Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Hindu Singh Yadav @ Mukesh on 29 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH, ASJ-02, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R1014962007
Sessions Case No. 176/2013
State Versus 1. Hindu Singh Yadav @ Mukesh
@ Raj Malhotra
(declared as P.O. vide order dt.12.4.13)
2. Neeraj Sudhansu
S/o Dr. R.N. Sharma,
R/o Village / PO/ PS Mehus,
Distt. Sekhpura, Bihar.
3. Aparna Adhikari
W/o Ganesh Adhikari
R/o Kishna Nagar, PS Kotmali,
Distt. Nadia West Bengal.
4. Pankaj Rehani,
S/o Late R.L. Rehani
R/o I-20, Old Double Story, Lajpat Nagar-4,
Delhi.
5. Kislay Singh
S/o Jayantdhari Singh
R/o I-16, Old Lajpat Nagar-4, Delhi.
FIR No. : 57/2007
U/s: 121/121A/489A, B & C of the IPC
PS: Special Cell
Date of institution of the case : 21.11.2015
Date when the case reserved for judgment : 03.06.2015
Date of announcement of judgment : 29.06.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Neeraj Sudhansu, Aparna Adhikari, Pankaj Rehani and Kislay Singh are facing trial before this Court for offences alleged to State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 1/43 have been committed by them and punishable under Section 120B of the IPC for indulging in criminal conspiracy for circulation of fake Indian currency notes (FICN). In addition the accused Neeraj Sudhansu, Aparna Adhikari and Pankaj Rihani are charged with the offence punishable under Section 489B of the IPC. An alternative charge under Section 489C IPC has also been framed against them.
2. It may be noted that initially one more accused Hindu Singh Yadav was also charged with same offences but subsequently, he started absconding and was declared as a proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.04.2013. The trial stands concluded in respect of Neeraj Sudhansu, Aparna Adhikari, Pankaj Rehani and Kislay Singh.
3. The case of the prosecution as per the police report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is that the Special Cell of the Delhi Police had received information that the ISI, an Intelligence Service of Pakistan was operating a large network to circulate FICN, printed in Pakistan, into India through the borders of Nepal and Bangladesh. Further information was received that one such module was operating in Delhi of which one member Hindu Singh Yadav was residing in the area of Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi with an associate Neeraj. On 16.07.2007 at about 8:45pm specific information was received that the Hindu Singh Yadav with Neeraj would be coming near Lal Shahi Mandir, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi at about 10:30pm to make delivery of FICN. The information was discussed with senior officers and a police team was constituted comprising of Insp. Lalit Mohan, Insp. Hridaya Bhushan, Insp. Govind Sharma, SI Umesh Barthwal, SI Girish Kumar, SI Samey Singh, SI Chandrika Prasad, SI Rishi Pal, ASI Rakesh State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 2/43 Ahluwalia, ASI Ramesh Kumar, ASI Ashok Kumar, HC Devi Dayal, HC Mohan, HC Sukhbir, HC Dev Dutt, HC Sunder Gautam, HC Rakesh Kothiyal, Ct Ravinder, Ct Ravi Dutt, Ct Krishan, Ct Jitender and SI Kailash Yadav.
4. The police team left the office of the Special Cell in three private cars and four two-wheelers at about 9:15pm and reached Hemu Kalani Government School at about 9:30pm. Request was made to pedestrians to join the proceedings of the police team but all declined. The police team positioned themselves around Lal Shahi Mandir and at about 10:45pm, two persons were seen to be coming on foot from the direction of Ashram Chowk on Ring Road and started waiting for someone near the said Mandir. The secret informer identified these two persons as Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj. These two persons realized that a police team was present and started moving away but they were apprehended.
5. Accused Hindu Singh Yadav was personally searched and was found to have concealed six wads of FICN of denomination of Rs.1000/- each in his waist belt. Upon checking, one wad had 87 notes, second wad had 80 notes, third wad had 75 notes, fourth wad had 87 notes, fifth wad had 80 notes and the sixth wad had 91 notes. The serial numbers of the FICN were noted down and the wads were marked as H1 to H6, kept in a polythene packet, sealed with surgical tape on which seal of "KCY" was affixed and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A.
6. Accused Neeraj was personally searched and was found to have concealed five wads of FICN of denomination of Rs.1,000/-
State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 3/43 each in his waist belt. Upon checking, one wad had 92 notes, second wad had 91 notes, third wad had 114 notes, fourth wad had 93 notes and fifth wad had 110 notes. The serial numbers of the FICN were noted down and the wads were marked as N1 to N5, kept in a polythene packet, sealed with surgical tape, seal of "KCY" was on the same and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. The seal after use was handed over to SI Rakesh Ahluwalia.
7. SI Kailash Yadav prepared the rukka Ex.PW7/C and sent the same for registration of the FIR through SI Rakesh Ahluwalia. Further investigation was assigned to SI Sanjeev Kumar who prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/DB, arrested Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj Sudhansu vide memos Ex.PW7/E and Ex.PW7/F respectively and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW7/I and Ex.PW7/J respectively. Upon the disclosure of the accused Hindu Singh Yadav further FICN of Rs.9,50,000/- was recovered from his residence HN-7, Third Floor, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
8. In their disclosure statements Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj Sudhansu disclosed the names of their associates as Aparna Adhikari, Pankaj Rihani and Kislay Singh.
9. On 21.07.2007, the IO SI Sanjeev Kumar along with other police staff and co-accused Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj Sudhansu, in police custody, reached house no. 66/2, Prajapati Bhawan to look for accused Aparna Adhikari. She was not found there and inquiry revealed that she had shifted to house no. 365, Gali No.5, Hari Nagar, Gurgaon. The police team thereafter reached the said premises where Aparna State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 4/43 Adhikari was found. She was identified by the co-accused Hindu Singh and Neeraj Sudhansu who were on police remand. She was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/A and her disclosure Ex.PW3/C was recorded. At her instance six FICN of Rs.6,000/- (six notes of denomination Rs.1000/- each) were recovered from her possession which were seized vide memo Ex.PW3/D. Her mobile phone was seized with a SIM Card vide Ex.PW12/A.
10. Further efforts were made to apprehend Pankaj Rihani and Kislay Singh. Both these accused surrendered on 10.09.2007 in the Court of Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. After moving appropriate applications in the Court of Ld. CMM and being granted permission, Pankaj Rihani and Kislay Singh were arrested and their police custody granted. Both gave disclosure statements Ex.PW10/E and Ex.PW10/F respectively upon interrogation.
11. On 11.09.2007 FICN of Rs.20,000/- (twenty notes of denomination Rs.1000/- each) were recovered at the instance of Pankaj Rihani from M/s Mayavi Boutique operating from B-8, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar from a green coloured travel bag. FICN were seized vide memo Ex.PW10/G, put in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of SK. The green bag was seized vide memo Ex.PW10/H. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana and the FICN sent for examination to the Currency Notes Press Nashik Road.
12. After recording of statements of the witnesses, charge- sheet was filed. The report of the Currency Notes Press was filed subsequently with a supplementary charge-sheet as per which the State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 5/43 recovered FICN were found to be fake.
