Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjan Singh Etc on 10 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE: PC ACT: ACB-01:
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000221-2019
C.C. No. 34/2019
FIR No. 322/2012
U/S: 7 Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 384/385/120B IPC
PS: Mahendra Park
State
Versus
i) Ranjan Singh
S/o Late Sh. Gajendra Prasad Singh,
R/o H.No. 18, Police Colony,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
Presently R/o A-10/46, Sector-18,
Rohini, Delhi.
ii) Azad Singh,
S/o Sh. Dayanand,
R/o Village Dariyaur Garhi,
Ujala Khan, Panipat Road, PO Gohana,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
iii) Sri Niwas,
S/o Late Sh. Thanaban,
R/o H.No. 18, Police Colony,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
Presently R/o B-9/9, Sector-18,
Rohini, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 21.08.2018
Date of Arguments : 04.06.2024
Date of Judgment : 10.07.2024
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 85
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.2012, one Harish came to ACP Shalimar Bagh, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik and told him that the officials of PS Mahendra Park namely HC Ranjan Singh, Const. Sri Niwas and Const. Azad Singh had tried to extort money by illegally detaining one tempo containing 130 boxes of liquor recovered from the possession of Praveen and Balraj on 21.11.2012 and he had received calls from Praveen at around 05.30 am regarding detention and seizure of liquor by the aforesaid police officials. The statement of complainant Harish was recorded and he inter alia stated that on 21.11.2012 tempo no. DL-1LR-6171 belonging to Arvind s/o Anand Prakash, containing 130 cartons of liquor, was seized at 4.30 am by the staff of PS Mahendra Park. The tempo was being driven by Praveen and his companion Balraj was also in the tempo. Arvind had asked the complainant to get the tempo, liquor, Praveen and Balraj released from the staff of PS Mahendra Park. Praveen called from his mobile phone no. 8860117812 to the mobile phone no. 9034176454 of the complainant at 05.30 am and Praveen got the complainant speak to the police officials. The police officials demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs to release all of them. The complainant spoke to the police officials about ten times and he asked them to reduce the amount and the police officials reduced the amount to Rs. 1.5 Lakhs. Till about 12.00 pm he continued to speak to the police officials, however, he could not arrange the money. His friend Babban was also with him, who also spoke to the policemen regarding release and reduction of the amount.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 85The police officials had kept the tempo, Praveen, Balraj at Subzi Mandi parking. He got to know the names of police officials as HC Ranjan, Ct. Azad Singh and Ct. Sri Niwas, who had got a case registered on the tempo, liquor 130 cartons, Praveen and Balraj. The complainant had recorded the conversation regarding money transaction on his mobile phone and produced the CD. He stated that he could also produce his friend Babban to confirm his statement.
2. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the present FIR bearing no. 0322/2012 dated 22.11.2012 was registered u/s 384/34 IPC at PS Mahendra Park and the investigation of the case was assigned to Insp. Vinod Kumar of DIU/NW.
3. During the course of investigation by IO/Insp. Vinod Kumar the complainant produced the mobile phone, memory card and CD containing the recording of the demand by police officials which was seized by the IO. IO recorded the statements of Balraj and Praveen in Rohini Jail and Shishu Sadan, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, respectively after seeking permission from the court. The aforesaid transcript of the conversation was prepared at the instance of the complainant from the memory card and he also identified the voices of the police, Harish, Kalu @ Parveen and Babban. The mobile phone and memory card were deposited in the Malkhana. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused persons namely HC Ranjan Singh, Const. Sri Niwas and Const. Azad Singh were CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 85 arrested and their voice samples were taken in presence of panch witnesses.
4. The voice samples of the accused persons alongwith the voice recording in the mobile phone of the complainant were sent to FSL Rohini for their evaluation and analysis. As per the FSL result, the voice of speaker Ex. Q3 and Ex. Q5 and Ex. S3 was the possible voice of the same person i.e. Ct. Azad Singh.
5. Thereafter the investigation of the case was entrusted to Insp. Ajit Singh, then to Insp. Rajesh Dahiya and thereafter to Insp. Krishan Lal, DIU/NW who added section 7/13(1)(d) of PC Act and thereafter the investigation of the present case was assigned to ACP Mehar Chand who added section 120B IPC in the present case and removed section 13(1)
(d) of PC Act from the present case and also recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Sanction u/s 19 PC Act was obtained against the accused persons. Thereafter the investigation was assigned to ACP Ombir Singh and finally to ACP Manmohan.
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) r/w sections 384/385/120B/34 IPC. Cognizance of offence was taken against the accused persons on 30.08.2018. Thereafter, accused persons CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 85 were summoned and after hearing arguments, charge for the offence under Section 120B IPC, under section 384/385 IPC read with section 120B and under section 7 of PC Act was framed against all three accused persons on 28.01.2019, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 30 witnesses. The brief summary of deposition of prosecution witnesses is as under:-
i) PW1 ASI Jitender Singh deposed that on 21.11.2012, he was posted as Duty Officer at police station Mahendra Park and at about 8.45 p.m., Constable Sri Niwas came with tehrir sent by Head Constable Mahendra for registration of FIR and on the basis of same he lodged the FIR No. 321/2012 Ex. PW1/A, under sections 33 Delhi Excise Act, through the computer operator, on the computer system installed in the police station. He handed over print out of FIR and original rukka to constable Sri Niwas for handing over the same to SI Shalender Kumar for investigation. He also recorded DD no. 29A Ex. PW1/B vide which FIR was registered.
PW1 further deposed that on 22.11.2012 also he was posted as duty officer at police station Mahendra Park and at about 8.30 p.m., he had received tehrir from SHO of police station Mahendra Parka for registration of FIR and on the basis of same he lodged the FIR No. 322/2012 Ex. PW1/C, under sections 384/34 IPC through the computer operator, on the CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 85 computer system installed in the police station. He handed over print out of FIR to constable Virender for handing over the same to Inspector Vinod Kumar, DIU, North West for investigation. He also recorded DD no. 22A Ex. PW1/D, vide which FIR was registered in the police station. The certificate under section 65 B Ex. PW1/E regarding FIR No. 322/12, under section 384/34 IPC, PS Mahendra Parka.
ii) PW2 Harish - the complainant. iii) PW3 Praveen - a public witness/driver of the tempo bearing no. DL-1LR-6171. iv) PW4 ASI Chander Bhan deposed that on
01.12.2012, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park as MHC(M). On that day, Insp. Vinod Kumar of DIU North West District had deposited in the malkhana, one sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of VKS stated to be containing one mobile phone alongwith SIM card and memory card and in this regard he made entry in register no. 19 at Sl. No 907/12 Ex. PW-4/A. He further deposed that on 12.12.2012, Insp. Vinod Kumar of DIU North West District had deposited in the malkhana the personal search articles of three accused persons namely Ranjan Singh, Azad Singh and Sri Niwas and in this regard he made entry in register no. 19 vide Sl. no. 920/12 Ex. PW-4/B. He further deposed that on 18.12.2012, Insp. Vinod Kumar of DIU North West District had deposited in the malkhana two sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of 'VKS' each stated to be containing three audio CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 85 cassettes of specimen voice of accused persons and in this regard he made entry in register no. 19 vide Sl. no. 928/12 Ex. PW-4/C. PW4 further deposed that on 18.12.2012, two sealed pullandas, one stated to be containing mobile phone and the other stated to be containing the voice sample of accused persons, both duly sealed with the seal of 'VKS', were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Manjeet as per order of Shri Vishal Singh, Ld. MM, Rohini vide RC No. 126/21/12 Ex. PW4/D and DD No. 36-B at 11.30 a.m. He made endorsement in this regard in front of entry at Sl. no. 907/12 already Ex. PW-4/A at Point 'X'. Ct. Manjeet deposited in the malkhana original FSL acknowledgment Ex. PW4/E. He further deposed that during the period the above-said pullandas remained in malkhana, all their seals remained intact and they were not tampered with.
v. ASI Gyan Singh deposed that on 12.12.2012, he was posted at DIU North West District, Delhi and had joined the investigation of this case with Insp. Vinod Kumar. He was a witness to arrest of accused persons and deposed that after making inquiries from the accused persons they were arrested by Insp. Vinod Kumar vide arrest memos Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW- 5/C and their persons search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW- 5/D to Ex. PW-5/F. After medical examination, the accused persons were produced before the Court. PW5 correctly identified all the three accused persons before the Court.
vi) PW6 ASI Ajit Singh
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 85
vii) PW7 Pawan Singh, Alternate Nodal officer,
Vodafone IDEA Limited proved call detail records of mobile numbers 9990177787 Ex. PW-7/A and 9812180057 Ex. PW-7/B for the period between 20.11.2012 to 23.11.2012. He also issued a certificate under section 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW7/C regarding the genuineness of the above-said CDRs.
He also proved the call detail records of above- said mobile numbers 9812180057 Ex. PW-7/D and 9990177787 Ex. PW-7/E for the period 01.11.2012 to 21.12.2012. He also issued a certificate under section 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW7/F regarding the genuineness of the above-said CDRs.
PW7 further proved the Customer Application Form (CAF) of mobile number 9990177787 Ex. PW-7/G as per which the said mobile was issued in the name of one Ramanuj Sah and as per CAF of mobile number 9812180057 Ex. PW-7/H the said mobile was issued in the name of one Sanjay. PW7 also proved the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of scanned copies of CAFs and documents in respect of mobile no. 9990177787 and 9812180057, which were Ex.PW7/I and Ex.PW7/J respectively.
PW7 further deposed that he could not produce the original record of mobile number 9990177787 as the said record had been destroyed due to the fire which broke out in the ware house at D-29, Sector 63, Noida, where the said record was lying and regarding which police complaint Mark PW-7/I was lodged.
viii) PW8 Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Director, Physics, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on 18.12.2012, two sealed CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 85 parcels were received in the office of FSL through Ct. Manjeet Singh, no. 2004/NW. The seals on the parcels were intact and tallied with the specimen seal as per forwarding memo. On opening the first parcel which was found sealed with the seal of VKS, one mobile set and memory card was found and same was collectively marked as Exhibit-1. The mobile phone was of make Spice, model M-5180 alongwith the micro SD card of 4GB capacity. The micro SD card of the phone was found containing audio files in ".wav" format. The speaker starts with the text as detailed in his report and were marked as Exhibit-Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5.
PW8 further deposed that on opening the second parcel which was found sealed with the seal of 'VKS', three audio cassettes were found and which were marked as Exhibit-2, Exhibit-3 and Exhibit-4. Exhibit-2 was an audio cassette of T- Series make containing specimen speech sample of HC Ranjan Singh and same was marked as Exhibit-S1 in the laboratory. Exhibit-3 was an audio cassette of T-Series make containing specimen speech sample of Ct. Sri Niwas and same was marked as Exhibit-S2 in the laboratory. Exhibit-4 was an audio cassette of T-Series make containing specimen speech sample of Ct. Azad Singh and same was marked as Exhibit-S3 in the laboratory.
On auditory analysis by critical listening and subsequent waveform and spectrographic analysis of the relevant audio recordings, in micro SD card of mobile phone mark Exhibit-1, there was no indication of any form of alteration.
On auditory analysis of recorded speech samples of CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 85 speakers mark Exhibit-Q3, Exhibit-Q5 and Exhibit-S3 and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples using CSL (computerize speech lab) revealed that the voice exhibits of speakers mark Exhibit-Q3 and Exhibit-Q5 were similar to the voice exhibits of speaker mark Exhibit-S3 in respect of their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features. Hence voice exhibits of speakers mark Exhibit-Q3, Exhibit-Q5 and Exhibit-S3 were possible voice of same person i.e. Ct. Azad Singh.
In this regard, PW8 gave detailed report no.
