Delhi District Court
State vs Dr Ish Aggarwal on 22 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT; DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY: MS. DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
Cr. Case No.8502/2003
In the matter of:-
State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal
FIR No.292/2003
PS : Crime Branch/ SW Delhi
U/s:370/371/372/363/367/467/468/471/120B IPC
1. CNR No. of the case : DLSW020153102019
2. Date of commission of offence : 08.12.1998
3. Date of institution of the case : 05.07.2003
4. Name of the Complainant : ASI Dhan Singh, No.4601/D,
AKS/Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi
5. Name, parentage and address of : (1) Dr. Ish Aggawal W/o Sh. Sh.
accused persons Shyam Aggarwal
R/o 12, Indira Park, Pankha Road,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi
(2) Mrs.Kuldeep Kaur W/o Sh.
Swaran Singh (Discharged vide
order dt.01.06.2007
(3) Sh. Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh.
Teja Singh (Discharged vide
order dt.01.06.2007
6. Offence charged : Us370/371/372/363/367/467/468/
471/120B IPC
State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 1 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003
Digitally signed
by DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.01.28
17:12:30 +0530
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of final arguments : 10.12.2025
9. Date of judgment : 22.01.2026
10. Final Order : Accused Dr. Ish Aggarwal W/o
Sh. Shyam Aggarwal is convicted
for the offences punishable u/s
465/468/471 r/w 107 IPC and 420
IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Present case emanates from complaint filed by ASI Dhan Singh, on the basis of which aforesaid FIR was registered U/s. 370/371/372 & 120-B IPC. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed U/s 370/371/372/363/367/467/468/471/120-B IPC whereupon cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned. Copy of chargesheet was supplied to them and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
2. Before the Court of Sessions, arguments were heard on point of charge on behalf of all the accused. Vide order dt.01.06.2007 of Ld. Court of Sessions, accused Kuldeep Kaur W/o Sh. Swaran Singh and Sh. Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh. Teja Singh were discharged. Further, vide order of the even date, the Ld. Court of Sessions gave the finding that no incriminating material was found with respect to the other sections invoked against the State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 2 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALIDEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.01.28
17:12:46 +0530
accused. Thereafter, considering that the sections which are found to be prima facie attracted i.e. 465/468/471/420 readwith Section 107 IPC, are not sessions triable, hence, the file was transferred to this Court. The order of charge dated 01.06.2007 was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court, however, the order was upheld vide order dated 09.04.2008.
3. In terms of the order on charge dated 01.06.2007, the same was explained to the accused and was charged u/s 465/468/471/420 readwith Section 107 IPC to which accused Dr. Ish Aggarwal pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following twenty witnesses. PW-1 to PW-9 and PW-11 are the witnesses who depose regarding procurement of child however, except PW-5 all the other witnesses turned hostile during their examination before the court and did not support the version of the prosecution. PW-10 onwards to PW-20 are the formal witnesses who have deposed regarding the investigation being undertaken by them.
4.1. PW1 as well as PW-3 Sh. Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Surain Singh- Who had narrated for procuring a child namely Laxmi and later on was handed over to accused Ish Aggarwal at the pretext of medical treatment and better future child Laxmi.
4.2. PW2 Smt. Karamjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Sohan Singh-Who had also narrated for procuring a child namely Laxmi and later on was handed over to accused Ish Aggarwal at the pretext of medical treatment and better future child Laxmi.
State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 3 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.28
17:12:56 +0530
4.3. PW4 Sh. Dharmender Singh-Who is Record Clerk from Sub- Registrar, Office (Birth & Death) West Zone, MCD School Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and brought photocopy of relevant portion of register mentioned at serial no.3848 Ex.PW4/A. 4.4. PW5 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Baljeet Singh-Who is the witness for procuring a child.
4.5. PW6 Ms. Veena W/o Sh. Mahender Birdi-Who is the witness for procuring a child.
4.6. PW7 Ms. Geeta Bajaj W/o Sh. Amardeep Bajaj-Who is the witness for procuring a child.
4.7. PW8 Sh. R. K. Sharma @ Mahes Sharma S/o Sh. Fakir Chand- He is one of the members in the raiding party.
4.8. PW9 Smt. Rajrain W/o Late Sh.Ashok Kumar-Who is the witness for procuring a child.
4.9. PW10 WHC Kamlesh- She is one of the members in the raiding party.
4.10. PW11 Smt. Raj Rani W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar- Who is the witness for procuring a child.
