Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Kapoor Ors (Mcoca) on 18 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No : DLST01000080-2009
SC No : 6933/2016 (Old 44/15/2015)
FIR No : 481/2008
Under Section : U/s 302/34 IPC & U/s 411 IPC & U/s
3 (1) (i) & Section 3(2) & Section 3
(5) of The Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999 as extended
to the territories of Delhi (in short,
MCOC Act, 1999).
Police Station : Vasant Kunj
STATE (for victim Saumya Vishwanathan D/o Sh. M.K
Vishwanathan & Smt. Madhvi Vishwanathan)
Vs.
1. Ravi Kapoor @ Rajiv
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
R/o F-1/76-77,Madangir, New Delhi.
2. Amit Shukla
S/o Sh. Ram Kannt Shukla
R/o H.No. 115, Lado Sarai, New Delhi.
3. Ajay Kumar @ Ajay
S/o Sh.Attar Singh
R/o B-756, JJ Colony, Inderpuri,
New Delhi.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 1
4. Baljit Singh Malik @ Poppy
S/o Sh. Dharamveer Singh
R/o H.No. 161, VPO-Masoodpur,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
5. Ajay Sethi @ Chacha
S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand
R/o H.No. 1117, Sector-14,
Faridabad, Haryana & 80 Kawali Road,
Dehradun, Uttranchal. ... Accused persons
Name of informant : Inspector S. S. Hasan,
P.S.Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 25.06.2009
Date of filing of first
charge-sheet : 08.10.2009
under Section 3 of MCOC Act
Date of clubbing of the : 06.02.2010
charge-sheet of
FIR No. 475/2008
PS Vasant Kunj with the
chargesheet of the
present case
for the joint trial
The offence for which
accused persons was charged : Sec. 3 (1) (i) & 3 (2) & 3
(5) of Maharashtra Control
of Organized Crime, Act,
1999 & U/s 302/34 IPC &
Section 411 IPC.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 2
Final arguments heard on : 13.10.2023
Judgment pronounced on : 18.10.2023
Final Judgment : Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. The brief fact of the case as per prosecution is that on 30.09.2008 in between 03.25 am to 03.55 am, near Pole No. 78, at Nelson Mandela Marg, (on the Road from the Vasant Vihar Side to Vasant Kunj Side), New Delhi, the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh Malik had committed the murder of deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan, daughter of Sh. M. K. Vishwanathan by firing the bullet through country made pistol in order to rob her. The said bullet was fired by the accused Ravi Kapoor while targeting the victim when the accused persons were chasing the victim's car through the accused person's Wagon-R car being driven by the accused Ravi Kapoor in order to rob the victim. It is further allegation that the victim was chased by the accused persons when she was returning from her office to her home and accused persons chased the victim's car in order to rob her as she was travelling alone in her car.
1.1 It is allegation against the co accused Ajay Sethi that on 06.04.2009, at the parking of Sector -14, Faridabad, Haryana Market, he was found retaining dishonestly the stolen vehicle bearing chasis no.325817, Wagon-R car belonging to Gaurav Singh (complainant of FIR No.475/2008, P.S. Vasant Kunj, SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 3 registered under Section 379 IPC), knowingly and having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and the said car was used in the commission of offence against the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan by the other co accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar. 1.2 It is further allegation against the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay that after the arrest of the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik in the FIR No.69/2009, P.S. Vasant Vihar, their criminal activities were studied during the investigation and it was found that accused Ravi Kapoor and his other associates/co-accused persons were involved in the continuous unlawful activities by involving themselves in the activities/cases in which violence or threat of violence was used for their joint pecuniary benefits for their livelihood and they were found to be members of organized crime syndicate led by accused Ravi Kapoor.
It is further alleged that in more than two such cases of their involvement in criminal activities, the Court of the competent jurisdiction had taken cognizance of the offences committed by the accused persons.
It is further alleged that the continuous criminal activities of the accused persons were found falling within the definition of the organized crime and in pursuance to the activities of their organized crime, accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh Malik had committed the murder of deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 4 on 30.09.2008 in between 03.25 am to 03.55 a.m., near Pole No. 78, at Nelson Mandela Marg, (on the Road from the Vasant Vihar Side to Vasant Kunj Side) New Delhi.
1.3 It is further allegation against the accused Ajay Sethi @ Chacha, that after his arrest and arrest of the other co-accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh in the FIR No. 69/2009 P.S. Vasant Vihar, the criminal involvement activities of all the accused persons were checked and considered and it was found that accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh were found indulged in the commission of organized crime and while committing the organized crime, they had murdered the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan on 30.09.2008 in between 03.25 am to 3.55 a.m, near Pole No. 78, at Nelson Mandela Marg, (on the Road from the Vasant Vihar Side to Vasant Kunj Side) New Delhi for their pecuniary benefits for their livelihood or to gain the undue economic or other advantages for themselves or for the other members of the organized crime syndicate.
It is further alleged that accused Ajay Sethi was found facilitating and abetting the commission of organized crime as mentioned above by the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh by providing necessary facilities/aid to the organized crime syndicate led by accused Ravi Kapoor.
1.4 It is further allegation against the accused Ajay Sethi @ Chacha that he was found holding properties i.e. illegal SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 5 pecuniary benefits to the tune of sum of Rs.41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty One Lac) as derived or obtained as a commission of organized crime and he acquired the above-mentioned property knowingly and having reasons to believe to be acquired through the activities of organized crime syndicate.
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet were filed against the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar, Baljeet Singh Malik and accused Ajay Sethi @ Chacha.
3. Vide order dated 06.02.2010, accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh Malik were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
4. Vide order dated 06.02.2010, accused Ravi Kapoor was separately charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short MCOC Act, 1999).
5. Vide order dated 06.02.2010, accused Ajay Sethi was separately charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.
6. Vide order dated 09.05.2011, accused Ajay Sethi was separately charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 3 (2) and 3 (5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short MCOC Act,1999).
7. Vide order dated 09.05.2011, accused Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh Malik were separately charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(i) of the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 6 Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short MCOC Act, 1999).
8. In order to prove the charges framed against the accused persons as mentioned above, prosecution has examined total ninety seven (97) number of witnesses.
Brief description of testimonies of witnesses examined during the trial.
9. PW-1 Sh. M. K. Vishwanathan, is the father of the deceased/victim:- He deposed that deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan was his daughter. She was working with TV Today Network as a News Producer. He deposed that the office of deceased /victim was at Jhandewalan, Videocon Tower. He deposed that on 29.09.2008, duty hours of the victim were from 03.00 p.m to 12.00 midnight. However, she stayed back to her office due to the blast in the Maharashtra and Gujarat to help the next team as Breaking News were flashing. He further deposed that deceased/victim had informed them that she would come late. He further deposed that at around 03.15 a.m., on 30.09.2008, he had contacted to the deceased/victim to know at what time she would reach to home. He further deposed that deceased/victim was in Chankyapuri at that time and she told that she would reach to the home within 15 minutes. He deposed that at that time the deceased/victim was driving the car Maruti Zen bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 by herself.
9.1 He deposed that deceased/victim did not reach at home till 03.30-03.35 a.m. and he as well as his wife started contacting her from their respective mobiles, but there was no SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 7 answer. He deposed that at about 04.00 a.m., somebody picked up the phone, who identified himself as a police constable and asked to the witness to reach the spot i.e. the place between the Power House and under-construction Shopping Complex at Nelson Mandela Marg immediately. He deposed that the said police Constable had told him that some accident had taken place and requested to the witness to reach at the spot immediately. 9.2 He deposed that he woke up his son-in-law Mr. Vikas Mehta (husband of the elder daughter) and he alongwith Vikas Mehta rushed to the spot. He deposed that they met with two police constables at the spot. He deposed that the car of the victim was present there and was lying in the accidental condition. He deposed that the mobile phone, hand bag and chappals (sleepers) of the victim Saumya were inside the car. He deposed that police officials told him to reach at Trauma Centre, AIIMS. He deposed that on reaching at AIIMS Trauma Centre, he was informed that Saumya was brought dead.
He deposed that he identified the dead body of the deceased/victim and his statement was recorded as Ex.PW-1/A. He deposed that after post-mortem of the deceased, he collected the body of the deceased/victim and he identified the receipt of the dead body of the deceased as Ex.PW-1/B. 9.3 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, he replied that he did not ask the name of the police constable who had called him. He further replied that he took the hand bag and mobile phone of Saumya from the car but police took it back from him in the morning at around 09.00 a.m. He SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 8 further replied that police had opened the car and handed over him the hand bag and mobile phone. He replied that he stayed for about two - three minutes at the spot.
10. PW-2 Gautam Mehta S/o Sh. Kuldeep Mehta:- He deposed that in the year 2009, in the month of December, during evening hours, he was returning from his office and while he reached at H.No. 1117/14, police officials were found present there. He deposed that in his presence, police officials took the search of the house and seized certain items and prepared seizure memo Ex. PW 2/A. He deposed that one Rajeev Vohra was also present there.
10.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit, Baljeet and Ajay Kumar, nothing was asked by the accused persons.
10.2 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Sethi, witness replied that when he reached there, search was already over, but articles were laying there. He further replied that few items like bunch of keys, batteries etc. were lying which were seized and the said house was locked by the police. He further replied that no article was taken out from the house in his presence. He further replied that he is not aware as to what way accused Ajay Sethi was concerned with the said house. Witness denied the suggestion that he did not see the seizure of any article. He further denied the suggestion that he had signed the seizure memo only on the asking of the police. He further replied that he deposed falsely.
11. PW-3 Shri Bhagwan:- He deposed that on SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 9 29/30.09.2008, he was working as a driver on his taxi. He deposed that in the intervening night of 29/30.09.2008, at about 04.00 a.m, he was returning to Nelson Mandela Road for going to IGI Airport from Gulmohar Park and he went to Gulmohar Park for dropping the passenger. He deposed that on the Nelson Mandela Road, a cyclist gave signal to stop and he stopped his taxi. He deposed that the said cyclist pointed towards a vehicle and said that- that vehicle got dis-balanced while running on the road and no one came out from that vehicle. He deposed that he saw towards the vehicle and its headlight were On and wipers were waving on the screen. He deposed that it was a Maruti Car whose number he did not remember. He deposed that one female was on the driving seat and she was found lying on the driving seat. He deposed that he immediately made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone. He deposed that one milkman also came there from the side of Masoodpur. He deposed that PCR had also arrived at the spot. He deposed that no other vehicle had stopped at the spot after he made call to 100 number. He deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police during investigation of the case.
11.1 During cross-examination on behalf of the State, witness replied that victim was removed from the car by PCR officials and she was shifted to the hospital by PCR officials. He further replied that parents of the victim also reached the spot upon calling by the police and after their arrival, the mobile phone of the victim was given to her parents.
11.2 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 10 persons, nothing was asked by the accused persons.
12. PW-4 Inspector Randhir Singh:- He deposed that on 28.03.2009, the investigation of the present case was handed to him and accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet were produced in muffled face from judicial custody in the Patiala House Court in another case of murder of one Ms. Jigisha of P.S. Vasant Vihar.
12.1 He deposed that he took the permission of the court and arrested the above-mentioned three accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Balbir in the present case. He deposed that he prepared the document like arrest memo Ex.PW- 4/A to Ex.PW-4/C, personal search memo Ex.PW-4/A1 to Ex.PW-4/C1 and also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused persons as Ex.PW-4/D to Ex.PW-4/F respectively. 12.2 He deposed that he moved application Ex.PW-4/G for conducting Test Identification parade (TIP) of all the three accused persons and application was marked to Link Magistrate and accused persons were produced before him. He deposed that he identified the accused persons before the Link Magistrate and all the three accused persons refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. He deposed that he collected a copy of TIP proceedings and moved an application in that regard as Ex.PW- 4/H. He deposed that all the three accused persons were remanded into judicial custody.
12.3 He deposed that on 30.03.2009, he produced one witness namely Abhishek Shukla for recording of his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C through application Ex.PW-4/I and SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 11 application was assigned to Ld. Link MM and statement of witness was recorded on the same date. He deposed that he collected the statement of the witnesses through his application Ex.PW-4/J. 12.4 He deposed that as per disclosure statement of the above-mentioned accused persons, on 02.04.2009, he went to Faridabad in the search of the accused Ajay Sethi and went to his house bearing no. 1117, Sector-14, Faridabad. He deposed that accused Ajay Sethi was not found there. He deposed that he called one local police official from local police station and two respectable persons from the nearby locality and in the presence of theses persons, house of the accused was searched. He deposed that during the search of the house of the accused, a bunch of eight to ten keys, several documents related to different vehicle, car lock breaking instruments, locks, stamps, credit cards, number plate were recovered. He deposed that he prepared memo Ex.PW-2/A. 12.5 He deposed that after conducting search of the house of accused Ajay Sethi, he returned to the police post Sector-14, Faridabad and lodged DD Entry. He further deposed that he also recorded the statement of one police official, two public persons who were present and were associated at the time of search of the house of the accused. He deposed that he returned back to the police station Vasant Kunj and deposited the case property in malkhana.
12.6 He deposed that on 03.04.2009, efforts were made alongwith accused Ravi Kapoor to trace the shop in the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 12 Masoodpur where the car was repaired, however, the shop or the shopkeeper could not be identified.
12.7 On 04.04.2009, accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit and Baljeet were taken on police custody remand for 5 days whereas accused Ajay Kumar was taken on 3 days police custody remand. He deposed that accused persons had pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memos were prepared as Ex.PW-4/K-1 to Ex.PW-4/K-4.
12.8 He deposed that on 05.04.2009, accused Ravi Kapoor during his police custody led the police party in the area of Sarita Vihar and got recovered Maruti Zen car no. HR 12F 3611 from the front of house no. 302, Ground Floor, Sarita Vihar. He deposed that he seized the vehicle and prepared memo Ex.PW-4/L. He deposed that he also seized one RC in the name of Ompal, one affidavit bearing signature of Ravi Kapoor, another affidavit bearing signature of Ompal, two pollution certificates, one service book.
12.9 On 06.04.2009, after receiving secret information, he arrested the accused Ajay Sethi from Badarpur border alongwith one Santro car. He deposed that on verification, the said Santro Car bearing No. HR 12-2387 was stolen property and accused Ajay Sethi did not produce any document regarding the vehicle and he seized the vehicle and prepared memo Ex.PW-4/M. He deposed that accused Ajay Sethi was arrested in the present case and memo Ex.PW-4/N was prepared and his personal search was also conducted and memo Ex.PW-4/N-1 was prepared. He deposed that accused was interrogated and his disclosure SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 13 statement was recorded as Ex.PW-4/O. He deposed that accused Ajay Sethi led the police party to Sector-14, Faridabad Market Parking and he got recovered one Wagon-R car bearing no. HR 18 -4783. He deposed that he seized the vehicle and prepared memo Ex.PW-4/P. 12.10 He deposed that on 07.04.2009, accused Ravi Kapoor was produced at the residence of DCP South-East but his confessional statement could not be recorded as it was holiday. He deposed that the investigation of this case was further assigned to ACP Mehrauli.
12.11 He identified the seized vehicles/their documents/their photographs, bearing no. HR 12F-3611 (actual number DL 4CA 3906 Maruti Zen car recovered from accused Ravi Kapoor), HR 12C- 2387 (actual number DL 3CAP 4351) and HR 27A-4873 (actual number MP 19 CA 0145 Wagon-R car recovered from accused Ajay Sethi) during his examination in the court.
12.12 He also identified the seized article from the house of the accused Ajay Sethi during his examination as Ex.PW-4/P-1. 12.13 The witness also identified the accused persons in the Court during his examination in the court.
12.14 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, witness replied that no search warrant was taken by the I.O. of the case to search the premises bearing house no. 1117, Sector-14, Faridabad and when they reached at the said premises, no public person was found living there. He replied that one local police staff accompanied them to SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 14 the house no. 1117, Sector14, Faridabad. He replied that he made request to the neighbours of the above-said house to join the investigation. He replied that the lock of the said house was broken by the members of the police team in his presence and after the search, the said house was again locked with the help of the lock and keys of the same were deposited with local police. 12.15 Witness denied the suggestion that he did not go to house number 1117, Sector-14, Faridabad on 02.04.2009 nor conducted any search in the said house. He denied the suggestion that two public witnesses were planted one by him and their signatures were obtained in the police station. Witness further denied that nothing was recovered from the house of Ajay Sethi and no Santro car was recovered from the accused Ajay Sethi or at his instance.
12.16 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness denied the suggestion that after arrest of the accused Ravi Kapoor in FIR No. 69/2009, P.S. Vasant Vihar, his disclosure statement was forcefully obtained or faces of the accused persons were found on TV in news after their arrest in FIR No. 69/2009, P.S. Vasant Vihar.
12.17 Witness replied that he did not verify the ownership chain documents of vehicle bearing no. HR 12F 3611. Witness replied that he did not verify the contents of affidavit Ex.PW-5/B or from the Notary Public of the said affidavit. 12.18 Witness replied that place of recovery of vehicle bearing no. HR 12 F 3611 was effected from the residential area and no public person joined the investigation despite his request.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 15Witness denied the suggestion that no recovery of Maruti Zen Car bearing no. HR 12 F 3611 was effected at the instance of accused Ravi Kapoor or the vehicle was planted upon him. Witness submitted that when he received the investigation of the FIR 481/2008 P.S. Vasant Kunj, besides the particulars of the car of the victim, no other particulars of any other car or vehicle was available with him. Witness denied the suggestion that accused Ravi Kapoor was falsely implicated in 12 more FIRs on the basis of disclosure statement. Witness denied the suggestion that no complain of theft of Maruti Zen car prior to its recovery in the present FIR was lodged with the police. Witness voluntarily stated that the Zen car was recovered with fake number plate bearing No. HR 12F 3611 while the complaint was lodged in respect of actual registration of the said car. 12.19 Witness replied that documents i.e. RC, affidavit, etc were not recovered from the possession of accused Ravi Kapoor and witness clarified that same were recovered from the car. 12.20 Witness further replied that during the period when the investigation of the case was with him, he did not verify about the numbers of bank account of accused Ravi Kapoor which he was operating at that time or details of properties in his name. He further replied that accused was not doing any job prior to his arrest. He voluntarily clarified that the accused Ravi Kapoor used to show himself as a police official in the public. Witness replied that FIR in which the disclosure statements was made by the accused Ravi Kapoor on 06.04.2009 were all unsolved cases. He did not seize any desi katta in the present SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 16 case. He further replied that no finger prints were lifted from recovered vehicle Maruti Zen.
12.21 Witness denied the suggestion that no Zen car was recovered at the instance of accused Ravi Kapoor or no disclosure statement was made by the accused Ravi Kapoor or that he was falsely implicated by the police in the present case. 12.22 During cross-examination on behalf of accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik, witness replied that during the period from 28.03.2009 to 07.04.2009, no public person were associated at the time of recording of disclosure statement of the accused persons neither any videography of the disclosure statement of accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik were conducted. Witness further replied that accused persons were not interrogated in the present case prior to their arrest in the present case. Witness replied that he did not check the previous antecedents of the accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik after their arrest in this case. Witness denied the suggestion that he did not investigate the present case fairly. Witness denied the suggestion that accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik did not give any disclosure statement.
13. PW-5 Sh. Bharat Sohandani @ Sunny:- He deposed that he is resident of house no. 302A, Pocket N, Janta Flat, Sarita Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that in the late months of 2008, this house was given on rent to accused Ravi Kapoor through property dealer Arora Properties for period of 5-6 months. He deposed that at that time wife of the accused Ravi Kapoor was pregnant. He deposed that rent was fixed at the rate SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 17 of Rs. 5200/- per month. He deposed that accused Ravi Kapoor had introduced himself as Sub-Inspector of Special Staff of Delhi Police and he used to travel in police vehicles. He deposed that after birth of one male child in the month of December 2008, accused Ravi Kapoor had organized a party in the M Block Park, opposite to shop and he provided the catering services to the said party. He deposed that total bill raised for catering was about Rs.35,000/-. He deposed that accused also took Rs.25,000/- for some domestic problem. He deposed that when accused planned to shift the house and to vacate the rented premises, witness demanded Rs.60,000/- back from the accused to which accused stated that he will pay the money when his salary cheque will be cleared. He deposed that when he insisted, accused had handed over his Zen car to him and stated that he will take back his vehicle when he will be in position to pay Rs.60,000/-. He deposed that accused had also handed over all documents related to the vehicle.
13.1 He deposed that after vacating the premises of the witness by the accused, police came at his shop and he handed over Zen car, its keys and documents to the police which were seized and memo Ex.PW-4/L regarding the RC, affidavit, pollution certificate and service book were prepared. 13.2 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor and other accused persons, witness replied that Maruti Zen car bearing no. HR 12F 3611, chasis no. 384976, Engine no. 378305 CX was remained with him for about 4 months in the year 2009 and he clarified that he was not SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 18 confirmed about the year as it was 2008 or 2009. He replied that document Ex.PW-5/A, Ex.PW-5/B, Ex.PW-5/C and Ex.PW-5/D were obtained by him however, he did not check these documents.
13.3 He replied that his statement was recorded in the police station Vasant Kunj. He replied that he did not give any bills regarding outstanding dues against accused Ravi Kapoor to the police officials. He denied the suggestion that he is stock witness of the police. He further replied that accused Ravi Kapoor was never brought to his house by police at any point of time. He replied that the said vehicle was taken by police from his house. He replied that no police official came to him to enquire about the vehicle during the period of two months when the vehicle remained with him. He replied that he had not removed the number plate of the vehicle. Witness denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
14. PW-6 Dr. Deba Prasad Kar, Senior Resident (Medicine) J.P.N.A Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi:- He deposed that he was deputed by Medical Superintendent to depose in place of Dr. Shashank who was working in the above- mentioned hospital on 30.09.2008 as Senior Resident. He produced office record of the MLC no. 138245 of deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan Ex.PW-6/A. He identified the signatures of Dr. Shashank on the MLC. 14.1 During cross-examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor and other accused persons, witness replied that he had no personal knowledge about the circumstances in which the above-
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 19mentioned MLC was prepared and he joined the said hospital on 27.02.2013. He further replied that he had not worked with the Dr. Shashank and he deposed only on the basis of record of the MLC.
15 PW-7 Balwant Kumar (Retired SI) :- He deposed that on 29-30.09.2008, he was posted at PCR South Zone and was on duty from 08.00 p.m. to 08.00 a.m. at vehicle Zebra 25. He deposed that during the above-said night, he stationed his van and staff at Munirka. He deposed that at about 03.43 a.m, he received a call from the Control Room that one lady was lying on the road leading from Munirka to Vasant Kunj. He deposed that he was conveyed that vehicle be checked. He deposed that he alongwith his staff went to Nelson Mandela Marg by the van and found one vehicle standing touching the divider. 15.1 He deposed that the said vehicle was Zen car bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 and lights as well as engine of the vehicle was running. He deposed that one female was found on driver seat tilted towards left side. He deposed that seat belt were found tied. He deposed that the said lady was having injury on her head and her hairs were found scattered.
15.2 He deposed that in the meanwhile, one white car came from Masoodpur side and stopped near the place where abovesaid Zen car was lying in the accidental condition was parked. He deposed that driver of the said car got down and came near him. He deposed that said person had asked him as what had happened. He deposed that the smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of that driver. He deposed that after SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 20 making enquiries that person had left the place by his car. He deposed that there were three more persons in the said car and after making the enquiry from the witness, all of them fled from the spot. Witness identified the accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and Baljeet Singh Malik as the persons who were found sitting in that car at that time during his examination in the Court. He deposed that accused Ravi Kapoor was the person who was driving the car. 15.3 He deposed that he cordoned off the place and that lady was taken out from the Zen car. He deposed that the bag was lying on the front seat towards left side and near her seat, her mobile phone was found lying. He deposed that ASI Beni Singh from P.S. Vasant Kunj also came there and he handed over the spot to ASI Beni Singh and shifted the lady to Trauma Centre AIIMs and got her admitted there. He deposed that when he lifted the female from the car, she was having one shoe in her foot and other pair of shoe was lying in the car. 15.4 During cross-examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor and other accused persons, witness replied that the cause were being entered in the book maintained at PCR Van. He replied that he had not inspected the Zen car. He replied that on that day, HC Shyam Prakash and driver Thampu Lal were also present with him and their statements were recorded in his presence. He again clarified that while their statement was recorded, he was alone. He replied that he remained at the spot for about 4-5 minutes and he conveyed the observation made at the spot to the Control Room and said information was conveyed SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 21 immediately after arrival at the spot. He replied that his statement was recorded at the spot and he again clarified that his statement was recorded on the next day in the police station. 15.5 He further replied that he described the overall appearance of accused persons who came in the car to the IO of the case. Witness replied that none of the accused were known to him prior to judicial TIP. He deposed that he did not join any TIP. He replied that no site plan was prepared in his presence or at his instance by the IO. He replied that he did not remember whether any inventory of the articles of the injured were prepared or not.
15.6 Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely as per direction of IO. He denied the suggestion that no vehicle came on that day from the side of Masoodpur or no one get down from that vehicle or that no such three boys were sitting in the said vehicle. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
16. PW-8 Ct. Satish:- He deposed that on 24.03.2009, he was posted at P.S. Vasant Kunj and on that day he joined the investigation of this case with SI O.P. Thakur, IO and Insp. Randhir Singh and they went to house no. 173, village Munirka, New Delhi from where accused Ajay Kumar was arrested and memo of arrest Ex.PW-8/A was prepared. He deposed that personal search of the accused was conducted and the memo Ex.PW-8/B was prepared. He deposed that disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded. He deposed that accused has pointed out the place of occurrence and memo Ex.PW-4/K4 was SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 22 prepared. Witness identified the accused Ajay Kumar during his examination in the Court.
16.1 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Sethi and Ajay Kumar and on behalf of other accused persons, witness replied that his statement was firstly recorded in the present FIR on 24.03.2009 at about 03.00 p.m. to 03.30 p.m. He replied that he signed the arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement and pointing out memo as attesting witness. He denied the suggestion that his signatures were forged and he did not sign any document. Witness replied that his statement was also recorded in connection with the FIR No. 209/08, P.S. Vasant Kunj and he did not remember whether arrest memo was prepared in his presence in FIR No. 209/08 P.S. Vasant Kunj. He replied that he remained associated with the investigation of present FIR no. 481/09 only on 24.03.2009. He replied that the place of arrest of the accused was surrounded by several houses however, no local residents were called to join the investigation. Witness denied the investigation that signatures of the accused were obtained on the blank papers. Witness denied the suggestion that he did not disclose the correct facts of the case or he deposed falsely.
17. PW-9 Rajiv Vohra, Resident of 1251, Sector 14, Faridabad, Haryana:- He deposed that house no. 1117/14, Faridabad situated opposite to his residence bearing no. 1251/14, Faridabad. He deposed that on the request of the police on 02.04.2009, he joined the investigation of this case. He deposed that raid at house no. 1117/14, Faridabad was conducted at about SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 23 7.30 p.m. and besides him one Mr. Gautam Mehta, resident of House no. 1115/14, Faridabad also joined the investigation. He deposed that after search of the house, the articles recovered from the house were seized by police and seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A was prepared. He deposed that articles recovered during the search of the above mentioned house are mentioned from S.No. 1 to 10 in the seizure memo.
17.1 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, witness replied that he did not remember who was the owner of the said house, however, as per his recollection, the owner of the said house was resident of Ludhiana. He replied that police officials of P.S. Sector 14, Faridabad were also accompanying the team of Delhi Police. He replied that he did not remember the name of officials of Haryana police. He replied that house no. 1117 was got opened in his presence and lock was broken by Delhi police officials. He replied that the articles recovered were including of bunch of keys, RC books, credit card of bank, the instrument of making keys, beacon lights, drill machine and rubber stamp etc. He replied that total 8-10 persons were member of the team which conducted the search of the house. Witness denied the suggestion that lock was not broken in his presence. Witness denied the suggestion that no other public person was present at the spot. Witness replied that it took 1 ½ to 2 hours in completion of the proceedings. He replied that the articles were seized in his presence. Witness denied that he deposed falsely at the instance of the police or nothing was seized in his presence. He denied the suggestion SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 24 that he was a planted witness and a false witness.
18. PW-10 Inspector Madan Pal:- He deposed that on 05.05.2009, he was posted at P.S. Dwarka (South) as a Draftsman. He deposed that Insp. S. S. Hussain of P.S. Vasant Kunj called him and he joined the investigation with him. He deposed that he along with Insp. S. S. Hussain went to Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj and he took rough notes and measurement of the place as per instructions of Insp. S. S. Hussain. He deposed that on the basis of those rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan on 01.06.2009 by using the scale of ¼ cm = 1 meter. He identified the site plan prepared by him as Ex.PW-10/A and he deposed that he destroyed the rough notes and measurement after preparation of scaled site plan.
18.1 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he replied that he went to the above-mentioned place at 01.00 p.m. He replied that in his presence, no exhibit was lifted from the spot. He replied that no skid marks were lifted from the spot in his presence on that day. He replied that no public person joined investigation on that day. He replied that his statement was recorded by ACP Mehrauli. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
19. PW-11 Ct. Suraj Prakash:- He deposed that in the intervening night of 29/30 of the year 2008, he was posted at PCR and was on duty at Vehicle Eagle 252. He deposed that at about 03.00 a.m, he was stationed with his vehicle near JNU. He deposed that at about 03.40 a.m, a PCR call was received about SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 25 the incident on Nelson Mandela Marg from Vasant Vihar to Vasant Kunj side, where one vehicle was informed to be parked on the road in the start condition and one female was inside the car. He deposed that he immediately rushed to the above spot where one white Zen car was found to be parked on the road and one girl was lying inside the car. He deposed that he opened the door of the car and switched off the light. He deposed that he shifted the girl in their PCR van and in the meanwhile, one vehicle came from the side of Masoodpur. He deposed that there were three persons in that vehicle and one person got down from vehicle and came near them and asked them as to what had happened. He deposed that he was busy in shifting the girl in the vehicle, so he did not replied. He deposed that those persons went from the spot with their vehicle.
19.1 He deposed that injured girl was shifted to Trauma Centre, where the doctors on duty had examined her and declared her as brought dead. He deposed when he firstly reached near the Zen car, the light of the car was ON and when he opened the door, the girl was found bent on the steering. He deposed that she was having injuries on her head. He deposed that her mobile phone, bag and one chappal was lying in the car whereas one chappal was in her foot. He deposed that ASI Bane Singh of the local police came at the spot and took the charge of the vehicle. 19.2 He deposed that as far as he recollect, there were four persons present in the vehicle which came from the side of Masoodpur and he saw accused Ravi Kapoor came out of the vehicle and the remaining three accused persons were inside the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 26 car who were not seen by him because they were inside the vehicle. He again clarified that he had not seen the other passengers of the said car.
19.3 During cross-examination on behalf of the State, witness replied that he told to the IO that he noticed the presence of three more persons in the car. He voluntarily clarified that he had not seen their faces. He replied that on 04.04.2009, he gave statement only to the effect that three more persons were inside the car. Witness denied the suggestion that due to lapse of time, he did not recollect the whole sequence of events. 19.4 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that the information regarding the parking of Zen car was given to Incharge of Van at about 03.40 a.m. He replied that neither the inventory was made nor the exhibits were lifted in his presence and they remained at the spot for about 3-4 minutes.
19.5 He replied that prior to this incident, he never saw accused Ravi Kapoor in his whole life. He replied that sketch of Ravi Kapoor was not prepared at his instance, neither he gave description/physical appearance detail of the accused Ravi Kapoor to the police. He replied that the Incharge did not convey the description or physical appearance of accused Ravi Kapoor on Wireless to the control room. Witness denied the suggestion that he was not in position to identify the accused Ravi Kapoor. He replied that he did not recollect the registration number of any vehicle checked by them on that day. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely or he identified falsely to the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 27 accused Ravi Kapoor or that he had not seen the accused Ravi Kapoor on that day.
20. PW-12 Retired ASI Bansi Ram:- He deposed that in the intervening night of 29/30.09.2008, he was on emergency duty at P.S. Vasant Vihar and DD No. 6-B was recorded at P.S. Vasant Vihar and same was assigned to him. He deposed that said DD entry was regarding the information of accident at Nelson Mandela Marg and he alongwith one constable went to Nelson Mandela Marg opposite to the power house. He deposed that he saw one Maruti Zen bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 of white colour found to be parked. He deposed that engine of the said car was in start condition and when he reach near the car, he saw a girl lying on the driver seat. He deposed that the PCR van arrived at the spot and he noticed that blood was oozing out from some injury on the head of the girl and she was immediately taken to the hospital through PCR van.
20.1 He deposed that on the left side of the seat of the car, one bag and one mobile phone was found lying. He deposed that the said bag and mobile phone was taken into possession by him. He deposed that he received a call on that mobile phone and caller introduced himself as a father of the victim girl and he disclosed the name of the injured as Saumya. He deposed that he informed about the injury sustained by Saumya in that accident. He deposed that thereafter, ASI Hawa Singh of P.S. Vasant Kunj also reached at the spot and father of injured also arrived there. He deposed that he observed that the front right side of wheel of the car got damaged due to the impact of collision with the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 28 divider and window pane of the divider side was found to be broken. He deposed that he handed over all the articles to ASI Hawa Singh as place of accident was within the jurisdiction of P.S. Vasant Kunj. He deposed that the bag and mobile phone of the victim were handed over to her father.
20.2 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that the bag and mobile phone picked up by him from the car were given to the father of the victim and he did not prepare any handing over memo of any item. He replied that after handing over the spot to the ASI Hawa Singh, he never joined the investigation again. Witness denied the suggestion that he never participated in the investigation of the present case or IO himself prepared his statement.
21. PW-13 ASI Khajan Singh:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted as Crime Team Incharge at Sector-9, Dwarka and after receiving information, he alongwith the team reached at Nelson Mandela Marg near pole no.78. He deposed that HC Ajit Singh was the photographer, HC Arun was fingerprint proficient with him. He deposed that at the spot, one Maruti Zen white colour bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 was found lying in accidental condition. He deposed that inside the car, the blood, hair of female and broken glasses of vehicle were lying. He deposed that HC Ajit took photographs and Ct. Arun inspected the car for lifting the chance prints, but no chance prints could be lifted. He deposed that crime scene inspection report Ex.PW-13/A was prepared by him. He deposed that ASI SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 29 Hawa Singh was present at the spot.
22. During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he replied that he was not informed about picking up of any article from the vehicle after opening the door. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot and he prepared the report in mechanical manner while sitting in the office at the instance of the IO.
23. PW-14 (Retired) SI Hawa Singh:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted at P.S. Vasant Kunj as ASI and on that day at about 03.55 a.m, DD No. 6-A Ex.PW-14/A was assigned to him and he alongwith Ct. Nahar Singh went to near Pole No. 78 on the road from Munirka to Vasant Kunj, Nelson Mandela Marg. He deposed that ASI Bansi Ram and HC Amit were present there and Sh. M. K. Vishwanathan, father of the injured Saumya was also present there. He deposed that car bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 was found parked touching the central verge.
23.1 He deposed that SI Bansi Ram had informed him that PCR van had shifted Saumya Vishwanathan to Trauma Centre and he had already handed over the purse and mobile phone of the injured to her father. He deposed that he left Ct. Nahar Singh at the spot to protect the same and thereafter, he alongwith Sh. M. K. Vishwanathan went to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS, where he collected MLC of injured Saumya Vishwanathan. He deposed that as per the MLC, injured Saumya Vishwanathan was declared as brought dead by the doctor. He deposed that SHO Inspector S. S. Hassan, SI Kishore SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 30 Pandey, Insp. Manoj Pant and Inspector T. R. Punia also reached in the hospital. He deposed that the dead body of Saumya Vishwanthan was inspected by him and by Insp. S. S. Hassan and the body was having injury on the backside of her right ear. He deposed that blood was oozing out from the wound. He deposed that Insp. S. S. Hassan got preserved the body of Saumya Vishwanathan and thereafter, he alongwith Insp. S. S. Hassan and other staff came back at the spot where car bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 was found parked near Pole No. 78.
23.2 He deposed that crime team was also called and crime team along-with photographer and other staff reached at the spot. He deposed that side screen of the driver side of the car was found broken and upon checking, bunch of hairs were found scattered on the rear seat of the car and blood was also lying at several places inside the car. He deposed that the right front tyre of the car was found burst and rim of the front side wheel was found damaged at several places. He deposed that there were skid marks on the divider from pole no. 65 -78. He deposed that the crime team conducted its proceedings and the photographer took photographs from different angles. 23.3 He deposed that broken pieces of glass were sealed in the parcel with the seal of 'S.S. H' and were seized and seizure memo Ex.PW-14/B was prepared. He deposed that on the same day i.e. 30.09.2008, the inquest proceedings were conducted. He deposed that he was present during these proceedings and he identified his signatures on the inquest papers Ex. PX-1. He deposed that after the post-mortem, Insp. S. S. Hassan sealed five SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 31 parcels sealed with the seal of AIIMS hospital along-with sample seals and prepared memo Ex.PW-14/C. 23.4 He deposed that Insp. S. S. Hassan had prepared the rukka after making his endorsement on D.D. No. 6-A and he took the rukka to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. He deposed that he returned back the spot i.e. place of occurrence where IO was present and where car was found to be parked as mentioned above. He deposed that broken pieces of rear view mirror, one black colour jaali and one rear view mirror were found lying and these items were sealed in separate parcels with the seal of 'S.S.H' and was seized and seizure memo Ex.PW- 14/D was prepared. He deposed that one iron board lying near the place of incident was also seized. He deposed that the above- mentioned vehicle of victim was shifted to P.S. Vasant Kunj.
