Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Kehar Singh on 13 August, 2025
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT (CBI-04),
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No. 121/2019 ( CNR No. DLCT11-000538-2019)
RC No. 2016-A-0011
CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s 120B IPC r/w 7,11,12 r/w Section 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
Vs.
1.KEHAR SINGH S/o Desh Raj Singh R/o D-703, Swami Dayanand Appt. Sector-6, Plot No.-5, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Occupation: The Then Inspector (Investigation), P.S Janakpuri, New Delhi (PIS No.16960019) (PUBLIC SERVANT)
2. ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH @ A.K. SINGH S/o Ratneshwar Sahai R/o (Present) House No. 246, Block B, Sector-50, Noida (Permanent) 6-6, RSC-12, SVP Nagar, Mahada, Andheri West, Mumbai-53 Occupation: DGM, The Handicrafts & Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd. Noida Complex, A-2, Sec.-2, Udyog Marg, Noida-201301.
Date of Institution 30.08.2017
Date of Start of Arguments 08.01.2025
Date of Conclusion of 14.07.2025
Arguments
Date of Judgment 13.08.2025
1 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
INDEX
Sl. Title Pages
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF CASE 3-4
(i) Investigation 4-9
II. CHARGE 10
III. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE (P.E) 10
(i) Formal Witnesses 10-16
(ii) Material Witnesses 16-32
IV. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED (S.A) 32-34
V. DEFENCE EVIDENCE (D.E) 34-35
VI ARGUMENTS OF CBI 35-38
VII. ARGUMENTS OF A-1 38-44
VIII ARGUMENTS OF A-2 44-45
IX REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS OF CBI 45-46
X VALIDITY OF PROSECUTION SANCTION 46-54
XI. DEMAND & ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE 54-57
(i) First Incident of Bribe Dated 07.02.2016 57-64
(ii) Intercepted Conversation 64-77
(iii) Demand & Trap Dated 01.05.2016 77-83
(iv) Intercepted Calls Leading to Trap 83-90
(v) Identification of Voices 90-100
(vi) Value of CFSL Report 100-110
XII. ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE 110-113
(i) Arrival of A-2 with Pink Bag 113-123
(ii) Apprehension of A-2 & Recovery 123-130
XIII. CONCLUSION 130-131
2 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
JUDGMENT-
(I) Factual Matrix of the Case
1. The present RC/Case was registered under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7,12 and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (I) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act") on 01.05.2016 on the basis of source information against Kehar Singh, Inspector (Investigation), P.S Janakpuri ( hereinafter referred in short as "A-1") and Ashutosh Kumar Singh @ A.K. Singh, DGM, HHEC, India Ltd, Noida ( hereinafter referred in short as "A-2").
2. It is alleged in the FIR that A-1 who was posted as Inspector (Investigation), P.S Janakpuri, was demanding bribe from Ashutosh Kumar Singh (A-2) for favouring him in a case registered at P.S Janakpuri vide FIR No. 1378/2015 under Section 419/420 and 406 IPC against A-2, lodged on a written complaint of Shri Pratap Singh Yadav (hereinafter referred in short as " Complainant in said FIR"). The said FIR was registered regarding some dispute between A-2 and complainant. The investigation of the said case was entrusted to A-1. It was alleged in the said FIR that A-2 had duped the Complainant of Rs.1 Crore by introducing himself as a senior IAS officer having good contacts with many government officials. A-2 had assured the complainant that their pending arrears with FCI would be released using his contacts. It is further alleged that 3 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 when payments were not released by FCI, the complainant lodged a written complaint with Police Station Janakpuri on which FIR No.1378/2015 was registered against A-2.
2.1 It is further alleged that A-1(being Investigating Officer) started mediating between A-2 and the complainant and demanded illegal gratification from him to settle the case against him. A-1 also advised A-2 that it would be better to get the FIR quashed from Hon'ble Delhi High Court rather filing closure report by him. It is also alleged that A-1 agreed to accept Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) from A-2 as illegal gratification and the same was to be delivered to A-1 on 01.05.2016 at Police Station Janakpuri, Delhi.
(i) Investigation
3. In pursuance to the said source information, a trap was laid on 01.05.2016 by CBI, ACB, New Delhi and during the trap proceedings, the accused persons namely Kehar Singh, Inspector (A-1) and Ashutosh Kumar Singh @ A.K. Singh (A-2) were caught when the bribe transaction of Rs.3,00,000/- took place between them. Both the accused persons were arrested and taken into police custody on 02.05.2016.
4. During investigation, it was found that A-1 had also accepted bribe of Rs.3 lacs from A-2 on 07.02.2016 through one of his friend namely Vijay Singh @ Rinku to facilitate him in the case pending investigation. The investigation revealed that one CBI team 4 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 was constituted on 01.05.2016 for laying a trap led by Inspector Pramod Kumar comprising of independent witnesses namely Bhupender Dabas, LDC/JSA, Land Sales, Accounts-II, Vikas Sadan, DDA, New Delhi, S.P. Singh, Branch Manager, SBI, Karawal Nagar, Delhi alongwith other CBI officials . During the pre-trap proceedings, Inspector Pramod Kumar briefed the team members about the purpose assembly and contents of FIR dated 01.05.2016. Independent witness Bhupender Dabas was directed to act as shadow witness. All the formalities of pre-trap proceedings were concluded at 5:30 p.m and a pre-trap memo was prepared.
4.1 Thereafter, all the team members left the CBI office and reached near Mata Chanan Devi Hospital at about 6:45 p.m in two official vehicles. They waited there till 8:30 p.m. At about 9:30 p.m, the CBI team reached near Janakpuri Police Station. The team members were deployed around Police Station in clandestine manner. As per the source information, it was revealed that A-2 would come towards P.S Janakpuri in vehicle bearing No. UP 16 AH 0888 (Montero). One middle aged person (later identified as A-
2) wearing blue pant and sky-blue shirt came out of the said vehicle at about 9:40 p.m and was carrying a pink colour bag. He entered the police station while the CBI team members waited outside. After some time, A-2 was seen coming out from the police station, but he was not having pink colour bag in his hand. The TLO alerted all the team members and challenged A-2 that he had 5 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 delivered bribe amount to A-1. A-2 disclosed that he had met A-1 in his office room at ground floor and handed over the said pink colour bag containing Rs.3 lacs for settlement of his case. Thereafter, A-2 took them to the office of A-1 (Kehar Singh).
4.2 TLO Pramod Kumar alongwith independent witnesses and team members entered the room of A-1 and challenged A-1 that he had accepted bribe amount from A-2, but A-1 did not utter a word and showed his ignorance about delivery of bribe amount. On instruction of TLO, rest room of A-1 was searched in the presence of both the independent witnesses and said pink colour bag having printing as "new U about you", was found lying under a pillow kept on the bed in the rest room. The said bag was recovered by independent witness Bhupender Dabas. A-2 also identified the said bag which he had delivered to A-1 containing Rs.3 lacs. Thereafter, the GC notes were found in the bag and were in the denomination of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500. These GC notes were counted by both the independent witnesses. The details of the bribe amount were mentioned in recovery memo which was signed by the team members. The amount of Rs.3 lacs was wrapped with white colour cloth and sealed with the seal of CBI.
4.3 The investigation revealed that A-1 (Inspector Kehar Singh) and A-2 ( Ashutosh Kumar Singh @ A.K. Singh) were then arrested on 02.05.2016 vide separate arrest-cum-personal search memos. Rough site plan was prepared which was signed by all the team 6 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 members. The recovery proceedings got concluded at around 6:00 a.m on 02.05.2016.
5. During the course of investigation, it transpired that SU, CBI, New Delhi with permission of Secretary (Home), Govt of India, recorded telephonic conversation held between A-1 and A-2. The said recorded telephonic conversations alongwith orders of Secretary (Home), permitting interception/monitoring of mobile phone number 9819473029 (Order No.14/3/97-CBI dated 04.02.2016) and (Order No.14/397-CBI dated 31.03.2016) 8750871193 (Order No.14/3/97-CBI dated 17.03.2016) and 9969077000 ( Order No. 14/3/97 CBI dated 17.03.2016) was seized from the Special Unit of CBI,Delhi.
5.1 During the investigation, out of the total recorded calls, 36 calls were found relevant which have been relied upon in the present case.
6. The investigation further revealed that intercepted mobile no. 9819473029 is in the name of Ashutosh Kumar Singh @ A.K. Singh (A-2), Mobile No. 8750871193 used by Kehar Singh (A-1) is in the name of Mahavir, Assistant Commissioner of Police, South- West District, Delhi, in the official capacity. The SIM of the said mobile phone was issued to A-1 for official use. The said SIM was recovered and seized from his possession. During investigation, the CDR/ CAF of mobile Nos.9819473029, 8750871193, 9650270009, 7 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 9999475157, 9892697949 and 9810224017 were collected alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which also corroborate the recorded conversations.
6.1 The investigation through the recorded conversation established that A-2 told Vijay Singh @ Rinku to arrange Rs.3 lacs and give it to A-1. He also told Vijay Singh @ Rinku that A-1 was demanding Rs.5 lacs, but asked him to give Rs.3 lacs to A-1 and tell him (A-1) rest will be adjusted later on. The said Vijay Singh @ Rinku delivered Rs.3 lacs to A-1 on 07.02.2016 alongwith his friend namely Nande Singh. A-2 also received a notice from A-1 for appearance in the investigation through Vijay Singh @ Rinku. During investigation, specimen voice samples of Vijay Singh @ Rinku and Nande Singh were taken. They identified their conversation between them and Ashutosh Kumar Singh @ A.K. Singh. A voice-cum-identification alongwith transcription was also prepared. Specimen voice sample of A-1 (S-2), A-2 (S-1), witnesses Pratap Singh Yadav (S-3), Vijay Singh @ Rinku (S-4) and Saryu Prasad Yadav (S-5) were taken which were sent to CFSL for examination alongwith recorded conversation in 36 calls.
7. The investigation thus, established that during investigation of FIR No. 1378 dated 05.11.2015, A-1 ( Inspector Kehar Singh) mediated for settlement between A-2 ( Ashutosh Kumar Singh @ A.K. Singh) and complainant Sh. Pratap Singh Yadav instead of investigating the matter. A-1 suggested A-2 to 8 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 settle the matter as his case was weak. He also suggested A-2 to get the FIR quashed through Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The investigation also established that A-1 insisted A-2 to settle the matter in his presence only as new person will harass him with new ways. A-1 also got signed agreement dated 24.04.2016 from both the parties in his presence at P.S Janakpuri. He also got an application from complainant alongwith copy of agreement dated 24.04.2016 requesting stay of investigation due to settlement. A-1 did not conduct any investigation after 25.11.2015 as is reflected from the case diaries.
7.1 The investigation further established that A-2 and A-1 entered into criminal conspiracy with object to commit offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. In pursuance of conspiracy, A- 2 paid Rs.3 lacs to A-1 on 07.02.2016 and further paid Rs.3 lacs to him on 01.05.2016 as illegal gratification which were accepted by A-1 in order to favor him in the investigation of FIR No.1378/2015. The investigation also establishes that A-1 and A-2 have committed offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 7,11,12 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act. A-2 also committed substantive offence punishable under Section 12 of PC Act. The Competent Authority has given sanction for prosecution qua A-1.
9 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
(II) CHARGE
8. The Ld. Predecessor took cognizance of the offence on 02.11.2017 and accused were, accordingly, summoned. After supplying the copies and hearing the arguments on charge, charge was framed against A-1 Kehar Singh on 26.02.2020 for the offence punishable U/s 7, 11 and 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charge was also framed against A-2 Ashutosh Kumar Singh on 07.03.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 12 and Section 11 r/w section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(III) Prosecution Evidence
9. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 28 witnesses following which statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which only A-2 chose to lead evidence in defence. Accused ( A-2) has examined one witness in his defence.
(i) Formal Witnesses
10. PW-1 Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar, LDC, Education Department is the independent witness in whose presence specimen voice sample of both the accused were taken . PW-1 identified voice of accused Kehar Singh. PW-1 identified his signature on Specimen Voice Recording Memo Ex. PW1/1 prepared by the I.O. PW-1 also identified his signature on envelope S-1 Ex. PW-1/2 and 10 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 memory card as Ex. PW-1/3 . He also identified voice of Ashutosh Kumar in the said Memory Card.
11. PW-5 Saurabh Aggarwal, Nodal Officer Vodafone Idea Ltd had provided CDR, CAF and issued certificate U/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act of the mobile no. 9999475157, 9999661773 and 9819473029 vide letter dated 02.06.2016 and 20.06.2016. He also the proved the letter in respect of mobile no. 9819473029 as Ex.PW-5/1, CAF of Ashutosh Kumar Ex.PW-5/2, copy of ID proof of Ashustosh Kumar (A-2) alongwith declaration Ex.PW-5/3.
11.1 PW-5 further deposed that he had provided the CDR of the said mobile number w.e.f 04.02.2016 to 01.05.2016. He proved the CDRs as Ex. PW5/4 (colly) and the certificate under Section 65-B as Ex. PW5/5.
11.2 He further proved letter in respect of mobile no. 9999661773 and 9999475157 as Ex. PW5/6. He had provided the CDR of mobile no. 9999475157 w.e.f 01.01.2016 to 01.05.2016 as Ex. PW5/7 alongwith the certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW5/8.
12. PW-6 Sh Pawan Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Limited who provided CAF, CDR, Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Cell ID Chart of Mobile 11 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 No. 8750871193 through Production-cum-Seizure Memo Ex.PW- 6/1.
12.1 PW-6 further deposed that he had provided the original CAF of the said mobile number to the IO issued in the name of Mahavir Singh, the ACP, Delhi Police Headquarters vide Ex. PW-6/2 and CDR of this mobile from 04.02.2016 to 01.05.2016 Ex. PW-6/3. He also proved Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act as PW-6/4. He proved Cell ID Chart of the said mobile number as Ex. PW-6/5 (Colly.)
13. PW-7 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited had provided the original CAF of mobile Nos. 9892697949 and 9810224017, CDRs of mobile Nos.98102 11024, 98926 97949, 99994 75157 and 98102 24017 for the period 01.01.2016 to 01.05.2016 alongwith certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act through letter (D-21) Ex. PW-7/1.
13.1 He further proved the original CAF of mobile phone number 98102 24017 in the name of Saryu Prasad Yadav as Ex. PW-7/2. The CDR for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016 & 01.04.2016 to 01.05.2016 was proved as Ex. PW-7/5 (Colly) and the Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of the CDR of all the four mobile numbers as Ex. PW-7/6.
12 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
13.2 He further proved CAF of mobile No.9892697949 as Ex. PW-7/7(colly), copy of Aadhaar card of customer Sanoj Kumar Mishra as Ex. PW-7/8, the CDR of the said mobile number for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016 & 01.04.2016 to 01.05.2016 as Ex. PW-7/9(colly.).
13.3 He also proved the CAF of mobile no. 9999475157 as Ex. PW-7/10 and the CDR of this mobile number for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016 & 01.04.2016 to 01.05.2016 as Ex. PW- 7/12 (Colly.). He also proved the certified copy of CAF of mobile no.96502 70009 issued in the name of Nand Kishore as Ex. PW- 7/14 and the CDR for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016 & 01.04.2016 to 01.05.2016 as Ex. PW-7/16(Colly), Cell ID chart Ex. PW-7/17.
14. PW-8 Sh. Bipin Bhatt, Assistant Section Officer, Directorate of Printing is the independent witness to the identification of the voices in the recorded calls . He deposed that one person namely Rinku or Tinku too was called there to identify the voices in the recording.
14.1 The said Rinku/Tinku identified the voice of Mr. Kehar Singh as well as the voice of one another person. He identified his signatures on transcript-cum-voice identification memo dated 29.08.17 Ex. PW3/22 and on Transcript Files Ex.PW3/4 to PW3/20.
13 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
15. PW-9 Sh. Govind Singh is also independent witness to voice identification proceedings . He deposed that the voice of one person was recorded in a device which was sealed. The seal was handed over to him. He got exhibited the envelope containing specimen voice S4 as Ex. PW9/A, original cover containing memory card Ex. PW9/B and Voice cum Identification Memo dated 02.08.2016 (D-11) as Ex. PW-9/C (Colly). He further deposed that recorded conversation was also played and at that time 2-3 CBI officers were also present.
16. PW-10 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chawla, Sr. Accounts Officer, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) is also witness the identification of voices of a conversation wherein one person identified his own voice as well as the voices of other person in the conversation. He identified his signatures on transcription cum voice identification memo dated 24.03.2017 (Ex. PW3/21, D-15) and transcription ( Ex. PW3/1 & PW3/2).
17. PW-15 Sh. Anand Dev, Clerk, United India Insurance Company Ltd attended CBI office to witness voice recordings proceedings. He identified his signatures on transcription-cum-voice identification memo dated 09.05.2017 (D13) and proved the same as Ex. PW15/1 (colly). He further proved specimen voice recording memo of S.P. Yadav as Ex.PW-15/2. He deposed that after the proceedings, the memory cards were sealed in an envelope 14 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 and brass seal after use was handed over to him. He identified his signatures and proved documents Ex. PW13/19, Ex. PW13/20, Ex. PW13/21 and memory card Ex. PW13/22. He also identified his voice and voice of S.P. Yadav.
18. PW16 Rajender Kumar Sharma Vigilance Inspector, SDMC, New Delhi visited the CBI office alongwith his colleague Sh. Ashok Kumar where the specimen voice of Sh. Pratap Singh Yadav was recorded in his presence. He proved the specimen voice recording memo as Ex.PW-16/1. He further got exhibited S-3 as Ex. PW16/2.
19. PW-19 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Vigilance Inspector, North MCD, is the second independent witness in whose presence the specimen voice of one Sh. Pratap Singh Yadav was taken .
20. PW-21 Manmeet Singh, official from Punjab and Sind Bank who witnessed the voice identification proceedings carried out by I.O Shitanshu Sharma wherein Pratap Singh Yadav identified his voice as well as one another person. He proved the transcription- cum-voice identification D12 dated 16.05.2017 Ex.PW21/1 and transcript as Ex.PW21/2.
21. PW-22 Harish Bhardwaj is the official from Directorate of Printing in whose presence also voice identification proceedings were carried out by I.O Inspector Shistanshu Sharma.
15 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
Nande Singh identified his voice and that of A-2. He also proved the transcription-cum-voice identification memo dated 20.1.2017 D- 16 as Ex.PW22/1 and transcription Ex. PW22/2.
