Delhi District Court
State vs . Sidharth Sapra & Ors Khurana ... on 9 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 111/2008 Digitally signed
PS : Sangam Vihar (Crime Branch) by MANISH
KHURANA
U/s : 389/386/506/120B IPC MANISH
Date:
State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors KHURANA 2018.08.13
14:22:02
Unique ID No. 90581/2016 +0530
Date of institution of case : 18.09.2009
Date of reserving the judgment : 27.07.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.08.2018
J U D G M E N T
1. S. No. of the Case : 56/2/09
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 16.06.2007
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Vinod Kumar Khanna
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Khanna
R/o 683, Sector21C,
Faridabad, Haryana
4. Name, parentage & address of accused : (i) Sidharth Sapra
S/o Sh. H L Sapra
R/o H. No. 4, Sant Nagar,
East of Kailash, New Delhi
(ii) Bhupender Singh
S/o Sh. Gokul Singh,
R/o Village & PO Sinoli,
Distt Baghpat, UP
(iii) Ram Karan Meena
S/o Sh. Makhan Ram,
R/o H.No. 69, Pocket6,
Sector21, Ground Floor,
Rohini, Delhi
FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 1/30
(iv) Subhash Chand
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash
R/o H. No. 197, Friends
Colony, Fardabad.
(v) Ramesh
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o Ward No. 21, Sainik
Colony, Bypass, Hodal,
DisttPalwal, Haryana.
(vi) Ram Milan
S/o Sh. Anuradh Singh
R/o B243, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi
5. Offence complained of : u/s 389/386/506/120B IPC
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Accused Sidharth Sapra and
Ram Milan stand acquitted
for the offence u/s 120B/389/
386/506 PartII IPC
&
Accused Subhash Chand,
Bhupender Singh, Ram
Karan Meena and Ramesh
Chand stand convicted for
the offence punishable
u/s 120B/506 PartI IPC.
Case of the Prosecution
1. The prosecution case is that on 16.06.2007 all the accused persons at Badarpur Border, Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy to extort FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 2/30 money from the complainant Vinod Khanna on the pretext of executing non bailable warrants against him and at 14/7, Milestone Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana, all the accused persons extorted money from the complainant by putting him in fear of implicating him in false cases and they demanded Rs. 4 Lacs from the complainant and they took the amount of Rs. 50,000/ from the brother of the complainant namely Rajan Khanna and on 20.06.2007 the accused Ramesh Chand further took the sum of Rs. 30,000/ from the brother of the complainant and they also put the complainant in the fear of death or grievous hurt by showing weapon and they also threatened to kill the complainant in fake encounter and thereby accused persons committed offence punishable u/s 120B/389/386/506 PartII IPC.
2. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to accused persons. After hearing arguments on charge, primafacie case u/s 120B/389/386/506 PartII IPC was found to have been made out against the accused persons and the charge for the aforesaid offences was framed against the accused persons on 28.01.2013 by Ld Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined 19 witnesses in order to prove its case.
4. PW1 Vinod Kumar Khanna deposed that on 16.06.2007 at about 11.00 am four persons entered into his office at 14/7, Mathura Road, Chintamani Compound, Faridabad and they told him that he was under arrest and they introduced themselves as officials of Special Cell of Delhi Police and they also told that they had non bailable warrants against him from a Court in Delhi. He stated that he asked them to show the said warrants upon which they showed a piece of paper from a distance. He stated that when he asked them to permit him to call his advocate or his family member, they started scolding and FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 3/30 abusing him. He stated that when he asked them to let him wind up files of his office, one of those persons asked one of his companion to bring the hand cuffs and he showed him weapon. He stated that they physically lifted him and asked him to walk to the gate where their vehicle was parked. He stated that he was forced to walk from his office to the main gate in front of his labourers and office staff and he was abused and humiliated. He also stated that at the main gate he met his younger brother Rajan Khanna who inquired the matter from those persons. He further stated that the aforesaid persons threatened to kill him in an encounter and to involve him in other criminal cases. He stated that two accused persons namely Ramesh and Subhash (correctly identified by the witness) started negotiating with his younger brother Rajan Khanna and they demanded Rs. 5 Lacs for his release whereas he was kept in an adjacent room. He stated that the deal was finalised for the sum of Rs. 4 Lacs and after half an hour his brother Rajan Khanna managed to arrange Rs. 50,000/ which was paid to them as first installment and after getting the money they allowed him to go out of the room where he was kept and he was warned to pay the balance amount immediately. He further stated that after two days accused Ramesh Kumar collected Rs. 30,000/ from his younger brother and telephoned him by impersonating himself as one Jai Singh and warned to pay the balance amount otherwise they would come again to arrest him. He also stated that during the abovesaid episode, accused Ram Karan Meena (correctly identified) told him that he was from Crime Branch, Tagore Garden Police Station. He stated that after two days when he inquired from Tagore Garden Police Station, he came to know that there was no person with the name of Ram Karan Meena in the said police station and there was no office of Crime Branch or Special Cell at that place. He stated that he got suspicious and complained to the Police Commissioner, Delhi about the incident upon which he was called at Vigilance Department of Delhi Police where his statement was recorded and thereafter FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 4/30 Special CP called him and asked him to report the matter to Extortion Cell where he came to know the names of all the six accused persons. He stated that his statement was recorded again at Extortion Cell and thereafter he was called from time to time in the department inquiry conducted against the accused persons. He stated that accused Subhash, Meena, Ramesh and Bhupender entered inside his office whereas accused Sidharth Sapra alongwith one other person whom he had not seen was standing at the main gate and were giving instructions to the persons who were inside the office. He stated that he was humiliated before 350 labourers and on his complaint Ex.PW1/A present FIR was registered and the investigation was carried. Ld APP for the State sought permission to cross examine this witness regarding the identity of accused Ram Milan as he was resiling from his earlier statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO regarding identity of accused Ram Milan. During his cross examination by Ld APP for the State he could not tell as to whether accused Ram Milan was standing outside his office alongwith accused Sidharth Sapra or not. He denied that he was deliberately not identifying the accused Ram Milan as he had been won over by him. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld defence counsels.
