Delhi District Court
State vs . Man Mohan Sharma & Ors. on 20 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR-I
ACMM: NORTH-WEST: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 283/2000
PS: Shalimar Bagh
U/s. 420/511/471/120 B IPC
State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma & Ors.
Date of Institution of case : 14.06.2001
Date of Judgment reserved : 06.08.2022
Date on which judgment pronounced : 20.08.2022
JUDGMENT
1) Unique ID number of the case: 533398/2016
2) Date of commission of offence: Between December 1998
and March 1999
3) Name of complainant : R.L. Madan
Deputy Director (LA)/Res-
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi.
4) Name and address of accused: (1) Man Mohan Sharma
S/o Gauri Shankar Sharma
R/o 179, Padam Nagar
Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
(2) Ramesh Chand
S/o Kalu Ram
R/o 81, Village
Mukand Pur, Delhi.
(3) Shyam Lal Sabbarwal
S/o Late Devi Dass,
(Proceedings abated)
Digitally signed
CASE No. 533398/2016
FIR No. 283/2000
DEEPAK by DEEPAK
KUMAR
PS- Shalimar Bagh KUMAR Date: 2022.08.20
17:52:58 +0530
State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 1/19
(4) Padam Singh @ Padam
Chand,
S/o- Sh. Balram
(Proceedings abated)
(5) Yog Raj Grover
S/o- Sh. Hans Raj Grover,
R/o- 644, Sector 7,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
(6) Amzad Ali
S/o- Late Rahmat Ali
(Proceedings abated)
7. Manish (Since P.O)
8. Kunal Yadav (Since P.O)
5) Offence complained of : U/s 120B/420/511/471 IPC
or proved
6) Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order : Accused Man Mohan
Sharma, Yograj Grover and
Ramesh Chand are acquitted.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
Brief facts
1. Case of the prosecution in brief is that between December 1998 and March 1999, accused persons namely Man Mohan Sharma, Ramesh Chand, Shyam Lal Sabbarwal, Padam Chand, Yog Raj Grover and Amjad Ali alongwith co-accused Kunal Yadav and Manish (since P.O.) entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat one Ishwar Singh by selling Plot No. BP-93, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on the basis of forged CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 2/19 documents of ownership. Further, the above said accused persons in pursuant to the above said conspiracy, during the above said period, alongwith the other co-accused named above (who were PO), attempted to cheat Ishwar Singh by offering to sell plot No. BP-93, Shalimar Bagh Delhi for Rs. 35 lacs claiming the same to be owned by one Kunal Yadav and furnishing photocopies of forged documents, in favour of said Kunal Yadav with a view to cause wrongful loss to said Kunal Yadav and wrongful gain to themselves whereas in fact the plot belonged to DDA. Thus, the accused persons thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 120B/420/511/471 IPC. On the basis of the above allegations, the present FIR bearing No. 283/2000 was registered at police station Shalimar Bagh and the accused persons have been charged with the above offence.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against accused persons namely Man Mohan Sharma, Ramesh Chand, Shyam Lal Sabbarwal, Padam Chand, Yog Raj Grover and Amjad Ali for offence U/s 120B/420/511/471 IPC was filed in the Court and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, arguments on charge were heard. Charge were framed U/s 120B/420/511/471 IPC against accused Man Mohan Sharma and Ramesh Chand on 30.10.2001 and against accused Shyam Lal Sabarwal, Padam Chand, Amzad Ali and Yoog Raj Grover on 05.06.2002 vide which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Vide order dated 09.04.2014, 30.01.2018 and 06.04.2018 proceedings against the accused Shayam Lal, Padam Chand and Amzad Ali were abated. Hence, vide this judgment fate of remaining accused persons is to be decided.
CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 3/19
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and also perused the record and written submissions carefully.
5. PW1 Ct. Bijender Singh deposed that on 02.05.2000, he was posted as constable at Crime Branch Office LBR Section. On that day he took rukka Ex.PW1/A and got the FIR bearing No. 283/2000 registered at PS Shalimar Bagh. He proved carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW2 Ct. Dil Bagh deposed that on 21.03.2001, he was posted as constable at Crime Branch Office, accused Man Mohan Sharma and Ramesh Chand were apprehended in this case. They were interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. He proved body inspection memo of both the above said accused as Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. Their personal search were conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. He also proved disclosure statements of Ramesh Chand and Man Mohan Sharma as Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H. He also identified both the accused persons in the court.
CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 4/19
7. PW3 R.L. Madan deposed that in the year 1999, he was working as Deputy Director in DDA. Police had made enquiries about plot No. DD No. 93, Shalimar Bagh. After checking record, he had told the police that the sale plot was DDA's property and was not disposed of by the DDA. In this regard, he had made a letter to ACP. He proved the same as Ex.PW3/A. After checking the documents, he had written in his letter that those documents were forged and fabricated.
8. PW4 Ram Anand deposed that he was the owner of property no. 40, Masih Garh, Sukhdev Vihar and he was also residing there. It was about two years back; the police had called him regarding this case and they had enquired about one person whose name was Yadav. He did not remember his full name at that time. He had told the police that no person by the name of Yadav was residing in the said premises i.e., 40 Masih Garg, Room No. C-5, in the said building. He had also told that no such person had remained as tenant in his premises.
9. PW4 Vijay Bhan deposed that on 20.07.2000, he was attached with the dealing assistant DDA, Shalimar Bagh area C-Block, Vikas Sadan to the Plot No. BP 93, Shalimar Bagh. As per the letter dated 30.09.75 the plot was allotted to Sh. Hari Chand vide letter No. F16 (247)/75L SB(R). This plot was cancelled and Hari Chand had been issued a cheque in the year 1978 thereafter, after receiving the payment by Hari Chand, DDA became the owner of the said plot. This plot had never been allotted in favour of Kunal Yadav. Sale deed had never been executed in favour of Kunal Yadav. He proved a letter Ex.PW4/A written by his department to ACP in response to the letter CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 5/19 Ex.PW4/B.
10. PW5 Jagbir Singh, LDC Office of Sub-Registrar VIA, Pitam Pura, Delhi deposed that the Perpetual Lease Deed which was executed on 15.04.1998 with Kunal Yadav S/o P.S. Yadav R/o C- C5/40, Masiha Garh, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar VI, Delhi vide registration no. Volume no. 575 and page 56 to 61 dated 21.04.1998. He proved copy of the same as Ex.PW5/A which runs into 8 pages. The site plan Ex.PW5/B and one additional page which contain the stamp of the office and the name and thumb impression of Kunal is Ex.PW5/C. He proved copy of ration card as Ex.PW5/D. As per official record the copies were supplied to the IO on 19.05.2000 by the then Sub-Registrar. The copy of the letter by the IO to the Sub- Registrar is Ex.PW5/E.
11. PW6 ASI Raj Devi deposed that on 02.05.2000, he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh as duty officer and he proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/B and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/A.
12. PW7 Inspector Hari Ram deposed that in the month of March 1999, he was posted as SI at LBR Cell, Crime Branch. During that month one complaint of Sh. Ishwar Singh was received in the office of Crime Cell regarding plot No. BP-93, Shalimar Bagh, in which he alleged that he was dealing with Sh. Sabbarwal, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Amjad and others for purchase of the aforesaid plot. They were saying that plots belong to them however, on inquiries, he found that the real owner was one Kunal. He sent the aforesaid complaint to DDA office for verification about the ownership of plot. In reply CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 6/19 deputy director of DDA Sh. R.L. Madan informed that the aforesaid plot was initially allotted to one Harish Kumar but thereafter his allotment was cancelled and now DDA is the owner of the said plot. He made endorsement Ex.PW7/A on the reply of Sh. R.L. Madan and FIR was got registered. During the investigation he called complainant Ishwar Singh in his office and he was inquired by him. He handed over photocopies of 10 documents which were taken into police possession by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. These documents were comprising of agreement to sell, receipts and etc. pertaining to the aforesaid plot by Kunal and his associates. Photocopy of perpetually comprising into 3 pages is collectively mark A (sic). Photocopy of demand cum allotment letter is mark B. Photocopy of possession letter mark C, photocopy of receipts mentioned at serial no. 4 to 10 are marked D, E, F, G, H, I & J. He also examined dealing clerk of DDA. Sub-registrar of Pitam Pura authority was examined by him. He proved complaint of Ishwar Singh as Ex.PW7/C. He verified the residential address of Kunal situated in Sukhdev Vihar but he found no such address in existence. Thereafter, he was transferred from LBR Crime Branch, so case file was handed over to SI Anil for further investigation.
