Delhi District Court
State vs Kuldeep Singh Boprai on 7 November, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHDEEP CHAHAL
Metropolitan Magistrate01 : New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi.
FIR No.127/2005
P.S. : Connaught Place
Under Section : 420, 120B IPC
State Vs. Kuldeep Rai Boparai & Others
ID number of the case : 40933/2016 DLND020001542006
Date of commission of offence : January, 2004.
Date of institution of the case : 03.10.2006.
Name of the complainant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar,
S/o Shri Jagdish Kumar Sharma,
R/o H. No. 452, Pratap Bagh, Alwar, Rajasthan.
Name of accused and address : (1) Kuldeep Singh Boparai,
S/o Shri Surinder Singh,
R/o Village Riali Kalan, Tehsil Batala, District
Gurdaspur, Punjab.
(2) Harsh Deep @ Jaspal,
S/o Shri Charan Singh,
R/o VPO Hardenath Bala, P.S. Sadar, District Gurdaspur,
Punjab.
(3) Gorakh Nath Pahwa, S/o Shri Gulla Singh Pahwa, R/o
581, Kala Hashmi Shah Dhali Wasti Ram, Amritsar,
Punjab.
(4) Ranjit Singh, S/o Shri Charan Singh,
R/o VPO Shahali Pur, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur,
Punjab.
(5) Ashish Kumar, S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar,
R/o 19/223, Mandir Marg, New Delhi.
Offence complained of or : Under Sections : 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
proved 1860.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 07.11.2023.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 1/19
2
1.By this judgment, I shall decide the case of the prosecution filed against accused Ashish and Gorakh Nath Pahwa.
2. As per prosecution's version, in the month of January, 2004 and in the subsequent period, accused Ashish and Gorakh Nath Pahwa along with their associates, namely, Ranjit Singh, Harshdeep (since expired) and Kuldeep (since proclaimed person) hatched a criminal conspiracy by inducing complainant Rakesh Kumar and his friends, namely, Sanjay Kumar, Sarvesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Raj Kumar to pay Rs.1,75,000/ each along with their respective passports on the pretext of sending them abroad including USA, Azerbaijan and Netherland which they never intended to do and thus, they all cheated the complainant and his friends and committed an offence punishable under Section 420 and 120B of IPC.
3. After registration of case, accused Kuldeep and Gorakh Nath absconded and were declared proclaimed person. Though, accused Harshdeep had expired. Upon conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
4. Subsequently, accused Gorakh Nath was arrested and remanded to judicial custody by the concerned Court. Thereafter, he was enlarged on bail. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed against accused Gorakh Nath. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Court came to the conclusion that evidence on record is FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 2/19 3 sufficient qua accused Ashish and Gorakh Nath. Accordingly, charge under Section 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the period in which the accused was absconding, prosecution evidence was recorded in absence of the accused under Section 299 Cr.PC. In the evidence under Section 299 Cr.PC, Constable Ram Bhajan was examined.
6. Upon apprehension of the accused to prove its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses.
7. During his testimony PW1 Rakesh Kumar, S/o Shri Jagdish Kumar, R/o H. No. 452, Mohalla Pratap Bagh, District Alwar, Rajasthan deposed that sometime in the year 2003, he had visited Delhi and accused Kuldeep Singh, Yashpal Singh, Ranjit Singh, Ashish and one Pahwa had taken Rs.1,75,000/ approximately in cash for sending him Malaysia/Azerbaijan. Thereafter, they assured to send him Alaska. They all had promised to provide a job/employment in abroad but he was not given aforesaid job/employment as promised. He was made to visit Delhi time and again for about one year in connection with aforesaid promise/employment. Thereafter, he approached Ministry of Labour and inquired about the licence/authority of the said persons regarding their capacity and authority to send the people abroad in connection with aforesaid promise/employment. Upon inquiry, he was informed that as on date aforesaid persons had no valid and effective license/authority to FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 3/19 4 send people abroad. Thereafter, he visited Police Station Connaught Place and on being satisfied that they had played a trick upon him and had cheated the aforesaid amount and made to wander here and there, he made a complaint Ex. PW1/A. PW1 correctly identified accused Ashish in the Court. Though, identity of accused Ranjit Singh was not disputed.
8. Since, PW1 was resiling from his earlier statement, Ld. APP for State crossexamined him with prior permission of the Court. Upon pointing out, PW1 correctly identified accused Pahwa.
