Delhi District Court
State vs Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria Ors on 10 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03/SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Time Bound Case under
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999
(More than ten years old case)
CNR No. : DLSW01-001687-2015
SC No. : 440644/2016
State Vs. : Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr.
FIR No. : 531/2015
U/s. : 3 MCOCA
P.S. : Najafgarh
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW01-001687-2015
2. Date of registration of FIR : 03.07.2015
3. Date of institution of the case : 02.01.2016
4. Name of the complainant : ACP Jagjit Sangwan
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : (1) Vikas Gulia @
Vikas Lagarpuria,
S/o Sh. Surender Singh,
R/o VPO Lagarpur,
Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana.
(2) Dhirpal @ Kana @
Dheelu,
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan,
R/o Village Kheri Jat,
P.P. Badli, Distt. Jhajjar,
Haryana.
Also At : RZ-33,
Chauhan Enclave,
Old Khera Road,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 1 of 114
State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr.
FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
6. Offences complained of
in the chargesheet : 3/4 MCOCA
7. Offences under which charges
were framed : 3/4 MCOCA
8. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Date on which order was reserved : 21.11.2025
10. Date of final order : 10.12.2025
11. Final order : Convicted u/s 3 MCOCA
Acquitted u/s 4 MCOCA
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. The chargesheet in the present FIR has been assigned in this Court on 02.01.2016 in terms of Order No.24/DHC/Gaz.VI.E.2(a)/2008 dated 22.10.2008 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as per which the Courts of Addl. Sessions Judge-03 shall also deal with the cases of TADA/POTA/MCOCA of their respective jurisdictions.
2. The case of prosecution is that after approval from the competent authority under Section 23(1)(a) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA) dated 03.07.2015 for initiating the investigation under Section 3 of MCOCA, as extended to N.C.T. of Delhi, against accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria, a rukka was presented by complainant/ACP Jagjit Sangwan to the Duty Officer, PS Najafgarh wherein he stated that Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 2 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh S/o Sh. Surender Singh R/o VPO-Lagarpur, Tehsil-Bahadurgarh, District-Jhajjar. Haryana, who is a hard core criminal, is in J/C in case FIR No.227/15 U/S 387/452/323/34 IPC, P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, New Delhi. Vikas Gulia is involved in as many as 18 criminal cases including that of murder, attempt to murder, extortion, robbery, house trespass, and criminal Intimidation etc. registered at various police stations at Delhi and Haryana. He is leader of infamous "Vikas Lagarpuria gang and trying hard to hold his supremacy in the area. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria started his criminal career in his early age. Thereafter, he continuously engaged himself in the crimes against person and property. In the year 2012, case FIR No.37/12 under Section 382/411/34 IPC at PS Chhawla was registered against him and he was arrested in that case. During the year 2012 till the date of filing this complaint, he was involved in as many as 18 criminal cases in various parts of Delhi and Haryana, which includes criminal conspiracy, obstructing public servants in discharge of their official duties, extortion of property, house trespass, criminal intimidation, robbery, attempt to murder, and murder etc. Besides this, he was also booked for violation of Arms Act. Since he is dangerous and desperate criminal, leader of his own syndicate/criminal gang, his propensity to use fire arms and indulgence in violence at public place in pursuit of his objective has rendered him a great threat to the maintenance of public order. The activities of Vikas Lagarpuria are indicating that he has formed an organized crime syndicate and with the help of other associates, he had indulged in accumulating illegal wealth by committing the criminal offences by using violence, coercion, SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 3 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh criminal force and other illegal means. The Courts of competent jurisdictions have already taken cognizance in more than one case against him in last 10 years. Because of his dangerous and desperate criminal activities in almost all the cases, the witnesses have not come forward and hesitate to depose against him. His unabated criminal activities which are prejudicial to the interest of public peace and tranquility are continuing. He has created an atmosphere of terror and fear in the area. In the complaint, the details of his associates has also been given.
3. On the basis of above rukka, FIR No.531/2015 under Section 3 MCOCA was registered at PS Najafgarh. After registration of FIR, investigation in the case was carried out by ACP Jagjit Sangwan.
4. During investigation, IO/ACP Jagjit Sangwan collected the certified copies of 18 criminal cases in which accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria was involved, from the concerned Courts wherein cognizance was taken.
5. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Dhirpal @ Kana was previously involved in total 10 cases including murder, attempt to murder, attempt to murder for extortion, violation of Prisons Act; disobeying orders of public servant & violating model code of conduct, causing grievous hurt. IO also collected the certified copies of said 10 cases from the concerned Courts wherein cognizance was taken.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 4 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
6. During further investigation, statement of public witnesses as well as of the IOs of the respective cases wherein both the accused were involved were recorded.
7. During further investigation, mulakati details of both the accused persons from Jail in which they were lodged, were also taken and the bank statements of the witness Sonia and her ITR were also taken by the IO. The CDRs and CAFs of various persons were taken in order to prove the involvements of the accused persons and complicity of their associates in the present case. IO also examined some of the complainants/witnesses of the previous cases and the investigating officers who filed the chargesheets against accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria. Disclosure statements of both accused persons were recorded. Confessional statement of accused Dhirpal was recorded under Section 18 MCOCA. After receiving sanction to prosecute under Section 23(2) of MCOCA, chargesheet was filed against both the accused persons.
Charges
8. Charge under Section 3 and 4 of MCOCA was framed on 02.07.2016 against both accused persons namely Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal @ Kana to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Matter was thereafter listed for prosecution evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
10. Prosecution cited as many as 86 witnesses in the SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 5 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh chargesheet, out of which 59 witnesses have been examined. Accused persons have admitted under Section 294 CrPC the certified copy of the chargesheets of the cases in which they have been shown to be involved and have been exhibited as Ex.A1 to Ex.A24, approval to initiate investigation which has been exhibited as Ex.A25, sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA which has been exhibited as Ex.A26, FIR of present case under MCOCA which has been exhibited as Ex.A27 and copy of FIR No.159/2012 PS BHD Nagar which has been exhibited as Ex.PW6/PX3 and therefore, the witnesses pertaining to said documents were dropped.
11. Testimony of prosecution witnesses, who have been examined in this case, is reproduced hereinunder:-
12. PW-1 Sh. Vipin Kumar is a public witness whose plot measuring 1000 sq. yds. at Tikri Kalan in the name of his wife was grabbed. PW-1 completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.
13. PW-2 Ct. Phool Singh was posted at PS BHD Nagar who had the knowledge about grabbing of plot of PW-1 Sh. Vipin Kumar. PW-2 also completely turned hostile.
14. PW-3 SI Balwant Singh recorded the complaints of one Nitin Gupta and one Kuldeep Kaur regarding the plot in two Khasra numbers. He conducted inquiry and sent a letter to SDM, Punjabi Bagh for demarcation of the plot in question.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 6 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
15. PW-4 Sh.Nitin Gupta had made a complaint to PW-3 SI Balwant Singh regarding his plot. PW-4 also completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution at all.
16. PW-5 Sh. Narender Singh is a public witness who had received a ransom call in pursuance of which 5-7 persons came to his office-cum-residence and threatened his office boy. In this regard, FIR No.227/2015 was registered at PS BHD Nagar. PW-5 also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.
17. PW-6 Sh. Tajbir is the complainant of FIR No.159/2012, PS BHD Nagar. He stated that his son Ravinder had a quarrel with one Vikas S/o Sh. Suresh regarding money transaction. PW-6 also turned hostile. As per prosecution case, accused Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal @ Kana came to the house of PW-6 and demanded Rs.50 lakhs by showing him pistol and also fired few rounds from fire arm and they gave one week time to pay the said amount, failing which, all the family members would be killed. During his cross examination by learned Addl. PP for the State, he admitted that probably one FIR no.159/2012 at PS BHD Nagar was registered on his complaint. He also admitted that the FIR was pertaining to the incident of firing. He also admitted that except for the aforesaid FIR, he had not got any other FIR registered against anyone. PW-6 further admitted that in the said FIR, names of accused persons Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal have been mentioned as assailants.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 7 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
18. PW-7 Sh. Sanjay Kumar was running a sweet shop by the name Aggarwal Sweets and on 13.04.2015, he received a call from one mobile number in respect of extortion wherein called demanded Rs.25 lakhs. On the same day, at about 9.00 pm, two- three persons came in his shop and fired in the shop. He came to know that one Dhirpal @ Kana, who was lodged in Bhondsi Jail, was behind the said incident. Because of the incident, he got frightened and after about two months of the incident, his brother alongwith 2-3 respectable persons of the village went to Bhondsi Jail to meet accused Dhirpal in order to settle the issue through Dara Singh. PW-7 turned completely hostile. He did not support the prosecution case even to the extent that incident of firing happened inside his sweet shop. He stated that only quarrel had happened in front of his sweet shop.
19. PW-8 Sh. Rajbir Singh is brother of PW-7. He also turned hostile and denied the prosecution case to the effect that he had gone to Bhondsi Jail to settle the issue with accused Dhirpal qua his brother PW-7 Sh. Sanjay Kumar.
20. PW-9 Sh. Ashish is the complainant of case FIR No.48/2012 PS J.P. Kalan registered regarding robbery of Innova Car bearing registration No.HR55C6570. PW-9 turned completely hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He only admitted occurrence of robbery of his Innova Car regarding which aforesaid FIR was registered. He did not identify the accused persons to be the assailants.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 8 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
21. PW-10 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Dagar is the complainant of case FIR No.49/2012 PS J.P. Kalan registered regarding robbery of Ritz Car bearing registration No.DL9CAA3022. PW-10 turned completely hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He only admitted occurrence of robbery of his Ritz Car regarding which aforesaid FIR was registered. He did not identify the accused persons to be the assailants.
22. PW-11 Sh.Priyavrat is a public witness. He turned completely hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. During his cross examination by learned Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that he had made a police statement that in the year 2013 he was working alongwith his brother Devender and having office in the name of Balaji Associate at Surakhpur Road. He stated that he did do not know any person by the name of Kavit, Vikas @ Lagarpuria and Sumit and they never came to his office. He denied the suggestion that as a result of registration of 2-3 cases against accused Vikas @ Lagarpuria, they were defamed in their village or that it was said that they have dealings with criminals. He further denied the suggestion that they had closed their office for this reason and he started the business of selling bananas in Najafgarh Mandi on commission basis. He also denied that for this reason he got well acquaintance with one Karambir who had asked him to arrange some money for him. He also denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement to police that Karambir had returned the money with interest and many a times money transaction took place on loan and in the beginning Karambir returned that money SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 9 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh on time. He also denied the suggestion that Karambir started his own work in the name of Swami Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Khasra no. 641, Ground floor, A-Block, Rangpuri Extension, New Delhi, after taking loan from bank. He also denied the suggestion that he and Karambir used to sit in the office of Shivam Properties and one day Karambir received phone call at 5-6:00 p.m. and after attending the phone call, Karambir became nervous and sat on one side. He also denied the suggestion that on his inquiry, Karambir told that the call was made by Dhirrpal and Vikas who were threatening him as to why he was not attending their call and they were demanding Rs.50 lakhs otherwise they would kill him. PW-11 also denied the suggestion that he stated to the police that Karambir asked him to talk to them and when he called, accused Vikas @ Lagarpuria asked him to bring Karambir in 1-2 days at Village Lagarpur. He also denied the suggestion that when he alongwith Karambir went to Village Lagarpur, they met accused Dheerpal and Vikas there. He also denied the suggestion that both of them asked from Karambir to transfer the land purchased by him at Jahangirpur in their name. He also denied the suggestion that both of them further told Karambir that he should consider and accept that now possession of his land at Jahangirpur is with them. PW-11 has further denied the suggestion that Karambir told them that he had a party for sale of this land and he will clear their accounts after selling the land. PW-11 also denied that he told accused Vikas that he (accused Vikas) will get the money after sale of the land on which accused persons asked him (PW-11) to take guarantee of the same. He also denied the suggestion that he went to the house of his uncle SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 10 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh who advised him not to take any risk by saying that would he die for money. He also denied that his uncle gave him moral support and told him that he had taken earnest money for a plot at Gopal Nagar and as soon as he will get the remaining sale money he should return money to the accused persons as they are dangerous persons. PW-11 has further denied the suggestion that after some time, Karambir also returned to his house at Shahabad Mohammadpur and he asked Karambir to get his vehicle released and return to him, on which Karambir told that Jonny, who was associate of Dhirpal, had come to him and told him that they will get this vehicle released and they took him to Court and police station and got the vehicle released. PW-11 has further denied the suggestion that his uncle Krishan told him that he had arranged the money. He also denied that he and his brother Devender took Rs.35 lakhs from his uncle and gave Rs.33 lakhs to father of accused at the house of Dheerpal and also took receipt of the same in writing from his father. He also denied the suggestion that he gave the money under threat and pressure as he feared for his life and that of his family members. He also denied that for this reason he did not lodged any complaint against the accused persons and paid accused persons Rs.35 lakhs in place of Rs.21 lakhs which were to be paid by Karamvir. PW-11 further denied that both the accused persons threatened him telephonically from jail to kill him. He also denied that both the accused persons snatched his Swift Dzire car bearing no. DL12CJ0260.
23. PW-12 Sh. Devender is brother of PW-11. He also SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 11 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh completely turned hostile.
24. PW-13 Sh. Amit Kumar was lodged in Bhondsi Jail in a murder case and used to talk to his wife from one mobile phone of accused Dhirpal which he was having in Bhondsi Jail. PW-13 also turned completely hostile.
25. PW-14 Sh.Vineet @ Johny was allegedly an associate of accused Dhirpal who used to look after the loan business of accused Dhirpal from various debtors and then used to deposit the same in the account of friend of accused Dhirpal namely Sonia. PW-14 also completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution at all except admitting registration of FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla against him. He admitted his signature on seizure memo Ex.PW14/1. This seizure memo is of Swift Dzire Car seized in the present case of MCOCA.
26. PW-15 Sh. Paramjeet was allegedly an associate of accused Dhirpal and Vikas Lagarpuria. He deposed that he was registered owner of one TATA Safari car bearing no.HR13H3792 and that the said car remained with him and he had never handed over the same to somebody else. He deposed that he knew accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal as he was arrested alongwith accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal in case FIR no.459/2013, PS Najafgarh. He deposed that the said car was also seized by the police FIR No.459/2013 PS Najafgarh and he got the said vehicle released on superdari. Since PW-15 did not support the case of prosecution fully, he was cross examined SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 12 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh by learned Addl. PP for the State.
27. PW-16 Sh. Jai Bhagwan is a public witness. During his testimony, he was shown the photograph of his father on CAF of Mobile no.7056263706 allegedly used by accused Dhirpal in the Jail. He identified the photograph on the CAF, however, he admitted that signatures were not that of his father as his father is illiterate and puts his thumb impression on the documents.
28. PW-17 Smt. Sonia is allegedly the friend of accused Dhirpal @ Kana. As per prosecution case, accused Dhirpal used to give her Rs.5000 - 10,000/- as expenses and whatever money was given by Dhirpal @ Kana in market on loan was being looked by her through his friend Vineet @ Joni and Akash. It is further the case of prosecution that accused Dhirpal @ Kana had given her bank account number to his debtors and the debtors used to deposit money in her (PW-17's) account. PW-17 stated that she did not know accused Dhirpal. She completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution at all. She was cross examined at length by learned Addl. PP for the State.
29. PW-18 Sh. Karambir is a public witness. He turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. His testimony shall be discussed in detail in subsequent paragraphs.
30. PW-19 Sh. Chhuttan Lal Meena is Tehsildar from the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh. He deposed regarding verification of plot in Khasra No.26/21/2 and has proved the report of SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 13 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Kanoongo as Ex.PW19/1.
31. PW-20 HC Sandeep received the complaint of one Kuldeep Kaur and reply in this regard on behalf of SHO, PS Mundka was given by him. PW-20 was summoned to prove the reply given by SHO, PS Mundka to ACP Jagjit Singh, IO of this case in respect of the complaint made by Kuldeep Kaur.
32. PW-21 Sh. Naveen was running car repairing and service centre in the name of Balaji Car Scan. He deposed that one Preet used to come with Car bearing No.DL12CJ0260 for getting job done on various dates during the period from 25.04.2014 to 07.03.2015. He has proved the car service record of car bearing no.DL12CJ0260 as Ex.PW21/1.
33. PW-22 Ct. Santram has proved the Jail Mulakati Record from 08.11.2014 to 29.10.2016 maintained at District Jail, Gurugram (Bhondsi Jail) in respect of accused Dhirpal as Ex.PW22/1.
34. PW-23 Sh. Roop Kishore Sharma has proved the Jail Mulakati Record from 24.08.2012 to 09.09.2016 maintained at Central Jail No.5, Tihar Jail in respect of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria as Ex.PW23/1.
35. PW-24 HC Rajpal has proved the complaints filed by family members of PW-18 Karambir regarding his missing from home and receiving threatening calls.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 14 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
36. PW-25 Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Clerk, SDM Officer has brought the record pertaining to registration of vehicles bearing no. HR13H3792 and HR13J8951. He deposed that as per record, vehicle no. HR13H3792 i.e. TATA Safari is registered in the name of Sh. Paramjeet s/o Sh. Gyan Singh, r/o VPO Badli, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. He further deposed that as per record, the vehicle no.HR13J8951 i.e. Mahindra Bolero is registered in the name of Sh. Surender Kumar, s/o Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, r/o H.No.71, VPO Lagarpur, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar. He has proved the copies of registration certificate of both the aforesaid vehicles as Ex.PW25/1 and Ex.PW25/2 (OSR) respectively.
37. PW-26 HC Ashwani Kumar, MHC(M) deposed that Vehicle no. DL12CJ0260, which was seized in FIR no.212/15, PS Chhawla was released on superdari to one Karambir s/o Sh. Bhoop Singh. He has proved the copy of superdarinama as Ex.PW26/1 and the entry in register no.19 in this regard at serial no.1614 as Ex.PW26/2.
38. PW-27 Sh.Rifakat Ali, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank has produced the record pertaining to account no. 915010019680804 and 913010044858498 in name of Ms. Sonia, flat no.163, Pocket-G, Sector-B2, Narela, North-West, Delhi and Ms. Sonia, r/o H.No.15, village Daryapur Kalan, Bawana, Delhi respectively and has proved the certified copies of bank account statement for the period 01.01.2015 to 17.09.2015 as Ex.PW27/1 and Ex.PW27/2 respectively.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 15 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
39. PW-28 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Aggawal, Income Tax Inspector has proved two ITRs for the assessment year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 of PW-17 Sonia as Ex.PW28/1 and Ex.PW28/2 respectively.
40. PW-29 Sh. Amodh Sinha, Relationship Manager, HDFC Bank has produced the record pertaining to account no. 50100096077310 mapped with mobile no. 9718677173. He deposed that said account is in the name of Mrs. Sonia Singh. He has proved the certified copy of the bank account statement for the period 12.08.2015 to 16.09.2015 as Ex.PW29/2.
41. PW-30 Sh. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Chief Manager, SBI, Najafgarh has proved the bank account statement of Account no.10493082294 pertaining to Sh. Satya Narayan, father of accused Dhirpal.
42. PW-31 Sh. Vikas Kumar Singh, Senior Branch Head, Corporation Bank, Najafgarh has proved the bank account statement of Account no.SB/01/000647 pertaining to Sh. Sunil Kumar, brother of accused Dhirpal.
43. PW-32 Sh. M. Johnson, MLO, Regional Transport Authority has produced the computerized record of ownership of vehicle bearing no. DL-12CJ-0260, make Swift Dzire Maruti Suzuki car. He deposed that the said car was registered in the name of one Suman and she was the 2nd owner of the car. He has proved the relevant record as Ex.PW32/1. He also stated that the SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 16 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh first owner of said vehicle was Swami Agro India Pvt. Ltd.
