Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . 1. Tulsi Ram on 23 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE02 (PC ACT): CBI
NORTHWEST: ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No (Old): 02/2016
CC no. (New):150/2016
CNR No: DLNW010055152016
RC No. DAI2016A0002DLI CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s 7 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988
CBI Vs. 1. Tulsi Ram
Son of late Sh. Jasram
R/o H.No. I16, Police Colony,
Model TownII, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 04/07/2016
Date of reservation of order : 19/07/2018
Date of Judgment : 23/08/2018
JUDGMENT
PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF
1. The present case FIR vide RC DAI2016A0002DLI CBI/ACB/New Delhi was registered on 29/01/2016 u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against SI Tulsi Ram (accused herein) of PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, on the basis of written complaint dated 28/01/2016 of complainant Rajesh Sachdeva (PW3), wherein it was alleged that FIR no. 02/2016 registered at PS Shalimar Bagh was being investigated by SI Tulsi Ram who had visited the house of complainant on 20/01/2016 and told that the said case FIR was registered against the complainant and his family members by his (complainant) maid (minor female) on the C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 1 of 47 allegation of torturing her. SI Tulsi Ram was informed that the said maid was not working in their house and was rather working in the house of inlaws of daughter of the complainant and due to matrimonial dispute with them, they had falsely implicated the complainant and his family members in the said case. SI Tulsi Ram was also told that he can verify the said fact from the neighbours. Ruhi Sachdeva (daughter of complainant) had shown SI Tulsi Ram one receipt and one agreement for keeping the said maid in the house of inlaws, which were bearing the signatures of her motherinlaw and husband but SI Tulsi Ram threw away those documents. On 24/01/2016, SI Tulsi Ram served a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. through one police official at the residence of complainant, wherein it was mentioned that the complainant has to join the investigation of said case FIR at PS Shalimar Bagh on 27/01/2016 at 4.00 p.m., but prior to that on 27/01/2016 at 3.00 p.m., SI Tulsi Ram visited the house of the complainant when complainant was not at his home and informed Rahul Sachdeva (son of the complainant) to tell complainant that he (complainant) must himself visit his (Tulsi Ram's) residence at I 16, Model Town, Police Colony, instead of visiting the PS. Accordingly complainant visited the residence of SI Tulsi Ram on 27/01/2016 at 7.30 p.m., where he (Tulsi Ram) demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as bribe for getting the complainant and his family members out of the said case. Since complainant did not want to pay the bribe amount to SI Tulsi Ram, therefore he made a complaint to S.P., CBI, ACB, New Delhi on 28/01/2016 with the request to take appropriate action. The said complaint was marked to Inspector C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 2 of 47 Sitanshu Sharma (PW10), CBI, ACB, New Delhi for verification on 28/01/2016. Inspector Sitanshu Sharma (PW10) and independent witness Raghubir Singh Raghav (PW7) were also part of verification proceedings, besides the complainant. The genuineness of the complaint and demand of Rs. 5 lakhs was confirmed during verification when SI Tulsi Ram demanded the said amount from complainant, which was reduced on bargaining by complainant to Rs. 2.5 lakhs by SI Tulsi Ram. SI Tulsi Ram also told the complainant to give the said amount in an envelope. The conversation between complainant and accused Tulsi Ram was recorded in new micro SD card (which was subsequently marked as "Q1") fitted in DVR after ensuring their blankness. Thereafter the present case FIR was registered.
2. DSP Deepak Gaur (PW13) was appointed as Trap Laying Officer (TLO). He constituted a trap team consisting of himself, PW11 DSP K.S. Pathania (PW11), Inspector Sitanshu Sharma (PW10), Inspector C.M. S. Negi (PW12), PW9 SI Manoj Kumar Tripathi and included complainant Rajesh Sachdeva (PW3), independent witnesses PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav and PW8 Mudit Singhal. It was decided to lay a trap. All trap team members were introduced to each other and purpose of assembly was explained. The complaint of the complainant was shown to all present, who made certain inquiries from the complainant. Thereafter the complainant and independent witnesses were informed about the procedure of laying a trap and a pretrap memo was prepared. Bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs (in C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 3 of 47 denomination of currency notes of Rs. 1000/ each) was produced by the complainant. The numbers of the said currency notes were mentioned in annexureA in the pretrap/handing over memo. The currency notes produced by the complainant were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate and water solution was explained to all. On the asking of Inspector C.M. S. Negi, independent witness Mudit Singhal touched the said bribe amount smeared with phenolphthalein powder with his right hand fingers and then he washed the same in colourless solution of sodium carbonate and water, as a result of which the said solution turned pink in colour and thereafter the said pink colour solution was thrown away. The bribe amount was placed in a green coloured envelope (as per demand of SI Tulsi Ram to give the same in an envelope during verification proceedings on 28/01/2016) and the same was kept in the pocket of the jacket of complainant and complainant was instructed to handover the same to the accused on his specific demand or to any other person on his specific direction. A new micro SD card (subsequently marked as "Q2") was arranged and was fitted in the DVR produced by independent witness Raghubir Singh Raghav (as the DVR was handed over to Raghubir Singh Raghav after use in verification proceedings on 28/01/2016 to bring the same next day i.e. 29/01/2016). After observing all the formalities, a trap was laid and accused Tulsi Ram was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, which was recovered from the dashboard of his car in the presence of independent witnesses and CBI trap team. The C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 4 of 47 conversation during bribe transaction was recorded in micro SD card (Q2) fitted in DVR.
FILING OF CHARGESHEET & COGNIZANCE
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet in the present matter was filed on 04/07/2016 for the offences punishable under section 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and accordingly cognizance was taken by ld. Predecessor on 08/09/2016.
FRAMING OF CHARGE
4. After supplying complete copies to accused, arguments on charge were heard and vide separate order dated 01/02/2017, charge u/s 7 of PC Act and u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
5. The prosecution has examined following 13 witnesses in support of its case: S.No Name of witness Examination of witness .
1. PW1 Vijay Singh, Qua the sanction for prosecution of the then DCP (NW) District, accused Tulsi Ram. Ashok Vihat, Delhi.
C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 5 of 47
2. PW2 Pardip Singh, Qua the CDRs of mobile no.
Dy. Manager, Vodafone, Delhi. 9711166075 & 9013515216 of accused Tulsi Ram and that of mobile no. 9810103626 of complainant Rajesh Sachdeva.
3. PW3 Rajesh Sachdeva, Qua visit of accused Tulsi Ram on complainant 20/01/2016 regarding the FIR lodged by one Naipe at PS Shalimar Bagh, sending of a notice by accused Tulsi Ram on 24/01/2016 asking him to join investigation on 27/01/2016, demand of bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs by accused Tulsi Ram on 27/01/2016 for getting him and his family out of the said case, making of his complaint to CBI on 27/01/2016, verification of his complaint by Inspector Shitanshu Sharma on 28/01/2016 in his (complainant) presence as well as in the presence of independent witness Raghubir Singh Raghav, recording of the said conversation in memory card Q-1 fitted in DVR after ensuring their blankness, hearing of the said conversation and sealing of the said memory card Q-1, pre-
trap proceedings on 29/01/2016 by TLO DSP Deepak Gaur, laying of Trap, demand of bribe amount by accused Tulsi Ram in the presence of wife of complainant, putting up of envelope containing bribe amout in the dashboard as per direction of accused, giving of signal to trap team after completion of bribe transaction, recording of the conversation during bribe transaction in memory card Q-2 fitted in DVR, apprehending of accused by CBI officials after completion of bribe transaction,hearing of the conversation contained in memory card Q-2, recovery of bribe amount from the dashboard of car of accused, sealing of memory card Q2, arrest of accused, recording of introductory voices of independent witnesses and of accused Tulsi Ram in memory card S-1, sealing of S-1 & DVR, preparing of transcriptions contained in Q-1 & Q-2 by IO in his presence.
