Delhi District Court
State vs Sahab Singh on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS VASUNDHARA AZAD, CJM, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-000084-2000
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. : 704/1999
Police Station : Moti Nagar
Under Section : 420/468/471/120-B IPC
Date of institution : 21.12.2000
Date of pronouncement : 16.02.2026
JUDGMENT
a) Cr. Cases number of the case 68896/2016
b) Date of commission of offence 29.09.1999
c) Name of the complainant Bhura Singh
d) Name, parentage and address of the (1) Sahab Singh
accused S/o Sh. Madho Singh
R/o C-19. Mukherji Park, Tilak
Nagar, Delhi.
(2) Gyan Singh
S/o Sh. Harnam Singh
R/o B-88, Tagore Garden, Delhi.
(3) Kuldeep Singh
S/o Late Sh. Jaswant Singh
R/o E-131, Vishwa Park, Uttam
Nagar, Delhi.
(4) Sarabjeet Singh
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.1/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:31:13
+0530
S/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh
R/o WZ-67A, Mukherji Park, Tilak
Nagar, Delhi.
(5) Baldev Singh
S/o Sh. Ratan Singh
R/o 14/73, Subhash Nagar, Delhi.
(6) Khubi Ram
S/o Sh. Kalu Ram
R/o H. No. 190, Police Line Area,
Hissar, Haryana.
e) Offence complained of 420/468/471/411/120-B IPC f) Plea of the accused Pleaded Not guilty g) Final order 16.02.2026
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE
DECISION
1. Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 29.09.1999 at
about 06:00 PM, Tura Mandi, Zakhira, Delhi, accused persons Sahab
Singh, Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Sarabjeet Singh, Baldev Singh
and Khubi Ram, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy
committed cheating by robbing truck bearing no. DIG-6488 of
complainant Bhura Singh and thereafter deciphered its chasis
number and engine number and forged documents to get the same
registered at Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number
HR-38BG-0103 in the name of of accused Sahab Singh. Further, all
the accused persons Sahab Singh, Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh,
Sarabjeet Singh, Baldev Singh and Khubi Singh sold the said truck
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.2/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:31:21
+0530
to Surender Singh through accused Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and
Baldev Singh and therefore, the accused persons are guilty of
offence u/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC. [It is to be noted that accused
Baldev Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Gyan Singh were convicted and
sentenced by plea bargaining court vide order dated 18.08.2010]ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 22.04.2010 of this court, notice for offence under
Section 120 B read with section 420/468/471 IPC was framed
against accused persons Sahab Singh, Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh,
Sarabjeet Singh, Baldev Singh and Khubi Ram to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. In order to prove its case against the accused persons, the
prosecution in all examined 37 witnesses. A chart specifying their
role is appended below, which is thereafter followed with a chart of
exhibited documents and then brief description of the testimony of
PWs in court.
Prosecution Name of witnesses Description
witness no.
PW-1 HC Jai Ram Formal witness
PW-2 Sh. Bhura Singh Complainant
PW-3 Sh. Surender Singh Owner of truck bearing no.
HR-38BG-0103
PW-4 Sh. Vijender Singh Owner of truck bearing no. DIG-6488
PW-5 ASI Rajesh Formal witness (Duty officer with
respect to the present FIR no. 704/1999
PS Moti Nagar)
PW-6 Sh. Ramsukh Record Keeper, PNB, Sabzi Mandi
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.3/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:31:30
+0530
Prosecution Name of witnesses Description
witness no.
Branch, Delhi with respect to cheque no.
74894 dated 07.02.1998
PW-7 Sh. Virender Kumar LDC, MLO Hqrs, Transport Department
Rajpur Road with respect to temporary
regn.
MLO/HQ/TRL/DL1/TEMP/F-2605
PW-8 Sh. Rajesh Kumar MLO, Headquarters, Rajpur Road, Delhi
PW-9 Sh. S. K. Mishra Sr. Manager, Vehicle Sales, TATA
Motors Ltd. Jamshedpur, Jharkhand with
respect signature of Sh. P.K. Mishra on a
letter regarding to chasis no.
36405286643 and engine no.
697D02294778
PW-10 Sh. J. K. Jadhav AGM, Auto Dispatch, TATA Motors,
Pune
PW-11 Sh. U. P. Singh Regional Sales Officer, TML
Distribution Co. Ltd. Dappar, Punjab
PW-12 Sh. Jogender Singh Medical Record Clerk, Hindu Rao
Hospital, Delhi
PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh Public witness
PW-15 Sh. Kawaljeet Singh Public witness (PW 14 examined as
Sethi PW15 due to typographical error)
PW-16 Dr. Rajender Singh Director CFSL, CBI, New Delhi with
respect to truckTATA 1210
PW-17 Sh. Dharampal Assistant RTO Office, Kaithal, Haryana
PW-18 Sh. ASI Lalu Uraon Formal witness
PW-19 Sh. Dharam Pal Retd. SDM
Singh Yadav
PW-20 Sh. Srikant Mishra MLO, Vasant Vihar Authority
PW-21 Sh. Kamal Kishor Assistant Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank,
Rajouri Garden, Delhi with respect to
account no. 18400 of Baldev Singh
PW-22 Sh. Ramesh Chand Public witness the then inspector MLO
Verma Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi
with respect to vehicle DL-1TF-2605
PW-23 Sh. Prawin Desai MLO, Hqrs. Civil Lines, Delhi with
respect totemporary registration
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.4/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:31:38
+0530
Prosecution Name of witnesses Description
witness no.
certificate DL/TEMP/F-2605
PW-24 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Record Clerk, Transport Department,
Haryana-Chandigarh with respect to
joining of accused Khubi Ram at that
department, Haryana, Chandigarh
PW-25 Sh. Gopal Chand Administrative Officer, Branch Officer,
Mani Majra, Chandigarh with respect to
insurance policy of HR-38GB-0103
PW-26 ASI Rameshwar First Investigating officer
PW-27 HC Sunil Formal witness
PW-28 HC Dinesh Formal witness
PW-29 HC Nihal Formal witness
PW-30 HC Ram Niwas Formal witness
PW-31 Inspector Ram Investigating Officer
Kishan
PW-32 SI Dharshan Kumar Investigating Officer
PW-33 Inspector Sajjan Investigating Officer
Singh
PW-34 Inspector Ramesh Formal witness
Lamba
PW-35 Ms. Deepa Verma Director FSL, Rohini, Delhi
PW-36 Sh. M. C. Meena Investigating Officer
(Retd.ACP)
PW-37 Sh. Harish Chandra Sr. Material Assistant Legal Cell, CVD,
Ministry of Defence, Delhi Cantt. DelhiExhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
No.