13. By order dated 31.07.2008, charges were framed against the accused persons as recorded above to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
14. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses to bring home its charges against the accused persons. The brief description of witnesses examined in the course of the trial are tabulated as under:-
SRL. NO. NAME RELEVANCE PW1 HC Ram Kumar Singh He is the Duty Officer who recorded the FIR Ex.PW1/1 on the basis of the rukka brought by ASI Rakesh Ahluwalia which he handed over for transmission to SI Sanjeev.
PW2 Smt. Vimla She was the landlady of Ganesh Singh, husband of the accused Aparna.
PW3 WSI Nirmala Kumari She had joined the investigation on 21.07.2007 and had gone with SI Sanjeev to Gurgaon with the accused Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj to look for the accused Aparna Adhikari. She was also present when the accused Aparna Adhikari was arrested and FICN recovered at her instance.
PW4 Mahender Kumar He is the owner of H-7, Third Floor, Vinoba Puri, Part-II, Lajpat Nagar and was landlord of the accused Neeraj.
PW5 A.M.Behra, Assistant He had examined the seized FICN Work Manager, and has given his report Ex.PW5/A Currency Notes Press, and Ex.PW5/B. State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 6/43 Nashik Road PW6 Dharamveer Batra He is the owner of a Stationery Shop and STD Booth at G-59, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar-4, Delhi. He was examined to prove that mobile connection number 9891592304 had been issued by him to the accused Kislay Singh after taking documentary proof of Subhash Mandal and mobile number 9910210855 to Champa at the instance of the accused Pankaj. He did not support the version of the prosecution.
PW7 SI Kailash Yadav He was the part of the police team which apprehended the accused Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj on 16.07.2007 and prepared the rukka Ex.PW7/C. PW8 HC Yashpal On 02.10.2007, he had taken the seized FICN vide RC No. 109 of 21 to Currency Notes Press Nashik Road and deposited the same on 03.10.2007, obtained the result on 04.10.2007 and came back with the FSL Result on 05.10.2007 and deposited the same in the malkhana.
PW9 SI Umesh Bharthwal He was the part of the police team which apprehended the accused Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj on 16.07.2007.
PW10 SI Girish Kumar He was the part of the police team which apprehended the accused Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj on 16.07.2007. On 10.09.2007, he had accompanied SI Sanjeev who arrested accused Kislay Singh and Pankaj. He also accompanied SI State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 7/43 Sanjeev Kumar on 11.09.2007 when FICN was recovered at the instance of the accused Pankaj.
PW11 SI Sanjeev Kumar He is the IO of the case to whom investigation was assigned after apprehension of the accused Hindu Singh and Neeraj on 16.07.2007.
PW11 HC Ram Karan On 05.08.2007, he had taken the seized FICN vide RC No. 94/21/07 to Currency Notes Press Nashik Road and deposited the same on 06.08.2007and deposited the receipt with the MHCM on 09.08.2007. He also obtained the result and came back with the FSL Result and the case property on 27.08.2007 and deposited the same in the malkhana.
PW12 ASI Rakesh Ahluwalia He was the part of the police team which apprehended the accused Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj on 16.07.2007. He also took the rukka for registration of the FIR in the police station.
PW12 SI Sanjeev Kumar He is the IO of the case to whom investigation was assigned after apprehension of the accused Hindu Singh and Neeraj on 16.07.2007.
PW13 Pawan Singh, Nodal He produced the CDR and record of Officer, Idea Cellular mobile numbers 9891592304, 9911390653 and 9990548863.
PW14 K.R. Mehndiratta, As Deputy Secretary (Home), he Retd. Assistant had conveyed the Sanction Order of Consumer Affairs the Lt. Governor under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW14/A. PW15 R.K. Singh, Nodal He produced the records of mobile Officer, Bharti Airtel nos. 9810219897 and 9910210855. Ltd.
State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 8/43
15. Before proceeding further I may mention that the record reveals that SI Sanjeev Kumar IO was examined in chief in part on 31.03.2011 as PW11 and his further examination in chief was deferred. Thereafter HC Ram Karan was examined as PW11 and ASI Rakesh Ahluwalia was examined as PW12. SI Sanjeev Kumar IO was again examined in chief as PW12 on 03.04.2012 thereafter cross-examined. Hence SI Sanjeev Kumar has been examined in chief in part as PW11 and subsequently again examined in chief as PW12 and cross- examined. HC Ram Karan was examined and cross-examined as PW11 and ASI Rakesh Ahluwalia was examined and cross-examined as PW12. It is in this manner that there some discrepancy has crept in assigning PW numbers in respect of these three witnesses.
16. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they claimed false implication. Accused Kislay Singh and Aparna Adhikari choose not to lead defence evidence while the accused Pankaj Rihani and Neeraj Sudhanshu desired to lead evidence in defence. However on 18.05.2015 when the matter was listed defence evidence accused Neeraj Sudhanshu submitted that he did not want to lead any evidence in defence while the accused Pankaj Rihani examined only one witness Ms. Mayuradhari Singh as DW1 in defence.
ARGUMENTS
17. Ld. Addl. PP for the State had submitted that there is sufficient evidence to bring home the charges against the accused State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 9/43 persons. He submitted that all witnesses have deposed consistently regarding the recoveries effected and conviction of the accused was warranted.
18. Sh. S.P.M. Tripathi Counsel made submissions on behalf of Aparna Adhikari and Kislay Singh. In respect of Aparna Adhikari he submitted that there were several inconsistencies in the versions of the prosecution witnesses regarding her apprehension and recoveries being effected from her. No public witness was associated in the same. He submitted that even though recoveries were made in Gurgaon, the police team did not record their presence in the local jurisdictional police station at Gurgaon. He submitted that PW2 Vimla Devi, landlady of the premises at Gurgaon had deposed that she had no knowledge of the case. He submitted that PW3 has not mentioned anything about the presence of Vimla Devi at premises when Aparna Adhikari was apprehended and that PW12 deposed that he did not cite her as a witness in the arrest memo because she refused to sign the same but there was memo of refusal recorded. He submitted that there is no explanation as to how the police came to know about the Gurgaon address of Aparna Adhikari. Counsel for the accused relied upon the following case law in his support:-
(i) State vs. Om Prakash, Crl.L.P. 74 of 2013 decided on 05.08.13;
(ii) State vs. Sunil Kumar @ Sagar, reported in 2015 (2) JCC 802;
(iii) Asif Mamu vs. State of M.P., reported in 2008 (15) SCC 405; and
(iv) Vijay Singh vs. State of M.P., reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 299.
19. In respect of accused Kislay Singh Counsel S.P.M. Tripathi argued that no recovery of FICN was effected from him and the only evidence against him was his disclosure statement which was State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 10/43 inadmissible.
20. On behalf of Pankaj Rehani, Sh. Sudhir Kumar Counsel argued that this accused had surrendered before the Court. There was no public witness to the alleged recovery from him. He further submitted that PW-10 had deposed about the presence of Mayuradhari Singh (DW1) at the premises at the time of recovery but PW-12 has not deposed anything about the presence of this lady at the premises. He submitted that the accused had examined Mayuradhari Singh as DW-1 who has deposed that she was present in her boutique on 11.09.2007 and nothing was recovered from her premises.
