Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok Gupta on 19 December, 2025
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.12.19
17:11:32
+0530
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANSI MALIK
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-02 (CENTRAL
DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case No. 290838/2016
CNR No. DLCT02-000213-2006
FIR No.02/2006
PS-Civil Lines
State Vs. Ashok Gupta
JUDGMENT
(a) Case No. 290838/2016
(b) Complainant Sh. Tara Chand Sharma,
S/o S.S. Sharma
R/o 6 B/7 Raj Narayan Road Shiv
Apartment Civil Lines, Delhi, India
(c) Accused 1) Vinod Kumar,
S/o Sh.Rattan Singh
2) Ashok Gupta,
S/o C.K. Gupta
3.) Chetan Singh,
S/o Sohan Lal
4.) Chander Prakash,
S/o Dayal Chand
5.) Mohd. Rias,
S/o Mohd. Atiullah
(d) Offence U/s 387/506/120-B IPC.
(e) Plea of accused Not guilty
FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.1 /26
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.12.19
17:11:35
+0530
(f) Final Order 1. Accused Mohd. Riaz has
been convicted for the
offences under Section
387/506/120B IPC
2. Accused Chetan Singh and
Chander Prakash have been
acquitted
3. Proceedings qua accused
Vinod Kumar and Ashok
Gupta have already abated
(g) Date of Institution 28.02.2006
(h) Date when judgment was 28.11.2025
reserved
(i) Date of judgment 18.12.2025
BRIEF FACTS
1. Briefly stated, all the accused namely Vinod Kumar, Ashok Gupta, Chetan Singh, Chander Parkash and Mohd. Rias on 15 and 16.12.2005, had hatched a conspiracy and conspired to commit the offence of extortion and criminal intimidation to the complainant Dr. T.C. Sharma in pursuance of the said agreement and thus thereby all the accused are alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 387/506/120B IPC. Secondly, in furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused Ashok Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Mohd. Rias made telephonic calls to the complainant on 24.12.2005, 28.12.2005, 29.12.2005 and 30.12.2005 and attempted to put the complainant Dr. T.C. Sharma in fear of his death and to cause death of his family members in order to commit extortion of a sum of rupees four lacs and threatening to kill him and thereby accused Ashok Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Mohd. Rias are alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 506/120B IPC. Further, on 02.01.2006, at the Exit Gate of ISBT, FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.2 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:11:38 +0530 situated within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, accused Vinod Kumar was found to be in possession of a country-made pistol and three live cartridges in contravention to the notification of Delhi Administration and is thereby alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charge of offence u/s 387/506/120-B IPC was framed against all the accused persons and the charge was duly explained to them in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 10.09.2007. Further, charge of offence u/s 25 Arms Act was framed against accused Vinod Kumar and the charge was duly explained to him in vernacular to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 10.09.2007. Thus, the matter was put to trial. During the trial of the present case, accused Ashok Kumar and Accused Vinod Kumar expired and proceedings qua them were abated on 19.08.2017 and 21.12.2013 respectively.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in total.
4. PW-1/HC Satyender Kumar deposed that on 01.01.2006 he was posted as DO at PS Civil Lines and on that day, on receipt of a rukka from Ct. Sher Singh sent by SI Naresh Solanki, he had recorded FIR No. 2/06, which is in his hand and bears his signatures and he had brought the original (OSR) and copy of the same is Ex. PW.1/A. He had also made endorsement on the rukka of having registered FIR i.e. Ex. PW.1/B. PW-1 FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.3 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:11:41 +0530 was not cross-examined despite opportunity given.
5. PW-2/Dr. Tara Chand Sharma deposed that he was doctor by profession, and his wife was also a doctor by profession. That he was running his clinic at 53, Model Basti, Karol Bagh, Delhi. That on 24.12.2005 around 9.20 pm, he was watching news at his house and at that time, one unknown person called on his mobile phone number 9811790666 from a PCO situated at Chandrawal Nagar. That he threatened on his mobile phone "Ab tumhara case mere pass aa gaya hai, to 30 lakh ka intzaam kar lo nahi to tumhari dono betiyon to goli se marva doonga" . That then the witness asked who are you to the caller, on which he refused to reveal his identity and insisted/threatened to kill all the family members. Then he told that he will call again and disconnected the phone and during that period, he abused him a lot and used filthy language. That he called him back on the same number and he came to know that this phone belongs to a PCO and PCO owner told him that one person of the age of about 20- 25 years had come for calling to your mobile phone. That he recorded the name of the PCO and its telephone number and then he dialed 100. Police officials also came at his residence and inquired from him and he gave name of the PCO & its telephone number but at that moment, no clue was found. That on 25.12.2005 and 26.12.2005, he again received the same threatening calls but these calls were made from different places and from different PCOs and the voice of the person who was making calls was also different in every call. That as the local police was unable to trace the caller, so on 26.12.2005, he went to Crime Branch R.K.Puram and met Inspector Jasbir Malik and one Sh. Naresh Solanki along with one Sh. Jagdish. That as per their instructions, he started recording all the calls.
FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.4 /26Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:11:44 +0530 That as the accused persons were calling him continuously, so he started negotiating with them and they gave one day to him to think over it as to whether he wants to give money or not. That all the conversations were recorded by him on his mobile phone and every time they threatened him to kill his children and his family and very often they used to say "Namoona Pesh Kare". That the initial demand of the accused persons was reduced to 4 lacs from the actual demand of Rs .30 lacs but initially they refused to accept this amount and told that such a sum can be paid by them to him. That finally, on 29.12.2005, they agreed to accept Rs.4 lacs to spare the life of his family and fixed the time and place i.e. in front of Filmistan Cinema, to collect the money. That on 30.12.2005, at about 11.30 am, the above said callers called him on the same mobile number and told him to come at Filmistan Cinama at about 3.00 pm and also told him that one person wearing a red cap with a mark of 11 number on it and will be wearing half-sleeves shirt and sweater and chappal in his feet, will come here to collect the money. That at about 1.00 pm, he again received a call regarding cancellation of the meeting and told him that they will inform him about their meeting later on. After that, the time for meeting was fixed on 01.01.2006. That on 01.01.2006, at about 10.30-10.40 a.m, he received a call and he disclosed that the same person will be coming there to collect the money. That they also told that the description of the person given earlier will remain the same and he will reach at the fixed place i.e. Filmistan Cinema at about 3 pm and he has to reach at Filmistan Cinema with Rs. 4 lacs. At about 12.30 pm, he went to Crime Branch, R.K.Puram, and told them the whole incident and the time of the meeting. That the police officials gave him a black colour bag containing fake eight bundles of five hundred rupees notes and the police officials had initialed on each FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.5 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:11:47 +0530 and every bundle. That the police officials prepared handing over memo of dummy currency note i.e. Ex. PW.2/A. That then IO deputed one constable namely Ramesh Dahia as his driver and he alogwith Ct. Ramesh Dahia went at Filmistan Cinema, the place where he was called by the accused persons in Silver color Maruti, which belongs to him. That they reached near Filmistan Cinema at 3.00 p.m. where he saw a boy who was wearing a red color cap whose features were resembling which was described to him earlier on phone by the extortionist or caller. That when he saw him he showed him the bag and the said person started walking towards his car. That he lowered the window of the glass and he just said DOCTOR and he handed over bag to him saying counted and when he was opening the bag he was apprehended by the police officials. That on asking by the police officials he disclosed his name as Rias Ahmed and that his gang leader's name is Vinod. That the bag containing bundles containing dummy currency which were 8 in number were thereafter sealed in a pulanda with the seal of VS, these were the bundles which were handed over to him in the office of Crime Branch. That each bundle was signed by IO and at that time the same were handed over to the witness. That the sealed pulanda containing bundles were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B bearing his signature as a witness at point X. That his statement was recorded Ex. PW-2/C which bears his signature at point A. That on his statement a rukka was prepared by IO, which was sent for getting the FIR registered through some constable Virender. That after some time Ct. Virender came back at the spot with the copy of FIR and he handed it over to IO. That the accused Riaz Ahmed was thereafter arrested vide his arrest memo Ex. PW-2/D and personal search memo Ex.PW.2/E. That the accused Riaz Ahmed made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-2/F which was signed by him as a witness.FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.6 /26
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:11:51 +0530 That the IO had also prepared a site plan and the cap was also taken into possession by IO after sealing the same in a pulanda which was also sealed with the seal of VS and taken into possession vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW.2/G. That after these proceedings, on his request, IO allowed him to go. That on 02.01.2006 he went to the Crime Branch office and joined investigation in this case and handed over a recorded cassette to the IO which was recorded by him after speaker on his mobile phone wherein had recorded the incoming calls (conversations with the extortionist dt. 29, 29 and 30 December 2005). That the IO put the said cassette in an envelop and seized the same and sealed the same with the seal of VS. That it was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/H, which also bears his signature at point X. That they played all the conversation from his mobile with the speaker phone on and was recorded to a