Delhi District Court
State vs Prakash Jarwal And Ors on 28 February, 2024
DLCT110003212020
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) CBI09 (MPs/MLAs CASES)
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
Session Case No. 02/2020
CNR No. DLCT110003212020
FIR No. 213/2020
PS : Neb Sarai
U/S 306/386/506/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
1. Prakash Jarwal
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prashad
R/o H. No. 148, BBlock, Tigri Extension,
New Delhi.
(The then Member of Legislative Assembly
from Deoli/Devli, Delhi Constituency)
2. Kapil Nagar
S/o Sh. Manbir Nagar
R/o B64, Tigri Extension,
New Delhi.
3. Harish Kumar Jarwal
S/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash
R/o H. No. C1248, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
Date of institution of case : 07.11.2020
Date of conclusion of arguments : 08.02.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.02.2024
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 1 of 226
DLCT110003212020
JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The factual matrix of present case is that on 18.04.2020, one DD No. 11A Ex.PW45/A (D5on page 257) registered/ recorded by ASI Sudhir/PW45 at PS Neb Sarai was assigned for inquiry to SI Shiv Singh/PW47, who was on emergency duty in the PS on that day. The said DD was registered on basis of a PCR call made by someone regarding commission of suicide by his uncle. The above SI along with HC Tejpal/PW40 reached at the spot of incident i.e. H. No. A144, Durga Vihar, Deoli, New Delhi and they found that a person had committed suicide by way of hanging with a rope tied with railing of a room built on terrace of the said house. On inquiry, identity of that person was revealed as Dr. Rajendra Singh, a resident of the said house, and it was found that he was already dead. The dead body of Dr. Rajendra Singh was brought down by cutting of rope, with which the deceased had hung himself, from near the above said railing and while leaving the piece of rope tied around neck as it is. The remaining portion of rope with hook was seized by SI Shiv Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F (D12on page 307).
2. SI Shiv Singh/PW47 called the Crime Team led by SI CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 2 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Ajay Kumar/PW38 at spot and got the crime scene inspected vide report Ex.PW38/A (D10on page 303) and he also got it photographed through HC Ravinder/PW24. The room of deceased was searched in presence of one Sh. Hemant Singh/ PW1 and Sh. Charan Singh/PW41, who are the son and brother respectively of deceased, and during the said search, one diary, a six page suicide note and a bill book were found lying in drawer of a table kept in said room and the same were seized by PW47 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E (D14on page 311). The dead body of deceased was got deposited by PW47 with AIIMS hospital for postmortem vide MLC No. 3126/2020 (on page
445).
3. The contents of above six page suicide note Ex.PW1/D (available in an envelope on page 1291 of file) written on loose sheets and left by the deceased, are as under: Page 1 "पपरर नप ससवप मम शशमपन जश मम एक बहह त हश ससनदर अपनस पररवपर कस सपर जशवन जश रहप रप मगर A.A.P कस M.L.A पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल नपगर नस मसझस ववपरद कर पदयप हह इन ललगल नस मसझसस D.J.B. मस गपड़श चलपनस कक एवज मस व मसझसस उधपर बततर कपफक मलटप पहसप लस ललयप जल पक महनस अपनस घर कस जसवर भश पगरवश रख पदयस और अब मस पहसप वपपपस मपगतप हह ह तल यस मसझस परललक लसधपरनस कक धमकक दसतस हह। मस अब कपफक परसशपन हह ह इन दल आदमशयल कक वजह सस। यस मसझस व मसरस पररवपर कल जपन सस मरवपनस कक धमकक दसतस हस पक अगर तसनस हमपरश कहश पशकयत कक तल । अब मम इनसस इतनप परसशपन हह ह पक मस अपनश जपन दस रहप हह ह मस इनहस अपनस जशतस जश तल कलई सजप नहह पदलप सकप मगर मसरस मरनस कस बपद इनहस CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 3 of 226 DLCT110003212020 सखत सस सखत सजप दश जपयस आपकक अपत ककपयप हलगश पपरर (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) मसरस बहक कस सपइन हह"
Reverse side of page 1 is blank Page 2 "इन ललगल नस मसझस कई बपर परललक यमललक व जपन सस मपरनस कक धमकक दश हह जल कक कसछ ररकपरर हह धमकक टपइम 18/7/19 शपम 8.20 पफर दवस परप 19/7/19 9.44 पफर पतबपरप 19/7/19 9.47"
On reverse side of page 2 "पपरर नप धमकक टपइम 18/7/19 8.20 शपम 19/7/19 944. ससबह 947 ससबह"
Page 3 "ससवप मम शशमपन जश सस पनवसदन हह पक मम एक बहह त ससनदर जशवन ससखश पररवपर सस पबतप रहप रप लसपकन मसझस पकपश झपरवपल M. L A व उसकस आदपमयय नस जशनप दभस र कर पदयप हह यस मसझस जपन सस मपरनस कक धमकक दसतस हह। और कहतस हह पक पसललस मस हमपरश कमलहनर कक तल हम तसरस पपरस पररवपर कल खतम कर दसगस। तप तल कतन चशज हह हमनस तल कई J.E. व आई. पश. एस पपटस हह। हम तसरश ऐसश कक तहसश कर दसगस मसझस इनसस पपरप रर हह पक मसरश जपन लस सकतस हह यस मसरस पररवपर कल भश नपकसपन पहह हचप सकतस मस परसशपन हह ह हपटर कप"
Page 4 "मरशज हह ह अतत सपहब अब मस टप ट चपकप हह ह कयय पक यस M.L.A. पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल नपगर बहह त हश वसरश तरह सस हर तरह सस मसझस परसशपन कर रहस हम। मम इनकस रर सस आतम हतयप कर रहप हह ह कयय पक मम इन यमरपजय कल जशतस जश तल सजप नहह पदलप सकप मगर मसरस मरनस कस वपद इनकल सरकपर सखत सस सखत सजप दश जपयस जल पक मसरस जहसप यस पकसश और कल परसशपन न करस आपकक अपत ककपयप हलगश।
पपरर CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 4 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Rajender Singh (signatures/full name of deceased in English) (Signatures of deceased in English) सपईन 28/8/9 कयय पक मसझस 18/7/19 कक शपम भश 8.20 पमनट पर परललक लसधपरनस कक धमकक दश"
(Reverse side of page 4 is blank) Page 5 "पपरर नप ससवप मस शशमपन मम रड० रपजमदर लसहह कपपल नपगर व शश पकपश झपरवपल कस रलज रलज कक परसशपनश सस तहग आ चपकप हह ह और मस मसझसस D.J.B मस गपरश चलपनश हह तल हमस 100000) र दल वरनप हम तसझस व तसरस पररवपर कल जपन सस मपर दसगस तसझस ववपरद कर दसगस तसरश ऐसश कक तहसश कर दसगस मम हपटर कप मरशज हह ह जल पक मस अब कपफक परसशपन हह ह और लजस पदन सस मसझस M.LA पकपश झपरवपल कक धमकक पमलश हह। मसरश तपबयत ख़रपब हह मस परसशपन हह ह मसरस सशनस मम ददर हह 18/7/19 कक शपम टपईम 8.20 पर मसझस पकपश झपरवपल नस मसझस परललक लसधपरनस कक धमकक हह और इसकस गसहरस मसझस परसशपन कर रहस जल कक मसरश जपन लस सकतस "
(Reverse side of page 5 is blank) Page 6 "पपरर नप MLA शश पकपश झपरवपल दसवलश पवधपन सभप व कपपल नपगर मसझस परसशपन न करल।
ससवप मम शशमपन जश सस पनवसदन हह पक मसरस पवधपयक शश MLA पकपश झपरवपल व उनकप आदमश कपपल नपगर जल पक पतगड़श EXT मम रहतस हह। शश पकपश झपरवपल M.L.A. दसवलश पवधपन सभप नस मसझस 18/7/19 शपम 8.30 पमनट पर फ़लन सस जपन सस मपरनस कक धमकक दश रश कक मसरस पवशवपस पपत चपर ललगल कल ममनस वल दस दश रश मसझस नहश मपलपम रप कक यस मसझस बदनपम करनस कस ललयस यस उसस वपईरल करकस मसझस नपजपयज बदनपम करसगस। अब मसरस पवधपयक शश पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल नपगर नस उसश नपरपजगश मस मसरश गपपड़यप 1 मपचर 2020 सस D.J.B. सस हटवप दश हह। मसरश रलजश रलटश इनहलनस छशन लश हह। और मसझस चपरल तरफ सस परसशपन कर रहस हह। अगर मसरस सपर यप मसरस पररवपर कस सपर कलई भश अपपय घटनप हलतश हह। तल उसकस जसममसवपर कपपल नपगर व M.L.A पकपश झपरवपल हलगस। इन ललगल नस मसरप जशवन बबपरद कर पदयप हह। मसरप पररवपर तल अब ईशवर कस सहपरस हह।
मस हपटर कप मरशज हह ह CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 5 of 226 DLCT110003212020 यस ममनस खसद ललखश हह Rajender Singh Mo9811292950 (signatures/full name of deceased in English with mobile number) (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) मसरस सपईन बमक सस पमलवप सकतस हह"
On reverse side of page 6 "यस ममनस कपपल कल वटसप कक हह dated"
4. The above diary of deceased Ex.PW1/B (available in an envelope on page 1355 of file) was stated to be consisting of 161 pages in total and contents on pages 11 to 51 thereof, except page nos. 40 and 46, were also alleged to contain some writings of the deceased in respect to circumstances leading to his suicide. The contents of these 39 writings of deceased contained in his above diary are also being reproduced herein below, page wise: DIARY PAGE - 11 "पपरर नप ससवप मस शशमपन जश सस पनवसदन हह पक मस एक वहह त हश ससखश पररवपर जशवन पवतप रहप रप लसपकन मम 2005 सस D.J.B. मस पपनश कक सपलपई मस टहकर चलप रहप रप जल पक मसझस कभश कलई परसशपनश नहश हह ई जव सस मसरस पवधपयक पकपश झपरवपल M.L.A. A.A.P कस वनस तभश सस यस और इनकप आदमश कपशल नपगर जल पक इनकक मनरलश उगपतप हह उसनस मसझस परसशपन व ववपरद कर पदयप हह पक हमस हर महशनप एक लपख र दस वरनप हम तसरस पररवपर व तसझस जपन सस मपर दसगस तस हह कतन हमनस तल वरस 2 ललगल कल मपरप हह हमनस तल कई I.P.S पपटस हह हम जसल भश रह चपकस हह हम तसझस नहश छलरसगस पकपश झपरवपल कस पपस कपफक शपपतर वदमपश ललग हह। और कहतप हह पक अगर तस कहश भश हमपरश पशकपयत करसगप DIARY PAGE - 12 तल हम तसरस पपरस पररवपर कल खतम कर दसगस , अव इनहलनस मसरस टहकर भश DJB सस हटप पदयस हह मस इन ललगल सस रर कर हश अपनश जशवन लशलप खतम कर रहप हह ह मसरस भश पररवपर हह मगर मस अब 5 सपल मस इतनप टस ट चपकप हह ह महनस इनहम 15 सपल CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 6 of 226 DLCT110003212020 मस 50) लपख र भश दस पदयस हह पक आप मसझस व मसरस पररवपर कल परसशपन न करल मगर पकपश झपरवपल व इसकस आदमश कपपल नपगर नस मसझस जपन सस मपरनस कक धमकक भश दस रखश हह जल कक 18/07/19 शपम 8:20 पर आई रश अव मस तल अपनस पररवपर कल अनपर व वससपहपरप छलर चलप मस इनकल जशतस जश तल सजप नहश पदलप सकप मगर मसरश अननतम इचछप हह पक M.LA पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल नपगर हश मसरश मतत कस जपममसवपर हह। मसरस मरनस कस वपद इनहस कठलर सस कठलर सजप दश जपए।
DIARY PAGE - 13 मसनस अपनस गपहव कक जमशन भश वसच कर कपपल नपगर कल दस दश मगर पफर यस मसझस पकपश झपरवपल सस धमकक पदलपतप रहप हम अव इनकस रर सस अपनश जपन दस रहस हह अगर कहश कलई कपनपन हह तल इन दलनल कल मसरश मतत कक सजप दस इनहलनस अव फलन पर धमकक वनद कर दश हह नयस 2 आदमश भसजतस हह। इनकक धमकक कक ररकपरशग भश आपकल पमल जपयसगश जल कक 18/7/19 कक शपम 8.20 कक हह यस तल कसवल एक ररकपरशग हह यस तल मसझस महशनप मस नई 2 तरह परसशपन करतस हह।
यस मसरस सपईन हह यस रपजसनद लसह नस हश ललखश हह (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) बहनक सस पमलप सकतस हह 1/3/20 DIARY PAGE - 14 मस पदन यप रपत मस इनकस रर सस न खपतप हह न सलतप हह ह मस खसद हपटर कप मरशज हह ह मसनस इन हहवपनल कस कई बपर पहर भश पकर ललयस पक भपई आप मसझस परसशपन न करल मगर इनकल तल कसवल हर महशनप एक लपख कपपल नपगर कल दस यस पकपश झपरवपल M.L.A कहतप हह पक अगर लजनदप रखनप हह अपनप पररवपर वरनप तस परललक जपयस जल पक ररकपरशग मस सपफ हह। ओर जव सस ररकपरशग हह ई हह तव सस तल इसनस मसरस जशनप हरपम कर पदयप हह। कपपल नपगर व पकपश झपरवपल कल मसरश मतत कल जसममसवपर मपनप जपयस। सपहब मस मजवपर हलकर ऐसप कर रहप हह ह शलक मस नहश मसरश भश एक पलतश हह जल घर मस जपतस हश कहतश हह वपवप आ जप अब सभश कपनपन कस DIARY PAGE - 15 हवपलस हह। इन दररनदल कल वखसप नप जपयस (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) (लजसकक रसशद घर पर पमल जपयसगश CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 7 of 226 DLCT110003212020 महनस अपनस घर कप धशरस2 सपरप gold हश मरपर मस रखकर कपपल नपगर कल पहसप दस पदयप पक भपई मसरश रलजश रलटश मत झशन लसपकन यस मसझसस वपर2 लगपतपर पहसप कक परमपनर करतप रहप पक नहश तल तसरश गपड़श D.J.B सस हटप दसगस मसरप इनहलनस जशवन ववपरद कर पदयप हह यस दलनल M.L.A पकपश झपरवपल करपतप हह कहतप हह तसझस हम ववपरद कर दसगस तसनस हमपरश धमकक कल सवकल बतपयप हह जल पक मसनस कसवल अपनस पवशवपश कस चपर ललगल कल बतपयप रप पक भपई मसझस M.LA पकपश झपरवपल जपन सस मपरनस कक धमकक दस रहप हह यस आगस पसज 5 पर अव वल भश वपवप पकससस कहसगश।
DIARY PAGE - 16 अव जव इस कपपल नपगर व M.L.A पकपश झपरवपल कल महनस 500000) र भश 2/3/20 कल रपजवशर लसह दसवलश कस दपरप दस पदयप अव भश इनहलनस मसरश गपरश 1/3/20 कल J.E महलदय पहममत लसह सस कहकर हटप दश। अव मस 500000) र सस भश मपरप गयप अव यस और पहसप मपग रहस हह अव मह इन दलनल सस परसशपन हलकर आतम हतयप कर रहप हह ह। मसरश मतत कस जसममसवपर कपपल नपगर s/o मनवशर हह और MLA पकपश झपरवपल हह इनहस वखसप न जपए। मसरश सरकपर सस यस हश पपरर नप हह A.A.P. कप पवधपयक हह ईमपनदपरर कस कपयर दसखल इसकस इसनस बहह त भकषपचपर पकयप हह। इनहलनस सभश DIARY PAGE - 17 वलर कहश कस कहश लगपयस हह और पहसप कमपयप हह। इसकक जपच कक जपयस ।
(Signatures/initials of deceased in English) 4/3/20 (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) Rajendra Singh (Signatures/full name in English) (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) DIARY PAGE - 18 यस भपई MLA पकपश झपरवपल पहसप दस यप पफर परललक पहह हचप दगप प यस धमकक दश हह।
18/3/19 कक शपम 8.30 पर पर मसरस सपर इन ललगल नस भश पवशवपश घपत कहस यप 420, मसरस हमददर वनकर मसझसस यस मलबपईल कक ररकपपरग लस लश और वपयरल कर दश यह चपर ललग हह जलपक मसरस सपर दसनस कप वपदप करतस रस इनकस अगपठस कस भश पनशपन हह पक हम ललग सभश टहनकर वपलस M.L.A कल पहसप दसतस हह वल हह सतस मपन, पतलकरपज उफ़र परलप और रमसश गलसवपमश पवन s/o CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 8 of 226 DLCT110003212020 DIARY PAGE - 19 रपजवशर जल पक मसरस वपद आप दसख लसनप इन सभश कल अपनस 2 कमर कक सजप दश जपयस। कयय पक यस हश ललग हह लजनहलनस मसझस फसपयप हह और कपपल नपगर व पकपश MLA नस मसझस तन मन धन सस ववपरद कर पदयप हह।
अतत मसरश अननतम इचछप हह पक इनकल कठलर सस कठलर सजप पदलपई जपयस। जल पक यस मसरश तरह पकसश कप जशवन ववपरद न करस।
(Signatures/initials of deceased in English) जहसस पक मसरस वसटप हसमनत कक गपरश छतपसर चलतश हह उसकक पसमसनट 29/2/20 DIARY PAGE - 20 कल आई वल तशन लपख व 2 लपख महनस कजपर ललयप पक मसरश गपरश DJB Shouth III मस चलतश रश इनहस आप चलनस दस और यस पहसप महनस रपजवशर दसवलश लजसकस वसटप पवन हह इसकक भश गपरश चलतश हह कल पदयप पक भपई मसरश गपड़श न हटपई जपयस यस हश इनकप पहसप पहह हचपतस हह अव 5 लपख भश गयस और मसरश गपरश पबनप पकसश कमश कस DJB सस भश हटप दश हह अव मस वपर 2 ललख रहप हह ह पक कपपल नपगर व पकपश झपरवपल जल पक अपनश धमकक कप वदलप लस रहस हह और मसझस व मसरस पररवपर कल खतम करनस कक धमकक DIARY PAGE - 21 भसज रहस। मस अव इनकस रर सस हपटर कप मरशज अपनश लजनदगश इन दररनदल कस भय सस समपप कर रहप हह ह (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) Rajendra Singh (Signatures/full name in English) (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) महनस इनकस पहर तक पकरस हह लसपकन यस नहश मपनस कपपल नपगर कस घर कहमरप हह। लजसमस आप दसख सकतस हह। यस कहतस हह पक तसनस हमपरश धमकक लशक कयल पक जल पक महनस कसवल यस चपर ललगल कल दश रश जल मसरस हम ददर वनतस रस रमसश गलसवपमश पतलक रपज उफ़र परलप सतस मपन s/o शश रपधस मपन पवन s/o शश रपजवशर DIARY PAGE - 22 इन ललगल नस मसरस सपर धलखप पदयप और खसद भलस वननस कस चककर मस मसझस वदनपम कर पदयप जल पक अव MLA पकपश झपरवपल कहतप हह पक अव तल मस D.J.B. कप मसमबर हह ह तसझस ववपरद करकस रहह हगप तसझस कसतस कक मतत उतरवप दगप प। मस अव टस ट गयप हह ह हपटर व शसगर कप मरशज हह ह जल अव मस अपनश जशवनश खसद खतम कर रहप हह ह CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 9 of 226 DLCT110003212020 DIARY PAGE - 23 यस वरस शपपतर ललग हह इनहस सखत सस सखत सजप दश जपयस (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) Rajendra Singh (Signatures/full name in English) पकपश झपरवपल M.L.A व उसकप शपपतर वदमपश कपपल नपगर कपपल नपगर कहतप हह मसरस पपपप चत. मनवशर नपगर जल पदललश पसललस मस हह तस हमपरप कयप पवगपड़ सकतप हह। तस तल परललक जपयसगप जरर वरनप हमस पहसप दस। मस इनकप अपनप सबकसछ बसचकर दस चपकप हह ह अव मसरस पपस कसछ नहश हह कसवल इन दररनदल कस रर सस कसवल जशवन लशलप समपप करनप कलई भश अपनश जपन मजवपरश मस दसतप हह। मस हपटर कप मरशज अव हर तरफ सस टस ट चसकप हह ह।
DIARY PAGE - 24 और कसवल अननतम रपसतप अपनप रहप हह ह यस ललग हश मसरश मतत कस जसममसवपर हह M.L.A पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल नपगर (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) Rajendra Singh (Signatures/full name in English) DIARY PAGE - 25 पपरर नप कपशल नपगर व पकपश झपरवपल कभश कहतस हह पक तस B.J.P कप आदमश हह कभश कहतस हह रमसश पवधपरश कप ररसतसदपर हह हम तसझस नहश छलरसगस मगर ऐसप कसछ नहह हह महनस हमसशप A.A.P. कल हश सपलट पकयप हह। इन ललगल कप महनस कपयर हह पहसप जल पक अव मसरस पपस हह नहह मम कलई पहसप वनपनस कक मशशन नहश मस इन दलनल कल पदशमवर सस फरवरश तक 600000) र दस चपकप हह ह पफर DIARY PAGE - 26 भश इन ललगल नस मसझस झपठप आशवपशन दसकर पक हम तसरश गपरश D.J.B सस नहश हटपयसगस पफर D.J.B सस हटप दश मस मजबपर हह ह (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) मसरस परशवपर कक इनसस रकप कक जपयस।
DIARY PAGE - 27 पपरर नप अव मसझस परसशपन कल और परसशपन करनस कस ललयस पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 10 of 226 DLCT110003212020 नपगर नस मसरश D.J.B कक पसमसनट रकवपनस कस ललयस भश व पवल न वनपनस कस ललयस भश G.K I Shouth III मस फलन पर कह पदयप हह पक इसकक पसमसनट रलक दल और इसकस पवल भश मत बनपओ जल पक मसझस D.J.B कस हश कमर चपरशयल नस वतपयप हह जल पक मसरस पवशवपश पपत हह यस मसझस हर तरह परसशपन कर रहप हह। यस कह रहप हह पक मस तसझस DIARY PAGE - 28 कहश कप नहश छलरसगप अतत अव मस आखशरश रपसतप चपन रहप हह ह यस दलनल मसरश मतत कस जसममसवपर हह।
(Signatures/initials of deceased in English) पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल नपगर और इसकस आदमश हह। जल पक मसझस परसशपन करतस हह जहसस हरशश झपरवपल इसकप भपई अपनल झपरवपल DIARY PAGE - 29 मसझस जपन सस मपरनस कक धमकक दश रश जल पक मसरस सस इन चपर ललगल कल वपईरल हल गई रश सतस मपन रमसश गलसवपमश पतलक रपज उफ़र परलप पवन s/o शश रपजवशर कयल पक यस सभश ललग उस टपईम मसरस हम ददर वनस रस और अव पवशवपश घपत कर रहस हह। पकपश झपरवपल M.L.A. व कपपल नपगर जल पक बहह त परसशपन कर रहस हह। पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल नपगर कहतस हह।
DIARY PAGE - 30 पक तसरस कल कहश नहश छलरसगस वरनप हमस 5 L पपच लपख र और दस वरनप तसरश जल D.J.B मस टसनकर चलतस हह हम उनहस बलहक ललसट करवप दगप प मस D.J.B. कप मसमबर हह ह। जल पक मसरश गपड़श सहश सलपमत चल रहश रश D.J.B कल कलई पशकपयत नहश रश वल इसनस हश एक मपचर 2020 सस हटपई रश अव मसझस यस चपरल तरफ सस परसशपन कर रहस हह पक पहसप दस अव मसरप सव कसछ DIARY PAGE - 31 इन ललगल नस लस ललयप हह मस परसशपन हपटर कप मरशज हह ह अव मस पपहच सपल मस इनकस भषपचपर सस टस ट चपकप हह ह अव मसरप पररवपर ईशवर कस भरलसस हह पदल पर पतरर रखकर मस मजवपर हलकर अपनश आतमहतयप कर रहप हह ह| भपई मसरप भश वहह त ससनदर पररवपर हह पलतश हह वहह हह वसटप जल कक सव कसछ ठशक ठपक रप मगर A.A.P कस MLA पकपश झपरवपल व CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 11 of 226 DLCT110003212020 DIARY PAGE - 32 कपपल नपगर नस फलल सस भरस वपग कल उजपरप हह इनकल मसरश मलत कक मस वपर2 कह रहप हह ह सखत सस सखत सजप पमलस आपकक अपत ककपयप हलगश धनयवपद पपरर (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) DIARY PAGE - 33 रपजवशर s/o शश अमरलसहह दसवलश गपहव नस मसरस सपर पपरश गदपरश कक हह इसनस मसझसस तल कहपह हम तसरस सपर हह मगर यस उधर कपपल नपगर व M.LA पकपश झपरवपल कल मसरस पपत उलटप भरकपतप रहप यस मसरश ववपरदश कप मसखय आदमश हह | यस मसझसस पदशमवर 2019 सस लसकर आज तक पपहच लपख र लसकर कक तसरश गपरशयल कल मस चलपऊहगप मसरश गपरनटश हह| और अव मसकर रहप हह मस इस पर पवशवपस करतप रहप यस बहह त शपपतर पनकलप (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) DIARY PAGE - 34 अव यस रपजवशर लसह न मसरश गपड़शयप लगवप रहप हह| और नहश मसरस 500000) र वपपपस कर रहप हह| रलज आज कल कर रहप हह| मस परसशपन हह ह पक पहसप भश गयप और गपरशयप भश D.J.B मस नहह लगश| इसनस यस 500000) र मसझसस कपपल नपगर व M.L.A पकपश झपरवपल कस नपम सस ललयप जल पक मसरस वसटप कक एक गपरश छतरपसर पवधपन सभप मस चलतश हह उसकक पसमसनट रश जल पक 1 मपचर यप दल मपचर मस महनस पनकपल DIARY PAGE - 35 कर रपजवशर लसह s/o शश अमरलसहह दसवलश गपहव कल और 200000) र वयपज पर लसकर पदयप मगर इसनस भश मसरस सपर धलखप पकयप अव कहतप हह महनस तल कपपल नपगर कल दस पदयस उसनस MLA पकपश झपरवपल कल दस पदयस तसझमस पहममत हह तल लस लस| वरनप चपप चपप वहठ जप तसझस हम कहश कप नहश छलरसगस अतत इनसस परसशपन हलकर मस अपनश हरश भरश लजनदगश ईशवर कस हवपलस कर रहप हह ह अतत यस DIARY PAGE - 36 दररनदस मसरश मतत कस जसममसवपर हह CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 12 of 226 DLCT110003212020 (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) DIARY PAGE - 37 पपरर नप रपजवशर लसह s/o शश अमर लसह दसवलश गपहव व पतलक रपज उफ़र परलप जल पक सहगम पवहपर असतल कस पपस रहतप हह इसकस भश टहनकर D.J.B मस चलतस हह यस इधर तल हमपरस सपर रहकर नयस 2 तरशकप वतपतस रहस पक M.LA पकपश झपरवपल कस लखलपफ यस करल यस करल मगर उधर यस कपपल नपगर सस पमलस रहस हमस अव मपलपम हह आ पक यस हमपरस सपर पवशवपश घपत कर रहस हह| DIARY PAGE - 38 और मसझस झपठप आशवपशन दसकर पक हम तसरस टहनकर D.J.B मस चलवपयसगस मसझसस 500000) र लसकर धलखप पकयप पक आज लग जपयसगश कल D.J.B मस लग जपयसगश अव मसरश हर तरफ सस उममशद टस ट गई हह| मस अव बहह त मजवपर हह ह| अतत पकपश झपरवपल कपपल नपगर और हरशश झपरवपल सस परसशपन मस अपनप ईशवर सस पपरर नप करतप हह ह पक इनहस इनकस कमर कक सजप पदलपई DIARY PAGE - 39 जपयस जहसप इन ललगल नस मसरस सपर पकयप हह| समपज मस इनहलनस मसझस हर जगह नशचप पदखपयप हह| मस अव हर तरह सस टस ट गयप हह ह | अपनप पररवपर ईशवर कस भरलसस छलर रहप हह ह अव कपनपन हश इनकल इनकस कमर कक सजप दस आपसस यस हश आलखरश इचछप हह (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) Rajendra Singh (Signatures/full name in English) DIARY PAGE - 40 blank DIARY PAGE - 41 कपपल नपगर s/o मनवशर जल पक पतगड़श EXT मस रहतप हह वल इनसपन कहलपनस कस लपयक तल हह हश नहश वल पकपश झपरवपल M.L.A कल नयस2 तरशकस वतपतप हह पक इसकल ऐसस परसशपन करल यस तव पहसप दसगप सपहव मसरप पररवपर वहह त समपन पररवपर रप मसझस 5 सपल मस कपपल नपगर नस ववपरद पकयप हह | यस पकपश झपरवपल सस मसझस नई 2 धमकक पदलपतप रहप पक अगर कहश भश मसरश पशकपयत कक तल हम तसझस व तसरस पररवपर कल नहश छलड़सगस | DIARY PAGE - 42 CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 13 of 226 DLCT110003212020 मस इनकस रर सस कलई कपयर वपहश नहश कर सकप यस हश मसरश मजवपरश रश अव इनहस भश अपनस कमर कक सजप पदलपई जपयस।
(Signatures/initials of deceased in English) DIARY PAGE - 43 पकपश झपरवपल कहतप हह मस जल कहतप हह ह वहश करतप हह ह कपपल नपगर महनस कहपह हह न पक इसस परललक पहह हचपनप हह। अव इनकप कहपह सतय हह आ इनहलनस मसझस परललक पहह चनस पर मजवपर कर पदयप हह भपई इनहलनस मसझस इतनप परसशपन पकयप हह पक मस कह नहश सकतप मसरश गपरश भश D.J.B GK I Shouth III सस पवनप पकसश पशकपयत कस हटवप दश और पपछलश पसमसनट भश DIARY PAGE - 44 रकवप दश हह। अव मसझस परसशपन करनस कस ललयस अपनश पपरश पपवर कप पयलग कर रहस हह कपपल नपगर व पकपश झपरवपल, हरशश झपरवपल, व पकपश झपरवपल कप भपई अपनल झपरवपल मसरप जशवन ववपरद कर पदयप हह इन ललगल नस मस हपटर कप मरशज हह ह मसरस पर रहम करल महनस इन हवपनल कल बहह त समझपयप पर यस नहश मपनस पक हमपरस पवधपयक कप आदसश हह।
DIARY PAGE - 45 हम उसस सतय करसगस और तसझस परललक पहह हचप कर हश रहसगस। सपहव मस इनकस भय व इनकस रर सस अपनश जशवन लशलप समपप कर रहप हह ह सपहव वहह त ससनदर पररवपर कल कपपल नपगर व पकपश झपरवपल नस नष कर पदयप हह। मसरस पररवपर कप तल अव ईशवर मपललक हह। अपनश तल जशवन लशलप इन दररदल नस नष करवप हश दश हह। ईशवर इनहस इनकस कमर कक सजप पदलपयस (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) DIARY PAGE - 46 blank DIARY PAGE - 47 ससवप मस शशमपन मसझस पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल नपगर नस जल धमकक 18.7.19 शपम 8.30 पर दश रश मस तभश उसकस कपयर वपहश करनस कल रप मगर इसनस वशच मस एक दल आदमश मसरस पपस भसजस और उन ललगल नस मसझस आशवपशन पदयप पक हम तसरस टहनकर D.J.B सस नहश हटनस दसगस यस हमपरश जसममसवपरश हह जहसस CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 14 of 226 DLCT110003212020 कपलस भपई लजसकप वपध पर सपचन कतपमसट कस सपमनस पलपटर कप आपफस हह और वहपह पकपश झपरवपल भश हफतस मस एक दल पदन DIARY PAGE - 48 वहठतप हह। इनकस आपस मस अचछस समवनध हह मस कपलस पर पवशवपश कर गयप पक ठशक हह मगर अव वल भश कहतप हह पक तसनस हमपरश धमकक कक ररकपपरग लशक कक हह तस कहश भश मर मगर मसझस तल पकपश झपरवपल सस पनगम पपरर द कप पटकट लसनप हह इसनस भश हमस धलखप पदयप हह। यस सव सजप कस भपगश हह। (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) DIARY PAGE - 49 ससवप मस शशमपन महनस अपनश जशनदगश वड़स ऐश औ आरपम सस अपनस पररवपर कस सपर पवतप रहप रप लसपकन कपपल नपगर व पकपश झपरवपल M.L A नस मसझस वहह त परसशपन पकयप लजसमस रपजवशर लसहह दसवलश s/o अमर लसह नस हम सभश जल एक सपर हलनस कक कसम खपतस रस मह रमसश s/o गलपश सतस मपन s/o रपधसमपन धमर वशर लजसकक 2484 गपरश हह दसवलश पनवपशश पतलकरपज उफ़र परलप सहगम पवहपर लजसकक 1785 गपरश हह। लसपकन DIARY PAGE - 50 रपजवशर जल D.JB मम रड पईवर कस पद पर नतकरश करतप हह। कहतप रहप पक मसरश सपवर स कप मपमलप हह आप यस करल वल करल मस पशछस सस आपकस सपर हह ह मगर यस वहह त हश शपपतर आदमश पनकलप यस 420 करतप रहप हमस वदनपम करतप रहप और हमस ववपरद कर पदयप (Signatures/initials of deceased in English) DIARY PAGE - 51 ससवप मस शशमपन अव मसरस पपस कलई रपसतप नहह हह। आप सलच सकतस हह पक यस कदम इनसपन मजवपर हलकर हश करतप हह। शलक सस नहश इनहलनस M.LA पकपश झपरवपल व कपपल नपगर जल पक इसकक मनरलश उसपलतप हह। मसरस पशछस पर गयस पक तसझस हम नहश छलड़सगस अव सव ईशवर कस ऊपर छलड़ कर जप रहप हह ह कपनपन हह तल इनहस सजप दश जपयस।
(Signatures/initials of deceased in English)"
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 15 of 226DLCT110003212020
5. Sh. Hemant Singh/PW1 had also subsequently given a written complaint/application Ex.PW1/A (colly) (D3on pages 249252) in PS Neb Sarai on the same day and since from contents of the above complaint, spot inspection carried out by PW47 SI Shiv Singh and also the contents of above suicide note and writings in diary left by the deceased and that of his MLC, commission of offences punishable U/S 306/386/506/34 IPC was found disclosed, PW47 had endorsed the rukka Ex.PW47/A (on page 253) on the above complaint given by PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh and had got the FIR Ex.PW44/A (colly) (D2on pages 245247) of this case registered at the said PS Neb Sarai and under the aforesaid Sections of IPC.
6. The contents of above written complaint dated 18.04.2020 Ex.PW1/A (D3on pages 249252) given by PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh to the SHO, PS Neb Sarai in Hindi language are also being reproduced herein below: ससवप मस, शश मपन S.H.O. SHAB NEB SARAI, POLICE STATION मह हसमनत लसह, S/o सव. रपजमदर लसहह R/N - A88 दगस पर पवहपर नशयर दसवलश खपनपसर नई पदललश हपल पनवपसश A144, दगस पर पवहपर नशयर दसवलश खपनपसर नई पदललश 110080 पनमनललखत पनवसदन करतप हह ह
1) यह कक मसरस पपतप शश सव. रपजमदर लसहह सन 2005 सस पपनश कक सपलपई अपनस टमकरय दवपरप पदललश जल बलरर कस आधपर पर कर रहस रस। पदललश जल बलरर सस मसरस CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 16 of 226 DLCT110003212020 पपतप जश कल कभश परसशपन नहह पकयप लसपकन आम आदमश पपटर कप पवधपयक पकपश जपरवपल जब सस जशत कर आयप हह तभश सस उसनस व उसकस पपस कपम करनस वपलस कपपल नपगर आपद नस मसरस पपतप जश कल पहसल कक मपहग कस ललए लगपतपर परसशपन कर रहस रस कपपल नपगर पकपश जपरवपल कस कहनस पर महरलश उगपतप रप और पकपश जपरवपल MLA कल दसतप रप पकपश जपरवपल पदललश जल बलरर कप ममबर भश हह जल कक पबनप महरलश कस हमरस टमकर जल बलरर मम नहह लगनस दसतप हह और यपद मसरस पपतप जश पकपश जपरवपल कल महरलश नहह दसतस रस तल मसरस पपतप कल पकपश जपरवपल खसद भश बसरश तरह धमकपतप रप और बबपरद करन कक धमकक दसतप रप।
मसरस पपतप जश लगपतपर पकपश जपरवपल कल लपखल रपए कक महरलश दसतस रस जल कक जबरदसतश मपनलसक रप सस पसरशपन कर कस पकपश जपरवपल व उसकस लड़कस कपपल नपगर व अन लसतस रस लजसकस बपरस मस मसरस पपतप जश नस पहलस सस रपयरश मस ललख भश रखप हह जब मसरस पपतप जश महरलश दसनस पवरलध पकयप तल हमपरस टमकर पदललश जल बलरर सस हटवप पदए लजसकस समबनध मसरस पपतप जश नस एक पशकपयत पदनपहक 9/4/2020 कल Executive Engineer DJB GK I South कल दश रश DIARY No. 5378 DT 9/4/2020 पर दजर हह मसरस पपतप जश नस अनसक बपर पकपश जपरवपल MLA पपरर नप कक मसझस परसशपन न करस मम पदल कप मरशज हह ह लसपकन पकपश जपरवपल अपनश आदत सस नहह मपनप और मसरस पपतप जश कल लगपतपर पसरशपन करतप रहप लजसकक Phone Recording भश हह। पकपश जपरवपल MLA नस अपनश Power कप इसतसमपल करतस हह ए हमपरश payment भश रकवप रपखश हह। मसरस पपतप जश अपनस सपर हह ई मपनलसक परसशपनश कस पवरय मम DIARY मम ललख रखप हह। लजसमस मसरस पपतप जश नस पकपश जपरवपल कल पदए गए रपए कप भश लजकस कर रखप हह। जल कक जबरदसतश वसपल पकए जपतस रस लजसकस उतपशड़न व दवपब कस कपरण मसरस पपतप जश बहह त परसशपन रहतस रस और घटनप कक जपनकपरश अपनश रपयरश मम ललखतस रस। लजनहलनस अपनश पसशतहनश जमशन बसचकर व अपनश पतनश कप जसवर रहन कर कस उधपर पहसप लसकर लजनकक रसशद भश मलजलद हह पकपश जपरवपल कस कहनस पर कपपल नपगर कल पदए मसरस पपतप जश कई बपर हमम व मसरस मपतप जश कल मसरस चपचप कल तपए कल इस उतपशड़न कस बपरस मम बतपयप रप।
मसझस व मसरश मपतप जश कल जब भश पपतप जश पकपश जपरवपल व इसकस लड़कल कपपल नपगर व अनय ललगल दपरप जपन सस मरनस व बबपरद करन कक धपमकक दसतस रस तल हमस बतपतस रस पर हम उनकल समझपतस रस और उनकप हलसलप बपरतस रस इनकस दपरप इतनप दवपव रपलप जप रहप रप पक मस अब सहन नहह कर सकतप रप वह हमसशप परसशपन हश रहतस रस। आज पदनक 18/04/2020 कल करशब 5.30 AM मसरस पपतप जश पकपश जपरवपल व कपपल नपगर वगलरप कस उतपशणन सस परसशपन हलकर आतमहतयप करलश हह मसरस पपतप उपरलकत दलपरयल दपरप दश जप रहश जपन सस मरनस कक धमकक व बबपरद करनस कक धमकक व जबरदसतश महरलश वसपलश करनस कक वजय सस यह कदम उठपयप हह अतत जनब सस पपरनपर हह कक पकपश जपरवपल कपपल नपगर आपद कस लखलपफ सखत सस सखत कपनपनश कपयर वपहश कक जपए आपकक बरश ककपयप हलगश पदनपहक - 18/4/2020 पपरर हसमनत लसह s/o शश लसखक खसद रपजसनद लसह CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 17 of 226 DLCT110003212020 A88 दगस पर पवहपर पनयर दसवलश खपनपसर N.D. 110080 Mob No. 9810727380
7. Investigation of the case was then assigned to Insp. Anil Kumar/PW49, who also visited the spot along with other officials on same day and had prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/G (D6on page 261) of the place of incident on pointing out of PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh and PW47 SI Shiv Singh. He also recorded supplementary statement of PW1 and statement of one Smt. Pramila Pandey, who was residing as a tenant in the above said room located at terrace of the house of deceased. PW1 in his above statement made U/S 161 Cr.P.C. told the IO that he was present at his house on the said date when, at around 5.45 am, their tenant Smt. Pramila Pandey suddenly started knocking their door forcefully and when he came out of his house, he was told by Smt. Pramila Pandey that his father had committed suicide by hanging on terrace of their house. He then ran upstairs and tried to lift upwards the legs of his father with his hands and Smt. Pramila Pandey had put a chair below the legs of his father. In the meanwhile, his uncle Sh. Charan Singh/PW41 and some other persons gathered there and one Sh. Revadhar Bhatt/PW19, who was working as a compounder/helper in the clinic of his father, had called the police. PW1 also told the IO in his above CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 18 of 226 DLCT110003212020 statement about the proceedings conducted by police officials at spot on their arrival. Smt. Pramila Pandey in her statement made U/S 161 Cr.P.C. also stated about informing PW1, who was residing at second floor of the house, with respect to suicide committed by his father and also about the proceedings conducted by police at spot.
8. The IO/PW49 had then sent a request letter Ex.PW49/A (D31on page 447) to HOD, Forensic Department, AIIMS Hospital, through PW47 SI Shiv Kumar, on same day requesting for postmortem of body of the deceased by a medical board, but since it was a half working day on 18.04.2020, the postmortem could not be conducted on that day and it was conducted on next day i.e. 19.04.2020. The sealed parcels of blood bottle, ligature material and clothings of the deceased, which were prepared by doctors at the time of postmortem and were produced by SI Shiv Kumar, were seized by the IO/PW49 vide seizure memo Ex.PW47/E (D13on page 309).
9. During the course of investigation, the IO/PW49 had then recorded statements as well as supplementary statements of the police witnesses namely SI Shiv Singh, SI Ajay Kumar, HC Tejpal and HC Ravinder under the provisions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also recorded the statements under above provisions CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 19 of 226 DLCT110003212020 of some public witnesses namely Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sh. Prem Pal Singh, Sh. Lalit, Sh. Rajbir Singh, Sh. Tilak Raj @ Sonu and Sh. Revadhar Bhatt etc., few supplementary statements of complainant Sh. Hemant Singh and further got recorded the statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C. of the witness Sh. Revadhar Bhatt. It came on record during the statements made by Sh. Revadhar Bhatt that some threatening telephonic call made by the accused no. 1 (A1) Prakash Jarwal from his mobile No. 9999071851 on mobile No. 9811292950 of the deceased on 18.07.2019 came to be recorded in the mobile handset of make Samsung J7 of this witness as SIM of above mobile No. 9811292950 of the deceased was inserted or being used in mobile handset of the witness on that day, due to some problem in battery of mobile handset of the deceased. After hearing the said recording, the IO/PW49 had seized the above mobile handset of this witness vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H (D16on page 315). The contents of above threatening call made to deceased by the above accused, as found recorded in the mobile handset of the witness Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and as stated in the chargesheet (on pages 5759), are also being reproduced herein below: "Hello Hello ji, Doctor Rajendra hai kya, sahab to nhi hai sahab ki tabiyat kharab hai ghar par hai, kiu kya ho gaya, sahab ko heart ki pareshani hai sir, Phon par bat kare ya phon par bat karna hi band kar diya, Nhi nhi wo ghar par hai phone mere pas hai doctor ne aaram karne ke liye kah rakha hai karlenge aap aap kon bol rahe hai, MLA bol raha hun Prakash Jarwal, Ji sir namashkar sir me boldunga sahab se kal bat karwa dunga sir, Kal CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 20 of 226 DLCT110003212020 tak agar unka phon nhi aaya to kah dena fir aisi taisi ho jayegi, Achchha..., Parlok sidhar jayenge fir thike, Yen..."
10. Further, during investigation, the IO Insp. Anil Kumar/ PW49 had also seized some documents produced by an official of the Corporation Bank in respect to account statement and account opening form etc. of the accounts of deceased and his family members being maintained in the said bank vide seizure memo Ex.PW33/A (D17on page 317) and he further seized some other writings or paper slips produced by Sh. Hemant Singh vide another seizure memo Ex.PW1/J (D15on page 313) as the same were stated to have been written by the deceased.
11. Thereafter, investigation of the case is stated to have been transferred to the District Investigation Unit (DIU) from PS Neb Sarai vide an order dated 28.04.2020 of the DCP concerned and further investigation was then conducted by IO/PW64 Insp. Kumar Rajiv of DIU. The IO/PW64 had again made the complainant/PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh, his mother Smt. Brahmwati and his cousin Sh. Jitan Singh to join the investigation and recorded their statements/supplementary statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C. and during the course of recording of the same, the complainant had produced one Samsung key pad mobile phone of his deceased father, which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/I (D18on page 319) by CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 21 of 226 DLCT110003212020 the IO. The IO/PW64 also recorded statements or supplementary statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses namely Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sh. Satvir Singh @ Satte and Sh. Rajbir Singh and further got recorded statements U/S 164 Cr.P.C. of witnesses Sh. Rajbir Singh, Sh. Arvind Kumar, who is nephew of the deceased, and also one Sh. Chiranji Lal.
12. On 12.05.2020, the complainant/PW1 came in office of DIU and gave a written complaint Ex.PW1/L (D11on page
305) to the IO/PW64 about extension of threats by the goons of A1 Prakash Jarwal and his supplementary statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. and also the supplementary statements of witnesses Sh. Jitan Singh and Sh. Revadhar Bhatt to this effect were recorded by the IO. During the course of investigation, the IO/PW64 had also seized some record requisitioned from the Muthoot Fincorp Limited, Khanpur Village Branch, New Delhi in respect of a loan of approximately Rs.17.5 lacs taken by the deceased against mortgage of jewellery articles and he also collected the spot inspection report given the crime team. He further sent notices U/S 41A Cr.P.C. to A1 Prakash Jarwal and A2 Kapil Nagar to join investigation, but both the accused absconded and could not be arrested or made to join investigation for sometime despite raids and hence, the IO got issued nonbailable warrants (NBWs) against them.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 22 of 226DLCT110003212020
13. A1 and A2 had ultimately surrendered themselves to custody and they were subjected to extensive interrogation and then arrested in the case. They also allegedly confessed their involvement in commission of suicide by the deceased and further in running of an extortion racket in the area and their disclosure as well as supplementary disclosure statements to this effect were recorded by the IO. Since A1 was a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) ruling in Delhi, an intimation about his arrest was given to Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The house and office of A1 were searched by police and during his house search, he took out one mobile phone of make Samsung from an almirah kept in his house and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW50/G (D20on page 323). However, it has been alleged that A1 intentionally did not produce his one other mobile phone of make Apple and it could not also be found despite efforts made by the police. A mobile phone of make Samsung belonging to A2 was also seized by the IO Insp. Kumar Rajiv vide seizure memo Ex.PW50/H (D19on page 321).
14. During the course of investigation, postmortem report and other related documents Ex.PW37/A (D32on pages 423431) of the deceased were then collected by the IO and as per said CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 23 of 226 DLCT110003212020 report, the cause of death of deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh was 'asphyxia due to antemortem hanging'. IO also recorded statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses Sh. Tilak Raj, Sh. Dharamveer Singh, Sh. Ram Kumar @ Kaale, Sh. Sukhvir Singh, Sh. Ajit Kumar, Sh. Rinku, Sh. Vinod Kumar, Sh. Ram Avtar, Sh. Sheesh Pal, Sh. Jitender and Sh. Ravinder Singh. The witness Sh. Ravinder Singh also produced some delivery notes of vehicles, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/B (D29on page 413). The IO further seized the relevant files and records of five tankers belonging to the deceased and his family members, as well as of some other tankers of the area, from the office of Delhi Jal Board (DJB) vide seizure memo Ex.PW50/I (D22on page 327). He also seized some record pertaining to appointment of A1 as a member of DJB vide another seizure memo Ex.PW20/A (D23 on page 329). He further sought some information from the office of Legislative Assembly with respect to appointment and relinquishment of charge by A1 as a member of DJB. One Sh. Pramod Kumar and Sh. Sanjay were also made to join investigation of the case by the IO and their statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. During the course of recording of his statement, the witness Sh. Sanjay was shown one mobile phone of make VIVO, earlier produced before the IO by complainant Sh. Hemant Singh, and he identified this mobile as belonging to CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 24 of 226 DLCT110003212020 him and containing recordings of different dates of some threatening calls extended by A3 Harish Kumar Jarwal and the said mobile was taken into possession by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/K (D24on page 355).
15. The transcriptions of audio recordings dated 15.04.2020 & 16.04.2020 between A3 and PW16 Sanjay, as stated in the chargesheet on pages 211217 and as found in the above mobile phone of PW16 of make VIVO, are being reproduced herein below: Recording 1 "Sanjay: हपह भपई जश?
Harish Jarwal: Hello Sanjay: हपह जश, रपम रपम Harish Jarwal: रपम रपम अरस सहजय वल मसरश बपत हल गयश पमलद सस उसकक payment गयश, ठशक हम?
Sanjay: पमलद कक?
Harish Jarwal: हपह ।
Sanjay: आ गयश पफर छसपप कयय रहस हम?
Harish Jarwal: अरस ससन तल लस रपत कल इस सस मसरश बपत हह ई हह, ठशक हह?
Sanjay: अचछप Harish Jarwal: कसरप कस भपई सपहब मम कल आऊहगप, अर यस हम वल हम उसकक भश मसझस खलकर कक, खलकर कक भश payment करनश हम CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 25 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Sanjay: हपह Harish Jarwal: खलकर कक ठस कसदपरश मसरश रलड़श हम?
Sanjay: नयय भपई गपरश तसमनस खरशदश हम तल मसझस उस सस कयप मतलब हम ?
Harish Jarwal: हपह, नहह वल तल ठशक हम, मम इसकस नप गपपड़यपह भश रकवपऊहगप सपरश कल, ठशक हम Sanjay: ठशक हम ठशक हम। मम कसछ नहह बललपहगप ।
Harish Jarwal: तप बललसगप कयप सपलस जब payment आएगश तभश तल मम चपलस करवपऊहगप बललनप कयप हह उसमस ।
Sanjay: हपह, सहश बपत हम ।
Harish Jarwal: एक बपर तप उसकस फ़लन कर कहनप उसकल पतप हम भपई payment आ गयश हम तसरश Sanjay: ठशक हम Harish Jarwal: और ससन जहसप मम बललप वससस बलल पदओ Sanjay: ठशक हम, ठशक हम Harish Jarwal: ममनस अगर बलल पदयप आगस पशछस तल गपरश पफर हटसगश, रकसगश नहह Sanjay: ठशक हम Harish Jarwal: ससन Sanjay: हपह Harish Jarwal: उसकल यस बलललयय कस भपई वल न तसरस खलकर कल जपनतप नप पकसश कल जपनतप वल, उसकल चपपहए payment, ठशक हम Sanjay: ठशक हम Harish Jarwal: हपह, उसकप पहलस पहसपब कर उसकस बपद पफर खलकर वलकर कल दसख अपनस ।
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 26 of 226DLCT110003212020 Sanjay: ठशक हम Harish Jarwal: और तसरश भश payment आ जपएगश शपयद आज ।
Sanjay: ठशक हम, ठशक हम"
Recording 2 "Harish Jarwal: Hello Sanjay: रपम रपम Harish Jarwal: हल गयश परमलद सस बपत?
Sanjay: पमलद सस तल मसरश बपत हह ई रश, बलल रहप हह कस दसखतप हह ह जप कस | मम तल यहपह लपइन मम लगप हह ह Harish Jarwal: अचछप, आ गयश तसरश payment?
Sanjay: दसख रहप हह ह | message तल आयप नहह हल सकतप हम message नहह आयप तल, नहबर पस हस लगप हह आ हह ह मम | Harish Jarwal: अचछप, अचछप | परमलद कयप कह रहप?
Sanjay: परमलद सस ममनस बललप रप कस दसख लल तसमहपरश आ गयश हल तल, झपट बललनस वपलश बपत कयप हम? महनश, दसनस तल हम हश आज नहह तल कल दलगस , lait करनस मम फपयदप कयप हम? अगर आ गयश हल तल दस दल पनकपल कस | Harish Jarwal: हपह Sanjay: बललप दसखतप हह ह जपकस | मम बललप दसखनप नहह हम पहसप दल अगर आ गयश हह तल | Harish Jarwal: हममम, चलल payment तल आ गयश हम सबकक | ठशक हम? रपत कल रलवपई रश ममनस | Sanjay: ठशक हम | मम दसखतप हह ह अभश | message नहह आयप अभश | पर अगर आ गयश हल तल मम कर दगह प प | Harish Jarwal: ठशक ठशक |"
Recording 3 CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 27 of 226 DLCT110003212020 "हरशश जपरवपल हहलल हपह सहजय | सहजय हपह जश भपई | हरशश जपरवपल यपर तसरश पसममट आ गई तपनस बतपयप तक नहश फलन करकस | सहजय भपई मस कयल नहश बततयपहगप इस वपसतस तल मस वहपह खड़प रहप ललनस मस | मम पपसबपक भश लस कस गयप सबकसछ लस कस गयप मस सबकसछ लस आऊहगप | एक बपर चलनप आप खसद दसख लसनप | पफर हरबहस कस वहपह गयप हरबहश वहपह नहश पमलप पफर वल जल बलरर मस भश नहह पमलप | पफर मस वहप गयप रप वल घर पर भश नहश पमलप पफर पशछस सस मनलज भश आ गयप रप वल नयप बललप भपई हल जपएगश कयप कहतप हह पसममट तशन भपग मस कर रहप ह वल | हरशश जपरवपल आर तशन भपग मस नहश कर रहप एक भपग मस लजस भपग मस हमपरश गपरश चलतश हह उस भपग कक payment हह ई हह बस सहजय नहश उसनस मसझस बतपयप रप असस असस ससनपयप रप कक payment आ गई हह बललप हपह सच बलल रहप ह कक पसममट आ गई हह बललप तसरश वल 34 जन कक वल मसरस पबल, मनलज कस पबल, मनलज कस पबल, कपलस कई जनल कस पबल अलग अलग रखस रस| खपन फपन कस भश बललस तसरश भश आ जपएगश आज रक नहश तल कल आ जपएगश हरशश जपरवपल ओर पमलद सहजय पमलद कक नहह मपलपम मसझस ममनस भसझश उनसस ममनस बललस तसमहपरस पबल तल अलग रस तसमपरस पबल तल हमपरस पबलल कस सपर भश नहश रस कयप बपत हह कयप पससस वससस आ गए कयप | बललस नहश बललस तसमहपरस पससस वससस आ गए हल तल बतप दल आ गए तल दस दल ममनस बललप दसनस तल हह हश दस दल बललल पससस आ गए हह तल दस दल| बललल भपई क मम दसखहगस प | हरशश जपरवपल हपह पसममट तल उसकक आ गई पफर पदखप हश दगह प प अब तसम छलड़ दल | फपहइल ऊह सहजय ममनस बललप भपई पसममट आ गई हह तल दस दल आज दसनस हह तल कल दसनस हह तल | हरशश जपरवपल अब उसकल पदखपनप हश हह सहजय ममनस बलल पदयप हह clear वहपह मनलज भश खड़प रप, खपन भश रप रपजसश भश रप | भपई दसखल पसममट आ गई हह तल दसखल इस चशज़ कल छसपपनप न हह | आज नहश तल कल उनकल पतप लग हश जपएगश | CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 28 of 226 DLCT110003212020 हरशश जपरवपल जब payment आएगश तल उनकल पतप लग हश जपएगश | सहजय मस हरबहश कस पपस मम भश गयप कक sir कयआ बपत हह बललस हपह सच हह पसममट आ गई ललगल कक तसरश भश आज आ जपएगश | आज नहश तल कल पककप आ जपएगश | रक जप हरशश जपरवपल ठशक हह मस उससस जरप पतप कर लपह पमलद सस जरप पतप कर लपह | सहजय ठशक हह |"
Recording 4 "सहजय hello | हरशश जपरवपल हपह सहजय | सहजय अभश उसकप मनलज कप फलन आयप रप | हरशश जपरवपल चसपचपप आइयल अकसलप पकसश कल दस प रस आदमश कल पतप न लगस | सहजय ठशक हह ठशक हह कहपह पस हरशश जपरवपल जहपह वल मनलज लसकस आएगप पर पकसश कल पतप न लगस | यस दसख ललयल सहजय ठशक हह ठशक हह नहश नहश | मम और पमलद रस सपर मस उनकल लपऊह हरशश जपरवपल नप तसझस आनप हह ओर पकसश तशसरस आदमश कल भनक न लगस | कहपह हह ह ओर कहपह नहश हह ह ठशक हह सहजय ठशक हह ठशक हह |"
16. As per allegations made in the chargesheet, the above extortion racket continued to be run by A3 Harish Kumar Jarwal and other associates of A1 even after the arrest of A1 and A2 in this case. The transcription of an audio recording CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 29 of 226 DLCT110003212020 dated 10.05.2020 between one Manoj, PW16 Sanjay and A3 Harish Jarwal, as stated in the chargesheet on pages 205211, is also being reproduced herein below: "Manoj - Hello, घर पस हश हल।
सहजय फलन कससस नहश उठप रहप मनलज कट गयप रप फलन आ रहप रप। हपह । लस बपत कर Hello सहजय हपहजश हरशश जपरवपल सहजय जश बलल रहस हल।
सहजय हपह मस फलन कर रहप रप बपत नहह हल प रहश, शपनवपज भपई फलन नहश उठप रहस।
हरशश जपरवपल अछप ससन तल लल, ममनस ससनप हह आप खसदप बन गए हमपरस ललए आज कल।
सहजय आह य हरशश जपरवपल ममनस, ससनप हह भपईसपब आप हमपरस ललए खसदप बन गए हमपरस ललए। आज कल।
A. आह य हरशश जपरवपल ममनस, ससनप हह भपईसपब आप खसदप बन गए हमपरस ललए। आज कल। मशनस ससनप हह आप खसदप बन गए भगवपन बनगयस हमपरस ललए आज कल ए कयय, ममनस फलन कर रहप रप, कल भश फलन कर रहप रप फलन लग नहश रहप रप।
हरशश जपरवपल आप ससन तल लल सहजय जश भगवपन हलतप हह मशनस ससनप ह आप वल बन गए हल।
आप भगवपन बन गए हल तल आप सस असस हश बपत कपणर पड़सगश न।
ए अरस तल कससश बपत कर रहस हल मसझस समझ नहश आ रहश पतप नहश असप कयल कह रहस हल।
हरशश जपरवपल ममनस ससनप पमलद भगवपन बन गए हह सहजय भगवपन बन गए हह। आप CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 30 of 226 DLCT110003212020 A. अरस उनकक छलरल मस तल दस प रस कक कयप कपहह मस तल अपनश कह सकस हह ह।
हरशश जपरवपल सहजय जश एक बपत बटपऊ यस जल पदन हलतस हह न वल लसफर 1015 पदन कस ललए हलतस हह। हमसशप यपद रखनप ए मसझस पतप हह मसनस कहश रश न मसनस 10 सपल सस दसखतप हह ह तभश तल मस कल फलन कर रहप रप तल फलन नहश लगप रप।
हरशश जपरवपल ससन तल लल मसरश बपत ससनल एक बपत बतपओ मसनस ********** पकसकस सपर बसरप कर पदयप। मसनस पकसकस सपर बसरप पकयप आज तक।
A. नहश नहश पकसश कस सपर बसरप नहह पकयप।
हरशश जपरवपल मतलब अपनश ओकपत अपनश ********** आज हश पदखपनश हह भमचलदय। मतलब जब आदमश कप रलड़प हलकप फसलकप बसरप वक़त आतप हह तभश अपनश ***** पदखनश हलतश हह ललगय कल।
ए सहश बपत हह गलत हह न यस तल।
हरशश जपरवपल गलत हह न A. ओर कयप, पबलकसल गलत हह।
हरशश जपरवपल मपन लल आज तसमनस पदखपई हह कल कल मसरप समय नहश आएगप।
ए कयल नहश आएगप पबलकसल आएगप गलत हह न यस तल।
हरशश जपरवपल मन लल तसमहपरप समय 10 पदन कप रप मसरप समय तल 10 सपल कप हह सहजय जश।
सहजय ओर कयप हमपरस तल भहयप, हमस तल जसड़ कस चलनप हह भहयप कयप करम। सपर मस यस तल ललगय कक सलच ह हम कयप करम।
हरशश जपरवपल लजनकक सलच ह वल दसखल तसरप आदमश हह सहजय जश।
सहजय नहश मसनस बलल पदयप हह हकककत मस दसखल मसनस बलल पदयप हह इसशललए मस फलन कर रहप रप कक बपत हल जपए कससस भश गसपप कल भश फलन पकयप रप कक गसपप जश उनकक बपत हश जपएगश कक कससस भश दसखप।
हरशश जपरवपल अब बपत हल गई न सहजय जश। जल कपम आपकल पदयप गयप रप आप उस कपम पर लपगए।
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 31 of 226DLCT110003212020 सहजय ठशक हह हरशश जपरवपल हह न ससपनए आपकल पतप हह इस टसम पस हमकल पकस चशज़ कक ज़ररत हह।
सहजय नहश मसझस पतप हह न इसशललए मस कडल कर रहप रप इसश ललए कह रहप रप।
हरशश जपरवपल एक तसमहरस सपर कक ज़ररत हह एक जल तसमहपरस पपस हह उसकक ज़ररत हह।
सहजय पबलकसल सपर हह बस पबलकसल दलनय कस ललए तसयपर हह हम हरशश जपरवपल हह नप ससनल ससनल। दलनय चसज़ तसयपर हह जल उस पदन आपकल कहप रप हरशश जपरवपल हपह दलनय तसयपर हह। एक तल उस पदन जल बपत हह ई रश वल आप एक दल पदन मस करल।
सहजय इसशललए तल मस फलन कर रहप रप।
हरशश जपरवपल मसनस उस पदन भश कहप रप कक भपत बड़प अहसपन हलतप हह आदमश कप एक तल आप वल करल यस वक़त कक बपत हलतश हह यस मनलज भपई हह मसरस एक यस अहसपन ह मसरस एक बसलपवस पस इधर आजतस हह हह पकधर भश खड़स हल जपतस हह। मतलब समझ रहस हल सहजय भपई वल चशज कलई महनस नहश रखतश। बस आदमश सपर खड़प हल न ओर बस असस टपइम पस सपर खड़प हल समझ रहप हह न तल सशनप रलक कस आदमश बललतप हह कक मसरप आदमश हह।
सहजय वल तल मसनस पहलस हश बलल पदयप रप कक मनलज कलई बपत हल तल वल तल बपत नहश हल प रहश रश तल बपत नहश तल प रहश। पबलप कस पपस भश फलन पमलपयप रप मसनस।
हरशश जपरवपल अछप ससन तल लस, पमलद कल भश यस समझपनप कक यस कसछ नपहश हह ठशक हह हहलल हरशश जपरवपल आदमश murder कर कर दसतप हह वल भश बपरश हल कर आत हह यस 15 पदन कप रड पमप हह इससस जयपदप नहश हह सहजय हपह इससस जपदप नहश चलसगप हरशश जपरवपल 15 नहश तल 1 महशनस मस bail हल जपएगश। सब कसछ हल जपएगप हपह हल जपएगश कलई कपम रकस हह कभश CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 32 of 226 DLCT110003212020 हरशश जपरवपल नपहश रकमगस न हपह तल पफर वल हश सहजय रहसगप वल हश हरशश भपई रहसगप मनलज रहसगप हरशश जपरवपल रहसगप न बसरप बन जपएगप न, गलत करसगप नप तल यहश चशज़ आप पमलद कल समझपनप ठशक हह अगर समझस तल।
सहजय मसनस बलल पदयप हह कक भपई 10 तपरशख कक उननस बललश रश मस फलन पमलप हगप रप बललस कस दसख लसबललश रश तल पफर मसनस एक बपर कहप बललप कक जसगपड़ बनपओ हरशश जपरवपल यपर ममनस तसमकल इतनश छपट दस दश एक मसरश बहन कक शपदश मस कर दसतप।
सहजय मसनस कहश रश। ससन तल लस सहजय भपई। मस उसकस ललए पशछस नहश हटप हगप पबलकसल भश।
हरशश जपरवपल अब इससस जपदप ओर कयप छपट दह प इससस जयपदप ओर कयप सहयलग करसग आदमश। अब असस टपइम पस भमछलड़ ससननस मस आ रहश हह हम कहश अहदर बपहर बहठ हह तल ससननस मस आ रहश हह कक पमलद कहश पनकपल रहप हह सहजय कपहश पनकल रहप हह इधर उधर पनकल रहप हह दख स हलतप हह मसरप आदमश हह सहजय हम तल भहयप पबलकसल भहयप चपहस दपस नयप चलश जपए मम ओर मनलज तल कहश नहश पनकलमगस ।
हरशश जपरवपल मनलज कल तल मसरस कल पपरप वल हह इससस तल मसरश बपत भश हल जपतश हह यस घर भश आ जपतप हह पबलकसल भरलसप हह सहजय तसम बस tention बपत कर पकयप करल हरशश जपरवपल अब एक कपम कररयय सहजय वल जल तसजसस बललप रप न पस वल कर कस दस दस । ओर पमलद कल लसकस आइयल पमलद कल एक बपत ससन शपम कल 56 बजस पमलद कल लस आईयय पमलद कल ।"
17. During investigation, the IO/PW64 also collected the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of mobile phones of A1, A2, A3 as well as that of the deceased and the same were analyzed. The involvement of A3 in present case clearly came out from the above threatening calls recorded in mobile phone of witness Sh.CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 33 of 226
DLCT110003212020 Sanjay and some other material collected during investigation and hence, A3 had also subsequently surrendered before the IO on 13.07.2020, after his anticipatory bail applications came to be dismissed by the Ld. Special Judge, (PC Act) CBI, Rouse District Avenue Courts (RADC), New Delhi as well as by the Hon'ble High Court. He was then arrested by the IO in present case and his disclosure statement came to be recorded.
18. It transpired from the investigation conducted so far by the IOs that the accused persons were running a big extortion racket in their area and were involved in extorting money from the persons running water tankers in said area in association with DJB. They were initially extorting an amount of Rs.10,000/ each for small water tankers and Rs.14,000/ each for big water tankers and thereafter, these amounts were increased to Rs. 15,000/ and Rs. 20,000/ respectively in or around the months of JulyAugust, 2019. It also came on record during investigation that the tanker owners/operators were further made to pay the amounts of Rs.51,000/ and Rs.71,000/ for small and big tankers respectively to A1 as election fund, after his assembly election held in the month of December, 2019.
19. It further transpired from investigation that though the deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh was made to shell out considerable CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 34 of 226 DLCT110003212020 amounts as extortion money by A1 and his other associates for permitting him to operate his water tankers in the area, but still A1 was not satisfied with the extortion money paid by deceased and hence, he got stopped payment of some pending bills of deceased and his family members from the office of DJB and also got removed their water tankers. The investigation also revealed that the accused persons had been pressurizing the deceased from time to time to pay the extortion amounts and he was unable to cope up with the pressure mounted by A1 and his other associates and hence, because of the said pressure and mental torture, to which he was being constantly subjected to by A1 and his other associates, he ultimately committed suicide by way of hanging on 18.04.2020. Though, the name of brother of A1 namely Sh. Anil Kumar Jarwal also came up during the course of investigation, but it was found by IO that he was not involved in commission of the alleged offences. The involvement of A1 in some other cases also figured during the course of investigation and ultimately, on conclusion of investigation of the case, a chargesheet for commission of the offences punishable U/S 306/386/506/34 IPC was got prepared and filed by the IO/PW50 SI Kamal Kishore against the accused persons, after obtaining approval of the senior officers.
CHARGESHEET, COGNIZANCE AND CHARGES CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 35 of 226 DLCT110003212020 FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS
20. On 11.09.2020, an echargesheet against accused persons on official email ID of the court of Sh. Vishal Pahuja, the then Ld. ACMM01, RADC, New Delhi, was filed and on 15.09.2020 a hard copy of the chargesheet, along with documents, was also filed in the said court and cognizance of alleged offences was taken by Ld. ACMM vide his subsequent order dated 25.09.2020. After compliance of provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C., the Ld. ACMM01 had then committed this case for trial before a court of Sessions vide his order dated 27.10.2020 as the offence punishable U/S 306 IPC was exclusively triable by a court of Sessions.
21. Vide order dated 06.11.2020, the then Ld. Officiating Principal District & Sessions Judge, RADC, New Delhi had assigned the case for trial to the court of Ms. Geetanjali Goel, Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) CBI24, RADC, New Delhi, which was one of the designated courts of this court complex for trial of cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs. However, it is necessary to mention here that subsequently, while this case was on the verge of completion of prosecution evidence, it was transferred to this court for further trial and proceedings vide order dated 07.09.2022 of the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judgecum Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, RADC, New Delhi as Ms. CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 36 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Geetanjali Goel, Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) CBI24 had recused herself from further trial of the case on personal grounds.
22. Three supplementary chargesheets against the accused persons are also found to have been filed on record on different dates i.e. 16.01.2021, 30.04.2021 and 28.08.2021 before the Ld. predecessor of this court entrusted with trial of the case and the same were filed in respect to FSL and CFSL reports regarding examination of exhibits of the case i.e. the questioned and admitted signatures/initials & handwritings of deceased and the questioned & specimen voice samples of some of the accused and witnesses. Further, on 05.10.2021, on an application moved on behalf of one of the accused, the spectrograph and note sheets in respect to examination of some of the above voice samples were also placed on record of the case file. Again, one other FSL report regarding examination of some of the exhibits, which could not inadvertently be filed on record earlier, was also placed on record through an application moved by prosecution on 17.12.2021, when the evidence of prosecution was in progress. Copies of all these reports/supplementary chargesheets were duly supplied to the accused persons as per record.
23. Vide a detailed order dated 11.11.2021, the Ld. Predecessor of this court observed that a prima facie case was CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 37 of 226 DLCT110003212020 made out from record against A1 Prakash Jarwal & A2 Kapil Nagar for framing of charges against them for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/S 120B r/w Sections 384/386/506 IPC and also for commission of the substantive offences punishable U/S 384/386/506 r/w Section 120B IPC as well as for commission of the substantive offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC. However, so far as A3 Harish Kumar Jarwal was concerned, it was observed that a prima facie case was made out against him only for commission of the offence punishable U/S 506 IPC and he was discharged for rest of the alleged offences. Charges for the above said offences against the accused persons were also framed by court on the same day.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
24. The prosecution in support of its charges has examined on record total 64 witnesses, whose names and the purpose of examination, in brief, is stated herein below: i. PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh is son of deceased as well as complainant of this case. However, he did not support the case of prosecution on material particulars as he deposed that during the night of 17/18.04.2020, when his father committed suicide, he was at his friend's house and was informed about suicide only by a neighbor named Sh. Satish. Though he admitted making of a written complaint CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 38 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Ex.PW1/A to the police on next day, but he stated that the contents thereof were recorded by him on dictation of his uncle named Sh. Ravinder and he did not know why his father committed suicide. He also denied the other proceedings allegedly conducted in his presence, the contents of his statements or supplementary statements Mark PW1/1, Mark PW1/2 & Mark PW1/4 recorded by police during the course of investigation and the complaint Ex.PW1/L (D11on page 305) allegedly made by him. Further, though he identified his signatures on seizure memos Ex.PW1/E (D14on page 311), Ex.PW1/F (D12 on page 307), Ex.PW1/H (D16on page 315), Ex.PW1/I (D18on page 319), Ex.PW1/J (D15on page 313) & Ex.PW1/K (D24on page 355) and site plan Ex.PW1/G (D6on page 261), but he stated that his signatures were taken on blank papers. He was also shown the handwriting of his deceased father appearing in above suicide note, diary and bill book and though he stated that the writing appearing in these documents in Hindi language is similar to the writing of his father, but he could not say so about the material written in English.
ii. PW2 Smt. Brahmwati is wife of the deceased and likewise her son/PW1, she also turned hostile and did not CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 39 of 226 DLCT110003212020 support the prosecution case on material particulars. She also resiled from her statement Mark PW2/1 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C.
iii. PW3 Sh. Lalit was claimed to be driver of a water tanker of deceased, but he also did not support the prosecution case and though he deposed that he was residing in the same area, but he denied the factum of driving a tanker of deceased or having any knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading to commission of suicide by deceased. He also denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW3/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
iv. PW4 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Goswami is a resident of the same area and also owner of some water tankers. He stated that the deceased was their family doctor, but he denied knowing anything about this case and further, as to how the deceased expired. He also denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW4/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
v. PW5 Sh. Satbir was a Beldar working with DJB and he stated that though he knew the deceased as he used to take his father for treatment to the clinic of deceased, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 40 of 226 DLCT110003212020 but he did not know anything about this case and further as to how the deceased expired. He also denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW5/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
vi. PW6 Sh. Rajbir Singh was working as a driver with DJB and he also stated that he knew the deceased as he used to take his mother for treatment to his clinic. However, likewise PW5, he also stated that he did not know anything about this case or further as to how the deceased committed suicide. Further, though he admitted making of his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW6/A (colly) (on pages 12071209) to the police, but he also deposed that the same was not made voluntarily.
vii. PW7 Sh. Tilak Raj deposed that he owned three tankers which were attached to DJB and he knew the deceased as he used to take his parents to the deceased's clinic for treatment. Further, though he also stated that he was aware that deceased committed suicide, but he could not say as to how and why it was committed and he also stated that he did not know anything else about the present case. He further denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW7/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 41 of 226DLCT110003212020 viii. PW8 Sh. Dharamvir Singh had also attached his one tanker with DJB during the relevant period and though he knew the deceased, but he also stated that he did not know anything about the case and further as to how the deceased expired. He even denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW8/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
ix. PW9 Sh. Ram Kumar was a property dealer of the area and though he stated that he knew the deceased who committed suicide, but he also deposed that he did not know as to how and why it was committed. He further denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW9/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
x. PW10 Sh. Sukhbir Singh is a resident of the same locality and he was also running a water tanker attached with DJB and stated that the deceased was closed to him. However, though he deposed that he knew about commission of suicide by deceased, but he also stated that he had heard that the deceased was having a lot of loans against him and further that he did not know anything else about the present case. He also denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW10/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 42 of 226 DLCT110003212020 police.
xi. PW11 Sh. Rinku was a driver by profession residing in the same area and even he deposed that he knew the deceased as he used to visit deceased for taking medicines. He deposed that the deceased committed suicide as there was a lot of loan outstanding against him and he also deposed that he did not know anything about the case. He further denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW11/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
xii. PW12 Sh. Mohit Kumar is also the owner of another tanker, but he deposed that the deceased had removed his tankers from DJB due to some sting conducted by IBN7. Though this witness was aware about suicide of the deceased, but he denied knowing anything about this case and further stated that he heard that the deceased had a lot of outstanding loan. He even denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW12/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
xiii. PW13 Sh. Pramod was having three water tankers attached with DJB and he also knew the deceased as he used to take medicines from him. However, he deposed CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 43 of 226 DLCT110003212020 that he did not know anything about this case or if the deceased was having any tankers and further as to how and why the deceased expired. He also denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW13/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
xiv. PW14 Sh. Jitender had two water tankers attached with DJB at the relevant time and he deposed that though he knew the deceased being his neighbour, but he stated that the deceased did not have any tankers. Further, though he also stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging, but according to him, it was due to some family problems, financial disturbance and some sting against the deceased. He also denied knowing anything about this case and making of his alleged statement Mark PW14/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
xv. PW15 Sh. Ajit Kumar was having one self driven tanker attached with DJB and though he stated that he had heard the name of deceased, but he also denied knowing anything about this case or if the deceased was having any tankers. He further stated that he heard that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. He even denied knowing anything about this case and making of his alleged CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 44 of 226 DLCT110003212020 statement Mark PW15/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
xvi. PW16 Sh. Sanjay was a driver by profession and he was one of the material witnesses of prosecution case. He stated that though he knew A3 Harish being his neighbour, but he did not receive any threat from A3 at any point of time. He also stated that he did not know anything about this case and he further denied making of his statements Mark PW16/1 and Mark PW16/2 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police. He further denied having received any threating call for extortion from A3, after arrest of A1, from the mobile of one Manoj. He also refused to identify the voices appearing in one voice recording played before him in the court, though in the other recording he identified these voices being his and of A3.
xvii. PW17 Sh. Vinod Kumar is a driver by profession and he stated that he did not know the deceased or anything about this case. He further denied making of statement Mark PW17/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
xviii. PW18 Sh. Shishpal is a contractor by profession and he was known to the deceased as he had been taking CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 45 of 226 DLCT110003212020 medicines from deceased. However, he also stated that he did not know anything about this case or as to how the deceased expired. He even denied making of his alleged statement Mark PW18/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to police.
xix. PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt was also one of the prime witnesses of prosecution story as he was the person in whose mobile phone the threating call made by A1 to the deceased is stated to have been recorded as SIM of deceased's phone was being used in his mobile phone at the relevant time. However, even this witness had turned hostile and resiled from his previous statements Mark PW19/1 and Mark PW19/3 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. by the police and also his statement Mark PW19/2 recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate. Thus, he did not support the case of prosecution on material particulars and even went on to deny his voice appearing in the above recorded conversation containing the threatening call as well as his signatures appearing on some documents. He also denied that the said mobile phone pertained to him. Though, he stated that he used to work in clinic of deceased and also used to take care of tankers of the deceased, but he also stated that the deceased committed suicide for the reasons that his financial condition was not CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 46 of 226 DLCT110003212020 good, he had some heart problem and a lot of loan taken for different reasons was outstanding against him.
xx. PW20 Ms. Jyoti Sharma is an official of DJB and she proved on record the seizure memo Ex.PW20/A (D23 on page 329) containing her signatures, which was prepared in respect to seizure of photocopies of the documents Ex.PW20/B (colly) (on pages 331353) pertaining to appointment and removal of A1 as a member of DJB, which she handed over to the IO.
xxi. PW21 Sh. Prem Pal only stated on record that he worked as driver on a tanker of deceased for a period of around two years during the years 200809 and he came to know subsequently regarding commission of suicide by deceased. However, he resiled from his statement Mark PW21/1 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. by the police.
xxii. PW22 Sh. Prem Singh and PW23 Sh. Himmat Singh are both the officials of DJB looking after the work pertaining to distribution of water in the area of Deoli and some other adjoining areas at the relevant time. They stated that no tanker of deceased was attached with DJB and they did not know anything about this case. They also CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 47 of 226 DLCT110003212020 resiled from their statements Mark PW22/1 and Mark PW22/2 respectively recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. However, PW23 admitted recording of his statement Ex.PW23/A (on page 1805) U/S 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation, though he also claimed during his cross examination that he was under pressure from police to give the said statement.
xxiii. PW24 Sh. Ravinder Singh was engaged in the work of sale and purchase of automobiles under the name and style of M/s Bir Motors, in area of Moti Nagar, New Delhi at the relevant time. He proved on record three delivery receipts/notes Ex.PW24/A (colly) (D29on pages 415419), copies of which were handed over by him to the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/B (D29on page 413). These receipts/notes are in respect to purchase of three TATA 1109 vehicles and he stated that the above vehicles were purchased in the name of A2 by the relatives and friends of the said accused. Though, he admitted making of his statement Ex.PW24/C (on page 1255) U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police, but he denied the contents thereof on material aspects.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 48 of 226DLCT110003212020 xxiv. PW25 Sh. Jitan Singh is nephew of the deceased and he stated that he got his tanker attached with DJB through the deceased. However, he also stated that he was not at his house when the deceased committed suicide and he cannot say as to why it was committed. He also resiled from his statement Mark PW25/1 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. by police.
xxv. PW26 Sh. Surender Kumar is a Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Ltd. and he had produced and proved the record pertaining to two mobile numbers i.e. one mobile no. 9650337380 pertaining to A3 and the other mobile no. 9971030682 pertaining to A2. He also exhibited on record the Customer Application Forms (CAFs) of these mobile numbers as Ex.PW26/A (on page 2481) and Ex.PW26/C (on page 3167) respectively and CDRs thereof for the period w.e.f. 01.06.2019 to 12.06.2020 as Ex.PW26/B (colly) (on pages 24833165) and Ex.PW26/D (colly) (on pages 31714011) respectively. The location chart and a certificate in respect to authenticity of the above computerized data/record of both the mobile numbers had also been exhibited by him as Ex.PW26/E (colly) (on pages 40134097) and CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 49 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Ex.PW26/F (on page 4099) respectively.
xxvi. PW27 Sh. Naresh Kumar Kardam was the Executive Engineer of DJB dealing with water distribution work of the above area at relevant time. He stated that after A1 became a member of DJB, there was no change in system of plying of water tankers and tanker owners never met him. He also stated that he did not know the deceased and he further denied making of his statement Mark PW27/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police.
xxvii. PW28 Sh. Chiranji Lal had five tankers attached with DJB, but he stated that he did not know the deceased and A1 personally, though he knew that A1 was MLA of their area. He denied making of statement Mark PW28/1 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. to the police. However, he admitted that he was taken for recording of a statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C. and he even admitted his signatures on the statement Ex.PW28/A (on pages 18311833) recorded under the said provision, but he also claimed that he gave the said statement under pressure of police officers.
xxviii. PW29 Sh. Ajit Singh is the Alternate Nodal Officer of M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. and he had produced CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 50 of 226 DLCT110003212020 and proved the record pertaining to two mobile numbers i.e. the mobile no. 9999071851 pertaining to PW Sh. Pradeep Kumar Shrivas and the other mobile no. 9811292950 pertaining to deceased. He also exhibited on record the CAFs of these mobile numbers as Ex.PW29/A (on page 1839) and Ex.PW29/C (on page 2045) respectively and CDRs thereof for the period w.e.f. 01.06.2019 to 12.06.2020 as Ex.PW29/B (colly) (on pages 18432043) and Ex.PW29/D (colly) (on pages 20472435) respectively. The location chart and two certificates in respect to authenticity of the above computerized data/record of CAFs and CDRs of both these mobile numbers were also exhibited by him as Ex.PW29/E (colly) (on pages 2437 to 2473) and Ex.PW29/F (on page 2475) & Ex.PW29/G (on page 2477) respectively.
xxix. PW30 Sh. Sunil Dutt Sharma was posted as Deputy Secretary in the Legislative Assembly of Delhi at the relevant time and he stated that on request of the IO, as contained in notices Ex.PW30/A (D45on page 951) and Ex.PW30/D (on page 1707), he supplied the information contained in replies Ex.PW30/B (on page 957), along CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 51 of 226 DLCT110003212020 with a copy of resignation letter of A1 Ex.PW30/C (on page 959), and Ex.PW30/E (on page 965) respectively. He also identified his signatures on another reply dated 01.07.2020 Ex.PW30/F (on page 953) given to the email dated 26.06.2020 of the IO. He further stated that vide an email Mark PW30/1, the resignation of A1 was communicated to the office of Chief Minister and CEO of the DJB. He also stated that the above replies were sent by him with approval of Speaker of the Assembly, which was taken vide notesheet dated 27.04.2022 Ex.PW30/G (on page 1705).
xxx. PW31 Sh. Arvind Kaushik is the then Secretary of DJB and on receipt of a notice Ex.PW31/A (D42on page
905), he handed over to the IO a copy of an email Mark PW31/1 (on page 909), along with copy of the complaint made to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) by Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri, MP, South Delhi against A1, vide letter Mark PW31/2 (on page 917), both dated 18.04.2020.
xxxi. PW32 Sh. N. K. Sharma is an Assistant Engineer (Civil) working as Administrative Officer in the Vigilance Department of DJB at that time and on receipt of a notice CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 52 of 226 DLCT110003212020 dated 20.05.2020 Ex.PW32/A (D43on page 919), he handed over certified copies of complaints dated 01.05.2020 and 04.05.2020 Ex.PW32/C (colly) (on pages 927944) to the IO through his reply dated 19.06.2020 Ex.PW32/B (on page 921). He also stated that on being asked about the action taken on above said complaints, he further handed over to the IO certified copies of the letters Ex.PW32/D (colly) (on pages 923925) sent by the Superintending Engineer, Vigilance to the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development, GNCTD.
xxxii. PW33 Sh. Harkesh is the then official of Deoli Branch of Corporation Bank, which subsequently stood merged with Union Bank, and he handed over the account statement for period from 01.07.2017 to May, 2020 Mark PW33/1 (on page 1709), along with original account opening form Ex.PW33/B (colly) (on pages 12951307) of the deceased, to IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW33/A (D17on page 317). Subsequently, he also handed over to the IO, four cheques Ex.PW33/C (colly) (on pages 1309 to 1317) containing signatures of the deceased vide another seizure memo Ex.PW33/D (D21on page 325).
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 53 of 226DLCT110003212020 xxxiii. PW34 Sh. Arvind is the nephew of deceased and he was in real estate business. He deposed in brief about the extortion of deceased and other tanker owners by accused persons and commission of suicide by his uncle due to the extortions made by accused. He also proved his statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW34/A (colly) (on pages 18191821), but he was confronted on various counts with his previous statement made U/S 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW34/P1 (on page 1713) recorded during the course of investigation.
xxxiv. PW35 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Shrivas stated that though he took one mobile no. 9999071851 in his name and gave it one of his relatives namely Sh. Jagram. But he stated that he cannot tell as to in whose possession the said phone was on 18.07.2019 as he did not enquire about it from his above relative. He also denied contents of his alleged statement Mark PW35/1 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. by the police, which was mainly to the effect that said mobile number was subsequently given by him to or was being used by A1 at the relevant time. However, he identified A1 being MLA of their area.
xxxv. PW36 Sh. Manoj Kumar was an employee of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 54 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Deoli Branch of Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. at the relevant time and he provided to the IO account statements Ex.PW36/B (colly) (on pages 367381) of the deceased and his other family members/relatives, in response to the notice Ex.PW36/A (on page 365) received by their branch manager. He also produced in court the copies of their loan agreements as Ex.PW36/C (colly) (on pages 17151731).
xxxvi. PW37 Capt. (Dr.) Antara Debbarma was posted as Senior Medical Officer in Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi at the relevant time and she was Chairperson of the medical board constituted for conduction of postmortem of deceased. She proved on record the postmortem report of deceased as Ex.PW37/A (colly) (D32on pages 423431) and also duly identified the exhibits i.e. clothes, sample of blood and ligature material, which were handed over after postmortem to the IO.
xxxvii. PW38 SI Ajay was the Incharge of Crime Team, which reached at spot on receipt of information about commission of suicide by deceased and he inspected the crime spot and proved their report Ex.PW38/A (D10 CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 55 of 226 DLCT110003212020 on page 303).
xxxviii. PW39 Sh. Manoj Kumar was Manager of the Muthoot Fincorp Ltd., Khanpur Branch, New Delhi at the relevant time. He proved attestation of Sh. Kishore Kumar, Senior Branch Manager, on loan documents Ex.PW39/A (colly) (on pages 383409) in the name of PWs Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and Sh. Hemant Singh, which were handed over to the IO by Sh. Kishore Kumar.
xxxix. PW40 HC Tejpal participated in initial inquiry and investigation with SI Shiv Singh on receiving of information about commission of suicide by deceased. He deposed about same and also proved the seizure memo already Ex.PW1/E (D14on page 311) of the diary and suicide note etc. left by deceased and seizure memo already Ex.PW1/F (D12on page 307) of the rope with which suicide was committed. He further identified the said rope during his testimony in court.
xl. PW41 Sh. Charan Singh is brother of deceased and likewise the other family members and most of the acquaintances of deceased, he also turned hostile and resiled from his statement Mark PW41/1 recorded U/S CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 56 of 226 DLCT110003212020 161 Cr.P.C. He even refused to identify his signatures on dead body identification memo Mark PW41/2 and writings of deceased in the above diary, bill book and suicide note Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D (envelopes bearing pagination nos. 1355, 1357 and 1291) respectively.
xli. PW42 Dr. Girish Tyagi was Secretary of the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) at the time of recording of his statement in court and he proved seizure memo Ex.PW42/A (D28on page 411) of certain documents handed over by him to the IO, which included a report about closure of clinic of deceased and also one application/statement dated 04.05.2016 given by deceased to their office, which was subsequently got examined by IO from a handwriting expert as a piece of admitted writing of the deceased.
xlii. PW43 HC Sukhbir Singh is a witness of arrest memo Ex.PW43/A (on page 265) dated 09.05.2020 of A 2 and also of the memo already Ex.PW42/A (D28on page
411) prepared regarding seizure of certain documents from the office of DMC.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 57 of 226DLCT110003212020 xliii. PW44 WASI Shyam Kaur was the duty officer at PS Neb Sarai on 18.04.2020 and she recorded the FIR Ex.PW44/A (colly) (D2on pages 245247) and also the DD No. 34A Ex.PW44/B (on page 259) of this case. She proved these documents along with a certificate U/S 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) Ex.PW44/C (D4on page 255) given by her regarding authenticity of computerized contents of the FIR.
xliv. PW45 ASI Sudhir recorded another DD No. 11A Ex.PW45/A (D5on page 257) regarding commission of suicide by the deceased.
xlv. PW46 Insp. Kailash took PWs Sh. Himmat Singh and Sh. Rajbir of DJB to the court on 20.05.2020 on instructions of the IO Insp. Kumar Rajiv and got recorded their statements U/S 164 Cr.P.C. already Ex.PW23/A (colly) (on pages 18051809) and Ex.PW6/B (colly) (part of D38on pages 673677) respectively. He identified the above witnesses vide his statements Ex.PW46/A (on page 1801) and Ex.PW46/B (on page 1795) at the time of recording of said statements and also obtained copies thereof by moving application Ex.PW46/C (on page CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 58 of 226 DLCT110003212020 1777).
On 21.05.2020, he also got recorded a similar statement of PW Sh. Arvind already Ex.PW34/A (on pages 18191821) and identified him vide his own statement Ex.PW46/D (on page 1817) and obtained a copy of said statement of the witness vide application Ex.PW46/E (on page 1815).
On 22.05.2020, he went to the office of DMC and seized certain documents from PW42 vide memo already Ex.PW42/A (D28on page 411) and on 02.06.2020, went to FSL, Rohini with PW Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and some other police officials and got collected voice sample of the above witness in an audio cassette and subsequently handed over the said cassette, along with an extra copy thereof, to the IO and witnessed the memo Ex.PW46/F (D30on page 421) regarding seizure thereof. He further deposited an envelope containing the seal of IO used in above seizure in FSL vide acknowledgment receipt Ex.PW46/G (D40on page 693).
On 18.02.2021, as per instructions of the IO Insp. Satyabir Singh, he again visited FSL, Rohini and got collected voice sample of A1 and similarly handed over two audio cassettes to IO and witnessed the seizure thereof vide memo Ex.PW46/H (on page 1439).
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 59 of 226DLCT110003212020 On 02.03.2021, he also witnessed another seizure memo Ex.PW46/I (on page 1443) of a pen drive, in which the data extracted from mobile phone of PW Sh.Revadhar Bhatt was opened and checked in the office of DIU.
xlvi. PW47 SI Shiv Singh had conducted inquiry on the above DD No.11A already Ex.PW45/A (D5on page 257) registered about commission of suicide by deceased. He deposed about proceedings conducted by him at spot during the course of said inquiry and also got the FIR of this case registered by endorsing a rukka Ex.PW47/A (on pages 252254) on statement made by son of the deceased. He also participated in and deposed about some initial investigation conducted by Insp. Anil Kumar at spot after registration of the case, which included preparation of site plan.
xlvii. PW48 ASI Devender took three sealed pullandas of this case containing case property from the malkhana of PS Neb Sarai to FSL, Rohini on 04.03.2021 and on 26.03.2021, he brought three sealed pullandas with FSL report from the office of FSL, Rohini and handed over the same to IO Insp. Upadhyay Balashankaram and then on instructions of the said IO, he further deposited these CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 60 of 226 DLCT110003212020 pullandas in malkhana of the said PS, though FSL report was retained by IO.
xlviii. PW49 Sh. Anil Kumar was posted as Inspector, ATO (AntiTerror Officer) in PS Neb Sarai at the relevant time and he is initial IO of the case. He deposed about proceedings conducted at the spot and proved certain documents prepared by him in connection therewith, which include the site plan already Ex.PW1/G (D6on page 261), letter Ex.PW49/A (D31on page 447) for constitution of a medical board for conduction of postmortem of deceased, seizure memo of pullandas prepared by doctors already Ex.PW47/E (D13on page
309), seizure memo of mobile phone of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt containing some recording of threat extended by A1 already Ex.PW1/H (D16on page 315), seizure memo already Ex.PW33/A (D17on page 317) of documents Ex.PW33/B (colly) (on pages 12951307) pertaining to account of the deceased in Corporation Bank and also the seizure memo Ex.PW1/J (D15on page 313) of documents Ex.PW49/D (colly) (on pages 13191331) containing handwriting of deceased as produced by his son/ complainant Sh. Hemant Singh. He also recorded statements of some witnesses U/S 161 Cr.P.C. and further CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 61 of 226 DLCT110003212020 got recorded statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt vide application Ex.PW49/B (on page 1745) and even identified the said witness vide his statement Ex.PW49/C (on page 1749) at the time of recording of statement. He also identified the exhibits shown to him during his statement made in the court.
xlix. PW50 Insp. Kamal Kishore was posted as a Sub inspector in the office of DIU at relevant time and he participated in investigation of this case with Insp. Kumar Rajiv. He is witness of arrest of A1 and A2 vide memos Ex.PW50/A (D7on page 263) & Ex.PW43/A (on page
265), their personal search memos Ex.PW50/B (D8on page 269) & Ex.PW50/C (on page 271) and their disclosure statements Ex.PW50/D (colly) (D9on pages 275279) & Ex.PW50/E (colly) (on pages 287291). He stated that after the accused were taken on police custody from court vide order dated 10.05.2020 Ex.PW50/F (colly) (on pages 981985), they got recovered their mobile phones vide seizure memos Ex.PW50/G (D20on page 323) & Ex.PW50/H (D19on page 321) respectively. He also witnessed the supplementary disclosure statements Ex.PW50/J (colly) (on pages 281 CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 62 of 226 DLCT110003212020
285) & Ex.PW50/K (colly) (on pages 293295) made by A1 and A2 respectively and seizure of the files of five tankers belonging to deceased from the office of DJB vide memo Ex.PW50/I (D22on page 327), the documents already Ex.PW20/B (colly) (on pages 331353) pertaining to appointment of A1 as a member of DJB vide memo Ex.PW20/A (D23on page 329), four cheques already Ex.PW33/C (colly) (on pages 13091317) produced by an employee of Corporation Bank vide memo Ex.PW33/D (D21on page 325), mobile phone of PW Sh. Sanjay produced by the complainant Sh. Hemant Singh vide memo Ex.PW1/K (D24on pages 355) and documents pertaining to loan taken by the deceased, which were produced by an official of the Muthoot Fincorp Limited vide memos Ex.PW50/L (colly) (D25on pages 357359) & Ex.PW50/M (D26on page 361). He is further a witness of arrest of A3 Harish Kumar subsequently vide memo Ex.PW50/N (on page 267), his personal search memo Ex.PW50/O (on page 273) and his disclosure statement Ex.PW50/P (colly) (on pages 297301). He also witnessed the seizure of documents Ex.PW24/A (colly) (on pages 415419), which are the receipts/invoices regarding sale and purchase of some vehicles, vide memo Ex.PW24/B (D29on page 413).
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 63 of 226
DLCT110003212020
l. PW51 HC Subhash Chander and PW52 ASI
Kamal Dev visited the office of FSL, Rohini on 14.01.2021 and 27.04.2021 respectively, on directions of IO, for collecting FSL reports and on return, they handed over the reports as well as exhibits related thereto to IO.
li. PW53 Insp. Satyabir Singh is a part IO of this case and he deposed that on being handed over case file on 28.12.2020, he got the FSL report and exhibits collected through HC Subhash Chander and filed a supplementary chargesheet before the court. He also subsequently got the voice samples of A1, A3 and PW16 Sh. Sanjay collected in FSL, Rohini and seized the cassettes prepared in relation to the same vide memos Ex.PW46/H (on page 1439), Ex.PW53/A (on page 1441) and Ex.PW53/B (on page 1445) respectively. He also prepared one seizure memo already Ex.PW46/I (on page 1443) in respect of a pen drive in which the data extracted from mobile phone of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt was opened and checked in the office of DIU. He further identified the exhibits shown to him during his statement made in the court.
lii. PW54 Insp. Upadhyay Balashankaram of DIU CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 64 of 226 DLCT110003212020 got collected two reports from the office of FSL, Rohini on 26.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 and also got deposited exhibits thereof in police malkhana and he further recorded statements of the concerned police officials and filed supplementary chargesheet with regard to the same. Subsequently, he also sent some exhibits of this case to CFSL, CBI, collected report thereof and filed one more supplementary chargesheet on 27.08.2021. He also identified his signatures on the memo Ex.PW54/A (on page 1447) prepared in respect to seizure of the pen drive containing data extracted from the mobile phone of PW16 Sh. Sanjay, which was opened and analyzed in the DIU office and got prepared transcript Ex.PW54/B (colly) (on pages 14491497) of contents thereof. He further prepared one seizure memo Ex.PW54/C (on page 1505) of the worksheet and spectrograph report pertaining to the above voice examination, which he got collected from FSL, Rohini through ASI Vijay.
liii. PW55 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar, PW56 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury and PW58 Sh. Amitosh Kumar are all forensic experts posted in Physics Division of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi at the relevant time and they were members of the board of experts constituted with CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 65 of 226 DLCT110003212020 approval of their Director for examination of the questioned and specimen voice samples of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt, PW16 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, A1 and A3. They deposed about the process of examination of above voice samples and proved their report Ex.PW55/A (colly) (on pages 13951407) and note sheets and spectrography examination of the said voices as Ex.PW55/B (colly) (on pages 15071669).
liv. PW57 Dr. C.P. Singh is also a forensic expert, but of the Physics Division of FSL, Rohini, and even he examined the questioned and specimen voice samples of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and A1 and proved his report Ex.PW57/A (colly) (on pages 13691371) and also identified the exhibits shown to him in court.
lv. PW59 Ms. Anjali Singh is another forensic expert of FSL, Rohini from the Documents Division and she examined handwriting of deceased appearing in the above suicide note, diary etc. in comparison with his admitted writings seized during the course of investigation. She proved her report Ex.PW59/A (colly) (on pages 1285 1287) and also identified the exhibits shown to her in CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 66 of 226 DLCT110003212020 court.
lvi. PW60 Ms. Saloni Singh is the then Duty Metropolitan Magistrate posted in District South, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi and on 22.04.2020, she recorded statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW60/C (colly) (on pages 17531765) of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and further proved some other documents pertaining to recording of the said statement. On 20.05.2020, she also recorded statements of PWs Sh. Himmat Singh and Sh. Rajbir Singh already Ex.PW23/A (colly) (on pages 1805 1809) and Ex.PW60/G (colly) (on pages 17831789) respectively and further proved some other documents in respect to the same.
lvii. PW61 Sh. Anuj Kumar Singh was also working as the Duty Metropolitan Magistrate in District South, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 21.05.2020 and he recorded the statement already Ex.PW34/A (colly) (on pages 1819 & 1821) of PW34 Sh. Arvind and further proved some other documents in respect thereto.
lviii. PW62 Ms. Alka Singh was also working as Duty Metropolitan Magistrate in District South, Saket Courts, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 67 of 226 DLCT110003212020 New Delhi and on 26.05.2020, on an application Ex.PW62/E (on page 1827) moved by IO, she permitted recording of statement already Ex.PW28/A of PW28 Sh. Chiranji Lal vide her order Ex.PW62/B (on page 1829) and appended the certificate Ex.PW62/D (on page 1835) about correctness of contents thereof at the end of statement. A copy of the said statement was allowed to be given to IO and the original proceedings were directed to be sent to concerned court vide her order Ex.PW62/C (on page 1835). The above witness was identified during said statement by the IO vide his statement Ex.PW62/A (on page 1829).
lix. PW63 Sh. Vishal Sawla Pandhare was posted as Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examinercum Examiner of Electronic Evidence in FSL Rohini, Delhi at the relevant time and he examined the contents of two mobile phones of make Samsung and OPPO, along with their accessories, seized during investigation of this case and transferred the data thereof in two separate pen drives. He proved two reports dated 06.01.2021 & 12.04.2021 regarding transfer of data and examination of said exhibits by him as Ex.PW63/A & Ex.PW63/D (on page 1375), CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 68 of 226 DLCT110003212020 certificates U/S 65B of the IEA given by him regarding authenticity of the process of retrieval and transfer of data contained in said mobiles phones in two separate pen drives as Ex.PW63/B & Ex.PW63/E (on page 1377) and letters forwarding the said reports with exhibits back to the ACP concerned by their laboratory as Ex.PW63/C & Ex.PW63/F (on page 1373) respectively.
He also identified the above mobile phone of make Samsung as MarkX and its battery as Ex.PW63/X1. Two SIM cards of make Jio & Idea received with the said mobile as Ex.PW63/X2 & Ex.PW63/X3 respectively and one memory card of 2GB Micro SD as Ex.PW63/X4.
He further identified the above mobile phone of make OPPO as MarkY and one memory card of Micro Plus of 2GB as Ex.PW63/X5. He also identified the two pen drives in which the data of above mobile phones and accessories was transferred as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 respectively. He stated that mobile phone of make OPPO and its accessories initially could not be opened and hence, these were returned back vide first report Ex.PW63/A and the same were examined later by him on vide second report Ex.PW63/D, when the password thereof was provided by the police officials.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 69 of 226DLCT110003212020 It is necessary to mention here that the originals of report dated 06.01.2021 Ex.PW63/A, the certificate U/S 65B of the IEA Ex.PW63/B given about its authenticity and that of the forwarding letter Ex.PW63/C sent in respect thereto though stood already taken on record by the court vide order dated 17.12.2021 passed on an application moved for the said purpose by prosecution, but it was inadvertently submitted by Ld. Addl. PP before this court during examination of the said witness that the above report was neither available in court record nor in the police file. Hence, on no objections given by Ld. Defence Counsels, copies of the above documents were taken on record from the original file brought by the witness and the same were exhibited as Ex.PW63/A, Ex.PW63/B and Ex.PW63/C. lx. PW64 Insp. Kumar Rajiv is the main IO and he stated that investigation of present case was transferred and case file received in DIU, South District from PS Neb Sarai on 30.04.2020 and he examined the case file. He also stated that he examined the complainant Sh. Hemant Singh, his mother and other witnesses and recorded their statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C. He also arrested the accused Prakash Jarwal and Kapil Nagar from the office of Special Staff, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 70 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Pushp Vihar on 09.05.2020 vide arrest memos already Ex.PW50/A & Ex.PW43/A, conducted their personal search vide memos already Ex.PW50/B & Ex.PW50/C, recorded their disclosure statements already Ex.PW50/D & Ex.PW50/E as well as their supplementary disclosure statements subsequently, which are already Ex.PW50/J & Ex. PW50/K respectively.
Further, he also seized mobile phone of the deceased vide memo already Ex.PW1/I, various other documents from officials of Muthoot Fincorp, Deoli and Khanpur Branches vide seizure memos already Ex.PW50/L & Ex.PW50/M (wrongly typed as Ex.PW50/N in his statement) and mobile phones of the above two accused on their pointing out vide memos already Ex.PW50/G & Ex.PW50/H respectively. Some documents/ files from the office of DJB vide memos already Ex.PW50/I & Ex.PW20/K, documents relating to tankers of A2 vide seizure memo already Ex.PW24/B, some original cheques containing signatures of deceased from the office of Corporation Bank, Deoli Branch vide seizure memo already Ex.PW33/D and one mobile phone containing recording of threats extended by A3 vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/K were also seized by him during the course of investigation.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 71 of 226DLCT110003212020 He also got collected voice samples of witness Sh. Revadhar Bhatt in FSL Rohini and seized two sealed envelopes having two cassettes containing original and duplicate voice samples of the said witness, as produced by SI Kailash, vide seizure memo already Ex.PW46/F. He further identified his signatures on some other letters, notes and also the certified copies of documents seized by him during investigation of the case. Further, he also arrested A3 Harish Jarwal later on, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement vide memos already Ex.PW50/N, Ex.PW50/O and Ex.PW50/P respectively. He also got recorded statements U/S 164 Cr.P.C. of some of the witnesses, obtained the crime team report vide memo already Ex.PW38/A and collected the postmortem report of deceased already Ex.PW37/A on record. On collection of some other information and on conclusion of investigation of the case, he prepared a chargesheet and submitted it for scrutiny of the prosecution branch and in the meanwhile, he stood transferred from the office of DIU to PS Vasant Kunj.
He also exhibited on record a notice U/S 160 Cr.P.C. given to Manager of Muthoot Fincorp. as Ex.PW64/A (D27on page 363), letters of Director FSL for recording voice samples of A1 Prakash Jarwal and CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 72 of 226 DLCT110003212020 PW16 Sh. Sanjay as Ex.PW64/D (on page 889) & Ex.PW64/E (on page 895) respectively, a notice given to the official of DJB calling some record as Ex.PW64/F (on page 451) and documents received in response to the same as Ex.PW64/G (colly) (on page 455615), besides exhibiting some other documents and identification of some case property.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
25. All the incriminating evidence which has been brought on record by prosecution was put to the accused persons in their statements recorded by this court under the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they all had denied the said evidence, either as incorrect or being beyond or not in their knowledge. They claimed themselves to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated in this case by deceased and his family members at the instance of water tanker mafia. They all claimed that the deceased was earlier involved in a sting operation known as 'Kala Paani' conducted in the year 2015 and he was blacklisted and his tankers were removed from work of water supply by the DJB. They also claimed that the deceased was under an impression that they were behind the said sting operation and it was the reason why he and his family members had got them falsely implicated in this case. They further claimed that as per their knowledge, the deceased had a serious CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 73 of 226 DLCT110003212020 heart problem and some other health issues and he had even taken loans from various banks in connection with his family problems and since he was not able to repay the said loans and was running under depression because of it, he committed suicide. They also claimed that some of the witnesses who deposed against them in the case had done so either falsely or under the pressure of police officials and they have nothing to do with commission of suicide by the deceased. They all have also expressed their ignorance about the investigation or other proceedings conducted by the IOs, in their presence or otherwise, and also the preparation of various documents in connection with said investigation and proceedings.
26. A1 Prakash Jarwal and A2 Kapil Nagar further submitted in their above statements that as per their knowledge, the deceased was not a qualified doctor and they had never met the deceased or his family members nor they ever had any interaction with them. They had even expressed ignorance about examination of exhibits of the case by CFSL and FSL experts and also the other proceedings conducted by them in relation to said exhibits and it is their submission that these experts had not followed the prescribed procedure for examination of exhibits and their reports are not correct or based on any sound reasons and hence, the same cannot be considered in evidence. It was further their submission that the opinions given by these experts regarding examination of the said CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 74 of 226 DLCT110003212020 exhibits are not truthful and authenticated.
27. A1 Prakash Jarwal had also submitted in his above statement that his identification by some of the witnesses is only because of the fact that he was a known face of area being the local MLA. He further claimed that the deceased was even prosecuted by the Medical Council of India for running a clinic without a licence and thereafter, the deceased suffered a heart attack. He also claimed that the witnesses who had deposed against him are interested and motivated witnesses and the police officials had also misconducted the investigation as per directions of their superiors and his social life and political career has been ruined because of his false implication in this case. He further submitted in the said statement that even the family members of deceased do not support the case of prosecution.
28. A2 Kapil Nagar claimed himself to be working as a building material supplier and a property dealer and also a worker of the AAP and he reiterated in his statement that his false implication in this case was only because of the fact that the deceased and his family members were under an impression that he was behind the sting operation of deceased, who actually committed suicide being under depression because of health related issues and other financial problems.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 75 of 226DLCT110003212020
29. A3 Harish Kumar Jarwal claimed that his actual name is 'Harish Kumar' only and neither his surname is 'Jarwal' nor he had any relation with A1 Prakash Jarwal and he has been implicated falsely in this case for being a volunteer of AAP and also because of the impression of deceased and his family members that he was behind the above sting operation. Though, he admitted in his statement that he had made a phone call to PW16 Sh. Sanjay Kumar and the same might have been recorded in his phone, but he denied making any threatening call to the said witness or to deceased and he also claimed that recordings of the calls produced in court did not contain his voice. He specifically denied having extended any threats to the deceased or his family members.
30. A2 and A3 in their above statements did not choose to lead any evidence in their defence and though A1 had chosen to do so, but eventually, even he did not bring any evidence in his defence and therefore, his defence evidence was closed by the court vide order dated 25.08.2023, on the basis of submissions made to this effect by Ld. Counsel representing him.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
31. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Manish Rawat, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 76 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Ld. Additional PP for State, Sh. S. P. Kaushal, Ld. Counsel representing A1 Prakash Jarwal and Sh. Ravi Drall, Ld. Counsel representing the two other accused Kapil Nagar and Harish Kumar Jarwal. The case record, including the brief written submissions filed on behalf of A1, has also been perused.
32. Sh. Manish Rawat, Ld. Addl. PP has argued that though most of the witnesses, including family members of deceased, had not supported the prosecution case and they had turned hostile on material aspects, but still prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of accused persons for the charges framed against them beyond reasonable doubts from the testimonies of some other witnesses and the reports given by experts of the CFSL, CBI, New Delhi and FSL Rohini, Delhi.
33. It is also his submission that even though the complainant/ PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh had not supported the prosecution case on charge for the offence of commission of suicide by his father Dr. Rajendra Singh due to abetment and threats for extortion extended by the accused persons, but still he deposed that his father died because of commission of suicide and he had even identified his signatures on the complaint Ex.PW1/A (D3on pages 249252) lodged by him with police in this regard in his own handwriting. It is further the submission of Ld. Addl. PP CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 77 of 226 DLCT110003212020 that the complainant/PW1 had though not specifically identified the handwriting of his deceased father in the above suicide note and diary, but he stated that the same looked like the writing of his father. It is also his submission that though, the complainant/PW1 denied handing over of some documents to the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/J (D15on page 313) dated 26.04.2020, but he admitted that the signatures in his name appearing on the said memo are his signatures. He also admitted that even the writing in complaint bearing receiving of date 01.04.2020, which was part of the documents Mark PW1/3 (colly) (on page 567), was similar to the writing of his deceased father.
34. It is further the submission of Ld. Addl. PP that the depositions made by complainant regarding the writing in above complaint dated 01.04.2020 and also in the above suicide note and diary being similar to the writing of his deceased father are even duly corroborated by the report given by handwriting expert with regard to comparison of the admitted and questioned writings of the deceased and the same go to establish that the above writing appearing in suicide note and diary was of the deceased only. It is also his submission that even a bare perusal of the above suicide note and pages of diary of deceased makes it crystal clear that the only reason for commission of suicide by CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 78 of 226 DLCT110003212020 deceased was the abetment given, threats extended and extortions made by the accused persons, who were members of the water mafia of Deoli, Khanpur and other adjoining areas and they were even responsible for getting the water tankers of deceased blacklisted by DJB and also for getting the payment of their tankers stopped or delayed.
35. It is further the contention of Ld. Addl. PP that PW34 Sh. Arvind, who is nephew of deceased, duly supported the case of prosecution on all aspects and he had given the modusoperandi of water mafia being run and controlled by the main accused Prakash Jarwal and extortion of different amounts from the persons running or operating their water tankers with DJB in the said areas. It is also his contention that PW34 had successfully stood the test of cross examination and his testimony in court stands duly corroborated by contents of his statement recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation of the case and also by the other oral and documentary evidence on record.
36. It also the contention of Ld. Addl. PP for State that even the questioned voices of accused Prakash Jarwal and Harish Jarwal and of the witnesses Sh. Revadhar Bhatt & Sh. Sanjay, which were seized from the different mobile phones during the course of investigation, matched with their specimen voice CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 79 of 226 DLCT110003212020 samples taken by IOs during investigation of the case and the reports given by the concerned experts are duly corroborated by their testimonies recorded in the court. Further, it is also his submission that the testimonies of these experts further show that they had followed the prescribed procedure and acted as per norms in carrying out the audio and spectrography examinations in respect to the questioned and specimen voices of the above persons. It is further his contention that testimonies of these experts and the reports given by them duly corroborate the other oral and documentary evidence on record and thus, the charges framed against the accused persons stand duly established from the evidence which has been presented before this court.
37. It is further the contention of Ld. Addl. PP that even the other oral and documentary evidence produced during trial is sufficient to corroborate the above evidence and charges of prosecution that the deceased was being constantly harassed, pressurized and extorted to pay different amounts to the accused persons for operation of their water tankers with DJB and to meet these illegal demands being made by the accused, he was forced to take some loans from different institutions. It is submitted that even despite these payments made by him to the accused persons, he was not being permitted to operate his water tankers and A1 Prakash Jarwal had also ensured that the payments which were CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 80 of 226 DLCT110003212020 due to his family from DJB for running of water tankers during the previous periods were got stopped. It has, thus, been argued by Ld. Addl. PP that because of the above acts of accused, threats extended by them and the mental pressure created because of same, the deceased was left with no other option except to take his life by hanging himself with a rope. It is further his submission that the evidence on record nowhere suggests that the deceased had any serious heart or other ailments or even any financial or family problems forcing him to take the above extreme step.
38. Sh. S. P. Kaushal, Ld. Counsel representing A1 Prakash Jarwal has vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its charge for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/S 120B r/w 306/384/386/506 IPC, U/S 306/34 IPC or the other substantive offences thereof against his client, or even the other accused persons, as there is no evidence at all on record to substantiate the said charges. It is his submission that even the close family members of deceased i.e. PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh, PW2 Smt. Brahmwati and PW41 Sh. Charan Singh, who are the son, wife and brother respectively of the deceased, had not supported the prosecution case with regard to commission of suicide by deceased as a result of the alleged abetment given, threats extended or extortions made by the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 81 of 226 DLCT110003212020 accused persons and rather, their testimonies reveal that the deceased took the above extreme step only as a result of his poor health and other family problems and financial constraints. It is also his submission that though one other relative of the deceased namely Sh. Arvind Kumar/PW34 is being claimed to have deposed in favour of the prosecution case, but his testimony is sharply in contrast and contradiction to the depositions made by the other family members of deceased and hence, it cannot be believed. It is further his submission that even otherwise, PW34 is an interested witness being in close relation with the deceased and his testimony, which is full of material contradictions and improvements, cannot be acted upon by this court and can lend no support to the prosecution case.
39. It is also the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel representing A1 that though PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt was projected as a star witness of the prosecution case because of his close association and employment under the deceased, but even he had turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution in any manner whatsoever. It is further his submission that this witness brought on record the actual reasons for commission of suicide by the deceased and the same were in form of his heart ailment and other financial problems and he, thus, corroborates the statements made by family members of deceased to this effect. It has also been CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 82 of 226 DLCT110003212020 argued by him that it is clear from the testimony of this witness that no tanker of family of deceased was attached with DJB after the above sting operation was conducted in the year 2015 as the deceased stood already blacklisted due to the said sting operation and, thus, testimony of this witness demolishes the very root of prosecutions case that the deceased was being threatened or pressurized to pay any extortion money to the accused persons for running or deployment of the said tankers.
40. It is further the contention of Ld. Counsel representing this accused that even the other independent witnesses examined by prosecution in their capacity of either the owners of tankers or drivers or mangers etc. thereof did not support the case of prosecution at all on the charges for commission of alleged offences as none of them had stated on record that the accused Prakash Jarwal or even any of the other accused had ever demanded any extortion money from them or the deceased for running of their tankers with DJB or that they had paid any such amounts to the accused or were extended any threats for payment thereof by them. It is, thus, the contention of Ld. Counsel for A1 that the testimonies of these 17 independent witnesses also go to demolish the case of prosecution and even if some of the depositions made by PW34 Sh. Arvind Kumar are stated to be going in favour of prosecution, the same cannot override the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 83 of 226 DLCT110003212020 testimonies of these independent witnesses and the same cannot be considered and acted upon by this court for bringing home the guilt of accused persons.
41. It is further the contention of Ld. Counsel representing A1 that even the testimonies of CFSL and FSL experts named above and the reports given by them are of no use to the prosecution case for proving the charges framed against accused persons as there are serious discrepancies and material contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses and even the reports given by them are not based on any sound reasons. It is also his contention that it is very much clear from the testimonies of these expert witnesses that the material made available to them for analysis or examination was not sufficient for the purposes of comparisons of the questioned voices of accused and witnesses and also the questioned handwriting of deceased and hence, the reports given by these experts in relation to the said comparisons cannot be said to be authentic reports. It is further argued by him that even the worksheets have not been produced on record by these experts to establish the authenticity of the process of comparisons of the said voice samples and handwritings.
42. It has further been argued strongly by Ld. Counsel for this accused that even the contents of above suicide note and diary of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 84 of 226 DLCT110003212020 deceased fail to make out any case of abetment against the accused persons for commission of suicide by deceased as the contents of above writings of the note and diary fail to establish that the suicide by deceased was as a result of the alleged abetment or incitement given by any of the accused. It is also his submission that there was no proximity in time between the giving of alleged abetment or incitement by way of threats given or extortions made by the accused and the commission of suicide by deceased.
43. It is further the submission of Ld. Counsel for this accused that though some officials of Muthoot Finance Ltd. and Union Bank examined on record had deposed about some loan transactions of the deceased or his family members and relatives, but it is nowhere proved from their testimonies that the alleged amounts of these loan were meant to be paid as extortion money to the accused persons or the same were actually so paid. It is also his submission that even the witnesses summoned from the office of DJB are of no help to the prosecution case as it is clear from their testimonies that the deceased did not have any tankers attached with DJB since after the year 2015, when he was black listed. It is further his submission that the testimonies of these employees of DJB even revealed that A1 Prakash Jarwal was not in a position to take any decision on its own in respect to deployment or discontinuance of tankers with DJB or for release or getting CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 85 of 226 DLCT110003212020 stopped the payment for operation thereof. It is also his submission that even none of the other witnesses examined on record by prosecution is relevant for proving the above charges framed against the accused as they all are either police officers or other official witnesses and they had simply deposed regarding investigation done and proceedings carried out by them in their official capacities and their testimonies cannot bring home the guilt of accused, in the absence of any support from the other material witnesses. It is further the contention of Ld. Counsel for this accused that the investigation carried out by police officials in this case suffers from serious defects, discrepancies and lacunae.
44. It has, thus, been argued by Ld. Counsel representing A1 that the commission of suicide by deceased was purely due to his illhealth and other family problems and financial constraints and none of the accused had ever threatened the deceased or extorted or even attempted to extort any money from him in connection with running of his water tankers with DJB and the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case only because of the fact that the deceased and his family members were under an impression that they were behind the above sting operation, which is stated to have been conducted in the year 2015 and was known as 'Kala Paani'.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 86 of 226DLCT110003212020
45. In support of his above arguments, Ld. Counsel for A1 has also relied upon judgments in the cases of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 618; S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 190; M. Arjunan Vs. The State Rep. by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 315; Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 Supreme Court Cases 301; Yaddananapudi Madhusudhana Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 901/2017 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.08.2023 and Mohit Singhal & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1598.
46. Sh. Ravi Drall, Ld. Counsel for A2 & A3 has also advanced almost similar arguments on above aspects to assail the case of prosecution and charges framed against the said accused. He has argued that even if the entire oral and documentary evidence of prosecution brought on record is taken into consideration by this court, the same fails to prove that commission of suicide by deceased was as a result of the alleged abetment or incitement given by any of the accused and rather, the said evidence shows that it was because of his ill health and other family circumstances.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 87 of 226DLCT110003212020
47. It is further the submission of Ld. Counsel for A2 & A3 that various complaints or applications, which are part of the documents Ex.PW64/G (colly.) (on pages 455615) and were collected by IO from the office of DJB during the course of investigation, given by wife of deceased in office of DJB or by the deceased himself in name of his wife for release of payments for running of their tankers during the periods between 2015 to 2020 also go to show that the deceased was a heart patient and was having serious health issues and there were also some other circumstances showing financial constraints or problems in his family. It is, thus, the submission of Ld. Counsel that commission of suicide by deceased was directly as a result of his health problems and the other financial constraints etc. and it has nothing to do with the alleged extension of threats for extortion by any of the accused. It is also his submission that last of these applications or complaints given by wife of deceased/PW2 is dated 01.04.2020 (on page 567), i.e. just 17 days prior to the commission of suicide by deceased, and neither in this complaint nor in any of the previous complaints, the deceased or his wife had made any allegations against A1 Prakash Jarwal or others holding them responsible for detachment of their tankers or stoppage of payments thereof. It is, thus, his submission that the contents of above suicide note and diary of deceased showing CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 88 of 226 DLCT110003212020 threats being extended for extortion of money being demanded by any of the accused persons are false and the same are only the result of depression or poor mental condition of deceased as these writings show that he was repeatedly writing the same things in every note and he never made any complaint to the police or any other authority in this regard. Thus, likewise Ld. Counsel for A1, it is also his submission that the evidence on record clearly shows that commission of suicide by deceased was actually because of his poor health and other family circumstances.
48. It is further the contention of Ld. Counsel for A2 & A3 that even otherwise, there is no proximity between the alleged extension of threats and commission of suicide by deceased and hence, suicide of deceased cannot be linked with said threats or incitement or abetment allegedly given by the accused persons. It is also his submission that contents of the diary of deceased reveal that the alleged threat of being killed was mainly extended to him through a telephonic call and it was made by A1 from his mobile No. 9999071851 on mobile No. 9811292950 of deceased and it was made on 18.07.2019 i.e. around 9 months prior to commission of suicide by him and hence, it was much prior to suicide. It is, thus, also his contention that the alleged threat cannot amount to abetment or incitement of deceased for commission of suicide by him as there was no proximity between CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 89 of 226 DLCT110003212020 the extension of threat through the said call and commission of suicide.
49. It has also been argued by Ld. Counsel for these two accused that the above said threat was even otherwise not extended to the deceased directly as the said call was admittedly attended by PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and not by deceased because the SIM of mobile number of deceased was being used in mobile phone of PW19 at that time. It is further his submission that even the 'intent to kill' is missing from the said threat allegedly extended by A1 and at the most, it can be said that the said threat was extended by A1 only out of anger or frustration as he was not able to talk to the deceased.
50. Further, it is also the contention of Ld. Counsel representing these two accused that most of the pages of above suicide note and diary left by deceased are undated and there is nothing on record to show or suggest that the same were written in close proximity to commission of suicide by deceased and, thus, even if contents thereof are considered by this court, the same cannot amount to incitement or abetment by any accused for commission of suicide by the deceased. It has been argued that all these writings left by deceased have been written in vague manner and reflect the poor mental state of deceased and these CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 90 of 226 DLCT110003212020 writings cannot even be termed as suicide note(s). It is further the submission of Ld. Counsel for these two accused that even no documentary evidence has been collected by the IO during investigation to substantiate the truth of allegations contained therein regarding sale of some immovable properties or gold etc. by the deceased to pay the extortion amounts and even if some evidence has been produced during the course of trial to show that some loans were taken by the deceased or his family members, there is no evidence on record to show that the amounts thereof were paid as extortion money to the accused persons.
51. It is also the submission of Ld. Counsel representing these two accused that one of the material witnesses of prosecution case namely Smt. Pramila Pandey, who was living as a tenant in house of the deceased and who had allegedly made the above PCR call, has not been examined on record and her non examination is fatal for the prosecution case.
52. Further, it is also the submission of Ld. Counsel representing the above two accused that the record of DJB office Ex.PW64/G (colly) on record shows that no payment towards family of deceased was due from the office of DJB and all their pending requests for payment stood already cleared before CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 91 of 226 DLCT110003212020 commission of suicide by deceased. It is further his submission that this very fact shows the falsehood of allegations contained in above suicide note and diary to the effect that A1 had got the payments of their takers stopped. It is also the submission of Ld. Counsel that evidence on record nowhere shows that the alleged delay in release of payments, if any, to the family of deceased was because of the exercise of any influence or role played by A 1 or any of the other accused. It is further his submission that no recovery of any part of the amounts allegedly extorted from the deceased has been effected from any of the accused and there is also no proof of any actual payment of extortion money by the deceased or his family members to any of the accused.
53. It is further the contention of Ld. Counsel representing these two accused that A3 is not related to A1 in any manner and he does not even use the surname 'Jarwal' as he is known by the name of 'Harish Kumar' only and there is nothing on record to show as to how he has been involved or implicated in this case with the surname 'Jarwal'. It is also his submission that it has been done only to show him in close relation with the main accused Prakash Jarwal (A1). It is further his submission that even the above expert evidence about comparison of voice of this accused in the above threating call allegedly extended by him to the deceased through PW16 Sanjay is not admissible in evidence CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 92 of 226 DLCT110003212020 and it is not sufficient to establish that the voice appearing in the said threating call is of this accused. It is also his submission that even admittedly, the said threat was not extended by this accused directly to the deceased or any other person of his family or even to a witness as PW16 does not support the case of prosecution on the above aspect about extension of any threat to him by this accused or to the deceased or any other person through him.
54. In support of his above arguments, Ld. Counsel for A2 & A3 has relied upon judgments in the cases of Shikha Gupta Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), MANU/DE/0035/2019; Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana, SLP (Crl.) No. 8867/2017; V.V. Singara Velu & Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., MANU/KA/ 1445/2023; Neeraj Gupta Vs. State, 2006 (90) DRJ 725; Suresh Dhirani & Ors. Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., MANU/CG/ 1073/2023; Taranjeet Singh Gujral & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., MANU/ MP/1922/2023; V.P. Singh Etc. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1999; S.S. Chheena (Supra); Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 796; Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737; Manohar & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., MANU/MH/2983/2023; Suresh Dhirani & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 93 of 226 DLCT110003212020 MANU/CG/1073/2023; Colonel J.S. Ghura Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cri. L.R. (Raj.) 22; Suryakanth Vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 ILR (Karnataka) 2720 and Sudhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (3) Crimes 122.
55. The evidence led on record by prosecution in support of charges framed against the accused persons and the arguments advanced from both sides on the aspect of framing of charges can be broadly appreciated and considered under the following heads: CAUSE AND NATURE OF DEATH OF DECEASED
56. As already discussed, Dr. Rajendra Singh had died by way of hanging with a rope tied with railing of a room built on terrace of his house and admittedly, his death was suicidal in nature and it did not amount to culpable homicide, intentional or otherwise. Though, his immediate family members i.e. his son PW1/ complainant Sh. Hemant and his wife PW2 Smt. Brahmwati, his near relatives like PW25 Sh. Jitan Singh and PW41 Sh. Charan Singh, who are his nephew and brother respectively, and even various other witnesses examined on record did not support the prosecution case regarding instigation or abetment of deceased by the accused persons for commission of suicide, but it certainly emerges out from their testimonies that the above death of deceased by hanging was a suicide only and not a culpable CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 94 of 226 DLCT110003212020 homicide.
57. Again, the fact that the deceased committed suicide is even found corroborated by contents of his postmortem report Ex.PW37/A (D32on pages 423431), which has been duly proved on record through the testimony of PW37 Capt. (Dr.) Antara Debbarma, who was chairperson of the medical board of doctors of AIIMS constituted for conduction of postmortem of dead body of the deceased. As per depositions made by this witness and contents of postmortem report Ex.PW37/A also, the cause of death of deceased was 'asphyxia due to antemortem hanging'.
58. Though, Smt. Pramila Pandey, who noticed the body of deceased hanging on a rope tied with railing of above room and who was living as a tenant on upper portion of house of deceased, has not been examined as a witness during the course of trial, but her nonexamination is not found to have adversely affected the prosecution case in any manner as she was only a witness of the above said fact and had informed the family members of deceased about it and had no further role to play in the matter. Admittedly, she did not see the deceased committing suicide and is, thus, not an eyewitness of commission of suicide and she is even not a witness of the facts constituting the reasons CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 95 of 226 DLCT110003212020 or grounds behind or the causes relating to commission of suicide by him.
59. Even otherwise, the nonexamination of above witness Smt. Promila Pandey was not because of any lapse or fault on the part of prosecution as she was not intentionally withheld from examination on record, but it was only because of reason that by the time she was summoned to depose as a witness in the case, she had already left her given tenanted premises and was reported to be no more residing or existing at the said address. Since she could not be traced out, she had to be dropped as a witness by Ld. Prosecutor, who was incharge of prosecution in this case at the relevant time i.e. on 02.07.2022.
WAS THE SUICIDE BY DECEASED A RESULT OF ABETMENT GIVEN BY ACCUSED PERSONS - CHARGE FOR OFFENCE U/S 306/34 IPC
60. Now, the evidence led on record is required to be appreciated to find out if the above commission of suicide by deceased was as a result of abetment given by the accused persons or any of them or it was because of some other reasons or factors.
61. As stated above, amongst others, a charge for commission CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 96 of 226 DLCT110003212020 of the offence punishable U/S 306 r/w 34 IPC has been framed by this court against A1 Prakash Jarwal and A2 Kapil Nagar on allegations that the above commission of suicide by deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh on 18.04.2020, at around 6 am, at his house bearing No. A144, top floor, Durga Vihar, Deoli, New Delhi was the result and a consequence of the continuous harassment and torture of deceased by the said two accused as they were threating him to pay the extortion money. As per the said charge, the deceased was threatened to pay Rs. 15,000/ for small and Rs. 20,000/ for big tankers monthly to the accused persons, if in case he wanted to ply his tankers with DJB and further, at the time of elections of Legislative Assembly of Delhi in the year 2020, the accused persons had also demanded the amounts of Rs. 51,000/ and Rs. 71,000/ respectively for small and big tankers as election expenditure and this was apart from the above monthly charges. Again, as per the said charge, the deceased was even threatened that in case he did not pay the above amounts being demanded by accused from him, he would not be able to ply his tankers in DJB and his tankers would be discontinued and even his dues would not be cleared by DJB.
62. Section 306 IPC deals with and lays down punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide in following words: "306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 97 of 226 DLCT110003212020 whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
63. However, the word 'abet' has not been defined by this Section and recourse has to be taken to Section 107 IPC for finding the meaning thereof and this Section defines the term 'abetment' in following words : "107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who First -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly --Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly -- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
64. Thus, to 'abet' the doing of a thing in terms of provisions contained in Section 107 IPC, a person can do it in three ways i.e. firstly by instigating the other person to do that thing; secondly, by engaging with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 98 of 226 DLCT110003212020 takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; and thirdly, by intentionally aiding, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
65. As already discussed, though a charge for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/S 120B r/w Sections 384/386/ 506 IPC was framed against A1 & A2, but no charge for the offence punishable U/S 306 IPC with the help of Section 120B IPC was framed against them and this charge U/S 306 IPC has been framed against both these accused with the help of Section 34 IPC only, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention and which lays down the principle that when a criminal act is done by one or several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, then each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. It was because of the reason that no criminal conspiracy could have been entered into between the accused persons for abetting the commission of suicide by deceased or even any other person, though it could have been entered into or existed for commission of the other offences relating to extortion of or extension of threats to the deceased or other persons or even for commission of murder of any person. Further, since the case of prosecution is also not that these two accused by their acts or illegal omissions had intentionally added CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 99 of 226 DLCT110003212020 the commission of suicide by deceased, the present case falls only within the first category of Section 107 IPC, which deals with instigation of any person to do a particular thing and it has, thus, to be seen if these two accused in furtherance of their common intention had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or not.
66. In the celebrated case of Ramesh Kumar (Supra), which has been relied upon on behalf of A1 and is also found referred to in different other judgments filed on behalf of accused persons, the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court had explained the term 'instigation' in following words: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
(Emphasis supplied)
67. The above observations made by their Lordships about the term 'instigation' were also reiterated and followed in subsequent CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 100 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State, (2009) 16 SCC 605 and in this case, even the meanings of words 'goad' and 'urge' were explained by their Lordships in the following words : "15. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action:
provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 7th Edition). Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 101 of 226 DLCT110003212020 mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
(Emphasis supplied)
68. In light of above legal position, we have now to see whether or not the oral and documentary evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge framed U/S 306/34 IPC against A 1 & A2 for the offence of abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased or that whether the above suicide by deceased was as a result of abetment or instigation given by them or not.
69. Before dealing with the above suicide note or writings appearing in diary of deceased and the issues related to their admissibility or relevancy etc., it is first felt necessary to deal with and appreciate the oral evidence led on record in support of allegations made on this aspect and the above charge framed against the accused persons.
ORAL EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE CHARGE
70. Amongst the witnesses examined on record, PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh, PW2 Smt. Brahmwati, PW25 Sh. Jitan Singh, PW34 Sh. Arvind and PW41 Sh. Charan Singh were the most important witnesses of prosecution story as they all are either the immediate family members of deceased or his closed relatives. Besides them, PW3 Sh. Lalit, PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 102 of 226 DLCT110003212020 PW21 Sh. Prem Pal were also alleged to be the witnesses of this category as PW3 & PW21 were drivers allegedly employed on tankers of deceased and even PW19 was his employee and had been working as a compounder in his clinic. It is a matter of record that the deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh was though not a qualified doctor, but he had been running a small poly clinic in the area of his residence,
71. However, except PW34 Sh. Arvind, whose testimony will be discussed and appreciated separately, none of the other witnesses from above list had supported the case of prosecution with regard to charges framed against the accused and they all had turned hostile during their examinations in court and had even denied their statements recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. by IO during the course of investigation. Thus, none of them is found to have deposed on record that the above two accused or even any of them had either extended any threats for extortion of any amount in connection with deployment or running of tankers of the deceased or his family members with DJB or that any such amount was ever paid by the deceased to accused persons in connection with running of the said tankers. They had even not supported the case of prosecution regarding extension of any threats to the life of deceased or his family members or any damage to their property in relation to deployment or operation CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 103 of 226 DLCT110003212020 of the said tankers.
72. Besides the above, there are also various other prosecution witnesses examined on record, like PW4 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Goswami, PW7 Tilak Raj, PW8 Sh. Dharamvir Singh, PW10 Sh. Sukhbir Singh, PW11 Sh. Rinku, PW12 Sh. Mohit Kumar, PW13 Sh. Pramod, PW14 Sh. Jitender, PW15 Sh. Ajit Kumar, PW16 Sh. Sanjay, PW17 Vinod Kumar and PW28 Sh. Chiranji Lal etc., to establish the charges framed against accused persons, but even none of these witnesses during their statements made before this court had supported the case of prosecution as they all had also turned hostile and had resiled from their earlier statements recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. by IO during the course of investigation. They all were either the owners, drivers or operators of the other water tankers which were being run in the areas of Deoli and Khanpur etc. at the relevant time in association with DJB. None of them is even found to have stated in court that any of the above accused had ever demanded any monthly sum or other amounts from them in connection with operation of the said tankers. Further, though, PW28 Sh. Chiranji Lal admitted his signatures on his statement Ex.PW28/A (on pages 18311833) recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C., but he submitted that it was not his voluntary statement as he was pressurized by the police to make the said statement.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 104 of 226DLCT110003212020
73. Apart from above, there are also some other witnesses examined on record by prosecution in support of above and the other charges framed against accused persons in this case and these are PW5 Sh. Satbir, PW6 Sh. Rajbir Singh, PW9 Sh. Ram Kumar and PW18 Sh. Shishpal and they are the persons who were living or working in the vicinity of that area and are claimed to have been visiting the clinic of deceased in connection with their treatment or treatment of their family members. However, likewise most of the other witnesses stated above, even they had not supported the prosecution case in respect to above charges framed against the accused persons and they had expressed their ignorance about the reasons as to why the deceased committed suicide.
74. In addition to the family members of deceased and other public persons examined as witnesses, as stated above, the prosecution is though also found to have examined on record some officials from the office of DJB, like PW20 Ms. Jyoti Sharma, PW22 Sh. Prem Singh, PW23 Sh. Himmat Singh, PW27 Sh. Naresh Kumar Kardam, PW31 Sh. Arvind Kaushik & PW32 Sh. N.K. Sharma etc., but even these witnesses are found to have appeared before this court in their official capacities and deposed about the nature of their duties or the acts done in relation thereto CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 105 of 226 DLCT110003212020 or in respect of certain documents of this case, which were summoned from or dealt with in their office, and none of them is found to have made on record any allegations against the accused persons or holding them responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased.
75. Further, though PW22, PW23 & PW27 are found to have stated that they were looking after the tanker water distribution work in Deoli and surrounding areas, but they have also gone to state on record that no tanker of deceased was deployed with DJB at the relevant time and they knew nothing as to why the deceased committed suicide. They even denied their alleged statements recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation and containing some allegations against accused about harassment of deceased at the hands of accused and the roles played by accused in attachment or detachment of water tankers of other persons, including that of the deceased and his family members. They also denied making of any oral complaints by certain tanker owners to them about demands of money by accused persons for the said purpose or involvement of accused persons in delaying payments due to the tanker owners. They further denied having told the police during their above statements that after A1 became an MLA and a member of DJB, there was any change in water distribution work.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 106 of 226DLCT110003212020
76. Again, PW33 Sh. Harkesh of the Corporation Bank, PW36 Sh. Manoj Kumar of Deoli branch of Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. and PW39 Sh. Manoj Kumar of Khanpur branch of Muthoot Fincorp are also some of the other official witnesses examined on record by prosecution and they are witnesses of handing over of certain documents or statements of loan accounts of the deceased, his family members or other persons to the IO. However, even the testimonies of these witnesses by themselves cannot be held to be incriminating against the above two accused for the purpose of considering the charge framed U/S 306/34 IPC, or even the other charges, as the same cannot prove that the above loan amounts were actually meant for payment of extortion amounts to the accused persons, though it can be a circumstance which can be considered by this court separately for appreciating the facts stated in writings left by the deceased or the effect thereof.
77. Now, coming to the testimony of PW34 Sh. Arvind, as stated above, he is nephew of the deceased and he deposed on record that the deceased committed suicide as MLA Prakash Jarwal and his person Kapil Nagar were harassing him since Prakash Jarwal became an MLA and they were extorting him, due to which he committed suicide. It is observed that during his examinationinchief, though he had made so many incriminating CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 107 of 226 DLCT110003212020 and specific depositions against the accused persons regarding payment of different amounts to them by the deceased and other tanker owners or operators as extortion money and had even claimed that some of these payments were made by deceased to the accused persons in his presence, but it is also observed on perusal of his testimony that during his crossexamination conducted by Ld. Counsel for A1, he was confronted on various aspects with his previous statement made U/S 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW34/P1 (on page 1713) to IO during the course of investigation. It has been observed that all the above confrontations of this witness with his above previous statement are on material aspects and render his testimony on these aspects, and also regarding the claims made by him with regard to demands of specific extortion amounts or payments thereof, to be unworthy of acceptance as the same can be considered only as improvements made by him over his above previous statement.
78. However, the same cannot be said to have resulted in total rejection of his testimony or to have affected his credibility as a whole and the depositions made by him on other aspects, on which no such improvements or confrontations are found to be there, can well be considered by this court. It is so because the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be completely rejected or overlooked by the court and it is duty of the court to separate CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 108 of 226 DLCT110003212020 truth from falsehood and if it can be done, then that portion or part of his statement which inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy, in light of the facts and circumstances of a particular case and the other evidence adduced before the court, can be accepted or acted upon, while rejecting the remaining part or portion of his statement which appears to be false. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment dated 25.02.2009 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Mani @ Udattu Man & Ors. Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Crl. Appeal Nos. 382 384 of 2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 75807582 of 2007) and the relevant propositions of law laid down by their Lordships in the said case are being reproduced herein below: "4. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient, or to be not wholly credible. Falsity of material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witness or witnesses cannot be branded as liar(s). The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called `a mandatory rule of evidence'. (See Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 SC 366]. In a given case, it is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 109 of 226 DLCT110003212020 who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons. (See Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 460]. The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a deadstop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respect as well. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab s/o Beli Nayata and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1972 (3) SCC 751] and Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 277]. An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto........"
79. As stated above, during his examinationinchief itself, PW34 Sh. Arvind made specific depositions against A1 & A2 by deposing that since A1 became an MLA, both these accused were harassing his uncle (chacha) Dr. Rajendra Singh, who CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 110 of 226 DLCT110003212020 committed suicide. He also stated in clear and specific terms that both these accused were extorting his uncle, due to which he committed suicide. During his examination, he has also duly proved on record his previous statement recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW34/A (colly) (on pages 18191821) during the course of investigation and had further identified all the three accused persons in court.
80. The above statement Ex.PW34/A of the witness is found to have been recorded by PW61 Sh. Anuj Kumar Singh, the then Ld. Duty Metropolitan Magistrate of District South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, who had also specifically deposed on record to this effect and had proved the said statement of the above witness. PW61 deposed specifically that the same was recorded by him on an application Ex.PW61/A (on page 1817) moved by the IO and on identification of the said witness vide statement Ex.PW46/B (on page 1795) of the IO/SI Kailash Chand. He had also duly proved on record the certificate given by him about correctness of contents of the said statement as Ex.PW61/C (on page 1823).
81. It is also found specifically recorded in above statement Ex.PW34/A of the witness that A1 was continuously harassing his uncle since the time he became an MLA on ticket of the AAP CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 111 of 226 DLCT110003212020 and he used to illegally demand money from his uncle Dr. Rajendra Singh, who was providing services of his tankers in DJB since the year 2005. It is also found stated by PW34 in his above statement that his uncle told him about it many times and he had even gone to meet A1 & A2 and talked to them telephonically, but the accused persons were clear in their demands. He is also found to have stated therein that he even requested A2 to reduce the demanded amount and when they had gone to meet A1, A1 refused to reduce the amount and told them that if they wanted to live there, they should continue to make the timely payments, else the results would be bad for them. He further told to the Ld. Duty Metropolitan Magistrate in his above statement that both the above accused instead kept on increasing the demanded amounts and started talking to him on Whatsapp and Facebook messenger. It is also found recorded in above statement of PW34 that his deceased uncle had telephonically informed him, just two days prior to his suicide, that the accused had ruined him and had got his tankers discontinued and payments thereof stopped and were demanding more money from him. It is further found recorded therein that PW34 was even told by his uncle that he was tired of paying money to the accused persons and was also having some recording of threats and messages of the accused.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 112 of 226DLCT110003212020
82. It is observed that though during his cross examination, PW34 was confronted on different aspects with contents of his previous statement Ex.PW34/P1 (on page 1713) recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation, but there are no confrontations with any portion of his other statement Ex.PW34/A recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C. Further, though, he was also suggested by Ld. Counsel for A1 that his statement made during examinationinchief before the court as well as his above statement Ex.PW34/A made U/S 164 Cr.P.C. contained drastic improvements over his other statement given to the police, but this suggestion was denied by the witness as wrong and Ld. Defence Counsels have even failed to point out any material contradictions in the above statement Ex.PW34/A made by witness and the statement which he made before the court. Again, he was not even suggested by Ld. Defence Counsels that his above statement Ex.PW34/A given before the Ld. Duty Metropolitan Magistrate was a false statement and thus, there is no challenge from defence to the facts stated by this witness in his above statement Ex.PW34/A and the same duly corroborates the testimony of witness before the court to the effect that both the above accused since long were continuously harassing the deceased and were extracting different amounts of money from him in relation to deployment or running of his tankers with DJB. Further, it also corroborates the depositions made by this witness CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 113 of 226 DLCT110003212020 in court to the effect that both the above accused even kept on increasing the amounts being demanded as extortion money and the deceased was under tremendous mental pressure to pay the said amounts or to cope up with the said demands and ultimately, he committed suicide as he could not bear the pressure created because of such demands.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE CHARGE
83. The documentary evidence on record on the point of above charge, as well as the other charges, can be divided in the following categories:
(a) SUICIDE NOTE(S)/WRITINGS LEFT BY DECEASED AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SAME
84. As stated above, the deceased had left behind some writings in a note (suicide note), a diary and a bill book being kept and maintained by him and these writings are stated to be pertaining to the reasons and causes resulting into commission of suicide by him. The above suicide note consisting of six pages and left by deceased is Ex.PW1/D on record (available in an envelope on page 1291) and the diary & bill book are Ex.PW1/B (available in an envelope on page 1355) & Ex.PW1/C (available in an envelope on page 1357) respectively. All these documents were seized from the house of deceased by PW47/SI Shiv Singh, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 114 of 226 DLCT110003212020 who visited the place of incident on being assigned DD No. 11A Ex.PW45/A (D5on page 257) recorded by PW45/ASI Sudhir at PS Neb Sarai on the basis of a PCR Call. PW47 had duly proved on record the seizure memo of above documents as Ex.PW1/E (D14on page 311), which was prepared by him and is found witnessed by PW40/HC Tejpal, the complainant/PW1 Sh. Hemant and PW41/Sh. Charan Singh. The said memo and seizure of above documents is found to have been duly proved on record from the testimonies of above police witnesses, even though the other witnesses to the said memo had denied seizure of said articles in their presence despite identifying their signatures thereon.
85. The contents of writings of deceased contained in the six page suicide note and his diary have already been reproduced above and there is no doubt that these writings pertain to the reasons behind or the cause of death of or the commission of suicide by deceased. It has been observed that even the above bill book Ex.PW1/C left by deceased contains one writing pertaining to commission of suicide by him and this writing, along with his above writings in suicide note and other diary, was sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi for forensic analysis and comparison of questioned and admitted writings of deceased. The contents of this writing of deceased are also being reproduced herein below: CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 115 of 226 DLCT110003212020 "ससवप मम शशमपन आदरणशय पवधपयक शश पकपश झपरवपल जश मपनयवर जश आपनस मसरस D.J.B. सस टहकर भश हटवप पदयस और मसरश पसमसनट भश रलकनस कल आदसश कर पदयस आप मसझस चपरल तरफ सस परसशपन करनस कक कलपशश कर रहल हल। जल पक मसरस पपस आपकक धमकक कक ररकपरर ग जल पक 18 7/19 शपम कक व अनय पयपरप सवपत हह। आप मसझस मजवपर कर रहस हल पक मस मजवपरश मस कलई कपनपनश कपयर वपहश कर, लजसमस आपकक वदनपमश हल मस ऐसस नहश चपहतप आप मसझस मपहफ करनस कक ककपयप करस। आपकक अपत ककपयप हलगश रपजसनद लसह Mo 9811292950"
86. Such writings of any person or witness are the statements left by said person or witness and generally form a piece of hearsay evidence. However, if any such writing or statement falls in different categories as provided by Section 32 of the IEA, then such writing or statement can be admitted as a relevant piece of evidence as Sections 32 & 33 of the IEA are held to be exceptions to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. The reason behind exclusion of hearsay evidence is that it has always been considered as desirable in the interests of justice that the person whose statement is being relied upon should be present in court for his examination in the regular way, in order to test trustworthiness of the facts stated in said statement. It is only after the witness undergoes the test of cross examination successfully that any such statement made by the witness, or even the depositions made by him during his examinationinchief, can be accepted and acted upon by the court.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 116 of 226DLCT110003212020
87. Section 32 of the IEA deals with cases in which the statements containing relevant facts as made by a person who is dead or whose presence can not otherwise be procured by the court have been considered to be relevant. It provides as under: S. 32. "Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. -- Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:--
(1) when it relates to cause of death. --When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question.
Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. ....................................... ......................................."
88. Thus, it is clear from provisions contained U/S 32 of the IEA that the writings contained in above diary, bill book and suicide note Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively of deceased are his statements falling under Section 32(1) of the IEA as the maker thereof is no more available due to his death and the same are relevant as per above Section as these relate to the cause of his death or commission of suicide by him or to the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 117 of 226 DLCT110003212020 circumstances resulting into his death and further, since the cause of his death is directly into question before this court.
89. A suicide note in common parlance is known as a letter or writing in any other form that somebody leaves before he killed or tried to kill himself and to qualify such a letter or writing to be a statement under the ambit of Section 32(1) of the IEA, it should relate to the cause of death of such person or to the circumstances of the transaction resulting into his death. Further, as the name suggests, it should be made by a person who subsequently took his life or committed suicide.
90. A dying declaration is known as the last declaration or statement made by the deceased before he passes away and to be admissible under the provisions of Section 32(1) of the IEA, such a declaration or statement has also to meet out the requirements stated above. However, unlike a suicide note, the death of such person making the said declaration or dying declaration can be either suicidal or homicidal.
91. Thus, though technically a suicide note is different from a dying declaration made by a deceased, but practically both of these fall in the category of statements made by persons who cannot be called as witnesses or are no more available for making CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 118 of 226 DLCT110003212020 depositions before the court and hence, if the conditions laid down U/S 32(1) of the IEA are satisfied, both these statements of deceased are liable to be governed by provisions contained in the said Section and become admissible as well as relevant in a case. There may be circumstances when a suicide note left by the deceased is liable to be considered as a dying declaration and the prime requirement for this is that the suicide note must be connected or related to the cause of death of such person or to any of the circumstances of the transaction which were the reasons for his death. Hence, the principles which broadly govern the credibility and acceptability etc. of a suicide note or dying declaration are the same.
92. It is settled that evidence in the form of a dying declaration, whether it is oral or in writing, has to be treated with care and caution since the maker thereof is no more available and cannot be subjected to crossexamination. This care and caution is required to be of a higher degree for considering an oral dying declaration of a deceased in comparison to a written dying declaration left by him. It is so because in case of consideration of an oral dying declaration, even the credibility of person who is deposing about the said oral dying declaration or the veracity of his testimony has to be tested first and before the said dying declaration can be considered as a vital piece of evidence. The CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 119 of 226 DLCT110003212020 possibility cannot be ruled out that the person or witness who is deposing about such oral dying declaration of deceased or even the person or deceased who had made such declaration was or is trying to fix or frame the accused.
93. Further, even in the case of consideration of a written dying declaration or suicide note, the prosecution has to prove first that the said dying declaration was left by deceased only and it is an authentic piece of evidence and there are no chances of its being planted by anyone else. Again, it is also required to be seen that the same was made or written by the deceased voluntarily, it inspires confidence and is credible and it is even consistent with the facts and circumstances of that case. If the prosecution is successful in establishing the above requirements, then the same can even form the solitary basis for conviction of an accused without seeking any corroboration of the particulars stated therein. Reference in this regard can be made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Atbir Vs. Govt. (NCT) of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 1, wherein their Lordships, after discussing the law on this subject, had summed up the legal principles governing a dying declaration in following words: "16) The analysis of the above decisions clearly shows that,
(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the Court.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 120 of 226DLCT110003212020
(ii) The Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.
(iii) Where the Court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration.
(iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.
(v) Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.
(viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded.
(ix) When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.
(x) If after careful scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration."
94. Even in the case of Ramakant Mishra @ Lalu etc. Vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 SCALE 186, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made similar observations on this aspect and these are as under: "5. The defence has rested very heavily nay, almost entirely, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 121 of 226 DLCT110003212020 on the alleged Dying Declaration attributed to the deceased. The admissibility of a Dying Declaration as a piece of evidence in a Trial is governed by Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 32, as a whole, enunciates the exceptions to the rule of nonadmissibility of hearsay evidences, eventuated out of necessity to give relevance to the statements made by a person whose attendance cannot be procured for reasons stipulated in the section. Postulating the essential ingredients to define what exactly would constitute a hearsay is an arduous task, and since we are only concerned with one of its exceptions, we should forbear entering into the entire arena. The risks while admitting a Dying Declaration and the statements falling within the domain of Section 32(1) run higher in contrast to other sundry evidences, and this entails a huge bearing on their admissibility and credibility. Such statements are neither made on oath nor the maker of the statement would be available for crossexamination nor are they made under the influence of the supremacy and the solemnity of the court room. This is the reason why this Court has consistently underlined the necessity to examine this specie of evidence with great circumspection and care. However, once a Dying Declaration is held to be authentic, inspiring full confidence beyond the pale of doubt, voluntary, consistent and credible, barren of tutoring, significant sanctity is endowed to it; such is the sanctitude that it can even be the exclusive and the solitary basis for conviction without seeking any corroboration. At this juncture, it is worthwhile noting that the sanctity attached to a Dying Declaration springs up from the rationale that a person genuinely under the sense of imminent death would speak only the truth. In addition to the Dying Declaration, which is only one of the species of the genus of Section 32(1), there could be other statements, written or verbal, which also would be encompassed within the sweep of this section, and at this point the Indian law drifts from the English law. This is further evident from the usage of phraseology in the section, embracing not only statements made about "cause of death" but also about "any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 122 of 226 DLCT110003212020 death", whether or not the person making the statement was under "expectation of death".These statements could be in the form of a suicide note, a letter, a sign or a signal, or a product of any reliable means of communication; their genuineness and credibility shall, of course, be reckoned by the Court entertaining the concerned matter. A Dying Declaration enjoys a higher level of credence visavis any other statement above mentioned, which is on account of the former being made in the"contemplation of death".
"Contemplation of death" is the primal factor to segregate Dying Declarations from other statements. But no hardand fast rule can be laid down to confine the contemplation within the circumference of few hours or a few days in which death of the maker of the statement must happen so as to elevate that statement to the level of a Dying Declaration. Moreover, the state of mind of the maker would also be material in discerning completely as to whether the maker was mentally fit to make the statement and whether the maker actually could have contemplated death."
95. Thus, the corroboration of particulars contained in a dying declaration or suicide note and the claims made by deceased therein about reasons for taking of the extreme step of suicide by him is only a rule of prudence and it is not a rule of law. Corroboration of details contained in a suicide note left by deceased is required merely to be sure that the commission of suicide by him was only because of the acts being attributed to accused and not because of any other reasons and further that the said declaration or note was made or written by the deceased voluntarily and he was not tutored, pressurized or influenced etc. to make or write the same. Again, the court is also required to be sure that at the time of making of said statement or writing the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 123 of 226 DLCT110003212020 said note, the deceased was in a proper and fit mental state to make the same and once the above things are established, there is no need of looking for any corroboration of the contents of such statement made by the deceased.
96. Coming to the present case, before the above suicide notes or writings allegedly left by the deceased can be considered or acted upon by this court, the prosecution is first required to establish that the same are actually in handwriting of the deceased himself and these were not written by anyone else.
97. As already discussed, the above suicide note, diary and bill book containing these writings were seized by PW47 from the room of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E (D14on page
311). During his examination in this court, the son of deceased namely Sh. Hemant/PW1 was shown all the above writings contained in suicide note, diary and bill book recovered from the room of his father and he stated that the writing in diary Ex.PW1/B as well as the writing appearing in bill book Ex.PW1/C in Hindi language was similar to the writing of his deceased father, though he was not sure about the material or words written in English language in the above bill book. Again, he was even shown the suicide note Ex.PW1/D left by deceased and he stated in clear terms that the same was in handwriting of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 124 of 226 DLCT110003212020 his father. No other family member or relative of the deceased is shown to have been a witness of identification of handwriting of deceased in the above said documents.
98. However, besides PW1, PW59 Ms. Anjali Singh is another material witness of prosecution on this aspect as she is the concerned handwriting expert of FSL Rohini, who had examined the questioned and admitted handwritings of deceased. She deposed before this court that the exhibits of this case were received in FSL on 02.06.2020 and the same were marked to her for examination and were examined by her. She stated that the documents containing the questioned writings of deceased were numbered as Q1 to Q86 and these were on six ruled sheets and one diary and the documents numbered from A1 to A27 were the admitted documents of deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh. During her examination in this court, she had also identified the above questioned writings of deceased numbered as Q1 to Q86 and as appearing in the above diary Ex.PW1/B and suicide note Ex.PW1/D. She further identified another writing of deceased as contained in the above bill book Ex.PW1/C and sent as a part of the admitted documents and having being marked as A27 as well as the other admitted writings of deceased marked as A1 to A26 and contained on the sheets/documents Ex.PW42/B, Ex.PW33/B, Ex.PW33/C (colly) and Ex.PW49/D (colly).
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 125 of 226DLCT110003212020
99. It has been observed on perusal of record that the writings in Hindi language as contained in above suicide note Ex.PW1/D and sent for forensic analysis were marked as Q1 to Q8 and the writings in Hindi language as appearing in above diary Ex.PW1/B were marked as Q9 to Q52. The initials/signatures of deceased in English language in the above suicide note and diary are found marked as Q53 to Q55 and Q56 to Q79 respectively and his full signatures in name as Rajendra Singh in English language in these two documents were marked as Q80 & Q81 and Q82 to Q86 respectively. As stated above, one other writing of deceased in Hindi language, as contained in the above bill book Ex.PW1/C and also containing his full signatures with name in Hindi language, was marked as A27 and the other admitted writings of deceased marked as A1 to A26 are on sheets/documents Ex.PW42/B, Ex.PW33/B, Ex.PW33/C (colly) and Ex.PW49/D (colly).
100. On further perusal of record, it is also found that the document Ex.PW42/B (on page 1293) is an application given by deceased in his own name to the Secretary, DMC and it was in response to some complaint which was made against him about running of the above clinic and it is also found to contain his signatures in Hindi language. The entire writing of deceased in CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 126 of 226 DLCT110003212020 this document is found marked as A1. The document Ex.PW33/B (on pages 12951307) is a set of two account opening forms of Corporation Bank in name of the deceased and it is found that only the initials of deceased in English language as appearing in these forms have been marked as A2 to A10. The document Ex.PW33/C (colly) (on pages 13091317) are four cheques of different amounts and bearing different numbers and stated to have been issued by deceased on his account No. 13130000101002046 being maintained in Corporation Bank, Deoli Branch, New Delhi and also one payinslip of the said account. The initials of deceased in English language as appearing on front and back of these documents are found marked as A11 to A18. The documents Ex.PW49/D (colly) (on pages 13191331) are some other applications given in name of deceased, his wife or other persons to different authorities/ persons in DJB and SHO, Neb Sarai and stated to be containing the handwriting and signatures of deceased and it is observed that the entire contents of writings as appearing in above applications have been numbered as A19 to A21, A23 and A24 and some other portion of writing appearing on one of such applications and containing a mix of words and alphabets in Hindi and English languages, as well as of figures, was numbered as A22. A25 & A26 are two other writings stated to be of the deceased written on paper slips and containing some sayings of wisdom.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 127 of 226DLCT110003212020
101. The application/document Ex.PW42/B was seized by PW46 SI Kailash during investigation vide seizure memo Ex. PW42/A (D28on page 411) dated 22.05.2020, when the same was handed over to him by PW42 Dr. Girish Tyagi, Secretary, DMC, along with some other documents. The above seizure memo stands duly proved on record through the testimonies of these two witnesses. It is also found recorded in testimony of PW42, on pointing out of the IO, that out of the documents seized vide the above seizure memo, only the above application Ex.PW42/B was considered relevant by the FSL for the purpose of matching the handwriting of deceased and hence, the other documents were not relied upon by them and filed with the chargesheet.
102. The document Ex.PW33/B, along with one statement of above account of deceased Mark PW33/1, was handed over to police by PW33 Sh. Harkesh of the Deoli Branch of Union Bank, which was formally known as Corporation Bank, and the same is found seized vide memo Ex.PW33/A dated 24.04.2020 (D17on page 317) prepared by PW49 Insp. Anil Kumar. Further, as per statement of PW33, he also handed over the above four original cheques dated 20.06.2018, 13.08.2018, 13.08.2018 and 10.01.2018 drawn on the said account of deceased to the police CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 128 of 226 DLCT110003212020 vide another seizure memo Ex.PW33/D (D21on page 325). This seizure memo Ex.PW33/D is found dated 28.05.2020 and it was prepared by Insp. Kumar Rajiv/PW64 and both these memos are found to have been duly proved on record through the testimonies of these witnesses. All the above documents, along with one deposit memo/payinslip in respect of one of these cheques, are already Ex.PW33/C (colly) on record, as stated above.
103. The documents Ex.PW49/D (colly) consisting of seven pages were handed over to PW49 by the complainant/PW1 Sh. Hemant vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/J dated 26.04.2020 (D15on page 313) and the said memo also stands duly proved on record from the statement made by PW49. Though, the complainant/ PW1 denied handing over of said documents to the above IO, but he could not deny his signatures as appearing on the said memo.
104. Thus, it can be said on the basis of above that the documents/writings marked as A1 to A26 contain the admitted writings or signatures of deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh and the documents containing these writings and signatures were submitted or given by the deceased to different persons/ authorities prior to commission of suicide by him and in the usual course of transactions. Moreover, on behalf of none of the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 129 of 226 DLCT110003212020 accused, it has been challenged or argued that any of these documents does not contain the admitting writings or signatures of the deceased.
105. However, as far as the admitted writing marked as A27 of deceased is concerned, it has been observed that it was a part of the above bill book Ex.PW1/C seized from room of the deceased and there is nothing on record to show as to how this piece of writing was kept by IO in the category of admitted writings of deceased, while the other writings of deceased as appearing in the above diary and suicide note were marked as questioned writings. Even Ld. Addl. PP for State has failed to answer this question. Hence, as far as the comparison of questioned writings of deceased with this piece of his alleged admitting writing marked as A27 is concerned, the testimony of PW59 i.e. the handwriting expert and the report Ex.PW59/A (on pages 1285 1287) given by her does not carry any weight.
106. As stated above, PW59 Ms. Anjali Singh is the concerned handwriting expert who had examined the above questioned and admitted handwritings/signatures of deceased and had given her report Ex.PW59/A (on pages 12851287) regarding the said comparisons. The above report stands duly proved on record from her depositions made before this court and it also bears her CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 130 of 226 DLCT110003212020 signatures at point A on each page and her stamp on last page thereof, which were identified by the witness before this court. During her statement in court, she is also found to have deposed specifically that after examination of the above said documents, she gave opinion that the person who wrote the red enclosed Hindi writings and English signatures, stamped and marked A1 to A27 also wrote the red enclosed Hindi writings and English signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q79. She further deposed specifically that no opinion could, however, be expressed by her with regard to rest of the questioned documents on the basis of material provided to her. The depositions made by her to this effect are based on her opinion expressed in the above report Ex.PW59/A (on pages 12851287).
107. As already discussed, the questioned handwritings of deceased in Hindi language appearing in above suicide note and diary Ex.PW1/D & Ex.PW1/B were numbered Q1 to Q8 and Q9 to Q52 respectively and his full signatures in English language appearing in these documents were numbered as Q80 & Q81 and Q82 to Q86 respectively. Thus, as per depositions made by this witness and contents of above report Ex.PW59/A given by her, these writings and signatures of deceased matched with his above said admitted writings marked A1 to A27. However, as also discussed above, since prosecution failed to establish on record CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 131 of 226 DLCT110003212020 that writing marked A27 appearing in above bill book Ex.PW1/C left by the deceased was also an admitted handwriting of deceased, the above depositions of PW59 and the conclusions drawn by her in her above report Ex.PW59/A are to be considered and appreciated accordingly and it can be taken to mean that the questioned writings and signatures of deceased numbered Q1 to Q79 matched with his admitted handwritings and signatures marked a A1 to A26.
108. During her crossexamination conducted on behalf of A1, this witness is also found to have deposed that they look at similar characters in admitted and questioned documents and compare the same to form an opinion in this regard. She further stated on record during her crossexamination that minimum 8 to 10 characters should be there for examination and characters such as pen pressure, curvature, dots etc. in above documents were examined by her before giving the above opinion and she also volunteered by saying that the same were mentioned as part of individual characters in the said report. Though, she is also found to have stated during her crossexamination that no enlarged photographs were prepared for the purpose of examination, but she explained it by volunteering that as per procedure, juxtapose was prepared for the purpose of above examination. She also denied the suggestion given by Ld. CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 132 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Counsel representing the said accused that there should be atleast 16 characters available for such comparison as per the existing guidelines on this aspect. She further denied the suggestions given by Ld. Counsel for the said accused that she did not examine the documents in accordance with the laid down norms and guidelines or that she had prepared the above report mechanically or had deposed incorrectly before the court. No separate crossexamination of this witness is found to have been conducted by Ld. Counsel representing A2 & A3 as he adopted the above said crossexamination of witness conducted by Ld. Counsel for A1.
109. Thus, it can be seen from above that except some bald suggestions given to the witness, there is nothing on record to suggest that she did not examine the above questioned and admitted writings of deceased as per the existing guidelines or norms on subject or that she carried out her examination of documents and gave the said report in a mechanical way. Hence, simply because she stated that the fact about preparation of any juxtapose by her for the purpose of above examination was not specifically mentioned in the above report or that she did not place on record her rough notes/worksheets prepared during the process of examination, the above report given by her or the depositions made by her regarding the same before this court CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 133 of 226 DLCT110003212020 cannot be doubted or discarded. Moreover, she is also found to have specifically stated on record that the worksheets were prepared by her and she did not file it on record simply because the same were not required to be filed. It is observed that even Ld. Defence Counsels made no request for directing the said witness to place on record the said worksheets despite her above specific depositions and hence, they cannot now be permitted to challenge the above report simply on this ground. Similarly, even if no specific opinion could be given by this witness with regard to the remaining questioned handwritings numbered as Q82 to Q86 of the deceased, the depositions made or report given by her in respect to the other questioned writings cannot be discarded and rather, this shows the fairness of witness and the process of examination of the documents adopted by her.
110. Even otherwise, PW59 in her above report Ex.PW59/A (on pages 12851287) is also found to have specifically mentioned that in examination of the questioned and admitted handwritings of deceased marked as Q1 to Q79 and A1 & A19 to A27 respectively, similarities were observed by her in formation of different characters and their minute and inconspicuous details of various words of the Hindi language, as used in the said writings and as also found specifically stated in the said report. Again, such similarities are also stated to had been observed in different CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 134 of 226 DLCT110003212020 alphabets of English language used in the questioned and specimen initials/signatures of the deceased marked as Q53 to Q79 and A2 to A18. Thus, it is only on the basis of said similarities which she observed between the above questioned and admitted writings and signatures of the deceased, she opined vide her above report that the aforesaid similarities in the writing habits of deceased were significant and sufficient and the same could not be attributed to accidental coincidence and further that when considered collectively, these indicated that the person who wrote the red enclosed Hindi writings and English signatures stamped and marked A1 to A27 also wrote the red enclosed Hindi writings and English signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q79.
111. Hence, the contents of above report Ex.PW59/A (on pages 12851287) given by this witness, as corroborated by her oral depositions made before the court, duly establish on record that the questioned writings of deceased marked as Q1 to Q52 in the above suicide note and diary and even his signatures/initials in English language appearing in these documents and marked as Q53 to Q79 were of the deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh only.
112. As already discussed, the above writings or notes of deceased are admissible as well as relevant in present trial as the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 135 of 226 DLCT110003212020 same pertain to cause of his death or to the circumstances of transaction resulting into his death, as per provisions contained U/S 32(1) of the IEA.
113. It has been observed that in most of above notes or writings, the deceased is found to have written that he was leading a very beautiful life with his family members, but his life was spoiled and destroyed by A1 Prakash Jarwal and A2 Kapil Nagar and these two accused had ruined him and his family. It is also found specifically recorded in these writings that he was being continuously and consistently harassed, tortured and threatened to pay different amounts to the said accused in connection with running of his water tankers with DJB. In some of these writings, he is also found to have written about the specific amounts which he had paid to the said accused. Some of the above writings/notes even contain a specific mention of threat of being killed i.e. being sent to parlok or yamlok as extended by A1 to him in the evening of 18.07.2019, which he claims to have even been recorded.
114. Further, in some of these writings/notes, the deceased is also found to have been written that he was fed up by the continuous and consistent threats being extended to his life and the lives of his family members and he was being harassed by the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 136 of 226 DLCT110003212020 above accused persons, as well as by some other persons at their instance, from different angles and the accused persons had left no other option for him, but to take away his own life. It is also found recorded in some of these writings that the deceased was living under a constant fear of his life as well as the lives of his family members as a result of these threats and he had even clearly indicated therein that he had no hope of getting rid of the accused or getting justice from any source as the accused were influential persons. It is also found recorded in these writings or notes that to meet the illegal demands of extortion of different amounts by accused, the deceased had even mortgaged some jewellery of his family and had further sold some land, but still the accused were demanding more and more money from him and he also had apprehensions that that accused may take his life at any time. Thus, he had indicated clearly in theses writings of having been left with no other option, but to take his life. He even specifically wrote therein that if anything happens to them, the accused will be responsible for it.
115. Further, the above writings also show that A1 was instrumental in getting stopped the payment in respect to tankers of deceased and his family members by using his influence with DJB. Though, it has been vehemently disputed by Ld. Counsel representing the said accused that the accused had anything to do CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 137 of 226 DLCT110003212020 with running or detachment of tankers of deceased or his family members with DJB or with payment of pending dues thereof, but it is admitted that A1 was MLA from Deoli Constituency and also a member of DJB at the relevant time. He is found to have been nominated as a member of DJB for different terms and was even working in above capacity at the relevant time of commission of suicide by the deceased. This fact has been duly proved on record from the documents Ex.PW20/B (colly) (on pages 331353), which were seized during investigation by the IO/PW64 Insp. Kumar Rajiv vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A dated 15.05.2020 (D23on page 329) on being produced by PW20 Ms. Jyoti Sharma, an official of the DJB. It is also observed from these documents that lastly, A1 was appointed as a member of DJB for a period of two years vide notification dated 26.02.2020 only and he resigned from the said post through one letter addressed to the Hon'ble Speaker, Delhi Legislative Assembly and his resignation was accepted by the Hon'ble Speaker on 18.04.2020 i.e. the day on which the deceased committed suicide.
116. A copy of the above resignation letter sent by A1 is also found to be a part of the documents which PW30, an officer of Delhi Vidhan Sabha, had supplied to the IO through his reply Ex.PW30/B (on page 957) sent in response to the notice CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 138 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Ex.PW30/A (D45on page 951) received by him from IO and this copy of resignation letter of A1 is Ex.PW30/C on record (on page 959). It is observed on perusal of record that both these copies of resignation letter of the accused bear the endorsement of acceptance of competent authority i.e. the Hon'ble Speaker, Legislative Assembly of Delhi. Though, it is also observed that the above resignation letter of accused bears the date 17.04.2020, but in considered opinion of this court, this resignation letter was antidated by accused after the deceased committed suicide and it was intentionally and malafidely shown to have been tendered one day prior to commission of suicide. It is so because nowhere from the above documents or records produced by the above two official witnesses, it can be seen or gathered that this resignation letter was actually submitted or forwarded through any mode of communication to any authority on 17.04.2020. On the other hand, documents Ex.PW20/B (colly) (on pages 331353) produced before IO by PW20 Ms. Jyoti Sharma are also found consisting, interalia, one application dated 18.04.2020 submitted or given by Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), South Delhi Constituency and addressed to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi, demanding resignation of A1 from the post of member DJB in light of the fact that A1 stood implicated in suicide notes of the deceased, which were admittedly recovered only after commission of suicide by CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 139 of 226 DLCT110003212020 deceased in the early morning of 18.04.2020. Hence, had the accused already tendered his resignation from the post of member of DJB on 17.04.2020, there was no occasion for demanding of his resignation by Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri on 18.04.2020. Moreover, no reason or explanation has also been furnished on behalf of accused for resigning from the said post on 17.04.2020, when he was appointed on this post only around two months back. Again, it is only on 18.04.2020 that the above resignation of A1 was forwarded by the Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Delhi to the Chief Minister, Delhi and some other authorities.
117. As is clear from the above writings left by deceased in his suicide note and diary, he was continuously and consistently being extended threats of extortion for money and to his life, as well as to the lives of his family members, by the above two accused and as a result thereof, he was under tremendous pressure and started believing that the only option available to him to get rid of the same was to commit suicide. It is because these suicide notes or writings, which are nothing but dying declarations left by him, clearly show that the accused persons had cornered him from different angles and were, thus, forcing him to accede to their illegal demands for money and his sufferings got aggravated from the date on which a threatening CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 140 of 226 DLCT110003212020 call made by A1 came to be recorded. As per contents of these declarations of deceased, in order to torture and pressurize him physically as well as mentally A1 not only got his tankers removed from DJB, but even his pending dues were got stopped. The evidence on record on these aspects, and also on the other aspects about details of these suicide notes like mortgage of jewellery or sale of land of deceased to cope up with demands being made by the accused persons, will be discussed separately lateron as a part of the corroborative evidence to such dying declarations.
118. However, as already discussed, even without any such corroboration, the dying declarations left by a deceased are considered sufficient to entail conviction of an accused if the same satisfy the criteria as laid down in different judicial pronouncements. In the celebrated case of Ramesh Kumar (Supra), which has even been relied upon on behalf of A1, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ultimately acquitted the accused for certain reasons, but it was specifically observed by their Lordships in the said case that it was not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option, except to commit suicide. It was also observed by their Lordships in the said case that if there was evidence on record CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 141 of 226 DLCT110003212020 showing the existence of such circumstances, then instigation on part of accused to push the deceased for committing suicide may have to be inferred.
119. Further, in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra) also, these observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Kumar (Supra) on the aspect as to what constitutes instigation were reiterated and some further principles were also laid down by their Lordships in this case to decide as to when an accused can be said to have abetted the commission of suicide by a person. It was held by their Lordships in this case that the first and foremost of these principles was that the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct, which may even be a willful silence, until the deceased reacted or that the accused pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction towards commission of suicide.
120. Again, even in the case of Shikha Gupta (Supra), being relied upon by Ld. Counsel for A2 & A3, the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court as made in the cases of Ramesh Kumar (Supra) and Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra) etc. came CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 142 of 226 DLCT110003212020 to be reproduced by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is observed that in this case, their Lordships had also discussed various other judgments on Section 306 IPC and even referred to some other relevant observations to this effect, as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal (2012) 9 SCC 734 and Amlendu Vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 etc. Some of the relevant observations made by their Lordships in this case are also being reproduced herein below: '39. In PraveenPradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146] , it has been ruled: (SCC p. 741, para 18) "18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. ..."
(emphasis supplied)
40. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Palv.State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896], the Court, after referring to the authorities in Randhir Singh [Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56], Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 143 of 226 DLCT110003212020 and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat [Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 62], has held: (Amalendu Pal case [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896], SCC p. 712, para 12) "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life................."' (Emphasis supplied)
121. It is observed by this court that even in most of the judgments which have been cited on behalf of accused persons, similar observations are found to have been made and the basic requirements for proving of an offence U/S 306 IPC as laid down in the cases of Ramesh Kumar (Supra) and Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra) etc. have been reiterated from time to time.
However, it has also been observed therefrom that in most of these cases, dying declarations made by the deceased were either oral or written dying declarations contained in a single statement or letter or 23 letters or statements left by the deceased.
122. However, contrary to above, the present case stands entirely on a different footing as in this case, the deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh wrote around 40 statements at different times and in most of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 144 of 226 DLCT110003212020 these statements, he had specifically implicated both the above accused and held them responsible by doing of different acts for extorting money from him and of extending threats and thus, pushing him to take the extreme step of taking his own life. Hence, this case cannot be equated with any other ordinary case where the deceased simply leaves one suicide note or a statement containing reasons behind his death. It is crystal clear from a joint reading of these reasons left by deceased in the form of his dying declarations that it was A1 Prakash Jarwal and A2 Kapil Nagar, who were behind commission of suicide by him and his suicide was not generated by or committed because of any other reasons.
123. Further, the contents of these dying declarations of deceased also clearly make out that both the above accused were sharing a common intention to physically as well as mentally harass the deceased to such an extent that he was left with no other option but to commit suicide. The evidence on record duly establishes that the accused persons had committed a series of acts and had further followed a continued course of conduct in furtherance of their above common intention and had created such circumstances thereby for the deceased that he was left with no option, but to take his own life.
124. There is also nothing on record to show that the above CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 145 of 226 DLCT110003212020 writings of deceased are not his voluntary writings or statements or that he was pressurized or influenced in any manner and by anyone else to write or make the same. Rather, the same clearly demonstrate the extent of fear and pressure under which the deceased was leading his life because of the continuous and consistent threats of extortion and death being extended to him by the above two accused for forcing him to continue the payment of demanded amounts of extortion money.
125. Ld. Defence Counsels have also questioned the physical and mental condition of deceased and it is their submission that the above writings or statements of deceased are the result of his depressed state of mind as the evidence on record suggests that he was a heart and sugar patient and he was also facing some financial difficulties due to various reasons and even his son and wife have made some depositions on record to this effect. However, in considered opinion of this court, when the entire evidence on record is considered holistically for this purpose, it can be said that no such serious physical or mental ailment of the deceased can be inferred by this court from evidence led on record, which pushed him to take the above extreme step. It is necessary to mention here that though it has been stated in court by some witnesses that the deceased was a sugar and heart patient and a stent was also earlier implanted for his heart ailment, but these facts by themselves CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 146 of 226 DLCT110003212020 cannot be taken as a reason behind commission of suicide by deceased as it is very common to have one or the other ailment these days even in young age and that does not meant that the person who is suffering from such an ailment should or will commit suicide. Moreover, PW34 Sh. Arvind is also found to have specifically stated on record that though the deceased was a heart patient, but he was not a chronic heart patient. Even otherwise, no record of any such chronic heart or other ailment of the deceased has also been brought on record during the course evidence of the case from either side.
126. Though, it is true that the mental state of a person who takes the extreme step of commission of suicide due to some reasons will certainly be on a weaker or different footing in comparison to that of any other normal person, but it does not mean that if a person committed suicide it was only because of his weak mental condition and had it been so, Section 306 IPC would have not been there in the penal Code. As already discussed, a bare perusal of the above suicide notes or dying declarations of deceased, when read together or holistically, leaves no room of doubt for this court that the commission of suicide by deceased of this case was only because of series of acts or the continued course of conduct of above two accused and it is only because of the continuous and consistent demands of extortion money and threats to his life and CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 147 of 226 DLCT110003212020 the lives of his family members as extended by these accused that he resorted to this extreme step and took his own life.
127. The next challenge to the above suicide notes or dying declarations by Ld. Defence Counsels is on ground of lack of close proximity between these notes or writings and the actual commission of suicide. It has been vehemently argued by them that most of the writings left by deceased are undated and thus, it cannot be presumed or inferred therefrom that the same were written by him immediately prior to commission of suicide by him or even in near proximity to the same, and thus, the same cannot be made basis for proving the above charge against these two accused or for holding them liable for suicide of deceased.
128. On this aspect, it has already been discussed that only few of the above writings or notes of deceased are bearing a date and it has been observed that only two dates i.e. 01.03.2020 and 04.03.2020 are found put by deceased below his two different writings contained in above diary. Similarly, only one date 28.08.2019 is found appended below one of such writings of deceased as contained in the above suicide note consisting of six pages.
129. Though, it may be true that the above suicide notes of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 148 of 226 DLCT110003212020 deceased were not written immediately prior to commission of suicide by him or in very near proximity to the same, but in considered opinion of this court even this proximity between commission of suicide and making of a dying declaration or statement by a deceased has to be considered and decided in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of that particular case only and no general principle can be laid down or applied for consideration thereof. As stated above, this case is not based on a single suicide note or dying declaration left by the deceased, but here the deceased had written or made around 40 writings or declarations related to the cause or reasons behind his death and these writings or declarations show a continued course of conduct on the part of above accused persons by commission of a series of acts, which made him to take the above extreme step. Thus, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, even if one of the writings in suicide note of deceased is stated to be dated 28.08.2019 (written as 28/8/9, which appears to be only due to a mistake) or that the two other writings in his diary are found dated as 01.03.2020 and 04.03.2020, and thus, the same were written around one and half month before his death, the same cannot be said to have been written or made in remote proximity from commission of suicide by him. It can be observed on perusal of writings contained in above diary that even after the writing containing date 04.03.2020, the deceased wrote around 20 other writings in continuity and thus, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 149 of 226 DLCT110003212020 even if no date was written or appended by him below the subsequent writings, the same were apparently written after 04.03.2020 and hence, considerably reduce the gap between such writings or the last writing left and the date of commission of suicide by him i.e. 18.04.2020. On this aspect of proximity and also with regard to admissibility of such statements or declarations U/S 32(1) of the IEA, it will be beneficial to refer here the relevant observations made by their Lordships of Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sharad Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1985 SCR (1) 88 and the same are as follows: "2:2 Thus, from a review of the authorities mentioned above and the clear language of s.32(1) of the Evidence Act, the following propositions emerge: (1) Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to death. In this respect, as indicated above, the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the peculiar conditions of our society and the diverse nature and character of our people, has thought it necessary to widen the sphere of s.32 to avoid injustice.
(2) The test of proximity cannot be too literally construed and practically reduced to a cutanddried formula of universal application so as to be confined in a straitjacket. Distance of time would depend or vary with the circumstances of each case. For instance, where death is a logical culmination of a continuous drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of the story, the statement regarding each step directly connected with the end of the drama would be admissible because the entire statement CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 150 of 226 DLCT110003212020 would have to be read as an organic whole and not torn from the context. Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of the transaction of death. It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after the death of the deceased who speaks from death. For instance, where the death takes place within a very short time of the marriage or the distance of time is not spread over more than 34 months the statement may be admissible under s.32.
(3) The second part of cl.1 of s.32 is yet another exception to the rule that in criminal law the evidence of a person who was not being subjected to or given an opportunity of being crossexamined by the accused, would be valueless because the place of cross examination is taken by the solemnity and sanctity of oath for the simple reason that a person on the verge of death is not likely to make a false statement unless there is strong evidence to show that the statement was secured either by prompting or tutoring.
(4) It may be important to note that s.32 does not speak of homicide alone but includes suicide also, hence all the circumstances which may be relevant to prove a case of homicide would be equally relevant to prove a case of suicide.
(5) Where the main evidence consists of statements and letters written by the deceased which are directly connected with or related to her death and which reveal a telltale story, the said statement would clearly fall within the four corners of s.32 and, therefore, admissible. The distance of time alone in such cases would not make the statement irrelevant."
(Emphasis supplied)
130. Thus, it is clear from the above observations made by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above said case that the test of proximity cannot be too literally construed and CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 151 of 226 DLCT110003212020 practically reduced to a cutanddried formula of universal application so as to be confined in a straitjacket. It is also clear therefrom that such proximity or distance of time between suicide or death of a person and his writings or declarations about his death has to be considered in accordance with peculiar facts and circumstances of each and every case and if the death of a person is a logical culmination of a continuous drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of the story, the statement(s) regarding each step directly connected with the end of drama would be admissible U/S 32 (1) of the IEA because the entire statement(s) would have to be read as an organic whole and not torn from the context.
131. Therefore, merely on the ground of proximity between commission of suicide by deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh and his above statements or writings contained in suicide note and diary, the same cannot be discarded and these have to be considered and looked into by this court as relevant for finding or establishing the reasons behind his death.
132. Again, even in the case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2000 CrLJ 650, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh that for a statement to be attracted U/S 32(1) of the IEA, it is not necessary that death CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 152 of 226 DLCT110003212020 should have a nexus in terms of fixed time with the statement nor that the victim who made the statement should essentially be in apprehension of immediate death. The relevant observations made by his Lordship in this case are as under: "19A. Thus, for a statement to be attracted under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act, it is not necessary that death should have a nexus in terms of fixed time, with the statement, nor that the victim who made the statement should essentially be in apprehension of immediate death. The conditions are that the statement should relate to circumstances surrounding the event (assault) which ultimately led to death. There should be nexus between the circumstances stated by victim and his death.
20. A consideration of these interpretations of Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act, clearly leads to the inference that the statement of the deceased, in our opinion, made to the police and the Magistrate would be admissible under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act although an operation intervened between the incident and the death and peritonitis had set in........................"
(Emphasis supplied)
133. Another contention of Ld. Defence Counsels is that mens rea on the part of accused persons for commission of offence U/S 306 IPC is also one of the essential ingredients of offence of abetment by way of instigation of deceased for commission of suicide by him, as has been held in some of the judgments being relied upon by them, and if the same is absent or not proved, then the accused persons cannot be held guilty for abetting commission of such suicide. It is also their submission that no CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 153 of 226 DLCT110003212020 mens rea on the part of above two accused for commission of suicide by deceased is evident from record and hence, they both are entitled to acquitted of the above said charge.
134. However, even this contention of Ld. Defence Counsels does not carry any force as far as acquittal of accused is concerned as mens rea on the part of accused persons to abet or instigate the deceased for commission of suicide has also to be construed or seen as an intent on their part to do the above series of acts or to follow the above continued course of conduct and thereby, pushing or forcing the deceased to take the extreme step of commission of suicide. Further, this mens rea or intent is not to be mechanically seen or observed from any individual act or transaction, but it has to be gathered from the entire acts of accused or the conduct being attributed to them in commission of a series of acts which ultimately pushed the deceased to commit suicide. It has already been discussed that as per the above statements or dying declarations of deceased, both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, were continuously and consistently making demands for extortion of different amounts from him and had been extending threats of life to him and his family members and this created tremendous pressure upon his mind and he wrote around 40 statements depicting this conduct and acts of the accused. Hence, even mens rea on the part of A1 CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 154 of 226 DLCT110003212020 & A2 to instigate or abet the deceased for commission of suicide is found duly established from the contents of these statements or declarations left by him and narrating the reasons for taking of his own life by him.
(b) CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO ABOVE SUICIDE NOTES OR DYING DECLARATIONS OF DECEASED
135. As already discussed, it is only a rule of prudence and not a rule of law that some corroborative evidence may be required in support of details contained or transactions about circumstances resulting in death of a person, as contained or stated in his suicide note or dying declarations. The corroborative evidence in support of the details contained in above suicide notes or dying declarations of deceased is even available in the present case in few forms and the same can be broadly discussed under the following heads:
(i) CORROBORATION THROUGH TESTIMONY OF PW34 SH. ARVIND
136. Corroboration to the above dying declarations of deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh is firstly available in the form of oral testimony of his nephew i.e PW34 Sh. Arvind. As earlier mentioned, though during his statement made in the court PW34 CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 155 of 226 DLCT110003212020 was confronted on various material aspects with his previous statement recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. by the IO, but it has also been discussed above that on certain other aspects his testimony has gone unchallenged and it even finds corroboration from his previous statement recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C. Thus, this witness substantially corroborates the above writings or declarations of deceased on the aspect that the deceased was being continuously harassed by both the above accused and he committed suicide only because of the extortion demands being made by these accused.
(ii) CORROBORATING EVIDENCE ABOUT EXTENSION OF THREATS AND STOPPAGE OF PAYMENTS OF WATER TANKERS
137. In addition to the above, another circumstance proved through the documentary evidence led on record and corroborating the reasons behind commission of suicide by deceased is about extension of threats to the tanker owners and operators and stoppage of payments due in respect to water tankers of the family members of deceased by the officials of DJB, which according to deceased and the contents of above writings was at the instance of A1 Prakash Jarwal.
138. As stated above, the case of prosecution is that the above accused was not only instrumental in getting removed or detached CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 156 of 226 DLCT110003212020 the water tankers of deceased from DJB, but he also exercised his influence as a MLA and a member of DJB to get stopped the pending payments thereof and extended threats to all the tanker owners/operators of area to pay the extortion amounts. However, the defence of said accused persons is that they never extended any threats to any tanker owner or operator, no tanker of deceased or his family members was deployed or attached with DJB at the relevant time nor any payments belonging to his family were got stopped by A1. It is also their defence that the deceased himself was involved in black marketing of water and some sting operation conducted earlier by a news channel had revealed his involvement in black marketing and it was only as a result thereof that his tankers were blacklisted by DJB. However, except some bald claims and statements made to this effect, no independent evidence is found to have been led on record from either side in respect to the above sting operation or the effects thereof.
139. As per case of prosecution, the deceased was operating his water tankers with DJB since around the year 2005/2006 and this fact is also found specifically deposed on record by the complainant/PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh and even found incorporated in the complaint Ex.PW1/A made by him to police about commission of suicide by his father. Though, no documentary evidence has been led on record by the prosecution or defence to CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 157 of 226 DLCT110003212020 show as upto which year the deceased continued to ply his own tankers with DJB, but as per the statement of PW1, the same were being plied till around the year 2018.
140. The evidence led on record by prosecution duly establishes that threats were being frequently extended to the tanker owners or operators of the said area and some tankers in the name of family members or other relatives of the deceased were still being plied with DJB till around the time of commission of suicide by him and even payments in respect to operation of said tankers were not being released by the DJB officials. Various officers/officials from the office of DJB are found to have been examined on record as prosecution witnesses and these include PW5 Sh. Satbir, Beldar, PW6 Sh. Rajbir Singh, Driver, PW20 Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Jr. Assistant, PW22 Sh. Prem Singh, Executive Engineer, PW23 Sh. Himmat Singh, Jr. Engineer, PW27 Sh. Naresh Kumar Kardam, Executive Engineer, PW31 Sh. Arvind Kaushik, Secretary and PW32 Sh. N. K. Sharma, Asst. Executive Engineer and they all were employed with DJB at the relevant time of incident. However, it has been observed that except PW5, PW6, PW22, PW23 and PW27, the other officials of DJB examined on record are being claimed to be witnesses of handing over of certain records of their office to the IO, in response to the notices served upon them. It has also been observed that even PW5, PW6, PW22, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 158 of 226 DLCT110003212020 PW23 and PW27 have completely turned hostile during their examination in this court and they have not supported the prosecution case and resiled from their earlier statements recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation on the aspects that the above two accused were extorting money from all the tanker owners/operators of the said area and were harassing them for non payment of the extorted amounts. Further, they also turned hostile and resiled from their earlier statements made to the effect that the above two accused were instrumental in getting detached the water tankers of deceased from the office of DJB and stoppage of the payments in respect to his tankers. PW23 Sh. Himmat Singh even denied making of any statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C. on the above aspects during the course of investigation.
141. However, still it can be observed from record that as per depositions made by PW32 Sh. N. K. Sharma, in response to the notice dated 20.05.2020 Ex.PW32/A (on page 919) received by him from the IO, he had handed over the certified copies of two complaints dated 01.05.2020 and 04.05.2020 Ex.PW32/C (colly) (on pages 927 to 939) to IO vide his reply Ex.PW32/B dated 19.06.2020 (on page 921). He also deposed that on being asked by IO to submit the details of action taken on above complaints by their office, he had even handed over certified copies of the letters signed by Sh. R. K. Lakhera, Superintending Engineer (Vigilance) CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 159 of 226 DLCT110003212020 forwarding the said complaints to Dy. Secretary (Urban Development) and he also exhibited the copies of these letters as Ex.PW32/D (colly) (on pages 923 to 925) during his statement made before the court. He further identified the signatures of Sh. R. K. Lakhera on the above said letters while stating that he had worked with him and even specifically deposed that copies of all the above documents handed over by him to IO were certified by him vide his signatures appearing at point C.
142. On a perusal of these documents, it is found that out of the above two complaints, one complaint dated 04.05.2020 was made against A1 Prakash Jarwal and his other associates to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi and it contained detailed allegations of harassment and extortions of tanker owners/operators of the above area of Deoli by the said accused and his other associates and this complaint is found to have been made in the name of Durga Vihar (Deoli Extension) Residents Welfare Committee and signed by various persons. The other complaint dated 01.05.2020 is found to have been addressed to the SHO, PS Neb Sarai and even this complaint contained similar allegations of extortion and threats, claimed to be supported by video and audio recordings of the said accused and his other associates, and it is also bearing signatures of various persons. Though, none of these complaints is found to have been put to any of the witnesses examined on record who might CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 160 of 226 DLCT110003212020 have been signatories thereto, but still it can be observed that copies of these complaints were even submitted by complainant to the concerned office of DJB and the same were dealt with in the said office. Hence, the certified copies of these complaints which were handed over to the IO by above witness during the course of investigation can be seen by this court and the same can be taken to support the dying declarations of deceased at least on aspect that A1 Prakash Jarwal, with the help of his other associates, was indulged in making demands of different amounts from the tanker owners/operators in connection with deployment of their tankers with DJB and was extending threats to them in connection therewith.
143. Further, it has also come on record during the examination of main IO Inspector Kumar Rajiv/PW64 that in response to the notice Ex.PW64/F (on page 451) given by him to the Executive Engineer of DJB, a reply dated 13.05.2020 was received by him, along with relevant documents and information sought through the said notice, and the above reply along with documents received by him are Ex.PW64/G (colly) (on pages 455 to 615). It is observed that these documents contained details regarding the tankers of different persons being plied with DJB office and the payments etc. made to the concerned tanker owners or operators. These documents are also found to have been referred to by Ld. Counsel CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 161 of 226 DLCT110003212020 representing A2 Kapil Nagar and A3 Harish Jarwal during the course of his arguments in support of the submission that on the complaints/applications given by wife of deceased, her pending dues or payments for operation of their tankers during the period between 2015 to 2020 stood already released by the office of DJB prior to commission of suicide by the deceased. Hence, the admissibility of these documents is being taken as undisputed.
144. On a perusal of these documents, it is found that though the accused persons have denied that any tanker of deceased or his family members was deployed with DJB, but these documents show that five tankers in the name of family members or other relatives of deceased were being operated or plied with DJB at around the relevant time of commission of suicide by him. Page 563 of these documents contains the original noting made by officials of DJB on an application given by PW2 Smt. Brahmwati i.e. wife of deceased and details of five tankers bearing registration Nos. DL 1M 5590, DL 1M 5216, DL 1GC 0291, 6791 and 1353 are found mentioned on this application/complaint given by PW2. It is also found written on the above noting of official of DJB that today i.e. on 28.01.2020, payment in respect to all the above water tankers of applicant was being made and it pertained to the month of December, 2019. Out of the above tankers, two tankers i.e. DL 1M 5216 and DL 1GC 0291 are found to be in the name of PW2 CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 162 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Smt. Brahmwati herself. Even the IO through his notice Ex.PW64/F had sought details of five tankers bearing registration Nos. DL 1M 5590, DL 1M 5216, DL 1GC 0291, DL 1LS 6791 and DL 1LR 1353 (it is observed that the numbers of these tankers are same, though initial alphabets pertaining to the series of two numbers were not mentioned in the above application given by wife of deceased) from the office of DJB and the same were furnished to him vide the above letter on page 1 of the above documents Ex.PW64/G (colly). A perusal of this letter also shows that payments for different periods in respect to above tankers of PW2 or her family members and relatives were released only recently and some time before commission of suicide by the deceased. Even attested copies of the ledger accounts of DJB supplied through the above reply go to show that these payments were long due in respect to above tankers of family members or relatives of deceased and the same are found to be of different periods spreading between the years 2016 to 2020. Hence, it can also be inferred from the above documents and record that A1 Prakash Jarwal had definitely played a role in getting delayed the above payments in respect to water tankers of family members and relatives of deceased as no other reason is visible from the oral testimonies of concerned witnesses or the above documents and record as to why the said payments were not released earlier.
(iii) CORROBORATING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT TO CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 163 of 226 DLCT110003212020 LOANS TAKEN BY DECEASED AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AGAINST JEWELLERY
145. Another corroborating circumstance to the facts stated in dying declarations left by deceased is about the loans obtained by him and his family members against mortgage of their jewellery articles. As stated above, in some of the above dying declarations or statements, the deceased claimed that he had to mortgage the jewellery of his family and sell his land in village to meet out the extortion demands of accused. Though no evidence has been led on record by prosecution in support of above claim of deceased about sale of his land in village, but some evidence is definitely found to have been led in respect to the claim made about loans taken against mortgage of the jewellery articles.
146. It is observed that testimonies of PW36 and PW39 examined on record are relevant on this aspect and they are the officials appearing on behalf of different branches of Muthoot Finance Corporation Ltd. However, on perusal of their testimonies and the signatures put on these statements by the witnesses concerned, it appears to this court that a person having same name of Sh. Manoj Kumar has been examined twice by the prosecution as PW36 and PW39. It can be seen that first he appeared in the witness box as PW36 in his capacity of Sr. Branch Manager/ Branch Head of Deoli Branch of the said bank and he appeared CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 164 of 226 DLCT110003212020 again as PW39 on behalf of Sh. Kishore Kumar, Sr. Branch Manager of Khanpur branch of the said bank. As PW36, he deposed that in response to the notice Ex.PW36/A (on page 365) received by their branch, he provided the attested copies of account statements of Sh. Hemant Singh, Sh. Udayvir, Smt. Brahmwati, Sh. Radha Vallabh Bhatt and Dr. Rajendra Singh, which were Ex.PW36/B (colly) (on pages 367381) and the same bear his signatures at point A on every page. He also produced the original files of loan agreements executed with these persons and exhibited the copies thereof as Ex.PW36/C (colly) (OSR) (on pages 1715 to 1735).
147. During cross examination of this witness, it has come on record that though in the above notice, only the names of Sh. Hemant Singh and Dr. Rajendra Singh were mentioned, but the IO had sought documents in respect to the deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh and his family members. He also stated that Sh. Radha Vallabh Bhatt was shown in said documents as brother of Dr. Rajendra Singh. He also stated it to be correct that eight loans were taken by Dr. Rajendra Singh, though he even volunteered that these were in the names of his family members. He further deposed in his above statement that the said documents did not mention the purpose for which the loan was taken and hence, he could not tell as to whether the same were taken for the education or marriage of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 165 of 226 DLCT110003212020 children, for treatment or for any other purpose. He also stated it to be correct that the above statements of account were retrieved from their computer system.
148. As PW39, he stated that documents Ex.PW39/A (colly) were similarly handed over to the IO by Sh. Kishore Kumar and the same were also bearing the signatures of Sh. Kishore Kumar at point A on every page thereof and even identified the said signatures having worked with Sh. Kishore Kumar. He also stated that the said documents were pledge copies and ledger copies and these were in the names of Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and Sh. Hemant Singh. During his cross examination, he also stated that the above loans were not sanctioned by him and the same were sanctioned by Sh. Kishore Kumar and the name of Dr. Rajendra Singh was entered as a nominee on the basis of information provided by the person taking loan and that person further claimed Dr. Rajendra Singh to be his brother. He also stated that no bill of the jewellery worth Rs.4,89,000/, against which the said loan was given, was checked to find out the source of jewellery or to whom it belonged and even purpose of loan was not mentioned in the said documents.
149. As stated above, it was only in respect to the account statements Ex.PW36/B of Sh. Hemant Singh, Sh. Udayvir, Smt. CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 166 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Brahmwati, Sh. Radha Vallabh Bhatt and Dr. Rajendra Singh that PW36 stated these to be the statements retrieved from their computer system, but with respect to the other documents Ex.PW36/C (colly) and even Ex.PW39/A (colly) he is not found to have been questioned on this aspect or on the aspects as to how and by what mode the said documents were prepared. However, even on a perusal of the above documents by this court, it can be seen that these documents are photocopies of some computer printouts and the details contained in these photocopies of documents with regard to the said loan transactions are also computerized, though the same might have been typed separately by some official of the bank or were autogenerated from the data stored in computer and a printout of these details was taken at the time of handing over of these documents to the IO. Hence, even these documents can be termed as computerized documents as these documents contain computerized outputs printed thereon and hence, a certificate U/S 65B of the IEA was required to prove authenticity of the contents thereof. Since the admissibility and authenticity of these documents has been challenged by Ld. Defence Counsels for want of a certificate U/S 65B of the IEA, the contents of these documents cannot be considered to be a part of evidence and thus, these documents also cannot be seen and considered by this court.
150. However, still from the oral depositions made by these two CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 167 of 226 DLCT110003212020 witnesses, it becomes crystal clear that different loans were taken by the deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh and his other family members and relatives from the said bank and these loans were obtained by mortgaging their jewellery articles. This court fails to understand the purpose behind taking of the said loans by them, when the family of deceased owned a good numbers of water tankers and the same were being plied with DJB. Hence, even though these witnesses have not been able to tell the purpose for which the above loans were obtained and further even though there is no evidence on record to show that the above loan amounts were actually utilized for payment of extortion amounts to A1 Prakash Jarwal or his other associates, but the testimonies of these witnesses certainly corroborate the facts stated by deceased through his above dying declarations as it was specifically written by him in some of these statements or declarations that he even mortgaged the jewellery of his family to meet out the extortion demands of accused. Thus, even despite the fact that the documents brought in evidence through the testimonies of these two witnesses have been held to be not admissible, but still from their oral testimonies it stands proved that the deceased and his family members and relatives took different amounts of loan from the above bank by mortgaging their jewellery articles and therefore, this piece of evidence is also found corroborating the contents of above dying declarations of deceased.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 168 of 226DLCT110003212020
(iv) CORROBORATING EVIDENCE IN FORM OF RECORDING OF THREATENING CALL MADE BY A1 PRAKASH JARWAL TO DECEASED DR. RAJENDRA SINGH
151. As already discussed, in some of the above dying declarations or statements left by deceased in the form of suicide note Ex.PW1/D and diary Ex.PW1/B, there is a specific mention of one threatening call made by A1 Prakash Jarwal to him, which came to be recorded in a mobile phone and this call is stated to have been made on 18.07.2019 at around 8:20pm. In few of these writings/declarations of deceased, there is also a specific reference of two other threatening calls made by the said accused to deceased on 19.07.2019 at 9:44pm and 9:47pm, though the contents of these threatening calls or recordings thereof are admittedly not available.
152. As per prosecution case, the deceased was using mobile phone No. 9811292950 at the relevant time and it is on this number that the above threatening call dated 18.07.2019 was allegedly made by A1 Prakash Jarwal from mobile No. 9999071851. However, it has been alleged that the said call dated 18.07.2019 was not recorded in mobile phone of deceased himself, but it came to be recorded in mobile phone of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt. The deceased as well as PW19 are both being alleged to CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 169 of 226 DLCT110003212020 have been using the mobile phones of make Samsung at that time and the mobile phone of deceased was a keypad phone of white colour, whereas the mobile phone of PW19 was of Silver colour and of model J7.
153. Both the above mobile phones were seized during investigation of the case and mobile phone of make Samsung J7 was allegedly produced before PW49/Insp. Anil Kumar during investigation on 20.04.2020 by PW19 Revadhar Bhatt, in presence of the complainant/PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh, and the other mobile phone of make Samsung having keypad was produced before the main IO/PW64 Insp. Kumar Rajiv by complainant/PW1 himself on 07.05.2020. The seizure memos of these two mobile phones have been brought in evidence as Ex.PW1/H (on page 315) and Ex.PW1/I (on page 319) respectively. Though, the above two public witnesses had denied the handing over of these mobile phones to the above IOs during investigation and PW19 had even denied his signatures appearing on the memo Ex.PW1/H, but the complainant/PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh did not deny his signatures on these memos, which even otherwise, stand proved on record from the testimonies of above two police/official witnesses. Moreover, the seizure of these mobile phones vide above memos is also not found to have been challenged or disputed on behalf of the accused persons.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 170 of 226DLCT110003212020
154. As per these seizure memos, the above two mobile phones were sealed in separate cloth pullandas/parcels with respective seals of 'AK' and 'KK' of the above two IOs. Further, as per the seizure memo Ex.PW1/H, the mobile phone of make Samsung J7 contained a file of audio recording of duration of around 42 seconds. Further, the above mobile phone of make Samsung J7 has also been identified as Ex.PW63/X1 (also as Ex.PX and Mark X) in evidence by PW49/Inspector Anil Kumar and some other witnesses during the trial.
155. As per depositions made by PW46/SI Kailash and the IO/PW64 Inspector Kumar Rajiv, PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt was taken to the office of FSL, Rohini, Delhi on 02.06.2020, accompanied by Ct. Sukhbir and ASI Raghunath, for taking his voice sample. PW46 had also stated specifically that voice sample of above person was taken and he was handed over two cassettes by the expert concerned, i.e. one containing the original voice sample and the other containing duplicate thereof, and he came back to PS and handed over these two cassettes to the IO, who kept the same in two separate envelopes and sealed them with seals of 'KK' and seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW46/F (D30on page 421). The above seizure memo also stands duly proved on record through the testimonies of these two witnesses.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 171 of 226DLCT110003212020
156. PW46 further stated on record that on 18.02.2021, at the instance of IO Inspector Satyabir Singh/PW53, he along with HC Subhash, again reached the office of FSL, Rohini, where voice sample of A1 Prakash Jarwal was taken and two cassettes thereof were handed over to Inspector Satyabir Singh i.e. one containing the original voice sample and other containing a copy thereof. He further stated that Inspector Satyabir Singh, who had reached the FSL, Rohini, had sealed these cassettes with seals of 'SB' and seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW46/H (on page 1439) and his depositions to this effect are found duly corroborated by the depositions made by PW53/Inspector Satyabir Singh. The above seizure memo Ex.PW46/H also stands proved on record from the testimonies of these two witnesses. The above sealed parcels containing specimen voice samples of PW19 and A1 are even found to have been deposited in intact condition with the office of FSL, Rohini by PW48 ASI Devender on 04.03.2021 and this aspect of prosecution case is not under challenge.
157. PW63 Sh. Vishal Sawla Pandhare is an expert working with FSL, Rohini, Delhi at the relevant time and he is the person who extracted the data containing the above threatening call dated 18.07.2019 between A1 and PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt from mobile phone Ex.PW63/X1, along with some other data, and CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 172 of 226 DLCT110003212020 transferred it in a pen drive marked as PD1. He had also duly proved on record his report dated 06.01.2021 given to this effect as Ex.PW63/A. The above mobile phone of make Samsung J7 is found to have been marked as MP1 during the said process. Along with this mobile phone, certain accessories i.e. two SIM cards marked as SC1 and SC2 and one memory card marked as MC1 were also examined by him and data thereof transferred in the above pen drive of make HP. It is necessary to mention here that though as per statement of this witness, one other mobile phone of make OPPO marked MP2 and its memory card marked MC2 were also to be analyzed by him for the process of data transfer, but the said mobile phone could not be opened since it was password protected.
158. The above questioned and specimen voice samples of A1 and PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt are found to have been examined first by PW57 Dr. C. P. Singh, another expert of FSL, Rohini, and he has duly proved on record his report given with regard to such examination as Ex.PW57/A (on pages 13691371). As per depositions made by him and the contents of above report, the specimen voice sample of PW19 was marked as Ex.S1 during analysis and his questioned voice appearing in the above audio recording contained in pen drive Ex.PD1 was marked as Ex.Q1. It was opined by this witness on examination of the said two voices CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 173 of 226 DLCT110003212020 of PW19 vide his above report Ex.PW57/A that the auditory analysis and subsequent acoustic analysis of the above questioned and specimen voices of PW19 starting with 'hello hello ji... sahab to nahi' had revealed that the same were similar in respect to their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features. The witness also opined on the basis of above analysis that the said questioned and specimen voices were the possible voices of same person i.e. PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt. He further opined specifically vide his above report that auditory analysis of relevant audio recording contained in pen drive Ex.PD1 containing the questioned voices of PW19 and A1, it showed no indications of any form of alteration in audio recordings of critical listening and subsequent waveform and spectrographic analysis. However, as per the above report, no opinion could be given regarding the questioned and specimen voices of the other person, i.e. A1 Prakash Jarwal.
159. The above questioned and specimen voices of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and A1 Prakash Jarwal are again found to have been sent to CFSL, CBI, New Delhi for examination and for a second expert opinion. It is observed from evidence that since it was considered to be a high profile case and further since a second opinion was being sought regarding the above voices, a special board was constituted for the said purpose with approval of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 174 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Director, CFSL, CBI and it consisted of three experts i.e. PW55 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar, PW56 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury and PW58 Sh. Amitosh Kumar.
160. As per depositions made by PW55, he examined the voice of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and opined about the same. Even this witness stated that auditory examination of the questioned and specimen voices of Sh. Revadhar Bhatt marked as Ex.1(R) and Ex.3(R) respectively during the said analysis revealed that these were similar in respect to their linguistic and phonetic features and further that the subsequent spectrographic examination of common clue sentences/words selected from the questioned and specimen voice of Sh. Revadhar Bhatt revealed that these were similar in respect to their formant frequencies, distributions, intonation pattern, number of formant and other general visual and features in their spectrogram. He further stated specifically that the above questioned voice was the probable voice of the concerned person namely Sh. Revadhar Bhatt, whose specimen voice he had examined and compared with the said questioned voice. It is further found stated on record by him that the waveform and spectrographic and critical auditory examination of the relevant audio recordings contained in the above questioned voice of PW19 was carried out combinedly by all the three experts and it revealed that the audio recording was continuous and no form of tampering CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 175 of 226 DLCT110003212020 was detected therein. He has also proved the report given by their board to this effect as Ex.PW55/A, to which he was one of the signatories, and further brought in evidence the original worksheets of above auditory and voice spectrography examination as Ex.PW55/B (colly) and also containing his signatures thereon. He further identified the exhibits pertaining to the above voices as shown to him during his examination in the court.
161. Thus, even though PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt during his examination before this court refused to identify his questioned voice as appearing in the above audio recording, the contents of which were transferred in above pen drive, which was played during the course of his examination, but it stands established from the testimonies of above two experts, i.e. PW57 Dr. C. P. Singh and PW55 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar, of two different and prestigious forensic laboratories of the country and the reports Ex.PW57/A and Ex.PW55/A respectively given by them that the questioned voice 'hello hello ji... sahab to nahi' appearing in above audio recording found in and recovered from the above mobile phone of make Samsung J7 was of PW19 only.
162. Now, coming to comparison of the other questioned voice appearing in above audio recording and being attributed to A1 Prakash Jarwal and with his sample voice, though as per report CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 176 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Ex.PW57/A given by PW57 Dr. C. P. Singh, the material sent for analysis was considered to be insufficient for the purpose of examination of the said voices, as already discussed, but as per report Ex.PW55/A given by the above board of experts of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, the above questioned and sample voices of A1 starting with sentence namely 'Hello, Dr. Rajender hain kya' were analysed and even the same were found matching with each other. Therefore, as per the report Ex.PW55/A given by the above said board of experts, the questioned voice of A1 Prakash Jarwal in above pen drive and marked as Ex.1(P) during examination was opined to be the probable voice of the person whose specimen voice was marked as Ex.4A(P) i.e. of A1 Prakash Jarwal. A perusal of the above report shows that the phonetic and linguistic features of these questioned and specimen voices of the accused were compared in respect to different utterances/sentences and these were also subjected to voice spectrographic analysis and the same were found similar in respect to acoustic features, namely number of formants, formant frequency distribution, intonation pattern distribution and other features. There are specific depositions made to this effect by PW55 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar and PW56 Sh. Subrat Kumar Choudhury on record to this aspect and thus, their depositions as well as the above report duly corroborate each other on the aspect that even the questioned and specific voices of A1 were found matching with each other and CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 177 of 226 DLCT110003212020 both these voices were opined to be probable voices of the said accused i.e. A1.
163. Though, both these witnesses are found to have been extensively cross examined by Ld. Counsel representing A1 Prakash Jarwal, but it can be gathered from their testimonies that there was nothing wrong in the process of examination of said voices, as adopted by these experts, and hence, simply because these voices of accused could not earlier be examined by expert concerned of FSL, Rohini, Delhi, it cannot be said or inferred therefrom that the same could not have been analysed even by these two experts or the board of experts of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. It cannot be ignored that these two are experts of the most prestigious laboratory of the country and hence, simply because this laboratory belongs to CBI or it was located in the same complex where the office of CBI was located, the impartiality of these experts or the genuineness of the above report given by them cannot be questioned or doubted.
164. Further, simply because the worksheets of these experts were not sent along with the report or the same have been exhibited as Ex.PW55/B only during the course of evidence, the authenticity thereof cannot also be doubted on this ground as it was not mandatory for these experts to send their worksheets also to the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 178 of 226 DLCT110003212020 investigation agency along with their above report. Again, though the Ld. Counsel for A1 has also argued that sufficient number of sentences or words were not segregated from the questioned and sample voices of the above accused for the purpose of comparisons by these experts, but even this argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is without any basis as there is nothing to suggest that six sentences or nine words, which are shown to have been selected by these experts for the purpose of voice spectrographic examination, were not sufficient for the said purpose or comparison of the questioned and specimen voices of said accused. It is also observed from record that during their cross examinations, PW55 and PW56 have specifically denied as incorrect the suggestions given to them by Ld. Counsel representing A1 that at least twenty words were required for the purpose of these comparisons or the voice authentication of said accused. Further, though it has also been pointed by Ld. Defence Counsels that PW55 deposed about the comparison of questioned and specimen voices of A1 only after he was got recalled for his further examinationinchief by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but even this cannot be a ground to discard the depositions made by the witness or doubt the veracity of his testimony as there is no dispute about the fact that he was one of the members of above board of experts of CFSL, CBI, which had examined the questioned and specimen voices of the said accused and had given their report Ex.PW55/A. CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 179 of 226 DLCT110003212020
165. One other challenge by Ld. Counsel for A1 to admissibility and authenticity of the above recorded version of threatening call is on ground that the evidence on record is not satisfactory and convincing enough to the effect that SIM of above mobile No. 9811292950 actually belonged to the deceased and further that the said SIM was being used in the above mobile phone of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt at the relevant time, in which the above threatening call is stated to have been recorded. Further, it is also his contention that the evidence on record even fails to establish miserably that the other mobile No. 9999071851, from which the above call is stated to have been made, belonged to or was being used by A1 Prakash Jarwal at or around the time of making of said call.
166. On this aspect, it is observed that PW29 Sh. Ajit Singh, the Nodal Officer of M/S Vodafone, has brought in evidence and exhibited certain documents in respect to the above two mobiles/ SIM numbers. According to him, the mobile No. 9811292950 was in name of Dr. Rajendra Singh and the other mobile No. 9999071851 was in the name of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Shrivas and he had exhibited the certified copies of CAFs in respect to these two mobile numbers, along with identity document(s) of the subscribers, as Ex.PW29/C (on page 2045) and Ex.PW29/A (on CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 180 of 226 DLCT110003212020 page 1839) respectively and further identified his signatures as well as the rubber stamps affixed thereon and thus, these documents stand duly proved on record through the testimony of this witness. Even the complainant/PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh who is son of deceased was though hostile on various aspects, but he admitted on record that mobile phone No. 9811292950 was of his deceased father Dr. Rajendra Singh. Hence, it stands proved from the above evidence that the above mobile number or SIM number 9811292950 belonged to the deceased.
167. As far as the other mobile/SIM number 9999071851 is concerned, the above Sh. Pradeep Kumar Shrivas is also found to have been examined on record by prosecution as PW35 and even he stated that he was subscriber of the above mobile number. Though, he is found to have turned hostile on different aspects and resiled from his previous statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. Mark PW35/1, but he admitted that the CAF Ex.PW29/A belonged to him and he had taken the above mobile number on the basis thereof. He also identified his signatures on the said document as well as a copy of his identity card attached therewith and marked as Mark PW35/2.
168. As per prosecution case, the above mobile or SIM number 9999071851 was given by this witness, along with some other CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 181 of 226 DLCT110003212020 SIMs/numbers, to A1 Prakash Jarwal in the year 2015 during elections, but this witness had not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile on this aspect and also on various other aspects during his examination before this court. He also resiled from his previous statement Mark PW35/1 made before the IO during investigation of the case. Rather, he stated on record that the above mobile number or SIM was given by him to his one relative namely Sh. Jagram prior to 18.07.2019, i.e. date of recording of above threatening call, and hence, he could not say in whose possession the said mobile number or SIM was on the said date and he also stated that he did not enquire from his above relative about the same.
169. Thus, it follows from above that the evidence on record fails to establish through the oral testimonies of these witnesses that the SIM of above mobile No. 9811292950 of deceased was being used in mobile phone of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt on the above date i.e. 18.07.2019 and also that the other mobile No. 9999071851 was being used by A1 on the said date. However, in considered opinion of this court, the above fact or drawback in the case of prosecution cannot considered fatal for their case as the oral testimonies of above hostile witnesses on these aspects cannot be permitted to override the other documentary and scientific evidence on record. As already discussed, the above recording has CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 182 of 226 DLCT110003212020 been found in mobile phone of make J7, which as per the seizure memo Ex.PW1/H and the testimony of police/official witnesses, was produced before PW49/Inspector Anil Kumar by PW19 in presence of the complainant/PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh. The said recorded audio conversation was extracted therefrom and examined by independent experts of the above two laboratories and it was found to be untampered and authentic one by the experts of both these laboratories. The voices contained in above audio recording have also been opined to be the probable voices of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and A1 Prakash Jarwal vide the above reports Ex.PW55/A and Ex.PW57/A, as already discussed. Hence, simply because the oral evidence fails to link A1 with the above mobile/SIM number 9999071851, the documentary and digital evidence on record regarding the presence of voice of A1 in the said recording and its scientific analysis by the experts of CFSL, New Delhi, cannot be brushed aside and discarded. Moreover, it has also been observed on perusal of record that the above opinions drawn by members of experts of CFSL regarding the comparisons of questioned and specimen voice samples of A1, as well as PW19, were specifically put to A1 during the course of recording of his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. and though he had challenged the said opinions and the reports given by these experts on ground that they did not follow the correct procedure and process for examinations thereof and also that there were some lacunaes in CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 183 of 226 DLCT110003212020 their examinations and the reports were not correctly prepared, but nowhere he is found to have specifically claimed that his questioned voice appearing in the above pen drive and marked as Ex.1(P) during the process of examination by the experts of CFSL, CBI vide report Ex.PW57/A (colly) (on pages 13691371) and his specimen voice marked as Ex.4A(P) were not his voices.
170. It is well settled that the examination of an accused under the above provision is not a mere formality and it has got a practical and useful purpose and through this process an accused is asked to clarify his stand with regard to the incriminating evidence or facts that come on record against him during evidence and the answers given by an accused to the questions put during the course of recording of such a statement can be considered against him by the court for the purposes of decision of the case. Further, though it is also settled that such statements cannot be made the sole basis of conviction of an accused, but these can certainly be utilized for corroborating the prosecution evidence and giving credence to the same. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments in cases of Brajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 1552; Khairuddin Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2013 SC 2354 and Ashok Debbarama @ Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 747. The relevant observations on this aspect as made by their Lordships in the above said case of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 184 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Brajendra Singh (Supra) are being reproduced herein below: "10. It is a settled principle of law that the statement of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used as evidence against the accused, insofar as it supports the case of the prosecution. Equally true is that the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. simplicitor normally cannot be made the basis for conviction of the accused. But where the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is in line with the case of the prosecution, then certainly the heavy onus of proof on the prosecution is, to some extent, reduced. We may refer to a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, (being pronounced today) wherein this Court held as under :
'In terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has the freedom to maintain silence during the investigation as well as before the Court. The accused may choose to maintain silence or complete denial even when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is being recorded, of course, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including adverse inference, as may be permissible to it in accordance with law. Right to fair trial, presumption of innocence unless proven guilty and proof by the prosecution of its case beyond any reasonable doubt are the fundamentals of our criminal jurisprudence. When we speak of prejudice to an accused, it has to be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or detriment in relation to any of these protections substantially. Such prejudice should also demonstrate that it has occasioned failure of justice to the accused. One of the other cardinal principles of criminal justice administration is that the courts should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage, as this expression is perhaps too pliable. [Ref. Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2011) 8 SCC 300]. It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 185 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Cr.P.C. is upon the Court. One of the main objects of recording of a statement under this provision of the Cr.P.C. is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction. Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law.'"
(Emphasis supplied)
171. Some of the relevant observations made in case of Ashok Debbarama (Supra) are also being reproduced herein below: "22. This Court in Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and another (2002) 10 SCC 236 held that the statement made in defence by accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. In this connection, reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla (2004) 9 SCC 15 and Bishnu Prasad Sinha and another v. State of Assam (2007) 11 SCC 467. The above mentioned decisions would indicate that the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC for the admission of his guilt or confession as such cannot be made the sole basis for finding the accused guilty, the reason being he is not making the statement on oath, but all the same the confession or admission of guilt can be taken as a piece of evidence since the same lends credence to the evidence led by the prosecution.
23. We may, however, indicate that the answers given by the accused while examining him under Section 313, fully corroborate the evidence of PW10 and PW13 and hence the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 186 of 226 DLCT110003212020 offences levelled against the Appellant stand proved and the trial Court and the High Court have rightly found him guilty for the offences under Sections 326, 436 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
172. Thus, it can be held on the basis of above discussion that the voices contained in above recorded conversation dated 18.07.2019 were of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt and A1 Prakash Jarwal only and it was the said accused who had made the above threatening call from mobile No. 9999071851 to the mobile No. 9811292950 of deceased.
173. Further, PW29 Sh. Ajit Singh has also brought in evidence certified copies of the CDRs of above two mobile numbers i.e. 9811292950 and 9999071851 as Ex.PW29/D (colly) (on pages 20472435) and Ex.PW29/B (colly) (on pages 18432043) respectively for the period w.e.f. 01.06.2019 to 12.06.2020. He also brought on record the certified copy of location chart of both these numbers as Ex.PW29/E (colly) (on pages 2437 to 2473) and a certificate regarding authenticity of the contents of above documents as Ex.PW29/F (on page 2475). He further identified his signatures as well as rubber stamps appearing on the above said documents and has, thus, duly proved these documents. He also deposed on record specifically that from mobile No. 9999071851 to 9811292950, there was one call made on 18.07.2019 at 8:20pm CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 187 of 226 DLCT110003212020 and further two calls on 19.07.2019 at 9:44pm and 9:47pm. He further exhibited the entries in above CDRs at points X, X1 and X2 respectively about these three calls during his part examinationin chief recorded in this court on 21.04.2022.
174. It is found from record that this witness was further examinedinchief as well as cross examined on 29.04.2022 and during his above examinationinchief, one more certificate U/S 65B of the IEA was proved on record as Ex.PW29/G (on page 2477). On further perusal of record, it is found that the earlier certificate exhibited and proved by this witness as Ex.PW29/F was only regarding the authenticity of computerized data of CAFs of these two mobile numbers, whereas the second certificate Ex.PW29/G was in respect to authenticity of CDRs of the said numbers. The witness also clarified in his examinationinchief dated 29.04.2022 that in his earlier examination recorded on 21.04.2022, he had inadvertently stated the time of call dated 18.07.2019 as 8:20pm, whereas the actual time of this call was 8:46pm (20:46) and the duration of this call was 43 seconds, as reflected on page 65 at point X of the CDR of mobile No. 9999071851 and at page No. 34 at point X on CDR of mobile No. 9811292950. He further stated during his said examination that there was no outgoing call from mobile No. 9999071851 to mobile No. 9811292950 at 8:20pm.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 188 of 226DLCT110003212020
175. The oral testimony of this witness as well as the contents of CDRs of the above two mobile numbers corroborate each other on this aspect and the same show that an outgoing call of around 43 seconds duration was made from mobile No. 9999071851 of A1 to mobile No. 9811292950 of deceased on 18.07.2019 and two other outgoing calls from the said mobile of accused were also made on above mobile number of deceased on 19.07.2019 at 9:44pm and 9:47pm. However, as already discussed, it is only the call dated 18.07.2019 which came to be recorded and the other two calls are not alleged to have been recorded. Though, the Ld. Defence Counsels have also challenged the admissibility and relevancy of above documentary evidence on record regarding recording of the said call and the expert reports about voices appearing therein on ground that there is a discrepancy or contradiction in prosecution evidence regarding the actual timing of above recorded call i.e. whether it was made at 8:20pm or 8:40pm on 18.07.2019, but in considered opinion of the court, this discrepancy or contradiction is liable to be ignored as it is minor in nature and cannot be considered material and it also does not go to root of the prosecution case.
176. Hence, it is held that even the above evidence led on record by prosecution regarding the recorded conversation between above CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 189 of 226 DLCT110003212020 two mobile numbers of deceased and A1 is a strong corroborative circumstance of truthfulness of the facts stated in above dying declarations of deceased or the reasons which made the deceased to commit suicide. It is so as there is no doubt in mind of this court on the basis of evidence led during trial that contents of the above conversation, which have already been reproduced in this judgment, were threatening in nature as A1 had threatened the deceased in said call, through PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt, that in case the deceased did not call him back by tomorrow, i.e. the next following day of making of the call dated 18.07.2019, then it will not be good for deceased and he may even be killed. It was done by saying that 'Kal tak agar unka phon nhi aaya to kah dena fir aisi taisi ho jayegi, Achchha..., Parlok sidhar jayenge fir thike.....'
177. Thus, it is held that the above oral and documentary evidence led on record by prosecution is sufficient to prove the charge for commission of offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC, which was framed against both the above accused i.e. A1 Prakash Jarwal & A2 Kapil Nagar, beyond reasonable doubts as the said oral and documentary evidence is corroborative and consistent in nature and does not suffer from any material contradictions or inconsistencies. This is despite the fact that most of the public or other witnesses examined by prosecution, including the wife and son of the deceased and even the official witnesses, had turned CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 190 of 226 DLCT110003212020 hostile, which apparently appears to this court was due to the fear of the accused persons and their other associates.
CHARGES FOR COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY PUNISHABLE U/S 120B R/W SECTIONS 384/386/506 IPC AND ALSO FOR COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCES THEREOF
178. As already discussed, besides the above charge for commission of offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC, which has been held to have been proved against the above two accused, a charge for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/S 120B r/w Sections 384/386/506 IPC as well as charges for the above substantive offences of IPC were also framed against both the said accused by this court.
179. Section 120B IPC only prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy, which is actually defined by Section 120A IPC in following words: "120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 191 of 226 DLCT110003212020 ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
180. Thus, it is clear from the language used in Section 120A IPC that the offence of criminal conspiracy consists in doing, agreeing to do or caused to be done an illegal act by two or more persons or an act which is not illegal in itself by illegal means. Further, though an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act shall per se constitute a criminal conspiracy, but it will not amount to criminal conspiracy if the accused agrees to do an act which is not illegal by itself unless it is agreed to be done by some illegal means. An agreement between the accused persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is, thus, gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy. Hence, once the evidence establishes the existence of a meeting of minds or an agreement between the accused persons for doing of an offence or an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means, then even the acts done individually by the accused persons have to be taken with reference to their common intent or design of the said criminal conspiracy.
181. It is also settled that direct evidence about existence of a criminal conspiracy is seldom available as such conspiracies are hatched in privacy and behind closed doors and hence, the courts have to consider and appreciate the evidence led on record in CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 192 of 226 DLCT110003212020 entirety to find out the circumstances showing existence of such a criminal conspiracy or meeting of minds between the accused to commit the offences alleged against them. The court is, thus, required to analyse the entire evidence on record to find out if the circumstantial evidence about such a criminal conspiracy is there or not or if the circumstances showing existence of a criminal conspiracy can be inferred therefrom or not and if the court is satisfied about it, then even in the absence of any direct evidence or proof showing such a criminal conspiracy the accused persons can be held guilty and convicted for the offence U/S 120B IPC.
182. In Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of P. K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala, (1995) 1 SCC 142, their Lordships had very well considered and laid down the scope of a criminal conspiracy in the following words : "10. The ingredients of this offence are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which by itself may not be illegal. Therefore the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused......... ."
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 193 of 226DLCT110003212020
183. In the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa & Ors., Manu/SC/0451/1996, the following observations have been made by a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : "24. The aforesaid decisions, weighty as they are, lead us to conclude that to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use........................ "
184. In case Vijayan @ Rajan Vs. State of Kerala, 1999 Crl.L.J. 4164, their Lordships observed as under: "It is no doubt true that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and, therefore, from established facts inference could be drawn but there must be some material from which it would be reasonable to establish a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the said conspiracy."
