Delhi District Court
State vs . Yogender & Ors. on 18 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:ACMM-02
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. Yogender & Ors.
FIR No. 90/2003
New Case No. 289515/16
U/s : 420/467/468/120B IPC
P.S. : Gulabi Bagh
Date of Institution : 24.05.2003
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 18.01.2019
Date of judgment : 18.01.2019
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 90/2003
2.Date of the Commission : 28.02.2003
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : (1) Yogender
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad,
R/o H. No. G-12, Gali No. 12, Gaon
Wazirabad, Delhi.
(2) Pradeep
S/o Sh. Bhikhari Dass
R/o Village Nawada, District Gautam
Budh Nagar, Thana Dhankor, U.P.
(3) Mange Ram (Trial qua him
separated vide order dated
06.07.2009.)
FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.1 /26
(4) Ashok Kumar (Proceedings qua
already abated vide order dated
14.02.2011.)
4.Offence complained of : 420/467/468/120B IPC
5.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6.Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 28.02.2003 accused Yogender alongwith other co-accused persons namely Pradeep, Ashok (stood abated vide order dated 14.02.2011) and Mange Ram (Trial separated vide order dated 06.07.2009) entered into a criminal conspiracy i.e. to do an illegal act to forge the documents showing the same to be issued by All India Board of Secondary Education which was a fake Board and to sell such documents to different persons including the decoy witnesses. On that day at about 02:25 PM at H. No. 70, Gali No. 17, Village Gopal Pur, accused Yogender and Pradeep induced the decoy witness to deliver money on the pretext of providing genuine educational documents in the name of Anil Kumar and consequently Rs. 1000/- were delivered to accused Yogender and similarly accused Ashok had also induced one Mohd. Arif to provide Tenth pass certificate to him and consequently Rs. 5,000/- were delivered to accused Yogender but the certificate provided by accused Yogender was found fake and thereby all accused persons committed forgery of various educational documents FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.2 /26 for cheating and thereby they have committed offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/120B of IPC.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charges of offences under section 420/467/468/120B of IPC were framed against all the accused persons namely Yogender, Pradeep, Ashok and Mange Ram and the charge was duly explained to them in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 28.06.2004. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in total.
4. PW-2 ASI Subhash Chand deposed that on 28.02.2003 Inspector Nand Kumar was having an information that one Mange Ram Acharya who was in Jail for cheating and forgery through his associates Yogender @ Yogi and Pradeep by supplying educational documents. Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted under the supervision of Inspector Nand Kumar which included himself, HC Ashok, Ct. Sunil, Anil, Arvind W/HC Jyoti, HC Madan Lal etc. and reached at Village Gopal Pur in the Govt. vehicle at around 12:45 PM. All the members of the raiding party were briefed and 5/7 public persons were asked to join the raiding party but none agreed. Ct. Anil was made a decoy customer and after his personal search he was given few currency notes of Rs. 500/- each after noting the numbers vide handing over memo Ex. PW2/A bearing his FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.3 /26 signature at point A. Thereafter, he was sent to the school i.e. Acharya Mangat Ram Vishva Vidya Peeth at Village Gopal Pur and he was instructed by the Inspector to struck a deal to obtain the educational documents. He was sent there at 01:10 PM and he returned back at 01:30 PM and he told that he has struck a deal with Yogender @ Yogi and he has demanded Rs. 4,000/- for 3rd division certificate, Rs. 7,000/- for 2nd demand Rs. 10,000/- for Ist class, and he had given Rs. 1,000/- as advance for a certificate of Ist Class and accused Yogender had asked to come after half an hour to take delivery. He was again sent at 02:05 PM at the said school and at 02:25 PM he made a signal after collecting the and he made a signal and they all reached there. Accused Yogender and Pradeep were apprehended. The certificate and migration certificate in the name of Anil S/o Azad Singh and taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW2/B and from the pocket of accused Pradeep Kumar above said two currency note of Rs. 500/- were recovered and the same were sealed with the seal of NK and seized vide memo Ex. PW2/C. In the meantime, SI Rajnish from PS Timar Pur also reached there and search of said Vidya Peeth were conducted and large number of documents in different names, type writers, photostat machines and computer printer etc. were recovered and seized vide memo Ex. PW2/D bearing his signature at point A. One sample of each type of documents were taken and remaining articles were put in ten plastic bags and sealed with the seal of NP and seal after use handed over to Ct. Anil. Thereafter, he prepared tehrir Ex. PW2/E bearing his signature at point A and it was sent to PS Timar Pur through Ct. Anil Kumar for registration of case. Thereafter SI Sajjan Singh reached at the spot and he had conducted further investigation and he prepared the site plan at his instance vide memo Ex.
FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.4 /26PW2/F. Specimen of the recovered typewriter were also obtained on some sheets. The samples of seized documents are Ex. P1 to Ex. P38 and the prospectus is Ex. P39. The documents seized from the decoy which was obtained from the accused are Ex P40 to Ex. P42. Two currency notes of Rs. 500/- are Ex. P43 and Ex. P44 which was recovered from accused Pradeep. The case property is Ex. P45 to Ex. P54 (colly).
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel however his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
5. PW-3 Sh. Kapil Kumar deposed that in the year 2002 he could not qualify his 12th class examination and wanted to continue his studies and did not want to waste one year. Accused Yogender mis- represented that he would get him passed in 12 th Examination. Some other person gave him the certificate of 12 th class pass and in lieu thereof he had paid Rs. 6,000/-.
This witness was not cross-examined by the defence counsel despite opportunity given.
6. PW-4 ASI Ran Singh deposed that on 28.02.2003 he was working as Duty Officer in PS Timar Pur. On that day rukka was sent by ASI Subhash Chand through Ct. Anil Kumar and on the basis of the rukka he recovered the FIR of the case and the correct carbon copy of the same is Ex. PW4/A. These witnesses were not cross-examined by the defence counsel despite opportunity given.
FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.5 /267. PW-5 Ct. Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 01.03.2003 he was posted in Anti Robbery Section, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, Delhi. On that day, he joined the investigation of this case alongwith SI Sajjan Singh. At about 09:00 AM, accused persons namely Yogender and Pradeep were removed from the lock up of PS R.K. Puram and they were interrogated in his presence. IO also recorded their two separate disclosure statements and obtained specimen handwriting of accused Yogender. At about 05:30 PM, one Mohd. Arif alongwith his brother namely Yaya, R/o Mohammadnasa, Distt. Bijnore, U.P. came to their office and he produced five fake certificates to the IO which were took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. The documents are Ex. P1 to P5 colly. The specimen signatures of accused Yogender was taken in his presence which is Ex. P6 to Ex. P10. On 29.03.2003 they both went to Village Ismail Siwala Kalan, Bijnore, U.P. where they made the search of Modern Public School and took into possession of one signboard and two rubber stamps of Modern Public School, Siwala Kalan. The rubber stamps were sealed with the seal of SSY and the same were sealed vide Ex. PW5/B. Accused Ashok was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex. PW5/C bearing his signature at point A. IO also obtained the specimen of the stamps on five plain papers which is Ex. P11 to Ex. P15. On 30.03.2003, the specimen signature of accused Ashok Kumar on five plain pages in his presence vide memo Ex. PW5/D. IO also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ashok Kumar which is Ex. PW5/E. On the next day i.e. 31.03.2003, he alongwith SI Sajjan Singh came at Tis Hazari Courts and IO recorded another disclosure statement of accused Ashok Kumar. Accused Mange Ram was also interrogated and arrested FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.6 /26 by the IO vide memo Ex. PW5/F. Accused Mange Ram made pointing out of the houses of two accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar Sukhbir which is situated at Bilaspur, U.P vide memo Ex. PW5/G and Ex. PW5/H. On 01.04.2003, a supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ashok Kumar was recorded by the IO in his presence. On 08.04.2003, one Kapil Kumar also came at their office and produced three fake certificates which was given by accused Pradeep and Sukhbir for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. All three certificates were taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex. PW3/A and the certificates are Ex. P16 to Ex. P18 and the seals are Ex. P19, Ex. P20 and signboard is Ex. P21.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel, however his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
