Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Pawan Kumar on 28 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 18/13
Unique Case ID : 02401R0288932013
STATE VS. 1. PAWAN KUMAR
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o H. NO. 137,
Vill. Kanjhawla, Delhi.
2. RAMESH SINGH DAHIYA,
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh,
R/o AN28B, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
3. SACHIN KUMAR
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o RZB/93, Nanda Enclave,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
4. MAHIPAL SINGH YADAV
S/o Sh. Satya Dev
R/o Flat No. 303,
Delhi Govt. Officers Flats,
Motia Khan, Paharganj, Delhi.
FIR NO. : 36/2010
C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 1 of 68
U/S : 7/8/12/13 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 & 420/409/120B/34 I.P.C.
P.S. : Crime Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 04.06.2013
Judgment reserved on 28.07.2014
Judgment delivered on 28.07.2014
JUDGMENT
1. From the perusal of the chargesheet, it is reflected that on dated 21.3.2010 a Written Examination was scheduled to be conducted at various Centers in Delhi by Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) for recruitment of the DTC Drivers from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. On the basis of the secret Information received at the Office of Special Team, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi to the effect that one Pawan Kumar along with his associates would procure all sets of Question Paper of the said Examination from the Examination Centre and will provide Answers of the Questions to certain candidates over Mobile Phone on taking illegal gratification, Raid was conducted by the Special Team of Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi and a Santro Car bearing No. DL 8CS 2331 was C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 2 of 68 intercepted near Delhi University Gate, Bonta Side, at about 11:25 a.m. on that day and accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya, Sachin Kumar and Pawan Kumar were apprehended from the said Car and accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya, Sachin Kumar and Pawan Kumar were found in possession of Question Paper of Series A, C and D of said Examination. Besides this, 3 Papers Slips containing the Names, Roll Numbers and Mobile Numbers of various candidates were recovered from the accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya and 6 Slips containing the particulars of the candidates were recovered beneath the seat of said Car. After the registration of the case, Investigation was carried out. It is alleged that the accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya, Sachin Kumar and Pawan Kumar had assured some candidates appearing in the said Examination to get their Question Papers solved over Mobile Phone on charging money from them. It is further alleged that accused Pawan Kumar had procured the photocopy of the Question Paper from the accused Mahipal Singh, who was the Principal of Sarvodaya Vidalya No.1, Mori Gate, Delhi and Center Incharge of the said Examination Centre, on paying bribe of Rs.2 Lacs to him. After the arrest of said accused Mahipal Singh, the alleged bribe amount of Rs.2 Lacs was also recovered from his house. During the course of the Investigation, the Specimen Handwriting of the accused persons were obtained and C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 3 of 68 subsequently sent to FSL. During the course of the Investigation, the Statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. of several candidates were recorded, who are stated to have been assured by accused Ramesh Dahiya, Sachin Kumar and Pawan Kumar to get their Question Papers solved on Mobile Phone on paying certain amount.
2. From the perusal of the chargesheet, it is further reflected that as no incriminating material could be found as against accused Jitender Singh during course of investigation and said accused Jitender Singh has not been chargesheeted and was merely placed in column no. 12 of the chargesheet. No cognizance for any offence was taken as against the said accused Jitender Singh and he was not summoned for facing trial in this case as per order dated 29.07.2013. However, as adequate evidence being stated to have collected as against remaining four accused persons i.e., Pawan Kumar, Ramesh Singh Dahiya, Sachin Kumar and Mahipal Singh Yadav, they were chargesheeted and they were summoned to face trial vide order dt. 29.07.2013.
3. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 7 & 13 of Prevention of C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 4 of 68 Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against all the four accused persons and additional charge for offence punishable U/S 7 & U/S 13 r/w Section 13 (1) (c) and Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act as against accused Mahipal Singh Yadav was framed on 11.11.2013 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 50 prosecution witnesses namely Kamal Singh, a formal witness as PW1, Rajesh Kumar who is a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW2, Sonu Kumar who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW3, Sitender who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW4, Satish Kumar who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW5, Somveer who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW6, Raj Kumar who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 5 of 68 is a material witness as PW7, Sandeep who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW8, Subhash Singh who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW9, Surinder Kumar S/o Shreechand who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW10, Ramesh who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW11, Surinder Kumar S/o Ram Chander who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW12, Praveen Kumar S/o Mahavir Singh who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW13, Sunil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW14, Virender Singh who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW15, Rakesh Kumar who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW16, Sandeep Kumar who is also a candidate and C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 6 of 68 appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW17, Sunil Kumar S/o Rameshwar Das who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW18, Praveen Kumar S/o Ram Mehar Singh who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW19, Ravinder who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW20, SI Mahinder Singh, a formal witness as PW21, HC Jijop, a formal witness as PW22, ASI Ved Prakash, a formal witness as PW23, Sh. Ravi Kant Sharma who was on duty as Observercum Coordinator in the said examination of DTC Driver as PW24, ASI Naresh Kumar, a formal witness as PW25, Harish Kumar UDC from Examination Branch of Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board (DSSSB), a formal witness as PW26, Mahinder Singh Yadav who was on duty as Invigilator/Deputy Superintendent at Sarvodya Bal Vidyalaya No. 1, Mori Gate, Delhi for said DTC Drivers' Examination, as PW27, Sh. Anil Banka, the then Addl. Secretary Education (Vigilance), GNCT of Delhi, Sanctioning Authority as against accused Mahipal Singh Yadav as PW28, Devak Ram, Retd. Asstt. Director (Documents) FSL, Delhi as PW29, Parvinder Kumar who is the C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 7 of 68 registered owner of Car No. DL 8CS 2331, a formal witness as PW30, Vinod Kumar who is also a candidate and appeared in said DTC Drivers' Examination as held on 21.03.2010 and is a material witness as PW31, Yogender Singh who was posted as Security Guard as Sarvodya Bal Vidhyalya, Mori Gate, Delhi, a formal witness as PW32, Sh. S.K. Jain, Head Clerk of the office of Deputy Director of Education, Karam Pura Delhi, a formal witness as PW33, Rajeev Sharda Alternate Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication Ltd, a formal witness as PW34, Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd, a formal witness as PW35, Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd., a formal witness as PW36, SI Ritesh Kumar, a formal witness as PW37, Inspector Hariwansh Singh as PW38, Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., a formal witness as PW39, HC Chand Ram, the then MHC(M) PS: Crime Branch, a formal witness as PW40, Om Singh, a formal witness as PW41, Ran Singh Lakra, a formal witness as PW42, Sanjay Kadiyan, a formal witness as PW43, Chhotey Lal, a formal witness as PW44, Inspector Shyam Sunder who is a member of Raiding Team as PW45, HC Hari Krishan, a formal witness as PW46, ASI Mukesh Tyagi, a formal witness as PW47, the then ACP M.C. Katoch, Part IO as PW48, Inspector Susheel Kumar, a member of the Raiding Team C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 8 of 68 as PW49, ACP Subhash Tandon, Part IO as PW50.
5. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the accused persons denied about the entire allegations of the prosecution and claimed to be falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence. The accused Mahipal Singh Yadav in support of his defense got examined 3 DWs namely Smt.Pushpa Yadav W/o Mahipal Singh Yadav as DW1, Rajpal S/o Ran Singh as DW2 and Roshan Lal S/o Raghubir Singh as DW3 and thereafter, DE was closed.
6. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh.Yogesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav, Sh. Sanjay Gupta Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya, Sh. Rakesh Chahar Adv. Ld. Counsel for accused Sachin and Sh. Arun Khatri Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Pawan Kumar and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
7. It is submitted by Sh.Sanjay Gupta Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya that all the 20 candidates namely PW2 C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 9 of 68 Rajesh Kumar, PW3 Sonu Kumar, PW4 Sitender, PW5 Satish Kumar, PW6 Somveer, PW7 Raj Kumar, PW8 Sandeep S/o Rajpal , PW9 Subhash Singh, PW10 Surinder Kumar S/o Shree Chand, PW11 Ramesh, PW12 Surinder Kumar S/o Ram Chander, PW13 Praveen Kumar S/o Mahavir Singh, PW14 Sunil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh, PW15 Virender Singh, PW16 Rakesh Kumar, PW17 Sandeep Kumar S/o Balwan Singh, PW18 Sunil Kumar S/o Rameshwar Das, PW19 Praveen Kumar S/o Ram Mehar Singh, PW20 Ravinder and PW31 Vinod Kumar, who are the most material witnesses of the prosecution, have not deposed anything as against the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that none of the said candidates have deposed anything as against the accused persons to have assured for providing any help in the said Examination for DTC Drivers. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that despite thorough cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, none of the said candidates have deposed as against the accused persons and the same established the innocence of the accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that one Mobile Phone and one SIM are alleged to have been recovered from the personal search of accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya but as SIM Number is not found mentioned in Personal Search Memo of said accused and as said Mobile Phone is produced in unsealed condition and even otherwise, said Mobile Phone C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 10 of 68 could not be connected with any incriminating evidence relating to this accused and therefore, same can be of no help for the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that from the perusal of the FSL Report Ex.PW29/A, it is clearly reflected that the contents of any of the slip as alleged to be recovered from the car of the accused persons or from the accused, could not be connected with the specimen handwriting of the accused persons and therefore, the said fact also reflect the innocence of the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that despite availability of the public witness at the spot i.e. near PG Men's Hostel, Delhi University, nonjoining of any of them in the police proceedings clearly falsify the stand of the prosecution and also support that all the Memos were prepared not at the spot but at the Office of Crime Branch afterwards. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that since the candidates in the said DTC Driver's Examination were not allowed to use any Mobile Phone, which is clearly found reflected from the Instructions in the Question Papers of said Examination, the basic allegation of the prosecution to the effect that the accused persons have assured certain candidates to provide Answers of the Question Papers through their Mobile Phone during said Examination for monetary consideration demolishes the entire case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even as per the deposition of the IO that no out going call C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 11 of 68 was made from the Mobile Phones as recovered from the accused persons to any of the Phone Numbers as mentioned on Slips Ex.PW38/F1 to F3 and Ex.PW38/H1 to H6 and same also establishes the innocence of the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the prosecution has failed to establish for the charged offence against this accused and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted.
8. Similarly, it is submitted by Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav that this accused was working as the Principal of Sarvodaya Bal Vidalya No.1, Mori Gate and was performing duty as Centre Superintendent of said School for the DTC Driver's Examination as conducted by DSSSB on dated 21.3.2010 and he had discharged his duty as Centre Superintendent bonafidely for smooth conduct of the said Examination and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the allegation as against this accused is that in consideration of receipt of Rs. 2 Lacs, this accused had got prepared the photocopy of the Question Papers of the said DTC Driver's Examination from Photocopy Booth outside the School and thereafter, delivered the copies of said Question Papers to coaccused Pawan C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 12 of 68 Kumar in the said School while said Examination was going on, on dated 21.3.2010. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the said allegation of the prosecution is found falsified from the facts that this accused remained present through out during the course of the conduct of said DTC Driver's Examination at his School and had never gone out from the said School for getting preparation of photocopy of the Question Papers of said Examination and said facts are also found corroborated from the deposition of PW24 Ravi Kant Sharma who was performing duty as Observer cum Coordinator for the said Examination on that day as well as PW27 Mahinder Singh Yadav who was performing duty as Deputy Superintendent for the said Examination in the said School. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there was no occasion on the part of this accused to get prepared the photocopy of the Question Papers of the said Examination after leaving the School during course of the conduct of the said Examination. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the prosecution has failed to establish by leading any evidence as against this accused with regard to receipt of Rs. 2 Lacs as bribe in consideration for delivering the photocopy of the Question Papers of the said Examination to co accused Pawan Kumar during the Examination hour on that day i.e. 21.03.2010. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that no doubt, Rs.2 Lacs C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 13 of 68 has been recovered from the house of the accused on 21.3.2010 but said amount was lying in the house of the accused as Rs.2,10,000/ has been received on 18.3.2010 as advance amount towards sale of property by the wife of the accused to DW2 Rajpal and Agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/A dated 18.3.2010 was also executed in this respect and subsequently, Sale Deed Ex.DW1/B was executed by DW1 Pushpa Yadav, wife of the accused in favour of said DW2 Rajpal. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that said facts were disclosed to the police official and even the Agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/A was also shown to the police official by the accused at the time of recovery of said Rs.2 Lacs from the house of the accused and said facts are also found mentioned in the Bail Application of this accused and certified copy of said Bail Application has been placed on record and the same reflect the innocence of this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in the Reply to the said Bail Application, the IO has not mentioned deliberately anything regarding said source of Rs.2 Lacs as recovered from the house of accused Mahipal Singh Yadav nor has malafidely conducted any investigation in this respect as the same could have established the innocence of this accused Mahipal Singh Yadav. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that regarding the source of said amount of Rs. 2 Lacs as recovered from the house of the accused Mahipal C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 14 of 68 Singh Yadav, which was the amount as received as the advance amount towards sale of the property by the wife of this accused to one Rajpal and said facts have been clearly established from the deposition of DW1 Pushpa Yadav, wife of the accused, DW2 Rajpal and DW3 Roshan Lal, who were examined by this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the prosecution has failed to establish the charged offence and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted.
