Delhi District Court
State vs Rajendra Verma on 4 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Rajendra Verma
FIR No : 06/2020
U/s : 419/447/511 IPC
P.S. : Domestic Airport
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020280572022
2. Date of commission of offence : 15.01.2020
3. Date of institution of the case : 24.06.2022
4 4. Name of the complainant : Goldy Angnani
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Rajendra Verma
address S/o Dinesh Kumar
R/o 89/76, Bangur Park,
17th Lane, Rishra
Hooghly, West Bengal.
6. Offence complained of : 419/447/511 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 04.01.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Amit Sehrawat, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Kuldeep Rai, Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 1 of 27
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2020 at about 04.17 AM, at boarding gate no.7B, Terminal-1, Domestic Airport, New Delhi, accused having lawfully entered into the premises of T-1, Domestic Airport, unlawfully remained there with the intention to cheat Indigo Airlines boarding gate staff by personation as he did not possesed a valid flight ticket or boarding pass in his name and that he further attempted to dishonestly induce the Indigo Airlines boarding gate staff namely Komal Mukhi to secure boarding on flight no.6E-861 by falsely representing himself as Rajan Singh by showing boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh and thereby he committed offence of criminal trespass and attempt of cheating by personation which are punishable under Sections 447 and 419/511 IPC for which FIR no.06/2020 was registered at the police station Domestic Airport, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer
(hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 2 of 27 accused, charge under Sections 419/447/511 of IPC was framed against the accused on 07.09.2022. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Komal PW-2 Goldy Angnani PW-3 Rajan Singh PW-4 SI Sunita Maan PW-5 Inspector Mahesh PW-6 Inspector Umed Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of Komal Ex.PW1/B Boarding Pass in the name of Rajan Singh Ex.PW2/A Complaint Ex.PW2/B Application Ex.PW5/A Undertaking Ex.PW5/B Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW6/A Statement of Komal Mukhi Ex.PW6/B Statement of Rajan Singh ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.06/2020 along with Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.2A dated 15.01.2020 Ex.A3 DD no.3 dated 15.01.2020
4. Prosecution examined the following witnesses and the same are as follows:
PW1 Komal deposed that on 15.01.2020, she was on duty at boarding gate T-1 Domestic Airport. On that day, in the early morning hours at about 04:15am. one pax showed to her a boarding pass bearing the name of Rajan Singh. Upon suspicion, FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 3 of 27 she asked the said pax to show his ID proof upon which he said that his wallet was missing. She asked the said pax to search for his ID proof and come back as there was sufficient time for the flight to take off. The said pax again came just 2-3 minutes prior to the flight closing time and said that he was unable to find his walled. Thereafter, he informed about the incident to her Manager who asked the said pax to show his face book profile upon which the pax said that he did not want to travel. Thereafter, she handed over the pax to her Manager Upender Thakur. She also handed over the boarding pass bearing the name of Rajan Singh to her Manager. IO recorded her statement on 14.08.2022. She had given her statement to the IO in her own handwriting Ex.PW1/A. The witness correctly identified accused present in the court and boarding pass bearing the name of Mr. Rajan Singh as Ex.PW1/B. In the cross-examination, she stated that the present FIR was not lodged upon her complaint. Accused Rajender Verma did not travel upon wrong ID. The accused did not tell her about his on-hold ticket. Later on, she came to know that the accused was having an on-hold ticket. PW1 further stated that the on-hold ticket was a valid ticket and that they had to check the ID of every pax having a Kiosk printed tickets and hence, she asked the accused to produce his ID. PW1 further stated that the on-hold ticket of the accused stands cancelled automatically once the flight was closed. The accused had himself stated that he did not want to travel. She further stated that she could not say whether the accused declined to travel because his wallet was missing and she did not do anything further after handing over the custody of the accused along with the ticket to her Manager Mr. Upender.FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 4 of 27
5. PW2 Goldy Angnani deposed that on 15.01.2020, one passenger namely Rajender Verma who took the entry inside the Terminal building by showing the travel details of hold booking of flight 6E-861, PNR no. SQB83B. The said pax was intercepted by staff member Ms. Komal Mukhi as the boarding pass shown by the pax was that of Mr. Rajan Singh. She took the accused to the PS and gave a typed complaint Ex.PW2/A. He had also handed over the boarding pass bearing the name of Rajan Singh to the police officials. He had also moved an application before the SHO Ex.PW2/B and thereafter, he left the PS. The witness correctly identified accused present in the court and boarding pass bearing the name of Mr. Rajan Singh as Ex.PW1/B. In the cross- examination, he stated that the accused did not show the boarding pass belonging to Mr. Rajan Singh to any Airlines staff. The incident did not take place in his presence and I had mentioned the facts in the complaint in his official capacity as received from the staff members.
