Delhi District Court
State vs . Umesh Roy & Ors Khurana 2018.12.10 on 10 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 175/08 Digitally signed
PS : OIA (Crime Branch) by MANISH
KHURANA
U/s : 384/387/507/120B IPC MANISH Date:
State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors KHURANA 2018.12.10
Unique ID No. : 88320/16 15:07:39
+0530
Date of institution of case : 23.06.2008
Date of reserving the judgment : 30.11.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.12.2018
J U D G M E N T
1. S. No. of the Case : 51/2/08
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 20.03.2008
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sh. O P Aggarwal
R/o 199, Mandakni Enclave,
Alaknanda, New Delhi
110019
4. Name, parentage & address of accused : (i) Umesh Roy
S/o Sh. Ram Vilas Roy,
R/o G33/8A, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
(ii) Naresh
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o H. No. 1066, Gali
No. 43, Molarband,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
(iii) Kuldeep Singh
S/o Sh. Jagat Singh Rawat,
R/o Village Thapa, PO
FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 1/18
Kamdai, Distt.Pauri
Garhwal, Uttrakhand.
5. Offence complained of or proved : u/s 384/387/507/120B IPC
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
Case of the Prosecution
1. The prosecution case is that on 20.03.2008 at 2.42 pm at 150 DSIDU, OIA PhaseI, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Okhla all the accused persons hatched the criminal conspiracy to extort money from the complainant and to criminally intimidate him and all the accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy put the complainant Mahesh Kumar in fear of death and demanded Rs. 20 lacs and threatened him with life and thereby the accused persons committed offence punishable u/s 384/387/507/120B IPC.
2. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons. After hearing arguments on charge, charge u/s 384/387/507/120B IPC was ordered to be framed against all the accued persons namely Umesh Roy, Kuldeep Singh Rawat and Naresh vide order dated 17.11.2009. Charge was accordingly framed to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During admission/denial of the documents, accused persons admitted the factum of registration of present FIR as Ex.A1, DD No. 15 dated 26.04.2008, SOS Crime Branch, Delhi as Ex.A2 and DD No. 11 dated 26.04.2008 SOS Crime Branch, Delhi as Ex.A3 vide their joint statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC.
3. Prosecution examined 06 witnesses in order to prove its case.
4. PW1 Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 20.03.2008 at around 2:40 pm he received a phone call from mobile no. 9717417843 on his mobile no.
FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 2/18 9811214972 and the caller threatened him (PW1) to give Rs. 20 lacs otherwise he would shoot him (PW1). He further stated that he was also threatened by saying that the next day was Holi and "rang se nahi khoon se Holi khelenge". He further stated that he hung up the call and after a few minutes he again received a call from the same number and the caller asked him as to why he hung up his call earlier and he replied that as he was not able to fulfil the demand and caller was also not known to him, therefore he hung up the phone. He further stated that on this the caller told him that he knew everything about him that his children were studying at KPS school and his wife was working with LIC and he was having a Esteem car and his work place was at Okhla. He further stated that on this he asked the name of the caller and he introduced himself as Abdul Ansari. He further stated that he again hung up the call. He further stated that thereafter on 26.03.2008 between 3:30 pm and 5:15 pm he again received 5 to 6 calls from the same number but he did not picked up the phone. Thereafter he went to the police station and lodged the complaint Ex.PW1/A. He further stated that thereafter he handed over the bill of his vodafone number 9811214972, a letter regarding employment of Umesh Kumar in his company and copy of wages register to the police and the police seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He further stated that the mobile phone bill of vodafone number 9811214972 is Ex.P1 (running into 8 pages), the letter regarding employment proof of Umesh Kumar is Ex. P2 and copy of wages register is Ex.P3 (colly) (running into 8 pages). He further stated that on both the occasions i.e on 20.03.2008 and 26.03.2008 when he received the threatening call, he was present in his factory at 150, DSIDC shed, Okhla Industrial Area Phase I, New Delhi. He further stated that initially the threatening call was given by one Abdul Ansari and thereafter the phone was handed over to another person who also threatened him in Haryanvi language. He identified the accused Umesh in the Court as his employee in his factory. He stated that FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 3/18 after lodging his complaint Ex.PW1/A, FIR was registered and later on police examined him in the present case. He further stated that during the investigation of present case he handed over the documents to police as mentioned by him in his statement dated 06.02.2015 and after sometime, he came to know that police had arrested some accused persons in the present case. He stated that he did not want to depose anything else. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he admitted that the person who made him threatening calls as above told his name as Abdul Ansari and his accent was Haryanavi. He also admitted that accused Umesh Rai is a native of State of Bihar and his usual accent is that of State of Bihar. He stated that he had no knowledge that accused Naresh is a native of Kanpur, U.P and accused Kuldeep is a native of Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. He denied that all the accused persons had been falsely implicated by the police or that none of the accused persons had any link with the threatening calls received by him. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
