Delhi District Court
State vs Rajeev Rajan on 24 December, 2024
FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Isha Singh, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 43928/2016
Unique Case ID No. -: DLND020005212008
FIR No. -: 74/2013
Police Station -: Tughlak Road
Section(s) -: 170/140/448/471 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
RAJEEV RANJAN
S/o Sh. Kant Sharma
R/o Village Prijpura, PS Shakurabad,
District Jahanabad, Bihar.
.... Accused
Rajwant Singh Wing Comman-
1. Name of Complainant :
der
2. Name of Accused : Rajeev Ranjan
Offence complained of or
3. : 170/140/448/471 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 12.05.2007
6. Date of Filing of chargesheet : 11.03.2008
7. Date of Reserving Order : 12.11.2024
Page 1 of 21
FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road
8. Date of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024
CONVICTED of the offences
under Sec. 448/170/471 IPC
9. Final Order :
and is ACQUITTED for the
offence under Sec. 140 IPC.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
A. FACTUAL MATRIX:-
1. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.05.2007, at about 4:30 am at Race Course Road, within the jurisdiction of PS Tughlak Road, the accused Rajeev Ranjan entered the Air Force Station, Race Course Road, without permission and showed a copy of NCR regarding loss of his identity card, and disclosed his identity as Service no. 779001 AC Rajeev Ranjan No. 7, Squadron Air Force, Gwalior. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Rajeev Ranjan was having in his possession, a T-shirt and shirt bearing Air Force logo. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the above said time and place, the accused used a forged Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) dated 13.08.2006 as genuine, which was falsely lodged by him at Railway Station, New Delhi and thereby committed offences under Sections 448/140/170/471 of the In- dian Penal Code (hereinafter "IPC").
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the accused Rajeev Ranjan was filed u/s 448/140/170/471 IPC. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused Rajeev Ranjan was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused Samyak Jain in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused Rajeev Ranjan, Page 2 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road charge under sections 448/140/170/471 IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined ten witnesses.
4.1. PW1/Duty officer ASI Chajju Ram proved the registration of FIR no. 102/07 [Ex. PW 1/A (OSR)] and the endorsement on the rukka (Ex. PW 1/B). No cross- examination of PW1/Duty officer ASI Chajju Ram was conducted, despite opportunity given to the accused.
4.2. PW2/Complainant Sh. Ranjvant Singh, Rtd. Wing Commander deposed that on 11.05.2007, at about 16.30 p.m, accused Rajeev Ranjan was brought to him by the security guard, who informed that the accused was claiming to be an Air Force personnel posted at 7 squadron, Air Force, Gwalior. He deposed that the accused represented that he is an AC (rank in Air Force) and disclosed that he is a deserter. He stated that the accused was produced from the Airmen's Billet and had entered the 412, Air Force Station by showing an FIR which he had lodged with the GRP stating that he has lost his ID-Card. He stated that upon checking, it was discovered that there is no AC Rajeev Ranjan posted at 7th squadron. Upon further asking, the accused produced a fake leave certificate certifying him to be posted at 503 SU and on leave. He stated that the aforesaid information was immediately relayed to PS Tughlak Road, pursuant to which a police official visited the air force station and to whom, the custody of the accused was handed over. He correctly identified the accused before the Court. He proved his complaint (Ex. PW2/A). He stated that the copy of fake FIR used by the accused to falsely secure entry into the air force station was seized by the police vide seizure memo (Ex.PW2/B). He stated that he also produced copy of the fake leave application Page 3 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road [Ex.PW2/E (OSR)] before the IO, which was furnished by the accused. He stated that upon the asking of the IO, the witness checked the credentials of Rajeev Ranjan from Central Airmen Selection Board vide letter [Ex.PW2/H (OSR)] and it was ultimately discovered vide letter [Ex.PW2/F (OSR)] that although Rajeev Ranjan had come for Selection in Airmen Selection Centre however, he did not qualify and that there was no AC Rajeev Ranjan with the Indian Air Force. He stated that the aforesaid information was conveyed to SHO PS Tughlak Road vide letter [Ex.PW2/G (OSR)]. He proved the arrest memo (Ex. PW2/C) and the personal search memo of the accused (Ex. PW2/D). Although the witness proved his signatures on the seizure memo of the clothes of the accused (Ex. PW2/I), however he failed to remember whether the T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo were seized from the accused in his presence. Upon production of the case property ie., a stapled plastic bag containing one T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo (Ex.CP1), the