Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29 The other witness is complainant/ PW 5. She deposed that accused had given shop in question on rent to her in the year 2001 and it remained with her till 2004. She also stated that in the intervening night of 19/20.01.2005 accused Shyam Lal had forcibly taken possession of her shop by breaking the locks. However, as per her testimony the police was not immediately informed at 100 number and accordingly there is no immediate investigation by the police nor there are any photographs of any broken locks on record. PW 5 also could not produce any document such as rent deeds or rent receipts to show her possession over the property in question. In her cross examination also she has admitted that she was in possession of the shop till the year 2004. This statement clearly contradicts her stand that the possession of the shop was forcibly taken from her on the intervening night of 19/20.01.05. Accordingly even her testimony is not considered sufficient for holding that she was in possession of property in question before the alleged incident. 30 In addition to the above two witnesses, prosecution has relied upon a bank account opened by the husband of the complainant with Jain cooperative Bank giving the address of C-11 Aruna Park. The document in this regard has been proved by witness PW 10. However, PW 10 has admitted that at the time of opening of the bank account the address was not verified. Even the pan card and election I Card, copies of which were handed over to the bank at the time of opening of bank account donot bear the address of C-11, Aruna Park. Rather the I-card is of the address 1/35, Vishwas Nagar. 31 Similarly the prosecution is also relying upon the documents procured from MTNL for installing a telephone connection at property no.C-11 by husband of the complainant namely Mahesh Chand. The witness from MTNL has been examined as PW 13 who has again produced the photocopies of Pan Card and ration card which were submitted by Mahesh Chand at the time of applying of MTNL connection which are mark Ex. PW 13/A1 and A2. Both these documents again do not bear the address of C-11, Aruna Park and Ration Crd bears the address of 1/35 Vishwas Nagar. PW 13 also produced the NOC which was allegedly given by the accused in favour of the complainant for obtaining the MTNL connection. The said NOC (Ex. PW5/DA) has been disputed by the accused and it is submitted by him that it bears his forged signatures. The said NOC was also sent to FSL alongwith the admitted and specimen signatures of the accused. However, no conclusive report could be given by the FSL on comparison which is clearly mentioned in FSL report Ex.AD-2.