4. PW4 Amitosh Kumar, Qua voice examination report by him with Senior Sceintific Officer, respect to comparison of specimen voice Grade-II, Physics, CFSL samples of accused Tulsi Ram with his questioned voices in recorded conversations.
5. PW5 Rishi Pal Singh, Qua producing of duty register of accused SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh, Tulsi Ram, record pertaining to FIR no. Delhi. 2/16, PS Shalimar Bagh and other relevant entries.
6. PW6 Ms. Renu Sachdeva, Qua visiting the house of accused Tulsi Wife of complainant Ram with complainant on 28/01/2016 and C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 6 of 47 placing of packet containing bribe amount inside the dashboard of car of accused Tulsi Ram in her presence by her husband (complainant) on 29/01/2016.
7. PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav, Qua verification proceedings, pre-trap independent witness proceedings, recovery proceedings, recovery of bribe amount in his presence and preparation of transcriptions of conversations contained in Q-1 & Q-2 in his presence on 18/04/2016.
8. PW8 Mudit Singhal, Qua pre-trap proceedings, recovery independent witness proceedings, recovery of bribe amount by him from the dashboard of i10 car of accused and preparation of transcriptions of conversations contained in Q-1 & Q-2 in his presence on 18/04/2016.
9. PW9 SI Manoj Kumar Qua pre-trap proceedings and recovery Tripathi, Trap Team Member proceedings on 29/01/2016.
10. PW10 Inspector Shitanshu Qua the verification proceedings Sharma, conducted by him through complainant Verification officer & Trap and independent witness Raghubir Singh Team Member. Yadav on 28/01/2016, hearing of the conversation recorded in Q-1 fitted in DVR, sealing of Q-1 AND pre-trap proceedings & recovery proceedings on 29/01/2016.
11. PW11 DSP K.S. Pathania Qua pre-trap proceedings and recovery Trap Team Member proceedings on 29/01/2016.
12. PW12 Inspector C.M.S. Negi, Qua the pre-trap proceedings, recovery Trap Team Member & IO. proceedings on 29/01/2016, conducting of search of house of accused and qua subsequent investigation carried out by him after completion of bribe transaction and arrest of accused.
13. PW13 DSP Deepak Gaur, Qua pre-trap proceedings & recovery Trap Laying Officer proceedings on 29/01/2016.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. The accused chose to lead evidence in defence and has examined three DWs namely DW1 ASI Raj Rani, DW2 Israr Babu and DW3 Mandeep Mittal.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7. Thereafter statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 7 of 47 recorded and all the incriminating evidence appearing on record was put to the accused to which the stand of accused was of mere denial. The accused took the following stand: "I was investigating officer of FIR No.2/16 registered at P.S Shalimar Bagh U/S 323,344,370(4),374 & 34 of IPC & 23& 26 of JJ Act, in which complainant herein and his family members were the accused. Even prior to registration of said FIR, the victim girl had already moved before CWC (Child Welfare Committee), Nirmal Chaya, Tihar Jail Complex, Delhi, wherein she had already named the complainant and his other family members. On 11.1.2016, the victim girl had got recorded her statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C, wherein she had named the complainant, his wife & daughter as the alleged perpetrators of the crime. On 27.1.2016 victim girl had identified daughter of the complainant and house of the complainant, where the victim had been tortured by his daughter Ms. Roohi and other family members. The complainant on having come to know about it through Notice Dt. 24.1.2016 U/S 160 of Cr.P.C to join the investigation on 27th January, 2016 and further having come to know about recording of the aforementioned statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C and regarding identifying of his daughter and his house, in the night of 27 th January, 2016 at around 9 pm, he along with his advocate had come to my residence to pressurize me to give clean chit to the complainant and his family members in the said case. When complainant did not get any such assurance and apprehended immediate arrest for himself and his family, he lodged false and malafide complaint with the CBI on C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 8 of 47 28.1.2016 to derail the investigation by getting me involved in a false case qua which aforementioned false complaint was made by him to CBI and CBI was manipulated in believing his complaint without any material. The CBI registered a false FIR against me although no demand of any bribe was ever made by me to the complainant or his family members to give them any kind of help in the aforesaid case against them. Sham trap proceedings were conducted by CBI wherein bribe amount of Rs.2.5 Lakhs was falsely shown to have been recovered from my car although I had refused to accept any money and had not given any indication to keep the said money in my car. No money was recovered from my car. I was falsely implicated and arrested in this case. The CBI has been pressurized by Mr. R.C Kathia Legal Advisor, Ministry of Law, Jeevan Bharti Building, with whom complainant had been in telephonic conversation all through the alleged proceedings conducted on 28.1.2016 & 29.1.2016."
ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard Sh. T.P. Negi, ld. Senior PP for CBI and Sh. Manoranjan, ld counsel for accused and have perused the record carefully. I have also perused the written submissions filed by both the sides.
JUDGMENTS CITED BY PROSECUTION
9. Ld. Senior PP for CBI has relied upon following judgments: C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 9 of 47
i) "State of U.P. vs Zakaullah", dated 12/12/1997 of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
ii) "State of West Bengal Vs Kailash Chander Pandey" dated 13/10/2004 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
iii) "Sultan Ahmed Vs State of Bihar", 1974 SCC (Crime) page 414.
iv) "Som Parkash Vs State of Delhi", 1974 SCC (Crime) page 215.
v) "Gyan Singh Vs State of Punjab", 1974 SCC (Crime) page 406.
vi) "State of UP Vs Doctor G.K. Ghosh", 1984 SCC (Crime) page 46.
vii) "State of Gujarat VS Raghunath Vaman Rao Baxi", 1985 SCC (Crime) page 304.
viii) "Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Vs State of Maharashtra", 2001 SCC (Crime) page 34.
ix) "M.O. Samshudhin Vs State of Kerala", 1995 SCC (Crime) Page 509.
x) "M.W. Mohiuddin Vs State of Maharashtra", 1995 SCC (Crime) page 546.
xi) "Government of Andhra Pradesh and other Vs P Venkureddy", 2002 SCC (Crime) Page 1826.
xii) "A Abdul Kaffar Vs State of Kerala", 2004 SCC (Crime) Page 981.
xiii) "State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Uma Maheshwara Rao and another", 2004 SCC (Crime) page 1276.
C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 10 of 47 JUDGMENTS CITED BY ACCUSED
10. Learned counsel for accused has relied upon following judgments:
1) "Krishan Chander Vs State of Delhi", Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2016, date of decision 06/01/2016 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2) Criminal Appeal no. 31 of 2009, titled as "P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs The Dist. Inspector of Police & Anr.", date of decision: 14/09/2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
3) Criminal Appeal no. 696 of 2014, titled as "B. Jayaraj Vs State of A.P.", date of decision 28/03/2014 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
4) Criminal Appeal no. 630 of 2003, titled as "Banarsi Dass Vs State of Haryana", date of decision:
05/04/2010 of Supreme Court of India.
5) Criminal Appeal no. 377 of 2009, titled as "State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede", date of decision 29/07/2009 of Supreme Court of India.
