Delhi District Court
4. Gura Singh vs . The State Of Rajasthan, Crl. Appeal on 16 November, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT:
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI20 (PC ACT) ROUSE AVENUE
COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
CBI 52/2019
R.C No. RCDAI2016A0040 dated 20.12.2016
U/s 120B, 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
substantive offences u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CNR No. DLST010026072017
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
A1 Amarjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Lakshmi Chand
R/o H.No. A246/3, Deoli Extension,
Near Amar Singh Market,
Delhi 110 062 Accused No. 1
A2 Rajender Kumar Meena
S/o Sh. Manmohan Meena
R/o H.No. 622E, Deoli Village,
Near Tinu Public School,
New Delhi 110 062 Accused No.2
CC No. 52/2019
CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 1 of 286
2
A3 Vijay
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam
R/o H.No. F37, Prem Nagar3,
Astha Vihar, Kiradi Suleman Nagar,
New Delhi 110 041. Accused No.3
Date of FIR : 20.12.2016
Date of filing of Chargesheet : 24.03.2017
Arguments concluded on : 14.11.2019
Date of judgment : 16.11.2019
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case:
1. A chargesheet was filed by CBI against accused Amarjeet Singh (hereinafter referred as (A1), accused Rajender Kumar Meena (hereinafter referred as A2) and accused Vijay (hereinafter referred as A3) pursuant to a case registered against them on a written complaint dated 19.12.2016 filed by the complainant Sh. Rahul Kumar Jha.
2. The allegations against the A1/ accused Amarjeet Singh, SI and A2 / accused Rajender Kumar Meena, Constable, both then posted at Police Station Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, is that they threatened to implicate the complainant in an incident dated 27.07.2016 wherein one of his friend's CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 2 of 286 3 Devender Katharia, with whom complainant and his other friends were partying, expired. According to complainant, A1 and A2 had demanded a sum of Rs. 3.5 lacs from the complainant for not implicating him in said incident. Both the suspects officers had taken Rs. 30,000/ from him and were demanding further sum of Rs. 3.2 lacs as bribe to settle the matter. The complainant did not want to pay the illegal bribe to the said officials and as such he submitted a written complaint dated 19.12.2016 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, for necessary action.
3. The complaint Ex.PW3/A (D1) was verified by Shri Ramesh Kumar, Inspector, on 19.12.2016 in the presence of independent witness namely Shri Avtar Singh Sagar. Accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 called the complainant to PS Sangam Vihar at about 1900 hrs. The said call was recorded in a Digital Voice Recorder (hereinafter referred to as DVR). Thereafter Inspector Ramesh Kumar, independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar and complainant reached near P.S. Sangam Vihar at about 18.50 Hrs. The DVR with a memory card was given to the complainant in recording mode. The formal introductory voice of independent witness and telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 were already recorded in the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 3 of 286 4 said DVR. The DVR was kept near the left ankle of the complainant with the help of a rubber band. The complainant visited Police Station Sangam Vihar (hereinafter referred to as PS) with his friend Saddam and Salim and made a call from his mobile phone on the mobile phone of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, who directed him to come inside the P.S. Sangam Vihar. The complainant and his two friends went inside the Police station. Accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 was found in the police station and he took them in the room of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, who directed accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 to take the complainant and his friends outside the room to talk with the complainant. Accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 demanded the bribe from the complainant. The complainant bargained with accused persons that he was unable to arrange for such a huge amount of money and requested them to give him time till 23.12.2016/24.12.2016. Constable Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 directed the complainant to bring part bribe money i.e. Rs. 10,000/ on next day i.e. 20.12.2016 and to pay the rest of the bribe amount by 24.12.2016. The proceedings which took place during verification were recorded in the verification memo dated 19.12.2016. Memory Card in which conversation were recorded was marked as Q1 and sealed.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 4 of 286 5
4. On 20.12.2016 a FIR/RC u/s. 120B IPC and 7 of PC Act, 1988 was registered against the accused persons Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 on the basis of facts mentioned in the complaint and its verification. Thereafter a trap team comprising of complainant, Inspector Ramesh Kumar, Inspector Arjun Singh, Inspector Shitanshu, Inspector Kamal Singh and independent witnesses namely Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar and Sh. Narender Tyagi was constituted. The complainant produced Rs.10,000/ in the form of 5 G.C. Notes of Rs. 2,000/ denomination, numbers of which were noted down in the Handing Over Memorandum. The GC Notes were treated with Phenolphthalein Powder and thereafter the same were put in the inner left side pocket of the jacket of the complainant by Shri Avtar Singh Sagar. The complainant was directed by Raman Kumar Shukla, Trap Laying Officer (hereinafter referred to as the TLO), not to touch the said tainted bribe amount and to hand over the same to the accused persons on their specific demand or on their specific direction to some other person. The complainant and independent witnesses were also directed to give signal either by rubbing their face with both hands or to give a missed call from their mobile phone on the mobile number 9650602485 belonging to the TLO as soon CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 5 of 286 6 as the transaction of bribe amount was completed. The other pretrap formalities were also conducted in CBI office and were recorded in Handing Over Memorandum dated 20.12.2016.
5. After conducting these proceedings, on 20.12.2016 itself, the trap party alongwith the complainant and independent witnesses left the CBI office, at 9.40 AM, and reached in the vicinity of PS Sangam Vihar. The complainant and Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar/shadow witness went inside the PS Sangam Vihar. The DVR fitted with the memory card containing the introductory voices of the two witnesses was given to the complainant in switch on mode by the TLO, which he kept in the left side wearing sock of his leg and tied it with the help of rubber band.
6. Inside the Police Station, the complainant and the shadow witness met Accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2, who enquired about the shadow witness from the complainant. When the complainant informed accused Rajender Kumar Meena / A2 that the shadow witness was his maternal uncle and was to be dropped somewhere, accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 told complainant to go and drop his maternal uncle first. The accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 further asked the complainant as to why he CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 6 of 286 7 was limping on which complainant informed him that he had sprained in his ankle on the day before. Thereafter the complainant and the shadow witness Avtar Singh Sagar came out of the Police Station and informed the TLO about the happenings inside the police station. It was then decided to send the complainant inside the Police Station all alone and also to change the position of DVR as it was apprehended that the accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A 2 was already suspicious. The DVR was then kept in the cap by making a cut at the joint of the jacket of the complainant to avoid suspicion and thereafter he was again asked to go inside the police station Sangam Vihar to meet accused Amarjeet Singh/A1. At that time, accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 was not present in the police station. Accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 asked complainant as to why he had come to police station and when complainant told him that he had been called by accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2, accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 further enquired as to why accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 had called him. The complainant replied that he (accused Amarjeet Singh, SI/A1) already knew the reason. Then the accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, told him "Das hazaar ke liye". On his specific enquiry the complainant replied in affirmative and further told that he will also pay the remaining bribe amount as decided.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 7 of 286 8 Thereafter, the complainant asked accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, to whom the bribe amount was to be handed over. The complainant also had a conversation with the said accused about enquiry which was being conducted by him and the previous IO. The accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 told the complainant to wait for a while. Thereafter, accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, directed him (complainant) to go to another room and to handover the bribe amount to one Vijay, who was sitting inside the room. The complainant showed his ignorance about said Vijay/A3 on which the accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 told him to go inside the room and meet Vijay / A3, who was sitting alone in the room. On the specific direction of Accused Amerjeet Singh/A1, complainant went inside the room and met the person, who was sitting alone there. The complainant enquired from the said person about his identity on which he (accused Vijay/A3) told the complainant that he is Vijay and asked complainant as to who had sent him and further asked him "Kya Rajender sahib ne bheja hai". On this the complainant told him that he was sent by Amarjeet Sahab. Thereafter Vijay/A3 called on the mobile phone of accused Amarjeet Singh, S.I/A3 and had a conversation with him and asked him whether he had sent someone to him. After the conversation Vijay/A3 told him to handover the bribe CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 8 of 286 9 amount, on which the complainant further asked him "Kuch to bola hoga, Kitne dene hai". Accused Vijay/A3 told the complainant to handover as he had been directed. On the specific direction, the complainant handed over the tainted bribe amount to accused Vijay/A3, who accepted the same with both his hands. The complainant also told him to count the amount on which accused Vijay/A3 counted the tainted bribe amount. The complainant further asked accused Vijay/A3 to inform accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 about receipt of amount of Rs. 10,000/ and pursuant thereto accused Vijay/A3 called accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, on his mobile phone and confirmed about receipt of bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/.
7. It is further alleged that thereafter, the complainant came out from the room and made a call on the mobile phone of the TLO to inform him about materialization of the transaction. The TLO immediately alerted all the team members and rushed inside the police station. The complainant informed the TLO that the accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 had directed him to handover the bribe amount to one Sh. Vijay/A3, who was sitting in a room in PS Sangam Vihar and that pursuant to said directions, he had handed over the bribe amount to accused Vijay/A3. The door of the room where accused Vijay/A3 was sitting was CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 9 of 286 10 found closed. The TLO knocked on the door and when the same was opened, the TLO and the trap team members went inside the said room and confronted accused Vijay/A 3 about the alleged transaction on which accused Vijay/A 3 disclosed that he is a private person working with SI Saurabh in private capacity and that the room belonged to SI Saurabh. He further disclosed that he also knew SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Constable Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 and that on that day on the direction of SI Amarjeet Singh/A1, he had taken the bribe amount from the complainant but when he got suspicious, he threw the tainted bribe amount under the bed. Meanwhile, accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 also came inside the said room. The DVR was taken back from the complainant and switched off. The left and right wrists of accused Vijay/A3 were held by Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla and Inspector Ramesh Kumar respectively. Thereafter, the washes of both the hands of accused Vijay/A3 were taken separately in a freshly prepared colourless solution of sodium carbonate and water in clean glass tumblers in the presence of both the independent witnesses. On doing so, the colour of the washes turned into pink. The washes were kept separately in four bottles which were sealed properly and marked as 'RHWI' and 'RHW2' and 'LHW1' and 'LHW2' respectively. The tainted bribe amount of Rs.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 10 of 286 11 10,000/ was recovered by the independent witness Sh.Narender Tyagi from underneath the bed lying in the room where accused Vijay/A3 was sitting. On direction of TLO Avtar Singh Sagar and Sh. Narender Tyagi tallied the G.C. notes with the denomination numbers mentioned in the Handing Over Memo and found them to be correct. Accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 contacted Accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 from his mobile phone, upon which Accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 also came in the said room. The trap proceedings were reduced to writing in the Recovery Memo in the presence of independent witnesses, complainant and the members of the trap team, who signed the same. Thereafter Inspector Arjun Singh prepared two separate rough site plans showing the position of trap team members and the accused persons including accused Vijay/A3 and the room from where the bribe amount was recovered respectively. The site plans were signed by Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar, Sh. Narender Tyagi, TLO and Arjun Singh, Inspector. Accused persons namely Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 and Vijay/A3 were arrested vide separate arrest cum personal search memos.
8. It is further the case of the prosecution that the CFSL has given a positive opinion on the hand washes of accused CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 11 of 286 12 Vijay/A3 and confirmed about the presence of phenolphthalein powder therein vide its report No.CFSL 2017/C0010 dated 17.1.2017. The conversation that took place during the trap proceedings was recorded in the memory cards by using DVR and the said memory card was also sealed and marked as "Q2". The specimen voices of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 and Vijay/A3 were taken in a new memory card after recording the introductory voice of independent witnesses Avtar Singh Sagar and Narender Tyagi in the CBI Office and the same was also sealed and marked as "SI, SII & SIII". The transcription of conversation recorded in Q1 and Q2 was prepared which also confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 through accused Vijay/A3. The memory cards marked as Q1, Q2 and "SI, SII, SIII" as well as the DVR used during the trap proceeding were sent to CFSL for comparison of questioned voices of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 and Vijay/A3 with their specimen voices and the result thereof dated 29.03.2017 was obtained and filed with the chargesheet.
9. After completing investigation, a chargesheet u/s 120B IPC r/w 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 12 of 286 13 Corruption Act, 1988, was filed against accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 and Vijay/A3 on 24.03.2017. Further substantive offence u/s 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 were also invoked against accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2.
10. It is also brought out from the chargesheet that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East District, New Delhi, had dismissed SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 from service, vide order dated 29.12.2016, w.e.f. 20.12.2016 and hence no sanction for prosecution in respect of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 was required or taken.
CHARGE
11. Charge was framed against accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 and Vijay/A3 on 19.08.2017. All the accused were charged with offences punishable U/Sec. 120B IPC r/w section 7 & 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 were also charged with offence punishable U/Sec. 7 and u/s 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 13 of 286 14 Act, 1988. All the three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
12. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The gist of statement of witnesses as under: 12.1 The PW1, Inspector Upender Singh, was posted as SHO at PS Sangam Vihar at the relevant time. He handed over some documents to the CBI on 20.12.2016 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/1 (D13), which are tabulated as under : Sr. Number and description of the Entry relied upon No. document 1 Ex.PW1/2 (D14) - Attested copy DD No.16B dated of the Cover of Acquittal Inquest 28.07.2016 vide which and Missing, Taking Handing Inquest of one Devender @ Register2014 and attested copy of Dev, earlier pending with SI the relevant page vide which Rajesh Kumar, was handed Inquest proceedings were marked over to SI Amarjeet to SI Amarjeet Singh/A1. Singh/A1 on 19.09.2016. It contained endorsement of marking of the said proceedings by previous SHO Inspector Balram Singh to SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and signatures of SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 in token of having received the same.
CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 14 of 286 15 Sr. Number and description of the Entry relied upon No. document 2 Ex.PW1/3 (colly) (D15) - Duty Entries showing assignment
Roster of staff of the Police Station of duty of Division No.4 to for 19.12.2016 and 20.12.2016 SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Division No.2 to Constable Rajender/A2.
3 Ex.PW1/4 (D16) - Leave record Relevant page in respect of register leave of Constable Rajender/A2, who was sanctioned casual leave for four days w.e.f. 20.12.2016.
There was no departure entry made by Constable Rajender / A2 on 20.12.2016 at 12:00 Noon in Daily Diary Register.
The PW1 deposed that accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender/A2 were also the team member of P.O staff. He further deposed that on 20.12.2016, CBI team had conducted the search proceedings of the room and almirah of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and that during the said search, they found the original inquest file of Devender. Thereafter, the certified copy of the complete file was handed over to CBI by him. He proved the Office Search memo as Ex.PW1/5 (D12) and the attested copy of the inquest file as Ex.PW1/6 (colly). He also proved the complaints dated 30.08.2016 and 02.08.2016 of Sohan Lal, father of the deceased CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 15 of 286 16 Davinder Kumar, regarding foul play in the death of his son Davinder, which was attached with the inquest file and was entrusted to accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 for inquiry, as Ex.PW1/6A {pages Nos. 4 and 5 of Ex.PW1/6 (colly)} and Ex.PW1/6B {page 26 of file Ex.PW1/6 (colly)}. The witness correctly identified the accused Amarjeet/A1 and accused Rajender/A2 in the Court.
During the course of crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, the PW1 deposed that Ex.PW1/2 (D14) i.e. the Acquittal Inquest and Missing Taking Handing Register - 2014 of PS Sangam Vihar was a relevant document which proved that inquest proceedings / investigation which was being done by SI Rajesh Kumar was returned or handed over to his office (office of PW1). He termed it correct that there was an overwriting in the month in the entry recorded in register Ex.PW1/2 with regard to DD No. 16B dated 28.07.2016 and that all the other entries which were shown in the document Ex.PW1/2 were entered well within the lines/space whereas the entry at Srl. No. 1 with regard to DD 16 B was crossing the line where name of SI Rajesh Yadav had been written as 'from SI Rajesh Yadav'. He was unable to explain as to why the words 'from CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 16 of 286 17 SI Rajesh Yadav' were written while cutting the line. He denied the suggestion that these words 'from SI Rajesh Yadav' had been introduced afterwards. He was not aware as to whether there was an entry with regard to handing over of the investigation by SI Rajesh Kumar to SHO as per proforma prescribed in Punjab Police Act. He termed it correct that whenever an investigation changed its hand, it was first of all handed over to the SHO and thereafter the next investigating officer was appointed. He volunteered to state that he was not aware whether there was a set proforma in this regard.
He expressed his lack of knowledge if there was any document with regard to handing over the investigation by SI Rajesh Kumar to the then SHO. He further deposed that they did not employ or take help of any civilian or outsider for the petty works done in the police station. He termed it correct that SI Saurav was having an independent room but was not aware if the said room was shared by him with anybody else. He then deposed that he had not allotted the said room to any other officer apart from SI Saurav. He termed it correct that the keys to the room of any particular SI/IO were kept with him and that he was the incharge of the same. He was CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 17 of 286 18 unable to state if SI Saurav was on leave on 20.12.2016. He expressed his lack of knowledge if the previous SHO Inspector Balram and SI Rajesh had been made a witness in the present case. He was also not having knowledge if SI Rajesh had been handling the investigation with regard to complaint of Sohan Lal since the very beginning.
During his further crossexamination, the PW1 deposed that they had different divisions in the jurisdiction of the police station and that different IOs and staff were deputed in their respective divisions. He termed it correct that the investigation done by one division was not interfered by another division or the staff. He further termed it correct that Rahul, complainant in the present case, was involved in some cases at Faridabad wherein he impersonated as a CBI officer. He was, however, unable to state if the said case was bearing FIR No. 138/17 of P.S. Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad u/s 420, 201, 467, 468, 471 IPC. He expressed his lack of knowledge regarding another case u/s 376 IPC pending against the complainant in Dwarka Court. He termed it correct that SI Rajesh had been working under him (PW1) and that all the investigations which were done within the jurisdiction of P.S were reported to the SHO with CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 18 of 286 19 regard to their development etc. and the same was also being done under his supervision as the SHO. He further termed it correct that the investigation with regard to the complaint of Sohal Lal (inquest inquiry) had been carried out properly by the investigating team. He then corrected himself and stated that it might had been carried out properly by the investigating team.
During his further crossexamination, memory of PW1 was refreshed from the documents filed with the chargesheet. After going through the complaint dated 02.08.2016 lodged by Sohan Lal (father of deceased Devinder), the PW1 stated that he had suspected that Rahul (the complainant in the present case), Salim and one another person had killed/murdered his son Devinder and that the mobile numbers 9643487062, 9873960996 of Rahul, and mobile No.9311862651 of Salim were also mentioned in the said complaint. After seeing D11, the PW1 termed it correct that SI Rajesh had issued notices u/s 160 Cr.P.C to all the three suspects to appear before him on 12.09.2016. The PW1 expressed his lack of knowledge about the fact that the investigation with regard to the inquest report was with SI Rajesh even on 24.11.2016 or CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 19 of 286 20 that SI Rajesh had received FSL report on 24.11.2016 with regard to the inquest in question. The PW1 further deposed that he had handed over all the relevant documents to the CBI and did not know anything else. He termed it correct that one of inquest documents, out of those handed over to CBI by him, the document dated 30.08.2016 found mention that Sohan Lal's son had been murdered by Salim, Rahul and third person. He further termed it correct that as per the complaint of Sohan Lal, a case u/s 302 IPC was registered against Salim, Rahul and the third person at P.S. Sangam Vihar by DIU and that Rahul named in said case was the complainant in the present case. He further termed it correct that Ct. Rajender/A2 was not officially involved in the investigation of the inquest report. He further deposed that it was a matter of record that the inquest was under Division No. 6. He expressed his lack of knowledge about the fact that the division no. 6 was under the control of SI Rajesh. He was not aware SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 had been given the charge of division no. 4.
12.2 The PW2, SI Saurabh Kumar, was also posted at PS Sangam Vihar and the transaction of handing CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 20 of 286 21 over of the bribe amount to accused Vijay/A3, on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2, by the complainant is stated to have taken place in his room. This witness did not depose as per the case of the prosecution, and merely stated that he was on casual leave on 20.12.2016 and that when he came back to join his duty, his room was locked and he that opened it with his keys. He further deposed that he did not know accused Vijay/A3 and had never seen or met him at the Police Station. This witness was crossexamined by the learned PP for CBI.
During his crossexamination by learned PP for CBI, though the PW2 admitted having given his statement in the office of CBI during investigation, he denied having told CBI about accused Vijay/A3 in the said statement. He denied that portion of his statement u/s. 161 CrPC wherein it was recorded that Vijay S/o Radhey Shyam R/o Prem Nagar had been visiting the police station Sangam Vihar since last 1½ months on being called by any of the police official for daily routine work of cleaning etc. or that on 20.12.2016 when he reached his office, his room was not locked. He volunteered to state that he had himself opened the room by using his keys. He CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 21 of 286 22 further denied having told the CBI in his statement that the accused Vijay used to sit in the rooms of the IO. He termed it correct that accused Amarjeet and Rajender used to work in the same Police station where he was working. He then deposed that accused Amarjeet was senior to him and that accused Rajender was constable and that he (PW2) had worked with Amarjeet and Rajender at P.S. Sangam Vihar for about one year. He termed it correct that he had good relations with the accused Amarjeet and the accused Rajender. He then volunteered to state that after the instant case, he had severed all his relations with them.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, the PW2 termed it correct that when he opened the room he found his room in the same state in which he had left it. He then deposed that on 20.12.2016 in the morning, he was in his District Fatehabad, Haryana. He termed it correct that he returned from there on the night of 20.12.2016 and that apart from him, no one had the key of the room and that the said room was exclusively for him and no other IO used to sit there.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 22 of 286 23 12.3 The PW3, Sh. Rahul Kumar, is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that in the end of July, 2016, he and his friends were celebrating a party at Tughlakabad Extension in a flat which belonged to him (PW3) and his wife. His friend Devender, who used to live at Badarpur, had taken excessive liquor. He and his friend Saddam took Devender on scooty to drop him at his residence at Badarpur. Since, there was no number on the scooty and they had only one helmet, they took the way of Shooting Range to drop him. On the way, Devender vomited. They asked him as to what happened and felt that he may vomit again. When they were taking turn, their scooty got disbalanced on a narrow cut. One Sardarji came running to them and asked what happened. The PW3 was afraid and suspected that he may be a policeman. They told the Sardarji that they were going to drop him (Devender) to the hospital since he was overdrunk. They did not tell him that he was their friend. Sardarji advised them to make a call at 100 number. The PW3 called the police at 100 number from his mobile number (9873973998) which he was using at that time. He told the police that his name was 'Sunny' which was CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 23 of 286 24 his nick name though his real name was 'Rahul'. They told their location to the police. After sometime, the PCR came. Sardarji then left the spot. They told all the facts to the PCR incharge who told them that it is not the same PCR which had come on the call. Both the policemen checked Devender. They gave Devender water but he was not giving proper response since he was overdrunk. After sometime, another PCR came. The first PCR Incharge made Devender lie in the other PCR. The PW3 wanted to go with the 2nd PCR and Devender but the first PCR incharge asked him (PW3) to wait as the police would come and record his statement. The second PCR took Devender to hospital. The first PCR Incharge made inquiry from PW3. They told police that Devender had met them on the way. He clicked their photographs, obtained his (PW3's) signature and contact number and discharged them from there.
The PW3 further deposed that in the afternoon, he received a call from P.S. Sangam Vihar and then he came to know that Devender had expired. The PW3 was called to the police station where he met SI Rajesh Yadav who recorded his statement. The PW3 told him that the deceased was CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 24 of 286 25 carrying a mobile. On checking it was found to be locked. The PW3 went his house. He called SI Rajesh Yadav 23 times to know if they had come to know of the residence of the deceased. The third time SI Rajesh Yadav told PW3 that he had contacted the family of the deceased and that they had come.
The PW3 further deposed that after 11½ months, he received a call from his mother that police had come to his house and taken his father with them. The PW3 went to the police post Naveen Nagar but did not find his father. In the afternoon, he received a call from Police Station Sangam Vihar and was called there. When he reached the police station, in the afternoon, he met SI Vivek and SI Rajesh Yadav who interrogated him and gave him beatings and blamed him for killing Devender and alleged that when Devender was handed over to the police he was already dead. Police also called Saddam and Salim as well as the incharge of the first PCR, who had recorded his statement (statement of PW3) and confirmed that by that time, the deceased was alive. The PW3 and others were detained in the police station for the whole night and were given beatings. On the second CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 25 of 286 26 day in the evening, they were discharged. On the next day, they were called again. They asked PW 3 to call his brotherinlaw and his wife near Crown Plaza Hotel at Okhla and there they asked her to cooperate for his discharge. They demanded Rs. 2,00,000/ from her and negotiated it to Rs. 1,00,000/. His wife (wife of PW3) collected Rs. 54,000/ from their resources which included his (PW3's) debit card and her credit and debit cards and gave Rs. 54,000/ to SI Vivek. The PW3 was inside the police vehicle when money was given by his wife to them. They asked his wife (wife of PW3) to pay the balance within 23 days. They then asked him (PW3) to call his brotherinlaw to Majedia Hospital where they struck a deal of Rs. 50,000/ from him (from brotherinlaw of PW3) for his discharge. When he said that he did not have money, they took him to the police station after which he negotiated for Rs. 15,000/ and gave them the said sum of money. In the evening, all three of them were discharged.
The PW3 further deposed that on next day, they were again called to PS and were made to sit till 1.30 PM and were thereafter produced before the SHO before they were discharged. After about 2 CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 26 of 286 27 hours, he received a call from SI Rajesh. He (PW3) talked to SI Rajesh and SI Vivek and met them at Majedia Hospital. They asked PW3 to call his wife. They told his wife to arrange the balance on that day itself. Since his wife did not have money, she gave her Mangalsutra, his ring and her ring (ring of wife of PW3) to them. On next day, PW3, Salim and Saddam again went to the police station on the directions of the police to give detailed statement. Saddam and Salim were discharged but PW3 was detained there. His part statement was recorded. In the evening and during the recording of the said statement, they gave beatings to PW3. He was detained for whole night and in the morning, he was discharged with instructions to come at 1.00 PM. They told PW3 that they would have to arrest him. He reached the police station in the evening. After sometime, accused SI Amarjeet, came to him and told him that he was from special staff and was senior to them. When PW3 was leaving the police station, SI Rajesh Yadav came to PW3 and told him that he would talk to SI Amarjeet.
The PW3 further deposed that on the next day, SI Rajesh asked PW3 to meet him outside and thereafter told him that SI Amarjeet had been CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 27 of 286 28 demanding Rs.10 lacs to save him (PW3) from this case. The PW3 told SI Rajesh to make him talk to SI Amarjeet. On this SI Rajesh scolded him (PW3). The PW3 returned to his house and told everything to his family members. He decided to commit suicide and consumed Naphthalene balls. His family members took him to Majedia Hospital. He was unable to speak. He wrote on a paper asking his wife to call SI Rajesh and SI Vivek and also to tell the doctor that he had consumed the Naphthalene balls. The doctor then told PW3 that it was a police case. His wife told everything to the doctor. After 15/20 minutes, SI Rajesh and SI Vivek came there in casual dress. They abused PW3 and his father. During his stay in the hospital, PW3 tried to know about the case but they told him that they would come there to meet him. SI Rajesh came there twice.
The PW3 further deposed that for about one month, he did not receive any phone call and thereafter he got a call from SI Amarjeet, who called PW3 to the police station and also asked him to bring Salim and Saddam with him. All three of them went to the police station on the next day and met SI Amarjeet. 23 police officials were also with him. SI Amarjeet called the accused Rajender, who took CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 28 of 286 29 PW3 with him to his flat at Tuglakabad. He enquired from PW3 how much money he had paid to SI Rajesh and SI Vivek. The PW3 answered in negative. In the evening he (PW3) met SI Rajesh and told him everything. SI Rajesh told PW3 not to worry and that he would talk to them and would try to negotiate with SI Amarjeet.
The PW3 was called 23 times to the police station. One day, he took the accused Rajender to Gurgaon where the deceased had sold his motorcycle himself although it was alleged that they had stolen his motorcycle and sold it at Gurgaon. They were unable to meet the shop owner.
The PW3 also met SI Rajesh Yadav and told him all the facts. Accused Rajender took PW3 to SI Amarjeet where on interrogation, he disclosed having paid money to SI Rajesh and SI Vivek. When PW3 came out, he met them and told them that he had told everything to SI Amarjeet. They got annoyed. After sometime, SI Rajesh told PW3 that he would negotiate with SI Amarjeet and try to get it settled for Rs.5 lacs and to receive the money in parts. The PW3 gave Rs.15,000/, Rs.10,000/ and Rs.5,000/ on different occasions to SI Rajesh to be given to SI Amarjeet. He did not pay the amount CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 29 of 286 30 directly to SI Amarjeet.
The PW3 further deposed that he had a friend whose uncle was in the Police Station R K Puram and sought his help. The uncle of his friend advised PW3 to go to the CBI Head Quarters and to tell them everything. The PW3 went there and met someone from Anti Corruption branch. He was asked to come on the next day to meet the SP.
On 19.12.2016, PW3 went to CBI office and met SP, CBI and told her that he was being falsely implicated and that SI Rajesh Yadav had been demanding money in the name of SI Amarjeet. He thereafter gave a written complaint Ex.PW3/A to the SP mentioning all these facts. The initial demand was of Rs.10 lacs which was negotiated to Rs.5 lacs and further negotiated to Rs.3.5 lacs. He was introduced to Insp Ramesh Kumar and told him that he (PW3) did not want to pay any bribe. Insp. Ramesh told PW3 that he would verify the facts first and then take action. He gave PW3 a recorder and told him that his team would go with PW3 and that the team would stand at some place within his sight. Inspr. Ramesh also introduced PW3 to the members of CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 30 of 286 31 the team including one Mr. Tyagi. He told PW3 that he would have to meet the concerned persons in the police station and they would be watching him. The PW3 talked to the accused Rajender from his mobile phone to ask as to at what time he had to reach there. Accused Rajender told PW3 to come with his photograph and the photograph of deceased Devender. When PW3 called accused Rajender from his mobile phone, Inspector, CBI told him to speak on a loud voice so that they could record the conversation on the recorder. They recorded the conversation in the recorder.
The PW3 further deposed that they started from there in a car in the evening at about 5.30/6.00 p.m and reached near Batra Hospital. CBI officials parked the car there and told PW3 that they would watch him from there. They asked PW3 to keep the device and so he kept it in the sock of the left shoe. He reached the police station at about 7/7.15 p.m. and met SI Rajesh at the main gate of the police station. SI Rajesh asked PW3 why he had come there on which PW3 told him that he had been called there. He told PW3 to meet SI Amarjeet and thereafter to meet him (SI Rajesh). The PW3 met accused SI Amarjeet and showed him the print outs CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 31 of 286 32 of the photographs which were of the Holi festival. He told PW3 that the faces were not clear and started interrogating him and asked him how many persons were present when they had gone to the shop to sell the motorcycle. The PW3 told him that they were three persons. He (SI Amarjeet) then asked PW3 if there was a CCTV there to which PW 3 replied that he was not aware. He (SI Amarjeet) then asked PW3 how he would prove that the deceased himself had sold the bike. The PW3 felt that SI Amarjeet was getting irritated. Accused Rajender Meena and two more policemen, whose name he did not recall, were also there. SI Amarjeet asked Rajender to make PW3 understand by taking him outside. Accused Rajender asked PW3 to answer the questions straight forwardly. The PW3 told him that he could not sleep on the night before on which Rajender told PW3 to wash his face. The PW3 went to the bathroom where he met SI Rajesh Yadav and told him that SI Amarjeet was getting annoyed and was interrogating him. SI Rajesh then asked him how much money he had brought. Though PW3 had taken some money, he told SI Rajesh that he had not brought any money. On this SI Rajesh scolded PW3 and told him that he cannot CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 32 of 286 33 help him. The PW3 requested him for more time till 23rd/24th but he refused. The PW3 then told him that he would give him some money day after. SI Rajesh told PW3 to pay directly to accused Rajender Meena in the name of conveyance. The PW3 also made an excuse of demonetization. After washing his face, the PW3 again went to SI Amarjeet, who asked PW3 as to why he had taken so much time. He again asked PW3 to arrange for the photograph and passed him on to the accused Rajender Meena who reiterated the same thing. The PW3 stated that when he went to meet SI Amarjeet, Salim and Saddam were also with him. SI Amarjeet then asked accused Rajender Meena to make PW3 understand what things he had to bring on the next day. Accused Rajender told PW3 to bring the clear photographs. The PW3 told accused Rajender that he would arrange Rs.10,000/ by next day for conveyance. On this accused Rajender told PW3 twice that he did not require any money and why he (PW3) should pay him (accused Rajender) any money. The PW3 then told him that since money was spent on conveyance, he would arrange CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 33 of 286 34 something. He (accused Rajender) then told PW3 to go and to come on the next day in the morning. The PW3 came out and went to the place where CBI officials had parked their vehicle.
At this stage, witness/PW3 was cross examined by PP CBI.
During the crossexamination of PW3, the case of the CBI, as detailed in the chargesheet and the various statements of the witness, recorded by CBI, were put to him but the witness continued to waiver in his stance.
The PW3 termed it correct that the inquiry regarding the murder of his friend was initially pending with some other official of PS Sangam Vihar and was later transferred to SI Amarjeet Singh, who called him to the police station several times. Ct. Rajender Meena, who was working with SI Amarjeet Singh, also called him to PS several times and scrolled/threatened him. He further stated that SI Rajesh had demanded Rs.10 lacs in the name of SI Amarjeet Singh and Ct. Rajender Meena for settlement of the case and told him that in case demand was not met, he (PW3) would be implicated in the case of murder. He denied that the demand of said Rs.10 lacs was made by accused Amarjeet CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 34 of 286 35 Singh and accused Rajender Meena or that he had given Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 10,000/ and Rs. 5,000/ directly to accused Amarjeet Singh on different occasions.
At this stage, the contents of complaint Ex.PW 3/A (D1), filed by the complainant with CBI, were put adverbatum to the complainant. The complainant admitted having written all the facts stated in the complaint voluntarily in his own handwriting. He also admitted that he had not alleged in the complaint that SI Rajesh and SI Vivek had asked him to give bribe. He, however, denied that SI Amarjeet Singh and Ct. Rajender Meena had told him directly to pay the bribe amount.
