the confidence of the court as the accused himself has signed his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C in English and admittedly, he is s teacher in a government school. The photocopy of the posting order of the accused as well as his ID card seized by the IO vide seizure memo PW8/T are written in English and reflects the accused to be a teacher of Geography. In his ID card as well his designation is reflected as lecturer. Thus, it cannot be accepted that a Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA government teacher who has taught in school after having passed required SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:04:57 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.12 of 14 exam and having required qualification does not know how to write in English, especially when he himself signs in English language.
22. Thus, as discussed above, the consistent testimonies of PWs 10, 11 and 12 who deposed that the accused came to the school in question where they were posted as Teachers for admission of convict Yogesh Kumar in 11th Class along with forged documents and took responsibility/guarantee of the documents of convict Yogesh, clearly establishes the the conspiracy entered into by the accused Soran Singh and others to use forged certificates of convict Yogesh of KV Inter College, Machra, Meerut in 1999 of class X as genuine knowing it to be forged for the purpose of admission of convict Yogesh in class XI in Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, DDA Flats, East Loni Road, Delhi duly stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Therefore, the accused Soran Singh is convicted for the offences punishable under S. 120-B IPC and S. 471/120B IPC.
23. The accused has not led cogent evidence to prove his defence and the defence of accused Soran Singh that he is not involved in the admission of convict Yogesh and he had no knowledge of the same cannot be accepted in view of the consistent testimonies of PW 10 Pok Pal Singh, PW 11 Gajraj Sharma and PW 12 Mahender Pal Singh who all have deposed that accused Soran Singh came to the school with the documents of Yogesh Kumar, which were found to forged, and took guarantee of the genuineness of the said documents.
VI. Decision -
24. In view of the above said discussion, since the prosecution has failed to Digitally prove the charge under Section 468/120B IPC against the accused beyond signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:05:01 +0530 FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.13 of 14 reasonable doubt, accused Soran Singh is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 468/120B IPC. As the prosecution has been successful in proving the charge under section 120-B IPC and section 471/120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt, accused Soran Singh is hereby held guilty and convicted for offenses u/s 120-B IPC and u/s 471/120B Digitally signed by IPC. SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:05:06 +0530 Announced in the open court (Sanghmitra) on dated : 30.04.2025 Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 (SHD) Karkardooma Court/Delhi This judgment consists of 14 pages and each and every page of this judgment is Digitally signed signed by me.
by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.30 17:05:09 +0530 (Sanghmitra) Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 (SHD) Karkardooma Court/Delhi FIR No. 177/2003 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Page No.14 of 14