8. PW-6 Inspector Nand Kumar and PW-7 HC Ashok and PW-9 Ct. Anil Kumar deposed that on 28.02.2003, they were having information to the effect that one Mange Ram Acharya who was running in JC at that period of time, was indulged in preparation of forged marksheets/degrees of various courses alongwith his associates namely Yogender@ Yogi, Pradeep and one Sukhbir and they are cheating by supplied the forged eduction documents to the public. A raiding team was constituted under the supervision comprising Inspector Nand Kumar constiting of ASI Subhash Chand, HC Ashok, HC Madan, Ct. Anil, Ct. Snil, Ct. Arvind etc and proceeded from crime branch office at about 11:35 AM and reached at about 12:45 PM at Village Gopalpur, Delhi. Inspector Nand Kumar asked 4-5 public persons to join the raiding party FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.7 /26 and also briefed them the purpose of raid but none agreed to join and left the spot showing their inability. Thereafter, Inspector Nand Kumar had given Ct. Anil Kumar, decoy customer, two notes of Rs. 500/- each vide handing over memo Ex. PW2/A. Instructions were given to Ct. Anil Kumar to approach Incharge of Acharya Mangat Ram Peeth, Gopalpur to strike a deal to obtain certificate of All Indian Board of Secondary Education. The same was done by Ct. Anil Kumar and he informed that one Yogender had demanded Rs. 4,000/- for a third division degree, Rs. 7,000/- for a Second Division decree and Rs. 10,000/- for First Division degree. Thereafter, Ct. Anil was again sent to collect the educational documents and at 02:05 PM when he reached the spot of collection he gave a signal towards the raiding party and accused Yogender and Pradeep Kumar were found present there as they had come to hand over the fake degree to Ct. Anil Kumar. Both accused persons were apprehended and all forged certificates were taken into possession by ASI Subhash Chand vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B and Ex. P40 to Ex. P42. On formal search of accused Pradeep, two currency notes of Rs 500/-denomination were recovered from the backside right pocket of the blue colour jeans which he was wearing and the currency notes were put in an envelop and sealed with the seal of NK and the pullanda was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/C. Thereafter, H. No. 700, Gali No. 17, Village Gupalpur was searched and a large number of fake marksheet, certificates degrees etc. alongwith photostat machines, typewriters, printer were recovered from the said house. All the recovered educational certificate and typewriter etc. were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/D and the seal was handed over to Ct. Anil after use. Thereafter, rukka was prepared by ASI Subhash Chand and it was handed over to FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.8 /26 Ct. Anil for getting the case registered at PS Timar Pur. Ct. Anil got the present case FIR registered. Thereafter, SI Sajjan Singh reached the spot and he prepared the site plan and obtained the specimen signature of the accused on 8 plain sheets which are Ex. PW6/A1 to Ex. PW6/A8 which were taken into possession by seizure memo Ex. PW6/B. Both accused persons were arrested by SI Sajjan Singh and he recorded the statement of Inspector Nand Kumar. The mark sheet prepared by accused persons in the name of Ct. Anil is Ex. PW9/A, the certificate is Ex. PW9/B and migration certificate is Ex. PW9/C. PW- 6 & PW-7 was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel however, their cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. PW-9 was not cross examined by the defence counsel despite opportunity given.
9. PW-8 ASI Ansh Kumar deposed that on 01.03.2003, he was posted as HC in Anti Robbery Section of Crime branch on that day he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith SI Sajjan Singh. On that day, accused Yoginder and Pradeep were taken out from the lock up and interrogated and their disclosure statement was recorded by the IO in his presence. The specimen signatures of accused Yoginder Ex. PW8/C to Ex. PW8/G were also obtained by the IO and the same were seized vide memo Ex. PW8/G all bearing his signatures at point A. IO also recorded his statement and disclosure memo of accused Yoginder which is Ex. PW8/A and disclosure statement of accused Pradeep is Ex. PW8/B. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.9 /26 brevity.
10. PW-10 Mohd. Arif and PW-11 Mohd. Yahiya deposed that in the year 2001 Mohd. Arif failed in his 9 th Class examination and met one Ashok Kumar who used to run a school affiliated with All India Board of Secondary Education and assured him that he will help him in clearing the Secondary examination if he paid him Rs. 10,000/-. Mohd. Arif informed his brother Mohd. Yahiya and he alongwith his brother met Ashok Kumar and Rs. 5,000/- was given as advance to Ashok Kumar. Thereafter, the remaining Rs. 5,000/- was paid to Ashok Kumar after the mark sheet, migration certificate and character certificate were provided. In the year 2003, during the process of scrutiny of documents during an Army Recruitment, the documents were found to be bogus and this fact was informed by him to his brother and when they tried to recontact Ashok Kumar it was found that his office had been closed. Complaint in this regard was made to PS Timarpur and his statement was recorded and he handed over the original mark sheet Ex. PW10/A, Migration Certificate Ex. PW10/B and Certificate of Secondary School Examination 2002 Ex. PW10/C to the IO and the said documents were seized by the IO vide memo already Ex. PW5/A. These witnesses were not cross-examined by the defence counsel despite opportunity given.