The PW3 further admitted that he had gone to CBI office on 19.12.2016 and met Ms. Gagandeep Gambhir, SP CBI, who introduced him to Ramesh Kumar, Inspector CBI and also marked his complaint to Inspector Ramesh Kumar for necessary action and thereafter around 2:30 PM Inspector Ramesh Kumar arranged an independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar, who was working in nearby office and while introducing PW3 to said witness also told him about the complaint and further read over the said complaint to Avtar Singh. The PW3 termed it correct CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 35 of 286 36 that Rajender Meena had asked him to come to P.S. Sangam Vihar with his friend Salim and Saddam at 19.00 hours.
During his further crossexamination, the PW3 termed it correct that Inspector Ramesh Kumar arranged a new Sony Voice Recorder and a new Simmtronics 4 GB micro SD Card for verification of the complaint and also explained the functioning of the DVR to them. When the witness was shown the DVR Ex.P1, which was produced in the Court in a sealed envelope bearing seal of SSO II (PHY.) CFSL/CBI New Delhi S K C, he stated that the said recorder was like the one which was shown to him by the IO. He termed it correct a memory card was inserted in the DVR after ensuring that it was blank. While he admitted that his introductory voice was recorded in DVR, he expressed his lack of knowledge about the fact that the introductory voice of Avtar Singh was also recorded for verification of the blankness of DVR.
During his further crossexamination, the PW3 termed it correct that he had received a call from Rajender Meena/A2 but did not pick up the same on the directions of the Inspector. He was unable to recall the mobile number from which the said call CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 36 of 286 37 was received. He further stated that he called Ct. Rajender Meena on that number from his mobile and talked to him at about 3.30/4.00 PM in presence of Avtar Singh and that the said conversation was recorded in the DVR by keeping his phone on the speaker mode and that Ct. Rajender Meena called him to P.S. Sangam Vihar at about 7.00 PM.
He further termed it correct that he, Avtar Singh and Inspector left the CBI office at around 5.50 PM in a government Vehicle and reached P.S. Sangam Vihar at about 6.50 PM and that the said vehicle was parked near Batra Hospital and that he (PW3) was told to meet all the persons who had been harassing him and that the conversations would be recorded in DVR which was on recording mode and was tied to his left ankle with a rubber band and that Avtar Singh was instructed to keep watch on him (PW3) and to overhear the conversation. Thereafter PW3 went to the PS Sangam Vihar with Avtar Singh following him. He termed it correct that when he reached the police station Sangam Vihar, he met his friends Salim and Saddam who were already there, and that he (PW3) made a call on the mobile of Ct. Rajender Meena. The PW3 was unable to recall if he (Ct. Rajender CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 37 of 286 38 Meena) had picked up his mobile phone or not. He was further unable to recall the mobile number of SI Amarjeet Singh or having called him on the said mobile number. The PW3 was unable to recall if SI Amarjeet Singh had instructed him to come in the police station. He termed it correct that thereafter he and his friends entered the police station and met constable Rajender Kumar Meena, who took him (PW3) to the room of SI Amarjeet Singh where SI Amarjeet Singh was sitting with three more persons and that SI Amarjeet Singh discussed the case with him (PW3) and his friends and thereafter asked Ct. Rajender Meena to take them away while he continued to remain in his room. The PW3 denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B where it was recorded that Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena had asked him about the bribe amount or that he had told Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena that he was unable to arrange the said amount. He volunteered to state that he never had talk with Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena about the bribe. He stated that he had talked to SI Rajesh about it and had told him that he (PW3) would arrange Rs. 10,000/, the day after and that he (SI Rajesh) had agreed to accept Rs. 10,000/ but was pressurizing him (PW3) to make arrangement CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 38 of 286 39 for the remaining amount and that he (PW3) told him (SI Rajesh) that he (PW3) would manage the remaining amount by 24th December and that he (SI Rajesh) told him that on 24th December he (PW3) should manage Rs. 3.5 lacs. He clarified that he never talked about these facts with Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena and denied that portion of his statement Ex,PW3/B where it was so recorded.
The PW3 further deposed that they remained in the police station for a long time. Though he was not aware where Avtar Singh remained in the police station and when he (Avtar Singh) came out of it, he (PW3) stated that when he reached the point where the vehicle was parked, Avtar Singh was there. He termed it correct that after he (PW3) reached the place where the vehicle was parked, Inspector Ramesh Kumar took the DVR from him and switched it off. He further stated that Inspector did not ask him anything and told him that he would check the DVR to find out what all had happened in the police station. He also stated that Ct. Rajender Meena did not take mobile phones from them nor asked him (PW3) to switch it off. He clarified that he had shown the phones to SI Rajesh, who checked the same. He denied that every conversation in the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 39 of 286 40 police station had taken place between them and Ct. Rajender Meena and not with SI Rajesh. He again clarified that Rajender Kumar never used the word "Poore Teen". He denied the suggestion that Ct. Rajender Meena then directed him to come with part bribe money of Rs. 10,000/ the day after and to pay the rest of bribe amount till 24.12.2016.
The PW3 termed it correct that thereafter they returned back to the CBI office and reached there at about 8:55 PM. He denied that Inspector heard the conversation recorded in the voice recorder in CBI office in the presence of PW3 as well as Avtar Singh. The PW3 stated that he had left immediately after reaching CBI office as he had been called on the next day in the morning. He denied that in the CBI office, the memory card was taken out from the DVR, in his presence, or that it was kept in the envelope and sealed with the CBI Seal or that his signatures were obtained on the said envelope. He volunteered to state that he had signed the documents, including the envelope, when he reached the CBI office on the next day morning.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 40 of 286 41 When the witness was shown the SD memory card as well as the envelope wherein the said SD memory card was sealed, he identified his signatures on both the articles after which they were exhibited as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively.
The PW3 denied that the DVR was kept in the brown envelope and sealed with the CBI seal, on the same day, or that he (PW3), Avtar Singh and Inspector signed on the envelope which was marked as 'DVR used in CO 56/2016 or that facsimile of CBI seal was taken on different sheets of paper which were also signed by him, Avtar Singh and Inspector after which the sealed DVR and brass seal were handed over to Avtar Singh for keeping in safe custody with direction to come on 20.12.2016 at 8.00 AM for further proceedings. He also denied that verification report Ex.PW3/C was prepared in his presence or that all the proceedings were mentioned in it or that pursuant thereto registration of the case was recommended. He again volunteered to state that they had reached the CBI office at about 8:55 PM and thereafter he (PW3) left the CBI office since he was directed to come on the next day morning and that he had mentioned the date as 19.12.2016 on Ex.PW3/C (D2) on the directions of Inspector CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 41 of 286 42 when he signed the same on 20.12.2016. He denied that he remained in CBI office till 11.15 PM on 19.12.2016 or that all the proceedings including the sealing work and seizure were conducted in his presence. He termed it correct that he reached CBI office on 20.12.2016 at 8.00 AM and met Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla to whom he was introduced by Inspector Ramesh Kumar and that Raman Kumar Shukla informed him (PW3) that FIR had been registered against SI Amarjeet Singh and Ct. Rajender Meena and that he would investigate the case further.
He termed it correct that a team was constituted comprising of Raman Kumar Shukla, Kamal Singh, Sitanshu Sharma, Arjun Singh and Ramesh Kumar Inspectors and that Avtar Singh and Narender Tyagi also joined them and that the team gathered at about 8.30 AM and that Raman Kumar Shukla introduced Avtar Singh, Narender Tyagi and PW3 to the team, read over the complaint Ex.PW 3/A to them and further explained about the verification of the complaint, preparation of verification report and registration of FIR against SI Amarjeet Singh and Ct. Rajender Meena and that Narender Tyagi and Avtar Singh also enquired from CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 42 of 286 43 him (PW3) about the complaint and satisfied themselves about the complaint.
He termed it correct that he had given Rs. 10,000/, in the denomination of five notes of Rs.2000/, and that the said currency notes were to be used as bribe money and that these proceedings were recorded in handing over memo Ex.PW3/D (D
4) and that the distinctive numbers of the notes were also mentioned in the said memo. He stated that he was told by the IO that he was to gather maximum persons, involved in the incident, in the police station and when he told the IO that he was unable to give bribe to all the persons, the IO told him that he could pay one person but would have to gather other persons there. The PW3 also admitted having been explained the procedure wherein demonstration was given to him and other team members regarding use of phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes. He clarified that he was unable to state if the clear solution, which changed colour on dipping in it hands which came in contact with phenolphthalein powder, was of sodium carbonate or if the said solution turned into red or pink. He stated that he only recalled being told that the color of the solution would changed.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 43 of 286 44 He termed it correct that Avtar Singh touched the tainted amount of Rs. 10,000/with his right hand finger and thereafter washed it in the freshly prepared colorless solution which turned pink. The remaining solution was thereafter thrown away and the glass tumbler used in demonstration was kept in the office. He further deposed that Inspector Raman had showed him a bag wherein all the things like bottle, liquid solution, etc. were kept and also told him (PW3) that the members of the team would accompany them. He stated that he was also told to use the recorder as was done earlier on 19.12.2016. He termed it correct that Narender Tyagi had taken his personal search to ensure that nothing was left in his possession except the mobile phone and that Avtar Singh was asked to put Rs. 10,000/, the tainted bribe amount, in the left inner side pocket of his jacket with instructions not to touch the notes again and again and to hand over the money on specific demand and not otherwise to either Amarjeet or Rajender Kumar Meena or Vivek Kumar or Rajesh or to some other person on their instructions. The PW3 expressed his lack of knowledge about the fact that Avtar Singh produced the sealed DVR and the CBI seal. He volunteered to CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 44 of 286 45 state that it was not given in his presence.
He termed it correct that a DVR was shown to him in the CBI office on that day and a new chip/memory card was inserted in the same but he was unable to state if it was inserted in the same DVR which was taken to the spot when the proceeding was conducted or in some other DVR. He was unable to recall whether after that the voices of Avtar Singh and Narinder Tyagi were recorded after ensuring its blankness. He then stated that they might have been recorded on the day before and not on that day.
He termed it correct that on that day all the CBI team members, including him (PW3) and the independent witnesses, washed their hands with soap and water and that both the independent witnesses were directed to remain as close to him (PW3) as far as possible and to try to overhear and see the conversation which would take place between him (PW3) and the persons and to see the transactions of bribe money and thereafter to give signal by giving a missed call on mobile number 9650602485 of Raman Kumar Shukla, Inspector from their mobile phones and by rubbing their faces with both hands after the transaction of bribe money.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 45 of 286 46 He further termed it correct that all the members except him (PW3) mutually searched each other to ensure that they were not carrying anything incriminating and that a leather bag was arranged in which empty clean glass bottles, tumblers, sodium carbonate powder, CBI seal and sealing material were kept in presence of the team members and that a file cover, complaint, verification report, copy of FIR and stationary material for preparing memos were also kept. He was unable to state if Rs. 1,000/ were also kept to meet the incidental expenses. He termed it correct that thereafter all the team members washed their hands with soap and water and left for the spot at about 9.30 AM in two vehicles. He then termed it correct that on the way he received a call from the mobile of Rajender Kumar Meena but did not pick it up and that thereafter the DVR was kept on switched on mode to record the talks / conversations and PW3 was asked to make a call from his mobile on the mobile number 9540811168 of Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena. He volunteered to state that Rajender Kumar Meena did not pick up the call. He was unable to recall if Rajender Kumar Meena had enquired from him about his whereabouts or if he (PW3) informed him that he CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 46 of 286 47 was on the way and reaching and that the said conversation was recorded simultaneously in the DVR.
He termed it correct that after the team reached near Sangam Vihar police station, they parked the vehicles near Batra Hospital and that PW3 and Avtar Singh were asked to go to the P.S. Sangam Vihar and meet the concerned police officials and that he (PW3) was asked to introduce Avtar Singh Sagar as his maternal/paternal uncle so that no one suspected him and that he (PW3) was told that the other independent witness Rajender Tyagi and CBI team officers would follow them in disguise. He termed it correct that he was again directed to hand over the bribe money to the police officials on their specific demand or upon their specific directions to some other person and that thereafter the DVR fitted with the memory card was given to him (PW3) in switch on mode by Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla and that he kept the same in the left side sock and tied it with the help of rubber band. He further termed it correct that he and Avtar Singh entered the P.S. Sangam Vihar and met Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena and that Rajender Kumar Meena enquired from him (PW3) about Avtar Singh CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 47 of 286 48 on which he (PW3) told him that Avtar Singh was his Mama and had to be dropped at Tigri Mor. After that Rajender Kumar Meena told PW3 to first drop him (Avtar Singh) at Tigri Mor. He termed it correct that thereafter he (PW3) and Avtar Singh came out of the Police station and returned to the vehicle and apprised the CBI team of whatever had happened in the police station and also told them that perhaps Rajender Kumar Meena got suspicious as he was looking at his leg when he (PW3) introduced Avtar Singh as his Mama to him. He also told them that Rajender Kumar Meena had asked him (PW3) about his leg and that he (PW3) told him that he had swelling on his leg due to some injury and that after hearing this CBI officials asked him to wait for sometime and also asked him to change the position of DVR and that PW3 kept the DVR in the front pocket of his jacket, after making cut by the side of the pocket, under his shirt where the money was kept. He volunteered to state that he had kept the money in the bag in which he had kept the papers including the photos showing him and the deceased. He denied that the cut was made at the joint of the cap of the jacket. He termed it correct that thereafter he went to the Police station alone while Raman CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 48 of 286 49 Kumar Shukla, independent witness Narender Tyagi and other CBI team officers followed him. He termed it correct that when he reached police station, he did not find Rajender Kumar Meena. The PW3 volunteered to state that he had left the police station. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that he (PW3) met Amarjeet Singh or that he was wearing pink shirt and khaki trouser or that he called him (PW3) in his official room by making gesture or that PW3 followed him to his official room or that he (PW3) waited outside the room while SI Amarjeet Singh went inside his room or that after a while SI Amarjeet Singh came out from his room and inquired why he (PW3) had come to P.S or that PW3 told him that Rajender Kumar Meena had called him in the P.S or that he further inquired from him why Rajender Kumar Meena had called him on which PW3 replied that he (SI Amarjeet) already knows the reason or that then SI Amarjeet Singh told "Das Hazaar ke liye" or that he (PW3) answered in affirmative and told him that he (PW3) would pay the remaining bribe money as decided or that he (PW3) enquired from SI Amarjeet Singh, whom to hand over the bribe money or that he (SI Amarjeet) told him (PW3) CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 49 of 286 50 to wait for a while or that he also enquired about the inquiry conducted by him and the previous IO or that SI Amarjeet gestured him (PW3) to go to room of SI Saurabh and to hand over the bribe money to one Vijay sitting inside the room. The PW3 volunteered to state that he had met some other Sub Inspector, whose name he could not recall, but he used to remain with SI Amarjeet and Ct. Rajender and that said SubInspector had made a gesture and asked him (PW3) to handover the money to Vijay. When PW3 asked who Vijay is, SI then told PW3 that there was only one person whose name was Vijay.
The PW3 termed it correct that he went to the room, confirmed the identity of Vijay, who was sitting alone in the room, but hesitated to hand over the bribe amount to Vijay as PW3 did not know him. The PW3 volunteered to state that there was a Chabutra on which a table was kept where accused was sitting. He termed it correct that Vijay asked him (PW3) as to who had sent him (PW3) to him and also asked PW3 if he had been sent by Rajender Saheb and that PW3 answered in affirmative and handed over money to Vijay and also asked him to inform the person who had told him (accused Vijay) to take money from him (PW3). He (accused Vijay) CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 50 of 286 51 then made a call to someone saying that he had called SI Amarjeet Singh. The PW3 stood by the side of the place where the motorcycle was parked and made gesture by rubbing his face with hands but no one noticed him. Vijay had received money from him by one hand and not by two hands. He termed it correct that he had asked Vijay to count money and that he had counted the money with both his hands. He termed it correct that he (PW3) gave a call to Raman Shukla and that the team also reached there. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that thereafter Vijay locked himself in the room and that during his (PW3's) telephonic call, the door of the room was closed and that TLO knocked at the door which opened after sometime and that TLO and trap team went inside the room and confronted the accused Vijay about the alleged transaction and that he got perplexed and told the trap team that he had thrown the bribe money under the bed lying in the room. The PW3 again volunteered to state that Vijay was standing on the Chabutra and that there was no room. He further stated that accused Vijay was apprehended by the trap team on the chabutra and was thereafter taken to the room by the trap team.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 51 of 286 52 He termed it correct that the DVR was thereafter taken back from him by Raman Kumar Shukla and was switched off. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that Narinder Tyagi was directed to take out the tainted money of Rs. 10,000/ from underneath the bed in the room and that Narinder Tyagi took out the said money and that Avtar Singh Sagar and Narender Tyagi were directed to tally the recovered notes with the denomination of notes mentioned in the handing over memos and that the GC notes tallied in toto. The PW3 again volunteered to state that there was no bed. The PW3 stated that the CBI team apprehended accused Vijay and took him to the other side and that he (PW3) did not know what the CBI team did with accused Vijay thereafter. He stated that the CBI team did not recover the money from Vijay in his presence, however, he had given the money in the hand of accused Vijay. He termed it correct that Raman Kumar Shukla had held the left hand of Vijay while Inspector Ramesh Kumar held his right hand. The PW3 volunteered to state that the team asked him (PW3) to first call Rajender Kumar Meena. He gave a call to Rajender Kumar Meena and asked him where he was and that CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 52 of 286 53 Rajender Kumar Meena told him (PW3) that he was returning from the hospital. He further volunteered to state that when he handed over money to Vijay, neither Rajender Kumar Meena nor Amarjeet Singh were present in the police station and that they both came there on call made by PW3 to them on the instructions of CBI team.
The PW3 further deposed that when Rajender Kumar Meena came to the police station, the CBI team introduced themselves to him and directed Rajender Kumar Meena to make call to SI Amarjeet. First, PW3 made a call to SI Amarjeet and asked him how much time he would take to come to the police station on which SI Amarjeet asked him (PW
3) whether Rajender Kumar Meena was in the PS or not on which PW3 told him that Rajender Kumar Meena was in the PS but requested him (SI Amarjeet) to come to the PS as he (PW3) had to talk to him. On enquiry by him (SI Amarjeet), PW3 told him that he had to ask something from him and also had to hand over the photos and the documents and that he (SI Amarjeet) told him (PW3) that he was coming. Thereafter, Rajender Kumar Meena gave a call to SI Amarjeet. Before Amarjeet came, one vehicle of CBI team had already reached at PS. CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 53 of 286 54 The PW3 was asked by Sh. Shitanshu, member of the CBI team, to stay there and to make a gesture when he (PW3) noticed Amarjeet coming and that CBI team apprehended SI Amarjeet also. The PW3 termed it correct that the CBI team had enquired from the accused Vijay and he told them that he was a private person and that the CBI team then asked him for whom he used to work and that he named 4 5 persons i.e. SI Saurav, Rohit, Rajender Kumar Meena and some more persons. The PW3 denied that Vijay had told the team that he was also known to SI Amarjeet Singh or that he had taken the bribe amount from PW3 on directions of SI Amarjeet and then confirmed it to SI Amarjeet or that when he (accused Vijay) got suspicion, he threw the tainted money underneath the bed or that in the meantime, accused Rajender Kumar Meena also came inside the room and that the TLO introduced himself and briefed him (Rajender Kumar Meena) about the purpose of CBI visit. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that accused Rajender Kumar Meena got perplexed or that he stated that he was not involved in the matter. The PW3 volunteered to state that the team had taken Rajender Kumar Meena inside the room after CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 54 of 286 55 apprehending him from outside and that he had no knowledge about what the team had enquired from Rajender Kumar Meena inside the room.
The PW3 stated that he was not aware if DVR was again switched on in the recording mode. He volunteered to state that DVR was there but he was unable to state if it was on the recording mode or not.
He termed it correct that neither Rajender Kumar Meena nor Amarjeet touched the bribe money. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that in his presence Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared by the CBI team and thereafter one hand (right hand) of the accused Vijay was put in the solution which turned into pink. Similarly, the other hand (left hand) of the accused Vijay was put in the solution which also turned Pink and for this, two separate proceedings were drawn. He volunteered to state that Vijay was taken to the room of the SHO and that he was not aware what the CBI team did in the room of the SHO.
The PW3 denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that the trap money was kept in a brown envelope which was CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 55 of 286 56 sealed with the seal of CBI and was given a marking "Trap Money of Rs. 10,000/ in RC 40(A)/2016/ACB/CBI/DLI" and that the said envelope was signed by both the independent witness and TLO. The PW3 termed it correct that thereafter the search of the official room of SI Amarjeet Singh was conducted in the presence of Avtar Singh and SHO Upender Singh. He volunteered to state that the CBI team had made enquiry from SI Amarjeet Singh whether any case regarding death of Devender was pending inquiry and when he replied in affirmative, he was asked about the status of the said case and that he told that them that they had suspicion over him (PW3). The team again asked whether record had been maintained in this respect. He answered in affirmative. After this PW3 was made to sit in the vehicle. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that a rough site plan showing the position of trap team members and accused persons respectively was prepared at the spot and that the same was signed by Avtar Singh, Narender Tyagi, TLO and other team members and that a rough site plan of the room from where the bribe money was recovered was also prepared and was signed by Avtar Singh Sagar, Narender Tyagi, CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 56 of 286 57 TLO and Inspector Arjun Singh in the presence of PW3.
The PW3 termed it correct that the CBI team left the spot at about 3.20 PM and reached the CBI office alongwith all the accused persons and that after reaching the CBI office, the DVR was played and a rough transcription of the conversation, Ex.PW3/E (D17) was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses as well as PW3. He termed it correct that thereafter the memory card was also taken out from the DVR and was kept in its cover. He volunteered to state that the cover was not sealed in his presence.
He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW 3/B wherein it was recorded that the cover was signed by Avtar Singh, Narender Tyagi and TLO and that it was marked as Q2 and that the cover was again kept in a brown color envelope which was sealed with CBI brass seal and marked as "Q2 RC 40(A)/2016" or that the brown envelope was signed by Avtar Singh, Narender Tyagi and TLO.
The PW3 was not aware if the specimen sample voice of the accused persons were taken vide separate specimen voice recording memo. He volunteered to state that CBI team was talking CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 57 of 286 58 to them. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that the specimen sample voice of accused Amarjeet Singh, Rajender Meena and Vijay were taken, in his presence, vide separate specimen voice recording memo or that the memory card used for recording the specimen voice was marked as SI, SII and SIII or that the memory card was kept in the brown envelope which was signed by Avtar Singh Sagar, Narender Tyagi and TLO. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that the DVR make Sony was used for recording Q 1, Q2 and SI, SII, SIII or that the same was also sealed in a separate brown envelope and was marked as "DVR" or that the envelope was signed by Avtar Singh Sagar, Narender Tyagi and TLO. He volunteered to state that the DVR was kept in an envelope in his presence but was not sealed in his presence.
The PW3 termed it correct that all the accused persons were arrested in his presence by the TLO and that their arrest memoscumpersonal search memos were prepared. He further termed it correct that the envelope containing the recovered bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/, Q2, SI, SII and SIII and CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 58 of 286 59 the DVR was taken into possession. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW3/B wherein it was recorded that after completing the proceedings, the TLO handed over the seal to Avtar Singh Sagar for safe custody with direction to produce the same as and when asked from him. He volunteered to state that a brown color long rod was given to the witness by the TLO and that he was directed to keep it with him and to produce as and when required.
The PW3 identified his signatures on Ex.PW 3/F (colly) (D5) i.e. recovery memorandum in RC.40(A)/2016DLI ; Ex.PW3/G (colly) (D19) i.e. transcription cum voice identification memo in case no. RC.DA12016A0040 dated 16.02.2017 and Ex.PW4/D (part of D25) i.e. photocopy of the Customer Information Form of Vodafone mobile no. 9873973998, in the name of his sister Neha Jha.
During his further examination, the PW3 termed it correct that on 19.12.2016, Avtar Singh Sagar (not Narender Tyagi) had gone with him. He termed it correct that in his complaint Ex.PW3/A, he never alleged that SI Vivek and SI Rajesh had taken bribe from him at any point of time. He volunteered to state that when he had gone to the CBI office to make complaint Ex.PW3/A, he CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 59 of 286 60 had told the officer that SI Vivek and SI Rajesh had been demanding money from him to pay to SI Amarjeet. The officer then asked him (PW3) about the present IO and when PW3 told the officer that SI Amarjeet was the present IO, they asked him who would get the money. The PW3 told him that he was unable to state anything. He then asked PW3 with whom the money would go and PW3 told him that they were saying that the money would go to SI Amarjeet. The officer then asked PW3 to give complaint against SI Amarjeet and told him that during the proceedings they would take action against the other officials. The PW3 denied that the statement Ex.PW3/A was the true statement regarding the incident that happened and the proceedings conducted on 19.12.2016 and 20.12.2016.
During further examination the PW3 was put recordings in the various memory cards by playing the same in the court on the laptop brought by the IO. The witness deposed as under qua the recordings.
CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 60 of 286 61 TABLE S Memor Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No y Card No. person/ object No. No. whose voice was identified 1 Taken 161219 015 Introductory Portion A to A of Ex. out from voice of Avtar PW3/G 1603 seconds envelop Singh Sagar e P2 and P3 2 Taken 161219 01.04 Only self voice Portion B to B, B1 to out from identified. Not B1, B2 to B2, B3 to 1606 minutes envelop sure if other B3, B4 to B4, B5 to e P2 voice was of B5, B6 to B6, B7 to and P3 Rajender or B7, B8 to B8, B9 to Rajesh B9 and B10 to B10 of the transcript Ex. PW 3/G of self voice identified. 3 Taken 161219 049 appears to be out from of movement of 1844 seconds envelop vehicles. e P2 and P3 4 Taken 161219 10.40 noises of out from vehicles 1845 minutes envelop and e P2 voices of talks and P3 between self (PW3) and his friends Salim and Saddam. 5 Taken 161219 10.40 Self voice and His own voice is out from that of from portion B11 to 1845 11.01 envelop Amarjeet B11, B12 to B12, B13 e P2 minutes identified to B13, B14 to B14 and P3 and B15 to B15 and voice of Amarjeet CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 61 of 286 62 S Memor Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No y Card No. person/ object No. No. whose voice was identified from portion C1 to C1, C2 to C2 and C3 to C3 of the transcript Ex. PW 3/G. 6 Taken 161219 from Self voice and Portion marked D1 to out from that of D1 and D2 to D2 of 1845 11.01 envelop Amarjeet Ex. PW3/G e P2 11.13 identified and P3 Further voice minutes thane mae aa ja, abe room mae bula rahe honge identified to be of his friend Saddam. 7 Taken 161219 01.28.09 . Duration from out from 1845 hrs. 11.13 to 12.03 envelop minutes PW3 e P2 identified his and P3 own voice and voice of Saddam and Salim. . Duration from 12.03 to 14.15 minutes, voice of accused Rajender and witness himself. . Duration from 32.02 to 32.30 minutes voices were not CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 62 of 286 63 S Memor Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No y Card No. person/ object No. No. whose voice was identified identified by witness. . Duration from 32.30 to 33.05 minutes voice of self and one tall man whose name PW3 did not know. . Duration from 33.05 to 35.05 minutes voice of one person whose name witness did not recall. . Duration from 35.05 to 36.13 minutes voice not identified. . Duration from 36.13 to 42.41 minutes voice of self, some other person and Saddam. . Duration from 46.48 to 47.22 minutes only name of Rajender identified in the conversation. . Duration from Pages 6 to 8 of 50.38 to 57.02 transcript Ex.PW CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 63 of 286 64 S Memor Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No y Card No. person/ object No. No. whose voice was identified minutes voice 3/G. of self talking to someone whose name could not be recollected by the witness. . Duration from Pages 8 to 13 of 57.02 to transcript Ex.PW 1.04.48 3/G. minutes voice of self talking to tall person. 8 Taken 161219 1.28.09 Duration from PW3 stated that he out from 1845 hrs. 1.04.48 to was talking about the envelop 1.09.49 voice case pending against e P2 of self talking to him in the and P3 a tall man and conversation two more persons whose name PW3 did not know. Duration from PW3 admitted that 1.09.49 to he was seeking three 1.10.57 voice days time to make
of self talking to payment relating to a tall man. bribe and had also stated that he would make payment of three lacs by 22nd and Rs.10,000/ by next day. He further stated that he was CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 64 of 286 65 S Memor Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No y Card No. person/ object No. No. whose voice was identified facing difficulty in arranging money.
____________ _________________
During from As per transcript
1.10.57 to Ex.PW3/G
1.11.35
conversation
between three
out of five
persons.
____________ _________________
Duration from Correct as per pages
1.11.35 to 17 to 19 of transcript
1.21.00 voice Ex.PW3/G.
not identified.
9 P4 161220 11 Introductory
voice of Avtar
0922 seconds
Singh Sagar
10 P4 161220 11 Introductory
voice of
092201 seconds
Narender
Kumar Tyagi
11 P4 161220 9 seconds Ring tone of
service
1020
provider
12 P4 161220 46 Self talking to As per transcript
accused
1021 seconds
Rajender
13 P4 161220 1.01.49 Duration from Portion A to A of
5.22 to few transcript Ex.PW3/G
1041 hrs.
minutes after it (starting from page
self talking to 20)
accused
Rajender.
CC No. 52/2019
CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 65 of 286
66
S Memor Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit
No y Card No. person/ object No.
No. whose voice
was identified
Duration from Portion B to B of
38.00 and few transcript Ex.PW3/G
seconds (Page 22).
thereafter voice
not identified.
Duration from
40.00 and few
seconds
thereafter - self
talking to tall
man.
____________ _________________
Duration from Portion C to C of
40.40 to 43.06 transcript Ex.PW3/G
- self talking to (Page 21 - 22)
tall man.
____________ _________________
Duration from
43.06 to 46.20 Portion D to D of
- self talking to transcript Ex.PW3/G tall man. (Page 23) witness admitted that name of accused Vijay, to whom he had given money, came up in the conversation.
____________ ________________
Duration from Witness denied that
46.21 to 46.43 door was of the room
- self knocking where accused Vijay
on the door was sitting.
_________________
Duration from Portion E to E of
46.44 to 49.37 transcript Ex.PW3/G
- voice of self (Pages 2325).
talking to
CC No. 52/2019
CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 66 of 286
67
S Memor Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit
No y Card No. person/ object No.
No. whose voice
was identified
accused Vijay
14 P4 161220 Self talking to Portion F to F of
transcript Ex.PW
1144 someone
3/G.
whom witness
failed to identify
The PW3 denied that the tall man, whose voice he had identified in some of the conversations heard by him, was of SI Amarjeet Singh/A1. He further denied that the other policeman to whom he was speaking to was Constable Rajender Kumar Meena/A2.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh /A1, the PW3 termed it correct that SI Rajesh and SI Vivek had been handling the inquest proceedings with regard to the death of Devender since the very beginning and that they both used to ask him (PW3) to pay the bribe and threatened that if he failed to do so, they would implicate him in the case of death of Devender and that his whole life would be spent behind the bars. He further deposed that he had gone to CBI office two days prior to 19.12.2016 CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 67 of 286 68 i.e. on 17.12.2016 with a complaint against SI Rajesh and SI Vivek stating therein that those two officers had been demanding bribe from him (PW3) and were threatening to implicate him in the inquest with regard to the death of Devender in case he failed to meet their demand. He termed it correct that he had asked the person at the reception counter as to where he should go to lodge a complaint for anti corruption activity. He was asked to go to the adjoining room where he met a person and narrated to him about his complaint against SI Rajesh and SI Vivek and that the said person told him (PW3) that he was late and that his matter required investigation which would take a lot of time and so he (PW3) was asked to come on 19.12.2016 as 18.12.2016 was Sunday. He termed it correct that he took the complaint which he had taken on 17.12.2016 with him again on 19.12.2016. On that day he was told by the officer/person that they would verify the facts independently. He was also taken to one lady Superintendent of police (CBI) who asked him (PW3) to give her the details of the complaint which he had taken and that she listened to his complaint for about 30 to 45 minutes and thereafter introduced him (PW3) to another CBI officer. The CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 68 of 286 69 said officer asked PW3 to write down his complaint on a piece of paper and that he (PW3) told him that he had already brought a written complaint and gave the said complaint, running into four pages, to that officer. Upon this, the officer asked him (PW3), not to write all the details and to mention the relevant brief facts in his complaint. The PW3 was further asked by the officer as to who was investigating the inquest of the death of Devender upon which he (PW3) told him that the matter was being investigated by SI Rajesh and SI Vivek. Thereupon the officer asked him (PW3) as to who was handling the inquest at present on which PW3 told him that perhaps the investigation was now with SI Amarjeet. The officer then told him (PW3) to give the complaint against the present IO as SI Rajesh and SI Vivek were no more incharge of the investigation of that case. He further asked him (PW3) if SI Amarjeet had asked for money from him (PW3) which was replied to in negative by him. He clarified that demand of money was made by SI Rajesh and SI Vivek. The PW3 then asked the officer as to what he should write in CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 69 of 286 70 the complaint, upon which he (officer) told him (PW3) to write the complaint of his own but in the name of the present IO and Ct. Rajender. The PW3 volunteered to state that SI Rajesh and SI Vivek used to demand money from him in the name of present IO SI Amarjeet Singh. He further deposed that when he was asked to pay the bribe money by SI Rajesh and SI Vivek, he (PW
3) told SI Amarjeet (IO) that SI Rajesh and SI Vivek had been asking money from him in his name (in the name of SI Amarjeet), upon which SI Amarjeet asked him (PW3), if he had given any money to them. When the PW3 answered in affirmative, SI Amarjeet told him (PW3) not to pay a single penny to anyone as he had never ever demanded any money. SI Amarjeet also told him (PW3) that if he was at fault, no one would be able to save him (PW3) but in case he was innocent, no harm would be caused to him.