(ii) Material Witnesses
22. PW-2 Sh. Bhupender Dabas, UDC, EO-II, TOEM, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi is the independent/shadow witness of the trap. He deposed that on receiving a telephonic call from CBI HQ on 29.04.2016 as per directions of his office he attended the CBI Office on 30.04.2016 but nothing happened on that day. He was directed to attend the CBI office on the next day. On 01.05.2016, he again reported at CBI office and met Inspector Pramod Kumar. He was also introduced to one Mr. S. P. Singh, another witness from SBI. He was informed about one case has been registered against accused persons. He was further told that the case pertains to taking bribe by Kehar Singh (Inspector) and they had to witness the said transaction of bribe.
22.1 He further deposed that they left CBI office and reached at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri at around 5.45 PM. They kept on waiting there till around 9.30 PM and then reached near PS Janakpuri in CBI vehicles. There, they were told by the CBI team that one car model Montero bearing registration No. UP16-AH- 0888 would be coming soon and they have to watch said car and 16 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 all the following actions thereafter. He further deposed that after about 5-7 minutes the said car reached there and halted outside the police station. One middle aged person ( A-2) alighted from the car, who was wearing a blue pant and sky blue shirt having one pink colour bag in his hand. He entered the police station. They kept waiting outside the police station. The said person came out of the police station after about 45-50 minutes. Inspector Pramod alerted the entire team and the said person was apprehended. He was interrogated who told that he had delivered one packet and took the CBI team to police station and pointed out towards the room, where the name plate of Kehar Singh was displayed. Thereafter CBI team entered the said room and interrogated Kehar Singh, who was sitting on the chair beside the table. Kehar Singh admitted that the said man had met him and delivered. Inspector Pramod asked Kehar Singh where he had kept Rs. 3 lacs given by the said person, Kehar Singh though admitted that the said person had given him Rs.3 lacs, but he did not disclose where the said money in the pink bag (lefafa) had been kept.
22.2 PW-2 further deposed that he alongwith CBI team searched for the said pink bag in the room, but they could not trace the same. Thereafter, they searched for said bag in the rest room attached to the room, whose entrance was from that room only and the door of that room was just behind the chair on which Kehar Singh was sitting. That while searching in the rest room, he (PW-2) recovered 17 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 that pink colour bag beneath the pillow on the bed lying in that room. At that time, CBI team and Sh. S. P. Singh, the other witness were present in the said room. He alongwith Sh. S. P. Singh counted the currency notes which were recovered from that pink colour bag. The currency notes were in the denomination of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/-. The numbers of the GC notes were recorded separately and the currency notes were sealed in a white cloth .The seal was handed over to him.
22.3 Thereafter, SHO concerned was informed and called at the spot. He alongwith ACP of the area reached there. The file pertaining to the case was recovered from the table lying in the main room. The photocopy of said file was prepared and the same was attested by the SHO which was seized by the CBI. The original file was handed over to SHO. He also signed the said case file before photocopying the same.
22.4 PW-2 identified his signatures on pre-trap memo and got exhibited the same as Ex.PW-2/1. He further identified his signatures Recovery Memo and got exhibited the same as Ex. PW- 2/2. He also identified his signature on photocopy of the file and got exhibited the same as Ex.PW-2/3.
22.5 Thereafter, Mr. Kehar Singh (A-1) and the said person who had delivered him the packet namely Ashutosh Kumar ( A-2) were arrested. He got exhibited the arrest-cum-personal search memo Ex.
18 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
PW-2/4 and Ex. PW-2/5. He also identified his signature on site plan of room of accused Kehar Singh and police station as Ex. PW- 2/6 and Ex. PW-2/7 respectively.
22.6 PW-2 further identified his signature on pullanda Ex.PW-2/8 containing one pink colour bag as Ex. PW-2/9. He identified his signatures on the first and last currency note of each packet Ex. PW- 2/10, Ex. PW-2/11 and Ex. PW-2/12 respectively. Lastly, PW-2 correctly identified both the accused persons Kehar Singh and Ashutosh Kumar.
22.7 He was extensively cross-examined by the accused persons.
23. PW-3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku deposed that he knew Nande Singh as they belonged to the same village. He further stated that he knew accused Ashutosh Kumar Singh (A-2) who was introduced to him by one friend namely Sanjay. Ashutosh Kumar Singh introduced himself as a Govt. officer and stated that he was interested in dealing in the properties at Noida. He never disclosed him about any case registered against him.
23.1 PW-3 further failed to depose about any incident dated 06.02.2016 and 07.02.2016 between him and Ashutosh Kumar Singh. He further deposed that Kehar Singh (A-1) is not known to him nor he has ever met him. On the remaining aspects too, he 19 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution except admitting his signatures on the transcripts (Part of D-15 & D15A).
24. PW-4 Nande Singh deposed that he was engaged in the business of property dealing in the year 2016. He knew Vijay Singh @ Rinku as he belonged to his native village. PW-4 further deposed that he knew Ashutosh Kumar ( A-2) through Vijay Singh @ Rinku, but had never met him personally. He further deposed that he did not know accused Kehar Singh nor he ever met him. He further stated that he do not remember any incident dated 07.02.2016.
24.1 He further stated that he had gone to the CBI office on receiving a notice, but he did not remember the date of his visit. PW-4 failed to identify his voice or voice of accused Ashutosh Kumar. On the remaining aspects too, he turned hostile and discarded the case of the prosecution.
25. PW-11 Sh. S. P. Singh, Branch Manager, SBI, is the second independent witness to the trap proceedings .He deposed that he was instructed by the AGM to attend CBI office 30.04.2016. Accordingly, he went to CBI office on the said day where he met TLO Pramod Kumar. Thereafter he deposed as to sequence of events of trap on the lines of PW2 Bhpender Dabas.
20 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
25.1 Though he disputed the case of prosecution that he did not
see A-2 entering the Police Station as well as qua the amount recovered.
25.2 PW-11 identified his signatures on pre-trap Memo ( Ex.PW2/1, D-2), recovery memo (Ex. PW2/2, D-3), certified copy of seized file (Ex. PW2/3, D-4), arrest memo of accused Kehar Singh (Ex. PW2/4, D-5), arrest memo of Ashutosh Kumar(Ex. PW2/5, D-6), two rough site plans (Ex.PW2/6 & Ex.PW2/7, D-7 & D-7A). He further identified his signature on pink bag (Ex.PW2/9) recovered from the rest room of accused Kehar Singh, three wads of currency notes of Rs.1000/- (Ex.PW2/10, Ex.PW2/11 & Ex. PW2/12). However, he further stated that there were 3 currency notes of Rs.500/- as well which are not there.
26. PW-12 Sh. Surinder Singh Yadav (Sanctioning Authority) was posted as Joint Commissioner of Police, Armed Police, New Delhi and he accorded sanction for prosecution of A-1 Kehar Singh as required under Section 19 of PC Act vide Sanction Order dated 28.07.2017. He proved the said Order as Ex. PW12/1. The said order was sent to SP, CBI vide covering letter Ex. PW12/2.
27. PW-13 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury, Sr. Scientific Officer (CFSL Expert) deposed that he received letter dated 31.05.2017 alongwith 6 sealed parcels, specimen voice recording 21 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 memo, seizure memos, specimen seal impressions and transcription of questioned recordings. The parcels were marked DVD-1 to DVD-5 and S-1 to S-5 by the forwarding authority. The DVD-1 to DVD-5 were marked as Exhibit DVD-1 to Exhibit DVD-5 and S-1 to S-5 were marked as Exhibit S-1 to S-5 in the laboratory.
27.1 He further deposed that he carried out auditory, spectrographic and waveform examination of the said questioned and specimen voice recording and prepared detailed report in this regard. He proved the report as Ex. PW13/1. He further deposed that on examination, no form of tampering was detected in the relevant audio recordings contained in Ex.DVD-1 to DVD-5.
27.2 PW-13 also identified the envelopes containing DVDs Ex.PW-13/2 to Ex.PW-13/3 and DVDs Make Sony Ex.PW-13/4 to Ex.PW-13/8 respectively. He also identified the specimen voices sent vide envelopes marked S1 to S5 as Ex.PW13/9, Ex.PW13/11, Ex.PW13/12, Ex.PW13/16 and Ex.PW13/18. The SD cards/ DVR containing specimen voices were proved as Ex.PW13/10, Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW13/15, Ex.PW13/17 and Ex.PW13/22. He also proved the letter of the S.P CBI received by their office Ex.PW13/23.
28. PW-14 Sunil Kumar, Retired Principal Staff Officer, MHA, deposed that in 2016, one request was received from CBI for interception of phones in the present case. He further deposed that 22 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 he used to put up such request letters before Secretary, MHA who used to pass order for approval or disapproval for interception of the phones. He identified the signatures of Rajiv Mehrishi, Secretary and M.A Ganpathy, the then Joint Secretary on interception orders in the present case as Ex.PW-14/A to Ex.PW-14/D. He further deposed that grounds for approval of the interception are also mentioned in Ex. PW14/A to Ex. PW14/D.
29. PW-17 DSP Kailash Sahu deposed that he was the member of trap team formed on 01.05.2016. Inspectors namely Anand Swaroop, Ramesh Kumar, S.P.Singh, other subordinate staff and two independent witnesses namely Devender Dabas, DDA official and S. P. Singh, bank official were also part of the said trap team. He further deposed that Inspector Pramod Kumar (TLO) briefed them about the purpose of gathering there. Thereafter, arrangements were made for executing the trap. Thereafter he deposed on the lines of the version of earlier trap witnesses namely PW2 Bhupender Dabas and PW11 SP Singh as to the sequence of events . He also identified both the accused in court .
30. PW-18 Inspector Ram Swaroop Meena was posted as SHO, P.S Janakpuri in 2016. He deposed that he attended CBI office in connection with present case. His statement was recorded by Inspector Shitanshu Sharma and while recording his statement, he was also shown the attested copy of the documents supplied by him to CBI in case FIR No. 1378/2015, PS Janakpuri.
23 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
30.1 PW-18 further stated that on 01.05.2015, one raid was
conducted by CBI at PS Janakpuri. He was asked by the CBI officials to give them the attested photocopies of case FIR No. 1378/2015. He identified his signatures on attested photocopy of the said FIR (Ex.PW-2/3, D-4). PW-18 identified his signatures on the complaint (Ex.PW-2/3, D-4) of Mr. Pratap Singh Yadav against Ashutosh Kumar Singh.
30.2 PW-18 further identified his signature on request seeking permission to register FIR on the complaint made by Pratap Singh Yadav. He stated that as per the file, the last Case Diary (Page no.
21) dated 25.11.2015 was written and signed by Inspector Kehar Singh (A-1). He proved settlement deed (Part of D-4, Ex.PW-2/3) dated 24.04.2016 between the complainant Pratap Singh Yadav and Ashutosh Kumar Singh (A-2). He further stated that he gave the attested copy of the complete file in FIR No. 1378/2015 to CBI. He further claimed that after the apprehension of A-1 while the cases under his investigation were being assigned to other officers, he found one folder having case diaries. The case diary of present case was also there which was placed in the respective file.
31. PW20 Inspector Pramod Kumar is the Trap Laying Officer (TLO). He deposed that on 01.05.2016 he was assigned RC 11A/2016 registered against Kehar Singh working as Inspector, (Investigation), Janakpuri Police Station and Ashutosh Kumar Singh 24 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 @ A. K. Singh working as DGM, HHEC under Section 120B of IPC, Section 7 and 12 read with 13(2) of PC Act. Accordingly, he constituted a trap team consisting of two independent witnesses Sh. Bhupender Dabas, LDC, DDA and Sh. S. P. Singh, Manager, SBI, Karawal Nagar, Sh. Kailash Sahu, Anand Swaroop, N.C. Nawal, Ramesh Kumar and S. P. Singh all Inspectors working in CBI, ACB, Delhi and other subordinate staff. The purpose of assembly was explained to both the independent witnesses as well as trap team members. Independent witness Bhupender Dabas was directed to act as a shadow witness and remain with the TLO .The other independent witness was directed to remain with other team members. A trap kit was arranged. He identified his signature on pre-trap memo Ex.PW2/1 and also identified the copy of FIR as Ex. PW20/1.
31.1 He further deposed that thereafter they reached to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, at about 6.45 PM and remained there till 8.30 PM. On receiving source information that A-1 might come in his car bearing registration no. UP16AH0888, Montero or Cherevolet car to hand over the bribe amount at about 9.30 PM at PS Janakpuri, they moved to PS Janakpuri and took position in the discreet manner. He directed both the witnesses to remain close to the Police Station and witness the incident. He further stated that after some time, the car bearing registration no. UP16AH0888, Montero arrived at P.S Janakpuri. A2 was seen having one pink 25 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 colour packet and entering the police station. After some time A2 came out from the police station, but the said pink colour packet was not in his hand.
31.2 PW20 further deposed that he challenged the A2 that he delivered bribe amount to Inspector Kehar Singh. A2 got perplexed and kept mum. Thereafter A2 informed that he came to meet Inspector Kehar Singh A-1 in connection with his case and handed over the said pink colour packet having Rs.3 lacs to Inspector Kehar Singh. A2 led the CBI team to the room of Inspector Kehar Singh. PW20 challenged Inspector Kehar Singh that he had accepted the bribe amount from A2, however A-1 kept mum.
31.3 Ashutosh Kumar Singh further informed that he has kept the said packet under the pillow kept on the bed in the rest room. On his directions, witness Bhupender searched the said room and recovered the said packet kept below the pillow in presence of other witness S. P. Singh. On opening, it was found that it was having three packets of GC notes consisting of Rs. 3 lacs out of which two packets of GC notes in the denomination of Rs.1000/- each and in the third packet was having 95 GC notes in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each and 10 GC notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- each. The distinctive number of said recovered GC notes were noted down in Annexure A . The first and last note of each of three packets were signed by him as well as both independent witnesses. These GC notes totaling Rs.3 lacs were again kept in the said pink 26 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 colour packet having writing "New U About you" packet was again wrapped in a white cloth and sealed with CBI seal. The packet was taken in police possession through Recovery Memo.
31.4 After the recovery of the bribe money, the duty officer of the police station was directed to inform the senior officers for ensuring their presence. SHO R.S. Meena and ACP Omvati thereafter came in the police station. They were apprised about the facts of the case. After their arrival, the search of the room of the accused Kehar Singh was carried out in presence of both the independent witnesses and the case file of FIR 1378/2015 was found during the search, which contained pages 1 to 110. This file was signed by both the independent witnesses on each page. This photocopy of the said file was also seized through recovery memo.
32. PW23 DSP Suraj Manjumdar deposed that he remained posted in CBI Special Unit till the year 2019. He was designated as System Administrator for call recording system installed at CBI Special Unit. He was having control of the said system which is combination of Server Client System installed with call recording software provided by M/s Kommlabs Pvt Ltd, Noida. The system has unique feature of call recording and SMS which are diverted to it automatically without any manual intervention. Three mobile numbers (9819473029, 9969077000 and 8750871193) were put on call recording surveillance after receiving permission from Union Home Secretary.
27 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
32.1 He further deposed that in the present case, 31514 calls and 3888 SMSs were reproduced in 5 DVDs and were provided to Inspector Parmod Kumar, CBI, ACB on 06.05.2016 vide handing over -cum-seizure memo (D9) Ex.PW20/2. He also provided the certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act as Ex.PW23/1. Thereafter, he also identified the five DVDs Ex.PW13/4 to Ex.PW13/8 which were provided by him .
33. PW-24 Pratap Yadav ( complainant in FIR 1378/2015) who deposed that he came in contact with A-2 through one friend namely Sachin Kalra who informed that A-2 was IAS officer. Sh. R.D Yadav, his relative, who was head of Labour Union in FCI had informed him about pending dues of labourers with Govt of India. He asked for his help in this regard and accordingly, meeting of PW24 with A-2 was arranged through Sachin Kalra. A-2 sought certain advance as consultancy fee which was Rs.1 crore. R.D Yadav collected the said amount and meeting for payment of Rs.25 lacs was arranged. The amount of Rs.25 lacs was paid to A-2 at Piccadly Hotel, District Centre, Janakpuri and A-2 assured that he will initiate the work and further stated that remaining payment should be ready. The second installment was paid after one week and thereafter another installment was paid at Hotel Crown Plaza, Mayur Vihar. A-2 kept on assuring that the work will be done. The remaining amount was paid again at Crown Plaza, Mayur Vihar. A-2 assured to wait for a week or 10 days.
28 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
33.1 As no work was got done, he discussed the matter with R.D Yadav and accordingly complaint was lodged at PS Janakpuri. Initially, complaint was dealt with by Mr. Hooda and later on by A-
1. A-1 informed that A-2 has met him and further assured that he will get the matter sorted out. It was informed by A-1 that A-2 is ready to pay Rs.35 lacs as installment. He was advised by A-1 to accept the said amount. The MoU Settlement Deed dated 24.04.2016 Ex.PW2/3 was prepared and he also moved the application Ex.PW2/3 (Part of D-4) seeking stay of investigation to the SHO. He also proved his complaint Ex.PW2/3 part of D4.
33.2 The closure report was not filed as the amount was not received. Only Rs.10 lacs were paid by A-2. He identified his signature on specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW16/1. He also identified his signature on transcription-cum-voice identification memo dated 02.08.2016 and 16.05.2016 Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW21/1. However, he failed to identify his specimen voice recorded in memory card S3 (Ex.PW13/15). He also failed to identify the voices in recorded calls in 5 DVD Ex.PW-13/4 to Ex.PW13/8.Accordingly, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.
34. PW-25 Surya Prasad Yadav deposed that he knows A-2 being his business associate. A-2 told him that one FIR is registered against him by Pratap Singh Yadav in Delhi Police and further 29 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 informed that he wants to settle the matter for payment of Rs.35 lacs. A-2 thereafter demanded financial help and accordingly, he had given Rs.10 lacs to A-2. He had also issued two cheques of Rs.5 and Rs.20 lacs in the name of Pratap Singh Yadav, out of which Rs.5 lacs was encashed. The other cheque was stopped as A- 2 informed that FR has been filed and nothing is found against him. He identified his signature on specimen voice recording memo dated 9.5.2016 Ex.PW15/2 and transcription cum voice identification memo (D13A as Ex.PW15/1 colly). On the issue of identification of voices, be it the specimen voice recordings or recorded calls in DVD 1 to DVD-5, he turned hostile and did not identify any of the voices.