21. On behalf of accused Neeraj Sudhanshu, Sh. Vishal Gosain, Advocate made oral as well as written submissions. It was submitted that there were several inconsistencies in the versions of PW7 and PW9 which cast a doubt on the case of the prosecution regarding recoveries. He submitted that there were discrepancies in the manner in which the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded and also in the recovery memo. He submitted that as per the case of the prosecution the accused had allegedly concealed wads of FICN in his waist belt but no waist belt of the accused was seized and when the witnesses were cross-examined on this aspect the replies were vague and evasive. No public witness was associated with the recoveries and no credible efforts were made by the police team to involve any public witnesses in the recoveries.
22. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. My findings accused wise are as State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 11/43
under:-
EVIDENCE OF THE WITNESSES
23. PW2 Vimla Devi in her examination in chief has deposed that one Ganesh Singh, husband of accused Aparna Adhikari was her tenant who resided only for ten days with his children and wife. She identified the accused Aparna Adhikari as the wife of Ganesh but she did not remember where they were previously residing. In cross- examination she deposed that she had knowledge of the case and that the police had examined her when she was present in her house. She deposed that two or other tenants were residing in her house at that time but she did not remember their names.
24. PW3 WASI Nirmala Kumari in her cross-examination on behalf Aparna Adhikari deposed that there were six members in their team which went to Gurgaon. She deposed that she had not brought any record which shows that he was on duty on 21.07.2007 but submitted that this fact was recorded in DD register by the IO. She deposed that she had reached Gurgaon at about 8:30am and thereafter they had gone directly to House no. 66/2, Prajapat Bhawan, Hari Nagar, Gurgaon but she had not recorded any entry regarding their arrival in the concerned Gurgaon police station. She deposed that the IO might have done it. She could not remember whether IO had recorded the statement of owner of the house. She deposed that the accused Hindu Singh and Neeraj knew Aparna Adhikari. She could not remember who had caught hold of the accused Neeraj and Hindu Singh but deposed they were their staff members which were rank of ASI or HC. She State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 12/43 deposed that there was no much crowd at second address at Gurgaon but some other public person were present. She deposed that one lady was there whose name she could not remember. She could not remember whether any public persons were joined while apprehending Aparna Adhikari. She deposed that the IO might have offered his search as well as search of team members to the public persons and that she was not searched. She deposed that fake currency notes were got recovered by Aparna Adhikari herself. She could not remember whether the IO had marked any identification mark on the fake currency notes. She deposed that she had stated to the IO in her statement about sealing of the envelope but on confrontation the same was not found so recorded. She deposed entire proceedings were concluded around 12pm and that they had taken accused Hindu Singh and Neeraj from their office. She deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Aparna Adhikari was recorded at the spot after 10am. She deposed that the IO might have recorded the number of currency notes in the disclosure statement. She deposed that the fake currency notes were recovered after the statement had bee recorded. She could not remember whether the IO had written the numbers of fake currency notes in the disclosure statement or that whether any public person had signed the disclosure statement. She deposed that the entire team was present at the time of recording of disclosure statement but could not remember whether any public person including landlord was present at the time of recording of disclosure statement. She deposed that she and SI Jaishree had signed the disclosure statement but could not remember who else had signed the same. She deposed that her statement was recorded in presence of IO and other three members at the spot. She could not remember whether she had signed her State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 13/43 statement recorded by the IO. She deposed that statement of Jaishree was recorded in his presence. She could not remember whether she had signed the same or not or that whose else statement was recorded by the IO. Rest of the cross-examination is in the form of suggestions which she denied.
25. In cross-examination PW7 SI Kailash Yadav deposed that he came to know about the secret information in June 2007 but no DD entry was made regarding the same in the month of June 2007. He deposed that he did not inform the local police of PS Lajpat Nagar about the information of the suspect persons residing in their jurisdictional area. He deposed that the cars for the raid had been arranged by the Inspector and motorcycles were of the team members but he could not remember the registration numbers of the vehicles. He deposed that he did not know from where the vehicles were arranged for the police team but voluntarily deposed that that they had been arranged by his Seniors but did not know how his seniors made arrangements. He did not remember anything about the ownership of the vehicles used. He could not remember whether the registration number of the vehicles was mentioned in the departure entry. The secret information was discussed with senior officers but was not reduced in writing. He did not remember whether the name of HC Sukhbir was mentioned or not in DD No. 14A and DD No. 15A. He deposed that the vehicles were parked behind the school Hemu Kalani at Lajpat Nagar and that they had taken their positions at about 10:00 pm.
26. PW7 further deposed in his cross-examination that in the State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 14/43 list of documents filed with the charge-sheet there was no mention of any DD entry of their departure from the office of the Special Cell but denied the suggestion that DD number 14 was a fabricated document as it did not mention about the time of departure of the police team. He denied the suggestion that this DD entry did not contain any endorsement or signature of any attesting witnesses, any year, date or time of recording the DD entry and for this reason it was a manipulated document. He deposed that no notice was issued to any public person who refused to join the proceedings of the police team. He deposed that both Neeraj and Hindu Singh Yadav came from the direction of Ashram Chowk and after they reached Lal Shahi Mandir the informer identified them. He deposed that the police team started proceedings towards them and when they found out they turned back after which the police team caught them.
27. PW7 further deposed in cross-examination that the members of the police team were not in uniform and the personal search of Neeraj was taken at the spot. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW7/DA where it was not recorded that the personal search of accused Neeraj was taken at the spot. He deposed that after apprehension of the accused persons FICN were recovered from their possession and memo regarding recovery prepared, rukka was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR and thereafter copy of FIR was sent to the spot through ASI Rakesh Ahluwalia. He deposed that at the time of recovery he had no knowledge regarding the number of FIR but admitted that the FIR number was mentioned in Ex.PW7/B. He explained that the same was written by the IO after registration of the State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 15/43 FIR. He denied the suggestion that the number of the FIR was inserted later by the IO. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW7/DA and he admitted that his statement did not mention the recovery of FICN of Rs.5,00,000/- from accused Neeraj Sudhanshu. He deposed that it took the police team to 5 to 6 hour to complete the entire proceedings at the spot and that arrest memo Ex.PW7/F was prepared by the IO in his presence. He admitted that in the said memo the date of '16' had been scored out and '17' was written. He denied the suggestion that the said overwriting reflected that Neeraj was illegally detained by the police team and documents regarding the arrest and the recovery were prepared later on. Voluntarily he explained that the overwriting occurred as the recovery was effected in the intervening night of 16-17.07.2007.
28. PW7 admitted that the disclosure statement Ex.PW7/F did not mention any date. He could not recollect whose disclosure statement was recorded first. He deposed that IO Sanjeev Kumar wrote down the disclosure statements in the same room but at different times. He deposed that both the disclosure statements were typed on the laptop computer by the IO SI Sanjeev Kumar. He admitted that the disclosure statement of Hindu Singh Yadav was written in hand and that of Neeraj Sudhansu was typed in computer. He voluntarily explained that Hindu Singh Yadav was not conversant in English and therefore IO translated his disclosure statement in Hindi. PW7 further deposed that no independent witness was called by the IO at the time of the recording of the disclosure statements. He admitted that there were no dates mentioned below the signature of Neeraj as well as other attesting witnesses on Ex.PW7/J. He admitted that he had signed only on the last page of disclosure statement of Neeraj and that Ex.PW7/B State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 16/43 did not record that Neeraj understood English language.