9. Similarly, it is submitted by Sh. Rakesh Chahar Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Sachin Kumar that this accused is innocent and has no concern with the alleged offence. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise the prosecution has failed to establish the charged offence as against this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is no evidence on record to establish any criminal conspiracy as against this accused with other accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise the prosecution has failed to establish anything on record to the effect that this accused along with other accused persons have assured any candidates appearing in the said DTC Driver's Examination for providing the Answers of the Question Papers of the said Examination through their Mobile Phones as none of the 20 candidates who have been examined by the prosecution, have C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 15 of 68 deposed anything as against the accused persons in this respect. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there was no occasion on the part of the accused persons to have assured any candidates of the said Examination for providing the Answers of the Question Papers through their Mobile Phones for monetary consideration, in view of the fact that the candidates were not allowed to use Mobile Phone during the conduct of said Examination. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as per prosecution, one Mobile Phone Nokia besides one Idea SIM was recovered from the personal search of this accused as per Ex.PW38/G5 but as per deposition of PW39 Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Service Ltd., coupled with the deposition of PW43 Sanjay Kadyan, Mobile Phone No.9999466698 (Vodafone Mobile) was in the name of said Sanjay Kadyan and said Mobile Phone was always used by him and not by the accused Sachin Kumar and therefore, said Mobile Phone has no concern with the accused Sachin Kumar. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused Sachin Kumar submitted that as there is no evidence as against this accused for the charged offence and hence, this accused deserves to be acquitted.
10. Similarly, it is submitted by Sh.Arun Khatri Adv., Ld. Counsel for the accused Pawan Kumar that this accused is innocent C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 16 of 68 and has no concern with the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that out of the 50 PWs as examined by the prosecution about 40 PWs have not supported the case of the prosecution and despite thorough cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, no material to help the stand of the prosecution could be brought out from them. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that all the 20 candidates who have been examined as PW2 Rajesh Kumar, PW3 Sonu Kumar, PW4 Sitender, PW5 Satish Kumar, PW6 Somveer, PW7 Raj Kumar, PW8 Sandeep S/o Rajpal , PW9 Subhash Singh, PW10 Surinder Kumar S/o Shree Chand, PW11 Ramesh, PW12 Surinder Kumar S/o Ram Chander, PW13 Praveen Kumar S/o Mahavir Singh, PW14 Sunil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh, PW15 Virender Singh, PW16 Rakesh Kumar, PW17 Sandeep Kumar S/o Balwan Singh, PW18 Sunil Kumar S/o Rameshwar Das, PW19 Praveen Kumar S/o Ram Mehar Singh, PW20 Ravinder and PW31 Vinod Kumar, have not deposed anything against the accused persons and as said PWs are the most Material witnesses of the prosecution, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as the use of the Mobile Phone by the candidates appearing in said Examination of DTC Drivers held on 21.3.2010, was not allowed during the Examination, C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 17 of 68 there was no occasion on the part of the accused persons to have assured any candidates appearing in the said Examination for providing the Answers of the Question Papers through their Mobile Phones for financial consideration and the same also nullify the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is no evidence on record to establish that this accused has procured the photocopy of the Question Papers of the said Examination from accused Mahipal Singh Yadav on payment of Rs.2 Lacs. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that no documents were prepared at the spot but were prepared subsequently at the Office of Crime Branch and said fact is also found corroborated from the fact that despite availability of independent public witness at the spot near PG Men's Hostel of Delhi University, none of them was joined in the said proceedings. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as there are several contradictions in the deposition of various PWs who are Police Officials, the same falsify the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even from the perusal of the FSL Report Ex.PW29/A, it is clearly established that 3 Slips as alleged to be recovered from the accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya and 6 Lists of the candidates as alleged to be recovered from the car of the accused persons, could not be connected with the handwritings of the accused persons and same also established C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 18 of 68 the innocence of the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as per Personal Search Memo of accused Pawan Kumar which is Ex.PW38/G3, one Mobile Phone Nokia 6070 with Airtel SIM was recovered from this accused but there is nothing on record to connect said Mobile Phone with this accused as said Mobile Phone belonged to one Raja Ram and not to this accused as per deposition of PW36 Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is no evidence on record to establish any criminal conspiracy as against this accused with other accused persons for commission of any offence. Thus, Ld. Counsel added that as the prosecution has failed to establish the charged offence as against this accused and hence, this accused deserves to be acquitted.
11. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 50 PWs have clearly established its case as against all the accused and therefore, all the accused deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that no doubt, several PWs have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution by being won over by the accused persons and therefore, the same can be of no help for the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 19 of 68 the case of the prosecution has been fully found supported from the deposition of PW38 Inspector Hariwansh Singh, PW45 Inspector Shyam Sunder, PW48 Retd. ACP M.C.Katoch/Part IO, PW49 Inspector Sushil Kumar and PW50 ACP Subhash Tandon/Part IO. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State that mere fact that there are certain contradictions in the deposition of PWs, cannot be treated fatal for the case of the prosecution as the same are formal and usual in nature. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav had received Rs.2 Lacs from accused Pawan Kumar in consideration for handing over the copy of the Question Papers of said DTC Driver's Examination and said amount of Rs.2 Lacs has been subsequently recovered from the house of the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav and certain Slips containing the particulars of certain candidates were recovered from the car in which the accused persons were found sitting and same also support the case of the prosecution. Thus, Ld. Addl. PP for the State urged for conviction of all the accused persons.
12. From the perusal of the relevant material as available on case record, it is clearly reflected that 20 candidates for said Examination of DTC Drivers as conducted by Delhi Subordinate Service Selection C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 20 of 68 Board (DSSSB), who have been examined as prosecution witness, have clearly denied the stand of the prosecution to the effect that they have been assured by the accused persons for providing Answers of Question Papers of said Examination through Mobile Phone for monetary consideration, As it is reflected from the record that said 20 candidates namely PW2 Rajesh Kumar, PW3 Sonu Kumar, PW4 Sitender, PW5 Satish Kumar, PW6 Somveer, PW7 Raj Kumar, PW8 Sandeep S/o Rajpal , PW9 Subhash Singh, PW10 Surinder Kumar S/o Shree Chand, PW11 Ramesh, PW12 Surinder Kumar S/o Ram Chander, PW13 Praveen Kumar S/o Mahavir Singh, PW14 Sunil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh, PW15 Virender Singh, PW16 Rakesh Kumar, PW17 Sandeep Kumar S/o Balwan Singh, PW18 Sunil Kumar S/o Rameshwar Das, PW19 Praveen Kumar S/o Ram Mehar Singh, PW20 Ravinder and PW31 Vinod Kumar, who are Material witnesses of the prosecution, are found to have not deposed anything as against the accused persons and despite searching cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, no material to help the stand of prosecution could be extracted from them.
