Delhi District Court
State Through Cbi vs . Anupam Rajan Etc. on 31 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI State through CBI Vs. Anupam Rajan etc. RC No. 4 (S)/93/CBI P.S. CBI Under sections: 120 IPC read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and substantial offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC Unique ID No. 02406R0040551999 Date of institution of case: 13.02.1995 Date of reserving the judgment: 14.08.2013 Date of pronouncement of judgment: 31.08.2013 J U D G M E N T
1. S. No. of the Case : 110/2/95 & 65/06/11 2. Date of Commission of Offence : 13.06.1993 4. Name of the complainant : Source
5. Name,parentage & address of accused:1) Anupam Rajan S/o Sh. Umesh Kumar, R/o village Sobheypur, PS Parsha, Disst.
Chapra, Bihar.
2) Ashraf Jamal S/o Sh. Faizuddin, R/o Choti Masjid Road, Chowk Bazar, Daltonganj, Bihar (now Jharkhand).
6. Offence complained or proved : 120 B IPC read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC
7. Plea of Accused : "Not guilty"
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Final Order : 31.08.2013 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. In the present case, both the aforesaid accused persons were booked by the CBI with the allegations of offences under sections 120 B IPC read with Sections RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 1/44 420, 468 and 471 IPC and also for the substantial offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC on the basis of a complaint received by it from one Sh. S.K. Purkayastha, Additional Secretary, UPSC, dated 25.09.1993 who had acted on and conducted an inquiry on the basis of anonymous complaint received by UPSC. The present case was registered on 19.10.1993 based upon the said complaint.
2. The facts giving rising to the registration of the present case are summarily reproduced here under:
It has been alleged that accused Anupam Rajan was declared successful in the final result of 1992 Civil Services examination conducted by the UPSC and the result of which was declared on 03.06.1993 as per which accused Anupam Rajan was selected for the appointment to the IAS cadre securing 52nd rank in the merit list. However, in order to help his friend i.e. accused no.2 Sh. Ashraf Jamal, accused Anupam Rajan had further appeared on 13.06.1993 in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 1993 vide roll no. 169758 whereas the roll number allotted to accused Ashraf Jamal was 169757.
As per further allegations, both the accused persons had swapped their answer sheets and accused Anupam Rajan had written the exam for the accused no.2, Sh. Ashraf Jamal for Sociology paper as a result of which accused Ashraf Jamal had qualified the said exam whereas accused Anupam Rajan could not do so.
It was alleged further that both the accused persons hailed from District Daltonganj, Bihar and were friends of long standing. Accused Anupam Rajan had also filled up one application dated 03.02.1993 from Daltonganj, Bihar for his appearance in UPSC exam offering Patna as his centre for examination. The said application was received at UPSC on 08.02.1993. However, the same person while living in Satluj Hostel of JNU, New Delhi had again filled up another examination form by offering the examination centre at Delhi and had also opted Sociology as his RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 2/44 optional subject. On 22.02.1993 both the accused persons had handed over their application forms to one of their friends and coboarder Sh. Manoj Kumar, who was going to UPSC to deposit the applications of many other candidates as well. The said Sh. Manoj Kumar had duly deposited all the application forms at UPSC and as a consequence of that both the accused persons were alloted consecutive roll numbers at the same examination Centre i.e. Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School No.1, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi where they had also appeared to take the exam on 13.06.1993 occupying adjacent seats because of their consecutive roll numbers.
It was alleged further in the charge sheet that the examination was conducted in two separate sessions i.e. from 9.30 am to 11.30 am being the session meant of optional subject i.e. Sociology and from 2.30 pm to 4.30 pm being session meant for the compulsory subject i.e. General Studies and one Smt. Neera Sharma, working as Section Officer with the Ministry of Agriculture and Mrs. T. Bannerjee, one of the school teachers were deputed as Invigilator and coinvigilator in the said room where accused persons were taking their exams and one Sh. P. Parmeshwaram was the Superintendent of the said examination centre. The question paper was of multiple choice answers and question booklets were printed in four different series i.e. A, B, C and D and candidates were distributed with the question booklets of the aforesaid series in a sequence so that none of the two candidates sitting adjacent to each other should get the same set of questions. Each of the question booklet was carrying 150 questions having four alternative answers provided within the question booklet itself and the candidates were provided with the single leaf answer sheet on which they were supposed to write in a horizontal manner for mentioning the name of Centre, Subject Code and Subject name alongwith their respective roll number. Each answer sheet was also given a printed serial number and it was also required to be initialed by the invigilator after satisfying himself/herself regarding the RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 3/44 correctness of the particulars filled up by the candidates. The candidates were supposed to darken the circles appearing on the answer sheet after selecting the most appropriate answer for a particular question from the choice provided within the question booklet against the said particular question itself.
As per further allegations contained in the chargesheet, in the previous examination held in the year 1992 accused Anupam Rajan had secured 79 marks out of 150 marks in General Studies and 230 marks out of 300 marks in Sociology whereas the accused Ashraf Jamal had only secured 27 marks in General studies and 147 marks in Sociology. However, in the subsequent examination in the year 1993, there was a diametric change in the performance of two candidates and whereas accused Anupam Rajan had secured only 160 marks in total, the score of accused Ashraf Jamal was 271.
It was further contented in the charge sheet that as per the sitting plan, accused Ashraf Jamal should have got the answer sheet bearing serial no. 3789408 whereas accused Anupam Rajan should have got the answer sheet bearing serial no. 378409 however actually accused Ashraf Jamal got the answer sheet with the serial no. 378409 and accused Anupam Rajan was provided with the answer sheet having serial no. 378408 which was suggestive of the facts that the sequence and serial numbers in respect of accused persons were deliberately disturbed suggesting the exchange of answer sheets between them. The hand writing expert had also confirmed that the words " Delhi" "Sociology" and "Roll Numbers" appearing on the answer sheet which could have been supplied to accused Ashraf Jamal was bearing the hand writing of accused Anupam Rajan and vice a versa. Hence, it was clear that both the accused persons after entering into a criminal conspiracy with each other had committed the aforesaid offence. Matter was reported to police and upon completion of investigation, chargesheet U/s 120 B read with Sections 420,468 and RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 4/44 471 IPC read with substantive offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC was filed by the CBI before the learned Predecessor of this Court against both the accused persons.
3. Cognizance of the offences under section 120 B IPC read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC alongwith the same substantive offences was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide his order dated 13.02.1995 against both the accused persons and accused persons were also summoned to appear and contest the case on its merits. Thereafter, both the accused persons had duly appeared and were also duly supplied the copies of the charge sheet and charges were framed against both the accused persons for offences under Sections 120 B IPC read with Sections 420,468 and 471 IPC on 06.07.1999 to which both the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and had claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its allegations against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, the investigating agency had examined 16 witnesses in all.
5. PW1 Sh. Saibal Kumar Purkayastha S/o late Sh. Nagender Nath Purkayastha, aged about 66 years, R/o 2, Dr. Radha Gobindonath Sarne, Tollyganj, Kolkatta is the complainant of this case itself who had deposed that in the year 199293 he was posted as Additional Secretary in UPSC, Delhi and had received anonymous complaint EX. PW1/1 against accused no.1 Sh. Anupam Rajan in respect of Preliminary Examination of UPSC held on 13.06.1993. The said complaint was referred by him to the concerned Wing of UPSC for conducting an inquiry and after satisfying himself about the result of the inquiry, a complaint dated 25.09.1993 Ex. PW1/2 was sent by him to CBI for investigation. The fee deposit receipt of accused Anupam Rajan was placed on record as Ex. PW1/3 and that of accused Ashraf Jamal was Ex. PW1/4.
6. During his cross examination by learned Defence Counsel Sh. Mohit RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 5/44 Mathur, he had admitted the correctness of the statement of Ex. PW1/DA made by him to the CBI from portion X1 to X1 wherein he had stated that accused Anupam Rajan was not appointed for IAS but he was only called for training by the Department of Personnel and Training at National Academy of Administration, Masoori which he had also joined but the word which was normally used for the same was "allocation" in place of "appointment" as the formal appointment letter was issued later on in time but both the terms were carrying the same meaning. However, he could not say as to whether accused Anupam Rajan had been allocated IAS cadre on 13.06.1993 or not nor he could remember as to what was the material and documents which were placed before him after the inquiry and he could not even admit or deny as to whether accused Anupam Rajan was allocated IAS cadre only on 14.08.1993 or not. However after going through the document D18, he had admitted it to be correct that accused Anupam Rajan was allocated to IAS Cadre only on 14.08.1993 and not prior to that. The said letter has been placed on record as Ex. PW1/DB. Witness had also expressed his inability to say as to whether the aforesaid letter was first letter issued to the candidates by the UPSC or any other correspondence had also taken place earlier with them.
