Delhi District Court
State vs . Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth on 9 January, 2023
CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE- WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DL CT-02-0096122017
CIS No. 4550/17
State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth
FIR No. 954/2000
PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch
U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and section 174A IPC.
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 11.11.2000
2) The name of the complainant : Sanjeev Bhasin
3) The name & parentage of accused : Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth S/o Zile Singh
4) Offence complained of : Under Section 387/506/120B IPC and section 174 A IPC.
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted for the
offence 387/506 /
120B IPC but
convicted for the
offence U/s 174 A
IPC
7) The date of such order : 09.01.2023
Date of Institution : 10.01.2001
Judgment reserved on : 24.12.2022
Judgment announced on : 09.01.2023
Digitally
signed by
CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch; KAPIL
U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 1 Of 17 KAPIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09
16:07:34
+0530
CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused Bahadur Singh is that he along with his associates Sanjeeev and Ved Vrat (both acquitted vide judgment dated 23.08.2012) hatched a criminal conspiracy to extort Rs 25 Lacs from the complainant Sanjeev Bhasin. It is the further case of prosecution that in pursuance of the conspiracy the complainant was put in the fear of death while committing extortion and was criminally intimidated to be killed if the demand is not fulfilled.
2. The charge sheet was filed on 16.03.2001 and the copy of the same was supplied to the accused persons. Vide order dated 30.10.2002, charges for the offences U/s 387/506/120B IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. A separate charge for the offeence U/s 174A IPC was framed upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
3. The prosecution examined several witnesses in support of its case against the accused Bahadur Singh. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence. During the examination, accused denied all the allegations against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. It is the cardinal principle of the criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means that there should not be any gap in the case of the prosecution leading any space for doubt in the case set up by the prosecution.
CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch; U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 2 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:07:40 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017
5. It is necessary to go through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, in brief, at this stage:
5.1) PW1 Sanjeev Bhasin deposed that on 11.11.2000 he received a call on his telephone 5416377 at 11 PM from a person who introduced himself as Harish Thakur of Bablu Shirvastav Gang and that person demanded Rs 25 Lacs from him else he and his family would be killed. He deposed that his brother and his father were also threatened. He identified the audio cassette in which he recorded the call vide which he was extorted as Ex.P1. He proved his complaint as Ex.PW1/A. 5.2) PW2 HC Jagdish Parshad deposed as to the deposit of pullandas containing audio cassettes while he was working as MHC(M) in PS Tilak Nagar and the subsequent movements of those pullandas against entries made in register no.19. 5.3) PW3 HC Rajbir Singh deposed that on 01.03.2001, while working as MHC(M) PS Kapasera a pullanda containing a dairy and a SIM card was sent vide RC no. 4701 through Ct Om Parkash to anti-extortion Cell RK Puram as the same was required in the present case.
5.4) PW4 Ct Sunil deposed that on 07.02.2001 he handed over two sealed pullanda containing audio cassettes to the investigating officer of this case which were handed over to him vide RC no. 330/21/2001.
5.5) PW5 Rajesh Kumar deposed that he cannot identify the accused Bahadur Singh as the person to whom he sold the mobile phone Motorola in Rs 1400/-.
5.6) PW6 Rajiv Bhasin deposed that in November 2000 he received phone call on his mobile number 9811143149 in which CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch; Digitally U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 3 Of 17 signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:07:45 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 the caller identified himself as Harish Thakur and demanded ransom of Rs 25 Lacs and if the demand is not fulfilled he and his family would be finished.
5.7) PW7 Ct Chanderveer proved the present FIR which he got lodged on the basis of tehrir which was handed over to him by Inspector Ishwar Singh.
5.8) PW8 Sh Jagtar Singh deposed that accused Bahadur Singh is the person who exchanged his motorola mobile handset 3788 against motorola 300 against the consideration of Rs 1400/- and proved the relevant entry in the sale register made by him as Ex.PW8/A. 5.9) PW9 Sh Shivender Singh deposed on the lines of PW8. 5.10) PW10 SI Satish Sharma and PW22 SI Abdul Kadir deposed that on 11.01.2001 on receiving the secret information he along with KP Singh, SI Shyam Pal, Ct Sajjad, Ct Vikalp, Ct Rohtash etc went to Ragpura, Kapasera where they apprehended a Maruti car bearing no. DDU 2325 coming from the side of Chawla from which the accused Bahadur Singh and two other accused persons namely Sanjeev and Ved Vrat were apprehended. He deposed that accused Bahadur Singh was found in the possession of a pistol for which a separate FIR was registered in PS Kapasera bearing no. 9/2001 for the offence U/s 25 Arms Act.
