Delhi District Court
State vs Yatin Yadav Etc on 27 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-000370-2015
SC No. 56141-2016
State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014
U/s. 364A/506/120B/34 IPC
PS: Hari Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 56141-2016
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 21.02.2015
3. Name of the complainant : Raju
4. Date of Commission of Offence : 16/17.12.2013
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : 1. Yatin Yadav
S/o Babru Bhan R/o
Sh. Nangal Pathani,
Distt Rewari,
Haryana.
2. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Jeet Singh
R/o Q. No. 110,
Police Colony,
Sector 16B,
Dwarka, New
Delhi.
3. Arvind Kumar
@ Popat S/o Sh.
Vijay Pal R/o
Village Birhor, PS
Salhawas, District
Jhajjar, Haryana.
4. Tejvir Singh S/o
Sh. Satish Kumar
R/o RZ-134 A,
Phase-IV, Prem
Nagar, Najafgarh,
Delhi
SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.1/44
6. Offence complained of : U/s.
364A/506/120B/34
IPC
7. Offence Charged : U/s 364A/506/120
B/34 IPC
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 17.03.2025
11. Date on which Order Announced : 27.03.2025
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.11.2014, a written complaint was made by victim Raju with IO/ASI Banwari Lal (Ex. PW-1/A) to the effect that he was working with Zythum Infosystems Pvt Ltd. having its office at D-183, Fateh Nagar, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi. In the intervening night of 16-17.12.2013, he was doing the night shift duty and was present on the third floor of the office. At about 12:30 AM, four persons entered the office who were aged about 25-35 years, three of them were wearing police uniform. One of the uniformed person was wheatish in color and about 6 feet tall. The other two uniformed persons were fair in complexion and the fourth person was in casual clothes and was carrying one backpack. After entering the office, they asked about the owner of the company from the office boy who brought them to him as SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.2/44 he was the IT Head. One of the said persons asked him what was going on in the company on which he explained that they were running a call centre and providing services. They asked for the license on which he informed them that it was with the owner Rishabh Dev Beri who was at his residence. They asked to speak to Rishabh Dev Beri but despite calling, Rishabh did not pick up the call on which they became angry and stated that he was lying. They started threatening him to take him to PS. Thereafter, they asked him to come with them at PS. After reaching the second floor, they again asked him to tell the truth and when he informed them that he had already told the truth to them, they started slapping him and beating him with fists and leg blows. Thereafter, all the four persons took him in a white Santro car stating that once he is taken, the owner of the company will himself come to the PS. One other person was already sitting on the driver seat of the Santro car. He was made to sit on the back seat and they started roaming in the area of Hari Nagar and kept on calling Rishabh from his phone. At about 02-02:30 AM, Rishabh called back on his mobile phone and accused persons stopped the car and talked to him. He was made to roam on different roads in the Santro car. The battery of his phone got discharged and one of the said four persons put complainant's SIM in his own mobile phone and kept on speaking to Rishabh Dev Beri and demanded money from him in exchange of his freedom. Rishabh Dev Beri was called near Delhi Cant Army Hospital and thereafter, at SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.3/44 DDU Hospital. At DDU Hospital, Rishabh Dev Beri handed over Rs. 1,40,000/- after which the complainant was released. He and Rishabh Dev Beri were also threatened not to disclose this incident to anyone. Because of the threat, no complaint was registered immediately after the incident. Later on, Rishabh Dev Beri came to know that there was a gang operating in Delhi which was committing similar offences. Accordingly, complainant lodged the present complaint with the PS and reported the incident.
2. On the basis of this complaint, present FIR was registered on 11.11.2014 u/s 364A/506/120B/34 IPC.
3. After investigation, accused Yatin Yadav, Rajesh Kumar and Arvind Kumar @ Poppat were chargesheeted for offence u/s 364A/506/120B/34 IPC. A supplementary chargesheet was also filed qua accused Tejvir u/s 364A/506/120B/34 IPC.
CHARGE:
4. Detailed arguments on charge were heard from Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. Addl. PP for State. Vide order dated 05.05.2015, the Court charged Accused Yatin Yadav, Rajesh Kumar and Arvind Kumar for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120B IPC to kidnap/abduct an employee of Rishabh Dev Beri and demand ransom for his release. They were also charged for offence of committing kidnapping for ransom in pursuance of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 364A IPC r/w 120B SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.4/44 IPC and for the offence of threatening complainant Raju and Rishabh Dev Beri in pursuance of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 506 r/w 120B IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
5. After filing of supplementary chargesheet qua accused Tejvir, he was also charged for offences u/s 120B IPC, 364A r/w 120B IPC and 506 r/w 120B IPC as detailed above vide order dated 31.10.2015. He also pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. The prosecution led evidence and examined 27 witnesses in all to bring home the charge against the accused persons.
7. PW-1 Raju, victim/complainant, PW-2 Rishabh Dev Beri, employer of PW-1 Raju/victim are the two prime witnesses of the prosecution case.
8. PW-1 Raju deposed in consonance with his complaint which was proved as Ex. PW-1/A as detailed above. He also deposed that the site plan of the call centre/his office Ex. PW-1/B was prepared at his instance. He failed to identify any of the accused persons as the offenders.
9. PW-1 Raju was declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the State. In his cross-examination, he was suggested that incident had taken place on 12.12.2013 but he replied that he was not in a position to confirm the same. He also volunteered that he does not remember about the same as the FIR was lodged after one year of the SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.5/44 incident. He was confronted with his supplementary statement dated 21.11.2014 (Mark A) but he stated that he did not remember if he had given any such statement to the police.
10. In his cross-examination by State, he admitted that at the relevant time, he was having SIM No. 9811253908 which was obtained on the identity of one Amit Sharma. He stated that he was not sure if Rishabh Dev Beri had given cash of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the culprits as he was present inside the vehicle. He was specifically shown the accused persons but he failed to identify them due to lapse of time. He also denied the suggestion that on 08.12.2014, he along with Rishabh Dev Beri had come to Tis Hazari Court where he had identified the culprits. As regards the identity of accused Tejvir, he admitted that he had gone to Tihar Jail for his TIP but stated that he could not identify him during TIP proceedings Mark A. He denied the suggestion that after the TIP proceedings, he had identified accused Tejvir vide his supplementary statement dated 28.08.2015 (Mark B). He admitted his signatures on the pointing out memos Ex. PW-1/C but denied the suggestion that accused Tejvir had pointed out the place of occurrence in his presence.