7. PW2 was Ms. Neera Sharma W/o Sh. P.N. Sharma, R/o 701, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi23 who was working as Section Officer with the Ministry of Agriculture and Corporation at Krishi Bhawan during the period 199293 and upon a requisition received by her department from UPSC she was deputed by her department for conducting the duty of Invigilator on 13.6.1993. She had accordingly, reported for her duties and as per the instructions, had also attended the duties in room no. 13 of the school. She had placed on record, the answer sheet of both accused persons pertaining to roll numbers 169758 and 169757 as Ex. PW2/1 and Ex. PW2/2 respectively bearing her signatures at point A. Similarly, the attendance RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 6/44 sheet was placed on record as Ex. PW2/3 ans as per this witness the same procedure was also followed for the second paper of General Studies which was conducted in the afternoon and the answersheets were placed on record by her as Mark PW2/A and Mark PW2/B and copy of no relation certificate issued by Centre Superintendent has been placed on record as Ex. PW2/3.
8. During her crossexamination by Sh. Vikram Panwar, learned defence counsel for accused Anupam Rajan, she had deposed that she was summoned by the CBI to join investigation at its office and her statement was recorded by the IO probably by one Mr. Parshad. It was admitted by her that even prior to the said duty, she had already acted as an Invigilator on several earlier instances as well. She was also properly briefed about her duties of Invigilator by the UPSC and written instructions were also given to them in the form of a booklet during the said briefing and she had placed one such booklet on record as Ex. PW2/DA. She could not remember as to whether she had told the IO of the case about her second appearance as Invigilator for the Civil Services examination or not. But when she was confronted with her statement Ex. PW2/DB from portion A to A1, it was found mentioned there in her statement. It was further admitted by her that Centre Superintendent had handed over her 24 answer sheets for distribution to the candidates appearing in the said examination for the subject of Sociology in the first session. It was further admitted by her that after entering in the room no. 13 at about 9.05 AM, she had inspected the same only to see that no note book or any other paper was lying therein and nothing incriminating was found by her in the room. All the candidates were stated to have taken their respective seats as per the sitting plan and after the candidates had taken their respective seats, answer sheets were distributed to them at random at their seats itself and immediately after distribution of the same, all the candidate were told to write their roll number, name of the Centre, subject, and RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 7/44 subject code etc. and also to encode the same in the answer sheet in the spaces provided for that purpose. Later on the witness herself had checked that all the candidates had filled the aforesaid particulars in their respective answer sheets and it was also admitted by her to be correct that during the said examination, no candidates sitting one behind the other was issued the same series of question book let for the Sociology examination. It was also admitted by her that her coinvigilator had also checked the answer sheets of all the candidates to ensure that all the required particulars were duly filed in by them and as Invigilators strict vigil was stated to have been maintained by them during the said examination and they did not observe or find any irregularity or adoption of any unfair means by any of the candidates appearing in the said examination. It was further admitted by her that two instructors from the UPSC had also visited the said room where they had also remained present for quite some time and the examination was going on smoothly and they had also not found any irregularity or use of unfair means by any of the candidates during the said examination. It was further admitted by her that one reserve Invigilator had also visited the said room alongwith the attendance sheet and had moved from desk to desk to get the said attendance list filed up by the respective candidates and also the fact that the answer sheet given to a particular candidate contained his particulars only.
9. In her crossexamination by Ms. Manisha Sharma appearing for accused Ashraf Jamal, she had admitted that as per the Clause 18 of the document Ex. PW2/DA (Instructions for the Invigilators provided by the UPSC), no candidate was supposed to help other one and as such she had not observed any irregularity or unwanted incident in this case. It was also stated by her that the Horizontal distance between two seats of the candidates was around 3 to 4 fts. whereas the vertical distance between two seats was hardly 2 ft. and no irregularity was observed by her RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 8/44 during the entire examination on that particular date and no such incident ever was even informed to her by her coinvigilator as well and if any such incident would have been noticed by either of them, then it was definitely to be reported to the Superintendent of the Centre.
10. PW3 is one Sh. A.K. Saxena S/o late Sh. P.S. Saxena, R/o 221 Nirwan Apartments, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91 who in the year 199394 was posted as Joint Secretary, UPSC, New Delhi who had placed on record the seizure memos as Ex. PW3/1 to PW3/4 and the correspondences which he had undertaken with CBI as Ex. PW3/5 to PW3/7 and press note issued by the Information Bureau of Government of India in respect of the final result of Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1992 is Ex. PW3/8 bearing signatures of one Sh. Narender Singh. The said witness was even crossexamined by accused persons by availing an opportunity in that regard, wherein he had stated that he had no personal knowledge about the facts of this case.
11. PW4 is one Sh. Mohan Singh S/o late Sh. Dharam Singh, R/o D39, Shyam Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi who in the year 1993 was working as Accounts Officer, P&AO, MHA1, C1, Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi who had been a witness to the specimen handwritings taken by the IO in respect of accused Ashraf Jamal and the sheets have been placed on record by him as Ex PW4/1 to Ex. PW4/4.
12. During his crossexamination by Ms. Manisha Sharma, learned counsel for the accused Ashraf Jamal, he could not remember the exact date on which he had visited the CBI office and he had not taken any written permission from any of his senior officers for the said visit to CBI office and the said visit was paid by him in his personal capacity at the request of IO. However, he could not tell the name of the person whose specimen handwriting was witnessed by him.
13. PW5 was Sh. M N Vidyashankar, Principal Secretary to Govt. of RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 9/44 Karnataka, Information Technology, Biotechnology and Science and Technology and Commerce and Industries, Bangalore, Karnataka who had deposed that he had joined the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in 1982. He had seen the letter dated 14.08.1993 on the subject 'Civil Service Main Examination 1992' issued by Sh. S J Gunaseelan, the then Under Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel P.G & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training (D18) and had identified the signatures and writing of Sh.S J Gunaseelan's at point A. That letter was written to candidates who had succeeded in Civil Services Examination1992. The letter was earlier marked as Ex. PW 1/D/B and later on the same was exhibited as Ex. PW5/1. The accused Anupam Rajan had succeeded in the Civil Services Examination1992 and was selected as an I.A.S. Officer. His name had appeared at Srl. No. 52 Ex. PW 5/2 in Ex. PW5/1. The letter was also issued to him individually by the Department. He had also seen letter dated 14.09.1993 signed by Sh. S S L Trakroo, the then Administrative Officer at Establishment, Lal Bahadur Shashtri National Academy of Administration, Govt. of India, Mussoorie, which was issued to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi regarding probationers who had joined the Academy for training and the list of probationers who had joined the Academy was also annexed with it. The name of accused Anupam Rajan had been appearing at Sr. No. 55 and computer record no. 119. The entry was encircled in red pen as Ex. PW 5/3. He had also identified the signature of Sh. S S L Trakroo on that letter which was marked as Ex. PW 5/4 (D17).
14. During his crossexamination by Sh. Vikram Panwar & Sh. Parikshet Sirohi, Ld. Counsels for the accused Anupam Rajan, after reading the letter dated 14.08.1993 Ex. PW 5/1, he had admitted it to be correct that as per the said letter the allocation of services to the candidate was tentative in nature. He had also admitted it RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 10/44 to be correct that as per the said letter, the tentative allocation could have undergone changes and the candidate could have got the service of a higher preference or lower preference depending upon the facts and circumstances and marks obtained in respect of the candidates. He had further admitted it to be correct that as per the said letter, the allocation was further subjected to the candidate being declared physically fit for the appointment in service. He had further admitted it to be correct that at the time when the letter dated 14.08.1993 had been issued, the accused Anupam Rajan was tentatively allocated I.A.S, however, he had not been appointed as an I.A.S Officer till such date. The name of accused Anupam Rajan appearing at Srl No. 52 i.e. Ex. PW 5/2 was only the Sr. No. and was not the rank secured by the candidate. He had stated further that letter dated 14.08.1993 was the first intimation from Department of Personnel & Training to the candidates regarding allocation of service, however, no letter prior to it had been issued to the candidates in this regard. The said witness was not crossexamined by accused Ashraf Jamal despite availing an opportunity in that regard.