5. PW2 HC Pramod stated that on 27.02.2008 SI Rajpal gave him a rukka and sent him to PS Sangam Vihar for registration of FIR and he accordingly went there for registration of FIR and came back and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to SI Rajpal. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
6. PW3 Rajan Khanna deposed that once around 04 year ago he was called by police officials at Asaf Ali Road and they talked with him and asked him as to whether 34 persons visited their factory situated at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad. He stated that he did not know about those persons FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 5/30 and the police obtained his signatures on 34 blank papers. He stated that around 07 years ago 45 persons came to his factory to apprehend his brother Vinod Khanna and he did not know the reason as to why those people came to apprehend his brother. He stated that he came to know regarding the said fact as his brother informed him on telephone at about 12.30 pm and he was told by his brother that those 45 persons were forcibly taking him to somewhere. He stated that those 45 persons stopped for a moment in front of the gate of his factory and then went away and his brother Vinod Khanna was not with them when they went away. He stated that police inquired him regarding the abovesaid incident and obtained his signatures on blank papers and that he did not know anything else. He could not identify the accused persons in the Court. Ld APP for the State sought permission to cross examine this witness as he was resiling from his earlier statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO during investigation. During his cross examination by Ld APP for the State this witness was shown his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the police which he denied in totality. He denied that on 16.06.2007 he was present alongwith his brother Vinod Khanna in his factory or that some persons came there and restrained his brother or that they were demanding Rs. 4 Lacs or that he gave the sum of Rs. 50,000/ and Rs. 30,000/ to them. He denied that he was deposing falsely as he had been won over by the accused persons. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
7. PW4 ASI Suresh Kumar was the Incharge VB of PS Lajpat Nagar from the year 2005 till 2007 and he stated that during his tenure he did not receive any non bailable warrants pertaining to the case Sidharth Sapra Vs. Vinod Kumar Khanna for execution. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
8. PW5 Ct. Narender stated that on 27.03.2008 he alongwith SI FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 6/30 Naresh Sangwan went to Patialal House Courts where accused Ramesh Chand was interrogated and arrested after obtaining permission from Ld MM. He identified the accused Ramesh Chand and his signatures on the arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
9. PW6 Inspector Rajpal Singh deposed that on 27.02.2008 he was posted at Crime Branch, R K Puram, New Delhi and he received one inquiry report through Reader of ACP (Vigilance) against some police officials and on the basis of said complaint he called complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna and recorded his statement already Ex.PW1/A and got the FIR registered at PS Sangam Vihar. He stated that on the next day he went to the Court of Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Ld MM Patiala House Courts for obtaining relevant record regarding NBW in the case titled as Sidharth Sapra Vs. Vinod Kumar Khanna u/s 138 NI Act and he visited the spot i.e Milestone, Faridabad where he met the complainant, his brother Rajan Khanna and his servant Ghanshyam and prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/B. He stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC and obtained the service/duty details of police officials involved in the present case from DRP Line. He stated that he also recorded the statement of HC Suresh Incharge VB, Lajapt Nagar and made efforts to apprehend the accused persons but he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC(R). This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
10. PW7 HC Uday Singh deposed that on 30.05.2006 (again said on 05.03.2008) he was posted at PS Old Delhi Railway Station as MHC(M) and as per record on 30.05.2006 HC Subhash got issued one pistol and 10 rounds and on 04.10.2007 the same pistol and rounds were deposited in the Malkhana as per register no. 16, entry no. 28 Ex.PW7/A1 and Ex.PW7/A2. During his cross examination by Ld counsels for accused persons, he admitted that the copy of FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 7/30 the entry Ex.PW7/A2 regarding serial no. 28 contained the date 04.07.2007 and one signature at portion A with red ink in the original file whereas rest of the particulars in the row are filled with blue ink in the original file. He admitted that Ex.PW7/A2 at portion A there is an overwriting in the date. He admitted that the year 2006 is altered to 2007 at portion A. He stated that the said record was not prepared in his presence as he was not posted as MHC(M) PS Old Delhi Railway Station at that time.
