Delhi District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs . on 28 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)/SPECIAL JUDGE(CBI)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
A.C. No.03/2012
RC No. 17/2012, CBI/ACB/Delhi.
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0482892012
Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs.
(1)Ramo Devi D/o Sh Kanwar Pal Singh
(2)Rahul S/o Sh. Ramesh
Both R/o H.No. A410, Gali No.2,
Ganesh NagarII, Shakar Pur,
Delhi110092.
Date of Institution : 29.09.2012
Date of judgment reserved : 23.09.2015
Date of judgment : 07.10.2015
J U D G M E N T
The CBI has filed the chargesheet against two accused persons, namely, Ramo Devi and Rahul under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 1 of 42
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and substantive offences thereof. 2 Accused Smt. Ramo Devi was posted as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police at Police Station Mandawali, whereas accused Rahul is the son of accused Ramo Devi. A complaint dated 30.05.2012 Ex.PW1/A was made by complainant Sh. Kailash Prasad Lal to the CBI wherein he alleged that on 26.05.2012 at about 6.00 AM, his grandson Praveen Kumar came to his house and showed him a copy of FIR No.88/2012 dated 01.03.2012, Police Station Mandawali under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. On the same day i.e. 26.05.2012, complainant talked to the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case accused Ramo Devi and her mobile phone number was 9911265616. Accused Ramo Devi refused to talk on telephone and asked the complainant to meet at police station in the evening. On evening of the same day, complainant along with his friend Sita Ram went to meet accused Ramo Devi in the Police Station. Accused Ramo Devi took them to a park situated at some distance from the Police Station, where she demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lac only) to save Praveen from a rape case. She had informed that she would save Praveen as he was innocent and threatened that in case Rs.1,00,000/ was not paid to her, she would make a fool proof AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 2 of 42 case and Praveen would go to jail. As the complainant did not want to pay bribe, he talked to accused Ramo Devi on telephone on 29.05.2012, but she did not agree. Hence, complaint with CBI was lodged.
3 Verification of the complaint was done on 30.05.2012 vide verification memo Ex.PW1/B by arranging talks between complainant and accused Ramo Devi and recorded in the presence of independent witness. After verification of complaint, FIR Ex.PW1/C of the present case was registered and investigation was entrusted to Inspector Sunil Dutt. It was decided to lay a trap on 31.05.2012 and complainant made a call to accused Ramo Devi to hand over bribe amount on 31.05.2012. Presence of independent witnesses Raj Kumar and Ram Shankar was secured. Complaint was shown to independent witnesses and trap party members. The complainant produced a sum of Rs.40,000/ and numbers of produced GC notes were recorded in Handing Over Memo Ex.PW1/D, which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Its reaction with sodium carbonate was explained to all the trap party members. Tainted GC notes were put in left side shirt pocket of the complainant and he was directed to hand over the same to accused on specific demand. AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 3 of 42 Complainant made a telephonic call to accused Ramo Devi during which she directed the complainant to come near Police Station Mandawali and then to come near Aggarwal Sweet Shop at Shakarpur. All the trap party members reached Aggarwal Sweet, Shakarpur near Flyover. Independent witness Ram Shankar (PW10) was directed to act as shadow witness. A digital recorder was handed over to the complainant to record the conversation which may take place between him and accused. Another independent witness remained with trap party members.
4 Complainant and shadow witness reached in front of Aggarwal Sweets, while other team members took suitable positions. The complainant made a call to accused Ramo Devi and informed that he had reached at the spot. After sometime, one person came and started talking with complainant who was later identified as accused Rahul, son of accused Ramo Devi. Accused Rahul demanded bribe with gestures, on which complainant took out tainted bribe amount and handed over to accused Rahul. Accused Rahul accepted the bribe amount with his right hand and kept the same in his right side pocket of Bermuda. Transaction was seen by shadow witness and other team members. Complainant gave predecided signal and also AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 4 of 42 made a call on the mobile phone of Insp. Sunil Dutt. Accused Rahul was apprehended. Digital recorder was taken from the complainant. The complainant informed that during talks with accused Ramo Devi on phone, she intimated that Rahul would be coming to receive the papers. Hand washes of accused Rahul were taken in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned in pink colour. Washes were transferred to glass bottles marked RHW and LHW. Independent witness Raj Kumar recovered bribe amount from the right side Bermuda pocket of accused Rahul and numbers of recovered GC notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo. Accused Rahul was arrested.
5 Accused Rahul was taken to Police Station Mandawali where it was found that accused Ramo Devi was undergoing training at Police Station Rajender Nagar. CBI team reached Police Station Rajender Nagar, where from accused Ramo Devi was taken to CBI office and arrested. Right side pocket wash of Bermuda of accused Rahul was taken in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned in pink in colour and same was transferred to a glass bottle marked RSBPW. During investigation, specimen voice of accused Ramo Devi was recorded. Call details of mobile phones were AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 5 of 42 obtained. Washes were sent to CFSL which gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein in the washes. Sanction for prosecution of accused Smt. Ramo Devi was obtained.