29. PW7 deposed that the waist belt had the FICN on the body of Neeraj but the same was not part of the case property. He explained that he could not remember whether Neeraj was wearing any waist belt or not. He admitted that he had deposed in his examination in chief that Neeraj was wearing a waist belt from where FICN was recovered and voluntarily explained that by waist belt he meant that portion where the waist belt was worn. He did not know whether there was any agreement in respect of the premises used by the accused and whether it was seized or not. He deposed that he had had visited the house from where packet of FICN was recovered. He admitted that the recovery of FICN from the house at Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar was made only at the instance of Hindu Singh Yadav. He admitted that as per the recovery memo Ex.PW7/N only Hindu Singh Yadav was recorded to be residing at the premises Vinoba Puri Lajpat Nagar. Voluntarily he deposed that accused Neeraj was also staying in the said premises temporarily. He again said that he had no knowledge whether Neeraj was staying in the said premises temporarily or as a permanent resident of the said house. There were no documents to show the rights of tenancy of Neeraj.
30. PW7 admitted that the plan Ex.PW7/DB did not reflect the position of the other members of the police team and the vehicle used to reach the spot. He admitted that the seizure memo Ex.PW7/B did not bear any date of preparation. He admitted that there were over-lapping between signature and names of witness Umesh Barthwal at point B of the said document. He admitted that Ex.PW7/M did not bear signatures State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 17/43 of Neeraj.
31. PW9 in his cross-examination conducted on behalf Hindu Singh, Aparna Adhikari and Kislay admitted that in his examination in chief dated 12.05.2010, he had deposed that six wads of FICN were recovered from the accused Hindu Singh whereas in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/DA, he stated to the IO that five wads of FICN recovered from him. He admitted that he had not specified the complete details regarding recovery of FICN from the house of accused Hindu Singh, he voluntarily explained that he had told the IO about the total recovery of FICN to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/- effected from Hindu Singh. PW9 admitted that he had not stated to the IO that eleven wads of FICN were recovered from Hindu Singh and that he did not state to the IO that SI Sanjeev Kumar marked the said wads of FICN as S1 to S11 or that they were converted into a pulanda or that the pulanda was sealed with the seal of 'SK' or that the seizure memo of FICN were prepared or signed. He admitted that he did not even state to the IO about seizure of the steel box and the clothes. He admitted that he did not tell the IO in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. about recovery of five SIM cards of different cellular operators from accused Hindu Singh. PW9 deposed that he did not receive any information nor did he had any knowledge prior to 8:45pm on 16.07.2007.
32. PW9 deposed in cross-examination that he was present with SI Kailash Yadav at the office of Special Cell when the secret informer came but did not know his age. He did not know the registration number of the vehicles used to reach the spot. He did not State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 18/43 know how many currency notes were there in each wad recovered from Hindu Singh. He voluntarily deposed that the total number of currency notes recovered from Hindu Singh were 500. He could not remember if the currency notes were signed by the accused persons. He deposed that he had not signed on any currency notes which were seized and did not know if any other member of the raiding party signed the same. He deposed that the currency notes were counted by entire team including SI Kailash. He could not say how many notes were counted by him. PW9 deposed that SI Sanjeev Yadav reached the spot at about 4am before sending the rukka and the seizure memo Ex.PW7/A was prepared by SI Kailash but the FIR number was written by second IO Sanjeev Kumar.
33. PW9 in cross-examination further deposed that Insp. Lalit Mohan did not prepare any document during the proceedings and the statement of Lalit Mohan was not recorded in his presence. He could not remember if the site plan of the house of the accused Hindu Singh was prepared or not. He deposed that house of Hindu Singh was on the third floor but could say anything about the direction of the entrance but deposed that it was a small two room flat. He did not know if the IO requested any neighbour or resident of the locality to join the proceedings. He deposed that they reached the house of Hindu Singh in the morning of 17.07.2007 but could not remember the time. He deposed that the accused Neeraj was also present in his house. He deposed that Hindu Singh was taken to his house after recording his disclosure statement in the office of PS Special but could not remember if any DD entry was recorded to this effect. He deposed that in his presence only one disclosure statement of Hindu and Neeraj was State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 19/43 recorded but could not remember the time of recording of their disclosure statements. He deposed that the disclosure statement of the Hindu was written with the help of pen in Hindi while the statement of accused Neeraj was computer typed and both were written by SI Sanjeev Kumar.
34. PW9 further deposed in cross-examination that he did not know whether SI Kailash Yadav reduced the secret information in writing or not. He deposed that no notice was issued to any public person for not joining the proceedings and the particulars of the said persons were not recorded by him. PW9 deposed that they left the office for raid at about 8:50pm and he was positioned on the road outside Lal Shahi Mandir while SI Kailash along with informer and Insp. Lalit were in front of the Mandir. He deposed that all the members of raiding party were in civil dress. He deposed that he had not stated in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that he had apprehended the accused Neeraj. He could not state the time taken during the raid proceedings but deposed that they left the spot for office of Special Cell in early morning on 17.07.2007. He could state if there was any overwriting at point X on the date in the arrest memo Ex.PW7/F. He tried to explain by stating that the date of arrest was 17.07.07. PW9 admitted that he had not put the date while signing the disclosure statement Ex.PW7/J of the accused Neeraj. He could not remember as to whose disclosure statement out of accused Neeraj and Hindu was recorded first but deposed that their disclosure statements were recorded in the room of SI Sanjeev separately.
35. PW9 in further cross-examination further deposed that State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 20/43 that no independent witness was called by the IO at the time of recording of his disclosure statement. He admitted that there is no date below the signature of the accused Neeraj in the disclosure statement Ex.PW7/J. He also admitted that there is no date below the signatures of attesting witnesses on the said disclosure statement and that his signatures appearing only on one page at the end of the said statement. PW9 deposed that on 17.07.2007 after preparation of seizure memos Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B, SI Kailash prepared the rukka which was sent for registration of FIR. On a specific question regarding seizure of waist belt from which FICN were recovered from the accused Neeraj, PW9 answered that by waist belt, he meant the portion of the pant where the belt is tied and since the waist belt was not any article there was no question of seizing it. PW9 deposed that he had not stated so during the investigation or in his examination in chief. PW9 admitted that in the site plan Ex.PW7/DB the position of all team members including him and vehicles used by them, is not mentioned. He also admitted that in the seizure memo Ex.PW7/B, there is no date with the signatures and that no independent public witness has signed it. He further admitted that there was overlapping of his signatures over his name on the seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. He further admitted that Ex.PW7/M does not bear the signatures of Neeraj and public witnesses. PW9 deposed that he was present when the secret information was received and the secret informer had given description of the accused persons to SI Kailash but no portrait or sketch was prepared at the instance of the informer. He deposed that the IO could tell if any further investigation was conducted to check the involvement of ISI. He deposed that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in this case on 17.07.2007 at office of PS Special Cell and that the IO State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 21/43 might had changed the language while recording his statement but the contents are what he had stated. Rest of his cross-examination is in the form of suggestions which he denied.
36. PW10 SI Girish Kumar in his cross-examination deposed that he did not lodge any departure DD on 16.07.2007. He deposed that the secret informer did not reveal information to Insp. Lalit Mohan Negi in his presence and he and other raiding members of the team were informed about the secret information by Insp. Lalit Mohan Negi at about 8:45pm. He deposed that he did not verify the said information and was not aware if Insp. Lalit Mohan Negi had verified the said information through other independent sources. He deposed that there were two Santro cars and one Zen car in which they had proceeded to the spot which were driven by raiding team members but he could not remember the numbers of the said private vehicles nor owners of the same. He deposed that he did not know if the IO had mentioned about private cars in any DD before departure or not. He also not aware if the said Inspector had taken prior permission from the higher police officials for conducting raid. He deposed that on the way to spot the secret informer was with Insp. Lalit Mohan and he had seen the secret informer in the office that day but he could not disclose anything about identity of the secret informer. He deposed that neither any notice was given to 8-10 passersby who refused to join the raiding team nor their names and addresses were recorded by the IO.