FSL2012/P-8762/PHY-329/12 dated 18.09.2013 Ex.PW8/A. PW8 further deposed that on 29.12.2021, two sealed parcels were received for making two copies each of recording media i.e. audio cassettes. He prepared two copies of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 in pen-drives marked as Exhibit 1 (1), Exhibit 1 (2) and Exhibit 2 (1), Exhibit 2 (2) respectively. The case exhibits were resealed with the seal of 'C.P.SINGH-FSL-DELHI' and he prepared a report in this regard Ex. PW-8/C. After examination, exhibits sent to laboratory were resealed with the seal of "Dr.C.P.SINGH-FSL-DELHI". PW8 correctly identified before the court, mobile phone of make Spice Ex.P1, its micro SD card Ex.P2 and its battery Ex.P3. PW8 also correctly identified audio cassettes containing voice sample of HC Ranjan Singh Ex. P4, Ct. Sri Niwas Ex. P5 and Ct. Azad Singh Ex, P6.
ix) PW9 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, TATA Tele Services Ltd. deposed that CDR of mobile no. 9034176454 was CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 85 not available in their office as the CDRs of relevant periods were one year older and said mobile number was disconnected on 21.01.2017. PW9 proved the signatures of Sh. M.N. Vijayan on the covering letter of TATA Tele Services dated 02.01.2013 Ex.PW9/A alongwith certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW9/B, CDRs of mobile no. 9034176454 for 19.11.2012 to 25.11.2012 Ex.PW9/C; CAF of the aforesaid mobile number alongwith ID proof of customer i.e. copy of ration card Ex.PW9/D (colly). PW9 further deposed that said mobile was issued in the name of Rajvir S/o Sh. Hukam Singh on 01.01.2012.
x) PW10 Arvind Rana, who stated that he was the owner of tempo bearing no. DL-1LR-6171.
xi) PW11 ASI Mahendra Singh deposed that on 21.11.2012, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park and had prepared a rukka on the basis of statement of HC Ranjan Singh, on the basis of which FIR No. 321/2012 PS Mahendra Park Ex. PW1/A was registered. Accused HC Ranjan Singh, Ct. Sri Niwas and Ct. Azad were present at the time when he recorded statement of HC Ranjan Singh, who had already apprehended accused in that case, i.e. Parveen and Balraj as well as the case property i.e. illicit liquor in the said case i.e. FIR No. 321/2012. The said FIR was marked to SI Shalender Kumar for further investigation. PW11 correctly identified all the accused persons, namely, Ranjan, Azad and Sri Niwas before the Court.
In his cross-examination by the ld. Defence CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 85 counsel, PW11 stated that the FIR was registered promptly. Balraj and Parveen did not complain to him about their detention for a long period prior to production before him.
xii) PW12 Sudhanshu Gautam deposed that in the year 2012 he used to work on a Photostat shop, at Sector 11 near District Investigating Unit. Inspector Vinod alongwith one Constable came to him and he asked him to be witness in some proceedings and took him to police station. Inspector Vinod gave him one envelope containing some seal and he was asked to check the sealed envelope. He found that envelope was duly sealed. Thereafter, he accompanied them to Rohini Court and in his presence, sample voice of three persons were recorded in a small room. Some proceedings took place and some paper work was done by the IO and he signed the proceedings. The cassettes containing the sample voice were also sealed in his presence. He identified his signature on the seizure memo of audio cassettes Ex. PW12/A. He further stated that he did not remember the names of said three persons whose sample voice was taken in my presence and he could not identify them due to lapse of time. However, on seeing all the accused persons, he pointed out towards only one accused namely Azad and stated that probably he was one of the three persons, whose voice sample was taken in his presence. He correctly identified three audio cassettes Ex. P-4, P-5 and P-6.
On being cross-examined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, PW12 affirmed that it was 18.12.2012 when aforesaid all proceedings took place in his presence and IO had taken him to CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 85 the Forensic Science Laboratory. He volunteered that said office was situated in Rohini court but he again said that the said office was situated near Rohini Court and it was not Court. He further stated that seal of 'VKS' was given by the IO to him in an envelope. He did not remember if copies of said three cassettes were also prepared and total 6 audio cassettes were seized. He identified his signatures on three audio cassettes containing copy of voice sample of Ranjan Singh, Sri Niwas and Azad Singh as Ex. P-7, Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9 respectively. He affirmed that name of the said three persons were Ranjan Singh, Azad Singh and Sri Niwas, whose voice samples were taken in his presence. However, he could not recognize other two persons except Azad Singh.
xiii) PW13 retired IPS Brahm Singh, who deposed that in the year 2015-16, he was posted as DCP, 1 st battalion, Delhi Police. In the present case FIR, vide letter Ex. PW13/A a request from DCP, North-West District was received alongwith entire documents of the case FIR including copy of FIR, copy of seizure memos, FSL result, statements of witnesses and copy of transcription of sting for according prosecution sanction against HC Ranjan Singh, Ct. Azad Singh and Ct. Sri Niwas.
He deposed that he perused entire documents and applied his mind and found that there was sufficient incriminating material and grounds to accord sanction for prosecution against HC Ranjan Singh, Ct. Azad Singh and Ct. Sri Niwas. He was competent authority to remove aforesaid three officials from the services. Accordingly, he accorded sanction CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 85 for prosecution U/s 19 of POC Act against HC Ranjan Singh, Ct. Azad Singh and Ct. Sri Niwas for initiating prosecution against them, vide his sanction order dated 19.01.2016 Ex.PW13/B and same was forwarded to the DCP, North-West District, vide forwarding letter dated 19.01.2016 Ex.PW13/C.
xiv) PW14 - HC Virender Veer Singh deposed that on 21.12.2016, he was posted at PP Subzi Mandi, PS Mahendra Park as Chitha Munshi and on receipt of message from DIU, he produced the duty roster of from September to December 2012 before ACP, DIU North-West District and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/A. Original duty roster is Ex.PW14/B. ACP, DIU had inquired from him about the duty of three police officials on 21.11.2012. On seeing the duty roster, he stated that HC Ranjan Singh, Ct. Azad Singh and Ct. Sri Niwas were on duty in the Beat no. 6 and 7/Fruit Mandi and they were not on any kind of leave/rest on 21.11.2012.
xv) PW15 Rajvir in whose name mobile no. 9034176454 was registered. xvi) PW16 Saurabh Agarwal, Alternate Nodal officer,
Vodafone, IDEA Limited. He proved call detail record of mobile number 8860117812 Ex.PW-16/A, its CAF alongwith copy of ID proof Ex.PW-16/B(colly) and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW16/C. He also proved call detail record of mobile number 9050550053 Ex.PW-16/D, copy of its CAF alongwith copy of ID proof Ex.PW-16/E(colly) and certificate CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 85 u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW16/F. He also proved call detail record of mobile number 8860627663 Ex.PW-16/G, copy of its CAF alongwith copy of ID proof Ex.PW-16/H(colly) and certificate Ex.PW16/I. He also proved call detail record of mobile number 9899910408 Ex.PW-16/J, copy of its CAF alongwith copy of ID proof Ex.PW-16/K(colly) and certificate Ex.PW16/L. He also proved call detail record of mobile number 9212388778 Ex.PW-16/M copy of its CAF alongwith copy of ID proof Ex.PW-16/N(colly) and certificate Ex.PW16/O. xvii) PW17 ACP Ajit Singh deposed that on 05.05.2014, while he was posted at North-West DIU as Inspector, investigation of the present case FIR was assigned to him. Investigation of this case remained with him till 27.06.2014. No effective investigation in this case was carried out so long as the investigation of this case remained with him.
xviii) PW18 - ACP Rajesh Kumar Kaushik deposed that on 22.11.2012, he was posted as ACP, Shalimar Bagh. On that day, around 7:00 pm, one Harish S/o Jagbir came to his office and told him that officials of PS Mahendra Park namely HC Ranjan Singh, Ct. Sri Niwas and Ct. Azad Singh had tried to extort money by illegally detaining one tempo containing 130 boxes of liquor recovered from the possession of Praveen and Balraj on 21.11.2012. Harish further stated that Praveen had given him phone calls from mobile phones around 05:30 am regarding detention and capturing of liquor by the above staff.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 85The above staff also talked to Harish on the phone of Praveen about 10 times and they made demand for Rs.5 Lakh which was gradually decreased to Rs.1.50 lakh. Later on, the case was registered against Praveen and Balraj in PS Mahendra Park by the said staff. Harish had also stated that as and when the above staff called from the phone of Praveen, he recorded their conversations in his mobile phone. Harish also stated that he had come in the area of PS Mahendra Park alongwith his friend Babban and found the above staff with driver Praveen and Balraj alongwith tempo and illicit liquor. He also assured that he could produce the CD of the recorded conversation as and when required and he could also ensure the presence of Babban in future, if required. PW18 recorded statement of Harish Ex. PW2/A and PW18 discussed the matter with his DCP Dr. Karunakaran and on his direction, he made endorsement Ex. PW18/A for registration of case U/s 384/34 IPC and he had recommended that investigation was to be handed over to Insp. Vinod Kumar in DIU.
xix) PW19 Insp. Krishan Lal deposed that on 04.07.2015, he was posted at DIU, North-West District and case file of the present case was assigned to him. He perused the case file and discussed with senior officers and thereafter, relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act were invoked in the present case FIR. Thereafter, he handed over the file to Reader, ACP, DIU on 22.09.2015 for further investigation as per the directions of senior officers.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 85xx) PW20 ACP Mehar Chand deposed that on 22.09.2015, he was posted as ACP, DIU, North-West District. On that day, case file of the present case was assigned to him for further investigation after invoking 7&13 (1)(d) of POC Act. On 21.12.2016, HC Virender from PP Subzi Mandi, PS Mahendra Park came to his office and produced duty roster/register of PP New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur from 01.09.2012 to 27.12.2012 Ex. PW14/B and he seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW14/A. He discussed the matter with senior officers and thereafter, section 120B IPC was also invoked in this case and section 13(1)(d) of POC Act was removed. He mad request for prosecution sanction against all the three accused persons namely Ranjan Singh, Azad Singh and Sri Niwas. All the relevant documents including copy of FIR, seizure memos, FSL result, statements of witnesses were sent to Sanctioning Authority alongwith request letter. Prosecution sanction Ex.PW13/B, against all the three accused persons namely Ranjan Kumar Singh, Ct. Azad and Ct. Sri Niwas was received alongwith covering letter Ex.PW13/C. He had also written a letter to provide location chart of mobile numbers. Thereafter, investigation of the present case was transferred and he deposited the file in the PS. xxi) PW21 Insp. Shailendra Kumar deposed that on 21.11.2012 he was posted as I.C.P.P. Azadpur New Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. The duty roster of the police post dated 21.11.2012 page no. 163 and 164 was handed over to the IO and he had signed on page no. 164. The register was Ex. PW14/B. On 21.11.2012 CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 85 HC Ranjan, Const. Azad and Const. Sri Niwas were not on any kind of leave. He correctly identified all three accused before the court.
xxii) PW22 ASI Chander Bhan deposed that on 01.12.2012, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Mahendra Park and Insp. Vinod Kumar had deposited one sealed pulanda with the seal of VKS and sample seal alongwith the copy of seizure memo of case FIR no.322/12, PS Mahendra Park. He made entry to the said effect in Register no. 19 at serial no. 907/12 Ex.PW22/A. On 12.12.2012, Insp. Vinod Kumar deposited the personal search articles of Ranjan Singh, Azad and Sri Niwas and he made entry to the said effect in Register no. 19 at serial no. 920/12 Ex.PW22/B. On 18.12.2012, Insp. Vinod Kumar deposited two sealed pulandas sealed with the seal of VKS stated to be containing six audio cassettes alongwith the copy of seizure memo and he made entry to the said effect in Register no. 19 at serial no. 928/12 Ex.PW22/C. On 18.12.2012, one sealed pulanda with the seal of VKS which was deposited on 01.12.2012 by Insp. Vinod Kumar was sent to FSL alongwith the sample seal through Ct. Manjeet, vide RC no. 126/21/12 Ex. PW22/D and he made entry to the said effect in Register no. 19 at point A on entry Ex.PW22/A and the acknowledgment of case acceptance is Ex.PW22/E. xxiii) PW23 HC Manjit deposed that on 01.12.2012, he was posted at DIU, North-West as constable and had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith Insp. Vinod Kumar.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 85He alongwith the IO had visited PS Mahendra Park in a private car and from there they reached at ACP office at Shalimar Bagh where they met with the complainant Harish. The complainant Harish produced one mobile phone having a memory card inside it while they were sitting in the car. The memory card of the mobile phone of the complainant was taken out from the mobile as his battery was going to be discharged. The said memory card was placed in his mobile phone and same was played and they heard the audio clip which was in the memory card of the complainant. The complainant and the IO also heard the same. Part of the audio was in Haryanvi language. He translated the same into Hindi and stated the contents to the IO. The transcription of the audio Mark-X (Colly) was prepared after hearing the audio clip. The said transcription was written by the IO on his dictation. After that the memory card was taken out from his mobile phone and it was again inserted in the mobile phone of the complainant. The mobile phone was converted into a pulanda and was sealed with the seal of VKS. The complainant had also produced one CD stating that the same was containing the same audio clip which was in the memory card of the complainant. The said CD was also converted into pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed with the seal of VKS. Both the exhibits were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B. After that they returned back and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. On 12.12.2012, all the three accused persons namely Azad Singh, Sri Niwas and Ranjan surrendered before the IO and they were formally arrested by the IO, vide their arrest memos Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B and Ex.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 85PW5/C respectively and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW5/D, Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F. On 18.12.2012, he again joined the investigation of the present case alongwith the IO, and two public persons namely Har Narayan and Sudhanshu Gautam also joined the investigation. They all went to PS Mahendra Park in a private car. The IO collected the sealed pullandas from the Malkhana which were containing the mobile phone alongwith the memory card of the complainant and the CD produced by the complainant and they all went to FSL, Rohini. At the gate of FSL, they met with HC Ranjan Singh, Ct. Sri Niwas and Ct. Azad, who were correctly identified by him before the court. IO provided six blank audio cassettes to the FSL officials. The voice samples of all the aforesaid three accused persons were recorded in three audio cassettes and their copies were also prepared in audio cassettes. Serial no. S1, S2 and S3 were marked on the cassettes containing original sample voices and the cassettes containing copies of the sample voices were marked as S4, S5 and S6. Two pullandas were prepared. One was containing serial no. S1, S2 and S3 and the other was containing S4, S5 and S6. Both the pullandas were sealed with the seal of VKS. The seal was taken from public witness Sudhanshu Gautam by the IO and then both the pullandas were sealed. Both the pullandas were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. The sealed exhibits which were earlier collected by the IO from the Malkhana were also got deposited at FSL, Rohini by the IO. He identified mobile phone Ex.P1, memory card Ex.P2 and battery Ex.P3.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 85xxiv) PW24 Insp. Rajesh Dahiya deposed that in the year 2014, he was posted as Inspector in DIU, North-West District, Delhi. The case file of the present case was marked to him for further investigation. Draft charge-sheet has already been prepared and one witness Babban was not examined as he was untraceable and sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. was awaited. Thereafter, he was transferred to South-West District and the case file was handed over to the Reader, ACP, DIU, North-West District.