44. PW-33 Sh. Shekhar Kumar proved the bank account statement of account bearing No.092901504037 pertaining to PW-17 Sonia in ICICI Bank for the period from 06.02.2014 to 31.12.2014 as Ex.PW33/1.
45. PW-34 Sh. Shyam Singh Dhakar, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India has proved the bank account statement of Account No.3052657963 for the period 01.01.2013 to 23.09.2015 pertaining to Smt. Murti Devi, mother of accused Dhirpal.
46. PW-35 Sh. Vivek Singh, Assistant Manager, HDFC Bank has proved the bank account statement of account No.50100040245671 for the period 11.05.2014 to 22.09.2015 pertaining to Smt. Deepa, wife of accused Dhirpal.
47. PW-36 Sh. Ajit Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. proved the customer application form (CAFs) and CDRs of different mobile No. 9718000234, 8059125200, 8512895610, 9718677173, 8476072490, 9812296877, 7056263706, 7065576135, 8512029571, 9540263236, 8750407179, 9891718419 and 8745066623 alongwith certificates under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW36/1 to Ex.PW36/32.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 17 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
48. PW-37 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer,Bharti Airtel Ltd. proved the customer application form (CAF) and CDR of mobile No.9818297471alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW37/1 to Ex.PW37/3.
49. PW-38 Insp. Parveen Kumar filed the chargesheet in FIR No.36/2012 PS J.P. Kalan which was registered regarding robbery of Ritz Car bearing Registration No.HR996277.
50. PW-39 Retd. SI Ranvir Singh is the IO of case FIR no.153/2014, PS BHD Nagar registered against both accused persons namely Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal and PW-15 Paramjeet.
51. PW-40 Insp. Veer Singh is the IO of case FIR no.459/2013, PS Najafgarh registered against accused Vikas Lagarpuria.
52. PW-41 Insp. Sandeep Kumar is the IO of case FIR No.66/2012 PS Chhawla.
53. PW-42 SI (Retd.) Santram Bhardwaj is the IO of case FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla.
54. PW-43 SI (Retd.) Udai Singh is the IO of case FIR No.49/2012, PS J.P. Kalan.
55. PW-44 SI Ved Prakash is the IO of case FIR No.48/2012, PS J.P. Kalan.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 18 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
56. PW-45 Insp. Manoj Bhati is the IO of case FIR No.500/2015, PS Dwarka North.
57. PW-46 Insp. Rajender Singh is the IO of case FIR No.159/2012, PS BHD Nagar.
58. PW-47 ACP (Retd.) Sandeep Gupta is the IO of case FIR No.84/2012, PS Chhawla.
59. PW-48 SI Prakash Chand is the IO of case FIR No.37/2012, PS Chhawal.
60. PW-49 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan from TATA Tele Services Ltd. has proved the CAF of Mobile no.9212740227 as Ex.PW49/A.
61. PW-50 ACP Vijay Kumar Vats joined the investigation of this case alongwith IO and SI Ashok Kumar.
62. PW-51 Retd. Joint Commissioner Sh. R.A. Sanjeev has proved the confessional statement of accused Dhirpal under Section 18 MCOCA.
63. PW-52 Insp. Ashok Kumar has joined the investigation of this case alongwith the IO.
64. PW-53 Sh. Jaiveer, Assistant Manager, Indian Bank has proved the account statement of account No. 20367490066 in the SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 19 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh name of Surender S/o Mukhtiar R/o Village Lagarpur, Badli, Jhajjar, Haryana i.e. father of accused Vikas Lagarpuria for the period w.e.f. 31.10.2002 to 04.05.2023 as Ex.PW53/A.
65. PW-54 Sh. Mahender, Halka Patwari, Tehsil Badli brought the record in respect of ancestral property of accused Vikas Lagarpuria, which is in the name of his grandfather Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, as Ex.PW54/A to Ex.PW54/G.
66. PW-55 Sh. Ajesh Kumar, Civil Nazir, Record Room, Rohini Court has produced the original judicial file of FIR No. 479/2013, PS Alipur decided on 31.07.2015. He has proved the certified copy of the chargesheet, ordersheets including order dt.31.07.2015 as Ex.PW55/A (colly).
67. PW-56 HC Radhey Shyam, MHC(M) of PS Najafgarh has deposed that IO/ACP Jagdish Sangwan deposited a Swift Dzire Car bearing no.DL-12CJ-0260 in the malkhana and he made the relevant entry of the deposit of the said car in register no.19 vide entry no.4001 and has proved the said entry as Ex.PW56/A. He deposed that the said car has been released on superdari to Karambir S/o Bhoop Singh. He also deposed that on 04.12.2015, ACP Jagdish Sangwan deposited a TATA Safari car bearing no. HR-13H-3792 in the malkhana and he made a relevant entry of the deposit of the said car in register no.19 vide entry no.4085 and has proved the said entry as Ex.PW56/B.
68. PW-57 Sh. Amar Deep Jain, the then SDM, Bahadurgarh SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 20 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh has proved the report of Tehsildar as Ex.PW57/B as per which the grandfather of accused Vikas was the recorded owner of Khewat no.50, 51, 52,53, Village Lagarpur, measuring 12 Kanal and 2 Merla.
69. PW-58 Sh. Jarish Kumar, Mauja Clerk, Record Room (Criminal), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has brought the original case file of CC No.708/1 titled as 'Smt. Kuldeep Kaur vs. Phool Singh', PS Mundka (Goshwara No.90/2016) and has proved the certified copy of entire case file as Ex.PW58/A.
70. PW-59 Retd. ACP Jagjit Sangwa is the IO of the case. His testimony is relevant and is reproduced herein as under:-
"On 30.07.2015, I was posted as ACP, Najafgarh Sub. Division. Prior to me joining the office, the then ACP K.K. Sharma had already moved proposal to obtain sanction u/s 23(1) MCOCA Act against accused persons namely Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and Dheerpal @ Kana.
After obtaining sanction from the Joint CP dt. 03.07.2015 already Ex.A25, I prepared rukka is now exhibited as Ex.PW59/A bearing my signature at point A. I handed over the said rukka to the duty officer and FIR No. 531/15, PS Najafgarh was registered in the present case. Thereafter, previous involvement of both the accused persons namely Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and Dheerpal @ Kana were checked again.
During investigation, Vipin Kumar came to my office and I recorded his statement and came to know that one plot which was situated in Mundka, Tikri Kalan area measuring 1000 sq. Yards was in the name of wife of Vipin Kumar. I recorded statement of Vipin Kumar in which he alleged that accused Vikas Lagarpuria and his associates were trying to grab the said plot illegally. He had also lodged one complaint at PS Mundka in that regard. He further informed that associates of accused SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 21 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Vikas Lagarpuria were trying to construct a boundary wall in order to grab the said plot illegally and forcibly. Vipin Kumar handed over to me the documents of the said plot and the complaint which he has lodged in PS Mundka, same were seized by me vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-1/1 bearing my signature at point B. He said the complaint is already Mark A. The chain of documents are already Ex. PW-1/4.
I enquired from the EO of the said complaint who informed us that a call at 100 No. was also made with regard to the illegal construction made by the associates of Vikas Lagarpuria. SI Balwan of PS Mundka was marked with the said complaint which was in the name of Neelam w/o Vipin Kumar. I gave a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to SHO PS Mundka gave a written reply to my notice same is already Ex. PW-20/5. Along with the said reply certified copy of complaint made by Neelam, complaint against Phool Singh, Nitin and Vipin made by one Kuldeep Kaur already Ex. PW-3/8, complaint against Pawan Mittal already Ex. PW-3/A, another complaint made by Kuldeep Kaur Ex. PW-59/B, call at 100 No. By DD No. 26/A, dated 16.06.2015 Ex. PW-59/C, DD No. 38/B, Ex. PW-59/D dated 16.06.2015, copy of the complaint before the CMM u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by Kuldeep Kaur against Phool Singh, Nitin and Vipin Ex. PW-59/E (colly).
I moved an application for the demarcation of the said plot at Mundka with SDM Punjabi Bagh. Tehsildar Punjabi Bagh visited the spot and demarcated the said plot. The demarcation report is already Ex. PW-19/1. At the time of demarcation, the said plot was having boundary wall. The Khasra number of the said plot in question was 26//21//2 which does not tallies with the documents of complainant Neelam w/o Vipin Kumar.
On 16.07.2015, accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria was produced on production warrant at Dwarka Court. He was arrested by me after seeking the permission of the said Court vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-50/A bearing my signature at point C. Five days PC remand of the accused was taken by me. On 17.07.2015, disclosure statement of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria was recorded same is already Ex. PW-52/A bearing my SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 22 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh signature at point B. Accused refused to give his confession statement u/s 18 of MCOC Act before the concerned DCP. On 21.07.2015, accused was produced before the then designated Court of MCOC Act and he was sent to JC.
One swift dzire car bearing registration No. DL 12 CJ 0260 was used by accused Vikas Lagarpuria and his associates to run the syndicate of the gang. The said car was recovered at the instance of one Vineet Jonny who was one of the associates of accused Vikas Lagarpuria. The said car was seized by me in the present case vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-14/1 bearing my signature at point C. The said car was used in FIR No. 212/15 dated 13.04.2015 of PS Chhawla in which the accused persons had used the same car for extortion and firing upon Aggarwal Sweets, Dinpur.
During investigation, I came to know about a Safari car bearing no. HR 13H 3792, which was used by accused persons in 3-4 cases, was purchased by one Paramjit, was seized in unattended condition near the house of Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu parked in a gali vide seizure memo already Ex.PW52/D bearing my signature at point B. In the said car, one pollution certificate and insurance were also found. As per the document, the registered owner of the car was one Paramjit resident of VPO Badli. The said car was used in FIR No. 479/13 PS Alipur, FIR No. 459/13 PS Najafgarh and FIR No. 153/14 PS Najafgarh.
I can identify the said car, if shown to me.
At this stage, photographs are said car already marked as Mark 52/E (Colly) are shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness correctly identifies the car.
Thereafter, I recorded statement of Karamvir, who was resident of Village Shahbad and was doing business. Accused persons had given a loan Rs. 34,00,000/- to Karambir at the interest of 10% per month for six months. When the said loan was not repaid in six month, accused persons threatened Karambir due to which he left his house. In the said transaction, one mediator namely Priyavrat settled the disputes between both the parties and gave a cheque of Rs. 34 lacs to the SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 23 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh accused persons, which was signed by Karambir but handed over to the accused persons by Priyavrat. The photocopy of the said cheque, a note taken by Karambir and one affidavit of Sat Narain, father of accused Dhirpal were seized by me vide seizure memo already Ex.PW11/PX2 bearing my signature at point C. The copy of the cheque is already marked as Mark PW11/A. The copy of the note of Karambir wirtten on the letter pad of Swami Agro is already marked as Mark PW11/B. The copy of the affidavit is already marked as Mark PW11/C. Thereafter, family members of Karambir lodged a missing report and complaint at PS Dwarka North. DD No. 34B with regard to missing of Karambir is already marked as Mark PW18/D. The complaint of the wife of Karambir is already marked as Mark 18/B. The complaint of the father of Karambir is already marked as Mark PW18/C. I seized the said documents vide seizure memo already Ex.PW18/E bearing my signature at point C. During investigation, I came to know that Swift Dzire car bearing No. DL 12CJ 0260, which was forcibly taken by the accused persons from Karamvir, was used in the offence in case FIR No. 212/15 PS Chhawla. I checked the complaints of the father and wife of Karambir from PS Dwarka North and found them authenticated.
Thereafter, I moved an application for seeking production warrants of accused Dhirpal @ Kana @ Dhilu S/o Satya Narain and accused Dhirpal @ Kana @ Dhilu S/o Satya Narain was arrested on 21.09.2015 vide arrest memo already Ex.PW52/B bearing my signature at point B, after getting permission for the same. The said application is Ex.PW59/F bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I moved another application to seek 10 days police custody against accused Dhirpal @ Kana @ Dhilu S/o Satya Narain. The said application is Ex.PW59/G bearing my signature at point A. During his police custody, disclosure statement of accused Dhirpal @ Kana @ Dhilu S/o Satya Narain was recorded by me, same is already Ex.PW52/C bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, accused Dhirpal @ Kana @ Dhilu S/o Satya SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 24 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Narain took us to Bhondsi Jail for the recovery of mobile phones which was used by him.
During the PC remand of accused, accused Dhirpal @Kana took us to Bhondsi Jail for the recovery of mobile phones which were used by him while he was inside the jail. The said phones were used to carry out his operations and giving directions to his gang members and associates. No phones were found in the jail as the accused had already burnt the said phones along with Sim cards and flushed them in the toilet.
I also recorded statement of one inmate namely Amit, who was convict of a murder case. He told us that he used to talk to his wife namely Renu from the mobile phone of accused Dhirpal @ Kana. I obtained the CDR of all the mobile phones used by the accused persons.
Thereafter, accused Dhirpal @ Kana was willing to give his confession statement under Section 18 of MCOC Act before the DCP concerned. I produced accused Dhirpal @ Kana before DCP South West. I moved an application for recording his statement under Section 18 of MCOC Act. The said application is already Mark X1 bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, statement of accused Dhirpal @Kana was recorded on 28.09.2015 by DCP South West. The said statement was then kept in a sealed envelope and accompanied with the covering letter. The said covering letter is Mark X2. On the same day, accused was produced before Ld. CMM, Dwarka Courts along with sealed envelope and covering letter. Thereafter, accused Dhirpal @ Kana was sent to JC.
Criminal record of the associates of accused persons were taken out. The said details are Ex. PW59/H (colly- from page No. 519-533). I obtained the certified copies of the charge- sheets and the relevant documents of the cases in which accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria was involved. There were total 18 cases pending against him. I also obtained the certified copies of the charge- sheets and the relevant documents of the cases in which accused Dhirpal @ Kana were involved. There were total 10 cases pending against him. The said certified copies were made part of the charge-sheet. I recorded statements of concerned IOs of the said cases. I also recorded SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 25 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh statements of the complainant/injured/ victim of the said cases.
During investigation, I obtained the visitors' details of accused Dhirpal @ Kana from Bhondsi Jail. The copy of the said details was made part of the charge-sheet. Same is already Ex.PW22/1 (colly). I also obtained the visitors' details of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria from Tihar Jail. The copy of the said details was also made part of the charge-sheet. Same is already Ex.PW23/1 (colly). I obtained certified copy of the complaint of Kuldeep Kaur from the court of Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The same is already Ex.PW58/A (OSR).
Thereafter, I obtained CDR and CAF of mobile numbers used by accused Dhirpal @Kana and his associates and family members of both accused persons. The CAF and CDRs of mobile numbers are already Ex.PW36/12 to Ex.PW36/32, Ex.PW37/1 to Ex.PW37/3.
Mobile number 7056263706, 9812296877 and 9711296182 which were used by accused Dhirpal @ Kana to talk to his associates, gang members and one Sonia with whom he was having affair. I obtained bank account details of Sonia and noticed that total Rs. 35 lacs have been debited and credited from her account on various dates. The said bank account statements are already Ex.PW27/1, Ex.PW27/2, Ex.PW29/2 and Ex.PW33/2. I also obtained ITRs of Sonia. The certified copies of said ITRs are already Ex.PW28/1 to Ex.PW28/4.
Thereafter, I obtained bank account details of family members of both accused persons. The certified copies of bank account statements of Satya Narayan is already Ex.PW30/2.
I also obtained complete property details/ land holdings in the name of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and his family members from SDM Bahadurgarh. The said records along with appropriate application are already Ex.PW57/A, Ex.PW57/B, Ex.PW54/A to Ex.PW54/E and Ex.PW54/G. After the completion of investigation, I sought approval under Section 23(2) MCOC Act from Joint CP and filed the charge-sheet, SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 26 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh same is already Ex.A-26 (colly). I prepared the charge- sheet and filed the same before the court.
During investigation, I came to know that accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria is a leader of famous gang Lagarpuria and was trying to hold Supremacy in the area. He along with his associates were collectively running the organized crime syndicate. In furtherance of his activity, accused Vikas Gulia@ Vikas Lagarpuria along with his associates had shot dead and injured various persons in the area of Delhi and Haryana. In the last 10 years before the filing of present charge- sheet, many courts of competent jurisdiction have taken cognizance in more than one cases against accused Vikas Gulia @Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal @ Kana. Accused Vikas Gulia @Vikas Lagarpuria had used violence, coercion and illegal means in order to accumulate wealth while committing the said offence.
In the year 2012, the first case was registered against accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria i.e. FIR No. 37/2012 PS Chhawla under Section 382/411/34 IPC. He was also arrested in that case. From the year 2012 to 2015, accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria was involved in 18 criminal cases. Accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria is a dangerous and desperate (criminal and Arms Act cases are also registered against him. Due to his terror and his use of firearm, he is a great threat for the maintenance of public order. No public person come forward to depose against both the accused persons due to the terror that has been established by both of them. Many of the cases also go unreported due to the fear of accused persons.
During PC remand of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria, he was taken to his house situated at Village Lagarpur, District Jhajjar, Haryana. He was seen living a lavish lifestyle in his house and I found three ACs, three LCDs and other expansive articles in the house of accused. The main gate of the house of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria was electronically controlled by watching in the CCTV camera. Accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria used to reside on the first floor of the house. One big LCD was fitted in the room of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria which was used by him SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 27 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh to keep a watch on the activities of the persons entering or going nearby his house. One Bolero car bearing registration No. HR 13J 8951 which was registered in the name of father of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria namely Surender, was also found in the said house. The said car was of Rs. 6-7 lacs.
During PC remand of accused Dhirpal @ Kana, he was taken to his house situated at RZ-33, Chauhan Enclave, Najafgarh, Delhi. He was seen living a lavish lifestyle in his house and I found expansive articles in the house of accused. There were CCTV cameras inside and outside the house of accused Dhirpal @ Kana.
During investigation, I also investigated about FIR No. 212/15 U/s 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act PS Chhawla. The complainant in that case was Sanjay. Sanjay received threat over his phone by the mobile number which was used by accused Dhirpal @ Kana. Brother of complainant Sanjay namely Rajbir met accused Dhirpal @ Kana in Bhondsi Jail where a settlement took place between complainant Sanjay and accused persons for Rs. 25 lacs which was given by Rajbir. The mulakati details of Bhondsi Jail of accused Dhirpal @ Kana reveals the name of Rajbir. The shop of the complainant Sanjay was thereafter run by his grandmother and grandfather after receiving of the extortion money by the accused persons.
During investigation. I analyzed CDR and CAF of mobile numbers used in the present case by accused Dhirpal @ Kana and persons associated with him and found out that accused persons were conveying messages/plan of action to their associates in order to commit an offence for the syndicate. CDR of mobile number 7056263706 and 9812296877 which were mentioned in charge-sheet in case FIR No. 212/15 and another mobile number 9711296182, location of the all these mobile numbers were of Maruti Kunj, Bhondsi, Haryana, Gurugram. The IMEI number 357130061717200 which was found to be used in Sim number 7056263706, 9812296877 and 9711296182. All these three numbers were used by the same person from Bhondsi, Gurugram where Bhondsi jail was located. Further analysis of the CDR of the said numbers show that mostly call numbers from the said three mobile SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 28 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh numbers belong to the family members, friends, co- accused persons associated with accused Dhirpal @ Kana. The said numbers were also used by accused Dhirpal @ Kana to talk to his girlfriend. Sonia, having mobile number 97186771773; wife Deepa having mobile number 9999299989; friend Vinit Johny having mobile numbers 8750407179, 7065576135, 9999727248, 9540263236; brother Sunil @ Kheri having mobile number 9540090080; father Satya Narain having mobile number 9999173875. The said three numbers of accusd Dhirpal @ Kana were also used to talk to a common friend of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria namely Rajesh @ Kale and father of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria namely Surender having mobile number 8059125200.