15. PW 6 was Sh. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Murty Sharma aged about 59 years R/o Flat No. 413, Dhruv Apartments, IP Extension, Patparganj, Delhi, posted as Director Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. He had deposed that during the period 1991 to 1993 he was posted as Under Secretary in the confidential Branch of Union Public Service Commission and his duties were with regard to conducting pre and post examination works including the results. He had seen a press note dated 02.06.1993 Ex. PW3/D issued by UPSC with regard to Civil Service Main Examinations 1992 ( Final Results). He had identified the signature of Sh. Narender Singh, Joint Director in UPSC and also the seal of UPSC at point A to A14. He had seen the application of Anupam Rajan (D4) which was submitted by him to UPSC for appearing in RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 11/44 examination. At that particular point of time it was submitted by Sh. Vikram Panwar, Advocate as well as accused Anupam Rajan that they were not disputing the application form Ex. C1 for appearance in the preliminary test conducted in June 1993 and Roll No. Ex. C2 received for the purpose of said examination. Similarly, the attendance sheet as Ex. C3 (D7) bearing his signature at point X was also admitted by them. He had seen application Ex. C4 of accused Ashraf Jamal bearing roll no. 16957 for Civil Services Examination (Preliminary) 1993 and had stated that an attendance sheet had also been allotted by the UPSC to Ashraf Jamal as Ex. C5. He had also seen the attendance list Ex. C3 and the accused Ashraf Jamal had also identified his own signature appearing thereon at point X1.
16. During his crossexamination by Sh. Vikram Panwar, Advocate for accused Anupam Rajan, he had stated that he had no knowledge about the date when the IO of the CBI had recorded his statement during investigation. He had admitted it to be correct that he had made the statement Mark X to X1 under section 161 Cr.P.C. to the IO that "As per the rules, he (referring to accused Anupam Rajan) could have very well appeared in the said Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 1993 as by that time, when he took to this examination, no appointment letter was issued to him", which found mentioned in his statement Ex. PW 6/D1. He could not remember as to whether he had told the IO that "there is no limit of submitting application forms in the UPSC meaning thereby that a candidate may submit several applications changing the choice of Centres well within the stipulated time". However, when he was confronted with Ex. PW 6/D1 where it had been so recorded from Mark X2 to X3. He had admitted it to be correct that UPSC was only responsible for holding the Civil Services Examination and was not empowered for issuing appointment to the candidates. He had stated further that the UPSC had only recommended the names of the successful candidates to the DOPT (Department of Personnel and Training) RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 12/44 which was the appointing authority of the Civil Services. He had also stated that he had not received any complaint regarding the examination held on 13.06.1993 because such complaints were not dealt by him. The said witness was not cross examined by accused Ashraf Jamal despite availing an opportunity in that regard.
17. PW7 was Sh. V.K. Khanna S/o Late Sh. R.D. Khanna R/o 270 B Pocket No. 2 Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Delhi91. He had deposed that he had joined CFSL CBI on 02.11.1973 as Senior Scientific Officer (Grade 2) and had retired as Principal Scientific Officer and Incharge (Document Division) CFSL CBI New Delhi on 30.11.2007. He had proved his report dated 23.12.1994 as Ex. PW7 /A (D43), bearing his signature at point A and Official seal at point B. He had examined Q1A (D6) which was already Ex. PW 2/1 and Q2A which was Ex. PW 2/2 on Sociology paper . He had also examined the material submitted by the Superintendent of Police CBI/SIC1 New Delhi vide letter no. 6055/3/4(S)/93/SIU.II dated 2930.9.94. He had further stated that the documents of this case had been examined carefully by him with Scientific aids vide his report dated 21.10.1994 as Ex. PW 7/B bearing his signature at point A.
18. During his crossexamination by Sh. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior advocate alongwith Sh. Vikram Panwar Advocate for accused Anupam Rajan, he had admitted it to be correct that no specimen writings or signatures were received by him in respect of his opinion Ex. PW 7/B. He had also admitted it to be correct that in his report Ex. PW7/A, no reasons were mentioned by him in support of his conclusion but they were based on observations under Scientific Instrument. He had also seen some slanting strokes in his examination. Though, he had prepared observation sheets but he had destroyed the same after finalization of the final report.
Learned defence counsel had also put a question to the witness that "In your report Ex. PW 7/A there was no mentioning about any slanting stroke?" to RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 13/44 which he had replied that mentioning of figure 7 had explained the presence of slanted stroke. He had stated that he had not taken the photographs of the Exhibits compared by him. With regard to question that he had not mentioned about availability of remnant in respect of erased figure and that of probable stroke, he had replied that he had not used the word remnants in his report and the said term had been inadvertently left out but his conclusion was based on remnant present below the existing figure. He had stated that with reference to crime manual of CBI, it was not necessary that the person who had given the first opinion must also have given the subsequent clarificatory opinion as well. He had admitted it to be correct that he had received exhibits through letter EX. PW 7/DA.(D42). He had also admitted it to be correct that on the very same day itself, he had prepared his report vide EX PW 7/A, at the request of CBI. He had denied the suggestion that he was pressurized to submit his report in favour of CBI. He had admitted it to be correct that he had not taken the photographs of the exhibits, as the same had been taken by Mr. S.C.Mittal. He could not say as to whether the said photographs were available on the file when he had examined the documents. He had denied the suggestion that his report was based on conjectures. He had admitted it to be correct that probability does not mean certainty. The said witness was not crossexamined by accused Ashraf Jamal despite availing an opportunity in that regard.
19. PW 8 was one Sh. K.P. Singh S/o Sh Bir Singh R/o B746 MIG Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi who had deposed that in the year 1993 he was posted in Home Ministry Govt. of India as Accountant. He had identified his signature at point A on the specimen writing from S5 to S8, as Ex PW 8/1 to Ex PW 8/4. He had also proved his signature on S12 to S18 at point A as Ex. PW 8/5 to Ex PW 8/11 and had also proved his signature on specimen writing from S22 to S33 as Ex. PW 8/12 to Ex. PW 8/23. However, he could not remember where and when he had signed those RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 14/44 documents.
20. During his crossexamination by Sh. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior advocate alongwith Sh. Vikram Panwar Advocate for accused Anupam Rajan, he could not remember if the documents which he had signed were already prepared or not as matter was 20 years old. He also could not remember as to why he had signed those documents. He could not remember anything about the said documents except identifying his own signatures appearing thereon. The said witness was not cross examined by accused Ashraf Jamal despite availing an opportunity in that regard.
21. PW 9 was one Dr. S.C. Mittal, Retd. Principal Scientific Officer,CFSL New Delhi R/o 23/2, Punjabi Bagh, Extn. New Delhi26 who had deposed that in the year 1994 he was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer Grade1 at CFSL New Delhi. He had further deposed that few questioned, specimen and admitted documents were received in CFSL from SP, CBI, SIC1, New Delhi vide letter dated 01.02.1994 placed on record as Ex. PW 9/A running into 5 pages(D30) and he had submitted his report Ex PW 9/B(colly)(D36) running into 8 pages, bearing his signatures at points A. He had further deposed that correction at pages 3,6 and 8 were in his handwriting bearing his short initials. He had also mentioned about document mark Q1 (D6) as Ex PW 2/1, document mark Q2 (D6ii) as Ex PW 2/2, document mark Q3 as Ex PW 9/C, document mark Q4 as Ex PW 9/D. He had deposed that during examination of these documents, two photographs each of Q1A and Q2A had been prepared vide Ex PW 9/E to Ex PW 9/H bearing his signature at Point A on the rear side of all those photographs. He had further placed reliance on the specimen writings mark S1 to S4 which were already Ex. PW 4/1 to Ex PW 4/4, the specimen writings mark S5 to S8 which were already Ex. PW 8/1 to Ex PW 8/4, the specimen writings mark S12 to S18 already available on record as Ex. PW 8/5 to Ex PW8/11, the specimen writings mark S22 to S33 which were already available on RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 15/44 record as Ex. PW 8/12 to Ex PW 8/23. He had further placed on record, admitted writings mark A1 to A15 as Ex.9/J collectively, admitted writings mark A17 to A20 were placed on record as Ex C1 to C5 collectively and admitted writing mark A16 as Ex PW 9/K (D31). He had further deposed that he had received certain queries from DIG/ CBI/ SIC1, vide letter dated 21.12.1994 as Ex PW 9/L (D38). He had further deposed that in response to the said request, he had submitted his supplementary opinion dated 21.12.1994 vide his report Ex PW 9/M bearing his signature at Point A. He had further deposed that during examination of the documents i.e. two photographs of Q1 C and Q1B had been prepared which were placed on record as Ex. PW 9/N and Ex. PW 9/O and he had forwarded his report Ex. PW 9/B to CBI through one Sh. V.N. Sehgal, Director, CFSL. He had identified his signature at point A on Ex PW 9/P as he had worked with him and had seen him signing and writing. He had also forwarded his report Ex. PW 9/N to CBI through one Dr. S.R. Singh, Director, CFSL. He had identified his signature at point A on Ex PW 9/Q.