11. PW-12 Inspector Rajnish deposed that on 28.02.2003 he was posted as SI at PS Timarpur and at about 02:30 PM while being on patrolling duty he received information that crime team had conducted a raid at H. No. 17/700 and he went to the said house and met ASI FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.10 /26 Subhash Chand and also found accused Pradeep and Yogender. On the said house being searched various documents and hardware material for forging documents were recovered by the IO from the said house and the same were sealed with the seal of NK vide memo already Ex. PW2/D. He also identified the case property Ex. P1 to Ex. P54. On 28.02.2003 at about 02:30 PM, he was on patrolling at Gopalpur and he got the information that at H. No. 17/700, crime team had conducted a raid and he went there and in his presence SI Subhash Chand searched the said house and found huge quantity of blank certificate of 10th, 12th, BA, B. Com, B. Sc, LLB, MBBS, JBT, B. Pharma and PhD,, typewriter, fax machine, photostat etc and sealed the same in his presence with the seal of NK. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite opportunity given.
12. PW-13 SI Om Prakash deposed that on 08.05.2003 IO handed over him one sealed envelop duly sealed with the seal of SSY and a printed letter bearing No. 92/50/DCP/EOW/Crime dated 23.04.2003 and forwarding letter No. 202 dated 03.05.2003 to deposit the same with GEQD, Chandigarh. After depositing the same, he handed over the receipt bearing No. CX-102/2003 dated 09.05.2003 to IO.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
13. PW-14 Ct. Sri Bhagwan deposed that on 31.03.2003 he was posted as Ct. with 6th Battalion, DAP and was attached to 3 rd Battalion, DAP and his duty was at OD Lock UP. On that day, he took accused FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.11 /26 Mange Ram and produced before Sh. J.P.S. Malik, Ld. ACMM, Room NO. 37, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. IO took the permission from the court for interrogation of accused Mange Ram. IO arrested the accused Mange Ram and also conducted his personal search.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
14. PW-15 ASI Hanish Suri has proved the original DD No. 6, Anti Robbery Cell, R.K. Puram dated 28.02.2003 vide Ex. PW15/A. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
15. PW-16 Raj Kumar Singh deposed that on 29.03.2003 IO came to PS Shivala Kalan and they went to Modern Public School of accused Ashok Kumar where IO seized some seals, school Board vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. IO arrested accused Ashok Kumar vide arrest memo Ex. PW16/A bearing his signature at point A. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
16. PW-17 Inspector Sajjan Singh deposed that on 28.02.2003 he was posted as SI in Anti Robbery Cell, Crime Branch, Sector-8, R.K. Puram, Delhi. On that day, as per the directions of the Inspector Nand Kumar he reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 700, Street No. 17, Village Gopal Pur, PS Timar Pur at about 09:00 PM where Inspector Nand Kumar, ASI Subhash Chand were present alongwith other staff and FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.12 /26 present accused persons. ASI Subhash Kumar handed over him both accused persons alongwith memos and seizure memos and case property. After sometime, Ct. Anil Kumar came at the spot and handed over him the original rukka which already Ex. PW2/E and copy of FIR which is already Ex. PW4/A. At the instance of ASI Subhash, he prepared the site plan which already Ex. PW2/F bearing his signature at point A. ASI Subhash Kumar handed over him memo handing over currency notes which is already Ex. PW2/A, seizure memo certificates produced by the decoy customer which is already Ex. PW2/B alongwith certificates. Seizure memo of currency notes which already Ex. PW2/C alongwith sealed envelop containing currency notes recovered from the accused persons. Seizure memo of articles and blank certificate of various course and Universities which are already Ex. PW2/D alongwith 36 types of blank certificates and different articles put in the plastic bags and sealed with seal of NK. He also seized the printed specimen from the typewriter vide memo Ex. PW-17/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he arrested both the accused persons and prepared their separate arrest memo, boarding inspection memo and personal search memo. Personal search memo of accused Pradeep Kumar is Ex. PW17/B bearing his signature at point A. Arrest memo of accused Pradeep Kumar is Ex. PW17/C bearing his signature at point A. Body inspection memo of accused Pradeep Kumar is Ex. PW17/D bearing his signature at point A. Personal search memo of accused Yogender is Ex. PW17/E bearing his signature at point