9. During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Ranjit Singh and Ashish, PW1 deposed that he had visited the office of accused persons not less than 150 times. He affirmed that there is no proof of payment made by him to accused persons. He further deposed that Kuldeep Singh was the owner of Travel Agency and all other persons were working there at the instance of Kuldeep Singh and he had his first conversation with Kuldeep Singh. He further affirmed that Kuldeep Singh and Yashpal were the only persons who had assured to send him aforesaid places for employment/job. He further deposed that his statement was recorded in Police Station Connaught Place and no other statement was recorded there in his presence. PW1 affirmed that police has not taken him to the office of Kuldeep Singh nor site plan of his office was prepared at his instance. He denied the suggestion that he has received full and final payment from Kuldeep Singh.
10. During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 4/19 5 Gorakh Nath Pahwa, PW1 deposed that he had reached office of Kuldeep Singh after getting reference of one Sardar Ji, who had met him in Jeri Vergese's Office in connection with employment/Visa. PW1 further deposed that during inquiry by the police officials, he had not handed over any proof regarding his visit to the office of Kuldeep Singh or even his visit from Alwar to Delhi. He further deposed that he had got typed his complaint in the area of Police Station Connaught Place and at that time son of his mausi was also present there. He further deposed that he had not disclosed the fact about the complaint being typed in the presence of son of his mausi to the I.O. though, the complaint was drafted by him after he had narrated the whole facts to him. PW1 further deposed that he had not mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW1/A that different persons had met him at different time in the office. He denied the suggestion that he had dealing only with Kuldeep Singh and has falsely named rest of the accused persons or that he has deposed falsely.
11. Shri Vijay Kumar, S/o Shri Ishwar Das, R/o Sector4, Vivekanand Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan was examined as PW2 and he deposed that he had given Rs.80,000/ in cash to Rakesh, his Sandhu in relation in Connaught Place, New Delhi to go abroad in connection with employment/job where he has also met Kuldeep who had assured him to send Malaysia and thereafter, he never met him. He further deposed that he had given his passport to his relative Rakesh. PW2 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for accused Gorakh Nath Pahwa, Ranjit Singh and Ashish.
FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 5/19 612. Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri G.G. Sharma, R/o H. No. 45, Keshav Nagar, Scheme No. 13, Alwar, Rajasthan was examined as PW3. He deposed on oath that sometime in the year 2003 he along with his friends, namely, Rakesh Sharma, Sanjay Singh, Sarvesh Chaudhary and one other person (who is friend of Rakesh Sharma) had come to Delhi in connection with some employment as they all were unemployed at that time. They all had gone to the office of Kuldeep Singh at Amardeep Tower, Connaught Place and he had assured him to send abroad i.e. U.K., England etc. for employment and had demanded Rs.6 Lacs for Visa and other charges from them. They had gone there through Rakesh and had handed over money to Rakesh Sharma who further handed over the money to Kuldeep Singh Boparai. Thereafter, Rakesh had given him a receipt of Rs.21,000/ Ex. PW3/A at his residence. He further deposed that sometime he assured them to send abroad but did not send anywhere across the country. He further deposed that he met Kuldeep Singh many times in his office and after sometime Rakesh lodged FIR against accused Kuldeep Singh. PW3 further deposed that 23 more persons including one Sardar Ji, perhaps whose name was Ranjit, also met them in the office of Kuldeep Singh. He further deposed that accused present in the Court today were not present in the office of accused Kuldeep. Though, he voluntarily deposed that Ranjit Singh was Sardarji. He further deposed that he had given Rs.1,50,000/ in cash to Rakesh Kumar Sharma and he had taken their passports from their residence. Now, the passport was with him.
13. Since PW3 was resiling from his earlier statement, he was FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 6/19 7 crossexamined by Ld. APP for State with prior permission of the Court. During his crossexamination PW3 affirmed that when they reached office of accused Kuldeep, they met Kuldeep, Harshdeep (Yashpal), K.L. Behl, Ranjit Singh Pahwa, Gaurav and Ashish. He further affirmed that he never seen and met Mr. Pahwa in the office of accused Kuldeep. On being pointed out towards accused Gorakh Nath Pahwa, PW3 deposed that he did not know his name nor did he meet him in the office of accused Kuldeep. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not identify accused Gorakh Nath Pahwa being won over by him.
14. Despite opportunity, PW3 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused Gorakh Nath Pahwa.
15. During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Ranjit and Ashish, PW3 affirmed that accused Ashish and Ranjit never took money from him nor did they take his passport. He voluntarily deposed that it was given to Rakesh. PW3 further affirmed that accused Ashish and Ranjit were working in the office of accused Kuldeep and the said accused was the KartaDharta of the said office. PW3 further affirmed that all transactions were made by accused Kuldeep and all other accused persons i.e. Ashish and Ranjit have no link or relations with them. He further affirmed that accused Kuldeep was responsible for sending them abroad and all the transactions were made with him. He further affirmed that his passport was returned back to him by Rakesh at his residence. He further affirmed that sardarji, namely, Ranjeet Singh had not taken any money from him and he has no concern with any FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 7/19 8 transaction involving accused Kuldeep.
