Delhi District Court
State vs . Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 on 10 July, 2018
State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL, SPECIAL JUDGE-07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
CC No. (1/15) 532215/2016
ID No. 02401R-0167462015)
STATE
VERSUS
AWADHESH NARAYAN
S/O SH. SHIVADHAR
R/O RZH-812, FLAT NO.203,
RAJ NAGAR, DELHI.
FIR NO. : 187/2013
under Section : 7/13 PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
P.S. : KAROL BAGH
Date of Institution on : 03.02.2015
Judgment reserved on : 10.07.2018
Judgment delivered on : 10.07.2018
JUDGEMENT
1. Brief facts as revealed from the charge-sheet are that on 30.07.2013, on the directions of the senior officers, SHO PS Karol Bagh went to the residence of the complainant where complainant met him and gave him a complaint. The complaint was addressed to Joint Commissioner, Law & Order, Delhi Police New Delhi and the gist of the complaint was that the husband of the complainant Dr. Vardhesh C. Channa was staying at his parental house at 14A/40 WEA Karol Bagh, Delhi after his retirement and the complainant Pages: 1 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 was staying at D-3/29-31, Chhatra Marg, Delhi University. The daughters of the complainant namely Ms. Megha was residing at Faridabad and Ms. Navya at New York. The complainant further stated that on Friday evening they came to know from Barti maid that foul smell was coming from the house at Karol Bagh and when complainant reached there, the door was bolted from inside and the president, RWA had called the police. It is further stated that in the presence of neighbours and police, the door was opened by the driver Mr. Tony and when the body reached the morgue around midnight Friday on 26th July, the IO SI Awadhesh (accused) expressed his inability to get the postmortem done before 72 hours. It is further stated that on the resistance of the family members and morgue assistants, the accused took the son-in-law of the complainant Dr. Vikram Sharma aside and demanded Rs. 10,000/- to get the postmortem expedite. The complainant further stated that they were compelled to oblige the accused under mental duress. It is further stated that after cremation on Saturday, the accused again approached his son-in-law Dr. Vikram Sharma and told him that now the case was in his hand and if he wanted an earlier closure without any dispute then they should pay Rs. 15,000/- more. The Pages: 2 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 complainant further stated that her daughter Megha, W/o Dr. Vikram Sharma was in advance stage of pregnancy and therefore, Dr. Vikram Sharma Complied. The complainant further stated that in the last few days, the accused was continuously coming and contacted them and harassing her son-in-law and daughter again and again. This complaint was signed by Prof. Subhadra Channa, wife of deceased as well as Ms. Navya Singh, daughter of deceased.
2. On this complaint of the complainant, the present FIR under Section 7/13 of Prevention of the Corruption Act 1988 was registered. The statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of account from the bank account of Dr. Vikram Sharma was obtained. The CCTV footage was obtained from the Canara Bank, Karol Bagh branch. The investigation was concluded and charge-sheet was filed in the court on which cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. The charges under Section 7/13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was framed vide order dated 25.03.2015 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused examined Pages: 3 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 18 witnesses and the accused has examined three witnesses in his defence.
4. PW-1 is the duty officer who had recorded the FIR on 30.07.2013 on the basis of the rukka. He had deposed that he handed over the copy of FIR to ACP Giri. The copy of FIR and rukka is Ex.PW-1/A & PW-1/B. The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the FIR is Ex.PW-1/C.
5. PW-2 is also a duty officer who was on duty on 26.07.2013 and had recorded the DD no. 49 A as per the information provided to him by Ct. Anil regarding the emitting of foul smell from H. No. 14A/40, WEA, Karol Bagh. He further stated that DD No. 49A was marked to SI Awadhesh Narayan. The copy of said DD is Ex.PW- 2/A. This witness has not been cross examined by the defence.
6. PW-3 Dr. Vikram Sharma husband of Ms Megha, daughter of deceased Sh. Vardhesh Channa has deposed that his father-in-law was living alone at 14A/40, WEA Karol Bagh. He further deposed that on 26.07.2013, his wife informed him that foul smell was coming from the house at Karol Bagh and then he alongwith his wife reached at around 7.00 pm. He further deposed that police was already there and they came to know that his father in law's body Pages: 4 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 was decomposing inside. He further deposed that they were informed by the police that the postmortem will be done after three days and the body was taken to the Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC). PW-3 alongwith his mother-in-law accompanied the police to the mortuary at Maulana Azad Medical Collage (MAMC). He further stated that at the mortuary, they were informed that it is not necessary for the body to be preserved for three days and the postmortem could be done on the next day and when they told this fact to the accused SI Awadhesh Narayan, the accused demanded Rs. 20,000/- to get the postmortem done on the next day. He further deposed that accused SI Awadhesh Narayan stated that he was the IO of the case, and if they wanted the case to be completed without complications, they should pay the said amount. PW-3 further deposed that they were under extreme mental duress at that time and in consultation with his family, he agreed to paid that amount to the accused and on 27.07.2013, Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the accused in the mortuary of Maulana Azad Medical College. PW-3 further deposed that the money was withdrawn from the SBI ATM which was installed at Karol Bagh near their house. The witness PW-3 did not remember his account from where he withdraw Pages: 5 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Rs.10,000/- on 27.07.2013. The PW-3 disclosed his bank account number as A/c No.59002099782 of Allahabad Bank, after seeing the same from the mobile. PW-3 further deposed that SI Awadhesh had again asked him for the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which was paid to him on the next day at the house at Karol Bagh to avoid any further harassment as his wife was in advance stage of pregnancy at that time. PW-3 further deposed that money was paid to the accused in the presence of his wife and the said amount was also withdrawn by him from the same ATM in the morning of 28.07.2013. PW-3 further deposed that postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 27.07.2013 and the dead body was handed over to him and he had identified the dead body in the mortuary before the postmortem. During investigation, some documents were taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex.PW-3/A. The carbon copy of the identification statement Ex.PW-3/B was given to him by the IO. He further deposed that the dead body was given to him by the accused vide memo Ex.PW-3/C. PW-3 also proved the arrest of the accused vide memo Ex.PW-3/E and his personal search vide memo Ex.PW-3G and the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW/G. PW- 3 further deposed that even after paying Rs. 20,000/- to the Pages: 6 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 accused, he continued to harass them and then on 29 or 30.07.2013 the accused came to Canara Bank at Karol Bagh, where the wife of PW-3 had a locker and the accused insisted on seeing the contents of the locker. However the same was denied by the Bank Manager.
7. PW-4 Sh. Abhishek Dhania, ACP, PS Karol Bagh has deposed that after the transfer of Sh. S.K. Giri, the then ACP, present case was marked to him for further investigation on 19.09.2014. He further deposed that charge-sheet had already been prepared by Sh. S.K. Giri and case file was sent for judicial verdict. He further deposed that he did not record supplementary statement of witnesses i.e. ACP S.K. Giri, Vikram Sharma and Megha Sharma. He further deposed that he did not record the statement of any other witnesses. He further deposed that he had gone through the documents before filing the charge-sheet and call details of the accused and Vikram Sharma. He further deposed that he did not go through the locker register of the Canara Bank, Karol Bagh Branch, Delhi pertaining to the denial of access to the locker to Smt. Megha Sharma. He further deposed that the sanction for prosecution of accused was already on file when the file was assigned to him for further investigation. He further deposed that he had gone through the Pages: 7 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 discrepancies in the statement of PW Vikram and Megha Channa regarding as to whether bribe was taken in the morning or evening. He further deposed that no other investigation was carried out by him in addition to the investigation carried out by the previous IO. He denied that he did not investigate the case in proper or lawful manner or had filed the charge-sheet in mechanical manner under the pressure of senior police official despite knowing it to be a false case.
8. PW-5 Ms. Megha Channa stated that Dr. Vardesh Channa was her father aged about 67 years. She further deposed that her father was living alone at H.No. 14A/40, WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi. She further deposed that her maid Ms. Barti who was deployed at H.No. 14A/40 called her on her mobile phone and informed that a foul smell was coming from the portion occupied by her father. Thereafter, she informed her mother Smt. Subhadra Channa about the foul smell who sent her driver to see what was wrong in that house. She further deposed that she alongwith her husband reached the above said house at about 07:30 PM and noticed foul smell coming from the house. She further deposed that many persons of the locality and police were present there, however, she was not Pages: 8 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 allowed to go inside the house. Thereafter, dead body was taken out from the house. She further deposed that accused alongwith SHO met her inside the house of a neighbour and accused had thereafter made enquiry from one tenant Mr. Ashutosh Pandey whereupon she found the said behaviour of accused suspicious. She further deposed that she had asked the accused as to why he had not taken her statement as well as her mother's statement regarding personal matter like in which account her father's pension was being credited and also asked Mr. Ashutosh Pandey as to when he had last seen her father. She further deposed that accused and Mr. Ashutosh Pandey were hand in glove with each other. She further deposed that her husband and mother Prof. Subhadra Channa went to mortuary. She further deposed that during the mid night of 26/27.07.2013, her husband came back to their house and stated that accused had asked him for a bribe of Rs.20,000/- in mortuary to get the postmortem done on the next day and to release the body for cremation. She further deposed that in the morning of 27.07.2013, her husband went to the ATM of Allahabad Bank at Karol Bagh and withdrew cash. She further deposed that on the same day, her husband left for mortuary and after returning told her that after paying Rs.10,000/-
Pages: 9 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 to the accused, the accused had got the postmortem conducted and accused further asked for remaining payment. She further deposed that on 28.07.2013, accused came to their home and spoke to her husband. She further deposed that she was in her bed room, when accused came to her house but she could see the accused and her husband speaking to each other, however, could not hear their voice and when accused got up to leave, she had seen that her husband had given Rs.10,000/- to the accused. She deposed that her statement was recorded by the police only after registration of the FIR. She admitted that accused demanded more money to close the case/inquest without any complication. She also admitted that she had told the police that accused had come to their house in morning and her husband had paid Rs.10,000/- to him in front of her. She further deposed that she had told the IO that accused wanted to see the property papers and kept on asking for papers again and again. She admitted that she had gone to Canara Bank to open the locker which was in her father's name and she was authorised to operate the same by virtue of Letter of Authority. She further deposed that she had gone to Canara Bank on the persistent request of accused to see the property papers to close the case. She further deposed that Pages: 10 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 she had told the IO that the behaviour of accused was so suspicious at that time. She further deposed that accused told her that it is the normal process of police to inspect the premises, to make an inventory of objects found and to get the signatures from the next of kin. She admitted that she had gone to operate the locker at Canara Bank where accused also reached in his uniform which is recorded in the CCTV Camera of the bank, however, the Branch Manager refused to grant her permission to operate the locker as her father had already expired.