The PW3 further deposed that SI Rajesh and SI Vivek had taken money from him once in the name of SI Amarjeet Singh and that he had told about it to SI Amarjeet but he did not tell him the amount. He asked him (PW3) not to pay money to CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 70 of 286 71 anyone and told him that the law would take its own course. He further deposed that SI Rajesh and SI Vivek used to beat him (PW3) and his father in the police station and asked them to pay bribe of Rs.3.5 lacs and that earlier they had demanded Rs.10 lacs from them and threatened him (PW3) that he would otherwise be implicated in the inquest of death of Devender. He then deposed that he had paid SI Rajesh and SI Vivek Rs. 54,000/ once and Rs. 30,000/ on another occasion when they were handling the investigation. He further deposed that Mr. Narender Tyagi (independent witness) had gone with him (PW
3) on 19.12.2016 i.e. the day when verification of his complaint was done. He again clarified that SI Amarjeet had never demanded money from him directly. He termed it correct that when he told SI Amarjeet that they had demanded money in his name, he scolded him (PW3) and told him not to pay money to anyone as he had never demanded any money from him (PW3).
The PW3 further deposed that he had not checked the DVR i.e. whether it was blank or not, when it was shown to him, and that the memory card CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 71 of 286 72 was probably of 8 GB. He further deposed that he had initially gone to CBI to make complaint against SI Vivek and SI Rajesh but was asked to make complaint against SI Amarjeet and Ct. Rajender and that when he (PW3) enquired from the Inspector CBI what would happen to SI Vivek and SI Rajesh, he was told that during investigation, he (Inspector CBI) would see what evidence came against SI Vivek and SI Rajesh and thereafter he would take action.
During his further crossexamination, the PW3 deposed that he was searched by the CBI. He was unable to state if other officers had given their search to each other. He explained that he was busy in his own search. He further deposed that CBI Inspector did not interrogate the accused SI Amarjeet in his presence. He volunteered to state that he was sitting in the vehicle. He then deposed that he had signed various documents in the CBI office but was not aware of their contents. He termed it correct that he had identified the documents on the basis of his signatures thereupon and not from their contents. He further deposed that he had taken the photographs, which were clear, and CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 72 of 286 73 some documents to the police station on 20.12.2016 in a carry bag. He denied the suggestion that he had not been given any DVR or that no recording was done therein.
During his further crossexamination, the PW3 deposed that he had not been called to the PS Sangam Vihar with regard to the inquest of deceased Devender after 20.12.2016 till date (date when PW3 appeared to depose in the Court). He denied the suggestion that he never wanted to participate in the inquest proceedings or that to achieve this purpose, he had made false complaint to the CBI against the officials of Delhi Police so that he (PW3) may not be called to join the investigation qua the death of the deceased Devender. He volunteered to state that though he was not called to the P.S.Sangam Vihar, he had been called to DIU, C.R. Park regarding the case pertaining to death of deceased Devender. He termed it correct that he had stated in his statement that he had told Vijay not to call SI Amarjeet as he would get annoyed as he was not at all concerned with the incident of 20.12.2016. He denied the suggestion that he (PW3) was made to sign blank papers by the CBI or due to this reason he had stated that he was not CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 73 of 286 74 aware of the contents of the same.
The accused Rajender Meena/A2 adopted the crossexamination of the witness conducted on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and also cross examined the witness further.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajender Meena/A2, the PW3 deposed that he had already met Rajender Meena and Amarjeet and he met Vijay for the first time on 20.12.2016. He further deposed that the day he met Vijay, he did not meet Rajender Meena and Amarjeet and that he did not know the name of the tall man whom he had met on that day. He further deposed that he got perplexed and hence he told Vijay that he was sent by Amarjeet and Rajender Meena as he (PW3) knew their names. The PW3 denied the suggestion that Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla was his neighbour or that he (PW3) knew him from before. The PW3 admitted that one case of theft was pending against him at Faridabad. He clarified that there was no other case pending against him. He denied that a case of impersonation as CBI official had been registered against him in Faridabad or that he had forged I card of CBI, with the help of Mr. Raman Kumar Shukla CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 74 of 286 75 (TLO of the present case), or that the same had been recovered from him (PW3).
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Vijay/A3, the PW3 termed it correct that he had never met accused Vijay prior to 20.12.2016. He further deposed that when he met Vijay he had shook hand with him. He termed it correct that he had handed over carry bag, in which he had taken the documents, to Vijay. He denied the suggestion that accused Vijay did not know what was in the bag. The PW3 volunteered to state that he had told the accused Vijay that there was money in the bag. He termed it correct that Vijay had never demanded money from him (PW3) and was not aware what PW3 had taken in the carry bag which he (PW3) handed over to him (Vijay). He further termed it correct that Vijay never promised to show him (PW3) any favour in inquest case either himself or through any police officer and that he (PW3) was aware that Vijay was not a police officer and hence he could not have shown any favour to him (PW3) in his inquest case.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 75 of 286 76 At this stage, the witness was reexamined by the learned PP CBI. During the said reexamination, the PW3 was asked to clarify which of the two independent witnesses had gone with him on 19.12.2016 since earlier he had stated that on 19.12.2016 Narender Kumar Tyagi had gone for the verification of his complaint as independent witness and later he (PW3) stated that Avtar Singh Sagar had gone for verification and thereafter he again said that Narender Tyagi had gone for verification. The PW3 stated that he could recognized that person by face but was unable to state with certainty whether it was Narender Tyagi or Avtar Singh Sagar.
The PW3 was then asked to clarify on what basis he had stated that he had put his signature on the documents without going through its contents since earlier he had identified the documents and thereafter the documents were exhibited as Ex.PW3/C (verification report), Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G. The PW3 responded by stating that he was asked to read the documents before signing and that he was also explained that the documents were in respect of the complaints made by him and then he signed the said documents. He denied the suggestion that he had CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 76 of 286 77 read and understood all the documents and signed the same thereafter.
He further clarified that Vijay had shaken his hand with him (PW3) and thereafter he had handed over the bag containing documents to him (Vijay). The witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons after his re examination by learned PP CBI.
Subsequently an application under Section 311 CrPC was filed on behalf of CBI for recalling PW3 for further examination. The said application was allowed vide order dated 25.07.2018. During his further examination, the PW3 was shown case property i.e. five currency notes, Ex.P5/1 to Ex.P 5/5, in denomination of Rs.2000/ each. The PW3 identified the notes and stated that they were the same currency notes which were handed over by him to CBI. He also identified the envelope of said currency notes as Ex.P6.
During his crossexamination on behalf of all the three accused persons, the PW3 deposed that he had taken to the CBI office Rs. 10,000/ of Rs. 20/ denomination but since the notes were voluminous, CBI official suggested to get the notes converted into the denomination of Rs. 2000/. He CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 77 of 286 78 further deposed that he gave money to the CBI official who got converted the notes of small denomination into the notes of Rs. 2000/ denomination. He denied the suggestion that he had not taken any money to CBI office or that the same were planted by the CBI to implicate the accused persons.
At this stage, clarifications were taken from the witness by way of Court question whether he had taken the notes of Rs.2000/ denomination or had given the notes of Rs. 20/ denomination which CBI official got converted into the notes of Rs. 2000/ denomination. The PW3 stated that he had taken Rs. 10000/ which were in denomination of Rs. 20/ which the CBI official got converted into the 5 notes of Rs. 2000/ denomination.
During his crossexamination by learned PP CBI, the PW3 denied that he had stated the factum of arranging of notes of Rs. 2000/ denomination by CBI as an afterthought.
The witness was not crossexamined further on behalf of all the accused persons.
12.4 The PW4, Shri Saurabh Agarwal, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. produced the original CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 78 of 286 79 record pertaining to mobile phone numbers 9873973998 and 9711422233, for the period from 19.12.2016 to 20.12.2016, pursuant to letter, Ex.PW 4/A, dated 06.01.2017 received from Inspr. N.C. Nawal, CBI. He also produced certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the said record.
He deposed that mobile phone number
9873973998 was in the name of Neha Jha. He
proved the CDR of the said mobile phone w.e.f. 19.12.2016 to 20.12.2016 as Ex.PW4/B ; certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/C and the certified copy of Customer Application Form as Ex.PW4/D (2 Pages). He stated that the customer had submitted photocopy of her Adhar Card for issuance of the connection.
The PW4 further deposed that mobile phone number 9711422233 was in the name of Amit Kumar and proved the CDR of the said mobile phone w.e.f. 19.12.2016 to 20.12.2016 as Ex.PW4/E ; certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/F and the certified copy of Customer Application Form as Ex.PW4/G (colly) (5 Pages). He stated that the customer had submitted photocopy of his PAN Card, driving licence, company ID Card and Tariff enrollment form at the time when he applied for the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 79 of 286 80 connection.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, the PW4 deposed that there was standard language of the certificate u/s 65 of the Evidence Act. He then deposed that in the certificate issued by him, he had used the same language but changed the mobile number and that they had taken the information from the server using an individual computer and that they had company authorized application through which they could get the details (CDR). He was not aware if the computer as well as the server were being maintained periodically. He explained that it was the IT team which looked after the maintenance of the server as well as the computer. He termed it correct that their computers, including his computer, were being maintained by the IT department. He volunteered to state that it was done in the presence of owner/custodian.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajender Meena (A2) and Vijay (A3), the PW4 deposed that CBI did not ask him to produce any document to ascertain if he was authorized to give the call details record and to issue certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act. He termed it correct that he CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 80 of 286 81 himself also did not give such document. He then deposed that he was not in possession of the letter received by him from the CBI office.
12.5 The PW5, Sh. Amit Kumar, deposed that he was subscriber of mobile phone number 9711422233 which was allotted to him by the Vodafone Mobile Services. He identified his signatures on the application form Ex.PW4/G but stated that the photo thereupon was not of him nor had he signed on the photograph and that even the application form was not in his handwriting. He further deposed that he was not aware of the person whose photograph had been affixed on the application form. He then deposed that some agent had come to him at his office for corporate connection and had taken his signatures on the application form and that he had handed over the copy of his PAN Card No. BKBPK0249K, copy of the driving license, issued to him on 01.04.2004, and copy of HDFC Standard Life Identity Card and that he had signed all these documents for the purpose of selfattestation. He stated that he did not know any person by the name of Amarjeet Singh and was also not aware if one Amarjeet Singh was CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 81 of 286 82 working as SubInspector in Delhi Police and posted at Sangam Vihar Police Station or that he had been living at Devli Extension. He further deposed that the phone used to remain with him and that he never handed over the same to anyone for use and that he used to pay the bills of the above connection.
Since the witness did not depose as per the case of the prosecution, he was crossexamined by the learned PP for CBI.
During his crossexamination by learned PP for CBI, the PW5 termed it correct that he was interrogated by CBI in the present case and that he had gone to the CBI office and that CBI had made enquiry from him. He denied the suggestion that in his statement Ex.PW5/A made to the IO he had stated that Amarjeet Singh, who had been working as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and was posted at PS Sangam Vihar and was living at Devli Extension, was his childhood and that he had family relations with him. He, however, termed it correct that he had three mobile connections under corporate plan. His other mobile phone numbers were 9711399850 and 9953510122 and that his brother Puneet Kasana was using number 9953510122 while the other CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 82 of 286 83 number 9711399850 was being used by him. The witness also stated that he had brought his mobile phone in which he had put both the sims.
At this stage, the witness was asked to open his mobile phone while the Naib Court was directed to dial both the numbers. It was found that the mobile phone brought by the witness contained both the SIMs of the numbers 9711422233 and 9711399850.
He denied the suggestion that he had given the SIM number 9711422233 to Amarjeet Singh since the day it was allotted or that he (Amarjeet) had been using it or that the bill in respect of the said number used to be paid by Amarjeet Singh. He denied the suggestion that he had received back the SIM No. 9711422233 from Amarjeet Singh after the registration of the present case to save him.
This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity.
12.6 The PW6, Shri Deepak Kanda, Nodal Officer from Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd., produced the original record pertaining to mobile phone number 7982469604, for the period from 19.12.2016 to 20.12.2016, pursuant to letter dated 01.02.2017 CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 83 of 286 84 received from CBI.
He deposed that mobile phone number 7982469604 was issued in the name of Vijay S/o Radhey Shyam R/o Gali no. 3, Kirari Suleman Nagar, North West Delhi on 17.10.2016. He proved the certificate u/s. 65B (4)(c) of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW6/A; certified copy of Customer Application Form as Ex.PW6/B; CDR of the mobile phone as Ex.PW6/C and the Cell ID Chart as Ex.PW6/D. He further deposed that mobile phone number 7011804026 was issued in the name of Abhishek Tiwari S/o Shambhu Nath Tiwari 150B, Street No. 12, BlockG, Sangam Vihar, Delhi, on 22.02.2016. He proved the certificate u/s. 65B (4)(c) of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW6/E; certified copy of Customer Application Form as Ex.PW6/F (colly); CDR of the mobile phone as Ex.PW6/G and the Cell ID Chart as Ex.PW6/H. He also proved the covering letters sent to the CBI, forwarding the record, as Ex.PW6/I and Ex.PW6/J respectively.
He further deposed that on analysis of the call details in respect of mobile No. 7982469604, he could state that a call was made on mobile no. 9711422233 at 11.30.29 on 20.12.2016 for about 17 CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 84 of 286 85 seconds and that similarly a call was received from mobile no. 9711422233 at about 11.32.13 on 20.12.2016 for about 8 seconds and that as per the Cell ID Chart the mobile was near Tigri Extension site. He further deposed that on analysis of the call details in respect of mobile no. 7011804026, no call was made or received from the nos. 7982469604, 9873973998 and 954081168.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh (A1), the PW5 deposed that CBI had made inquiry from him several times and that his statement was recorded only once by CBI in his office. He further deposed that when he remained on leave, his counter part Mr. Yatin Chawla, Nodal Officer, looked after his work and vice versa he looked after the work of Mr Yatin Chawla if he was on leave. He termed it correct that the company took care of the maintenance of the computers on which they worked. He was not aware whether the company had given AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) of the computers. He termed it correct that sometimes some parts of the computer went out of order and were required to be repaired. He denied the suggestion that he was not authorised by the service provider to give the CDR and the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 85 of 286 86 certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to the CBI.
12.7 The PW7, Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer from IDEA Cellular Ltd., produced the original record pertaining to mobile phone number 9540811168, for the period from 19.12.2016 to 20.12.2016, copies of which were given by him to Inspector N.C. Nawal vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He deposed that mobile phone number 9540811168 was in the name of Rajendra s/o Shri M.M. Meena, r/o 7/3/4/45, Gali No.7/1 to 7/3, Shakti Vihar, Delhi80, and that the customer had submitted copy of his election card with the customer application form. He proved the Customer Application Form and the copy of election card as Ex.PW7/B (2 pages) ; certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW7/C and CDR of the mobile phone as Ex.PW7/D. He further deposed that on analysis of call details of mobile No. 9540811168, it was found that there was an incoming call from mobile no. 9873973998 at 16.07.27 on 19.12.2016 for about 55 seconds and that similarly, there was an incoming call from mobile no. 9873973998 at 10.22.22 on CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 86 of 286 87 20.12.2016 for about 21 seconds. He further deposed that there was a call made on mobile number 9711422233 at 11.38.12 on 20.12.2016 for 07 seconds and that a similar call was made on mobile number 9711422233 at 11.49.44 on 20.12.2016 for 09 seconds and that no record was reflected with regard to missed calls in the call details record.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, the PW7 deposed that CBI had made inquiry from him several times and that his statement was recorded in his office by Inspr. N.C. Nawal during investigation. He further deposed that when he remained on leave, his counter part Shri Sukhbir Singh, Nodal Officer, looked after his work and vice versa he looked after the work of Shri Sukhbir Singh if he was on leave. He termed it correct that the company took care of the maintenance of the computers on which they worked. He termed it correct that sometimes some parts of the computer went out of order and were required to be repaired. He denied the suggestion that he was not authorised by the service provider to give the CDR and the certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to the CBI. He stated that since CBI CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 87 of 286 88 did not ask him for any document in respect of his authorization, he had not handed over the same to CBI nor produced the same. He further deposed that the range of the tower on the highways and open areas was from 0 to 2.5 km and that it depended on the location of the tower. He was not aware about the range of the tower of the information provided by him.
12.8 The PW8, Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar, is one of the independent witnesses to the pretrap verification proceedings conducted on 19.12.2016 and the trap proceedings dated 20.12.2016 and the subsequent investigations conducted by the CBI. He deposed that at 9:30 AM on 19.12.2016, as per directions issued by their DGM Vigilance on 16.12.2016, he and his colleague Mr. Tyagi reached CBI Office and met the DO. At 02:30 PM, DO asked them to meet Inspector Ramesh Kumar who then introduced them to Rahul Kumar and told them that they were to join trap proceeding. At about 04:30 PM, Inspr. Ramesh Kumar formed a team and they were asked to go to the spot immediately. He further deposed that in the meantime, Rahul received a call on his mobile from someone and that Rahul said that the time had been CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 88 of 286 89 fixed for 07:00 PM and that at about 06:30 / 06:45 PM they left CBI Office in an official vehicle. He then deposed that before leaving the office of CBI, Inspector Ramesh Kumar had recorded their voice on the DVR and that they put the DVR and SD Card on the foot of Rahul. They reached Sangam Vihar and parked the vehicle. The PW8 further deposed that he went with Rahul to Police Station Sangam Vihar but kept standing outside the Police Station while Rahul went inside. He further deposed that at about 08:00 PM Rahul came out from the PS and that thereafter they returned to the vehicle and sat in it and came to CBI Office where they conducted the proceedings, prepared the memos and took their signatures on various memos. The SD Card was taken out from the DVR and they were made to hear what was recorded in the DVR. He further deposed that in the office, before leaving for the raid, while introducing them to Rahul, they had told them that there was some case and that Rahul also told him (PW8) that there was some case against him which was going to be finalized and in that connection money was being demanded from him and that CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 89 of 286 90 Rahul and CBI officials were telling him (PW8) the name of a Constable but he was unable to recall his name.
He further deposed that he was told about the letter / complaint and that Ex.PW3/A was the same letter / complaint which was given by Rahul in the CBI office. He further proved the verification report prepared by CBI as Ex.PW3/C by identifying his signatures thereupon. He further proved the DVR as Ex.P1 and the memory card, which was inserted in it, as Ex. P2. When the memory card was played in the Court, the witness identified his own voice and proved the transcript thereof from point "A" to "A" on Ex. PW3/G (Colly).
He further deposed that when they returned to the jeep from the PS, Rahul removed the DVR from his leg and gave it to the Inspector. He then deposed that on the way from PS to the jeep, Rahul told him (PW8) that he (Rahul) had talked to someone but he (PW8) was unable to recall his name and that he even was unable to state to whom Rahul had talked at the PS. He then improved himself and stated that he (Rahul) had told him (PW8) that he had talked to a CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 90 of 286 91 Constable. He further deposed that Rahul told him (PW8) that he had been called on the next day to the PS at about 10:00 AM and that he had also told him (PW8) that they had taken Rs. 30,000/ from him and that they were asking for further Rs. 10,000/ which he had to pay on the next day.
He further deposed that the proceedings were conducted in the office till 09:00 PM and thereafter, he was discharged. Before leaving the CBI office, he was directed to come on the next day at 08:00 AM. In the office of CBI, recordings from the DVR were heard and after removing the memory card, DVR as well as memory card were sealed and seized. Seal after use was handed over to him and that except for the said seal nothing else was given to him by the CBI official.
The PW8 further deposed that on 20.12.2016, he reached CBI office at 8:00 AM as directed. Again his voice was recorded in the SD Card which was blank. He did not take the seal with him when he went to CBI office on 20.12.2016 since he was asked on 19.12.2016 to keep the seal with him and that the said seal was in his office till date CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 91 of 286 92 (the date when witness appeared to depose in the Court).
During the course of recording of statement of PW8, memory card Ex.P4 was played in the Court. After the witness identified his voice recorded therein, he was shown transcript Ex.PW3/G and identified his signatures from pages 2 to 19 thereupon.
The PW8 further deposed that on 20.12.2016, when he went to CBI office, he met Inspector Ramesh, Kamal Singh, Shitanshu and Arjun Singh and that Rahul was also there. They were given demonstration by applying some powder on the notes and when PW8 was made to wash his hands the solution became pink. They put notes in the pocket of Rahul. There were five notes of Rs. 2,000/ denomination. The witness was shown currency notes Ex.P5/1 to Ex.PW5/5, in denomination of Rs.2000/ each, and identified them to be the same currency notes which were used by the CBI. He also identified his signatures on the envelope Ex.P6 containing the currency notes.
At this stage, a Court observation was made that there was no description in the memo and the statement of the witness about the seal on the said CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 92 of 286 93 envelope. However, there was specimen impression on the recovery memo Ex. PW3/F (D5).
During his further examination, the PW8 deposed that he was told that they have to leave for the trapping and thereafter, they left the CBI Office in a vehicle which was parked on the road near the bus stand Sangam Vihar. He (PW8) and Rahul got down from the vehicle and went towards the PS. DVR and that the notes were kept in the left pocket of jacket of Rahul. The DVR at that time was in "On"condition. They both entered the PS. Rahul was ahead of PW8 at a distance of about 15 ft. The PW 8 saw Rahul meeting a constable, who was identified by the witness as accused Rajender Kumar in the Court, and that after meeting constable, Rahul returned back to PW8, who asked him what had happened. Rahul told PW8 that the Constable had inquired from him about PW8 and when Rahul told him that he (PW8) was his mama, the said Constable told him (Rahul) to drop PW8 at Tigri More. The PW8 and Rahul then came out of the PS. The PW8 came to the vehicle and met the Inspector, who told him not to remain there and go somewhere else and so PW8 sat down in a park and that he was not aware what happened CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 93 of 286 94 thereafter. He further deposed that the money which Rahul had kept in his pocket was brought by Rahul himself.
The PW8 further deposed that at about 11:00 AM / 11:30 AM he received a call from someone and was asked to come to the PS Sangam Vihar. When he went to PS Sangam Vihar, he met his colleague Narender Tyagi and CBI officers. One more person namely Vijay, who was identified by PW8 in the Court, was there in the cabin. Said Vijay was a boy who was studying in 11th / 12th class and was weeping. The CBI team got hands of the accused Vijay washed and the contents were taken in four bottles which were thereafter sealed and seized and that PW8 signed thereupon.
At this stage, case property was produced in the Court and the witness identified his signature on the slips which were pasted on the bottles Ex. P7/1 and Ex. P7/2 respectively.
The PW8 further deposed that CBI Inspector collected the papers from the PS which included the attendance record of the accused persons. All of the team members came to the vehicle with Ct. Rajender and Vijay. Accused Amarjeet was also present in the PS. The PW8 was told by CBI team CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 94 of 286 95 that they have arrested the accused Amarjeet and were taking him CBI Office. Thereafter, they came to CBI Office where CBI team conducted proceedings during which they prepared recovery memos, arrest memos and many more papers on which PW8 signed. The witness correctly identified his signatures on Handing over memo Ex. PW3/D (D4); recovery memo Ex.PW3/F (D5); office search memo Ex.PW1/5 (D12); rough transcription of Q2 dated 20.12.2016 Ex.PW3/E (D17) and rough site plans Ex.PW8/2 (D6) and Ex.PW8/3 (D7) (of the room). He also identified his signatures on arrest cum personal search memos of accused Amarjeet Singh, Rajender Kumar Meena and Vijay, i.e. on Ex.PW8/4 (D8), Ex.PW8/5 (D9) and Ex.PW8/6 (D10), respectively and the specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW8/7 (D18).
The PW8 further deposed that in the CBI Office recording of his voice and that of the accused persons were made.
The witness also identified his signatures on first envelope Ex.P8, second envelope Ex.P9 and third envelope Ex.P10 which contained SD Card enclosure Ex.P11 and SD Card Ex.P12.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 95 of 286 96 At this stage, the SD Card Ex.P12 was played on the laptop in the Court.
Sr.No. Voice recording File number Person whose voice
number was identified by PW8
1 1st 1612202148 Narender Tyagi
nd
2 2 1612202149 Self (PW8)
3 3rd 1612202150 Not identified
4 4th 1612202151 Narender Tyagi
5 5th 1612202152 Self (PW8)
6 6th 1612202152 Narender Tyagi
01
7 7th 1612202153 Self (PW8)
8 8th 1612202154 Not identified
9 9th 1612202154 Narender Tyagi
01
10 10th 1612202155 Self (PW8)
11 11th 1612202156 Narender Tyagi
12 12th 1612202156 Self (PW8)
01
13 13th 1612202158 Rahul
14 14th 1612202158 Narender Tyagi
01
15 15th 1612202159 Self (PW8)
When the 13th recording was played again, the witness identified the voice recorded therein to be that of accused Vijay and confirmed it again in response to Court question put to him in this regard. When his explanation was sought, by way of further CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 96 of 286 97 Court question, the witness stated that though he felt that voice was of Rahul but after listening to voice again he could confirm that it was of Vijay.
During his further examination, the PW8 stated that Rahul did not name any other person except those whose names were mentioned in the complaint. On being shown pages 20 to 25 (Q2 dated 20.12.2016) of transcript Ex.PW3/G the witness identified his signatures thereupon. He further deposed that Rahul had stated that there was a demand of Rs.3.5 lacs out of which he had paid Rs.30,000/ but he did not tell PW8 who was demanding and to whom he (Rahul) had paid Rs.30,000/.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajender Meena/A2, the PW8 admitted that there was no endorsement on letter Ex.PW 8/DA whereby he was instructed by DGM Vigilance, to go to CBI office on 19.12.2016. Though PW8 stated that he was witness in one more CBI case, he denied that he was a stock witness of CBI. He further deposed that Mr. Tyagi was not with him during the proceedings conducted on 19.12.2016 and though he (Mr. Tyagi) was in CBI office earlier, when they returned to CBI office after the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 97 of 286 98 proceedings on 19.12.2016, Mr. Tyagi was not present and that he was not aware when Mr. Tyagi left the CBI office. He further deposed that Mr. Sutanshu, Mr. Kamal, Mr. Raman Kumar and Mr. Ramesh Kumar were the CBI officials in the raiding team which was formed on 19.12.2016. He then deposed that he was not given any instructions in the CBI office, when they proceeded for raid, however, after getting down from the vehicle at the spot, he was instructed to go with Rahul. He stated that he was not instructed to remain close remain with him (Rahul) or to hear talks between Rahul and other persons. He was instructed by the CBI team to remain outside the police station and for this reason, he stayed outside the police station. He termed it incorrect that no memo was prepared nor the recording was played in the DVR on 19.12.2016 when they returned to the CBI office or that all the memos / documents were prepared on the next day i.e. on 20.12.2016 after the raid. He further denied the suggestion that on 19.12.2016 he was not shown the complaint Ex.PW3/A. He termed it correct that he had identified the documents which he was shown in the Court on the basis of his signatures CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 98 of 286 99 thereupon. He further deposed that when he signed the documents in the CBI office, he did not have sufficient time to read the said documents and had simply signed the said documents. He clarified that he was explained the contents of the documents.
As regards the memory card, the witness stated that since the seal of the memory card was broken before him and the memory card was played, so he had said that before recording his voice the memory card was blank. He further stated that CBI official did not tell him that the DVR had an internal memory. He termed it correct that he did not have knowledge whether the DVR was blank or not or if the data could be transferred from the memory card to the inbuilt memory or from inbuilt memory to the memory card.
He denied the suggestion that no proceedings were conducted in the police station on 20.12.2016 or that all the accused persons were simply brought in the CBI office from the police station.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, the PW8 termed it correct that he and Mr. Tyagi were introduced to Rahul by Inspector Ramesh on 19.12.2016. He CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 99 of 286 100 further deposed that the DVR was placed on the foot of Rahul with the rubber band.
During his further crossexamination, the PW8 deposed that he was not with the CBI team when the accused Vijay was apprehended and that he was called by the CBI team by making call on his mobile at around 11.30 AM and that he was sitting in the park at that time. He further deposed that it took him about 57 minutes to reach the police station. He termed it correct that he had seen the accused Amarjeet for the first time in the CBI vehicle. He further stated that he was not shown the purchase receipt of the memory card, which was perhaps having memory of 4/8 GB and the DVR. He was unable to recall whether the site plans were prepared in his presence or they were shown to him after they were prepared. He stated that the place where he was standing was not shown in the site plans. He was unable to state who arranged the water for getting the hands of the accused Vijay washed in glasses and by which of the CBI officials. The PW8 was unable to state when the other team of CBI officials had come and how many officials were there in the said team. He CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 100 of 286 101 termed it correct that the room of the accused Amarjeet was searched in his presence and that nothing was recovered during the said search.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Vijay/A3, the PW8 deposed that accused Vijay while weeping was saying "Main to bacha hu, main to padta hu, main to waise aa jata hu". He was, however, unable to state if accused Vijay was weeping as the CBI officials had beaten him. He expressed his lack of knowledge about the proceedings conducted by CBI team before he (PW8) reached the room of the police station. He clarified that in his presence, hands of the accused Vijay were got washed by the CBI team.
12.9 The PW9, Sh. Salim Saifi, is stated to have accompanied complainant Rahul to Police Station Sangam Vihar in connection with inquiry into the death of one Devender. He deposed that Saddam Saifi was his maternal uncle and that he and his maternal uncle Saddam Saifi were called by Rahul to the police station Sangam Vihar, on 19.12.2016 at about 5.00 / 5.30 pm and that they reached there at about 5.00 pm and that Rahul CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 101 of 286 102 also came there and called them to meet accused Rajender in the police station. He then deposed that he and his maternal uncle went to meet accused Rajender, who was going to Batra Hospital, and told them that he (Rajender) would meet them after he came from Batra Hospital and thereafter they waited for him at the police station Sangam Vihar. He further deposed that one Rajesh and tall person came and they took them (Rahul, PW 9 and Saddam Saifi) to a room where two policemen were sitting. There Rajesh enquired from them about the case of Devender and his girlfriend and that he (PW9) then talked to the girlfriend of Devender on whatsapp and that Rajesh thereafter took the mobile phones from all of them. The tall man asked Rajesh to take him (PW9) and his maternal uncle Saddam out from the room and that Rajesh handed over the mobile phone to him (PW9). Inside the room tall man and Rajesh talked to Rahul. Thereafter Rajesh brought Rahul out of the room. PW9 and his maternal uncle were made to stand at the place where old vehicles were parked.
Thereafter Rajesh talked to Rahul for about 1015 CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 102 of 286 103 minutes and after that they were discharged from there. They came out. Rahul did not tell them anything but called Rajender and asked him as to when he would come back. Rajender told Rahul that it would take time and asked them to come on the next day. They all stood at the tea shop where Rahul told them that Rajesh was not counting Rs.30,000/ which he had given earlier. He was asking full amount of Rs.3 lacs. After that he (PW9) and his maternal uncle left that place and did not receive any call thereafter from Rajender calling them to police station. He further deposed that Rahul had told them that he had given Rs.95,000/ to Rajesh.
Though PW9 identified accused Amarjeet Singh and stated that he was handling their case, he stated that they had not met Amarjeet and others. Since the witness did not depose as per the case of the prosecution, he was crossexamined by the learned PP for CBI.
During his crossexamination by learned PP for CBI, the PW9 termed it correct that Rahul had told them that they were called by Rajender and Amarjeet and that when they reached at the police CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 103 of 286 104 station, Rahul had made a call which was attended by Rajender. He denied the suggestion that Rajender did not pick up the call and thereafter Rahul made call to Amarjeet. The witness clarified that since since Rahul did not make call to Amarjeet so there was no question of Amarjeet asking Rahul to come to the police station. He denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW9/A u/s. 161 CrPC where it was recorded that they had met accused Rajender after his return from Batra Hospital or that they met accused Amarjeet also in the Police Station when he came there or that accused Rajender and accused Amarjeet had inquired from them about deceased Devender. He further denied that portion of his statement Ex.PW9/A wherein it was recorded that accused Amarjeet had asked Rajender to take them out of the room or that accused Rajender handed over mobile phone to him and made him and Saddam stand at some distance or that accused Rajender kept his hand on the shoulder of Rahul and started talking to him in a low volume or that after sometime accused Rajender and Rahul went to the room of Amarjeet. He also denied having stated in his statement Ex.PW9/A that Rahul had given Rs.15,000/ once and then Rs.5,000/ and again CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 104 of 286 105 Rs.10,000/ in his presence. He termed it correct that in the police station, their mobile phones were got switched off. He again volunteered to state that they had not met Amarjeet on that day.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Amarjeet, the PW9 deposed that Rahul came within 15/20 minutes of their reaching the police station. He termed it correct that on 09.03.2017 he was in jail and that only inquiry was made from him and that his statement was not recorded.
12.10 The PW10, Sh. Narender Kumar Tyagi, is the other independent witness, who was joined in investigations by the CBI. He deposed that he and Avtar Singh Sagar, who was posted in Vigilance Department, ITDC, went to CBI Office on 19.12.2016 on the directions of DGM, Vigilance. He further deposed that while he made to sit in the waiting room, Sagar went somewhere but he (PW10) was not aware where Sagar had gone. He then deposed that he (PW10) remained there till evening and that in the evening, he was told by DO to come on the next day i.e. on 20.12.2016 and thereafter he returned to his house.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 105 of 286 106 He further deposed that he again reached CBI office on 20.12.2016 at about 8.00 AM and went to DO office and from there he was sent to Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla. When he met Raman Kumar Shukla, he was told that they were constituting a team to go somewhere and that after sometime, Sh. Raman Shukla introduced him to all the members of the team and that the complainant Rahul Kumar Jha was also there. Raman Kumar Shukla told him that Rahul Kumar Jha had a case relating to murder and someone at the PS Sangam Vihar had been demanding bribe from Rahul Kumar Jha and that he (PW10) also inquired about it from the complainant Rahul Kumar Jha, who told him that Amarjeet and Rajender Meena posted at the police station Sangam Vihar had been demanding Rs. 3.5 lacs from him (Rahul Kumar Jha) and had told him that if he would not pay them the money, they would implicate him in a false case of murder of his friend.