6) Criminal Appeal no. 377 of 2009, titled as "C.M. Girish Babu Vs CBI, Cochin" of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
7) "H.M.K. Harshan Vs State of Kerala", AIR 1995 SC 2178 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
8) Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2015, "Tomaso Bruno & Anr Vs State of U.P.", date of decision 20/01/2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 11 of 47
9) Criminal Appeal no. 879 of 2004, tiled as "Musauddin Ahmed Vs State of Assam", date of decision 06/07/2009 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
10) "Bhagirath Vs State of Madhya Pradesh", AIR 1976 SC 975 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
11) "Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda VS State of Maharashtra", 1984 AIR 1622, date of decision 17/07/1984 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
12) Criminal Appeal no. 2496 of 2009, titled as "Nanhar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana", date of decision 11/06/2010 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
13) Criminal Appeal nos. 206667 of 2009, titled as "Narender Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi)", date of decision 25/05/2012 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
14) "Anvar P.V. Vs P.K. Basheer & others", Civil Appeal no. 4226 of 2012, date of decision: 18/09/2014 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
15) Criminal Appeal no. 159/2005, titled as "S.K. Saini & Anr. Vs CBI", date of decision: 19/08/2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
16) Criminal Appeal no. 66/2013, titled as "Anil Kumar Tito @ Anil Kumar Sharma & Titto", date of decision:
29/05/2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
17) Criminal Appeal no. 527 of 2014, titled as "Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga Vs The State", date of decision 11/02/2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 12 of 47
18) E.P. No. 01/2014, titled as "Sharadendu Tiwari Vs Ajay Arjun Singh", date of decision 17/01/2017 of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court.
19) Criminal Appeal no. 711/2014, titled as "Kundan Singh Vs The state", date of decision 24/11/2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
20) Criminal Appeal no. 97 of 2015, titled as "Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others", date of decision 16/01/2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
21) "R.M. Malkani Vs State of Maharashtra", 1973 AIR 157, date of decision 22/09/1972 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
22) "Ram Singh & Ors. Vs Col. Ram Singh", 1986 AIR, 3 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 399, date of decision 07/08/1985 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
23) Civil Appeal Nos. 27952796 of 2011, titled as "K.K. Velusamy Vs N. Palanisamy" of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
24) "Sat Paul Vs Delhi Administration", AIR 1976 SC 294, date of decision 30/09/1975 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
25) "Suresh Rai & Ors Vs State of Bihar", date of decision: 30/03/2000 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
26) Criminal Appeal no. 1163 of 2017, titled as "Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) Through His L.R. Vs State of Punjab", date of decision 14/07/2017 of Hon'ble Supreme Court C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 13 of 47 of India.
27) Criminal M.C. No. 2019/2011 titled as "Ramesh Thakur Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr", date of decision 24/05/2013 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
28) Criminal Appeal no. 507/1994, titled as "The State of M.P. Vs Pappo @ Saleem & Ors", date of decision 18/05/2010 of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court.
29) Criminal Appeal no. 206/2002, titled as "Prem Singh Yadav Vs Central Bureau of Investigation", date of decision: 25/03/2011 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
30) Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 101 of 2009, titled as "A. Kanagarajan Vs State Through Inspector of Police ( V&AC) Sivagangai", date of decision:01/12/2014 of Hon'ble Madras High Court.
31) Criminal Leave Petition no. 8/2013, titled as "State Vs Sunil Kumar @ Sagar @ Rahul & Ors.", date of decision:27/01/2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
32) "Vijay Singh Vs State of M.P.", 2005 Cri LJ 299,date of decision: 03/09/2004 of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court.
33) Criminal Appeal no. 870 of 2012, titled as "Mukut Bihari & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan", date of decision: 25/05/2012 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
34) "Vineet Narain & Others Vs Union of India & Another", date of decision:18/12/1997 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
35) "Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Administration)", C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 14 of 47 AIR 1979 SC 1408, date of decision: 13/02/1979 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
36) Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2006, titled as "Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G. Hegde", date of decision 11/01/2008 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
37) "Harchand Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana", 1974 AIR 344, date of decision: 31/08/1973 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
38) Criminal Appeal no. 1838 of 2013, titled as "CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal", date of decision: 31/10/2013 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
39) Criminal Appeal no. 766 of 2001, titled as "State of Karnataka Vs Ameer Jan", date of decision 18/09/2007 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
40) Criminal Appeal no. 456 of 2014, titled as "P.L. Tatwal VS State of Madhya Pradesh", date of decision: 19/02/2014 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
41) "State of Tamil Nadu Vs M.M. Rajendran", (1998) 9 SCC 268 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
42) "Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat", date of decision: 03/09/1997 of Hon'blew Supreme Court of India.
43) "Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs Dr. Surinder Kaur", 1982 AIR 1043, date of decision: 07/04/1982 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 15 of 47 EVIDENCE EVALUATION
11. The most important witness of the case of prosecution is complainant Rajesh Sachdeva (PW3). He has deposed that on 20/01/2016, SI Tulsi Ram of PS Shalimar Bagh visited his residence when he (complainant) was not at home and informed his daughter Ruhi Sachdeva and wife Renu Sachdeva (PW6) that one maid (minor female) has lodged FIR against them (complainant & his family) for torturing and beating her for one year. He has further deposed that his daughter Ruhi Sachdeva told SI Tulsi Ram that the said maid was not kept by them in Model Town but rather she was the maid kept by her inlaws and had also shown documents i.e. one receipt and agreement for keeping the maid in the house of inlaws, which was bearing the signatures of her motherinlaw and her husband, but SI Tulsi Ram threw away those documents. He has also stated that on 24/01/2016, SI Tulsi Ram sent a notice through one police official at his (complainant's) residence, wherein it was written that he (complainant) has to join investigation at PS Shalimar Bagh on 27/01/2016 at 4.00 p.m. It is also stated that before visit of complainant at PS Shalimar Bagh on 27/01/2016 at 4.00 p.m., SI Tulsi Ram himself visited the house of complainant at 3.00 p.m. when complainant was not at home and SI Tulsi Ram told his (complainant) son Rahul Sachdeva that complainant himself must visit his (SI Tulsi Ram) residence at I16, Model Town, Police Colony, instead of visiting the PS. Thereafter the complainant visited the residence of SI Tulsi Ram at about 7.30 p.m. when SI C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 16 of 47 Tulsi Ram told him that he will arrest him (complainant) today itself and will arrest his daughter and wife at 10.00 tomorrow as females cannot be arrested in night and SI Tulsi Ram also told him that he can save him (complainant) from the case registered under Juvenile Justice Act. He had also shown file containing the statement of the maid. SI Tulsi Ram demanded an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as bribe to get the complainant and his family out of the said case. He further told the complainant that in case the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is not paid, he will arrest the complainant and take him from his house. Complainant (PW3) has further deposed that SI Tulsi Ram also told him that he is giving 24 hours time to bring the said bribe amount, otherwise he will make arrest of complainant and complainant's family in the aforesaid case. Complainant has also deposed that since he did not want to pay the bribe, therefore he visited CBI office and met S.P. concerned there and narrated the entire facts to him, who told him to give a written complaint to Inspector Shitanshu Sharma. Complainant has further deposed that he gave written complaint to Inspector Shitanshu Sharma (PW10), who told him (complainant) that he will verify the complaint. He asked certain questions to complainant regarding the