Delhi District Court
The Instant Case Has Been Registered On ... vs . on 31 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CC No. : 08/2012
RC no. : DAIA20070048ACBCBINew Delhi.
Unique Case ID no. : 02403R1072222008
Title : State (CBI)
Vs.
Virender Singh , S/o Sh. Radhuvir Singh Bisala,
R/o. Present : Qr. No. N3/5, Police Colony,
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi - 110092.
Permanent Address : Village and Post Office
Dayalpur, P.S. Ballab Garh, Distt. Gurgaon,
Haryana.
U/s : Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988
Date of Institution : 01.07.2008
Date of reserving order : 31.08.2012
Date of pronouncement : 31.08.2012
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 1 / 173
(Appearances)
Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special P.P. for CBI.
Sh. Niranjan Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused Virender
Singh.
J U D G M E N T
1. The instant case has been registered on the
complaint Sh. Raju Bhati alleging that on 22.11.2007
the vehicle of the complainant had collided with an
Alto Car, and a minor scuffle had taken place. The
incidence was dealt with by accused ASI Virender
Singh, PS Badarpur who was on duty. A
Sulehnama had taken place, on the intervention of
accused Virender Singh on 25.11.2007. Accused
Virender Singh had demanded bribe of Rs. 15,000/
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) from the complainant
and had threatened him that if he did not pay the
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 2 / 173
said amount as bribe he would be implicated in a
false case under Sections 307 and 365 IPC. The
complainant had requested SP, CBI, ACB, New
Delhi to take action as he did not want to pay the
bribe. He had given a written complaint to SP, CBI
and thus a regular case was registered against
accused Virender Singh and was entrusted to
Inspector D.D. Sharma, for investigation.
2. A trap was laid. The two independent
witnesses were briefed about the complaint of Sh.
Raju Bhati and were also introduced with the other
members of the trap party including Anu, relative of
complainant who was accompanying him. At about
04:25 PM, complainant upon being directed by
Inspector D.D. Sharma, to contact accused on his
mobile no. 9212536991 from his mobile no.
9911390007, had dialed the mobile number of
accused. Before making the call the introductory
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 3 / 173
voice of both the witnesses were recorded in the
beginning in the digital voice recorder, which did not
contain any prerecorded conversation. The
conversation which took place between the
complainant and the accused was recorded
simultaneously with the help of digital recorder in
the presence of the said witnesses. Thereafter, the
digital recorder was played and heard which
confirmed the demand of bribe by accused who
directed the complainant to meet him near Sibal
Cinema, Badarpur, at about 06:30 PM along with
Rs. 9,000/ (Rupees Nine Thousand) rather then
Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) which he
had agreed to reduce on persuasion of the
complainant.
3. Accordingly, in the presence of the said
independent witnesses and other trap members Rs.
9,000/ (Rupees Nine Thousand) were produced by
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 4 / 173
the complainant which were treated with the
Phenolphthalein Powder. The distinct number of
GC notes were also noted down. The personal
search of the complainant was conducted. The
bribe amount of Rs. 9,000/ (Rupees Nine
Thousand) was duly treated with phenolphthalein
powder and was kept in the right side front pant
pocket of the complainant. He was directed to hand
over this bribe amount to the accused on his
specific demand and not otherwise or on his specific
direction to some other person.
4. Accused is a public servant and as such,
sanction order for his prosecution under Section
19(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
was obtained from the competent authority. The
reports of the CFSL were collected and on
completion of investigation, the Charge Sheet was
filed in the Court.
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 5 / 173
5. Accused had appeared in the Court and
copies of documents, as required by the Section
207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him, to his
satisfaction.
6. My Ld. Predecessor was pleased to
frame charges against the accused under Section 7
and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Now, the points for determination are :
(i) Whether the accused, being a public servant,
demanded and accepted bribe from the
complainant in the discharge of his official
duties?
(ii) Whether the bribe amount was recovered
from the accused?
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 6 / 173
(iii) Whether the accused obtained the bribe
amount by corrupt or by illegal means or by
otherwise abusing his official position?
8. Section 7 of the P.C. Act provides as
under:
"Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public
servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or
attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for
any other person, any gratification whatever, other than
legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do any official act or for showing or
forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official
functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for
rendering or attempting to render any service or
disservice to any person, with the Central Government
or any State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local authority,
corporation or Government Company referred in clause
(c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 7 / 173
named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment which shall be not less than six months
but which may extend to five years and shall also be
liable to fine.....".
9. Section 13 of the P.C. Act provided as
under:
(1) A public servant is said to commit the
offence of criminal misconduct ..........................
.........................................................................................
.......(d) if he
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantages; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 8 / 173 interest....."
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
10. Section 20 of the P.C. Act provides as under:
"Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration : (1) Where, in any trial of offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or clause
(b) of subsection (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 9 / 173 he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under Clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that nay gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, a the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 10 / 173 presumption referred to in either of the said sub sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption my fairly be drawn."
11. Let me examine the testimony of the material witnesses and the other documents filed before me in light of law and the case law to decide whether charges are proved against the accused or not.
12. CBI in support of their case have examined 16 witnesses.
13. PW1 Sh. H.G. S. Dhaliwal, is DCP, South, New Delhi, who stated that he was competent to appoint and to remove a person of the rank of Additional Sub Inspector of Delhi Police from service. He identified his signatures on sanction C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 11 / 173 order (D21) at point A. He stated that he had accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused Additional Sub Inspector Virender Singh on the basis of statements of witnesses and documents placed before him for perusal. He stated that on perusal of the documents and statements, he was satisfied that there was a prima facie case for prosecution of accused Additional Sub Inspector Virender Singh and had accordingly granted sanction for his prosecution. He has proved sanction order Ex.PW1/A. On being cross examined by Sh. Niranjan Singh, Advocate for the accused he stated that he had received a request letter from CBI seeking sanction for prosecution of the accused. After seeing the sanction order Ex.PW1/A he stated that in his sanction order Ex.PW1/A he has not used the word "satisfied". He voluntarily stated that he was satisfied on the basis of legal evidence placed C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 12 / 173 before him. Date is usually put on the note sheet and sometimes it may not be put on the sanction order. He denied that he had granted sanction without application of mind or mechanically.
14. PW2 Sh. Pawan Singh, is Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Limited who proved the forwarding letter dated 12.02.2008 through which he had sent the call details pertaining to mobile number 9911390007 to the Inspector, CBI Ex.PW 2/A. He also proved the call detail record Ex.PW2/B and the consumer application form in respect of the aforesaid mobile number Ex.PW2/C. He further stated that the call detail pertains to a single date i.e. 30.11.2007. He stated that the customer application form was also accompanied by ID proof i.e. driving license of the applicant Ashok Bhati. He proved the same as Ex.PW2/D. On being cross examined by Sh. Niranjan C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 13 / 173 Singh, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused, he admitted that the locations of the calls made at 1:40 pm and at 4:22 pm are different. He stated that he cannot tell the cell ID of these two calls.
15. PW3 Inspector V.P. Dahiya, who is the then SHO, P.S. Badarpur, Delhi has stated that on 30.11.2007 when he was sitting in his office in the police station, at about 8:30 pm, some CBI Officials had brought accused Virender Singh in custody before him and they had also introduced themselves to be from CBI. He stated that they had told him that accused Virender Singh had been arrested while accepting bribe. He stated that in his presence, hand wash of accused Virender Singh was taken and proceedings in that regard were conducted. He stated that the colour of the hand wash had changed and the same was poured in a bottle and was sealed. A cassette was also played C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 14 / 173 and was heard by them. He stated that the seizure memo of the said cassette was prepared and he had signed the same. He stated that he does not remember if the personal search of the accused was conducted in his presence. The proceedings were conducted in his room for about one and a half hour and thereafter, the CBI team had gone to an adjoining room for conducting the proceedings, though 23 CBI Officials kept sitting with him. He stated that the recovery memo dated 30.11.2007 was not prepared in his presence, though it was prepared in the adjoining room and he had signed it. He stated that he had signed the same at point A on each page without going through it as it was a longish statement and proved the same as Ex.PW3/A. He further stated that the compromise deed dated 25.11.2007 bears the endorsement of accused Virender Singh at point A. He proved the said endorsement as Ex.PW3/B. After seeing the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 15 / 173 statements of Sh. Manoj and Sh. Anu, he stated that both are in the handwriting of accused Virender Singh and proved the same as Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. He stated that at the bottom of statement Ex.PW3/D, there is an endorsement in the handwriting of accused Virender Singh at point A to A about the fact that the statements have been recorded and the said endorsement is Ex.PW3/E. On being cross examined by Sh. Niranjan Singh, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the accused, he stated that during his posting in the Police Station, he had never received complaint of corruption against accused Virender Singh. He stated that accused has a good reputation. When compromise deed Ex.PW3/DA was submitted to the accused in the Police Station, addressed to SHO, 1012 persons had come to the Police Station. He voluntarily stated that he had seen the 1012 persons when he was told by the accused Virender C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 16 / 173 Singh that they had compromised their matter. He admitted that these persons had also compromised with Raju Bhati, Anu and Manoj who were having a dispute. He admitted that he was told by accused ASI Virender Singh that the parties had settled their dispute. He admitted that after recording of DD entry no. 43B, dated 25.11.2007, no official work was pending with the accused regarding the dispute between the parties. He further stated that between 25.11.2007 to 30.11.2007, Sh. Raju Bhati, who is a resident of P.S. Badarpur did not make any complaint to him that accused Virender Singh was demanding money from him. He stated that he had not told his superiors about this compromise personally but copy of the daily diary was sent to the concerned ACP. He admitted that the concerned papers like MLCs, compromise deed etc., were also sent to the record room along with a copy of daily diary. As per procedure the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 17 / 173 compromise deed, MLC, statements of Anu and Manoj etc. must have gone to the record room with a copy of daily diary in the instant case also. He stated that there are five barracks in P.S. Badarpur. He admitted that none of these barracks are ever locked on account of irregular duties of the staff and anybody can enter and exit these barracks at any time. He admitted that accused was having a government accommodation and he did not use to live in any barrack. He stated that he was not shown any copy of the FIR by the CBI officials. He voluntarily stated that the CBI officials had only given their introduction on their arrival. He stated that he does not remember if his statement was recorded once or twice in this case but on seeing the file, he find that his statement was recorded twice on 18.02.2008 and on 04.03.2008. He stated that the tumbler in which hand wash of the accused was taken was neither washed nor dried up by the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 18 / 173 CBI officials in his presence. He admitted that 45 criminal cases each are registered in P.S. Badarpur against Anu Gujjar and Raju Bhati. He proved the photocopies of the FIR no. 301/06, 116/08 and 794/07 as Ex.PW3/DB to Ex.PW3/DD. He stated that he cannot say if Raju Bhati was arrested by accused ASI Virender Singh in FIR no. 794/07. He admitted that FIR Ex.PW3/DD is against both Raju Bhati and Anu Gujjar. He stated that he had not gone to the barrack for carrying out search of steel box of the accused. He had not gone to the place at tea stall from where accused was arrested. He admitted that during the entire proceedings, the accused had remained in the police station in the custody of CBI either in his room or in the adjoining room. He denied that hand wash of the accused was not taken in his presence. He stated that he does not know if the pant wash of the accused ASI Virender Singh was also taken. He also stated that C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 19 / 173 he cannot say if front pocket wash of accused was also taken. He denied that he has deposed against the accused for fear of departmental action against him.
16. PW4 Sh. M.N. Vijayan who is Assistant Manager, Tata Teleservices Ltd., Delhi identified his signatures on productioncumseizure memo dated 22.01.08 Ex.PW4/A at point A, encircled in red ink. He stated that vide this seizure memo, the call details of mobile no. 9212536991 of date 30.11.07 were provided. He stated that along with the call details he had also provided customer application form along with related documents. He proved the call details of mobile no. 9212536991 Ex.PW4/B running into two pages. He stated that there is an incoming call from the mobile no. 9911390007 to the no. 9212536991 on 30.11.07 at 1342 hrs. He stated that again there are incoming calls from the same C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 20 / 173 number on the same date, at 1621 hrs and at 1931 hrs also. He proved the attested copy of customer application form pertaining to accused Virender Singh, S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh, R/o NB/5, NDSE, PartII, Police Colony, New Delhi110049. He proved the photocopy of the identity card of accused Virender Singh Ex. PW4/D. He proved the tariff enrollment form of the telephone no. 9212536991 in the name of accused Virender Singh Ex.PW4/E, form no.60 in connection with the above said telephone number Ex. PW4/F and customer declaration form, signed by deponent Virender Singh Ex. PW4/G. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Virender Singh he admitted that no call was made from telephone no 9212536991 belonging to accused Virender Singh to the telephone no. 9911390007 on 30.11.07. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 21 / 173
17. PW 5 Dr. N.M. Hashmi, Sr. Scientific Officer states that he had received the Ex. RHW for laboratory examination and expert opinion on 03.12.07. It contained one sealed glass bottle which was chemically examined by him for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. The laboratory examination and chemical analysis of Ex. RHW gave positive tests for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. He proved the said report Ex. PW5/A. He stated that the remains of exhibits were returned with the seal impression Dr. N.M. Hashmi, CFSL, CBI, CHM N.D.
3. One sealed envelope containing seal impression along with wrappers removed from Ex. Bottles were also returned with the seal impression of Dr. N.M. Hashmi, CFSL, CBI, CHM, N.D.3. He proved the said bottle which he had examined in his laboratory Ex. P1. He stated that the said bottle was wrapped and sealed with the CBI seal which he had removed C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 22 / 173 from the bottle and then sealed the bottle with his CFSL seal. He proved the brown colour envelop bearing the seal of CFSL Ex. P2. He stated that the said envelope contains a cloth wrapper with CBI Seal. He proved the said cloth wrapper Ex. P3. He stated that along with his report, he had sent Ex. P1,P2 and P3 to the office of CBI.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he did not mention in his report as to how much of the content of the liquid in bottle Ex. P1 was wasted/consumed during his examination. He stated that he had mentioned about the cloth wrapper, removed from Ex. P1, in his report Ex. PW5/A at page no. 2 at serial no. 2. He denied that he had submitted the report without chemical analysis to help the CBI.
