Delhi District Court
State vs Gurjant Singh Etc on 29 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI,
JMFC-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. GURJANT SINGH & ANR
FIR No. 111/2007
PS: CHANAKYAPURI
U/S: 120-B IPC & 468/420/511/471/34 IPC
CNR No. : DLND02-000418-2011
Date of commission of offence : Unknown
Date of institution of the case : 20.09.2011
Name of the complainant : Manav Jain,
US Embassy, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi.
Name of accused and address : (1) Gurjant Singh
(proceedings against accused
culminated in plea-bargaining
vide order dated 31.10.2012)
&
(2) Gurdayal Singh Panjla
S/o Sh. Dhanpat Rai
R/o H.No. 1360, Sector 15-B,
Chandigarh, Punjab.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 120-B IPC &
468/420/511/471/34 IPC
Representation of State : Asst. Public Prosecutor Sh.
Prashant Chaudhary.
Plea of Accused : Plead not guilty
Final order : Acquitted U/s 120-B IPC &
468/420/511/471/34 IPC
Date of judgment : 29.08.2024
FIR No. 111/07 Page 1 of 24
State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr
PS. Chanakyapuri
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on unknown date, time and place, accused Gurdayal Singh Panjla along with co-accused Gurjant Singh (Proceedings culminated in Plea Bargaining) hatched criminal conspiracy to obtain US visa for co- accused Gurjant Singh on the basis of forged documents. Further, on the unknown date, time and place, accused Gurdayal with co- accused Gurjant Singh in prosecution of their criminal conspiracy prepared forged documents in order to obtain US visa for accused Gurjant Singh and which was used by accused Gurjant Singh before US Embassy in order to obtain US visa.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Cognizance was taken. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused person. Thereafter, proceedings against accused Gurjant Singh were culminated in plea-bargaining proceedings on 31.10.2012. Thereafter, separate charge was framed against the accused Gurdayal Singh Panjla for offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC & 468/420/511/471/34 IPC on 08.09.2015 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 06 witnesses till date.
FIR No. 111/07 Page 2 of 24State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri (3.1) Duty Officer ASI Kushal Malik was examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 01.06.2007, he was posted at PS Chanakya Puri as HC and was working as Duty Officer from 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight and on that day, at about 7:15 PM, SI Ravi Kant produced copy of rukka and on the basis of same, he registered the present FIR No. 111/07 Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that he made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B and after registration of FIR, copy of FIR and original rukka was handed over to SI Ravi Kant as the investigation of the said case marked to him.
PW-1 was cross-examined as nil despite opportunity given.
(3.2) Sh. Kailash Kumar, Asstt, Superintendent, RPO, Chandigarh was examined as PW-2. He deposed that he was authorized by Amit Kumar Rawat, Deputy Passport Officer, RPO Chandigarh regarding submission of report in respect of passport no. F-4998646 dated 28.09.2005 valid upto 27.09.2015 which was issued in the name of Gurjan Singh, S/o Sh. Sahab Singh. The verification report was placed on record and marked as Mark X (colly). The signatures of officer at point A on passport no. F-4998646 dated 28.09.2005 were correctly identified by the witness and the same was issued by Public Relation Officer Madan Lal as Mark X-2.
PW-2 was cross-examined as nil despite opportunity given.
