Delhi District Court
State vs . Madan Singh on 3 July, 2013
STATE vs. MADAN SINGH
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SHAHDARA), KKD COURTS
DELHI.
FIR No. 39/02
PS : Anand Vihar
U/s 420/34/120 B IPC
State vs. Madan Singh
a) Serial No. of the case : 02402R0162872003
b) Date of Institution : 03.10.2002
c) Date of commission of offence : 10.12.1999
d) Name of complainant : Smt. Phoolwati
W/o Sh. Babu Lal
R/o H. No. 258,
Karkardooma Village,
Delhi92.
e) Name of the accused, and : : 1) Madan Singh
parentage and address s/o Late Sh. Amar Singh
2)Babloo @ Shulpani Singh
(expired)
s/o Sh. Madan Singh
Both R/o Purani Abadi, Birla
Dairy, Near Jagriti Enclave,
Delhi92.
f) Offence complained of : U/s 420/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Date of judgment reserved : 22.06.2013
i) Final order : Convicted
j) Date of such Order : 03.07.2013
FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 1/25
STATE vs. MADAN SINGH
Judgment
Brief reasons for the decision of the case
1.The case of prosecution is that the accused i.e. Madan Singh and his son Babloo (now expired) approached the complainant and offered her to purchase a piece of land measuring 200 sq. yards, which may they represented her to be in the name of the Babloo. The sale consideration was settled for Rs. 5,000/ per sq. yards only on the ground that both the accused and the complainant were known to each other for the last 35 years. Out of the settled amount of Rs. 10,00,000/, the complainant paid Rs. 6,50,000/ to the accused persons without any receipt etc. The accused persons failed to execute the Power of Attorney and other relevant documents in favour of complainant who later on, came to know that the said land belonged to Sita Ram Bhandar Trust and the accused persons had no land in their name and thereby accused persons have cheated the complainant. Complaint was filed against the both accused person and therefore case FIR was registered. Statement of witnesses were recorded, accused persons were arrested and after completion of all necessary investigation challan U/S 173 Cr. P.C was presented in the court for trial of both accused person for offence u/s 420/34/120 B IPC.
2. Both the accused persons appeared to face trial so copy of challan as required U/S 207 Cr.P.C. was supplied to them. Thereafter case was fixed FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 2/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH for consideration of charge.
3. After hearing arguments and on perusal of record, prima facie charge for the offences U/S 420/34 IPC was made out against the accused persons. Charge was framed accordingly against both the accused persons on 22.04.2003. Thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence. It is on record that during examination of prosecution witness accused Babloo was expired on 09.10.2006 and accordingly proceeding against accused Babloo stands abated vide order dated 17.11.2006.
4. In support of its case, prosecution has produced and examined eight witnesses i.e. Complainant Smt. Phoolwati as PW1, Swaroop Singh as PW2, SI Jagtar Singh as PW3, Devak Ram Senior Scientific Officer as PW4, Sh. Kalu Ram/son of complainant as PW5, DO/HC Devender Kumar as PW6, IO/SI Todar Singh as PW7 and Halka Patwari Sh. Anil Kumar as PW8.
5. PW1 deposed that both accused person claimed that they are Manager of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust and they are having the land of trust with them so if she want to purchase the land they can help her. PW1 further deposed that both accused were well known to her for last 35 years so they came to her home and stated that the circle rate of land was about Rs. 10,000/ yard but they can get available the land @ Rs. 5000/ sq. yd. being owners of same and they shown her the land near Jagriti Mandir Sita Ram Bhandar. PW1 further deposed that the agreement for sale of land which was to be produced FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 3/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH by her was settled for Rs. 10,00,000/ and she had paid Rs. 6,50,000/ to the accused persons at her house on 10.12.1999 in presence of her husband, son Kallu Ram, Swaroop Singh and Tej Pal and accused persons were having the pronote and accused Madan Singh's executed the same Ex. PW1/A in presence of Swaroop Singh and Tej Pal Singh. PW1 further deposed that it was decided that remaining amount was to be paid on the date of execution of GPA. PW1 further deposed that she asked accused persons to execute GPA but they used to put her off on one pretext or other so she sent her son Kalu to verify the fact from Patwari. PW1 further deposed that her son came to know that land in question was not belonged to accused persons but it was belonged to Sita Ram Bhandar Trust. PW1 further deposed that accused persons cheated her by inducing dishonestly and they also refused to return the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/ so she filed a complaint before DCP Ex. PW1/B. PW1 further deposed that she arranged the money of Rs. 6,50,000/ from different sources i.e. she sold one plot of Rs. 4,50,000/ and Rs. 1,00,000/ was arranged by her from jewellery and another 1,00,000/ was arranged from personal business of sweet shop.