xxv) PW25 retired ACP Ombir Singh deposed that on 24.01.2017, he was posted as ACP, DIU, North-West and investigation of present case was assigned to him. Draft charge- sheet was already prepared after compliance of the objections raised in the scrutiny. He retired on 28.02.2017 and he had not conducted any investigation in the present case.
xxvi) PW26 ACP Manmohan deposed that on 21.05.2017, he was posted as ACP, DIU, North-West and further investigation of the present case was assigned to him. During the course of investigation, on 01.08.2018, he visited village Sisana, PS Kharkhoda, Sonipat for investigation where he recorded the statement of Balraj U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Later, after completion of the investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the court.
xxvii) PW27 Insp. Ravi Kant deposed that on CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 85 06.09.2019, he was posted as Inspector, Investigation, Mahendra Park. On that day, he was assigned the court order for getting recorded the voice samples of Praveen @ Kalu and Harish. He had moved an application Ex. PW27/A to the Director, FSL, Madhuban Chowk on 06.09.2019 itself. On the same day, Praveen was also taken to FSL and his sample voice was recorded there with the help of FSL officials. The original voice sample and the copy of the same were taken into police possession after converting the same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of RK, vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/B. PW27 further deposed that on 06.12.2019, he took Harish to FSL and his sample voice was recorded there with the help of FSL officials. The original voice sample and the copy of the same were taken into police possession after converting the same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of RK, vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/C. DD entry Ex. PW27/D was made regarding the proceedings dated 06.09.2019. The sealed case property of the present case was deposited in the Malkhana on the respective dates.
PW27 correctly identified the case property before the court i.e. the audio cassette containing voice sample of Kalu @ Praveen Ex.PW3/Article-1 and the audio cassette containing voice sample of Harish Ex.PW27/Article-1.
xxviii) PW28 ACP Rajinder Pal deposed that on 06.05.2016, he was looking after the work of DIU as regular ACP, DIU Sh. Mehar Chand was on leave. At that time he was CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 85 working as ACP, CAW Cell, North-West District, Delhi. On that day, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He went through the file. He visited Sonipat, Haryana on that day and recorded statement of one Rajbir U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, file was handed over to regular IO.
xxix) PW29 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj, SSO, Physics, FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
xxx) PW30 Ms. Kaveri Deshmukh, Junior Forensic Assistant Chemical Examiner at FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
8. During trial, in pursuance to order dated 27.04.2022 passed on an application U/s 91 Cr.P.C. filed by accused Azad Singh, court examined Ct. Kapil Dev as Court witness - 1 on 01.06.2022.
9. Court Witness-1 Ct. Kapil Dev produced the original DD register containing DD No. 18 dated 21.11.2012 of Police Post New Subzi Mandi and copy of the same was exhibited as Ex. CW1/A and true copy of same was exhibited as Ex. CW1/B.
10. During trial, death of PW Balraj was verified and as such vide order dated 15.07.2019 he was dropped from the list of witnesses. PW2 Harish Kumar, whose examination-in-chief was deferred, was summoned through DCP but he did not appear as his whereabouts were not known. Hence, examination of PW2 CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 85 Harish Kumar could not be completed. Prosecution witness IO/Insp. V.K.Sharma was also summoned but he did not appear as he was reportedly permanently settled in Canada and his whereabouts were not known, as such he could not be examined in this case.
11. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements and additional statements of all three accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied the correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
12. Accused Ranjan Singh further stated that as per the information received, the vehicle was intercepted during routine checking and it was found containing illicit liquor. He was not driving any car at that time. The vehicle carrying illicit liquor, driver and helper were taken to PS Mahendra Park where he gave rukka and FIR No. 321/2012 was registered. The investigation was entrusted to HC Mahendra, who arrested Praveen and Balraj in the said case and the illicit liquor with vehicle were deposited in the Malkhna being case property. He further stated that on 21.11.2012, he alongwith co-accused Sri Niwas had attended the court at Rohini in case FIR No. 236/2012 of PS Mahendra Park and also in case FIR No. 101/2012 of PS Mahendra Park. He stated that no facts were ever told by PW-2 to ACP Rajesh Kaushik. The vehicle and the illicit liquor were seized and CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 85 deposited in the Malkhana of PS Mahendra Park in time, following the due procedure of law. The FIR No. 321/2012 was registered promptly without any delay. The three accused persons were witnesses in FIR No. 321/2012. PW Praveen, Balraj and owner of vehicle namely Arvind pleaded guilty in FIR No. 321/2012. Initially the present case was registered U/s 384/34 IPC and later the draft charge-sheet was prepared U/s 385/34 IPC. As the limitation for filing charge-sheet under IPC offence had expired, the provisions of PC Act were wrongly invoked in the present case. The IOs in the present case did not act fairly in investigating the present case and ignored the contents of FIR No. 321/2012. No CD was produced by complainant Harish at any point of time and that the entries in the Malkhana Register were ante-dated and ante-timed. He stated that he was not taken to FSL for recording his voice sample and it was recorded at the office of ACB. He has further stated that a false FSL report has been obtained by the prosecution without actual examination of exhibits by FSL expert. Moreover, FSL was not notified u/s 79- A of IT Act at that time to act as expert of electronic evidence. The FSL report has been procured and the exhibits were not examined by PW-8 and only transferred data was examined. The sanction has been accorded by PW-13 without any application of mind on the basis of draft sanction order prepared by the staff. All the documents and articles were not sent to PW-13 by the IO. Even the contents were not correctly recorded in the sanction order. He further stated that the public witnesses have not identified the accused persons or the case property. He stated that he had been exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry conducted CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 85 by Joint C.P.
13. In his statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused Azad Singh apart from what was stated by co-accused Ranjan Singh further stated that no mobile phone of the driver of the vehicle was taken by him and co-accused Sri Niwas. No phone calls were received at the spot and the driver Praveen and helper Balraj were taken to PS Mahendra Park as they had been apprehended in case FIR no. 321/2012. He stated that FIR No. 321/2012 was promptly registered on the basis of rukka sent by co-accused Ranjan. No facts were ever told by PW-2 to ACP Rajesh Kaushik. No statement was ever given by Harish and the present case was falsely registered against them. On 21.11.12, he was called at PP Azadpur Mandi and he was asked to join the Punjab Police team who were on special duty on that day. The relevant DD entry was stated to be on record. He stated that the entries in the Malkhana Register were ante-dated and ante-timed and while denying that complainant Harish produced one mobile phone, memory card and battery, it was also denied that any CD was produced by him. The transcript was stated to be fabricated. It was also stated that there was no authenticity report of the transcript. Remaining answers were same as that given by accused Ranjan Singh.
14. The statement of accused Sri Niwas u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also on similar lines as accused Ranjan Singh and Azad Singh. He further stated that he had attended Rohini Court with accused Ranjan on 21.11.2012 in FIR No. 236/2012 and FIR No. CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 85 101/2012 of PS Mahendra Park.
15. The accused persons preferred to lead evidence in their defence. In their defence evidence, they examined the following witnesses :
(i) DW-1 ASI Sandeep Singh who produced the summoned record i.e. Challan Checking Register of PS Mahendra Park of the year 2013.
(ii) DW-2 ASI Manbir Singh, who produced the summoned record i.e. Departmental Enquiry file of Insp. Darshan Singh, HC Ranjan Singh, Ct. Azad Singh and Ct. Sriniwas Goswami. He produced the order dated 24.01.2018, Ex.DW2/A passed by Sh. Surender Singh Yadav, IPS, Joint Commissioner of Police, vide which HC Ranjan Singh, Ct. Azad Singh and Ct. Sri Niwas Goswami were exonerated. The copy of the Enquiry Report is Ex.DW2/B.
(iii) DW-3 ASI Brijesh Kumar Sharma who produced the order dated 05.09.2018 Ex.DW3/A, issued by ACP/HQ, North-West District, vide which the original Visitor Register, Dak Register of ACP Office, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi dated 22.11.2012 and Daily Crime Diaries were weeded out.
(iv) DW-4 ASI Harchand Singh, MHC(M), PS Mahendra Park who produced the summoned record i.e. the record of disposal/delivery order dated 30.07.2019 Ex.DW4/A CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 85 whereby the vehicle make TATA 407 bearing no. DL-1LR-6171 which was confiscated in FIR No. 321/2012, PS Mahendra Park had been disposed off and handed over to M/s Jaggi Motor Workshop for further disposal and management. He also produced the order dated 15.06.2016 Ex.DW4/B vide which the case property i.e. liquor seized in FIR No. 321/2012, PS Mahendra Park was disposed off.
(v) DW-5 HC Sumer Singh, VRK Incharge, ACP Office, Shalimar Bagh, who produced the General Crime Register of Vernacular Record Keeper (VRK) for the year 2012 and stated that no case diary was submitted by the concerned IO in VRK Section in respect of FIR no. 322/2012. The copy of the relevant page on which the FIR No. 322/2012 was mentioned is Ex.DW5/A.
(vi) DW-6 HC Ranjan Singh examined himself as a witness U/s 315 Cr.P.C. and he deposed that on 21.11.2012, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park as Head Constable. On that day, he reached Rohini Court at about 10:00 am as one of the accused Jasbir @ Jassu had to surrender in case FIR No. 101/12, U/s 33/58D Delhi Excise Act, PS Mahendra Park but he did not surrender at 10:00 am and later on they came to know that he will surrender at 11:00 am and finally he surrendered after lunch. Meanwhile, he filed a DAR in MACT Court in FIR No. 236/12. Thereafter, accused Jasbir @ Jassu surrendered himself in the court of Sh. Vishal Singh, Ld. MM, Room no. 117, Rohini Court after 02:00 pm. He and Ct. Sri Niwas filed application for formal CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 85 arrest and interrogation which was allowed by the court. He filed the certified copy of the relevant documents Ex.DW6/A (colly) and the certified copy of the DAR alongwith order-sheet Ex.DW6/B (colly).
Thereafter at the request of ld. Counsel for accused persons, defence evidence was closed.