35. PW26 Mohd. Mukhtaar Alam was driving the car of A-2 being the driver on 01.05.2016. He deposed that A-2 received phone call from the I.O from Janakpuri and they reached at P.S at about 9:40 p.m. A-2 went to the P.S and while entering the P.S he was not carrying any polythene bag of pink colour. On remaining all aspects, he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He identified his signatures on the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW26/1.
36. PW-27 B.S Chauhan is the part Investigation Officer who conducted the investigation from 11.05.2016 till first week of June 2016. Certain witnesses were examined by him and documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/1 concerning CAF, CDRs 30 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 etc of mobile no. 8750871193 in the name of Mahavir Singh, ACP, Delhi Police.
37. PW-28 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma is the last Investigating Officer who took over the investigation from Dy. SP B. Chauhan. He recorded the statements of witnesses and collected relevant documents. He heard the recorded conversation and typed the transcription. The recordings were got identified by the witnesses and the documents in this regard were prepared. He also sent the articles to CFSL for extraction of data. The specimen voices were also recorded during the investigation. The prosecution sanction was obtained qua A-1 from the Competent Authority and after conclusion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet Ex.PW28/1.
37.1 He also proved the specimen voice recording memo dated 01.08.2016 Ex.PW16/1 (D10) concerning Pratap Singh Yadav, specimen voice memo Ex.PW15/2 (D13) concerning S.P Yadav, specimen voice dated 2.08.2016 and ExPW3/3 (D14) concerning Vijay Singh @ Rinku. He also proved the Transcription-cum-voice identification memo dated 24.03.2017 Ex.PW3/21 (D15). Transcription Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/3, Transcription-cum-voice identification memo dated 29.08.2017 Ex.PW3/22 (D15A) alongwith transcription Ex.PW3/4 to Ex.PW3/20, Transcription- cum-voice identification memo dated 20.01.2017 Ex.PW22/1 (D16) 31 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 alongwith transcription Ex.PW22/2. He also proved the forwarding letters of Nodal Officer as Ex.PW7/13, ExPW7/1 and Ex.PW5/6. He also identified the forwarding letter of Joint Commissioner forwarding the sanction order Ex.PW12/2.
(IV) Statement of Accused (S.A)
38. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, separate statement of the accused persons was recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein they denied the case of prosecution and claimed false implication.
39. A-1 Kehar Singh further claimed that he alongwith A2 have been falsely implicated by Pratap Singh Yadav in connivance with his batch-mates. Complainant Pratap Singh Yadav was a close friend of his batch-mate Sunil Jain. Complainant (Partap Singh Yadav ) approached Inspector Naresh Hooda through Inspector Sunil Jain and filed complaint against A-2. The said complaint was enquired by Inspector Naresh Hooda for about 38 days and thereafter FIR No. 1378/2015 was registered and the investigation of the same was assigned to him. A-1 further claimed that Pratap Singh Yadav approached him through Inspector Naresh Hooda and Sunil Jain to get the entire money recovered from A-2. He further claimed that when he told that he would do his work in accordance with law, they all hatched a conspiracy against him and A2.
32 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
39.1 A-1 further claimed that on 01.05.2016, he was in PS Janakpuri. A-2 did not meet him on that day. He was brought to his office by CBI officers. Some officers entered his rest room and started questioning him. They foisted a false case against him. He further claimed that he never demanded or accepted any money from A-2. A-2 never offered or delivered any money to him at any point of time. The bribe money was allegedly recovered from his rest room and not from him. The said money was planted by the CBI and their accomplices. He claimed that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
40. On the other hand, A-2 Ashutosh Kumar claimed that he is a victim of extortion by PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav. He made reference to certified copies of documents/court record pertaining to FIR No.1378/2015 dated 05.11.2015 PS Janakpuri. He further claimed that he was called by the I.O in the present case i.e Kehar Singh (A1) for investigation. He went to the I.O and explained the falsity of the FIR. He categorically told the I.O that he neither knew Pratap Singh Yadav nor any money was paid to him. Thereafter, PW24 started blackmailing him with arrest and threat to life. He succumbed to his pressure and signed the settlement as prepared by him. He paid Rs.10 lacs on 24.04.2016. However, on 01.05.2016 RC-DAI-2016-A-0011 was lodged by CBI which is ante-dated and ante-time and he was arrested in the said case.
33 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
40.1 He further claimed that he was granted anticipatory bail in the said FIR (1378/2015) by the Ld. ASJ, Dwarka Courts in Bail Matter No. 56/2017 after he gave Rs.5 lacs to PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav and subsequently Rs.20 lacs The final report was submitted by I.O Manohar Lal concluding that the complainant has failed to provide proof of collection of Rs.1 crore. Accordingly, he requested PW25 to instruct for stop payment of cheques given to P S Yadav. Due to the said stoppage of payment, his anticipatory bail was cancelled on 17.01.2017. He again filed the anticipatory bail before Hon'ble Court on 21.02.2018 wherein Investigating Officer filed various reports stating that the details of source of money have not been provided by R.D Yadav and accordingly, investigating officer filed the final report keeping him in col. no.12.
It was clearly indicated that there was no proof of alleged collection of money by PW24 and it being paid to him. He claimed to be the victim of extortion and succumbed to the pressure of PW24 due to his ill-health.
(V) Defence Evidence
41. DW1 Harminder Singh, the Record Clerk, Record Room Dwarka Courts, proved the summoned record ie. orders Ex.DW1/1 in bail application No.401/2018 titled State V. Ashustosh Kumar FIR No. 1378/2015 P.S Janakpuri, copy of status report dated 21.2.2018 Ex.DW1/2 and copy of index application alongwith 34 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 orders and alongwith copy of supplementary chargesheet as Ex.DW1/3.
41 (A) Heard and considered the entire record.
(VI) Arguments of CBI
42. Ld. Senior (Sr.) Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that they have successfully proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. The material proved on record proves that A-1 is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 11, 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act 1988. On the other hand, A-2 is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w 12 & Section 11 read with Section 12 of P.C Act.
42.1 It is further argued that the present case was registered on the basis of source information against A-1 who was working as Inspector (Investigation), P.S Janakpuri, Delhi Police and A-2 was working as Deputy General Manager in HHEC India Ltd., Noida. The information was received that A-1 was investigating the FIR No. 1378/2015 under Section 419/420 and 406 IPC, P.S Janakpuri, registered against A-2. During the course of the investigation pending with A1, he started mediating between accused (A-2 herein) and the complainant Pratap Singh Yadav. He further demanded illegal gratification from A-2 in order to settle the case against him. Accordingly, the trap was led on 01.05.2016 and both 35 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 the accused were caught when A-2 had delivered bribe of Rs.3 lacs to A-1. The reliance is placed on the version of Panch Witnesses PW2 and PW11.
42.2 It is further argued on behalf of CBI, the Special Unit of CBI had also put the mobile phones of A-1 & A-2 on interception after getting the orders from Competent Authority under the Telegraph Act. The said intercepted conversation record has been proved on record vide transcripts Ex.PW9/C (D11), Ex.PW21/1 (D12), Ex.PW15/1 collectively (D13A), Ex.PW3/21 (D15), Ex.PW3/22 (D15A) and Ex.PW22/1 (D16). In all, they have proved on record 36 incriminating calls out of the total calls which were intercepted during the relevant period. The transcripts of the said calls proves the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe on two occasions by A-1 i.e 07.02.2016 when Rs.3 lacs were paid to A-1 through PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku by A-2. Again on 01.05.2016, Rs.3 lacs were paid by A-2 to A-1 when they were intercepted consequent to the trap. The independent witnesses before whom the transcription- cum-voice identification proceedings of the intercepted calls were carried out have proved the genuineness of the said proceedings as well as the authenticity of the transcription.
It is further argued that CFSL expert PW-13 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury too has proved the identity of the voice of the speakers in the said intercepted calls through report Ex.PW13/1. The tampering in the said recorded calls has also been ruled out by the 36 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 expert in the report. Thus, the intercepted communication which has been proved on record proves the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe on two occasions by A-1 i.e on 07.02.2016 and 01.05.2016.
42.3 It is further argued on behalf of CBI that the factum of delivery of bribe and its recovery on the day of trap on 01.05.2016 also stands conclusively established through versions of independent witnesses namely PW2 Bhupender Dabas, PW11 S.P. Singh, TLO PW20 Inspector Parmod Kumar and PW17 Dy. S.P Kailash Sahu who is also member of the team. The factum of recovery of bribe amount of Rs.3 lacs from the office/rest room of A-1 situated at the ground floor of PS Janakpuri is not disputed and therefore, the presumption under Section 20 has to be raised against the accused persons.
42.4 It is further argued by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that though some of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, but the said infirmity has no bearing on their case as the independent witnesses to the trap and the other official witnesses prove the trap laid on 01.05.2016. He further argued that they have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and the minor contradictions brought forth by the defence do not go to the root of the matter.
43. In support of his arguments, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has placed reliance on the following judgments:
37 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
(i) Rupsinghbhai Punabhai Patel V. State of Gujarat 2006 (3) GLR 2700
(ii) Phula Singh V. State of H.P 2014 (2) Crimes 38 (SC)
(iii) Inder Singh & Anr. V. State (Delhi Administration 1978 Crl.L.J 766
(iv) Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753
(v) Ponnam Chandraiah v. State A.P AIR 2008 SC 3209
(vi) Mukut Bihari & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan Crl. Appeal No.870/2012
(vii) Hazari Lal V. State ( Delhi Administration) AIR 1980 SC 873
(viii) Prakash Chand V. State ( Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 400 (VII) Arguments on behalf of A-1
44. Per contra, Sh Sandeep Sharma, Ld. Counsel for A-1 argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove their case. The first charge levelled against him concerns the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 3 lacs on 07.02.2016. It is the case of prosecution that the said bribe amount was handed over to him by PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku on behalf of A-2 as a motive or reward for settling the matter of A-2 in FIR No. 1378/2015 pending investigation with him. The material witnesses cited by the prosecution for proving the said charge of demand and acceptance of bribe were PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku and his associate PW4 Nande Singh. Both of them have turned hostile and discarded the case of the prosecution in its entirety.
44.1 It is also the case of prosecution that notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C Mark PW3/2 (Part of D4) was also handed over to PW3 38 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 by A-1 after receiving the bribe , the said fact too has remained unproved. PW3 categorically denied his signatures on the said notice. The signatures are apparently different from the signatures of the said witness in all other documents part of the record. PW3 even denied having given his specimen voice sample to the CBI. He also denied the authenticity of voice identification proceedings Ex.PW3/21 (D15) and PW3/22 (D15A).
44.2 Similarly, PW4 Nande Singh too discarded the entire story of the prosecution regarding alleged delivery of bribe of Rs.3 lacs to A-1 on 07.02.2016. He also discarded the voice identification proceedings concerning the intercepted calls vide Transcription- cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW22/1 (D16).
44.3 It has been further argued that apart from the said substantive evidence, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the intercepted calls qua the said charge. The recorded conversation is only a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot by itself prove the substantive charge against A-1. In this regard, the reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled State V. Ravi @ Munna & Ors 2000 Crl. LJ 1125.
45. As far as the recorded conversation is concerned, it has been argued that prosecution has failed to prove the admissibility of the said evidence. As per the testimony of PW23 Dy. SP Suraj Majumdar, the DVD's containing the recorded conversations were 39 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 handed over to the I.O on 06.05.2016 vide handing over memo PW22/2. So, if no recorded conversation was available prior to that with I.O, then on what basis the specimen voice of the accused persons or that of PW3 was got recorded.
45.1 It is further argued that no record has been produced by the prosecution to prove that pursuant to the interception order Ex.P14/A to Ex.PW14/D that the same were communicated to the Telecom Company and the interception did take place. It is also not proved on record whether the said intercepted orders were indeed collected by the Nodal Officer from the office of Secretary (Home), MHA. No evidence has been proved on record by the prosecution which shows that mandatory compliance of Rule 419A of Telegraph Rules 1951 which mandates that any such order or interception issued by Competent Authority has to be forwarded within seven days to the Review Committee and only in case of approval of the same, calls can be intercepted. No such record of Review Committee has been proved. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Jatinder Pal Singh V. CBI 2022 SCC OnLine Del 135 (2022) 287 DLT 334.
45.2 It is also argued on behalf of A-1 that certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act issued by PW23 Dy. SP Suraj Majumdar qua the authenticity of the intercepted calls is improper . PW23 admitted that the software in the system used for interception is taken care by Technician of M/S Kommlabs Pvt Ltd., Noida.
40 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
45.3 It is further argued that the voice of the speakers in the said recorded conversation has not been proved by the acquaintance or the maker. No source of the recording was examined by PW-13 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury. All the said deficiencies make the alleged recorded conversation to be inadmissible. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan V. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Ors Criminal Appeal 97/2015 and Nilesh Dinkar Paradhkar V. State of Maharashtra (2011) (4) SCC 143.
It is further argued that the opinion given by PW-13 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury is also not of much value as CFSL is not notified under Section 79A of Information and Technology Act 2000. The specimen voice which was taken by CBI of the accused persons and others speakers in the alleged intercepted calls too runs foul of the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nilesh Dinkar Paradhkar (supra) case.
45.4 It is further argued as far the second charge against him concerning demand and acceptance of bribe on 01.05.2016 at PS Janakpuri while he was present at his office is concerned, the case of the prosecution is full of contradictions and embellishments. It is argued that no evidence has come on record which shows that A-2 met A-1 in the said police station before his apprehension. No CCTV footage of PS Janakpuri has been produced by the prosecution despite availability and adverse inference has to be 41 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 drawn against them. Further, it has been argued that the alleged recovery of Rs.3 lacs from his rest room is concerned, the same is also full of contradictions. It is argued that it has been proved on record that the rest room had two entries one from main corridor and one from the rear side which has been concealed by the CBI in the site plan. Therefore, there is possibility of said recovered money being planted in rest room in his absence, which is his defence.
45.5 It is further argued that mere recovery tainted money from the office of accused alone cannot prove the charge under Section 7 of PC Act. Reliance in this regard is placed upon on various judgments viz; Meena W/o Balwant Hemke V. State of Maharashtra 2000 Crl. L.J 2273, M.K. Harshan V. State of Kerala I (1996) CCR 218, Suraj Mal V. The State (Delhi AIR 1979 SC 1408, C.M. Girish Babu V. CBI AIR 2009 SC 2022 and Banarsi Dass V. State of Haryana III (2010) SLT 91, V. Venkata Subbarao V. State of A.P I (2007) SLT 161 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy V. District Inspector of Police and Anr 2015 (9) Scale 724.
45.6 It is further argued that he has been able to prove the defence of being falsely implicated as the complainant in FIR No. 1378/2015 which was pending investigation with him, was in regular touch with two other inspectors of Delhi Police namely Inspector Naresh Hooda and Inspector Sunil Jain, who are his batch mates. The CDR of PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav proves the said 42 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 fact .Both of them being his batch mates and inimical to him got him implicated in the present case.
46. Lastly, it is argued that the mandatory prosecution sanction accorded under Section 19 of PC Act is invalid as the same has been accorded by the Authority not competent to remove him from the post of Inspector. It has been proved on record vide order Ex.PW12/D1 that he was appointed to the post of Inspector by the order of Commissioner of Delhi Police, while the sanction has been accorded by Joint Commissioner of Police who is not empowered to remove him from the service under Article 311 of the Constitution. The reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Davinder Singh vs State 1979 4 SC 289 & of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nanjappa V. State of Karnataka (2015) 14 SCC 186, State Inspector of Police Vishakhaptanam V. Surya Sankaram Karri (2006) 7 SCC 172, Ashok Rangshashi V. State of M.P, 1996 (2) Crimes 39, Onkar Chand Prashar V. State 1994 (28) DRJ, Gopalbhai Mohanbhai Nagoda V. State of Gujarat IV (1993) CCR 3288 (DB) GHC and Uttam V. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.333/2012.
The reliance is also placed upon the following judgments on behalf of A-1 Kehar Singh.
(i) (V.D Jhangan V. State of U.P AIR 1966 SC 1762
(ii) State of Maharashtra V. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wandhede 2009 (Criminal Appeal No.1350)
(iii) T. Subramanian V. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401
(iv) Babuda V. State AIR 1992 SC 2091 43 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
(v) Swinder Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1992 SC 669 (VIII) Arguments on behalf of A-2
47. Sh. S.P Sinha, Ld. Counsel for A-2 adopted the arguments of A-1 on merits by stating that the prosecution has failed to prove their case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt against them. He further argued that he has been able to prove on record that the FIR got registered by Pratap Singh Yadav at P.S Janakpuri was an extortion attempt and he being in service succumbed to said extortion threat. He under threat agreed to settle the case with him. The defence documents Ex.DW1/1 to DW1/3, all reflect that the allegations in said FIR were found to be incorrect and the closure report was filed by Delhi Police in the case. The said closure report too has been accepted by the Court.
In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for A-2 relied upon the following judgments:
(1) CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla" (1998) 3 SCC 410 (2)Dalpat Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1969 SC 17 (3) C. M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1 (4) Jamuna Singh Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 553 (5) Yogesh Vs. State of Haryana (2021) 5 SCC 730 (6) Khumani & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala (2004) 9 SCC 193 (7) Javed Masood & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 3 SCC 538 (8) Jagan M. Seshadri Vs. State of T.N. (2002) 9 SCC 639 (9) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295 (10) B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P." (2014) 13 SCC 55 44 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 (11) P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P. & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152 (12) Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 128 (13) People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India & Anr. (1997) 1 SCC 301 (14) K.L.D. Nagasree Vs. Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Ors. 2006 SCC OnLine AP 1085 (15) Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 123 (16) Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra" (2011) 4 SCC (IX) Rebuttal Arguments of CBI
48. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI argued that as far as the issue of admissibility of intercepted calls is concerned, the said issue already stands decided by the Court when the said issue was raised before framing of charge by the accused. It is further argued that the relevant record regarding competent authority having issued the intercepted orders and the same being approved by the Review Committee is already part of the record and therefore, no question mark can be raised over the admissibility of said record. The reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Santosh Kumar Singh V. UOI, W.P (Crl) 1147/2020 dated 13.06.2022.
48.1 Further, it is argued that the recovery of bribe amount of Rs.3 lacs from the rest room of A-1 is not disputed in the entire trial. The only claim of planting of said amount is not probabilized either in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or any evidence being produced by the accused herein. Further, it is argued that as far as 45 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 the identification of voices in the intercepted calls is concerned, the same stands proved through the version of independent witnesses to the transcription-cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW22/1 (D16). Therefore, in the said backdrop the the factum of demand of bribe stands proved through intercepted conversation and recovery being not disputed, the onus shifted upon accused person in terms of Section 20 of PC which they have failed to discharge. Thus, both the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
(X) Validity of Prosecution Sanction
49. The first and foremost issue to be considered is the validity of prosecution sanction u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act against A-1. Admittedly, in the present case in hand, the accused ( A-1) herein is a public servant and therefore, only in case of valid prosecution sanction, the case of the prosecution can succeed against him.