cassette. That these conversation was also written by him on plain paper. That there were 08 in number which he had also submitted to the IO. That in all he had handed over 08 pages, which are in his hand writing to IO, the same are collectively Ex. PW.2/J1 to J8. That these 8 pages although are in his handwriting but does not bear his signature. That the supplementary statement of the witness was recorded by the IO and that he remained in contact with IO regarding progress of the case and he was subsequently apprised by his IO that his assistant i.e. accused Chetan alongwith his friends/co-accused persons had masterminded all this to extort the money by threatening to kill his children and family. That the witness correctly identified the 08 bundles of dummy currency i.e. Ex.P1 to P8. That witness also correctly identified the red cap i.e. Ex.P9 and one cassette wherein Sony 60 submitted by Dr. T.C. Sharma is written containing recording of voice of extortionist after speaker on his mobile phone and handed over to FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.7 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:11:54 +0530 the IO i.e. Ex.P10. The witness correctly identified accused Riaz and accused Chetan. He also stated that accused Chetan was his assistant. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
6. PW-3/HC Baney Singh deposed that on 02.01.2006, he was posted at the Anti-Extortion Cell, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case along with SI Naresh Solanki, HC Virender, Ct. Sher Singh, Ct. Balwan, Ct. Sushil, and Ct.
Rakesh, along with accused Mohd. Riaz. That at about 12:00 noon, they proceeded to ISBT, Delhi in two private vehicles. Upon reaching ISBT, they observed four persons standing near the gate of the bus-adda. Accused Mohd. Riaz disclosed that out of the abovesaid four persons, one person namely Vinod was also standing who had sent him to receive money from the complainant. On seeing the police party, all four persons attempted to slip away, whereupon they surrounded and apprehended all four of them. The formal search of the apprehended accused persons was conducted by the IO. During the formal search of accused Vinod, one desi katta was recovered from the left dub of wearing pants, and three live cartridges were recovered from the front right pocket of his pant. The IO prepared the sketch memo of the recovered desi katta and live cartridges i.e. Ex.PW3/A, bearing his signature at point A. The IO wrapped the katta and live cartridges in a cloth parcel (cloth piece) and sealed the same with the seal of VS, and took it into possession vide seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW3/B, which also bears his signature at point A. After use, the seal was handed over to HC Virender. The IO arrested all four accused persons and prepared the arrest memos Ex.PW3/C in respect of accused Vinod Kumar, Ex.PW3/D in respect of accused Chetan Singh, Ex.PW3/E in respect of accused Chandra FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.8 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.12.19 17:11:58 +0530 Prakash, Ex.PW3/F in respect of accused Ashok Gupta. In the same sequence, the IO prepared the personal search memos i.e. Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/J, Ex.PW3/K. The IO thoroughly interrogated all four accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements i.e. Ex.PW3/L in respect of accused Vinod Kumar, Ex.PW3/M in respect of accused Chetan Singh, Ex.PW3/N in respect of accused Ashok Gupta, Ex.PW3/O in respect of accused Chandra Prakash. All the above memos bear his signature at point A. The IO of the case also recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified the case property i.e. the katta Ex.P1, the live cartridges Ex.P2 (colly), the empty cartridge Ex.P3 and the pullanda Ex.P4. Witness also correctly identified the accused persons in the court. PW-3 was duly cross-examined by counsel for the accused persons.
7. PW-3 Sh. Vakil Ahmed deposed that he was a owner of Sanjida Hospital situated at 6683, DCM Chowk, Bara Hindu Rao. He further stated that the complainant of this case Dr. T.C. Sharma was the incharge of the aforesaid hospital in the year 2003 and thereafter. At that time the accused present in the court today namely Chetan Singh was working as OT, Technician in his aforesaid hospital. However, the witness could not produce the employment documents of accused Chetan despite granting of an opportunity. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
8. PW-4/Sh. Israr Babu deposed that he had brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile number 9811790666 for the period from 22.12.2005 to 01.01.2006 running into 11 pages i.e. Ex.PW4/A (Colly).FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.9 /26
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:01 +0530 That as per record, the abovesaid mobile number was issued in the name of Dr. Tara Chand Sharma C/o St. Stephen Hospital and the copy of customer application form is Ex.PW4/B (OSR). That he had also brought certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of abovesaid CDR i.e. Ex.PW4/C bearing his signature at point A. The witness was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
