Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Fir No. 92/08; State vs . Suraj Bhatia Etc. Page 1 Of 38 on 27 August, 2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
              JUDGE-03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI

SESSIONS CASE NO. 11/08
                                                    FIR No.    92/2008
                                                    P.S.       Hari Nagar
                                                    U/S:    364A/328/120B/34 IPC

STATE
                                                    Versus

(1) Suraj Bhatia
s/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
r/o H. No. 257, 4th Storey,
Tagore Garden, Delhi

(2) Shilpi Rathore
d/o Sh. Raj Kumar
r/o G-27/32, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi

(3) Jitin Sharma
s/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar
r/o B-9, Shyam Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi

(4) Vipin Verma
s/o Sh. Ashwani Verma
r/o WZ-98,
Minakshi Garden, Delhi

Date of Institution:              07-06-2008
Date of arguments:                27-08-2014
Date of judgement:                27-08-2014

JUDGMENT

1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that 08-03-2008 on receipt of DD no. 45B, SI M. L. Meena reached at the spot i.e. VB-20, Virender Nagar, Delhi where complainant Om Prakash FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 1 of 38 Ahluwalia met him and gave his statement that on 08-03-2008 at about 3:30, pm a phone call was received by Prosecutrix "K" (name withheld), aged 14 years, who was asked by the caller who introduced herself as Pooja to bring English book near Bharti College. After taking the receiver from Prosecutrix "K", her grandfather Om Prakash Walia told her that Bharti College is very far and she should come to Virender Nagar. Pooja replied that she was waiting at Sarvodaya School near Jal Board and asked to send Prosecutrix "K" there. Prosecutrix "K" then left the house to meet Pooja. When she did not return after 15-20 minutes, the complainant Om Prakash Wali rang from his residence telephone to Prosecutrix "K"'s mobile asking her as to why she had not returned back. Prosecutrix "K" replied that she would come back in few minutes. The complainant Om Prakash Walia rang second time and this time Pooja received the phone and replied that she would send Prosecutrix "K" after finishing the work. After some time, Pooja made a call to complainant Om Prakash Walia and stated that she was going for photostat and would drop back Prosecutrix "K" after few minutes. Prosecutrix "K" did not return back at home. At about 7:05 pm, a phone call was received by Sh. Rajiv Walia father of Prosecutrix "K" and the caller was a female. She demanded Rs. 50 lacs as a condition for setting free Prosecutrix "K" and also asked him not to inform the police. The complainant was sure that his grand daughter was kidnapped for ransom. On this statement, FIR was registered and investigation was carried out by SI Manohar Lal Meena. During investigation, SI S. L. Meena made inquiries from known girls and boys of Prosecutrix "K" but no clue was found. At about 7 pm, one phone call was received by the father of Prosecutrix FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 2 of 38 "K" namely Rajiv Walia at the landline no. 25506088 of Prosecutrix "K" in the voice of one girl that Prosecutrix "K" would be released after receiving Rs. 50 lacs and he told all these things to complainant and thereafter to police. After seeing the demand of Rs. 50 lacs, fake bundles of Rs. 500/- having cover currency note genuine were made and in this manner total Rs. 30 lacs were arranged. After receiving so many calls from kidnapper/ accused, on 09-03-2008, the kidnapper/ accused unknown lady was told that complainant had finalised a deal of one house in Rs. 28 lacs and Rs. 5 lacs were received as advance/earnest money and they were able to arrange only Rs. 30 lacs. On 09-03-2008 at 10 pm, the unknown kidnapper/ accused lady again gave a phone call to bring Rs. 30 lacs at Dhaula Kuan. The police team gave a suitcase containing Rs. 30 lacs arranged in the above-said manner to uncle of Prosecutrix "K" namely Sanjay Walia and to one another relative namely Goldy Thomas after making them understand everything and sent them to Dhaula Kuan in private Maruti 1000. Police teams in civil uniform took position at a safe distance but that unknown lady or men did not come nearly for two hours for taking the money. After doing recee of the spot and having doubt of presence of police that lady whose name later on revealed as Shilpy Rathore after arrestation again gave a phone call at 11 pm at the mobile no. 9899043195 of Rajiv Walia and asked him to remove the police from there otherwise she will include Prosecutrix "K" in her group and they will miss Prosecutrix "K". Pooja also used filthy language over the phone and at 12 midnight she asked them to come at new place Kirti Nagar Timber Market near petrol pump and then Kukreja Hospital, Rajouri Garden and after waiting for half an hour asked to come Subhash FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 3 of 38 Nagar Metro Station and after some time Pooja again gave a call that they were roaming with police and they did not want the girl and she was going to switch off her mobile and they will not see the face of girl Prosecutrix "K". After waiting for so long, Sanjay Wali and Goldy Thomas along with police returned to PS Hari Nagar.

2. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the intervening night of 09/10-03-2008 at about 3 am, that girl Pooja again gave a call from phone no. 9811935898 and one boy whose name later on revealed as Vipin Verma after arrestation, used filthy language and threatened to cut the prosecutrix. After 40 minutes, another phone call was received asking them to come at Jaipur Highway and not to inform police. The above-said kidnapper first asked Rajiv Walia to come at IGI Airport Terminal, then its parking and then Mahipalpur Vasant Kunj Road and asked to come on foot after leaving the vehicle. All this information was passed on by Sanjay and Goldy Thomas to the other members of police team who were taking their positions after concealing their identity in their private vehicles. At about 6- 6:30 am, police party along with Sanjay and Goldy Thomas apprehended the kidnapper Vipin Verma and Shilpi Rathore posed as Pooja from the spot and prosecutrix Prosecutrix "K" was released from their possession. Their third associate Suraj Bhatia who posed as Sahil in front of Prosecutrix "K" during custody was also apprehended at a distance of 500-600 after chasing. Accused Jitin Sharma was also arrested. They were interrogated and it was revealed that Shilpi Rathore came in the car of Vipin Verma bearing no. DL3SAA-0063 make Lancer along with Vipin Verma and Shilpi posing as Pooja asked Prosecutrix "K" to bring English book. Shilpi was given this name by accused Jitin FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 4 of 38 Sharma who was residing in the neighbour of Prosecutrix "K" about two years back in Shiv Nagar and Prosecutrix "K" was having friendship with Heena sister of Jitin Verma. The child lock of the car Lancer were already adjusted and on the pretext of taking the car to some mechanic, Prosecutrix "K" was kidnapped. They also mixed up medicine/sedatives in Thumps UP which Prosecutrix "K" had and thereafter, Prosecutrix "K" felt pain in her legs. The accused persons used phone no. 9990080380 (Shilpi), 9818898965 (Jitin), 9891135700 (Vipin), 9210887797 (Suraj) and 9871665813 (Tej Angad) and their call details were obtained. Four mobile phone batteries were recovered from Ford Icon car no. DL3CAA-8133 belonging to delinquent Tej Angad which was registered in the name of Kamaljeet Singh, uncle of Tej Angad. In reply to notice u/s 133 MV Act, Kamaljeet Singh gave statement that from November 2006 onwards he had given this car to his sister Inderjeet Kaur, mother of Tej Angad. Lancer car no. DL3SAA-0063 was examined from Crime Team in which Child lock was on, dark black film was on the glasses and one small towel, one white colour tape, one Thumps Up bottle having some quantity of Thumps Up liquid, one Airtel mobile no. 9818482850 envelope and booklet, one Toll tax payment slip of Delhi-Gurgaon border, three plastic sheets having jali, one girls top, one note book of accused Shilpi Rathore having lectures of human anatomy in handwriting were recovered from that car. The Tumps Up was sent to FSL Rohini for examination. Juvenile Tej Angad Singh had recorded the conversation of kidnappers and he gave ideas to other accused about kidnapping and chargesheet against him was filed in the JJB. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Suraj Bhatia, Shilpi Rathore, FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 5 of 38 Jitin Sharma and Vipin Verma u/s 364A/328/120B/34 IPC.

3. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 120B/364A/328 IPC r/w 120B IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, Prosecution has examined 30 witnesses so far. PW1 Om Prakash Walia in his testimony, exhibited his statement Ex. PW1/A; seizure memo of letter dated 17-03-2008 of Happy Model School Mark A, original bill of telephone no. 9212431866 mark B, MTNL bill of telephone no. 25506088 Mark C, original bill of telephone no. 9811935898 of Sanjay Walia Mark D, copy of Ration Card no. APL 13132122 Ex. PW1/C, photocopy of sale deed Ex. PW1/D, copy of agreement to sale and purchase/ bayana copy no. K-227033 Ex. PW1/E and PW1/F vide Ex. PW1/B. PW2 Amar Pal Singh Sr, Scientific Officer, FSL in his testimony, exhibited his detailed report vide Ex. PW2/A. PW3 Prosecutrix "K" in her testimony, exhibited statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW3/A, certificate issued by the Principal of Happy Model School as Ex. PW3/B. PW4 ASI Bal Kishan in his testimony, exhibited copy of FIR as Ex. PW4/A and DD no. 37A as Ex. PW4/B. PW5 Sanjay Walia, in his testimony, identified his signatures on seizure memos and pointing out memos Ex.PW5/A to PW5/I respectively. PW6 ASI Mohan Singh, in his testimony, exhibited copy of FIR as Ex. PW6/A, copy of statement of Raj Kumar, father of Shilpi Rathore as Ex. PW6/B. PW7 Goldy Thomas, in his testimony, identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW5/A and PW5/I. PW15 HC Rishi Raj in his testimony, identified Lancer Car No. DL3SAA0063 as Ex.P1 and Ford Ikon car bearing no. DL3CAA-8133 as Ex. P11. PW16 FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 6 of 38 Naveen Verma in his testimony, exhibited the documents of property bearing no. B-8, Rama Park, Najafgarh Road vide Ex. PW16/A. PW17 Tarun Khurana, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel in his testimony, exhibited attested copy of call details of mobile no. 9818898965 for the period 07-03-2008 to 10-03-2008 in the name of Jitin Sharma vide Ex. PW17/B and CAF as Ex. PW17/A; CAF in the name of Inderjit Kaur as Ex. PW17/C and attested copy of call details of mobile no. 9871665813 for the period 07-03-2008 to 10-03-2008 as Ex. PW17/D; call details of mobile no. 9818482850 for the period 08-03-2008 to 09-03-2008 vide Ex. PW17/E; CAF in the name of Virender Singh vide Ex. PW17/F and call details of mobile no. 9971912279 for the period 09-03-2008 to 10-03-2008 vide Ex. PW17/G; CAF in the name of Ram Prakash as Ex. PW17/H; call details of mobile no. 9971912074 vide Ex. PW17/I; CAF in the name of Punit Sudan as Ex. PW17/J and call details of mobile no. 9871262640 as Ex. PW17/K and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW17/L; certified copy of CAF in the name of Mohd. Irshad vide Ex. PW17/M and ID proof as Ex. PW17/N. PW18 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. in his testimony, exhibited CAF in the name of Devinder Pal Singh for mobile no. 9990053636 as Ex. PW18/A; CAF in the name of Sudhir Kumar Pundhir for mobile no. 9911310218 as Ex. PW18/B; certificate u/s 65B as Ex. PW18/C and PW18/D; and CDR record of mobile phones as Marked PW18/X; CDR of mobile no. 9891135700 as Ex. PW18/F and certificate as Ex. PW18/E; copy of NCR of mobile no. 9891135700 as Ex. PW18/Y.

5. PW19 SI Manohar Lal Meena, in his testimony, exhibited endorsement on statement Ex. PW1/A vide Ex. PW19/A;

site plan as Ex. PW19/B; recovery memo of articles seized from Lancer car as Ex. PW19/C; arrest and personal search memos of accused Vipin Verma and Suraj Bhatia as Ex. PW19/D to PW19/G; their disclosure statements as Ex. PW19/H and PW19/J; arrest memo of accused Jitin Sharma as Ex. PW19/K and personal search memo as Ex. PW19/L and his disclosure statement as Ex. PW19/M; site plan in respect of place from where accused persons were apprehended and victim Prosecutrix "K" was recovered vide Ex. PW19/N; another site plan in respect of H. No. B-8, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar where Prosecutrix "K" was confined as Ex. PW19/O; pointing out memo of regarding place of kidnapping vide Ex. PW19/P; seizure memo of mobile phone make Sony Ericcson and two SIM cards bearing no. 9990803480 of Idea company and another mobile no. 9968050383 of MTNL with a mobile battery of Nokia recovered from accused Vipin Verma as Ex. PW19/Q. PW20 Dr. Vipul Bhatnagar, Professor Dr. B. R. Sur Homeopathic Medical College, Nanakpura, in his testimony, marked PW20/A regarding cash receipt of Rs. 8,000/- and PW20/B which is photocopy of ID card of Shilpi Rathore issued by the college. PW21 Ct. Suresh Kumar, in his testimony, exhibited photographs as Ex. PW21/A1 to A7 and the negatives as Ex. PW21/A8 to A14 regarding three cars. PW22 Retd. ASI/ Tech Devender Kumar, in his testimony, exhibited his detailed mechanical inspection report of Lancer car no. DL3SAA-0063 and Ford Ikon car no. DL3CAA-8133 vide Ex. PW22/A and PW22/B. PW23 W/SI Usha Sharma, in her testimony, exhibited disclosure statement of JICL Tej Angad Singh as Ex. PW23/A; CD regarding recording of conversation in mobile phone Nokia 9300 recovered from JICL Tej Angad as Ex. PW23/A1 FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 8 of 38 and order of release of mobile phone as Ex. PW23/B. PW24 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services, in his testimony, exhibited CDR of mobile phone no. 9212431866 and 9210887797 as Ex. PW24/A and PW24/B and CAF of the same as Ex. PW24/C and PW24/D and certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex. PW24/E. PW27 Ct. Bachu Singh, in his testimony, exhibited DD no. 45B as Ex. PW27/A. PW28 Sh. Sanatan Prasad, Ld. MM, Beggar Court, Kingsway Camp, in his testimony, exhibited TIP proceedings qua accused Suraj Bhatia vide Ex. PW28/A; application of IO for supply of copy vide Ex. PW28/B; application of IO for conducting TIP as Ex. PW28/C; TIP proceedings qua accused Shilpi Rathore vide Ex. PW28/D; application of IO for supply of copy as Ex. PW28/E; TIP proceedings qua accused Vipin Verma and Jitin Sharma as Ex. PW28/F application of IO for supply of copy as Ex. PW28/G; application of IO for TIP as Ex. PW28/H. PW29 Israr Babu, alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services, in his testimony, exhibited copy of CAF regarding mobile no. 9899043195 in the name of Rajeev vide Ex. PW29/A; CDR of said no. as Ex. PW29/B; certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex PW29/C; CAF in the name of Sanjay Walia for mobile no. 9811935898 as Ex. PW29/D.

