Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok Kumar And Ors on 9 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 2034634/2016
FIR No. : 10/2010
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
i) Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Duli Chand
R/o Village Puahania
Tehsil Buhana, Disttt. Jhunjhanu
Rajasthan
ii) Mahesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Umrao Singh
R/o C-5/174, Yamuna Vihar
New Delhi
iii) Balbir Singh
S/o Sh. Hira Lal
R/o Village Naredi
PO Sareli, PS Nangal Chaudhari
Mahendergarh (Haryana)
iv) Ajit Singh
S/o Sh. Shimbhu Dayal
R/o Village Tajipur
PO Mandhi, Tehsil Narnaul
Mahendergarh (Haryana)
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 1 of 45
v) Sumitra
W/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o Village Khandwa Buhena
Disttt. Jhunjhanu
Rajasthant
vi) Raj Karan Gurjar
S/o Sh. Ram Chander Gurjar
R/o Village Pali
Post Bhanpur Kalan
District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
vii) Leela Ram
S/o Sh. Net Ram
R/o Village Sarai Bahadur
Tehsil Narnaul
Mahendergarh (Haryana)
viii) Jitender Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o Village Mundia Khera
PO Dongra Ahir
Tehsil Kanina
Mahendergarh (Haryana)
ix) Virender Singh
S/o Sh. Madu Ram
R/o VPO Khandwa
Tehsil Buhana, Disttt. Jhunjhanu
Rajasthan .... Accused
1.
Name of Complainant : Asstt. Commandant, CISF
2. Name of Accused : As above
3. Offence complained of or proved : 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 06.09.2017
6. Date of Filing of case : 17.03.2012
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 2 of 45
7. Date of Reserving Order : 14.05.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025
Accused Mahesh and Leela
Ram acquitted of the charges
levelled against them.
9. Final Order :
Remaining accused persons
convicted for the offences
punishable u/s 420/511 IPC and
471 IPC.
Argued by - Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Respective Counsel for the accused persons.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Table of Contents
1 Facts Page 4
2 Charge Page 4-5
3 Evidence Page 5-14
4 Section 294 CrPC, and statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC Page 14-17
5 Arguments and Legal Positions Page 17-23
6 Analysis Page 24-45
FACTUAL MATRIX –
” The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
Through an arduous journey spanning more than a decade, the prosecution
could successfully bring home the guilt of nearly all accused persons, and
could establish they all deliberately and dishonestly filed forged
documents with their applications for recruitment with CISF. While the
trial took considerable time to conclude, the actions of accused persons
have finally caught up to them.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 3 of 45
1. All the accused persons except Leela Ram applied for with CISF
Department. Upon scrutiny by the concerned department, it was found out
that certain documents that they had each filed with their respective
application forms to obtain employment with the said Department were
forged. That is, accused Ashok Kumar, Rajkaran Gurjar, Sumitra, Ajit
Singh, Balibir Singh, Jitender Kumar, and Mahesh Kumar were found to
have deposited fake domicile certificates with the Department, and accused
Virender Singh was found to have deposited a forged “VII Circle Style
National Kabaddi Championship Certificate”. In this regard, a complaint
by the concerned Dy. Commandant, CISF Unit, BTPS Badarpur, New
Delhi was given to PS Saket. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR
instant was registered. During investigation, the IO obtained verification
reports from concerned departments, confirming that the aforesaid
documents submitted by the accused persons with CISF were forged. The
accused persons disclosed that they had procured the said documents
through co-accused Leela Ram. When the said Leela Ram was arrested,
after he surrendered at PS Saket himself, his disclosure statement was also
recorded by the IO, wherein he admitted to have forged the various
documents for the accused persons in order to help them procure
employment with CISF. During his PC remand, one fake participation
certificate in the name of accused Virender Singh in National Kabaddi
Championship was also recovered from his house, at his instance. This, in
brief, is the prosecution story.
2. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the subject charge sheet was
filed. Cognizance of the offences as disclosed in the charge sheet was
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 4 of 45
taken, and the accused persons were summoned to face trial. When they
appeared before the Court, copy of the charge sheet was supplied to them
in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, arguments on the point of
charge were heard. Vide order dated 06.09.2017, charge for the offences
punishable u/s 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC were framed against the
accused persons. They pleaded not guilty thereto, and claimed trial.
Proceedings accordingly progressed to the stage of recording of
prosecution evidence (PE).
3. At the stage of PE, prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all:
PW Name of PW Nature of Testimony
PW1 Sh. M.R Tomar He testified that in the relevant period
(Retired Deputy
between August, 2009 to November, 2011,
Commandant)
he was posted at CISF, North Zone
Headquarters, Saket as Dy. Commandant.
In his testimony, he relied upon the
forwarding letters vide which he had
forwarded the documents of the accused
person submitted at the time of the
examination process to the IO, the said
documents, as well as the seizure memos of
the said documents. The witness was duly
cross-examined and discharged thereafter.
PW2 Sh. Vimal Kumar He testified that in the year 2010, he was
(Assistant
posted as Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar,
Commissioner,
GST, NCT of Delhi, Kalkaji. In his testimony, he relied upon his
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 5 of 45
Vyapar Bhawan, reply Ex PW2/A bearing his signatures at
ITO, New-Delhi.)
point A, and stated that as per the record
available in the office, the domicile
certificates as well as OBC certificates of
accused Ashok Kumar, Virender Singh,
Rajkaran Gurjar, Ajit Singh, Sumitra, and
Balbir Singh have not been issued by the
said office. The witness was duly cross-
examined and discharged thereafter.
PW3 Sh. Shubhasheesha He testified that on 22.11.2011, he was
posted as a Tehsildar-cum-Executive
(Section Officer in
the office of Magistrate in Delhi Cantt., District South-
Lieutenant
West. He proved his report Ex PW3/A, as
Governor of Delhi)
per which the domicile certificate in the
name of accused Jitender Kumar vide letter
no. Teh/DC/Domicile/Veri/2011/1352 dated
22.11.2011 was found to be fake. The
witness was duly cross-examined and
discharged thereafter.
PW4 Sh. V.P. Jha He testified that on 18.07.2011, he was
(Deputy Secretary,
working as Executive Magistrate at
DSSSB Board,
Government of Seelampur Sub-Division, New Delhi. He
NCT of Delhi)
testified that he had received a notice from
(Dy. Secretary, the IO u/s 91 CrPC requiring him to verify
DSSSB Board,
the domicile certificate of accused Mahesh
GNCT of Delhi)
Kumar S/o Umrao Singh. He testified that
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 6 of 45
even after due verification, the said
document having the above said domicile
number was not found to be available in the
office, and proved his verification report Ex
PW4/A. The witness was duly cross-
examined and discharged thereafter.
PW5 Sh. A.K Sharma He testified that on 16.09.2010, he was
posted as SDM at Seelampur. He testified
(Retired Dy.
