Delhi District Court
State vs Birchha Singh And Ors on 7 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE: PC ACT: ACB-01:
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000017-2020
C.C. No. 02/2020
FIR No. 475/2013
PS: Paschim Vihar
U/S: 7/13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of P.C. Act r/w 388/34 IPC
State
Versus
1) ASI Birchha Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Angrej Singh,
R/o H.No. 347, Police Colony,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
Presently r/o 107-A, Gokul Tower,
Patiala, Punjab.
2) Const. Ombir Singh,
S/o Sh. Gopi Ram,
R/o RZ 3B/20A, Gali No. 24,
Indra Park, Palam Colony, Delhi.
Permanent r/o Village & Post Bhainin Surjan,
Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohatak,
Haryana.
3) Geeta,
W/o Sh. Jagdish,
R/o H.No. O-338, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
Presently r/o H.No. 53, Block-E1,
Budh Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 07.01.2020
Date of Arguments : 26.10.2024
Date of Judgment : 07.11.2024
Appearance :
CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 80
For the State : Sh. Masood Ahmad,
Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor.
For accused : Sh. Rajiv Mohan and Sh. Rehan
Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused
ASI Birchha Singh.
: Sh. Manish Kumar Singh, ld.
Counsel for accused Ombir
Singh.
: Sh. Shivendra Singh, Ld. Legal
Aid Counsel for accused Geeta.
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.09.2013 complainant Late Sh. Prithvi Bhatia, r/o B-1/264, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, gave a complaint at PS Paschim Vihar, stating that he was residing at the above said address with his family. Around 2½ years back, he had got the knees of his wife operated and he required a nurse. He got a nurse/maid named Geeta from one Medicare Agency. She came for night duty to their house for 6-8 months. They also used to give an amount of Rs. 600/- towards tuition fees of her daughter. Thereafter she came to their house on 14.09.2013 and told them that she had to purchase a house and asked for Rs. 3 Lakhs, however, they refused. At this, she started quarreling with them and they sent her away from their house. She threatened them to see them and went away. After some time she came with two police officials and started shouting. The police persons namely ASI Birchha Singh and Const. Ombir came and started threatening them that they would CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 80 implicate him in a rape case and get him sent to jail for a year like Bapu Aasa Ram, who was lodged in jail or to give Rs. 6 Lakhs to settle the matter. They also told that otherwise they will take him to jail and take remand. The complainant got scared and they obtained Rs. 6 Lakhs from him. The complainant further stated that he was suffering from cancer for the past thirty years and used to remain ill. He was 56 years old and he was even not capable of the allegations made by them. He sought that the complaint must be acted upon and he should be returned his money.
2. The complaint was marked to SI Ganga Ram for enquiry, who submitted the enquiry report to the SHO P.S. Paschim Vihar. Vigilance Branch (West District) also enquired into the complaint and the report was submitted and thereafter the SHO P.S. Paschim Vihar made an endorsement on the complaint on 26.12.2013 for registration of the FIR u/s 388 IPC and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as PC Act.). The FIR bearing no. 475/2013, Ex. PW1/A, was registered on 26.12.2013 u/s 388 IPC and Section 7 P.C.Act.
3. Initial investigation of the case was conducted by IO/ACP Eish Singhal, who prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/B at the instance of the complainant and recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Accused Geeta was issued notice to join investigation and she was interrogated by the IO. The IO collected the CDRs and CAF of mobile numbers of Prithvi Bhatia and Ashok Bhatia.
4. Upon transfer of IO/ACP Eish Singhal, further CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 80 investigation of the case was assigned to ACP Rajbir Malik on 18.02.2017, who recorded statements of witnesses; collected vigilance enquiry report in respect of accused ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir; sent original DD no. 58B dated 14.09.2013 and compromise/settlement deed to FSL, Rohini, for opinion of handwriting expert regarding the handwriting of accused Birchha Singh on both documents and obtained FSL result in this regard. Thereafter further investigation of case was assigned to ACP Vinay Mathur on 15.01.2019. During investigation it was revealed that the complainant Prithvi Bhatia had passed away on 13.10.2017 and the factum of his death was verified by the IO. He also interrogated accused Ombir, Birchha Singh and Geeta and made formal enquiries from them. He also recorded the statement of W/Const. Sushila, W/ASI Sunita under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also got recorded the statement of Ms. Pooja Bhatia, wife of the complainant Prithvi Bhatia, under section 164 Cr.P.C. IO also obtained the departmental enquiry report against accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh. He also obtained the posting details of accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh. IO/ACP Vinay Mathur also obtained sanction under section 19 P.C.Act against accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh.
5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh under section 388/34 IPC and section 7/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) punishable under section 13(2) P.C.Act. Accused Geeta was charge-sheeted under section 388/34 IPC. Cognizance of offence CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 80 was taken against all three the accused persons on 20.01.2020. Thereafter, accused persons were summoned and after hearing arguments, accused persons namely Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh were charged for the offence under section 388/34 IPC and section 7 & 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, punishable under section 13(2) P.C.Act, read with Section 34 IPC and accused Geeta was charged for the offence 388/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 22 witnesses. The brief summary of deposition of prosecution witnesses is as under:-
i) PW1 SI Dablu Oraon, the Duty Officer, who proved copy for FIR of present case Ex.PW1/A and certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act regarding recording of FIR Ex.PW1/B. He also proved his endorsement on the original Rukka Ex.PW1/C. PW1 further deposed that the FIR was registered vide DD no.32A dated 26.12.2013, PS Paschim Vihar and after recording of FIR, copy of the same was sent to ACP, Rajouri Garden through Ct. Jitender for investigation.
PW1 further deposed that on 14.09.2013 also he was posted as Duty Officer/SI at PS Paschim Vihar and on that day, ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir were posted on emergency duty in the PS from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. PW1 correctly identified accused ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir before the court. On that day at about 07:55 pm, ASI Birchha Singh entered return entry (Wapsi) of calls received by him on the said day vide DD no.58B Ex. PW1/D in his presence in his own handwriting.
CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 80In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Ombir, he deposed that he could not tell a what time Birchha Singh made his departure (rawangi) entry from the PS for his duty but he went alongwith Const. Ombir as per record. He could not tell when ASI Birchha Singh alongwith his fellow police official/Constable left PS for duty. Only the return entry was placed on judicial record and he could not tell if the departure entry in Roznamcha-A was placed on judicial record or not. He did not remember how many calls were attended by accused Birchha Singh on 14.09.2013. PW1 did not produce the General Duty Roster of the PS of 14.09.2013.
In his cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused Birchha Singh, PW1 deposed that Ex. PW1/D i.e. DD No. 58B did not bear the signatures of ASI Birchha Singh. He affirmed that there was no entry in Roznamcha-B with respect to departure of ASI Birchha Singh regarding DD No. 17A, 20A/21A, 23A and 29A. He deposed that he had deposed regarding assignment of emergency duty to Birchha Singh on the basis of DD No. 58B, otherwise the Duty Roster was neither in his possession nor was shown to him by the IO.
ii) PW2 Ms. Pooja Bhatia, wife of the complainant Prithvi Bhatia.
iii) PW3 Pawan Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Limited, proved the CAF of mobile no. 9899971070 in the name of customer Prithvi Bhatia Ex.PW3/A. He also proved the CAF of mobile no. 9811025073 in the name CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 80 of customer Ashok Bhatia Ex.PW3/B. PW3 also proved the reply dated 04.07.2017 Ex. PW3/C bearing signatures of Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal, as per which the request of the IO could not be complied with as the search criteria was very old. PW3 further deposed that as per the guidelines of DOT, they maintained the record of CDR for one year only.
iv) PW4 PSI Mahavir deposed that in the month of September 2013, he was posted as Deployment Officer (Chittha Munshi) at PS Paschim Vihar and on 14.09.2013, he had deployed ASI Birchha Singh on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM and Ct. Ombir Singh, No. 1205/W, was also deployed on emergency duty from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm on that day to assist ASI Birchha Singh during the said period vide entry in Column -28 of emergency duty in Ex.PW4/A. PW4 further deposed that he could not produce the original duty roster (chittha) dt. 14.09.13 PS Paschim Vihar regarding emergency duty deployment of both the accused as the same had been weeded out in accordance with the order of DCP Ex.PW4/B(colly). PW4 further deposed that the writing at Serial No.28 of Ex.PW4/A was in his handwriting. He also deposed that during emergency duty the Constable remains attached with one emergency officer for the complete day.
In his cross-examination, PW4 deposed that the name of accused Birchha Singh was not mentioned in Ex. PW4/A. He affirmed that the duties were given to the officers as per Duty Roster and no amendment or alteration could be done while deploying duty to the concerned officers. The last page of CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 80 Ex. PW4/A mentioned the deployment of PW4 as Chitha Munshi on 14.09.2013. PW4 deposed that he had deployed Const. Ombir Singh on emergency duty with ASI Birchha Singh as per Duty Roster on 14.09.2013 from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. On a specific question put to him, he stated that the said fact that Const. Ombir Singh was deployed on emergency duty with ASI Birchha Singh was not mentioned in Ex. PW4/A. He volunteered that the said fact can be verified from the upper subordinate Duty Roster and the departure entry as per the Roznamcha i.e. Daily Diary. He stated that after an officer or Subordinate staff left the PS for duty after mentioning in the Daily Diary, he was not separately informed regarding departure.
v) PW5 HC Jitender deposed that on 26.12.2013, Duty Officer of PS Paschim Vihar handed over to him original rukka and copy of FIR which he handed over to ACP Eish Singhal AT at his office in Rajori Garden.
vi) PW-6 Syed Ahmar Ali Hashmi, Junior Forensic / Assistant Chemical Examiner (Documents), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that the document related to the present case were received in case section of document division FSL Delhi on 20.07.17 which was marked to him. He had scientifically examined and prepared his examination report dated 04.09.2017 Ex. PW6/A regarding the questioned document Mark 'Q1' and admitted document Mark 'A1' and as per his report, the person who wrote the red enclosed writings stamped and marked A1 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 80 marked Q1.
vii) PW7 W/SI Ranjeet Kaur produced the documents i.e. order of departmental enquiry dated 19.09.2014 and enquiry report in respect of ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh Ex.PW7/A(Colly).
viii) PW8 Insp. Bijay Kumar deposed that on 26.09.13, he was posted as Sub-Insp. in Vigilance Branch, West District and complaint of Sh. Prithvi Bhatia was marked to him for inquiry. He perused the complaint and conducted inquiry. Relevant persons were examined i.e. the complainant, his wife, brother, brother's wife, duty officer HC Sunita, SHO Rattan Pal, alleged ASI Birchha Singh and SI Ganga Ram, who had already conducting inquiry prior to his inquiry. After completion of the inquiry, he prepared enquiry report Ex. PW7/A and submitted the said enquiry report alongwith the order of DE against accused persons to Insp. Vigilance.