5. PW2 HC Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 28.04.2008, he was posted as HC in SOS Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony and on that day, he joined IO of present case HC Ombir in the investigation of present case. He further stated that on that day at the instance of accused Naresh Kumar, who was with them on PC remand, they reached at H. No. G33/08A, Sangam Vihar. He further stated that accused Naresh Kumar had led them i.e. him, IO / HC Ombir and other staff to the above mentioned address / house. He further stated that at the above mentioned House i.e. G33/08A, Sangam Vihar, they met accused Umesh Rai. He further stated that HC Ombir apprehended accused Umesh Rai and thereafter, HC Ombir took a casual search of accused and found one NOKIA 1108 mobile phone from the right side pocket of the pant of the accused, he again said that phone was recovered from the right hand of the FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 4/18 accused which was seized by the IO. He further stated that IO checked the SIM Number of the attached SIM and IMEI number of above said recovered mobile phone. He further stated that he did not remember the SIM number and IMEI number of the recovered mobile phone. He further stated that the same were duly mentioned on the seizure memo. He further stated that thereafter, IO seized above said mobile phone alongwith SIM Card in a cloth pullanda after sealing the same with the seal of "OST" vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He further stated that thereafter, accused Umesh Rai was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C and IO interrogated accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW2/D. He further stated that thereafter, they took accused and case property to their office and the case property was deposited by IO in the malkhana of PS OIA, New Delhi and IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He identified that case property i.e the recovered mobile phone as Ex. P1 and the SIM card as Ex. P2 and the pullanda Mark A. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he stated that on the day of incident, they left their office of Crime Branch at around 08:00 AM by four wheeler vehicle, however, he did not remember the particulars or make of vehicle by which they reached at the spot i.e. house of accused Umesh Rai. He stated that they had left their office in one vehicle. He stated that he had not got recorded any departure entry for their leaving office as above said and he stated that IO must have done so. He stated that before raiding the house of accused they did not go to concerned PS i.e. PS Sangam Vihar. He further stated that they had stopped and parked their vehicle at a distance of around half KM from the house of accused Umesh Rai. He further stated that none was left for the security of above said vehicle. He did not remember the direction of lane in which house of accused Umesh Rai was situated. He further stated that they had entered into the house of accused through a door. He did not remember as to how many doors were there in the FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 5/18 house of accused Umesh Rai for main entry and exit. He did not remember as to how many floors were there in the building from where accused Umesh Rai was arrested, however, he stated that they apprehended accused from the ground floor. He further stated that when they entered into the house of accused, the main door was already opened. He further stated that if he would visit his house he could only tell where the accused was exactly standing in his house when he was apprehended. He denied that he was never the part of the raiding team or that he was there in his Crime Branch office on that day or that due to this he was not able to tell the details of the other members of the raiding party or the particulars of the vehicle used by the raiding team. He denied that no written work concerning the present case was done in his presence or that no recovery was effected in his presence. He did not know as to what the IO wrote on the pullanda at the time of sealing it with his seal. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of his higher police officials. He denied that no disclosure statement of accused was recorded in his presence. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW3 Sh. Roushan Kumar Jha deposed that in the year 2007 08, he was working as a salesman at a shop namely Star Communication at Nithari Village, Sector31, main market, NOIDA and in the year 2008, police came to him at his above mentioned shop and enquired him about the Airtel Mobile SIM number 9717....... (he did remember the complete mobile number). He further stated that police told him that the above said number had been used in threatening call and asked him about the records and the customer to whom the SIM was sold. He further stated that as they used to maintain record of each sold SIM at their shop, he told police that the above said SIM was sold to one Naresh Kumar. He did not remember as to whether he handed over any document in the present case to police. He did not remember as to what were FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 6/18 the documents which Naresh Kumar supplied to them for obtaining above said SIM. He further stated that he could identify accused Naresh Kumar if shown to him and he correctly pointed out towards accused in check shirt and upon asking accused in check shirt disclosed his identity as Naresh Kumar. He further stated that after around one year i.e. in the last of 2009, he left services of Star Communication. He did not want to depose anything else. Ld. APP sought permission of the Court to ask one leading question from the witness regarding complete mobile number which was granted and during his cross examination by Ld APP for the State PW3 admitted that police had recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He admitted that in his statement he had disclosed complete SIM number of the SIM sold to Naresh Kumar. He admitted that the complete number of the mobile number is 9717417843. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he stated that after recording his statement, police obtained his signatures on the same. He further stated that police neither seized the register maintained at their shop showing the sale of SIM numbers and the names of persons to whom the SIM were sold nor took its photocopy. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police.