(3.3) 1st IO/Insp. Ravi Kant was examined as PW-3. He deposed that on 01.06.2007, he was posted as SI in PS Chanakyapuri and one complaint from USA Embassy was marked to him by SHO concerned. He deposed that thereafter he made endorsement Ex.PW3/A on the complaint and got FIR registered. He deposed that thereafter he along FIR No. 111/07 Page 3 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri with HC Tara Chand went to USA Embassy, Chanakyapuri and met with complainant and after verification of alleged document, the complainant produced one accused namely Gurjant Singh. He deposed that he prepared the seizure memo of documents which was found in the bag belonging to accused person vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B and the document in the above said exhibit was containing two letter head of Voltec Industry Pvt. Ltd., visiting card of accused as Director of Voltec Industry Pvt. Ltd. and fee receipt of visa application form. He deposed that he along with accused and HC Tara Chand came to the PS and after interrogation accused Gurjant Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/C and personal search memo of the accused Gurjant Singh was prepared by him Ex.PW3/D and disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by him vide memo Ex.PW3/E. He deposed that on the next day accused was produced before the court and three days PC was obtained in search of further accused namely Gurudayal Singh. He deposed that on 03.06.2007, he went to Chandigarh along with accused Gurjant Singh, HC Tara Chand and Ct. Sumer and raided at the office of M/s Mohit Graphics, Shop no. 55-56, 2nd Floor, SCO, Sec-17C, Chandigarh. He deposed that in the presence of accused the above said shop was searched and seized one book of Korea Trade as the picture shown on page no. 86 and 122 were used on the bogus catalogue recovered from accused Gurjant Singh. He deposed that he also recovered valuation report of Dhanpat Rai dated 05.08.2003 purportedly issued by J.K. Khanna and associates as the valuation report of the same architect was produced by the accused Gurjant Singh at US Embassy.
FIR No. 111/07 Page 4 of 24State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri He deposed that he also recovered one asset report having rubber stamp impression of M/s Ram Murti Chartered Accountant as the same rubber stamp impression were present in the document furnished by accused Gurjant Singh in US Embassy. He deposed that the above said assets report was in the name of accused Gurudayal Singh and all the above said books and documents were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW3/F and the above said document was marked as A- 1 (colly). He deposed that on 04.06.2007, he went to the office of J.L. Khanna Architect, 595, Sec 16 D, Chandigarh and gave notice in order to verify the above said valuation report and the carbon copy notice was Ex.PW3/G. He deposed that he gave a written reply that both the above said reports in the name of Gurjant and Dhanapat Rai (Lt father of accused Gurudayal Singh) were not issued by his office and his letter pad and the above said reply dated 04.06.2007 of J.L. Khanna and associates were Mark A-2. He deposed that on 05.06.2007, they all including accused Gurjant Singh came back to Delhi and on the same day accused was produced before the concerned court and he also moved an application to obtain specimen signature (Ex.PW3/H) of accused Gurjant Singh and the same was allowed. He deposed that thereafter he obtained signature/hand writing of accused Gurjant on three pages Ex.PW3/I (colly). He deposed that on 16.07.2007, accused Gurudayal Singh surrendered before concerned court and thereafter on information from the court he came to court and on formal permission accused Gurudayal after interrogation was arrested by him. He deposed that the arrest memo was prepared by him vide memo Ex.PW3/J. He deposed that he also prepared personal search memo of the accused Gurudayal Singh FIR No. 111/07 Page 5 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri Ex.PW3/K and disclosure statement of the accused Gurudayal Singh was prepared by him Ex.PW3/L. He deposed that on the same day an application for obtaining specimen signature of the handwriting and the same was allowed. He deposed that thereafter he obtained on four pages specimen signature of the accused Gurudayal Singh Ex.PW3/M (colly). He deposed that thereafter one PC remand of the accused was obtained by him and on the next day accused Gurudayal Singh was produced before the concerned court and he was sent to JC. He deposed that subsequently he was transferred from PS Chankyapuri and thereafter he handed over the case file to MHC(R) of the PS. PW- 3 correctly identified the accused Gurdayal.
