Delhi District Court
State vs . Satish Kumar Sharma on 20 March, 2018
FIR No. 675/01 20.03.2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH MALIK, CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH WEST
DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma
FIR No. 675/01
PS Saraswati Vihar
(a) Date of offence 01.08.2001
(b) Accused Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Tej
Ram R/o VPO Astauli,
District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh
(c) Offence Under Section 386/506/511
IPC
(d) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(e) Final Order Acquitted
(f) Date of institution 21.11.2001
(g) Date when 27.02.2018
judgment was
reserved
(h) Date of judgment 20.03.2018
State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma Page no. 1 of 9
FIR No. 675/01 20.03.2018
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant made a written complaint dated 01.08.2001 to SHO PS: Lahori Gate, informing that he had received a ransom call at about 5:00 PM at his phone no. 3934900 at his office. In his complaint, he stated that the caller appeared to be a male and told his name as Raunak Ali. He stated that he had been asked to pay Rs. 5 lakh, otherwise his son Rahul aged 22 years would be shot. The complaint further revealed that after 10 minutes, the complainant again received the same call, and the caller asked him to keep the money ready, failing which, he threatened to kill his all family members. The said complaint was marked to SI Bhawan Singh to look into the matter personally.
2. Again on 02.09.2001, another written complaint was made to SHO PS: Saraswati Vihar that in continuation of his earlier complaint dated 01.08.2001, he (complainant) received the ransom call from mobile no. 9811361668 on his phone no. 7012341. The complainant stated that the caller appeared to be the same person namely Raunak Ali, and again ransom of Rs. 5 lakh had been demanded. The caller warned the complainant not to act smart or to inform the police.
3. On the second complaint dated 02.09.2001, the State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma Page no. 2 of 9 FIR No. 675/01 20.03.2018 FIR u/s 386/511 IPC was registered. The matter was investigated. During investigation, call details of the mobile number 9811361668 were obtained. The phone number was found to be belonging to one Divya Chadha. It was revealed that Divya Chadha gave the said number to Harsh Telecom while taking new Airtel number. A boy namely Raj Kumar working in Harsh Telecom gave the said Number to his known customer namely Ram Kumar. On investigation, it was found that the said number was with the accused Satish Kumar Sharma. The accused used the said Sim Number in a mobile purchased from Rajiv Gupta and demanded the ransom of Rs. 5 lakh. Accordingly, the accused Satish Kumar Sharma was arrested. The accused got recovered the mobile phone used to make the ransom call. After conclusion of investigation, the present charge sheet was filed.
4. The arguments on charge heard, and the charge u/s 386/511 IPC and u/s 506 IPC were framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove its case. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.
6. PW-1 deposed about the fact of receiving ransom call on 01.08.2001 and 02.09.2001 from mobile no. 9811361668. He deposed that the caller introduced State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma Page no. 3 of 9 FIR No. 675/01 20.03.2018 himself as Raunak Ali and demanded Rs. 5 lakh, failing which, he threatened to eliminate his family. He exhibited his both complaints as Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B. He was not cross-examined by the accused and was discharged.
7. PW-2 is Divya Chadha. She deposed that in the year 2001, she was doing her post-graduation at National Institute of Advertising at ITO. At that time, she was having one mobile phone no. 9811361668, and the same was with her from June 2001 upto 14.08.2001. The cash card/Sim No. was purchased by her from Janak Puri and was of ESSAR Company. On 14.08.2001, she went to Harsh Telecom, Main Road near Temple and took cash card of Airtel from that shop bearing no. 9810478405, and the cash card of ESSAR was given by her to the shopkeeper concerned. The shop was in the name of Harsh Telecom. She left the said ESSAR cash card at the said shop. She deposed that she did not know about the cash card of ESSAR as to who used the said cash card after 14.08.2001.
8. Another public witness is PW-3 namely Rajiv Gupta. He deposed that he was doing the work of a contractor in PWD. He knew Ram Kumar. He was working in PWD. After 4-5 years ago, Ram Kumar had asked him for some old mobile phone for his friend Satish. He handed over his State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma Page no. 4 of 9 FIR No. 675/01 20.03.2018 mobile phone make Motorola 180. The present accused was called there by Ram Kumar, and he handed over the mobile phone to him. Thereafter, they took him to Laxmi Nagar and purchased cash card for Satish Kumar. He did not remember the number of cash card.
On the leading question by Ld. APP, he deposed that the Cash Card No. was 9811361668. After about 8-9 months, he was called in Shakti Vihar Chowki and the police made inquiries from him. He alongwith the police went in search of Satish Kumar and at his instance, the accused Satish Kumar was arrested. He exhibited the arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW-2/A. He deposed that the accused got recovered mobile phone vide Ex. PW-2/D. His examination in chief was deferred as the case property was not produced by MHC(M). Thereafter, he was not called for his further examination-in-chief, which remained incomplete.