13. PW8 Ishwar Singh deposed that in the year 2001, one civil case was pending before Tis Hazari Court so he had to visit in the chamber/ office of his counsel Sh. D.S. Khatri Advocate for discussing the case. On one occasion, accused namely Sh. S.S. Sabharwal present before the Court today met him in the chamber of his Advocate. Accused S.S. Sabharwal informed him that one plot i.e., BP-93 Shalimar Bagh was available for sale at the lower price. He had shown CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 7/19 his wish to purchase the said plot. Then accused S.S. Sabharwal took him to the office of accused Padam Singh (since expired) situated at Karol Bagh. At that time, accused Man Mohan Sharma, Amzad Ali and Yog Raj Grover were also present in the office of accused Padam Singh. All the accused persons had shown him the photo state copy pertaining to the ownership of the aforesaid plot. The said plot was in the name of one Kunal. He asked them to show the original documents. After about 2-3 days accused Sabharwal took him to the house of accused Dr. Ramesh situated in Jahangir Puri. Accused Ramesh had shown the original documents of the plot of which the photocopies were shown to him in the office at Karol Bagh. He obtained the photocopy of these documents and went to the office of one property dealer namely Chhabra Property dealer situated at Shalimar Bagh. He had shown the photocopies of these documents to the property dealer. After seeing the documents, the property dealer informed him that these documents were fake because the measurements of the plot used to be mentioned in meters by the DDA and the said documents were reflecting the measurements in square yards. He went to Police Head Quarter and met with DCP Sh. Karnail Singh who advised him to approach the Crime Branch office situated at Qutub Institutional Area. He went to the office of Crime Branch at Qutub Institutional Area. He also filed the photocopies of the documents relating to the plot in the office of Crime Branch and he proved the same as Ex.PW7/C. Same were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. The photocopy of perpetual lease deed is Mark A and Demand letter is Mark A1. Possession letter Mark C and seven receipts pertaining to the payment to DDA Mark D to J. He identified all the five accused persons and all the accused persons were arrested.
CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 8/19 The plot was offered for sale for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
14. PW9 Devak Ram, Assistant Director FSL, Rohini Delhi deposed that in the present case, the documents were received in his laboratory on 25.02.2002 without any seal (open condition) vide memo No. 344/R/ACP/ALBR/EOW dated 21.02.2002. The questioned documents were marked as Q1 to Q27 and Q4/1 and the standard documents were marked as S1 to S34 and A1 to A8. All the original documents as well as their prints were also examined in the laboratory with the help of available instrument in the laboratory. All the questioned writing and signatures i.e., from Q10 to Q20 could not be matched with the specimen handwriting and signature i.e., from S1 to S32 as the pattern of specimen handwriting and signature were different. The pattern of standard signatures marked A1 to A8 found different from the pattern of questioned signatures mark Q2 to Q4, Q4/1, Q5 to Q9. The questioned seal impression marked Q2 to Q4, Q4/1 and Q5 to Q9 do not tally with the seal impression appearing on documents mark A1 to A8 which were obtained from the office of Sub Registrar, Pitampura. The seal impression mark Q21 does not tally with the sample seal impression mark S33 that was obtained from the office of Collector (Stamps). The questioned seal impression mark Q22 to Q26 do not tally with the sample seal impression mark S34 i.e., round stamp impression taken from the office of Collector of Stamps. He gave his detailed report as Ex.PW9/A. He had brought the photographs of questioned documents alongwith negatives which were taken by the government photographer from the office of Sub Registrar, Pitam Pura. He proved photographs collectively as Ex.PW9/B. CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 9/19
15. PW10 Kartar Singh, Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Zone deposed that on 20.02.2002 he was posted as SDM as well as Collector of Stamps Saraswati Vihar, Kanjhawala, Delhi. A letter dated 18.02.2002 of ALBR Section, EOW Crime Branch was received in his office. He sent a written reply to Sh. Vijay Malik the then ACP, EOW Crime Branch. He had given reply of the query made by EOW vide their letter dated 18.02.2002 regarding file no. 403 allegedly in the name of one Kunal Yadv. He checked the record and found that file no. 403 was not existing in the name of Kunal Yadav but it was belonging to one Sh. Tribhuvan Kumar and the same was deposited in our office on 05.02.1998 and TC of the said file was deposited on 06.02.98. So, no stamp duty was deposited in regard to the perpetual lease allegedly prepared in the name of Kunal. He verified the record and found that the signature appearing on the perpetual lease (which was annexed with the letter of ACP, EOW) of the then Collector of Stamps namely Sh. R.N. Sharma, was not tallying with his actual signatures. His letter is Ex.PW10/A.