9. During cross examination, she admitted that her sister Navya Singh is residing in USA. She deposed that at the time of death of her father, Navya Singh was in USA and reached Delhi after 3-4 days. She further deposed that she had told the police that she was informed by her maid Ms. Bharti that a foul smell was coming from the portion occupied by her father. She did not remember whether she had informed her mother regarding the same and she could not recollect whether she had disclosed the said fact to the police or not. She further deposed that she did not recollect whether it is recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that her mother told her that she would send her driver to see what was wrong. She Pages: 11 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 further deposed that on the asking of her mother that something was wrong in the house, she alongwith her husband had reached the house no.14A/40. She further deposed that she had told the police that many persons of the locality and the police were already present there when they reached, however, she had not told the police that she was not allowed to go inside the house as she was eight months pregnant at that time. She denied that accused had informed her that Sunday being Holiday, postmortem could not be conducted on that day. She also denied of informing the accused that her sister Navya Singh who is living in USA who would come after 3-4 days. She further denied the suggestion that she had told the accused to preserve the dead body of her father for 3-4 days after the postmortem till Navya arrived from USA for last rites. She denied that accused told her that the dead body could not be preserved in the mortuary after postmortem. She further denied the suggestion that she expressed her inability to the accused to preserve the dead body after the postmortem till the arrival of her sister Navya Singh from USA. She deposed that she had not informed the senior officials regarding the suspicious behaviour of accused in making inquiries from their tenant Mr. Ashutosh Pandey Pages: 12 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 or accused and Ashutosh Pandey being hand in glove with each other. She deposed that she cannot tell at what time her husband had come to house in the intervening night of 26/27.07.2013 as she had fallen asleep during that time due to dizziness. She denied the suggestion that her husband did not visit the mortuary in the intervening night of 26/27.07.2013 and thus, there was no occasion for accused to demand bribe from her husband. She deposed that she had not accompanied her husband when he withdrew money from the ATM of Allahabad Bank, Karol Bagh in the morning of 27.07.2013. She further deposed that she does not remember whether she had told the police that her husband returned home in afternoon and told her that in the mortuary after paying Rs.10,000/-, the accused got the postmortem conducted on 27.07.2013. She further denied that she had given wrong statement that her husband returned home in afternoon and told her that in the mortuary after paying Rs.10,000/- accused got the postmortem conducted on 27.07.2013 and asked for remaining payment/installment soon. She denied the suggestion that her husband had not paid bribe to the accused. She further deposed that she could not recollect the duration of time for which the accused visited their house but it was Pages: 13 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 about 10-15 minutes only. She further deposed that she could not recollect whether she had signed her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She further deposed that she had given her handwritten statement to the police in her house. She denied the suggestion that accused had visited her house in the evening instead of morning. She denied the suggestion that accused came to the bank after being called by her husband as the bank manager refused permission to operate her father's locker. She denied the suggestion that accused came to the bank at the instance of her husband because her family is known to senior police officials. She also denied the suggestion that on the refusal of bank manager to operate the bank locker, her husband called the accused to bank on the pretext that the bank manager needs the presence of police official to open the locker. She admitted that she alongwith her husband were already present in the bank when accused reached in bank. She further denied the suggestion that she and her husband wanted to operate her father's locker without knowledge of her mother. She further denied the suggestion that in the meeting with bank manager, accused refused to see the content of the locker as it was not the part of inquest proceedings.
Pages: 14 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
10.PW-6 Prof. Subhadra Channa deposed that Late Sh. Vardesh Channa was her husband and living at his parental house at H.No.14A/40 WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi after his retirement from University service. She further deposed that she was living alone at D-3, 29-31, Probin Road, Delhi University Campus, Delhi and her daughter Megha was living with her husband Dr. Vikram Sharma at Faridabad. She further deposed that her other daughter Navya Singh was residing at New York, U.S.A. with her husband Ritwik Singh. She further deposed that she was informed by her daughter Megha that maid (Barti) told her that from last 2-3 days her husband Vardesh Channa was not seen and there was no response on knocking the door by maid (Barti). She further deposed that to verify the same she had sent her driver to know about the facts who told her that everything was not alright. She further deposed that she had reached there and saw many neighbours had collected outside the said house and she stood outside the house as the door was closed. Thereafter, her driver broke the net of the door and opened it and went inside. Police was called by neighbours. She further deposed that accused alongwith other police officials reached at the spot. She further deposed that she reached there at Pages: 15 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 around 5:00/5:30 PM. She further deposed that she alongwith her daughter Megha sat in park during that time. She further deposed that on the asking of the accused she alongwith her daughter sit in the neighbours' house of Mr. Gupta. She further deposed that at that time her daughter was eight months pregnant. She again deposed that accused inquired from their tenant and neighbour, however, did not talk to them. She further deposed that after a long gap, accused inquired/verified the facts from her and daughter Megha. She further deposed that at around 10:30/11:00 PM, the dead body was sent to the mortuary and she alongwith her son-in-law Dr. Vikram Sharma went in the mortuary where they were informed that the postmortem would be conducted only on the next day as it was too late and the condition of dead body was not good. She further deposed that accused informed them that postmortem would be conducted after 72 hours as he would not be available on 27.07.2013 as he had to go to some other place. She further deposed that she was requesting accused for getting the postmortem conducted as soon as possible, thereafter, accused called her son-in- law aside in isolation and after talking to him, her son-in-law came back and said that accused demanded Rs.20,000/- to release the Pages: 16 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 dead body. She further deposed that her son-in-law agreed to give the amount to the accused as demanded by accused because they did not want to delay the postmortem. She further deposed that on the next day, she alongwith her son-in-law reached in the mortuary at around 10:00 a.m. to get the postmortem conducted and thereafter, her son-in-law handed over Rs.10,000/- to the accused in her presence. She further deposed that after postmortem, they received the dead body and conducted its cremation as per rites. She further deposed that on 28.07.2013, she went to H.No.14A/41, WEA, Karol Bagh where she was informed by her daughter Megha that accused was harassing them and had received further amount of Rs.10,000/- from her son-in-law. She further deposed that accused threatened them by saying that their situation is not good and he could do anything. She further deposed that Megha and her husband were so scared after that incident. She further deposed that after that she had informed ACP Mr. Giri about the conduct of the accused, thereafter, ACP Mr. S.K.Giri reached her house at University of Delhi and on the asking of ACP Mr. S.K. Giri, she had made a complaint Ex.PW-6/A against the accused. She again deposed that the complaint Ex.PW-6/A also had the signatures of Pages: 17 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 her daughter Navya Singh and she can identify the same as she had seen her writing and signing during the ordinary course of their family affairs. She further deposed that she identified the dead body of her husband in mortuary, carbon copy of her statement in this regard is Ex.PW-6/B. She further deposed that after postmortem, dead body was handed over to her for cremation and carbon copy of handing over memo of dead body is already Ex.PW-3/C.
11. During cross examination, she could not remember the exact date when she had informed ACP Mr. Giri about the conduct of accused and deposed that she had informed when ACP S.K. Giri came to her house to collect the complaint, and further deposed that it may be the evening time of around 07:00 PM on 30.07.2013. She further deposed that she does not know personally ACP Mr. Giri, however, she had called on the general number of P.S. Karol Bagh. She denied the suggestion that she had not called on the general number of P.S. Karol Bagh. She further deposed that some other police officials other than accused were also present in the house of her husband on the night of 26.07.2013. She further deposed that SHO P.S. Karol Bagh was also present. She told that she was staying at her house at University Campus since 2001. She denied that she Pages: 18 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 had given her wrong address in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 02.08.2013 and 15.12.2013 and stated that the address given was of her deceased husband. She further deposed that she could not recollect whether she had told the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that her daughter Megha informed her that maid (Barti) had informed that from last 2-3 days, her husband was not seen and there was no response on knocking at the door. She further deposed that the above fact is not recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in her complaint. She further deposed that she had informed the police that she had sent her driver to verify the facts and on verification her driver informed her that everything was not alright and asked her to reach at house. She further deposed that the above facts were not recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in her complaint. She further deposed that ACP Mr. S.K. Giri must have told her to address her complaint to the Joint CP Law & Order. She further deposed that she was called as witness in the departmental proceedings against the accused and her statement was recorded in the departmental proceedings. She further deposed the she does not remember whether she had stated in the departmental proceedings Pages: 19 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 that a Joint CP Law &Order came to her house to collect the complaint. She admitted that in Mark-A (i.e. the statement given by the witness in the departmental proceedings and lateron exhibited as Ex.DW1/A), she had stated that she had given her complaint to Joint CP Law & Order, Delhi Police at her house and identified her signature at point B on Mark-A. She further deposed that the postmortem of her deceased husband was concluded around late afternoon and the cremation took place at Nigambodh Ghat. She further deposed that she does not remember the exact time when she reached at Nigambodh Ghat but it was evening at around 05:00 PM and thereafter, she went to her house at D-3, 29-31, Provin Road, Delhi University, Delhi. She further deposed that she must have told the police that she had reached the house of her deceased husband on 26.07.2013 at around 05:00/05:30 PM. She further deposed that she does not remember whether she had told the police that she was sitting in the park with her daughter Megha and thereafter, went inside the house of Mr. Gupta. She told the police that the tone of accused was not good when he made inquiry from them. She admitted that this fact is not recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She deposed that she does not remember Pages: 20 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 whether she had stated that she alongwith her son-in-law Dr. Vikram Sharma went to the mortuary. She deposed that she had not stated to the police that persons at mortuary told them that postmortem could not be conducted as the condition of the body was deteriorating. She further deposed that she had told the police that persons in the mortuary told them that postmortem could not be conducted as it was too late to do so at that time. She again deposed that she does not remember whether she had stated the fact that the persons at mortuary told them that as it was too late in the night as such, postmortem could not be conducted on 26.07.2013 but would be conducted in the early morning on 27.07.2013 as the condition of the body was deteriorating. She further deposed that she does not remember whether she had stated before the police that accused told them that he would not be available on 27.07.2013 as he had to go somewhere else. She further deposed that she had told the police that she had requested the accused to get the postmortem conducted as soon as possible. She further deposed that she told the police that her son-in-law had talked with accused and thereafter, he came to her and told that accused was demanding Rs.20,000/- to release the dead body. She further deposed that she had also told that on the Pages: 21 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 next day she alongwith her son-in-law had reached in the mortuary at around 10:00 AM and postmortem was done and thereafter, her son-in-law handed over Rs.10,000/- to the accused in her presence. She further deposed that she does not remember whether she stated before the police in the same words as she stated in her deposition in the court that on 28.07.2013, she went to the house no.14A/41, WEA Karol Bagh, Delhi where she was informed by her daughter Megha that accused was harassing them and her husband had also handed over Rs.10,000/- more to the accused. She denied the suggestion that accused never demanded Rs.20,000/- to release the dead body of her deceased husband. She denied the suggestion that accused did not demand any amount from her son-in-law. She denied the suggestion that her son-in-law did not hand over Rs.10,000/- to the accused in mortuary in her presence. She denied the suggestion that no amount was paid by her son-in-law to the accused. She further denied the suggestion that she was not informed by her daughter Megha about the harassment given by accused to them and her husband had paid Rs.10,000/- more to the accused in her presence. She further denied the suggestion that accused had not demanded Rs.15,000/- from her son-in-law. She Pages: 22 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 further denied the suggestion that her daughter and son-in-law had an evil designs on the property of her deceased husband, so they conveyed incorrect accusation against the accused. She further denied the suggestion that accused never demanded or accepted the bribe from anyone in this case. She further denied the suggestion that to cover up the false testimony of her daughter Megha and son- in-law, she is deposing falsely.