The said three numbers were also used by accused persons in order to grab the plot at Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi. one witness namely Phool Singh was also in contact with accused Dhirpal @ Kana in order to grab the plot at Village Tikri Kalan.
I had recorded statement of Narender, who is the complainant in FIR No. 227/15 PS Baba Haridas Nagar. In the said statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, he stated that he received a call on his mobile No. 9211025188 from accused Dhirpal @ Kana by mobile No. 9540090080. The said alleged number belongs to his (accused Dhirpal @ Kana) real brother Sunil Kheri. I had also analyzed the CDR of accused Dhirpal @ Kana and other number involved in the present case. Thereafter, I prepared the data and filed the same along with the charge-sheet. The call detail records from accused Dhirpal @ Kana, who was lodged in Bhondsi Jail by mobile No. 7056263706 to Sonia on mobile No. 9718677173 are Ex. PW59/I (colly). The call detail records from accused Dhirpal @Kana, who was lodged in Bhondsi Jail by mobile No. 9711296182 to Sonia on mobile No. 9718677173 are Ex. PW59/J (colly). The call detail records from accused Dhirpal @ Kana, who was lodged in Bhondsi Jail by mobile No. 9812296877 to Sonia on mobile No. 9718677173 are Ex. PW59/K (colly).
The call detail records from accused Dhirpal @ Kana, SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 29 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh who was lodged in Bhondsi Jail by mobile No.7056263706 to his friend Vinit @ Johny on mobile No. 9999727248 are Ex. PW59/L (colly). The call detail records from accused Dhirpal @ Kana, who was lodged in Bhondsi Jail to his wife Deepa, his friend Vinit @ Johny, his brother Sunil Kheri, his father Satya Narayan, his associate Rajesh Kala, Surender Singh (father of accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria), his associate Ishwar @ Monu, his associate Sunil Rao, Renu (Wife of Amit, who was lodged in Bhondsi Jail), Const. Phool Singh and Kuldeep Kaur are Ex.PW59/M (colly-from page No. 965 to page No. 1235 of the judicial file). In the said pages, the call detail records of accused Dhirpal @ Kana with Sonia and Vinit @ Johny are also included.
The certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act to the abovementioned record is Ex.PW59/N bearing my signature at point A. I prepared the charge-sheet after collecting the entire records and the certified copies of the charge-sheets in which the accused persons were involved. I obtained the necessary permission under Section 23(2) MCOCA, same is already Ex.A-26 (colly). Thereafter, I filed the charge-sheet against accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal @ Kana."
71. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
Statement under Section 313 CrPC and Defence Evidence
72. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused persons was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence against the accused persons which came on record during prosecution evidence, was put to them which they denied and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police. When their Jail Mulakati Record was put to them specifically for those visitors who are witnesses in this case, both of them responded "It is a matter of record.".
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 30 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
73. Accused persons have opted to lead evidence in their defence.
74. During their defence evidence, accused persons have not produced any witness, however, they have filed certified copies of the judgments wherein they have been acquitted and copy of bail orders passed in the cases in which they were convicted.
75. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
Arguments on behalf of parties
76. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. counsel for accused persons and perused the record carefully.
77. Sh. Vijender Singh Kharb, ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that FIR was registered under Section 3 of MCOCA after approval was accorded by the competent authority on 03.07.2015 and thereafter investigation started. He has argued that both accused persons were in judicial custody at that time. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that MCOCA was invoked as the accused Vikas being the head of gang was indulging in repeated offence of extortion, robbery, murder alongwith his associates, one of whom was accused Dhirpal @ Kana S/o Sh. Satya Narayan.
78. Ld. Addl. PP for State has further argued that though the public witness have turned hostile, however, the hostile testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded as a whole. He has further argued that PW-7 Sanjay, Complainant of FIR SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 31 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh No.212/2015, PS Chhawla turned hostile, but reading of testimony of PW-7 and his brother Rajbir who has been examined as PW-8, would prove that the incident of firing had occurred in sweet shop of PW-7 Sanjay. PW-8 Rajbir in order to settle the matter had gone to Bhondsi Jail where accused Dhirpal was lodged. He has further argued that the said fact stands proved by Jail Mulakati Record Ex.PW22/1 of accused Dhirpal.
79. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further argued that there are other instances which show the complicity of accused Vikas Lagarpuria with accused Dhirpal in commission of crimes and spreading terror. He has further argued that prosecution witnessed have duly proved that both the accused persons were using Swift Dzire belonging to one PW-18 Karambir and one TATA Safari Car belonging to their associate Paramjeet and this shows that they were associated with each other. Ld. Addl. PP has further argued that the testimony of witnesses proved that Sonia, friend of accused Dhirpal, used to go to Bhondsi Jail to meet him regularly and was managing ill gotten money of Dhirpal in her four accounts which have been duly proved.
80. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that apart from the testimony of witnesses, the confessional statement under Section 18 of MCOCA of accused Dhirpal has been duly proved by PW-51 Joint Commissioner Sh. R.A. Sanjeev. He has further argued that same has not been retracted when accused Dhirpal was produced before the then Ld. CMM. He has further argued that the confessional statement of accused Dhirpal can be used SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 32 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh against co-accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kamlesh Kothari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC Online Del 3984.
81. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further argued that the prosecution has been able to prove that more than one chargesheet was filed against both the accused persons in which the competent courts have taken cognizance. He has further argued that it has been duly proved beyond any doubt that both the accused persons were running an organized crime syndicate. He has further argued that sanction to prosecute under Section 23(2) of MCOCA has been duly admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 CrPC. He has further argued that both the accused persons namely Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal @ Kana had made pecuniary gains and had created terror amongst the general public to enforce their supremacy and, therefore, they are liable to be convicted under Section 3 and 4 of MCOCA.
82. On the other hand, Sh. Anirudh Yadav, ld. counsel for both accused persons has argued that approval has been taken only for the offence under Section 3 of MCOCA and not for the offence under Section 4 of MCOCA and therefore, the chargesheet for the offence under Section 4 of MCOCA could not have been filed.
83. Ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that besides the past chargesheets, there has to be an activity which indicates SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 33 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh continuity of offence or in other words, organised crime has to be continuing unlawful activity and therefore, unless there is an act or omission indicating continuation of unlawful activity, there would be no question of commission of organised crime and as such, in the present case, there was nothing to show any continuing unlawful activity and therefore, organised crime and organised crime syndicate and thus, the approval and sanction that were granted, were bad in law as no offence under Section MCOCA could be said to have been made out.
84. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has further argued that both the accused persons have been discharged in FIR no.212/2015, PS Chhawla, which was the alleged substantive offence pursuant to which MCOCA was invoked, therefore, no offence under MCOCA is made out against the accused persons.
85. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that majority of the prosecution witnesses, ought to have been made accused, in case prosecution theory is accepted, but same was not done, and therefore, accused persons are entitled to the benefit of same. Ld. Counsel has further argued that in majority of the FIRs mentioned in the chargesheet against accused Vikas Lagarpuria, he was already acquitted prior to registration of FIR under MCOCA in the present case.
86. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has further argued that nothing incriminating has come in the testimony of PW-1 to PW-18 and they have not even whispered a single word against SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 34 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh accused persons and have not supported the case of prosecution in any way.
87. Ld. Counsel has further argued that confession of accused Dhirpal @ Kana has not been recorded in accordance with law & it is a typed copy of disclosure statement in verbatim, which makes it inadmissible. He has argued that no date and time was appended on the certificate given at the end of the confessional statement by PW-51. He has further argued that when accused Dhirpal was produced before Ld. CMM, he retracted from his statement by stating that he was made to sign pre-typed statement. Ld. Counsel argued that confessional statement of accused Dhirpal does not stand proved in accordance with law and is, therefore, liable to be discarded.
88. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the FIRs in which accused persons have been convicted have nothing to do with any organized crime syndicate. He has further argued that the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act filed in support of CDRs is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the CDRs cannot be read in evidence.
89. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has further argued that MCOCA required independent investigation, but in this case except for filing the previous chargesheet and examination of IOs, nothing has been brought on record in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons under Section 3/4 of MCOCA.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 35 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
90. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that the version of prosecution that accused persons were in possession of various properties and were living in luxurious life which they could not account for, has not been proved at all. Ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that not even a single property belonging to accused or their family members was found to be owned by them via illegal means. Ld. counsel has further argued that the property owned by father of accused Vikas Lagarpuria is his ancestral property in which various other family members are co-sharers.
91. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has further argued that prosecution has failed to prove that accused persons have got any movable or immovable property out of the alleged ill-gotten money earned by alleged organised crime syndicate. He has further argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 3 and 4 of MCOCA in the present case.
92. Ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, both the accused persons namely Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria are liable to be acquitted under Section 3 and 4 of of MCOCA. In support of his submissions, ld. counsel for accused persons has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Prafulla & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/1909/2008
(ii) State of Maharashtra vs. Shiva @ Shivaji Ramji Sonawane & Ors. (2015) 14 SCC 272
(iii) John D'Souza vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, B-1/Special, DCB, CID & Ors. Criminal Writ Petition SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 36 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr.
FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh No.147 of 2007 decided on 30.04.2007.
Analyisis, Reasoning & Findings
93. The MCOCA was enacted to make special provisions for prevention and control of, and for coping with, criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the said Act is as under:
"Organised crime has for quite some years now come up as a very serious threat to our society. It knows no national boundaries and is fueled by illegal wealth generated by contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering etc. The illegal wealth and black money generated by the organised crime being very huge, it has had serious adverse effect on our economy. It was seen that the organised criminal syndicates made a common cause with terrorist gangs and foster terrorism which extend beyond the national boundaries. There was reason to believe that organised criminal gangs have been operating in the State and, thus, there was immediate need to curb their activities.
It was also noticed that the organised criminals have been making extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent their commission would be an indispensable aid to law enforcement and the administration of justice.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 37 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
2. The existing legal framework i.e. the penal and procedural laws and the adjudicatory system were found to be rather inadequate to curb or control the menace of organised crime. Government, therefore, decided to enact a special law with stringent and deterrent provisions including in certain circumstances power to intercept wire, electronic or oral communication to control the menace of the organised crime."
94. The MCOCA was made applicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi by Ministry of Home Affairs by virtue of an order dated 02.01.2002. It is a matter of record that MCOCA Rules, 1999 were never made applicable to Delhi.
95. Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f) of MCOCA are relevant as they define 'continuing unlawful activity', 'organised crime' and 'organised crime syndicate'. They shall be discussed in detail in the subsequent paras.
96. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance in this regard is placed on Nasir Sikander Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (SC) 2005 Crl.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (SC) 1996 (1) RCR 465.
97. Section 23 of MCOCA provides that approval to initiate investigation and sanction to prosecute are necessary. Section 23 of MCOCA is reproduced hereinunder:-
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 38 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh "23. Cognizance of, and investigation into, an offence - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, -
(a) no information about the commission of an offence of organised crime under this Act, shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Additional Commissioner of Police;
(b) no investigation of an offence under the provisions of this Act shall be carried out by a police officer below the rank of the Assistant Commissioner of Police.
(2) No Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the police officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Police."
98. The proposal was put up before the Competent Authority seeking approval to initiate investigation under Section 3 of MCOCA which was accorded by the competent authority in terms of Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA on 03.07.2015. The said approval is reproduced herein as under:
"I have perused the proposal submitted by ACP Najafgarh Sub Division of South-West District, New Delhi through DCP/South West District containing details of the criminal activities of Vikas Gulia @ Lagarpuria S/o Sh. Surender Singh r/o V.P.O. Lagarpur, Tehsil- Bahadurgarh, District- Jhajjar Haryana.
It has been found from the facts submitted before me in the proposal & documents on record which contains the involvement of dreaded criminal Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria S/o Sh. Surender Singh r/o V.P.O. Lagarpur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District- Jhajjar Haryana, that he is involved in continuing unlawful activities and is a master- mind in the organized crime. He is using violence/threat of violence/other unlawful means and intimidation in his nefarious organized crime design with the main objective to gain supremacy by establishing reign of terror in the area for gaining pecuniary/economic benefits. He alongwith his associates collectively runs the organized SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 39 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh crime syndicate and is also involved in various heinous crimes like murder of innocent persons, attempt to murder, extortion, car-jacking etc. in the area of Delhi and Haryana.
I am satisfied that Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria S/o Sh. Surender Singh r/o V.P.O.-Lagarpur, Tehsil- Bahadurgarh, District- Jhajjar Haryana is a leader of criminal gang which is professionally engaged in crime and functions in an organized way and carrying out activities which are prohibited by law in force and punishable with imprisonment of three years and more. In respect of these activities, more than one Charge-sheet have been filed against him before a Competent Court within a preceding period of ten years and the Courts have taken cognizance of such offences.
On perusal of the record submitted before me by DCP/South-West District I am satisfied that this amounts to an organized crime by the member of an organized crime syndicate defined in section 2 of M.C.O.C. Act 1999 as extended to N.C.T. of Delhi.
Vikash @ Lagarpuria S/o Sh. Surender Singh r/o V.P.O. Lagarpur, Tehsil-Bahadurgarh, District- Jhajjar Haryana and his associates have been committing organized crime with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits and other advantages in future for themselves and for the members of their organized crime syndicate by unlawful means.
Therefore, I Dependra Pathak, Joint Commissioner of Police, South West Range, Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred upon me u/s 23(1)(a) of the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act-1999 as extended to N.C.T. of Delhi do hereby grant approval to apply Section 3 of the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act-1999 as extended to N.C.T. of Delhi. Sh. Jagjit Sangwan ACP/Najafgarh shall investigate the case."
99. Ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that the proposal on the basis of which approval was accorded has not been proved in accordance with law. He has also argued that the SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 40 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh approval was only granted under Section 3 of MCOCA, however, accused persons have been chargesheeted under Section 4 of MCOCA as well for which no approval was taken.
100. Insofar as first argument regarding proving of proposal is concerned, since the approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA has been admitted by accused persons in the present FIR as Ex.A-25, therefore, non-summoning of the witnesses pertaining to the proposal is not fatal to the prosecution at all.
101. The approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA has been admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 CrPC and has been exhibited as Ex.A-25. Perusal of the approval Ex.A-25 clearly shows that competent authority had applied its mind before granting the approval for initiating investigation under Section 3 of MCOCA against accused Vikas and his associates as it shows that it has taken into consideration the involvement of accused Vikas Lagarpuria in various offences and the nature of offences he was involved in.
102. Insofar as other argument regarding granting of approval for initiating investigation only for the offence under Section 3 of MCOCA is concerned, reliance is placed upon Kavitha Lankesh vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2021 SCC Online 956 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of sanction has categorically explained that under this provision, the factum of commission of offence of organised crime is crucial and not the crime against the offender as such. In this case, the Hon'ble SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 41 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Supreme Court has held that the question which is to be considered is only that whether the investigation needs to be initiated on the basis of the facts which are placed before appropriate authority or not. It is only after the registration of FIR that the investigation for the concerned offence would proceed and investigating officer would be able to unravel the details of the offence and the specific role and the identity of the persons involved in the offence. Therefore, it is immaterial that approval under Section 23(1) of MCOCA was not accorded for the offence under Section 4 of MCOCA. This arguments of ld. counsel for accused is not tenable at all.
103. The FIR in the present case was admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 CrPC and was exhibited as Ex.A-7.
104. The investigation in this case was carried out and the sanction to prosecute both the accused persons under Section 23(2) of MCOCA was duly granted which has already been admitted under Section 294 CrPC by the accused persons and have been exhibited as Ex.A26. The said sanction to prosecute is reproduced hereinunder:-
"SANCTION U/S 23(2) OF MAHARASHTRA CONTROL OF ORGANISED CRIME ACT, 1999
1. WHEREAS, the ACP/Najafgarh has submitted his report dated 07/12/15 along with the case file of Case FIR NO. 531/15 dated 03/07/15, U/S 3 MCOCA, 1999 P.S- Najafgarh, New Delhi, through DCP/South West Distt. Delhi for according the sanction to prosecute the accused persons under section 23(2) of M.C.O.C Act-1999.
2. AND WHEREAS, undersigned had accorded prior SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 42 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh approval vide No. 1822/SO-SWR, dated New Delhi the 03.07.2015 for applying the provisions of MCOCA 1999 in Case FIR NO. 531/15 dated 03/07/15, U/S 3 MCOCA, 1999 P.S- Najafgarh, New Delhi,
3. AND WHEREAS, I, Dependra Pathak, Joint Commissioner of Police South-Western Range, Delhi have gone through the case file submitted by ACP/Najafgarh Shri Jagjeet Sangwan and perused the statements of witnesses, the case file and the documents enclosed with it.
4. AND WHEREAS, on going through the case file, statements of witnesses and related documents placed before me, I am satisfied that a prima- facie case is made out against the accused persons for being tried under section 3/4 of MCOCA, 1999 and whereas I find that there are sufficient grounds to believe that accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal @ Kana @ Dheelu alongwith his associates are engaged in use of continuous unlawful activities with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, other advantages for themselves, their crime syndicate and has thus committed organized crime.
5. AND WHEREAS, more than one charge sheet have been filed before a competent court within last ten years and the Courts have taken cognizance of these charge sheets against accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal @Kana @ Dheelu.
6. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Dependra Pathak, Joint Commissioner of Police, South-Western Range, Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by sub-section 2 of section 23 of M.C.O.C. Act. 1999, do hereby accord sanction for the prosecution of the arrested accused person (1) Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria S/o Surender Singh R/o V.P.O- Lagarpur, Distt- Jhajjar, Haryana and (2) Dhirpal @Kana S/o Satya Naryan R/o H. No. 33, Chauhan Enclave, Najafgarh, New Delhi for taking cognizance by the Hon'ble Designated Court, Dwarka Courts New Delhi constituted for trying such offences under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999."
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 43 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr.
FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
105. The ultimate test to check the validity of sanction is to see whether relevant material that form the basis of allegations constituting the offence was placed before the sanctioning authority and the same was perused before granting sanction. This Court is of the view that this test has been applied in the present case. The sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material was considered by the sanctioning authority while granting sanction to prosecute.
106. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has heavily relied upon confessional statement of accused Dhirpal and has argued that it can also be used against co-accused Vikas Lagarpuria and both the accused persons can be convicted solely on the basis of confessional statement of accused Dhirpal.
107. In order to deal with this argument of ld. Addl. PP for the State, it is relevant to refer to Section18 of MCOCA.
108. Section 18 of MCOCA is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience :-
"18. Certain confessions made to police officer to be taken into consideration.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Code or in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), but subject to the provisions of this section, a confession made by a person before a police officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police and recorded by such police officer either in writing or on any mechanical devices like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from which sounds or images can be reproduced, shall be admissible in the trial of such person or co- accused, abettor or conspirator:
Provided that, the co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together with the SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 44 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh accused.
(2) The confession shall be recorded in a free atmosphere in the same language in which the person is examined and as narrated by him.
(3) The police officer shall, before recording any confession under sub-section (1), explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him and such police officer shall not record any such confession unless upon questioning the person making it, he is satisfied that it is being made voluntarily. The concerned police officer shall, after recording such voluntary confession, certify in writing below the confession about his personal satisfaction of the voluntary character of such confession, putting the date and time of the same.