Arguments :
16. It is argued that by Ld. Chief PP for State that the complainant had recorded the conversations made between him and accused persons from his mobile phone and the mobile phone of Praveen @ Kalu which revealed that the accused persons had made a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for release of vehicle carrying illicit liquor which was scaled down to Rs.1.5 Lakhs in the aforesaid telephonic conversations. It is urged that when the demand was not met, the accused persons registered FIR No. 321/2012, PS Mahendra Park. It is also argued that the fact that money was being demanded for release of the tempo containing illicit liquor is also evident in the testimony of PW-6 ASI Ajit Singh. It is urged that the testimony of PW-2 (incomplete), PW-3, PW-6 and PW-10 and other police officials including PW23 and PW18 reveals complicity of the accused persons. It is also urged that the FSL result Ex.PW8/A reveals that there is no indication of any form of alteration in the audio recording handed over to the IO by the complainant PW-2 which was made by him with his mobile phone Ex.P1 and its SD card CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 85 Ex.P2. It is stated that even the voice of complainant Harish, PW-3 Praveen @ Kalu and voice of accused Azad Singh stands identified in the said audio recording as contained in the SD card Ex.P2 as per the FSL result Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW30/A. It is urged that from the said audio recordings it is clear that the accused persons had demanded money from the complainant for release of the vehicle containing illicit liquor. It is accordingly prayed that the accused persons are liable to be held guilty for the offences they are charged with.
17. On the other hand, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the testimony of the complainant PW-2 remained incomplete as the complainant was unavailable and hence, the same cannot be read against the accused as the complainant PW-2 was not subjected to cross-examination. Even in the testimony recorded before the court, the complainant did not support the prosecution version. It is urged that PW-3, Praveen has not supported any allegation of demand against the accused persons and has supported the contents of FIR No. 321/2012, PS Mahendra Park. It is also not proved on record that any mobile phone Ex.P1, SD card Ex.P2 were handed over by the complainant Harish to the IO. It is stated that the IO Insp.
Vinod Kumar who conducted the initial investigation in the case has not been examined being unavailable and hence, the part of investigation conducted by him has not been proved. It is urged that the case property i.e. the mobile phone Ex.P1 and SD card Ex.P2 have not been identified by the complainant or any public witness or the IO who seized the same. The voice of the speakers CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 85 i.e. Harish PW-2 and Praveen in the voice recording as contained in the SD card Ex.P2 does not stand identified by them. Hence, the audio recording contained in the said mobile phone cannot be relied upon to hold the accused persons guilty. It is accordingly stated that in absence of any cogent evidence against the accused persons, they are liable to be acquitted of the offences they are charged with.
18. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
19. Before appreciating evidence in this case, it is important to note that even in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the the foundational facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede Crl.Appeal No. 1350 of 2009, d.o.d. 29.07.2009 held that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. It was also observed that that while invoking the presumption under section 20 of PC Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme court made the following observations in this regard:
"16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 85 the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-`-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt." (emphasis supplied)
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Subair v. State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587] while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.
21. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no. 1669 of 2009, with regard to the nature and quality of proof CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 85 necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the PC Act, summarized as under :-
" 68. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 85 the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue.
In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 34 of 85 for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point
(e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature." (emphasis supplied)
22. Accordingly, if a complainant has died or is unavailable, as in the present case, to let in his evidence during trial, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.
23. Viewed in light of law discussed herein-above, it has to be examined as to what extent the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused persons. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons namely Ranjan Singh, Azad Singh and Sri Niwas demanded illegal gratification from the complainant Harish, of a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs, which was scaled down to Rs. 1.5 Lakhs for release of tempo bearing registration no. DL-1LR-6171 containing 130 boxes of liquor and accordingly they committed offences punishable u/s 120B IPC, Section 384/385 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC and u/s 7 P.C. Act.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 35 of 8524. Complainant Harish was examined as PW2 and he deposed that in the month of November, 2012, he received a telephone call of Arvind who asked PW2 as to where he was at that time. PW2 told him that he was at Kharkhoda, Haryana. Arvind told him that he would be coming to PW2 in 10-20 minutes. Thereafter, Arvind alongwith one other person came to PW2 at Kharkhoda, Haryana and asked PW2 to go to Delhi on his motorcycle. PW2 went to Jahangir Puri Delhi on the said motorcycle. When he reached at the metro station next to Jahangir Puri metro station, 10-12 police officials were standing there. PW2 asked them as to why they had stopped his vehicle i.e. tempo. They told PW2 that his vehicle was containing illicit liqour. PW2 asked them to release his tempo but they refused and threatened him that he should leave the place or they would arrest him in the said case. PW2 left from there but when he was at some distance, 2-3 police officials came there in a car and asked him if he wanted to get his tempo released from police possession. They took him to a police station situated at a distance of 5-6 km. away from there. There were some superior police officers present in the said police station, who asked PW2 about the tempo. PW2 told them that the said tempo belonged to Arvind and Arvind had sent PW2 to take back the vehicle from police. The said police officials told PW2 that the vehicle would not be released to him and took his signatures on the documents pertaining to arrest of his associates which were 8-10 in number. The said officials asked PW2 to visit the police station on the next day and PW2 was left at Jahangir Puri. Thereafter, he went back to Haryana on the said motorcycle.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 36 of 8525. PW2 further deposed that he returned to Delhi after 12-13 days of the said incident. He was again called to Delhi after two or two and half years and had met some senior police officers of ACP or DCP rank and he had narrated the same facts.
26. PW2 identified the accused persons as those whom he had seen in police station when he was called there after two or two and half years of the incident, however, they were not known to him.
27. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State as he was resiling from his previous statements given to police. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated that he was a driver by profession. He knew Arvind as his sister was married in his native village. He was not on visiting terms with Arvind. He knew Arvind since the year 2010. Arvind had two - three tempos which belonged to him. Whenever Arvind used to visit the village of PW2, he used to have one of the said tempos with him. PW2 did not know what articles Arvind used to transport in the said tempos. One of tempo was deputed by Arvind for transporting articles to a factory situated in the village of PW2.
28. PW2 further deposed that he received a telephone call of Arvind, on the said day, at about 4.00/5.00 p.m. PW2 had not got released the tempo of Arvind from police earlier. PW2 did not have any link in Delhi police. PW2 did not know any CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 37 of 85 police official of Delhi police. Arvind had not told him that the officials of which police station had seized his tempo. He had also not told PW2 about the articles contained in the said tempo.
29. PW2 deposed that Arvind had told him the name of driver and helper of his tempo. Name of driver of his tempo was Parveen but he had not told PW2 the name of helper on the said tempo. PW2 deposed that he was using mobile number 9991842572 in year 2012, on the day of incident. He had received a telephone call of Arvind on the abovesaid mobile number on that day. He did not remember the mobile number with which Arvind had made telephone call to him.
30. PW2 further deposed that ACP, Shalimar Bagh had not recorded his statement on 22.11.2012. PW2 identified his signatures on Ex. PW2/A and PW2 further affirmed that he had written the date 22.11.2012 under his signatures on the said document. He affirmed that he could not say whether it was 22.11.2012 when he had signed the said document.
31. PW2 deposed that he had reached at Jahangir Puri at about 6.00 - 6.30 p.m. on the said day. He could not tell if it was 21.11.2012 when the tempo of Arvind was seized by Delhi police.
32. PW2 deposed that he could read Hindi. He had not read the document EX. PW-2/A at the time when he had put his signatures as it was blank at that time.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 38 of 8533. PW2 deposed that he had never been arrested in any case by police in Delhi or in Haryana except in two cases pertaining to quarrel. He had never been arrested in case pertaining to Excise Act. He did not know if Arvind was ever arrested by police in any Excise case pertaining to transport of illicit liqour. PW2 denied that on 21.11.2012 the tempo bearing no. DL-1LR-6171 containing 130 boxes of illicit liqour alongwith driver Parveen and his associate Balraj were apprehended at 4.30 p.m. by officials of PS Mahendra Park. The contents of Ex. PW2/A were put to PW2, however, he denied the facts mentioned therein. He was also confronted with the contents of Ex. PW2/A in that context. PW2 further denied that Arvind had asked him to get his tempo, liquor, Praveen and Balraj released. He volunteered that Arvind had only asked him to get his tempo released from the police.
34. PW2 further denied that Parveen had made telephone call to him on 22.11.2012 at 5.30 a.m. He denied that he was using mobile number 9034176454 on that day. PW2 did not know if Parveen was using mobile number 8860117812. He denied that Parveen had called from the said number on that day. PW2 denied that Parveen had made him have telephonic conversation with the police officials or that the police officials had demanded Rs. 5 lakhs to release the tempo alongwith liqour and the driver and helper or that PW2 had spoken with the police officials about 10 times or that when he asked the police officials to reduce the amount, their demand was reduced to Rs.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 39 of 851,50,000/-. PW2 denied that he had conversation with police officials, on that day till about 12.00 noon but he was not able to arrange the money or that at that time, his friend Babban was also with him, who had also asked the police officials to reduce the amount.
35. PW2 also deposed that Babban was not his friend and he did not know Babban. He denied that he knew Babban as he was his friend or due to this reason, Babban and PW2 were together on 22.11.2012.
36. PW2 deposed that he had come to know that the seized tempo was lying parked at some distance from PS Mahendraa Park, on a road. He had come to know this fact from Arvind. PW2 denied that the said tempo was got parked by the police officials at the parking of Subzi Mandi. At the time when Arvind had asked him to go to Delhi on his motorcycle , he had told PW2 that his tempo had been seized by traffic police at Jahangir Puri and that he was not able to go to the said place as he had to go to some other place.
37. PW2 further deposed that he knew that the traffic police releases the impounded vehicle only on receipt of fine amount for which it has been challaned. PW2 had not asked from Arvind for how much fine amount his tempo has been impounded. PW2 had taken Rs. 2,500/- from Arvind for paying the fine amount. PW2 had not asked from Arvind about the traffic violation for which his tempo was impounded by the CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 40 of 85 traffic police. PW2 did not know for which traffic violation, Rs. 2,500/- was the fine amount. He denied that Arvind had not asked for release of the impounded vehicle but he had asked for getting released his tempo containing liqour. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the accused persons.
38. PW2 further denied that he had not met the police officials but had a telephonic conversation with them. He had told the police officials on coming to know that the tempo was containing illicit liqour, that the said tempo belonged to Arvind. He denied that he had not put his signatures on the documents for release of tempo.
39. It is pertinent to note that further cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State of PW2 Harish was deferred and thereafter PW2 Harish did not appear before the court for conclusion of evidence. PW2 was also summoned repeatedly through DCP concerned and he did not appear as his whereabouts were not known till the date when the prosecution evidence was closed by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State. PW2 was therefore not available during trial for conclusion of his cross- examination.
40. The prosecution also examined PW3 Praveen, who deposed that he was working as a driver. He knew Jitender. Jitender and his brother had shops of liquor ( theka sharab) at village Sisana, Haryana.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 41 of 8541. On 20.11.2012, Jitender had made a telephone call to PW3 in the evening and asked PW3 to take his tempo to Delhi. His tempo had a Delhi registration number whose last four digits were 6171. Jitender had also told PW3 that PW3 should also take his uncle Balraj alongwith him. The specific address at which the tempo was to be taken was known to Balraj. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- was settled as his charges and 500/- was fixed as a reward for him.
42. On 20.11.2012 itself, PW3 received telephone call from Harish, who told PW3 that the vehicle has to be taken via Sampla, Bahadurgarh and Tikri Border but after some time, Jitender who was brother-in-law (Jija) of Harish made telephone call to PW3 and told him that the vehicle was to be taken via Kharkhoda Auchandi Border, sector 18 and Rohini Jail.
43. On 21.11.2012, at about 2.00 a.m./ 3.00 a.m. PW3 had started from village Sisana in the said tempo of Jitender. The said tempo was containing boxes of illicit liqour. PW3 had taken one quarter of liqour, coke and water for Balraj as he was a daily drinker.
44. When they reached near Rohini Jail in the said tempo, Balraj had already consumed the liquor. Meanwhile, one motor cycle came from behind and two persons were riding the said motorcycle. They asked PW3 to stop the tempo but PW3 raised the speed of tempo, at which the person sitting behind the driver on the motorcycle, hit a wooden stick (danda) on the CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 42 of 85 windscreen of the tempo, while riding on the motorcycle, and its windscreen broke.
45. Meanwhile, one swift car also came there and stopped in front of his tempo. As soon as PW3 stopped the tempo, two persons from the said car stepped down and pulled him out of the driver's seat. The said two persons riding on the motorcycle came to him and they all started giving him beatings. Balraj was also taken down from the tempo and he was got seated in the swift car. PW3 was taken in the same tempo to Azad Pur whereas Balraj was also brought there in the swift car. His mobile phone was taken by those persons. PW3 came to know that some of them were police officials. After about half an hour, one phone call was received by those persons and they took PW3, Balraj and the tempo to PS Mahendra Park. PW3 was asked to take the vehicle inside the premises of said police station as the said police officials were not able to drive it inside as the gate of the police station was small. After the vehicle was driven inside the police station by PW3, the liqour boxes were removed by the said police officials from the tempo.