16. PW11 Sh. T.C. Joshi Retired Asstt. Director from DDA deposed that in the year 2000-01, he was posted as Programme Assistant in DDA, Vikas Sadan, C Block, INA, Delhi and Police officials had shown him photocopy of perpetual lease deed issued in the name of Kunal Yadav. After seeing that lease deed he stated to the police that the signature of Satpal and R.K. Gupta, which were appearing on the lease deed mark A at point A1 and A2, were not posted as Dealing Assistant and Lease Administration Officer with DDA at that time. During that period the perpetual lease deed used to CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 10/19 be executed by Lease Administration Officer and signed by the Programme Asstt. So, it must be signed by Sh. Ram Kishan being Programme Asstt. who was posted in the year 1998. Sh. Malkiyat Singh took over charge from Sh. Ram Kishan and he took over the charge from Sh. Malkiyat Singh. So, the perpetual lease mark A was never issued from the office of DDA.
17. PW12 Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi deposed that he was working in the aforesaid branch since June 2014. His Chief Manager had instructed him to depose in the court. The letter dated 25.02.2002 OPR/2002/1209 was issued from their above said branch in reply of letter dated 08.06.2001. The letter dated 08.06.2001 has mentioned seven challan numbers of different dates. In the reply dated 25.02.2002, they mentioned that no money has been deposited in their aforesaid branch in the account of DDA under any of the seven challans which are mentioned in letter dated 08.06.2001. The letter dated 08.06.2001 is Ex.PW12/A and letter dated 25.02.2002 OPR/2002/1209 is Ex.PW12/B. The Ex.PW12/B was issued from their aforesaid branch, bearing the signature of Asstt. General Manager, Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi at point A. The copy of the seven challans are Mark A-1 to A-7.
18. PW13 J.P. Gupta deposed that he was retired in January 2008 from Trade and Taxes department. He was deputed as Sub Registrar- VI. Pitam Pura, from October 1997 to September 1999. At this stage, Vikas, Data Entry Operator at Sub Registrar Office VI-A, (previously VI) Pitam Pura, produced the office copy of perpetual lease deed CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 11/19 which was executed on 15.04.1998 with Kunal Yadav S/o P.S. Yadav r/o C-5/40, Masiha Garh, Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi-25 which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar VI, Delhi vides registration no. 250, book no.1, Vol. 575 and page 56 to 61 dated 21.04.1998. He proved the copy of same as Ex.PW5/A which runs into 8 pages in the testimony of PW5 Jagbir Singh, LDC, office of Sub-Registrar VI-A, Pitam Pura. The above said original office copy was shown to the witness. The witness stated that the said perpetual lease deed was registered in his above said tenure as Sub-Registrar. The witness also correctly identified his signatures at point A and B on the Ex.PW5/A which runs into 8 pages. The copy of the ration card which is on record usually not the part of the office copy of registered document but the same was produced by the executor as to establish his identity. The site plan is always the part of the registered document. The said document also bears the stamp of LAO (Lease Administration Officer) DDA. The said perpetual lease is brought by the party itself in Sub- registrar office which bearing the stamp and signature of LAO for the registration of the document. They did not have any technique to identify the signatures and stamps of LAO, DDA. They registered the said document on the basis of stamps and signatures which bears on the said document. Further, no specimen signatures of LAO, DDA were sent to Registrar. No DDA official came to Sub registrar office with the documents for the registration of the same. The said office copy of perpetual lease also bears the photograph of lessee.
19. PW14 Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, ASO, DDA, LAB residential branch Vikas Sadan, New Delhi deposed that on that day he had brought original perpetual lease in favour of Smt. Bimla Gupta and CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 12/19 Sh. D.R. Gupta, copy of which he proved as Ex.PW14/A having total 8 pages. Said perpetual lease was handed over to IO to establish the identity of seals used by DDA otherwise said perpetual lease is in no manner relevant to present case.