(4) Every confession recorded under sub-section (1) shall be sent forthwith to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area in which such confession has been recorded and such Magistrate shall forward the recorded confession so received to the Special Court which may take cognizance of the offence. (5) The person from whom a confession has been recorded under sub-section (1) shall also be produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the confession is required to be sent under sub-section (4) alongwith the original statement of confession, written or recorded on mechanical device without unreasonable delay. (6) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall scrupulously record the statement, if any, made by the accused so produced and get his signature and in case of any complaint of torture, the person shall be directed to be produced for medical examination before a Medical Officer not lower in rank than of an Assistant Civil Surgeon"
109. The confession is governed by Section 18 MCOCA. Though the Act was made applicable to Delhi year 2002, however the rules applicable to MCOCA in Mumbai never came into force in Delhi. Therefore, we are guided by Section 18 of SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 45 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh MCOCA.
110. It is a matter of record that accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria has not given any confessional statement, however, accused Dhirpal @ Kana's confessional statement has been recorded in the present case under Section 18 of MCOCA. Ld. Counsel for the accused during the course of the arguments had argued that the confession was not recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 MCOCA. His arguments have been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The perusal of the record shows that accused Dhirpal @ Kana was formally arrested on 21.09.2015 on issuance of his production warrants in some other case wherein he was lodged in Bhondsi jail. His 10 days police custody was sought by the IO however he was remanded to police custody for a period of 7 days. It is further noted from the record that his disclosure statement was recorded on 27.09.2015. Thereafter on 28.09.2015 he was produced before PW-51 Retd. Joint Commissioner Sh. R.A. Sanjeev. An application under Section 18 (1) MCOCA for recording of his confession statement was moved before him. PW-51 Mr. R.A. Sanjeev, the then DCP proceeded to record the statement after putting certain questions to him. After identification of accused Dhirpal by the IO before the then DCP, following questions were put to the accused in Hindi as mentioned in the confessional statement of accused Dhirpal @ Kana in Ex. PW 51/B :-
"Q. What is your name?
Ans. Dhirpal
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 46 of 114
State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Q. What is your father's name?
Ans. Satnarayan Q. What is your age?
Ans. 31 years Q. Where do you live?
Ans. RZ-33, Chouhan Enclave, New Delhi Q. With whom you come here to give your confession statement?
Ans. I come here with police officials.
Q. Do you know why you are produced here? Ans. For recording my confession statement.
Q. Are you in a position to properly and rationally tell? Ans. Yes Q. Has somebody told you what to depose here? Ans. No Q. Are you under any fear, force or coercion from anyone? Ans. No."
111. In order to see whether the compliance of Section 18 of the said Act was done by PW-51 before recording confessional statement, it is necessary to advert to the section again. The said section mandates that the confessions shall be recorded in a free atmosphere. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is a matter of record that before recording of his confessional statement, accused Dhirpal was in the custody of police for continuous 6 days. No cooling of period can be seen to have been granted to the accused before recording of his confessional statement by the then DCP.
112. The second condition which is mentioned in section 18 SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 47 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh MCOCA is that before recording the confession, the police officer shall explain to the person making it that, he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him and such police officer shall not record any such confession unless upon questioning the person making it, he is satisfied that it is being made voluntarily.
113. A careful perusal of the questions put by PW-51 to accused Dhirpal @ Kana shows that nowhere the accused was cautioned while putting these questions that the statement which he was making, he was not bound to make and that it could be used against him. PW-51 straight away put the question regarding the statement being recorded without any fear, force or coercion. It is pertinent to note that all these questions were put to the accused in the presence of the IO in the chamber where the proceedings were recorded. This fact is reflected from the next paragraph which is recorded after the aforesaid questions were put to him. The said paragraph is as under :-
"Accused appears to be normal, without any fear, force or pressure. I have made him to sit in front of me. At this stage, IO/ACP and everybody else present in the chamber are asked to wait outside the chamber since the proceeding are being conducted for recording the confession statement of the accused. Now there is none except myself, stenographer and accused in the chamber. Now, I warned to the accused that this confession statement can be used as evidence against him during trial in the Ld. Court and proceed to record his confession statement"
114. The said paragraph clarifies that while those questions were put, the IO was there in chamber, therefore, seeking answers to the questions put by PW-51 in front of IO cannot be SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 48 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh said to be voluntary. In this paragraph, after the IO had left the chamber, it is mentioned that the witness PW-51 R.A. Sanjeev had warned the accused that this confessional statement can be used against him during the trial in the court and then he proceeded to record the confessional statement. It is not recorded that accused was told that he was not bound to make such statement. It is nowhere recorded that he was ready to make confessional statement once it was told to him that it could be used against him. The manner in which this fact has been stated in the proceedings while recording the confession is in complete violation of provisions of Section 18 (3) of MCOCA. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the confessional statement of accused Dhirpal @ Kana was recorded voluntarily.
115. There is yet another reason that the said confessional statement cannot be believed. Under Section 18 (1) of the said Act, it has been stated that the confession shall be recorded by the police officer either in writing or on any mechanical devices such as cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from which sounds or images can be reproduced.
116. However, the confessional statement recorded herein shows that it has been typed by the stenographer. The contentions of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the said confessional statement of accused Dhirpal @ Kana is verbatim copy of his disclosure statement is found to be absolutely correct, except for change of one or two words, here and there. In these circumstances, the confessional statement of the co-accused SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 49 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Dhirpal @ Kana cannot be stated to be proved in accordance with law and hence it can neither be used against him nor against co-accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria.
117. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Sandeep Omprakash Gupta 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727 whilst dealing with a case under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, which has similar provisions as that in MCOCA, has enumerated the ingredients of organised crime and has inter-alia held as under:
"In understanding the ambit of the enactment, emphasis must be given to three definitions:
a. Organised crime (Section 2(1)(e)) b. Organised crime syndicate (Section 2(1)(f)); and c. Continuing unlawful activity (Section 2(1)(c).
The expression "organised crime" is defined with reference to a "continuing unlawful activity".
The definition is exhaustive since it is prefaced by the word 'means'.
The ingredients of an organised crime are:
a. The existence of a continuing unlawful activity;
b. Engagement in the above activity by an individual;
c. The individual may be acting singly or jointly either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such a syndicate;
d. The use of violence or its threat or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means; and e. The object being to gain pecuniary benefits or undue economic or other advantage either for the person SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 50 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh undertaking the activity or any other person or for promoting insurgency."
118. Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA defines 'continuing unlawful activity' and Section (2)(1)(e) of MCOCA defines 'organised crime'. Section 2(1)(f) defines 'organised crime syndicate'.
119. Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA provides as under:
"(d) "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence."
120. Section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA provides as under:-
"(e) "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency ."
121. Section 2(1)(f ) of MCOCA provides as under:-
"(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime."
122. The definition of continuing unlawful activity under SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 51 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA has been explained by Hon'ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Govind Sakharam Ubhe vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) SCC Online Bom 770 wherein the phrase "in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court" used in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act has also been interpreted as under:
"35. It is now necessary to go to the definition of `continuing unlawful activity'. Section 2(1)(d) defines `continuing unlawful activity' to mean an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years and that court have taken cognizance of such offence. Thus, for an activity to be a `continuing unlawful activity' -
a) the activity must be prohibited by law;
b) it must be a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more;
c) it must be undertaken singly or jointly;
d) it must be undertaken as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate
e) in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent court.
36. The words `in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed' cannot go with the words `a member of a crime syndicate' because in that case, these words would have read as `in respect of whom more than one charge-sheet have been filed'.
37. But even otherwise, if all provisions are read together we reach the same conclusion. Section 2(1) SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 52 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
(d) which defines `continuing unlawful activity' sets down a period of 10 years within which more than one charge-sheet have to be filed. The members of the crime syndicate operate either singly or jointly in commission of organized crime. They operate in different modules. A person may be a part of the module which jointly undertakes an organized crime or he may singly as a member of the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate undertake an organized crime. In both the situations, the MCOCA can be applied. It is the membership of organized crime syndicate which makes a person liable under the MCOCA. This is evident from section 3(4) of the MCOCA which states that any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum of fine of Rs.5 lakhs. The charge under the MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the organized crime syndicate commits organized crime i.e. acts of extortion by giving threats, etc. to gain economic advantage or supremacy, as a member of the crime syndicate singly or jointly. Charge is in respect of unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate. Therefore, if within a period of preceding ten years, one charge-sheet has been filed in respect of organized crime committed by the members of a particular crime syndicate, the said charge-sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime syndicate for the purpose of application of the MCOCA against him even if he is involved in one case. The organized crime committed by him will be a part of the continuing unlawful activity of the organized crime syndicate. What is important is the nexus or the link of the person with organized crime syndicate. The link with the `organized crime syndicate' is the crux of the term `continuing unlawful activity'. If this link is not established, that person cannot be roped in.
38. In order to substantiate our construction of Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOCA, we will take hypothetical example of accused 1(A), accused 2(B), accused 3(C) and accused 4(D), who are members of the organized crime syndicate and who have committed crimes SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 53 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh within preceding ten years. Insofar as accused A is concerned, it is alleged that he has committed an offence resulting in the death of any person which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life as described in Section 3(1) of the MCOCA.
Accordingly, one charge-sheet is filed against him. Insofar as accused B is concerned, it is alleged that he has committed an offence resulting in the death of any person which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life as described in Section 3(2) of the MCOCA. Accordingly, one charge-sheet is filed against him. Likewise, insofar as accused C is concerned, it is alleged that he has committed an offence resulting in the death of any person which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life as described in Section 3(3) of the MCOCA.
Accordingly, one charge-sheet is filed against him. Finally, it is alleged that accused D is a member of organized crime syndicate as described in Section 3(4) of the MCOCA and as such has indulged in organized crime and against whom also one charge- sheet is filed.
39. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that even though all the four accused namely, A, B, C and D may be members of the organized crime syndicate since against each of the accused not more than one charge-sheet is filed, it cannot be held that they are engaged in continuing unlawful activity as contemplated under Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOCA. Apart from the reasons which we have given hereinabove as to why such a construction is not possible, having regard to the object with which the MCOCA was enacted, namely to make special provisions for prevention and control of organized crime syndicate and for coping with criminal activity by organized crime syndicate, in our opinion, Section 2(1)(d) cannot be so construed. Such a construction will defeat the object of the MCOCA. What is contemplated under Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOCA is that activities prohibited by law for the time being in force which are punishable as described therein have been undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of organized crime syndicate and in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed. Stress is SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 54 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh on the unlawful activities committed by the organized crime syndicate. Requirement of one or more charge- sheet is qua the unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate."
123. In the light of principles laid down above, the crux is that in order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution is required to prove that more than one chargesheet has been filed in the preceding 10 years in respect of an organised crime syndicate and not against the individual offender/accused. It is further clear that the activity which is being talked about in Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA is the one which is undertaken singly or jointly by the member of organised crime syndicate. The next ingredient to be proved is that there should be use of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means. It is further required to be proved that the unlawful activity by the crime syndicate should be with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency.
124. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Abhishek vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2022) 8 SCC 282 had clarified that the objective need not merely be gaining pecuniary or economic benefit. The words 'other advantage' occurring in Section 2(1)
(e) of MCOCA has been given a wider meaning. It has been observed as under:-
"xx xx xx We are also of the considered view that there could be various "unlawful continuing activities" by a member of "organised crime syndicate" or by any person on behalf of such a syndicate which can be for the advantages other than economic or pecuniary..."
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 55 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh 14.4. We have no hesitation in endorsing the views of Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya (supra). Looking to the object and purpose of this enactment, the expression 'other advantage' cannot be read in a restrictive manner and is required to be given its full effect. The High Court has rightly said that there could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself. As noticed above, the purpose of this enactment is to be kept in view while interpreting any expression therein and in the name of strict construction, its spirit and object cannot be whittled down."
It was further observed in the facts of that case as under:-
"15.1. The common thread of "violence" or "threat of violence" or "unlawful means" running through all of these cases is not a matter requiring any analysis, for the same being apparent on the face of record. Significantly, the aforesaid had not been the cases involving the appellant singularly; and more significantly, the alleged team leader Roshan Sheikh is the co-accused in at least three previous cases. This is apart from the recurrence of other co-accused persons in one case or the other. It has rightly been pointed out on behalf of the respondent-State that in order to attract MCOCA, every previous case need not be of the object of gaining pecuniary benefit alone. The cases in question, apart from involving the offences against human body and property, also include variety of other offences including those of rioting while armed with deadly weapons; causing insult to provoke breach of peace; and criminal intimidation. They also include the offence under the Arms Act. In all the referred cases, use of violence has specifically been alleged.
15.2. The crime chart aforesaid, the nature of activities and the persons involved leave nothing to doubt that the involvement of the appellant in such crimes and unlawful activities which are aimed at gaining pecuniary advantages or of gaining supremacy and thereby, leading to other unwarranted advantages is clearly made out."
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 56 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
125. The reading of aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly indicates that unlawful activity can be carried out either with the objective of gaining pecuniary advantage or of gaining supremacy. Therefore, even if it is proved that accused has indulged in use of violence while committing offence with the object of gaining supremacy, it is sufficient to hold him guilty under charge of Section 3 of MCOCA.
126. The quintessential feature of MCOCA is the nexus or link of the accused with the organised crime syndicate. Person can be convicted only if such link is established. The very involvement/nexus or the link of such person with the crime syndicate while commission of offence is considered to be the heart of the continuing unlawful activity.
127. In the case Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon the observations made in Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294, has observed as under:
"85. xxxxxx Therefore, even if one may not have any direct role to play relating to the commission of an 'organized crime', but when the nexus of such person with an accused who is a member of the 'organized crime syndicate' or such nexus is related to the offence in the nature of 'organized crime' is established by showing his involvement with the accused or the offence in the nature of such 'organized crime', that by itself would attract the provisions of MCOCA. xxxxxx"
128. With this background of law, let us dwell upon the facts of SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 57 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh this case. The case of prosecution is that accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria was running an organised crime syndicate and was indulged in violence by running a racket of extortion, robbery, criminal intimidation, house trespass etc. with accused Dhirpal @ Kana and his other associates. Accused Vikas Lagarpuria is stated to have been involved in 18 FIRs before registration of FIR in the present case under MCOCA, details of which are given hereinunder:-
"(1) Case FIR No.32/12 dated 10.12.2012 U/S 382/34 IPC PS Chhawla, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Two persons robbed the Honda City Car No.DL-2CH-7534 case on 10.02.2012 at 2:30 am near Tu Tu Farm, Main Khera Road, Najafgarh from complainant Sh. Yogesh in their white Santro Car.
Names of accused (i) Mahender @ Monu arrested on 10.05.2012 (formally persons arrested arrested in this case)
(ii) Vikas Lagarpuria arrested on 01.10.2012
(iii) Dhirpal @ Deepak arrested on 01.10.2012 (2) Case FIR No.46/12 dated 23.02.2012 U/S 394/34 IPC PS Chhawla, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Three persons came in Santro Car and robbed Accent case car No. DL-9CG-5698 along with mobile & other documents by brandishing pistol to Complainant Sh.
Mahesh Kumar on 22/02/12 at about 08.50 pm AayuDham Farm House, Jhatikra More Names of accused (i) Mahender @ Monu arrested on 10.05.2012 (formally persons arrested arrested in this case)
(ii) Vikas Lagarpuria arrested on 01.10.2012 (formally arrested in this case)
(iii) Dhirpal @ Deepak arrested on 01.10.2012 (formally arrested in this case) (3) Case FIR No.153/12 dated 15.03.2012 U/S 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Rohtak Civil Lines, Haryana.
Brief facts of the On 15/03/12 during checking Police Party found three case boys sitting in one Ascent Car No. HR-26R-8694. On seeing Police Party they fled from the spot leaving behind Car and one Pistol also recovered from the car.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 58 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr.
FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Names of accused (i) Mahender @ Monu arrested on 04.10.2012 (formally persons arrested arrested in this case)
(ii) Vikas Lagarpuria arrested on 23.10.2012 (formally arrested in this case)
(iii) Dhirpal @ Deepak arrested on 23.10.2012 (formally arrested in this case) (4) Case FIR No.67/12 dated 19.03.2012 U/S 365/382/34 IPC PS Chhawla, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Three person abducted the complainant Sh. Ankit Wasan case with his alto Car No.DL-1CN-3532 and robbed Alto car along with his credit card, ATM card and mobile on gun point on 19/03/12 at about 2.30 pm near Ghumman Hera on Khaira Road by using their Cheverlet Beat car No. HR-26BA-87 in this incident.
Names of accused (i) Mahender @ Monu arrested (formally arrested in this persons arrested case)
(ii) Vikas Lagarpuria arrested on 30.09.2012 (formally arrested in this case)
(iii) Dhirpal @ Deepak arrested on 30.09.2012 (formally arrested in this case) (5) Case FIR No.36/12 dated 03.04.2012 U/S 382/34 IPC PS Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Two persons robbed Ritz car No. HR-99-6277(temp.) from case complainant Sh. Preet on 03/04/12 at about 07.30 PM near Pyau and Chatri, Mudhela Khurd by using their 1-10 Car Names of accused (i) Mahender @ Monu arrested on 11.05.2012 and later on persons arrested discharged during investigation.
(ii) Vikas Lagarpuria arrested on 23.08.2012 (formally arrested in this case)
(iii) Dhirpal @ Deepak arrested on 23.08.2012 (formally arrested in this case) (6) Case FIR No.84/12 dated 07.04.2012 U/S 302/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PS Chhawla, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the On 07.04.12 at about 07.45 am two persons killed Naresh @ case Tinku, who was in the business of money lending in his house at V.P.O. Hasanpur, Delhi in presence of complainant/brother Sh. Arun Kumar @ Vicky. Names of accused (i) Mahender @ Monu Assisted in killing by driving i10 car persons arrested and arrested on 10.05.2012 and (formally arrested in this case)
(ii) Vikas Lagarpuria killed the victim Naresh @ Tinku and arrested on 30.09.2012 (formally arrested in this case)
(iii) Dhirpal @ Deepak killed the victim and arrested on SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 59 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh 30.09.2012 (formally arrested in this case) (7) Case FIR No.166/12 dated 14.04.2012 U/S 302/34 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act PS City Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
Brief facts of the On 14.04.2012 at about 7.30 am complainant Sh. Ramdhand case R/o Village Madhoti, Haryana stated that his son Dinesh @ Gabchu was killed by Vikas Lagarpuria, Dhirpal and two unknown persons.
Names of accused (i) Surender S/o Mukhtar Singh persons arrested (ii) Sunil Kumar @ Kheri
(iii) Mahender @ Monu formally arrested in this case on 19.05.2012
(iv) Vikas Lagarpuria formally arrested in this case on 23.07.2012
(v) Dhirpal @ Deepak formally arrested in this case on 23.07.2012 (8) Case FIR No.48/12 dated 29.04.2012 U/S 382/34 IPC PS Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Two persons, out of them one told his name Vikas case Lagarpuria robbed golden coloured Innova No. HR-55C-6570 from complainant Sh. Ashish Kumar on 29/04/12 at about 09.15 AM from Mundhela-Surehra Road in their white colour car.
Names of accused (i) Mahender @ Monu formally arrested in this case on persons arrested 11.05.2012.
(ii) Sunil S/o Maha Singh arrested on 15.05.2012
(iii) Vikas Lagarpuria formally arrested in this case on 23.08.2012.
(iv) Dhirpal @ Deepak formally arrested in this case on 23.08.2012 (9) Case FIR No.49/12 dated 29.04.2012 U/S 382/34 IPC PS Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Four persons robbed Ritz car No. DL-9CAA-3022, who case came in white i10 car & golden colour Innova car from complainant Sh. Ravinder Dagar Ravi on 29/04/12 at about 09.30 AM from Near Issapur More Bus Stand.