Ex.PW1/A Copy of FIR no. 950/1996 u/s 392 IPC PW-1
Ex.PW2/A Statement of Sh. Bhura Singh u/s 161 PW-2
Cr.PC
Ex.PW2/B Seizure memo of truck DIG-6488 PW-2
Ex.PW2/C Documents of truck bearing registration PW-2
to no. DIG 6488
Ex.PW2/G
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.5/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:31:45
+0530
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
No.
Ex.PW3/A Ownership documents of truck PW-3
HR-28BG-0103
Ex.PW3/B Documents related to truck bearing no. PW-3
to HR-38BG-0103
Ex.PW3/F
Ex.PW5/A Endorsement on rukka & copy of FIR PW-5
&
Ex.PW5/B
Mark X Photocopy of order with respect to PW-5
destrucition of DD no. 15A dated
01.12.1999
Ex.PW6/A Letter regarding destruction of record PW-6
with respect to cheque bearing no. 74894
dated 07.02.1998
Ex.PW7/A Report of MLO, Hq. Transport PW-7
department, Rajpur Road in response to
IO regarding the verification of
temporary registration no.
MLO/HQ/TRL/DL1/TEMP/F-2605 dated
29.09.1997
Ex.PW8/A Photocopy of temporary registration PW-8
(OSR) certificate no. HNL-5104/8 dated
13.07.1988 with respect to vehicle
bearing no. DIG-6488
Ex.PW8/B Photocopy of Form E with respect to PW-8
(OSR) vehicle bearing no. DIG-6488
Ex.PW8/C Photocopy of sale letter with respect to PW-8
(OSR) vehicle bearing no. DIG-6488
Ex.PW8/D Photocopy of Form F with respect to PW-8
(OSR) vehicle bearing no. DIG-6488
Ex.PW9/A Letter of Sh. P. K. Mishra regarding PW-9
verification of chasis number
364052286643 and engine number
69TD02294778
Ex.PW10/ Letter regarding verification of chasis PW-10
A number 364052844009
Ex.PW11/ Reply of Letter regarding verification of PW-11
A chasis number 364052844009
Ex.PW11/ Letter written to Insp. AH Section Crime PW-11State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.6/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:32:00
+0530
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
No.
B Branch regarding verification of chasis
number 364052844009
Ex.PW12/ MLC 88931 dated 13.11.2000 of patient PW-12
A Gyan Singh
Ex.PW15/ Photocopies of transaction documents of PW-15
A (colly) hytopthecation & photocopies of finance
(OSR) documents of truck no. HR-38BG-0103
Ex.PW16/ Report dated 27.12.1999 regarding PW-16
A inspection of truck TATA 1210
Ex.PW17/ Report of secretary with respect to PW-17
A destruction of document with respect to
vehicle bearing no. HR-38BG-0103 in a
fire incident
Ex.PW17/ Copy of report regarding destruction of PW-17
B document with respect to vehicle bearing
no. HR-38BG-0103 in a fire incident
which was registered at PS sector 07,
Faridabad
Ex.PW18/ Relevant entry made in register no 19 PW-18
A (OSR) with respect to deposit of truck no.
HR-28BG-0103
Ex.PW20/ Letter dated 24.01.2002 and letter dated PW-20
A and 27.04.2002 written by the then MLO, Hq
Ex.PW20/ to ACP EOW
B
Ex.PW21/ Copy of account opening form of account PW-21
A (OSR) no. 18400 in the name of Baldev Singh in
P & Sind Bank
Ex.PW21/ Copy of statement of account no. 18400 PW-21
B for the period of 01.01.2007 to
29.02.2016 Certificate u/s 65B of IEA
regaring its generation
Ex.PW24/ Documents relating to joining of accused PW-24
A to Khubi Ram as MVI at Gurgaon on
Ex.PW24/ 15.04.1998 as WM (work Manager) at
D Charkhi Dadari, Haryana & certified
copies of promotion order of Khubi Ram
Ex.PW25/ Authorization letter by assisatant PW-25
A manager to depose in court regarding
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.7/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:32:08
+0530
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
No.
Ex.PW25/ Documents regarding insurance policy of PW-25
B truck bearing no. HR-38GB-0103
Ex.PW27/ Arrest memo of accused Sahib Singh PW-27
A
Ex.PW27/ Body Inspection report and disclosure PW-27
B and statement of accused Sahab Singh
Ex.PW27/
B1
Ex.PW27/ Pointing out memo with respect to place PW-27
C where accused Sahab Singh got number
of chasis plate engraved
Ex.PW27/ Seizure memo with respect to PW-27
D handwriting specimen signature of
accused Sahab Singh
Ex.PW27/ Specimen handwriting of accused Sahab PW-27
D1 Singh
Ex.PW27/ Seizure memo with respect to Specimen PW-27
E handwriting of accused Sarabjeet Singh
Ex.PW27/ Specimen handwriting of accused PW-27
F Sarabjeet Singh
Ex.PW27/ Arrest memo of accused Gyan Singh PW-27
G
Ex.PW27/ Body inspection memo of accused Gyan PW-27
H Singh
Ex.PW28/ Affidavit relating to truck no. PW-28
A HR-38BG-0103
Ex.PW29/ Copy of FIR and other related documents PW-29
A of truck HR 38BG 0103 (memo
regarding deposit of truck no. HR
38BG-0103 and other related documents
of said vehicle)
Ex Disclosure statement of accused Baldev PW-32
PW32/A Singh
Ex.PW32/ Arrest memo of accused Khubi Ram PW-32
B
Ex.PW32/ Personal search memo of accused Khubi PW-32
C Ram
Ex.PW32/ Specimen signature of accused Khubi PW-32State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.8/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:32:18
+0530
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
No.
D Ram
Ex.PW32/ Arrest memo of accused Kuldeep Singh PW-32
E
Ex.PW32/ Personal search memo of accused PW-32
F Kuldeep Singh
Ex.PW32/ Specimen handwriting signature of PW-32
G accused Kuldeep Singh
Ex.PW32/ Specimen signature of accused Kuldeep PW-32
H Singh
PW33/A DD entry no. 44B PW-33Ex.PW33/ Letter with respect to seizure of stolen PW-33
B vehicle i.e. truck bearing no. DIG-6488
Ex.PW33/ Reply of Faridabad ITO regarding PW-33
C offending vehicle i.e. truck
Ex.PW33/ Tehrir prepared on complaint given by PW-33
D Sh. Bhura Singh
Ex.PW33/ Affidavit seized from Gyan Singh PW-33
E
Ex.PW33/ Report from TALCO, Jamshedpur, Bihar PW-33
F regarding manufacturing of truck
Ex.PW33/ Seizure memo with respect to registration PW-33
G documents of truck bearing registration
no. HR 38BG 0103
Ex.PW33/ Reply of Kartar Leasing Finance PW-33
H
Ex.PW33/ Verification report regarding payment of PW-33
I Rs. 1 lakh from the account of accused
Baldev Singh at PNB
Ex.PW33/ Arrest information of accused Sahab PW-33
J Singh (information regarding arrest of
accused Sahab Singh to his wife Satnam
Kaur)
Ex.PW33/ Personal search memo of accused Sahab PW-33
K Singh
Ex.PW35/ Report dated 21.03.2001 regarding PW-35
A specimen writings of accused Sahab
Singh and Sarabjeet SinghState Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.9/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:32:25
+0530
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
No.