6 The prosecution has placed on record original complaint made by the complainant Kailash Prasad Lal wherein it was alleged that accused Ramo Devi demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/ from him in order to save his grand son. Verification memo placed on record also shows that conversation between the complainant and accused Ramo Devi had taken place in which the accused Ramo Devi demanded bribe of Rs.40,000/. Recovery memo shows that a trap was laid in which accused Rahul accepted the bribe of Rs.40,000/ on behalf of accused Ramo Devi, which was recovered from his person. Accused Rahul is the son of accused Ramo Devi. Call details of mobile phone of the complainant and accused Ramo Devi have also been placed on record. The transcription placed on record also shows that bribe was demanded by accused Ramo Devi. The prosecution has also filed the statements of complainant, independent witnesses and CBI officials recorded during investigation.
7 After completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the court where the accused persons were supplied with AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 6 of 42 the copies of the chargesheet and the documents of the CBI. Arguments on charge were heard.
8 Thereafter, charges under Section120B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act were framed against both the accused, apart from substantive charges for offences under Section 7 and 13(1)
(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against accused Ramo Devi. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
9 The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Out of these witnesses, PW1 Sh. Kailash Prasad Lal is the complainant. PW2 Sh. Prabhakar was then DCP, Delhi Police, who had granted sanction for prosecution against accused Ramo Devi. PW3 Sh. Pawan Singh and PW4 Sh. Israr Babu are the Nodal Officers of Mobile Phone Companies Idea Cellular and Vodafone respectively. PW3 Sh. Pawan Singh has testified that vide certificate Ex.PW3/A, he had provided copy of call detail record Ex.PW3/B in respect of mobile No. 9891292717, which was in the name of Sh Arjun Kumar S/o Sh. Kailash Prasad Lal(complainant of present case). He has also provided call detail record Ex.PW3/C in respect of mobile No. 9911265616, AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 7 of 42 which was in the name of accused Ramo Devi. He has further testified that various documents were seized by the CBI vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW3/D. PW3 has also proved certified copy of call detail record of mobile No. 9911265616 as ExPW3/E and that of mobile No. 9891292717 as Ex.PW3/F. PW3 has also proved certified copy of Cell ID Chart Ex.PW3/G. This witness has also proved customer application form of mobile No. 9911265616 as Ex.PW3/H and of mobile No. 9891292717 as Ex.PW3/J. Vide letter Ex.PW3/K, he had provided information that as per record, Mobile No. 9990523535 is registered in the name of Rahul S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand. 10 PW4 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd had produced letter Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B along with enclosures to the CBI in respect of mobile No. 9711062777. As per record the said mobile is in the name of Sh Ramesh Prasad and customer application form along with ID proof are proved as Ex.PW4/C. Call detail record in respect of said mobile number for the period 27.05.2012 to 31.05.2012 are proved as Ex.PW4/D. PW5 SI Anuradha has stated that vide order Ex.PW5/A, investigation of case FIR No. 88/12 was entrusted to Ramo Devi, who remained IO of the case from 09.04.2012 to 14.06.2012. PW6 AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 8 of 42 Sh. Virender Singh Yadav, ACP Crime Branch, Delhi Police, has testified that on 30.08.2012, he handed over to CBI attendance sheets Ex.PW6/A1 A1 and A2/1 relating to training course attended by accused Ramo Devi on 'Investigation of Rape Cases' from 21.05.2012 to 26.05.2012, which was extended upto 31.05.2012. PW7 is Sh. Mahesh Tholia, ACP, who was the then SHO Police Station Mandawali. He has stated that he had produced copy of FIR No. 88/12; copy of transfer of investigation register; index missal of FIR; which are Ex.PW7/A2 to A4, to Inspector Pathak of CBI and same were seized vie memo Ex.,PW7/A1. PW8 Inspector Anil Bisht remained associated in the investigation of present case. PW9 Sh. Raj Kumar and PW10 Sh.Ram Shankar are independent witnesses. PW13 Sh.V.B.Ramteke, SSO(Chemistry), had examined hand washes in CFSL; PW11 Dr. Rajender Singh, Director, CFSL, had examined voices in the CFSL. PW14 Inspector Vikas Kumar Pathak had also participated in the investigation of the present case. PW12 Sh. Sunil Dutt is Trap Laying Officer in the present case.
11 The statements of both the accused have been recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Ramo Devi has stated that she has been falsely implicated in the AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 9 of 42 present case. She never demanded any money from the complainant, nor she had instructed anybody to accept the money on her behalf. She has stated that complainant had grudge against her as she was conducting investigation of a case and had to recover photographs and other documents from Praveen Kumar for which she had conducted raid at the house of Praveen Kumar. There was no occasion for her to demand any money as she had already opposed bail application of Praveen Kumar in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and same was rejected. 12 Accused Rahul has stated that he had never demanded or accepted any bribe from anybody. He was arrested from his house and nothing was recovered from his possession. He had neither gone to the spot nor accused Ramo Devi had instructed him to visit the spot. Complainant bore grudge against his mother and that is why he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
13 DW1 Sh. Suhil Kumar, JJA, has been examined on behalf of accused persons. He has proved the certified copy of bail orders dated 23.03.2012 as well as dated 09.05.2012 and status report dated 24.04.2012 as Ex.DW1/A, DW1/B and DW1/C respectively in case titled 'Praveen Kumar vs. State'.