4.11. PW12 W/ASI Veena-Who is Decoy Customer. 4.12. PW13 Inspector Ram Avtar- He is one of the members in the raiding party.
4.13. PW14 Sh. Mahender Pal Virdi S/o Sh. Chand-Who accompanied PW-6 for procuring a child.
4.14. PW-15 Retired SI Dhan Singh-He is complainant in the present case.
4.15. PW-16 Sh. Amardeep Singh Bajaj S/o Late Sh. Ajit Singh State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 4 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.28 17:13:19 +0530
Bajaj- Who accompanied PW-7 for procuring a child. 4.16. PW-17 Retired Inspector R. K. Gulia- He is one of the members in the raiding party.
4.17. PW-18 ASI Jaipal Singh-Who registered the FIR. 4.18. PW-19 Retired ACP Narender Chawla-He is one of the members in the raiding party.
4.19. PW-20 Retired SI Dayachand-He is one of the members in the raiding party.
5. All the witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, prosecution has relied upon the following documents:
S. Exhibits Documents
No
1. Ex.PW-1/A FIR registered in this case.
1. Ex. PW4/A Photocopy of relevant portion of register
(OSR) mentioned at serial no.3848
2. Ex. PW5/A Certified copy of birth certificate
3. Ex. PW5/B & Photographs and its negative showing the adopted Ex. PW5/C child respectively
4. Mark PA Statement of PW-6 5 Mark PB Statement of PW-7
6. Ex.PW7/A Superdarinama of Jaskirat
7. Ex.PW7/B Family photographs alongwith Jaskirat
8. Mark P-1 Statement of PW-8
9. Ex. PW8/A Handing over memo
10. Ex.PW8/B Seizure memo State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 5 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.01.28
17:13:30 +0530
11. Ex. PW8/C Seizure memo
12. Ex. PW8/D Recovery memo
13. Ex. PW9/A Statement of PW-9 U/s 161 Cr.PC
14. Ex. PW9/B Seizure memo of child
15. Ex. PW9/C Superdarinama of child
16. Ex. PW10/A Disclosure statement of accused
17 Ex. PW10/B Personal search memo of accused
18 Ex. PW10/C Recovered memo of girl Jaskirat
19 Ex. PW10/D Pointing out memo
20 Ex. PW10/E Search memo of Kuldeep Kaur
21 Ex. PW10/F Further disclosure statement of accused
22 Ex.PW10/G & Pointing out memos made on behalf of the
Ex. PW10/H accused
23 Ex. PW10/I Further disclosure statement of accused
24 Ex. PW10/J & Pointing out memos made on behalf of the
Ex.PW10/K accused
25 Ex. PW13/A Disclosure statement of the accused recorded by
ASI Dhan Singh
26 Ex. PW13/B Disclosure statement of the accused Gurmeet
Singh
27 Ex. PW13/C Personal search memo of accused Gurmeet Singh
28 Ex. P-1 to P-20 Photographs of clinic of accused Ish Aggarwal
29 Ex. PW14/A Seizure memo of girl Simran
30 Ex. PW14/B Application for taking custody of girl Simran
31 Ex. PW14/C Superdarinama of girl Simran
32 Ex. PW14/D Photographs of the girl Simran with negative
33 Ex. PW14/E Copy of birth certificate
34 Ex. PW14/F Original birth certificate
35 Ex. PW15/A Rukka
State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 6 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003
Digitally signed
by DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.01.28
17:13:43 +0530
36 Ex. PW15/B Site plan
37 Ex. PW15/C Superdarinama of handing over the child to her
mother
38 Ex.PW15/D Photographs of child Deepak
39 Ex.PW15/E Seizure memo of birth certificate of Jaskirat
40 Ex. PW15/E-1 Identification of the certificate of Jaskirat by the
witness
41 Ex. PW15/F Seizure memo of birth certificate of Deepak
42 Ex. PW15/F-1 Identification of certificate of Deepak by the
witness
43 Ex. PW15/G Pointing out memo dated 28.04.2003
44 Ex. PW15/H Seizure memo of medical degree registration
certificate in the name of accused and Shyam Lal 45 Ex. PW15/I Seizure memo of diary containing details regarding sale and purchase of child based on gender 46 Ex. PW15/J Register (cash book) 47 Mark PW16/1 Statement of PW-16 48 Ex.PW17/A Seizure memo of sale deed/will 49 Ex. PW17/B Seizure memo of birth certificate from Ram Lal Babbar 50 Ex. PW17/C Birth certificate (Colly) 51 Ex. PW17/D Seizure memo of birth certificate/medical certificate seized from Smt. Paramjeet Kaur 52 Ex. PW17/E An application U/s 32 of JJ Act to CWC for restoration of the custody of the recovered child to their Biological parents moved by PW-17 53 Ex. PW17/F Seizure memo of birth certificate of one boy Tejas 54 Ex.P-1 (Colly) Case property i.e Rs.5000/- (1000*5 currency notes) State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 7 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.01.28
17:13:53 +0530
6. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC wherein she has stated that she has been falsely implicated in the present case, as her husband was in BJP and later joined Congress. Due to which there was political clash between two politician i.e Jagdish Mukhi and her husband and she was victimized in this case on the instance of Jagdish Mukhi, who was BJP politician at that time. She further stated that neither the case property nor any register and diary were recovered from her possession and she never prepared or gave any birth certificate to anybody. Accused, however, chose not to lead any evidence in defence.