22. During his crossexamination by Sh. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior advocate alongwith Sh. Vikram Panwar Advocate for accused Anupam Rajan, he had admitted that the handwriting science was not a perfect science and was subjective in nature. There might have been differences of opinion of different experts on same set of specimen handwriting and questioned handwriting. He had admitted that in the present case there were only block/Capital letters along with numericals which had been unconnected with each other and they had been examined in their design formation only and opinion on individual connecting strokes was not possible and therefore he had agreed that his report was based on general similarities of handwriting comprising capital letters and was not based on individual connecting strokes. He had further admitted it to be correct that the general handwriting RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 16/44 characteristics could have been found in the handwriting of similar group of persons. He had further admitted that in the present case, only a few words were available for comparison. He had stated that in this case words "DELHI" and "SOCIOLOGY" and word "Sociology" was available in Q1 and Q2 and "GENERAL STUDIES" in capital and small were available for comparison in Q3 and Q4. As such the data for comparison was very very limited. Inspite of those limitations, he had given his opinion. He had agreed that leading authors on handwriting science like A. OSBORN, WILSON R HARRISON , ORDWAY HILTON had written in their books that it was difficult to give an expert opinion in case of limited words written in capital letters or in unconnected manners. He had admitted further that unconnected writings were written slowly with multiple pen lifts, slow speed and only limited handwriting characteristics appeared in such cases in comparison with connected handwritings. He had further admitted that figures like 1,O, 6, and letters I,O,L were not depicting much individual handwriting characteristics. He had further admitted that the word "sociology" written in capital letters in Q2 and Small letters in Q1 were not comparable with each other except the first letter capital "S". After seeing A1 to A15, he had admitted it to be correct that the words "Delhi" and "Sociology" were not available in A1 to A15. He had admitted that in his visual inspections in the court, the words DELHI and SOCIOLOGY in Q2 appeared to be quite similar in their pictorial appearance of design of capital letters appearing in S15 and S16. He had also admitted that there were general similarities in the capital letters D,E, H and S and small letter g, y, c, in Q1 and S22 to S33 and had further admitted that the letter D and E were similar in Q 1 and A 18 in their pictorial representation. He had further admitted that Slant of capital letter S of sociology was similar in Q1 and A18 in its pictorial design. He had further admitted that the angularity of letter D, curvature of upper stroke of letter E, connecting stroke of RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 17/44 letter H, slant of upper portion of letter S were similar in their pictorial appearance in Q2 and S5 to S7. He had further admitted that the figure '1' and letter 'I' in Q1 and Q2 were in the form of a slanted stroke and were not showing any individual handwriting characteristics. He had further stated that the photographs requisition had been made to the photo section of CFSL on 4th April 1994. CFSL had received only specimen writing mark S1 to S8 and S12 to S18 and S22 to S33. However, he could not say as to why specimen S9 to S11 and S19 to S21 had not been sent to CFSL by the IO. He had admitted that the specimen and questioned documents had been personally deposited by Sh. S. Prasad, DSP of CBI on 01.02.1994. However, he had stated further that since he had not personally received the documents therefore, he could not have asked the IO about missing specimen. He had admitted that Q 1 A(figure 8) and Q2 A( figure 7) were in ball pen ink. He had further admitted that in Q1A and Q2A there was no erasure in the printed margin box. He had stated that in his report Ex. PW 9/B at pages 7 and 8 at opinion no. III and IV , he had not mentioned anything like fiber disturbance or thinning of paper in respect of Q1A and Q2A. He had admitted further that since there was no fiber disturbance or thinning of paper existing on documents Q1A and Q2A hence same were not mentioned by him in his report. He had admitted that he had not observed any evidence of physical erasure in circles of Roll No. below Q1A and Q1B and Q2A and Q2B.
He had denied the suggestion that under pressure of officers of CBI, he had given an incorrect report. He had further denied that there was pressure of CBI on him to give report in a hurried manner or that he was told that he should have prepared the report in a particular manner. The cross examination of this witness was also adopted by learned defence counsel Ms. Manisha Sharma for accused Ashraf Jamal.
RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 18/44
23. PW 10 was one Sh R.K Maheswari S/o Jee Singh R/o Flat no. 246 Type 4 Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi, posted as Under Sectry, MHRD, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi who had deposed that in the year 19921993 he was posted as Section Officer (Adhoc ) in Receipt Section, Examination Branch UPSC, New Delhi and he was performing the duty of receiving of applications and issuance of receipts. He had further deposed that any person could have submitted application for UPSC examination of behalf of any other person. The personal presence of the applicant was not required at the time of submission of the application form at the UPSC counters. The said witness was not crossexamined by both the accused persons despite availing an opportunity in that regard.
24. PW 11 was one Sh. Karan Singh S/o Maru Ram R/o 45 D , DDA flats, M.S. Park, Shahdara, Delhi32, who had retired as Under Secretary, from Ministry of Finance, Departments of Expenditure, Govt. of India, Delhi. He had deposed that in the year 19921993 he was posted as Section officer in Confidential4 branch in UPSC. He used to assist the Sr. officers and also used to supervise the work of Juniors. He had further deposed that a complaint was received by his Joint Secretary after which he had directed him to obtain the result of two candidates from computer centre. He had further deposed that accordingly, he had obtained the result of the said two candidates from computer center and had provided the same to the Joint Secretary.
The said witness had been shown the documents i.e. computer print out as Ex. PW 11/A on which he had identified his signature at point at A and endorsement in his handwriting encircled at point B. As per the said print out, candidate Ashraf Jamal who was having Roll NO . 169757, had got total 271 marks and candidate Anupam Rajan who was having Roll No. 169758 had got 160 marks. The said witness was not crossexamined by both the accused persons despite RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 19/44 availing an opportunity in that regard.
25. PW 12 was one Sh. Pooran Chand S/o Late Sh Bishan Ram R/0 H.NO. 62 , Pocket 21, Sec. 24 , Rohini, Delhi who had retired as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Govt. of India, Delhi. He had deposed that in the year 19921993 he was posted as Under Secretary, Recruitment Branch, UPSC, New Delhi. He had also remained associated with the duty of inspection of examination centers and smooth conduct of C S (P) examination in 1993. He had been looking after two centers at Sarojini Nagar. The examination was conducted in the month of the June in 1993. He was entrusted with the duty of carrying the question papers and blank answer booklets to the centers and bringing the same back to UPSC. He had further deposed that during this process of carrying and bringing back the aforesaid documents, no tampering was done by any one. The same were deposited by him safely duly sealed to the Confidential Branch. He had further deposed that regarding some inadequate facilities at the examination center at Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School No. 1, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi, he had submitted his report Ex. PW12/A running into 5 pages bearing his signatures at point A. The notification Ex. PW12/B (D12) regarding C.S(P) examination 1993, had been published in the Gazette of India.
26. During his cross examination by the learned defence counsel Sh. Vikram Singh Panwar for accused Anupam Rajan, he had admitted that Gazette of India notification EX PW 12/B had not been seized from him by CBI. He was not having any personal knowledge about the said document.
27. During his cross examination by the learned defence counsel Ms. Manisha Sharma for accused Ashraf Jamal, he had admitted that he himself and Sh. Mange Ram had taken rounds of the above mentioned center. During those rounds, neither any invigilator nor any candidate had made any complaint regarding any RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 20/44 unfair practices being adopted by any one in both sessions during whole of the day. He had not recognized any of the accused persons. He had seen them for the first time in the court itself on the date of his deposition. He had not seen any of them on the day of examination at the center.