In his cross-examination he stated that he did not record any formal statement of the witnesses. When the enquiry was marked to him, it was containing the statements recorded by SI Ganga Ram. He stated that Ms. Pooja Bhatia did not give any statement to him. He submitted the enquiry report to Insp. Vigilance, West District, on 01.10.2013. At that time both the accused persons were posted at PS Paschim Vihar and were not suspended.
ix) PW9 Ct. Deepak produced the posting register in CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 80 respect of HC Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh at PS Paschim Vihar reflecting the entries regarding posting of the aforesaid HC Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh. PW9 deposed that as per record, HC Birchha Singh was transferred from PS Moti Nagar to PS Paschim Vihar on 27.08.13, after promotion. Copy of the said entry alongwith the bio-data details of ASI Birchha Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW9/A(Colly). PW9 further deposed that as per posting register, Ct. Ombir Singh was transferred from AHTU/West to PS Paschim Vihar on 09.02.2012. Copy of said entry alongwith bio-data details of Ct. Ombir Singh was exhibited as Ex.PW9/B(Colly).
x) PW10 Madhu Bhatia was sister-in-law of complainant Prithvi Bhatia. xi) PW11 Ashok Kumar Bhatia was brother of complainant Prithvi Bhatia. xii) PW12 Insp. Ganga Ram deposed that on
19.09.2013, complaint already Ex.PW2/A of Prithvi Bhatia was marked to him for enquiry which was regarding extortion of Rs. Six Lakh by ASI Birchha Singh, Ct. Ombir and one lady Geeta. He conducted the enquiry and prepared an enquiry report and placed it before Insp. Ratan Pal, the then SHO, PS Paschim Vihar. During enquiry, he had recorded statements of Geeta, Ct. Ombir and Ct. Sushila Mark-X. In his cross-examination he deposed that the enquiry report prepared by him was not on record. He had recorded the CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 80 statements during inquiry on different dates. He denied that he had recorded the statements of the aforesaid witnesses on his own and none of them had given those statements and later the witnesses were asked to depose on those lines. He denied that accused Ombir was not present with accused Birchha Singh at the time of the incident.
xiii) PW13 Rajender Singh Sagar deposed that in the month of December, 2019, he was on duty as Addl. DCP first, Outer District, Delhi. Request letter dated 25.12.2019 Ex. PW13/A for sanction of prosecution U/s 19 of POC Act against ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh was received in his office from Sh. Vinay Mathur, ACP, Paschim Vihar. On 26.12.2019, he being competent to take appropriate action of removing ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh from the service after examining the entire record sent with request letter, accorded sanction U/s 19(1)(c) of PC Act 1988 for the prosecution of ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh vide his sanction order dated 26.12.2019 Ex. PW-13/B and he had sent the aforesaid sanction order to the IO vide dispatch no. 14568 on 26.12.2019.
xiv) PW14 SI Chander Bhan produced the Bio-Data of Ct. Ombir Singh PIS no. 28030133 Ex. PW-14/A (colly).
xv) PW15 HC Ravi produced posting details of ASI Birchha Singh Ex. PW15/A. CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 80 xvi) PW16 W/DHG Sushila deposed that in the year 2013 while she was posted at PS Paschim Vihar, she was assigned the duty at Help Desk and she used to make an entry in a register regarding the written complaints made at the PS. On being cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW16 denied that she gave statement dated 28.11.2019 Mark-X to the IO. She stated that she did not remember whether her duty was at the Help Desk of PS Paschim Vihar on 20.09.2013 between 02:00 pm to 08:00 pm evening duty or whether at 06:30 pm, ASI Birchha Singh came at the Help Desk and asked her for some work or whether ASI Birchha Singh had asked her to register a complaint dated 14.09.2013 in the Complaint Register or whether she had made entry regarding complaint dated 14.09.2013 in the register on 20.09.2013 at the asking of Birchha Singh.
At that stage, attention of PW16 was drawn towards accused Birchha Singh with a suggestion that he was the ASI who had come on 20.09.2013 at the Help Desk at 06:30 pm to get registered the complaint dated 14.09.2013 but PW16 stated that she did not know the accused.
PW16 referred to the reply filed by IO ACP Vinay Mathur dated 18.08.2022 before the court mentioning that the Helpdesk Register for the year 2013 of PS Paschim Vihar was ordered to be destroyed vide order no. 622-693/HAR/Outer District dated 18.01.2019, copy of which was enclosed with reply, and therefore, he could not seize the same.
She denied that she had been won over by the accused persons and that is why she was intentionally not CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 80 disclosing the true facts of the case.
xvii) PW17 W/ASI Sunita was Duty Officer, who deposed that on 14.09.2013, at about 12:00 noon, one lady came before her, who stated that her employer was not giving her the due money. ASI Birchha Singh was on emergency duty at that time and his duty hours were between 08:00 am to 08:00 pm and she directed the lady to go and meet ASI Birchha Singh in that regard. PW17 correctly identified accused ASI Birchha Singh before court. PW17 also correctly identified accused Geeta being the lady, who had come at 12:00 noon on that day before PW17.
In her cross-examination, PW17 deposed that the lady was not sent to Women Help-desk. One Homeguard official namely Sushila was present at the Women Help-desk. PW17 did not make any entry regarding arrival of that lady in any register maintained at the desk of Duty Officer. She deposed that Const. Ombir was not present with accused Birchha Singh at the time when accused Geeta came to the DO room at PS Paschim Vihar. She had not seen accused Ombir Singh going alongwith accused Birchha Singh on that day.
On an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C., PW17 was recalled for further cross-examination on behalf of accused Ct. Ombir. During cross-examination PW17 produced Rojnamcha- A register dated 14.09.2013 of PS Paschim Vihar and stated that as per DD no. 16A Ex.PW17/DA, which was in her handwriting, at 09:50 am, PCR call was marked to SI Dalbir Singh who alongwith Ct. Ombir was asked to visit the spot in CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 80 relation to road accident near Paschim Vihar Metro Station.
On a court question, PW17 stated that the departure was made simultaneously with the assignment of PCR call, vide DD no. 16A and it is not that the departure was made when SI Dalbir Singh alongwith Ct. Ombir came to her or informed that they were proceeding for the spot to attend the call. PW17 further stated that in between 12:00 noon to 02:00 pm, DD No. 19A (at 12:50 pm), DD no. 18A (10:35 am), 22A (02:50 pm) and 27A (06:40 pm) regarding PCR calls were also assigned to SI Dalbir Singh who was telephonically informed to attend those PCR calls. She telephonically informed SI Dalbir Singh regarding the calls and she had not seen in the PS, if he came after attending those PCR calls. She had not mentioned the name of Ct. Ombir Singh in other DDs as once his departure was recorded in the first call with SI Dalbir Singh.
xviii) PW18 Insp. Raj Kumar produced the Bio-data of ASI Birchha Singh Ex.PW18/A. The Bio-data of the accused Birchha Singh already placed on judicial file which was attested by ACP was exhibited as Ex.PW18/B. xix) PW19 ACP Rajbir Malik deposed that on 18.02.2017, investigation of the present case was marked to him. He recorded statements of the witnesses namely SI Oraon, Ct. Mahavir, HC Jitender, SI Ganga Ram and Insp. Ratan Pal. He wrote a request letter dated 17.06.2017 Ex. PW19/A to ACP, PG Cell, Headquarters for providing the certified copies of vigilance enquiry in respect of ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir. He CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 80 received the file of vigilance enquiry in respect of both the accused persons. PW19 further deposed that in the said file, there was an original compromise deed of Smt. Geeta Ex.PW2/DA which was written by accused Birchha Singh. PW19 collected the original Rojnamcha DD No.58B dated 14.09.2013 Ex.PW1/D, which was in the handwriting of accused Birchha Singh. PW19 sent Ex.PW2/DA and Ex.PW1/D to FSL, Rohini for opinion of handwriting expert regarding the handwriting of accused Birchha Singh vide forwarding letter dated 20.07.2017 Ex.PW6/DA. PW19 sent notices to both the accused persons for joining the investigation but they did not join the investigation. The FSL result Ex. PW6/A regarding the above-said documents was received. Thereafter he was transferred and he handed over the case file to Reader, ACP, Paschim Vihar.
xx) PW20 ACP Ratan Pal deposed that in the year 2013, he was posted as SHO, PS Paschim Vihar and at that time, accused ASI Birchha Singh and accused Ct. Ombir were also posted at PS Paschim Vihar. On 19.09.2013, complainant Prithvi Bhatia came in PS and produced a complaint Ex. PW2/A regarding extortion of Rs. Six Lakhs by accused ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh alongwith one lady namely Geeta. He gave his noting on the said complaint and same was marked to SI Ganga Ram for conducting enquiry and to report immediately. PW20 further deposed that SI Ganga Ram made enquiries and submitted the report on the said complaint and he forwarded the same to the senior officer, where vigilance enquiry CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 80 was conducted. On the basis of vigilance enquiry report, he made endorsement Ex. PW20/A on the complaint Ex. PW2/A and got registered the present case FIR. After registration of the case, the investigation was handed over to Sh. Eish Singhal, ACP, Rajouri Garden as per the directions of senior officers. PW20 further deposed that on 14.09.2013, both the accused persons i.e. ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh were posted at PS Paschim Vihar and they were performing emergency duty from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. PW20 correctly identified both the accused persons namely Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh before court.
xxi) PW21 Eish Singhal - IPS was IO of the case. He deposed that on 26.12.2013, he was posted as ACP, Rajouri Garden and the copy of FIR and the statement were handed over to him for investigation. He alongwith the team members went to B-1/264, Paschim Vihar, Delhi to meet the complainant Prithvi Bhatia and his wife Pooja Bhatia. PW21 met with the complainant and at his instance, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/B. He recorded statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. namely Prithvi Bhatia, Pooja Bhatia, Madhu Bhatia and Ashok Bhatia. PW21 further submitted that he gave notice to Geeta to join the investigation in the present case and she came to his office and joined the investigation and she was interrogated by him. PW21 correctly identified accused Geeta before court. PW21 further deposed that in reply to a request letter Mark-X sent by him, the service provider had given the CDRs and the CAFs of the mobile numbers of Prithvi Bhatia and Ashok Bhatia.
CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 80CDR of mobile no. 9899971070 of Prithvi Bhatia was marked as Mark-Y and CAF of Prithvi Bhatia alongwith the supporting documents was Ex.PW3/A. CDR of mobile no. 9811025073 of Ashok Bhatia was marked as Mark-Z and the CAF of Ashok Bhatia alongwith the supporting documents was marked as Mark-Z1 (colly). PW21 further deposed that after analyzing the CAFs of the aforesaid mobile numbers, it came to notice that on 14.09.2013, a call was made by Prithvi Bhatia to Ashok Bhatia around 01:30 pm which was reflected in the CDR of Ashok Bhatia at point Z-1 and also it was reflected in the CDR of Prithvi Bhatia at point Y-1. During investigation it was revealed that accused Geeta used to work in the house of Prithvi Bhatia and on the day of incident, accused Geeta had come to the house of Prithvi Bhatia and had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- for construction of her own house but the same was refused by Prithvi Bhatia and thereafter accused Geeta had called accused Birchha Singh and Ombir and visited the house of Prithvi Bhatia with them. Geeta had leveled allegations of attempted sexual assault on Prithvi Bhatia and for compromising the matter, the accused persons Birchha Singh and Ombir had demanded Rs.6,00,000/- from Prithvi Bhatia. Rs.4,00,000/- which was available in the house was paid by Prithvi Bhatia to the accused persons and for the remaining Rs.2,00,000/- Prithvi Bhatia had called his brother Ashok Bhatia. Ashok Bhatia was not present at the house and he telephonically asked his wife to give an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to his younger brother Prithvi Bhatia. Prithvi Bhatia was residing on the first floor of the house and his elder brother Ashok Bhatia was residing at the ground floor of CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 80 the house. Wife of Ashok Bhatia gave Rs.2,00,000/- to Prithvi Bhatia at his first floor. PW21 correctly identified accused Birchha Singh and Ombir before the court. PW 21 further deposed that in July 2014, he was transferred and he handed over the file to MHC(R).
xxii) PW22 ACP Vinay Mathur deposed that on 15.01.2019 investigation of present case was assigned to him and he received the file from MHC(R). He discussed the matter with the DCP. He came to know that the complainant had expired and as such he went to the house of complainant at B-1 Block, Paschim Vihar, to verify his death and to inspect the place of incident. Brother of the complainant namely Ashok Bhatia handed over him the death certificate of the complainant. He got the death certificate of the complainant Ex.PW22/A verified from the Sub-Registrar, Birth and Death, Rajouri Garden, SDMC. He also interrogated accused Ombir, Birchha Singh and Geeta and made formal enquiries from them. PW22 sent a letter for providing the CDRs regarding mobile numbers of complainant and accused persons and it was informed that the CDRs can be archived till the period of one year only unless directed otherwise by the licensor. PW22 interrogated W/Ct. Sushila of Delhi Home Guard, who was posted at Women Help-desk, and also examined Duty Officer ASI Sunita of PS Paschim Vihar. PW22 moved an application Ex. PW22/B for recording the statement of wife of the complainant namely Pooja Bhatia before the court of Ld. MM and statement of Ms. Pooja Bhatia U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/D was got recorded.
CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 80PW22 wrote a letter to DCP (West) to provide the certified copy of departmental enquiry report against the accused persons and I received the reply alongwith certified copy of the order of the departmental enquiry report. Original reply alongwith certified copy of order Ex.PW22/C (colly) was received. PW22 also wrote letter Ex. PW22/D to DCP (West District) for providing the posting details of ASI Birchha Singh, No. 2523/W and Ct. Ombir Singh, No. 1205/W and he received the same details Ex. PW22/E (colly). After completion of investigation, he prepared draft charge-sheet and thereafter, he sent a request letter Ex.PW13/A for grant of sanction U/s 19 of PC Act against accused ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh to the competent authority alongwith all the relevant documents. Later on PW22 received the sanction order U/s 19 of PC Act against both the accused. Both accused i.e. ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir Singh were correctly identified by PW22 before the court. (identity of accused Geeta was not disputed) Thereafter, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the court.