12.PW-7 Sh. Pramod Pandey, Assistant Manager, MTNL Office, Near Tis Hazari, Delhi deposed that he has been working in MTNL as Assistant Manager since 2013. He again deposed that he handed over the photocopy of customer application form and call detail record and location chart in connection with mobile phone No.9013688306 in the name of Awadhesh Narain Singh. The call detail record is Ex.PW-7/A, location chart is Ex.PW-7/B and both bears his signature at point A on each page. Photocopy of customer application form is Ex.PW-7/C which bears the signature of Sh. Naeem Akhtar, Manager (CAF/Customer Application Form) and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-7/D which also bears his signature at point A. This witness has not been cross-examined on behalf of the accused and his testimony has Pages: 23 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 remained unrebutted.
13.PW-8 Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer Bharti Airtel Ltd. deposed that he has been working in Bharti Airtel Ltd. as Nodal Officer since May 2010. He further deposed that he had brought the record pertaining to the mobile phone No.9958434172 in the name of Dr. Vikram Sharma. Customer application form alongwith ID proof is Ex.PW-8/A bearing his signature at point A on each page, he had also handed over the record details of this phone to the IO of this case which is already Ex.PW-3/DB. He had also issued the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding correctness and genuineness of the computer generated record Ex.PW-3/DB. The certificate is Ex.PW-8/B.
14.During cross examination, he deposed that Ex.PW-8/DA is location chart pertaining to the call details mentioned in Ex.PW-3/DB. He further deposed that Cell-1 means the location of place where the call was received or made and Cell-2 means the location of place where the call was terminated or ended.
15.PW-9 Sh. Chiranji Lal, Senior Manager-Canara Bank deposed that on 30.07.2013, he was posted in Karol Bagh Branch of Canara Bank as Senior Manager. He further deposed that daughter of Sh.
Pages: 24 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Vardesh Channa namely Megha Channa reached to their branch and asked to operate the locker of her father. He further deposed that Ms. Megha Channa wanted to operate the locker after misleading him. He further deposed that he did not allow her to operate the locker in the absence of her father as there was no agreement on record regarding the hirer of locker. PW-9 asked Ms. Megha to call her father and then, she replied that her father is no more. He further deposed that on the hearing about the death of Sh. Vardesh Channa, he seized the operation of the locker and did not allow her to operate the same. He further deposed that, during investigation, IO of the case asked him about the CCTV footage for 30.07.2013 and attested copy of the ledger. He thereafter handed over the same to the IO of the case which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-9/A. Attested photocopy of detail of rent of the locker is Ex.PW-9/B which is attested by him. Attested copy of ledger/locker-sheet is already Ex.PW-3/DC. He had also issued the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the genuineness of CD of CCTV footage dt. 30.07.2013 from 10:30 AM to 12:00 PM and same is Ex.PW-9/C alongwith seal impression of the bank and CD of CCTV footage. He also Pages: 25 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 identified the CD which was given to the IO of the case as Ex.P1. He further deposed that he does not remember whether accused Awadhesh Narayan present in the court visited their branch on 30.07.2013 or not.
16.During his cross examination, he deposed that apart from lunch time, the bank hours are 10:00 AM to 03:30 PM. He further deposed that Ms. Megha Channa visited the bank with her husband. He further deposed that locker of Sh. Vardesh Channa was not operated prior to four years from 30.07.2013. He further deposed that accused did not tell him that he wanted to operate the locker of Sh. Vardesh Channa.
17.PW-10 Inspector Rajender Singh deposed that on 30.07.2013, he was posted as SHO P.S. Karol Bagh and on the directions of Sr. Officer, he went to D-3, 29-31 Chhatra Marg, Delhi University at the residence of Smt. Subhadra Channa, complainant. He further deposed that Smt. Subhadra Channa had handed over to him the complaint already Ex.PW-6/A, thereafter, he left the residence of Smt. Subhadra Channa and reached the office of DCP, Central District, where the matter was discussed. He further deposed that on the directions of Sr. Officials, he endorsed the complaint and got the Pages: 26 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 present case registered. The endorsement is Ex.PW-10/A which bears his signature at point B. He further deposed that investigation was handed over to ACP Karol Bagh. He further deposed that accused present in the court was attending the inquest proceeding of Vardesh Channa, husband of Smt. Subhadra Channa vide DD No.49A dt. 26.07.2013.
18.During his cross examination, he deposed that he was posted as SHO P.S. Karol Bagh w.e.f. April 2012 till November 2014 and his official mobile number was 8750870430. He further deposed that on the instructions of Sr. Officers ACP S.K. Giri and DCP Alok Kumar, he had visited the house of Smt. Subhadra Channa. He further deposed that he alongwith ACP S.K. Giri had gone to the house of DCP Alok Kumar as he had received a wireless message and the said message was received at around 06:00 or 06:15 PM. He further deposed that office of DCP (Central) is at Daryaganj. He further deposed that he had left for the house of Smt. Subhadra Channa at around 06:45 PM from DCP office in his official vehicle. He further deposed that he alongwith ACP S.K. Giri had gone separately at the house of Smt. Subhadra Channa at around 07:00 or 07:15 PM. He further deposed that he went to the office of DCP Pages: 27 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 from the house of complainant but he does not remember the exact time. He further deposed that he had reached at P.S. Karol Bagh at around 11:00 PM. He further deposed that he had gone to the house of Smt. Subhadra Channa in his uniform. He further deposed that complaint Ex.PW-6/A was not written or signed in his presence. He further deposed that Smt. Subhadra Channa was not alone when he reached her house, however, he had not noted the fact that Smt. Subhadra Channa was not alone in the endorsement, as it was not relevant. He further deposed that he had visited many a number of times to the house of complainant and on some occasion he directed his subordinates to do so. He denied the suggestion that he had given a vague statement with regard to the same. He further denied the suggestion that as the complainant was known to some Sr. Police Officials, he under extreme pressure visited the complainant's house to collect the complaint. He further deposed that he cannot recollect whether he had collected the copy of complaint marked to DCP Central. He admitted that there were no endorsement by the DCP Central and Joint CP Law & Order on the complaint Ex.PW-6/A. He further deposed that he had no idea whether the demand was made in the mortuary, however, Pages: 28 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 complainant can only explain about it. He further deposed that FIR was lodged at PS Karol Bagh on the directions of Sr. Police Officials and he went to the spot when the dead body of deceased was found and accused was also present at the spot. He further deposed that neither the complainant nor any family members complained to him regarding the conduct of accused. He further deposed that no other complaint was received prior to receipt of Ex.PW-6/A and he might have called the accused on 30.07.2013 when he was going to receive the complaint, as accused was the IO of the inquest proceeding.
19.PW-11 Ct. Udham Singh deposed that he has been working as Munshi of MHCR in PS Karol Bagh since 8-9 months. He proved roznamcha register A containing DD No.49-A as Ex.PW-2/A, roznamcha register B pertaining to DD No.22B as Ex.PW-11/A and the inquest proceedings containing form 25-35 DD No.49A, 22B application for preservation of body. The identification statement of Vikram Sharma and Subhadra Channa and handing over memo of dead body, request for postmortem, statement of Subhadra Channa, statement of Ashutosh Pandey, postmortem report were exhibited as Ex.PW-11/A(colly).
Pages: 29 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
20.During cross examination, he deposed that he does not know whether the inquest papers were received back with the postmortem report. He denied the suggestion that he is making false statement. He admitted that page no.2 was missing in the inquest papers brought by him on that day.
21.PW-12 Sh. Devender Singh, Manager Allahabad Bank, Chhainsa, Gold Filed Shiksha Sansthan, Village/PO Chhainsa, Faridabad proved the statement of bank account of A/C No.59002099782 of Dr. Vikram Sharma. He deposed that as per bank statement on 27.07.2013 and 28.07.2013, cash of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,017/- respectively were withdrawn from the account through ATM. Complete statement of account is Ex.PW-12/A (colly 50 pages). He further deposed that relevant entries of withdrawal were reflected on page no.23, same is Ex.PW-12/B and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding correctness of bank statement is Ex.PW-12/C. He deposed that he was competent and authorized to attest and certify the documents on behalf of bank.
22.During cross examination, he deposed that lowest denomination of currency that can be withdrawn from ATM belonging to Allahabad Bank is Rs.100/-. He deposed that he had obtained the print out of Pages: 30 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Ex.PW-12/A. He denied the suggestion that print out of Ex.PW- 12/A is not the true copy of statement of account of the concerned person, however, the print out of original statement of the account of Dr. Vikram Sharma from which Ex.PW-12/A was prepared was taken out from the computer of the bank branch and password of computer is with all the employees of the bank.
23.PW-13 SI Sunil Kumar deposed that on 31.07.2013, he was posted as SI at PS Karol Bagh. He further deposed that on the same day he had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith Insp. ACP S.K. Giri. He further deposed that as per the directions of ACP S.K. Giri, he alongwith Insp. Brijesh Mishra had conducted the search of almirah of the accused Awadhesh Narayan which was kept in the IO's Room No.8 in PS Karol Bagh. He further deposed that no case property with respect to the present case was found in the said almirah. He further deposed that both of them had also conducted personal search of Room No.8 of PS Karol Bagh but nothing was recovered. He further deposed that he alongwith Insp. Brijesh Mishra had thereafter gone to the residence of accused Awadhesh Narayan at Raj Nagar, Palam, Delhi for search but nothing incriminating was recovered from there. Thereafter, Insp.