He deposed that FSL team was called and its team members inspected the vehicle and after inspection, the hairs lying on rear seat were preserved in an envelope and same was sealed with the seal of SSH and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-14/E. He deposed that black colour mat of the car was also seized after sealing the parcel with the seal of SSH and seizure memo Ex.PW-14/F was prepared. He deposed that one chappal (sleeper) lying near driver seat of the car on which TITAC was written was also sealed and was seized and seizure memo Ex.PW-14/G was prepared.
23.5 He deposed that Maruti Zen car bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 was also seized. He deposed that after the inspection, SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 32 the FSL gave 9 exhibits after lifting the same from the car and those exhibits were including dark blue colour from the side of the car, blood stained seat cover, cutting from left side, glass piece, black paint from the side of the car, blood stains from the side mat and blood sample along-with blood stained hairs and these exhibits were separately sealed in the parcel with the seal of SSH and seizure memo was prepared as Ex.PW 14/H. 23.6 He further deposed that on 30.09.2008, Maruti Zen car bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 belonging to the deceased was seized and seizure memo Ex.PW-14/I was prepared. He deposed that Iron Board having mark as word PEOPLE and glass pieces from the spot which were lying at the spot were seized and seizure memo Ex.PW-14/J was prepared.
23.7 Witness identified the above-mentioned seized car through its photograph Ex.PW-39/PX-1, above-mentioned seized articles i.e. one black colour Jaali of the car as Ex.PW-39/PX-2. One seized piece of sleeper as Ex.PW-39/PX-3, seized seat cover as Ex.PW-39/PX-4, seized rubber foot mat as Ex.PW-39/PX-5, seized white paint sample as Ex.PW-39/PX-6, seized white sample as Ex.PW-39/PX-7, seized black paint smear as Ex.PW- 39/PX-8, seized dark blue paint smear as Ex.PW-39/PX-9. 23.8 Witness also identified the sealed strands of hair as Ex.PW-39/PX-10, seized seat cover with brown stain as Ex.PW- 39/PX-14, seized strands of hair as Ex.PW-39/PX-16, seized glass pieces as Ex.PW-39/PX-17, seized glass pieces as Ex.PW- 39/PX-18, seized bunch of hair and blood stained papers as Ex.PW-39/PX-19 and Ex.PW-39/PX-20, seized bunch of hairs SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 33 wrapped in small paper as Ex.PW-39/PX-21, seized bunch of hairs found in big envelope as Ex.PW-39/PX-22, seized pin/iron board having mark PEOPLE as Ex.PW-39/PX-23, seized one tyre with iron rim of the tyre and tube and damaged rim of the tyre as Ex.PW-39/PX-24.
23.9 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, witness replied that he joined the investigation at around 04.00 a.m. on 30.09.2008 and he reached at the spot and SI Bansi Ram from P.S. Vasant Vihar was already present at the spot with Ct. Ajeet. He replied that father and brother-in-law of the deceased were already present at the spot when they reached there and no other public person were present at the spot. He replied that place of incident was busy road and no CCTV camera was noticed around the place of incident. 23.10 He replied that Crime team reached the spot in his presence and took the photographs of the vehicle and place of occurrence. He replied that he remained associated with the investigation only on 30.09.2008. He replied that the vehicle of the deceased was taken to police station Vasant Kunj by crane as same was not in the running condition. He replied that IO had made enquiries from the public persons found near the place of occurrence but no clue regarding the incident could be found. 23.11 He replied that no videography was done by the Forensic team. He replied that dead body of the deceased was removed from the vehicle by PCR officials before he reached at the spot. He replied that no handing over memo in respect to the mobile phone and purse which were handed over to the father of SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 34 the deceased was prepared.
24. PW-15 HC Dharmender Singh:- He deposed that on 24.03.2009, he was working as Duty officer at P.S. Vasant Kunj and on that day an information was received from Insp. Atul Kumar P.S. Vasant Vihar through telephone regarding arrest of the accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet @ Poppy who were arrested in FIR No. 69/09, P.S. Vasant Vihar. He deposed that he was informed by IO of that case that above- mentioned accused persons had disclosed about their involvement in the Saumya murder case. He deposed that he lodged DD No. 23-A regarding the information and communicated the same to the IO. He identified the said DD as Ex.PW-15/A. 24.1 Witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity given to the accused persons.
25. PW-16 HC Amir Khan:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was working as Duty officer and at about 03.55 a.m, an information was received from control room regarding one lady lying in the vehicle which was in the starting condition and the headlights of the vehicle were ON. He lodged DD No. 6- A Ex.PW-16/A and assigned the same to ASI Hawa Singh and sent him through Ct. Dinesh.
25.1 He deposed that on that day at about 05.15 a.m. another call was received from duty Ct. George Kutty from Trauma Centre regarding the information that victim Saumya Vishwanathan was declared as brought dead in Trauma Centre SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 35 and he lodged the information vide DD No.8-A Ex.PW-16/B. 25.2 Witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity given to the accused persons.
26. PW-17 SI Dharam Pal:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was working as ASI in Delhi Police and was on duty at P.S. Vasant Kunj as Duty officer. He deposed that at about 04.05 p.m, one rukka sent by Insp. S. S. Hassan was received to him through ASI Hawa Singh and he lodged the DD No.25-A regarding the same and got recorded the FIR Ex.PW-17/A. He deposed that he made endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW-17/B. He deposed that the recording of FIR was completed and DD No. 26-A was lodged in that regard. He deposed that Special reports were sent through Special Messenger to Senior officers as well as Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He deposed that after registration of the present FIR, investigation was assigned to Insp. S. S. Hassan. He deposed that printout of the FIR and original rukka were sent to Insp. S. S. Hassan through ASI Hawa Singh and DD No.30-A was lodged in that regard. He identified his signatures/entries made by him vide DD No. 25A, 26A and 30A as Ex.PW-17/C, Ex.PW-17/D and Ex.PW-17/E. 26.1 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that FIR Ex.PW-17/A was registered on the basis of DD No.25-A. Witness admitted that DD No.6-A was lodged on 30.09.2008 and was recorded prior to DD No.25-A.
27. PW-18 HC Nahar Singh:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted at P.S. Vasant Kunj and on receipt of DD No.6-A, he alongwith ASI Hawa Singh went to Nelson SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 36 Mandela Road near Power house, where they saw one Maruti Zen car number DL 2CR 5801 in accidental condition. He deposed that the right side tyres of the car was in burst condition and glass of the right side front door of the car was also in broken condition. He deposed that they came to know that injured was shifted to Trauma Centre by PCR. He deposed that ASI Hawa Singh left him at the spot and he himself went to Trauma Centre. He deposed that ASI Hawa Singh again returned to the spot from the Trauma centre after about 1 ½ hours and Crime Team was called which conducted the inspection of the vehicle and spot. Witness identified the photographs of the vehicle Ex.PW-18/A to Ex.PW-18/E. He deposed that the damaged vehicle was seized and after inspection it was shifted to police station. He deposed that FSL team was also called which inspected the vehicle in the police station. He deposed that one iron board/broken pieces of the glass were seized at the spot.
27.1 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, he replied that they reached at the spot within 10 minutes and police officials of PS Vasant Vihar were already present there. He replied that in his presence no exhibits were taken into possession or seized by any person. He replied that Crime team inspected the vehicle in his presence and no document or seizure memo was prepared in his presence. He replied that Tehrir was prepared in his presence. He replied that FSL team did not inspect the vehicle in his presence.
28. PW-19 Ct. Narsi Ram:- He deposed that on 03.10.2008, he was posted at P.S. Vasant Kunj as Constable and SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 37 on the instruction of IO, he collected exhibits from the MHC(M) HC Subhash Chand and deposited the same to FSL Rohini. He deposed that he alongwith exhibits vide RC No. 80/21, 81/21, 82/21, 83/21 and with Road Certificate went to FSL Rohini and deposited the same. He deposed that he handed over the copy of RC and receipt to the MHC (M).
28.1 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, witness replied that he was not aware about the contents of those parcels.
29. PW-20 ASI Ajit Singh:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team at South-West District as a Photographer and on that day he alongwith Crime Team went to Nelson Mandela Road i.e. the spot where ASI Hawa Singh was present. He deposed that he took the photographs of the accidental car bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 and spot as Ex.PW-20/A1 to Ex.PW-20/A28. He also produced the negatives of those photographs Ex.PW-20/B1 to Ex.PW-20/B27. 29.1 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that his statement was not recorded at the spot and none of the photographs bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
30. PW-21 Manoj Pant (ACP):- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted as Insp. Investigation at P.S. Vasant Kunj and on that day, he joined the investigation and went to the Mortuary of Trauma Centre. He deposed that the dead body of Saumya Vishwanathan was lying deposited in the mortuary and he moved application Ex.PW-21/A for conducting postmortem of SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 38 Saumya Vishwanathan. He deposed that he also prepared brief facts as Ex.PW-21/B and request for postmortem as Ex.PW-21/C. He deposed that the dead body was identified by Mr. Vikas Mehta and he recorded statement of the witness as Ex.PW-21/D and Ex.PW-21/E. He deposed that postmortem was conducted on 30.09.2008. He deposed that dead body was also identified by Mr. N. K. Vishwanathan, father of the deceased. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to legal heirs of the deceased. He deposed that after his transfer, investigation was assigned to some other officer and he submitted documents to MHC(R).
30.1 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that he remained associated with the investigation of the present case only on 30.09.2008. He replied that ASI Hawa Singh was also present with him and inquest proceedings were conducted as per the direction of ACP.
31. PW-22 Ct. Arun Kumar:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted at Mobile Crime team, South-West District and on that day on instruction of ASI Hawa Singh, he inspected the vehicle DL 2CR 5801 at Nelson Mandela Marg for the purposes of lifting the chance prints however, no chance prints could be lifted. He deposed that he prepared report Ex.PW-22/A. 31.1 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, nothing was asked on behalf of accused persons and testimony of the witness remain unrebutted.
32. PW-23 Retired SI Raj Kumar:- He deposed that on SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 39 13.10.2008, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj as SI and on that day, he joined the investigation of this case with Insp. S. S. Hassan. He deposed that IO seized seat cover of the driver seat of car bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 parked in the premises of malkhana PS Vasant Kunj in his presence.
32.1 The said seized seat cover was sealed and memo Ex.PW-23/A was prepared and parcel was deposited in malkhana by the IO. He deposed that on the same day on the instruction of the IO, he collected the said parcel from MHC(M) for depositing the same to FSL and he went to the FSL and deposited the same and obtained receipt of the same. He deposed that on his return, he handed over the receipt to MHC(M).
33. During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that he did not remember the date of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
34. PW-24 Taslimuddin Siddique:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, on request of Insp. S. S. Hassan, he mechanically inspected the Maruti Zen of white colour bearing no. DL 2CR 5801 at PS Vasant Kunj. He deposed that on the inspection of the said vehicle he found as under:-
(1) Front headlight glass broken/bulb intact and in working order and wipers were also found working.
(2) Right side front bumper corner loosed out from its position. (3) Right front wheel rim dented/pressed, front right tyre bridgestone tube without air.SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 40
(4) Right front fender (white colour) slightly dented/pressed with blue coloured marks of other vehicle. Right fender indicator cover missing.
(5) Right front door slightly dented near (handle/below)/ door (right side) window glass broken, glass pieces inside, down door portion round tyre rubbed type blackish scratches. (6) Right side second lower portion slightly dented with blue colour scratches.
(7) Right side rear quater pennal. Down tyre arc with blue colour marks/slide scratched.
(8) Right side rear bumper corner scratched. (9) Brakes Ok.
(10) Vehicle on road (in running condition).
34.1 He deposed that this detailed report of mechanical inspection of the vehicle is Ex.PW-24/A. 34.2 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he replied that there is no attesting witness mentioned in report Ex.PW-24/A. Witness denied the suggestion that he prepared false report at the instance of the IO or he deposed falsely.
35. PW-25 Insp. Deep Chand:- He deposed that on 02.04.2009, he was posted at police post Sector 14, Faridabad, Haryana as ASI and on that day police officials from Delhi police came to the police post and informed them that a search has to be conducted at house no. 1117, Sector 14, Faridabad. He deposed that they further informed that one person namely Ajay Sethi had fled away from a Santro car. He deposed that he joined the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 41 police team of Delhi police and they reached to house no. 1117, Sector 14, Faridabad. He deposed that when they reached at the above-mentioned house, some neighbours also came there and in the presence of neighbours, search of the aforesaid accused was conducted by the police.
35.1 He deposed that there were two servant rooms behind that house and he clarified that house no. 1117 was locked and main gate of the house was lying open which was leading towards servant room behind the house no. 1117, Sector 14, Faridabad. He deposed that except the two servant rooms which were lying open other rooms were found locked. He deposed that search of the two servant rooms were conducted from which articles were taken from the police possession and seizure memo with details of the recovered articles were prepared as Ex.PW- 2/A in his presence. Witness identified the recovered articles as per seizure memo during his examination in the court which were exhibited as Ex.PW-25/P-1 to Ex.PW-25/P-9. 35.2 During cross-examination on behalf of accused Ajay Sethi, he replied that he did not know about the owner of house no. 1117, Sector 14, Faridabad and statement of owner was not recorded by Delhi police in his presence. He replied that no residence proof of accused Ajay Sethi was produced before him by Delhi police. Witness denied the suggestion that the articles as mentioned in seizure memo were never seized before him. He further denied the suggestion that he had signed the document Ex.PW-2/A (seizure memo) at the instance of Delhi police. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 4235.3 Accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet opted not to cross-examine the witness.
36. PW-26 Ms. Kavita Goel, Assistant Director (Chemistry) FSL Rohini, Delhi:- She deposed that on 03.10.2008, sealed parcels duly sealed with seal of Forensic Medicine JPNATC AIIMS was deposited in FSL Rohini in FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj. She deposed that the said parcel was containing viscera and the same was assigned to her for examination.
36.1 She deposed that on chemical and TLC examination, mettalic poisons, Ethyl and Methyl Alcohol, Cyanide, Phosphide, Alkaloids, Barbiturates, Tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected. She deposed that she prepared written report dated 10.12.2008 Ex.PW-26/A. 36.2 Accused persons opted not to cross-examine the witness.
37. PW-27 ASI George Kutte:- He deposed that in the intervening night of 29/30.09.2008, he was posted as Duty Constable at AIIMS, JPN Trauma Centre from 08.00 a.m. of 29.09.2008 to 08.00 a.m. of 30.09.2008. He deposed that at about 04.00 a.m, one injured lady was brought by PCR and she was admitted there and after examination, doctor declared her as brought dead. He deposed that information in that regard was given to PS Vasant Kunj through DD No.8-A by the witness. He deposed that parents of the deceased also came at the hospital and name of the deceased was disclosed as Saumya Vishwanathan. He deposed that later on IO made enquiries from SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 43 him and he informed the above-mentioned fact to the IO. He deposed that clothes of the deceased were not seized in his presence.
37.1 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he replied that IO did not make any inquiry from any person in his presence. He replied that he did not remember the name of doctor who examined deceased firstly. He replied that his statement was not recorded by IO on that day.
38. PW-28 ASI Subhash Chand:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj as MHC(M) and on that day ASI Hawa Singh deposited one Maruti Zen car DL 2CR 5801, iron board and glass pieces.
38.1 He further deposed that on the same date, Insp. S. S. Hassan had deposited 9 exhibits duly sealed with the seal of SSH, 7 more exhibits which were sealed with the seal of Forensic medicine JPN AIIMS Delhi, a sealed parcel sealed with seal of SSH containing broken pieces of glass, a parcel sealed with seal of SSH containing human hairs, a parcel sealed with seal of SSH containing rear view mirror and pieces of broken rear view mirror glass, a parcel sealed with seal of SSH containing sleeper, a parcel sealed with seal of SSH containing mat. He deposed that he deposited all the above articles in maalkhana and made an entry in that regard in Register no.19 Ex.PW-28/A. 38.2 He deposed that on 13.10.2008, Insp. S. S. Hassan deposited a parcel sealed with seal of SSH containing a seat cover of car and he deposited the same in maalkhana and made SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 44 entry in Register no. 19 Ex.PW-28/B. 38.3 He deposed that on 01.10.2008, the aforementioned Maruti Zen car no. DL 2CR 5801 was sent to CFSL Rohini through ASI Ramesh for examination against RC no. 79/21/08 Ex.PW-28/C. 38.4 He deposed that on 03.10.2008, three parcels, one duly sealed with seal of Forensic Medicine JPN AIIMS New Delhi, one parcel with seal of HS and third with seal of SSH were handed over to Ct. Narsi to deposit the same at FSL Rohini against RC No. 80/21/08 Ex.PW-28/D. 38.5 He deposed that on the same day i.e. 03.10.2008 he also handed over the exhibits of this case to deposit the same in FSL Rohini through Ct. Narsi against RC No. 81/21/08 Ex.PW- 28/E and another parcel with seal of Forensic Medicine AIIMS containing viscera to deposit the same to FSL Rohini against RC No. 82/21/08 Ex.PW-28/F and six other exhibits to deposit the same at FSL Rohini against RC No.83/21/08 Ex.PW-28/G. 38.6 He deposed that on 13.10.2008, one parcel with seal of SSH was also handed over to SI Raj Kumar to deposit the same at FSL through RC No. 85/21/08 Ex.PW-28/H. 38.7 He deposed that he made relevant entries in the Register No.19 on the respective dates when the aforesaid exhibits were sent to FSL.
38.8 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness denied the suggestion that he had not received the case property as stated above or he had not sent ASI Ramesh, Ct. Narsi and SI Raj Kumar alongwith parcels to FSL Rohini. He SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 45 denied the suggestion that case property was tampered with or entries were manipulated.
39 PW-29 Mr. Abhishek Pathak:- He deposed that he knew the accused Amit, Baljeet and Ravi, who were present on the day of his examination in the Court. He deposed that accused Amit Shukla is his brother in law. He deposed that accused Baljeet Singh Malik was residing in Masoodpur where he was having his shop. He deposed that he knew accused Ravi Kapoor through his brother in law Amit Shukla. He deposed that in the month of September/October 2008, he saw one Maruti Wagon R car being used by accused Amit Shukla and the said car was left by accused Amit Shukla with the witness which was parked in the parking area of his complex where witness was residing. He deposed that accused Amit went to Bombay.
39.1 He further deposed that after 2-3 days of leaving the said car in his parking area, he received a phone call of accused Amit from Bombay and he told to hand over the keys of said Wagon R car to accused Baljeet. He further deposed that on the same day, accused Baljeet came to him and he handed over the key of said car to him and accused Baljeet took away the said Wagon R car.
39.2 He further deposed that police made inquiries from him and he narrated the aforesaid facts to the police. He deposed that he informed about the vehicle number and the month to the police however, due to lapse of time he could not remember on the day of his deposition.
39.3 During cross-examination on behalf of the State, SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 46 witness denied the suggestion that the registration of the car as informed by him to the police was UP 76-0010. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not disclose the number of the car being related to the accused Amit Shukla. 39.4 During cross-examination on behalf of accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet and other accused persons, witness stated that statement Ex.PW-29/PX did not bear his signatures. He further replied that he made statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the court of Ld. MM at the instance of police. He replied that he was made witness in the present case by the police without his willingness.
40 PW-30 Dr. V. Shankara Narayanan, Sr. Scientific Officer:- He deposed that on 03.10.2008, ten sealed parcels were received pertaining to the case FIR No. 481/08 PS Vasant Kunj in his office and all the seals were intact. He deposed that he opened the aforesaid parcels and conducted biological as well as serological examination of exhibits. He deposed that he found blood detected on exhibits 2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 10 & 11 and same could not be detected on exhibits 8 & 9. He deposed that on morphological and microscopical studies of the hairs in exhibits 5, 6 & 11 were found to be human in origin. He deposed that hairs in exhibits 5 & 6 were found to be cut. He deposed that his detailed biological report dated 31.10.2008 is Ex.PW-30/A. 40.1 He deposed that the above-mentioned exhibits were also examined by him serologically and on serological examination of exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 & 11 show reaction for human origin of blood. He deposed that exhibits 3, 4, 6 & 7 SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 47 gave reactions for "O" blood group. He deposed that exhibits 2, 5, 10 & 11 show no reaction with respect to human blood group. He deposed that his detailed serological report is Ex.PW-30/B. 40.2 He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he alongwith his Assistant Mr. Yogesh (Scientific Associate) went to PS Vasant Kunj for the inspection of Maruti Zen car No. DL 2CR 5801 and on reaching there, they inspected the car and after inspection of the car they also went to the scene of crime at Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He deposed that on the inspection of said vehicle, blood stains were detected inside the car and they lifted the same after cutting the material on which it was found and lifted from right side of front door. He deposed that one blood stained paper was also lying in the car and some hair strands were also found in the car. He deposed that after inspection, he prepared Crime Scene Report dated 21.11.2008 Ex.PW-30/C. 40.3 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that after inspecting the vehicle in the police station, they went to visit the crime scene. He replied that he did not remember whether on the crime scene, public persons were present or not. Witness denied the suggestion that he never visited to the scene of crime with his Assistant and prepared the false report at the instance of the IO. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
41. PW-31 Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Director Physics, FSL Rohini:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted at FSL Rohini and on the request of police, he went to the spot SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 48 alongwith Sanjeev Gupta, SSO (Photo), Shankar Narayan, SSA (Biology) and Vijender Singh, SA (Physics) and examined the vehicle of the victim and spot of the incident and followings were observed:-
1. There was blackish semicircular marks on the right door of the vehicle, which indicated to have been produced by a circular wheel that came in the contact.
2. The glass pane of the right window were found broken and some of the pieces were found inside the vehicle. On examination of some pieces of broken glass, there was indication of striking by a bullet. These pieces were photographed by arranging on a piece of paper.
3. The head light on the right side was partially broken and the body of the car bear paint sear of light and dark blue and black stains. Scraps of these paints flakes were collected for further examination.
4. The right front tyre was found punctured and its sport and rim was found deformed.
5. The bunches of hairs were found sprayed over the right rear seat near to the mid line of the seat and on the foot mat more closer to the mid line. The bunches of hairs were having dark brown stains on the cut ends. Single hairs were found hanging room the roof of the car near the rear glass.
6. In reply to the Court question, witness stated that, when the victim was shot because of the gun shot, her upper portion of the body leaned backwards, in that process, the bunches of hairs fell SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 49 down at the mid line of the vehicle at the mat and some hair strands were also found spread on the rear seat. On collision to the divider, her body moved frontwards and leaned towards the right door and due to the high speed and the open window pane, the wind blew with high speed and the some hair strands with blood stains blew towards the rear side of the vehicle and some of them got struck on the roof of the vehicle.
7. Dark brown stains were also found on the right foot mat of the rear seat near the mid line and dark brown smears/stains were also found on the inner side of front door. There was sputtered dark brown blood like spot above the dikki on the extreme left side and directions of the spots based on the patterns indicate that blood like spot was originated from the front seat if the vehicle was in moving condition.
8. On the examination at Nelson Mandela stretch, there was a skid mark of approx. 6 meter in length near the Lamp Post No. 69 which might be produced by right wheel of the accused vehicle.
9. There was sign of collision on the divider near the lamp post no. 72 and a tree guard was found damaged near that point.
Subsequently, there was indication of vehicle being travelled with remaining speed after the collision at that point. Likewise the vehicle might have moved over the divider, once again near the lamp post no. 75 and it was reported that vehicle was recovered near the lamp post no. 77, in stationary condition.
On the basis of above observation, the victim was indicated to have been shot just before the skid mark near the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 50 lamp post no. 69 from another vehicle which was travelling at similar speed as that of victim's vehicle. Immediately, after the bullet hit the victim, the victim's vehicle might have changed the direction towards the right as illustrated in Annexure-A. In the event of offender's vehicle might have applied brake in an attempt to avoid collision with the victim's vehicle, that might have produced skid marks as described above. 41.1 On court question, witness replied that first time when victim's vehicle hit against the divider near the lamp post no.72, it hit against the cemented lining of the divider, which caused punctured in the front right wheel because the vehilce was on very high speed. Thereafter, the vehicle collided with the tree guard on the divider and resultantly, the vehicle came down in the left side, but because the gear was free, therefore the vehicle was in forward motion and because of the puncture in the right front tyre, there was a tendency of the vehicle to move towards punctured wheel side and therefore, victim's vehicle again moved towards right side i.e. towards the divider and in the process, it again hit the divider near lamp post no. 75.
41.2 Reply to the further court question regarding the approximate distance will the vehicle covered after victim being shot, witness stated that he could not tell the exact distance between lamp post, but the vehicle covered quite long distance for the reason that when the vehicle was put on neutral gear, it was already on very high speed.
41.3 Witness deposed that his detailed report is Ex.PW- 31/A and annexure A as Ex.PW-31/B. SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 51 41.4 He further deposed that on 03.10.2008, he was working in FSL Rohini and on that day six sealed parcels were received in FSL Rohini and he had examined and compared the paint samples collected and also examined the tyre having cut near its nipple and with deformed rim. He deposed that he had given his detailed report on 28.11.2008 as Ex.PW-31/C.
41. 5 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, witness replied that on the date of inspection, they left the FSL office at 03.30 p.m. and after inspection of the place of occurrence and vehicle of the deceased in the Police Station, they returned back to the office of FSL at 08.30 p.m and his report dated 07.11.2008 is Ex.PW-31/A. Witness replied that there was no public persons when the vehicle and the spot were inspected. Witness denied the suggestion that he did not inspect the vehicle or the spot or he deposed falsely and gave false report at the instance of police officials. He further replied that there is no element of error of his opinion as it was based on the condition as mentioned in the opinion and there was no alternate possibility of the manner of occurrence of incident.
42. PW-32 Dr. Manish Kumath, Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted as Senior Resident in the Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS and on that day, he along-with Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani had conducted the post-mortem of dead body of Saumya Vishwanathan, aged 26 years, female. He deposed that the deceased was brought to the department with alleged history of being found injured in the car SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 52 which was found in accidental condition. He deposed that she was declared as brought dead at Trauma Centre, AIIMS at 04.13 a.m. on 30.09.2008.
42.1 He deposed that during post-mortem, it was observed that a fire arm entry wound of the size 4 cm X 2 cm X skull cavity deep with abrasion collar all around the wound margins and patchy area of redness in upper part was present on right side of parietal occipital region, 6 cm above the right mastoid process. 42.2 He further deposed that on the dissection there was underline sub scalp hemorrhage of blood and chip fracture of right parietal occipital with invert beveling of bone fragments. There was tearing of dura underneath the fracture bone piece and the track of wound was found right side occipital parietal lobe through brain matter going slightly forwards and downwards passing from right cerebral hemisphere to left cerebral hemisphere, exiting through left temporal occipital region and casing tearing of dura on left side and fracture of left occipital temporal bone with outward beveling in an area of 2 cm X 2 cm. There was an underline sub scalp a bullet was found lodged near the left side of fractured occipital temporal bone. The wound track in brain matter was filled with blood and small pieces of bones. Brain sores subdural heametoma in parieto temporal and occipital region.
42.3 After conducting the post-mortem examination, the cause of death was opined as ante-mortem cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon fire arm. Witness identified the postmortem report as Ex.PW-32/A. Witness identified the box SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 53 Ex.PW-32/B which was handed over to the IO with the bullet and deposed that they had only took the bullet from the body and put it in a container after sealing it for further investigation purposes. 42.4 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, witness replied that at the time of post-mortem, the weapon of offence was not shown to him by the police. He further replied that he had not given subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence.
43 PW-33 Mohd. Akbar:- He deposed that 7-8 years back from the date of examination in the court, he was working as a Security guard in LIG Flats, B-9, Vasant Kunj Delhi and he used to work in night shift. He deposed that on two -three occasions, he was called by police officials at PS Vasant Kunj and police inquired from him which he did not remember on the date of his examination in the court due to lapse of time. Witness not supported the case of prosecution.
43.1 Witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons.
44. PW-34 Insp. Neeraj Choudhary:- He is the witness regarding the investigation in FIR No. 69/09 PS Vasant Vihar. He deposed that on 23.03.2009, he was posted at PS Vasant Vihar as SI and on that day he joined with Insp. Atul Kumar in the investigation of the FIR No. 69/09 PS Vasant Vihar. He deposed that at about 01.00 p.m., IO received secret information that accused persons of the case FIR No. 69/09 PS Vasant Vihar would come in a vehicle at Nelson Mandela Marg in the afternoon. He deposed that when he alongwith Insp. Atul Kumar SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 54 and police team departed from PS at about 01.15 p.m. towards Nelson Mandela Marg, where they put barricades on the road near power house. At about 04.00 p.m., one Santro Car was seen coming from Vasant Kunj to Vasant Vihar and was stopped on the indication of informer.
44.1 The registration number of the car was HR 18C 3409 and the car was checked and there were three persons present inside the car including the driver. He deposed that he overpowered the driver of the car and after interrogation they came to know his name as Ravi Kapoor. Witness identified the accused Ravi Kapoor, in the court.
44.2 He deposed that other two accused persons were overpowered by Insp. Upender and after interrogation, their names were revealed as Amit Shukla and Baljeet Singh. Witness identified accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Singh in the court during his examination.
44.3 He deposed that Insp. Atul conducted formal search of the accused Ravi Kapoor and on his formal search, one country-made pistol was recovered from the left dub of his wearing pant. He deposed that one box was also recovered from the front pocket of right side of his wearing pant and the said box was containing three live cartridges and one used cartridge. He deposed that Insp. Atul Kumar prepared the sketch of country made gun as well as live cartridge and kept them in a transparent polythene bag and polythene bag was kept in plastic container and container was sealed with seal of SS.
He deposed that the sealed container was taken into SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 55 possession and was seized as Mark-X. He deposed that they brought the accused persons to the police station alongwith case property and case property was deposited in maalkhana. He deposed that later on they came to know that recovered country- made gun was involved in the present FIR bearing no. 481/08 PS Vasant Kunj. During his examination, witness identified the seized country-made gun, live cartridges and two empty cartridges in the court.
44.4 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that on 19.03.2009, when he joined the investigation of FIR No. 69/09, he was having knowledge about the present case FIR No. 481/08 PS Vasant Kunj. Witness replied that he did not know if Insp. Atul Kumar joined any public person in the raiding party at police station. He replied that Insp. Atul asked some public persons to join the investigation but they refused to join the investigation. Witness denied the suggestion that he joined the raiding team on 23.03.09 with Insp. Atul Kumar. He denied the suggestion that accused Ravi Kapoor was not arrested in his presence or nothing was recovered from his possession. He denied the suggestion that country-made gun and live cartridges and used cartridges were planted on the accused Ravi Kapoor. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely on the instance of IO. 45 PW-35 Sh. Ajay Kashyap, DG Prisons, Tihar, Delhi:- He deposed that one proposal moved by ACP Mehrauli was received to him through DCP South for seeking approval u/s 23(1)(a) of MCOCA and the same was accorded vide his order SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 56 dated 06.04.2009 bearing no. 4472/SO-SR Mark PW35/A. 45.1 During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that he did not remember what documents were perused by him for according the approval. Witness admitted that the approval application u/s 23(1)(a) of MCOCA did not mention about any enclosure of any document with the said application. Witness denied the suggestion that approval dated 06.04.2009 was mechanically given without their being any ground qua the accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik. Witness replied that he did not remember whether there was any conviction in any case against accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik or any charges were framed in any FIR at the time of according proposal u/s 23(1)(a) of MCOCA. He further replied that he did not remember in which FIRs enclosed with the application for approval, the names of Ravi Kapoor was reflected as one of the co-accused. He replied that the proposal was containing all the documents required to satisfy application of Section 3 of MCOCA.
46 PW-36 Ms. Shalini Singh, I.G. Law & Order, Andaman & Nicobar:- She deposed that on 07.04.2009 she was posted as DCP, South-East, Sarita Vihar, Delhi. She deposed that on that day IO ACP Bhishm Singh had moved an application with request to record the confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor under the provisions of MCOC Act. She deposed that she directed to produce the accused Ravi Kapoor before her on 08.04.2009. She identified the application as Mark PW-36/A with her signatures at point A. SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 57 46.1 She deposed that on 08.04.2009, accused Ravi Kapoor S/o Pritam Singh, who was arrested in case FIR No. 481/08 dated 30.09.2008 under Section 302/201/489/411/34 IPC and Section 3 (1)(i), Section 3 (1)(ii) and Section 3(1)(iv) of MCOC Act PS Vasant Kunj was produced before her by IO ACP Bhishm Singh for recording his confessional statement. 46.2 She deposed that she asked the IO to leave the room and accordingly he left the room. She deposed that she and her stenographer Ct. Suraj Bhan and accused Ravi Kapoor were present. She deposed that she warned and explained the accused Ravi Kapoor about the consequences of recording of his confessional statement and warned him that he is not legally bound to make confessional statement and that if he makes so, the statement can be used against him during the course of trial. Despite the warning, accused Ravi Kapoor stated that he was to make confessional statement voluntarily. She asked the accused about the language in which he wants to make the confessional statement to which accused replied that he can read, write, speak and understand Hindi language. She deposed that on her satisfaction that accused was not under any compulsion, threat, inducement and under any coercion and on ensuring that accused Ravi Kapoor was making confessional statement voluntarily, she proceeded to record the confessional statement. 46.3 She deposed that after recording the statement which was typed by Stenographer Ct. Suraj Bhan on the direction of witness, she again warned the accused Ravi Kapoor that his confessional statement may be used as evidence against him. She SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 58 deposed that on ensuring that accused had made his confessional statement voluntarily, accused signed his confessional statement. She deposed that the said confessional statement was also read over to him and admitted by the accused Ravi Kapoor to be correct and he put his signatures on the confessional statement. The confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor, which was running into 4 pages, was recorded by her as Ex.PW-36/B bears her signature at point A and signature of the accused Ravi Kapoor at point B & C. Witness identified the accused Ravi Kapoor during her examination in the court.
46.4 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that she was not aware whether accused Ravi Kapoor was in the police custody or in judicial custody when he was brought before the witness for recording his statement. Witness replied that confessional statement Ex.PW -36/B bears signature of accused Ravi Kapoor only at first and last page. Witness denied the suggestion that middle two pages of the confessional statement did not bear the signature of the accused as these papers were subsequently added/inserted and converted into confessional statement. Witness denied the suggestion that she recorded the confessional statement mechanically.
46.5 Other accused persons opted not to cross-examine the witness.
47. PW-37 ASI Suresh Kumar:- He deposed that on 29/30.09.2008, he was posted as Head Constable in CPCR, PHQ. He further deposed that on 30.09.2008 at about 03.37 a.m, he SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 59 received the call at 100 number and he transmitted the call to wireless operator and PCR form was prepared Mark PW-37/A in his name. He further deposed that original PCR form dated 30.09.2008 was destroyed vide order no. 5201-5270/HAR/PCR dated 02.08.2012 Mark PW37/B. 47.1 During cross-examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor, he admitted that Mark PW-37/B does not bear the seal of the competent authority who issued the same. 47.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross-examine the witness.
48. PW-38 Sh. Puneet Puri, Assistant Director, Ballistics, FSL Rohini, Delhi:- He deposed that on 18.11.2008, one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of Dr. C.P. Singh, FSL Delhi, was received in Ballistic Division through Physics Division of FSL. He further deposed that seals of the parcel were intact and as per the specimen seal provided with the internal forwarding from of FSL.
48.1 Witness identified the contents of parcel as one Bridgestone Raidal Tyre S248 bearing no. CAD 1404 APR 04 with deformed Rim bearing no. C0105 N SSNL 4J X 1292 without Tube and one Radial Tube of Bridgestone no. 1457/80 R12 as Ex.T1 and T2.
48.2 He deposed that on physical examination, no bullet or shot was found inside the tyre Mark as Ex.T1 and tube marked as Ex.T2. He deposed that the exhibits were resealed with seal of FSL Delhi. He deposed that he prepared the detailed report Ex.PW 38/A. SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 60 48.3 Accused persons opted not to cross-examine the witness.
49 PW-39 Syed Sakir Hassan (Retired) ACP, Delhi Police:- He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted as SHO PS Vasant Kunj and DD No. 6-A was received from Police Control Room regarding one vehicle lying stationed at Nelson Mandela Marg near pole no. 78 with lights of the vehicle ON and with one lady inside the said vehicle on the steering of the vehicle. He deposed that said DD Ex.PW-14/A was lodged in the police station and was marked to ASI Hawa Singh through Ct. Dinesh.
49.1 He deposed that ASI Hawa Singh alongwith Ct. Narsi went to the spot where ASI Bansi Ram and HC Amit from PS Vasant Vihar were already present. He deposed that ASI Bansi Ram told to ASI Hawa Singh that injured had been taken to Trauma Centre by PCR van. He deposed that vehicle was found at the spot. He deposed that father of the deceased and one Vikas Mehta, brother-in-law of the deceased were also present at the spot. He deposed that ASI Bansi Ram also told to ASI Hawa Singh that mobile phone and purse which were in the car had already been given to the father of the injured Saumya Vishwanathan.
49.2 The vehicle was having registration number DL 2CR 5801 and it was Maruti Zen. ASI Hawa Singh left Ct. Narsi at the spot and he alongwith father and relative of the deceased went to Trauma Centre, where doctor had already declared the victim as brought dead. ASI Hawa Singh had informed to the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 61 police station that the lady who was shifted to the hospital had expired. He deposed that on that information, he alongwith SI Kishore and other Staff went to the hospital. He deposed that additional SHO T.R Puniya also came there and witness alongwith ASI Hawa Singh inspected the body of deceased in the mortuary.
49.3 He deposed that thereafter, he alongwith staff returned to the spot and inspected the site. He deposed that Maruti Zen car was standing near Pole No. 78 and it's right tyre was found burst and front right side window glass was found broken. There were blood stains in the car and some hair strands were lying on the backseat of the car. Side mirror for the rear view of the right side was found broken. Some broken glass pieces were also lying in the car as well as on the road. Some skid marks were also found on the road.
