State vs . 1 Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary on 8 December, 2007

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1 Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary on 8 December, 2007

                         1



  IN THE COURT OF MS RAVINDER KAUR, ASJ,
               NEW DELHI 


              SC  No.    145/02
              SC  No.    66/02       


State         Vs.        1  Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary
                            S/o Sh Dharam Pal
                            R/o 1/3032, Ram Nagar 
                            Shahdara, Delhi 

                         2  Rajender Singh 
                            S/o Sh Shiv Raj Singh. 
                            R/o  B145 West Nathu
                            Colony, Shahdara, Delhi. 

                         3  Vikram Yadav 
                            S/o Sh.  Inder Singh 
                            R/o  951 Village  Bawana
                            Delhi. 



FIR No.   :   611/2001       FIR No.  :    261/2001
PS        :   Badarpur       PS       :   Seemapuri


U/s       :   120B/419/364A/186/353/307/302/        
              383/468/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act. 
                             2




                        JUDGMENT

1. The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 2122/11/01 DD No. 29A Ex. PW12/A was lodged by Mausmi Roy w/o Ratan Roy (now deceased) r/o C Block, Flat No. 60/Y2, Dilshad Garden at 1:15am through telephone to the effect that her husband Ratan Roy who had left the office of Schneider Electric India Pvt B1/I11, Mohand Co op. Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi at about 6/6:30pm had not reached home. She further informed that her brother in law TK Roy had told her from Vasant Kunj that he had received a ransom call. On receipt of the aforesaid DD SI Rahul Sahni alongwith Ct. Ashok Kumar proceeded to the spot and after conducting the relevant proceedings came to know that offence U/s 364A IPC was committed, as such he prepared the rukka 3 and sent the same for registration of the case, consequently case FIR No. 611/2001 was registered with PS Badarpur . During investigation he recorded statement of witnesses to the effect that at about 6:15pm Ratan Roy had left office in his self driven Car No. DL 3CS 9438. In the meantime SI Rahul Sahni received a telephonic information that one Rohit Kumar Bansal colleague of Ratan Roy had come to the PS. On this information SI went back to PS where he was informed by Rohit Kumar Bansal that his senior Romi Chopra had told him on telephone that Ratan had been kidnapped and kidnappers were demanding ransom and he was directed to inform in the PS. Thereafter SI Rahul Sahni verified from Dilshad Garden where a report was lodged in this regard and SI Brijmohan was investigating the matter. Rohit Kumar Bansal further informed him that the kidnappers were demanding 4 Rs. 10 lakhs and had asked Harmeek Singh a colleague of Ratan Roy to bring money at Mohan Nagar Chowk, Ghaziabad in Maruti car No. UP32 I 3894 and that he should come alone. Thereafter SI Rahul Sahni discussed the matter with Inspt. SS Malik who discussed the situation with the senior officers as well as SI Brijmohan and they both decided to meet at Maharajpur Chowk. Inspt. SS Malik alongwith SI Rahul Sahni the other staff members and complainant Rohit Kumar Bansal reached Noida Delhi border where Romi Chopra s/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Chopra r/o D86, Sector 27, Noida UP met them and informed that he was getting telephone calls on his phone from the phone of Ratan Roy so his phone was taken over by Rohit Kumar Bansal. Thereafter the police team reached Maharajpur Chowk where Harmeek Singh s/o Hardwari Singh and SI Brij Mohan alongwith his 5 staff met them. After discussion SI Brijmohan and his staff were instructed to sit in the car of Harmeek Singh whereas Inspt SS Malik alongwith his staff reached Mohan Nagar Chowk, Ghaziabad and took their position and stationed the car of Harmeek Singh at Mohan Nagar crossing. After some time Harmeek Singh informed on telephone to SI that he had received a telephone call from Ratan Roy and asked them to proceed towards Shahdara. This information was passed on to the Inspt SS Malik and they proceeded towards Shahdara. Harmeek Singh stationed his car on GT Road after crossing the border where as SI Rahul and Inspt. SS Malik alongwith the staff took their position in the surrounding area. After sometime Harmeek Singh informed SI Rahul that Ratan Roy had asked them to reach near GTB Hospital. This information was again passed on to Inspt SS Malik and they 6 proceeded towards GTB Hospital whereby Harmeek Singh was told to follow them in the end.

2. SI Rahul alongwith his staff took position around GTB Hospital . After sometime he was informed by Harmeek Singh on telephone that firing had taken place at Deepak Petrol Pump, GT road, which information was further passed on to Inspt. SS Malik. Thereafter both of them alongwith their staff reached Deepak Petrol Pump and came to know that after firing one Ford Icon and a Maruti Car had proceeded towards border, as such they also proceeded towards border but could not locate them. Thereafter they proceeded to GTB Hospital chowk where they came to know that Ford Icon had hit a rickshaw at GTB Chowk and had thrown a person out of the car who was identified as Rattan Roy and was removed by police of Dilshad Garden to GTB Hospital. So they all went 7 to the hospital and found that Rattan Roy was admitted in the hospital vide MLC No C4982/01. In the meantime Harmeek Singh and SI Brij Mohan alongwith staff reached there and SI Brij Mohan sent rukka to PS Seemapuri, consequently case FIR No. 261/01 U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC was registered at PS Seemapuri. SI Rahul recorded the statement of the witnesses. Thereafter SI Rajkumar alongwith staff from PS Seemapuri came there and alongwith SI Brij Mohan and SI Rahul proceeded for the investigation of case FIR No. 261/01 U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC to Deepak Petrol Pump, GT Road, Dilshad Garden. SI Rajkumar prepared siteplan and seized the case property vide seizure memo whereas SI Rahul recorded the statement of the witnesses and reached GTB Hospital where it revealed that Ratan Roy had been removed to Apollo Hospital. In the meantime SI Rajkumar 8 reached the hospital and collected the MLC of Rattan Roy. There he received the information that the Ford Ikon Car No. DL3CS 9438 was found parked in 100ft road, Arya Nagar, Opposite Loni within the jurisdiction of PS Loni Ghaziabad. At this SI Rajkumar and SI Rahul alongwith their respective staff reached carbon factory 100ft Road, Arya Nagar and found the aforesaid vehicle parked opposite gate of Mehboob Khaddi. Crime team was summoned at the spot which took the photographs and inspected the car and case property was seized. Thereafter SI Rajkumar alongwith the staff and case property left for PS Seemapuri whereas SI Rahul reached the house of deceased Rattan Roy where his wife Mausmi Roy was not in a fit state of mind to give statement. Thereafter he went to Apollo Hospital and found Rattan Roy in Operation Theatre. He recorded statement of witnesses, 9 collected the details of the mobile phone of Rattan Roy from the office of Airtel. On checking the details of the phone call it revealed that on 22/11/01 at 00.35.30 hrs the IMEI of the Sim card of Rattan Roy bearing No. 9810158032 which was 449125550757180 was changed to 449269200615380. SI Rahul verified the list of the numbers and recorded statement of witnesses. On 29/11/01 Rattan Roy died in Apollo Hospital. His postmortem was got conducted and dead body was handed over to the relatives. SI Rahul obtained the details of the phone call bearing IMEI No. 449269200615380 which revealed that it was operating on mobile No. 9810590140. IO verified the telephone numbers on which the calls were made and from which the calls were received on the aforesaid mobile number and addresses were also obtained. After the death of Ratan Roy Sec. 302 IPC was added in the FIR 10 and further investigation was handed over to Inspt. SS Malik who during the investigation recorded the statement of the witnesses, searched for the accused persons and collected the postmortem report whereby the cause of death was due to head injury caused by blunt force and all the injuries were found antemortem in nature. The list of mobile phone number 9810590140 was obtained from the Airtel office which revealed that it was in regular contact with few telephone numbers and a watch was kept on those numbers. With the permission of Home Ministry Inspt. SS Malik obtained parallel line to mobile number 9810590140 and this parallel line was obtained on mobile phone No. 9810657641. SI Rahul was deputed to hear the calls on the parallel line. On 15/12/01 accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary, Rajender Singh and Vikram Yadav were arrested on finding sufficient evidence against them. They all 11 confessed to their guilt vide their disclosure statements that they were in need of money, as such they planned to kidnap a rich person to extort money. They further disclosed that on 21/11/01 at about 7:30pm at Apsara border red light they saw a Ford Ikon coming from the side of Surya Nagar Flyover wherein there was only one person who was driving the vehicle. The moment vehicle crossed the red light and reached Dilshad Garden road, they stopped their motorcycle No. DL5SL 4176 which belonged to accused Neeraj, in front of the car. Accused Neeraj Kumar was wearing uniform of Sub Inspector and a blue colour wind cheater whereas Rajinder Singh was wearing jacket of Traffic police. Accused Neeraj asked the occupant of the car to show the documents of the car whereas accused Rajender asked him to show the dicky of the car. At this Neeraj sat on the driver seat and made 12 Rattan Roy sit at the rear seat. They parked the motorcycle in the GTB hospital parking and took the car towards Ghaziabad. They told Rattan Roy that he was kidnapped and they wanted Rs. 10 lakhs as ransom. They made Rattan Roy give a call to his family members and friends to arrange for money. They also withdrew Rs.30,000/ from his ATM Card. They further disclosed that they had asked for delivery of money at Mohan Nagar Chowk, Ghaziabad, thereafter Shahdara and again opposite GTB Hospital, through Rattan Roy on telephone. Further that in the meantime the battery of mobile phone of Rattan Roy was discharged, as such accused Rajender Singh used the SIM card of Rattan Roy in his phone. It was further disclosed that the petrol in the car had exhausted so the vehicle was taken to a petrol pump at GT Road and the moment they stopped the vehicle at Petrol 13 Pump one police official knocked at the window from the side where Vikram Yadav was sitting and on seeing the police they got perplexed and at this Vikram Yadav and Rajender Singh who were possessing country made revolvers started firing and police also fired at the car. Neeraj drove the car but the bullet of the police had hit Neeraj and Rattan Roy on his left arm. After reaching some distance the car hit a rickshaw and to get rid of police they threw Rattan Roy out of the moving car. After some distance Vikram Yadav and Rajender Singh got down of the car and out of Rs.30,000/ withdrawn from the bag Rs.10,000/ were kept by Rajender and 20,000/ by Neeraj whereas Vikram Yadav took two cheque books of Rattan Roy. Thereafter Neeraj parked the car at Loni Ghaziabad. Neeraj had thrown the knife in bushes in Loni. The katta was thrown by accused Rajender in the bushes near 14 GTB hospital and similarly accused Neeraj had thrown the jacket of traffic police in the bushes near the hospital. Accused Vikram Yadav had thrown katta in the drain at Dilshad Garden. The mobile phone of accused Rajender bearing No. 9810590140 with IMEI No. 449269200615383 was seized by the police and one Icard of the Delhi police bearing the photograph of accused Rajender with the name of Neeraj Kumar Ct PIS No. 28971478 was also seized from the possession of accused Rajender. The motorcycle No. DL 5 SL 4176 was also seized from the possession of accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary and he also got recovered Rs.11,500/, one khakhi colour uniform pant and shirt, one blue colour wind cheater, two flaps of SI Rank which were seized vide seizure memo. The wind cheater and khakhi uniform had two holes on the left arm and shoulder. At the instance of 15 accused Vikram Yadav two cheque books were also seized. All the three accused pointed out towards the place of occurrence and separate pointing out memos were prepared. Accused were got medically examined. The blood sample of accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary was got collected and seized by the police. The siteplan of the spot was prepared at the instance of the accused persons. The uniform shirt and the windcheater which was recovered from accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary was sent for forensic opinion. SI Rajkumar searched for country made pistol thrown by accused Vikram in the drain but it could not be recovered. Thereafter accused Neeraj Kumar was taken to Barot in UP by SI Rahul Sahni where he pointed out Murti Nursing Home from where he had got his treatment. At the instance of accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary from near H NO D 151 Inderpuri Loni 100ft Road near 16 drain of dirty water in the bushes a knife was recovered. At the pointing out of accused Rajender Singh a countrymade katta and one empty cartridge were recovered from the bushes near GTB hospital which were seized and their sketch were prepared. These were sent to CFSL for expert opinion. Investigation was also carried out regarding the ATM card of deceased Rattan Roy and the Icard of Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed to Court U/s 364A/ 302/419/468/471/ 34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act against accused persons vide FIR No. 611/01 PS Badarpur. Another chargesheet was filed U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC vide FIR No. 261/01 PS Seemapuri.

3. Both the charge sheets were clubbed together for the purpose of disposal. 17

4. Charge U/s. 120B /419 /364A /186/ 353/ 307 r/w Sec 34 and 302/ 383 r/w Sec 34 IPC were framed against all the accused persons.

5. Additional charge was framed U/s 25 Arms Act against accused Neeraj Kumar.

6. Additional charge U/s 27 Arms Act and Section 468 IPC was framed against accused Rajender Singh.

7. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 38 witnesses.

8. PW 1 Mausmi Roy is the wife of deceased Rattan Roy who testified that her husband was working in Schineider Electric India Limited at Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi. He was General Manager in the company and used to go in Ford Ikon. On 21.11.01 he left home for his office in his car. He used to return back by 8.30/9 pm but sometimes he used to 18 be late also. On that day she had received a telephone call from T K Roy, the elder brother of Rattan Roy, who informed her that he had received a telephone call from Rattan Roy on the day of the incident that he had been kidnapped. Thereafter this witness contacted Harmeek Singh PW 2 who was working in the office of Rattan Roy, to verify if Rattan Roy had left the office and when she was informed by him that he had left the office at 6.30 pm on that day she informed him about the telephone call received by her from Sh TK Roy. She testified that she also received a telephone call from Romi Chopra that kidnappers were demanding Rs. 10 Lacs. At 10.30 pm she had received a call from Rattan Roy that he was alright and was busy in office meeting and told her not to worry. Thereafter in consultation with others she lodged a report on telephone about 19 the kidnapping of her husband and was advised to report the matter to Badarpur PS as well. She further deposed that Romi Chopra told her that kidnappers had asked him to come with money all alone but Harmeek Singh insisted to accompany him. Thereafter she again received a call from Romi Chopra and he told her that kidnappers had agreed that Harmeek Singh may accompany him. She further testified that Harmeek Singh alongwith 2 police officials left her house and next day she received a telephone call from him that her husband was found and was admitted at GTB hospital. She further stated that he was shifted from GTB hospital to Apollo hospital where he died on 29/11/2001.

This witness was not cross examined by any of the accused persons despite opportunity given as such her testimony is deemed to be 20 admitted as correct by them.

9. PW 2 Harmeek Singh is the person who had accompanied the police alongwith money for handing over to the kidnappers. He testified that he was working in Scheinder Electric as Group Manager and Rattan Roy was his intimate boss. He further testified that on 21.11.01 Rattan Roy had attended the office as usual and had come there in Ford Ikon car which was purchased by him recently. This witness left the office on that day around 5 pm since he had to distribute the cards of the marriage of his sister. At about 9.15 pm he had received a call from Mrs Rattan Roy that he had not reached home, so he called the guard at his office and asked at what time Mr Roy had left the office, who told him that Rattan Roy had left the office in the evening. He passed on this information to Mrs. Roy, who told him that she had 21 received a call from TK Roy, the brother of Rattan Roy about kidnapping of Rattan Roy. On her request Harmeek Singh went to her house at about 10.15 pm or so and in his presence a call was received by Mrs. Roy from Romi Chopra who informed that he had received a call from Rattan Roy for ransom amount and they were calling him alongwith the amount at Mohan Nagar. He testified that Mrs. Roy then informed Dilshad Garden PS on telephone who advised her to inform PS Badapur also. At the instance of this witness Romi Chopra sent Rohit Bansal to PS Badarpur for registration of the case. He further testified that the police from Dilshad Garden came to the house of Mr. Roy and from there they proceeded to Maharaj Pur Chowk where Rohit Bansal alongwith SHO and SI from PS Badapur also reached. It was around 2.45/3 am in the night when they went to Mohan Nagar 22 and kept waiting at Mohan Pur crossing but nobody turned up. He stated that at that time he was possessing his own mobile and mobile of Romi Chopra which was handed over to him by Rohit Bansal as the calls from the kidnappers were being received on the said phone . It is further stated that he received a telephone call from kidnappers at Mohan Nagar crossing and he was asked to come to Shahdara Border, as such they all went there but again nobody turned up, though the police had taken its position. Again a call was received asking him to go towards GTB hospital. He stated that all others cars in which police officials were there, were moving ahead of his car and he drove his car in the company of 3 police officials. It is stated that when they turned towards GTB hospital he could see a Ford Ikon car coming and told the SI who was with him that it seemed to be of Mr 23 Rattan Roy. SI told him to reverse the car. When he reversed the car he saw the Ford Ikon car entering into nearby petrol pump station. He went near to the Ford Ikon car and all police officials came out of his car, after that he could just hear the firing sound. In order to save himself he ducked in his car. Thereafter police officials rushed into his car and told him to chase the said car. They followed the same and after sometime saw Ford Ikon car hitting some rickshaw wala and one man was thrown out of the car who was Mr Rattan Roy and the Ford Ikon was speeded up. They tried to chase it but could not. They again came back and then saw that Mr Rattan Roy was in GTB hospital under treatment. He was lateron shifted to Apollo hospital and died on 29.1l.01.

The testimony of PW2 Harmeek Singh during cross examination by Sh SP Kaushal counsel 24 for Vikram Yadav could not be shattered in any manner.

This witness was not cross examined at all on behalf of accused Rajender and Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary.

10. PW 3 TK Roy the elder brother of Rattan Roy deposed that on 21.11.01 he received a telephone call from his brother Rattan Roy between 8.30/9 pm who informed him that he was caught by CBI people and he should talk to them. Thereafter his brother gave cell phone to those persons who had caught him. During conversation they told him that they were not from CBI and had kidnapped his brother. When he told them that they were service class person and what were they expecting from them and they told him that he should not contact anyone and they would leave his brother around 10.30 pm. Thereafter he informed 25 the wife of his brother about the telephone call he had received. He further stated that he kept on receiving telephone calls from his brother with an interval of one hour approximately and every time his brother told him that he was OK and should not contact any person. He further testified that his brother was injured in the present case and was admitted in GTB hospital with head injury. Lateron he died on 29.11.01 at Apollo Hospital.

This witness was not cross examined by any of the accused persons.

11. PW 4 Santosh Kumar Jha, security guard with Schineider Electric India Limited deposed that he was working with the company on 21.11.01 and Rattan Roy ( now deceased) who was officer in the company had left the company at 6/6.15 pm in his Ford Ikon car.

This witness was cross examined only by 26 the counsel for accused Vikram Yadav, however his testimony could not be rebutted in any manner.

12. PW 5 Romi Chopra, was the Vice President Administration Schineider Electric India Limited who deposed that deceased Rattan Roy was working in the company as Regional General Manager ( Sales). He testified that on 21.11.01 he had received a telephone call from Rattan Roy at 9.30 pm and told him that he was in need of Rs. 10 lacs. When he told him that it was difficult to give him this much money and asked him when he wanted this money, he told him that he needed it immediately and thereafter the phone was disconnected. It is further stated that he telephoned Mr Deepak Sahni the boss of Mr Rattan Roy about his conversation with Rattan Roy who told him that he would check up with the house of Rattan Roy and let him know. The witness further 27 stated that he had asked Rattan Roy as to why he needed money but he did not give any specific reason and only requested for arranging money. It is stated that after sometime Deepak Sahni called him and told him that Rattan Roy was in trouble as he was kidnapped and this fact he came to know from Rattan Roy's house . Thereafter this witness gave a telephone call at the house of Rattan Roy where the fact of his kidnapping was confirmed. He stated that he was receiving calls regularly after about 15 minutes from Rattan Roy who was constantly enquiring if he was able to arrange money or not. He further stated that at the instance of Harmeek Singh he sent Rohit Bansal to PS Badarpur to lodge report about kidnapping of Rattan Roy. It is further stated that Rattan Roy was insisting on telephone that he should come with money for his release but he told him that he was 28 unable to arrange money. He further stated that he spoke to his friends and colleagues for arranging money and told Rattan Roy on phone that he would be able to arrang maximum of Rs. 4 to 5 lacs. Romi Chopra further stated that at about 2 O'clock in the night he received a call from Rohit that they were coming alongwith the police so he met them at Noida Delhi Border and he gave his mobile to Rohit as all the phone calls from Ratan were coming on his mobile. He stated that his cell phone was given to Harmeek afterward and thereafter he came back to his house. It is stated that in the morning he received a call from Rohit that Rattan Roy was found and was in GTB hospital in unconscious condition. He further testified that his mobile number at that time was 9811089860. It is stated that Rattan Roy was having an ATM card from ICICI Bank New Friends Colony and the salary 29 of Rattan Roy used to go to that account.

