Delhi District Court
State vs . Sumit @ Sam And Others on 25 February, 2014
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
SC No. : 113/11
FIR No. : 47/11
Police Station : Dhaula Kuan
Under Section : 386/364A/120B/34 IPC
Received on assignment : 30.05.2011
Reserved for orders on : 25.02.2014
Judgment announced on : 25.02.2014
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam
S/o Sh. Devender Singh Dahiya
R/o Village Nahari, PS Kundli
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana
Arun Kumar @ Kale
S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh Lakra
Village Morkhedi, PS Sampla
Distt. Rohtak, Haryana
Sandeep Chikara
S/o Sh. Kapoor Singh
R/o VPO Ladrawan
PS Bahadurgarh
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana
SC No.113/11 Page 1 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
Jitender Dixit @ Bantu
S/o Sh. Ram Karan
R/o VPO Sohti, PS Kharkhoda
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana
Rajesh @ Bharti
S/o Sh. Balwan Singh
R/o Vill. Kandela
PS Sadar Jind
Distt. Jind, Haryana
Parvesh Grewal
S/o Sh. Raj Singh Grewal
R/o H.No.280, Near Holy Chowk
VPO Bijwasan, New Delhi
J U D G E M E N T
1. The accused persons are sent for trial for the offences punishable under Section 386/364A/120B/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that complainant was kidnapped for ransom by the accused persons and one of the accused persons asked the complainant to make a call to his father and complainant dialed the mobile No. 9310017260 of his father Sh. Ramesh Chand from his mobile No. 9999707034 and then one of the boys, who was driving the Swift car, snatched the mobile of complainant and asked the father of the complainant SC No.113/11 Page 2 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others that his son has been abducted and further to pay rupees three crores by 6:00 pm, otherwise, complainant would be killed and the phone was disconnected. Ultimately a sum of Rs. 35 lacs was to be arranged by 6:00 pm as ransom amount. Thereafter, after half an hour the car was stopped near lonely fields and the boy who was negotiating for ransom, got down from the car with the phone of the complainant and other three boys remained there with the complainant at that lonely place till 8:30 pm.
3. On the statement of complainant, FIR was lodged and investigation was handed over to Insp. Balram. On 05.03.2011, accused Jitender Dixit @ Bantu and Sandeep Chikara were identified at the instance of secret informer and were apprehended from near Hotel Raddisson, Mahipal Pur, Delhi and they were arrested. In his disclosure statement, accused Sandeep Chikara disclosed that on 01.03.2011 he was going in a bus from Bawana to Narela and at about 22.30 p.m., Sumit S/o Shri Devender, the resident of his maternal uncle's village Nahari, called him up on mobile no. 8826647114 from STD and asked him (Sandeep Chikara) to reach at the petrol pump, near PS Bawana. Then Sandeep Chikara returned to Bawana and reached near petrol pump on his motorcycle where Sumit alongwith one Pahalwan was waiting for him in a AStar, silver SC No.113/11 Page 3 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others colour Maruti Car and asked Sandeep Chhikara to come with one more motorcycle at Vaishno Dhaba, Kharkhoda Bypass and accused Sumit alongwith Pahalwan went away. Thereafter, Sandeep Chikara returned to Bawana and he alongwith Montu went to Kharkhoda on his motorcycle and on the way Sandeep Chikara called Jitender Dixit over phone and asked him to come with motorcycle at Vaishno Dhaba, Kharkhoda. Sandeep Chikara further disclosed that when they reached at Vaishno Dhaba, Kharkhora, Sumit and said Pahalwan were already waiting for them there and in the meantime Jitender Dixit had also reached there. There Sumit disclosed that one boy has been abducted and ransom to be received from his father to which all the boys gave their consent. In the disclosure statement, it was further disclosed that thereafter, Sandeep took out the SIM of mobile of Jitender Dixit and gave it to Sumit and Sumit gave a sum of Rs.2,000/ to Jitender Dixit. Thereafter, Sandeep Chikara left his motorcycle there and he alongwith Sumit and Pahalwan went in their car towards Bahadur Garh.
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused Jitender Dixit and Montu remained there and accused Sandeep Chikara alongwith coaccused Sumit @ Sam and Anil Pehalwan went Bahadurgarh via Barahi village from where accused Sumit SC No.113/11 Page 4 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others had taken one more accused namely Kale and all the accused returned towards Barahi village and thereafter travelling for sometime, Kale was dropped by accused Sumit @ Sam from the car and Kale disclosed that he will came there by scooter. Then all the three accused reached Barahi and accused Sumit @ Sam called accused Jitender and Montu to Barahi village and accused Sumit asked Jitender to wait in village Barahi and further instructed Montu to follow accused Sumit, Sandeep Chikara and Anil Pehalwan on his motorcycle and thereafter Montu was also left near the bridge in village Jasorkheri and accused Sumit, Sandeep Chikara and Pahalwan came to Kharkhoda and after getting petrol again went Jasorkheri and accused Sandeep Chikara and Sumit @ Sam alighted from the car and accused Montu and Pahalwan went from there in said car and accused Sandeep Chikara sat on the rear seat on the motorcycle of the accused Jitender and Sumit @ Sam also sat behind accused Sandeep Chikara and, thereafter, accused Sandeep Chikara and Sumit sat for sometime and accused Sumit @ Sam made a call to accused Jitender that white coloured car bearing No.DL 9C G 7868 will come, wherein two persons will be sitting and lights inside the car will be on and he further asked accused Jitender to follow that car till village Jasorkheri and confirmed all the things on mobile thereafter accused Sumit asked Jitender to go SC No.113/11 Page 5 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others home. Thereafter accused Sumit @ Same made a call to Montu and verified from him whether said car has crossed. Montu confirmed that said car had crossed. Thereafter some time, said car stopped at the bridge and one person alighted from the car who was having two polybags filled with money and who dropped the said money near the bridge. Thereafter accused Sumit @ Sam made a call that car had came and money had been paid, accused Sandeep Chikara and Sumit @ Sam took away the said amount and accused Sandeep Chikara drove the motorcycle and accused Sumit was sitting on the rear seat. Thereafter accused Sumit @ Sam made a call and asked Montu to bring the car in Mandir wali gali and after reaching there, accused Sumit paid Rs. 50,000/ to accused Sandeep Chikara and Rs. 5,000/ to accused Montu. Thereafter accused Pahalwan and Sumit went away in that car alongwith money. After two days, accused Sumit @ Sam made a call from 9999780287 and I asked him to give amount Rs. 15,000/ as accused Sandeep Chikara was in need of money and same day, accused Sumit came there and paid Rs. 15,000/ to me. A loan of Rs. 20,000/ was paid by accused Sandeep Chikara. To the same effect the disclosure statement was made by accused Jitender. Therefore other accused persons made disclosure statements.
SC No.113/11 Page 6 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
5. After supplying copies to the accused as per law, case was committed to the court of sessions.
6. After due deliberation, charge under Section 386/364A/120B/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. To substantiate this case, prosecution had examined 51 witnesses, most of them had not supported the case of the prosecution and resiled from their earlier statements made to the police on the basis of which FIR was lodged.
8. PW1 is Sh. Devender Singh, who has stated that he was having two mobile phones bearing Nos. 9310017260 and 9810017260 and same were issued on his ID. He had given the said mobile phones to his brother namely Sh. Ramesh Chander Rana for use. On 01.03.2011, Paramveer Rana, son of his brother Sh. Ramesh Chand was abducted. His brother Ramesh Chand told him about the kidnapping for ransom of his son at 2:00 pm. The abductor had demanded a ransom of rupees three crores but had agreed to accept Rs. 35 lacs. The accused had asked his brother to reach BDO office. At about 6:00 pm, he alongwith his brother Ramesh Chand left for BDO office and when they SC No.113/11 Page 7 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others reached at BDO office, his brother received a call and accused asked them to reach Parle G factory, Bahadurgarh. Thereafter, they reached there but they were again instructed to reach Barahi Road then to Village Ashoda, thereafter to Dasaur Kheri village. His brother Ramesh Chand was again instructed to go towards Maheshru road and then to Puliya of Hasangarh. Accused asked his brother to keep the said amount on the puliya of Hasangarh. They kept the same at the instructed place. After some time, two boys came there and picked up the said black coloured polythene containing Rs. 35 lacs. When PW1 Devender Singh was returning with his brother then brother of PW1, Ramesh Chander Rana received a call that his son would be released after one hour. After one hour, PW1 Devender Rana received a call from his nephew, namely Paramveer Rana that he was near Sonepat and he would reach after 1 ½ hour. At about 12:30 am, his nephew reached the house. IO had prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/A at his instance. PW1 had seen the persons who had picked up the said polythene bag but due to darkness, he could not identify any of them.
9. This witness has turned hostile and during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he had denied the SC No.113/11 Page 8 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others suggestion that he told police that on 28.04.2011 when accused Parvesh Grewal was arrested by the police, he was surprised as they had no enmity in their village or that 34 days prior to the date of incident, he had seen Parvesh Grewal near a temple at about 4:00 pm in his car and he had also seen Parvesh Grewal with one Rajesh Bharti 56 days prior to the date of incident. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that on being enquired from Parvesh Grewal, he had introduced said Rajesh Bharti as his friend. He had seen Parvesh Grewal with Rajesh Bharti in his Honda City car bearing No. HR 26 BC 6999 while consuming beer. He further denied the suggestion that he had seen accused Parvesh Grewal and Rajesh Bharti near Mandir before the abduction of his nephew. This witness has not come on the line of the prosecution story.