14 I have heard Ld. PP for the CBI as well Ld. Counsel AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 10 of 42 for the accused persons. I have also carefully gone through their submissions and the record of the case.
15 The learned PP for the CBI has submitted that from the statements of the complainant, independent witnesses, who remained associated in the proceedings conducted by the investigating agency, the CBI has proved its case against the accused persons that they criminally conspired to demand and accept bribe from the complainant. The prosecution has also established beyond reasonable doubt regarding the initial demand of Rs.1,00,000/, which was scaled down to Rs.40,000/ in the verification and acceptance of Rs.40,000/ by accused Rahul for and on behalf of accused Ramo Devi has duly been proved on the record. He has further argued that accused Ramo Devi, being public servant, had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant for favouring Praveen Kumar in the investigation of a rape case.
16 On the other hand, the learned defence Counsel has argued that Sh. Sita Ram, who initially went to Police Station with the complainant has not been examined and that Sita Ram could be the best witness to prove initial demand. CBI has also not examined Praveen Kumar and his parents to prove that he was ever threatened or AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 11 of 42 harassed by accused Ramo Devi or that any bribe was demanded from him. It is argued that a link is missing as to how the bribe amount was scaled down from Rs.1,00,000/ to Rs.40,000/. It is further argued that CDs proved on record are inadmissible as there is no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It is further argued that 104 folded currency notes can not be kept in front shirt pocket; there is no evidence as to how accused Rahul was identified at the spot; no conversation at spot had taken place; there is no evidence that in which hand accused Rahul accepted the bribe; there is no evidence as to who recovered the bribe from accused Rahul ; PW1 does not say anything about presence of independent witnesses or pocket wash; no recovery memo was prepared at the spot; call details as submitted by PW3 and PW4 on record cannot be proved on record as there is no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act; PW9 Raj Kumar has not deposed that complainant told him that he was instructed to pay money to Rahul; no talks had taken place at the spot and that no demand of bribe was made at the spot; motorcycle of accused Rahul was not seized, therefore, it does not stand proved on record as to how accused Rahul arrived at the spot. Testimony of PW10 Ram Shankar cannot be looked into as he has made certain improvements in his statement. AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 12 of 42 Bottles containing hand washes were not signed by Sh. V.B.Ramteke from CFSL and there was nothing in the bottle of pocket wash. It is argued that in the present case, vital link evidence is missing and witnesses have made improvements. It is argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated as the complainant bore grudge against accused Ramo Devi because she had opposed bail application of Praveen in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
17 Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Ashish Kumar Dubey vs. State through CBI 2014 III AD (Crl.) (DHC) 421;
(2) Anvar P.V. vs. P.K.Basheer and others [Civil appeal No. 4226/2012, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18.09.2014];
(3) Devinder Singh vs. CBI [Crl. A. No. 359/2009 decided on 26.03.2014 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi] (4) Ankur Chawla & Anr. vs. CBI 2014 (10) LRC 96 (Del.); (5) Anil Kumar Tito @ Anil Kumar Sharma @ Titto vs. State NCT of Delhi Crl. A. Jo. 66/13 decided on 29.05.2015 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.;
(6) B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. IV (2014) SLT 128; (7) P.K.Narayanan vs. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142; (8) V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P. 2007 Cri. L.J. 754;
(9) Banarsi Dass vs. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 1589; AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 13 of 42 (10) Prem Singh Yadav vs. CBI 2011[2] JCC 1059;
(11) Anand Sarup vs. The State 1988 Cri.L.J. 756; (12) State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma VII (2013) SLT 180;
(13) Pannalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra 1980 SCC(Crl.) 121; & (14) Raj Kishore vs. State [Crl. A. No. 33/2003 decided on 06.05.2013 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi].
(15) P.Satyanarayan Murthy vs. The Distt. Inspector of Police & Another in Crl. Appeal No. 31/2009 decided on 14.09.2015 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
18 From the arguments advanced by either side, following points arise for determination :
(I) Whether there was any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons for the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount from the complainant?
(II) Initial demand of bribe by accused. (III) Demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount. 19 In the present case, Ld. Counsel for the accused Ramo
Devi has not disputed the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act granted for her prosecution. Moreover, PW2 Sh.
Prabhakar, the the DCP, East had granted sanction Ex.PW2/A for prosecution of accused Ramo Devi. He has testified that he had examined the file containing material collected during investigation AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 14 of 42 and after being satisfied, he accorded sanction. Perusal of sanction order shows that the sanctioning authority, after carefully examining the material placed before him, circumstances of the case, statements of the witnesses and documents of the case and after applying his mind granted the sanction for the prosecution of the accused Ramo Devi. Consequently, in view of the above mentioned discussion and particularly the fact that Ld. Counsel for the accused during arguments has not disputed the sanction, I hold that proper and valid sanction was accorded for for the prosecution of the accused persons and it can not be said that sanction was accorded in mechanical manner. Conspiracy between both the accused persons 20 The first point for consideration is that whether there was any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons for demand of the bribe amount from the complainant (PW1) and its acceptance from him. The essence of criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and an agreement of minds between two or more accused persons whereby they cooperate to accomplish an object. In the present case, it is alleged that both the accused persons criminally conspired to demand and accept the bribe amount from the complainant.
AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 15 of 42 21 Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that no evidence has come on record to show that offence was committed in pursuance of an agreement between both the accused persons and since there was no conspiracy between the accused persons, so the accused persons are entitled for acquittal. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has placed reliance on P.K.Narayanan vs. State of Kerala(supra).
22 PW1 Sh. Kailash Prasad Lal has testified that when he along with CBI team reached near Aggarwal Sweets, Shakarpur, he had contacted accused Ramo Devi on her mobile and accused Ramo Devi during conversation had stated that she was sending a constable, namely, Rahul to Aggarwal Sweets, Shakar Pur. After sometime, one person came on a motorcycle and introduced himself as Rahul. PW1 has identified accused Rahul to be the person who had come there. On demand of accused Rahul, PW1 handed over tainted GC notes of Rs. 40,000/ to him and and thereafter accused Rahul was apprehended. Accused Rahul had revealed that accused Ramo Devi was his mother and that he had come to receive the bribe amount. In the transcription Ex.PW1/G, it has come on record that when complainant reached at the spot, he rang up Ramo Devi and then accused Ramo Devi said that AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 16 of 42 she was sending a constable, who was on night duty and it would take time for him to reach at the spot. Bribe amount was recovered from accused Rahul and his hand washes turned pink.
23 In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Rahul has stated that he had not visited the spot, his mother had not instructed him to take bribe and no recovery of bribe amount was effected from him. He was arrested from his house. 24 Accused persons have opted to lead evidence in their defence and have even examined DW1. But no witness was examined by accused persons to prove that accused Rahul was arrested from his house. Even no information was given to the Police regarding the allegation of accused Rahul that he was arrested from his home and against his alleged false implication in this case. In the absence of any such evidence, it can not be accepted that accused Rahul had not visited the spot or accepted the bribe amount. No explanation has come on record as to why Rahul had visited the spot on the date of occurrence.
25 Hand washes and Bermuda wash of accused Rahul were sent to CFSL and chemical examination report Ex.PW13/A has been filed on record. PW13 Sh.V.B.Ramteke has testified that three AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 17 of 42 sealed bottles RHW, LHW and RSBPW were received vide forwarding letter Ex.PW12/A. Seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded. He further stated that on chemical examination, all the said three exhibits gave positive test for presence of phenolphthalein. In his cross examination, PW13 has stated that bottle Ex.PX3 does not contain any solution presently. He has also admitted that bottle Ex.PX does not bear his signatures. 26 But the fact remains that when bottles containing washes were received in the CFSL, they had solution at the time when examination was done and seals on the same were intact and tallied with the specimen seal forwarded. If one of the bottles did not contain solution at the time of examination of PW13 in the Court and does not bear signatures of PW13, it does not weaken the case of prosecution in as much as bottles had solution at the time of examination and seals on the same were intact and tallied with specimen seal at the time of their examination by PW13. 27 A suggestion was put to PW1 that accused Rahul had been wrongly arrested in place of Ct. Rahul. PW1 has denied the suggestion that there was another constable Rahul in Police Station Mandawali and to save him, present accused Rahul has been arrested. AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 18 of 42 Accused persons have not summoned the record of Police Station Mandawali to show that there was any constable by the name of Rahul. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that accused Rahul had not visited the spot on the date of occurrence. 28 From the above evidence, it is clear that both the accused persons had conspired and in furtherance of said conspiracy, accused Rahul went to the spot and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.40,000/ for and on behalf of his mother accused Ramo Devi, which has duly been established on the record. Hence, ratio of judgment P.K.Narayanan vs. State of Kerala(supra) is not applicable to the facts of present case.
29 Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that both the accused criminally conspired for the demand of bribe from the complainant (PW1) and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, accused Rahul accepted bribe of Rs.40,000/ on 31.05.2012 from the complainant. Therefore, it is held that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
INITIAL DEMAND AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 19 of 42 30 Case of the CBI is that Praveen Kumar came to the complainant and informed that accused Ramo Devi was harassing him. The complainant contacted and met accused Ramo Devi, where she demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/; a complaint was made to CBI and during verification, demand was scaled down to Rs.40,000/. To prove these allegations, CBI has examined PW1 Sh.Kailash Prasad Lal, the complainant.