7. Final arguments heard. Record perused. I have heard Ld. counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State as well as perused the material and evidence on record.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that the present case was registered on the rukka sent by ASI Dhan Singh, A.K.S, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi. In the said rukka, ASI/Dhan Singh has narrated the manner in which W/Ct. Veena was sent to accused as Decoy customer to purchase a child from her Nursing Home i.e Ish Nursing Home, Indra Park, Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi after receipt of secret information that Ish Nursing Home was dealing in sale and purchase of newly born babies. Accused Ish Aggarwal is alleged to have agreed to provide a female child for Rs.50,000/- and a male for Rs.60,000/- and thereupon asked W/Ct. Veena to wait for some day. Thereafter, it has been stated that on 22.04.2003, accused informed her about arrangement of a child and that the State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 8 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVADEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.01.28 17:14:04 +0530 child could be collected. Accordingly, at 06:30 PM, W/Ct. Veena (Decoy customer), Sh. Daya Chand (Shadow witness) and Sh. R. K. Sharma @ Mahesh Sharma contacted accused and a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid to accused and a female child "Laxmi" was delivered to W/Ct. Veena by the accused. Other members of the raiding party then entered the nursing home and recovered the female child. It has been alleged that upon search of the Nursing Home, it led to recovery of one register and a diary, which were also seized and a sum of Rs.5000/- was recovered from the accused. It is further alleged that during the investigation, other children namely Simran (aged about 06 years), Jaskirat ( 1½ years), Deepak (4½ months), Ravi Diwan, Anmol and another children, were also purchased by other persons from the accused Ish Aggarwal.
9. Though, the prosecution has alleged that accused Ish Aggarwal was involved in the illegal trade of the children along with her two associates and then used to prepare forged and fabricated birth certificates, however, the Court of Sessions after finding that there is no sufficient incriminating material qua the other two accused namely Smt. Kuldeep and Sh. Gurpreet had discharged them and further the other sections for the illegal trade of the children was also dropped by the Court of Sessions and the charge was framed against the remaining accused i.e. Ish Aggarwal only u/s 465/468/471 r/w 107 IPC and 420 IPC. Though, the prosecution has led around twenty witnesses in order to prove the case placed by them against the accused persons, most of the evidence has been led with respect to the sections either which have already been dropped against the present accused or with respect to the accused persons which have already been State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 9 of 18--FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.28
17:14:27 +0530
discharged by the Court of Sessions and duly upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. The prosecution has also not made any effort to get the charge altered or modified during the trial before this Court, hence the order of charge has attained finality. Further, even if the testimony of prosecution witnesses is seen, none of them have corroborated the version of prosecution so as to prove that any money was paid by them to the accused for selling/purchase of any child or the accused used to purchase new born babies in order to further sell them.
10. The present case was instituted in the year 2003 and as such the matter has been pending before this Court since more than 20 years.
11. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the aforesaid allegations under which the accused has been charged have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution or not during the trial, as the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Out of the witnesses that have been examined before the court, the most relevant to being home the guilt of the accused are PW-5 and PW17.
12. The charge against the accused is that he on 08.12.1998, forged a certificate to the effect that Paramjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Baljeet had delivered male baby under her supervision with intend to cheat the office of Registrar (birth & death), in order to get issued certificate of birth in line with the forged certificate whereupon certificate no. 113467 came to be issued by the Registrar State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 10 of 18--FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed
by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.28 17:14:38 +0530 upon believing the certificate issued by him as genuine.