11. PW-2 Rishabh Dev Beri is the employer of PW-1 Raju from whom ransom amount was allegedly taken by the accused persons as per the case of the prosecution. He deposed that he used to run a call centre in the name and style of Zythum Infosystem Pvt Ltd. situated at D-1/83, SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.6/44 Fateh Nagar, Jail Road, Delhi. Raju/PW-1 was the IT Head of the Call Centre. On 10/15.12.2013, while he was sleeping at his house and his mobile was on silent mode, a call was received on his landline phone by his sister in law and he was awaken. He saw many missed calls on his mobile phone from his office. He made call to Operations Head of his office Ms. Saudamani Sadeem who intimated him that some police officials had taken the IT Head Raju and had also given beatings to the staff. On receiving the said information, he collected some money from his house and went to his office where he came to know that police officials had already left with Raju/PW-1. He made a phone call to Raju from his mobile number 9811600674 at his mobile phone and came to know that he was terrified and was crying. Raju told him on his mobile phone, "Kuch police wale aaye the, wo mere se baar baar puch rahe the, aap log yahan kya galat kaam karte ho, to usne kaha ki hum service provider hain, hum koi galat kaam nahi karte. Phir unhone mujhe bohot maara, or pressurize karke bulwane ki koshish ki ki hum log yaha galat kaam karte hain, agar tu nahin maanega to teri khaal udhed denge. Raju ne yeh bhi bataya ki police wale use aadhe ek ghante se idhar udhar ghuma rahe hain".
12. After that, he told Raju that he wanted to speak to the police officials. The culprits came on the phone and told him, "Hum Raju ko Mandir marg Thane leke jaa rahe hain, tum wahi pohocho" After that the call got disconnected. Again, a call was made by the police SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.7/44 officials from the mobile phone of Raju and they told him, "kahan pahunche ho". He told them that he was leaving and asked them where they were on which he was informed that they were near Army Base Hospital, Delhi Cant. He heard Raju crying. Since his priority was to save Raju at that time, he told him that he will come to Army Base Hospital. He reached there and police officials also tried to pressurize him into admitting that he was doing some wrong work at his office. They were in Santro car. Three persons were standing outside the car and two persons were sitting inside the Santro car with Raju. One of the persons standing outside the car was very tall around 6 feet. The three persons standing outside the car were in police uniform and tall person was having two stars on his uniform. Two police officers were wearing jackets and their heads were covered with the hood as it was cold. The tall police official was not wearing any jacket. Face of two of the police officials were covered with some cloth and when they were speaking with him, they were removing clothes from their mouth/monkey cap. Raju was not allowed to get out of the car and the police officials told him to go to Mandir Marg PS. The tall police officer was receiving phone calls again and again and told him, "Inspector Sahab ka call aa raha hain, jaldi karo". As far as he could understand, the police officials wanted some money from him to dispose off the matter and leave Raju. When he asked the police officials how much money they wanted, they told him "Rs. 10 Lacs". This conversation SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.8/44 had taken place between him and a tall officer in a dark corner. All the other police officers were standing away from him. He negotiated with the tall police officer. He was carrying Rs. 50,000/- in his pocket which he handed over to the tall police officer who in turn asked him to hand over further Rs. 1 Lacs near DDU Hospital. Raju was not released. He went to his house and took Rs. 1 Lac and went to DDU Hospital. In this duration, he received several calls from the mobile phone of Raju and he also made certain calls to them on a mobile phone of Raju regarding the place of handing over the money. At DDU Hospital, he met two police officials wearing monkey cap and gave them cash of Rs. 1 Lac and thereafter, they released Raju. He also tried to take their mobile numbers but they did not share the same. Thereafter, he and Raju went to his office. At that time, he did not lodge any complaint in this regard with the police.
13. He further deposed that in between 8-15 November, 2014, he received a phone call from a landline number on his cellphone while he was in Goa. The person calling asked him regarding the incident and he confirmed the same. The caller also asked him about not lodging the complaint at that time to which he replied that as the culprits were cops themselves, he was not having any trust on the police and that is the reason why he did not lodge any complaint. The caller did not disclose his identity. 1-2 days after that call, he also received one or two other calls asking the details of the incident. In the meanwhile, he came to know that an SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.9/44 FIR was registered on the complaint of Raju. When he reached Delhi, his statement was recorded by the police. Once, he was called at the Tihar Jail for identification of the culprits and he had identified one of them. He admitted his signatures on TIP proceedings Mark A. Thereafter, he did not see any culprit.
14. PW-2 was cross-examined on behalf of State as he was resiling from his earlier statements made to the police. He stated that it might be correct that the incident took place on 12.12.2013. He admitted that he had received all the calls from the contact number of Raju and had also made calls on the contact number of Raju. He denied the suggestion that he had not identified any other culprit in TIP except Arvind out of fear. He also denied the suggestion that on 08.12.2014, he along with Raju had come to Tis Hazari court where he identified all the accused persons. He admitted that culprits had threatened him and Raju to harm their families if they made any complaint regarding the incident and thus, he did not lodge any complaint at the time of incident.
15. PW-2 identified accused Arvind while stating that he was the person whom he had identified during TIP proceedings but he was not sure about the role of Arvind. He did not identify any of the other accused persons.
16. When PW-2 was recalled for re-examination after arrest of accused Tejvir, he deposed in consonance with his earlier statement and identified accused Tejvir stating that he was the tallest police official having two stars on his uniform SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.10/44 with whom negotiation had taken place. He also deposed that while returning Raju had narrated the entire incident to him. He also stated that he had identified Tejvir in TIP proceedings Mark A and admitted that the incident had taken place on 12.12.2013.
17. PW-3 ASI Bhawnesh Kumar is a witness to the arrest of accused Arvind Kumar @ Popat on 10.11.2014 in case FIR No. 1203/2014 PS Janakpuri and his disclosure (Mark A) regarding his involvement in the present case and preparation of pointing out memo (Mark B) at his instance. He also deposed that an intimation regarding arrest of accused Arvind was sent at PS Hari Nagar. On 12.11.2014, IO of the present case came to the office of Special Staff and he handed over relevant documents to him.
