Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit on 9 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI MAHESHWARI,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-05,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. SHAMBHU RAI @ AMIT
FIR No. RC DA1/2004/A0003
Branch : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
Under Section: 120B/420/468/471 of IPC and the substantive offences.
Case No : CBI/448/2019
Date of Institution :28.02.2005
Date of Reserving :06.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement :09.12.2025
a) Serial number of the : CBI/448/2019
case
b) Period of commission of : 2003-2004
offence
c) Name of the : Sh. Satbir Singh, the-then
complainant Deputy Chief Security Officer,
AIIMS Delhi.
d) Name, parentage and : 1. Shambhu Rai @ Amit, S/o
address of the accused Harihar Rai, R/o Ayur Vigyan
Nagar, New Delhi. (Convicted
vide Order dated 06.06.2016).
2. Rajinder Singh Dhillon, S/o
Sh. Roop Chand, R/o Village
P.O. Nehla, District- Fatehabad,
Haryana. (Convicted vide Order
dated 05.03.2025).
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 1 of 20
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09
16:41:44
+0530
3. Surinder Prasad Sharma, S/o
Late Sh. Majunga Ram, R/o
2F/227, Gali No.5, Shastri Gali,
Maujpur, Delhi. (Convicted vide
Order dated 06.06.2016).
4. Baljeet Singh, S/o Sh. Prem
Raj, R/o Nizampur Majra (1-R),
Sonipat, Farmana,
Haryana-131408.
5. Kamal Gupta, S/o Sh. P.
Gupta, R/o A-99/C, Raju Park,
Khanpur, Delhi. (Discharged
vide Order dated 14.10.2022).
6. Avdesh Kumar Dubey, S/o
Rajender Prasad Dubey, R/o
14/5, Railway Colony, Sarojini
Nagar, New Delhi. (Convicted
vide Order dated 22.12.2006).
e) Offence complained of : Sections 120B/420/468/471 of
IPC and the substantive offence
u/S 420 IPC.
f) Plea of the accused : Accused Baljeet Singh (A-4)
pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
g) Final Order : ACQUITTAL
h) Date of Decision : 09.12.2025
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 2 of 20
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09
16:41:53
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, the Court shall determine whether the accused i.e. Baljeet Singh (A-4) is guilty of the offences punishable u/S 120B/420/468/471 of IPC and the substantive offence u/S 420 IPC, for which he is charged, in the present case.
2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is pertinent to mention that the other co-accused, namely, Shambhu Rai @ Amit (A-1), Rajinder Singh Dhillon (A-2), Surinder Prasad Sharma (A-3) and Avdesh Kumar Dubey (A-6), have already been convicted vide Orders dated 06.06.2016, 05.03.2025, 06.06.2016 and 22.12.2006 respectively and the accused Kamal Gupta was discharged vide Order dated 14.10.2022. Therefore, the present case is pending only qua accused Baljeet Singh (A-4).
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The present case was registered on 07.01.2004, on the basis of a written complaint dated 06.01.2004, lodged by Sh. Satbir Singh, the- then Deputy Chief Security Officer, AIIMS, on the ground that certain individuals had reported at AIIMS on 03.01.2004, with appointment letters for joining the posts of Clerical Grade-III and Hospital Attendant Grade-III, which, upon verification, were found to be fake. Upon receipt of the complaint, the FIR was registered and investigation commenced.
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 3 of 20
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09
16:42:01
+0530
4. During the course of investigation, the candidates who were allegedly handed over such appointment letters, i.e. Jai Prakash, Praveen Kumar and Sanjay were examined, and it was revealed that the accused Surinder Prasad Sharma (A-3) had promised them employment in AIIMS, on payment of certain money and they were called for interview at AIIMS, in the last week of October and early November 2003.