28. PW 13 was one Sh. Murari Lal Rustagi S/o late Shri Jyoti Prasad, aged 70 years, R/o R Block 55C, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi, who had joined UPSC, EDP Wing in the year 1978. He had further deposed that during the year 19822003 he was working as a Manager in EDP Wing, UPSC and his duties were to look after the computerization work of post examination processing. He had further deposed that after the CS examinations were over, the answer sheets of the objective question papers were received by confidential branch. He had further deposed that as per his knowledge, the answer sheets and data processing section for further processing, they had supplied the answer sheets in the form of batches to the computer section for evaluation of OMR (optical mark reader). After evaluation the objective answer sheets on OMR separately, the answer sheets were returned to DP Branch (data processing branch). The DP Branch in turn had returned the same to the confidential branch after proper accountal.
The witness had been shown document i.e. the result print out with date as 01.9.1993 as Ex. PW 11/A to which the witness had stated that the same had been prepared on the basis of UPSC records available in the computer data sheet for the examination available in the computer data sheet, Civil Services Examination (Preliminary) 1993. He had identified his endorsement, signatures and handwriting on the sheets pertaining to the result of the Ashraf Jamal and Anupam Rajan. He had confirmed that the details of data sheet were true as per records.
29. During his cross examination by Ms. Manisha Sharma, learned defence counsel for accused Ashraf Jamal, he had stated that he had not handed over any RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 21/44 document including document Ex. PW 11/A to the CBI. He had retired from his services in the year 2003. He was not having any personal knowledge about the contents of document Ex. PW 11/A however data must have been correct as per record. He had never given any separate certificate about the correctness of the data in respect of Ex. PW 11/A. The said witness was not cross examined by accused Anupam Rajan despite availing an opportunity in that regard.
30. PW14 was one Smt. Mridula Shukla, DSP, CBI, ACB, Gaziabad, aged about 46 years who had deposed that during the period 1993 to 1994 she was posted at SIUII, CBI. She had identified the signature of the then SP Sh. A.K. Majumdar on FIR Ex. PW14/A(D1) as she had worked under him. She had also identified the signature of Sh. S. Parsad, the then DSP of the said Branch (since he had expired) at points A on the letter dated 22.11.1993 (D13) placed on record as Ex. PW14/B and on the letter dated 26.11.1993 placed on record as Ex.PW14/C(D16). She had also identified signature of Sh. S. Parsad, the then DSP of the said Branch (since he had expired) at points A & B on the document D21 containing two pages placed on record as Ex.PW14/D. She had also identified the signatures of Sh. S. Parsad, Dy SP at point A on the document D22 and also at point A & B on the document D24 each containing two pages which were placed on record as Ex.PW14/E and Ex. PW14/F respectively. She had further identified the signature of Sh. S. Parsad, Dy SP at points A on the documents D29 , D30 (second page AnnexureA, B, C & D) placed on record as Ex. PW14/G, Ex. PW14/H, Ex. PW14/I and Ex. PW14/J respectively. She had identified the signatures of Sh. T.N. Rao, the then Dy. SP, CBI, SICI at point B on the documents D32/1 and signatures of late Sh. S. Prasad on document D32/II already placed on record as Ex. PW3/1 and Ex. PW3/2 because she had worked with both of them. She had also identified the signatures of Sh. S. Prasad at points A & C on the documents D32/III, D32/IV and D32/V placed on record as Ex. PW14/L, RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 22/44 Ex. PW3/3 and Ex. PW3/4. She had further identified the signatures of Sh. S. Parsad on documents Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/4 (D33) at points B to B3, Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/23 at point B, Ex.PW14/M, Ex.PW14/N (D35), Ex.PW7/DA (D42) at point A. She had also identified the signatures of Sh. S. Parsad at points A to A3 on the charge sheet of the case Ex.PW14/V which contained seven pages. She had also identified the signatures of Sh. A.K. Majumdar on Ex.PW9/L (D38), Ex.14/O (D40), Ex.PW14/P (D44) and Ex.PW3/7 (D45) at points 'A'. She had also identified the signatures of Sh. R.D. Pandey, the then SP (who had since expired) on Ex. PW14/Q (D46) and Ex. PW3/A (D47) at points A and B respectively. She had also identified the signatures of Smt. Chanda Rani, the then Inspector SICI, New Delhi on Ex. PW14/R (D48/A), Ex. PW14/S (D49/A), Ex. PW14/T (D49/A, AnnexureB) and Ex. PW14/U (D49/A) at points A. She had stated further that she was an assisting IO of Lt. Sh. T. N. Rao, Sh. S. Parsad, Sh. O. P. Chatwal, Dy. SP and Sh. Yogender Singh, Dy.SP during her tenure in SICI and Sh. A. K. Majumdar, Sh. V. S. Yadav and Sh. R. D. Pandey, who were the SPs during her tenure at SICI.
31. During her cross examination by Sh. Vikram Panwar, learned Defence counsel for accused Anupam Rajan, she had admitted it to be correct that she had only identified the signatures of her colleagues on the documents, which were exhibited or mentioned by her in her statement and she had not confirmed their contents. She had stated further that she was assisting Lt. Sh. S. Parsad, the then Dy. SP in the investigation of the present case. She had stated that none of the documents had been executed in her presence by late Sh. S. Parsad during investigation of the present case. She had admitted it to be correct that Smt. Chanda Rani was still serving in CBI however, she could not say precisely so about Sh. A. K. Majumdar regarding his present status. She had denied the suggestion that she had never joined the investigation of present case and had deposed falsely in the court to fill up the RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 23/44 lacunae appearing in the prosecution case. The said witness was not cross examined by accused Ashraf Jamal despite availing an opportunity in that regard.
32. PW15 was one Sh. S.R. Thakur, Retired DSP, CBI, New Delhi aged about 60 years who had deposed that he had remained posted in SICI Branch of CBI, New Delhi from June 1992 to June, 2002 as Inspector. He had deposed that in this case RC No. 4S/1993 he had been assisting the then IO Shri S. Prasad who had since expired. He had made verifications of addresses of accused in Delhi, Daltonganj etc. Accused Ashraf Jamal had been residing in Room NO. 20 of some hostel of Jawahar Lal Nehru University however, he could not remember the name of the said hostel. He had further deposed that when he had reached at the hostel the room was found locked. Later on he had come to know that accused had been residing at Hamdard Nagar near Batra Cinema, Delhi. He had identified the signature of Sh. S. Prasad at point A on Ex. PW15/A.
33. During his cross examination by Sh. Vikram Pawar, learned counsel for accused Anupam Rajan, he had stated that IO had not recorded his statement in this case.
34. During his further cross examination by Ms. Manisha Sharma, learned counsel for accused Ashraf Jamal, he had stated that without going through the document Ex. PW15/A he could not comment about its contents and he had only identified the signature of S. Prasad on the same.
35. PW16 was one Smt. Ruchita Sahay W/o Shri Sandeep Kumar R/o 186 G, 3rd floor, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi who had deposed that during the period from 1991 to 1994, she was residing in room No. 148 of Godawari Hostel, JNU, New Delhi. She had done her graduation from Lady Sriram College, New Delhi in Hindi in the year 1991. Thereafter she had done her post graduation from JNU. She had completed her PG degree in the year 1993. After that she had RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 24/44 got herself enrolled in the M.Phil. At that time she knew Anupam Rajan and Ashraf Jamal, as both of them were living in Satlaj Hostel of JNU, during the said period. She had further deposed that she knew Anupam Rajan and Ashraf Jamal since 1991 and had duly identified them in the court as well. She had also applied for Civil Services Examinations in the year 1993. She had given her application form to one of her friends from the group for its submission to UPSC. She had mentioned Sociology as her optional subject. Their examination Centre was at some school at Sarojini Nagar, whose name she could not remember. She could not remember the room number in which her roll number was allocated nor she could remember anything regarding the sitting arrangement in respect of any gap being provided between two seats or not. She did not know the name of the invigilator at that examination centre. She had not observed anything unusual in her examination hall or examination centre on the day of their examination. She had identified her signature on document Ex. C3 (attendance sheet) showing her presence. She had identified her signature on attendance sheet Ex. PW16/A pertaining to her appearance in General studies paper. She had further deposed that her application for securing admission in JNU was Ex. PW 16/B and Ex.PW 16/C to Ex.PW 16/F were her semester cards submitted before the university revealing the subjects which she had opted for during different semesters. She had further deposed that document Ex. PW 1/1 and Ex. PW16/G was appearing to be in her handwriting. Same was her reply with respect to Ex. PW 16/G. After putting court question to her regarding the doubts in her mind about the presence of her own handwriting in the documents, she had admitted her handwriting on both the letter as well as envelope.