50. On issue of validity of prosecution sanction against A- 1, it has been argued on his behalf that the prosecution sanction is invalid. The first and foremost limb of the argument concerns the competency of Sanctioning Authority PW12 Surender Singh Yadav, the then Joint C.P, Armed Police, New Delhi. It has been argued on behalf of A-1 by placing reliance upon the promotion order Ex.PW12/D1 that he was promoted to the rank of Inspector by the orders of Commissioner of Police dated 19.04.2012. Therefore, the prosecution sanction accorded by PW12 Surender Singh Yadav, the 46 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 then Joint C.P, Armed Police, New Delhi being lower in rank to the Appointing Authority violates the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nanjappa V. State of Karnataka (supra) case. The reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Davinder Singh (supra) case.
51. The issue of prosecution sanction and it being a mandatory requirement as stipulated under Section 19 of PC Act is no longer res integra. Any prosecution of the public servant under the provisions of Section 7,10,11 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act requires a mandatory prosecution sanction .It has to be accorded by Competent Authority i.e his employer who is competent to remove him from his office. In the present case in hand, it is not in dispute that A-1 was indeed a public servant being working as Inspector, Delhi Police and was posted at PS Janakpuri at the time of commission of offence. The prosecution in compliance of the said mandatory condition, approached the employer and accordingly, the sanction has been accorded by the then Joint Commissioner of Police, Armed Forces, Delhi vide sanction order dated 28.07.2017 Ex.PW12/1.
52. The said sanction has been proved by the Sanctioning Authority PW12 who while deposing in the Court reiterated the fact that he was the Sanctioning Authority for A-1 being competent to 47 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 remove him from service .He further deposed that after considering all the relevant material including copy of FIR, statement of witnesses and other incriminating evidence in the form of documents, he found it fit to accord the prosecution sanction. He further deposed that by virtue of Govt. Notification, he was competent to remove A-1 from the service being the post of Joint Commissioner, Armed Police, at the relevant time.
52.1 A similar assertion has been made by the Sanctioning Authority in Para-8 of the Sanction Order Ex.PW12/1. However, the said assertion of the Sanctioning Authority and he being competent authority to remove A-1 from the service has been questioned by A- 1 in the cross-examination of PW12 by placing reliance upon the Appointment Order Ex.PW12/D1.
53. The first and foremost issue in the said backdrop is the admissibility of the said appointment order Ex.PW1/D1 dated 19.04.2012. It is the claim of A-1 that he obtained the same through RTI issued by office of PIO (Establishment), PHQ, Delhi. The said information received through RTI alongwith copy of promotion order was put to sanctioning authority in the cross- examination by A-1 ,who simplicitor reiterated the contents of the said document without proving the said promotion order. Neither PW12 identified the signature of the maker of the said document nor vouched for the authenticity and genuineness of said promotion order dated 19.04.2012 Ex.PW12/D1. Mere exhibition of the said 48 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 document does not tantamount to proving the said document until and unless the same is proved in terms of the requirement under the Indian Evidence Act. To support this view , the court is guided by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi Court tiled as Ramnish Geer vs CBI 22/DHC/004775 which held as under :-
"Thus, it is a settled law that admission or exhibiting of documents in evidence and proving the same before the court are two different processes. Contents of the document cannot be proved by mere filing the document in a court. Under the law of evidence, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Mere marking a document as an exhibit will not absolve the duty to prove the documents in accordance with the provisions of law."
54. In the present case too the onus was upon the A-1 to prove the said document Ex PW12/D1 either by summoning the concerned official from the office of Commissioner of Police or by getting identified the author of the said document which has not been done. In the said backdrop, the said document Ex.PW12/D1 being not proved as per law cannot be read in evidence herein.
54.1 PW12 was specifically cross-examined on the said aspect of his competency to grant the prosecution sanction against A- 1 ,wherein he claimed that he was competent to remove him from the service under the Disciplinary Rules and Punjab Police Rules. In the said backdrop, the issue to be considered is the statutory provisions concerning competence of the appointment and removal 49 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 of the police officials on the rank of Inspector in Delhi Police which seems to have been relied by PW12 .
55. Section 21 of Delhi Police Act 1978 stipulates the authority competent to remove the officials from service. Similarly, Rule 3 (1) of Delhi Police ( Appointment & Recruitment) Rules 1980 defines the terms 'Appointment Authority'. Appointment Authority in relation to Inspector of Police has been defined as Additional Commissioner of Police and in relation to Sub-ordinate Police officials below the rank of Inspector is Deputy Commissioner of Police. Thus, the Appointing Authority for the officials for the rank of Inspector in Delhi Police is Additional Commissioner of Police which is claimed to be the statutory power exercised by PW12 while according the prosecution sanction. The officials of the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police in the hierarchy are placed above the officials of rank of Additional Commissioner though they exercise the powers of Additional Commissioner only . The very same issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Joint Commissioner of Police & Ors. V. Sube Singh and Ors., 99 (2002) DLT 37. In the said backdrop, it cannot be held that the sanction accorded by PW12 Surender Singh Yadav, the then Joint Commissioner of Police for prosecution sanction of A-1 being improper or lower to the rank of appointing authority.
56. The next limb of the arguments advanced on behalf of A-1 concerns the non-application of mind by the sanctioning 50 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 authority. It is argued on behalf of A-1 that the sanction has been accorded in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. PW12 never considered the CFSL report concerning voice identification of the intercepted calls.
56.1 The said argument on the face of it appears to be quite attractive as it is apparent from the record that at the time of according of prosecution sanction i.e 28.07.2017, CFSL report for the voice identification of the calls was not in existence. The CFSL report Ex.PW13/1 came to be prepared on 04.04.2018. Thus, the said vital piece of evidence was not before the Sanctioning Authority.
However, PW12 in the cross-examination explained the said issue and claimed that he listened to the intercepted communication. He also read the transcript of the said conversation and only after consideration of the entire material, the prosecution sanction was accorded by him after finding the material to be sufficient for prosecution of A-1. So, it is not that the said vital piece of evidence i.e intercepted calls or the transcription of the same was not considered at all by the Sanctioning Authority. Till that point of time, the transcription-cum-voice identification proceedings were already complete which as per the prosecution sanction order were all duly considered before according the sanction. The CFSL report is only a corroborative evidence as to the voice identification. The Court while deciding the issue as to the validity of the prosecution 51 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 sanction or adequacy of material considered by the Sanctioning Authority cannot sit as an Appellate Court. In this regard, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Garg V. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020 (2) SCC 88 is relevant and addresses the issue in hand. The relevant para is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:
"25. On the said aspect, the later decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) Part 8 SCC 119 has referred to several decisions to expound onthe following principles of law governing the validity of sanction:
14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.
14.4. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of
52 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity." The contention of the appellant,therefore, fails and is rejected........"
57. In the present case in hand PW12 Surender Singh Yadav, the Sanctioning Authority in categorical terms deposed that he considered before according the sanction, the FIR, Complaint, Verification Memo, Handing Over Memo, Recovery Memo and Statement of witnesses etc. Only after that, it was found to be a fit case to accord sanction. The mere non-consideration of the CFSL report qua the intercepted conversations cannot be said to be having any material bearing upon the said grant of sanction. The recorded conversation and CFSL Report was only a corroborative piece of evidence concerning the allegations. The other substantive material collected by the Investigating Authority on the very said aspect was duly considered by the Sanctioning Authority before according the sanction and there is no question mark over the same. The entire material was their before the competent authority and the authority was only supposed to take a prima facie opinion on the same. In the said backdrop, it cannot be concluded that sanction has been accorded in a mechanical manner or without application of 53 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 mind. The arguments of the accused (A-1) on the said issue are accordingly liable to be rejected.
The judgments relied upon by the accused on the said issue are distinguishable on facts and not applicable herein .
(XI) DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE
58. Now coming to the factual matrix of the case in hand .It is well settled position of law that in a case under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, "demand and acceptance of bribe"
are sine-quo-non. The said legal requirement has been discussed in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 152 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarised the well-settled position of the law on the subject as under:
"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)
(i) and(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."
54 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
59. Recently, again the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court explained about the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act in Neeraj Dutta V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, as under:
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the Accused public servant Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence Under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an 55 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 offence Under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, Under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment Under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the Accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the Accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
60. The amendment in the provision under Section 7 of PC Act w.e.f 18.06.2018 also does not make much difference as the 56 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 heading of the offence still remains"Offence relating to public servant being bribed". Therefore, in view of the said well settled legal proposition, the first and the crucial aspect which needs to be considered herein is the "factum of demand of bribe or illegal gratification by the public servant ie by A-1 herein ." The other charges against A-2 u/s 11 or 12 of PC Act too are dependent upon the outcome of the main charges .
(i) First Incident of Bribe Dated 07.02.2016 60.1 The charge under Section 7 and 13 of PC Act against the accused persons concerns two separate payments of bribe of Rs. 3 lacs each being paid by A-2 to A-1 on two separate occasions.
It is the case of the prosecution that the first of said alleged illegal gratification was accepted on 07.02.2016 while A-1 was posted as Inspector PS Janakpuri from A-2 while he was investigating FIR 1378/2015 against A2. The delivery of the said illegal gratification was made by A-2 through his accomplice Vijay Singh @ Rinku who has been examined as PW-3. Therefore, before appreciating the testimony of said crucial prosecution witness concerning the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.3 lacs and its delivery on 07.02.2016, the circumstances which led to raising of the said demand and consequently its delivery needs to be discussed and appreciated.
57 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
60.2 The precursor to the said demand of bribe is the FIR No.1378 dated 05.11.2015 PS Janakpuri registered under Section 419/420/406 IPC. The said FIR was registered by complainant Pratap Singh Yadav (examined herein as PW24) against A-2. The allegations in brief in the said FIR were that he claimed that A-2 cheated him and his relative by impersonating as IAS officer of 1991 batch posted as Joint Secretary in Govt. of India . He in lieu of getting the dues of complainant's relative R.D Yadav, Labour Representative of Labour Union pending against Food Corporation of India (FCI) cleared, demanded 50% of the interest amount which he claimed was to be given to concerned officers and Ministers. The dues of labourers against FCI were to the tune of Rs.40-50 crores. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1 crore was paid as advance in installments to A-2 for getting the work done, However, as the work was not done and it came to the knowledge of complainant that A-2 had impersonated himself as IAS and cheated him. The FIR was accordingly got registered. The said FIR was marked to A-1 for investigation who was posted at PS Janakpuri as Inspector (Investigation). The police file concerning the investigation of said FIR has been proved on record as Ex.PW2/3 (D4).
60.3 The registration of the said FIR or the investigation conducted thereupon is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that A-1 was the Investigating Officer (IO) till his apprehension in the present case on 01.05.2016. Thus, right since the beginning of the 58 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 registration of the FIR i.e 05.11.2015 till 01.05.2016, the Investigation of the same remained with A-1. A-2 being the prime offender was under the radar in the said FIR. The said file Ex. PW2/3 also contains the request of A-1 dated 04.11.2015 seeking permission from the Competent Authority i.e Deputy Commissioner of Police, District West, for registration of the FIR. As per the preliminary inquiry conducted by A-1, he found that A-2 had impersonated himself as an IAS Officer and thereby cheated complainant of Rs.1 crore. It thus reflects that even prior to the registration of the FIR, A-1 dealt with the complaint lodged by PW 24 Pratap Singh Yadav against A-2 though the said previous sequence of events are not much relevant herein.
61. The Case Diary (CD) as mandatorily required under Section 172 of Cr.P.C to be maintained by Investigating Officer, came to be recorded by (A-1) which is part of Ex.PW2/3 (D4).
61.1 The first Case Diary (CD) was recorded on 05.11.2015. The investigation was immediately taken up after the registration of FIR by calling A-2 to the police station. The car in question which was alleged to be misused by affixing the red beacon or other accessories was inspected, but nothing was found. The employment details of A-2 were collected and were to be verified during the course of investigation. In the end it has been recorded in C.D No.1 that A-2 was even examined by ACP and DCP concerned thoroughly. It is further recorded that no grounds of arrest came on 59 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 record though the investigation was still going on and report from different agencies was yet to be recevied . Thus, it appears that even the Senior Officers of A-1 were in loop qua the investigation. So the material question is whether in such a situation A-1 alone could have given any undue favour to A-2 , which requires consideration .
62. A-2 again joined the investigation on 09.11.2015 and he was asked to join the investigation on 14.11.2015. In the meantime, on 12.11.2015, the third CD was recorded when complainant joined the investigation. On 14.11.2015, A-2 joined the investigation and disclosed certain other facts and was served with notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C with direction to join the investigation on 19.12.2015. In the mean-time, the investigation was conducted by collecting relevant documents from concerned Ministries and departments. The last CD recorded herein is CD No.6 dated 25.11.2015 wherein reports were received from different agencies concerning A-2.
62.1 Though it is apparent from the facts proved on record that the investigation continued even thereafter, but surprisingly despite the legal mandate, no Case Diary was recorded by A-1. During the course of said investigation only, the request dated 24.04.2016 came to be moved by the complainant PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav seeking stay of the matter due to amicable settlement. The said request {Part of Ex.PW2/3 ( D4) } was accompanied with one 60 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 settlement deed of the same date executed between Pratap Singh Yadav and Ashutosh Kumar Singh (A-2 herein). The said request was addressed to SHO PS Janakpuri and was marked to A-1 on 25.04.2016. Again, no entry qua the said proceedings concerning settlement or request for stay of investigation were entered into Case Diary by A-1 despite the legal mandate under Section 172 Cr.P.C and Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to Delhi).
62.2 It is the case of the prosecution that the said non-recording of the Case Diaries was on account of the mis-conduct of A-1. He started mediating between A-2 and complainant Pratap Singh Yadav (PW24) to settle the case and thereafter demanded bribe from A-2. As far as the aspect of action upon the said settlement deed is concerned, the same is not relevant concerning the first limb of charge concerning demand and acceptance of bribe on 07.02.2016 by A-1.
However, it is proved from the record that the investigation in the said FIR led to the contact between A-1 and A-2 which gave rise to the case herein.
63. The issue herein to be seen concerning first limb of charge is as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the factum of demand or acceptance of bribe by A-1 from A-2 through courier PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku or not. The prosecution in order to prove the said charge has primarily placed reliance upon the versions of PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku and his associate who 61 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 accompanied him on that day i.e PW4 Nande Singh. Apart from that the prosecution also relied upon the intercepted telephonic conversation between A-2 and PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku. The reliance is placed upon the transcription-cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW3/21 ( D-15) . The said recorded conversation between A-2 and PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku took place on 06.02.2016 and 07.02.2016 when the alleged demand of bribe of Rs.3 lacs was raised by A-1 and it was paid to him.
63.1 The first aspect concerning the said allegation is the testimony of the crucial witness PW3 Vijay Singh @Rinku concerning delivery of bribe. He deposed that he is known of A-2 having known to him for about 6-7 years. As far as the remaining aspects of the case of the prosecution concerning the telephonic conversation between him and A-2 or concerning delivery of bribe or having met with A-1 for delivery of bribe, he turned hostile. He denied the case of the prosecution that he had met A-1 on 07.02.2016 and rather went to the extent of claiming that he had not met him till date.
63.2 It is also the case of the prosecution that while delivering the bribe of Rs.3 lacs to A-1,PW3 also received notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C issued by A-1 to A-2 for joining the investigation. The said notice dated 05.02.2016 is part of file Ex.PW2/3 (D4) ( specifically marked as Mark PW3/2). PW3 denied his signature or he having received the same on 07.02.2016 whereby putting 62 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 question mark over the claim of the CBI of is meeting with A-1 in dock. There is no reason to discard the said version of PW3 concerning the denial of the signature on notice Mark PW3/2 in view of the marked difference in his signatures on the other admitted documents of prosecution i.e transcription-cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW3/21, transcriptions Ex.PW3/1, Ex.PW3/2, transcription-cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW3/22 (D15A) alongwith transcriptions and specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW3/3 (D14). The Investigating Authority never cared to collect his specimen signatures for FSL opinion despite the fact that his signatures in their own above-referred admitted documents prepared during investigation were substantially different when compared with the notice. Therefore, in the said backdrop there is no reason to discard claim of PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku regarding he having not met A-1 on 07.02.2016 either in connection with delivery of bribe or having received notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C marked PW3/2.
64. Another issue which raises a question mark over the authenticity of said notice Mark PW3/2 is the crucial missing details therein. Though it is claimed by prosecution that it is the notice under Section 160 and 175 Cr.P.C requiring A-2 to join the investigation issued by A-1, but the crucial details of date, time and place of joining are blank. In absence of the said crucial particulars, 63 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 there was no object behind issuance of such notice by the Investigating Officer to the suspect or the witness.
64.1 Similar is the version of PW4 Nande Singh who as per the CBI accompanied PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku to the office of A-1 concerning the delivery of bribe of Rs.3 lacs on 07.02.2016. He too denied having any acquaintance with A-1 or any talk with PW3 concerning their meeting with A-1. So, the testimonies of both PW3 and PW4 concerning their meeting with A-1 on 07.02.2016 at PS Janakpuri on the asking of A-2 for delivery of bribe does not help the case of the prosecution.
(ii) Intercepted Conversation 64.2 The prosecution apart from the oral version of PW3 and PW4 concerning demand and delivery of bribe to A-1 on 07.02.2016, has also placed reliance upon the intercepted conversation of A-2 with PW3 {vide transcription-cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW3/21 (D15) } and between A-1 and A-2 {vide transcription- cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW3/22 (D15A)}.
65. The first issue before considering the said intercepted conversation is the admissibility of the same as the question mark has been raised on behalf of the accused persons. It has been argued on behalf of the accused persons that any interception of telephonic conversation amounts to breach of their right to privacy 64 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 and thereby violates their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any such taking away of the liberty has to be as per the due procedure established by law. It is their case that the prosecution in the present case has failed to prove the following of the due procedure governing the issue of interception of telephonic calls.
65.1 The prosecution has placed reliance on the interception orders of three mobile numbers belonging to A-1 and A2 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India Ex.PW-14/A to Ex.PW-14/D ( Part of D9). PW14 Sunil Kumar, the then Senior P.P.S to the Secretary, MHA, New Delhi identified and proved the said interception orders concerning tracking and interception of calls and messages of mobile Nos. 9969077000, 8750871193 and 9819473029.
