Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Etc on 16 November, 2013
THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 11, CENTRAL,
ROOM NO. 266, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
PAWAN ETC.
FIR No. 179/2011
P.S.: SUBZI MANDI
U/S: 181/205/468/471/34 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02401R051362011
2. Date of commission of offence : 23.04.2011
3. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Tyagita Singh, Ld.MM
4. Name of the accused, and 1. Pawan Kumar varnwal
his parentage and residence : S/o Sh. Ramji Lal,
R/o H.No. 208, Gali No. 22,
Khajori Delhi.
Also R/o VPO+PS Behri,
Dharbhanga, Bihar.
2. Manoj@Munna@Jatin
S/o Sh. Nathu Ram
R/o 3052, Gali Mandi Wali,
Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
5. Date when judgment : 28.09.2013
was reserved
6. Date when Judgment : 16.11.2013
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section181/205/468/471/34
or proved IPC
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Final Judgment : Both convicted for offence
under Section 181/205/ 468/
471/34 IPC
FIR No. 179/11
PS- Subzi Mandi
State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 1/16
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that in furtherance of their common intention accused Manoj @ Munna prepared forged voter Election ID Card, ID card of Hindu Rao Hospital alongwith fake payslip and filled the Form 45 and accused Pawan stood as surety on such fake documents on 23.04.2011 in the court of Ms. Tyagita Singh, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Court in case FIR No. 27/11, PS Nabi Karim seeking release of accused Akram by impersonating one Vijay Bansal claiming to be working in Hindu Rao Hospital as Storekeeper. The above forgery was detected by Ld MM when the actual Vijay Bansal appeared in the said Court pursuant to notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. and deposed that his voter ID card has been forged and he never worked in Hindu Rao Hospital. Thereafter. Ld. MM ordered for registration of FIR and accused persons were arrested.
2. After hearing arguments charge was framed against both the accused for offences U/s 181/205/468/471 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses namely PW1 Ct. Sanjay Kumar, PW2 SI Ram Pal, PW3 Pramod Kumar, PW4 Rajat Sharma, PW5 Ms.Tyagita Singh, PW6 Sh. Shiv Kumar Singh, PW7 Sh. I.P Verma, PW8 Ct. Pawan Kumar, PW9 Sh. Vijay Bansal and PW10 SI Rajesh Kumar to prove the case against the accused. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places.
FIR No. 179/11PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 2/16
4. After the Prosecution evidence was closed the statement of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal and Manoj Kumar @ Munna were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence were put to them where accused Pawan admitted that coaccused Manoj has wrote the contents of the said Bailbonds. He also admitted that after his arrest he disclosed the involvement of co accused Manoj in preparation of fake documents and bail bonds. Accused Manoj denied the allegations and stated that he was falsely implicated. Both accused stated by separate statement that they do not want to lead evidence in their defence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard..
5. Ld APP for the State has argued that all the witnesses have deposed in favour of the prosecution case and the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused persons. He prays for conviction.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Legal Aid counsel for the accused persons argued that the initiation of criminal proceedings itself is not in accordance of law and relied upon the judgment in the matter of Neeraj Kumar vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the question of whether the District Judge can on an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. instead of himself conducting a preliminary enquiry directed for registration of FIR is justified and sustainable in law. The High Court held that in the scheme of procedure u/s 340 Cr.P.C., the Ld. District Judge should have himself conducted the preliminary enquiry and after forming a prima facia FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 3/16 opinion of proceeding further against the accused should have made a complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate. The reliance of Ld. Counsel on the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case as in the present case, their was no proceeding u/s 340 Cr.P.C. initiated and it was only when the accused in FIR No. 27/11, PS Nabi Karim failed to appear and on receiving notice to the surety issued u/s 446 Cr.P.C. the actual Vijay Bansal appeared and then the said forgery was detected by the court. Hence the above submission of the Ld. Counsel is rejected. Ld. Counsel further argued that both accused are innocent and prays of their acquittal.
7. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
7.1 PW1 Ct. Sanjay Kumar stated that on 25.08.2011 he was posted at PS Nabi Karim and was doing duty as Naib Court in the court of Ms. Tyagita Singh, Ld. MM and on that day Ld. MM handed him copies of orders dated 20.05.2011 and 25.08.2011 alongwith one Voter ID Card, one ICard of Hindu Rao Hospital, one pay slip issued from Hindu Rao Hospital, copy of one more Voter Card, all in the name of Vijay Bansal and photocopy of one bail bond in the name of Vijay Bansal which he handed over to Incharge VB, PS Nabi Karim, Delhi for verification. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation and has deposed falsely at the behest of IO.
