Delhi District Court
State vs . Manish Kumar on 27 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR-I ACMM: NORTH-WEST: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI FIR No. 87/2004 PS: Sarswati Vihar U/s. 386/506 IPC State Vs. Manish Kumar Date of Institution of case : 31.03.2004 Date of Judgment reserved : 25.06.2022 Date on which judgment pronounced : 27.06.2022 JUDGMENT
1) Unique ID no. of the case : 534977/2016
2) Date of commission of offence : 17.12.2003 to 29.01.2004
3) Name of complainant : Sh. Anil Mahajan S/o Sh. S.D. Mahajan R/o FD-12, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
4) Name and address of accused: Manish Kumar S/o late Sh. Amar Nath R/o BB-16-B, East, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
5) Offence complained of : U/s 386/506 IPC 6) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 7) Final Order : ACQUITTED Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.06.27 17:07:54 +0530 CASE No. 535977/2016 FIR No. 87/2004 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 1/26 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION Brief facts
1. Case of the prosecution in brief is that from 17.12.2003 to 29.01.2004 accused made various telephonic calls to the complainant Anil Mahajan asking him to deliver Rs. 50 lacs otherwise threatening to kill him and his family members; a similar call was made by him on 23.12.2003 asking for Rs. 6 lacs by posing himself as Khan Bhai and a member of a gang; another call was made on 14.01.2004 for Rs. 10 lacs and thereafter accused was apprehended on 29.01.2004 at 11.40 a.m. at footpath, corner of Guru Gobind Singh College, Pitam Pura, Delhi when the accused was trying to take away the gunny bag which was put there by the complainant on his threatening calls for money and thus the accused committed extortion by putting the complainant in fear of death. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 17.12.2003, 23.12.2003 and 14.01.2004 accused made telephonic calls to the complainant and threatened him to cause his death and of his family members in case the complainant fails to pay the amount demanded by him. Thus, the accused thereby committed an offence 386/506 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against the accused Manish Kumar for offences U/s 386/506 IPC was filed in the Court and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C., arguments on charge were heard. Vide order dated 12.08.2004 charge were framed U/s. 386/506 IPC against the Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 CASE No. 535977/2016 17:08:01 +0530 FIR No. 87/2004 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 2/26 accuseds to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused Manish Kumr was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused Manish Kumar and also perused the record carefully.
5. PW1 WHC Sukhda stated that on 29.01.2004 she was posted at PS Sarswati Vihar and on that day she was duty officer from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. At 2.30 p.m she received rukka Mark X of this case from Ct. Lalit and on the basis of rukka she recorded formal FIR bearing No. 87/2004. She proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A.
6. PW2 Anil Mahajan deposed that on 17.12.2003 when he had returned back to his home around 8.30/9.00 p.m, his son told him that there was a telephonic call from one Khan and he had asked to meet with one Kishan Pehalwan in Rohtak Jail on next day. His son also told that when he asked about the reason, said Khan had told that it was in their benefit. On the next day i.e., on 18.12.2003, when he returned back to his house there was Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 17:08:05 +0530 FIR No. 87/2004 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 3/26 another call from the same person i.e., Khan. That call was attended by his daughter and she said that he had not reached home by that time. After some time, there was another call from the same Khan but this time he told his name something else and not Khan. This phone was attended by him. At that time, he did not ask for any money etc. Thereafter, on 23.12.2003, he received a call from same Khan and he asked him as to why he had not met Kishan Pehalwan in Rohtak Jail so far. He used to call Kishan Pehalwan sometimes as KP and sometime as Bhai Ji.