9. PW-5/ASI Ramesh deposed that on 01.01.2006 he was posted as Ct.
with Anti Extortion Cell, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and on that day, he was present in the office, complainant Dr. Tara Chand Sharma came to office and met with IO. That the IO gave to the complainant a back colour bag containing dummy wads of currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and he signed on each wad. That at about 1.30 PM, he was made the driver of the car bearing No. DL-5CE-0345 Alto in which complainant was sitting. That at about 3.00 PM, they reached near Filmistan Cinema and he stopped the car in front of Sony Showroom and one person who was wearing a red colour cap on which no. 11 was written came at about 3.30 PM and asked the complainant to hand over the money. That the complainant handed over the money and asked him to count and the accused started counting the currency notes and in the meantime, IO alongwith staff came to spot and apprehended him. That on enquiry, his name was revealed as Mohd. Riaz and the IO sealed the said bag with the seal of VS and seized the same. That the accused disclosed that the chief of their gang is Vinod @ Manoj. That the IO prepared rukka and handed over to Ct. Sher Singh to register an FIR with PS Civil Lines and after sometime, Ct. Sher Singh returned to spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. The witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity given.
FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.10 /26Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:03 +0530
10. PW-6/ASI Virender Singh deposed that on 01.01.2006, he was posted as HC with AEC Branch, Crime Branch, Delhi and on that day, he was present in the investigation with the IO. That at about 12.30 PM, he was present in his office with the IO and complainant Sh. Tara Chand Sharma came to office, who told that he has been called by accused persons with Rs.4 lakhs near Filmistan Cinema Hall at about 3.00 PM. That upon this, IO signed 08 wads of Rs. 500/-and put them in black polythene and the black polythene was put in a black colour bag and was handed over to complainant vide currency handing over memo i.e. Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signatures at point B. That Ct. Ramesh was made the driver of the car bearing No. DL-5CC-0345 (Alto) and they left office at about 1.30 PM.
That at about 2.00 PM, he alongwith IO, HC Banne Singh, Ct. Sher Singh, Ct. Sunil, Ct. Balwan left for the spot in a private vehicle and reached the spot. That at about 3.05, one person was apprehended with a bag in front of Filmistan Cinema Hall, whose name was revealed as Mohd. Riyaz who was wearing red colour cap on which 11 number was printed/written. That in the meantime, complainant told that apprehended person was the same person who had taken the bag from him after asking his name. That the bag was recovered from the possession of Mohd. Riyaz. Thereafter, IO prepared a rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Sher Singh for registration of FIR in PS Civil Lines. That after sometime, Ct. Sher Singh returned to spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. That the IO prepared site plan and IO kept the said bag and cap in pullandas and sealed the same with the seal of VS. That the IO seized the said bag vide seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW2/B, bearing his signatures at point B. That the IO seized the said cap vide seizure memo i.e. FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.11 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:06 +0530 Ex.PW2/G bearing his signatures at point B. That the accused Mohd. Riyaz was arrested vide arrest memo i.e. Ex.PW2/D, bearing his signatures at point B. That the IO searched accused Mohd. Riyaz vide search memo i.e. Ex.PW2/E, bearing his signatures at point B. That the IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Riyaz i.e. Ex.PW2/F bearing his signatures at point B. That thereafter they returned to their office and IO deposited the case property in the malkhana and the accused was put behind bars. That on the next day i.e. 02.01.2006, he alongwith IO and other staff namely Ct. Sher Singh, Ct. Balwan, Ct. Sunil, Ct. Rakesh, HC Banne Singh and accused Mohd. Riyaz left their office in two private vehicles for investigation and at about 12.00 noon, they reached ISBT Kashmere Gate, Delhi. That at about 12.10 PM, accused Mohd. Riyaz pointed out towards four persons and told that they are the persons who had sent him to collect the money from complainant. That they apprehended all the accused persons and their names were revealed as Vinod Kumar @ Manoj, Chetan Singh, Chander Prakash and Ashok Gupta. That the accused Vinod was searched and one country-made pistol was found from back left dub and three live cartridges were recovered from the right pocket of accused Vinod. That the IO kept the articles on a plain paper and prepared the sketch of the same i.e. Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point B. That the articles were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of VS. That the IO seized the pullanda vide memo i.e. Ex.PW3/B, bearing his signatures at point B. That the seal was handed over to him after its use and IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Vinod i.e. Ex.PW6/A, bearing his signatures at point A. That the accused Vinod was arrested vide arrest memo i.e. Ex.PW3/C bearing his signatures at point B. That the IO also enquired from rest of the accused persons and they were arrested vide FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.12 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:09 +0530 arrest memos i.e. Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/F, all bearing his signatures at point B respectively. That the personal search of all accused persons were conducted vide search memos i.e. Ex.PW3/J, Ex.PW3/K and Ex.PW3/H and Ex.PW3/G all bearing his signatures at point B respectively. That thereafter the accused persons were produced before Hon'ble Court. That on the same day, in the evening, complainant came to office of AEC and handed over one cassette in which as per complainant was the recording of accused persons. That the IO seized the same vide seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW2/H bearing his signatures at point B. That on 03.01.2006, IO with the help of tape recorder separated the voice sample of accused Ashok Gupta and Vinod. That on 04.01.2006, IO transcribed the voice samples of accused Vinod and Ashok Gupta and recorded them in separate cassette and seized the same vide seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C both bearing his signatures at point A respectively. That the case property i.e. currency wads i.e. Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and the cap i.e. Ex. P9, the cassette i.e. Ex. P10, countrymade pistol i.e. Ex. P1, live cartridges i.e. Ex.P2 (colly), empty cartridge i.e. Ex.P3 and pullanda i.e. Ex.P4. That the MHCM produced register no. 19 vide which at entry no. 2859, 2862, 2864, the IO deposited the case property in the malkhana and the same is Ex.PW6/D (OSR). The witness stated that he can identify all the accused persons. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
11. PW-7/ASI Sher Singh deposed that on 01.01.2006, he was posted as Constable at AE (Cell)/Crime Branch and around 2.10 PM, he along with his team members SI Naresh Solanki, HC Virender, HC Banne Singh and Ct. Balwan departed for Filmistan cinema, situated at slightly left on Tis FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.13 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.12.19 17:12:12 +0530 Hazari Road. That after reaching at the Filmistan Cinema, a trap was placed and at about 3.05 PM, the accused Mohd. Riaz was arrested and a black colour bag having dummy currency in it was recovered from him. That the said bag was seized by the IO Virender Singh and thereafter it was sealed with the seal of 'VS' and thereafter, a tehrir was prepared by SI Naresh Solank and it was handed over to him for registration of FIR. That he went to the PS, got the FIR registered. That further investigation was marked to HC Virender. That at about 4.30 PM, he returned back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to HC Virender. The witness correctly identified accused Mohd. Riaz in the Court. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
12. PW-8/ACP Naresh Solanki deposed that on 01.01.2006, he was posted as SI with Crime Branch, Anti Extortion Cell, R.K. Puram, Delhi and on that day, complainant Dr. Tara Chand Sharma came to the office and told him that he had received a ransom call from criminals at about 10:30-
10:40am and he had been called at 03:00 pm at Filmistan. That he handed over 8 dummy wads duly signed by him to complainant in black polythene and the said polythene was kept in a bag vide handing over memo i.e. Ex. PW2/A bearing his signatures at point C. That thereafter, Ct. Ramesh was made a dummy driver and was sent alongwith complainant alongwith bag of dummy currency to Filmistan and the complainant was instructed by the caller that at Filmistan, one person who will be wearing red colour cap upon which 11 will be written will meet him and he had to hand over the said bag of Rs. 4 lakhs to said person wearing the cap. That he alongwith his team consisting of HC Banne Singh, HC Virender, Ct. Sunil, Ct. Sher Singh, Ct. Balwan also left for Filmistan and at the spot, their took their FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.14 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.12.19 17:12:14 +0530 positions and started waiting. That at about 03:05pm, one person came wearing red colour cap upon which 11 was written and he requested 4-5 public persons to join the raiding team and investigation but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses citing their valid reasons. That due to paucity of time, no written notice was given to the public persons. That the complainant handed over the said bag to said person wearing red colour cap and when the said person started checking the said bag, they apprehended him. That the name of the said person was revealed as Riyaz and thereafter, he recovered the said bag from the possession of accused Riyaz and kept the same in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of VS. That the pullanda was seized vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW2/B bearing his signatures at point C. That thereafter, he recorded statement of complainant i.e. Ex. PW2/C and he endorsed