Delhi District Court
State vs Shiv Murat @Shiva @Rajeev @Swamiji And ... on 19 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC 539/2019
CNR No. DLST01-006037-2019
STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010
PS Saket
Under Section 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8 of ITP Act, 1956
ID No. : 539/2019
CNR No. DLST01-006037-2019
Date of commission of offence : 25.02.2010
Date of institution of the case : 26.04.2010
Name of the complainant : Inspector Pankaj Singh,
PS Saket, New Delhi
Name of accused persons and : 1. Shiv Murat Dwivedi @
their addresses Shiva @ Ichhadhari Sant
Swami Bhimanand Ji
Maharaj Chitrakoot Wale @
Karan @ Rajeev S/o Sh.
Bachha Lal Dwivedi, R/o
Village Chamroah, PO & PS
Manikpur, District
Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Praveen Kumar Kumar @
Ankit, S/o Sh. Ram Narayan,
R/o 147-A, Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi &
Parmanent Address:- Village
Kheri Khumar, Jhajjar,
Haryana.
3. Shalini Gautam
D/o Sh. D.C. Gautam,
H.No. O-5, Ground Floor,
C.R. Park, New Delhi and
SC 539/2019
STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 1 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
15:57:48 +0530
also at :
957/4, Pyare Lal Road, Nai
Walan, Faiz Road, Karol
Bagh, New Delhi.
Offence complained of against : Under Section 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8
the accused persons of ITP Act, 1956
Offence for which accused persons Accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi
were charged charged for offence
punishable Under Section
3/4/5/6 of the ITP Act, 1956.
Accused Praveen Kumar
charged for the offence
punishable under Section
3/4/5/6 of the ITP Act, 1956.
Accused Shalini Gautam
charged for the offence
punishable under Section 8 of
the ITP Act, 1956.
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final Judgment : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 19.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.02.2010 at about 10.30 pm at on the road, opposite to the PVR Saket, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, the accused persons namely Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar Kumar were found managing, assisting in the keeping the management of the brothel at the time when both the accused persons were apprehended by the police team when the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi @ Shiva @ Rajeev @ Swamiji was present in the Honda City car SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 2 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
15:57:55 +0530
bearing registration no. DL 7CF 2115 along with co- accused persons namely Shalini Gautam, Shashi Prabha and Raina Singh. It is further allegation that the accused Praveen Kumar Kumar was found present in the Honda Civic Car bearing registration No. DL 4C AA 0300 along with co-accused persons namely Seema Chakravarty, Asha Dubey and Riya Sharma.
1.1. It is further the allegation that both the accused persons namely Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar Kumar were found living on the earnings of the prostitution through the accused persons namely Shalini Gautam, Shashi Prabha, Raina Singh, Seema Chakravarty, Asha Dubey and Riya Sharma.
1.2. It is further the allegation that both the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar Kumar were found procuring, inducing or taking the co- accused persons namely Shalini Gautam, Shashi Prabha, Raina Singh, Seema Chakravarty, Asha Dubey and Riya Sharma for the sake of prostitution in their respective car bearing registration nos. DL 7CF 2115 and DL 4C AA 0300.
1.3. It is further the allegation that both the accused persons namely Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar Kumar were found detaining the co - accused persons namely Shalini Gautam, Shashi Prabha, Raina Singh, Seema Chakravarty, Asha Dubey and Riya Sharma in their respective cars bearing registration nos. DL 7 CF 2115 and DL 4C AA 0300 for the purpose of prostitution.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 3 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:58:01 +0530
1.4. It is further the allegation that the accused Shalini Gautam, Raina Singh, Shashi Prabha, Seema Chakravarty, Asha Dubey and Riya Sharma were found present in the Honda City car bearing registration No. DL 7 CF 2115 and Honda Civic Car no. DL 4C AA 0300 along with accused persons namely Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar Kumar and all the accused persons were found indulged in seducing or soliciting the public persons for the purposes of prostitution in the above said cars.
2. On the basis of information/ complaint recorded vide DD No 31-A in the intervening night of 25/26.02.2010 at about 12.15 am, within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, the present FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket was registered on 26.02.2010. After the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court.
3. During the trial, the case was received to this court by way of transfer.
4. As per the record, vide order dated 30.07.2010, the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and accused Praveen Kumar Kumar were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 3/4/5/6 of ITP Act, 1956 and accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. As per the record, the accused persons namely Shalini Gautam, Seema Chakravarty, Ashu Dubey, Riya Sharma, Raina Singh were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the ITP Act, 1956 vide order dated 30.07.2010 and accused persons pleaded not guilty SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 4 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:58:07 +0530
and claimed for trial.
6. As per the record, the accused Shashi Prabha was also separately charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the ITP Act, 1956 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
7. As per the record, accused Shashi Prabha, Seema Chakravarty, Ashu Dubey, Riya Sharma and Raina Singh had pleaded guilty to their respective charges during the trial of the case by making voluntary statements and they were accordingly convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the ITP Act, 1956 on their plea of guilt.
8. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses during the trial i.e., PW 1/ Inspector Dalip Kumar, PW 2/ SI Sanjay Sharma, PW 3/ W.Ct. Sharmila, PW 4/ Retired SI Sobhan Singh, PW 5/ W/Ct. Savita and PW 6/ Retired ACP Sh. Mehar Singh.
POLICE WITNESSES / EYE WITNESSES
9. PW 1: Inspector Dalip Kumar: He deposed that on 25.02.2010, he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Saket, New Delhi. He further deposed that SHO/ Inspector Pankaj Singh had received a secret information that certain pimps were running a racket of prostitution in the area of Saket and they would come at PVR Saket in a Honda City Car in the evening at about 10.00 PM and if raid would be conducted, they could be apprehended.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 5 of 100
RAVINDRA Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:58:13 +0530
9.1. He further deposed that the said information was shared with ACP Mehar Singh, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and thereafter the raiding party was constituted consisting of Inspector Pankaj Singh, Inspector Dharam Dev, Inspector Ram Kumar, SI Praveen Kumar Kumar, SI Sanjay Sharma, HC Devender, HC Ravinder, Ct. Saudan, Ct. Manoj, Ct. Niranjan, Ct. Jagpal, Women Ct. Sharmila and Women Ct. Savita and himself. He further deposed that they had left the police station at about 8.40 pm vide DD no. 28A.
9.2. He further deposed that they all had gone to the spot in a Government Jipsy and TATA 407 driven by Ct. Jagvir. He further deposed that the Jipsy was driven by Ct. Niranjan. He further deposed that at the spot ACP Hauz Khas Mehar Singh was also present. He further deposed that the raiding party was briefed by ACP Inspector Pankaj Singh and he also requested few public persons to join the investigation but none of them got ready and those persons left that place without disclosing their names and addresses on justified excuses.
9.3. He further deposed that the members of the raiding party deployed on their position. He further deposed that PSI Sanjay Sharma and the witness himself were in civil dress, therefore PSI Sanjay Sharma was made a decoy customer and he was made a shadow witness. He further deposed that at about 10.00 pm, one Honda City Car bearing no. DL-7CF-2115 and a Honda Civic car bearing no. DL-4CAA-0300 had come and stopped near SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 6 of 100
RAVINDRA Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:58:19 +0530
the drain besides the road.
9.4. He further deposed that the secret informer had pointed towards them and had identified them as the pimps and had left the spot. He further deposed that the Inspector Pankaj Singh had conducted the personal search of PSI Sanjay Sharma and nothing was left in his possession.
9.5. He further deposed that PSI Sanjay Sharma was handed over five currency notes of Rs. 1000/. He further deposed that one handing over memo was prepared in this respect. He further deposed that the personal search memo of PSI Sanjay Sharma and handing over memo and he had identified the same as Ex.PW1/A and PW1/B. He further deposed that the number of the currency notes were also mentioned in the memo.
9.6. He further deposed that PSI Sanjay Sharma was instructed to have a deal to hire a girl and on completion of the deal, he was instructed to give a signal by moving his hand on his head. He further deposed that he was assigned duty to be near him and hear the conversation and the deal. He further deposed that PSI Sanjay Sharma went to the Honda City car wherein one person and three girls were sitting.
9.7. He further deposed that he was appointed as a shadow witness with SI Sanjay Sharma with the instructions to give further signal to the police party after hearing the conversations going on between SI Sanjay SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 7 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
15:58:26 +0530
Sharma and the accused persons. He further deposed that thereafter SI Sanjay Sharma went to the Honda City car no. DL 7CF 2115 in which three girls were sitting in the said car apart from one male person who was sitting on the driver seat.
9.8. He further deposed that thereafter, SI Sanjay Sharma contacted the person who was sitting on the driver seat and asked for a girl for having sex. He further deposed that on his requirement, the said person showed the three girls who were sitting in the said car and offered them for the said purpose.
9.9. He further deposed that thereafter, all the three girls stated that they would give full enjoyment to him and would satisfy him. He further deposed that they have also stated that they would charge Rs. 25,000/- for a one program by one girl and Rs. 15000/- each by other two girls for the program. He further deposed that he also demanded Rs. 3000/- as his commission. He further deposed that SI Sanjay Sharma had selected one girl who was sitting on the front seat of the car and Rs. 25000/- were asked by her and the accused. He further deposed that lateron the said girl was disclosed as Shalini Gautam. He further deposed that as SI Sanjay Sharama had demanded two girls, the said person whose name was disclosed as Shiv Murat Dwivedi lateron asked him to contact the person who was sitting in another car bearing no. DL 4 CA 0300 made Honda Civic. He further deposed that SI Sanjay Sharma had reached at the said car where he had SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 8 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:58:32 +0530
contacted another person who was sitting on the driver seat whose name was disclosed as Praveen Kumar Kumar later on and he had demanded for one girl for the prostitution.
9.10. He further deposed that in the said car, three girls were sitting and the said Praveen Kumar offered those three girls for the said purpose and the said girls also told that they were very sexy and would fully satisfy the clients. He further deposed that thereafter, Praveen Kumar Kumar had demanded Rs. 10,000/- for one program for one girl. He further deposed that IO SI Sanjay Sharma had selected one girl whose name was disclosed later on as Ashu Dubey. He further deposed that accused Praveen Kumar Kumar had demanded Rs. 3000/- as his commission.
9.11. He further deposed that after selection of both the girls, SI Sanjay Sharma had handed over Rs. 3000/- to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Rs. 2000/- to accused Praveen Kumar Kumar out of the Rs. 5000/- which was given to him by the IO for striking the deal. He further deposed that thereafter, he gave a signal to the other members of the raiding team by flaring his hands on his head and after getting the signal from him, all the members of the raiding team had reached the spot and surrounded all the accused persons.
9.12. He further deposed that thereafter, SI Sanjay Sharma had narrated the entire deal to the IO. He further deposed tat the IO Inspector Pankaj Singh had conducted the search of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and had SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 9 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
15:58:38 +0530
recovered Rs. 3000/-(Rs. 1000 X 3) from the pocket of the pant of the accused which were matching with the currency notes which were handed over to SI Sanjay Sharma by the IO. He further deposed that thereafter, a pullanda of currency notes were prepared which was sealed with the seal of PS and the same were taken into possession and seizure memo was prepared and he had identified the same as Ex.PW1/C. 9.13. He further deposed that the search of accused Praveen Kumar Kumar was also conducted and Rs. 2000/- were recovered from him which SI Sanjay Sharma had given to him being two currency notes of one thousand. He further deposed that the same were also tallied and found matching with the said currency notes which were given to accused Praveen Kumar by SI Sanjay Sharma for striking the deal. He further deposed that the same were also kept in a pullanda which was sealed with the same seal and same were taken into possession and seizure memo was prepared and witness had identified the same as Ex.PW1/D. He further deposed that thereafter, the IO had prepared the rukka and sent Ct. Saudan to Police Station for registration of FIR and after the registration of FIR, all the accused persons were arrested and arrest memo was prepared and the witness had identified the same as Ex. PW 1/E and Ex. PW 1/F in respect of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and accused Praveen Kumar Kumar respectively.
9.14. He further deposed that their personal search SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 10 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:58:45 +0530
were also conducted and memos were prepared and witness had identified the same as Ex. PW 1/G and PW 1/H respectively. He further deposed that other accused persons were also arrested. He further deposed that the search of the Honda City car was also conducted and one black colour briefcase was recovered which was found containing Rs. 1,55,000/- cash, one idol of Sai Baba, one gold Bajuband, one currency note of 20 US Dollar and two mobile phones. He further deposed that the said briefcase alongwith its contents were separately seized by the IO and identified the seizure memo as mark A. 9.15. He further deposed that the further search of the car was also conducted and 10 Times Magazine and 50 VCDs showing the name and photograph of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, one Register containing the names and contact numbers of the various customers, the Bhagwa Clothes of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, one Matrix diary or two DVDs, one religious book being Mangalwani book and a packet of visiting cards of Shiv Murat Dwivedi and some pamphlets showing the organizations of the religious program at his native place. He further deposed that all these items were separately seized by the IO and witness had identified the seizure memo as mark B. 9.16. He further deposed that both the car used by the accused persons were also seized and witness had identified its seizure memo as Mark C. He further deposed that the names of all the accused persons were disclosed as Shashi Prabha and Raina Singh who were with accused SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 11 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
15:58:51 +0530
Shiv Murat Dwivedi and the other two girls with accused Praveen Kumar Kumar disclosed their names as Ria Sharma and Seema Chakarborty who were taken to the police station. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the I0 wherein he had confirmed about the conversation which took place between SI Sanjay Sharma with accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, Praveen Kumar Kumar and other six girls. He further deposed that on 07.03.2010, he again joined the investigation with the IO Inspector Pankaj Singh, SHO of PS Saket. He further deposed that on that day, the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar Kumar were on police remand.
9.17. He further deposed that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had taken the police team to H.No. C-120/1, Jawahar Park, Khanpur Extension, Devli Road to the first floor of his house where some documents pertaining to his bank accounts, LIC policies, documents of the properties, his different expenditures, bills were got recovered at his instance. He further deposed that all these documents thereafter, seized by the investigating officer around 50 and identified the seizure memo as Mark D. 9.18. He further deposed that thereafter accused Praveen Kumar Kumar took the police team to H.No. O-5, Ground Floor, CR Park from where accused Praveen Kumar got recovered some papers which were having various numbers of girls, pimps and other clients and some documents relating to his bank accounts which were also seized by the IO and witness had identified the seizure SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 12 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:58:58 +0530
memo as mark E. He further deposed that during the investigation the disclosure statement of all the accused persons were recorded and witness had identified the same as Ex. PWI-1 to Ex. PWI-6 including accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar Kumar.