13. As PW2 Rajesh Kumar who was a candidate in said DTC Driver's Examination has deposed in this respect as under: C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 21 of 68 "I had applied for the service of Driver in DTC and for which written examination was conducted on 21.3.2010. My Examination Centre was in Government School, Kalkaji. I had asked one Jagbir Singh resident of my village to help me in the said Examination. Jagbir Singh assured me to help. Thereafter, I did not receive any response from said Jagbir Singh."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW2 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that Jagbir Singh told me that one person namely Pawan Kumar who is known to him and resident of Kanjhawala was helping in clearing of DTC Driver's written Exam and money would be given after completion of the work or that he further told me that Pawan would help in the Examination through Mobile Phone".
14. Similarly, PW3 Sonu Kumar, who was also a candidate in C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 22 of 68 the said DTC Driver's Examination has deposed in this respect as under: "I had applied for the service of Driver in DTC and for which written examination was conducted on 21.3.2010. My Examination Centre was in Government School, Welcome Colony, Shahdara. I had asked one Jagbir Singh resident of my village to help me in the said Examination. Jagbir Singh assured me to help. Thereafter, I did not receive any response from said Jagbir Singh."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW3 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that Jagbir Singh told me that one person namely Pawan Kumar who is known to him and resident of Kanjhawala was helping in clearing of DTC Driver's written Exam and money would be given after completion of the C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 23 of 68 work or that he further told me that Pawan would help in the Examination through Mobile Phone".
15. Similarly, PW4 Sitender who was also a candidate for the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "I had applied for the post of Driver in DTC about 3 years back. I had appeared in the said examination but could not succeed. I have never met the police. I was called by the police at Prashant Vihar twice and I was interrogated about taking any help from somebody for said paper and I gave the answer in negative."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW4 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that once I had gone to Bahadurgarh there one my known boy met me and told me that one boy Sachin who run C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 24 of 68 an Institute at Dhansa Road who would help in my entrance examination after taking money or that I met Sachin in his Institute or that I had stated so to the police."
16. Similarly, PW5 Satish Kumar, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "I had applied for the post of Driver in DTC. I had appeared in the entrance examination about three years back but I could not succeed in the said examination. Police had called me twice and interrogated me. I had not given my admit card to anyone nor anyone had assured me to render any help in solving the paper in the said examination." In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW5 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I had met accused C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 25 of 68 Pawan Kumar, present in the court, (pointed out by Ld. Addl. PP) earlier to take his help in the said examination. It is wrong to suggest that accused Pawan Kumar had assured me that he would provide the answer to the question paper to me through SMS in my mobile for which I had agred to pay Rs.
2,00,000/ after my selection or that I had stated so to the police. It is wrong to suggest that I had given my roll number and my mobile number 9991327818 to accused Pawan Kumar or that accused Pawan Kumar had not rendered any help to me or that I had destroyed my mobile sim card or that I had stated so to the police."
17. Similarly, PW6 Somveer, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "About 34 years back I appeared in the examination for the post of Driver in DTC. I C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 26 of 68 was not selected in the said examination.
After sometime, I was called by the Police Officers at Rohini and they made the enquiries from me. I had told my details to the said Police Officer. Nothing had happened beside this."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW6 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that before the said examination, I came to know that one boy namely Sachin Kumar was telling to help the candidates after taking money and he used to meet at a Coaching Centre in Najafgarh. It is wrong to suggest that I met accused Sachin Kumar and he asked me to help in the said examination through Mobile Phone by solving the question paper and I also gave my mobile number and Roll number in writing and he further asked me to give Rs.2,50,000/ C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 27 of 68 after passing the examination."
18. Similarly, PW7 Raj Kumar, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "I had appeared in the DTC Examination for the post of Driver in 2010 but I was not qualified. No one had assured me for help in the said Examination."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW7 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that before the said examination, I met accused Pawan Kumar who assured me that he would get clear the paper after taking Rs.2 Lacs by solving the paper. It is wrong to suggest that I also gave my mobile number and Roll number to accused Pawan Kumar. No one has helped me in the said Examination."
C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 28 of 68
19. Similarly, PW8 Sandeep S/o Raj Pal, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "About 3 years back I had submitted my application form to appear in the Examination of DTC Driver. I appeared in the said Examination but no information was received by me about the result. No one has asked me to help in the said Examination."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW8 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that on 4.3.2013 I was shown photograph of one Pawan Kumar S/o Om Prakash and I identified the said person to be the same person who had contacted me in the Institute and assured me to help in the Examination of DTC Driver Post."
20. Similarly, PW9 Subhash Singh, who was also a candidate in C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 29 of 68 the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year of 2010, I had applied for the post of driver in DTC and later on I appeared in the said examination but I could not succeed." In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW9 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that one of my relative informed me that a person namely Master Ramesh Singh Dahiya was helping in the Recruitment of DTC Drivers after taking money and that I met him at Japani Park, Delhi and he told me that he would help through Mobile Phone and that I gave him my mobile number 9996727299 and he further told me that I have to give Rs.2 lakhs after qualifying the written examination or that I gave consent for the same but he did not help me."
C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 30 of 68
21. Similarly, PW10 Surinder Kumar S/o Shreechand, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year of 2010, I had applied for the post of driver in DTC and later on I appeared in the said examination but I could not succeed".
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW10 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that one of my known person informed me that a person namely Sachin was helping in the Recruitment of DTC Drivers after taking money and he used to meet people at a coaching Centre at Dassa Road, Delhi and that when I went to meet him he was not available and thereafter I contacted him on phone and met him at Najafgarh Mandi and he told me that he C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 31 of 68 would help through Mobile Phone by solving the question paper and that I gave him my mobile number 9582823811 and he further told me that I have to give Rs.2.5 lakhs after qualifying the written examination or that I gave consent for the same but he did not help me."
22. Similarly, PW11 Ramesh, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year of 2010, I had applied for the post of driver in DTC and later on I appeared in the said examination but I could not know about my Result. Thereafter, no communication was received to me."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW11 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that my father in law Sh. Hans Raj had told me that one Master C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 32 of 68 Ramesh Dahiya R/o Village Nahari was helping the candidates for the examination of DTC Drivers and would take money after selection and that I had met Ramesh Dahiya near Wazirpur Depot and he explained me the procedure that he would help with the help of Mobile Phone and that on the asking of Ramesh Dahiya I handed over the photocopy of my admit card and mobile no.
9813208753 and that he told me to give Rs.
2,00,000/ after qualifying the examination."
23. Similarly, PW12 Surinder Kumar S/o Ram Chander, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year of 2010, I had applied for the post of driver in DTC and later on I appeared in the said examination but I could not know about my Result. Thereafter, no communication was received to me."
C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 33 of 68 In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW12 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that before the said examination I came to know that one person namely Sachin Kumar who is running a coaching centre at Dhasa Road, Najafgarh was helping the candidates after taking money and therefore, I met him and he assured me to help in the said examination through Mobile Phone by solving the paper and that he asked me to purchase a new mobile number and accordingly I gave photocopy of my admit card and mobile number to him and that he told me to give Rs. 2,50,000/ after qualifying the examination. It is correct that during examination on 21.3.2010, no one has helped me. It is wrong to suggest that Sachin present in the court today had assured me to help in the C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 34 of 68 examination and to give the amount after qualifying the examination."