7. Vide order dated 27.09.2022, at the request of Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, PW Ms. Deepika Thakran, Ld. MM was dropped from the list of witnesses as witness PW-2 Ms. Pooja Bhatia had already been examined and she had proved the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW2/D.
8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements and additional statements of all three accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied the CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 80 correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
9. Accused ASI Birchha Singh further stated that Geeta told them that some altercation took place with Prithvi Bhatia and she was turned out from the home. He further stated that he did not remember whether co-accused Const. Ombir Singh was with him on emergency duty or not, however, he was on emergency duty on 14.09.2013 from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm.
10. Accused Ombir Singh further stated that he did not accompany with co-accused ASI Birchha Singh on 14.09.2013. He stated that he was with SI Dalbir Singh for attending some PCR call on that day. On 26.12.2013 he was suspended from the services. He stated that in the Duty Roster usually names of 2-3 Constables alongwith IOs were mentioned for emergency duties by the Deployment Officer. But on 14.09.2013 only his name was mentioned in the Duty Roster and names of other Constables, who were also on emergency duty, were not mentioned by Deployment Officer (Chiththa Munshi). He accompanied SI Dalbir Singh for attending emergency calls on that day from 09.50 am to 08.00 pm according to DD No. 16-A of 14.09.2013 and he did not accompany co-accused ASI Birchha Singh on that day. He stated that the incident was of 14.09.2013 but complaint was given by Prithvi Bhatia on 19.09.2013 i.e. after three days from the incident, when he came at the police station with his son Punit Bhatia and he had some hot talks with ASI Birchha Singh, who was at that time present at the police station. He was also present at the police station in the uniform.
CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 80Prithvi Bhatia told ASI Birchha Singh that "main tumhari wardi utarwa dunga". He also intervened in the dispute of ASI Birchha Singh and Prithvi Bhatia. Thereafter, someone in the police station had shown him the Duty Roster of 14.09.2013 unofficially in which only his name was mentioned on emergency duty Constable and therefore, Prithvi Bhatia falsely mentioned his name in his complaint given on 19.09.2013. Pooja Bhatia identified him in the court as during departmental enquiry, he alongwith ACP I.P.Singh visited three times at her house and at that time Prithvi Bhatia was alive and Pooja Bhatia had also seen him at her house.
11. Accused Geeta admitted that she was sent by Medirent, Vikaspuri, for working as maid/domestic help in the house of PW2 Pooja Bhatia and she worked there for 6-8 months. She further stated that on 14.09.2013 she went to house of Prithvi Bhatia for collecting Rs. 600/- and she also used to visit at their house for massage (malish) of Pooja Bhatia, but her husband also asked her to massage of his feet, which she refused, at which quarrel took place. She did not make any demand from them and they gave her Rs. 600/- as assistance for tuition fee of her daughter and thereafter she left. She further stated that she went to the house of Prithvi Bhatia again after receiving a call, however, she did not remember whether co-accused Birchha Singh and Const. Ombir Singh were also present there, however, no amount was demanded from Prithvi Bhatia or Pooja Bhatia. She further stated that she went to the police station for lodging complaint, but her complaint was not recorded.
12. The accused persons ASI Birchha Singh and Geeta CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 80 did not prefer to lead evidence in their defence. Only accused Const. Ombir Singh preferred to lead evidence in his defence and he examined the following witnesses :
(i) DW-1 Rahul Deran deposed that in September 2013 he was coming back from the house of his Mama (uncle), who used to live at Mangolpuri. He had taken a bus from Mangolpuri to Peeragarhi. He de-boarded the bus at Peeragarhi to take a bus for Uttam Nagar, where he used to live. He checked his pocket for the money that he had put in it and found that the money in his pocket was missing. He went back to the place where he had de-boarded the bus to check if he could find his money but he could not find it. The street vendors in the area told him to report at PS Paschim Vihar, which was nearby, and he went to PS Paschim Vihar at around 12.00 noon to 01.00 pm, where he met a lady police official, who told him to lodge his complaint with Const. Ombir. He narrated the facts to Const. Ombir, who took his particulars and other details and enquired from him. In the police station at some distance he heard some commotion and some people were shouting at one Sardarji. At that time, Const.
Ombir went there and tried to pacify the situation. When he came back, DW1 took his number in case he had to enquire about his missing money. Thereafter DW1 went back to his home.
ii) DW2 Insp. Manoj Kumar deposed that additional status report dated 14.11.2022 Ex. DW2/A was filed by him in Crl. Revision Petition No. 288/21, Ombir Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi). He further stated that statement of SI Dalbir Singh CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 80 Mark-DW2/X was filed alongwith the report in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and it may be the typographical error that the date in the status report was mentioned as 14.08.2013 while the date of incident as mentioned in statement of SI Dalbir Singh was 14.09.2013.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Chief P.P. for the State he affirmed that he had not participated in any investigation of case FIR No. 475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar and he was also not posted in PS Paschim Vihar on 14.09.2013. He further deposed that he had only filed Mark-DW2/X on the basis of record. He further affirmed that in the earlier report dated 21.02.2022 Mark-DW2/X1 submitted by DCP, Outer District, Sh. Parvinder Singh, it was mentioned that petitioner/accused Ombir Singh was taking false plea in the Hon'ble High Court.
13. On 10.10.2023 ld. Counsel for the accused Ombir Singh closed defence evidence. However, on 20.11.2023 an application under section 233 Cr.P.C. was moved by accused Ombir Singh seeking summoning SI Dalbir Singh as defence witness. Vide order 11.12.2023 said application was allowed and SI Dalbir Singh was ordered to be summoned as defence witness.
14. DW3 SI Dalbir Singh deposed that in September 2013, he was posted as SI at PS Paschim Vihar. He affirmed his signatures on his statement Ex. DW3/A (earlier marked as Mark- DW2/X) and stated that on 14.09.2013 he was on emergency duty from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm and after receiving the call he alongwith Const. Ombir left the police station Paschim Vihar at CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 80 around 09.50 am to attend the call and the same was recorded in Register No. 2 at serial no. 16. On the same day, he had attended other calls also. He had also made arrival entry at serial no. 31 in the Rojnamcha Register-2 dated 14.09.2013 Mark PW20/DX in his handwriting. He further deposed that Const. Ombir was with him on all the calls mentioned in DD no. 31. He further deposed that he had attended five call on 14.09.2013 and he went to attend the call as recorded in DD No. 19 at about 12.50 pm alongwith Const. Ombir.
15. Thereafter on 09.01.2024 at the request of ld. Counsel for accused Ombir Singh, defence evidence was closed.
Arguments :
16. It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence of demand or acceptance of any amount by the accused persons. The complainant, who was the main witness in the case, has expired and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe or of extortion through the evidence of wife of the complainant PW2 or through the evidence of brother PW11 and sister-in-law PW10 of the complainant. It is urged that the testimonies of the witnesses are full of contradictions and improvements and their version cannot be relied upon to hold the accused persons guilty. It is urged that the complaint was lodged after five days of the incident and it was filed to foreclose any possibility of any purported complaint being filed by accused Geeta against the CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 80 complainant. It is urged that no threat of false implication was ever meted out to the complainant. It is also stated that the prosecution has not placed on record the relevant CDRs which could indicate the innocence of the accused persons.
17. It is further argued that though the complaint was made on 14.09.2013 by the complainant Prithvi Bhatia, however, his statement was never got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The complainant Prithvi Bhatia passed away on 13.10.2017 and there was ample time to have his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. It is urged that after his demise, the statement of his wife PW2 Pooja Bhatia was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Ms. Pooja Bhatia was recorded on 11.12.2019 and thereafter the sanction was obtained on 26.12.2019 pursuant to request letter dated 25.12.2019. It is contended that there was no material on record regarding demand and acceptance of bribe and therefore the statement of Ms. Pooja Bhatia was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which is in the nature of hear-say evidence. It is urged that at the time of grant of sanction and filing of charge-sheet, there was no cogent material on record to show demand and acceptance of bribe.
18. It is further contended that though the initial complaint was made on 14.09.2013, the FIR in the present case was registered only on 19.12.2013. It is urged that there is gross delay in registration of the FIR and to cover up the period between 14.09.2013 to 19.12.2013 it is stated that a preliminary enquiry and a Vigilance Enquiry was conducted in the intervening period. It is urged that the said preliminary enquiry was conducted at the instance of the SHO and not on the CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 80 directions of any senior police official. The said preliminary enquiry does not have any legal sanctity and it is stated to have been conducted by PW12 SI Ganga Ram. The preliminary enquiry report is not on record and there is no other record to indicate that any such preliminary enquiry was conducted. Hence, in absence of any evidence of preliminary enquiry, the same cannot be assumed to have been conducted only on the basis of oral statement of PW12 and PW20, who are the police officials. Moreover the statements of the witnesses were not recorded during Vigilance Enquiry, hence, the Vigilance Enquiry report also is an eyewash only to cover-up the delay in registration of FIR. It is stated that perusal of Ex. PW1/C further reveals that the FIR was registered on the basis of statement of accused Geeta, which is impermissible under law.
19. It is further argued that it is also mentioned in the rukka as well as in the sanction order that no PCR call relating to the incident was received at the PS nor was any complaint made by accused Geeta on 14.09.2013 and despite the same accused Birchha Singh had got settled the matter indicating his involvement. It is urged that testimony of PW17 W/ASI Sunita, Duty Officer at PS Paschim Vihar on 14.09.2013, reveals that on 14.09.2013 at about 12.00 noon one lady came before her and told her that her employer was not giving her the dues. PW17 directed the lady to go and meet ASI Birchha Singh and in her cross-examination PW17 further stated that no entry was made in the register of complaints with respect to arrival of that lady. It is further urged that PW16 W/DHG Sushila did not support the prosecution version and deposed that she did not remember if she CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 80 had made entry regarding the complaint dated 14.09.2013 in the register on 20.09.2013 at the asking of accused Birchha Singh. Noticeably the help-desk register for the year 2013 of PS Paschim Vihar was not produced before the court as it was ordered to be destroyed under the orders of the senior officials, hence it is not proved on record that there was no complaint of Geeta received on 14.09.2013.
20. It is also contended on behalf of accused Ombir Singh that he was not present on emergency duty alongwith accused Birchha Singh on 14.09.2013 as is manifest in the DD entries recorded on that day and the testimonies of the defence witnesses examined on his behalf. It is accordingly pleaded that there is no evidence on record to show that he was present alongwith accused Birchha Singh at the house of the complainant at the time of incident. It is accordingly urged by the accused persons that in absence of any evidence, they are liable to be acquitted of the offences they are charged with.
21. On the other hand, it is argued by ld. Chief P.P. for the State that there was no delay in registration of the FIR and the delay has been sufficiently explained due to ill health of the complainant. It is further urged that the allegations of demand and acceptance are proved through the testimony of PW2, PW10 and PW11. It is urged that since before the demise of complainant, the best evidence of the complainant was available, therefore at that stage there was no requirement of recording the statement of his wife i.e. PW2 under section 164 Cr.P.C. and it is for this reason that after his demise, the statement of his wife was got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused persons CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 80 were named in the complaint and there was no dispute regarding their identity, hence, no TIP was conducted. Moreover, admittedly the accused persons had also visited the house of complainant during departmental enquiry proceedings and therefore their TIP was not got conducted by the wife of the complainant. It is further urged that no specimen handwriting of the accused Birchha Singh could be taken as he did not join the investigation and therefore his handwriting available on DD register was sent to FSL for comparison as his specimen handwriting. It is also stated that the source of Rs. 4 Lakhs is not an important factor and the same cannot be used by the accused persons in their favour. It is also stated that the CCTV footage was not collected as the same was not available and since the eye witness account of the complainant stood corroborated by the fact that both accused namely Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh were on emergency duty on that day, the CDR was not collected. Moreover, the accused persons cannot take benefit of any lacuna in the investigation. It is stated that accused Ombir was on emergency duty on the date of incident and it was not impossible for him to have gone to the house of the complainant during the day at the time of incident and therefore the plea of alibi would not be available to him. It is further urged that there is nothing on record to show that the complainant had any reason to falsely implicate the accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh. It is accordingly prayed that the accused persons are liable to be held guilty for the offences they are charged with.
22. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 8023. It is argued by ld. Counsel for accused Birchha Singh that perusal of the sanction order dated 26.12.2019 Ex. PW13/B shows that there was no application of mind by the sanctioning authority before grant of sanction. It is stated that the request letter dated 25.12.2019 Ex. PW13/A for the grant of sanction was sent to the competent authority and the sanction was granted within a day on 26.12.2019. It is stated that the demand has been presumed in the sanction order dated 26.12.2019 and the sanction order specifically states that the sanction was granted on the basis of circumstantial evidence i.e.