18. PW 6 Sh. D.K. Tanwar, who is Senior Scientific Officer who stated that in the present C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 23 / 173 case, two sealed parcels marked as Q1 and S1 along with specimen seal impressions were received on 04.12.07, at their office for voice examination. The seals on the parcels were tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded and were found intact. He stated that the parcel Mark Q1 was opened and found that it contained a normal size audio cassette of TDK B60 made. The cassette was played and found that it contained three telephonic recorded conversations mark Q1 (I), Q1 (II) and Q1 (III) of their respective duration 3 minutes twentysix seconds, one minute forty seconds and five minutes thirty seconds approximately on side A. He stated that in the recorded conversation mark as Q1 (I), the clearly utterances of a person starting with the sentence namely "Namashkar, haan haa, haan haan, haan haan, gaon kaun sa hai, kahan pe hai wo"
marked Ex. Q1 (I) (A). In the conversation mark C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 24 / 173 Ex. Q1 (II), the clearly audible utterances of a person starting with a sentence namely "haan bhai, namaste bhaisaab, main thaane mein hun, thaane mein hun main toh......." mark Ex. Q1 (II) (A). The voice in conversation mark Ex. Q1 (III) the voice of accused person is indiscernible due to lot of interfering background voices and the same could not be compared with the specimen voice. He stated that the parcel mark S1 was opened and it was found to be containing a normal size audio cassette of TDK B60 make. He stated that the cassette was played and found that it contained specimen voice recording of accused Virender Singh starting with the sentence namely "Namashkar ji, haan haan, haan haan, gaon kaun sa....." marked Ex. S1 (A). He stated that the auditory examination of questioned voice mark Ex.
Q1(I)(A) and Ex. Q1(II)(A) and specimen voice recording of accused Virender Singh marked Ex. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 25 / 173 S1(A) revealed that the questioned voice mark Ex. Q1(I)(A) and Q1(II)(A) was similar to the specimen voice marked Ex. S1 (A) in respect of their linguistic and phonetic features. He stated that the subsequent spectrographic analysis of common voice samples selected from questioned and specimen voices revealed that they were similar with each other in respect of number of formulas, formant frequencies distribution, intonation pattern and other general visual features in the voicegram. Accordingly, on the basis of consolidated effects of similarities in the linguistic characters and phonetic features using auditory and voice spectrographic analysis, it was concluded that the voice marked Ex. Q1(I)(A) and Q1(II)(A) are the probable voice is marked Ex. S1 (A). The audio cassettes marked Ex. Q1 and S1 were rechecked for continuity of their original sound ad were found in order. The exhibits were returned to forwarding authority in C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 26 / 173 sealed condition with out official seal. He proved his report number CFSL2007/P0802 dated 01.4.08 Ex. PW6/A. Thereafter, one yellow colour envelope mark as Ex. Q1 bearing CFSL No. CFSL2007/P0802, sealed with CFSL seal and also bearing RC No. 48 (A)/2007/ACB/CBI/ New Delhi which is exhibited as Ex. P4, was produced in the court and was opened and the same contained one cloth wrapper and one audio cassette along with inlay card and cover. He proved the cloth wrapper Ex. P5, cassette Ex. P6, the inlay card of the cassette Ex. P7 and the cover Ex. P8. Thereafter, another yellow colour envelope mark as Ex. S1 bearing CFSL No. CFSL2007/P0802 and also bearing RC No. 48(a)/07/ACB/CBI/New Delhi sealed with CFSL seal was proved as Ex.P9 which contained one cloth wrapper is Ex. P10, the cassette Ex. P1, inlay card of the cassette Ex. P12 and the cover Ex. P13. He stated that Ex. P6 and C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 27 / 173 Ex.P11 are the same cassettes which were received and examined by him.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that the cassettes Ex. Q1 and S1 were received in his office and not by him directly. He stated that the cassettes were received along with a forwarding letter of SP, CBI. The documents mentioned at point A on page two of his report, Ex. PW6/A, were received along with the cassettes and forwarding letter. He admitted that these documents were not mentioned in forwarding letter Ex. PW6/DA. He stated that the word "Sardar" as used by him in his report Ex. PW6/A at point A was taken by him from cassette Ex. S1 (Already Ex. P11). He stated that in the auditory analysis no audio meter was used. He voluntarily stated that he had listened the questioned and sample voice simultaneously and had found similarities on the basis of linguistic, phonetic, and grammatic C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 28 / 173 character. He stated that no spectrograms were enclosed with his report since note sheet contained spectrogram and they ran into large number of pages and as such, they were not attached with his report Ex. PW6/A nor was there any such practice. Witness denied that spectrograms were not enclosed intentionally because the same would have falsified his report. Witness again denied that on many points his opinion is wrong. He denied that he was an interested witness and he had tried to help investigating agency.
19. PW 7 Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena stated that on 30.11.2007 he was working as Assistant Public Health Inspector, Health Department, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, MCD. He had received a letter at about 2:00 pm in his office for reporting to CBI Office and accordingly he along with his colleague Satyender Kumar Nagar, Assistant Public Health C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 29 / 173 Inspector had reported at the CBI office at 2:30 pm. They were taken to a room where an ACP/ DCP and two complainants were present. Inspector R.D. Sharma was also present along with complainant Mr. Raju Bhati and Mr. Meenu. The complainant was made to make a telephonic call to accused Virender Singh, ASI. Before making the telephonic call, a written complaint was got registered. The complain was made regarding demand of money by Virender Singh, ASI from Sh. Raju Bhati and the boy accompanying him. Sh. Raju Bhati had met with an accident and on account of that he was having a case with someone. The money was being demanded in order to resolve that case. The telephonic call was made by Sh. Raju Bhati from his mobile phone. The call was recorded in a voice recorder. The voice recorder was played before them before recording the telephonic conversation to ensure that the cassette was blank and the same C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 30 / 173 was, in fact, blank. He stated that before getting the telephonic conversation recorded, their voices were also recorded. Thereafter, the case was handed over to Mr. Sharma and he had made preparation for going to the spot. The recording was played in the CBI Office and was heard by him also. In the recording money was demanded. In the conversation ASI Virender Singh had given time of 6:00 pm at Badarpur, Sibal Cinema for meeting. Thereafter, currency notes were taken from the complainants. The currency notes comprised nine currency notes of Rs. 1,000/ each. After taking the currency notes from the complainant their numbers were fed in the computer. Thereafter, powder was applied on the currency notes. A glass of water was taken and notes were given to Satyender Nagar. Before giving the notes to Satyender Nagar, his hands were dipped in water but the colour of the water did not change. However, after taking the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 31 / 173 currency notes in hand, he had dipped his and in the water and the colour of the water changed. A powder was poured in the water before hands were dipped by Satyender Nagar. This was done to give them a demonstration of the proceedings which were to be conducted. The coloured water was thrown away and hands of Sh. Satyender Nagar were got washed. The entire proceedings so conducted were recorded and he had signed the same. He proved the handing over memo dated 30.11.2007 Ex.PW7/A. He stated that after making preparation for leaving for the spot, they had left for the spot in a government vehicles. Before leaving the CBI Office, certain instructions were given to them and he was instructed to act as a shadow witness. He was instructed to remain with complainant Sh. Raju Bhati and to watch the entire proceedings and to give a signal on demand and acceptance of money by the accused. The signal C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 32 / 173 was to be given by him by moving his hand over his head. He stated that tainted currency notes were given to Mr. Raju Bhati. A voice recorder was also given to Raju Bhati. They had left the CBI Office at about 6:00 pm and had reached Sibal Cinema at about 6:30/ 6:45 pm. On reaching Sibal Cinema, Sh. Raju Bhati was made to talk to the accused on his mobile phone. The accused had told Sh. Raju Bhati that he was not on duty and had asked him to come to a tea shop adjoining the police station. They had accordingly, reached there and on reaching there the CBI Staff had got scattered. He was with Sh. Raju Bhati in the vehicle. ASI Virender Singh did not come inside the vehicle but had called them near the tea shop. He along with Sh. Raju Bhati had reached near the tea shop. Sh. Raju Bhati and accused Virender Singh had a talk with each other. The witness identified accused ASI Virender Singh who was present in the Court. He C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 33 / 173 stated that during conversation, tea was offered and accused accused had asked if Raju Bhati had brought the money. Sh. Raju Bhati took out the money and gave the same to the accused which was accepted by him with his right hand. He gave the signal as per instructions. CBI team reached there and had the accused by both of his wrists. The accused had tried to free himself and had thrown away the notes. The notes were picked up by Sh. Satyender Nagar. Lot of crowd had collected at the spot and policemen had also reached there. Thereafter, the accused was taken inside police station Badarpur. He was taken to the room of SHO, where SHO himself was present. The SHO was briefed about ASI Virender Singh. Thereafter, both hands of the accused were dipped in a glass of water and on dipping the hands, the colour of the water had turned pink. The said pink water was sealed and their signatures were obtained thereon. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 34 / 173 The notes were taken from Satyender Nagar by the CBI officials and a memo thereof was prepared. The number of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers in the memo, which were fed in the computer. The witness identified the sealed bottle Ex. P1. He stated that thereafter, a box of the accused was also searched from his barrack as the accused was living in a barrack. A memo to that effect was also prepared and the same is Ex.PW7/B. Site plan was prepared at the spot and was proved as Ex.PW7/C. The witness identified the currency notes after tallying their numbers with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo Ex.PW7/A. The currency notes were proved as Ex.P14 to Ex.P22. Accused was arrested and a search party consisting of four persons was sent to his house. He proved the arrest memo dated 30.11.2007 Ex.PW7/D. The digital recorder was taken back from Sh. Raju Bhati and a cassette C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 35 / 173 thereof was prepared. The cassette was also sealed. The cassette with the inlay card and cloth wrapper was produced before the Court. The witness identified the cassette , inlay card and cloth wrapper Ex.P6, P7 and P5. He stated that they had left Police Station Badarpur at about 11:30 pm and came to CBI Office. In the CBI Office, the accused was made to read some material in loud voice and his voice was recorded. One cassette was sealed and one cassette was played and its transcription was recorded as per the material understood by CBI team. He proved the specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW7/E. The witness also identified another cassette produced in sealed condition containing one cassette, inlay card and a cloth wrapper upon which his signatures appear at point B of Ex.P11, P12 and P10. He stated that the specimen voice of accused was also recorded. The proceedings were over at about 2:30 pm in the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 36 / 173 morning. The witness produced the seal handed over to him by the IO Ex.P22.
On being cross examined by Sh. Niranjan Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that the letter was received by his Senior Officers. He had not read that letter. He had gone to CBI Office on instructions of Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone. He stated that he was not part of any other raid except the raid conducted in the present case. He stated that he has never appeared as witness of CBI in any other case then the present. He stated that the letter was not given to them. They were instructed orally to go to the CBI Office. He stated that they had reported at the reception of the CBI. In the room of the SP, two complainants as well as the SP himself was present. The complaint was not recorded by Sh. Raju Bhati on the direction of any CBI Officer. The complaint was recorded by Raju Bhati in the room of SP, CBI. The complaint was C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 37 / 173 recorded only in one page in Hindi. The complaint was not shown to him. He denied that Sh. Satyender Nagar had told him on the way to the polace of raid that the complainant was related to him. He denied that Sh. Satyender Nagar had told him about the person who was to be trapped and he was to accompany him. He stated that he did not notice the make of the digital recorder. The digital recorder was requisitioned from the Malkhana. He denied that no digital recorder was called and no introductory voice was recorded. He denied that the voice recording was manipulated subsequently. He stated that the name of the officer who had given the demonstration in the CBI Office was Mr. Sharma. He denied that Raju Bhati had produced before the IO currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/ or even of lesser denomination. He denied that at the time of leaving for raid, CBI was not carrying any document with them. The tainted C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 38 / 173 currency notes were kept by the complainant with him but he did not remember as to in which pocket he had kept the same. The CBI Team did not comprise of any public person. He stated that he had left in the vehicle in which complainant and Mr. Sharma were also sitting. He admitted that container of phenolphthalein powder was also kept in the bag. Raju Bhati had not told him that he had already been arrested in a case by accused Virender Singh. He admitted that when they went to the chamber of SP, CBI, he had told them to wait at the reception. He admitted that when they had reached Sibal Cinema, accused was not there. He denied that on not finding the accused there the trap laying officer had asked for closing the raid. He stated that when they had left Sibal Cinema for PS Badarpur, they had reached a place adjoining the police station near a tea stall. As soon as they had reached there, accused had met them there as C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 39 / 173 conversation with him was going on mobile phone. He denied that the complainant had insisted on calling the accused at tea stall. He stated that the complainant was having a talk with the accused on his mobile phone. It was a kaccha tea shop. There were some other shops also. He admitted that marriage procession was passing by at that place. The road was of the width of about 20 to 30 meters at that place. There were no fire crackers in the baraat. He denied that nothing was audible at that time as mutual conversation was easily audible. One or two people were taking tea at the tea stall. No police personnel was passing by at that time. They were sitting in the vehicles near the tea stall. At that time, only the complainant and himself were in the vehicle. When the accused had reached there, complainant and the accused had exchanged mutual greetings. He denied that on getting down from the vehicle, complainant shook hands with the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 40 / 173 accused. The accused asked the complainant to come to the tea shop. He denied that when both of them had reached the tea stall, they shook hands out of happiness. He stated that the complainant had said that whatever demand was there he has arranged for the same and had handed over the same to the accused. He denied that the complainant had tried to plant money on the accused. He denied that accused had pushed the complainant away saying that "Kya karta hai". He denied when accused had raised alarm, a crowd had collected over there. He denied that the members of the crowd had asked the CBI team that they were committing excesses on the accused. He further stated that accused first took the money and thereafter, threw it on the ground and thereafter, he had raised hue and cry saying that he had not taken any bribe. Only SHO was present in his room when the accused was taken there. He denied that C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 41 / 173 people present at the spot had volunteered to get their statements recorded in favour of the accused. The digital recorder was handed over to the complainant on the way. He stated that he had signed the handing over memo. The shirt of the accused was also taken off to wash the pocket and the wash was taken. First the hand wash of both hands was taken and thereafter, the pocket of the shirt was taken. First, right hand wash was taken. They had remained in the room of SHO for about one hour. Consent of the accused was taken in writing when his specimen voice was recorded. He stated that he had signed the transcript which was prepared in his presence. He denied that his signatures were taken on blank papers. He stated that he had gone to CBI Office while his statement was recorded. He had signed the register at the reception when he had gone to CBI Office. He denied that he has deposed falsely.