This witness was also not cross examined by any of the accused persons.

13. PW 6 Rajbir was posted as gunman at Deepak Petrol Pump Dilshad Garden in Nov 2001,. He testified that he used to perform night duty from 8 pm to 8 am and was on guard duty in the night of 21.11.01 and 22.11.01. At about 6 am a longish car came to their petrol pump for petrol and thereafter one maruti white car came there just after that and stopped behind the longish car. It is stated that some police officials got down from maurti car and firing took place. The rear wind screen and driver side window glass of the longish car broke down in the firing. It is stated that within 5/6 minutes the longish car sped away from the petrol pump and it was followed by Maruti Car. It is further stated that police came to the petrol 30 pump and took photographs of the broken glasses and cartridges lying there. Thereafter the broken glasses and empty cartridges were kept in parcels and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 6/A. The witness was shown the broken glasses in the Court contained in the sealed pulandas with the seal of RK which he deposed were picked up from the spot.

During cross examination he testified that at the petrol pump there were other workers also present at the time of incident. Further that two cars were at a distance of about 25 feet. He stated that all the police officials who were in Maruti car got down and fired at Longish car after taking position behind maruti car. He further stated that police did not go upto the longish car on foot. Further the glasses of longish car were tainted and were rolled up when the car stood at the petrol 31 pump and nothing was visible inside. He further stated that after the incident he left the petrol pump since his duty was over but he was again called back. It is stated that when the articles were being picked up by the police he saw one countrymade pistol cartridges and glasses being picked up.

The witness could not say if the bullet fire by police persons had struck any occupant of the longish car as he stated that he immediately ran for his own safety. He further gave the positions of the cars at the petrol pump by stating that longish car had stood near the pumping machine for petrol and maruti car was on the turning of petrol pump behind the longish car and was in slanting position. It is stated that police persons had not given any warning before started firing on the longish car.

14. Prosecution also examined Sandeep Sharma, friend of accused Rajender as PW7. He stated that he had mobile phone bearing NO 9810691713. It is further stated that he spoke to accused Rajender on his mobile phone on 14.12.01 as he had given his mobile number to him prior to 14.12.01. It is stated that on 14/12/01 he dialed the mobile number of the accused and on first dialing the connection was connected and he heard the voice 'Hello Hello'' of accused Rajender 34 times and thereafter Rajender disconnected the phone and this call was made at 8. 15 pm. He further stated that he again dialed his number but someone else picked up the phone and told that it was a wrong number. He further stated that police met him on 15.12.01 and he told the residential address of Rajender to the police.

During cross examination by the counsel 33 for accused Rajender he stated that police had not seized his mobile phone instrument. Further accused Rajender was not with them when police came to him on 15.12.01. It is stated that police came to him in the evening on 15.12.01 and enquired about Rajender.

14. PW 8 Ct Parveen is a formal witness who had taken the deadbody of the deceased at AIIMS hospital on 29.11.01 alongwith SI Rahul Sahani and Ct Anil Kumar from Apollo hospital for the postmortem.

15. PW 9 HC Charan Dass is a witness to recovery of countrymade pistol at the instance of accused Rajender. He testified that on 20.12.01 he joined the investigation of this case alongwith Ct Mukender, Ct Balwan and SHO PS Badarpur when accused Rajender, who was in police custody led them near GTB hospital after making disclosure that 34 he had thrown a country made pistol in the bushes near GTB hospital and got recovered a country made pistol from the bushes. The pistol was opened and was found containing empty cartridges, the sketch of both the pistol and cartridges were prepared and thereafter sealed in a cloth pulanda sealed with the seal of CDS and seal after use was given to Ct Balram. It is stated that after coming to PS the case property was deposited in the malkhana.

The witness was cross examined regarding the time the police party left the PS for recovery and about the non joining of the public persons in the investigation. He categorically stated that they had left the PS at 10.30 am and that people were coming and going on the road opposite the hospital. It is stated that there was no hawkers near the place where the accused had 35 pointed out and they were at some distance. He further stated that SHO had asked the public persons to join the investigation but none stopped and went away. He further stated that they were travelling in police vehicles which were stopped near the place where the accused had pointed out and that the place was open. He denied the suggestion and entire proceedings of recovery were fabricated or that accused did not get anything recovered or countrymade pistol was given by Seemapuri police and was planted upon the accused.

16. PW 10 Ct. Balwan Singh joined the investigation of this case on 15.12.01 and deposed that on that day he was a member of police team consisting of SHO , Addl. SHO, SI Rahul, SI Rajesh and 34 more staff members. On that day they had gone to Ashok Nagar Trans Yamuna Area. SHO was 36 having two mobile numbers. On that day firstly they had gone to the house of Sandeep Sharma and showed him the two mobile numbers who told them that one of the mobile number was his and other was of Rajender. SHO recorded the statement of Sandeep Sharma. After that they all went to the house of Rajender Sharma at Nathu Pura at the address given by Sandeep Sharma. At that time Rajender was present at home and was enquired about the mobile phone number and he had admitted that it was his mobile number. The witness further stated that one mobile phone was lying on the table at the house of accused Rajender which was having same cell number and the same was seized after it was sealed with the seal of RS. Seal after use was handed over to him. He further stated that on the same table one Delhi Police Icard Ex.P1 was lying bearing photograph of 37 accused Rajender and name of Neeraj Kumar which was also seized by the IO vide seizure memo EX PW 10/F. It is further stated that the disclosure statement EX PW 10/B of accused Rajender was recorded and thereafter he led the police to the house of Neeraj, his accomplice in Ram Nagar Shahdara where he was found present and was enquired about the case. He also made a disclosure statement EX.PW 10/D and got recovered one police uniform of khaki colour from his house and on the uniform flap of SI Delhi Police was there and there were also two holes on the shoulder of the shirt. He also got recovered one wind cheater of blue colour which was also having two holes. He further got recovered Rs. 11,500/ from his house and all these articles were sealed in parcel with the seal of RS were seized vide seizure memos EX PW 10/H, J and K respectively and seal after use was 38 handed over to him. He further testified that one Bullet motorcycle which was used in the crime and was parked in the verandah of the house of accused Neeraj Kumar Chuadhary was seized vide memo EX PW 10/L. He further testified that accused Neeraj and Rajender led them to accused Vikram their accomplice in the crime, at IG Stadium, Room No. 3 from where he was apprehended. On interrogation accused Vikram Yadav made disclosure statement Ex PW 10/M. He took out two cheque books in his almirah and handed over to the IO. It is stated that these cheque books belonged to deceased Rattan Roy and were sealed with the seal of RS and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 10/M. Seal after use was handed over to him. He further stated that all the three accused persons had pointed out the place where they had kidnapped Rattan Roy 39 vide pointing out memos Ex. PW 10/O, P and Q respectively.

This witness further testified that he had joined the investigation on 19.12.01 when accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary was on police remand. He had accompanied SI Rahul Sahani, Ct Pappu Rathi, Ct Mukender and accused who had made disclosure statement EX PW 10/D that he had received bullet injuries in this case treated from Barot. Accused Neeraj led the police party to Barot and after reaching there they recorded their arrival in PS Barot and took local police with them. Thereafter accused led them to Murti Nursing Home in Barot where Dr. Narender Singh met them. Enquiries were made from him by SI Rahul Sahani who informed that accused had visited his nursing home with bullet injuries and he was given first aid. It is stated that SI Rahul Sahani recorded his 40 statement and thereafter they all came back to Delhi and the accused led them to Loni Road where there is a 100 feet road and pointed out the place where he had thrown the knife as disclosed by him. It is stated that knife was got recovered by accused from the place pointed out by him. Thereafter its sketch was prepared and it was sealed in a cloth parcel with the seal of RS and seal was handed over to him. He proved the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary and the recovery memo Ex PW 10/E. PW10 Ct. Balwan Singh also joined the investigation in the present case on 20.12.1001 and to that effect has deposed on the lines of PW 9 HC Charan Dass that on 20/12/01 he alongwith Ct. Charan Das, Ct. Mukender and SHO took out Rajender from the lockup of PS as he had disclosed 41 that he had thrown the country made pistol used in the incident in the bushes near GTB Hospital, thereafter accused led the police party to GTB Hospital, where at a little distance from the hospital, he pointed out to the bushes where he had thrown the country made pistol. He proved the pointing out memo of accused Rajender as EX PW 10/A, The disclosure statement of accused as Ex PW 10/B, the seizure memo of countrymade pistol and cartridges as EX PW 10/C. This witness was cross examined at length by the counsel for accused Rajender and Neeraj regarding non joining of the public witnesses during the investigation, however he categorically stated that SHO did make efforts to join the public witnesses but none agreed and expressed their inability. He denied the suggestion that knife was not recovered at the instance of accused Neeraj or 42 that the country made revolver which was recovered at the instance of accused Rajender was planted upon him. He also denied the suggestion that accused Neeraj was lifted from his house alongwith his younger brother Vineet on 15.12.2001 or that no recovery was effected from their house. He also denied that Dr Narender Singh had told them that accused Neeraj had suffered accidental injuries or he gave papers relating to treatment of accidental injuries. This witness was not cross examined at all regarding his testimony that on 15.12.2001 he alongwith the police team had gone to the house of PW7 Sandeep Sharma at Ashok Nagar Trans Yamuna and from there they obtained the address of accused Rajender and went to his house and apprehended him and recovered mobile phone bearing No. 9810590140 or Icard Ex.P1 nor there was any cross examination regarding the time of 43 visit of police party to the house of Sandeep Sharma and to the house of accused Rajender.

Similarly there is no cross examination regarding the apprehension of accused Vikram from room No 3 IG Stadium .

Regarding the recovery of countrymade pistol and cartridge at the pointing out of accused Rajender on 20.12.01 he was cross examined at length by the defence counsel. However, his testimony remained unshattered and no material discrepancy could be pointed out in the testimony of this witness and PW 9 HC Charan Dass. Rather both the witnesses corroborated the statement of each other on all the material particulars. After that they came back to the PS and deposited the case property in the malkhana. He correctly identified the case property in the Court.

17. PW 11 RK Singh Noddle Officer, Bharti Cellular Limited testified that an application Ex. PW 11/A was made in their office by the IO and call details Ex. PW 11/B of Phone No. 9810158032 wef 20.11.01 to 23.11.01 were supplied to the IO. He stated that these call details are computerised from the computer maintained in their office in regular course of business. He further testified that another application Ex. PW 11/C was made by SI Rahul Sahani in the office seeking details of IMEI number of a particular instrument, the details supplied in this respect are Ex. PW 11/D which shows that same instrument was used on mobile No. 9810158032 and then 9810590140 . He further deposed that call ID chart Ex. PW 11/E shows the location of towers of their company. Further that ID given in the call chart is of four digits and first three digits show the cell ID.

During cross examination he testified that the call details are retained in the computer storage equipment for the last three years and it is not possible to tamper the software of the computer wherein the information remains.

18. PW 12 HC Vijay Singh was duty officer with PS Badarpur on the intervening night of 21/22 11/01 from 12 mid night to 8 am He stated that he recorded DD NO 29 A Ex. PW 12/A at 1.15 am on the basis of report made on telephone by one Mausmi Roy wife of Rattan Roy regarding missing of her husband and ransom call made by the kidnappers. He stated that at 2.15 am he received rukka recorded on the same DD No. 29A Ex.PW12/A and recorded FIR No. 611/01 Ex.PW12/B U/s 364 A IPC.

19. PW 13 SI Rajkumar had taken the accused persons to AIIMS hospital on 16.12.01 for medical 46 examination. He also remained associated in the investigation on 19.12.01 He testified that accused Vikram Rathi had made a disclosure statement to the effect that he could get recovered countrymade pistol from the place from where he had concealed it / thrown. He alongwith 3 constables was led by accused Vikram Rathi towards drain near Durga Puri which is called Nathu Colony and pointed out towards the place but nothing was recovered.

20. PW 14 SI Brij Mohan from PS Dilshad Garden testified that on the intervening night of 21/221101 he was given DD No 17A EX.PW 14/A concerning the kidnapping of a person and he reached C 16/2, Dilshad Garden where Mausmi Roy wife of Rattan Roy (the kidnapped) met him. One Harmeek Singh was also present in the house. Mausmi Roy told him that her husband was working with Mohan Cooperative Badarpur Border 47 had left the office at about 6 pm in his car but had not reached home and her brother in law TK Roy was receiving ransom call from the kidnappers . The witness told him that though the area from where her husband was kidnapped fell within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur but police of Dilshad Garden would also assist her as far as possible. Thereafter he spoke to SHO Badarpur from his mobile and appraised him of kidnapping. He also spoke to his own SHO and narrated the facts. He stated that he was directed by SHO PS Dilshad Garden to go to the SHO of PS Badarpur alongwith two constables and to work under his instructions. He stated that Harmeek Singh accompanied him to the PS Dilshad Garden in his car from where he took arms and ammunitions and Ct Vijender and Ct Ashok with him and made an entry for going to PS Badarpur. He gave a telephone call to SHO 48 Badarpur that they were proceeding and SHO Badarpur told him to meet him at Maharaj Pur Chowk. It is stated that they reached Maharaj Pur Chowk where SHO Badarpur SI Rahul, 23 constables and some more staff also reached. Harmeek Singh was having mobile phone of Romi Chopra, friend of Rattan Roy and on this mobile calls were received from kidnappers. He stated that while they were at Maharajpur Chowk a ransom call was received and Harmeek was called at Mohan Nagar Chowk. Thereafter SHO Badarpur briefed them that he shall accompany Harmeek Singh and ransom money would be given by Harmeek Singh under his vigilance. This witness alongwith 2 constables proceeded towards Mohan Nagar Chowk alongwith Harmeek Singh in his car, whereas SHO Badarpur and his staff were in a Gypsy and a car. It is stated that he alongwith 49 Harmeek Singh and two constables waited at Mohan Nagar Chowk while SHO Badarpur and others concealed their vehicles and took position. They waited for sometime but none turned up. In the meantime battery of Harmeek Singh's mobile was discharged. So Harmeek Singh transferred / diverted the calls on the mobile of this witness. After sometime they received a call from kidnappers from Apsra Border so they went there and waited for quite sometime but again none turned up. While they were waiting at Apsra Border a call was received from the kidnappers to reach opposite GTB hospital. Thereafter they proceeded to GTB hospital. Vehicle of SHO was leading while car of Harmeek Singh in which they were travelling was in the end. When they were proceeding towards GTB hospital and turned from Deepak Automobile Petrol Pump a car of golden 50 colour was seen coming from opposite side. It's front number plate had been broken. Harmeek Singh after seeing the car told him that it looked as of Rattan Roy as colour of the car of Rattan Roy was also golden. He told Harmeek Singh to stop the car and looked back and found golden car turning in the petrol pump so Harmeek Singh reversed the car in back gear upto the petrol pump. It is stated that number plate on the back side of the car was of Rattan Roy. He told Harmeek Singh to take his car in front of that car but that car took turn at petrol pump and it stood near the pumping machine of petrol pump taking U turn so Harmeek Singh's car could not go in front of the same so he stopped his car behind the golden car. It is further stated that after Harmeek Singh stopped the car he told the staff to surround the car and he would get the occupants of the golden car down. He stated 51 that the car was Ford Ikon of golden colour bearing No. DL 3CS 9438. Further that he went to the left side window of the car which was slightly open to call the persons down the car and while he was telling them to come down but before he could complete the sentence somebody from inside the car fired. By the time he could reach for his pistol another fire took place from inside the car. Thereafter he fired into the car but the person of the left side of the car ducked down. He stated that person on the driver seat was wearing blue colour jacket. Further, that due to his firing the left side front window glass broke down. Thereafter the driver of ford Ikon car immediately sped away the car towards the direction from which they had come. At this, he told his constable to fire at the tyre of the car who fired two rounds. He himself also fired another round. It is stated that initial 52 two rounds which he had fired struck the person who was driving the car but the round which were fired lateron by the constable and him did not strike the tyre but they struck the car. It is further stated that then they sat in the car of Harmeek Singh and told him to chase the car. After that Ford Ikon car met with an accident with a cartpuller at GTB Road and they threw somebody from the car. Harmeek Singh on seeing this told that the person thrown out of the car seems to be Rattan Roy. So they stopped their car near that person and found it was Rattan Roy who had injuries on the back side of his head and on the left arm. HC Munshi Lal of PS Dilshad Garden had reached the spot as PS was just opposite the place where Rattan Roy was thrown out of the car and this witness told him to get Rattan Roy admitted in the hospital and he himself went to 53 chase Ford Ikon car but could not traced it. It is further testified that thereafter they came to GTB hospital and collected MLC of Rattan Roy. This witness prepared rukka EX PW 14/B regarding the incident of firing by the occupants of Ford Ikon car on him through Ct Ashok Kumar for registration of the case. He further stated that SI Rajkumar of PS Seemapuri came to GTB hospital alongwith Ct. Ashok Kumar and Ct Ramesh and handed over the MLC of Rattan Roy to him. Thereafter SI Rajkumar alongwith the witness and other persons went to Deepak Automobile Petrol Pump . SI Rahul Sahani and other staff of Badarpur also reached the petrol pump. SI Rajkumar prepared the siteplan of the petrol pump at his instance. The photographer reached the spot and took photographs, statement of photographer was recorded. The broken glasses of car of Rattan Roy and spent cartridges were 54 found which were seized vide seizure memo EX PW 6/A by SI Rajkumar in a sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of RK. SI Rajkumar recorded his statement. He further testified that on 13.12.01 SI Rajkumar seized the service revolver of this witness and the Ct revolver used by Ct Ashok Kumar from MHC(M) vide seizure memo EX PW 14/A. He further stated that on 24.12.01 accused persons were brought for medical examination to GTB hospital and he identified all the 3 accused in the hospital and told that accused Rajender was sitting with Rattan Roy on back seat while accused Neeraj was on the driving seat and accused Vikram was sitting adjoining to Neeraj on the front seat.

During cross examination he stated that he had not mentioned that he was knowing the occupants of the car from before nor he gave the description nor he mentioned that he could 55 identify them if shown to him. He further stated that he did not remember if in rukka he had recorded that when he fired from left side the person sitting on left side ducked down. He further stated that it is mentioned in the rukka that he fired from the left side and bullet after breaking the window pane went into the car and the second fire was also done aiming at the left widow pane of the car. It is stated that when he saw the car at the PS its left side widow pane was lying broken and its rear wind screen was not broken. He could not say that the person who was thrown out of the moving car had injury on his head and arm and that these were bullet injuries. He categorically stated that when car was at the petrol pump and firing incident had taken place Rattan Roy was seen by him on the left side of the rear seat. He further stated that at that time he did not know as to who 56 was victim out of the four persons present in the car and that every thing happened just in seconds at the petrol pump. Regarding the presence of guard at the petrol pump, he sated that he was nowhere near the car as by the time Ford car had reached the pump they also reached behind it and persons in the Ford car could not call any pump employee to fill the car. He stated that guards were however on the right side away from the car and not in front of the car. Regarding the colour of the glasses of the car he stated that he did not remember if they were tainted or not. However at the same time he stated that left window pane of the car was 1/4th open. He further stated that he had told the IO on the day of the incident when his supplementary statement was recorded that he could identify the occupants of the car and had also given their description. He 57 admitted that in the rukka the fact that window pane of the car was slightly opened is not recorded. He further stated that he had not recorded in rukka that the bullet fired by him had hit the driver or not. He also denied the suggestion that a countrymade pistol was recovered from the petrol pump. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW 14/DA regarding his testimony in chief examination where he stated that Rajender was sitting with Rattan Roy at the back seat and Vikram was sitting adjoining Neeraj on the front seat, whereas in his statement Ex.PW 14/DA it is mentioned that Rajender was in the car and regarding accused Neeraj it is mentioned that he was driving the car. The witness denied that he was aware of the date of arrest of the accused persons or that he was aware that they were arrested on 15/12/01 and their photographs appeared in TV and newspapers 58 on 16.12.01. He also denied that he wrongly identified the accused persons as occupants of the car chased by them or that the accused persons were not the occupants of the car or that he had not seen any of the accused persons in the car as it had tainted glasses.