Names of accused (i) Mahender Mahender Monu formally arrested on 11/05/12 persons arrested (Accused Monu first arrested in Case FIR No. 139/12, dated 01/05/12, u/s 307/186/353/412/482/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act, P.S- Sadar Rohtak, Haryana, and subsequently made his disclosure statement about his previous Involvements with accused Vikas Lagarpuria & Dhirpal Deepak and subsequently arrested in all cases)
(ii) Vikas Lagarpuria formally arrested on 23/08/12
(iii) Dhirpal @ Deepak formally arrested on 23/08/12 SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 60 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh (10) Case FIR No.159/12 dated 13.07.2012 U/S 387/336/506/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act, PS BHD Nagar, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Vikas Lagarpuria and his associates fired in air and case demanded Rs.50 lac from complainant Talvir on 13/07/12 at about 09.20 pm outside H.No 50, Sainik Niketan, Gaushala No.3 Road, Dichaun Kalan, N.D Names of accused (i) Vikas Lagarpuria- Fired in air & demanded Rs. 50 lac persons arrested formally arrested on 20.09.12.
(ii) Dhirpal @ Deepak- Assisted in firing formally arrested on 13/09/12
(iii) Suresh Barhania- Fired in air formally arrested on 01/02/13 (Suresh Barhania arrested in FIR No. 01/13 u/s 25/27 Arms Act P.S- Special Cell) (11) Case FIR No.461/12 dated 20.07.2012 U/S 307/353/186/34 IPC & 25/54 Arms Act, PS Jhajjar, Haryana.
Brief facts of the On secret information Police caught 3 rewarded criminals case from Kheri Jhat, Distt- Jhajjar, Haryana, who fired on police party and tried to escape.
Names of accused (i) Vikas Lagarpuria arrested on 20/07/12 (Accused Vikas persons arrested Lagarpuria subsequently made his disclosure statement about involvement in this case with previous cases.)
(ii) Dhirpal Deepak R/o Rehduwas arrested on 20/07/12 (Accused Dhirpal @ Deepak subsequently made his disclosure statement about involvement in this case with previous cases.)
(iii) Ravi S/o Rajpal R/o Kherijat arrested on 20/07/12 (12) Case FIR No.459/13 dated 30.11.2013 U/S 387/34 IPC PS Najafgarh, Delhi.
Brief facts of the Complainant Surender Marvah alleged that five persons on case 30/11/13 at about 1 pm visited his plot (430 Sq. Yards) D-472A, Indra Park, Najafgarh and asked him to transfer the plot in their name otherwise he will be killed. Names of accused (i) Vikas Lagarpuria arrested on 30/11/13 persons arrested (ii) Kavit arrested on 30/11/13
(iii) Joginder @ Leela arrested on: 30/11/13
(iv) Jasbir Singh arrested on 30/11/13
(v) Yashbir Singh arrested on 30/11/13 (13) Case FIR No.60/14 dated 24.01.2014 U/S 302/120B/148/149/216 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS Hisar Civil Lines, Haryana.
Brief facts of the Complainant Krishan Kumar s/o Rajesh Kumar r/o Hisar, case Haryana reported that on 24/01/14 accused persons Vinod @ Pannu alongwith others killed Sanjay @ Bittu S/o Rajesh Kumar R/o Model Town Hisar SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 61 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Names of accused (i) Dinesh Poonia arrested on 26/01/14 persons arrested (ii) Krishan Kumar s/o Mahabir arrested on 26/01/14
(iii) Vikash @ Mogli s/o Lal Singh arrested on 28/01/14
(iv) Vikram Ladwa s/o Banni Singh Jat arrested on 10/02/14.
(v) Amar Bholu s/o Azad Singh arrested on 14/02/14.
(vi) Dhirpal @ Dhillu s/o Satya Naryan arrested on 06/03/14
(vii) Sonu @ Baba s/o Ram Avtaar Sharma arrested on 09/03/14.
(viii) Prince Chintu s/o Mahbri Jat arrested on 29/05/14.
(ix) Dara Singh Dhare s/o Pappu Jat arrested on 02/06/14.
(x) Vikas s/o Surender Singh arrested on 02/06/14.
(14) Case FIR No.153/14 dated 23.02.2014 U/S 452/307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, PS Najafgarh, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Vikas Lagarpuria along with Dhirpal @ Kana and Paramjeet case fired at the complainant Vijender Singh on 23/02/14 at about 06:00 Pm on the pretext of proving there supremacy in the area.
Names of accused (i) Dhirpal @ Kana Dheela- Assisted in firing arrested on persons arrested 22.03.14.
(ii) Vikas Lagarpuria- Fired on the complainant arrested on 06/06/14.
(iii) Paramjeet R/o Badli arrested later on and supplementary chargesheet filed.
(15) Case FIR No.351/14 dated 24.05.2014 U/S 307/353/186 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS Jhajjar, Haryana.
Brief facts of the Vikas Lagarpuriya along with his associates on 24/05/14 in case their 1-20 Silver Colour car fired at the SI Virender Singh, SIT Jhajjar and Police party to escape.
Names of accused (i) Vikas Lagarpuria Fired on the police party recovery 32 persons arrested bore pistol with 2 live cartridges, arrested on 24.05.15 (Accused Vikas Lagarpuria subsequently made his disclosure statement about involvement in this case with previous cases.)
(ii) Dara Singh @ Dhare recovery One 9 mm pistol with 3 live cartridges, arrested on 24.05.15
(iii) Prince Chintu recovery 1 Desi Pistol 9 mm with 3 live round.
(iv) Chetanman Boxer recovery One Pistol 315 bore with one live round, arrested on 24.05.15
(v) Rahul recovery one Pistol 32 bore with 4 live round, arrested on 24.05.15
(vi) Jaibir (Driving Robbed 1- 20 Car with fake number plate No. HR 26 CB 2403, Original No. DL.2C AR 3200), arrested on 24.05.15 SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 62 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh (16) Case FIR No.212/15 dated 13.04.2015 U/S 307/387/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act PS Chhawla, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Complainant Sanjay Kumar R/o A-51 Deenpur case (9871273496) reported that on 13/04/15 at about 06.18 pm received phone call from 9812296877 and who demanded Rs 25 lakh. At about 08.37 pm again received phone call. At 08.47 pm one boy aged 25 yrs came to shop Aggarwal Sweet and fired at him.
Names of accused (i) Vikas @ PK s/o Vijender Singh arrested on 27/04/15 persons arrested (ii) Vinit @ Johny arrested on 18/04/15
(iii) Pawan s/o Surender Gulia arrested on 18/04/15
(iv) Dhirpal @ Kana formally arrested on 08/05/15
(v) Vikas Lagarpuria formally arrested on 05/07/15 u/s 120B/201 IPC (17) Case FIR No.227/15 dated 14.04.2015 U/S 387/452/323/34 IPC PS BHD Nagar, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Complainant Narender @ Bhalle reported that on 13/04/15 case Sunil Kher (brother of Dhirpal @ Kana) called him and Vikas Lagarpuria from his phone demanded money and threatened to kill. At 05.10 pm associates of Vikas Lagarpuria I.e. Chand @ Monu, Jogi Dulhera, Dheerpal Kheri alongwith 5-7 others came to House of complainant at Shiv Enclave, Dichaon road and beaten his relatives and friend and also threaten to kill if he will not pay money. Names of accused (i) Ishwar Singh @ Monu arrested on 13/05/15 persons arrested (ii) Kishan Kumar @ Ankush @ Bhalu arrested on 13/05/15.
(iii) Kavit arrested on 25/05/15
(iv) Vikas Lagarpuria formally arrested on 30/06/15
(v) Sunil Kumar (without arrest)
(vi) Vinit @ Johny arrested on 25/05/15 (Later on discharged) Co-accused Joginder @ Jogi r/o Dulhera, Bijender r/o Ladpur and one more accused is yet to be arrested.
(18) Case FIR No.500/15 dated 27.06.2015 U/S 25/27/54/59 Arms Act PS Dwarka North, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the On secret Information police party led by SI Manoj Bhatia case apprehended accused Vikas Gulia@ Vikas Lagarpuria with one Pistol and 4 live round.
Names of accused Vikas Lagarpuria arrested on 27/06/15 (Accused Vikas persons arrested Lagarpuria subsequently made his disclosure statement about involvement in this case with previous cases).
129. Out of the aforesaid 18 cases, cognizance was taken in 17 SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 63 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh cases prior to the registration of FIR in the present case under MCOCA. In one case i.e. FIR No.500/2015 u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, PS Dwarka North, New Delhi, cognizance was taken after the registration of FIR in the present case under MCOCA and hence, this case cannot be considered. Out of the remaining 17 cases, 10 cases are of extortion.
130. Accused Dhirpal is stated to have been involved in 10 cases. Cognizance was duly taken in these cases. The details of said 10 cases are as under:-
(1) Case FIR No.86/11 dated 12.03.2011 U/S 364A/34 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS City Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
Brief facts of the Complainant Dayanand s/o Rupchand alleged that on case 12/03/11 his son Mohit Hudda Age- 25 yrs working as Lecturer in PDM College, Bhadurgarh was abducted on gun point with his CRUZ Car No. HR ( T 9132 and alleged persons demanded ransom amount of Rs 50 Lakh. Names of accused (i) Sunil Lala s/o Rajender r/o Village Nuna Majra. persons arrested (ii) Sonu Machar s/o Ranbir r/o Nangal Dewat Delhi
(iii) Jai Bhagwan s/o Ranbir r/o Nangal Dewat Delhi
(iv) Jogender @ Sonu @ Dodu s/o Ranbir Singh r/o Najafgarh Delhi
(v) Pardeep @ Bablu s/o Ramesh Chand r/o r/o Nangal Dewat Delhi
(vi) Jyoti Prakash Baba s/o Surajbhan r/o Sarohi Bali District Mahender Garh HR.
(vii) Sumit Sam s/o Devender r/o Nahri Distt. Sonipat HR.
(viii) Sandeep s/o Deewan Singh r/o Nuna Majra HR.
(ix) Gautam s/o Amar Chand r/o Kakra Bardod Rajasthan
(x) Manoj s/o Jai Kishan r/o Najafgarh Delhi
(xi) Dhirpal Kana s/o Satyanarayan r/o Kheri Jat HR & Najafgarh, Delhi.
(xii) Dhirpal @ Deepak s/o Jai Singh r/o Raduwas HR. & Najafgarh.
(xiii) Anil @ Leela s/o Nahar Singh r/o village Nuna Majra HR
(xiv) Manoj s/o Nahar Singh r/o Mokheri HR. & Kamal Colony Rohtak HR.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 64 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh (2) Case FIR No.85/11 dated 21.03.2011 U/S 325/341/506/34 IPC PS Najafgarh, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Complainant Bhudev Rana r/o Haibatpura, Najafgarh case reported that on 20/03/11 at 03.30 pm when he was passing through Khera Road, near Yadav Dharamshala, two persons in Maruti 800 car, stopped him and started insisting him to play Holi with them. When he resisted One boy Dhirpal r/o Vill- Kheri Jat, started beating him with stick and also called his friends. Passerby Sandeep and Kamlesh tried to intervene, then Kamlesh was also beaten up. Names of accused Dhirpal @ Kana S/o Satya Narayan persons arrested (3) Case FIR No.53/12 dated 25.01.2012 U/S 42/45 Prison Act, PS Jhajjar, Haryana.
Brief facts of the On 24/01/12, Jail staff during search found one Mobile case wrapped in polythene, in Dustbin near to Barrak No.6, Room No.2, Jhajjar pail, Haryana.
Names of accused Dhirpal @ Kana S/o Satya Narayan persons arrested (4) Case FIR No.167/12 dated 10.03.2012 U/S 42/45 Prison Act & 201 IPC, PS Jhajjar, Haryana.
Brief facts of the On 10/03/12, Jail staff on information received from Chowki case Incharge Dulina that "Narungpur More के पास रोहतक Prisoner Van पर Firing हो गई है तथा वारदात के बाद सुचना झज्जर जेल में अनिल छीपी को फोन पर दी है।"
During search found two burnt mobiles and 3 SIM with Prisoner Anil @Lila s/o Ram Niwas, Vill- Karor, P.S- Saplan, Haryana.
Names of accused (i) Anil@ Leela s/o Ramniwas Rame r/o village Karor Sapla persons arrested HR.
(ii) Dhirpal Dhillu Kana s/o Satyanarayan r/o Kheri Jat HR.
(iii) Anil @ Nanha s/o Jagphool r/o Village Gagtan, Dighal Beri HR.
(iv) Parmod s/o Harpal Singh r/o Village Bharana HR.
(5) Case FIR No.479/13 dated 04.06.2013 U/S 188/171-A IPC PS Alipur, Delhi.
Brief facts of the On 15/10/13, static surveillance team during checking in the case area of Narela during DLA 2013 elections found Vehicle No. HR-99 LF(Temp) 4937, party flag-INLDO and others violating modal code of conduct.
Names of accused Dhirpal @ Kana S/o Satya Narayan persons arrested SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 65 of 114
State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh (6) Case FIR No.60/14 dated 24.01.2014 U/S 302/120B/148/149/216 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS Hisar Civil Lines, Haryana.
Brief facts of the Complainant Krishan Kumar s/o Rajesh Kumar r/o Hisar, case Haryana reported that on 24/01/14 accused persons Vinod @ Pannu alongwith other killed Sanjay @ bittu S/o Rajesh Kumar R/o Model Town, Hisar.
Names of accused (i) Dinesh Poonia arrested on 26/01/14. persons arrested (ii) Krishan Kumar s/o Mahabir arrested on 26/01/14.
(iii) Vikash @ Mogli s/o Lal Singh arrested on 28/01/14.
(iv) Vikram Ladwa s/o Banni Singh Jat arrested on 10/02/14.
(v) Amar Bholu s/o Azad Singh arrested on 14/02/14.
(vi) Dheerpal Dhillu s/o Satya Naryan arrested on 06/03/14.
(vii) Sonu @ Baba s/o Ram Avtaar Sharma arrested on 09/03/14.
(viii) Prince Chintu s/o Mahbri Jat arrested on 29/05/14.
(ix) Dara Singh Dhare s/o Pappu Jat arrested on 02/06/14.
(x) Vikas s/o Surender Singh arrested on 02/06/14.
Accused in column no. 12
(i) Vinod Pannu @ Kanna
(ii) Satyander (7) Case FIR No.153/14 dated 23.02.2014 U/S 452/307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, PS Najafgarh, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Vikas Lagarpuria along with Dhirpal @ Kana and Paramjeet case fired at the complainant Vijender Singh on 23/02/14 at about 06:00 Pm on the pretext of proving there supremacy in the area.
Names of accused (i) Dhirpal @ Kana @ Dheela- Assisted in firing arrested on persons arrested 22.03.14.
(ii) Vikas Lagarpuriya- Fired on the complainant arrested on 06/06/14.
3. Paramjeet R/o Badli arrested later on and supplementary chargesheet filed.
(8) Case FIR No.294/14 dated 29.04.2014 U/S 302/207/148/149/450/120B IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, PS Jhajjar, Haryana.
Brief facts of the Complainant Vikas s/o Naseeb r/o Vill Dhakla, Distt- Jhajjar, case Haryana reported that on 29/04/14 at about 7.30 pm he was sitting with his friend Mahesh at his home, then Rahul r/o Vill- Bhurawas came there and asked him to left him at his village on some vehicle. When I alongwith Mahesh and Rahul came out of the house, one Narender @ Babloo r/o Vill- Mankawas alongwith 2-3 boys came there and Rahul also took out Pistol and they fired at us and fled in the car. Mahesh succumbed to his injuries. He suspects role of Sarpanch Poonam w/o Sombir r/o Vill- Dhakia in this incident.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 66 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Names of accused (i) Dara Singh @ Dare Sonu s/o Papu r/o Deenpur Delhi. persons arrested (ii) Chetan Maan @ Boxer s/o Vikram r/o Khera Khurd Delhi & H.No. 41A Shyam Vihar J Block Najafgarh Delhi.
(iii) Rahul s/o Vijay Singh rlo Village Bhurawas Jhajjar HR.
(iv) Yashbir@ Jassu s/o Chand Singh r/o Bhagvi Distt. Bhiwani HR.
(v) Jaibir s/o Raghbir Singh r/o Bhagvi Distt. Bhiwani HR.
(vi) Dhirpal@ Kana s/o Satya Narayan r/o Village Kheri Jat HR.
(vii) Kuldeep Rathi @Raja s/o Ramniwas r/o Shyam Vihar Deenpur Najafgarh Delhi.
(9) Case FIR No.316/14 dated 08.05.2014 U/S 42/45 Prison Act, PS Jhajjar, Haryana.
Brief facts of the On intervening night of 07-08/05/14 Jail staff during search case in Barrak No.6, Room No.4, Jhajjar Jail found inmate Dhirpal s/o Satya naryan using mobile phone and one more inmate Amit was also found using mobile phone. Names of accused (i) Dhirpal @ Dheelu @ Kana s/o Satya Naryan r/o VPO- persons arrested Kheri Jat. Distt- Jhajjar, Haryana
(ii) Amit s/o Wajir Singh r/o Bahadurgarh, Haryana (10) Case FIR No.212/15 dated 13.04.2015 U/S 307/387/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, PS Chhawla, New Delhi.
Brief facts of the Complainant Sanjay Kumar R/o A-51 Deenpur case (9871273496) reported that on 13/04/15 at about 06.18 pm received phone call from 9812296877 and who demanded Rs 25 lakh. At about 08.37 pm again received phone call. At 08.47 pm one boy aged 25 yrs came to shop Aggarwal Sweet and fired at him.
Names of accused (i) Vikas PK s/o Vijender Singh arrested on 27/04/15 persons arrested (ii) Vinit @ Johny arrested on 18/04/15
(iii) Pawan s/o Surender Gulia arrested on 18/04/15
(iv) Dhirpal @ Kana formally arrested on 08/05/15
(v) Vikas Lagarpuria formally arrested on 05/07/15 u/s 120B/201 IPC
131. The certified copies of all the chargesheets in which cognizance has been taken, have been admitted under Section 294 CrPC by the accused persons. Therefore, it has been proved on record that more than one chargesheet was filed against them before the Competent Courts within preceding period of ten years and cognizance was duly taken. But that is not the only SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 67 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh requirement of Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(e) of MCOCA.
132. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons under Section 3 of MCOCA, it has to be proved that these offences were committed on behalf of an organised crime syndicate and more than one of these chargesheets were filed qua the unlawful activities of the organised crime syndicate.
INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS IN CONTINUING UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY BEING MEMBERS OF ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATE EITHER SINGLY OR JOINTLY.
133. In three FIRs out of 17 cases, both accused accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal were chargesheeted together and the cognizance was duly taken. The details of those three cases are as under:-
(1) Case FIR No.212/2015 dated 13.04.2015 U/S 307/387/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act PS Chhawla, New Delhi. (2) Case FIR No.153/2014 dated 23.02.2014 U/S 452/307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, PS Najafgarh, New Delhi. (3) Case FIR No.60/2014 dated 24.01.2014 U/S 302/120B/148/149/216 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS Hissar Civil Lines, Haryana.
FIR No.212/2015 DATED 13.04.2015 U/S 307/387/34 & 25/27/54/59 ARMS ACT PS CHHAWLA, NEW DELHI
134. Ld. Addl. PP for the State, while addressing arguments, has pointed out that FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla was the triggering offence after which the present case under MCOCA was registered. On the contrary, ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that in FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla which is stated to SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 68 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh be the triggering offence, undoubtedly both the accused persons were arrested, however, they both have been discharged in the said FIR on 24.05.2017 and therefore, FIR under Section 3 of MCOCA cannot sustain.
135. Ld. counsel for accused persons has also argued that all the public witnesses, during their examination before this Court, have not supported the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile.