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 42 / 173
20. PW 8 Inspector Raj Mal Meena, Anit Terrorist Officer, Police Station Sonia Vihar, Delhi stated that he was posted as Inspector in year 2007 in Police Station Badarpur. He stated that he had been shown "Sulahnama" dated 25.11.2007 addressed to SHO PS Badarpur vide DD No. 43 B Dated 25.11.2007. He proved the certified copy of DD No. 43 B dated 25.11.2007 Ex.PW8/A and stated that the same was produced by him before SI Yogesh Kumar of CBI. He stated that the recording of the "Sulahanama" is mentioned in this DD and was affected by the parties in front of ASI Virender Singh, who was dealing with the case. He proved the seizure memo is Ex. PW 8/B On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he stated that the Daily Diary was maintained in duplicate with a carbon copy and original copy. He stated that the daily C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 43 / 173 diary closes after 24 hours and was being maintained from 8 AM to 8 AM. He stated that the carbon copies are consigned to record room after signatures of the SHO. He stated that the statements/MLCs etc., collected by the IO during inquiry are attached with the carbon copy in case the inquiry is filed and in case the inquiry is pending then these documents are retained by the IO. The DD entry no. 43 B, Ex. PW8/A, was filed, i.e., closed. He stated that no IO can reopen an inquiry or register a case under Section 365/307 IPC without the permission of the SHO. He stated that IO cannot arrest anyone without the permission of the SHO/ACP. He stated that he does not know whether accused Virender Singh had sent the MLC while filing the inquiry, Sulahnama and statements of parties to the record room with the carbon copy of the daily diary.
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 44 / 173
21. PW 9 Sh. Kehar Singh stated that he is running a business of property dealing under the name and style of Shiv Properties at Badarpur nd Border in Molar Band Extension, 2 60 Feet Road, Near Bright Way Public School. He stated that the application Ex. PW3/B was filed by way of compromise and bears his signatures at point A. This compromised deed was arrived at between the parties as they used to reside in the same colony. He stated that he had appended his signatures on this application in Police Station Badarpur. Both parties, i.e. injured Manoj and the accused Raju and Anu were known to him as they used to reside in the same colony.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated a meeting of both the parties had taken place in at office regarding compromise before going to Police Station. He stated that around fifteen persons had gone to the Police C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 45 / 173 Station in connection of the compromise who were relatives and acquaintances of the parties. Manoj and Raju were also in those fifteen persons, who had gone to Police Station. He stated that Anu was also with them in the Police Station. He stated that when he had reached the Police Station, SHO Badarpur was present in his office. He stated that the application Ex. PW3/B was recorded by a relative of Manoj Kumar. He further stated that for arriving at this compromise, no pressure was put on any of the parties by accused Virender Singh. He does not remember the exact number of persons who had signed the compromise deed, but they were eight to ten. He stated that after recording this compromise deed, it was handed over to the SHO. Witness admitted that this compromise deed was handed over to the SHO. He admitted that the compromise was arrived at for Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) but Raju Bhati had paid only Rs. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 46 / 173 13,000/ (Rupees thirteen thousand) to Manoj Kumar, who had suffered injuries. He stated that he does not know whether this fact was told to the Investigating Officer or not. He stated that the complainant Sh. Raju is his distant relative.
22. PW 9A Constable Ganga Dharan, No. 1242 SouthEast, Police Station Badarpur, New Delhi stated that he was posted as Reader to SHO, Police Station Badarpur in November, 2007. He stated that at that time SHO was Inspector V.P. Dhaiya and accused Virender Singh were also posted there. He stated that he does not know by whom statements Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D and endorsement Ex.PW3/E were recorded as they were not recorded in his presence. He stated that he also cannot identify the signatures on these three documents at point C. He stated that he can only read the names written on these documents as C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 47 / 173 these documents were not circulated through him but through the MHCR.
The witness was declared hostile and on being cross examined by Senior PP for CBI he stated that he was interrogated by CBI Sub Inspector Yogesh Kumar on 01.3.2008, but he does not know what statement was recorded by him. He admitted that he was working as Reader and the papers written and signed by accused Virender Singh used to come to him in his ordinary course of duty. He stated that he was unable to identify his handwriting and signatures since many papers written by him during his tenure had not come to him as he was not an Investigating Officer and had remained posted in emergency duties only for a few days. He admitted that he had identified the signatures and writing of accused Virender Singh on Exs. PW3/C to 3/E. He voluntarily stated that he had identified only on the basis of name written by C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 48 / 173 him. He admitted that he had told the IO that he had seen accused Virender Singh writing and signing during the course of his official duties.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that document Ex. PW3/C to 3/E were not recorded in his presence. He admitted that as per Ex. PW8/A, this DD entry no. 43 B was filed by accused Virender Singh. He admitted that after filing of DD entry no. 43 B documents Ex. PW3/B to Ex.PW3/E were also sent to the record room with the DD entry. In Ex. PW8/A the date of filing is not recorded so he cannot tell the date.
23. PW 10 Sh. Manoj Kumar stated that in year 2007 he was coming by an Alto Car.
Somebody had cried aloud that he had hit vehicle of someone. He stated that motorcycle of Raju Bhati was already parked there. He stated that he had C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 49 / 173 tried to stop him, but he did not stop and went home. He stated that he was at the gate of his house, Raju Bhati accompanied by four five persons came to his house and had bundled him into a car and had brought him to the spot. He stated that they had beaten him up. He stated that he was also hit by the bullet motorcycle. He stated that he had become unconscious. He had regained consciousness and had started walking back to his house, but he was again caught on the way by them. He stated that they had brought him to the police station. He was produced before accused Virender Singh and he was medically examined in AIIMS. He identified his thumb impression at encircled portion A of Ex. PW10/A. He stated that he had visited the police station three four times, but no action was taken by the police. He stated that on the third day, he had appeared before the SHO in the morning itself and he had made a telephonic call C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 50 / 173 to accused Virender Singh and thereafter he had apprehended Raju Bhati and Anu. Thereafter, family members of Raju Bhati came to the police station and asked him to compromise the matter. A compromise was arrived at and the terms of compromise were that no dispute was left after his medical expenses and an amount of Rs. 8,000/ (Rupees eight thousand) was paid to him. He stated that his statement recorded on 24.11.2007 which is Ex. PW 3/D. He stated that the compromise was arrived at for Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) but he was paid only Rs. 8,000/ (Rupees eight thousand).
On being cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI and the witness admitted that he was interrogated by SI Yogesh Kumar on 12.02.2008 and his statement was recorded. Witness denied that he was paid Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand). He voluntarily stated that the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 51 / 173 compromise was arrived at for Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) but he was paid only Rs. 8,000/ (Rupees eight thousand). He denied that he had told the IO that he was paid Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) by Raju Bhati. He denied that he is deposing falsely on this point to save the accused.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused witness stated that at the time of arriving at the compromise, 2022 persons were present at the police station. He stated that the compromise was arrived in the police station. He stated that he had told all the facts truthfully to the IO about the involvement of Raju Bhati in criminal cases.
24. PW 11 Sh. Satyender Kumar, Assistant Public Health Inspector, Apid HQ, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi is independent witness who stated C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 52 / 173 that he was posted as Assistant Public Health Inspector in Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar. On 30.11.2007 he was called to the CBI HQ. He he stated that he was accompanied by Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena, APHI. On reaching the CBI HQ he met SP, CBI. He stated that he had told them that he would be called again at about 4 to 5 PM. He went to his office again at about 4 to 5 PM and had met Inspector D.D. Sharma. He stated that there was a complaint and he had to go to Badarpur. When he had gone in the SP's office, Inspector D.D. Sharma was sitting there. He further stated that there was a complaint of accused Virender Singh. He stated that the complaint was made by one Sh. Bhati whose full name he does not remember now. He stated that when they went to the room of D.D. Sharma, one more Inspector was sitting there. He stated that the complainant was also sitting there. Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena was also sitting with C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 53 / 173 him. He stated that the complaint was that accused Virender Singh was demanding money, though it was not told to them as to how much money he had demanded. He stated that there were nine notes of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees one thousand) each, but he does not know who had brought these notes. Accused Virender Singh had reached the spot. He stated that accused Virender Singh and Sh. Bhati were talking to each other. He stated that he was at some distance from Bhati. Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena was standing near accused Virender Singh and Sh. Bhati. They were told that Sh. Bhati would pay money to accused Virender Singh and he was instructed that in case accused Virender Singh throws the money away he would pick up the same. He stated that the money was lying on the ground. The money was given to accused Virender Singh by Bhati Ji. The money was thrown away by accused Virender Singh. He had picked up the money from C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 54 / 173 the ground. CBI officials had caught accused Virender Singh by his both wrists. CBI officials had disclosed their identity to accused Virender Singh and had also told him that they had caught him as he had taken money. Thereafter, they came to the police station as the police station was nearby. The currency notes were with him as he had picked up the same. In the police station they came to the SHO's room. Inspector Dahiya, SHO, PS Badarpur was present there. He was informed about the fact of Virender Singh taking money and complaint about it to the CBI.
In his further examinationinchief he has stated that in the police station, CBI officials questioned the shadow witness and the complainant about the incident. The complainant told that he had given an application to the CBI and the accused demanded the money and accepted the same. He does not know if the complainant had C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 55 / 173 told that by which hand the money was taken by the accused. Money was brought in glass tumblers and a hand of accused Virender Singh was got washed, but he does not know which hand. However, the colour of the water had turned pink. He does not remember as to what was done with that pink solution. On picking up the currency notes from the ground, he had placed the same in his pocked and handed over the same to CBI officers in the police station. The currency notes consisted of nine notes of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees one thousand) each. He does not remember as what was the numbers of these currency notes. When the accused was caught he was asked to pick up the currency notes. In the police station written proceedings were carried out and the same were signed by all. He identified the handing over memo already Ex. PW7/A. The first page was signed by him twice as the numbers of the currency notes were noted on it. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 56 / 173 They remained together all through the night so he does not remember if document Ex. PW 7/A was prepared in the police station or in the CBI office. He identified the recovery memo Ex. PW3/A. After preparation of this document they returned to the CBI office. The witness identified the currency notes Ex. P14 to P22, which were produced in the court in unsealed condition. He stated that he had compared the numbers of the currency notes with the memo Ex. PW7/A and after going through the memo he finds that these were the same currency notes which were lifted by him from the ground. The witness identified accused Virender Singh present in the court whose voice was recorded in the cassette.