18. PW-4 Ct. Manjeet is a witness to the arrest of accused Yatin in the present case. He deposed that on 12.11.2014, he accompanied IO/ASI Banwari Lal to the office of Special Staff, Rajouri Garden where IO obtained the custody of accused Arvind @ Popat. Thereafter, they went to SIP, SW where they came to know that Ct. Yatin was posted at PS Dwarka North. They went to PS Dwarka North where they came to know that Ct. Yatin was residing in a rented accomodation in village Ambarhai. Thereafter, they reached at Village where in front of Shemrock Kids School, there was a building on the top floor of which, Ct. Yatin was residing. Ct. Yatin was found at his house. IO arrested and personally searched him vide memos Ex.
SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.11/44 PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-4/C. Accused Yatin was medically examined at DDU Hospital and thereafter, they returned back to the PS with accused. He initially identified accused Arvind as accused Yatin but later on correctly identified accused Yatin.
19. PW-5 Shyam Sundar is the Assistant Ahlmad in the court of the then Ld. CMM West who produced the record of case FIR No. 1203/2014 PS Janakpuri u/s 25 Arms Act r/w Section 411/482 IPC. The disclosure statement of accused Arvind Kumar recorded in the said FIR was proved as Ex. PW-5/A.
20. PW-6 Ct. Mahesh is the Constable who had taken the rukka and copy of FIR to IO/ASI Banwari Lal on 11.11.2014. He deposed that he went to the spot and handed over the same to ASI Banwari Lal. Complainant was found present at the spot. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and recorded supplementary statement of the complainant. Physical description of the accused persons was stated by the complainant to the IO. They searched the accused persons in the area of Hari Nagar and Tilak Nagar but could not trace them. Complainant was relieved and they went back to the PS.
21. PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who proved the registration of present FIR (Ex. PW-7/A) on the basis of a rukka sent by ASI Banwari Lal through Ct. Mahesh. He proved the endorsement made on the rukka as Ex. PW-7/B and the certificate u/s 65B SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.12/44 Indian Evidence Act in respect of registration of FIR as Ex. PW-7/C.
22. PW-8 Vinod Kumar is the Nodal Officer from MTNL.
He produced the summoned record in respect of mobile number 9868861540 for the period w.e.f. 09.12.2013 to 31.12.2013. He proved the certified copy of CDR as Ex. PW-8/A, certified copy of CAF along with voter ID card of subscriber Satish Kumar as Ex. PW-8/B and certified copy of cell ID chart as Ex. PW-8/C. He also proved the certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act regarding the CDRs as Ex. PW-8/D. He also proved the CDR and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act provided by the earlier Nodal Officer to the IO during investigation as Ex. PW-8/E and Ex. PW-8/F respectively.
23. He further deposed that he could not produce the original CAF record and CDR regarding the mobile number 9013688271 as it could not be retreived. However, he could not produce the computerised statement in this regard and stated that as per record, Ms. Neelam Devi was the subscriber of the said mobile number. The computerised statement in this regard is Ex. PW-8/G and the covering letter of Manager Record Wireless Service is Ex. PW-8/H.
24. PW-9 Chandra Shekhar is the Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. He produced the summoned record of mobile number of 8826082156 allotted in the name of Amit vide CAF Ex. PW-9/A and mobile number 9958691091 allotted in the name of Mukesh Kumar vide CAF Ex. PW-
SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.13/44 9/B. He also produced the CDR of both the mobile numbers from 25.12.2013 to 31.12.2013 which are Ex. PW-9/C and Ex. PW-9/D respectively. His certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in this regard is Ex. PW-9/E. He also proved the record in this regard handed over by the earlier Nodal Officer to the IO during investigation as Ex. PW-9/F and Ex. PW-9/G (Section 65B certificate); Ex. PW-9/H1 and Ex. PW-9/H2 (CAFs); Ex. PW-9/H3 and Ex. PW-9/H4 (CDRs from 25.12.2013 to 31.12.2013) and Ex. PW-9/H5 and Ex. PW-9/H6 (CDRs from 17.12.2013 to 31.12.2013).
25. PW-10 Sh. Pawan Singh is the Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd who deposed that IO had sought information regarding mobile numbers 9540191200 and 9891113963. CDRs pertaining to these number w.e.f. 01.12.2013 to 04.12.2014 was also provided to the IO. As per record, mobile number 9891113963 was subscribed in the name of Ganesh Singh, CAF in this regard is Ex. PW-10/A along with copy of driving license Mark PW-10/B and CDR is Ex. PW-10/C. He proved the CDR of mobile number 9540191200 for the said period as Ex. PW-10/D and his certificate u/s 65B as Ex. PW-10/E. He stated that mobile number 9540191200 was in the name of Rajesh Kumar and the photocopy of CAF is Mark PW-10/F, however, original CAF could not be produced as the same was destroyed due to fire in the office reported to SHO vide report Mark 10A. He proved the printout of the CAF as Ex. PW-10/H and his certificate u/s 65B in this regard as SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.14/44 Ex. PW-10/I. He had also handed over location chart, cell ID chart to the IO which is Ex. PW-10/G. He deposed that location of any mobile phone at any particular time within the cell tower can be decoded with the help of cell ID mentioned in the CDR.
26. PW-11 Israr Babu is the Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services. He produced CAF of mobile number 9811253908 allotted in the name of Amit Sharma which is Ex. PW-11/A along with copy of Voter ID card (Mark A); CDR of the mobile number for the period 01.12.2013 to 10.12.2014 which is Ex. PW-11/B and his certificate u/s 65B which is Ex. PW-11/C.
27. He also produced CAF of mobile number 8587097082 allotted in the name of Rajesh Kumar which is Ex. PW- 11/D along with copy of Aadhar card (Mark B); CDR of the mobile number for the period 01.12.2013 to 10.12.2014 which is Ex. PW-11/E and his certificate u/s 65B which is Ex. PW-11/F. He also produced cell ID chart of vodafone for Delhi and NCR which is Ex. PW-11/G.
28. He also proved the documents in this regard provided by earlier Nodal Officer to the IO during investigation which are Ex. PW-11/H to Ex. PW-11/N.
29. PW-12 Satish Kumar is the father of accused Tejvir who deposed that he is the subscriber of mobile number 9868861540 of MTNL which was used by his wife Ms. Dhan Kaur. He had no knowledge whether any call was received from Tejvir on this mobile phone from mobile number 8826082156. He was declared hostile and was SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.15/44 cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for the State but he denied the suggestion that he used to receive calls from his son accused Tejvir from the mobile number 8826082156.