49.4 He deposed that he called the crime team which inspected the place of occurrence and photographed the scene of crime. He deposed that he instructed ASI Hawa Singh to remove the vehicle from the spot and take it to the police station and then to reach the hospital for getting the post-mortem conducted. He deposed that ASI Hawa Singh took the vehicle to the police station and then went to the hospital for getting the post mortem conducted. He deposed that Insp. Manoj Kanta also reached at the hospital and during the post-mortem doctor verbally informed him that deceased died due to gun shot injury. 49.5 He deposed that doctor further informed him that post-mortem report may be collected later on. He deposed that SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 62 doctor handed over him the sealed parcels of the exhibits pertaining to the postmortem of the deceased and he seized the same and prepared memo Ex.PW-14/C. 49.6 He deposed that he prepared rukka Ex.PW-39/A on the basis of DD No. 6-A for registration of the FIR and send it to the PS through ASI Hawa Singh. He deposed that he instructed ASI Hawa Singh to inform the duty officer to deliver copy of FIR to area Magistrate, Senior officials through Special Messenger. 49.7 He deposed that he alongwith staff reached at the spot and inspected the spot and made inquiries from nearby. He deposed that ASI Hawa Singh came at the spot and handed over the copy of original FIR and rukka. He deposed that ASI Hawa Singh had joined the investigation alongwith him. He deposed that he sealed the broken pieces of glass in the plastic box with seal of SSH and seized the same and prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-14/B. He deposed that he also seized the broken rear view mirror, black colour jaali and seized the same with SSH and prepared memo Ex.PW-14/D. He deposed that he also sealed the hair strands which were found on the back seat of the car in envelope and seized the same and prepared memo Ex.PW-14/E. He deposed that he also seized the mat and sealed the same with seal of SSH and prepared the memo Ex.PW-14/F. He also seized one piece of sleeper (chhapal) and sealed the same in the plastic box with the seal of SSH and prepared seizure memo Ex.PW- 14/G. 49.8 He deposed that ASI Hawa Singh had informed him that FSL team had reached to the police station and he alongwith SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 63 ASI Hawa Singh went to PS Vasant Kunj where he got inspected the vehicle Maruti Zen Car through FSL team and FSL team also lifted some articles from the car which were seized by him and sealed and seizure memo Ex.PW-14/H was prepared. He deposed that he recorded the statement of members of FSL team under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also requested them to inspect the site. He deposed that he deposited the parcels in maalkhana. 49.9 He deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW- 35/B. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses time to time as and when they joined the investigation. He deposed that on 03.10.2008, he sent sealed parcel to FSL through Ct. Narsi who deposited the parcel with FSL and he recorded his statement.
49.10 He deposed that on 07.01.2009, the FSL result was received from FSL by SI Jai Prakash and he handed over the same to him and he recorded statement of SI Jai Prakash. 49.11 He deposed that on 24.03.2009, he received information from Insp. Atul Kumar of PS Vasant Vihar regarding arrest of accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet in FIR No. 69/09 PS Vasant Vihar and they also disclosed the name of accused Ajay Kumar who was also involved in the incident of present case with them. He deposed that he gave directions to Insp. O. P. Thakur and Ct. Satish Kumar to reach PS Vasant Vihar and he also reached there and collected the copy of supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet and Amit Shukla as recorded by IO in FIR No. 69/09 PS Vasant Vihar, who also disclosed about the involvement of one SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 64 accused Ajay Kumar in the present case. He collected the address of the accused Ajay Kumar from the IO of FIR No. 69/09 and thereafter he alongwith Insp. O. P. Thakur and Ct. Satish went to house of accused Ajay. He deposed that accused Ajay was apprehended from inside of his house and he was inquired who disclosed his name as Ajay.
49.12 He deposed that accused Ajay disclosed about his involvement in the present case alongwith co-accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-8/L. He deposed that he arrested the accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and prepared memo Ex.PW-8/A. He deposed that he conducted the personal search of the accused Ajay and prepared memo Ex.PW-8/B. He deposed that he conducted the search of the house of the accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay. Witness identified the accused in the court. 49.13 He deposed that accused Ajay Kumar took them to the place of occurrence and pointed out the place of occurrence and he prepared pointing out memo of the place of occurrence as Ex.PW-4/KY. He deposed that he interrogated the accused and got conducted his medical examination and he was lodged in lockup of PS Vasant Kunj. He deposed that on the next day, accused was produced before the court in muffled face and he was sent into judicial custody. He deposed that on 28.03.2009 further investigation of the case was marked to Insp. Randhir. He deposed that original disclosure statement of the accused Ravi, Baljeet and Amit were lying with judicial file of the FIR No. 69/09 PS Vasant Vihar.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 6549.14 Witness identified the following case property produced during his examination:-
1. One side mirror of Maruti Zen Car as Ex. PW39/PX1.
2. One black colour Zali as Ex. PW39/PX2.
3. One piece of slipper (chappal) as Ex. PW39/PX3.
4. Seat Cover as Ex. PW39/PX4.
5, Rubber Footmat as Ex. PW39/PX5.
6. white paint sample as Ex. PW39/PX6.
7. White sample as Ex. PW39/PX7.
8. Black paint Smear as Ex. PW39/PX8.
9. Dark Blue pant Smear as Ex. PW39/PX9.
10. Stains of hair as Ex. PW39/PX10.
11. Brown gauge cloth piece described as blood sample as Ex. PW39/PX11.
12. Brown gauge cloth piece described as blood sample as Ex. PW39/PX12.
13. Brown gauge cloth piece described as blood sample as Ex. PW39/PX13.
14. Piece of seat cover having brown strains as Ex. PW39/PX14.
15. One deformed bullet as Ex. PW39/PX15.
16. Strains of hair as Ex. PW39/PX16.
17. Glass pieces as Ex. PW39/PX17 and Ex. PW39/PX18. 49.15. Witness identified the copy of supplementary disclosure statements made by the accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet, Amit Shukla lying in original record of the FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. He deposed that supplementary disclosure statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor in the above SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 66 said FIR was Ex. PW39/C, Baljeet as Ex. PW39/D and Amit Shukla as Ex. PW39/E. He deposed that accused persons had disclosed about their involvement in the present case in the said supplementary disclosure statements. 49.16 Witness identified the blood stains paper and bunch of hair found in the envelope and correctly identified them as the same seized by FSL Expert from the vehicle of the deceased and handed over to him as Ex. PW39/PX19 (colly) and other bunch of hairs as Ex. PW39/PX20.
49.17 Witness also identified the bunch of hairs in small paper as Ex. PW39/PX21 and Ex. PW39/PX22. 49.18 Witness also identified one tin board and PEOPLE written on the Board as Ex. PW39/PX23.
49.19 Witness also identified the one tyre with iron rim of the tyre, tube of the tyre as the same seized by ASI Hawa Singh alongwith vehicle of the deceased from the spot as Ex. PW39/PX24.
49.20. During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that he remained associated with the investigation of this case as IO w.e.f 30.09.2008 till 25.03.2009. He replied that no CCTV camera were installed on or near the spot of the incident. He replied that when he reached at the spot, Ct. Nar Singh was already present there and when he reached there, no person from public was present there at the spot. He replied that he remained at the spot for about two and half hours and he did not meet any eye witness of the incident. 49.21 He replied further that supplementary disclosure SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 67 statement Ex. PW39/C was not recorded in his presence and disclosure statement was recorded when accused Ravi Kapoor was in police custody in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. 49.22 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, witness replied that the mobile phone and purse of the deceased were not handed over to the parents of the deceased in his presence and ASI Hawa Singh was informed by SI Bansi Ram regarding handing over of these articles. He further replied that no seizure memo was prepared qua those two articles of the deceased. He replied that no public witnesses joined the investigation during his stay at the spot despite his request. He replied that on 30.09.2008, he recorded the statement of two public witnesses Bhagwan and Anil U/s 161 Cr.PC.
49.23 He further replied that he alongwith SI O.P Thakur and Ct. Satish went to the accused Ajay Kumar at about 02.00 pm to 02.15 pm on 24.03.2009 and only accused was found in his house. He replied that he requested persons of the locality to join the investigation at the time of arrest of accused Ajay Kumar. He replied that the disclosure statement of accused Ajay Kumar was recorded at his house. However, no recovery was effected pursuant to disclosure statement of the accused. He replied that accused Ajay Kumar led them to the place of occurrence at about 04.00 pm after his arrest. Witness denied the suggestion that accused Ajay Kumar did not pointed out any place of incident and his signatures were obtained forcibly on the disclosure statement. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 68
49.24 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet, witness replied that he was complainant in the present case. He replied that he first visited the hospital after information regarding death of the deceased.
The videography of the place of incident was not conducted. He replied that he conducted investigation in this case till 25.03.2009 and thereafter, investigation was assigned to SI Randhir Singh. He replied that he recorded the statement of father of deceased on 30.09.2008.
50. PW-40 Inspector Jai Parkash:- He deposed that on 07.01.2009, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj New Delhi. He deposed that he joined the investigation with the IO/SHO and on his instruction, he went to FSL, Rohini with Authority Letter and from the Physics Division of FSL, Rohini, he obtained four sealed envelopes and two sealed reports pertaining to the present case.
50.1 He deposed that from the Chemistry Division of FSL, Rohini, he obtained duly sealed viscera box and one duly sealed report pertaining to the present case.
50.2 He deposed that from the Ballistic Division of FSL, Rohini, he also obtained four duly sealed envelopes and one duly sealed report pertaining to the present case. 50.3 He deposed that he brought all the aforementioned articles to the PS Vasant Kunj and deposited the same in Malkhana.
50.4 He deposed that he again joined the investigation on 02.04.2009 and on the direction of the IO Inspector Randhir SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 69 Singh, he alongwith HC Devender and Ct. Pardeep went to Sector 14, Faridabad in the search of accused Ajay Sethi on the basis of technical surveillance report of mobile phone of the accused. He deposed that he reached at Kothi No. 1117/14, Faridabad, Haryana at about 03.00 pm in search of accused Ajay Sethi. He deposed that after seeing the witness and HC Devender and Ct. Pardeep, accused Ajay Sethi fled by a Santro car. He deposed that they also noticed that one lady whose identity later on known as wife of the accused Ajay Sethi also fled away from the spot. He deposed that he informed the said fact to the IO, who alongwith police staff reached at the spot. He deposed that SI Deep Chand from the local Police Station Sector 14, Faridabad also reached there.
50.5 He deposed that IO managed to join two independent persons namely Gautam Mehta and Rajiv Vohra to join the investigation with them. He deposed that the presence of said two public persons and all the police party, two servant quarters constructed on the back side of the aforesaid Kothi, which were found opened, were searched as it was informed to the police team in local inquiry that same was belonging to accused Ajay Sethi. He deposed that during search of both the servant quarters, certain articles were seized which were duly mentioned in the seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that IO also recorded the statement of public persons who had joined the investigation. He deposed that IO had locked both the servant quarters and handed over one set of key of both the rooms to the local police staff i.e. Ct. Jai Bhagwan. He deposed that the above SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 70 mentioned proceedings were recorded vide DD No. 16 at PP Sector 14, Faridabad, Haryana and thereafter, he returned to the police station Vasant Kunj where IO deposited the seized case property in the Malkhana. IO recorded the statement of witness to that effect.
50.6 He deposed that on 21.06.2009, he joined the investigation of the present case, during the investigation on the direction of the then IO, ACP Bishma Singh, he obtained the call detail record of mobile number 9717514407 and 9958033340 for the period from 29.09.2008 and 30.09.2008. He deposed that as per the record, mobile number 9717514407, being used by accused Ravi Kapoor and was registered in the name of one Govinda R/o Haddo Mohalla, Madan Pur Khadar, Delhi. He deposed that as per record, mobile no. 9958033340, being used by accused Amit Shukla and was found registered in the name of accused Ravi Kapoor. He deposed that as per detail of CDR, the location of above mentioned mobile numbers were found matching with places disclosed by the above mentioned accused persons found using the said mobile phones. He deposed that IO recorded his statement to this effect. He deposed that CDR of the mobile no. 9717514407 was handed over by him to the IO Ex. PW40/A. The CDR of mobile no. 9958033340 was handed over by him to the IO as Ex. PW40/B. 50.7 He deposed that he again joined the investigation of the present case on 04.09.2009. On that day, on the direction of the IO/ACP Bhisam Singh, he obtained detail and call detail record of mobile no.9711068866 Ex. PW40/C for the period SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 71 08.11.2008 to 22.03.2009 and mobile no. 9717514407 Ex. PW40/D for the period 01.09.2008 to 31.10.2008 and handed over the same to the IO. He deposed that on the same day, on instruction of IO, he went for verification of one Om Pal S/o Rambir R/o H.No. 145-A, Gali No. 4, Sector-8, Rohtak, Haryana but the said address was not found in existence. He deposed that he recorded the statement of two public persons in that regard. He deposed that he returned to Delhi and handed over the record of verification to the IO and IO recorded his statement. 50.8 The identification of case property seized in the presence of the witness was not disputed during the examination of the witness by the accused persons.
50.9 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
51. PW-41 K.C Varshnehy, Deputy Director/Incharge, Regional FSL, Chanakaya Puri, New Delhi:- He deposed that on 03.10.2008, he was posted at FSL, Rohini as Senior Scientific Officer ( Ballistic). On that day, three sealed parcels pertaining to the present case with forwarding letter were received in the office of FSL.
51.1 He further deposed that on 13.10.2008, one more sealed parcel pertaining to the present case alongwith forwarding letter was received in the office of FSL.
51.2 He deposed that on the opening of parcel no. 1, one deformed bullet was taken out and was marked as Ex. EB1. On opening the parcel no. 2, glass pieces were taken out, Marked as SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 72 Ex. GP1. On opening of parcel no. 3, glass pieces were taken out, Marked as Ex. GP2 and on opening of parcel no. 1-A, one seat cover was taken out and marked as Ex. C1.
51.3 He deposed that on the examination of the aforesaid exhibits, he found the deformed bullet Mark Ex. EB1 correspond to the bullet of 8mm/.315 inch cartridge and had not been discharged to a standard fire arm. The gun shot residue particles were detected on sample collected from the glass pieces Ex. GP2. He deposed that no gunshot residue particles were detected on samples collected from glass pieces Ex. GP1 and from seat cover Ex. C1. He deposed that the Ex EB1 is the part of ammunition as defined under Arms Act, 1959.
51.4 He deposed that after examination, the exhibits were duly sealed with seal of KCB, FSL Delhi and he had prepared detailed report Ex. PW41/A. 51.5 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that standard fire arm means factory made fire arm with standard specifications of that caliber /bore. He further replied that the deformed bullet i.e. case property might be fired from some country made pistol. Witness further replied that specification of country made pistol are not standard. He replied that no weapon of offence or other fire arm was put by IO before him.
51.6 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
52. PW-42 HC Satish:-He deposed that on 30.09.2008, he was posted as Constable at PS Vasant Kunj and on that day he SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 73 received copy of FIR of present case from Duty Officer ASI Dharampal at about 04.35 pm to 05.00 pm. He deposed that being a special messenger, he served the copy of FIR to the concerned Ld. MM and Senior officers. He deposed that he came back to the police station and his statement was recorded by the IO.
52.1 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
53. PW-43 Inspector O.P Thakur:- He deposed that on 24.03.2009, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj and he joined the investigation with the IO Inspector S.S Hassan. He deposed that an information was recorded from PS Vasant Vihar in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar regarding arrest of three accused namely Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malick and Amit Shukla and their disclosure about their involvement in the incident of the present FIR alongwith their one more associate namely Ajay Bhenga. 53.1 He deposed that pursuant to the said information, he alongwith IO Inspector S.S Hassan, Ct. Satish and some more police staff went to Police Station Vasant Vihar. He deposed that IO of the said FIR had handed over copy of disclosure statement of the said accused persons to IO Inspector S.S Hassan. He deposed that as per their disclosure statements, the said accused persons alongwith their associate Ajay Bhenga had murdered the deceased Saumaya Vishwanathan in the month of September 2008 in the night hours, on Nelson Mandela Road by firing on her. He deposed that he also disclosed the address of their associate and pursuant to that they went to the said address at SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 74 173, Village Munirka in the search of the said accused. He deposed that they reached there at about 02.30 to 03.00 pm on 24.03.2009, IO made efforts to join public persons in the investigation, but no one agreed.
53.2 He deposed that when they reached at the said house, they found accused Ajay Kumar there while hiding behind the curtains of the room. He deposed that IO Inspector SS Hassan had interrogated the said accused and arrested him and prepared memo Ex PW8/A. He deposed that he conducted personal search of the accused and prepared memo Ex. PW8/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW8/C. He deposed that accused was kept in muffled face after his arrest from his house. Witness identified the accused Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga S/o Akhtar Singh during his examination in the Court.
53.3 He deposed that accused Ajay Kumar led the police team to the place of occurrence and on his pointing out, the pointing out memo of place of occurrence Ex. PW4/K4 was prepared by Inspector S.S Hassan. He deposed that from the place of occurrence, accused was brought to the police station Vasant Kunj and from there he was taken to hospital for his medical examination. He deposed that IO recorded statement of witness. He deposed that accused Ajay Kumar was produced before the Court on the next day and was send to judicial custody.
53.4 He deposed that on 28.03.2009, he alongwith Inspector Randhir Singh, Ct. Deepak and some more police staff went to Patiala House Court for interrogation of accused Ravi SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 75 Kapoor, Baljeet Malick and Amit Shukla as their production warrants were sought by IO in the present FIR from the concerned Court. The said accused persons were produced in the Court in muffled face and the IO interrogated them and after their interrogation, with the permission of the Court, he arrested the said accused persons. He deposed that IO prepared arrest memo of accused Baljeet as Ex. PW4/C and his personal search memo as Ex. PW4/C1. He prepared arrest memo of accused Ravi Kapoor as Ex. PW4/A and personal search memo as Ex. PW4/A1. He deposed that IO prepared arrest memo of accused Amit Shukla as Ex. PW4/B and personal search memo as Ex. PW4/B1.
53.5 He deposed that IO also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malick as Ex. PW4/D, Ex. PW4/E and Ex. PW4/F respectively. Witness identified accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malick during his examination in the Court. 53.6 He deposed that IO had moved application for judicial TIP of the accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malick but they refused to join the TIP and thereafter, accused persons were remanded into judicial custody. He deposed that IO recorded his statement to that effect.
53.7 He deposed that on 04.04.2009, he joined the investigation of the case with Inspector Randhir Singh and went to Patiala House Court as IO had already moved application for seeking police custody of all four accused persons and they were SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 76 produced before the Court from judicial custody. He deposed that accused persons were remanded into police custody for 5-6 days and during the police remand, accused persons led the police team to the place of occurrence at Nelson Mandela Road and IO prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malick as Ex. PW4/K1, Ex. PW4/K2 and Ex. PW4/K3 respectively. He deposed that accused persons were again brought to Police Station and at that time, ASI Balwant Kumar I/C of the PCR, HC Suresh (Driver) and one public person ( name did not disclose by witness) had identified all the four accused persons in the police station.
53.8 He deposed that on 04.04.2009, IO had made interrogation from accused persons regarding the weapon used in the commission of offence and they had disclosed that they procured the same from some place in Janak Puri. He deposed that he alongwith IO and some police staff alongwith accused Ravi Kapoor and Amit Shukla went to the said place near Community Center, Janakpuri, but they could not find any clue of source of said weapon. He deposed that thereafter all the four accused persons were again brought to the police station and were put in the lock up. He deposed that IO recorded his statement to that effect.
53.9 On 05.04.2009, he again joined the investigation alongwith the IO and they took accused Ravi Kapoor and Amit Shukla from lock up and went to Car Market at Kishan Garh, SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 77 Masood Pur as they had disclosed that vehicle Wagon-R car used by them at the time of commission of offence were got repaired from the said Market but during inquiry, no clue could be gathered. He deposed that thereafter accused Ravi Kapoor led them to H.No. 302-A, Ground Floor, Janta Flats, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and got recovered the Zen car from the said flat. He deposed that Zen car was seized U/s 102 Cr.PC as it was a stolen car of FIR no 209/2008 PS Vasant Kunj and he deposed that seizure memo Ex. PW4/L of Zen car bearing no. HR12F-3611 and documents were prepared. Witness also identified the documents seized as Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C respectively. He deposed that IO also examined landlord namely Sunny Sohandani who informed them that Zen car was given to them by the accused Ravi Kapoor in lieu of payment due to him. He deposed that they returned to the police station and case property was deposited in Malkhana.
53.10 He deposed that in the police station, one public person namely Anil Kumar came who was also witness of this case and his statement was already recorded by previous IO and he identified the accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malick and Ajay @ Bhenga as the offenders of shooting the deceased girl in her car. IO also recorded his detailed statement in that regard.
53.11 On 06.04.2009, he alongwith Ct. Deepak, HC Shashi Bhushan and Inspector Randhir Singh went to Badarpur Border and IO was having secret information regarding the arrival of accused Ajay Sethi in a Santro Zing car with Haryana number SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 78 and they reached there at around 12.30 am and barricaded the road going towards Faridabad and started checking the vehicles. He deposed that at around 02.30 pm, one Santro Zing Car with Haryana number 2387 golden colour was stopped at barricades and driver of the said car was interrogated who disclosed his name as Ajay Sethi. He deposed that during interrogation, he disclosed his address at Sector 14 Faridabad, Haryana. He deposed that IO checked the details of the vehicle and found it to be stolen car for which an FIR was found to be registered at PS Lajpat Nagar, Delhi and number plate of Haryana number was found to be faked.
53.12 IO seized the said car and prepared memo Ex. PW4/M. He also identified the said car. He deposed that accused Ajay Sethi was arrested and memo Ex. PW4/M was prepared. He deposed that personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex PW4/N1. He deposed that disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by the IO as Ex. PW4/O. 53.13 He deposed that pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Ajay Sethi, he was taken to parking area Sector 14, Faridabad, Haryana and from there, he got recovered one more stolen Wagon-R car of silver colour bearing no. HR27A-4783 and IO seized the same and prepared memo Ex. PW4/P. He deposed that thereafter, they all returned to the police station and case property were deposited in Malkhana. He deposed that IO recorded statements of witnesses who had joined the investigation. He deposed that IO further interrogated the accused Ravi Kapoor and Ajay @ Bhenga and recorded their SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 79 supplementary disclosure statements Ex. PW43/A and Ex. PW43/B respectively.
53.14 Accused Ajay Sethi was produced before the Court and was send to Judicial custody and thereafter, further investigation was entrusted to ACP Bhisam Singh. 53.15 He deposed that on 21.04.2009, he again joined the investigation with the IO ACP Bhisam Singh and on the instruction of the IO, he moved an application before the Court of Ld. MM PS Vasant Vihar for transfer of weapon of offence seized in the FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar to Police Station Vasant Kunj on behalf of the IO and the said application Ex. PW43/C was allowed. He deposed that he collected the weapon of offence from PS Vasant Vihar in sealed condition and again deposited the same in the PS Vasant Kunj vide Road Certificate No. 33/21/09 Ex. PW43/D in the Malkhana and he also made relevant DD entry Ex. PW43/E. 53.16 On 13.05.2009, on the direction of the IO, he alongwith HC Shashi Bhushan collected the case property from Malkhana i.e. one sealed pullanda with seal of SS and one sealed Jaar with seal of KCV FSL Delhi and Wagon-R Car Silver colour to deposit the same with FSL, Rohini vide Road Certificate No. 78/21/09 Ex. PW43/F. He deposed that he deposited the said case property in sealed condition with FSL and obtained acknowledgement Ex. PW43/G. On return to the Police Station, he deposited acknowledgement slip with the MHC(M). 53.17 On 22.06.2009, IO ACP Bhisam Singh filed the chargesheet before the concerned Court and investigation qua SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 80 Section 3 of the MCOC Act was pending with the IO. On 05.10.2009, he again joined the investigation with the IO ACP Bhisam Singh and on his directions, he visited to FSL, Rohini, Delhi with Authority Letter to receive FSL report on his behalf and he collected two FSL reports bearing no. 2009/F-1566 and FSL No. 2008/SOC-042 and deposited the sealed report with MHC(M) PS Vasant Kunj. After relevant entries, the same were handed over to IO ACP Bhisam Singh.
53.18 On 12.01.2010, he again joined the investigation of this case with HC Shashi Bhushan, Ct. Deepak and accompanied the IO ACP Mohd Ali to Sector 16, Faridabad, Haryana where they visited to Branch of ICICI Bank and collected account statement of accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sethi and two loan account statements/documents alongwith forwarding letter from the Deputy Branch Manager Sh. Ashish Aggarwal and handed over the same to IO who seized the same and prepared memo Ex. PW43/H. 53.19 He deposed that they went to the Branch of HDFC Bank and he collected two account statements of accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sethi with forwarding letter of Branch Manager and handed over the same to the IO who seized the same with seizure memo vide Ex. PW43/I. He deposed that IO also examined Branch Managers of these above two banks and recorded their statements.
53.20 He deposed that they also went to the house of accused Ajay Sethi where he was residing as tenant at Sector 14, H.No. 1117, Faridabad and IO examined the landlord Ranjeet SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 81 Dadwal and recorded his statement and thereafter, they returned to the police station.
53.21 He deposed that on 23.01.2010, he received account opening form of accused Ajay Sethi from both the banks i.e. ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank, Faridabad, Haryana through post and handed over the same to IO ACP Mohd Ali who seized the same and prepared memo Ex. PW43/L. He also identified the above mentioned documents as Ex. PW75/A, Ex. PW75/C, Ex. 90/A and covering letter of both the banks as Ex. PW43/M and Ex. PW43/N. He deposed that the IO recorded his statement in that regard.
53.22 On 12.02.2010, he again joined the investigation with the IO of the case and handed over him the certified copy of 13 criminal cases against the accused Ajay Sethi which he had collected from Delhi and Dehradoon in compliance of his directions. He deposed that the certified copy of all 13 criminal cases seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW43/O. 53.23 On 13.03.2010, he again joined the investigation of this case and he alongwith IO and staff went to Patiala House Court, Delhi. Accused persons were produced in the Court from judicial custody and IO interrogated the accused persons Ajay Sethi, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malick, Ajay Kumar after permission of the Court and all the four accused persons were arrested U/s 3 of the MOCOC Act in his presence and memos Ex. PW43/P1 to Ex. PW43/P8 were prepared by IO. He deposed that IO obtained the police custody remand of five days of all the four accused persons from the Court and during police custody remand of SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 82 these accused persons, he joined the investigation of the case with the IO on 11.03.2010, 12.03.2010, 13.03.2010 and on 14.03.2010. He deposed that IO had recorded disclosure statements of four accused persons namely Ajay Sethi, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malick and Ajay Kumar on the above said dates as Ex. PW43/P9 to Ex. PW43/P12.
53.24 On 15.03.2010, he again joined the investigation of the case with the IO and all the four accused persons were produced before the Court and they were send to Judicial custody and IO recorded his statement to that effect. 53.25 On 05.04.2010, he again joined the investigation of this case and had given five certified copies of criminal cases to IO ACP Mohd Ali which were seized by him and IO recorded his statement.
53.26 On 05.05.2010, he again joined the investigation of the case and handed over details of mobile number 9891589500 which was belonging to accused Ajay Sethi to the IO of the case after procuring from IDEA Cellular Company and same was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW43/R and its covering letter Ex. PW85/A and CDRs and CAF Ex. PW85/B. IO recorded his statement to that effect. He deposed that he had handed over all the documents collected during investigation by him at the direction of the IO to the IO soon after receiving the same.
53.27 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Baljeet Malick and Amit Shukla, he replied that he was associated with the investigation of the case with all the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 83 investigating officer since 24.03.2009 till the filing of the chargesheet. He replied that no public witnesses were asked to be present while recording the disclosure statements of the accused persons. Witness denied the suggestion that accused persons had not disclosed anything or their signatures were obtained on blank sheets and falsely converted into proceedings papers. Witness denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation at any point of time or he signed all the memos while sitting in the police station at the instance of respective IOs.
53.28 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that he was never handed over the investigation of present FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj. He voluntarily clarified that at that time he was Sub Inspector. He replied that he was not posted at PS Vasant Kunj at the time of incident of murder of Saumya Vishwanathan.
53.29 He replied that before the disclosure statement dated 24.03.2009, of the accused Ravi Kapoor in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, the police official/IO of the present case did not have any clue in respect of the involvement of offenders in the present case. Witness denied the suggestion that police officials were under pressure of Media to solve the present case. 53.30 He replied that place of incident of murder as reflected in pointed out memo Ex. PW4/A1 was already within the knowledge of police officials and same was not bearing signature of any public persons. Witness denied the suggestion that pointing out memo was prepared at the police station and not SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 84 at the spot.
53.31 He replied that accused persons were brought to the police station on police custody remand and they were not brought in muffled face. He replied that he could not tell whether ASI Balwant Kumar (PCR), HC Suresh (Driver) and one public person, who identified accused persons at the police station, were eye witnesses of the present case or not. 53.32 He replied that he alongwith IO Inspector Randhir Singh and other staff took accused Ravi Kapoor with other accused persons to Janakpuri to verify and to make inquiry about the source of weapon of offence used in the crime. He replied that he remained associated with the investigation throughout after arrest of accused persons. He replied that Zen car recovered was not used at the time of commission of offence of murder and Zen car was not recovered from the accused Ravi Kapoor. 53.33 He replied that perhaps on 06.04.2009, Anil Kumar came to the police station and identified the accused persons. IO had recorded statement of Anil Kumar in his presence and IO had not asked Anil Kumar to get his statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC in his presence. During the period between 28.03.2009 to 06.04.2009, Anil Kumar had not came to the police station in his presence to say that he can identify the offenders of this case. He denied the suggestion that no such person had ever came to the police station and depose against the accused persons. 53.34 He replied that no information was received by him or in his presence with respect to invocation of provision of MCOC Act against the accused persons. He replied that accused SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 85 Ravi Kapoor used to stay in tenanted premises at Sarita Vihar. He did not remember if the fact regarding accused Ravi Kapoor was possessing any movable or immovable property in his name was revealed during investigation of this case. He did not know whether there was any balance in the account of accused Ravi Kapoor at the time of alleged incident. Witness denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation of this case with the IO at any point of time or signed documents while sitting in the police station at the instance of the IO. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
53.35 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, witness replied that on 24.03.2009, when the information was received regarding FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, he was present in PS Vasant Kunj and information was firstly received by Duty officer of PS Vasant Kunj and he was informed by IO /SHO of the present FIR. He replied that disclosure statement of the accused persons in the FIR No. 69/2009 were not recorded in his presence. He further replied that IO had not recorded disclosure statements of accused persons in the present FIR before starting the line of investigation on the basis of disclosure statements of the accused persons made in FIR No. 69/2009. He further replied that none of the accused persons accompanied them in the search of the accused Ajay @ Bhenga and his address was available in the disclosure statements of the accused persons recorded in FIR No. 69/2009. He replied that accused Ajay @ Bhenga was arrested from the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 86 first floor of the building and he was alone at that time. IO did not recorded statement of any police witness or public witness at the time of arrest of accused at the spot and disclosure statement of accused Ajay @ Bhenga was recorded at the spot itself. 53.36 He replied that Anil Kumar had not met him prior to 06.04.2009 and he came in the evening at about 06.00 to 07.00 pm and at that time all the accused persons were present in the same room in the police station together. He denied the suggestion that Anil Kumar had not identified the accused persons in police station or that he did not visit the police station on 06.04.2009.
53.37 He replied that he did not know at what time the secret information about arrival of the accused Ajay was received by the IO Inspector Randhir Singh on 06.04.2009. Accused Ajay Sethi had arrived at barricades in the Santro car after about 40 to 45 minutes of placing the barricades. Witness denied the suggestion that accused Ajay Sethi was not apprehended in the manner as disclosed in the examination in chief and no Santro car was recovered from the accused Ajay Sethi. Witness replied that the they had not gone to the house of accused Ajay Sethi. The disclosure statement of the accused Ajay Sethi was recorded at the spot of his arrest. He replied that they left the spot of arrest of the accused Ajay Sethi at about 3.30 to 4.00 am. 53.38 He replied that they reached at the parking of Sector 14 Faridabad, Haryana at about 04.00 to 04.15 am. Witness denied the suggestion that no Wagon-R car was recovered at the instance of accused Ajay Sethi. Witness denied the suggestion SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 87 that he was never associated with the investigation of the present case at any point of time or he deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
54 PW-44 Sh. Paramjeet Singh S/o Late Sh Charan Singh:- He deposed that accused Ravi Kapoor came to him on 01.02.2009 and had requested the house on rent and he rented of his first floor of his house to Ravi Kapoor and accused Ravi Kapoor resided as tenant in his premises at F-1, 76/77, Madangir, New Delhi alongwith his wife Priya Kapoor and his son at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. He deposed that accused had resided as tenant in the said premises for 1- 1 ½ months. He deposed that accused was arrested by the police in a murder of some case. After the arrest of accused Ravi Kapoor, his wife resided in the said premises for about 15 days and thereafter, she left the said premises. He deposed that accused used to use two mobile phones and he also used to use bullet motorcycle silver colour having registration number of Delhi which he did not disclose. He deposed that wife of the accused was also using one mobile phone and later on police had taken the said bullet motorcycle and household articles were removed by wife of the accused Ravi Kapoor. He identified the accused Ravi Kapoor in the Court.
54.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, he replied that he did not remember the mobile numbers which Ravi Kapoor was using at that time when he was tenant in his house. Police did not seize anything from the tenanted room in his presence. He voluntarily replied that it was SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 88 seized in the presence of his father.
54.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
55. PW-45 Sh. P.T Kuria Kose:- He deposed that he was the owner of H.No. 329, K Block, Gali No. 6, Rangpuri Road, Mahipalpur and in the month of November 2006, he let out ground floor of the said house to one Mahender at the rent of Rs. 5000/- per month and Mahender resided as tenant alongwith his mother, wife and two children.
55.1 He deposed that he was inquired by the police and he disclosed to the police that one Ravi used to visit the house of Mahender and Ravi was brother in law of Mahender. Witness did not identify the accused Ravi in the Court.
55.2 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
56. PW-46 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel:- He produced the photocopy of Customer Application Form in respect of mobile no. 9958033349 and 9717514407 registered in the name of Ravi Kapoor and Gainda respectively. He deposed that original CAF of the mobile phones were not traceable in the record being old record. He identified the scan copy of CAF alongwith ID proof of Ravi Kapoor S/o Pritam Kapoor as Mark PW46/A and scan copy of Customer Application Form of Gainda S/o Malkhan Singh as Mark PW46/B. He deposed that he did not have knowledge whether call detail record of the above mentioned mobile phones were collected by SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 89 the police or not from his office.
56.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor and other accused persons, witness replied that he did not have knowledge about the user of above mentioned mobile numbers which were in the names of Ravi Kapoor and Gainda.
57. PW-47 Inspector Heera Lal:- He deposed that during the year 2008-2011, he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Neb Sarai and during that period he was instructed by IO ACP Bhisam Singh to collect the certified copy of FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt dated 09.03.2009 registered U/s 397/394/34 IPC and he collected the certified copy of said FIR and handed over the same to the IO ACP Bhisam Singh.
57.1 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, he denied the suggestion that he never received copy of FIR bearing no. 63/2009 nor delivered it to PS Vasant Kunj to the IO of the case.
57.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
58. PW-48 Raju Chabhara S/o Sh. Amar Singh Chahbara:- He deposed that on 18.06.2012, he lodged the FIR at PS Naraina regarding theft of his Maruti 800 car White colour bearing no. DL8C-2261 which was stolen from outside the Gurudwara and his FIR was lodged as FIR No. 126/2002 regarding theft of his car. He deposed that later on, car was recovered and same was released to him on superdari. He SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 90 deposed that the value of the car at that time was about Rs. One Lakh. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO of the case.
58.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, he replied that an FIR no. 126/2002 was an unnamed FIR and he was never called by police at PS Vasant Kunj in connection with the investigation of the present FIR. He further replied that his statement was never recorded by the police in the present FIR.
58.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
59. PW-49 ACP Palvinder Singh:- He deposed that on 23.03.2009, he was posted as SHO PS Vasant Vihar and he was present at his office and at about 12.30 pm, one secret informer came to his office and informed that three accused persons wanted in FIR No. 69/2009 would go towards Vasant Kunj in Santro car no. HR18C-3409 via Nelson Mendela Road for committing the crime. He deposed that thereafter, he called the IO of the said FIR and shared the information with him. He deposed that he also asked the IO of the case to constitute a raiding team to nab the accused persons. He deposed that the said information was also reduced in Daily Diary of PS Vasant Vihar by him. He deposed that IO constituted a raiding team comprising of deponent, Inspector Ashok Kumar, SI Neeraj, SI Upender and few more police officials.
59.1 He deposed that they reached at Nelson Mandela Road and after putting the barricades, they started checking the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 91 vehicles at 01.30 pm. He deposed that at about 04.00 pm, one Santro Car HR18C-3409, grey colour was seen coming from the side of Vasant Vihar and secret informer had pointed out that it was the same car in which accused persons were travelling. He deposed that the said car was intercepted /stopped and driver of the said car was asked to park the car on the side of the road. He deposed that after the car was parked on the road side, they found three persons in the car including the driver of the said car. He deposed that the name of the driver of the car was revealed as Ravi Kapoor, the person sitting besides the driver seat revealed his name as Amit Shukla and the third person sitting on the rear seat revealed his name as Baljeet. He deposed that all the three persons were overpowered and apprehended. He deposed that on frisking of accused Ravi Kapoor, one country made pistol was recovered. He deposed that from the right pocket of the pant of accused Ravi Kapoor, one card board box containing three live cartridges and one fired bullet were recovered. He deposed that IO of case FIR no. 69/2009 had prepared the sketch of recovered pistol and bullets and seized the same and prepared memo regarding the same. He deposed that all the said accused persons were arrested in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. 59.2 He deposed that on the next date i.e. on 24.03.2009, accused Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet and Amit Shukla were interrogated and they made disclosure statements regarding their involvement of murder in the present FIR vide their disclosure statement Ex. PW39/C to Ex. PW39/E. 59.3 He identified the accused Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet and SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 92 Amit Shukla during his examination in the Court. He deposed that IO of the FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar gave information regarding the disclosure of said accused persons and about their involvement in the murder of FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj to the concerned IO. He deposed that his statement was recorded by Inspector Randhir Singh, IO of the present FIR on 03.04.2009.