6. I have heard the Ld. counsel for accused persons and Ld. APP for the State and have perused the entire records.

7. PW1 Sh. Om Prakash Walia, grant father of Prosecutrix "K"/PW3, in his examination in chief stated that he came to know that at about 07.05 pm, a call was received by his son Rajiv Walia from a girl demanding Rs. 50.00 lacs for the release of Prosecutrix "K". However, PW1 voluntarily stated that he himself did not attend the telephone though he was present at his house.

8. PW3 Ms. Prosecutrix "K", in her examination in chief stated that she reached the government school to deliver the book to Pooja. A girl met her there and PW3 identified that girl as Richa, sister of Pooja. PW3 also stated that a silver colour Esteem car, whose number she did not recall was also standing outside the school near the bus stand and her brother Rahul was sitting in the car but PW3 stated that "Rahul is also not present in court today". PW3 further stated that there was no photocopy shop available nearby. PW3 also stated that at her request, she joined her in the car and after going a little distance, one boy by the name Sahil boarded the car. PW3 specifically stated that, "the boy Sahil is also not present in court today". PW3 further stated that on reaching place, PW3 came out of the car. Rahul was standing with him outside the car while Sahil kept sitting in the car and Richa went to receive money from his Chacha Sanjay Walia, who had brought the money. The car was parked across the road from the place where the money was paid. While Richa was going to receive the money, police reached there. On seeing the police, Rahul, Sahil and Richa fled away from the spot. PW3 specifically stated that, "I do not know who was arrested by the police". Car bearing registration No. DL3S- AA-0063 make Lancer, white colour produced by Superdar Ashwani Varma was shown to PW3 but she did not identify the car and stated that this was not the same car in which she was kidnapped.

9. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW3 denied that she was kidnapped in the year 2008 and not in 2006 as stated by her in her examination in chief. PW3 stated that she knew Heena, who was her friend and was studying in Happy Model School. PW3 also stated that her brother Jitin was also FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 10 of 38 known to her. PW3 further denied that she had stated in her statement to the police that the girl who met her was Pooja whose name later, she came to know as Shilpi. PW3 also denied that accused Shilpi (present in the Court) was the same girl who identified herself as Pooja to her. PW3 specifically stated that, "I do not know the accused Shilpi, present in court". PW3 denied that accused Vipin was the same person who was introduced as Rahul. PW3 specifically stated that, "I have never seen accused Vipin, now present in court". PW3 denied that she was forcibly made to sit in the car by accused Shilpi or that accused Rahul @ Vipin was driving the car or that after driving some distance, accused Suraj @ Sahil, boarded the car. PW3 further denied that she pleaded to accused Vipin that he should leave her as she wanted to go to her house but he did not pay any heed to her request. PW3 also denied that accused Shilpi @ Pooja took away her mobile. PW3 voluntarily stated that Richa had taken her mobile phone. PW3 further denied that she was feeling hopeless and helpless and then accused Shilpi gave her cold drink in a plastic glass and on taking the same, she felt sleepy and thereafter she was taken to an unknown place. PW3 also denied that she heard the accused Shilpi demanding Rs. 50.00 lacs on his residential phone. PW3 further denied that next morning i.e. 09.03.2008, accused Shilpi, Vipin and Suraj took her in the same car at 03.30 am. PW3 voluntarily stated that the incident took place in the year 2006. PW3 also denied that the accused persons had been making the ransom calls to her parents from time to time. PW3 further denied that during day time the accused persons took her out of Delhi in unknown market or that Shilpi purchased two sets of female clothes and one T-Shirt and three different types of caps or FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 11 of 38 that accused Shilpi forced her to change her clothes i.e. T-Shirt and wearing cap as no one could recognize her by the dress. PW3 also denied that on 09.03.2008 from evening to night, accused Shilpi, accused Vipin and accused Suraj @ Sahil called her parents for ransom amount or that asked them not to inform the police or that all the aforesaid three accused persons thereafter took her to different locations of Delhi i.e. Dhaula Kuan, petrol pump wooden market Kirti Nagar, Metro station Subhash Nagar, near Kukreja Hospital, Rajouri Garden metro station, IGI Airport parking, Radisson Hotel Mahipal Pur etc. PW3 also denied that the aforesaid accused persons by changing 6-7 SIM Cards continuously made mobile calls on the phone of her uncle Sanjay Walia number 9811935898. PW3 further denied that on 10.03.2008 early in the morning all the aforesaid accused persons namely Shilpi, Vipin and Suraj reached near Delhi Airport along with her and stopped the car at the dark place or that accused Suraj at that time was on the driving seat or that accused Shilpi and Vipin, left the car with her for taking ransom money near Mahipal Pur from her uncle standing nearby road. PW3 also denied that accused Shilpi and Vipin were apprehended by the police on the spot or that during that moment, accused Suraj escaped from the spot with car.

10. A sealed pullanda bearing the seal of OB was produced from Malkhana and after opening the same, a red colour T-Shirt was brought out and shown to PW3 but PW3 denied that T-Shirt Ex.P1 belonged to her. An English book Golden Gate and a hat were also shown to PW3 but she denied that the book Ex.P2 was the same book which was given by her to Shilpi @ Pooja and also denied that hat Ex.P3 was the same hat which was purchased for her by FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 12 of 38 accused Shilpi. PW3 stated that the name, class and roll number on the book were in her handwriting. PW3 voluntarily stated that the book which she gave to Richa was having certain torn pages but there was no torn page in the book Ex.P2. A plastic pearl pet bottle of 600 ml of Thums Up having small quantity of cola coloured liquid Ex.P4 was shown to PW3 but she denied that she was given the drink from the said bottle Ex.P4 and she voluntarily stated that she was not given any drink by any person. PW3 failed to identify the tops Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. PW3 stated that she had not seen the Airtel envelope bearing mobile No. 9818482850 and SIM No. 8991100703113114169 along with booklet Ex.P7 in the car and could not identify the same. PW3 also could not identify the Airtel paper having receipt on one side Ex.P8 and she had not seen the same lying in the car. PW3 also denied that accused Shilpi, Suraj and Vipin had kidnapped her physically or that accused Jitin was also involved in kidnap.

11. PW5 Sh. Sanjay Walia, in his examination in chief stated that he and his brother in law Goldy Thomas took the currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- in a car. Each packet of the currency notes was containing two genuine Rs. 500/- notes, one on the top and one on the bottom while the remaining notes were duplicate currency notes. At the Police Station Hari Nagar, a male kidnapper gave a call on his mobile phone bearing No. 9811935898 asking him to reach at Jaipur Highway. PW5 admitted that neither the male kidnapper nor the female kidnapper gave their names. On reaching the Mahipal Pur redlight, a call was received from male kidnapper asking him to turn right towards the Vasant Kunj. PW5 insisted that he would not keep the money without first being shown FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 13 of 38 the girl. PW5 saw two girls and a boy walking 500-600 meters ahead of him in the same direction in which they were going. PW5 told the male kidnapper that he would handover the money to the person immediately after Prosecutrix "K" was released from the other side. The moment PW5 saw Prosecutrix "K" coming, he shouted at Goldy "Lapak Lo". Immediately thereafter the police officials came out of their vehicles to apprehend the kidnappers but one girl and the boy who was moving ahead of them at a distance of 500-600 meters from them, fled away. The second girl who was with them was Prosecutrix "K" which he came to know latteron. The police had also fired in the air to apprehend the kidnappers but they could not be apprehended. PW5 specifically stated that, "I cannot identify the kidnappers as it was darkness due to night time".

12. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW5 stated that he had stated in his statement u/s 161 CrPC that the kidnapper by the name of Puja started walking towards him and demanded money from him. PW5 denied that on the signal of Puja, Prosecutrix "K" walked for about 2 paces. PW5 denied that the police had overpowered the kidnappers despite efforts made by them to flee away. PW5 also stated that he did not know the name of girl who used to call as Puja/Richa came to be known as Shilpi Rathore. PW5 denied that the name of the boy who was apprehended with Puja @ Richa came to be known as Vipin Verma who had kidnapped his niece in the Lancers car while impersonating as Rahul. PW5 denied that the police had seized the Lancers car and goods lying in the said car from the spot in his presence or that he had signed the seizure documents. PW5 also denied that accused Shilpi Rathore (present in the court) was the same person FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 14 of 38 who was apprehended from the spot in the name of Puja or that she was the same person who used to make calls in the name of Puja and Richa. PW5 further denied that accused Vipin Verma (present in the court) was the same person who was apprehended at the spot with accused Shilpi Rathore or that accused Suraj Bhatia (present in the court) was the same person who tried to flee away in Lancers car but was apprehended at a distance of 500-600 meters. PW5 further denied that accused Shilpi Rathore and Vipin Verma had got down from the Lancer car No. DL-3S-AA-0063 of white colour at Vasant Kunj road near National Highway, near Mahipal Pur to collect the ransom money.

13. PW5 in his cross- examination by Ld. APP also denied that accused Shilpi Rathore was apprehended with an attachi containing six packets, each containing 10 gaddies and each gaddi having one currency note of Rs. 500/- with the same size cut papers tied with rubber band and tied with plastic rope or that packets were given serial No. 1 to 5. PW5 further denied that sixth packet contained six more gaddies, each having note of Rs. 500/- on the top and four gaddies not having currency notes of Rs. 500/-, tied with rubber band plastic rope were recovered from accused Shilpi Rathore. PW5 further denied that he had given the attachi containing the six packets as detailed in seizure memo Ex.PW5/B to accused Shilpi Rathore. PW5 stated that he did not know if the packets were kept back in the attchi and attachi was kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of OB. PW5 denied that a book Golden Gate English for School and a blue colour cloth cap were recovered from accused Shilpi Rathore and kept in a sealed pulanda with the seal of OB. PW5 further denied that the Lancers Car No. DL-3S-AA-0063 FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 15 of 38 was recovered from accused Suraj Bhatia, Vipin Verma and Shilpi Rathore. PW5 also denied that ford icon car bearing No. DL3CAA-8133 along with its key were seized from the possession of juvenile Angad which was parked opposite his house or that the said car was used to give protection to the car used for taking ransom. PW5 stated that he did not know whether Kumari Prosecutrix "K" pointed out house No. B-8, Rama park, Uttam Nagar, situated at main Najafgarh road where accused Vipin Verma, Suraj Bhatia and Shilpi Rathore kept her at the first floor after kidnapping her or that she had changed her top on 08.03.2008. PW5 further stated that he did not know if accused Vipin Verma had pointed out B-8, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, where Prosecutrix "K" was kept after kidnapping or that Prosecutrix "K" had changed her red colour top in the said house. PW5 denied that the red colour top was recovered from accused Vipin Verma from B-8, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar. Lancer car No. DL-3C-0063 produced by the superdar was shown to PW5 but he refused to identify the car. PW5 could not identify the Ford Icon car bearing No. DL3C-AA-8133 as he had not seen the same. PW5 denied that the Attachi Ex.P9 and the packets containing Gaddis Ex.P10 were recovered from accused Shilpi Rathore. The red colour top Ex.P1 was shown to PW5 but he showed his inability to identify the same being the top of his niece Prosecutrix "K". PW5 denied that the aforesaid red colour top Ex.P1 was recovered at the instance of accused Vipin Verma or that the same belong to his niece / PW3.

14. PW7 Goldy Thomas, in his examination in chief stated that PW3 is the niece of his wife and as such he is her Fufa. PW7 stated that on the Vasant Kunj road when police officials tried to FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 16 of 38 pounce upon the boy, but that boy ran towards him to escape from the police. However, PW7 immediately pushed him and due to the push, that boy and PW7 fell down on the road but PW7 stated that the boy who was pushed by him was not present in the Court. PW7 categorically stated that police had not recorded his statement.

15. During cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW7 denied that his statement was recorded or that the girl caller asked ransom amount of Rs. 50.00 lac for release of Prosecutrix "K" or that she further told that she would tell the place on the next day. PW7 further denied that the aforesaid phone call was made by telling her name as Pooja. PW7 further denied that on the phone kidnappers told that Pooja was coming to collect the ransom amount. PW7 also denied that the name of the aforesaid lady kidnapper was told to be Pooja. PW7 further denied that he grabbed the kidnapper boy. PW7 also denied that said boy was also apprehended by the police after chasing at about 500-700 meters or that on inquiry, the name of the said boy came to be known as Suraj Bhatia. PW7 also denied that the aforesaid Suraj Bhatia by the name of Sahil kidnapped Prosecutrix "K". PW7 further denied that accused Shilpi Rathore (present in the court pointed out by the Ld. APP) was the woman kidnapper who had telephone calls in the name of Pooja and Richa. PW7 also denied that the boy who was apprehended with Shilpi Rathore was Vipin Verma (present in the court pointed out by the Ld. APP) who had kidnapped Prosecutrix "K" by the name of Rahul. PW7 voluntarily stated that that boy was stouter than him and he was not the same boy named Vipin Verma. PW7 further denied that one English Book of Prosecutrix "K" and other articles recovered from accused Shilpi Rathore, who kidnapped Prosecutrix FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 17 of 38 "K" by the name of Pooja. PW7 also denied that he along with Sanjay made the ransom amount by keeping six bundles of 100 pieces on each of which one genuine currency note of Rs. 500/- was put or that the same had been kept in a briefcase or that put the same in Maruti Esteem. PW7 denied that accused Shilpi Rathore and accused Vipin Verma were apprehended on the spot when they came outside from the Lancer car No. DL3SAA-0063 of white colour or that both the accused persons were apprehended with the help of Ct. Ram Avtar and Ct. Devender at the spot. PW7 admitted his signatures on Ex.PW5/A but he denied that aforesaid document was prepared in his presence or that its contents were read over to him. PW7 also denied that briefcase containing the ransom amount for the release of Prosecutrix "K" was handed over to Sanjay Walia at PS Hari Nagar in his presence. PW7 further denied that in this respect a memo was prepared. PW7 also denied that English book of Prosecutrix "K" was recovered in his presence. PW7 further denied that six bundles kept in Ex.P10 were prepared in his presence at PS Hari Nagar or that he was intentionally not identifying those bundles to save the accused.