During her cross examination, PW1 deposed that accused persons had shown her the land in question prior to three months of making payment and her son Kalu also accompanied her at that time. She further deposed that accused persons told her that Khem Chand Mali had executed paper in their favour. She further deposed that accused persons came to her house at 07:30 AM for taking the payment. She further deposed that besides her family FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 4/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH member one Swaroop Singh and Tejpal were also present.
6. PW2 deposed that he know complainant who is mother of Kalu Ram. He further deposed that on 10.12.1999 at about 12:30 PM he went to the house of complainant where accused Madan and Babloo, complainant and her son Kalu were present. He further deposed that accused Madan was carrying out negotiation with complainant to sell the plot for sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/ out of which 6, 50,000/ was paid by complainant and Kalu to both the accused. He further deposed that accused Madan had executed a pronote Ex. PW1/A in favour of complainant and he signed the same at point F. During his cross examination, PW2 deposed that on 10.12.1999 he was passing from the house of complainant so he was called inside where both accused persons, complainant, Kalu, Tejpal and other family member of complainant were present there. He further deposed that pronote was signed by accused Madan Singh in his presence.
7. PW3 deposed that on 20.12.2001 he received complaint of Phoolwati so he made preliminary investigation and after obtaining prosecution opinion he made endorsement Ex. PW3/A on the complaint and got the case FIR registered Ex. PW3/B. He also deposed that he made search of accused persons but he could not find thereafter investigation was assigned to SI Todar Singh.
8. PW4 deposed that he had received questioned document Marked as FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 5/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH Q1 to Q5 and standard document i.e. specimen S1 to S5 and admitted signature A1 to A12 of Madan Singh. He examined the same and gave his opinion vide his detailed report Ex. PW4/A that the person who wrote red enclosed writing and signature, stamped and marked S1 to S5 and A1 to A12 also wrote the red enclosed signature Marked Q1 to Q5.
During his cross examination, PW4 deposed that there are no red enclosed marked on Ex. PW1/A at serial no. A, B, C, D and E. He deposed voluntarily that due to lamination red enclosed mark had disappeared. PW4 admitted that he has not mentioned in his report Ex. PW4/A that pronote Ex. PW1/A is laminated. PW4 clarified that there is no difference between laminated documents and non laminated documents for the purpose of comparison. PW4 admitted that mark A11 is not original but a photocopy. He further deposed that his opinion is based on collectively condition alongwith other documents. PW4 further deposed that he noticed specimen writing of S1 to S5 are formal and that is why he asked IO to bring admitted writing/signature of contemporary period.