21. PW15 Ct Ashok Kumar No. 1268 is a witness to the same effect and deposed on the lines of PW 14 SI Brij Mohan. He further stated that he was given rukka EX PW 14/G by SI Brij Mohan which he took to PS Seemapuri for registration of the case as the petrol pump where the incident of firing had taken place fell in PS Seemapuri and he got the FIR registered. Thereafter SI Rajkumar and Ct Ramesh Kumar visited GTB hospital and from there all of them came to Deepak Petrol Pump where SI Rajkumar prepared siteplan at the instance of SI Brij Mohan. From the spot in his presence 59 broken glasses were sealed in a cardboard carton sealed with the seal of RK and one spent cartridge was also found at the spot which was also sealed with the seal of RK and seized. He further stated that he handed over two spent cartridges to SI Rajkumar from his service revolver which was sealed with the seal of RK and were seized vide seizure memo Ex PW 15/A. He identified the broken glasses seized from the spot collectively as Ex..P9 and the empty cartridge as EX.P10. Two empty cartridges which he had handed over to SI Rajkumar from his service revolver are identified by him as Ex P1 and P 12. He categorically stated that at the petrol pump there was sufficient light as it was having a sound lighting. He further stated that the person who were in the Ford Ikon were seen by him at the petrol pump when exchange of firing had taken place. He further identified accused 60 Rajender as sitting on the rear seat, accused Neeraj was driving the car and accused Vikram was on the seat adjoining the driver.

This witness during cross examination was confronted with his statement EX PW 15/DA regarding the side of car from where SI Brij Mohan had approached the Ford Ikon as in his chief examination stated that SI Brij Mohan had gone to the car from its left side whereas in his statement EX PW 15/DA it is the driver side of the car which is mentioned. The witness further stated during cross examination that front window pane of the car had broken down due to the firing by SI Brij Mohan. He further stated that the glasses of the car were not tainted but were plain. As stated by SI Brij Mohan that it was a matter of few seconds, this witness also stated that firing had taken place in 1517 seconds. He denied that his bullet had 61 struck the rear wind screen as deposed by PW6 Rajvir. He admitted that he had not given the description of the occupants in his statement to the IO nor he stated that he could identify them. He also admitted that he had not stated in his statement U/s 161 Cr PC that the persons who were in Ford Ikon were seen by him during exchange of fire. He admitted that it is for the first time in the Court he told which accused was sitting where in the Ford Ikon. He denied the suggestion that a country made pistol was seized apart from broken glasses and spent cartridge from the petrol pump. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the occupants of the Ford Ikon car or that he had identified the accused persons at the instance of the IO. He categorically stated that he had not seen the photographers of the accused persons either in TV or in newspapers.

22. PW 16 HC Surender Kumar testified that on 11.3.02 on the instructions of ASI Rahul Sahani he had gone to Sheikh Saria Authority to find out the ownership of car No. DL 3CS 9438 and as per the record it was found registered in the name of Schneider Electrics Pvt Limited . He collected the computerised slip EX PW 16/A in this regard. This fact is not disputed by the accused persons.

He further testified that at the instance of ASI Rahul Sahani he went to IG Stadium, to find out if Vikram Yadav was living there or not. There he met Mr. Rochque who informed that Vikram Yadav son of Inder Singh of Village Bhawana was staying in hostel room No J 3. He further stated that hostel belongs to Sport Authority of India and he was practising boxing but on that day he was not available in his hostel . He further proved the writing EX.PW 16/B in this regard given to him by 63 Rochque Dyes, Dy Director which he handed over to ASI Rahul Sahni lateron.

This witness was not cross examined by the counsel of any of the accused persons as such his testimony that accused Vikram Yadav was staying in room No. J3 of the hostel is deemed to be correct.

23. PW 17 HC Rambir deposed that SI Rahul Sahani had approached his office on 15.2.2002 to verify I card NO 0081531 EX P l in the name of Neeraj Kumar Ct and after verifying the record he informed SI Rahul Sahani that it was issued on 24/8/98 in the name of Ct Neeraj Kumar PIS NO 28971478.

During cross examination he testified that the photograph of the person to whom the card was issued was not on the record, therefore he could not say on seeing the photo on EX P l as to 64 whether it was of accused Neeraj Kumar or not.

24. PW 18 Ct Narveer Singh is a formal witness who had accompanied the IO and the other staff to Patiala House Court for TIP of the accused persons and had also accompanied them to AIIMS for their medical examination. He had collected the blood sample of accused Neeraj Chaudhary alongwith the sample seal from the doctor and handed over to the IO vide seizure memo EX PW 18/A.

25. PW 19 is Dr Narender Kumar who had treated accused Neeraj Chaudhary for his injuries at his Nursing Home run in the name of Murti Nursing Home Nehru Road Barot. He testified while pointing out towards accused Neeraj Chaudhary that he had come to his nursing home about 8/10/12 months ago as the date he did not remember. He stated that he was having injuries 65 on his chin and shoulder. He stated that he did not lodge any report with the police since accused had told him that a quarrel had taken place between him and his brother and he had received injuries in the quarrel. It is stated, after he gave him first aid and dressed the wound he told him to go. The witness was put a leading question with the permission of the Court to the effect that he had treated Neeraj Chaudhary in Nov. 2001 to which he replied it is quite possible.

During cross examination the witness could not tell whether the injuries were minor or major. He could not even say it was a burn injury or bullet injury or whether the accused had visited in the second week of Nov 2001 or on the next day of Diwali.

26. PW 20 Sh Ashish Hariok manager ICICI Bank produced the statement of account of account 66 No. 004601025195 EX PW 20/A of Rattan Roy with ICICI Bank. He also produced the record showing withdrawal of money from the aforesaid account on ATM Card on 21.11.01 and 22.11.01 which is EX PW 20/B. He stated that this record was taken from computer which maintains the record in normal course of business as there has been no alteration or addition in the computer programme. He testified that as per the record a sum of Rs. 15000/ was withdrawn on 21.11.01 from ATM of the bank at Preet Vihar Branch ie at Sincere Tower, 4, Preet Vihar Community Center at 2258 hours. He further stated that another amount of Rs. 15000/ was withdrawn from ATM of Krishan Nagar at B1 Lal Quarter on 22.11.01 at 00. 36 hours. The computer print outs reflecting the ATM withdraws are proved on record as Ex.PW20/C, D and E respectively.

27. PW 21 Sh SK Khanna manager Canara 67 Bank produced the the statement of account No. 10462 held by Rattan Roy with Canara Bank which is EX PW 21/A. He also produced the register showing issuance of cheque book to the customer. He stated that cheque book containing cheque NO 902531 902540 was issued to Rattan Roy by the bank holding account NO. 10462 on 14.7.2001. He proved the relevant entry to that effect in the register as EX PW 21/B.

28. PW 22 Ct Mukender Kumar is a formal witness who had taken one sealed parcel from malkhana of PS Badarpur to FSL Malviya Nagar vide RC NO 14/21 to deposit the same but it was returned by the FSL and he handed over back to MHC(M)

29. Postmortem on the deadbody of the deceased was conducted by Dr Amar Nath but since he had left the services of the hospital, as 68 such PW 23 Dr. Varun Dixit appeared as a substitute doctor to prove the postmortem report since he was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Amar Nath. He proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW 23/A. He testified that on the examination of the deadbody of the deceased who found following injuries on the person of the deceased:

1 Surgically made curvilinear stitched wound over the left parieto temporal region, 18 cm in length.

2 Surgically made wound in the front of neck, 3 cm in length (tracheostomy).

3 Stitched wounds on the lateral aspect of the left arm, 11 cm in length and on the medial aspect of the left arm 2.5cm in length, partially communicating with each other through muscle layers, not involving underlying bone. 69 4 Slight bruising on the right upper gluteal region laterally.

5 Missing piece of bone in an area 9 am x 8 cm in the left parietotemporal area of skull query surgically made. Brain matter was oozing out through underlying torn dura.

He stated that cause of death was coma due to head injury caused by blunt force. He further opined that all the injuries were antemortem.

This witness was cross examined at length. He admitted that in the document Ex. PW 23/B & C ie the death certificate and the MLC of the deceased Ratan Roy there is reference of bullet injury. He further admitted that in the opinion about the cause of death there is no mention of fire arm injury and he could not say if injury No. 3 could have been initially caused by fire arm. 70 Perusal of injury No. 3 shows that it is a stitched wound on the lateral aspect of left arm 11 cm in length and on medial aspect on the left arm 2.5 cm partially communicating with each other. He stated that when postmortem was conducted this injury was surgically stitched. He further stated that Injury No. 3 was properly described in the postmortem report. He also categorically stated that injury No. 3 could not cause death.

30. PW 24 Ct Ashok Kumar NO 3262 was partly examined and was dropped by the State.

31. PW 25 HC Krishan Lal is a formal witness with whom the case property was deposited in the malkhana vide entry Ex.PW 25/A in the DD register and was sent to FSL.

32. PW 26 SI Rahul Sahani of PS Badarpur deposed on the lines of PW Harmeek Singh and SI Brij Mohan. He further deposed that while they 71 were going towards GTB hospital on receipt of call of the kidnappers they told Harmeek Singh to follow them in his vehicle and that they would go to GTB hospital first and then would take their position. He stated that Harmeek Singh's car was last in the row and when they reached GTB hospital they received a call from Harmeek Singh that firing had taken place at petrol pump so they rushed to Deepak Petrol Pump and learnt that firing had taken place between the occupants of Ford Ikon and the occupants of maruti car of Harmeek Singh and that both the cars had gone towards border. He further testified that they searched for them but they could not trace the cars. When they reached GTB hospital they learnt that Ford Ikon had hit a rickshaw and had thrown out a person while running from there. He further stated that the person who was admitted in GTB 72 hospital, was identified as Rattan Roy. When they were in the hospital, SI Brij Mohan, his staff and Harmeek Singh also reached there and told him that Ford Ikon succeeded in escaping after crossing the border. He further stated that SI Brij Mohan sent a rukka to PS Seema Puri regarding incident of firing at Deepak Petrol Pump. He recorded the statements of Harmeek Singh, SI Brij Mohan and his staff. Then SI Rajkumar of PS Seemapuri reached there with the copy of FIR and he investigated the firing incident being IO of that case. He alongwith SI Brij Mohan and SI Rajkumar went to Deepak Petrol Pump. There SI Raj Kumar prepared siteplan and seized the evidential material. He recorded the statement of gunman Rajbir and came back to GTB hospital and after sometime an information was received that Ford Ikon involved in the crime was standing at Arya Nagar Loni. He alongwith 73 SHO and SI Rajkumar went there where car was standing. SI Raj Kumar called crime team and got the car inspected. He thereafter went to house of Mausmi Roy w/o Rattan Roy, who was not in a position to make any statement due to kidnapping of her husband. Then he alongwith Ct Ashok went to Apollo Hospital where he recorded the statement of Rohit Kumar Bansal. Rattan Roy (now deceased) was declared unfit for statement, so he came back to PS alongwith Ct Ashok Kumar, whose statement was recorded there.

PW26 SI Rahul Sahni further stated that on 23.11.01 he obtained the call details of telephone of Rattan Roy from Airtel. On checking the call details he learnt that after 12 midnight the IMEI No. of the cellphone had changed and IMEI No. used thereafter was not currently being used by anybody for making call. Rattan Roy died on 74 29.12.2001 without making any statement. He prepared the inquest papers which are Ex.PW 26/B1 to B4 respectively. He got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Rattan Roy. He further stated that he had been in touch with Airtel Company about the IMEI No which was later used by the kidnappers and after few days he learnt that the instrument having the IMEI NO 449269200615380 was now being used.

Thereafter details of call being made by instrument having same IMEI NO 449269200615380 were obtained vide document Ex.PW 11/DA. From the call details of this instrument they came to know about some phone numbers of Ram Nagar, Ashok Nagar and Shahdara and they started keeping watch on these numbers. Then on 5.12.2001 SHO moved an application for taping conversion of these telephone on parallel lines. With the 75 permission of competent authority he obtained the parallel lines on the aforesaid telephones. On 14.12.2001 at about 8.15 pm a call was received with IMEI number of cellphone No. 9810590140 and from the location chart they learnt that phone was now in Shahdara. The call details of this phone number were obtained from the cell phone company from 3.12.01 to 14.12.01 which are Ex.PW 26/C1 to C8 respectively. He also obtained the details of the cellphone who had called the above cell phone number on 14.12.01. In the call details of that cellphone there was one house telephone No of landline which was already under their watch. The said landline number was 2111031 as shown in EX.PW 26/C7.

He further stated that on 15.12.2001, the house having this landline in Ashok Nagar was raided where one Sandeep Sharma met who was 76 enquired about mobile NO 9810691713 from which telephone calls were made to the other mobile number. Sandeep Sharma informed that mobile No. 9810691713 was his mobile and on enquiry as to whom he had made call on mobile No. 9810590140 he disclosed that phone No 9810590140 was of Rajender, who was living in the same locality at some distance and also gave his address. Then they all went there and accused Rajender was found there. There one mobile phone was lying on the table. On checking the same it was found that the IMEI No. was same which was used by kidnappers on the day of kidnapping after 12 midnight. The cell phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW 10/F. One I card Ex.P1 of Delhi police having name of Neeraj Kumar and photograph of Rajender was also recovered, which was seized vide memo EX PW 10/G. Disclosure statement of accused Rajender 77 Ex.PW 10/B was recorded, wherein he disclosed the names of two of his accomplices namely accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary and Vikram Yadav. Then accused Rajender led them to the house of Neeraj at Ram Nagar from where accused Neeraj was apprehended and his disclosure statement Ex.PW10/C was recorded, whereby he got recovered Rs. 11,500/ as part amount, which they had withdrawn on the night of kidnapping from ATM of Rattan Roy using card of Rattan Roy, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 10/J. Thereafter accused Neeraj also got recovered one motorcycle which was used in the crime, which was seized vide memo Ex PW 10/L. Accused Neeraj also got recovered one khaki uniform from his almirah as well as one wind cheater having holes of bullet and two flaps of SI of Delhi Police which were seized vide memo Ex.PW 10/K. 78 Thereafter accused Neeraj and Rajender took them to IG Stadium from where accused Vikram Yadav was apprehended and his disclosure statement Ex PW 10/M was recorded. Accused Vikram Yadav got recovered two cheque books from his almirah, one cheque book was of ICICI Bank and other was of Canara Bank which were seized vide memo Ex.PW 10/N. Thereafter on the pointing out of all the three accused persons siteplan Ex.PW26/D of the place at Apsara Border where they had stopped the car of Ratan Roy, was prepared. Thereafter their PC remand was obtained. On 18.12.2001 accused Neeraj was medically examined and his blood sample was got preserved.

Thereafter on 19.12.2001 PW26 SI Rahul Sahni alongwith his staff went to Barot where accused Neeraj got himself treated for the bullet wound which he received in the encounter at 79 Deepak Petrol Pump. They went to Murti Nursing home where Dr. Narender Kumar met and his statement was recorded. On the way while coming back they stopped at Indra Puri 100 feet road Loni as accused Neeraj had disclosed that he had thrown there the knife used in the crime. At the instance of accused a knife was recovered from the bushes on the roadside, its sketch was prepared vide memo EX.PW 26/E and seized vide memo Ex PW 10/H. It is stated that thereafter they came back and deposited the case property in malkhana and statements of witnesses were recorded.

This witness was cross examined at length by counsel for all the accused persons regarding the arrest of accused Vikram, non joining of the public witnesses at the time of his arrest, regarding recovery of the exhibits from the spot ie the petrol pump lifting of blood on the steering and the 80 footmat and regarding the arrest and recovery from accused Neeraj and Rajender.

33. PW 27 Dr Deepak Vats from Apollo hospital produced the treatment record of deceased Mr. Rattan Roy which is collectively Ex.PW 27/A. He also stated that death certificate of the deceased Ex.PW 23/B was issued by Dr. RP Basia.

34. PW 28 Ranbir, Record Clerk ST Authority produced the record of ownership of Ford Ikon Car No DL 3CS 9438 to the effect that it was registered in the name of Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd.

35. PW 29 KK Nagpal the draftsman prepared the scaled siteplan EX PW 29/A of the site i.e where the deceased Rattan Roy was kidnapped.

36. PW 30 SI Mukesh Kumar of PS Murad Nagar District Ghaziabad was joined in the investigation of this case on 19.12.2001 when SI Rahul Sahni alongwith other staff from Delhi 81 visited him and he accompanied them to Moti Nursing Home in Barot.

37. PW 31 Mr. Rochque Dias deposed that accused Vikram present in the Court was living in the hostel room in IG Stadium. He stated that the police had visited the hostel one day in the early morning and took him away from the hostel room.

38. PW 32 Inspt. SS Malik the then SHO PS Badarpur joined the investigation of this case on 30.11.01 . He is a witness to the arrest of accused Rajender, Neeraj and Vikram Yadav and recovery at their instance He deposed on the lines of PW 26 SI Rahul Sahani. He proved the disclosure statement of accused Rajender as EX PW 32/A. He further proved the seizure memo of the cell phone and I card recovered from the possession of accused Rajender as Ex.PW 32/B and Ex.PW32/C respectively. 82 He proved the sketch of the pistol recovered at the instance of accused Rajender as Ex.PW32/D and the seizure memo of the pistol and the cartridge as Ex.PW 32/E. He further proved the seizure memo of the articles recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj Kumar ie one uniform wind cheater, two flaps of the rank of SI, motorcycle make Bullet and Rs. 11,500/ from his house vide Ex PW 32/F to H respectively. The two cheque books of deceased Rattan Roy recovered from the possession of accused Vikram Yadav were seized vide memo EX PW 32/G as per the testimony of this witness. He had obtained report regarding the blood group of accused Rajender which is EX PW 32/J (wrongly typed as Ex PW 32/A). He identified the case property before the Court correctly ie I card Ex.P1, country made pistol Ex.P2, an empty cartridge Ex.P3, mobile phone Ex.P5, cash amounting to Rs. 11,500/ 83 collectively Ex.P6, two cheque books Ex.P7 & P8, uniform shirt Ex.P13, pant Ex.P14, wind cheater Ex.P15 and the flaps Ex.P16/12.

( The recovery memos of these articles were already exhibited in the testimony of PW 10 as Ex PW 10/C to K respectively. )

39. This witness was also cross examined by the counsel for all the accused persons . He admitted during cross examination that there were bullet injuries on the person of deceased Rattan Roy, however, he did not try to know how he had received bullet injuries. He testified that the cause of death of deceased Rattan Roy was brain haemorrhage due to injuries. He further testified that he came to know that police had fired at the car in which victim was travelling but he did not seize the weapons of the police used in firing and stated that separate case was registered at PS 84 Seemapur regarding firing at the police officials from the inmates of the car. He stated that Rattan Roy had received injury because he was thrown out of the moving car. He admitted that the fire arm allegedly used by one of the accused was recovered but he did not try to find out if the bullet was fired by countrymade pistol which had hit the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he came to know conclusively that the bullet which hit the deceased was fired from the service revolver or did not investigate this aspect to shield the police officials.