6. PW3 Rajan Singh deposed that on 11.01.2020, he alongwith his friends Ravi Kulthia, Anurag Verma and Rajendra Verma had come to Delhi from Kolkata for their tour to Rishikesh. He had booked his return ticket for 15.01.2020 from Delhi Airport. However, he had to suddenly leave on 14.01.2020 as there was a hearing at Commissionerate Appeal in Kolkata GST Office. Therefore, he took flight to Kolkata on 14.01.2020 and left from Delhi on the said date. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had not cancelled his ticket of 15.01.2020. He had handed over the ticket to his friend Ravi Kulthia. Rajender Verma knew about the fact that he had handed over his ticket to his friend Ravi Kulthia.
FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 5 of 277. PW4 SI Sunita Maan deposed regarding handing over further investigation to her on 09.11.2021 and since investigation had already been completed, she prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the concerned court.
8. PW5 Inspector Mahesh deposed that on 15.01.2021, he received DD no.2A regarding impersonation and trespass. The complainant had brought the accused to the PS and presented the complaint to him. He prepared rukka Ex. A3 and the present FIR was registered over the same. Thereafter, he interrogated the accused Rajendra Verma who told him that he was traveling on ticket of his friend namely Rajan. After that, the accused was released over an undertaking Ex.PW5/A and he recorded disclosure statement of the accused as Ex.PW5/B. The complainant had also submitted additional information letter. After that, he recorded the statements of other witnesses and attached the enclosures on the file. On 20.01.2021, he was transferred from PS and he handed over the case file to MHC (R) Domestic Airport. In the cross-examination, he stated that the investigation was conducted through interrogation as well as through verification of the documents. He specifically verified the tickets of the accused and he was aware of the fact that the accused had on hold ticket which was cancelled due to non payment. He stated that said undertaking was signed by the accused and above said undertaking bears no date.
9. PW6 Inspector Umed Singh deposed that the investigation of the present case was marked to him in the month of July 2022. During the investigation, he recorded statement of Komal Mukhi D/o Sohan Lal Ex.PW6/A. He also recorded statement of Rajan Singh S/o P. B. Singh Ex.PW6/B. He recorded both the statement FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 6 of 27 at PS. After completion of investigation, he submitted the supplementary charge-sheet before the concerned court.
10. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C remaining witnesses in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined; hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
11. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 15.03.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he alongwith Rajan Singh and Ravi Kuntiya had arrived from Kolkatta to Delhi on 11.01.2020 and they stayed together at the residence of their common friend Anurag Verma. He stated that they had to return back to Kolkatta on 15.01.2020 and Rajan Singh and Ravi's ticket were on the same PNR number and he was travelling on staff ticket as issued from his wife's being a staff of Indigo Airline. He stated that due to some urgent work, Rajan Singh departed to Kolkatta one day prior i.e. on 14.01.2020 but he did not get his ticket issued for 15.01.2020 cancelled. He further stated that on the next date, when he and Ravi were travelling his friend Ravi Kuntiya got the tickets printed and he alongwith him went to the airport. He further stated that he tried to purchase ticket for himself and he had taken out his wallet for the same at that time lady staff of the airline asked for his ticket to which he stated to her that he FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 7 of 27 misplaced his wallet and he would buy his ticket in the meantime lady staff took the ticket of Rajan Singh which he was carrying. Thereafter, the lady staff of the airline contacted with her senior and handed over him to the police and he stated to the police that he was not trying to use the ticket issued in the name of Rajan Singh but despite the same, they implicated him in this case. He further stated that he had also written one apology letter the Airport Authority on the asking of the police where he had used the word that he had wrongly taken the boarding pass of Rajan Singh but on the insistence of the police he corrected that word taken for the word using. He further stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence.