During cross-examination on behalf of accused, he admitted the suggestion that he was first IO in this matter and had himself done all the investigation in this matter. He deposed that he had received this complaint on 01.06.2007 and this complaint was handed over to him by SHO and Ex.PW4/A is the original complaint received by him on 01.06.2007. He further admitted that there is no signature on the stamp endorsed on the said complaint. He voluntarily stated that there is initial of the complainant which is marked as mark A in front of the name of the complainant. He deposed that he left for Chandigarh during the intervening night of 02/03.06.2007 and does not remember the name of two staffs which accompanied him to Chandigarh. He deposed that he had gone to Chandigarh for investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Gurjant Singh. He admitted that the name of Gurudayal Singh is not in the disclosure statement of Gurjant Singh. He deposed that they had arrested Gurjant Singh from US Embassy and had prepared arrest memo of Gurjant Singh in police FIR No. 111/07 Page 6 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri station. He admitted that no medical of Gurjant Singh was done before taking his disclosure statement. He admitted that the medical examination of Gurjant Singh is not on judicial file. He admitted that the documents mentioned at serial no.2 of Ex.PW3/F are photocopies only. He voluntarily stated that the original were sent to FSL for obtaining expert opinion and same are part of the judicial record. He deposed that he cannot say as to when the said original documents were made part of the judicial file. He deposed that they had gone to Chandigarh by private/rented car. He admitted that the rent receipt of the car was not made part of the charge sheet. He deposed that they reached the shop of accused Gurudayal Singh on 03.06.2007 in afternoon and they directly reached to the shop of accused Gurudayal Singh and did not stay at any place in the night and on that date, the shop of accused Gurudayal Singh was in operation and his brother Gurudev Singh was present in the said shop and shop was bearing the sign board of Mohit Graphics. He deposed that there was nobody in the shop except Gurudev Singh and the said shop was on the second floor and there was computer and lot of documents were placed on the table. He admitted that he examined the computer present in the shop and that there was no incriminating evidence in the said computer. He denied the suggestion that they took all the documents which were scattered in the office. He voluntarily stated that they only took the relevant documents with them. He admitted that the statement of brother of accused Gurudayal Singh was not recorded. He admitted that no eye witness was called on the spot at the time of seizing the documents from the shop. He denied that he had called accused Gurudayal on phone and met him on 03.06.2007 in his shop. He FIR No. 111/07 Page 7 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri deposed that they stayed in Chandigarh for one night in Sector 17, Police Station. He denied that it was accused Gurudayal who stayed with him in a hotel in sector 26 and paid the expenses of that hotel himself. He denied that accused Gurudayal Singh hired a taxi for him for Una in Himachal Pradesh. He admitted that they were not accompanied with any photographer while they were conducting raid at the said shop or that they assured Gurudayal that since they did not find any incriminating thing from his shop so he need not to worry. He denied the suggestion that the taxi driver hired for Himachal Pradesh dropped him and his two officers in Delhi also. He deposed that he does not remember whether accused Gurudayal surrendered before the court or police station. He denied the suggestion that he called accused Gurudayal Singh in the court saying that he has to simply appear before the court for recording the statement. He admitted that he arrested accused Gurudayal in the court itself. He denied that he had falsely implicated accused Gurudayal.
(3.4) William Jerry Aylward, Vice Counsel, Attache, Overseas Criminal Investigation Unit, USA Embassy, Chanakyapuri was examined as PW-4. He deposed that he joined as Vice Counsel at USA Embasssy, Chankyapuri in September 2017 and he had checked from USA Embassy records regarding the details of complainant dated 01.06.2007 against Gurjant Singh and confirmation of appointment for USA Visa interview at USA Embassy. Chankyapuri, New Delhi of accused Gurjant Singh and both documents were Ex.PW4/A bearing signature/initial of Manav Jain, Fraud Prevention Manager at Point A ExPW4/B (colly). He deposed that he has no personal knowledge regarding the present case and whatever he had deposed before the FIR No. 111/07 Page 8 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri court is on try basis of official record and he has limited waiver of diplomatic immunity in this regard.