This witness was also cross examined regarding interception of the telephone and regarding the arrest of accused Rajender He stated that accused Rajender was arrested at 12.30 pm. He admitted that on 15.12.01 they had come to know from where he could get recovered the 85 countrymade pistol but did not proceed to recover the same, and he voluntarily stated that they did not do so since other accused were to be arrested or they would have run away. He stated that accused Vikram was arrested at 3.45 pm and that all the accused were arrested till 5 pm He stated that accused Neeraj Kumar was having injury on his neck and all the accused were got medically examined on 16.12.01. He denied the suggestion that the weapons were planted upon the accused and false disclosures were prepared and lateron weapons were shown to have been recovered on 19.12.01. He also denied the suggestion that country made pistol was recovered from the place of cross firing by the staff of PS Seemapuri which was lateron planted in this case. He also denied that the I card, currency notes, mobile and jackets were planted upon the accused persons or that records 86 were manipulated to create evidence against the accused persons. He categorically stated that at the time of arrest of accused Neeraj his wife, father and brothers were present but they refused to join the proceedings and even neighbourers refused.

Regarding the arrest of accused Vikram Yadav he stated in cross examination that he had reached the hostel at about 3:30 pm. He admitted that he had not seen any record that the said room from where accused was arrested was allotted to whom.

40. PW 33 ACP Mohd Irshad Haider proved his complaint U/s 195 Cr PC in case FIR No.261/01 PS Seemapuri as EX PW 33/A.

41. PW34 RB Singh the then MM Karkardooma Court conducted TIP proceedings of all the accused persons on 24.12.2001 but they refused to participate in the proceedings. He 87 proved his order on the application moved by the IO for conducting TIP proceedings as EX PW 34/A and the proceedings as EX PW 34/B.

42. PW 35 Dr Anil Das from GTB hospital proved the MLC of deceased Rattan Roy as EX PW 35/A. He testified that on 22.11.2001 at about 6 am he had examined Rattan Roy at GTB hospital and found the following injuries on his person:

1. A round lacerated wound approximately 1.5 cm in diameter on the inner aspect of the left arm and similarly over outer aspect, where there was blackening but no sinzing and no tattooing

2. Also there was swelling and tenderness over head 34 cm in diameter.

43. PW 36 SI Rajkumar investigated case FIR 261/01 U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC PS Seemapuri. It is testified that during investigation he prepared the siteplan EX PW 36/A at the instance of SI Birj 88 Mohan. He got the scene of crime photographed vide Mark A l to A 6. He further testified that he made efforts to search the car involved in this case. At 2.30 pm on 22.11.01 he received information from PP Indra Puri that car No. DL 3 CS 9438 make Ford Ikon was stationary near carbon factory 100 ft road Arya Nagar . He alongwith one Constable went there and seized the car vide memo Ex PW 36/B. On inspection of the car a bullet mark was found on the dikky of the car and window glass of left front side was found broken. Further he noticed blood stains on the steering of the car. He stated that the senior officers and the crime team had reached the spot. Photographer was also summoned there who took photographs of the car Mark A 7 to A 14. He lifted the blood from the steering of the car vide memo EX PW 36/C. Further that bullet leds were seized from the car vide memo Ex 89 PW 36/D . The broken pieces of glass and an empty shell were seized from the spot vide memo Ex PW 6/A . He further conducted the search of the car and found mobile and one diary which were seized vide memo EX PW 36/B. He stated that he also seized pistol and revolver from MHC(M) from PS Dilshad Garden vide memo Ex PW 14/C. He also searched for the accused persons and on 20.12.2001 he received a message from PS Badarpur that accused persons were arrested so he formally arrested them in case FIR No. 261/01 PS Seemapuri vide memo ExPW36/D1 to D3. He further proved the application EX PW 36/E moved by him before the concerned MM for conducting TIP of the accused persons.

During cross examination he admitted that police officials did not receive any injuries at the hands of the accused. He further stated that 90 the abducted person was admitted in the hospital as he had received injuries. He stated that he obtained his MLC and found that he had having head injury and perhaps he was having bullet injury on one of his hand but he did not try to find out as to how he had received bullet injury.

44. Regarding the testimony of PW6 Rajbir the guard at Deepak Petrol Pump, PW36 SI Rajkumar stated during cross examination that he was present at the spot when he went there and told him regarding the position of the site . He further stated that he did not lift desi katta from the spot at the pointing out of Rajbir or that he did not seize the same formally to plant it subsequently. He denied that there was any news about the arrest of the accused persons on TV or newspapers.

45. PW 37 KC Varshney had examined the country made pistol of .315 bore recovered at the 91 instance of accused Rajender and one fired cartridge of the same bore. He testified that the pistol was found in working order and the test fire was conducted successfully and that the fired cartridge was fired from this pistol and both the articles fell within the definition of Arms and Ammunitions. He proved his report Ex PW 37/A. He further testified that on 2nd April 2002 seven parcels all sealed with the seal of RR except parcel No 7 which was sealed with the seal of RS was received in the laboratory for testing in connection with FIR No 261/01 of PS Seemapuri. The parcels contained exhibits as detailed in his report. He further testified that he examined all these arms and ammunitions and found the pistol and revolver in working condition. He also testified that BC 1 had been fired from pistol F1 and EC 2 and EC 3 had been fired from revolver F2, EV 1 92 had been fired through pistol F1 and that the arms and ammunitions examined by him in this case also fell within the definition of arms and ammunition as defined under the Arms Act and proved his report to this effect as Ex.PW 37/B.

46. PW 38 Dr Manish Kumud from Dept of Forensic AIIMS appeared on behalf of Dr. Varun Dixit who had examined accused Neeraj vide MLC Ex PW 38/A since Dr. Varun Dixit had left the services of the hospital and has settled in UK, as such Dr Manish Kumud was deputed by the MS to depose in the present case. He testified that as per the MLC on examination Dr Varun Dixit found following injuries on the person of Neeraj:

1 Old healed stitched wound over the chin on right and left side size about 2 cm on left and l cm on right (stitches already removed). 93 2 Healed wound on left shoulder two in number about l cm each.

He further testified that as per the opinion given by Dr Varun Dixit in the MLC the possibility of the wound on the shoulder due to fire arm cannot be ruled out.

During cross examination he admitted that dimension of the wound given in the MLC was of stitched wound as such no depth of the wound could be given. He admitted that in the MLC the age of the wound was given as 2 weeks but he could not say on what basis the said report was given. This witness could not give the age of the wound in view of the MLC Ex. PW 38/A. He admitted that he had not examined the patient so he could not say on the basis of description of injury in the MLC that it was caused by fire arm. 94

47. Sh OS Srivastava Sr. Scientific Officer Serology cum Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Govt of India CFSL CBI was examined as CW1 who had given the CFSL report dtd. 24.1.2003. He testified that portion of exhibit as detailed in the main biology division report were examined serologically using various techniques and result obtained are analysed as given in his report Ex.CW 1/X. During cross examination he admitted it to be correct that A grouping has to be either A+ve or Ave.

48. CW 2 Dr. Rajender Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, deposed on the lines of CW1 OS Srivastava.

49. Statement of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded, whereby they denied the incriminating evidence against them and have 95 claimed to be innocent.

50. Accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary has claimed that he was picked from his house at 5 am on 15.12.01alongwith his brother Vineet. He stated in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC that on 16/12/01 SI Rahul Sahni went to his house with his brother Vineet and took the money from his father and lateron Vineet was let off and the money which was given by his father to Rahul Sahni was planted upon him.

51. Accused Rajender also stated that he was falsely implicated after being picked up from his house on 15.12.01 in the early hours.

52. The accused persons produced 7 witnesses in defence.

53. DW 1 Ashwani Kumar, Record Keeper Karkardooma Courts produced the record pertaining to case FIR NO 276/01 U/s 279/337 IPC PS 96 Dilshad Garden. He filed on record the certified copy of statement of Ram Saran son of Ramkumar from the aforesaid record as EX DW 1/1 and the certified copy of the judgment as EX DW 1./2.

54. DW 2 Sh Lalit Pershad produced the record pertaining to FIR NO 284/03 PS Parliament Street . The certified copy of the charge sheet is Ex DW 2/A and the FIR Ex DW 2/B.

55. DW 3 Dharam Pal Singh is the father and DW 5 Vineet Chaudhary is the brother of accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary.

56. DW 3 Dharam Pal Singh testified that on 15.12.01 police came to his residence at about 4 am and took his both sons namely Neeraj and Vineet with them. That he sent a telegram to Commissioner of police, to the District & Sessions Judge and to the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court vide receipts EX DW 3/1 to 3 respectively and he 97 proved the certified copies of the telegrams as Ex DW 4 to 6 respectively.

He further testified that on the next day around 12 noon his younger son Vineet was brought back by police and they took Rs. 15,000/ from him for releasing Vineet and same day he sent telegram Ex.DW 3/8 vide receipt Ex.DW3/7 to the District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts informing about extraction of Rs. 15,000/. He further testified that he had received intimation from the Hon'ble High Court dtd. 15/3/01 Ex.DW3/9 as his telegram was treated as Writ Petition. He also testified that nothing was recovered from his house pertaining to this case and that his son is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

57. DW 5 Vineet Chaudhary deposed on the lines of his father DW 3.

58. DW 4 Vikram Singh the elder brother of 98 accused Rajender testified that on 15.12.01 7/8 police officials came to his residence around 5 am and took his younger brother alongwith them and told that he would be released after interrogation. He stated that he did not disclose the name of the PS from where they had come and nothing else was taken away by the police except his brother from his residence. It is stated that they were not accompanied by any public persons or any accused.

59. DW 6 Renu Bakshi Sr Judicial Asstt. from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi produced the record pertaining to Crl Writ NO 102 /02 in the matter of Dharampal Singh Vs State, the copy of which is EX PW 3/9.

60. DW 7 Karan Singh from telegram office New Delhi was summoned alongwith the telegram record dtd. 15/12/01 and 16/12/01. He stated that the record is maintained upto 3 months from the 99 date of booking and thereafter it was destroyed.

61. I have heard arguments and have gone through the material on record carefully.

62. Addl PP for State has argued that the prosecution has proved on record that deceased was kidnapped alongwith his car Ford Ikon bearing registration DL 3CS 9438 on 21.11.01 and DD NO 29A ExPW 12/A was lodged by the wife of deceased Rattan Roy with PS Badarpur. It is submitted that through the testimonies of PW Harmeek Singh, PW Romy Chopra and PW TK Roy it is proved that the deceased had been kidnapped and kidnappers demanded Rs. 10 lacs for his release. It is further submitted that the accused persons while travelling alongwith Rattan Roy in a Ford Ikon car were spotted by Harmeek Singh when they stopped at Deepak Pertol pump and there was exchange of firing between the accused persons and the police 100 party but they escaped from the petrol pump speeding away the Ford Ikon belonging to Rattan Roy and on the way they hit a rickshaw puller and thereafter threw Rattan Roy from the moving car. It is submitted that it is proved on record that Rattan Roy was admitted in GTB Hospital with injuries on his person and lateron he died in Apollo hospital. It is further submitted that the prosecution has duly proved through the testimony of official witnesses that all the accused were arrested on 15.12.01 and recovery of incriminating material was effected from their possession. It is submitted that from the possession of accused Rajender his mobile phone Ex.P5, fake Icard of Delhi Police ExP1, a countrymade revolver Ex.P2 and empty cartridge Ex.P3 used while firing at the police party was effected and from accused Neeraj motorcycle bearing No. DL5SL 4176 used in the incident was 101 recovered from his house besides a sum of Rs. 11,500/ part of the sum which was withdrawn by the accused persons on the ATM Card of Rattan Roy was recovered from his possession, besides police uniform EX P13 & 14 was also recovered at his instance which was bearing bullet marks. It is further argued that accused Vikram was arrested from his room in the hostel at IG Stadium and at his instance two cheque books Ex.P7 & 8 of deceased were recovered from his possession. It is vehemently argued that all the accused persons refused to participate in the TIP on 24.12.01 which raises strong suspicion against them of their involvement in the incident. It is stated that all the witnesses have corroborated the testimony of each other and nothing material could be extracted during their cross examination. It is further submitted that the call record Ex PW11/B proves 102 that calls were made from the mobile of accused Rajender with the SIM card of deceased Rattan Roy on the intervening night of 21/11/01 22/11/01. It is further submitted that vide the postmortem report EX PW 23/A, it is proved on record that the death of the deceased was on account of coma due to head injury by fall from the car. It is submitted that the witness Harmeek Singh SI Brij Mohan and Ct. Ashok Kumar categorically stated that Rattan Roy was thrown out of the Ford Ikon car while it was being chased by the police in Maruti car driven by Harmeek Singh.

63. It is submitted that it is proved on record by the prosecution that it is the accused person who had kidnapped Rattan Roy and the disclosure statement of all the accused also finds corroboration from the evidence led by the prosecution with the recovery of fake I card, police uniform , traffic 103 police wind cheater, bullet motorcycle and other incriminating material. It is further submitted that the prosecution has also proved that it is accused Neeraj who was driving the Ford Ikon and Vikram was sitting next to him and accused Rajender was siting at the rear seat alongwith Rattan Roy and they were all seen by PW SI Brij Mohan, Ct Ashok Kumar at the petrol pump where they had stopped for petrol. The Ld prosecutor had further drawn my attention towards the CFSL report EX .CW1/X1 that the blood lifted from the steering of Ford Ikon was of A group and the blood of accused Neeraj was also found to be of A group. It is submitted that accused Neeraj cannot deny his presence in the car in view of the aforesaid evidence. It is further submitted that firing on the police party by accused persons at Deepak Petrol Pump is also proved beyond reasonable doubt vide testimony of PW14 SI 104 Brij Mohan and PW15 Ct. Ashok Kumar. It is prayed that the accused persons are thus liable to be convicted U/s. 120B/419/364A/384/302/468 /186 /353 /307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.

64. On the other hand the defence counsel has argued that the onus was on the prosecution to prove the identity of the abductors/murderers and that prosecution has relied upon three points in this regard, firstly regarding firing on the police party at Deepak Petrol Pump, it is claimed by the prosecution that the police was fired at from Ford Ikon car at the petrol pump and the assailants were seen by the police officials in the said car. Secondly, when the accused sped away from the petrol pump in the Ford Ikon car their car hit a rickshaw puller regarding which the case FIR No 276/01 was registered with PS Dilshad Garden and thirdly that incriminating material was recovered at the instance 105 of the accused persons. It is submitted that the prosecution has also claimed that accused Neeraj was driving Ford Ikon car of deceased Rattan Roy and he sustained a bullet injury and that the windcheater which was recovered at the instance of accused Neeraj was having two bullet holes. Further that the prosecution has relied upon the identity card recovered from the possession of accused Rajender bearing his photograph with the name of accused Neeraj and has claimed that the accused persons had impersonated while stopping the car of the deceased that they were from police and after involving him in conversation abducted him in his own car. Further that the prosecution has relied upon that the mobile of Rattan Roy bearing telephone No. 9910158032 with IMEI No. 449125550757180 and that this number was changed during conversation to 449269200615380 which was 106 of mobile No. 9810590140 of accused Rajender. The defence counsel has submitted that there is ample evidence on record that deceased had received a bullet injury in cross firing and there is every possibility that he died on account of receipt of the said injury and not due to the head injury as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that no cogent evidence has been produced on record by the prosecution that accused persons were seen by SI Brij Mohan and Ct Ashok Kumar alongwith Rattan Roy (now deceased) in his Ford Ikon at the petrol pump when the firing took place between the police and the occupants of the said car. He submitted that in view of the testimony of PW 6 Rajbir Singh the guard posted at petrol pump the police officers could not have seen the occupants of the car as they had fired at Ford Ikon after taking position behind maruti car and both the cars 107 were at a distance of about 25 feet. It is submitted that as per the testimony of this witness the police officers had not even gone near the Ford Ikon therefore they could not have seen its occupants. It is further submitted that PW 6 Rajbir has further stated during cross examination that the glasses of the Ford Ikon were dark and window panes were rolled up, as such again the police officers could not have seen its occupants even if they had gone near the car. It is submitted that if police was already aware of that Rattan Roy was in Ford Ikon but still they fired at Ford Ikon indiscriminately without even caring for the life of the person abducted. It is further submitted that no judicial TIP was arranged by the IO immediately after the arrest of the accused persons on the basis of IMEI number and as such though the accused persons were arrested on 15.12.01 but they are shown to 108 have been identified by SI Brij Mohan in GTB hospital on 24.12.01. It is submitted that PW 14 Brij Mohan and PW15 Ct. Ashok Kumar had not given any description of the occupants of the Ford Ikon and as such it was the bounded duty of the IO to have arranged for TIP proceedings of the accused persons for their identification by PW Brij Mohan and Ct Ashok Kumar. It is submitted that after the arrest of the accused persons they appeared on TV and newspapers on 16.12.2001 as such their identification by PW 14 Brij Mohan on 24.12.01 in GTB hospital and thereafter in the Court is of no consequence. The defence counsel has further submitted that the evidence of both PW 14 SI Brij Mohan and PW 15 Ct Ashok Kumar is shaky regarding the identification of the accused persons. He has submitted that as per the prosecution case the Ford Ikon while speeding away from the petrol 109 pump had hit a rickshaw and a separate case vide FIR No 271/01 was registered with PS Dilshad Garden in this regard. However the injured in that case deposed before the Court that the car was driven by a Sikh gentleman at that time. It is submitted that DW1 Ashwani Record, Record keeper ( criminal) from Karkardooma Courts produced the summoned record pertaining to case FIR NO. 271/01 U/s 279.337 IPC PS Dilshad Garden and filed on record the certified copy of the statement of Ram Saran the injured in that case as EX DW 1/1 and certified copy of the judgment Ex.DW1/2.

65. It is submitted that even the link evidence is missing in the present case as the the Ford Ikon car was found abandoned but no finger prints were lifted therefrom and the blood stains which were lifted from the steering of the car, though as per the report of CFSL EX CW1/X1 110 were of human origin ''A'' group but the prosecution has failed to prove that this blood group A was of accused Neeraj who was allegedly driving Ford Ikon at the time of incident. It is submitted that there are contradictions in the statement of PW 15 Ct Ashok Kumar recorded U/s 161 Cr PC and his testimony recorded on oath as he stated in his chief examination that SI Brij Mohan had told them to surround the golden colour car and he himself ran and reached to the front window of the car. During cross examination he stated that SI Brij Mohan went to left side front widow of the car, whereas in his statement Ex PW 15/DA recorded U/s 161 Cr PC it is mentioned that SI Brij Mohan went to driver side of car and told occupants to get down. It is further submitted that except PW15 Ct Ashok Kumar no other witness has deposed about sufficiency of light / sound lighting 111 at the petrol pump. It is further submitted that if PW 15 Ct Ashok Kumar was positioned near the rear window of the car then he could not have seen the faces of the occupants of the car. It is submitted that in these circumstances his identification of the accused persons in the Court for the first time is of no consequence. It is further submitted that the evidence of this witness regarding identity of the accused persons is shaky. The defence counsel has further argued that DW 1 Ashwani Kumar, the Record Keeper (Criminal) Karkardooma Court produced the judicial record of case FIR NO 276/01 U/s 279/337 IPC PS Dilshad Garden, wherein the injured Ram Saran son of Ram Kumar made statement on oath Ex. DW 1/1 and testified that the about 5/6 months ago in the morning time at about 5 am he was going to Gazipur Mandi to purchase vegetables by Rickshaw 112 and when he reached Dilshad Garden red light one vehicle of white colour came from the side of Seemapuri and struck against him. He testified that this vehicle was driven by some sikh. It is pertinent to mention that case NO 276/01 was registered with PS Dilshad Garden after the Ford Ikon bearing registration No. DL3CS 9438 belonging to deceased Rattan Roy was allegedly driven by accused Neeraj at a fast speed and had hit the injured Ram Saran son of Ram Kumar. It is submitted that in view of the statement of PW Ram Saran in case FIR NO. 276/01 PS Dilshad Garden it is not the accused Neeraj who was driving the Ford Ikon of deceased Rattan Roy at the time of the accident as claimed by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that Ram Saran son of Ram Kumar was an important witness to establish the identity 113 of the accused persons but he was neither cited nor examined by the prosecution for which adverse inference be drawn. It is further submitted that the rukka does not find mention the description of the accused persons. It is further submitted that there are discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses as to whether the right or the left widow pane of the car was broken. It is submitted that PW 14 SI Brij Mohan even could not say if the widow panes were tainted or plain. It is further submitted that PW 14 SI Brij Mohan could have easily identified the accused persons in the GTB hospital on 24.12.01 as the accused persons after their arrest on 15.12.01 were shown on television on 16.12.01.