12. In defence evidence, accused examined the following witnesses and the same are as follows:
ORAL EVIDENCE DW-1 Anurag Verma DW-2 Rajendra Verma DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.DW2/1 Computer generated copy of ticket dated 15.01.2020 from Delhi to Kolkatta Ex.DW2/2 Photocopy of staff leisure travel policy of Indigo Airlines Ex.DW2/3 Copy of aadhar card of wife of accused Ex.DW2/4 Copy of aadhar card of accused Ex.DW2/5 Affidavit regarding marriage status of accused Rajendra Verma and his wife Sonika Ex.DW2/6 Marriage photograph of accused Ex.DW2/7 List of beneficiary / active nominees for availing benefits of staff leisure travel policy Ex.DW2/8 Certificate u/S 65B of IEA qua print out of on-hold ticket and staff leisure travel policy Ex.DW2/9 Photocopy of marriage certificate
13. DW1 Anurag Verma deposed that on 11.01.2020, he was in Delhi and his three friends Rajan, Ravi and Rajender who came from FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 8 of 27 Calcutta to meet him. On the same day, they all left for Haridwar, Uttrakhand by their car. DW1 further stated that Rajan, Ravi and Rajender were having return tickets to Calcutta which were scheduled for 15.01.2020 by Indigo Airlines. But due to some personal exigency Rajan departed to Calcutta on 14.01.2020 by Indigo Flight. However, Ravi and Rajender left his house and proceeded for Airport for catching their scheduled flight to Calcutta on 15.01.2020. At about 07:00 am, almost two hours after they both had left his house for Airport, he received a call from Rajender that he was being detained by CISF at Domestic Airport and thereafter, handed over to police. Thereafter, he proceeded to PS Domestic Airport where he met Rajender, who informed him that he had lost his wallet and Ravi and Rajan were having their tickets on the same PNR number and that Ravi handed over the said ticket to Rajender to give it to Rajan. When Rajender could not find his wallet, he went to Ravi asking for the same whether he was having the same but Ravi stated that he was not having his wallet. At that time, one of the Indigo Airline staff approached accused Rajender asking for his ticket to which Rajender stated that he had lost his wallet and thereby he could not produce his ticket and as his wife namely Sonika who was an employee of Indigo Airline, therefore, he gets concessional ticket to which the Indigo Airline handed over Rajender to CISF officials. After Rajender was handed over to Delhi Police, they met IO and explained the whole situation. Thereafter, the present case was registered against him. On the asking of the IO, Rajender wrote one Mafinama and gave the same to IO but IO insisted on some particulars to be mentioned in the said mafinama but despite objection of Rajender he edited the said mafinama and handed over the same to IO. After all these FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 9 of 27 formalities, Rajender left to Calcutta by travelling on staff ticket in the evening on the same day. In the cross-examination, he stated that no complaint was made by him or Rajender regarding missing of his wallet in the Airport premises. The wallet was not found. Rajender as per his knowledge had used his concessional staff ticket for entering into the Airport premises. He was not present there when Rajender entered into the Airport. The said fact was told to him by accused himself. He was not aware whether the staff ticket used by Rajender for gaining excess into the Airport was handed over by the accused to the police or whether the same was part of the record. When accused Rajender was detained by CISF officials, his other friend namely Ravi travelled to Calcutta in the morning only. He did not sign on the said mafinama as written by Rajender. IO did not record his statement u/S 161 Cr. P. C. He did not make any complaint / request to the Senior police officer on the point that IO did not record his statement. He was not the eye-witness to the incident. Accused shared the whole incident with him at PS. He was deposing at the request of his friend namely Rajender Verma.