complaint made by him. The formal voice of independent witness Raghubir Singh Raghav (PW7) was recorded through DVR in the memory card (subsequently marked "Q1"). Inspector Shitanshu Sharma (PW10), complainant and independent witness Raghubir Singh Raghav (PW7) left CBI office in the car of the complainant for his house at Model Town, where they reached at 4.45 p.m. on 28/01/2016. On reaching C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 17 of 47 there, complainant called SI Tulsi Ram who told him that he will call back. At about 7.50 p.m., SI Tulsi Ram called on the mobile phone of complainant and complainant kept his mobile phone on speaker mode for the purpose of hearing the conversation and recording the same in the DVR. Complainant (PW3) went out of his house along with the DVR/recorder in switched on mode kept in his shirt pocket. SI Tulsi Ram again demanded an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs for showing favour in the FIR registered by the maid. SI Tulsi Ram told the complainant that case is strong against him and his family members and he will get all of them discharged from the said case. The complainant bargained the said amount many time and also begged him (accused) to reduce the amount to Rs. 2 lakhs. Thereafter SI Tulsi Ram reduced the amount to Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the ground that complainant is his neighbour. The said conversation was also recorded in the DVR, which was kept in the pocket of the complainant. After reaching home (of complainant), the said conversation was heard by all. The verification proceedings were recorded. The conversation was transcripted. After preparation of verification memo Ex. PW3/B (colly), Inspector Shitanshu Sharma (PW10) of CBI registered the FIR. The complainant has deposed the FIR registered in the present matter as Ex. PW3/D. He has also deposed that PW10 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma handed over the DVR and brass seal (used) to independent witness on 28/01/2016 and told him and the complainant to come next day i.e. on 29/01/2016. Accordingly on 29/01/2016, complainant again visited CBI office at 9.00 a.m. and was made to meet one DSP there. Inspector C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 18 of 47 Shitanshu Sharma (PW10) told that (said) DSP Deepak Gaur was the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) in the case. Two independent witnesses namely PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav and PW8 Mudit Singhal were part of trap team. Inspector Shitanshu Sharma (PW10) and DSP Deepak Gaur (PW13) introduced the complainant to K.S. Pathania (PW11) (DSP, CBI), independent witness Mudit Singhal (PW8), Inspector C.M.S. Negi (PW12) and SI Manoj Tripathi (PW9) of CBI stating that they were members of trap team and also pointed towards 23 other subordinate staff of CBI stating that they were also members of the trap team. All the members of trap team were shown the copy of his complaint Ex. PW3/A, FIR Ex. PW3/D and verification memo Ex. PW3/B, which was read over to all. PW3 complainant has further deposed that two independent witnesses PW8 Mudit Singhal and PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav were part of the trap team and both of them asked him some questions regarding his complaint to seek the genuineness of the same. On being satisfied about genuineness of the complainant, PW8 Mudit Singhal and PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav signed on complaint Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter CBI officials noted the numbers of the amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs (in denomination of Rs. 1000/ each consisting of 250 notes) brought by complainant on annexureA, which was tallied by both the independent witnesses and after verification, they signed the said annexure Ex. PW3/E. PW complainant Rajesh Sachdeva has further deposed that PW12 Inspector C.M.S. Negi smeared the said currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and informed that if phenolphthalein powder is mixed with sodium carbonate C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 19 of 47 and water, it will change its colour to pink and gave a demonstration in a glass of water mixed with sodium carbonate. Thereafter PW12 Inspector C.M.S. Negi asked PW8 Mudit Singhal to test (touch) the said currency notes and dip his right hand fingers in another glass of water mixed with sodium carbonate and when PW8 Mudit Singhal did accordingly, the said water solution turned pink. One green envelope was brought and independent witnesses were made to sign inside the same and currency notes of Rs. 2.5 lakhs were kept in the same. The said packet was kept in the right side pocket of jacket of complainant. The sealed DVR handed over to PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav one day earlier, was desealed and was checked to ensure that there was no previous recording. New memory card was put in the same and introductory voice of both the independent witnesses was recorded in the same. Thereafter the said DVR was handed over to the complainant and he was asked to keep the same in his pocket in hidden position and was further asked to switch on the same whenever SI Tulsi Ram makes a call to him or during any other conversation with him. Personal search of complainant and other trap team members was taken and except the mobile phone (and bribe amount kept in the right side pocket of jacket of complainant), nothing incriminating was left with the trap team members. CBI officials brought one leather bag, wherein copy of FIR, copy of complaint, copy of verification memo, sealing material like "lac", sodium carbonate, glass and Rs. 1000/ currency notes for expenses were kept. PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav was asked to accompany the complainant and to stay C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 20 of 47 with him and to see and hear the transaction. The complainant (PW3) was asked to give call at mobile phone of DSP Deepak Gaur (PW13) after completion of bribe transaction. Complainant has further deposed that at 11.45 a.m., the trap team left CBI office for his residence. Two trap teams, one consisting of DSP K.S. Pathania (PW11), independent witness Mudit Singhal (PW8) and other consisting of Inspector Shitanshu Sharma (PW10), Inspector C.M.S. Negi (PW12), SI Manoj Tripathi (PW9) and independent witness Raghubir Singh Raghav (PW7), were constituted. DSP Deepak Gaur (PW13) instructed other CBI officials (trap team members) to remain in touch with him. At about 8.43/8.45 p.m., SI Tulsi Ram gave a call on the mobile phone of the complainant who put his mobile phone on speaker mode and switched on (in recording mode) the DVR lying in his pocket. SI Tulsi Ram told the complainant to come to the park near his residence. Thereafter complainant reached near the park when DVR was still on. There one red colour i10 car of SI Tulsi Ram was found parked near the said park and SI Tulsi Ram was sitting on the driver seat in the same in police uniform. He asked complainant "maal le aaya" (have you brought goods). Complainant told him that he is bringing the same in one second and he (accused) told the complainant to bring the same quickly. However the complainant stayed there to know as to how he will get the things done. SI Tulsi Ram told the complainant that he will go to Jharkhand and after talking to SDM, he will manage proof from there that the said maid is of 19 years and then the provisions of J.J.Act invoked against the complainant and his family members C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 21 of 47 will get removed. Complainant told him to get them free (complainant and his family) from the entire case. SI Tulsi Ram replied that only J.J. Act is nonbailable and rest of the provisions invoked against them are bailable. He further told the complainant that once provision of J.J. Act invoked gets deleted, nobody will call them to the police station nor any policeman will visit their house. Complainant further deposed that he told SI Tulsi Ram that his wife is very disturbed and requested him to assure her, whereupon SI Tulsi Ram told him to bring the 'maal' quickly and also to call her. Complainant further deposed that all the conversation was recorded in the DVR kept in his pocket. Thereafter complainant went back to his home and came back along with his wife and also brought a green envelope containing Rs. 2.5 lakhs in cash. SI Tulsi Ram pointed out towards dashboard and asked the complainant to keep the money in the said dashboard. PW complainant Rajesh Sachdeva has further deposed that SI Tulsi Ram started conversation with his wife on similar lines as to what he had told him (complainant) earlier, assuring her not to worry. On pointing out of SI Tulsi Ram, complainant put the said envelope containing Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the dashboard of car of SI Tulsi Ram. He further deposed that as directed earlier by CBI officials (after completion of bribe transaction), he raised his right hand for giving signal to trap team. On seeing the same, PW10 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma and PW9 SI Manoj Tripathi reached there. Thereafter other members of the trap team also reached there. All of them introduced themselves to SI Tulsi Ram. Complainant informed the trap team