He further deposed that all the team members were called to the headquarters where a demonstration was given and that they were told about the chemical to be applied on the notes and that the complainant had brought Rs.10,000/ in the denomination of Rs.2000/ in cash with him on which CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 106 of 286 107 the chemical was applied. Sagar was also there and was asked to put his hand on the notes and that his hands were got washed and the solution which was earlier white turned into pink and that the remaining powder and the solution were thrown away thereafter and that they all washed their hands there and that a proceeding Ex.PW3/D was drawn by the CBI. He further deposed that the CBI had also recorded his voice in DVR and after recording of his voice in the DVR, the DVR was sealed. He further deposed that the CBI team headed by Raman Shukla asked all the members to give their personal search to one another and that he had taken the personal search of the complainant Rahul Jha, who was in possession of a mobile phone and the notes of Rs. 2000/ denomination which Mr. Sagar had kept in the jacket of the complainant and that a memo was prepared.
He further deposed that they left for the police station Sangam Vihar in two vehicles at about 9.30/10.00 AM and that the CBI team kept all the requisite material to be used for the proceedings in a bag which included glass, papers etc. and that the vehicles were parked on the road. He further deposed that the CBI team sent Mr. Sagar and the complainant to the police station and that they both CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 107 of 286 108 went there on foot and that after sometime Mr. Sagar and the complainant came from there and they were told by Sagar that he (Sagar) had come from there since they got suspicious and that the CBI team then sent the complainant alone to the police station and that he (complainant) was instructed either to give a missed call from his mobile or to give his signal by using his hand. He then deposed that he (PW10), Raman Shukla and one more inspector were slowly following the complainant and that they were watching the complainant roaming there and that thereafter, the complainant entered in a room and after coming out, complainant gave a signal using his hand and that they reached at the room door of which was closed (dhala huwa tha par band nahi tha). As soon as they entered the room, they found a boy, identified as accused Vijay by PW10, sitting in the room. He further deposed that Raman Shukla and one more person of CBI caught the hands of the accused Vijay and that Raman Shukla asked the accused Vijay if he had taken money. The accused Vijay had thrown the notes towards the bed as he was frightened and that he (PW10) had seen Vijay throwing the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 108 of 286 109 notes towards the bed and that he (PW10) had lifted the notes from there and that Raman Shukla asked him to tally the number on the notes and that on tallying, he found that the notes, which Vijay had thrown towards the bed, were the same notes which complainant had given. He further deposed that Raman Shukla asked the accused Vijay at whose asking he (Vijay) had taken the notes and that Vijay told Raman Shukla that he (Vijay) had taken the notes on the asking of Amarjeet, who was not present there at that time and that enquiry was made from accused Vijay in the room. He further deposed that the complainant was asked how he knew that he had to give money to Vijay and that the complainant then told that Rajender Meena was not there in the Police station and then he (complainant) had given a call to Rajender Meena, who asked him to meet Amarjeet, who had taken him (complainant) to his room where he (Amarjeet) told him that he would confirm and that thereafter accused Amarjeet confirmed from Rajender Meena and that accused Amarjeet then told him (complainant) to give the money to the person sitting in the opposite room and that he (complainant) then went to that room and gave the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 109 of 286 110 money to the accused Vijay, who was not sitting in the room of Amarjeet.
The PW10 further deposed that accused Rajender Meena came in that room and that accused Amarjeet was also called to the said room and that accused Amarjeet was asked if he had asked the complainant to pay the money and to whom the money was to be paid which he answered in negative and that accused Vijay was again asked at whose asking he had taken the money and that accused Vijay, who was already frightened, said "Main to private aadmi hu, mujhe to Amarjeet ji ne bola tha aur unke kehne pe hi maine paise liye hain"
and that accused Amarjeet was then confronted with what Vijay said and that he (Amarjeet) then said "maine to isko nahi bola paise lene ke liye".
He further deposed that the CBI got the hands of the accused Vijay put in a solution of white color which turned into pink and that the said solution was sealed in two bottles (one for left hand and other for the right hand). He further deposed that a site plan was prepared at the spot. He then deposed that accused Rajender Meena was also there, who was also enquired about the money and that he answered in negative.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 110 of 286 111 He further deposed that the search of the office of accused Amarjeet was conducted and some papers were recovered from there. The money was sealed and that the solutions of hand wash were also sealed in the bottles. The talks which were recorded on the DVR were played. The accused persons were made to hear the recordings but denied having demanded money from anyone. The PW10 identified his signatures on the recovery memo Ex.PW3/F (D5), site plan Ex.PW8/2 (D6) and site plan Ex.PW8/3 (D7).
The PW10 further deposed that they left the spot and returned to CBI Headquarter in the afternoon and that all the accused persons had also come with them and that the voices of the accused persons were recorded in the DVR and that all the accused persons were arrested in the headquarters vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/4 (D8) (of accused Amarjeet), Ex.PW8/5 (D9) (of accused Rajender Meena) and Ex.PW8/6 (D10) (of accused Vijay). He identified his signatures on specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW8/7 (D18). He further deposed that the recorded conversations were played in the CBI office and a rough transcript Ex.PW3/E (D17) was prepared and that all the relevant documents were CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 111 of 286 112 prepared in the headquarters and thereafter in the late evening he (PW10) was discharged from the CBI headquarters.
He further deposed that after 1½ months, he was called again in the CBI office and at that time he signed the fair transcript Ex.PW3/G (colly) (D19) of the recorded voices. He identified his signatures on envelope Ex.P6 containing five notes Ex.P5/1 to Ex.P5/5 of Rs.2,000/ denomination ; two bottles Ex. P7/1 (LHW1) and Ex. P7/2 (RHW1) containing small quantity of light pink colour liquid and two more bottles Ex.P10/1 (LHW2) and Ex.P10/2 (RHW2) containing small quantity of light pink color liquid. He further identified his signatures on envelopes Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 as well as SD Card enclosure Ex.P4.
The SD Card Q2 was played in the Court, on a laptop, to enable PW10 to hear the conversation recorded therein. Upon hearing the same, the PW 10 was unable to identify the introductory voice of Avtar Singh Sagar though he identified his own introductory voice recorded therein. He, however, identified his signatures on transcript Ex.PW3/G. During his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, the PW10 deposed that he reached CBI office on 19.12.2016 at about 11/11.30 CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 112 of 286 113 AM and left from there around 5.30 PM. He further deposed that he had met the complainant Rahul on 20.12.2016 for the first time. CBI did not record his statement in the instant case. He was unable to state specifically who took whose search before leaving the CBI office. He was unable to recall how many members were there in the raiding team. He further deposed that IO did not tell Avtar Singh Sagar to go with Rahul to the police station in his presence. When accused Vijay was apprehended, Raman Shukla, one more official of CBI, he (PW10) and Avtar Singh Sagar were there. They remained in the police station upto 3/3.15 PM. After apprehending the accused Vijay, Rajender Meena was called, who came there after about half an hour. He was not aware as to who had called Rajender Meena. He was unable to recall who had opened the door of the room where Vijay was sitting. Though he was not aware the exact time of arrival of accused Amarjeet, he stated that both Rajender Meena and Amarjeet were there in the room. He termed it correct that many persons had collected in the police station. He was unaware whether IO had requested anyone of them CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 113 of 286 114 to join the proceedings. He further deposed that Raman Shukla had caught the left hand of the accused Vijay. He denied the suggestion that no names were disclosed by the accused Vijay or that Vijay was given beatings by the CBI officials or that the currency notes had been forced upon the accused Vijay or that accused Vijay had not uttered the words "Main to private aadmi hu, mujhe to Amarjeet ji ne bola tha aur unke kehne pe hi maine paise liye hain" to the CBI officials.
The PW10 was unable to give the details of the documents/papers which were recovered during the search of the room of the accused Amarjeet. He further deposed that he had not seen Rahul and Avtar Singh Sagar walking towards the police station. He was unable to state the names of the officials of CBI who were sitting in the vehicles. He was also unable to give details of the contents of memos on seeing the same.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 10 deposed that he was not aware from where the powder for demonstration was arranged by the CBI. He further denied that Rahul never told him about the names of the accused persons or that he (PW
10) had named them in his examination at the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 114 of 286 115 behest of the IO. He further denied the suggestion that the complainant had told him that he (complainant) had originally brought a complaint against SI Rajesh and SI Vivek who had been harassing him for implicating him in the inquest of murder of his friend Devender but the CBI officials had told him (Rahul) that since the investigation had been transferred to SI Amarjeet, their names be written in the complaint so that they could proceed further.
A Court observation was made at this stage that signatures of the witness/PW10 were at the bottom on the last page of the transcript Ex.PW3/G whereas signature of the other witnesses were at the middle of the page.
The PW10 further deposed that he was witness in 45 cases registered by CBI i.e. one more trap case and 34 search cases.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Vijay (A3), the witness was again made to hear recordings in SD card Q2. The voice recording reflected that accused Vijay was weeping and saying "Main to yaha ghoomne aaya hu, main to yaha sir ke paas aya hu, Maar kyon rahe ho." There was a sound of something and the CBI official was saying CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 115 of 286 116 "aisa thappar marunga, gir jayaiga yahi". After this, there were some abusive words used by the CBI officials for the accused Vijay. There appeared to be beatings of accused Vijay by the CBI officials. The CBI officials were asking the accused Vijay to make call to the accused Amarjeet and to call him in the room. "aap bachna chahate ho to phone kar ke bulao".
After being put recording in SD Card Q2, the PW10 was crossexamined further. He deposed that the CBI officials had entered the room where accused Vijay was sitting before he entered it. He denied the suggestion that he had given beatings to accused Vijay. He denied that the CBI officials had given beatings to accused Vijay in his presence. He volunteered to state that accused Vijay was frightened and weeping.
The PW10 further deposed that there was a hardly a gap of 30 seconds before his entry and the entry of the CBI officials in the room. He denied the suggestion that accused Vijay had never thrown the notes towards the bed in the room and rather it was the CBI officials who had given the notes to him (PW10) for planting on the person of the accused Vijay.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 116 of 286 117 At this stage, in response to Court question, the PW10 clarified again that he had seen accused Vijay throwing the notes and that in his presence, the CBI officials had held the hands of the accused Vijay by wrists.
The PW10 expressed his lack of knowledge if this fact was recorded in the recovery memo Ex.PW3/F. He denied that the CBI officials had held the hands of the accused by his palm and not by the wrist.
12.11 The PW11, Sh. A.D. Tiwari, PSO (Principal Scientific Officer), Photo and Scientificate Division, CFSL, New Delhi, deposed that he had received three sealed parcels marked as Q1, Q2 and third as S1, S2, S3, along with case forwarding letter no. RC DAI2016A 0040/09 dated January 02, 2017 from S.P, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, regarding preparation of five copies each of memory card on 03.01.2017 and that he had made five copies of each memory card in CD and sealed 04 copies in one parcel and 01 copy in another parcel. He further deposed that the exhibits i.e. Q1, Q2 and third one S1, S2, S3 were sealed in three separate parcels and that all the five parcels were sealed with seal i.e. A.D.TIWARI SSO CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 117 of 286 118 II CFSL PHOTO DIVISION CBI N.D. He proved the forwarding letter dated 02.01.2017 as Ex.PW11/A (D21) and intimation letter no. CFSL2017 E - 0009 / 251 dated 20.01.2017 from I.C Director CFSL, sent to S.P, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, regarding collection of exhibits as Ex.PW11/B (D24). He further deposed that on 20.01.2017, CBI had collected the exhibits from his office vide letter no. RC DAI2016A0040/945 dated 20.01.2017.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, the PW11 deposed that vide letter dated 20.01.2017, he had sent copies of the questioned exhibits and the CDs, which he had prepared, of the questioned exhibits along with the sample seal impressions. He denied the suggestion that there was no mention of original exhibits in the forwarding letter Ex.PW11/B. He further denied the suggestion that except 15 CDs which were prepared by him nothing was sent back to S.P/CBI. He was unable to recall the date when he prepared the CDs. He was unable to state whether the CD reflected the date when it was created in the property.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 118 of 286 119 12.12 The PW12, Inspector Ramesh Kumar, had conducted verification of the complaint filed by the complainant Rahul Kumar Jha. He was also member of the trap team which according to prosecution had apprehended the accused persons pursuant to registration of FIR against them. He deposed that on 19.12.2016 he was introduced to one Rahul Kumar Jha by the S.P. Ms. Gagandeep Gambhir and was directed to verify his complaint. The PW12 took the complainant with him. He also requisitioned for a witness, through the Duty Officer, and thereafter witness namely Mr. Sagar was arranged for. The PW12 introduced the witness to the complainant and also explained the reason for calling him there. Thereafter, a DVR and a fresh memory card was arranged and the same was shown to the witness and the complainant. The witness was also shown the complaint and he read the same and agreed to participate in the CBI proceedings. The PW12 then gave details how fresh blank DVR and memory card were arranged and set up for conducting verification proceedings by recording introductory voice of the independent witness in the memory card. He further deposed that during that period, two calls came from accused CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 119 of 286 120 Rajender Meena on the mobile of the complainant but were not attended by him. Later it was decided to make a call on the mobile of the accused Rajender Meena, from the mobile of the complainant, by keeping the DVR in recording mode. In this call, accused Rajender Meena directed the complainant to come to the P.S. Sangam Vihar at about 7.00 PM alongwith his two friends namely Salim and Saddam.
Thereafter, a CBI team, including independent witness and the complainant, left CBI office at about 1750 hours and reached near P.S. Sangam Vihar. While the CBI vehicle was parked at a safe distance, the complainant was directed to meet the accused as per pre fixed programme. The DVR was again switched on in recording mode and given to the complainant which he kept near his left foot ankle and tied the same with a rubber band. The independent witness was directed to follow the complainant and to try to see or overhear the conversation between the accused and the complainant by keeping safe distance. Thereafter, the complainant moved towards P.S. Sangam Vihar followed by independent witness.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 120 of 286 121 After one and half hour, the complainant and independent witness returned back to the CBI vehicle. The DVR was taken back from him and was switched off. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to narrate the incident that had happened in P.S. Sangam Vihar. He revealed as under : "When he reached at Police station, his two friends were also there. They met Rajender Singh Meena. Rajender Singh Meena took them in a room where SI Amarjeet Singh was present. Rajender Singh Meena took their mobiles and switched off. He kept the mobiles. SI Amarjeet Singh directed his two friends to wait outside. He then directed Rajender Singh Meena to talk to him. He took him outside the room and asked him to arrange Rs. 3.2 lacs. After bargaining, he agreed for Rs. 3.00 lacs. He requested him to give some time to arrange such a huge amount. Rajender Singh Meena directed him to bring Rs. 10,000/ on the next day as part amount".
The PW12 further deposed that the relevant part of the recorded conversation was heard in presence of independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar and the complainant. Thereafter, CBI team alongwith complainant and independent witness returned to CBI office. The conversation recorded in the DVR was heard and a rough transcript of the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 121 of 286 122 relevant portion was prepared which confirmed the demand of Rs. 3.2 lacs which after negotiation became Rs. 3 lacs, on the part of accused Rajender Meena in connivance with SI Amarjeet Singh. Thereafter, the memory card was taken out from the DVR and the same was placed in its company packing i.e. plastic case and wrapper was marked as Q1 and the same was signed by PW12, independent witness and the complainant. Thereafter, it was placed in an envelope and the envelope was marked as 'Q1 in CO56/2016'. The envelope was also signed by the independent witness, complainant and PW12 and was sealed with the CBI seal. A verification memo Ex.PW3/C was prepared. During preparation of said memo, the DVR was sealed in a separate envelope which was signed by PW12, independent witness and the complainant. Facsimile impressions of CBI seal were taken on separate sheets which were also signed by PW12, complainant and the independent witness. The PW12 deposed that the impressions of the seal were also embossed by him on each page of the verification memo Ex.PW3/C and that the said memo was signed by the complainant and the independent witness after going through its CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 122 of 286 123 contents. The PW12 then submitted a verification report to the SP with a recommendation to register a case against accused Rajender Singh Meena and Amarjeet Singh. The DVR and CBI seal were handed over to independent witness Mr. Sagar against proper receipt and he was directed to produce the same on next day at about 8.00 AM. The Q1 sealed in an envelope was taken in police possession.
On the basis of verification report given by PW 12, a case was registered against the accused persons on 20.12.2016 vide FIR Ex.PW12/A and the investigation of the said case was assigned to Inspector Raman Shukla.
The PW12 further deposed that on 20.12.2016, as per the directions of S.P, a team was constituted which included Inspector Sitanshu Sharma, Arjun Singh, Kamal and PW12 himself. Inspector Raman was deputed as TLO of the case. The services of two independent witnesses namely Mr. Avtar Singh Sagar and one more person were secured through Duty Officer. The team assembled was explained the purpose of assembling by Inspector Raman Shukla. The FIR, verification memo and the complaint were shown to the team CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 123 of 286 124 members. Both the independent witnesses made some queries from the complainant regarding the demand of the bribe by the accused persons and the case registered by the local police implicating him. Thereafter, the complainant produced a sum of Rs. 10,000/ in denomination of Rs. 2,000/. The distinctive numbers of the notes were recorded in handing over memo Ex.PW3/D (D4). Thereafter, Inspector Arjun Singh, upon direction of the TLO, gave demonstration regarding use of phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes in the presence of the team members. The PW12 explained the process at length in his deposition. The PW12/Inspector Ramesh Kumar, further deposed that the independent witness Narender Tyagi was directed to carry out the search of the complainant. Accordingly, he conducted the personal search of the complainant and that nothing was left with the complainant except his mobile phone. Thereafter the independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar kept the notes in the left side inner pocket of the jacket worn by the complainant. After that all team members washed their hands using soap and water. The complainant was directed not to touch the aforesaid notes and to give CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 124 of 286 125 them when demanded by the accused or on their direction to another person. Thereafter, independent witness Mr. Sagar produced and handed over the DVR and CBI seal to the TLO, who took out the DVR, inserted a new empty memory card in it, in presence of all team members. The memory of the memory card was selected through DVR and thereafter introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded in it and it was switched off. Both the independent witnesses were directed by the TLO to remain in close proximity of the complainant when he approached the accused persons. The complainant and the independent witnesses were also directed to give a signal by rubbing both hands on their face. The complainant was directed to give a missed call on the mobile of the TLO as indication of transaction of bribe amount. The personal search of all the team members was taken by one and another. A trap kit was arranged which contained clean glass tumblers, clean glass bottles, sealing materials, stationary items, sodium carbonate powder etc. The copy of FIR, verification report, sealed envelope CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 125 of 286 126 containing Q1, original complaint were also kept in the trap kit. Rs. 1,000/ were taken by the TLO to manage the incidental expenses. After completion of handing over memo proceedings, the team left CBI office in government vehicles.
The PW12 further deposed that on the way, a call was received by the complainant from the mobile of the accused Rajender Singh Meena. The call was recorded in the DVR, which was kept on switched on mode, while complainant spoke to him by keeping his mobile on the speaker mode. In the said call, accused verified from the complainant where he was. Thereafter, the DVR was switched off. CBI team reached near the P.S. Sangam Vihar and parked the vehicles at a safe distance from the police station. The DVR was again switched on, kept in a recording mode and given to the complainant who kept it in his left sock. Independent witness Mr. Sagar was directed to remain with the complainant who was to introduce him (Mr. Sagar) as his uncle to the accused. He was again directed by the TLO to hand over the bribe amount on their demand or on their direction to some other person. Accordingly, complainant and Mr. Sagar left for P.S. Sangam Vihar. The other members of the team CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 126 of 286 127 followed them and took their positions in close proximity of the police station.
After about 1520 minutes, the complainant and the independent witness came near the place where TLO was present and told him that Rajender Singh Meena got suspicious about the presence of Mr. Sagar with him and directed him to drop Mr. Sagar near Tigri More. He also told that Rajender Singh Meena had further inquired from him about limping to which he had told him that he had got sprain last night. Thereafter the DVR was kept in the cap of the jacket worn by the complainant and he was directed to meet the accused again.
The complainant again went to the police station alone. After sometime, TLO alerted all the team members. They gathered inside the police station. On indication, complainant then entered the room which was closed at that time. The room was opened by one person who was later identified as Vijay, a private person. The complainant informed TLO that on the directions of SI Amarjeet Singh, he had handed over the bribe amount to this person. The TLO challenged him after introducing himself and other team members. When TLO enquired from Vijay whether he had accepted Rs.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 127 of 286 128 10,000/ from the complainant on directions of SI Amarjeet Singh, he replied in affirmative and also stated that he had thrown the same under the bed on which he was sitting. Thereafter, the left hand of Vijay was caught by Raman Shukla and right hand by him (PW12). Both the independent witnesses were directed to make search of the place where he (accused Vijay) had thrown the amount. During search, Rs. 10,000/ i.e. five notes of Rs. 2000/ denomination were recovered from underneath the bed. The numbers were tallied with those mentioned in the handing over memo after which both the independent witnesses put their signatures on the handing over memo.
The PW12 further deposed that thereafter, the DVR was taken back from the complainant and was switched off. In the meantime, accused Rajender Singh Meena entered the room. The introduction of the CBI team was given to accused Rajender Singh Meena by the TLO and he was asked about the transaction of the bribe amount. Thereafter the TLO directed him to make call on the mobile of SI Amarjeet Singh. He (Rajender Singh Meena) then made call on the mobile phone of Amarjeet Singh and the said call was also recorded. After CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 128 of 286 129 sometime, Amarjeet Singh also entered the room. Both the accused persons were interrogated by TLO. The relevant portion of the recorded conversation was heard in their presence. Thereafter, the complainant disclosed that SI Amarjeet Singh had not touched the bribe amount and only accused Vijay had handled the same. On his disclosure, firstly left hand wash and then right hand wash of accused Vijay was taken in freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate and water which turned pink after dipping the fingers of the accused Vijay. The solution was transferred in clean bottles which were marked as "LHW1 in RC 40/2016" and "LHW2 in RC 40/2016" and "RHW1 in RC 40/2016" and "RHW2 in RC 40/2016". The bottles were sealed with CBI seal and white paper labels were pasted on them and were signed by two independent witnesses and the TLO. The TLO also interrogated all the three accused persons in the presence of independent witnesses and other team member.
Thereafter, the complainant was directed to narrate the incident which happened when he again entered the police station. The complainant disclosed as under : CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 129 of 286 130 "when he entered the police station, he met a person who was wearing pink shirt / T shirt and khaki pant, later identified SI Amarjeet Singh. He enquired the matter regarding his visit in the police station. SI Amarjeet Singh took him in a room and discussed the matter. Thereafter, he came out from the room and through gesture, he indicated him to hand over the bribe amount of Rs.
10,000/ to a person who was sitting in the adjacent room. On his direction, he knocked the said room and Vijay opened the room. On inquiry made by Vijay whether he was sent by SI Amarjeet Singh, he affirmed the same. On direction of Amarjeet Singh, he received the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/ from him after counting. Thereafter, he (complainant) requested him (Vijay) to make a call on the mobile of accused Amarjeet Singh regarding confirmation of receiving of bribe amount from him. Accordingly, accused Vijay made the call and informed all this to Amarjeet Singh that he has received a sum of Rs. 10,000/ from him(complainant) as directed by him (SI Amarjeet)".
The PW12 further deposed that thereafter the amount of Rs. 10,000/ was kept in an envelope and the envelope was sealed with CBI seal and both the independent witnesses and the TLO put their signatures on the envelope. The intimation of this incident was given to the SHO P.S. Sangam Vihar by TLO and he was requested to join the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 130 of 286 131 proceedings and to hand over the documents relating to the duties/attendance performed by SI Amarjeet Singh and Rajender Singh Meena and the file pertaining to the investigation being conducted by SI Amarjeet Singh in the matter of death of one of the friend of the complainant. After sometime, SHO joined CBI proceedings and provided documents which were seized vide recovery memo Ex.PW3/F (D5). Search of official room of SI Amarjeet Singh was also conducted in the presence of independent witness. The PW12 further deposed that thereafter, Inspector Arjun Singh prepared a rough site plan Ex.PW8/2, of the place of incident, and of the room where Vijay was sitting on directions of the TLO. The mobile phones of all the accused persons were taken into possession and were switched off and handed over to independent witnesses with the direction to produce the same in CBI office. Further proceedings were carried out in the CBI office. There the recorded conversation were again heard through DVR by the TLO, in presence of independent witnesses, and some lines were selected for taking sample voice of the accused persons. The memory card was taken out from the DVR and kept in its plastic case which was CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 131 of 286 132 marked as Q2 which was then was placed in the company packing marked as Q2 and both the independent witnesses and the TLO signed on it and thereafter they were kept in an envelope which was marked as 'Q2 in RC 40(A)/2016' and thereupon both the independent witnesses and the TLO again put their signatures.
The PW12 further deposed that a fresh new blank memory card was arranged for taking sample voice of all the three accused persons who agreed to give their sample voice voluntarily. The introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded in the memory card through DVR and thereafter, sample voices of accused Amarjeet singh, Rajender Meena and Vijay were taken in three folders. The said memory card was taken out from the DVR and kept in its plastic case and the same was marked as SI, SII and SIII and was sealed in the manner in which the earlier memory cards were sealed and was signed by both the independent witnesses and the TLO.
Arrest memos of all the three accused persons were prepared separately and copy of the same were given to them against proper receipt. Thereafter, the DVR used during trap proceedings CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 132 of 286 133 was also sealed in an envelope which was signed by both the independent witnesses and the TLO. Thereafter, the facsimile impressions of CBI brass seal was taken on separate sheets and the same were signed by both the independent witnesses and TLO. After that a recovery memo was prepared and the same was read over to all present and all the members signed on it in token of its correctness. The impression of CBI seal was also embossed on each page of the recovery memo. The CBI brass seal was given to Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar on proper receipt and he was directed to produce the same as and when directed.
The PW12 proved the endorsement of the SP on the complaint Ex.PW3/A (D1) and also proved the production cum seizure memo, which was in his handwriting, as Ex.PW1/1 (D13). The PW12 identified all the three accused persons as well as the case property i.e. the five currency notes Ex.P5/1 to Ex.P5/5 and the envelope Ex.P6 wherein they were kept. The bottles containing hand wash were identified by him as Ex.P7/1 (LHW1), Ex.P7/2 (RHW1), Ex.P10/1 (LHW2) and Ex.P10/2 (RHW2) respectively.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 133 of 286 134 The PW12 further identified his handwriting on envelope Ex.P4 containing an open envelope Ex.P5 which further contained a SD Card enclosure containing SD Card Ex. P4. The PW12 further identified his signatures on envelope Ex.P2 containing an open envelope which further contained envelope Ex.P3 with a SD Card enclosure and SD Card Ex. P2.
The SD card Q1 was heard by the witness when played in the Court. He stated that it contained introductory voice of Avtar Singh Sagar as well as other conversations, transcripted from page 2 to 19, of Ex.PW3/G collectively.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, the PW12 denied that the complaint was not read over and explained to witness Avtar Singh Sagar. He further denied that the call made by complainant to accused Rajender Meena was not recorded by keeping the DVR in the recording mode and that all the recordings were made after the arrest of accused. Some of the facts regarding which the witness had deposed in his examination in chief were not found recorded in his statement Ex.PW12/DA. He had not stated in his statement Ex.PW12/DA that the relevant part of CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 134 of 286 135 recording conversation was heard in the presence of independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar and the complainant and that a rough transcript of the relevant portion was prepared and that the memory card was taken out of the DVR and the same was placed in its company packing and that the complainant had also signed the sealed envelope containing DVR.
He had further not stated in his statement Ex.PW12/DA that the sheets on which facsimile impressions of CBI brass seal were embossed were signed by him (PW12), independent witness and the complainant and that the verification report was readover to all present and that the verification report was submitted to the SP with the recommendation to register a case against accused and that the seal was handed over to independent witness Mr. Sagar on proper receipt and that after assembly of the team by Inspector Raman Shukla, the FIR, Verification memo and the complaint were shown to the team members. The PW12 had also not stated in his statement Ex.PW12/DA that both the independent witnesses made some queries from the complainant regarding demand of bribe by the accused and case registered by the local police CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 135 of 286 136 implicating him.
He further deposed that the complainant had brought Rs. 10,000/ of denomination of Rs. 2000/ each with him. The fact that Inspector Arjun Singh was directed by the TLO to give a demonstration regarding reaction of phenolphthalein with a solution of sodium carbonate and water and that Narender Tyagi was directed to carry out the search of the complainant and that Mr. Sagar produced the DVR and the CBI seal and handed over the same to TLO and that after the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded in the DVR it was switched off, were not found recorded in his statement Ex.PW12/DA. He also stated that no receipt was given by the TLO to the witness. He volunteered to state that the said fact was recorded in handing over memo.
The PW12 was unable to recall who had taken his search. The PW12 was further confronted with his statement Ex.PW12/DA wherein the fact that the mobile phone of the complainant was kept in speaker mode for recording the conversation held between him and the accused and the fact of switching off DVR, after recording of conversation between the complainant CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 136 of 286 137 and the accused Rajender Singh Meena and the fact that after reaching the P.S. Sangam Vihar, the DVR was again switched on and kept in recording mode were also not recorded.
He further deposed that it took them about 50 60 minutes to reach from CBI office to P.S. Sangam Vihar on 19.12.2016 and that their vehicle was parked near Batra Hospital at a distance of 200 to 250 meters from the P.S. The complainant went to the P.S. after 45 minutes of their reaching near the P.S and returned after approximately 1 hour. He was unable to state where the complainant had gone after entering the P.S. He explained that he could not see the same due to distance and position of the vehicle. He further deposed that the witness followed the complainant by keeping a distance of about 15 paces and that the said witness was also not visible when he went to the P.S while following the complainant and that he (PW12) did not see whether the witness Mr. Sagar had entered the P.S. or not.
The PW12 termed it correct that the fact that the relevant part of the recorded conversation was heard in the presence of independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar and the complainant was not recorded CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 137 of 286 138 in his statement Ex.PW12/DA. He further deposed that though he had prepared the rough transcript, he did not hand over the same to the TLO. He then deposed that they returned to CBI office on 19.12.2016 at about 9.00/9.15 PM and that he allowed Mr. Sagar and the complainant to go after completion of verification proceedings at about 11.15/11.20 PM. When questioned about the position taken by the team members upon reaching PS Sangam Vihar, the PW12 deposed that he was standing near main gate of P.S. Sangam Vihar along with TLO and that Inspector Arjun Singh and Sitanshu Sharma were standing in gali at the back side of the P.S. Sangam Vihar and that both the witnesses were directed to remain close to the complainant. He further deposed that he (PW12) and TLO were standing alongwith other officials outside the police station. He was unable to recall the time when he entered the police station but stated that after receiving confirmation from TLO all the team members gathered near gate and reached near the complainant who was standing inside the police station. He further deposed that they remained outside the gate of the P.S for about 2530 minutes CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 138 of 286 139 and that the witnesses standing in the gali, on the back side of the police station, were in eye contact and could be called by giving signal. He was unable to state how the said witnesses were signaled to come.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 12 was again confronted with his statement Ex.PW 12/DA u/s. 161 CrPC and the fact that some lines were selected for taking sample voice of the accused persons and that the said lines were selected by writing them on a piece of paper by the TLO and the fact that all the accused persons were explained by the TLO regarding legal authenticity of the sample voice and the fact that copies of arrest memos of all the accused persons were given to them on proper receipt were not found recorded therein. He then deposed that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, Ex.PW12/DA, was recorded by the IO as per statement given by him. He admitted that in his statement Ex.PW12/DA it was mentioned that the 'right wrist of the accused Vijay Kumar was held by Ramesh Kumar' whereas it should have been the witness himself instead of Ramesh Kumar. The fact that the CBI brass seal was given to Avtar Singh CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 139 of 286 140 Sagar on proper receipt was also not found recorded in his statement Ex.PW12/DA. He denied the suggestion that all the documentation was done after the implication of the accused persons by calling them in the CBI office.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 12 deposed that about 57 police officials gathered near the room where the recovery of bribe amount took place and that none of the police officials, who were present there, were requested to join investigation. He volunteered to state that the SHO was apprised to depute someone to remain present at the scene of crime. He was, however, unaware as to who was deputed by the SHO to remain present at the scene of crime. He was unable to state if the TLO had given his introduction or the introduction of other officers to Vijay. He further deposed that when he entered the room alone, he did not introduce himself to the accused. He then deposed that when he entered the room, there were about 8 to 10 persons including the accused Vijay and Rajender and that the TLO was making inquiry from the accused persons and that they remained in the said room for approximately 2 hours. No writing work/ CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 140 of 286 141 documentation, except for signing of the slips pasted on bottles, was done there. The independent witnesses also signed that portion of handing over memo, where distinctive number of GC notes were mentioned in the said room.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 12 deposed that they were called by SHO to his room and that the proceedings continued while they were in the said room. Accused Amarjeet was in the room of the SHO but PW12 was not aware where accused Rajender and Vijay were. The PW 12 was unable to tell the time till which the SHO remained with them in the police station. He clarified that SHO was not present at the time of the raid but came later on to assist them in the proceedings and was present when CBI team left the P.S along with the accused persons. He denied that the verification proceedings as well as the trap proceedings were designed in the CBI office after calling the accused persons. He further denied that nothing was recovered from or at the instance of accused Vijay. He deposed that the recovery of alleged bribe money was not effected in his presence. He termed it correct that he was not aware as to who picked up the money or from CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 141 of 286 142 where it was recovered. He further deposed that Avtar Singh Sagar was along with the trap team when the trap was made and that in his presence the accused persons were arrested. Avtar Singh Sagar was already present in the room when he (PW12) entered the same. He denied that all the proceedings with regard to the present case, including recorded conversation and preparation of documents, were conducted on 20.12.2016 in the office of the CBI. He further denied that the memory cards were not blank and were misused in the case or that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the case.
In his additional crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajender Meena/A2, the PW12 stated that prior to coming to CBI on deputation he was working in BSF and that he had never investigated any case in BSF and that after joining CBI, he was given training for investigation and was made aware about CBI Crime Manual and was instructed to conduct investigation as per the guidelines mentioned in the Crime Manual. He termed it correct that each branch of CBI was given a specific target in each year and that all the officers posted in the particular branch had collective responsibility to CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 142 of 286 143 achieve the said target as per the directions of HOB. He denied the suggestion that a successful trap helped in career enhancement.