Ex.PW37/ Inspection and maintenance of fitness of PW-37
A vehicle with signature of Sh. A. P.
SinghEx.PW37/ Authority letter tto depose in court on PW-37
B behalf of officiating commandant, CVD
Delhi Cant
Ex.X-1 Opinion of government examiner of U/s 294 Cr.PC
questioned documents, Government of
India, Shimla
4. Brief summary of the testimonies of the above stated witnesses is as
follows:
(i) PW-1 HC Jai Ram, who has proved that FIR No. 950/96 (Ex.
PW1/A) was registered at PS Tilak Nagar u/s 392 IPC. PW-HC
Jai Ram was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused
Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet despite opportunity and was hence
discharged.
(ii) PW-2 Bhura Singh, who has deposed that truck bearing no.
DIG-6488 was taken on contractual basis by his elder brother Sh.
Asudha Singh from Bijender Singh S/o Sh. Sadora Singh who is a
relative of PW-2 Bhura Singh. PW-2 Bhura Singh has further
deposed that although his brother was plying the truck in his
transport business, he was taking care of the truck and on the
intervening night of 11-12/12/1996, when the truck was parked in
Chand Nagar area, some persons came and took it away
forcefully from the driver and conductor who were sleeping in it.
PW-2 Bhura Singh has also deposed that he got FIR registered
regarding this incident on 19.12.1996 and that he found one truck
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.10/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:32:32
+0530
loaded with iron scraps bearing registration no. HR-38BG-0103
on 29.09.1999 which he identified to be the same truck as was
stolen. However, upon checking the chasis number of the truck,
he found the same to be deleted/erased by a person through
grinder and consequently, he informed police officials regarding
the same who recorded his statement (Ex. PW2/A) and also
seized the truck vide seizure memo (Ex. PW2/B). PW-2 Bhura
Singh was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused
persons Khubi Ram, Sahab Singh & Sarabjeet Singh and
discharged.
(iii) PW-3 Surender Singh, who has deposed that he purchased truck
bearing no. HR-38BG-0103 in 1998 which was in the name of
Gyan Singh for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- after checking the engine
number and chasis number of the same from its RC. PW-3
Surender Singh has also deposed that in September 1999, truck
bearing no. HR-38BG-0103 was caught by officials of crime
branch and he gave ownership documents of the truck to the
police which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW3/A). PW-3
Surender Singh has also deposed that he did not make any
changes in the truck . PW-3 Sh. Surender Singh also deposed that
truck bearing registration no. HR-38BG-0103 was financed from
Kartar Leasing for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for which cheque was
prepared in the name of Sh. Baldev Singh. PW-3 Sh. Surender
Singh further deposed that he was cheated by accused Gyan
Singh, Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh and was not aware that
chasis number of the above said truck was changed by them.
PW-3 Surender Singh was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.11/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:32:39
+0530
accused persons Sarabjeet Singh, Sahab Singh and Khubi Ram
despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(iv) PW-4 Vijender Singh, who has deposed that he is the registered
owner of vehcile bearing number DIG-6488 which was purchased
by him in 1988 and given to Bhura Singh and Asudha Singh for
possession on contractual basis in 1991. PW-4 Vijender Singh
has further deposed that the above stated truck was stolen in 1999
from the possession of Bhura Singh and Asudha Singh which was
recovered later by the officials of PS Lodhi Road with a forged
registration number HR-38BG-0103. PW-4 Vijender Singh was
not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons Sahab
Singh, Sharabjeet Singh and Khubi Ram despite opportunity and
hence discharged.
(v) PW-5 ASI Rajesh, who has deposed that on receipt of rukka on
01.12.1999, he registered the present FIR and made endorsement
on rukka (Ex. PW5/A). PW-5 ASI Rajesh was cross-examined by
Ld. Counsel for accused persons Sahib Singh and Sarabjeet
Singh. However, PW-5 ASI Rajesh was not cross-examined by
Ld. Counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was
hence discharged.
(vi) PW-6 Sh. Ramsukh, who has deposed that record of cheque
bearing number 74894 dated 07.02.1998 of Kartar Leasing Pvt.
Ltd. has been destroyed. PW-6 Sh. Ramsukh was not cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons Sahib Singh,
Sharabjeet Singh and by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite
opportunity and was hence discharged.
(vii) PW-7 Sh. Virender Kumar, UDC, who has deposed that record of
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.12/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:32:48
+0530
1997 is not traceable and hence temporary registration number
MLO/HQ/TRL/DL1/TEMP/F-2605 dated 29.09.1997 could not
be verified. PW-7 Sh. Virender Kumar was not cross-examined
by Ld. Counsel for accused persons Sahib Singh, Sarabjeet Singh
and by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and
was hence discharged.
(viii) PW-8 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, MLO, Headquarters, had deposed that
as per report of MLO, vehicle bearing registration no.
DIG-6588 was initially registered with Kartar Motor Registration
Authority vide temporary registration no. HNL-5104/8 dated
13.07.1988 which was later registered with Rajpur Authority vide
registration no. DIG-6488 in the name of Sh. Vijender Singh on
05.08.1988. PW-8 Sh. Rajesh Kumar has exhibited
temporary registration certificate as Ex.PW8/A (OSR),
photocopy of Form E as Ex.PW8/B (OSR) photocopy of sale
letter as Ex.PW8/C (OSR) and photocopy of Form F as
Ex.PW8/D (OSR). PW-8 Sh. Rajesh Kumar was not cross-
examined by counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused
Sarabjeet Singh also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite
opportunity and was hence discharged.
(ix) PW-9 Sh. S. K. Mishra, Sr. Manager, Vehicle Sales, TATA
Motors Ltd. who identified the hand writing of Sh. P. K. Mishra
on letter bearing no. MISC/VST/951/99-2000 (Ex.PW9/A). PW-8
Sh. S. K. Mishra was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused
Sahib Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and was not cross-
examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite
opportunity and was hence discharged.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.13/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:32:55
+0530
(x) PW-10 Sh. R. K. Jadhav, AGM, Auto Dispatch, TATA Motors
had deposed that on 05.04.2000, he wrote a letter bearing no.
AVS/INQ/002 dated 05.04.2000 to Anti Homicide Section of
Crime Branch for verification of chasis no. 364052844009
(Ex.PW10/A). PW-10 Sh. R. K. Jadhav was not cross-examined
by counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh
also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and
was hence discharged.