During cross-examination on behalf of accused, he admitted that he had attended the said matter at the instance of IO. He further admitted that he does not have any knowledge of this case. He denied that both the documents were fabricated or that both the documents were not signed by any of the officers of Embassy or that the stamp at Point B used in the letter is fabricated and not signed by any officer of the Embassy. He denied the suggestion that the signatures of officer Manav Jain is fabricated at Point A. He deposed that the complainant Manav Jain had left the services of Embassy after the year 2007. He admitted that he had not produced any document today to show when the complainant Manav Jain had left the services.
(3.5) IO/Insp. Brij Mohan Bahuguna was examined as PW-5 who deposed that in June 2009, he was posted as SI in PS Chankyapuri and the present case was marked to him for further investigation. He deposed that thereafter he collected case file from MHC(R) of the PS. He deposed that during investigation he verified all alleged documents as given along with complaint and all alleged documents were found to be fake. He deposed that thereafter he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the concerned court through SHO concerned. He deposed that later he also filed FSL report regarding the alleged documents.
During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he deposed that he does not remember the date and time when the case file was handed to him as the matter pertaining to year 2007.
FIR No. 111/07 Page 9 of 24State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri (3.6) Singhasan Rai, Clerk in the office of Registrar of Company, Punjab and Chandigarh was examined as PW-6 who deposed that he had he had joined in the above said office as MTS in the year of 2000 and at that time he was working as a clerk in the said office and he was authorized by Registrar of the Company Punjab and Chandigarh to attend this court vide letter Ex.PW6/A. He deposed that he worked with O.P. Sharma, Deputy Registrar of the company Punjab and Chandigarh in the year 2009 and he was well acquainted with the signature and handwriting of O.P. Sharma. PW-6 correctly identified the signature of witness at point A on letter no. PC/ R/MISC/444 dated 11.06.2009 of Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Office of Registrar of Company Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh, 286, Defence Colony, Garha Road, Jalandhar Ex.PW6/B. PW-6 was cross-examined as nil despite opportunity given.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for state and Ld. defence Counsel and have perused the case file carefully. Ld. APP had submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove their story qua accused Gurdayal Singh as recovery of documents was effected from the shop of Gurdayal Singh accused, which was used by Accused Gurjant singh in the American Embassy. Ld APP had further stated that the IO has narrated the sequence in which the recovery of was effected and all the documents, incriminating and recovered, has been duly proved by the IO.
FIR No. 111/07 Page 10 of 24State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri
5. Per Contra, Ld counsel for the accused Gurdayal Singh had submitted that apart from self disclosure, which is otherwise inadmissible and hit directly by Section 25 read with Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, nothing else is on record qua the accused. Ld. Counsel stated that out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, apart from PW-3/IO, other witnesses does not support/concern the accused Gurdayal Singh. PW-1 to PW-6, except PW-3, all have deposed qua accused Gurjant Singh, whose proceedings have already culminated into plea-bargaining. Ld. Counsel had further submitted that PW-3/IO had only deposed qua the recovery from Mohit Enterprises, but the recovery is not only defective but uncoroborated by any independent or public witness. The recovery was not even photographed or video graphed to prove its authenticity. There is no DD entry in the local Police station of Chandigarh to show bona-fide recovery, as per the submission of Ld. Counsel. Ld Counsel further stated that recovery was made from Mohit Enterprises, but who was the owner or manger of the same was never investigated. Ld. Counsel had, thus prayed for acquittal of the accused Gurdayal on these grounds.
APPRECIATION OF LAW AND EVIDENCES :
6. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The standard of proof is not the preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. Initial burden of proof as regards prosecution in criminal trial is upon the prosecution FIR No. 111/07 Page 11 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri and it never shifts upon the accused. It is well settled legal proposition that any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
7. Charge for the commission of offence punishable under section 120B r/w 420/468/471/511 IPC and for substantive offences thereof was framed against the accused herein namely Gurudayal Singh and it is necessary to briefly discuss the existing provisions of law relating to the offences in question.
8. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It is reproduced as under :-
"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."
9. In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Ors. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Ors. Crl. App. No.238 of 2019 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that :
FIR No. 111/07 Page 12 of 24State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
i. a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and ii. the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or seal and capable of being converted into valuable security".
10. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 and is defined under Section 415 of Penal Code. Section 415 of Penal Code reads as:
"Section 415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or substantive offences thereof intentionally induces the persons 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 to that person in body, mind, reputation, property, is said to "cheat".
11. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
FIR No. 111/07 Page 13 of 24State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri i. There should fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
ii. (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to delivery any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and iii. in case covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should be one, which cause or likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
12. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient for offence. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of transactions itself.
13. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC. It is reproduced as under :-
"Whoever makes any false documents 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."FIR No. 111/07 Page 14 of 24
State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri
14. The making of false document is defined under Section 464 IPC. It is reproduced as under, so far as relevant:-
"464. Making a false document: - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record - First - 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 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"
15. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. Further the expression 'intent FIR No. 111/07 Page 15 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri to defraud' implies conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property. The term 'forgery' as used in the statute is used in its ordinary and popular acceptation. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention. relevant questions are (i) is the document false (ii) is it made by the accused and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however, small. The intent to commit forgery involves an intent to cause injury. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs with an intent or cause to believe that the document was signed by a person whom he knows it was not signed.
16. Section 24 of the Penal Code defines " dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. Further, "Fraudulently" is defined in Section 25 IPC. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with FIR No. 111/07 Page 16 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri intent to defraud but not otherwise. The word " defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other.
17. Punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating is defined in Section 468 IPC. It is reproduced as under:-
"Whoever, commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
18. Section 471 IPC deals with using of forged documents as genuine. It is reproduced as under:
"471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to FIR No. 111/07 Page 17 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record."
19. Now coming back to the facts of the case, in total the chargesheet had 9 witnesses, however only 6 of them has been examined by the prosecution. Out of the cited 9 witnesses, PW at S.no 1 was the complainant accompanied by 8 other formal/documentary witness. The Complainant witness was not examined in person, but an official on his behalf was examined to the effect of signatures of the complainant on the compliant. Also no documents were produced by the PW-4 to show that complainant Manav Jain worked in the ofiice of U.S. Embassy. Therefore the main complaint which sailed the investigation on waves, was never proved to the satisfaction of the Court. Further, the present accused Gurudayal Singh was not named in the compliant. The name of the accused Gurudayal Singh only in the self disclosure of the accused Gurudayal Singh. It is an established law of the land that disclosure made by the accused to the police officer is not admissible in the eyes of Law.
20. Further, enquiry, if any, concluded by the embassy before filing the complaint is not enclosed with the charge sheet and the investigation is also silent qua the investigation done by the IO with the embassy official qua seizure of documents which was supplied by the Co-accused gurjiant singh alongwith his Visa Application. There is not even a single incriminating evidence collected by the IO against FIR No. 111/07 Page 18 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri the accused, apart from mere perfunctorily parroting the allegations in the complaint against the accused. The Investigating agency has not even seized the alleged forged and fabricated document which were issued for obtaining Visa. The Only evidence in the chargesheet is the disclosure of co-accused Gurjiant Singh (already pleaded guilty), which is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Accused Gurudayal Singh was arrested and charge sheeted in a mechanical manner and nothing was recovered at the instance or from the accused. The chargesheet is hit by section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
21. All the witnesses, except PW-3/IO, examined by the prosecution are not related to the accused Gurudayal Singh. Not a single witness was produced or examined by the prosecution, which can depose any thing, let alone incriminating, qua the accused Gurudayal Singh. The whole prosecution is continued on a single document and that is the disclosure of the co-accused and on a single testimony of the IO/PW-3 that materials were seized from the office of Gurudayal Singh and the same matched with the Visa application form. There is no digital evidence or Forensic evidence to prove the documents seized, whether the same matched with the documents of Visa Application form. The prosecution story is bereft of any evidence qua the accused.