16. Shri Sarvesh Kumar, S/o Shri Tej Singh, R/o Daudpur Phatak, Alwar, Rajasthan, a practicing lawyer, was examined as PW4. Initially, he deposed that he did not know anything about this case. However, upon being permitted, Ld. APP for State crossexamined him. During his crossexamination PW4 affirmed that accused persons had promised his friends, namely, Rakesh Kumar, Raj Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Sanjay Kumar for job in Alaska and then Azerbaijan (Russia) and then in Netherlands. He further deposed that accused Kuldeep had initially received Rs.1,75,000/ from his aforesaid friends in lieu of jobs and later received Rs.3,00,000/ from Rakesh Kumar at Mumbai. He further deposed that he knew only accused Kuldeep who did not send his abovesaid friends to aforesaid countries for jobs as promised by him. Upon being pointed out towards accused Gorakh Nath, Ashish and Ranjit, PW4 Sarvesh Kumar could not identify them. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not identify the accused persons nor disclosed correct facts of the case as disclosed by Rakesh Kumar in his complaint Ex. PW1/A. He voluntarily deposed that due to lapse of time he could not identify accused Kuldeep. He further denied the suggestion that he was not cheated by accused persons as his name is also mentioned in the complaint at serial No. 2 or that he has not disclosed the true facts of the case to save the accused persons from legal action.
17. During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Gorakh Nath, PW4 deposed that he did not have any idea as to where FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 8/19 9 the complaint Ex. PW1/A was written by its writer. He further affirmed that the it does not bear his signature at point B.
18. During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Ranjit Singh and Ashish, PW4 affirmed that owner of the travel agency was accused Kuldeep Singh and he was in the control of whole affairs of the office and money was received by accused Kuldeep.
19. Retired Inspector Sandeep Kumar, S/o Late Desh Raj, R/o D702, Pragya CGHS Limited, Sector02, Dwarka, New Delhi was examined as PW5. He deposed on oath that on 31.03.2005, he was posted as SubInspector in Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi and further investigation of this case was marked to him. He further deposed that during investigation, he had recorded statement of co complainants, namely, Raj Kumar and Sanjay under Section 161 Cr.PC and got verified the registration certificate from Ministry of Overseas, Indian Affairs and it was replied by the Under Secretary vide reply Ex. PW5/A that registration certificate dated 29.09.2003 was cancelled on 03.03.2005. He further deposed that victim/cocomplainant, namely, Sanjay Sain had produced copy of Passport No. E8932211 Ex. PW5/C (collectively in three pages) along with original receipt of Rs.21,500/ which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. The receipt of Rs.21,500/ is Ex. PW5/D. He further deposed that during further investigation victim/cocomplainant, namely, Raj Kumar had also produced copy of Passport No. E8923615 and original receipt of Rs.21,500/ which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/E FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 9/19 10 and Ex. PW5/F. The copy of passport along with its back side is Ex. PW5/G. The receipt of Rs.21,500/ is already Ex. PW3/A. PW5 further deposed that during investigation he had also got verified through letter dated 03.03.2006 Ex. PW5/H whether Indian Pacific Employment Center is registered with Registrar of Companies or not and it was replied on the same that the said company did not exist in their office. Thereafter, he had recorded statement of Raj Kumar and Sanjay Sain. He also tried to reach out other victims, however they did not respond. PW 5 correctly identified accused Ashish in the Court. Though, identity of accused Gorakh Nath Pahwa was not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
20. During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Ashish, PW5 deposed that he did not know as to whose signatures were there on receipt Ex. PW5/D and Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that he had inquired about the said fact from Sanjay Sain and Raj Kumar, however they were also not aware about the persons who had signed the said receipts. He further deposed that accused Kuldeep was running the said employment center and he was the main king pin and other accused persons were his associates, though their roles were mentioned by the victims in their statements recorded Under Section 161 Cr.PC. He further deposed that he was unable to collect any document which could show that accused persons were associates in the aforesaid employment center. He further deposed that during investigation conducted by him, only two victims, namely, Sanjay and Raj Kumar had approached him. PW5 affirmed that no documentary proof regarding specific culpability of accused Ashish and Gorakh Nath Pahwa were collected during FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 10/19 11 investigation conducted by him, however their culpability was mentioned by the victims in their statements under Section 161 Cr.PC. He further deposed that he did not interrogate the accused persons as they were already interrogated by the first I.O./Inspector Vijay Kumar. He further deposed that during investigation he never met accused Kuldeep as well as accused Ashish and Gorakh Nath as they were already arrested by the first I.O. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct fair investigation in the matter or that accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case or that he has deposed falsely.