24. Similarly, PW13 Praveen Kumar S/o Mahavir Singh, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year of 2010, I had applied for the post of driver in DTC and later on I appeared in the said examination but I could not know about my Result. Thereafter, no communication was received to me."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW13 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that before the said examination I came to know that one person namely Pawan Kumar R/o Village Kanjhawala was helping the candidates after taking money and therefore, I met him near a C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 35 of 68 gali at Kanjhawala Chowk, village Kanjhawala and he assured me to help in the said examination through Mobile Phone by solving the paper and that he asked me to purchase a new mobile number and accordingly I gave photocopy of my admit card and mobile number 9810611345 to him and that he told me to give Rs. 2,00,000/ after qualifying the examination................................. It is correct that during examination on 21.3.2010, no one has helped me. It is wrong to suggest that Pawan Kumar present in the court today had assured me to help in the examination and to give the amount after qualifying the examination.
25. Similarly, PW14 Sunil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year of 2010, I had applied for the post C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 36 of 68 of driver in DTC and later on I appeared in the said examination but I could not know about my Result. Thereafter, no communication was received to me."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW14 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that before the said examination I came to know that one person namely Pawan Kumar R/o Village Kanjhawala was helping the candidates after taking money and therefore, I met him and he assured me to help in the said examination through Mobile Phone by solving the paper and that he asked me to purchase a new mobile number and accordingly I gave photocopy of my admit card and mobile number 9560305509 to him and that he told me to give Rs. 2,00,000/ after qualifying the examination........................................................... C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 37 of 68 It is correct that during examination on 21.3.2010, no one has helped me. It is wrong to suggest that Pawan Kumar present in the court today, had assured me to help in the examination and to give the amount after qualifying the examination."
26. Similarly, PW15 Virender Singh, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year 2010, I was working in DTC as Driver on contract basis. In response to an advertisement of DTC for the post of Drivers, I had applied for the same. I had appeared in the said examination but could not succeed." In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW15 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that one of my relative namely Rajbir had told me that one person C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 38 of 68 namely Ramesh Dahiya Master would get my selection done in DTC as Driver or that few boys also used to talk about Ramesh Dahiya at Wazirpur Depot and used to tell that he is resident of Shalimar Bagh and used to get the work done, therefore, I had taken contact number of Ramesh Dahiya from a boy and talked to him through my mobile but he had not identified me. It is wrong to suggest that thereafter I took my relative Rajbir for contacting Ramesh Dahiya or that one day as per instructions of Ramesh Dahiya, I had taken my DL and met him at Premwadi Pool and he had taken my roll number and telephone number and instructed me to take the said mobile number during the examination. It is wrong to suggest that he asked me that he would get the paper solved through mobile and would take the money after selection........................................................ C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 39 of 68 It is wrong to suggest that accused Ramesh Dahiya present in the court today had asked me to help in the said examination. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as won over by the accused."
27. Furthermore, PW16 Rakesh Kumar, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year 2010, in response to an advertisement of DTC for the post of Drivers, I had applied for the same. I had appeared in the said examination but could not succeed." In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW16 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I came to know that Ramesh Dahiya, Master belonging to Village Nahari and residing in Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, would help the candidates in said C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 40 of 68 examination after taking money. It is wrong to suggest that I had met accused Ramesh Dahiya, present in the court today and he assured me to help in the said paper through Mobile Phone and would take the money after the work. It is wrong to suggest that I had also told him that I am not an expert in writing hence, he would help me by telling the Answers slowly or that he had not helped me in the said examination It is wrong to suggest that on 5.3.2013 I had identified the photographs of Ramesh Dahiya to the IO and told him that he is the same person who had assured me to help in the said examination."
28. Similarly, PW17 Sandeep Kumar S/o Balwan Singh, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year 2010, in response to an advertisement of DTC for the post of Drivers, C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 41 of 68 I had applied for the same. I had appeared in the said examination conducted on 21.3.2010. At the time I was having mobile no.
9813545758. I was not having any other number during those days. None has helped me in the said examination but the final result of the said examination is still withheld." In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW17 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I was also having Mobile No. 8527263538 in those days. It is wrong to suggest that I came to know that Pawan Kumar S/o Om Prakash R/o Kanjhawala, Delhi, helping the candidates in said examination after taking money. It is wrong to suggest that I had asked accused Pawan Kumar, present in the court today to help me in the said examination through Mobile Phone and would take the money after C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 42 of 68 the work."
29. Similarly, PW18 Sunil Kumar S/o Rameshwar Das, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year 2010, in response to an advertisement of DTC for the post of Drivers, I had applied for the same. I had appeared in the said examination conducted on 21.3.2010. At the time I was having mobile but I do not remember the number of the same today.
None has talked me to help me in the said examination. None has helped me in the said examination but the final result of the said examination is still withheld."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW18 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I came to know that Pawan Kumar S/o Om Prakash R/o C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 43 of 68 Kanjhawala, Delhi, helping the candidates in said examination after taking money. It is wrong to suggest that I had asked accused Pawan Kumar, present in the court today to help me in the said examination through Mobile Phone and would take the money after the work or that he had taken my roll number and mobile number."
30. Furthermore, PW19 Praveen Kumar S/o Ram Mehar Singh, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "I had appeared in the DTC Driver examination conducted on 21.3.2010 but could not succeed. At the time I was having mobile no. 9017538283. I was not having any other number during those days. None has helped me in the said examination but the final result of the said examination is still withheld." In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW19 denied C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 44 of 68 material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I came to know that Ramesh Singh Dahiya R/o Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, helping the candidates in said examination after taking money. It is wrong to suggest that I had asked accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya, present in the court today to help me in the said examination through Mobile Phone and would take the money after the work."
31. Similarly, PW20 Ravinder, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "I had appeared in the DTC Driver examination conducted on 21.3.2010. I was not having any mobile at that time. I had not talked to anybody for help in the said examination. I could not succeed in the said examination. None has helped me in the said examination."
C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 45 of 68 In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW20 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I came to know that Ramesh Singh Dahiya R/o Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, helping the candidates in said examination after taking money. It is wrong to suggest that I had asked accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya, present in the court today to help me in the said examination and would take the money after the work."
32. Similarly, PW31 Vinod Kumar, who was also a candidate in the said DTC Driver's Examination, has deposed in this respect as under: "I had applied for DTC Drivers' Recruitment Examination which was held on 21.3.2010 and appeared in the said Examination but I had not received the result till date. No one had asked to help me in the said Examination nor C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 46 of 68 I had talked to anybody in this regard."
