Anil Kumar v. State Of U.T. Chandigarh

 -1-

 
   
  










































 

 !"!

#$%& & 

'() &&

!

!

# * + *","

-&&.
   &&& "/ #0 #

 1 -

 &&

!

!

# * + *","

-&&.
   &&& "/ #0 #

)$  2')&-
- -







 




 

 



# 
$


 

 


' 
(
 


)*

  

(+ 
( 




'+,
(
 



---- - -

 .& $.
 +




//




+


  

 

# 

 
 

 
0+/
+ (

)*

 


 
 

1
(

+
(

)*

    * 

  
 

#

 
 ,+/

%& 2 

#.
 
 
( 
3+

 -2-

 
 



 


#.
 
 
 ,+/

  





!%  %4

#.
 3+  
 
%


 

#
 /  & * 
# 


 
+ 


 
 
/  ( 
'
0+/
5


+,#

1.
1 
+

 


/ 

 

 


+

+.
 %4 2 %

6(6

(
&



 
 
 
 
 


5
6+ 
 
 5 

 
 .

 
  /
 
/ 

/
!


+
 
 


 
  


%"!77
 

/

 
  
8 +  


5
#+
 
 
 




# 
 
1
+

 

 .
.

 
/ 
 

 

 
9/  



 
0+/


( 
$ (
: 


 ;

 


/



/ 
1
(




(
: 

 ) and he belonged to Delhi. Thus, Harpreet Singh who was apprehended at the spot, impersonated and appeared as Anil Kumar son of Shri Balwant Singh. During investigation, accused Anil Kumar was arrested. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. After completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was prepared and presented in the Court for trial. 4.

On finding a prima facie case for the commission of offences by both the accused, which was punishable under Sections 120-B, 419 read with Section 120-B and 420 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860,

 -3they were charge-sheeted on 19.02.2015, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- PW-1 Yogesh Kumar Prashar is the complainant of the present case and deposed in terms of his complaint Ex.P-1. He identified his signatures on complaint Ex.P-1. He proved documents i.e. admit card of Anil Kumar Ex.P-2. OMR answer sheet bearing Serial No.108544 Ex.P-3; question paper booklet bearing Serial No.13858 Ex.P-4; answer sheet No.24185 Ex.P-5; letter Ex.P-6 seeking copy of duty roster, attendance sheet and order of examination center regarding its booking; duty roster sheet Ex.P-7; relevant entry Ex.P-7/A, photocopy of attendance sheet of Centre No.11, GGDSD, Sector 32 Ex.P-8 and letter regarding booking of GGDSD College for holding the examination Ex.P-9. He fully supported the prosecution case and identified the accused-petitioners in the Court. PW-2 MMHC Tejinder Singh produced the summoned record of entry No.1248 dated 06.09.2012 vide which ASI Balwinder Singh deposited a mobile phone make Samsung Colour Red and report to this effect is Ex.PW-2/A.

PW-3 Anil Kumar, Clerk produced the summoned record with regard to DL No.BWN/CDL/47472006. As per record, the said DL was registered in the name of Anil Kumar son of Shri Balwant Singh, resident of V.P.O. Nimri, Tehsil and Bhiwani and was valid up to 22.08.2026 and the

 -4bearer was authorised to drive a motorcycle with gear/scooter and report to this effect was given to the I.O. and was on the Court file as Ex.PW3/A. PW-4 SI Balwinder Singh is the Investigating Officer of the present case and deposed regarding the steps taken by him during investigation of the present case. He tendered various documents i.e. endorsement on the complaint Ex.PW-4/A; FIR Ex.PW-4/B; memo regarding taken into possession Ex.P-2 to P-5 as Ex.PW-4/C; personal search memo of accused Harpeet Singh Ex.PW-4/D; disclosure statement of Harpreet Singh Ex.PW-4/E; arrest memo of accused Anil Kumar Ex.PW-4/F; report of driving licence of accused Anil Kumar PW-4/G and specimen signatures of accused Anil Kumar Ex.PW-4/1 to Ex.PW-4/5. He identified both the accused in the Court and fully supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Rajesh Kumar stated that on 28.01.2013, he was posted at Police Station 34, Chandigarh. On that day, he along with ASI Balwinder Singh went to the resident at Indira Colony House No.75 Bhiwani, from where accused Anil Kumar was arrested.