A. Arrest memo of accused Yogender Singh is Ex. PW17/F bearing his signature at point A. Body Inspection memo of accused Yogender is Ex. PW17/G bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Inspector Nand Kumar, ASI FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.13 /26 Subhas Kumar, HC Ashok Kumar and Ct. Anil Kumar under Section 161 Cr. PC. On next day, he recorded the disclosure statement of both accused persons which are already Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he also taken the specimen handwriting of accused Yogender Prasad on separate five sheets vide memo already Ex PW8/H bearing his signature at point B. In the evening of that day i.e. 01.03.2003, one of the victims namely Mohd. Arif alongwith his elder brother Mohd. Yahiya came to his office and also produced the fake certificates given to him by these accused persons. He took those certificate in police possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point D. He also recorded the statements of victim Mohd. Arif and his brother Mohd. Yahiya under Section 161 Cr. PC. He also took the 10 photographs alongwith negatives of the building used by the accused persons which are placed on file containing the name of the fake board which are Ex. PW17/H. On 29.03.2003, he arrested another accused namely Ashok Kumar vide memo already Ex. PW16/A bearing his signature at point B, who was running a school in the name of Modern Public School at Sivala, Distt. Bijnor, U.P. who had issued a fake certificates to victim Mohd. Arif. Personal search of accused Ashok Kumar is already Ex. PW5/C bearing his signature at point B. Body inspection memo of accused Ashok Kumar is Ex. PW17/I bearing his signature at point A. He seized two rubber stamps of Modern Public School and one Board of the same school vide memo already Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point C. He also recorded three disclosure statements of accused Ashok Kumar which is already Ex. PW5/D bearing his signature at point B, Ex. PW17/J and Ex. PW17/K bearing his signature at point A. He also arrested the main accused namely Mange FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.14 /26 Ram on 31.03.2003 vide arrest memo already Ex. PW5/F bearing his signature at point B. Accused Mange Ram pointed out the house of his associate Pradeep Kumar @ 47 at village Khanpur, Distt. Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. Pointing out memo was prepared which is already Ex. PW5/G bearing his signature at point B. He also pointed out the house of his another associate namely Sukhbir at his village Bilaspur, Distt. Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. and the pointing out memo was prepared which is already Ex. PW5/H bearing his signature at point B. On 08.04.2003, an another victim Kapil Kumar came to his office and produced the fake certificates given to him by the present accused persons which were taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW3/A bearing my signature at point B. He also recorded the statement of victim Kapil Kumar under Section 161 Cr. PC. Thereafter, he sent the questioned documents for comparison at Government Questioned Examiner Document, Chandigarh through ASI Om Prakash. Thereafter, chargesheet of the case was prepared by Inspector Chander Kant.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
17. As all witnesses were examined by the prosecution, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 01.11.2018. Statement of the accused persons namely Yogender and Pradeep U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 26.11.2018 and as no defence evidence was lead, matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on 18.01.2019.
FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.15 /2618. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
19. The prosecution has alleged commission of offences u/s 420/467/468/120B IPC.
20. Before appreciating the testimony of the above mentioned witnesses, it is necessary to list out the essential ingredient of Sections 420/120-B IPC, which are as follows:
Essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are as follows:
(1) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security;
(2) Or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
21. In order to analyze the guilt of accused persons for commission of offence of forgery, it would be pertinent to understand the necessary ingredients of offence of 'Forgery' by referring to the relevant statutory provisions.
22. Offence of forgery is statutorily defined under Section 463 IPC. It is FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.16 /26 reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"Section 463 of IPC: Forgery- Whoever makes any false document 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."