14. DW2 Rajendra Verma deposed that in the year 2020, his wife namely Sonika Agroia was working with Indigo Airlines as a Flight Attendant and she was a beneficiary of Staff Leisure Travel Policy and according to which the family members can be a part of nominations by the eligible staff. He stated that as per the abovesaid policy, he was an active nominee in the same and therefore he had the privilege to have on hold ticket at a concessional price at around Rs.700/- to Rs.800/-. DW2 further stated that he had brought computer generated copy of ticket dated 15.01.2020 from Delhi to Kolkatta at a price of Rs.730/- Ex.DW2/1, photocopy of Staff Leisure Travel Policy of Indigo FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 10 of 27 Airlines Ex.DW2/2, photocopy of aadhar card of his wife and himself Ex.DW2/3 and Ex.DW2/4, non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- attested by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolkatta regarding Sonika Agroia and Sonika Verma were same and one person Ex.DW2/5, his marriage photograph Ex.DW2/6, colour photocopy of list of beneficiaries / active nominees, who prevail benefits of abovesaid Staff Leisure Travel Policy Ex.DW2/7, certificate u/S 65B of IEA regarding the same Ex.DW2/8 and photocopy of my marriage certificate with Sonika Verma Ex.DW2/9. He stated that he was not trying to use ticket in the name of Rajan Singh and police officials forced him to written an apology letter for the same at PS. In the cross-examination by Ld. APP, he stated that he had shown his staff ticket/ on hold ticket which was issued in his name through his wife, who was an employee of Indigo Airline and he was having the same in his mobile phone.
ARGUMENTS
15. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
16. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 11 of 2717. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) says that whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
18. The allegations levelled against the accused are segregated into two parts, firstly pertaining to offences related to sections 419 r/w 511 IPC and secondly pertaining to offence related to section 447 IPC. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the Court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
19. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against the accused which revolves around commission of offence Sections 419 r/w 511 IPC, in which prosecution has to prove that on the date of incident accused attempted to cheat the complainant PW2 by falsely representing himself as Rajan Singh by showing boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh at the boarding gate to the staff FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 12 of 27 of Indigo Airline namely Komal PW1 to secure boarding on the flight no.6E-861.
20. The provision of 419 provides for the provision of Punishment for cheating by personation and the same is as under:
Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) says that whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
21. According to Section 415 of the IPC, which defines cheating as an act of deceiving an individual fraudulently or dishonestly in order to persuade that person to deliver or consent to keep the property. That when a person fraudulently, dishonestly, or knowingly encourages another person to do or omit something that he would not have done if he hadn't been misled, and the act causes damage to that person's body, mind, reputation, or property, that individual is said to cheat. Literal meaning of the word cheating is that it is done in order to gain profit or an advantage from another person by using some deceitful means. The person who deceives another knows for the fact that it would place the other person in an unfair situation.
22. The section is divided into two distinct clauses. Under the first clause, the person deceived must have been fraudulently or dishonestly induced to deliver property. The second clause does not require the inducement to be fraudulent or dishonest. But it requires that by reason of the intentional inducement, damage or harm in body and mind, reputation or property was caused to the person deceived. Thus, cheating may be committed in either of the two ways. Cheating is punishable under section 417 IPC.
FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 13 of 27Whereas the legal concept of attempt to commit an offence refers to the act of trying to commit a crime but failing to complete it due to some reasons beyond the control of the perpetrator. This doctrine is crucial in criminal law because it allows for the prosecution of individuals who have clearly intended and made significant step towards committing a crime, even if they do not succeed in completing it. Section 511 IPC provides for punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment, which reads as under, Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with punishment for attempt to commit offence. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
23. For the purpose of the proving the offence of section 419 IPC r/w 511 IPC, which is attempt of cheating by personation, prosecution is mandated to prove that accused attempted to deceive PW1 Komal by falsely representing himself as Rajan Singh by showing the boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh for securing boarding in the flight no.6E-861.