(i) presence of the accused at the house of the complainant, (ii) getting a settlement done vide compromise deed dated 14.09.2013 and (iii) no complaint at the police station wherein the accused was deputed to deal with the matter. It is stated that there is no allegation of demand in the sanction order and the sanction order also notes that there is no direct evidence in the case such as CCTV footage, audio-video recording or recovery of money etc. It is stated that demand has been inferred and presumed in the case while grant of sanction. It is stated that the sanction order further notes that the grant of sanction would be in the interest of department as well as in larger public interest. It also notes the trauma of victim, who was a cancer patient. It is stated that a sanction order has to be based on objective considerations and some evidence of demand and acceptance of money as is the requirement of the provisions of P.C. Act and the sanction order cannot be based upon inferences and emotions. It is also stated that the sanctioning authority has not mentioned that he was satisfied with the allegations against the accused and CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 80 has accorded sanction without any proof of demand or acceptance of bribe. In support of his contention, ld. Counsel for the accused Birchha Singh has relied upon the judgments in the matter of (i) CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC 295; (2) Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of Andra Pradesh, (1979) 4 SCC 172 and (iii) State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan, (2007) 11 SCC 273.
24. As regards application of mind by sanctioning authority, in State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs Mahesh Jain, 2013 (8) SCC 119, which has also been relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (SUPRA) cited by ld. Counsel for the accused, following principles were culled out:-
"14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prime facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 80 sanction order.
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
25. It was further held that :
"True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused."
26. Thus, grant of sanction is an administrative function and only prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is needed. The adequacy or inadequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order and when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. Also, flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of accused.
27. The sanction order dated 26.12.2019 Ex. PW13/B was passed by PW13 Rajender Singh Sagar, who deposed that after examining the entire record of the case including copy of CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 80 the draft charge-sheet, copy of FIR, copies of statements of witnesses and other relevant documents, he found that the allegations against ASI Birchha Singh and Const. Ombir Singh to be true. In his cross-examination he denied that he had accorded sanction in a mechanical manner without application of mind. No question was put to the sanctioning authority about any material documents not being placed before it alongwith request for grant of sanction. Nothing was revealed in the cross- examination indicating that there was no application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Accordingly, no ground is made out to show that the sanction was accorded without application of mind. Accordingly, the challenge to the sanction order Ex. PW13/B is without any basis and is misconceived.
28. Before appreciating evidence in this case, it is important to note that even in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the the foundational facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede Crl.Appeal No. 1350 of 2009, d.o.d. 29.07.2009 held that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. It was also observed that that while invoking the presumption under section 20 of PC Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme court made the following observations in this regard:
"16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 80 of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-`-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt." (emphasis supplied)
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Subair v. State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587] while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.
30. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no. 1669 of 2009, with regard to the nature and quality of proof CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 80 necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the PC Act, summarized as under :-
" 68. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 34 of 80 the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue.
In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 35 of 80 for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point
(e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature." (emphasis supplied)
31. Accordingly, if a complainant has died or is unavailable, as in the present case, to let in his evidence during trial, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.
32. Viewed in light of law discussed herein-above, it has to be examined as to what extent the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused persons. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons namely Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh demanded illegal gratification and extorted a sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs alongwith accused Geeta from the complainant Prithvi Bhatia on the threat of falsely implicating him in a rape case and accordingly they committed the charged offences.
TESTIMONIES OF MATERIAL WITNESSES :
33. The wife of the complainant Ms. Pooja Bhatia was examined as PW2 and she deposed that in the year 2011, she CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 36 of 80 underwent a knee replacement surgery. After her surgery, as she required help of a maid, she contacted Medirent, Vikaspuri, who sent accused Geeta to her house for working as a maid/domestic help. PW2 correctly identified accused Geeta before the court. She deposed that accused Geeta worked at her house for about 6- 8 months and during that period she told PW2 and her husband about her problem that she was not able to pay the tuition fees of her daughter and sought help. As a benevolent gesture they agreed to give accused Geeta Rs.600/- per month to help her with her daughter's education. Geeta used to come and collect the said amount generally between 1st to 5th date of every month. They started giving the aforementioned amount of Rs.600/- per month after accused Geeta had left their employment. PW2 deposed that her brother in law Ashok Bhatia alongwith his family including his wife Madhu Bhatia used to reside on the ground floor of their house. PW2 alongwith her husband and son Punit Bhatia used to reside on the first floor.
34. PW2 deposed that in the month of September 2013, one morning accused Geeta came to their house to collect Rs.600/- and met PW2 and her husband. Accused Geeta during her talks told her husband that she required Rs.3 Lakhs in order to construct her house. Her husband refused to give such a huge amount. At this, accused Geeta told that if she was not provided the said amount, she would falsely implicate the husband of PW2 on the charges of her rape. PW2 deposed that during those days, the news of Asharam rape case was airing in the media and as such she and her husband got perplexed and they told Geeta to leave their house and that they could not give her the aforesaid CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 37 of 80 amount of Rs.3 Lakh. After that accused Geeta left their house and after 15-20 minutes, door bell of their house rang. Their maid went downstairs and opened the gate. Thereafter, two persons came to their flat, who were later on identified as accused Birchha Singh and Ombir. PW2 correctly identified the accused persons but stated that accused Birchha Singh was wearing turban at that time and was slimmer at that time.
35. At that stage, an observation was made by the court that accused Birchha Singh generally appeared in the court wearing a turban but on that day he had appeared without turban.
36. PW2 further deposed that after reaching, they told her husband that accused Geeta had given a complaint in the PS that her husband had beaten Geeta and Geeta had also leveled allegations of rape. At that time, PW2 was outside the room in which both the accused were talking to her husband and PW2 had overheard the conversation. PW2 deposed that she also overheard that accused were telling her husband that they would involve her husband in rape case just like Asharam Baapu and if her husband wanted to get rid of that, he should pay money. They also telephonically called accused Geeta who reached there within 10-15 minutes. Thereafter, all the three accused persons spoke to her husband in the drawing room and PW2 was sitting in the lobby and overhearing them. They demanded Rs.6 Lakhs from her husband in order to hush up the matter. Her husband came out to her and told her about the entire facts and also told her about the demand of Rs.6 Lakhs by the accused persons. Husband of PW2 also told PW2 that accused persons were threatening that if they were not provided Rs.6 Lakh, they would CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 38 of 80 lodge a rape case against him. At that time, they were having Rs.4 Lakh cash with them at their house. Husband of PW2 called his brother Ashok Bhatia and requested him to provide Rs.2 Lakh. Ashok Bhatia called up his wife and directed her to give them Rs.2 Lakh. Madhu Bhatia, sister in law of PW2, gave them Rs.2 Lakh cash and thereafter, husband of PW2 handed over Rs.6 Lakh to the accused persons which were accepted by accused Birchha Singh. After collecting the amount, all the accused persons left their house. PW2 deposed that during those days they were under pressure as her husband was suffering from cancer for about 30 years and was diabetic for about 20 years, and they could not decide as to what to do. After 2-3 days, they deliberated that they should come up against the false accusations of accused persons and thereafter, her husband filed a complaint Ex. PW2/A at PS Paschim Vihar. PW2 identified signature of her husband on complaint Ex.PW2/A at point A. PW2 deposed that her husband expired in October 2017 and after filing of complaint by her husband, FIR was registered and police came to their house for investigation. PW2 also identified signature of her husband on site plan Ex.PW2/B. She deposed that police enquired from her and her husband and she told aforementioned facts to the police in her statement.
37. PW2 deposed that her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded before the Ld. M.M. vide Ex. PW2/C.
38. PW2 further deposed that on the day when both the accused namely Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh came to her house and rang the doorbell and thereafter came to their Ist Floor, they talked to her husband and accused Birchha Singh said that CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 39 of 80 one Geeta who was earlier their maid had filed a complaint against them in the police station and he would file a case against him (i.e. her husband). Accused also threatened that as Asha Ram was in jail, her husband would be sent to jail for one year. Accused Birchha Singh also told her husband that either he should settle the matter and give the accused persons Rs.6 lakhs or he should be ready to go to jail. Her husband after collecting the amount in the manner stated by her in her earlier chief examination handed over the money to accused Birchha Singh in her presence and Birchha Singh accepted the money i.e. Rs.6 lakhs on behalf of all the accused persons. After collecting money all the three accused persons left their house. She did not remember whether accused Ombir Singh and Birchha Singh were in uniform or in plain clothes on that day, however, they were wearing pant-shirt and accused Geeta was wearing suit-salwar.
39. PW2 further deposed that on that day, both the accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh did not show them any document/complaint/copy of FIR indicating that any complaint had been made against her husband or PW2 or any of the family members and the accused persons told the aforementioned facts and threatened them verbally and extorted money from them.
40. On a leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, PW2 affirmed that the date of incident was correctly mentioned in the complaint of her husband Ex.PW2/A, which was 14.09.2013.
41. In her cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused Geeta, PW2 deposed that Geeta used to look after her as she had undergone knee replacement surgery. Apart from money for her CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 40 of 80 night duty, she used to pay Rs. 600/- per month to the accused for the education of her daughter at her request. Ms. Geeta was hired through an agency Medirent for one month. After one month, she requested that she be hired directly and not through agency as she has to pay commission to the agency. Therefore, on her request she was hired directly on the same terms and she worked with them for around 5-6 months.
42. PW2 further stated that she was present when accused Geeta had demanded Rs. 3 lakhs from her husband. There were no outstanding amounts when Geeta had left the job/ work and all her dues stood cleared. PW2 denied that Geeta had not threatened to implicate her husband falsely in a case of sexual harassment. PW2 voluntarily stated that Birchha Singh ne ye kaha tha ki jaise Asaram ko band karwaya hai, aise hi aapko band karwa denge. PW2 further denied that no such conversation of demand was heard by her. PW2 further denied that accused Geeta had never demanded Rs. 3 lakhs from her husband or that Geeta had threatened my husband that he would be falsely implicated on the charge of the rape by her. PW2 further denied that she had implicated accused Geeta Devi falsely in this case only because her dues towards employment were not paid by her late husband. PW2 further denied that the accused Geeta Devi had only told that she would be complaining to authorities regarding non-payment of her employment dues.
43. On being cross-examined by ld. Counsel for accused Birchha Singh, PW2 stated that in the lifetime of her husband, her statement was not recorded by the police and was recorded after his death. PW2 affirmed that she had told the CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 41 of 80 police that she was sitting in the lobby with her husband when accused Geeta had come alone on 14.09.2013 at her house and she entered directly without ringing the door bell as the main door used to remain open at that time. Accused Geeta remained in her house for about 15 minutes and then left. After about 15- 20 minutes the door bell rang. At that time, her maid servant saw from the balcony and thereafter upon her asking PW2 also went to balcony and saw Geeta. PW2 affirmed that she told this fact to the police in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The built up area of their house was approximately 400 sq. yards. The front portion was facing the road. Geeta did not go to the drawing room when she first visited their house. PW2 also deposed that when the accused persons were sitting in the drawing room she did not go there but went to her bedroom.
44. PW2 further deposed that her husband went to lodge the complaint on 19.09.2013. PW2 did not visit the police station. PW2 did not make any call at number 100 upto 19.09.2013. She was not aware as to whether her husband made any call or not nor did he inform her about the same. PW2 further stated that neither she nor her husband visited the police station in connection with this case on the date of the incident. PW2 did not go through the complaint before her husband went to police station for lodging the same. Her husband expired in October 2017. When she received the information of this case, she took over charge of this case. Her husband had maintained the file with respect to this case and she took charge of the file after his death. PW2 affirmed that in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she had stated that she did not know the CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 42 of 80 names of the persons except Geeta who came on 14.09.2013. PW2 affirmed that she stated to the police that she could identify those persons if shown to her. PW2 denied that during her examination she mentioned the name of Birchha Singh only because his name was mentioned in the record maintained by her husband. PW2 affirmed that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after the death of her husband. PW2 deposed that she was never called by police to identify any accused in the police station or at any other place.
45. PW2 affirmed that in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that the demand of money was made by the accused persons in her presence. She volunteered that the accused persons met with her husband in the drawing room and PW2 was not there and that her husband informed this fact to her. PW2 affirmed that she did not disclose the fact of her knee ailment and giving of Rs. 600/- to Geeta monthly or that Geeta had come to their house to collect Rs. 600/-, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW2 volunteered that she was not asked about those facts.