7. PW2 further deposed to have been told that it was in his interest and benefit to meet KP. In the meantime, there was some customer in his office and said Khan said that he would call him (PW2) in the evening at his home. Thereafter, around 9.00 p.m. when he was present at his home, there was a telephonic call from said Khan. In the meantime, after receipt of above said first call from said Khan, they had installed the caller ID facility on their phone. Thereafter, by calling again and again, he said that he was a man of Bhai Ji and Bhai Ji is a gangster like Daud Ibrahim. He asked him as to what said KP wants from him. On this, said Khan told him that he would have get the matter compromised and asked him to arrange Rs. 50 Lacs. He refused the same. After half an hour he again called him and told that he had talked with Bhai Ji and Bhai Ji had told that he might take the amount in 2-3 installments but asked to pay Rs. 6 lacs immediately as there was some bail matter of his men in court on next day. As they got frightened, they agreed to pay Rs. 6 lacs Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 FIR No. 87/2004 17:08:09 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 4/26 and he told him that he would send this amount to Regent Hotel in Karol Bagh but said Khan told that Rs. 6 lacs be delivered somewhere else and not at Regent Hotel. He further told that he must keep the money ready by 11.00 a.m. on next day. He also told him as to when and how the money is to be paid. Next day i.e., 24.12.2003 he received a telephone call from said Khan at 4.00 p.m. in his office. He told him that he would send the money at Regent hotel but he said that his man would collect the money from his office. On this, he got more frightened.
8. PW2 further deposed that he would call him in the evening and one person by the name of Mohinder would come to his office and he would ask for six apples as a signal and he should deliver the amount to him. But no person came there till 7 or 7.15 p.m. Due to fear, he alongwith his son left the office.
While he had covered hardly one kilometer, he received call from said Khan on his mobile that he said that he must give the money as his man is likely to arrive in the office. He told him that he has already left the office and he would pay the money in the morning next day but he insisted to pay immediately. He also asked to give Rs. 10,000/- separately to Mohinder besides Rs. 6 lacs in a bag. PW2 told him that he was not in a position to give additional Rs. 10,000/- because his office is closed. On this he asked that an amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- must be kept in the bag and Rs. 10,000/- be given separately to him.
PW2 further deposed that he returned back to his office. Said Mohinder had also reached there by that time. He handed Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR Date: CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR 2022.06.27 17:08:12 FIR No. 87/2004 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 5/26 over Rs. 10,000/- to him and a bag containing Rs. 5,90,000/- was also given to him by counting the same and after taking the same, he went away. PW2 further deposed that on the next day i.e., on 25.12.2003 around 12.00 or 12.30 p.m. his employees told him that the person who had taken the money yesterday alongwith one more person had come to see him. PW2 called both of them to his office. The other person who accompanied that person was actually owner of one firm Dhingra Bags. Owner of Dhingra Bag enquired from PW2 as to why his man/ employee had taken the money from him. Said proprietor of Dhingra Bags told PW2 that yesterday on 24 th in the afternoon a person named Khan called from Rohtak and ordered some samples of bags the value of which was approximately Rs. 10,000/- and he had asked him to obtain a bag and a cash of Rs. 10,000/- from Shikhar Enterprises (i.e., the name of firm of PW2) and he said that he would collect the said bag alongwith the bags which he had ordered. At the time when the owner of Dhingra Bags had come to his office the money was in his possession. Later on, he came to know that the said bag containing Rs. 5,90,000/- was collected by him through some bearer. Thereafter, for 18/20 days no call was received from the accused. After about 20 days again the phone calls from the accused started coming. Accused demanded the remaining amount of Rs. 44 Lacs but PW2 refused by saying that he is not in a position to give any more amount. He told PW2 that he had informed Kishan Pehalwan who has now deputed one Mudassar to collect the money from him. Thereafter, accused started Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 FIR No. 87/2004 17:08:17 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 6/26 making calls in the name of Mudassar and Khan also. Mudassar used to threaten them whereas Khan tried to console them. On 24.01.2004, he again rang back on that number and after dialing that number they came to know that it is a PCO in a mandir in Tri Nagar and the Pandit Ji told them that the person who was heavily drunk with the Tilak on his forehead had just made the phone call. It was then only that they came to know that the person making calls to them is a Hindu and not a Muslim. In the night of 26th January again a phone call came. They again rang back and it was a PCO from Rohini and they gave the same description of the accused as was given by Pandit Ji from the said temple. PW2 made the oral complaint in Crime Branch R.K. Puram on 27th January.