24. As per PW1, on 15.01.2020 when she was doing her duty at boarding gate T-1, Domestic Airport when one passenger at FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 14 of 27 about 04:15 am showed her a boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh upon which she asked the passenger to show his ID proof to which the passenger stated that he had misplaced his wallet on which she asked the passenger to search of his ID proof and to again come back for boarding as there was sufficient time for the flight to take off. It is further stated by PW1 that just 2-3 minutes prior to the closing of the boarding gate, the said passenger again came and stated to her that he was unable to find his wallet upon which she informed about the same to her Manager where the Manager asked the passenger to show his facebook profile but then the passenger stated that he did not want to travel. PW1 further stated that thereafter she handed over the said passenger alongwith the boarding pass to her manager Upender Thakur. PW1 correctly identified accused as the said passenger and also identified the boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh as Ex.PW1/B.
25. Here, it is pertinent to mention that PW1 stated that she had handed over the boarding pass alongwith accused to his Manager Upender Thakur, however, the said Manager was never joined in the investigation nor examined by the prosecution. The complaint in the present case was made by PW2, who stated that on 15.01.2020 he was working as Executive Security, Indigo Airlines, T-1, Domestic Airport, Delhi and that when one of her staff member Ms. Komal i.e. PW1 intercepted the accused, he took the accused to police station and gave a typed complaint Ex.PW2/A and handed over the boarding pass bearing the name of Rajan Singh to the police officials. Interestingly, PW2 who is the complainant stated in her cross-examination that accused did not show the boarding pass belonging to Rajan Singh to any FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 15 of 27 airline staff and that none of the said incident happened in his presence.
26. As PW2 stated that he had handed over the boarding pass alongwith accused to police officials at the police station thereby it becomes relevant to peruse the testimony of the said police official. PW5 Inspector Mahesh stated that on 15.01.2020 complainant had brought the complainant to the PS and presented his complaint whereafter the present FIR was registered. PW5 further stated that he interrogated the accused and accused was released after an undertaking Ex.PW5/A was given by the accused person. Interestingly, none of the official police witnesses including PW5 have stated anything regarding the seizure of the boarding pass as handed over by PW2 to the police at the PS. Also, there is no seizure memo of either the boarding pass Ex.PW1/B or any other document produced or carried by the accused.
27. Before, proceeding ahead, it is relevant to state that it is well settled principle of the law that the investigating agency should prepare seizure memo of all the articles as recovered from the accused which are incriminating in nature and should also join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of such 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, no seizure memo has been prepared by the investigating agencies despite PW2 stating that the same was handed over by him to the police officials. Even the complaint Ex.PW2/A mentions that boarding pass printed using PNR- DJSGMT belonging to Rajan Singh was used, however, even the said complaint does not mention the fact whether the original FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 16 of 27 boarding pass was given alongwith the complaint as the subject of the said complaint only mentions handing over of one passenger of Indigo Airlines.
28. Furthermore, investigation as to how the said boarding pass from the kiosk was got printed is completely silent. There is nothing on record to highlight as to how the boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh came into existence on the date of incident. Seeing from the perspective that no seizure memo was also prepared for seizing the articles allegedly used by the accused person, serious doubt is raised as to whether accused was attempting to use the said boarding pass as he was also carrying one on-hold ticket as stated by PW1 in her cross-examination that she came to know later on that accused was having one valid on-hold ticket. Further, as stated by PW2 in his cross-examination that accused did not show the boarding pass belonging to Rajan Singh to any airline staff also brings doubt on the entire version as stated by PW1.
29. Furthermore, prosecution got examined Rajan Singh as PW3, who stated that he alongwith his friends namely Ravi, Anurag and accused Rajendra Verma had come to Delhi from Kolkatta on 11.01.2020 and they had booked their return ticket for 15.01.2020 from Delhi Airport. PW3 further stated that he had to suddenly leave for Kolkata on 14.01.2020 due to some urgent hearing and PW3 specifically stated in his cross-examination that he had not got cancelled his ticket of 15.01.2020 and he had handed over the same to his friend namely Ravi.