C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 22 of 47 that the currency notes in the packet were kept in the dashboard of the car of SI Tulsi Ram. SI Tulsi Ram tried to escape with his vehicle but PW10 Inspector Sithanshu Sharma managed to take out the keys of the car to prevent the accused from fleeing. Complainant informed the tram team members that the person sitting in the car is SI Tulsi Ram and he had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs for getting him out of the case related to the female maid. Complainant further informed that SI Tulsi Ram had not touched the bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs with his hands and indicated him through gesture to keep the said amount in the dashboard of his car, which he had done accordingly. Accused was challenged about demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, but he kept mum. Complainant has further deposed that no hand wash of accused was taken as accused did not touch the bribe amount. DVR given to complainant was played and the conversation that took place between the complainant and SI Tulsi Ram was heard. PW3 has further deposed that TLO Deepak Gaur (PW13) directed independent witness Mudit Singhal (PW8) to recover the light green coloured packet containing bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from the dashboard of the car of accused, whereupon PW8 Mudit Singhal recovered the same. Thereafter PW8 Mudit Singhal and PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav tallied the numbers of the recovered currency notes with the numbers mentioned in anexure A Ex. PW3/E. The numbers of the recovered GC notes matched with the numbers of the GC notes mentioned in annexure A Ex. PW3/E. Both the independent witnesses confirmed their C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 23 of 47 signatures on the light green coloured envelope containing the bribe amount, which they had appended during handing over proceedings. The G.C. notes recovered were seized and sealed. The witness (PW3) has identified the said currency notes of Rs. 2.5 lakhs Ex. PW3/G (colly) produced during his testimony. He has also proved the rough sketch of the spot Ex. PW3/H prepared by CBI official bearing his signature, that of both independent witnesses, Inspector C.M.S. Negi and DSP Deepak Gaur. Complainant has further deposed that on reaching back CBI office, concluding voice of independent witnesses were recorded in aforesaid memory card through DVR and the said memory card was taken out from DVR and was sealed and marked as "Q2". The witness has identified the memory card "Q2" produced in brown coloured envelope as Ex. P2 (Ex. PW3/S) during his testimony and has stated that it was the same memory card in which his conversation with accused (during pretrap & bribe transaction) was recorded and also contained concluding voices of independent witnesses. Complainant has further deposed that accused was arrested vide arrestcumsearch memo Ex. PW3/J and a new memory card of 4GB was arranged and the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded in the same and thereafter voice of accused was recorded through DVR. After that, the said memory card was taken out and was given number "S1". The witness has identified the said memory card "S1" Ex. P3 during his testimony when the same was produced. The witness has also identified the DVR make Sony Ex. PW3/L, which was used for recording made in "Q1", "Q2" and "S1" and C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 24 of 47 also proved recovery memo Ex. PW3/M (colly) bearing his signature at point A and handing over memo Ex. PW3/N (colly). He has also identified the memory card "Q1" Ex. PW3/Q during his testimony and has identified the introductory voice of independent witnesses Raghubir Singh Raghav (PW7), voice of accused Tulsi Ram, voice of his wife and his own (complainant) voice contained in "Q1". He has also proved the voice identificationcumtranscription memo Ex. PW7/B and transcription Ex. PW7/C (colly) (relating to tape recorded conversation during verification proceeding). He has also identified the memory card of 4GB marked "Q2" Ex. PW3/S during his testimony when produced in the Court in which recording was done during pretrap and bribe transaction. He has identified introductory voice of independent witnesses Raghubir Singh Raghav (PW7) & PW8 Mudit Singhal, his voice and that of accused Tulsi Ram contained in memory card "Q2" Ex. PW3/S before the Court. He has also proved the identificationcum transcription memo dated 18/04/2016 Ex. PW7/D (relating to tape recorded conversation during pretrap proceedings and bribe transaction) and also proved said transcription Ex. PW7/E (colly).
11.1. Independent witnesses PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav and PW10 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma have corroborated the testimony of complainant (PW3) regarding verification proceedings and have also proved verification memo dated 28/01/2016 Ex. PW3/B (colly). They have further corroborated the complainant regarding recording of the telephonic C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 25 of 47 conversation and in person conversation which took place between the complainant and accused during verification proceedings in micro SD card mark "Q1" Ex. PW3/Q with the help of DVR make Sony Ex. PW3/L after ensuring blankness of micro SD card and DVR, hearing of conversation recorded in "Q1"
fitted in DVR, sealing of Q1, handing over of DVR and brass seal to PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav and registration of FIR on the recommendation of PW10 Shitanshu Sharma.
11.2 Trap team members consisting of CBI officials namely PW13 TLO DSP Deepak Gaur (PW13), PW9 SI Manoj Kumar Tripathi, PW10 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma, PW11 DSP K.S. Pathania and PW12 Inspector C.M.S. Negi, complainant (PW3) Rajesh Sachdeva and both independent witnesses namely PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav and PW8 Mudit Singhal have proved the assembly of the trap team members in CBI office on 29/01/2016, explaining of purpose of assembly by TLO DSP Deepak Gaur (PW13), showing of copy of complaint Ex PW3/A, FIR Ex. PW3/D, verification memo Ex. PW3/B to all trap team members, inquiry by trap team members with the complainant regarding his complaint, production of bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in denomination of currency notes of Rs. 1000/ each by the complainant, noting down of the numbers of the said currency notes in annexureA Ex. PW3/E {part of handing over/pretrap memo Ex. PW3/N (colly)}, smearing of phenolphthalein powder on the said currency notes, explaining of reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate and water C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 26 of 47 solution, keeping the bribe amount in green coloured envelope (as demanded by accused), keeping of DVR fitted with new memory card by complainant (PW3) in hidden manner in the pocket of his jacket for the purpose of recording of conversation with accused, reaching of CBI trap team members at the residence of complainant in Model Town, calling of SI Tulsi Ram by his mobile phone on the mobile phone of complainant at 8.43/8.45 p.m. on 29/01/2016, which was recorded in the DVR fitted with micro SD card by keeping the mobile phone in speaker mode, going of complainant to the park near E block in Model Town and his talking with SI Tulsi Ram, who was sitting in a red coloured i10 car in police uniform, demand of bribe by accused as stated by complainant, coming back of complainant to his residence and again going there to the said park with his wife (PW6 Renu Sachdeva), keeping of the bribe amount contained in green envelope in the car of accused as per his gesture (indication), raising of hand by the complainant as predecided signal after completion of bribe transaction, challenging of the accused by CBI trap team members, attempt of accused to flee from there by starting his car and moving few meters, thwarting of the said attempt by Inspector Shitanshu Sharma (PW10) by opening the door of the i10 car of accused and taking out the keys of the same, recovery of the bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs kept in green coloured envelope from the dashboard of the car of accused, recording and hearing of the conversation that took place between complainant and accused during pretrap proceedings and at the time of bribe transaction. The detailed analysis of testimony of C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 27 of 47 prosecution witnesses except complainant qua trap is not being carried out as all of them have broadly corroborated the complainant on material points and in order to ensure brevity.
11.3. PW6 Renu Sachdeva, wife of complainant Rajesh Sachdeva (PW3) has corroborated the complainant qua her visit with her husband during verification proceedings to the house of accused in police colony, Model Town on 28/01/2016 at 7.45 p.m., assurance by accused SI Tulsi Ram to help them in the case (pertaining to maid), accompanying her husband (complainant) to meet accused Tulsi Ram near E block, Model Town park on 29/01/2016 (during trap), keeping of the packet containing bribe amount by her husband inside the dashboard of the car of accused Tulsi Ram, raising of the hand by her husband and reaching of CBI officials at the spot.