PW2 further deposed that on the night of 28 th the accused threatened him to give Rs. 10 Lacs at any cost and threatened them that he would not spare them after the night if they did not pay the amount. He informed this fact to the police and as per their advice, he agreed to pay the amount. He asked PW2 to put the money in a bag and to place the same on the pavement in front of the college. Next day around 8.30 a.m. He went to the Crime Branch office on 29.01.2004. The police prepared some packets of papers of currency notes size and put the same in the bag and asked him to place the bag at the above said spot. Accordingly, PW2 kept the bag at the given spot at 11.00a.m. and went in his car. Thereafter, he came back at the spot at 11.45a.m. as the police officials informed him on his telephone that accused has been apprehended. Accused was apprehended Digitally signed CASE No. 535977/2016 DEEPAK by DEEPAK KUMAR FIR No. 87/2004 KUMAR Date: 2022.06.27 17:08:21 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 7/26 alongwith a motorcycle. The personal search of accused was conducted. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. Police had not shown him all the articles recovered but had shown him some visiting cards, gunny bag, one scooter or motorcycle. All these articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. In the bag there was 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,60,000/-. The packet of these currency notes was bearing his signature on the first and last note. This cash was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. He also proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. PW2 identified the case property which was produced in the Court and proved the same as Ex.P1 to P9.
9. PW3 Ravinder Kumar Gupta and PW4 Sham Lal deposed nothing in favour of the prosecution case. They were cross examined by Ld. APP for the State but nothing incriminating has come out from their testimonies.
10. PW5 Gopal Kumar deposed that on 24.12.2003 in the evening a telephone call was received at their shop at Sadar Bazar and he stated that he is speaking Mr. Khan from Rohtak. He stated that he would come after a short time at his shop and he further asked for purchase of sample of Rs. 10,000/-. Mr. Khan also told him that he should fetch the money through someone. He told the person who telephoned him that he was sending one person namely Mohinder to fetch the money. Mr. Khan also told that Mohinder should tell that he has come from Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 17:08:24 FIR No. 87/2004 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 8/26 Bushan Bag. He further told that at the destination he should ask for six apples. On this, he asked Mr. Khan that why should Mohinder tell about six apples. Mr. Khan told him that this is his code word. Thereafter, they sent Mohinder at Shekhar enterprise in Nabi Karim. Thereafter, Mohinder had kept the money and he wanted to come back alongwith the money but he was insisted to stay. After some time, Mohinder was given a bag red colour and he was told that there was Rs. 5 lacs and 90,000/- of Rs. 500/- denomination notes and some bundles of Rs. 100/- denomination. Mohinder said that he himself had asked to bring only Rs. 10,000/- then why he should take Rs. 5,90,000/-, Mohinder was forcibly made to sit and he was told that whatever is being asked to do he should do only that much.
PW5 further deposed that Mohinder asked to make a call to him but he was not allowed. After taking the money Mohinder came to his shop and he paid him Rs. 10,000/- separately and Rs. 5,90,000/- separately. He was puzzled and afraid of. At that time, it was night time. Mohinder narrated him all the facts. After some time, a telephone from Khan again came to him and he asked about the bag of money and he said that he would be coming within 10-15 minutes as he was speaking from Gandhi Nagar but he told him that he should come in the morning as it was night time. On next day, there was a Bhagwad Geeta Path at their house, therefore, he reached at the shop late. Thereafter, he alongwith Mohinder went at Shikhar Enterprise at noon. He met the owner of Shikhar Enterprise. He was allowed to enter in the premises and Mohinder was asked to stay out and the door was Digitally signed by DEEPAK CASE No. 535977/2016 DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
FIR No. 87/2004 2022.06.27
17:08:28 +0530
PS- Saraswati Vihar
State Vs. Manish Kumar page 9/26
closed. The owner of the Shikhar Enterprise said that some threats are coming to him. That if he would not obey those threats, he may also be in trouble. Thereafter, he returned to his shop and he received a telephonic call from Mr. Khan and he was told that he should give the said bag to his person and he would ask him to give six apples which is his code word. Thereafter, he handed over the said bag after keeping the bag into another bag of jute by properly tying the same as per directions of Mr. Khan. He also enquired about the samples of Rs. 10,000/- and as per direction they had booked the sample of school bag on 26.11.2003 through Malik Transport Company Naya Bazar for Rohtak and the samples were marked with HK. He identified that person who had taken away the bags containing Rs. 5,90,000/- but he did not know his name. On 01.02.2004, the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- was given to the police to SI Suresh Kumar and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/A. The bundle of school bags which was booked by him was kept in a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He identified those school bags.