37. PW10 IO SI Girish Kumar in his cross-examination further deposed that he had no personal knowledge of the secret information. He deposed that the distance between the Hemu Kalani School and Lal State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 22/43 Shahi Mandir was 200 meters and that the said school was adjacent to Ring Road and that thereafter there was one road leading to Lajpat Nagar Market, after which there was a fruit market adjacent to Ring Road. Then there was one road which lead to Vinoba Puri and after that was Lal Shahi Mandir. He deposed that the team first reached the bus stand near the school and he took position opposite Lal Shahi Mandir on ring road. He deposed that he was at some distance when Insp. Lalit Mohan Negi requested public persons to join the raiding team but was not aware the reply given by the public persons to the IO. He was not aware whether the IO recorded the names and addresses of the public persons. He deposed that at Lal Shahi Mandir he did not offer his search to any public person but he could not tell whether other officials of raiding team had offered their search to the public persons or not. He admitted that his position is not shown in the site plan prepared by the IO; that the road leading to Vinoba Puri is shown after Lal Shahi Mandir in the site plan and that the position of two police officials is shown in the site plan. He deposed that Insp. Lalit Mohan Negi had gone in a Santro car for investigation / raiding and he remained at his position about 6am.
38. PW10 in his cross-examination further deposed that he could not remember if the disclosure statement of Pankaj Rihani was in his handwriting, however on being shown the same, he deposed that it was in his handwriting. PW10 admitted that though the disclosure statement ran into four pages it was signed by him only on the last page. He deposed that he along with IO / SI Sanjeev Kumar and accused Pankaj Rihani went to Lajpat Nagar at about 5pm on 11.09.2007 and they had gone on the next day of recording the State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 23/43 disclosure statement of accused Pankaj. He did not know if IO had lodged DD entry regarding visit to Lajpat Nagar. He deposed that they went to Lajpat Nagar by a private vehicle i.e. Santro car but did not know who the owner of the said car was but deposed that the same was driven by SI Sanjeev Kumar. He deposed that at about 5:20pm, they reached Mayavi Boutique, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi which was opened at that time. He denied the suggestion that the said boutique was closed on 11.09.2007 being a Monday as Lajpat Nagar Market remains closed on Monday but he voluntarily deposed that the boutique was in Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV. He deposed that on the right side of the Mayavi Boutique there was a street approaching the colony and on the left side there was a shop, the name of which he could not remember. He could not remember whether there was a shop or house opposite the said boutique. He deposed that at Mayavi boutique they met one girl Mayuradhari Singh but no notice regarding search of the premises was given by the IO. He could not remember whether IO had asked any public person to join the investigation. He deposed that neither he nor the IO offered their search to any public person. He deposed that at the instance of the accused Pankaj, a bag was recovered from Mayavi boutique but the signatures of Mayuradhari Singh were not obtained on the seizure memo of currency notes or any other documents as she was sister of the accused Kislay. He did not know whether the clothes in the bag Ex.P25 belonged to accused Pankaj or not. He admitted that similar bags were available in the market.
39. PW10 in his further cross-examination deposed that IO recorded his statements twice. He could not remember to whom the State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 24/43 seal was handed over after use. He deposed that except him and the IO, no other police official was present at the place of recovery at Mayavi boutique. He deposed that he took position with SI Sajjan Singh near Ring Road at the same place. He could not state if any identification mark was put on the currency notes as he was on the other side of the Ring Road at the time of recovery. He deposed that no identification mark was put on the currency notes which were recovered from accused Pankaj on 11.09.2007. He deposed that he could not identify the recovered currency notes if the same were mixed with other fake currency notes. He could not remember the names of other persons except the names of the accused persons disclosed by accused Pankaj. He deposed that neither any public person gathered around Mayavi Boutique on 11.09.2007 nor any worker was present at said boutique. He deposed that no search was taken place at Mayavi Boutique on 11.09.2007 after the recovery of bag, containing fake currency notes. He deposed that no document to show the identity of the shop was taken from Mayurdhari Singh. He deposed that the bag Ex.P-25 was taken out by the accused from behind the rack which was kept behind the reception counter and there was no lock on the bag at the time of recovery. He could not remember whether IO had prepared the site plan of the place of said recovery.
40. PW10 in cross-examination on behalf of Neeraj Sudhanshu deposed he was told in his office that information had been received regarding delivery of FICN and that he never had any interaction with the secret informer. He deposed that the said secret information was not reduced into writing in his presence. He deposed that from Special Cell, he took route via CGO Complex and from there, State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 25/43 he went towards Nizamuudin area (Oberoi Hotel Flyover) then to Ring Road and then to Hemu Kalani Govt. School at Lajpat Nagar. He deposed that he was traveling in one Zen car along with four other raiding party members namely Insp. Hriday Bhushan, SI Sajjan Singh, HC Mohan and ASI Ranjeet. He deposed that the other team members reached the spot one after the other in their respective vehicles. He deposed he did not make any departure entry before leaving the office of Special Cell and did not prepare any memo regarding vehicles which were used to reach the spot. He deposed that after reaching the spot near Lal Shahi Mandi, he along with SI Sajjan Singh took positions across the Ring Road on the other side. He could not state the exact time about the arrival of the accused persons. He deposed that no notice was issued by Insp. Lalit Mohan to any public person.
41. IO / Insp. Sanjeev Kumar in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused Neeraj Sudhansu deposed that the information regarding source of information was received by the previous IO and not by him. He deposed that he was not a member of the raiding party and after effecting the arrest of accused Neeraj Sudhansu and Hindu Singh he conducted the search of house of the accused. He deposed that the house was a rented accommodation in the name of accused Neeraj Sudhansu. He deposed that he had not seized the original of the rent agreement, copy of which he had made part of the charge sheet. He deposed that he had not taken any specimen signature of accused Neeraj Sudhansu. He deposed that at the time of filing charge sheet, he had not either taken or placed on record any certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of CDR. He admitted that in none of the CDRs name of the service provider company is State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 26/43 mentioned and that none of the CDR bear any stamp of any service provider company. He deposed that he had got recorded DD entry at the time of his departure from special cell office. After going through the record, he admitted that there is no DD entry on record showing his departure from the Special Cell office to the spot.
42. IO / Insp. Sanjeev Kumar in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused Neeraj Sudhansu deposed that after reaching the spot, he had not requested any public person to join as a witness or to attest the documents but he voluntarily deposed that he had not asked anybody to become a witness as the recovery had already been effected prior to his reaching the spot. He deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused had been recorded by him after their arrest. He deposed that at the time of recording of disclosure statement neither he asked anybody from public to become a witness nor he had issued any notice in this regard. He admitted that the recovery on the spot had taken place prior to recording of the disclosure statement of the accused. He deposed that he did not make the belt, the case property in this case from where recovery was effected at the instance of accused Neeraj Sudhansu and no such belt was handed over to him by the previous IO. He deposed that he had seen the seizure memo prepared by the previous IO regarding recovery of notes from possession of Neeraj Sudhansu but deposed that said seizure memo were not prepared in his presence. He deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Neeraj Sudhansu had been recorded in the office of Special Cell by him on the laptop but deposed that he did not mention this fact in the charge sheet. He admitted that in Ex. PW 7/J, the date has not been mentioned below the signature of witnesses as State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 27/43 well as accused. He voluntarily deposed that there is a date below his signature. He deposed that neither his name nor his designation had been specified on Ex PW7/J.