witness stated he was not sure if the clothes were seized from the accused on 12.05.2007, due to lapse of time. As the witness was resiling from his earlier statement given to the police, Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross- examine the witness, which was allowed. During cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness stated that he remembered the accused wearing the aforesaid T- shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo and produced photographs showing him to be wearing such attire Mark P1, P2 and P3. However, even during cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness failed to remember if the aforesaid T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo were seized from the accused on 12.05.2007, in his presence. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4.3. PW3/Subodh Kumar Singh deposed that on 11.05.2007, he was posted at Air Force Station, Race Course in MT section and his duty was at Billet No.2D. He stated that on the day of his duty, one person approached him on the pretext that he had to get himself treated at Military hospital. The witness stated that he became doubtful and asked for the identity card of such individual, however he produced an NCR, Page 4 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road instead. He stated that other persons who were on duty at Billet No. 2D were Sachin and Ajay. The witness stated that since the suspected individual was not having any original or temporary card with him, they became doubtful and handed him over to Indian Air Force Police. He correctly identified the accused during trial. He stated that the accused appeared to be the same person who was caught at the Air Force Station. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4.4. PW4/Sh. Gopal Ajay Kumar, Corporal, Air Force Station, Race Course deposed that on 11.05.2007, he came to Billet no. 2D/3 after finishing his duties as he was residing there. He stated that after some time, the accused Rajeev Ranjan came to their billet after taking permission from them and represented himself to be an Air Force staff posted in Hindon. He stated that he had to go to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt for his medical treatment, and since it would take longer to reach from Hindon to Base hospital, so therefore, he requested if he could stay the night at the billet so as to secure an early appointment at the Base Hospital. He correctly identified the accused before the Court. He stated that upon asking, the accused showed a copy of 7-8 months old FIR regarding the loss of his I-card which was lodged at New Delhi Railway Station. He stated that upon asking, the accused denied having even a temporary I-card, stating that the same was not yet issued to him. He stated that he grew suspicious because there could be no serving airman without original ID Card or temporary card. He even identified the laminated carbon copy of NCR [Ex.PX1] dated 13.08.2006, produced by the accused to secure entry into the Air Force Premises. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4.5. PW5/Corporal S. K. Singh deposed that on 11.05.2007, he was posted at Air Head Quarter (412 Air Force Station), Near Race Course, New Delhi and on that day, after returning from his duty i.e. 5.30 p.m., the witness went to his room at 2D/3. Upon reaching his room, the witness met with one person namely Rajeev Ranjan who Page 5 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road disclosed himself to be an Airman and was posted at Air Force Station, Hindon. The witness deposed that the accused informed him that he is suffering from some diseases for which, he has been referred to RR Hospital from Hindon SMC. The witness stated that upon asking, the accused was unable to show the medical case sheet, which raised doubt and thereafter, upon further asking, he produced photocopy of an old FIR mentioning the loss of his ID Card, instead of a temporary ID card. He stated that with the help of his colleagues Corporal Ajay Kumar and Corporal Subodh, he took the accused to main guard room 412 Air Force Station. He correctly identified the accused before the Court during trial. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4.6. PW6/Ct. Subhash deposed that on the intervening night of 11-12.05.2007, the present case was registered upon the complaint of the complainant. He proved the seizure memo of clothes of the accused (Ex PW2/I), the arrest memo of the accused (Ex. PW2/C) and the personal search memo of the accused (Ex.PW2/D). He correctly identified the case property. The accused was exempted from personal appearance, subject to his identity not being disputed. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4.7. PW7/HC Yogesh Kumar brought the DD register no. 1 dated 13.08.2006 as per which, one NCR was got registered by Sh. Rajiv Ranjan regarding missing of document and the same was registered vide NCR no. 1412/06 by DD no. 30B. Copy of DD rojnamcha was exhibited as [Ex. PW7/A (OSR)]. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4.8. PW7/JWO Ajay Kumar, Service No. 781709K deposed that in the month of May, 2007, he was posted at 412, Air Force Station, Race Course, New Delhi as Corporal and used to reside at Billet No. 2D. He stated that on 11.05.2007, while he was Page 6 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road present at the aforementioned Billet, he noticed an individual was roaming around there. Upon suspicion, he along with Corporal Sachin Kumar Singh and Corporal Subodh Kumar made enquiry from the said individual, who revealed that he was an Airman and he further revealed his identity as LAC Rajeev Ranjan. He stated that he along with Corporal Sachin Kumar Singh and Corporal Subodh Kumar asked for his ID card, however, the suspected individual failed to produce the same and he handed over a 7-8 months old NCR to them, registered with New Delhi Railway Station, reporting the loss of the ID Card. He stated that since the accused failed to produce even a temporary ID card, he grew suspicious and with the help of his colleagues, he produced the accused before the Senior Officers. The accused was exempted from personal appearance, subject to his identity not being disputed. He correctly identified laminated carbon copy of NCR [Ex.PX1] dated 13.08.2006, produced by the accused to secure entry into the Air Force Premises. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4.9. PW8/IO Inspector Dhananjay Gupta deposed that on 12.05.2007, he made endorsement (Ex.PW8/A) on the complaint Ex. PW2/A submitted by Wing Commander Rajwant Singh, Flight Commander Security Flight for Air Officer Commanding at PS Tughlak Road, pursuant to which the present FIR got registered. He stated that the complainant handed over the accused to the witness and also handed over a laminated copy of NCR (Ex.PX1), which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW2/B). He stated that the complainant also produced a uniform consisting of a t-shirt and a vest with Air Force logo on it, which was also seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW2/I). He stated that despite enquiry, the accused failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the uniform and he also failed to explain as why he did not get a temporary ID Card issued in his name despite the fact that the alleged NCR was dated 13.08.2006. The witness stated that from the circumstances, it appeared that the accused had used a forged NCR as genuine to show that he was in active service in Air Force. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos (Ex.PW2/C) and (Ex.PW2/D) Page 7 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road respectively. He stated that after the completion of investigation, he prepared the charge- sheet and submitted the same before the Court. The witness correctly identified the accused as well as the case property. Pursuant to an application moved by the State under Sec. 311 CrPC, the witness was recalled for examination. Upon his re- examination, the witness stated that during the course of investigation, he collected original NCR register containing NCR number 1412/06 from PS NDLS, New Delhi and filed the same alongwith the charge-sheet. The original NCR register was made part of the chargesheet and filed as Ex.PX3 (Colly.). The original application given by the accused in his own handwriting in Hindi language to PS NDLS, on the basis of which NCR bearing no. 1412/06 was registered was marked as Ex.PX4 and the original NCR no. 1412/06 was marked as Ex.PX5. The witness stated that the accused had used the facts of the aforementioned NCR as genuine to falsely show that he was in the active service of the Air Force of India. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4.10. PW9/HC Vimal Kumar was examined, who brought the order bearing no. 12335-12419/HAR/Railway, dated 15.07.2022 issued by ACP/HQ for Deputy Commissioner of Police, Railways, New Delhi vide which daily diary register (rojnamcha) up to 31.12.2010 had been destroyed as per SO no. 64/2007 vide GD No.27A dated 26.10.2022. The said order was taken on record and the same was marked Ex.PX2. The GD No. 27A was marked Ex.PX3. No cross-examination of PW9/HC Vimal Kumar was conducted, despite opportunity given to the accused.
4.11. PW10/Retd. SI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 23.05.2007, he was posted as an HC at PS NDLS and on that day, he was working as a Duty Officer from 09:00 PM to 09:00 AM. He stated that around 10:00 PM, the NCR bearing no. 14012/06 was shown to him by the IO and he registered the DD no. 30B regarding the same and the true copy of DD No. 30B was marked as (Ex.PW10/A). He stated that the original diary Page 8 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road register (rojnamcha) pertaining to DD No. 30B has already been destroyed by the order issued by ACP/HQ for Deputy Commissioner of Police, Railways, New Delhi and the said order was marked as Ex.PX2. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence statement of the accused Rajeev Ranjan was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 02.08.2024, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Since the accused chose to lead evidence in his defence, therefore, matter was listed for defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. In his defence, accused examined himself, pursuant to moving an application under Sec. 315 CrPC.