He termed it correct that in their branch a separate register was maintained and when any complaint was received, the same was entered in the said register and specific number was given to the said complaint/file and that no such number was mentioned on the complaint Ex.PW3/A. He volunteered to state that the complaint number was reflected on the file in which complaint was endorsed to him (PW12) for verification. He denied the suggestion that the complaint was not in existence on 19.12.2016 or due to this reason the complaint did not find mention on the complaint number. He further deposed that he did not ask the complainant about the place, date and time and to whom he handed over Rs. 30,000/ as mentioned in the complaint. He further deposed that he he did not ask the duty officer to arrange the presence of a gazetted officer as independent witness while requisitioning witnesses. He then deposed that the witness Avtar Singh Sagar did not sign the complaint in token of his having seen the complaint. He termed it correct that the DVR used CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 143 of 286 144 in the instant case was having inbuilt memory and that the data or recording could be transferred from inbuilt memory of the DVR to memory card and vice versa. He, however, denied that he did not mention about the inbuilt memory of the DVR nor showed its blankness. He explained that he had mentioned this fact in verification memo. He termed it correct that every memory card had distinctive number and that he had not mentioned the distinctive number of the memory card used during verification in the verification memo. The PW12 was not aware that verification of the complaint was also done on the telephone in number of cases by the CBI. He volunteered to state that he was not aware the procedure adopted for verification of complaint before 2012 in CBI. He then deposed that he did not instruct the complainant to talk about the bribe money while making a call to accused Rajender Kumar Meena during verification. He termed it correct that he secured the presence of independent witness so that he could accompany the complainant to see and hear the actions and conversations likely to be held between complainant and accused persons. He volunteered to state that CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 144 of 286 145 the presence of independent witness was also secured for the purpose that CBI was not manipulating any evidence during the proceedings. He termed it correct that Avtar Singh Sagar did not accompany the complainant inside the police station. He stated that he had instructed Avtar Singh Sagar to go with the complainant and to witness the proceedings. He did not enquire from Avtar Singh Sagar about his not going inside the police station. He further deposed that he had heard the relevant portion only as suggested by the complainant. He termed it correct that in the verification memo he had not mentioned the fact that he had heard the relevant portion of recorded conversation outside the police station where CBI vehicle was parked.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 12 deposed that they reached the CBI office between 8.30 PM to 9.00 PM. After reaching the CBI office, he did the verification proceedings till 11/11.30 PM and handed over the same to the Duty Officer for sending it immediately to the SP, CBI at her residence. He termed it correct that in their branch, SP CBI ordered for the registration of FIR and that verification memo Ex.PW3/C did not find CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 145 of 286 146 endorsement of the S.P CBI for registration of the FIR. He termed it correct that in the chargesheet no separate order of the SP CBI regarding registration of FIR was placed. He denied the suggestion that FIR was registered later but was shown to have been registered at 6.30 AM. He further denied that he never handed over the DVR and the seal to Avtar Singh Sagar.
The PW12 was unable to recall the name of the other independent witness who had gone with them to PS Sangam Vihar on 20.12.2016. He further deposed that the factum of instruction given to complainant to introduce Mr. Sagar as his uncle was mentioned in recovery memo. He was unable to state what enquiry was made by the TLO from the complainant and independent witness when they both returned from the P.S for the first time.
He denied the suggestion that the complainant and Avtar Singh Sagar never met accused Rajender Kumar Meena on 19.12.2016 and 20.12.2016. He further deposed that when TLO alerted the team member, he remained outside the room in police station and that only three members entered the room and that he entered the room after 5 - 7 minutes. He did not see Rajender CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 146 of 286 147 Kumar entering the room but when PW12 entered it, Rajender Kumar was already present there. He denied the suggestion that none of the accused persons were apprehended from the said room.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Vijay/A3, the PW12 deposed that he did not ask anything from Vijay on 20.12.2016. He termed it correct that Vijay had not stated that he had accepted money on the direction of Amarjeet in his presence. He denied the suggestion that when he entered the room, accused Vijay was being beaten or that he (PW12) also gave him beatings.
12.13 The PW13, Ms. Deepti Bhargava, Senior Scientific OfficerII cum Assistant Chemical Examiner, Government of India, CFSL, New Delhi, had examined the hand wash solutions in the case. She deposed that vide letter no. RCDAI2016A 0040/10 dated 02.01.2017, two sealed glass bottles marked as RHW1 and LHW1 were forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, to the Director, CFSL for laboratory examination and expert opinion and that the Director, CFSL, CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 147 of 286 148 marked the case to HOD, Chemistry, and that the same was received in Chemical Division on 03.01.2017 by Senior Scientific Assistant under the supervision of HOD, Chemistry. She proved the letter dated 02.01.2017 (D20) with acknowledgment of CFSL, as Ex.PW13/A. She then deposed that the said case was allotted to her by HOD Chemical on 09.01.2017 for laboratory examination and expert opinion and was taken for examination on 16.01.2017 and that at the time of opening the case exhibits, seal impressions on exhibit bottles were tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded and found to be intact and that the seal impression on two sealed glass bottles were found to be 'C.B.I.A.C.B.N.B 90/2016'. She further deposed that the abovesaid exhibits were examined by her by Physicochemical methods, chemical tests and thin layer chromatographic technique and gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein in exhibit RHW1 and LHW1. She further deposed that after examination, report was prepared by her and that the remnants of exhibits were sealed with her official seal impression i.e. 'D.B.CHEM.DIV.CFSL.NEW DELHI' and that the cloth wrappers alongwith seal impression removed CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 148 of 286 149 from the exhibit bottles were kept in an envelope and also sealed with her official seal impression i.e. 'D.B.CHEM.DIV.CFSL.NEW DELHI'. She further deposed that the original report Ex.PW13/B (D23), remnants of seal exhibits and envelope were handed over to the authorized messenger of the forwarding authority. She identified the exhibits RHW1 and LHW1, which she had examined, and proved one sealed bottle bearing description RHW 1 in RC 40(A)/2016, CFSL2017 / C10 exhibit RHW1 as Ex.P72 and one sealed bottle bearing description LHW1 in RC 40(A)/2016, CFSL2017 / C10 exhibit LHW1 as Ex.P71.
During her crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajender Meena (A2), she termed it correct that as per endorsement made at point A of Ex.PW13/A, except two bottles, nothing else was received. She then deposed that for the period from 03.01.2017 to 09.01.2017 till it was marked to her, exhibits were in the custody of HOD, Chemistry and that she did not mention this fact in her report Ex.PW13/B. She further deposed that there was storage facility in laboratory but there was no malkhana. She denied the suggestion that she did not receive the sample seal along with the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 149 of 286 150 exhibits. She termed it correct that phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate were available in the market and that both of them were also available in her laboratory and that if the phenolphthalein powder was dissolved in water, the color of the solution would not turn into Pink and that in her report, she did not mention about the presence of sodium carbonate. She volunteered to state that the report was given as per the query asked by the forwarding authority but she had examined the presence of sodium carbonate also as per the work sheet. She termed it correct that the bottle Ex.P72 was empty and that the seal was visible and intact on the bottle Ex.P72. She further stated that the presence of slightest quantity of phenolphthalein powder in the sodium carbonate solution would make the solution Pink. She volunteered to state that 5 micro gram of phenolphthalein in 100 ml of Sodium Carbonate solution was sufficient to give the pink color. She termed it correct that phenolphthalein powder got transferred if one touched the hands of other.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 150 of 286 151 12.14 The PW14, Dr. Subrat Kumar Chaudhary, SSOII cum Assistant Chemical Examiner, from CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. He deposed that the present case was received from SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi on 20.02.2017 vide letter no. 2261 Ex.PW14/A dated 17.02.2017 and that along with the said letter, four sealed parcels, specimen seal impressions, certificate of authority and photocopy of transcription of questioned audio recordings were received. The details of the parcels received by PW14, contents of the said parcels, marking given to them by PW14 and the exhibits given to them in the Court are as under : Sr. Marking Contents Marking Exhibit given in the Court No. on the given in parcel CFSL received in CFSL 1 Q1 One torn Q1 Ex.P3 (Brown envelope envelope (Questioned having description Q1 in CD and one audio 56/16).
micro SD recording) Ex.P2 (cover of Micro SD
Card Card)
2 Q2 One torn Q2 Ex.P5 (Brown envelope
envelope (Questioned having description Q2 in CD
and one audio RC 40(A)/2016).
micro SD recording) Ex.P6 (cover of Micro SD
Card Card)
Ex.P4 (Micro SD Card)
CC No. 52/2019
CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 151 of 286
152
Sr. Marking Contents Marking Exhibit given in the Court
No. on the given in
parcel CFSL
received
in CFSL
3 SI, SII, One torn S Ex.P8 (envelope)
SIII envelope (Specimen Ex.P10 (Brown envelope
and one voice) having description SI, SII
micro SD and SIII, memory card).
Card Ex.P11 (cover of Micro SD
Card)
4 Parcel 4 One Ex.P1
envelope
containing
DVR
The PW14 proved the report of examination bearing No. CFSL2017/P196 dated 29.03.2017 as Ex.PW14/B. He identified his signatures on the report as well as the exhibits.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajender Meena (A2), he termed it correct that their lab was not notified under section 79A of Information Technology Act. He volunteered to state that it was under process since 2013. He termed it correct that their lab was under
administrative control of CBI. He again volunteered to state that their lab was overall under the control of MHA. He further deposed that in his opinion, CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 152 of 286 153 auditory and spectrography test were 100% authentic. He termed it correct that the CFSL had working procedure manual for voice examination. He denied the suggestion that as per the manual, there were three categories of opinion i.e. positive identification, positive elimination and no opinion. He termed it correct that in his report in this case, he had opined as probable voice for speaker. He further deposed that in his opinion, probable tilts towards positive voice. He volunteered to state that in voice examination cases, the opinion probable voice was interpreted as positive identification in their laboratory. He further deposed that in all the cases which he had examined, he had not used the word positive identification and that there was no office order or circular or manual for using word 'probable' for positive voice identification. He termed it correct that in the endorsement made at point A on Ex.PW14/A there was no mention of receiving any specimen seal impression. He volunteered to state that endorsement was issued for sealed exhibits only though sample seal and other documents were received along with the forwarding letter and that the same were mentioned in the forwarding letter CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 153 of 286 154 also. He denied the suggestion that no sample seal was ever received in their lab and for this reason, the same did not find mention in endorsement at point A of Ex.PW14/A. During his further crossexamination, the PW14 termed it correct that he had also received the copy of transcription of entire conversation from CBI along with the forwarding letter. He further deposed that for conducting auditory and spectrography test, there was no requirement of transcript of conversation and that in the transcript which was supplied to him by the CBI, name of the speakers were mentioned. He denied the suggestion that he had given his report on the basis of such inputs and not on the basis of any examination. He termed it correct that in the memory card there might or might not be printed number. He further deposed that in the instant case, all the three memory cards were having printed number which were mentioned in his report. He termed it correct that the forwarding letter from CBI did not have the information regarding the printed number on CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 154 of 286 155 the memory cards. He denied the suggestion that the memory cards which he had examined and the memory card which were sent by CBI were different. He further deposed that he had not given any opinion regarding voice beyond reasonable doubt in any case examined by him. He termed it correct that he had not mentioned in his report that during examination, he had signed/initialed the memory cards. He termed it correct that linguistic and phonetic features of people of the same region could be similar and that similar voice could be created by mimicry. He volunteered to state that mimicry voice could be distinguished in spectrographic examination. He termed it correct that there was no centralized malkhana in the laboratory. He further deposed that the Lab Assistant Jayash Bhardwaj had received the sealed exhibits in the laboratory from CBI and the same were lying with him in sealed condition till he received the exhibits from him. He termed it correct that in the receipt, Jayash Bhardwaj did not mention about the description of the seal on the exhibits.CC No. 52/2019
CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 155 of 286 156 12.15 The PW15, Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla, is the Trap Leading Investigating Officer (TLO) in the present case. He deposed that the investigation of FIR No. 40A/2016DLI, Ex.PW12/A (D3), was marked to him on 20.12.2016 for investigation. He briefly reiterated the contents of the complaint which after verification had led to registration of the FIR. The PW15 further deposed that after receiving the FIR, he in consultation with the SP, ACB, CBI, Delhi, constituted a trap team comprising of himself, Inspr.
Shitanshu Sharma, Inspr. Arjun Singh, Inspr. Kamal Singh and Inspr. Sh. Ramesh Kumar and other subordinate staff. On his request, two independent witnesses namely Sh. Narender Tyagi and Avtar Singh Sagar were arranged for by the duty officer. He (PW15) informed all the concerned persons about the purpose of assembling there and introduced them to each other. The complaint Ex.PW3/A (D1), written in Hindi by Rahul Kumar Jha, and the verification memo Ex.PW3/C (D2), prepared by Inspector Ramesh Kumar, were read over to all present there. Sh. Narender Tyagi asked some questions from the complainant regarding the complaint. The independent witness Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar produced the memory card Q1 and CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 156 of 286 157 the DVR in sealed condition. The seal of DVR was opened in presence of all and the memory card Q1 was taken in police possession.
The PW15 further deposed that verification made on 19.12.2016 revealed the demand of Rs. 3 lacs and part payment of Rs.10,000/ on 20.12.2016 at 10.00 PM at P.S. Sangam Vihar on the part of Constable Rajender Kumar Meena/A2.
He further deposed that a new blank memory card was obtained and inserted in the DVR after ensuring that it was blank and that the introductory voice of both the independent witnesses namely Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar and Narender Tyagi was recorded in the DVR. The complainant Rahul Kumar Jha produced Rs. 10,000/ in the denomination of Rs. 2,000/ each and that the denomination of said GC notes was noted in handing over memo.
He further deposed about the manner in which Inspector Arjun Singh gave demonstration regarding the use of phenolphthalein powder in the trap proceedings with the help of witness Avtar Singh Sagar. He further deposed on the lines of PW12 Inspector Ramesh Kumar regarding the preparations made by the CBI team to conduct the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 157 of 286 158 trap proceedings which included instructions given to the complainant and the independent witnesses, arranging of the trap kit and proceeding to the place where trap proceedings were to be conducted. He proved the handing over memo as Ex.PW3/D (D4) by identifying his signatures thereupon. The PW15 also replicated about the calls exchanged between the complainant and Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 on way to PS Sangam Vihar and recording of the said calls ; visit by complainant to PS Sangam Vihar with the independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar, who was introduced as his maternal uncle to the accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2, and their prompt return back to the CBI team when Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 got suspicious and enquired about limping leg of complainant and also told complainant to drop his maternal uncle i.e. the independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar at Tigri Mor.
The PW15 further deposed that the DVR was kept in the left leg sock of the complainant to avoid frisking by the accused persons and that the complainant suspected that when he would visit the P.S. Sangam Vihar next time, the DVR might be traced by the accused persons and therefore it was decided to put the DVR in switched on mode in the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 158 of 286 159 cap of jacket of complainant by cutting threads and to send him alone in P.S. Sangam Vihar. He further deposed that the complainant again went inside P.S. Sangam Vihar. All the trap team members including both the independent witnesses were scattered near P.S. Sangam Vihar in disguised manner. It was seen that the complainant was talking to a person wearing khaki pant and pink shirt, who was later identified as SI Amarjeet Singh. It was also seen that the complainant was going behind the person who went inside his room and that the complainant waited outside the room of SI Amarjeet Singh and that after sometime SI Amarjeet Singh came out from his room and talked to the complainant and that thereafter he directed the complainant to enter in other room. It was seen that the complainant had entered in the room of some other SI, which was later identified as room of SI Saurabh, and that after sometime, the complainant came out from the room of SI Saurabh and gave a call on the mobile phone of PW15 about transaction of bribe and that he (PW15) alerted all trap team members immediately and reached P.S. Sangam Vihar along with both the independent witnesses and other subordinate staff of CBI. The CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 159 of 286 160 PW15 further deposed that he asked the complainant about the transaction of bribe on which the complainant revealed that SI Amarjeet Singh had left the P.S. Sangam Vihar and that the complainant also informed that SI Amarjeet had directed him (complainant) to give the bribe amount to Deepak, later clarified as Vijay by PW15, who was sitting in the room of SI Saurabh, and that the PW15 knocked the door of the room of SI Saurabh which was found locked. He further deposed that after sometime, Vijay opened the door and that he (PW15) introduced himself along with the other team members and independent witnesses and asked about taking of bribe by Vijay on behalf of SI Amarjeet Singh and that Vijay got perplexed and accepted that on the direction of SI Amarjeet Singh, he (Vijay) had taken the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/ from the complainant. On being inquired about the bribe amount, Vijay a private person, informed that due to fear he had thrown the bribe amount under the bed lying in the same room. He (PW15) caught the left hand wrist of Vijay while Inspector Ramesh Kumar caught his right hand wrist. The independent witness Sh. Narender Tyagi recovered the bribe CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 160 of 286 161 amount from under the bed lying in the room and thereafter Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar and Sh. Narender Tyagi tallied the bribe amount with the denomination mentioned in handing over memo Ex.PW3/D (D4) and found it the same.
The PW15 further deposed that after sometime, Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena came to the room of SI Saurabh, where all the trap team members were present, and when Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena was informed about the purpose of visit of CBI, he got perplexed and kept mum. He (Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena) voluntarily called SI Amarjeet Singh, who too came to the room of SI Saurabh after sometime. SI Amarjeet Singh was also informed about the purpose of visit of CBI.
The complainant was then asked to narrate the story on which the complainant informed that 'when he visited the PS. Sangam Vihar, he met SI Amarjeet Singh. SI Amarjeet Singh asked him about the purpose of his visit. He told SI Amarjeet that he knows the purpose of his visit. SI Amarjeet Singh on this told him with gesture to come after him. Then SI Amarjeet Singh entered in his room and he waited outside. After sometime, SI Amarjeet Singh came outside and told him that "Das Hazar CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 161 of 286 162 ke leya Aye ho". He replied in affirmative and asked SI Amarjeet Singh about the bribe amount. SI Amarjeet Singh directed him to give the bribe amount to one Vijay who was sitting alone in the room of SI Saurabh. He also talked to SI Amarjeet Singh about the remaining bribe amount and promised SI Amarjeet Singh that he will pay the rest bribe amount on or before 24.12.2016 as decided earlier for full payment of bribe amount. He, on specific direction of SI Amarjeet Singh visited the room of SI Saurabh where Vijay was sitting alone. Vijay asked him whether Ct. Rajender Singh Meena has sent him. He told Vijay that SI Amarjeet Singh has sent him. On this, Vijay made a call to SI Amarjeet Singh and discussed about the bribe amount. After call, Vijay asked him to handover the bribe amount. He asked Vijay that how much amount SI Amarjeet has told to give to Vijay. Vijay told him to give the bribe amount as directed by SI Amarjeet Singh. He handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/ to Vijay and asked him to count. Vijay accepted the bribe amount with both hands and counted the same. After taking the bribe amount from him, Vijay again called SI Amarjeet CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 162 of 286 163 Singh confirming that he has received the bribe amount. Thereafter, he came out from the room of SI Saurabh and alerted CBI.' The PW15 further deposed that thereafter the recorded conversation made between SI Amarjeet Singh and the complainant was heard in presence of independent witnesses which corroborated the version of the complainant. Vijay was asked to explain the matter on which he informed that he had been working as a private person with SI Saurabh and that he also knew SI Amarjeet Singh and Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena and that on the directions of SI Amarjeet Singh, he (Vijay) accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/ from the complainant and had also confirmed about the receiving of bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/ to SI Amarjeet Singh over telephone but when he heard sounds outside the room, out of fear he threw the bribe amount under the bed lying in the room.
The complainant informed the PW15 that SI Amarjeet Singh and Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena had not touched the bribe amount and therefore their hand washes were not taken. Separate hand wash of both the hands of accused Vijay was taken and when the colourless sodium carbonate solution CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 163 of 286 164 turned pink, the same was put in clean glass bottles. The bottles in which wash of right hand were taken were marked as RHW1 and RHW2 respectively in RC 40/16. Similarly, the wash of left hand of accused Vijay were taken in bottles which were marked as LHW1 and LHW2 respectively in RC 40(A)/16. The PW15 identified the said bottles in the Court as Ex.P7/2 (RHW1) and Ex.P10/2 (RHW2) and Ex.P7/1 (LHW1) and Ex.P10/1 (LHW2). The bottles were sealed with CBI seal and signed by PW15 as well as both the independent witnesses. At this stage, it was observed that bottle Ex.P7/2 (RHW1) did not contain the pink solution of sodium carbonate while all the other bottles contained the same.
The PW15 further deposed that the recovered bribe amount was kept in brown envelope, Ex.P6, and was sealed with CBI seal and was signed by PW15 as well as both the independent witnesses. He identified the five currency notes in the denomination of Rs.2000/ as Ex.P5/1 to Ex.P5/5 and the envelope containing the said currency notes as Ex.P6.
The PW15 further deposed about the search conducted in the office of SI Amarjeet Singh vide CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 164 of 286 165 search cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/5 (D12) and the receipt of documents in respect of inquest relating to inquiry of incident dated 22.07.2016 from the SHO PS Sangam Vihar vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/1 (D13).
He further proved two rough site sketches prepared by Inspector Arjun Singh, on his direction, as Ex.PW8/2 (D6) and Ex.PW8/3 (D7) respectively and explained that Ex.PW8/2 (D6) reflected PS Sangam Vihar and the location of trap team members while Ex.PW8/3 (D7) depicted the room of SI Saurabh in which Vijay was sitting at the time of transaction of bribe and the location of the bribe amount, lying under the bed, where it was thrown by accused Vijay/A3. The PW15 further deposed that they left P.S. Sangam Vihar at about 3.20 PM and returned to CBI office where the DVR was played and rough transcription of recordings (Q2) was prepared. He then deposed about the manner in which the memory card, used for recording the conversation between complainant and accused persons during trap proceedings, was taken out from the DVR and sealed as per routine procedure which was explained in details by PW12 Inspector Ramesh Kumar during his deposition. He CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 165 of 286 166 also identified the said SD memory card and small envelope (having Q2 written on it), in which it was kept as, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively.
The PW15 further deposed about taking of voice samples of the accused persons, namely, SI Amarjeet Singh, Rajender Singh Meena and Vijay on the lines of PW12 Inspector Ramesh Kumar. He identified the envelopes i.e. the first envelope as P 8, second envelope as P9 and the 3 rd envelope (brown) containing SD card as P10. The SD card enclosure containing SD card and the SD card were identified as Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 respectively. He further identified the DVR, which was used to record Q1, Q2 and SI, SII and SIII as Ex.P1.
He then deposed about the arrest of the accused persons and proved the arrest cum personal search memo of accused Amarjeet Singh, Rajender Kumar Meena and Vijay as Ex. PW8/4 (D
8), Ex. PW8/5 (D9) and Ex. PW8/6 (D10) respectively. The recovery memo, wherein the trap proceedings were recorded, was proved as Ex. PW 3/F colly. (D5). He stated that the proceedings were completed at about 11.30 p.m on 20.12.2016 and that Q2, SI, SII and SIII, trap money, DVR were taken in police possession vide recovery CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 166 of 286 167 memo. Thereafter, the CBI seal was given to independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar for keeping it in safe custody and to produce it as and when required, by lawful authority.
The witness was made to hear the recordings in the memory card in the Court and identified the voices therein as under : S Memory Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No Card No. person/ No. No. object whose voice was identified 1 P4 161220 11 secs Introductory voice of Avtar 0922 Singh Sagar 2 P4 161220 11 secs Introductory voice of 0922 Narender 01 Kumar Tyagi 3 P4 161220 9 secs Ring tone of service 1020 provider 4 P4 161220 46 secs Complainant As per transcript talking to 1021 accused Rajender 5 P4 161220 1.01.49 Duration from Portion A to A of 5:22 to few transcript Ex.PW 1041 hrs. minutes after it 3/G (starting from complainant page 20) talking to accused Rajender.
CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 167 of 286 168 S Memory Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No Card No. person/ No. No. object whose voice was identified Duration from Portion B to B of 38.00 and transcript Ex.PW thereafter 3/G (Page 22). voice of complainant and SI Amarjeet Singh Duration from 40.00 - complainant talking to SI Amarjeet Singh. ___________ Duration from Portion C to C of 40.40 to 43.06 transcript Ex.PW - complainant 3/G (Page 21 - 22) talking to SI Amarjeet Singh. ___________ ________________ Portion D to D of Duration from transcript Ex.PW 43.06 to 46.31 3/G (Page 23). - complainant Complainant talking to SI discussing his case Amarjeet with SI Amarjeet Singh. Singh who directed him to hand over amount to Vijay who CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 168 of 286 169 S Memory Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No Card No. person/ No. No. object whose voice was identified was sitting alone in the room. ___________ ________________ Duration from 46.31 to 46.44 - complainant knocking on the door of room of SI Saurabh Duration from Portion E to E of 46.45 to 49.50 transcript Ex.PW - voice of 3/G (Pages 2325). complainant Complainant talking to confirmed identity of accused Vijay Vijay and handed over bribe amount to him. 6 P4 161220 Conversation Portion F to F of 1144 between transcript Ex.PW Rajender 3/G. Kumar Meena and Amarjeet Singh 7 161220 Introductory Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2148 voice of III) Narender Tyagi 8 161220 Introductory Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2149 voice of Avtar III) Singh Sagar CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 169 of 286 170 S Memory Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No Card No. person/ No. No. object whose voice was identified 9 161220 Specimen Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2150 voice of SI III) Amarjeet Singh 10 161220 Concluding Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2151 voice of III) Narender Tyagi 11 161220 Concluding Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2152 voice of Avtar III) Singh Sagar 12 161220 Introductory Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2152_ voice of III) 01 Narender Tyagi 13 161220 Introductory Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2153 voice of Avtar III) Singh Sagar 14 161220 Specimen Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2154 voice of III) Ct.Rajender Kumar Meena 15 161220 Concluding Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2154_ voice of III) 01 Narender Tyagi 16 161220 Concluding Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2155 voice of Avtar III) Singh Sagar 17 161220 Introductory Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2156 voice of III) CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 170 of 286 171 S Memory Folder Duration Name of Portion and Exhibit No Card No. person/ No. No. object whose voice was identified Narender Tyagi 18 161220 Introductory Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2156_ voice of Avtar III) 01 Singh Sagar 19 161220 Specimen Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2158 voice of Vijay III) 20 161220 Concluding Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2158_ voice of III) 01 Narender Tyagi 21 161220 Concluding Ex.P12 (S1, SII, S _2159 voice of Avtar III) Singh Sagar
The PW15 also deposed that during the entire trap proceedings DVR was handled by him.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1, the PW15 was unable to state if the complainant Rahul was from Bihar. He was also not aware if the complainant lived at Faridabad. Though the witness stated that complainant had given him the address of Delhi, after going through the complaint Ex. PW 3/A, he stated that Rahul had given address of Faridabad in his complaint. The PW15 was asked about his CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 171 of 286 172 own residential address and stated that he had been living at the address of D56, II floor, RPS Palms, Sector88, Faridabad, since about three years and that prior to that, he was living at House No. 293, Sector30, Faridabad. He denied the suggestion that he knew Rahul from before being his neighbour or that the present case had been initiated as per his suggestions given to Rahul.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 15 was put certain portions of his examination in chief which were amiss in his statement u/s. 161 CrPC recorded by the IO. He was unable to recall if he had stated in his statement to the IO that the verification memo Ex.PW3/C (D2) was read over to all members present there or that Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar produced the memory card Q1 or that he (PW15) had asked the caretaker to provide the new memory card. He was unable to recall if he had stated in his statement to the IO that the complainant was asked to call Rajender Meena by keeping the mobile phone on loudspeaker mode. He termed it correct that he had not stated to the IO that the complainant suspected that if he (complainant) would visit P.S Sangam Vihar again, the DVR might be traced by the accused persons.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 172 of 286 173 The PW15 further deposed that when the complainant Rahul was sent to the police station on 20.12.2016, he returned from there after about ten minutes and that he remained with the CBI officials for about 1015 minutes. They had taken their position after getting down from the vehicle, before sending Rahul to the police station, and that PW15 was standing on the road outside the police station near front gate. He further deposed that Rahul had told them that he had met Rajender Kumar Meena. The PW15 was unable to recall his position when Rahul was sent to the police station for the second time. He then stated that they were inside the police station. He was unable to state the position of Insp. Ramesh. He denied that he was not telling the position of Insp. Ramesh as he never went there. He further deposed that they had parked the vehicles at the main road i.e. Mehrauli Badarpur road and that from there, the police station was at a distance of five minutes walk. He was unable to state as to who had taken search of whom. He was also unable to recollect the denomination of notes which were kept in the kit for incidental expenses. He was further unable to state if any rough transcript was prepared by Insp. Ramesh Kumar.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 173 of 286 174 He termed it correct that the other police officials were also present in the police station at the time of incident. None of the police officials present there were asked to join the proceedings.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 15 deposed that first of all he had entered the room of Vijay and thereafter the remaining team members entered the room but he was unable to tell the names of the said members. He clarified that Insp. Ramesh was with him (PW15) when they entered the room. He was unable to recall if Insp. Ramesh had introduced himself to Vijay. He was also unable to recall the time for which they remained in the room with Vijay. He further deposed that no document was prepared in the room except taking the hand wash. He then deposed that when they entered the room, Vijay was alone. At the time of raid, the SHO had helped his team and handed over the case file of deceased Devender Katharia. He further deposed that the vehicle in which he (PW15) was sitting, he was accompanied by the complainant, both the independent witnesses and Insp. Sitanshu Sharma. The rest of the team was in the other vehicle. He CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 174 of 286 175 expressed his lack of knowledge if the inquest was done by SI Vivek and SI Rajesh. He termed it correct that he did not read the inquest report. He was unable to state whether SI Rajesh and SI Vivek were investigating about the inquest. He even unable to state whether the initial complaint of Rahul was against SI Rajesh and SI Vivek. He denied that since SI Rajesh and SI Vivek were no more handling the case, the CBI had asked Rahul to give the complaint against Amarjeet. He further denied the suggestion that no recovery memo was prepared or that the same was prepared later on in order to falsely implicate the accused or that accused Amarjeet was not in the police station and had been called there after making a call just to falsely implicate him in the present case.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2, the PW15 deposed that he did not have experience of investigation before joining CBI and that after joining CBI, he was given training of investigation and that he was taught the CBI crime manual during training which included the guidelines and procedure for investigation. He further termed it correct that during investigation, he followed the procedure and CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 175 of 286 176 guidelines as far as possible.
He expressed his lack of knowledge if any annual target of number of cases of the branch was fixed as per CBI crime manual. He was unable to state whether it was the collective responsibility of the officials posted in the branch to achieve the annual target. He termed it correct that only SP, ACB, CBI had power to order registration of FIR and that the verification memo Ex.PW3/C (D2) did not bear any written endorsement by SP of the branch for registration of FIR. He volunteered to state that the said memo was put up before SP in the file and in that file, SP endorsed for registration of FIR. He further termed it correct that there was no document in the judicial file in which SP, CBI, endorsed for registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that SP, CBI, did not give any such order and hence the same was not placed on record. He further deposed that the investigation of this case was handed over to him by the SP Smt. Gagandeep Gambhir at about 8.00 a.m. and that she did not give him any order in writing to constitute team for laying a trap. He denied that SP was not present in the office and he (PW15) of his own initiated the proceedings. He termed it correct that whenever CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 176 of 286 177 any complaint was received in the CBI office, it was entered in the General Diary register and then FIR was registered. After registration of the FIR, the entry was again made in the General Diary. He termed it correct that the complaint was registered in the complaint register and separate number was given to the complaint and that the complaint Ex. PW3/A did not have any complaint number on it. He volunteered to state that the said number was given on the verification memo. He denied that the complaint did not bear the complaint number because no such complaint was in existence at that time or that the FIR was antetimed.
He further deposed that he did not tell the Duty Officer specifically to arrange for the gazetted officer as independent witness. He was unable to state if the manual provided that as far as possible, a gazetted officer be called as independent witness. He further deposed that before the trap, they did not inform the DCP that they were going to lay trap in the police station. He termed it correct that the manual provided for giving prior information to Head of the Department/DCP before laying a trap against an official. He expressed his lack of knowledge if pretrap and posttrap proceedings were to be CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 177 of 286 178 videographed. He denied that the guidelines had not been followed to implicate the accused falsely. He was unable to recall the date when the investigation of the case was handed over to some other IO after the trap. He termed it correct that the investigation of the present case was with him till 21.12.2016 and that he did not record the statement of any witness u/s 161 CrPC till such time that the investigation remained with him. He volunteered to state that he was TLO of the case. He denied that he did not record the statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC with the intention to manipulate the statement of witnesses later on. He further deposed that he did not ask the complainant as to when, where and to whom he had given Rs.30,000/ as disclosed in the complaint Ex. PW3/A. He denied that he did not make such enquiry because he knew that the complaint was false. He further denied the suggestion that before going to PS Sangam Vihar, he did not conduct any pretrap proceedings nor gave any demo. He termed it correct that DVR had inbuilt memory but he expressed his lack of knowledge if the data from the inbuilt memory in the DVR could be transferred on to memory card and vice CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 178 of 286 179 versa. He termed it correct that he had nowhere mentioned that he ensured the blankness of inbuilt memory of DVR. He termed it correct that in a case of successful trap, there was provision of cash award.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 15 deposed that he did not possess any special qualification as to the identification of voice. He further termed it correct that he had never met the accused persons and the complainant prior to 20.12.2016 and that he did not hear their recorded voice prior to 20.12.2016. He expressed his lack of knowledge if the complainant had been arrested in Faridabad in a case of impersonation as CBI officer or if an I card and sticker of the CBI with the name of complainant had been recovered from him or if he was rearrested in Kashganj, UP, in December 2018, when he was impersonating as CBI officer or that an I card of CBI with his name was recovered from him. He denied that he was aware about the antecedents of the complainant and was intentionally concealing the same or that he had helped the complainant in obtaining the forged I Card and sticker of CBI being his neighbour.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 179 of 286 180 He further deposed that he had introduced himself to the accused Vijay as CBI Inspector and that he had also told Vijay his name. He denied the suggestion that there were no talks on the mobile between the complainant and Rajender Kumar Meena, on the way, when they started from CBI office for the police station, and that the accused Rajender Kumar Meena was not present in the PS as he was on leave on that day or that accused Rajender Kumar Meena did not meet the complainant on that day or that nothing was recovered from any of the accused.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Vijay/A3, the PW15 deposed that after receiving the information from Rahul regarding transaction of bribe, he (PW15) immediately reached the room where Vijay was sitting and that it took him about 67 minutes to reach there and that on reaching there, they found that the door of the room was closed from inside and that they knocked at the door for 45 minutes and thereafter the door was opened. He then deposed that he did not see the accused Vijay throwing the money and that Vijay himself had told them about throwing the money when they CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 180 of 286 181 went inside and introduced themselves and interrogated him. He denied that the CBI had planted money on the person of Vijay or that Vijay never told them about throwing of the money. He termed it correct that he had entered the room first. He denied that immediately after entering the room, they had started giving beatings to the accused Vijay.