10. PW2 is Ms. Sushil Bala Dagar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, who has deposed that on 19.03.2011. Inspector Dinesh Kumar moved an application Ex. PW2/A before her for conducting TIP of accused Rajesh @ Bharti and accused Rajesh @ Bharti was produced before her. She has explained the nature of TIP proceedings to accused Rajesh @ Bharti in Hindi and questioned him whether he wanted to participate in TIP but accused Rajesh @ Bharti refused to participate in TIP SC No.113/11 Page 9 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others proceedings. Thereafter, she has recorded the statement of accused Rajesh @ Bharti, who stated that he had already been seen by the witnesses 34 times in the police station. She has recorded the TIP proceedings vide Ex. PW2/B and the copy of TIP proceedings was handed over to police on application Ex. PW2/C.
11. PW3 is Ramesh Chand, father of the victim namely Paramveer Rana, who has stated that on 01.03.2011, his son had gone to his college at about 9:00 am by his car bearing No. DL 9CQ 6945. At about 1:151:30 pm, he had received a call from the mobile phone of his son bearing No. 9999707034 and his son told him that "yeh log mujhe maar rahe hai aur inhone mera kidnap kar liya hai, lo inse baat kar lo" (these persons are beating him, they have kidnapped him, talk to them). Thereafter, someone talked to him and told him that he had kidnapped/abducted his son and they demanded Rs. 3 crores from him but after negotiation, they agreed to accept Rs. 35 lacs by the evening till 6:00 pm. They also threatened him not to involve the police. At about 6:006:30 pm, he received another call from the mobile phone of his son and enquired about the money. This witness has also deposed on the line of PW1 Devender Singh Rana regarding the place of handing over of SC No.113/11 Page 10 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others ransom amount and releasing of his son by the abductors. Police had called this witness 23 times in the police station and had made inquiries from him about the cases but he did not remember whether he has told the description of accused persons to the police who had lifted the money. He had never identified any one before police as a person who had lifted the money from the said puliya.
12. This witness has also turned hostile and during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he had denied the suggestion that he told police that on 03.04.2011 after keeping the said amount on the puliya, he had moved the car on a slow speed and seen two boys, who had lifted the said amount from that place and one of them was around 5' 10" in height with thin built and also seen his face in the light of another moving vehicle and told that he could identify said person. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that that on 30.04.2011, he had again gone to the police station. He further denied the suggestion that on that day, he had seen accused Sumit @ Sam in the custody of police and identified him as a person who was one of the two boys had lifted the money from the puliya. This witness has also not come on the line of the prosecution story.
SC No.113/11 Page 11 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
13. PW4 is victim Paramvir Rana, who has stated that on 01.03.2011, he had left his house at about 9:30 am for his college by his Swift Car bearing No. DL 9CQ 6945 and reached the gate of his college at about 10:00 am. When he got down from his car, four boys came and pushed him inside the car and made him to sit on the rear seat. Two boys occupied driving and front seats of the car and two boys sat on the rear seats keeping him between them. The said two boys took out pistol type weapon and threatened him to kill, thereafter, snatched his mobile phone and switched off the same. Thereafter, they took him towards Chhawla village and stopped the car at some isolated place and, thereafter, he was shifted in another car after covering his face with towel. The said car was kept on moving for about half an hour and, thereafter, they again shifted him in his Swift car and covered his face. At about 1:00 pm, they switched on his mobile phone and asked him to tell his father that he had been abducted. The person who was driving the car took the phone from his hand and told his father that they had abducted him and if his father would not give Rs. 3 crores by the evening, they would kill him and, thereafter, ransom amount was settled as Rs. 35 lacs.
SC No.113/11 Page 12 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
14. Accused persons kept on driving the car and stopped the car at some isolated place near the fields of sugarcane and they kept him there till 6:00 pm in his car. They took him to GT Karnal Highway at about 8:30 pm and kept on moving the vehicle on highway till 10:00 pm and, thereafter, they got down from the car and gave keys of the car and his wallet to him and told that said way directly goes to Delhi and their work had been done. Thereafter, he drove the vehilce for about 20 minutes and then he made a call to his father on his another mobile No. 9810017260 from one dhaba near Murthal and told him that accused persons had released him. He went to his house around 12:00 night and on 05.03.2011, he gave his complaint Ex. PW4/A on which FIR was registered. This witness could not identify any of the accused present in the court except Parvesh Grewal, who belongs to his village but he admitted was not amongst the abductors. This witness has turned hostile and during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he had denied the suggestion that he told police that on 23.03.2011, he went to PS Delhi Cantt on being called and identified accused Rajesh @ Bharti as a person who was amongst the abductors, who had abducted him from his college and he had made him to sit on the rear seat of the car or he had shown the pistol to him or had threatened to kill him and snatched his mobile phone. He SC No.113/11 Page 13 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others further denied the suggestion that the said boys alongiwth his associates had taken him at the isolated place where he was shifted in his Swift car and accused Rajesh @ Bharti alongwith his associates had confined him in his car. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that after seeing the interior of the car in which he was shifted, he had assumed that it was a Santro car but in fact it was Micra car. He further denied the suggestion that on 23.03.2011, he had identified accused Rajesh @ Bharti before the police as the person who was amongst the abductors. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that Arun Kum @ Kale was the associate of those persons who had abducted him on 01.03.2011 in his Swift car and said Arun @ Kale had occupied the front left seat of his car and at the time of shifting him in his Swift car, said Arun @ Kale was present there. He further denied the suggestion that accused Rajesh @ Bharti and said Arun @ Kale alongwith their one associate had kept him confined in his car till 8:30 pm and they had taken him to G.T.Karnal Road. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that on 20.05.2011, he alongwith police went to PS Kundli, District Sonipat (Haryana) and IO had shown him one Micra Nissan car bearing registration No. HR 70 M 1729 and he had identified the said car in which he was transferred by the accused persons from his Swift car or accused had used the said SC No.113/11 Page 14 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others car for his abduction on 01.03.2011. He further denied the suggestion that he had identified accused Rajeshy @ Bharti, Sumit @ Sam and Arun @ Kale before the police as the persons who had abducted him. He further denied the suggestion that accused Rajesh @ Bharti, Sumit @ Sam and Arun @ Kale present in the court are the same persons who had abducted him and had taken Rs. 35 lacs from his father. This witness has also not come on the line of the prosecution story.
15. PW5 is ASI Labh Singh, who has stated that on 08.03.2011, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj, South as HC and on that day, he alongwith ASI Devender, HC Harjit and Inspector Jai Prakash went for the investigation of this case. At about 11:00 pm, when police party reached Mahipalpur Red light, one secret informer met Inspector Jai Prakash, who informed that those boys who had committed the offenc of kidnapping within the jurisdiction of PS Dhaula Kuan are member of group of Manoj morekheri and Rajesh and would gathered near Peerbaba Mazar with intent to commit a serious offence. Thereafter, Inspector Jai Prakash passed this information to senior police officers including SHO and ACP and SHO PS Vasant Kunj directed that raid be conducted immediately. On receiving the direction, Inspector Jai Prakash requested 45 public persons to join SC No.113/11 Page 15 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others raiding party but none came forward and, thereafter, police party alongwith secret informer reached near Peer Baba Mazar and at that time, two boys were sitting near Peer Baba Mazar and on the pointing of secret informer, police party proceeded towards those boys but on seeing the police party, said boys tried to slip away from the spot and one of those boys took out his pistol and pointed out towards the police party. Thereafter, ASI Devender ad HC Harjit also took out their respective service revolver and fired 22 shots in the air and this witness apprehended the said boy who had fired and later on whose name revealed as Rajesh Bharti and another boy namely Jassa was apprehended by Inspector Jai Prakash.
16. PW6 Avtar Singh is father of accused Sandeep, who had stated that in the year of 2010, he had purchased one calibre motorcycle bearing registration No. HR 13A 7392 from one Anand Prakash of his village and got the same transferred in his name. Police had contacted him and he had shown the original RC to police and given a photocopy of the same vide Ex. PW6/A.
17. PW7 is Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular who has brought the relevant record in respect of mobile No. 990406303 for the period from 21.02.2011 to 01.03.2011 and as SC No.113/11 Page 16 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others per record, the abovesaid mobile phone number was issued in the name of Sh. Jaan Mohd, S/o Sh. Mohd. Sakijaan. He had proved the photocopy of consumer application form vide Ex. PW7/A and ID proof Ex. PW7/B. He had also brought the call details for the period of 20.02.2011 to 02.03.2011 vide Ex. PW7/C. He had also proved the certificate under section 65 B Indian Evidence Act 1872 vide Ex. PW7/D.