Secretary, that he had prepared the report Ex PW5/A,
Department of Law
as per which the domicile certificate of
& Justice)
accused Mahesh Kumar dated 16.09.2010
was found to be genuine. He also relied
upon the original domicile certificate issued
by the Tehsildar Seelampur Sh. A.K Pasi in
favour of accused Mahesh, Ex PW5/B. The
witness was duly cross-examined and
discharged thereafter.
PW6 HC Satish Kumar He proved the arrest memo, personal search
memo and disclosure statement of accused
(Excise
Department, Vikas Balbir Singh, being Ex PW6/A, Ex PW6/B,
Bhawan, New
and Ex PW6/C. The prosecution did not
Delhi)
procure the presence of this witness for
cross-examination by the accused, and his
testimony remained inchoate.
PW7 Sh. Deoraj He proved his report Ex PW7/A, as per
Chaturvedi
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 7 of 45
which he had reported to the IO in
(Assistant
pursuance to the notice u/s 91 CrPC that as
Secretary, Amateur
Kabaddi Federation per the official record available with the
of India)
concerned office, the name of Virender
Singh S/o Sh. Maru Ram does not appear in
the list of players of Rajasthan Team, which
participated in the VII Circle Style National
Kabaddi Championship held at Bokaro
Steel City between 19.03.2009 to
22.03.2009. The witness was duly cross-
examined and discharged thereafter.
PW8 Ct. Deepak He testified that he had joined the
investigation of the case on 18.01.2012, on
(DAP 4th Battalion,
Kingsway Camp) which date he was posted as Constable at
PS RK Puram, and on that day, along with
the IO, he had gone to the house of accused
Leela Ram at Village Sarai Bahadur,
District Mahendragarh, Haryana. He
testified that in his presence, the accused
had taken out one fake certificate from his
Almirah, which was lying under a
newspaper, and that the same was seized by
the IO vide seizure memo Ex PW8/A. The
witness was duly cross-examined and
discharged thereafter.
PW9 Sh. KC Sharma He testified that he had joined BTPS, CISF
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 8 of 45
Badarpur Unit as Dy. Commandant in
(Retired Dy.
September, 2009. He testified that during
Commandant)
his tenure at the said place, he had written
one letter to the police officials Ex PW9/A,
on the basis of which complaint the subject
FIR was registered. The witness was duly
cross-examined and discharged thereafter.
PW10 Inspector Upender He testified that on 17.01.2012, accused
Singh
Leela Ram had surrendered before him,
(Second IO) after which he interrogated him and arrested
him vide arrest memo Ex PW10/A. He
testified that during PC remand of the
accused, a fake participation certificate in
National Kabaddi Championship in the
name of accused Virender was recovered
from the house of accused Leela Ram vide
seizure memo Ex PW8/A. He also testified
regarding the interrogation of accused
Jitender and his arrest vide memos Ex
PW10/D and Ex PW10/E, and also proved
his disclosure statement Ex PW10/F. He
testified qua the codal formalities
discharged by him, and the filing of the
subject charge sheet. The witness was duly
cross-examined and discharged thereafter.
PW11 Inspector Jitender He testified that during investigation, he
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 9 of 45
seized the documents of accused Sumitra,
(First IO)
Virender Singh, Ashok Kumar, Ajit Singh,
Jitender Kumar, Mahesh Kumar, Rajkaran
Gurjar, and Balbir from CISF Headquarters.
The witness also testified that he seized the
copy of Notification for the post which was
advertised, as well as the xerox copy of the
replies of the Executive Magistrate sent to
CISF, and the letter issued by Dy.
Commandant, CISF vide memo Ex
PW1/R1. He testified that during the course
of investigation, he sent notice to SDM,
Kalkaji on 14.06.2010, being Ex PW11/B,
and he received the reply thereto Ex
PW2/A, as per which the domicile and
OBC certificates of accused Ashok Kumar,
Virender Singh, Rajkaran Gurjar, Ajit
Singh, Sumitra, and Balbir were forged. He
also testified that thereafter, he started
verifying the addresses mentioned in the
document seized by him except the address
of Mahesh Kumar, but the address of
accused Rajkaran Gurjar at Dakshinpuri,
that of accused Ashok Kumar at Lado Sarai,
and the addresses of accused Sumitra,
Virender, and Ajit in Palam Colony could
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 10 of 45
not be verified. He also testified that the
address of Balbir Singh of Jasola also could
not be verified, and neither could the
address of accused Jitender at Village
Harada, New Delhi could be verified. He
further stated that he served the notice Ex
PW11/C to SDM Kapashera for verification
of the domicile certificate of accused
Virender Kumar, and as per the reply
received, the certificate of accused Virender
was also not found in the database of the
Department. He also testified that he had
given a notice to the Executive Magistrate,
Seelampur to verify the genuineness of the
domicile certificate of accused Mahesh
Kumar, being Ex PW11/D, and in the reply
Ex PW4/D, it was written that the same had
also not been issued by office of SDM,
Seelampur. He testified that during
investigation, he had arrested accused
Balbir Singh from his Village Naredi vide
arrest memo Ex PW6/A, and his personal
search was conducted vide memo Ex
PW6/B. He also proved the disclosure
statement of the said accused Ex PW6/C, as
per which he disclosed that he had got the
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 11 of 45
fake certificate from one Indraj. He testified
that he tried to trace the said Indraj during
the PC remand of accused Balbir, but to no
avail. He also testified that futile efforts
were made by him to trace accused Sumitra,
Virender and Ashok, but later on, accused
Sumitra joined the investigation herself on
16.05.2011, after having obtained
anticipatory bail from the Ld. Sessions
Court. He further testified that the
disclosure statement of accused Sumitra is
Ex PW1/F wherein she revealed that she
had obtained the fake documents from her
brother in law, Leeladhar for a
consideration of Rs.1.50 lakh. He testified
that he had arrested the said accused vide
memo Ex PW11/G, and then released her
on bail. He testified that on 19.07.2011,
accused Ashok, Ajit and Virender also
joined the investigation, and their disclosure
statements Ex PW11/H to Ex PW11/J
respectively were also recorded by him. He
also testified that the said accused were
arrested by him vide memos Ex PW11/K to
Ex PW11/M, and thereafter released them,
as per the directions contained in the order
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 12 of 45
by which they had all been granted
anticipatory bail. He also testified that he
had sent a notice to Jharkhand to verify the
certificate of accused Virender Kumar, and
as per the reply Ex PW7/A, the name of the
said accused also does not figure in the list
of players of Rajasthan Team. He also
testified that he had further obtained certain
documents from CISF regarding the four
accused, being Ex PW1/S. He testified that
during investigation, he also obtained the
specimen signatures of accused Virender Ex
PW11/X (Colly), Ashok PW11/Y (Colly),
and Sumitra Ex PW11/Z (Colly), besides
the sample signatures of accused Balbir
Singh Ex PW11/E (Colly), for the purpose
of their forensic examination. The witness
was discharged after being cross examined
at length.