31 PW1 Sh.Kailash Prasad Lal in his testimony has deposed that on 26.05.2012, Praveen Kumar came to him and told that a case has been registered against him by local Police of Police Station Mandawali under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, which was being investigated by accused Ramo Devi. Praveen Kumar also told PW1 that accused Ramo Devi was harassing him and demanding Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac) for weakening the case. PW1 was given phone number of accused Ramo Devi. On the same day i.e. 26.05.2012, PW1 tried to contact accused Ramo Devi on phone and accused Ramo Devi said that she would not discuss the matter on phone and asked PW1 to come to Police Station Mandawali. PW1 along with his friend Sh.Sita Ram went to Police Station Mandawali. Accused Ramo Devi met them outside the Police Station and took AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 20 of 42 them to a park towards Kalyan Puri. Accused Ramo Devi told that it was a rape case and in case, they would not pay Rs.1,00,000/ to her, she would make such a strong case that Praveen Kumar would not even get bail in the said case.
32 On 29.05.2012, PW1 again contacted accused Ramo Devi on her mobile from his mobile, however, accused refused to discuss the matter over phone. On 30.05.2012, he approached the CBI and met senior officials. On directions of CBI officials, PW1 contacted accused Ramo Devi on her mobile from his mobile. This conversation was recorded by the CBI and CD was prepared. In the recorded conversation, accused Ramo Devi had demanded Rs. 40,000/. PW1 replied that he had to make arrangement for the same and would meet her on 31.05.2012. PW1 had submitted a complaint Ex.PW1/A to the CBI on 30.05.2012. PW1 has proved verification memo Ex.PW1/B, which bears his signatures. Thereafter, FIR Ex.PW1/C was registered.
33 The conversation recorded between the complainant and accused Ramo Devi was recorded and sent to CFSL for examination. PW11 Sh. Rajender Singh, Director, has examined the CDs in the CFSL and gave his report Ex.PW11/A. In the said report, AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 21 of 42 it is mentioned that contents of the CDS might not have been tampered with and that voice in the CDs are probable voice of accused Ramo Devi as voice in the CDs tallied with specimen voice of accused Ramo Devi.
34 Transcription of the conversation recorded between the complainant and accused Ramo Devi has been proved as Ex.PW1/G in demand of bribe was made by the accused and complainant had stated that he could arrange only Rs.40,000/ and rest, he would give in the morning. PW1 had also sought time to meet accused Ramo Devi in the morning of 31.05.2012. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K.Basheer & Ors. (supra), the contents of the CD containing the voices recorded during telephonic verification can not be looked into. But PW1 has specifically stated these facts during his evidence and nothing has come on record to shake the said evidence even during crossexamination.
35 Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that Sh. Sita Ram, who had accompanied the complainant to Police Station where they met accused Ramo Devi, has not been examined and moreover Praveen or his family members have also not been AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 22 of 42 examined. No evidence has been brought on record as to how the demand was scaled down to Rs.40,000/ from Rs.1,00,000/. 36 Prosecution is the master of its own case. It is prerogative of the prosecution as to who is to be examined and Court can not direct the prosecution to examine a particular witness. Question of paramount consideration is whether evidence adduced is sufficient to prove allegations or not. In the present case, prosecution has examined the complainant (PW1), who has categorically stated that accused Ramo Devi had initially demanded Rs.1,00,000/. Nothing has come on record even in his crossexamination to shake his testimony. During verification, demand of Rs.40,000/ was confirmed. Therefore, the fact that how the bribe amount was reduced, stands properly explained. Therefore, initial demand of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac only) and its subsequent reduction to Rs.40,000/ stands proved on record.
Demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe 37 Now, coming to the facts of the present case, PW1 Sh. Kailash Prasad Lal, the complainant, had made a complaint Ex.PW1/A to the CBI alleging therein that accused Ramo Devi had demanded Rs.1,00,000/ as bribe for favouring Praveen Kumar in a AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 23 of 42 case under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Complaint was verified and thereafter FIR, Ex.PW3/A was registered and then, the investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Sunil Dutt (PW12). 38 PW1 Sh. Kailash Prasad Lal has deposed that initially accused Ramo Devi had demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ and during verification a demand of Rs.40,000/ was confirmed. He submitted a complaint Ex.PW1/A to the CBI. He further deposed that on 31.05.2002 at about 8.00 a.m., he reached CBI office with Rs. 40,000/, number of the currency notes were noted in Handing Over Memo Ex.PW1/D. He has specified that amount of Rs.37,000/ was in the form of Rs.500/ denomination and remaining amount of Rs. 3,000/ was in the form of currency notes of Rs.100/ denomination. Some powder was applied on the currency notes and demonstration was given in his presence to show how pink colour comes. Thereafter, powder treated notes were kept in his front shirt pocket with directions to hand over the same to accused Ramo Devi.
39 The trap team went to the spot near Aggarwal Sweets, Shakarpur, in two CBI vehicles. PW1 contacted accused Ramo Devi on her mobile and she stated that she was sending a constable namely Rahul to Aggarwal Sweets and PW1 should hand over the bribe AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 24 of 42 amount to him.