5. It also transpired during the course of investigation, that apart from convict Surinder Prasad Sharma (A-3), the convict Shambhu Rai @ Amit (A-1) was also present at the day of interview and he took the candidates to OPD Surgery Ward at 5th Floor, for the interview. The interview was allegedly taken by the accused Baljeet Singh (A-4) and Deepak. The accused Deepak has been absconding since investigation and has not been traced, till date. The convict Surinder Prasad Sharma handed over fake appointment letters to the interviewees/ above named victims and both the convicts i.e. Surinder Prasad Sharma and Shambhu Rai @ Amit, even facilitated the joining of victims at OPD Surgery Ward, at 2nd Floor, Thalassemia Unit, by getting them to sign on a register. However, the candidates were neither assigned any duty nor issued any ID card and the same consequently, created suspicion amongst the candidates.
6. The convict Shambhu Rai @ Amit confessed his involvement in the above offence and also stated that the fake appointment letters were typed in a cyber cafe. It was also revealed during investigation that an CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 4 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:42:08 +0530 amount of Rs. 1.75 lacs was paid to the convict Surinder Prasad Sharma and Rs. 1.68 lacs were handed over to the convict Shambhu Rai @ Amit. Further, upon the disclosure of convict Shambhu Rai @ Amit, the other accused, namely, Avdesh Kumar Dubey and Baljeet Singh (A-4) were arrested on 30.01.2004.
7. Further, during the course of investigation, it was also revealed that certain candidates were brought in by convict Rajinder Singh Dhillon (A-2) on the assurance that he would get them employed in AIIMS, in lieu of monetary consideration. The victims also handed over fake appointment letters given to them by the convict Rajinder Singh Dhillon and paid an amount of Rs. 4.13 lacs to the convict Rajinder Singh Dhillon, out of which Rs. 2.84 lacs was handed over by him to the co-convict Shambhu Rai @ Amit.
8. As far as the role of accused Baljeet Singh (A-4) is concerned, he allegedly interviewed the candidates in the last week of October 2003. Moreover, during the course of investigation, the accused Baljeet Singh refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP). However, no monetary recovery has been effected from the accused Baljeet Singh (A-4).
COGNIZANCE
9. The Court took cognizance of the offences, as disclosed in the charge sheet, and accordingly, all the accused persons were summoned vide Order dated 27.06.2005.
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 5 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:42:15 +0530 CHARGE
10. Pursuant to the appearance of the accused, an application for pleading guilty to the alleged offences was moved on behalf of accused Avdesh Kumar Dubey (A-6) and he was convicted of the offences u/S 120B r/w Section 419/420/468/471 and the substantive offence u/S 465 IPC, vide Order dated 22.12.2006. Further, he was sentenced to imprisonment for the period of custody already undergone by him and a cumulative fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
11. Further, applications for plea bargaining, were moved on behalf of Shambhu Rai @ Amit (A-1) and Surinder Prasad Sharma (A-3) and they were convicted for the offences u/S 120B r/w Sections 419/420/471 IPC vide Order dated 06.06.2016. Both the convicts were sentenced to imprisonment for the period of custody already undergone by them and a fine of Rs. 6,000/- each.
12. Vide Order dated 14.10.2022, the aspect of charge was decided, and it was held that charges be framed against the accused Baljeet Singh (A-4) u/S 120B/420/468/471 of IPC and the substantive offence u/S 420 IPC. Further, vide the same Order, the accused Kamal Gupta (A-5) was discharged of all the offences alleged against him.
13. The order dated 14.10.2022, was assailed in revision and the Ld. Revisional Court vide Order dated 23.03.2023, upheld the order of the Ld. Trial Court and dismissed the Revision Petition. Subsequently, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 6 of 20
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09
16:42:21
+0530
14. Meanwhile, the convict Rajinder Singh Dhillon was declared a proclaimed offender vide Order dated 08.11.2019, and was arrested on 29.03.2024, after being apprehended. An application for pleading guilty was moved on behalf of accused Rajinder Singh Dhillon, upon which he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for the period of custody already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
15. The prosecution, in order to prove and substantiate its case, has examined 08 witnesses, whose details are provided below:
PW-1 Parveen: He was one of the candidates, who was interviewed and he testified regarding meeting the convict Shambhu Rai @ Amit (A-1) in the year 2003, when he visited AIIMS, Delhi for his job. He identified the slip dated 15.12.2003, which was purportedly his joining slip, as Mark PW1/X in his deposition. During the course of his deposition, he also stated that the interview was conducted at 2 nd Floor, OPD, AIIMS.