9. PW5 deposed that he knew accused persons for last 3035 years as they used to visit each and every occasion to the house of accused persons frequently. He further deposed that a month ago prior to 10.12.1999 accused Madan Singh talked with his mother regarding sale purchase of land at Birla Dairy Jagriti Enclave. He further deposed that both the accused came to his residence for talk to sale the land and due to old relationship they offered land FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 6/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH @ of Rs. 5000/ per sq. yard to his mother but infact value of land was about 10,000/ per sq. yard. He further deposed that accused shows document to his mother and also to him i.e. GPA executed by Khem Chand Mali. He further deposed that his mother paid cash amount of Rs. 6,50,000/ to accused Madan Singh and Babloo on 10.12.1999 at his residence in presence of Tejpal and Swaroop Singh. He further deposed that accused persons gave the pronote which was signed by Madan Singh in his presence. PW5 further deposed that his mother told both accused to execute the document regarding sale of property but they did not execute so his mother felt some suspicion and sent him to Halka Patwari for verification of land. PW5 further deposed that he went for verification and found that no land was existed in the name of accused persons and they obtained Rs. 6,50,000/ fraudulently by preparing false documents. PW5 further deposed that his mother asked accused persons to return his amount but they did not. So his mother filed the suit for recovery which was decreed vide judgment Ex. PW5/A in favor of his mother.
During his cross examination, PW5 denied that his mother did not pay Rs. 6,50,000/to accused persons and due to this reason they did not get GPA executed from accused. He further denied that they prepared a forged pronote Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that the sale amount of Karawal Nagar plot was lying with his mother for sufficient time. He further deposed that apart from sale purchase of Karawal Nagar plot the rest amount was arranged by them from their own sources i.e. saving, rental income and income from halwai shop run by his parents. PW5 further deposed that at the time of execution of FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 7/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH pronote accused Babloo also present but his signatures was not obtained on the pronote. PW5 further denied that they forged the signatures of accused Madan Singh as he has signed several papers of Birla Dairy and his signatures were copied from Birla Dairy. PW5 further deposed that he do not remember as to who had got laminated the pronote. He further deposed that pronote was executed around 12:00 Noon.
10. PW6 deposed that on receipt of rukka from SI Jagtar Singh he recorded case FIR 139/02 Ex. PW3/B.
11. PW7 deposed that the investigating of this case was entrusted to him on 23.02.2002. He further deposed that accused Madan Singh was on anticipatory bail so he arrested him formally and he obtained his signatures on 5 sheets which are Ex. PW7/A1 to Ex. PW7/A5 for verification the signatures with pronote Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that specimen signatures along with original pronote were sent to FSL for expert opinion but on 28.05.2002 these documents were returned with the request to send admitted signatures of accused. PW7 further deposed that on 24.06.2002 the admitted signatures of accused Madan Singh were obtained from Birla Cotton Mills, Shakti Nagar i.e. A1 to A12 with the permission of court. His application to court is Ex. PW7/B. Thereafter, he again sent all document on 05.07.2002 and he collected the report along with document on 27.07.2002. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed the FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 8/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH challan.
12. During his cross examination PW7 deposed that specimen signatures of accused Madan Singh Ex. PW7/A1 to A5 were obtained in the Police Station. He further deposed that pronote Ex. PW1/A was already in the file in laminated condition. He further deposed that he collected original documents i.e. A1 to A12 from Sh. R. C. Goel accountant of Birla Cotton Mill from a file. PW7 further deposed that documents A11 and A12 are photocopy but duly attested by Birla Textiles. PW7 further deposed that document A2 was handed over to him by complainant after 23 days of arrest of accused Madan Singh. PW7 denied the suggestion that he did not record statement of R.C. Goel deliberately as he had not handed over him any document.
13. PW8 produced the Khasra Girdawari register of Khasra bearing no. 1773/1226 measuring area 7 Bigha 14 Bishwa which stand in the name of Sita Ram and cultivation was in name of Khem Chand. He also deposed that aforesaid Khasra was acquired by Govt. on 22.09.2003 vide Ex. PW8/A.
14. After examination of prosecution witnesses statement of accused Madan Singh was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he stated that he is a victim of conspiracy done by one Acharya Arun Dev. He was employee of Birla Cotton mill and looking after the Birla Dairy being Manager. Birla Dairy was being run as a tenant on the land of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust along with other tenants. One builder Acharya Arun Dev have evil design on the land of Sita FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 9/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH Ram Bhandar Trust and he tried to usurp the said land for the purpose of its development and selling thereafter. He also lured him to surrender the possession and become part of his evil design which he refused. In retaliation and to exert pressure upon him he got registered this false case on behest of complainant as husband of complainant was his accomplice.