46. PW2 deposed that she did not visit the PS on 14.09.2013 and was not aware if her husband had visited the PS on 14.09.2013. PW2 identified the signatures of the complainant, her husband, on settlement Ex.PW2/DA and affirmed that it appeared to be a settlement between her husband and Geeta, however, PW2 was not aware about any such settlement. PW2 denied that her husband had informed that he visited PS on 14.09.2013. She further denied that they were not willing to pay the dues accrued regarding services provided by CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 43 of 80 Geeta to her on 14.09.2013. PW2 denied that Geeta was pressuring her husband to pay her genuine dues or that her husband compromised the matter with Geeta.
47. PW2 also deposed that her son Punit Bhatia was not present at home on 14.09.2013 and they also discussed the incident with him when he returned 2-3 days after 14.09.2013 and her husband informed him about the incident in her presence. She did not know whether her son Punit Bhatia ever accompanied her husband to the PS.
48. PW2 deposed that she did not remember whether she had stated to the police in her statement that when both the accused were talking to her husband, she had overheard the conversation while sitting in the lobby. She was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark-PW2/DA wherein the said fact was not mentioned. PW2 affirmed that she had not stated in my statement Ex.PW2/C that while sitting in the lobby, she overheard the conversation that took place between her husband and the accused. PW2 denied that she was not aware about the incident of 14.09.2013 or that she became aware about the aforesaid facts after death of her husband when she had gone through the file. She also denied that after going through the file she gathered the information and thereafter, she incorporated the said information in her statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and U/s 164 Cr.P.C. She denied that she was not aware about any incident of 14.09.2013.
49. PW2 also deposed that she had not accompanied her husband on 19.09.2013 when he went to PS to lodge the complaint. She did not know whether her son accompanied her CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 44 of 80 husband on that day or not. She did not know who typed the complaint dated 19.09.2013 and where it was got typed. She stated that they all discussed the matter and came to the conclusion that complaint should be filed with the police by her husband.
50. PW2 deposed that she did not remember whether she had stated to the police that her husband came out from the drawing room and told her about the entire facts. At that stage, PW2 was confronted with her statement Mark-PW2DA and Ex.PW2/C wherein the aforesaid fact was not so recorded.
51. PW2 denied that she was not aware of the incident on 14.09.2013 or that she came to know about it later, after going through the record after the death of her husband.
52. PW2 affirmed that during departmental enquiry accused persons were brought to her house. She denied that she came to know about the identity of the accused persons as the police officials came alongwith both the accused persons at her residence during vigilance/departmental enquiry. She denied that on the basis of the same she incorporated the names of accused persons in her statement.
53. PW2 denied that her husband told her that he had arrived at a compromise with Geeta. She denied that they had an apprehension that on the basis of the compromise letter, further troubles could be created and to avoid that, the present complaint dated 19.09.2013 was lodged. She denied that a story was concocted prior to 19.09.2013 and in pursuance thereof, the complaint was filed. She denied that no incident occurred on 14.09.2013 or that as she was not present in the room, no amount CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 45 of 80 was given to any accused in her presence.
54. In her cross-examination by accused Ombir, PW2 stated that she did not remember whether on 01.04.2015, 16.04.2015, 20.04.2015 and 21.05.2015, police visited at their house to record statement of her husband. She deposed that accused persons came to their house with police during departmental proceedings but she did not remember how many times they came at their house. She affirmed that SI Ganga Ram from Vigilance Department had come to their house during the life time of her husband during vigilance proceedings. PW2 did not remember whether ACP Ingit Pratap Singh also visited at their house during vigilance proceedings. She did not remember whether her statement was recorded during vigilance proceedings. No enquiries were made from her by the vigilance.
55. PW2 also deposed that in the month of September 2013, accused Geeta came at their house on 14.09.2013 to demand the tuition fee of Rs.600/-. PW2 volunteered that later, on the same day she demanded Rs.3 Lakhs. They had not made any complaint or made a call at 100 number when Geeta came to their house on 14.09.2013 and threatened to implicate her husband in a false rape case for not giving the amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs. Prior to 14.09.2013, Geeta had not made any demand of Rs. 3 Lakhs either from her or her husband. PW2 denied that her husband gave a blow of Danda on the arm of Geeta when she started shouting while threatening her husband to get him implicated in a false rape case. She affirmed that at that time Geeta was shouting loudly. PW2 volunteered that her husband asked her to leave from their house. PW2 affirmed that when CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 46 of 80 accused Geeta came at their house and threatened her husband to get him implicated in a false rape case, at that time police officials were not present at her house. When Geeta again came alongwith police officials, PW2 was sitting in lobby.
56. On a court question, PW2 stated that they were discussing the issue at their house in the meantime within half an hour, accused Geeta again came at their house with police officials
57. PW2 stated that she was present at her house when police officials came for departmental enquiry. She did not remember whether the police officials who came at her house with Geeta were in uniform or in civil dress. She did not remember whether she had heard any specific words spoken by the constable who accompanied accused Birchha Singh regarding the threat and demand of money.
58. PW2 denied that they made a plan to solve the issue of threat and thereafter concocted a false story and got the present FIR registered after five days implicating the police officials. PW2 deposed that herJethani Madhu Bhatia had given Rs.2 Lakhs to her husband but PW2 did not remember whether she had given the same in her presence. She denied that she did not witness anything or that no incident occurred on 14.09.2013.
59. PW10 Madhu Bhatia deposed that on 14.09.2013 she was residing on the ground floor of H.No. B-12/264, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, and on the first floor, her brother-in-law ( Devar) Sh. Prithvi Bhatia was residing alongwith his wife Ms. Pooja Bhatia. On that day at about 01:30 pm, she received a call from her husband Ashok Bhatia, who told her to take out Rs.Two CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 47 of 80 Lakhs, which were kept in the drawer inside the house, and to handover the same to Sh. Prithvi Bhatia. PW10 took out the amount of Rs. Two Lakh from the drawer and went to the first floor of the house and handed over the said amount to Sh. Prithvi Bhatia. Some police officials were sitting inside when she handed over the amount to Sh. Prithvi Bhatia. She deposed that she had not seen the face of the police officials since she handed over the amount of Rs. Two Lakh from outside the room where the police personnel were sitting. Later, her statement was recorded by the police on 26.12.2013.
60. During her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, attention of PW10 was drawn towards accused persons Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh with a suggestion that they were the same police officials who were sitting alongwith Sh. Prithvi Bhatia on the first floor of the house on 14.09.2013. PW10 deposed that perhaps they were the same police officials as those police officials were wearing police uniform. PW10 again said that the accused persons were the same police officials who were sitting on the first floor of the aforesaid house on 14.09.2013.
61. In her cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused Birchha Singh, PW10 deposed that the police had not recorded her statement with respect to identity of the accused persons. She had not gone inside the room where the accused persons were sitting. She volunteered that the door of the room was made of glass and the police officials were visible from outside the room. She denied that she had made improvements regarding identity of the accused persons or that due to the said reason she had not given any statement regarding their identity.
CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 48 of 8062. PW11 Ashok Kumar Bhatia, brother of complainant Prithvi Bhatia, stated that on 14.09.2013, he was residing at the ground floor of house no. B-12/264, Paschim Vihar, Delhi and his brother late Sh. Prithvi Bhatia was residing at the first floor of the premises alongwith his wife. At about 01:30 pm, he received a call on his mobile phone from his brother Prithvi Bhatia that he was in urgent need of Rs. Two Lakh. Thereafter PW11 called his wife Madhu Bhatia to take out the amount of Rs. Two Lakh from the drawer of the almirah, which was kept in the room of his floor, and to hand over the same to his brother Prithvi Bhatia. His wife handed over the aforesaid amount to his brother Prithvi Bhatia. In the evening when he returned back to his house, his brother late Prithvi Bhatia informed him that he was to be implicated in a false case by police officials and the police officials have taken Rs. Six Lakhs from him.
63. In order to prove demand by the accused persons, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW2, PW10 and PW11. It is the case of the prosecution that PW2 has supported the allegation of extortion and demand of bribe by the accused persons from the complainant i.e. Prithvi Bhatia, husband of PW2. It is urged that testimony of PW2 is corroborated by the testimony of PW10 and PW11, who have deposed regarding handing over of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the complainant Prithvi Bhatia on 14.09.2013 at around 01.30 pm to be given to the accused persons by him pursuant to their demand.
64. It may be noted that in her examination-in-chief PW2 Ms. Pooja Bhatia, wife of the complainant, deposed regarding her knee replacement surgery in 2012 and that she CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 49 of 80 hired accused Geeta as a help through one Medirent. She worked at the house of PW2 for about 6-8 months. As Geeta was unable to pay tution fee of her daughter, PW2 and her husband agreed to give Rs. 600/- per month to accused Geeta, which she used to come and collect every month even after she left their work. PW2 and her husband used to reside on first floor of their house and her brother-in-law Ashok Bhatia and his wife Madhu Bhatia used to reside on the ground floor.
65. PW2 also deposed that in September 2013, (which date upon a leading question being put to her by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, was stated to be 14.09.2013) accused Geeta came to their house in the morning to collect Rs. 600/- and met PW2 and her husband. Geeta told husband of PW2 that she required Rs. 3 Lakhs to construct her house and he refused. At this, Geeta told that if she was not given that amount she would falsely implicate him on the charges of her rape. During those days the news of Asaram Bapu case was in news and PW2 and her husband got perplexed and told Geeta to leave their house.
66. In her cross-examination, PW2 stated that Geeta had demanded Rs. 3 Lakhs from her husband in her presence and denied the suggestion to the contrary. Accordingly, the initial demand of Rs. 3 Lakhs was made by accused Geeta in the presence of PW2. PW2 denied that she had implicated accused Geeta in a false case only because the dues towards her employment were not paid by her late husband. PW2 also denied that accused Geeta had only told that she would be complaining to the authorities regarding non-payment of her employment dues. Hence, according to accused Geeta she had only demanded CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 50 of 80 her outstanding dues from husband of PW2 and had told her husband that she would be complaining to authorities in that regard. It may be noted that in her statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused Geeta stated that on 14.09.2013 she went to the house of Prithvi Bhatia to collect Rs. 600/- and that she also used to visit their house for massage of Pooja Bhatia, however, Prithvi Bhatia asked her to massage his feet which she refused and a quarrel took place and she took Rs. 600/- as assistance for tuition fee of her daughter and then left. Accused Geeta also stated that she went to the PS for lodging the complaint but it was not recorded. It may be noted that no suggestion as regard Prithvi Bhatia asking accused Geeta to massage his feet and that she refused or that a quarrel took place with them on that account were put to PW2. Hence, in her statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused Geeta has not stated that the reason for the quarrel was that she was being denied her outstanding employment dues by Prithvi Bhatia and hence the reason for quarrel as stated by accused Geeta is not proved on record. Accordingly, it emerges that Geeta had demanded an amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs from Prithvi Bhatia when she went to their house on 14.09.2013 and that a quarrel took place between them. PW2 has consistently stated that accused Geeta had demanded Rs. 3 Lakhs from her husband in her presence, which he refused.
67. It is relevant to note that the initial complaint Ex. PW2/A does not mention that Geeta had threatened PW2 and her husband that she will falsely implicate them in a rape case. Infact it is mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW2/A and in the statement of Pooja Bhatia recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that accused CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 51 of 80 Geeta left after refusal to give Rs. 3 Lakhs to her while saying that she will see them (Main Tumhe Dekh Lungi). In her cross- examination PW2 denied that Geeta had not threatened to implicate her husband falsely in a case of sexual harassment. Hence, the threat by accused Geeta when she came initially to the house of complainant and PW2, of false implication in a case of sexual harassment/rape, as deposed by PW2 before the court, is missing in the previous statement and is thus a material improvement over her earlier version. It is thus manifest that accused Geeta after demanding Rs. 3 Lakhs had a quarrel with Prithvi Bhatia and she left their house while saying that she will see them. However, the fact that she had specifically threatened the complainant of false implication in a rape case at that time is not proved on record.