66. The first aspect on the issue of admissibility of the intercepted calls as disputed by the accused persons is whether the interception orders Ex.PW-14/A to Ex.PW-14/D ( Part of D9) have been proved by the prosecution or not. It is the case of the accused persons that PW-14 Sunil Kumar only identified the signatures of the then Home Secretary on Ex.PW-14/A to Ex.PW-14/D. They had taken the specific objection on the said aspect.
66.1 The said objection of the accused regarding proving of orders is liable to be rejected. It is apparent from the testimony of PW14, the then Senior P.P.S to Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 65 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 (MHA), Govt of India that on the aspect of passing of the interception orders Ex.PW-14/A to Ex.PW-14/D ( Part of D9), no dispute was raised in the cross-examination by the accused persons . As far as the proving of interception orders is concerned, the examination-in-chief of of PW14 itself reflects that apart from identifying signatures of the then Home Secretary being the Competent Authority under the Telegraph Act 1885, he also proved the contents of the said orders. On the said aspect, he deposed as under:
"We used to receive request letters from the Nodal Officer, CBI seeking permission to intercept the phones. I used to put up those request letters before the Secretary, MHA. The Secretary used to pass orders for approval or disapproval for interception of the phones and thereafter, the orders were issued and collected by the Nodal Officer of the CBI. The grounds for approval of the interception were mentioned in the order itself and the same are mentioned in Ex. PW14/A to Ex. PW14/D. The secretary had passed the orders for approval since the grounds for interception existed in the case."
66.2 Thus, the entire procedure of right from the inception i.e when the request letter is received in their office addressed to Secretary, MHA and all the subsequent stages which leads towards the passing of the interception orders were explained by him. He even went to the extent that the grounds for interception existed in their case and due to the same interceptions orders Ex.PW-14/A to Ex.PW-14/D ( Part of D9) were passed. On the said specific aspect regarding the contents of the interception order and the existence of 66 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 the grounds for issuing the interception orders by the Home Secretary, even a bald suggestion on behalf of the accused persons denying the said fact to the said witness is missing. In the said backdrop, the first ground on which the challenge has been made on behalf of the accused qua the proving of the interception orders Ex.PW-14/A to Ex.PW-14/D, is liable to rejected.
67. The second ground on which the interception orders and subsequently calls being intercepted being challenged is the non- following of the due process of law as enshrined under Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951. The reliance in this regard has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) V. UOI (1997) 1 SCC 301 and that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jatinder Pal Singh (supra).
No doubt, the compliance of the due procedure established by law before intercepting the telephonic conversations has to be shown by the Investigating Authority . As has been rightly argued , any such interception amounts to breach of Right to Privacy which in turn has been held to be as part and parcel of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PUCL ( supra) case. The said judgment only led to the incorporation of due procedure for interception of telephonic calls by insertion of Rule 419A in Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
67 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
67.1 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jatinder Pal Singh (supra) case further held that the Court while considering the evidence of intercepted calls, has to see the compliance of Rule 419(A) sub rule (2), (16) (17) and (18). The relevant para -63 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder which is the basis of the arguments advanced on behalf of accused questioning the admissibility of the intercepted calls:
"63. As per Rule 419A of the Rules framed under the Telegraph Act, the order of the Home Secretary granting permission to intercept telephonic conversations is to be forwarded to the Review Committee within seven days of passing the order, for the purpose of being reviewed by the Committee. This Court does not find any material on record to establish that any review of the order of the Home Secretary was conducted in compliance of the aforesaid rules framed under the Telegraph Act. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the Special Judge while passing the impugned orders has totally ignored the provisions of the aforesaid rules."
67.2 It is not in dispute that the Competent Authority as required under Section 5 (2) Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Rule 419 A (1) i.e the Home Secretary/ Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Govt of India passed the interception orders of the mobile numbers as mentioned vide exhibit PW-14/A to Ex.PW-14/D ( Part of D9). The reasons for the same are duly recorded therein and no question mark has been raised over the existence of the said grounds.
68 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
68. The limited issue is only the compliance of Rule 419A(2) which is the mandatory review of said orders of interception by the Review Committee within a period of 07 days. As per Rule 419A (16), the Review Committee is headed by the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to Govt of India, Incharge, Legal Affairs and Secretary to Govt of India, Ministry of Telecommunications being the members . Thus, a second layer of scrutiny is envisaged under Rule 419A (2) of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 to the any order of interception order passed by the Competent Authority . The reason for said second stage of scrutiny of any such order is apparent that any such interception of private conversations between two individuals has serious consequences and thus such interception has to be within the strict four corners of the law.
68.1 Though the prosecution failed to file on record any such document showing the forwarding of the said interception orders to the Review Committee and its fate thereof. However, PW14 was cross-examined on the said very specific aspect and he clarified that their office sent the order to the Review Committee for consideration and approval. He denied the specific suggestion that Review Committee did not hold any meeting to review the orders passed in the present case. So, there is nothing in the cross- examination of PW14 which puts a question mark over his assertion that the orders were sent to the Review Committee for consideration and approval.
69 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
68.2 Now, the question is what was the fate of the said
interception order when considered by the Review Committee under Rule 419A (2) of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951. The Court record itself addresses the said issue. An application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C came to be filed by A-2 during the course of trial in the present case seeking Review Committee report. The notice was issued to Govt of India and supplementary affidavit of the Department of DOT dated 24.11.2021 was filed by Sh. Birender Kumar, Assistant Director, DOT, New Delhi. The order of the Ld. Predecessor on the said application dated 10.12.2021 throws light over the said issue wherein it has been observed that the Review Committee its meeting dated 03.05.2016 and 13.06.2016 reviewed the interception order including that of the present case and concluded that orders were in accordance with Section 5 (2) of Indian Telegraph Act. They did not merit any intervention of the Committee. There is no reason to discard the said affidavit which came to be filed on record on the directions of the Court. The said affidavit thus proves on record the mandate of the due procedure being followed as envisaged under Rule 419A(2) of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951. To support this view, the Court is also guided by the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) case. Accordingly, the objection on behalf of the accused persons on the said account are liable to be discarded.
70 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
69. The next crucial issue is whether the prosecution has proved the intercepted calls /telephonic conversations/ recorded conversation in terms of the mandate of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Col. Ram Singh V. Col. Ram Singh 1986 AIR 3 and Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (supra) case. It is the case of accused persons that the prosecution has failed to fulfill all the conditions as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above- referred judgments and accordingly, the said piece of evidence which is at best corroborative evidence only cannot be read against them.
70. On the contrary, Ld Sr. PP for CBI argued that PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku and PW4 Nande Singh are the witnesses qua the intercepted calls exchanged between A-2 and PW3 concerning the allegations of delivery of bribe of Rs.3 lacs to A1 on 07.02.2016. He placed reliance upon the transcripts Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/20 (Part of D15 and D15A). The reliance is also placed upon the transcription-cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW3/21 (D15) and Ex.PW3/22 (D15A).
71. Before coming to the factual aspect concerning the said aspect of said recorded conversation, the legal principles concerning the said issue of admissibility requires consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (supra) case considered the development of law on the said field by taking into account the 71 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 previous judgments as well as the position of law in U.S and England by observing as follows:
"In the case of Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Col. Ram Singh, again this Court stated some of the conditions necessary for admissibility of tape recorded statements, as follows:-
"(1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.
(2) The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence -- direct or circumstantial.
(3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape-recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.
(4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
(5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody. (6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances."
In Ram Singh's case (supra), this Court also notices with approval the observations made by the Court of 5 1985 (Supp) SCC 611 Appeal in England in the case of R. Vs. Maqsud Ali. In the aforesaid case, Marshall, J. observed thus:-
"We can see no difference in principle between a tape-recording and a photograph. In saying this we must not be taken as saying that such
72 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 recordings are admissible whatever the circumstances, but it does appear to this Court wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to be gained by new techniques and new devices, provided the accuracy of the recording can be proved and the voices recorded properly identified; provided also that the evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible, we are satisfied that a tape-
recording is admissible in evidence. Such evidence should always be regarded with some caution and assessed in the light of all the circumstances of each case. There can be no question of laying down any exhaustive set of rules by which the admissibility of such evidence should be judged."
72. Thus, it is apparent from the said proposition of law that though Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized the relevance and admissibility of recorded conversations, but highlighted the dangers attached to the said evidence in view of the advantages gained by new techniques and devices. Therefore, certain safeguards and parameters were set out before any such evidence is to be considered by the Court. The said dangers have gained even more traction with passage of time and with the advert of Artificial Intelligence including deepfake calls. Thus the issue to be seen is as to whether the recorded conversations relied upon by the prosecution for proving the allegations concerning delivery of bribe of Rs.3 lacs on 07.02.2016 fulfills the above-referred criteria or not.
72.1 The relevant material concerning the said allegations of delivery of bribe by A2 to A1 through PW3 on 07.02.2016 forms 73 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 part of transcription-cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW3/21 (D15) vide which three relevant calls exchanged between A-2 and PW3 were got identified. The said calls are of the period of 6 th of February to 7th of February 2016. PW3 thus being the maker of one of the voice and acquaintance of A-2, identified during the investigation as per CBI , his own voice and that of A-2. However, while appearing in the Court, he turned hostile. He neither identified his own voice nor that of A-2 in the said three recorded calls. Though he identified his signatures on the transcript Ex.PW3/1, Ex.PW3/2 and Ex.PW3/2, however, he claimed that it was not prepared in his presence and he signed the same at the instruction of the I.O. He further went to the extent of claiming that the recordings were never played in his presence. Therefore, in the said backdrop mere identification of the signatures by PW3 does not prove the proceedings as recorded vide transcript-cum-voice identification memo Ex.PW3/21 (D15).
72.2 The role of independent witnesses who was part of said proceedings namely PW10 Rajesh Chawla, thus, becomes relevant when seen in the context of the fact that PW3 has put the entire voice identification proceedings in the dock. PW10 deposed that he visited the CBI office and he was asked to witness to the identification of voices proceedings. He though failed to disclose the name of the person who identified his voice and voice of other person during his examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination 74 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 conducted on behalf of the A-2, he went to the extent by deposing that he was never apprised about the particulars of the person who identified the voices in the conversation. In the said backdrop, not much credence can be attached to the version of PW10 as he was never introduced to the witness nor was disclosed about the identity of the said person . Therefore, there is no reason to discard the version of PW3 which puts a question mark over the proceedings of identification Ex.PW3/21.In the said backdrop, it has to be observed that one of first crucial condition for admissibility of recorded conversation as stipulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (supra) case has not been fulfilled by the prosecution.
73. The another connected aspect which puts a question mark over the veracity of the said recorded conversation is the CDRs of the mobile no. 9999475157 of PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku. The CDR has been proved on record as Ex.PW7/12 (colly) which is of the period w.e.f 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged calls were exchanged by him with A-2 on 06/7th February 2016. However, the close scrutiny of CDR reflects that the first call in the month of February 2016 made or received by PW3 is that of 09.02.2016. Both the calls dated 6 th and 7th Feb 2016 are not reflected in the said CDR which is the document relied upon by the prosecution itself. No explanation is furnished by the 75 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 prosecution in this regard despite the specific objection being taken by A-1 .
74. As far as the CDR Ex. PW5/7 of Vodafone is concerned it is not clear as to whether the said mobile connection (9999475157) was being used by PW3 or not, as no CAF has been provided by the service provider. Rather the CDR provided by the two service providers of the same number are of overlapping period and it appears no clarification was sought by the investigating authority from them in this regard .The details of MNP port in Ex. PW7/10 also put a question mark over the CDR's relied by prosecution .The previous service operator is stated to be IDEA , however no details were sought from them .
The only CAF proved on record concerning the said connection is Ex. PW7/10 of Airtel , however the date of connection 10/10/2016 i.e after the commission of offence in question. In the said backdrop, it has to be concluded that the recorded conversations vide recorded calls (1) 21-214083-0-08- 20160206-130024 (2) 21-214083-0-08-20160207-143800 & (3) 21- 214083-0-09-20160206-151208 cannot be read in evidence. The CFSL report is also of no use when the recorded calls itself are in dispute .
75. Thus it has to be concluded that prosecution fails on the first limb of allegations concerning demand and delivery of 76 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 bribe by A-2 to A1 through PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku on 07/02/2016.
(iii) Demand of Bribe and Trap Dated 01.05.2016
76. The second limb of the allegations for which the charges have been framed against the accused persons concern demand and acceptance of bribe by A-1 on 01.05.2016 at PS Janakpuri. The trap was led and both bribe giver i.e A-2 and bribe receiver i.e A-1 were apprehended.
76.1 The context of the contact between A-1 and A-2 has already been discussed above and their contact occurred on account of lodging of FIR No. 1378/2015 PS Janakpuri by complainant/ (PW24) Pratap Singh Yadav. It has also been proved on record that A-1 who was posted at PS Janakpuri as Inspector (Investigation) was assigned with the investigation of the said matter and remained the I.O since the lodging of the FIR till his apprehension i.e on 01.05.2016. It has also been already observed that the said case file Ex.PW2/3 (D4) was seized consequent to apprehension of accused persons. The record also proves that no case diary was recorded by A-1 after 25.11.2015 despite the continuation of investigation. Though it has been argued on behalf of A-1 that the complete file was never seized by CBI officials as has been stated so by PW18 Inspector Ram Swaroop Meena, the then SHO, P.S Janakpuri.
77 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
76.2 It is the case of the prosecution that as A-1 was pressuring A- 2 to enter into compromise with A-1 (PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav) in FIR No. 1378/2015 under investigation with him and due to the said reason only, no worthwhile investigation was got conducted by him as reflected from seized file Ex.PW2/3 (D4). On the said limited aspect concerning case diaries being not complete ,the testimony of PW18 Inspector Ram Swaroop Meena is relied upon by A-1. He was the SHO, PS Janakpuri at the relevant point of time when the raid was conducted and the accused were apprehended. It is proved on record that subsequent to the apprehension of accused persons, PW18 arrived at the scene and was directed to get the photocopy of the file in FIR No. 1378/2015. Accordingly, he submitted the attested copy of the FIR Ex.PW-2/3, however, while deposing before the court he introduced altogether a new fact concerning the completeness of the said file.
76.3 He claimed that at the time of his apprehension, A-1 was handling 8-10 cases. The investigation of the said cases were assigned to some other officers after his apprehension. Further while they were checking the files being handled by A-1, they found one folder having case diaries of 3/4 cases . The said case diaries also contained the case diary of the FIR in question i.e FIR No. 1378/2015. He further elaborated on the said aspect by claiming that the said folder was found after 3/4 days of the apprehension of A-1, 78 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 though he was not able to disclose the period for which the said case diary pertained.
Even if the said introductory fact which for the first time came to be deposed by him in Court is taken at its face value, it does not help the case of A-1. PW-18 failed to disclose as to the period for which the copies of the said C.Ds were found by him. Thus, no assumption can be drawn whether the said C.Ds kept in separate folder were the copies of the six case diaries already part of Ex.PW2/3 (D4) or for some other period. The onus for proving the said fact as to the incompleteness of seized file Ex.PW2/3 was upon the accused being his specific assertion. A-1 could have discharged the said onus by summoning the concerned witnesses or record from P.S Janakpuri. It is his case that the CBI had deliberately filed the incomplete case diary, he could have easily summoned the record from PS Janakpuri. It was never summoned during the entire course of the trial for the reasons best known to him.
76.4 Even otherwise, the testimony of PW18 on face of it appears to be a complete falsehood. He in the cross-examination claimed that while taking possession of file Ex.PW2/3, CBI officials never apprised him about purpose of the same and had they apprised the purpose, he would have certainly apprised them about the later development of discovery of loose case diaries by him 3/4 days after the apprehension. The said claim on face of it appears to be an a ploy to mislead the Court . It cannot be believed that a police 79 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 official having more than 25 years of experience being not aware about purpose of the seizure of file by the CBI after the apprehension of A-1 and A-2. Handing over the copies of the official record by the public servant in his custody to any other public servant without any reason , is rather a misconduct.
It has been proved on record through the version of panch witnesses, that the SHO was called at the spot and was apprised about the apprehension of A-1 while taking bribe . So PW18 was well aware about the purpose of seizure of the case file .It was his bounden duty to inform the CBI officials about the later developments and the reasons given by him has to be termed as a lame excuse. The reason for said introductory fact appears to be only to help out his colleague. Even otherwise, the said claim of PW18 is also liable to be rejected in view of the mandate of law under Section 172 Cr.P.C as well as Punjab Police Rules which specifically enjoins the duty upon the police officials investigating the matter to record the case diary and the case diary has to be paginated and not in loose form . Accordingly, it has to be observed that the file Ex.PW2/3 (D4) which was seized from the office of A-1 after his apprehension is complete in all respects and the last CD recorded by A-1 is that of 25.11.2015.
77. The next factual issue in the said backdrop is as to whether any investigation was conducted by A-1 in FIR No. 1378/2015 after 20.11.2015 and if the answer is in affirmative, then why the 80 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 case diary was not recorded. The reason as per the case of the prosecution is the demand of bribe by A-1.
77.1 The testimony of PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav (the complainant in the said FIR) throws light over the same. He deposed about the contents of the FIR, regarding the manner in which he was cheated by A-2 and circumstances under which he was forced to lodge the FIR with PS Janakpuri. He further deposed that he used to meet A- 1 at PS Janakpuri who used to assure him about the matter being sorted out. He even had telephonic communication with Kehar Singh (A-1). A-1 also informed that he will call A-2 in the matter for sorting out. He further deposed that A-1 informed that A-2 had offered to pay Rs.35 lacs as settlement and accordingly, he was advised by his advocate and R.D Yadav to accept the said amount. Thereafter, the MoU was signed by him and A-2 Ex.PW2/3 (Part of D4). The said part of his version concerning his meetings with A-1 during the investigation as well as the advice being given by A-1 that they should settle the matter by accepting settlement amount of Rs.35 lacs, is not challenged in the cross-examination.
77.2 Though PW-24 turned hostile on remaining all aspect and failed to identify his voice specimen recorded in Ex.S-3 as well as failed to identify his own voice and of A-1 and A-2 in the recorded conversations (Part of DVD 4 to 5 Ex.PW13/8 and Ex.PW13/7). However, as far as his version concerning the investigation conducted by A-1 or A-1 having advised them to accept the amount 81 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 which was being offered being not challenged, has to be read against A-1. His version goes on to prove a incriminating fact that even after 25.11.2015 when the last CD was recorded, the investigation was being conducted by A-1, but A-1 failed to follow the mandate of law in recording the case diaries. Rather, he was pushing the parties towards settlement.