36. During her crossexamination by Shri Vikram Pawar, learned counsel for accused Anupam Rajan, she had stated that she had appeared in court pursuant to RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 25/44 the summons issued in her name in this regard. The summon had reached at the office address of her husband i.e A2/7, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The summon issued by this court had not contained the office address of her husband. She had further stated that the CBI had contacted her for investigation of this case but she was not sure as to when she was contacted. She was not married when the CBI had contacted her. She had admitted it to be correct that the address A2/7,Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was not given by her to the CBI during her statement. She had further stated that in the year 1993 her father was posted as Officer on Special Duty with the Chief Minister of Bihar namely Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav. Her father was a Bureaucrat and therefore he had served many departments. She had further stated that she originally hailed from Dalton Ganj, Bihar ( now in Jharkhand). She had stated that Mr. Anupam Rajan was a sober and gentleman while pursuing his studies. CBI had recorded her statement during investigation. After putting question to her in respect of her statement made before the IO on 02.02.1994 during investigation of the present case, she had replied that "Though statement Ex. PW 16/D1 appeared to have been made by her to the IO. However, she could not remember as to whether she had also made the statement mark portion X to X1 and Y to Y1 wherein she had admitted her inclination towards accused Anupam Rajan but had denied the execution of the anonymous written complaint either herself or through someone else with a view to take revenge from him. She had also voluntarily stated that she had specifically told the IO that no complaint was made by her solely for the purpose of taking any revenge from the accused persons. She had denied the suggestions that the investigation of the present case was guided by her father taking advantage of his official position. She had also denied the suggestion that CBI was in constant touch with her and had tutored her to depose the version as had been deposed by her in the court. She had also denied the suggestion RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 26/44 that she had falsely implicated the accused persons with ulterior motives. The said witness was not crossexamined by accused Ashraf Jamal despite availing an opportunity in that regard.
37. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 04.06.2013.
38. Thereafter accused persons were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein the entire incriminating evidence appearing on record against both the accused persons was put to them in its vernacular which was denied by them as wrong and incorrect. During his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Anupam Rajan had admitted that he had appeared in the exam of IAS however, he had absolutely denied that he had appeared to help his friend Ashraft Jamal. He had also denied that Ashraf Jamal was his friend. He had also denied that he had already been selected for IAS as on 13.06.1993. He had admitted the fact so far as his appearance in the said examination was concerned, but he was not known to Ashraf Jamal. He had stated that Mark A1 to A15 was in his handwriting however, no specimen handwriting of him was ever obtained by the CBI. He had admitted that Ruchita Sahay was known to him at JNU. But he had not known about her acquaintance with Ashraf Jamal. He had further stated that PW16 had falsely implicated him in this case for her ulterior motive. He had stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case because forms were submitted much before the date of final result and he had not been even communicated the result as on the date of his exam. Even otherwise he was eligible to appear as per the rules.
During examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Ashraf Jamal, he had also deposed on similar lines as was deposed earlier by accused Anupam Rajan and he had also denied his friendship with the coaccused. Despite opportunity given to them, both accused persons had not examined any witness in their defence.
RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 27/44
39. I have heard Shri Ratandeep Singh, Ld. APP for the CBI as well as Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Ld. Senior Defence counsel alongwith Sh. Vikram Panwar and Ms. Manisha Sharma, learned counsels for both the respective accused persons and have also gone through the material available on record including the written submissions filed by the accused persons and after going through the same, I have no hesitation in holding that the investigating agency has miserably failed to prove the guilt of either of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, on record. In view of contradictions appearing in the depositions and statements of witnesses as discussed above in the preceding paras, I have no hesitation in holding that it raises a serious shadow of doubt and suspicion on the story of prosecution in respect of its authenticity and genuineness and as such in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused persons are entitled to all the benefits of doubts arising out of the lacunas appearing in the prosecution case which has miserably failed to bring about their acts within the ambit and four corners of the definition of such offences as defined in the books of Statute with which they have been charged, warranting their conviction and sentence in the present case.
40. The story as set up by the prosecution/investigating agency in the present case does not inspire much confidence and has fallen much short of proving the guilt of both the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubts for the following reasons:
1. In respect of present accused Ashraf Jamal, only PW2, PW4, PW7, PW9 and PW16 were the material witnesses. As per PW2 who was the Invigilator Incharge in the room no.13 in which accused persons were taking their examination, the answer sheets were distributed to the candidates on random basis on their seats itself and the same were also duly checked by PW2 herself to ensure that all the particulars were correctly filled by the candidates in their RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 28/44 answersheets and since strict vigil was maintained in the room hence, no unwanted irregularities and incidents were noticed by the Invigilator during both the examinations.
2. So far as PW4 is concerned who was alleged to be an attesting witness to the specimen writings pertaining to the accused Ashraf Jamal, the witness had categorically stated that he could not tell the name of the person whose specimen writings were exhibited by him in the court. Hence, the said alleged specimen writing of accused Ashraf Jamal had also not been duly proved by the prosecution as per law and in this regard the reply of accused Ashraf Jamal in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be ignored as well wherein he had stated that no specimen writing was ever obtained from him by anyone at any point of time whatsoever.
3. In fact this reply of the said accused got further fortified and corroborated by the evidence of PW7 V.K. Khanna, SSO, CSFL who had stated that no specimen was received by him in respect of his opinion Ex. PW7/B and even it was admitted by PW9 that the handwriting science was not a perfect science and it was difficult to give an expert opinion in case of limited writing either in capital letters or in unconnected manner as observed by the eminent authors on the subject and it was further admitted by him that only few words were available with him for comparison.
4. So far as PW14 and 15 are concerned, they had merely identified the signatures of late S. Parsad DSP CBI on the documents exhibited by them which does not amount to proof of those documents beyond any reasonable doubt as required under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act.
5. Even the complainant in this case, i.e. PW16 at whose instance, the present case was got registered had also deposed before the court that she had also not RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 29/44 observed anything unusual during the examination in the same hall or at the Centre. So far as the anonymous complaint is concerned, though she had admitted later on that it was in her handwriting but no credibility can be accorded to her complaint which has otherwise not been supported by any other corroborative evidence and the possibility of her giving complaint out of personal vengeance and jealousy for not having cleared the said examination could not be ruled out and further since her father was at a senior bureaucratic position and she hailed from an effluent family, hence the possibility of her implicating the accused persons in the present false case and influencing the investigation cannot be ruled out as well and the fact that without her disclosing the address of her husband to the CBI, the summons in her name were served at the aforesaid address also goes to show further that she was maintaining close contact with the investigating agency till the date of her deposition before the court, therefore, in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the commission of alleged offence, no criminality can be attached to either of the acts or omissions as alleged. Even it was also admitted by the handwriting expert that the capital letters in Q2 and small letters in Q1 were not comparable with each other except for the first letter capital 'S' . Therefore accused Ashraf Jamal is liable to be acquitted in the absence of any incriminating evidence produced against him by the prosecution on record.
6. In respect of accused Anupam Rajan, the evidence of PW5 shows that it was for the first time on 14.08.1993, that the accused was sent the intimation from the DOPT (Ex. PW5/1; D18) stating that he had been tentatively allocated to IAS, and this tentative allocation was subject to change. PW5 Sh. M.N. Vidyashankar; Principal Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka, had further stated that RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 30/44 even on 14.08.1993, Sh. Anupam Rajan had not been appointed as IAS but was only tentatively allocated to IAS, which allocation was subject to change. PW5 had further stated that the name of Sh. Anupam Rajan appearing at serial no. 52 was not his rank but it only depicted the serial number (Ex. PW5/2). In fact from another letter dated 14.09.1993 issued by the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration to the DOPT (Ex. PW5/4; D17), it could have been easily gathered that Sh. Anupam Rajan was finally placed at rank
55. It was only after this that the final appointment letter was issued to him.
7. Further, PW6 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Under Secretary, Confidential Branch, UPSC, while being examined in the court, had fully endorsed his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.01.1994 (Ex. PW6/D1) that "as per rules, he could have very well appeared in the CS (P) Examination 1993, as by that time, when he took to this examination, no appointment letter was issued to him. There is a bar only for those candidates in whose favour the appointment letters have been issued for ClassI service on the basis of the earlier examination".