DW1/Rajeev Ranjan examined himself as a defence witness and deposed that on 11.05.2007, at about 04:00 PM, he went to meet one of his friends who was posted in the Race Course, Air Force Station. He stated that he had participated in the said recruitment process, however, he could not succeed. He stated that after reaching Air Force Station, he showed his original admit card of the examination centre to the concerned security officer and he met with PW Subodh Kumar Singh and in the meantime, one superior officer of the Air Force came and threatened PW Subodh Kumar Singh asking about the presence of Rajeev Ranjan. He stated that his friend refused to recognise him out of fear and therefore, a case got registered against him and his ID Card was seized. He stated that the instant case has been registered under the influence of air force officers. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
7. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Page 9 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
ARGUMENTS
8. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the offence is proved by the State at the requisite threshold. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has argued that even if some witnesses were not cross examined, the Court is to adjudge whether the case of the prosecution holds ground on its own legs. It is argued that the deposition of prosecution witnesses does not inspire any confidence. He has asserted 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.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION OFFENCE OF TRESPASS
10. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met. In order to establish the offence under Section 448 IPC, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence. Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for the offence of house trespass, whereas Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of house trespass, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:
"442. House Trespass- Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house-trespass. Explanation.-- The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's Page 10 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass."
11. The genus of Section 442 IPC can be found in S. 441 IPC which defines the term criminal trespass and reads as under:
"441. Criminal Trespass- 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 there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass."
12. In Rash Behari Chatterjee v. Fagu Shaw, (1969) 2 SCC 216, it was observed that:
"The correct position in law may, in our opinion, be stated thus: in order to establish that the entry on the property was with the intent to annoy, intimidate or insult, it is necessary for the Court to be satisfied that causing such annoyance, intimidation or insult was the aim of the entry; that it is not sufficient for that purpose to show merely that the natural consequence of the entry was likely to be annoyance, intimidation or insult, and that this likely consequence was known to the person entering; that in deciding whether the aim of the entry was the causing of such annoyance, intimidation or insult, the Court has to consider all the relevant circumstances including the presence of knowledge that its natural consequences would be such annoyance, intimidation or insult and including also the probability or something else than the causing of such intimidation, insult or annoyance, being the dominant intention which prompted the entry."
13. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it can be summarised that the essential ingredients to be proved to bring the act of the accused within the purview of Section 448 IPC are that:
(i) The complainant was in possession of the property i.e, a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or a building used as a place of worship or for custody of property ;
(ii) The accused entered into or upon such building, tent or vessel or having entered lawfully into such building, tent or vessel, the accused remains there unlawfully;Page 11 of 21
FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road
(iii) His intention was to commit an offence, or intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession.
14. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.05.2007, the accused came to Billet no. 2D/3 at Air Force Station and falsely represented himself to be an Air Force staff posted at 7th squadron. It is stated that the accused secured entry into the air force premises by showing the copy of a false NCR [Ex.PX1] dated 13.08.2006 regarding the loss of his I-card which was lodged at New Delhi Railway Station. Upon asking, the accused failed to even show a temporary ID card, and instead, showed a fake leave certificate [Ex. PW2/E (OSR)]. Upon checking from the Central Airmen Selection Board, it was discovered that although Rajeev Ranjan had appeared previously before Airmen Selection Centre however, he did not qualify and that there was no AC Rajeev Ranjan in the Indian Air Force. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused entered into the air force station unlawfully and caused annoyance to the Air Force officers.
15. Per Contra, it is the defence of the accused that on 11.05.2007 at about 04:00 PM, he had gone to meet one of his friends, Subodh, who was posted in Race Course, Air Force Station and upon reaching there, he had shown his admit card in original to the guard for securing entry, as he had taken part in an examination, in which he could not succeed. DW1/Rajeev Ranjan deposed that upon gaining entry, he met his friend Subodh, who, upon the asking of his superior officers, refused to recognise him and got this false case registered against him.
16. Thus, in the present facts and circumstances, it is not in dispute that firstly, the accused is not an officer of the Indian Air Force and that secondly, that he entered the premises of the Air Force Station, without any authority. Infact, it has been duly admitted by the accused in his cross-examination, that he entered the air force premises Page 12 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road without authorisation. The defence of the accused that he had secured entry on the strength of his original admit card, that he had procured for a recruitment process that he could not succeed in, is implausible and cannot be accepted as true. This is because the accused has failed to produce such admit card, either in original or a copy, before the Court at trial. His defence that he had gone to meet one of his friends who was posted in the Race Course, Air Force Station also does not hold water. This is because the friend that the accused claims to have gone to meet, is Subodh Kumar Singh, who has been examined as a prosecution witness and has failed to corroborate the defence of the accused. In fact, PW3/Subodh has, during his cross-examination, denied having known the accused from earlier and has stated that the accused was a complete stranger till the date of the incident.