18. PW8 is Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Service who has proved the record in respect of mobile Nos. 8447781644, 8447781619, 9310017260 and 9999707034 for the period from 25.02.2011 to 02.03.2011 and as per record, the abovesaid mobile phone Nos. 8447781644 and 8447781619 were issued in the name of Rahul Rana and mobile No. 9310017260 was issued in the name of Devender Singh Rana and mobile No. 9999707034 was issued in the name of Paramvir Rana. He had also proved the original customer application forms alongwith ID proof vide Ex. PW8/A, PW8/B, PW8/C and PW8/D respectively and ID proof of the same are Ex. PW8/E, PW8/F, PW8/G and PW8/H respectively. He has also proved the call details of mobile Nos. 8447781644, 8447781619, 9310017260 and 9999707034 for the period of 25.02.2011 to 02.03.2011 vide Ex. PW8/I, PW8/J, PW8/K and PW8/L and certificate under section SC No.113/11 Page 17 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others 65B Indian Evidence Act 1872 vide Ex. PW8/M, PW8/N, PW8/O and Ex. PW8/P respectively.
19. PW9 is Sh.Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, TATA Tele Services Ltd., who has proved the call details record in respect of mobile No. 7417599835 vide Ex.PW9/A for the period from 01.02.2011 to 25.04.2011 and as per record, said mobile connection was issued to Deepak, S/o Sh. Shyam Singh and copy of customer application form alongwith ID is Ex. PW9/B. He has also proved the Cell ID Chart with location in respect of said mobile number for the said period is Ex. PW9/C and certificate under section 65 B in Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW9/D.
20. PW10 is HC Dheer Singh, who has stated that on 05.03.2011, he was posted as HC at PS Dhaula Kuan and working as duty officer from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. SI Sushil Sharma handed over him a rukka (Tehrir) on the statement of Paramvir Rana and he recorded FIR No. 47/11, u/s 364A/368A IPC vide Ex. PW10/A and after recording FIR, he made his endorsement on rukka vide Ex.PW10/B.
21. PW11 is HC Amir Khan, who has stated that on SC No.113/11 Page 18 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others 26.07.2011, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj and on that day, Inspector Balram alongwith SI Pradeep Kumar came to PS and asked to give detail of IMEI number of mobile which were deposited in malkhana of PS Vasant Kunj of case FIR No. 57/11 as same is connected to FIR No. 47/11 of PS Dhaula Kuan. Personal search of accused Rajesh @ Bharti was deposited vide relevant entry Ex. PW11/A. He had also gave requisite information of IMEI number of mobile to Inspector Balram and entry in this regard is made in register No.19 vide Ex. PW11/B.
22. PW12 is ASI Harjeet Singh, who was posted as HC at PS Vasant Kunj, South has also deposed on the line of PW5 ASI Labh Singh.
23. PW13 is Const. Amit who has deposed that on 26.04.2011, he was posted as Constable at PS Vasant Kunj South and on that day, he alongwith ASI Devender and Const. Sanjeev had gone to Haryana and Uttrakhand. On that day, when police party was returning from there and reached Mahipalpur at about 2:25 pm then a secret informationa was received by ASI Devender that two boys would come in a white colour Maruti Swift car at Shiv Murti at NH8, who were involved in vehicle theft cases and in a kidnapping case. Thereafter, police party SC No.113/11 Page 19 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others alongwith secret informer reached Shiv Murti, NH8. ASI Devender asked some public persons to join the investigation but none came forward. At about 4:00 am, one Swift car came from the side of Mahipalpur was stopped at the instance of secret informer. Two persons sitting in the car, after stopping the car, tried to run away but they were apprehended. The person who was driving the car was apprehended by Const. Sanjeev and another was apprehended by him and the names of both the persons were revealed as Jyoti Parkash and Arun.
24. PW14 is Const. Ashok Kumar, who has deposed that on 18.04.2011, he alongwith SI Randhir Singh and Const. Narender joined the investigation. SI Randhir Singh received a secret information on telephone that accused Sumit @ Sam, who is wanted in a case of PS Vasant Kunj, South was about to come to the house of his maternal uncle at Nagal Devat Bus stand. Thereafter, police party reached Nangal Devat bus stand and at about 8:00 pm at the instance of secret informer, accused Sumit @ Sam was apprehended. He was interrogated by IO and, thereafter, police party went to police station. Accused had made his disclosure statement and same is marked as P14/1.
25. PW15 is Retd. SI Randhir Singh, who has deposed SC No.113/11 Page 20 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others that on 18.04.2011, he was posted at PS Basant Kunj, South and on that day, he arrested accused Sumit @ Sam in FIR No. 33/11 and accused made his disclosure statement and confessed his involvement in case FIR No. 47/11, PS Dhaula Kuan. He got recorded the information at PS Dhaula Kuan on 26.04.2011. On 27.04.2011, accused Sumit and Arun were produced in the court and were arrested in this case and their custody was handed over to the IO and later on his statement was recorded by the IO.
26. PW16 is SI Virender Singh, who has deposed that on 21.08.2011, he was posted as I/C PP Old City, Sonepat. Inspector Balram from Delhi Police came to him in PP. He inquired from him about FIR No. 118/11 under section 420 IPC 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Kundli and shown the seizure memo concerned with this case regarding seizure of Micra car No. HR 70M 1729, mobile phones and SIMs and recorded his statement. On inquiry, he told the IO that on 26.03.2011, he alongwith staff was present in village Nahri. On that day, one Micra Car was stopped and the driver had run away from the spot after leaving the car. He had seized the said Micra car alongwith mobile phones and SIM cards. One country made pistol was also found in the car and he had conducted the proceedings regarding the seizure of car, country made pistol, mobile phones and SIM card and on SC No.113/11 Page 21 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others inquiry, the correct number of car was found DL 6CJ 8598 and after seizure of abovesaid articles, he got case FIR registered at PS Kundli vide FIR No. 118/11 (Ex. PW16/A). The copy of seizure memo of pistol, sketch of pistol, seizure memo of mobile phone SIM etc., seizure memo of car are Mark P16/1, PW16/2, PW16/3 and P16/4.
27. PW18 is SI Sushil Sanwaria, who has deposed that on 05.03.2013, he was posted in PS Dhaula Kuan and at about 8:00 am, complainant Paramveer Rana came to the PS and on the direction of the SHO, he recorded his statement vide Ex. PW4/A and prepared rukka and got the FIR lodged under section 364A/386/34 IPC. The investigation was handed over to Inspector Balram and on 06.03.2011, IO/Inspector Balram Singh recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.PC. On the intervening night of 05/06.03.2011, accused Jitender Dixit and Sandeep Chhikara were apprehended at the instance of secret informer and, thereafter, their disclosure statement was recorded. On personal search of accused Jitender Dixit, one G5 black colour mobile phone bearing No. 9728881639 alongwith Rs. 260/ were recovered. On the personal search of accused Sandeep Chhikara, one Nokia mobile phone blue colour bearing No. 8826647114 alongwith Rs. 320/ cash were recovered and his SC No.113/11 Page 22 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others statement was recorded by the IO in this regard.
28. PW18 is ASI Ashwin Kumar, who has also deposed on the line of PW13 Const. Amit regarding apprehension of Jyoti Prakash and Arun @ Kale. During the course of investigation, accused admitted that accused Arun @ Kale alongwith his coaccused Sumit had stolen a car from parked outside a restaurant in Kundli. The official at PS Kondli had been informed and an FIR dated 16.02.2011 bearing No. 79/11 u/s 379 IPC in respect of vehicle bearing No. DL 8CQ 3169 was lodged but the car which was recovered from their possession was bearing No. HR 16A 2963 was taken into possession and ASI Devender sent a rukka at about 5:40 pm. After recording of FIR, investigation was handed over to him and at the instance of Const. Devender, he prepared site plan and arrested accused Arun @ Kale and Jyoti under FIR No. 100/11 under section 411/34 IPC and, thereafter, personal search was conducted and arrest memo was made and after investigation, he deposited samples in MHCM and IO/Inspector Balram recorded his statement in this regard.
29. PW19 is Retd. SI Raj Kumar, who has deposed that after receiving the investigation, he alongwith HC Harjit Singh SC No.113/11 Page 23 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others reached Rangpuri Hills and Inspector Jai Parkash handed over to him the custody of accused persons namely Rajesh @ Bharti and Jaswant Singh @ Jassa. He arrested both the accused persons in case FIR No. 57/11 and interrogated both the accused persons and accused Rajesh Bharti admitted his involvement in case FIR No. 47/11 of PS Dhaula Kluna and he accordingly informed police station Dhaula Kuan regarding arrest of Rajesh @ Bharti. The copy of disclosure statement of accused Rajesh @ Bharti is Mark P19/1.