In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW31 denied material suggestions as put to him by Ld. Addl. PP as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that one week prior to the said Examination, I came to know that 23 persons who used to sit in an Office near Kanjhawala Chowk, Qutub Garh Road were helping the persons in the DTC Drivers' Recruitment Examination and thereafter, I tried to meet one boy Pawan but he was not found at his house, hence, I met accused Ramesh Dahiya at Japanese Park through some one who had taken my contact number and Roll Number and instructed me to take new Mobile Number and inform him in this regard so that he can help through the new Mobile Number i.e. 9729884034 or that he had asked to charge Rs.3 Lakhs after the completion of work."
C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 47 of 68
33. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW2 Rajesh Kumar, PW3 Sonu Kumar, PW4 Sitender, PW5 Satish Kumar, PW6 Somveer, PW7 Raj Kumar, PW8 Sandeep S/o Rajpal , PW9 Subhash Singh, PW10 Surinder Kumar S/o Shree Chand, PW11 Ramesh, PW12 Surinder Kumar S/o Ram Chander, PW13 Praveen Kumar S/o Mahavir Singh, PW14 Sunil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh, PW15 Virender Singh, PW16 Rakesh Kumar, PW17 Sandeep Kumar S/o Balwan Singh, PW18 Sunil Kumar S/o Rameshwar Das, PW19 Praveen Kumar S/o Ram Mehar Singh, PW20 Ravinder and PW31 Vinod Kumar, who are the candidates for the said DTC Driver's Examination as held on 21.3.2010 and the most Material witnesses of the prosecution, are found to have not deposed anything as against the accused persons for assuring them for providing Answers of the Question Papers of the said Examination through their Mobile Phones during the course of the Examination and the same has resulted in striking at the root of the case of the prosecution.
34. Furthermore, from the perusal of the various Sets of Question Papers of said DTC Driver's Examination i.e. 'A' Series Question Paper which is Ex.PW26/F, 'B' Series Question Paper which is Ex.PW29/B, 'C' Series Question Paper which is Ex.PW29/C, 'D' C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 48 of 68 Series Question Paper which is Ex.PW29/D, at the first page itself, said Question Papers found contained 9 Instructions under the heading of "IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES" and Instruction No.6 clearly provide as under: "6. Use of Calculator/Palmtop/Laptop/Other Digital Instrument/ Mobile/Cell Phone/Pager is NOT allowed."
35. From the perusal of the said Instruction No.6 as meant for the candidates for the said DTC Driver's Examination, as reflected from said Question Papers Ex.PW26/F, Ex.PW29/B, Ex.PW29/C and Ex.PW29/D, it is clearly established that Mobile/Cell Phone was not allowed to be used by the candidates during the course of said DTC Driver's Examination and the same clearly strike deeply at the basic foundation of the case of the prosecution to the effect that accused persons Pawan Kumar, Sachin Kumar and Ramesh Singh Dahiya have assured certain candidates to provide Answers of the Question Papers of said Examination through their Mobile Phones for monetary consideration as the candidates could not have any benefit of having been feeded with the Answers of the Question Papers of said Examination through the help of their Mobile/Cell Phones in view of the fact that the candidates were not allowed to use any such C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 49 of 68 Mobile/Cell Phone during course of conduct of said DTC Driver's Examination.
36. Furthermore, as per the case of the prosecution, as found reflected from the deposition of PW38 Inspector Hariwansh Singh on search of accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya, 3 Papers containing the particulars of certain candidates which are Ex.PW38/F1, Ex.PW38/F2 and Ex.PW38/F3 were recovered and 6 Papers containing particulars of certain candidates which are Ex.PW38/H1 to H6, were recovered from the car in which the accused persons were found sitting but the contents of the same could not be connected with the handwritings of the accused persons as found established from the FSL Report Ex.PW29/A. As said FSL Report Ex.PW29/A provide in this respect as under: "All the documents were carefully and thoroughly examined with scientific instructions such as Stereo Microscope, Docucenter and magnifying glasses under different lighting conditions and I am of the opinion that : I. ........................................................................... II. ........................................................................... C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 50 of 68 III. ............................................................................ IV. It has not been possible to fix the authorship of questioned writings marked Q1 to Q13 in comparison S1 to S7, A1 to A4; S8 to S16; S17 to S24, A5 to A7 as well as S22 to S30 & A8, A9."
37. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the questioned writings Mark Q1 to Q13 as referred at point IV in the said FSL Report Ex.PW29/A indicates the writings as found in said 6 Papers (which are stated to have been recovered from the car of the accused persons) Ex.PW38/H1 to H6 (Q1 to Q8) and 3 Papers (which are stated to have been recovered from the accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya) Ex.PW38F1 to F3 (Q9 to Q13). The documents S1 to S7 as referred at Point IV in the said FSL Report Ex.PW29/A indicates the 7 sheets of Papers of Specimen Handwriting of accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya which are Ex.PW29/G. The documents A1 to A4 as referred at Point IV in the said FSL Report Ex.PW29/A indicates the 4 sheets of Papers of Admitted Handwriting of accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya which are Ex.PW29/I (colly.) The documents S8 to S16 as referred at Point IV in the said FSL Report Ex.PW29/A indicates the 9 sheets of Papers of Specimen Handwriting of accused Pawan Kumar which are C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 51 of 68 Ex.PW29/F. The documents S22 to S30 as referred at Point IV in the said FSL Report Ex.PW29/A indicates the 7 sheets of Papers of Specimen Handwriting of accused Sachin Kumar which are Ex.PW29/E. The documents A8 to A9 as referred at Point IV in the said FSL Report Ex.PW29/A indicates the 2 sheets of Papers of Admitted Handwriting of accused Sachin Kumar which are Ex.PW29/I (colly.).
38. Thus, in view of aforesaid contents of Part IV of FSL Report Ex.PW29/A coupled with the relevant documents i.e. the Specimen Handwritings as well as the Admitted Handwritings of the accused persons, it is clearly established that the contents of handwritings as found in 6 Papers which are Ex.PW38/H1 to H6 as stated to have been recovered from the car of the accused persons and 3 Papers Ex.PW38/F to F3 as stated to have been recovered from the accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya, could not be connected with the handwritings of any of the accused person and therefore, same can be of no help for the prosecution.
39. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to adduce on record any evidence to the effect that whether any phone call was made C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 52 of 68 from any Mobile Phone as recovered from the accused persons to any Mobile Phone Number as mentioned in said 3 sheets of Paper Ex.PW38/F1 to F3 (as stated to be recovered from accused Ramesh Singh Dahiya) and 6 sheets of Paper Ex.PW38/H1 to H6 (as stated to be recovered from the car of the accused persons) as PW48 Retd. ACP M.C.Katoch, IO has stated in this respect as under: "I did not evaluate the CDRs of all Mobile Numbers shown involved in the present case so as to confirm whether any out going call was made from those Mobile Phones to the Numbers mentioned on Slips already Ex.PW38/F1- F3 and Ex.PW38/H1- H6."