Pages: 31 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Brijesh Mishra prepared the respective search memos with regard to the same. Search memo of almirah kept in Room No.8 in PS Karol Bagh is Ex.PW-13/A, search memo of flat no.203 of accused is Ex.PW-13/B. He again deposed that ACP S.K. Giri also recorded the statement of Dr. Vikram Sharma in his presence and accused was also identified by Dr. Vikram Sharma. He again deposed that IO had asked the accused to provide the documents relating to inquest of Dr. Vardesh Channa which he had handed over to the IO. The seizure memo of inquest papers is already Ex.PW-3/A. The Form No.25/35 of inquest proceedings is already Ex.PW- 11/A(colly), copy of DD No.49A is already Ex.PW-2/A, copy of DD No.22B is already Ex.PW-11/A-1. He again deposed that photocopy of the application for preservation of dead body was seized at the spot, original of the same is Ex.PW-13/C. Copy of identification memo of dead body of Vardesh Channa by Vikram Sharma is Ex.PW-3/B, copy of identification memo of the dead body of Vardesh Channa by Smt. Subhadra Channa is already Ex.PW-6/B and handing over memo of the dead body is already Ex.PW-3/C. He again deposed that copy of seizure memo of viscera box and sample seal is Ex.PW-13/D(OSR). He further deposed that Pages: 32 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 receipt of handing over some paper as well as articles handed over to the relative of deceased is already Ex.PW-3/D. He further deposed that the accused was arrested by ACP S.K. Giri in his presence vide arrest memo already Ex.PW-3/E and personal search memo of accused conducted vide memo already Ex.PW-3/F, both bears his signature at point B. He further deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded which is already Ex.PW-3/G bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that, thereafter, accused was taken to Hanuman Mandir, Pusa Road for recovery of money but nothing was recovered. He again deposed that relatives of complainant, Navya Singh and Ritwik Singh also joined the investigation. He further deposed that IO also recorded the supplementary statement of Dr. Vikram Sharma, thereafter, accused was got medically examined. He further deposed that on 22.08.2013, he had joined the investigation of this case and on the same day, the bank officials of Canara Bank had visited the Anti-Corruption Branch office and handed over video CD containing the CCTV footages dt. 30.07.2013 and details of the locker of the deceased and IO seized them vide seizure memo already Ex.PW-9/A which bears his signature at point B. The CD is Pages: 33 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 already Ex.P1. He further deposed that documents regarding the details of locker is already Ex.PW-9/B and IO recorded his statement.
24.During cross examination, he deposed that accused was present in the police station on the date when he was called upon to join the investigation in the office of ACP, Karol Bagh and that accused was not intimated about joining the investigation when he was called to the room of ACP Karol Bagh. He further deposed that accused was called at around 10:00 to 11:00 AM and had joined the investigation immediately as his room was near the room of ACP, Karol Bagh. He further deposed that the interrogation of accused continued for about two hours. He further deposed that office of accused was searched on the intervening night of 30/31.07.2013 at around 01:00
- 02:00 AM which took 40-45 minutes. He further deposed that house of the accused was searched on 31.07.2013 at around 05:00 - 06:00 AM which took about 45 minutes to one hour. He further deposed that he had joined the investigation on the intervening night of 30/31.07.2013 at about 12:00 midnight. He further deposed that seizure memo already Ex.PW-3/A was got prepared prior to recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further Pages: 34 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 deposed that he cannot say whether accused signed the seizure memo Ex.PW-3/A. He further deposed that accused refused to sign the seizure memo Ex.PW-3/A. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely that accused refused to sign the Ex.PW-3/A. He further deposed that accused was arrested at around 02:00 - 02:30 PM on 31.07.2013 and the arrest memo bears the time of arrest and mobile phone of the accused was switched off after he was arrested. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely regarding the manner in which arrest of accused had taken place, regarding the time of seizure memo of mobile phone of accused and checking of call log. He further denied the suggestion that accused had told the IO that he had neither demanded nor taken any bribe money. He further denied the suggestion that the accused had told the IO that he was falsely implicated by the complainant and her family for personal reasons. He denied the suggestion that accused had told the IO that he had not made any disclosure statement and the one which was recorded was a false one. He again deposed that the signature on the postmortem examination report which is part of Ex.PW-11/A (Colly) bears the signature of Insp. Rajender Singh, the then SHO PS Karol Bagh under the endorsement "Urgent SI Pages: 35 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Yogender for further N/A" dt. 02.08.2013 not legible. He admitted that all the original inquest documents are submitted at the time of postmortem examination which are returned to the IO after postmortem examination. He further deposed that he had not gone to the spot when the dead body of Vardesh Channa was recovered. He denied the suggestion that he had gone to the spot when body of the Vardesh Channa got recovered.
25.PW-14 Inspector Brijesh Mishra deposed that on 31.07.2013, he was posted as ATO at P.S. Karol Bagh and on the instructions of IO/ACP S.K. Giri, he alongwith SI Sunil Kumar conducted search of the almirah of the accused Awadhesh Narayan in the IO Room No.8. He further deposed that during search nothing incriminating was recovered. He further deposed that a search memo with regard to the same is already exhibited as Ex.PW-13/A bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that he alongwith SI Sunil Kumar thereafter took the accused to his residence at Flat No.203, Raj Nagar, Palam, Delhi and searched but nothing related to the case got recovered. He also prepared another search memo with regard to the Ex.PW-13/B bearing his signature at point B, thereafter, they came back to the police station and both the seizure Pages: 36 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 memos were handed over to the IO. IO recorded his statement to this effect.
26.During cross examination, he deposed that he had conducted search of almirah of accused in Room No.8 of IO at PS Karol Bagh at around 09:00 PM which took around 15-20 minutes to conduct the search. He further deposed that he had conducted the search of house of the accused at around 10:30 PM which took about 40 minutes to conduct the search of the house of accused. The endorsement and signature at point A on the postmortem report Ex.PW-14/A are of the then SHO Insp. Rajender Bisht. He further deposed that he had gone to spot when dead body of Vardesh Channa was discovered. He further deposed that family members of Vardesh Channa had informed that one of the daughter was abroad and were asking whether the postmortem of the deceased could be delayed. Thereafter, Ld. Prosecutor for the state moved an application for re-examination of the witness PW-14 for clarifying certain facts introduced by him during his cross-examination which was allowed vide order dated 14.07.2016. PW-14 during his re-examination deposed that IO had not recorded the statement of any of the family members of deceased in his Pages: 37 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 presence in regard to the fact that they were asking whether the postmortem of the deceased could be delayed. He further deposed that no written request was received either by the IO or himself to delay the postmortem. He further deposed that the family members of deceased were discussing amongst themselves at the spot, if postmortem could be delayed.
27.PW-15 ACP S.K. Giri deposed that on 30.07.2013, he was posted as ACP Sub-Division, Karol Bagh, Central District, Delhi. He further deposed that on that day SHO PS Karol Bagh handed over to him a complaint and a copy of FIR No.187/13. The complaint is already Ex.PW-6/A and the FIR is already Ex.PW-1/A. He further deposed that he thereafter started investigation and on 31.07.2013, Insp. Brijesh Mishra alongwith SI Sunil Kumar were directed to take the search of the office and house of accused Awadhesh Narayan. He further deposed that during the search, Insp. Brijesh Mishra and SI Sunil Kumar did not found any incriminating material from the office and house of the accused. He further deposed that he interrogated accused Awadhesh Narayan and during interrogation accused disclosed that on 26.07.2013, he was on emergency duty at PS Karol Bagh from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. Accused also disclosed Pages: 38 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 that during the emergency duty on 26.07.2013, he had received a call from the duty officer PS Karol Bagh regarding foul smell coming from one of the house in the area of Channa Market, Karol Bagh, Delhi. He further deposed that accused also disclosed that he had visited the house from which the foul smell was coming and dead body of the owner, professor Channa was found lying and he had removed the dead body and sent it for postmortem. He further deposed that accused had told him that he had moved an application to preserve the dead body for 72 hours. He further deposed about the confession of the accused. However, as the confession of accused is inadmissible in evidence, his testimony to that extent is not relevant. He further deposed that accused was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW-3/E, his personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW-3/F. He further deposed that thereafter, he had obtained the copies of inquest paper from the accused and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW-3/A. He further deposed that he had sent Insp. R.S. Maan posted at P.S. Karol Bagh to find out the beggars to whom accused had handed over money. He further deposed that Insp. R.S. Maan told him that no such beggar could be found. The accused, was thereafter, sent to JC. He Pages: 39 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 further deposed that he had sent a notice to the Bank Manager, Canara Bank, Karol Bagh and obtained the bank statement of Dr. Vikram Sharma as well as the details of locker of his wife. He further deposed that statement of Subhadra Channa, Ashutosh Pandey and Prakash Chand Goel are Ex.PW-15/A, Ex.PW-15/B and Ex.PW-15/C (OSR). The postmortem report of deceased is already Ex.PW-14/A (OSR). He further deposed that the documents Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-3/B, Ex.PW-6/B, Ex.PW-6/C, Ex.PW-3/D, Ex.PW-13/D, Ex.PW-15/A to Ex.PW-15/C bears the signatures of SI Avdesh at point D. He further deposed that another notice was also served to the Manager of Canara Bank for supply of details of locker No.456 of Dr. Vardesh Channa as well as CCTV footages and ledger of the locker and in response to the same Manager Sh. Chiranji Lal had provided him one VCD containing CCTV footages of the bank dated 30.07.2013 as well as the attested copies of ledger book of locker No.456. The seizure memo of CD and ledger book is already Ex.PW-9/A. The copies of ledger book is already Ex.PW- 9/C and Ex.PW-9/DC. The CD is already Ex.P1 and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is already Ex.PW-9/C regarding the genuineness of the CCTV footages. He further Pages: 40 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 deposed that notice given to Manager Sh. Chiranji Lal to preserve the CD and ledger book record is already Ex.PW-15/E. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had sent a notice to the service provider through SI Sunil Dutt to procure the CDR of accused and Dr. Vikram Sharma and in response to the same, he had received the detailed CDR, CAF through Dak and same is already Ex.PW-7/C, Ex.PW-7/A, Ex.PW-7/B, Ex.PW-3/DB, Ex.PW-8/A and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as already Ex.PW-7/D. He further deposed that he had also recorded the statement of witnesses and called the service record of the accused Awadhesh Narayan already Ex.PW-17/A, Ex.PW-17/B, Ex.PW-18/A and Ex.PW-18/B as well as the prosecution sanction already Ex.PW-16/A. He further deposed that during investigation, it was revealed that there was no need to preserve the dead body of the deceased for 72 hours and the dead body was in decomposed condition, however, the identity of deceased was already established and there was no request in oral or writing from any family members to delay the postmortem. He further deposed that accused had moved the application to preserve the dead body to extort money and after receiving the money, he got the postmortem Pages: 41 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 done and handed over the dead body to relatives without any delay. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared the draft charge- sheet but was transferred and the charge-sheet was filed by some other official after further investigation.
28.During cross examination, he deposed that he was posted as ACP in Karol Bagh Sub-Division since 19.07.2013 to September 2014 and investigation of the present case was handed over to him on 30.07.2013 and also that the investigation remained with him till he was posted in the Sub-Division Karol Bagh. He further deposed that he had recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Subhadra Channa w/o Late Sh. Vardesh Channa twice but did not remember the dates when it was recorded. He further deposed that he had also recorded the statement of Dr. Vikram Sharma on two or more occasions. He further deposed that he had recorded the statement of Ms. Megha Channa for one or more time. He further deposed that after his transfer, the case file was handed over to the MHCR through SHO Karol Bagh. He further deposed that complaint and the copy of FIR was handed over to him for investigation by SHO Karol Bagh at around 11:00 PM on 30.07.2013. He admitted that in the statement under Section 161 Pages: 42 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Cr.P.C. of Dr. Vikram Sharma, it is recorded that "so I had to give Rs.20,000/- again to him". The witness further stated that Dr. Vikram Sharma had given only Rs.20,000/- in total, however, it was inadvertently recorded in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had given Rs.20,000/- again. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely regarding the discrepancies in the amount allegedly paid to the accused by Dr. Vikram Sharma. He again denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely regarding the discrepancies in the amount allegedly paid as complainant Ms. Subhadra Channa and her family members are well connected with the top hierarchy of the Delhi Police.