11. PW6 Raj Sehgal deposed that he had given his mobile phone NOKIA to R.N. Electronics for repairing the same on 15.01.2004 and he told him that after repairing the same, he would telephon him on his residence. He has not supported the versions of prosecution evidence. He was declared hostile. In his cross examination, he deposed that Manish is the son of his Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 FIR No. 87/2004 17:08:31 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 10/26 Mausi. Nothing incriminating has come out from his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State.
12. PW7 Mahinder Singh deposed that he was working at Malik Transport 4129, Naya Bazar Premises No. 4030 and 4129 as Manager. He had booked a bag containing the school bags from Rohtak for transportation. That bag containing school bags was handed over to the police which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/B. The bag was not sealed. The destination Rohtak was mentioned on the bag. The said parchi was also taken into possession by the police. This receipt was received from their Rohtak Office namely Malik Transport Mark PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B. He could not identify the said bags. Thereafter, he was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and in his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he proved the seizure memo of bags Ex. PW5/B and also his signatures on the same.
Further stated that the school bag was taken into possession by the police.
13. PW8 Vinnet Arya deposed that he has a shop No. 235, D- 14, Sector-3, Rohini in the month of January 18, 2002, he had issued a new connection of Hutch Company for Rs. 250/- and the number of the mobile phone was 9811384980 on the recommendation of Raj Sehgal who was known to him being his neighbour. The instrument was of Nokia but the model he did not know. He had inserted the sim card in the phone and he left after checking the same. The accused Manish Kumar had Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 CASE No. 535977/2016 17:08:35 +0530 FIR No. 87/2004 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 11/26 purchased the same from him.
14. PW9 Om Prakash Gandhi deposed that he knows accused Manosh Kumar R/o ZP-61, First Floor, Pitam Pura. He was running a committee and Manish had made a payment of Rs. 9900/- to him as an installment of the committee. He was unaware about the source from where Manish had obtained this money. These Rs. 9900 were handed over by him to the IO SI Suresh which were taken by him in police possession vide memo Ex.PW9/A. There were 99 currency notes of 100 denomination.
15. PW10 HC Lalit Kumar deposed that on 29.01.2004 he was posted at Anti Extortion Cell Crime Branch and on that day, he alongwith SI Sunil Kumar, SI Arvind Kumar, SI Jagdish Kumar, SI Suresh and other staffs joined the raiding party for the trap regarding a call of extortion. At about 10.00a.m. all the members of the raiding party reached at Richi Rich Restaurant, Ring Road. There IO asked four or five passerbyes to join the raiding party but all of them refused and left the place without telling their names and addresses. All the members of the raiding party were in five separate vehicles and the complainant was in his car. He alongwith Ct. Rajvir and Ct. Satpal were in the vehicle of the IO. As per the instructions of the IO, the complainant kept the gunny bag at about 11.00 a.m. at the corner of the footpath near Guru Gobind Singh college in front of Pitam Pura TV Tower. They were sitting in their vehicle having a watch on the gunny bag. At about 11.40 a.m. accused Manish Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2022.06.27 CASE No. 535977/2016 17:08:39 +0530 FIR No. 87/2004 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 12/26 came there on LML freedom Motorcycle and he took 2-3 rounds of the roundabout there at the spot having a vigil of the area. He picked the said gunny bag containing paper pieces instead of currency notes and kept the same on his motorcycle. He was apprehended by the IO with the help of staff while he was starting his motorcycle. He tried to escape from the custody and fell down on the road. The gunny bag was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajvir Singh. On conducting the search of accused, one card of Hutch Company was recovered and same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. IO prepared rukka and got the case registered through him. Motorcycle was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. PW10 further deposed that on 01.02.2004 he joined the investigation of the present case with the IO and went to the house of accused Pitam Pura. At the instance of the accused, one bag of green colour was recovered which was found containing 3 wads of Rs. 500/- which bearing the signature of Anil Mahajan. The said bag was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/D. On 03.02.2004, the school bag was got recovered from a transporter from Naya Bazar at the instance of the accused. The said bag was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B.