43. IO / Insp. Sanjeev Kumar in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused Neeraj Sudhansu further deposed that he had prepared site plan on reaching the spot. He deposed that the site plan pertains to the incident of apprehension of the accused which had taken place prior to his reaching the spot. He admitted that at the time when he had prepared the site plan, the FIR had not been formally registered. He denied the suggestion that the site plan reflects the number and details of the FIR as it was fabricated later on at the Special Cell office. He voluntarily deposed that he had mentioned the particulars of the case in the site plan after registration of FIR. He deposed that he had not mentioned the volunteered portion in the charge sheet. He deposed that rukka Ex.PW7/C as well as seizure memos Ex.PW7/B were in the handwriting of SI Kailash. He admitted that at the time of preparation of the seizure memo the FIR had not been formally registered. He voluntarily deposed that he had filled the number of the FIR subsequently on the top of the seizure memo. He admitted that there was overwriting in respect of the dates mentioned below his signature and on the top of the document encircled as P and P1 in the arrest memo of accused Neeraj Sudhansu Ex.PW7/H. He denied the suggestion that there was overwriting in respect of the dates as the accused was illegally detained and the documents have been fabricated later at the office of the special cell. He voluntarily deposed that the incident took place in the intervening night of 16-17.07.2007. He admitted that he nowhere mentioned in the charge sheet that Neeraj State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 28/43 Sudhansu was arrested in the intervening night of 16-17.07.2007.
44. IO / Insp. Sanjeev Kumar in his cross-examination on behalf of Neeraj Sudhansu deposed that firstly, he recorded the disclosure statement of Hindu Singh and thereafter the statement of Neeraj Sudhansu. He deposed that he recorded the statement of Hindu Singh in his own handwriting in the office of Special Cell and it took about half an hour to 45 minutes in recording the same. He deposed that he had a laptop at the time of recording of statement of Hindu Singh Yadav. He deposed that the statement of Neeraj Sudhansu was recorded in the laptop in about 45-50 minutes. He deposed that he had not recorded the statement of Hindu Singh Yadav in laptop as Hindu Singh was well versed in English language and he did not know Hindi typing. He admitted that in Ex. PW 7/J it was nowhere mentioned that the contents of the disclosure which were recorded in English had been explained to the accused and affirmed it to be correct. He also admitted that neither in the beginning nor at the end of the disclosure it had been mentioned that the accused was well acquainted with English. He voluntarily deposed that the accused had gone through the statement before signing the same. He deposed that he had not arrested anybody in relation to ISI module in the present case. He admitted that no other accused from ISI involved in distribution, sale or trafficking of counterfeit currency was apprehended by him in the present case.
45. IO / Insp. Sanjeev Kumar in his further cross-examination deposed that the mobile phone of the accused had been recovered by him from his person when the raiding team who was present at the spot. He could explain as to why the raiding team had not been able to State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 29/43 recover the phone from the person of the accused prior to his reaching there although they had recovered the FICN. He deposed that the recovery of Rs. 9,50,000/- was effected from the house of accused Neeraj Sudhansu at the instance of accused Hindu Singh Yadav and he had recorded the statement of the owner of the house of accused Neeraj Sudhansu. He deposed that he had not seized any bank statement of the owner of the house of Neeraj Sudhansu to prove the payment of rent by Neeraj Sudhanshu to him.
46. IO / Insp. Sanjeev Kumar in his cross-examination on behalf of Arpana Adhikari deposed that he along with WSI Jayshree, WSI Nirmala, HC Sukhbir and other staff had gone to the house no. 365, Gali No. 5, Hari Nagar, Gurgaon, but he did not take assistance of local police. He deposed that he had made DD entry in respect of the departure but could not remember its number. He deposed that he reached at the above said house at 8.30-9.00 am and recorded the statement of landlady of the accused. He admitted that he apprehended accused Arpana Adhikari at Gurgaon from her house and that Ms. Vimla Devi, the landlady of the accused was not cited as witness in the arrest memo of the accused. He explained that she had refused to sign the documents and that he had mentioned this fact in the case diary. He admitted that they had no new address of the accused but they came to know about the address of Aparna Adhikari through her CAF and after making inquiry from her previous house. He deposed that he could not record the statement of any witness at previous house of the accused. He deposed that he obtained the CAF and CDR of mobile phone of the accused and that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded at the place of arrest. He State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 30/43 deposed that the almirah in which the cash was kept was in the possession of the accused as her husband was not present at that time. He deposed that no public independent witness was joined at the time of seizure of the currency. He admitted that the landlady was present in her house but he did not issue any notice to landlady or other public witness for not joining the investigation them. He deposed that the recovered currency was looking fake even by appearance and at first instance. He deposed that the fake currency was not produced before the court during investigation. He deposed that he had mentioned about the recovery of fake currency in the remand application of the accused. He deposed that all the recovered currency amounting Rs. 19,76,000/- were sent to Govt. Press, Nashik Road in two installments. He deposed that total six parcels were prepared in respect of recovery of fake currency but could not remember if he had placed the forwarding letter on judicial record in respect of verification of fake currency. He deposed that he had recorded the statements of W/SI Jaishree and W/ASI Nirmala but could not remember that he had recorded the statement of other team members. He deposed that firstly he had taken the search of the house and thereafter he arrested the accused.
47. IO / Insp. Sanjeev Kumar in his cross-examination on behalf Kislay Singh admitted that nothing was recovered from him and that even after disclosure no recovery was effected.
48. IO / Insp. Sanjeev Kumar in his cross-examination on behalf Pankaj Rihani deposed that he had received a call from Insp. Lalit Mohan Negi on his mobile phone when he was in office and he was asked to reach the spot. He deposed that he did not receive any State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 31/43 information from any duty officer or senior officer. He could not remember the DD number by which he left the office. He admitted that the recovery had already been effected from both the accused persons and nothing was recovered in his presence before registration of FIR. He could not remember the names of other persons which were reflected in the disclosure statement of the accused persons but deposed that he had made investigation in respect of them. He deposed that he raided on various places in order to search other accused persons but he deposed that he did not cite the owner of the house as witness of recovery. He deposed that no public witness was joined from the neighborhood and there were 4-5 police officials who were in plain clothes. He deposed that he did not offer his search and search of any team member to any public person before entering in the shop from where the recovery was made. He deposed that the bag recovered at the instance of accused was lying near the rack but he could not comment whether such type of bag is easily available in the market. He deposed that he did not check the clothes recovered from the bag in order to ascertain whether the clothes were belonging to the accused or not.