40 At Aggarwal Sweets, one independent witness Sh.Ram Shanakar (PW10) remained close to complainant (PW1). After sometime, one person came on motorcycle and introduced himself as Rahul, accused present in the Court and he has been correctly identified by PW1. On demand of accused Rahul, PW1 handed over tainted GC notes of Rs.40,000/ to him and gave pre decided signal. Accused Rahul accepted the currency notes and kept the same in his pocket. CBI officials reached at the spot and accused Rahul was apprehended. Hand washes of accused Rahul were taken, which turned pink. Accused Rahul on interrogation revealed that accused Ramo Devi was his mother and he had come to receive the bribe amount at her instance. Thereafter, the entire team went to Police Station Mandawali, where it was revealed that accused Ramo Devi was on training at Police Station Rajinder Nagar and accused Ramo Devi was arrested from there after obtaining necessary permission. Documents were prepared and recovery memo Ex.PW1/E was prepared. Complainant (PW1) has identified the GC notes as Ex.P1.
41 PW1 has further deposed that after arrest of accused AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 25 of 42 Ramo Devi from Rajender Nagar, they reached CBI office and CBI team also brought accused Rahul there. Accused Rahul was wearing Bermuda, pocket of which was washed in the solution which turned pink. Specimen voice of accused Ramo Devi was recorded. 42 In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that he had been told by his grandson Praveen that his bail application had been dismissed by Hon'ble High Court and Police was searching him. He has stated that he never met accused Ramo Devi inside the Police Station. Officials of the CBI did not demand any document to show his relation with Praveen. The officials of CBI did not discuss the case with Praveen ever in his presence. He has admitted that accused Ramo Devi was making efforts to recover the papers. No document was given by him or Praveen to accused Ramo Devi. He did not know as to how many times, he had talked to accused Ramo Devi on telephone on 30.05.2012. He himself had arranged Rs.40,000/. He did not demand said amount from Praveen or his mother. But he again clarified that he took a sum of Rs.30,000/ from father of Praveen on 30.05.2012. He has stated that in those days, Sh. Ravinder Kumar, father of Praveen was staying with them.
43 PW9 Sh.Raj Kumar, an independent witness, has AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 26 of 42 testified he had attended the CBI office on 30.05.2012 and in his presence, verification of the complaint of Kailash Prasad Lal was done in which demand of bribe by accused Ramo Devi was confirmed. He reached CBI office on 31.05.2002; complainant produced currency notes of Rs.40,000/, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder, demonstration was given regarding reaction of phenolphthalein powder with carbonate; tainted bribe notes were given to the complainant and DVR was also given to the complainant. The complainant made a call on mobile of accused Ramo Devi on speaker mode in which accused Ramo Devi had asked the complainant to come to Police Station Mandawali within one hour. He further deposed that they reached at Aggarwal Sweet Shop and he was at a distance of 200300 yards; son of accused Ramo Devi came there and he was caught during exchange of money and his hand washes were taken and colour of solution turned pink. Thereafter, they went to Police Station Mandawali, where accused Ramo Devi was not found. Search of house of accused Ramo Devi was taken. Accused Ramo Devi was also brought to CBI Office. He took out the money from the pocket of son of accused Ramo Devi. Handing Over Memo Ex.PW1/D was prepared in his presence and it bears his signatures at point C. AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 27 of 42 Recovery memo Ex.PW1/E was also prepared in his presence and same bears his signatures at point 'C'. Arrest cum personal search memo Ex.PW9/B of accused Rahul also bears signatures of PW9 at point A. 44 In his cross examination, PW9 has stated that Rs.40,000/ was not given in his presence, but when he entered the room, the said money was in the hand of CBI official. In his presence, CBI officials did not enquire about parents of Praveen. He has admitted that no writing was done before leaving the CBI office on 31.05.2002. In his presence, no talks took place at the spot between the complainant and other person. He was standing 200300 paces away from the complainant. He could not hear the conversation of the complainant with accused Rahul. He did not know as to how accused Rahul reached at the spot. He could not see any transaction between the complainant and accused Rahul. All documents were prepared in CBI office after the raid. He has denied that he was not member of the raiding party or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. 45 PW10 Sh. Ram Shankar, who had acted as a shadow witness, has stated that on 31.05.2002, he had reported in CBI office, complainant had produced Rs.40,000/, which were treated with AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 28 of 42 phenolphthalein powder; demonstration was given; DVR was provided to the complainant; conversation took place between the complainant and accused Ramo Devi regarding arrival at fixed place and accused Ramo Devi said that her son Rahul would reach at the spot; CBI team reached at the spot where accused Rahul came and demanded bribe; complainant handed over money to accused Rahul; accused Rahul was apprehended; hand washes of accused Rahul were taken which turned into red; currency notes were counted and were found to be same on which phenolphthalein powder was applied; thereafter accused Ramo Devi was reported to be attending training programme at Rajinder Nagar; she was brought to CBI Office; clothes of accused Rahul were brought from his house and his half pant was taken into possession and was washed in solution which turned into red. During entire proceedings, accused Ramo Devi and Rahul were kept in separate places. Handing over memo Ex.PW1/D, Recovery memo Ex.PW1/E, rough site plan Ex.PW9/A; Voice identification cum transcription memo Ex.PW1/F, transcription Ex.PW1/G; arrest cum personal search memo of accused Rahul Ex.PW9/B and arrest cum personal search memo of accused Ramo Devi Ex.PW10/A bear his signatures. He has identified GC notes as Ex.P1, bottles containing RHW as Ex.PX1, AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 29 of 42 LHW as Ex.PX2; RSBPW as Ex. PX3. CD Q2 containing introductory voice of this witness is Ex.P4 and cloth wrapper as Ex.P3. He has also identified that CD Q3 Ex.P6, its cover Ex.P7 and cloth cover Ex.P5 which bear signatures of this witness. CD S1 Ex.P7, its cloth wrapper Ex.P8 also bear signatures of this witness. 46 In his cross examination, he has denied that no proceedings were conducted in his presence or that his statement was not recorded. He has denied that no hand wash of accused Rahul was taken by the official of CBI at the spot. He has denied that he put his signatures on the documents at the instance of IO in CBI office. 47 PW3 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer of Mobile Company Idea Cellular has testified that vide certificate Ex.PW3/A under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, he had provided copy of call detail record Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C in respect of mobile No. 9911265616 and 9891292717. (These phones are in the name of accused Ramo Devi and son of the complainant, namely, Sh Arjun Kumar). He has further testified that various documents were seized by the CBI vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW3/D. PW3 has also proved certified copy of Cell ID Chart Ex.PW3/G. This witness has also proved customer application form of mobile No. 9911265616 AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 30 of 42 as Ex.PW3/H and of mobile No. 9891292717 as Ex.PW3/J. Vide letter Ex.PW3/K, he had provided information that as per record, Mobile No. 9990523535 is registered in the name of Rahul S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand.