30. PW20 is Inspector Dinesh Kumar, SHO, PS, Dhaula Kuan has stated that on 05.03.2011, complainant Paramvir Rana alongwith his father came to police station. He informed him about the incident and SI Shushil Sawaria recorded his statement. Thereafter, case was registered. On 07.03.2011, investigation of this case was assigned to him. On 13.03.2011, information was received from PS Vasant Kunj, South regarding arrest of one Rajesh @ Bharti in an Arms Act case and about making disclosure regarding involvement in this case. Thereafter, he alongwith his subordinate staff went to PS Vasant Kunj, South and obtained photocopies of recovery of weapon, sketch of weapon and disclosure statement of accused Rajesh. He also recorded the statement of police officials of Vasant Kunj SC No.113/11 Page 24 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others South and on 19.03.2011, he interrogated accused Rajesh @ Bharti. He arrested accused Rajesh Bharti vide arrest memo Ex. PW20/A and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW20/B. During interrogation, names of associates of accused namely Arun @ Kala, Sumit @ Sam, Anil Pahalwan and Manoj Morkheri were revealed. Thereafter, accused Rajesh @ Bharti took the police party to the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PW20/C. On 26.04.2011, he received another information from PS Vasant Kunj, South about the arrest of accused Sunit @ Sam and Arun Kumar @ Kale. On 27.04.2011, accused Sumit @ Sam and Arun Kumar @ Kale were interrogated. Thereafter, both the accused arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/D and PW20/E respectively. Their disclosure statements were recorded vide Ex. PW20/F and PW20/G respectively. On 01.05.2011, both the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PW20/H and PW20/I respectively. Accused Sumit @ Sam pointed out the place from where ransom amount was collected vide memo Ex. PW20/J. On the basis of information gathered from disclosure statement of accused persons, he arrested accused Parvesh Grewal vide Ex. PW20/K near Radisson Hotel. His disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW20/M. During investigation, he recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused Sandeep Chikara vide Ex. PW20/N, Rajesh Bharti Ex. PW20/O, SC No.113/11 Page 25 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others Sumit @ Sam Ex. PW20/P and Arun @ Kala Ex. PW20/Q. During investigation, he recovered Rs. 20,000/ at the instance of accused Sandeep Chikara from his house vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/R. He has also seized motorcycle No. HR 13A7392 vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/S. He has also seized motorcycle No. HR 13A 4952 vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/T, which accused Sumit @ Sam alongwith accused Sandeep Chikara used for picking up the ransom amount. During the course of investigation, he has also seized the document of Ascent car and Swift car vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/U and the photocopies are marked P20/1 and PW20/2. The pointing out memo made by accused Sandeep Chikara of the place of collecting ransom amount is Ex. PW20/V.
31. PW21 is Anoop Singh, who has stated that accused Jitender Dixit is his nephew in relation. Thereafter, he turned hostile. During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he has denied the suggestion that he told police that accused Jitender Dixit is his nephew. He further denied the suggestion that he told that mobile No. 9896506460 was issued on his ID proof and the documents such ID proof bearing his signature and the said phone used by accused Jitender Dixit and 01.03.2011, accused Jitender Dixit was using the said mobile SC No.113/11 Page 26 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others number and accused Jitender Dixit was arrested in a case of PS Dhaula Kuan.
32. PW22 is SI Sandeep Singh, who has deposed that on 01.04.2011, he was posted as SI at PS Dhaula Kuan and investigation of this case was assigned to him by the order of SHO. He alongiwth Const. Vipin and Const. Sumit went to PS Vasant Kunj (S). Accused Rajesh @ Bharti was taken out from the lock up of PS Vasant Kunj (S) and, thereafter, he alongwith both the constables and accused Rajesh @ Bharti went in search of coaccused Anil Pehalwan, Arun, Manoj and Sumit to Haryana but nobody was found. SHO interrogated the accused Rajesh @ Bharti and he confessed his involvement in case FIR No.269/10 of PS Dhaula Kuan. He signed the disclosure statement made by accused Rajesh @ Bharti vide Ex. PW20/O.
33. PW23 is Satender, who has stated that on 09.11.2011, a quarrel took place between him and his brother Siya Sharan Pathak on the point of giving motorcycle. Thereafter, he stayed in a Dhaba/Hotel of one Tiwari for 34 days. After sometime, police came to him. His licence had misplaced and he did not lodged the missing report in respect of his licence. This witness has turned hostile and during cross SC No.113/11 Page 27 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he has denied the suggestion that he told police that IO had shown to him customer application forms of mobile No. 8447460619, 9873788452 and 8130683468 which were having his photographs and he had identified his photographs. He further denied the suggestion that he told polie that on the Dhaba of Tiwari, he met with accused Rajesh Bharti and one Neetu and they developed friendship. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that Rajesh Bharti had asked him to sleep in his room during the period of quarrel with his brother and some other persons namely Nitu, Dhoni and Dada were also residing there and they used to take meal at the same Dhaba. One day, Rajaesh Bharti had taken his four passport size photographs for getting his DL prepared. Rajesh Bharti had brought driving license which was issued in the name of one Rajiv Sharma and in his name. He further denied that accused Rajesh Bharti obtained his signature and signature of Rajiv Sharma on some document and being illiterate, he could not understand the trick of Rajesh Bharti and he had signed the same and Rajesh Bharti kept the license of Rajiv Sharma with him and gave him driving license to him which was later on lost but he did not make any report anywhere to this effect. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that on 09.11.2011, IO had shown to him the SC No.113/11 Page 28 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others photocopies of above said mobile numbers which were having his photographs but same were not having his signatures and he was sure that accused Rajesh Bharti had obtained the mobile connection in the name of Rajiv Sharma by placing his photograph and he had never used any mobile phone and he came to know about the conduct of accused Rajesh Bharti after his arrest. He further denied the suggestion that he developed friendship with accused Rajesh Bharti or that accused Rajesh Bharti had taken his signatures on some papers and he used his photographs for obtaining above said mobile connections. He further denied the suggestion that he had given statement Ex. PW23/A to the police or that accused Rajesh Bharti had obtained mobile connections by using his identity and the identity of one Rajiv Sharma. Hence, this witness has not come on the line of the prosecution.
34. PW24 is Bhagwan Singh, who has deposed that he did not know anything about this case and police never met him and never recorded his statement. During cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he has denied the suggestion that he told police that three months prior to 31.07.2009 when accused Parvesh, the grandson of Sarjeet was apprehended, he alongwith other covillagers had gone to Vasant Kunj, Police SC No.113/11 Page 29 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others Station and accused Parvesh, the son of Raj Singh had confessed his guilt and police had correctly apprehended him. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that on the same night, Raj Singh and his wife and one Raghvir Yadav had come to his office at about 10:00 pm and they took him at about 11:00 11:30 pm to the house of one Ramesh Rana and Raj Singh apologized from Ramesh Rana in his presence and he had also felt that accused Parvesh was involved in abduction of Paramvir Rana. He further denied the suggestion that accused Parvesh had confessed in his presence about his involvement in the abduction of this case or that the father of accused Parvesh had apologized from Ramesh Rana, the father of abducted Paramvir. Hence, this witness has not come on the line of the prosecution and declared hostile.
35. PW25 is Praveen Kumar, who has deposed that on 01.03.2011 at about 10:4511:00 pm, one boy came to his Dhaba and requested him to make a call to his house and on the next day, he received a call from the relative of said boy.
36. PW26 is Const. Sanjeev who has deposed that on 24.04.2011 when he alongwith Const. Amit and ASI Devender were returning to police station at Vasant Kunj South and SC No.113/11 Page 30 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others reached Mahipalpur Chowk at about 2:25 pm, one secret informer met ASI Devender and told him that at about 3:15 pm, two boys would come in Swift car and they were involved in some incident of kidnapping. ASI Devender informed senior officers and requested public persons to join the raiding party but non joined. Thereafter, they reached the place near Shiv Murti, NH8 and at about 4:05 pm, one white colour Swift car came there and two boys got down from the car. Secret informer pointed those boys and on the direction of ASI Devender, they apprehend both the boys namely Jyoti and Arun Kumar @ Kala. PW28 overpowered accused Jyoti, who was driving the car and on being interrogated about the ownership of the car, both the boys told that they had robbed the said car on gun point from near Makhan Bhog Restaurant, Kundli alongwith his associate Manoj and Sam. The said car was having fake number plate of Haryana while the registration number of the car is of Delhi. Thereafter, ASI Devender prepared rukka and FIR was registered and, thereafter, investigation of the case was taken by ASI Ashwani.
37. PW27 is HC Chand Singh, who has deposed that on 21.08.2011, he was posted as MHC(M) PS Kundli and he joined investigation alongwith IO Inspector Balram PS South Campus, SC No.113/11 Page 31 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others Delhi. SI Virender Singh had got deposited one Nissan Micra car bearing No. HR 70M1729 alongwith three mobile phones of Samsung, Nokia, LG, 9 sims (1 Aircel, 5 Voda phone, 3 Idea) which were seized from accused Sumit Kumar @ Sam and after checking all the sim card, registration of above said sim cards except the sim card of Aircel was found fake and the contact number of Jeetu was found in one of the mobile phone No. 9716640947. IO prepared inspection memo of the said mobile phones and sim card which bears his signatures at point A.
38. PW28 is Sh. Ravinder, who has deposed that on 05.08.2011, he received a call from PS Dhaula Kuan and enquired about mobile phone No. 9813219750 and, thereafter, he alongwith his cousin Vinod went to PS South Campus, New Delhi and he told the IO that he had taken the sim card of above said mobile connection from his cousin Vinod. He had handed over the said sim around one year ago to his covillager Mr. Neeraj and Neeraj told that his father had given the said sim card to one Bantto, thereafter, IO recorded his statement.
39. PW29 is Om Prakash Khattar, who has deposed that on 30.08.2011, IO of this case came to him and inquired about one mobile number 9999780287 and shown one prepaid SC No.113/11 Page 32 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others application form which was in the name of Ankur. After seeing the photograph, he told the IO that he did not know said person and he had never resided in his house at any point of time.