29.He further deposed that he had inspected the locker register of Canara Bank, Karol Bagh for dt. 30.07.2013 and the register was checked with respect to the allegations that accused had taken Ms. Megha Channa to bank where he wanted to check the contents of the locker of the deceased. He further deposed that he does not remember as to when he had checked the register of the locker or in respect of which dates register was checked. He denied the suggestion that he had given an evasive answer to save the complainant and to make false case against the accused. He did not Pages: 43 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 remembered the specific date as to when he had applied for obtaining sanction. He further deposed that he had personally visited the office of DCP where the request for obtaining the sanction was moved and the case file was also handed over to him. Document Ex.PW-15/D1 is a request letter for seeking prosecution sanction. He admitted that through document Ex.PW-15/D1, it is clear that Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,017/- were withdrawn by Dr. Vikram Sharma on 27.07.2013 and 28.07.2013 respectively, however, Rs.17/- were paid as extra charge imposed on the withdrawal from different bank's ATM. He further deposed that he had not recorded the statement of any bank staff in this respect, however, this fact was verified from the bank statement itself. He does not remember the exact date when he had gone through the bank statement to verify the above said fact during investigation. He further deposed that he had not recorded the statement of Dr. Vikram Sharma in this regard. Though, he had asked about the same from Dr. Vikram Sharma. He further deposed that he had not verified the said fact from the bank as to whether Dr. Vikram Sharma was stating truth. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely with regard to Rs.17/- with the objective of Pages: 44 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 covering the complainant and other witnesses or had filed false case against the accused. He also denied the suggestion that he had cooked a false case because complainant and her family members were influential and well acquainted with top hierarchy of Delhi Police. He further deposed that Sanctioning Authority has not perused the file in his presence and he had left the file in the office of DCP for his perusal. He again deposed that he had not received the sanction and the same was obtained by the subsequent IO. He further deposed that he had received the file back from the office of DCP, however, he does not remember the exact date when he had received the same back. He denied the suggestion that he had not handed over the documents and file to DCP for his perusal while making a request for obtaining sanction. He admitted that he came to know that Ms. Megha Channa was not allowed to operate the locker on 30.07.2013 by the bank officials. He deposed that he had seen the accused in bank alongwith Ms. Megha Channa in the CCTV footage but does not remember whether he had seen Dr. Vikram Sharma in the CCTV footage provided by the bank. He could not remember whether during investigation accused stated that he had gone to Canara Bank on the request of Dr. Vikram Pages: 45 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Sharma on 30.07.2013. He denied the suggestion that accused informed that family of the deceased wanted to delay the postmortem as one of the daughters of the deceased was about to come to Delhi from USA. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely recorded the confession statement of the accused. He further deposed that there was no post titled as Joint Commissioner (Law & Order) in July, 2013 in Delhi. He further deposed that he had not forwarded the copy of FIR to the Sr. Officers and other officers concerned, however, same was forwarded by the SHO. PW-15, IO could not remember when and from where he had received the postmortem report of deceased Vardesh Channa and also could not remember whether he had received any other document alongwith postmortem report. He denied the suggestion that accused had told that Dr. Vikram Sharma and Ms. Megha Channa wanted to remove the contents of locker of deceased Vardesh Channa before Ms.Navya Singh arrived at India. He also denied the suggestion that he had filed a false charge-sheet against the accused under influence of complainant and senior police officials. He admitted that the time mentioned in the FIR is 23:15 hrs. on 30.07.2013 which shows that FIR alongwith complaint was handed over to him Pages: 46 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 after 23:15 hrs, however, due to lapse of time, inadvertently it is stated in the court today that the same was handed over to him around 11:00 PM. He denied the suggestion that he had deliberately changed his version with respect to the timing of the receiving of the copy of FIR and complaint. He deposed that he had not met with the complainant prior to recording of her statement on 02.08.2013.
30.PW-16 Dr. Ashok Malik, Addl. DCP West deposed that in May 2014, he was posted as Addl. DCP, Central District and a request from IO, ACP Karol Bagh was received to accord the sanction under Section 19 of POC Act alongwith the relevant documents i.e. complaint, copy of FIR and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other documents collected during investigation of the case. After going through documents and due application of mind, he was of the opinion, that accused should be prosecuted under the provision of POC Act and being competent authority to accord sanction, he accorded sanction under Section 19 of POC Act to prosecute the accused vide order dt. 15.05.2014, Ex.PW-16/A.
31.During cross examination, he deposed that he had gone through the Pages: 47 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 statement of all the witnesses including Dr. Vikram Sharma and Mrs. Megha Sharma. He further deposed that on the date of according sanction, he was performing the duties on regular basis as Addl. DCP, Central District. He further deposed that prior to present case, he did not grant sanction in any other case under POC Act. He could not remember whether any police officer from PS Karol Bagh met him in connection with the grant of sanction in this case. He deposed that he cannot comment upon the letter No. Nil dated 18.04.2014 (request to grant sanction wherein it is not mentioned whether any documents were sent alongwith the same) for request to grant sanction of prosecution as this letter does not bear his signature. He further deposed that he had received a request letter from the IO to accord sanction against the accused. He further deposed that he cannot tell whether IO had placed the copy of the request letter sent to him on judicial record. He denied the suggestion that he is avoiding to go through the file to conceal his non application of mind while granting sanction against the accused. He further deposed that he had gone through the statements of all the witnesses including the statement of Subhadra Channa. He did not remember whether there were any contradiction Pages: 48 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 in the statement of witnesses about the amount of bribe demanded. He denied the suggestion that he had given a false statement to conceal the non application of his mind while according sanction. He further deposed that he does not remember whether there were contradictions in the statement of Dr. Vikram Sharma recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding quantum of bribe amount or place of demand of bribe in the statements of Smt. Subhadra Channa and Dr. Vikram Sharma. He could not remember whether there were contradictions in the statements of complainant and the complaint regarding the installment of bribe amount. He denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind while according sanction. He further denied the suggestion that he is making false statement regarding my appreciation of documents. He further deposed that the contents of para-3 of his sanction order regarding the alleged bribe amount are based on the statements of witnesses. He further deposed that investigation was complete at the time of according sanction. He further deposed that CCTV footage of the bank was not made available to him at the time of grant of sanction. He further deposed that he does not remember when he came to know about the CCTV footage of the bank not being Pages: 49 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 supplied to him with the request letter. He further deposed that he did not ask the IO to supply the CCTV footage of the bank. He further deposed that he does not remember whether IO had sent draft charge-sheet with request letter. He further deposed that he does not remember whether postmortem report of the deceased was placed before him. He further deposed he cannot tell about the footnote at point X and X1 on the sanction order. He further deposed that he had not signed the covering letter Mark-PW-16/1 of sanction order which is accompanied with sanction order. He further deposed that he cannot tell who had signed the covering letter Mark-PW-16/1. He denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind while according sanction against the accused.
32.PW-17 HC Sunita proved the documents / record of the accused Awadhesh Narayan and deposed that as per record accused was appointed as SI in Delhi Police vide order No. 6717/Recruitment (SI Recruitment Cell NPL, dated-Delhi, DPHE, 22/11/10) and consequent to his appointment, a certificate of appointment had been given to him by the Additional Outer District, DCP. She further deposed that the accused was placed under suspension on 31/0/2013 due to his involvement in case FIR No.187/2013, POC Pages: 50 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Act, when he was posted in the PS Karol Bagh. She further deposed that photocopy of appointment letter of SI Awadhesh Narayan is Ex.PW-17/A, certificate of appointment is Ex.PW-17/B and copy of suspension letter is Ex.PW-17/C (OSR).
33.PW-18 ASI Bhupesh deposed that as per record he was posted in Outer District soon after his appointment and thereafter, transferred to Central District vide his posting order No.2901-3000, dated 11/01/2013. He further deposed that accused was thereafter, posted in PS Karol Bagh by the District Establishment Board, Central District, vide order No.4782-4815, dated 06/03/2013. He further deposed that since 06.03.2013, he remained posted in the PS Karol Bagh till his suspension due to his involvement in the POC Case No. 187/2013. Photocopy of transfer order of Awadhesh Narayan is dated 11/01/2013 and is Ex.PW-18/A and subsequent posting order dated 06/03/2013 of the accused is Ex.PW-18/B.
34.The prosecution thereafter closed its evidence.
35.The statement of accused was thereafter recorded under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C'), wherein accused denied all the allegations of prosecution witnesses and stated that he was innocent. He further stated that complainant and her son-in-
Pages: 51 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 law Dr. Vikram Sharma had told him in the Karol Bagh itself that one of the daughter of the deceased was to come from America and therefore, they wanted the body to be preserved for three days. He further stated that PW-3 Dr. Vikram Sharma had called him to the bank in the morning as they wanted his help to operate the locker. However, in the bank, he came to know from the Bank Manager that they were not allowed to operate the locker as Mrs. Megha Channa was misleading the Bank Manager with a false story for the reason to operate the locker. He further stated that Professor Subhadra Channa had told him that she had a daughter namely Navya Singh who was abroad therefore, they wanted to wait for cremation till her arrival and thus, wanted to preserve the body of deceased for atleast another three days. He further stated that it was an oral request to preserve the body of deceased, however, the postmortem was done on the next day as the body of deceased was in extremely decomposed condition and this fact was well communicated to the family of the deceased. He further stated that Dr. Vikram Sharma and Mrs. Megha Channa wanted to obtain the contents of the locker of deceased by misleading the bank officials without the knowledge of Professor Subhadra Channa and her Pages: 52 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 another daughter Navya Singh. He further stated that Dr. Vikram Sharma and Mrs. Megha Channa made a false story to cover up their act to Professor Subhadra Channa and Ms. Navya Singh. He further stated that the family of deceased was well connected with the Senior Police Officials including ACP Bir Singh, therefore, the entire local police acted in their support.
36.In order to prove his defence, accused examined three witnesses i.e. ASI Bhopal Singh as DW-1, Ct. Vishwajit as DW-2 and Ct. Anil Kumar as DW-3.
37.DW-1 ASI Bhopal Singh proved the statement of Subhadra Channa recorded before the Enquiry Officer Sh. M.D. Meena, ACP, CAW Cell, Central District in department enquiry against the accused as Ex.DW-1/A.
38.DW-2 Ct. Vishwajit has deposed that on 05.04.2014, he was posted in CAW Cell, Central Distt. as Reader of ACP Sh. M.D. Meena and statement of Smt. Subhadra Channa was recorded in his handwriting in front of Sh. M.D. Meena in the presence of accused. He further deposed that the statement Ex.DW1/A was written in his handwriting was read over and accepted by Smt. Subhadra Channa to be correct and thereafter, she signed the same.