(xi) PW-11 Sh. U.P. Singh, Regional Sales Officer, TML Distribution
Co. Ltd, Dappar, Punjab, who has deposed that as per letter
(Ex.PW11/A), vehicle bearing chasis no. 364052844009 pertains
to the year 1986-87 and it was not possible to check the record of
the same. PW-11 Sh. U. P. Singh has further in his deposition
identified signature of Rajiv Kher in letter dated 30.01.1999
regarding verification of the above stated chasis number
(Ex.PW11/B). It was also deposed by PW-11 that as per reply of
Sh. Rajiv Kher vehicle bearing chasis number 364052844009 was
sold to Sh. Bijender Singh vide Telco Invoice number 538 dated
31.05.1988. PW-11 Sh. U.P. Singh, Regional Sales Officer, was
cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and
accused Sarabjit Singh and was not cross-examined by Ld.
counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was
hence discharged.
(xii) PW-12 Sh. Jogender Singh, Medical Record Clerk, Hindu Rao
Hospital, Delhi who has deposed that he could not identify the
signature of Casualty Medical Officer on CX32834 dated
17.10.2000 and CX339308 dated 19.10.2000 (Mark A-1). PW-12
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.14/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:33:01
+0530
Sh. Jogender Singh, however, identified signature of Dr. Anshu
Aggrawal on MLC No. 88931 dated 13.11.2000 of patient Gyan
Singh (Ex.PW12/A). PW-12 Sh. Jogender Singh was not cross-
examined by counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused
Sarabjeet Singh and also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram
despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xiii) PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh who had deposed that his younger
brother late Sh. Randhir Singh used to work as a mechanic at
Lucky Body Builder at BA-62, Mangolpuri Industrial Area and
used to repair parts of vehicles like engine, etc. PW-13 Sh. Avtar
Singh has also deposed his brother Sh. Randhir Singh expired in
June/July 1997 and that he does not know anything else about the
present case. Thereafter, PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh was cross-
examined at length by Ld. APP for the state despite which
nothing incriminating was deposed in testimony PW-13 Sh. Avtar
Singh. PW-13 Sh. Avtar Singh was cross-examined by the Ld.
Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjit Singh and
was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram
despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xiv) It is to be noted that on account of typographical error, PW14 was
examined as PW15 Sh. Kawaljeet, whose testimony is as follows.
(xv) PW-15 Sh. Kawaljeet who had deposed that his finance company,
Kartar Leasing Finance Ltd., financed truck bearing no.
HR-38BG- 0103 on 07.02.1998 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to Sh.
Surender Kumar Singh for which Sh. Baldev Singh stood as
surety. PW-15 Sh. Kawaljeet exhibited original documents of
hypothecation and photocopies of the same as Ex.PW15/A
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.15/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:33:08
+0530
(colly). PW-15 Sh. Kawaljeet Singh was not cross-examined by
counsel for accused Sahib Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and
also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and
was hence discharged.
(xvi) PW-16 Dr. Rajender Singh, Director CFSL, CBI, Delhi who had
deposed that on 27.12.1999, he examined truck TATA 1210 for
genuineness of its engine and chasis number and found that the
chasis number was not genuine which is stated in his detailed
report dated 27.12.1999 (Ex.PW16/A). PW-16 Sh. Dr. Rajender
Singh was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab
Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and was not cross-examined
by other accused persons despite opportunity. However, PW-16
was thereafter re-examined by Ld. APP for the State and was then
discharged.
(xvii) PW-17 Sh. Dharampal, Assistant RTO office, Kaithal, Haryana
had deposed that as per the report of Secretary, RTO office,
Faridabad, the documents of vehicle bearing no. HR-38BG-0103
were destroyed in a fire on 11.05.2002 regarding which report
was registered at PS Sector 07, Faridabad (Ex.PW17/B). PW-17
Sh. Dharampal was not cross-examined by the accused persons
despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xviii) PW-18 ASI Lalu Uraon had deposed that on 29.09.1999, ASI
Sajjan Singh deposited one truck bearing no. HR-38BG-0103
regarding which PW-18 ASI Lalu Uraon made relevant entry in
register no. 19 (Ex.PW18/A (OSR). PW-18 ASI Laly Uraon was
not cross-examined by accused persons despite opportunity and
was hence discharged.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.16/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:33:16
+0530
(xix) PW-19 Sh. Dharam Pal Singh Yadav, Retd. SDM, who has
deposed that vehicle bearing number HR-38BG-0103 was
inspected by Motor Vehicle Inspector although he does not
remember the name of Motor Vehicle Inspector at that time.
PW-19 Sh. Dharam Pal Singh Yadav was cross-examined by the
Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjeet
Singh and was also cross-examined by counsel for accused Khubi
Ram and was thereafter hence discharged.
(xx) PW-20 Sh. Srikant Mishra, MLO, Vasant Vihar Authority, who
has deposed that the temporary registration certificate of vehicle
number DL-1TF-2605 dated 29.09.1997 does not bear his
signature (Mark B). PW-20 Sh. Srikant Mishra who further
deposed that the original of the abovesaid temporary registration
certificate is not available as the documents were destroyed after
one year at the office of MLO, Headquarters, Civil Lines, Delhi.
PW-20 Sh. Srikant Mishra was cross-examined by the Ld.
Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjit Singh and
was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram
despite opportunity and was thereafter discharged.
(xxi) PW-21 Sh. Kamal Kishor, Assistant Manager, Punjab & Sind
Bank, Rajouri Garden who has tendered certified copy of account
opening form of account number 18400 (Ex.PW20/A) as well as
account statement of the same account for the period between
01.01.2007 and 29.02.2016 (Ex.PW20/C). PW-21 Sh. Kamal
Kishor was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Sahib
Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh and also by Ld. counsel for
accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.17/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:33:23
+0530
discharged.
(xxii) PW-22 Sh. Ramesh Chand Verma, who has deposed that
temporary registration certificate of vehicle DL-1TF-2605 (Mark
22/A) bears his signature. PW-22 Sh. Ramesh Chand Verma was
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and discharged and
was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram
despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xxiii) PW-23 Sh. Prawin Desai, MLO, HQ, Civil Lines, who has
deposed that the documents of vehicle bearing temporary number
were not available at his office when the IO inquired from him
about the present case. PW-23 Sh. Prawin Desai was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet
Singh and was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused
Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence discharged.
(xxiv) PW-24 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Record Clerk Transport
Department, Haryana, who tendered certified copy of joining
document dated 14.08.1997 of accused Khubi Ram at Transport
Department, Chandigarh, certified copy of joining on 15.04.1998
as work manager at Charkhi Dadari, Haryana Roadways, certified
copies of promotion order of Khubi Ram dated 16.03.1998
(Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B, Ex.PW24/C and Ex.PW24/D). PW-24
Sh. Ravinder Kumar was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjeet as well as by counsel
for accused Khubi Ram and was hence discharged.