Therefore, it is clear that the ticket in question and the boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh continued to remain in FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 17 of 27 existence and valid despite the fact that Rajan Singh had already travelled one day prior to the date of incident on a separate flight.
30. It is the defence of the accused who examined himself as DW2 that he was not trying to use the ticket in the name of Rajan Singh as he himself is the beneficiary of staff leisure travel policy of Indigo Airlines as his wife namely Sonika is working with Indigo Airlines. Accused DW2 stated that he has the privilege of having on-hold ticket at a concessional price and he tendered the computer-generated copy of ticket dated 15.01.2020 from Delhi to Kolkatta issued at the price of Rs.730/- Ex.DW2/1. Accused also tendered copy of the list of beneficiary / active nominees for availing benefits of staff leisure travel policy Ex.DW2/7 along with Certificate u/S 65B of IEA qua print out of on-hold ticket and staff leisure travel policy Ex.DW2/8.
Ld. counsel for accused has passionately argued that accused is a victim of misunderstanding and he never had any ill intent of traveling using the boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh as he himself was carrying the on-hold ticket which was issued in his name for the flight in question as his wife was entitled for the same being an employee of the indigo airline.
31. Before evaluating the testimony of PW1 and PW2 who both are the employees of the airline concerned who caught the accused with alleged boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh and thereafter produced him before the concerned police official that is PW5, one thing which is abundantly clear is that both there is presence of both the boarding pass in question and the on-hold ticket as stated by the accused. Despite that fact that there is ample doubt as to how the boarding pass in question was seized one thing is undisputed that on the date of travel the accused was FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 18 of 27 in possession of the on-hold ticket issued in his name being a beneficiary of staff leisure travel.
32. Furthermore, the fact as to whether the on-hold ticket of the accused was used for travelling or not or whether the said on- hold ticket was utilised by the accused only for entering in the Airport is not clear as no such record from the concerned airline was procured by the investigating agency. Investigation is absolutely silent and lacking on the said point. Needless to mention that even the statement of PW1 was got recorded after the Court issued direction for the same which only shows the incomplete and ineffective investigation conducted in the present case. As stated by Apex Court in numerous cases, that there is need for thorough and professional investigative procedures to uphold the integrity of the legal process as lapses in the investigation undermines the administration of justice.
33. Taking into account the infirmities as stated above in the version as put forward in the testimony of both PW1 and PW2, who both are the airline officials placed next to the version as brought forth by the accused, a doubt is certainly created whether accused was attempting to use the boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh. It is clear from the material brought by the accused that he himself was entitled to travel on staff concessional ticket and thereby there seems to be no reason for accused to travel or attempt to travel deceptively on the boarding pass of other person.
34. Further, as it is the case of the prosecution that accused attempted to use the boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh for securing the boarding in the flight and he attempted to cheat the complainant by representing himself to be some other person. It FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 19 of 27 is a matter of fact that neither the Airline concerned is the complainant nor they moved any complaint against accused to show that they were deceived in issuing the boarding pass in favour of the accused or that he was not beneficiary for availing the benefits of staff leisure travel policy. Also, PW1 or PW2/complainant has not been able to establish that the accused Rajender Verma fraudulently, dishonestly, or knowingly encouraged them to do or omit to do something which he would not have done if he hadn't been misled, and that the act of the accused caused damage to that complainant's body, mind, reputation, or property. The term personation is defined in section 416 of the Indian Penal Code. The charging section is section 419 IPC. To bring home an offence under section 419, The elements of section 416 IPC are to be proved. The essential ingredients of section 416 IPC are;
(i) pretention by a person to be some other person,
(ii) knowingly substituting one person for another,
(iii) representation that he may or any other person is a person other than he is, or other person really is.