13. In order to prove the charge that has been framed against the accused, prosecution has examined a total of 20 witnesses, however the most relevant to bring home the guilt of the accused are PW-5 and PW17.
14. It is to be noted that prosecution, in order to prove the charge has examined PW-5 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, who in her deposition has stated before the court that in the year 1977 or 1988 she had went to a hospital namely Guru Gobind Singh Hospital for her treatment and there she came in contact with the accused. At that time, she was not having any issue/children. There, the accused assured her that she can arrange one male child for her adoption. After around five to six months, she again went to the clinic of the accused at Uttam Nagar where she found that one girl had come to the clinic of the accused, for the purpose of abortion, but accused doctor Sh. Ish Aggarwal told her that since her pregnancy has advanced to a later stage, the child could not be aborted. At this, she asked the accused/Dr. Ish Agarwal that if the girl who had visited the clinic agrees to the proposal, she can bear the expenses of her delivery and then she can give her child to her, for the purpose of adoption. After 3-4 months of such arrangement, the said girl gave birth to a male child. It has been stated by PW-5 that then, the accused prepared the certificate Ex.PW17/D of the said child, wherein, she was shown as the biological mother and her husband State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 11 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.01.28
17:14:47 +0530
was shown as the biological father of the said child. Then, the birth of the child was registered with the Registrar of birth and death as their biological child. PW-5 has correctly identified the accused before the court. PW-5 deposed that the certified copy of the birth certificate is Ex.5/A and the photograph of the child along with her and her husband are EX.PW5/B and PW5/C. The prosecution witness PW-17 has deposed on the similar lines wherein he has stated that the certificate was handed over by PW-5 to him, which was stated to be prepared and issued by Dr Ish Agarwal. As per PW-17, the certificate certified by accused Dr. Ish Aggarwal and the certificate of birth which was registered with a Registrar (Birth and Death) were seized as Ex PW17/D. PW-5 has admitted both documents before the court to be one as certificate issued by accused and the other to be issued by Registrar, (Birth and Death) of the child taken from the said girl, without any legal adoption.
15. It is to be noted that a witness was also examined from the department of birth and death as PW-4, Sh. Dharmender Singh, Record Clerk, Sub Registrar Office (Birth & Death), West Zone, MCD School, Uttam Nagar who produced before the court, a certified copy of the Register as exhibit PW4/A where entry no. 3848, shows Sh. Baljeet @Balwant Singh as the father and Smt. Paramjeet Kaur as mother of a male child, born on 08.12.1998. The certificate of birth placed on record 113467 in the name of Paramjit Kaur and Baljeet@Balwant Singh reflect the same details of entries, of date of birth as well as the entry number where the name of State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 12 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.28 17:15:01 +0530
Paramjit Kaur and Balwant Singh has been mentioned as the parents of a male child. All the other details mentioned on Certificate of birth i.e. the date of birth of the child, the date of registration. The entry number, the names of Father and mother and the address are in consonance with the register copy that has been placed on record by PW4. During the cross examination of witness PW-4, PW-5 as well as PW-17 nothing contrary has been highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for accused in order to create doubt about the documents placed on record by them, or to highlight any infirmity in them. During the cross examination of PW-17 Inspector R.K. Gulia also, nothing has been highlighted by the Ld. counsel which could prove that either the certificate was not issued by the accused Dr. Ish Agarwal or that PW-5 Smt. Paramjeet and her husband Sh. Balwant Singh @ Baljeet were actually the biological parent of the child or that a legal adoption procedure was followed by them, consequent to which certificate was issued by accused Dr. Ish Aggarwal to this effect.
16. The allegations as per charge framed against the accused are that she prepared a forged birth certificate in the name of Paramjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Baljeet Singh @ Balwant of a child, which was not given birth to by her, and on the basis of which the birth of child was registered with the Registrar, by showing them as his parents. The deposition of PW-5, clearly reflect that the initial certificate issued by the hospital Ish nursing home which was owned by the accused, mentioned that the child was the biological child of Paramjeet Kaur and Balwant Singh @ Baljeet and as per deposition State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 13 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.28 17:15:10 +0530
of PW-5 herself, she has never given birth to the said child. PW-5 also deposed that as child could not be legally adopted by her, the said certificate was issued by accused. Thus, the deposition of PW-5 coupled with Ex PW17/D, Ex. 5/A and Ex.PW4/A shows that no child was given birth to by Smt. Paramjeet and Sh. Balwant Singh @ Baljeet, but despite that a certificate was issued by accused in their name, showing that a male child has been given birth to on 08.12.1988. The testimony of PW-5 itself reflect that she had not given birth to the said child rather a girl had given the birth to the same, which was given to her, and Dr. Ish assisted the same by issuing a certificate mentioning the name of PW-5 and her husband, as biological parent of the child.