30. PW-13 SI Bijender Singh deposed that on 02.02.2015, he was posted as Duty Officer in the office of District Line, South West District, Delhi. At about 12:00 Noon, IO of the present case SI Manoj came to his office and enquired from him about the duty of Ct. Rajesh and Ct. Yatin pertaining to 11.12.2013.As per record, Ct. Rajesh and Yatin were posted on temporary duty with district line w.e.f. 01.12.2013 to 15.12.2013. On 11.12.2013, they were on duty from 07:00 AM to 07:00 PM. On 12.12.2013, they did not join their duty and were marked absent in roznamcha vide DD No. 5 which is Ex. PW-13/A. He produced the original roznamcha as per which on 01.10.2013, Ct. Rajesh was temporarily transferred to the office of District Line from PS Delhi Cant and on 30.11.2013, Ct. Yatin was transferred there from PS Dwarka, North. The arrival entry in respect of Ct. Rajesh vide DDNo. 18 is Ex. PW-13/B and arrival entry of Ct. Yatin vide DD No. 36 is proved as Ex. PW-13/C.
31. PW-14 Ganesh Singh is the childhood friend of accused Arvind Kumar. He deposed that in the year 2013, on request of accused Arvind, he had got one mobile number issued in his name for use by accused Arvind Kumar but he could not recollect if that number was 9891113963 despite suggestion in this regard given by Ld. Additional PP for State.
SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.16/44
32. PW-15 Suresh Kumar is the Ahlmad from the court of the then Ld. CMM, West who produced the original judicial file of FIR No. 1203/2014 PS Janakpuri and proved the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Arvind Kumar which is Ex. PW-15/A as well as copy of said FIR which is Mark 15/B.
33. PW-16 Ct. Krishna Ram is a witness from the personnel branch of Dwarka District, Delhi. He produced the original record pertaining to the posting of Ct. Rajesh and Ct. Yatin Yadav. He deposed that as per record, Ct. Rajesh was posted at PS Dwarka North w.e.f. 22.10.2009. On 12.06.2012, he was transferred to PS Delhi Cant. Thereafter, he was suspended w.e.f. 01.12.2014. He was released from Tihar Jail on bail and reported at District Line on 24.08.2015. After division of south west district into two parts, Ct. Rajesh was transferred to Dwarka District Line on 15.02.2018. He proved the record as Ex. PW-16/A.
34. As regards accused Yatin Yadav, he deposed that as per record, on 29.03.2010, he reported at South West District Line. On 12.04.2010, he was transferred to PS Dwarka North. He was suspended on 13.11.2014. After release from Tihar Jail on bail, he reported at District Line on 24.08.2015. After division of South West District into two parts, he was transferred to Dwarka District Line on 22.12.2017. He proved the attested copy of the record as Ex. PW-16/B. SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.17/44
35. PW-17 HC Pratap Singh produced the original register no. 16 as per which Ct. Yatin Yadav had joined Delhi police on 25.05.2008. On 18.04.2010, he was posted at PS Dwarka North. As per record, his contact numbers were 9873085751 and 9466784566. He proved the record as Ex. PW-17/A.
36. PW-18 Ms. Swati Sharma is the then Ld.MM who had conducted the TIP proceedings of accused Arvind Kumar on 21.11.2014 in which he was correctly identified by the witness Rishabh Dev. The proceedings are Ex. PW-18/B. She also proved TIP proceedings of accused Tejvir conducted on 26.08.2015 wherein he was correctly identified by witness Rishabh Dev Beri which are Ex. PW-18/F.
37. PW-19 ASI Banwari Lal is the first IO of the case. He deposed that on 11.11.2014, complainant Raju met him at PS Hari Nagar. He recorded statement of complainant Ex. PW-1/A and prepared the rukka Ex. PW-19/A and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he obtained the copy of FIR and original rukka and went to the place of occurrence where he prepared the site plan of the place of incident as Ex. PW-1/B at the instance of the complainant. He tried to search for the accused persons but in vain.
38. On 12.11.2014, DD entry was lodged by Special Staff, West District at PS Hari Nagar by which it was informed that one accused namely Arvind had made disclosure SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.18/44 regarding his involvement in the present case. He collected the disclosure statement of accused Arvind and came to know that accused Yatin, Rajesh and Tejvir were also involved in the incident along with accused Arvind. He further came to know that accused Yatin and Tejvir were working with Delhi police and were posted at South West District. He went to the barracks of PS Dwarka where accused Yatin used to stay and after enquiry, he came to know that he was residing at a flat in front of Shemrock Public School, Amrahi village, Delhi. He went there where accused Yatin was found present at his house. He was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B. On his personal search, one mobile phone of Idea company was recovered. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-19/B. Accused Yatin was produced before Ld. MM and sent to JC.
39. On 16.11.2014, after taking permission from the court, he formally arrested accused Arvind Kumar @ Popat at Tihar Jail vide arrest memo Ex. PW-19/C and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-19/D.
40. On 20.11.2014, he came to know about the posting and residence of accused Rajesh Kumar. He went to police colony, Dwarka Sector 16 B from where accused Rajesh Kumar was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-19/E and Ex. PW-19/F. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-19/G. He got conducted the TIP of accused Arvind on 21.11.2014 and TIP of accused Rajesh on 25.11.2014. He obtained one day PC remand of SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.19/44 accused Arvind and recorded his supplementary disclosure statement as Ex. PW-19/H. He further deposed that he had moved applications for obtaining CDRs of relevant mobile numbers. Later on, investigation was transferred from him.
41. PW-20 Ct. Mahender Singh is the witness to the formal arrest of accused Tejvir in Court on 19.08.2015 by SI Rajesh Kumar vide arrest memo Ex. PW-20/A and recording of his disclosure statement Ex. PW-20/B.
42. PW-21 HC Raj Kumar is a witness to the pointing to the place of incident by accused Tejvir on 28.08.2015 vide memo Ex. PW-1/C.
43. PW-22 HC Naushad Ali had joined the investigation with IO/SI Rajesh on 29.08.2015 when accused Tejvir who was in police custody led them to Najafgarh drain in search of mobile phone but nothing could be recovered.