7.2 PW2 deposed that on 27.08.2011 at about 6.30 pm, he received the rukka and thereafter he registered the present FIR No. 179/11 on the basis of such rukka and endorsed the same vide FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 4/16 Ex.PW2/B. 7.3 PW3 stated that since 14.05.2012 he is working as UDC at AC19, Sadar Bazar, Kalidas Marg, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi07 and has brought the record in respect of verification of electoral photo identity card in the name of Vijay Bansal s/o Laxmi Narayan R/o L2/45, Block 2, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. He further stated that EPIC no.
SNJ0273854 was issued to Vijay Bansal and same bears his photograph as he is a registered voter in AC19, Sadar Bazar in part no. 42, Sr. No. 117 for the year 2011. The above document was proved a Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that EPIC No. HMCO537288 has not been issued from his office to anybody and is a fake one and bearing fake number and is quite different from the genuine voter I card of Vijay Bansal. The copy of said fake was tendered as Mark A. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that documents produced by him have no legal sanctity. 7.4 PW4 Rajat Sharma deposed that on 29.09.2011 he was working as Asstt. Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Tyagita Singh, Ld.MM and on the same day, IO of the present case came to his office and in his presence Ahlmad Manoj Kr. Taneja handed over original copy of bail bond to IO of case FIR No. 27/11 u/s 379/411/34 IPC for bail of accused Akram @ Ashlam and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. 7.5 PW5 is the Ld. MM. She deposed that in the year 2011, she was posted at Tis Hazari Courts and holding the court of PS Nabi Karim and on 23.4.2011, one bail bond Ex.PW4/B was furnished in FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 5/16 case FIR No. 27/11 PS Nabi Karim which was accepted by her vide endorsement Ex.PW5/A. She further stated that she passed the orders dated 20.05.2011 & 25.08.2011 which were marked as Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively and also recorded the statement of Vijay Bansal during judicial proceedings dated 20.05.2011 in FIR 27/11 PS Nabi Karim. She identified the accused Pawan as the person who appeared before her as surety in FIR 27/11 PS Nabi Karim at the time of furnishing bailbonds which are Ex.PW4/B. During cross examination, she failed to state whether accused Manoj also appeared alongwith accused Pawan at the time of filing the Bailbonds.
7.6 PW6 Sh. Shiv Kumar deposed that on 27.09.2011, he was posted as LDC at Hindu Rao Hospital and on that day SI Rajesh Kumar gave him application Ex.PW6/A for verifying the pay slip and identity card no. 1050/09 in the name of Vijay Bansal and he gave the reply Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed that as per the record, pay slip Mark X and identity card Mark Y were never issued from Hindu Rao Hospital and are fake one. He further deposed that no such employee in the name of Vijay Bansal has ever worked in Hindu Rao Hospital and also filed detailed report as Ex.PW6/C in this respect. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in order to save his colleagues and bogus and arbitrary reports has been given by him.
7.7 PW7 Sh.I.P Verma who was the Administrative Officer of Hindu Rao Hospital also deposed about the verification of the pay FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 6/16 slip and identity card no. 1050/09 in the name of Vijay Bansal . He deposed that as per the record, pay slip Mark X and identity card Mark Y were never issued from Hindu Rao Hospital and are fake one and no such employee in the name of Vijay Bansal has ever worked in the said Hospital. He submitted a detailed report in this regard vide Ex. PW6/C under his signature. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in order to save his colleagues and bogus and arbitrary reports has been given by him.
7.8 PW8 Ct. Pawan Kumar deposed about the arrest and disclosure of the accused persons. He stated that on 03.09.2011, he alongwith IO SI Rajesh Kumar had joined the investigation of present case and went to Court No. 266 of Sh. Tarun Yogesh, Ld. MM wherein after permission from the court accused Pawan was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that, accused was produced before Link MM for obtaining specimen signatures and handwriting, which were endorsed by Link MM and thereafter, accused was sent to JC.