7. PW4 ASI Ombir Tyagi deposed that on 25.04.2008 he was posted as HC at SOS Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony, Delhi and on that day a complaint of complainant Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal was received in their office and was marked to him by Inspector Rajpal Dabas, SOS Crime Branch, Delhi. He further stated that he received the complaint Ex.PW1/A and met complainant. He further stated that he inquired complainant and after being satisfied he endorsed the complaint and prepared rukka Ex.PW4/A and got FIR registered through Ct. Rajender at PS OIA. He further stated that after registration of FIR investigation was handed over to him. He further stated that during investigation he seized a letter of MS Art Printers Ex.P2, photocopy of FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 7/18 pay register (08 pages) Ex.P3 (colly) and Vodafone details of mobile number 9811214972 (10 pages) Ex.P1 (colly) which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He further stated that thereafter he got the details of the alleged caller of mobile number 9717417843 and he came to know about the IMEI number of the phone in which the abovesaid number was used. He further stated that on inquiry it was known that the abovesaid mobile number 9717417843 was issued in the name of Babloo r/o Nithari, Noida, UP and on inquiry the said ID and address was found false. He further stated that thereafter, on further inquiry he came to know that the IMEI number on which the abovesaid mobile number was used, one more mobile number 9958320283 was also being used permanently. He further stated that thereafter, he inquired about the details of the abovesaid mobile number and came to know that the said mobile number 9958320283 was issued in the name of Naresh Kumar r/o H. No. 1066/E1, Gali No. 43, Molarband, Badarpur, Delhi. He further stated that thereafter, he alongwith HC Dinesh, Ct. Rajender and SI Nirbhay Rana reached at the abovementioned address of Naresh Kumar at Molarband where accused Naresh Kumar was found present in his abovementioned house. He further stated that he also found accused Naresh Kumar holding one Nokia mobile phone bearing model no. 1110 which he checked which was found containing one sim card of mobile number 9958320283. He further stated that thereafter, the said mobile phone alongwith its sim card was duly sealed with the seal of "OST" in a cloth pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. He further stated that thereafter, he arrested accused Naresh Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW4/D and interrogated accused Naresh and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/E. He further stated that at the instance of accused Naresh Kumar on the same day on 26.04.2008 he arrested accused Kuldeep Singh Rawat s/o Sh. Jagat Singh Rawat from his house at B468, Gali No. D34, FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 8/18 Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/F and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW4/G. He further stated that he interrogated and recorded disclosure statement of accused Kuldeep which is Ex.PW4/H. He further stated that PC remand of accused Naresh Kumar was obtained and during investigation on 28.04.2008 accused Naresh Kumar led them to the house of accused Umesh Roy at H. No. G33/8A, Sangam Vihar, Delhi from where at the instance of accused Naresh Kumar accused Umesh Roy who was present in the house was apprehended. He further stated that he also seized one mobile phone Nokia 1108 which accused Umesh Roy was holding in his right hand and which was having sim card of mobile number 9818370895, after duly sealing them with the seal of "OST" and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He further stated that he interrogated accused Umesh Roy and recorded his disclosure statement already Ex.PW2/B. He further stated that during investigation on 26.04.2008 he had recorded further disclosure statement of accused Naresh Kumar Ex.PW4/I. He further stated that during investigation he also visited village Nithari, Noida, UP and recorded statement of the shopkeeper from whose shop sim of mobile number 9717417843 was issued. He further stated that he also obtained CAF and CDRs of 9717417843 and 9958320283 and placed the same on record. He further stated that he recorded statement of witnesses. He further stated that after completion of investigation he prepared chargesheet against all the three accused persons namely Kuldeep, Naresh and Umesh. He identified the case property as marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P4. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he stated that on 25.04.2008 his duty was from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm. He further stated that complainant met him at about 11.00 am. He further stated that he had already received the complaint from the Inspector. He further stated that the same complaint was sent to PS after turning it into rukka for registration of FIR. He further stated that he had sent the rukka next date i.e on 26.04.2008 at FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 9/18 about 5.30 pm. He further stated that prior to registration of FIR, he had collected the CDRs of complainant's mobile number as well as the numbers from which the alleged threat call was given to the complainant. He further stated that he had not recorded statement of official who had sent the request for collecting CDRs of the number in question. He further stated that the shopkeeper in Nithari Village had not produced any record to him. He did not remember as to whether he had taken any action against him or not. He did not remember as to whether he had moved any application for preservation of the record of CDRs of the numbers under investigation. He further stated that when he raided the premises of alleged accused Naresh he was accompanied by SI Nirbhay Rana, SI Sukhbir Malik, Cr. Rajender and HC Dinesh. He further stated that he prepared site plan of the spot i.e house of Naresh which is not on record. He further stated that he had requested the local residents to participate in the raid but none agreed. He further stated that he had not given any notice to the local residents who refused to join into raid due to paucity of time. He further stated that when he arrested accused Naresh at his house, his father, mother and wife were present. He denied that he did not raid the premises of alleged accused Naresh or that he did not conduct any proceedings at his house. He further stated that when he prepared the papers, the SIs who accompanied him, were outside the house as they were observing the locality. He further stated that when he arrested the alleged accused Kuldeep Singh even there no public person agreed to become a witness of the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement and same is the position regarding third accused as he had not joined any public person in the investigation or arrest of all the three accused persons. He denied that he had not arrested any of the alleged accused from their houses but they came to PS on his asking so there was no public witness in respect of their arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosures statement and seizure memo of mobile FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 10/18 phones etc. He did not remember as to whether he had taken the voice sample of any alleged accused Naresh, Kuldeep and Umesh Roy. He denied that he falsely implicated the accused persons as he was under the pressure of his seniors. He denied that he had deposed falsely in his chief examination before this Court to get convicted the innocent persons. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW5 Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, 224, Okhla PhaseIII, Delhi deposed that the summons were received in his office to produce the record i.e CAF and CDR of mobile numbers 9717417843 and 9958320283 and in pursuance of that he brought CAF of both the mobile numbers which are Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B respectively (OSR), however, the summoned record i.e CDR of abovesaid mobile numbers for the period year 2008 was not available in their system and could not be produced. Witness was shown the call details of mobile number 9717417843 from 01.01.2008 to 27.04.2008 Ex.PW5/X and call detail records of mobile number 9958320283 from 01.01.2008 to 13.04.2008 (04 pages) Ex.PW5/Y after seeing which witness stated that the same had been given by his company in response to the email of IO. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he stated that he could not say as to whether the IO gave an application in Bharti Airtel Ltd to preserve the call detail record of abovesaid mobile numbers. He admitted that no such application is on record. He stated that the aforesaid record of CDR was not given in his presence and he could not say anything about the contents thereof. He admitted that the aforesaid CDR is only a photocopy and the same is not certified by Bharti Airtel Ltd. He denied that the CDR did not pertain to the abovesaid mobile numbers.