17. Instead, the case of the prosecution that the accused secured entry on the strength of a false NCR [Ex.PX1] dated 13.08.2006 regarding the loss of his I-card, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The seizure memo Ex. PW2/B reflecting the seizure of the NCR [Ex.PX1] dated 13.08.2006 from the accused, stands duly proved by PW2/Retired Wing Commander Rajwant Singh, who stood a witness to the same. Even the prosecution witnesses PW4/Gopal Ajay Kumar and PW7/JWO Ajay Kumar have identified the laminated carbon copy of NCR [Ex.PX1] dated 13.08.2006 produced by the accused, regarding the loss of his I-Card, for the purposes of securing his entry. Their testimonies have remained consistent and have been duly corroborated by PW2/Complainant Rajwant, before whom the accused was ultimately produced by the security guard, after the accused unlawfully entered the airmen's billet. Even though Ld. Counsel for the accused cross-examined the prosecution witnesses at length, however nothing useful for the case of the accused came forth. In other words, the prosecution witnesses sustained the test of cross-examination.
18. Further, nothing came on record as to any motive for the Air Force officials Page 13 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road to falsely implicate the accused. This is because the factum of the registration of NCR [Ex.PX1] dated 13.08.2006 was proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. PW7/HC Yogesh Kumar brought the DD register no. 1 dated 13.08.2006 and proved the DD no. 30B [Ex. PW7/A (OSR)], as per which, one NCR was got lodged by Sh. Rajiv Ranjan (accused) on 13.08.2006 regarding missing of his documents and the same was registered vide NCR no. 1412/06 vide DD no. 30B. The laminated copy of NCR (Ex.PX1), which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B was filed alongwith the chargesheet and has been duly identified at trial by PW4/Gopal Ajay Kumar and PW7/JWO Ajay Kumar. Even the original NCR register (Ex.PX3) containing NCR bearing no. 1412/06 (Ex.PX5) from PS NDLS, New Delhi and application in original (Ex.PX4) given by the accused in his own handwriting in Hindi language to PS NDLS, on the basis of which NCR bearing no. 1412/06 was registered, was filed alongwith the chargesheet, which was identified at trial by the IO. Though the counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW7/HC Yogesh Kumar regarding overwriting upon the DD register no. 1 dated 13.08.2006, however the said overwriting is only with respect to serial numbers. In the considered opinion of the Court, overwriting of serial number, if any, does not take away the fact that an NCR was lodged at the instance of the accused Rajeev Ranjan, claiming to be an Air Force Officer, who lost his ID card, on 13.08.2006 i.e, 9 months prior to the date of the incident, which is clearly reflected in the DD no. 30B [Ex. PW7/A (OSR)]. Thus, the accused, by way of cross-examination, has failed to rebut the factum of registration of NCR dated 13.08.2006. Mere giving of suggestion by the accused that he did not submit the application (Ex.PX4) before PS NDLS, is not sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution. The accused has not denied either his signatures or handwriting on the application (Ex.PX4) submitted at PS NDLS on the basis of which, NCR bearing no. 1412/06 was registered on 13.08.2006. The accused has also failed to deny his signatures at the back side of NCR bearing no. 1412/06 dated 13.08.2006 (Ex. PX5), which clearly constitutes his acknowledgement. Thus, in the given circumstances, it is safe to conclude that the accused used the NCR bearing no.
Page 14 of 21FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road 1412/06 dated 13.08.2006 regarding loss of his ID card, to his advantage, for gaining unlawful entry into the Air Force Station on 11.05.2007 and that the said NCR was ultimately seized from him. Moreover, it appears to be highly unlikely that the NCR bearing no. 1412/06 dated 13.08.2006 (Ex. PX5), pertaining to at least 9 months prior to the date of incident, was falsely planted upon the accused by the prosecution.
19. Though the accused did raise the defence that the case of the prosecution ought to be rejected for the reason that no public witness was made part of the investigation. However, this argument alone is not sufficient to throw an otherwise reliable case of the prosecution. This is because, the place where the accused was apprehended after having made unlawful entry, was an Air Force Station, which is not a public place and accordingly, the presence of public persons at the site of apprehension is highly unlikely. At this point, reference may be had to Pramod Kumar vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi (01.07.2013 - SC) : AIR 2013 SC 3344 wherein the following observations were made:
"The witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachably of their testimony. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh 1988 Supp SCC 686, State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652 and Ramjee Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar (2006) 13 SCC 229, has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana 2013 AIR SCW 3102 that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."