66. Regarding the testimony of PW 15Ct Ashok regarding identification of the accused persons, the defence counsel has submitted that in his statement U/s 161 Cr PC he has nowhere stated that he had 114 seen the accused persons in the car and that he did not give their description, as such the identification of the accused persons by this witness for the first time in the Court does not inspire any credence.

67. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that deceased Rattan Roy had died on account of injuries received by fall from the car as there was also a bullet injury on his person when he was admitted in GTB hospital and the possibility cannot be ruled out that died on account of bullet injury. It is submitted that PW 6 Rajbir who was uninterested witness testified during cross examination that police had started firing the moment the police persons got down from maruti car and they did not give any warning before starting firing on the car. It is submitted that the police even did not bother even to take care of the 115 kidnapped person who was inside the car.

68. It is further submitted that PW 32 Inspt SS Malik during cross examination admitted that he came to know there was bullet injury on the person of Rattan Roy but he did not try to know how he had received bullet injury. It is submitted that this was a serious lapse on the part of all the Investigating Officers who were investigating a murder case and it ought have been investigated as to whether the injury on the person of the deceased was on account of firing by the police or by the occupants of the car.

69. Regarding the recovery of Katta at the instance of the accused Rajender Singh, it is submitted that it is a false recovery as katta had already been recovered from the petrol pump as deposed by PW 6 Rajbir during his cross examination but police did not seize it formally and 116 planted upon the accused. It is submitted that the recovery of katta was thus planted upon accused Rajender. It is further argued that as per the testimony of prosecution witnesses accused Neeraj had made a disclosure statement EX.PW10/D on 15.12.01 that he could get recovered a pistol and that the recovery as per the prosecution was effected on 20.12.01, therefore since the spot of recovery was already in the knowledge of the police which is otherwise a public place no reliance can be placed on such recovery which is made in the absence of any public witness.

70. Regarding the injury on the person of accused Neeraj who was examined by PW 38 Dr Manish Kumath, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that the accused Neeraj had suffered bullet injury at the petrol pump during the police firing nor it is 117 proved on record as to when this injury was sustained by the accused.

71. Regarding the arrest of accused Rajender followed by the arrest of accused Neeraj and Vikram Yadav, it is submitted that as per the prosecution case the accused persons were making ransom cal from the mobile phone of deceased bearing mobile No. 9810158032 and when the battery of the said mobile phone exhausted the SIM card of the deceased was transferred to mobile bearing No. 9810590140 which belong to accused Rajender and was lateron recovered from his possession. It is submitted that as per the prosecution the IMEI NO. of the mobile phone of deceased was 4491255507571890 whereas when the SIM of the deceased was inserted in the other mobile and the calls were made to different Nos the IMEI NO. detected was 449269200615380. It is submitted 118 that the prosecution has claimed that from the aforesaid IMEI NO the calls made from mobile of accused Rajender were traced to PW 7 Sandeep Sharma and through him they reached the accused Rajender . It is further submitted that as per the prosecution PW7 Sandeep Sharma was tracked down on account of land line telephone No. 2111031 but the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record as to at which address the said landline telephone was installed. It is submitted that IMEI NO can also be coloned and one such instance is reflected in the chargesheet Ex.DW2/A pertaining to FIR No. 284/03 PS Parliament Street.

72. It is further submitted that there are discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the time of arrest of accused Rajender as PW 7 Sandeep testified that the police had reached his house in the evening of 119 15.12.01, whereas PW 26 SI Rahul Sahni and PW 32 Inspt SS Malik testified during cross examination that accused Rajender was arrested at about 12.30 pm on 15.12.2001. It is submitted that the accused Rajender could not have been arrested at 12.30 pm if the police came to know about his address in the evening of 15.12.2001, whereas, as per the statement of PW 32 Inspt SS Malik all the accused had been arrested till 5 pm. It is submitted that no public witness was joined at the time of the arrest of the accused persons despite the fact that the arrest as per the police officials was conducted during day time and public persons were available. It is further submitted that though it is claimed by the prosecution witnesses that all the accused persons were arrested by 5pm on 15.12.2001, there is no explanation as to why on the same date the recovery at the instance of accused Rajender was 120 not conducted. It is submitted that the defence witnesses have proved on record that accused Neeraj and Rajender were picked up from their respective houses a round 5am on 15.12.2001 and telegrams were sent to the higher authorities by the family of accused Neeraj.

73. Regarding the seizure of wind cheater ExP15 vide seizure memo EX PW 10/K it is submitted that it was sent to CFSL however as per the report of CFSL EX.PW37A and PW37/B no residue of the bullet were found thereon. As such it cannot be said that these holes were caused on account of bullet injuries due to police firing at Petrol Pump.

74. Regarding the recovery of fake I card. EX Pl it is submitted that no evidence was led by the prosecution that accused Rajender had forfeited or ever used this card for his benefit.

121

75. Regarding accused Vikram Yadav, Adv. Mr SP Kaushal has submitted that in the seizure memo Ex. PW 10/M whereby the two cheque books belonging to the deceased were alleged recovered from the possession of accused Vikram Yadav only Room NO 3 is mentioned, whereas there are several blocks alphabetically in the hostel and in all the blocks there was room No. 3, as such prosecution has failed to prove that the recovery was effected from the room in possession of accused . It is further submitted that even PW 10 Ct Balram and PW 26 SI Rahul Sahni have both stated that recovery was effected from Room No. 3 and they have not given the block in which this room was situated. It is submitted that it is only PW16 HC Surender Kumar who deposed that he met Mr Rochque at the stadium who informed him that Vikram Yadav son of Inder Singh resident of 122 Bhawana was staying in hostel in Room NO J 3, It is submitted that except the testimony of this witness there is no evidence on record that accused Vikram Yadav was staying in a hostel at Room J 3. He has drawn my attention towards the document EX PW 16/B issued by Rochque Dias, the Dy Director Delhi Center Sports of India, wherein the number of the room in occupation of accused Vikram is mentioned as Room NO 3. The defence counsel has further submitted that letter Ex. PW 16/B was not shown to Rochque its author when he was examined as PW 31. It is submitted that PW 31 has testified that accused Vikram Yadav was arrested in the morning whereas all the other witnesses have deposed about his arrest in the evening.

76. The defence counsel has further submitted that PW 32 Inspt SS Malik did not depose from 123 where the cheque books belonging to the deceased were recovered from the possession of accused Vikram Yadav. It is submitted that these cheque books were of no use to the accused since the cheques were unsigned as such there was no reason for the accused to retain the cheque books instead of destroying them. It is submitted that as per the prosecution also the brief case of the deceased was recovered from the Ford Ikon and if the prosecution story is believed the accused persons had even no time to take out the cheque books as the car was chased by the police, deceased was thrown out of the car and then car was abandoned.

77. It is submitted by counsel for all the accused that since the prosecution has failed to bring enough evidence on record showing involvement of the accused persons in the 124 kidnapping and murder of Rattan Roy, hence they are liable to be acquitted.

78. After hearing the submissions of both the parties, I have gone through the record carefully.

79. All the accused persons have faced trial for kidnapping of Rattan Roy (now deceased) for ransom in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy to kidnap someone for ransom and for the murder of the deceased by throwing him out of the running car and for firing at the police and obstructing them in performance of their official duties. All the accused persons have further faced trial U/s 419 IPC for posing as police officers to Rattan Roy and stopping his car on the pretext of checking the documents of car while accused Neeraj was wearing dress of SI of Delhi Police and accused Rajender was wearing jacket of traffic police. Accused Rajender has faced trial U/s 468 IPC being 125 found in possession of fake/ forged I card in the name of Neeraj Kumar Ct bearing the photograph of Rajender Singh. Accused Neeraj Kumar and Rajender have also faced trial under Arms Act. All the accused have further faced trial U/s 383 IPC for withdrawing Rs. 30,000/ by using ATM card of Rattan Roy after his kidnapping, by putting him under the fear of injury and death.

80. The fact that the deceased Rattan Roy was kidnapped has not been disputed by the accused persons nor it is disputed that kidnapping was with a view to extort ransom as PW1 Mausmi Roy the wife of the deceased, PW 3 TK Roy the brother of the deceased, PW 5 Romi Chopra who had been receiving the telephone calls from Rattan Roy that he was kidnapped for ransom have not been cross examined. However, it is denied that it is the accused persons who had 126 kidnapped the deceased Rattan Roy for ransom in his own Ford Ikon car bearing registration No DL3CS 9438 and in the process were intercepted by the police at the Deepak petrol pump where firing was exchanged between the police party and the accused persons and the accused persons sped away from the petrol pump in Ford Ikon of deceased Rattan Roy and on the way threw deceased Rattan Roy out of the fast moving car due to which he suffered head injury and was removed to GTB hospital from where he was shifted to Apollo hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on 29/11/01.

81. To establish the identify of the accused persons that they had kidnapped deceased Rattan Roy for ransom, the prosecution has examined PW 14 SI Brij Mohan and PW 15 Ct Ashok Kumar. Both these witnesses were travelling in the car of 127 PW Harmeek Singh and were proceeding towards GTB Road as the call was received from the kidnappers asking Harmeek Singh to reach opposite GTB Hospital to pay the ransom and while they were so moving golden car was spotted by Harmeek Singh who disclosed this fact to the police accompanying him and as such they followed the golden car which had taken turn into Deepak petrol pump. On seeing the number plate of the Ford Ikon Harmeek Singh had confirmed to the police that the car belonged to Rattan Roy deceased, as such Harmeek Singh was told to take his car in front of the Ford Ikon but due to short space it could not be done and the car of Harmeek Singh was stopped behind golden car.

82. PW 14 SI Brij Mohan testified that after the maruti car was stopped by Harmeek Singh he told his staff to surround the car and that he would 128 get down the occupants of the golden car, bearing No. DL3CS 9438. He went to the left side window of the car which was slightly open and he told its occupants to come down but before he could complete his sentence somebody from inside the car fired. He stated that by the time he could reach for his pistol, another fire took place inside the car. By that time he had loaded his pistol and fired into the car but the person on the left side of the car ducked down. It is stated that due to firing by him the left side front widow glass of the car was broken He categorically stated that the person on the driver seat was wearing blue colour jacket. It is stated that thereafter the driver of the Ford Ikon immediately ran away with the car towards the same direction from which they had come. He directed his Ct. to fire at the tyre of the car and two rounds fired by the Ct., besides one round fired 129 by him. It is stated that initially two rounds which he had fired struck the person who was driving the car. Regarding the rounds fired by his Ct., he stated that these did not strike the tyre but the car. Thereafter the police again chased the aforesaid car in the car of Harmeek Singh and it was confirmed that deceased Rattan Roy was travelling in the said car alongwith the other persons when he was thrown outside the car by its occupants. This witness testified that on 24.12.01 all the accused persons present in th Court were brought to GTB hospital for medical examination where he identified all three of them and disclosed that accused Rajender was sitting with Rattan Roy on back seat, while accused Neeraj was on the driver seat and accused Vikram was sitting next to Neeraj on the front seat. The argument of the defence counsel is that the description of the accused 130 persons was not given in the rukka by SI Brij Bhushan and he did not even identify any of the accused persons in any TIP proceedings. It is submitted the accused persons were arrested on 15.12.2001 and that on 16.12.2001 they appeared on television, therefore it was easy for PW 14 SI Brij Mohan to identify the accused persons at any time thereafter since he had already seen them on the television, however, I find no force in the aforesaid argument as no evidence has been led in defence to the effect that the accused persons appeared on television on 16.12.01. Regarding the TIP proceedings it is pertinent to mention that all the accused persons had refused to participate in the test identification parade on 18/12/01, as such there was no occasion for PW 14 SI Brij Mohan or any other witness to identify the accused persons in the test identification parade. It is pertinent to 131 note that in the statement of PW14 SI Brij Mohan recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC on 22/11/01 itself when the incident had taken place, it finds mention clearly that he could identify the three kidnappers sitting in the car if shown to him. The testimony of PW 14 SI Brij Mohan regarding the identity of the accused persons has not been shattered in any manner despite lengthy cross examination. It is pertinent to note that in the testimony of PW15 Ct.Ashok Kumar who was also alongwith PW14 SI Brij Mohan at the petrol pump and had seen golden car of the deceased has testified that there was sufficient light at the petrolpump which was having sound lighting. It is further pertinent to mention that both these witnesses have stated that the front left side widow pane of the car was broken due to firing and it is proved on record that the broken pieces of the car which were lifted from 132 the spot and are collectively exhibited as EX.P9 were of plain glasses which were obviously transparent and the occupants of the car could be clearly seen by the witnesses present at the petrol pump in the light available at the petrol pump. So for the mere reason that the description of the accused persons was not given by PW 14 SI Brij Mohan in the rukka is of no consequence. The testimony of this witness is corroborated by the testimony of PW 15 Ct Ashok Kumar who was also present alongwith him at the petrolpump as he stated that the person who was in the Ford Ikon were seen by him at petrol pump when exchange of firing had taken place. This witness also categorically stated that the glasses of the car were plain and window pane of the car were broken into pieces. This witness had further pointed out during his testimony towards accused Rajender that he 133 was sitting on the rear seat of the car, he pointed out towards accused Neeraj Kumar that he was driving the car and that accused Vikram Yadav was sitting on the seat adjoining the driver. He admitted during cross examination that he had told this fact for the first time that too in the Court about the sitting arrangements of the accused persons in the car. He also admitted that he had not mentioned in his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC that the persons who were occupants of the Ford Ikon were seen by him during exchange of fire. The argument of the defence counsel that he is deposing for the first time in the Court about sitting arrangements of the accused persons in the car and about their identity, as such his testimony cannot be relied upon, has no force as a witness is not required to give all the minute details in his statement U/s161 Cr. PC and merely for the reason 134 he did not narrate certain facts in his statement before the police he cannot be discredited. Moreover, in the present case this witness has categorically stated that the glasses of the Ford Ikon car occupied by the accused persons were plain and there was sufficient light at the petrol pump, as such there cannot be any doubt that these witnesses had seen the accused persons in the Ford Ikon at the spot. This witness has categorically denied the suggestion that he had not seen the occupants of the Ford Ikon or he had seen the accused persons either in T.V or newspaper or had identified them at the instance of the IO. The other witness who was present at the petrol pump at the time of the aforesaid incident was PW2 Harmeek Singh who did not see the accused persons in the golden car of the deceased as he stated that when he drove his car 135 to the Ford Ikon and all the police officers went out of the car he could just hear the firing sound and in order to save himself he ducked in the car. The other witness who could have possibly seen the accused persons in the Ford Ikon was PW 6 Rajbir Singh but he did not speak about the identity of its occupants. In his chief examination he supported the prosecution case that on the relevant date and time a longish car came to the petrol pump for taking petrol where he was working as gunman and it was followed by one maruti car which was just stopped behind it and some police persons got down from the maruti car and firing took place. The defence counsel has submitted that PW 6 Rajbir Singh during his cross examination has stated that police persons did not go upto the longish car on foot and that the glasses of the longish car were tainted and were 136 rolled up when it stood at the petrol pump and nothing was visible inside. It is taken a note of that the chief examination of this witness in substance was recorded on 26.3.03 and was deferred only for identification of the case property ie broken glass pieces of the car windows Ex.P9. His further statement was recorded on 23.5.03 after two months of his earlier statement when he totally changed his colour by deposing that the glasses of longish car were tainted and rolled up and nothing was visible inside. It is pertinent to mention that Ex.P9 are the glass pieces which were observed to be of plain glasses and were not tainted, therefore this witness made a false statement on oath on 23.5.03 and the possibility cannot be ruled out that he was won over by the accused persons. Besides his statement that the glasses of the longish car were rolled up when the car stood at the petrol 137 pump again does not inspire any credence as if the car had stopped there for taking petrol either someone had to get down from the car to place order for petrol or the glass of at least one window pane was to be rolled down to place the order. Thus the testimony of PW14 SI Brij Mohan that left side front window pane was rolled down a bit is believable. At the same time the testimony of PW6 Rajbir Singh during cross examination became tainted. Moreover, once it is proved on record that the glasses of the windows of the car were plain, it is immaterial whether the windowpanes were rolled up or down as the plain glasses are always transparent and see through. It is further pertinent to mention that the blue colour jacket worn by the driver of Ford Ikon seen at the petrol pump by PW14 SI Brij Mohan was lateron recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj and is EX.P15. 138

In view of the above discussion, it is proved on record by the prosecution beyond any doubt that it is the accused persons who were found present in the Ford Ikon of deceased Ratan Roy at the Deepak Petrol Pump and were seen by the police officials.