35. This, apart to bring home a charge under section 419 IPC. The person said to be deceived must be shown to have been cheated by the personation. This brings into the field, the necessity of establishing the ingredients for cheating, namely, that there should be deception or intentionally inducing the victim to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Therefore, there must be cheating in addition to personation and the personation must be for the purpose of cheating.
FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 20 of 27It is a settled law that there must be cheating in addition to personation and the personation must be for the purpose of cheating. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient of the offence. It is no doubt true that under the explanation to section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, a dishonest concealment of facts, is a deception within the meaning of the section. But deception by itself does not amount to cheating unless the person who deceived is induced to do any act of the act specified in the section which he would not have done if he were not so deceived.
36. As already stated above the offence of cheating consists of two clauses and under the first clause, the person deceived must have been fraudulently or dishonestly induced to deliver property. The second clause does not require the inducement to be fraudulent or dishonest. But it requires that by reason of the intentional inducement, damage or harm in body and mind, reputation or property was caused to the person deceived. Thus, cheating may be committed in either of the two ways. Therefore, act or omission on the part of the accused, which causes, or it's likely to cause damage or harm to that other person in body, mind, reputation or property is an essential ingredient. The damage must be direct, natural or probable consequence of the induced act. The resulting damage or likelihood of damage may not be within the actual contemplation of the accused when the deceit was practised. The person deceived must have acted under the influence of the deceit and the damage must not be too remote.
37. In the present case, the gist of the complainant's case is that accused attempted to use the boarding pass in the name of Rajan Sing to board the flight and thereby attempted to cheat the complainant by representing himself to be some other person.
FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 21 of 27Further, seeing from the perspective that no seizure memo was prepared for seizing the alleged boarding pass in the name of Rajan Singh nor the ticket which the accused was carrying although are part of the chargesheet. There is no explanation forthcoming either in the testimony of PW1, PW2 or the IO as to how and who gave the said documents to the IO thereby making the entire seizing process of the boarding pass in the name of Rajan singh under a shadow of doubt. Since there is no material to show as to how any damage or harm has been caused to the complainant by the alleged act of the accused person by having both the boarding pass and the on-hold ticket, the basic ingredients of the offence of cheating are not made out.
38. As discussed hereinabove, there are no evidence on record to establish that deception or dishonest concealment of facts on the part of accused in not showing his on-hold ticket and using the boarding pass in the name of other person was qua the complainant and from the entire evidence on record there appears no element of cheating at all towards the complainant and thereby the ingredients of the offences of cheating under Section 417 and 419 IPC are clearly not made out against accused Rajender Verma. As such the ingredients of the primary offence are not made out accordingly, the aspect of attempt which refers to the act of trying to commit an offence is also not established. Accused appears to have caused a confusion and the whole circumstance appears to have produced a unclear set of circumstances. The lack of proper investigation coupled with lack of clarity surrounding the situation placed the accused in an unfortunate position where his actions may be misconstrued despite any obvious presence of ill intent. Such state of affairs warrants careful consideration and without any specific finding FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 22 of 27 regarding the ill motive on the part of accused, imputing liability on accused would compromise justice. Accordingly, accused Rajender Verma is accorded benefit of doubt and accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 419 read with section 511 IPC.
39. Second set of allegations against the accused person is that having lawfully entered into the premises of T-1, Domestic Airport, unlawfully remained there with the intention to cheat Indigo Airlines boarding gate staff by personation as he did not possess a valid flight ticket or boarding pass in his name, and thereby he committed offence of criminal trespass punishable under Section 447 IPC.
40. Here it appropriate to mention the concept of trespassing before the evidences are appreciated. Section 441 of IPC defines criminal trespass as under:
Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
41. Thus, it is necessary for an offence punishable u/s 447 IPC that essential ingredients of criminal trespass must be fulfilled. For commission of criminal trespass three essential ingredients have to be fulfilled which are as follows:
(1) Entry into or upon property in possession of another. (2) If such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property.
(3) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent:
(i) to commit of offence or FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 23 of 27
(ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.