(xxv) PW-25 Sh. Gopal Chand, Administrative Officer, Branch Office,
Mani Majra, Chandigardh, who in his deposition identified
signatures of Senior Branch Manager Sanjeev Sood on
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.18/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:33:31
+0530
information with respect to insurance policy of vehicle bearing
no. HR-38GB-0103 (Ex.PW25/B). It is further deposed that as
per the above stated information, no claim has been paid on
policy no.110301/31/21/11/7703 of vehicle bearing no.
HR-38GB-0103. PW-25 Sh. Gopal Chand was not cross-
examined by Ld. counsels for accused Saahab Singh, Sarabjeet
Singh and Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence
discharged.
(xxvi) PW-26 ASI Rameshwar, who has deposed that on 29.09.1999, he
was on patrolling duty with SI Sajjan Singh, HC Surender and Ct.
Nihal Singh in the area of Tura Mandi, Zakhira, when one person
viz. Bhura Singh informed them that his truck bearing no.
DIG-6488 which was stolen in 1996 is parked at Tura Mandi with
registration no. HR-38BG-0103 and requested for seizure of that
truck. It is further deposed by PW-26 ASI Rameshwar after
inspection of the said truck, when the chasis of the same was
found to be doubtful, IO SI Sajjan Singh seized the same u/s 102
Cr.PC. and deposited the same in the malkhana of PS Moti
Nagar vide a seizure memo (already Ex.PW2/B). PW-26 ASI
Rameshwar has also deposed that the abovesaid truck was
released on superdari to Bijender Singh which was later on
disposed by him. PW-26 ASI Rameshwar was cross-examined
by Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh and
by counsel for accused Khubi Ram and was thereafter
discharged.
(xxvii) PW-27 HC Sunil, who has deposed with respect to arrest of
accused Sahab Singh and accused Gyan Singh vide requisite
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.19/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:33:39
+0530
arrest memos (Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/G respectively). PW-27
HC Sunil has further deposed that specimen signature of accused
Sahab Singh and accused Gyan Singh were deposited at FSL on
16.11.2000. PW-27 HC Sunil was cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh and by
counsel for accused Khubi Ram and was thereafter discharged.
(xxviii) PW-28 HC Dinesh, who has deposed that on 19.02.2000, he
alongwith SI Sajjan Singh went to Tura Mandi, Zakhira, Delhi
where Gyan Singh handed over one affidavit relating to truck no.
HR-38GB-0103, which was seized vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW28/A). PW-28 HC Dinesh was not cross-examined by
Ld. Counsels for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh and
by accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity given and was
thereafter discharged.
(xxix) PW-29 HC Nihal Singh, who has deposed that on 29.09.1999
when he was posted at Anti-Homicide Section, Crime Branch as
Constable, one person viz. Bhura Singh met him as well as SI
Sajjan Singh, HC Rameshwar, Ct. Surender and stated that his
stolen truck bearing no. HR-38GB-0103 is standing in the
Zakhira Mandi. PW-29 HC Nihal Singh has further deposed that
on the above stated information, he searched the truck and found
that its engine number was grinded and was not legible
consequent to which the said truck was seized u/s 102 Cr.PC vide
seizure memo (Ex.PW2/B). Thereafter, PW-29 HC Nihan Singh
on 01.12.1999 upon receipt of rukka from IO went to PS Moti
Nagar and got FIR registered in the present matter, consequent to
which on 03.12.1999 service book and other documents of stolen
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.20/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:33:45
+0530
truck bearing no. DIG-6488 handed over by complainant Bhura
Singh were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW2/C). PW-29 HC
Nihal Singh was cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for accused
Sahab Singh, Sarabjeet Singh and Khubi Ram and was thereafter
discharged.
(xxx) PW-30 HC Ram Niwas, who has deposed that on 30.09.1999
when he was posted at Anti-Homicide Section, Crime Branch as
Constable, he went to Transport Authority, Faridabad to verify
NOC of Truck no. HR-38GB-0103, which, however, could not be
verified as the dealing clerk there stated that the NOC is
misplaced. PW-30 HC Ram Niwas was not cross-examined by
Ld. Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and Sarabjeet Singh and
also by counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity given
and was thereafter discharged.
(xxxi) PW-31 Inspector Ram Kishan, who has deposed that he arrested
accused Sahab Singh, Chintamani Pandey, Kashmira Singh and
Kallu in FIR no. 950/96 concerning theft of one truck bearing no.
DIG-6488. PW-31 Inspector Ram Kishan has further deposed
that he was aware that accused Balbir Singh had fled away with
the above said truck and that IO in the present case enquired the
above said facts from him and also recorded his statement.
PW-31 Inspector Ram Kishan was cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for accused Sahab Singh and accused Sarabjeet Singh.
However, PW-31 Inspector Ram Kishan was not cross-
examined by Ld. counsel for accused Khubi Ram despite
opportunity given and was hence discharged.
(xxxii) PW-32 SI Darshan Kumar, who has deposed that on 05.06.2002
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.21/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:33:52
+0530
when he was posted at Crime Branch, F&C Section, Delhi as
Head Constable, he arrested accused Khubi Ram vide arrest
memo (Ex.PW32/B) and personally searched himvide personal
search memo (Ex.PW32/C). PW-32 SI Darshan Kumar has
further deposed that he also obtained specimen signature of
accused Khubi Ram (Ex.PW32/D) and on 08.10.2002 accused
Kuldeep Singh, who came to the office of Crime Branch, was
also arrested and personally searched vide memos (Ex.PW32/E &
Ex.PW32/F respectively) and his specimen signatures were also
obtained (Ex.PW32/G-Colly.). PW-32 SI Darshan Kumar has
also deposed that on 09.10.2002 accused Baldev Singh also came
to the office of Crime Branch, whose disclosure statement was
recorded vide memo (Ex.PW32/A). PW-32 SI Darshan Kumar
was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for accused Sarabjeet
Singh and accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity and was hence
discharged.
(xxxiii) PW-33 Inspector Sajjan Singh, who is the IO in the present
matter, has deposed in detail that with respect to the investigation
done by him in the present matter. PW-33 Inspector Sajjan Singh
has tendered in evidence copy of DD no. 44B (Ex.PW33/A),
information letter regarding seizure of the concerned vehicle to
the court (Ex.PW33/B), reply received from RTO, Faridabad
(Ex.PW33/C), tehrir on complaint of Sh. Bhura Singh
(Ex.PW33/D), original affidavit seizued from Gyan Singh
(Ex.PW33/E), report from Talco Authority, Jamshedpur
(Ex.PW33/F), seizing memo with respect to photocopy of
registration documents of truck bearing number HR-38BG-0103State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.22/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:34:00
+0530
(Ex.PW33/G, reply of owner of Kartar Leasing Finance
(Ex.PW33/H), verification report from PNB (Ex.PW33/I,
intimation of arrest of accused Sahab Singh to his wife Satnam
Kaur (Ex.PW33/J), personal search memo of accused Sahab
Singh (Ex.PW33/K). PW-33 Inspector Sajjan Singh was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sarabjeet Singh and
counsel for accused Khubi Ram and was thereafter discharged.