40. PW30 is Ravinder Kumar, who has deposed that accused Jitender is his real younger brother and he was using mobile No. 9996386704 and he did not know as to which number was being used by accused Jitender and no motorcycle was ever purchased by him or by his any family member. This witness has not come to the line of prosecution and hence turned hostile. During cross examination by Ld. Addl.PP for the State, he has denied the suggestion that IO had recorded his statement. He further denied the suggestion that he was using two mobile phones bearing Nos. 9996386704 and 9728881639 and mobile No.9728881639 was left by him at home for use of family members and one month prior to this case, his brother Jitender had inserted the sim card of this mobile connection in his mobile phone and he used the same and he had taken this mobile connection on his ID. He further denied the suggestion that two months prior to March 2011, his brother Jitender had purchased motorcycle No. HR 13A 4952 from his friend Satender Dalal for Rs. 17,000/ and Jitender did not get the same transferred in his name nor he got prepared any document SC No.113/11 Page 33 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others regarding the said transaction. He further denied the suggestion that when Jitender and Sandeep were arrested in this case, he met them in police station and in his presence, Sandeep had confessed that he had received Rs. 35 lacs out of Rs. 3 crores and Jitender was involved in this case for Rs. 2 lacs and Jitender had also confessed his involvement in this case. He further denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, his brother Jitender was using mobile phone No. 9728881639 which was purchased on his ID.
41. PW31 is Neeraj Rana has deposed that he did not anything about this case and police never met him and also his statement was never recorded. This witness has also not come on the line of the prosecution and turned hostile. During cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he has denied the suggestion that he told police that accused Jitender is his cousin and Ravinder is also his cousin and prior to one year from 2011, he had taken one sim card of mobile No. 9813219750 from Ravinder for his domestic use and after using the same for 67 months, he handed over the same to Jitender around 23 days prior to that date as the range of Vodephone was well in his village and he, later on, came to know that Jitender alongwith his associates abducted one boy and took Rs. 35 lacs as ransom SC No.113/11 Page 34 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others and he had given this sim to Jitender and his father not given the same to him. He further denied the suggestion that he had taken the sim of mobile number 9813219750 from Ravinder and had given the same to accused Jitender.
42. PW32 Sh. Rai Singh, Assistant Record Clerk, State Transport Authority has deposed that he had brought the verification report vide Ex. PW32/A and PW32/B signed by Sh. S.P.Singh, MLO in respect of vehicles number DL 9CG 7868 and DL 9CQ 9645 and as per record, these vehicles are in the name of M/s DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd and Prem Nath Nayyar respectively.
43. PW33 is Sh. Naresh Kumar, Dealing Assistance, Ram Lal Anand College, Dhaula Kuan, who had proved the summon record vide Ex. PW33/A pertaining to complainant Paramvir Rana for academic year 200910.
44. PW34 is Sh. Dinesh Chandra, Senior Assistant, Moti Lal Nehru College, South, who has proved the original record in respect of Parvesh Grewal for academic year 200910. The copy of application form is Ex. PW34/A and the copy of attendance sheet is Ex. PW34/B and letter dated 09.11.2011 regarding admission is Ex. PW34/C. SC No.113/11 Page 35 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
45. PW35 is Const. Mahender Singh, who have proved the summon record ie. complaint register of PS Kapashera as well as register regarding receiving of complaints through proper channel for period from 26.08.2011 to 31.10.2011 vide Ex. PW35/A and as per record, no complaint is received from Sh. Ramesh Rana and Sh. Ashwani Rana during this period.
46. PW36 is Sh. Virender Kumar, Deputy Record Keeper, Judicial Record Room, Sonipat, who has proved the summon record ie. orginal judicial record of FIR No. 118/11, PS Kundli and the copy of FIR is Ex. PW36/A. The copy of seizure memo 9mm pistol earlier mark P16/1 is Ex. PW36/B. The sketch of pistol earlier mark P16/2 is Ex. PW36/C. The seizure memo of phone, sim card etc earlier mark P16/3 is Ex. PW36/D, seizure memo of car earlier mark P16/4 is Ex. PW36/E and other documents running into seven pages are collecstively Ex. PW36/F.
47. PW37 is Ms. Nidhi, Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Aparna Bhardwaj, JMIC, Gurgaon has proved the original FIR No. 65/11, PS Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana vide Ex. PW37/A. SC No.113/11 Page 36 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
48. PW38 is Sh. Satish Kumar, Clerk, SDM office, Gurgaon who has proved the summoned record pertaining to driving licence No. 5649/09 and as per record, the driving licence was issued to one T Stephen, S/o Sh. V. Thakiyan, R/o ESG, NSG, Manesar, Gurgaon and the driving licence is valid upto 21.06.2014 and was issued on 26.06.2009. The copy of relevant entry is Ex. PW36/A.
49. PW39 is Sh. Lakhpat Singh, Assistant, SDM office, Bahadurgarh, Haryana who has brought the summoned record pertaining to RC of vehicle number HR 13A 7392. As per record, this motorcycle make Bajaj was registered in the name of one Anand Singh, S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan which was later on transferred into name of one Avtar Singh. The copy of relevant entry is Ex. PW39/A.
50. PW40 is Sh. Pratap Singh, Senior Record Incharge, Transport Department, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi who has proved the original registration file in respect of vehicle No. DL 6CJ 8598 and as per record, one Nissan Micra car is registered vide registration No. DL 6CJ 8598 in the name of one Nikhil Verma, S/o Sh. Ramesh Lal Verma and the detailed report in this regard is Ex. PW40/A. SC No.113/11 Page 37 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
51. PW41 is Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, ASJ, South District, Saket Court who has proved the original file of FIR No. 57/11, PS Vasant Kunj, South and the copy of FIR, seizure memo of pistol and live cartridges, disclosure statement of Rajesh @ Bharati are Ex. PW41/A, PW41/B and PW41/C respectively. The disclosure statement is earlier marked as Mark P19/1.
52. PW42 is ASI Jagdish Chander, who has proved the summoned record ie. Malkhana register No.19 in respect of entry of vehicle No. DL 6CJ 8598. In PS Kundli, FIR No. 118/11 was registered and this vehicle was seized in case FIR No. 118/11 PS Kundli, Haryana. Vide order dated 21.07.2011 of Ld. ACJM, Sonipat, the said car was transferred as case property to FIR No. 65/11 registered at PS Palam Vihar, Gurgaon and on 21.08.2011, custody of said vehicle was taken by some police officers of PS Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. The copy of relevant entry alongwith copy of order of Ld. ACJM is Ex. PW42/A.
53. PW43 is Sh. Vikram, who has deposed that in the year 2011, he was working as Supervisor as ITC Hassan Garh, Kharkhuda and in August 2011 on being called by police, he SC No.113/11 Page 38 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others went to police station Dhaula Kuan where IO had shown to him one application form for mobile connection No. 8826647114 which was having his photograph and his signature. He told the IO that he had worked with one Sandeep of village Lad Rawan who used to ply JCB as Munshi and on his direction, he got above said connection issued in his name and he gave the sim of said connection to one JCB operator who was Mohammdan by religion. After some time, a dispute took place between him and Sandeep and he had left his job from there and he tried to take back his sim card from Sandeep but it was not returned to him.
54. PW44 is HC Jaswant Singh, who has proved the original register No. 19 and as per entry No. 425 dated 21.07.2011, one Nishan Micra car No. DL 6CJ 8598 was brought from PS Kundli, Sonipat to PS Palam Vihar vide RC No. 415 by ASI Devi Charan in FIR No. 65/11, PS Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. The copy of relevant entry is Ex. PW44/A.
55. PW45 is Inspector Balram, who has deposed that on 05.03.2011 at about 2:40 pm, investigation of this case was assigned to him alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex.PW45/A. He received secret information that accused Jitender Dixit and Sandeep Chhikara SC No.113/11 Page 39 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others could be found near a hotel at Gurgaon Delhi Road and he reached there at about 11:30 pm. Thereafter, accused Jitender Dixit and Sandeep Chhikara met him and they were apprehended at the instance of secret informer. They were interrogated and were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW45/B and Ex.PW45/C. Their personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW45/D and PW45/E. Thereafter, he prepared body inspection memo of both the accused and same are Ex. PW45/F and PW45/G respectively and recorded statement of both the accused and same are Ex. PW45/H and PW45/I. Accused told that they were waiting for their coaccused Sumit @ Sam and both the accused persons disclosed the names of their associates who were involved in this case.
56. On 06.03.2011, custody remand of both the accused persons namely Jitender Dixit and Sandeep Chhikara was taken and on 07.03.2011, investigation of this case was assigned to Inspector/SHO Dinesh Kumar and on 24.07.2011, investigation of this case was again assigned to him. During the course of investigation, he inspected the mobile phones of accused persons namely Sandeep Chhikara, Jitender Dixit @ Bantu and Pravesh Grewal which were deposited with MHC(M) as personal search articles vide inspection memos Ex. PW45/J, PW45/K, SC No.113/11 Page 40 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others PW45/L, PW45/L1 and Ex.PW45/L2 respectively. At PS Vasant Kunj, he inspected mobile phone of accused Rajesh Bharti vide memo Ex. PW45/M and no sim card was found in the mobile phone of Rajesh Bhatia. He also inspected three mobile phone and nine sim of accused Sumit @ Sam at PS Kundli, Sonipat. The memo of same is Ex. PW45/N. He has also inspected the place where money was delivered to the accused persons and prepare site plan vide Ex. PW1/A at the instance of uncle of the complainant. He had also prepared the site plan Ex. PW45/O from where the complainant was released. The verification report of DL of Rahul Rana is Ex. PW45/P. He collected copies of seizure memo of pistol Nishan Micra car, fake RC and mobile phone of FIR No. 118/11, PS Kundli, Sonipat from SI Virender Singh and recorded his statement. He placed on record the copy of FIR No. 33/1 and 100/11 of PS Vasant Kunj and same are Mark PZ1 and Mark PZ2. The seizure memo of pistol seized in FIR No. 118/11 and the statements recorded in this case are collectively Mark PZ2 (colly). The seizure memo of fake RC of vehicle ie. Micra car are marked PZ4 and PZ5 in which name and address of Rahul Rana is mentioned.