The witness was declared hostile and on being cross examined by Senior PP for CBI he admitted that complaint mark A given by Sh. Bhati to the CBI was handed over to him in the CBI office C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 57 / 173 and he had read the same. He admitted that at about 04:30 PM a pen type digital recorder was summoned and the same was played to ensure that it was blank. He admitted that in the beginning voice of Mahesh Chand and himself was recorded in the pen type digital recorder. He admitted that CBI officres had asked complainant Rajeev Bhati to speak to accused Virender Singh on his mobile phone and the conversation between the two was recorded, speaker of mobile phone of the complainant was put 'on' and the conversation was heard by all present there. He also admitted that subsequently the recording was played and it was heard by all present. He admitted that from the recording it was revealed that accused Virender Singh had reduced the bribe amount to Rs. 9,000/ and had fixed the venue for receipt of the same near Sibal Cinema at 06:30 PM near Badarpur. He admitted that when it was confirmed that accused C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 58 / 173 Virender Singh was demanding bribe, then complainant had produced nine currency notes of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees one thousand) each before the CBI. He admitted that the currency notes were treated with powder and he was asked to touch those notes. He also admitted that he had touched those currency notes and thereafter, had dipped his hand in solution of sodium carbonate and on doing so the colour of the solution had turned pink and that solution was thrown away. He admitted that thereafter, personal search of the complainant was carried out and he was not allowed to retain anything with himself except his mobile phone. He also admitted that thereafter, the treated currency notes were handed over the him, which were kept by him in his right side front pocket. He admitted that the complainant was instructed to handover the currency notes to the accused on his specific demand or to anyone else on his direction. He C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 59 / 173 admitted that thereafter, himself, complainant and other members of the team had washed their hands with soap and water. He admitted that thereafter, Mahesh Chand was directed to act as a shadow witness to see the transaction, which was likely to take place between the complainant and the accused and to overhear the conversation between them and to give signal by scratching his head as soon as the transaction of bribe was over. He admitted that all the trap team members and witnesses were mutually searched to ensure that no one was carrying any incriminating material and they were allowed to carry their Icards, mobile and personal belongings. He also admitted that witness Sh. Mahesh Chand was given a brass seal by the CBI, which he was to carry with him to the spot. He stated that he does not remember if an investigation bag containing clean glass bottles, tumblers, sealing material, sodium carbonate powder etc., was taken C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 60 / 173 by the CBI team along with them. He admitted that handing over memo Ex. PW7/A was prepared in the CBI office wherein the numbers of GC notes produced by the complainant were noted and all the proceedings were correctly recorded and thereafter, signed by all persons present in the CBI office before proceeding to the spot. He admitted that when they had reached near Sibal Cinema, complainant had spoken to the accused on his mobile phone. He admitted that accused had told the complainant on phone that he is on duty at PS Badarpur and had directed the complainant to come to tea stall near PS Badarpur. He stated that he does remember on which vehicle complainant Bhati and Mahesh Chand had proceeded to PS Badarpur. He stated that he was in a van. He admitted that after reaching near PS Badarpur at about 07:30 PM, digital recorder in switch 'on' position was handed over to the complainant to record the possible C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 61 / 173 conversation between them and the accused. Thereafter, complainant and Mahesh Chand had proceeded to the spot and other team members including himself took suitable positions around. He stated that he does not remember if on reaching the spot, complainant and Mahesh Chand informed by pointing towards the accused that he is accused Virender Singh who has demanded and accepted Rs. 9,000/ (Rupees Nine Thousand). He admitted that on challenge by CBI to the accused that he had demanded and accepted Rs. 9,000/ from complainant Bhati, accused had shouted that he had not demanded the money and simultaneously he threw away the money held by him in his hand on the ground. He admitted that the money which the accused threw away on the ground was initially held by him in his right hand. He admitted that CBI officials had caught hold of accused with his wrists. He also admitted that accused had tried to get C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 62 / 173 himself free but was overpowered. He admitted that Mahesh Chand and himself had tallied the numbers of recovered bribe amount with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo Ex. PW7/A and the numbers had fully tallied and in token of correctness of the numbers, Mahesh Chand and himself had signed at points B2 and A besides the numbers on memo EX PW 7/A. He admitted that his statement was recorded by SI Yogesh Kumar on 11.02.2008. The statement is now Ex. PW11/X. He admitted that in PS Badarpur, it was the right hand fingers of the accused which were washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which had turned pink. He admitted that this pink colour solution was transferred in a clean glass bottle on which a paper slip was pasted and marked as RHW and on this paper slip he had signed along with Mahesh Chand. He admitted that the mouth of the bottle was sealed with the CBI seal after wrapping the mouth with a C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 63 / 173 cloth wrapper and on this cloth wrapper also Mahesh Chand and himself had signed and the same was done in the police station itself. He admitted that the digital recorder which was given earlier to the complainant in switched 'on' position was taken back from the complainant and it was played in presence of all and it was found that the conversation between the complainant and the accused had got recorded. He stated that thereafter, with the help if a compact cassette recorder, the voice data in the digital recorder was transferred to a blank normal audio cassette and it was marked Q1 and thereafter, he along with Mahesh Chand had signed on the paper slip pasted on the cassette, its inlay cover and thereafter, on the cloth wrapper in which it was sealed with the seal of CBI which was available with Mahesh Chand. He admitted that a box kept in the barrack of the accused was searched and in this respect a memo C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 64 / 173 Ex. PW7/B was prepared on the spot and four documents namely Ex. PW3/B, 3/C, 3/D, 3/E and Ex. PW10/A were seized from that box after taking signatures of himself and Mahesh Chand on each of them. He admitted that impression of CBI seal used on the spot and police station was taken on some blank paper sheets and he along with Mahesh Chand had signed on them. CBI seal impression in blue ink was also obtained on recovery memo Ex. PW3/A on each page at point X, in which the proceedings on the spot and police station Badarpur were correctly recorded and thereafter, everyone present there had signed the recovery memo Ex. PW3/A. He stated that on reaching there Inspector D.D. Sharma requested accused to give specimen of his voice to which he agreed. He also admitted that thereafter, a blank audio cassette was arranged, after ensuring its blankness, formal voice of himself and Mahesh Chand were recorded in the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 65 / 173 beginning and thereafter, accused Virender Singh's specimen voice was recorded on this cassette. He also admitted that he was again called to the CBI office on 01.02.2008 and on that day Rajeev Bhati was also present in the CBI office. He admitted that in presence of himself, Rajeev Bhati and Mahesh Chand the investigation copy of the cassette containing spot conversation between accused and Rajeev Bhati was played and complainant Rajeev Bhati identified his own voice as well as the voice of accused Virender Singh in the conversation and on his identification a transcription which is Ex. PW11/B was prepared.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that he went to the office of CBI on the instructions of his office as a letter was received in his office. The letter was addressed to the Health Department. He stated that he was given instructions to go to the CBI office by his C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 66 / 173 Assistant Commissioner. On 25.11.2007 he left his office at Lajpat Nagar for going to the CBI office at about 03:30 PM to 04:00 PM. His statement Ex. PW11/X has been recorded correctly by SI Yogesh Kumar. He was accompanied by his colleague Mahesh Chand. He had signed visitor's register at the reception of the CBI office on 30.11.2007. He against said that he is not sure about it.
On being further cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Virender Singh he denied that he was taken along by the CBI team from the reception itself for the raid. He voluntarily stated that before that rehearsal had taken place. He denied that complainant Raju Bhati and his companion insisted on the TLO that accused Virender Singh must be caught and the TLO made them to make telephonic call to call the accused. He denied that accused was not present at the tea stall near the police station when the raiding party C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 67 / 173 reached there. He denied that from the tea stall the complainant had called the accused and had asked him to come to the tea stall. He voluntarily stated that the talks had already taken place from Sibal Cinema. He stated that he does not know as to how many persons were taking tea at the tea stall. He admitted that it was dark at that time. He stated that it was about 07:00 PM when they reached the tea stall. He admitted that a marriage procession was passing on the tea stall at that time. He denied that nothing was audible due to the noise of marriage procession. He stated that he had met accused Virender Singh for the first time at the tea stall. He denied that the complainant had picked up the tainted notes from the ground before he reached there. He denied that the currency notes were handed over to him by the complainant. He voluntarily stated that he had himself picked up the notes. He denied that a crowd had collected on the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 68 / 173 spot when the accused was caught. He denied that the crowd consisted of policemen, tea vendors and other public persons and they were protesting that the accused was being implicated in a false case. He denied that they offered to become witness in the case. He denied that they were threatened by the CBI and were asked to leave the spot. When they reached the room of the SHO, he was alone in his room. He stated that the hand wash was taken one by one and the wash of the right hand was taken first. He stated that the shirt of the accused was not taken off. He stated that they reached the CBI office after 12 night. He denied that he is deposing falsely under the pressure of the CBI. He denied that he replied to the questions under pressure of CBI and fear of departmental action against him. He denied that his signatures were obtained on blank papers and material was recorded thereon subsequently. Thereafter, Ld. PP C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 69 / 173 had requested to reexamine the witness regarding his movement in the police station.
On being reexamined by Ld. PP for CBI he stated that the box of the accused was searched in his presence in the barrack of the police station.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that it was a small room and only one box of the accused was lying there. He stated that he does not know as to how many other persons were there in the room. He stated that he cannot say if the box was locked or not, but the box was closed.
25. PW12 Sh. Raju Bhati, who is the complainant stated that he was working as a transporter. On 21.11.2007 at about 89 PM he along with his friend Anuj, S/o Sh. Sunil were going on Badarpur Border by the motorcycle of Anuj. He stated that when they were near their house, in the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 70 / 173 street one Alto Car was coming from the opposite side. He stated that the Driver of Alto car was drunk who had hit their motorcycle. He stated that the motorcycle fell on the ground and he had tried to stop the Alto Car but driver did not stop. In order to make an effort to stop the Alto Car he had run over the bonat of the said car. Still he did not stop the Alto Car and ran very fast. He jumped from the bonat of the car. Public had beaten up the driver of the Alto Car who was already drunk. He stated that he along with Anuj took the driver of Alto Car to police station Badarpur. He stated that in police station their case was given to accused Virender Singh who recorded statement of Anuj and himself and sent the driver of Alto Car for medical examination. He stated that next day he along with Anuj again went to the police station Badarpur. He stated that the driver of Alto car along with his associates was also present in the police station. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 71 / 173 He stated that in police station there was one person in plain clothes who was in police and was relative of Alto Car driver. Alto car driver was accompanied by 3040 persons in the police station. He further stated that the SHO had slapped and abused him and Anuj and they were handcuffed. They were also abused by the relative policeman of Alto car driver. He stated that they were threatened by the SHO and another police man that they will be arrested for offence under Section 307 IPC alleging that they had beaten Alto Car driver. In the meantime, their relatives and friends also reached in the police station. Thereafter, talks about compromise were initiated by one of their relatives Mehar Singh and accused Virender Singh. Alto car driver and his party demanded Rs. 50,000/ (Rupees Fifty thousand) from them for the compromise. Thereafter, compromise was arrived at and in compromise they were asked to pay Rs. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 72 / 173 15,000/ to Alto Car driver and were asked to tender apology to him. Thereafter, compromise was recorded in the police station. He proved the compromise Ex. PW3/B. At that time they did not have the amount of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen thousand) and, therefore, they assured that they will pay within 56 days. Thereafter, accused Virender Singh made telephone calls on his mobile phone almost on daily basis and asked them to pay Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) otherwise he would arrest him. He was demanding an amount of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) for himself as well as for SHO. He stated that he could not pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) to accused Virender Singh stating that he did not have the money and requested him to wait for 12 days. On 30.11.2007 he along with his friend Anuj went to CBI office. In CBI office they were asked to sit before an officer perhaps SP. He stated C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 73 / 173 that he told the entire incidence of accident and of police station Badarpur as well as the demands made by accused Virender Singh. They were asked to give the complaint in writing. He gave the complaint in his own handwriting.
He told CBI officers that accused Virender Singh was continuously making telephone calls to him and was demanding money. He also told them that he had promised accused Virender Singh to pay the money to him. He stated that one of the CBI official asked him to talk to accused Virender Singh on his mobile phone. He stated that he made the telephonic calls to accused Virender Singh which he attended. During conversation he told accused Virender Singh that he was in his village and was arranging money. He told him that he will reach to Delhi by evening time and he will give him money in the evening near Sibal Cinema, Badarpur Border. He told him that he had already C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 74 / 173 arranged Rs. 9,000/ (Rupees nine thousand). Telephonic conversation between Raju Bhati and accused Virender Singh was recorded in a tape recorder. When tape recorder was called prior to their telephonic conversation, it was played and the cassette was played without any content. After completion of their telephonic conversation, tape recorder was played and recorded telephonic conversation between him and accused Virender Singh played in presence of all the persons present in CBI office.
As directed by CBI officers, he gave GC notes of Rs. 9,000/ (Rupees nine thousand) to the CBI officials which were 9 GC notes of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees one thousand) each. He was taken in another room where 9 GC notes of Rs. 1,000/ (rupees one thousand) were coated with some powder by CBI officers. Thereafter, they were told that on touching the powder coated currency notes, C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 75 / 173 if hand will be washed, it will turn into pink colour. The CBI officer who had coated the currency notes demonstrated by washing his hand which turned into pink. Thereafter, that CBI official coated the currency notes. He was told not to touch the currency notes unless it is given to accused Virender Singh. Currency notes were put up in front side pocked of his pant by the CBI officials which he did not touch at that time. Before proceeding at the spot, one recorder was also fixed in his shirt. He was asked not to keep anything else except the tainted currency notes and the recorder. He stated that he was told by CBI official that when accused Virender Singh would come and talk to him about the money, he had to switch on the recorder. He stated that he was also instructed by the CBI officials to give signal to them as and when money will be received by accused Virender Singh. He stated that he was told that after giving money to C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 76 / 173 accused Virender Singh, he has to open the doors of the Ascent Car having central locking system and thereby all the 4 indicators of the car will flash which will give indication to CBI officials. He stated that he does not remember whether anything was written by CBI officials about the proceedings carried out in CBI office. Witness identified his signatures on handing over memo Ex. PW7/A and stated that it was not written by CBI officials in his presence and after writing it he was only asked to sign it. He stated that the numbers of currency notes given by him were not noted down by CBI officials in his presence. Though it had been mentioned in memo Ex. PW7/A but he cannot say whether it has been correctly recorded. He stated that from the CBI office they proceeded for Badarpur Border at about 56 PM. The entire team was in threefour CBI officials/the team. After about one and half hour they reached at Sibal Cinema, Badarpur Border. He C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 77 / 173 stated that he gave a telephone call to accused Virender Singh but accused Virender Singh refused to come to Sibal Cinema stating that he was busy in police station Badarpur. He stated that while talking to accused Virender Singh from Sibal Cinema he did not switch on the recorder and therefore, this conversation was not recorded. He told one CBI Inspector standing along with him that accused Virender Singh had called him outside the police station Badarpur. Initially, CBI officials asked him to go back to the CBI office but he told them again that he had called him near Police Station Badarpur and thereafter, they agreed to proceed to police station Badarpur. Thereafter, the CBI team reached near police station Badarpur. He stated that they stopped their Ascent Car at a distance of about 100150 feet away from the tea shop which was at the back side of the police station Badarpur. He made telephonic call from his mobile phone to C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 78 / 173 accused Virender Singh while sitting in the car itself. He stated that accused Virender Singh was contacted on phone and he told him to sit on the tea shop and they would have tea but he did not reach at the tea shop but remained seated in the Ascent car and in the meantime accused Virender Singh came near his car. He came out of the car. Accused Virender Singh told him to come to tea shop and to have tea with him. He declined to have tea and gave him Rs. 9,000/ (Rupees nine thousand) from his pocket. Accused Virender Singh pushed his hand on the currency notes which fell down on the road. Anticipating the CBI officials who were near them, accused Virender Singh had pushed the currency notes which fell down on the road. In the meantime, accused Virender Singh was caught by 810 members of the raiding party. He was directed by one of the CBI official to collect the currency notes from the road and to put it in the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 79 / 173 pocket of accused Virender Singh who was already caught by the members of the raiding team. He accordingly, collected the currency notes from the road and put the same in the pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, as directed by CBI officials all the members of the raiding party took accused Virender Singh inside the police station of Badarpur. In the room of SHO Badarpur, accused Virender Singh was directed to wash his hands in the glass and the water turned pink. The pink water was turned into the bottles which were sealed. He stated that Digital Voice Recorder was taken in possession by the Trap Laying Officer. The recorded conversation was heard from digital voice recorder. Recorded conversation was transferred in an audio cassette and the same was sealed in his presence.
The witness identified a sealed envelope P4 bearing endorsement of above mentioned RC case, sealed with the seal of the court produced. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 80 / 173 Envelope opened and an audio cassette Ex. Q1 was taken out which is in the plastic cover. When the cassette was sealed it was signed by independent witnesses Mahesh Chand and Satyender Kumar but he does not remember whether they signed in his presence. The witness also identified handing over memo Ex. PW7/A. He stated that he had seen the recovery memo Ex. PW3/A which was prepared in his presence. Transcription cum voice identification memo Ex.PW11/A was prepared in his presence. The transcription of the recorded conversation Ex.PW 11/B was also prepared in his presence. The rough site plan was prepared by Trap Laying Officer in his presence which is already Ex. PW7/C. On the basis of his written complaint FIR was registered in CBI which was signed by him. FIR was shown to the witness. He identified his signatures at point A and FIR as Ex. PW12/B. Witness had identified the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 81 / 173 audio cassette player as well as the cassette Q1 produced by the Malkhana InCharge. The cassette Q1 was played on audio cassette player from its A side. After hearing the conversation from the recording played on the taped recorder the witness had stated that there is talk of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) and it was also revealed from the talk that the place of meeting is Police Station. After hearing further recording the witness had stated that there were talks between the accused and himself in which the witness had stated that he was standing at Sibal Cinema. The witness had further stated that the accused had stated in the conversation that he is Duty Officer.