Pages: 53 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
39.DW-3 Ct. Anil Kumar deposed that on 26.07.2013, he was posted in Karol Bagh as beat Constable in the area pertaining to 14A/40, WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi and some local persons had called him telephonically and had informed that foul smell was coming from the house of Dr. Vardesh Channa and he, thereafter went to the spot. He further deposed that as the smell was unbearable, he called the SHO who also reached the spot at around 07:00 PM. He further deposed that Crime Branch team was called through wireless and some other police officials of PS Karol Bagh also reached at the spot. He further deposed that he had got the DD number recorded in the PS, thereafter, IO/SI Awadhesh Narayan also reached at the spot. He further deposed that family of the deceased had reached the spot after the reaching of the SHO, however, behaviour of the family of the deceased was normal. He further deposed that deceased used to live alone in the house. He further deposed that during his posting as beat constable in the Karol Bagh area, deceased did not seem mentally stable and used to roam around in the vicinity. He further deposed that body of the deceased was highly decomposed. He further deposed that crime team arrived at spot and took photographs and thereafter, body was sent for Pages: 54 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 postmortem in a government vehicle. He further deposed that IO had also gone for postmortem in a separate vehicle.
40.Arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Sh.Hemant Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused heard. Written arguments filed on behalf of accused also perused.
41.Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that PW-3 Dr. Vikram Sharma has specifically deposed that on 26.07.2013, accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- to get the postmortem done next day and under extreme mental duress at that time, he agreed to give the bribe amount to the accused, out of which Rs.10,000/- was paid to the accused on 27.07.2013 in the mortuary of MAMC and remaining Rs.10,000/- of bribe amount was paid to the accused on 28.07.2013 at the house No.14A/41, WEA Karol Bagh, Delhi. Version of PW-3 is corroborated by other prosecution witness namely Smt. Subhadra Channa, complainant in this case and PW-5 Mrs. Megha Channa daughter of deceased Dr. Vardhesh C. Channa. There is no material contradiction in the testimony of PW's. However, if any minor contradictions have occurred in the testimony of the witnesses then the same are in the natural course and do not go to the root of the prosecution's case.
Pages: 55 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
42.The gravamen of the offence in the present case is demand of the bribe by the accused and receiving of the same by him on the specified date as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. Event which occurred on 30.07.2013 at the bank in respect of opening of locker is not fact in issue for establishing the guilt of accused. For the sake of the arguments, if it is assumed that prosecution witnesses have deposed incorrect version regarding the insistence by the accused for opening the locker, it does not mean that whole story of the prosecution is not reliable and witnesses are not trustworthy. Court can rely on the remaining testimonies of the witnesses which is corroborated by other circumstances of the case.
43.Ld. Addl. PP for the State further argued that prosecution witnesses have specifically deposed that accused had adopted tactics of causing delay in conducting the postmortem for extracting bribe money. The application prepared by the IO for preservation of dead body for three days is available on judicial record which corroborate the version of prosecution witness in this respect. Accused had taken the defence that the family members of the deceased had informed that one daughter of the deceased is residing in USA therefore, they themselves wanted to delay the postmortem Pages: 56 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 of the deceased. This defence version is highly improbable and same is not corroborated by the record of the documents pertaining to the postmortem of deceased which were seized during the investigation of the present case.
44.It is further argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that there is no defect or infirmity in the prosecution sanction accorded by Dr.Ashok Malik, then Addl. DCP as he categorically deposed that after perusal of all the relevant documents produced with the file and after applying his mind, he was of the opinion that the accused should be prosecuted under the POC Act and being competent authority, he accorded the sanction vide order Ex.PW-16/A.
45.Ld. Addl. PP for the State further argued that there is no material delay in reporting the matter to police. In the present case, family members of deceased were under extreme mental duress due to the demise of Dr. Vardhesh C. Channa and their first priority was to get the postmortem done as soon as possible and thereafter, they reported the matter to police. Family members of the deceased in the given circumstances of the present case cannot be supposed to rush to police to complaint against the accused Awadhesh Narayan leaving dead body of the deceased in the mortuary. Any reasonable Pages: 57 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 prudent person in such circumstances would have acted similarly.
46.Ld. Addl. PP for the State further argued that accused had taken defence that Mrs. Megha Channa wanted to operate the locker by concealing the fact of death of Dr. Vardhesh C. Channa and in the absence of Ms. Navya Singh (other daughter of deceased). There is nothing on record which suggest that there was any animosity between Mrs. Megha Channa and Ms. Navya Singh and Megha Channa wanted not to inform Ms. Navya Singh regarding the ingredients of the locker. There is nothing on record which suggest that any kind of litigation was going on between Mrs. Megha Channa and Ms. Navya Singh.
47.Ld. Addl. PP for the State has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Crl. Appeal No.1165 of 2010 titled as Billa Nagul Sharief Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh;
(ii) Crl. Appeal No.1275 of 2009 titled as Jeewan & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand;
(iii) Crl. Appeal No.207 of 1993 titled as Arjun And Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Pages: 58 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi.
State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
48.Ld. Defence Counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr. in Crl. Appeal No.984 of 2007;
(ii) Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 CRI.L.J. 2273 (SC) in Crl. Appeal No. 449 of 1995;
(iii) Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 4 SCC 725 in Crl. Appeal No.202 of 1974 titled as ;
(iv) Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 858 in Crl. Appeal No.2170-2171 of 2011;
(v) G.V. Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1987 SC 2402 in Crl. Appeal No.280 of 1979;
(vi) State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 in Crl. Appeal No. 1350 of 2009;
(vii) Manohar S/o Ravan Kamble Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Crl. Appeal No.229 of 1999;
(viii) Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 491 of 2002;
Pages: 59 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi.
State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
(ix) Raosaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 CRI. L.J. 3792;
(x) C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, MANU/SC/0274/2009 in Crl. Appeal No.377 of 2009;
(xi) K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631 in Crl. Appeal No.495 of 2004;
(xii) State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan, (2007) 11 SCC 273 in Crl. Appeal No.766 of 2001;
(xiii) Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0276/1972 in Crl. Appeal No.165 of 1971. SANCTION:-
49.Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the sanction to prosecute in the present case was sought from Dr. Ashok Malik (PW-16), the then Addl. DCP (Central). He further argued that PW-16 in his chief-examination admitted that present case was the first time that he accorded sanction under the Act. He further argued that PW-16 did not apply his mind to the file prior to granting the sanction as he was evasive in his answers. He further argued that PW-16 stated that he did not remember whether he received a draft charge-sheet alongwith the file or not and refused to go through the request letter Pages: 60 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 available on judicial file. Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that PW-16 was completely unaware about the contradictions between the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of various witnesses. He further argued that PW-16 was not supplied with the CCTV footage pertaining to the Canara Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi and the Sanctioning Authority did not even seek them from the I.O. He further argued that CCTV footage is relevant in the present case, as it is alleged that accused had been harassing Dr. Vikram Sharma and Mrs. Megha Channa to operate the locker maintained at Canara Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi and for the same even visited the bank on 30.07.2013. He further argued that being the Sanctioning Authority, PW-16 was unable to identify as to who had signed the covering letter of sanction order and footnotes at points X and X1. He further argued that Dr. Ashok Malik (PW-16) was not made available the requisite material that constituted the case against the accused and he did not apply his mind at the time of granting sanction to prosecute the accused, therefore, sanction order is invalid and accused is entitled to draw the benefits of the same. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pages: 61 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman Airport Authority of India & Ors. AIR 2012 SC 858 wherein it is held as under:-
"In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like non-availability of material before the Sanctioning Authority or bias of the Sanctioning Authority or the order of sanction having been passed by an authority not authorised or competent to grant such sanction. The above grounds are only illustrative and not exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind
- a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal, the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial."
50.Ld. Counsel for the accused, thus, argued that the sanction is invalid and fails to serve the purpose of the present case to ensure that no honest official is falsely implicated in malicious proceedings.
51.Ld. Addl. PP for the State in this respect has relied upon C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal no. 462/2005, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"This sanction order was proved by Mr. V. Parthasarthy, Deputy General Manager of Bengalore Telecom as PW-40, he was competent authority to accord sanction and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused for the alleged offence on 28th February, 1990 as per Ex.P.83. He deposed that S.P., CBI sent a report against the accused and he perused the report and accorded the sanction as per Ex.P.83. He deposed that he was satisfied that there was a case for prosecuting the accused for the alleged offence. He Pages: 62 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 admitted that he received a draft sanction order and a draft sanction order was also examined by vigilance cell and then it was put before him. He also deposed that before according sanction he discussed the matter with the vigilance cell. He also admitted that he was not a law man, therefore, he discussed the legal implication with a legally qualified officer in the vigilance cell. He has denied the suggestion that he did not apply his mind in according sanction. It is no doubt true that the sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public servant from harassment. But the sanction should not be taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant......"
".....When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the Sanctioning Authority for according sanction and Sanctioning Authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the Sanctioning Authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind."
52. As regards application of mind by Sanctioning Authority in State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs Mahesh Jain, 2013 (8) SCC 119 following principles were culled out :-
"14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out. 14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the Sanctioning Authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the Sanctioning Authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material Pages: 63 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 placed before it.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the Sanctioning Authority is required to prime facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the Sanctioning Authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6 If the Sanctioning Authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
It was further held that :
"True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused."
53.In Ashok Kumar Tshering Bhutia Vs State of Sikkim, 2011 (3) LRC 93 (SC) on the point of sanction, it was held as follows :
"......In the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused a failure of justice, the plea is without substance. A failure of justice is relatable to error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. Therefore, a mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Section 19 (1) of the PC Act 1988 is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction and once the cognizance has been taken by the Pages: 64 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Court under Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that an invalid police report is the foundation of jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance........"
54.In the present case, PW-16 has fairly stated in the court that this was the first case in which he accorded sanction. Merely because this was the first case in which PW-16 had accorded sanction is no ground to presume that he had not applied his mind to the facts of the case and the material produced before him. PW-16 would have rather been more careful before according sanction in such circumstances. In any case there always has to be a first time. The court has also perused the testimony of PW-16 and to the judicial mind, his answers does not seem to be evasive. Similarly, the sanction order cannot be said to be invalid, merely because PW-16 could not identify as to who had signed the covering letter of sanction order and the footnotes at point X and X1.
55.As far as, non supplying of CCTV footage of Canara Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi to the Sanctioning Authority is concerned, the same was a relevant piece of evidence. Grant of sanction is an administrative function and only prima-facie satisfaction of the Sanctioning Authority is needed. Though, the adequacy or inadequacy of material placed before the Sanctioning Authority Pages: 65 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order and also when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with, but the record sent to the Sanctioning Authority should contain the material/documents which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused.
56.In CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, decided on 31.10.2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that :-
"(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the Sanctioning Authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withheld the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(d) The order of sanction should make it evidence that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
Pages: 66 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi.