20. PW15 Inspector Anil Samota deposed that on 06.09.2000, he was posted as SI in EOW Cell and investigation of the present case was marked to him. Verification was made with regard to the whereabouts of the witnesses of lease deed pertaining to property bearing No. BP-93, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The address of both the witnesses i.e Shahnawaz Akhtar and M.Y. Siddiqui were found non- existing. Detailed interrogation was made from the DDA officials namely Tara Chand Joshi and Ashok Kumar, Dealing Assistant and AE respectively pertaining to the signature and stamps over the lease deed pf BP-93, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Their statements were recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Certified copies of the lease deed pertaining to corresponding period of lease deed of property No. BP-93, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi were seized. The certified copies of said lease deed were not pertaining to BP-93, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi rather they were pertaining to another property which was executed during the same time period by DDA at which lease deed pertaining to BP-93, Shalimar Bagh was executed. Said certified lease deed was received to establish the identity of seals used by DDA during that period. Sh. J.P. Gupta was the concerned Sub-registrar at Registrar office, Pitampura, Delhi. He was interrogated by him regarding the questioned lease deed. His statement was recorded by him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Regarding the questioned lease deed, two payments were paid to the concerned offices i.e., Collectorate of stamps Kanjhawala and Central Bank of CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 13/19 India at Vikas Sadan, Delhi. He collected stamp impressions and report from the collectorate of stamps. The collectorate of stamps, in their report told that no stamp duty has been paid with regard to the property mentioned in questioned lease deed. The report of stamp collectorate is Ex.PW10/A. He also inquired from the Central Bank of India regarding the payment made to said bank through 7 challans. The report of central bank of India is already Ex. PW12/B and according to said report no payment was done to said bank vide challans. During the course of investigation accused persons namely Ramesh Chand, and Manmohan Sharma were arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. Said accused persons were arrested after their personal search vide search memos Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F, body inspection memo of both accused persons was prepared vide memo Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. He took specimen handwriting of both accused persons i.e., Ramesh Chand and Manmohan Sharma which are Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B both Exhibits running into 8 pages. Accused persons namely Yograj, Shyam Lal, Padam and Amjad were also arrested by him vide arrest memos Ex.PW15/C, Ex. PW15/D, Ex.PW15/E and Ex.PW15/F. Body Inspection memo of said accused were prepared vide memo Ex.PW15/G, Ex.PW15/H, Ex.PW15/I and Ex.PW15/J. He recorded disclosure statement of both accused persons which are Ex. PW-15/K and PW-15/L both bearing his signatures at point A. He recorded disclosure statement of accused persons namely Yograj, Shyamlal, Padam and Amjad vide memo Ex.PW15/M, Ex.PW15/N, Ex.PW15/O and Ex.PW15/P. He took specimen handwriting of accused persons namely accused Yograj, Shyamlal, Padam and Amjad which is Ex.PW15/Q, Ex.PW15/R, Ex.PW15/S and Ex.PW15/T. He also took CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 14/19 stamp impressions from collector of stamps which is Ex.PW15/U running into two pages. The questioned lease deed was executed in the name of Kunal but he was not traced out as the address mentioned on lease deed was not existing and he was declared PO. Another person namely Manish was also declared P.O. The specimen handwriting of all accused persons, certified copies of the lease deeds were sent to FSL for verification. After some days FSL result was received by him. The challan was prepared and filed before the court. Accused persons namely Manmohan, Ramesh and Yograj were correctly identified by the witness. Accused persons namely Shyam Lal, Padam Chand and Amjad Ali had already expired.
21. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons U/s 313Cr.P.C. were recorded in which accused persons have denied all the allegations leveled against them. Accused Man Mohan Sharma, Yograj Grover and Ramesh Chand opted to lead defence evidence. Vide order dated 12.05.2022, defence evidence was closed.
22. I have heard argument addressed by Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have perused the record carefully.