57. He had also collected the certificate of CA M/s Manu Verma and company regarding arrangement of Rs. 35 lakhs by SC No.113/11 Page 41 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others Sh. Ramesh, the father of victim and same is Mark PZ6. He had also placed on record the complaint made by Sh. Ramesh Chand regarding receiving threat calls to him from accused persons and same is Mark PZ7. He informed SHO PS Kapashera to provide protection to complainant family through the report Ex. PW45/Q. He also collected particulars report from transport authority of victim's vehicle No. DL 9CQ 6945 and vehicle No. DL 9CG 7868 of the father of victim and same are Mark PZ8 and PZ9. He collected the copy of complaint given by PW Ashwani Rana to SHO PS Kapashera vide Mark PZ10. He also collected college record in respect of accused Pravesh Grewal. He also placed on record the verification record of car of accused Pravesh Grewal No. HR 26 BC 6999 and same is Mark PZ11. He also placed on record the verification report of motorcycle of accused Sandeep Chhikara and Jitender Dixit bearing No. HR 13A 7392 and HR 13A 4952 and same is mark PZ12. The copy of insurance of vehicle No. HR 70M 1729 (fake) was in the name of Rahul Rana and same is Mark PZ13 which was seized in case FIR No. 118/11. The photocopy of seizure memo of pistol and live cartridge recovered from accused Rajesh Bharti in case FIR No. 57/11 is mark PZ14. The copy of his report regarding the factum of procuring the mobile phone connection on fake Ids by accused Rajesh Bharti and accused Anil Kale is Mark PZ15.
SC No.113/11 Page 42 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others During investigation, he found thataccused Parvesh Grewal used six sim cards and eight mobile phone handset during the period from February 2011 to April 2011. Accused Manoj Morkheriya and Anil Pahalwan were got declared PO. Thereafter, he prepared his supplementary chargesheet and file the same in the court. During cross examination, this witness has stated that he did not remember the scribe of documents prepared at the spot. He further stated that he did not remember whether any recovery was effected from accused Sandeep and Jitender before handing over the investigation to Inspector Dinesh Kumar.
58. PW46 is HC Davinder Kumar, who has stated that on 10.03.2011, he alongwith Inspector Dinesh Kumar joined the investigation and accused Sandeep Chhikara and Jitender Dixit were interrogated. IO recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Sandeep Chhikara. He alongwith police party visited area of Jind Haryana, Nahri, Bhawana, Bahadurgarh but no clue was found, thereafter, they went to village Jasore Kheri, Haryana where accused Sandeep Chhikara pointed out the place from where he had lifted the money. IO prepared the memo in this regard which is already Ex. PW20/V. Thereafter, IO seized the motorcycle bearing No. HR 13A 7392 SC No.113/11 Page 43 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/S. Accused Sandeep Chhikara got recovered Rs. 20,000/ and said amount was seized vide memo Ex. PW20/R.
59. PW47 ASI Devender Singh, who has deposed that on 06.03.2011, he alongwith HC Labh Singh and HC Ajit Singh and Inspector Jai Prakash went to Jaipur, Rajasthan in connection with the investigation of this case and secret informer informed to Inspector Jai Prakash that one accused, who is wanted in this case would come at Rangpur Pahari at Pir Baba Mazar and at about 11:30 am, he alongiwth police party reached at said Mazar and at the instance of secret informer, they approached towards two boys but one of them opened fire towards them but both of them were apprehended and their names were revealed as Rajesh Bharti and Jaswant Singh. Accused Rajesh Bharti confessed his involvement in this case. One pistol alongwith four live cartridges was recovered from the possession of Rajesh Bharti. A separate case vide FIR No.57/11 was got registered by him in respect of that incident and the investigation was carried out by SI Raj Kumar. On 24.02.2011, he had apprehended two boys namely Arun Kumar @ Kale and Jyoti and accused Arun Kumar confessed his involvement.
SC No.113/11 Page 44 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
60. PW48 is HC Shyam Prakash, who has deposed that on 24.07.2011, he joined the investigation of this case alongwith IO and on the direction of IO Inspector Balram and Sub Inspector Balbir, he produced the mobile phone of accused Jitender Dixit, Sandeep Chhikara and Pravesh Grewal and same were seized in personal search of accused persons. One mobile phone each was belonging to accused Sandeep Chikara and Jitender Dixit and three mobile phones were belonging to accused Pravesh Grewal. IO checked the phone book of all the mobile phones and prepared a list of contact numbers. Thereafter, all the mobile phones were again deposited with him and were kept in the malkhana. The list of mobile numbers prepared by IO is Ex.PW45/J.
61. PW49 is Mrs Sunita Devi, who has deposed that on 25.07.2011, she had informed the police about the person who was residing opposite her room. Now this witness has turned hostile and during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she has denied the suggestion that she told police that the name of said person was Rajesh Bharti and he used to reside alone and he did not used to cook food and usually he used to go early in the morning and return late in the evening and one stranger used to come to meet him and said stranger used to SC No.113/11 Page 45 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others cover his face with helmet and many other boys also used to come to meet him. She further denied the suggestion that she told the police that the activities of the said boy were suspicious.
62. PW50 is Const. Roop Chand, who has deposed that on 23.03.2011, he alongwith SHO Inspector Dines Kumar took accused Rajesh @ Bharti from SI Sushil and went to Ram Lal Anand College and accused Rajesh @ Bharti pointed out the place from where he had abducted the victim. IO prepared the site plan at his instance. Accused Rajesh @ Bharti was got medically examined at Safdarjung Hospital and then lodged in the lock up of PS Vasant Kunj. During cross examination, this witness has stated that pointing out memo was prepared at about 12 noon and no public person such as guard, staff of college as well as police staff of college were not made to the witnesses of said memo.
63. PW51 is SI Sandeep Sharma, who has deposed that on 19.03.2011, he alongwith the IO Dinesh Kumar went to Sake Court where accused Rajesh @ Bharti was produced by the staff of PS Vasant Kunj (S) in muffled face. After taking permission for interrogation, accused Rajesh @ Bharti was arrested vide memo Ex. PW20/A, his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.
SC No.113/11 Page 46 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others PW20/B. On 27.04.2011, accused Sumit @ Sam was arrested vide memo Ex. PW20/D. His disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW20/F. On 28.04.2011, accused persons namely Sumit @ Sam and Arun @ Kale took the police party to near petrol pump Radisson Hotel and on their pointing out memo, coaccused Parvesh Grewal was apprehended and after due interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/K. His personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW20/L. His disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW20/M. Photocopies of RCS of car No. DL 9CQ 6945 and DL 9C 7868 were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/U. On 01.05.2011, disclosure statements of accused Sumit @ Sam and Arun were recorded vide Ex. PW20/P and PW20/Q. Pointing out memo of place of occurrence i.e RLA College South Campus are Ex. PW20/H and PW20/I. Pointing out memo of jasorkhedi, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana) is Ex. PW20/J. During cross examination, this witness has told that no photograph of any place was taken.
Table of Mobile phones
Sl Phone IMEI Number User of Registere Location of Evaluation for
. Number Mobile d user of the phone evidence
N Phone the on
O. phone 01.03.2011
A. 9999707034 359564032088700 Victim Victim Gurgaon Call made on
Paramvir Maruti, 26.02.2011 at
Rana Gorar 10.06.36 in
SC No.113/11 Page 47 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
(Sonipat), response of
Kiloikhas, missing call of
Makrauli, accused Parvesh
Gabibpur Grewal's phone
(Rohtak), No. 9999090963
Uchana and Regular
Khurd, outgoing calls
Pegan, made from this
Chuharpur, phone to victim's
Nagurah father phone
(Jind) & 9810017260 by
Kachhana, accused persons
Kithana for ransom and
(Kaithal) accused used the
phone of IMEI
No.
404110405451716
B. 9810017260 353203033786520 Father of Devinder Bijwasan Regular calls
victim Singh village, New received from the
Ramesh Rana Roshanpura accused persons
Rana (Brother (Nazafgarh) from victim's
of the , Jharoda phone No.
user) Kalan, Baba 9999707034 for
Haridas ransom.
Enclave,
Bahadurgar
h, Village
Josal Kheri
(Sonipat),
Village
Samchana,
Kharkhoda
Road,
Sampla
(Rohtak),
Hasan Garh
(Rohtak),
Linepar
Bahadurgar
h
C. 9999090963 353400048407089 Accused Self On Call received on
seized in Parvesh 26.02.2011 26.02.2011 at
personal Grewal at Village 10.06.36 by
search of Bijwasan accused Parvesh
the accused and Grewal in
Parvesh 01.03.2011 response of
Grewal in at village missing call from
SC No.113/11 Page 48 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
this case. Bagdola, victim's phone
Sector 5,9,8 9999707034 to
& 11 know the location
Dwarka of the victim.