136. Sh. Sanjay (examined as PW-7 in the present case) was the complainant in FIR No.212/2025 PS Chhawla U/S 307/387/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. This is an FIR for the offence of extortion. The fact that both accused persons were arrested in this case is not in dispute. The case of prosecution in FIR no.212/2015 PS Chhawla was that on 13.04.2015 Sh. Sanjay (PW-7 examined in the present case) had received a call from Mobile No.9812296877 in respect of extortion on his mobile No.9871273496 wherein the caller had demanded Rs.25 lakhs from him. When he did not take the call seriously, at about 9.00 pm on the same day, 2-3 persons came to his shop and fired in his shop. The bullet did not hit him and thereafter, those persons fled away. He got frightened due to the incident. FIR No.212/2015 was got registered at PS Chhawla.
137. It is the case of prosecution in this case that after about 2 months of the incident, brother of PW-7 alongwith 2-3 respectable persons of the village went to Bhondsi Jail to meet SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 69 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh accused Dhirpal to settle the issue through one Dhare Singh @ Dhara.
138. Let us now see what PW-7 deposed before this Court. PW-7 Sanjay, complainant of FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla deposed that he was running a sweet shop under the name and style of Aggarwal Sweets at his house at Deenpur and a quarrel had occurred in front of his shop. He had consumed whisky and he did not know how and between whom the quarrel had taken place. Thereafter he called the police at 8.00 - 9.00 pm. He was declared hostile by learned Addl.PP for the State wherein he denied the incident of firing in his shop or any call received by him regarding extortion or demanding ransom amount of Rs.25 lakhs. He also denied that his brother had gone to Bhondsi Jail to meet accused Dhirpal in order to settle the said issue. It is pertinent to state that he pleaded ignorance regarding the accused persons being gangsters.
139. As per deposition of PW-7, the incident for which FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla was registered, was in respect of some quarrel which occurred in front of his shop and not in respect of firing inside his shop pursuant to an extortion call. Clearly he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.
140. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever a prosecution witness turns hostile, his testimony cannot be discarded altogether. Reliance is placed on Rabindra Nath Dey vs. State of Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 233 . It is the duty of the Court SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 70 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh to unravel the truth by separating grain from the chaff.
141. In the case Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if a witness is treated as "hostile" and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that it is for the Court as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared 'hostile' does not result in automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a 'hostile witness', if it finds corroboration from facts of the case, may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a 'hostile witness' testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
142. With this back ground of law, let us see which facts have been proved in his testimony and are creditworthy. During the cross examination of PW-7 Sanjay by learned Addl. PP for the State, he admitted that he got only one FIR registered in respect of the incident mentioned in his examination-in-chief. It is pertinent to state that no such FIR regarding quarrel which had allegedly occurred outside the shop of PW-7 Sanjay as stated by him in his examination-in-chief has been recorded or proved by anyone. On the contrary, PW-7 had admitted that he has gone to the Court in FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla in order to depose in SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 71 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh that case qua other accused facing trial (which includes PW-14 Vineet @ Johny), meaning thereby that incident of firing had occurred in the sweet shop of complainant. The said fact is admitted by his brother Rajbir who has been examined as PW-8 in this case who stated that his brother Sanjay was running a sweet shop under the name and style of Aggarwal Sweets and an incident of firing has taken place in the said shop. He was not cross examined at all by ld. counsel for accused persons. Therefore, it has been proved that FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla was registered qua the incident of firing in the sweet shop of complainant i.e. PW-7 Sanjay.
143. In order to prove the factum of demanding ransom from PW-7 on phone, the testimony of PW-8 Rajbir, brother of PW-7 is crucial. On the first glimpse of the reading of his testimony, it appears that he had also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. The numbers from which extortion call was received have not been proved to be belonging to accused persons. However, during his cross examination by learned Addl. PP for the State, PW-8 admitted that his brother Sanjay was having a mobile No.9871273496. It is the same mobile number which is mentioned in FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla on which extortion/ransom call was made. The chargesheet of FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla has been admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 CrPC and has been exhibited as Ex.A16 which also contains those facts. PW-8 Rajbir admitted that his brother was running a sweet shop under the name & style of Aggarwal Sweets where incident of firing had taken place.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 72 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh But, he denied the suggestion that he had gone to Bhondsi Jail in order to meet accused Dhirpal for settling the matter. In order to prove that PW-8 Rajbir has made a false statement regarding his visit to Bhondsi Jail, prosecution has examined PW-22 Ct. Sant Ram, Warden from Gurugram Jail who had proved the Jail Mulakati Record of accused Dhirpal at Bhondsi Jail for the period 08.11.2014 to 29.10.2016, which was exhibited as Ex.PW22/1. Perusal of the said record shows that PW-8 Rajbir had gone to meet accused Dhirpal in Bhondsi Jail on 03.06.2015. The parentage and residential address of the person 'Rajbir' mentioned in Jail Mulakati Record of accused Dhirpal Ex.PW22/1 is exactly the same as mentioned in the deposition of PW-8 Rajbir, which proves that he was the same 'Rajbir', brother of PW-7 Sanjay who had gone to meet accused Dhirpal at Bhondsi Jail. The incident of firing had taken place on 13.04.2015 and exactly as per the prosecution case, PW-8 had gone on 03.06.2015 i.e. within two months of the incident to meet accused Dhirpal. This fact clearly proves on record that PW-7 Sanjay and PW-8 Rajbir have not given true and fair account of the events/incident which had occurred on 13.04.2015 under threat from accused Dhirpal.
144. It is imperative to note that this fact of visiting Bhondsi Jail by PW-8 Rajbir on 03.06.2015 to meet accused Dhirpal was put to accused Dhirpal in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC to which he replied that "It is a matter of record.". PW-8 Rajbir denied that he did not visit Bhondsi Jail whereas accused Dhirpal admitted that Rajbir had come to meet him in SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 73 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Jail. Only accused Dhirpal and PW-8 Rajbir knew as to why Rajbir had gone to Bhondsi Jail to meet accused Dhirpal. Prosecution had summoned PW-8 Rajbir as a witness but he did not divulge anything. It has been proved by prosecution beyond any doubt that PW-8 Rajbir falsely stated that he did not go to Bhondsi Jail. Prosecution did everything in order to discharge its onus. Now, it was only accused Dhirpal, who was having exclusive knowledge as to why PW-8 Rajbir, brother of PW-7 Sanjay had come to meet him in Jail, but he chose to remain silent and did not offer any explanation. It remains unanswered as to why a common man would go to jail to meet any accused. Therefore, it was incumbent upon accused Dhirpal to offer an explanation as to why PW-8 Rajbir went to meet him in jail by virtue of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
145. The scope of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, its applicability and its effect has been discussed in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anees Vs. The State, Govt. of NCT (2024) 15 SCC 48 as under:-
"47. But Section 106 of the Evidence Act has no application to cases where the fact in question, having regard to its nature, is such as to be capable of being known not only to the accused but also to others, if they happened to be present when it took place. The intention underlying the act or conduct of any individual is seldom a matter which can be conclusively established; it is indeed only known to the person in whose mind the intention is conceived. Therefore, if the prosecution has established that the character and circumstance of an act suggest that it was done with a particular intention, then under illustration (a) to this section, SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 74 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh it may be assumed that he had that intention, unless he proves the contrary.
48. A manifest distinction exists between the burden of proof and the burden of going forward with the evidence. Generally, the burden of proof upon any affirmative proposition necessary to be established as the foundation of an issue does not shift, but the burden of evidence or the burden of explanation may shift from one side to the other according to the testimony. Thus, if the prosecution has offered evidence, which if believed by the court, would convince them of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused, if in a position, should go forward with countervailing evidence, if he has such evidence. When facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether the proposition is an affirmative or negative one. He is not required to do so even though a prima facie case has been established, for the court must still find that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before it can convict. However, the accused's failure to present evidence on his behalf may be regarded by the court as confirming the conclusion indicated by the evidence presented by the prosecution or as confirming presumptions which might arise therefrom. Although not legally required to produce evidence on his own behalf, the accused may, therefore, as a practical matter find it essential to go forward with proof. This does not alter the burden of proof resting upon the prosecution [See : Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1261] ii. What is "prima facie case" (foundational facts) in the context of Section 106 of the Evidence Act?
49. The Latin expression prima facie means "at first sight", "at first view", or "based on first impression". According to Webster's Third International Dictionary (1961 Edn.), "prima facie case" means a case established by "prima facie evidence" which in turn means "evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 75 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh fact in question unless rebutted". In both civil and criminal law, the term is used to denote that, upon initial examination, a legal claim has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial or judgment. In most legal proceedings, one party (typically, the plaintiff or the prosecutor) has a burden of proof, which requires them to present prima facie evidence for each element of the case or charges against the defendant. If they cannot present prima facie evidence, the initial claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties.
50. Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused.
51. The presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved.
52. To explain what constitutes a prima facie case to make Section 106 of the Evidence Act applicable, we should refer to the decision of this Court in State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad, (2000) 8 SCC 382, wherein this Court has observed in paras 36 and 37 respectively as under:
"36. In this context we may profitably utilize the legal principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows:"When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
37. The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 76 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference."
(Emphasis supplied)"
146. The effect of failure to offer an explanation has been discussed in the case of Anees (Supra). In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly observed that if the prosecution has offered evidence which would convince the Court about the guilt of the accused, in that scenario, accused should go forward with the countervailing evidence, if he has that evidence. When the facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether the proposition is an affirmative or negative one. The failure of accused to present such evidence may be regarded by the Court as confirming the conclusion indicated by the evidence presented by the prosecution or as confirming presumptions which may arise therefrom.
147. Similarly, in this case, prosecution has successfully proved beyond any doubt that PW-8 Rajbir had gone to meet accused Dhirpal in Bhondsi Jail but he gave a false statement in the Court denying the said fact. This fact was put to accused Dhirpal which he admitted but he did not explain why brother of complainant Sanjay (in an FIR of extortion wherein accused Dhirpal was arrested) would come to meet him. The obvious answer is the case put by prosecution i.e. to settle the extortion matter.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 77 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
148. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated the seriousness attached to criminal trials and has cautioned that realities of life have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence for arriving at the truth. A realistic approach has to be followed for administering justice in criminal trial while keeping in mind that the erosion in values of life have become a regular feature in the present system. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Lekh Raj & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3916 has observed as under:-
"This Court in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh & Karam Singh, [1974] 3 SCC 277, held:
"A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give fight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."
The criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scene from a stunt film. The legal trial is conducted to ascertain the guilt of innocence of the accused arraigned. In arriving at a conclusion about the truth, the Courts are required to adopt rational approach and judge the evidence by its SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 78 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh intrinsic worth and the animus of the witnesses. The hypertechnicalities or figment of imagination should not be allowed to divest the court of its responsibility of sifting and weighing the evidence to arrive at the conclusion regarding the existence or otherwise of a particular circumstances keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case, the social position of the victim and the accused, the larger interests of the society particularly the law and order problem and degrading values of life inherent in the prevalent system. The realities of life have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence for arriving at the truth. The courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law in favour of the accused. The traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by rational, realisc and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial. Criminal Jurisprudence cannot be considered to be a Utopian though but have to be considered as part and parcel of the human civilisation and the realities of life. The courts cannot ignore the erosion in values of life which are a common feature of the present system. Such erosions cannot be given a bonus in favour of those who are guilty of polluting society and the mankind."
149. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for accused persons that accused Dhirpal was discharged in FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla by the concerned Court on 24.06.2017 alongwith accused Vikas Lagarpuria is not material in the present case. The prosecution has been able to successfully establish the link of this incident/offence which had occurred on 13.04.2015, pursuant to which FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla was registered, with accused Dhirpal. It also stands proved beyond any doubt that family of PW-7 Sanjay was under such fear that PW-8 Rajbir was constrained to go to Bhondsi Jail in order to meet accused Dhirpal. The seriousness and danger signified by this incident is writ large. Despite the fact that accused Dhirpal was in jail at the SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 79 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh time of incident, the fear amongst public persons was to such a great extent that PW-8 Rajbir, brother of Sanjay went to Bhondsi Jail in order to meet accused Dhirpal despite registration of FIR in respect of incident and police being already cognizant of the facts. It is a matter of fact that accused Vikas Lagarpuria was also arrested in this FIR but nothing in evidence turned out on him. In order to connect him, it is necessary to establish that accused Dhirpal and accused Vikas Lagarpuria were hand in gloves while committing the offences of such nature. Therefore, at the outset, it cannot be said that FIR under MCOCA in the present case was registered on flimsy grounds.
150. The facts and law discussed above clearly proves beyond any doubt the involvement of accused Dhirpal in commission of offence of extortion in FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla.
ASSOCIATION OF ACCUSED VIKAS LAGARPURIA, ACCUSED DHIRPAL AND PW-15 PARAMJEET THROUGH USAGE OF TATA SAFARI CAR IN DIFFERENT FIRs
151. It is the case of prosecution in FIR No.153/2014 under Section 452/307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, PS Najafgarh that accused Vikas Lagarpuria, accused Dhirpal and one of their associate Paramjeet had allegedly gone to house of one Bijender and incident of firing took place. On the complaint of Bijender, aforesaid FIR was registered. Prosecution has proved the certified copy of chargesheet in the said FIR.
152. Learned counsel for the accused persons has argued that SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 80 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Sh. Bijender Singh, at whose instance FIR No.153/2014, PS Najafgarh was registered has not been examined by the prosecution. He has further argued that accused Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal have already been acquitted in the said case on 29.04.2023 and therefore, this FIR is of no avail. In order to meet the arguments of learned counsel for the accused, it is necessary to advert to the testimony of PW-39 SI (Retd.) Ranvir Singh, who is IO of case FIR No.153/2014, PS Najafgarh and had recorded the statement of complainant Bijender. PW-39 SI (Retd.) Ranvir Singh deposed as under:
" xx xx xx I recorded statement of Bijender Singh. In his statement he told me that he is running a building material supplier shop and at about 06:00 PM on the said day, he along with his brother Prem Singh, Devender Singh, Ashwani and Santosh Kumar were playing cards at his plot at Nehru Garden. He also told me that while they were playing cards, one person came and sat on one empty chair and said that who is Bijender and Prem and when both of them replied in affirmative, he revealed his name as Vikas Lagarpuria. Vikas Lagarpuria told to Bijender that, "Barthe Bhai Ko Thappar Maar Ke Kya Bada Badmash Ban Gya Hai Tuu". Bijender replied that the matter is of election and he is not to be concerned with the same. In the meanwhile, Vikas Lagarpuria got furious and told him that first, he will kill Manjeet Mahal and thereafter, he will kill Bijender and if Bijender insists, he will kill Bijender now itself. Accused Vikas Lagarpuria took out his pistol and pointed out towards Bijender. Bijender retaliated and put his hands on pistol due to which shot was fired on the earth. Accused Vikas again tried to fire and he was stopped by Santosh who was present there and the said shot was fired in the air. Said accused Vikas Lagarpuria started running towards Gate. In the meantime, Bijender saw that Dhirpal @ Kana was also standing on the gate of plot with the pistol in his hand and Dhirpal directed to Vikas, "Saale Ko Maar De". Said persons who were present in the plot with complainant started running towards gate and one Tata Sumo Car SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 81 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh bearing no. HR-13-H-3792 which was occupied by one Paramjeet @ Badli who was on driver seat. All three accused persons ran away from the spot in said Tata Sumo Car. After recording statement of Bijender and I prepared the Rukka and sent Constable who was present with me for registration of FIR. I carried out investigation of present case and crime team was called at the spot. Photographs of the spot were got clicked and the same were handed over to me. I prepared site plan at the instance of Bijender. Constable reached at the spot and handed over to me copy of FIR No. 153/2014, PS Najafgarh and original Tehrir. One empty cartridge which was present beneath the ground was got recovered. It was 7.62 X 25 and 'Sabo' which was engraved on the same. Sketch of cartridge was prepared on blank paper. The said cartridge was seized by me.
I recorded statement of witnesses. I searched for the accused persons but they were not traceable.
On 14.03.2014, I received DD No. 73B, I came to know that accused Dhirpal @ Kana who was involved in FIR No. 60/2014, PS Sadar Hisar was arrested and disclosed the involvement in present FIR. Production warrant of accused Dhirpal @ Kana was obtained and the date was fixed on 22.03.2014. As I was on leave, the entire investigation was done by SI Rakesh Kumar and NBWs of Vikas Lagarpuria and Paramjeet Singh were obtained.
On 24.03.2014, SI Rakesh received a secret information that Vikas Lagarpuria and Paramjeet Badli will come to village Chhawla in their Tata Safari bearing No. HR-13- H- 3792. Raid was conducted at village Chhawla. Accused persons ran away from spot after leaving the said car. SI Rakesh seized the said car and deposited in the Malkhana.
On 28.05.2014, I received No. DD No. 75B, I came to know that accused Vikas Lagarpuria was arrested in FIR No. 351/2014 at PS Sadar Jhajjar and who disclosed regarding the offence in FIR No. 153/2014, PS Najafgarh. Production warrant of accused Vikas Lagarpuria was obtained and on 06.06.2014, accused Vikas Lagarpuria was produced before the Court and was arrested by me with permission of Court. I recorded SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 82 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh disclosure statement of accused Vikas and got 4 days PC Remand of accused Vikas. Accused Vikas disclosed that he can caught his friend Paramjeet and he can also pointed out the spot of occurrence.
Co-accused Paramjeet was searched. During investigation, accused Vikas Lagarpuria took us to the spot where the incident took place and a pointing out memo was prepared by me in that regard. I also collected the documents of FIR No. 60/2014, PS Sadar Hisar and FIR No. 351/2014 PS Sadar Jhajjar. Charge- sheet were prepared against accused persons and same was filed by me in the Court. Cartridge was sent to FSL Rohini for examination.
On 22.11.2014, I received DD No. 74B from Special Cell, Northern Range, Rohini and came to know that accused Paramjeet was arrested by special cell. Accused Paramjeet was arrested by me.
Accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal @ Kana are habitual criminals of the area and public persons are having threat of the said accused persons and none of the public persons come forward to depose against them. Both of the accused persons used to recover money from the public persons, grab properties, commit various other offences at the garb of their image. My statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by IO/ACP Jagjeet Singh Sangwan. Charge-sheet which I filed against the accused persons is already Ex.A-14 (Colly).
I can identify accused persons, if shown to me.
Both accused persons are correctly identified present in the Court through VC."
153. On perusing the testimony of PW-39, it transpires that this FIR was pertaining to an incident of threatening a person connected with other gang by use of violence (firing gun shot). It also shows that car involved in the incident was TATA Safari bearing Registration No.HR13H3792. PW-39 SI Ranvir Singh SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 83 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh proved that accused Vikas Lagarpuria, accused Dhirpal and another person Paramjeet (who has been examined in this case as PW-15), were arrested together in this FIR. Ld. counsel for accused persons, while leading defence evidence, has filed the certified copy of the judgment passed in case FIR No.153/2014, PS Najafgarh, perusal of which shows that accused persons have been acquitted for the reason that the eye witness did not support the prosecution case at all.
154. PW-25 Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Clerk, SDM Office, Registration Authority, Bahadurgarh, Haryana has produced the original Registration Certificate of TATA Safari Car bearing No. HR13H3792 as Ex.PW25/1 which was in the name of Paramjeet S/o Sh. Gyan Singh, R/o VPO Badli, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar. No cross examination of PW-25 was carried out challenging the authenticity of the Registration Certificate of the said Safari car. The Registration Certificate is in the name of none other than PW-15 Paramjeet. Even otherwise, PW-15 Paramjeet, in his deposition, admitted that he is the registered owner of the said TATA Safari car. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW-15 Paramjeet S/o Sh. Gyan Singh, who was also arrested with both accused persons in the aforesaid FIR, is the registered owner of TATA Safari bearing Registration No.HR13H3792. It also stands proved from the testimony of PW-39 IO SI(Retd.) Ranvir Singh that this TATA Safari bearing Registration No.HR13H3792 belonging to Paramjeet was seized in this case as his testimony has gone unchallenged and unrebutted in this regard. There is no cross examination or SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 84 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh suggestion given to PW-39 in this regard.