11. PW8 Ghanshyam deposed that on 16.06.2007 at about 11.00 am / 12.00 noon while he was working as peon with Vinod Khanna at the canteen situated at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana, four persons including Sidharth Sapra came there and they all were trying to take Vinod Khanna with them towards Mathura Road at the place of Rajan Khanna. He stated that after 6090 minutes Vinod Khanna was set free by them. He identified all the four accused persons who were involved in taking Vinod Khanna with them at that time. He stated that he did not know as to what happened thereafter. Ld APP for the State sought permission to cross examine this witness as he was resiling from his earlier statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO during investigation. During his cross examination he admitted that accused persons were forcibly taking Vinod Khanna and they were introducing themselves as police officials. He also admitted that 23 more persons were also standing outside. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsels he stated that he did not lodge any police complaint about the incident. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 01.03.2008. He admitted that he did not disclose about this incident to any other person till 01.03.2008. He denied that he was not present in the office of Vinod Khanna at about 11.00 am / 12.00 noon. He stated that the distance between the office of Vinod Khanna and the canteen where he was working was about 1520 feet. He FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 8/30 stated that on the day of incident he remained in the canteen from 9.00 am to 5.30 pm and that he and Vinod Khanna only worked at the office located at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana. He stated that he identified four accused persons in his examination in chief, however, Sidharth Sapra was not amongst them. He stated that when Vinod Khanna was set free, he and another person were present in the office of Vinod Khanna. He denied that no incident took place as alleged by him. He denied that he never worked with the complainant and therefore he did not give any proof of his employment to the police.
12. PW9 Ramesh stated that for last 15 years he had been working with Vinod Kumar Khanna at his office at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad as a Gardner and on 16.06.2007 he was present at the abovesaid address during his duty hours. He stated that at about 12.30 pm when he came out of his office for going to market, he saw that four persons were standing at the main gate of the compound and were pointing towards the office and thereafter he left for the market and returned after about 45 minutes and saw that all those four persons were talking to Vinod Khanna. He stated that in the meantime Rajan Khanna, brother of Vinod Khanna, reached there and talked to those four persons and after sometimes those persons left. He identified the aforesaid four persons as Ram Karan Meena, Ramesh, Subhash and Ram Milan. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he stated that his statement was recoded in this case on 11.03.2008 and he did not hand over any document to the police as proof of employment with the complainant. He stated that he did not tell the police about the description of the accused persons and that he did not make any complaint regarding the incident. He stated that the property no. 14/7 is a big property which is a commercial complex having various offices. He stated that he was employed with the complainant at a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/ FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 9/30 Rs. 4,500/ at the time of alleged incident. He denied that he deposed at the instance of the complainant or that no such incident ever happened or that he was not present at the spot at that time.
13. PW10 Sh. Aditya Kumar Jha, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd identified the signatures of Raj Kumar Singh on the letter Ex.PW10/A dated 23.06.2009 sent to Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd, Okhla. This witness was shown the call detail record of mobile no. 981884003 for the period 10.06.2007 to 30.06.2007 Ex.PW10/B and the call detail record of mobile no. 9871315817 for the period 10.06.2007 to 30.06.2007 Ex.PW10/C both bearing the signatures of Rajesh Kumar Singh at point A. He was also shown the CAF of mobile no. 981884003 and 9871315817 which are Ex.PW10/E bearing the signatures of Rajesh Kumar Singh at point A. This witness identified the signature of Rajesh Kumar Singh (already Retd.) as he had worked with him.
14. PW11 ASI Raj Kumar deposed that on 21.04.2008 he was posted as HC at the office of Crime Branch, R K Puram and on that day he joined the investigation of this case with the IO. He stated that the IO arrested the accused Subhash Chand at the office of Crime Branch vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW11/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
15. PW12 HC Pyare Lal deposed that on 29.03.2008 he joined the investigation with the IO and that the IO arrested accused Ram Milan Singh from BSES Office and he was produced before the concerned Court from where he was sent to judicial custody. He further stated that on 09.04.2008 he again joined the investigation with the IO and he alongwith IO reached at the house of accused Sidharth Sapra and from his house the accused Sidharth Sapra got recovered two arrest warrants dated 16.01.2007 Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 issued against Vinod Khanna and directed to SHO PS Lajpat Nagar and the same FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 10/30 were issued from the Court of Sh. Vikas Dhull, Ld MM, Patiala House Court. He stated that the said warrants were got recovered from the Almirah of accused Sidharth Sapra and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. Ld defence counsel for accused Subhash Chand, Ramesh Chand and Bhupender did not cross examine this witness. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel for accused Sidharth Sapra he stated that he did not give any notice to accused Sidharth Sapra for producing the warrants Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and he also did not know as to whether the said notice was given by the IO. He stated that he or the IO did not make any inquiry from the neighbourers nor directed them to join the proceedings. He could not tell as to whether IO was having search warrants of the house of accused Sidharth Sapra. He denied that nobody visited the house of accused Sidharth Sapra or that nothing was recovered therefrom. He admitted that no independent public witness was joined at the time of seizure of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. He denied that in his presence signature of Sidharth Sapra was not taken on the seizure memo Ex.PW12/A or that the said seizure memo was prepared while sitting in the office. He denied that accused Sidharth Sapra never got recovered any document from his house or that seizure memo Ex.PW12/A bear forged signatures of accused Sidharth Sapra.
16. PW13 ASI Subhash Chand deposed that a summon was received in his office at Vigilance Branch, Police HQ, Barakhamba Road to produce the original inquiry file no. 244/P.Sec/DCP (Vig.)/2007 whereas the said record was not available as the old record upto the year 2007 had already been destroyed vide order dated 28.07.2011. He stated that the report of Addl. Commissioner of Police (Vig.) in this regard is Ex.PW13/A. He also produced the certified copy of order dated 28.07.2011 Ex.PW13/B bearing the signatures of ACP Vijay Singh regarding destruction of record. This witness was not cross FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 11/30 examined by Ld defence counsel.