PW12 Inspector Durgadas He testified that the investigation of the
case was marked to him in April 2014. He
testified that as the IO, he obtained
specimen handwriting of accused Balbir
Singh, and thereafter, sent the same along
with other relevant documents to the FSL
for examination. He testified that thereafter,
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 13 of 45
he prepared the supplementary charge sheet
and filed the same before the Court. The
witness was duly cross-examined and
discharged thereafter.
PW13 Anurag Sharma He proved the FSL Report, Ex PW13/A.
The witness was duly cross-examined and
(Assistant Director,
RFSL, Chanakya discharged thereafter.
Puri)
4. Accused persons admitted, in terms of Section 294 CrPC, the
genuineness of the subject FIR, Ex P1. As such, the corresponding witness,
formal in nature, was dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined.
No other witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and PE was closed.
5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused persons was recorded
separately u/s 313 CrPC, in order to accord to them an opportunity to
explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them at trial.
5.1 Accused Mahesh Kumar denied the allegations against him, and
stated that he had only submitted one domicile certificate with the
concerned Department, which was found to be genuine upon verification.
5.2 Accused Balbir Singh stated that he had given his Mark Sheet to one
person who had filled the application form on his behalf, and that he had
met the said person at a recruitment drive at Bhiwadi. He stated that he
does not know anything w.r.t. the alleged fake domicile certificate filed by
him.
5.3 Accused Ajit Singh stated that he had given his documents including
Haryana domicile certificate to accused Leela Ram, who had promised to
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 14 of 45
him that he would help him secure a Government job. He stated that he is a
resident of Haryana, and the domicile certificate so given by him was not
forged. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case,
and all the documents were in fact prepared by accused.
5.4 Accused Sumitra states that co-accused Leela Ram is her relative.
She stated that accused Leela Ram had induced her to apply for a job with
CISF, and she had given her documents to him, and had also signed certain
documents at his instance. She stated that she is not aware of any fake
domicile certificate which was prepared by accused Leela Ram in support
of her application. She stated that her parents had paid Rs.1.50 lakh to
accused Leela Ram, and had also promised to pay him more money
whenever her job was secured. She stated that accused Leela Ram had
cheated her, and in fact, he is the real culprit.
5.5 Accused Rajkaran Gurjar stated that he was acquainted with accused
Leela Ram through his parents, and that accused Leela Ram had induced
his parents to have him apply for a job with CISF. He stated that he had
given his documents to Leela Ram and had also signed certain documents
at the instance of the latter. He stated that he is not aware of any fake
domicile certificate which was prepared by accused Leela Ram in support
of his application, and that he had only handed over original and genuine
documents to accused Leela Ram. He further stated that he had paid
Rs.1.50 lakh to accused Leela Ram, and had promised to pay him more
money whenever his job was secured. He also stated that he has, in fact,
been cheated by accused Leela Ram.
5.6 Accused Leela Ram stated that he neither got any fake documents
prepared nor submitted any such documents with CISF, and has been
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 15 of 45
falsely implicated in the case. He also denied that any document was ever
recovered from his possession.
5.7 Accused Jitendra stated that he had gone to apply for a job at BSF,
where he met a person outside the ground. He stated that the said person
assured him that he would help him get a job. He stated that upon his
asking, he gave the copies of his Class 10th and 12th Certificates to the
said person, and subsequently, after some time, he received a call letter
from CISF. He stated that he then went for the recruitment process, but was
not recruited. He stated that he does not know what false document was
created by the person, but affirmed that if any forgery was done, it was
done by the said person. He stated that he does not even know the name of
the said person.
5.8 Accused Ashok Kumar stated that he has been falsely implicated in
the case, and had got the fake document prepared through co-accused
Leela Ram.
5.9 Accused Virender Singh stated that he never got any false domicile
certificate prepared. He stated that the documents were prepared by co-
accused Leela Ram, who is related to his sister-in-law Sumitra. He stated
that accused Leela Ram had assured him that he would help him secure a
Government job. He stated that accused Leela Ram had got the documents
prepared, got him to sign the same, and in fact, it is accused Leela Ram,
who had submitted the same with CISF as well. He stated that he has been
falsely implicated in the case.
5.10 All the accused persons thus denied their complicity in the offence
alleged, and claimed to be innocent.
5.11 When specifically asked, neither of the accused persons chose to
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 16 of 45
lead DE in the affirmative. Accordingly, their right to lead DE was closed,
and the proceedings progressed to the stage of final arguments.
6. Final arguments have been heard. Record, including the various
citations relied upon by the accused persons, has been meticulously
perused. Considered.
RELEVANT LEGAL POSITIONS
7. Before proceeding further, it shall be apposite to discuss the relevant
legal provisions which are pertinent for the adjudication of the
controversies involved in the present case:
Sections 101 and 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872
8. It is trite that burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt is on the prosecution, and the prosecution is required to
traverse the distance between “may have” and “must have”. This can be
surmised from Section 101 of Evidence Act. As per 106 of the aforesaid
enactment, the burden of proving any specific fact which is within the
knowledge of the accused is on the accused.
Reasonable Doubt
9. Prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused persons
beyond every reasonable doubt, and not beyond every doubt. The meaning
of expression “Reasonable Doubt” has been explained by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66 thus:
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 17 of 45
“In our opinion, an ingenious mind can question anything and, on the
other hand, there is nothing which it cannot convince. When you
consider the facts, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the matter
is proved or whether it is not a reasonable doubt in this sense. The
reasonableness of a doubt must be a practical one and not on an abstract
theoretical hypothesis. Reasonableness is a virtue that forms as a mean
between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt.”
Section 420 IPC
10. Section 420 IPC provides for the offence of cheating. It provides that
where one person has fraudulently or dishonestly induced another person
by deceiving him to deliver any property to any person or to consent that
any person shall retain any property. It is also cheating if the person so
induced has been intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything
which he would not have done or omitted to done if he were not so
deceived. The scope of section 420 IPC was succinctly explained by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent pronouncement title Professor RK
Vijayasarthi Vs. Sudha Sitaraman, 2019 16 SCC 739, wherein it was held
as follows:
“18. Section 420 of the Penal Code 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.”
19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as
follows:
19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415;
and
19.2. 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 sealed
and capable of being converted into valuable security.
20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an
offence under Section 420.”
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 18 of 45
11. In the case at hand, it is the case of prosecution that the accused
person submitted fake documents with the concerned Department of CISF
for the purpose of procuring a job. However, upon scrutiny, the said
documents were found to be forged, and the offer letter was never issued to
the accused persons. In such a circumstance, it is seen that the offence
punishable u/s 420 IPC was never completed, in as much as the concerned
Department, which was dishonestly induced by the accused persons, never
actually delivered any offer letter or did any act upon the inducement of
the accused persons. (Ref: Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.)
No. 13579/2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court, DOD 26.11.2024, relied upon
by ld. counsel for accused Ashok).
12. However, given the fact that the accused persons had submitted the
false documents with the concerned Department, and did the last overt act
which was necessary for the commission of the offence of a nature that if
the accused changed their minds and did not proceed further in the
progress of the offence, the act already done would have still resulted in
the commission of the offence. As such, if the case of the prosecution is
found to be true, the accused persons can be convicted for the offence
punishable u/s 420/511 IPC, that is for the offence of attempting to commit
the offence of cheating.
Section 467/468 IPC
13. Section 467 IPC prescribes for the punishment for the offence of
forging a valuable security or a Will. What is a forged document is itself
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 19 of 45
defined in Section 464 IPC. For the purposes of the case incident, a person
can be said to forged a document if he dishonestly or fraudulently makes,
signs, seals, or executes a document or part of document with the intention
of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document was
made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted, or affixed by or by the
authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not
made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed. In the case Md. Ibrahim and
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751, it was held that:
“a person is said to have made a ‘false document’, if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or
authorised by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person
not in control of his senses.”
13.1 Section 468 IPC provides for the offence of forging a document for
the offence of cheating. For the purpose of Section 468 IPC, the intent to
cheat is sufficient, and it is not necessary that actual cheating must have
been committed.
13.2 Bare perusal of Section 467 and 468 IPC reveals that they provide
for the culpability of the person who has forged a document. Under both
the Sections, it is the maker of the forged document who can be held liable.
Reliance is placed on Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj, AIR 2018 SC
2434, wherein it was held as under:
“25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e.,
referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are
preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a
person who is not the maker of the same.”
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 20 of 45
13.3 Reliance can also be placed on the judgment titled Vijay Pal Sharma
vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr, Crl. MC 3194/2016, Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi, DOD 25.07.2023 (Referred upon by ld. counsel for accused
Ashok).
Section 471 IPC
14. Section 471 IPC provides that any person who uses as genuine a
forged document shall be punished in the same manner as if they had
forged the document themselves.
Section 30 IPC
15. Valuable security has been defined in Section 30 of the IPC to
denote a document which is or which purports to be a document whereby
any legal right is created, extended, transferred, extinguished, or released,
or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability or
that he has not a certain legal right. In the case at hand, case of prosecution
is that domicile certificates furnished by accused Ashok Kumar, Virender,
Rajkaran Gurjar, Sumitra, Ajit Singh, Balbir, Jitender, and Mahesh Kumar
with CISF were forged, and the sports participation certificate given by
accused Virender Singh to CISF along with his application form was also
forged. In view of the fact that such documents were indeed deposited by
the accused persons for the purpose of securing a job with CISF, the said
documents can be construed to be valuable securities. Reliance at this
juncture can be placed on the pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi titled Ashwini Lochan Agarwal Vs. State, DOD 08.12.2006.
Section 120B IPC
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 21 of 45
16. Section 120A IPC defines the offence of conspiracy, and punishment
for the same is provided u/s 120B IPC. In Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki
vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 613, the scope of offence punishable u/s
120B IPC was explained thus:
“23. In the said case it has been highlighted that in the case of
conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of
offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are
alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an
illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be
illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to
do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of
common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely
available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after
the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of
the accused.”
Section 34 IPC
17. Section 34 IPC provides for the liability of accused acting jointly in
concert with each other. In Abdul Sayeed vs. State of MP (2010) 10 SCC
259, the Hon’ble Apex Court explained the scope of the provision thus:
“49. Section 34 IPC carves out an exception from general law that a
person is responsible for his own act, as it provides that a person can
also be held vicariously responsible for the act of others if he has the
“common intention” to commit the offence.
The phrase “common intention” implies a prearranged plan and acting
in concert pursuant to the plan. Thus, the common intention must be
there prior to the commission of the offence in point of time. The
common intention to bring about a particular result may also well
develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to
the facts of the case and circumstances existing thereto. The common
intention under Section 34 IPC is to be understood in a different sense
from the “same intention” or “similar intention” or “common object”.
The persons having similar intention which is not the result of the
prearranged plan cannot be held guilty of the criminal act with the aid
of Section 34 IPC. (See Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC
174: (1963) 1 Cri LJ 100])
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 22 of 45
52. In Gopi Nath v. State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 620] this Court
observed as under: (SCC p. 625, para 8)
“8. … Even the doing of separate, similar or diverse acts by several
persons, so long as they are done in furtherance of a common intention,
render each of such persons liable for the result of them all, as if he had
done them himself, for the whole of the criminal action – be it that it
was not overt or was only a covert act or merely an omission
constituting an illegal omission. The section, therefore, has been held to
be attracted even where the acts committed by the different
confederates are different when it is established in one way or the other
that all of them participated and engaged themselves in furtherance of
the common intention which might be of a preconcerted or prearranged
plan or one manifested or developed on the spur of the moment in the
course of the commission of the offence. The common intention or the
intention of the individual concerned in furtherance of the common
intention could be proved either from direct evidence or by inference
from the acts or attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the
parties. The ultimate decision, at any rate, would invariably depend
upon
the inferences deducible from the circumstances of each case.”
(emphasis supplied)
Section 313 CrPC
18. Statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC is also relevant for the Court
while deciding a case, and the opportunity accorded to accused to explain
the incriminatory material brought on record by prosecution, is an
opportunity to cast incredulity upon such material. Where the statement of
the accused provides links or aids the case of prosecution, the same can
also be considered by the Court while finally adjudicating the case.
Reliance at this juncture can be placed on Md. Aslam vs State, CRL. A.
No. 214/2016, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (DOD 25.04.2016), wherein it
was held as under:
“6.47 Answers given in statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have also
some relevance. Though, such statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is not a
substantive piece of evidence since it is not recorded on oath nor it is
subjected to any cross examination, yet such statement can, be taken
into consideration, at the trial, against the accused for the purpose of
arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the accused. Since no oath is
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 23 of 45
administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will
not be, strictly speaking, evidence. Sub-section (3) also says that the
accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he give false
answer. But, then comes sub-section (4), which provides that answers
given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or
trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or
trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has
committed. Thus, the answers given by the accused, in response to his
examination, under Section 313, can be taken into consideration in such
inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above sub-
section. Therefore, though not strictly construed as evidence, sub-
section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said
inquiry or trial. However, such self- incriminating statement indicting
co-accused cannot be said to be sufficient in itself. The court can rely on
a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty but such
statement should not be considered in isolation but always in
conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Reference be
made to SANATAN NASKER VS. STATE OF BENGAL AIR 2010 SC
3570.”