On being cross examined by Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated that his statement was not recorded by the CBI. He denied that Inspector Yogesh Kumar had recorded his statement on 31.01.2008. He had only inquired orally from him C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 82 / 173 but no statement was recorded. The witness was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW12/X. The entire statement was read out and explained to the witness. He had admitted that compromise dated 25.11.2007 was prepared in the presence of Sh. Anu, Manoj and himself at the instance of accused Virender Singh. He admitted that after that accused Virender Singh was demanding Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) from him and was threatening if he would not pay the said amount, he would implicate him in a false case under Section 307/365 IPC. Since he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to accused Virender Singh, he had lodged the complaint with CBI Ex.PW12/A. He admitted that a team was constituted for taking action on his complaint. Two independent witnesses were also called to join the team. The witnesses had gone through his complaint and had verified the contents of the same C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 83 / 173 by asking him questions. A digital recorder was also brought to the spot by the CBI officials. He denied that the voice samples of the witnesses were taken in the digital recorder by the CBI officials. The witness was confronted with portion A to A of Ex. PW12/X where the witness had denied stating so to CBI. Thereafter, the conversation between the accused and himself was recorded by the CBI officials when he had made a call to the accused. It was decided between himself and accused that they will meet at Sibal Cinema, Badarpur. He had produced Rs. 9,000/ (Rupees nine thousand) to the CBI officials. The CBI officials had applied powder on the currency notes in denomination of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees one thousand) each. Thereafter, a demonstration was carried out by CBI officials by applying powder on the currency notes. One witness was thereafter asked to touch the currency notes and thereafter, dip his finger in the solution C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 84 / 173 prepared in a glass of water and the solution had turned pink which was destroyed. Thereafter, he was asked by the CBI officials to keep those currency notes in his pocket and to handover the same to accused upon his demand. His mobile phone was in his possession. One witness was asked to remain with him to watch his conversation and transaction with the accused. He was also asked that himself and the witness after the transaction will give signal to CBI officials by scratching their heads. He had also signed the handling over memo which is already Ex. PW7/A Accused Virender Singh had come to meet him at a tea stall at the backside of Police Station Badarpur. Accused Virender Singh had demanded money from him and he had handed over the currency notes which had been treated by the CBI officials. Accused had held the currency notes in his right hand. The witness was confronted with portion B to C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 85 / 173 B of Ex. PW12/X. He denied that he had deliberately introduced a new fact of falling of money on the ground to help the accused Virender Singh. Upon his giving signal to the CBI officials, they had come on the spot and had apprehended the accused. Himself and the witness had informed the CBI officials that the accused had demanded money from his and he had handed over the same to him. He admitted that thereafter, the accused had started fighting with the CBI officials when confronted with the fact of demanding and accepting bribe amount and had thrown the currency notes on the ground. Many persons had collected at the spot and accused was taken to Police Station Badarpur. The witness had picked up the money from the ground. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers noted down in the handing over memo and were found to be matching. Thereafter, a solution was prepared by the CBI C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 86 / 173 officials and the accused was asked to dip his right hand into it, which had turned into pink colour. The said solution was put in a bottle and was sealed in his presence. The audio tape was heard and thereafter, a copy of the same was prepared. The cassette was thereafter sealed by the CBI officials. SHO of Police Station Badarpur had remained at the Police Station throughout the proceedings. A memo was prepared regarding the proceedings which is already Ex. PW3/A and bears his signatures at point D on each page. He denied that he had deposed falsely regarding the confronted portions mentioned in his statement which has been recorded today. He admitted that he used to drive Blue Line Buses in the year 2007. He denied that his relative Anu was also engaged in the said business. Anu is his nephew. He admitted that in his business where they used to operate Blue Line Buses there were occasional disputes with other C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 87 / 173 Blue Line Bus operators. He admitted that three criminal cases were registered against him in Police Station Badarpur. No other case has been registered against him anywhere in Delhi. He admitted that a fight had taken place between his brother Sh. Vinod with one Sh. Sanjay. He admitted that a criminal case has been registered regarding this incident at Police Station Badarpur i.e. Ex. PW3/DD. He admitted that accused Virender Singh was the Investigating Officer of that case. He had arrested him during the court of investigation of the said case and had enlarged him on bail. He denied that accused Virender Singh and SHO had beaten him up during investigation of that case. He admitted that he and Manoj are residents of same locality. He admitted that a compromise had taken place between himself and Manoj. He admitted that there was no pressure from accused Virender Singh to reach this compromise. He admitted that he had C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 88 / 173 agreed to pay Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) to Manoj towards medical expenditure. He admitted that himself and Manoj along with respectables of the locality had gone to the Police Station to inform the Investigating Officer regarding compromise reached between him and they had handed over written Compromise Deed Ex. PW3/B to the SHO. He admitted that on 25.11.2007 when they had gone to Police Station to inform about the compromise, accused Virender Singh and the SHO had humiliated him. He admitted that he had not met accused Virender Singh between 25.11.2007 till 30.11.2007. His elder brother had given written complaint to Senior Police Officers that accused Virender Singh had demanded bribe amount for Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand), Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) for the SHO and Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees five thousand) for himself. He denied that accused Virender Singh had not made any phone C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 89 / 173 call to him for demanding Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) between 25.11.2007 to 30.11.2007. He admitted that accused Virender Singh had not threatened him to either arrest or implicate him in a false case under Section 307/365 IPC. He stated that Sh. Ashok Bhati is his brother and he can identify his photograph affixed on PW2/C. He also admitted that mobile no. 9911390007 is issued in the name of his brother Sh. Ashok Bhati. He stated that this number was being used him at that time and he is at present using this number. He denied that this mobile number was being used by Sh. Ashok Bhati. He denied that when a raid was conducted this mobile number was not with him but was with Sh. Ashok Bhati. He further stated that he had started from home in his car make Ascent along with Anuj @ Anu and before going to CGO Complex he had also gone to CBI office situated at Jaisalmer House. He admitted that they had informed their relative at C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 90 / 173 Jaisalmer House that the accused was demanding Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand). He had thereafter, taken them to the S.P. who had accompanied them to CGO Complex. He admitted that on 30.11.2007 when he had started from home, he was carrying only Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees one thousand) to Rs. 1,500/ (Rupees fifteen hundred). He admitted that they had informed the SP at Jaisalmer House that the accused and the SHO had humiliated them at Police Station. He had also informed SP that he was beaten up, his motor cycle had been impounded and he was handcuffed by the SHO and the accused Virender Singh. He stated that he had informed the SP at CGO Complex that 34 criminal cases were pending against him at Police Station Badarpur. Thereafter, SP had called Inspector D.D. Sharma to his office. He had narrated everything as he had narrated to the SP. He stated that he does not remember whether C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 91 / 173 Inspector D.D. Sharma and the SP, CBI had a conversation amongst themselves that they will first verify his complaint. He stated that the panch witnesses were called at the CBI office at about 05:0005:30 PM where he had seen them for the first time. The panch witnesses were sitting outside the room of the SP, CBI. They were present during pretrap proceedings along with himself. He stated that he had arranged Rs. 9,000/ (Rupees nine thousand) from his relative for the purpose of trap. He stated he does not remember whether the Trap Laying officer had made written requisition to the Malkhana Incharge for arranging digital recorder and phenolphthalein powder. He denied that no pretrap proceedings were conducted in his knowledge. He admitted that he had made a written complaint Ex. PW12/A before pretrap proceedings. He denied that Ex. PW12/A was written by him as directed by CBI officials. He denied that the Trap C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 92 / 173 Laying officer had obtained his signatures and signatures of the panch witnesses on blank papers and all these blank papers were subsequently used in preparing the documents against the accused Virender Singh. He stated that they had left CBI office in his Ascent Car along with Anuj @anu and two other persons. He admitted that accused Virender Singh was not found present at Sibal Cinema. He admitted that when the accused Virender Singh was not found present at Sibal Cinema, the Trap Laying officer had decided to wind up the trap. He admitted that thereafter he had informed the Trap Laying officer to continue the trap as he had called the accused Virender Singh to come to the tea shop outside the Police Station. He denied that he had called accused Virender Singh at the Tea Shop as he wanted to get him trapped at any cost. The tea shop was a temporary one covered with a "Tripal". He admitted that a marriage C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 93 / 173 procession was passing by that tea shop. He admitted that in that marriage processions drums, bands were being played very loudly and and there were also fire works in the marriage procession. He admitted that due to the loud voice nothing was audible. He admitted that the area was kaccha and nothing was visible due to darkness. He admitted that the trap team members had taken their position at different places near the tea shop. He also admitted that panch witnesses were mixed up in the marriage procession. He admitted that he had shaken hands with the accused Virender Singh. He stated that he does not remember whether he had shouted for calling CBI officers. He had further voluntarily stated that accused had dropped the bribe amount from his hands when he was caught by CBI officers. He denied that few persons who were at the tea shop had told the CBI officers that the accused had been falsely trapped or they C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 94 / 173 offered their willingness to become witnesses, but such witnesses were threatened by the CBI or were directed to leave the place immediately. He denied that the accused Virender Singh had immediately told the CBI officers that he had not demanded any money from him or he has been trapped falsely. He admitted that accused Virender Singh was brought to the office of SHO, Police Station Badarpur. He denied that he and the panch witnesses were made to sit outside the office of SHO, Police Station Badarpur and they did not witness the post trap proceedings. He admitted that the shirt of the accused was got removed by the CBI officers from his person. He also admitted that pocket wash of the shirt of the accused was taken. He also admitted that shirt of the accused was sealed and was taken into possession. He admitted that he had not gone anywhere for the purpose of the search. He also admitted that both the panch witnesses had C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 95 / 173 remained present during post trap proceedings and had remained present in the office of SHO, Police Station, Badarpur and had not gone anywhere for the purpose of search. The accused was present during voice identification proceedings. He stated that he does not remember as to who had opened the seal of the cassette for voice identification proceedings. He stated that he had not given the compromise amount to Sh. Manoj himself. He stated that it was given by his relative. He further denied that no recovery of the documents were made in his presence from the box of the accused. The seal after being used was taken back by CBI officials. He denied that accused had not made any demand on the telephone or on the spot. He also denied that accused had not accepted the bribe amount. He stated that he had informed Investigating Officer, SI Yogesh regarding humiliation, handcuffing by accused and SHO and C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 96 / 173 regarding and his involvement in other criminal cases and his arrest by accused during his conversation with SI Yogesh. He stated that he had asked him to write this in his statement. He stated that Umrao Gaur is a police officer in Police Station Badarpur and he has met him occasionally. He denied that Umrao Gaur was harassing him. He stated that accused was harassing him.
26. PW13 Inspector D.D. Sharma stated that on 30.11.2007 at about 3:00 pm, SP Sh. Bhupender Kumar had called him in his chamber and had given him a complaint of the complainant Sh. Raju Bhati and his relative Anu @ Anuj. He stated that both persons were sitting with him. He had written in the complaint to verify the complaint and lay trap. For verification of the complaint he had taken both the persons in his room and had verified the complaint by asking questions from C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 97 / 173 them. The complainant Raju Bhati had told him that his vehicle had collided with an Alto Car and the matter was settled by accused ASI Virender Singh at Police Station Badarpur by entering into a Sulhenama and Rs. 15,000/ were paid to the Alto Car owner by him. The complainant also told him that ASI Virender Singh was demanding Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 10,000/ for the SHO of the Police Station and Rs. 5,000/ for himself. He stated that the complainant Raju Bhati, on his direction, had made a call on the mobile of accused ASI Virender Singh from his mobile and said that he can only arrange Rs. 9,000/ instead of Rs. 15,000/ and accused ASI Virender Singh had accepted his request. In the meantime, a CBI team was formed comprising of two witnesses one Mr. Mahesh Chand and Sh. Satyender Kumar from Health Department of MCD who had reported to him. The complainant had also taken out Rs. 9,000/ from his pocket. The C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 98 / 173 handing over memo was prepared by mentioning currency note number in the presence of CBI team member and witnesses. The notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and witness Sh. Satyender Kumar was asked to touch the notes. The witness Sh. Satyender Kumar was also asked to dip his finger in the prepared solution. On doing so the solution turned into pink colour. The FIR was signed by SP Bhupender Kumar. The witness was shown FIR Ex.PW12/B on which he identified the signature of Sh. Bhupender Kumar at Point D. He stated that the complainant was asked to contact accused ASI Virender Singh ASI Virender Singh had told him to come near Sibal Cinema, Badarpur and to bring the bribe amount. The team along with the independent witnesses had left for Sibal Cinema, Badarpur in a CBI vehicle and had reached there at 07:15 pm and thereafter, the complainant was asked to contact accused ASI Virender Singh. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 99 / 173 Accordingly, the complainant had contacted accused ASI Virender Singh on his mobile. Accused ASI Virender Singh had told that he was alone in the police station and was having no vehicle and can not come there. He had asked the complainant to come near tea shop of the police station, Badarpur. Accordingly, the team had left for tea shop near police station, Badarpur. Mr. Mahesh Chand was sent as a shadow witness with complainant and his relative Anu @ Anuj and the other team members took suitable positions near the tea shop. At about 07:50 pm, the complainant and the shadow witness Mahesh Chand had given preappointed signal by scratching their heads and the team members had left for the spot and had found one sardar ji who was wearing turban and wind sheeter who was shown by the complainant and the shadow witness. They had told that this is the person i.e. the sardar ji who has demanded and C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 100 / 173 accepted Rs. 9,000/ from the complainant Raju Bhati. Immediately, thereafter, Inspector Prem Nath and SI Pankaj Vats had caught hold of accused ASI Virender Singh from the wrists and thereafter, accused ASI Virender Singh had thrown the tainted amount of Rs.9000/ on the road from his right hand. As a baraat was passing by on the road on the said place and it was not possible to prepare the recovery memo at the spot, he had decided that all the post trap proceedings be conducted at P.S. Badarpur. Upon reaching the police station, he had met Sh. Y.P. Dahiya, SHO, Delhi Police and had apprised him of the whole situation. The complainant Raju Bhati and his relative Anu @ Anuj and both witnesses and team members were asked about the whole incident and simultaneously they had told each and every thing which had happened before their eyes. Upon asking the witnesses, they had recovered the thrown currency notes from the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 101 / 173 ground. They had also counted the notes and had found that the G.C. notes were tallying with the numbers of G.C. notes mentioned in the handing over memo. Thereafter, a solution was prepared in a glass of water and right hand fingers of the accused were dipped in the said solution. Upon this the colour of water had turned pink and the solution was poured in small bottle and the cap was tied with CBI Seal and the signatures of both the witnesses were taken on the bottle. The conversation recorded through mobiles was transferred into a cassette which was recorded in digital recorder. The digital recorder was given to the complainant after reaching Sibal Cinema. He stated that one cassette was duly signed and sealed with CBI seal was also taken in possession for further action and another cassette was taken for investigation purpose.