At this stage, on request of counsel for accused Vijay/A3, memory card Q2 was played on the laptop in the Court.
The PW15 denied that the recording did not contain any introductory voices or interrogation or that it simply contained the voice of weeping. He termed it correct that the said recording contained voice of slapping, abusing, threatening and weeping and that stating 'Aisa thappar marunga ki gir jayaga' and the other person stating 'maar kyu rahe ho'. It was also recorded 'kya bola hai hamne, jo bola hai wohi kar'.
He denied that accused Vijay never told them that he was asked by Amarjeet to accept the amount. He termed it correct that as per the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 181 of 286 182 recording for the period from 58.10 to 1.01, there was no recording to the effect that Vijay had told that he was asked the Amarjeet to accept the amount.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 15 deposed that Vijay had told them during interrogation on that day that he worked for SI Saurabh and SI Amarjeet.
He denied that neither any search was conducted nor any recovery was effected in the manner stated by him. He also denied that the hand wash of the accused Vijay was never taken or that the money was planted on the accused Vijay or that Vijay never told him (PW15) that he had accepted the money.
12.16 The PW16, Sh. N.C. Nawal, had conducted post trap investigation, recorded statement of witnesses and filed the chargesheet upon completion of investigation. He deposed that the investigation of the present case were entrusted to him vide order dated 28.12.2016 and that he took over charge from Sh. Raman Shukla, Inspector CBI, ACB, on 02.01.2017. The case was registered on the basis of complaint Ex.PW3/A dated 19.12.2016 made by CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 182 of 286 183 Sh. Rahul Kumar Jha and had been verified by Sh. Ramesh Kumar Inspector, CBI ACB, on 19.12.2016 vide verification report Ex.PW3/C and thereafter recommendation for registration of FIR was made pursuant to which FIR Ex.PW12/A was registered and was entrusted to Sh. Raman Shukla on 20.12.2016 by SP CBI, ACB, New Delhi. The PW 16 identified signatures of Ms.Gagan Deep Gambhir, SP, CBI ACB, on the FIR. He further deposed that Sh. Raman Shukla conducted pretrap proceedings and recovery proceedings in this case and that he collected following documents from him : 1 Handing over memo Ex.PW3/D (D4) 2 Recovery memo Ex.PW3/F (D5) 3 Rough site plan Ex.PW8/2 (D6) 4 Rough site plan Ex.PW8/3 (D7) 5 Documents collected by Sh.Raman Kumar Shukla during searches at P.S. Sangam Vihar i.e. Ex.PW1/6 (colly P1 to P26) D11; Ex.PW1/6B (P26 to 107); search memo Ex.PW1/5 (D12); Production cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/1 (D13); certified copy of relevant page of acquittal inquest & missing taking handing register Ex.PW1/2 (D
14); certified copy of duty roaster Ex.PW1/3 (D CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 183 of 286 184
15), certified copy of leave register Ex.PW1/4 (D
16); transaction of Q2 Ex.PW3/E (D17) and the specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW8/7 (D
18).
6. Arrest cum personal search memos Ex.PW8/4 (of accused Amarjeet) Ex.PW8/5 (of accused Rajender) and Ex.PW8/6 (of accused Vijay). He further sent letter Ex.PW13/A (D20) in respect of hand washes and letter Ex.PW11/A (D
21) in respect of memory cards marked as Q1, Q2 and SI to SIII, for preparing copies for investigation purposes, both under the signatures of the SP, to CFSL. He also sent letter Ex.PW14/A (D22), under signatures of SP, for expert opinion in respect of memory cards and DVR to CFSL. He then issued notices to Nodal Officers for providing CAFs and CDRs of the mobile phones which were used by accused persons namely Amarjeet Singh, Rajender Kumar Meena, Vijay and the complainant and that on receipt of CAFs and CDRs, Nodal Officers were also examined and their statements were recorded by him (PW16).
The PW16 further deposed that accused Amarjeet Singh was using mobile phone which was in the name of one Mr. Amit Kumar and that he CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 184 of 286 185 issued notice for appearance to Sh. Amit Kumar and also recorded his statement on his appearance before him. He recorded statements of other witnesses as per facts stated by them before him and also prepared transcription of the recorded conversation which were recorded during verification and during trap proceedings. The transcription cum voice identification memo Ex.PW 3/G (D19) dated 16.02.2017 was prepared in the presence of both the independent witnesses and complainant and that the complainant identified his voice and the voices of the accused persons.
A letter was sent to CFSL vide which Q1, Q2, SI to SIII and DVR were sent for voice spectrography test. The CFSL expert opinion on hand washes was received wherein it was opined that phenolphthalein was present in the washes that were sent to CFSL. The voice spectrography test report was also received from CFSL. He further deposed that as per direction of the Court, accused Vijay was got examined by medical board at Safdarjung hospital for determination of his age and report thereof was filed in the Court. The PW16 further deposed that he obtained dismissal orders of accused Amarjeet and Rajender from the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 185 of 286 186 concerned DCP. He further examined witness Salim at District Jail, Faridabad, after obtaining permission from the concerned Court at Faridabad.
The PW16 further deposed that he collected following :
1. chemical examination report Ex.PW13/B (D23).
2. copies of memory cards from CFSL vide letter Ex.PW11/B (D24).
3. CAFs and CDRs of mobile no. 9873973998 and 9711422233 vide letter Ex.PW4/A (D25) dated 06.01.2017.
4.CAF of mobile no. 9540811168 Ex.PW7/B (D26), CDR Ex.PW7/D (D28) and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex.PW7/C (D27) vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW7/A (D29).
5. CAF copy, CDR, certificate u/s 65B of Evidence and Cell ID chart in respect of mobile no. 7982469604 vide letter dated 01.03.2017 Ex.PW6/A (D31).
6. CAF copy, CDR, certificate u/s 65B of Evidence and Cell ID chart in respect of mobile no. 7011804026 vide letter dated 01.03.2017 Ex.PW6/J (D32).
7. Age estimation report Ex.C1 of accused Vijay vide letter Ex.PW16/A dated 27.02.2017.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 186 of 286 187
8. Forensic voice examination report Ex.PW14/B dated 29.03.2017 from CFSL.
He also recorded statement Ex.PW3/B of witness Rahul Kumar Jha, statement Ex.PW5/A of witness Amit Kumar, statement Ex.PW2/A of witness Saurabh Kumar and statement Ex.PW9/A of witness Salim Saifi u/s 161 Cr.P.C, as per facts stated by them. He identified his signatures on these statements.
The PW16 again summarised the case against the accused persons and stated that after consideration of material collected during investigation, he found that a case was made out against Amarjeet Singh, Rajender Kumar Meena and Vijay and accordingly, a chargesheet u/s 120B IPC, u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 was filed against the said accused persons by him. The PW16 identified all the three accused persons in the Court.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajender Kumar Meena / A2, the PW16 deposed that after being marked the investigation of the present case, he had gone through the complaint filed by Rahul Kumar Jha. He termed it correct that as per complaint, Rahul Kumar Jha had CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 187 of 286 188 claimed that he had already given a sum of Rs. 30,000/ to accused persons. He stated that during the course of investigation he had verified from Rahul Kumar Jha as to where, when and to whom he had handed over said sum of money and recorded his statement in this regard and that he (PW16) had not mentioned regarding it in his report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that he had called the witnesses either telephonically or by sending them notice to join investigation and that he had mentioned this fact in the case diary. He further deposed that prior to 02.01.2017, he had conducted search at the house of accused Rajender Kumar Meena on 20.12.2016 and that he did not find any document relating to the present case during the said search and that he had neither mentioned in chargesheet nor placed on record any document regarding the fact that he had conducted search at the house of accused Rajender Kumar Meena prior to 02.01.2017. He termed it correct that he did not find anything during the search which would indicate that accused Rajender Kumar Meena had disproportionate assets. He further CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 188 of 286 189 deposed that the previous IO Raman Kumar Shukla had given him (PW16) notification u/s 165 Cr.P.C at P.S. Sangam Vihar and pursuant thereto, he had conducted search in the house of accused Rajender Kumar Meena. He (PW16) was present at P.S. Sangam Vihar on 20.12.2016. He volunteered to state that he had gone there only to collect the notification u/s 165 Cr.P.C. He admitted that he had not mentioned this fact in report u/s. 173 CrPC. He was unable to recall the time when he had reached P.S. Sangam Vihar on 20.12.2016. He further deposed that he had gone there with his team. He denied that he was present at P.S. Sangam Vihar along with the trap team since morning on 20.12.2016 or that he had not gone there later on.
He denied the suggestion that he had pressurized Nodal Officer and obtained manipulated and fabricated CDRs from them though he (PW16) was not authorized to call for said record or that due to the said reason, he did not send any request letter from S.P, who was authorized to call for record, to the Nodal Officers. He was unable to recall the exact date when he received copies of CDs for investigation. He deposed that he had received a letter from CFSL and thereafter got the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 189 of 286 190 copies of CDs collected. He denied that he had manipulated the transcriptions. He, however, stated that he had already prepared the transcription when he called the witnesses. He volunteered to state that the CD was played and transcripts were checked in the presence of witnesses and the complainant as and when they were called.
After going through Ex.PW3/G (D19), he termed it correct that it was mentioned in the said memo that the rough transcription of recorded conversation Q1 and Q2 held between the complainant and the accused persons got prepared by undersigned and printout was taken out. He volunteered to state that by stating 'got prepared', he meant that the transcript were already prepared.
He denied the suggestion that the witnesses had not appeared before him on 16.02.2017 or that he had converted the blank papers, on which Raman Kumar Shukla had taken signatures of witnesses, into memo Ex.PW3/G (colly.) (D13). He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he came to know that complainant Rahul Kumar Jha had been found impersonating as CBI officer in Faridabad. He termed it correct that a CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 190 of 286 191 CBI I card was also recovered from his possession by Faridabad police. He was not aware that after his deposition in the present case, complainant Rahul Kumar Jha was again apprehended at Kasganj, UP while impersonating as a CBI official. The PW16 expressed his lack of knowledge if Rahul Kumar Jha and TLO Raman Kumar Shukla were neighbours in Faridabad. He denied the suggestion that since complainant Rahul Kumar Jha was neighbour of TLO Raman Kumar Shukla, the accused persons had been falsely implicated in the present case by CBI officials including him (PW16) in order to stall and deviate the investigation against Rahul Kumar Jha (complainant) in order to save him.
The crossexamination of the witness was adopted on behalf of accused Amarjeet/A1 and the witness was further crossexamined as well.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 16 denied the suggestion that witnesses Rahul, Salim, Saurabh and Amit Kumar had deposed correctly before the Court or that he (PW16) had not recorded their actual and correct statements. He further deposed that he had gone through the inquest proceedings with regard to the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 191 of 286 192 murder of Davinder Katharia and that the same were commenced under supervision of SI Rajesh Yadav. He stated that he did not record the statement of SI Rajesh Yadav nor made him a witness in the present case. He also did not collect any document during investigation showing that father of deceased Davinder had made a complaint with regard to that case after which the same was handed over to SI Amarjeet Singh. He further deposed that during investigation, he came to know that the mobile phone used by Rahul Kumar Jha was in the name of his sister and that he (PW16) had obtained CAF and CDRs of said phone. He, however, did not make sister of Rahul Kumar Jha a witness in the present case.
He termed it correct that the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded in their presence as per facts disclosed by them. When the attention of witness was drawn to typed statement dated 09.03.2017 of witness Salim Saifi u/s 161 Cr.P.C, he stated that he had recorded the said statement Ex.PW16/DA. He then volunteered to state that he had recorded CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 192 of 286 193 statement Ex.PW9/A of Salim Saifi in Jail and after returning back he had typed statement Ex.PW16/DA of Salim Saifi and had also examined one witness Saddam Saifi, relative of Salim Saifi, and that inadvertently both these statements were merged while cutting and pasting the matter in the computer and got reflected as statement of Salim Saifi. He denied the suggestion that the statement of remaining witnesses were also prepared by cutting and pasting the matter or that said witnesses were not examined by him. He termed it correct that there was difference in the statement Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW16/DA.
He termed it correct that when investigation was handed over to him by Raman Kumar Shakula, a handing over memo of the case file was prepared and that he had not filed said handing over memo along with the chargesheet. He expressed his lack of knowledge about the fact that Rahul Kumar Jha had initially brought a complaint against SI Vivek and SI Rajesh of PS Sangam Vihar to the CBI office or if he had shown the said complaint to Raman Kumar Shukla and other officers or if they told CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 193 of 286 194 Rahul Kumar Jha that since investigation had been transferred from SI Vivek and SI Rajesh he should name the current investigating officer in the complaint for any action to be taken in the said matter.
During his further crossexamination, the PW 16 deposed that a search was conducted in the house of accused Amarjeet. He was not aware if any incriminating material was recovered from the house of accused Amarjeet during search or not. He termed it correct that the report u/s 173 Cr.PC did not find mention of anything incriminating having been recovered from the house of accused Amarjeet.
During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Vijay/A3, the PW16 termed it correct that he had already prepared the transcript Ex.PW3/G (colly) (D19) and that he knew the names of speakers when he prepared the transcripts and before he called the witnesses. He termed it correct that in Ex.PW3/G (colly. (D19) he had mentioned 'after hearing the above recorded voice, the complainant Sh. Rahul Kumar Jha identified his voice and voice of Amarjeet Singh, SI, Rajender Kumar Meena, Constable, Vijay and his CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 194 of 286 195 friend Saddam and confirmed that he had the above conversation with' them.
The PW16 was asked to explain how he had stated that when he prepared the transcripts he was not aware of the names of the speakers and that the same were told to him by complainant Rahul Kumar Jha when he prepared Ex.PW3/G. The witness explained that the names of some speakers were already mentioned by Raman Kumar Shukla after he had conducted trap in the rough transcript Ex.PW3/E (D17) and that he (PW16) had mentioned name of the speakers in the transcript prepared by him on basis of rough transcript Ex.PW3/E. He further explained that he had also made corrections later on in the names of speakers after speaking to complainant Rahul Kumar Jha during the process of preparing transcript Ex.PW3/G. He termed it correct that when he received the case file, there was no rough transcription of Q1. He further termed it correct that he had not mentioned in Ex.PW3/G that he had made changes in the names of the speaker after CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 195 of 286 196 identification of voices by complainant Rahul Kumar Jha. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW3/G was a manipulated document or that he had deliberately not made transcript of the folder in which the voice of weeping, slapping, beating, abusing and threatening of accused Vijay by CBI officials was recorded even though the same was audible in the CD Q2 Ex.P4 and Ex.P5.
No other witness was examined by the prosecution and hence PE was closed on 17.05.2019.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC
13. After prosecution evidence, statement of all the Accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The entire incriminating evidence was put to all the Accused persons. They denied the incriminating evidence pertaining to their role in commission of offence and claimed their innocence. 13.1 A1 Amarjeet Singh and A2 Rajender Kumar Meena took the defence that CBI had filed this case in connivance with the complainant in order to save the complainant from a case in which complainant and his friends were prime suspects. The said case was being investigated by A1 while A2 was posted in the same police station. The CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 196 of 286 197 complainant himself was involved in two cases wherein he had impersonated himself as a CBI Inspector and tried to cheat people. Complainant had good relations and being neighbour of Mr. Raman Kumar Shukla, TLO of this case, implicated them and the other accused Vijay in the present false case.
13.2 A3 Vijay also took a plea of false implication. He alleged that the case was an outcome of connivance between the complainant and CBI. He also stated that he did not have any connection with the present case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
14. The accused persons examined two DWs in their defence.
14.1. The DW1, Ct. Vikesh Yadav, brought the original record pertaining to FIR no. 344/2018 U/s 419/420/170 IPC, registered at P.S. Sahawar on 18.11.2018, and proved photocopy thereof as Ex.DW1/A. He deposed that as per record, the names of the accused persons against whom the said FIR was registered were Rahul Jha son of Sh. Prakash Chand Jha and Shiv Pratap S/o Shailender.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 197 of 286 198 During his cross examination by PP CBI, DW1 termed it correct that he did not have any personal knowledge about FIR Ex.DW1/A and that the said FIR was neither registered by him nor upon his dictation by the computer operator. He further termed it correct that he was unable to identify the accused persons who were named in FIR Ex.DW1/A. 14.2. The DW2, Sh. Bala Subramaniyam, produced the record in respect of letter bearing no. 154D dated 23.02.2017 addressed by Asstt. Police Commissioner, Crime, Faridabad to Joint Director, Admin, CBI, HQ, CGO Complex. He stated that a photocopy of identity card of one Rahul Kumar Jha was also received with the said communication. He proved the photocopies of the letter and the identity card of Sh. Rahul Kumar Jha as Ex.DW2/A colly. (two pages). He further deposed that in response to the said letter, a letter no. DPAD.I/2017/1558/26/19/2017AD.I dated 06.04.2017 was written by Sh. Rajender Kumar Dutta, A.O.(A) & Head of Office, CBI, HO: New Delhi to Asstt. Police Commissioner, Crime Faridabad. He produced the office copy of reply dated 06.04.2017 and proved the photocopy thereof as Ex.DW2/B. The DW2 was also shown Mark DW2/X and CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 198 of 286 199 Mark DW2/Y i.e. colored print out of the enewspaper "Amar Ujala, Faridabad" dated 19.02.2017 and colored print out of the enewspaper "Kasganj News" dated 19.11.2018 but was unable to comment if the person seen at point encircled "X" in both these print outs was the same person in respect of whom query was received vide letter and I card Ex.DW2/A colly.
During his crossexamination, PP CBI, DW2 stated that he did not have personal knowledge about the case in which he had been summoned to depose and the record which he had produced in the Court. He further stated that he did not deal with the correspondence exchanged vide Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW2/B personally.
15. Final arguments were addressed by ld. PP CBI as well as Sh. Anil Sethi, ld. Counsel for A1 Amarjeet Singh, Sh. B.C. Mishra, ld. Counsel for A2 Rajender Kumar Meena and Sh. Wasi Haider, ld. Counsel for A3 Vijay.
16. Ld. PP has reiterated the case of prosecution as detailed in the chargesheet. He has further stated that complainant had gone to CBI office and had initially reported at reception from where, after inquiry / verification, he was sent to ACB Branch and went through the DO to SP, CBI, CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 199 of 286 200 where he was again heard and was asked to write his complaint. Thereafter, complainant wrote complaint Ex.PW3/A. It is contended that this clearly brings out the fact that the complainant had sufficient time to think over the matter and to decide whether or not he wanted to file a complaint and against whom and that there was no force or coercion on complainant to write his complaint in a particular manner or against specific persons and that his complaint was totally voluntary. It is contended that this is further proved by the fact that the complainant has named only A1 and A2 in his complaint and does not mention about A3 in it.
17. It is further contended that the facts mentioned in the complaint given by the complainant were again verified in presence of PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar and that PW12/Ramesh Kumar was deputed to verify its genuineness. For this purpose a DVR was given to complainant and its recordings were heard pursuant to which a verification memo was prepared and a trap team was constituted on 20.12.2016. Thereafter, another independent witness namely PW10/Narender Tyagi was joined in investigation and trap was laid. It is then contended that on the day trap proceedings were conducted, the complainant went to the police station CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 200 of 286 201 twice. In the first instance, he went with PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar but was asked by A2 to drop PW8 and thereafter he (complainant) again went to meet the accused persons but was able to meet only A1 who told complainant to give money to A3 who was sitting alone in room of PW2/SI Saurabh. Complainant went to the room in which A3 was sitting and gave money to him and thereafter A3 gave a call to A1 and confirmed if the complainant had been sent by him. Relying upon the voice recordings, it is stated that the fact that A3 had accepted the money on behalf of A1 and A2 stands proved by the prosecution. Moreover, it is contended that, complainant has also admitted this fact.
18. It is further contended that after the tainted money was given trap team apprehended A3 and asked him to give a call to A1 as well as A2 and that thereafter both A1 and A2 were called to the room where A3 was present along with the CBI officials, complainant and the two independent witnesses. All the three accused persons admitted their guilt and were arrested in the present case. The tainted money recovered from the spot was tallied with the distinctive numbers noted in the handing over memo. Expert opinion in respect of the phenolphthalein solution, prepared from hand washes of A3, was positive and so were the voice samples taken during verification and CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 201 of 286 202 subsequent trap proceedings.
19. Though, it is conceded that PW3 Rahul Kumar / complainant has turned hostile, it is stated that his testimony is still of considerable value to the prosecution since during his cross examination, he admitted that he had filed complaint and also identified all the three accused persons. He further admitted that he had given a sum of Rs. 15,000/, 10,000/ and Rs. 5,000/ to SI Rajesh on behalf of accused Amarjeet. He further admitted the DVR recordings as well as transcription thereof which even otherwise were prepared in presence of two independent witnesses. It is contended that both the independent witnesses as well as CBI officials have supported the case of the prosecution and that the complaint filed by complainant has been proved to be genuine. It is further stated that the verification conducted by CBI was fair and that the pretrap proceedings have been duly proved by the witnesses. Further, the recordings of conversations and transcriptions have also been proved to be correct. The handing over of trap money and trap proceedings, wherein A1 and A2 were given bribe amount through A3, also stand proved and thus prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. As regards, the two defence witnesses, CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 202 of 286 203 it is contended that just because complainant is a criminal it does not mean that he is not to be believed. Rather since he had a criminal record, a demand was made from him to absolve him from the allegations of murder of his friend Devender. It is further contended that complainant may have criminal cases registered against him but he has not convicted in any case and that the inquiry qua the murder case in question was also still pending and hence he cannot be labeled as an unreliable witness merely on the ground of his alleged criminal antecedents.
20. The ld. PP for CBI has relied upon judgments, as detailed in written submissions as well as following judgments, in support of the arguments advanced by him and has prayed that accused persons be convicted for the charged offences:
1. Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), Appeal (Crl.) 11 of 2000, decided on 26.03.2003, Supreme Court of India ;
2. Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 873 ;
3. Bhe Ram v. State of Haryana, decided on 29th March, 1979, Supreme Court of India ;
4. Gura Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan, Crl. Appeal 1184 of 1998, decided on 06.12.2000, Supreme Court of India ;
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 203 of 286 204
5. Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat, decided on 16th November, 1999, Supreme Court of India ;
6. State of Maharashtra Vs. Narsinghrao, AIR 1984 SC 63;
7. Vahuna Krishna vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC 236 ;
8. Badri Rai & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar, decided 18 th August, 1958, Supreme Court of India ;
9. Chaman Lal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr, Crl.
Appeal 1174 of 2003, decided on 31st March, 2009 Supreme Court of India ;
10. Data Ram s/o Bhodhi Singh vs. State of UP, decided on 16th March, 2005, Allahabad High Court ;
11. Tahir vs. State (Delhi), Crl. Appeal 835 of 1995, decided on 21.03.1996, Supreme Court of India ;
12. Faquira vs. State of UP, decided on 12 th November, 1975, Supreme Court of India ;
13. Harabailu Kariappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, decided on 1st August, 1995, Karnataka High Court ;
14. Inder Singh & Anr. Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.), decided on 24th February, 1978, Supreme Court of India ;
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 204 of 286 205
15. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 5th March, 1974, Supreme Court of India ;
16. Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh & Ors, decided on 26th September, 1989, Supreme Court of India ;
17. Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar, decided on 9th January, 1974, Supreme Court of India.
21. On behalf of A1 Amarjeet it is contended that accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated as complainant wanted to stall the inquest proceedings. Placing reliance on the testimony of PW3/complainant it is stated that complainant has deposed that he had gone to CBI office on 17.12.2016 with a complaint against SI Rajesh and SI Vivek but was asked to come on the next day. Since the next day was Sunday, he went to CBI office on 19.12.2016. He further deposed that when complainant went to CBI office on 19.12.2016 he was asked to mention name of A1 Amarjeet in the complaint since by then the inquest proceedings had been transferred to SI Amarjeet. Thus it is contended that the name of accused Amarjeet was mentioned in the complaint by the complainant at the instance of CBI officials. It is pointed out that specific instances of demand of bribe and harassment have been mentioned by complainant, against SI Rajesh and SI CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 205 of 286 206 Vivek, in his examination in chief. The suggestion put to PW3/complainant during his cross examination by PP CBI that he was asked by CBI to hand over money on specific demand and not otherwise to either Amarjeet or Rajender Kumar Meena or Vivek Kumar or Rajesh is also argued to be an indicator of the fact that complainant had a grievance against SI Vivek Kumar and SI Rajesh and not SI Amarjeet. It is stated that complainant was deliberately made to name SI Amarjeet and that the actual persons namely SI Rajesh and SI Vivek, against whom he had grievances, were allowed to go scot free for reasons best known to CBI.
22. On behalf of A2, counsel Sh. B.C. Mishra, has contended that prosecution has primarily relied upon firstly the complaint Ex.PW3/A, secondly the oral testimony of complainant and thirdly the recorded conversation to prove its case. It is contended that as far as complaint Ex.PW3/A is concerned, the same is vague and devoid of details as to when, where and who demanded the money. Admittedly, A1 and A2 were posted in different divisions of the police station and in these circumstances it was required to be proved who had made the demand of the bribe amount. Even as regards sum of Rs. 30,000/, stated to have been given earlier, there is nothing mentioned as CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 206 of 286 207 to when and where the said money was given and to whom and who authorized SI Rajesh to negotiate on behalf of SI Amarjeet with complainant. In this regard, the crossexamination of PW12 TLO/Inspector Ramesh Kumar and PW15/IO Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla has been relied upon and it is pointed out that neither of these two CBI officials inquired from complainant about the place, date and time or the person to whom he had handed over sum of Rs. 30,000/ about which he had mentioned in his complaint. It is thus contended that since the first transaction itself has not been proved by the prosecution, the accused (A2) is liable to be acquitted on this ground alone. In this regard, following judgments have been relied upon : (1) Hardev Sharma vs. State and (2) Mukhtiar Singh (Through LRs) vs. State of Punjab.
23. Contrary to assertions made by PP CBI that despite complainant turning hostile, the genuineness of complaint stands proved, it is contended that PW3 / complainant Rahul Kumar Jha has given ample explanation why he had named accused SI Amarjeet in the complaint i.e. at the instance of the CBI officials. It is stated that in view of the explanation given by complainant, the prosecution has failed to prove that the complaint Ex.PW3/A was a CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 207 of 286 208 voluntary and genuine version of complainant. Even otherwise, it is contended that the act of giving a complaint to CBI does not prove that a demand was made by the accused. He has relied upon following judgments in support of this contention:
1. Roshan Lal Saini and Another vs. State
2. B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
24. Coming to the recorded conversations relied upon by the prosecution, it is stated that complainant only identified his own voice and that of his friend Saddam. He was unable to identify voices of other persons when he heard the recorded conversations in the Court. It is contended that there are specific conditions for admiissiblity of tape recorded statements as has been laid down by Supreme Court in case of Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 and that the prosecution has failed to meet any of the conditions specified in the said judgment. In the first instance, it is stated that the memory cards containing the recorded conversations were sent to CFSL only in January though the trap proceedings were conducted on 19.12.2016 and 20.12.1016. There is no explanation forthcoming from prosecution as to where the memory cards remained for a period of 15 days and in whose possession. The prosecution has failed to put forth any link CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 208 of 286 209 evidence to rule out the possibility of tampering with the memory cards. It is also pointed out that as per the prosecution case, after conducting the verification proceedings on 19.12.2016, DVR and seal were handed over to PW8/Avtar Singh, who returned the said DVR and seal to the IO on 20.12.2016 for the trap proceedings. When the independent witness Avtar Singh was examined in the Court as PW8, he, in his testimony recorded on 24.07.2018, stated that only seal was given to him and that he still possessed the said seal as on the date he appeared to depose in the Court. This coupled with the fact that description of seal has not been given on any of the documents filed by the prosecution, it is contended that the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. It is also pointed out that though it is mentioned in the chargesheet that the seal of the memory card was opened in presence of independent witnesses to prepare the transcripts, the cross examination of IO contradicts this assertion. In the crossexamination, IO/PW16 N.C. Nawal has stated that he had already prepared transcript Ex.PW3/G (D19) when he had called complainant and the two independent witnesses for preparing the transcripts and that the IO/PW16 could not have done so without breaking open the seals on the memory cards.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 209 of 286 210
25. The next contention of ld. Counsel for accused is that prosecution has failed to lead any evidence with respect to conspiracy between the accused persons. It is stated that nothing is mentioned in the complaint that complainant had met A1 or A2 earlier and on whose directions. It is further contended that as per the prosecution case the case property i.e. the trap money and hand wash solution, after accused Vijay was made to wash his hand in sodium carbonate solution, were sealed with the seal which was given to PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar on 19.12.2016. Since PW8 Avtar Singh Sagar has stated that he never returned the seal which was given to him by CBI officials on 19.12.2016, the prosecution has failed to prove how the tainted money, after its alleged recovery, and the sodium carbonate solution were sealed and with which seal.
26. In nutshell, it is contended that neither the complaint nor the oral testimony on record support the case of the prosecution and that the recorded conversations have also not been proved as per law by the prosecution to make out a case for conviction of the accused.
27. The next contention raised by counsel for accused is that although as per prosecution case, PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar was sent for verification of the demand, if any, made for CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 210 of 286 211 and on behalf of accused persons, he did not hear anything. He kept standing outside the police station as stated by him in his deposition recorded on 24.07.2018 and 25.07.2018. The PW12/Inspector Ramesh Kumar on the other hand deposed that independent witness was asked to see and to hear the conversation between complainant and the accused persons. The falsity of this statement is brought out from the crossexamination of PW12 who, for reasons best known to him, did not make any inquiry from PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar as to why he had not gone inside the police station. It is stated that since the complainant had gone alone to the police station on 19.12.2016 there is no corroboration of the alleged demand made by the accused persons. Further, since the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution qua the demand by accused persons, it is contended that prosecution has failed to prove that any demand had been made by accused persons. The following judgments have been relied upon by the learned counsel in support of this contention:
1. P. Satya Narain Murti vs. District Inspector of Police
2. Dashrat Singh Chauhan vs. CBI.
28. Coming to the alleged recovery, it is stated that no recovery was effected from A1 or A2 since they had not CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 211 of 286 212 made any demand from the complainant in the first instance. The two independent witnesses also failed to witness the transaction of handing over of bribe money. It is contended that as per the prosecution case PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar entered the room of SI Saurabh, from where the recovery is alleged to have been made, with the TLO, however, PW8 himself has deposed that he had gone to said room lateron. The complainant on the other hand explained how, why and in what manner he had placed the money in the hand of accused Vijay. Further there is no witness to alleged acceptance of money by accused Vijay.
It has been pointed out that as per prosecution case Raman Kumar Shukla had held one of the hands while Inspector Ramesh Kumar held the other hand of the accused Vijay. The recovery memo Ex.PW3/F on the other hand finds mention that Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla had held the left hand of accused Vijay while Ramesh Kumar had held his right hand. This again is contradicted by deposition made by PW12 who stated that he remained outside the room in police station and when he entered the room of SI Saurabh, accused Rajender was already there. Since accused Rajender is stated to have been called to room of SI Saurabh, lateron through a call made by accused Vijay, it stands established that PW12 had entered the room lateron and hence he could not have CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 212 of 286 213 held the hand of accused Vijay along with Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla.
29. The fact that PW2/SI Saurabh has stated that he had locked his room before proceeding on leave and that complainant has claimed that he had thrust money in the hand of Vijay on a chabutra are also stated to be fatal to the prosecution case. The next contention of learned counsel for accused is that prosecution has failed to give any explanation for sounds of slapping, abusing, threatening and weeping which are found recorded in memory card Q2 ExP4 and Ex.P5. Based on these recordings, it is contended that A3 was forced to give statement despite the fact that he was in no way connected with the present case. In these facts & circumstances, it is also contended that the character of complainant becomes very material. It is stated that as per record, there was an inquiry in a murder case pending against accused which he stalled by filing the present complaint. There are also cases registered against him for impersonating as CBI official. It is contended that complainant is an unreliable witness, who deliberately and willfully changed his version throughout the course of recording of his testimony before the Court and cannot be relied upon at all.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 213 of 286 214
30. It is further contended that as per testimony of complainant/ PW3 he left CBI office immediately after returning there from PS Sangam Vihar on 19.12.2016. The complainant denied in the Court that the DVR was sealed in his presence and stated that he had signed all the documents at CBI office on the next day. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that a genuine verification had been carried out by it pursuant to complaint Ex.PW3/A filed by the complainant. It is further contended that in his deposition/ crossexamination recorded on 30.05.2018, PW3 has clarified that SI Amarjeet had told him not to pay a single penny to anyone as he had never ever demanded money. This fact was reiterated by complainant repeatedly during his deposition and in these circumstances, the testimony of complainant itself is sufficient for the acquittal of the accused. The next contention of ld. Counsel for accused is that the phone number 9711422233, which is alleged to be with accused Amarjeet during the relevant period was in the name of PW5 / Amit Kumar who categorically stated that he had never parted with the SIM of the said mobile number and had also not given the same to SI Amarjeet. Since the prosecution could not prove that mobile and/or SIM of No. 9711422233 was with SI Amarjeet during the relevant period. There is a doubt CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 214 of 286 215 regarding the genuineness of the recorded conversations relied upon by the prosecution.