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
19. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, the facts of the case shall
be adverted to. Case of prosecution is that job applications of all accused
(except Leela Ram) made with CISF were found to be supported by some
fake documents. PW9 Sh KC Sharma proved the letter Ex PW9/A, on the
basis of which complaint the subject FIR was registered. The witness
admitted in his cross-examination that he has no personal knowledge of the
case, and cannot even identify the accused. However, the said admission
does not detract from the testimony of the witness in any manner. PW9
merely proved the report prepared by him, which report only mentions that
the documents submitted by the accused were found to be forged prima
facie, and investigation may appropriately be undertaken. Lack of personal
knowledge on the part of the witness of the facts of the case does not dent
the prosecution version.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 24 of 45
20. After the complaint Ex PW9/A was received at the PS concerned,
investigation commenced. The applications and the documents submitted
by the accused were seized by the IO from the concerned Department.
PW1 MR Tomar testified that he had forwarded the documents of accused
Balbir to the IO vide letter Ex PW1/A, the documents being Ex PW1/B
(Colly). He also testified that the documents were seized by the IO vide
seizure memo Ex PW1/B1. He testified that he forwarded the documents
of accused Ajit Singh S/o Shambhu Dayal to the IO vide letter Ex PW1/C,
the documents being Ex PW1/D, and seized by the IO vide seizure memo
Ex PW1/D1. Similarly, he testified that he forwarded the documents of
accused Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Duli Chand, being Ex PW1/F to the IO vide
letter Ex PW1/E, and the same was seized by the IO vide memo Ex
PW1/F1. He also testified that he had forwarded the documents of accused
Sumitra to the IO vide letter Ex PW1/I. He testified that the said
documents being Ex PW1/J (Colly) were seized by the IO vide seizure
memo Ex PW1/J1, duly bearing his signatures at point A thereof. He also
proved the letter Ex PW1/K vide which the documents of accused
Rajkaran Gurjar, being Ex PW1/L (Colly) were forwarded by him to the
IO, and stated that the same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex
PW1/L1. PW1 testified that in pursuance of the letter of the IO, he had sent
the documents of accused Jitendra Kumar S/o Raj Kumar, pertaining to the
recruitment of Constable/GD to the IO vide letter Ex PW1/M, bearing his
signatures at point A. He further testified that the documents that he had
forwarded along with the said letter are Ex PW1/N (Colly), and that the
same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex PW1/N1. PW1 further
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 25 of 45
proved the letter Ex PW1/O vide which he had forwarded the documents
of accused Mahesh Kumar to the IO, and stated that the documents Ex
PW1/P (Colly) were seized by the IO, vide seizure memo Ex PW1/P1. He
further testified that he produced the documents of accused Balbir, Mahesh
Kumar, Jitender Kumar and Virender Singh, which were received by him
vide letter dated 28.06.2011 to the IO, and the IO seized the said
documents vide seizure memo Ex PW1/S. He further testified that the said
documents are Ex PW1/T (Colly), and the letter is Ex PW1/U.
20.1 In his cross examination, the witness admitted that he does not have
any personal knowledge of the case. He further stated that he has not
verified any of the said documents personally, nor is he aware of the
recruitment process. In fact, he volunteered that for the recruitment at
Badarpur, separate Board was constituted, which was headed by the
Commandant and other officers. He further admitted as correct the
suggestion that he does not know who had prepared the alleged forged
documents, and where the same were prepared. Considering the fact that it
is not the case of the prosecution that the said witness had verified these
documents, the cross examination of the witness appears to be tangential in
nature, and his answers to the questions put to him in the cross
examination do not in any way dent his testimony. In fact, it is observed
that none of the accused have controverted the version of the witness to the
extent that the aforesaid documents, and application forms, were indeed
submitted in their names with CISF. The veracity of the seizure memos as
well as the application forms of the accused appended with forged
documents thus stands established.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 26 of 45
21. After being seized, the fake documents were sent for forensic
examination during examination. Besides the above, the prosecution has
also examined Inspector Durgadas, who testified that he had forwarded the
specimen handwriting of accused Balbir Ex PW12/A along with all the
relevant documents to the FSL for examination. Prosecution also examined
PW13 Anurag Sharma, who testified that he had prepared the FSL Report,
Ex PW13/A. Bare perusal of the FSL Reports Ex PW13/A and Ex PW13/B
shows that the same does not express any opinion on the forgery of the
domicile certificates, or the questioned documents in the case at hand. As
such, the testimonies of the two witnesses is of no relevance to the case of
prosecution.
22. The witness was examined by the prosecution only to prove that the
alleged forged documents of the accused had been submitted with the
Department along with their application forms, and further that they were
later seized by the IO for the purposes of investigation into the present
case. As such, the cross examination of the witness to the effect that he is
not aware of the recruitment process or that he had not himself verified the
documents is of no relevance, and his answers qua the said questions does
not damage the case of the prosecution. Since the domicile certificate of
each of these accused persons forms part of the documents which were
forwarded by the witness to the IO, and consequently seized by the IO as
per the forwarding letter as well as the seizure memo duly proved by the
witness, the case of prosecution to the extent that these documents had
indeed been submitted with the concerned Department along with the
application form of the accused persons stands proved.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 27 of 45
23. The culpability of each accused shall now be examined. PW10
Inspector Upender Singh proved the arrest of accused Leela Ram and
Jitender, and the circumstances in which accused Mahesh and Rajkaran
joined investigation. PW 11 Inspector Jitender proved the circumstances in
which the other accused were arrested/joined to investigation. Their
testimonies, to this extent, does not add anything inculpatory against the
accused on record.
Accused Ashok Kumar, Rajkaran Gurjar, Sumitra, Ajit Singh and Balbir
24. Qua the said accused persons, the case of prosecution is that they
submitted forged domicile certificates, purportedly executed by Sh. Alok
Sharma, Executive Magistrate, Kalkaji, along with their application form
for seeking appointment with CISF. That such domicile certificates were
indeed submitted by them stands proved in light of testimony of PW1.
Now, it shall be examined if the prosecution could prove that the said
documents are forged.
25. PW2 Vimal Kumar testified that at the relevant time, he had received
a letter regarding the verifications of documents, that is domicile and OBC
certificates of certain persons mentioned in the letter, and after verification,
he furnished the reply Ex PW2/A, as per which the documents of the said
persons, including accused Ashok Kumar, Rajkaran Gurjar, Sumitra, Ajit
Singh and Balbir were found to have not been issued by the office after
due verification. In his cross examination, the witness testified that he
cannot tell the exact dates on which he had received the information
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 28 of 45
regarding the verification of the document, but volunteered that the
information of letter was received by the then Certificate Branch-in-
Charge, Sh. Pratap Singh. He further accepted as correct the suggestion
that he had personally not verified the documents of the accused persons,
and volunteered that the documents were verified by the field staff and the
Branch-in-Charge. He testified that he does not remember who was the
Patwari who had verified the documents. He also stated that the report of
the Patwari was first perused by Branch-in-Charge, and thereafter it was
put up before him for consideration.
26. The testimony of this witness categorically proves that the
documents of the accused person were found to be fake after verification
from the concerned Department. The deposition of the witness to the effect
that he had not personally verified the documents is neither here nor there,
for the testimony of the witness is based on official record. There is a
presumption attached to official acts done rightly, and the said presumption
has not been successfully dispelled by the accused persons. The witness
has categorically testified on oath that the certificates were found to have
not been issued by the office as per the reply Ex PW2/A, and the testimony
of the witness cannot be doubted merely because the verification was done
by the other office members and not by him personally. No motive has
been attributed to the witness for which he would depose falsely against
the accused.
27. It was vehemently argued by the accused persons that adverse
inference needs to be drawn from the fact that the relevant record on the
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 29 of 45
basis of which the verification of the documents was done, and the reply
Ex PW2/A was prepared by the witness was prepared, has not been
produced. This Court does not find itself in agreement with such argument.
The record adverted to is a public record, and not a record which was
exclusively in the possession of PW2. As such, the said record could have
easily been summoned by the accused persons to establish the defence that
they had indeed applied for domicile certificates, and that the domicile
certificates had been issued to them by the concerned Department duly. In
fact, even the witness could have been asked during his cross examination
to produce the said record. But not to be. In view of the same, the case of
prosecution cannot be faulted with for non-production of such record, and
the categorical testimony of PW2 to the effect that the domicile certificates
of the accused persons could not be verified leads to the inescapable
conclusion that the said documents, which were filed along with the
application form by the accused person, are forged and fabricated
documents.
28. Testimony of the IO also supports this conclusion. PW11/IO
Inspector Jitendra testified testified that during investigation, accused
Ashok Kumar was found to not be residing at Lado Sarai, which fact was
disclosed to him by one Hariom Singh who was found at the spot. He also
testified that the addresses of accused Sumitra, Virender, Ajit in Palam
Colony also could not be verified. He also testified that the address of
accused Balbir Singh at Jasola was also found to be not existing. During
his cross examination, the witness stated that he had not personally verified
the domicile certificates from the SDM. He testified that he had also not
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 30 of 45
investigated as to by which mode the office of CISF HQs had received the
documents from the candidates. He testified that he had never personally
checked the record from the office of the SDM regarding the verification
of the domicile certificates, nor had personally obtained any documents
from the said office. Further, he stated that as for the application form, he
could not find any requirement for filing of domicile certificate with the
applications for recruitment, but further deposed that during investigation,
he came to know regarding the rules wherein the applicants were required
to file their domicile certificates. He admitted that he had formed his
opinion on the basis of statement of the complainant as well as the
documents received by him during investigation. He denied the suggestion
that no register containing the record of the questioned documents was
examined by him.
29. Scrutiny of the testimony of the witness reveals that he had testified
in his cross examination that accused Ashok Kumar’s address at Lado Surai
could not be verified during investigation, and instead, one Hari Om Singh
was found to be residing there. This fact is of pertinence in view of the fact
that as per the domicile certificate of accused Ashok, which is one of the
questioned documents in the facts of the case, he is an ordinary resident of
Lado Sarai, New Delhi. His address could not be verified, which further
fortifies the conclusion reached by the Court that the domicile certificate
used by the said accused is incorrect. Similarly, qua accused Balbir, the IO
testified that his address at 401, Jasola Village, New Delhi was found to be
non-existent, which is the address mentioned on his domicile certificate,
part of the documents Ex PW1/T (Colly). The witness also testified that
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 31 of 45
similarly, the addresses of accused Sumitra and Ajit Singh also could not
be verified. The testimony of the witness was not challenged in these
aspects at all. It is trite that any part of the testimony of a witness, which is
not challenged by way of cross examination, can be accepted to be correct.
As such, from the testimony of this witness, it proves that the accused
persons were not residing at the addresses which they had disclosed in
their application forms, leading the Court to raise the inference that they
were not ordinarily residents of Delhi. All these factors cumulatively prove
that since the witnesses were required to furnish domicile certificates as
part of their applications, and they were not residing in Delhi, they had
furnished forged domicile certificates along with their application form for
recruitment with CISF.
30. The admission of the IO that he had not personally verified the
documents with the SDM, had not recorded the statement of the SDM
concerned, or the record on the basis of which the documents were verified
by the concerned witness from the SDM office pales into insignificance in
view of the other evidence on record against the accused. The prosecution
has categorically proved that these documents were submitted by the
accused persons with CISF for their recruitment, and the witness from the
concerned Department has proved that the said documents were found to
be forged upon verification. The prosecution has also proved that the
accused persons were not residing at the addresses furnished in the
domicile certificates, which further fortifies the conclusion raised by the
Court that the said domicile certificates are forged and fabricated.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 32 of 45
31. No adverse inference can be raised against the prosecution for non-
production of the record on the basis of which the verification was done,
and since the record is available for access to public at large, the accused
persons also could have easily summoned the record to prove that they had
indeed applied for domicile certificates with the concerned Departments,
and that domicile certificates were genuinely issued to them. Failure of the
accused persons in taking such steps also adds to the case of prosecution.
32. Finally, what adds to the case of prosecution are the statements of
the accused persons recorded u/s 313 CrPC. Accused Balbir stated that he
had given his documents, including his Haryana domicile certificate to
accused Leela Ram, who had promised that he will help him secure a job,
and the first documents were prepared by accused Leela Ram. This
constitutes an admission on part of this from accused Balbir that he had
himself not applied for any domicile certificate with the concerned
Department, and in fact, the domicile certificate submitted along with his
application form is a forged and fabricated document. Similarly, accused
Sumitra also admitted that she had given her documents to accused Leela
Ram, and had also paid him Rs.1,50,000/- for the purpose of procuring a
job, and that the false documents were prepared by accused Leela Ram.
Similarly, accused Rajkumar Gurjar also stated that he is not aware of any
domicile certificate and had given his documents to accused Leela Ram.
Accused Ashok Kumar also categorically stated that he had got the fake
document prepared from accused Leela Ram. None of the accused persons
stated that they had applied for the domicile certificate from the concerned
Department, and admitted that they had procured forged documents
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 33 of 45
through accused Leela Ram. These admissions by the accused persons
prove to be the final nail in the coffin, as it were.
33. Cumulatively, all of these facts prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the domicile certificates filed by the accused persons along with their
application form with CISF are forged and fabricated.
Accused Virender Singh
34. Qua the said accused, PW1 has established that a Sports Certificate
in the name of accused was part of his application form, and seized by the
IO. Veracity of the said seizure memo was also affirmed by the IO
Inspector Jitendra, who testified as PW11 that he had obtained the
documents as per the seizure memo Ex PW1/S from CISF regarding the
four accused persons during the course of investigation. The IO further
stated that he had then sent a notice to Jharkhand to verify the caste
certificate of accused Virender Kumar, and had received the reply from the
concerned office Ex PW7/A, as per which the name of accused Virender
Singh does not appear in the list of players of Rajasthan Team to which the
said certificate pertains. The seizure of the said document was not
challenged by the accused persons during the cross examination of the said
witnesses in any manner. As such, the seizure memo stands proved and can
be accepted as correct.
35. As regards the reply Ex PW7/A, PW7 Deoraj Chaturvedi testified
that he had filed the said reply, as per which in terms of the official record
available with the office, the name of accused Virender Singh does not
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 34 of 45
appear in the list of players of the Rajasthan Team, which had participated
in Seven Circle Style National Kabaddi Championship held at Bokaro
Steel City between 19.03.2009 to 22.03.2009. In his cross examination, the
witness admitted that he has not attached the list of players who had
participated in VII Style National Kabaddi Championship as aforesaid, and
also cannot tell how many players participated in the above event.
However, he did volunteer that the details can be found in the official
record. In his cross examination, the witness further stated that he has not
produced any document to show that accused Virender Singh had not
participated in the event, but volunteered that he can produce the document
if so required. From the testimony of the witness, it is clear that accused
Virender Singh never participated in the aforesaid championship. The
witness categorically stated on oath that his name does not figure in the list
of players as per the official record, and also volunteered to produce the
relevant record, if so required. Accused Virendra did not seek the
production of said document from the witness during his cross
examination, and further did not summon the relevant record at any stage
during trial. The witness had categorically stated that the record available
with the office would make it amply clear that the name of accused
Virender Singh is not in the list of players who played in the concerned
championship, and the accused did not controvert the testimony of the
witness to this effect in any effective manner.
36. In his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC as well, the accused never
stated that he had indeed participated in any such championship, and infact
admitted that he had got the aforesaid document created. This admission
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 35 of 45
also fortifies the prosecution case.
37. When the above material is considered cumulatively, it stands
proved that the sport certificate, which was submitted by accused Virender
with CISF with his job application form is a forged and fabricated
certificate.
Accused Jitender Kumar
38. Qua accused Jitender Kumar, it is the case of the prosecution that the
domicile certificate that he submitted along with his application form with
the concerned Department of CISS while seeking his recruitment there,
purportedly issued by the Executive Magistrate, Delhi Cantt., is forged and
fabricated. That such certificate was indeed deposited by the accused with
CISF stands proved, from the testimony of PW1.
39. Case of prosecution further is that during investigation, the IO had
sought verification of the domicile certificate of accused Jitender from the
Executive Magistrate, Delhi Cantt. District, who had furnished a report, as
per which the said certificate was not found in the database of the
Department. The said report was duly proved on record by PW3
Shubhasheesh. PW3 testified he had verified the domicile certificate of
accused Jitender Kumar dated 05.02.2008 vide letter dated 22.11.2011, and
had then prepared the report Ex PW3/A, as per which no record of the said
certificate could be traced at the concerned Department. In his cross
examination, the witness stated that in 2007-08, his office was working
under Dy. Commissioner, District South-West, Kapashera. He further
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 36 of 45
stated that he does not remember the exact date on which the office was
shifted under Dy. Commissioner, New Delhi, but stated that it was perhaps
in the year 2013. He further stated that no record for the domicile
certificates issued by the office has been maintained, and further deposed
that the record, if any, is being maintained in the server of the Department
by NIC. He further stated that he does not know since how long the record
of domicile certificate has been maintained by NIC. The witness further
stated that he had not verified the existence of domicile certificate in the
system of NIC personally, and volunteered that the same was verified by
the staff. He further stated that he cannot specify the name of the staff who
had verified the said certificate and also conceded that the police had not
recorded any statement of any of staff who had verified the veracity of the
said domicile certificate. He denied the suggestion that his staff had failed
to duly verify the domicile certificate, and that he had issued the reply Ex
PW3/A on the basis of unverified facts. However, to a specific Court
query, he stated that he had personally seen the information on the
computer before furnishing the report to the Court.
40. It is observed that PW3 categorically deposed that after due
verification from his Department, the report Ex PW3/A was prepared by
him, as per which no record of the domicile certificate could be found in
the Department. The witness also stated that the relevant record is
maintained with the NIC, but was nowhere asked by the accused to
produce the said record which he had verified before furnishing the reply,
Ex PW3/A. From this circumstance, this Court is impelled to raise the
inference that the accused accepted as correct the report of verification Ex
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 37 of 45
PW3/A, for the witness was nowhere asked to produce the relevant record,
nor did the accused summon the relevant record from the concerned
Department to establish that he had indeed applied for a domicile
certificate with the Department and a certificate had been genuinely issued
to him.
41. What further fortifies the case of prosecution is the statement of
accused Jitender recorded u/s 313 CrPC, wherein he stated that he had
indeed sought the help of some person for recruitment with CISF, and had
given him copies of his Class 10 th and Class 12th certificates after signing
the same, whereupon he received a call letter from CISF. He further
admitted that he had duly gone for the recruitment process as well, but was
not recruited. He stated that he does not know exactly what false document
was created by the said person. He stated that whatever forgery was done,
was done by the said person. It is amply clear from the reply given by the
accused that he is well aware of the fact that certain fake documents were
created in his name, and were deposited later with CISF along with his job
application form.
42. All in all, it can safely be concluded that accused Jitender Kumar
had submitted a false document with CISF to seek recruitment there.
Accused Mahesh Kumar
43. Qua accused Mahesh Kumar, the case of prosecution is that he had
filed two domicile certificates along with his application form, and one of
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 38 of 45
them were found to be forged.
44. As per the seizure memo, Ex PW1/P1, which stands duly proved,
only a single domicile certificate was seized by the IO, being the domicile
certificate of accused Mahesh Kumar dated 16.02.2009, under the
signatures of AK Pasi, Tehsildar, Seelampur. Qua the said certificate, PW5
AK Sharma, Retired Dy. Secretary testified that on 16.09.2010, he was
posted as SDM, Seelampur. He testified that on that day, he had verified
the domicile certificate of accused Mahesh Kumar dated 16.09.2010, and
as per his report Ex PW5/8, the same was found to be genuine. From the
testimony of the witness, it stands categorically proved that the said
domicile certificate of the accused as seized by the IO was not a forged and
fabricated document.