20. In the present case, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses had an inherent flow, which is possible from natural witnesses only. Further, the defence of the Page 15 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road accused is not tenable and is liable to be rejected because, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which is consistent, cogent and reliable. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the accused gained unlawful entry into the Air Force Station on 11.05.2007, on the strength of a false NCR [Ex.PX1] dated 13.08.2006, PS NDLS regarding the loss of his I-card with the intention to cause annoyance to the Air Force officers. Hence, the accused Rajeev Ranjan is convicted for the offence under Sec. 448 IPC.
OFFENCE OF PERSONATING A PUBLIC SERVANT
21. The prosecution has also charged the accused for the offence under Sec. 170 IPC. In order to establish the offence under Section 170 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused pretended to hold any particular office as public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personated any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character, the accused did or attempted to do any act under colour of such office.
22. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the following facts have so far been proved by the prosecution :
(a) That an NCR bearing no. 1412/06 [Ex.PX5] dated 13.08.2006, was got registered at the instance of the accused at PS NDLS vide handwritten application of the accused (Ex.PX4) pretending to be an air force official, who lost his documents including his ID Card.
(b) That on the basis of the aforesaid NCR bearing no. 1412/06 [Ex.PX5] dated 13.08.2006, the accused unlawfully trespassed into the Air Force Station on 11.05.2007, by way of falsely representing to the air force officials/prosecution witnesses PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7 that he is an Air Force personnel posted at 7 squadron, Air Force.
(c) That the laminated copy of the aforesaid NCR (Ex.PX1) carried by the accused on Page 16 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road the date of the incident, was seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B.
23. Additionally, the prosecution, by way of the correspondence dated 29.02.2008 Ex. PW2/F (OSR) issued by the Central Airmen Selection Board, has also proved that the no person by the name of Rajeev Ranjan (accused) was enrolled at the Indian Air Force. The said document has remained unrebutted by the accused. In fact, it is an undisputed fact in the trial that the accused was not an Indian Air Force Officer, and despite the said fact, he has been unable to account for the possession of the laminated copy of NCR bearing no. 1412/06 (Ex.PX1) that describes him as an Air Force official, who lost his documents including ID card on 13.08.2006, ie., at least 9 months prior to the date of the incident. The seizure of the said NCR bearing no. 1412/06 (Ex.PX1) is itself suggestive of the mens rea or the knowledge of the accused to commit the instant crime of pretence to hold the office of a public servant and to commit trespass under the colour of such office.
24. Thus, it stands proved on record that on 11.05.2007, the accused Rajeev Ranjan, pretended to be an Air Force Official, despite knowing that he does not hold such office, and falsely represented to air force officials - PW2/Complainant Sh. Rajvant Singh, PW3/Subodh Kumar Singh, PW4/Gopal Ajay Kumar, PW5/Corporal SK Singh and PW7/Ajay Kumar, that he is an Air Force official, who had lost his ID Card reported vide NCR bearing no. 1412/06 [Ex.PX5] dated 13.08.2006, PS NDLS and under the colour of such office, he unlawfully trespassed into the Air Force Station on 11.05.2007. Accordingly, the accused Rajeev Ranjan stands convicted of the offence under Sec. 170 IPC.
OFFENCE OF USING A FORGED DOCUMENT AS GENUINE
25. Section 471 IPC reads that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any documents which he knows or has reasons to believe to be forged shall be Page 17 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road punished in the same manner as if he had forged such documents. Section 470 IPC defines a forged document made by the forgery. The term 'forgery' is defined in section 463 IPC which reads as - whoever makes any false document with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim for title or to cause any person to part with the property or to enter into express or implied contract, or with the intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 IPC defines making of false documents. The condition precedent for the offence U/s 471 IPC is the commission of forgery. If the section 464 IPC be read carefully then, a false document (referred to in Section 463 IPC) can be categorized in three categories:
(a)The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other persons, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
(b)The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
(c)The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) soundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
26. Thus, a person is stated to have made a forged document if he made or executed a document claiming to someone else or authorized by someone else; or ii) he altered or tampered a document; or iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception or from a person not in control of his senses.