9. PW6 ASI Rajender Singh deposed that on 25.04.2008, he was posted as constable at SOS Crime Branch, Sunlight colony, Delhi and on that FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 11/18 day, present complaint of complainant Mahesh Kumar was received in their office and was marked for enquiry to HC Ombir Tyagi. He further stated that complainant also came to their office and met IO HC Ombir Tyagi and thereafter, IO HC Ombir Tyagi after being satisfied, endorsed the complaint and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He further stated that he took rukka Ex.PW4/A to PS OIA and got FIR registered there and returned and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO HC Ombir Tyagi, who started investigation of the present case. He further stated that he also accompanied IO in the investigation of present case during which IO seized documents i.e letter of M.S. Art Printers, photocopy of pay register and vodaphone details of mobile number 9811214972 for February, 2008 already Ex.P1(colly.), Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 (colly.) vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He further stated that IO got the details of the alleged caller of mobile number 9717417843 and came to know about the IMEI number of the phone in which abovesaid mobile number was used. He further stated that on enquiry the mobile number 9717417843 was known to be issued in the name of Babloo, R/o Nithari, Noida, UP and he alongwith IO visited there but the said ID and address of Babloo was found false. He further stated that during investigation, IO came to know that on the IMEI number of the phone one mobile number 9958320283 was being used, which was issued in the name of Naresh Kumar, R/o 1066/E1, Gali no. 43, Molarband, Badarpur, Delhi. He further stated that thereafter, he alongwith IO SI Ombir Tygai, HC Dinesh and SI Nirbhay Rana reached at the given address of accused Naresh Kumar who was found present. He further stated that accused Naresh Kumar at that time was holding one Nokia Mobile phone having model number 1100 which was containing SIM card of mobile number 9958320283. He further stated that IO checked the mobile phone of accused Naresh Kumar and thereafter alongwith its SIM card seized it in a cloth pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B after FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 12/18 duly sealing with the seal of OST. He further stated that accused Naresh Kumar was also arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. He further stated that IO enquired accused Naresh Kumar and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/E. He further stated that at the instance of accused Naresh Kumar on the same day i.e. on 26.04.2008 they were led to the house of accused Kuldeep Singh Rawat at B468, Gali no. D34, Molarband Extn. Badarpur, New Delhi where he was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW4/G. He further stated that IO also interrogated and recorded disclosure statement of accused Kuldeep Ex.PW4/H. He further stated that accused persons were taken to their office. He further stated that IO deposited case property in the malkhana and further interrogated accused Naresh Kumar and recorded his supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW4/I. He further stated that IO also enquired him and recorded his statement to the abovesaid effect. This witness was shown to the accused persons and asked to identify the accused persons if they were present in the court to which witness stated that one of the accused wearing white shirt was accused Naresh whereas the other accused was accused Kuldeep but he again said, the other accused was Umesh and accused Kuldeep was not present. Upon asking the accused wearing white shirt the accused discloses his name as accused Naresh Kumar. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he stated that his duty hours in SOS Crime Branch were from 10:00 a.m to 06:00 / 07:00 p.m. He did not remember the time as to when complainant reached their office and met IO on 26.04.2008. He did not know where complaint was prepared. He further stated that IO had called him and handed over him rukka for registration of FIR at about 05:30 p.m. He further stated that he went to PS OIA for registration of FIR by motorcycle but he did not remember the particulars of said motorcycle or as to whom it belonged. He did not note down his departure while leaving for registration of FIR. He FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 13/18 further stated that he reached at PS OIA at 05:50 p.m. He further stated that the duty officer available at PS OIA was one Mr. SP Tyagi. He further stated that after one hour the duty officer handed over to him copy of FIR alongwith rukka. He did not remember the exact time when he returned to his office. He did not remember as to in which direction the door of the house of accused was situated. He further stated that the accused was sitting in the first room. He further stated that the door was opened and IO of the case called the alleged accused Naresh who came outside the house and they apprehended him. He further stated that they tried to join the neighbors of accused Naresh into investigation but none of them agreed. He further stated that no written notice was served upon any such public person who was requested to join the investigation. He denied that accused Naresh was called through telephone in the office of crime branch or that he was falsely arrested there. He denied that all the documents except disclosure statement were prepared in their office and some blank papers were got signed by accused Naresh Kumar which were later on converted into disclosure statement. He denied that Kuldeep was also called in their office where he was falsely arrested in the present case or due to said reason no independent public person was joined as witness in the investigation / arrest of accused Kuldeep. He denied that he was deposing falsely against the accused persons at the instance of IO and his senior officers. He denied that he did not join investigation of present case as stated in his examination in chief or that due to said reason he was not able to identify the accused persons.
10. Thereafter, PE was closed and statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused persons to which they denied and pleaded innocence. Despite opportunity, the accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence.
11. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State as well as Ld. Counsel for FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 14/18 accused persons and have gone through the record carefully.
Finding of the Court
12. The allegations against the accused are that on 20.03.2008 at 2.42 pm at 150 DSIDU, OIA PhaseI, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Okhla all the accused persons hatched the criminal conspiracy to extort money from the complainant and to criminally intimidate him and all the accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy put the complainant Mahesh Kumar in fear of death and demanded Rs. 20 lacs and threatened him with life and thereby the accused persons committed offence punishable u/s 384/387/507/120B IPC.