17. Though, the accused has disputed the birth certificate stated to be issued under her name and has stated that she was falsely implicated on account of political rivalry. No evidence has been brought on record to show the same or that a male child was actually given birth to, by PW-5 pursuant to which the certificate was issued by the accused.
18. At this stage, before attaching culpability, to the accused lets discuss the ingredients of the forgery and the mens rea of using any forged documents for purpose of cheating in order bring home the guilt of the accused in the present case.
Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.28 17:15:19 +0530 State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 14 of 18-- FIR No.292/2003 As per section 463 of IPC:
19. 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 and as per Section 468 IPC a person is punishable who forges any document with intention that the same be used for the purpose of cheating.
Further as per section 471 IPC:
20. 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.
21. In the facts of the present case, the certificate dated 08.12.1988 has been stated to be issued by accused in the name of Ms. Paramjeet and Sh. Baljeet Singh for a male child, who never gave birth to the said child. Accused, has neither been successful in highlighting any facts which raises suspicion over the testimony of PW-5 neither any evidence has been led by him, to prove otherwise. The unrebutted testimony of PW-5 along the birth certificate produced by her, clearly proves that the birth certificate was issued by accused, by inserting wrong details of the mother and father. State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 15 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.01.28
17:15:38 +0530
Being a doctor by profession, while issuing such certificate, accused had clear intention that the same will be used and trusted by the Registrar to be genuine and accordingly the birth of the child will be registered on the basis of it, which ordinarily be not done, had this certificate be not issued by him. Thus, the birth certificate was prepared by accused with wrong details. The male child was given birth by some girl, but name of PW-5 and her husband was mentioned as parent, means a document was prepared with fake/wrong details which gave the status/title of parent to PW-5 and her husband and while making so she has clear intention that the same will be used for purpose of registering the birth with the registrar, as per the registration of Birth and Death Act, 1963 section 9(b). And finally the birth of the male child was registered with the Registrar.
22. As per Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969, section 8 (b), in respect of birth and death in a hospital, the medical officer in charge or any person authorised by him has the power to give the information of birth or death as the case be, to the Registrar, for the purpose of registration. Thus, as per settled law, accused being the doctor who certified the birth and also owns the Ish hospital, by preparing the said certificate aided the use of it, for the purpose of registration of birth of the male child in the name of persons as parents, who actually were not his parent. Though, the prosecution has not led any evidence on the point, that how the accused used the forged birth certificate to get the registration, but State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 16 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.28 17:15:52 +0530
by issuing and certifying the birth, she has clearly aided the registration of the birth with the registrar.
As per section 107 IPC, a person abets the doing of a thing who Instigates any person to do that thing; or Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
23. In the facts of the present case, accused by preparing and issuing the certificate, which is the first hand information and being aware that the same will be used as basis of registration of birth, has clearly aided in the commission of the offence, of using the forged document as genuine for the purpose of registration of birth of a male child, in the name of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Baljeet Singh who did not gave birth to him, with the Registrar of Birth and Death. The accused, being a doctor, was aware of the repercussion/consequence of her acts and had clear intention that by such forged certificate, the Registrar, Birth and Death will be made to do an act, on the basis of wrong information, which ordinarily, the Office of Regsitrar (Birth & Death) would not have done, hence playing fraud upon the Registrar, Birth and Death. State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 17 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003 Digitally signed by DEEPALIDEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.28
17:17:17 +0530
24. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. In the facts of the present case, the prosecution by leading cogent, unrebutted evidence of prosecution witnesses before the court has been able to bring home, the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, accused Dr. Ish Agarwal is convicted u/s U/s 465/468/471 r/w 107 IPC and 420 IPC.
Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVADEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date:
Announced in the open court 2026.01.28
17:17:24
on 22nd January-2026. +0530
(Deepali Srivastava)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
(SW) Dwarka Courts:New Delhi.
State Vs. Dr. Ish Aggarwal --Page 18 of 18--
FIR No.292/2003