48 PW4 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd has stated that he had produced letter Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B along with enclosures to the CBI in respect of mobile No. 9711062777. As per record, the said mobile was initially in the name of Abid Ali as per application dated 23.06.2011 and later on it is in the name of Sh Ramesh Prasad vide customer application form dated 15.01.2012 along with ID proof are proved as Ex.PW4/C. Call detail record in respect of said mobile number for the period 27.05.2012 to 31.05.2012 are proved as Ex.PW4/D. A certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been proved on record in respect of call details of mobile No. 9891292717, being used by the complainant and mobile No. 9911265616 of accused Ramo Devi.
49 Call details Ex.PW3/E in respect of mobile No. 9911265616, which was in the name of accused Ramo Devi and call details Ex.PW3/F in respect of mobile No. 9891292717, which was in AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 31 of 42 the name of Arjun Kumar, son of the complainant and was being used by the complainant, show that several calls were exchanged between these two mobile numbers. Again the explanation in statements of accused is that the CDRs have not been proved as per law, which is not supported by any cogent evidence. Call details show that on 28.05.2012 accused Ramo Devi called the complainant at about 06.27 p.m. and talked for about 2 minutes. The only explanation given in the statement of accused is that the Call Detail Records were not proved as per law, which is contrary to record as Certificate under Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, has been filed and proved on record in support of CDRs. Even the call detail Ex.PW3/E of mobile of accused Ramo Devi shows that she had called her son Rahul on his mobile No. 9990523535 on 31.05.2002 at about 10.20 a.m. and duration of the call is 11 seconds. Therefore, it is clear that both the accused persons were in touch on 31.05.2002 on mobile phone. It is established beyond doubt that the complainant and accused Ramo Devi were in touch on telephone and even accused Ramo Devi had called the complainant. 50 From the above evidence, following facts emerge: (1) The complainant and accused Ramo Devi were frequently in touch;
(2) Both the accused persons were also in touch just before the trap; AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 32 of 42 (3) Accused Rahul was sent by accused Ramo Devi to collect bribe amount and he accepted the bribe and same was recovered from him.
(4) Washes of accused Rahul proved on record gave positive result which shows that he had accepted the bribe amount; (5) Report of Washes also gave positive result.
(6) Defence evidence proved on record does not falsify the case of CBI.
51 It has been argued by ld Counsel for the accused that CDs proved on record are inadmissible in evidence as there is no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence in support thereof. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has placed reliance on Ashish Kumar Dubey vs. State through (supra); Anvar P.V. vs. P.K.Basheer and others (supra); Devinder Singh vs. CBI (supra); Ankur Chawla & Anr. vs. CBI (supra) & Anil Kumar Tito @ Anil Kumar Sharma @ Titto vs. State NCT of Delhi (supra). 52 It is true that there is no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in support of CDs proved on record, therefore, evidence in the form of CDs can not be read against the accused persons. But question arises if the evidence of CDs is excluded from consideration, is remaining evidence sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused? There is ocular evidence of the complainant(PW1), independent witnesses PW9 and PW10 and call details record proved AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 33 of 42 by PW3 and PW4, which clearly prove demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe against the accused persons. Even call details record is duly supported by certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
53 It is further argued by ld. Counsel for the accused that no talks regarding bribe had taken place at the spot, nor accused had made any demand at the spot.