6.

The statement of both the accused/petitioners was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they denied and pleaded their false implication.

< $

 
 

 =+
/

#  


#.
 
+

3+  
 
%


 

+

 -5- -

!

#" - #

#

7
> 
%"4

 



+
 +

/ /

 
.




.

 

! =
 
>
+

./

  .
 
+ 
+
 +
/ /

 /  7%2
> 
%"4

 



+
 +

/ /

 
.




.

 

! =
 
>
+

./

  .
 
+ 
+
 +
/ /

 /  % $
> 
%"4

 



+
 +

/ /

 
.




.

 

! =
 
>
+

./

  .
 
+ 
+
 +
/ /

 /  "  
#.
 
,+/




 !%  %4

#.
 
* 
+




#.
  



/

#
 / 
#.
 
+

 
(  3+

  
?


 


 
 
1
( : 


 ;

 / 

 
,+/
   





#.
 
* 
+
 

/
 + 
 

 
#.
 
: 
0+/

 ;


 / 


/   
* 
,+/

  



 

#.
 
* 
+
 

/

/  

 
9 
 
: 
0+/

 ;

@+ 

  
/
 

/
+
( 
7%2
>



 
,+/
   




+
( 
% $

7
>
 5


 -62 * 

+

 
: 
0+/


 ;

 
 
* 
+

 
A

+



 



 
 
+
#
 

 // 


+
( 
7
> 
* 

/ 

/  #
 



>

 

 5
 
 
 +


/



 


.

+ 


+ 
 
*

 
 

 .
+
(  % $
> 


.

# 

/
#
 
 
  

++






#
#  

 



.
#+
1
(
: 


 ;

  

/
+/
 

/
 
 
: 
0+/

 ;



 
/


/
* 
+ 
 
 


 
 

/ 


  
 
#
 
: 
0+/

 ;
>

 
+



 

 
 
  
 




#
.
 /
1
( 
  

 
0+/
: 

 ;


 

  
* 
 
/= +

  

5
#.
 
>  
8 
#+
 
/


 /

 
 +

 
/ 



.


 9


 
 
#.
 
>  
8 

 
 
  
: 
0+/

 ;


 

.
/
 


5
1
 +

 

+


  


 
/

 
+ 
 

#
+#

# 
#+
 
+ 
 
 
 

  
/+
,+/

 #

#

 

 
+

 -7- 
#
@+ 

 
 
/
 
 /
%  * 

+

  1
(
:

 ;

 
 


/


 
 
   
#.
 
+

   
0+/
:

 ;
>  


 
 
/ 
:B9
 %;


#

 .

#.
 
/ 

 

#
.

* 

  

+
 
 

 




  

 
 .




0+/


#
#  
+ 
 +

  
* 

 

.
 
1 (

 

 
.


+ 
 



  


1
 +

 
 
,+/

   
 #

#

  %% 8
 
 

 

(
+

 
 +/
 
#.
 

 / 

 
 

.
+ 
+

 
#+

+ 
 
+

 

 

* * 
+

 
A

+

+ .


 
 
+/
 
#.
 
 
1

 
 
  
 


#  
#.
.
#
+#
 

 

 #

#
 /  % >


 

+

 
 

 
%& 

 
+ 

1
(

 
:

 ;

+
/ 
 
+
 
    0+/
:



 ;
/
!