77.3 The CDRs of the mobile phone of PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav Ex.PW7/9 , of A-2 Ex. PW5/4 {(colly) (D-18) } and A-1 Ex.PW6/3 {(colly) (D-19) } also proves on record the regular communication between them even after 25.11.2015. It thus goes on to prove the fact that the investigation was still continuing and A-1 was meeting the parties during the course of the same. But he failed to record any case diary in this regard.
78. In the said backdrop, the issue to be seen is whether the said non-recording of the case diaries by A-1 while investigating the matter or pushing the parties for settlement was due to extraneous reasons of seeking the bribe or illegal gratification from A-2 or it was merely a dereliction of duty.
78.1 The prosecution case is that the said irregular acts of A-1 in not recording the case diaries and pushing the parties towards the settlement were inspired on account of demand of bribe which ultimately came to be accepted by A-1 on 01.05.2016. They accordingly placed reliance upon the calls.
82 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
Intercepted Calls leading to Trap
79. On the issue of factum of demand of bribe, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the intercepted conversations. Before discussing the context of the recorded calls , the position of the said subject qua its admissibility requires thoughtful consideration . The issue as to the legality of the intercepted calls in view of the mandate of law as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in PUCL (supra) case is already discussed while discussing the issue of delivery of bribe on 07.02.2016. The argument on behalf of accused qua it being not valid already stands rejected.
79.1 It has also been discussed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in landmark judgment Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh (supra) , has laid down certain mandatory conditions before acting on such type of the recorded conversations or tape recorded statements. It has also been held that it is only a corroborative evidence.
79.2 One of the crucial condition stipulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court is condition no.5 i.e "(5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody". Before acting upon the said recorded conversation, it has to be proved that it was carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody. The onus of proving is on the party relying upon the same.
79.3 In the present case in hand as has already been discussed that the entire case of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of bribe 83 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 concerning delivery and acceptance of alleged bribe on 01.05.2016 by A-1 is based upon the intercepted telephonic calls. The said calls were intercepted and recorded by the Special Unit, CBI consequent to the receipt of interception orders from the competent authority i.e Home Secretary, MHA, Govt. of India as already discussed.
80. On the aspect of manner in which the intercepted calls came to be recorded at Special Unit, CBI and how the same were handed over for investigation to PW-20 IO/Inspector Parmod Kumar in the present case, the testimony of PW23 Dy. S.P Suraj Majumdar is the most crucial one .
He was posted in Special Unit, CBI and deposed that during the relevant time, was having control of call recording system which is a combination of Server Client System provided by M/s Kommlabs Pvt Ltd, Noida. The said system has the unique facility of recording the calls and SMSs which are diverted automatically without any manual intervention. On the recorded calls in the present case, he claimed that in total 31514 calls and 3888 SMSs were intercepted and were reproduced in five DVD-R. The said DVD-R were provided to I.O PW-20 Inspector Parmod Kumar on 06.05.2016. The handing-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW20/2 (D9) was prepared in this regard which too reflects that five DVD-R Make Sony having calls, SMSs as well as Excel file of recorded calls information report were provided in sealed condition. Apart from that, separate sheet having specimen of the seal affixed was also 84 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 provided. One unsealed packet of above five DVD-R having the said calls was also provided and the purposes of the same appears to be for the investigation only. Apart from that, the interception orders as well as certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act was also handed over by him.
80.1 The issue herein is the safe custody of the recorded calls in sealed condition and its chain of custody after being handed over to PW20 on 06.05.2016. It is one of crucial condition as discussed above before placing reliance upon such conversation. As per PW23, the DVD-R having the intercepted recorded calls were provided in sealed condition alongwith one sheet of seals specimen. However, the testimony of PW23 is silent as to the custody of the said specimen seal after 06.05.2016 till the deposit of said DVD-R with CFSL on 31.05.2017. The entire case of the prosecution is silent as to the custodian of the said seal during the said period of one year . It is not clear as to whether the said sample seal remained with SU or any independent witness so as to rule out the possibility of tampering with the sealed parcel's containing recorded calls.
The CFSL report Ex.PW13/1 dated 04.04.2018 further puts a question mark over the contents of said handing over-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW20/2. As per CFSL report the specimen seal impression was "x CBI SU x DELHI and Ashoka emblem at the centre" and the said specimen seal impressions being on two separate white papers marked as Annexure-C. No explanation is 85 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 furnished by the prosecution as to how the said specimen sealed impression of seal used by PW23 on the sealed DVD-R came to be affixed on two separate white papers despite the contrary assertion in Ex.PW20/2. The said fact becomes more relevant when seen in the backdrop of the fact that the chain of custody of specimen seal is not at all explained by the prosecution for the whole period starting w.e.f. 06.05.2016 till deposit of said sealed articles in CFSL on 31.05.2017.
81. Another connected aspect in terms of the requirement as stipulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh V. Col. Ram Singh (supra) case is the safe or official custody of the said sealed cassettes/DVD-R. In the present case in hand, it has been proved on record through the version of PW23 Dy. S.P Suraj Majumdar as well as vide document Ex.PW20/2 that the said sealed DVD-R's were handed over to PW-20 Inspector Parmod Kumar on 06.05.2016 i.e after five days of registration of the FIR. As to the chain of custody of said DVD-R, PW20 remained silent as to whether the said DVD-R remained in his personal custody or were deposited in the CBI Malkhana. No record from CBI Malkhana has been produced showing the deposit of said sealed pullandas having DVD-R containing recorded conversations on 06.05.2016 or thereafter.
81.1 The said sealed DVD-R ultimately came to be deposited in the CFSL on 31.05.2017 vide request letter Ex.PW13/23, nearly one 86 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 year after its seizure . As per the notings on the said letter, one Kuldeep Kumar HC, ACB, New Delhi deposited the said sealed parcel in CFSL. It is not clear from the said letter whether he received the said sealed parcels from the Investigating Officer or from the Incharge CBI, Malkhana. In the said backdrop, a serious question mark is raised over the safe or official custody of sealed DVD-R having the recorded conversations right from 06.05.2016 till 31.05.2017.
81.2 The said lacuna in the case of the prosecution becomes more relevant when seen in the light of the version given by CFSL expert PW13 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhary. In the cross-examination, he admitted to the fact that one of the sealed parcels received by them i.e DVR (S2) had software named 'Sound Organizer'. He further elaborated that it is an audio processing software by which the audio can be played and edited. The said DVR (S2) as per forwarding letter Ex.PW13/23 of CBI contained the specimen voice of A-1 recorded on 02.05.2016. After the apprehension of A-1 and A-2 on 01.05.2016, PW20 recorded their specimen voices by using the very said DVR. The specimen voice of A-2 was recorded in memory card which was inserted in the very same DVR and the specimen voice of A-1 was recorded in the internal memory of said DVR (S2). No explanation is furnished by prosecution as to the presence of said software Sound Organizer whose purpose is to edit the voices . It is also not the case that the said DVR (S2) belonged to 87 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 the Investigating Officer. Rather, he arranged it from CBI itself which raises a question mark as to the purpose of said software in the DVR. The Court cannot fathom any such purpose about the availability of any such type of Software in the official voice recording instrument being used by CBI. In the said backdrop, it has to be concluded that above-referred one of the crucial condition No.5 as stipulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Col. Ram Singh V Col. Ram Singh (supra) case qua admissibility of recorded conversation has not been proved on the standard of beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has failed to prove the fact of safe custody of recorded conversations or specimen voices for period of one year before the same were forwarded to CFSL, New Delhi.
82. Another aspect which puts a question mark over the said issue of safe custody of the recorded conversation provided to PW- 20 Inspector Parmod Kumar in five sealed DVD-R. The PW23 Dy. S.P Suraj Majumdar deposed that the said recorded conversation in the form of 31514 calls and 3888 SMSs were provided to I.O/ Inspector Parmod Kumar of CBI, ACB, Delhi on 06.05.2016. In the cross-examination, he admitted to the fact that no other unit of CBI was having knowledge of the calls being recorded at Special Unit prior to 06.05.2016 nor they conveyed the same to any other unit including ACB which conducted the investigation in present case .
88 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
Thus, as per his version the sanctity of the intercepted calls was maintained by the Special Unit which is the Nodal Agency of CBI .
82.1 The said version has to be appreciated keeping in mind the serious repercussions on account of interception of telephone calls. The interception is done consequent to the passing of interception orders by the Competent Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act. It has already been observed that any such interception of private conversation between two individuals amounts to violation to Right to Privacy which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, any such interception has to be as per the due procedure established by the law. Accordingly, the role of Competent Authority under the Telegraph Act and Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 comes into play.
82.2 Thus, keeping in view said mandate of law and serious repercussions, PW-23 fairly deposed that no other unit of even CBI was having the knowledge or access to the calls being recorded in Special Unit prior to 06.05.2025 when he handed over the said five sealed DVD-R to PW-20 Inspector Parmod Kumar vide handing- cum-seizure memo Ex.PW20/2.
83. In the said backdrop, issue to be seen is as to how come if a other Unit of CBI was not having knowledge of the intercepted conversation, TLO PW-20 Inspector Parmod Kumar recorded the specimen voice sample of A-1 and A-2 after their arrest 89 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 on 01.05.2016/02.05.2016. As per the specimen voice memos Ex.PW1/1, the same were recorded on 02.05.2016. Even the contents of the said specimen voice recording memo puts a question mark over the sanctity of the procedure followed by the Special Unit in the interception of calls. The basis of taking specimen samples was the existence of sentences in the conversation which were selected by the I.O and accordingly spoken by the accused person while giving their sample voices. Thus, the sanctity of recorded conversation was not maintained by Special Unit CBI and already PW20/IO Inspector Parmod Kumar was aware about the intercepted communication. He even had the access as to the contents of the same. PW20 in the cross-examination admitted to the said fact that ACB branch was having knowledge of intercepted calls before 06.05.2016 and he was informed by the S.P. in this regard. Thus, it has to be observed that even on said aspect too, a question mark has been raised over the version of the witness of CBI itself i.e PW23 Dy. S.P Suraj Majumdar as well as upon authenticity of the certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act Ex. PW20/2 concerning data of intercepted calls.
(iv) Identification of Voices
84. The next crucial aspect before acting upon the said intercepted calls relied upon by the prosecution for proving the factum of demand of bribe of Rs.3 lacs which was delivered on 01.05.2016 to A-1, is the identification of voices of 90 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 speakers/maker.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh V Col. Ram Singh (supra) case stipulated the very first condition qua the admissibility of such evidence is the identification of voice of the speaker or maker by others who recognize his/her voice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated on the said issue by holding that where the voice has been denied by the maker, it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of speaker.
84.1 In the present case in hand, it is a matter of record that both A- 1 and A-2 denied their voices in the recorded conversation right since the beginning of the trial. Even other speakers whose telephonic conversations were intercepted i.e PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav, PW25 Surya Prasad Yadav, PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku and lastly PW4 Nande Singh also did not identify their voices while deposing in the Court. Thus all the speakers have denied their voices.
84.2 However the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that the independent witnesses in whose presence, the transcription-cum- voice identification proceedings were carried out proved the said proceedings .It goes on to prove the fact that the denial by accused or the above-referred prosecution witnesses is a falsehood.
84.3 The first such transcript-cum-voice identification proceedings concerns memo dated 02.08.2016 (D11) Ex. PW9/C (colly) 91 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 regarding the conversation held between Pratap Singh Yadav, Kehar Singh (A-1) and Ashutosh Kumar (A-2). The said proceedings of identification were carried out on 02.08.2016 wherein PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav identified his own voice in the 6 intercepted calls played on that day .He also identified the voices of A-1 and A-2. The said intercepted calls are of the period 22.04.2016 to 25.04.2016 which as per the prosecution is the same period when talks concerning exchange of bribe were being held.
84.4 As has already been observed that PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav denied the authenticity of the said proceedings. He even went to the extent of deposing that no such calls were ever played when he joined the investigation. He denied the identification of his own voice as well as that of A-1 and A-2.
84.5 PW9 Govind Singh was the independent witness from the office of DDA who joined the said voice identification proceedings with I.O Shistanshu Sharma and PW-24 Pratap Singh Yadav. He deposed that voice of one person was recorded in the some machine like instrument though he was unable to depose whose voice was recorded. The said part of his version concerns the specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW3/3 when the specimen voice of PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku was recorded. As for the voice-cum-identification memo Ex.PW9/C PW9 further deposed that recorded conversation was played in his presence which contained two voices. He further elaborated on the said proceedings 92 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 by claiming that 2-3 CBI officials were also present. He even went to the extent of deposing that no other public person was present. Surprisingly, prosecution never sought any permission to confront him regarding the presence of public person i.e PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav when the said recordings were played. Thus, as per his version which is not challenged by CBI , no public person was present on 02.08.2016 and only 2-3 CBI officers were present. It puts a question mark over the authenticity entire voice identification proceedings carried vide memo Ex.PW9/C. Hence, the version of said independent witness also does not help the case of prosecution or reflect the falsity of the version given by identification witness PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav as has been argued by prosecution .
In the said backdrop it has to be concluded that the identification of intercepted calls vide voice identification memo Ex.PW9/C has remained unproved.
84.6 The next transcription-cum-voice identification memo relied upon by the prosecution is dated 16.05.2017 Ex.PW21/1 (D12) which concerns the conversation between Pratap Singh Yadav and Kehar Singh (A-1).
84.7 On 16.05.2017, seven recorded calls as stipulated in the memo Ex.PW21/1 (Part of D-12) were played which concerns the conversation between PW24 and A-1 during the period between 19.03.2016 to 26.04.2016. The said conversations as per CBI are also material when the matter in FIR No. 1378/2015, PS Janakpuri 93 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 was still under investigation with A-1 as Investigating Officer and he was not doing any investigation due to extraneous reasons. Again as far as the said seven recorded conversations are concerned, the maker of the voice or the identifier i.e PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav denied as to the authenticity of said proceedings. He claimed that no such recordings were played on that day, though he had signed the document. He further failed to identify the voices in seven recorded conversations while deposing in the Court.
84.8 The independent witness to the said proceedings was PW21 Manmeet Singh, the Probationary Officer, from Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi. He deposed that on that day one person namely Pratap Singh Yadav was present alongwith I.O Shistanshu Sharma. The said Pratap Singh Yadav identified his voice as well as voice of Kehar Singh (A-1). However, responses given by him in the cross- examination again puts a question mark and reflects how mechanically the proceedings were carried out. He expressed ignorance as to whether he had seen the I.D of the said person who identified the voices and admitted to the fact that he had no personal knowledge that the person present with Inspector Shistanshu Sharma was Pratap Singh Yadav.
84.9 In the said backdrop, when even the identity of the said witness was not got verified or he was never introduced to the independent witness, not much worth can be attached to his version 94 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 qua the proceedings recorded vide voice identification memo Ex.PW21/1. Even otherwise, the contents of the documents Ex.PW21/1 i.e the identification proceedings carried during investigation can at best , only be used for corroboration to the versions given by witnesses in the Court. As has already been observed, the authenticity of the said proceedings has been discarded by PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav by denying having heard the conversation or identified the voices. The said document by itself cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence satisfying the mandate of law qua identification of the voice of the speaker/maker as stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh V Col. Ram Singh (supra) case.
84.10 The next incriminating call relied upon by the prosecution concerning the allegations qua exchange of bribe between A-1 and A-2 is call No.21-214083-0-13-20160424-113130 (D-13A). The said call was exchanged between PW25 S.P Yadav and A-2 on 24.04.2016. It is the case of the prosecution that the said S.P Yadav was involved in the settlement deed executed between A-2 and PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav and money being exchanged on account of the said settlement deed or later on bribe money being paid . The execution of settlement deed between PW-24 and A-2 and it being placed on record in investigation in FIR No. 1378/2015 is not dispute ( being part of D-4) . The said settlement deed Ex.PW2/3 95 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 (D4) as per prosecution corroborate the conversations held between A-2 and PW-25.
However again the said call too has remained unproved as per the norms stipulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh V Col. Ram Singh (supra) case qua the identification of voices in recorded conversation by the maker or acquaintance.
84.11 In the above-referred call one of the maker is PW25 S.P Yadav and he is also acquaintance of other voice in the said recording i.e A-2. During the course of the investigation as per transcription-cum-voice identification memo dated 09.05.2017 Ex.PW15/1 Collectively (D13A) he is alleged to have identified his voice as well as that of A-2 in the above-referred recorded conversation. However, while deposing in the Court, he failed to identify his own voice as well as that of A-2. Accordingly, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.
85. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI however argued that the authenticity of the said voice identification proceedings is proved by independent witness Anand Dev. The said PW Anand Dev has been examined as PW15 who at that relevant point of time was working with United India Insurance Company. He while deposing in the Court firstly claimed on on 09.05.2017, A-2 had identified the voice of S.P. Yadav contained in those recordings in his presence. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI wherein he admitted to the suggestion that in his presence 96 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 PW25 Surya Prasad Yadav had identified his voice as well as that of Ashutosh Kumar Singh.
85.1 Again in response to the Court question, he reiterated his earlier version claiming that Ashutosh Kumar Singh had identified his voice as well that of S.P Yadav. His further cross-examination was conducted on 25.05.2023 wherein in the end, he agreed to the case of the prosecution regarding the proceedings noted down in transcription-cum-voice identification memo dated 09.05.2017. Thus, when the independent witness has given three different versions during his testimony at different stages regarding the authenticity of the proceedings. In the said backdrop not much credence can be attached to his version or the claim of the prosecution regarding identification of voice by PW25 during the investigation.
85.2 The last set of incriminating calls relied upon by the prosecution are 17 calls exchanged between A-1 and A-2 during the crucial period i.e 05.02.2016 to 01.05.2016, when the trap was laid .
85.3 The said voice identification proceedings qua the said 17 incriminating calls exchanged between accused persons were carried out on 29.08.2017 vide memo Ex.PW3/22 (D15-A). The said proceedings were carried out by I.O Inspector Shistanshu Sharma in the presence of independent witness PW8 Vipin Bhat and the identifier of the voice of A-1 and A-2 was PW3 Vijay Singh @ 97 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 Rinku. The role of PW3 vis-a-vis exchange of bribe on 07.02.2016 is already discussed above in detail. As far as the said 17 incriminating calls and authenticity of voice identification proceedings dated 29.08.2017 is concerned, PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He denied the claim of the prosecution regarding the recorded conversations having the voices of A-1 and A-2. Rather, he went to the extent of deposing that he signed the documents including Ex.PW3/22 on the instructions of I.O and no recording was ever played in his presence at CBI office. He was declared hostile, but nothing came on record on the said aspect of identification of voices in the recorded conversations to be that of A-1 and A-2 in the cross-examination.