Before leaving for trap a handing over memo Ex.PW.7/A in respect of pre trap proceedings C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 102 / 173 was prepared in the presence of both the independent witnesses and other trap team members. A recovery memo in respect of post trap proceedings Ex.PW3/A was prepared in the Badarpur Police Station in the presence of both the independent witnesses and other trap team members. The contents of the memos was read over and explained to the team members and only thereafter they had put their signatures. Arrest cum Personal Search memo Ex.PW 7/D was prepared at the spot which was signed by independent witnesses and himself. A site plan was also prepared at the spot. A search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/B of the steel box in possession of accused Virender Singh and articles mentioned at Serial number 1 to 4 were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/B. Vide memo Ex.PW7/B, Sulehnama. Ex.PW.3/DA, statement of Anu Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D statement of Manoj and MLC C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 103 / 173 Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW10/A were seized. He stated that specimen voice of accused Virender Singh was obtained vide memo Ex.PW7/E in the presence of two independent witnesses and Specimen transcript was prepared as S1 Ex.PW.13/A. Thereafter, the case was transferred to SI Yogesh Kumar for further investigation.
On being cross examined by Sh. Niranjan Singh, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the accused he denied that on 30.11.2007 when he was called by SP, CBI in his office, one SP from CBI, Jaisalmer House office and a relative of the complainant Raju Bhati and another CBI officer posted at Jaisalmer House were present in the office of SP, CBI. He denied that he was given specific directions by the SP, CBI to trap accused Virender Singh by all means as the complainant and his colleague Anu had been humiliated, handcuffed and insulted by the accused ASI Virender Singh and SHO, C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 104 / 173 Badarpur. He stated that before proceeding for the trap, he had interrogated complainant Raju Bhati. He had also interrogated Anu Gujjar, the relative of the complainant. He denied that he was told by the complainant Raju Bhati and his relative Anu that they were involved in 34 criminal cases pending against them at Police Station Badarpur. He denied that on interrogation of the complainant Raju Bhati, he was told by him that accused Virender Singh had arrested him in FIR no. 794/2007 Ex. PW3/DD. He denied that he was also told by the complainant that he had been humiliated, beaten up and was handcuffed by the SHO and accused Virender Singh at Police Station Badarpur and due to such annoyance and grudge he wanted to trap accused Virender Singh. He stated that before proceeding from the CBI office to the place of trap, he had made verification about the reputation of accused Virender Singh. He stated that he had not C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 105 / 173 made any verification about the reputation of the accused from his ACP and from his DCP. As per the complaint, SHO, Badarpur was also a suspect. He stated that he had made verification about the reputation of the SHO, Badarpur also from Vigilance Department of Delhi Police. He stated that he had made such verification about the reputation of accused Virender Singh and about the reputation of SHO through phone. He stated that he had not made any written proceedings or written report about such verification about the reputation of accused Virender Singh. He denied that he had dictated the complaint Ex.PW12/A subsequently after the trap to build up a case against the accused on the blank paper already having the marking of the SP, CBI at point X. He stated that RC no. or Complaint no. or under Section is not mentioned on this complaint. The complaint also does not bear any endorsement by duty officer or the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 106 / 173 endorsement of any person who has registered the FIR. He denied that RC Ex. PW12/B was not written on the time and date as reflected therein on the documents and it was written subsequently to build up a case against the accused to falsely implicate him. He stated that when the independent witnesses had reported in the CBI office, complainant and his relative Anu were in his office. Before proceeding for the raid he had communicated to the Malkhana Incharge to send the raiding kit to him. The open polythene containing phenolphthalein powder was also inside the bag of the raid kit which also contained glasses and other articles required for the raid and such phenolphthalein powder was in separate plastic bag and separate solution of sodium carbonate. He denied that the complainant had not produced the bribe money i.e. an amount of Rs. 9,000/ as reflected in Ex. PW7/A. He admitted that the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 107 / 173 complainant was in his vehicle. He admitted that accused ASI Virender Singh was not present at Sibal Cinema when they had reached there. He denied that upon not finding the accused at Sibal Cinema he had decided to close the raid and had directed the complainant to go back to CBI office. He further denied that trap proceedings in this case were further continued on the directions of the SP concerned despite not finding the accused at the preappointed place. He denied that he had forced the complainant to make a telephone call to the accused to call him to the tea shop. He stated that he had seen the accused for the first time when he was coming towards the tea shop. The tea shop was on footpath near Police Station, Badarpur. It was a pakka kiosk. He denied that at that time the complainant was sitting in his car along with the other members of the raiding team. He denied that there was no street light. He admitted that relative C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 108 / 173 of the complainant Anu was also with the raiding party and was present at the spot. He admitted that a marriage procession was passing by the tea shop at the time of trap. The marriage procession was consisting of about 150200 persons passing by the tea shop. He denied that nothing was audible due to loud sound of the music, fire crackers, drums etc. He further denied that nothing was visible due to darkness at the spot. He admitted that the complainant had cried saying "bulaaiyo re bulaaiyo re" and after listening such cry of the complainant they had proceeded towards the accused Virender Singh. He admitted that accused was not challenged before he was apprehended. He admitted that when they had reached there, the alleged bribe money was lying on the road. He denied that the complainant had lifted the alleged bribe amount from the road and had attempted to plant it on the accused by forcibly putting the same C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 109 / 173 in his pocket of the shirt. He admitted that the accused had immediately told that neither he had demanded nor had accepted the bribe amount. He denied that the tumbler was not properly washed before taking the hand wash of accused and hand wash was taken in uncareful manner. He admitted that the shirt of the accused was removed from the person of the accused. They were sitting in a room where such proceedings of hand wash and transferring of conversation into a cassette mentioned as above had taken place but SHO was not present. The barracks were not locked and there was free access to the barrack. The box of the accused was locked. The lock of the box was opened with the key of the accused. He denied that no recovery of the incriminating documents reflected in memo Ex. PW7/B was made as reflected in the documents and such documents mentioned under the memo Ex. PW7/B were subsequently planted C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 110 / 173 after taking the same from the record room of the police station. He admitted that signatures of the witnesses were obtained on rough transcription Ex. PW13/A. He stated that he does not remember whether he has made any inquiries from Umraao Gaur. After 2 days he had handed over the case file to another IO. He admitted that he had deposited the case property in the Malkhana after the trap. He admitted that the application and order for desealing the cassette Q1 is not on judicial record. He admitted that the application dated 01.02.2007 seeking judicial remand of the accused Virender Singh Ex. PW13/DA does not mention regarding the recovery of incriminating documents from box of the accused Virender Singh. He denied that he had laid the trap and had arrested the accused under the pressure of one of the relatives of the complainant who is working in CBI and Senior CBI Officials.
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 111 / 173
27. PW 14 Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Inspector CBI, Special CrimeIII, New Delhi stated that he was permitted to carry out the investigation of the present case vide order dated 03.1.2008 Ex.PW14/A. He stated that during investigation he had prepared transcripts of the conversation between the complainant and the accused Ex.PW11/B. He stated that the transcript was prepared in the presence of the independent witnesses and the complainant of this case. He stated that during investigation he had collected the exhibits and reports from the Chemistry Division of CFSL. He had also collected report on voice examination from the Physics Division of CFSL. He proved all the reports Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW6/A. He stated that he had obtained sanction for prosecution of accused. He had also recorded the statements of the witnesses without any addition or C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 112 / 173 deletion and thereafter, he had filed the Charge Sheet in the Court.
On being cross examined by Sh. Niranjan Singh, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused Virender Singh he stated that he had collected the case file of this case from Inspector D.D. Sharma. He admitted that on the day when he had received the case file from Inspector D.D. Sharma, he had also collected the copy of the cassette of investigation copy. He admitted that the investigation copy of the cassette was not sealed. He admitted that the proceedings of the voice identification of the accused and panch witnesses were conducted from the investigation copy of the cassette. He stated that he had conducted the voice identification proceedings in his office at CGO Complex. He stated that the transcript of the intercepted conversation was got typed as he does not know typing in Hindi. He stated that the witnesses were C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 113 / 173 sitting across the table with him when the conversation was heard. He stated that though date 31.01.2008 is mentioned on the statement of witness Sh. Raju Bhati Under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, he had recorded the statement of the complainant at his place in Badarpur and he had recorded the same in his own handwriting. He stated that he had given instructions to Sh. Raju Bhati to come to CBI office on the next day i.e. 01.02.2008. Therefore, since he had recorded the statement in his handwriting on 31.01.2008 but had got it typed on 01.02.2008, he had mentioned 31.01.2008 on statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Raju Bhati. He admitted that he had mentioned in the statement of Sh. Raju Bhati dated 31.01.2008 about the voice identification memo which had been prepared on 01.02.2008. He stated that he is deposing falsely about statement being typed on 31.01.2008 as he could have recorded a C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 114 / 173 supplementary statement on 01.02.2008. He denied that he had prepared false proceedings and documents regarding voice identification. He denied that signature of the complainant and witnesses were obtained on the blank papers and such signed blank papers were used in preparation of memo Ex. PW11/B. He stated that he had not recorded the statement of Sh. Umrao Gaur. He stated that he had not visited the place of trap. He had not recorded the statement of the tea vendor and STD Booth owner/vendor. He denied that recording of statement of such witnesses would have proved that accused was falsely trapped or that it was a managed trap. He admitted that he had visited PS Badarpur during the course of investigation. He had not recorded and examined the staff present and residing in the barrack from where the alleged recovery of the documents were made from the steel box of the accused. He admitted that there is C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 115 / 173 overwriting at point X of handing over memo Ex.PW7/A and name of Sh. Shyam Prakash has been cut with the pen and name of Sh. R.C. Sharma and Sh. Prem Nath has been incorporated. He stated that he does not remember whether he had made any inquiry from Inspector Shyam Prakash or had recorded the fact of the cutting from him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After going through the file the witness stated that statement of Inspector Shyam Prakash was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that he had not recorded statement of Inspector R.C. Sharma. He stated that he does not remember whether he had made any inquiry about this fact from Inspector R.C. Sharma. He stated that as per Ex. PW2/C telephone number 9911330007 appears to be registered in the name of Ashok Bhati. He also admitted that on Ex. PW2/C particulars such as father's name, address of Ashok Bhati are written. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 116 / 173 He denied that during the investigation he had come to know that complainant and his companion Anu were involved in 34 criminal cases in police Station Badarpur. He further denied that during investigation he had come to know that the complainant was arrested by accused Virender Singh in FIR No. 794/2007 Ex. DD/3 just before 20 or 22 days before the trap. He further denied that during investigation he also come to know that SHO, Badarpur and accused Virender Singh had humiliated, handcuffed the complainant and his relative Anu on 25.11.2007 and on earlier occasions also. He also denied that during investigation he came to know that the complainant and his relative Anu had grudge and annoyance against the accused. He further denied that it also came to his notice that the complainant had made a complaint about humiliation, handcuffing by the SHO, PS Badarpur and accused Virender Singh. He C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 117 / 173 admitted that the proceedings of voice identification dated 01.02.2008 are mentioned in statement of Sh. Raju Bhati dated 31.01.2008. He stated that he had not mentioned anything about house search of the accused in the charge sheet. He stated that he had not sent the report of SP, CBI, ACB to the sanctioning authority. He had not sent any documents to the sanctioning authority, the same were sent by the SP concerned. Therefore, he can not tell as to whether the material information about the complainant being handcuffed, arrest by the accused Virender Singh has been suppressed deliberately from the sanctioning authority since he was not aware about the said fact.
On being questioned by Ld. Defence Counsel if he can point out from the judicial record any document except the complaint to prove that the accused was demanding bribe amount of Rs. 15,000/, 5,000/ for himself and 10,000/ for the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 118 / 173 SHO from the complainant, he stated that apart from the complaint, the transcript of the intercepted conversation, statement of panch witnesses, the complainant, the statement of Trap Laying Officer and Trap Team Members proves that the accused was demanding bribe amount of Rs. 15,000/, 5,000/ for himself and 10,000/ for the SHO from the complainant. He admitted that the call details record Ex. PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B reflect that the complainant had called accused from his mobile to his mobile in the presence of independent witnesses as well as in the presence of trap team. He admitted that it does not reflect that accused had made calls to the complainant demanding the bribe amount. He stated that the transcript Ex. PW11/B at page no. 1 reflects that bribe amount was demanded by the accused from the complainant at the tea shop. He admitted that that technically a cassette can be opened by opening the screws. He C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 119 / 173 denied that he had made false case against the accused or that he had tried to create false evidence in order to implicate him. He denied that it came to his knowledge during the investigation that the case property was tampered before depositing to CFSL. He further denied that valuable piece of evidence had been withheld from the court which could have proved innocence of the accused. He denied that he had filed a manipulated charge sheet.