83. The other argument of the defence counsel is that as per Ram Saran the injured in case FIR No.276/01 registered with PS Dilshad Garden,U/s 279/337 IPC that the Ford Ikon car bearing registration No DL 3CS 9438 was driven by sikh gentleman and that he categorically denied that accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary was driving the said vehicle. It is further submitted that in view of his testimony in the aforesaid case accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary has been wrongly identified by PW 14 SI Brij Mohan and PW 15 Ct Ashok Kumar in the present case as the person 139 found sitting on the driver seat in the Ford Ikon at the Deepak Petrolpump. However, I find no merits in the said contention as Ram Saran, the injured in case FIR No 276/01 PS Dilshad Garden has not been examined by the accused persons in defence in the present case. Besides there can be various reasons for his not identifying the accused in the aforesaid case such like he was under any extraneous pressure or infact he had not seen the driver at the time of the accident. It is pertinent to mention that incident is dated 22.11.2001 and the accident as per the certified copy of the judgment Ex.DW 1 /2 in case FIR No. 276/01 registered with PS Dilshad Garden U/s. 279/337 IPC took place at 6 am and it must be dark at that time and it is quite possible he did not actually see who was on the driving seat. It is pertinent to mention that in his statement Ex.DW1/1 in the above 140 referred case the injured Ram Saran besides stating that some sikh was driving the vehicle also testified that he cannot identify the driver of the vehicle who was driving the same at the time of the accident. He did not depose in chief examination that accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary present in Court was not the driver but it was somebody else who was driving the vehicle, on the contrary he stated that he cannot identify the driver of the vehicle. So far the mere reason Ram Saran was declared hostile in the above referred case no benefit can be derived by the accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary in the present case since the Ford Ikon was being chased by the maruti car driven by PW 2 Harmeek Singh in which the police persons were also travelling and the occupants of the Ford Ikon were aware of the fact that they were being chased, thus it was driven at a fast 141 speed and as such the possibility of the injured in the accident case seeing the accused driving the aforesaid vehicle was too less, particularly, 22nd of November and time was 6AM and judicial notice of the fact can be taken that in the end of November at 6 AM there is no day light and since the accident took place at the spur of moment so the injured must not have looked at the face of the driver of the car carefully as before he could realise that he was hit, the vehicle must have passed away. It is no case of the prosecution or the defence that the Ford Ikon after hitting the rickshaw and hurting Ram Saran had stopped there even for a second. Besides it is also discussed above that accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary was seen by PW 14 SI Birj Mohan and PW 15 Ct Ashok Kumar on the driver seat at Deepak Petrol pump and after the Ford Ikon had left the petrol 142 pump after exchange of firing with the police, it is proved vide the testimony of PW2 Harmeek Singh, PW14 SI Brij Mohan and PW15 Ct Ashok Kumar that there car was chased by the maruti car driven by PW 2 Harmeek Singh and they saw it hitting the rickshaw and thereafter throwing of Ratan Roy out of the moving car, as such there was even no possibility of change of driver from the petrolpump to the spot of accident so as to say that it was driven by sikh gentleman at the time of the accident. Moreover, it is taken note of that it is not the defence of the accused persons that the police officials were enimical towards them and they were falsely implicated for the said reason. It is also not the case of the defence that these were accused persons were known to the police from before and as such they were chosen to be implicated falsely. The testimony of PW 14 SI Birj Mohan and PW 143 15 Ct Ashok Kumar has proved on record that all the accused persons were present in the Ford Ikon alongwith the deceased Ratan Roy at Deepak petrol pump, accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary was on the driver seat, accused Vikram Yadav was sitting next to him in Ford Ikon and accused Rajender was sitting at the rear seat alongwith the deceased. There is also other sufficient evidence on record regarding the involvement of the accused persons in the present case. The prosecution case is that deceased Ratan Roy had been making calls to his brother PW3 TK Roy, his boss PW 5 Romi Chopra from his mobile that he had been kidnapped and they should arrange for a sum of Rs.10 lacs to pay as ransom to the kidnappers. PW 3 TK Roy, the elder brother of deceased Ratan Roy has testified that on 21.11.01 between 8.30/9 pm he received a telephone call from his brother Ratan 144 Roy who told him that he had been caught by CBI person and he should talk to them. At this Ratan Roy gave his cell phone to those persons who had caught him. When TK Roy asked the name of the person to whom he was talking he told him that his name was Rahim Khan and when he asked him about the allegations made by Ratan Roy, he was told that they were not from CBI but had kidnapped his brother. This witness further testified that he kept on receiving telephone calls from his brother Ratan Roy with an interval of about one hour approximately. Similarly PW 5 Romi Chopra deposed that he received a telephone call on his mobile from Mr. Ratan Roy at about 9.30 pm who told him that he was in need of Rs. 10 lacs and that he wanted money immediately. He too deposed that he was receiving calls from Ratan Roy regularly every 15 minutes or so who was 145 constantly enquiring from him if he was able to arrange money or not. This witness further testified that lateron he had handed over his mobile phone to Rohit Bansal who was going to PS Badarpur to lodge the report of kidnapping of Ratan Roy as the calls were received from Ratan Roy on the said mobile which was lateron given by Rohit Bansal to PW2 Harmeek Singh. PW2 Harmeek Singh corroborated the statement of Romi Chopra to the effect that his mobile phone was given to him by Rohit Bansal and he had received telephone call from the kidnapper at Mohan Nagar crossing asking them to come to Shahdara border and when they went towards Shahdara border and waited there, he again received a call asking him to go to GTB hospital so they turned towards GTB hospital, when in the meantime they had spotted Ford Ikon belong to Ratan Roy taking 146 a turn towards Deepak petrol pump. The prosecution has relied upon call record of mobile No.9810158032 of Ratan Roy and of accused Rajender Kumar bearing mobile No. 9810590140 as on the basis of IMEI number of both the mobiles, accused Rajender was arrested through his friend Sandeep Sharma examined as PW 7. The call record has been proved vide testimony of PW 11 RK Singh, Nodal Officer Bharti Cellular Ltd. (Airtel) who proved on record the application Ex.PW 11/A moved by SI Rahul Sahani seeking details of the incoming and outgoing calls of mobile No. 9810158032. The witness deposed that in response to the application the call details of the aforesaid mobile number Ex.PW 11/B were furnished. Perusal of the aforesaid call details shows that the outgoing calls were made from the telephone No.9810158032 w.e.f 8.51 pm on 21.11.01 147 till 7.07 am on 22.11.01. The call made at 8.51 pm on 21.11.01 was bearing IMEI No.449125550757180 and this IMEI number appeared on the call record till a call was made to mobile No. 9810089860 at 12.18AM on 22.11.01. Thereafter the IMEI number of the calls made from mobile No.9810158032 changed to 449269200615380. PW 11 RK Singh, Noodle Officer Bharti Cellular Ltd. has further deposed that SI Rahul Sahani moved an application Ex.PW 11/C seeking details of the telephone number having IMEI No. 449269200615380 which IMEI number was reflecting in the call details of the number of Ratan Roy. In response to the said letter the details supplied in respect of IMEI No. 449269200615380 are Ex.PW 11/D which relates to phone No.9810590140. PW 11 RK Singh, Noodle Officer Bharti Cellular Ltd. has categorically stated that the document Ex.PW 11/D 148 shows that the same instrument was used on mobile No.9810158032 which belonged to Ratan Roy. This witness further proved the cell ID chart as Ex.PW 11/E.

84. PW 26 SI Rahul Sahani testified that on 23.11.01 he obtained the call details of telephone of Ratan Roy from the Airtel and on checking the call details it was found that after 12 mid night the IMEI number of the cell phone had changed. It was also found that IMEI number used thereafter was not currently being used by anybody for making call. This witness remained in constant touch with Airtel Company about IMEI number which was used by the kidnappers and after few days he learnt that the instrument having the said IMEI number was now in use. He collected operational details of the call being made by an instrument having IMEI No. 449269200615380 and 149 came to know about some phones of Ram Nagar, Ashok Nagar and Shahdara. These phones kept under watch. An application was moved to the Competent Authority seeking permission to tape the conversation of these telephones on parallel lines. On the night of 14.12.01 at about 8.15 pm as deposed by PW 26 SI Rahul Sahani a call was received from IMEI No. 449269200615380 having cell phone No. 9810590140 and from the location chart it was learnt that the phone was in Shahdara. The call details of this phone number were obtained from the Cellular Phone Co. from 3.12.01 to 14.12.01 which are proved on record as Ex.PW26/Cl to C8 respectively. PW 26 SI Rahul Sahani also collected the details of the cell phone who had called the cell phone No. 9810590140 on 14.12.01 and in the call details of that cell phone there was one landline telephone No.2111031 as 150 shown in Ex.PW 26/C 7 at point A which was already under watch and through this information the police raided the house on 15.12.07 at which the said landline number was installed where Sandeep Sharma met the police and was enquired about mobile No. 9810691713 from which telephone calls were made to mobile No. 9810590140. Sandeep Sharma disclosed that the said mobile number was of accused Rajender Kumar and on enquiry from Sandeep Sharma about mobile No.9810691713, he disclosed that the aforesaid mobile number belongs to him. From the call record Ex.PW 26/C8, it is proved that two calls were made from mobile No. 9810691713 on mobile No. 9810590140 at 8.12pm & 8.13 pm respectively and the cell ID was 13527 & 1351 respectively and this fact is admitted by PW7 Sandeep Sharma in his testimony that on 14.12.01 he spoke to accused 151 Rajender Kumar on his mobile. He further stated that on 14.12.01 he had dialed mobile number of accused Rajender Kumar and on his first dialing the connection got connected and he heard the voice 'Hello Hello' , three/ four times at about 8.15 pm and thereafter he disconnected the phone. He further stated that he again dialed this number when someone picked up the phone and told him that it was wrong number. From the said testimony of PW 7 Sandeep Sharma, it is proved on record that two calls were made from the mobile No. 9810691713 of Sandeep Sharma to mobile number of accused Rajender Singh on 14.12.2001 at about 8.15 pm but exact time is given in the calls details Ex.PW26/C8 as 8.12pm and 8.13pm respectively. It is through these two telephone calls the police reached PW7 Sandeep Sharma and through him reached accused Rajender Kumar. 152

85. The argument of the defence counsel is that the prosecution has not proved on record as to where the landline telephone No. 2111031 was installed, as such there is no evidence on record that the aforesaid number was installed at the residence of PW 7 Sandeep Sharma leading the police party to his house. It is further submitted that it is also not proved on record that the telephone No. 9810590140 belong to accused Rajender Singh, hence the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that through PW 7 Sandeep Sharma the police had reached accused Rajender Singh cannot be relied upon. However in my opinion the aforesaid argument has no force as PW 7 Sandeep Sharma categorically stated in evidence that he was residing at B 153, Ashok Nagar Shahdara Delhi and accused Rajender Singh present in the Court was his friend and living in his 153 neighbourhood. During cross examination of this witness no such suggestion was given to the witness that he was not know to accused Rajender Singh or accused Rajender Singh was not his friend and was not residing in his neighbourhood. Besides this witness has categorically stated that he had his mobile bearing no.9810691713 and from this mobile he contacted the accused on his mobile, the call record to which has been proved on record as Ex.PW 26/C8 reflecting two calls made from telephone No.9810691713 to 9810590140 at 8.12/8.13 pm respectively on 14.12.01. It is further important to note that PW26 Rahul Sahani has also categorically stated that he had obtained the operational details Ex.PW 11/D in respect of the instrument having IMEI No 449269200615380 and from the call details of this instrument they 154 came to know about the landline No 2111031 was in contact with the cell phone no.9810590140, the relevant record regarding which has been proved on record as Ex.PW 26/C7. It is proved on record that through landline No. 2111031 the house of PW 7 Sandeep Sharma in Ashok Nagar was raided by the police team and on his interrogation the police came to know about whereabouts of accused Rajender Singh. In his statement U/s 313 Cr PC though accused Rajender Singh has denied that the address was given to the police by PW 7 Sandeep Sharma, however he has admitted that he was picked from his residence, though it is claimed that it was in early hours.

86. The defence counsels argument that the call records exhibited during the testimony of PW11 Sh. RK Singh, Nodal Officer (Airtel) and PW26 SI Rahil Sahni cannot be relied upon as there is 155 possibility of cloning of the mobile phones is of no consequence as no such defence evidence has been led in the present case that there was cloning of the mobile phones or there was any such attempt by any person to that effect. The defence counsel has relied upon the chargesheet Mark A filed in case FIR No. 284/03 PS Parliament Street wherein there were allegations of cloning of the mobile phones. However the aforesaid evidence is not admissible in the present case. Firstly for the reason that there are only allegation of cloning in the chargesheet referred above and what was the outcome of the case has not been brought on record that actually cloning happened. Secondly, in the present case there is no such evidence on record that there was cloning of the mobile phones which led to the false implication of accused Rajender.

156

87. The other argument of the defence counsel is that there are discrepancies with regard to the time of arrest of accused Rajender Singh in the statement of prosecution witnesses, as such the defence of the accused that he was picked up from his residence in early hours on 15.12.01 should be believed. It is submitted that PW 7 Sandeep Sharma testified during cross examination that the police had come to his residence on 15.12.2001 in the evening,whereas PW 26 SI Rahul Sahani during cross examination stated that he was arrested at 12.30 pm from his house on 15.12.2001 and PW 32 Inspt SS Malik also stated during cross examination that all the accused had been arrested till 5 pm and regarding accused Vikram Yadav this witness stated that he arrived in the hostel at 3.30 pm. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution 157 witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove on record the exact time of their arrest. It is submitted that since the public witness PW7 Sandeep Sharma has deposed that the police officials had visited him on 15.12.01 in the evening therefore they could not have arrested the accused persons during day time as it is PW 7 Sandeep Sharma who had led the police to the house of accused Rajender Singh and thereafter through his disclosure statement Ex.PW10/B the police arrested accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary and Vikram Yadav. However, again I find no merits in the aforesaid contention as all the accused persons in their statement U/s 313 Cr.PC have admitted their arrest on 15.12.2001, though it is claimed by accused Rajender Singh and Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary that they were apprehended in the early morning.

88. Accused Rajender has examined DW4 Vikram 158 Singh his elder brother to the effect that accused Rajender was picked up from his residence on 15/12/01 around 5am and on enquiry they stated that he would be released after interrogation and that he was told by those police officers that they had come from the PS though did not disclose the name of the PS. After about one hour witness went to Mansorvar Park, where he was told that his brother must have been taken away by the crime branch or special staff. He further stated that police had not taken away anything from his residence except his brother ie accused Rajender. However, the testimony of this witness does not inspire any credence as if the accused had been lifted from his residence on 15/12/01 early in the morning there is nothing on record that he made any complaint to any authority about his false implication in the present case. It is understandable that he is the 159 elder brother of the accused and to save him he concocted the story. The defence taken by accused Neeraj that he too was picked up from his residence on 15/12/01 at about 5am by the police and to that effect he has examined DW3 Dharampal Singh his father, DW5 Vineet Chaudhary his brother and DW6 Renu Bakshi judicial assistant, Record Room, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and DW7 karan Singh, Sr. Section Supervisor, Central telegraph office. DW3 Dharampal Singh has deposed that on 15/12/01 police came to his residence at 5am and took away his sons Neeraj and Vineet. That same day he sent telegram to the Commissioner of Police, to the Distt. & Sessions Judge and to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court vide receipt Ex.DW3/1 to 3, the certified copies of the telegrams Ex.DW3/4 to 6 were also brought on record. It is stated that on that day he could not come to know 160 about the whereabouts of his both the sons and next day, it is Vineet his younger son who was brought back at 12 noon and police took Rs. 15,000/ from him for releasing Vineet. It is stated that on that day he had again sent telegrams to the Distt Judge, Tis Hazari Courts informing of about extraction of Rs. 15,000/ and the receipt of the telegram is Ex.DW3/7, the certified copy of the telegram is Ex.DW3/8. He further deposed that from the Hon'ble High Court he had received information dtd. 15/3/01 Ex.DW3/7 as his telegram was treated as writ petition. He claimed that accused Neeraj is innocent. Even assuming that these telegrams were sent to various authorities on 15/12/01 the perusal of the same shows that these were sent at 11:22 hrs and as such there is every possibility of these being sent to the various authorities after the apprehension of the accused. The witness PW26 SI 161 Rahul Sahni has stated in his cross examination that accused Rajender was arrested at 12:30pm. It is taken note of that the accused were arrested on 15/12/01 and the testimony of this witness was recorded on 11/3/04 when he stated that accused Rajender was arrested at 12:30pm. So the possibility that the accused were arrested an hour or two prior to 12:30pm cannot be ruled out. It is in the natural course of events that after lapse of time one tends to forget the minute details such like exact time when the particular act was done and for this no benefit can be given to the accused. It is pertinent to mention that these telegrams were issued at 11:22hrs whereas, as per the defence witnesses accused Rajender and Neeraj were apprehended at 5am. If at all they were apprehended at 5am why they waited for 6 hrs to send the telegrams to various authorities. This delay has not been 162 explained and this suggests manipulation on the part of the family members of the accused persons. So the presumption is that these telegrams were sent only to create false evidence against the police officials that they had falsely implicated the accused persons. In my opinion it is proved on record that all the accused persons were arrested on 15/12/01 during day time. It is pertinent to mention that one of the telegrams which was sent to the Hon'ble High Court and was treated as a writ petition was disposed off on 11/3/02 with the observations that the particulars of the house and the address of the signatory of telegram were found to be incorrect and as per the status report filed by Mr. VK Malhotra, the then SHO PS Shahdara, accused Neeraj and his brother Vineet were never detained by PS Shahdara, as such no benefit can be given to the accused persons of these telegrams. Even the 163 arrest of accused Neeraj on 15/12/01 stands proved vide his arrest memo Ex.DW3/P1 which is bearing the signatures of DW5 Vineet at point A against the column ''Name, address and telephone number to whom the information regarding arrest is conveyed''. This telegram is dtd. 15/12/01.

89. Regarding the arrest of accused Vikram the defence counsel has argued that it is not proved on record from which room the accused had been arrested whether it was room No. 3 or room No. J3 in the hostel. Again it is of no consequence as accused himself in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC has admitted that he was arrested from R.No. J3 in the hostel. The argument of the defence counsel is that the letter Ex.PW16/B written by PW31 Rochque Dias was not shown to him when he appeared in the witness box and it is further submitted that PW31 had testified that accused was arrested in the 164 morning whereas all the other witnesses of the prosecution have stated that this accused was arrested in the evening. It is pertinent to mention that PW31 Rochque Dias has no where deposed that the accused Vikram Yadav was arrested in his presence but has only stated that he had received this information from the staff, as such he had no personal knowledge about the time of arrest of the accused Vikram Yadav. Moreover this witness has not given the date of arrest of the accused on the pretext that he did not remember the same, so it is quite possible that he did not even remember the time of arrest of the accused as disclosed to him by his staff. No witness in defence from the hostel of the accused has been produced in the witness box to say that accused Vikram Yadav was arrested in the morning on 15/12/01 and not in the evening as claimed by the prosecution. The defence counsel has 165 also challenged the recovery of two cheque books belonging to Rattan Roy now deceased from the possession of accused Vikram Yadav, on the grounds that PW32 Inspt. SS Malik did not depose from where these cheque books were recovered from the possession of accused Vikram Yadav and on the ground that these cheque books were unsigned and were of no use to the accused. PW32 Inspt. SS Malik in his chief examination has categorically stated that on 15/12/01 he had arrested accused Vikram Yadav from the hostel near Indira Gandhi Stadium and two cheque books belonging to deceased Rattan Roy were recovered from his possession which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/J. The defence counsel has argued that during his cross examination the witness admitted that there were two other boys present in the room from where accused Vikram Yadav was arrested and 166 recovery of cheque books was effected. It is submitted that PW32 Inspt SS Malik did not collect any evidence that the said room belonged to accused Vikram Yadav. The contention of the defence counsel that in such circumstances the recovery of two cheque books from the possession of accused is doubtful, in my opinion is without any substance, as accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC has already admitted that he was in occupation of room No. J3 in the hostel and vide the testimony of PW14 SI Brij Mohan and PW15 Ct. Ashok Kumar it is already proved on record that accused Vikram Yadav was present in the Ford Ikon of deceased Rattan Roy sitting on the front seat by the side of driver alongwith accused Neeraj and alongwith accused Rajender and deceased Rattan Roy who were on the rear seat of the car. As such to say that the cheque books belonging to deceased Rattan 167 Roy recovered from Room No. J3 of the hostel were not recovered from accused Vikram Yadav but from some other person is of no consequence. The other argument that the cheques were unsigned and were of no use to the accused, the answer of this question must be available with the accused only who was possessing a criminal mind and what were his intentions were in this regard were better known to him only. However, merely the cheques were unsigned, no presumption can be raised that these could not be in possession of the accused. The testimony of PW32 Inspt. SS Malik regarding arrest of accused Vikram Yadav and recovery of two cheque books finds corroboration from the testimony of PW10 Ct. Balwan Singh and PW26 SI Rahul Sahni who both deposed categorically that accused Vikram Yadav got recovered two cheque books from his almirah. Admittedly no independent 168 witness was joined to the arrest and recovery from accused Vikram Yadav, however, merely for this reason the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected which is otherwise found trustworthy and these official witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the accused.