45. Now, PW1 further testified that few more documents were later
produced by him before the IO, and the latter seized the same vide seizure
memo Ex PW1/S. The said seizure memo mentions a xerox copy of a
domicile certificate dated 19.08.2008 issued in the favour of accused
Mahesh Kumar by the office of SDM Seelampur. Qua the said certificate,
PW4 VP Jha testified that as per verification of the record done by him, no
document having the domicile number of certificate of Mahesh Kumar was
found available in the office. He testified that thereafter, he had prepared
the report Ex PW4/A regarding the said certificate being forged and
fabricated. In his cross examination, the witness stated that he has not
brought the register or the file of the concerned period from which he had
verified the said document, and also failed to state that he can produce the
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 39 of 45
same if so required. Further, the witness accepted as correct the suggestion
that Sameer Minz was the SDM at the relevant time when the said
certificate was issued. He also testified that he cannot declare that the
signatures on the certificate are not of Sameer Minz, and further testified
that he had not written to the latter to verify if the signatures on the
certificate belong to him or not. Merely because the witness testified that
no record regarding the domicile certificate could be found in the office,
the same does not mean that the document is forged. The PW did not say
that the certificate was not issued by the concerned Department, but only
that record regarding same could not be found. Further, his cross-
examination revealed that no genuine efforts were made by him towards
verification of the document. In view of the testimony of the witness, a
reasonable doubt is created in the case of prosecution that the said
certificate is a copy of a forged domicile certificate. The accused materially
dented the testimony of the witness, who was unable to cogently explain
the basis of his report, as per which the said domicile certificate of accused
Mahesh is forged.
46. The testimony of IO/PW11 Inspector Jitendra also does not help the
case of prosecution. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had
neither checked any register maintained by the Executive Magistrate
pertaining to the issuance of domicile certificate for the year 2008 or for
any other year, and had also not taken any document to verify the aforesaid
certificate contains the signatures of Sameer Minz, SDM, Seelampur. He
also admitted that the opinion of any person acquainted with the signature
of the latter was also not taken during investigation. This further proves
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 40 of 45
that proper efforts for verification of document were not made.
47. Interestingly, while the IO/PW11 Inspector Jitender deposed that
addresses of accused Sumitra, Ashok etc could not be verified, he did not
testify to this effect qua accused Mahesh. No evidence has been brought on
record by prosecution to prove that accused Mahesh was not residing at the
address which is reflected in either of his domicile certificates. Sufficient
loopholes and crevices have been pointed out in the testimonies of the two
witnesses by the accused. Further, given the fact that one of the domicile
certificates of the accused was found to be genuine, a reasonable doubt
arises w.r.t. case of prosecution that the other certificate belonging to him
is forged.
48. Accused Mahesh is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Accused Leela Ram
49. Qua said accused, case of prosecution is that he conspired with each
of the other co-accused persons to forge their various certificates/
documents, and each of the accused persons then used the said forged
documents for procuring a job with CISF. However, except for the IO, no
other witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed as regards any
existence of conspiracy between accused Leela Ram as well as the other
co-accused persons. While it is trite that direct evidence of any conspiracy
is hard to come by, and existence of conspiracy between parties is to be
surmised from the attending circumstances of the case, even such evidence
is not available on record against accused Leela Ram. IO Inspector
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 41 of 45
Upendra Singh testified qua the accused that he surrendered before him on
17.01.2012. He testified that he interrogated the accused, arrested him and
personally searched him vide memos Ex PW10/A and PW10/B
respectively, and thereafter, recorded his disclosure statement Ex PW10/C.
The witness stated that thereafter, he obtained the PC remand of the
accused for one day, and during the said PC remand, the accused was taken
to his village at Sarai Bahadur, from where one fake participation
certificate in National Kabaddi Championship in the name of accused
Virender Singh was recovered from his house at his instance, and the same
was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW8/A. From the testimony of the
witness, it is clear that he has placed heavy reliance on the disclosure
statement of the accused in pursuance to which the recovery was affected
from the house of the accused. He also relied upon disclosure statements of
other accused persons namely Balbir, Sumitra etc. However, as the witness
has failed to depose regarding the entire sequence of events which
transpired leading to the recording of the aforesaid disclosure statement,
merely the exhibiting of the disclosure statement by the witness in his
testimony does not prove the contents thereof. Reliance at this juncture can
be placed on the judgment of the the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramanand @
Nandlal Bharti vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 6465/2022,
DOD 13.10.2022.
50. Furthermore, the recovery allegedly effected from accused Leela
Ram is fraught with multiple inconsistencies. The witness admitted that
when he had taken accused Leela Ram to personal custody to his village,
no respectable persons of the locality or any public person was made to
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 42 of 45
join the investigation. Similar admission is contained in the cross
examination of PW8 Ct. Deepak. Since the recovery has been made in a
residential area, it can easily be presumed that public witnesses could have
been easily made to join the recovery proceedings. Failure of the IO to do
so dents the case of the prosecution. Reliance at this juncture can be placed
on Anoop Joshi Vs. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, wherein it was observed as under:
“18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be
shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join
independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such
sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops
were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to
join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the
appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding
party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such
shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law
while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in
investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC“.
51. What further dents the recovery proceedings is the fact that no
information was given by the IO to the local PS when he took the accused
on PC remand to his village. This inconsistency further makes the recovery
proceedings, from the house of accused Leela Ram, fraught with
inconsistencies.
52. No evidence as regards the place or the manner in which the forged
documents were created by the accused has been brought on record either.
No tools with which documents could have been created have been
recovered. No forensic evidence is available on record to establish that
accused Leela Ram had created the forged documents. In view of the gaps
in the case of prosecution as discussed above, it cannot be held with
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 43 of 45
certainty beyond reasonable doubt, that the fake certificate as aforesaid
was recovered indeed from the house of accused Leela Ram, or that he had
created the forged documents used by other accused.
FINAL ORDER
53. Prosecution has successfully proved that accused Ashok Kumar,
Sumitra, Virender, Balbir, Ajit, Jitendra and Ashok Yadav used forged
documents with their application forms, and attempted to secure jobs with
CISF basis such documents. However, evidence has been brought on
record by prosecution to prove that these accused were makers of such
documents. They are thus convicted of the offences punishable u/s 420/511
IPC and 471 IPC, but are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 467/468
IPC.
54. Prosecution could not prove beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt
that accused Mahesh used or created any forged document. Further, it also
failed in proving that accused Leela Ram created such documents, or used
the same. As such, the said accused are acquitted of all charges against
them.
55. Case of prosecution is that the accused persons, acting in conspiracy
with accused Leela Ram, had created the false documents and had then
submitted the same with CISF along with their respective application
forms. Given the fact that accused Leela Ram has himself been acquitted
of all the charges levelled against him, the remaining accused cannot be
convicted for the offences punishable u/s 467/468 IPC by invoking Section
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 44 of 45
120B IPC or Section 34 IPC.
56. Ordered accordingly. Copy of judgment be provided to the convicts
free of cost.
57. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Digitally
Pronounced in open Court on signed by
09.07.2025 in the presence Medha Medha Arya
Date:
of accused. Arya 2025.07.10
16:38:07
+0530
(Medha Arya)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
09.07.2025
State vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 10/2010, PS: Saket Page 45 of 45