44. PW-23 Amit is a taxi driver who stated that he does not know anything about this case. On cross-examination by Ld. Additional PP for the State, he denied that accused Tejvir was his friend and that he had got issued mobile number 8826082156 and given the same for use to accused Tejvir. He stated that he was not aware how his ID was used for obtaining the said mobile number.
45. PW-24 Retired SI Bijender Singh is a witness from District line, South West District. He produced the record pertaining to Cst. Yatin and Cst. Rajesh which is Mark 24-A. He deposed tht as per reoard const. Rajesh joined for DCP Reserve duty at District Line on 01.10.2013 vide DD no. 18 and Cst. Yatin joined DCP Reserve at District SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.20/44 Line on 30.11.2013 vide DD no.36. As per record from 1.12.2013 to 15.12.2013 they were in the shift of 7 AM to 7 PM. Both of them were on duty on 11.12.2013 but were absent on 12.12.2013 which was recorded vide DD no.5. He handed over attested copies of all relevant documents to SI Manoj Kumar.
46.PW-25 SI Rajesh deposed that on 19.8.2015, an application of surrender of accused Tejveer was moved before the concerned court and was marked to him by SHO for further investigation. Main chargesheet had already been filed by SI Manoj and was pending trial. He arrested accused Tejvir in court after taking permission from the court vide arrest memo Ex. PW-20/A and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-20/B. Accused Tejvir was kept in muffled face and his TIP was got conducted on 26.08.2015 wherein witness Rishabh Dev duly identified them but witness Raju could not identify him. On 28.08.2015, he obtained one day PC remand of accused Tejvir during PC remand, pointing out memo(Ex. PW-1/C) of the place of incident was made at the instance of accused Tejvir. They tried to search the mobile phone used by accused Tejvir but in vain. After completion of investigation, he filed the supplementary chargesheet qua accused Tejvir.
47. PW-26 SI Bijender Singh is a witness from PCR west Zone. He deposed that on 24.12.2014, he had handed over copies of details of Ct. Tejvir regarding his absence from duty recorded vide DD No. 46 dated 18.11.2014 and copy SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.21/44 of DD No. 13 dated 08.07.2014 regarding his absence from duty to SI Manoj Kumar on his written request. The copies of relevant documents are Mark A to Mark C.
48. PW-27 Inspector Manoj Kumar is the second IO of the case to whom the investigation was marked on 09.12.2014. He deposed that after receiving the file, he came to know that accused Arvind, Rajesh and Yatin were already arrested by the previous IO and one accused namely Tejvir was absconding. He analysed the CDR of mobile number of complainant i.e. 9811253908, accused Yatin 9540191200 and mobile number of accused Rajesh i.e. 8587097082 and also mobile number of accused Arvind i.e. 9891113963. The absconding accused Tejvir was using mobile number 8826082156 and few other numbers. After analysing the CDRs and cell ID locations of above said mobile numbers, he found that cell ID location and CDRs of mobile numbers were corroborating the version of complainant. He found that a call was made to the employer of complainant namely Rishabh Dev by using mobile phone of complainant on mobile number i.e. 9811600674. He served notice u/s 91 CrPC on respective service providers and obtained certified copy of CDRs, customer application forms and cell ID location of aforesaid mobile numbers and placed the same with chargesheet.
49. He further made investigation regarding posting of accused Tejvir, Rajesh and Yatin in Delhi Police and came to know that accused Rajesh and Tejvir did not join their SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.22/44 duty after intervening night of the incident and mobile numbers which they were using at the time of commission of offence were also found mentioned in official record as their contact numbers. He also found that the mobile number which was used by accused Yatin was subscribed in the name of accused Rajesh. He made efforts to arrest absconding accused Tejvir and also got issued NBWs as well as process u/s 82 CrPC against him. During course of investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses, placed relevant documents with chargesheet and it was established during course of investigation that all four accused persons were involved in commission of offence. On the completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the court.
50. In addition to the above evidence, accused Tejvir admitted his TIP proceedings conducted by Ms. Swati Singh, the then Ld.MM u/s 294 CrPC and accordingly, the witness was dropped by Ld. Additional PP for the State.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
51. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to the accused persons and their statements were recorded U/s. 313 Cr.PC. on 30.07.2024. In explanation to the incriminating evidence, the accused persons refuted all the evidence recorded against them stating that the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons stated that they SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.23/44 were wrongly arrested in this case, their signatures were taken on blank papers and the witnesses were shown their photographs and asked to identify them during TIP proceedings to falsely implicate them in this case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
52. Accused persons did not examine any witness in support of their defence.
53. Final arguments have been heard and record carefully perused.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTIONS:
54. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on the judicial file by leading cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubts. The case of the prosecution has to fall or stand on its own legs and it cannot derive the benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is not for the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution and the onus to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts never shifts and always remains on the prosecution. Further, benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always goes to the accused and it entitles the accused to acquittal.
55. In the present case, accused persons are charged for offences u/s 120B IPC, 364A r/w 120B IPC and 506 r/w 120B IPC.
56. Section 120B IPC provides punishment for the offence SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.24/44 of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence. The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120A IPC as per which 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, such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. Agreement per se is not a punishable offence but it becomes punishable as a substantive offence when besides the agreement, some act is done in pursuance thereof.
57. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence as conspiracies are hatched in secrecy.
Circumstances in a case when taken on their face value should indicate meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there relied upon by the prosecution cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused persons for the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. Circumstances relied upon for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time than the actual commission of offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
58. Section 364A IPC provides punishment for the offence of SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.25/44 kidnapping or abducting any person for ransom. The offence of abduction is defined in Section 362 IPC which provides that whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place is set to abduct that person.
59. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. The offence of criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 IPC as threatening another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or that of another person in whom he is interested.
60. Now, let us apply the above discussed definitions of the offences with which accused persons have been charged on the facts of the present case.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
PERSONS:
61. It is submitted on behalf of the accused persons that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record the offences charged against them beyond any reasonable doubt. No evidence has been brought on record to establish any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons pursuant to which the alleged victim Raju was kidnapped by them for ransom.