90. Now it is to be seen what recovery was effected from the possession of accused Rajender at the time of his arrest from his residence on 15/12/01. PW26 SI Rahul Sahni has testified that PW Sandeep gave the address of Rajender who was living in the same locality at some distance so they went to that house where accused Rajender was found. One mobile phone was lying on the table of that house which was checked and it was found that IMEI of the phone instrument was same which was used by the kidnappers on the day of 169 kidnapping at 12 midnight. The cell phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/F. He further testified that one ICard Ex.P1 was also recovered. The Icard was of Delhi police bearing the name of Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary with the photograph of accused Rajender. The Icard was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/G. The disclosure statement of accused Rajender was recorded as Ex.PW10/B whereby he disclosed about the fact of kidnapping of deceased Ratan Roy in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy to kidnap some rich person to extract money. He also disclosed the manner in which the deceased Ratan Roy was kidnapped. He further disclosed that several years before his friend Yogesh who was resident of Ghaziabad at that time had given him two country made revolvers alongwith three cartridges and a knife. He disclosed that on 21/11/01 at about 5pm all the 170 three accused met near GTB Hospital where accused Neeraj had brought his bullet motorcycle and was wearing uniform of S.I and over that he was wearing blue colour wind cheater and Neeraj had also brought the traffic police jacket alongwith him which was worn by accused Rajender. Accused Rajender kept one country made revolver with him and handed over another to Vikram Yadav and knife was handed over by him to accused Neeraj. He disclosed that both the country made revolvers were loaded. As per their plan they started moving on the motorcycle of accused Neeraj and were looking for a rich person moving alone. At about 7:30pm they saw one Ford Ikon car coming from the side of Surya Nagar flyover towards Apsara border traffic signal and there was only one person in the car who was driving the same. It is disclosed that when the car crossed the red light and came 171 on the road of Dilshad Garden they placed their motorcycle in front and stopped the car. Accused Neeraj asked the person in the car to show the documents of the car and accused Rajender asked him to show the dicky. The occupant of the car showed the documents and thereafter he got down from the car and showed the dicky as well. At this the accused Neeraj sat on the driver seat and on the pretext that for checking they would have to go to the PS, they made the occupant of the car sit at the back seat. Accused Rajender and Vikram also sat with him at the back seat. Thereafter accused Neeraj asked the name of the person who disclosed his name as Ratan Roy. After this accused Vikram was asked by accused Rajender to follow the car on the motorcycle. Accused Neeraj drove the car followed by accused Vikram on the motorcycle. When they reached GTB Hospital parking, Vikram 172 parked the motorcycle there and then sat on the front seat of the car alongwith Neeraj. After that they drove the car towards Ghaziabad and told Ratan Roy that he was kidnapped and asked for Rs. 10 lakhs as ransom. After this Ratan Roy from his cell phone called his brother and accused Neeraj also spoke to his brother and demanded Rs. 10 lakhs. It is disclosed that the brother of Rajender Roy refused to arrange for Rs. 10 lakhs. Thereafter Ratan Roy spoke to his friend Chopra who told that he would arrange for the same. In the meantime they drove the car around Ghaziabad. Ratan Roy was making phone calls frequently. During this period Ratan Roy told them that he had ICICI card and money could be taken out through the same. As such Rs. 15,000/ from Preet Vihar were taken out. After sometime Rs. 15,000/ were taken out from Krishna Nagar. Deceased Ratan Roy told 173 Chopra to bring money at Mohan Nagar Chowk and that Chopra had disclosed that he could arrange for only Rs.1,50,000/ . At this they reached Mohan Nagar Chowk but they did not find anybody there. They made Ratan make call when he told them that money would be brought by Harmeek Singh. In the meantime the battery of the cell phone of Ratan Roy was discharged so accused Rajender removed the sim card from the mobile of Ratan Roy and used in the mobile phone of his brother in law Vijay which was with him. Again Ratan Roy was made to make a phone call and Harmeet told him that he would be reaching in short time but when he did not come, the accused persons became suspicious that police might not have been informed, so they moved the car here and there from Mohan Ngar Chowk and again made Ratan Roy to make phone call to ask the 174 person concerned to come to Shahdara. Thereafter they moved around Seemapuri when accused Neeraj told them that the petrol was needed in the car so they took the car at petrol pump at GT Road for filling petrol and the moment car stopped there one policeman got opened the window of the car from the side of Vikram. On seeing police, accused persons got perplexed and at this accused Vikram fired from the country made revolver and accused Rajender also fired one round. Police also fired at the vehicle of accused persons and Neeraj sped the car away from there. It is further disclosed that the bullet of police had hit Neeraj and Ratan Roy. After reaching some distance the car hit a rickshaw and to get rid of the police, he had thrown Ratan Roy from the moving car. He further disclosed that after travelling some distance he alongwith accused Vikram got down from the car and out of the Rs. 175 30,000/ withdrawn from the bank, he kept Rs.10,000/ with him whereas Rs. 20,000/ were left with accused Neeraj and two cheque books of Ratan Roy were taken by Vikram. He further disclosed that the traffic jacket of Neeraj and the country made revolver was thrown by him in the bushes near GTB Hospital and thereafter he separated from accused Vikram. After that he went to his house and told his family members that he was going to Manesar to his sister. He further disclosed that since thereafter he was living here and there at the place of his relatives. Regarding Rs. 10,000/ withdrawn from ATM he disclosed that it was spent by him. Regarding the fake Delhi police Icard he stated that he was using the same to save ticket while travelling in bus and that this was got made from the coloured photocopy of the Icard of Neeraj. He further disclosed that he could get 176 recovered the country made revolver and the wind cheater. The said disclosure statement has been proved on record through the testimony of PW10 Ct. Balwan and PW26 SI Rahul Sahni. The argument of the defence counsel that at the time of arrest of accused Rajender and recovery of mobile phone and fake Icard no public person was joined as a witness as such the recovery is doubtful is of no consequence, as for the mere reason that public witness was not joined in the investigation does not effect the prosecution case unless there are glaring and material contradictions in their testimony. However, in the present case no such discrepancy has been pointed out by the defence. It is important to note that the accused Rajender was tracked down on account of IMEI number of his mobile phone bearing No. 9810590140 through which the calls were made from the sim card of Ratan Roy. It 177 is admittedly there was no motive of the police to falsely implicate the accused Rajender. If the mobile phone No. 9810590140 had been recovered from somebody else the police would have fairly arrested the other person. It is not the case of the accused persons that the said mobile had no connection with accused Rajender. The argument of the defence counsel that it has not been proved on record in whose name the said mobile phone was existing is of no consequence as in the disclosure statement accused Rajender had disclosed that it belonged to Vijay Kumar his brother in law and he was using the same which appears to be correct as if it did not belong to the close relative of the accused Rajender, the defence would have summoned some witness in the defence to prove that it did not belong to the accused. However, the accused could not have afforded to implicate his brother in law 178 Vijay, as such no evidence was led in defence that the mobile phone did not belong to the accused. The Icard Ex.P1 recovered from the possession of accused Rajender is apparently a forged document as it is bearing the name of Neeraj and photograph of accused Rajender. Besides PW17 HC Rambir has testified that he had verified the Icard Ex.P1 bearing No. 0081531 in the name of Neeraj Kumar Constable and after verifying the record it was found that it was issued in the name of Ct. Neeraj Kumar PIS No. 28971478 and was issued on 24/8/98. During cross examination the witness was asked a question as to whether Ex.P1 was bearing the photograph of Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary or not to which he replied that he cannot say if the photograph Ex.P1 was of Neeraj or not. He stated that there was no photograph pasted in the record of the person to whom the card was issued. The 179 said cross examination of the witness is irrelevant particularly when Ex.P1 a fake Icard is on record and is bearing photograph of accused Rajender and not of accused Neeraj. The recovery of Icard Ex.P1 from accused Rajender is proved vide testimony of PW10 Ct. Balwan Singh and PW26 SI Rahul Sahni. The prosecution has alleged that further recovery was effected at the instance of accused Rajender in furtherance of his disclosure statement on 20/12/01. The relevant witnesses to that effect are PW32 Inspt SS Malik and PW10 Ct. Balwan. Inspt Malik has stated that accused Rajender led the police party to bushes near GTB Hospital and got recovered a country made pistol therefrom. He proved the sketch of the pistol as Ex.PW32/D. It is stated that there was an empty cartridge in the barrel of the pistol which he took out and prepared the sketch of the same and both these items were sealed in a 180 packet with the seal of SSM and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/E. He stated that these recoveries were effected on 20/12/01. No doubt PW10 Ct. Balwan deposed on the lines of PW32 Inspt. SS Malik regarding the recovery of country made pistol and the empty cartridge found inside the barrel, however the recovery of the same does not inspire any credence particularly when the prosecution has claimed that this recovery was effected in pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Rajender Ex.PW10/B which was recorded on 15/12/01, whereas the recovery was effected on 20/12/01. The prosecution has failed to explain as to why the recovery could not be effected on 15/12/01 itself or on next day and why it was deferred till 20/12/01. Besides, no public witness was joined at the time of recovery though witnesses were available near spot of recovery. The plantation of the country 181 made pistol Ex.P2 and empty cartridge Ex.P3 can not be ruled out in view of the gap of about 4 days between the recording of the disclosure statement and the recovery. Besides it is admittedly a public place from where the recovery was effected as admitted by PW10 Ct. Balwan during his cross examination who testified that the accused had taken them near a road on 20/12/01 at 11am and it was busy road. He also admitted that the GTB Hospital gate and hawkers were at some distance from the place pointed out by the accused and they could be seen from that place and he stated that none had agreed to join the proceedings from the public. It is pertinent to mention that IO took no action against any such person nor has disclosed the names and addresses of any such person on record whom he tried to join in the investigation. In these circumstances the recovery of the country 182 made pistol Ex.P2 alongwith empty cartridge Ex.P3 on 20/12/01 in furtherance of disclosure statement made on 15/12/01 does not inspire any credence. Moreover though the prosecution has claimed that this pistol was used by the accused while firing at the police party at Deepak Petrol Pump, however no evidence was led that any such empty cartridge was recovered from the spot which was fired from the country made pistol Ex.P1. The evidence of PW37 Sh. KC Varshney to the effect that the country made pistol Ex.P2 on examination was found in working condition which is referred as Mark F1 in his report and one fired cartridge Mark BC1 Ex.P3 was fired with this pistol is of no consequence as the prosecution has failed to prove its recovery at the instance of accused Rajender and that this weapon was used by the accused while firing at the police party at Deepak Petrol Pump on the 183 intervening night of 21 /221101. Even otherwise the prosecution has failed to prove on record the sanction accorded U/s 39 Arms Act for the prosecution of the accused Rajender under Arms Act for recovery of country made pistol from his possession.

91. So far accused Neeraj is concerned the prosecution has produced PW10 Ct. Balwan Singh, PW26 SI Rahul Sahni and PW32 Inspt SS Malik regarding his arrest and the recovery of incriminating material. Regarding arrest of this accused discussion has already been made above whereby the prosecution has proved his arrest on 15/12/01 from his house at the instance of accused Rajender. PW26 SI Rahul Sahni has testified that on his apprehension he was interrogated and made disclosure statement Ex.PW10/D which corroborates the disclosure statement of accused Rajender on 184 material facts. He disclosed that he was Constable with Delhi Police and was posted with Traffic Unit, R&D Lines, Teen Murti. Besides, he has further disclosed that during the police firing he had received bullet shot on his chin and left shoulder due to which he started bleeding and blood fell on steering of the car. He further disclosed that he had left the Ford Ikon car at Loni Ghaziabad and left for his house in a TSR and told his family members that he was injured in an accident. He further disclosed that he removed his blood stained uniform and wind cheater and after changing clothes went to Barot, UP and got his wound bandaged at the shop of a private doctor whose address he was not aware of but he could point out the place. He further disclosed that he had thrown the knife in the bushes in Loni and that place also he could point out and get recovered the knife. Regarding Rs. 185 20,000/ which came to his share after withdrawal from ATM on the card of deceased Ratan Roy he stated that after spending some money he was left with balance of about Rs.11,500/ which he could get recovered lying underneath the mattress lying on the double bed in his room. Regarding the windcheater he stated that he had washed the same and kept in the almirah. He further disclosed that from his Icard, the fake identity card was prepared by accused Rajender by getting the coloured photocopy of the same . It is in furtherance of this disclosure statement that a sum of Rs. 11,500/ as deposed by PW26 SI Rahul Sahni was recovered from his possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/J. Accused also got recovered a motorcycle used in the offence which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/L. At this instance one khaki uniform shirt Ex.P13, pant Ex.P14, one windcheater Ex.P15 186 and two flaps Ex.P1617 of SI Delhi Police were seized from his house vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/K. It is pertinent to mention that both the khaki uniform and the windcheater were having holes made by a bullet and were sent to the FSL Malviya Nagar for experts opinion. Though no opinion could be given by PW37 KC Varshney Sr. Scientific Officer as the gun shot residue particles were not detected around holes, it is taken note of that accused Neeraj in his disclosure statement had disclosed that his wife had washed the uniform and the windcheater and as such it is quite possible that gun shot residue particles were also washed out. At the same time merely the gun shot residues were not found on the uniform Ex.P1314 and the windcheater Ex.P15 it cannot be said that the accused was not wearing the same at the time of the incident. The recovery of both these articles at 187 the instance of accused has been proved through unrebutted testimony of witnesses PW10 Ct. Balwan, PW26 SI Rahul Sahni, PW32 Inspt. SS Malik and the accused has failed to explain as to how both these exhibits were bearing the holes at the corresponding places. Besides the prosecution has also led sufficient evidence on record to prove that accused Neeraj had received bullet injury in the aforesaid incident. To that effect prosecution has examined PW19 Dr. Narender Kumar who had treated the accused for the injury. The argument of the defence counsel that this witness had not given the date when he treated the accused nor he has categorically stated that he had treated the accused for injury received by a firearm as such the testimony of this witness is irrelevant. However, it is pertinent to mention that this witness was not introduced by the prosecution of its own but it is 188 the accused who had led the police to the clinic of aforesaid witness in furtherance of his disclosure statement Ex.PW10/D and this witness has categorically stated that accused Neeraj had come to his Murti Nursing Home about 8 /10 / 12 months ago while he was having injuries on his chin and shoulder. He further categorically stated that he did not lodge any report with the police because accused had told him that a quarrel had taken place between him and his brother and he had received injuries in that quarrel. Admittedly no medical document was shown to this witness from which he could state on which particular date he had examined the accused. The argument of the defence counsel that the witness had stated that he had treated the accused 8 /10 /12 months ago and it is a vague statement has again no force in view of the fact that no medical document was produced 189 before him to say as to when he had examined the accused and once the accused had led the police party to him it was for the defence to have proved on record as to when the accused had visited Murti Nursing Home and for what purpose. Since the police was investigating the present case and accused made disclosure statement during the investigation and led the police party to the clinic of Dr. Narender Kumar it is obvious that injuries on the person of accused for which this doctor treated him had relation with the present case and accused had gone to him for treatment of his injuries received during the said incident. During the cross examination of this witness it is not denied by the accused that he had not been treated by Dr. Narender at any point of time for any injury whatsoever. Hence, despite the fact that this witness had not stated that he had treated the accused for 190 fire injury, presumption is that the accused was treated by him for the injury received by him in the present case. This witness is a truthful witness and was not interested either to favour the prosecution or the accused and stated the truth. What is important regarding this witness is that police reached him at the instance of accused. It is not the IO who introduced Dr. Narender but it is the accused who led the police party to the said doctor in furtherance of his disclosure statement that he was injured in the police firing at the Deepak Petrol Pump and had obtained treatment from the said doctor. Besides, it is pertinent to mention that PW19 Dr. Narender deposed in his chief examination that accused had injuries on his chin and shoulder when he approached him and this fact finds corroboration from his disclosure statement Ex.PW10/D and his MLC dtd. 16/12/01 Ex.PW38/A. Besides when the 191 accused was arrested on 15/12/01 he was having bandage on his skin which is another link in the chain of the circumstances proved by the prosecution regarding the involvement of the accused in the incident.

92. PW13 SI Raj Kumar under the instructions of SHO on 16/12/01 had taken all the three accused for medical examination at AIIMS Hospital and accused were examined by Dr Varun Dixit, however he could not appear in the witness box, hence PW38 Dr.Manish Komath from AIIMS Hospital appeared as a substitute to Dr. Varun Dixit who had examined accused Neeraj and proved his MLC Ex.PW38/A. As per the same there was no fresh injury found on the person of accused Neeraj but there was one healed stitched wound over the chin on right and left side of 2cm on left and 1cm of right and healed wound on left shoulder two in 192 number about 1cm each. The doctor gave the age of the wounds as more than two weeks and as per the opinion of the doctor the possibility of the wound on the shoulder due to fire could not be ruled out. No doubt PW38 Manish Komath had not medically examined the accused Neeraj, however, on the basis of the MLC of the accused prepared by Dr. Varun Dixit he proved the injuries on the person of accused Neeraj at the time of his arrest. During cross examination the witness testified that the stitches change the dimension of the wound and in the present case the wound was stitched and stitches were removed. He also testified that the dimension of the wound given in the MLC Ex.PW38/A was of the stitched wound. The arguments of the defence counsel that this witness had not examined the accused as such he could not prove the contents of the MLC does have some 193 force, however, at the same time it is to be taken note of that this MLC is to be read in the surrounding circumstances i.e other evidence led by the prosecution regarding the injuries on the person of accused Neeraj at the time of his arrest and after the incident. The MLC Ex.PW38/A is not to be read in isolation but in the light of disclosure statement Ex.PW10/D of accused Neeraj and the testimony of Dr. Narender PW19 who had treated the accused for injuries and the fact that the accused had led the police party to his nursing home. It is also pertinent to mention that the incident of kidnapping of Ratan Roy for ransom had taken place on 21/11/01 and deceased Ratan Roy had been thrown out of the moving car on the intervening night of 2122/11/01 whereas the accused Neeraj was arrested on 15/12/01 as such the MLC Ex.PW38/A giving the age of the wound as more than 2 weeks is plausible as 194 by that time 24 days had passed since after the incident of police firing at Deepak Petrol Pump wherein as per the prosecution case Neeraj had received bullet injury. The MLC Ex.PW38/A is another link in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution regarding involvement of accused Neeraj in the commission of offence. It is further important to note that PW19 Dr. Narender who is a neutral witness testified that accused had told him that he had received injuries in a quarrel with his brother and for this reason he did not report the matter to the police , however accused Neeraj has not led any evidence to the fact that he had actually sustained injuries in a quarrel with his brother. He has not even cared to produce his said brother in the witness box to corroborate his statement made before Dr.Narender. Nor it is suggested by the defence counsel to the IO that 195 accused Neeraj was treated by Dr. Narender for the injuries received in a quarrel with his brother. It is not even disputed in the cross examination of PW19 Dr. Narender that accused did not make any such statement to the doctor.

93. The another important aspect of the case is that the steering of the Ford Ikon Car was found blood stained. PW36 SI Rajkumar is the witness to the recovery of Ford Ikon Car bearing registration No. DL3CS 9438 on 22/11/01 from near carbon factory , 100ft road, Arya Nagar on receipt of a secret information. He proved the seizure memo of the car as Ex.PW36/B. He testified that on the inspection of the car he found there was a bullet mark on the dicky of the car and the window glass of left front side was broken. He also noticed blood stains on the steering of the car. It is testified that the senior police officers and the crime team and 196 photographer reached the spot of recovery of car and took the photographs of the car. He further testified that he lifted the blood from the steering of the car vide memo Ex.PW36/C besides two bullet leads were also seized from inside the car vide memo Ex.PW36/D.

94. PW26 SI Rahul Sahni testified that he got accused Neeraj medically examined on 18/12/01 and got his blood sample preserved. He proved the seizure memo of blood sample as Ex.PW18/A. It is pertinent to mention that the blood sample lifted from the steering of Ford Ikon and blood stained gauze containing blood sample of accused Neeraj Kumar were received in the office of FSL Malviya Nagar on 2.4.02 in case FIR NO 261/01 dtd 22.11.01 PS Seemapuri U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC and on Biological examination of both these samples, blood was detected on both the exhibits as deposed by 197 CW 2 Dr Rajender Kumar who testified that EX. 1 was found to have A group of blood but no reaction was detected on EX 2 on the blood stained gauze described to be containing blood of accused Neeraj Kumar. On account of these circumstances vide order of the Court the blood sample of accused Neeraj Kumar was taken and sent to FSL which on analysis was found to be human origin and of A group and the report of FSL was earlier exhibited as EX.PW 32/K during the testimony of PW32 Inspt. SS Malik lateron was reexhibited as EX CW 1/X1 in the testimony of CW1 OS Srivastava. The argument of the defence counsel that merely the blood found on the steering was having human origin and of A group and that the blood group of accused Neeraj Kumar was also found to be of A group it cannot be presumed that the blood of accused Neeraj Kumar fell on the steering of the 198 car, as CW l OS Srivastava and CW 2 DR Rajender Kumar have admitted that blood group A may be either A+ve or Ave but in the present case such grouping has not been proved by the prosecution and that in these circumstances the prosecution has failed to connect accused Neeraj Kumar with the commission of crime. However, the aforesaid argument has no force as once the prosecution has proved on record that the blood found on the steering was of A group and so was the blood group of accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary, in view of the other relating evidence that accused Neeraj was found driving the said car by PW 14 SI Brij Mohan and PW 15 Ct. Ashok Kumar at Deepak petrol pump it does not lie in the mouth of defence to state that the blood group on the steering of the Ford Ikon was different from the blood group of the accused. The prosecution has discharged its 199 onus by proving on record that the group of blood found on the steering and of accused Neeraj Kumar were both A Group, which in my opinion is sufficient to link accused Neeraj Kumar with the commission of crime. Besides, as referred above, it is proved on record by the prosecution that Neeraj had suffered a bullet injury on his shoulder and chin during cross firing between the accused persons and the police for which he was treated by PW19 Dr Narender at Barot in UP. Hence , this is another link proved by the prosecution in the chain of circumstances regarding involvement of accused Neeraj Kumar in the commission of the offence.