17. PW14 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd deposed that he received notices from ACP Rajinder Bakshi and Inspector Arvind Kumar to produce the customer application form, CDR and sell site IDs of mobile number 9891008243 and in pursuance thereto he handed over the copy of the customer application form of the abovesaid mobile number alongwith copy of IDs which are Ex.PW14/A1 and Ex.PW14/A2 bearing his signatures and stamp of the company at point A to him. He also furnished the call details of abovesaid mobile number from 10.06.2007 till 20.06.2007 Ex.PW14/B and he stated that the aforesaid call detail was the system generated document taken out from the computer source from his office and that the system was working properly at the time of generating the document from the said computer source. He also gave the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act regarding the abovementioned call details Ex.PW14/C bearing his signature at point A. He also furnished the complete sell site IDs chart for Delhi/NCR area bearing the pertinent time which is Ex.PW14/D (running into 56 pages) each page bearing his signatures and stamp of the company at point A. He stated that the document Ex.PW14/D was prepared manually. He could not produce the original CAF of the abovesaid mobile number as the said number had not been active since 08.01.2011 and he stated that the CAF in the present case had been destroyed by the company as the aforesaid mobile number remained inactive for more than 03 years. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel for accused Ram Karan Meena and Bhupender Singh he stated that the document Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/D did not contain his name. He stated that he did not bring his certified signatures and initials from the company. He could not tell as to how many towers were there at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad or as to how many BTS machines were installed at the individual tower. He stated that he did not have any technical FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 12/30 knowledge about the call location or call details. He stated that he had only produced the required documents to the police from the office. He denied that the computer system from which the record Ex.PW14/B was obtained never remained in his custody. He denied that Ex.PW14/D was a false document created by him in connivance with the IO.
18. PW15 Vinod Kumar, Nodal Office, MTNL brought the original customer application form (CAF) of mobile numbers 9868144304 and 9868846911 in the name of Bhupender Singh and Subhash Chand respectively which are Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B respectively. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
19. PW16 Rakesh Soni deposed that in the month of May 2009 he was posted as Junior Telecom Officer, MTNL Mobile Service, Eidgah, Telephone Exchange, New Delhi and a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC was received in his office for furnishing CAF and CDR of mobile number 9868846911 and 9868144304 and sell site IDs and accordingly he handed over the sell site addresses to the IO vide his letter Ex.PW16/A bearing his signatures at point A. This witness was also shown the CDR of abovesaid mobile numbers Mark16/X and Mark16/Y respectively but he stated that he did not hand over the same to the IO as it did not bear his signatures, date and time of generating the record. He stated that the abovesaid CDRs might have been sent to IO by mail by some other person. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
20. PW17 Sh. M R Mehmi (Retd. ACP, Delhi Police) deposed that in the year 2007 he was posted as ACP (Vig.), Delhi Police and he was assigned the inquiry into the allegations of complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna against police personnels and accordingly he conducted the inquiry as per order of Worthy C.P., Delhi and filed his inquiry report Ex.PW17/A (running into 22 pages) bearing his signatures at point A and B. He stated that during inquiry he FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 13/30 came to the conclusion that version of complainant was substantiated against HC Subhash Chahd, HC Bhupender Singh, Ct. R K Meena and Ct. Ramesh Chand and also that Sidharth Sapra was in touch with aforesaid police personnels and they hatched the conspiracy and committed the offence in the area of Faridabad. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he admitted that the complaint forwarded to Commissioner of Police by the complainant already Ex.PW1/D1 did not contain the name of any Delhi Police personnels or their physical description. He stated that he did not come to know that the complainant had lodged any other complaint on similar facts in any police station at Faridabad. He stated that the incident occurred on 16.06.2007, however, the complainant made the complaint to Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 25.06.2007. He denied that he forcibly obtained the confessional statement of accused Ramesh Chand through the then SHO and made the same as base of his inquiry. He stated that during his inquiry the complainant did not produce or gave any name of any witness except his brother Rajan to verify the genuineness of alleged incident. He denied that the complainant had made false complaint or that the inquiry conducted by him was bad in law. He denied that accused Subhash Chand was not in town on the date of alleged incident. He stated that he conducted the inquiry in his office and did not visit the spot and that he did not give any notice u/s 160 Cr.PC or 91 Cr.PC to any public person as no name of any witness was mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW1/D1. He admitted that the alleged offence was committed in Faridabad and that during inquiry he never visited Faridabad. He denied that he was deposing falsely or that no offence was committed. He also denied that he did not obtain any evidence to substantiate the allegations of complainant qua accused Sidharth Sapra.
21. PW18 Sh. Jaibir, Ahlmad in the Court of Ms. Ritu Singh, FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 14/30 Ld MM, Patiala House Court deposed that he received the summons to produce the case file titled as Sidharth Sapra Vs. Vinod Khanna, u/s 138 NI Act but he was not able to produce the same as no date of decision and goshwara number was provided to him.
22. PW19 Inspector Naresh Sangwan is the IO who deposed regarding the manner in which he conducted the investigation. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld defence counsels.
23. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused persons which they denied in totality. Accused Sidharth Sapra stated that he was falsely implicated and the PWs are interested witnesses who has deposed falsely against him. He also stated that he had filed two complaint cases u/s 138 NI Act against the complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna for recovery of amount of Rs. 23 Lacs prior to registration of the present FIR and Vinod Kumar Khanna lodged the present false case against him in order to pressurize him to withdraw of said complaint cases u/s 138 NI Act. Accused Bhupender Singh stated that on 15.06.2007 i.e one day before the alleged offence he appeared in law examination in MMH College, Ghaziabad, UP and on the date of alleged offence he was present at his home throughout the day and was preparing for the upcoming examination and even the complainant during his testimony had not identified him. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case because of confusion. Accused Ram Karan Meena stated that on 15.06.2007 i.e one day prior to the alleged offence he had gone to Rewari, Narnaul, Hisar and Rohtak for service of summons vide departure entry no. 4 dated 15.06.2007, PS Crime Branch (summons and warrants cell), Delhi and he returned on 26.06.2007. He stated that he was not present in Delhi on the date of alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case due to some FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 15/30 confusion or misunderstanding. Accused Subhash Chand and Ramesh stated that they were innocent and they were falsely implicated in the present case because of some confusion. No evidence was led by the accused persons in their defence.
24. I have heard Ld. APP for State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused and have gone through the record carefully.
Finding of the Court
25. The allegations against the accused are that on 16.06.2007 all the accused persons at Badarpur Border, Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy to extort money from the complainant Vinod Khanna on the pretext of executing non bailable warrants against him and at 14/7, Milestone Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana, all the accused persons extorted the amount of Rs. 50,000/ from the complainant by putting him in fear of implicating him in false cases and they also put the complainant in the fear of death or grievous hurt by showing weapon and they also threatened to kill the complainant in fake encounter and they demanded Rs. 4 Lacs and they took the amount of Rs. 50,000/ from the brother of the complainant namely Rajan Khanna and on 20.06.2007 and the accused Ramesh Chand further took the sum of Rs. 30,000/ from the brother of the complainant and thereby all the accused persons committed offence punishable u/s 120B/389/386/506 PartII IPC.
26. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons hatched the criminal conspiracy in Delhi to extort money from complainant Vinod Khanna on the pretext of execution of non bailable warrants against him and pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy on 16.06.2007 all the accused persons reached at 14/7, Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana and extorted money from the complainant by putting him in the fear of death or grievous hurt and they also put him in fear of implicating him in false cases of drug FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 16/30 trafficking and possession of weapon etc and they also threatened to kill the complainant in a fake encounter.
27. The complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna was examined before this Court and during his deposition he deposed that on 16.06.2007 at around 11.00 am four persons entered his office at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad and introduced themselves as police officials of special cell of Delhi Police and they stated him that he was under arrest as they were having non bailable warrants from a Delhi Court. He also stated that he physically lifted him and asked him to walk to the gate where their vehicle was parked and at the main gate he met his younger brother Rajan Khanna and those persons threatened him to kill him in an encounter and to frame him in other criminal cases. He also stated that accused Ramesh and Subhash started negotiating with his younger brother Rajan Khanna while he was kept in adjacent room. He stated that his brother paid the amount of Rs. 50,000/ and after collecting the said money they allowed him to go out of the room. He also stated that accused Ramesh Kumar further collected the amount of Rs. 30,000/ from his younger brother after two days and he also stated that at the time of alleged offence accused Ram Karan Meena informed him that he was from Crime Branch, Tagore Garden Police Station. Complainant stated that four persons namely Subhash, Meena, Ramesh and Bhupender entered inside his office whereas accused Sidharth Sapra and one other person whom he could not see were standing at the main gate and were issuing instructions. Complainant could not tell as to whether accused Ram Milan was standing outside his office alongwith Sidharth Sapra or not during the cross examination conducted by Ld APP for the State.
28. The prosecution has also examined Rajan Khanna, younger brother of the complainant, as PW3 who stated during his testimony dated 24.07.2014 that around 07 years ago 45 persons came to his factory at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad to apprehend his brother Vinod Khanna and he came FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 17/30 to know about the said fact as he was informed by his brother on telephone at around 12.30 pm. PW3 Rajan Khanna denied that he was present alongwith his brother Vinod Khanna at the spot at the time of alleged incident or that he had given the amount of Rs. 50,000/ or Rs. 30,000/ to them in lieu of releasing his brother.
29. PW8 Ghanshyam who was allegedly present at the spot of incident on 16.06.2007 and was allegedly working as a peon with the complainant Vinod Khanna at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad corroborated the statement of the complainant Vinod Khanna to the effect that four persons came at the abovesaid address and were trying to take Vinod Khanna with them towards Mathura Road and after some time the complainant Vinod Khanna was set free. This witness was cross examined by Ld APP for the State during which he admitted that apart from 04 persons, 23 other persons were also standing outside the gate. This witness did not produce any identity card or any other document regarding his employment with the complainant Vinod Khanna and during his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he stated that accused Sidharth Sapra was not amongst the persons who were identified by him as accused persons in this case during his examination in chief. Interestingly this witness who allegedly remained present at the spot from 9.00 am till 5.30 pm on the date of alleged incident did not state that Rajan Khanna, younger brother of complainant, was present at the spot or that any money was demanded from him in lieu of release of the complainant and he also did not depose anything regarding the alleged offence of extortion as alleged by the prosecution.
30. PW9 Ramesh who was allegedly working with the complainant Vinod Khanna at his office at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad as a Gardner corroborated the testimony of the complainant to the effect that at about 12.30 pm he saw that four persons were present at the main gate of the compound of FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 18/30 the premises and later on he saw that all four persons were taking complainant Vinod Khanna with them towards the main road and in the meantime Rajan Khanna reached their and talked to those persons and after some times those persons left the spot. However, this witness identified accused Ram Karan Meena, Ramesh, Subhash and Ram Milan and he did not depose that accused Sidharth Sapra and Bhupender were present at the spot.