Further, as per Ex. PW3/8 (D10), i.e. the press note dated 02.06.1993; the vacancies were subject to revision.
As per D12 i.e. Ex. PW12/B, clause 8 of Gazette of India Notification, the only bar in that regard was: "When a candidate who is appointed to the Indian Administrative Service or the Indian Foreign Service on the results of an earlier examination before the commencement of this examination will not eligible to compete at this examination.
In case a candidate has been appointed to the IAS/IFS after the preliminary examination of this examination but before the main examination of this RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 31/44 examination and he/she continues to be a member of that service, he/she shall also not be eligible to appear in the main examination of this examination not withstanding that he/she has qualified in the preliminary examination. Also provided that if a candidate is appointed to IAS/IFS after the commencement of the main examination but before the result thereof and continues to be a member of that service, he/she shall not be considered for appointment to any service/post on the basis of the result of this examination".
8. The aforesaid provisions had therefore, completely demolished the case of the CBI and had shown that the present accused was not appointed to IAS as on 13.06.1993. The evidence of PW5 had shown that the accused was officially sent the intimation of his tentative service allocation to IAS only on 14.08.1993. The evidence of PW6 had further shown that the accused was eligible to appear in the said preliminary examination. Therefore, no mala fide can be attributed to the actions of the accused Anupam Rajan for his appearing in his CS (P) Examination held on 13th June 1993.
9. The next circumstance being relied upon by the CBI was that the two accused were friends and in conspiracy to help the accused Ashraf Jamal, to clear the UPSC examination, the two accused persons had filled the forms together on 22.02.1993, and had also managed to obtain consecutive roll numbers and got adjacent seats. The CBI however had miserably failed to prove that the two accused were friends of long standing (as alleged in the charge sheet at page 2, Para 2). The CBI had also failed to prove that the two accused had filled and deposited the forms together. There is no evidence to that effect. Whereas, the evidence of PW10 had shown that the personal presence of the Applicant was not required at the time of the submission of the application form at the UPSC RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 32/44 counters. Even PW16, had also deposed that she had given her application form to one of her friends from the group for its submission to UPSC. The charge sheet Ex. PW14/V at page no.2, para 3, depicted the case of the CBI that one Manoj Kumar (not examined during the trial) had deposited the application forms of several boarders, including those of the two accused.
10. The evidence on record Ex. PW1/3 i.e. D27 (i) the acknowledgment receipt of the preliminary examination application form for Anupam Rajan bears the number 154528, while Ex. PW1/4 i.e. D27 (ii) shows that the acknowledgment receipt number for Ruchita Sahay bears no. 154529 while that of Ashraf Jamal bears no. 154530. Thus, it was clear that the forms of the two accused persons were not submitted in sequence and also were not personally submitted by them so as to show any kind of conspiracy in submitting the forms together with an intention to obtain consecutive roll numbers and same examination centre as the allocation of roll numbers and the centre for the examination was the sole and exclusive prerogative of the UPSC and the present accused persons could not have conspired to obtain consecutive roll numbers or a centre of their choice by any stretch of imagination whatsoever. The seating plan at the centre for the examination was also prepared under the supervision of the UPSC and was not known to the candidates until they had entered the examination hall. It appears that it was only by chance, that the two accused were allotted seats, one behind the other, with Anupam Rajan sitting behind Ashraf Jamal.
Evidence of PW3 and (D10) i.e. Ex. PW3/8 had shown that even the Personality test (Interview) of the 1992 Civil Service Examination itself was held in April/May 1993 and the final result was got declared by UPSC only on 02.06.1993. Thus, on 22.02.1993 i.e. when the forms were submitted by the RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 33/44 accused persons, the results of the Main examination of the Civil Services held in 1992, were not yet declared and the present accused had all the reasons to fill the from with the intention to compete in the year 1993 preliminary examination in case of his being unsuccessful in the previous examination. The charge against the accused that the conspiracy to commit the alleged offences started from 22.02.1993 thus, appeared to be baseless and contrary to the evidence on record.
11. A bare reading of Ex. PW11/A shows that accused Ashraf Jamal had secured 199 marks out of 300 in the 1993 examination in Sociology, which was an improvement of 35% from 147 marks that he got in the previous (1992) Preliminary Examination of Sociology. Ashraf Jamal had further secured 72 marks out of 150 in General Studies Paper which was an improvement of 165% from 27 marks that he got in the previous examination as shown in D45, EX. PW3/7. Thus, when there was an improvement of 165% in the General Studies paper, which was much higher and was not being attributed to any conspiracy, then how a conspiracy could have been attributed to the improvement in the sociology paper, which was comparatively much less. The CBI had totally ignored the fact of improvement in the competence of a person in his preparation for a competitive examination. It was further not the case of the CBI that any unfair means were adopted by the two accused in the General Studies Paper, which took place in the second half of 13.06.1993. The criteria for qualifying the examination was the aggregate marks obtained in the Sociology and General Studies paper. The evidence of PW11 shows that the qualifying marks for General Candidates were 271 and the coaccused Ashraf Jamal had barely managed to get 271 marks only. Thus, there could not have been a conspiracy to clear the UPSC Preliminary examination, without any RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 34/44 conspiracy to help the co accused in the General Studies Paper.
12. The presumption drawn by the CBI that the performance of Anupam Rajan should not have deteriorated once he had already qualified in the previous year's examination was ill founded and fallacious. The success in a competitive examination is always dependent on several factors. It is common knowledge that candidates performing exceptionally well in one year may not be able to qualify even in the preliminary exam in the next year. Even under the scheme of examination of UPSC, if a candidate wishes to improve his performance in order to get a 'better' service, UPSC requires him to appear in the Preliminary Examination again, even though he had already been appointed to another service e.g. IPS/IRS in the previous year. Thus, there is no room for the presumption that a successful candidate would have necessarily qualified the preliminary examination in the next attempt as well otherwise he would have been exempted from taking the preliminary examination in the next attempt.
13. As per evidence of PW2 Mrs. Neera Sharma (Invigilator), the question booklets distributed to the candidates for the examination of Sociology were of four series i.e. A,B,C and D and no two candidates sitting one behind the other was issued same series of test question booklet for the Sociology examination. It is common knowledge that questions are placed in different sequence in different series of question booklets and therefore, it was impossible to attempt the answer sheet of another candidate without exchanging the question booklet. However, neither it was a charge nor the case of the CBI that question booklets were also exchanged. On the other hand, the CBI had seized the question booklet distributed to Ashraf Jamal which was of "B" series bearing no. 013498 vide seizure memo dated 09.12.1993, Ex. PW14/F (D24) which RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 35/44 was the same booklet as was recorded in the attendance sheet D7, Ex. PW2/3 and thus, it proved that no exchange of question booklet had ever taken place between accused no. 1 & 2 and the same question booklet bearing no. 013498 of 'B' series, which was originally distributed to Sh. Ashraf Jamal was also subsequently recovered from his possession.
14. The next circumstance alleged by the CBI in the charge sheet Ex. PW 14/V at Page No.4, Para2, was that the accused Ashraf Jamal should have got answer sheet no. 3789408 and Anupam Rajan should have got 3789409, whereas Ashraf Jamal had received answer sheet no. 3789409 and Anupam Rajan 3789408. It was alleged further that this fact had clearly shown that the serial nos. of the answer sheet in respect of two accused persons were disturbed which suggested exchange of answer sheets between the accused. Contrary to the charge sheet of the CBI, the charge framed on 06.07.1999, clearly stated that the accused Ashraf Jamal was given answer sheet no. 3789409 and the accused Anupam Rajan was given answer sheet no. 3789408. The evidence of PW2 Neera Sharma, categorically proved that the answer sheets were distributed at random, thus negating the contention of the CBI that the answer sheets were exchanged and therefore the sequence was disturbed. The disturbed sequence in case of many other candidates was, otherwise also, evident from D7, Ex. PW2/3, while comparing answer sheets numbers at serial number 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 18.
15. The attendance sheet Ex. PW2/3, i.e. D7 prepared at the time of commencement of the Preliminary examination of Sociology had also shown that answer sheet no. 3789409 was given to Ashraf Jamal and answer sheet no. 3789408 was given to Anupam Rajan and the same answer sheets were being attributed by the CBI to them even till date of conclusion of proceedings.
RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 36/44 Therefore, even if assuming the charge to be correct that any such exchange had taken place, then the handwriting of the respective accused persons would have appeared on their respective answer sheets only and not as alleged since the said answer sheets were with them from the very beginning as per the charge framed.
16. PW2 Ms. Neera Sharma was categorical to the effect that she as an invigilator was strict in her vigil and had not observed or found any irregularity or adoption of any unfair means by any of the candidates during the examination. Thus, the most important piece of evidence which was also the best possible evidence of the spot, has been entirely contrary to the case of the CBI that exchange of answer sheets had taken place and the same was rather in favour of the accused.
17. The next circumstance being relied upon by the CBI to infer exchange of answer sheets was the opinion of the handwriting experts being (Ex. PW7/A; D43) of PW7 Sh. V.K. Khanna and that of PW9 Sh. S.C. Mittal (Ex. PW9/B; D36).
18. It is well settled law that evidence of handwriting experts can never be conclusive because it is, after all, an opinion evidence. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shashi Kumar Bannerjee Vs. Subodh Kumar Bannerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 had held that "the expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence". In the present case, the direct evidence is to the contrary and the circumstances are neither proved nor conclusive.
RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 37/44 Further, in Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab 1977 Cri. LJ 711, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that " It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a coviction".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. (2009) 9 SCC 709 had held that "15. An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character..... The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusion".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Bhagwan Kaur Vs. Maharaj Krishan Sharma AIR 1973 SC 1346 held that "........... The evidence of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The courts should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert".
19. In view of the above settled position of law, if the cross examination of the handwriting expert PW9 in the court is examined, then I have no hesitation in holding that the accused had been able to elicit a contrary opinion in respect of handwriting, which was totally contrary to the case of the CBI and also to the RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 38/44 written opinion (Ex. PW9/B; D36) as mentioned above. The opinion of the handwriting expert was not only contrary to the evidence but also did not inspire any confidence. The opinion is shaky and based on very limited data and therefore not beyond reasonable doubt hence, to place undue reliance on it would be travesty of justice.
PW9 had deposed in the court that the words DELHI and SOCIOLOGY appearing in Q2, i.e. the answer sheet no. 3789409 (which as per the charge belonged to Ashraf Jamal) appeared to be quite similar in their pictorial appearance of design of Capital letters, appearing in S15 and S16, i.e, the alleged specimen writings of Ashraf Jamal. This evidence was entirely contrary to his own opinion (Ex. PW9/B; D36) whereby he had opined that the alleged specimen writings including S15 and S16 to be of the person who was responsible for writing Q1. He had further opined that the alleged specimen writing belonging to Anupam Rajan i.e. S22 to S33, were similar to the writing on Q2. PW9 had further deposed that there were general similarities in the Capital letters D,E, H and S and small letters g, y, c, in Q1 (i.e. the answer sheet no. 3789408, attributed to Anupam Rajan) and the alleged specimen writings of Anupam Rajan S22 to S33, whereas in his opinion (Ex. PW9/B; D36), he had attributed S22 to S33 to Q2. PW9 had further deposed that the letter D, E and S were similar in Q1 (i.e. answer sheet no. 3789408) & A18 (i.e. admitted writings of Anupam Rajan) in their pictorial representation whereas in his opinion (Ex. PW9/B; D36) he had attributed A18 to Q2 (i.e. answer sheet no. 3789409). PW9 had further deposed that the angularity of letter D, curvature of upper stoke of letter E, connecting stroke of letter H, slant of upper portion of letter S were all similar in their pictorial appearance in Q2 to S5 to S7. However, in his opinion (Ex.
RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 39/44 PW9/B, D36) he had attributed S5 to S7 to Q1, thereby himself making glaring contradictions. PW 9 had further admitted that the figure 1, 0, 6 and letters I, O, L in Q1 and Q2 did not show any individual handwriting characteristics. PW9 had also stated that the photograph requisition was made to the photo section of CFSL on 04.04.1994. It is pertinent to mention here that the report was prepared on 29.03.1994 itself i.e. in the absence of those photographs, thus clouding the opinion of the expert even further. PW9 had further admitted that specimen S9 to S11 and S19 to S21 were not sent to CFSL by the IO, for reasons best known to him, thus prejudicing the case of the accused. PW9 had further deposed that in the present case, there were only block/capital letters along with numerals which were unconnected with each other and they were examined in their design formation only and opinion on individual connecting strokes was not possible and therefore he had also agreed that his report was basically based on general similarities of handwriting comprising capital letters and not individual connecting strokes. PW9 had also deposed that general handwriting characteristics could be found in the handwriting of similar groups of persons. He had further deposed that in the present case there were only a few words available for comparison.
20. The fact that the data was limited for comparison, was also borne from the evidence of PW9 when he had deposed that the words DELHI and SOCIOLOGY were not even available for comparison in the admitted handwriting of Anupam Rajan i.e. A1 to A15.
21. PW7 himself had stated before the court that his opinion Ex. PW7/A did not mention any reasons in support of his conclusion. It is further pertinent to mention that PW7 had also admitted in the court that he had not taken any photographs of the documents compared by him.
RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 40/44
22. Further, there was no direct/ocular evidence or opinion that the present accused Anupam Rajan had in fact solved each of the questions of the Sociology Paper for the accused Ashraf Jamal, on Ashraf Jamal's answer sheet, which was the most crucial evidence required to prove the guilt of the accused. There was no opinion of the handwriting expert in this respect on the circles meant for marking the responses.
23. The alleged specimens of the accused persons which were alleged to have been compared with the questioned documents by the handwriting expert, have not been proved to be of the accused persons by the CBI. The Investigating Officer, by whom the alleged specimens were taken and PW Arun Kumar who was also claimed to be a witness to the alleged specimens have not been examined in the court. The only other witness to the alleged specimen, PW8 Sh. K.P. Singh, did not remember anything about his signature appearing as a witness on the document and hence he could not prove the specimens to be belonging to the present accused.
24. It is pertinent to mention that collecting of the alleged specimens and then sending the same for comparison by the Investigating Officer was completely illegal and contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP Vs. Ram Babu Misra 1980 AIR SC 791, Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 and a three Judge Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sapan Haldar Vs. State 191 (2012) DLT 225. In Sapan Haldar's case, while answering the reference, the Hon'ble High Court had held that an Investigating Officer during investigation cannot obtain a handwriting sample or a signature sample from a person accused of having committed an offence. In light of the above decisions, the RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 41/44 opinion of the handwriting expert, on the basis of the specimens so collected was therefore, rendered of no consequence and had no value in the eyes of law.
25. A perusal of the evidence of PW16 has clearly shown that in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. made to the Investigating Officer, which was Ex. PW16/D1, PW16 had stated that she liked the present accused Anupam Rajan and had an inclination towards him. She had further denied her writing on the said anonymous complaint and had also denied that the same was got written by her through someone else with a view to take revenge from the present accused.
26. There is no evidence on record that the answer sheets were exchanged. In fact the evidence on record, in the form of the evidence of PW2, is to the contrary. Even PW16, on whose complaint, the entire proceedings were initiated, had deposed in the court that she had not observed anything unusual in the examination hall on the day of the examination. The chain of safe custody of the alleged answer sheets has not been established. There is no opinion on the circles mentioned for answering the questions. Further, no material or evidence is on record for establishing the offence of conspiracy as the CBI had miserably failed to establish as to when, where, at which place or on which date the accused persons had allegedly agreed to do the alleged act and in what manner.
27. The present case was in fact entirely based on circumstantial evidence and the law in respect of the same had been laid down by the Apex Court in several cases. It has been consistently held by the Apex Court that where a case rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 42/44 in the matter of State of UP vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava AIR 1992 SC 840 held that "This Court has time out of number, observed that while appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt".
In Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan 2011 (3) JCC 2117 it has been held that the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
41. Hence, all these short falls appearing in the story casts a serious shadow of suspicion, doubt and dent in the prosecution case as it has neither been able to prove the guilt of either of the accused persons either by direct or even by circumstantial evidence and that too beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both accused persons stand acquitted from the charges of the offences alleged to have been committed by them. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled and discharged. Original Documents of surety, if any be returned to its rightful claimant(s) after cancellation of endorsement on the same.
RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 43/44
42. File be consigned to record room after completion of other necessary formalities in this regard.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
TODAY ON 31.08.2013. CMM/SE/Saket Court/New Delhi.
RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 44/44