PW-2 Jai Prakash Prasad: The witness was also one of the candidates who were interviewed. The witness testified to paying Rs. 70,000/- to the convict Surender Prakash Sharma (A-3) for getting him recruited at AIIMS. He exhibited the copy of offer of appointment to the post of Hospital Attendant dated 07.11.2003, as Mark PW2/X. The witness did not identify the accused Baljeet Singh and deposed that he CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 7 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:42:27 +0530 does not know the accused. The witness also testified that the alleged interview was conducted on 4th Floor at AIIMS, New Delhi.
PW-3 Jogeshwar Singh: The witness was also one of the interviewed candidates and was assured of a job at AIIMS, by the convict Surinder Prasad Sharma. The witness did not remember the date and place of his interview. He also deposed that he does not know the accused Baljeet Singh.
PW-4 Ramesh Paswan: The witness came in contact with the convict Surinder Prasad Sharma (A-3) through his neighbour Bhuwneshwar Singh. The witness deposed about handing over a sum of Rs. 80,000/- cumulatively, to the convict Surinder Prasad Sharma (A-3), for getting him recruited. He identified the Interview and Joining Site-Room Identification Memo dated 16.01.2004, as Ex. PW4/A (colly 7 pages) in his deposition. The witness also testified that he does not recognize the accused Baljeet Singh.
PW-5 Mukesh Kumar: The witness was promised employment at AIIMS, through the convict Rajender Kumar Dhillon (A-2). Upon visiting AIIMS, New Delhi, the witness came to know that the whole process of appointment was a sham and no such appointment letter was actually issued. He deposed about the following documents in his deposition:
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 8 of 20
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09
16:42:33
+0530
S. No. Exhibit No. Description
1. Ex. PW5/1 Letter/ complaint dated 03.01.2004, addressed to
Chief Vigilance Officer, AIIMS, Delhi.
2. Ex. PW5/2 The offer of appointment dated 05.12.2003.
3. Ex. PW5/3 Attested copy of the entry register at Deen Bandhu Sir Chotu Ram, Dharamshala, Society Bahadurgarh dated 02.01.2004.
PW-6 Satbir Singh: The witness is the complainant in the present case and was working as Deputy Chief Security Officer at AIIMS, New Delhi in the year 2004. The witness lodged the complaint on the directions of Sh. N. Baijendra Kumar, the-then Deputy Director (Administration), AIIMS, New Delhi, on the ground that certain persons had been issued fake appointment letters for various posts at AIIMS, New Delhi. The witness identified the letter dated 06.01.2004, addressed to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, regarding the fake appointment letters issued to certain individuals, as Ex. PW6/1, in his deposition. The witness also deposed that during his cross-examination that he had never heard about any complaint against the accused Baljeet Singh, during the tenure of his employment at AIIMS, New Delhi.
PW-7 Shubendu Dass: The witness was examined through Video Conferencing (VC), as he is currently residing in West Bengal. He was working as JE, CPWD, CGO Complex, New Delhi in the year 2004 and was as a witness to the arrest-cum-personal search memo of CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 9 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:42:40 +0530 the accused Baljeet Singh. He identified the following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document No. Description
1. Ex. PW7/1 D-5 Arrest-cum-personal search memo of accused Baljeet Singh dated 30.01.2004.
2. Ex. PW7/2 D-24 Disclosure statement of accused Shambhu Rai @ Amit dated 30.01.2004.
3. Ex. PW7/3 D-25 Pointing out and recovery memo dated 30.01.2004.
PW-8 Amit Vikram Bhardwaj: He is the IO of the present case and was posted as Inspector in CBI, ACB, Delhi in the year 2004. He exhibited the following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document No. Description
1. Ex. PW8/1 D-1 The FIR dated 07.01.2004.
2. Ex. PW8/2 D-2 Annexures pertaining to the handwritten complaint made to the-
then Chief Vigilance Officer, AIIMS, New Delhi.