46. SHO, PS Mahendra Park came to PW3 and made enquiry from PW3 about the tempo and illicit liqour and took PW3 to the ACP. He was given beatings and he had narrated the facts to the ACP also. PW3 was a minor at that time. The case was registered and PW3 was remanded to the remand home of Sewa Kuteer, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. PW3 identified accused Azad and Sri Niwas being the two motorcycle riders and the third CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 43 of 85 accused as the person who had come there in swift car whose name he later came to know as Ranjan Singh. PW3 deposed that he had seen the accused persons for the first time near Rohini Jail. He had come to know about names of the accused persons from the FIR only.
47. PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State. In his cross-examined by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State PW3 affirmed that on 07.12.2012, Insp. V.K. Sharma / IO had made enquiry from him at Shishu Sadan, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. He also affirmed that he had stated in his statement to IO that he had started from Sisana on 21.11.2012 at about 4.45 a.m. in the tempo after getting it loaded with liqour boxes. PW3 further deposed that he had mentioned the time as 2.00 / 3.00 a.m. in his examination in chief to be the time when he had started from village Sisana but as Balraj was taken from his farm and his farm was also situated in village Sisana, hence, they ultimately left the village Sisana at about 4.45 a.m. on that day.
48. PW3 further admitted that the said liqour boxes were to be delivered to some party of Babban. PW3 affirmed that he was not knowing Babban, however, he denied that he was able to identify voice of Babban. PW3 affirmed that he had stated to IO in his statement that he was able to identify voice of Babban though he did not know him by name. PW3 stated that as Balraj used to have telephonic conversation with Babban, he had heard the voice of Babban during the said conversation. PW3 further affirmed that it was around 7.00 / 8.00 a.m. when they CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 44 of 85 had reached at Bye-pass after crossing of Rohini jail. PW3 admitted that his mobile number 9050550053 was given by him to his brother namely Rajiv but PW3 denied that on 21.11.2012, he was having the said mobile number with him. PW3 denied that in his statement to IO he had stated that at that time, he was having mobile number 9050550053 with him. In this context, PW3 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW-3/A.
49. PW3 admitted that Arvind had come to him at 9.45 a.m. at Phal Mandi and the vehicle of Arvind was retained by Jitender in lieu of amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. PW3 denied that one Ajit of Crime Branch had also come with Arvind and talks were initiated for release of vehicle against money. He also denied that he had stated this fact to IO in his statement Ex. PW- 3/A.
50. PW3 affirmed that they were got seated at PS Mahendraa Park at about 11.00 a.m. but when they came to know that SHO was going on raid, they were produced before the SHO, who asked for producing them before ACP, but it was not 3.00 p.m. when they were produced before SHO. PW3 denied that he had mentioned in him statement to IO that they were produced before SHO at 3.00 p.m. PW3 was confronted in this regard with statement Ex. PW-3/A. PW3 deposed that they were produced before SHO at about 1.30 p.m. and at about 3.00 p.m. they were produced before the ACP.
51. PW3 affirmed that all the three police officials CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 45 of 85 were in civil dress. He also affirmed that at the time when the swift car was overtaking his tempo, his tempo had hit the said car and later he came to know the name of the accused as Ranjan.
52. PW3 denied that at the time when he was having mobile phone with him, he and the police officials had talked to Babban and Harish with the said mobile phone. PW3 volunteered that only he talked with Harish once. PW3 denied the contents of statement Ex. PW3/A and was confronted with the same.
53. PW3 denied that the transcript of the telephonic conversation was read over to him by the IO or that the transcript was marked as 'P' for Police, 'H' for Harish, 'K' for PW3 and 'B' for Babban.
54. He also denied that he had gone through the photocopy of transcript and after identifying the talks and after reading the same, he had put his signatures in English on the said photocopy of transcript. He volunteered that he had put his signatures on his statement only. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW3/A in that regard.
55. PW3 affirmed that the photocopy of transcript, on record bore his signatures at points 'A' to 'A-5'. He volunteered that the alphabets 'P', 'H', 'B', 'K' etc. were not there. The transcript is Ex. PW-3/B and it was objected to by the counsel. PW3 denied that he had identified the talks or that due to this CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 46 of 85 reason, he had put his signatures on the said document.
56. PW3 denied that he had stated to IO in his statement Ex. PW-3/A that he could identify the voice of Harish and Babban or that he had also stated that the police persons were talking one by one . PW3 denied that he had stated to the IO that after coming out of the remand home, he could hand over his mobile to him. Witness was confronted with the relevant portions of his statement Ex. PW-3/A in this regard.
57. PW3 affirmed that he was also known with name 'Kalu'. He denied that he was knew the details of telephonic conversation as they had taken place in his presence. Witness was confronted with the relevant portions of his statement Ex. PW-3/A in this regard.
58. PW3 deposed that he did not know if on the other end Babban, Harish and Jitender were talking to the police persons but the police persons had a talk on the mobile number of Harish. PW3 volunteered that his mobile phone was with the police officials.
59. The audio cassette make "Maxwell" containing voice sample of Kalu @ Praveen was shown to the witness and he identified his signatures on the cassette Ex. PW3/Article-I. After hearing the audio cassette, PW3 stated that the cassette did not contain his voice.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 47 of 8560. The mobile phone make "Spice" alongwith one memory card i.e. micro SD, HC, 4, 4GB CD 4G TAIWAN were produced and the micro SD card Ex. P-2 was played before the court. After hearing file no. Driver_1211210646_00.wav, Driver_1211210720_00.wav, Driver_1211210746_00.wav, Driver_1211210809_00.wav and Driver_1211210856_00.wav, PW3 stated that it was not his voice. Hence, PW3 failed to identify his voice in the audio files contained in micro SD card of the mobile phone make "Spice".
61. PW3 denied that he was intentionally not identifying his sample voice contained in audio cassette Ex. PW3/Article-1 and his voice in micro SD card Ex. P-2 of the mobile phone.
62. PW3 was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he affirmed that accused persons were not arrested in his presence in the present case and he had seen them for the first time in the court after 21.11.2012.
63. PW3 affirmed that he had pleaded guilty in case FIR no. 321/12. He was minor as on 21.11.2012. Jitender did not give any bill/license/permit of the liquor which was loaded in the said tempo. He denied that he had falsely introduced Jitender during his examination in chief. He also denied that the tempo was owned by one Arvind resident of village Baliyana, Rohtak, Haryana.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 48 of 8564. PW3 further deposed that toll barrier came on their way to Delhi and they had paid toll tax. He did not hand over any toll tax receipt to the IO of the present case. PW3 affirmed that he was arrested by HC Mahendra Singh in case FIR no. 321/12. He was not in possession of driving license as on 21.11.2012 to drive commercial vehicle. He volunteered that he was a minor at that time. PW3 deposed that IO never demanded his mobile phone instrument from him at any point of time. He denied that no call was received by them from Harish regarding route to be followed.
65. PW3 denied that his mobile phone was never taken by the persons who intercepted their tempo. He denied that their tempo was intercepted as they were carrying illicit liquor. He never complained about police official for false registration of case FIR no. 321/12. He denied that his brother Rajiv had nothing to do with mobile no. 9050550053. He denied that he had deposed falsely against the accused persons on 25.03.2019 regarding incriminating portion.
66. PW10 Arvind Rana deposed that he was the owner of tempo bearing no. DL-1LR-6171. He used to ply the said tempo with one Jitender R/o Village Sishana, who was a liquor contractor. Due to some dispute of money between Jitender and him, he left the job with him and came back to his village.
67. On 13.11.2012, Jitender took away aforesaid tempo from him forcibly and told him that he would return his tempo CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 49 of 85 after he would receive his money. On 14.11.2012, PW10 gave his complaint in writing at PS Bawana in respect of taking away of his tempo by Jitender but no action was taken on his complaint.
68. On 22.11.2012, Jitender told PW10 telephonically that he had got his tempo containing illicit liquor caught through Ajit Rana. He also told PW10 that he would be coming at his house. PW10 called Ajit Rana telephonically and enquired from him as to whether he had got caught aforesaid tempo, who replied that he had not got caught the aforesaid tempo. PW10 also apprised Ajit Rana that Jitender was taking his name. Ajit Rana was surprised that his name was being used in this matter. He told PW10 that he would see as to who had got caught the aforesaid tempo and would also enquire as to why his name was being used. Later on PW10 came to know that Ajit Rana had found the aforesaid tempo near Azadpur Mandi within the jurisdiction of PS Mahendra Park. PW10 stated that his mobile number was 8447358251. PW10 did not remember his mobile number which he was using before that number.
69. In a leading question put to PW10 by Ld. Addl.Chief P.P. for the State, PW10 affirmed that he was using mobile number 8860627663 prior to using mobile number 8447358251.
70. On being cross-examined by ld. Counsel for accused persons, PW10 denied that Ajit Rana was his relative. PW10 CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 50 of 85 volunteered that Ajit Rana was known to him as he was from the same village. PW10 had not handed over any document of ownership of vehicle no. DL-1LR-6171 to the IO. PW10 volunteered that the documents were in the vehicle itself. PW10 affirmed that FIR No.205/12, PS Vijay Vihar, Mark-PW10/DA was registered against him under the Excise Act. PW10 also affirmed that FIR No.321/12, PS Mahendra Park was registered against him under the Excise Act. The certified copy of final order dated 23.11.2013 passed by the Court of Sh. Mohinder Virat, Ld. MM, in case FIR No. 321/12, PS Mahendra Park, Ex.PW10/DB was put to the witness and he admitted the same. PW10 also affirmed that the said vehicle was not released to him.
71. PW6 ASI Ajit Singh deposed that on 21.11.2012, he was posted in the staff of ACP Bawana and at around 9.30 a.m. when he was present at his house, one HC Pardeep enquired him telephonically as to whether he had caught any tempo containing illicit liquor. He told him that he had not caught any tempo containing illicit liquor. HC Pardeep further told PW6 that HC Rajender had informed him and he was taking name of PW6. PW6 took mobile number of HC Rajender from HC Pardeep and spoke with him telephonically and he told him that one Ct. Vinod had told him that PW6 had caught a tempo containing illicit liquor. Thereafter, PW6 spoke to Ct. Vinod on his mobile phone and he told him that name of PW6 was being taken that he had caught a tempo containing illicit liquor. PW6 requested him to help in apprehending those persons who were using his (PW6's) name. PW6 proceeded from his house and as CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 51 of 85 soon as he left his house, he received a telephone call of one Manish, who also asked PW6 the same thing, as to whether he had caught any tempo containing illicit liquor. PW6 enquired from Manish and he told PW6 that Rs. 1,50,000/- was being demanded for releasing the tempo and his name was being used in this regard. PW6 apprised aforesaid facts to ACP Bawana, who instructed him to go with team and apprehend those persons who had actually caught the tempo containing illicit liquor and were using his name.
72. PW6 called HC Pardeep and Ct. Ravinder. PW6 asked Manish to enquire from those persons about the spot where they were calling with Rs. 1,50,000/-. Manish after talking with those persons told PW6 that they were calling at Adarsh Nagar.
73. PW6 alongwith team members reached at Jahangir Puri and called Manish there. Manish talked several times with those persons telephonically but they did not come in front of them. With the help of Manish, PW6 took the telephone number of the driver of the tempo and thereafter, he searched the location of mobile number, whereupon they found said tempo stationed in Azad Pur Mandi. PW6 apprised ACP Bawana Shri K.P.S. Malhotra all these facts, who told them to wait and watch as to who approaches the tempo.
74. After some time, three persons approached the tempo. On enquiry they told that they were from local police station. Thereafter, one of them made PW6 speak to HC Ranjan, CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 52 of 85 who asked him as to why he had come to Azad Pur Mandi. PW6 asked HC Ranjan as to why he was using his name. HC Ranjan became abusive. A lot of crowd gathered. Then one of the persons made him speak to SHO PS Mahendra Park, who also told PW6 to mind his own business. PW6 told all these facts to ACP, Bawana, who told him to come back and further told that he will look into the issue. PW6 further deposed that out of those three persons, two persons were police officials and they told their names as Ct. Azad and Ct. Sri Niwas. PW6 has correctly identified accused Ct. Azad and Ct. Sri Niwas before the Court.