(Delhi)
On 7th & 8th
March, 2011,
outgoing/incomi
ng calls on phone
No. 9953736284
of accused Sumit
@ Sam.
01.02.2011 to
25.04.2011, the
SIM of this phone
was used in the
handsetphone of
IMEI No.
352708049478990
,
353792043776760
,
353755041616780
,
355944049955880
,
353400048407080
,
352708049478990
,
351660040228870
by accused
Parvesh Grewal.
D 9999161369 352708049478995 Accused Self 28.03.2011 to
seized in Parvesh 25.04.2011, the
personal Grewal SIM of this phone
search of was used in the
the accused handsetphones
Parvesh of IMEI No.
Grewal in 353418046636240
this case. ,
351660040228870
by accused
Parvesh Grewal.
E 355944049955883 Accused Self Discovered
seized without Parvesh during
SC No.113/11 Page 49 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
SIM in personal Grewal investigation.
search of the The SIM of the
accused Parvesh phone No.
Grewal in this 9999090963,
case. 95825916005,
8860056606,
95825916005 was
used by accused
Parvesh Grewal.
F 9582591600 Accused Self Discovered
5 Parvesh during
Grewal investigation.
01.02.2011 to
05.04.2011, the
SIM of this phone
was used in the
handsetphone of
IMEI No.
353792043776760
,
353755041616780
,
353418046636240
,
355944049955880
,
351660040228870
by accused
Parvesh Grewal.
G 8860056606 Accused Self Discovered
Parvesh during
Grewal investigation.
21.02.2011 to
25.04.2011, the
SIM of this phone
was used in the
handsetphones
of IMEI No.
355944049955880
,
353418046636240
,
352708049478990
,
353400048407080
,
351660040228870
SC No.113/11 Page 50 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
by accused
Parvesh Grewal.
H 8860057188 Accused Self Discovered
Parvesh during
Grewal investigation. No
CDR only CAF of
accused Parvesh
Grewal.
I 9716180837 Accused Self Discovered
Parvesh during
Grewal investigation. No
CDR only CAF of
accused Parvesh
Grewal.
J. 9728881639 358776031302261 Accused Ravinder Name & Phone
seized in & Jitender S/o Ram number of
personal 358776031403267 Dixit @ Karan accused Sandeep
sarch of Bantoo (Brother Chhikara was
accused of found in the
Jitender accused) phonebook as
Dixit in this LADRAVN08826
case. 647114 and
frequent calls
record is available
in the CDR of
phones also.
K 9813219750 358776031403267 Accused Vinod Village Discovered
Handset seized in Jitender S/o Assauda, during
PW28 personal search Dixit @ Ravinder Ladravan, investigation.
Ravinder of accused Bantoo R/o Jhajjar and Call of accused
Hostile Jitender Dixit in Village Kharkhoda, Sandeep
this case. Sohati, Sonipat Chhikara's phone
Sonipat, No. 8826647114
Haryana and phone No.
9896506460 (SIM
of the phone
given to accused
Sumit for use and
used in this
crime) was on
record of the
CDR. Phone of
IMEI No.
354652040626750
,
358776031403260
SC No.113/11 Page 51 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
,
359835030778980
were used from
02.02.2011 to
19.04.2013.
L 9896506460 358776031302260 Accused PW21 Vill Sahoti, Discovered
Jitender (hostile) Malgodam during
Dixit @ Anup Road investigation.
Bantoo S/o Bahadurgar Call record of
Raghubir h, accused Sandeep
R/o Kharkhoda Chhikara's phone
Village Road, No. 8826647114
Sohati, Sampla, from 20.02.2011
Sonipat, Nahari to day of incident.
Haryana Nahri Road, SIM of the phone
Vats Colony, given to accused
Linepar. Sumit for use and
Vill. used in this crime
Aasauda, on the day of
Vill Pipli, incident.
Vill Frequent calls
Kanounda, record on the day
Vill Kheri of incident of
Jassore, accused Arun's
Nilothi, vill No. 8447781619 &
Kulasi, Vill Phone of IMEI
Jasal Kheri, No.
Vill. 359747038260540
Samchana, was used.
Vill
Hasangarh
Rohtak,
Nilothi.
M 8826647114 352738013218431 Accused Vikram Qutubgarh Phone No. &
seized in , Nokia6030 Sandeep S/o Delhi, Name of accused
personal Chhikara Sukhbir Vill.Daryap Jitender Dixit @
search of Singh ur Delhi, Bantoo and
accused Vill. bus stand accused Sumit @
Sandeep Bakhtaw Bawana Sam found in
Chhikara in arpur, Delhi, phone of the
this case. Delhi. Udyog Vihar phone as Bantu
Bawana, 09896506460
Metro Vihar and Sam
Holambi, +919999780287.
New Basti Phone of IMEI
Anaz Mandi No.
Narela, 35202034330010,
SC No.113/11 Page 52 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
Delhi 359800038339290
,
910001970563270
,
355233034034680
,
352738013218430
were used from
01.02.2011 to
06.03.2011. Call
details of accused
Jitender
Dixit9896506460
and 9728881639
and accused
Sumit999978028
7 is on record.
N 356831030580607 Accused Recovered
SamsungGTE Sumit @ without SIM from
1160. Sam the stolen Micra
car (used in this
crime) bearing
fake registration
No.HR 70M1729
in FIR No. 118/11
dated 26.03.2011
under section 420
IPC & 25/27/59
Arms Act PS
Kundli (Sonipat).
Accused Sumit
Same is named in
FIR.
O 353408048080731 Accused do
Nokia1616 Sumit @
Sam
P 9873949721 353408048080730 Accused Self Khazan SIM of the phone
used the SIM in Sumit @ Singh recovered in
this phone. Sam Market, Kundli case. Call
Main bus details of accused
stand Sandeep
Bawana, Chhikara phone
Daryapur 88266471 14 is on
Nagal record.
Q 7838392585 Accused Self Not used on SIM of the phone
Sumit @ 01.03.2011 recovered in
SC No.113/11 Page 53 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
Sam Kundli case.
R 9953736284 Accused Swati Not used on SIM of the phone
Sumit @ R/o 125 01.03.2011 recovered in Sam CN/100, Kundli case. Call T Huts, record of phone BlockC, 9999090963 of Jahangir accused Parvesh Puri, Grewal on Delhi 07.03.2011 and (address 08.03.2011.
could
not be
traced)
S 9873959959 Accused Self Not used on SIM of the phone
Sumit @ 01.03.2011 recovered in
Sam Kundli case.
T 9999780287 Accused Ankur SIM of the phone
Sumit @ R/o 8/59 recovered in
Sam A, Kundli case. Call
Double records of Phone
Storey, No. 8826647114
Vijay of accused
Nagar, Sandeep
New Chhikara on
Delhi dated 03.03.2011.
(wrong
address)
U 7503950556 Accused Rakhi Not used on SIM of the phone
Sumit @ R/o 01.03.2011 recovered in
Sam B62, Kundli case.
Gali No,
3,
Hakikat
Nagar,
Delhi
V Accused 3 Sim of IDEA
Sumit @ company
Sam recovered in
Kundli case but
the record of the
SIM not available
in the company.
W 354539017075317 Accused Sim of phone No.
recovered in Rajesh 8447460619 and
personal search Bharti 9873788452 used
SC No.113/11 Page 54 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
in case FIR No. in this handset.
57/11 dated Both the phones
08.03.2011 under are registered in
section the name of Rajiv
186/353/307/34 Sharma R/o 17
IPC PS Vasant VPO Molahera,
Kunj Gurgaon. Name
and address is
faked but the ID
(forged Driving
Licence) & Photo
of PW Satender
Pathak was used
for mobile
numbers from
Vodafone
company.
X 8447460619 Accused Rajiv Not used on Detected during
PW23 Rajesh Sharma 01.03.2011 investigation and
Satender Bharti R/o 17 SIM was used in
VPO phone of IMEI
Molaher No.
a, 354197040994050
Gurgaon. ,
Name 354539017075310
and (recovered in
address personal search
is faked of accused Rajesh
but the Bharti) &
ID 358997011007160
(forged
driving
licence)
& photo
of PW
Satender
Pathak
Y 9873788452 Accused Rajiv Gurgaon, Detected during
PW23 Rajesh Sharma Bijwasan investigation and
Satender Bharti R/o 17 SIM was used in
VPO phone of IMEI
Molaher No.
a, 910521400012340
Gurgaon. ,
Name 354197040994050
and ,
address 354197041171050
SC No.113/11 Page 55 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
is faked ,
but the 354539017075310
ID (recovered in
(forged personal search
Driving of accused Rajesh
Licence) Bharti)
& photo
of PW
Satender
Pathak
Z 7417599835 Accused Babloo Not used on Detected during
Rajesh R/o 01.03.2011 investigation and
Bharti Kasganj SIM was used in
(UP) phone of IMEI
No.