23. It is admitted case of the parties that no transaction had taken place in the present case. It is also matter of record that handwritings and signatures of accused persons did not match with what appearing on the impugned documents during its FSL examination. As such, it stands proved that the accused persons did not forge the documents in question. Now the question arises, if it was forged at the instance of CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000 PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 15/19 the accused persons. It was the submissions of Ld. APP for the state that impugned documents might have got prepared and forged at the instance of accused persons. It was argued that accused persons had shown the forged documents to the complainant and as such they were definitely involved in getting the documents forged and fabricated to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to others. Same has been opposed by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons by contending that there is no evidence on record to show that accused persons were even remotely involved in falsifying the documents. Let's examine the rival contentions of the parties.
24. PW-8/complainant Ishwar Singh has claimed to have been shown the impugned documents by the accused S. S Sabbarwal, Mannmohan Sharma, Amzad Ali and Yograj and its original by the accused Ramesh. However, the original of the impugned documents were never brought before the court for its inspection. It is to be noted that, as per the case of the complainant, the impugned documents were in the name of some Kunal. Its original was alleged to have been shown to the complainant by the accused Ramesh. Any, reasonable prudent person, placed in similar circumstances, was supposed to be alarmed and enquired from the person as to under what circumstances he was in the possession of original property documents of someone else. Complainant has not clarified if he has questioned and sought clarification from the accused Ramesh for the same. Moreover, there are various discrepancies in to the statement of the star witness of the prosecution. For example, during his examination in chief, PW-8 has claimed to have been shown the impugned documents by the accused Yograj alongwith other accused. However, during his cross-
CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 16/19 examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Yograj, he retracted and conceded to have not been shown the impugned documents by the accused Yograj. He further admitted to have never had the conversation with the accused Yograj regarding the plot in question. The witness also contradicted himself by giving two different versions regarding the actual amount for which the deal was allegedly fixed for the sale of plot in question. In his examination in chief, he claimed to have been offered the plot in question for sale for Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Ramesh, he admitted to have mentioned the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- in his complaint given to the police i.e., Ex. PW7/C for which the deal was allegedly fixed for the plot in question. During his cross- examination, he also admitted to have not mentioned that accused Ramesh shown him the original papers of the plot in question in the complaint Ex. PW1/7. This is the material omission for which there is no justification to inspire the confidence of the court. In view of the material contradictions and improvements in the versions given by the complainant, the independent corroboration was required, however the same is missing in the present case.
25. Moreover, investigating authority has failed to investigate the source from which the impugned documents were got prepared and printed. Neither, there is any iota of evidence to identify and establish the identity of persons who authored and signed the documents. There are no materials of cogent and credible nature to believe that impugned documents were prepared at the instance of the accused persons. Court can not proceed on the basis of surmises and conjectures bereft of any evidence of probative value.
CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 17/19
26. In the case of 'Kulwinder Singh Vs. Kafeel Ahmad' Cr. L.P. No. 478 of 2011, decided on 04.01.2013 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the basic principle in criminal law is that the guilt of the respondent/accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any slightest doubt about the commission of an offence then the benefit has to accrue him.
27. Thus, in view of the totality of circumstances and the settled legal positions as discussed above, the case attempted to be built by the prosecution, appears to be suffering from fatal infirmities so much so that it goes directly to the root of the case and shakes the very edifice on which the case of the complainant rests. It appears also relevant to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that criminal conviction entails enigmatic and stigmatic experiences and exposures for the accused and thus it becomes of paramount importance to demand evidence of unimpeachable character and of unambiguous nature. From the above discussion and findings, in my considered view accused persons namely Man Mohan Sharma, Yograj Grover and Ramesh Chand deserve to be given benefit of doubt.
28. In view of the above analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons namely Man Mohan Sharma, Yograj Grover and Ramesh Chand beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Man Mohan Sharma, Yograj Grover and Ramesh Chand are acquitted of the offence charged against them.
CASE No. 533398/2016 FIR No. 283/2000PS- Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 18/19
29. Bail bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.PC has already been obtained from the accused persons namely Man Mohan Sharma, Yograj Grover and Ramesh Chand (since acquitted) in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I A.D (Del.) 389.
30. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance and be revived as and when accused Kunal Yadav and Manish are apprehended. Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.08.20
17:53:08
Announced in the open Court +0530
on 20.08.2022. (DEEPAK KUMAR-I)
ACMM (North-West)
Rohini Courts/Delhi
CASE No. 533398/2016
FIR No. 283/2000
PS- Shalimar Bagh
State Vs. Man Mohan Sharma Etc Page 19/19