(xxxiv) PW-34 Inspector Ramesh Lamba, who has deposed that he
deposited the sealed envelope (given to him by IO SI Ved
Prakash) at GEQD, Shimla on 15.03.2002 and gave receipt of the
same to IO SI Ved Prakash on his return. PW-34 Inspector
Ramesh Lamba was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused
Sarabjeet Singh. However, PW-34 Inspector Ramesh Lamba was
not cross-examined by accused Khubi Ram despite opportunity
given and was thereafter discharged.
(xxxv) PW-35 Ms. Deepa Verma, who has deposed that on 16.11.2000
when she was working as Sr. Scientific Officer (Documents) at
FSL Lab, Delhi, he received exhibits in the present case FIR of
which he gave his detailed report dated 21.03.2001 (Ex.PW35/A
and already Ex.PW33/A and already Ex.PW27/D-1). PW-35 Ms.
Deepa Verma was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused Khubi Ram as well as by accused Sarabjeet Singh
despite opportunity granted and was thereafter discharged.
(xxxvi) PW-36 Sh. M. C. Meena, Retd. ACP, who has deposed that he
conducted further investigation in the present matter when in
November, 2000 the present case file was marked to him
thereafter which he filed the present charge sheet on 29.11.2000.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.23/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:34:06
+0530
PW- 6 Sh. M. C. Meena was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused Sarabjeet Singh and by accused Khubi Ram and was
hence discharged.
(xxxvii) PW-37 Sh. Harish Chandra, Sr. Material Assistant Legal Cell,
CVD, Ministry of Defence, Delhi Cantt. Delhi, who identified the
signature of Sh. A. P. Singh, CSO, OIC, Ex. Branch on
documents Ex.PW37/A & Ex.PW37/B. PW-37 Harish Chandra
was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sarabjeet Singh
and Khubi Ram and was hence discharged.
5. It is noted that as per statement of accused recorded under Sec. 294
Cr.PC on 15.02.2020, ‘Opinion of Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents, Govt. of India, Shimla’ was admitted by the
accused as Ex X1.
6. Since all the prosecution witnesses were examinationed, at request of
Ld. APP for the State, prosecution evidence was closed and matter
was fixed for recording statement of the accused persons U/s.313
Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
7. In their examination under Section 313 CrPC., accused Sarabjeet
Singh and accused Khubi Ram denied the entire evidence put to
them and opted not to lead DE. Therefore, DE was closed and matter
was listed for final arguments.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.24/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:34:14
+0530
8. Final arguments advanced by Ld. Substitue APP for State and Ld.
Counsel for accused Khubi Ram as well as Ld. Counsel for accused
Sarabjeet heard. Case file perused carefully.
9. It is argued by Ld. Substitute APP for State that the prosecution has
successfully proved its case against accused Sarabjeet and Khubi
Ram and hence they be convicted for the offences alleged.
10. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused
persons that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as
there is nothing on record to show link of accused persons Sarabjeet
and Khubi Ram with the offences alleged and hence, accused
persons be acquitted.
11. In the present matter, accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram
have been charged for the offences punishable under 420/468/471
IPC.
12. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the allegation that
accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram alongwith other
co-accused persons viz. Sahab Singh (proceedings already abated),
Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh (already convicted
vide plea bargaining order dated 18.08.2010) were involved in
cheating by robbing truck bearing number DIG-6488 and in
preparation of forged documents for registration of the above stated
truck at Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number
HR-38BG-0103 and thereafter selling the said truck to Surender
Singh are hence are guilty of offences u/s 420/120B IPC and u/s
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.25/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:34:22
+0530
468/471 IPC.
13. The cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence which form the
foundation of every criminal trial are that in every criminal trial, the
accused is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty.
Secondly, in every criminal trial, prosecution is duty bound to prove
the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and
prosecution’s case has to stand on its own legs. It cannot derive any
benefit/ advantage whatsoever, from the weaknesses in the defence
of the accused. Lastly, if there exist reasonable doubts in the
prosecution’s story, then such reasonable doubts entitle the accused
to be acquitted from the case. It is apt to refer to the following
observation of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case
of ‘Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab’ [1997 (3) Crime 55]:
“In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its
case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution
to travel the entire distance from ‘may have’ to ‘must have’.
If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks
credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the
accused.”
14. Now, in the instant case, accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused
Khubi Ram have been put on trial for allegedly cheating after
conspiring with other co-accused persons viz. Sahab Singh
(proceedings already abated), Gyan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and
Baldev Singh (already convicted upon plea bargaining vide order
dated 18.08.2010) by robbing truck bearing no. DIG-6488 of
complainant Bhura Singh and also tampering with its chasis number
and engine number and forging documents for getting it registered
with Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.26/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:34:31
+0530
HR-38BG-0103 in the name of accused Sarabjeet Singh.
Allegations against the accused were thus of committing offences
punishable under Sections 420/120B IPC and Section 468/471 IPC
qua which charge against them was framed.
15. An overall assessment of the prosecution case, comprising the entire
evidence brought on record, reveals the following points which have
arisen for determination before this court.
Whether accused Sahab Singh and accused Khubi Ram have in
conspiracy with other co accused persons (Sahab Singh, Gyan
Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh) cheated complainant
Bhura Singh by robbing his truck bearing number DIG-6488
and have thereby committed offences punishable u/s 420/12B
IPC?
Whether accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram in
pursuant of the above stated conspiracy prepared forged
documents to get truck bearing registration number DIG-6488
registered with Faridabad Transport Authority with registration
number HR-38BG-0103 and have thereby committed offence
punishable u/s 468 IPC?
Whether accused Sarabjeet Singh and Khubi Ram used as
genuine forged documents knowingly or having reason to
believe the same to be forged and thereby accused Sarabjeet
Singh and Khubi Ram have committed offences punishable u/s
471 IPC?
16. In the ensuing analysis, I have dealt with analysis and conclusion
with respect to guilt of accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.27/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:34:39
+0530
Ram with respect to each of the above stated sections invoked
under IPC.
Charge qua offence under section 420/120B IPC
17. The allegations of attempt to cheat/deceive have been levelled
against accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram in the present
case. Accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram were accordingly
charged under section 420 IPC. The term “cheating” has been
defined under section 415 IPC and Section 420 IPC makes the
offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto 7
years. All the relevant provisions with which the accused has been
charged are reproduced as under:
“415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the
person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act
or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to
“cheat”.
“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.”