State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
57.Certainly, it is the duty of the prosecution to send entire record of the case to the Sanctioning Authority and the emphasis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is also that the record should be sent alongwith material and document that may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which competent authority may refuse the sanction. Had the CCTV footage of the bank been sent to the Sanctioning Authority, the same could have tilted the balance in favour of the accused and could have formed basis for refusing sanction. The CCTV footage was perused by the court at the time of final arguments and though the same as per the testimony of PW-9 is from 10:30 AM but the same is available from approximately 10:15 AM. A perusal of the CCTV footage shows that PW-3 Dr. Vikram Sharma can be seen moving around in the lobby of the bank. Mrs. Megha Channa can be seen to be coming out from the desk/room of the manager. Thereafter, Mrs. Megha Channa and Dr. Vikram Sharma can be seen discussing something amongst themselves. After a while they both can be seen sitting on sofa in the lobby of the bank and again discussing something with each other. Thereafter, Mrs. Megha Channa can be seen making some phone calls. PW-3 during his Pages: 67 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 cross examination had admitted that he had made telephone calls to the accused between 10:33 AM to 10:34 AM, as per call records Ex.PW3/DB. This time 10:33 AM and 10:34 AM is the time when in the CCTV footage also Mrs. Megha Channa can be seen talking on mobile phone. As per Ex.PW3/DC, Mrs. Megha Channa was not allowed to operate the locker of her deceased father at 10:25 AM by the concerned Bank Manager. The sequence of events thus, of 30.07.2013 in the bank are as follows:-
(i) Mrs. Megha Channa and Dr. Vikram Sharma go to the Canara Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi and try to operate the locker of the deceased,
(ii) Permission denied by the concerned Branch Manager at 10:25 AM,
(iii) Outgoing phone call made from the phone of Dr. Vikram Sharma by Mrs. Megha Channa to the accused at 10:33 AM and 10:34 AM,
(iv) After sometime, the accused entered into bank and is greeted by Mrs. Megha Channa and Dr. Vikram Sharma and the accused is directed to the room of the manager,
(v) After sometime, the accused can be seen coming out from the room of manager and discussing with Mrs. Megha Channa and Dr. Vikram Sharma and thereafter all the three can be seen exiting from the bank, All through this time period, the anxiety can be seen writ large on the face Pages: 68 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi.
State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 of Dr. Vikram Sharma and Mrs. Megha Channa and it can be clearly made out that it is they who wanted to operate the locker of the deceased by some or the other way and even sought the assistance of the accused by calling him to the bank through phone call.
58.The CCTV footage if would have been placed before the Sanctioning Authority alongwith document Ex.PW3/DC, showing that the operation of the locker was denied to Mrs. Megha Channa at 10:25 AM itself, the same might have tilted the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which it can be said that, if the said document would have been brought to the notice of the Sanctioning Authority, he might not have granted sanction for prosecution of the accused.
59.In the present case, as the CCTV footage which was a material piece of evidence was not placed before the Sanctioning Authority, therefore, the sanction order stands vitiated. No reasons have been given by the IO as to why a copy of CCTV footage was not sent to the Sanctioning Authority. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the sanction was properly accorded after due application of mind or is valid. As the requisite material was not available to the Sanctioning Authority, therefore, the sanction order is invalid and Pages: 69 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 the same stands vitiated.
UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR:-
60.Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that complaint Ex.PW-6/A was lodged on 30.07.2013, four days after the alleged first demand, on the intervening night of 26-27.07.2013. He further argued that Mrs. Subhadra Channa (PW-6) was informed about the alleged demand by her son-in-law Dr. Vikram Sharma (PW-3) on the intervening night of 26-27.07.2013 itself. He further argued that on 28.07.2013, complainant was informed by her daughter Mrs. Megha Channa about the accused's alleged demand. Thus, if the prosecution's case is taken to be true for argument's sake, the complainant was well aware about the alleged demand and acceptance from the intervening night of 26-27.07.2013, but did not lodge any complaint till 30.07.2013. He further argued that as per the testimony of Dr. Vikram Sharma (PW-3), it is clear that ACP Bir Singh from Anti- Corruption Branch was well known to the complainants' family, therefore, the delay in lodging the complaint renders suspicious of having been an afterthought and vindictive in nature. He further argued that delay in lodging complaint provides enough scope for Pages: 70 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 an alternate explanation that when Dr. Vikram Sharma (PW-3) and Mrs. Megha Channa (PW-5) unsuccessfully attempted to operate the locker of the deceased in Canara Bank by misleading the Manager, it provided them reason to falsely implicate the accused on the trumped up allegations that accused wished to operate the locker on 30.07.2013. In this respect, Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi JT 2007(10) SC 585, wherein it is observed as follows:-
"In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrication. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. In Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1973 SC 501), it was held that the delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation."
The delay in the present case, would not have been material as the Pages: 71 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 family was expected to attend and arrange for the last rites of the deceased. However, the delay becomes material in view of the fact that the same was lodged after the unsuccessful attempt by the daughter of the deceased Mrs. Megha Channa to operate the locker of the deceased. Also, this fact that the SHO concerned had reached the house of deceased and was present at the time when the dead body of the deceased was discovered and the admission of PW-3 during his cross examination, that ACP Bir Singh was known to the father in law of Mrs. Navya Singh and had spoken to the accused, are to be taken into account to decide whether the delay in lodging of FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Also, though the delay in lodging of FIR may not be fatal, but it certainly is sufficient to raise a suspicion.
ACCUSED PERSONS'S CONDUCT AS PROSECUTION'S CASE IS IMPROBABLE
61.Ld. Counsel for accused argued that as per the statement of Dr. Vikram Sharma recorded in court on 08.04.2015, complainant's family personally knew one ACP Bir Singh, the then ACP Anti- Corruption Branch, Delhi and on 26.07.2013 when body of the Pages: 72 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 deceased was discovered, ACP Bir Singh had spoken to the accused over the telephone, and call was arranged for by the complainant's family. He further argued that PW-6 admitted that accused had spoken to ACP Bir Singh on their instance, and thus, it is impossible that an officer being junior in rank to ACP could have demanded and accepted any illegal gratification from the relatives/acquaintances of an incumbent ACP of Anti-Corruption Branch. He further argued that accused had made arrangements to oversee the cleaning of the place where the dead body was found, however, this act in no manner was part of the accused's official duties, but accused had been compelled to perform under the tremendous pressure exerted by his seniors, who were having good terms with the complainant's family. He further argued that the acts performed by the accused under force and pressure maintained by his senior officials because of their close connections with the complainant's family shows his submission to the complainants' family. Ld. defence counsel in this respect has relied upon the judgment in Raosaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra 1994 CriLJ 3792 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, wherein it is held that :-
"Where the prosecution evidence is clouded with such circumstances against the normal human behaviour, then a Pages: 73 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 reasonable doubt arise and it would be dangerous to act on that part of the prosecution version."
The court finds force in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. The cleaning of the house of deceased was nowhere connected with the official duties of the accused as a police personnel but he was still made to ensure that the house of the deceased was cleaned. Even on the day when the house of the deceased was got cleaned, PW-3 had made calls to the accused at 09:11 AM and no reasons have been given as to why he had made calls to the accused. Even, the complaint of the complainant was received at her residence and to receive the complaint, SHO PS Karol Bagh alongwith one ACP S.K. Giri had gone to the residence of the complainant. It is the matter of common knowledge that to get any FIR lodged in any PS is not an easy task and the victims of the crime are made to wait for hours together before their report is lodged. Sometimes, the reports are not lodged even despite repeated visits to the police station. However, in the present case, the SHO and ACP S.K. Giri had personally visited the residence of the complainant to receive the complaint. This is what is expected from the police officials whenever a crime is brought to their notice, but when the same is Pages: 74 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 not the routine procedure of the police and is rather a deviation from the routine practice, then certainly it raises doubt. It also establishes that the complainant was well connected with the Senior Police Officials so much so that two very Senior Officials had personally visited her residence to collect the complaint and in such circumstances, it is really doubtful that the accused would have demanded illegal gratification from any of the family members of the deceased.
EXPLANATION FOR WITHDRAWAL. EVEN THOUGH BANK STATEMENTS NOT PROVED AS PER LAW.
62.Ld. Counsel for accused argued that Dr. Vikram Sharma (PW-3) stated in his chief-examination that Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn by him to pay bribe to the accused on two occasions on 27.07.2013 and 28.07.2013. He further argued that Dr. Vikram Sharma (PW-3) had withdrawn Rs.10,017/- and the same version find mention in the Charge-sheet as well as, in the Request Letter seeking sanction. He further argued that it is clarified in the deposition of Sh. Devender Singh (PW-12), Manager, Allahabad Bank that lowest denomination that can be withdrawn from the ATM is Rs.100/-. It is argued that as Rs.17/- could not have been withdrawn through Pages: 75 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 ATM, therefore, the bank account statements are not duly proved and are forged document. This argument has no force as the IO during his testimony clarifies that Rs.17/- were the extra charges imposed by the bank as the amount was withdrawn from different bank's ATM.
63.Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that withdrawal made by Dr. Vikram Sharma (PW-3) would have been made to conduct the last rites of the deceased Sh. Vardhesh Channa as the last rites were done by the family members of PW-3 on 27.07.2013 immediately after the postmortem at Nigambodh Ghat, New Delhi. He further argued that the alternate view in respect of the withdrawal made by Dr. Vikram Sharma for cremation of dead body must be relied upon as compared to an unsubstantiated view taken by the prosecution.
64.This possibility that the amount withdrawn by Dr. Vikram Sharma was used for the last rites of the deceased also cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case.
CONTRADICTION IN THE TESTIMONY OF PW'S:-
65.It is argued that there are inherent contradictions in the testimony of PW-6 Ms. Subhadra Channa, PW-3 Dr. Vikram Sharma and PW-5 Pages: 76 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Mrs. Megha Sharma which go to the root of the case and as the witnesses are not credible. It is argued that the complainant PW-6 in her complaint Ex.PW-6/A stated that accused had demanded Rs.10,000/- from PW-3 at mortuary and the same was paid to him. She further stated that accused had demanded Rs.15,000/-more but does not state about any further payment except the payment of Rs.10,000/-. PW-3 Dr. Vikram Sharma has deposed in his examination in chief that accused had demanded Rs.20,000/- at MAMC, Mortuary on the intervening night of 26-27.07.2013.
66.It is further argued that the complainant PW-6 has stated in her statement Ex.DW-1/A recorded in departmental inquiry against the accused that PW-3 Dr. Vikram Sharma (her son-in-law) had made payment of Rs.10,000/- to the accused in the intervening night of 26-27.07.2013, at MAMC mortuary as he was having the said amount in his possession, whereas Dr. Vikram Sharma in his examination in chief has deposed that he had paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused on 27.07.2013 at MAMC Mortuary at the time of postmortem i.e. the next day.