62. It is submitted that as per the material on record, the entire case of the prosecution in itself is doubtful. Present FIR was registered on 11.11.2014 on the basis of a complaint made by Raju on 11.11.2014 which is proved as Ex. PW- 1/A. However, the complaint Ex. PW-1/A mentions that SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.26/44 the incident had occurred in the intervening night of 16- 17.12.2013 i.e. almost one year prior to filing of the complaint. There is no explanation on record regarding this delay. Even if it is considered that at the time of incident, the accused persons had threatened the complainant because of which he did not lodge any immediate complaint, still, such a long delay of almost one year remains unexplained and it is also not explained on record as to why suddenly after passing of one year, the complaint was lodged. Admittedly, at the time, when victim Raju was abducted from his office, there were 15- 20 other employees in the office at that time, however, not even a single employee made any call at 100 number regarding the incident. This again creates a doubt on the entire story of the prosecution. None of these employees has also been made a witness in the present case to substantiate the incident for the reasons best known to the IO himself.
63. It is submitted that interestingly, after filing of the complaint Ex. PW-1/A, a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 21.11.2014 wherein it was recorded that the actual date of incident was 12.12.2013. Again, there is no explanation as to why and under what circumstances, it dawned upon the complainant that incident had actually occurred on 12.12.2013 and not in the intervening night of 16-17.12.2013. Interestingly, when complainant Raju stepped into the witness box as PW-1, he again deposed that the incident had occurred in the SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.27/44 intervening night of 16-17.12.2013. In his cross- examination, when he was suggested that the incident had actually occurred on 12.12.2013, he stated that he was not sure about the same and when confronted with his supplementary statement dated 21.11.2014, he submitted that he does not remember any such statement given to the police. Even, PW-2 Rishabh Dev Beri from whom the ransom amount was allegedly taken could not tell the date of incident and when suggested that the incident took place on 12.12.2013, he stated that it might be correct. When PW-2 was recalled after arrest of accused Tejvir, he deposed that the incident had occurred in the night of 10.12.2013 when he was sleeping at his home. Again, on suggestion by Ld. Additional PP for the State, he admitted that the incident had taken place on 12.12.2013. Thus, even the date of incident is not duly proved on record by the prosecution.
64. It is further submitted that the identity of the accused persons has also not been established on record. Accused Yatin and Rajesh have not been identified by either PW-1 or PW-2 in TIP proceedings or during their testimonies before the Court. Accused Arvind was identified during the TIP proceedings by PW-2 Rishab Dev Beri but the victim himself failed to identify him as one of the kidnapper. During his testimony before the court, PW-2 Rishab Dev Beri though identified accused Arvind and stated that he was the person whom he had identified in TIP proceeding but he was not sure about the role of SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.28/44 accused Arvind in the incident. As regards accused Tejvir, he was neither identified during TIP proceedings nor identified by victim Raju/PW-1 during his testimony before the Court. However, PW-2 identified him during his testimony in the Court despite the fact that he had failed to identify him during the TIP proceedings. Accordingly, considering the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2, the identification of the accused persons as the kidnappers is highly doubtful.
65.In addition to this, Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the connection of the accused persons with the mobile numbers, CDRs of which have been placed on record and relied upon by the IO to establish the location of the accused persons on the date of incident. None of these mobile phone are directly connected to the any of the accused persons as per the CAFs nor these mobile numbers are mentioned in their office record as the mobile numbers of the accused persons. Moreover, in the present case when the date and time of the incident itself is doubtful, CDRs and Cell ID location cannot be made the sole basis of conviction. Also, when the alleged mobile numbers have not been connected with any of the accused persons, they cannot even be considered as an evidence to establish the alleged criminal conspiracy between the accused persons.
66.It is further submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are completely contradictory to each other. No recoveries have been affected at the instance of either of the accused persons. Even the amount paid as SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.29/44 ransom is doubtful as there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 as regards the question of ransom amount. As per the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 had paid ransom amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- whereas as per the deposition of PW-2, he had handed over initially a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and later on another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In these circumstances, considering the evidence that has come on record, the entire case of the prosecution is clouded with doubt, the benefit of which has to be given to the accused persons. Accordingly, it is prayed that all the accused persons be acquitted in the present case.
ARGUMENTS BY LD. ADDITIONAL PP FOR THE STATE:
67. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Additional PP for the State that the prosecution has duly proved on record the offences charged against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. Both the victim Raju/PW-1 and his employer Rishab Dev Beri/PW-2 have duly supported the case of the prosecution and deposed about the entire incident as it had occurred. There are no contradiction in the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 regarding the major details of the incident. Minor contradictions here and there are bound to occur as human memory is not infallible. As regards the contradictions regarding the amount of ransom paid by PW-2, PW-1 has clearly stated that ransom amount was not handed over in his presence and at the time of handing over the ransom amount, he was present incident SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.30/44 the vehicle while dealing was done outside the vehicle. Accordingly, he was not sure about what amount was paid by PW-2 to the kidnappers and thus there is no real contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 & PW-2 on this aspect.
68.It is further submitted that delay in registration of FIR is duly explained on record from the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 who had specifically deposed that they were threatened against making any complaint regarding the incident. There is also no confusion regarding the date of the incident which is 12.12.2013 as per the statement of victim recorded during investigation and as per the evidence that has been collected during investigation. Both PW-1 & PW-2 had simply shown their inability to correctly recollect the date of the incident due to lapse of time and this inability is not sufficient to create a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
69. As regard the identification of the accused persons, accused Arvind and Tejvir have been correctly identified by PW-2 as the kidnappers. PW-2 has also described the role of accused Tejvir stating that he was the tallest police official with whom negotiations regarding the ransom amount had taken place. Even PW-1 in his deposition has categorically stated that one of the kidnapper was very tall. He could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time but the connection of the accused persons and their active role in the incident is clearly established on record through their official record of absence from duty and their SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.31/44 CDRs and Cell location charts which are duly proved on record. The accused persons have failed to explain their presence at various spots in consonance with the deposition of complaint/PW-1. Accordingly, mere non- identification of accused Yatin and Rajesh by either PW1 or PW-2 is also not sufficient to doubt their role in the reported incident.
70. It is submitted that there is no merit in the arguments of Ld. Defence counsel that no PCR call was made on the night of the incident by any of the employees present in the office. When the accused persons had come to the office dressed in police uniform and introduced themselves as police officials, there was no reason to doubt their identity as police officials. Thus, no call was made at 100 number to inform about their conduct to the police as they themselves were police officials.