59.4 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, two supplementary statements of accused Ravi Kapoor were recorded by the IO and both were recorded on 24.09.2009. He further replied that in first disclosure statement of accused Ravi Kapoor in FIR no. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar dated 23.03.2009, he did not disclose his involvement in any other offence including the present case. He further replied that both the supplementary disclosure statements dated 24.03.2009, were recorded during the police custody of accused in PS Vasant Vihar in the handwriting of the IO Inspector Atul Kumar of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. He further replied that he did not know the date when pistol which was recovered from accused Ravi Kapoor was handed over to the IO of the present FIR. He denied the suggestion that accused Ravi Kapoor never made any disclosure statement to the police in respect of his involvement in any other case. He also denied the suggestion that police took the signatures of accused persons on blank papers and fabricated the same in the form of disclosure statements to solve their unsolved cases.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 9359.5 During cross examination on behalf of accused Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla, witness replied that no public person was associated at the time of recording of supplementary disclosure statements of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that no disclosure statements were made by the accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik in respect of their involvement in any case. He further denied the suggestion that police took their signatures on blank papers and fabricated the same in the form of their disclosure statements to solve their unsolved cases.
59.6 Accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi opted not to cross examine the witness.
60. PW-50 SI Devender:- He deposed that in the year 2007, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Malviya Nagar and he was the IO of FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar. He deposed that accused Ravi Kapoor was arrested in FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony and accused disclosed about his involvement in the FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar. He deposed that accused got recovered the case property i.e. computer and hard disc of the FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar in case of the FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony. He deposed that he formally arrested the accused Ravi Kapoor in FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar and collected seizure memo and copy of disclosure statement of FIR No. 71/2007 and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He deposed that after completion of investigation of FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar, he filed the chargesheet against the accused Ravi SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 94 Kapoor.
60.1 Witness identified the accused Ravi Kapoor during his examination in the Court and he also identified the document of FIR No. 168/2007 U/s 454/380/411 IPC PS Malviya Nagar titled as State Vs. Ravi Kapoor Ex. PW56/A. 60.2 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that FIR No. 168/2007 was not named FIR and prior to disclosure statement of accused in the FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony, they did not had any clue with respect to the involvement of the accused Ravi Kapoor in this case. He also replied that accused Ravi Kapoor was already acquitted by the Ld. trial Court in FIR No. 168/2007. Witness denied the suggestion that investigation of the said case was carried out in mechanical manner. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
61. PW-51 Inspector Manoj Kumar (Record produced by PW-97 Ms. Archana Saini J.A):- He is the witness regarding the investigation of FIR No. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj regarding theft of the vehicle Tata Sumo UP07F- 9142 registered on the complaint of A.K Nathani. However, during examination of the witness on 22.03.2019, it came into the notice that certified copy of record of the FIR No. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj were not traceable with judicial file and later on when prosecution failed to produce the certified copy of the record, vide order dated 21.03.2023, the judicial record of the FIR No. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj were summoned and prosecution examined witness Ms. Archana Saini J.A Record SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 95 Room Criminal, Saket Courts, as PW97 and she produced the record of the FIR No. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj as Ex. PW97/P1. Witness Inspector Manoj Kumar was accordingly dropped and in his place witness PW-97 Ms. Archana Saini, J.A was examined. This fact is noted in the ordersheet dated 22.03.2019 and ordersheet dated 03.04.2023.
62. PW-52 Inspector Rajeev Kumar:- He deposed that in the year 2009, he was posted as SI in PS Meharuli. On that day, as per direction of the IO, he collected certified copy of criminal cases of accused Ravi Kapoor in following cases:- (1) FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar, (2) FIR No. 565/2006 PS Vasant Vihar, (3) FIR No. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj, (4) FIR No. 126/2002 PS Naraina, (5) FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony, (6) FIR No. 168/2008 PS Malviya Nagar, (7) FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj (present case), (8) FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and same were handed over to the IO.
62.1 He further deposed that on the direction of the IO, he also collected certified copy of the FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar regarding order of cognizance and order on framing of charge and handed over the same to the IO.
62.2 The record regarding the above mentioned cases which were to be proved by this witness was brought before the Court by other witnesses directly or through certified copy, so witness was tendered for cross examination vide order dated 25.04.2023 and this fact is duly mentioned in ordersheet dated 25.04.2023.
62.3 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 96 witness.
63. PW-53 ASI Shree Kumar:- He deposed that in the year 2002, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Vasant Vihar and he received information regarding arrest of accused Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kumar in FIR No. 28/2002 PS Special Cell Lodhi Colony. He deposed that they disclosed about their involvement in FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar and the motorcycle in FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar was recovered by the IO of FIR No. 28/2002 PS Special Cell Lodhi Colony. He deposed that he received the aforesaid motorcycle from IO of the FIR No. 28/2002 PS Special Cell Lodhi Colony and seized the same in FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar. He deposed that he formally arrested accused Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kumar in FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar and deposited the motorcycle in the Malkhana of PS Vasant Vihar. He deposed that he had filed the chargesheet against the accused Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kumar in FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar. He identified the accused Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kumar in the Court. He also identified the document of FIR no. 165/2002 U/s 379/411/482/34 IPC of PS Vasant Vihar as Ex. PW63/A. 63.1 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that in the complaint of FIR No. 165/2002, complainant did not mention the name of the accused. Witness denied the suggestion that he investigated the case in mechanical manner. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
63.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 97 witness.
64. PW-54 Inspector Atul Verma:- He deposed that on 23.03.2009, he was posted as Inspector Investigation at PS Vasant Vihar and Inspector Palvinder Chahal was SHO at that time. He deposed that on that day deponent was investigating the case FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. He deposed that on that day, SHO had received a secret information that accused wanted in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar who were three in numbers would come in the car bearing no. HR18C-3409 and would go to Vasant Kunj via Nelson Mandela Marg to commit some crime. He deposed that SHO immediately called to the deponent and shared the information of secret informer to him and asked him to arrange a raiding party. He deposed that said information was recorded in daily diary vide DD No. 13-A dated 23.03.2009 at 12.55 pm. 64.1 He deposed that he alongwith Inspector Palvinder Chahal, SI Upender, SI Neeraj, Ct. Tara Singh, Ct. Love Kumar, Ct. Mahesh, Ct. Rajender, Ct. Upender, Ct. Jaspal, Ct. Jasbir, Ct. Raj Kumar and secret informer went at Nelson Mandela Marg Police picket at about 01.30 pm. He deposed that thereafter, at about 04.00 pm, the secret informer pointed out the car bearing no. HR18C-3409 and the same was checked and intercepted immediately. He deposed that the staff immediately apprehended the occupants of the car. Three persons were sitting in the car whose names later on disclosed as Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik and accused Ravi Kapoor was driving the car. He deposed that accused Amit Shukla was sitting besides the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 98 driver seat and on the back seat accused Baljeet Malik was sitting. He deposed that they conducted the cursory search of the accused and frisking of the accused persons and one loaded country made katta was recovered from accused Ravi Kapoor alongwith three live cartridges and one fired cartridge. He deposed that during the search of other two accused persons, nothing was recovered.
64.2 He deposed that he prepared sketch of the country made katta and cartridges and seized the country made katta and fired cartridge and prepared memo Mark X ( Ex. PW54/A). He deposed that these accused persons were arrested in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and their disclosure statements were recorded. Witness identified the sketch of country made pistol and cartridges as Ex. PW54/B and Ex. PW54/C. 64.3 He deposed that on 24.03.2009, he recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla regarding their involvement in the FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj Ex. PW39/C to Ex. PW39/E and he had informed to SHO PS Vasant Kunj regarding the involvement of accused persons in the FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj. Witness identified accused Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla during his examination in the Court. Witness also identified the country made pistol alongwith two live cartridges as Ex. PW54/P1.
64.4 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla, witness replied that no public witness was associated at the time of arrest, disclosure and SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 99 recovery conducted by him in FIR No. 69/2009. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. He denied the suggestion that signatures of the accused persons were taken on blank sheet and same was converted into the document in police case FIR No. 481/2008.
64.5 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
65. PW-55 Sh. Gainda:- He produced his Voter I Card and its copy as Ex. PW55/A. He deposed that he had only one mobile phone connection which he used to keep at his home and he obtained the said connection on the basis of his ID and he had no other phone connection. He did not know any person namely Ravi Kapoor. He deposed that he did not use mobile phone no. 9717514407. He deposed that he never used this number till date. He deposed that he did not know how his ID and his photograph appears in CAF of mobile phone no. 9717514407 Mark PW46/D and he never applied or obtained any such mobile number on his ID.
65.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, he replied that he did not have any knowledge about the present case neither he joined investigation of this case nor his statement was recorded by police in any police station or at home.
65.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
66. PW 56 Sh. Gautam Bhunia, Judicial Assistant, Record Room Criminal, South District, Saket:- He produced SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 100 the complete judicial record Ex. PW56/A of FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar registered U/s 454/380/411 IPC titled as "
State Vs. Ravi Kapoor" including the ordersheet dated 04.04.2007 regarding filing of the chargesheet, ordersheet dated 04.07.2007 regarding cognizance order by the Court, ordersheet and judgment dated 10.10.2011. and other documents and ordersheet of judicial proceedings.
66.1 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
67. PW-57 Ms. Shobha Bharthwal, Judicial Assistant from the Court of Ld. MM Saket Court:- She produced the complete judicial file /record of the FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony registered U/s 419/420/170/171 IPC titled as " State Vs. Ravi Kapoor" including the judgment dated 17.09.2016 and order on sentence dated 15.10.2016 collectively exhibited as Ex. PW57/A and other documents and ordersheet of judicial proceedings
67.1 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
68. PW-58 Sh Anil Kumar, Judicial Assistant from the Court of Ld. MM Patiala House Courts, New Delhi:- He produced the complete judicial record of FIR No. 28/2002 PS Special Cell registered U/s 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC titled as " State Vs. Ravi Kapoor" including the order on cognizance, chargesheet against accused Ravi Kapoor, seizure of motorcycle DL7SU-5335 in FIR No. 28/2002 PS Defence Colony, seizure of Maruti Car UP14A-3527 in FIR No. 28/2002 PS Defence SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 101 Colony, seizure of motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor having number plate HR16A-7860 (actual number UP32R-8076), seizure of motorcycle UP15M-3688 Hero Honda Passion, seizure of RC of Maruti 800 UP14A-3547 and other documents and ordersheet of judicial proceedings and charge. 68.1 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
69. PW-59 Sh Ashim Khurana:- He deposed that on 03.12.2006, theft was committed in his house at Munirka Enclave, New Delhi and he lodged the FIR bearing no. 565/2006 PS Vasant Vihar (certified copy of the record of the referred case was not attached and this fact was mentioned in the testimony of witness dated 04.04.2019).
69.1 During cross examination, witness replied that the FIR was lodged against unknown person and his statement was not recorded by police.
70. PW-60 Sh. Ms. Swarn Lata Ikka:- She produced the complete judicial record Ex. PW60/A of FIR No. 209/2008 PS Vasant Kunj registered U/s 379/411/468/482/34 IPC titled as "
State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors." including the arrest memos of accused Amit Shukla, Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Singh and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay. He deposed that as per record, accused persons were acquitted vide judgment dated 16.09.2015. 70.1 She also produced the complete judicial record Ex. PW60/B of the FIR No. 8/2009 PS Vasant Kunj U/s 302/364/397/411/34 IPC titled as " State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors.". She deposed that as per the record of the file of FIR No. SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 102 8/2009, accused persons were held guilty and convicted vide judgment dated 26.08.2016 and order on sentence dated 01.10.2016.
70.2 During cross examination witness admitted that the accused persons were later on acquitted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CRLA No. 1150/2016.
71. PW-61 Sh. Maneet Tikku:- He deposed that he was running a travel agency. He deposed that he was complainant in FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar regarding theft of his computer from office at K Block, Saket, New Delhi. He identified his complaint Ex. PW56/A.
71.1 During cross examination, he replied that he did not know the fact of the FIR No. 481/2008 and he was never enquired by the police in connection with the said FIR.
72. PW-62 Ms. Chetali Judicial Assistant Record Room Criminal, Dwarka South-West, Delhi:- She produced the complete judicial record Ex. PW62/A of FIR No. 63/2009, PS Delhi Cantt registered U/s 382/323/34 IPC dated 09.03.2009 titled as " State Vs. Amit Kumar Shukla & Ors." including order on charge U/s 392/394/34 IPC dated 17.08.2009, ordersheet dated 21.11.2012 regarding conviction of accused persons and order on sentence dated 03.01.2012. She also produced the arrest memo of accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Kumar Shukla and Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga. She also produced the order of Ld. Sessions Court dated 16.04.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2012 in which the conviction of the convict Ravi Kapoor was upheld and only sentenced was modified to the period of already undergone.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 103Other convicts Amit Kumar Shukla and Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga had not challenged the judgment and order on sentence. 72.1. Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
73. PW-63 Sh Vikram Singh, Junior Judicial Assistant, Record Room, Criminal, Saket Courts, New Delhi:-
He produced the complete judicial file Ex.PW63/A of FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar U/s 379/411/482/34 IPC titled as "State Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." He also produced the arrest memo of accused Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kumar and order on cognizance dated 09.09.2002 and charge dated 14.11.2002. 73.1 He also produced the record of FIR No. 565/2006 PS Vasant Vihar registered U/s 457/380/411 IPC titled as " Stave Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors." exhibited as Ex. PW63/B. He also produced the arrest memo of accused Ravi Kapoor, order on charge dated 11.05.2007 and judgment/order of acquittal of accused Ravi Kapoor.
73.2 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
74. PW-64 Retd. SI M.Y Khan:- He deposed that on 22.09.2009, he was posted at PS Delhi Cantt as ASI. ACP Bhisam Singh came in IO Room and had joined in the investigation of the FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and he made inquiry from him regarding the accused persons arrested by him in the FIR No. 63/2009, U/s 382/34 IPC PS Delhi Cantt. He deposed that he told ACP Bhisam Singh that accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Ajay Kumar and Amit SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 104 Shukla were formally arrested by him in FIR No. 63/2009 on the basis of disclosure statements made by them in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. He deposed that the knife which was used by accused persons while committing the crime in FIR No. 63/2009, was recovered in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and was lying deposited in Malkhana of PS Vasant Vihar.
74.1 After arrest of the accused persons in FIR No. 63/2009, all the three accused persons refused to participate in TIP. He deposed that complainant Ranjeet S/o Sh. Lalla had identified all the three accused persons correctly during the investigation as the persons, who committed crime with him. He deposed that after completing the investigation of the FIR No. 63/2009, chargesheet was prepared against the accused persons U/s 392/394/34 IPC and was filed in the Court. He also identified the document of FIR No. 63/2009 as Ex. PW62/A during his examination in the Court. He also identified the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Ajay Kumar in the Court during his examination.
74.2 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that he did not remember due to lapse of time that on which date, he identified the Santro car on television or its colour and particulars. He did not remember the date of recording of disclosure statements of the accused persons in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. Witness denied the suggestion that the case was planted upon the accused persons or they were falsely implicated by showing false recovery. He replied that he did not seize the Santro car in FIR No. 63/2009.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 105He replied that no recovery could have been effected in FIR No. 63/2009 at the instance of accused Ravi Kapoor. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
74.3 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, witness denied the suggestion that ACP Bhisam Singh did not visit to his office or he did not join the investigation of FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj at any point of time. He did not inform to ACP that accused persons were involved in FIR No. 63/2009 and FIR No. 69/2009. ACP did not seize any document from him pertaining to FIR No.63/2009 and FIR No. 69/2009. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
74.4 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla, witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
75. PW-65 Retd. SI Randhir Singh:- He deposed that on 22.09.2009, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj as Sub Inspector.
75.1 He deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted at PS Vasant Vihar as Sub Inspector and he was the IO of the FIR No. 565/2006 PS Vasant Vihar in which he had arrested accused Ravi Kapoor on the basis of the disclosure statement in the FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony. He deposed that he got transferred the recovered case property in FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony through RC in PS Vasant Vihar. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared against SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 106 accused Ravi Kapoor. He identified the accused Ravi Kapoor during his examination in the Court. He also identified the documents of FIR No. 565/2006 PS Vasant Vihar Ex. PW63/B. 75.2 Accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, Baljeet and Amit Shukla opted not to cross examine the witness. 75.3 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that ACP recorded his statement in PS Vasant Kunj when he came there. He replied that FIR No. 565/2009 was not a named FIR. Witness denied the suggestion that accused falsely implicated in this case. Witness denied the suggestion that investigation was carried out in mechanical manner or he deposed falsely.
76. PW-66 Sh. Subhash Chand Yadav:- He was the owner of vehicle white colour Tavera Car No. HR55HT-7278 and transporter by profession. He deposed that in the intervening night of 07/08-01/2009, the said vehicle left from Ages Company with driver Nadeem to drop the employees and the driver did not return back to the company. He deposed that he received information through phone that driver was not picking up the phone. He deposed that driver and the vehicle was searched but could not be traced. He deposed that he informed to the police. He deposed that later on he came to know that his driver was murdered and he had identified him through his photograph which was pasted at Mahipal Pur Police Chowki. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in the said case. He deposed that his statement was also recorded by the police in present FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 10776.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, he replied that he did not know the fact of the FIR no. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj and he never went to PS Vasant Kunj to join the investigation nor his statement was recorded in the present case. He further replied that he did not know whether accused persons in FIR No. 8/2009 were acquitted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Witness denied that he deposed falsely. 76.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
77. PW-67 Retd. ACP Shah Noor Khan:- He deposed that in the year 2009, he was posted in DIU South district as Inspector and the investigation of the FIR No. 8/2009 PS Vasant Kunj U/s 302/201 IPC was entrusted to him. He deposed that in the present case, FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj, wherein murder of lady Saumya Vishwanathan was committed, the accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay @ Bhenga and Ajay Sethi were arrested and they disclosed about their involvement in committing the crime in case FIR No. 08/2009 PS Vasant Kunj which was investigated by him.
77.1 He deposed that he arrested all the three accused persons after taking permission of the Court in FIR no. 08/2009 PS Vasant Kunj. He deposed that on completion of investigation, chargesheet was prepared and filed against these three accused persons and one fourth associate Mohd. Arif had absconded. He deposed that later on, after his arrest supplementary chargesheet was filed. He identified the accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Ajay Sethi and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay @ Bhenga.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 10877.2 He deposed that in FIR No. 08/2009 PS Vasant Kunj, accused persons were held guilty. He identified the document of the chargesheet and FIR No. 08/2009 PS Vasant Kunj as Ex. PW60/B as the same was filed by him.
77.3 During cross examination on behalf of the accused, witness replied that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence of the Ld. trial Court was set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 10.10.2018.
77.4 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that he did not made any inquiry regarding income and assets of the accused persons after their arrest in FIR No. 08/2009 PS Vasant Kunj. Witness denied the suggestion that he conducted the investigation in mechanical manner and wrongly arrested the accused Ravi Kapoor in FIR No. 08/2009.
77.5 Accused Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla opted not to cross examine the witness.
78. PW-68 Retd. Inspector Suresh Sharma:- He deposed that on 08.02.2007, he being IO of FIR No. 71/2007 U/s 419/420/468/471/34 IPC and U/s 5 of the Arms Act PS Defence Colony arrested the accused persons Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kataria on the basis of secret information. He deposed that at the time of arrest of the accused persons, one Maruti Car, one revolver made in England, five live cartridges and one fire cartridge, one wireless set of Motrolla, two Delhi Police Badges, one Patch, one forged ID Card of the Delhi Police of the accused Ravi Kapoor were recovered from the accused Ravi Kapoor and SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 109 one button actuated knife was recovered from accused Amit Kataria. He deposed that further investigation of that case was carried out by SI Manoj Kumar. He identified the accused Ravi Kapoor during his examination in the Court and he also identified the documents pertaining to FIR No. 91/2007 PS Defence Colony as Ex. PW57/A. 78.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from accused Ravi Kapoor or he was acquitted for rest of the offences except the allegation of offence punishable U/s 25 of Arms Act. He denied the suggestion that investigation was done by him in mechanical manner or that he falsely implicated the accused in FIR No. 71/2007.
78.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
79. PW-69 ASI Amir Khan:- He deposed that on 26.09.2008, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj as Head Constable and investigation of the FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj was assigned to him (which was clubbed with the present FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj vide order dated 06.02.2010). He deposed that he alongwith complainant Gaurav Singh went to the spot i.e. C-8, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and he prepared the site plan Ex. PW69/A and thereafter, he recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. He deposed that he searched the vehicle but could not traced. He deposed that during investigation, efforts were made to trace the vehicle but the vehicle could not be traced and therefore, he filed the untrace report in the Court on 25.11.2008.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 11079.1 He deposed that on 17.06.2009, SI O.P Thakur had given information in PS Vasant Kunj that accused persons namely Baljeet Singh, Ravi Kapoor, Ajay Bhenga and Amit Shukla had disclosed that vehicle bearing no. MP19-CA-0145 stolen from Vasant Kunj area and the said vehicle was sold to Ajay Sethi for sum of Rs. Three Lacs. He deposed that further investigation of FIR No. 475/2008 was marked to HC Naresh who formally arrested the accused persons in the present case in Patiala House Court with the permission of the Court. He deposed that accused Ajay Sethi was also formally arrested by HC Naresh in FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj.
79.2 He deposed that on 26.06.2009, the present case FIR no. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj was again assigned to him for further investigation and he recorded the statements of recovery witnesses of case FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj in case FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj.
79.3 After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet. He also identified the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh, Ajay Behnga and Ajay Sethi during his examination in the Court.
79.4 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Sethi and Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga and accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik, he replied that investigation of the FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj was never assigned to him. Witness denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation in FIR No. 475/2008 in fair and proper manner or he wrongly prepared the site plan Ex. PW69/A. SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 111 79.5 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, he replied that he did not have any information regarding involvement of accused Ravi Kapoor in FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj prior to information received from SI O.P Thakur in the disclosure statement in the FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj.
80. PW-70 Sh. Manish Gupta:- He is the witness qua mobile no. 9891589500. He deposed that he is the holder of driving license no. 4407/F/2004 Ex. PW70/A. He deposed that someone else got issued the above mentioned mobile number in his name by using the driving license. He deposed that he did not know the subscriber of the said mobile number namely Ajay Sethi. He deposed that the address of the Ajay Sethi as mentioned in form as H.No. 1117, Sector 14, Fardabad, Haryana is ahead of 6-7 km from his address.
80.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Sethi and Ajay Kumar @ Behnga, witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
80.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
81. PW-71 Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o Late Attar Singh:- He is the witness to the mobile number 9718175953. He deposed that the said mobile number was issued in his name but he never got issued the same in his name. He did not know who got issued the said mobile number using his ID. He did not gave copy of his ID for issue of said mobile number. 81.1 During cross examination, witness replied that he did SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 112 not know the mobile number as mentioned above belong to whom.
81.2 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor, he replied that he did not know regarding the details of the case in which he came to depose in the Court and he came to the Court only after receiving the notice of the Court. His statement was not recorded by the police.
81.3 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
82. PW-72 HC Deepak Kumar:- He deposed that on 26.06.2009, he was working as Constable at PS Vasant Kunj and on that day he obtained the letter given by IO vide Diary no. 1270/SHO/VK North and he went to Transport Authority, Nooh Haryana alongwith letter for verification of ownership of vehicle no. HR27A-4783. He gave the copy of letter to the Registration Authority and came back with the report and handed over the same to the IO.
82.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Sethi and Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga, witness denied the suggestion that he did not take any step for verification of ownership document of vehicle No. HR27A-4783 nor he gave any letter seeking information from Transport Authority. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 82.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
83. PW-73 Sh. Ranjeet Kumar Dhadwal:-He deposed that he is the owner of H.No. 1117, Sector-14, Faridabad, SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 113 Haryana and on 12.01.2010, he alongwith his nephew Sh. Girish Dhadwal came to his house and let out the said premises to Ajay Sethi in the year 2001 for use to reside in the said premises to Ajay Sethi with his wife. He deposed that rent was fixed for Rs. 3500/-. He deposed that he did not know how many documents were prepared by Ajay Sethi at the aforesaid house. He deposed that in the year 2010, he came to know that police officials had arrested his tenant Ajay Sethi. He identified the accused Ajay Sethi in the Court.
83.1 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
84. PW-74 Sh. Raman Kumar, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank Limited-74, Rajpur Road, Dehradoon, Uttrakhand :-
He is the witness regarding the account in the name of Ms. Anju Bala at the Branch of Axis Bank as mentioned above regarding the account no. 0930101000144018, he produced the account statement of the said Ms. Anju Bala for the period 18.03.2005 to 09.06.2009 and said account was closed on 09.06.2009. He produced the account opening form as Ex. PW74/A and account statement as Ex. PW74/B. He deposed that during investigation, the information was provided to the IO of the case and he identified the said document as Ex. PW74/C. 84.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, witness replied that the account was closed by the bank because account holder could not maintain the minimum balance amount as required for its operation. 84.2 Other accused persons, opted not to cross examine SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 114 the witness.
85. PW-75 Sh. Manish Kumar, Current Sales Officer, HDFC Bank, Sector-16, Faridabad, Haryana:- He produced the account opening form and document of account no.
2791000007283 in the name of Ajay Kumar in the Branch of the said bank as Ex. PW75/A. He also produced the account statement from 31.05.2004 till 18.12.2009 as Ex. PW75/B. 85.1 He also produced the account opening form of Account No. 027910000024309 in the name of Ajay Kumar as Ex. PW75/C and statement of account for the period 31.01.2005 till 05.07.2008 as Ex. PW75/D. 85.2 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, witness replied that he could not say from the record of Ex. PW75/B and Ex. PW75/D that amount of Rs. 10,254.81 was outstanding and Rs. 116.52 was outstanding sum. 85.3 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
86. PW-76 HC Badri Narain:- He deposed that on 21.06.2009, he was working as Constable at PS Vasant Kunj North and on that day, he obtained letter given by IO vide Diary No. 1271/SHO/VK North dated 21.06.2009 and he went to Transport Authority, Rohtak for verification of ownership of vehicle no. HR12F-3611 Maruti Zen Car. He deposed that he gave copy of the letter to Registration Authority and came back with the report Ex PW76/A and handed over the same to the IO. 86.1 He deposed that on 27.08.2008, on the direction of the SHO, he went to FSL, Rohini with the letter and had given SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 115 letter to the FSL and he collected one sealed report and sealed parcel Mark as Parcel no. 2 from FSL. He handed over the said sealed parcel and report to Malkhana of PS Vasant Kunj. IO recorded his statement.
86.2 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
87. PW-77 Sh. Deepak Minocha, Clerk SDM Office, Nooh, Mewat Haryana:-He produced the summoned record of vehicle no. HR27A-4783 and deposed that as per the record Ex. PW77/A, the said number was allotted to one Bajaj motorcycle and was registered in the name of one Yusuf Khan S/o Aas Mohd. 87.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, he deposed that the registration number in question was not entered in the relevant record in his presence.
87.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
88. PW-78 Sh. Parsuram Singh, Assistant Director (Physics, FSL Rohini):- He deposed that on 27.07.2009, the car Maruti Wagon-R no. HR27A-4783 in connection with this case was received in Physics Division through Ballistic Division. The said car was assigned to him for examination and he examined the same and found following as under:-
i) some portions of left side door, bonnet and roof top were treated chemically and following observations were made:-
1. The surface of the door were repainted. On removing the paint, yellowish colour material were found filled at some portion, SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 116 which indicates the repair of dent.
2. The surface of the bonnet and roof top were not repainted.
ii) On examination of the paint samples from the left doors, bonnet and roof top, under microscope and it was found that paint samples from left side doors were different to paint samples from roof top and bonnet in respect of number of layers, colour and texure of primer, and microscopic appearance of upper layer and lower layer.
He identified his report as Ex. PW78/A. 88.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, witness replied that he could not tell since how long previous two inspection of the vehicle in question, the denting-painting of the vehicle had been done. 88.2 The other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
89. PW-79 ASI Shashi Bhushan:- He deposed that on 06.10.2009, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Vasant Kunj North. On directions of IO/ACP Sh Bhisam Singh, he brought certified copies of the FIR No. 28/2002 PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony from Tis Hazari Courts and handed over the same to the IO.
89.1 He deposed that on 22.05.2010, he again joined the investigation of this case and on the direction of IO/ACP Sh Mohd Ali, he alongwith Ct. Deepak had gone to Dehradoon to collect the documents of account of Ms. Anju Bala from Axis Bank, Dheradoon Branch and he collected the certified copy SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 117 alongwith copy of PAN and Driving License of account of Ms. Anju Bala.
89.2 He deposed that he had also obtained the previous criminal record of accused Ajay Sethi from the concerned police station and also obtained the certified copy from the Court at Dehradoon qua the cases pending against accused Ajay Sethi. He also collected the two bank account detail of accused Ajay Sethi and returned to Delhi, he handed over all documents to the IO who seized the same.
89.3 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, witness denied the suggestion that he did not collected the certified copies of cases or previous criminal record of Ajay Sethi or bank detail of accused Ajay Sethi. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation or he deposed falsely.
89.4 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
90. PW-80 Sh. Jasbir, Clerk SDM Office, Rohtak:- He produced the record of RC of vehicle no HR2F-3611 and as per record Ex. PW80/A, the said vehicle was registered in the name of Raj Singh Rathi.
90.1 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor, he did not identify the signature on document Ex. PW76/A and deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the present case.
90.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 11891. PW-81 Inspector Raj Pal Dabas:- He deposed that in the year 2002, he was working as Sub Inspector, Special Cell, Lodhi Road, Delhi and he deposed that during the investigation of FIR No. 28/2002 PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, he had arrested accused Ravi Kapoor, Ajay Sethi, Ajay Kumar, Jai Singh and Mohd. Arif alongwith stolen vehicle with fake number plate, blank RC and fake stamps. He deposed that various keys of stolen vehicles were also recovered from accused Ravi Kapoor. He identified the seizure memo of stolen vehicle as Ex. PW58/A. He deposed that case property of FIR No. 28/2002 was also recovered from accused Ravi Kapoor.
91.1 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor, he replied that at the time of arrest of the accused Ravi Kapoor, no FIR was registered against him and after apprehension, the FIR was registered against him. Witness denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from him and he was falsely implicated in FIR No. 28/2002. 91.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
92. PW-82 Ms. Sushma:- She deposed that she was the owner of H.No. 335/G, Pocket-N, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and in the year 2008, she let out her premises on rent to one Ravi Kapoor who used to reside with his wife against the rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. She deposed that Ravi Kapoor had informed her that he was doing some private work. She deposed that she did not know whether accused Ravi Kapoor was having any vehicle for commutation.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 119She did not supported the case of prosecution. 92.1 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
93. PW-83 Sh. V.R Anand, Assistant Director, Ballistic, FSL, Rohini, Delhi:- He deposed that on 13.05.2009, two sealed parcels and one Wagon-R car HR27A-4783 were received in the office of FSL and same were marked to him for examination. The seals on the parcels were intact and as per the specimen seal.
93.1 On opening of parcel no.1, one country made pistol, .315 inch bore, four 8 mm/.315 inch cartridges and one 8 mm/.315 inch cartridge case were taken out and mark as F1, A1 to A4 and EC1 respectively.
93.2 On opening of parcel no. 2, one deformed bullet was taken out and mark as EB1.
93.3 Wagon-R car HR27A-4783 was examined and swab taken from the dash board mark as S1, control swab taken from under the dash board mark as C1, swab taken from left side glass window mark as S2, control swab taken from rear left side glass window mark as C2, swab taken from front left door mark as S3, control swab taken from rear left side door mark as C3. 93.4 He deposed that he examined the said exhibits. The barrel swab taken from the barrel of the country made pistol before test firing shows the sign of discharge. The country made pistol was in working order and test fired was conducted successfully. The cartridges A1 to A4 were alive ones. The cartridge case marked Ex. EC1 was a fired empty cartridge. The SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 120 bullet mark EB1 corresponds to the bullet of 8 mm /.315 inch cartridge fired through a country made fire arm. 93.5 The 8 mm cartridges marked Ex. A1 and A2 were test fired through the country made pistol. The test fired cartridges were marked as TC1 and TC2 and recovered bullets were marked as TB1 and TB2.
93.6 The individual characteristics of firing pin mark and breach face marks present on EC1 and on TC1 and TC2 were compared under comparison microscope and were not found identical, hence, the cartridge case mark EC1 had not been fired through the country made pistol mark Ex F1.
93.7 The individual characteristics of striation marks present on evidence bullet EB1 were insufficient for comparison and opinion whether it has been discharged through the country made pistol Mark F1.
93.8 The characteristics gun shot residue particles were detected at PPM level in the swab marks as S1 taken from the dash board and S3 taken from the front left side door of Wagon-R Car. The exhibits F1/A1 to A4, EC1 and EB1 were firearms/ ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. The exhibits were sealed with the seal of VRA, FSL Delhi after examination. 93.9 The Wagon-R car bearing HR27A-4783 was sent to Physics Division for physics examination.
93.10 Witness identified his detailed report dated 26.08.2009 as Ex. PW83/A (running into three pages). Witness also identified the Wagon-R car HR27A-4783 as Ex. PW83/P1. Witness also identified the other exhibits examined by him as SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 121 mentioned above.
93.11 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
94. PW-84 ASI Sambhaji Rao:- He deposed that on 06.10.2009, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Vasant Kunj (North). On that day, IO ACP Bhisam Singh had given him authority letter to get the vehicle Wagon-R HR27A-4783 from FSL, Rohini, New Delhi to the police station and he went to the FSL, Rohini and received the vehicle and deposited the same at Malkhana of PS Vasant Kunj, North. IO recorded his statement to that effect. Witness identified the above mentioned car as Ex. PW84/P1.
94.1 On 17.05.2010, he again joined the investigation of the case and IO had given him a notice with directions to serve the same upon HDFC Bank Meera Road, Thane, East Mumbai and he went to the said bank and collected the bank account statement of accused Amit Shukla after service of the notice U/s 91 Cr.PC upon the Bank Manager. He deposed that thereafter, he went to PS Meera Road, Thane, East Mumbai to verify the antecedents /criminal record of the accused Amit Shukla. He deposed that he collected the documents from the police station and thereafter, went to the house of accused at C-402, 4 th Floor, Grand Minar, Ideal Park, Meera Road, East Thane, Mumbai. He deposed that in the said house, one Ms. Diksha who was maternal aunt (Mammi) of the accused Amit Shukla met him and he recorded her statement and thereafter, he returned to Delhi. He SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 122 handed over all the documents collected and statement recorded to the IO/ACP Mohd. Ali. Witness identified the account statement of accused Amit Kumar R. Shukla collected from HDFC Bank alongwith covering letter of Bank Manager as Ex. PW84/A. 94.2 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that the car Ex. PW84/P1 was of silver colour and he stated that car was not in the same condition as shown to him on that day in comparison when he had brought the same from FSL. He replied that the said car was brought to the police station by train and keys of the car were not handed over to him from Malkhana when he left the police station to bring the same from FSL. He replied that he conducted the investigation as per direction of the IO. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
95. PW-85 Sh. Pawan Singh (Alternate Nodal Officer) Vodafone Idea Limited, C-45, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi:-
He was the witness from Vodafone Idea Limited and was working as Nodal Officer since 2005 and said company was merged with Vodafone Idea Limited in the month of September, 2018.
95.1 He deposed that on the request of the IO, ACP Vasant Vihar New Delhi, he had provided the CAF Ex PW85/B with annexures and call details CDR of mobile no. 9891589500 with its covering letter Ex. PW85/A. The CDR with the effect from 01.02.2009 to 21.10.2009 were identified by him as Ex. PW85/C. 95.2 He deposed that in regard to other mobile numbers SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 123 9718777356, 9718175953 and 9711068866, the relevant record were not available with the company as the same were weeding out as per rules. He also deposed that the record pertaining to mobile no. 9891589500 was also weeded out as per rules and he filed the written reply as Ex. PW85/D in that regard. 95.3 During cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Kapoor, witness stated that at the time of providing relevant documents to ACP Vasant Vihar, he had not issued any Certificate U/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He replied that the document Ex. PW85/A did not bear the date on which it was issued. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 95.4 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
96. PW-86 Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Manager HDFC Bank, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi:- He is the witness from HDFC Bank deputed by Branch Head of HDFC Bank, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and he produced the record of account opening form of accused Ravi Kapoor in HDFC Bank Branch, Sarita Vihar and record of Priya Kapoor wife of accused Ravi Kapoor. He produced the account opening form and annexures of the account of accused Ravi Kapoor and Priya Kapoor as Ex. PW86/P1 and Ex. PW86/P2. He also produced the account statement of accused Ravi Kapoor as Ex. PW86/P3 and Priya Kapoor as Ex.
PW86/P4. He also produced his authorization letter as Ex. PW86/P5.
96.1 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 12497. PW-87 Ms. Kiran Bansal, Special Judge:01 ACB, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi:- She deposed that on 07.04.2009, she was working and posted as ACMM:03 South District, Patiala House Courts. She deposed that one information regarding addition of Section 3 of MCOC Act, 1999, in FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj dated 30.09.2008 registered U/s 302/201/489/411/34 IPC at her residence at around 06.15 pm Mark as PW87/A was received.