18. Further, in ‘Samir Sahay @ Sameer Sahay vs The State Of Uttar
Pradesh Home’, [Decided on 25 August, 2017], the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while discussing the law related to cheating observed:
“18. According to Section 415 IPC, the inducement must be
fraudulent and dishonest which depends upon the intention of
the accused at the time of inducement. This Court had occasion
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.28/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:34:58
+0530
to consider Sections 415 and 420 IPC in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2000 (4) SCC
168. This Court after noticing the provisions of Section
415 and 420 IPC stated following in paragraph 14 and 22:
“14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the
definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which
the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he
may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any
property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the
section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person
deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived.
In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or
dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be
intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.”
19. In ‘G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad‘, [2000 (3) SCC 693], this Court has
held thus: (SCC pp. 69697, para 7)
“7. As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While in the
first part, the person must ‘dishonestly’ or ‘fraudulently’ induce the
complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person
should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a
thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be
dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should
be intentional. As observed by this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal
Akhaney v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575, a guilty intention
is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order,
therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of
cheating, ‘mens rea’ on the part of that person, must be
established. It was also observed in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of
W.B., AIR 1954 SC 724, that in order to constitute the offence of
cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the
time when the inducement was offered.”
20. In the landmark judgment titled as’Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs
Sudha Seetharam’, [Decided on 15 February, 2019], the Hon’ble
Apex Court enumerated the essential ingredients for proving the
offence of cheating. It observed:
“15. i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under
Section 415 &
ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to-
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.29/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:35:05
+0530
(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.
Cheating is thus an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an
offence under Section 420.”
21. A meaningful reading of the law discussed in the afore-given
decisions indicates that for proving the offence of cheating, there
must be cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the act of
cheating committed by the accused was backed by his intention to
cheat. It must be established beyond doubts that the intention to
cheat had existed from the very inception of the act. It must further
be proved that the penultimate act committed by the cheated person,
was solely the result of his deception by the accused and such
penultimate act would not have been committed by him, had he not
been so deceived by the accused. Thus, intention to cheat being the
sine qua non must be established beyond all doubts by the
prosecution for proving the offence of cheating, besides the actus
reus constituting the offence.
22. Adverting now to the facts of the present case. For proving the
offence of attempting to cheat against the accused Sarabjeet Singh
and accused Khubi Ram, prosecution has examined about 37
witnesses in its favour, out of which testimony of PW2 Bhura Singh
and PW 33 Inspector Sajjan Singh are most crucial. All remaining
witnesses are merely formal in nature.
23. From the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, it is very clear that no
linkage between accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram
and complainant Bhura Singh has been established qua truck bearing
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.30/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:35:12
+0530
no. DIG-6488. PW33 Inspector Sajjan Singh has very unequivocally
admitted in his cross examination that he could not come across any
evidence during investigation which would connect accused
Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram to the present case. It has also
been very unequivocally admitted by PW33 Inspector Sajjan Sing
that even on the basis of FSL result filed on record, accused
Sarabjeet Singh could not be connected to the present case.
24. Even for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the above said
accused persons were involved in theft of the above said vehicle, it is
very evident from the prosecution evidence on record, that there are
no eye witnesses to the above said incident when on the intervening
night of 11-12/12/1996, truck parked in Chand Nagar area, was
allegedly forcefully taken away from the driver. Therefore, in my
considered opinion, prosecution has failed to establish both the
actus reus as well as the mens rea accused Sarabjeet Singh and
accused Khubi Ram to cheat.
25. In the present case, accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram
have also been charged u/s 120B r/w section 420 IPC. It is settled
proposition of law that for the offence u/s 120B of IPC i.e. for the
purpose of conspiracy, there can be no direct evidence on record.
Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120A of IPC which is
being reproduced for ready reference:-
“120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. – When two or more persons agree
to do, or cause to be done, -(1) an illegal act, or (2)an act which is not illegal
by illegal means, such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.31/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:35:20
+0530
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall
amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done
by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation. – It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of
such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.”
26. Thus, to prove the charge u/s 120B of IPC for commission of
offence of criminal conspiracy, it is necessary to prove on record
that there was an agreement to do an illegal act or an act which is not
illegal by illegal means. The prosecution is not required to prove that
perpetrators agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act. Even the
evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design
may be sufficient. The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal
conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. Mere proof of
such agreement is sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy. In such
case the circumstances, when taken together on their face value,
should indicate meeting of minds between the conspirators for the
intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not
illegal, committed by illegal means. A few bits here and there on
which prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for
connecting accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi Ram with
the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be
shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in
furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. Circumstances
relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in
point of time than the actual commission of the offence in
furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. No evidence oral or
documentary has come forth in the trial which would prove beyond
reasonable doubt that accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram had
conspired with other co accused persons to cheat Bhura Singh by
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.32/40 Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date: 2026.02.16 16:35:29 +0530
robbing his truck bearing no DIG 6488 and thereafter forging
documents to get it registered under another no HR-38BG-0103 and
selling it to Surender Singh.
27. Therefore, in my considered opinion, since prosecution has been
unsuccessful in establishing all the essential ingredients for proving
the offence of cheating in furtherance of a conspiracy, accused
Sarabjeet Singh and acused Khubi Ram are not found liable for the
offences punishable under Section 420/120B IPC and are entitled to
acquittal for the said offences.
Charge qua offence under section 468 IPC
28. Moving on, in the present case, accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused
Khubi Ram have also been charged with Section 468 IPC for
committing the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating. The
said provision is being reproduced, as under:
“468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.–Whoever commits
forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record
forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
29. The provision of Section 468 IPC penalizes any act of forgery
committed by a person for cheating another person. But what
constitutes ‘forgery of a document’ has been defined under Section
463 IPC. According to Section 463 IPC, ‘Forgery’ is constituted
when a person makes any false document or false electronic record
or part of a document or electronic record, with intention to cause
damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.33/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:35:37
+0530
claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to
enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit
fraud or that fraud may be committed. The settled legal position is
that when the above-mentioned ingredients are fulfilled, only then
such person shall be said to have committed forgery and for proving
offence against the accused, it must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt by prosecution that the act of forgery or making of the false
document was committed by the accused himself. Further, how can
a false document/ electronic record be made has been enumerated
under Section 464 IPC, which is reproduced as under:
“464. Making a false document– [A person is said to make a
false document or false electronic record– First.–Who
dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a
document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any
electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or
the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention
of causing it to be believed that such document or part of
document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made,
signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the
authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows
that it was not made, singed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly.–Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or
fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or
an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has
been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature]
either by himself or by any other person, whether such person
be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.–
Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign,
seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to
affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record
knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised
upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the alteration.”