355929043447860
and
354539017075310
(recovered in
personal search
of accused Rajesh
Bharti).
a 8130683468 Accused Rajiv Not used on Detected during
PW23 Rajesh Sharma 01.03.2011 investigation and
Satender Bharti R/o 17 SIM was used in
VPO phone of IMEI
Molaher No.
a, 910521400012340
Gurgaon. ,
Name 354197040994050
and ,
address 355929043447860
is faked
but the
ID
(forged
driving
licence)
& Photo
of PW
Satender
Pathak
b 8447781619 356232040810370 Accused Rahul Kharkhoda, Detected during
Arun @ R/o 420, Kalka investigation of
Kale New Panipat, this case and
Palam Badarpur used in this
SC No.113/11 Page 56 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
Vihar, exp crime. Call
New Gurgaon, records of phone
Delhi Kulashi No. 8447781644
(Number Jhajjar, (Number
procured Gopalpur procured on
on faked Sonipat, faked DL of Rahul
DL of Kheri Rana but photo of
Rahul Chopta accused Rarun @
Rana but Hissar, Kale on DL &
photo of Loharirago, CAF), 9896506460
accused Kheri Jalib, (SIM given to
Arun @ Rakhi Khas, accused Sumit by
Kale on Budhana, accused Jitender
DL & Hasangarh Dixit @ Bantoo on
CAF) (Hissar), the day of
surbrah, incident and used
Badanpur, frequently),
Morpatti 8929244281,
Narwana, 9990406303,
Premnagar, 9034902414,
Pegan, 9211281327 in
Dhaula, CDR.
Aleva,
Mandi
Khurd,
Dhathrath,
Sewaha
(Jind),
Kalait,
Chusala,
Kaliram,
Peoda,
Deoban
(Kaithal)
c 8447781644 Accused Rahul GBD Detected during
Anil R/o 420, Balram investigation of
Pehalwa New Nagar, this case and
n Palam Westend used in this
Vihar, Delhi, crime. SIM of this
New Palam phone was used
Delhi Farm, Jaunti on phone of IMEI
(Number Village, No.
procured Ochandi 356681039734030
on faked Village, and call records
DL of Narela of phone No.
Rahul Lampur, 8447781619
Rana but Uchana (Number
SC No.113/11 Page 57 of 64
SC No113/11
FIR No 47/11
PS: Dhaula Kuan
State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others
photo of Khurd procured on
accused (Jind). faked DL of Rahul
Arun @ Rana but photo of
Kale on accused Arun @
DL & Kale on DL &
CAF) CAF) and
9994046306 in the
CDR.
d 9990406303 Accused PW Jaan Issarpur Detected during
Arun @ Mohd. Kheri, investigation.
Kale, R/o Sonipat SIM used in
Manoj Moonga Gangana, phone of IMEI
Morkher Nagar, Jagsi, Lal No.
ya and Delhi Bati 354197040994050
Rajesh @ (Phone Panipat, &35592904344786
Bharti had been Patel Nagar 0 and call records
lost but Panipat. of Phone No.
not 8447781644,
reported 8447781619 (Both
to the numbers
police) procured on
faked DL of Rahul
Rana but photo of
accused Arun @
Kale on DL &
CAF).
64. So far as inter se connectivity of the mobile phone used by the accused persons in the commission of the offence is concerned. It may be noted that as per prosecution story, accused Parvesh Grewal stated to have made a miss call on 26.02.2011 at about 10:06:36 on phone No. A of victim Praveen Rana from mobile phone No. C belonging to accused Pravesh Grewal. PW4 while deposing has submitted that he received a missed call from mobile no. C on his mobile No. A and caller from mobile No. C had inquired from PW4 as to where he was at that time and he told that he was in his college. But he further SC No.113/11 Page 58 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others deposed that he did not tell police that caller was Pravesh Grewal and he further told that he did not tell police that accused Pravesh Grewal keeping watch on his movement on or before day of incident. Mobile Phone No. C to I are allegedly used by accused Pravesh Grewal on different hand set bearing different IEMI number but these phones are not used on the day of incident. So far as phone No. J is concerned. It may be noted that said phone was owned by PW30 Ravinder, who is brother of accused Jitender Dixit @ Bantoo. He also turned hostile and stated that mobile phone No. J was owned by him but he left the same at his house and he did not told police that a mobile phone No. J was being used by his brother accused Jitender Dixit @ Bantoo. Similarly, as per prosecution story, accused Jitender Dixit was using mobile phone No. K as same was found in his personal search. PW28 Ravinder hand handed over the said mobile No. J to Neeraj Kumar, S/o Sh. Anoop Singh as the said sim card has been taken from his cousin Vinod and Neeraj has told him that his father had given the said sim card to one Bantoo. He has also turned hostile and he stated that he did not know when Vinod had taken the sim number of mobile No. K and above said Vinod had expired.
65. So far as mobile No. L is concerned. It may be noted SC No.113/11 Page 59 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others that PW21 Anoop Singh was declared hostile and in cross by State counsel, he has stated that he did not know whether mobile number bearing No. L was issued on his ID proof and said phone was being used by accused Jitender Dixit. It may be noted that phone bearing No. M allegedly used by accused Sandeep Chikara is owned by Vikram and Vikram PW43 got the said mobile no. M issued at the request of one Sandeep and had given the said connection to one JC operator who was Mohamdan by region and he do not remember the name of said Mohmadan boy and he tried to take the said sim of mobile phone No. M from accused Sandeep Chikara and it was not returned to him. The said JC operator/Mohmadan boy told that he had given the said sim to Sandeep Chikara.
66. As per prosecution story, name of accused Jitender Dixit having phone No. L and accused Sumit @ Sam having phone No. T was found in the phone book of mobile phone bearing No. M but it may be noted that mobile no. M is not owned by accused Sandeep Chikara, mobile phone with IEMI at serial No. N and O are found without any sim card from the stolen Micra car used in this crime which is a subject matter of FIR No. 118/11 dated 26.03.2011 under section 420 IPC r.w.s 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana. Phone No. P, SC No.113/11 Page 60 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others Q, R, S,T, U, V are alleged to have been owned and possessed by accused Sumit and used during the commission of offence but only phone no. P and Q are issued in the name of accused Sumit and phone No. R, S and T were found issued in the name of Swati, Ankur and Rakhi but phone No. Q, R,S, U are not used as per prosecution story on 01.03.2011 and phone No. T issued in the name of Ankur and used by accused Sumit @ Sam is showing connectivity of the call record with phone No. M of accused Sandeep Chikara on 03.03.2011 after commission of the offence. Phone No. V was allegedly used by accused Sumit but record of the sim was not available in the company so no detail could be collected qua this phone number. Phone No. X and Y are allegedly used by accused Rajesh Bharti but they found in the name of one Rajeev Sharma with the fake ID, forged driving licence and photo of PW23 Satender Pathak. PW23 Satender has turned hostile and stated that he did not tell police that application form should be of mobile No. X, Y and 'a' were issued on is ID and he further denied that he told police that accused Rajesh @ Bharti had met him in the Dhaba of Tiwari and he developed friendship with accused persons and he had given accused Rajesh @ Bharti four passport size photographs for getting his driving licence prepared and accused Rajesh @ Bharti had brought driving license which was issued in the SC No.113/11 Page 61 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others name of one Rajeev Sharma and in his name, accused Rajesh @ Bharti obtained his signatures and signatures of Rajesh Sharma on such documents. Phone No. 'b' allegedly used by accused Arun Kumar @ Kale was issued in the name of Rahul on the fake ID of Rahul Rana but bearing the photo of accused Arun Kumar @ Kale.
67. As per prosecution story, this 'c' phone number used in the crime with IEMI number 356681039734030 and connectivity between phone No. 'b' with phone number 994046306 is proved in CDR. The phone number 'b' and 'c' are not owned by either by accused Arun Kumar @ Kale or accused Anil Pehalwan. Phone number 'd' as per prosecution story is used by accused Arun Kumar @ Kale and owned by Jaan Mohd. This mobile phone was lost and he has not lodged any FIR and having connectivity with phone number 'b' and 'c' (both these mobile numbers are procured on the fake DL of Rahul but bearing photograph of Arun Kumar @ Kale).
68. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that except phone No. C to I which are owned by accused Parvesh Rana, none of other mobile number are owned by other accused persons. These phone numbers are got issued as per SC No.113/11 Page 62 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others prosecution story on fake ID. The witness who has proved the fact that the accused persons were using the said mobile numbers are turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution story. The alleged connectivity of the accused persons on these mobile phones does not lead to any inference that these mobile phones were used by the accused persons on the day of incident. In view of the above facts that complainant and his father has categorically deposed that accused persons are not perpetrator of crime.
69. Keeping in view the above said evidence of the prosecution, it is clearly revealed that the material witnesses i.e PW1 Devender Singh, PW3 Ramesh Chand, PW4 Paramvir Rana (victim), PW23 Satender, PW24 Bhagwan Singh, PW30 Ravinder Kumar and PW31 Neeraj Rana had not uttered even a single incriminating evidence against the accused persons. Since there is no iota of incriminating evidence against the accused, therefore in this view of the matter, prosecution is held to have absolutely failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Needless to say that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.PC has also been dispensed with, consequently, accused persons are hereby acquitted of the SC No.113/11 Page 63 of 64 SC No113/11 FIR No 47/11 PS: Dhaula Kuan State Vs. Sumit @ Sam and others charges namely 386/364A/120B/34 IPC for which they had been facing trial before this court.
70. Accused persons are directed to furnish fresh bail bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/ each with one surety of the like amount in terms of Section 437 Cr.PC undertaking to appear before Appellate Court as mandated therein.
71. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya) On the 25th Day of February 2014 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts New Delhi SC No.113/11 Page 64 of 64