16. PW11 Deepak Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. deposed that he has been deputed by the Manager, Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2022.06.27 CASE No. 535977/2016 17:08:44 +0530 FIR No. 87/2004 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 13/26 Nodal & Regulatory Department on behalf of Deepak Gupta who had handed over the documents pertaining to the ownership of mobile no. 9811384980 and the call details of this mobile number from 10.01.2004 to 31.01.2004. Sh. Deepak Gupta had left his services from the company and his present address is not available in the office. He was shown two documents in the court and on seeing the documents, he deposed that the said mobile number issued to one Sandeep Dass. He proved the said documents as Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B.
17. PW12 SI Sudhir Kumar deposed that on 29.01.2004, he was posted in Anti Extortion Cell of Crime Branch, having office at R.K. Puram, Delhi. On the instructions of senior police officers, one trap was laid down and he was directed to keep his position at Pitampura, TV Tower near Guru Govind Singh College on that day. After waiting for sometimes, he had received telephone call from SI Suresh Kumar who told him that trap laid down by the police had been successful and he should go to the spot situated near Guru Govind Singh College Pitam Pura. Accordingly, he reached there where one person namely Manish Kumar i.e., the accused herein (who has been correctly identified by the witness), was also found present. SI Suresh Kumar had conducted search of the accused and during such search, one sim card of Hutch company was recovered from his possession. The said SIM card was seized by SI Suresh Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. Thereafter, SI Suresh Kumar prepared a teharir and got the FIR registered through one Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR Date: CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR 2022.06.27 17:08:48 FIR No. 87/2004 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 14/26 constable. After registration of FIR, motorcycle make LML freedom of the accused Manish Kumar was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. One raxin bag of black colour was also seized in his presence. IO SI Suresh Kumar had also recorded disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW12/A.
18. PW13 Mahender Kumar deposed that the incident occurred about 12-13 years back. At that time, he was working at Dhingra Bag House, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar which was running by Gopal Dhingra. He did not remember the date when his employer Gopal Dhingra told him to take Rs. 10,000/- and 6 apples from Shikhar Enterprises. He went to Shikhar Enterprises where the owner of Shikhar Enterprises met him. The owner of Shikhar Enterprises gave him one bag and after that he came back at Dhingra Bag House and handed over the same to Gopal Dhingra. On the next day in the morning when he came to Dhingra Bag House, his employer Gopal Dhdingra asked him from where he brought that bag and he also asked him to let him see that place. After that, he alongwith Gopal Dhingra reached at Shikhar Enterprises. The person by whom he received that bag was present at Shikhar Enterprises. He alongwith Gopal Dhingra and owner of Shikhar Enterprises remained in Shikhar Enterprises for about one and half hour. After that he left Enterprises. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State declared PW13 hostile. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State but nothing incriminating has come out from his testimonies.
Digitally
signed by
DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27
17:08:52
+0530
CASE No. 535977/2016
FIR No. 87/2004
PS- Saraswati Vihar
State Vs. Manish Kumar page 15/26
19. PW14 Inspector Suresh Kumar deposed that on 29.01.2004, he was posted at Anti- Extortion Cell, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, Delhi. On the instruction of his senior officer, he met the complainant Anil Mahajan and after discussion with his senior officers, he alongwith complainant prepared a gunny bag containing paper in the shapes of currency notes. He prepared a raiding team for the trap regarding the call of extortion given to the complainant. Raiding party includes himself, SI Arvind, SI Sunil, SI Jagdish and SI Sudhir, HC Hansraj, Ct. Rajbir, Ct. Satpal, Ct. Lalit, Ct. Rakesh. Total 15 police officers were the member of raiding party including complainant. Thereafter at about 10:00 am all the members of raiding party reached near Richi Rich restaurant at Shalimar Bagh. He requested the passerby to join the raiding party but all of them refused and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. He instructed the complainant to keep the gunny bag near T.V Tower, Pitampura on footpath as accused asked the complainant to keep the bag containing Rs. 10,00,000/- at above mentioned place. All the members of the raiding party were on five separate vehicles and complainant was on his own private car. He alongwith Ct. Lalit, Ct. Rajvir and Ct. Satpal were in same vehicle. At about 11:00 am, complainant kept a gunny bag at the corner of the footpath near Guru Gobind Singh College in front of Pitampura, T.V. Tower and they were sitting in their respective vehicle and having a watch on the gunny bag. At about 11:40 am, accused came on motorcycle and he took 2-3 rounds there nearby the spot and thereafter accused took the Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR DEEPAK Date:
KUMAR 2022.06.27
CASE No. 535977/2016 17:08:55
+0530
FIR No. 87/2004
PS- Saraswati Vihar
State Vs. Manish Kumar page 16/26
aforesaid bag containing the paper pieces in shape of currency notes instead of currency notes and same was kept on his motorcycle. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Satpal, Ct. Rajvir and Ct. Lalit apprehended the accused and abovesaid gunny bag was recovered from the possession of the accused and on enquiry he disclosed his name Manish Kumar. All the members of raiding party including the complainant reached at the spot who were deputed by him in different directions nearby the spot. He seized the gunny bag with seal of SR and same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Lalit. On cursive search of accused one SIM card of Hutch company was recovered and the same was taken into the possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. He recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW2/A. He proved rukka Ex. PW14/A and same was handed over to Ct. Lalit for registration of FIR. After sometime Ct. Lalit came at the spot after registration of FIR, Ct. Lalit handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to him. He seized the motorcycle (LML freedom) which was used by the accused in the present offence vide Ex.PW-10/A. He prepared the site plan of the place of incident and proved the same as Ex.PW14/B. He proved arrest memo of accused vide memo Ex.PW2/E. He made a personal search of the accused and proved the same as Ex.PW2/F. He recorded the disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW12/A. PW14 further deposed that on 01.02.2004, on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused one green bag containing Rs. 1,50,000/- were recovered from the house of the accused vide Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR Date: CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR 2022.06.27 17:08:59 FIR No. 87/2004 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 17/26 memo already Ex.PW-2/D. One person namely Om Prakash Gandhi was called at Crime Branch office and produced Rs. 9,900/- which he has borrowed from accused Manish. He seized the same with the seal of SK and took into police possession already Ex.PW9/A. One person namely D.K. Dhingra produced Rs. 10,000/- and same was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Relative of the accused Manish namely Raj Sehgal was called at Crime Branch office and he produced one mobile phone which was used by the accused Manish Kumar in the commission of the present offence. He seized the same and took into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. During the investigation, he seized one bundle of school bag alongwith receipt no.. 61757 dated 26.12.2003 which was handed over to him by the owner of Malik Transport Company, Sadar Bazar, Delhi vide memo Ex.PW5/B. PW14 further deposed that during investigation, he collected the call detail record of mobile no. 9811384980 from Hutch company vide call detail report already Ex.PW11/B. He placed the same on record. After completion of investigation, he prepared charge-sheet and filed before the concerned court. He identified the case property. At that stage, receipt no. 61757 dt. 26/12/2003 which was in judicial file was shown to the witness and witness stated that the same was the receipt which was handed over to him by the owner of the Malik Transport Company. Receipt is Ex.PW7/A and remaining case property were exhibited during the testimony of PW-2 and PW-5.
Digitally
signed by
DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27
17:09:03
CASE No. 535977/2016 +0530
FIR No. 87/2004
PS- Saraswati Vihar
State Vs. Manish Kumar page 18/26
20. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and
statement of accused Manish Kumar U/s 313Cr.P.C. was recorded in which accused has denied all the allegations leveled against him. Accused Manish Kumar wished to lead defence evidence.
21. DW1 Smt. Kunti Rani deposed that on 28.01.2004, his son Manish (accused) was present in the house. On that day, they received a telephonic call from some officials of Crime Branch whereby he directed his son to visit the office of Crime Branch in connection of some enquiries. Her son left the house but he did not return the said date. They continuously made call to the police officials regarding her son but they started giving excuses on one or another pretext. On the next date i.e., 29.01.2004, the police official called them. She talked to her son who said that the police officials were beating and continuously torturing him. Her son further told that police officials are asking for money. He was not having sufficient money; therefore, he requested her brother Kailash Wason (since expired) to arrange the money. Her brother said that he is having arrangement of Rs. 1,70,000/-. She told him to give the same. Thereafter, as per direction of the officials of crime branch, she alongwith her brother took the aforesaid money to office of crime branch, R.K. Puram in tiffin box. The money was handed over to some Rajbir and Satpal. Her son was falsely implicated in this case after planting the aforesaid money upon Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR Date: CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR 2022.06.27 17:09:06 FIR No. 87/2004 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 19/26 him.