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.34/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:35:44
+0530
30. A close scrutiny of the above-mentioned provision further reveals
that the proof of commission of ‘forgery’ by the accused himself is
an essential pre-requisite/ ingredient for holding such person liable
under Section 468 IPC. In the absence of the requisite proof having
been brought on record and duly proved by prosecution, the accused
cannot be held guilty of forgery. In the landmark judgment of’Md.
Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr.‘, [(2009) 8 SCC 751],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while discussing about making of a
false document, reiterated the relevant portion of the provision and
observed:
“11.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.”
31. Also in ‘Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation‘,
[(2009) 15 SCC 643], Hon’ble Supreme Court, after analysing the
facts of that case, came to observed:
“A person is said to make a false document or record if he
satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and
provided for under the said section. The first condition being that
the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to
be believed that such document has been made by a person, by
whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not
made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even
if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently,
had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed
that they were made by or under the authority of someone else.”
32. In ‘Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj’, [Decided on 11 May, 2018],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 20 of the judgment referred to the
decision in ‘Dickins vs. Gill’, [(1896) 2 QB 310], where the Court
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.35/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:35:54
+0530
was dealing with a case of fictitious stamps and observed “..an
offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it
or signed it.” Going further, in para 25 of the said judgment
of ‘Sheila Sebastian‘ (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“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. As held
in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than
causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further
clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is
imperative that a false document is made and the accused person
is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not
liable for the offence of forgery.”
33. Thus, the legal position being unambiguously clear and it needs to be
scrutinized whether prosecution has been able to prove the offence
of forgery for the purpose of cheating, against accused Sarabjeet and
accused Khubi Ram or not.
34. If one is to scrutinize testimony of PW33 IO Inspector Sajjan Singh,
it is observed that in his examination in chief he has deposed that
truck bearing HR-38BG-0103 was initially registered in the name of
accused Sarabjeet Singh and thereafter was transferred in favor of co
accused Gyan Singh from whom it was ultimately transferred and
registered in the name of Surender Singh. Surprisingly, during the
course of his examination in chief, PW33 IO Inspector Sajjan Singh
has also deposed that truck bearing HR-38VG-0103 was as per
statement of Jagdish Singh@Tikka (commission agent) sold by
Sahab Singh to Gyan Singh. The above said discrepancy in the
testimomy of PW33 Inspector Sajjan Singh is crucial when one is to
examine the role of accused Sarabjeet Singh qua the charges levelled
against him in this case. Additionally, Jagdish Singh @ Tikka
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.36/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:36:02
+0530
(commission agent) on the basis of whose statement it was deposed
by PW33 IO Inspector Sajjan Singh that truck bearing
HR-38VG-0103 was sold by Sahab Singh to Gyan Singh has also
not stepped into the witness box for reasons best known to the
prosecution.
35. Be that as it may, there is also no documentary proof with respect to
ownership of truck bearing no HR-38VG-0103 by accused Sarabjeet
Singh at any point of time except affidavit (Ex PW33/E) of
Sarabjeet Singh stating that he had sold the aforesaid truck to
accused Gyan Singh. Further, even as per the FSL result dated
12.05.2003 (admitted by accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused
Khubiram under section 294 CrPC as Ex X-1), no opinion has been
expressed with respect to writings on the above said affidavit.
36. There is no iota of evidence against accused Sarabjeet Singh and
accused Khubiram with respect to the charge of having committeed
forgery of documents to get truck bearing no truck bearing no.
DIG-6488 registered at Faridabad Transport Authority with
registration number HR-38VG-0103. No documentary evidence has
also produced to establish the offence of forgery by accused
Sarabjeet and acused Khubi Ram . As per report of MLC
Headquarter, Transport Department, Rajpur road, Delhi (Ex
PW7/A), documents/ record of temporary registration of vehicle
bearing no HR-38VG-0103 are not traceable. Secondly, even if for
the sake of argument it is assumed that accused Sarabjeet Singh and
accused Khubi Ram had forged documents to get truck bearing no
truck bearing no. DIG-6488 registered at Faridabad Transport
Authority with registration number HR-38VG-0103, not even a
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.37/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:36:12
+0530
single witness examined by prosecution has testified that the same
were forged by accused Sarabjeet Singh and accused Khubi
Ram.Thus, in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence to
prove beyond all doubts that the offence of forgery has been
committed by the accused, the accused cannot be convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 468 IPC. Accused Sarabjeet and
acused Khubi Ram are thus entitled to be given benefit of doubt for
the charge of committing forgery and is not found guilty for the
offence under Section 468 IPC.
Charge qua offence under section 471 IPC
37. In the present matter, accused Sarabjeet and acused Khubi Ram have
also been charged with Section 471 IPC. Section 471 IPC penalizes
the act of using as genuine a forged document or electronic
record. Section 471 IPC is reproduced as under:
“Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record-
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any
1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason
to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall
be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such
1[document or electronic record].”
38. The term ‘forged document’ has been defined under Section 470 IPC
as:
“A false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by
forgery is designated “a forged document or electronic record”.
39. Prosecution’s allegation is that accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi
Ram had forged documents and used the same as genuine for
registration of the above truck bearing no HR-38BG-0103 at
Faridabad Transport Authority and are hence are guilty of offences
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.38/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:36:21
+0530
u/s 471 IPC.
40. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that not even a single witness of
prosecution has deposed that accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi
Ram had used forged documents knowing the same to be forged to
get truck bearing no. DIG-6488 of complainant Bhura Singh
registered at Faridabad Transport Authority with registration number
HR-38VG-0103 after tampering with its chasis number and engine
number.
41. There is no documentary or oral evidence to establish the offence of
forgery or usage of forged documents as genuine with the
knowledge of the same being forged by accused Sarabjeet and
accused Khubi Ram. Hence prosecution has failed to establish the
use of forged documents by accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi
Ram for getting truck bearing no. DIG-6488 registered at Faridabad
Transport Authority with registration number HR-38VG-0103 after
tampering with its chasis number and engine number and thereafter
selling it to Surender Singh through co accused Gyan Singh,
Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh. Accused Sarabjeet and accused
Khubi Ram therefore cannot be convicted even for the offence
of Section 471 IPC.
CONCLUSION
42. In the wake of an all-inclusive examination and analysis of the facts,
circumstances and evidence led by prosecution in the present case,
this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed
to establish its case against accused Sarabjeet and accused Khubi
Ram for all the offences with which they were charged. Accused
State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.39/40
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2026.02.16
16:36:28
+0530
Sarabjeet and accused Khubi Ram are therefore acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 420 and Section 468/471 IPC.
Let digitally signed copy of this judgment be uploaded on the district
court website.
Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA
Announced in open Court on 16.02.2026. AZAD AZAD
Date: 2026.02.16
16:36:35 +0530(VASUNDHARA AZAD)
Chief Judicial Magistrate, West District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 16.02.2026State Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 704/1999 PS Moti Nagar Page no.40/40