31. The combined reading of the testimony of PW1 Vinod Kumar Khanna, PW3 Rajan Khanna, PW8 Ghanshyam and PW9 Ramesh reveals that four persons entered the premises no. 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad and they threatened the complainant and they were taking complainant Vinod Khanna with them. However, the allegations regarding the alleged extortion of money from the complainant by putting him in fear of implicating him in the false cases of drug trafficking, possession of weapons etc or by putting him in the fear of death or grievous hurt by showing weapon could not be substantiated as neither Rajan Khanna, who allegedly gave money to those four persons in lieu of release of complainant Vinod Khanna, stated that he paid any money to any of those persons at the spot in lieu of release of complainant Vinod Khanna nor PW8 Ghanshyam or PW9 Ramesh who were allegedly present at the spot deposed anything regarding extortion of money in lieu of release of complainant Vinod Khanna.
32. Section 389 IPC provides the punishment for putting any person in fear of accusation of offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years in order to commit extortion. The charge u/s 389 IPC was framed against all the accused persons for allegedly putting the complainant in fear of implicating him in false cases of drug trafficking, possession of weapons etc in order to commit extortion. However, perusal of the testimony of complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna nowhere reveals that he was put in the fear of implication in false cases of drug FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 19/30 trafficking or possession of weapons etc having punishment which may extend to 10 years or more. The complainant simply stated that he was threatened to be implicated in false cases. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that any of the accused persons committed the offence punishable u/s 389 IPC.
33. The accused persons have also been charged for the offence u/s 386 IPC. Section 386 IPC provides the punishment for extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.
34. Section 383 IPC defines the term extortion "as whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person, any property or valuable security, anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion".
35. In order to constitute the offence of extortion as defined u/s 383 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused persons intentionally put the complainant in the fear of any injury to him or to any other person and that thereby dishonestly induced the complainant so put in fear to deliver any person any property or valuable security etc.
36. Therefore, the prosecution is required to prove that the complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna or any other person was put in fear of any injury and that the complainant was dishonestly induced to deliver any property or valuable security. Careful perusal of testimony of the complainant reveals that he was apprehended by four persons namely Subhash, Meena, Ramesh and Bhupender on the pretext of execution of non bailable warrants from a Delhi Court and those persons threatened to kill him in an encounter and to frame him in other criminal cases. The complainant has deposed that those four persons started negotiating for money with his younger brother Rajan Khanna while he was kept in an adjacent room. He stated that after the money was paid by his brother Rajan Khanna, he (complainant) was allowed to FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 20/30 go out of the said room. Therefore, as per the testimony of PW1/complainant Vinod Khanna he was not present when the alleged inducement to deliver money in lieu of releasing the complainant was given by the aforesaid four persons as he was captivated in adjacent room. Further, Rajan Khanna who was allegedly induced to give money in lieu of release of the complainant did not say during his testimony that he was asked to pay any money by the aforesaid four persons in lieu of release of his brother/complainant Vinod Khanna nor PW8 Ghanshyam or PW9 Ramesh who were allegedly present at the spot at the time of alleged incident deposed anything regarding any inducement to the complainant or to any other person to deliver any money in lieu of release of the complainant. Therefore, none of the witness examined by the prosecution deposed that the complainant or any other person was put in fear of any injury so as to dishonestly induce the complainant to deliver any property or valuable security which is the foremost requirement to prove the allegations regarding commission of offence of extortion as defined u/s 383 IPC.
37. As the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence of 'extortion' as defined u/s 383 IPC, the accused persons cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 386 IPC or 389 IPC.
38. Ld counsels for accused Sidharth Sapra and Ram Milan argued that the accused Sidharth Sapra and Ram Milan were not involved in the commission of alleged offences nor they were present at the spot of alleged incident. Ld counsels argued that the aforesaid accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant as the complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna was having a previous litigation with accused Sidharth Sapra who had filed criminal complaint cases u/s 138 NI Act against Vinod Kumar Khanna for recovery of Rs. 23 Lacs. Ld counsels submitted that in order to pressurize accused Sidharth Sapra to withdraw the aforesaid cases pending against Vinod Kumar Khanna, the complainant Vinod FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 21/30 Kumar Khanna falsely implicated the accused persons including accused Sidharth Sapra.
39. I have heard the submissions made by Ld counsels for accused Sidharth Sapra and Ram Milan. Perusal of testimony of PW1/complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna reveals that he deposed that four persons namely Subhash, Meena, Ramesh and Bhupender entered in his office situated at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad and threatened him on the pretext of execution of non bailable warrants issued from a Delhi Court. The complainant further stated that those four persons were communicating with their associates who were present at the main gate of his office and accused Sidharth Sapra was one of those persons who were standing at the main gate of his office at that time. The complainant/PW1 could not identify accused Ram Milan as the person who was allegedly standing at the main gate of his office. The complainant/PW1 even could not identify accused Ram Milan during his cross examination conducted by Ld APP for the State. So far as the presence and role of accused Sidharth Sapra at the spot is concerned, the testimony of the complainant/PW1 Vinod Kumar Khanna is to be scrutinized with great circumspection as he was having a previous litigation with accused Sidharth Sapra who had filed criminal complaint cases u/s 138 NI Act against the complainant herein. Therefore, in order to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts against accused Sidharth Sapra, the testimony of the complainant/PW1 is required to be corroborated by the testimony of other person who were allegedly present at the spot at the time of incident.