the same at point B. That he prepared rukka i.e. Ex. PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Sher Singh for registration of FIR. That after some time, Ct. Sher Singh returned to spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him and thereafter, he seized the said cap worn by accused Riyaz by keeping the same in a pullanda sealed with the seal of VS vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW2/G bearing his signatures at point C. That he arrested accused Riyaz vide arrest memo i.e. Ex. PW2/D bearing his signatures at point C. That the personal search of accused Riyaz was conducted vide memo i.e. Ex. PW2/E bearing his signatures at point C and he also recorded disclosure statement of accused Riyaz i.e. Ex. PW2/F bearing his signatures at point C where accused disclosed that he is part of a gang run by accused Vinod and accordingly they reported to office and accused was produced before the Hon'ble Court from where PC of accused Riyaz was obtained. That on the next day, i.e. FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.15 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.12.19 17:12:18 +0530 02.01.2006, they reached exit gate of Kashmere Gate, ISBT, Delhi and on the instance of accused Riyaz, accused Vinod, (already expired) Ashok Gupta (already expired), Chetan Singh and Chander Prakash @ Mintu were apprehended. That he prepared site plan i.e. Ex. PW8/B bearing his signatures at point A. That he casually searched accused Vinod and found one country-made pistol from left dub and three live cartridges from right pocket worn by accused Vinod. That he kept the recovered pistol and cartridges on a plain paper and prepared sketch of the same i.e. Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at point C. That thereafter, he kept the same in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of VS. That he filled FSL form at the spot and thereafter, he seized the pullanda vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW3/B bearing his signatures at point C. That he arrested accused Ashok Gupta, Vinod Kumar, Chetan Singh and Chander Prakash vide arrest memos i.e. Ex. PW3/F, Ex. PW3/C, Ex. PW3/D and Ex. PW3/E respectively all bearing his signatures at point C. That all the accused persons were personally searched vide search memos i.e. Ex. PW3/J, Ex. PW3/K, Ex.
PW3/H and Ex. PW3/G respectively all bearing his signatures at point C. That he also recorded disclosure statements of all accused persons i.e. Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW3/M, Ex. PW3/N and Ex. PW3/O all bearing his signatures at point B. That thereafter, they returned to office of Crime Branch and in the office, the complainant handed over a cassette containing recordings of the conversation of him with the accused persons. That he seized the same vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW2/H bearing his signatures at point C and he got the transcript ready from the voice notes present in the said cassette i.e. Ex. PW8/C, Ex. PW8/D and Ex. PW8/E all bearing his signatures at point A and i.e. Ex. PW2/J1, Ex. PW2/J2, Ex. PW2/J3, Ex. PW2/J4, Ex. PW2/J5, Ex. PW2/J6, Ex. PW2/J7 and Ex. PW2/J8 all bearing his signatures at point FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.16 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:21 +0530 B. That he deposited the cassette in the malkhana and during investigation were sent to FSL, CBI, for expert opinion. That on 04.01.2006, voice samples of accused Ashok Gupta and Vinod Kumar were obtained and the cassettes were given S. No. A for accused Ashok Gupta and B for accused Vinod Kumar. That he seized the cassettes vide seizure memos i.e. Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C both bearing his signatures at point B. That as per analysis of the transcript, the complainant was threatened by accused Ashok Gupta and Vinod Kumar. That he recorded statement of witnesses and after completing investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the Hon'ble Court. That the result of FSL was obtained and filed through supplementary chargesheet by him i.e. Ex. PW8/F. The witness duly identified accused Mohd. Riaz, Chetan Singh and accused Chander Prakash @ Mintu who were present in Court. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
13. As all witnesses were examined by the Prosecution, PE was closed vide order dated 03.08.2024. Statement of the accused was recorded on 27.08.2024 wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present matter. No defence evidence was led by the accused persons and hence, the matter was listed for final arguments.
14. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
15. At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.17 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:24 +0530 ingredients of the offences charged :
383. Extortion-Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
503. Criminal intimidation-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation-A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy-When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.18 /26
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.12.19 17:12:27 +0530 Explanation- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or is merely incidental to that object.
16. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant/Dr. Tara Chand Sharma as PW-2. PW-2 has deposed that on 24.12.2005 around 9:20 pm, he received a call from an unknown person on his mobile number 9811790666 from a PCO situated at Chandrawal Nagar where he was threatened. The caller threatened that "Ab tumhara case mere pass aa gaya hai, to 30 lakh ka intzaam kar lo nahi to tumhari dono betiyon ko goli se marva doonga". The witness also stated that the caller refused to identify himself and abused him during the duration of the call. On 25.12.2005 and 26.12.2005, he again received threatening calls from different places and the person making the calls were also different. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Crime Branch and started recording the calls. Ultimately, the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 4 lakhs to the accused persons on 29.12.2005. On 30.12.2005, at about 11:30 am, the callers called the complainant and told him to come at Filmistan Cinema at about 3:00 pm and also told him that the person wearing a red cap with mark of 11 number on it in half sleeves shirt and sweater and chappal will come to collect the money. However, at 1:00 pm the said meeting was cancelled, and the meeting was then fixed for 01.01.2006. On 01.01.2006, at about 10:30-10:40 am, he received a call that the person of the same description as stated earlier will come and collect the money at 3:00 pm at Filmistan Cinema. Thereafter, the complainant went to Crime Branch, RK Puram where he was given a black-colored bag containing fake 8 bundles of Rs. 500/- notes and the police officials had initialed on each and every bundle and a handing over memo of the dummy currency FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.19 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.12.19 17:12:30 +0530 notes i.e. Ex. PW-2/A was prepared. Thereafter, the complainant went to the place fixed in his car with a Constable namely Ramesh Dahia as his driver. At the fixed spot, a boy wearing a red colored cap matching the features described to him was found and on lowering the glass window, he said Doctor and the complainant handed over the bag to him. When the boy was opening the bag, he as apprehended by the police officials and stated his name to be Rias Ahmed. Accused Mohd. Rias stated that his gang leaders name is Vinod. On 02.01.2006, at the instance of accused Mohd. Rias, accused Vinod, accused Chetan Singh, accused Chandra Prakash and accused Ashok Gupta were apprehended and arrested.
17. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused namely accused Mohd. Rias, accused Vinod, accused Chetan Singh, accused Chandra Prakash and accused Ashok Gupta, entered into a conspiracy to extort and threaten the complainant by meeting on 15/16.12.2005. In pursuance of the same, accused Vinod and Ashok Gupta called the complainant on various dates to threaten him and to extract money from him. The complainant had recorded the conversation with the extortionists on 28.12.2005, 29.12.2005 and 30.12.2005 and had handed over the cassette containing the recorded conversations to the IO which is Ex. P-10.
The IO then transcribed the voice samples of accused Vinod and Ashok Gupta and recorded them in a separate cassette. Further, the IO also obtained voice samples of the accused Vinod and accused Ashok Gupta on 04.01.2006 and deposited the cassette mentioned above alongwith the voice samples to FSL for analysis. As per the result of FSL, which is Ex. PW-8/F, the voice samples of accused Vinod and Ashok Gupta matched with the recording of the calls provided by the complainant and it was FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.20 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:33 +0530 observed in the FSL report that the voices in the recordings are the probable voices of accused Ashok Gupta and accused Vinod.
18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that as per Section 120A IPC, the offence of criminal conspiracy is made out when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties. In the instant case, it is clear that accused Vinod, Ashok Gupta and accused Mohd. Rias entered into a criminal conspiracy to extort the complainant by calling him number of times and threatened to kill his children incase money was not paid to them. They finally agreed on an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to be paid to them by the complainant. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused Mohd. Rias went to the place fixed where he was caught while opening the bag containing the dummy currency notes.
However, accused Vinod and Ashok Kumar expired during the course of trial and proceedings qua them abated. Thus, the evidence shall only analyzed qua the remaining accused persons.
19. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Rias that he has no role in the present matter and that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is his contention that the non-joinder of independent public witnesses to the investigation despite availability at the place where the accused Mohd. Rias was allegedly apprehended casts shadow of doubt on prosecution story. It is further argued that the failure of the police officials to prove their arrival and departure entries before and FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.21 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:36 +0530 after the accused Mohd. Rias was arrested also raises doubt on the story of the prosecution. Ld. Counsel for accused Chetan and accused Chander Prakash also contends that they had no role in the present matter and that there is absolutely no evidence against them on record except the disclosure statements of the accused persons, which are not admissible in evidence as per law.