16. PW8 Smt. Nirmala Ahluwalia, in her examination in chief specifically stated that, "I do not know anything else about this case. I do not know any of the accused today present in Court. I do not know the mother of any of the accused". During cross- examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW8 denied that Rani told her that "bache se galti ho gai hai, use maf kardena". PW8 categorically stated that, "I cannot say whether Jitin is present in court today who is son of Rani and brother of Hina". PW8 could not identify the accused Jitin who was present in the Court even on the FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 18 of 38 pointing out by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and stated that she cannot identify the accused Jitin because of lapse of time.

17. PW9 Sh. Rajiv Walia, in his examination in chief also categorically stated that, "I do not know any of the accused present today". During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW9 stated that he did not know that Rani who was residing three years before the incident at WZ-276, gali no. 21, Shiv Nagar, Delhi in front of their old house No. WZ-264 made a telephonic call after the rescue of Prosecutrix "K" and talked with his mother stating that Jitin had been caught by the police or that his mother Smt. Nirmala Ahluwalia in turn asked her the reason for the same or that Rani at that moment stated "bache se galti ho gai hai, use maf kar dena". PW9 also stated that he did not know that on 11.03.2008, Tuesday, mother of Jitin, his bua, his brother and bhabhi visited their house and asked for forgiveness. PW9 further stated that he did not know that some days prior to 08.03.2008 Rani made a telephonic call and offered them that his son would help them in getting house at Sant Pura and Tilak Nagar within the range of Rs. 30 lakhs or that due to its far distance and cost they refused for the same. PW9 did not recall that Jitin Sharma who was residing at Shyam Nagar came to know about the sale of their house. PW9 denied that Jitin Sharma because of knowledge of the sale of their house kidnapped Prosecutrix "K" by making her a target. PW9 could not identify the accused Jitin Sharma and the English Book of Prosecutrix "K". During cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel, PW9 stated that his mother had told him that on 10.03.2008 after the release of Prosecutrix "K", police officials had taken her 3-4 books/copies from her school bag.

18. PW11 Noor Hassan, in his examination in chief also specifically stated that he did not know anything. PW11 further stated that, "I do not know the accused Vipin Verma, today present in Court". PW11 also stated that he never met the accused Vipin Verma. During cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW11 stated that he gave no statement to the police and police did not meet him in connection with this case. PW11 denied that he gave a loan of Rs. 45000/- to accused Vipin Verma son of Ashwani Verma on 11.11.2007. PW11 also denied that accused Vipin Verma has not paid back the loan till date. PW11 further denied that he had given a statement u/s 161 CrPC dt. 30.05.2008 to the police.

19. PW12 Ankur Ailawadi, in his examination in chief stated that he knew the accused Vipin Verma and Jatin Sharma but he had no financial dealings with them and he never gave them any loan. PW12 did not tell if the police ever met him in connection with this case. PW12 stated that police did not record his statement. During cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW12 denied that police had recorded his statement. PW12 stated that he did not know that Vipin Verma had taken lot of rupees from other persons which he was to repay to them. PW13 Sh. Rajinder Bansal, in his examination in chief stated that earlier he was having an STD shop and thereafter, he was doing the work of repair and sale and purchase of mobile phones. PW13 further stated that he did not know why he has been called in this case. Police did not meet him in connection with this case. During cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW13 did not tell if the IO had given Nokia phone Model No. 9300 bearing SIM Number 9871665813 for checking or that after checking the same, he prepared the CD of recorded FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 20 of 38 conversation and handed over the same to the IO. PW13 was shown a Moser Baer CD but he was unable to identify the CD. PW13 denied that he has intentionally refused to identify the CD of recorded conversation prepared by him.

20. PW14 Kamaljeet Singh, in his examination in chief stated that he was the owner of Ford Icon car but he did not know its number. PW14 did not tell if the police ever gave a notice u/s 133 MV Act or whether he gave any reply to the notice. PW14 in his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP stated that police met him in connection with this case but he denied that the police had recorded his statement. PW14 voluntarily stated that police did not call him but he himself went to meet the police. PW14 further denied that he informed the police that Tej Angad Singh, son of his sister Inderjeet Kaur, was driving the vehicle continuously since November, 2006. PW14 also denied that police served him a notice u/s 133 Motor Vehicle Act to which he gave his reply. During cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW16 Naveen Verma, stated that he had not made any statement to the police.

21. PW15 HC Rishi Raj, during cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel stated that three teams were formed but he did not know under whose directions the three raiding parties were formed. He also did not know who had constituted their team. Even, PW15 did not know who had given direction to Gagan Bhaskar to form the raiding party in which he was included. PW15 further stated that there were 4-5 police officials in their team. However, he did not recall the names of all the team members. Thereafter within 15-20 minutes, they left the office of ACP Punjabi Bagh and reached PS Hari Nagar. By that time, none of the raiding team members was FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 21 of 38 briefed by any of the official. After reaching to PS Hari Nagar, ACP Rajouri Garden briefed the members of all raiding parties. There were 8-10 members in all three raiding parties. During the briefing, ACP Rajouri Garden briefed them but PW15 did not tell whether during briefing they were informed who were to be arrested. However, it was briefed that the culprits were to be arrested from Dhaula Kuan. PW15 again said that they were told to reach Dhaula Kuan and apart from this, nothing was discussed or briefed. PW15 was not having any weapon on that day. PW15 did not recall whether any other raiding party member was having any weapon on that day or not. PW15 also did not recall whether any of the member in all the three raiding parties was having any weapon before leaving to Dhaula Kuan. PW15 also did not recall which vehicle was used by the other raiding party. PW15 could not tell how many vehicles were used by the raiding parties for reaching to Dhaula Kuan. PW15 also stated that he did not lodge any DD entry while leaving the police station. In his presence, no other police official made any departure entry in the Roznamcha. PW15 further stated that he did not know who was the owner in which he was travelling. PW15 also did not recall the model, make and colour of the said vehicle. PW15 did not recall who was driving the said vehicle.

22. PW15, in his cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel, did not recall whether SI Gagan Bhaskar received any information or message on his wireless set on the way. PW15 further stated that at about 3.30 am on 10.03.2008, they came back to police station Hari Nagar. All other raiding parties returned back to PS Hari Nagar but PW15 stated that he did not make any arrival entry in the Roznamcha. Even, no other police official made any FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 22 of 38 arrival entry in the Roznamcha. PW15 further stated that he did not know whether those vehicles were rented or were given by somebody voluntarily. Sanjay and Goldy Thomas were in a different vehicle i.e. in their Esteem car and PW15 was in the call centre vehicle so he could not tell whether Sanjay received any call from the kidnappers or not. PW15 also stated that he did not know why Sanjay and Goldy Thomas went towards Vasant Kunj when they received call to reach IGI Airport. PW15 also stated that he did not know where the Esteem car was parked by Sanjay. PW15 did not recall the exact distance from Mahipal Pur to the place where the auto stopped. The said road was a double road. Goldy and Sanjay got down from the auto on the said chowk and started proceeding towards Vasant Kunj on foot. PW15 further stated in his cross- examination by the Ld. defence counsel that none of the girls moved and remained on the same position when the police officials apprehended both the girls. The writing work was done by Inspector Ombir Singh and his team members. At that time, PW15 was present but he could not tell exactly what was written by them. However, PW15 signed those papers but he could not tell as to how many papers were signed by him. Accused Shilpi, Suraj Bhatia and Vipin Verma were apprehended in his presence there at around 05.30 am but he could not tell the time of their arrest. PW15 also could not tell what was recovered in the personal search of accused Vipin Verma.

23. PW19 SI Manohar Lal, during cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel stated that they used the private vehicle but he did not know which vehicle was there. PW19 also did not recall the colour, make and its registration number. PW19 also did not recall FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 23 of 38 who was driving the other vehicle of the other raiding team party. PW19 in his cross-examination further stated that in his presence, no alleged calls were received by the parents of the victim from the kidnappers. PW19 could not tell the name of the private driver who was driving the car in which he was travelling at the time of alleged raid. No statement of the said private driver was recorded in his presence by the IO. Neither PW19 nor IO had informed the local police of the jurisdiction of PS Dhaula Kuan. PW19 admitted that in his presence, IO had not requested any public person to join the proceedings after briefing him about the case and the raid. PW19 could not tell that how many calls were received in his presence. PW19 had stated in his statement u/s 161 CrPC to the IO that lady Ct. Mamta was one of the associated members of the raiding party. PW19 was confronted with the statement Ex.PW19/D-1 where it was not so recorded. PW19 admitted that neither he nor the IO had asked the public persons to join the investigation when they went to Dhaula Kuan, Kirti Nagar timber Market, Kukreja Hospital Rajouri Garden, Subhash Nagar Metro Station and Distt. Centre Janak Puri, Delhi. Both the taxies were being driven by the respective drivers and he could not tell the name of one of the drivers as Mr. Bawa. PW19 also stated that in his presence, no statement of Mr. Bawa was recorded by the IO. No payment was made to those taxi drivers in his presence. PW19 could not name the said TSR driver. During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW19 stated that he had received the DD entry No. 45A at about 07.45 pm but PW19 could not tell about his location where he was present at that time. PW19 admitted that in the DD no. 45A, the name of the informer was mentioned as Mr. Ashwani Kumar from mobile no. 9818549425 but FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 24 of 38 PW19 did not make any efforts to trace out the details of the caller by the name of Ashwani Kumar and any call details of mobile number 9818549425. PW19 further admitted that he had not prepared any site plan in the present case. PW19 also stated that he did not record any statement of HC Virender Rana about the details of the calls received during that period. PW19 further stated that he did not know from where the IO had arranged the bundles of papers in the shape of currency notes to make such fake bundles to show the ransom amount to the kidnappers.

24. PW23 W/SI Usha Sharma, during cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel admitted that CD Ex.PW23/AI was not prepared in his presence or that she signed the memo subsequently on the asking of IO or that she had not joined the investigation as deposed by him in his examination in chief. PW25 Ct. Devender Kumar during his examination in chief refreshed his memory by going through the police file. PW25 stated that he apprehended the accused (present in the Court) whose name later on revealed to be Vipin Verma but PW25 pointed out towards accused Jatin Sharma instead of Vipin Verma. During cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel, PW25 stated that he did not know if any entry of departure from the police station was made by him when he along with the raiding party members left the PS. Even, PW25 did not recall the DD number if any and even further he did not recall if the duty officer at that time had recorded DD entry. PW25 further stated in his cross- examination that two -three raiding teams were made for the purpose of raiding and three - four vehicles were used for conducting raid and those vehicles were the private vehicles and he did not know the number of the vehicles as well as the name of the FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 25 of 38 drivers. PW25 admitted that whenever they arrange private vehicles, they claim for the reimbursement of the amount paid to the private vehicles at the time of conducting raids. PW25 stated that he did not know about the amount if any paid but the IO could tell. PW25 did not recall at that stage where he met the said Goldy Thomas and Sanjay Walia in this case. PW25 further could not tell the identification mark, if any, given to the recovered currency notes of Rs. 30.00 lacs in the denomination of Rs. 500/- which were the bundles of white papers in the shape and size of currency notes of 500 denomination having one genuine currency note of 500 denomination on the top. The said two vehicles of call centre were driven by police officials but he did not recall their names. PW25 also stated in his cross-examination that they reached Mahipalpur Chowk at about 05.00 am and one lady constable was also the member of the raiding party but he did not recall her name. PW25 admitted that he had not stated in his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC regarding the presence of lady constable in the raiding party. PW25 further did not recall in his cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel whether he got issued any Government weapon. Even he could not tell whether any other member of raiding party had also got issued a government weapon. PW25 also admitted that the IO did not note down the details and whereabouts of those drivers on that day in his presence. PW25 stated that he had signed the arrest memos of accused persons but he did not tell as to how many documents were signed by him at the spot on that day. Attention of PW25 was drawn towards the arrest memos of all the three accused persons to which he admitted that there were no signatures of him as witness on those memos.

25. PW26 Inspector Gagan Bhaskar in his cross-

examination by Ld. defence counsel stated that he did not make any arrival entry at PS Hari Nagar. PW26 admitted that the bundles which were kept in a suitcase were not prepared in his presence. PW26 stated that the vehicles of Call Centre were got arranged by the IO of this case but PW26 did not recall how many vehicles of call centre were arranged by the IO. PW26 also did not recall the name of the driver or the registration number of the aforesaid vehicles. PW26 did not inform the PS Vasant Kunj about his arrival at Mahipalpur. No police official of PS Vasant Kunj reached at Mahipalpur. PW26 did not recall if any female police official was with the other two teams but no female police official was with his team. PW26 did not recall if accused Shilpi was apprehended in presence of any female police officials or that who was that lady police official in whose presence the disclosure statement of accused Shilpi was recorded. PW26 further did not recall if any female police official was joined in any of the investigation with regard to accused Shilpi Rathore. PW26 also stated that the place of recovery of book and cap and apprehension of accused Shilpi fall within the jurisdiction of PS Vasant Kunj but he admitted that he did not inform police officials of PS Vasant Kunj before apprehension of accused and any such recovery. PW26 also stated that he did not deposit the recovered book and cap at PS Vasant Kunj. PW26 further stated in his cross- examination that he did not send any police official of raiding party to the PS Vasant Kunj to record entry regarding apprehension and recovery of cap and book from accused Shilpi Rathore. PW25 also stated that they reached PS Hari Nagar at 10.00 am, however, he did not make any arrival entry separately in this regard. During FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 27 of 38 cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW26 stated that all the members of raiding party of his team were briefed about the case prior to leaving the PS Hari Nagar and his raiding party was briefed only once and even no clue whatsoever was there with them even after the briefing about the suspects. The other members of his raiding party were also armed with weapons. PW26 stated that his raiding party left for Dhaula Kuan in a private vehicle arranged by IO. The said vehicle was being driven by HC Rishi Raj but PW26 could not tell any particular or specification of that vehicle i.e. colour, make and registration number. PW26 admitted that he did not communicate with all the raiding parties, Sanjay and Goldi during the entire operation. PW26 stated that the accused girl started running away from the spot after seeing the police but she was apprehended. The accused Vipin was apprehended just along with the accused Shilpi Rathore. PW26 admitted that his statement was not recorded by the IO in this case on 09.03.2008, 10.03.2008, 11.03.2008 and 12.03.2008. However, his first statement was recorded in this case on 13.03.2008. PW26 stated that IO was very busy in the investigation that is why he did not record his statement prior to 13.03.2008, however, he was available and ready to make the statement. PW26 also stated that after the apprehension of accused Vipin Verma, nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance. PW26 voluntarily stated that one bag/suitcase was recovered from him at the time of his apprehension. PW28 Sh. Sanatam Prasad, Ld. MM, Beggar Court, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, in his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel stated that no time is mentioned in the proceedings Ex.PW28/A.