97.1 She deposed that on 08.04.2009, a request was made by the IO/ACP Sh. Bhisam Singh to endorse the confessional statement recorded under the provisions of MCOC Act. The statement of accused Ravi Kapoor was produced in the sealed cover. She deposed that she examined accused Ravi Kapoor in the Chamber separately regarding the voluntariness of his statement given to the police. The sealed statement was then kept in another envelope alongwith request letter of the IO and was sealed with the Court seal and handed over by her to the IO. The witness identified the proceedings which were recorded by her as Ex. PW87/B. 97.2 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, she replied that she had not read the contents of confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor as the same was received by her in a sealed cover and the seal was not opened. The confessional statement was not send to the Special Court by her and was handed over to the IO after affixing her seal on the envelope.
97.3 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 125 witness.
98. PW-88 Sh. Dalip Kumar Sahoo, Personal Banker, HDFC Bank, Sarita Vihar Branch, New Delhi:- He produced the summoned record i.e. account opening form of accused Ravi Kapoor for account no. 04801530001938 alongwith its annexures as Ex. PW88/A. He also produced the account statement of this account w.e.f 16.06.2008 to 31.03.2010 as Ex. PW88/B. He also identified the signatures of Ms. Nitika Behal on these documents. 98.1 He also produced the summoned record i.e. account opening form of Ms. Priya Kapoor for account no. 04801600006433 alongwith its annexures as Ex. PW88/C. He also produced the account statement of this account w.e.f 23.06.2008 to 12.01.2009 as Ex. PW88/D. He also identified the signatures of Ms. Nitika Behal on these documents. 98.2 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
99. PW-89 Retd. ACP Mehak Singh:- He deposed that on 04.04.2009, he was posted as SDPO Hauz Khas. On that day, he was also having additional charge of ACP Mehrauli. He deposed that on that day alongwith his forwarding letter, he send a proposal for registration of a case U/s 3 of MCOC Act against accused Ravi Kapoor. He deposed that he submitted that proposal alongwith annexures to Joint C.P Southern Range through DCP, South District, Delhi. He identified the proposal alongwith annexures as Ex. PW89/A and forwarding letter as Ex. PW89/B. 99.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 126 Ravi Kapoor, he deposed that he did not remember whether he had send any other document besides seven pages of Ex. PW89/A. He replied that he had got the details of the FIR and order of cognizance in the said FIRs as mentioned in document Ex. PW89/A before sending the proposal. He replied that the details and order of cognizance were not annexed with the proposal. He also replied that order of taking cognizance by the Court concerned were not mentioned in the list of the FIRs annexed with the proposal.
99.2 He replied that he did not make any interrogation with the accused Ravi Kapoor in the present case. He voluntarily explained that he did not remember as to which orders of cognizance were considered by him from the list of FIRs for sending the proposal and he complied all the procedure required under law. He denied the suggestion that he did not complied the procedure required under law. He further denied the suggestion that he did not followed the procedure required under law for sending the proposal. He denied the suggestion that he acted mechanically without application of mind while sending the proposal. He denied the suggestion that without verifying the facts, the proposal was moved wrongly against the accused Ravi Kapoor. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 99.3 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
100. PW-90 Sh. Naveen Sharma, Deputy Manager-1, ICICI Bank, Sector-16, Faridabad,Haryana:- He produced the original account opening form alongwith annexures of the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 127 accused Ajay on which account number 008301507459 was opened on 31.01.2005 as Ex. PW90/A. He also produced the account statement of the said account from 02.03.2009 to 28.09.2018 Ex. PW90/B and account statement of accused Ajay Kumar from 01.01.2005 to 03.09.2008 as Ex. PW90/C. 100.1 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
101. PW-91 ASI Naresh:- He deposed that on 17.06.2009, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj as Head Constable. On that day, SI O.P Thakur of PS Vasant Kunj had informed Duty Officer regarding the production of accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit, Baljeet and Amit Shukla in Patiala House Courts in the present FIR in which they had disclosed about their involvement in FIR No. 209/2008 PS Vasant Kunj U/s 379 IPC which was under
investigation by the witness. He deposed that he appeared in the Court at Patiala House where accused were produced and with the permission of the Court, he interrogated the accused persons in FIR no. 209/2008 PS Vasant Kunj and formally arrested them with the permission of the Court. He deposed that after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet Ex. PW60/A in FIR No. 209/2008 PS Vasant Kunj against all four accused persons as mentioned above. He identified all the accused accused persons in the Court during his examination in the Court. 101.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that the date of incident in FIR No. 209/2008 was 26.04.2008 whereas the incident pertains to 16.04.2008. He further replied that initially untrace report was SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 128 filed. He further replied that recovery of stolen vehicle in FIR no.
209/2008 was effected during the investigation of FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj. He replied that no recovery was effected by him or in his presence.
101.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
102. PW-92 ASI Baljeet:- He deposed that in the year 2002, he was the investigating officer of FIR No. 126/2002 PS Naraina U/s 379/411 IPC. He deposed that during investigation, he came to know about the arrest of accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Ajay Sethi, Ajay Kumar in FIR No.. 28/2002 Special Cell, Lodhi Colony in which they disclosed about their involvement in FIR No. 126/2002 PS Naraina and with the permission of the Court, he interrogated these accused persons and arrested them and after completing the investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the aforementioned accused persons. 102.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness admitted that all the accused persons were acquitted by concerned Court in FIR no. 126/2002 PS Naraina. Witness denied the suggestion that accused persons were falsely arrested and chargesheeted by him in FIR No. 126/2002 PS Naraina or he deposed falsely.
102.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
103. PW-93 DCP Sh. Mohd Ali:- He deposed that on 09.11.2009, he was posted as ACP Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. He deposed that on that day, investigation of the case FIR No. SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 129 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj was assigned to him on account of transfer of previous IO/ACP Sh. Bhisam Singh to Special Cell from ACP Mehrauli. He perused the file and found that chargesheet against accused Ravi Kapoor U/s 3 of MCOC Act had already been filed by previous IO in the Special Court. He also found that during the investigation, the confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor U/s 18 of MCOC Act was recorded by the then DCP, South East District Ms. Shalini Singh. He deposed that during investigation, the previous IO had issued letter to various agencies /authorities to obtain relevant information regarding the accused persons. The response to such letters were received on different dates and letters were providing information about movable and immovable properties as well as other information qua the accused persons were also written by the witness during investigation.
103.1 On 24.12.2009, he had written letters to various agencies/authorities in the area Faridabad to obtain information about accused Ajay Sethi @ Chacha.
103.2 On 12.01.2010, he alongwith the then SI O.P Thakur and other staff visited to various banks and authorities in the area of Faridabad to collect the said documents. He visited the ICICI Bank, District Center, Faridabad and obtained the account details of accused Ajay Sethi which were seized and seizure memo Ex. PW43/H was prepared.
103.3 He deposed that thereafter, they went to HDFC Bank, Sector-16, Faridabad where Branch Manager had handed over forwarding letter alongwith two account numbers of accused SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 130 Ajay Sethi to SI O.P Thakur which was taken into police possession and seizure memo Ex. PW43/I was prepared. He identified the forwarding letter of the said bank as Ex. PW43/J and Ex. PW43/K. He deposed that he recorded the statement of concerned officials of the bank.
103.4 He deposed that thereafter they went to H.No. 1117, Sector-14, Faridabad and examined the owner of the house Mr. Ranjeet Dhadwal and his statement was recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. He deposed that they also visited the MLO office and Tehsildar office and he examined and recorded the statement of SI O.P Thakur U/s 161 Cr.PC. He deposed that the account detail of the accused Ajay Sethi was examined and it was found that large number of cash transactions were made by him. 103.5 He deposed that on 23.01.2010, SI O.P Thakur had handed over account opening forms of both the accounts of HDFC Bank as well as forwarding letter and account opening form from ICICI Bank of the accused Ajay Sethi and same was seized and seizure memo Ex. PW43/L was prepared. He deposed that account opening forms were examined and it was noticed that accused Ajay Sethi had written his name as Ajay Kumar and in one of the account opening form of HDFC Bank, a person namely Amardeep Madan was mentioned as introducer and bank opening forms were having different phone numbers mentioned by the accused Ajay Sethi. He deposed that in ICICI Bank opening form, a phone number bearing 9891589500 was mentioned.
103.6 He deposed that on 02.02.2010, previous IO was SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 131 examined and he had handed over the details of Vodafone number 9711068866 as well as scanned copy of ownership detail of the form. He deposed that the said number was prepaid number and it was registered in the name of one Parkash Singh. He deposed that statement of previous IO Bhisam Singh was also recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC.
103.7 He deposed that on 08.02.2010, he filed an application in the Special Court with request to provide copy of confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor recorded U/s 18 of MCOC Act and he identified the same as Ex. PW93/A. 103.8 He deposed that on 09.02.2010, a team under SI O.P Thakur was sent to Dehradoon to verify the criminal record of accused Ajay Sethi and to obtain certified copy of chargesheet from the concerned Court of Dehradoon. He deposed that SI O.P Thakur was also given letters of various authorities/agencies in Dehradoon to provide the details of movable /immovable properties of accused Ajay Sethi.
103.9 On 12.02.2010, SI O.P Thakur on return from Dehradoon, had handed over him the documents pertaining to 13 cases collected from Dehradoon as well as Delhi and the same were seized and memo Ex. PW34/A was prepared. He deposed that SI O.P Thakur was examined and his statement was recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC.
103.10 On 18.02.2010, the Special Court had allowed the application filed on 08.02.2010 and copy of the confessional statement was provided to the witness. He deposed that an application for issue of production warrants of accused persons SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 132 Ajay Sethi, Amit Kumar Shukla, Baljeet Malik, Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga were also moved in the Court and matter was listed for 20.02.2010.
103.11 He deposed that the copy of the statement of accused Ravi Kapoor was perused and it was found that from the statement as well as criminal record of the above mentioned accused persons that these accused persons were active members of organized crime syndicate being run by accused Ravi Kapoor.
He deposed that it was also found that accused Ajay Sethi was having six criminal cases with accused Ravi Kapoor.
Accused Amit Shukla was having six criminal cases with accused Ravi Kapoor.
Accused Baljeet Malik was having four criminal cases with accused Ravi Kapoor.
Accused Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga was having eight criminal cases with accused Ravi Kapoor.
103.12 He deposed that these criminal cases having involvement of members of crime syndicate jointly as well as separately with accused Ravi Kapoor.
103.13 He deposed that on 20.02.2010, he attended the Court and filed an application Ex PW93/B for permission to interrogate the above mentioned accused persons/members of organized crime syndicate and the matter was adjourned for 25.02.2010 and thereafter, for 04.03.2010.
103.14 He deposed that on 26.02.2010, SI O.P Thakur had handed over him the additional documents pertaining to the account number 02791000007283 of HDFC Branch, Sector-16, SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 133 Faridabad, Haryana and these documents were examined and statement of SI O.P Thakur was recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. 103.15 On 03.03.2010, Amardeep Madan R/o Faridabad was interrogated as his name was mentioned in the account opening form of accused Ajay Sethi in account no. 02791000007283 of HDFC Branch, Sector-16, Faridabad, Haryana. 103.16 He deposed that on 04.03.2010, all the four above mentioned members of organized crime syndicate were interrogated with the permission of the Court but they did not cooperated. Therefore, an application Ex. PW93/C for their arrest and seven days police custody remand was moved in Special Court.
103.17 He deposed that on 10.03.2010, he had visited to Special Court alongwith SI O.P Thakur and other staff and Special Court granted permission to arrest the above mentioned members of organized crime syndicate and had also granted five days police custody remand. Thereafter, these members of organized crime syndicate were arrested on 10.03.2010 in the Patiala House Court and their personal search was conducted and memos Ex. PW43/P1 to Ex. PW43/P8 were prepared. 103.18 Witness identified all the accused persons during his examination in the Court and he deposed that after arrest of the accused persons, they were taken to Safdarjung Hospital and their medical examination was conducted and they were kept in lock up of PS Vasant Kunj, North.
103.19 He deposed that on 11.03.2010, accused Ajay Sethi was interrogated in detail in the presence of SI O.P Thakur and SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 134 his disclosure statement was recorded as Ex. PW43/P9. 103.20 He deposed that on 12.03.2010, accused Amit Shukla was interrogated in the presence of SI O.P Thakur and his disclosure statement was recorded as Ex. PW43/P10. 103.21 On 13.03.2010, accused Baljeet Malik was interrogated in the presence of SI O.P Thakur and his disclosure statement was recorded as Ex. PW43/P11.
103.22 On 14.03.2010, accused Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga was interrogated in the presence of SI O.P Thakur and his disclosure statement was recorded as Ex. PW43/P14.
103.23 On 15.03.2010, all the accused persons were taken out of lock up and their medical was conducted at Safdarjung Hospital and they were produced before Special Court and they were remanded into judicial custody.
103.24 He deposed that all the days from 10.03.2010 to 15.03.2010, SI O.P Thakur remained associated with the investigation with the witness. Hence, his statement was recorded in that regard.
103.25 He deposed that on 05.04.2010, SI O.P Thakur had handed over him the certified copies of five cases pertaining to the involvement of the accused persons and the same was taken into possession and seizure memo Ex. PW43/Q were prepared and SI O.P Thakur was examined and his statement was recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC.
103.26 On 05.05.2010, one Mr. Manish Gupta was examined who was the owner of Idea Mobile Phone No. 9891589500. That number was mentioned by accused Ajay Sethi in his account SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 135 opening form of his bank account of ICICI, Faridabad and his statement was recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. He deposed that on the same day, SI O.P Thakur had handed over him the documents pertaining to the same phone number which were taken into possession and seizure memo Ex. PW43/R was prepared and statement of SI O.P Thakur was recorded.
103.27 On 12.05.2010, HC Shambhaji was sent to Mumbai with notice to the Branch Manager, HDFC Branch, Meera Road and information sheet to SHO, PS Meera Road to obtain bank statement as well as other details of accused Amit Shukla and his criminal antecedents from PS Meera Road.
103.28 On 17.05.2010, HC Shambhaji on return had handed over him the forwarding letter as well as account statement of accused Amit Shukla and same was taken into possession and memo Ex. PW43/D was prepared. He recorded statement of HC Shambhaji U/s 161 Cr.PC.
103.29 On 18.05.2010, HC Shashi Bhushan Tyagi and Ct. Deepak were sent to Dehradoon, Rishikesh and Sharanpur to obtain certified copies of cases registered against accused Ajay Sethi, details of bank account of accused Ajay Sethi, his wife Smt. Anju Bala.
103.30 On 22.05.2010, on return HC Shashi Bhushan Tyagi had handed over him the certified copies of some cases, copy of history sheet of accused Ajay Sethi of PS Kotwali, Dehradoon and forwarding letter, account opening from and detail of bank account of Anju Bala of Axis Bank and these documents were taken into possession and seizure memo Ex. PW93/D was SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 136 prepared.
103.31 On 31.05.2010, account opening form of accused Amit Shukla was received in the office and same was placed with the file.
103.32 On 10.06.2010, sanction U/s 23 (2) MCOC Act was obtained from Joint C.P, Southern Range and chargesheet was filed in the Special Court.
103.33 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi, he replied that DCP, South had directed him to take up further investigation after transfer of previous IO from post of ACP, Mehrauli to Special Cell. Witness denied the suggestion that he had not conducted investigation of the present case fairly and properly or that he had obtained sanction U/s 23 (2) MCOC Act against the fact of the case. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 103.34. During cross examination on behalf of the accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik, witness replied that investigation of the present case was handed over to him on 09.11.2009. He replied that he did not remember if accused Ravi Kapoor was co accused in any FIR with accused Amit Shukla and accused Baljeet Malik prior to 30.09.2008 and he again clarified that accused Amit Shukla and accused Ravi Kapoor were involved in some other FIRs prior to 30.09.2008.
103.35 He replied that he did not remember the exact date when the sanction was accorded U/s 23 (1) MCOC Act. The investigation after grant of sanction was done by ACP Sh. Bhisam Singh. However, the proposal of sanction was perhaps SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 137 send by ACP Mehar Singh. He further replied that he did not conduct investigation to know the financial status of family members of accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik but the financial status and incomes of the said accused were got investigated.
He replied that at the time of sanction U/s 23 (1) of MCOC Act, the accused were in judicial custody in this case and accused were formally arrested for MCOC Act with the permission of Special Court on 10.03.2010. Witness admitted that accused were arrested after more than ten months of sanction U/s 23 (1) of MCOC Act despite they already been in custody in the present case. He replied that sanction U/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act was obtained on 10.06.2010 and same was applied 2-3 days before the said date. He denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the case properly or investigated it in mechanical manner against accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik for offences under MCOC Act. Witness denied the suggestion that accused persons were falsely involved in FIR no. 209/2008 and 471/2008 for charging the accused persons under MCOC Act. 103.36 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that during the investigation conducted by him no movable or immovable property was recovered from the possession of accused Ravi Kapoor or his family members. He replied that accused Ravi Kapoor was residing in rented premises with his family at the time of his arrest. He replied that he did not remember whether as per bank account statement of accused Ravi Kapoor, there was any major SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 138 transaction or not or bank account of accused Ravi Kapoor was having negative balance or any luxury item was recovered from the possession of accused Ravi Kapoor.
103.37 He replied that he did not remember if he placed on record with the chargesheet the application for taking sanction U/s 23(2) of MCOC Act. He replied that in the case of Jigisa Gosh murder, the girl was kidnapped, looted and killed. Witness denied the suggestion that the unsolved cases bearing FIR no. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj, FIR No. 126/2002 PS Naraina, FIR No. 281/2002 PS Special Cell, FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj, FIR No. 08/2009 PS Vasant Kunj were registered against the unknown persons which were solved by police by recording the false disclosure statements of the accused persons. 103.38 Witness denied the suggestion that no investigation was done with regard to the properties purchased by accused Ravi Kapoor from the ill gotten money. He replied that he could not say whether the account of the accused Ravi Kapoor was showing negative balance. He replied that he did not know whether previous IO had conducted investigation and had filed any documentary proof on record of the file to show that the stolen vehicles were sold out by accused Ravi Kapoor or from that he derived pecuniary gain.
103.39 He replied that he was never the part of the investigation of murder of deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan. Accused Ravi Kapoor was never declared as BC of the area of Vasant Kunj, North Police Station. He replied that besides collecting the record of involvement of accused Ravi SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 139 Kapoor in previous FIRs, no investigation was carried out by him.
103.40 He replied that he never appeared personally before Joint Commissioner of Police for seeking sanction U/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act and he voluntarily clarified that he send application for seeking sanction alongwith relevant documents. Witness denied the suggestion that in sanction U/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act dated 10.02.2010 para 6 name of the accused Ravi Kapoor is not mentioned as a person running the syndicate with other accused persons. Witness replied that he never visited to the house of the accused Ravi Kapoor to know his financial status. Witness denied the suggestion that he conducted the investigation in mechanical manner or he deposed falsely.
104. PW-94 Anjani Tiwari, Deputy Manager, HDFC Bank, Saket Branch, New Delhi:- He produced the account statement of Amit Kumar maintained at Meera Road Branch, Mumbai in HDFC Bank Account No. 06651530001166 as Ex. PW94/A. He also produced the account opening form and its annexures of the said account as Ex. PW94/B. 104.1 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar, he replied that said documents are pertains to the Mumbai Branch and he was posted at Delhi Branch. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of IO.
104.2 Other accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
105. PW-95 Sh. Bhisam Singh, DCP Security, Delhi SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 140 Police:- He deposed that on 07.04.2009, he was posted as ACP, Mehrauli South District and investigation of the case was entrusted to him. He deposed that during investigation on the same, accused Ravi Kapoor was already on police custody remand was taken to DCP, South East for recording of confessional statement as per provision of MCOC Act. He identified the application Ex. PW36/A. He deposed that he had also send information to the concerned Court regarding addition of provision of MCOC Act in this case and he identified the said information as Ex. PW95/A. 105.1 He deposed that on his application, DCP South East had directed to bring the accused to her office i.e. DCP Office, South East District in Sarita Vihar on next day i.e. on 08.04.2009 and accordingly, accused was taken to the office of DCP South East. He deposed that witness was asked by DCP South East to go out and accused was left with the then DCP South East. He deposed that thereafter the confessional statement of the accused was recorded by DCP and copy of the statement handed over to him in sealed cover.
105.2 He deposed that thereafter accused was taken to the Court of Ld ACMM Patiala House Court for purposes of endorsement of confessional statement recorded by DCP and he identified the request letter in that regard as Ex. PW95/B. He deposed that Ld. ACMM heard the accused in person, while witness was asked to remain outside the Chamber and he was handed over the sealed statement. He identified the copy of the said proceeding as Ex. PW95/X1 and thereafter, accused was SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 141 remanded in judicial custody.
105.3 He deposed that thereafter the proposal for addition of provision of MCOC Act was prepared and was sent to competent authority for approval on 15.04.2009. He identified the covering letter and proposal as Ex. PW95/C and Ex. PW95/D respectively.
105.4 He deposed that during investigation, other accused persons who were on police custody remand were already send into judicial custody. He deposed that on his direction, SI O.P Thakur (now Inspector) who was posted in PS Vasant Kunj moved an application in the Court of Ld. MM of PS Vasant Vihar for transfer of case property containing weapon of offence, live cartridges, empty cartridge from Malkhana of PS Vasant Vihar to Malkhana of PS Vasant Kunj and case property were transferred accordingly as per the order of Court of Ld. MM. 105.5 He deposed that thereafter, the case property i.e. weapon of offence with ammunition and the Wagon-R car used in the commission of offence, were send to FSL, Rohini. 105.6 He deposed that during investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded regarding the theft of the vehicle, mobile phone used by the accused, landlord where accused used to live on rent and complainant whose car was stolen from Vasant Kunj by the accused persons.
105.7 He deposed that he alongwith SI O.P Thakur visited to Patiala House Court to enquire about the cases pending trial against the accused persons in various Courts. He also send team of police officials collecting the records of cases pending trial SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 142 against the accused persons in Dwarka Courts and Patiala House Court. He deposed that registration details of Wagon-R car and Zen Car recovered during investigation were obtained from the Registration Authority and registration number was found to be forged as per the report of concerned MLOs. He deposed that details of the ownership of the SIM card used by the accused were also obtained which was found in the name of some persons other than the accused and those persons were examined who disclosed that they never used that SIM.
105.8 He deposed that during investigation, the provision of forgery and using forged documents were also added. He deposed that statement of one witness Sunny @ Bharat Sohandani was recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC and he identified the proceedings of recording the statement U/s 164 Cr.PC as Ex Z1. He deposed that Sunny was the landlord of the accused Ravi Kapoor when accused was residing in Janta Flat, Sarita Vihar. 105.9 He deposed that thereafter on 22.06.2009, chargesheet against the accused persons were filed, pending further investigation.
105.10 He deposed that during further investigation, record including the copy of chargesheet, copy of charge and other documents of the cases pending trial against the accused persons in various Courts of Delhi and in two cases which were pending trial in Noida were collected and placed on file. He deposed that statement of complainant of those cases, IOs of those cases and relevant witnesses of those cases were recorded. 105.11 He deposed that letters were written to the Income SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 143 Tax Department, Banks, Sub Registrar Offices, Etc in order to obtain the details of movable and immovable properties, if any in the name of accused Ravi Kapoor. He deposed that statements of various landlords of the accused Ravi Kapoor, where he alongwith his family used to resides earlier, were recorded in order to ascertain his livelihood, source of income and his expenditure and expenditure of his family to day today living. He deposed that records of various cases as mentioned above were received and assessment of his income were made during investigation and it was found that accused had no legal source of income. He deposed that accused never filed Income Tax, but he was living a lavish life with the money earned from various crime committed alongwith his associates.
105.12 During investigation, FSL result of weapon of offence and the Wagon-R car used in the commission of crime, were received from FSL, Rohini and were placed on file. 105.13 He deposed that thereafter the approval for filing the chargesheet under MCOC Act was obtained through DCP South from Joint C.P Southern Range, New Delhi. He identified the sanction as Ex. PW95/E. He also identified the signature of the then Joint Commissioner of Police Sh Ajay Kashyap on the said sanction and deposed that he identified the signature of Joint Commissioner of Police on the basis that he had worked under him and had seen him signing in official course of duty and the said sanction was obtained by him.
105.14 He deposed that after obtaining the sanction U/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act, chargesheet against the accused Ravi Kapoor SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 144 was filed in Special Court on 07.10.2009.
105.15 He deposed that during the course of investigation, one more supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused persons regarding the investigation done till that time and further investigation was going on. He deposed that thereafter, he was transferred as ACP Special Cell in the month of November 2009 and further investigation was carried out by Mr. Mohd Ali, ACP Vasant Vihar.
105.16 He identified the letter written to MLO, Rohtak, Haryana as Ex. PW76/A. The letter written to MLO, Nooh, Haryana as Ex. PW95/F. The letter written to Manager, HDFC Bank as Ex. PW95/G. The letter written to ITO Head Quarter, Income Tax Bhawan, New Delhi as Ex. PW95/H. He also identified the application moved before the Court of the then Ld. ASJ Patiala House for filing additional documents as Ex PW95/I. 105.17 He identified the accused persons in the Court during his examination in the Court.
105.18 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ajay Sethi and Ajay Kumar, he replied that except the accused Ravi Kapoor, he had not got recorded confessional statement of any other accused person under the provision of MCOC Act. 105.19 Witness denied the suggestion that he had not disclosed the true and complete facts before competent authority while obtaining the sanction for invoking the provisions of MCOC Act against the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he wrongly obtained the sanction of prosecution U/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act against the accused persons. He denied SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 145 the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation in fair and proper manner or filed the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet without verifying the facts of the present case. Witness denied the suggestion that documents collected from the bank of accused persons and other authorities did not reflect the accumulation of funds in those accounts to attract the provision of MCOC Act. Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
105.20 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla, witness replied that on 07.04.2009, accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik were in custody in the present case. Witness deposed that he did not interrogate the accused Amit and Baljeet despite the fact that they were in custody. He replied that he had filed first chargesheet under MCOC Act only with respect to the accused Ravi Kapoor. He did not remember whether the said accused persons were named in any FIR with the accused Ravi Kapoor prior to 30.09.2008. Witness denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation in fair and proper manner. He denied the suggestion that he filed the chargesheet in the mechanical manner.
105.21 During cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor, witness replied that the present FIR no. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj is neither a case of contract killing, kidnapping for murder, extortion and docoity. He replied that during the period from 30.09.2008 till 06.04.2009, he was not the IO of the case, however, it was learnt that accused disclosed before the IO SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 146 of FIR No. 69/2009, PS Vasant Vihar that he was involved in the murder of victim Saumya Vishwanathan. He further replied that during the investigation of case FIR no. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, accused had disclosed about his involvement in FIR No. 481/2009 PS Vasant Kunj. He further replied that he did not remember regarding the exact disclosure of the accused in FIR No. 08/2009 PS Vasant Kunj. Witness replied that it is the part of record that accused Ravi Kapoor was involved with co accused persons in various cases and after due verification and collection of records, Section 3 of MCOC Act was invoked against the accused and his syndicates.
105.22 Witness replied that during investigation with regard to the accumulation of wealth from illegal sources, it was found that during his carrier of various criminal offences, the accused and his gang and syndicate, received/robbed various movable properties and he was living a lavish life. One car was seized on disclosure statement from witness namely Sunny during investigation. He replied that incident of death of victim Saumya Vishwanathan was widely covered by print and electronic media. He replied that during the arrest of the accused Ravi Kapoor in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, witness was on medical rest and he cannot say whether footage of Ravi Kapoor with his face was running on news channels.
105.23 Witness replied that no movable property or immovable property was seized from the family of accused Ravi Kapoor and was staying in rented premises alongwith his family at the time of his arrest. Witness denied the suggestion that SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 147 accused was not living on lavish life. He replied that there was no sufficient amount in the accounts of accused Ravi Kapoor and no cash, jewellery etc were seized from the accused or at his instance during investigation under MCOC Act. He replied that accused Ravi Kapoor sold one stolen vehicle to one witness Sunny Sohandani. Witness replied that no formal complaint/information/DD entry was made by him for purpose of invoking MCOC Act against accused Ravi Kapoor. The proposal of invoking MCOC Act against syndicate was not moved or initiated by him.
105.24 He replied that the confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor was recorded by the then DCP South East District in her office at Sarita Vihar on 08.04.2009 and on that day, they firstly went to DCP Office, then to the Court for endorsement and then they returned back to the police station for further investigation. He replied that when statement of accused Ravi Kapoor was recorded, he was on police custody remand. He replied that he recorded statements of many public witnesses during investigation including Gainda, Sunny @ Sohandani etc. However, he did not remember the names of other witnesses due to lapse of time. He replied that no witness was examined with respect to the benami properties of the accused Ravi Kapoor. He replied that no sale consideration of stolen cars were ever recovered from accused Ravi Kapoor.
105.25 He replied that at the time of seeking sanction U/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act, he had filed draft chargesheet of the FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj alongwith annexures. However, he did SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 148 not remember as on date as to copy of which order of cognizance were attached with the said chargesheet.
105.26 He replied that he had only recorded statement of complainant, statement of IO and collected relevant record including copy of chargesheet and order on cognizance in FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar, FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony, FIR No. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj, FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar, FIR No. 565/2006 PS Vasant Vihar and FIR No. 126/2002 PS Nariana from the concerned Court while investigating under MCOC Act in the present FIR. He further replied that besides details of previous involvement of accused Ravi Kapoor, there was no other evidence which suggest that he was running an organized crime syndicate for purposes of MCOC Act. He voluntarily replied that no proof is required to show the syndicate.
105.27 Witness denied the suggestion that he had conducted investigation in mechanical manner or accused Ravi Kapoor was wrongly arrested under the pressure of media to solve the case. He further denied the suggestion that proper provision of MCOC Act were not invoked against accused Ravi Kapoor nor the proper sanction was sought by him. He denied the suggestion that no document was filed alongwith proposal for sanction. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
106. PW-96 Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh, JJA, Record Room, Sessions, South, Saket Courts:- He produced the summoned record of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar from the Record Room, Sessions, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi as Ex.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 149PW96/P1.
106.1 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
107. PW-97 Ms. Archana Saini, JA, Record Room, Criminal, South, Saket Courts:- She produced the original record pertaining to FIR No. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj from the Record Room, Criminal, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi as Ex. PW97/P1.
107.1 Accused persons opted not to cross examine the witness.
108. Vide order dated 09.08.2019, accused persons Ajay Kumar, Ajay Sethi, Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla in their statement recorded Under Section 294 Cr.PC had not disputed the proceeding of recording of statement U/s 164 Cr.PC of the witness Sunny and Abhishek by Sh. Pritam Singh, the then Ld. MM and Sh. Ravinder Singh, the then Ld. MM. They had also not disputed the proceeding of judicial TIP of the accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Singh Malik dated 28.03.2009 by Sh. Ravinder Singh, the then Ld. MM and of accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay dated 31.03.2009 conducted by Sh. Ravinder Singh, the then Ld. MM and document qua these two proceedings were exhibited as Ex. Z1, Ex. Z2 and Ex. Z3 (collectively) and Ex. Z4 (collectively).
Accordingly, the witnesses qua these proceedings were dropped.
109. After examination of above mentioned prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 150 accused persons were recorded separately U/s 313 Cr.PC in which all the incriminating evidence which came on record were put to the accused persons to which they denied. However, accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, DE was closed.
110. Final arguments advanced at length on behalf of the State by Ld. Additional PP for the State Sh. Pravin Rahul and on behalf of the accused persons through their respective counsels.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE THROUGH LD. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF STATE
111. It is argued on behalf of the State that prosecution has duly proved the charge of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC against the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh Malik beyond all reasonable doubt and no material contradiction came on record in the testimony of witnesses of prosecution who proved the prosecution case as well as material and circumstantial evidence against the accused persons.
111.1 It is further argued on behalf of the State that prosecution has duly proved beyond all reasonable doubt regarding the charge of commission of offence punishable U/s 3(1)(1) of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 as extended to the territories of Delhi (in short MCOC Act, 1999) against the accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and Baljeet Singh Malik.
111.2 It is further submitted that prosecution has also duly SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 151 proved against the accused Ajay Sethi @ Chacha regarding the charge of commission of offence punishable U/s 3 (2) of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 as extended to the territories of Delhi and charge of commission of offence punishable U/s 3 (5) of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 as extended to the territories of Delhi. 111.3 It is further argued that prosecution has also duly proved against the accused Ajay Sethi regarding the charge of offence punishable U/s 411 IPC regarding the theft of the stolen car bearing chasis no. 325817 (original registration no. MP19- CA-0145) (Wagon-R car) belonging to one Gaurav Singh (complainant of the FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj which was clubbed with the trial of the present case). 111.4 It is further argued that from the testimony of the witnesses of prosecution, it is duly proved that accused Ravi Kapoor was the leader of organized crime syndicate as defined U/s 2 (f) of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 as extended to the territories of Delhi and accused persons namely Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Sethi @ Chacha were its main group members who used to commit the organized crime and they used to continue their unlawful activity as defined U/s 2 (d) of the MCOC Act. 111.5 It is further argued that accused Ravi Kapoor, the leader of organized crime syndicate and his other associates of organized crime syndicate namely Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay, Baljeet Singh Malik were actively involved in the commission of various offences with objective of gaining SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 152 pecuniary benefits while use of violence, threat of violence to the victims of the crime and accused Ajay Sethi used to provide them necessary facilities in the commission of organized crime by the crime syndicate members led by accused Ravi Kapoor. 111.6 It is further argued that the syndicate members of the organized crime used to commit the offence of organized crime with the objective to gain the pecuniary benefit for their livelihood and this fact is duly proved by prosecution during the trial and no material contradiction came on record to establish the fact that accused persons were having any other source of income apart from the income from the proceeds of the various crimes committed by them.
111.7 It is further argued that on 30.09.2008 in between 03.25 am to 03.55 am, at Nelson Mandela Marg near Pole No. 78 on the road from Vasant Vihar to Vasant Kunj, the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan was killed by firing bullet through the country pistol by the organized crime syndicate members led by accused Ravi Kapoor and assisted by accused Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and Baljeet Singh Malik. It is further submitted that initially the information was lodged regarding the accident of the car of the victim. However, the murder of the victim came into the notice when she was medically examined and FIR was registered accordingly and this fact is duly proved by prosecution. It is further submitted that accused persons were initially not arrested and during the investigation of the FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, when accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 153 were arrested, they disclosed their involvement in the commission of offence of the present case. They also disclosed the involvement of other accused persons of their organized crime syndicates in the commission of crime. It is further argued that this fact is duly proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and no material contradiction came on record. 111.8 It is further argued that accused persons Ravi Kapoor and his other associates Amit Kumar Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik @ Poppy and Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga were arrested during the investigation and it was found that they had followed the car of the deceased in the Wagon-R car and said Wagon-R car having fake number plate which was also found to be stolen vehicle in FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj. It is further argued that during investigation, the criminal record of the accused persons led by accused Ravi Kapoor and his other associates of the organized crime syndicates members were checked and verified and it was found that they were indulged in various criminal activities for the past ten years with the sole objective of gaining pecuniary benefit in the form of livelihood from the proceeds of the crime committed by the organized crime syndicates and this fact is duly proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and no material contradiction came on record during the trial of the case.
111.9 It is further argued that during the investigation of the present case, the approval Under Section 23 (1) (a) of the MCOC Act, 1999 was obtained against the accused Ravi Kapoor on 06.04.2009 and the confessional statement of accused Ravi SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 154 Kapoor was recorded as per the provision of Section 18 of the MCOC Act. It is further argued that the confessional statement made by the accused Ravi Kapoor U/s 18 of the MCOC Act is admissible piece of evidence against all the accused persons of organized crime syndicates led by accused Ravi Kapoor. 111.10 It is further argued that recording of confessional statement of the accused U/s 18 of the MCOC Act and its affirmation before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as per mandate U/s 18 (6) of the MCOC Act is duly proved by prosecution and no material contradiction came on record during the examination of the witnesses qua recording of confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor or its affirmation before Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It is further argued that during the examination of the witness qua recording of confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor and during the examination of the witness qua information of the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor, it came on record that all the legal requirements and due process of law were followed. 111.11 It is further argued that accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Sethi @ Chacha were members of the organized crime syndicates run by accused Ravi Kapoor and apart from the evidence brought on record during the trial regarding their criminal activities, prosecution has duly proved to the record of the FIR No. 28/2002 PS Special Cell, record of FIR No. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj, record of FIR No. 126/2002 PS Naraina, FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar, FIR No. 565/2006 SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 155 PS Vasant Vihar, FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony, FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar, FIR No. 209/2008 PS Vasant Kunj, FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt regarding the joint as well as individual continuing criminal unlawful activities of the accused persons of their organized crime syndicates.
111.12 It is further argued that accused persons continued their unlawful activities till the date of their arrest in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar in which accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik were arrested on 23.03.2009 regarding the FIR dated 19.03.2009. It is further argued that on 06.04.2009, the approval under Section 23 (1) (a) of the MCOC Act was accorded by the Competent Authority to invoke Section 3 of the MCOC Act in FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj i.e. the present case regarding the continuous unlawful criminal activities of the organized crime syndicates of the accused persons led by accused Ravi Kapoor till the date of invocation of MCOC Act in the present case U/s 23 (1) (a) of MCOC Act, 1999 on 06.04.2009. 111.13 It is further submitted that accused Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla were already convicted U/s 302/201/34 IPC in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and accused Amit Shukla, Ajay Behnga and Ravi Kapoor were already convicted Under Section 392/394/34 IPC in FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt and Section 3 of the MCOC Act in the present FIR was invoked on the basis of continuous unlawful criminal activities of the organized crime syndicates run by accused Ravi Kapoor till 06.04.2009 i.e. the date on which the approval for SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 156 invocation of MCOC Act was approved by competent authority. 111.14 It is argued that all the members of organized crime syndicate led by accused Ravi Kapoor are liable for the act of any member of organized crime syndicate as the offence was committed by the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of the organized crime syndicate and this fact is duly proved by the prosecution during the trial.