22. Further, the only witness PW-3/IO has deposed the documents recovered from the Mohit Graphics, on the basis of which the accused Gurudayal Singh was arrayed as an accused. I find strength in the arguments of accused as upon perusal, it is revealed that the recovery FIR No. 111/07 Page 19 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri is defective and uncorroborated by any independent or public witness. The recovery was not even photographed or video graphed to prove its authenticity. There is no DD entry in the local Police station of Chandigarh to show bona-fide recovery. Also, the recovery was made from Mohit Enterprises, but who was the owner/proprietor or manger of the same was never investigated. It is also unclear, whether any fingerprint or chance print was taken while making the recovery or the recovered property was sent to any FSL to substantiate the matching of the document. During the testimony, the IO has categorically admitted that name of Gurudayal Singh was there in the disclosure of main accused Gurjant Singh. IO has also admitted that no incriminating document was found in the computer of the accused Gurudayal Singh during search in M/s Mohit Graphics. IO has also admitted that no eye witness was called on the spot at the time of seizing the documents at M/S mohit graphics. IO has also admitted that no photographer was present during the recovery. Thereby making the recovery doubtful.
23. IO during his deposition has submitted that same rubber stamp impressions were present in the document furnished by Gurjant singh, as seized from M/s Mohit graphics, however, there is no FSL result to that effect to substantiate the point. IO did not even care to send the rubber stamp for FSL examination. IO has also stated that valuation report was obtained from the office of J.L.Khanna architech, but no witness was examined to prove such documents. The IO very conveniently, did not cite any witness to prove that valuation report was obtained or was forged. The prosecution, thus, did not examined J FIR No. 111/07 Page 20 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri L Khanna to prove the said facts. Apart from the above discussed flaws and contradictions, there are many other lacunas, which not only makes the recovery doubtful, but also makes the whole investigation by the IO doubtful and one sided.
24. As regards the offence of criminal conspiracy. Under Section 120A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of intention, which is an offence. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence is committed. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
25. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge FIR No. 111/07 Page 21 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri of conspiracy. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
26. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. It has been seen that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime and that it is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed.
27. A conspiracy thus is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and is committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. As long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is committed as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirator in execution or any part of it is deemed to have been said, done and written by each of them.
FIR No. 111/07 Page 22 of 24State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri
28. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that there is no evidence on record to show that there was a prior meeting of mind of accused Gurudayal Singh with the co-accused Gurjant Singh (proceedings already culminated). An offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on the mere suspicion or inference which are not supported by any cogent evidence when was there a prior meeting of mind or an agreement to do an illegal act as alleged does not stand established at all. In view of the above, I hold that the aspect of criminal conspiracy has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt for which benefit of doubt is being given to the accused Gurudayal Singh.
29. In view of the foregoing, a doubt has crepted in the prosecution story in favour of the accused Gurudayal Singh and hence, his false implication cannot be completely ruled out. It is settled law that if two views are possible then the view favouring the accused is to be adopted and in case of doubt the benefit is to be given to the accused. Accused cannot be convicted on presumptions or surmises, rather, all the ingredients of the offences punishable under section 120B r/w 420/468/471/511 IPC and substantive offences thereof are required to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
30. Considering the aforesaid discussion, given facts and circumstances, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, this court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences for which charges were framed against accused Gurudayal Singh. Hence, accused Gurudayal Singh is acquitted of the FIR No. 111/07 Page 23 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri offences punishable under section 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof i.e. the offences for which he was charged with.
31. File be consigned to record room.
Note :This judgment contains 24 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of Digitally signed undersigned. ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI MANI Date:
TRIPATHI 2024.08.29 16:18:23 +0530 Announced in the open court (Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi) on 29th August, 2024. JMFC-02/ PHC/ New Delhi FIR No. 111/07 Page 24 of 24 State Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr PS. Chanakyapuri