71. It is further submitted that the connection of the accused persons with the mobile numbers is also duly established on record and IO has categorically deposed that he has found the accused persons using the said mobile numbers. It is submitted that considering the overall evidence that has been brought on record, the offences charged against the accused persons have been duly proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt and thus, all the accused persons are liable for conviction.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS, EVIDENCE & LAW:
72. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.32/44 submissions made by the prosecution as well as defence and have carefully perused the entire record. After going through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record offences charged against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. The reasons for my findings in this regard are discussed here in under :-
Delay in reporting the matter to the police ;
73. As per the case of the prosecution, the reported incident took place in the month of December, 2013 however, the present FIR was registered only on 11.11.2014 on the basis of complaint made by victim Raju dated 11.11.2014. In the complaint Ex. PW1/A, complainant/victim Raju had alleged that no complaint was made after the incident as he and his employer Rishab Dev were threatened by the accused persons not to disclose the incident to anyone. However, when Rishab Dev came to know that there was a gang operating in Delhi which was committing similar offences, the matter was reported to the police by him on the asking of Rishab Dev as he was out of Delhi. However, as per the testimony of PW-2 Rishab Dev Beri, he had not lodged the complaint immediately after the incident but he did not explain the reason for not loading the complaint. He further deposed that between 8-15, November 20014 while he was at Goa, he had received a call on his mobile from a landline number and the person calling asked him about the incident and questioned him about not lodging SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.33/44 the complaint at that time and he replied that since the culprits were cops themselves, he had no trust on the police and thus did not lodge any complaint. Later, he had received another call of the said person to know about the said incident. In the meanwhile, he came to know that FIR was already registered on the complaint of victim Raju. PW-2 nowhere stated that he had come to know about any gang operating in this manner or had asked PW-1 to get the FIR registered. PW-2 even did not state that he was scared because of the threatenings given by the accused persons and had thus, not lodged the complaint immediately. All these contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 regarding the explanation of delay in registration of FIR are sufficient to hold that delay has not been reasonably explained. There is a delay of about 11 months in registration of FIR which has remained unexplained. This delay is sufficient to cloud the entire case of the prosecution with doubt and the benefit of this doubt has to be given to the accused persons.
Date of incident :-
74. As per the original complaint Ex. PW1/A, the incident had taken place in the intervening night of 16-17.12.2013. PW- 1 Raju/complainant and victim also deposed that the incident had taken place in the intervening night of 16- 17.12.2013. However, during investigation a supplementary statement of complaint Raju was recorded by the IO on 21.11.2014 i.e. after about 10 days of the SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.34/44 registration of FIR wherein he had stated that he had discussed the matter with his employer Rishab Dev Beri and after remembering the entire incident, they came to a conclusion that the incident had occurred in the night of 12.12.2013 and not in the intervening night of 16- 17.12.2013. Interestingly, a similar supplementary statement of PW Rishab Dev Beri was also recorded on 21.11.2014 regarding the date of incident. As per the initial statement of the witness Rishab Dev Beri recorded on 11.11.2014, the date of incident was the intervening night of 16-17.12.2013 only. However, when these two witnesses that are victim Raju and witness Rishab Dev Beri entered into the witness box as PW-1 & PW-2 respectively, they failed to prove the fact that the incident had actually occurred in the night of 12.12.2013. While PW-1 categorically deposed that the incident had occurred in the intervening night of 16-17.12.2013 and when contradicated with his supplementary statement dated 21.11.2014 regarding the date of incident by Ld. Additional PP for State, he denied having made any such statement to the police. PW-2, on the other hand, did not depose about any date of incident and simply stated that he cannot recollect the date of incident because of lapse of time. He could not admit or deny the date of incident as 12.12.2013 when specifically suggested by Ld. Addl. PP for State. Admittedly, there was no immediate PCR call regarding the incident nor the victim was taken for medical examination immediately after the incident. This is despite SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.35/44 the fact that PW-2 had categorically deposed that Raju had been beaten by the culprits and was having injuries and scars at the time of his release. Thus, there is no corroboratory evidence on record to establish the date of incident. From the overall evidence that has come on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the exact date of incident on record beyond any reasonable doubt. Again, the benefit of this doubt created on the date of incident has to be given to the accused persons.
Identification of accused persons :-
75. The prosecution has examined two witnesses to the reported incident who could have identified the accused persons as the culprits that are complainant/victim Raju/ PW-1 and his employer Rishab Dev Beri/PW-2. Although, as per the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2, there were several other employees in the office at the time of occurrence of the incident of kidnapping of PW-1, however, none of these employees have been made a witness in the present case for the reasons best known to the IO. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2. PW-1 Raju completely failed to identity any of the accused persons as the culprits. He was cross-
examined on behalf of the State regarding the identify of the accused persons and specifically suggested that the accused persons were the kidnappers but he stated that he was unable to identify them due to lapse of time. During SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.36/44 investigation, TIPs of accused Yatin (dated 18.11.2014), accused Arvind (dated 21.11.2014), accused Rajesh (dated 25.11.2014) and accused Tejvir (dated 26.08.2015) were also conducted but victim Raju had failed to identify them even during the TIP proceedings. Accordingly, the victim Raju/PW-1 has not identified any of the accused persons as the culprits who had kidnapped him and demanded ransom for his release at the time of incident.
76.As regards PW-2, he failed to identify accused Yatin and Rajesh as the culprits. Although, he identified accused Arvind but stated that he was the person who was identified by him during the TIP proceedings but he was not sure about the role and identity of the said accused. He even stated that he was not sure about the role of accused Arvind on the date of TIP as well. PW-2 also identified accused Tejvir and stated that he was the tallest police official with whom negotiations of ransom amount had taken place. During investigation, PW-2 had also participated in the TIP proceedings of accused Yatin (dated 18.11.2014), accused Arvind (dated 21.11.2014), accused Rajesh Kumar (dated 25.11.2014) and accused Tejvir (dated 26.08.2015). During the TIP proceedings, PW-2 wrongly identified some other person as accused Yatin, duly identified accused Arvind, failed to identify accused Rajesh Kumar stating that he was unable to recollect his face and had correctly identified accused Tejvir. However, during his cross-examination, PW-2 clearly admitted that he had correctly identified accused Tejvir during the TIP SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.37/44 proceedings as his photographs were shown to him by the police officials before going to Tihar Jail after August, 2015.