40. Furthermore, concerning the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav, who was the Principal of Sarvodaya Bal Vidalya No.1, Mori Gate, Delhi and was on duty as Centre Superintendent for said School which was also a Centre for DTC Driver's Examination as held on 21.3.2010, it is the case of the prosecution that said accused Mahipal Singh Yadav had got prepared the photocopy of the Question Papers of the said Examination from a Photocopy Booth situated at a distance from the School Centre and delivered the same to accused Pawan Kumar during C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 53 of 68 the course of said Examination on dated 21.3.2010, in consideration of receipt of bribe of Rs.2 Lacs from accused Pawan Kumar and said amount of Rs.2 Lacs has been recovered from the house of the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav subsequently.
41. During the course of argument, Ld. Counsel for the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav has submitted that the allegation as against this accused is that in consideration of receipt of Rs. 2 Lacs, this accused had got prepared the photocopy of the Question Papers of the said DTC Driver's Examination from Photocopy Booth outside the School and thereafter, delivered the copies of said Question Papers to co accused Pawan Kumar in the said School while said Examination was going on, on dated 21.3.2010. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the said allegation of the prosecution is found falsified from the facts that this accused remained present through out during the course of the conduct of said DTC Driver's Examination at his School and had never gone out from the said School for getting preparation of photocopy of the Question Papers of said Examination and said facts are also found corroborated from the deposition of PW24 Ravi Kant Sharma who was performing duty as Observer cum Coordinator for the said Examination on that day as well as PW27 Mahinder Singh Yadav who C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 54 of 68 was performing duty as Deputy Superintendent for the said Examination in the said School. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there was no occasion on the part of this accused to get prepared the photocopy of the Question Papers of the said Examination after leaving the School during course of the conduct of the said Examination.
42. PW24 Ravi Kant Sharma, who was on duty as Observer cum Coordinator for the said Examination is found to have deposed as under: "On 21.3.2010, I was performing duty as Observer cum Coordinator in the Recruitment Examination of DTC conducted by DSSSB. On that day, in early morning, I along with Asstt. Observer and other accompanied staff obtained questionpapers/ examination material in sealed condition from office of DSSSB, Karkardooma, Delhi and took the same to Sarvodya Bal vidhyalaya, No. 1, Mori Gate, Delhi. After reaching at the said centre before 9.30 am, I handed over the C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 55 of 68 same to superintendent/HOS/Principal Sh. M.P. Yadav in duly sealed condition and Sh. M.P. Yadav opened the seal and took out the question papers in our presence and gave a certificate to this effect. The timing of the examination 10.30 am to 12.30 pm. Thereafter, at about 10.25 am, Sh. M.P. Yadav along with staff had gone to distribute the papers in the examination rooms to the Invigilators. At about 10.45 am, Sh. M.P. Yadav along with staff returned to the office with the remaining question papers of absentee candidates and the said remaining papers were sealed accordingly. After completion of the examination, we had collected answersheets and sealed remaining question papers and took the same to DSSSB Office, Karkardooma and deposited the same C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 56 of 68 accordingly."
43. Said PW24 Ravi Kant Sharma in the cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav has further deposed as under: "Besides me, Asstt. Observer, one Guard and Driver left from the DSSSB Office on that day. The Guard remained outside the room where the sealed materials were kept. Asstt. Observer accompanied Sh. M.P. Yadav along with other staff for distribution of the question papers at various rooms and came back at about 10.45 am with the remaining question papers............................................... I have seen copy of the Account of the Question Booklets / QuestioncumAnswer Booklets issued to and returned by the Invigilators prepared by me on 21.3.2010 which bears my signatures at point A and also C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 57 of 68 bears the signatures of Sh. M.P Yadav as Centre Superintendent and said Booklet is marked as Mark PW24/X5."
44. Furthermore, said copy of Account of Question Booklet / Question cum Answer Booklet issued to and returned by Invigilators as prepared by PW24 on that day i.e. 21.3.2010 at the Examination Centre, which is Mark PW24/X5 found contained the Certificate of said PW24 at concluding part of said Booklet as under: "Certified that the unused Question Booklets were collected from the Invigilators on the expiry of 05 minutes after the commencement of the examination i.e. at 10.35 A.M. on 21.3.2010. The Packet containing unused Question Booklets have been tallied with the number of Absentee Candidates and packed and sealed and kept in the possession of the Centre Superintendent at 10.45 A.M. on the day of examination."
C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 58 of 68
45. PW27 Sh.Mahinder Singh Yadav, who was performing duty as Deputy Superintendent in the said Examination Centre at Sarvodaya Bal Vidalya No.1, Mori Gate, Delhi, has deposed in this respect as under: "In year 2010, I was posted as PGT in Sarvodya Bal Vidhyalya No.1, Mori Gate, Delhi. On 21.3.2010, the examination for the recruitment of DTC Driver was being conducted by DSSSB, Delhi. I performed my duty as Invigilator/Deputy Superintendent. Accused Mahipal Singh Yadav, Principal of the said school was performing duty as Superintendent in the said examination."
46. Said PW27 in cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav has deposed as under: "The question papers were opened in my presence. Besides me, accused Mahipal Singh Yadav, one of Observer of DSSSB had gone for distribution of the question papers in the room. C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 59 of 68 The remaining question papers of the absentee were received in the control room brought by all the invigilators and said papers were sealed in our presence. I along with Mahipal Singh Yadav and the Observer remained together from the time of opening of the question paper till sealing of remaining papers. On that day, Flying Squad had also reached at the centre before half an hour of commencement of the examination and remained for more than half an hour in the centre after the commencement of the examination. Mahipal Singh Yadav remained in the school and I had not seen him leaving the school."
47. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW24 Ravi Kant Sharma as well as PW27 Mahinder Singh Yadav coupled with the contents of Booklet Mark PW24/X5, I found force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav to the effect that said accused Mahipal Singh Yadav had remained present in the said C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 60 of 68 Sarvodaya Bal Vidalya No.1, Mori Gate, Delhi on dated 21.3.2010 during course of the Examination and had never gone out of the School for getting photocopy of Question Papers of said Examination to deliver the same to accused Pawan Kumar and therefore, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish its stand that the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav had got prepared the photocopy of the Question Papers of said Examination from Photocopy Booth situated outside the School during the course of the Examination on dated 21.3.2010 and thereafter, delivered the same to accused Pawan Kumar inside the said School.