15. In support of his defence accused Madan Singh examined seven witnesses i.e he himself as DW1, Ramesh Chander/Assistant Directorate General of Health Services as DW2, Vijay Kumar as DW3, Mahender Kumar as DW4, Ranvir Singh Patwari as DW5, Sh. Jai Ram Singh as DW6 and Deepak Jain handwriting expert as DW7.
16. DW1 deposed that he joined Birla Mill Dairy as Manager on 16.07.1960 and he worked there till 22.06.1999. He further deposed that Birla Dairy was closed vide closure notice dated 27.07.1999. He further deposed that Birla Mill Dairy was the tenant of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust who filed suit for recovery through attorney Acharya Arun Dev against the Birla Dairy. The Attorney of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust, Acharya Arun Dev logged 4 FIR against him as he has refused to deliver the possession of Birla Mill Dairy to him and out of 4 cases 3 cases have been decided in his favour. DW1 further deposed that complainant of this case have deposed as witness in 2 F.I.R cases and further IO Jagtar Singh also deposed in Civil case as DW7. DW1 further deposed that he has filed complaint before ACP and DCP (N.E.) regarding false FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 10/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH case filed against him. Certified copies of same are Ex. DW1/L. He further deposed that pronote Ex. PW1/A does not bear his signatures on 5 revenue stamps as he had not taken any amount of Rs. 6,50,000/ from complainant. DW1 further deposed that Swaroop Singh is relative of complainant i.e sadu of nephew of complainant. He further deposed that he had never known to the complainant prior to filing of the case. He further deposed that document A1 to A12 does not belong to him nor bear his signatures. DW1 also proved the documents i.e. letter dated 16.09.1999 as Ex. DW1/A, letter dated 22.06.1999 as Ex. DW1/B, letter dated 21.06.1999 as Ex. DW1/C, Copy of suit and judgment as Ex. DW1/E and Ex. DW1/F respectively. Copy of Economic Times dated 07.10.1994 as Ex. DW1/G, Delhi Gazette Notification dated 02.03.1978 as Ex. DW1/H. Statement of complainant deposed in FIR No. 288/1998 as Ex. DW1/1. Statement of complainant recorded in civil suit as Ex. DW1/J. Statement of SI Jagtar Singh recorded in civil case as Ex. DW1/K. His complaint to ACP, DCP as Ex. DW1/L. Khasra Girdawari of period 1996 to 2000 as Ex. DW1/M. During his cross examination, DW1 admitted that all the 4 case F.I.R were registered for offence u/s 420 IPC. He also admitted that all the 4 case F.I.R are related to land belonging to Sita Ram Bhandar Trust. He also admitted that he has not filed any complaint case against complainant. He denied the suggestion to the effect that land measuring 200 sq. yards was shown to Phoolwati for amount of Rs. 10 lacs. He further denied the suggestion that on 10.12.1999, he received Rs. 6,50,000/ against the pronote executed by FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 11/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH him. He admitted that he knew Swaroop Singh the marginal witness of pronote.
17. DW2 produced log book of Tej Pal Driver who was on duty on 10.12.1999 from 08:00 AM to 11 PM. The copy of log book is Ex. DW2/A.
18. DW3 Vijay Kumar deposed that Late Hari Ram was nephew of Smt. Phoolwati. He further deposed that wife of Swaroop Singh and Late Hari Ram are the real sisters so Hari Ram and Swaroop were sadu bhai (husbands of sisters).
19. DW4 Mahender Kumar proved letter dt. 03.09.2010 as Ex. DW4/1 which was issued by Manager of the Bank. He also proved declaration of R.D A/C No. AKS 1260 as Ex. DW4/2. He further deposed that on presentation of any pay order with the account holder, the same can be cleared within 3 days from its presentation.