5.11) PW11 Ct Balwan Singh and PW18 Inspector Arvind deposed that on 14.11.2000, the complainant handed over one audio cassette to the IO which was seized vide Ex.PW1/B and on 16.01.2001 accused persons Bahadur Singh, Sanjeev and Ved Vrat were interrogated and thereafter arrested in this case and for that permission was taken from the Magistrate in Tis Hazari. He CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch;
U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 4 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.01.09 16:07:51 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 deposed that all the three accused persons were taken to the house of the complainant where the pointing out memos were prepared. They deposed that the accused Bahadur Singh was taken to shop no. 65, Karol Bagh and there he was identified by the seller of the mobile phones as the person who sold one mobile phone and purchased another one and thereafter he again sold the purchased mobile phone. They deposed that pointing out memo in that regard was prepared as Ex.PW18/A. They deposed that on the next day voice sample of accused Bahadur Singh was recorded vide mobile no. 9810012163 by making a call on that mobile number nearby PCO and the audio cassette was prepared. They deposed that thereafter the specimen signatures of the accused was taken vide Ex.PW18/S1 to Ex.PW18/S7. They deposed about the further proceedings in the investigation including the seizure memo of the pocket dairy, slip, recovery of SIM Cards etc. 5.12) PW20 Dr Rajender Singh proved his report qua the audio samples as Ex.PW15/A. He deposed that the voice sample in question exhibit is similar to that of the specimen voice sample of accused.
5.13) PW21 Sh Chander Shekhar Nodal Officer proved the relevant call detail records regarding the landline no. 580969 from 12.11.2002 to 24.11.2002, mobile no. 9810241708, 9810317260 and 9810006618 as Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D respectively. 5.14) PW23 Inspector Upender Solanki deposed as to the investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on 13.11.2000 he received a complaint qua this case and he heard the call conversation made for extortion of which he prepared transcript which is Ex.PW19/A. He deposed that he formally arrested the CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch;
U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 5 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:07:55 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 accused in this case and thereafter he prepared pointing memos qua the identification of the accused, identification of the shop from where the mobile phone used in the offence was procured by the accused Bahadur, preparation of voice samples of the accused Bahadur Singh, seizure of a pocket dairy, taking of specimen signatures of the accused Bahadur Singh, collection of FSL report and the preparation of the charge-sheet.
5.15) PW24 HC Subhash deposed as to the arrest of accused as he was declared proclaimed offender in the present case. He proved the kalandra vide DD no. 53 B dated 10.07.2017 Ex.PW24/C. 5.16) PW24 ACP Ishwar Singh proved the present FIR Ex.PW24/A. He deposed that in April 2002 the investigation of the present case was marked to him which was already completed and thereafter he filed the charge-sheet.
6. It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own leg.
7. Ld. APP for the State argued that the case of the prosecution stands proved against the accused Bahadur Singh by virtue of testimony of the complainant examined as PW1 and his brother. He argued that the factum of the extortion which was done by the accused in the name of Harish Kumar where he claimed himself to be part of Bablu Shirvastav Gang came on record by virtue of testimony of above-mentioned witnesses. He argued that the owners of the shop from where the mobile phone was procured by CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch;
U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 6 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:08:01 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 accused Bahadur to make a extortion call have identified the accused. It was further argued that by virtue of CFSL result it is also came on record that the voice sample of the accused matched with the voice which was recorded by the complainant and as such there is no gap in the case of the prosecution and accused Bahadur Singh is to be convicted for the charges U/s 387/506/120B IPC and section 174 A IPC.
8. Ld LAC for the accused submits that two accused persons namely Sanjeev and Ved Vrat were acquitted from the present case by the Ld. Predecessor of this court in the year 2012 and the case of the accused Bahadur Singh is on the same footing. It was argued that the accused was declared proclaimed offender as he stopped in coming in the court on the basis of wrong advise given to him by his previous counsel. It is further argued that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the present case. It was further submitted that no procedural requirements were complied by the police officials in taking the alleged voice sample of the accused. It is submitted that the accused Bahadur Singh cannot be connected to the present case and thus entitled to be acquitted.
9. The present case is mainly dependent upon the circumstantial evidence in the form of various facts which have come on record and these facts are required to be appreciated one by one to have clear picture as to whether the prosecution is able to discharge its burden of proof against the accused Bahadur Singh or not.