3. Ex. PW8/3 D-3 List of candidates (selected and waiting) for Clerical Grade-III of AIIMS, New Delhi.
4. Ex. PW8/4 D-4 Disclosure statement of convict (colly) Surinder Prasad.
5. Ex. PW8/5 D-10 Production-cum-receipt memo dated 18.02.2004.
6. Ex. PW8/6 D-11 Photocopy of interview letter of Sh.
Rakesh Kumar.
7. Ex. PW8/7 D-12 Memorandum of Offer of Appointment for the post of Clerical Gr-III at AIIMS, Delhi dated CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 10 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:42:48 +0530 07.11.2003 of Sh. Rakesh Kumar.
8. Ex. PW8/8 D-15 The application, requesting for dasti copy of TIP proceedings order, pertaining to accused Baljeet Singh and other suspects.
9. Ex. PW8/9 D-26 Disclosure statement of Shambhu Rai @ Amit dated 03.02.2004.
10. Ex. PW8/10 D-27 and D-28 Pointing out cum recovery memos and Ex. dated 03.02.2004.PW8/11
11. Ex. PW8/12 D-29 Disclosure statement of Shambhu Rai @ Amit dated 06.02.2004.
13. Ex. PW8/13 D-34 Forensic Computer Examination Report dated 15.09.2004.
14 Ex. PW8/14 D-35 GEQD opinion.
16. Further, the accused admitted the following documents on 13.11.2025, pursuant to which Sh. N. Baijendra Kumar was dropped from the list of witnesses.
S. No. Exhibit Document Description
No. No.
1. Ex. P 1 D-18 Original letter dated 06.02.2004, sent by Sh.
N. Baijendra Kumar, the-then Deputy
Director and Chief Vigilance Officer of AIIMS, New Delhi.
2. Ex. P2 D-19 Memorandum of offer of appointment of A-4 Baljeet Singh dated 04.04.2003, at AIIMS, New Delhi.
3. Ex. P3 D-20 Attested true copy of acceptance letter of A-4 Baljeet Singh for the post at AIIMS, New Delhi dated 17.04.2003, issued by Sh. D.R. Bhanot, the-then Assistant Administrative Officer, AIIMS, New Delhi.
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 11 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:42:54 +0530
17. Subsequently, the prosecution evidence was closed on 14.11.2025, and the matter was listed for recording the statement of accused, u/S 313, CrPC.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC.
18. The statement of the accused Baljeet Singh (A-4) was recorded on 28.11.2025, wherein he categorically denied any involvement in the present offence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that none of the witnesses identified him and the allegation that he interviewed the victims has not been proved, even to the slightest extent, during the course of trial.
However, the accused did not wish to lead any evidence in his defence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
19. During the course of final arguments, Ld. PP has submitted that the accused had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings and the same leads to an adverse inference against the accused. Ld. PP for CBI has also relied upon the decision in Kiwan Prakash Pandurang Mokash Vs. State of Maharashtra (ILR 1974 Bom. 337) , in support of his contentions. Ld. PP for CBI has also submitted that based on the investigation conducted and the testimony of the IO, it has been proved that the accused conducted the interviews of the victims in question and thus, his role in the present offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was further contended that the inconsistencies in CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 12 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:43:00 +0530 the description of the venue of the interview are natural, owing to the lapse of time and do not affect the case of the prosecution.
20. Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has submitted that the present case is one of flawed and defective investigation and there is no iota of evidence on record, to prove the incriminating role of accused, in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the refusal to join TIP by itself, cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused and the reasons for refusal have clearly been mentioned in the order of the Ld. MM dated 19.02.2004 (D-16), of which the Court can take judicial notice.