67.It is further argued that though PW-3 deposed about the demand by the accused of the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- but did not Pages: 77 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 stated the time, place and mode of the alleged demand. Moreover, as per the complaint Ex.PW-6/A, the total demand is of Rs.25,000/-, out of which only Rs.10,000/- were paid to the accused and there is no mention of any payment to the accused on 28.07.2013 in the complaint Ex.PW-6/A.
68.It is further argued that PW-3 had deposed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the accused in the presence of his wife on 28.07.2013 whereas PW-5 Mrs. Megha Channa has deposed that she was sitting in the adjacent room when the accused had visited the house of the deceased i.e. 14A/41, WEA Karol Bagh, Delhi and could not hear anything properly but could only see the accused and her husband speaking to each other. It is also argued that there are two calls on 28.07.2013 at 10:30:38 AM and 10:31:33 AM between the numbers used by Mrs. Megha Channa and Dr. Vikram Sharma as per Ex.PW-3/DB and thus, these calls make it clear that the two could not have been together because had they been together there was no need to communicate telephonically. It is further argued that Mrs. Subhadra Channa had admitted that her deposition was based on what have been told to her by PW-3 and PW-5 whereas Dr. Vikram Sharma though had admitted that the complaint was lodged Pages: 78 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 by the complainant on the information provided by him but as per PW-3, complainant i.e. PW-6 was herself present at most time. Thus, none of the witnesses have corroborated the other's stand and their testimony are liable to be discarded.
69.It is argued that the accuseds' defence is that his presence had been sought at the residence of the deceased to clean the premises on instructions of his senior officials and this fact is admitted by the PW-3 Dr. Vikram Sharma in his cross examination dated 10.04.2015. Also, it is PW-3 who had contacted the accused by telephone call at 09:11 AM as per call record Ex.PW-3/DB and the accused had contacted Dr. Vikram Sharma at 10:26 AM after reaching the premises. It is argued that had the prosecutions' version been correct, the accused would have made calls to Dr. Vikram Sharma and not the other way round.
70.It is also argued that as per the case of prosecution, the accused wanted to check the contents of the locker of the deceased and was harassing the son-in-law and daughter of the deceased despite having demanded and accepted bribe, however, the same is falsified from the testimony of PW-9 Sh. Chiranji Lal, The Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Karol Bagh Branch, Delhi as he has deposed that Pages: 79 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 Mrs. Megha Channa had attempted to operate the locker of the deceased by misleading him and by concealing the fact of his demise. PW-9 also failed to identify the accused to have visited the bank on 30.07.2013. The defence of the accused is that Mrs. Megha Channa wanted to operate the locker before the arrival of her sister Ms. Navya Singh from USA and since she was not allowed to operate the locker by the Manager, she mislead the Manager to believe that the IO wish to operate the locker. The prosecution version further stands falsified as it is PW-3 who had made two calls to the accused on 30.07.2013 at 10:33 AM and 10:34 AM to seek his presence at the Canara Bank and the same is corroborated by the CCTV footage wherein Mrs. Megha Channa can be seen speaking on the phone at the same time as shown in the call records. It is argued that had the accused wanted to check the contents of the locker of the deceased then he would have made calls to PW-3 and not vice-versa. It is further argued that how would the accused know that the deceased maintained a locker at Canara Bank, Karol Bagh Branch unless any such information was provided to him by the family of the deceased.
71.There are two instances of demand and acceptance of bribe by the Pages: 80 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 accused. One is when the accused was in mortuary in the intervening night of 26/27.07.2013 when demand was allegedly made and received an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 27.07.2013 and the other incident is when amount of Rs.10,000/- was received on 28.07.2013. The evidence of the complainant in the present case qua both the instances is only of hear-say nature and she had only deposed that her son-in-law informed her that the accused demanded Rs.20,000/-. She is not a witness to the demand nor the witness of the acceptance of bribe amount on 28.07.2013.
72.As far as the incident dated 27.07.2013 is concerned, PW-6 has deposed that "...........On the next day, I along with my son in law again reached in the mortuary at 10:00 a.m. and post mortem was done and thereafter, my son in law handed over Rs.10,000/- to the accused in my presence............"; whereas, PW-3 has deposed that "...........When I gave Rs. 10,000/- to the accused in the mortuary, my mother in law and driver Tonu were in the mortuary but they were standing away and had not seen me giving money to the accused......."
Thus, both the witnesses are giving contradictory statements and therefore, it cannot be said that PW-6 was an eye-witness to the alleged Pages: 81 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 incident of giving bribe by PW-3 to the accused on 27.07.2013.
73.In fact, PW-6 complainant has deposed that when she alongwith her son-in-law reached at mortuary alongwith dead body, they were informed that as it was too late in the night and as the condition of the body was not good, postmortem would be conducted only on the next day; whereas PW-3 Dr. Vikram Sharma has deposed that when he reached at the house of the deceased, the police did the formalities and informed that the postmortem would be done only after three days. PW-3 has not specifically stated as to which of the police officials told him (at the house of the deceased) that the postmortem would be done after three days. PW-6 has stated that the accused informed them that postmortem would be conducted after 72 hours as he was not available on 27.07.2013 but this fact that the accused would not available on 27.07.2013 is not deposed by the PW-3. The statement of PW-6 that Rs.10,000/- were handed over by the PW-3 to the accused in the morning of 27.07.2013 is not recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Also, the statement of PW-6 was also recorded in the departmental inquiry and the statement recorded in departmental inquiry is Ex.DW1/A. As per Ex.DW1/A, during departmental inquiry, PW-6 deposed that Pages: 82 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 on persistence request of her son-in-law to get the postmortem done as early as possible, accused told him that 'agar kuch sewa pani karo toh jaldi kaam ho sakta hai apki patni bhi pregnant hai; toh mere son-in-law ne wahi par S.I. Awadhesh Narayan ji ko 10,000 rupaye diye the. 10,000 rupaye lekar inhone kaha ki subah aa jaiye mein postmortem karwakar body apke hawale kar dunga'. As per statement Ex.DW1/A, this amount of Rs.10,000/- was given by PW-3 to the accused on the intervening night of 26/27.07.2013 itself. PW-6 during her statement recorded in departmental inquiry has not deposed about any further payment except the payment of Rs.10,000/- on the intervening night of 26/27.07.2013, whereas in her testimony recorded in court, she stated that her daughter informed her that accused received Rs.10,000/- on 28.07.2013. This fact of payment of Rs.10,000/- on 28.07.2013 being informed to her by her daughter Ms. Megha Channa nowhere finds mention in her statement Ex.DW1/A.
74.PW-5 Mrs. Megha Channa has deposed that she had seen her husband handing over Rs.10,000/- to the accused on 28.07.2013 from the adjoining room. During her cross-examination, she has admitted that two phone calls were made to her husband on Pages: 83 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 28.07.2013 at 10:30 AM and 10:31 AM and clarified that since "she was eight months pregnant, she called her husband even for a glass of water". At 10:26 AM on 28.07.2013, PW-3 i.e. the husband of Mrs. Megha Channa had received a call from the accused. However, prior to that at 09:11 AM, PW-3 had made a call to the accused. This explanation by the PW-5 that she had called her husband even for a glass of water, does not seems plausible, as if she could see her husband handing over the amount to the accused, she could very well have asked for water etc. orally and there does not seem any need for a phone call.
75.In fact, the court has no hesitation in holding that the repeated outgoing calls from the mobile of PW-3 to the mobile of accused only establish that the family of the deceased and particularly, PW- 3 was treating the accused as his sub-ordinate and was expecting the accused to follow his instructions. The eagerness and anxiety in the body language of PW-3 is clearly evident and lead only to one influence that he alongwith his pregnant wife wanted to operate the locker of the deceased and were very much interested in the contents of the locker, that too within four days of coming to know about the death of the deceased.
Pages: 84 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
76.There is no evidence on record to establish that had the accused delayed the postmortem, the same have been contrary to the wishes of the complainant and her family members or would have caused them any injury, rather it is admitted that the deceased's daughter Ms. Navya Singh had to travel from USA and thus, it was the family of the deceased who wished to delay the postmortem for another three days and to preserve the body of the deceased till the arrival of Mrs. Navya Singh. This fact is also supported by the testimony of PW-14 who deposed that family members of the deceased were discussing amongst themselves whether postmortem to be delay and thus, delay in conducting of postmortem was in their interest, but the same was not allowed by the mortuary officials due to the extreme deterioration of the corpse. CONCLUSION:-
77.The prosecution has, thus, failed to establish its case and to bring home the guilt of the accused because of the following grounds :
(i) Most of the deposition of the complainant (PW-6) is based on hear-say evidence and is thus, not admissible in evidence;
Pages: 85 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi.
State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
(ii) The statement of PW-14 that the family members of deceased were discussing amongst themselves at the spot as to whether the postmortem could be delayed;
(iii) The fact that one of the daughter of the deceased Ms. Navya Singh was in USA and therefore, the possibility that it was the family of the deceased who wanted the body of the deceased to be preserved for 3-4 days, cannot be ruled out;
(iv) The contradiction in the testimonies of the PW's, as to whether an amount of Rs.10,000/- was given to the accused in the intervening night of 26-27.07.2013 or in the morning of 27.07.2013;
(v) Contradictions in the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6 as to whether the alleged amount of Rs.10,000/- was given by PW-3 to accused in the presence of PW-6 and whether PW-6 had seen PW-3 handing over any amount to accused or not.
(vi) The fact that the family of the deceased was well acquainted with the Sr. Police Officials so much so that the SHO concerned alongwith one ACP had gone to the residence of the complainant to receive the complaint and the fact that the accused was made to arrange for the cleaning of the house of the deceased and thus, was forced to perform work which was not a part of his official duties;
Pages: 86 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016
(vii) Outgoing calls from the mobile of PW-3 to the mobile of accused on 27th and 28th July 2013;
(viii) Presence of PW-5 Mrs. Megha Channa at the residence of deceased on 28.07.2013 and her having seen the amount of Rs.10,000/- being handed over to accused by her husband; being doubtful;
(ix) Outgoing calls from the mobile of PW-3 to the mobile of accused on 30.07.2013 specifically after the permission to operate the locker of the deceased was denied by the concerned bank manager;
(x) Statement of the Bank Manager PW-9 that it was the daughter of the deceased who was trying to operate the locker of the deceased after misleading him;
(xi) Sanction in the present case being vitiated as CCTV footage of the Canara Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi not sent to the Sanctioning Authority for perusal.
78.Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, beyond reasonable doubt, so the accused Awadhesh Narayan is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of above offences, his bail bonds is cancelled and Pages: 87 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi. State Vs. Awadhesh Narayan C.C. No.532215/2016 surety discharged. The accused is directed to furnish bail bond with surety under section 437A Cr. P. C.
79.File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedby KIRAN
KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Digitally signed by KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2018.07.17 11:01:24 +0530 Announced in the open court BANSAL Date:
2018.07.17 on 10th day of July, 2018. 11:01:50 +0530 (Kiran Bansal) Special Judge-07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC Delhi/10.07.2018 Pages: 88 of 88 (Kiran Bansal) Spl. Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act-ACB), Delhi.