86. Before discussing the other aspects of the said proceedings recorded in voice-cum-identification memo Ex.PW3/22, the first issue which requires thoughtful consideration is the competence of PW3 to identify the voice of A-1. As far as A-2 is concerned, it has come on record that he was known to PW3 for the last 6-7 years. But as far as A-1 is concerned , he categorically deposed as under:
"I do not know Kehar Singh and have never met him till date."
87. So as per PW3, he was never known to Kehar Singh (A-
1) nor ever met him. On the contrary, the claim of the prosecution is that PW3 met him on 07.02.2016 on the instructions of A-2 and 98 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 received notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The issue with respect to the authenticity of the signature on the said notice Mark PW3/2 is already discussed while discussing the allegation of bribe on 07.02.2016.
88. The prosecution has also placed on record the CDR and CAF of the mobile number 8750871193 of A-1 as Ex.PW6/2 and Ex.PW6/3 (D19) respectively. The said CDR is of relevant period starting from February 2016 till 01.05.2016 . During the said period, only 04 calls were exchanged between A-1(mobile no. 8750871193) and PW3 (mobile no. 9999475157) i.e on 07.02.2016. The duration of the said calls was also minimal. So, in the said backdrop when there were only four calls exchanged between A-1 and PW3 that too of few seconds on a single day , whether he can be termed as an acquaintance to the voice of A-1 giving him the ability and capacity to identify the voice. The answer to the said issue lies in negative. The said issue becomes more pronounced when seen in the context of voice identification proceedings which were carried on 29.08.2017 i.e about one and half year of the said short duration of conversation of PW3 with A-1. Therefore, in the said backdrop, a question mark is raised as to the the manner in which it conducted the voice identification proceedings qua the voice A-1 through PW3 .The whole the object of proceedings in a way is in dock. As for the identification of the voice of A-2 is concerned , PW3 turned hostile and failed to identify his voice.
99 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
88.1 Even the version of independent witness PW8 Bipin Bhat
does not help the case of prosecution. He joined the voice identification proceedings and claimed that one Rinku/Tinku had identified two voices vide memo Ex. PW3/22 ( D15A) . He failed to check the ID of the said Rinku/Tinku nor he was ever introduced to the said person. Thus no assumption can be drawn that PW3 was indeed the person, who identified the voices of A-1 and A-2 on 29.08.2017 in presence of PW8.
88.2 Thus, the sum and substance of the above discussion concerning fulfillment of first condition of identification of voices of the maker through acquaintance as stipulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh V Col. Ram Singh (supra) case qua 36 incriminating calls, it has to be observed that the prosecution has failed to fulfill it .
(v) Value of CFSL Report
89. The prosecution has also placed relied upon the CFSL report Ex.PW13/1 dated 04.04.2018 by arguing that CFSL expert matched the 36 incriminating calls of A-1 and A-2, PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav, PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku and Surya Prasad Yadav and Nande with their respective specimen voices. The findings were given in the report that the voices alleged in the incriminating calls are similar to the voices of the alleged persons.
100 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
89.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons raised a
question mark over the sanctity of the said CFSL report by arguing that firstly there was tampering with the sealed parcels and secondly, PW13 Dr. Subrot Kumar Choudhary, CFSL Expert, never gave any conclusive report concerning identity of the voices of the accused persons in the incriminating calls.
90. Before discussing the merits of the CFSL report Ex.PW13/1, the question of sanctity of the sealed parcels of five DVD-R's containing incriminating calls as well as that of five separate specimen voices pullandas requires thoughtful consideration. The complete link evidence is missing . It has already come on record that total of 31514 of incriminating calls and 3888 SMSs were intercepted and shared with IO/ PW-20 Inspector Parmod Kumar through five DVD-R's. The five DVD-R's were handed over to him for the first time on 06.05.2016 vide handing-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW20/2. Thus, for practical purposes, Investigating Officer of ACB, CBI, New Delhi came to know about the contents of the intercepted calls only 06.05.2016.
90.1 Thus the issue of taking of voice samples of A-1 and A-2 through specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW1/1 dated 02.05.2016 becomes relevant. As per the contents of the said memo, the sentences found existing in the conversation were selected and noted down on a sheet of paper before A-1 and A-2 were asked to speak out the said sentences. Thus, as per the 101 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 document of the prosecution itself on 02.05.2016, I.O was having either the entire conversation or part of the same which was utilized by him for choosing some sentences while recording the specimen voice. The inherent contradiction itself raises a question mark over the sanctity of the specimen voice of A-1 and A-2 vide DVR and memory card S-1 (A-2) and S-2 (A-1).
91. Another issue which raises a big question mark over the sanctity of the above referred specimen voices of A-1 and A-2 is the manner in which the parcels were sealed. As per the contents of Ex. PW1/1 (D8), memory card (S1) containing specimen voice was put in the original packing of the memory card and thereafter kept in the while colour envelope. However, it is further mentioned that the said brown envelope was marked as S1 and signed by independent witnesses and IO/ PW-20 Inspector Parmod Kumar. The only interpretation from the said version is that the white envelope was used for sealing the memory card S1 and the later part of use of words "the said brown colour envelope" appears to be only a clerical mistake. Similar is the situation concerning specimen voice of A-1 which was recorded in the DVR S2 itself. The DVR was kept in white colour envelope and again the words have been used that the said brown colour envelope was marked as S2 and signed by all.
91.1 The CFSL report Ex.PW13/1 in the description of articles at Page-2 and 3 also records the fact that parcel S1 and S2 were in 102 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 white colour paper envelope having CBI seal. As per CFSL report Ex.PW13/1, note sub clause (b) on the last page, it has been specifically mentioned that the parcels including S1 and S2 are returned to forwarding authority alongwith its original packing in six separately parcels with the seal of FSL.
91.2 The said specimen voices articles for the first time came to be opened after the CFSL examination during the testimony of independent witness PW1 Bhuvnesh Kumar. The specimen voice parcel S-1 was opened which was found sealed in the yellow envelope having seal of CFSL. The said yellow envelope on opening contained another unsealed yellow envelope mentioned as S1 and the said unsealed yellow envelope contained another white unsealed envelope Ex.PW1/2 which contained the memory card. Similar is the situation concerning parcel S2 containing DVR having specimen voice of A-2.
91.3 Thus, both the specimen voices parcels S1 and S2 had yellow envelopes each with marking S1/S2 which in turn contained white envelopes having the memory card/DVR. The presence of the said yellow envelopes having the marking S1/S2 is neither explained in the CFSL report Ex.PW13/1 nor in the version of Investigating Officer PW20 Inspector Parmod Kumar. PW-20 who had recorded the specimen voices of A-1 and A-2 after their apprehension on 01.05.2016 in CBI office too remained silent with respect to the use of two envelopes in preparing the abovesaid parcels. As per his 103 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 version only one envelope each was used for putting the memory card/DVD-R in separate parcels. Thus, a big question mark is raised over the sanctity of the said sealed pullandas S-1 and S-2 having specimen voices of A-1 and A-2. The said issue was also raised by A-1 in the cross-examination of PW1, but despite that no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution.
91.4 It has already been observed in the earlier part of the judgment that the link evidence in the form of deposit sealed pullandas including pullanda S1 and S2 either in the CBI Malkhana in May 2016 till deposit of the same with CFSL on 31.05.2017 is missing. No document has been produced by the prosecution showing firstly the deposit of the said sealed parcels S1 and S2 or other specimen voices in the Malkhana on the respective dates of recording of specimen voices and subsequently deposit of the same with CFSL on 31.05.2017. The period of custody of the said sealed articles for a period of more than one year is unexplained. The said fact becomes more relevant when seen in the light of the above issue of sanctity of parcels S1 and S2.
91.5 PW1 with whom the seal used for sealing the parcels S1 and S2 was handed over, further in his cross-examination created doubt by deposing that he was called at CBI office after about 10-12 days from 02.05.2016. No such proceedings of second visit of PW1 or the purpose is explained in the chargesheet. Therefore, in the said facts, adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution 104 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 thereby putting a question mark over the sanctity of specimen voices of A-1 and A-2 .
92. Now, coming to the value to be attached to the opinion given by expert PW13 Dr. Subrot Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi. He deposed that after examining the questioned voices in DVD-1 to DVD-5 by comparing the same with specimen voice samples, he opined that the questioned voices tallies with that of specimen voices of A-1 and A-2, PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav, PW3 Vijay Singh @ Rinku and S.P Yadav. The said opinion has been given by him on the basis auditory, spectrographic and waveform examination.
92.1 The authenticity of the said report is questioned on behalf of accused persons by claiming that CFSL, New Delhi is not notified lab under Section 79A of Information Technology Act. Therefore, no credence can be attached to the report furnished by PW13. The said objection on the face of it appears to be misinterpretation of object behind incorporation of Section 79A of Information Technology Act. The said notification is not the mandatory requirement for providing expert opinion on electronic evidence. It is only a certification which any body, agency or Department of Centre or State Government examining the electronic evidence has to to apply for. It only adds a kind of additional certification and feather in their cap. The absence of said certification does not render 105 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 the said lab to be incompetent in examining the electronic evidence as seems to be the argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused.
92.2 As far as remaining cross-examination of Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury (PW-13) goes, it concerns the method or the technique used by him for reaching to his report Ex.PW-13/1. There is no question mark raised over the expertise of PW-13 or the method used by him in reaching to the conclusion. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is no reason to discard the report of PW-13 Ex.PW-13/A concerning identification of voices of accused persons and others, if the issue of sanctity of the parcels is not considered . The report Ex. PW-13/1 further rules out the possibility of tampering etc. in the recorded conversation and also opines that it may have recorded using the DVR.
92.3 On the issue of the findings given by him, he further in the cross-examination admitted to the fact that they express their opinion by using the word 'probable' though it is positive identification. He further elaborated that it is a practice to use word 'probable' in the context of identification of the voices and due to the same the said word has been used by him in Ex.PW13/1.
92.4 The report Ex.PW13/1 against the opinion column qua the identification of voices of A-1 and A-2 or that of PW3, PW24 or PW25 too states that the questioned voices are probably the voices 106 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 of said persons whose specimen voice was provided and used for comparison.
92.5 In the said backdrop, the issue is as to whether the said report which is only a probable opinion qua the identification of the voice can be solely relied upon by the Court or not, when the alleged acquaintances of the speakers have turned hostile and the sanctity of parcels being doubtful. The said issue is addressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ajay Gupta V. State Criminal 469/2003 dated 28.10.2022 holding as under :
"148. Furthermore, the FSL result dated 31.09.1997 only states that the questioned voice samples marked Q1, Q2 which were then matched with S1, the voice samples of the appellant were "probably" of the same speaker. Apparently, the accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of probabilities in a criminal trial. In the circumstances, of the case, the appellant is thus acquitted in relation to the allegations in RC No.80(A)/96/CBI/ACB/New Delhi qua the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."
92.6 Thus, in view of the said legal position , it has to be held that the accused cannot be held liable on the basis of probabilities in a criminal trial when the onus is upon the prosecution to prove its case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
107 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
93. In the end on the issue of factum of demand of bribe, be it the allegations concerning delivery of bribe on 07.02.2016 of Rs.3 lacs or that delivery of bribe of Rs.3 lacs on 01.05.2016 by A-2 to A-1, it has to be held that only two circumstantial pieces of incriminating evidence have been proved by the prosecution. The first incriminating circumstance against A-1 and A-2 is the registration of the FIR No. 1378/2015 at PS Janakpuri against A-2 and it being investigated by A-1. It has already been concluded that after assignment of investigation, A-1 initially diligently performed his duty by recording case diaries till about 25.11.2015. Thereafter, despite regular conversations between A-1 and A-2 or A-1 and PW24 Pratap Singh Yadav (the complainant in the said FIR) and they being called for investigation , no case diary was recorded. Though the documents kept coming on record, but despite that as per the proved case diaries Ex.PW2/3, no such further investigation was recorded.
93.1 The said incriminating circumstance against A-1 discloses that the said non-action by him after 25.11.2015 till 01.05.2016 when he was apprehended or pushing the parties towards the compromise was either inspired due to extraneous considerations as is the case of CBI or it could be due shirking of duty by askig them to compromise the matter . However, no assumption can be drawn that the said non-action of A-1 was inspired due to the extraneous 108 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 considerations as is claimed by the CBI without there being any positive evidence in this regard.
93.2 The second incriminating circumstance qua the said factum of demand of bribe is the CFSL report Ex.PW13/1 wherein it has been opined that the incriminating calls part of DVD-Rs 1 to 5 probably has the voices of A-1 and A-2 and others. As it has already been observed that the said probable report of voice identification alone cannot be acted upon in view of the reasons as already discussed. In this regard, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Sathyanarayana Murthy V. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P and Anr, AIR 2015 SC 3549, guides this Court and the relevant paras are reproduced herein:
"26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013)12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
27. The materials on record when judged on the touch stone of the legal principles enumerated herein above, leave no manner of doubt that the prosecution, in the instant case, has failed to prove 109 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 unequivocally, the demand of illegal gratification and, thus, we are constrained to hold that it would be wholly un-safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act as well. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is hereby set-aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. Original record be sent back immediately."
94. In the end, it has be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe by A-1 to A-2 on or before 01.05.2016 on the standard beyond reasonable doubt.
(XII) Acceptance of Bribe
95. It is well settled proposition of law that in case of prosecution of a public servant under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act, demand and acceptance of bribe are sine qua non. Though it has been already held above that the demand of gratification by the accused on 07/02/2018 or 01/05/2018 is not proved on the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In the said backdrop, the mere acceptance of bribe amount or illegal gratification without proceeding demand or offer is inconsequential as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as in P. Sathyanarayana Murthy ( Supra ) . Still the next factual aspect to be considered is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the factum of acceptance of alleged bribe amount and connected issue being whether the same was accepted with consenting mind.
110 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
96. The issue herein is as to whether the alleged bribe amount which is stated to be Rs.300000/- was accepted by the A-1 with the consenting mind and knowledge of it being the illegal gratification/bribe. The said issue has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Vijaykumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2021 SC 766, the relevant para-12 of the same is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience :
"12. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC55. In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe......................"
97. In the present case in hand, the material witnesses relied by prosecution for proving the factum of acceptance or delivery of bribe are the members of the trap team . The prosecution in order to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe by A-1 from A-2 on 01.05.2016, relied upon the version of two independent witnesses to the trap i.e PW2 Bhupender Dabas, PW-11 Sh. S.P. Singh , apart from CBI Officers i.e PW17 Kailash Sahu and TLO Parmod Kumar.
111 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
97.1 The CBI before proceeding for the trap though had
specifically assigned independent witness PW2 Bhupender Dabass the role as a "shadow witness" and directed him to remain with TLO PW20. But, PW2 on the said aspect regarding his role remained silent . Rather the manner in which PW2 was called to join the proceedings raises a question mark over his independence as Panch Witness . Similarly the other independent witness PW11 S.P Singh gave a altogether different version. Therefore, in the said backdrop the versions of PW2, PW11 and other CBI trap team members PW17 DSP Kailash Sahu and PW20 Parmod Kumar on the issue of acceptance and delivery of bribe requires to be scrutinized in depth.
98. The Ld. Counsel for accused persons argued that the version given by both the independent witnesses on the very first material aspect concerning the arrival of A-2 at PS Janakpuri having pink bag in his hand and subsequent recovery of bribe amount are contradictory.
99. It is the case of the prosecution that after registration of FIR on 01.05.2016 at 14:30 hours, the trap team was constituted which was led by PW20 Inspector Parmod Kumar as Trap Laying Officer. It has already been discussed that the basis of the FIR was the source information and it came to the knowledge of CBI that A- 2 is going to deliver bribe to A-1 who at that point of time was working as Inspector (Investigation) at PS Janakpuri and handling 112 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 FIR No. 1378/2015 registered against A-2. It has also come on record while discussing the veracity of the intercepted calls that despite the claim of PW23 Dy. S.P Suraj Majumdar regarding handing over the intercepted calls to the I.O of the present case on 06.05.2016, the officials of ACB, CBI, New Delhi as well as TLO PW-20 Inspector Parmod Kumar were having knowledge and access to the said intercepted calls. PW20 even further in the cross- examination claimed that he had even interactions with the officials of Special Unit (SU) after the present case was assigned to him on 01.05.2016.
99.1 Thus, on the basis of the said information, a trap team came to be constituted comprising of CBI officials including PW20 and PW17. Apart from that two panch witnesses namely PW-11 S. P. Singh, official from SBI and PW2 Bhupender Dabas, the official from DDA were joined as "independent witnesses" in order to give credence to the trap proceedings.
(i) Arrival of A-2 with Pink Bag
100. The first material aspect concerning the said trap proceedings of 01.05.2016 at PS Janakpuri, is the fact of arrival of A-2 at the P.S having a pink bag in his hand and secondly, the said pink bag being not in possession when he was apprehended by the CBI officials at the time of his exit.
113 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
100.1 On the said aspect, both the independent witnesses PW2
and PW11 respectively gave contradictory version to each other despite the claim of the prosecution that they both were present at the spot and had witnessed the arrival as well as apprehension of A-2.
As far as PW2 Bhupender Dabas is concerned, he was assigned the role of a shadow witness as deposed by TLO PW20. The pre-trap memorandum Ex.PW2/1 too records that PW2 Bhupender Dabas was directed to act as shadow witness and remain close at the spot with the TLO to see the movement of accused persons. However, PW2 on the said specific aspect, he failed to depose regarding any such direction of acting as shadow witness or remaining close to the TLO at the spot. He deposed that after they reached at PS Janakpuri at around 9:30 p.m., they were informed by the CBI team that one car bearing registration no. UP16-AH-0888 will be coming there and they have to watch the said car or subsequent actions. So, as per his version, no such specific role of acting as shadow witness and remaining close to TLO was ever assigned to him.
100.2 On the aspect of entry of A-2, he deposed that A-2 alighted from the car and was having one pink colour bag in his hand when he entered the P.S. After 45-50 minutes, the said person came out when he was apprehended wherein he disclosed that he has delivered Rs.3 lacs to A-1. In the cross-examination though he was 114 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 not able to disclose whether anybody apart from A-2 was there in the Car when he alighted from it. He was also not able to depose whether A-2 was sitting in the front or rear seat. He also failed to disclose in which hand, A-2 was holding the pink colour bag. The movement of the car after dropping A-2 was also not disclosed by him. Thus, on all the said crucial aspects PW2 expressed ignorance.