48. From the perusal of the record, it is further revealed that it is the case of the prosecution that said accused Mahipal Singh Yadav had received amount of Rs.2 Lacs as bribe from accused Pawan Kumar in consideration for delivering the photocopy of the Question Papers of said DTC Driver's Examination and said amount of Rs.2 Lacs has been ultimately recovered from the house of the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav on dated 21.3.2010 and said amount was taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW23/B. With regard to said stand of the prosecution, Ld. Counsel for the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav during course of argument has submitted that the prosecution has failed to C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 61 of 68 establish by leading any evidence as against this accused with regard to receipt of Rs. 2 Lacs as bribe in consideration for delivering the photocopy of the Question Papers of the said Examination to co accused Pawan Kumar during the Examination hour on that day i.e. 21.03.2010. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that no doubt, Rs.2 Lacs has been recovered from the house of the accused on 21.3.2010 but said amount was lying in the house of the accused as Rs.2,10,000/ has been received on 18.3.2010 as advance amount towards sale of property by the wife of the accused to DW2 Rajpal and Agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/A dated 18.3.2010 was also executed in this respect and subsequently, Sale Deed Ex.DW1/B was executed by DW1 Pushpa Yadav, wife of the accused in favour of said DW2 Rajpal. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that said facts were disclosed to the police official and even the Agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/A was also shown to the police official by the accused at the time of recovery of said Rs.2 Lacs from the house of the accused and said facts are also found mentioned in the Bail Application of this accused and certified copy of said Bail Application has been placed on record and the same reflect the innocence of this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in the Reply to the said Bail Application, the IO has not mentioned deliberately anything regarding said source of Rs.2 Lacs as recovered C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 62 of 68 from the house of accused Mahipal Singh Yadav nor has malafidely conducted any investigation in this respect as the same could have established the innocence of this accused Mahipal Singh Yadav. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that regarding the source of said amount of Rs. 2 Lacs as recovered from the house of the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav, which was the amount as received as the advance amount towards sale of the property by the wife of this accused to one Rajpal and said facts have been clearly established from the deposition of DW1 Pushpa Yadav, wife of the accused, DW2 Rajpal and DW3 Roshan Lal, who were examined by this accused.
49. From the perusal of the case record, it is clearly reflected that prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence on record to establish the fact that the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav had received Rs.2 Lacs from accused Pawan Kumar in consideration for delivering photocopy of Question Papers of said DTC Driver's Examination scheduled for 21.3.2010. No doubt, from the perusal of the deposition of PW49 Inspector Sushil Kumar, it is reflected that amount of Rs.2 Lacs was recovered from the house of the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav on dated 21.3.2010 and said amount was taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW23/B but the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav is C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 63 of 68 found to have taken the consistent stand that said amount was lying at his house which was received by his wife as advance towards sale of property on dated 18.3.2010 and even the copy of the Agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/A was also shown in this respect. The said stand of the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav also found corroborated from the deposition of PW27 Mahinder Singh Yadav, who is also a witness to said Seizure Memo Ex.PW23/B relating to seizure of Rs.2 Lacs from the house of the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav as said PW27 in cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav has deposed in this respect as under: "Besides the parents, other family members of Mahipal Singh Yadav were present in the house at that time. Their signatures were not obtained on any paper there. It is correct that Mahipal Singh Yadav had shown a property paper stating that said amount of Rs.2 lakhs was obtained by him regarding said property as earnest money but the police officer asked him to keep that paper for showing the same in the Court."
C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 64 of 68
50. Furthermore, the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav in support of his stand to the effect that the amount of Rs.2 Lacs as recovered from his house by the police on 21.3.2010 was the amount as received by his wife Pushpa Yadav towards advance for sale of her property, has got examined his wife Pushpa Yadav as DW1, Rajpal as DW2 and Roshan Lal as DW3. DW1 Pushpa Yadav has deposed in this respect as under: "I was the owner of property bearing No. 9786, first floor, Ahata Thakur Das, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. I had entered into an agreement to sell with Sh. Rajpal for the above said property on 18.3.2010 in the presence of one Roshan Lal at my residence for a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/. On that day, Sh. Rajpal gave me a sum of Rs.2,10,000/ as advance amount out of the total amount of Rs.7,50,000/. The GC notes were of the denomination of Rs.500/ each. An agreement to sell in this regard was executed between myself and Sh. Rajpal in the presence of Sh. Roshan Lal and Sh. B.S. Yadav. C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 65 of 68 The agreement to sell is Ex.DW1/A which bears my signature at point A. I kept the said money at my house on 18.3.2010.
On 21.3.2010, at about 3/3.30pm, 2 / 3 police officials came at my residence and demanded sum of Rs.2 lacs from me, on which, I informed that the said amount of Rs.2 lacs was pertaining to the sale proceeds done between myself and Sh. Rajpal but the said amount was taken by the police officials and gave me sum of Rs.10,000/ out of sum of Rs.2,10,000/.
As per agreement to sell, I executed the sale deed in favour of Rajpal within stipulated time mentioned in the agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/A. Today I have brought the certified copy of the sale deed. Certified copy of said Sale Deed is Ex.DW1/B (OSR) which bears my signature at point A on each page."
51. The aforesaid deposition of DW1 Pushpa Yadav is found C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 66 of 68 corroborated from the deposition of DW2 Rajpal, who had purchased the said property from Smt.Pushpa Yadav and is a signatory to Agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/A and Sale Deed Ex.DW1/B and also found corroborated from the deposition of DW3 Roshan Lal, who is also a signatory to said Agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/A and Sale Deed Ex.DW1/B.
52. In view of aforesaid deposition of DW1 Pushpa Yadav, DW2 Rajpal and DW3 Roshan Lal coupled with the copy of Agreement to Sell dated 18.3.2010 Ex.DW1/A and copy of the Sale Deed Ex.DW1/B and specifically keeping in mind that the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the amount of Rs.2 Lacs was received by accused Mahipal Singh Yadav from accused Pawan Kumar in consideration for delivering the photocopy of Question Papers of said DTC Driver's Examination scheduled for 21.3.2010, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the source of said amount of Rs.2 Lacs as recovered from the house of the accused Mahipal Singh Yadav on dated 21.3.2010 was the advance amount as received by DW1 Pushpa Yadav towards Agreement to Sell of her property in favour of DW2 Rajpal vide Agreement to Sell dated 18.3.2010, copy of which is Ex.DW1/A, in pursuance of which Sale Deed has been executed by C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 67 of 68 said Pushpa Yadav in favour of DW2 Rajpal subsequently and said copy of the said Sale Deed is Ex.DW1/B.
53. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that I have no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish its case as against the accused persons for which they have been charged with and therefore, all the four accused persons namely Pawan Kumar, Ramesh Singh Dahiya, Sachin Kumar and Mahipal Singh Yadav stand acquitted of the charged offence and hence, their bail bonds stand cancelled and their sureties stand discharged. Announced in the open court on this 28th day of July, 2014 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 18/13 Page No. 68 of 68