23. Perusal of section 463 reveals that preparation of a false document is the foremost necessary ingredient for commission of the offence of forgery. False documents is statutorily defined under Section 464 IPC which is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"Section 464 of IPC: Making of false document- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- Firstly- Who dishonestly, or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.17 /26 signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed,executed or affixed; or Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration;or Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of alteration."
24. Evidently accused persons cannot be convicted for the offence of forgery unless the prosecution is able to prove the preparation of false documents.
FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.18 /2625. Now I move on to analyse the material available on record for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC.
26. The offence of criminal conspiracy is statutorily defined under Section 120A IPC. Section 120A IPC is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
Section 120A Definition of Criminal Conspiracy- "When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. "
27. The necessary ingredients required to bring home charge for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy is enlisted herein as under:-
(A) That there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire:
(B) That the agreement should be: (i) for doing of an illegal act, or (ii) for doing by illegal means an act which may not itself be illegal.
28. I accordingly propose to analyse the prosecution evidence with FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.19 /26 respect to the above said ingredients.
(A) Agreement between parties The gist of the offence of conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. To constitute conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition. The existence of an unlawful agreement is the sine qua non for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy.
However, it is a settled proposition of law that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. Direct evidence for the offence of conspiracy is seldom forthcoming.
29. Coleridge, J. while summing up the case to the jury in R Vs Murphy (1873) 173 ER 502 states:
"...... although the common design is the root of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that these two parties came together and actually agreed in terms to have this common design and to pursue it by common means, and so to carry it into execution. This is not necessary, because in many cases of the most clearly established conspiracies there are no means of proving any such thing, and neither law nor common sense requires that it should be proved. If you find that these two persons pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.20 /26 performing one part of an act, and the other another part of the same act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing, you will be at liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. The question you have to ask yourselves is, had they this common design, and did they pursue it by these common means- the design being unlawful?"
30. In order to prove its case qua cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, the prosecution has relied upon the complaint of ASI Subhash Chand who stated that while he was posted in Anti Robbery Cell, Crime Branch, Inspector Nand Kumar obtained an information that accused Mange Ram Acharya (Trial qua his has been separated) was in custody at that time was indulging in cheating and forgery through his associates namely Yogender @ Yogi and Pradeep. He alleged that they cheated the public persons by supplying forged educational documents and after this information verified and confirmed, a raiding party under the supervision of Inspector Nand Kumar was constituted. The raiding party reached at Village Gopalpur in a Government vehicle at around 12:45 PM as per PW-2 ASI Subhash Chand and even through public persons were asked to join the raid however, none agreed. It is the version of the prosecution that accused Yoginder and Pradeep who are facing trial in the present matter were apprehended after deal was struck with the decoy customer for handing over the certificate and migration certificate in the name of Anil S/o Sh. Azad Singh. It was further deposed that Ct. Anil was made a FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.21 /26 decoy customer and he was sent to Acharya Mangat Ram Vishwa Vidhyapeet, Village Gopalpur and was instructed to strike the deal to obtain educational documents. The deal was struck and it was agreed that the documents be collected after about ½ hour. The decoy customer went to collect the migration certificate and other documents which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/B and the money handed over to accused Pradeep Kumar was recovered and sealed with the seal of NK vide memo Ex. PW2/C both bearing signatures of PW-2 ASI Subhash Chand at point A. Thereafter, the search of the entire premises was conducted and a large number of educational documents, typewriters, photostat machines and computer etc. were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/D. The various other articles and documents were sealed with the seal of NP and the seal was handed over after use to Ct. Anil. PW-2 ASI Subhash Chand deposed that tehrir ws sent to PS Timarpur through Ct. Anil for registration of case and thereafter SI Sajjan Singh being IO reached the spot and conducted further investigation.
31. Qua accused Pradeep it was argued by the Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Abhishek Kumar that the identity of the accused is itself disputed and he pointed out that the original chargesheet qua accused Pradeep stating his particulars to be S/o Sh. Bhikhari Prasad R/o Nawada, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. In this regard, Ld. Defence counsel also pointed out to the statement of CW-1 ASI Sukhbir qua accused Pradeep Kumar who stated that the particulars of accused Pradeep to be S/o Sh. Gian Singh R/o Village Khanpur, PS Kamra, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. It ws argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.22 /26 accused Pradeep Kumar and differences in his parentage and residential address.