11.4 Both the independent witnesses PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav & PW8 Mudit Singhal and IO PW12 Inspector C.M.S. Negi have also corroborated the version of complainant regarding preparation of voice identificationcumtranscription memos qua tape recordings Q1 and Q2 Ex. PW7/B & Ex. PW7/D respectively and transcriptions Ex. PW7/C (colly) (of Q1) & Ex. PW7/E (colly) (of Q2) qua recordings made during verification proceedings & qua recording made during pretrap proceedings and bribe transaction respectively and taking of sample voice of accused Tulsi Ram in micro SD card "S1".
C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 28 of 47 11.5. PW4 Amitosh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (Physics), CFSL, Lodhi Road, New Delhi has proved his report Ex. PW4/E, as per which, the voice marked Ex. Q1 (1) (A), Q1 (2) (A), Q1 (3) (A), Q1 (4) (A) and Q2 (1) (A) and Q2 (2) (A) were found to be the probable voice of accused Tulsi Ram when compared with his specimen voice marked Ex. S1 (1) (A).
11.6. PW1 Vijay Singh, the then DCP, NorthWest District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi has proved his sanction Ex. PW1/A qua prosecution of accused SI Tulsi Ram for the offences u/s 7 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988.
11.7. PW5 Rishi Pal Singh, the then SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi has proved the copy of FIR no. 02/16, u/s 344/374/323/34 IPC, PS Shalimar Bagh as Ex. PW5/B (lodged qua minor female maid).
11.8. PW2 has proved the CDRs of mobile phone of complainant (PW3) and accused and call details corroborates the telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused as deposed by complainant and other prosecution witnesses, during relevant time.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE EVALUATION
12. DW1 ASI Raj Rani has tried to prove the case diary no. 10 consisting of three pages dated 27/01/2016 pertaining to C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 29 of 47 FIR no. 02/2016 of PS Shalimar Bagh, which was exhibited for identification sake as Ex. DW1/A. First of all, the said document does not stand proved by the testimony of said witness as she was not competent to prove the same since she has admitted in her crossexamination that she had neither written the said document nor it was signed by her and she has no personal knowledge regarding the same. On perusing the said document, it also transpires that the column pertaining to date, as to when information reached to IO, action taken and places visited by IO and all columns pertaining to time were blank. DW1 had also admitted that she is not aware whether any DD entry regarding the facts mentioned in Ex. DW1/A was recorded. Thus no inference favourable to accused can be drawn from testimony of DW1. From statement of DW2 Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., no inference of any sort except for call details between the said mobile phone numbers can be drawn and attempt of the accused to prove any other fact from the same is futile in the absence of any other supporting material and in view of the fact that nothing substantial was extracted in the crossexamination of complainant (PW3) qua the said point sought to be raised. DW3 Mandeep Mittal produced is also of no help to the accused as he has deposed that on 28/29 th or 30/01/2016 when he was coming to the residence of his friend at Police Line, Model Town at about 8.30/9.00 p.m., he saw that accused Tulsi Ram was caught hold by 45 persons and thus even if the testimony of this witness is taken on face value on the said aspect, the only inference is that he reached the spot after the C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 30 of 47 accused was already apprehended by CBI officials and thus hand not seen what had transpired prior to his reaching there. As regards the subsequent part of the testimony of this witness, first of all photographs A1 to A20 purportedly relating to spot, were not duly proved and hence it cannot be presumed from the same that any CCTV camera was installed at any electricity pole near the place where accused Tulsi Ram was apprehended on the date of incident. Furthermore, DW3 has admitted that he cannot say whether the CCTV camera in Mark A2 was functional on the day of incident. He has also stated that he cannot say whether the camera was focused or covering the spot including the spot where accused Tulsi Ram was apprehended. Thus there is no evidence that there was any CCTV camera installed at that place or that the same was covering the spot or that the same was functional or that there was any CCTV footage of the said incident.
FINDINGS ON ARGUMENTS
13. As against the incriminating evidence of prosecution witnesses, the bald submission of learned counsel for accused (in the absence of any other material) that accused was falsely implicated as he was genuinely investigating a nonbailable case FIR against the complainant, to escape his liability, has no force. Merely because accused was investigating the case FIR lodged by the maid, who claimed herself to be the maid of complainant, it cannot be presumed that the complaint in question made by the complainant was false or that his incriminating testimony against C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 31 of 47 the accused and that of other prosecution witnesses, is not reliable or can be discarded. Rather from the testimony of the complainant, it is evident that the accused planned to pressurize the complainant for paying bribe by threatening to arrest him and his family members and for this purpose served a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. upon the complainant to join the investigation of the said case on 27/01/2016 at 4.00 p.m. at PS Shalimar Bagh but malafidely at 3.00 p.m. on the same day, himself visited the residence of the complainant and told the son of the complainant namely Rahul Sachdeva to tell the complainant to visit his (accused) residence at I16, Model Town, Police Colony, instead of PS. The same coupled with demand of Rs. 5 lakhs as bribe by the accused from complainant at his residence on 27/01/2016 to get the family of accused out of the said case makes the accused liable for demand of bribe and by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the complainant made a false complaint against the accused with motive to get out of the said case. No purpose was going to be served in case of any such false complaint (arguments sake if assumed so) and at the most the IO would have changed and there was no reason to believe that the new IO would have given clean chit to the complainant and his family in the said case lodged by maid. Further, it is beyond comprehension as to why the third party neutral investigating agency like CBI will be hand in glove with the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. There is nothing on recored to infer any such fake accusation by complainant.
C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 32 of 47
14. Learned counsel for the accused has also drawn my attention to the testimony of PW3 complainant Rajesh Sachdeva wherein the complainant has stated that he had kept the envelope containing bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the dashboard of car of accused and also to the further deposition of this witness to the effect that light green coloured packet containing bribe amount was recovered from the dashboard of the car of the accused, to the testimony of PW7 Raghubir Singh Raghav (independent witness) wherein he has stated that the recovery of the green packet containing bribe amount was made from the said car, to the testimony of PW8 Mudit Singhal (other recovery witness/independent witness) wherein he has stated that green packet was kept on the dashboard of the car and that the same was recovered from dashboard of the car, to the testimony of PW13 DSP Deepak Gaur wherein he has stated that the complainant kept the envelope containing the bribe amount on the dashboard of i10 car of accused and recovery of the same was made from dashboard of car of accused, to the testimony of PW6 Renu Sachdeva (wife of complainant) that her husband placed the packet containing bribe amount inside the dashboard of the said car of accused, to the testimony of PW9 SI Manoj Kumar Tripathi wherein he has stated that recovery was made from dashboard of the car, to the testimony of PW12 Inspector C.M.S. Negi wherein he has stated that complainant Rajesh Sachdeva was seen placing the light green coloured packet inside the car and to the subsequent para of his testimony that independent witness Mudit Singhal recovered the green coloured packet from the dashboard C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 33 of 47 of the car and also to the testimony of PW11 DSP K.S. Pathania wherein he has stated that complainant kept the envelope containing the bribe amount on the dashboard of the car and further that the said green envelope containing bribe amount was recovered from the dashboard of the car, to submit that since the complainant and his wife have deposed that the said bribe was kept in the dashboard of i10 car and since the same was recovered from the surface of i10 car as stated by the other CBI trap team witnesses, therefore the recovery becomes doubtful. In this respect, he has placed reliance on i) Dhananjaya Singh Vs State 2011 (3) JCC 2256, ii) Bhagirathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1976 (1) SCC 20, iii) Suchand Pal Vs Phimpal, 2003 (1) SCC 527 & iv) Meena Vs State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 Supreme Court 21. However I do not find any force in the said argument as first of all as per the case of prosecution after the bribe transaction was complete, the complainant gave signal and CBI trap team members reached the spot and challenged the accused, accused tried to flee away and drove away his vehicle for few meters (as stated by some of the prosecution witnesses) but Inspector Shitanshu Sharma stopped him by opening the gate of his car and taking out the keys of his car and during the period when the bribe amount was kept in the dashboard of the car by the complainant and when the said recovery was effected from the car of the accused, it is very well possible that the accused could have taken out the envelope containing the bribe amount from the dashboard of his car and would have kept the same on the dashboard of the car. Even if the said reasoning is discarded and C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 34 of 47 it is believed that said discrepancy is there, still in my considered opinion, this is a minor discrepancy expected due to lapse of time between the date of incident and date of depositions of witnesses in the Court and the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution since demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount from i10 car of accused stands proved by consistent and reliable testimony of prosecution witnesses and supporting documents. Neither prosecution is taking advantage of weakness of case of accused nor the Court is making out a new case against him. It is well settled that while evaluating evidence, grain is to be separated from chaff. The Court has to infer on the basis of totality of evidence having regard to consistency of witnesses on material points and their creditability, which I am afraid, the accused has been unable to demolish or break. Hence the judgments cited do not help the accused.