7.9 PW9 Vijay Bansal deposed that he is doing a private job and he did not remember the exact date when police officer came to his house and inquired about the present case. He further deposed that police officer informed him that one person had used forged Voter I card of his name and become surety in many cases and police also informed him that accused disclosed his real name as Pawan Kumar Vernwal. He further deposed that when police officer shown him the FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 7/16 forged Election I Card, he informed the police officer that this person had also used his Voter I card details in many other cases after forging them. He also brought his original voter I card bearing no. SNJ0273854 having electoral name Vijay Kumar Bansal and same was compared with photocopy on record and same found correct, photocopy of which is Ex.PW9/A. 7.10 PW10 SI Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 27.08.2011, Ct. Naresh after registration of FIR came back to PP, Tis Hazari and handed him over the copy of FIR and original rukka for further investigation as same was marked to him. He further stated that on 02.09.2011, he moved an application seeking permission of interrogation and arrest of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal, which was allowed and production warrant of accused was issued. He further stated that on 03.09.2011 accused was produced before the court of Sh. Tarun Yogesh wherein he was arrested vide Ex.PW8/A after interrogation and he also recorded his disclosure statement vide disclosure memo and Ex.PW8/B. He also stated that he moved an application on 03.09.2011 for obtaining specimen signature, handwriting and thumb impression of accused Pawan Kumar, which was allowed and marked to Link MM, where he obtained the same. He further deposed that after taking the specimen handwriting and thumb impression of accused Pawan Kumar, the same were sent to Fingerprint Bureau. He also stated that he sent voter I card, Staff I Card of Hindu Rao Hospital and payslip for verification, which were found to be fake. He further stated that he also interrogated Vijay FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 8/16 Bansal who stated that he had not stood as surety and denied having given the documents to the accused persons. He stated that after completing the investigation in respect of accused Pawan, he filed the challan. He further stated that on 23.11.11 the PO staff of Police Station Subzi Mandi apprehended accused Manoj @ Munna as he was declared proclaimed offender in FIR 54/11, PS Subzi Mandi and after interrogation accused Manoj was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/F. He also stated that accused Manoj disclosed his involvement in the present case vide his disclosure Ex. PW10/H. PW10 also stated about the taking of specimen signatures and thumb impression of accused Manoj before Ld. Link MM and their sending to FSL Rohini for comparison. He also stated that he filed the report of finger print Bureau in respect of accused Pawan and thereafter he was transferred. PW10 identified both the accused persons as the person arrested by him in the present case. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that no disclosure was made by the accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that all incriminating papers have been falsely prepared in order to implicate the accused and his investigation is tainted. He also denied the suggestion that actual culprits have not been intentionally apprehended by him.
8. In the present case, the accused persons have prepared and used forged and fake documents in order to cheat the Court itself. They managed to get released an accused from the judicial custody on the basis of such fake documents which not only compromised FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 9/16 the trial of a particular case but also cheated the criminal justice system and thereby put at risk the very existence of the system. 8.1 In the present case eventhough a specific separate complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C was not filed by the Court of Ms. Tyagita Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, but the initial order of directing registration of FIR against the accused persons was based on the enquiry conducted by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and therefore, in my humble opinion the absence of specific complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The initial order of registration of FIR is ipso facto a complaint which came to this Court alongwith the Chargesheet and not separately as would be the case in case a seperate complaint was filed by the Court. Moreover, the Ld. MM appeared in the witness box as PW5 and proved her order directing SHO, Subzi Mandi for registration of FIR vide Ex. PW5/C. 8.2 The fabrication and forgery of documents were done outside the Court i.e before their production before the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that bar under Section 195(1)(a) and (b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. My opinion is fortified by the judgment in the matter of Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah & Another, 2005(2) Crimes 11 (SC) wherein it was held that if the forgery was committed outside the Court and thereafter, those forged documents FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 10/16 were produced and the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence .
8.3 Section 181 IPC provides for punishment for giving false statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorized to administer an oath or affirmation .
In the present case accused Pawan Kumar has given the statement by impersonating that he was Vijay Bansal and working at Hindu Rao Hospital as Storekeeper on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in connivance with coaccused Manoj @ Munna. He also stated that he has close family relation with accused Akram of FIR 27/11 PS Nabi Karim. He affixed his Thumb impression at the bail bonds and also at the verification of the Affidavit claiming that the contents of the Affidavit are true and correct. Accused Pawan Kumar has been identified by PW5 i.e the Ld. MM as the person who appeared before her and tendered the bailbonds seeking release of accused Akram in FIR No. 27/11 PS Nabi Karim. Moreover, accused Pawan himself admitted during his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he disclosed the involvement of coaccused Manoj as the person who prepared the bailbonds on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