111.15 It is further argued that in case titled as " Govind Sakaram Ubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra" in Criminal Appeal No. 18/09 decided on 11.06.2009, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay that there is no requirement in the MCOC Act that there has to be more than one chargesheet filed against each and every member of organized crime syndicate. It was further held that there is no requirement in MCOC Act that approval for invoking MCOC Act is to be taken against all the members of organized crime syndicate and only the previous criminal record of the members of syndicate to be considered on the relevant to show their continuing criminal activities of whole syndicate. 111.16 It is further argued that in case titled as " Balram Kumawat Vs. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC, 628, it was held that rule of strict interpretation of criminal law cannot be stretched so much and / or apply impracticable manner so as to decade the very purpose of enactment of provision thereof. It is further submitted that actual use of violence is not always necessary for an activity falling within the meaning of mischief of organized crime syndicate. The general words used after the several legal terms may not always be interpreted by using the maxim of SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 157 ejustem-generis.
111.17 Ld. Additional PP for the State has further relied upon the judgment titled as " State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagan Gangu Singh Nepali (2011) SCC, online Bombay 1049 and Abhishek Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 869/2022 dated 20.05.2022 and submitted that the word " other advantages" used in the provision of MCOC Act need not be read by using the maxim of ejustem-generis. The other advantages could mean the supremacy of the gang in the area or any particular field or to have finance for organized crime syndicate or its members as per needs. It is further submitted that the reason and object of enactment are only of illustrative in nature and not exhaustive and they do not curtail their explanation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 111.18 It is further argued while relying upon the judgment titled as " State of Maharashtra Vs. Kamal Ahmad ( 2013) 12, SCC, 17, that confessional statement recorded U/s 18 of MCOC Act are admissible piece of evidence against the maker/accused and other co accused of organized crime syndicate and Section 18 of the MCOC Act has over riding effect on the provision of Indian Evidence Act.
111.19 It is further argued that the purpose of Section 2 (1)
(d) of MCOC Act is fulfilled when cognizance of offence taken by the competent Court in more than one chargesheet against any of the member of organized crime syndicate for the offence punishable more than three years and same have been taken within preceding ten years and outcome of the case in the form of SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 158 conviction or acquittal for any reason including settlement with the victim, untrace witnesses are not relevant under the provision of MCOC Act.
111.20 It is further submitted that all the mandatory requirements as per the provision of MCOC Act were duly complied with by the investigating agency at the time of taking necessary approval for invoking MCOC Act against the accused persons, and at the time of recording confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor and his organized crime syndicate, and at the time of obtaining the sanction under the MCOC Act. 111.21 It is further argued that accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga /members of organized crime syndicate had committed the murder of deceased Ms. Saumya Vishwanathan in their capacity and as a members of organized crime syndicate and therefore, all the members of the organized crime syndicate are liable for the offence of murder of the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan as committed by them.
111.22 It is further submitted that the material recovered during investigation duly connect the accused persons being members of organized crime syndicate to the offence of murder of deceased /victim Ms. Saumya Vishwanathan and it is duly proved through FSL Expert and other Expert and their report that recovered Wagon-R car was used in the commission of offence. It is further submitted that Section 22 of the MCOC Act provides about the presumption as offences U/s 3 of the MCOC Act against the accused persons regarding commission of offences SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 159 committed by them unless contrary is proved and accused persons did not discharge the burden as per Section 22 (2) of the MCOC Act.
111.23 It is further submitted that as per Section 25 of the MCOC Act, the Act has over riding effect on the general laws. It is further submitted that the accused persons were involved in commission of organized crime through their syndicate led by accused Ravi Kapoor and their livelihood were dependent upon the proceeds of organized crime syndicate. Apart from that they were also maintained a good standard of life for which they were totally dependent upon the proceeds of the organized crime syndicate. It is further submitted that actual and physical recovery of movable as well as immovable properties of particular value is not required under the provisions of MCOC Act. It is further submitted that as per Section 17 (2) of MCOC Act, the accused persons did not disclose the source of their livelihood and presumption can be drawn against them that their livelihood resources were derived or acquired by illegal activities of organized crime syndicate.
111.24 It is further submitted that active and physical involvement of each and every member of the organized crime is not required under the provisions of MCOC Act. Hence, the defence of the accused persons namely Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik in that regard could not sustained.
111.25 It is further argued that chain of events have been duly proved and connected and duly proved from the deposition of witnesses, medical and expert report and their opinion in SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 160 report besides documentary evidence of the CDR /CAF, bank account details of the accused persons and previous criminal record duly established that accused persons were members of organized crime syndicate led by accused Ravi Kapoor and they were engaged in organized crime.
111.26 It is further submitted that defence of the accused persons is not sustainable and order of Ld. ACMM passed during the proceeding of endorsement of confessional statement given by the accused Ravi Kapoor clearly reflect that accused Ravi Kapoor was examined by her as per law, the sealed confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor and accused Ravi Kapoor was produced before her. The said confessional statement was again sealed by the Court seal and the sealed confessional statement was handed over to IO/ACP to file the same before the Competent Court under MCOC Act to which he complied. Proceedings further reflect that said sealed confessional statement of the accused which was filed by IO/ACP on the direction of Ld. ACMM was opened by the designated Special Court under MCOC Act and copy of the same was supplied to the IO on his application for further investigation of the case. 111.27 It is further argued that it is duly proved from the evidence led by prosecution during the trial that accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Sethi were members of the organized crime syndicates led by accused Ravi Kapoor. It is argued that the accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and Baljeet Singh Malik killed the victim Saumya Vishwanathan SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 161 by firing bullet in order to achieve the goal of their crime syndicates. It is further argued that charges of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC against the accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and Baljeet Singh Malik is duly proved. It is further argued that charges of offence punishable U/s 3 (1) (i) of the MCOC Act, 1999 is also duly proved against the accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and Baljeet Singh Malik. It is further argued that prosecution has also duly proved the charge of offence punishable U/s 3 (2) and Section 3 (5) of the MCOC Act, 1999 against accused Ajay Sethi and charge of offence punishable U/s 411 IPC against accused Ajay Sethi. It is further submitted that the accused persons may be held guilty and may be convicted for their respective charges and may be punished as per law.
Ld. PP for the State has relied upon the following judgments while addressing above noted final arguments. a. Govind Sakha Ram Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal no. 18/09 decided on 11.06.2009.
b. Balram Kumawat Vs. UOI (2003) 7 SCC 628. c. State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagan Gangu Singh Nepali (2011) SCC Online Bombay 1049. d. Abhishek Vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 869/2022 decided on 20.05.2022. e. State of Maharashtra Vs. Kamal Ahmed (2013) 12 SCC 17. f. Rajendra Bhau Patole Vs. State of Maharashtra in Crl. Writ Petition 3812/2021 decided on SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 162 28.03.2022. g. Sachin Bansi Lal Ghaiwal Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) CRI L.J 4217.
112. Final Arguments on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor as advanced by Ld. counsel Ms. Dimple Vivek for accused Ravi Kapoor 112.1 It is argued that incident of the accident of vehicle of the victim was recorded firstly as DD No. 16-A dated 30.09.2008 and Shri Bhagwan was the 100 number caller of the incident. However, he had not informed to the police about the four alleged persons as alleged by the police. It is further argued that the said Shri Bhagwan was examined as PW-3. However, he did not support the case of prosecution and he did not witness the incident. It is further argued that prior to the arrest of the accused persons in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, there was no evidence against the accused persons regarding the allegation in the present case and they were falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of false disclosure statement allegedly made in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar.
112.2 It is further argued that PW-7 falsely identified the accused persons during his examination in the Court and he only stated that accused persons had made inquiry from the witness and they left the spot. It is further argued that witness PW-11 and PW-12 also did not support the case of prosecution qua the identity of other accused persons regarding their presence or visit at the place of incident after the incident. It is further argued that PW-18 did not disclose about the presence of accused SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 163 persons at the spot. It is further argued that PW-22 specifically stated that no chance print could be lifted from the vehicle which rules out the presence of accused persons at the spot.
It is further argued that witness PW-36 the then DCP had recorded the false confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor and same was manipulated as it did not bear the signature of the accused in its two internal pages and the said statement was recorded during the police custody remand. It is further argued that allegation of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC is not proved against the accused persons as chain of circumstances were not fully proved. It is further argued that the accused persons were not identified by any of the eye witness of the case and witnesses of the prosecution deposed contrary to the case of prosecution regarding the presence of the accused persons after the alleged incident.
112.3 It is further argued that no CCTV footage or eye witness or other incriminating evidence was collected against the accused persons including accused Ravi Kapoor qua the incident of murder of deceased/victim and no such evidence proved by the prosecution during the trial of the case. 112.4 It is further argued that the provisions of MCOC Act were falsely invoked against the accused persons in order to falsely implicate them in the present case and to make admissible the confessional statement as recorded Under Section 18 of MCOC Act which was otherwise not admissible as per the provision of Indian Evidence Act.
112.5 It is further argued that all the cases on the basis of SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 164 which the Section 3 of MCOC Act was invoked against the accused persons including accused Ravi Kapoor were falsely lodged against the accused persons and accused Ravi Kapoor was acquitted/discharged in almost all those cases which were prior to the date of the incident of the present case. 112.6 It is further argued that the basic ingredient of MCOC Act i.e. the fact that accused Ravi Kapoor was running a organized crime syndicate or was involved in organized crime or was involved in continuing unlawful activity was not proved by the prosecution during the trial and no incriminating evidence came on record.
112.7 It is further argued that during investigation, the accounts of the accused Ravi Kapoor and his other family members were verified and no incriminating evidence came on record to establish that accused was gaining pecuniary benefit or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person from the proceeds of his alleged organized crime syndicate.
112.8 It is further argued that the alleged confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor was recorded under Section 18 of MCOC Act. However, at that time he was in police custody, so the same cannot be considered as voluntary statement and same is not admissible as per law.
112.9 It is further argued that the alleged confessional statement was also not approved as per law by the then Ld. ACMM when the accused was produced for approval of his statement and the alleged confessional statement was not read SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 165 over to the accused by Ld. ACMM nor the same was endorsed and a separate statement was only recorded.
112.10 It is further argued that the information of MCOC Act was wrongly recorded by the IO and wrongly approved by the competent authority in mechanical manner and without application of mind and without considering the factual position qua the accused Ravi Kapoor.
112.11 It is further argued that the sanction was wrongly accorded by the competent authority qua the MCOC Act as per Section 23 (2) of MCOC Act and same was accorded in mechanical manner and without application of mind and without considering the factual position against the accused Ravi Kapoor. It is further argued that no material was placed before the competent authority at the time of approval as per Section 23 (1 )
(a) of MCOC Act.
112.12 It is further argued that no incriminating evidence came on record during the trial to connect the accused persons including accused Ravi Kapoor with the alleged offending vehicle allegedly used in commission of crime and even the FSL report and witnesses from FSL also not supported the case of prosecution on this point. It is further argued that the presence of the alleged Wagon-R car was not proved to be present at the location of the crime on the date, time and place of incident. It is further argued that the weapon of offence allegedly recovered during the investigation of the present case was not found to be connected in any manner with the offence of the present case and no incriminating evidence came on record during the trial of the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 166 present case.
112.13 It is further argued that no incriminating evidence came on record to connect the accused Ravi Kapoor with other accused persons or to establish the fact that accused Ravi Kapoor was involved in organized crime or was running the organized crime syndicate or was involved in continuing unlawful activity. It is further argued that police falsely implicated the accused Ravi Kapoor and other accused persons in the present case to work out the present case under the pressure of media as victim was the employee in media house.
112.14 It is further argued that no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused Ravi Kapoor and other accused persons to establish the fact that they were present near the place of incident at the time of alleged incident including the CDR Location Chart, CCTV footage of any nature. It is further argued that the alleged Wagon-R car involved in the incident was recovered from a public place after a period of six months. Hence, it cannot be said to be proved that it was recovered from the possession of co accused Ajay Sethi.
112.15 Ld. counsel for accused Ravi Kapoor has relied upon the judgment "Narendersinh Keshubhaizawa Vs. State of Gujarat" in Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 2012 dated 16.05.2023 and submitted that it is settled in this case that " the principle of law that doubt cannot replace the truth. Only such evidence is admissible and acceptable as it permissible in accordance with law. The unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the witness". It SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 167 is further held that no amount of corroboration can cure the defect of unreliable witness.
It is submitted that in the present case save and except for the confessional statement of the accused, the prosecution is not able to link the weapon of offence with the accused and no scientific evidence came against the accused linking the accused with the offence in question. 112.16 Ld. counsel for accused has further relied upon the judgment titled as "Dileep Vs. State of U.P" of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 26.05.2023 and submitted that in the present case only circumstantial evidence is produced by the prosecution. However, accused persons could not be connected with the offence of murder of the victim and circumstances as well as circumstantial evidence is also not proved. It is further submitted that the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is settled principle of law that however strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt and chain of circumstances is also not proved. 112.17 Ld. counsel for accused has also relied upon the judgment titled as " Sharadbirdhichand Shardha Vs. State of Maharashtra", AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622 and submitted that the case of prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain of evidence is also not complete in the present case and it is settled law that benefit of doubt be always granted to the accused.
112.18 Ld. counsel for accused has also relied upon the judgment titled as " State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajeet Singh & Ors."
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 168of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and judgment titled as "Swarn Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab dated 10.04.1957 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and submitted that the mandatory provision for admissibility of confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor was not complied by the witness who had recorded the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor. It is further submitted that the said confessional statement was not having signature of the accused at internal two pages and the affirmation of the confessional statement was also not done properly by Ld. ACMM when accused was produced before the Ld. ACMM. It is further submitted that at the time of recording the confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor, he was in police custody and after recording the confessional statement, he was again remanded to police custody. It is further submitted that the said confessional statement of the accused is not admissible in law and the same is liable to be discarded. It is further submitted that the confession of the accused was required to be voluntary and in the present case the confessional statement was not voluntary, so it is required to be discarded and it is not admissible as per law. 112.19 Ld. counsel for accused Ravi Kapoor has further relied upon the judgment titled as " State of Maharashtra Vs. Shiva @ Shivaji Ramji Sonawane" of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 2015 (14) SCC 272 and "State Government of NCT Delhi Vs. Khalil Ahmed" dated 23.04.2012, of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and "Dara Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra" of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 169 Bench) and "Pundlik Ukla Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors." and submitted that mere proof of filing of chargesheet of past cases against the accused persons cannot be the basis of holding guilty of offences of committing organized crime punishable U/s 3 of the MCOC Act and gain or pecuniary benefit or undue economic other advantages are required to be proved by the prosecution. It is submitted that accused persons including accused Ravi Kapoor was already acquitted in almost all cases which were registered prior to the incident of the present case, so the provision of MCOC Act were wrongly invoked in the present case in order to implicate the accused persons in the present case. It is further submitted that the pecuniary benefit is required to be obtained from the means of running an organized crime and in the present case, this ingredient was not proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the prosecution has also not proved that the accused persons were the members of crime syndicates or an organization indulged in criminal activities for the purposes of gaining pecuniary benefit and no link was established by the prosecution between the accused persons themselves or with the offence of the present case regarding murder of the victim. It is further submitted that the accused persons were not convicted for any offence prior to the incident of 30.09.2008 of the present case in which the victim was murdered and due to the same reason, the provision of MCOC Act was wrongly invoked. It is further submitted that in the present case " the ingredients of continuing unlawful activities or ingredients of organized crime syndicate" has not been proved SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 170 by the prosecution.
112.20 Ld. counsel for accused has further relied upon the judgments titled as " Baba @ Kamlakar Kissan Bodake & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2006, Dara Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dated 03.08.2021, Sher Bahadur Akram Khan & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra" of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, "State of Maharastra Vs. Bharat Babu Rao Gavhane & Ors". of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dated 29.09.2008, Ranjeet Singh Bhramjeet Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, AIR 2005, 2277 and State of Maharastra Vs. Jagan Gagan Singh Nepali of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dated 05.08.2011. It is submitted that sanction to prosecute the accused persons were wrongly accorded and accorded in mechanical manner without application of mind and without considering the sufficient material. It is further submitted that the prosecution under MCOC Act is required to be discarded. It is further submitted that it is not proved that accused persons were active members of crime syndicate or they were involved in continuing unlawful activity or they were engaged in organized crime.
It is further submitted that mere involvement or mere chargesheet in certain criminal cases is not sufficient to invoke the provision of MCOC Act and ingredient as prescribed in MCOC Act must be satisfied prior to invoking the provision of MCOC Act.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 171It is further submitted that the pecuniary benefit or gain from the proceeds of the alleged crime syndicate or organized crime has not been proved by prosecution against the accused persons including accused Ravi Kapoor.
It is further submitted that the alleged nexus between the accused persons or the fact that accused persons were members of crime syndicate or the fact that accused persons were involved in organized crime syndicate has not been proved by the prosecution in the present case.
It is further submitted that the case of prosecution against the accused Ravi Kapoor and other accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused persons, so accused Ravi Kapoor as well as other accused persons may be acquitted from the present case.
113. Arguments Advanced on behalf of the accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Singh Malik @ Poppy:-
Ld. counsel for accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik has relied upon the judgments titled as " Zakir Abdul Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors", 2022 SCC Online, SC 1092 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Govind Sakhram Ubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, 2009 AIIMR (CRI) 1903, Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Delhi, 2011 (4) JCC 2846 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and submitted that prosecution has failed to prove in the present case that accused persons were having any nexus or link with the organized crime syndicate allegedly run by accused Ravi Kapoor SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 172 and no incriminating evidence came on record against accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik.
Ld. counsel for accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik has also relied upon the judgment titled as " Pandurang Vs. State of Hyderabad, 1955 AIR (SC) 216, Malkhan Singh & Anrs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1975) 3, Supreme Court Cases, 311 and Hanumant Vs. State of M.P, AIR 1952, SC, 343 and submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the common intention shared by accused Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik with the co accused persons and no evidence came on record to establish the fact that they were involved in killing the victim Soumya Vishwanathan in the alleged incident alongwith other accused persons.
113.1 It is submitted by Ld. counsel that the FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj dated 30.09.2008 was lodged as a blind murder case wherein there had not been any arrest till the arrest dated 23.03.2009 of the accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik in FIR No. 69/2009 ( Call Centre Executive Jigisha Ghosh Murder Case) lodged at PS Vasant Vihar, and there was huge media pressure upon the Delhi Police to solve that case as the deceased ( Soumya Vishwanathan) was a lady journalist. 113.2 It is further argued by Ld. counsel that under the acute media and social pressure to solve this case bearing FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj which was blind and clueless murder case of the journalist, the Delhi Police had falsely booked the above named arrested accused persons of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, in the present case as well, without any SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 173 evidence or link, on the basis of their alleged recorded disclosure statement.
113.3 It is argued by Ld. counsel that in order to justify their illegal arrest, without any evidence, and further to make their false case at least triable in the Court of law for years and to pacify the media and the victim's family, the provisions of MCOC Act were invoked with a view to use the Section 18 of MCOC Act as an incriminating evidence, wherein the disclosure statement of a maker/accused are admissible as evidence against accused as well as the co-accused persons, in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that besides to fulfill the requirements of MCOC Act, the above named accused persons were also involved in false dead/unnamed/unsolved cases/FIR. 113.4 It is further argued that the charges were framed against the above named accused persons vide order dated 06.02.2010 for offence under section 302/34 IPC and vide order dated 09.05.2011 for offence U/s 3 (1) (i) of MCOC Act in present case i.e. FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj. 113.5 It is further argued that the ingredients of organized crime and organized crime syndicate as defined in MCOC Act is not fulfilled. It is further submitted that the incident dated 30.09.2008(FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj) was an alleged "
organized crime" as defined U/s 2 (e) of MCOC Act and to qualify any offence as on "Organized Crime", the sectional ingredients of Sec 2 (d) [ " continuing unlawful activity"] and Section 2 (f) [" organized crime syndicate'] of MCOCA, are required to be fulfilled and being, the incident dated 30.09.2008 SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 174 as an " organized crime", the FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar dated 16.03.2009 being the subsequent incident, cannot be considered for the purposes of invoking MCOC Act in FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Vihar as the same does not fall in the category of "-------preceding period of ten years-----" as required U/s 2 (d) of MCOC Act.
113.6 It is further submitted that the ingredient of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency;" was also not proved and even the alleged incident dated 30.09.2008 does not covered in the definition of organized crime as defined U/s 2 (e) of MCOC Act.
113.7 It is further submitted that due to non- compliance of Section 18 (5) of MCOC Act, the condition of voluntariness of confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor is doubtful and it cannot be relied upon as middle two pages of confessional statement does not bear signature of accused Ravi Kapoor. 113.8 It is further argued that in the absence of any named FIR/chargesheet/Trial/Conviction against the accused Amit & Baljeet on 30.09.2008 i.e. the day of commission of alleged 'organized crime', the prosecution has failed to prove the membership of these two accused persons as members of 'organized crime syndicate', if any was in existence, on 30.09.2008.
113.9 It is further argued that the concerned police officials had falsely implicated the accused persons in the unnamed/dead/unsolved FIR No. 475/2008 & FIR No. SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 175 209/2008, both registered at PS Vasant Kunj only to invoke MCOC Act against them. It is further argued that their false implication in these cases were further confirmed with the fact that the involvement of these accused persons were not shown even in the proposal U/s 23 (1) MCOC Act dated 06.04.2009 & 15.04.2009.
113.10 It is further argued that no recovery of any weapon/vehicle was effected from these accused persons. 113.11 It is further argued that the Sanctions U/s 23 (1) & 23 (2) of MCOC Act were mechanically approved and accorded without application of mind by the competent authority.
113.12 It is further argued that prosecution has failed to prove the link between these two accused persons and alleged crime dated 30.09.2008. It is further argued that case of prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused are entitled to be acquitted.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD LAC SHRI RAJEEV JAIN ON BEHALF ACCUSED PERSONS NAMELY AJAY SETHI AND AJAY KUMAR
114. It is submitted on behalf of the accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and accused Ajay Sethi @ Chacha @ Malik that both these accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case by the police on the basis of alleged disclosure statement recorded in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar.
It is further submitted that no recovery was effected from accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay. It is further submitted that ingredients of commission of offence punishable U/s 3 of the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 176 MCOC Act was not proved by the prosecution against the accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay. It is further submitted that prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay was present at the spot on the incident dated 30.09.2008. It is further submitted that prosecution has relied only upon the circumstantial evidence to establish the case against the accused regarding charge of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC of incident dated 30.09.2008. However, chain of all the circumstances is not proved to be completed by the prosecution. It is further submitted that no incriminating evidence was recovered from the possession of the accused or at his instance qua the allegation of charge of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC. It is further submitted that the provision of MCOC Act as punishable U/s 3 of MCOC Act was wrongly invoked against the accused. It is further submitted that the confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor was not recorded in legal manner and the same cannot be treated as voluntary statement as at the time of statement, accused was in police custody. It is further argued that the case of prosecution against accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay is not proved. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted from the present case.
114.1 It is argued further by Ld. LAC for accused Ajay Sethi that accused Ajay Sethi was falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of other accused persons. It is further submitted that ingredients of organized crime syndicate or continuous unlawful activity was not proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 177 accused Ajay Sethi and it is not established that accused abeted or added the other accused persons in the commission of organized crime. It is further submitted that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ajay Sethi was member of crime syndicate or he was associated with the other accused persons in any manner. It is further submitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused Ajay Sethi.
It is further submitted that the recovery of alleged vehicle of FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj was from the possession of the accused Ajay Sethi is not proved. It is further submitted that no evidence came on record against the accused Ajay Sethi and case of prosecution against the accused Ajay Sethi is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so accused may be acquitted from the present case.
DISCUSSION ON LAW
115. The case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as well as on other material evidence, it would be apt to have a look on the law applicable in that regard. LEGAL POSITION ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
116. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as " Anwar Ali and Another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh", Crl Appeal No. 1121/2016 dated 25.09.2020 has held as under:-
" 5.4 It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in catena of decisions that in case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 178 complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the case of Babu (supra), it is observed and held in paragraphs 22 to 24 as under:
"22. In Krishan Vs. State (2008) 15 SCC 430, this Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed as follows: (SCC p. 435, para 15) "15. ... This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 179 should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351)"
116.1 In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:
(SCC p. 185, para 153)
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must" or "should" and not " may be" established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in State of U.P Vs. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 and Pawan Vs. State of Uttaranchal SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 180 (2009) 15 SCC 259.
5.5 Even in the case of G. Parshwanath (supra), this Court has in paragraphs 23 and 24 observed as under:
"23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although, there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 181 these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court".
116.2 In Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 1348/2013 dated 02.03.2021, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been very well crystallized in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 182 drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicted that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between " may be proved" and " must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made: [ SCC para 10, p. 807; SCC (Cri) p. 1047.
"19.... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ' may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 183 evidence."
116.3 Further, in State of Odisha Vs. Banabihari Mohapatra and Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1156/2021, dated 12.02.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the Accused.
36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence are:
"10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established. 10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There is a strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of the doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 184 have accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep. The impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817. 116.4 In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought is to be established by circumstantial evidence."
116.5 Next, in Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam (2017) 14 SCC 359, it was observed:
"(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' not and 'may be' established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not the explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature of tendency;
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be provided; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 185 with the innocence of the accused and must shown that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (See: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashra (1984) 4 SCC 116; M G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200)."
116.6 The principles with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence have also been explained in Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab (2016) 13 SCC 516.
Therefore, the principle, as laid down in aforesaid judicial dicta, is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The various circumstances in the chain of events must be such so as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of accused. The missing of important link snaps the chain of circumstances and the other circumstances cannot in any manner establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
116.7 CIRCUMSTANCE OF LAST SEEN: Apex Court in Nizam & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, Crl. Appeal No. 413/2007, decided on 04.09.2015, discussed the law regarding last seen theory. It was observed: -
"Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:-
"23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 186 knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad 218)" The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319."
116.8. Further, in Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (Crl.) 997 of 2005 Apex Court held as follows:-
"It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. [See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. (2005) 7 SCC 603].
The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration."SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 187
116.9. In case of State of U.P. v. Satish, Appeal (Crl.) 256-257 of 2005, with regard to last-seen theory following was held:
"The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses."
DISCUSSION ON LAW APPLICABLE QUA ALLEGATIONS UNDER MCOC ACT, 1999
117. The term abet is defined in MCOC Act, 1999 as under:-
Section 2 (a) "abet", with its grammatical variations and cognate expression, includes,--
(i) the communication or association with any person with the actual knowledge or having reason to believe that such person is engaged in assisting in any manner, an organised crime syndicate ;
(ii) the passing on or publication of, without any lawful authority,any information likely to assist the organised crime syndicate and the passing on or publication of or distribution of any document or matter obtained from the organised crime syndicate ; and SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 188
(iii) the rendering of any assistance, whether financial or otherwise, to the organised crime syndicate ;
The term continuing unlawful activity is defined in Section 2 (d) of MCOC Act, 1999 as under:-
" continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence ;
The term organised crime is defined in Section 2 (e) of MCOC Act, 1999 as under:-
(e) "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency ;
The term organised crime syndicate is defined in Section 2
(f) of MCOC Act, 1999 as under:-
(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime ;
117.1 Section 3 of the MCOC Act, 1999 provides about the punishment as under:-
Section 3:- Punishment for organised crime- (1) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall,--
(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 189 be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac;
(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime or any act preparatory to organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(3) Whoever harbours or conceals or attempts to harbour or conceal, any member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extent to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(5) Whoever holds any property derived or obtained from commission of an organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime syndicate funds shall be punishable with a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees two lacs.
117.2 Section 17 of MCOC Act, 1999 provides about the Special rules of evidence as under:-
Section 17:- Special rules of evidence- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code, or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,(1 of 1872), for the purposes of SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 190 trial and punishment for offences under this Act or connected offences, the Court may take into consideration as having probative value, the fact that the accused was,--
(a) on any previous occasion bound under section 107 or section 110 of the Code ;
(b) detained under any law relating to preventive detention; or
(c) on any previous occasion was prosecuted in the Special Court under this Act.
(2) Where it is proved that any person involved in an organised crime or any person on his behalf is or has at any time been in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, the Special Court shall, unless contrary is proved, presume that such property or pecuniary resources have been acquired or derived by his illegal activities.
(3) Where it is proved that the accused has kidnapped or abducted any person, the Special Court shall presume that it was for ransom.
117.3 Section 18 of MCOC Act, 1999 provides about the confession made to the Police Officer as under:-
Section 18:- Certain confessions made to Police officer to be taken into consideration-
.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Code or in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but subject to the provisions of this section, a confession made by a person before a police officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police and recorded by such police officer either in writing or on any mechanical devices like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from which sounds or images can be reproduced, shall be admissible in the trial of such person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator :
Provided that, the co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused.SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 191
(2) The confession shall be recorded in a free atmosphere in the same language in which the person is examined and as narrated by him.
(3) The police officer shall, before recording any confession under sub-section (1), explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him and such police officer shall not record any such confession unless upon questioning the person making it, he is satisfied that it is being made voluntarily. The concerned police officer shall , after recording such voluntary confession, certify in writing below the confession about his personal satisfaction of the voluntary character of such confession,putting the date and time of the same.
(4) Every confession recorded under sub-section (1) shall be sent forthwith to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area in which such confession has been recorded and such Magistrate shall forward the recorded confession so received to the Special Court which may take cognizance of the offence.
(5) The person from whom a confession has been recorded under sub-section (1) shall also be produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the confession is required to be sent under sub-section (4) alongwith the original statement of confession, written or recorded on mechanical device without unreasonable delay.
(6) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall scrupulously record the statement, if any, made by the accused so produced and get his signature and in case of any complaint of torture, the person shall be directed to be produced for medical examination before a Medical Officer not lower in rank than of an Assistant Civil Surgeon.
117.4 Section 22 of MCOC Act, 1999 provides about presumption of certain facts as under:-
Section 22:- Presumption as to offence under section 3- (1) In a prosecution for an offence of organised crime punishable under SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 192 section 3, if it is proved--
(a) that unlawful arms and other material including documents or papers were recovered from the possession of the accused and there is reason to believe that such unlawful arms and other material including documents or papers were used in the commission of such offence ; or
(b) that by the evidence of an expert, the finger prints of the accused were found at the site of the offence or on anything including unlawful arms and other material including documents or papers and vehicle used in connection with the commission of such offence, the Special Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused had committed such offence.
(2) In a prosecution for an offence of organised crime punishable under sub-section (2) of section 3, if it is proved that the accused rendered any financial assistance to a person accused of, or reasonably suspected of, an offence of organised crime, the Special Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person has committed the offence under the said sub-section (2).
117.5 Section 23 of MCOC Act, 1999 provides about the recording of information about the commission of offence punishable under MCOC Act, cognizance of offence Under MCOC Act, investigation, Sanction to prosecute under the MCOC Act as under:-
Section 23:- Cognizance of, and investigation into, an offence-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,--
(a) no information about the commission of an offence of organised crime under this Act, shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police;
(b) no investigation of an offence under the provisions of this Act shall be carried out by a police officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 193
(2) No Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the police officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police.
118. The legal principles applicable in regard to the provisions of MCOC Act is clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as other Superior Courts as under:-
118.1 In the case of Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 294: (2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1538 (S.C.), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"32. The Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly states as to why the said Act had to be enacted. Thus it will be safe to presume that the expression 'any unlawful means' must refer to any such act, which as a direct nexus with the commission of a crime which the MCOC Act seeks to prevent or control. In other words, an offence falling within the definition of organized crime and committed by an organized crime syndicate is the offence contemplated by the statement of Objects and Reasons. There are offences and offences under the Indian Penal Code and other penal statutes providing for punishment of three years or more and in relation to such offences more than one chargesheet may be filed. As we have indicated hereinbefore, only because a person cheats or commits a criminal breach of trust, more than once, the same by itself may not be sufficient to attract the provisions of MCOCA"
118.2 In the case of Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2015 Supreme Court Cases 440, Hon'ble SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 194 Supreme Court observed as under:
"38 In the first instance, it will be profitable to examine the scheme of MCOCA by making a cursory glance to the Objects and Reasons and thereafter to make an intensive reading of the above referred to provisions. When we peruse the Objects and Reasons, it discloses that organized crime has been posing very serious threat to our society for quite some years and it was also noted that organized crime syndicates had a common cause with terrorist gangs. In the Objects and Reasons, the foremost consideration was the serious threat to the society by those who were indulging in organized crimes in the recent years apart from organized crime criminals operating hand in glove with terrorist gangs. It is common knowledge that for the terrorist gangs, the sole object is to create panic in the minds of peace loving members of the society and in that process attempt to achieve some hidden agenda which cannot be easily identified, but certainly will not be in the general interest or well being of the society. Those who prefer to act in such clandestine manner and activities will formulate their own mind- set and ill-will towards others and attempt to achieve their objectives by indulging in unlawful hazardous criminal activities unmindful of the serious consequences and in majority of such cases it results in severe loss of life of innocent people apart from extensive damage to the properties of public at large. It was further found that the existing legal framework, that is the penal and procedural laws and the adjudicatory system, were found to be inadequate to curb or control the menace of 'organized crime'. The Objects and Reasons SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 195 also states that such 'organized crimes' were filled by illegal wealth generated by contract killing, extrusion, smuggling in contraband, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnapping for ransom, collection of protection money, money laundering etc. Keeping the above serious repercussions referred to in the Objects and Reasons, when we examine Section 2(1)(d)(e)&(f), which defines 'continuing unlawful activity', 'organized crime' or 'organized crime syndicate', we find that the three definitions are closely interlinked.
"39. The definition of 'continuing unlawful activity' under Section 2(1)(d) mainly refers to an activity prohibited by law. The said activity should be a cognizable offence, punishable with imprisonment of three years or more. The commission of such offence should have been undertaken either by an individual singly or by joining with others either as a member of an 'organized crime syndicate' or even if as an individual or by joining hands with others even if not as a member of a 'organized crime syndicate' such commission of an offence should have been on behalf of such syndicate. It further states that in order to come within the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity' there should have been more than one charge-sheet filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of 10 years and that the said Court should have taken cognizance of such offence.
"40. Before getting into the nuances of the said definition of 'continuing unlawful activity', it will be worthwhile to get a broad idea of the definition of 'organized SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 196 crime' under Section 2(1)(e) and 'organized crime syndicate' under Section 2(1)(f). An 'organized crime' should be any 'continuing unlawful activity' either by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of an 'organized crime syndicate' or on behalf of such syndicate. The main ingredient of the said definition is that such 'continuing unlawful activity' should have been indulged in by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means. Further such violence and other activity should have been indulged in with an objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or for any other person or for promoting insurgency. Therefore, an 'organized crime' by nature of violent action indulged in by an individual singly or jointly either as a member of an 'organized crime syndicate' or on behalf of such syndicate should have been either with an object for making pecuniary gains or undue economic or other advantage or for promoting insurgency. If the object was for making pecuniary gains it can be either for himself or for any other person. But we notice for promoting insurgency, there is no such requirement of any personal interest or the interest of any other person or body. The mere indulgence in a violent activity etc. either for pecuniary gain or other advantage or for promoting insurgency as an individual, either singly or jointly as a member of 'organized crime syndicate' or on behalf of a such syndicate would be sufficient for bringing the said activity within the four corners of the definition of 'organized crime'."SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 197
"66. We are now pitted with the question as to whether the taking of cognizance of the offence by the Competent Court under Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA is referable only to the Court of Sessions or even to a Magistrate of first class under Section 190. In this context, when we read Section 2(1)
(d) along with 190 and 193 in the absence of any specific stipulation either under Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA or any other provision under the said Act in the ordinary course of interpretation it can be validly stated that on fulfillment of Section 190, when a Judicial Magistrate of first class or an empowered second class Magistrate, takes cognizance of any offence that would fulfill the requirement of Section 2(1)(d) relating to competent court. We have noted under MCOCA that beyond what has been stipulated under Section 2(1)(d) there is no other provision dealing with the matter relating to a Competent Court for the purpose of taking cognizance. When under the provisions of Cr.P.C., Judicial Magistrate of first class has been empowered to take cognizance of any offence based on a Police Report, we fail to see any hurdle to state that on taking cognizance in that manner, the said court should be held to be the competent court for satisfying the requirement of Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA.
In this respect, we will have to bear in mind that the implication of MCOCA would come into play only after the third occurrence takes place and only after that it will have to be seen whether on the earlier two such occasions involvement of someone jointly or singly, either as a member of an 'organized crime syndicate' or on its behalf indulged in a crime in SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 198 respect of which a charge-sheet has already been filed before the Competent Court which Court had taken cognizance of such offence."
118.3 Hon'ble three judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash delivered on 10.09.2004 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 411/2002 clarified the position with regard to registration of second FIR as under:
"16. Having carefully gone through the above judgment, we do not think that this Court in the said cases of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. has precluded an aggrieved person from filing a counter case as in the present case. This is clear from the observations made by this Court in the above said case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. in paragraph 27 of the judgment wherein while discussing the scope of Sections 154, 156 and 173 (2) Cr.PC, this is what the Court observed :-
"In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offences alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173 (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 199 under Section 482 Cr.PC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution"
Emphasis supplied.