28. PW 15 Sh. Sh. Anuj @ Anu, who is the independent witness of CBI stated that he knows the complainant Sh. Raju Bhati who is his maternal uncle. He stated that on 21.11.2007 he and Sh. Raju Bhati were going to his office and a scuffle had taken place between a car owner and themselves because a collision had taken place between the car and the motorcycle on which they were travelling. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 120 / 173 The car owner was caught by the public and was beaten up and was taken to the police station. After 23 days, a compromise was arrived at and the car owner had taken Rs.15,000/ from them. Mr. Raju Bhati had taken him to CBI Office saying that his cousin was there. Mr. Raju Bhati had told his brother that he was insulted by SHO Dhahiya and his cousin had gone to CGO complex along with them. He stated that he was made to sit separately and Mr. Raju Bhati had gone inside the CBI Office with his brother. After some time, Mr. Raju Bhati had informed that they were going to Badapur Police Station. He had stayed at the Gurudwara and Mr. Raju Bhati and CBI Officials went ahead. After sometime, Mr. Raju Bhati rang him up and had told him to come to the Police Station and informed him that he has got the Sardarji apprehended. He stated that they had gone to the Police Station where he was made to sign on some papers. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 121 / 173 Thereafter, the said witness was declared hostile by the Ld. Special PP for CBI since he was not supporting the prosecution version.
On being cross examined by Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated that his statement was not recorded by CBI. He stated that his address may have been given by Mr. Raju Bhati to the CBI. He stated that he does not know whether his statement was recorded by any Police Official of P. S. Badarpur. After going through his statement Ex.PW3/C, he stated that he is unable to tell if he had given this statement. He stated that he cannot tell whether his statement was recorded on 22.11.2007 by accused Virender Singh (ASI). He denied that he had stated in his statement Mark XX that after compromise, accused Virender Singh, ASI was constantly demanding Rs.15,000/ constantly from Mr. Raju Bhati and was threatening that if Mr. Raju Bhati will not give the said amount he will be C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 122 / 173 implicated falsely in a case u/s. 307, 365 IPC. He denied that he had stated in his statement that Mr. Raju Bhati had told him that he did not want to give any money to accused Virender Singh and want legal action against him. He admitted that on 20.11.2007 Mr. Raju Bhati had given a complaint and he along with Mr. Raju Bhati had met SP, CBI. He also admitted that SP, CBI had introduced Mr. Raju Bhati with Inspector D. D. Sharma. He denied that that Mr. Raju Bhati had narrated his complaint to Inspector D.D. Sharma in his presence. He admitted that some other CBI Officials and two other independent witnesses assembled in the chamber of Inspector D.D. Sharma. He admitted that all the assembled officials and independent witnesses were informed about the complaint of Mr. Raju Bhati. He stated that he does not know if Mr. Raju Bhati was directed to contact accused Virender Singh on his mobile. He denied that Mr. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 123 / 173 Raju Bhati contacted accused Virender Singh and conversation of Mr. Raju Bhati and accused Virender Singh was recorded in a digital voice recorder. He denied that the recorded conversation was played in the presence of all the present team members including himself which confirmed the demand for bribe. He denied that accused Virender Singh had directed Mr. Raju Bhati to meet at Sibal Cinema, Badarpur at about 6:30 pm along with bribe amount of Rs.9,000/ which he had reduced on persuasion of Mr. Raju Bhati. He admitted that Mr. Raju Bhati produced Rs.9,000/ consisting of 9 GC notes of Rs.1000/ each and Inspector D.D. Sharma had arranged a trap kit bag. The GC notes were treated with a powder and for the purpose of giving demonstration, one of the witnesses was asked to touch the treated GC notes and dip his finger in a solution of water and on doing so the solution had turned pink. He admitted that all the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 124 / 173 present were displayed that whosoever will touch the powder treated notes and his hands are washed in that solution, the solution will turn into pink colour. He admitted that the pink colour solution was thrown away. He admitted that the powder treated notes were given back to Mr. Raju Bhati with the directions to give the same to accused Virender Singh, ASI or to anyone else on his direction and not otherwise. He correctly identified his signatures on Ex.PW7/A at point E on all the pages. He admitted that on the last page of Memo Ex.PW7/A, his complete address has been mentioned under his signatures. He stated that he does not remember if one of the witnesses was directed to remain close to Mr. Raju Bhati for overhearing the conversation and see the transaction between accused Virender Singh and Mr. Raju Bhati. He stated that he does not remember if the witness and Mr. Raju Bhati were directed by Trap Laying Officer to give signal by C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 125 / 173 scratching their head on completion of transaction of the bribe amount. He stated that he cannot tell whether these types of directions were given by the Trap Laying Officer to the witness and Mr. Raju Bhati as he had remained sitting outside. He admitted that after completion of all the pretrap proceedings, all the trap team members had left for Sibal Cinema. He denied that he along with other trap team members had reached Sibal Cinema at about 7:15 pm. He stated that he had not reached Sibal Cinema along with them but had remained in a Gurudwara. He denied that being won over by the accused, he is introducing a new fact of staying back at Gurudwara. He denied that he had remained along with the trap team throughout the trap proceedings till the apprehension of accused Virender Singh. He stated that he does not know as to what had happened in between as he had remained at Gurudwara whereas the other trap C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 126 / 173 team members had gone ahead of him. He denied that in his presence Inspector D.D. Sharma had directed Mr. Raju Bhati to contact accused Virender Singh on his mobile phone and accordingly, he had contacted accused Virender Singh on his mobile who had informed him that he was on duty at P.S. Badarpur and does not have any vehicle so he cannot come to preappointed spot and had further directed Mr. Raju Bhati to come to Tea Shop near P.S. Badarpur. He denied that the said conversation was recorded in a digital recorder by the CBI Officials which was played and heard by all the trap team members and then it was decided to proceed to the Tea Shop near P.S. Badarpur as directed by accused Virender Singh. He denied that after reaching the vicinity of P.S. Badarpur, Mr. Raju Bhati and one witness were directed to proceed towards the fixed spot and Mr. Raju Bhati was given a digital voice recorder for recording the conversation. He C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 127 / 173 denied that at about 7:50 pm, accused Virender Singh wearing khaki turban and black wind sheeter had approached Mr. Raju Bhati near the Tea Shop and had started talking to him. He denied that he had seen the witness and Mr. Raju Bhati giving signal and he was there along with other trap team members. He denied that on receipt of signal all the trap team members had rushed towards the spot where Mr. Raju Bhati and accused Virender Singh were standing and the witness indicated towards accused Virender Singh and had told that accsued Virender Singh had demanded a bribe of Rs.9,000/ from Mr. Raju Bhati. He denied that after disclosing identity of himself and other trap team members, Inspector D.D. Sharma had challenged accused Virender Singh that he had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.9,000/ from Mr. Raju Bhati on which accused Virender Singh had shouted and replied that he had not demanded any bribe from C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 128 / 173 Raju Bhati and at the same time he had thrown the bribe amount on the road which he was holding in his right hand. He denied that in his presence Inspector D.D. Sharma had directed the witness to pick up the tainted bribe amount from the road and it was decided to conduct the further proceeding at P.S. Badarpur as it was not possible to do so there, being a public place. He denied that the SHO was informed about the fact of demanding and accepting bribe by accused Virender Singh, ASI from Mr. Raju Bhati and the witness had also explained the entire episode of the transaction of bribe. He denied that the numbers of recovered GC notes were tallied with the numbers noted down in the handing over memo and the same were found to be correct in his presence. He denied that the right hand fingers of accused Virender Singh were washed in a solution which had turned into pink colour and the said solution was transferred and sealed in a glass C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 129 / 173 bottle. He denied that the right hand wash of accused Virender Singh Ex.P1 was sealed in his presence. He further denied that the digital voice recorder was taken back from Mr. Raju Bhati which was played and heard completely and thereafter, an investigation copy of the same was prepared which was sealed and signed in his presence. He denied that he had signed on Ex.PW3/A since the proceeding mentioned on the same had taken place in his presence and he had tendered his signatures to certify the correctness of the same. He denied that he is deposing falsely at the behest of the accused to save him. He denied that the proceedings of Ex.PW3/A had taken place in his presence and were explained to all the trap team members in Hindi before signing the same. He denied that he had deposed in the Court under duress and pressure of the accused being a official of Delhi Police.
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 130 / 173 On being cross examined by Sh.
Niranjan Singh, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that he and Mr. Raju Bhati were humiliated and were handcuffed by SHO Dahiya Sahab. He stated that Mr. Raju Bhati used to tell people that he has been humiliated in the Police Station. He stated that the complainant Mr. Raju Bhati did not ever tell anybody in his presence that he has to take revenge from SHO and accused Virender Singh for humiliation meted out to him at the police station. The compromise reached between Manoj and them had taken place with intervention of one Kehar Singh and other respectable members of the area but not under pressure of accused Virender Singh. He admitted that Mr. Raju Bhati does not carry Rs.9,000/ on his person normally but on the date of incident, he had borrowed it from his brother Mr. Krishan Lal. He admitted that the pretrap laying proceedings i.e. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 131 / 173 applying of the powder on the currency notes had not taken place in his presence as he was sitting in the corridor. He stated that he does not know as to whether the entire trap laying proceedings had taken place under pressure of relative of Mr. Raju Bhati i.e. Mr. Kishan Lal who was working in CBI.
29. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which accused had stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
30. The accused has not examined any witness in his defence. Thereafter, Defence Evidence was closed.
31. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have heard arguments at the bar C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 132 / 173 and have carefully gone through the case file.
32. Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that the independent witness of CBI i.e. PW15 Sh. Anuj @ Anu has not supproted the case of CBI and has turned hostile. It is, therefore, stated by the Ld. Defence Counsel that his testimony cannot be relied upon and should be discarded in totality. It is also stated by the Ld. Defence Counsel that since the independent witness of CBI team itself has not supported its case, it casts serious doubt about the genuineness of the case and therefore, the accused be acquitted.
33. Ld. Special PP for CBI, on the other hand, states that the testimony of PW15 Sh. Anuj @ Anu cannot be discarded in totality as he has not turned hostile on all material points. He has also stated that the portion of the testimony of the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 133 / 173 witness which supports the case of prosecution, can be relied upon and therefore, on this ground the accused should not be acquitted.
34. Having heard Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused, I am of the opinion that there is force in the contention of Ld. Special PP for CBI that merely because the witness has not supported the prosecution case on a few points being won over by the accused that part of his testimony which supports the case of prosecution can be relied upon. PW15 SH. Anuj @ Anu has been declared hostile but he has supported the prosecution case on many points and has admitted that on 20.11.2007 Sh. Raju Bhati complaint and he along with Sh. Raju Bhati had met Superintendent of Police, CBI and had given a complaint to him. He has also admitted that the Superintendent of Police, CBI had introduced Sh. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 134 / 173 Raju Bhati to Inspector D. D. Sharma and two other independent witnesses also who had assembled in the chamber of Inspector D.D. Sharma and all the assembled officials and independent witnesses were informed about the complaint of Sh. Raju Bhati. He has also admitted that Sh. Raju Bhati had produced Rs. 9,000/ to Inspector D.D. Sharma. He has also admitted that the GC notes were treated with powder for giving demonstration and has also stated that the witness was asked to touch the GC notes and when his hands were washed in a solution of water, on doing so the solution had turned pink.
35. In a nut shell, he has admitted the post trap proceedings which had taken place, in his examinationinchief. He has also admitted his signatures on the documents prepared in token thereof, therefore, the factum of post trap proceedings and lodging of complaint stand C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 135 / 173 corroborated by him independent statement.
36. Sh. Niranjan Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused stated that testimony of PW 1 Raju Bhati, who is the complainant, cannot be relied upon since he is a witness who is not worthy of credence. He has drawn my attention to the fact that many cases have been registered against him at P.S. Badarpur. He therefore, states that in such circumstances it is clear that the complainant Sh. Raju Bhati himself is a criminal of the area and one of the cases was being investigated by accused also. He also states that accused had not called complainant to the tea shop, nor he had made any call to him. He therefore, states that the prosecution has not been able to make out the case that accused Virender Singh had demanded bribe from Sh. Raju Bati and states that the alleged Rs.9,000/ were the amount which was being forced upon the accused by the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 136 / 173 complainant and therefore, the accused be acquitted.
37. Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI has stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused had not demanded the bribe amount. He has stated the intercepted conversation clearly points out that accused Virender Singh had demanded Rs. 15,000/ which were later reduced to Rs.9,000/.
Ld. Special PP for CBI also states that the defence raised by accused Virender Singh is of no benefit to him as the accused could not produce before the Court the tea vendor or any other witness who were allegedly present at the spot or the barrack. He, therefore, states that the plea of Ld. Counsel for accused is devoid of any merit and be rejected.
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 137 / 173
38. It is further submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the witnesses joined in the investigation namely PW7 Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena and PW11 Sh. Satyender Kumar were not independent witnesses. It is submitted that they were interested witnesses and have deposed at the instance of the CBI. However, Ld. PP has submitted that there is nothing in cross examination of PW7 Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena and PW11 Sh. Satyender Kumar which could discredit their integrity as independent witnesses.
39. After hearing Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Ld. Defence Counsel and going through the testimony of the independent witnesses, I am of the opinion that there is no material on the file to suggest that they frequently associate with CBI as witnesses or that they are otherwise under the pressure of the CBI. Unless there is any specific C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 138 / 173 material against any witness, they cannot be called as interested witnesses or witnesses not independent of the prosecution. There is no material on the file which could impeach their credit as witness. Every witness is deemed to be independent unless proved otherwise. In this regard, it is relevant to quote an authority reported as State of Gujarat vs. Raghnathan Vamanra Baxi AIR 1985, SC 1092, wherein while dealing with such a contention, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 5 as under:
"In appreciating oral evidence, the question in each case is whether the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anything to doubt his veracity in any particular C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 139 / 173 matter about which he deposes. Where the witness is found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter. Whether the witness is found to be partly truthful or to spring from tainted sources, the Court may take the precaution of seeking some corroboration, adequate and reasonable to meet the demands of the situation, but a court is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely because they are C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 140 / 173 government servants, who, in the course of their duties or even otherwise, might have come into contact with investigating officers and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies. If their association with the investigating agencies is unusual, frequent or designed, there may be occasion to view their evidence with suspicion.