22. DW-2 Om Prakash deposed that on 29.01.2004, his elder sister Kunti Devi visited her residence and asked for money as same was given to police official for release of her son. Thereafter, he alongwith his sister went to his elder brother who gave his sister an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-. His brother was not keeping well, therefore, on his instructions, he had accompanied her sister to office of Crime Branch, R. K. Puram. He was not permitted to enter the office and his sister alone went inside to handover the money. She returned after some time after handing over the money to the police officials.
23. I have heard argument addressed by Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled principles of law.
24. In the present case, the allegations against the accused are that from 17.12.2003 to 29.01.2004 accused made various telephonic calls to the complainant Anil Mahajan asking him to deliver Rs. 50 lacs otherwise threatening to kill him and his family members. It is to be noted that as per the case put out by the complainant, the first call of extortion was made on 17.12.2003 whereas the FIR in the case was lodged on Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 FIR No. 87/2004 17:09:10 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 20/26 29.01.2004. As such there is delay of more than 43 days in getting the FIR lodged.
25. PW2 Sh. Anil Mahajan deposed that on 17.12.2003, when he had returned back to his home around 8.30/9.00 p.m., his son told him that there was a telephonic call from one Khan and he had asked to meet with one Kishan Pehalwan in Rohtak Jail on next day. His son also told that when he asked about the reason, said Khan had told that it was in their benefit. The witness further deposed that on the next day i.e., 18.12.2003, when he returned back to his house there was another call from the same person i.e. Khan. That call was attended by his daughter and she told that he had not reached home by that time. Surprisingly and much to the derogation of the case of the prosecution, the son and daughter of the complainant were not made witness by the investigating authority. They were the first one who allegedly received the ransom call. There is no explanation as to why the above persons were not made to join the investigation of the present case.
26. Accused has been charged for the offence U/s 386/506 IPC on the allegation that he made various telephonic calls to the complainant Anil Mahajan threatening him and his family members with death to deliver Rs. 50 lacs. It has been already noted that the son and daughter who allegedly received the ransom call made by accused were not examined. No voice recording of alleged extortion call was done. Neither any voice Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date: 2022.06.27 17:09:14 +0530 FIR No. 87/2004 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 21/26 sample was collected for its forensic examination. During his cross-examination, PW-14 Inspector Suresh Kumar has admitted that none of the landline or mobile number was registered in the name of accused. PW-6 Raj Sehgal did not support the case of the prosecution in its material particulars. During his cross-
examination by Ld. APP for the state, he categorically denied the suggestion that on 18.01.2004, accused Manish came at his house and took him to a shop namely Arya Electronics and there the accused purchased a new connection of HUTCH.
27. Furthermore, PW3 Ravinder Kumar Gupta and PW4 Sham Lal deposed nothing in favour of the prosecution case and rather they substantially contradicted the version put forth by the prosecution. PW3 failed to identify the accused affirmatively and support the case of the prosecution in its material particulars. During his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the state, he deposed that he can not say whether the accused Manish Kumar present today had come at his PCO around 9.00 a.m. and had made some calls from the PCO. He further denied to have told to police that accused had made a call at telephone no. 27315290. He further deposed to have not remembered if after the above call, he received any call at his PCO inquiring regarding the person who made a call from his PCO.
28. Similarly, PW-4 Sham Lal also failed to identify the accused as the one who, on 24.01.2004, made three calls from his PCO from telephone no. 27385217. He further denied to Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 FIR No. 87/2004 17:09:57 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 22/26 have received call from one Anil Mahajan enquiring about the earlier call. Both the PW-3 and PW-4 were cross-examined by Ld. APP. However, nothing came on record to disbelieve their version as being 'won over'.
29. In view of the above discussions and findings, the theory of the prosecution regarding extortion call being made to complainant by the accused suffers a jolt which goes to the very root of the case and shakes the very edifice on which the prosecution case rests.