"17. It is clear from the words emphasized hereinabove in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter complaint by the accused in the 1st complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident.
118.4 In the case tittled as Prafulla s/o. Uddhav Shende v. State of Maharashtra, (2009 All MR (Cri.) 870) observed as under:
"29. Since the definitions, though intertwined in a cyclic order, are clear and unambiguous, it would follow that each ingredient in the definitions, or the alternative thereof provided by the definitions themselves, would have to be proved. Viewed thus, for charging a person SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 200 of organised crime or being a member of organised crime syndicate, it would be necessary to prove that the persons concerned have indulged in: (i) an activity,
(ii) which is prohibited by law, (iii) which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more, (iv) undertaken either singly or jointly, (v) as a member of organised crime syndicate i.e. acting as a syndicate or a gang, or on behalf of such syndicate, (vi)(a) in respect of similar activities (in the past) more than one charge-sheets have been filed in competent court within the preceding period of ten years, (b) and the court has taken cognizance of such offence. (vii) the activity is undertaken by: (a) violence, or
(b) threat of violence, or intimidation or (c) coercion or (d) other unlawful means. (viii)
(a) with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue or other advantage or himself or any other person, or (b) with the object of promoting insurgency.
"32. ...........Decisions on which even the learned A.P.P. has placed reliance would fortify the conclusion that there has to be a concrete continuing unlawful activity amounting to an organised crime for attracting provisions of MCOCA.
"42.................It is thus clear that apart from previous charge-sheets there has to be a continuation, an activity to which MCOCA is applied".
"47. A look at provisions of the punishment, Section 3 of the MCOCA would fortify this conclusion. Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-section (1) would show that SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 201 "if such offence has resulted in death of any person", the offence of organised crime would attract death sentence or life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.One Lakh. Now, if only old charge sheets should be held as enough, a person acquitted of a murder charge in the past would be liable to be sent for a life term, in spite of acquittal, simply because a chargesheet had been filed in the past. Had this been contemplated, the learned Judge, Special Court, would have charged Accused No.1/I Shiva of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(i) of MCOCA and not one punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOCA, since Shiva had been charged once of murder (Sr.No.9 in the chart) and acquitted. Same would hold good about the other gangsters. Advocate Tiwari, the learned counsel for Mehmood and others relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported at 1997 (3) Current Criminal Journal 223, that charge sheets cannot be made the basis of guilt or innocence of an accused. Therefore, it is clear that the offences referred to in various charge sheets are not "such offence(s)"
and consequently an offence, punishable under Section 3 of the MCOCA has to be different from those for which such accused had been charge sheeted in the past. Past criminal activity only aggravates the continued activity amounting to an offence and attracts provisions of MCOCA."
"48. In view of this, since the appellants are not shown to have indulged in any crime which can be said to be continuation of past criminal activity provisions of Section 3 (1) of the MCOCA are not attracted. It cannot be said that the appellants have committed SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 202 the offence of organised crime."
118.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahipal Singh vs. CBI, (2014) 11 SCC 282 held as under:
"15. Now we proceed to apply the principle aforesaid to the facts of the present case. We find that on the date the offence was committed or came to be known, one of the ingredients of the offence, i.e. submission of charge-sheet and cognizance of offence of specified nature in more than one case within the preceding period of ten years, has not been satisfied. Therefore, we have no other option than to hold that the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 3 of MCOCA."
118.6 Relying upon the judgment titled Prafulla s/o Uddhav Shende v. State of Maharashtra, (2009 All MR (Cri.
870), Hon'ble Division Bench observed and held as under in the judgment titled The State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Ramchandra Taru passed in Criminal Appeal No. 239/2011 decided on 06.05.2011:
"11. In Prafulla s/o. Uddhav Shende v. State of Maharasthra, (2009 All MR (Cri.) 870), the learned single judge of this court while dealing with the bunch of appeals arising out of judgments passed by the Special Court at Nagpur, placed reliance on the various decisions, mainly, the decision in Ranjeetsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma's case (Supre), also made a reference to the case of Sherbahadur Akram Khan (Supra) and observed in paragraphs 29, 43 and 44 that:
"29. Since the definitions, though intertwined in a cyclic order, are clear and SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 203 unambiguous, it would follow that each ingredient in the definitions, or the alternative thereof provided by the definitions themselves, would have to be proved. Viewed thus, for charging a person of organised crime or being a member of organised crime syndicate, it would be necessary to prove that the persons concerned have indulged in: (i) an activity,
(ii) which is prohibited by law, (iii) which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more, (iv) undertaken either singly or jointly, (v) as a member of organised crime syndicate i.e. acting as a syndicate or a gang, or on behalf of such syndicate, (vi)(a) in respect of similar activities (in the past) more than one charge-sheets have been filed in competent court within the preceding period of ten years, (b) and the court has taken cognizance of such offence. (vii) the activity is undertaken by: (a) violence, or
(b) threat of violence, or intimidation or (c) coercion or (d) other unlawful means. (viii)
(a) with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue or other advantage or himself or any other person, or (b) with the object of promoting insurgency.
"43. This fortifies the conclusion that mere proof of filing charge sheets in the past is not enough. It is only one of the requisites for constituting offence of organized crime. If only the past charge sheets were to be enough to constitute offence of organized crime, it could have offended the requirement of Article 20(1) of the Constitution and possibly Article 20(2) as well, (and in any case Section 300 Cr.P.C.) Had these judgments of the Supreme Court SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 204 and Division Benches of this Court been cited before the learned Single Judge deciding Amarsingh V/s. State (2006 ALL MR (Cri.) 407) the learned Single Judge, without doubt, would not have held that the matter was simply one of an arithmetical equation. The said judgment cannot be reconciled with the judgments of division benches in Jaisingh V/s. State 2003 ALL MR (Cri.) 1506 and Bharat Shah V/s. State, 2003 ALL MR (Cri.) 1061, which I am bound to follow.
44. ...........Therefore, since the previous criminal history of the applicants denotes that they had been or are being separately charged/tried for those offence before competent courts, there is no question of such offences constituting offence of organized crime." (emphasis supplied).
118.7 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment titled State Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Khalil Ahmed passed in CRL. Rev. P.No. 42/2012 decided on 29.04.2012 has observed and held as under:
"77. The expression 'any unlawful means' must refer to any such act which has a direct nexus with the commission of a crime which MCOCA seeks to prevent or control. In other words, an offence falling within the definition of organized crime and committed by an organized crime syndicate is the offence contemplated by the Statement of Objects and Reasons. If a person cheats or commits a criminal breach of trust, more than once, the same by itself may not be sufficient to attract the provisions of MCOCA.SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 205
78. It would be safe to presume that the expression any lawful means, must refer to any such act which has a direct nexus with the commission of a crime which MCOCA seeks to prevent or control.
79. Section 2(e) of MCOCA cannot be invoked for petty offences. The legislative intent is clear that MCOCA is for curing the organized crime unless there is a prima facie material to establish that there is an organized crime syndicate and prima facie material, firstly, to establish that there is an organised crime syndicate and, secondly, that organized crime has been committed by any member of the organized crime syndicate or any person on behalf of such syndicate, the provisions of MCOCA cannot be invoked.
80. Therefore, the prosecution need to firstly establish that there is an organized crime syndicate. It will have to satisfy that there exists the ingredients of continuing unlawful activities. Finally, the Full Bench of Bombay High Court answers the issue that the term other advantage cannot be read as "ejusdem generis" with the words "gaining pecuniary benefits or undue economic advantage"
84. In the case in hand, to satisfy the condition of Section 2(d) of the Act, prosecution has relied upon a list of 34 Criminal Cases which are filed against the respondent during the period 1985 to 2009.
These 34 cases includes present one. The prosecution failed to ascertain as to whether the offences committed therein was related to organized crime or not. Out of remaining 16 cases 2 cases vide FIR SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 206 No.183/2006 and 96/2006 pertain to the Offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. One case vide FIR No.09/04 pertain to Section 20 of NDPS Act. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that the respondent has committed an offence either as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. As regards the properties to invoke Section 4 of the MCOCA, the prosecution failed to show prima facie that the respondent was holding the properties referred above either having a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of member of any such syndicate."
118.8 In State of Maharashtra & Others vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Another, (2007) 4 SCC 171, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"42.........Having regard to the stringent provisions of the MCOCA, Section 23 (1)
(a) provides a safeguard to the accused in that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no investigation of an alleged offence of organized crime under the MCOCA, 1999 can be commenced without the prior approval of a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police.
An additional protection has been given under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 which prohibits any Special Court from taking cognizance of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of a police officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police."
"44 In our view, both the sanctions which formed the very basis of the investigation have been given mechanically and are SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 207 vitiated and cannot be sustained. In taking recourse to the provisions of the MCOCA 1999, which has the effect of curtailing the liberty of an individual and keeping him virtually incarcerated, a great responsibility has been cast on the authorities in ensuring that the provisions of the Act are strictly adhered to and followed, which unfortunately does not appear to have been done in the instant case."
118.9 In Darasing and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 901/2-18, decided 03.08.2021, by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, It was observed vide para 10 as under:-
"10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellants were merely charged and tried for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) without any substantive crime. Merely being involved in several crimes without being involved in any other crime to elevate the continuing unlawful activity to the case of organized crime as defined under the Act would not be sufficient. Therefore the appellants could not have been convicted and sentence only for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) in the absence of any substantive crime so as to constitute an organized crime. The learned Judge of the Special Court has not considered all these aspects and has convicted and sentenced the appellants merely for being involved in continuing unlawful activity which in itself is not an offence which is made punishable under the MCOC Act."
118.10 In State of Maharashtra Vs. Shiva @ Shivaji SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 208 Ramaji Sonawane & Ors., Crl. Appeal Nos. 458-460 of 2009, decided on 24.07.2015 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was observed vide para no. 8 & 9 as under:-
"8 It was in the above backdrop that the High Court held that once the respondents had been acquitted for the offence punishable under the IPC and Arms Act in Crimes No.37 and 38 of 2001 and once the Trial Court had recorded an acquittal even for the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act in MCOCA Crimes No.1 and 2 of 2002 all that remained incriminating was the filing of charge sheets against the respondents in the past and taking of cognizance by the competent court over a period of ten years prior to the enforcement of the MCOCA.
The filing of charge sheets or taking of the cognizance in the same did not, declared the High Court, by itself constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 of the MCOCA. That is because the involvement of respondents in previous offences was just about one requirement but by no means the only requirement which the prosecution has to satisfy to secure a conviction under MCOCA. What was equally, if not, more important was the commission of an offence by the respondents that would constitute "continuing unlawful activity". So long as that requirement failed, as was the position in the instant case, there was no question of convicting the respondents under Section 3 of the MCOCA. That reasoning does not, in our opinion, suffer from any infirmity. The very fact that more than one charge sheets had been filed against the respondents alleging offences punishable with more than SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 209 three years imprisonment is not enough. As rightly pointed out by the High Court commission of offences prior to the enactment of MCOCA does not by itself constitute an offence under MCOCA.
Registration of cases, filing of charge sheets and taking of cognizance by the competent court in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondents in the past is but one of the requirements for invocation of Section 3 of the MCOCA.
Continuation of unlawful activities is the second and equally important requirement that ought to be satisfied. It is only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of MCOCA that he may, seen in the light of the previous charge sheets and the cognizance taken by the competent court, be said to have committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act."
"9. In the case at hand, the offences which the respondents are alleged to have committed after the promulgation of MCOCA were not proved against them. The acquittal of the respondents in Crimes No.37 and 38 of 2001 signified that they were not involved in the commission of the offences with which they were charged. Not only that the respondents were acquitted of the charge under the Arms Act even in Crimes Case No.1 and 2 of 2002. No appeal against that acquittal had been filed by the State. This implied that the prosecution had failed to prove the second ingredient required for completion of an offence under MCOCA. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that Section 3 of the MCOCA could not be invoked only on the basis of the previous charge sheets SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 210 for Section 3 would come into play only if the respondents were proved to have committed an offence for gain or any pecuniary benefit or undue economic or other advantage after the promulgation of MCOCA. Such being the case, the High Court was, in our opinion, justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court".
118.11 In the case of Madan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC Online Bom 483, in respect of evidence related to income from organized crime, court made following observations:-
"169.............It may be that they had suppressed income. Unless involvement in offence of organised crime is proved, further, inferences are not permissible, and, mere allegation of involvement in organised crime or membership of such syndicate would not be enough.
"180......................Though the possibility that these appellants might have suppressed income, is not ruled out, unless nexus between the income and crime is established, (which has not been done), the properties cannot be held to have been obtained from income of organised crime."
FINDINGS
119. The accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla were arrested in the present case FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj on the basis of disclosure statement made in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar which was recorded SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 211 on 24.03.2009 as document Ex. PW39/C, Ex. PW39/D and Ex. PW39/E. 119.1 It is admitted fact that accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla were convicted in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar vide judgment dated 14.07.2016 for commission of offences punishable U/s 201/ 364/ 302/ 394/ 468/ 471/482/34 IPC and the said judgment and conviction had already attained the finality. 119.2 The prosecution has proved the arrest of the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla in the FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar through witness PW-49 ACP Palvinder Singh. The fact of recording of disclosure statement dated 24.03.2009 of accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla regarding their involvement in the present case is also proved by the prosecution through witness PW-49 ACP Palvinder Singh.
119.3 The subsequent arrest of the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla in the present case with the permission of the Court was made by PW-4 Inspector Randhir Singh and prosecution has proved the arrest of these accused persons through the document of arrest Ex. PW4/A to Ex. PW4/C through witness PW-4 Inspector Randhir Singh and through witness PW-43 Inspector O.P. Thakur. No material contradiction came on record during the trial. 119.4 The prosecution has also proved that an application for Judicial Test Identification Parade of the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla was moved SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 212 by the IO/PW-4. However, they declined to participate in judicial TIP proceedings and these documents were proved during the trial as Ex. PW4/G and Ex. PW4/H through the witness PW-4. No material contradiction came on record during the trial. 119.5 The accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla also disclosed the involvement of co accused Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga in the commission of the offence and on the basis of their disclosure statement, accused Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga was arrested on 24.03.2009 and arrest of the accused Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga is proved by prosecution through witness PW-43 Inspector O.P. Thakur and PW-8 Ct. Satish and these witnesses also proved the document regarding arrest of the accused Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga as Ex. PW8/A. No material contradiction came on record during the trial. 119.6 The accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar disclosed about the involvement of the accused Ajay Sethi in the present case and the arrest of the accused Ajay Sethi was effected on 06.04.2009 at Badarpur Border and document Ex. PW4/M of his arrest was proved by prosecution through witness PW-43 Inspector O.P. Thakur and witness PW-4 Inspector Randhir Singh. No material contradiction came on record during the trial. 119.7 The prosecution has also proved the recovery of offending vehicle Wagon-R car bearing no. HR27A-4783 (forged number plate as proved through witness PW-77 vide record Ex. PW77/A as per which the said number was belonging to one Bajaj motorcycle and was not allotted to the Wagon-R SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 213 car and original number was changed with number plate HR27A-4783 and vehicle was having original chasis no. 325817, registration no. MP19-CA-0145 belonging to Gaurav Singh, complainant of FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj which was registered U/s 379 IPC as proved through witness PW-69 ASI Amir Khan) at the instance of accused Ajay Sethi from the parking area of Sector 14, Faridabad, Haryana through the witness PW-43 Inspector O.P. Thakur and PW-4 Inspector Randhir Singh and seizure document Ex. PW4/P also proved through these witnesses.
No material contradiction came on record during the trial to doubt the recovery of the above mentioned vehicle as effected at the instance of the accused Ajay Sethi. Accused persons took the defence that recovery of Wagon-R car was planted upon the accused Ajay Sethi. However, the witnesses of prosecution denied the suggestion put on behalf of the accused persons and no material contradiction came on record to disbelieve the recovery of the Wagon-R car at the instance of accused Ajay Sethi.
119.8 The pointing out memo of place of occurrence prepared at the instance of accused Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Malik and Amit Shukla is proved by prosecution through witness PW-4 and PW-43 as Ex. PW4/K1, Ex.PW4/K2 and Ex. PW4/K3. No material contradiction came on record during the trial. 119.9 The prosecution has also proved that an application Ex. PW36/A was moved by IO the then ACP Bhisam Singh/PW- 95 for recording confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 214 U/s 18 of the MCOC Act and regarding invocation of Section 3 of MCOC Act against the accused persons and its intimation to the concerned Court through document Ex. PW95/A through witness PW-87 Ms. Kiran Bansal, the then Ld. ACMM and witness PW-95.
119.10 The prosecution has also proved that the said application Ex. PW36/A for recording confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor was moved on 07.04.2009 and he was produced before the then DCP South-East and the then DCP South-East had directed to produce the accused on 08.04.2009 at DCP South-East District Sarita Vihar.
119.11 The prosecution has also proved that the confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor was recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act on 08.04.2009 running into four pages as Ex. PW36/B by witness PW-36.
119.12 The prosecution has duly proved that after recording the said confessional statement Ex. PW36/B of accused Ravi Kapoor, the same was handed over to the IO in sealed envelope. 119.13 The prosecution has also proved that the accused Ravi Kapoor was produced before Ld. ACMM for endorsement of confessional statement recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act on 08.04.2009 and the said statement was produced in sealed envelope by the IO. The accused Ravi Kapoor was separately examined in the Chamber by witness PW-87 the then Ld. ACMM and prosecution has proved the said endorsement /examination of accused as Ex. PW87/B. 119.14 The prosecution has also proved that said sealed SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 215 envelope of the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor was handed over to the IO by further keeping in another envelope with seal of the Court for further investigation and prosecution has also proved that copy of the said confessional statement was obtained subsequently by IO/PW-95 during the investigation from the concerned designated Court under MCOC Act on his application.
119.15 The prosecution has also proved that IO/PW-89 Retd. ACP Mehak Singh had moved a proposal for registration/ addition of provision of MCOC Act against accused Ravi Kapoor and send the proposal Ex. PW89/A alongwith forwarding letter Ex. PW89/B through DCP South District Delhi to Joint Commissioner of Police Southern Range on 04.04.2009 and the same was accorded by witness PW-35 Sh. Ajay Kashyap DG Prison vide order dated 06.04.2009 bearing no. 4472/SO-SR Mark PW35/A. The prosecution has also proved that PW-95/IO the then ACP Sh. Bhisam Singh send another proposal for addition of MCOC Act to the competent authority for approval on 15.04.2009 through document Ex. PW95/C and Ex. PW95/D. The prosecution has also proved that approval for filing the chargesheet under MCOC Act was obtained through DCP South from Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi as Ex. PW95/E. The prosecution has also proved that after obtaining sanction on 10.06.2010, U/s 23 (2) of the MCOC Act from the Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, the chargesheet against the accused Ravi Kapoor was filed in the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 216 Special Court on 07.10.2009.
119.16 The prosecution has also relied upon the document Ex. PW36/B dated 08.04.2009 i.e. the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor recorded by the then DCP South-East who was examined as PW-36 during the trial in order to prove the fact that the accused Ravi Kapoor was running the organized crime syndicate and the other accused persons namely Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhainga and Ajay Sethi were members of the said organized crime syndicate, and to prove the fact that accused Ravi Kapoor and his other associates namely Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik, Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga had murdered the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan on 30.09.2008 in the prosecution of the activities of their organized crime syndicate.
119.17 The proceeding recorded on 08.04.2009 by the then DCP/witness PW-36 is reproduced as under:-
Confessional Statement under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 Date:- 08.04.09 Place:- Office of the DCP/South-East District Time:- 11 AM to 12/30 PM Accused Ravi Kapoor s/o Preetam Singh r/o F-1/76, Madan Giri, New Delhi arrested in case FIR No. 481/08 dated 30/09/08 u/s 302/201/489/411/34 IPC & 3 (1)(i), 3 (1)(ii), & 3 (4) MCOC Act,1999, PS Vasant Kunj, New Delhi has been produced before me by the IO Shri Bhisam Singh, ACP, Mehrauli for recording his confessional statement u/s 18 of MCOC Act.SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 217
Now, I have asked the IO to leave the room where the proceedings are being conducted. The IO since has left the room. Myself, Ct. Suraj Bhan No. 2260/SE and accused Ravi Kapoor are present. The door of the room is closed.
I have now warned and explained to accused Ravi Kapoor that he is not legally bound to make a confessional statement and that if he does so, it can be used against him as the evidence during trial in the Court of law.
Despite warning the accused Ravi Kapoor has stated that he wants to make a confessional statement voluntarily. It is being recorded in my presence and hearing. I have specifically asked him the language in which he wants to make the same. He has replied that he can read, write, speak and understand Hindi. I am satisfied that the accused is not under any compulsion, threat, inducement of promise to make a confessional statement. I, therefore, proceed to record his confessional statement, which is as under
(Typed originally in Devnagari Script) (In Hindi language) Mera yeh Ikbaliya Bayaan Dene Ke Lia muje Kisi ne Mazboor nhi kia aur na hi kisi ne muje uksayaya, dhamkaya ya lalach dia hai. Muje aapne yeh batah dia hai ki mera yeh bayaan mere khilaaf gawahi me saboot SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 218 ke tor per istemaal kia jaa sakta hai. Maine yeh baat achi tarah se samaj lee hai. Mai apna yeh bayaan swecha se hindi bhaasha me de raha hoo.
(Hastakshar) Apraadhi Ka Naam Ravi Kapoor Dinaak:- 08/04/09 Question:- Aap ne Jo crimes kia hai unke baare me detail me bataain?
Statement of Ravi Kapoor s/o Preetam Singh r/o F-1/76, Mandan Giri, New Delhi.
Mai Ravi Kapoor s/o Preetam Singh r/o F-1/76, Madan Giri, New Delhi mool roop se bhatinda (punjab) ka rahene wala hoo. Maine panchvi tak ke padaai bhatinda Xavier School se ke thee, thatha baad me Delhi aa gaya, Delhi me alag alag do sarkari schoolo me padkar navi kaksha tak padai ki. Baad me galat sangat me padne ke karan maine police bankar logo ko thagna, gaadi chori karna, aur loot paat karna apne saathio ke saath milkar kia, jo me chori wa dusre keso me band ho chuka hoo. Jail se chootne ke baad mai apne puraane saathi Ajay @ Bhainga ke saath saath dusre nai logo Amit Shukla thatha Baljeet @ Poppy ko bhi shamil kia thatha hamne kai car chorian aur lootpat ki wardaat ki, wa chori ki gaye thatha looti gaye gaadiyan Ajay Sethi ko bechi. LIG DDA Flat ke park me dhobi ke thaiya per bethkar hum chaaro lootpath ke yojnaai banaate the, thatha chori lootpaat karke acha paisa kama rahe the.
Dinaak 29/09/08 ko mai shaam ko 7.00 baze karib ek silver colour Wagon-R car jo maine thatha mere uprokth saathiyo ne kuch dino pahely hi vasant SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 219 kunj ke ilakhe se chori kia tha, thatha jiska number plate maine farzi UP-76E-0010 laga rakha tha, jo nakli kaagjaat maine iss gaadi ke banwa lia the, aur LIG Flat B-9, Vasant Kunj mutabik programme aaya, jaha Amit Shukla neechey mera wait kar raha tha. Jo thori he der me Baljeet @ Poppy bhi waha aa gaya iske baad hum teeno uprokth Wagaon-R me beth kar Munirka gaye, thatha wahi Baba Ganganath Mandir per hamara wait kar rahe Ajay @ Bhainga ko saath lia.
Iske baad hum chaaro uprokth car ko lekar gurgoan border gaye, Amit ne ek bottle daaru khareedi, thatha wahi jayaka restaurant per bethkar sharab pee. Iske baad hum chaaro LIG Flat B-9 aai, thatha dhobi ke thaiya me bathe, Amit 2 quarter thatha 4 beer bottle bhi lekar aaya, jo humne sharab aur beer peetey peetey raat ko akely shaksh ko lootne ki yojna banaai. Mai apna desi katta loaded lekar aaya hua tha. Jo wardaat karne ke liye me yeh hamesha apne pass rakhta thaa. Iske baad hum chaaro uprokth Wagon R me bethkar Wrong Carriage Way se Masoodpur Flyover per right turn lekar Nelson Mandela Road per Vasant Vihar ke taraf shikaar ke taalash kartey huai chal pade. Mai drive kar raha tha. Amit meri Baain (left) taraf betha tha, thatha Ajay @ Bheinga aur Baljeet @ Poopy pichali seat per bathey huai the.
Iske baad hum chaaro shikaar taalash kartey Munrika Red Light se pahely Vasant Vihar thane ke saath wale cut se u turn lia, jo waqt 2.30-3.00 baze raat ka tha. Jaise hi JNU Red Light ki taraf Nelson Mandela Road per mude, toh hum chaaro ne ek Safaid (white) Maruti Zen (car) jisme ek akeli ladki thee Vasant Kunj ke taraf jaatey huai dekhi.SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 220
Iske baad maine apne saathiyo ko kaha ki akeli ladki hai isey roktey hai aur jo kuch milega loot lengey. Iske baad maine apni Wagon R uprokth ko Zen uprokth ke peechey lagakar Coolie Camp ke Red Light paar karke Zen Car ke barabar daain (right) taraf le aaya. Iske baad maine Zen Car ko rokne ke lia apna Loaded Dessi Katta Nikaalkar apne baain (left) haath me pakada, thatha Amit jo agli seat per tha. Usay (Amit ko) jhukne ko kaha aur ladki ki taraf nishaana lagakar maine apne uprokth katte se fire kar dia. Baljeet aur Ajay peechey se fire karne ko keh rahe thai. Goli lagtey hi ladki ki car lehraati hui santoolan khokar hamare Wagon R ke baain (left) taraf ka hisha Zen Car se takra gaya. Jo maine apni gadi ki speed kam ki thatha peechey hokar uprokth Zen Car ko wrong side se overtake karke aagey nikal gaya.
Iske baad hum log Masoodpur Flyover se U-turn lekar wapis maukey per aai, aur apni Wagon R ko Devider ke saath daain taraf satakar khadi ki thee jo waha maine PCR ke gadi thatha teen police wale aur 2- 3 public ke log khade dheke. Zen car wali ladki ka sir Steering per pada tha.
Iske baad me apne saathiyo ke saath Sarita Vihar apne makaan per gaya. Wagon R uprokth ko waha chodh maine apni dusri gadi Zen Car jise maine pichley saal april mahiney me Vasant Kunj se chori ki thee, thatha number plate badalkar HR-27A-4783 laga rakha tha, thatha isme nakli kaagjaat be bana rakhey thai ko lekar apne saathiyo ke saath Trauma Centre gaya that mai khudh andar jaakar ladki ke baare me pata kia jo ladki ke mooh per patti bandi thee.
Iske baad mai apne uprokth teeno saathiyo ko SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 221 uprokth Zen me lekar Munirka pauncha. Ajay @ Bhainga ko uske ghar chor dia thatha baaki do saathiyo ke saath Nelson Mandela Road aain, jaha per mauke per police ke neeli gaadi khadi thee. Jo maine waha gaadi rokkar uttarkar police walon ke pass gaya aur pata kia ki kya hua hai jo accident hona batlayaa. Iske baad maine Baljeet ko Maqsoodpur, thatha Amit ko Lado Sarai choda aur mai Sarita Vihar apne ghar aa gaya, maine Wagon R Car baad me Oct. 2008 me Amit ko dia, thatha Nov. 2008 me uske Bombay jaane per phone per baat karke uprokth Zen Car Baljeet @ Poppy ke dawara Amit ke jeeja Abhishek se mangwa lia, thatha Ajay Sethi ko bech dia. Maine uprokth Zen Car apne makaan maalik Sunny of Girvi rakha hai, Desi katta maine Farukabad (U.P.) se khareeda tha. Ajay Sethi ko bechi hui chori ke aur bhee gaadiyan jo maine Delhi me alag alag jagahon se chori ke hai baramad kra sakta hoo.
Iske alawa maine apne saathi Ajay @ Bhainga ke saath milkar isee saal january me surwaat me raat ko Ram Mandir ke Opposite Service Road Safdardjung Enclave per khadi ek Tavera No. HR-55-HT-7278 ke driver ko apne katte ke bal per thatha apna Wireless Set dikhakar thatha police wala batahkar uski gaadi me jabardasti gus gaya, thatha usey lekar Vasant Kunj puraane thane ke sameny Service Road me aagey sunsaan jagah le jaakar maine thatha Amit ne uski gari (watch) aur sone ke chain (golden chain) uttar lee. Purse se 700/- rupay nikaal lia. Gari thatha teenso rupay Amit ne rakhe, thatha 400/- rupai aur chain maine rakha thatha, uska purse grill ke paar jhaari me fenkh dia thatha, maine usey apne desi katte se goli SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 222 maar dee. Mai uska samaan bramad kara sakta hoo, thatha mauka ki nishaandehi kra sakta hoo. Gaadi maine Ajay Sethi ko Faridabad jaakar bech dee. Iske alawa maine apne saathiyo Amit thatha Baljeet ke saath milkar 17-18/03/09 ki raat ko CPWD Colony Vasant Vihar se ek akeli ladki jise ek Cab gaadi ne uttara tha address jaanane ka bahana kar apni Santro Car me jabardasti daal lia uska saara samaan lekar thatha us se jabardasti PIN Number pata karke uske Credit Card se 20,000/- rupai nikaal lian aur ladki ko lekar Faridabad Suraj Kund gaye thatha gala dabakar hum teeno ne uski hatyaya kar dee, thatha mrith sharir wahi dump kar diya.
Iske alawa maine Amit thatha Ajay @ Bhainga ke saath milkar 9/03/09 ko raat me Rao Tula Ram Marg per ek Auto Rikshaw wale se jaanbhoozker jhagra mool lia jo Auto Driver apna Auto chorkar bhaag gaya. Auto me bathe sawari ko maine apne Santro Car me jabardasti Bithayaya thatha uska saara samaan Santro me rakhwa lia. Maine apna desi katta uske kanpati per laga dia tha thatha Ajay ne us sawari ke virodh karne per chaaku uske sar per maara. Saara samaan lekar usey hamne baad be apni car se agey le jaakar bahar fenkh dia. Samaan hum teeno ne apse me baanth lia jo mere pass hai, uski bramdgee me karwa sakta hoo thatha mauke ke nishaandehi karwa sakta hoo.
Ravi Kapoor (Dastkhat) Ceritificate The above statement was taken in my presence and recorded by Ct. Suraj Bhan No. 2260/SE under my supervision. The record contains a full and true account SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 223 of the confession made by Ravi Kapoor.
I have explained to Ravi Kapoor s/o Preetam Singh r/o F-1/76, Madan Giri, New Delhi that he is not legally bound to make a confession and that if he does so, it may be used as an evidence against him and I believe that this confession was made voluntarily. It was taken in my presence and hearing under my supervision and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him, to be correct. The accused has signed in English. It contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.
( )
Dy. Commissioner of Police,
South-East Distt.
Dated:- 08/04/09
I, Ct. Suraj Bhan No. 2260/SE state that I have typed the above statement including questions put to the accused Ravi Kapoor and answers given by him verbatim.
(Ct. Suraj Bhan)
120. It is contended by the prosecution that the said confessional statement Ex. PW36/A is admissible piece of evidence under Section 18 of MCOC Act, 1999. It is further contended that statement was made by the accused Ravi Kapoor voluntarily and all the legal compliances were made by the PW- 36 who recorded the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor. It is further contended that the said confessional statement is duly proved by prosecution through the examination of witness PW-36. It is further contended that said confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor were produced before Ld. ACMM having jurisdiction over the area in question in the sealed SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 224 cover and accused was also produced before the Ld. ACMM and accused was separately examined and who affirmed about the confessional statement given to the DCP/PW-36. It is contended that the said affirmation and examination of accused Ravi Kapoor dated 08.04.2009, after his confessional statement is duly proved by prosecution through the examination of Ld. ACMM as PW-87 as Ex. PW87/B. It is further contended that the said affirmation /examination statement of accused Ravi Kapoor as examined by Ld. ACMM alongwith sealed statement were sent to the concerned designated Court for filing with the chargesheet as per Section 18(4) of MCOC Act through the IO of the case and later on IO obtained the copy of said confessional statement from the concerned designated Court under MCOC Act on application for the purposes of further investigation of the case. It is further contended that Ld. ACMM as well as IO had followed all the procedure as per law during the proceeding.
120.1 On the other hand, accused persons contended that confessional statement Ex. PW36/B was not a voluntary statement of accused Ravi Kapoor and it was obtained under pressure of police. It is further contended that the inner two pages of the statement Ex. PW36/B does not bear the signature of accused Ravi Kapoor. It is contended that the witness PW-36/ DCP as well as Ld. ACMM/witness PW-87 had not followed the procedure as per law while recording his statement and while subsequent examination of accused Ravi Kapoor after his confessional statement by Ld. ACMM. It is contended further on behalf of the accused persons that the said confessional statement SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 225 Ex. PW36/B and its affirmation through examination by Ld. ACMM/PW-87 is not admissible and liable to be rejected. It is further contended that the details of all the cases regarding alleged involvement of the accused persons at the time of proposal to invoke the provisions of MCOC Act were not furnished to the competent authority and competent authority approved the proposal to invoke the provisions of MCOC Act in mechanical manner.
120.2 Now, while coming to the facts of this case and the evidence proved during the trial of this case, the prosecution has duly proved that numerous FIRs of different police stations lodged against the accused persons from the period 2002 till their arrest in the year 2009 in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar in which accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik were ultimately convicted. It is noteworthy that the involvement of the accused persons in the offence committed in the present case came into the knowledge of investigating agency only after their arrest in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and due to the same reason, when their criminal background was checked during the investigation, the proposal was moved to invoke the provisions of MCOC Act against them.
It is evident from the record of the FIRs and chargesheet and trial Court record of different FIRs which were proved by prosecution during the trial, the offences in all the said FIRs were cognizable offences punishable for more than three years of punishment and were committed with the use of violence or threat of violence or were committed for gaining SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 226 pecuniary benefit.
The testimony of PW-93/IO ( the then ACP) Mohd. Ali proved the fact that accused Ravi Kapoor was leading the organized crime syndicate and accused Ajay Sethi was having six criminal cases with the accused Ravi Kapoor, accused Amit Shukla was having six criminal cases with accused Ravi Kapoor, accused Baljeet Malik was having four criminal cases with accused Ravi Kapoor and accused Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga was having eight criminal cases with the accused Ravi Kapoor. From the testimony of PW-93, prosecution has duly proved that those criminal cases having involvement of these accused persons of crime syndicate were either committed jointly by accused persons with the accused Ravi Kapoor or by separately with the accused Ravi Kapoor. No material contradiction came on record from the examination of PW-93 regarding the verification of the cases regarding involvement of the accused persons or the organized crime syndicate run by the accused Ravi Kapoor with the assistance of other accused persons at the time of invoking the MCOC Act against the accused persons in the present case. 120.3 The proposal U/s 23 (1) (a) of MCOC Act was moved by IO of the present case for invoking the provisions of MCOC Act during the investigation of the present case, and he had complied all the requirements prior to moving the proposal for invoking the provisions of MCOC Act while referring details of the cases regarding involvement of the accused persons. The said proposal U/s 23 (1)(a) of MCOC Act was accorded by witness PW-36 Sh. Ajay Kashyap vide his order dated SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 227 06.04.2009 bearing no. 4472/SO-SR Mark PW35/A and prosecution has duly proved the document Mark PW35/A regarding the approval of proposal U/s 23 (1)(a) of MCOC Act through witness PW-35 and no infirmity was found. During cross examination of the witness PW-35, witness PW-35 has specifically replied that the said proposal was containing all the documents required to satisfy the application to invoke Section 3 of MCOC Act and he denied the defence of the accused persons that the approval dated 06.04.2009 was mechanically accorded by him.
IO had again moved request before Joint Commissioner of Police for seeking sanction U/s 23 (1) (b) of MCOC Act which was considered and accorded by Joint Commissioner of Police and this fact is duly proved during the trial of the case and no material contradiction came on record contrary to the case of prosecution against the accused persons. The approval as well as sanction U/s 23 (1) (a) and (b) of MCOC Act duly meet all the legal requirements as mentioned in MCOC Act as well as law laid down in the cases referred by prosecution as well as by the accused persons and no infirmity is found to be noted contrary to the case of prosecution.
120.4 The confession of the accused Ravi Kapoor was recorded by PW-36 in the language of the accused and the record of the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor which is proved during the trial clearly reflect that witness PW-36 /DCP had complied all the legal requirements and mandates as per law as referred in various judgments referred by both the parties and SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 228 witness further complied all the legal requirements as per mandate of Section 18 of MCOC Act and guideline in various judgments of Superior Courts and no material contradiction came on record or noted. The confessional statement which is proved by prosecution through witness PW-36/DCP clearly reflect its authenticity and statement was recorded in one go and in continuation and after recording the statement, the same was read over to the accused Ravi Kapoor and his signatures were obtained. So, the contention of accused persons that inner two pages of the said confessional statement of accused Ravi Kapoor does not bear his signature, does not hold any merit and accordingly, rejected. The contention of accused persons that Ld. ACMM had not complied the legal requirements as mentioned in Section 18 of MCOC Act when she examined the accused Ravi Kapoor after his confessional statement, however, the record of the examination conducted by Ld. ACMM/witness PW-87 clearly reflect that witness had complied all the legal requirements as per mandate of Section 18 of MCOC Act and legal principles as laid down in various judgments referred by Ld counsel for accused persons as well as by Ld Additional PP for the State. Further, the record of examination of accused Ravi Kapoor by the the Ld. ACMM/PW-87 reflect that accused Ravi Kapoor did not complain to Ld. ACMM that his signatures were obtained forcibly or he gave statement to DCP under coercion or under pressure. Hence, the contention of the accused persons in that regard is also rejected.