42. It is to be noted that a simple and even unintentional entry upon another's land constitutes injuria, and is actionable. But a civil suit lies for this, not a criminal prosecution. But if entry is affected with the mens rea mentioned in Sec. 441, then alone a criminal prosecution will lie. In criminal trespass, intention to commit an offence is an essential ingredient. The causing of an offence, intimidation, etc. must be the main aim of the entry. Therefore, mere occupation, even if it is illegal, without such intent, cannot amount to criminal trespass.
43. In the instant case, prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 to prove the allegation against the accused that after gaining entry into the airport premises accused unlawfully remained there with the mens rea of committing the offence of cheating by using boarding pass in the name of some other person. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution or the complainant that accused used the forged ticket or id card for gaining entry into the terminal building, as no such evidence is brought on record by the prosecution. It is the version of the PW1 that accused showed her boarding pass in the name of Rajan singh and when she asked accused to show his ID proof, accused could not produce the same stating that he had lost his wallet. PW1 further stated that about 2-3 minutes prior to the closing of boarding gate accused again approached her and stated that he was unable to find his wallet whereafter she informed her Manager whereupon accused stated that he did not want to travel. Importantly PW1 stated in her cross-examination that she came to know that accused was having one on-hold ticket.
FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 24 of 2744. As one of the ingredients of section 447 IPC is that the entry though lawful but remaining unlawfully with the intent of commit of any offence, thereby the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that accused remained in the airport premises with intention of committing an offence. In the present case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs neither the boarding pass in question was correctly seized nor the aspect of the on-hold ticket of the accused was properly investigated upon despite the fact that both documents were part of the chargesheet. It is an undisputed fact that after the same documents were led by the accused in his defence evidence stating that he is a beneficiary of the staff leisure travel as his wife is an Indigo airline employee and even his on-hold ticket is part of the chargesheet. Therefore, when accused entry into the airport is deemed to be proper which means he must have used his on-hold ticket for gaining entry into the airport. As per the documents tendered by the accused in his defence evidence Ex.DW2/2 which the copy of the policy of the staff leisure travel which mentions the policy regarding the on-hold ticket which states that all travel by the such on-hold ticket holder is as per space available (standby) basis only. As per the said policy, no booking confirmation on such on-hold ticket is provided. Further, as per the charge-sheet, the on-hold ticket in the name of accused is also part of the record which mentions the factum that the said reservation will remain on-hold till 15.01.2020, 05:34 am. There is no material on record to show that accused used the said on- hold ticket for securing boarding in the said flight neither investigation procured any details qua the same. There is absence of any material who determine the intention of accused as accused was allegedly in possession both the boarding pass in the FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 25 of 27 name of Rajan Singh and on-hold ticket in his own name. As already stated above, the possession of the said boarding pass and the seizure of the same from the accused is already under a shadow of doubt. Therefore, in the absence of any compelling material the prosecution has been unable to establish both the intention of the accused to commit any offence as per one of the ingredients of Section 447 of IPC. Accordingly, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and thereby acquitted of the offence punishable of the offence under Section 447 IPC.
Conclusion
45. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
46. In view of discussion made above, it becomes clear that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that accused trespassed in the airport premises for attempting to board the flight by using the boarding pass in the name of other person or he had the necessary mens rea i.e the accused person having the wrong intention and since, the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary mens rea of the offences with which the accused person has been charged nor any material is on record to show direct nexus between the act of the accused person and the recovery of the boarding pass from him, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to accused person. Prosecution case is filled with gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence presented and prosecution has not discharged its burden of proving the allegations against the accused with unquestionable certainty.
FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 26 of 2747. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused Rajender Verma for the offence u/s 419 r/w 511 IPC and section 447 IPC holds the accused person not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Rajender Verma is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 419 r/w 511 IPC and section 447 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 04.01.2025 in the presence of the accused persons.
(Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/04.01.2025 This judgment contains 27 pages and each page has been signed by me.
(Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/04.01.2025 FIR No.06/2020, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Rajendra Verma Page 27 of 27