20. The contentions of the Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Rias do not seem to have any merit as a perusal of the arrest memo of accused Mohd. Rias, which is Ex. PW2/D shows that it has been duly signed by the complainant. Infact, the personal search memo of accused Mohd. Rias, which is Ex. PW-2/E and the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Rias, which is Ex. PW-2/F also bears the signatures of the complainant as witness, which establishes his presence at the spot where accused Mohd. Rias was apprehended. The complainant having himself signed the arrest memo as well as the other documents as mentioned above, the requirement for having other independent public witnesses apart from the complainant does not arise. Further, the testimony of the complainant as PW-2 as well as the other police officials corroborate each other on material aspects from the time the complainant received the call to meet from the extortionists to the time of apprehension of accused Mohd. Rias at the spot opening the bag containing the dummy currency notes. No material contradictions could be elicited in their cross-examinations by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, which would discredit their testimonies.
21. If any minor contradictions have come out in the testimonies of various witnesses, the law is settled that minor contradictions are bound to FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.22 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:39 +0530 occur in the testimony of the witnesses as has been observed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 324 where it was observed that:-
"In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal error of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the Court, such evidence cannot be sat to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence"
22. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and on basis of the evidence on record, it has been established that accused Vinod and accused Ashok called the complainant and threatened to kill his family members unless money was paid to them in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched with accused Mohd. Rias. The ingredients of the offence of extortion as laid down under Section 383 IPC are clearly fulfilled as the complainant was put in fear of injury to his family members and acting under such fear he agreed to deliver an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to them. Further, the ingredients of criminal intimidation as laid down under Section 503 IPC are also made out as the extortionist threatened injury to the family members of the complainant, which caused alarm to the complainant and also caused him FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.23 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:42 +0530 to pay money to them which he was not under any legal obligation to pay in order to avoid the execution of the threat. The FSL report, which is Ex. PW-8/F wherein it is observed that the voice samples of accused Vinod and Ashok Gupta matched with the recording of the calls provided by the complainant and that the voices in the recordings are the probable voices of accused Ashok Gupta and accused Vinod also further establish the guilt of the accused Ashok and Vinod. Although, accused Ashoka and Vinod may have expired since then but the conspiracy was hatched when they were alive and hence the offence of conspiracy is still made out against accused Mohd. Rias.
23. With regard to the role of accused Chetan and Chander Prakash in the case at hand, it is seen that no material evidence has come on record against them. Except the disclosure statements of the accused persons, which are not admissible in evidence under law, no other evidence has come on record to establish their role in the instant case. Neither it is alleged they made the extortion calls nor were they found at the spot where accused Mohd. Rias was caught. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that all the accused persons met beforehand and hatched a conspiracy to extort the complainant and it was accused Chetan who suggested the name of the complainant as the victim as he used to work in the same hospital and provided the contact details of the complainant to the accused persons. However, merely because the accused Chetan used to work in the same hospital as the complainant is not sufficient reason to find him guilty. If it is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons met beforehand and conspired to extort/threaten the complainant then evidence qua the said meetings should have been placed on record. Neither the locations of the FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.24 /26 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.12.19 17:12:45 +0530 accused persons have been placed on record to establish that they were all at the present at the same place at the same time nor any of their call records showing that they frequently spoke to each other have been placed on record. The Court is well aware that it may be difficult to prove direct evidence of a conspiracy and that the same may have be inferred by the circumstantial evidence. However, it is necessary to prove that there was a prior agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime even though there may not be an overt act on behalf of all the accused persons in pursuance of the conspiracy. However, in the instant case, no evidence has come on record to show such prior agreement had taken place with the accused Chetan and accused Chander Prakash.
24. In case of Sharada Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1984 SC 1622, the apex court had laid down the test which are per-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:-
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (2) The circumstances concerned "must or should"
and not "may be" established;
(3) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(4) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.25 /26
(5) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (6) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must so that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
25. Considering the totality of the circumstance, I am of the opinion that the guilt of accused Mohd. Riaz has been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt and accused Mohd. Riaz is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 387/506/120B IPC. However, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the allegations against accused Chander Prakash and accused Chetan and they are accordingly acquitted for the charges u/s Section 387/506/120B IPC as levelled against him. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.12.19
17:12:48
Announced in the open (MANSI MALIK)
+0530
Court on 19th December, 2025 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Central/Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi/19.12.2025
FIR No. 2/2006 State Vs Ashok Gupta PS: Civil Lines Page No.26 /26