100.3 Another fact which raises a question mark over the case of prosecution is the issue brought forth in the cross-examination of PW2. He admitted about the visit by both the independent witnesses as well as the trap team members at the very same spot on 30.04.2016 (one day prior to trap) also during late evening hours. However, the said visit of CBI team alongwith independent witnesses one day prior to the trap, has been vehemently discarded by TLO/ Inspector PW-20 Parmod Kumar. He only claimed that he came to know about the present case only after the FIR was assigned to him for investigation on 01.05.2016. The entire case of the prosecution as well as the chargesheet is silent concerning the said previous visit to the spot alongwith the independent witnesses on 30.04.2016 and its purpose.
101. Another issue which raises a finger of doubt over the role of PW2 is the manner in which he joined the proceedings as an independent witness in the present case. He deposed that on 29.04.2016 in the evening hours, he received a telephonic call from CBI, HQ and he was asked to join on the next date for some secret 115 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 duty. So, as per his own version he was directly called to join the proceedings without keeping even his own department in the loop. On the said aspect, he was further cross-examined wherein he stated that he did not receive any permission from his office to join the investigation in this case. He further claimed that he was not on duty in his office at DDA on 30.04.2016 or 01.05.2016 or any leave being sanctioned to him. Though he claimed that he had informed his office on phone, but failed to disclose the name of the colleague who was informed. He again put his own version on the said aspect in the dock by claiming that probably 30.04.2016 and 01.05.2016, were Saturday and Sunday. Thus, his version in the cross- examination as to the manner of joining the proceedings reflects that his department was never asked to deploy him for the CBI duty which is the usual procedure of ensuring the presence of independent witnesses followed by CBI.
102. The connected aspect is as to how and why he was directly called to join the proceedings, the answer to the same lies in the cross-examination of PW2 itself .He disclosed that he had joined investigation in two other cases of CBI apart from this case. Those two cases were trap cases only and in those cases, he had joined the investigation after receiving the letter from his office. In the said backdrop, directly calling PW2 for joining the proceedings as independent witness by CBI without roping in his department, 116 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 raises a question mark over the status of PW2 as an independent witness.
102.1 His further cross-examination conducted by A-1 on the said aspect of his independence and veracity of his version throws light over the issue. He deposed that there is an office order issued by CVC of directing all the Govt employees to join the CBI proceedings and support the CBI case. He further admitted that he keeps the notes prepared as per the CBI case and goes through them before going to the Court for deposition. Thus, as per his claim, notes were kept by PW2 and notes were not as to the sequence of events witnessed by him. Rather, the notes were as per the case of the CBI which the witness had gone through before deposing in the present case. Therefore, the said conduct of PW2 of directly reporting to CBI office to witness the proceedings without keeping his department in the loop and thereafter deposing on the basis of the notes as per the case of the CBI reflect him to be a "tutored witness". It also explains that he only saw having pink bag , while expressed ignorance as to other occupants in car, hand used while holding the bag , direction of car when it left etc. It also raises a question mark over the fairness of the trap proceedings.
102.2 Now, coming to the second independent witness PW-11 Sh. S. P. Singh who was posted as Branch Manager, SBI, Karawal Nagar, Delhi in 2016. He was instructed by his AGM to attend the CBI office on 30.04.2016. He attended the CBI office on that day 117 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 and was taken to Janakpuri side where they kept on sitting in vehicles . After about two and a half hours, they came back to CBI office and he was directed to again report for the duty on the next day. So his version as to visit to the area of PS Janakpuri one day prior to trap is similar to that of PW2 , which has been suppressed by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.
103. Now coming to the sequence of events concerning the day of trap i.e 01.05.2016, he in his examination-in-chief itself deposed in complete contradiction to the case of the prosecution on several material aspects. Firstly, he failed to depose about any briefing being given during the pre-trap proceedings by TLO Inspector Parmod Kumar before going to the spot. Rather, he claimed that they were told that they have to complete the work which was not done yesterday.
103.1 He further deposed that after reaching the vicinity of PS Janakpuri, they kept on waiting and awaiting the instructions of TLO. After 10-15 minutes one person gave information to TLO and they then reached near PS Janakpuri. TLO informed them that one person namely Ashutosh Kumar (A-2 herein) came in U.P registration number car and had given bribe to some police official sitting in PS Janakpuri who are to be arrested. As they started entering the police station, they saw one person coming out of the police station and that person by gesture told TLO about the room of police officer who had taken the bribe. Thus, on the said material 118 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 aspects concerning entry A-2 after alighting from his car at the police station Janakpuri, having pink bag in his hand and thereafter, he being apprehended after sometime when he came out, PW-11 gave a altogether a different version.
103.2 Firstly, he never saw A-2 alighting from the car or entering the police station with the pink bag in his hand despite being present with PW2 and they being directed to notice the arrival . Secondly, he never witnessed the apprehension of A2 at the exit having no bag in his hand or having disclosed to have paid Rs. 3 lacs to A-1. Surprisingly, despite the said complete contrary case presented by PW11 in his examination-in-chief, the prosecution never preferred to cross-examine the said witness on any of the said contradictions. The only conclusion which can be drawn from the said conduct of the prosecution is that they accepted the said version of PW-11 to be true and correct. If the said version of PW11 concerning the manner in which they assembled near PS Janakpuri and the subsequently entering the room of A-1 is correct, then the entire case of the prosecution regarding delivery of pink colour bag by A-2 to A-1 and it being disclosed by A-2 to them is in dock. The proceedings recorded in the recovery memo Ex.PW2/2 too becomes suspect.
104. Another fact which has been put into the dock through the said version of PW11 which has been taken to be true and correct by the prosecution, is the authenticity and veracity of the site plan Ex.PW2/6. The said rough site plan depicts the position of 119 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 trap team members outside PS Janakpuri when they apprehended A-2. As per the said site plan, PW11 is stated to be at position 'H' which is near the Transport Authority turn which is just prior to PS Janakpuri building. If the said position of PW11 was indeed correct, then nothing prevented him to notice A-2 in his car and alighting it before entering the PS with the alleged pink bag in his hand. Secondly, he should have also noticed the exit of A-2 from the very said PS building before he was apprehended. But none of the said two crucial events were witnessed by PW11 despite his position at the said prominent place.
104.1 Even the other independent witness PW2 too in the cross- examination put the rough site plan in the dock by claiming that his position at point 'G' in the site plan is incorrect, rather, he was standing at point 'X' across the road adjoining Janakpuri District Centre. Therefore, the only conclusion which can be drawn from the version of PW11 which is not challenged by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses never noticed the arrival of A-1 in the police station having pink colour bag in his hand which allegedly contained the bribe amount of Rs.3 lacs.
104.2 His version also creates a question mark over the version given by PW20 as to the manner in which he alerted the trap team member including independent witnesses about the arrival of A-2 in his car and entering the police station with pink colour bag in his hand. It has to be concluded in the end that the versions of two 120 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 independent witnesses who were part of the trap team on the aspect of arrival of A-2 at the police station after alighting from car having pink colour bag in his hand does not help the case of the prosecution. Rather, a doubt is created as to the story presented by the prosecution on the above-said sequence of events.
105. It is admitted fact that A-2 visited P.S Janakpuri on 01.05.2016 at about 9:30 p.m. and he alighted from his car at the entrance of the police station. A-2 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C claimed that he met the SHO. It has also come on record that there were other occupants too in the car of A-2 at that point of time. The other occupants were PW26 Mohd. Mukhtar Alam, driver of A-2 and one Shambhu Prasad, servant of A-2. They both were named as prosecution witness as their statement's under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C were recorded during the course of investigation. However only PW26 Mohd. Mukhtar Alam has been examined by the prosecution and he supported the case of the prosecution only to the extent of dropping A-2 at the entrance of PS Janakpuri. He denied entire case of the prosecution on the remaining aspects as well as having given statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C marked PW26/X. He denied that A-2 had entered the police station with some pink colour bag having some money. It is also matter of record that PW26 still continues to work with A-2 as his driver and therefore, the possibility of him deposing falsely to help his employer cannot be ruled out.
121 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
105.1 But the issue herein is the manner in which the
investigating authority acted consequent to the recording of the statements of PW26 and Shambhu Prasad under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per the case of the prosecution, their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by IO PW20 Parmod Kumar wherein they supported the case of the prosecution regarding A-2 having a pink colour bag with money in it when he entered the Police Station Janakpuri. So, their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C (already Ex.PW26/1 and Ex.PW20/DA) were got recorded on 06.05.2016. However, both the said witnesses gave altogether contrary version with respect to the above-said fact regarding entry of A-2 with a polythene bag having money. But, the Investigating Officer PW-28 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma even did not care to pursue the said statements so as to find out the truthfulness of the facts disclosed by them as admitted in the cross-examination. The onus was upon the Investigating Authority to verify the authenticity of the facts disclosed by them in their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C either by confronting them with the other witnesses or electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage. It has also come on record through version of PW18 Insp. Ram Swaroop Meena, the then SHO, Police Station Janakpuri that CCTV cameras were installed in the premises of Police Station Janakpuri on 01.05.2016. He further deposed that two cameras were installed at the entrance gate. But, for the reasons best known to CBI, no such evidence was collected despite the fact that above-referred two prosecution witnesses 122 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 having put their case in the dock during the investigation itself. No reason is cited as to the non-collection of CCTV footage despite it being the sterling quality digital evidence and accordingly, the adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution.
(ii) Apprehension of A-2 and Recovery.
106. The next sequence of event concerns the apprehension of A-2 by the trap team while he was coming out of the police station and thereafter the search of the room of A-1 which led to the recovery of Rs.3 lacs from his rest room. The prosecution in order to prove the said sequence of events as well as factum of recovery of alleged bribe again placed reliance upon the version of above- referred two independent witnesses as well as trap team members PW17 and PW20 TLO Inspector Parmod Kumar.
106.1 As far as the version on the said aspect of PW2 Bhupender Dabas goes, it has already been concluded that his version cannot be given much credence in view of the fact that there is a serious question mark over his claim of being independent witness.
106.2 PW2 deposed that after about 45-50 minutes of the entry of A-2, TLO alerted the team and that person was apprehended. He was interrogated who admitted that he has delivered the packet and took the team towards the room of A-1. The CBI team entered the said room and interrogated A-1, who 123 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 admitted that the said man had met him and delivered him something, but did not disclose the place where that something had been kept. He further deposed that TLO asked A-1 whereupon he admitted that Rs.3 lacs has been given to him.
106.3 Admittedly, the said claim of PW2 is in contradiction to the entire case of prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution only that A-1 was confronted by CBI team about acceptance of bribe amount by A-2, but he did not utter any word and had shown ignorance about delivery of bribe amount. The recovery memo Ex.PW2/2 specifically records the said fact. Even PW20 deposed on the said lines by claiming that after being confronted A-1 did not utter any word and shown his ignorance. Thus, the version given by PW2 that there was admission of acceptance of bribe upon being confronted by A-1 and the said amount being Rs.3 lacs is a false fact. The said false claim again reflects upon the independence of PW2.
107. Now, coming to the version of PW-11 Sh. S. P. Singh. He deposed that after the gesture of the person who came out of the police station, the team entered the room and TLO introduced the police officer about his identity. The TLO then asked the members of team to conduct search. During search, one of the CBI official recovered the pink bag kept beneath the pillow of rest room attached with the office of said police officer. A cash of Rs.3,00,500/- was found in the said bag which was counted by 124 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 PW2 Bhupender Dabas. Thus, as per his version, the said pink bag was recovered by CBI official which was kept beneath the pillow on the bed in the rest room. However, the case of the prosecution is that the said bag was recovered by PW2 from the rest room which was kept beneath the pillow on the bed and amount of recovery being Rs. 3 lacs. Again on the said material aspect concerning the recovery by CBI official and the amount of alleged recovered cash as deposed by PW-11, there was no challenge by the prosecution. The said version of PW11 has to be read against the prosecution on the said two material aspects.
107.1 On the aspect of search, PW11 claimed that even A-1 was with the CBI team when the search of the rest room was conducted. The office room of A-1 where he was sitting was never searched. Thus, as per his version it appears that CBI was aware about the location of bribe as the office was never searched. It also contradicts the entire case presented in recovery memo Ex.PW2/2. The said version becomes more relevant when seen in the context of admission of PW2 about availability of one more exit/ entry gate of the rest room from the outside , which is not shown in the site plan Ex. PW27.
108. Now, coming the version of TLO PW-20 Inspector Parmod Kumar on the said two material aspects. He claimed that as A-2 came out of police station having pink colour bag not in his 125 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 hand, he was challenged by team including the independent witnesses. He firstly kept mum and thereafter claimed he handed over said packet to Inspector Kehar Singh (A-1 herein) containing Rs.3 lacs. Thereupon, the team went to the room of A-1 who did not utter any word and shown his ignorance. Thereafter, PW20 gave an altogether new version as to the manner in which the recovery of Rs.3 lacs was done. He claimed that A-2 informed that he had kept the said packet under the pillow on the bed of the rest room which was searched by PW-2 on his direction and recovered in the presence of PW11. Thus, as per PW20 , the information about the exact location of said recovered pink bag having currency notes was disclosed by A-2 only. He was cross-examined on the said altogether new aspect by the accused persons where he deposed as under:
"Q. You have stated in your examination-in-chief that A-2 informed you that he kept the said packet under the pillow on the bed in the rest room, if it is so, then why you have searched the washroom attached with the rest room to search pink colour polythene bag?
Ans. We were curious to recover the said pink colour polythene bag and therefore, searched the drawer of the table of A-1 and thereafter, cursory searched the rest room. But we were not able to recover the said bag. I then, again asked A-2 while we standing in the office room of A-l as to where he had kept the bag to which he replied that he firstly gave the said bag to A-1 and thereafter, A-1 asked him to place it under the pillow and accordingly, A- 2 placed it. We again entered the rest room and recovered the said bag."
126 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
109. So, as per the said altogether new version after the search of office/ rest room, A-2 was again interrogated in the said office room wherein he disclosed about placing the same under the pillow on the bed in the attached rest room. He admitted to the fact that no such fact as to the sequence of events concerning recovery is mentioned in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The other trap team member PW17 Dy. S.P. Kailash Sahu also failed to disclose about the said sequence of events concerning recovery. He simply claimed that the search of both the rest room and the office was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and PW2 recovered the pink colour bag containing cash. Thus, in the end it has to be observed that the version of the prosecution witnesses concerning the manner of recovery too is full of contradictions, embellishments and introductions.
110. In the light of above-said reasons, the versions of PW2, PW11 and PW20 on the aspect of apprehension of A-1 and A-2 and delivery of pink bag by A-2 to A-1 having alleged bribe amount of Rs.3 lacs cannot be said to have been proved on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
110.1 Even otherwise for the sake of arguments if it is believed that indeed PW2 delivered the said pink bag having Rs.3 lacs to A-1, the said evidence alone does not help the case of the prosecution or proves the fact that the said amount was paid as a bribe or it was 127 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 accepted by A-1 voluntarily as an illegal gratification. The legal position on the said aspect of mere recovery of amount sans the proof of demand of bribe or acceptance with the consenting mind has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab V. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153. The relevant para of the said judgment is as under:
"11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification."
111. The judgments relied upon by prosecution on merits by the prosecution are distinguishable on facts. The judgment of Hon'ble SC in Ponnam Chandriah (supra) is not applicable herein being the judgment delivered in the context of offences under IPC wherein the relative of the deceased was the sole witness. It was not a pre-arranged incident and therefore the sole testimony of interested witness was found to be credible. Further, the reliance placed on judgment of Hazari Lal ( Supra) and Rupsinghbhai Punabhai Patel ( Supra) too are distinguishable on facts, as in the present case the it was a pre-arranged trap and two independent witnesses were joined specially for the trap. To accept the 128 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 argument of CBI of discarding the version of independent witnesses and simply acting upon the version of CBI officers alone, is nothing but misinterpretation of the above referred judgments.
111.1 Similarly the judgment of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai ( Supra) too is not applicable herein when the prosecution witnesses have deposed contrary to their own case on various material aspects. Rather the version of such witness (PW11 SP Singh ) has been taken to be true by the prosecution.
112. The Court in the end cannot lose sight of the golden principle which runs through the entire criminal justice system of burden upon the prosecution of proving their case on the standard of beyond any reasonable doubt against accused persons. The prosecution in its endeavour is required to complete the journey of their case through the proved material which points towards the guilt of accused and not merely that he 'may have' committed the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case under Prevention of Corruption Act in P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs Dist.Insp. Of Police ( Supra ) held that the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it to the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was further held that if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
129 of 131
CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019
113. In the present case the incriminating circumstance of A-1 not recording the investigation conducted by him in the case diaries and pushing A-2 towards the settlement of the case with PW24 Partap Singh Yadav, though raise a finger of suspicion over his conduct. Further, A-2 is not exonerated by filing of final report in FIR No. 1378/2015 as he still continues to be 'Suspect'. However the said suspicion alone is not sufficient to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
(XIII) CONCLUSION
114. In view of the above discussed findings, it has to be concluded in the end that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the 'foundational facts' of demand and acceptance of bribe ,before the mandatory presumption under Section 20 of PC Act can be raised against the accused persons. Accordingly, it is concluded the prosecution has failed to prove their case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubts. The benefit of the said doubts has to be given to the accused persons. The charge u/s 11/12 of PC Act against A-2 too also does not survive being dependent on the outcome of main substantive offences.
Accordingly, the accused Kehar Singh stands acquitted of offence punishable under Section 7, 11 of Prevention of Corruption 130 of 131 CBI V. Kehar Singh & Anr. CC No. 121/2019 Act 1988 & 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act and Ashutosh Kumar Singh stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7 Section 12 of PC Act and under Section 11 read with Section 12 of PC Act. Their bail bonds are cancelled, sureties stand discharged.
It is also clarified that the findings in the present case shall have no bearing on the merits of the case, if any, in the pending litigation between A-2 and PW-24 Pratap Yadav, as the merit of the said allegations have not been discussed herein.
Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond under Section 481 BNSS 2023. Digitally signed GAGANDEEP by GAGANDEEP SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.08.13 16:22:58 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (GAGANDEEP SINGH) on 13.08.2025 Special Judge, PC Act, CBI-04 Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi 131 of 131