 
9/  
 1
(



%"!77 which was issued to the petitioner-Anil Kumar. The admit card of the petitioner-Anil Kumar is

 -8Ex. P-2. Harpreet Singh-petitioner, filled the details of the OMR Sheet and question booklet. The answer sheet No.24185 (Ex. P-5), was also given to the candidate and Harpreet Singh had filled the details in the answer sheet by mentioning himself as Anil Kumar. Harpreet Singh was also found in possession of the driving licence of Anil Kumar-petitioner, which was used by him to establish his identity as Anil Kumar at the time of the examination. Thus, quite apparently, the petitioner-Harpreet Singh was present in the examination centre, impersonating as petitioner Anil Kumar and was arrested from the hall. The OMR Sheet and question paper booklet, which were confiscated from Harpreet Singh in the examination hall are Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 respectively. The answer sheet filled by the petitioner-Harpreet Singh is placed on record as Ex. P-5.

As per the Investigating Officer, Balwinder Singh, PW-4, Harpreet Singh-petitioner was arrested on 16.09.2012 i.e. the date of the examination and he i.e. Harpreet Singh signed the arrest memo. From his personal search, the driving licence in the name of petitioner-Anil Kumar was recovered, which was taken into possession. Thereafter, on the disclosure statement of the petitioner-Harpreet Singh, Anil Kumar-petitioner was arrested. Therefore, the argument that Harpreet Singh-petitioner was not present at the spot is fallacious and is to be rejected. The admit card issued to the petitioner-Anil Kumar and the driving licence of Anil Kumar were found in possession of Harpreet Singh-petitioner. The OMR Sheet, question booklet and answer sheet allegedly filled by the petitioner-Anil Kumar were also taken into

 -9police possession and part of the challan. There is absolutely no explanation by the petitioner-Harpreet Singh as to how he came into possession of the admit card and driving licence of the petitioner-Anil Kumar. Even otherwise, the argument that the driving licence of the petitioner-Anil Kumar recovered from the petitioner-Harpreet Singh did in fact not belong to the petitioner-Anil Kumar is also without any merit. As per the record, licence No.OLA-HR-16/Licence No.HR-162015008299 dated 28.01.2015 was issued in the name of the Anil Kumar son of Balwant Singh (petitioner) and was valid upto 22.08.2026 (Ex. PW3/A). However, Anil Kumar-petitioner produced a driving licence No.OLA-HR-16/Licence No.HR-162015008299 dated 28.01.2015 to show that the earlier licence had not in fact been issued to him.

A perusal of the new licence would show that it was issued on 28.01.2015 i.e. after the date of the FIR, which clearly creates a doubt in the defence version. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner-Anil Kumar had handed over his admit card and driving licence to the petitioner-Harpreet Singh on the basis of which Harpreet Singh-petitioner reached the examination hall and appeared in the examination on behalf of Anil Kumar-petitioner.

The defence version that the identity of a person named Ashish, who was stated to be a link between the petitioners, was not established thereby creating a doubt in the prosecution case is also fallacious. The name of the said Ashish Kumar is mentioned in the disclosure statement of the petitioner-Harpreet Singh. It is not clear as to whether the said Ashish Kumar was an actual person in existence or has been set up as a red-herring on the

 -10part of the petitioner-Harpreet Singh. Even otherwise, the prosecution has established its case against the petitioners beyond any reasonable doubt. %7 >
 

 
/ 
 + 
>
 






 
 
,+/

 
* 
+

 
A 
+
1



  
 

#.
 /  %! ?



 
/ 



/.
#
/ 
  

  /


 
+
 

 
.  %

/.

%
.


 
 
*   
0+/ :

 ;

 
@+  






5 

+ 
*   1
(
:

 ;

 
+


 5 


 
6+ 
 

%
.
 .

/  
 +



// 
.

%4 * 
5 

 
 
#  

>
/
 

/ .
 


+



 

%
C
.
* @++/

 



+
 

/  - -



 %& &  -

*"/ 5!#67* "

# 0$ "7

** / * 89 $  "7