155. PW-15 deposed that the car remained in his possession and he never handed over the same to anybody else. This fact was not disputed at all by accused persons in his (PW-15) cross examination. On the contrary, on perusal of certified copy of chargesheet in FIR No.459/2013 PS Najafgarh exhibited as Ex.A12, it is noted that TATA Safari car having temporary registration number as HR99LF(Temp)4937 was found to be used in FIR no.459/2013, PS Najafgarh in which accused Vikas Lagarpuria was arrested. The said matter is pending trial.
156. In order to prove that TATA Safari bearing registration No.HR99LF(Temp)4937 was the same TATA Safari bearing registration No.HR13H3792 belonging to PW-15 Paramjeet, it is necessary to revert to the Registration Certificate of TATA Safari registration bearing No.HR13H3792 which has been proved by PW-25 Sh. Gulshan Kumar as Ex.PW25/1. A careful perusal of RC of TATA Safari bearing No. HR13H3792 Ex.PW25/1 shows that it is in the name of Paramjeet. It was purchased on 07.08.2013. The insurance of vehicle was from 07.08.2013 till 06.08.2014 but the actual date of registration of vehicle was 31.10.2013, meaning thereby that this vehicle got this number i.e. HR13H3792 only on 31.10.2013 and from the date of purchase i.e. 07.08.2013 till the date of registration, it was running on temporary number. PW-15 Paramjeet stated that he had got his TATA Safari released in FIR No.459/2013 PS Najafgarh. The said fact is not disputed in the cross examination of PW-15.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 85 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Meaning thereby, he got released TATA Safari having temporary No.HR99LF(Temp)4937. This proves that TATA Safari having temporary No. HR99LF(Temp)4937 is the same TATA Safari whose actual registration number is HR13H3792, belonging to PW-15 Sh. Paramjeet.
157. The discussion made above proves the association of accused Vikas Lagarpuria with PW-15 Paramjeet as he (accused Vikas Lagarpuria) was found in possession of the said TATA Safari, which was seized in FIR no.459/2013, PS Najafgarh, owned by PW-15 Paramjeet.
158. The same TATA Safari having temporary No.HR99LF(Temp)4937 was also found in possession of accused Dhirpal in FIR no.479/2013, PS Alipur registered on 15.10.2013. In this case, there was a violation of model code of conduct during elections. The chargesheet of FIR No.479/2013, PS Alipur has been filed which has been proved as Ex.PW55/A by PW-55 Sh. Ajesh Kumar, Civil Nazir, Record Room, Rohini Courts. Alongwith the said chargesheet which has been collectively proved, the seizure memo of TATA Safari has been annexed. As per the said seizure memo, the TATA Safari Car bearing Registration No.HR99LF(Temp) 4937 was being driven by accused Dhirpal S/o Sh. Satya Narain at the time of commission of offence in FIR No.479/2013, PS Alipur, therefore, he was having the possession of same. Accused Dhirpal pleaded guilty in this case and was accordingly convicted, meaning thereby that he had admitted the possession of TATA Safari bearing SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 86 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh No.HR99LF(Temp)4937 with him on 15.10.2013. This is the same TATA Safari which belonged to PW-15 Paramjeet who had categorically deposed that he had never handed over the TATA Safari Car to anyone and car remained with him.
159. The discussion made above proves that PW-15 Paramjeet had purchased TATA Safari on 07.08.2013, the said car was found in the possession of accused Dhirpal on 15.10.2013 when the offence in FIR No.479/2013 PS Alipur was committed and then in the possession of accused Vikas Lagarpuria on 30.11.2013 when the offence in FIR No.459/2013 PS Najafgarh was committed.
160. FIR no.459/2013 PS Najafgarh is pending trial against accused Vikas Lagarpuria and is a case of extortion. Again on 23.02.2014, the said car was stated to be used in FIR no.153/2014, PS Najafgarh wherein both the accused persons Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal alongwith PW-15 Sh. Paramjeet were arrested, as mentioned in the chargesheet Ex.A-14. The fact that they all were using the same car when found involved in different FIRs proves beyond doubt that accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal and infact PW-15 Paramjeet as well, were having an association with each other to carry out illegal activities including extortion.
161. There is yet another reason to conclude that accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal were associated with each other and were involved in carrying out unlawful activities. The Jail SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 87 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh Mulakati Record of accused Dhirpal Ex.PW22/1 shows that PW-15 Paramjeet had gone to meet accused Dhirpal at Bhondsi Jail on 28.01.2015. The Jail Mulakati Record of accused Vikas Lagarpuria Ex.PW23/1 shows that PW-15 (same person who had gone to meet accused Dhirpal) had gone to meet accused Vikas Lagarpuria at Tihar Jail 19 times from 05.01.2016 to 06.09.2016 i.e. in a short span of 8 months. This question was put to both the accused persons in their respective statements under Section 313 CrPC to which they only responded that "It is a matter of record.". They did not chose to offer an explanation as to for what purpose PW-15 had come to meet them. Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act would come into play for these facts as well as discussed in detail while dealing with the other incident in FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla in preceding paras.
162. This fact of PW-15 Paramjeet meeting both the accused persons in jail where they were lodged at different point of time, coupled with the fact that one TATA Safari belonging to PW-15 Paramjeet was used by accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal in commission of different crimes itself proves that accused Vikas Lagarpuria was associated with accused Dhirpal and his other associates for committing illegal activities. The discussion made till now proves the involvement of accused Vikas Lagarpuria in an extortion case in FIR No.459/2013, PS Najafgarh which is pending trial and involvement of accused Dhirpal in a case of extortion in FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla. Their association with each other, using the same car in committing different crimes has also been proved. The argument SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 88 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh of learned counsel for both accused persons that they were acquitted in FIR No.153/2014, PS Najafgarh does not affect the prosecution case under MCOCA.
INVOLVEMENT & CONVICTION OF BOTH ACCUSED PERSONS IN FIR No. 60/14, PS HISSAR CIVIL LINES
163. The offence pertaining to the said FIR had taken place on 24.01.2014 wherein one Bittoo @ Sanjay Sharma, brother of complainant Krishna Kumar Sharma was shot dead and FIR was registered under Section 302/120B/148/149/216 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act. Cognizance of that case was duly taken before registration of FIR under MCOCA in the present case. The chargesheet was filed against both these accused persons apart from several other accused persons. Accused persons, in their defence evidence, have filed the certified copy of the order wherein their sentence was suspended in this FIR. It can be seen from that order that accused Vikas Lagarpuria has been convicted under Section 25 Arms Act and accused Dhirpal has been convicted under Section 302/120B IPC and Section 25 Arms Act. The very fact that these accused persons have been found guilty together in a single case and that too of a murder and were found to be in possession of illegal arms and ammunition itself shows their association with each other in committing different kinds of illegal activities. The very fact of they having been in possession of deadly weapons shows the nature of activities which they were indulging in and use of violence. Hence, this is an additional fact which proves that they were having a close nexus in carrying out unlawful activity.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 89 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh CONVICTION OF ACCUSED VIKAS LAGARPURIA IN FIR NO.351/2014, PS JHAJJAR - IT's EFFECT
164. The fact that accused Vikas Lagarpuria was indulging in criminal activities and was in possession of illegal weapons is further demonstrated by FIR No.351/2014, PS Jhajjar.
165. Ld. counsel for accused persons, while leading defence evidence, has filed certified copy of the judgment passed in FIR no.351/2014 PS Jhajjar in which accused Vikas Lagarpuria has been convicted and has argued that the aforesaid conviction is only under Section 148/411/353 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act, which does not indicate that he was running any organised crime syndicate. This argument of learned counsel for accused persons needs to be rejected outrightly as on perusing the judgment, it is seen that accused Vikas Lagarpuria was caught red handed by the police with a loaded countrymade pistol having two live cartridges in its magazine. The accused has been convicted under Section 148/411/353 IPC each read with Section 149 IPC. He has additionally been convicted for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act. It is important to note the contents of the sections under which accused Vikas Lagarpuria has been convicted in this FIR. They are rioting armed with deadly weapon, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, dishonestly receiving stolen property, member of unlawful assembly found guilty of committing abovesaid offences in prosecution of common object. He was also convicted under Section 25 Arms Act for being found in SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 90 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh possession of illegal arms. The fact that he was carrying loaded deadly weapon and was engaged himself in rioting being a member of unlawful assembly, and above all, was caught red- handed while committing the aforesaid offences itself demonstrates that he was nurturing terror. In FIR No.60/2014, PS Hissar Civil Lines also, accused Vikas Lagarpuria was convicted under Section 25 Arms Act. It proves that he was habitual of possessing illegal and deadly weapons. No innocent person would ordinarily carry illegal arms. The fact that twice he was proved to have been in possession of illegal arms and was resultantly convicted, shows that he has no regard for law of land. The brazen manner in which he carries illegal arms with him shows his utter disregard towards the laws of the country. It also shows that he wants to create terror in mind of general public in order to thump his supremacy. In order to curb this menace only, MCOCA was enacted and made applicable to Delhi, which the normal penal laws could not have achieved.
NEXUS OF ACCUSED DHIRPAL WITH PW-14 & PW17 IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
166. The testimonies of PW-11 Sh.Priyavrat, PW-14 Vineet @ Johny, PW-17 Sonia and PW-18 Sh. Karambir further shows the nexus of accused Dhirpal with PW-14 Vineet @ Johny and PW-17 Sonia.
167. The prosecution has alleged that accused Dhirpal used to threaten people and demand ransom in conspiracy with accused Vikas Lagarpuria and he used to lend the ill-gotten money to the SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 91 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh public persons on 10% interest. The prosecution has further alleged that accused Dhirpal used to recover that money from the public which was being managed by his associate Vineet @ Johny who has been examined as PW-14 in the present case. It is further the case of prosecution that Vineet @ Johny used to collect 10% interest of loan amount on behalf of accused Dhirpal from debtors and then used to deposit the same in the account of friend of accused Dhirpal namely Sonia, who has also been made a witness in this case.
168. Prosecution case is that Karambir knew Preet, resident of Village Gubhana who used to purchase banana from Karambir in order to sell them in Najafgarh. In the year 2013, Karambir took property No.73, measuring 700 sq. yds. at Village Rangpuri, A- Block, New Delhi on lease for ten years from its owners Jaideep and Jagbir and opened a plant in the name of Swami Agro India Pvt. Ltd. In order to install machines in the said plant, he had taken loan from several people in Najafgarh and used to pay interest regularly. He had also taken a loan from Rakesh at whose instance he had purchased some plots. Karambir had also purchased a plot measuring 3 bighas in Jahangir Puri for an amount of Rs.78 lakhs through Rakesh.
169. It is further the case of prosecution that Karambir alongwith Preet and Rakesh used to sit together at Shubham Properties near Krishna Vatika, Najafgarh. In the year 2013, Preet had given him Rs.1 lakh in order to purchase Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.DL12CJ0260 in the name of his SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 92 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh company i.e. Swami Agro Pvt. Ltd. Karambir met accused Dhirpal and accused Vikas Lagarpuria through Preet. He took Rs.21 lakhs as loan on 10% interest from accused Dhirpal. For some time, he could not pay the said interest. One day when he was getting some work done at his plot in Gopal Nagar, one black colour Safari Car came and accused Dhirpal alongwith 3-4 associates came out from the said Safari Car and asked for the interest and threatened Karambir that if he fails to pay back the interest or the money of Preet, he will be killed. In January- February 2014, at around 5.00 pm accused Vikas Lagarpuria called Karambir when he was sitting at his office of Shubham Properties and asked him to come to Village Lagarpur. On 05.02.2014 he alongwith Preet went to Village Lagarpur where he met accused Vikas Lagarpuria, accused Dhirpal and 4-5 other persons. Accused Vikas Lagarpuria asked Karambir to return their money on that very day or in lieu of the money, asked him to handover his plot at Jahangir Puri. Karambir refused to give the plot. Preet gave his guarantee to accused Vikas Lagapuria and accused Dhirpal at the asking of Karambir that he (Preet) will return the money taken by Karambir from accused Dhirpal. Preet got an undertaking from Karambir on the letter pad of Shubham Properties that Karambir had to pay Rs.34 lakhs to Preet which was signed as a guarantor by Rakesh. Preet also took a cheque of Rs.34 lakhs of Punjab National Bank from Karambir. Thereafter, Karambir paid interest on the loan of accused Dhirpal to Preet but thereafter, due to financial crunch, Karambir could not pay the money. Accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal started threatening Preet and in turn, Preet SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 93 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh started pressuring Karambir for returning the money. Karambir asked Preet to repay the loan of Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.DL12CJ0260 and get the car registered in his name, on which Preet told him that the said car has been taken by accused Vikas Lagarpuria. Karambir started getting pressure to return the money and started receiving life threatening calls on which he ran away from his house. Accused Dhirpal threatened Preet and took Rs.35 lakhs from him in lieu of loan of Rs.21 lakhs taken by Karambir from him (accused Dhirpal). Thereafter, four people came to the house of Karambir who asked him to get Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.DL12CJ0260 released which was seized in a case of extortion of PS Chhawla. Karambir told them that the car was in the possession of Preet on which they told that Preet has already been given money for the car. One boy Johny had come to his wife Suman in order to get her signature on one affidavit which she refused. Out of fear, he got released Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.DL12CJ0260 on superdari in FIR no.212/2015 PS Chhawla. Immediately on release of the same, the said car was taken by Vineet @ Johny. Karambir took in writing from Vineet @ Johny that he would be responsible for making the remaining repayments of the loan towards the car. It is further the case of prosecution that Karambir stated that accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal @ Kana were running a gang and therefore, nobody is able to state anything against them out of fear. He had got the swift car released on superdari in order to save him and his family from them.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 94 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
170. Again on first glance of the testimony of PW-18 Karambir, nothing turns out as he turned hostile and has not admitted the prosecution case. But as discussed, merely because he was characterised as 'hostile witness', his entire testimony cannot be effaced or washed away.
171. PW-18 Sh. Karambir deposed that in the year 2018, he had taken one plant i.e. Swami Agro India Pvt. Ltd. from Jaideep and Jagdeep in Village Rangpuri at property No.73. PW-17 Karambir used to have one Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.DL12CJ0260. He further deposed that the said car was seized by the police in a case of PS Chhawla, which was got released by him. He did not give it to anyone. He further deposed that his car was stolen from his plant Swami Agro India Private Limited but he did not get any FIR registered as he thought it was taken by one of his known person, namely Mahender. He also stated that when he was in Andhra Pradesh, his family member had lodged his missing report and he did not know any person with the name of Preet. He admitted that he had purchased 3 Bigha land in Jahangirpuri.
172. The entire case of prosecution regarding the deposition of PW-18 Karambir revolves around one person namely Preet. Ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that Preet has not been examined in this case whereas ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that Priyavrat and Preet are the same person.
173. First of all it is important to ascertain whether Priyavrat SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 95 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh and Preet are the same person as Karambir has used the name Preet and not Priyavrat in his testimony. Priyavrat has been examined as PW-11. PW12 Sh. Devender is having the same parentage and address as that of PW-11 Priyavrat and has stated the name of his brother as Preet. The testimony of PW-21 is also relevant to establish that Priyavrat and Preet are same person. PW 21 Sh. Naveen deposed that he was running a car repair shop at Najafgarh with his brother Praveen. He produced and proved the service record pertaining to one Car bearing Registration No.DL12CJ0260, which was exhibited as Ex.PW21/1. No challenge to the service record of Car No.DL12CJ0260 was made by accused persons during cross examination of PW-21. Ex.PW21/1 shows that the person who brought the car is named as Preet. His mobile number has been mentioned as 9891718419. Original CAF of this mobile number has been proved as Ex.PW36/2 by the Nodal Officer The said CAF is in the name of Priyavrat S/o Vedpal. There is no cross examination of Nodal Officer challenging this CAF. This document Ex.PW21/1 and the CAF Ex.PW36/2 clearly prove that PW-11 Priyavrat and Preet are the same person.
174. It is the case of prosecution that PW-18 Karambir was receiving threatening calls and out of fear, he went missing, though this fact has been denied by PW-18 in his deposition. There is abundant material on record to show that he had gone missing on account of receiving threatening calls. A copy of DD No.34B dated 18.04.2015 of PS Dwarka Sector-23 Mark- PW18/D, which is a complaint filed by Sh.Bhoop Singh, father SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 96 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh of Karambir, has been proved by PW-24 HC Rajpal and exhibited as Ex.PW24/2. PW-18 Karambir has duly identified the signature of his father on the said DD. Though nothing was stated against either of the accused persons in the said complaint but it was stated that his son was missing which shows that PW-18 Karambir has deposed falsely in this case that he did not run away.
175. There is one more complaint Ex.PW18/B filed by wife of Karambir which is dated 19.02.2015. PW18 identified the signature of his wife on the same. In the said complaint, it was written that Karambir was receiving life threatening calls and money was being demanded from him. This complaint was not regarding the missing of her husband. It only proves that Karambir received threatening calls due to which he was under
pressure and thereafter the DD No.34B dated 18.04.2015 registered at the instance of his father shows that he was missing. The discussion made above proves beyond any doubt that PW-18 Karambir was deposing falsely in respect of his missing. It has been proved that he ran away pursuant to getting life threatening calls, which clearly indicates some ring of truth in the prosecution story. The fact of his missing by itself proves nothing against the accused persons alone but there are further reasons, as discussed below, in order to link the missing of Karambir with accused Dhirpal.
INVOLVEMENT OF SWIFT CAR NO.DL12CJ0260 IN PROVING THE NEXUS
176. The ownership of car bearing No.DL12CJ0260 is proved SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 97 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh by PW-32 Sh. M. K. Johnson, MLO, Regional Transport Authority, Vasant Vihar. PW-32 has proved that Swami Agro India Pvt. Ltd. was the first owner of Swift Dzire Car bearing No.DL12CJ0260. PW-18 Karambir in his deposition has stated that he was running Swami Agro India Pvt. Ltd. This shows that Swift Dzire Car bearing No.DL12CJ0260 belonged to PW-18 Karambir.
177. The facts which have been proved till now are that Swift Dzire Car bearing No.DL12CJ0260 was in the name of Swami Agro India Pvt. Ltd. which was owned by PW-18 Karambir. He stated that he did not run away, however, he was found to have been missing. PW-18 Sh. Karambir stated that he did not know any Preet but the mobile number of Preet @ Priyavrat was found mentioned in the Car Service Record of the Swift Dzire Car bearing No.DL12CJ0260 belonging to him.
178. PW-18 Karambir deposed that his car was stolen from Andhra Plant but he did not get any FIR registered regarding theft of his car as he thought that it was taken by some known person. It is quite surprising that if a person does not find his vehicle, he would not check about its whereabouts and would simply assume that it would be in the possession of some particular person. In reality, the car was recovered from the possession of PW-14 Vineet @ Johny and was accordingly seized on 18.04.2015 in FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla. The said seizure memo is part of chargesheet of FIR No.212/2015, PS Chhawla which is Ex.A16. PW-14 Sh. Vineet @ Johny admitted SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 98 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh in his deposition that he was arrested in FIR no.212/2015, PS Chhawla. PW-18 Karambir got Swift Dzire Car bearing No.DL12CJ0260 released on 01.08.2015 which stands proved from the entry record in Register No.19 as proved by PW-26 HC Ashwani Kumar, MHC(M), PS Chhawla. In FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla, apart from Vineet @ Johny, accused Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal have also been arrested. The complicity of accused Dhirpal in commission of offence in FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla has already been discussed above. It thus, stands proved leaving no room for doubt that PW-11 Priyavrat @ Preet, PW-14 Vineet @ Johny and PW-18 Karambir knew each other.