77. Thus, perusal of the entire evidence reveals that PW-1 has failed to identify any accused persons either in the TIP proceedings or before the Court. Accused Yatin Yadav and Rajesh Kumar are also not identified by PW-2 either in the TIP proceedings or before the Court. As regards accused Arvind, though he was identified by PW-2 in the TIP proceedings as well as before Court but PW 2 categorically stated that he was not sure about his involvement and role in the reported incident either on the date of TIP or at the time of his evidence in Court. As regards accused Tejvir, PW-2 has categorically stated that his photographs were shown to him by police officials in August, 2015 i.e. after his arrest and before the TIP proceedings because of which, he had identified accused Tejvir in the TIP proceedings. These statements of the PW-2 regarding identification of accused persons make him an unreliable witness on this aspect. Considering this evidence regarding identification of the accused persons, I find it extremely difficult to rely upon the sole testimony of PW-2 regarding identification of accused Tejvir until and unless it is corroborated by any independent witness or other evidence. However there is no such corroboratory evidence produced on record. Thus, from the overall evidence on record, it can safely be held that the identification of the accused persons as culprits has not SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.38/44 been duly established on record beyond any reasonable doubt.
Evidence regarding conspiracy and presence of accused persons at the time and place of reported incident :-
78. The prosecution has tried to establish criminal conspiracy between the accused persons on the basis of their phone records. Various nodal officers have been examined during evidence and CDRs of several mobile numbers have been placed and proved on record. At this stage, it would be appropriate to go through the CAFs of these mobile numbers which has been proved on record.
Sl. Mobile Nos Witness Registered Additional
No. Subscriber Evidence
1. 9868861540 PW-8 Satish PW-12 Satish
Kumar Kuamr deposed
that this number
was used by his
wife i.e. mother
of accused
Tejvir
2. 9013688271 PW-8 Neelam
Devi
3. 8826082156 PW-9 Amit PW-23 Amit
deposed that he
had never got
this mobile
number issued
and he is not
aware as to how
the said number
was issued in
his name nor he
knows accused
SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.39/44
Tejvir.
PW-27 IO/Insp.
Manoj Kumar
deposed that
this mobile
number belongs
to accused
Tejvir.
4. 9958691091 PW-9 Mukesh
Kumar
5. 9540191200 PW-10 Rajesh PW-27 IO Ins.
Kumar Manoj Kumar
deposed that
this number
belongs to
accused Yatin
Yadav.
6. 9891113963 PW-10 Ganesh PW-14 Ganesh
Singh Singh deposed
that he had got
one mobile
number issued
in the name of
his friend
accused Arvind
in the year 2013
but he could not
recollect if that
number was
9891113963.
PW-27 IO/Insp.
Manoj Kumar
deposed that
this mobile
number belongs
to accused
Arvind.
7. 9811253908 PW-11 Amit PW-27 IO/Insp.
Sharma Manoj Kumar
SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.40/44
deposed that
this mobile
number belongs
to complainant
Raju.
8. 8587097082 PW-11 Accused PW-27 IO/Insp.
Rajesh Manoj Kumar
Kumar deposed that
this mobile
number belongs
to accused
Rajesh.
79. Considering the above evience regarding the mobile numbers examined by the Prosecution, it is clearly established on record that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the connection of any of these mobile numbers with or their use by any of the accused persons. Except for the deposition of IO/PW-27 who is alleging that these numbers were used by different accused persons, there is nothing to establish on record the connection of these mobile numbers either to any of the accused persons or even to the complainant as there is no deposition of the complainant regarding his own mobile number nor PW-2 has deposed about the mobile number which was being used by victim Raju at the time of incident. Although during his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, PW-1 admitted that on the date of incident he was using the mobile 9811253908 but there is no evidence to establish any connection between the complainant and the SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.41/44 said mobile number. Only one mobile number i.e. 8587097082 has been found to be registered in the name of accused Rajesh Kumar. Except for this number, the connection of other mobile numbers has not been established with any of the accused persons. When the prosecution has failed to duly establish on record the connection between the accused persons and the fact that the mobile numbers detailed above were being used by the accused persons on the date of incident, it would be a futile exercise to discuss the CDRs of these mobile numbers as they cannot be used for establishing any kind of conspiracy between the accused persons. For the same reasons, the cell ID charts of these mobile numbers cannot be relied upon to establish the location of the accused persons at the alleged night of incident to corroborate the same. This is moreso as even the date of incident is not duly established on record.
80. It is also noteworthy that as per the documents pertaining to the duty charts of the accused persons which are Mark PW 24 A (colly), the mobile number of accused persons as per record are Accused Rajesh 8587097082 and 9999098315 Accused Yatin 9540191200, 9873085751, 9467272072 and 9466784566
81. The IO did not make any effort to collect the record SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.42/44 regarding mobile numbers of the accused persons namely Arvind and Tejvir as per office record. Also no investigation has been made regarding the above- mentioned mobile numbers used by accused Rajesh and Yatin as per their official records except for the two numbers mentioned in the table earlier. Thus, the CAFs, CDRs and Call ID Details produced on record cannot be used against the accused persons.
82. It is also interesting to note that as per the testimony of the PW-1, the battery of his mobile phone had discharged in the night of the incident and one of the culprits inserted his SIM card in his own mobile phone and made a call to Rishab Dev Beri. However, there is no investigation in this regard regarding the IMEI of the mobile number which was used for making call to Rishabh Dev Beri. Moreover, not even a single mobile phone has been recovered or seized by the IO during investigation to establish their possession and use by any of the accused persons. In these circumstances, the evidence collected by IO in the form of CDRs, CAFs and Call ID charts of the mobile numbers is highly insufficient to make out a case of conviction against any of the accused persons. This is moreso as the date of incident in itself is not duly proved on record.
CONCLUSION:
83. Considering the overall evidence produced on record and the reasons and discussions hereinabove, I have no SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.43/44 hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses are unreliable and untrustworthy for the reasons discussed above. The evidence is insufficient and filled with unexplained contradictions. The date of incident itself is doubtful and not duly proved on record. Identity of the accused persons as culprits is not duly established on record. Thus, all the accused persons are acquitted for the offences as charged against them giving them the benefit of doubt.
84. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHIVALIAnnounced in the open court SHIVALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Dated 27.03.2025 2025.03.27
15:57:34 +0530
(SHIVALI SHARMA)
ASJ-03/WEST/THC/DELHI
27.03.2025
SC No. 56141-2016 State Vs. Yatin Yadav & Ors.
FIR No. 1285-2014 Page no.44/44