185. Even in the case Yogesh @ Sachine Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Cr.L.J. 3872, the following observations have been made by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "22. More recently, in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 194 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, making exhaustive reference to several decisions on the point, including in State Through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini & Ors., Venkatarama Reddi, J. observed thus:
"Mostly, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused (per Wadhwa, J. in Nalini's case at page 516). The well known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and "the circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible." (Tanviben Pankajkumar case, SCC page 185, para 45). G.N. Ray, J. in Tanibeert Pankajkumar observed that this Court should not allow the suspicion to take the place of legal proof."
23. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement."
186. Section 384 IPC is similarly found to be only prescribing punishment for the offence of extortion, which stands actually defined by Section 383 IPC in following words: "383. Extortion. Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 195 of 226 DLCT110003212020 dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion"'
187. Thus, as per Section 383 IPC, the offence of extortion is committed when a person intentionally puts the other person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other person and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security etc. Further, if the fear to which such other person has been put is the fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, then Section 386 IPC comes into play and it is an aggravated form of Section 384 IPC and provides enhanced sentence for the offender.
188. Section 506 IPC lays down punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation and also enhanced punishment in case the threat extended by an accused to the other person is of death or of grievous hurt etc. The term criminal intimidation has been defined by Section 503 IPC in following words: "503. Criminal Intimidation. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 196 of 226 DLCT110003212020 within this section."
189. Thus, as per Section 503 IPC, a threat extended to another for causing an injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in which that person is interested, amounts to criminal intimidation if such a threat has been extended with an intent to cause an alarm to that person or to cause him to do or omit to do any act of the kind stated by that Section.
190. As per Section 59 of the IEA, all facts except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence. In terms of Section 60 of the IEA, oral evidence of a fact must be direct in all cases and if such oral evidence refers to a fact which can be seen, heard or perceived by a person through any of his senses or in any other manner, then it must be the evidence of a person who says that he had seen, heard or perceived that fact and in that particular manner. Similarly, if it refers to an opinion of a person or grounds on which such opinion is held, then it must be the evidence of a person who holds that opinion on those grounds. But opinions expressed by experts in any treatise commonly offered for sale and the grounds on which such opinions are held, as mentioned in first proviso attached to that Section, have been exempted from operation of the said Section and this Section also contains another proviso to CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 197 of 226 DLCT110003212020 the effect that if oral evidence given by a person refers to existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the court may, if it thinks fit, require production of such material thing for its inspection.
191. However, as already discussed, Sections 32 & 33 of the IEA are considered exceptions to the above rule of evidence contained in Section 60 of the IEA, which states that the oral evidence has to be direct and which prohibits acceptance of hearsay evidence in a trial. Hearsay evidence broadly means a statement made by someone who is not present before the court to affirm or deny the genuineness thereof or the source of gathering of the information contained therein. Such type of evidence has been considered to be inadmissible in evidence as a rule because the person who made the said statement or provided the information is not available for undergoing the test of cross examination.
192. According to Section 61 of the IEA, contents of a document may be proved either by primary evidence i.e. document itself produced for inspection of the court in terms of Section 62 of the Act or by secondary evidence as defined by Section 63 thereof and as permitted to be led in type of cases as mentioned by Section 65 of the said Act.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 198 of 226DLCT110003212020
193. As also discussed earlier, according to Section 32 of the IEA, statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead and who cannot be found etc. have been held admissible as well as relevant during the evidence in certain circumstances, including that if it relates to the cause of death of said person. Hence, even in the absence of production or availability of the person making that verbal or written statement, the same is considered admissible and relevant. It is for this purpose only and because of satisfaction of the requirements governing admissibility thereof that the above writings left by deceased in his suicide note and diary have been treated as his dying declarations or statements falling U/S 32(1) of the IEA.
194. Further, the above statements of deceased are also found to have been brought on record during the course of trial in original and as a primary piece of evidence. Hence, the same have been considered and appreciated in evidence for establishing the charge for commission of offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC, as framed against the above two accused, and it is from the said statements that even the charge for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/S 120B r/w Sections 384/386/506 IPC as well as the substantive charges under these Sections of IPC are to be primarily proved.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 199 of 226DLCT110003212020
195. It has already been discussed and appreciated in the earlier head of charge for offence U/S 306/34 IPC that both these accused i.e. A1 & A2 were specifically named by the deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh in many of his above statements or declarations and they both are shown to have been involved in extension of consistent and continuous threats to the deceased for extortion of different amounts of money at different times and in connection with his water tankers being plied with DJB. It is also clear from the contents of above writings or declarations of deceased that the threats which were extended to him were of taking his life or the lives of his family members, in case he discontinued or was not able to pay the demanded amounts of extortion.
196. Further, it has also been observed from these statements or declarations of deceased that the above accused resorted to different tactics for harassing the deceased mentally and even got delayed or stopped the payment of pending dues of the tankers belonging to his family, in order to force him to accede to the extortion demands and to continue the payments of said amounts to them or their other associates. These writings or declarations have also been held to be sufficient to prove that as a result of the pressure built up upon mind of the deceased, due to such acts of CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 200 of 226 DLCT110003212020 the accused, he ultimately took the extreme step of commission of suicide. Thus, different circumstances narrated in these writings left by the deceased as well as the other corroborative circumstances thereof discussed above clearly show that both these accused, along with some of their other associates, were party to an illegal agreement, the object of which was to extort money from all the water tanker owners or operators of their area, including the deceased, who were plying their tankers with DJB and they even made all these persons to accede to their illegal demands by every hook and crook and by humiliating them and further by extension of regular threats to their lives and the lives of their family members and also by getting their pending payments delayed or stopped.
197. The above writings of deceased, thus, duly establish that the threats extended by above two accused to deceased in connection with extortion of different amounts had put him under a constant fear and the same were extended with an intent to cause an alarm in his mind, of the fear of his life or the lives of his family members. Further, the alarm caused in mind of deceased was so intense and grave that he always felt that the accused persons may take away his life or the life of any of his family members or may cause injury to them at any point of time. This alarm or fear in mind of deceased of his life or of the lives CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 201 of 226 DLCT110003212020 of his family members had even aggravated when one of the threatening call made by A1 from his mobile No. 9999071851 on mobile No. 9811292950 of deceased, in the evening of 18.07.2019, came to be recorded in the above mobile handset of make Samsung J7 of PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt. The above fear and pressure under which the deceased was living his life is also manifest from the very fact that he wrote around 40 writings, as contained in above suicide note and diary, to this effect and in most of such writings, he specifically wrote about these threats being extended or got extended by the above two accused, in connection with deployment of his tankers or pending dues thereof and also about the amounts being demanded or paid to the accused as extortion money. As already discussed, it is apparent that it was only because of the threats which the accused persons had extended that so many witnesses, including even the wife and son of deceased, could not dare to depose freely and truthfully about the facts and events leading to commission of suicide by the deceased and had turned hostile and resiled from their previous statements made during investigation. Thus, it can be seen that the fear of accused persons was at writ large not only upon mind of the deceased, but also upon the mind of other witnesses.
198. Hence, even in the absence of any independent material or CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 202 of 226 DLCT110003212020 proof of payment of the extortion amounts by deceased to the above two accused, a charge for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/S 120B r/w 386/506 IPC also stands duly proved against them from the evidence led on record as it establishes that the object of above criminal conspiracy between the two accused was not only to criminally intimidate the deceased or to cause an alarm in his mind by extending the above threats, but it was also to extort money from him by putting him under the fear of his life or the lives of his family members. Further, even the charge for the substantive offence under second part of Section 506 r/w 120B IPC stands duly established against both these accused from the evidence as discussed above.
199. Now coming to charges for the substantive offences U/Ss 384/386 IPC, as stated above, Section 386 IPC is only an aggravated form of Section 384 IPC and hence, if a charge for the offence U/S 386 IPC is proved or established from record, it includes the offence U/S 384 IPC in it. As is also clear from the definition of term 'extortion' as contained in Section 383 IPC and as reproduced above, one of the essential ingredients of this offence is that the person who has been put in fear of any injury by the other should be dishonestly induced to deliver to the other person any property or valuable security etc. CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 203 of 226 DLCT110003212020
200. In the instant case, charges for the substantive offences punishable U/Ss 384 & 386 r/w 120B IPC, as framed against both the above accused i.e. A1 & A2, state that in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, they both extorted the deceased and other water tanker owners by threatening them to pay the monthly amounts of Rs. 15,000/ for small tankers and Rs. 20,000/ for big tankers in case they wanted to ply their water tankers with DJB. Further, it is also found incorporated in the said charges that at the time of election of Delhi Legislative Assembly in the year 2020, both these accused demanded amounts of Rs. 51,000/ for small tankers and Rs. 71,000/ for big tankers as election expenses from the tanker owners, apart from the other monthly amounts of extortion money and both the accused also frightened them that in case they did not pay the said amounts demanded by the accused, their tankers could not ply in DJB.
201. As also discussed above, the charge for offence U/S 120B r/w 386/506 IPC regarding existence of a criminal conspiracy between the above two accused for the purpose of extortion of different amounts from the water tanker owners and operators of their area, including the deceased, and also for threatening or intimidating them to pay the said amounts stands duly established on record from the contents of proved dying declarations left by CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 204 of 226 DLCT110003212020 deceased as well as the other corroborative evidence of different circumstances stated therein. The above evidence has also been found to be sufficient to prove the charge for substantive offence punishable under second part of Section 506 r/w 120B IPC.
202. However, even though it is found recorded in most of the dying declarations of deceased that different amounts mentioned therein were paid as extortion money to these two accused by him and the same were even being paid by the other water tanker owners or operators of their area, but in considered opinion of this court, the payments of these specific amounts as stated in above dying declarations were also required to be proved by some other independent or corroborative evidence for proving the charge for commission of the substantive offence U/S 386 IPC or even for commission of lesser offence U/S 384 IPC as evidence to this effect could have well existed and should have been produced before the court. But on perusal of the evidence led on record, it has been observed that the prosecution has failed to lead any such corroborative or independent evidence showing payment of any of these amounts of extortion money to any of the above two accused.
203. Further, as also discussed earlier, though various water tanker owners or drivers of the area, who were plying their CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 205 of 226 DLCT110003212020 tankers with DJB, were cited as witnesses to this effect and they are even found to have been examined as such during the course of trial, but all of them had turned hostile on this aspect and had not supported the prosecution case or the claims found to have been made by deceased in his above dying declarations regarding payment of these specific amounts of extortion money. Hence, in the absence of there being any independent or corroborative evidence showing the transfer or payment of these amounts by deceased or the other water tanker owners to any of the above two accused or even to their associates on their behalf, the evidence led on record in support of these charges can be held deficient and insufficient for proving the said charges.
204. However, even though the prosecution has failed to prove the payment of above extortion amounts by deceased or the other water tanker owners to the accused persons by any independent or corroborative evidence, but still the evidence on record can be considered sufficient for proving at least an attempt on the part of above two accused to commit the offence of extortion U/S 386 IPC. It is so because the evidence on record duly shows that both these accused had intentionally put the deceased in fear of his death or of the death of his family members by extending threats for payment of different amounts of money in connection with running or plying of their water tankers with DJB and, thus, by CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 206 of 226 DLCT110003212020 doing so, they had done all what could have been done by them or on their part for commission of the said offence.
205. Section 511 IPC lays down punishment for attempts for commission of different offences under the above Code and in terms thereof, an attempt to commit an offence is complete when the offender does an act towards commission of the said offence and it is applicable for punishing an offender in case there is no other express provision provided by the said Code for such an attempt. The term 'attempt' is though not defined by the Code, but it has been consistently held that it is an act of accused which falls short of actual commission of the offence and has necessarily to be distinguished from a mere preparation on part of accused to commit the said offence. An attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the offender commences some activities towards commission of offence or does something with the intention of committing the said offence.
206. Thus, even in the absence of any corroborative or independent evidence showing proof of payments of different amounts of extortion money, made by the deceased or other tanker owners, as stated in dying declarations of deceased, the prosecution can be said to have successfully proved the charge CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 207 of 226 DLCT110003212020 for commission of offence punishable U/S 386 r/w 511 r/w 120B IPC against both the above accused persons.
EVIDENCE ON CHARGE FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 506 IPC AGAINST A3 HARISH JARWAL
207. As already discussed, though A3 was discharged for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/S 120B r/w Sections 384/386/506 IPC as well as the substantive offences thereof and also for the offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC, but a charge for commission of the offence punishable U/S 506 IPC was individually framed against him. This charge is found to have been framed against the accused on allegations that he criminally intimidated the deceased Dr. Rajendra Singh by threatening him to pay money, if he wanted to ply his water tankers with DJB, and, thus, frightened the deceased that in case he did not pay money as demanded, he could not ply his tankers and the same would be discontinued. Further, it is also found stated in the said charge that this accused had even criminally intimidated the witness Sanjay i.e. PW16 to withdraw his statement made in the present case. The evidence led by prosecution on record on this charge can also be discussed and appreciated under the following heads:
(a) EVIDENCE THROUGH DYING DECLARATIONS OF DECEASED CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 208 of 226 DLCT110003212020
208. On apprehension of evidence led on record in respect to this charge, it is observed that though the suicide note Ex.PW1/D left by deceased does not contain a mention or reference of name of this accused, but his name is found specifically recorded at three places and in three different writings contained in the above diary Ex.PW1/B of deceased. The name of this accused is found specifically mentioned in the writings or statements, which the deceased wrote in his above said diary on pages bearing dates 23.01.2019, 04.02.2019 and 11.02.2019 (internal page nos. 28, 38 and 44 of the diary). It is necessary to mention here that these are only the dates found printed on relevant pages of said diary and these are not the dates on which the above writings or statements were actually written by deceased.
209. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel representing this accused that no specific allegations of extension of any threats by this accused to the deceased or containing any specific instances on which the deceased was intimidated by this accused are found to have been mentioned or recorded therein. It has also been pointed out by him that the writing on page dated 23.01.2019 of the said diary simply states that the accused Harish Jarwal and his brother Anil Jarwal (who was not even chargesheeted in the case) are the 'aadmi' (persons) of other two accused Prakash CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 209 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Jarwal and Kapil Nagar and they harassed him. It is also pointed out that similarly, even in writings on pages dated 04.02.2019 and 11.02.2019 of the said diary, it is nowhere found specifically stated or recorded by deceased that this accused had extended any threats to him and rather, it is only found stated therein that this accused and some other persons were harassing him and they had ruined his life. Hence, it is the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel that in absence of there being any specific mention of extension of threats by this accused in above writings of the diary of deceased or even of any specific allegations made by deceased against this accused, the charge for offence U/S 506 IPC as framed against him cannot be held to have been proved by the prosecution.
210. Though, generally in any case for commission of the offence of criminal intimidation made punishable U/S 506 IPC, the evidence about such specific allegations or instances of intimidation may be felt necessary, but as already discussed, this case deserves to be treated differently as the deceased herein was constantly and continuously being threatened, harassed and pressurized by A1 & A2 and their other associates to pay the ransom amounts in connection with plying of his water tankers with DJB. Further, as also held above, the deceased ultimately committed suicide when he was not able to accede to the said CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 210 of 226 DLCT110003212020 illegal demands being made for extortion money by the accused persons or their associates and was not able to cope up with the pressure built up upon his mind, as a result of the said threats and harassment at the hands of accused and their associates. Hence, even though this accused i.e. A3 was earlier discharged for commission of the offence U/S 306/34 IPC or for the offence of being party to a criminal conspiracy with the other two accused for commission of offences punishable U/S 120B r/w 384/386/506/34 IPC, but in considered opinion of this court, the above writings contained in diary of deceased and indicating his role as an associate of the main accused Prakash Jarwal (A1) are to be considered holistically for determining his liability for extension of threats to the deceased.
211. As stated above, his name has been specifically mentioned at three places in writings of deceased as contained in the above diary Ex.PW1/B and he has been referred to therein as an associate of the other two accused and the deceased had clearly indicated in these writings that he was being harassed by this accused also and this accused as well as the other associates of the above two accused i.e. A1 & A2 had ruined his life. Hence, when these three writings of deceased are considered in entirety and holistically, this court is of considered opinion that the contents thereof are sufficient to be perceived as intimidatory CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 211 of 226 DLCT110003212020 because these clearly convey the meaning that deceased was even being threatened by this accused to pay the extortion amounts.
212. Further, it can also be seen from the contents of these writings, when the same are considered together, that the same were sufficient to create an alarm in mind of the deceased that if he did not pay the demanded amounts of extortion to accused Prakash Jarwal and the other coaccused or their associates, then it will not be good for him and his family members or for the other persons related to him and also for their property as their tankers could be removed from DJB or payments thereof could be stopped or delayed. However, since the above three writings of deceased do not convey or show that any specific threats of the kind provided by second part of Section 506 IPC i.e. threats of being killed or being grievously injured etc. were extended by this accused to him or to his family members, it can be held that the above writings or dying declarations of deceased can be considered sufficient only for proving against him the charge for first part of the offence U/S 506 IPC.
(b) OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN FORM OF RECORDING OF CONVERSATIONS OF A3 HARISH JARWAL WITH PW16 SANJAY
213. Some other evidence is also found to have been led on CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 212 of 226 DLCT110003212020 record by prosecution in corroboration to the above charge for offence U/S 506 IPC as framed against this accused and it is in the form of documentary or scientific evidence related to the recorded conversations of this accused with PW16 Sanjay. As already discussed, it is also the case of prosecution that this accused had even extended some threats to PW16 and others in connection with demands of payment of extortion amounts and these threats were extended not only before registration of this case, but continued even thereafter. Some of the threatening calls made by this accused are even claimed to have been recorded in the mobile of PW16. As per prosecution case set up in chargesheet, the said mobile phone was of golden colour and was of make VIVO and it was produced before the IO/PW64 Insp. Kumar Rajiv by complainant/PW1 Sh. Hemant Singh, to whom it was given by PW16 himself. The said mobile phone was taken into possession by PW64 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/K (D24on page 355). Though PW1 has not supported the prosecution case regarding handing over of the said mobile phone of PW16 by him to the IO/PW64 and its seizure vide the above memo in his presence, but he could not deny his signatures appearing on the said memo and duly identified the same during his statement made before the court. Even otherwise, this memo Ex.PW1/K stands duly proved on record from the depositions made by author of this document i.e. PW64, as well as PW50 Insp. Kamal CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 213 of 226 DLCT110003212020 Kishore who is also found to be a signatory to the said document.
214. On further appreciation of the evidence led on record, it has also been found that the above mobile phone of PW16 Sh. Sanjay was actually of make OPPO and not of make VIVO and the sealed parcel containing it and having the seal impressions of 'KK', which belonged to PW50 Insp. Kamal Kishore, was received in intact condition in FSL Rohini through the forwarding letter dated 12.06.2020. The said parcel was opened for examination of contents of the said mobile phone by PW63 Sh. Vishal Sawla Pandhare, an expert of the said laboratory, and the phone was marked as MP2 during the analysis, along with one other mobile phone of make Samsung J7 belonging to PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt, as already discussed. As per depositions made by this witness, though the data contained in above mobile phone of PW19 and its accessories was extracted and transferred in a pen drive, but this mobile phone of make OPPO of PW16 could not be opened by him as it was password protected. The report Ex.PW63/A given by said witness/expert with regard to the above stands duly proved on record, as already discussed. The above report as well as the parcels containing these two mobiles are found to have been returned back in sealed condition by the Director, FSL, Rohini to the ACP concerned vide forwarding letter dated 06.01.2021 on record, which also CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 214 of 226 DLCT110003212020 stands proved from the depositions made by this witness as Ex.PW63/C.
215. Further, according to this witness, the sealed parcel was again received with intact seals in their FSL on 05.03.2021 and the said mobile phone marked MP1 along with its MICRO PLUS memory card of 2GB capacity marked as MC1 were examined by him vide his report Ex.PW63/D dated 12.04.2021 (on page 1375). He also stated that during the process of above examination, he had retrieved the data contained in above devices and transferred it in a pen drive marked as PD1 into separate folders with the given names. He also proved on record the certificate Ex.PW63/E (on page 1377) U/S 65B of the IEA given by him regarding authenticity of the above process of retrieval and transfer of data in a pen drive. It is also found recorded therein that one additional copy of the retrieved and transferred data was also prepared and transferred in a separate pen drive. The above report Ex.PW63/D along with sealed parcels of the exhibits are stated to have been returned back to the ACP concerned by the Director, FSL, Rohini through the forwarding letter Ex.PW63/F dated 13.04.202 (on page 1373).
216. Further, according to PW54 Insp. Upadhyay Balashankaram, the pen drive containing the data extracted from CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 215 of 226 DLCT110003212020 the above mobile of PW16 was opened and analysed by him and transcripts Ex.PW54/B (colly) (on pages 14491497) thereof were prepared and the said pen drive was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW54/A (on page 1447).
217. PW53 Insp. Satyabir Singh has stated on record that along with voice samples of A1 Prakash Jarwal, the voice samples of A3 Harish Jarwal and PW16 Sh. Sanjay were also got collected by him and they both were taken to FSL, Rohini in January and February, 2021. He also stated that cassettes in which the sample voices of A3 & PW16 were taken were handed over to them and he sealed them in separate cloth parcels and seized the said parcels vide seizure memos Ex. PW53/A (on page 1441) and Ex.PW53/B (on page 1445) respectively. He also identified his signatures on the said memos.
218. The questioned voice samples of A3 & PW16, as contained in the above pen drive and their specimen voice samples, as contained in above audio cassettes, are found to have been sent for forensic analysis to CFSL, CBI, New Delhi and examined by the above board of three experts vide their report Ex.PW55/A (colly) (on pages 13951407), along with voice samples of A1 Prakash Jarwal and PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt, as already discussed.
CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 216 of 226DLCT110003212020
219. As per depositions made by PW56 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury, he had examined the questioned and specimen voices of PW16 Sh. Sanjay as contained in the above pen drive and audio cassettes. He also stated that auditory, waveform and spectrography examinations of the above said questioned and specimen voices were carried out by him and the details thereof, along with examination procedure, reasoning and results etc., are mentioned in their above report Ex.PW55/A. He also identified his signatures on the said report. He further stated specifically that no form of tampering was detected in the audio recordings containing the questioned voice of PW16. He also identified his signatures on the original worksheets Ex.PW55/B (colly) (on pages 15071669) regarding auditory examination and voice spectrography examination of the said voices.
220. PW58 Sh. Amitosh Kumar claims to have examined the questioned and specimen voices of A3 Harish Jarwal contained in the above pen drive and the audio cassettes pertaining to him. He specifically stated on record that the questioned and specimen voices of the said person were transferred in an instrument namely Speech Science Lab (SSL) for examination and different sentences/words were segregated therefrom for the purpose of comparisons. He further stated that after comparing and CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 217 of 226 DLCT110003212020 identifying the questioned voice with specimen voice of the said person, it was opined by him that the above questioned voice and the specimen voice were of the same person namely Harish Jarwal, as per auditory and spectrographic examinations thereof carried by him. He also admitted his signatures on the above report Ex.PW55/A and the original worksheets Ex.PW55/B (colly).
221. On perusal of the above report Ex.PW55/A given by the board of experts of CFSL, CBI, it is observed that just like the process of analysis adopted for comparison of questioned and specimen voices of A1 Prakash Jarwal & PW19 Sh. Revadhar Bhatt, separate sentences and words from the above questioned voices of PW16 & A3 were also segregated and subjected to examination and the auditory features of these utterances of both the speakers matched with the words and sentences segregated from their sample voices. It is also found recorded in the above report that the phonetic and linguistic features of these voices of the above witness and accused were found similar and their acoustic features like formant frequencies, distributions, intonation pattern, number of formant and other general visual and features in their spectrogram had also matched. Thus, after a detailed analysis, it was concluded by these experts vide their above report Ex.PW55/A that the questioned voice of PW16 Sh. Sanjay, as CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 218 of 226 DLCT110003212020 appearing in two audio files contained in above pen drive and marked as exhibit 2(1)(S) & 2(2)(S) was similar to his specimen voice contained in one of the audio cassettes marked as exhibit 5A as the sentences/words marked as exhibit 2(1)(s1) to 2(1) (s12) and 2(2) (s13) to 2(2) (s30) segregated from his questioned voice in above two files marked as exhibit 2(1)(S) & 2(2)(S) respectively matched with the sentences/words segregated from his specimen voice and marked as exhibit 5A (s1) to 5A (s30). Similarly, it was also reported that the questioned voice of A3 Harish Jarwal as appearing in two audio files contained in above pen drive and marked as exhibit 2(1)(H) & 2(2)(H) was similar to his specimen voice contained in one of the audio cassettes marked as exhibit 6A as the sentences/words marked as exhibit 2(1)(h1) to 2(1)(h9) and 2(2)(h10) to 2(2)(h24) segregated from his questioned voice in above two files marked as exhibit 2(1)(H) & 2(2)(H) respectively matched with the sentences/words segregated from his specimen voice and marked as exhibit 6A(h1) to 6A(h24). The report also states that no sentences/words were segregated for analysis from the other copies of audio cassettes of PW16 and A3 and marked as exhibit 5B & 6B respectively as these cassettes contained the same text which was found existing in the cassettes marked as exhibit 5A & 6A respectively.
222. Thus, as per depositions made by both the above two CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 219 of 226 DLCT110003212020 witnesses and the report given by them regarding above analysis, the questioned voices appearing in two audio files found in mobile phone of PW16 Sanjay and transferred in the above pen drive have been found matching with specimen voices of these two persons i.e. PW16 Sanjay and A3 Harish Jarwal and the same have been held to be the probable voices of these persons. The discrepancy appearing in evidence of prosecution regarding the make of above mobile phone i.e. VIVO or OPPO is not fatal or of much relevance as it appears to have happened only because of some mistake on the part of IO/PW64 Insp. Kumar Rajiv, who seized it through the seizure memo Ex.PW1/K.
223. During the course of examination of prosecution witnesses, the above mobile phone of make OPPO of PW16 has also been produced, identified and exhibited as Ex.PY and pen drive in which the data of said mobile was transferred has also been identified as Ex.P1, along with the other relevant exhibits. Further, it is also observed from record that recordings found in the above mobile phone Ex.PY and transferred in the above pen drive Ex.P1 were also played in this court during examination of PW16 Sh. Sanjay and he had even identified his voice as well as the voice of A3 as appearing in one of these audio files, the transcript of which is Mark PW16/3 on record, though he stated that he cannot identify the voices appearing in other recording, CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 220 of 226 DLCT110003212020 the transcript of which is Mark PW16/4. It is strange on the part of this witness to not identify even his own voice appearing in this audio file, though his inability to identify the voice of A3 could have been understood. It appears to this court that reluctance on the part of this witness in not identifying the above voices appearing in second audio file pertaining to transcription Mark PW16/4 was only because of the fact that he either became more clever or wise after identifying the said voices in first recording played before him or he was influenced or signaled not to do so by anybody or by that time he realized that the effect of such identification of voices could go against the accused. It can be seen that he simply refused to identify the voices contained in the second file without any plausible explanation or reasons. It cannot be ignored that he was one of many material witnesses of prosecution case who had turned hostile during their examinations in court and had resiled from their previous statements made during investigation, as already discussed, and in opinion of this court, that they all were threatened or influenced by the accused persons in either way for not supporting the prosecution case as A1 was and is still an MLA of their area. Hence, the factum of non recognition of the above voices of this witness and of A3, as appearing in the second audio file played before him, cannot be given much weight and it cannot be blown out of proportion and rather, it has to be inferred CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 221 of 226 DLCT110003212020 therefrom that the witness had done so on a second thought or under the influence or at the instance of accused and to favour him in this prosecution. It also cannot nullify the effect of recognition of the voices as contained in first or other audio file, the transcripts of which were marked as Mark PW16/3.
224. In any case, since the report Ex.PW55/A and the oral testimonies of above two experts of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi establish on record that the questioned as well as specimen voices of the above witness and of this accused sent for analysis to their laboratory and examined by them were found matching, the above denial or refusal by this witness to identify these voices in recordings of second audio file played before him is of no help to the case of A3. Moreover, this witness has also specifically admitted in his above statement that his voice sample was taken in FSL, Rohini. Again, A3 had though denied in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. that he made any threatening call to PW16 Sh. Sanjay, but his denial about the above call was not absolute or strong as he is found to have also claimed in the said statement that he had actually made a call to Manoj and the said call might have been recorded in his phone, but it was handed over to police under a conspiracy to implicate him.
225. As already discussed, the transcripts of all recorded CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 222 of 226 DLCT110003212020 conversations of audio files contained in above mobile phone have been brought in evidence as Ex.PW54/B (colly) (on pages 14491497), though it has also come on record during examination of PW16 Sh. Sanjay that one conversation contained in the above mobile phone, the transcription of which is Mark PW16/5 (colly), was not examined by CFSL. It has been observed that the contents of this conversation Mark PW16/5 have been reproduced as 'recording 3' in the earlier part of this judgment, on the basis of its reproduction in the chargesheet. However, still this fact is not found affecting the prosecution case in any manner as the questioned voices of PW16 & A3 as found in the remaining audio files contained in above mobile phone have been found to be sufficient for the purposes of comparisons thereof with the specimen voices of these two persons.
226. As also earlier discussed, the above recordings of conversations between A3 and PW16 Sh. Sanjay are not only of the period prior to registration of this case, but one conversation dated 10.05.2020 is also of the period subsequent thereto and this conversation took place on the very next day of arrest of the main accused Prakash Jarwal (A1), who is found to have been arrested vide seizure memo Ex.PW50/A dated 09.05.2020 (D7 on page 263). It has been clearly observed from the transcripts of above conversations that this accused was also extending threats CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 223 of 226 DLCT110003212020 and thus, intimidating the persons named therein to make payments of the demanded amounts to him. It can also be observed therefrom that the threats extended by this accused to the said persons were definitely in relation to the running of their water tankers with DJB and a message had been conveyed to them by accused that in case the demanded amounts were not paid, their payments will be got stopped. The conversation dated 10.05.2020 even shows that this accused had told PW16 Sanjay that they were even not scared by the arrest or detention of the main accused Prakash Jarwal in the present case. He had told the said witness through above said call that A1 will be out on bail in the case 15 days or a month. He is even found to have used abusive language for the witness and other persons in some of the said conversations and his tone or tenor in these conversations leaves no room of doubt for this court that the said conversations of this accused were intimidatory in nature, within the meaning of Section 503 IPC, and the same were also sufficient to create an alarm in the mind of PW16 Sanjay and the other concerned persons on being communicated the contents thereof, that in case they did not make payment of the demanded amounts to this accused and did not act as per his directions, then the accused may cause injuries on their person or to their property by getting their tankers removed from DJB and the pending payments thereof stopped. Further, the above conversations also CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 224 of 226 DLCT110003212020 corroborate the statements or declarations contained in above diary of deceased regarding extension of threats to the tanker owners or operators of the said area, including deceased, by this accused, as an associate of the main accused Prakash Jarwal (A
1) and his close associate Kapil Nagar (A2).
227. Thus, even if PW16 or any other witness does not support the prosecution case through their oral testimonies regarding extension of any threats by this accused to them, for extortion or for causing of any loss to them by getting their tankers removed and payments stopped, the above dying declarations left by deceased, the oral testimonies of the FSL & CFSL Experts and the other documentary and scientific evidence on record through their testimonies are held sufficient for proving the charge against A3 Harish Jarwal for commission of offence of criminal intimidation, as defined by Section 503 IPC and as made punishable by first part of Section 506 IPC.
CONCLUSION
228. In view of the above discussion, it is held that prosecution has successfully brought home guilt of A1 Prakash Jarwal and A2 Kapil Nagar and proved its charges framed against them for commission of the offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC for abetting commission of suicide by Dr. Rajendra Singh, for the CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 225 of 226 DLCT110003212020 offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/S 120B r/w 386/506 IPC and also the charges framed for substantive offences punishable U/S 386 r/w 511 r/w 120B IPC and second part of Section 506 r/w 120B IPC. Further, the prosecution has also been successful in establishing its charge for the offence of criminal intimidation punishable under the first part of Section 506 IPC against A3 Harish Jarwal. All the accused persons are accordingly held guilty of the above said offences and are being convicted therefor. Let a copy of this judgment be given to them free of cost and a copy of the judgment be also given to Ld. Digitally signed Addl. PP for State. by M K MK NAGPAL NAGPAL Date:
2024.02.28 13:54:47 +0530 Announced in open court (M. K. NAGPAL) on 28.02.2024 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act), CBI09 (MPs/MLAs Cases), RADC, New Delhi : 28.02.2024 CNR No. DLCT110003212020 Page 226 of 226