10. The entire thrust during the trial by the Ld Defence Counsel remains on the aspect that it was not the accused who made any CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch;
Digitally U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 7 Of 17 signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:08:17 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 phone call to the complainant or his family members for committing any extortion. It is not the case of the accused as put forth during the trial that the complainant was not criminally intimidated or he was not put in the fear of injury to part with the money. The defence remains that the accused Bahadur Singh did not commit any extortion or in other words accused did not make any extortion calls.
11. It is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to connect the accused Bahadur Singh to the extortion threat which was extended to the complainant or not.
12. The accused Bahadur Singh was arrested allegedly on the basis of secret information and he was allegedly found in the possession of a fire arm for which a separate FIR was registered in PS Kapasera vide no. 10/2000. Thereafter the accused was formally arrested in the present case after having the permission from the then Ld. ACMM. It is important to mention here that the original arrest memo vide which the accused was arrested in the above-mentioned PS Kapasera were not proved on record and on this aspect there is a court observation dated 10.11.2021. There is lack of primary evidence on the aspect of arrest of the accused initially in the above-mentioned case of Kapasera but this fact is not hitting the merits of this case and not disputed on behalf of the accused and as such this fact does not deserve to be digged further.
13. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused threatened the complainant by making a phone call on the landline number of the complainant which is 5416377 and thereafter the threat call was made to the brother of the complainant namely Rajiv Bhasin from mobile number 9811143149. As per the testimony of PW1 and CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch;
U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 8 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:08:22 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 PW6 the call was made from mobile no. 9810241708.
14. It is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the mobile number 9810241708 was being used by the accused Bahadur Singh or not. On this aspect the prosecution is relying upon the CDR of the above-mentioned mobile numbers. If the CDRs are taken as proved, for the sake of arguments, though the CDRs are not attested, then these CDRs can prove the exchange of the phone calls but cannot prove as to who made these phone calls from the number 9810241708.
15. As per the testimony of police officials a motorola phone was used by the accused to make this call and PW8 and PW9 identified the accused Bahadur Singh as the person who purchased that mobile phone. Admittedly there is no mobile phone bill is on record. The mobile phone was never brought in the court for identification purpose. None of the police officials was able to identify the motorola phone in the court which was allegedly used by the accused. When the mobile handset itself was not proved, the possession of the accused of that mobile phone stands not proved.
16. The prosecution no where proved as to who was the subscriber of above-mentioned mobile number used to make the extortion call. No efforts were made to bring the service provider data as to whose name and identity the above-mentioned number was issued. How it could be presumed that the accused was the the subscriber of above-mentioned mobile number.
17. The SIM Card was nowhere brought on record. From where the SIM Card was procured is again a unanswered question. Who was the service provider is also nowhere on record. On the basis of CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch;
U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 9 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.01.09 16:08:27 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 what documents the SIM Card was issued and who got that SIM Card issued is again a open glaring question but not answered.
18. It is not on record from where the accused made the alleged phone call. There was no effort to procure the location chart of the connected towers of the service provider.
19. It is completely silent as to whether the mobile phone which was allegedly used to make the threat call was in the possession of accused or not. No witness deposed as to the recovery of motorola phone from the accused Bahadur Singh, if the mobile phone was not recovered from the accused Bahadur Singh and there is no scientific evidence connecting the accused with the mobile phone then how it could be assumed that the accused was having the mobile phone motorola and used it for making a threat call.
20. If PW8 and PW9 identified the accused as the person who purchased the motorola phone from them then this fact is not going to prove the possession of the accused of the mobile phone at the time of making of threat call as there is no presumption in law that a person who will purchase the mobile phone will only used the same. A third person can also used the mobile phone purchased by other.
21. When there is no mobile phone on record, no serial number or IMEI number. of the mobile phone on record, no details as to the subscriber of SIM Card on record, no invoice as to the mobile phone on record and the recovery of the mobile phone was not effected from the possession of the accused then it is nearly impossible to say that the mobile phone was used by the accused Bahadur Singh.
CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch; U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 10 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:08:34 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017
22. Another fact which is deeply relied upon by the prosecution is the CFSL result as to the voice sample of the accused taken by the IO during investigation. As per the case of the prosecution the voice sample of the accused Bahadur matched with the voice which was recorded by the complainant by putting a call record on his land line phone on 12.11.2000. There are two aspects as to this FSL result- i) whether the voice sample of the accused was taken as per rules; ii) whether the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubts as to the accused being the call maker to the complainant on 11.11.2000 and 12.11.2000.
23. The manner in which the alleged voice sample of the accused was taken by the investigating officer reveals that no rules were complied with at all as to the taken of voice sample. The most crucial evidence for the prosecution was the voice sample of the accused and it was the imperative duty of the investigating officer to not to leave any gap or void in complying with the formalities while collecting this scientific evidence.
24. The investigating officer Inspector Upender Solanki examined as PW23 deposed that on 18.01.2001 he obtained the voice sample of the accused at the office of Crime Branch.
25. PW18 Inspector Arvind Kumar who was accompanying IO on 18.01.2001 deposed as to the manner of taking of voice sample of the accused. He deposed that the voice sample of the accused was recorded by him on mobile phone no. 9810012163 by calling the said number from one PCO situated near the office of Ante-
Extortion Cell. He deposed that the recording from the mobile phone was transferred to audio cassette by using the audio recorder. He deposed that the audio cassette was seized by the IO vide CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch; U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 11 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.01.09 16:08:40 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 Ex.PW18/B and the same was sealed with the seal of US.
26. The testimony of PW18 reveals that the accused was made to make a phone call at a mobile number 9810012163 from a PCO and there voice was recorded and thereafter transferred to a audio cassette by a audio recorder. No aid of expert was taken at the time of recording of the voice sample. The voice sample was not taken in the FSL or any lab notified by the concerned authority for that purpose. It is beyond comprehension as to how the IO deduced his own procedure to take the voice sample by making the accused to make a phone call from a PCO and by recording the voice in the mobile. The taking of voice sample for criminal prosecution is not a such a simple thing. The aid of technology in the form of computer softwares and the devices used for exact recording of the voice is mandatory. The surrounding of the place where the voice sample is taken is also crucial. The noise of the surrounding is also going to effect the quality of voice sample. All the rules were flouted by the IO while taking the voice sample and this court is not inclined to approve the method adopted by the IO while taking this voice sample of the accused.
27. Moreover, it is also on record that the voice sample was transferred to a audio cassette through a audio recorder. This is also a bad approach of the IO. A scientific evidence was transferred from one media form to another without having the aid of expert or any software. The transfer of voice sample to another medium by taking aid of another module is unknown to law. The prosecution has not been able to bring that audio recorder which was used for transfer of the audio recording from the mobile phone to a audio cassette. This lapse on the part of IO is again a crucial one and CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch;
U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 12 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:08:45 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 dented badly the credibility of the voice sample of the accused.
28. Admittedly, there was no public person when the voice sample of the accused was allegedly recorded on the mobile phone.
There was ample opportunity with the investigating officer to make public persons as witnesses to the recording of voice sample and transfer of voice sample from the mobile phone to audio cassette. Had the public persons were made witnesses to this proceedings then the lapses on the part of the investigating officer in taking the voice sample and thereafter transferring of the voice sample would have been covered in some part but again no such precaution was taken by the IO.
29. Another reason, for not giving any reliability weight to the voice sample is that the prosecution has not proved the mobile phone used by the investigating officer to take the voice sample of the accused. The primary medium on which voice sample was recorded has not been proved by the prosecution on record. The reason for the same is beyond comprehension but certainly it is a void in the case of the prosecution.
30. If the phone call was made from a nearby PCO to a mobile phone number 9810012163 for having the voice sample, then the prosecution must have proved the call details records of the mobile number 9810012163 on record to prove that on 18.01.2001 a phone call was made from PCO to the above-mentioned mobile number but again no such CDR has been proved in support of that voice sample and this further puts the reliability of the voice sample under major cloud of doubt.
31. Further, the prosecution must have made the owner of nearby the PCO to the office Ante-Extortion Cell as witness in the CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch;
U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 13 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2023.01.09 16:08:53 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017
present case to prove that a phone call was made on 18.01.2001 on the above-mentioned mobile number. This was so required since no efforts was made by the IO to prove on record the CDR of the above-mentioned mobile number in support of illegal manner of voice recording done by him.
32. At this juncture the testimony of PW20, Dr Rajender Parsad, Director CFSL is crucial, he proved his report as Ex.PW15/A wherein he opined that the voice sample of the accused in questioned audio recording (proved in the testimony of PW1) matched with the voice as recording in sample audio cassette (voice sample recorded on 18.01.2001). PW20 admitted in the cross-examination that he cannot say whether the questioned voice recording as well as specimen voice recording was the original voice of the person concerned or that same was re-recorded from the original cassette. He admitted that there will be some changes in the voice where it was recorded directly or through the mobile phone in respect of their frequencies.