68. It is also relevant to note that as regards demand of bribe money by accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh, PW2 has deposed that after accused Geeta left their house, after 15-20 minutes the door bell of their house rang and the maid went downstairs and opened the gate. Two persons came to their flat and they told her husband that accused Geeta had given a complaint in the PS that her husband had beaten accused Geeta and that she had also levelled allegations of rape. Pertinently, PW2 stated that when this conversation took place, she was outside the room and overheard the conversation. She also overhead that they were telling her husband that they would involve her husband in a rape case just like Asaram Bapu and if her husband wanted to get rid of this, he should pay money. They called accused Geeta telephonically to reach there within CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 52 of 80 10-15 minutes. PW2 further deposed that thereafter all the three accused persons spoke to her husband in the drawing-room and she was sitting in the lobby and overheard them and accused persons had demanded Rs. 6 Lakhs from her husband to hush up the matter. PW2 stated that her husband came out to her and told her about the entire facts and also told her about the demand of Rs. 6 Lakhs and further told that accused persons were threatening that if they were not given Rs. 6 Lakhs, they would lodge a rape case against him.
69. In her cross-examination by accused Birchha Singh, PW2 deposed that when the accused persons were sitting in the drawing-room, she did not go there but went to her bed-room. She also deposed that the accused persons had met with her husband in the drawing-room and she was not there when the demand of money was made. She volunteered that her husband informed about this fact to her.
70. The complainant, Prithvi Bhatia, husband of PW2 expired before filing of charge-sheet. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW2 to prove demand of money. From the aforesaid testimony of PW2, it emerges that PW2 was not sitting in the drawing-room with the accused persons when the demand of money was made. In her examination-in-chief she stated that she was sitting in the lobby and overheard the conversation whereas in her cross-examination by the accused she stated that she was sitting in the bed-room. She was confronted with her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Mark-PW2/DA and her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW2/C, wherein the fact that she had overheard the CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 53 of 80 conversation which took place between the complainant and the accused persons was not mentioned. She was also confronted with the aforesaid statements wherein the fact that her husband came out from the drawing-room and told her about the entire facts, was not mentioned. In her cross-examination PW2 deposed that her husband expired in October 2017. She deposed that her statement was not recorded by the police in the life time of her husband. She further deposed that when she received information about the present case, she took over the charge of the case. She stated that her husband had maintained a file of the present case and PW2 took charge of the file after his death. PW2 denied the suggestion that she was not aware of the incident of 14.09.2013. She also denied that she came to know about the facts after going through the file of her husband after his death.
71. Hence, it is manifest that PW2 was not present in the drawing-room when the conversation regarding demand of money took place between the accused persons and the complainant, her husband. She was thus not an eye witness to the demand of money. The fact that PW2 had overheard the conversation of demand or the fact that her husband came out of the drawing-room and told her the entire facts are a material improvement/contradiction over the previous statements made by PW2. Hence, the prosecution has not been able to prove as to how PW2 gained knowledge about the said facts as it is neither established on record that she had overheard the conversation or that her husband came out and told her all the facts and in absence of the same, her direct knowledge of facts cannot be assumed in as much as she has herself deposed that she was not CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 54 of 80 present in the drawing-room when the conversation regarding demand of money took place. It is also pertinent to note that PW2 deposed that she did not remember whether accused Ombir Singh and Birchha Singh were in uniform or in plain clothes on the date of incident and stated that they were wearing pant-shirt. Though it is not unusual for a witness to not remember the clothes of a person, however, it is intriguing that a person would not remember if a police official came to their house in police uniform as a police official's visit at home is not a usual thing. Moreover, this fact assumes significance in facts of the present case where veracity of the testimony of PW2 is already in question.
72. It is also noteworthy that the incident occurred on 14.09.2013 and the complaint was lodged by husband of PW2 on 19.09.2013. In this regard, PW2 deposed that her husband went to lodge the complaint on 19.09.2013. PW2 did not visit the police station nor did she make any call at 100 number till 19.09.2013. She was not aware if her husband had made any call to the police during that period. PW2 did not go through the complaint before husband went to the police station to lodge the same. PW2 was not aware as to from where and by whom the complaint was got typed by her husband. PW2 did not accompany her husband to the police station on 19.09.2013 when he went to lodge the complaint. She did not know whether her son accompanied her husband on that day. It is thus manifest that while PW2 identified the signatures of her husband, the complainant, on the complaint dated 19.09.2013 Ex. PW2/A, however, she had no knowledge of the contents of the complaint CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 55 of 80 at the time when it was lodged and she had also not accompanied her husband at that time.
73. The prosecution has also placed on record alonwith the charge-sheet a compromise deed / Settlement Ex. PW2/DA and PW2 identified the signatures of the complainant, her husband, thereon. It is the case of prosecution that the said compromise deed is in the handwriting of accused Birchha Singh, thereby indicating that he had got the compromise recorded between the parties i.e. the complainant and accused Geeta after taking bribe from Prithvi Bhatia, the complainant.
74. The FSL result is Ex. PW6/A. The documents sent to FSL for examination were the Settlement Deed dated 14.09.2013 allegedly written by accused Birchha Singh and DD No. 58B dated 14.09.2013 containing the admitted handwriting of accused Birchha Singh. As per the FSL result Ex. PW6/A, the person who wrote the marked admitted writing also wrote the marked questioned writing and thereby indicating that the Settlement Deed dated 14.09.2013 Ex. PW2/DA was written by accused Birchha Singh.
75. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the accused that DD No. 58B is not in the handwriting of accused Birchha Singh. It is urged that DD No. 58B does not bear the signature of accused Birchha Singh. Moreover, no attempt was made by the IO to get the sample handwriting of accused Birchha Singh for comparison. It is urged that despite the complaint having been made on 19.09.2013 and the FIR being registered on 19.12.2013, the IO did not make any effort to get the sample handwriting of accused Birchha Singh and has merely relied upon a DD entry CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 56 of 80 which does not even bear the signature of accused Birchha Singh.
76. In this regard, it is deposed by PW19 IO/ACP Rajbir Malik that the specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Birchha Singh were not taken since he did not join the investigation, hence, the accused cannot take benefit of non- joining of investigation by him. It is also relevant to note that PW1, Duty Officer at PS Paschim Vihar, deposed that on 14.09.2013 at about 07.55 pm, ASI Birchha Singh entered return entry (Wapsi) of calls received by him on the said day vide DD no.58B Ex. PW1/D in his presence in his own handwriting. He also deposed that DD No. 58B does not bear the signatures of accused Birchha Singh. Nothing was revealed in the cross- examination of PW1 to disbelieve the fact that he had not seen accused Birchha Singh making DD entry i.e. DD No. 58B in his presence and hence, the contention of ld. Counsel for the accused in this regard is untenable.
77. The settlement deed Ex. PW2/DA has been filed alongwith the charge-sheet and is dated 14.09.2013. The same bears the signatures of accused Geeta and the complainant and is in the handwriting of accused Birchha Singh. Though PW2 has identified the signatures of her husband on the settlement deed Ex. PW2/DA, however, in her cross-examination she stated that she was not aware about any such settlement. She also denied that her husband had compromised the matter with Geeta. PW2 further deposed that neither her husband nor she visited the police station in connection with the present case on the date of incident i.e. 14.09.2013, that is the day when the settlement deed Ex. PW2/DA was also executed. Hence, on one hand PW2 has CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 57 of 80 claimed knowledge of the incident, however, she has feigned ignorance of the settlement deed Ex. PW2/DA entered between her husband/the complainant and accused Geeta on 14.09.2013 itself and since neither husband nor PW2 visited the police station on 14.09.2013, therefore the said settlement deed could have been entered at the time of incident itself. It is therefore manifest that PW2 is not disclosing complete facts before the Court or she does not have complete knowledge of the facts that transpired on the date of incident i.e. on 14.09.2013.
78. It is also relevant to note that curiously the complaint Ex. PW2/A does not mention the factum of any settlement having arrived at with accused Geeta. It is stated by PW19 ACP Rajbir Malik that there was an original compromise deed of accused Geeta Ex. PW2/DA, which was written by accused Birchha Singh, in the Vigilance Enquiry file of accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh. There is no seizure memo of the said compromise/settlement deed Ex. PW2/DA. Hence, it is not brought on record as to who had handed over the settlement deed to the police officials at the time of Vigilance Enquiry. It is intriguing as to why the said fact is not mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW2/A, considering that the complainant was already filing a complaint against the police officials, therefore there was was no reason to not mention about the said settlement deed having been obtained from him under coercion or upon force being exerted by those police officials i.e. the accused persons against whom he was already filing the complaint.
79. The settlement deed dated 14.09.2013 Ex. PW2/DA is the statement of accused Geeta wherein she has inter-alia CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 58 of 80 stated that she used to work at the house of Mr. Preet Veer Bhatia and on that day she had a verbal altercation with him and she had stopped going to his house henceforth and that they had no transaction (len den ka mamla) between them. The said statement was being given by accused Geeta to him so that he would not accuse her of anything and that she had written the same under the supervision of Mr. Preet Veer Bhatia, who used to reside with his family and his brother Ashok Bhatia was residing downstairs.
80. The aforesaid settlement deed Ex. PW2/DA bore the signatures of accused Geeta and Prithvi Bhatia (referred to as Preet Veer Bhatia) in the aforesaid settlement. However, his signatures stood identified by his wife PW2. The said settlement deed also does not mention any settlement amount having been given to accused Geeta and as per its contents, the same was handed over to Prithvi Bhatia by accused Geeta mentioning that they had nothing outstanding between them (Ab koi len den ka mamla nahi hai).
81. The aforesaid document was a relevant fact which is neither mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW2/A nor has PW2 deposed regarding the same, whereas it is the case of the prosecution itself that the said settlement was got arrived by accused Birchha Singh between the complainant and accused Geeta after taking bribe from the complainant. The fact that PW2 has not deposed regarding the same reveals that either she was not aware of the complete facts that transpired on the date of incident or she is trying to hide facts from the court. The complainant Prithvi Bhatia expired before filing of the charge-
CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 59 of 80sheet and therefore he could not be cross-examined on this vital aspect. The prosecution has also not been able to establish that PW2 had overheard the conversation between her husband and the accused persons or the complainant had come out and told PW2 about the conversation of demand that took place between him and the accused persons. In these circumstances the testimony of PW2, who is the sole witness of demand of money, is not wholly reliable and cannot be relied upon unless corroborated in material particulars.
82. It is relevant to note that accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh are named in the complaint as ASI Birchha Singh and Const. Ombir. PW2 has deposed in her cross-examination that in her statement recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. she had stated that she did not know the names of accused persons except accused Geeta who had come on 14.09.2013. She denied that had mentioned the name of accused Birchha Singh only because his name was mentioned in the record maintained by her husband. PW2 identified the accused persons before the court. In her cross-examination she stated that during the departmental enquiry, the accused persons were brought to her house. She denied that as the police officials came with both the accused persons at her residence during vigilance/departmental enquiry, she came to know about the identity of the accused persons. She denied that on the basis of the said identity she incorporated the names of accused persons in her statement.
83. From the aforesaid it emerges that during the departmental enquiry the accused persons had visited the house of PW2. No TIP of the accused persons has been conducted and CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 60 of 80 they have been identified for the first time by PW2 before the court. Considering the fact that the accused persons were also brought to the house of PW2 even at the time of departmental enquiry proceedings, their identification by PW2 for the first time before the court would not have much significance. As to their names being mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW2/A, PW2 has stated that she did not know the names of the accused persons except accused Geeta till her statement was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the police. PW2 also deposed that she had not read the complaint filed by her husband when it was lodged by him on 19.09.2013. The complainant is not present before the court for his cross-examination on the aspect of inclusion of the names of accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh in the complaint. Hence, the identity of accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh is not established on record beyond reasonable doubt.
84. The prosecution has also examined PW10 Ms. Madhu Bhatia and PW11 Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhatia to corroborate the testimony of PW2. PW11 has deposed about receiving a phone call from his brother, the complainant Prithvi Bhatia,at about 01.30 pm on his mobile phone telling him that he was in urgent need of Rs. 2 Lakhs. PW11 deposed that thereafter he called his wife Madhu Bhatia PW10 to take out Rs. 2 Lakhs from the drawer of his almirah and hand over the same to his brother Prithvi Bhatia. In this regard PW10 Madhu Bhatia, wife of PW11 Ashok Bhatia, deposed that she received a call from her husband Ashok Bhatia at about 01.30 pm on 14.09.2013 asking her to take Rs. 2 Lakhs and hand over the same to Sh. Prithvi CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 61 of 80 Bhatia.
85. The prosecution has also relied upon the CDR/CAF of the mobile numbers 9899971070 and 9811025073. As per CAF of mobile number 9899971070 Ex. PW3/A, the said mobile number was registered in the name of complainant Prithvi Bhatia. As per CAF of mobile number 9811025073 Ex. PW3/B, the same was registered in the name of Ashok Bhatia i.e. brother of complainant. The prosecution has also placed on record CDR of the aforesaid mobile numbers. The CDR Mark-Y of mobile number 9899971070 reveals that a phone call was made from this number belonging to Prithvi Bhatia to the mobile number of Ashok Bhatia i.e. 9811025073 at 13:37 hours and the said call is also reflected in the CDR of Ashok Bhatia Mark-Z, thereby corroborating the version of Ashok Bhatia that he had received a call from his brother around 01.30 pm. However, the CDR of Ashok Bhatia Mark-Z does not reveal that he had also made a call to his wife Madhu Bhatia after receiving the call from his brother. Pertinently, Madhu Bhatia PW10 and Ashok Bhatia PW11 have both deposed that Ashok Bhatia had called his wife Madhu Bhatia PW10 around 01.30 pm. The IO PW21 Eish Singhal deposed that as per the statement of Madhu Bhatia recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., Ashok Bhatia had called Madhu Bhatia at their land-line number 25260159, which is not reflected in the CDR of mobile phone of Ashok Bhatia. Perusal of the CDR of Ashok Bhatia Mark-Z reveals no call was made either to any land-line or mobile phone at around 01.30 pm and the next call reflected in his CDR is at 14:17 hours on a mobile phone and not on land-line phone. It is also noteworthy that no CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 62 of 80 certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act has been placed on record in support of the aforesaid CDRs. It is deposed by PW3 Alternate Nodal Officer Vodafone Idea Ltd. that the request of the IO for the CDRs of the aforesaid mobile numbers could not be processed as the search criteria was very old and the call record was maintained for one year only. He proved the reply sent to the IO in this regard Ex. PW3/C. Accordingly, the prosecution has not been able to prove the Call Detail Records reflecting the call made between Prithvi Bhatia, Ashok Bhatia and Madhu Bhatia on 14.09.2013 around 01.30 pm. Moreover, even the CDRs placed on record do not indicate any call having been made to Madhu Bhatia around 01.30 pm by Ashok Bhatia.
86. PW10 Madhu Bhatia further deposed that she took out the amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs from the drawer and handed over the same to Prithvi Bhatia. She also deposed that she had not seen the face of police officials as she handed over the said amount from outside the room where the police persons were sitting. In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, the accused persons Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh were pointed out to PW10 with the suggestion that they were the same police officials, who were sitting on 14.09.2013 alongwith Prithvi Bhatia on the first floor of the house. PW10 initially stated that perhaps they were the same police officials as those police officials were wearing police uniform and again stated that the accused persons were the same police officials. In her cross- examination she deposed that the police had not recorded her statement with respect to the identity of the accused persons and that she had not gone inside the room where they were sitting, CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 63 of 80 though she volunteered that the door of the room was made of glass and they were visible from outside.
87. It may also be noted that though Madhu Bhatia in her examination-in-chief stated that she had not seen the face of police officials, however, in her cross-examination by the Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State she stated that perhaps they were the same police officials as they were wearing uniform and again stated that they were the same police officials. The statement of PW10 was not recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on the point of identity and it is manifest that she had identified the accused persons for the first time before court at the pointing of Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State and that too in a faint manner and not unambiguously, even when she had specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that she had not seen the face of the police officials. Hence, identification of accused Birchha Singh and Ombir by PW10 is not reliable.
88. In this regard, PW2 Pooja Bhatia deposed that her sister-in-law Madhu Bhatia gave them Rs. 2 Lakhs cash. However, in her cross-examination PW2 deposed that her sister- in-law Madhu Bhatia had given Rs. 2 Lakhs to her husband but she did not remember if they were given in her presence. In light of the aforesaid facts i.e. absence of proof of any call between Ashok Bhatia and Madhu Bhatia around 01.30 pm on 14.09.2013; PW2 herself did not remember if the amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs was handed over in her presence by Madhu Bhatia to the complainant Prithvi Bhatia; the fact that Madhu Bhatia identified accused Birchha Singh and Ombir before the court even while deposing that she had not seen their faces indicates that the testimony of Ms. Madhu Bhatia PW10 is also not wholly CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 64 of 80 reliable. In these circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs was actually handed over by Ms. Madhu Bhatia - PW10 to the complainant. Admittedly, no recovery has been affected from the accused persons.
89. It is also noteworthy that though the incident had occurred on 14.09.2013, however, the complaint was lodged on 19.09.2013 by the complainant Sh. Prithvi Bhatia. His wife, PW2, did not accompany the complainant at the time of lodging the complaint. No call was made at 100 number prior to 19.09.2013 regarding the incident. PW2 deposed that she was not aware of the contents of the complaint. Moreover the manner in which she gained knowledge of the facts is also not established on record. As discussed herein-above, her testimony reveals that either she was not aware of the complete facts or she was hiding facts from the court. In any event, she did not disclose complete chain of events that transpired on 14.09.2013. The complainant expired before filing of the charge-sheet and hence he could not be cross-examined on vital aspects of the complaint Ex. PW2/A including the settlement deed and inclusion of the names of accused Birchha Singh and Ombir in the complaint amongst other aspects. In these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the allegations of demand of Rs. 6 Lakhs in the complaint Ex. PW2/A are proved through the testimony of PW2, wife of complainant, merely by identification of the signatures of her husband on the complaint.
90. Pertinently, PW2 has deposed that Punit Bhatia, her son, was not present at home on 14.09.2013. They also discussed CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 65 of 80 the incident with their son Punit Bhatia after 2-3 days of the incident. Her husband informed her son about the incident that occurred. She did not know whether her son accompanied her husband to lodge the complaint on 19.09.2013. She also stated that they all had discussed the matter and they came to the conclusion that complaint should be filed by her husband.
91. In order to explain the delay in filing the complaint on 19.09.2013, PW2 in her examination-in-chief stated that they were under pressure as during those days her husband was suffering from cancer for about 30 years and was Diabetic for about 20 years and thus they could not decide what to do. After 2-3 days they deliberated that they should file the case against false accusations of the accused persons and thereafter the complaint was filed.
92. It is not stated by PW2 that her husband i.e. the complainant became unwell due to the incident and has infact asserted that the reason for delay in filing the complaint was the old illness of her husband and not that he was taken ill due to the incident or that he was unable to file the complaint because of any sudden illness. In fact PW2 in her examination-in-chief as well as in the cross-examination has categorically stated that they had deliberated upon the matter before filing the complaint. The complaint was therefore not a spontaneous one. It may also be noted that the complaint does not mention the settlement deed entered into on 14.09.2013. In fact the settlement deed also mentions that it was being entered into under the supervision of the complainant so that no accusation of any kind may be made against them. Accordingly, the said settlement deed dated CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 66 of 80 14.09.2013 also contemplated some kind of accusation by either parties. The suggestions in this regard were denied by PW2 and she denied in her cross-examination that they were having apprehension that on the basis of the compromise deed further troubles could be created and to avoid the same, the complaint dated 19.09.2013 was lodged. She also denied that a story was concocted prior to 19.09.2013 pursuant to which the complaint was filed. She further denied a suggestion by accused Ombir that they made a plan to solve the threat by accused Geeta and concocted a false story and registered the present FIR after five days.
93. The complaint was lodged after five days after due deliberation as is manifest in the testimony of PW2. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint. Moreover, the settlement deed also contemplated accusations by either parties, hence, it cannot be stated that the complaint was spontaneous and it appears that it was a creature of afterthought and did not contain true version of the events that transpired and was a result of deliberation and consultation. The complainant was not available for cross-examination on this aspect also.
94. It is argued on behalf of the accused Ombir Singh that as per the prosecution version the incident occurred on 14.09.2013 between 12.00 to 02.00 pm. It is urged that as per the Duty Roster Ex. PW4/A accused Ombir Singh was on emergency duty between 08.00 am to 08.00 pm on 14.09.2013. It is stated that nothing has been brought on record to show that accused Birchha Singh was also on emergency duty on that day or that accused Ombir Singh remained with accused Birchha CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 67 of 80 Singh on 14.09.2013. It is stated that on the other hand accused Ombir Singh has established on record that he had attended a call with SI Dalbir Singh at 09.50 am on 14.09.2013 which is reflected in DD No. 16A Ex. PW17/DA. It is urged that DD No. 19 was also assigned to SI Dalbir Singh at 12.50 pm which was attended by Ombir Singh with SI Dalbir Singh. It is stated that accused Ct. Ombir Singh had attended various calls with SI Dalbir Singh and in this regard it has been deposed by DW3 SI Dalbir Singh that accused Const. Ombir was with him on all the calls mentioned in DD No. 31. DW3 also deposed that he had made arrival entry i.e. DD No. 31 on 14.09.2013 in his own handwriting. It is stated that the prosecution deliberately did not produce the aforesaid DD entries which indicated that accused Ombir was with SI Dalbir Singh on 14.09.2013.
95. It is also argued that as per the prosecution version a call was made by brother of the complainant Ashok Bhatia to his wife Madhu Bhatia in the afternoon around 01.30 pm after receiving a call from the complainant, thereby indicating the time of incident to be between 12.00-02.00 pm.
95. As regards the plea of alibi taken by accused Ombir, it may be noted that it is settled law that plea of alibi has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the accused and the said plea as to be proved with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of presence of the accused at the house of the complainant at the relevant time. The plea of alibi has to be established by the accused by positive evidence.
96. The Supreme Court in the case of Shaikh Sattar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 8 SCC 430 has held as CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 68 of 80 under:-
"35. Undoubtedly, the burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellant. The appellant herein has miserably failed to bring on record any facts or circumstances which would make the plea of his absence even probable, let alone, being proved beyond reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi had to be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the appellant in the rented premises at the relevant time. When a plea of alibi is raised by an accused it is for the accused to establish the said plea by positive evidence which has not been led in the present case. We may also notice here at this stage the proposition of law laid down in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 18 as follows: (SCC p. 27, para 20) "20... This plea of alibi stands disbelieved by both the courts and since the plea of alibi is a question of fact and since both the courts concurrently found that fact against the appellant, the accused, this Court in our view, cannot on an appeal by special leave go behind the abovenoted concurrent finding of fact".
97. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 6 SCC 204 has held as under:-
"71. Once PW 10 and PW 11 are believed and their statements are found to be trustworthy, as rightly dealt with by the Courts below, then the plea of abili raised by the accused loses its significance. The burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellants and the appellants have failed to bring on record any such evidence which would, even by reasonable probability, establish their plea of alibi. The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and in the house which was the home of their relatives. (Ref. Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 8 SCC 430)."
98. The Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 201 has held CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 69 of 80 as under:-
"32. Drawing a parallel between the plea of minority and the plea of alibi, it may be worthwhile to state that it is not uncommon to come across criminal cases wherein an accused makes an effort to take shelter under the plea of alibi which has to be raised at the first instance but has to be subjected to strict proof of evidence by the court trying the offence and cannot be allowed lightly in spite of lack of evidence merely with the aid of salutary principle that an innocent man may not have to suffer injustice by recording an order of conviction in spite of his plea of alibi."
99. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Pal vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 749 has held as under:-
"25. At this juncture, we think it apt to deal with the plea of alibi that has been put forth by the appellant. As is demonstrable, the trial court has discarded the plea of alibi. When a plea of alibi is taken by an accused, burden is upon him to establish the same by positive evidence after onus as regards presence on the spot is established by the prosecution. In this context, we may profitably reproduce a few paragraphs from Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283. (SCC p. 293, paras 22- 23) "22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Penal Code, 1860 or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Illustration (a) given under the provision is worth reproducing in this context:
'(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant.'
23. The Latin word alibi means 'elsewhere' and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 70 of 80 would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence.
When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi." [Emphasis supplied] The said principle has been reiterated in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 18, S.K. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 8 SCC 430 and Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204."
100. Viewed in this light, it has to be seen if accused Ombir has been able to establish the plea of alibi. It is also to be noted that before the onus is cast upon the accused to prove his plea of alibi, the initial burden is on the prosecution to establish his presence at the spot.