40. As per the case of the prosecution, PW3 Rajan Khanna, PW8 Ghanshyam and PW9 Ramesh were allegedly present at the spot at the time of alleged incident alongwith complainant. Perusal of testimony of PW3 Rajan Khanna does not reveal any iota of evidence against accused Sidharth Sapra and he nowhere stated that the alleged offence was committed at the instance of FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 22/30 accused Sidharth Sapra or that accused Sidharth Sapra was present at the spot or that he was participating in the commission of alleged offence. PW8 Ghanshyam was allegedly present deposed during his cross examination by Ld defence counsel that accused Sidharth Sapra was not amongst the four persons who came at the premises no. 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana. Even PW9 Ramesh who was allegedly present at the spot at the time of alleged incident did not depose during his testimony that accused Sidharth Sapra was present at the spot or that he participated in the commission of alleged offence. Therefore, testimony of PWs does not prove the allegation against accused Sidharth Sapra beyond reasonable doubts
41. So far as the role of accused Ram Milan is concerned, the complainant/PW1 Vinod Kumar Khanna and his brother Rajan Khanna who were allegedly present at the spot nowhere stated that accused Ram Milan was present at the spot or that he participated in the commission of alleged offence. PW8 Ghanshyam identified all the accused persons but he could not tell the names of the accused persons. PW9 Ramesh only deposed during his testimony that he saw that four persons were taking Vinod Kumar Khanna with them towards the main road and he did not depose anything regarding the commission of alleged offence of extortion or criminal intimidation. Complainant/PW1 also failed to identify accused Ram Milam during his deposition before the Court.
42. In view of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that accused Sidharth Sapra and Ram Milan are entitled to benefit of doubt and they are liable to be acquitted in the present case.
43. Prosecution has also alleged that the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy at Delhi to commit the alleged offences on the pretext of execution of non bailable warrants against him and thereby they committed FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 23/30 the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC. The prosecution also alleged that all the accused persons threatened to kill the complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna in a fake encounter and to implicate him in false cases and thereby committed the offence u/s 506 PartII IPC.
44. The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined u/s 120A IPC as "when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy". It is immaterial whether illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
45. Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy and for the purpose of showing that any such person was party to it.
46. In the judgment of Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 716, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if prima facie evidence of conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators in furtherance of their common object is admissible against all.
47. In the case in hand, the prosecution alleged that the accused persons hatched the criminal conspiracy within the jurisdiction of SouthEast District to extort money from the complainant on the pretext of execution of non bailable warrants against the complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna and pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy they threatened the complainant to kill him in a FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 24/30 fake encounter and they put him in fear of death or grievous hurt and in fear of implicating him in false cases of drug trafficking etc.
48. Ld APP for the State argued that the accused persons came at the premises of the complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna on the pretext of execution of non bailable warrants and they all threatened him to kill him in fake encounter and to implicate him in false cases, therefore, they may be convicted for the offence u/s 120B IPC and u/s 506 PartII IPC.
49. Complainant/PW1 Vinod Kumar Khanna deposed during his testimony that on 16.06.2007 at about 11.00 am four persons namely Subhash, Meena (Ram Karan Meena), Ramesh and Bhupender came inside his office situated at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad and told him that he was under
arrest and they introduced themselves as officials of Special Cell of Delhi Police and that they stated that they had non bailable warrants against him from a Delhi Court and they physically lifted him and asked him to walk to the gate where their vehicle was parked and he was physically forced to walk from his office in front of his staff and that he was being abused and humiliated by them. The complainant stated that the aforesaid persons threatened him to kill him in an encounter and frame him in other criminal cases. The complainant duly identified the aforesaid four persons in the Court as Subhash, Ram Karan Meena, Ramesh and Bhupender and he stood well during his cross examination so far as the role of aforesaid accused persons is concerned. Even PW3 Rajan Khanna who did not support the case of the prosecution in toto deposed during his testimony that 45 persons came to his factory at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad to apprehend his brother Vinod Kumar Khanna and he was informed about the said fact by his brother on the date of alleged incident at about 12.30 pm on telephone. PW3 Rajan Khanna did not toe the version of the prosecution in its entirety and deposed regarding the incident about which he was informed by his brother/complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna on the date of alleged FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 25/30 incident. PW8 Ghanshyam also corroborated the testimony of complainant/PW1 Vinod Kumar Khanna regarding the visit of aforesaid accused persons at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana and he stated that those persons were trying to take complainant Vinod Khanna with them towards Mathura Road and later on complainant Vinod Khanna was set free. PW9 Ramesh also corroborated the testimony of complainant to the extent that he was being taken by four persons towards the main road from his office at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad.
50. As discussed above, section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy and for the purpose of showing that any such person was party to it.
51. In the case in hand, the conduct and role played by the aforesaid accused persons in the commission of offence gives reasonable ground to believe that the aforesaid accused persons conspired together to commit an offence and their presence at the spot and the act of taking the complainant from his office towards the main gate is a relevant fact for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy amongst them. PW10 Aditya Kumar Jha, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd and PW14 Pawan Singh, Idea Cellular Ltd produced the CDR and Cell Site IDs of the mobile phone numbers of the aforesaid accused persons which also corroborated the testimony of the complainant/PW1 Vinod Kumar Khanna to prove the presence of aforesaid accused persons at the spot.