20. DW5 Ranvir Singh produced Khasra Girdwari of period 1996 to 1997 as Ex. DW5/1, for the period of 19971998 as Ex. DW1/14, for the period of 19981999 as Ex. DW5/2 for the period 19992000 as Ex. DW5/3. DW5 also produced khatoni of village karawal Nagar for period 198485 as Ex. DW5/4.
During his cross examination, DW5 deposed that he has no knowledge how much land was sold by Leelu and Ram Kishori from abovesaid khasra. He further admitted that several colonies have developed in abovesaid FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 12/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH khasra and people have constructed their individual house in their individual plot and no entry is made in Khasra Gidawari register. He further deposed that he has no knowledge regarding sale of land of khasra no 250 to Phoolwati by Sh. Sukhpal Gupta. He further deposed that there is no record maintained in their office regarding sale of land and constructions of buildings.
21. DW6 deposed that Brila Dairy was on rented land of Sita Ram and he knows Acharya Arun Dev very well as he is the attorney of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust. He further deposed that he also knew Phoolwati the complainant as she was farming on the land of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust and grazing their cattle on the land.
During his cross examination he deposed that he had not seen Phoolwati in around roaming at Sita Ram Bhandar Trust.
22. DW7 deposed that he has examined disputed signatures mark Q1 to Q5 and compared the same with the specimen signatures mark S1 to S5 and he opined that disputed signatures Q1 to Q5 are not written by one and the same person whose signatures are S1 to S5 and his detailed report is Ex. DW7/A. DW7 produced the 15 photographs collectively Ex. DW7/B and compact disc containing exposers Ex. DW7/C. During his cross examination, DW7 deposed that he has not examined any other document which is on record. He further deposed that he has not seen any other signature of the accused which is on record except FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 13/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH mentioned in his report. DW7 admitted that he has not examined the signatures i.e. A3 to A10. He also deposed that he charged professional fee of Rs. 7000/.
23. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for state and ld. Counsel for the accused and also gone through the material available on record as well as written arguments and the case law relied by Ld. counsel for accused,
24. PW1 testified that about 23 months from 10.12.1999 both the accused persons told her that they were the Manager of Sita Ram Bhandar and they were having land with them so being owner of same, they showed the land near Jaagriti Mandir Sita Ram Bhandar. PW1 also testified that accused persons came to her house and told that circle rate of land was about 10,000 sq. yds but they can get available the said land for Rs. 5000/ sq. yards. PW1 further testified that she has paid Rs. 6,50,000/ out of settled amount of Rs. 10 lakh at her house and accused persons were having a pronote which were executed and she has to pay remaining amount at the time of execution of GPA. PW5/the son of complainant testified that both accused persons Madan Singh and his son Bablu came to his house to sale the land and due to old relationship they offered to sale the land to his mother @ 5000/ sq. yards though the market value of land was 10,000/ sq. yards. PW5 also testified deposed that on 10.12.1999 his mother paid Rs. 6,50,000/ to accused Madan Singh and Bablu in presence of him, Tej Pal and Swaroop Singh. PW2/Swaroop Singh also deposed that on 10.12.1999 he went to the house of complainant where accused FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 14/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH Madan, Bablu and son of Phoolwati namely Kalu Ram were present there and accused persons were carrying out the negotiation to sale the plot to the complainant and complainant paid Rs. 6,50,000/ to the accused Madan Singh and Bablu out of settled amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ and accused Madan Singh signed pronote Ex. PW1/A. It is also pertinent that according to PW1 accused persons came to her house at 07:30 AM and she made the payment. PW5 also deposed that pronote was executed at 12:00 Noon. PW2 also deposed that pronote was executed in his presence between 12:00 to 01:00 PM. In view of this discussion, I am of considered opinion that the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW5 are consistent corroborative to the fact that on 10.12.1999 accused persons i.e. Madan Singh and his son Babloo (now expired) both were present in the house of complainant where PW1 paid Rs. 6,50,000/ to accused Madan Singh and Bablu regarding purchase of plot which was to be sold her for total amount of Rs. 10 lacs by accused persons and in regard to this accused Madan Singh executed a pronote Ex. PW1/A of Rs. 6,50,000/.
25. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that complainant had not sold any plot of Karawal Nagar as she had no plot in Karawal Nagar. PW1 categorically deposed that she arranged amount of Rs. 6,50,000/ from different sources as she sold one plot of Rs. 4,50,000/ and one lakh was arranged from her jewellery and an other one lakh was arranged from business of sweet shops. DW5 admitted that Karawal Nagar are thickly populated area and several colonies have developed in aforesaid khasra and people have constructed their FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 15/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH individual house and he also admitted that there is no record regarding sale of plot and construction of building in their office. So from the testimony of DW5 it is clear that record produced by DW5 is contrary to his deposition and therefore the record produced by him is against the existing situation. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that complainant had not sold the property of Karawal Nagar to arrange the money.
26. Ld. counsel for accused contended that the testimony of PW2 cannot be relied upon as PW2 is relative of complainant. Admittedly the defence witness DW3 deposed that one Late Hari Ram was nephew of complainant and wife of Late Hari Ram and PW2 are real sister so PW2 is the relative of complainant. It is clear from the testimony of DW3 that PW2 is relative of Late Hari Ram as their wives are real sisters. However, PW2 being husband of real sister has no concern with the complainant. Under these circumstances, the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for accused is not tenable.
27. Ld. counsel for the accused contented that complainant has forged the pronote of Rs. 6,50,000/ Ex. PW1/A as accused has not received any payment from the complainant and pronote Ex. PW1/A does not show point A, B, C, D and E as his alleged signatures. He further contended that report of PW4 cannot be relied upon as his opinion is based on the record which were not seized as per law. Ld. counsel for accused also contended that document Ex. A1 to A12 are not belong to accused Madan Singh and do not bear his FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 16/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH signature.
28. It is not disputed that IO/PW7 got the signatures of accused on sheet S1 to S5 Ex. PW7/A1 to Ex. PW7/A5 for comparison with pronote Ex. PW1/A and he had sent them to FSL but PW4 in his report opined that "it has not possible to express any opinion on Q1 to Q5 in comparison with S1 to S5 in the absence of admitted signature of the contemporary period of people concerned. Thereafter PW7 moved an application Ex. PW7/B before court to take the original record from Birla Mills to send them for comparison to FSL and vide order dt. 21.06.2002 application of IO was allowed and thereafter PW7 collected contemporary document A1 to A12 and he again sent the same for FSL Malviya Nagar for comparison with pronote Ex. PW1/A and then PW4 vide his report Ex. PW4/A opined that red enclosed writing signatures Mark S1 to S5 and A1 to A12 are wrote the red enclosed signatures Mark Q1 to Q5 of pronote Ex. PW1/A.
29. It is not disputed that IO moved an application Ex. PW7/B before court to obtain contemporary signatures of accused Madan Singh from his office and this application was allowed by the court vide order dt. 21.06.2002. It is also pertinent that accused Madan Singh has not disputed the documents A1 to A12 & Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A5 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The relevant questions put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C and its answers are as under:
It is further evidence against you that PW7 have FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 17/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH sent abovesaid Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A5 along with original Ex. PW1/A to FSL for expert opinion. The FSL has sent those documents back on 28.05.2002 with a request to send admitted signature of accused. On 24.06.2002 permission was taken from the court by filing an application Ex. PW7/B to get admitted signature of accused Madan Singh from Birla Cotton Mills, Shakti Nagar. Documents mark A1 to A12 i.e. purportedly written by you were obtained by the IO. He sent all these documents along with original pronote to FSL, what you have to say?
Ans. The procedure adopted by IO was not in accordance with law.
It is further evidence against you as stated by witness PW7 that he has obtained your specimen signatures on five sheets Ex. PW7/A1 to A5 for the purpose of verification of your alleged signatures on Ex. PW1/A, what you have to say?
Ans. It is a matter of record.