9.19. The witness had identified the currency notes of Rs. 3000/- and 2000/- as Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. The witness has also identified the cash of Rs. 155000/- as Ex.P-3 collectively, one gold colour bajuband as Ex.P-4, the idol of Sai Baba is Ex. P-5 and two mobile phones as Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7. The witness has correctly identified one gold colour bajuband, one small idol of Sai Baba and two mobile phones of Samsung.
9.20. The witness further identified the other case property i.e. Bhagwa Clothes, Ten Times magazines showing the photographs of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, 50 CDs of Amrit Vani, one Register bound with red cloth, 10 packets of Visting Cards, one Album, two DVDs, one religious book of Mangal vani, one Magic Diary and 100 pamphlets as Ex. P-8 collectively.
9.21. The witness has also identified the both the vehicles bearing registration no. DL-4CAA-0300 make Honda Civic and DL-7CF-2115 make Honda City during his examination in the court as Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-10.
9.22. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Praveen Kumar wherein the witness had replied that there were shops at a distance of 16-20 steps.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 13 of 100
RAVINDRA Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:59:13 +0530
He further replied that he did not remember whether the shopkeepers were requested by the IO to join the investigation. He further replied that he was with the decoy customer. He further replied that he did not remember at what distance the IO was standing from them when they were waiting for accused. He further replied that he could not tell the exact position of the members of the raiding party. He further replied that the accused Praveen Kumar was sitting at the driving seat of Honda Civic car. He further replied that no public person was present around the car at the time when the deal was being struck. He further replied that it took about half an hour from reaching the spot and apprehending the accused.
9.23. He further replied that the accused Praveen Kumar was arrested at around 1.30 am in the night and thereafter they had come back at the police station on their government vehicles i.e. Gypsy and Tata 407. He further replied that Inspector Pankaj Singh, SHO, Inspector Ram Kumar and Inspector Dharamveer were sitting in Gypsy and other members were in Tata 407. He further replied that there were 20-22 persons present in Tata 407. He further replied that the accused Praveen Kumar was sitting at the backside of Tata 407 but he did not remember the exact side. He further replied that he did not remember who was sitting next to Praveen Kumar. He further replied that they had reached the police station at around 4.00/4.30 a.m. 9.24. The witness had denied the suggestion that he SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 14 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:59:21 +0530
was not the member of the raiding party and that's why he could not tell the exact position of members of the raiding party and distance of IO from him.
9.25. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Shalini Gautam wherein the witness had replied that the secret informer met with the then SHO. He further replied that the SHO had shared with him the said secret information. He further replied that the information that was shared with him, was that some persons who were involved in Immoral Trafficking would come with girls and would look for customers near PVR, Saket. He further replied that he had no knowledge to the fact whether any such similar information was received earlier also. He further replied that there was no police booth at PVR Saket at that time. He further replied that the nearest police booth was at a distance of 150-200 meters.
9.26. The witness had admitted that the beat constable used to visit the said area. He further replied that he had no knowledge whether any such information was earlier given by the beat constable visiting the area. He further replied that no CCTV cameras were installed at the time of incident near the spot or covering the spot. He further replied that the panes of both the cars were tinted but not totally black. He further replied that they did not see any customer approaching both the said cars. He further replied that they had waited for 5-7 minutes before conducting the raid. He further replied that only IO could tell what was the reason for not waiting any longer.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 15 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
15:59:27 +0530
9.27. He further replied that the action of the raiding party started at the instance of the then SHO and the then ACP. He further replied that the decoy customer was prepared after his search at about 10.00 p.m. He further replied that the five currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination were given by the SHO to be used in raid and he gave it out of his own pocket at that time. He further replied that he did not know whether he got it reimbursed later on from government exchequer. He further replied that as far as he remember, one wallet and mobile was found out in the formal search of decoy customer prior to which he was being prepared for raid and it was kept apart before sending him to raid.
9.28. He further replied that the accused Shalini Gautam was wearing jeans and top on the date of raid but he could not tell the colour of the same. He further replied that while conducting the raid, his position was for the side of the car on its driver seat. He further replied that the decoy customer was almost near him while conducting the raid. He further replied that both the cars were at a distance of 3-4 steps. He further replied that the said two cars were removed to the PS by their staff members after the raid was over till 04.00 am, however, he could not tell which member of their staff drove which of the vehicle to the police station.
9.29. He further replied that both the girls namely Shalini Gautam and Ashu Dubey from the said two cars agreed to go with Sanjay Sharma however, Sanjay Sharma SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 16 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
15:59:33 +0530
had not specified the place as to where he would take them along. He further replied that the drivers of both the said two cars had a talk with Sanjay Sharma for about 10-12 minutes. He further replied that he could see through the tinted glasses inside the cars even though it was night. He further replied that he could not tell the width of the road on which said cars were standing.
9.30. The witness had denied the suggestion that the place where the cars were parked was so crowded place as no one cold have found place to park their vehicles at the time of incident.
9.31. He further replied that the vehicles i.e. Honda Civic and Honda City cars were brought to the police station by the staff deployed by investigating officer. He further replied that he did not remember the name of the said staff member who brought the said vehicles to the police station. He further replied that the personal search memo of accused was not got conducted in his presence. He voluntarily replied that the same was conducted by Lady Constable. He further replied that the standing plan/ nakabandi was briefed to the staff members at the spot itself by the Investigating Officer as well as ACP. He further replied that he did not remember the exact place as to where the accused had to be taken by decoy customer Sanjay Sharma.
9.32. The witness had admitted that Sanjay Sharma was handed over the Rs. 5000/- in denomination of Rs. 1000/- in his presence by Inspector Pankaj Singh, SHO SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 17 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:59:40 +0530
Saket at the spot itself. He further admitted that prior to this incident, no written complaint had ever been received in the police station against accused Shalini Gautam. He further admitted that no written complaint from Saket Market Association had ever been received against accused Shalini Gautam in the police station. He further admitted that he had not seen the secret informer while informing the SHO about the information. The witness voluntarily replied that he had seen him at the time when SHO called him in the police station .
9.33. The witness had admitted that no public witness had joined the investigation. The witness had voluntarily replied that the request was made to them by the SHO but they refused for the same. The witness had denied the suggestion that the said raid was conducted illegally.
9.34. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi wherein the witness had replied that the secret information which was received on 25.02.2010 was given to the SHO Inspector Pankaj Singh by the informant. He further replied that the said information was given by the informant by himself in person in the police station in between 08.15 pm to 08.30 pm. He further replied that the informant gave the information inside the office of the SHO.
9.35. He further replied that he was not present at that time in his office. He further replied that he did not see the informant coming inside the police station on SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 18 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 15:59:45 +0530
25.02.2010. He further replied that the informant was wearing pant and shirt but the colour of the same he did not remember. He further replied that the raiding team was formed at 08.30 pm. He further replied that in 15-20 minutes, the said raiding team was formed. He further replied that all the members of the said raiding team were present in the police station.
9.36. On being asking the question from the witness that what were his duty hours on the date of incident and what duty he had performed before joining the raiding team, the witness had replied that the SHO had informed the ACP at about 08.40 pm, while leaving for the spot. He further replied that he could not tell who had recorded the departure entry. He further replied that he could not tell the DD entry number regarding the departure. He further replied that the raiding team went to the spot in two vehicles. He further replied that he along with the SHO, Inspector Ram Kumar, Inspector Dharamveer, two lady constables and SI Praveen Kumar Kumar were in Gypsy bearing registration no. ...5541, however, he did not remember the completer registration number.
9.37. He further replied that the remaining staff namely SI Sanjay Sharma, HC Devender, HC Ravinder, Ct. Jagpal, Ct. Sodan and the driver Jagbir were in TATA
407. He further replied that the ACP did not come to the police station and he had directly reached the spot at about 09.15 pm and he was in uniform and had come to the spot in his official vehicle. He further replied that they all had SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 19 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
15:59:51 +0530
reached the spot in between 09/09.15 pm. He further replied that they had parked their vehicle near DDA market which was situated at Pramod Mahajan Road at a distance of about 500 meters from the spot. He further replied that he was in the Civil Dress. He further replied that the accused persons had come in two vehicles i.e., Honda City and Honda Civic cars.
9.38. He further replied that the Honda City car had first reached the spot at around 10.00 pm and was parked near covered nala (drain). He further replied that the colour of the Honda City car was silver. He further replied that the Honda Civic car reached just after Honda City car and was parked next to it. He further replied that the colour of the Honda Civic Car was light blue. He further replied that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, Shalini Gautam, Shashi Prabha and Raina Singh were sitting in the Honda City Car. He further replied that accused Shiv Murat was in the driver's seat, accused Shalini Gautam was sitting on the front seat and the remaining two were sitting on the back seat.
9.39. He further replied that the decoy customer was in civil dress and he was wearing jeans pant and shirt. He further replied that he did not remember whether the shirt worn by decoy witness SI Sanjay was full sleeves or half. He further replied that he himself was not wearing full sleeves shirt along with trousers, colours of both he did not remember. He further replied that no personal search was conducted qua him.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 20 of 100
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19
15:59:59 +0530
9.40. He further replied that he did not remember the number of vehicles told to him by the secret informer. He further replied that he also did not remember whether he was told as to how many persons had come in the said vehicles. He further replied that no money was given to him by the investigating officer. He further replied that they did not demand any further money from the investigating officer apart from Rs. 5000/-. He further replied that the rukka was prepared by Inspector Pankaj and Ct. Sodan took the same to police station for the registration of the FIR.
9.41. He further replied that after arrest, in his presence two accused persons were personally searched namely Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar Kumar. He further replied that from the personal search of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, one DL, RC of vehicle, some debit cards, cash of Rs. 15/16,000/-, one diamond ring and two mobile phones were recovered and from the personal search of the accused Praveen Kumar, one DL, RC, some debit cards and cash of around Rs. 11,000/- were recovered.
9.42. He further replied that after the day of the arrest of the accused persons, he had again joined the investigation on 07.03.2010 when both the accused persons were on police custody remand. He further replied that during the investigation, they had visited the residence of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi at Jawahar Park, Devli Road, Khanpur near Sai Mandir. He further replied that he SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 21 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:00:06 +0530
along with SI Praveen Kumar, Inspector Pankaj and other staff members went to the residence of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further replied that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi took them to the first floor of the house where a Pujari was found. He further replied that from the house, they had recovered several documents including bills, policies, account details i.e., deposit slip and so forth. He further replied that the door of the said house was opened by the Pujari. He further replied that no other person was present in the house.
9.43. He denied the suggestion that no such search was carried out in the aforesaid house nor any arrest was made or the story was false.
9.44. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused Raina Singh, however, opportunity was granted to the accused.
9.45. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shashi Prabha wherein the witness had replied that the accused Shashi Prabha was sitting in the rear seat of Honda City car bearing no. DL 7CF 2115, but he did not remember the exact position where she was sitting. He further replied that he did not remember as to what clothes she had put on that day. He further replied that in his presence, the IO did not enquire from accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi who was driving the said Honda City car as to where the girls were to be supplied. He further replied that he could not tell as to what articles were recovered from the personal search of the accused Shashi Prabha. He SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 22 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:00:14 +0530
denied the suggestion that accused Shashi Prabha was not present at the spot or that she was present at R.K. Puram with her maternal uncle.
9.46. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Ashu Dubey wherein the witness had correctly identified the accused in the court. He further replied that the place of residence of the accused Shiv Murat which they had visited during the investigation, did not fall within the jurisdiction of PS Saket.
9.47. The witness had admitted that they did not contact the local police station. He further admitted that accused Shiv Murat had accompanied them into the house and the gate was opened by the Pujari. He further replied that none of the girls who were present at the spot, made any demand of any money. He further replied that no money was given to any of the girls. He further replied that none of the girls stepped off the car. He further replied that the ACP had reached the spot a little after they had reached there.
9.48. He further replied that Foreign currency was found in the car which was recovered from the possession of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further replied that before the the accused reached the spot, they were briefed by the ACP and they were waiting for the arrival of accused who reached there at 10.00 pm. He further replied that apart from him and SI Sanjay Sharma, all the remaining police officials were in civil uniform. He further replied that they had taken their position only after they SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 23 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:00:24 +0530
were informed by the informer about the arrival of accused persons. He further replied that some public persons were requested to join the investigation but they did not join the same.
9.49. He further replied that they did not note down their names nor did they issue any notice to them. He further replied that the contents of rukka were written by Inspector Pankaj. He further replied that the other documents including search and seizure memo were prepared by the other official who formed the part of the raiding team. He further replied that he did not remember whether ACP Mehar Singh accompanied them to the police station. He further replied that they had reached the PS at 4.00/5.00 am. He further replied that he did not remember which route they had adopted to reach the spot or to go to police station from spot.
10. PW 2: SI Sanjay Sharma : He deposed that on 25.02.2010 he was posted at police station Saket and on that day he was present on duty. He further deposed that in the evening, one secret informer came in the police station and gave secret information to SHO Pankaj Singh that some pimps would come at PVR in Honda car for the purpose of soliciting the clients for prostitution and if raided, they could be caught red handed.
10.1. He further deposed that the then SHO Saket Pankaj Singh had prepared a raiding party which comprised of the SHO, Inspector Ram Kumar, Inspector Dharam Dev, SI Praveen Kumar Kumar, SI Dalip Kumar, SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 24 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:00:30 +0530
HC Devender, HC Ravinder, Ct. Jagpal, Ct.Manoj, Ct. Sudan, Ct.Niranjan, Lady Ct.Sharmila, Lady Ct. Savita and the witness himself. He further deposed that DD No.28A was recorded in the police station and all of them had left the police station in Government vehicle i.e Gypsy bearing registration no. DL1CJ 5541 which was driven by Ct. Niranjan, Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LD 5048 which was driven by Ct. Jagbir.
10.2. He further deposed that he along with Sl Dalip were in civil dress and the remaining raiding party members were in uniform. He further deposed that the informer was also with them. He further deposed that he did not remember the time but they had reached at PVR Saket after leaving the police station at 8.40 p.m. He further deposed that they had reached the spot in 20-25 minutes and ACP Mehar Singh was already at the spot. He further deposed that he briefed the raiding party and 4-5 public persons were also requested to join the raiding party but none of them agreed and they had left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses.
10.3. He further deposed that the SHO had kept the raiding party hidden at a secluded place at PVR Saket. He further deposed that at around 10.00 pm, two Honda cars came at PVR Saket on the main road. He further deposed that on seeing the cars, the secret informer had told them that they were the same cars in which the pimps as well as the girls would be coming. He further deposed that the SHO Pankaj Singh had deployed him as a decoy customer SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 25 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:00:40 +0530
and after his search he handed over to him five notes of Rs.1000/- each. He further deposed that all the other articles which he was carrying were removed. He had identified the the personal search memo as Ex.PW1/A. He further identified the handing over memo of the currency notes as Ex.PW1/B. 10.4. He further deposed that he was instructed to go to the Honda cars and ask for girls for the purposes of prostitution. He further deposed that accordingly he along with SI Dalip went there. He further deposed that at the time when they had left for the Honda cars, the secret informer left the spot. He further deposed that he along with S.I Dalip went to Honda Citi car bearing No.DL7CF2115 Silver colour. He further deposed that on the driver seat, accused Shiv Murat Divedi was sitting and witness had identified him correctly in the court during his examination.
10.5. He had identified the accused Shalini Gautam also correctly in the court. He further deposed that on the back seat accused Raina Singh and Sashi Prabha were sitting who were also correctly identified by the witness in the court. He further deposed that he had demanded girls from accused Shiv Murat Divedi. He further deposed that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had demanded Rs.25000/- for accused Shalini Gautam and Rs.15000/- each for accused Shashi Prabha and Raina Singh who were sitting on the back seat, per programme. He further deposed that all the three accused i.e Sashi Prabha, Raina SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 26 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:00:48 +0530
Singh and Shalini Gautam stated that they would provide him full sexual satisfaction.
10.6. He further deposed that he had chosen accused Shalini Gautam. He further deposed that he had demanded one more girl and accused Shiv Murat Divedi had pointed towards the other car i.e Honda Civic bearing No. DL 4C AA 0300 of grey colour and informed him that he could choose the other girl from the said car. He further deposed that he along with SI Dalip went to the said car. He further deposed that on the driver seat, accused Praveen Kumar was sitting. He further deposed that on the front seat accused Ashu Dubey was sitting and on the rear seat accused Riya Sharma and Seema Chakravorty were sitting. He further deposed that he had demanded one girl from him. He further deposed that accused Praveen Kumar had asked for Rs.10,000/- each for the above three accused were sitting in the car.
10.7. He further deposed that all the three girls told him that they will provide him full sexual satisfaction. He further deposed that he had chosen Ashu Dubey. He further deposed that the accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar demanded Rs.3000/- each from him as commission. He further deposed that they had also told him that the remaining amount would be given to the girls after the programme.
10.8. He further deposed that he had given Rs.3000/- to accused Shiv Murat out of the currency notes as were handed over to him by the SHO and Rs.2000/-
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 27 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:01:04 +0530
were paid to accused Praveen Kumar Kumar as commission. He further deposed that the conversation between him and the accused persons occurred in the presence of Sl Dalip. He further deposed that at around 10.30 pm after he had given the money to the accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar, he had put his hands on his head and the SHO along with the raiding party reached near the car and apprehended all the accused persons.
10.9. He further deposed that the SHO Panakaj Singh conducted the personal search of accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar and upon their personal search the currency notes which were given to him were recovered. He further deposed that the seized notes were kept in separate pullandas and seal with the seal of PS and seizure memo was prepared and identified the same as Ex.PW1/C & D. He further deposed that the accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar were interrogated. He further deposed that SHO Pankaj Singh prepared a tehrir/rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Sudan who had left the spot for the registration of the FIR. He further deposed that the Honda City car of accused Shiv Murat Divedi was searched and from the boot/dikky, one black colour suit case was recovered. He further deposed that on opening the same Rs.1,55,000/- in cash, one US $ 20, one bracelet golden colour, one Sai Baba Statue of gold colour and two Samsung phones were found in the same.
10.10. He further deposed that the accused Shiv Murat had disclosed that the above was his earning of the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 28 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:01:10 +0530
last two three days from prostitution. He further deposed that the suit case along with its contents were seized by the SHO and seizure memo was prepared and witness had identified the same as Mark A. He further deposed that on further search of the car, 10 magazines were recovered. He further deposed that on all the magazines, accused Shiv Murat photo were appearing on the cover and it was also written "Swami Bhimanand Maharaj Chitrakut Chamroha wale". He further deposed that 10 packets of calender each containing 100 piece, 100 pamphelts, 2 DVDs on which "Bhagh 2 Bhoomi Bhoojan", 50 CDs on which SAI Amrith Varsha Pravachan Karta Ichha Dhari Sant Swami Bhimanand Maharaj was written", one album containing 28 pictures, one register bearing a red cover containing certain names and addresses and accounts, one diary containing certain phone numbers, addresses etc, one religious book on which Mitra Mandal Charitable Society was written, one polythene containing four saffron colour dothis, one yellow colour kurta, one muffler on which Om Sai was written were recovered from the car. He further deposed that SHO had seized the same and seizure memo was prepared and witness identified the same as Mark B. 10.11. He further deposed that SHO had arrested all the accused persons. He further deposed that the arrest memo of the accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar bears his signature at point B on Ex. PW 1/E and Ex. PW 1/F. He further deposed that the arrest memo of the other accused persons does not bear his signature. He further deposed that the SHO had seized the cars. He had SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 29 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:01:17 +0530
identified the seizure memo of the car bearing no. DL 4C AO 3000 as Mark C. He further identified the personal search memo of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi as Ex. PW 1/G. 10.12. He further deposed that one driving license, one pan card and one RC, insurance policy, one diamond ring, two Nokia phones and Rs. 16000/- in case approximately 300 US Dollars were recovered. He further identified the personal search memo of accused Praveen Kumar Kumar as Ex.PW 1/H. He further deposed that one driving license, PAN Card, two RC, six ATM cards, 10 cheque books, one Passbook and Rs. 11,000/- in case approximately, 3 Nokia Mobile phones were recovered. He further deposed that their separate disclosure statements were recorded. He further deposed that the personal search of female accused persons were conducted by lady constable and they were arrested by the SHO Inspector Pankaj Singh.
10.13. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shalini Gautam wherein the witness had denied the suggestion that no such raid was done on that day. He further replied that he did not remember the exact time when he had left the police station for conducting raid. He further replied that he did not remember the exact time when they had received the secret information. He further replied that he had left for the spot in the Tata 407 (government vehicle).
10.14. He further replied that they had left from the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 30 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:01:27 +0530
police station at about 08.40 p.m. He further replied that he did not remember the route which they had taken to reach PVR Saket from police station. He further replied that they were standing on the road side on the road which leads from MB Road to Press Enclave via the Neyla Club. He further replied that they were standing in the PVR complex behind the Panwadi shop. He further replied that they had reached at the spot at about 09.00-09.05 p.m. 10.15. He further replied that they had met ACP Mehar Singh there. He further replied that the ACP was informed by 10 i.e. Inspector Pankaj Singh and ACP Mehar Singh was in uniform and he was in his government vehicle. He further replied that he did not remember the exact time for which ACP Mehar Singh remained at the spot. He further replied that the ACP Maher Singh was present at the spot with the team during the entire raid. He further replied that the ACP Mehar Singh had accompanied them to the police station after arresting the accused persons. He further replied that the cars in question had reached the spot at about 10 p.m. He further replied that from 09.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. they were briefed by the 10 as well as by ACP. He further replied that he did not remember the exact articles which were recovered/seized during his personal search prior to his being made a decoy customer.
10.16. He further replied that he did not remember whether his mobile was also taken by the IO at the time of his personal search. He further replied that he did not SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 31 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:01:34 +0530
remember the mobile number which he was using at that time. He further replied that he was deputed as a decoy customer after the cars had reached the spot. He further replied that the Honda cars came to halt in front of Neyla Culture Club, Saket and IO/SHO had briefed him that he should go to the Honda car and demand for girls and after the deal was struck and the commission was paid to the pimp / accused, he would give signal for them to raid the cars. He further replied that the accused persons were sitting in the cars. He further replied that the car's window/pane was closed. He further replied that none of the girls sitting in the car informed him that they were ready to indulge in physical relationship with him.
10.17. He further replied that on being asked by accused Shiv Murat Dwevdi, accused Raina Singh, Shalini Gautam and Shashi Prabha agreed for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per programme. He further replied that he did not make any payment to any of the girl. He further replied that no girl took any money from him. He further replied that accused Shalini Gautam and Ashu Dubey agreed to accompany him. He further replied that the girls did not step down from the car as at that time he had waived to the raiding party. The witness had admitted that till the time he had signalled the raiding party none of the girl step down from the car.
10.18. He further replied that the pullandas were prepared by SHO. He further replied that he could not verify his handwriting. He further replied that he could not SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 32 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:01:40 +0530
tell the exact time taken by the IO in preparing the pullandas. He further replied that he did not remember how Const. Sodan Singh had gone to the police station along with the rukka. He further replied that he did not remember at what time Const. Sodan Singh informed the SHO as to the time of registration of FIR. He further admitted that numerous public persons were present at PVR Saket at any point of time. He further admitted that no legal action was taken against the public persons who had refused to join the investigation.
10.19. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Praveen Kumar wherein the witness had replied that he was not present with the IO at the time when he was informed by the secret informer. He further replied that the secret informer had accompanied them to the spot. He further replied that they had reached the spot at about 09.15 p.m. He further replied that they had had gone to the spot in Tata 407 and police gypsy. He further replied that he along with SI Dalip Singh, SI Praveen Kumar, HC Ravinder and other police officials whose names he did not remember that day, had gone in Tata 407. He further replied that Constable Jagvir was the driver of Tata 407.
10.20. The witness had admitted that there was huge commercial complex adjacent to the spot. He further admitted that IO did not call the shopkeepers to join the investigation. He further replied that four - five public persons who were passing by the spot were asked to join SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 33 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:01:46 +0530
the investigation but they had refused. He further replied that they were not served any written notice. He further replied that their names and addresses were not noted down. He further replied that the personal search of accused Praveen Kumar was carried out by IO. He further replied that at that time he was present at the spot.
10.21. The witness had denied the suggestion that the accused Praveen Kumar was neither present at the spot nor he was arrested from the spot. The witness had denied the suggestion that the accused Praveen Kumar was lifted from his house at CR Park. He further denied the suggestion that no currency notes were recovered from him.
10.22. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat wherein the witness had replied that IO Inspector Pankaj Kumar, Inspector Dharamdev, Inspector Ram Kumar, informer along with the driver and two lady constables had gone in Gypsy to the spot. He further replied that the distance between the spot and the police station was about 2-3 kms. He further replied that at about 08.30 pm, when they were leaving for the spot, they were briefed by the IO. He further replied that the briefing took place for seven -eight minutes. He further replied that the colour of the cars were not told to them in the briefing, however, their description was told. He further replied that he did not remember his exact duty timings on the day of incident but he was present at the police station since 09.30 in the morning.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 34 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:01:53 +0530
10.23. He further replied that he was in his uniform throughout the day however after information they were asked to change into civil dress. He further replied that he did not remember the exact description/ colour of the clothes worn by him or SI Dalip. He further replied that ACP Mehar Singh had reached the spot at around 09.20 pm and they had reached at around 09.15 pm. He further replied that the ACP Mehar Singh had started briefing at around 09.30 pm and they were briefed for about 5 minutes at Parmod Mahajan Marg opposite the club i.e., adjacent to the PVR complex. He further replied that the raiding party members had hidden themselves at different locations at the time when he long with SI Dalip went for the negotiations. He further deposed that the other members of raiding party were in uniform.
10.24. The witness further replied that he did not note down any panwadi shop at the place where they were briefed. He further replied that he had changed into his civil dress at the police station itself. The witness further replied that he did not remember the exact articles as were seized/handed over to the IO during his personal search. He further replied that he had handed over his articles to the IO and he did not know whether any record was prepared or not.
10.25. He further replied that his personal search was conducted at about 10.00 p.m. He further replied that during the briefing itself, he was informed that he would be sent as a decoy customer and accordingly he was asked SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 35 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:02:01 +0530
to changed into civil dress. He further replied that no other car except the cars of accused persons were present at that time at the spot. He further replied that he could not specify the exact location of street light at the spot. He further replied that both the cars were facing the Malviya Nagar metro station. He further replied that the Honda city was in front of Honda civic car.
10.26. He further replied that they were at a distance at about 2-4 steps from each other. He further replied that he did not remember as to what clothes were worn by accused Shiv Murat. He further replied that he did not remember whether he was wearing dhoti kurta or trouser shirt. He further replied that the money which was handed over by him to accused Shiv Murat, was kept by Shiv Murat in his pocket. He further replied that he could not specify in which pocket of which dress he had kept the money.
10.27. He further replied that tehrir was prepared in his presence, but he could not specify the exact time and the same was sent at about 11.55 p.m. for the registration of FIR. He further replied that the rukka was taken to police station by Const. Sodan. He further replied that he did not know how he had left the spot i.e. in which vehicle.
10.28. He further replied that he did not remember the exact time when the boot of the car of accused Shiv Murat was opened. He further replied that the accused persons were at a distance of 10-15 feet from where they were briefed. He further replied that the road was a two SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 36 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:02:07 +0530
lane double side road. He further replied that he had not been to the house of the accused Shiv Murat located at Khanpur. He further replied that the accused persons had shown their willingness to accompany them to any place for the purpose of sexual intercourse/pleasure. He further replied that it was not discussed that the girls had to be taken to a particular place. He further replied that a mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Shiv Murat during his personal search.
10.29. The witness had denied the suggestion that accused Shiv Murat had been arrested at about 06.30 p.m. from South Extension, New Delhi that was why no public person had been joined during investigation. He further replied that at that time he was undergoing D Course (training course) and they used to do any work which was assigned to them by their senior officer. He further replied that he did not remember as to what work was done by him on the relevant day from morning till leaving the police station. He further replied that he had joined the police force on 21.07.2008.
10.30. He further replied that no raiding party was formed or that the ACP Mehar Singh never visited the spot. He further denied the suggestion that he did not remember the work done by him on the relevant day as he was not in the police station and he had gone to South Extension to arrest the accused Shiv Murat who was shopping. The witness further denied the suggestion that no personal search was conducted and that was why he did SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 37 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:02:14 +0530
not remember what were the items/articles which he was possessing at the time of search. He further denied the suggestion that he was unable to give the description of the clothes worn by accused Shiv Murat as he had been falsely implicated in this case.
11. PW 3: W/Ct. Sharmila: She deposed that on 25.02.2010, she was posted as Constable at PS Saket. She further deposed that Inspector Pankaj Singh had received a secret information regarding Immoral Trafficking at PVR Saket at around 08.40 pm. She further deposed that Inspector Pankaj Singh had prepared a raiding party comprising three Inspectors, three Sub Inspectors, two Head Constables, four Constables and two Lady Constables.
11.1. She further deposed that she was one of the lady constable. She further deposed that thereafter, they had reached PVR Saket where they had met the ACP concerned namely Mehar Singh. She further deposed that ACP Mehar Singh had briefed them regarding further action. She further deposed that SI Sanjay Sharma and SI Dalip were dressed up as civilians.
11.2. She further deposed that at around 10.00 pm, two vehicles make Honda City and Honda Civic cars had come at the spot. She further deposed that SI Sanjay Sharma was deployed as decoy customer and SI Dalip was deployed as Shadow witness. She further deposed that as soon as two cars had arrived, SI Sanjay Sharma had gone to the cars and spoke to the persons sitting in the car.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 38 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:02:24 +0530
11.3. She further deposed that before going to the cars, SHO had given five notes of Rs. 1000/- to SI Sanjay Sharma and had asked him to make signal by touching his head after he had spoken to the said persons sitting in the cars. She further deposed that there were six girls and two boys / gents sitting in the cars. She further deposed that those girls and boys were apprehended.
11.4. She further deposed that the Inspector Pankaj had prepared tehrir and had sent Ct. Sodan to the police station for the registration of the FIR. She further deposed that the girls were searched by her and Ct. Savita. She further identified the personal search memos of six girls as Ex. PW 3/A to Ex. PW 3/F. She further deposed that the six girls and two male persons were arrested. The witness had correctly identified all the accused persons in the court during her examination.
11.5. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar Kumar Kumar wherein the witness had replied that the secret informer had not given any information in her presence in the police station. She further replied that she did not remember whether the secret information was received on phone or in person but it was received in evening hours after 08.00 pm. 11.6. She further replied that the raiding party was constituted by the SHO Inspector Pankaj. She further replied that the members of the raiding party were Inspector Pankaj, Inspector Ram Kumar, Inspector SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 39 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:02:31 +0530
Dharamdev, SI Praveen Kumar, SI Dlip, SI Sanjay Sharma, two Head Constables, Ct. Jagpal, Ct. Manoj and Ct. Niranjan, Lady Ct. Savita and herself.
11.7. She further replied that she did not remember the names of the other members of the raiding party. She further replied that except two members i.e., SI Sanjay and SI Dalip, remaining police personnels were in uniform. She further replied that she did not remember the exact place in police station where the briefing had taken place. She further replied that the boundary wall of the police station and the briefing took place inside the boundary wall.
11.8. She further replied that she did not remember exactly whether the briefing took place inside the building of the police station or in the compound of the police station. He further replied that she did not remember the exact time when the briefing took place. She further replied that she also did not remember the exact duration of briefing. She further replied that she did not remember whether the briefing went on for 1-2 minutes, 15-20 minutes or one hour. She further replied that she did not remember the exact time when they had left the police station for PVR Saket. She further replied that there were two vehicles, one was Tata make and one was Gypsy.
11.9. This witness further replied that she did not remember which member of the raiding party sat in which vehicle. She further replied that she was sitting in the Gypsy. She further replied that she did not remember the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 40 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:02:37 +0530
time when they had reached the spot. She further replied that the vehicles ie.., Gypsy and Tata were stationed/ parked near PVR Saket. She further replied that she did not remember the exact location of parking of those vehicles.
11.10. She further replied that she did not even know whether these vehicles were parked at the Pramod Mahajan road or the road left PVR complex. She further replied that when the raiding party reached the spot, ACP Mehar Singh was present at the spot. She further replied that she did not know in which vehicle the ACP Mehar Singh had come to the spot. She further replied that she did not remember whether the ACP was wearing uniform or not.
11.11. She further replied that they were briefed by the ACP also, however, she did not remember the exact duration of briefing. She further replied that she did not remember whether she had seen the secret informer either in the police station or at the spot. She further replied that the personal search of the SI Sanjay was conducted in front of her, however, she did not remember the time.
11.12. She further replied that she did not remember as to what was found from the personal possession of SI Sanjay. She further replied that the personal search of the SI Dalip was not conducted in front of her.
11.13. She further replied that she did not remember whether any search memo of SI Sanjay was prepared at the spot or not. She further replied that the accused persons had come in two vehicles. She further replied that she did SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 41 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:02:46 +0530
not remember the colour of those two vehicles i.e., Honda Civic and Honda City cars. She further replied that the said two vehicles stopped at Nala near PVR Saket. She further replied that she did not know whether this Nala was situated at front, back, right side or left side of PVR Cinema Complex.
11.14. She further replied that she did not remember the exact distance of the said Nala from PVR Cinema complex. She further replied that she did not even know whether this Nala was at a distance of 10-20 meters, 150- 300 meters or one kilometre. She further replied that the accused persons were sitting in those two cars, however, she did not know which accused was sitting in which car. She further replied that she did not remember as to which vehicle of the accused was parked ahead and which one was behind. She further replied that she did not know whether the distance between the cars was 1-2 meters, 10- 15 meters, 100-200 meters or one kilometre. She further replied that she was standing at a little distance from those two vehicles of the accused, however, she did not know the exact place where she was standing. She further replied that she also did not know the exact distance between herself and the car of the accused persons.
11.15. She further replied that she did not know whether the distance was 1-2 meters, 10-15 meters, 100- 200 meters or 1 km. She further replied that she did not know whether the members of the raiding party were hiding or roaming on the road near the vehicles of the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 42 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:02:54 +0530
accused. She further replied that Rs. 5000/- were given to the SI Sanjay to strike a deal with the accused. She further replied that the SI Sanjay Sharma went to the vehicle of the accused who had parked the vehicle in front. She further replied that she did not know as to which the accused was sitting in the car parked ahead.
11.16. She further replied that she did not know whether the accused Shiv Murat was sitting at the back seat of the car parked ahead or at the back. She further replied that she did not know as to what clothes were worn by the accused Shiv Muarat Dwivedi. She further replied that she did not remember whether the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was wearing dhoti kurta, coat-pant or jeans t- shirt.
11.17. She further replied that the accused Shiv Murat had a beard at the time of his arrest however she did not know whether he had moustaches or not. She further replied that she did not remember as to which accused SI Sanjay had handed over Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 5000/- which were handed over to the accused were in the denomination of Rs. 1000/-.
11.18. She further replied that she did not remember the exact time when Ct. Sodan had left the spot for police station with the rukka. She further replied that she did not know as to how the Ct. Sodan went to the police station for registration of the FIR. She further replied that she did not remember whether the accused Shiv Murat or any other accused had enticed or invited SI Sanjay Sharma or to lure SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 43 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:03:00 +0530
him into prostitution.
11.19. The witness had denied the suggestion that she had never gone to the spot and that was why she was unable to disclose about the exact locations of the vehicle where they were parked and also their exact distance.
11.20. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shalini Gautam wherein the witness had replied that briefing was conducted by the Inspector Pankaj in the police station. She further replied that she was mere a party to raiding team and she was not assigned any specific role in the raiding party. She further replied that as per briefing, only two officer namely SI Sanjay and SI Praveen Kumar were assigned specific roles.
11.21. She further replied that she did not know whether beat constable of PVR Saket was member of raiding party or not. She further voluntarily replied that she did not know as to who was beat officer at that time. She further replied that they went to the spot in two vehicles i.e., one Gypsy and another was Tata. She further replied that Gupsy was having police bacon. She further replied that she did not remember whether the Tata vehicle was having the same or not. She further replied that she was sitting besides Ct. Savita. She further replied that they were in the backside of the Gypsy.
11.22. She further replied that she did not know as to which one was service road and which one was the main road and that was why she could not tell on which road the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 44 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:03:08 +0530
Gypsy was parked. She further replied that she did not know as to where SI Sanjay and SI Praveen Kumar were sitting in the vehicle. She further replied that she was not assigned any specific role in the briefing of ACP. She further replied that all the members of the raiding party were scattered there.
11.23. She further replied that she did not know the exact location of SI Sanjay and SI Dalip. She further replied that SI Sanjay was instructed to give signal by putting his hand on his head. She further replied that she did not remember as to who had handed over Rs. 5000/- to decoy customer SI Sanjay. She further replied that she did not remember whether SI Sanjay was called by any member sitting inside the vehicle of accused persons.
11.24. She further replied that she did not remember as to how the conversation between the accused and SI Sanjay took place. She further replied that 3-3 females were sitting in each vehicle. She further replied that she had conducted the personal search of female accused persons. She further replied that she did not remember as to how many female accused persons were personally searched by her.
11.25. She further replied that she even did not remember as to how many female accused persons were searched by Ct. Savita. She further replied that she did not remember as to what was recovered from the personal search of the accused Shalini Gautam. She further replied that however, ladies purse, mobile phone and some SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 45 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:03:13 +0530
jewellery items along with some money were recovered from the personal search of all the female accused persons.
11.26. She further replied that she did not remember as to who had ordered the accused persons to come out from the respective vehicles. The witness had denied the suggestion that she had not joined the raiding party.
12. PW 4: Retired SI Soban Singh: He deposed that on 26.02.2010, he was posted in the police station Saket as Duty officer and on that day, at about 12.15 am (night), he had received the rukka through Ct. Sodan Singh, on the basis of which, he had recorded the FIR of the present case and identified the same as Ex. PW 4/A and he also identified the endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW 4/B. 12.1. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shalini Gautam wherein the witness had replied that Ct. Sodan Singh was in uniform when he had come to the police station.
12.2. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Praveen Kumar wherein the witness had replied that the FIR was not typed by him and he did not know whether any other police official had accompanied Ct. Sodan Singh.
12.3. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, however, opportunity was granted to him.
13. PW 5: W/Ct. Savita: She deposed that on 25.02.2010, she SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 46 of 100
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19
16:03:20 +0530
was posted as Lady Constable at PS Saket and after receiving the secret information by her senior official, she along with another lady Constable Sharmila, Inspector Dharamdev, Inspector Ram Kumar, PSI Sanjay Sharma, SI Praveen Kumar Kumar, SI Dilip Kumar, Ct. Niranjan, Ct. Sodan, HC Ravinder, HC Devender and other were present at the raiding team who went to Saket PVR for apprehending the accused under immoral trafficking.
13.1. She further deposed that they had received the secret information at around 08.40 pm and they had reached at PVR Saket at about 09.00 pm. She further deposed that she did not remember who were in uniform and who were in civil dress. She further deposed that ACP Hauz Khas had also reached at the spot and he had briefed all of them.
13.2. She further deposed that ACP Hauz Khas had also asked for help from the public persons present there, but they had refused to join the investigation. She further deposed that ACP thereafter, had asked them to take position. She further deposed that PSI Sanjay Sharma along with informer was asked to give a signal when they had come and SI Dilip Kumar was made as a decoy customer. She further deposed that at around 10.00 pm, two cars had come towards the drainage side and had stopped at the PVR.
13.3. She further deposed that she did not remember the registration number of the said car but cars were Honda City and Honda Civic. She further deposed that thereafter, SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 47 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:03:27 +0530
PSI Sanjay Sharma was made thorough search of his body and was handed over five notes of Rs. 1000/- by the Senior Officer present in the raid and also dealt with the costumer which was informed by the secret informer.
13.4. She further deposed that after dealing with the customer, he was asked to give a signal, PSI Sanjay Sharama went to the car and presented himself as decoy customer. She further deposed that thereafter, he had given a signal to them. She further deposed that they all had rushed to the spot and on search, three notes of Rs. 1000/- were recovered from the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and two notes of Rs. 1000/- were recovered from the accused Praveen Kumar.
13.5. She further deposed that thereafter, the notes were seized in sealed packet with the seal of PS. She further deposed that they handed over the said pullanda to SI Dilip. She further deposed that they had prepared the rukka and handed over to the Ct. Sodan and had sent him to the police station for registration of the FIR. She further deposed that they found six ladies in those two cars along with two other male persons.
13.6. She further deposed that she along with Lady Constable Sharmila had apprehended the six ladies and had taken aside and made personal search of the all six ladies and witness had identified the search memo as Ex. PW 3/A to Ex. PW 3/F which also contained signature at point X. She further deposed that they had also arrested six girls and arrest memos were prepared and witness had SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 48 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:03:33 +0530
identified the same as Ex.PW 5/A to Ex. PW 5/E and thereafter they had gone back to the police station.
13.7. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi wherein the witness had replied that she did not remember whether the said secret informer had come to the police station in her presence or not. She further replied that she also did not know whether the said secret informer had left the police station in her presence. She further replied that the secret informer had come to the police station at around 08.40 pm. She further replied that at that time, she was present at the police station. She further replied that she did not remember her duty hours on 25.02.2010. She further replied that SHO had formed the raiding party, however, she did not remember when this raiding party was formed.
13.8. She further replied that she did not remember whether the SHO had briefed the raiding party inside his office, in the police station building or outside the building. She further replied that all the police officials who were the part of the raiding party had attended the briefing given by the SHO. She further replied that she was in civil dress.
13.9. She further replied that she did not remember the time when ACP concerned had come at the spot. The witness had denied the suggestion that the ACP concerned did not come at the spot on that day. She further replied that she along with lady Ct. Sharmila had gone by Maruti Gypsy of the police station. She further replied that she did SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 49 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:03:39 +0530
not remember where the W/Ct. Sharmila, herself and other police officials were sitting in the gypsy.
13.10. The witness had replied on being asking about the other police officials travelling in the police gypsy, that she did not remember how many police officials were travelling with them in the Gypsy and she also did not remember their names. She further replied that she only remembered the name of the W/Ct. Sharmila.
13.11. The witness further replied that she did not remember whether W/Ct. Sharmila was in uniform or in civil dress. She further replied that they had reached at the spot within fifteen minutes. She further replied that she did not remember where the other police vehicle was parked. She further replied that both the vehicles had reached at PVR Saket.
13.12. She further replied that she did not remember whether the said police official vehicles were parked at the distance of 10 meters, 100 meters, 1 km or 2 kms. She further replied that ACP had come at the spot in her presence, however, she did not remember in which vehicle, he had come at the spot. She further replied that she did not remember whether ACP was in uniform or in civil dress.
13.13. She further replied that the secret informer was standing with the raiding party. She further replied that she did not remember the physical appearance or the dress of the secret informer. She further replied that the car SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 50 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:03:47 +0530
of the accused was at the distance of 10 meters from the position of the raiding party.
13.14. She further replied that she did not remember accused Shiv Murat was sitting in which car. She further replied that she did not remember whether the said accused was sitting in the front or back of the car. She further replied that she did not remember whether the accused Shiv Murat was alone in the car or not. She further replied that she did not remember whether the accused Shiv Murat was wearing saffron Chogga or any other dress.
13.15. She further replied that the secret informer did not make any signal when the car of the accused had come to the spot. The witness voluntarily replied that it was PSI/ Sanjay who had given the signal by hand gesture when the car of the accused had come at the spot. She further replied that she did not remember whether PSI / Sanjay had given any money to the accused Shiv Murat. She further replied that PSI/ Sanjay had spoken to the accused Shiv Murat. She further replied that she did not remember the duration of the conversation between accused Shiv Murat and PSI/ Sanjay.
13.16. She further replied that she did not remember whether there was any shop or pan cigarette shop near the spot. She further replied that IO had asked some persons to join the raiding party. She further replied that she did not remember whether search of the accused Shiv Murat was conducted in her presence or not. She further replied that she did not remember whether the dikky of the car of the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 51 of 100
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19
16:03:54 +0530
accused was opened or searched in her presence or not.
13.17. The witness had denied the suggestion that the accused Shiv Murat was not arrested from PVR Saket but he was lifted from South Extension at 06.30 pm.
14. PW 6 Sh. Mehar Singh, Retired ACP of Defence Colony.
He deposed that on 25.02.2010, he was holding the post of SDPO of Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He further deposed that on that on that day, at about 08.40 pm, telephonically, he was informed by Inspector Pankaj Singh, the then SHO of PS Saket about the receipt of information regarding running of sex racket and further it was informed that for supplying girls for prostitution, the pimps and touts would be supplying girls at about 10.00 pm near PVR Saket, New Delhi by Honda Cars. He further deposed that he also talked to the informer and directed Inspector Pankaj Singh to form a raiding party under his supervision to develop the information and lay a trap and had reached at PVR Saket, New Delhi with the team.
14.1. He further deposed that he had also reached PVR Saket by his own vehicle and Inspector Pankaj Singh had also reached PVR Saket along with the team comprising of Inspector Dharamdev, Inspector Ram Kumar, SI Dilip Kumar, SI Praveen Kumar, SI Sanjay Sharma and other team members.
14.2. He further deposed that SI Sanjay Sharma and SI Dilip Kumar were asked to remain in Civil Clothes. He further deposed that he had briefed the team suitably and SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 52 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:04:01 +0530
also requested the number of public persons/ passerby to join the investigation as independent witness but none of them had agreed to join the investigation and had left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He further deposed that according to the directions, the Inspector Pankaj had asked the SI Sanjay Sharma to act as decoy customer and SI Dilip Kumar to act a shadow witness. He further deposed that their personal search was taken and they were not allowed to carry anything.
14.3. He deposed that the shadow witness SI Sanjay Sharma was handed over Rs.5,000/- in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- currency notes under a handing over memo prepared to this effect. He further deposed that SI Dilip Kumar as a shadow witness was asked to remain close to SI Sanjay Sharma, shadow witness to see passing of currency notes to the pimps or girls and to over hear the conversation between the pimps and the girls regarding negotiating the deal. He further deposed that other team members were asked to take suitable position on the spot.
14.4. He further deposed that at about 10.00 p.m., two vehicles Honda City Car and Honda Civic Car were stopped behind PVR Saket. He further deposed that the informer identified these two cars belonging to the pimps who came there to supply girls to the customers. He further deposed that the shadow witness SI Sanjay Sharma and SI Dilip Kumar were asked to go to them for negotiation about the girls. He further deposed that SI Sanjay Sharma went to the pimp who was later on identified as Shiv Murat Dwivedi and asked him for a girl.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 53 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:04:08 +0530
14.5. He further deposed that in the car of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, total three girls were there out of which he offered one girl namely Shalini Gautam and told her rate for one night for Rs.25,000/- and for rest of the two girls the rate was Rs.15,000/- for one night. He again deposed that SI Sanjay Sharma was decoy customer and not shadow witness.
14.6. He further deposed that the decoy customer SI Sanjay Sharma asked to provide Shalini Gautam. He further deposed that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi asked the decoy customer to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as his commission and accordingly, SI Sanjay Sharma paid him Rs.3,000/- in the form of three currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each. He further deposed that thereafter, for other girl, accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had asked the decoy customer SI Sanjay Sharma to choose one girl from other car.
14.7. He further deposed that in the other car, the tout/pimp was accused Praveen Kumar was alongwith three girls. He further deposed that on asking from those three girls, the decoy customer SI Sanjay Sharma selected Ms.Anshu Dubey and the rate by the pimp for all the three girls was stated as Rs.10,000/- for each girl for one night. He further deposed that after selection of girl Ashu Dubey, accused Praveen Kumar the pimp asked for his commission, who was paid Rs.2,000/- in the form of two currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each.
14.8. He further deposed that when the transaction was over, the decoy customer gave pre-appointed signal to SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 54 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:04:17 +0530
the team by scratching his head with right hand. He
further deposed that at the same time, the team surrounded both of the cars, both the pimps and all the six girls. He further deposed that on personal search of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi an amount of Rs.3,000/- (three notes in denomination of Rs.1000/- each) was recovered from his pant pocket and likewise from the pant pocket of accused Praveen Kumar an amount of Rs.2,000/- (two notes in denomination of Rs.1000/- each) was recovered.
14.9. He further deposed that the recovered three currency notes from accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi were sealed in a packet with the seal of PS Saket and likewise two currency notes recovered from accused Praveen Kumar was also sealed on the spot and as per seizure memo taken in police possession. He further deposed that the handing over memo was given to the decoy customer and shadow witness.
14.10. He further deposed that after comparison the details of recovered currency notes with the handing over memo, it was confirmed that these currency notes were the same which were passed on to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and two notes from accused Praveen Kumar. He further deposed that thereafter, the search of car of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was conducted and one black colour suitcase containing Rs.1,55,000/-, one US dollar of 20 dollar denomination, diaries, register, video CDs etc. were recovered which were seized after preparing its seizure memo in this context.
14.11. He further deposed that the decoy customer SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 55 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:04:24 +0530
SI Dilip Kumar, again said shadow witness SI Dilip Kumar confirmed the conversation between decoy customer and accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi as well as accused Praveen Kumar about negotiation of girls and passing of currency notes to both of them. He further deposed that thereafter, both the pimps stated above and all the six girls were arrested on the spot after following the legal procedure.
14.12. He further deposed that after reaching to the spot initially near PVR Saket, sincere efforts were made to procure public witnesses but all the persons without telling their names had left the spot and nobody was prepared to become witness and had not joined the investigation.
14.13. He further deposed that a rough sketch of scene of occurrence was prepared on the spot. He further deposed that a written complaint was prepared and sent to PS Saket through Ct.Sheodan for registration of the case. He further deposed that all the proceedings at the spot was conducted by SHO/Inspector Pankaj with the help of other team members whereas he was present there to supervise the whole proceedings.
14.14. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted by Inspector Pankaj, the then SHO PS Saket.
14.15. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat @ Shiva @ Rajeev @ Swamiji wherein the witness had replied that in the year 2010, he was looking after the work of three police stations namely PS Hauz Khas, PS Malviya Nagar and PS Saket. He further replied that the informer did not visit his office.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 56 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:04:31 +0530
14.16. He further replied that he had met the said informer for the first time at PVR Saket on 25.02.2010 at around 09.30 pm. He further replied that there was no entry made with respect to his departure from his office to PVR Saket. He voluntarily replied that the same was not required for Gazatted officers. He further replied that he had left his office at about 08.45 pm to go to PVR Saket. He further replied that he was in his uniform.
14.17. He further replied that the driver of his vehicle was accompanying him from the ACP office along with wireless operator. He further replied that he did not remember the names of the driver or the said wireless operator. He further replied that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, he had mentioned the presence of his driver, however, his name was not mentioned. He further replied that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, there is no mention about the presence of wireless operator.
14.18. He further replied that he did not remember whether any entry was made with respect to the driver or the wireless operator leaving the ACP office to reach PVR Saket. He voluntarily replied that generally no such entry register is maintained in the ACP office. He further replied that no movement register is maintained in the ACP office. He denied the suggestion that movement register was maintained in the ACP office and he was deliberately trying to conceal the said fact.
14.19. He further replied that from the term 'Prostitution racket is going on in the area in large scale', he had meant on the particular date, it was the perception SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 57 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:04:40 +0530
that in the area of PS Saket, this racket was going on .
14.20. He further replied that it was not within his knowledge if similar prostitution racket was being run in the area of PS Malviya Nagar and PS Hauz Khas.
14.21. He further replied that the SHO of PS Saket or any other officer from the said police station did not visit his office prior to his leaving for PVR Saket. He further replied that he had reached PVR Saket at about 09.30 pm. 14.22. He further replied that he did not remember the exact location where his official vehicle was parked and where he had stood immediately on reaching PVR Saket. He further replied that he had met the SHO of PS Saket at the back side of the PVR Saket. He further replied that he had met the raiding party at the back side of the PVR Saket. He further replied that the SHO was in uniform. He further replied that the members of the raiding party was also in uniform except SI Sanjay Sharma and SI Dilip Kumar.
14.23. He further replied that the raiding party comprised of SHO Sh. Pankaj Singh, Inspector Dharam Dev, SI Sanjay Sharma, SI Dilip Kumar, SI Praveen Kumar and he did not remember the name of the other members.
14.24. He further replied that the said raiding party comprised of about 10-12 members. He further replied that he did not remember the vehicles used by the said raiding party. He further replied that he did not remember where the vehicles used by the said raiding party was parked. He SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 58 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:04:49 +0530
further replied that he did not know by which vehicle the said informer had reached the PVR Saket. The witness voluntarily replied that he had come along with the raiding party.
14.25. He further replied that he had briefed the said raiding party at the back side of the PVR Saket. He further replied that the said briefing continued from 09.30 pm and it took about 10-15 minutes. He further replied that the five currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 1000/- was given by the SHO Sh. Pankaj Singh to him which he had then handed over to SI Sanjay Sharma.
14.26. He further replied that he did not remember if the said five currency notes were treated with chemical before handing over the same to the SI Sanjay Sharma. The witness voluntarily replied that the said notes were handed over after preparing memo to that effect.
14.27. The witness further replied that the personal search of SI Sanjay was conducted in his presence at about 09.50 pm at the back side of PVR Saket. He further replied that there was nothing in the possession of the said SI Sanjay. The witness voluntarily replied that he was not allowed to carrying anything.
14.28. He further replied that at about 10.00 pm, two cars Honda Civic and Honda City had come to the rear side of PVR Saket. He further replied that he did not remember the colour and number of the said vehicles. The witness voluntarily replied that the same has been recorded in records.
14.29. He further replied that the said cars were at a SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 59 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:04:55 +0530
short distance of 8-10 steps from where he was standing. The witness further replied that he did not remember if he could see the face of accused Shiv Murat from the place where he was standing to the place where the said accused was present. He further replied that the rear side of PVR Saket was a well lit area.
14.30. The witness further replied that he did not remember if any CCTV camera was installed at the rear side of PVR Saket. The witness further replied that he did not pass any instructions to the SHO of PS Saket or to any other police official to collect and preserve the CCTV footage if any installed at the rear side of PVR Saket. He further replied that the same was his reply with respect to the location/ CDR of the mobile phones belonging to the accused. He further voluntarily replied that the SHO must have done that on his own during the course of investigation.
14.31. He further replied that he did not remember in which the car the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was sitting, when apprehended at the spot. He further replied that three girls were travelling with the accused Shiv Murat and three were with the accused Praveen Kumar, however, he did not remember which girl was sitting where.
14.32. He further replied that by 'suitable place' he had meant that he was standing at the rear parking area of PVR Saket. He further replied that at that time, the SHO Pankaj Singh was standing next to him. He further replied that he did not remember the exact places where remaining members of the raiding party were positioned, however, SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 60 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:05:01 +0530
they were all at the rear parking area only.
14.33. He further replied that PVR Saket is a crowded area and public persons were present all around. He further replied that he had asked the public persons to assist them, but no written notice was given to any of the said public persons. The witness had denied the suggestion that he had tried to include any public person at the time of the apprehension proceedings of the accused persons. He further replied that he had seen the accused Shiv Murat once he was apprehended and he was taken out of the car. He further replied that he did not remember what the accused Shiv Murat was wearing at that time.
14.34. The witness further replied that accused Shiv Murat was wearing pant -shirt. He further replied that he did not remember what the accused Shalini Gautam was wearing on 25.02.2010. The witness voluntarily replied that due to lapse of time and age factor, he was unable to recollect. He further replied that he did not remember if any police beat box was located at or around PVR Saket. The witness further replied voluntarily that beat officer was generally present in their beat area.
14.35. The witness further replied that he did not remember if the beat constable was present during his briefing to the raiding party. The witness had denied the suggestion that no beat constable of PVR Saket was included in the investigation/ apprehension as the accused Shiv Murat was arrested from South Extension area.
14.36. The witness further replied that he did not remember if any kiosk of the Paan/ Cigarette/ eatables was SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 61 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:05:08 +0530
present at the rear side of the PVR Saket, however, some restaurants were open and operational at that time. He further replied that he did not ask any employee of the said restaurants to join the proceedings at that time.
14.37. The witness further replied that he was at some distance and therefore, could not hear the conversation between the decoy customer SI Sanjay Sharma with the accused Shiv Murat. He further replied that he could see from a distance that decoy customer SI Sanjya Sharma was talking to the accused Shalini Gautam.
14.38. He further replied that he did not remember in which car the accused Shalini Gautam was sitting while having a conversation with the said decoy customer. He further replied that he could not see the number of currency notes handed over by the said decoy customer to the accused Shiv Murat, however, he had managed to observe the currency notes exchanging hands.
14.39. He further replied that he had seen the accused Shiv Murat keeping the currency notes in his pant back pocket and at that time, he was standing outside his car while keeping the currency notes in his back pocket in his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC.
14.40. He further replied that the search of the vehicle in which accused Shiv Murat was travelling was conducted in his presence. He further replied that he could not tell the exact time when the said search of the vehicle was conducted but it was after 10.30 pm. He further replied that the site plan was prepared in his presence.
14.41. He further replied that he did not remember SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 62 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:05:16 +0530
whether SHO Sh. Pankaj Singh or some other official prepared it. He further replied that he did not remember the exact time when the said site plan was prepared, however, it was after midnight.
14.42. He further replied that the rukka in the present case was prepared in his presence, but he did not remember the exact time, however, it was prepared around midnight. He further replied that he did not remember who had prepared the said rukka. He further replied that the said rukka was sent to the police station at around 11.40 pm. 14.42. The witness further replied that the said rukka was taken by Ct. Sheodan to the police station in his presence. He further replied that he did not remember if the same was taken by Ct. Sheodan to the police station by foot, two wheeler or four wheeler. He further replied that from the spot, he had gone to the office at around 01.00 am.
14.43. He further replied that in the present matter, he did not visit any place outside Delhi as he was not the IO of this case. He further replied that he did not remember if he had ever received any complaint from public persons living or working within the jurisdiction of the PS Saket regarding any prostitution racket being run in the area.
14.44. The witness had denied the suggestion that the accused Shiv Murat has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that the accused Shalini Gautam has been falsely implicated in the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 63 of 100
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date:
PANDEY 2025.11.19
16:05:23 +0530
present case. He further replied that on 25.02.2010, he had not visited PVR Saket. He further replied that he had never briefed the raiding party. He further denied the suggestion that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Shalini Gautam were not involved in prostitution racket.
14.45. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Praveen Kumar wherein the witness had admitted that he had gone through the file to refresh his memory. The witness further replied that he did not recall exact time but he had left from the spot at about 1.00 a.m. in the intervening night of 25/26.02.2010. He further replied that he had reached at the spot at about 9.30 p.m. on 25.02.2010.
14.46. The witness had admitted that during this 3½ hours of his presence at the spot, he had not signed a single document as a witness. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot on 25.02.2010. He further denied the suggestion that no such raid or incident took place on 25.02.2010. He further admitted that the IO Inspector Pankaj had not brought the secret informer to meet him personally at his office for him to satisfy himself regarding the secret information and ordering immediate raid.
14.47. He further replied that during the said period three police stations namely PS Malviya Nagar, PS Hauz Khas and PS Saket were under his jurisdiction. He further replied that it was not a requirement for an ACP to make DD entry while leaving for any investigation or returning from an investigation. He further replied that no DD entry was required to be made for departure or arrival of driver SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 64 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:05:32 +0530
or wireless operator who accompanies ACP. The witness had admitted that he did not make any DD entry regarding his departure from the ACP office on 25.02.2010. He further replied that the driver and the wireless operator also did not make any DD entry on the said date.
14.48. He further replied that he did not know if statement of his driver or wireless operator was recorded by the IO on 25.02.2010 or any time thereafter. He further replied that as far as he remembered, the IO Inspector Pankaj had not shown him the DD No.28A dated 25.02.2010 on his arrival at the spot.
14.49. The witness had replied on being asked by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that 'you have stated in your examination that you had gone to spot on 25.02.2010 to supervise the proceedings, but you did not check the most basic document i.e. DD No.28A dated 25.02.2010, upon which proceedings had started' that he had discussed the facts in detail with IO Inspector Pankaj Singh and also verified after discussing with the informer the details for his satisfaction and he took every step legally required for his presence.
14.50. The witness further replied on being asked that 'when was the first time he saw DD No.28A dated 25.02.2010 upon which proceedings were initiated in the present case?' that he did not remember and he could not state the same even after going through the judicial record of the case.
14.51. The witness further replied that prior to the raid proceedings at the spot, IO Pankaj had not informed SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 65 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:05:39 +0530
him as to how many cars, bearing what registration numbers and how many persons would be arriving at the spot. He further admitted that the IO Inspector Pankaj had not mentioned to him the names of the persons who would be arriving at the spot. He further again replied that as far as he remembered the names of persons were not revealed to him by IO Inspector Pankaj prior to the raid proceedings.
14.52. The witness further replied that he did not remember at what time, the secret informer was allowed to leave the spot. The witness further replied that he did not remember how long the proceedings at spot continued after the secret informer had left the spot. The witness had voluntarily replied that most likely as far as he remembered, the secret informer had left after apprehension of accused persons. He further replied that the time of apprehension of accused persons was about 10.30 p.m. 14.53. The witness further replied that he did not remember which was the first document prepared at the spot on 25.02.2010. He further replied that he did not want to see the judicial file to answer the said question regarding the first document prepared at the spot.
14.54. The witness had denied the suggestion that he was giving evasive answers as no such raid had taken place on 25.02.2010 and he could not tell which document was prepared first because he had never visited the spot on 25.02.2010. The witness had voluntarily replied that Inspector Pankaj was the investigating officer and he was SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 66 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:05:45 +0530
taking every step as per the requirement of investigation.
14.55. The witness had replied that he did not remember when Ct. Sheodan returned to the spot after registration of FIR. He further replied that he also did not remember at what time Ct. Shodan had left the spot alongwith rukka. before dispatching the ruqua through Ct. Sheodan, he had gone through the ruqua. The witness further replied that he did not remember if he had seen the computerized copy of the FIR in the present case which was brought back by Ct. Sheodan.
14.56. The witness had replied on being asked that 'How much time after the arrival of cars at the spot, Decoy customer SI Sanjay Sharma and shadow witness SI Dilip approached the said cars?' that within five minutes.
14.57. The witness had replied that the five notes of Rs.1,000/- each in denomination were handed over by IO Inspector Pankaj Singh to Decoy Customer SI Sanjay Sharma. He further replied that he did not know if the said Rs.5,000/- were withdrawn from police station account or was the personal account of IO Inspector Pankaj Singh. The witness had admitted that the said five notes were not treated with Phenolaphthelen powder (potassium carbonate). Witness again replied that he did not remember the same.
14.58. The witness had replied that he had advised IO Inspector Pankaj Singh to conduct personal search of shadow witness SI Dilip to rule out any possibility of planting any incriminating evidence including the notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination on accused persons. The witness SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 67 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:05:53 +0530
had replied that he did not know if the IO Inspector Pankaj Singh prepared any personal search memo in this regard. The witness further replied that the personal search memo of decoy customer SI Sanjay was prepared at around 10.00 p.m. He further replied that these facts are reflected in the handing over memo when Rs.5,000/- in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each (total five currency notes) to SI Sanjay Sharma, decoy Customer were handed over.
14.59. He further replied that he did not remember if the handing over memo of Rs.5,000/- to SI Sanjay was prepared prior to the arrival of cars at the spot or after the arrival of the said cars. The witness again replied that the same was prepared prior to the arrival of cars at the spot.
14.60. The witness replied in negative on being asked that 'Was it his prior knowledge two accused persons would arrive at the spot and would negotiate for Rs.5,000/- i.e. the same amount given to the decoy customer?' 14.61. He further replied that prior to the decoy customer SI Sanjay approaching the said cars, the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi alongwith three girls were standing outside the car. He further replied that again the said accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and three girls had come outside the cars on the asking of decoy customer SI Sanjay. He further replied that while decoy customer SI Sanjay was speaking with the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and three girls who were standing outside the car, no one had come out from the other car. He further replied that he did not remember if the windows of the cars were rolled down SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 68 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:06:00 +0530
prior to the decoy customer SI Sanjay approaching them.
14.62. The witness had admitted that no one from the said two cars waved at decoy customer SI Sanjay or shadow witness SI Dilip indicating them to come near the car. The witness further admitted that he did not notice any occupant of the said cars waving at general public asking them to come near the car. He further admitted that there was no indication or sign or symbol on the said cars which would indicate to the general public that any girls are being offered for sexual purposes in the said cars.
14.63. The witness further admitted that as per secret information as stipulated in DD No.28A, the accused persons would come to the spot and would solicit customers for the prostitution (jism faroshi ke liye grahak patayenge).
14.64. The witness further admitted that during the time period between the arrival of cars at the spot and the decoy customer approaching the cars, no over act was done by any occupant of the cars to suggest that they were soliciting any customers for sexual purposes.
14.65. The witness had denied the suggestion that the proceedings allegedly shown at the spot on 25.02.2010 had never taken place and only false narrative has been created on paper to falsely implicate accused persons in the present case. The witness further denied the suggestion that no accused persons were arrested at the said spot on 25.02.2010. The witness further denied that the accused Praveen Kumar was lifted from his residence and falsely implicated in the present case.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 69 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:06:05 +0530
14.66. The witness further replied that he alongwith Inspector Pankaj discussed who would be decoy customer and who would be shadow witness in the proceedings. He further replied that the said discussion took place between him and Inspector Pankaj at the time when he had arrived at the spot. He further replied that the selection of SI Sanjay as Decoy Customer and SI Dilip as shadow witness was decided at the spot.
14.67. The witness further replied that it was possible that both SI Sanjay as decoy customer and SI Dilip as shadow witness had changed their clothes at the spot. The witness further replied that the rough site plan was prepared by IO Inspector Pankaj in his presence after midnight, however, he did not remember the exact time. He further replied that he did not remember if Ct. Sheodan had signed any documents prepared at the spot in his presence.
14.68. The witness further replied that he did not remember if he had seen Ct. Sheodan at the spot after he had left the spot alongwith ruqua. The witness had admitted that the site plan did not show the positioning of any of the police party members including decoy customer, shadow witness, IO and himself. The witness further admitted that the Pramod Mahajan Road going towards Press Enclave Road in front of PVR complex was a busy road even at 10.00 p.m. during the night.
14.69. He further admitted that no part of the alleged proceedings at the spot on 25.02.2010 were audio or video recorded. The witness further admitted that there SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 70 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:06:12 +0530
was no such instructions with shadow witness SI Dilip to select any girl from the car for himself, he was directed simply to over hear the conversation between decoy customer and accused and passing of money either to the pimps or the girls.
14.70. He further replied that there was no ear piece (listening device) or recording device given to either SI Sanjay or SI Dilip. The witness further replied that when SI Sanjay approached the car, SI Dilip was standing close by. He further replied that Inspector Pankaj or himself had not instructed SI Dilip as to what should be the distance between him and the decoy customer SI Sanjay.
14.71. The witness further replied that they might have decided the distance themselves as per suitability. The witness further replied that he did not remember what was the approx distance between decoy customer SI Sanjay and shadow witness SI Dilip when SI Sanjay approached the car and was speaking with its occupants. The witness had denied the suggestion that he did not remember the said basic detail regarding the distance between SI Dilip and SI Sanjay as no such raid/incident took place on 25.02.2010.
14.72. The witness further replied that the search memos pertaining to the cars were prepared in his presence. The witness further replied that the search memos pertaining to both the cars were prepared in his presence prior to the dispatch of ruqua through Ct. Sheodan. The witness further replied that he did not remember who was the attesting witness in the search SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 71 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:06:19 +0530
memos of both the cars.
14.73. The witness had admitted that the search memo of decoy customer SI Sanjay i.e. Ex.PW1/A and also Fard Hawalgi note memo Ex.PW1/B were prepared prior to dispatch of ruqua and hence they did not bear the FIR Number at the top of the page and it only mentioned DD No.28A dated 25.02.2010. The witness further admitted that prior to the dispatch of ruqua, the to-be assigned FIR Number was not in his knowledge.
14.74. The witness further replied that he did not know how come the search memos pertaining to the search of two cars at the spot, which were prepared prior to the sending of ruqua bears the FIR Number at the top of the page, and not DD No.28A dated 25.02.2010. The witness had denied the suggestion that all the documents in the present case have been manipulated and prepared at the police station to falsely implicate the accused persons.
14.75. The witness further admitted that in his presence IO Inspector Pankaj had not served any written notice to join the investigation on any public person including any Pan shops or any other shops or restaurants in the vicinity. The witness voluntarily replied that several persons were asked orally but they refused to join the investigation.
14.76. The witness further replied that he did not remember whether SI Sanjay as decoy customer or SI Dilip as Shadow witness had the instructions to scratch his head as indication. The witness further replied that he did not remember which one of them scratched his head during SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 72 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:06:26 +0530
the said proceedings, however, he remembered when one of SI Sanjay or SI Dilip scratched his head, all the occupants of both the cars were standing outside the car.
14.77. The witness had denied the suggestion that no such incident took place on the spot on 25.02.2010. The witness replied that he did not remember the registration number of car of accused Praveen Kumar. The witness further replied that he did not remember what was the colour of pant-shirt of accused Praveen Kumar which he was wearing at that time.
14.78. The witness further replied that the currency notes were handed over to accused Praveen Kumar by SI Sanjay. The witness further replied that he did not remember whether accused Praveen Kumar was inside or outside his car when the said currency notes were handed over to him by SI Sanjay. The witness further replied that he did not remember if any girl was standing outside the car of accused Praveen Kumar when money was handed over to accused Praveen Kumar.
14.79. He further replied that SI Sanjay remained at the spot till the time he was at the spot. He further replied that he did not remember at what time personal search memo of accused Praveen Kumar was prepared and same was his reply for arrest memo of accused Praveen Kumar.
14.80. The witness had denied the suggestion that he did not remember most of the facts because he was never at the spot or that no such incident took place at the spot.
14.81. The witness had replied that he did not SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 73 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:06:32 +0530
remember from which road or direction the cars had come to the spot. The witness voluntarily replied that however, the cars came at the backside of the PVR Complex.
14.82. The witness had denied the suggestion that the positioning of the cars shown in the site plan are in front of the PVR Complex main road and not on the back side of the PVR Complex. The witness further replied that he did not know which car had arrived at the spot first and which car came second. He further replied that he did not remember exactly the colour of the cars. The witness voluntarily replied that it might be white.
14.83. The witness further replied that from the site plan which has two cars shown at point A and B, he could tell which car was approached by SI Sanjay first of all. The witness voluntarily replied that the car of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was approached first.
14.84. The witness further replied that only the currency notes were sealed by the IO at spot with the seal of PS Saket. The witness further replied that he did not know to whom the said seal was handed over by IO.
14.85. The witness had admitted that after the registration of the present FIR, he was appointed as IO in another FIR bearing no.54/2010 PS Saket under MCOC Act. The witness denied the suggestion that he alongwith IO Inspector Pankaj Singh falsely implicated accused Praveen Kumar in the present case so as to falsely implicate accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi under MCOC Act with aid of accused Praveen Kumar shown as associate/accomplice.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 74 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:06:37 +0530
14.86. The witness had replied that he had not given any suggestion/advise to IO Inspector Pankaj Singh to procure the call records between accused Praveen Kumar and Shiv Murat Dwivedi to establish their prior acquaintance and also to establish their location at the spot near PVR Complex on 25.02.2010.
14.87. The witness had admitted that in the FIR No.54/2010 PS Saket under provisions of MCOC Act, he had not made the girls arrested in the present case as accused. The witness had denied the suggestion that the accused Praveen Kumar has been falsely implicated in the present case. The witness had denied the suggestion that the accused Praveen Kumar was lifted from his house and implicated in the present case. The witness had denied the suggestion that the accused Praveen Kumar and Shiv Murat Dwivedi were not even known to each other.
14.88. The witness had denied the suggestion that no CCTV footages of nearby area of PVR Saket were procured in the present case as no such incident took place at spot.
15.The witness PW 6 ACP Mehar Singh was further examined under Section 311 Cr.PC after the death of the IO/ Inspector Pankaj Singh regarding the documents prepared by the IO Inspector Pankaj Singh and during his further examination under Section 311 Cr.PC, the witness has deposed that on 25.02.2010, he was working and posted as ACP Hauz Khas division and was supervising the police stations including PS Saket. He further deposed that the investigation of the present case was conducted in his SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 75 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:06:45 +0530
supervision by the then SHO Inspector Pankaj Singh (since deceased). The witness further deposed that he had seen Inspector Pankaj Singh conducting investigation of several other cases also and he had been supervising the documents and files prepared by him during the investigation and other official work and therefore, he could identify his signature.
15.1. The witness further deposed that the rukka Ex. PW 4/B bears the signature of IO/ Inspector Pankaj Singh at point B. He further identified the site plan prepared by the IO / Inspector Pankaj Singh as Ex. PW 6/B-1. He further deposed that he could also identify the place of incident since he was present at the spot at the time of apprehension of the accused persons. He further deposed that the search memo of the decoy customer, currency notes handed over to the decoy customer SI Sanjay Sharma and seizure memos of the said currency notes after the recovery Ex. PW 1/A, Ex. PW 1/B, Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. PW 1/D all bear the signature of IO/ Inspector Pankaj Singh at point C. 15.2. He further deposed that the disclosure and supplementary disclosure statements of the accused persons Ex. PW 1/I, Ex. PW 1/I-2, Ex. PW 1/I-3, Ex. PW 1/I-4, Ex. PW 1/I-5, Ex. PW 1/I-6 bear the signature of IO/ Inspector Pankaj Singh at point C. He further deposed that the arrest memos of all the accused persons Ex. PW 1/E, Ex. PW 1/F, Ex. PW 5/A, Ex. PW 5/B, Ex. PW 5/C, Ex. PW 5/D and Ex. PW 5/E bear the signature of IO / Inspector Pankaj Singh at point C. He had identified the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 76 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:06:51 +0530
arrest memo of Raina Singh as Ex. PW 6/B-2. He identified the personal search memos of all the accused persons as Ex. PW 1/G, Ex. PW 1/H, Ex. PW 3/A, Ex. PW 3/B, Ex. PW 3/C, Ex. PW 3/D, Ex. PW 3/E, Ex. PW 3/F. He further identified the seizure memo of recovery from Ajay Sharma as Ex. PW 6/B-3.
15.3. He further identified the copy of finger print impressions of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi on two sheets as PW 6/B-4 which were duly attested by IO/ Inspector Pankaj Singh. He further identified the photocopy of the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC by the IO/ Inspector Pankaj Singh as PW6/B-5.
15.4. He further identified the documents already Mark A, Mark B, Mark C, Mark D (originals of Mark A and E are in the file of Case FIR No. 54/10 under Section 3 MCOC Act, PS Saket) all bear the signature of IO/ Inspector Pankaj Singh at point C. 15.5. He further deposed that after the conclusion of the investigation, the IO / Inspector Pankaj Singh had prepared the charge sheet against the accused persons and it bears his signature at point A and of himself at point B, the charge sheet as Ex. PW 6/B-6 and the charge sheet was filed in the court as per rules.
15.6. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat Diwedi and Shalini Gautam wherein he had replied that he could not tell the duration during which IO / Inspector Pankaj Singh was the SHO of PS Saket while he was ACP Incharge. He further replied SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 77 of 100
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date:
PANDEY 2025.11.19
16:06:57 +0530
that as far as he remembered, he had supervised each and every investigation under taken by Inspector Pankaj Singh while he worked under him.
15.7. The witness further replied that the rukka Ex. PW 4/B was prepared in his presence at the spot, however, he could not exactly remember the time, but it was prepared after the apprehension of the accused. He further replied that he did not affix his signatures on the said rukka. He denied the suggestion that the rukka was not prepared in his presence.
15.8. He further replied that he did not remember whether he had enquired from the IO Inspector Pankaj Singh at the time of forwarding of charge sheet that he had deposited the said seized currency notes with the malkhana.
15.9. He further replied that the document Ex. PW 1/A, Ex. PW 1/B, Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. PW 1/D were prepared in his presence, however, he did not remember the time of its preparation. He further replied that he did not affix his signature on any of the said documents. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW 1/A, Ex. PW 1/B, Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. PW 1/D were not prepared in his presence.
15.10. He further replied that he did not remember whether the disclosure and supplementary disclosure statement of the accused persons i.e., Ex. PW 1/I, Ex. PW 1/I-2, Ex. PW 1/I-3, Ex. PW 1/I-4, Ex. PW 1/I-5, Ex. PW 1/I-6 were prepared in his presence.
15.11. He further replied that he did not remember SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 78 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:07:04 +0530
whether arrest memos of all the accused persons i.e., Ex. PW 1/E, Ex. PW 1/F, Ex. PW 5/A, Ex. PW 5/B, Ex. PW 5/C, Ex. PW 5/D and Ex. PW 5/E were prepared in his presence or not. He replied that the same was his reply with respect to the Ex. PW 6/B-2 and with respect to personal search memos of all the accused persons.
15.12. He further replied that the seizure memo of recovery i.e., Ex. PW 6/B-3 and finger prints of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi were not prepared in his presence. He further replied that the same was his reply with respect to Ex. PW6/B-4 and PW 6/B-5 collectively i.e., statement under Section 161 Cr.PC.
15.13. The witness further replied that the document Mark A and Mark B were prepared in his presence, however, he did not remember the exact time of the preparation of the same. He further replied that he did not remember whether the document Mark C was prepared in his presence or not. He further replied that the documents Mark D and Mark E were not prepared in his presence.
15.14. The witness further replied that he had not done any course or degree with respect to the handwriting analysis. The witness had identified the signature of the Inspector Pankaj Singh on the Ex. PW 1/E i.e., arrest memo of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
15.15. The witness further identified the signature of the Inspector Pankaj Singh on the Ex. PW 1/F i.e., arrest memo of accused Praveen Kumar.
15.16. The witness further identified the signature of the Inspector Pankaj Singh on the Ex. PW 1/E and Ex.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 79 of 100
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19
16:07:10 +0530
PW 1/F and further replied that he used to sign in two different ways i.e., sometimes, he used to sign in short and sometimes he used to sign his full signature.
15.17. He further replied that he was retired from the Delhi Police on 30.06.2012. The witness had denied the suggestion that he had incorrectly identified the signature of Inspector Pankaj Singh on various documents, only on the basis of his assumption.
15.18. The witness had denied the suggestion that Inspector Pankaj Singh never affixed his signatures on any of the documents in his presence in the present case.
15.19. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Praveen Kumar wherein the witness had replied that none of the memos prepared during the intervening night of 25/26.02.2010 bear his signatures.
15.20. The witness had admitted that his office as ACP Hauz Khas was at Hauz Khas while IO Inspector Pankaj Singh used to sit at PS Saket. He voluntarily replied that he used to visit PS Saket often for supervision.
15.21. The witness further admitted that he had not seen the IO Inspector Pankaj Singh signing the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC.
15.22. He further admitted that the signatures appearing at point C in Mark PW 6/B-5 collectively at all places are different from signatures appearing at point C in Ex. PW 1/E and Ex. PW 1/F. The witness voluntarily replied that both the signatures belong to Inspector Pankaj Singh.
15.23. He denied the suggestion that the signatures SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 80 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:07:15 +0530
appearing at point C in Mark PW 6/B-5 collectively at all places are different from signatures appearing at point C in Ex. PW 1/E and Ex. PW 1/F and were not of the same person.
15.24. He further denied the suggestion that he had not supervised the investigation conducted by IO Inspector Pankaj Singh. He further denied the suggestion that he had not seen IO Inspector Pankaj Singh affixing his signatures on various memos.
Arguments on behalf of the State by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
16. It is argued on behalf of the State that the premises which were used by the accused persons were used as brothel house and due to the same reason, the Section 3 of the ITP Act was attracted and evidence produced and proved during the trial. It is further argued that during the investigation and at the time of apprehension of the accused persons and accused girls, huge amount of cash as well as two cars were recovered and also recovered from the premises which were used as Brothel house by accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar and both the accused persons were not having any known source of income, due to the same reason, section 4 of the ITP Act was attracted and proved during the trial.
16.1. It is further argued that at the time of apprehension of both the accused persons, both the accused persons had procured the girls namely Shashi Prabha, Shalini Gautam, Raina Singh, Seema Chakraborty, Asha Dubey, Ria Sharma for the sake of prostitution. It is SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 81 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:07:25 +0530
further submitted that the girls except the accused Shalini Gautam had pleaded guilty. It is further submitted that section 5 of the ITP act was attracted and proved during the trial of the present case.
16.2. It is further argued that accused persons namely Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar had kept the girls/ co-accused persons namely Shashi Prabha, Shalini Gautam, Raina Singh, Seema Chakraborty, Ria Sharma and Ashu Dubey in the said cars and due to the same reason, Section 6 of the ITP Act was attracted and proved during the trail.
16.3. It is further argued that the co-accused Shalini Gautam had seduced the decoy customer PW 2 for the purposes of prostitution at the instance of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar and due to the same reason the Section 8 of the ITP Act attracted against the accused Shalini Gautam and proved during the trial.
16.4. It is further argued that the prosecution has duly proved all the chain of evidence through six witnesses including decoy customer and shadow witness and various documents which were prepared or seized during the investigation against the accused persons namely Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar and Shalini Gautam with respect to their respective charges.
16.5. It is further argued that the case of prosecution against the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt with respect to the charges of offence punishable under Section 3/4/5/6 of the ITP Act, so they are liable to be held guilty SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 82 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:07:30 +0530
and convicted for the same.
16.6. It is further argued that charge of offence punishable under Section 8 of the ITP act is also proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Shalini Gautam, so she is liable to be held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 8 of the ITP Act.
16.7. It is further argued that minor contradictions which might have arised during the testimonies of the witnesses or during their cross examination, have no relevance as trial commenced from the year 2010 and continued upto year 2025.
Arguments on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Shalini Gautam by Ld. Counsel Sh. Chirag Jamwal.
17. It is argued that prosecution has not pointed out any particular premises/ property as a place which was used as Brothel nor it has been proved that vehicles used allegedly in the incident, were used as a brothel. It is further argued that no material evidence has been produced to establish the fact that the alleged premises were used as brothel house by the accused persons, neither any material evidence in the form of oral or documentary has been produced to establish the fact of the brothel house run by the accused persons as defined under Section 2 (a) of the ITP Act.
17.1 It is further argued that the Humayunpur property as allegedly claimed to be occupied by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, was not to be used as SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 83 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:07:36 +0530
brothel house and owner of the said property or any other person of the locality or public were examined to establish the fact that the said premises were used as brothel house by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
17.2. It is further argued that the other properties as allegedly claimed to be occupied by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi were not proved to be used as brothel house by the accused Shiv Murat Diwedi and Praveen Kumar. It is further argued that ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the ITP Act has not been proved, hence accused persons are liable to be acquitted for the same.
17.3. It is further argued that ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 4 (1) or offence punishable under Section 4 (2) (a) or 4 (2) (b) or 4 (2) (c) have not been proved by the prosecution through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and it has not been proved that the accused persons were living on the earnings of the business of prostitution.
17.4. It is further argued that no evidence has been proved regarding the alleged financial transaction between the girls accused persons and accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar. It is further argued that it has not been proved that the accused persons were acting as tout or pimp on behalf of the prostitutes. It is further argued that it is also not proved that the girls were prostitutes.
17.5. It is further argued that no CDR has been filed or proved to establish any relationship between the girls accused persons and accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 84 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:07:41 +0530
Praveen Kumar. It is further argued that no CCTV footage of the place of apprehension or no public witness from the place of apprehension were associated in the investigation to establish and corroborate the allegation against the accused persons.
17.6. It is further argued that in the present case, the informant/ complainant was the SHO Inspector Pankaj Singh and he himself had investigated the case, so the fair investigation was not conducted in the present case. It is further argued that prosecution has not proved that the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar were living on the earnings of the prostitution and no material evidence brought on record to establish the said fact.
17.7. It is further argued that essential ingredient of Section 5 i.e., procuring, inducing or taking the girls from particular place to the place of apprehension near PVR Cinema, Saket were not proved by the prosecution, so the ingredient of offence punishable under Section 5 of the ITP act is not proved against the accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar.
17.8. It is further argued that ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 6 (1) or 6 (3) has not been proved in the present case by the prosecution and no material evidence came on record. It is further argued that the co-accused persons girls were not proved to be the habitual prostitutes and no prior conviction or involvement has been proved during the trial with respect to those girls who pleaded guilty with respect to the offence punishable SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 85 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:07:47 +0530
under section 8 of the ITP Act.
17.9. It is further argued that the ingredient of the Section 8 of the ITP Act has not been proved with respect to the accused Shalini Gautam. It is further argued that no evidence came on record from the testimony of PW 2 that the accused Shalini Gautam had induced or solicited the decoy customer PW 2 SI Sanjay Sharma for the purposes of prostitution.
17.10. It is further argued that charge under section 8 of the ITP Act has not been proved against the accused Shalini Gautam. It is further argued that the procedure of Section 15 (2) i.e., search without warrant were not followed by the police official at the time of apprehension of the accused persons including the accused Shalini Gautam.
17.11. It is further argued that no reason were recorded by the police team for searching the accused persons without warrant as mandated under Section 15 (1) of the ITP Act. It is further argued that similarly, the mandate of Section 15 (2) were also not followed by the police team and no respectable person of the locality or women were notified or requested to join the investigation at the time of search of the premises or the accused persons at the time of their apprehension.
17.12. It is further argued that neither any notice under section 187 of the IPC as mandated under section 15 (3) were issued to any such public person at the time of apprehension of the accused persons. It is further argued that the ingredients of the section 15 (5) were also not SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 86 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:07:53 +0530
produced forthwith before the concerned Magistrate as mandated under Section 15 (5) of the ITP Act.
17.13. It is further argued that the mandate of section 15 (5A) were also not followed by the police team. It is further argued that factually the provision of Section 6 A of 15 of the ITP Act were not followed by the police and from the evidence of the two female police officials ie.., PW 3 and PW 5, it is clear that they had joined the proceedings lateron after the apprehension and search of the accused persons.
17.14. It is further argued that the handing over of the notes to the accused persons and its seizure from the accused persons has not been duly proved and it has not been established independently that actually the notes were handed over to the accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar and were recovered from the accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar.
17.15. It is further argued that the word 'Special Police officer' has been used in the enactment and it is not clearly proved from the record that the SHO was the designated as special police officer for the purpose of enquiry or the investigation of the present case. It is further argued that the Honda City car of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was purchased against the loan and against the down payment of Rs. 1,55,000/- and the same is not proved as purchased from the earning from the prostitution.
17.16. It is further argued that similarly the house at Jawahar Park of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi has not SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 87 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:07:59 +0530
been proved to be purchased from the earnings of prostitution and it was purchased in the year 2003 much prior to the apprehension of the accused in the present case. It is further argued that no recovery was effected from the girls or from the cars like the material which was proposed to be used at the time of alleged prostitution by the girls at the instance of the accused Shiv Murat and Praveen Kumar, which discard the case of prosecution that girls if any apprehended from the spot, were there for the purposes of prostitution.
17.17. It is further argued that the prospective place of the alleged prostitution has not been proved from the testimony of the shadow witness or decoy customer.
17.18. It is further argued that the case of the prosecution is not proved against the accused persons. Hence, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted from the present case.
Arguments on behalf of the accused Praveen Kumar by Ld. Counsel Sh. Vikas Padora.
18. It is argued that the prosecution had built up the case against the Shiv Murat Dwivedi and in order to implicate the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi in MCOC Act case, the accused Praveen Kumar was also implicated in the present case. It is further argued that all the three cases i.e., ITP case, MCOC case and ED case were tried independently and independent evidence were led by the prosecution and the evidence of all the three cases cannot be read together.
18.1. It is further argued that the allegation with SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 88 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:08:05 +0530
respect to the ITP Case has not been proved against the accused persons. It is further argued that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under ITP act, the case of the ED under PMLA is also failed to be proved by the prosecution being predicate offence. It is further argued that except the apprehension of the accused Praveen Kumar in the ITP case, no other prior involvement in ITP case or any other case has been proved during the trail against the accused Praveen Kumar.
18.2. It is further argued that no CDR has been proved during the trial of the case to establish the fact that accused persons including the accused girls were known to each other or were connected with each other in any manner or were present at the place of incident. It is further argued that no other evidence led like examination of public witness or CCTV footage of the place of apprehension of the accused persons by the prosecution during the trial.
18.3. It is further argued that ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 3/4/5/6 of ITP Act against the accused Praveen Kumar has not been proved. It is further argued that accused Praveen Kumar is entitled to be acquitted from the present case as case of the prosecution has not been proved.
THE REASON FOR DECISION
19.In order to prove the charges for offence punishable under Section 3/4/5/6 of ITP Act, 1956 against the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar and in order to prove SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 89 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:08:11 +0530
the charge of offence punishable under Section 8 of the ITP Act, 1956 against the accused Shalini Gautam, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimonies of decoy customer / witness PW 2 SI Sanjay Sharma and the testimony of shadow witness PW 1 Inspector Dilip Kumar, apart from the other witnesses of the police team who were the part of the raiding team of the raid conducted on 25.02.2010 at around 10.30 pm on the road opposite to PVR Saket, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, New Delhi.
19.1. As per the case of the prosecution, on 25.02.2010, the secret information was received to the then SHO Inspector Pankaj Singh of PS Saket regarding the involvement of the certain persons in the prostitution in the area of PVR Saket and as per the information, those persons would come in Honda Cars for soliciting the clients for the purposes of prostitution. The raiding team was prepared by the IO Inspector Pankaj Singh/ the then SHO PS Saket including the police officials namely Inspector Ram Kumar, Inspector Dharam Dev, SI Praveen Kumar, SI Dilip Kumar, HC Devender, HC Ravinder, Ct. Jagpal, Ct. Manoj, Ct. Sodan, Ct. Niranjan, W/ Ct. Sharmila and W/Ct. Sarita and information regarding the same was also recorded through DD No. 28-A. The police team reached to the place of information at PVR Saket in two Government vehicles i.e., Gypsy bearing registration no. DL 1 CJ 5541 and TATA 407 bearing registration no. DL 1 LD 5048.
19.2. The raiding team conducted the raid and SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 90 of 100
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:08:18 +0530
apprehended the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi, Praveen Kumar, Shalini Gautam and other female accused persons who pleaded guilty during the trial of the case with respect to the charges under Section 8 of the ITP Act, 1956.
19.3. During the cross examination of the decoy customer / PW 2 SI Sanjay Sharma, it came on record that witness was asked to become a decoy customer after reaching of the cars of the accused persons, meaning thereby, the witness was not proposed and prepared to become a decoy customer at the spot by the incharge of the police team when the police team departed from the police station on the secret information to conduct the raid. The witness PW 2 failed to disclose during his cross examination that what articles he had handed over or seized from him, when his personal search was conducted in order to become a decoy customer. He also failed to disclose as to whether his mobile phone was taken by the IO at the time of his personal search, meaning thereby he was carrying mobile phone, but it is not clear as to whether his mobile phone was seized at the time of his personal search or he kept it with himself when he acted as decoy customer with the accused persons.
19.4. During the cross examination of PW 2, it also came on record that when PW 2 decoy customer reached to the car of the accused persons, the accused persons were sitting in the cars and the windows of the cars were closed. It also came on record as admitted by the PW 2 that none of the girls sitting in the car had informed him that they SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 91 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:08:24 +0530
were ready to indulge in the sexual / physical relationship with the PW 2. It also came on record that the alleged money was not paid to any of the girls at the time of conversation between the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi or Praveen Kumar with the decoy customer SI Sanjay Sharma. It also came on record that none of the girls came out of the cars when the witness PW 1 had signalled to the raiding party. It also came on record that no public person was associated at the spot at the time of conducting raid against the accused persons or at the time of apprehension of the accused persons or at the time of conducting the personal search of the accused persons or at the time of the arrest of the accused persons after their apprehension and no reasonable explanation has been offered by the investigating agency in that regard.
19.5. It is an admitted fact that the place of arrest of the accused persons is a public place and public persons including the shopkeepers of the nearby places were available, however, they were not associated in the investigation of the present case.
19.6. It also came on record during the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi that witness PW 2 SI Sanjay Sharma had changed his version while stating that he had changed his uniform in civil dress after the information of the proposed raid, meaning thereby, he was informed about becoming a decoy customer in the police station itself as per his further version, which is contrary to his previous cross examination in which he deposed that he was deputed as SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 92 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:08:31 +0530
decoy customer when the cars of the accused persons had reached at the spot. It can be inferred from the cross examination of the PW 2 SI Sanjay Sharma that witness had given two different versions about the timings of instructions to him to become decoy customer with respect to the raid proposed to be conducted against the accused persons.
19.7. It can also be inferred from the cross examination of PW 2 Sanjay Sharma that the said decoy customer Sanjay Sharma was not induced or solicited by the female accused persons for prostitution when he reached near the car of the accused persons prior to giving signal to the raiding party.
19.8. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of the shadow witness PW 1/ Inspector Dilip Kumar regarding the allegation against the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar with respect to the charges punishable under Section 3/4/5/6 of ITP Act, 1956 and with respect to the charge punishable under Section 8 of the ITP Act, 1956 against the accused Shalini Gautam.
19.9. As per the prosecution version, the shadow witness PW 1 Inspector Dilip Kumar had accompanied to the decoy customer PW 2 SI Sanjay Sharma on the date of incident i.e., 25.02.2010 at around 10.30 pm. As per the case of prosecution, the shadow witness and decoy customer SI Sanjay Sharma/ PW 2 were instructed by the IO / SHO Inspector Pankaj Singh to approach to the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 93 of 100
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19
16:08:37 +0530
accused persons and finalise the deal for the purposes of prostitution and after finalisation of the deal, the decoy customer/ PW 2 was supposed to give the signal to the raiding team, meaning thereby, the alleged conversation between the accused persons and the decoy customer were only overheard by the shadow witness PW 1 Dilip Kumar regarding the deal of the prostitution.
19.10. During the cross examination of PW 1/ Inspector Dilip Kumar/ Shadow witness, it came on record that the place of incident was surrounded with the shops which were situated at a distance of 15-20 steps. Witness expressed his unawareness as to whether the IO had requested any public person to join the investigation. It also came on record that the witness did not disclose the location of other members of the raiding team who were waiting to conduct the raid on the signal of the decoy customer/ PW 2. It also came on record that the PW 1 did not see any other customer approaching to the car for the purposes of the prostitution with the female accused persons sitting in the cars.
19.11. The witness PW 1 Inspector Dilip Kumar had admitted that his personal search was not conducted prior to his deployment as shadow witness to accompany the decoy customer for purposes of prostitution with the female accused persons.
19.12. It also came on record during the cross examination of PW 1 that during the police custody remand of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi the police team SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 94 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:08:44 +0530
visited to the address of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi where one pujari was found and no other person was found at his address.
19.13. It is clear from the cross examination of the PW 1 and PW 2 that no public witness were associated during the investigation of the case i.e., at the time of conducting the raid upon the accused persons, at the time of arrest of the accused persons and at the time of conducting their personal search or search of the vehicles which were seized from the spot and from the possession of the accused persons and no reasonable explanation has been offered by the prosecution in that regard.
19.14. It is an admitted fact as came on record that the place of apprehension of the accused persons was a public place and the same was surrounded with the other shops situated at a distance of 15-20 steps, however, no public witness from the locality or from the shops were associated during the investigation to corroborate the fact independently regarding the allegation against the accused persons.
19.15. It also came on record from the cross examination of PW 1/ Inspector Dilip Kumar, shadow witness that he had accompanied the decoy customer / PW 2 SI Sanjay Sharma to the place of apprehension of the accused persons, however, only the personal search of the SI Sanjay Sharma was conducted and no personal search of the shadow witness PW 1 Inspector Dilip Kumar was conducted. The accused persons took the defence that the SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 95 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.11.19
PANDEY 16:08:50 +0530
alleged recovered money were planted against them and the possibility of this defence cannot be ruled out in view of the admission of the PW 1 Inspector Dilip Kumar that his personal search was not conducted prior to the raid conducted by the police team lead by Inspector Pankaj Singh.
19.16. The accused persons also took the defence that they were not running any business of prostitution from their respective houses nor they were operating any racket of prostitution. The possibility of the defence of the accused persons to this effect can also not be ruled out in view of the admission of the PW 1 regarding the fact that at the time of search of the house of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi during his police custody, no person except one Pujari was found.
19.17. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of two female police officials who joined the investigation with the raiding team. During the cross examination of the PW 3 W/Ct. Sharmila, she had vaguely replied about the complete detail of the members of the raiding team. She also vaguely replied about the exact place where the raiding team was briefed by the SHO and ACP. She also vaguely replied the timing of the briefing of IO/ SHO to the raiding team. She also did not reply to the details of the raiding team who had accompanied with her in the vehicle. She also did not reply where the vehicles were parked when the raiding team reached near the spot. She also did not reply the distance between the two cars from which the accused persons were apprehended.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 96 of 100
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19
16:08:57 +0530
19.18. Similarly, the witness PW 5 W/Ct. Savita replied in vague manner about the time when the raiding team was constituted by the SHO. She also did not reply as to whether the SHO had briefed the raiding team inside his office or inside the police station building or outside the police station building. She also did not disclose the details of the members of the raiding team who had accompanied her to the spot. She also did not disclose about the manner in which the accused persons were apprehended from the spot and the sitting details of the accused persons who were sitting in the car at the time of the incident.
19.19. The cross examination of PW 3 W/Ct. Sharmila and cross examination of PW 5 W/Ct. Savita suggest that they did not join the investigation or they did not visit to the spot at any point of time and due to the same reason, they did not disclose any of the details or the procedure followed during the raid conducted by the police team. The version of the replies as given by the PW 3 and PW 5, suggest that both these witnesses were planted one and they never visited to the spot at any point of time.
19.20. The IO of the case Inspector Pankaj Singh had expired during the trial of the case and documents related to the case as prepared by him were proposed to be proved by the prosecution through the then ACP Sh. Mehar Singh / PW 6. During the cross examination of PW 6, it came on record that he did not sign any of the documents prepared by the IO Inspector Pankaj Singh during the investigation.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 97 of 100
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19
16:09:03 +0530
19.21. During cross examination of PW 6 ACP Mehar Singh, it came on record that prior to proceeding to the spot for conducting raid, IO Inspector Pankaj Singh had not informed him about the details of the car, the number of suspects or details of the suspects. During cross examination of PW 6, it came on record that the ACP Mehar Singh/ PW 6 gave evasive replies about the details of the various documents prepared by the IO Inspector Pankaj Singh under the supervision of PW 6 ACP Mehar Singh. It also came on record that the personal search of the shadow witness Inspector Dilip was not conducted by the IO prior to conducting the raid by the police team, neither the same was suggested by the PW 6 ACP Mehar Singh to the IO of the case.
19.22. As per the version of the decoy customer, when he had conversation with the accused persons, the accused persons were sitting in their respective cars. However, as per the version of PW 6 ACP Mehar Singh during his cross examination, the accused Shiv Murat and three girls were standing outside the car, while no other person came out from the other car. The witness PW 6 ACP Mehar Singh had admitted during his cross examination that during the time period between the arrival of the cars at the spot and the decoy customer had approached to the cars, no overt act was done by any of the accused persons / occupants of the car to suggest that they were soliciting any customers for sexual purposes / prostitution.
19.23. The accused persons took the defence that SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 98 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:09:09 +0530
they were lifted from the other places, they also took the defence that case properties were planted against them, they also took the defence that they were not operating any prostitution racket or they were not the member of any prostitution racket. They also took the defence that they were falsely implicated by the police in the present case.
19.24. The defence as taken by the accused persons appears to be correct in view of the vague replies given by the PW 6/ ACP Mehar Singh regarding the details of the alleged raid conducted on the date of incident, the evasive replies regarding the procedure followed at the time of apprehension of the accused and documents prepared at the time of arrest of the accused persons and the alleged recovery effected from the accused persons.
20.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered view that charges of offence punishable under Section 3/4/5/6 of the ITP Act, 1956 against the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar have not been proved. The court of also view that charge of offence punishable under Section 8 of the ITP Act, 1956 against the accused Shalini Gautam has not been proved. Hence, the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar are acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 3/4/5/6 of the ITP Act, 1956 and accused Shalini Gautam is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 8 of the ITP Act, 1956 i.e., the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi, Praveen Kumar and Shalini Gautam are acquitted from the present case.
SC 539/2019STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 99 of 100
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19
16:09:16 +0530
21.Accused persons are directed to furnish the bail bond / surety bond for sum of Rs. 10,000/- each in terms of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.
22.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedRAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR Announced in the open Court, PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 16:09:21 +0530 On 19th November, 2025 (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) ASJ:03/South/Saket Courts, New Delhi SC 539/2019 STATE Vs. SHIV MURAT DIWEDI & ORS.
FIR No. 47/2010; PS Saket Page no. 100 of 100