15. Ld. Counsel for accused has referred to the letter Ex. PW4/A of CBI to CFSL wherein request for preparation and supply of four copies each of memory cards (Q1 & Q2) and remnants of exhibits along with report/opinion was sought and subsequent letter Ex. PW12/C of CFSL to CBI in which it was mentioned that the case is ready, to submit that there is no evidence that such copies were collected or that any such opinion/report was given. However PW12 Inspector C.M.S. Negi (IO) has clearly stated in his crossexamination that he was authorized vide letter Ex. PW12/D of his department to collect the original exhibits and required copies in sealed condition and he may have collected the C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 35 of 47 same. He has further made it clear voluntarily that no result/opinion was asked vide aforesaid letter (as expert opinion was sought subsequently vide a different letter as proved on record). Thus the submission of ld. Counsel for accused on the said point is without any basis and he has misinterpreted the aforesaid letters.
16. The learned counsel for accused has further stated that both the independent witnesses have falsely supported the case of prosecution and in case they would not have supported the case of prosecution, they being government servants, would have been liable for department enquiry as per CVC guidelines. However the said submission does not hold any water as first of all no such guideline has been proved on record and secondly merely because the two independent witnesses who are government servants, have supported the case of prosecution and have incriminated the accused, it cannot be presumed that they have falsely done so or under the fear of any departmental enquiry.
17. The further argument of ld. Counsel for accused that since PW3 complainant Rajesh Sachdeva has admitted in his cross examination that two days prior to the incident, he had spoken to one Law Ministry senior officer, therefore it can be inferred that the present false case was registered on the pressure and influence of the said Law Ministry officer. In the opinion of this Court, the said bald assertion in the absence of any real supporting material, C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 36 of 47 is liable to be discarded.
18. Another argument of ld. Counsel for accused is that since complainant has admitted that rough transcription was prepared and the said transcription has not been placed on record, therefore manipulation cannot be ruled out in the transcriptions proved on record, has also no force. The rough transcription may have been prepared by the verifying officer in his hand in order to see whether the facts narrated by the complainant in his initial complaint to CBI and during verification proceeding, are corroborating with the conversation of complainant and accused. Merely because the said rough transcription has not been produced on record, it cannot be presumed that there was any manipulation in the subsequent final transcription. The transcription related to verification proceedings was prepared in the presence of both the independent witnesses, complainant and IO and there is no reason to disbelieve their consistent testimony. Moreover, FSL expert has also compared the transcription with the recording and has nowhere stated in his report that the transcription is not as per recorded conversation or that the same was tampered. Also the said transcription was played in the Court and if there was any hankypanky, ld. Counsel for accused must have pointed out the same during the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which is not case herein.
19. Learned counsel for the accused has also argued that there is no link evidence as to who had arranged the CD of C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 37 of 47 recorded conversation but the said argument is without any basis as the CD of recorded conversation was provided by the FSL as is clear from the material on record.
20. Learned counsel for accused has also argued that the hash value of the recorded conversation was not submitted to CFSL as is clear from evidence of CFSL expert and hence the recorded conversation is liable to be discarded. Once the micro SD cards "Q1" and "Q2" in sealed condition along with micro SD card "S1" in sealed condition containing the sample voice of accused SI Tulsi Ram were sent to CFSL, it was not incumbent upon the IO to first take the hash value of the said recordings, as the same would have made IO liable for further allegations of tampering against him. Once in the crossexamination of the concerned CFSL expert, no material evidence regarding tampering of the said recorded conversations was brought to the notice nor any contrary material to doubt the veracity of the said recorded conversation has been brought on record by the accused, the argument on this point by learned counsel for accused, is liable to be rejected.
21. Learned counsel for the accused has also raised argument that since the physics lab of CBI is not notified as per Section 79A of I.T. Act, therefore report of the expert of physics division is liable to be discarded, is having no force as nowhere it is prescribed that for giving opinion on the questioned voice recorded in micro SD card compared with sample voice in another C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 38 of 47 micro SD card, the said notification was necessary.
22. Another argument of learned counsel for accused as to why the envelope containing the bribe amount was not smeared with phenolphthalein powder, is beyond any logic as once the currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder were kept in an envelope as per demand of accused, it was not obligatory for the investigating agency to smear the envelope with the phenolphthalein powder as it was not a part of their standard operating procedure or compulsory to do so as per their crime manual.
23. Learned counsel for accused has also submitted that it is not proved as to how the DVR was issued, in whose name and how the blankness of the DVR was checked. However I do not find any force in the said argument as it was categorically stated by prosecution witnesses that new sealed micro SD cards Q1 and Q2 were arranged and they were fitted in the DVR and recordings were made after ensuring their blankness. No material has been extracted in the crossexamination of prosecution witnesses to show that their blankness was not ensured. As regards the plea as to how the blankness was checked raised by ld. Counsel for accused, prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that the DVR was played for sometime to ensure its blankness and new micro SD cards were arranged in sealed packets and therefore there was no question of any recordings being found in the said SD cards.
C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 39 of 47
24. Learned counsel for the accused has also argued that it has not come on record that there was no duplicate CBI seal, which could have been misused and manipulated. However it was for the accused to ask questions to relevant prosecution witnesses to extract relevant material in support of argument raised, which is not the case herein. Learned counsel for the accused has further argued that since it was last days of January which is usually cold and foggy in Delhi, therefore it was not possible for rest of the CBI trap team members to see the bribe transaction from a distance. However none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that it was foggy at that time and rather PW13 DSP Deepak Gaur has categorically stated that there was sufficient light at that time and high intensity streetlights were on and things were clearly visible.