75. Perusal of testimony of complainant PW2 Harish reveals that he has supported the prosecution case to the extent that he was asked by Arvind telephonically to go to Delhi. Arvind had also told Harish PW2 the name of the driver to be Praveen. At that time Arvind had told him that his tempo had been seized by Traffic Police at Jahangirpuri and he had told PW2 that he was not able to go to the said place as he had to go somewhere else.
76. However, PW2 Harish did not support the prosecution version regarding the allegations of demand made by the accused persons and stated that when he reached at the metro station next to Jahangir Puri metro station, 10-12 police officials were standing there. PW2 asked them as to why they had stopped his vehicle i.e. tempo. They told PW2 that his vehicle was containing illicit liqour. PW2 asked them to release his tempo but they refused and threatened him that he I should leave CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 53 of 85 the place or they would arrest him in the said case. PW2 left from there but when he was at some distance, two -three police officials came there in a car and asked him if he wanted to get his tempo released from police possession. They took him to a police station situated at a distance of 5-6 km. away from there. There were some superior police officers present in the said police station, who asked PW2 about the tempo. PW2 told them that the said tempo belonged to Arvind and Arvind had sent PW2 to take back the vehicle from police. The said police officials told PW2 that the vehicle would not be released to him and took his signatures on the documents pertaining to arrest of his associates which were 8-10 in number. The said officials had asked PW2 to visit the police station on the next day and PW2 was left at Jahangir Puri. Thereafter, he went back to Haryana on the said motorcycle. Accordingly, PW2 denied the allegation that liquor was seized in the tempo. He further specifically denied that the accused persons had demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs for releasing the tempo alongwith liquor, the driver and the helper. PW2 also denied that he had spoken to the police officials telephonically about 10 times and upon his asking they reduced the amount demanded Rs. 1,50,000/-. He also denied that his friend Babban was with him, who had also asked the police officials to reduce the amount and infact PW2 stated that he did not know any Babban. He denied the material allegations of demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs made by the police officials or the fact that it was reduced to Rs. 1.5 Lakhs. Accordingly, PW2 did not support the prosecution version regarding allegations of demand of bribe by the police officials. Moreover, Babban, the friend of CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 54 of 85 PW2 who had also spoken to the police officials regarding the demand of bribe and its reduction, was not examined u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and PW2 denied that he knew any Babban or that Babban was his friend.
77. Pertinently, as discussed hereinabove, further cross examination of PW2 was not concluded by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he was unavailable and he was also not cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused. Since the accused persons were not given an opportunity to cross-examine PW2, therefore, the same cannot be read against the accused persons and in any event, even otherwise the incomplete testimony of PW2 does not incriminate the accused persons.
78. The testimony of PW3 supports the prosecution version to the extent that PW3 was driving a tempo on 21.11.2012 and started from Sisana at about 04.45 am at the instance of Jitender and Harish. The tempo was carrying boxes of illicit liquor which were to be delivered to some party of Babban. At about 07.00-08.00 am when they reached bypass after crossing Rohini Jail, they were caught by the police officials and they were taken to Azadpur. Arvind came to the Azadpur Mandi. He also stated that they were taken to PS Mahendra Park at about 11.00 am but when they came to know that SHO was going on raid, they were produced before him, who asked them to be produced before the ACP. They were produced before the SHO at 01.30 pm and before ACP at 03.00 pm. Pertinently, PW3 denied that one Ajit of Crime Branch also came with CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 55 of 85 Arvind and talks were initiated for release of vehicle against money.
79. PW3 identified accused Azad and Sri Niwas as the two motorcycle riders, who had followed the tempo and accused Ranjan Singh as the person who was in the Swift car and stopped it in front of his tempo, whom he later came to know were police officials who later took him alongwith Balraj and the tempo to PS Mahendra Park where the liquor boxes were removed by the police officials from the tempo. In his cross-examination by the accused persons, PW3 deposed that he had pleaded guilty in FIR No. 321/2012.
80. The said FIR 321/2012, Ex. PW1/A was lodged at 08.45 pm and the time of incident is indicated to be 04.55 pm. PW11 prepared the rukka on the basis of statement of HC Ranjan Singh, accused herein, on the basis of which FIR 321/2012 PS Mahendra Park was registered. PW11 deposed that accused in FIR No. 321/2012 namely Praveen and Balraj had been apprehended by HC Ranjan Singh, Const. Sri Niwas and Const. Azad and the case property i.e. illicit liquor in the said case had also been seized. In his cross-examination PW11 deposed that the FIR was registered promptly. Balraj and Parveen did not complain to him about their detention for a long period prior to their production before him.
81. In his testimony recorded before the court PW3 Praveen - driver denied that one Ajit of Crime Branch had also CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 56 of 85 come with Arvind and talks were initiated for release of the vehicle against money. He also denied that at that time he had his mobile phone with him or that he and the police officials spoke to Babban and Harish with that mobile phone. He volunteered that he had spoken to Harish only once and that his mobile phone was with the police officials. Though PW3 stated that the police persons spoke on the mobile number of Harish but he did not know if on the other end Babban, Harish and Jitender were present. He also denied that he knew the details of telephonic conversations as they had taken place in his presence.
82. Hence, there is no allegation of demand of money against release of the vehicle in the testimony of PW3. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the testimony of PW3 is in line with the contents of FIR 321/2012, PS Mahendra Park, pertaining to seizure of illicit liquor in a tempo Tata-407 bearing registration no. DL-1LR-6171 by accused HC Ranjan Singh, Const. Sri Niwas and Const. Azad. Neither PW2 nor PW3 have made any assertion that any demand of money was made by the accused persons for release of the said vehicle. Moreover, PW2 was not produced for his cross-examination by the prosecution and hence, his testimony cannot be read against the accused persons. Accordingly, his complaint Ex. PW2/A cannot be stated to have been proved by the prosecution in absence of any cross-examination of the complainant, who could not be produced by the prosecution for the same. The complaint Ex. PW2/A of the complainant Harish was recorded by ACP Rajesh Kaushik PW18, who deposed that he had recorded the CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 57 of 85 statement of Harish and made the endorsement on the complaint for registration of the case and he identified his own signature on the statement of Harish recorded by him i.e. Ex. PW2/A. He however did not identify the signature of complainant Harish on the complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW2 complainant Harish in his incomplete testimony recorded before the court identified his signature on Ex. PW2/A, however, he stated that he had not read the document Ex. PW2/A and at the time when he put his signatures, the document was blank. In these circumstances, complaint Ex. PW2/A does not stand proved on record.
83. Perusal of testimony of PW10 Arvind Rana, owner of the tempo in issue, reveals that he was informed by one Jitender telephonically on 22.11.2012 that his tempo containing illicit liquor had been caught by Ajit Rana and when he informed Ajit Rana telephonically about the same, he replied that he had not got caught the said tempo and when PW10 told him that Jitender was taking his name, Ajit Rana told him that he would inquire about it.
84. Perusal of testimony of PW6 ASI Ajit Rana reveals that he was asked by one HC Pradeep telephonically if he had caught any tempo containing liquor and also told him that HC Rajender was taking his name. HC Rajender telephonically told PW6 ASI Ajit Rana that Const. Vinod had informed him about the same. On speaking with Const. Vinod on his mobile phone who said that his name was being taken that he had caught the tempo containing illicit liquor at which PW6 requested him to CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 58 of 85 help him in apprehending those persons, who were using his name. Thereafter he received a call from one Manish, who also inquired about the same and he also told that his name was being taken in connection with a demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- for release of the tempo. PW6 apprised the aforesaid facts to ACP Bawana who instructed him to go with the team to apprehend those persons who had actually caught the tempo containing illicit liquor and were using his name. PW6 called HC Pradeep and Const. Ravinder and asked Manish to inquire about the spot where they were asking to come with Rs. 1,50,000/-. After talking to those persons Manish informed that they were calling at Adarsh Nagar. PW6 reached at Jahangirpuri and called Manish, who talked several times with those persons telephonically but they did not come in front of PW6 and his team. PW6 took the telephone number of the driver of the tempo and upon searching the location of the mobile number he found that the said tempo was stationed at Azadpur Mandi.
85. Accordingly, the entire testimony of PW6 ASI Ajit Singh is based upon hearsay evidence. He has only deposed regarding facts which were told to him by HC Pradeep, HC Rajender, Const. Vinod and one Manish that his name was being used for release of tempo containing illicit liquor for Rs.1,50,000/-. None of those persons named the person who was using his name nor any of these persons was the one from whom any such demand was made by the accused persons by using the name of PW6.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 59 of 8586. PW6 further deposed that after sometime three persons from the local police station approached the tempo and one of them made him speak to HC Ranjan who asked him why he had come to Azadpur Mandi, at which PW6 asked him as to why he was using his name. HC Ranjan became abusive and a crowd gathered. PW6 stated that out of the three persons, two persons were police officials who told their names as Ct. Azad and Ct. Sri Niwas. PW6 correctly identified Ct. Azad and Ct. Sri Niwas. However, HC Ranjan was not got identified by him in his testimony recorded before the court. Moreover, PW6 has not given the details of what transpired between him and HC Ranjan and he has merely stated that HC Ranjan became abusive and it does not confirm the assertion of PW6 that HC Ranjan had used his name for demand of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In these circumstances, testimony of PW6 does not confirm the guilt of the accused persons regarding demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant.
87. It is also noteworthy that the initial investigation of the case was conducted by Insp. Vinod Kumar of DIU who had prepared the seizure memo of the mobile phone and the SIM card handed over by the complainant Harish, recorded the statements of PW Balraj and Praveen in Rohini Jail, Delhi and Shishu Sadan, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, respectively. Insp. Vinod Kumar had also got prepared the transcript of the conversation at the instance of complainant Harish and the same was also shown to PW Praveen. Insp. Vinod was also involved in the arrest of the accused persons and taking their voice sample at FSL Rohini.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 60 of 85He sent the voice samples alongwith the voice recording of Const. Azad in the mobile phone of the complainant for evaluation and analysis. The FSL result was also received by him, which was attached alongwith the charge sheet. Thereafter the investigation was assigned to Insp. Ajit Singh.
88. As discussed hereinabove, IO/Insp. Vinod Kumar has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution as he was unavailable, as his whereabouts were not known. His signatures have not been proved by any other witness.
89. Accordingly, it emerges from the aforesaid discussion that PW2 was not produced for his cross-examination, being unavailable as his whereabouts were not known, hence his testimony cannot be relied upon by the prosecution and even otherwise in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination by ld. Chief.P.P. for the State, PW2 did not support the allegations of demand against the accused persons. PW Balraj, who was accompanying driver Praveen PW3, was dropped as a witness vide order dated 15.07.2019 as he had expired before recording of his testimony. The statement of Babban was not recorded during investigation and he was not arrayed as a witness as he could not be traced. Even though the testimony of PW3 supports the narrative regarding the facts that transpired leading to seizure of the vehicle containing illicit liquor in the tempo by HC Ranjan, Const. Azad Singh and Const. Sri Niwas in accordance with the contents of FIR no. 321/2012, PS Mahendra Park, Ex. PW1/A, however, his testimony does not disclose any CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 61 of 85 allegation of demand of bribe by the accused persons. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State. The testimony of PW2 (incomplete) and PW3 is completely silent on this aspect and in fact they denied the allegations of demand of bribe in their cross-examination by the State. As discussed hereinabove, the testimonies of PW6 and PW10 also do not prove the allegation of demand of illegal gratification against the accused persons. Hence, there is no oral evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused persons.
90. It is argued by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that the FIR no. 321/2012 was lodged as the complainant in the present case had failed to meet the demand of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs made by the accused persons and thus there was delay in lodging the FIR 321/2012 which was lodged at 08.45 pm and the time of incident was also indicated to be 04.55 pm, whereas PW3 has stated that the tempo was caught around 8.00 a.m. and they were taken to P.S. Mahendra Park at 11.00 a.m. Perusal of contents of FIR No. 321/2012, PS Mahendra Park, Ex. PW1/A reveals that the said FIR was lodged at 08.45 pm and the time of incident is indicated to be 04.55 pm. The said FIR pertains to seizure of illicit liquor in Tata 407 No. DL-1LR-6171 on 21.11.2012 near Rohini by the raiding party comprising HC Ranjan Singh, Const. Sri Niwas, Const. Azad. However, neither the testimony of PW3 nor any other witness reveals any allegation of demand of bribe by the accused persons. PW11 ASI Mahendra Singh, who had prepared the rukka on the basis of statement of HC Ranjan Singh, on CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 62 of 85 which FIR No. 321/2012, PS Mahendra Park was registered, deposed in his cross-examination that Praveen and Balraj did not complaint to him about long period of detention when they were produced before him. No doubt there appears to be delay in registration of FIR, however, in absence of any oral evidence of demand of bribe, same cannot be readily inferred.
91. The prosecution has also relied upon the audio recordings of the conversation that took place between complainant Harish and police officials. The complainant Harish handed over his mobile phone make "Spice" Model no. M5180, IMEI no. 911141802442194 and 911141802442202 and Ex. P-1 alongwith micro SD card 4 GB Ex. P-2 and its battery Ex. P-3 to the IO/Insp. Vinod vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/A.
92. PW23 HC Manjeet also deposed that the complainant Harish had also produced one CD stating that it contained the same audio clip which was in the memory card of the mobile phone. The seizure memo of the CD is Ex. PW23/B. PW23 HC Manjeet identified his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW23/A and Ex. PW23/B. He also deposed about the facts regarding seizure of the mobile phone. However, the signatures of complainant Harish and the IO/Insp. Vinod Kumar have not been proved on the seizure memo Ex. PW23/A nor has PW2 complainant deposed regarding seizure of his mobile phone by the IO which testimony even otherwise remained incomplete and was also not subjected to cross-examination. Even though PW23 HC Manjeet had accompanied the IO at the time of seizure of the CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 63 of 85 mobile phone and SD card, however, the signatures of the complainant and the IO/Insp. Vinod Kumar were not got identified by PW23. Even the mobile phone Ex. P-1, which was handed over by the complainant PW2 Harish, was not got identified by PW2 during recording of his testimony. Accordingly, the seizure of mobile phone Ex. P-1 and SD Card Ex. P-2 does not stand proved in accordance with law.
93. As per the case of the prosecution, the telephone conversations were recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant Ex. P-1 and its Micro SD Card Ex. P2.
94. The exhibits i.e. the mobile phone Ex. P-1, micro S.D. Card Ex. P-2 and the battery of the mobile phone Ex. P-3 was deposited in the malkhana. PW22 ASI Chander Bhan deposed that on 01.12.2012, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Mahendra Park and Insp. Vinod Kumar had deposited one sealed pullanda with the seal of VKS and sample seal alongwith the copy of seizure memo of case FIR no.322/12, PS Mahendra Park. PW22 made an entry to the said effect in Register no. 19 at serial no. 907/12 Ex.PW22/A.
95. The voice samples of accused persons were recorded at FSL Rohini, Physics Division in the presence of two public persons namely Har Narayan and Sudhanshu Gautam on 18.12.2012. In this regard PW12 Sudhanshu Gautam deposed that the voice samples of the accused persons were recorded in three audio cassettes. He identified the three audio cassettes CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 64 of 85 containing voice samples of the accused persons and his signatures on the said audio cassettes, which are Ex. P-4, P-5 and P-6. He also identified his signatures on the audio cassettes containing copy of sample voices of the accused persons as Ex. P-7, P-8 and P-9. PW12 identified accused Azad Singh before the court. He further affirmed that the name of the persons, whose voice sample, was recorded were Ranjan Singh, Azad Singh and Sri Niwas. However, he could not recognize two other accused persons and only identified accused Azad Singh before the court. PW Harnarayan was dropped from the list of witnesses as his statement was on the same lines as PW12 Sudhansh.
96. PW8 Dr. C.P.Singh, Assistant Director, Physics, FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 18.12.2012 two sealed parcels were received at FSL. One parcel contained one mobile phone (Ex. P-1) alongwith a micro SD card (Ex. P-2). The micro SD card was found containing audio files in ".wav" format. The questioned text was marked as Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5. The other parcel contained three audio cassettes containing specimen voice sample of HC Ranjan Singh (Exhibit S1), Const. Sri Niwas (Exhibit S2) and Const. Azad Singh (Exhibit S3). On examination of the relevant audio recordings in the micro SD card of the mobile phone, it was found that there was no indication of any form of alteration. On auditory analysis it was revealed that the questioned voice in the micro SD Card i.e. voice of speaker marked Exhibit Q3 and Exhibit Q5 was similar to the voice exhibit of speaker marked Exhibit S3 i.e. specimen CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 65 of 85 voice of Const. Azad Singh. Hence, the voice of Const. Azad Singh was identified in the voice recording contained in the micro SD card Ex. P-2. PW8 proved the FSL report Ex. PW8/A dated 18.09.2013.
97. In pursuance to the order dated 16.07.2019 the voice sample of complainant Harish and PW3 Praveen @ Kalu was also taken. The exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini for their evaluation and analysis.
98. PW30 Ms. Kaveri Deshmukh deposed that three sealed parcels were received at FSL on 10.12.2019. One sealed parcel was received in her branch and on opening the same it was found containing (i) one mobile phone make 'spice' (model M-
5180 bearing IMEI No. 911141802442194 and 911141802442202) which was marked Exhibit MP-1 in the laboratory and (ii) one micro SD memory card of 4 GB capacity which was marked as Exhibit MC-1.
99. PW30 deposed that the voice recording could be retrieved from the micro SD memory card (Ex. P-2) which was given Exhibit - MC-1 and the data was provided in a Compact Disc vide Annexure CD-1. However, data could not be retrieved from the mobile phone (Ex. P-1), which was given Exhibit - MP- 1 by her in the laboratory. Her report is Ex.PW30/A dated 23.11.2020. The certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in support of Annexure CD-1 is exhibit Ex. PW30/B. PW30 forwarded the sealed parcel sealed with the seal of 'DOC FSL' CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 66 of 85 containing Annexure CD-1 alongwith the exhibits examined by her for further examination to the Physics Division. She identified the mobile phone (Ex. P-1), the micro SD card (Ex. P-
2) and battery (Ex. P-3) which were examined by her.
100. PW29 Dr. Kaveri Bhardwaj examined the exhibits contained in three sealed parcels which were received on 26.11.2020 in her division. Parcel No. 1 contained one CD having nine relevant audio files in '.wav' format which was given marking Exhibit-1. The speakers were marked Q1 and Q2. Parcel No. 2 contained one audio cassette of make Maxell containing specimen voice of one Praveen @ Kalu which was given marking Exhibit-S1 by her in the laboratory. Parcel no. 3 contained one audio cassette of make Maxell containing specimen voice of one Harish which was given marking Exhibit- S2 by her in the laboratory.
101. PW29 examined all the exhibits and prepared detailed report Ex.PW29/A dated 17.11.2021. In her opinion, the voice exhibit of speakers marked "Exhibit-Q1" and "Exhibit-S1"
were voice of the same person (i.e. Praveen @ Kalu) and the voice exhibit of speakers marked "Exhibit-Q2" and "Exhibit-S2"
were voice of the same person (i.e. Harish). PW29 correctly identified before the court the case property exhibits i.e. audio cassette containing voice sample of Kalu @ Praveen Ex.PW3/Article-1 and audio cassette containing voice sample of Harish Ex. PW27/Article-1 and CD make Moserbaer Ex.PW29/Article-1 as the CD which was received from FSL and CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 67 of 85 examined by her. PW29 further deposed that after examination, the exhibits were sealed with the seal of Dr. B.B. FSL-DELHI.
102. Accordingly, the data of the micro SD card Ex. P- 2 (which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/A) was retrieved by PW30 in a CD Ex. PW29/Article-1. The same contained nine audio files and the speakers of the audio files were marked as Exhibit-Q2 and Exhibit-Q1. As per the FSL report, Ex. PW29/A the voice exhibit of speakers marked "Exhibit-Q1" and "Exhibit-S1" were voice of the same person (i.e. Praveen @ Kalu) and the voice exhibit of speakers marked "Exhibit-Q2" and "Exhibit-S2" were voice of the same person (i.e. Harish). Accordingly, as per the FSL result Ex. PW29/A, the voice of complainant Harish and PW3 Praveen @ Kalu stood identified in the voice recording contained in the micro SD card Ex. P-2.
103. Accordingly, it emerges from the FSL results Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW29/A and Ex. PW30/A, that the voice of complainant Harish, PW3 Praveen and Const. Azad Singh stood identified in the micro SD card Ex. P-2. The voice recordings as contained in micro SD Card did not indicate any alteration.
104. It would now be relevant to examine the law as regards the evidentiary value of the audio recordings relied upon by the prosecution.
105. In the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 68 of 85Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the recorded conversations were "documents", as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and made following observations:
"We think that the High Court was quite right in holding that the tape-records of speeches were "documents", as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following conditions:
(a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it.
(b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record.
(c) The subject-matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act."
106. In the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh , 1985 Supp SCC 611, again the Hon'ble Supreme 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.CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 69 of 85
(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."
107. In the case of Mahabir Prasad Verma v. Dr. Surinder Kaur, (1982) 2 SCC 258, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that tape recorded evidence can only be used as corroborative evidence and in paragraph 22, it is observed as follows:
"22. ......Tape-recorded conversation can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape-recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon. In the instant case, there was no evidence of any such conversation between the tenant and the husband of the landlady; and in the absence of any such conversation, the tape-recorded conversation could be no proper evidence." (emphasis supplied)
108. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri N.Sri Rama Reddy v. Shri V.V.Giri 1970 2 SCC 340, held that a previous statement made by a person and recorded on tape can be used not only to corroborate the evidence given by the witness in court but also to contradict the evidence given before the court as well as to test the veracity of the witness and also to impeach his CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 70 of 85 impartiality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab High Court in Rup Chand v. Prasad wherein it was held that a tape-recorded conversation is admissible in evidence and that if it contains previous statement made by the witness, it can be used to contradict the evidence given before the court. The earlier decision in S.Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, 1964 (4) SCR 733, was also referred to, wherein it was held that tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence and it can be legal evidence by way of corroborating the statement of a person, who deposes that the other speaker and he carried on the conversation and for corroborating the statement of a person who may depose that he over-heard the conversation between the two persons and that what they actually stated had been tape-recorded.
109. The judgment in Yusufalli v. State of Maharashtra, 1967 (3) SCR 720, was also adverted to, in which the court held that the evidence of the complainant was sufficiently corroborated by the tape-recorded conversation and observed that a contemporaneous tape-record of the relevant conversation formed part of res gestae and is relevant and admissible u/s 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. After discussing in detail the law on the subject the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri N.Sri Rama Reddy made the following observations in para 24 of the judgment, which is as follows :
"Having due regard to the decisions referred to above, it is clear that a previous statement, made by a person and recorded on tape, can be used not only to corroborate the evidence given by the witness in CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 71 of 85 Court but also to contradict the evidence given before the Court, as well as to test the veracity of the witness and also to impeach his impartiality. Apart from being used for corroboration, the evidence is admissible in respect of the other three last- mentioned matters, under s. 146 ( 1), Exception 2 to s. 153 and s. 153(3) of the Evidence Act. Therefore it is not possible for us to accept the contention of Mr. Daphtary that the previous statement can be used only for purposes of corroboration but not for the purpose of contradicting the evidence given before the Court. If a previous statement made by a person can be used to corroborate his evidence given before the Court, on principle, we do not see any reason why such previous statement cannot be used to contradict and also for the other purposes referred to above. In particular the fact that the decisions of the Punjab and Calcutta High Courts Rup Chand's Case(1) and Manindra Nath's Case(2) where the previous statements have been used to contradict the evidence given before the Court has been approved by this Court in Yusuffalli's Case(,) clearly establishes that the contention of Mr. Daphtary that the previous statement cannot be used to contradict the evidence given before the Court cannot be accepted. As pointed out already, Mr. Daphtary has not challenged the correctness of the decision in Yusuffali's Case (3). Therefore the first ground of objection raised by Mr. Daphtary will have to be overruled. (emphasis supplied)
110. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri N.Sri Rama Reddy also observed that:
"We once again emphasize that this order relates only to the admissibility in evidence of the conversation recorded on tape and has not dealt with the weight to be attached to that evidence."
111. The Hon'ble Delhi High court in Ram Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 (135) DRJ 119, relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v Shailendra Kamal CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 72 of 85 Kishor Pande, decided on 29.06.2007, 2008 CriLJ 953 wherein it was observed that the weight to be given to such an evidence is to be seen during trial, the Court allowed the use of video CD to confront the witness subject to proving its relevancy and authenticity.