49. Apart from the above Mahinder Kumar was examined as PW4. He is the owner and landlord of premises H. No.8 Vinoba Puri Lajpat Nagar. He deposed that accused Neeraj Sudhansu was his tenant but he has not deposed anything about any recovery of FICN from his premises. PW6 Dharamveer Batra in his examination denied that he knew anybody by the name of Kislay Singh. He denied the suggestion that he had given any mobile connection to Kisaly Singh in the name of Subhash Mandal, his friend. He denied that he had given State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 32/43 any statement to the police. The raiding party was constituted under the leadership of Insp. Lalit Mohan Negi but he has not been examined as a witness.
CASE LAWS CITED
50. In the case of State vs. Om Prakash (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was considering a challenge by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in a case involving recovery of FICN. Amongst others, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the grounds of acquittal to the effect that the supervising officer of the raiding team was not cited as a witness; that the provisions of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. regarding association of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality not being associated with the search and recovery proceedings; that despite availability of an independent recovery witness she was not associated; that asking passersby who were not ready to even disclose their names to join the investigation could not be termed as genuine efforts; that the officers of the raiding team did not record their arrival or departure in the roznamcha register and that use of private vehicles without any special circumstances and failure to maintain log books of such private vehicles.
51. In the case of State vs. Sunil Kumar @ Sagar (supra), the Hon'ble High Court was also considering a challenge of the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of acquittal and agreed with the findings of the trial Court to the effect that the site plan did not disclose the location of the police vehicle and did not reflect the existence of adjoining buildings and shops where public persons could have been found; that the site plan is a vital part of the investigation and the same should give State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 33/43 a clear description of the spot to which it belongs and that no attempt was made to join public witnesses in the proceedings of the police team.
FINDINGS NEERAJ SUDHANSU
52. The witnesses relevant to the apprehension of accused Neeraj Sudhansu on 16.07.2007 and recoveries effected from him are SI Kailash Yadav PW7, SI Umesh Barthwal PW9, SI Girish Kumar PW10 and SI Sanjeev Kumar IO (examined as PW11 and PW12).
53. The cross-examination of the above witnesses have already been noticed. As per charge-sheet, FICN of Rs.5,00,000/- in five separate wads denomination of Rs.1000/- were found tucked in the waist belt of Neeraj Sudhansu. However in cross-examination PW7 deposed that the waist belt of the accused was not part of the case property. Immediately thereafter he deposed that he could not remember whether Neeraj Sudhansu was wearing any waist belt or not although he admitted that in his examination in chief, he had deposed that Neeraj Sudhansu was wearing a waist belt from where the FICN were recovered. He again tried to explain that by waist belt he meant the place where the belt was worn. In respect of the waist belt PW9 also deposed that by waist belt he meant the portion of trouser where the waist belt was worn.
54. Ex.PW7/DB is the site plan which at Mark-B reflected the place where Neeraj Sudhansu was apprehended. Mark-C and Mark E State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 34/43 are the places where the Insp. Lalit Mohan Negi and SI Kailash Yadav had taken their positions. However the said site plan does not reflect the position of PW9 although as per the version of the prosecution Neeraj Sudhansu was apprehended by PW9.
55. PW7 in cross-examination has deposed on 12.05.2010 that the secret information received on 16.07.2007 was reduced in writing vide DD No.14 Ex.PW7/Q. The document Ex.PW7/Q is basically recording the departure of the police team. The same does not bear any date. It further records that the police team had left in three private cars and four motorcycles after secret information had been received that Hindu Singh and Neeraj Sudhansu would be coming outside Lal Shahi Mandir. The said document is a true copy of DD No.14 but the original was never produced and proved on record. In his cross-examination on 06.12.2010, PW7 has deposed that the secret information was received by him and discussed with senior officers but it was not reduced into writing and no memo of the secret information was prepared. As regards the use of the private vehicles, PW7 deposed that the same had been arranged by his seniors and he did not have any recollection about the ownership of these vehicles. He could not even remember if in the departure entry the registration numbers of the vehicles were mentioned or not. He admitted that there was no document appended with the list of documents to the charge-sheet of any DD Entry regarding their departure from the office of the Special Cell.
56. Ex.PW7/I is the disclosure statement of Hindu Singh Yadav and PW7/J is the disclosure statement of Neeraj Sudhansu. The first one is handwritten whereas the second one is computer typed.
State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 35/43 PW7 in cross-examination deposed that IO Sanjeev Kumar had written down the disclosure statements and that both of them were typed. He thereafter admitted that the disclosure statement of Hindu Singh Yadav was handwritten whereas that of Neeraj Sudhansu was computer typed. He thereafter tried to explain that as Hindu Singh Yadav was not conversant in English, his disclosure statement was handwritten. He admitted that there were no dates under the signatures of Neeraj Sudhansu.
57. PW9 in his examination in chief has deposed that six wads of FICN of Rs.1000/- denomination were recovered from Hindu Singh Yadav where as five wads were recovered from Neeraj Sudhansu. This is contradictory to the case of the prosecution as per which five wads were recovered from Hindu Singh Yadav. In cross- examination he admitted that in statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/DA he stated to the IO that five wads were recovered from Hindu Singh Yadav.
58. Ex.PW7/D1 is the statement of SI Kailash Yadav under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. This statement has been recorded by the IO on 17.08.2007 although Neeraj Sudhansu was apprehended on 16/17.07.2007. In the said statement PW7 has merely stated that FICN in the denomination of Rs.1000/- were recovered from Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj Sudhansu. He has stated that Rs.9.5 lacs of FICN was recovered from premises H. No.7, Third Floor, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. There is absolutely no mention of the total amount of FICN recovered from Neeraj Sudhansu let alone mention of any particular number of notes. It is also to be noted that PW7 is the author State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 36/43 of the rukka Ex.PW7/C but the statement Ex.PW7/D1 of PW7 does not even mention that he prepared the rukka. It is only stated that the seized FICN were taken into police possession by the IO through seizure memos on which he signed as a witness. Most of the examination in chief of PW7 is not even reflected any statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
59. Ex.PW7/B is the seizure memo of FICN stated to be recovered from Neeraj Sudhansu. The same does not bear any date under the signatures of the author of the said document or its witnesses SI Umesh Barthwal and ASI Rakesh Ahluwalia. PW7 in cross- examination admitted that Ex.PW7/B did not bear any date of preparation. However the first page of this document does mention date of 16-17.07.2007 but the same appears to be written subsequently. Ex.PW7/J is the disclosure statement of Neeraj Sudhansu. The same does not bear any date under the signatures of the witnesses Kailash Yadav and Umesh Barthwal or of the accused.
60. The cross-examination of PW7, PW9 and PW10 revealed that there were several buildings near the place of apprehension of Neeraj Sudhansu. No attempt was made by the members of the police team to join any public person of the locality in the recovery proceedings and apprehension of Neeraj Sudhansu. Merely asking passersby to join the investigation is not a genuine and sincere effort.
61. The above facts and circumstances which have emerged in the cross-examination of PW7, PW9 and PW10 and keeping in view the ratio laid down in the cases of State vs. Om Prakash (supra) and State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 37/43 State vs. Sunil Kumar @ Sagar (supra) would lead to only one conclusion that the prosecution has been unable to prove its case qua accused Neeraj Sudhansu beyond reasonable doubt.