21. During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Gorakh Nath, PW5 denied the suggestion that he did not call the accused Gorakh Nath as no incriminating evidence was found against him.
22. Ld. Counsel for accused Gorakh Nath Pawha adopted the crossexamination of PW5 conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused Ashish. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely.
23. First I.O./Inspector Vijay Kumar, No. DI960, Posted at IFSO, Special Cell, Dwarka, New Delhi was examined as PW6. He deposed on oath that on 05.03.2005, he was posted as SubInspector in Police Station Connaught Place and on that day present case was marked to him by the then SHO for necessary action. After that he had gone through the complaint dated 05.03.2005. Thereafter, on 07.03.2005 concerned SHO had directed the duty officer to register a case FIR and handover investigation of the present case to SubInspector Vijay FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 11/19 12 Kumar.
24. PW6 First I.O./Inspector Vijay Kumar further deposed that during investigation of this case, he had served notice under Section 91 Cr.PC to all the complainants to produce the documents as per notice. However, in compliance of the above said notice, no one had appeared in the Police Station and met him. Thereafter, on 28.03.2005 he again served a notice under Section 91 Cr.PC upon complainants through DTDC Courier to provide the documents as per prior notice and in compliance of the said notice complainant Rakesh Kumar had visited Police Station on 30.03.2005 and joined investigation in the present case. Upon pointing out by PW6, with prior permission of the Court, 11 notices under Section 91 Cr.PC along with five courier receipts Ex. PW 6/F were placed in the judicial file from police file. PW6 further deposed that at that time complainant had not brought any document pertaining to the complaint and at that time he had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. He further deposed that during investigation of the case he came to know that accused Kuldeep Singh, Harshdeep, Ranjeet, Gorakh Nath Pahwa and Ashish had been arrested in case FIR No. 74/2005, P.S. IGI Airport. Thereafter, on 30.03.2005 he had moved an application before the concerned Court for production of all accused persons and the concerned Court had directed him to interrogate all the accused persons in Tihar Jail Complex and in compliance of the order he had gone at Tihar Jail and interrogated all the accused persons there. After interrogation he had formally arrested accused Ranjeet Singh, Gorakh Nath Pahwa, Harshdeep @ Jaspal, FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 12/19 13 Kuldeep Singh Boparai and Ashish Kumar vide arrest memos Ex. PW 6/A to Ex. PW6/E. On the next day, he got transferred to other P.S. and deposited the file with concerned MHC (R) of the Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi. PW6 correctly identified accused Gorakh Nath Pahwa and Ashish in the Court.
25. During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Gorakh Nath Pahwa, PW6 deposed that till the time investigation of this case remained with him, except the statement of complainant Rakesh recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.PC, no other evidence was collected by him. He voluntarily deposed that original complaint which was marked to him was another evidence which was collected by him. Though, he was not aware about the outcome of case FIR No. 74/2005, P.S. IGI Airport or the fact that accused Gorakh Nath Pahwa was discharged by the concerned Court in case FIR No. 74/2005, P.S. IGI Airport.
26. PW6 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused Gorakh Nath Pahwa despite opportunity.
27. In his statement under Section 294 Cr.PC, accused admitted registration of present FIR as Ex. A1.
28. After examination of all the witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed.
FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 13/19 1429. In his statement under Section 281 read with Section 313 Cr.PC accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence against them and reiterated the stand as taken by them in their defence.
30. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
31. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP on behalf of State as well as by Ld. Counsels for accused Ashish Kumar and Gorakh Nath Pahwa.
32. Ld. APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the witnesses have invariably supported the case of the prosecution.
33. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsels for accused persons Ashish Kumar and Gorakh Nath Pahwa that the story of the prosecution suffers from material inconsistencies and the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any relation of the accused persons with the alleged act.
34. The fundamental rule of criminal law postulates that the burden of proving the case rests on the shoulders of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the in the month of January, 2004 and in the subsequent period, accused Ashish and Gorakh Nath Pahwa along with their associates, namely, Ranjit Singh, Harshdeep (since FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 14/19 15 expired) and Kuldeep (since proclaimed person) hatched a criminal conspiracy by inducing complainant Rakesh Kumar and his friends, namely, Sanjay Kumar, Sarvesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Raj Kumar to pay Rs.1,75,000/ each along with their respective passports on the pretext of sending them abroad including USA, Azerbaijan and Netherland which they never intended to do and thus, they all cheated the complainant and his friends and committed an offence punishable under Section 420 and 120B of IPC.