21. Additionally, it is also submitted that there has been no recovery from the accused and thus, there is no basis to sustain the charge u/S 420 IPC, against the accused. Moreover, there has been no disciplinary action or Departmental Enquiry against the accused and the same is also a relevant factor to show that the accused had no role in the alleged offence. On this basis, it is submitted that the accused is entitled to an honorable acquittal in the present case.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
22. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and has perused the judicial decisions, relied upon by both the prosecution as well as the accused.
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 13 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:43:07 +0530
23. The present case is pending only qua the accused Baljeet Singh (A-4). The case of the prosecution against the accused is that he took interviews of the candidates/ victims, in October 2003, on the basis of which, they were handed over fake appointment letters by the other co- accused (now convicts). The accused has been charged for offences u/S 120B/420/468/471 IPC and the substantive offence u/S 420 IPC.
24. A perusal of the order on charge dated 14.10.2022, shows that in terms of incriminating evidence against the accused, the statement of LW-33 Radhey Shyam u/S 161 CrPC, brings out the role of accused Baljeet Singh. The witness in his statement u/S 161 CrPC stated that he arranged a room on the 6th floor of AIIMS with the help of other employees of AIIMS, including the accused, where interviews of 8 candidates took place. It is also stated in his statement that the accused Baljeet Singh interviewed the candidates and informed him that appointment letters were issued to 8 candidates of accused Surinder Prasad Sharma (A-3). The said witness in his statement u/S 161 CrPC stated that he also received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the Shambhu Rai @ Amit, for facilitating the commission of offence.
25. The said witness, however, expired during the course of trial and thus, his testimony could not be recorded. He was, accordingly dropped from the list of witnesses on 23.04.2025 and thus, his statement u/S. 161, CrPC cannot be read in evidence. Further, even a bare perusal of his statement to the IO clearly shows that he was himself an accomplice in the commission of the offence, yet the IO CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 14 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:43:14 +0530 failed to array Radhey Shyam (LW-33) as an accused. His non- examination renders his statement wholly inconsequential, against the accused.
26. It is trite law that the accomplice is also a competent witness, but the evidence of an accomplice has to be received with necessary caution. [Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (4) 478] . However, it is pertinent to note that the said accomplice evidence, could never come on record and thus, no weight , whatsoever, can be given to the statement u/S 161 CrPC of the deceased witness Radhey Shyam.
27. The Court now has to analyze whether any other incriminating evidence has come on record, against the accused Baljeet Singh. It is noteworthy that none of the witnesses who were allegedly interviewed, i.e. PW-1 to PW-5 have identified the accused and have clearly testified that they do not know the accused Baljeet Singh. Therefore, it is apparent that in the entire evidence on record, none of the candidates have deposed that the interview was taken by the accused Baljeet Singh.
28. Ld. PP for CBI has relied on the testimony of PW-4 Ramesh Paswan to show that the Interview and Joining Site-Room Identification Memo (Ex. PW4/A), which has been proved by the witness, shows the involvement of accused Baljeet Singh. It is stated in the said memo that the candidates were asked to sit by the accused CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 15 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:43:20 +0530 Baljeet Singh, and he also gave them certain forms for reading, during the alleged interview. The testimony of PW-4 deserves closer scrutiny. The witness in his cross-examination deposed that he came to Delhi from Bihar and reached AIIMS for interview on 28.10.2003. He also testified that he never visited the CBI office, after leaving Delhi in the year 2003 and was visiting Delhi for the first time in 2023, since then, for his deposition. He also deposed that certain CBI officials came in Gypsy and took him to the office.
29. It is a matter of surprise that the witness who never came to Delhi after 2003, gave his statement u/S 161 CrPC to the IO in 2004. Further, the IO could not have examined the witness, as the entire conspiracy was unravelled, only in January 2004. Thus, the entire testimony of the witness and the fact that he gave his statement u/S 161 CrPC to the IO has been shrouded in suspicion. Additionally, it is also pertinent to note that the witness neither recognized the accused Baljeet Singh in Court nor deposed that the accused Baljeet Singh (A-4) was the interviewer. Thus, even the Interview and Joining Site- Room Identification Memo (Ex. PW4/A), has not been proved in accordance with law and cannot implicate the accused.