31. It is further contended that PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar has stated that 'they put the note in the pocket of Rahul' whereas PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar has stated that 'independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar had kept the notes in the left side inner pocket of jacket worn by complainant'. The PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla has contradicted both PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar and PW12/Inspector Ramesh Kumar and stated that tainted amount was kept in the inner left side pocket of the jacket of complainant by the other independent witness Narender Tyagi. Thus, where, when and by whom the tainted amount was kept in the pocket of complainant could not be proved by the prosecution. It is contended that this is another pointer to the fact that the tainted money was planted upon the accused persons to falsely implicate them in the case.
32. It is further contended that complainant has categorically stated in his deposition that accused Rajender had told him twice that he does not require any money. Since as per prosecution case, accused Rajender was negotiating with complainant regarding payment of the bribe, it is CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 215 of 286 216 contended that, the prosecution has failed to prove that any demand had been made by SI Amarjeet. It is stated that prosecution has also failed to clarify who the 'mysterious tall man' was despite complainant having identified voice of said person after hearing the recordings in memory card Q1 and Q2. In any event, prosecution failed to prove that the mysterious tall man referred to by the complainant was SI Amarjeet for at the relevant time there were several other police personnel posted at P.S. Sangam Vihar including SI Rajesh and SI Vivek. The fact that complainant has deposed that he had identified documents on basis of his signatures and not their contents has also been argued to be a point in favour of the accused.
33. It is further contended that as per verification memo Ex.PW3/C dated 19.12.2016, the verification proceedings began at 14.30 hours and concluded at 23.15 hours. The complainant stated that he had left CBI office immediately after they returned there from P.S. Sangam Vihar and appended his signatures on various documents on the next day i.e. 20.12.2016. In these circumstances, the statement made by PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar in the Court that he was discharged from CBI office at about 9.00 PM leads to one conclusion only and that is that the signatures CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 216 of 286 217 of PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar were also obtained on verification memo Ex.PW3/C lateron and not on 19.12.2016 as put forth by the prosecution.
34. Ld. Counsel for accused Amarjeet has further relied upon judgment in case of Hemchand vs. State of Delhi and argued that involvement of complainant in criminal cases should be considered by the Court.
35. The report of voice examination Ex.PW14/B has also been challenged on the ground that transcript of entire conversation which included the names of speakers was sent to voice examiner PW14 / Dr. Subrat Kumar Chaudhary and thus there is every possibility that he prepared his report on basis of inputs available to him by virtue of the transcript and not after genuine examination of the samples received by him. He has relied upon judgment in case of Nelesh Dinkar Pardhakar vs. State of Maharastra in support of this contention.
36. On behalf of accused Vijay/ A3, it is contended that there is no allegation of demand against accused Vijay. He is neither named in the complaint nor figures in the incident/verification dated 19.12.2016. It is argued that though alleged recovery was effected from accused Vijay CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 217 of 286 218 but the same is doubtful since complainant has explained that when he met Vijay, he shook hand with him and that Vijay did not demand any money from him and was not aware what complainant was carrying in his bag. It is further contended that as per prosecution, the tainted money was put in the pocket of PW3/complainant by PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar but for reasons best known to him, complainant kept the money in his bag without any regard to the instructions given to him by CBI officials. It is stated that the recovery was in fact planted upon the accused Vijay for money was thrust into his hands forcibly. In this regard, it is stated that as per prosecution, PW15 / Raman Kumar Shukla, PW12/Ramesh Kumar, PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar and PW10/Narender Kumar Tyagi had apprehended the accused Vijay with the tainted money. As far as PW15 is concerned, it is stated that he has deposed that he had not seen accused Vijay throwing the money even though he was the first person to enter the room of SI Saurabh. The PW10/Narender Kumar Tyagi, who entered the room after PW15, claimed that he had seen accused Vijay throwing the currency notes underneath the bed. It is contended that it was not possible for PW10/Narender Kumar Tygi to have witnessed accused Vijay throwing money under the bed when PW15, who was ahead of PW10, had not noticed accused Vijay doing any such CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 218 of 286 219 thing. As far as PW12 is concerned, it is contended that he has stated that recovery was not effected in his presence and did not know who had picked up the money. The PW8 on the other hand continued to remain outside the police station and joined the proceedings in the police station much later. It is stated that the testimony of these prosecution witnesses clearly brings out that the recovery was planted upon accused Vijay.
37. As regards the allegation of conspiracy, it is stated that PW1/Inspector Upender Singh, SHO of P.S. Sangam Vihar and PW2/SI Saurabh, in whose room accused Vijay is alleged to have been sitting, do not identify him at all. The PW3 also denied that accused Amarjeet and accused Rajender Kumar Meena had made any demand from him and thus there was no reason for PW3 to hand over tainted money to accused Vijay. It is further stated that the PW12 has deposed that A3 did not disclose, in his presence, that he had accepted money on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh and Rajender. In these circumstances, no conspiracy or participation in it by the accused Vijay could be established by the prosecution. He has relied upon following judgments in support of his contention that merely because the phenolphthalein solution turned pink does not establish the complicity of CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 219 of 286 220 accused Vijay in the case of P. Parasurami Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.
38. In rebuttal, PP CBI has contended that in order to prove charge u/s 7, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused had accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain gratification from the complainant and that the transcription of voice recording makes out a clear case of demand and acceptance of gratification on the part of the accused persons and the recovery of tainted amount further confirmed it. It is argued that as far as the offence of conspiracy is concerned, it is impossible to have a direct evidence since conspiracies are hatched in secrecy. It is the transcription and the conduct of the accused persons which indicates and proves that they were in conspiracy with each other in commission of the charged offences. It is further contended that independent witnesses do not corroborate the theory put forth by the defence by complainant wanted to file complaint against SI Rajesh and SI Vivek. Rather, they affirmed that the facts mentioned in the complaint were verified from the complainant. As regards impleadment of SI Rajesh and SI Vivek as accused, it is argued that accused persons could have filed an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C if they were so aggrieved, and that they cannot draw any benefit from the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 220 of 286 221 fact that these two persons have not been named as accused in the chargesheet filed by the CBI. It is reiterated that complainant, though hostile, has admitted everything during his crossexamination by the prosecution and hence his testimony cannot be thrown out in entirety.
39. It is then contended that CBI had no interest in tampering with the evidence and that the statement of TLO is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution even though the complainant is hostile. In this regard, judgment in case of B. Jairaj vs. State (Supra) has again been relied upon. It is reiterated that criminal character of the complainant would have no effect on the merits of the case. The failure on the part of PW1 and PW2 to identify accused Vijay is stated to be deliberate and motivated to avoid liability for using services of a private person for doing official work of the police officers. It is contended that accused Vijay was otherwise identified by the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution and thus his identity as an agent of accused Amarjeet and Rajender stands established beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, the plea taken on behalf of accused Vijay that he was given beatings has also been brushed aside by contending that the acts subsequent to trap proceedings would not affect the proceedings itself. Even otherwise, it is contended that CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 221 of 286 222 accused Vijay did not file any complaint, which he would have done in normal course, had he been beaten by the CBI officials as alleged by him. The fact that independent witness Avtar Singh Sagar has turned hostile is also claimed to be a minor discrepancy and it is contended that it is not necessary to join independent witnesses in every case. The procedure prescribed in the CBI manual is stated to be for the guidance only instead of being of mandatory nature. On these grounds, it is stated that there is no merit in the defence arguments and it is again prayed that accused persons be held guilty of charged offences.
40. I have carefully perused the record. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by both the sides as well as written submissions submitted by prosecution.
41. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant Rahul Kumar Jha was facing enquiry at PS Sangam Vihar in an inquest proceedings initiated pursuant to unnatural death of his friend Devender Katharia. The said enquiry was being conducted by SI Amarjeet Singh / A1. It is alleged that SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Ct. Rajender Kumar/A2, both posted at PS Sangam Vihar, were threatening to implicate complainant in a case under Section 302 IPC unless he paid them bribe of Rs.3.5 lacs. The complainant CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 222 of 286 223 had already paid a sum of Rs.30,000/ to them and did not wish to pay them remaining bribe of Rs.3.2 lacs and hence he went and filed a complaint against SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Ct. Rajender Kumar /A2 with CBI.
42. All the three accused persons are facing charges for the offences u/s 120 B of the IPC r/w Sec. 7 & 13 (2) r/w Sec. 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and accused persons Amarjeet/A 1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 also charged for offence u/s 7 & 13 (2) r/w Sec. 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act for demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant.
43. In order to prove the criminal conspiracy, prosecution is required to establish the meeting of mind between the accused persons to enter into the criminal conspiracy and some overt act on the part of each accused towards the accomplishment of criminal conspiracy. The offence of criminal conspiracy is generally committed in clandestine manner to hide the commission of offence and therefore, generally there can hardly be any direct evidence in the form of independent witness in such cases. The meeting of mind, criminal intention and respective roles of respective accused can be established either by the direct or the circumstantial evidence. Therefore, circumstantial evidence also becomes important in the cases of criminal CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 223 of 286 224 conspiracy.
44. In other words to bring home the charge of criminal conspiracy, prosecution is required to prove:
(a) That all the accused persons agreed to it, or caused to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means:
The elements of criminal conspiracy may be stated as: An object to be accomplished;
(a) A plan or scheme embodied means to accomplish that object;
(b) An agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in agreement, or by any illegal means;
(c) The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it is necessarily following that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need to be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not to be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Reference is made to judgments in Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2002 SCC (Cri) 978; Noor CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 224 of 286 225 Mohammed Yusuf Momin Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 885; State Vs. Nalini, AIR 1999 SC 2640 in this regard.
45. In the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1121 it was held that...
"To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing unlawful act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence"
46. Further in order to prove charge u/s. 7, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients of the offence:
(i) The accused was a public servant or expected to be a public servant at the time when the offence was committed.
(ii) The accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain illegal gratification from some person.
(iii) For himself or for any other person.
(iv) Such gratification was not a remuneration to which the accused was legally entitled.
(v) The accused accepted such gratification as a motive or reward for:
(a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 225 of 286 226
(b)doing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to someone in the exercise of his official function, or
(c)rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to someone with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, of with any local authority, Corporation or Government company referred to in Sec. 2 clause (c) or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise.
47. Further Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act with which accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Meena/A2 have been charged reads as under : '13 Criminal misconduct by a public servant: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct
(d) if he,
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or' CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 226 of 286 227
48. The genesis of the instant case is the complaint Ex.PW 3/A filed by the complainant. As submitted by learned PP for CBI, the said complaint was entrusted for verification to PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar on 19.12.2016. On the same day, the PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar conducted verification proceedings in presence of an independent witness PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar and the complainant. The complainant was made to call on the mobile phone of accused Rajender Meena/A2, pursuant to which he was called to Police Station Sangam Vihar along with his two friends Salim and Saddam at about 7:00 PM. The complainant went to meet accused Rajender Meena/A2 as per fixed programme. The PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar went with him as a shadow witness to overhear the conversation, if any, with the accused persons. When complainant and PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar returned back to PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar, the conversations recorded in DVR given to complainant, were heard and a rough transcript thereof was also prepared by PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar. On the basis of narrations made by complainant and the recorded conversation, the PW12 concluded that a demand of Rs.3.2 lacs, which after negotiation became Rs.3 lacs, was confirmed on the part of accused Ct. Rajender Meena/A2 in connivance with SI Amarjeet Singh/A1.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 227 of 286 228
49. In order to prove that a genuine verification had been carried out the prosecution examined complainant as PW 3, independent witness Shri Avtar Singh Sagar as PW8 and Inspector Ramesh Kumar as PW12. Salim Saifi, friend of complainant, was also examined as PW9 to lend support to the version given by the complainant. There are, however, several discrepancies in the verification report Ex.PW3/C and testimony of prosecution witnesses which create doubt regarding genuineness of the verification proceedings. These are as under : (1) Complainant, though admitted his complaint Ex.PW 3/A, alleged that he had named SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 in the said complaint at the instance of CBI officials, who had asked him to name the present investigating officer, despite his having told them that enquiry with respect to inquest proceedings was earlier with SI Ramesh and SI Vivek and it was SI Rajesh and SI Vivek, who had been harassing him and demanding bribe from him.
(2) Complainant failed to identify voice of Ct. Rajender Meena/A2 after hearing the recorded conversation in memory card Q1.
(3) As per verification report Ex.PW3/C, PW12 Inspector Ramesh Kumar had directed the independent witness CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 228 of 286 229 PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar to remain close to the complainant and to try to see and overhear the conversation between the complainant and the suspect officers in discreet manner. The PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar, however, stated that he was not asked by the IO to remain close to complainant and to try to see and overhear his conversation with suspect officers and so he kept sitting outside the PS when complainant went inside.
(4) As per verification report Ex.PW3/C, on returning back to the CBI vehicle complainant Rahul Kumar Jha told PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar that his two friends Saddam and Salim had also reached PS Sangam Vihar and that before entering in PS Sangam Vihar he made a call on the mobile phone of Ct. Rajender Meena/A2, who directed him to come inside the PS and thereafter he and his two friends entered the PS Sangam Vihar and met Ct. Rajender Meena/A2. Surprisingly, neither independent witness / PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar, who was present outside the police station, nor PW9 / Salim Saifi, friend of complainant, who met him along with his uncle Saddam, outside the Police Station, mentioned about each other's presence on 19.12.2016. (5) As per verification report Ex.PW3/C, the DVR which CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 229 of 286 230 was used for recording the conversation between the complainant and the accused Rajender Meena/A2 on 19.12.2016, was sealed after removing the memory card. The memory card was kept in a brown envelope and was sealed with the CBI seal. The DVR was also sealed separately. Thereafter the DVR and the brass seal used for sealing these articles was handed over to PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar. The PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar, however, stated that he was only handed over a brass seal and nothing else. Further according to PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar, the said brass seal continued to remain in his possession even as on date he appeared to depose in the Court. He did not return back the brass seal to CBI officials on 20.12.2016 or any date thereafter.
(6) The question of PW8/Avtar Singh Sagar producing the DVR before the CBI officials did not arise as according to him he was not given DVR for safe custody on 19.12.2016. In the circumstance prosecution failed to explain from where it procured the DVR and the seal which were used during trap proceedings on 20.12.2016. Thus possibility of tampering with case property cannot be ruled out. (7) As per verification report Ex.PW3/C, the verification proceedings commenced 14:30 hrs. and concluded at CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 230 of 286 231 about 23:15 hrs. The complainant, however, stated that he had left the CBI office on 19.12.2016, after returning from PS Sangam Vihar, at about 8:55 PM since he was directed to come again on the next day in the morning. He also stated that he had signed the verification report Ex.PW3/C on 20.12.2016 though he had mentioned the date as 19.12.2016 thereupon on directions of Inspector when he signed the same. The PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar on the other hand stated that the proceedings were conducted in CBI office till 9:00 PM on 19.12.2016 and thereafter he was discharged. There is no explanation forthcoming from prosecution regarding the concluding time of 23:15 hrs mentioned on verification report Ex.PW3/C when PW3/ complainant as well as PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar claimed to have left the CBI office by 9:00 PM on 19.12.2016.
(8) The PW9 / Salim Saifi, who is stated to have gone inside PS Sangam Vihar with the complainant on 19.12.2016, also failed to support the prosecution case. He does not mention about presence of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 at PS Sangam Vihar on 19.12.2016. He has rather mentioned that one Rajesh and a tall person met them and took them i.e. complainant / CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 231 of 286 232 Rahul Kumar Jha, PW9 and his uncle Saddam to a room where two more persons were sitting. Rajesh enquired from them about the case of Devender and his girlfriend. The PW9 talked to the girlfriend of Devender on whatsapp after which Rajesh took mobile phone from all of them. Thereafter the tall man asked Rajesh to take PW9 and his maternal uncle Saddam out of the room while he and Rajesh talked to Rahul. After sometime Rajesh brought Rahul out of the room and continued to talk to him for about 10 - 15 minutes and thereafter discharged all of them. Rahul did not tell them anything but made a call to Rajender (A2) and asked him when he would come back. Later as they stood at tea shop, Rahul told them that Rajesh was not counting Rs.30,000/ which he had given earlier and was asking for full amount of Rs. 3 lacs. He further stated that Rahul had told them that he had already given Rs.95,000/ to Rajesh. Though PW9 was crossexamined at length by PP CBI, he denied that he and complainant had met SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Ct. Rajender/A2 on 19.12.2016 as was mentioned in his statement Ex.PW9/A u/s. 161 CrPC. He further denied that complainant Rahul had given a sum of Rs.15,000/, Rs.5,000/ and Rs.10,000/ in his presence to the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 232 of 286 233 accused. Thus not withstanding the fact that the deposition of PW3 / complainant and PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar has cast considerable doubt with respect to the verification proceedings, the testimony of PW 9 / Salim Saifi, another independent witness, also does not support the case of the prosecution with regard to the verification proceedings.
50. The Ld. PP CBI has contended that though complainant has failed to support the prosecution case, his testimony cannot be discarded altogether and those portions of his testimony, which are in favour of prosecution, can be relied upon to draw an inference of the guilt of the accused persons. The testimony of PW3 / complainant has been reproduced at length in foregoing paragraphs. It would be relevant to examine the testimony of the complainant to see whether the submission made by learned PP CBI holds any merit.
51. The perusal of the testimony of PW3 reveals that he has given an elaborate statement narrating the events which followed the night of July, 2016 when his friend Devender, with whom complainant and his other friends had been partying, passed away. He mentioned about taking drunk Devender on a Scooty, with the help of his friend Saddam, CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 233 of 286 234 and being forced to call PCR when they were seen by one Sardarji when they fell from their Scooty which got unbalanced on the way. He further stated how Devender was taken to hospital in a second PCR van which had come to the spot and his being called to Police Station for interrogation by SI Vivek and SI Rajesh. He then mentioned about recording of statement of Saddam and Salim, his friends, and Incharge of first PCR during the course of inquiry. About being told to call his wife and brother in law, his wife meeting SI Vivek and SI Rajesh and they demanding Rs.1 lac from her and his wife managing to arrange and give them Rs.54,000/ while complainant was in the police vehicle. He then mentioned about further demand of Rs.50,000/, by SI Rajesh and SI Vivek, from his brotherinlaw at Majidiya Hospital and said amount having been negotiated and settled to a sum of Rs.15,000/ which was paid in the evening to secure his discharge (discharge of complainant). The PW3/ complainant then mentioned about the subsequent meeting, on the next day, when SI Vivek and SI Rajesh made wife of complainant part with her mangalsutra and two rings and his repeated detention from time to time, at Police Station, even after the demands of bribe by SI Vivek and SI Rajesh were met by complainant and / or his family members. The attempted suicide by complainant, his CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 234 of 286 235 hospitalization and visit by SI Rajesh and SI Vivek to hospital only to threaten the complainant are also part of the statement made by complainant as PW3. It is at this stage that complainant mentioned about SI Amarjeet Singh and his calling him, Saddam and Salim, for inquiry. He, however, continued to level allegations against SI Rajesh by stating that SI Rajesh told him not to worry and that he would try to negotiate with SI Amarjeet. He then mentioned that he was called to Police Station 2 3 times and that one day he had taken accused Rajender to Gurgaon to the shop where deceased had sold his motorcycle. His (PW 3's) having informed SI Rajesh of these developments and also telling SI Amarjeet Singh that he had paid money to SI Rajesh and SI Vivek. He then deposed that he told everything to SI Rajesh who again offered to negotiate with SI Amarjeet and subsequently paid Rs.15,000/, Rs.10,000/ and Rs.5,000/ on different occasions to SI Rajesh for SI Amarjeet. The complainant has given such minute details of the incidents qua SI Rajesh and SI Vivek which are otherwise amiss from his complaint Ex.PW3/A, purpotedly filed against accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2, wherein he has not given any details as to when and where he had paid a sum of Rs.30,000/ to accused persons and who had received the said amount and where. As per record a specific CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 235 of 286 236 question in this regard was also put to PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar and PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla during their respective crossexaminations. Both PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar and PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla stated that they did not ask the complainant as to when, where and to whom he had given sum of Rs.30,000/ about which he had mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW3/A. In these circumstances the initial transaction with regard to alleged first demand and payment of bribe of Rs.30,000/ itself does not stand proved and perse cannot form the foundation of a decisive conclusion that such a demand / payment was made or pursuant thereto subsequent demand of bribe had been made. Reliance in this regard is made on the judgment in case of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his LRs vs. State of Punjab (Supra) which has been relied upon on behalf of accused Rajender Meena/A2.
52. As regards his complaint, the complainant stated that he had gone to the CBI office on 19.12.2016 and had given a complaint regarding demand of money by SI Rajesh in the name of SI Amarjeet. Though he states that he spoke to accused Rajender on that day, he clarified that accused Rajender asked him to come with photograph of the deceased. The verification proceedings conducted on CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 236 of 286 237 19.12.2016 are also portrayed in a completely different manner by PW3. He stated that he met SI Rajesh at the main gate of PS Sangam Vihar at about 7:00 / 7:15 PM. He does not mention anything about PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar accompanying him to Police Station. He further stated that when he told SI Rajesh that he had been called to Police Station, SI Rajesh told him to meet SI Amarjeet and then to meet him (SI Rajesh). Thereafter complainant met SI Amarjeet and showed him printouts of Holi festival but SI Amarjeet told him that they were not clear and started interrogating him. After sometime PW3 felt that SI Amarjeet was getting irritated. At this stage, accused Rajender made complainant understand that he should answer the questions straightforwardly. Thereafter complainant went to bathroom to wash his face, on directions of accused Rajender, and there he met SI Rajesh. He told SI Rajesh everything including the fact that he was not carrying any money on that day. On being scolded by SI Rajesh, PW3 requested him for time till 23 rd
- 24th but was told to give some money the day after. The money was directed to be paid to accused Rajender Meena in the name of conveyance. When PW3 went out and met SI Amarjeet again, the latter told him to arrange for photographs and passed him on to accused Rajender. At that time Salim and Saddam were also with him. The CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 237 of 286 238 accused Rajender also told PW3 to bring clear photographs. At this stage, complainant stated that though he told accused Rajender that he would arrange for Rs.10,000/ by next day for conveyance, accused Rajender told him twice that he did not require any time and that why he (PW3) should pay him (accused Rajender) any money. Thereafter PW3 went to the place where CBI officials had parked their vehicle.
53. Since no demand of money attributed to SI Amarjeet and Ct. Rajender was brought out from the statement of complainant, he was crossexamined at length by learned PP CBI. Despite lengthy and detailed crossexamination of PW3 by PP CBI, the factum of demand by accused persons Amarjeet and Rajender could not be brought out. He continued to deny that accused Amarjeet Singh and Rajender Meena had made a demand of Rs.10 lacs from him or that he had given a sum of Rs.15,000/, Rs.10,000/ and Rs.5,000/ directly to accused Amarjeet on different occasions. The PW3 / complainant was even put his complaint Ex.PW3/A. Though he admitted having written and filing it voluntarily, he later, during his cross examination on behalf of PP CBI and subsequently by the counsels for accused persons, explained that he had taken a written complaint to CBI office on 17.12.2016 but was CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 238 of 286 239 asked to come on next day and since the next day 18.12.2016 was a Sunday, he went back to CBI office on 19.12.2016 and was told that facts mentioned in his complaint were to be verified. He further explained that when his matter was assigned to an officer, he was told to write his complaint upon which he told the said officer that he had brought a written complaint running into four pages. On this, PW3 was asked not to write all the details and to mention relevant brief facts in his complaint and to name only the present IO who was handling the inquest proceedings. The PW3 further clarified that he had told the said officer that SI Amarjeet had not asked him for any money and that demand of money had been made by SI Vivek and SI Rajesh. Thereafter PW3 again asked about the contents of the complaint on which he was told to write the complaint of his own but in the name of present IO and Ct. Rajender. He went on to state that when he had told SI Amarjeet that SI Rajesh and SI Vivek had been asking money from him in his name, SI Amarjeet enquired from him if he had given any money to them and when PW3 answered in affirmative, SI Amarjeet told him (PW3) not to pay a single penny to anyone as he never demanded anything. SI Amarjeet also gave a note of caution and told PW3 that if he was at fault no one would be able to save him (PW3) but if he was innocent no harm would be CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 239 of 286 240 caused to him.
54. During his further crossexamination the PW3 reiterated that SI Amarjeet had asked him not to pay money to anyone and that the law would take its own course. He made further allegations against SI Rajesh and SI Vivek stating that they used to beat him and his father in the police station and had made a demand of Rs.10 lacs which were later negotiated to Rs.3.5 lacs and that he had paid sum of Rs.54,000/ and Rs.30,000/ to them on different occasions when they were handling the investigations. The PW3 yet again clarified that when he told SI Amarjeet that SI Vivek and SI Rajesh had demanded money in his name, he scolded him (PW3) and told him not to pay money to anyone as he had never demanded any money from him.
55. In view of the facts which have emerged from the deposition of PW3 / complainant, it is evident that he has given sufficient explanation for wording the contents of the complaint Ex.PW3/A in the manner he had and for naming accused SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Ct. Rajender Meena/A2 therein instead of SI Rajesh and SI Vivek.
56. Moreover, mere filing of complaint with CBI by the complainant cannot be taken as a substitute for evidence CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 240 of 286 241 of proof of allegation. The entire prosecution case is sought to be proved through the testimonies of PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar, who carried out verification proceeding and PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla, the Trap Laying Officer, who admittedly did not recover the tainted money from the possession of the either accused SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 or accused Ct. Rajender Meena/A2. The prosecution was, however, required to prove allegations made in the complaint, by the complainant, by leading convincing evidence but has failed to do so and hence benefit thereof would accrue in favour of the accused persons. Reliance in this regard is made on judgments in cases of Roshan Lal Saini & Ors. v. CBI (Supra) and B.Jairaj vs. State of A.P. (Supra). In the instant case complainant has not only disowned his complaint but also the documents prepared by CBI during the course of verification and trap proceedings by stating that he had identified the said documents by his signatures thereupon and not from their contents.
57. During his further crossexamination by PP CBI, the PW3 stated that he was not aware where PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar was during the period he (PW3) remained in the Police Station on 19.12.2016. He stated that when he reached the point where CBI officials had parked their CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 241 of 286 242 vehicle, Avtar Singh Sagar was also there. Contrary to the statement made by PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar, PW3 stated that Inspector did not ask him anything and told him that he would check the DVR to find out what all had happened in the Police Station. He further clarified that it was SI Rajesh and not Ct. Rajender, who had taken mobile phones from them and checked the same. On return back to CBI office, the PW3 claims to have left from there at about 8:55 PM. He denied that upon returning back to CBI office the conversation recorded in voice recorder were heard. He further denied that the sealed DVR and the brass seal used for sealing the DVR and memory card were handed over to Avtar Singh Sagar for safe custody with directions to come on 20.12.2016 at 8:00 AM for further proceedings. The PW3 also stated that the sealed DVR and the CBI seal was not given in his presence by Avtar Singh Sagar to the CBI officials. Subsequently PW3 expressed his inability to state if the same DVR, which had been used for verification proceedings on 19.12.2016, was used in the trap proceedings conducted on 20.12.2016. He also created doubt about recording of introductory voice of witness Narender Tyagi on 20.12.2016 and stated that the voices of Avtar Singh Sagar and Narender Tyagi may have been recorded on the day before and not on that day.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 242 of 286 243
58. The conversations recorded in memory card Q1 and Q2 were put to PW3 during his deposition but he failed to identify the voices of accused SI Amarjeet Singh and Ct. Rajender Meena in the relevant portions wherein alleged demand of bribe had been made. He introduced one 'tall person', a police officer, and other police officers (other than accused SI Amarjeet Singh and Ct. Rajender Meena) whose names he claimed he was unable to recall, in his testimony.
59. The PP CBI has laid emphasis on the conversations recorded in memory cards Q1 and Q2 as well as their transcripts Ex.PW3/G to argue that the demand of bribe by accused persons namely SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and A2 is clearly established from these conversations. This reliance has been challenged by accused persons on the ground that voice identification report cannot be relied upon for in the first instance there was considerable delay in sending the memory cards to CFSL for their examination. Since the prosecution failed to prove that PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar had returned back seal to CBI officials on 20.12.2016, the question there being more than one identical seals used by CBI and consequently tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. It is CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 243 of 286 244 also argued that CFSL opinion given by PW14 / Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhary cannot be relied upon as IO had not only sent him transcripts of the recorded conversations but also mentioned the name of the speakers.
60. It is true that accurate voice identification is much more difficult than visual identification. Law laid down in the case of Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra (JT 2011 (3) SC 429 = 2011 (3) SCALE 473) is relevant here :
"that evidence of voice identification is at best suspect, if not, wholly incredible Accurate voice identification is much more difficult than visual identification it is prone to such extensive and sophisticated tampering, doctoring and editing that the reality can be completely replaced by fiction The Courts have to be extremely cautions in basing conviction purely on the evidence of voice identification".
61. The guiding principles have been laid down in the case of Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986, SC 3. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that...
"A tape recorded statement is admissible in evidence subject to the following conditions: (1) The voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or other person recognising his voice. Where the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof will CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 244 of 286 245 be required to determine whether or not it was the voice of the alleged speaker.
(2) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial.
(3) Possibility of tampering with or erasure of any part of the tape recorded statement must be totally excluded.
(4)The tape recorded statement must be relevant.
(5) the recorded cassette must be sealed and must be kept in safe of official custody.
(6) The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances."
62. In the case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) Supreme Court Cases 471 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
(i) Tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of the voices; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 245 of 286 246 the tape record. A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is res gestae. It is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident.
The tape recorded conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 7 of the Evidence Act.
(ii) Under Section 146 of the Evidence Act question might be put to the witness to test the veracity of the witness. Again under Section 153 of the Evidence Act a witness might be contradicted when he denied any question tending to impeach his impartiality. A previous statement placed by the tape recorded conversation can be used to contradict a witness. The tape itself becomes a primary and direct evidence of what a witness has said and has been recorded.
Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy v. Shri V.V. Giri, (1970) 2 SCC 340, relied upon.
(iii) The substance of the offence under Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act is damaging, removing, tampering, touching machinery battery line or post for interception or acquainting oneself with the contents of any message. Where a person talking on the telephone allows another person CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 246 of 286 247 to record it or to hear it, it cannot be said that the other person who is allowed to do so is damaging, removing, tampering, touching machinery battery line or post for intercepting or acquainting oneself with the contents of any message.
There was no element of coercion or compulsion in attaching the tape recorder to the telephone. There was no violation of the Indian Telegraph Act.
(iv) There is warrant for proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible.
A document which is procured by improper or even by illegal means cannot bar its admissibility provided its relevance and genuineness are proved.
A tape recorded conversation is contemporaneous relevant evidence and therefore it is admissible. It is not tainted by coercion or unfairness.
There is no reason to exclude this evidence.
If the conversation is voluntary and there is no compulsion, the attaching of the tape recording instrument though unknown to the person whose conversation is recorded does not render the evidence of conversation inadmissible. The conversation cannot be said to have been extracted under duress or compulsion. Tape recording CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 247 of 286 248 a conversation is a mechanical contrivance to play the role of an eavesdropper.
(v) Article 21 of the Constitution contemplates procedure established by law with regard to deprivation of life for personal liberty. The telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen will be protected by Courts against wrongful or highhanded interference by tapping the conversation. The protection is not for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent corruption of public servants. At the time of the conversation there was no case against the appellant and he was not compelled to speak or confess.
(vi) Although the Director of Intelligence Bureau advised and instructed doctor 'M' to talk to the accusedappellant and another doctor 'H' and the conversation was recorded on tape, such conversation cannot be said to be a statement made to the police officer.
63. In case of Savita alias Babbal v. State of Delhi, 2011 (3) JCC 1687, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that :
The rulings in R.M. Malkani; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari and Ram Singh (Supra) have mandated safeguards, which are to be followed by courts while taking CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 248 of 286 249 into account taperecorded telephonic conversations. Here, none of the witnesses knew, or could have identified the swami's voice; none of them have shown convincingly that the possibility of tampering with tape recordings had been eliminated.
Besides, the authenticity of the tapes becomes questionable, since the prosecution does not produce the authority documents which persuaded the MTNL officials to accept the request for telephone tapping; in fact even MTNL officials did not depose in support of the prosecution, corroborating its version. The authorities are uniform and clear on this aspect; the voice of the accused, or the maker to whom a conversation was attributed, had to be identified by someone familiar with it.
64. Similar observations have been made in the case of Vishal Chand Jain @ V.C. Jain v. CBI (Supra) relied upon by counsel for accused Rajender Meena/A2.
65. In the present case PW3 / complainant, the only person familiar with voices of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2, failed to identify them on hearing recordings in memory cards Q1 and Q2. The PW 8 / Shri Avtar Singh Sagar, PW10/ Shri Narender Kumar Tyagi, PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar and PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla were not familiar with voices of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 249 of 286 250 Meena/A2 to have identified them. As regards report Ex.PW14/B given by PW14 / Dr. Subrat Kumar Chaudhary is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon, by itself, as conclusive proof of identification of voices of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 since it clearly brought out from record that transcripts of recorded conversation as well as names of speakers were already available with him before he proceeded to examine the questioned voices.