120.5 The confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor is SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 229 found to be admissible piece of evidence in the present trial as per provision of Section 18 (1) of the MCOC Act and found to be duly proved to be recorded in accordance with the law and legal principles in various judgments as referred by accused persons and by Ld. Additional PP for the State and same was given by the accused Ravi Kapoor voluntarily without any coercion, fear and pressure and after due knowledge of the fact that same can be read against him in evidence.
121. The prosecution has proved the date and time of the death of the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan by examining the witness PW-1 Sh. M.K Vishwanathan who is father of the deceased and as per his testimony victim lastly contacted him on 30.09.2008 at around 03.15 am and told to the witness that she would reach home within 15 minutes and when victim did not reach at her home by 03.30 to 03.35 am, witness as well as wife of the witness started contacting to the victim through their respective mobile phone and at around 04.00 am, someone picked up mobile phone of victim and answered the phone and asked them to come at the place of incident i.e. the place between our house and under construction shopping complex at Nelson Mandela Marg. The prosecution also proved that victim was declared as brought dead at AIIMS Trauma Center. The prosecution has also duly proved the DD No. 6-A Ex.PW-14/A which was marked for inquiry to PW-14 SI Hawa Singh who deposed that when he went to the spot, apart from other police staff from PS Vasant Vihar, he also met with the father of the victim and at that time, victim was already shifted to SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 230 the AIIMS hospital through PCR Van. The prosecution has duly proved crime scene report Ex. PW13/A through the witness PW- 13 ASI Khajan Singh. No material contradiction came on record during the cross examination or by way of final arguments on behalf of the accused persons.
122. The cause of the death is proved by prosecution through witness PW-32 Dr. Manish Kumath who conducted the postmortem of the deceased/victim alongwith Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani. As per postmortem report Ex. PW32/A, the cause of death of the victim was proved to be ante mortem cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon fire arm. The prosecution also proved that bullet through which death of victim was caused was removed which was lodged near left side of fractured occipital temporal bone of the victim during the postmortem and same was handed over to the IO while keeping it in a sealed container Ex. PW32/B. No material contradiction came on record during the trial or by way of final arguments.
123. The prosecution has also duly proved the viscera report of the victim through witness PW-26 as Ex. PW26/A dated 10.12.2008. As per the viscera report, on the chemical and TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected. The viscera report clearly establishes the fact that the cause of the death of the victim was only the injury received from the bullet fired upon her. It further establishes the fact that victim was not under the influence of any chemical and she was not in drunken condition at the time of incident.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 231124. The prosecution has proved scientifically through witness PW-31 Dr. C.P Singh, Assistant Director, Physics, FSL Rohini, the mode and manner of incident, sequence of incident. He opined that on the basis of his scientific observation, the victim was indicated to have been shot just before the skid mark near lamp post no. 69 from another vehicle which was travelling at similar speed as that of victim's vehicle (Maruti Zen Car bearing no. DL2CR-5801). Immediately after the bullet hit the victim, the victim's vehicle might have changed the direction towards the right as illustrated in Annexure-A. In the event of offender's vehicle might have applied the brake in an attempt to avoid collision with the victim's vehicle, that might have produced the skid mark as mentioned in the report Ex. PW31/A and Annexure-A as Ex. PW31/B. Witness clarified that the first time when the victim's vehicle hit against the divider near the lamp post no. 72, it hit against cemented lining of the divider, which caused puncture in the front right wheel, because the vehicle was on very high speed. Thereafter, the vehicle collided with the three guard on the divider and resultantly, the vehicle came down in the left side, but because of the gear was free, therefore, the vehicle was in forward motion and because of the puncture in the right front tyre, there was a tendency of the vehicle to move towards punctured wheel side and therefore, the victim's vehicle again moved towards right side i.e. towards the divider and in the process it again hit the divider near lamp post no. 78. He further clarified that approximate distance the vehicle of the victim covered after victim being shot cannot be exactly SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 232 specified but the vehicle covered quite long distance for the reason that when the vehicle was put on neutral gear, it was already on a very high speed.
The finding of PW-31 corroborate the prosecution case and confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor Ex. PW36/B in which accused narrated and admitted that when accused Ravi Kapoor fired at the victim through a country made pistol from his Wagon-R car which he was driving, the Wagon-R car of the accused was travelling parallel to the Zen car of the victim and at that time, the Wagon-R car of the accused was on the right side of the car of the victim. It also corroborate the admission of the accused Ravi Kapoor in his confessional statement that when the bullet hit the victim, the vehicle of the victim got dis-balanced and Wagon-R car of the accused persons hit from its left side to the Zen car of the victim and accused Ravi Kapoor slowed down his Wagon-R car and moved back his Wagon-R car and overtake the Zen car of the victim and moved forward again.
125. The prosecution witness PW-41 Sh. K.C Varshney, Deputy Director, Regional FSL, Chanakayapuri, Delhi had proved regarding the seized bullet which was recovered from the body of the deceased/victim and he opined that the deformed bullet mark Ex. EB1 correspond to the bullet of 8 mm/.315 inch cartridge. He further opined that same had not been discharged from a standard fire arm. He also opined that the said deformed bullet was covered under the definition of ammunition as defined under Arms Act, 1959.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 233125.1 Witness clarified during the cross examination on behalf of the accused Ravi Kapoor that standard fire arm means factory made fire arm with the standard specifications of that caliber /board. He further clarified that the case property i.e. deformed bullet might have been fired from some country made pistol. He further clarified that specification of country made pistol are not standard (unspecified).
126. The prosecution has duly proved through the testimonies of witnesses PW-32 Dr. Manish Kamath, PW-31 Dr. C.P Singh and PW-41 Sh. K.C Varshney that the death of the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan was caused by firing bullet through fire arm of unstandard specification i.e. country made pistol while she was travelling in her vehicle bearing Maruti Zen Car bearing no. DL2CR-5801, the bullet was targeted to the victim by the person who was also moving in similar speed in another vehicle of the speed of the victim and after the death of the victim caused due to injury of the bullet of the fire arm, her vehicle collided with the divider at the place of incident. 126.1 No material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of these witnesses regarding the cause of the death of the victim, the mode and manner of death of the victim.
127. The testimony of witnesses PW-32 Dr. Manish Kamath, PW-31 Dr. C.P Singh and PW-41 Sh. K.C Varshney corroborate the confessional statement made by the accused Ravi Kapoor Ex. PW36/B in which accused Ravi Kapoor had admitted and disclosed about the mode and manner of commission of offence and sequence of the incident prior to firing bullet to the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 234 victim and after firing bullet at the victim. 127.1 In the confessional statement Ex PW36/B, accused Ravi Kapoor had admitted that they had chased the Zen car of the victim by following her car near Coolie Camp Red Light and they moved their offending car i.e. Wagon-R car in parallel to the Zen car of the victim from the right side of the Zen car. He further narrated that thereafter in order to stop the Zen car, he took out his loaded country made pistol (loaded desi katta ) and hold it in his left hand and asked the co accused Amit Shukla who was sitting parallel to the accused Ravi Kapoor on the front seat to bent down and accused Ravi Kapoor fired with the country made pistol while targeting to the deceased/victim. He further admitted that co accused Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar who were sitting at that time at back seat of the offending vehicle i.e. Wagon-R car were asking to the accused Ravi Kapoor to fire at the victim. He further admitted that after the bullet hit to the victim, the deceased/victim loosed her balance of the vehicle and her vehicle hit the Wagon-R car of the accused persons. He further admitted that he slowed down his Wagon-R car and moved back side and overtake the Zen car from wrong side and moved forward.
128. The prosecution has proved the fact that after the incident of death of the deceased Saumya Vishwanathan, the information regarding accident of her car at place of incident Nelson Mandela Marg was recorded in PS Vasant Vihar as DD No. 6-B dated 30.09.2008 and same was marked to ASI Bansi Ram who deposed in the Court as PW-12. He deposed that he SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 235 alongwith one constable reached at the spot and saw the Maruti Zen Car of the deceased/victim which was in starting condition and he also saw the deceased /victim lying on the driver seat. He deposed that PCR Van arrived at the spot and deceased/victim was immediately taken to the hospital through PCR Van. This fact is also corroborated by the prosecution through the witness PW-14 Retd. SI Hawa Singh PS Vasant Kunj to whom the similar information was marked vide DD No. 6-A Ex. PW14/A dated 30.09.2008 PS Vasant Kunj and he went to the spot with Ct. Nahar Singh. PW-14 also deposed that at the spot, he met with PW-12 ASI Bansi Ram, HC Amit, Sh. M.K Vishwanathan, father of the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan and he noticed that the car of the deceased/victim was found parked touching the central verge. The photographs of the place of incident and accidental car of the deceased/victim were proved by prosecution as Ex. PW-20/A1 to Ex. PW20/A2 alongwith its negatives as Ex. PW20/B1 to Ex. PW20/B27 through witness PW-20 ASI Ajit Singh and no material contradiction came on record during his examination.
128.1 During the investigation, the vehicle of the deceased/victim was mechanically inspected by witness PW-24 Taslimuddin Siddqui and the mechanical inspection report of the vehicle of the victim bearing no. DL2CR-5801 is duly proved by prosecution as Ex. PW24/A and no material contradiction came on record.
128.2 During investigation various articles/exhibits were seized at the spot belonging to the victim, belonging to the car of SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 236 the victim and from the place of incident and the seizure of those articles were duly proved by prosecution through witness PW-14 SI Hawa Singh and no material contradiction came on record during the examination of witness SI Hawa Singh. 128.3 The prosecution has also proved that the articles which were collected during the postmortem of the deceased were handed over to PW-39 the then Inspector S.S Hassan and same were seized by him and memo Ex. PW14/C was prepared and no material contradiction came on record. 128.4 The prosecution has also duly proved the preparation of rukka/complaint Ex. PW39/A on the basis of DD No. 6-A by witness PW-39 the then Inspector S.S Hassan and registration of FIR through SI Hawa Singh and no material contradiction came on record during the examination of witness PW-39.
128.5 The prosecution has also proved duly the preparation of site plan of the place of incident as Ex. PW35/B through the witness PW-39 and witness PW-39 deposed that he prepared the said site plan. No material contradiction came on record during examination of the witness.
128.6 The prosecution has also duly proved the seizure of various case properties which were seized at the spot including one side mirror of Maruti Zen Car Ex. PW39/PX1, one black colour jaali Ex. PW39/PX2, one piece of slipper ( Chappal) Ex. PW39/PX3, one seat cover Ex. PW39/PX4, rubber footmat Ex. PW39/PX5, white paint sample Ex. PW39/PX6, white paint sample Ex. PW39/PX7, black colour paint smear Ex. PW39/PX8, SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 237 dark blue paint smear Ex. PW39/PX9, stains of hair Ex. PW39/PX10, brown gauge cloth piece described as blood sample Ex. PW39/PX11, brown gauge cloth piece described as blood sample Ex. PW39/PX12, brown gauge cloth piece described as blood sample Ex. PW39/PX13, piece of seat cover having brown stains Ex. PW39/PX14, one deformed bullet as Ex. PW39/PX15, stains of hair Ex. PW39/PX16 and glass pieces as Ex. PW39/PX17 and Ex PW39/PX18. No material contradiction came on record during the examination of witness.
129. The vehicle of the victim as well as other articles which were seized during investigation which were also examined by witness PW-30 Dr. V. Shankra Narayanan Senior Scientific Officer who proved the detailed biological report of the exhibits collected from the vehicle of the victim as Ex. PW30/A, Serological Report as Ex. PW30/B. He also proved the crime scene report prepared by him dated 21.11.2008 as Ex. PW30/C and no material contradiction came on record during the examination of the witness.
130. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-7 (Retired) SI Balwant Kumar (PCR official) to establish the fact that accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay visited the spot after the incident and made inquiry from the PCR officials present over there at the spot after the incident. As per testimony of PW-7, when he reached at the spot at Nelson Mandela Marg after receiving information regarding the accidental Zen car of the victim, he found that car of the victim was standing while touching the divider and its number was SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 238 DL2CR-5801 and engine as well as light of the vehicle was in running condition and one female on driver seat was found to be tilted towards lefts side and that lady was having injury on her head and her hairs were found scattered.
130.1 He deposed that in the meanwhile one white car came from Maqsoodpur side and stopped near the place where aforesaid Zen car was lying in accidental condition and driver of the said car got down and came near him and he asked to the witness that what had happened. He deposed that the said person was in drunkened condition as smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of the driver. He deposed that after making inquiry, that person left the place by his car. He further deposed that three more persons were also sitting in the said car and after making inquiry from the witness, all of them fled from the spot. Witness identified the accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and Baljeet Malik as the persons who were found sitting at the car at that time and accused Ravi Kapoor was the person who was driving the car.
131. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW-11 Ct. Suraj Parkash (PCR official) who was also present with PW-7 (Retired) SI Balwant Kumar and he also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-7 and stated that four persons came at the spot in a vehicle from the side of Maqsoodpur and he saw the accused Ravi Kapoor while he came out of his vehicle and remaining three accused persons were also sitting inside the car and he did not see those three persons at that time as they were inside the car.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 239131.1 The presence of the accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and Baljeet Malik at the place of incident just after the incident is also found corroboration from the statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor as recorded Ex. PW36/B in which he stated that after the incident they fled away towards Maqsoodpur Fly Over and from there they took U-turn and came at the spot in their Wagon-R car and they parked their Wagon-R car on the side of the divider and they noticed the presence of PCR Van and three police officials as well as two- three public persons and they also noticed that the head of the victim of the Zen car was lying on starring.
131.2 During cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, accused persons put the defence that witness deposed falsely on the directions of the IO to which witness denied. Witness also replied that accused persons were not known to him prior to judicial TIP. It is admitted position that accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay had refused to participate in judicial TIP and the proceeding regarding the judicial TIP were not disputed by them in their statement recorded U/s 294 Cr.PC. The testimony of PW-7 and PW-11 duly proved the fact that accused persons visited to the spot just after the incident and made inquiries from PW-7 regarding the incident and this fact is also corroborated from the confessional statement of the accused Ex. PW36/B. The law regarding the admissibility of witness qua last seen evidence is well clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Nizam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan" (supra) and " Ram SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 240 Reddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" (supra) and the prosecution has duly proved the presence of accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Kumar who visited to the place of incident just after the incident and had inquired from witness PW-7 and PW-11 regarding the victim. In view of the same, the defence of the accused persons that PW-7 and PW-11 deposed falsely at the instance of the IO does not hold any merit and is accordingly rejected.
132. The arrest of the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik in the FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar is duly proved by prosecution through witness PW-34 Inspector Neeraj Chaudhary, witness PW-49 ACP Palvinder Singh and witness PW-54 Inspector Atul Verma. Even otherwise, these accused persons have not disputed their arrest in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, they were already convicted after conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 14.07.2016. The prosecution has also duly proved that after apprehension of accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Singh Malik and Amit Shukla in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, one country made pistol was recovered from left dub of his wearing pant of the accused Ravi Kapoor and one box was also recovered from the front pocket of right side of the wearing pant of the accused Ravi Kapoor which was containing three live cartridges and one used cartridge and same were seized during the investigation of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and this fact is also duly proved by SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 241 the prosecution.
132.1 The accused persons took the defence that no public person was associated during the apprehension and arrest of the accused persons in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. However, as discussed above, accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Singh Malik were already convicted after the trial in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar vide judgment dated 14.07.2016 and the recovery of the said country made pistol is also duly proved and accused Ravi Kapoor was also convicted in regard to the commission of offence punishable U/s 25 of the Arms Act. Hence, the defence of the accused persons regarding not associating any public person at the time of arrest of the accused persons in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar or at the time of recovery of country made pistol from the possession of accused Ravi Kapoor or the defence that country made pistol/gun and live cartridges as well as used cartridges were planted upon the accused Ravi Kapoor does not hold any merit and accordingly, rejected.
133. The prosecution has also duly proved through the testimony of PW-43 Inspector O.P Thakur that said recovered country made pistol/fire arm was seized in the present case on the basis of order of the Court obtained through application Ex. PW43/C which was moved for transferring the weapon of offence which was seized in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. The prosecution has duly proved that witness PW-43 collected the weapon of offence from PS Vasant Vihar in sealed condition and deposited the same in PS Vasant Kunj vide Road Certificate SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 242 No. 33/21/09 Ex. PW43/D in Malkhana and DD entry Ex. PW43/E was lodged and on the direction of the IO, the same was deposited in FSL.
133.1 The prosecution has duly proved the FSL result qua deformed bullet recovered from the body of the victim and other seized articles as Ex. PW41/A through witness PW-41 Sh. K.C Varshney Deputy Director/Incharge, Regional FSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi who deposed that on his examination, he found that the deformed bullet Mark Ex. EB1 correspond to the bullet of 8 mm/.315 inch cartridge and had not been discharged from a standard fire arm. The gun shot residue particles were detected on the sample collected from the glass pieces Ex. GP2 (collected from the vehicle of the deceased/victim). The testimony of PW-41 and report Ex. PW41/A establishes the fact that the bullet which caused death of the victim was an ammunition as defined under Arms Act, 1959 and the same was fired through fire arm which was not a standard fire arm (i.e. a country made pistol). No material contradiction came on record during the examination of the witness.
133.2 The testimony of PW-41 Sh. K.C Varshney, Deputy Director/Incharge, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi corroborate the prosecution case and the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act Ex. PW36/B in which accused Ravi Kapoor had admitted that he had fired the bullet while targeting the victim on the date and time of the incident through a country made pistol /fire arm which hit the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 243 victim.
133.3 The prosecution has also corroborated the above noted aspect/ admission of the accused Ravi Kapoor in his confessional statement regarding firing of bullet at the victim through witness PW-83 Sh. V.R Anand, Assistant Director, Ballistic, FSL, Rohini Delhi who examined the recovered deformed bullet from the body of the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan as Ex. EB1 and who opined in his report dated 26.08.2009 Ex. PW83/A that the individual characteristics of the striation marks present on the evidence bullet Ex. EB1 (bullet recovered from the body of the deceased/victim) were insufficient for comparison and opinion whether it was discharged through country made pistol Mark F1 ( the country made pistol recovered from accused Ravi Kapoor). The prosecution has duly proved from the testimony of PW-83 that country made pistol was used to fire the bullet at the victim and the same could not be compared with the fire arm recovered from the accused Ravi Kapoor as the same was country made pistol and was not a standard fire arm.
133.4 The prosecution has also established through the testimony of PW-83 who also examined scientifically the Wagon- R car bearing no. HR27A-4783 (the car used in the commission of offence by the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Singh Malik, Amit Shukla and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhainga) who opined that the characteristics gunshot residue particles were detected at PPM level in the swab mark as S1 taken from the dash board of the Wagon-R car and S3 taken from the front SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 244 left side door of the Wagon-R car and he opined that the sample collected from the questioned country made pistol and cartridges as Ex. F1/A1 to A4 and EC1 were fire arm /ammunition as defined under Arms Act.
133.5 The prosecution has also duly corroborated the fact as mentioned in the disclosure statement of accused Ravi Kapoor Ex. PW36/B recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act that said offending vehicle Wagon-R car (with forged number plate bearing no. HR27A-4783) had hit from its left side to the Zen car of the victim after the victim was shot with bullet by the accused Ravi Kapoor through the witness PW-78 Sh. Parasuram Singh, Assistant Director, Physics, FSL, Rohini who examined the offending vehicle Wagon-R car and opined through his report Ex. PW78/A that the doors of the offending vehicle were repainted and on removing the paint, yellowish colour material were found to be filled at some portion of the vehicle which indicated the repair of dent of the vehicle. He further opined that on examination of paint samples from left door, bonnet and roof top, under microscope, it was found that paint samples from left side of the door of the Wagon-R car were different to the paint samples from the roof top and bonnet in respect of number of layers, colour and texture of primer, and microscopic appearance of upper and lower layer. The testimony of PW-78 establishes the fact that offending vehicle which was used in the commission of offence was repaired and dent caused at left side door of the offending vehicle was removed and repainted after the incident.
The accused persons took the defence that no link SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 245 could be established between the accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhenga and the offence of murder of the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan as discussed above. The prosecution has duly proved its case through scientific evidence and through the testimony of PW-7 and PW-11 and through the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor that accused Ravi Kapoor and his other associates namely Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Kumar Bhenga had committed murder of the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan on 30.09.2008 by firing bullet upon her by the accused Ravi Kapoor in furtherance of common intention of the co accused Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Kumar Bhenga and the evidence produced by prosecution is duly proved as per the legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Anwar Ali & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh" (supra), " Krishan Vs. State" (supra), "Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra" (supra) and no lacuna or infirmity found in the prosecution case.
134. The prosecution has contended that accused Ravi Kapoor was involved in organized crime as defined U/s 2 (e) of the MCOC Act and he was involved in continuous unlawful activity from the year 2002 till the date of arrest in FIR no. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. The prosecution has further contended that accused Ravi Kapoor was the leader of organized crime syndicate in which accused Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik, Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga and Ajay Sethi were members. It is further SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 246 contended that the criminal record history of the accused persons which were produced and proved clearly establishes the fact that accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik, Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga and Ajay Sethi were members of the same organized crime syndicate as defined under 2 (f) of the MCOC Act run by accused Ravi Kapoor.
134.1 It is further contended that the organized crime syndicate used to commit offence of various nature including the use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means with objective of gaining the pecuniary benefit or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person. It is further contended that the said organized crime syndicate used to commit the offence for pecuniary benefit and for their livelihood. It is further contended that accused Ajay Sethi used to provide necessary assistance in the disposal and management of the proceeds of the crime committed by the organized crime syndicate run by the accused Ravi Kapoor.
134.2 In order to prove the above noted fact, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-96 Mr. Ajit Pal Singh JJA, Record Room, Sessions, South, Saket Courts who produced the judicial record of FIR no. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar as Ex. PW96/P1 in which accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga were convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s 302/201/365/394/468/471/482/120-B/34 IPC and U/s 25 of the Arms Act.
SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 247134.3 The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW-52 Inspector Rajeev Kumar who collected the certified copy of criminal cases against the accused Ravi Kapoor in following FIRs i.e. 1. FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar, 2. FIR no. 565/2006 PS Vasant Vihar, 3. FIR No. 281/2002 PS Vasant Kunj, 4. FIR No. 126/2002 PS Naraina, 5. FIR No. 71/2007 PS Defence Colony, 6. FIR No. 168/2008 PS Malviya Nagar, 7. FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, 8. FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar.
135. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of ASI Shree Kumar who was the IO of FIR no. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar and he deposed that he formally arrested the accused Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kumar in FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar regarding commission of offence punishable U/s 379/411/482/34 IPC. He identified the document of FIR no. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar as Ex. PW63/A and no material contradiction came on record.
135.1 The prosecution has also proved the complete judicial record of FIR No. 165/2002 PS Vasant Vihar as Ex. PW63/A registered U/s 379/411/482/34 IPC titled as " State Vs. Ajay Kumar" including the arrest memos of accused Ravi Kapoor, Ajay Kumar and order on cognizance dated 09.09.2002 and order on charge dated 14.11.2002.
135.2 The prosecution has also proved the complete judicial record of FIR No. 481/2002 PS Vasant Kunj as Ex. PW97/P1 through witness PW-97.
135.3 The prosecution has also proved the complete SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 248 judicial record of FIR No. 565/2006 PS Vasant Vihar registered U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC titled as " State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors." exhibited as Ex. PW63/B including the arrest memo of accused Ravi Kapoor, order on charge dated 11.05.2007 and judgment /order on acquittal of accused Ravi Kapoor. 135.4 The prosecution has also proved through witness PW-56, the judicial record of FIR No. 168/2007 PS Malviya Nagar registered U/s 454/380/411/34 IPC titled as " State Vs. Ravi Kapoor" including the ordersheet of filing of chargesheet dated 04.04.2007, ordersheet dated 04.04.2007 regarding cognizance and ordersheet and judgment dated 10.10.2011 and other documents and ordersheet of judicial proceedings. 135.5 The prosecution has also proved through witness PW-58 regarding judicial record of FIR No. 28/2002 PS Special Cell registered U/s 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC titled as " State Vs. Ravi Kapoor" including order on cognizance and other documents and ordersheet of the judicial proceeding and order on charge.
135.6 The prosecution has also proved through witness PW-60 regarding the complete judicial record of FIR No. 209/2008 PS Vasant Kunj registered U/s 379/411/468/482/34 IPC titled as " State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors." including the memos of arrest of accused Amit Shukla, Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Singh and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay. The accused persons were acquitted in this FIR vide judgment dated 16.09.2015.
135.7 The prosecution has also proved the judicial record of FIR No. 08/2009 PS Vasant Kunj registered U/s SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 249 302/364/397/411/34 IPC titled as " State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors." and as per judicial record, accused persons were held guilty and convicted vide judgment dated 26.08.2016 and order on sentence dated 01.10.2016. It also came on record that accused persons were later on acquitted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CRLA No. 1150/2016.
135.8 The prosecution has also proved the complete judicial record of FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt as Ex. PW62/A which was registered U/s 392/394/34 IPC titled as "
State Vs. Amit Kumar Shukla & Ors." including order on charge dated 17.10.2009, ordersheet dated 21.11.2012 regarding conviction of accused persons and order on sentence dated 03.01.2012 and arrest memos of accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Kumar Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga. The prosecution has also proved the order of Ld. Sessions Court dated 16.04.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2012. 135.9 The prosecution has also proved the judicial record of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar through witness PW-96 as Ex. PW96/P1 registered U/s 302/201/365/394/468/471/120-B/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act in which accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Singh @ Poppy were convicted vide judgment dated 14.07.2016. 135.10 The prosecution has duly proved from the judicial record of various FIRs which were produced during the trial of this case that accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik, Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga and Ajay Sethi were involved in criminal activities of various nature from the year 2002 to the SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 250 year 2009 i.e. the date when accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Singh Malik were arrested. Accused persons were chargesheeted in the above noted cases as discussed above and competent Court had took the cognizance of the offence committed by them either jointly or individually. 135.11 The accused persons took the defence that in all the cases which were registered prior to the registration of present FIR bearing no. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj on the basis of which the charges of offence punishable U/s 3 of the MCOC Act were invoked against the accused persons, the accused persons are either discharged or acquitted.
135.12 It is further defence of the accused persons that the conviction of the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Singh Malik @ Poppy in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and conviction of accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Kumar Shukla and Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga in FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt does not attract the charges of offence punishable U/s 3 of the MCOC Act as these two FIRs were registered after the registration of present FIR bearing no. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj. It is further defence of the accused persons that accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kumar were initially convicted in FIR no. 8/2009 PS Vasant Kunj. However, they were acquitted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in their appeal.
135.13 It is further defence of the accused persons that prosecution has not proved any evidence to establish the fact that accused persons obtained any pecuniary benefit from their SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 251 alleged organized crime syndicate. It is further defence of the accused persons that the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and no link is established between the accused persons and death of the deceased/victim. It is further defence of the accused persons that the alleged confessional statement of the accused persons is not admissible piece of evidence. It is further defence of the accused persons that the operation of organized crime syndicate has not been proved by the prosecution and no material evidence came on record during the trial. 135.14 In support of their defence, accused persons have relied upon the judgment (supra) Narender Singh Keshobhai Zala Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), Dileep Vs. State of U.P, (supra), Sharadbirdhi Chand Shardha Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. (supra), Swaran Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), State of Maharashtra Vs. Shiva @ Shivaji Ramji Sonawana (supra), State of Govt of NCT of Delhi Vs. Khaleel Ahmed (supra), Pundlik Ukla Pawar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), Baba @ Kamlakar Kishan Bodake & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagan Gagan Singh Nepali and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2018 titled as " Alam Adam Mansoori Vs. State of Maharashtra" dated 19.12.2022 (supra).
136. In the present case, the MCOC Act was invoked and the proposal for invoking the MCOC Act was approved on 06.04.2009 as proved as document Ex. PW35/A through witness SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 252 PW-35. The incident of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar registered U/s 302/201/365/394/468/471/482/120-B/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was pertaining to 17-18.03.2009 and admittedly, in the FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik @ Poppy were convicted. In the investigation of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar, the accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik @ Poppy had disclosed about their involvement in the present FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj and they were arrested in the present case and their criminal background were checked and other accused Ajay Kumar was also arrested. The accused persons namely Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Bhainga and Ravi Kapoor were also admittedly convicted in FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt which was registered U/s 382/323/34 IPC dated 09.03.2009, and they were charged and finally convicted U/s 392/394/34 IPC.
137. The Court is of the view that incident of murder of the deceased/victim Jigisha Gosh in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and incident of robbery in FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt which resulted into conviction of the accused persons charged were the part of the continuous unlawful activity of the accused persons through their organized crime syndicate and the incident of the present case FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj, incident of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and incident of FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt were the organized crime as committed by the organized crime syndicate run by the accused Ravi Kapoor through himself as well as other members of his organized crime SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 253 syndicate namely Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik @ Poppy, Ajay Kumar and with the assistance of the accused Ajay Sethi. It is duly proved by the prosecution that organized crime syndicate led by accused Ravi Kapoor having its members Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik, Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi were involved in various criminal activities of different nature as discussed above only for the pecuniary gain and for their livelihood from the proceeds of the organized crime committed by their organized crime syndicate. It is also duly proved that in all those cases in which chargesheet were filed against the accused persons as discussed above, the cognizance were taken by the competent Court and accused persons were charged for the different offences committed by them which were punishable for period more than three years which establishes the fact that accused persons were continuously involved in unlawful activities as defined U/s 2 (d) of the MCOC Act, 1999.
138. The legal principle of invoking Section 3 of the MCOC Act on the basis of previous involvement of the organized crime syndicate and continuous unlawful activity is well discussed in the case law as relied upon by the accused persons as well as the case law as relied upon by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
138.1 The provision of Section 3 of MCOC Act was invoked in the present case and approval U/s 23 (1)(a) of the MCOC Act was accorded vide order dated 06.04.2009 through document Ex. PW35/A. The incident of murder of Jigisha Gosh in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar was pertaining to 17-18-03- SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 254 2009. The incident of FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt was pertaining to dated 09.03.2009. The incident of the present case bearing FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj was pertaining to 30.09.2008. The accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik @ Poppy were convicted in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar as discussed above and the order of the conviction has already attained finality. Similarly, the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Kumar Shukla and Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga had already convicted in FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt and order of conviction had already attained finality as discussed above.
138.2 The incident of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and incident of FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt as committed by the organized crime syndicate run by the accused Ravi Kapoor through himself as well as other members of organized crime syndicate were pertaining to prior to invoking Section 3 of the MCOC Act regarding which approval U/s 23 (1) (a) of MCOC Act was accorded on 06.04.2009. Hence, the contention of the accused persons that the MCOC Act was wrongly invoked in the present case as the incident of the present case FIR bearing no. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj was pertaining to the 30.09.2008 i.e. prior to the registration of FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and registration of the FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt is rejected as the provision of Section 3 of the MCOC Act was invoked in the present case on 06.04.2009 i.e. after the incident of FIR No. 481/2008 PS Vasant Kunj (present case), incident of FIR No. SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 255 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar and incident of FIR No. 63/2009 PS Delhi Cantt and the provision of Section 3 of MCOC Act was invoked and approved U/s 23 (1)(a) of MCOC Act on 06.04.2009 after checking and verifying the past criminal record/activities of the accused persons.
138.3 The prosecution has also further duly proved by producing the document of different FIRs and judicial record of those cases as discussed above that at the time of invoking the provision of MCOC Act, accused persons were involved in continuous unlawful activity from the year 2002 till the date of the arrest of the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla and Baljeet Malik @ Poppy in FIR No. 69/2009 PS Vasant Vihar. It is settled law as held in "Madan Ram Kishan Gangwani Vs. State of Maharashtra", 2009, ALL MR (Cri) 1447 (Bom.), that for invoking and for proving the involvement in continuing unlawful activity, it is not necessary to prove the past crime, but only the fact that the chargesheet has been filed in respect of that crime that bears the punishment of three years or more and the Court has taken the cognizance of the crime. It was further held in "Mahipal Vs. CBI", 2014 (3) Crimes 316, that where the FIR detail of all criminal activities showing continuous chain, link of event fulfilling requirement of organized crime or continuing unlawful activities, the applicability of the MCOC Act cannot be challenged. The unlawful activities which are cognizable offence, committed by accused more than once, comes within the mischief of continuing unlawful activity U/s 3 of the MCOC Act. Hence, the defence of the accused persons that SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 256 they were not involved in continuous unlawful activities or they were not member of organized crime syndicate or they were not involved in the organized crime is rejected. 138.4 It is duly proved by the prosecution that accused persons were dependent for their livelihood on the proceeds of the organized crime as committed by their organized crime syndicate and they did not led any evidence that they were having any other pecuniary source for their livelihood, so the presumption is drawn as per Section 17 (2) of the MCOC Act against the accused persons that the pecuniary resources for the livelihood of the accused persons were acquired or derived from the illegal activities of the organized crime syndicate and defence of the accused persons in that regard is also rejected. 138.5 The legal principles of admissibility of circumstantial evidence is well settled in the case law as relied upon by the counsel for accused persons as well as by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. However, the prosecution has duly proved as discussed above by producing the circumstantial evidence, scientific evidence and eye witnesses who identified the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay, Baljeet Singh Malik @ Poppy to corroborate the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor as recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act to establish the fact that accused Ravi Kapoor in furtherance of common intention with the accused persons Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh Malik had murdered the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan with the bullet fired by country made pistol on SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 257 30.09.2008 in between 03.25 am to 03.55 am at Nelson Mandela Marg, near Pole No. 78 on the road from Vasant Vihar side towards Vasant Kunj side due to which she expired and no material contradiction came on record during the trial. Accordingly, the defence of the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh Malik @ Poppy is rejected.
139. The prosecution has duly proved from the testimony of PW-43 Inspector O.P Thakur and PW-4 Inspector Randhir Singh regarding the apprehension of accused Ajay Sethi on 06.04.2009 on the basis of disclosure statement of the other co accused persons.
139.1 The prosecution has also duly proved that offending vehicle (used in the commission of offence by the co accused persons Ravi Kapoor, Baljeet Singh Malik, Amit Shukla and Ajay Kumar) Wagon-R car bearing no. HR27A-4783 was recovered at the instance of accused Ajay Sethi and same was seized by PW-4 and memo Ex. PW4/P was prepared. It is already discussed that above mentioned car was stolen case property of FIR No. 475/2008, P.S. Vasant Kunj having chasis no. 325817 (Wagon-R car) belonging to one Gaurav Singh (complainant of the FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj which was clubbed with the trial of the present case). The prosecution has also duly proved through the testimony of witness PW-29 Abhishek Pathak who was the brother in law of the accused Amit Shukla that in the month of September-October 2008, the said Wagon-R car was being used by accused Amit Shukla and he parked the said car in the parking SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 258 area at the address of the witness Abhishek Pathak and went to Bombay. It is also established from the testimony of PW-29 that after two-three days of leaving the car in the parking area, he received a call from accused Amit Shukla who asked to hand over the key of the above mentioned Wagon-R car to accused Baljeet. It is also duly proved by the prosecution that fake number plate was being used on the said Wagon-R car. The testimony of PW-29 corroborate the prosecution case regarding the mode and manner of disposing the Wagon-R car used in the commission of offence as admitted by the accused Ravi Kapoor in his confessional statement Ex. PW36/B. No material contradiction came on record during the examination of the witness PW-29.
139.2 It is proved from the above discussion that accused Ajay Sethi used to provide the necessary facilities to the co accused Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay in the commission of offence of the organized crime syndicate led by accused Ravi Kapoor.
It is also proved that accused Ajay Sethi had knowingly retained the said Wagon-R car which was stolen case property of FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj and which was used in the commission of offence against the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan.
140. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered view that prosecution has duly proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Ravi Kapoor and his other associates co accused Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 259 Malik had committed murder of the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan with intention to rob her on 30.09.2008 in between 03.25 am to 03.55 am at Nelson Mandela Marg near Pole No. 78, Road from Vasant Vihar side towards Vasant Kunj side and they are accordingly held guilty and convicted for charge of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
140.1 The prosecution has also duly proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge of offence punishable U/s 3 (1) (i) of MCOC Act against the accused Ravi Kapoor and his other associates/ co accused persons namely Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Malik and accordingly, they are held guilty and convicted for charge of commission of offence punishable U/s 3 (1) (i) of MCOC Act, 1999.
140.2 The prosecution has also duly proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Ajay Sethi retained knowingly and intentionally the offending vehicle/Wagon-R car originally stolen in the FIR No. 475/2008 PS Vasant Kunj and he is accordingly held guilty and convicted for charge of offence punishable U/s 411 IPC.
140.3 The prosecution has also duly proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Ajay Sethi abetted or knowingly facilitated the commission of organized crime by the organized crime syndicate led by accused Ravi Kapoor having its other members/co accused Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik, Ajay Kumar and he also used to hold the property derived or obtained from the proceeds of organized crime of the organized crime syndicate and the charge regarding the same for commission of offence SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 260 punishable U/s 3 (2) of MCOC Act and charge of offence punishable U/s 3 (5) of MCOC Act, 1999. Accordingly, he is held guilty and convicted for charge of offence punishable U/s 3 (2) of MCOC Act and charge of offence punishable U/s 3 (5) of MCOC Act, 1999.
141. State through Ld. Public Prosecutor, accused persons and Ld. Secretary DLSA, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi are directed to file respective affidavit/VIR in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as " Karan Verma Vs. State through NCT of Delhi" by 26.10.2023. 141.1 Be put up for order on sentence after compliance of guideline as mentioned judgment titled as "Karan Verma"
(supra) by convicts, State and by DLSA, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 26.10.2023.
Announced in open Court (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) on 18.10.2023 Additional Sessions Judge-3 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 261