25. Learned counsel for accused has also raised the plea that voice sample was not given by the accused voluntarily. First of all no such plea was taken by the accused immediately after giving voice sample or immediately after filing of chargesheet and his summoning in the case. In any case his voice sample has matched with the recorded conversation as per the report of FSL expert, who is a third party and belongs to an independent government agency, there is no reason to doubt his competence or his integrity in the absence of any such material brought on record by the accused in his crossexamination.
26. Learned counsel for the accused has also tried to raise the theory of three transcriptions, out of which, one consisted of C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 40 of 47 51 pages and other consisted of 52 pages, but the transcriptions of both the recordings available on record consists of total 51 pages only and thus there is no force in the argument of ld. defence counsel on the said point.
27. Learned Defence counsel has also attacked the sanction for prosecution of accused granted by PW1 Vijay Singh on the ground that PW1 has admitted that the transcriptions were not provided to him at the time of grant of sanction. However merely because the transcriptions were not provided to PW1, it cannot be presumed that the sanction accorded by him was illegal or not proper as all other documents including the complaint of complainant, copy of FIR, copy of verification memo, handing over memo, recovery memo, site plan etc. were supplied to him and after going through the same only, he had accorded sanction.
28. Learned counsel for the accused has also argued that as per CBI crime manual, the CBI team was supposed to videograph the incident. However nowhere in the CBI crime manual it is prescribed that video recording of a trap case is mandatory and failure to do the same would be fatal to the case of CBI. Furthermore, common sense says that in case of any trap, if CBI takes videographer to the spot to record the same, the accused would become wiser and would not demand or accept the bribe, hence trap would fail.
29. Learned counsel for the accused has also tried to C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 41 of 47 argue in vain that i10 car of the accused was having central lock and used to get locked after 60 seconds in case its door were closed, to submit that since the complainant as per his claim had talked with the accused for sometime before keeping the bribe amount in the dashboard of the car of the accused, therefore the doors of the car must have been auto locked and thus there was no scope for keeping the bribe amount in the dashboard of the said car. However neither any such expert opinion that the car was having said auto lock functional on the date of incident nor any other such material was brought on record by the accused. In the absence of the same, the submission of learned counsel for accused, is without any foundation. Furthermore, it has come in the testimony of PW3 (complainant) that during conversation with accused, the windows of his car were rolled down and hence keeping the money in the dashboard through the window of the car cannot be faulted with. Also some of the prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed that after completion of bribe transaction when accused was challenged, he drove his car for some meters in an attempt to escape but the same was thwarted by Inspector Shitanshu Sharma who opened the gate of his car and took out the keys and from the same also, it is clear that had the said car was having any central auto lock, the same would have got operational between the time the said car was started by the accused and till the time the accused was apprehended and the same would have closed the gate of the said car and thus the door would not have opened inspite of effort by Inspector Shitanshu Sharma, which is not the case herein. It is also common C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 42 of 47 knowledge that auto locks got operational only after few seconds once the ignition of the car is switched on. Nowhere the complainant has stated that while he was talking to the accused standing near the car or while he kept the amount in the dashboard of the car of accused, ignition of the said car was switched on. Hence the said argument of learned counsel for accused is baseless.
30. The judgments cited on behalf of the accused do not help the case of accused in any manner as they are distinguishable on facts.
31. Ingredients of Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are reproduced below: A. The essential ingredients of Section 7 are:
i) That the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant.
ii) That he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive and reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavor to any person.
B. The essential ingredients of section 13 (1) (d) of the Act are:
i) That he should have been a public servant;
ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 43 of 47 or otherwise abused his official position as such public servant and
iii) That he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person.
32. Thus from the incriminating testimony of prosecution witnesses, visit of complainant to the residence of accused on his direction and the demand of bribe of Rs. 5 lacs by the accused from the complainant on 27/01/2016 for giving him clean chit in the case investigated by accused on the complaint of maid, request for reduction of the said demand on 28/01/2016 by the complainant during verification, bargaining of the said bribe amount and reduction of the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs by accused to be given in an envelope, keeping of the envelope containing the bribe amount in the dashboard of his i10 car on 29/01/2016 by complainant, recovery of the said amount from the dashboard of the car of accused, verifying of the said currency notes with the numbers mentioned in the pre trap/handing over memo, corroboration of recording contained in Q1 during verification proceedings and Q2 during preptrap and bribe transaction proceedings with the version of complainant, clearly establish that accused had demanded bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant for saving him and his family in case FIR no. 02/2016, PS Shalimar Bagh and for giving clean chit and in case of failure to do so, to arrest them in the said case, stands proved. The minor discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 44 of 47 accused in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are not on material points, hence insignificant and thus are ignored as some amount of discrepancy is natural. There is no major contradiction on any material point and nothing substantiated was extracted in the crossexamination of prosecution witnesses to demolish the case of prosecution or to make the evidence of prosecution witnesses unreliable or unbelievable or impeach their creditability. All the prosecution witnesses are consistent on all the relevant material points. Their testimony inspires confidence.
33. The words used in Section 7 of P.C. Act are "accepts" or "obtains" or "agrees to accept" or "attempts to obtain" and thus from the works "agrees to accept" or "attempts to obtain", it can be inferred that for proving offence u/s 7 of P.C. Act, demand has to be there, acceptance may or may not be there. On the other hand, Section 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act uses the words "obtain" which means acceptance of bribe money. Section 13 (1) (d) envisages criminal misconduct as the act of public servant extending illegal pecuniary advantage to any person (including himself) by abusing his official position or taking any personal advantage out of irregularities committed by him or the public servant may have violated the prescribed rules and proceedings and granted illegal favour to anyone (including himself), although personal enrichment of the public servant is not necessary ingredient of the said act.
34. It is well settled that offences u/s 7 and 13 (1) (d) of C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 45 of 47 P.C. Act, 1988 can be proved on same series of facts constituting bribe transaction and since the legislature has provided two distinct offences u/s 7 & 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, therefore accused can be convicted for two distinct offences on same set of facts. The punishment for committing offence u/s 13 (1) (d) is provided under section 13 (2) of the said Act. In the case of State VS. A. Parthibhan, (2006) 11 SCC 473 (equivalent citation 2006 Cri LJ 4772 (1), it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relying upon Section 71 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 220 of Cr.P.C. that one act of accepting illegal gratification (i.e. bribe) can fall under two different offences u/s 7 and u/s 13 (1)
(d) of P.C. Act, although the offender should not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court could award to the person for any of the offences.
35. There is no dispute that the accused SI Tulsi Ram working in Delhi Police is a public servant. The factum of demand of bribe by him thrice i.e. on 27/01/2016, 28/01/2016 and 29/01/2016 from complainant has already been proved. Further, the factum of his receiving bribe amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in an envelope on 29/01/2016 from complainant has also been duly proved. The said amount was recovered from his i10 car as has been stated by prosecution witnesses and shown in recovery memo. Once it has been proved that the accused had obtained the said gratification of Rs. 2.5 lakhs other than legal remuneration, it has to be presumed as per Section 20 of the P.C. Act unless contrary was proved (which is not the case herein) that the C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 46 of 47 accused obtained the gratification as a motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 7 of P.C. Act.
36. The aforesaid acts of accused and other evidence proved against him, make the ingredients of offences u/s 7 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988 complete against the accused. Hence the accused is held guilty for the offences u/s 7 and u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988 and is accordingly convicted. Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2018.08.23 16:55:28 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Ashutosh Kumar) rd on 23 of August, 2018 Spl. Judge02(PC ACT), CBI Rohini Courts, Delhi C.C. No. 150/2016 CBI Vs. Tulsi Ram Page No. 47 of 47