ASSOCIATION OF ACCUSED DHIRPAL WITH PW-14 VINEET @ JOHNY
179. The case of prosecution is that Vineet @ Johny used to look after the loan business of accused Dhirpal and he used to collect 10% interest on loan amount on behalf of accused Dhirpal from various debtors and used to deposit the same in the account of friend of accused Dhirpal namely Sonia. PW-14 Vineet @ Johny deposed that he did not know any Dhirpal and Vikas Lagarpuria. He denied the prosecution case and denied having collected any interest or depositing the same in the account of Sonia. He also denied that he got the car of Karambir after forcing him to get the same released in FIR no.212/15 PS Chhawla. The fact that that PW14 did not give truthful testimony is proved by Ex.PW22/1 i.e. Jail Mulakati Record of accused Dhirpal wherein the person named Vineet having the same parentage and address i.e. Vineet S/o Dharambir Singh, R/o SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 99 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh RZ-101A, Phase-II, Prem Nagar, Najafgarh was proved to have gone to Bhondsi Jail to meet accused Dhirpal on following dates i.e. on 08.11.2014, 12.11.2014, 19.11.2014, 06.12.2014, 27.12.2014, 31.12.2014, 03.01.2015, 07.01.2015, 10.01.2015, 17.01.2015, 26.08.2015, 09.04.2016, 21.09.2016 and 26.10.2016. At one place, he stated that he did not know accused Dhirpal whereas the aforesaid document proves that he had gone to meet accused Dhirpal in Bhondsi Jail which itself speaks much about their association. When the said fact of visiting Bhondsi Jail by Vineet to meet Dhirpal was put to accused Dhirpal in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, he responded that "It is a matter of record.", which means that he met Vineet @ Johny but he chose not to disclose the reason as to why he had come to meet him in Bhondsi Jail on so many occasions. This fact is in the exclusive knowledge of either PW-14 Vineet @ Johny or accused Dhirpal. The prosecution has proved that PW-14 Sh. Vineet @ Johny has deposed falsely in this regard, so it was incumbent upon accused Dhirpal to furnish the requisite explanation as to why PW-14 Vineet @ Johny had come to meet him in Bhondsi Jail on these occasions. His failure to produce such evidence can be regarded as confirming the conclusion arrived at by the evidence led by prosecution, by virtue of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, it is proved beyond any doubt that accused Dhirpal and PW-14 Sh.Vineet @ Johny had an association in respect of illegal activity which accused Dhirpal deliberately did not disclose.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 100 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh ASSOCIATION OF ACCUSED DHIRPAL WITH PW-17 SONIA
180. Now coming to the testimony of Ms. Sonia, D/o Sh. Dharam Singh who has been examined as PW17 in the present case. In her evidence, PW-17 Ms. Sonia stated that she did not know any Dhirpal. She was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the state wherein she denied all the facts put by the prosecution. She specifically denied that accused Dhirpal used to help her and used to give her Rs.5000 - 10000/- as expenses. She also denied that she started looking after the money business of accused Dhirpal when he went to jail and whatever money was given by accused Dhirpal on loan, was looked after by her through his friend Vineet @ Johny. She also denied that accused had given her bank account number to the debtors or that debtors used to deposit the money in her bank account. She further denied that she used to meet accused Dhirpal in Bhondsi Jail and used to tell him about the transactions. She also denied that she used to have mobile No.9718677173. She denied that accused Dhirpal used to call her on this mobile number i.e. 9718677173 from different numbers i.e. 7056263706, 9812296877 and 9711296182 which were taken by him by forging documents. The fact that these three numbers were used by accused Dhirpal in jail has not been proved by prosecution but the fact that PW-17 Sonia knew accused Dhirpal is proved from Jail Mulakati Record of accused Dhirpal Ex.PW22/1 wherein one Sonia D/o Sh. Dharam Singh having exactly the same address i.e. Dariyapur, New Delhi has gone to meet accused Dhirpal in Bhondsi Jail 20 times from 15.11.2014 to 25.06.2016. It is further worthwhile to note that SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 101 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh the fact of visiting Bhondsi Jail by PW-17 Sonia on 15.11.2014, 22.11.2014, 24.01.2015, 25.03.2015, 22.04.2015, 13.06.2015, 08.08.2015, 22.08.2015, 09.09.2015, 14.11.2015, 28.11.2015, 12.12.2015, 26.12.2015, 09.01.2016, 13.02.2016, 17.02.2016, 16.03.2016, 30.03.2016, 04.05.2016, 04.06.2016, 25.06.2016 to meet accused Dhirpal was put to him in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC to which he replied that "It is a matter of record.". As per Jail Mulakati Record of accused Dhirpal Ex.PW22/1, the address of Sonia D/o Dharam Singh, who had gone to meet him in Bhondsi Jail, is VPO 266, Brahaman Wali Gali, Village Darya Pur Kalan, PS Bawana. As per testimony of PW-17 Ms. Sonia, her parentage is mentioned as D/o Dharam Singh and her address is also of Village Dariyapur, New Delhi. Therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that she is the same person who used to go to meet accused Dhirpal in Bhondsi Jail.
181. The case of prosecution is further that PW-7 Sanjay had received an extortion call from two mobile numbers and when the CDR of those numbers were analysed, it was found that multiple calls were made from those numbers to mobile No.9718677173. This mobile number was found to be registered in the name of one Savita which is not linked with the present case, however, when the accounts linked with this mobile No.9718677173 were traced, it was found that four bank accounts of PW-17 Ms. Sonia were found to be existing and linked with this mobile number. PW-27 Sh. Rafikat Ali, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank has proved the certified copy of bank account statement pertaining to Bank Account SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 102 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh nos.915010019680804 and 913010044858498 as Ex.PW27/1 and Ex.PW27/2. In the bank account statement Ex.PW27/1, the address of Sonia is given as G-163, Pocket-G, Sector-B2, Narela, North West Delhi. When PW-17 Ms. Sonia came to the Court for deposition, she had given her two addresses i.e. (i) Village Dariya Pur, New Delhi and (ii) Flat no.84, B-2, Pocket-G, Narela, New Delhi. Though the flats numbers are different in address of Narela, however, the sector and pocket number of the place where she was residing has been found to be same. Further, perusal of this bank account statement Ex.PW27/1 shows that the print out of Ex.PW27/1 was taken out on 03.12.2018 by the concerned Bank Manager. Perusal of the judicial file shows that alongwith chargesheet, one copy bank statement duly certified of the very same bank account number i.e. 915010019680804 has also been annexed which is for the period 01.01.2014 to 17.09.2015 wherein the address of Sonia is given as 266, Brahman Wali Gali, Village Darya Pur Kalan. Delhi. It so appears that she has got her address changed at a later stage. It, thus, stands proved that Account No.915010019680804 was that of PW-17 Sonia.
182. Further, perusal of bank account Statement Ex.PW27/2 pertaining to Bank Account No.913010044858498 shows that it is in name of Sonia and her address is mentioned as Village Daryapur Kalan, Bawana.
183. PW-29 Sh. Amodh Sinha, Relationship Manager, HDFC Bank has proved that bank account statement of account SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 103 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh No.50100096077310 mapped with mobile No.9718677173 as Ex.PW29/2. As per bank account statement Ex.PW29/2, the said account is in the name of Sonia and her address has been given as 266, Brahman Wali Gali, Village Daryapur Kalan, Delhi.
184. PW-33 Sh. Shekhar Kumar, Deputy Manager, ICICI Bank has proved that bank account statement of account No.092901504037 as Ex.PW33/1. As per bank account statement Ex.PW33/1, the said account is in the name of Sonia and her address has been given as 266, Brahman Wali Gali, Village Daryapur Kalan, New.
185. Analysis of these bank accounts shows that the cash deposits of around Rs.32 lakhs have been made in these accounts during a span of 1½ -2 years whereas when ITRs of Sonia for the assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 were taken, it was found that the gross total income for the assessment year 2014- 2015 was found to be Rs.213470/- and the gross total income for the assessment year 2015-2016 was found to be Rs.250870/-. The ITRs of the Sonia for the assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 have been proved by PW-28 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal, Income Tax Inspector having same address of Village Dariyapur and same PAN No.FPZPS9483G. The aforesaid facts proved leaving no room for doubt that PW-17 Sonia has not given true and fair version of the events and facts in her deposition. The fact that she had gone to meet accused Dhirpal in Bhondsi Jail shows that she knew accused Dhirpal. The purpose for which she used to meet accused Dhirpal is not SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 104 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh disclosed either by PW-17 Sonia or by accused Dhirpal. Though the mobile No.9718677173 is not proved by prosecution to be of Sonia but prosecution has been able to establish that the four bank accounts were of PW-17 Sonia who knew Dhirpal. This itself proves that Sonia had deliberately given a false mobile number not belonging to her in her bank accounts and ITRs in order to avoid the chance of being caught or noticed. The reason for doing so is obvious now i.e. her association with accused Dhirpal. From the perusal of these bank statements, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that huge cash was deposited in her different accounts. When the suggestion was given to her by learned Addl. PP for State regarding the fact that accused Dhirpal had given her bank account number to his various debtors or the debtors used to deposit money in her account, she denied the same. It does not appear that any sale/purchase transactions were being carried out through these bank accounts by her. She never volunteered as to the source of huge cash deposits in her account. On the contrary, her ITRs for the said years are for a meagre amount wherein her annual income has been shown to be Rs.2 - 2.5 lakhs only. Her association with accused Dhirpal has already been proved. This leads to an irresistible conclusion that this money belonged to none other than accused Dhirpal, who was an associate of accused Vikas Lagarpuria.
INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED VIKAS LAGARPURIA IN FIR NO.159/2012, PS BHD Nagar
186. PW-6/Tajbir is the complainant of FIR No. 159/12, PS BHD Nagar which has been registered under Section SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 105 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh 387/336/506/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act. The witness turned completely hostile in his examination-in-chief and stated that his son Ravinder had a quarrel with one Vikas, S/o Suresh. After 06 months Vikas, S/o Suresh came alongwith his associates to his house and fired in his presence, however, PW-6 did not identify accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria to be the one who had come to his house on the day of incident. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he admitted that FIR No. 159/12, PS BHD Nagar, was registered on his complaint. He also admitted that except this FIR, he had not got any other FIR registered against anyone. He also admitted that FIR Ex. PW-6/PX-3 bears the name of Vikas Lagarpuria. He voluntarily stated that the police wrote the statement and got his signatures on the same. In so far as this allegation is concerned, at no point of time since year 2012, PW-6 had moved any complaint regarding recording of his incorrect statement and wrongly mentioning the name of accused Vikas Lagarpuria, against the police official who recorded his statement. Ld. Counsel has argued that this was not the same Vikas who was involved in the incident as is clear from the testimony of PW-6. Apparently, witness has not supported the prosecution's case. But his entire testimony cannot be effaced merely because of the fact that he turned hostile. Since he has admitted that FIR No. 159/12 was registered on his complaint and there is no other FIR lodged at his behest, it becomes relevant to advert to the testimony of PW-46/Inspector Rajender Singh who is the IO of the present case. PW-46 in his testimony had deposed that complainant Tajbir had described entire incident to him. The certified copy of SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 106 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh chargesheet of this FIR has been exhibited as Ex. A10 during admission and denial under Section 294 Cr.P.C. The perusal of this chargesheet shows that it was filed against three accused persons, namely Vikas Lagarpuria, Dhirpal @ Kana and Suresh Baharania (not an accused in this case). A careful perusal of the testimony of PW-6 shows that he has jumbled up the name of two accused persons and had smartly stated Vikas to be son of Suresh whereas Vikas and Suresh were two different accused persons. The testimony of different witnesses as discussed hereinabove in preceding paragraphs have already proved that none of the public witness had supported the prosecution's case or have deposed against the accused persons out of threat and fear. The discussion made above makes it clear that PW-6 Tajbir, in a similar manner, could not depose against the accused due to fear. Therefore, this incident as recorded in FIR No.159/2012 PS BHD Nagar can also be seen as a corroboration to the discussion made above wherein it has been proved that accused Vikas was indulged in running an extortion racket.
CONCLUSION
187. In order to convict the accused under Section 3 of MCOCA, prosecution is required to prove that accused persons have committed offence of organised crime. Organised crime has been defined under Section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA which means any continuing unlawful activity undertaken by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 107 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency. 'Continuing unlawful activity' has been defined under Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA, which means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge- sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence. 'Organised crime syndicate' has been defined under 2(1)(f) of MCOCA, which means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime.
188. Thus, for an activity to be a 'continuining unlawful activity' under Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA -
a) the activity must be prohibited by law;
b) it must be a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more;
c) it must be undertaken singly or jointly;
d) it must be undertaken as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate
e) in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent court.
189. In the light of the findings given in preceding paragraphs, SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 108 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal @ Kana were indulging in continuing unlawful activity as demonstrated from the discussion made above regarding FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla, FIR No.153/2014 PS Najafgarh, FIR No.60/2014 PS Hissar Civil Lines, FIR No.459/2013 PS Najafgarh, FIR No.479/2013 PS Alipur and FIR No.351/2014 PS Jhajjar. Ld. counsel for both the accused persons has relied upon certain judgments. The ratio of none of those judgments is disputed, however, none of them is applicable to the case in hand in view of the findings arrived at in this case.
190. Although issue of territorial nexus has not been argued before this Court, however it is pertinent to touch upon the same as many FIRs have been registered outside Delhi against accused persons. This Court is not required to lay more emphasis on the same in view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar & Anr. (2017) 10 SCC 779.
191. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW-14 Vineet @ Johny who was an associate of accused Dhirpal and visited him in Bhondsi Jail several times was arrested alongwith accused Vikas Lagarpuria in FIR No.212/2015 PS Chhawla, which is an FIR in respect of extortion. Similarly, accused Vikas Lagarpuria, accused Dhirpal and PW-15 Paramjeet have been found to be arrested in case FIR No.153/2014 PS Najafgarh. Both the accused persons Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal have SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 109 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh used TATA Safari Car of PW-15 Paramjeet, as discussed above, which proves that they had association with each other. It is further proved that accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal were convicted in same FIR No.60/2014, PS Hissar Civil Lines wherein accused Dhirpal was convicted under Section 302/120B IPC and under Section 25 Arms and accused Vikas Lagarpuria was convicted under Section 25 Arms Act. It is established that the public person specifically PW-8 Rajbir had gone to Bhondsi Jail to meet accused Dhirpal in order to settle the extortion matter but did not depose anything against accused persons in Court. Swift Dzire Car belonging to PW-18 Karambir was seized from PW-14 Vineet @ Johny in FIR No.212/15, PS Chhawla. PW-18 Karambir is proved to have been under threat and had run away from his house. The facts of these cases clearly show that extortion cases were registered but public witnesses did not come out openly to depose against the accused persons. It has already been proved beyond any doubt that the public witnesses have not supported the prosecution case due to threat and fear. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek (Supra) observed that MCOCA seeks to curb such menace where a criminal case cannot be taken to its logical conclusion because of the witnesses either turning hostile or not turning up at all. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to the extent of observing that the very reason of acquittal in the said case rather fortifies the requirement of invocation of MCOCA.
192. It has further been proved that PW-17 Sonia used to meet accused Dhirpal in Bhondsi Jail regularly. She was found to be SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 110 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh maintaining four bank accounts which had huge deposits to the tune of approximately Rs.32 lakhs within a short span of 1½ years which was disproportionate to her source of income as given in her ITRs for two assessment years.
193. In the light of the facts so proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, it shows that both accused persons Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal @ Kana were indulging in activity prohibited by law, which were cognizable offences, punishable with imprisonment of three or more years and they were undertaking the said unlawful activities singly and jointly.
194. The certified copies of all the FIRs in which the accused persons were involved have been admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 CrPC and have been duly proved. Therefore, the next requirement of Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA that more than one chargesheet is required to be filed by the prosecution in the preceding 10 years has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
195. The next ingredient which is required to be proved is that both the accused persons were undertaking the same as a member of organised crime syndicate. The complicity of accused Vikas Lagarpuria with accused Dhirpal in different crimes speaks distinctly about their association in running an organised crime syndicate. It is settled proposition of law that every accused need not have same role in committing the offence pertaining to SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 111 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh organised crime syndicate. Their roles need not be even direct. Their indirect nexus for running a syndicate has been proved beyond any doubt. The prosecution has been able to show successfully the connection or the involvement of both these accused persons in different crimes in order to further the cause of syndicate run by accused Vikas Lagarpuria. The testimonies of witnesses coupled with the corroborative evidence as discussed above in detail in this judgment, have clearly lead to one and only hypothesis that accused Vikas Lagarpuria alongwith accused Dhirpal was running an organised crime syndicate.
196. It has already been proved that both accused persons had used violence, intimidation as well as coercion in order to commit those offences.
197. The discussion made in the preceding paragraphs unequivocally proves that these unlawful activities were carried out by both the accused persons on behalf of the syndicate with the objective of not only gaining pecuniary benefits but also for gaining supremacy.
198. Thus, the requirement of Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e) and 2(1)
(f) of MCOCA i.e. continuing unlawful activities were being carried out by both the accused persons either singly or jointly, in order to commit organised crime for running an organised crime syndicate with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining supremacy, has been conclusively proved by the prosecution beyond any shadow of doubt.
SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 112 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh
199. Resultantly, it is concluded that accused Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal @ Kana were committing offence of organised crime and they are held guilty for committing offence under Section 3 of MCOCA.
200. Insofar as Section 4 of MCOCA is concerned, the testimony of PW-17 Sonia has already been discussed in detail. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that she knew accused Dhirpal and used to visit him very often in Jail. It is relevant to state that she had described her relation with accused Dhirpal as that of his Bhabhi in the Jail Mulakati Record of accused Dhirpal at Bhondsi Jail Ex.PW22/1, whereas accused Dhirpal though admitted that she used to come to meet him in jail but did not offer any explanation. She was found to be maintaining four accounts wherein there was inflow of around Rs.32 lakhs within a span of 1½ years. Her ITRs for two assessment years i.e. for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 have showed that her total annual income was around Rs.2 to 2.5 lakhs in these years. In these circumstances, it has been unambiguously proved that the money which was deposited in the accounts maintained by Sonia in different banks was that of the syndicate run by accused Vikas Lagarpuria and accused Dhirpal. Unfortunately, PW Sonia has not been made an accused in the present case. Section 4 of MCOCA warrants that in order punish a person under Section 4 of MCOCA, he/she should be found in the possession of movable or immovable property which he/she cannot satisfactorily account for. In this case, neither SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 113 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh accused Vikas Lagarpuria nor accused Dhirpal have been found directly in the possession of movable or immovable property and therefore, both the accused persons cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 4 of MCOCA.
201. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal @ Kana are convicted under Section 3 of MCOCA in the present FIR No.531/2015, PS Najafgarh. Both the accused persons are acquitted under Section 4 of MCOCA.
202. Copy of the judgment be given dasti to both accused persons free of cost.
Digitally signed
Announced in open court VANDANA by VANDANA
JAIN
on 10.12.2025 JAIN Date: 2025.12.10
16:09:10 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/10.12.2025 Note: This judgment contains one-hundred fourteen (114) pages and having my signature on each page. Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.10 16:09:48 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/10.12.2025 SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 114 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh