Delhi District Court
State vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu on 10 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON:
ASJ-04 : SW DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 441025/2016
CNR No. DLSW01-000251-2012
State Vs. 1. Krishan Solanki @ Billu (since expired)
S/o Sh. Harswaroop Solanki
R/o Village Nasirpur,
New Delhi.
2. Vicky
S/o Sh. Ram Bhagat @ Billu
R/o Village Bhalot,
District Rohtak,
Haryana.
FIR No. : 155/2011
Police Station : Dwarka North
Under Sections : 342/364A/397/506/120B/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 04.08.2012
Date on which judgment was reserved: 10.04.2026
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 10.04.2026
Final Order : Accused Vicky is acquitted
for the offences under Section
342/364A/397/506/120B/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. On 15.07.2011, upon receipt of DD No. 16A, ASI Kailash FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 1 of 41 along with Ct. Dhan Singh and SI Rahul reached National Apartment, Flat No. C-133, Sector-03, Dwarka, where Ashok Kumar Yadav along with his driver Manoj Kumar met them. Thereafter, ASI Kailash took Ashok Kumar Yadav to Ayushman Hospital for medical examination, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 2149/11, however, the driver Manoj Kumar refused to undergo medical examination. Thereafter, ASI Kailash moved an application before the doctor for recording the statement of Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ashok Kumar Yadav made his written complaint.
2. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that on 15.07.2011 at about 7:30 AM, he had come to his office at WZ-2, Main Road, Palam Colony, New Delhi, where accused Billu @ Krishan Pahelwan along with one Vicky came, who was client and told him that he wanted in case FIR no.299/09, PS Narela in a MCOCA case and had to surrender and he along with his driver Manoj Kumar accompanied them in his car bearing registration no. DL-3SAX-4310 for Rohini Courts and when they reached near Keshopur Subzi Mandi, Krishan Solanki @ Billu told him that he wanted to take some papers and told the driver to take right and the driver took the car to right side and took him to a building on the fourth floor in Tagore School on the ground floor in a room having AC, a bed, a chair, a table and two telephones. After some time, both Krishan Solanki and Vicky took out a pistol and shown to the complainant and asked him to show hands and due to fear, complainant showed his hands and thereafter, his hands were tied and his clothes were also removed. Thereafter, the complainant was beaten with some iron rod/handle on his body as well as by fists and blows. Complainant further stated that 'NGO ke case ladte ho, FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 2 of 41 aur upar ka paisa aata hai', and due to which, out of fear, the complainant did all the things which were said to him and his voice was also recorded in the mobile. Complainant further stated that he asked from accused persons about their demand, to which they demanded Rs.15 lakhs and when complainant refused, one of the accused burnt his private part with candle and thereafter, the complainant folded his hands and accepted the demand of money and stated that he could give the money, after reaching at home.
Complainant further stated that one of the accused was talking to his wife and son on mobile phone and was instructing them to bring the money out of the home. Complainant further stated by any means, he took accused persons to Dwarka at his house and switched the button of lift and as soon as lift was opened, he entered the lift and reached at seventh floor and immediately called the police at 100 number. Complainant further stated that thereafter, Billu and Vicky took his driver at gupoint in his car bearing registration no. DL3CAX4310 and ran away from the spot. Complainant further stated that during the incident, his ATM card of UCO Bank, RC of car and Rs.10,600/- were taken by the accused persons. Complainant further stated that after some time, his driver Manoj came at his house and told that they all ran away with vehicle from Vishwas Park by threatening family members of complainant. On the basis of his complaint, the present case was registered. Thereafter, ASI Kailash got prepared the rukka and sent the same through Ct. Dhan Singh for registration of FIR.
3. After registration of FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to SI Nanag Ram. Ct. Dhan Singh handed over to the copy of FIR and original tehrir to SI Nanag Ram and thereafter, SI Nanag Ram FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 3 of 41 along with Ct. Dhan Singh reached the spot where ASI Kailash and PSI Rahul met SI Nanag Ram and handed over all the documents. Thereafter, SI Nanag Ram along with Ct. Dhan Singh went to Ayushman Hospital where the victim Ashok Yadav was found present, and he obtained the MLC of the complainant and thereafter returned to the police station. On 18.07.2011, SI Nanag Ram along with the complainant visited the house of the complainant and prepared the site plan at his instance. Thereafter, SI Nanag Ram along with the complainant reached the place of incident and prepared another site plan at his instance and from the spot recovered one rod and one handle. Thereafter, SI Nanag Ram prepared the sketches of the rod and handle and were were kept in a white cloth pulanda, sealed with the seal of NR, and seized. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of witnesses present in the office and returned to the police station, where the case property was deposited in the malkhana. On 22.07.2011, upon receiving a call regarding an abandoned car, SI Nanag Ram reached Solanki Market near Pillar No. 722, Uttam Nagar, where one car bearing No. DL3CAX-4310 was found and seized and the complainant Ashok Yadav accompanied them and correctly identified his car and from the said car, three rolls of tape and one bag containing clothes, i.e blue jeans, a black T-shirt, a pant, and a black half-sleeve shirt were recovered. The three rolls of tape were separately kept in a cloth pulanda, sealed with the seal of NR, and seized and the bag containing clothes was kept in a white cloth pulanda, sealed with the seal of NR, and seized. Thereafter, SI Nanag Ram prepared the site plan of the place from where the car was recovered and thereafter returned to the police station where the case property was deposited in the malkhana. Further, on 04.10.2011, upon receiving information regarding the arrest of accused FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 4 of 41 Krishan Solanki by the Crime Branch, SI Nanag Ram moved an application before the concerned court and after obtaining permission, arrested the accused and recorded the disclosure statement of accused Krishan Solanki and thereafter obtained one day police custody remand of the said accused. During police custody remand, SI Nanag Ram prepared the pointing out memos of the place where the accused persons had left the car and the place of incident and thereafter recorded the statements of witnesses. Further, on 22.12.2011, accused Vicky was formally arrested in front of Dwarka Court, Sector-10 and his personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter, SI Nanag Ram prepared the pointing out memos of the place where the accused persons had left the car and the place of incident. The accused Vicky was produced before the court for TIP proceedings; however, he refused to join the same. Thereafter, he collected the PCR form and call detail records of the complainant and prepared the charge sheet, which was filed before the court
4. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Krishan Solanki @ Billu and Vicky, in the Court. After complying with Section 207 Cr.PC, case was committed to the Sessions Court.
5. After hearing arguments, on 22.09.2012, charge was framed against accused persons namely Krishan Solanki @ Billu and Vicky, under Section 364A/397/120B and a separate charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 342/506/34 read with Section, to which they pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial. Accordingly, the case was fixed for FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 5 of 41 prosecution evidence.
6. PW-1 is Dr. Shailender Jain, Consultant Surgeon, Ayushman Hospital, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi. He had proved the MLC of complainant Sh. Ashok Yadav, who was examined by Dr. Puneet and deposed that on 15.07.2011, at about 4:30 p.m., patient Ashok Yadav was brought to the casualty by PCR official Ct. Santan and the patient was attended by Dr. Puneet, who was on duty at that time, vide MLC No. 2246, the same is Ex. PW1/A, which bore the signatures of Dr. Puneet at point A as well as his own signatures at point B. He further deposed that he identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Puneet who had examined the patient vide MLC Ex. PW1/A, as Dr. Puneet had worked under his guidance and he had seen him writing and signing during the course of work. He further deposed that Dr. Puneet Kumar had left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known to the hospital authority. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
7. PW-2 is SI Umed Singh, no. D-4663, PIS 16090048, FRRO, IGI Airport, New Delhi. He is the Duty Officer and deposed that on 15.07.2011, he was posted at PS Dwarka North and was performing his duty as Duty Officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 midnight. He further deposed that at about 07:05 PM, he received a rukka from Ct. Dhan Singh sent by ASI Kailash Chand. He further deposed that on the basis of the said rukka, he got the FIR registered through CIPA Computer Operator Ct. Vijay Kumar and after registration of the FIR, he handed over the computerized copy of the FIR and the original rukka to Ct. Dhan Singh with the direction FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 6 of 41 to hand over the same to SI Nanag Ram, to whom further investigation was assigned. The computerized copy of the FIR was Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that he also made the endorsement on the rukka, the same is Ex. PW2/B. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
8. PW-3 is Ct. Anil Kumar, no.1144 SW, Mobile Crime Team (SW), PS Dwarka South, Sector-9, New Delhi. He is the Fingerprint Expert and deposed that on 22.07.2011 upon receipt of information regarding the presence of a stolen vehicle as conveyed by I/C Crime Team SI Arun Kumar, he along with SI Arun Kumar, Government Photographer Ct. Praveen and Driver ASI Bharat Singh reached the spot, i.e a vacant plot opposite Shop No. 1, Solanki Market, Uttam Nagar, where an Indigo car bearing registration No. DL-3CAX-4310 was found parked. He further deposed that at the spot, SI Nanag Ram and the complainant Ashok Yadav were also present. He further deposed that during inspection of the said vehicle, a black-khaki coloured bag was found lying inside the vehicle, which contained some clothes and three plastic surgical tape rolls. He further deposed that the said bag along with the clothes and the aforesaid three plastic surgical tape rolls were separately taken into possession by SI Nanag Ram in their presence. He further deposed that during inspection of the said vehicle, he had lifted two chance prints from the middle mirror glass of the said vehicle by using grey powder. He further deposed that he prepared his separate fingerprint expert report in this regard, the same is Ex. PW-3/A. He further deposed that photographs of the said vehicle were taken by the Government Photographer at the spot. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. counsel for accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu, however, FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 7 of 41 this witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused Vicky.
9. It is a matter of record that during the proceedings, accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu, stopped appearing before the Court and vide order dated 19.04.2016, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued against him. Further, vide order dated 06.06.2016, report on the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C against the above said accused received back wherein it appeared that accused had absconded and accordingly, process under Section 83 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued against the said accused and accordingly, accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu was declared proclaimed offender and matter was again fixed for prosecution evidence.
10. PW-4 is Sh. Ashok Yadav, S/o Late Sh. Dilip Singh, R/o B-31, Visrantik Apartment, Plot no.5A, Sector-3, Dwarka, Delhi. As per the prosecution story, he is the complainant in the present case and his testimony would be discussed at an appropriate stage.
11. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 28.03.2018, HC Rajendra Prashad moved an application intimating the Court that accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu was in JC in some other case and accordingly, production warrants were ordered to be issued against him.
12. It is matter of record that on 27.09.2018, PW-4 appeared in the witness box (after the appearance of accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu) and deposed that he had earlier given statements on 06.02.2018 and 16.03.2018, and he adopted the same. This witness also identified accused Krishan FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 8 of 41 Pehlwan @ Krishan Solanki @ Billu who was produced from JC. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
13. PW-5 is Sh. Manoj, S/o Shri Pyarelal, R/o H.No WZ-79, Nasirpur Road, Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi. As per the prosecution story, he is the eye-witness / driver of the complainant i.e PW-4 Sh. Ashok Yadav, and his testimony would also be discussed at an appropriate stage. It is also a matter of record that PW-5 was inadvertently mentioned as PW-9 on 30.11.2022 (which was later on rectified vide order dated 24.08.2023).
14. PW-6 is Mr. Bimal Kumar Malik, S/o Sh. G.R. Malik, R/o CC 39, LIG Flats, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi. As per the prosecution story, he is the public witness / witness of crime and his testimony would also be discussed at an appropriate stage.
15. PW-7 is Sh. Tej Singh Yadav, S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander Yadav, R/o H.no. RZ 85-86, Kailash Puri Extension, New Delhi. As per the prosecution story, he is also the public witness / witness of recovery and his testimony would also be discussed at an appropriate stage.
16. PW-8 is Sh. Amarnath, S/o Sh. Jalandhar Nath, R/o B-21, Mayapuri, Jhuggi, Rewari Line, New Delhi. As per the prosecution story, he is also the public witness / witness after occurrence and his testimony would also be discussed at an appropriate stage.
17. During the proceedings of the case, vide order dated FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 9 of 41 06.09.2022, accused Vicky informed that accused Krishan Solanki had expired and accordingly, death verification report of accused Krishan Solanki was called. It is matter of record that vide order dated 08.09.2022, death verification report of accused Krishan Solanki was filed and proceedings against accused Krishan Solanki were abated.
18. PW-9 is Sh. Manoj, S/o Sh. Pyare Lal, R/o C-135, Malviya Nagar, Near Fortis Hospital, Jaipur (inadvertently mentioned as PW-9, however, he was examined as PW-5). As per the prosecution story, he is the eye-witness / driver of the complainant i.e PW-4 Sh. Ashok Yadav, and earlier mentioned that his testimony would also be discussed at an appropriate stage. (An opportunity was given to the accused, however, the Ld. defence counsel has not cross-examined this witness).
19. It is a matter of record that on 28.02.2023, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was moved on behalf of accused Vicky.
20. PW-10 is Sh. Amit Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication Ltd. Office at Reliance Center, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh Marg, Delhi. He is the Nodal Officer and had brought the certificate under Section 65B. This witness has proved the certified CDR of phone number 9350505262 for the period from 10.07.2011 to 20.07.2011 (running into 67 pages) as Ex. PW-10/1 (colly) as well as the Customer Application Form (CAF) of Ashok Kumar Yadav having the billing address as WZ-2, 1 st Floor, Main Road, near SBI, Palam Colony, Sadh Nagar, New Delhi-110045 as Ex. PW-10/2. He deposed that the original CAF of the said phone number FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 10 of 41 was not available with their office as per the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) guidelines, since telecom companies preserve the original CAF only for three years from the termination of the service, and the undertaking in this regard was exhibited as Ex. PW-10/3. The CAF along with a photocopy of the identity card of Dwarka Court Bar Association of Ashok Kumar was exhibited as Ex. PW-10/4. The address proof given by the customer Ashok Kumar at the time of obtaining the said connection, being a bill of MTNL, was exhibited as Ex. PW-10/5. The tariff enrollment form of the said connection, attached with the CAF, was exhibited as Ex. PW-10/6. The reply to notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for providing CDRs, given by Reliance Communication on 28.12.2011, was exhibited as Ex. PW-10/7, bearing the signatures of the then Nodal Officer Sh. Rajiv Sharda at point A, whose signatures he could identify as he had seen him signing in the course of his duties. The Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which had been given to the Investigating Officer SI Nanak Ram on 23.12.2011, was exhibited as Ex. PW-10/8, bearing the signatures of the then Nodal Officer Sh. Rajiv Sharda, which he could identify. The CDR of phone number 9350505268 was exhibited as Ex. PW-10/9 (colly), bearing the stamp of Reliance Communication at point A.This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
21. PW-11 is Ms. Sarvesh Yadav, W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Yadav, R/o H.no. B-31, Visthrirantika Apartment, Sector-3, Dwarka, NSIT Dwarka, New Delhi. As per the prosecution story, she is the wife of the complainant and her testimony would also be discussed at an appropriate stage.
FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 11 of 4122. PW-12 is Sh. Shabir, S/o Sh. Tahib, R/o Shop no.2, Okhla Subzi Mandi. As per the prosecution story, he is the witness of arrest and recovery of one pistol from accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu whose testimony would also be discussed at an appropriate stage.
23. It is a matter of record that on 24.08.2023, statement of accused Vicky was recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C wherein the accused has admitted the genuineness of one documents i.e TIP proceedings conducted by Sushil Anuj Tyagi, Ld. MM as Ex. A-1. In view of the same, the witness mentioned at serial no.12 was dropped from the list of witnesses.
24. It is also a matter of record that on 24.08.2023, the application 311 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of accused Vicky was allowed for recalling PW-5 Sh. Manoj subject to the availability of the witness.
25. PW-13 is Sh. V. R. Anand, Assistant Director, Ballistics, FSL, Rohini, New Delhi. He has prepared the FSL report and deposed that on 10.10.2011, one sealed parcel bearing the seal of RKV in case FIR No. 256/11, PS Crime Branch, was received in the office of FSL and the said parcel was marked to him for examination. He further deposed that the seals on the parcel were found intact and as per the specimen seal. He further deposed that upon opening the parcel, one improvised pistol of 7.65 mm caliber and five cartridges of 7.65 mm were taken out and the same were marked as F1 and A1 to A5 respectively. He further deposed that he examined the said exhibits and found the improvised pistol to be in working FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 12 of 41 condition and that test firing was conducted successfully. He further deposed that the cartridges marked A1 to A5 were live cartridges and that cartridge A1 was test fired through the improvised pistol marked as Ex. F1. He further deposed that the exhibits F1/A1 to A5 were firearm/ammunition within the meaning of the Arms Act, 1959. He further deposed that after examination, the remaining exhibits, including four live cartridges, one test fired cartridge, and the pistol, were sealed with the seal of VRAFSL Delhi. He further deposed that he had prepared his detailed report as PW-13/1, which bore his signatures at point A and stamp at point B. He was not cross- examined by accused Vicky.
26. It is a matter of record that on 02.02.2024, PW-5 (also mentioned as PW-9 on 30.11.2022) Sh. Manoj, S/o Sh. Pyare Lal, was cross-examined by accused Vicky after allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. As stated above, as per the prosecution story, he is the eye-witness / driver of the complainant i.e PW-4 Sh. Ashok Yadav, and his testimony would be discussed at an appropriate stage.
27. PW-14 is Ms. Sanchita Sharma, Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Branch at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. She brought the summoned i.e statement of account no.18580100006604 and the said account is in the name of Ashok Yadav, R/o RZG-162, Raj Nagar, Part-II, New Delhi. The statement of account no. 18580100006604 is Ex. PW-14/A bearing signature of Ashwani Kumar, Assistant Manager at point X. She further deposed that she could identify his handwriting and signature as he had worked with her. She further deposed that the above said statement is FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 13 of 41 from 31.08.2007 to 04.06.2024 and the above said account was manually handled till 2007. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
28. It is also a matter of record that on 09.10.2024, application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C for cross-examining the PW-4 Sh. Ashok Yadav was allowed subject to availability of the witness subject to cost and accordingly, on 21.08.2025, PW-4 was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Vicky.
29. PW-15 is Retd. ASI Kailash, S/o Sh. Sat Narayan, R/o Village Dantal, PS Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh, Haryana. He is the first Investigating Officer and deposed that on 15.07.2011, he was posted at PS Dwarka North and on that day, he was on emergency duty with Ct. Dhan Singh and SI Rahul and his duty hours were from 08:00 a.m to 08:00 p.m and on receiving of DD No.16A, he along with Ct. Dhan Singh and SI Rahul reached at National Apartment, Flat no. C-133, Sector-03, Dwarka, where Ashok Kumar Yadav along with his driver Manoj Kumar met him and he took Ashok Kumar Yadav to Ayushman Hospital for medical examination, where he was medically examined vide MLC no. 2149/11, however, the driver Manoj Kumar refused for his medical examination. He further deposed that thereafter, he moved an application before doctor for recording the statement of Ashok Kumar Yadav. He further deposed that thereafter, Ashok Kumar Yadav made his written complaint as Ex. PW-4/A and thereafter, he got prepared rukka as Ex. PW-15/A and sent the same which was handed over to Ct. Dhan Singh for registration of FIR and after FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 14 of 41 the registration of FIR, Ct. Dhan Singh along with SI Nanak Ram reached at the spot as further investigation was marked to SI Nanak Ram. He further deposed that he handed over all the documents to SI Nanak Ram. He further deposed that IO/SI Nanak Ram recorded his statement. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
30. PW-16 is Inspector Nanag Ram, No. D-4183, PS Mauric Nagar, New Delhi. He is the second Investigating Officer and deposed that on 15.07.2011, he was posted at PS Dwarka North as a Sub-Inspector and on that day, after registration of FIR, investigation of the present case was marked to him and Ct. Dhan Singh handed over to him copy of FIR and original tehrir and thereafter, he along with Ct. Dhan Singh reached at the spot, where, IO ASI Kailash and PSI Rahul met him and handed over all the documents to him. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Dhan Singh went to Ayushman Hospital, where, victim Ashok Yadav was found present and he obtained the MLC of complainant Ashok and thereafter, they returned to the PS. He further deposed that on 18.07.2011, he along with the complainant visited the house of complainant and thereafter, he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant, same is Ex. PW-16/A. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with the complainant reached at the place of incident, where he prepared another site plan at the instance of complainant as Ex. PW-16/B and from the spot, he recovered one rod and one handle. He further deposed that he prepared the sketch of the rod and handle as Ex. PW-16/C1 and Ex. PW-16/C2. He further deposed that thereafter, both rod and handle were kept in a white cloth pulanda, and same were sealed with the seal of NR and seized vide FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 15 of 41 seizure memo already Ex. PW-4/B. He further deposed that thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses present in the office and thereafter, they returned to the PS and case property were deposited in Malkhana PS. He further deposed that on 22.07.2011, a call regarding abandoned car was received and thereafter, he reached Solanki Market near Pillar No.722, Uttam Nagar, where one car bearing No. DL3CAX-4310 was found, which was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-4/C and at that time, the complainant Ashok Yadav accompanied them, who correctly identified his car. He further deposed that from the said car, three rolls of tape and one bag containing clothes i.e blue jeans, a black T-shirt, a pant, and a black half-sleeve shirt were recovered. He further deposed that the three rolls of tape were separately kept in a cloth pulanda, sealed with the seal of NR, and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D and the bag containing clothes was kept in a white cloth pulanda and same was sealed with the seal of NR and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/E. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared the site plan of the place from where the car was recovered as Ex.PW-16/D and thereafter, they returned to the police station, where the case property was deposited in the malkhana. He further deposed that on 04.10.2011, he received an information regarding the arrest of accused Krishan Solanki by the Crime Branch, and thereafter, he moved an application before the concerned court and after obtaining permission, accused Krishan Solanki was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-16/E. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Krishan Solanki as Ex. PW-16/E1 and thereafter, he obtained one day police custody remand of the said accused. He further deposed that during police custody remand, he prepared the pointing out memos of the place FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 16 of 41 where the accused persons had left the car and the place of incident, which are Ex. PW-16/F1 and Ex. PW-16/F2 and thereafter, he recorded the statements of witnesses.
31. He further deposed that on 22.12.2011, accused Vicky was formally arrested in front of Dwarka Court, Sector-10, vide arrest memo Ex. PW-16/G1 and the accused present in court was correctly identified by him. He further deposed that the personal search of accused Vicky was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-16/G2 and he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Vicky as Ex. PW-16/G3 and thereafter, he prepared the pointing out memos of the place where the accused persons had left the car and the place of incident as Ex. PW-16/H1 and Ex. PW-16/H2. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Vicky was produced before the court for TIP proceedings, however, he refused to join the same, which is Ex. PW-16/I. He further deposed that thereafter, he collected the PCR form and call detail records (CDR) of the complainant and prepared the charge sheet, which was filed before the court. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
32. It is a matter of record that on 27.02.2026, an additional statement of accused Vicky was recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C wherein the accused has admitted the genuineness of certain documents i.e Sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act as Ex. A-2, crime scene report dated 22.07.2011 as Ex. A-3, bank statement of complainant of 18.12.2011 as Ex. A-4, copy of FIR no.256/11 as Ex. A-5, disclosure statement of accused Krishan Solanki in FIR no.256/11 as Ex. A-6, copy of rojnamcha as Ex. A-7 FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 17 of 41 (colly), photographs of spot as Ex. A-8 (colly), finger print report dated 14.10.2011 as Ex. A-9, PCR form as Ex. A-10 (colly) and report dated 29.02.2012 of chance print as Ex. A-11. In view of the same, four witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses.
33. Subsequently, at the request of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 27.02.2026, and matter was posted for recording statement of accused. Vide order dated 10.04.2026, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he denied his involvement and submitted that he did not want to lead defence evidence and final arguments were heard.
34. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. defence counsel and perused the record. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by the accused.
35. To prove the accusation against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that on 15.07.2011, at unknown time, accused Vicky along with co-accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu (since deceased and proceedings against him already stands abated), had agreed to commit illegal acts of abduction of Ashok Yadav, Advocate, from his office situated at WZ-2, Main Road, Palam Colony, New Delhi and to criminally intimidate him with the object of demanding ransom of Rs.15 lakhs by causing hurt or by attempting to cause hurt and further to commit robbery of his personal valuables by using deadly weapons. The prosecution has to further prove that in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, both the accused had FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 18 of 41 abducted Ashok Yadav, Advocate, on 15.07.2011 at about 8:45 a.m. from his aforesaid office in his car bearing No. DL3CAX-4310, and had thereafter taken him to the office of Sh. Tej Singh situated on the third floor of property bearing No. 407, Chand Nagar, New Delhi, where they demanded a ransom of Rs.15 lakhs from him and caused hurt to him by using a handle and a rod, and also committed robbery of Rs.10,000/-, an ATM card, and the registration certificate (R/C) belonging to him by using deadly weapons.
36. At this stage, it would be relevant to go through the testimony of PW4, Sh. Ashok Yadav, the complainant in the present matter, who deposed that in the year 2011, he was residing at C-87 as well as C-133, National Apartment, Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi, and that he had been practicing as an advocate since March 2003. He further deposed that on 15.07.2011 at about 7:30 AM, he had come to his office at WZ-2, First Floor, Main Road, Palam, where accused Billu @ Krishan Pahelwan and Vicky came to meet him. He further deposed that accused Billu @ Krishan Pahelwan was wanted in an MCOCA case and was to surrender before the Court of Sh. Ravinder Singh, Ld. ASJ, Rohini Courts, and he along with his driver Manoj Kumar accompanied them in his car bearing registration no. DL-3CAX-4310. He further deposed that after reaching near Keshopur Subzi Mandi, accused Krishan Pahelwan told him that since he was surrendering and would be in jail, he wanted to hand over some files to him and directed his driver to take the vehicle to Chand Nagar near Keshopur Subzi Mandi. He further deposed that after reaching Chand Nagar, the accused took him to a building on the third floor, where there was a school FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 19 of 41 in the name and style of Tagore School on the ground floor. He further deposed that they reached the third floor and he was taken into a room which appeared to be an office having two telephones, a chair, a table and other furniture articles. He further deposed that after a few minutes, both the accused left the office and returned shortly thereafter, each carrying a pistol. He further deposed that accused Billu threatened him by showing the pistol and hit him on his shoulder with a door handle used for opening a shutter. He further deposed that accused Billu threatened him to keep quiet and to "amend" himself, and when he asked what kind of amendment was required, the accused told him that he should serve them by paying money. He further deposed that accused Billu @ Krishan Pahelwan and Vicky forced him to remove his clothes at gunpoint and after removing his trousers, underwear and coat, accused Vicky tied his hands with tape and also put tape on his mouth. He further deposed that both the accused started beating him with a door handle and an iron rod, causing him to fall on the floor, and they continued to assault him. He further deposed that during this time, both accused compelled him to speak on his mobile phone with his wife and son. He further deposed that when he questioned why he was being beaten, accused Billu stated that he wanted Rs.15 lakhs from him and intended to flee, alleging that he was earning extra income by contesting cases of an NGO namely "Jeewan Sewa Ek Prayas." He further deposed that accused Billu forced him to speak on the mobile phone and recorded his voice confessing that he was taking extra money in cases, under threat of a gun. He further deposed that upon his request, the accused took him to his house at C-133, National Apartment, Sector-3, Dwarka. He further deposed that before leaving the place, accused Vicky burnt him on his FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 20 of 41 buttocks and testicles with a candle. He further deposed that accused Billu took his purse containing about Rs.10,500/-, again said Rs.10,600/-, the RC of his car and one ATM card of UCO Bank. He further deposed that accused Krishan Pehlwan directed accused Vicky to withdraw money from the ATM, but as he was not able to disclose the correct PIN, Vicky returned and they again beat him. He further deposed that they called his driver Manoj upstairs, beat him and accused Billu and Vicky tied his hands as well. He further deposed that upon his continuous requests and assurance that he would arrange ransom in the form of cash and jewelry from his house. He further deposed that both accused made him call his wife and informed her that there was an income tax raid and that she should bring all jewelry and cash downstairs. He further deposed that thereafter, both accused allowed him to wear his clothes and took him to his house in his car along with his driver, making him sit in the middle of the rear seat at gunpoint, while the car was driven by Manoj. He further deposed that upon reaching the National Apartment, accused Billu and Vicky including him got down and stood near the lift, and pressed the button of the lift, the lift opened and when he entered the lift, he immediately dialled 100. He further deposed that during this time, both accused Krishan Pehalwan and Vicky fled away in his car, taking his driver at gunpoint. He further deposed that the police arrived in time and he was taken to Shubham Hospital, where he was treated and his MLC was prepared. He further deposed that later that day, his driver Manoj returned and informed him that he had been thrown out of the car after being beaten by the accused persons and that the accused persons fled away with the car. He further deposed that he gave his written complaint to the police in the hospital as Ex. PW-4/A. He further deposed FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 21 of 41 that he joined the investigation 2-3 days after the incident and was taken by the police to the place of occurrence, where a handle and an iron rod were recovered, sealed and seized in his presence vide memo Ex. PW-4/B. He further deposed that the police recorded the statement of one Tej Ram Yadav, who claimed to be the owner of the property, and also prepared the site plan at his instance, as well as the site plan of the place near the lift of his house. He further deposed that his car was recovered after about one week from Solanki Market, Uttam Nagar, and he was informed by the IO and called to the spot, where the Crime Team took photographs and lifted fingerprints. He further deposed that a bag containing pant-shirt and pieces of tape were also recovered from the car and seizure memos were prepared i.e Ex. PW-4/C (car) and Ex. PW-4/D (tape pieces) and Ex. PW-4/E (bag and clothes). He further deposed that about 10 days after the occurrence, the IO called him outside Dwarka Courts, where accused Vicky was present outside Gate No. 3 and he identified him at the instance of IO SI Nanag Ram, and Manoj and another person also identified him in his presence. This witness correctly identified the accused Vicky in the Court.
37. Ld. Addl. PP for the State sought permission to put some leading questions from the witness, which was allowed wherein he deposed that accused Billu @ Krishan Pahelwan had engaged him as an advocate in his MCOCA case and that the IO recorded statements of 3-4 persons in his presence. Further examination of the witness was deferred and the witness was directed to bring the car of superdari.
38. On 16.03.2018, this witness was further examined-in-chief FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 22 of 41 with respect to the vehicle i.e car bearing no. DL3CAX4310 and his cross- examination was deferred at the request of Ld. defence counsel.
39. It is matter of record that on 27.09.2018, PW-4 appeared in the witness box (after the appearance of accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu) and deposed that he had earlier given statements on 06.02.2018 and 16.03.2018, and he adopted the same. This witness also identified accused Krishan Pehlwan @ Krishan Solanki @ Billu, who was produced from JC.
40. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu at length. Ld. counsel for accused Vicky had adopted the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. counsel for accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu.
41. As discussed above, vide order dated 09.10.2024, the application moved by accused Vicky under Section 311 Cr.P.C for cross- examining the witness PW-4 Ashok Yadav was allowed and accordingly, on 21.08.2025 PW-4 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Vicky.
42. Now, I would discuss the testimony of PW-5 Sh. Manoj, who is one of the public witness and he was with the complainant. He deposed that at the time of the incident, he was working as the driver of complainant Sh. Ashok Kumar and was driving his Indigo car bearing registration No. DL- 3C-4310. He further deposed that the date of the incident was 15.07.2011 and that at about 7:30 AM, he reached the office of Sh. Ashok at Palam and from the office, he along with complainant Sh. Ashok and accused Billu and FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 23 of 41 Vicky proceeded towards Rohini Court, as instructed by Sh. Ashok to drive the car for the said purpose. This witness correctly identified accused Billu and Vicky in the court. He further deposed that upon reaching Keshav Pur, accused Billu told him that he had to obtain some files and started dictating the route, and he drove the car as per his direction. He further deposed that they reached Tagore School at Chand Nagar and stopped the vehicle as ordered. He further deposed that accused Billu, Vicky, and Sh. Ashok went into the building while he waited near the car. He further deposed that after about one and a half hours, accused Vicky came out and instructed him to drive to an ATM booth. He further deposed that Vicky alighted at the ATM and later instructed him to return to Tagore School at Chand Nagar, where he accompanied Vicky to the fourth floor of the building (ground floor plus three floors), and there he found the hands and legs of Sh. Ashok were tied and was being beaten. He further deposed that thereafter, his hands were also tied by the accused persons and he was instructed to pour hot candle ash on Sh. Ashok, which he had to do. He further deposed that the accused also beaten Sh. Ashok with a shutter-opening handle and that he observed a pistol lying on the table. He further deposed that he was also beaten, but Sh. Ashok intervened and told the accused not to beat him as he had nothing to do with them. He further deposed that the accused took note of his address. He further deposed that after some discussion between Sh. Ashok and the accused persons, Sh. Ashok asked to accompany the accused persons to his house at Dwarka. He further deposed that Sh. Ashok was provided with clothes to wear, and they came down. He further deposed that Sh. Ashok had vomited in the room itself. He further deposed that all four of them returned to Sector-3, Dwarka at National Apartment in the same car, driven FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 24 of 41 by him. He further deposed that upon arrival, the wife of Sh. Ashok was present at the ground floor and that he remained seated in the car while the accused persons conversed with Sh. Ashok and his wife. He further deposed that the lift arrived, and Sh. Ashok hurriedly entered and closed the lift door while his wife remained outside. He further deposed that the accused then showed him a pistol and instructed him to drive the vehicle. He further deposed that he drove the vehicle along with the accused persons until they reached Madhu Vihar, Rajapuri, where he was told to alight and run away as they told that 'vakil to bach gaya, tu bhi bhaag ja' and accused Billu then drove away the car with accused Vicky. He further deposed that he then returned to Sh. Ashok's house, and Sh. Ashok was taken to Ayushman Hospital. He further deposed that police met him and recorded his statement. He further deposed that he received threatening calls from the accused persons, which forced him to sell his house at Palam and relocate to Jaipur, where he had to re-admit his children in school.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement wherein he deposed that he could not comment on whether accused Vicky had a pistol when he entered the room with the accused, as his hands were tied and he was being beaten along with Sh. Ashok, and therefore he could not observe clearly. He admitted as correct that when he was apprehended by the accused persons, accused Krishan @ Billu had told accused Vicky that the driver should also be killed so that the eyewitness be also finished / eliminated. He admitted as correct that during the beatings, the accused persons were playing FM radio at very high volume to prevent the voices of Sh. Ashok and himself from being heard. He further deposed that he had not heard any demand for FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 25 of 41 money being made to Sh. Ashok by the accused persons. He admitted as correct that he saw accused Billu injuring Sh. Ashok with a candle flame. He admitted as correct that in his presence, accused Billu had given Sh. Ashok a pre-written document, forced him to speak what was written therein, and recorded the same on his mobile. He admitted as correct that Sh. Ashok later agreed to pay Rs.15 lakhs and that the accused facilitated a call to Sh. Ashok's house. He also admitted as correct that on the way from Tagore School to National Apartment, Sh. Ashok was made to call his wife to bring money and meet him outside the house. He also admitted as correct that when he was forced to drive the vehicle in Rajapuri after Sh. Ashok had escaped, a motorcycle parked in the way was instructed to be removed by him at the direction of accused Billu. He also admitted as correct that thereafter, he alighted from the car, and Billu came to the driving seat and told him to run away from there. He also admitted as correct that he could not recount a few facts earlier due to the considerable lapse of time since the incident, but he had now recollected them.
The cross-examination of this witness was deferred at the request of accused Krishan Solanki and thereafter, for various dates PW-5 did not appear for his cross-examination. In the meanwhile, accused Krishal Solanki expired and this witness was not cross-examined by accused Krishan Solanki.
43. It is a matter of record that on 30.11.2022, witness Manoj appeared and it was observed by the Court that despite the knowledge of the Ld. counsel for the accused Vicky, the counsel for the accused had left the Court without seeking permission and accordingly, the cross-
FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 26 of 41examination of PW-5 Manoj (inadvertently mentioned as PW-9 on 30.11.2022) was closed.
44. As discussed above, vide order dated 24.08.2023, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the accused for re- examination of PW-5 Manoj (inadvertently mentioned as PW-9) was allowed vide detailed order and he was ordered to be summoned. Accordingly, on 02.02.2024, PW-5 Sh. Manoj (also mentioned as PW-9 on 30.11.2022) has appeared and was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused Vicky.
45. Another witness whose testimony is beneficial for the prosecution is PW-6 Sh. Bimal Kumar Malik, an another public witness. He deposed that he did not know anything about the present case. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state as he was not supporting his purported statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein he deposed that he had not made any statement to the police with respect to the present FIR on 18.07.2011 or on any other date. This witness was shown a purported statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Mark 'A', and read over to him, he stated that he had not made any such statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that prior to the year 2011, he had worked in Telco Water Technologies Ltd. for three years along with one Tej Singh and stated that he did not know any person by the name of Tej Singh. He also denied the suggestion that on 15.07.2011 at about 9:40 AM, when he had gone to the office, the receptionist namely Ms. Yogita had informed him that some persons had gone to the top floor. He also denied the suggestion that he had FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 27 of 41 gone to the top floor and came to know that one Billu, whom he allegedly knew earlier as he used to visit the Janakpuri office, had come along with two other accused persons and that one person was present in a vehicle on the road, and that after noticing them, he had returned to his office. He also denied the suggestion that he had informed Tej Singh when the latter had called him. He also denied the suggestion that Tej Singh had come to the office, taken some documents from the second floor, and thereafter gone to Rohtak Court. He also denied the suggestion that Billu had switched on the FM radio at a loud volume and that he had noticed that they had left at about 2:15 PM. He also denied the suggestion that in the evening, they had left the office for home. He also denied the suggestion that on 18.07.2011, the police had come along with Ashok, checked the godown, and taken a handle and rod from there. He also denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of Tej Singh and had made inquiries from other staff members.
46. This witness was shown a purported statement dated 23.12.2011 under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Mark 'B', and read over to him, he stated that he had not made any such statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that he had come to Dwarka Court on 23.12.2011 to pursue his personal case and had noticed Advocate Ashok Kumar along with the Investigating Officer and had stated to the police that on 15.07.2011, he had identified the other persons accompanying Billu. Accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu and accused Vicky were pointed out to him in Court by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, however, he stated that he did not know those persons and had never met or seen them before. He also denied the FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 28 of 41 suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as he had been won over or pressurized by them. He also denied the suggestion that that he had been won over by the accused persons or that he was intentionally not disclosing the true facts of the case. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
47. PW-7 is Sh. Tej Yadav, who is also one of the public witness and deposed that earlier he had been running a manufacturing unit of RO from the year 2004 to 2012/13 at C-Block, Janak Puri. He further deposed that he knew accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu since childhood and the accused present in Court was correctly identified by him, further stating that the accused was a resident of Village Nasirpur. He further deposed that they were on visiting terms and used to borrow and lend money from each other. He further deposed that on 15.07.2011, he had gone to Rohtak to attend a court hearing and that after about 4-5 days, he received a call from SI Nanak Ram who called him to PS Dwarka North and informed him about an incident of beatings to one Ashok, however, he stated that he did not know anything more about the present case.
48. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the witness was resiling from his previous statement and suppressing material facts. He deposed that he was not aware of any criminal cases against accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu. He denied the suggestion that accused Krishan Solanki had extended any threat to him to set his office on fire. He also denied the suggestion that after a few months, he had been called to the house of accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu and FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 29 of 41 was given beatings there. He also denied the suggestion that the accused had threatened to set his office on fire or to kill him. He admitted as correct that accused Krishan Solanki had asked him for construction of a building for his grandfather, however, he had refused due to lack of time. He denied the suggestion that during the course of investigation of the present case, Ashok Yadav had handed over a rod to SI Nanak Ram which was sealed and seized in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that since the accused Krishan Solanki was known to him since childhood, he was not deposing against him. He also denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused Krishan Solanki and for that reason he was deposing falsely in order to save him. He further deposed that his statement had not been recorded by the police. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu wherein he admitted as correct that he had never met Ashok Yadav and accused Vicky, however, he was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Vicky.
