Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Avtar on 2 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS VASUNDHARA AZAD, MM-03, SE,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Ram Avtar
FIR No.271/09
Police Station : H. N.Din
Under Section :420/468/471/467 IPC
Date of institution : 04.07.2012
Date of pronouncement : 02.11.2019
JUDGEMENT
a) Serial number of the case 94077/2016
b) Date of commission of offence Unknown time.
c) Name of the complainant Talwinder Marwah
Ram Avtar
Name, parentage and address S/o Sh. Ram Singh
d) R/o H.No.152, Ground floor, Hari Nagar
of the accused Ashram, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of Section 420/468/471/467 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 02.11.2019
FIR No.271/2009, State Vs. Ram Avtar PS H.N. Din Page no.1/6
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE
DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on unknown time, date and place, accused forged the signatures and the letter head of the complainant Talvinder Singh Marwah in order to obtain electricity meter for premises no.152, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi and that the accused also used forged letter head of the complainant Talvinder Singh Marwah by producing it in the office of BSES for obtaining electricity meter and thereby accused has cheated the complainant by using his letter head in the office of BSES in order to obtain wrongful gain from BSES by showing of the letter head of the complainant and thereby committed offence u/s 420/468/471/467 IPC.
ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 02.04.2013 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court, charges of accusation for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/467 IPC were served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. In order to prove its case against the prosecution, the prosecution in all examined 5 witnesses. However, vide order dated 18.11.2017 passed by ld. Predecessor of this court, the opportunity of PW2 /complainant Tarvinder Singh Marwah to present himself for cross- examination was closed and accordingly, it was also observed that the examination in chief of PW2 would also not be read in evidence :
(i) PW-1 Bhim Singh who has deposed that in the year 2009, IO had inquired about one letter dated 8.9.2008 addressed to the Manager, FIR No.271/2009, State Vs. Ram Avtar PS H.N. Din Page no.2/6 BSES on the letter pad of Tarvinder Singh Marwah which as per PW1 was of MLA Mr. Marwah, although it did not bear his signature.
(ii) PW-3 Kundan Tiwari has deposed that he has been deputed by Manager, Division Nizamuddin Mohd. Faizal to appear before the court with the report of electricity connection installed in property no.T1, Nizamuddin west, New Delhi, no. K No.254068101702 and which is ExPW3/A. PW3 has deposed that as per the report, the record of connection could not be found as the same was very old.
(iii) PW-4 SI Narener Singh has deposed that on 12.12.2009, the present case was assigned to him for further investigation. He investigated the matter and obtained specimen signature of complainant which is Ex PW1/B and sent the same to FSL for expert opinion.
Acknowledgment of case acceptance is ExPW4/A. RC is Ex PW4/B. Result of FSL was obtained vide ExPW4/C.
(iv) PW5 retired SI Ramesh Chand has deposed that on 07.02.2009, the present case was assigned to him for further investigation, after registration of FIR. He visited the house of accused and inquired him. In the meanwhile, accused had filed an application for anticipatory bail in Ld. court of Sessions and the same was granted to accused. On 24.10.2009, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos ExPW5/A & ExPW5/B.
4. Vide a separately recorded statement, the accused admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. FIR No.271/09, PS H.N.Din as ExP/A/1, RC No.61/21/10 as ExP/A/2 and FSL result bearing no.FSL210/D3567 dated 18.03.2011 as FIR No.271/2009, State Vs. Ram Avtar PS H.N. Din Page no.3/6 ExP/A/3.
After examination of above-said witnesses, PE was closed.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
5. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC., the accused denied the entire evidence put to him. In defence the accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and opted not to lead DE. Thereafter, DE was closed.
ARGUMENTS
6. Learned APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses have established guilt on the part of accused and that he be convicted for offences under Sections 420/468/471/467 IPC. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for accused that accused is innocent as there is no evidence, which will prove guilt of accused to the hilt.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
7. I have heard arguments of both sides and perused the record carefully. Perusal of the record reveals that the main allegation against the accused is that he had in order to obtain electricity meter for premises no.152, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi had forged signatures and letter head of the complainant Talvinder Singh Marwah and produced it in the office of BSES and thereby accused has cheated the complainant by using his letter head in the office of BSES in order to obtain wrongful gain from BSES by showing the letter head of the complainant and thereby has committed offences u/s 420/468/471/467 IPC.
FIR No.271/2009, State Vs. Ram Avtar PS H.N. Din Page no.4/6
8. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
9. Upon appreciation of testimonies of all the witnesses, it is observed that there is no incriminatory evidence which has come forth which would link the accused to the offences alleged against him and also prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Further, testimony of PW2/ complainant Talvinder Singh Marwah has also been rendered void by virtue of order dated 18.11.2017 passed by ld. Predecessor of this court. Additionally, FSL result as regards the aspect of alleged forgery committed on the letter head concerned also does not render any incriminatory evidence against the accused as sample specimen signatures of the accused were never collected by the IO for comparison with the alleged forged signatures of PW2/ complainant Talvinder Singh Marwah. In the absence of any cogent and strong evidence against the accused which will prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused cannot be convicted on speculations and surmises.
10. In view of the above discussion, the court of the view that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had committed forgery of signatures and letter head of the complainant Talvinder Singh Marwah and produced it in the FIR No.271/2009, State Vs. Ram Avtar PS H.N. Din Page no.5/6 office of BSES in order to obtain wrongful gain from it. Hence, the charges against the accused have not been proved.
11. Therefore, the court is of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused and failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Ram Avtar is acquitted under Sections 420/468/471/467 IPC.
Digitally signed byVASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA Announced in open court on 02.11.2019. AZAD AZAD Date: 2019.11.02 15:43:41 +0530 (VASUNDHARA AZAD) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03 SOUTH EAST DISTRICT SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI FIR No.271/2009, State Vs. Ram Avtar PS H.N. Din Page no.6/6