APARNA ADHIKARI
62. The witnesses in respect of the accused Aparna Adhikari are PW2, PW3 and the IO SI Sanjeev Kumar PW12. In respect of the accused Aparna Adhikari the case of the prosecution is that on 21.07.2007 PW12 SI Sanjeev Kumar alongwith PW3 W/SI Nirmala Kumari went to H.No. 66/2, Prajapati Bhawan which address had come to light from the CAF of the mobile number of this accused. On inquiry at Prajapati Bhawan it was revealed that she was now residing at H.No. 365, Gali No. 5 Hari Nagar, Gurgaon. The police team went to Gurgaon and found the accused Aparna Adhikari on the first floor of the building where she was residing. Her disclosure statement was recorded at her house. Six FICN denomination Rs. 1000/- each were recovered from the cupboard of her house. The house belonged to PW 2 Smt. Vimla, who is the land lady of Ganesh Singh, husband of accused Aparna Adhikari.
63. PW3 W/SI Nirmala Kumari in cross-examination deposed that no entry of the arrival of the police was made in the jurisdictional police station in Gurgaon. The police team had taken Hindu Singh Yadav and Neeraj with them. She deposed that public persons were present at the spot and there was also a lady whose name she did not remember. She could not remember if any public person was joined while apprehending Aparna Adhikari and effecting recoveries from her. She could not remember whether the landlord of the premises was State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 38/43 present at the spot.
64. PW12 SI Sanjeev Kumar in cross-examination deposed that Smt. Vimla Devi, land lady of the accused was present and he recorded her statement, but she was not cited as a witness of recovery and arrest as she refused to join the proceedings. He deposed that he has mentioned this fact in the case diary. He deposed that he came to know about the address of Aparna Adhikari through her CAF and after making inquiry from her previous house but did not recorded statement of her previous house owner. He admitted that he did not join any independent witness at the time of seizure of the FICN. He admitted that land lady was present in the house, but he had not issued any notice to her.
65. PW2 Vimla Devi has only deposed that one Ganesh Singh was her tenant, who resided for a period of 10 days at her premises with his children and his wife namely accused Aparna Adhikari, whom she identified in the Court. She did not depose anything else about the matter. In cross-examination she deposed that she had no knowledge of the case. She deposed that the police had examined her when she was present in her house and 2-3 other tenants were residing at her house, whose name she did not remember.
66. From the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW12 it is apparent that PW2 was the landlady of the premises from where Aparna Adhikari was apprehended. PW3 in cross-examination deposed that she could not remember whether there was any public person or landlord present at the time of recording of disclosure statement of Aparna Adhikari.
State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 39/43 However PW12 deposed that PW2 was present but she refused to participate in the proceedings. He has stated that he did not prepare any refusal memo.
67. I have gone through the statement of PW2 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. She has only stated in the same that Ganesh was her tenant and the accused Aparna Adhikari was his wife. The said statement is dated 21.07.2007. The same does not reflect any of the proceedings of the police team at her residence including apprehension of Aparna Adhikari and recovery of FICN. The police team has not recorded its presence in the jurisdictional police station at Gurgaon. No public witness has even been sought to be associated with the proceedings of apprehension and recovery. It is also to be noted that there is no site plan of the premises of Aparna Adhikari from where the alleged FICN was recovered.
68. In these facts and circumstances, there is considerable doubt in the version of the prosecution regarding the apprehension of Aparna Adhikari and recovery of FICN from her.
KISLAY SINGH
69. The witnesses in respect of the accused Kislay Singh are PW10 and the IO SI Sanjeev Kumar PW12.
70. In respect of the accused Kislay Singh, the case of the prosecution was that Kislay Singh alongwith accused Pankaj Rihani had surrendered in the Court on 10.09.2007. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/C and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.
State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 40/43 PW10/F. In cross-examination PW12 SI Sanjeev Kumar admitted that nothing was recovered from the accused Kislay Singh. He further admitted that even after recording of his disclosure statement nothing was recovered from the accused Kislay Singh.
71. The disclosure statement Ex.PW10/F is inadmissible in evidence as being barred under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act as no confession given to a police officer is admissible in evidence. There is no other evidence against accused Kislay Singh. Charges against him therefore have not been proved.
PANKAJ REHANI
72. The witnesses in respect of the accused Pankaj Rehani are PW10 and the IO SI Sanjeev Kumar PW12.
73. In respect of the accused Pankaj Rehani, the case of the prosecution is that Pankaj Rehani alongwith the co-accused Kislay surrendered before the Court on 10.09.2007 and was arrested vide memo Ex. PW10/A on 11.09.2007. Pankaj Rehani given a disclosure statement vide memo Ex.10/E and in pursuant of the same PW12 alongwith PW10 went to Mayavi Boutique at B-8, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar from where a green colour travel bag was found at the instance of the accused which upon checking found to containing 20 FICN in denomination of Rs. 1000/-.
74. In this regard PW10 SI Girish Kumar deposed that the said premises was functioning under the name and style of Mayavi Boutique, where Ms. Mayuradhari Singh, sister of accused Kislay Singh State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 41/43 was found. In cross-examination PW10 deposed that Mayuradhari Singh was present in the said boutique, but not notice given to her for searching the boutique. He could not remember whether the IO asked any public person to join the investigation. Signatures of Mayuradhari Singh were not obtained in the seizure memo of FICN or other documents and PW10 explained the reason being that this lady was the sister of the co-accused Kislay Singh.
75. PW12 SI Sanjeev Kumar in his examination in chief deposed only in respect of recovery of FICN at the said premises at the instance of accused Pankaj Rehani. He has not deposed in his examination in chief that any other person including Mayuradhari Singh, sister of accused Kislay Singh present at the said premises or that the said premises was also known as Mayavi Boutique. Even in cross- examination PW12 does not mention anything about the presence of Mayuradhari Singh. He further deposed in cross-examination that he did not cite owner of the said house as a witness of the recovery and that no public witness was joined from the neighborhood.
76. In defence evidence, the accused Pankaj Rehani has examined Mayuradhari Singh as DW1. She deposed that she was the proprietor of Mayavi Boutique and was present at her premises on 11.09.2007. She deposed that no police official visited her premises on that day and no inquiry was made from her at any point of time.
77. There are material contradiction in the versions of PW10 and PW12. While PW10 speaks about the presence of Mayuradhari Singh at the premises from where the FICN were recovered, PW12 has State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 42/43 not mentioned her presence at all. There is absolutely no explanation as to how the IO gained entry of the said premises if there was no other person available. It is apparent that the said premises were adjoining other residential premises but no attempt was made to join any public person of the locality under Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. There is no site plan of the said premises from where the alleged recovery of FICN of Rs.20,000/- has been made. Mayuradhari Singh as DW1 has deposed that she was present on her boutique on that day but no police had come to her premises. In her cross-examination an attempt was made to discredit her deposition as she did not have any document to show that she was running any business from the said premises but her association with the said premises stands confirmed with deposition of PW10 who has mentioned her presence in the premises in his examination in chief.
78. The above contradictions cast grave doubt on the version of the prosecution regarding recovery of FICN from the said premises at the instance of Pankaj Rehani.
CONCLUSION
79. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has been unable to prove the charges framed against the accused Neeraj Sudhansu, Aparna Adhikari, Pankaj Rehani and Kislay Singh beyond reasonable doubt. They are therefore acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
Announced in the open Court (REETESH SINGH)
on 29th June, 2015 ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/NDD
29.06.2015
State vs. Hindu Singh Yadav & Anr.
FIR No. 57/2007, PS: Special Cell 43/43