66. Coming to the trap proceedings the PW3, during his crossexamination by PP CBI, admitted that a trap team was constituted and a demonstration regarding use of phenolphthalein powder was given and that he, two independent witnesses and the other trap team members reached PS Sangam Vihar and that he (PW3) and PW8 Avtar Singh Sagar had gone inside the Police Station but had to return back soon thereafter as accused Rajender was suspicious about limp in the leg of PW3 / complainant as well as by the presence of PW8 Avtar Singh Sagar, whom PW3 / complainant introduced to accused Rajender as his uncle. He, however, denied that upon his return the CBI officials had made a cut at the joint of the cap of his jacket to shift the position of the DVR which was earlier tied on his leg. He also volunteered to state that he had CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 250 of 286 251 kept the tainted money in the bag in which he had kept the papers including the photos showing him and the deceased. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why PW3 / complainant changed the position of the tainted money which had been kept in his shirt pocket with specific instructions to hand over the same to accused persons and / or any other person on their direction. The PW3 denied having met SI Amarjeet Singh when he returned back to police station and also denied that he had any conversation with SI Amarjeet / A1 wherein he told him that accused Rajender Kumar Meena, who had already left the Police Station by then, had called him. He further denied that SI Amarjeet already knew the reason why he (PW3) had been called and told "Dus Hazar ke liye" or thereafter PW3 proceeded to hand over money to accused Vijay/A3, who was sitting in the room of SI Saurabh. At this stage, though PW3 confirmed having met accused Vijay, he stated that his meeting with accused Vijay had taken place in a Chabutra on which a table was kept and not in the room of SI Saurabh. He further stated that accused Vijay received money from him with one hand and not from two hands. Though as per prosecution case PW3 had made a gesture to the TLO / PW15 Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla and other trap team members after coming out of the room of SI Saurabh, CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 251 of 286 252 PW3 claimed that he had stood at a side at the place where motorcycle was parked and made pre decided gesture to the TLO and other team members. He further denied that Vijay had locked himself in a room or that the said room was got opened by TLO by knocking thereupon. He volunteered to state that accused Vijay was apprehended by the trap team on Chabutra and thereafter was taken to a room by the trap team. He denied that there was any bed at the said place or that PW10 Narender Tyagi had taken out tainted money from underneath the bed in the room where accused Vijay had thrown the same. He also expressed his lack of knowledge of what CBI team had done with the accused Vijay after apprehending him. He again clarified that when he handed over money to accused Vijay/A3 neither accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 nor accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 were present in the Police Station. The PW3 denied that accused Vijay had told the CBI officials that he was known to SI Amarjeet Singh or that he had taken the bribe amount from PW3 on the directions of SI Amarjeet Singh. The accused Rajender Kumar Meena was also stated to have been apprehended from outside and taken inside the room. The PW3 denied that separate wash of both the hands of the accused Vijay were taken or that the trap money was sealed by keeping it in an envelope or that CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 252 of 286 253 rough site plan showing the position of the trap team members and another rough site plan of the room, from where the bribe money was recovered, were prepared or that all these proceedings had been conducted in his presence. The post trap proceedings conducted at CBI office were also denied to have taken place in the manner reflected from the statement of PW3 recorded u/s. 161 CrPC by the IO. He expressed his lack of knowledge if specimen sample of voice of accused persons had been taken at the CBI office or the memory card wherein the same was recorded was marked as SI, SII and SIII or if the memory card as well as DVR was sealed in his presence. He infact created further doubt about the recording of introductory voices of independent witnesses by stating the introductory voice of PW8 / Shri Avtar Singh Sagar and PW10 / Shri Narender Kumar Tyagi were recorded on 19.12.2016.
67. In all the statement of complainant by itself has created considerable doubt regarding the case put forth by the prosecution. The PW3 / complainant re enforced in his crossexamination that demand of bribe had been made by SI Rajesh and SI Vivek and that no demand of bribe had been made by SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Ct. Rajender Kumar Meena/A2.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 253 of 286 254 He further deposed that he had met accused Vijay for the first time on 20.12.2016 and that on that day he neither met accused Rajender Meena/A2 nor accused Amarjeet Singh/A1. He also did not know the name of tall person whom he had met on that day. He clarified further that he told accused Vijay/A3 that he was sent by accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 as he got perplexed. He further admitted that accused Vijay had never demanded money from him and was not aware what PW3 had taken in the carrying bag which he (PW3) handed over to him (Vijay). Further accused Vijay never promised to show him any favour in the inquest case either himself or through any police officer and that he (PW3) was aware that Vijay/A3 was not a police officer and hence could not have shown any favour in his inquest proceedings.
68. The PW3 was even reexamined by PP CBI to clarify the factum of identification of documents but he denied that he had read and understood all the documents and signed the same. He also stated that he had shaken his hand with accused Vijay and then handed over bag to him.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 254 of 286 255
69. As per record PW3 / complainant was recalled for further examination pursuant to an application u/s. 311 CrPC filed on behalf of CBI. He was shown the case property i.e. the five currency notes Ex.P5/1 to Ex.P5/5 in denomination of Rs.2000/ each. Though PW3 identified the said currency notes, he stated that he had taken Rs.10,000/ in denomination of currency notes of Rs.20/ and that the same were converted into notes of Rs.2000/ denomination by the CBI official.
70. Considering the statement of PW3 in its entirety, it is not possible to accept the submission made by PP CBI that even though PW3 / complainant is hostile, that part of his statement which is in favour of the prosecution case, be read against the accused persons. The principle of law enunciated in the judgments of Bhe Ram vs. State of Haryana (Supra) ; Gura Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan ; Koli Lakhmanbhai Ghanabhai vs. State of Gujrat (Supra) ; Data Ram s/o Bhodhi Singh vs. State of UP (Supra) ; Faquira vs. State of UP (Supra) and Harabilu Kariappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (Supra) is not disputed but the observation made therein are relevant to respective cases and no parity can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 255 of 286 256
71. It is noteworthy that prosecution has examined two independent witnesses, however, they do not support the case of the prosecution on several material aspects. As already observed hereinabove the PW8 Avtar Singh Sagar did not accompany PW3 / complainant inside the Police Station Sangam Vihar but kept standing outside the Police Station when verification proceedings were conducted on 19.12.2016. He also does not mention about complainant meeting his friends Salim and Saddam outside the Police Station and going inside the Police Station with them. He further stated that before leaving for raid, PW3 Rahul / complainant told him that there was some case against him and money was being demanded from him in connection with the said case but was unable to recall the name of Constable though told to him. He was also unable to recall the name of the person to whom complainant had spoken to at Police Station Sangam Vihar on 19.12.2016. He does not mention anything about memory card Q1 and DVR being sealed at CBI office on 19.12.2016 and claims to have left from there at about 9:00 PM. The seal which was handed over to him was continued to be retained by him even as on the date he appeared to depose in the Court.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 256 of 286 257
72. As regards the trap proceedings conducted on 20.12.2016 though PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar stated that he had accompanied PW3 / complainant inside the Police Station Sagam Vihar, he stated that after coming out of the Police Station, when accused Rajender Meena/A2 told PW3 / complainant to drop him (PW8) at Tigri Mor, he (PW3) sat in a park and was not aware what happened thereafter. He received a call at about 11:00 - 11:30 AM and went inside the Police Station and met his colleague Narender Tyagi and other CBI officials. Accused Vijay, a boy studying in 11th / 12th class, was also present with them and was crying. The CBI team got the hands of accused Vijay washed in his presence. The PW8 was made to hear the voice recordings in SD Card Ex.P12, however, he was able to identify his own voice and that of his colleague / PW10 Narender Tyagi only in the said recordings. The thirteenth recording bearing file No.1612202158 was identified to be of the voice of complainant Rahul. After hearing this recording again PW8 stated that it was of accused Vijay. The PW8 also stated that though PW3 / complainant had told him that there was a demand of Rs.3.5 lacs out of which he had paid Rs.30,000/, he did not tell PW8 who was demanding the said money and to whom he (PW3 Rahul) had paid Rs.30,000/.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 257 of 286 258
73. The crossexamination of PW8 brought out that he was not instructed to remain close to PW3 / complainant or to hear the talks between PW3 / complainant and other persons. He rather stated that he was instructed by CBI team to remain outside the Police Station and for this reason he had stayed outside it. He also stated that when he had identified the documents, shown to him in the Court, on the basis of his signatures and that when he signed the same in CBI office he did not have sufficient time to read the said documents but had simply signed them. He also deposed that he was not with the CBI team when accused Vijay was apprehended as he was sitting in a park and that he was called by CBI team at about 11:30 AM. He also admitted having seen accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 for the first time in CBI vehicle. The fact that accused Vijay was weeping and telling the CBI officials "mein toh bachha hu, mein toh padta hu, mein toh vaise hi aa jata hu" was also mentioned by PW8 during his cross examination.
74. The PW10 Shri Narender Tyagi is the other independent witness. Though he was called to CBI office on 19.12.2016 also, he was joined in investigation during trap proceedings only on 20.12.2016. He supported the prosecution case to some extent by deposing that he and CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 258 of 286 259 other trap team members were briefed by Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla as well as complainant about the complaint and that a demonstration regarding use of chemical to be applied to currency notes was given and that after demonstration the currency notes were kept in the jacket of complainant by PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar, who does not state anything about keeping the currency notes in the pocket of complainant.
75. The PW10 further deposed about the manner in which the trap was laid and stated that he, Raman Kumar Shukla, and one more Inspector slowly followed the complainant, when on second occasion complainant went alone, inside the Police Station Sangam Vihar, on 20.12.2016. Though PW10 stated that they had observed complainant roaming there, he does not mention anything about complainant meeting SI Amarjeet Singh or any other police official before entering the room in which accused Vijay was sitting. He also stated that the door of the room, to which complainant had signaled them to, was closed (dhala hua tha par bandh nahi tha). On entering the said room, they found accused Vijay whose hands were caught by Raman Kumar Shukla and one more person. He also claimed to have seen accused Vijay throwing the currency notes towards the bed and having lifted the same from there. The PW10 does not mention about presence of his CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 259 of 286 260 colleague / PW8 Avtar Singh Sagar during the proceedings which are stated to have been conducted inside the room where accused Vijay/A3 was apprehended with the tainted money. According to PW10 the tainted money was sealed and solution of handwash of accused Vijay/A3 was also sealed after search of office of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 by CBI officials. Further PW10 also stated that upon return to CBI office, recorded conversations were played and a rough transcript Ex.PW 3/E was prepared. He again went to CBI office after 1 ½ months and signed the fair transcript Ex.PW3/G after hearing the conversation recorded in SD Card Q2. The PW10 was made to hear the conversation recorded in SD Card Q2 and could identify only his own introductory voice recorded therein.
76. The crossexamination of PW10 clearly brings out that even on 20.12.2016 PW8 Avtar Singh Sagar was not told by the IO to go with PW3 / complainant to the Police Station. Contrary to facts stated by him in his examination in chief, he stated that when accused Vijay was apprehended, Raman Kumar Shukla one more official of CBI, he himself and PW8 Avtar Singh Sagar were there. Though PW10 claimed to be present during the entire period of time, after accused Vijay was apprehended, till CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 260 of 286 261 the CBI team returned back to its office on 20.12.2016, he was not aware who had called accused Rajender Meena to the room from where accused Vijay was apprehended. He was unable to give details regarding the contents of the various memos after seeing them. Even the transcript Ex.PW3/G found signatures of witness at the bottom on the last page of transcript whereas signatures of the other witnesses were at the middle of the page. When the PW 10 was made to hear the recordings in SD Card Q2 again, it was brought out that there were sounds of beatings of accused Vijay by CBI officials and his crying.
77. It is evident that there are glaring discrepancies in the testimonies of both the independent witnesses put forth by the prosecution. Learned PP CBI has contended that it is not mandatory for CBI to have independent witnesses for verification and that such a procedure is followed only to show that proper verification of the complaint was carried out before CBI proceeded to act on it. He has further contended that the minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses are ought to be overlooked for these discrepancies guarantees that the witnesses are not tutored.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 261 of 286 262
78. Had the prosecution not put forth any independent witness, the matter would have been altogether different, but once independent witnesses have been joined in different stages of proceedings conducted by CBI, then their deposition qua said proceedings becomes very material and cannot be brushed aside on the ground that there was no need for prosecution to involve independent witnesses in verification and trap proceedings conducted by it. Reliance on the judgment in Vahuna Krishna vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra) by PP CBI to contend that there is no hard and fast rule that independent witnesses be joined in investigation is misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further his contention that there are only minor discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which ought to be overlooked by relying upon judgment in Faquira vs. State of UP (Supra) and Harabilu Kariappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (Supra) can also not be accepted.
79. In the light of facts which have emerged from the testimonies of complainant, PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar, PW10 / Narender Tyagi and PW11 / Salim Saifi, as detailed hereinabove it would also be appropriate to consider the submissions made by PP CBI that testimony of police / CBI officials is sufficient to draw a conclusion of CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 262 of 286 263 guilt against the accused persons. As per prosecution case after the PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar had conducted verification proceedings, a FIR was registered and thereafter PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla was assigned the responsibility of carrying out trap proceedings. Discrepancies in verification proceedings have already been discussed at length in foregoing paragraphs. Hence a scrutiny of trap proceedings conducted by the CBI would be relevant to determine if submission by learned PP for CBI can be accepted.
Trap proceedings
80. As per prosecution case after registration of the FIR, a trap team was constituted. The complaint Ex.PW3/A, verification report Ex.PW3/C and copy of FIR Ex.PW12/A were handed over to PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla vide handing over memo Ex.PW3/D (D4). The proceedings conducted by PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla, prior to the trap, are recorded in handing over memo Ex.PW3/D, and the remaining proceedings including the actual trap proceedings are recorded in recovery memo Ex.PW3/F (colly) (D5). When handing over memo, Ex.PW3/D, recovery memo Ex.PW3/F and the statement of witnesses, who had joined the trap proceedings are perused, it is noted that, CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 263 of 286 264
(i) As per handing over memo Ex.PW3/D, the tainted money was put in the inner left side pocket of the jacket of complainant by PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar. The PW3 / complainant, PW10 / Narender Tyagi and PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar have also deposed that the tainted money was kept in the pocket of complainant by PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar. The PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar, however, states 'they' kept the money in the pocket of complainant without naming anyone least of all taking credit of this act himself. The PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla has stated that the tained money was kept in the pocket of complainant by PW10 / Narender Tyagi.
(ii) As per handing over memo Ex.PW3/D, PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar had produced sealed DVR and CBI seal, used during verification proceedings, before PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla on 20.12.2016. As already observed in foregoing paragraphs PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar stated that he was only given CBI seal, after verification proceedings on 19.12.2016, and the same continued to remain in his presence and was not produced by him, any time thereafter, before the CBI officials on the Court. The PW3 / complainant expressed his lack of knowledge about CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 264 of 286 265 the fact that Avtar Singh Sagar had produced the sealed DVR and the CBI seal on 20.12.2016. He further clarified that the same were not given in his presence by PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar. The PW10 / Narender Tyagi is silent as to who had produced and / or procured the DVR, memory card and CBI seal. He has in fact stated that after recording his introductory voice DVR was sealed. Nothing is brought out from the statement of PW10 / Narender Tyagi to give a clue when the said DVR was unsealed. The PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar has stated that the DVR and the seal were given by him to PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar on conclusion of verification proceedings at 11:15 PM and were produced by him at CBI office on 20.12.2016. The PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla has deposed that he was given memory card and DVR by PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar. He is silent with respect to the seal. Thus there is considerable discrepancy in the statement of witnesses as well as handing over memo Ex.PW3/D regarding handing over of the DVR, memory card and the CBI seal.
(iii) As per recovery memo Ex.PW3/F, when the complainant went inside PS Sangam Vihar again on 20.12.2016 he was followed by both the independent witnesses, TLO and the CBI officials. He was seen CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 265 of 286 266 talking to a person wearing pink shirt and khaki trouser, who was later identified as accused Amarjeet Singh/A1. It was observed that the complainant followed accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 to his official room and waited outside it while the accused went inside. Thereafter accused came out and had conversation with the complainant and gave direction, by way of gesture, to complainant towards another official room. As per PW3 / complainant he had met some other Sub Inspector, whose name he could not recall, and the said Sub Inspector had made gestures to ask him to hand over money to accused Vijay/A3. As far as PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar is concerned, he deposed that he had gone inside the Police Station with complainant, when complainant went inside it for the first time on 19.12.2016, and that after coming out of the Police Station Sangam Vihar and briefing the TLO that the Constable had got suspicious, he was told not to remain there and to go somewhere else and so he kept sitting in the park till 11:00 - 11:30 AM when he received a call from someone and was asked to come inside the PS Sangam Vihar. The PW10 / Narender Tyagi deposed that when the complainant went inside the Police Station for the second time on 20.12.2016 he (PW10), Inspector CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 266 of 286 267 Raman Kumar Shukla and one more Inspector followed him and that they watched complainant roaming there before he entered in a room and that after he came out, complainant gave a signal using his hand. The PW10 does not mention anything about complainant meeting or interacting with SI Amarjeet Singh/A1 or any other police official at that time. The PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar is silent regarding any meeting between complainant and SI Amarjeet / A1 on 20.12.2016. The PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla has deposed these facts as per recovery memo Ex.PW3/F (colly).
(iv) As per site plan Ex.PW8/2 both the independent witnesses PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar and PW10 / Narender Tyagi had taken position with Inspector Kamal on Church Road outside the Police Station whereas PW3 / complainant and TLO PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla had taken position outside the room of SI Saurabh. As already observed in foregoing paragraphs, the PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar has given a diverging statement stating that he continued to sit in a park till 11:00 - 11:30 PM. Further the depositions of PW10 / Narender Tyagi, PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar and PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla are not in CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 267 of 286 268 consonance with their positions shown in site plan Ex.PW8/2.
(v) As per prosecution case, accused Vijay/A3 was sitting in the room of SI Saurabh and was given the tainted money by the complainant in the said room. The recovery memo Ex.PW3/F (colly) does not find any mention about the state of door of the room of SI Saurabh. The PW3 / complainant denied that he had met accused Vijay in a room and claimed that he was in a chabutra with a table. The PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar reached the alleged room later on and could not state anything regarding the condition of the door of the room of SI Saurabh. PW10 / Narender Tyagi stated that the said room was door of the room was closed but clarified it further by mentioned 'Dhala hua tha, par bandh nahi tha'. The PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar stated that after being alerted with by TLO, they all gathered inside the Police Station. On indication complainant entered the room which was closed at that time and was opened by one person who was identified as accused Vijay/A3, a private person, and that complainant informed the TLO that he had handed over bribe amount to said person. The PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla has stated that when he reached the room of SI Saurabh CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 268 of 286 269 and knocked on it, the said room was found locked and was opened after sometime by accused Vijay/A3.
(vi) As per recovery memo Ex.PW3/F (colly), the accused Vijay/A3 got perplexed when TLO and trap team members went inside the room where he was sitting and told them that he had thrown the amount beneath the bed lying in the room and that the independent witness Shri Narender Tyagi was directed to recover the said amount from underneath the bed lying in the room. The PW3 / complainant has denied that there was any room or a bed. He has deposed that the transaction had taken place on a chabutra with a table and that he had made pre decided gesture to TLO while standing by the place where motorcycle was parked. The PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar stated that he had reached the room later on and was not present with the CBI team when accused Vijay/A3 was apprehended. The PW10 / Narender Tyagi claims to have seen accused Vijay throwing the currency notes towards the bag and having lifted the same from there. He also stated that when accused Vijay was apprehended, Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla, one more official of CBI, he himself and PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar were present. The PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar and PW15 / CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 269 of 286 270 Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla deposed that accused Vijay told the TLO (PW15) that he had thrown the money under the bed. Though from the examination in chief of the PW12, it appears that he was present when accused Vijay / A3 was apprehended, his crossexamination clearly brings out that he had entered the room much later for he has deposed that 8 - 10 persons including accused Vijay/A3 and Rajender/A2 were already in the room when he entered it and that TLO was making enquiry from both the accused persons. He also stated that Avtar Singh Sagar was with the trap team and was already in the room when he entered the same. He further stated that the recovery of bribe money was not effected in his presence and that he had also not seen from where it was recovered. As per prosecution case, the PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla was ahead of PW10 / Narender Tyagi when they entered room of SI Saurabh to apprehend accused Vijay/A3. There is no explanation forthcoming from prosecution how PW10 / Narender Tyagi could see accused Vijay throwing the tainted money towards bed / underneath the bed when PW 15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla, who was working ahead of him, had not witnessed any such CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 270 of 286 271 thing.
(vii) As per recovery memo Ex.PW3/F (colly), the left wrist of accused Vijay was held by PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla and right wrist by PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar. The PW3 / complainant has deposed that after apprehending accused Vijay/A3 from Chabutra, the CBI team took him to a room on the other side and that he did not know what CBI team did with accused thereafter. He also stated that the CBI team did not recover money from accused Vijay in his presence. The PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar could not throw any light as to who had held the hands of accused Vijay as he stated that he had been called to the room where trap proceedings were conducted later on. The PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar and PW15/ Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla have deposed as per recovery memo Ex.PW 3/F (colly) in this regard. It has already been observed in foregoing paragraph that from the testimony of PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar, it has emerged that he had reached the room of SI Saurabh much later for he found PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar as well as accused Rajender / A2, both of whom had entered the said room after lapse of some time of the apprehension of accused Vijay/A3. Thus no inference CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 271 of 286 272 can be drawn that both the right and left wrists of accused Vijay were held / restrained with promptitude, by Inspector Ramesh Kumar and Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla respectively, immediately after tainted money was handed over to him by the complainant. Further mere recovery of currency notes from the room where accused Vijay/A3 was sitting is also not conclusive proof of conspiracy between accused Vijay/A3 and other two accused persons or proof acceptance of said amount on behalf of accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2. Moreover complainant has stated that he had removed the tainted money from his pocket and kept it in the bag in which he had kept the documents. He also stated that he had shaken hands with accused Vijay/A3 before he handed over the bag containing documents and money to him. Thus it is possible that hands of accused Vijay got smeared with phenolphthalein powder when complainant shook hand with him and handed over bag containing documents and tainted currency notes to him. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment in case of Hem Chander vs. State of Delhi (Supra) ; B.Jayaraja vs. State of A.P. (Supra) and P. Parasurami Reddy vs. State of A.P. (Supra).
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 272 of 286 273
(viii) As per the prosecution case the transaction of handing over the tainted money to accused Vijay, on behalf of accused Amarjeet and Rajender, had taken place in the room of PW2 / SI Saurabh. As already observed hereinabove the PW3 / complainant has denied that the alleged transaction of bribe took place in any room and claims that he had handed over bag containing documents and money to accused Vijay on a Chabutra. The PW2 / SI Saurabh, to whom the said room had been assigned, also failed to support the prosecution case. He deposed that his room was locked and its key was with him and that he had opened his room with his key when he resumed duty after taking casual leave on 20.12.2016. He further stated that his room was in the same state in which he had left it prior to proceeding on leave. The PW 1 / Inspector Upender Singh, SHO, has also affirmed that SI Saurabh was having independent room. He did not support the prosecution case in respect of the fact that the said room was being used by accused Vijay/A3. He rather stated that the keys of the room of any particular SI / IO were kept with him. No other police or independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Thus the prosecution failed to prove that the accused Vijay/A3 was a regular visitor to PS CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 273 of 286 274 Sangam Vihar or that he despite being a private person, used to come there to do work on behalf of police officials, including SI Amarjeet Singh/A1, posted at the said PS or that he was using the room of PW2 / SI Saurabh on 20.12.2016 or that he was apprehended from the said room on 20.12.2016, after accepting tainted money, from complainant.
81. Thus it is apparent from the detailed discussion of the trap proceedings, documents placed on record with respect to said proceedings as well as testimony of the witnesses who were part of the trap team that the glaring discrepancies interse these make it difficult to accept the contention of learned PP CBI that the testimony of police / CBI witnesses is sufficient to draw a conclusion of guilt against the accused persons. There are, even otherwise, several other discrepancies which are noteworthy and have been brought out from the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution which make it difficult to accept this contention of PP CBI.
82. The sim of the mobile phone number No.9711422233, on which accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 stated to have spoken with complainant, is in the name of one Amit Kumar who was examined as PW5. This witness has deposed that CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 274 of 286 275 sim of mobile phone No.9711422233 remained with him and that he never handed over the same to anyone for use and that he used to pay the bills of the said connection and that he did not know any person by the name of Amarjeet Singh and was also not aware if said Amarjeet Singh was working as SI in Delhi Police and was posted at Sangam Vihar. On the day PW5 Amit Kumar appeared to depose in the Court the sim of mobile phone No.9711422233 was observed to be operating in the mobile phone which he was carrying as is evident from the testimony of the PW5. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that SI Amarjeet Singh / A1 was using sim of mobile phone No.9711422233, there is a doubt whether any telephonic conversation had taken place with accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 thereupon with anyone on 19.12.2016 and 20.12.2016.
83. The mobile phone number 9873973998 is in the name of one Neha Jain, as per record produced by PW4 Shri Saurabh Aggarwal, Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. As per PP CBI, Neha Jain is the sister of the complainant. Nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove that the PW3 / complainant was using sim of mobile phone No.9873973998 on 19.12.2016 and 20.12.2016 and had spoken to accused Amarjeet CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 275 of 286 276 Singh/A1 and Rajender Meena/A2 from it.
84. As per testimony of PW6 / Shri Deepak Kanda, the mobile number 7011804026 is in the name of one Shri Abhishek Tiwari. The prosecution could not establish any connection between Abhishek Tiwari and mobile No. 7011804026 with the instant case.
85. As per prosecution memory card Q1 was sealed on 19.12.2016 and memory card Q2 and SI, SII and SIII were sealed on 20.12.2016. The said memory cards were sent to CFSL for preparing copies on 02.01.2017. There is nothing placed on record by the prosecution to explain where these memory cards remained from 20.12.2016 to 02.01.2017 and in whose possession.
86. Further according to the prosecution, the seal which was used to seal the memory card Q1 and DVR on 19.12.2016 was also used to seal memory card Q2, the bottles carrying wash of hands of accused Vijay/A3, memory card SI, SII and SIII having the sample voices, and to seal the DVR again on 20.12.2016. From the testimony of PW8 / Avtar Singh Sagar, however, it is brought out that the seal which was used during verification proceedings on 19.12.2016 continued to remain with him and that no seal CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 276 of 286 277 was given to him upon conclusion of trap proceedings on 20.12.2016. This fact coupled with delay in sending the memory cards to CFSL gives rise to conclusion that the possibility of tampering with the memory cards and the conversation recorded therein cannot be ruled out.
87. The crossexamination of PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar and PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla brought out that most of the facts about which they had deposed in their respective examination in chiefs were not stated by them to the IO when their statements u/s. 161 CrPC were recorded and there were apparent improvements made by them in their deposition before the Court.
88. The PW15 Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla has deposed that complainant was asked to narrate the sequence of events that had happened after he entered the Police Station on 20.12.2016 for the second time but this fact does not find mention in the statements of PW8 and PW
10.
89. Though several other police officials present in the Police Station at the time of the incident and none of the police CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 277 of 286 278 officers were joined in the proceedings conducted at PS.
90. The PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla though had collected the inquest papers was unable to state if the inquest was being conducted by SI Vivek and SI Rajesh initially. He was further unable to state if the initial complaint of complainant was against SI Rajesh and SI Vivek. Further even though PW16 had gone through the inquest proceedings with respect to murder of Devender Katharia and was aware that the same were commenced under supervision of SI Rajesh Yadav, he did not deem it necessary to record the statement of SI Rajesh Yadav or to make him a witness in the present case.
91. The PW15 admitted that as per recording from the period from 58.10 to 1:01 there was no recording to the effect that Vijay had told that he was asked by Amarjeet to accept the amount. Thus besides the fact that prosecution failed to prove that any demand for bribe had been made from PW 3 / complainant by accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2, it also failed to prove that accused Vijay/A3 had accepted the alleged bribe on behalf of said accused persons.
92. The PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar claims to have CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 278 of 286 279 heard the relevant part of the recorded conversation on 19.12.2016 and prepared their transcripts. He, however, had not handed over any rough transcripts to PW15. As per prosecution case, the memory cards Q1 and Q2 as well as SI, SII and SIII were sent to CFSL for preparing copy for investigation purpose on 02.01.2017 and the seal thereupon was opened on 16.02.2017 when independent witnesses and complainant were called to CBI office to hear the recorded conversations and to prepare the transcripts. The PW16 Inspector N.C. Nawal, however, deposed that the PW12 Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla had prepared rough transcripts and that he had mentioned names of speakers in transcript Ex.PW3/G on the basis of the said rough transcript Ex.PW3/E. He then contradicted himself and stated that when he received the case file there was no rough transcription of Q1. He also did not mention in Ex.PW3/G that he had made changes in the names of the speakers after identification of voices by the complainant. Thus the fact that transcripts of conversations recorded in memory cards Q1, Q2 and SI, SII and SIII were prepared on 16.02.2017, after receiving copies of said memory cards from CFSL, does not stand proved by the prosecution.
CC No. 52/2019CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 279 of 286 280
93. The PW16 deposed that he had recorded statement of witnesses u/s. 161 CrPC as per facts disclosed by them but when his attention was drawn to typed statement Ex.PW16/DA u/s. 161 CrPC of witness Salim Saifi, he volunteered to state that since witness Salim Saifi was in jail, he had recorded statement Ex.PW9/A in jail and then prepared typed statement Ex.PW16/DA after returning to CBI office. He had also examined Saddam Saifi, relative of Salim Saifi, but both the statements got merged inadvertently and got reflected as statement of Salim Saifi. He admitted that there was difference in the statements Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW16/DA. In these circumstances the possibility of material additions, alterations and modifications having been made in the statements of other witnesses examined by PW16 cannot be ruled out.
94. The PW Saddam, though cited as a witness, was never examined in the Court and there is no explanation for it forthcoming from prosecution.
95. Further the entire transcript along with the names of the persons, whose voices were sought to be identified by the CFSL expert, were sent to PW14 / Dr. Subrat Kumar Chaudhary by the IO PW16 / Inspector N.C. Nawal. The CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 280 of 286 281 recording of the specimen voices, for comparison with the questioned voices of accused persons, were also made by giving the accused persons pre determined material identical with the questioned voices. The manner in which transcripts were prepared also creates a doubt that they may have been manipulated and the identification of the voices of the accused persons in the questioned voice recordings was not genuine but based on transcripts received from the IO. Even otherwise voice identification can be best used as corroboration of other independent evidence and cannot be made sole basis for conviction of the accused in absence of other evidence against them. Reliance is placed upon judgment in Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (Supra) in this regard.
96. Based on foregoing discussion it can be safely concluded that the testimonies of CBI officials namely PW12 / Inspector Ramesh Kumar, PW15 / Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla and PW16 / Inspector N.C. Nawal, even if taken in entirety, are not sufficient to draw a conclusion of guilt of accused person. Judgments in case of Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) (Supra) ; Hazari Lal vs. The State (Delhi Admn.) (Supra) ; Tahir vs. State (Delhi) (Supra) and Gian Singh vs. State of CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 281 of 286 282 Punjab) (Supra) relied upon by the learned PP CBI in support of this contention are also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
97. Further in view of the glaring discrepancies brought out from evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, the fact that PW3 / complainant, PW5 / Shri Amit Kumar, PW8/ Shri Avtar Singh Sagar and PW9 Shri Salim Saifi have failed to support the prosecution case cannot be overlooked. Judgments in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Narsinghrao (Supra) ; Badri Rai & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (Supra) ; Inder Singh & Anr. vs. The State (Delhi Admn.) (Supra) ; Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh & Lrs (Supra) and Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar (Supra) relied upon by ld. PP CBI are also not applicable in facts and circumstances of the present case.
98. Coming to allegations of conspiracy it has been held in R.Shaji Vs. State of Kerla (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 266 wherein it has been observed that, "A criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, owing to which, direct evidence is difficult to obtain. The offence can therefore be proved either by adducing circumstantial evidence, or by way of necessary implication. However, in the event that the circumstantial CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 282 of 286 283 evidence is incomplete or vague, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to provide adequate proof regarding the meeting of minds, which is essential in order to hatch a criminal conspiracy, by adducing substantive evidence in the court. Furthermore, in order to constitute the offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the person involved has knowledge of all the stages of action. In fact, mere knowledge of the main object/purpose of conspiracy would warrant the attraction of relevant penal provisions. Thus, an agreement between two persons to do, or to cause an illegal act, is the basic requirement of the offence of conspiracy under the penal statute".
Similar observation made in case of Badri Rai & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar and Chaman Lal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. relied upon by PP CBI.
99. In the instant case, in the absence of the proof of demand of illegal gratification, which is the gravamen of the offence u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d), the charge of said offences against accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 does not stand proved. Further the plea of conspiracy against accused Vijay/A3 also fails since from the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution it cannot be held that the sum of Rs.10,000/ recovered from the possession of accused Vijay/A3 was in fact the bribe CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 283 of 286 284 money meant for accused Amarjeet Singh/A1 and Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 for holding the accused persons guilty of offences they have been charged with.
100. The learned PP CBI has relied upon judgments in Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh (Supra) and Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar (Supra) to contend that letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. The said contention is not sustainable in view of the observations made in the cited judgment Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar (Supra) wherein it was observed that, 'The language of Section 106 Evidence Act does not, in our opinion, warrant putting such a narrow construction upon it. This Court held in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, that the burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused, which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him. It is a different matter that the quantum of evidence by which he may succeed in discharging his burden of creating a reasonable belief, that circumstance absolving him from criminal liability may have existed, is lower than the burden resting upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.'
101. In the present case the judgments in P.Satnarayan Murthy vs. Distt. Inspector of Police (Supra) and CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 284 of 286 285 B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (Supra) clearly lay down the ingredients essential for the prosecution to bring home charges for the offences under Section u/s 120 B of the IPC r/w Sec. 7 & 13 (2) r/w Sec. 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act. It is only after the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden of proving its case that the onus of proving plea, if any, set up by the accused persons would shift upon them.
102. The remaining judgments referred to in the written submissions filed on behalf of PP CBI and the judgment in Hari Dev Sharma vs. State (Supra) relied upon on behalf of accused Rajender Kumar Meena/A2 are also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
103. The nutshell of foregoing discussion is that after consideration of the entire material placed on record by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Amarjeet Singh and Rajender Kumar Meena are acquitted of the charge for the offences u/s. 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has further failed to prove charge for the CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 285 of 286 286 offence punishable u/s. 120 B IPC r/w Section 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against accused persons Amarjeet Singh, Rajender Kumar Meena and Vijay. Their bail bonds stand canceled and surety discharged. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 Digitally signed by (Illa Rawat) ILLA ILLA RAWAT Special Judge (PC Act), (CBI)20, Date:
RAWAT 2019.11.18 Rouse Avenue Court, 16:21:23 +0530 New Delhi /16.11.2019 CC No. 52/2019 CBI v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Dated: 16.11.2019 Page No. 286 of 286