It is further evidence against you that during investigation PW7 received FSL report on 27.07.2002 along with original documents. It is further stated in the report as well as by PW4 that your signatures mark Q1 to Q5 on pronote Ex. PW1/A is written by the same person who has written S1 to S5 and A1 to A5 i.e. FSL and PW4 has opined that signature of Madan Singh on Ex. PW1/A is that of yours, what you have to say?
Ans. The report of FSL is incorrect and not properly
given and there is many flaws in the examination of
relevant document.
FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 18/25
STATE vs. MADAN SINGH
30. Admittedly accused has not pointed out how the procedure adopted by PW7 in collection of documents A1 to A12 were not accordance with law and what prejudice was caused to him if such procedure was not adopted. It is also pertinent that during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has not denied that documents A1 to A12 are not of him and same are not bears his signature. So under these circumstances, it is clear that documents A1 to A12 are of accused Madan Singh and same bears his signatures.
31. It is pertinent that accused also examined his handwriting expert as DW7 who deposed that disputed signatures Q1 to Q5 of pronote Ex. PW1/A were not written by accused Madan Singh. It is admitted that DW7 has not compared the signatures Q1 to Q5 of pronote Ex.PW1/A with contemporary signatures of the accused. It is also not disputed that PW4 earlier specifically stated in his report that it is not possible to express any opinion on Q1 to Q5 in comparison with S1 to S5 so he required signatures of accused on contemporary period and after examination of contemporary period signatures of accused, PW4 thereafter gave his report Ex. PW4/A whereas DW7 has not done so. It is pertinent that DW7 charged Rs. 7000/ as professional fee from accused to give his report. Whereas PW4 who is a Govt. official has not charged anything from complainant to give his report and therefore there is no possibility that PW4 had any reason to give report favouring to complainant In view of above, the report of PW7 inspires confidence of court in comparison to DW7 and accordingly I am of considered opinion that accused had executed the FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 19/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH pronote Ex. PW1/A by putting his signature at point Q1 to Q5.
32. Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that there was delay in registration of case FIR Ex. PW3/B and further there is no mentioning of pronote in F.I.R so case of prosecution cannot be believed. PW1 and PW5 both testified that when they came to know that accused persons had no land so PW1 asked the accused persons to refund her amount of Rs. 6,50,000/ but when accused persons refused to return her amount then PW1 made complaint to the police but FIR of case had not been registered by the police officials and it was only registered i.e. on 20.02.2002 after completion of preliminary enquiry. It is on record that prior to registration of F.I.R. Ex. PW3/B accused Madan Singh came to know about filing of the complaint Ex. PW1/B along with the pronote Ex. PW1/A as accused Madan Singh himself filed a complaint before ACP and DCP concerned Ex. DW1/L on 19.12.2001 and 20.12.2001 respectively wherein he stated that complainant Phoolwati filed a pronote along with her third complaint is forged documents. It is clear that complainant had taken the step in time for registration of case FIR after came to know that accused had no land but police officials caused the delay in registration of case FIR. So the delay which has been caused in registration of FIR was only on the part of police officials and not on the part of complainant. It is also admitted fact that there is no mentioning of pronote in complaint Ex. PW1/B. In Sohan Lal @ Sohan Singh V/s State of Punjab A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 4466 it is held that complaint is not the substantive evidence as it is only the information about the commission of offence. So merely because there is no mentioning of pronote FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 20/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH in case F.I.R. does not effect the case of prosecution particularly when pronote itself was given along with complaint. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is forces in the arguments of Ld. counsel for the accused.
33. Ld. counsel for the accused also contended that the testimony of complainant is not corroborated with her own testimony Ex. DW1/J given in civil case filed for recovery of said amount. It is admitted fact that on record that after registration of this case complainant filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 6,85,000/ against the accused persons. The said suit after considering all the evidence on record including Ex. DW1/J also, the then Ld. ADJ decreed the suit vide judgment Ex. PW5/A on 16.08.2007 holding that Madan Singh (accused herein) had executed pronote receipt (pronote Ex. PW1/A herein). In view of this discussion, the aforesaid arguments of Ld counsel for the accused is not tenable.