33. If the testimony of PW20 be read in the light of manner of taking the voice sample of the accused as discussed above that it can be said safely that the FSL result Ex.PW15/A is not worthy of credit at all. The expert himself said that there will be change in frequencies in the voice where it was recorded directly or through mobile phone. In the case in hand voice sample was taken on a mobile phone and thereafter transferred to a audio cassette through a audio recorder which was not proved on record then the voice sample in itself was tainted and thus the FSL result also become untrustworthy.
CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch; U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 14 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:08:58 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017
34. The FSL result was dependent upon the quality of evidence recorded. In the present case the evidence was the voice sample of the accused and that evidence was taken in the most casual manner by the IO by flouting all the rules. When the basis of FSL result is not worthy of credit then the FSL result is also liable to be rejected.
35. Another lapse on the part of IO is that admittedly the voice sample of the complainant/PW1 was not taken. When the audio recording given by PW1 was containing the voice of PW1 then to authenticate the recording and the consequent FSL result the IO must have took the voice sample of the complainant along with that of accused and got both the voice samples examined by the expert. There is no presumption that the audio cassette which was proved in the testimony of PW1 as Ex.P1 was containing the voice of complainant. In criminal law everything is to be proved by the prosecution. The prosecution must have bring on record the affirmative evidences as to the proving the voice of the complainant in Ex.P1 by examining that voice in comparison to the voice sample of the complainant which were required to be taken by the IO. No such efforts was made by the IO. This court unable to read any presumption in favour of the complainant that his voice is there in Ex.P1 when there is no evidence to that effect by the prosecution.
36. In view of the above-discussion it is proved on record that the voice sample of the accused was not taken as per rules and the same cannot be relied at all and accordingly, the FSL result Ex.PW15/A is not worthy of credit and cannot be read against the accused. When it is not proved that it is the voice of the accused which was appearing in Ex.P1 then impliedly stands not proved CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch; U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 15 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:09:03 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 that it was the accused who made call for the extortion.
37. Moreover, in the considered opinion of this court the proving of CDR of landline number 580969 from 12.11.2002 to 24.11.2002 by PW21 is of no consequence. The first reason is the prosecution has not proved that the landline number 580969 was installed in the house of the complainant. Again there is no presumption that if the CDR of 580969 has been brought on record then the court has to presume that this number was actually installed in the house of the complainant. The prosecution was required to prove that fact by bringing the record of installation of landline 580969 and to prove the same on record but there is no such efforts by the prosecution.
38. Moreover, the CDRs Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D are unattested copies without any certificate. There is no endorsement as to whether these CDRs were brought through proper channel from the concerned service provider. Accordingly Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D are proved to be not reliable documents.
39. Accordingly, in view of the above-discusson the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused Bahadur Singh made the extortion calls and consequently and accused Bahadur Singh is entitled to be acquitted for the offences U/s 387/506/120B IPC.
40. The accused was also charged vide order dated 20.09.2018 for the offence U/s 174 A IPC. The accused did not plead guilty. On this aspect the prosecution examined PW24 HC Subhash Singh who deposed that on 10.07.2017, he apprehended the accused Bahadur who was declared proclaimed offender and arrested him vide Ex.PW24/A. The kalandra U/s 41 C.PC vide DD no. 53B dated 10.07.2017 was proved as Ex.PW24/C. The accused was CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch; U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 16 Of 17 Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.01.09 16:09:09 +0530 CNR No. DL WT02-0096122017 declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 01.07.2010. The relevant proceedings are on record. There is no requirement of proving judicial order which is on record. This fact is also not under challenge. In view of the testimony of PW24, kalandra Ex.PW24/C and the proceedings dated 01.07.2010, the offence U/s 174 A IPC stands proved against the accused and he is to be convicted accordingly.
41. Hence in view of the above-discussion accused Bahadur Singh is hereby acquitted for the offence U/s 387/506/120B IPC but convicted for the offence U/s 174 A IPC. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be supplied to the convict immediately free of cost. Digitally signed by KAPIL KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.01.09 16:09:14 +0530 Announced in the open court (KAPIL KUMAR) on 09.01.2023 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi CIS No. 4550/17, State Vs. Bahadur Singh @ Sidharth ; FIR No. 954/2000; PS. Tilak Nagar/Crime Branch; U/s. 387/506/120B IPC and 174A IPC. 17 Of 17