35. Before proceeding, I may reproduce Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for ready reference, which reads thus:
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
-- 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, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
36. Section 420 IPC culminates two elements of cheating and delivery of property as a result of deception followed by inducement in a dishonest manner. Whereas, the latter element is fairly clear, the former derives its meaning from Section 415 IPC, which reads thus:
415. Cheating. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudu lently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to de liver any property to any person, or to consent that any per son shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 15/19 16 to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
37. I may now briefly lay down the ingredients required for proving the offence under question. For bringing home the charge under Section 420 of IPC, it is essential that -
(a) The accused deceives any person by doing any act including a false representation;
(b) The deception results in dishonest or fraudulent inducement of any person to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
38. Coming to the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, it is the foremost requirement of criminal law that the prosecution must establish three essential attributes - actus reus, mens rea and causal link between the crime and accused on trial. The actus reus required in this case is of deception (for the offence under Section 420) and the offence in question primarily requires a dishonest or fraudulent intention. In addition to the said ingredients, it is also required to be proved that the accused persons were actually involved in committing the acts in question.
FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 16/19 1739. The complainants of the case have been examined as PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. The testimonies of these complainants constitute the entire foundation of the prosecution's case. Out of the said witnesses, PW2 has deposed that he had handed over the money to PW 1 and did not interact with any of the accused person directly. He deposed that PW1 Rakesh had met a person, namely, Kuldeep at Connaught Place, New Delhi. Notably, the said Kuldeep is not being tried and has already been declared as a proclaimed offender. PW3 also deposed that he had visited the office of accused Kuldeep and the money was also given to Kuldeep Singh through PW1. He categorically deposed that the accused persons present in the Court were not present at the office of accused Kuldeep. Therefore, he has not identified any of the accused persons and has not been able to prove their presence at the shop of accused Kuldeep.
40. PW3 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he reiterated that he never saw the accused persons at the said office. During crossexamination, he stated it to be correct that the accused persons did not receive any money from him. Similar is the story of PW
4. The only witness who came close to proving the version of the prosecution was PW1, who deposed that all the accused persons had taken the amount of Rs.1,75,000/ on the pretext of securing job/employment in a foreign country. He deposed that later on, he discovered that the accused persons have no licence or authorization to make the said promise or to secure any employment. However, PW1 FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 17/19 18 could not justify his version in crossexamination and deposed that there is no proof of payment made by him to the accused persons. He further deposed that he had his first conversation with accused Kuldeep Singh and the assurances were given only by accused Kuldeep Singh and one Yashpal. The said deposition is in line with the statements given by the remaining PWs which categorically indicate that the act of inducement came from accused Kuldeep Singh. The witnesses have neither identified the present accused persons nor proved that any inducement came from them. They have also failed to prove that the accused persons were beneficiaries in any manner or that they had made any promise at any point of time in the entire transaction.
41. The remaining PWs are essentially police witnesses and have deposed regarding the steps taken by them during the course of investigation. Even PW5 retired Inspector Sandeep Kumar has deposed that accused Kuldeep was running the employment center and was the main king pin. He further deposed that he could not find any documentary proof regarding the specific roles of accused Ashish and Gorakh Nath Pahwa during investigation. In light of the evidence on record, it could be said that the prosecution has not been able to indicate any link of causation between accused Ashish and Gorakh Nath with the alleged act or with any ingredient of cheating. In addition, there is no documentary evidence either to support the case of the prosecution. Even if it is assumed that the accused persons were in a conspiracy with accused Kuldeep, there is no evidence on record to indicate any nexus or any connection of the accused persons with Kuldeep Singh. It is relevant FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 18/19 19 to note that for the existence of a conspiracy, it is essential to prove a prior agreement between the parties and no such agreement or even a vague understanding between the parties has been proved.
42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the prosecution has failed establish the essential actus reus. Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
43. The bail bonds already on record stand extended for a period of six months, in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Let article, if any, lying deposited with the MHC (M) be released in favour of the rightful owner.
44. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by YASHDEEP YASHDEEP CHAHAL
CHAHAL Date: 2023.11.07
16:07:44 +0530
Announced in the open Court (YASHDEEP CHAHAL)
On 7th November, 2023. M.M.01 : New Delhi District Patiala House Courts : New Delhi.
FIR No.127/2005 State Vs. Kuldeep & Others Page No. 19/19