But merely because they are called in to associate themselves with the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 141 / 173 investigating as they happened to be available or it is convenient to call them, it is no ground to view their evidence with suspicion. Even in cases where officers who, in the course of their duties, generally assist the investigating agencies, there is no need to view their evidence with suspicion as an invariable rule. For example, in rural areas, investigating officers would ordinarily think of calling in the village officers, such as, C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 142 / 173 the Headman, the Patel or Patwari to act as punch witnesses, as they are expected to be respectable persons of the locality. It does not mean that their evidence should be viewed with suspicion because they are government servants or because they are generally associated with investigating agencies whenever there is a crime in the village. For that matter, it would be wrong to reject the evidence of police officers either on C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 143 / 173 the mere ground that they are interested in the success of the prosecution. The Court may be justified in looking with suspicion upon the evidence of officers who have been demonstrated to have displayed excess of zeal in the conduct and success of the prosecution. But to reject the evidence of all official witnesses as the High Court has done in the present case, is going too far. We think that it is extremely unfair to a C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 144 / 173 witness to reject his evidence by merely giving him a label."
40. Similarly, in another authority reported as State of UP Vs. Zakaullah AIR 1991 SC 1417, while dealing with such a contention, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 10 as under:
"The necessity for "independent witness" in cases involving police or police search is incorporated in the statute not for the purpose of helping the indicted person to bypass the evidence of C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 145 / 173 those panch witnesses who have had some acquaintance with the police or officers conducting the search at some time or the other.
Acquaintance with the
police by itself would not
destroy a man's
independent outlook. IN
a society where police
involvement is a regular
phenomenon many
people would get
acquainted with the
police. But as long as
they are not dependent
on the police for their
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 146 / 173
living or liberty or for any
other matter, it cannot be
said that those are not
independent persons. If
the police in order to
carry out official duties,
have sought the help of
any other person he
would not forfeit his
independent character
by giving help to police
action. The requirement
to have independent
witness to corroborate
the evidence of the
police is to be viewed
from a realistic angle.
Every citizen of India
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 147 / 173
must be presumed to be
an independent person
until it is proved that he
was a dependent of the
police or other officials
for any purpose
whatsoever."
41. In view of the above discussion and the law, referred to above, I am satisfied that PW7 Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena and PW11 Sh. Satyender Kumar are independent witnesses. Their evidence cannot be faulted on any ground particularly the ground of their not being an independent witnesses. The submission is, as such, without merit.
42. It is next submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that complainant has lodged a false case against accused as he had grudge against him for C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 148 / 173 humiliating him. It is repeatedly submitted that the grudge of the complainant was so strong against accused that he went to the extent of implicating him in this false case.
43. The other defence of the accused is that this case had been registered at the instance of one Sh. Kishan Lal who is working in CBI and is a close relative of complainant Sh. Raju Bhati.
The second defence of the accused is that the complainant was annoyed and was revengeful towards the accused because the accused and the SHO, Inspector Dahiya had humiliated and handcuffed the accused and therefore, he wanted to take revenge against him and had therefore, falsely implicated the accused in this case.
These two defences of the accused are falsified by the testimony of PW Sh. Anuj @ Anu C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 149 / 173 who is also an independent witness of CBI who has partially supported the case of prosecution. The witness PW15 Sh. Anuj @ Anu squarely has stated in his crossexamination that the complainant had not told anybody in his presence that he will take revenge from accused Virender Singh for humiliating and handcuffing him. Further he has denied in his cross examination that this case was registered at the instance and under influence of a relative of Sh. Raju Bhati i.e. one Kishan Lal who is allegedly working with CBI. Therefore, the plea of Ld. Defence Counsl regarding these two defences dealt above are falsified by PW Sh. Anuj @ Anu.
44. PW 7 Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena, PW11 Sh. Satyender Kumar, PW12 Sh. Raju Bhati and PW13 Inspector D.D. Sharma have all deposed that on 30.11.2007 accused Virender Singh was apprehended while accepting bribe at the Tea shop C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 150 / 173 near P.S. Badarpur. Thus, the story of a false complaint being lodged against him is without merit. Ld. Counsel for the accused states that accused is innocent and he had not gone to tea shop to take the bribe amount. I do not find any merit in this contention since if it was so why did the accused call the complainant at the tea shop. If the intention of the accused was clear he would not have called him to the tea shop. Moreover, the accused was found in possession of the file pertaining to matter of the complainant and there is no plausible explanation as to why the incriminating documents connected with the case in question were kept in his box.
The case of CBI is that the accused was threatening the complainant to falsely implicate him in a case under Section 307 and 365 IPC as a scuffle had taken place between him and another party. Despite there being a compromise, C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 151 / 173 repeated calls for demand of bribe were being received by the complainant. The accused has stated that once the compromise had taken place, he could not have done anything in that DD Entry and the case was closed for all purposes. However, if it was so, there is no plausible explanation as to why the incriminating documents connected with the case in question which were found from the box of the accused were recovered from his barrack vide Ex.PW 7/B. It points out to the fact that since he had kept those documents with him despite a compromise between the parties, he was still not closing the case finally and was threatening the accused.
45. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also stated that during trap, the alleged tainted money was not recovered from the accused. It is stated that there are major contradictions in this regard and C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 152 / 173 states that it is not clear as to whether the money had fallen on the ground before being handed over to the accused or not.
I, however, do not find any force in this contention as PW12 Sh. Raju Bhati i.e. the complainant and PW7 Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena i.e. the Shadow witness have clearly mentioned that accused had demanded and accepted the tainted amount with his right hand. The complainant has also stated that since upon demand of bribe amount at the spot by accused, the complainant had handed over the tainted amount to him. He had taken it in his right hand but suspecting the presence of CBI officials, he had pushed it with his right hand and had thrown it on the ground.
The shadow witness, on the other hand, also clearly mentions that the bribe amount had been demanded and had been accepted with the right hand by accused Virender Singh. The C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 153 / 173 independent witness also states that when they had reached the spot, the complainant had informed that the money had been accepted with the right hand by the accused and then he had thrown it on the road. Only after the money was thrown on the road, the CBI Officials had reached at the spot and had caught hold of the accused from both his wrists. The right hand wash of the accused also proves that the money had been held by accused in his right hand which proves the demand and acceptance of alleged bribe amount by the accused fulfilling the necessary ingredients of the offence "demand" and "acceptance".
46. Ld. Counsel for the accused also states that the testimony of the witnesses of CBI cannot be relied upon even for the purpose of corroboration since the independent witnesses have deposed under threat of CBI and official witnesses of CBI are C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 154 / 173 interested witnesses. In this regard para 10 of the Sate of U.P. Vs. G.K. Ghosh (supra) is quite relevant which is extracted as under:
"It is now time to deal with the criticism urged as a matter of course in the context of the police officer leading the raiding party namely that he is an interested witness. This is true, but only to an extent a very limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to ensure that a citizen, who complainants of harassment by a Government Officer making a demand for illegal gratification, is protected C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 155 / 173 and the role of his department in the protection of such citizens is vindicated. Perhaps it can be contented that he is interested in the success of the trap so that his ego is satisfied or that he earns a feather in his cap. At the same time it must be realized that it is not frequently that a police officer, himself being a Government servant, would resort to perjury and concoct evidence in order to rope in an innocent Government servant. In the event of the Government servant concerned refusing to accept the currency notes C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 156 / 173 offered by the complainant it would not be reasonable to expect the police officer to go to the length of concocting a false seizure memo for prosecuting and humiliating him merely in order to save the face of the complainant, thereby compromising his own conscience. The court may therefore, depending on the circumstances of a case, feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 157 / 173 found not to be independent.
When therefore besides such evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case. The present case appears to be a case of that nature. If the circumstantial evidence is of such a nature that it affords adequate corroboration to the prosecution case, as held by the Ld. Special Judge, the appeal must succeed. If on the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 158 / 173 other hand the circumstantial evidence is considered to be inadequate to buttress the oral testimony, the appeal necessarily must fail."
47. It is next submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that transcription has been manipulated to suit the needs of the prosecution case. It is submitted that original recording device has not been produced in the Court and this shows that the transcription is not correct . However, the cassette containing the transcription was played in the Court at the time of examination of PW 12 Raju Bhati and he has identified his voice and that of the accused. This witness has been cross examined at length by the accused and there is nothing of any significance in the cross examination which could point out that the transcription has been tampered with to suit the C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 159 / 173 needs of the prosecution.
48. Ld. Special PP for CBI has pointed out that the original recording devices are very few and each one cannot be produced in the Court as they are required in many cases and as such, the cassettes, in which the transcription was subsequently transferred, have been produced in the Court. The submission of Ld. Defence Counsel is, as such, without merit.
49. It is next submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the specimen voice of the accused has been recorded contrary to the law and as such, the same cannot be read in evidence. However, I have carefully gone through the specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW 7/E wherein it is recorded that the accused had given his voice voluntarily. The memo bears the signature of PW Sh. Mahesh Chand C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 160 / 173 Meena. As such, it cannot be said that his sample voice was recorded forcibly. The submission, as such, is without merit.
50. On the other hand, the testimony of the complainant and the independent witness Sh. Satyender Kumar and the shadow witness Sh. Mahesh Chand Meena could not be impeached, no major contradiction has emerged in testimony of any of the witnesses and testimony of the complainant has been corroborated by the Independent witness and shadow witness as well as by the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the Trap Laying Officer which is further corroborated by CFSL Report and the report of the hand writing expert. The intercepted conversation has been identified and proved when it was played in the Court and the audio recording and transcript have no major contradiction which can discredit the case of CBI. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 161 / 173
51. There is also clear indication in the intercepted conversation that the accused was demanding bribe from accused. Therefore, the entire set of circumstances, the intercepted conversation and the statements of witnesses as well as the FSL Report corroborate the case of CBI and point out toward commission of offence by the accused.
52. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that while working as a public servant, i.e., Additional SubInspector, Delhi Police, P.S. Badarpur, New Delhi, he had obtained illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing favour to complainant Sh. Raju Bhati and while doing so he, by corrupt or illegal means, or by otherwise abusing his position as such public servant, demanded Rs. 15,000/ from C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 162 / 173 complainant Sh. Raju Bhati which was later on settled for Rs. 9,000/ and was caught red handed while accepting Rs. 9,000/ from the complainant on 30.11.2007. The oral evidence, transcription as well as phenolphthalein powder test, unmistakably point to the guilt of the accused.
53. I, accordingly, hold the accused guilty and convict him under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act.
54. To come up for arguments on quantum of sentence on 03.09.2012 at 2:00 pm. Announced in the open court on 31st August, 2012.
(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI05), NEW DELHI/ 31.08.2012 C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 163 / 173 IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CC No. : 08/2012 RC no. : DAIA20070048ACBCBINew Delhi. Unique Case ID no. : 02403R1072222008 Title : State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh , S/o Sh. Radhuvir Singh Bisala, R/o. Present : Qr. No. N3/5, Police Colony, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi - 110092. Permanent Address : Village and Post Office Dayalpur, P.S. Ballab Garh, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana.
U/s : Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988 (Appearances) Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special P.P. for CBI. Sh. Niranjan Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused Virender Singh.
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 164 / 173 ORDER ON SENTENCE.
1. Vide my separate judgment dated 31.08.2012, convict Virender Singh has been convicted.
2. I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence at the bar and have carefully gone through the file.
3. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that Convict has suffered great mental agony and he has lost his social life because of this case. It is prayed that a lenient view may kindly be taken.
4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. PP that it was the duty of the convict to enforce law and maintain his integrity in which he failed. It is submitted that he may be punished severely. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 165 / 173
5. While dealing with the question of sentence, in an authority reported as State of UP Vs. Sattan @ Satyendra and Others 2009 III AD (SC) 492 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 14, as under:
"Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 166 / 173 proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But, in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 167 / 173 practical consequences."
6. Similarly, in a recent authority reported as Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009II AD (SC) 589, while dealing with the case of a Patwari who had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 300/, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under: (7) "Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase.
Large scale corruption retards the nationbuilding activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 168 / 173 lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post".
(8) "Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the custodial sentences of one C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 169 / 173 year, which is minimum prescribed, would meet the ends of justice".
7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the convict Virender Singh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Section 7 of PC Act along with fine of Rs.10,000/, in default of which to Rigorous imprisonment for three months.
8. I also sentence the convict to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act along with fine of Rs.10,000/, in default of which to Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.
9. Both the sentences shall run concurrently as C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 170 / 173 they arise from the same transaction of offence.
10. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the Convict as per law.
11. Bail Bond of convict is hereby cancelled and his surety stands discharged. The documents, if any, of the surety be returned against proper receipt after getting the endorsement, if any, cancelled.
12. The case property, i.e., amount of Rs.9,000/ be returned to the complainant immediately as per law. Rest of the case property is forfeited to the Sate to be disposed of as per law after the time of appeal is over.
13. Documents seized in the case be returned to the concerned Department on proper receipt by the IO after the time of filing of appeal is over. C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 171 / 173
14. A copy of the judgment and order be sent to the Commissioner, Delhi Police, Delhi, for information and necessary action as per law. Action taken Report be filed before this Court within 10 days.
15. At this stage, an application u/s. 389 Cr.P.C. is moved by Sh. Niranjan Singh, Ld. Counsel for convict. Copy supplied to Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Senior PP. Fine of Rs. 20,000/ has been deposited by the convict.
16. Heard on the application moved. It is stated that applicant/convict would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that order on sentence may be suspended and the convict may be granted bail till filing of appeal.
C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 172 / 173
17. Considering the fact that he has been regularly appearing during the trial, the application is allowed and sentence is suspended till 01.11.2012 subject to the applicant/convict Virender Singh furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Bail bonds are furnished and accepted.
18. Copy of the judgment and order be given to the convict free of cost immediately.
19. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 3rd September, 2012.
(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI05), NEW DELHI/ 03.09.2012 C.C. NO. 08/12 State (CBI) Vs. Virender Singh Page no. 173 / 173