New Delhi [India], August 20 : A Delhi court has acquitted Deepak Mandal in a 2018 fake Indian currency notes (FICNs) case, observing that material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses and several lapses in the investigation raised "strong doubt" over the prosecution's version of the alleged recovery.
Delhi Court acquits man in fake currency case, says police evidence raises strong doubt over alleged recovery
The court particularly questioned the alleged recovery proceedings, noting that the investigating agency failed to seize or produce the black-coloured bag and two black polythene packets which, according to the prosecution witnesses, were allegedly being carried by Mandal and contained the counterfeit notes.
The court observed that these articles were "material pieces of evidence" and said the prosecution had failed to explain why they were neither seized nor proved during the trial. The lapse, according to the court, raised a strong doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and the alleged recovery of FICNs from the accused.
The prosecution case was that a Special Cell team had arranged a decoy operation at the DTC Bus Depot, Khanpur, after receiving information that Mandal was allegedly involved in circulating counterfeit currency. According to the case, a police official, HC Manoj, acted as a decoy customer and allegedly handed over a dummy wad containing two genuine Rs 2,000 notes and 98 paper cuttings to Mandal.
The prosecution alleged that Mandal thereafter handed over two wads containing 200 counterfeit ₹2,000 notes, valued at Rs 4 lakh, to the decoy customer. It further alleged recovery of another 175 counterfeit Rs 2,000 notes, valued at Rs 3.50 lakh, from his bag, taking the total alleged recovery to Rs 7.50 lakh. The notes were subsequently examined by the Currency Note Press, Nasik, which opined that the suspected notes were counterfeit.
However, the court said the fact that the notes were found counterfeit did not by itself establish the prosecution case against Mandal when the circumstances surrounding their alleged recovery remained doubtful.
The court also took note of the failure to associate independent public witnesses with the alleged search and seizure. It observed that the place of alleged recovery was a busy area where public persons were available, but none was joined as a witness at any stage of the recovery proceedings. The court further noted that there was no case that the investigating officer had issued notices to those persons to join the investigation.
According to the judgment, this failure to join independent witnesses constituted a material lacuna and raised a "very strong doubt" about the entire seizure and recovery proceedings.
The court also found discrepancies regarding the preparation of the dummy currency wad used in the alleged trap. HC Manoj, according to the judgment, stated that the investigating officer had prepared the dummy wad by cutting white paper with scissors in the office.
However, SI Nirbhay Rana, the first investigating officer, stated during cross-examination that he had got the dummy wad prepared from a private book binder in the market two or three days before the incident.
The court noted that there were 98 white paper cuttings in the dummy wad and that a previous court observation recorded during PW1's testimony found the papers to be cut with precision to the size of ₹2,000 currency notes. The court further noted that the dummy wad had no identification mark or serial number. It held that the contradiction regarding how the wad was prepared was material and raised strong doubt over the testimony of PW1 and PW7 and, consequently, the prosecution case.
Another significant finding concerned the timing of the alleged receipt of secret information and constitution of the raiding team.
The court noted that PW1 stated that a secret informer came to his office at around 7.30 pm on August 9, 2018 and thereafter the information was shared with senior officers and the raiding team was constituted.
In contrast, PW3 HC Mohit stated that PW7 had briefed the members of the raiding team at around 7 pm and took about five minutes to do so.
The court observed that, going by PW3's version, the raiding team had already been constituted and briefed between 7 pm and 7.05 pm--before the secret informer allegedly arrived at 7.30 pm as per PW1's testimony.
The court described this as a "very material contradiction" which raised strong doubt about the veracity of the material prosecution witnesses and the entire prosecution case.
The court also noted that Inspector Ishwar Singh, who according to the record was a key officer in the constitution and supervision of the raiding team, was neither cited nor examined as a prosecution witness. The judgment records that an application seeking police custody remand had described the team as being headed by Inspector Ishwar Singh. The court held that his non-examination, without any explanation from the prosecution, constituted another material lacuna.
The court further noticed that PW7, during his testimony, had initially wrongly identified Mandal when the accused was produced through video conferencing along with other inmates. Although the witness subsequently identified him correctly when the accused appeared physically in court, the earlier mistaken identification was also part of the evidentiary circumstances considered by the court.
The judgment also records another discrepancy concerning the documents prepared during the alleged recovery. The court noted that the alleged recovery took place at around 9.50 pm on August 9, 2018, while the rukka was received at the police station at 4.40 am on August 10 and the FIR was registered at 7 am.
The court observed that the site plan and several seizure and handing-over memos were prepared before registration of the FIR, yet FIR No. 93/2018 was specifically mentioned on those documents. The court treated the circumstance as raising doubt over the authenticity and veracity of the documents and the alleged recovery proceedings.
The court ultimately held that the cumulative effect of the material contradictions, omissions and procedural lapses created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.
"The benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused," the court held while concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges under Sections 489B and 489C IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Mandal was accordingly acquitted.