95. The prosecution has relied upon the FSL report Ex.CW1/X1. PW36 SI Raj Kumar is a witness to the recovery of Ford Ikon bearing No. DL3CS 9438 found stationary near the carbon factory Arya Nagar. He testified that he lifted the blood from the 200 steering of the car vide Ex.PW36/C and two bullet leds from the car were seized vide memo Ex.PW36/D besides one mobile phone and a diary. He also testified that he had also seized the pistol and revolver from the MHC(M) of PS Dilshad Garden vide memo Ex.PW14/C. The pistol bearing No. 16103858 DP No. 3474, 9mm was in possession of PW14 SI Brij Mohan and the revolver bearing No. 1609.38 bore which was in possession of Ct. Ashok Kumar and was used in defence at the Deepak Petrol Pump when the accused persons fired at the police party. The statement of SI Rajkumar is corroborated by the testimony of PW14 SI Brij Mohan and PW15 Ct. Ashok Kumar.

96. It has already been proved vide the testimony of PW2 Harmeek Singh, PW14 SI Brij Mohan and PW15 Ct. Ashok that the deceased Ratan Roy had been thrown out of the moving car by the 201 accused Rajender who was sitting on the rear seat alongwith the deceased Rattan Roy and it was obviously in furtherance of their common intention to divert the attention of the police chasing them towards Rattan Roy the kidnapped person and to escape from there. However, Rattan Roy had to pay the price for the same, as due to head injury received by him due to fall from moving car, he went in coma and lost his precious life without any fault of his. It is proved on record that he had been removed to GTB Hospital from the spot. PW35 Dr. Anil Das of GTB Hospital testified that on 22/1/01 at 6am he had examined Ratan Roy at the hospital with the following injuries:

1. A round lacerated wound approx 1.5cms in diameter on the inner aspect of the left arm and similarly over outer aspect, where there was blackening but no sinzing and no tattooing. 202

2. Also there was swelling and tenderness over head 34 cms in diameter.

It appears in the testimony of PW35 Dr.Anil Das that the date of admission of Rattan Roy in GTB Hospital has been wrongly typed as 22/1/01 as he was admitted in the hospital on 22/11/01 and the MLC Ex.PW35/A confirms the said date of admission.

PW35 Dr Anil Das stated that the patient was referred to Sr. Resident Neuro Surgeon and he proved the MLC of the patient as Ex.PW35/A. The patient Rattan Roy was lateron shifted to Apollo Hospital. PW27 Dr. Deepak Vats, CMO Apollo Hospital produced the record of treatment of Ratan Roy now deceased. He testified that Ratan Roy remained under treatment of Dr. AM Jha and Dr. RP Basia the Resident Doctor in ICU. He further proved the death certificate of Ratan Roy given by 203 Dr. Basia as Ex.PW23/B. He proved the record of the treatment of Ratan Roy collectively Ex.PW27/A. As per testimony of PW1 Mausmi Roy the deceased had succumbed to the injuries on 29/11/01 in Apollo Hospital and this fact stands proved from the death certificate Ex.PW23/B of deceased Rattan Roy.

97. In the present case Dr Amar Nath of AIIMS hospital had conducted the postmortem on the deadbody of deceased Rattan Roy. However, since he had left the services of the hospital, as such PW 23 Dr A Varun Dixit appeared and proved the postmortem report EX PW 23/A prepared by Dr Amar Nath. He testified that on examination of the body of the deceased Ratan Roy had following injuries on his person:

1 Surgically made curvilinear stitched wound over the left parieto temporal region, 18 cm in length.

2 Surgically made wound in the front of neck, 3 204 cm in length.

3 Stitched wounds on the lateral aspect of the left arm, 11 cm in length and on the medial aspect of the left arm 2.5 cm in length, partially communicating with each other through muscle layers, not involving underlying bone. 4 Slight bruising on the right upper gluteal region laterally.

5 Missing piece of bone in an area 9 am x 8 cm in the left parietotemporal area of skull query surgically made. Brain matter was oozing out through underlying torn dura.

As per the postmortem report the cause of death was coma due to head injury caused by blunt force and all the injuries were opined as antemortem in nature.

98. The argument of the defence counsel is that the accused had suffered bullet injury on account of police firing but this fact was tried to be concealed as in the brief history as contained in the inquest papers there is no mention of fire arm 205 injury and it is submitted that there is every possibility that the deceased had died of bullet injury. No doubt, in the brief history it is not mentioned that the deceased had also suffered fire arm injury on his left upper arm but there is no question of concealment of this fact by the IO as in the death certificate EX PW 23/B issued by Apollo Hospital which is part of the inquest papers it is specifically mentioned in the Col. ''Cause of death'' that there was also a bullet injury on left upper arm of deceased Rattan Roy. Besides in the MLC EX.PW 23/C of deceased Rattan Roy also this fact finds mention. This fact further finds mention in the document EX PW 26/B1 which is a letter to Autopsy Surgeon by the IO of the case wherein there is reference of bullet injury in the left arm of Ratan Roy besides head injury. In the death report EX PW 26/B2 again this fact finds mention and all 206 these documents were available to the Dr Amar Nath at the time he conducted postmortem on the deadbody of the deceased so there was no question of concealing this injury by the IO to protect their own skin. Moreover in the postmortem report the doctor has categorically mentioned that the cause of death was Coma due to head injury, which itself shows that the death was not on account of any other injury but due to head injury caused by blunt force and it is not the case of the defence that the head injury was also due to use of fire arm. The head injury on the person of deceased was due to fall from moving car. The postmortem report finds corroboration from the testimony of PW 2 Harmeek, PW 14 SI Brijmohan and PW 15 Ct. Ashok Kumar that Ratan Roy had been thrown out of the moving Ford Ikon while he was on the rear seat of the same and it is only on account of his being 207 thrown out of the moving car he has hit the road causing him such injury which lateron proved to be fatal. In these circumstances it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that on account of the fact that the deceased was pushed out of the moving car from the rear seat by accused Rajender who was sitting next to him in connivance with the other two accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary who was on the steering of the car and accused Vikram Yadav who was sitting next to him in front to divert the attention of the police chasing them and to save themselves, resulting into death of the deceased Ratan Roy in Apollo Hospital lateron.

99. Vide testimony of PW16 HC Surender who had verified about the ownership of the Ford Ikon Car from transport authority, Sheikh Sarai it is proved on record vide document Ex.PW16/A that it was registered in the name of Schneider where the 208 deceased was working.

100. Another link in the chain of the prosecution case is established through the testimony of PW 11 RK Singh Nodal Officer,Bharti Cellular Ltd and PW20 Sh Ashish Harioke, Manager ICICI Bank. It is the prosecution case that after Ratan Roy was kidnapped a sum of Rs. 15,000/ was withdrawn on 21.11.2001 and then again a sum of Rs. 15,000/ was withdrawn on 22.11.2001 by the kidnappers through ICICI ATM Card of Rattan Roy. PW 20 Sh Ashish Harioke Manager with ICICI Bank produced the statement of Account of Ratan Roy holding account NO 004601025195 EX PW 20/A. He further produced the record showing withdrawal of money from the account of Ratan Roy by use of his ATM Card on 21/11/2001 and 22.11.2001 and the relevant record is EX PW 20/B. The record Ex.PW 20/A is showing withdrawal of 209 Rs. 15,000/ through ATM from his account on 21.11.2001 and the another withdrawal Rs. 15,000/ on 22.11.2001. As per document EX PW 20/B which is a letter addressed to my Ld Predecessor by the authorised signatory of the bank the withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/ on 21.11.2001 was made from Preet Vihar Branch i.e from ATM at Sincere Tower IV Preet Vihar Community Center New Delhi at 22.58 hours. The said document further reflects that amount of Rs. 15,000/ from ATM Krishna Nagar i.e at Dl Krishna Nagar Lal Quarter New Delhi was withdrawn at 00.36 hours on 22.11.2001. The statement of PW 20 Ashish Harioke and the record produced by him has not been disputed by the defence in any manner as the witness was not cross examined on behalf of any of the accused. This record is to be read alongwith the documents EX PW 11/B ie the call details of mobile NO 9810158032 210 w.e.f 20.11.01. The said record has been proved vide the testimony of PW11 RK Singh Nodal Officer Bharti Cellular Limited Airtel and the record contains the calls details of mobile NO 9810158032 we.f. 20.11.01 from 10.12 pm to 22.11.01 at 7.07 am. As per the call record an outgoing call was made from the aforesaid mobile at 22.45.16 hours and with cell ID 1001, the another outgoing call was made at 23.11.43 hours with Cell ID 2312. The next call was made from the said mobile at 23:19:47 hours with cell ID 1402 and one more call was made from the said mobile on 22.11.01 at 18.36 hours. Thereafter another call was made from this telephone at 00:35:30hours with cell ID 6671 and next call was made at 00:36:31 hours cell ID No. 2312 and one more call was made at 00:50:27 hours cell ID No. 1352. It is pertinent to mention that vide last three calls referred above the IMEI NO. of the 211 mobile NO. 9810158032 was changed from 449125550757180 to 449269200615380 which belong to the mobile phone 9810590140 recovered from the possession of accused Rajender. As per the testimony of PW20 it is proved that the first withdrawal from the ATM was made at 22.58 hours at Preet Vihar ATM and the second withdrawal was made at 00.36 hours from Krishna Nagar ATM, whereas the cell ID of the calls made from the mobile of deceased Ratan Roy and thereafter of accused Rajender was of Laxmi Nagar , Gandhi Nagar, Dilshad Garden, Sahibabad, Gandhi Nagar, Durga Puri and all these areas are near and around Preet Vihar and Krishna Nagar. The aforesaid record further proves the presence of Ratan Roy alongwith the accused persons in view of the change of IMEI No of the mobile No. 9810158032 of the deceased to mobile No. 9810590140 which 212 mobile phone was lateron recovered from the possession of accused Rajender. The aforesaid calls record further finds corroboration from the statement of PW 2 Harmeek Singh and official witnesses that after every few minutes the kidnappers were making the deceased Ratan Roy called Harmeek Singh on the mobile phone of Romi Chopra which was handed over to him through Rohit Bansal.

101. Besides it is important to note that no one including the police was aware of the place of kidnapping of the deceased and it is only through the pointing out of the place of kidnapping by the accused persons this fact was revealed that the deceased was kidnapped by them on the road going towards Dilshad Nagar descending from Surya Nagar flyover as shown at point A in the pointing out memos of the accused persons which are EX 213 PW 10/O, P & Q respectively proved vide the testimony of PW 10 Ct. Balwan Singh. PW 26 SI Rahul Sahni categorically stated that after the arrest of the accused peons they went to Apsara Border alongwith accused persons and each of them were taken separately for identification of the place where they had stopped the car of Ratan Roy. This witness further proved the siteplan Ex PW 26/D of the place where the deceased had been kidnapped.

102. It is also proved by prosecution that accused persons had impersonated as police officials at the time of kidnapping of Rattan Rai as besides, the recovery of police uniform of SI Rank and blue windcheater from the possession of accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary corroborates the statement of PW 3 TK Roy who deposed that on 21.11.01 between 8.30/9 pm he had received a call from his brother 214 Ratan Roy who told him that he was caught by CBI people and he should talk to them and gave his cell phone to those persons, then TK Roy spoke to the person who told him that his name was Rahim Khan and also that they were not from CBI but had kidnapped his brother. This itself shows that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy of all the accused persons to kidnap a rich person for ransom and in furtherance of their common intention the accused persons as per their own disclosure statement they impersonated as police officials and stopped the car driven by Rattan Roy (now deceased) when they found him all alone and on the pretext of checking the documents of the car and the dicky they kidnapped him for ransom. It is pertinent to mention that the police uniform and the blue windcheater recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary were bearing two 215 holes on the left shoulder of both appearing to be bullet marks which fact finds corroboration that the accused Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary when arrested had injury on his left shoulder and as per his own disclosure statement he was treated for his said injury by PW19 Dr. Narender Kumar.

103. So far the recovery of fake Icard from the possession of accused Rajender bearing his photograph with the name of Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary is concerned it is proved on record vide testimony of PW17 HC Rambir that it was issued in the name of Ct Neeraj Kumar, however, there is no evidence on record as to who forged the said Icard and similarly, there is no evidence on record that accused Rajender ever used this forged card as genuine. The accused Rajender has though faced trial U/s 468 IPC for possessing forged / fake Icard in the name of Neeraj Kumar, rank Constable 216 bearing No. 10081531 bearing his photograph and the recovery of the said fake Icard has also been proved on record by the cogent evidence led by the prosecution, however, merely recovery of a forged document from possession of accused does not attract the provisions of Sec. 468 IPC, as to attract the provisions of the section, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that accused Rajender had forged the said document. As per Sec. 468 IPC, a person who commits forgery intending to use the forged document for the purpose of cheating is liable to be punished. The term 'forgery' has been defined in Sec. 463 IPC. As per the same whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or with intent to commit fraud, commits forgery. However, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that the Icard Ex.P1 217 recovered from the possession of accused Rajender was forged by him. Besides, there is no evidence on record that he used the forged Icard as genuine to cheat the public or any person intending to commit fraud. Hence, no offence is proved to have been committed by accused Rajender Singh U/s 468 IPC. Hence, he is acquitted of the charge U/s 468 IPC.

104. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Rattan Roy was kidnapped for ransom in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy on 21/11/01 by impersonating as police officers on the pretext of checking the documents of his car and the dicky and while the kidnapped person was being taken here and there to fix a place for collecting ransom but in the meantime the police started chasing them while they reached Deepak Petrol Pump in the Ford Ikon of the deceased and 218 deceased was also in the car at that time, when SI Brij Mohan wanted the occupants to get out of the Ford Ikon and knocked at the front left window, in furtherance of their common intention, the accused persons fired at the police party obstructing them in discharge of their official duties, though none of the police officials was injured in such firing, however, definitely an attempt on the life of the police officials namely SI Brij Mohan and Ct. Ashok Kumar was made by the accused persons while both these police officials were discharging their official duties to save the kidnapped Rattan Roy from their clutches. It is further proved beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused, the kidnapped Rattan Roy was thrown out of the moving car by accused Rajender who was sitting alongwith him on the rear seat to escape from police, resulting into head injury on the 219 person of Rattan Roy due to which he went in coma and lateron succumbed to the injury on 29/11/01 at Apollo Hospital and thus, all the accused committed the murder of the deceased Rattan Roy. It is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused after kidnapping Rattan Roy for ransom had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each from ATM at Preet Vihar and at Krishna Nagar by putting him under fear of injury or death. Hence, all the accused have also committed offences punishable U/s 186/353/307/34 and U/s 419/364A/384/302/120B IPC and are convicted accordingly.

105. However, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused Neeraj Kumar beyond reasonable doubt U/s 25 Arms Act, hence he is acquitted U/s 25 Arms Act.

106. Accused Rajender as referred above is also 220 acquitted of the charge U/s 468 IPC.

107. The prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt of accused Rajender Singh beyond reasonable doubt U/s 27 Arms Act, hence, he is acquitted of the said charge.

108. Both the FIR's i.e 611/01 PS Badarpur and 261/01 PS Seemapuri are disposed off.





Announced in Open Court                 (Ravinder Kaur)
Date : 8/12/07                          ASJ : New Delhi. 
                          221

IN THE COURT OF MS RAVINDER KAUR, ASJ, NEW DELHI SC No. 145/02 SC No. 66/02 State Vs. 1 Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary S/o Sh Dharam Pal R/o 1/3032, Ram Nagar Shahdara, Delhi 2 Rajender Singh S/o Sh Shiv Raj Singh.

R/o B145 West Nathu Colony, Shahdara, Delhi.

3 Vikram Yadav S/o Sh. Inder Singh R/o 951 Village Bawana Delhi.

FIR No.   :   611/2001         FIR No.  :    261/2001
PS        :   Badarpur         PS       :   Seemapuri


U/s       :   186/353/307/34 IPC.
              302/364A/384/419/120B IPC 
                           222



                ORDER ON SENTENCE

Pr.: Ms. Anita Hooda, Addl. PP for State. Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Counsel for convict Rajender Singh and Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary.

Sh. SP Kaushal, counsel for convict Vikram Yadav.

Arguments heard on the point of sentence.

1. Sh. Ramesh Gupta, adv for convict Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary and Rajender Singh has submitted that it is not the case which falls within the category of rarest of rare cases to award them death penalty. It is also submitted that that they are young boys and convict Neeraj was recently married before the incident and that they were not involved in any other criminal case. It is submitted that they belong to respectable families, hence lenient view be taken while awarding sentence.

2. Sh. SP Kaushal, adv for convict Vikram 223 Yadav has submitted that he is a young boy and a national level boxer and is not involved in any other criminal case. It is submitted that a lenient view be taken while awarding sentence.

3. On the other hand Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that since the convicts have committed gruesome offence they deserve maximum punishment.

4. After hearing the submissions of both the parties and going through the material on record I find that the convicts for lust of money had kidnapped an innocent person Rattan Roy and while they were chased by the police they made an attempt on the life of the police officials and threw out the Rattan Roy from a moving car, resulting into his death and in such kind of offences the convicts do not deserve any mercy as a young life has been lost on account of no fault of his leaving 224 his family in utter shock and despair. It is further pertinent to mention that though it is claimed by the defence counsels that the convicts belong to respectable families and this fact is supported from evidence on record also that convict Vikram Yadav was national level boxer and the other accused Neeraj Kumar was employed with Delhi Police, in my opinion it is shameful act on the part of the convicts that despite the fact they belong to respectable families and are educated, particularly, convict Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary who was Constable with Delhi Police and the job of the police officials is to protect the public from the criminals and their unlawful activities but it is unheard that a police official himself was involved in such gruesome act, hence the accused persons deserve no leniency. However, at the same time the present case do not fall within the category of 225 rarest of rare cases as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the various authorities hence they cannot be awarded Capital punishment U/s 302/364A IPC.

5. All the accused persons in the facts and circumstances of the present case are thus sentenced to life imprisonment U/s 302 r/w 120 IPC.

6. All the accused persons are further sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ each in default to undergo SI for 3 months each U/s 364A r/w 120B IPC.

7. All the accused persons are further sentenced to RI for 3 years U/s 384 r/w 120B IPC.

8. All the accused persons are further sentenced to RI for 3 months U/s 186 IPC.

9. All the accused persons are further sentenced to RI for 2 years U/s 353 IPC.

10. All the accused persons are further sentenced to RI for 5 years U/s 307 IPC. 226

11. All the accused persons are further sentenced to RI for 3 years U/s 419 r/w 120B IPC.

12. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

Both the files pertaining to case FIR No. 611/01 PS Badarpur and FIR No. 261/01 PS Seemapuri be consigned to RR.




Announced in Open Court           (Ravinder Kaur)
Date: 10/1/08                     ASJ : New Delhi

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1 Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary on 8 December, 2007