52. Ld defence counsel for the accused persons argued that the complainant has identified the accused persons for the first time during his testimony before the Court and no TIP of the accused persons were conducted FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 26/30 and therefore, the accused persons may not be convicted for the alleged offences.
53. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that prior to registration of present FIR an internal inquiry was conducted by Delhi Police and PW17 M R Mehmi, Retd. ACP, who was then posted as ACP (Vig.) Delhi Police, was marked the inquiry against the accused persons, who are police officials, regarding the allegations levelled by the complainant Vinod Kumar Khanna and he conducted the inquiry as per order of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and he filed his inquiry report running into 22 pages which is Ex.PW17/A and he concluded that the version of the complainant was substantiated against accused Subhash Chand, Bhupender, Ram Karan Meena and Ramesh Chand. During the said inquiry the complainant identified the accused persons and therefore, the mere fact that the TIP of the accused persons was not conducted during the investigation of this case is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
54. The prosecution has examined PW19/IO Inspector Naresh Sangwan who proved the arrest memo and personal search memos of the accused persons during the investigation. Further, the accused Ram Karan Meena stated during his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that one day before the alleged offence i.e on 15.06.2007 he had gone to Rewari, Narnaul, Hisar and Rohtak for service of summons vide departure entry no. 4 dated 15.06.2007, Crime Branch Delhi and he returned on 26.06.2007 and he alleged that he was not present in Delhi on the date of alleged incident. However, no such DD Entry has been proved on record and further the mere fact that the alleged departure entry was made at the police station on 15.06.2007 does not establish that the accused Ram Karan Meena was not present at the spot of alleged incident at 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad on 16.06.2007 or that he did not commit the alleged offence.
55. The prosecution has alleged that all the accused persons pursuant to the criminal conspiracy threatened the complainant to kill him in a FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 27/30 fake encounter and thereby they committed the offence punishable u/s 506 Part II IPC.
56. To prove the allegation the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of the complainant/PW1 Vinod Kumar Khanna who deposed during his testimony that the accused Subhash, Ram Karan Meena, Bhupender and Ramesh came at his premises on the pretext of execution of non bailable warrants issued against him from a Delhi Court and introduced themselves as officials of Special Cell of Delhi Police and the aforesaid accused persons threatened him to kill in an encounter and to frame him in other criminal cases. Perusal of the testimony of PW1/complainant reveals that the accused persons threatened the complainant to kill him in an encounter and not at the place of alleged incident, therefore, as per the testimony of the complainant there was no threat extended to kill the complainant at the spot of incident and the threat was given to him to kill him in future. Section 506 PartII IPC is attracted when there is an 'impending' threat to cause death or grievous hurt at the time of extending the threat. Section 503 IPC defines the term criminal intimidation as whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intend to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of awarding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
57. The complainant/PW1 Vinod Kumar Khanna deposed that the accused Subhash Chand, Ramesh Chand, Ram Karan Meena and Bhupender Singh threatened him to kill and to involve him in false criminal cases. To secure the conviction u/s 506 PartII IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the threat to cause death was given to the complainant for the purpose of intimidation. However, as per the testimony of the complainant the aforesaid FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 28/30 accused persons threatened him to kill in future and to implicate him in false criminal cases and after some time they left the place of the complainant. There was no impending threat of death to the complainant at the spot and the mere statement of the complainant that he was threatened to be killed by the accused persons in future would not be covered under the provision of section 506 Part II IPC. The accused persons are police officials and they threatened the complainant on the pretext of execution of NBWs and they lifted him and took him towards the main gate of the premises of the complainant and the complainant was threatened to be implicated in false cases, therefore, the act of accused persons was sufficient to cause alarm to the complainant and is squarely covered within the ambit of offence as punishable u/s 506 PartI IPC. Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, prosecution has proved the commission of offence u/s 506 PartI IPC and not u/s 506 PartII IPC.
58. Ld counsel for the accused persons also argued that the offence in question was committed at Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana and not within the jurisdiction of Delhi and this Court does not have jurisdiction to try the case.
59. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that as per the case of the prosecution, the criminal conspiracy was entered into within the jurisdiction of Delhi to extort money from the complainant and pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy the offence was ultimately committed at Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana. Section 179 Cr.PC provides that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. In the case in hand, the criminal conspiracy was allegedly hatched within the jurisdiction of Delhi and as a consequence of the said criminal conspiracy the FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 29/30 alleged offence was committed at Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by Ld defence counsels that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to try or entertain the present case.
60. Considering the abovesaid discussion and evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the allegations against accused Subhash, Ram Karan Meena, Ramesh and Bhupender u/s 120B IPC and s. 506 PartI IPC and they are liable to be convicted for the aforesaid offences. As discussed above, accused Sidharth Sapra and Ram Milan are liable to be acquitted for the offence u/s 120B/389/386/506 PartII IPC. Accordingly, accused Subhash Chand, Ram Karan Meena, Ramesh Chand and Bhupender Singh stand convicted for the offences u/s 120B IPC and s. 506 PartI IPC and accused Sidharth Sapra and Ram Milan stand acquitted for the offences u/s 120B/389/386/506 PartII IPC. Copy of judgment of be supplied to accused Subhash Chand, Ram Karan Meena, Ramesh Chand and Bhupender Singh. Let the aforesaid accused persons be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court
Today on 09.08.2018 (Manish Khurana)
CMM/SE/District Court, Saket
New Delhi/09.08.2018
FIR No. 111/08 State Vs. Sidharth Sapra & Ors 30/30