13. Section 383 IPC defines extortion as "whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which maybe converted into a valuable security, commits 'extortion'".
14. Section 384 IPC provides punishment for extortion and section 387 provides punishment for putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.
15. Section 507 IPC provides the punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication. The terms "criminal intimidation" is defined u/s 503 IPC as "whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation".
16. In the case in hand, as per the allegations, all the accused FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 15/18 persons allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other to extort money from the complainant Mahesh Kumar and to criminally intimidate him and they allegedly put the complainant in the fear of death by making a phone call from the mobile no. 9717417843 and demanded the sum of Rs. 20 lacs from him and they also threatened him.
17. To prove the allegations the prosecution has examined complainant and other witnesses. The complainant has deposed that on 20.03.2008 he received a phone call from mobile no. 9717417843 on his mobile phone no. 9811214972 and the caller threatened him to give the sum of Rs. 20 lacs and the caller also stated that in case the money was not paid then he (the complainant) would be shot dead. Complainant has also stated that the caller introduced himself as Abdul Ansari and he was using Haryanavi language. During his cross examination, the complainant admitted that the accused Umesh Roy is the native of State of Bihar and his usual accent is that of State of Bihar. The complainant also stated that he did not have the knowledge that the accused Naresh was the resident of Kanpur, UP and the accused Kuldeep was the native of Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand.
18. The complainant identified one of the coaccused namely Umesh Kumar in the Court as his employee but he has nowhere stated that the alleged threat call for extortion was made by any of the accused persons or that any of the accused persons possessed the mobile no. 9717417843 from which the alleged threat call was made. During the investigation one mobile sim card having mobile no. 9818370895 was allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Umesh Kumar, however, admittedly no phone call was made from the aforesaid mobile number. Further, one Nokia mobile phone having sim card of mobile no. 9958320283 was allegedly recovered from coaccused Naresh Kumar whereas no alleged threat call was made even from that mobile number.
19. PW4 ASI Ombir Tyagi who was the IO of this case also placed the FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 16/18 customer application form (CAF) and call detail records (CDRs) of mobile no. 9717417843 and 9958320283 alongwith the chargesheet. The customer application form/CAF Ex.PW5/A of mobile no. 9717417843 reveals that aforesaid mobile number does not belong to any of the accused persons and as per CAF it was sold to one Sohan Pal who is not the accused herein. The alleged extortion call was made from the aforesaid mobile no. 9717417843, however, prosecution has failed to prove on record that any of the accused persons was in possession of the aforesaid mobile number or that any of the accused persons made the alleged extortion call to the complainant. Even the complainant has not deposed during his testimony that the alleged extortion call was made by any of the accused persons. PW3 Roshan Kumar Jha, who was working as a salesman at shop namely Star Communication at Nithari Village, Sector31, Noida, deposed that during investigation of this case he told the police that he sold the SIM to accused Naresh Kumar, however, he did not remember the complete Airtel mobile SIM number which was allegedly sold to accused Naresh Kumar and he also stated during his cross examination that police neither seized the register maintained at his shop in which the SIM numbers and the purchasers thereof were being mentioned. He also stated that the IO even did not take the photocopy of the said register. It is also pertinent to mention that no proof regarding the employment of PW3 as a salesman at Star Communication at Nithari Village, Sector31, Noida has been filed on record. In these circumstances it cannot be said to have been proved that the airtel mobile SIM number 9717417843 was sold to any of the accused persons or that any call was made from that SIM number by any of the accused persons. Further, the complainant has also stated during his testimony that the person who made the call was having Haryanavi accent whereas the accused Umesh Roy is the resident of State of Bihar and that his usual accent is that of State of Bihar. The complainant could not tell as to whether the accused Naresh was the native of FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 17/18 Kanpur, UP and the accused Kuldeep was the native of Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand.
20. It is further pertinent to mention that no evidence or material has been placed on record to prove the allegations of criminal conspiracy as alleged and it has not been proved on record that any of the accused conspired to commit the alleged offence of extortion and criminal intimidation.
21. Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence placed on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, all the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in the present case.
22. Accordingly, all the accused persons namely Umesh Roy, Naresh and Kuldeep Singh are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 384/387/507/120B IPC.
Announced in the open court
Today on 10.12.2018 (Manish Khurana)
CMM/SE/District Court, Saket
New Delhi/10.12.2018
FIR No. 175/08 State Vs. Umesh Roy & Ors 18/18