9. The PW-4 is an Inspector Bhawan Singh Mann. He deposed that the first complaint Ex. PW-1/A was marked to him. He asked the complainant to get the caller ID installed at his land-line phone.
10. The PW-5 deposed that he deposited the requisition letter given by IO to an official of Airtel company.
11. PW-6, Nodal Officer of Vodaphone Mobile services State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma Page no. 5 of 9 FIR No. 675/01 20.03.2018 Private Limited exhibited customer application form of mobile phone no. 9953666268 as Ex. PW-6/A and call details of said mobile no. from 01.09.2010 to 15.12.2010 as Ex. PW-6/B. He also brought the certified copy cell ID chart of Delhi circle as Ex. PW-6/C alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act as Ex. PW-6/D.
12. PW-7 Ct. Sunil Kumar deposed that on 25.09.2001, he joined the investigation alongwith IO and during investigation, the complainant, Ram Kumar and Rajeev Gupta reached at Old Delhi Railway Station, and on identification of Ram Kumar and Rajeev Gupta, the present accused was arrested. He further deposed that on pointing out of the accused, one mobile phone making Motorola was recovered underneath the mattresses from the office of Avon Air Fright carrier vide Ex. PW-2/D.
13. PW-8 is the Investigation Officer. He deposed the same facts as deposed by PW-7. He deposed that on 04.09.2001, he was posted at PS: Saraswati Vihar as SI. On that day, on receipt of the complaint of Mr. Vinod Kumar, an FIR was registered. He obtained call details of mobile Phone No. 9811361668, which was used to make ransom call. He checked the call details, obtained the IMEI number of mobile phone handset in which the aforesaid mobile number was used. The call details are Ex. PW-8/B and Ex. PW-8/C. He made call at State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma Page no. 6 of 9 FIR No. 675/01 20.03.2018 mobile/landline number mentioned in call details and it was found that aforesaid mobile handset bearing aforesaid IMEI number was being used by one Rajiv prior to making ransom calls. He made inquiry from Rajiv and recorded his statement. He stated that he had given the aforesaid mobile handset to one Ram Kumar, who was working in PWD office as the latter had asked for one mobile phone handset from him as his known friend namely Satish Kumar required the handset for the purpose of job interviews. He made inquiry from Ram Kumar about the mobile phone number 9811361668 which was used in the aforesaid mobile phone handset. Ram Kumar informed that he had purchased Sim Card of aforesaid mobile number from Harsh Telecom, Laxmi Nagar for his friend Satish Kumar (accused). In the meantime, he also investigated regarding the prior user of mobile phone number 9811361668 and one Divya Chadha, who was using the said mobile number, informed that she had given Sim of aforesaid number to Harsh Telecom. He recorded her statement. He made inquiry from Raj Kumar, who was working in Harsh Telecom. He stated that he had put the Sim of aforesaid number in the mobile handset given by Ram Kumar and thereafter gave the mobile handset to Satish Kumar.
14. Perusal of prosecution witnesses shows that the State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma Page no. 7 of 9 FIR No. 675/01 20.03.2018 complainant did not see the accused. The complainant has not identified the accused from his voice. So, identity of the accused being an extortionist has not been proved by the complainant. The police reached the accused on the basis of call details. The police got the call details of the mobile number used to make extortion call. The said mobile number was being used on a phone having IMEI No. 350032403372080. The phone number having the said IMEI has been shown recovered at the instance of the accused.
15. First of all, the prosecution has to show that on 02.09.2001, the phone number, from which call was made, was in possession of the accused. Apparently, the phone number has not been got issued in the name of accused Satish Kumar Sharma. The said phone number was issued to PW-2 Divya Chadha, who left the said number at mobile shop namely Harsh Telecom, Laxmi Nagar. Then, the said number allegedly travelled to the accused, and this journey of mobile number 9811361668 is tried to be proved from PW-3, who did not complete his deposition. Even his examination-in-chief could not be completed. In absence of any voice identification, the only evidence to connect the accused with mobile number and phone is the testimony of PW-3 Rajeev Gutpa, which could not be completed. His part testimony State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma Page no. 8 of 9 FIR No. 675/01 20.03.2018 cannot be read in evidence. Although, the police witnesses deposed that they recovered the phone having number 9811361668 at the instance of accused underneath the mattress at the office of Avon Air Fright carrier, but, the seizure memo has been proved by the public witness.
16. Considering the facts, mere recovery of mobile phone under the mattress is not sufficient unless it has been proved that on 02.09.2001, the mobile phone having number 9811361668 was in possession of the accused. On this aspect, the prosecution case has failed. Thus, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made extortion calls on 01.08.2001 and 02.09.2001 from mobile number 9811361668. Accordingly, the accused stands acquitted. The accused is directed to furnish bail bond u/s 437-A Cr.PC. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open (RAJESH MALIK)
Court on 20.03.2018 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
(North-West), Rohini, Delhi
State Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma Page no. 9 of 9