8.4 The report of Fingerprint Bureau has also come against the accused as the thumb impression Marked Q1 to Q3 on the bail bonds were found inter se identical means those are the impressions of a same finger of the same person and are Identical with left FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 11/16 thumb impression of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal taken before Ld. Link MM and marked as S8A on the specimen left thumb impression slip marked as S8. The report of the expert who is Director in Fingerprint Bureau is admissible u/s 293 Cr.P.C and neither accused persons nor their counsels requested for calling him for deposing before the Court. Morever, in view of the judgement in the matter of Visakha Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. Fertilizer InspectorcumAssistant Director of Agriculture (regular) 1997 2 Crimes (AP), I did not find it necessary to summon and examine the Director Fingerprint Bureau as the science of fingerprint analysis have reached an advanced stage of evolution and fingerprint impression of a human being is never identical with another human being as all human beings carry distinct fingerprint impression which can never be matched with any other impression except the fingerprint impression of such human being. This implies that the thumb impression found on the bailbonds are of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal and none else could have put those impressions. 8.5 The writing on the bailbonds proved as Ex. PW4/B are alleged to be the handiwork of accused Manoj @ Munna and Pawan Kumar Varnwal. To prove this the IO had taken the sample handwriting and signatures of accused Pawan and Manoj after complying with the legal requirement and same were taken in the presence of Ld. Link MM who had also endorsed the same and were sent to FSL laboratory for comparison with the questioned handwriting and signatures which are found on the bailbonds i.e Ex.PW4/B. As per FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 12/16 FSL result, the writing work found on the bailbonds marked as Q4, Q4/1 and Q5 to Q8 were compared with the specimen writing/signature marked S29 to S38 and S45 to S49 of accused Manoj @ Munna@Jatin and S39 to S44 of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal. The examiner has mentioned in his report that he carefully and thoroughly examined the same with scientific instruments such as Stereo Microscope, Documenter and different magnifying glasses and thereafter opined about the similarity or otherwise noted between the writing on the questioned documents and specimens sent for comparison. The examiner who is a Senior Scientific Officer(Documentation) at FSL, Rohini a Government Laboratory opined as follows:
a) The person who wrote the writing marked and stamped as S29 to S38 also wrote the writing marked and stamped as Q4, Q4/1 and Q5. The Q4, Q4/1 and Q5 are the majority of the details on the bailbond and specimen marked S29 to S38 are the specimen taken of accused Manoj@Munna@Jatin.
b) The person who wrote the writing marked and stamped as S39 to S44 also wrote the writing marked and stamped as Q6 to Q8. The Q6 to Q8 are the various signature on the bailbond and specimen marked S39 to S44 are the specimen taken of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal.
FIR No. 179/11PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 13/16 8.6 The opinion of examiner is based on the similarities found in the formation of alphabets as well as in numerals. The examiner has also mentioned that their was no divergence observed between the questioned and specimen writings and the similarities observed by him are significant and sufficient and cannot be attributed to accidental coincidence. I myself has also perused the questioned and the specimen signatures/writings. I find no ground to disagree with the opinion of handwriting expert which is admissible inter se in terms of section 293 Cr.P.C. This implies that the body of the bail bonds was filled in and prepared by accused Manoj @ Munna and signature and thumb impression was put by coaccused Pawan Kumar Varnwal.
8.7 Section 205 deals with false personation by another person and in such assumed character either makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
In the present case the accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal has stood surety by impersonating Vijay Bansal on the basis of forged and fabricated documents prepared in connivance of Manoj@Munna eventhough he has the knowledge that he was not Vijay Bansal R/o H.No. L2/45, L Block Shatri Nagar, Delhi. The actual Vijay Bansal examined as PW9 has stated on Oath that he has never stand as FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 14/16 surety and also do not know either accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal or Manoj@Munna. He also stated that he do not know how accused forged his Election ID card having his name. He also produced his original voter ID card. His testimony was also corroborated by PW3 who was the official from the Election Office of Assembly Constituency. PW3 categorically stated that EPIC No. HMCO537288 has not been issued from his office to anybody and is a fake one and bearing fake number and is quite different from the genuine I card of Vijay Bansal. The version of the prosecution was also corroborated by the officials of Hindu Rao Hospital as PW6 and PW7 stated before the Court that no person by the name of Vijay Bansal had worked in the Hindu Rao Hospital as Storekeeper and the payslip and ID card of Hindu Rao Hospital was also found fake. The Bailbonds Ex. PW4/B is having the photograph of accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal wherein he claimed himself as Vijay Bansal. This also gives credence to the story of the prosecution that accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal in furtherance of his common intention with coaccused Manoj impersonated Vijay Bansal while tendering the bailbonds Ex.PW4/B seeking release of an accused on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
8.8 The impersonation and fabrication of fake documents was done by both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention for the purpose of cheating the Court itself and they were initially succeeded in doing so as the bailbonds furnished by them were accepted and the forgery and impersonation was only detected FIR No. 179/11 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 15/16 when the accused Akram failed to appear before the Court in FIR 27/11 PS Nabi Karim and actual Vijay Bansal appeared on receipt of Notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. The forged and fabricated documents were fraudulently used by the accused persons claiming them to be genuine for the purpose of cheating the Court.
9. On the basis of evidence on record and above discussion, I am satisfied that prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pawan Kumar Varnwal and Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin in furtherance of their common intention has committed the offences u/s 181/205/468/471 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
10. Accordingly, Pawan Kumar Varnwal and Manoj @ Munna @ Jatin are convicted for offences u/s 181/205/468/471 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to both the convicts.
Put up on 18.11.2013 for arguments on sentencing ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) COURT ON 16.11.2013 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE11(C) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 179/11PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Pawan Etc Page 16/16