49. Now, I will discuss the testimony of PW-8 Sh. Amarnath, who is also one of the public witnesses and he deposed that he did not know anything about the present case. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement wherein he admitted as correct that in the year 2011, he had worked in Telco Water Pvt. Ltd. as a sweeper. He further deposed that he did not remember whether he had cleaned the office of Tej Singh on 16.07.2011. He further deposed that he did not even remember when he had swept the office of Tej Singh. He further deposed that he had found some cigarettes, broken pieces of candles and a lot of dirt in the office. He further deposed FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 30 of 41 that he did not remember whether the rod and handle of the said office were kept in the godown in front of the said office. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not disclosing the aforesaid facts, which were allegedly stated by him to the police on 18.07.2011, due to fear of the accused. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
50. PW-11 is Ms. Sarvesh Yadav, who is wife of the complainant Sh. Ashok Yadav and deposed that on 15.07.2011, her husband Ashok Kumar Yadav had gone to his office at about 07:30-08:00 AM. She further deposed that at about 11:00 AM, her husband called her and asked her to bring all her jewelry and cash kept in the house downstairs, after which he disconnected the call, and that he was repeatedly saying that he needed money. She further deposed that her husband again called her after some time and again asked her to bring the cash, upon which she kept all the jewelry and cash in her purse and came downstairs, having suspicion that her husband was facing some untoward incident. She further deposed that she waited downstairs for about one hour, however, her husband did not come to collect the cash and jewelry and despite calling him several times, he did not pick up the calls. She further deposed that thereafter, she went upstairs, again called her husband but he did not pick up the call, and she left the cash and jewelry at home and again came downstairs to check for her husband's car. She further deposed that while she was coming down from the lift and as soon as the lift gate opened at the ground floor, she saw her husband standing there with her driver and two other persons. She further deposed that when she confronted her husband and asked him why he was not picking up her calls and who those two persons were, her FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 31 of 41 husband entered the lift without replying and remained silent, and before she could ask anything further, the lift doors closed and he went upstairs. She further deposed that one of the persons, who disclosed himself as Billu, told her that "he had handled her husband properly and would handle her children in the same manner," and upon this, she caught hold of his kurta and questioned him about his conduct. She further deposed that Billu pushed her using force, due to which her hands slipped from his kurta, and that there was another person present with Billu, and Billu instructed that person to shoot her. She further deposed that thereafter, Billu took her driver at gunpoint into the car i.e Tata Indigo bearing no.DL3CAH-4310 and made the driver drive the car and all three persons left the society premises in the said vehicle. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Vicky.
51. PW-12 is Sh. Shabir Khan, who is also one of the public witnesses deposed that he did not know anything about this case. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement wherein he deposed that he worked as a paneer vendor in Okhla Subji Mandi from a shop running in the name and style of New Garwal. He denied the suggestion that on 03.10.2011 at about 03:30 PM, he was passing by Ghevra Mor, Rohtak Road in connection with his paneer-related work. He also denied the suggestion that he saw 8-10 persons in civil clothes along with weapons at that place or he stopped there after seeing them or that one of those persons introduced himself as a Delhi Police official from Crime Branch, namely SI Ravinder Verma. He also denied the suggestion that the said person informed him that a criminal by FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 32 of 41 the name of Kishan Solanki @ Billu was about to arrive at that place and requested him to join the police raid or that he joined the police raid as a good citizen. He also denied the suggestion that SI Ravinder Verma made him join the raiding party and that he took position along with them and Inspector Sunil Kumar. He also denied the suggestion that they waited for accused Krishan Solanki. He also denied the suggestion that at about 04:50 PM, the accused came from the side of Bahadurgarh or that accused Krishan Solanki stood on the footpath about 20-30 steps before Rohtak Road. He also denied the suggestion that the police party conducted a raid and apprehended accused Krishan Solanki (who was not present in court as he had expired). He also denied the suggestion that HC Jasbir Singh and HC Kusum Pal apprehended the accused or that the police conducted inquiry from the apprehended person and his name was revealed as Krishan Solanki @ Billu. He also denied the suggestion that SI Ravinder Verma conducted the cursory search of accused Krishan Solanki and recovered one country- made pistol along with five live cartridges from him or that the said pistol and cartridges were seized by the IO and their sketch was prepared or that the IO sealed the case property with the seal of RKY in a pulanda. He also denied the suggestion that the IO recorded his statement. He admitted as correct that his signatures appeared at point A on the seizure memo of the pistol, magazine and live cartridges Ex. PW-12/1. He further deposed that the sketch of the pistol and five live cartridges Ex. PW-12/2 and the same were prepared by the IO in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not stating the true facts of the incident. He also denied the suggestion that he was under threat or coercion from the accused persons or he wanted to protect the accused persons from due process of law or that he FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 33 of 41 had been won over by the accused persons and was deposing falsely. He also denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons to protect them from due process of law. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
52. In the present case, the trial heavily relied on the testimonies of PW-4, Sh. Ashok Yadav, the complainant, PW-5 (driver Manoj), PW-6, PW- 7, PW-8, PW-11 (wife of complainant) and PW-12 and therefore, their evidentiary worth is required to be scrutinized with greater caution.
53. At this stage, it would be relevant to go through the testimony of PW-4, being the star witness, initially set up a detailed prosecution story alleging abduction, wrongful confinement, physical assault and demand of ransom. However, his testimony suffers from serious infirmities. Most significantly, during his further cross-examination conducted pursuant to the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, he categorically failed to identify accused Vicky and went to the extent of stating that the said accused present in Court was not the same person who had accompanied co-accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu at the time of the incident. He has specifically deposed in his cross-examination that he is an advocate by profession and that he could not identify accused Vicky. He admitted as correct that at the time of the incident, the person who accompanied accused Krishan Solanki was not the same person who was present in court that day, and that the person with Krishan Solanki was fatty and approximately five feet in height. He further deposed that the accused Vicky present in court was not the same assailant who accompanied co-accused Krishan Solanki and was FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 34 of 41 not involved in the said incident. He voluntarily deposed that there was one accused person with the name of Vicky.
54. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement, and that permission was heard and allowed wherein he deposed that on 06.02.2018, at the time of recording his examination-in-chief, he had identified accused Vicky. He deposed voluntarily that due to the lapse of time, he did not remember why he had identified accused Vicky as one of the assailants on that day. The examination-in-chief recorded in court was shown to him, and after seeing the statement, he stated that he did not remember the same. He denied the suggestion that on 06.02.2018, he had correctly identified accused Vicky in court as a co-accused with Krishan Solanki @ Billu. Accused Vicky was shown to him, however, he failed to identify him. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying accused Vicky despite having identified him during his examination-in-chief on 06.02.2018. He voluntarily deposed that the accused seen by him on 06.02.2018 was fatty and had a French cut beard and was approximately five feet in height. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying accused Vicky as he had been won over by him. He also denied the suggestion that he had settled the matter with accused Vicky and therefore changed his version during cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel. Hence, as per his complete testimony, a doubt has been created regarding the identity of the accused Vicky. It creates doubt in the story of the prosecution regarding involvement of accused Vicky in the present case.
FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 35 of 4155. Moving on to another witnesses crucial for the prosecution is PW-5 Sh. Manoj, the driver, who was with the complainant, also failed to support the prosecution on material aspects. Though in his examination-in- chief he supported the version of assault. However, in his subsequent testimony (upon recall under Section 311 Cr.P.C), he also failed to identify accused Vicky and specifically deposed in his cross-examination that accused Vicky was not involved in the said incident and that he could not identify accused Vicky as the matter was very old. He deposed voluntarily that there was one accused person by the name of Vicky.
56. Ld. Addl. PP for the State sought permission to put one leading question, which was heard and allowed wherein he deposed that on 10.02.2020, at the time of recording his examination-in-chief, he could not identify accused Vicky as the accused was not present in the court on that day. This examination-in-chief of the witness was shown to the witness and after seeing the same, the witness stated that he did not remember about the same. He denied the suggestion that on 10.02.2020, he had correctly identified accused Vicky in court as a co-accused with Krishan Solanki @ Billu. When accused Vicky was shown to him, he failed to identify him. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying accused Vicky despite having identified him in court during his examination-in- chief on 10.02.2020, noting that the accused seen by him on that date was fatty and had a French cut beard. He further deposed that it was wrong to suggest that he was intentionally not identifying accused Vicky as he had been won over by him. Hence, testimony of this witness has also created doubt regarding the identity of the accused Vicky and his involvement in FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 36 of 41 the crime. Accordingly, it also creates doubt in the story of the prosecution regarding involvement of accused Vicky in the present case.
57. Now, moving onto the public witness PW-6 Sh. Bimal Kumar Malik, PW-8 Sh. Amarnath and PW-12 Sh. Shabir Khan have not supported the prosecution at all and were declared hostile. They denied their previous statements in toto and did not identify the accused persons. Their testimonies do not advance the prosecution case in any manner.
58. As far as PW-7 Sh. Tej Singh Yadav is concerned, though acquainted with accused Krishan Solanki @ Billu being the resident of Village Nasirpur and were having terms and used to borrow and lend money from each other, however, he did not support the prosecution on material particulars and denied knowledge of the incident. He also denied having made any statement to the police. Various suggestions were put to this witness, however, he denied most of them thereby weakening the case of the prosecution.
59. Further, coming to the testimony of PW-11 Ms. Sarvesh Yadav, the wife of the complainant, who deposed regarding receiving calls from her husband and seeing him with accused persons at the lift and her testimony is largely hearsay in nature regarding the incident. Moreover, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., exhibited as Ex. PW- 11/DX1, Ms. Sarvesh Yadav stated that on 15.07.2011 at about 11:00 AM, she received a phone call from her husband, Ashok Yadav, who told her that he needed money and jewelry, however, she did not express any suspicion FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 37 of 41 that any untoward incident had occurred with him and does not state anything about the incident or she had seen the accused persons at their house. In contrast, when she appeared in the witness box, she made improvements and stated those facts which were not mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This discrepancy is material, as her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is completely silent on the aspect of suspicion, whereas her deposition before the Court introduces a new version by asserting that she had such suspicion. The two versions, therefore, are inconsistent on a material point, thereby affecting the credibility of the witness to that extent.
60. Apart from this, PW-4 Sh. Ashok Yadav, in his examination-in- chief, deposed that about 10 days after the occurrence, the Investigating Officer called him outside Dwarka Courts, where the accused Vicky was present near Gate No. 3, and he identified him at the instance of SI Nanag Ram. He further deposed that Manoj and another person also identified the accused in his presence. On the contrary, PW-16 Inspector Nanag Ram, in his cross-examination, categorically deposed that on 22.12.2011, the accused Vicky was formally arrested in front of Dwarka Court, Sector-10, and his personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. In the present case, the incident allegedly took place on 15.07.2011. As per the version of PW-4, the identification of the accused Vicky by him and other witnesses took place approximately 10 days thereafter i.e around 25.07.2011, outside Dwarka Courts at the instance of the Investigating Officer. However, as per PW-16, the accused was formally arrested much later, on 22.12.2011, vide arrest memo Ex. PW-16/G1. When FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 38 of 41 accused Vicky was shown to the complainant after 10 days then why he was not arrested by the IO at that time and why accused Vicky was arrested on 22.12.2011. It is also a surprising fact that after arresting the accused Vicky, a TIP application was also moved by the IO after 22.12.2011 which is contrary to the statement made by PW-4 that he identified accused Vicky after 10 days of the incident as accused Vicky was shown to him by the IO. This inconsistency assumes significance, as it remains unexplained on record as to why, despite the alleged identification of the accused by the complainant and other witnesses at such an early stage, no immediate steps were taken to apprehend him. The unexplained delay of several months in effecting the arrest of the accused casts a serious doubt on the fairness and credibility of the investigation. In the absence of any plausible explanation for such delay, this lapse constitutes a material infirmity in the prosecution case, thereby rendering the version of the prosecution doubtful and unreliable.
61. Further, the Investigating Officer, SI Nanag Ram i.e PW-16, admitted during his cross-examination that the fingerprints of the accused Vicky did not match with the crime scene or from the recovered vehicle. He further admitted that no weapon of offence or any incriminating case property was recovered at the instance of the accused Vicky. Hence, it reflects the absence of any scientific or forensic linkage between the accused and the alleged offence. The non-matching of fingerprints weakens the prosecution case on the aspect of physical presence of the accused at the scene of crime.
FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 39 of 4162. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Where the testimony of material witnesses is inconsistent, suffers from contradictions, and fails to inspire confidence, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.
63. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention the judgment titled as Allrakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujrat 2002 (1) CR (Cr.P.C) 748
(c) wherein it is held that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to innocence, the view favorable to accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.
64. The record reveals a glaring absence of evidence to establish the culpability of the accused in the commission of the charged offences. The prosecution has unequivocally failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is required to be given to the accused. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
65. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused Vicky and is acquitted of the charges under Section 342/364A/397/506/120B/34 IPC.
66. The accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in terms of FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 40 of 41 Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. At the request of the accused, his previous bail bonds are extended in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C and shall remain in force for six months from today.
67. File be consigned to Record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPAKDEEPAK WASON Date: WASON 2026.04.10 13:03:38 +0530 Announced in open Court today (Deepak Wason) on 10th April, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-04: SW District, Dwarka Courts: New Delhi FIR No. 155/2011 State Vs Krishan Solanki @ Billu & Anr Page 41 of 41