26. PW17 Tarun Khurana, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Office, FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 28 of 38 brought the attested copy of call details of mobile no. 9818898965 of the period 07.03.2008 to 10.03.2008 and stated that the said mobile phone connection was issued in the name of Jitin Sharma. He also brought the attested copy of call details of mobile no. 9871665813 of the period 07.03.2008 to 10.03.2008 which was issued in the name of Inderjeet Kaur w/o Narender Singh. PW17 also brought the attested copy of call details of mobile no. 9818482850 of the period 08.03.2008 to 09.03.2008. However, PW17 stated that the system had not shown any calls made on 07.03.2008 and 10.03.2008 on the aforesaid phone. PW17 further stated that the customer application form of this phone no. was not traceable and therefore, he could not produce the same. PW17 also brought the attested copy of call details of mobile no. 9971912279 of the period 09.03.2008 to 10.03.2008 but he stated that the system did not show any calls against the aforesaid number for the period 07.03.2008 and 08.03.2008. However, PW17 stated that the said mobile phone connection was issued in the name of Virender Singh. PW17 also brought the attested copy of call details of mobile no. 9971912074 of the period 10.03.2008 but PW17 again stated that the said mobile phone connection was issued in the name of Ram Prakash. PW17 also brought the attested copy of call details of mobile no. 9871262640 of the period 07.03.2008 to 10.03.2008. The said mobile phone connection was issued in the name of Punit Sudan. PW17 also brought the customer application form of mobile no. 9818482850 which was in the name of Mohd. Irshad s/o Mohd. Ashraf r/o B-78, JJ Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi. During cross- examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused, PW17 stated that he has not brought the original customer application form but the same FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 29 of 38 was available in their office. PW17 stated that he had no knowledge how the information has been retrieved from the server of their company. PW17 also stated that record was not retrieved from server in his presence.

27. PW18 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., brought the Customer Applications Form of mobile phone no. 9990053636 which was issued in the name of Devinder Pal Singh s/o Jarnail Singh r/o H. No. 36, North Avenue, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. PW18 also brought Pre-paid connection application form of mobile no. 9911310218 which was issued in the name of Sudhir Kumar Pundhir s/o Bijender Singh r/o 1/28, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92. PW18 also brought the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act in respect of aforesaid both the mobile phone as well as the mobile phone bearing no. 9891135700. The said mobile phone was issued in the name of one Naresh Kumar s/o Deen Dayal r/o C-5/3, R Block, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. PW18 could not produce the original customer application form of mobile no. 9891135700 as the same had been lost. Despite efforts, they have not been able to trace out the customer application form. As per the database of the server of Idea Cellular, mobile no. 9891135700 was in the name of Naresh Kumar s/o Deen Dayal r/o C-5/3, Block RP Bagh, New Delhi.

28. PW24 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd., in his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel stated that they store the call record of only last year. He voluntarily stated that the CDR which are asked by the police during investigation of the case are preserved by them. PW24 did not bring any document to show that either the police had asked to provide FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 30 of 38 the above mentioned CDR or the same was preserved in their system.

29. PW29 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd., brought the original summoned record of mobile no. 9899043195 i.e. customer application form (CAF), computer generated record of CDR for the period of 01.01.2008 to 09.03.2008 and requisite certificate u/s 65B (4) (c) of Evidence Act in respect of aforesaid CDR. However, PW29 stated that as per CAF, the mobile no. 9899043195 was issued in the name of Sh. Rajeev s/o Sh. Omprakash, r/o 43A, Pkt-B, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. PW29 also brought the original summoned record of mobile no. 9811935898 i.e. Customer Application Form (CAF) and further stated that as per CAF the mobile no. 9811935898 was issued in the name of Sh. Sanjay Walia s/o Sh. O.P. Ahluwalia r/o WZ 88-B, first floor, street no. 5, Shiv Nagar, Jail road, New Delhi (Billing address) and also r/o WZ-364, Gali No. 21, Shiv Nagar, J.Puri, New Delhi-58. PW29 also stated that he was not able to produce any CDR of mobile number 9811935898 as the relevant date of said number had not been preserved by his company as no such written request was made by the investigating agency in this regard, hence, the same was not available in his office.

30. It is well settled preposition of criminal law that prosecution has to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Balraj Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 1976 Cr.L.J. 1471 (DB) (Punjab) in which it was observed as follows: -

"The guilt of accused is to be established by the FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 31 of 38 prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record. Even if, there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole, the prosecution may be true, but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted".

31. Reference in this connection can also be made to the decision of Supreme Court in, Tika Vs. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 155, wherein it has been held that-

"One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view, in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases, is that an accused is presumed to be innocent, unless, that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence which may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged".

32. In Bhikari Vs. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC 1, the Supreme Court has held that-

"undoubtedly, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence with the requisite mens rea. Once it is done, the accused can rebut this presumption either by leading evidence or by relying on the prosecution evidence itself. If upon evidence adduced in the case, either by prosecution or by defence, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court, regarding one or more ingredients of the offence including mens rea, then he would be entitled to be acquitted".

33. In the present case, it is evident from the testimonies of PWs discussed above that PW1, grandfather of the Prosecutrix "K" is the hearsay witness since he did not attend the telephone. PW3 is the Prosecutrix "K" and she herself stated that Rahul, Sahil and Richa were at the spot and on seeing the police, they fled away from the spot. The Prosecutrix "K" did not know who was arrested by the police. PW3 also denied that accused Shilpi and Vipin were apprehended by the police on the spot or that during that moment accused Suraj escaped from the spot with car. PW5/ eyewitness also admitted that kidnappers could not be apprehended at the spot. The Lancer car produced by supardar Ashwani Verma was shown to PW3 but she did not identify it to be the same car used in which she was kidnapped. PW3 denied that accused Shilpi was the same girl who identified herself as Pooja to her. PW3 also denied that accused Vipin was the same person who was introduced as Rahul. PW3 even stated that she has never seen accused Vipin. PW3 also denied that accused Shilpi forced her to sit in the car or the accused Rahul @ Vipin was driving the car or after driving some distance, accused Suraj @ Sahil boarded the car. PW3 also denied that the accused persons had been making the ransom calls to her parents from time to time. PW3 further denied that accused Shilpi, Suraj and Vipin had kidnapped her physically or that accused Jitin was also involved in kidnapping. PW3 further denied that T-shirt Ex. P1 belonged to her. PW3 also denied that English book Golden Gate Ex. P2 was the same book which was given by her to Shilpi @ Pooja and PW3 also denied that hat Ex. P3 was the same hat which was purchased for her by accused Shilpi. PW3 further denied that she was feeling hopeless and helpless and then accused Shilpi gave her FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 33 of 38 cold drink in a plastic glass and on taking the same, she felt sleepy and thereafter she was taken to an unknown place. A plastic pearl pet bottle of 600 mls. of Thums Up having small quantity of Cola coloured liquid Ex. P4 was also shown to PW3 but she denied that she was given the drink from the said bottle and she volunteered that she was not given any drink by any person.

34. PW5/ eyewitness/ relative of the prosecutrix"K" admitted that neither the male kidnapper nor the female kidnapper gave their name. Even, PW5 denied that the police had overpowered the kidnappers despite efforts made by them to flee away. PW5 further denied that police had seized the Lancers car and goods lying in the said car from the spot in his presence or that he had signed the seizure documents. PW5 also denied that the accused Shilpi Rathore was the same person who used to make calls in the name of Pooja and Richa. PW5 also denied that the accused Vipin Verma was the same person who was apprehended at the spot with accused Shilpi Rathore or that the accused Suraj Bhatia was the same person who tried to flee away in the Lancer car but was apprehended at a distance of 500-600 meters. PW5 even denied that accused Shilpi Rathore was apprehended with an attachi containing six packets of the said currency notes. PW5 also denied that a book Golden Gate English for school and a blue colour cloth were recovered from accused Shilpi or the said Lancer car was recovered from the accused Suraj Bhatia, Vipin Verma and Shilpi Rathore. PW5 also denied that the aforesaid Ford Icon car with its key were seized from the possession of juvenile Angad. PW5 also admitted that the red colour top was not recovered from accused Vipin Verma and even PW5 could not identify the said Ford Icon car.

PW5 further admitted that the attachi and the packets containing currency notes were not recovered from the accused Shilpi Rathore. Red colour top Ex. P1 was also not identified by PW5 and even he denied that the said red colour top was recovered at the instance of accused Vipin Verma.

35. PW7 is also not only the eyewitness but the relative of the prosecutrix "K" who stated that the police had not recorded his statement. PW7 also denied that Suraj Bhatia by the name of Sahil kidnapped Prosecutrix "K". PW7 further denied that the boy who was apprehended with Shilpi Rathore was Vipin Verma who had kidnapped Prosecutrix "K" by the name Rahul. PW7 also denied that accused Shilpi Rathore and accused Vipin Verma were apprehended on the spot when they came outside from the aforesaid Lancer car. PW8 relative of the Prosecutrix "K" also stated that she did not know anything else about this case and even she did not know any of the accused present in the court and also the mother of any of the accused. PW9 is also the relative of the Prosecutrix "K" who stated that he did not know any of the accused present in the court. PW11 is also the public witness and he stated that he did not know anything and even he did not know the accused Vipin Verma present in the court. PW11 further stated that he never met with accused Vipin Verma. PW12 stated that he knew accused Vipin Verma and Jitin Sharma but PW12 stated that he had no financial dealings with them and he never gave them any loan. PW13 is also the public witness and he stated that he did not know why he was called in this case and he further stated that police did not meet him in connection with this case. PW13 also did not tell if he prepared the CD of recorded conversation and handed over the FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 35 of 38 same to the IO. PW14 owner of the ford icon car stated that police met him in connection with this case but he denied that police recorded his statement. PW16/ public witness also stated that he had not made any statement to the police.

36. PW15 HC stated that he was not having any weapon on that day and even he did not tell whether any other raiding party member was having any weapon or not. PW15 stated that accused Shilpi, Suraj Bhatia and Vipin Verma were apprehended in his presence but he could not tell the time of their arrest. PW19 SI stated that they used the private vehicle but he did not tell which vehicle was there. PW19 admitted that in his presence IO had not requested any public person to join the proceedings after briefing him about the case and the raid. PW23 W/SI stated that CD Ex. PW23/A1 was not prepared in her presence. PW25 Ct. stated that he apprehended the accused present in the court whose name later on revealed to be Vipin Verma but PW25 pointed out towards accused Jitin Sharma, meaning there PW25 did not correctly identify accused Vipin Verma. PW25 stated that 2-3 raiding teams were made for the purpose of raiding and 3-4 vehicles were used for conducting raid but PW25 neither told about the number of vehicles nor names of the drivers. PW25 could not tell the identification mark, if any, given to the said recovered currency notes. PW25 admitted that there were no signatures of him as witness on the arrest memos of all the three accused persons. PW26 Inspector admitted that he did not make any arrival entry at PS Hari Nagar. PW26 did not recall how many vehicles were arranged. Even, PW26 did not tell if any female police official was with the other two teams. PW26 further did not tell if any female police official was FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 36 of 38 joined in any of the investigation with regard to the accused Shilpi Rathore. PW26 stated that the accused girl started running away from the spot after seeing the police but she was apprehended. PW26 volunteered in his statement that one bag / suitcase was recovered from accused Vipin Verma at the time of his apprehension. It reveals from the above discussed testimony of the public witnesses and the police officials/ officers that there are contradictions in their statements regarding the apprehension of the accused persons at the spot of the occurrence. PW17, PW18, PW24 and PW29 are the Nodal Officers who produced the mobile phones and call details records which also creates doubt since mobile no. 9911310218 was issued in the name of Sudhir Kumar Pundhir, mobile phone no. 9891135700 was issued in the name of Naresh Kumar, mobile no. 9899043195 was issued in the name of Rajiv and CDR of mobile no. 9811935898 was not produced since at the relevant date it was not preserved by its company.

37. Nothing has come out in the testimonies of PW1, PW3, PW5, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14 and PW16 and even there are contradictions in the testimony of PW15, PW19, PW25 and PW26, therefore, the above discussed PWs have not supported the case of the Prosecution. The remaining witness Sudesh Pal has already expired and the other remaining witness Nitesh is not the eyewitness/ material witness. The further remaining witnesses cited by the Prosecution are also either police officials or doctor and not the material witnesses. Keeping in view the above facts & circumstances and the fact that PW1/hearsay witness; PW3/ star witness/ Prosecutrix "K"; PW5, PW7, PW8, PW9 being the relatives of the prosecutrix "K"; PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14, and FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 37 of 38 PW16 being the public witnesses have not supported the case of Prosecution and further as per the report, the IO of the case has been living in Australia for the last two years and he has not returned back during the said period of two years. No useful purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution evidence has been closed. No incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons, therefore, statements of accused persons have also been dispensed with. In Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 55, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbably or lacks 'credibility', benefits of doubt necessarily has to go to accused. Accordingly, in the present case, the accused Suraj Bhatia, Shilpi Rathore, Jitin Sharma and Vipin Verma are acquitted because of lack of evidence on behalf of the prosecution and benefit of doubt goes to the accused persons. The bail bonds of accused persons are extended for a period of six months u/s 437-A CrPC. File be consigned to Record Room.

(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW-03:ROHINI:DELHI.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 27-08-2014 FIR No. 92/08; State Vs. Suraj Bhatia etc. Page 38 of 38