32. On the contrary, the prosecution witness who are all police officials have correctly identified accused Pradeep to be the present who were arrested by SI Sajjan Kumar at the time of the raid. Even through the prosecution has tried to fill in the loopholes. However, it has failed to prove this case qua accused Pradeep and Yogender who were allegedly arrested on the basis of information received qua co-accused Mange Ram who was in custody at the relevant time. It has not been shown by the prosecution as to how the said information was received from the accused Mange Ram on the basis of which information the raid was conducted. It is the case of the prosecution that the entire reading team went to Village Gopalpur and Acharya Mangat Ram Vishwa Vidyapeeth. However, no photographs of the premises were taken, no videography of the raid was conducted. It is not possible as if entire educational premises only had 2 persons namely accused Yogender and Pradeep present. Since it was an educational institution there must have been other staff members and public persons present at the time of raid. It remained unexplained as to how not even a single public persons were joined in the raid. Even otherwise the public persons who have been examined as PW-3, PW-10 and PW-11 have resiled from their original statements. PW-3 Kapil refused to identify either of the accused persons and also denied that he went to village Gopalpur in December 2002 and or that he met accused Pradeep or that accused Pradeep misrepresented that he would have given a genuine certificate of 12th Class.
FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.23 /2633. PW-10 Mohd. Arif and PW-11 Yahiya only deposed about accused Ashok Kumar who has since expired did not depose anything about accused Pradeep or accused Yogender. Another prosecution witness Rajender has not been examined.
34. No verification has been done by the prosecution qua educational institution namely Acharya Mangat Ram Vishwa Vidyapeeth. No documents as regards its ownership or the ownership of the land at which it was constructed has been filed. No information has been collected as to the numbers of years since the said institute was being run. The prosecution is completely silent on the verification of the existence of the said premises in village Gopalpur. PW-1 Satyabir who is another public witness also resiled from his original statement and only stated that one board was taken by the police in its possession. He even denied the suggestion that the said school was being run by the accused Ashok Kumar. On the contrary he stated that the said school was run by one Madam Saroj. He did not identify the seals seized in his presence.
35. Even otherwise the prosecution has not been able to prove that the seized articles such as printer, photostat machines and other documents were prepared by the computers and printers which were taken into possession. The investigating officer did not send the printers and other articles to FSL to connect the documents with the hardware recovered.
36. As per GEQD opinion relied upon by the prosecution, few stamps and questioned documents Q3, Q1, Q6 and Q7. However, in light FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.24 /26 of all the missing connecting links of conspiracy, the accused persons cannot be convicted only on the basis of GEQD which is also not a full proof evidence against the accused persons. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused persons were in conspiracy with each other. No mobile phones were seized. No call details were obtained to establish conspiracy between the accused persons. The prosecution has not been able to prove as to how the main accused namely Mange Ram was conspiring with accused Ashok Kumar (since expired), Yogender and Pradeep to run racket of production of false documents and their supply.
37. Even the preparation of false documents or forgery has not been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The hardware articles seized by the IO were never sent for any examination for connecting them to the mark sheets etc. which were seized.
38. All the public witnesses who allegedly obtained fake mark sheets/certificates etc. resiled from their original statement and refused to identify the accused persons. No other public witness were joined in investigation. Even otherwise, the police officials have been contradicted each other in the material particulars. PW-2 ASI Subhash Chand deposed that the premises to be single storied whereas PW-17 IO Inspector Sajjan Singh stated that the premises to be double storied.
39. Thus on the basis of above mentioned reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused persons cheated the complainants for preparing false documents in conspiracy with each FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.25 /26 other and thus I have no hesitation in holding that there is no iota of evidence against accused Yogender and Pradeep in the instant matter to suggest that they were conspiring together or that they were forging any document and thus they both deserve to be acquitted.
40. It has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
41. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused persons namely Yogender and Pradeep are acquitted for the offence under Section 420/467/468/120B IPC for the charges levelled against them.
42. Ordered accordingly.
CHETNA Digitally signed by CHETNA
SINGH
Announced in the open SINGH Date: 2019.01.19 15:44:18
+0530
Court on 18.01.2019
(Chetna Singh)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/18.01.2019 FIR No. 90/2003 State Vs Yogender & Ors. PS: Timar Pur Page No.26 /26