112. In Shailendra Kamal Kishor Pande (Supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court after discussing the law on the subject held that the weight to be given to such evidence is however distinct and separate from the question of its admissibility. The Hon'ble Court in the context of recording contained in a video CD made the following observations :
"7.2 CD itself is primary and direct evidence admissible as to what has been said and picked-up by the recorder. A previous statement made by a witness and recorded on tape, can be used not only to corroborate the evidence given by the witness in the Court but also to contradict the evidence given before the Court as well as to test the veracity of the witness and also to impeach his impartiality. Thus, apart from being used for corroboration, the evidence is admissible in respect to other three matters i.e. under Section 146(1) of the Evidence Act which provides questions lawful in cross- examination. The said section provides that when a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend to test his veracity. Section 153 provides exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity. In that behalf Section 153 is relevant and Exception 2 of said section is also relevant which provides that if a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.
..........
7.4 The weight to be given to such evidence is CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 73 of 85 however distinct and separate from the question of its admissibility. Assuming for the moment that the trial Court admits some evidence contrary to the rules of evidence or the provisions of the Evidence Act by merely exhibiting the same or by merely admitting the same no final conclusion is drawn or decision is taken on such evidence. The defence is ultimately obliged to establish by cogent evidence as regards the genuineness of the CD, as to how the CD was prepared, by examining the person who prepared the CD and who authenticates the same as regards the true nature of the same. It is only after the defence discharges this obligation that the trial Court would be in a position to consider it as a piece of evidence. Therefore, at this stage when the question is as regards to admissibility of a document in the form of a CD by the defence, there should not be any serious objection because the trial Court will consider the relevancy of the same and the authenticity of the same at the final stage while appreciating the entire evidence on record."
(emphasis supplied)
113. The Hon'ble High Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh, 983 AIR 684, 1983 SCR (2) 808 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another and that these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and the weight of its probative value may be nil.
114. In view of the aforesaid discussion it emerges that a recorded conversation is admissible in evidence to corroborate as well as to contradict the evidence given before the court as well CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 74 of 85 as to test the veracity of witness and to impeach his impartiality. It is also settled law that admissibility of a document is different from its probative value and that these two aspects cannot be combined. As held, a document may be admissible and yet its probative value may be nil.
115. As regards admissibility of electronic evidence, in case titled as Anvar P. V. Vs P. K. Basheer (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :
"14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 75 of 85 information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
15. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied :
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
16. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc. pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 76 of 85 these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
17. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, would the question arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45-A - opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India." (emphasis supplied)
116. The judgment in the matter of Anvar P.V. (Supra) was duly considered with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. in Civil Appeal no. 20825-20826 of 2017 in its decision dated 14.07.2020, on the issue of certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 observed as under:
"............We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly clarified in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.
Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v.
Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 77 of 85 manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose...
84. But Section 65-B(1) starts with a non obstante clause excluding the application of the other provisions and it makes the certification, a precondition for admissibility. While doing so, it does not talk about relevancy. In a way, Sections 65-A and 65-B, if read together, mix up both proof and admissibility, but not talk about relevancy. Section 65-A refers to the procedure prescribed in Section 65-B for the purpose of proving the contents of electronic records, but Section 65-B speaks entirely about the preconditions for admissibility. As a result, Section 65-B places admissibility as the first or the outermost checkpost, capable of turning away even at the border, any electronic evidence, without any enquiry, if the conditions stipulated therein are not fulfilled". (emphasis supplied)
117. Source and authenticity are thus the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record which is sought to be used in evidence. For the admissibility of any secondary evidence in digital form, a certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is a mandatory requirement. The requirement of certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is to rule out any tampering of the electronic record and it is the threshold to be crossed in order to render the secondary evidence of electronic record admissible in evidence.
118. Firstly, the source of the original electronic record has to be proved. In the present case, the original electronic record i.e. an audio-recording is stated to be made by the CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 78 of 85 complainant with the help of his mobile phone Ex. P-1. Since the original device itself i.e. the mobile phone make 'Spice' Ex. P-1 alongwith micro SD card Ex. P-2 had been seized and examined by the FSL and the data was retrieved from the SD card Ex. P-2, therefore, there was no requirement of certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act qua the mobile phone make 'Spice' Ex. P-1 and micro SD card Ex. P-2 as the micro SD card was the original recording medium. In Arjun Pandit Rao(Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced and that this can be done by the owner of a laptop, computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone by stepping into the witness box and proving the concerned device on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him.
119. It is however, relevant to note that the complainant was unavailable for his cross-examination by the accused persons and his testimony remained incomplete. The mobile phone was not got identified by the complainant, PW2, who is stated to be the owner of mobile phone Ex. P-1 and had handed over the same to IO/Insp. Vinod Kumar. IO/Insp. Vinod Kumar to whom the complainant Harish had handed over the mobile phone containing the audio recording Ex. P-1, was also not examined as a witness by the prosecution being unavailable, as he was not traceable.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 79 of 85120. The original device i.e. the mobile phone Ex P1 and SD Card Ex. P2 has been identified PW23 HC Manjeet, who was a witness to their seizure memo Ex. PW23/A. The seizure memo has not been proved by either the complainant or the IO, who were unavailable. Hence, the maker of the audio recording i.e. the complainant, who was the owner of the mobile phone with which the audio recording was made, did not prove the said recording or the fact that the said recording had been made with his mobile phone Ex. P-1, in terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao (supra).The said device i.e. the mobile phone Ex. P-1 and the micro SD card Ex. P-2 in which the audio recording was made have thus not been proved by the complainant in his incomplete testimony recorded before the court and he was also unavailable for his cross- examination.
121. In his testimony PW2 complainant Harish stated that on the date of incident he was using mobile no. 9991842572 on which he had received a telephone call of Arvind. PW2 denied that he was using mobile no. 9034176454 on the date of incident. He specifically denied that he had spoken from his mobile phone on the mobile phone of Praveen, to the police officials, who had demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs for release of tempo about ten times and that eventually the amount was reduced to Rs. 1,50,000/-.
122. As per Customer Application Form Ex. PW9/D of the mobile number 9034176454 was issued in the name of one CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 80 of 85 Rajvir s/o Hukam Singh on 01.01.2012. The said mobile number was not issued in the name of the complainant Harish. Rajvir was examined as PW15 and he deposed that he had obtained mobile no. 9034176454. However, he stated that the SIM card got misplaced about three months of its issuance and he did not bother. He did not lodge any complaint regarding loss of the SIM. He did not know any Harish. He denied that he had handed over the SIM of the said mobile number to Harish, who was his relative. He denied that on 21.11.2012 the said SIM card was used by Harish. Even the IO by whom the mobile phone was seized was not examined. Accordingly, it is not proved on record that mobile no. 9034176454 with which the conversations were recorded, was being used by complainant Harish on the date of incident nor has the prosecution been able to establish that the mobile phone Ex. P-1 and SD Card Ex. P-2 containing the voice recording were handed over by the complainant to the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/A and Ex. PW23/B. Hence, the source of the electronic record i.e. the audio recording contained in the mobile phone Ex. P1 and its SD card Ex. P2, is not established on record.
123. As per the FSL result Ex. PW29/A, the voice recording retrieved from the micro SD Card Ex. P-2 also contained the voice of PW3 Praveen @ Kalu. PW3 deposed that he did not remember whether he had given his voice sample at FSL Rohini in the year 2019 on the direction of the court. When the audio cassette Ex. PW3/Article-1 on which voice sample of Kalu @ Praveen was written was played before the court, after CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 81 of 85 hearing the same, PW3 stated that the said audio cassette did not contain his voice. The relevant files containing voice recordings in the micro SD card Ex. P-2 were also played before PW3 in court and he stated that the voice contained in those files of micro SD card was not his voice. Hence, neither PW3 Praveen @ Kalu nor any other witness identified his voice either in the audio cassette containing his voice sample or in the micro SD card Ex. P-2 containing the voice recording in issue.
124. PW3 affirmed that his mobile number 9050550053 was given to him by his brother namely Rajiv but he denied that on 21.11.2012 he was using the said mobile number. He denied that he had stated so in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. As per CAF of mobile no. 9050550053 Ex. PW16/E, the said mobile number is registered in the name of one Gulab Singh, who has not been examined as a witness. Hence, it is not proved beyond doubt that mobile number 9050550053 was being used by PW3 Praveen on the date of incident.
125. The testimony of PW2 remained incomplete and the case property including the mobile phone of the complainant i.e. PW2 alongwith the micro SD card containing the voice recordings in issue were not put to him. Additionally, neither the sample voice of PW2 Harish nor the micro SD card were put to him and hence it is also not proved on record that the micro SD card Ex. P-2 contained the voice of PW2 Harish.
CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 82 of 85126. Additionally, it is also to be noted that in the complaint Ex. PW2/A it is mentioned that the complainant Harish got calls from PW3 Praveen from his mobile phone to number 8860117812 on the mobile phone of Harish bearing no. 9034176454. As discussed herein above, it is not proved on record that mobile number 9034176454 was being used by complainant Harish on the date of incident. As per CAF of mobile number 8860117812, Ex. PW16/B, the said mobile number i.e. 8860117812 was registered in the name of one Jai Bhagwan. The said Jai Bhagwan has not been examined as a witness to show that mobile number 8860117812 was being used by Praveen @ Kalu on the date of incident and in this regard PW2 Harish deposed that he did not know if Praveen was using mobile no. 8860117812. It is thus not proved on record that Praveen @ Kalu was using the said mobile number. In these circumstances, it is not proved beyond doubt that the mobile phone Ex. P-1 and the micro SD card Ex. P-2 contained the voice of complainant PW2 Harish, PW3 Praveen or accused Ct. Azad Singh.
127. PW3 Praveen @ Kalu also denied that the transcript of the telephonic conversation Ex. PW3/B was read over to him by the IO. He denied that he had gone through the photocopy of the transcript and had put his signatures thereon after reading the same. He volunteered that he had put his signatures on his statement only. He affirmed his signatures on the photocopy of the transcript, however, he stated that alphabets CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 83 of 85 'P', 'H', 'B' and 'K' etc. were not there. He denied that he had identified the conversation and due to that reason he had put his signatures on the said document. The transcript was also not put to PW2 during his examination which remained unconcluded. It is deposed by PW23 HC Manjeet that the transcript was written by IO/Insp. Vinod Kumar upon his dictation. There is no panch witness of preparation of the transcript. IO/Insp. Vinod Kumar has not been examined and PW3 Praveen @ Kalu to whom the transcript was shown has also not confirmed the same. Accordingly, the transcript Ex. PW3/B does not stand proved.
128. As discussed, it is a settled principle of law that the recorded conversation can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation. The evidence given by a witness in court can also be used to contradict the evidence given before the court as well as to test the veracity of the witness and also to impeach his impartiality. In the present case, evidence of any such conversation is absent in the testimony of PW2 or PW3 or any other prosecution witness. The contents of the audio recording have thus not been corroborated by any other evidence on record. In these circumstances, the audio recording,which though proved to be authentic by FSL Results Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW29/A and Ex. PW30/A has not been corroborated by evidence of any witness. Even if it is assumed that the audio recordings contained in the micro SD card being a primary piece of evidence, is admissible, even then it would have a weak probative value as the same were not put to the witnesses i.e. the complainant, who had made the CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 84 of 85 said audio recording, and IO/Insp. Vinod Kumar, who had seized the said audio recording. Therefore, it emerges that the source and admissibility of the audio recordings is not established on record. Hence, the said audio recordings cannot be relied upon. (State of Bihar v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh (Supra) referred too.)
129. Accordingly, from the aforesaid discussion it emerges that even though the audio-recording has been proved to be authentic, however, the prosecution has failed to prove the admissibility of the audio recording in accordance with law and its probative value, which in the circumstances of the case, is weak owing to the fact that it was not tested during recording of testimony of the witnesses and hence cannot be relied upon as the sole basis to convict the accused persons.
130. In view of foregoing discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Ranjan Singh, Azad Singh and Sri Niwas are given benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charged offences. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
131. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SHARMA Announced in the open Court SHARMA Date: 2024.07.11 04:33:28 +0530 on 10th July, 2024 ( Deepali Sharma ) Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01) Rouse Avenue Courts Complex New Delhi CC No.34/19 FIR No.322/12, PS Mahendra Park, St. Vs Ranjan Singh & Ors. Page 85 of 85