27. In the present facts and circumstances, the accused submitted an Page 18 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road application (Ex. PX4), which led to the registration of NCR bearing no. 1412/06 [Ex.PX5] dated 13.08.2006, at PS NDLS. The said application (Ex. PX4) was signed by the accused claiming to be an Air Force Official of the 7th Squadron unit, at Gwalior, reporting the loss of his documents including ID Card. Although it is the case of the prosecution that there is no actual air force official by the name of Rajeev Ranjan enrolled with the Indian Air Force, however by way of signing in the capacity of Air Force official Rajeev Ranjan, the accused assumed an authority which he did not have and caused it to be believed that the application (Ex. PX4) was preferred by some other person, by whom he knew it was not made. The act of the accused led to the registration of NCR bearing no. 1412/06 [Ex.PX5] dated 13.08.2006, at PS NDLS, based upon false facts. Since the accused was not the one who wrote or registered the NCR bearing no. 1412/06 [Ex.PX5] dated 13.08.2006, at PS NDLS, therefore, he cannot be made liable for forgery, however, since the accused used the carbon copy [Ex.PX1] of the said NCR bearing no. 1412/06 [Ex.PX5] dated 13.08.2006, registered at PS NDLS, on false facts, as genuine, for securing entry into the Air Force Station on 11.05.2007, then the act of the accused must fall under Sec. 471 IPC, for the use of a forged document as genuine. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, the accused Rajeev Ranjan stands convicted for the offence under Sec. 471 IPC.
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 140 IPC
28. Section 140 punishes the wearing of the dress of a soldier, sailor or airman, with a view to inducing others to believe that he is in the 'service' at the relevant time. So merely wearing a soldier's garb without the specific intention, does not amount to an offence under Sec. 140. Thus, it punishes those who personate soldiers, sailors or airmen. It states as under:
Section 140. Wearing grab or carrying token used by soldier, sailor or airman-
Whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman in the Military, Naval or Air service of the Government of India, wears any garb or carries any to- ken resembling any gab or token used by such a soldier, sailor or airman with the intention that it may be believed that he is such a soldier, sailor Page 19 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road or airman shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may ex- tend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
29. Although it may have been proved by the prosecution that the accused trespassed into the Air Force Station on 11.05.2007 and falsely pretended to be an Air Force official, however, for the offence under Section 140 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused also wore the garb of a public servant. In this regard, the prosecution has brought on record seizure memo of the clothes of the accused Ex. PW2/I including a T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo.
30. However, the seizure memo Ex. PW2/I has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. This is because, PW2/Complainant Sh. Ranjvant Singh, who is cited as a witness to the said seizure memo Ex. PW2/I, has failed to remember whether the T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo were seized from the accused in his presence. Upon production of the case property ie., a stapled plastic bag containing one T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo (Ex.CP1), PW2/Complainant Sh. Ranjvant Singh stated he was not sure if the clothes were seized from the accused on 12.05.2007. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo in the manner alleged by the prosecution. That being said, the benefit arising out of a doubtful recovery of case property must necessarily go to the accused.
31. Further, PW8/IO Inspector Dhananjay has admitted in his cross- examination that the accused was not wearing the T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo at the time when he was produced before him by the complainant and that the aforesaid uniform was carried by the complainant. Although the complainant, during the course of his testimony, has produced photographs mark P1, P2 and P3 showing the accused to be wearing the said uniform, however those photographs have not been Page 20 of 21 FIR No.102/2007 (State vs. Rajeev Ranjan.) PS Tughlak Road proved on record as per the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. No certificate under Sec. 65 B Indian Evidence Act has been placed on record by the complainant/PW2 Rajwant, nor have the negatives been produced. It is pertinent to note that such photographs have not been made part of the chargesheet either. Also no other prosecution witness has corroborated the version of the complainant to the extent that the accused was also wearing a T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo at the time of the incident. No CCTV has been produced by the prosecution either. Accordingly, for the failure of prosecution to prove that the accused was wearing a T-shirt and vest bearing Air Force Logo, at the time of trespass into the Air Force Station, the accused is acquitted for the offence under Sec. 140 IPC.
CONCLUSION
32. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the accused namely Rajeev Ranjan S/o Sh. Kant Sharma is hereby CONVICTED of the offences under Sec. 448/170/471 IPC and is ACQUITTED for the offence under Sec. 140 IPC.
33. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convict. Be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Pronounced in open court on 24.12.2024 in presence of the accused. This judgement contains 21 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed ISHA by ISHA SINGH Date:
SINGH 18:43:19 2024.12.24 +0530 (Isha Singh) JMFC-03/PHC/ND/24.12.2024 Page 21 of 21