30. So far as recovery from accused is concerned, it is admitted case of the prosecution witnesses that no public witness was made to join either of the recovery proceedings. From the testimony of official witnesses, it is plainly clear that there was complete lack of genuine and sincere effort on part of officials to join public witness to the proceedings despite the fact that place of alleged incident was a public place and public persons were available at the relevant point of time. Prosecution witnesses deposed that public person were asked to join the investigation but none agreed. It is well settled that the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. At least in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, IO could very well have served the public persons with notice in writing to join the police proceedings. However, no notice was served upon the public persons who allegedly refused to join the investigation, Digitally signed by DEEPAK CASE No. 535977/2016 DEEPAK KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.06.27
FIR No. 87/2004 17:10:03
+0530
PS- Saraswati Vihar
State Vs. Manish Kumar page 23/26
which creates a reasonable doubt on the prosecution version.
31. It is also matter of record that the complainant was not present at the time of actual apprehension of accused and the case property. Complainant was stated to be called at the spot after the alleged apprehension of accused by giving him a telephonic call. In such circumstances and in the absence of any independent corroboration, the sanctity of recovery proceedings becomes doubtful.
32. Not only this, the case property remained in control of police officials till the same was deposited in the malkhana. Hence tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out as the seal remained all along with the police officials. As per the case of the prosecution, the case property was sealed with the seal of 'SR'. However, neither any handing over memo nor returning memo of the seal was prepared by IO. Thus, tampering can not be ruled out as sealed case property and accused were with the police officials till the time case property was deposited in Malkhana. No efforts were made to hand over the seal after use in the presence of independent public persons. In such circumstances, the possibility of tampering the case property cannot be ruled out. This again creates sufficient doubt over the prosecution version, benefit of which must go to the accused.
33. The most important and material witness in the present case was the complainant himself. However, this witness was Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 FIR No. 87/2004 17:10:07 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 24/26 found improving and shifting his stand quite conveniently. For example, in his complaint made to the police i.e., Ex. PW2/A, he alleged to have been receiving threatening calls for last one month. However, in his evidence recorded before the court as PW-2, he substantially improved himself by stating that on 17.12.2003, when he had returned back to his home around 8.30/9.00 p.m., his son told him that there was a telephonic call from one Khan and he had asked to meet with one Kishan Pehalwan in Rohtak Jail on next day. His son also told that when he asked about the reason, said Khan had told that it was in their benefit. The witness further deposed that on the next day i.e., 18.12.2003, when he returned back to his house there was another call from the same person i.e., Khan. That call was attended by his daughter and she said that he had not reached home by that time. The said fact of ransom calls being received by his son and daughter was not mentioned in his complaint i.e., Ex. PW2/A given to the police officials. The omission appears to be substantive one and creates mounting doubt into the version of the complainant. Moreover, during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, complainant deposed to have lodged police complaint on 27.01.2004. He asserted to have visited Crime Branch Office on that date and met Sh. Rajender Bakshi, the then ACP, whom he narrated the entire facts. Witness further deposed that his statement was recorded by Sh. Rajender Bakshi, the then ACP. However, the said complaint is not on record as admitted by the complainant during his cross-examination.
During his cross-examination, witness was confronted with his Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR CASE No. 535977/2016 KUMAR Date:
2022.06.27 FIR No. 87/2004 17:10:12 +0530 PS- Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Manish Kumar page 25/26 complaint given to the police i.e., Ex. PW2/A and statement/evidence given before the court. The witness was found improving his stand. In view of contradictory versions and substantive improvements, the entire claim of the complainant becomes doubtful and fails to inspire the confidence of the court.
34. It appears also relevant to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that criminal conviction entails enigmatic and stigmatic experiences and exposures for the accused and thus it becomes of paramount importance to demand evidence of unimpeachable character and of unambiguous nature. From the above discussion and findings, in my considered view accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt.
35. In view of the forgoing discussions, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Manish Kumar beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the all the offences charged against him.
36. Bail bond in terms of Section 437 A Cr.P.C has already been obtained from the accused (Since acquitted) in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs. Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I.A.D (Del.) 389. Digitally signed by DEEPAK Announced in open Court DEEPAK KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.06.27
On this day i.e. 27.06.2022 17:10:18
+0530
(DEEPAK KUMAR-I)
ACMM (NORTH-WEST)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CASE No. 535977/2016
FIR No. 87/2004
PS- Saraswati Vihar
State Vs. Manish Kumar page 26/26