54 In the present case, accused Ramo Devi had initially demanded bribe and in pursuance thereto, she had sent her son accused Rahul to the spot to collect the bribe amount; accused Rahul had demanded bribe amount by gestures and accepted the same and put in the pocket of Bermuda worn by him. Hand washes and wash of Bermuda gave positive result, which shows that accused Rahul had accepted the bribe for and on behalf of his mother accused Ramo Devi. Therefore, even no talk of the spot was recorded, it is not fatal to the case of CBI, as there is sufficient evidence on record to prove demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe against accused persons. 55 It has been further argued that no demand was made by accused at the spot, hence, mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 34 of 42 Act. To press this contention, reliance has been paced on B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P.(supra) ;V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P. (supra); Banarsi Dass vs. State of Haryana (supra); Prem Singh Yadav vs. CBI (supra); Anand Sarup vs. The State (supra) & State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma(supra).
56 As discussed above, accused Ramo Devi had initially demanded bribe and had sent her son accused Rahul to collect the same, who came and accepted the bribe and same was recovered from his possession. Moreover, it has come in evidence that accused Rahul had demanded bribe by gestures. Therefore, it can not be said that there was no demand of bribe by accused. Therefore, the authorities relied upon do not help the accused persons.
57 Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has further argued that complainant is to be regarded as an accomplice and his testimony alone can not form the basis of conviction, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. For this preposition of law, reliance has been placed on Pannalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).
AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 35 of 42 58 However, ratio of this judgment in not applicable to the present case as complainant has fully supported the case of prosecution. He has also been corroborated by independent witnesses (PW9 & PW10) and other evidence viz. call details records etc. 59 It has been further argued that there are material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses which have potential to shake the case of the CBI against accused. It is further argued that motorcycle of accused Rahul was not seized; there was no evidence as to how accused Rahul was identified and 104 currency notes can not be kept in front pocket. Reliance has been placed on Raj Kishore vs. State (supra).
60 Minor contradictions are bound to occur when witnesses depose after lapse of a considerable time. All the witnesses can not be expected to give parrot like version. Therefore, the minor discrepancies on trivial matters as pointed out above in no way corrodes the credibility of witnesses. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence, I find that residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 36 of 42 do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness.
61 As discussed above, CBI has been able to prove its case that both the accused Ramo Devi and Rahul entered into a criminal conspiracy to demand bribe and in pursuance thereto, accused Rahul went to the spot and collected bribe of Rs.40,000/ from the complainant(PW1). Accused Ramo Devi had obtained pecuniary advantage by using the illegal means and by abusing her official position by demanding the bribe and then accepting the bribe through her son Rahul. Accordingly both the accused are found guilty for offence under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Ramo Devi is also held guilty for substantive offences under Section Section 7 & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the accused persons are accordingly convicted.
Announced in the open Court ( TALWANT SINGH )
Dated: 07.10.2015 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Special Judge (CBI)
AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 37 of 42
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 38 of 42
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)/SPECIAL JUDGE(CBI) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI A.C. No.03/2012 RC No. 17/2012, CBI/ACB/Delhi.
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0482892012 Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. (1)Ramo Devi D/o Sh Kanwar Pal Singh (2)Rahul S/o Sh. Ramesh Both R/o H.No. A410, Gali No.2, Ganesh NagarII, Shakar Pur, Delhi110092. .
ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide judgment dated 07.10.2015, both the convicts, namely, Ramo Devi and Rahul have been held guilty and convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas convict Ramo Devi has also been convicted for offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 I have heard Sh.M.Saraswat, Ld. PP for the CBI and AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 39 of 42 Sh. Yogesh Verma, Ld. Counsel for convicts on the quantum of sentence.
3 The learned PP for the CBI has submitted that at the time of trap, convict Ramo Devi was posted as SubInspector in Delhi Police. Both the convicts have been held guilty for hatching a criminal conspiracy in demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant. He has further submitted that the convict Ramo Devi has have also been held guilty for demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant. It has duly been established that convict Rahul, who is son of convict Ramo Devi, was sent to collect money by convict Ramo Devi and that convict Rahul accepted the bribe money for and on behalf of convict Ramo Devi and bribe money was recovered from convict Rahul. He has further argued that convict Ramo Devi, being public servant, misused her official position by demanding and accepting bribe through her son convict Rahul to do a favour to the complainant. He has further submitted that the convicts may be awarded maximum punishment prescribed under the law. 4 The Ld. Counsel for both the convicts has submitted that convict Ramo Devi is 53 years old and she is a divorcee and is residing with her only son convict Rahul. It is further submitted that AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 40 of 42 convict Rahul is a young boy of 29 years; he is an MBA and is presently unemployed. There is no other member in the family of convicts. It is argued that a lenient view may be taken, while awarding sentence to the convicts.
5 I have heard submissions of the parties and given my thoughtful considerations thereto. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, convicts are sentenced as under :
(i)Convict Ramo Devi is awarded sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. Convict Ramo Devi is further awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo SI for three months. Convict Ramo Devi is also awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
(ii)Convict Rahul is awarded sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 41 of 42 Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
7 All the sentences of convict Ramo Devi shall run concurrently. The convicts shall be entitled for the benefit of the provision of Section 428 Cr.PC. Copies of judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convicts.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( TALWANT SINGH )
Dated: 28.11.2015 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Special Judge (CBI)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc. Page 42 of 42