101. In the present case in order to prove the presence of CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 71 of 80 accused Ombir with accused Birchha Singh at the spot i.e. the house of the complainant, the prosecution has examined PW4 PSI Mahavir, who was posted as Deployment Officer (Chittha Munshi) at PS Paschim Vihar on 14.09.2013. He had deployed ASI Birchha Singh on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM. Pertinently, PW4 deposed that Ct. Ombir Singh was also deployed on emergency duty to assist ASI Birchha Singh during the said period. He deposed that as per serial no. 28 of the Duty Roster dated 14.09.2013, copy of which is Ex. PW4/A, Ct. Ombir Singh, No.1205/W was deployed from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm on 14.09.13 on emergency duty. PW4 proved his handwriting on the Duty Roster at Serial No.28 of Ex.PW4/A. He did not produce the original Duty Roster as the same had been weeded out. No cross-examination of PW4 was conducted on the aspect if the Duty Roster Ex. PW4/A was fabricated or forged. In absence of any challenge to its authenticity, the same is read in evidence.
102. It may also be noted that the prosecution has placed on record only the Duty Roster of the Lower Subordinates for 14.09.2013 of PS Paschim Vihar. The Duty Roster of the Upper Subordinates is not on record. On a specific question put to PW4, he stated that the said fact that Const. Ombir Singh was deployed on emergency duty with ASI Birchha Singh was not mentioned in Ex. PW4/A and also stated that the said fact could be verified from the upper subordinate Duty Roster and the departure entry as per the Roznamcha i.e. Daily Diary.
103. PW20 ACP Rattan Lal was also cross-examined on this aspect. He was SHO PS Paschim Vihar on 14.09.2013. He CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 72 of 80 deposed that as per the Duty Roster of PS Paschim Vihar, accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh were both deployed on emergency duty from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm on 14.09.2013. A separate Duty Roster is maintained in the PS regarding deployment of upper subordinate staff. He stated that Ex. PW4/A was the Duty Roster of lower subordinate staff of PS Paschim Vihar dated 14.09.2013 and hence the name of ASI Birchha Singh is not mentioned therein. He further stated that his name would be mentioned in the Duty Roster of upper subordinate staff and Roznamcha of that day. Admittedly, the Duty Roster of the upper subordinate staff for 14.09.2013 qua accused Birchha Singh is not on record.
104. In this regard, PW1 deposed that on 14.09.2013 he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Paschim Vihar and on that day, ASI Birchha Singh and Ct. Ombir were posted on emergency duty in the PS from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. On that day at about 07:55 pm, ASI Birchha Singh entered return entry ( Wapsi) of calls received by him on that day vide DD no.58B Ex. PW1/D in his presence in his own handwriting. In his cross-examination PW1 also deposed that he could not tell at what time accused Birchha Singh made his departure from the PS for his duty but he went alongwith Ct. Ombir as per record. He stated that only arrival entry was on record and the departure entry i.e. Ravangi was not on record.
105. It may also be noted that PW4 deposed that during emergency duty the constable remains attached with the emergency officer for the complete day. Accordingly, it emerges from the testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses that CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 73 of 80 accused Const. Ombir was on emergency duty between 08.00 am to 08.00 pm as per Duty Roster Ex. PW4/A. The prosecution has not placed on record the Duty Roster of upper subordinate staff showing that accused Birchha Singh was on emergency duty on 14.09.2013 between 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. However, accused Birchha Singh in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was on emergency duty on 14.09.2013 from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm, however, he did not remember if Const. Ombir was with him on emergency duty or not. He also stated that the Wapsi entry i.e. DD No. 58B was made by him in the presence of PW1.
106. It may be noted that a status report dated 21.02.2022 was filed by the prosecution before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The said status report was put to DW2 i.e. Insp. Manoj Kumar by the prosecution and the same is Mark-DW2/X1. The said status report dated 21.02.2022 enclosed the copies of DD entries dated 14.09.2013. PW17 deposed that DD No. 16A Ex. PW17/DA is departure entry at 09.50 am which was assigned to SI Dalbir Singh, who alongwith Const. Ombir Singh left for the spot. Hence, as per DD No. 16A dated 14.09.2013, accused Const. Ombir had accompanied SI Dalbir Singh for the spot mentioned in that DD entry at 09.50 am on 14.09.2013. On a court question, PW17 stated that the departure was made simultaneously with the assignment of PCR call, vide DD no. 16A and it is not that the departure was made when SI Dalbir Singh alongwith Ct. Ombir came to me or informed that they were proceeding for the spot to attend the call. As mentioned herein-above, PW4 also deposed that during emergency duty the CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 74 of 80 Const. remains attached with one emergency officer for the complete day. It may be noted that SI Dalbir Singh was examined as a defence witness DW3 by accused Ombir and he proved the report filed by him Ex. DW3/A before court which mentions that on 14.09.2013 he had left the PS alongwith Const. Ombir number 1205/W upon receipt of DD No. 16A at 09.50 am and he returned to PS vide DD No. 31A at 08.15 pm.
107. As per document i.e. Roznamcha dated 14.09.2013 Mark-PW20/DX and the typed copies of the aforesaid DDs, DD No. 19A was recorded at 12.50 pm and it was also assigned to SI Dalbir Singh. PW17 also deposed that in between 12:00 noon to 02:00 pm, DD No. 19A (at 12:50 pm), DD no. 18A (10:35 am), 22A (02:50 pm) and 27A (06:40 pm) regarding PCR calls were also assigned to SI Dalbir Singh who was telephonically informed to attend those PCR calls. She telephonically informed SI Dalbir Singh regarding the calls and she had not seen, if he came after attending those PCR calls. She had not mentioned the name of Ct. Ombir Singh in other DDs as once his departure was recorded in the first call with SI Dalbir Singh.
108. As per document i.e. Roznamcha dated 14.09.2013 Mark-PW20/DX and the typed copies of the aforesaid DDs, it is manifest that DD No. 17A was recorded at 10.30 am and it was assigned to ASI Birchha Singh alongwith Const. Rakesh Kumar to take action on the same.
109. Accordingly, as per DD No. 16A, accused Const. Ombir left for the spot mentioned in the said DD entry at 09.50 am on 14.09.2013 alongwith SI Dalbir Singh and as per DD No. 17A ASI Birchha Singh left for the spot mentioned in the said CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 75 of 80 DD entry alongwith Const. Rakesh Kumar.
110. ASI Birchha Singh made a return entry i.e. DD No. 58B at 07.55 pm Ex. PW1/D. The said DD entry mentions the various calls attended by him on 14.09.2013 which included DD No. 17A, DD No. 20/21A, DD No. 23A and DD No. 29A. The said DD entry does not mention any matter attended by accused Birchha Singh alongwith accused Ombir.
111. Additionally, DW3 deposed that after receiving DD No. 16A he alongwith Const. Ombir left PS Paschim Vihar at around 09.50 am to attend the call and that on that day he had attended other calls also. He also deposed that he made arrival entry at Serial No. 31 of Roznamcha Register no. 2 dated 14.09.2013 Mark PW20/DX and also identified his handwriting on DD No. 31A.
112. The return entry i.e. DD No. 31A of SI Dalbir Singh was also filed alongwith the status report. As per the said DD No.31A, SI Dalbir Singh had attended DD No. 16A, DD No. 18A, DD No. 19A, DD No. 22A and DD No. 27A on 14.09.2013. It is pertinent to note that DW3 deposed that Const. Ombir was with him on all the calls mentioned in DD No. 31A. DW3 also stated that on 14.09.2013 he had received DD No. 19 at 12.50 pm and he had attended the said call alongwith Const. Ombir Singh. He denied the suggestion that Const. Ombir was not with him on the relevant date and time.
113. From the aforesaid discussion it emerges that the prosecution has not placed on record any document that ASI Birchha Singh and Const. Ombir Singh were on emergency duty together as deposed by PW1 and PW4. On the other hand, CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 76 of 80 accused Ombir Singh has led documentary evidence in the form of DD No. 16A to show that he went on emergency duty alongwith SI Dalbir Singh on 14.09.2013. As stated above, PW4 has deposed that during emergency duty, a Constable remains attached with one emergency officer for the entire day. Accused Const. Ombir Singh has also examined DW3 SI Dalbir Singh, who deposed that accused Ombir had attended all the calls with him on 14.09.2013 including a call i.e. DD No. 19A at 12.50 pm. It may be noted that the incident in issue occurred around that time in as much as it is deposed by PW11 that he had received a call from his brother i.e. the complainant Ashok Bhatia around 01.30 pm regarding urgent need of Rs. 2 Lakhs.
114. Moreover, DD No. 58B Ex. PW1/D, which has been relied upon by the prosecution to show that accused Birchha Singh was on emergency duty does not mention accused Ombir and even the departure entry i.e. DD No. 17 pertaining to ASI Birchha Singh does not indicate that he left with Const. Ombir and rather mentions that he left with Const. Rakesh Kumar. Accordingly, accused Ombir Singh has led positive evidence to show that he was on emergency duty with SI Dalbir Singh. On the other hand, the prosecution has not led any documentary evidence indicating that accused Ombir Singh was on emergency duty alongwith accused ASI Birchha Singh on 14.09.2013. The prosecution has thus not discharged its initial burden of proving the presence of accused Ombir Singh at the house of complainant at the time of incident and on the other hand accused Ombir Singh has led positive documentary and oral evidence to show that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. Hence, CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 77 of 80 no clinching or satisfactory evidence is available on record to establish the presence of accused Ombir Singh at the house of complainant at the time of incident.
115. From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe by accused Birchha Singh and Ombir from the complainant, through his wife PW2 Ms. Pooja Bhatia. The complainant, who was the star witness, passed away in October 2017 and was thus not available for recording of his testimony. As discussed herein above the testimony of PW2 regarding demand of bribe is not wholly reliable in as much as she did not disclose complete facts of the case despite the fact that she claimed that she overheard/was told all the facts by her husband. The prosecution has not been able to prove the manner in which PW2 Ms. Pooja Bhatia gained knowledge of the facts of the case. PW2 had not accompanied her husband at the time of filing of complaint on 19.09.2013 and neither had she read the contents of the complaint. She merely identified the signatures of her husband on the complaint as well as the settlement deed. Since the complainant was not available, no examination could be conducted on material aspects including inclusion of the names of accused persons in the complaint Ex. PW2/A or on the settlement deed Ex. PW2/DA as PW2 stated that she was not aware of the same despite the facts that it was entered into on 14.09.2013 itself. The identification of the accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh by PW2 and PW10 is also questionable as discussed herein above. Though PW10 deposed that she had handed over Rs. 2 Lakhs to the complainant at the time of incident at the asking of her husband telephonically CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 78 of 80 around 01.30 pm, however, the said telephone call is not proved on record and even PW2 stated that she did not remember if PW10 handed over the amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs to her husband, thereby casting a doubt over handing over of Rs. 2 Lakhs by PW10 to the complainant. Additionally, though PW2 also deposed that Rs. 6 Lakhs were handed over by her husband to accused Birchha Singh in her presence, however, considering the fact that even handing over of Rs. 2 Lakhs by PW10 to the complainant is not proved on record beyond doubt and the fact that PW2 is not a wholly reliable witness considering improvements/contradictions in her testimony on material points, therefore the fact that Rs. 6 Lakhs were handed over by complainant Prithvi Bhatia to accused Birchha Singh, Ombir and Geeta cannot be taken as proved in absence of any corroborative evidence. No recovery of any amount has been affected from the accused persons. As discussed herein above, the complaint registered on 19.09.2013 regarding the incident that transpired on 14.09.2013 seems to be lodged after due deliberations as an afterthought to avoid any case being filed against the complainant. Moreover, as discussed the prosecution has also not been able to establish the presence of accused Ombir beyond reasonable doubt at the house of the complainant.
116. The cumulative impact of the aforesaid discussion is that the prosecution has not been able to discharge the onus upon it to prove the foundational facts regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh. The prosecution has thus not been able to prove the guilt of accused persons Birchha Singh and Ombir regarding demand and CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 79 of 80 acceptance of bribe or extortion of money beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore accused Birchha Singh and Ombir Singh are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the offences they are charged with.
117. Accused Geeta has been charged for the offence u/s 388/34 IPC. It is established on record that she had while leaving the house of the complainant had told him that she will see them. However, it is not proved on record that she had given the threat of implication in a rape case while leaving the house of the complainant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not established on record that any money was extorted pursuant thereto from the complainant. In these circumstances accused Geeta is acquitted of the charged offence u/s 388/34 IPC. Bail bonds of all three accused persons stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
118. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. DEEPALI DEEPALI SHARMA Digitally signed by SHARMA Date: 2024.11.07 Announced in the open Court 16:30:13 +0530 on 07th November, 2024 ( Deepali Sharma ) Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01) Rouse Avenue Courts Complex New Delhi CC No.02/2020 FIR No.475/2013, PS Paschim Vihar St. Vs ASI Birchha Singh & Ors. Page 80 of 80