34. It is not disputed that accused Madan Singh had no plot to sale as he admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. The relevant question and its answer is as under:
It is further evidence against you as stated by witnesses that complainant got suspicious and told her son namely Kalu Ram (PW5) to verify the facts from Patwari. On verification from Patwari it was transpired that the land in question belongs to Sita Ram Bhandar Trust and you and other accused has nothing to do with the same, what you have to say?
FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 21/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH Ans. It is correct that I have no connection with the
land in question. It is also correct that the land belongs to Sita Ram Bhandar Trust and I was also having litigation with the said Trust.
35. Considering the aforesaid discussion, I am of considered opinion that accused Madan Singh along with his son Babloo (expired) with their common intention approached the complainant to sale the plot for amount of Rs. 5000 per sq. yards despite the fact that they had no plot and they received Rs. 6,50,000/ from complainant to sale the plot and thereby accused Madan Singh alongwith his son Babloo (expired) cheated the complainant.
36. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of considered opinion that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Madan Singh. Accordingly, he is convicted for offence charged U/S 420/34 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (RAVINDER SINGH)
03.07.2013 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Shahdara Distt., KKD Courts, Delhi
FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 22/25
STATE vs. MADAN SINGH
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SHAHDARA), KKD COURTS DELHI. FIR No. 39/02
PS : Anand Vihar U/s 420/34 IPC State vs. Madan Singh 11.07.2013 ORDER ON SENTENCE Pr: Ld. Substitute APP for the state with L.R's of complainant Sh. Kallu Ram and Lokeshwar Singh.
Convict on bail with counsel Sh. Santosh Pratap Singh. It is submitted on behalf of Ld. Counsel for convict that convict is an old age person of 82 years and his wife who is a heart patient is of 80 years old The convict is living in Jaipur and coming regularly from there to face trial. It is further submitted that the complainant filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount which was decreed in her favour and execution is pending in the court of ld. ADJ. He further submitted that convict has no criminal background and he is not a habitual offender and convict is not previously convicted person and accordingly ld. Counsel for convict prayed that convict be sentence till rising of court and for fine.
On the other hand, ld. Substitute APP for the state submitted that convict has cheated the complainant for the amount of Rs.6,50,000/ in the garb to sell the land which was not belonged to him. He further submitted that convict does not deserve any leniency of the court as he along with his son Babloo (now expired) FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 23/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH committed the offence in planned manner and therefore maximum sentence be awarded to the convict.
Argument of ld. Counsel for convict and ld. Substitute APP for state heard on point of sentence. Case file perused.
It is admitted fact that complainant filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount which convict received by cheating the complainant and the said suit of the complainant was decreed and the execution of same is still pending in the court of ld. ADJ vide execution petition No.68/11.
The convict Madan Singh along with his son Babloo who expired during trial approached the complainant to sell a plot which they had knowledge that plot did not belong to them and despite this they agreed to sell the same to complainant and received Rs.6,50,000/ as part consideration out of Rs.10Lakh and thereby convict cheated the innocent lady who sold her plot of Karawal Nagar to purchase the plot which accused wanted to sell her. The convict Madan Singh along with his son Babloo with their preplanned manner committed the offence.
The conviction slip of convict Madan Singh shows that he is not a previously convicted person. He is an old age person of 82 years having wife of 80 years old suffering from heart disease. The convict has also faced ordeal of trial for the last 11 years. So, keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case and considering the age and antecedent of the convict, I am of considered opinion that interest of justice would be met to sentence the convict for rigorous imprisonment of FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 24/25 STATE vs. MADAN SINGH three years and fine of Rs.5,000/ for offence U/S 420/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo RI of three months. Order accordingly.
Announced in Open Court (RAVINDER SINGH)
11.07.2013 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Shahdara Distt., KKD Courts, Delhi
FIR NO. 39/02 PAGE 25/25