30. The next incriminating circumstance pertains to the arrest of accused on 30.01.2004 and the same was allegedly witnessed by PW-7 Shubhendu Dass, as an independent witness. However, during his entire testimony, the witness has categorically deposed that the accused Baljeet Singh was not arrested in his presence. The witness maintained CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 16 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:43:26 +0530 the same stance, even when he was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI. The witness also went on to depose that the arrest memo of accused Baljeet Singh (D-5), the disclosure statement of accused Shambhu Rai @ Amit (D-24) and pointing out recovery memo dated 30.01.2004 (D-25) were all executed at the same place in Noida i.e. 33C, Kanchenjunga Apartment, Sector-53, Noida. This casts a serious doubt on the genuineness of the arrest memo and the circumstances of arrest of the accused.
31. The only remaining incriminating circumstance against the accused, is his refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings and the same is evident from a perusal of the order dated 19.02.2004 of the- then Ld. MM. The reasons for refusal are also mentioned in the Order, as per which the accused submitted that he had already been shown to the witnesses by the police officials and the witnesses already knew him. The same is a valid ground for refusal of TIP. Additionally, the circumstances in which the entire proceedings of TIP were conducted by the IO, have also been questioned by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court in the Order on charge dated 14.10.2022, vis-à-vis the accused Kamal Gupta (A-5), who was discharged on this ground.
32. It is also pertinent to note that TIP proceedings, are only a corroborative evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the accused, as has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 791 and Gireesan Nair Vs. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180.
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 17 of 20
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09
16:43:33
+0530
Therefore, the refusal of the accused, to get the TIP conducted is merely an incriminating circumstance and can be used to only support the other substantive evidence, during the course of trial. In the present case, no substantive incriminating evidence exists against the accused. He has neither been identified by any of the candidates nor any monetary recovery has been effected from him. The prosecution has not even been able to prove the place, where the interview was conducted and various contradictory versions have been given by all the witnesses, in this regard. Even the IO in his testimony has admitted that while in the charge-sheet, it is stated that the interview was conducted at 5th floor, OPD Surgery, AIIMS, Delhi, the witnesses including LW-33 Radhey Shyam, have submitted to the contrary.
33. Even after a perusal of the testimony of the IO, it is evident that there are various crucial lapses in the investigation conducted and the IO did not even gather any evidence to prove that the accused Baljeet Singh was present at AIIMS, on the day of the alleged interview i.e. 28.10.2003. Further, the IO admitted that he could not recover any incriminating document showing the involvement of accused Baljeet Singh. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that the accused was acting in concert with the other co-accused, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy or that he facilitated the issuance of fake appointment letters. There is nothing on record to show that the accused himself made any false representation to the candidates or that any consequential wrongful loss was occasioned to them, which is a sine qua non for proving the offence of cheating. Thus, upon a holistic CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 18 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:43:40 +0530 analysis of the entire case of prosecution, it is evident that nothing incriminating has been proved against the accused Baljeet Singh.
34. It is a settled proposition of criminal law, that it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance between 'may be true' to 'must be true' and the same must be proved by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. (Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637). If the case of prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused, which is the case, in the matter at hand. No incriminating evidence has been proved qua the accused, in the present case.
35. The case of the prosecution is riddled with inconsistencies and various lapses, all of which accrue in favour of the accused. The accused has faced the rigours of trial for more than two decades, despite the absence of any cogent or credible evidence against him. In these circumstances, the only irresistible inference that can be drawn is that the prosecution has failed to establish its case, even on a prima facie basis.
CONCLUSION
36. Considering the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the offences, which the CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 19 of 20 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:43:47 +0530 accused is charged with, in the present case. As a result, the accused Baljeet Singh (A-4) stands acquitted of the offences u/S 120 B r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC and the substantive offence u/S 420 IPC.
37. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.12.09 16:43:53 (Jyoti Maheshwari)+0530 Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-05 Rouse Avenue Courts Complex Announced in the open Court on 9th December, 2025.
CBI vs Shambhu Rai @ Amit Page no. 20 of 20