Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.4 At about 2:00 PM, as directed, Sh. Sudhir Gupta contacted accused R. K. Tiwari on his mobile phone. The conversation between Sh. Sudhir Gupta and accused R. K. Tiwari was recorded with the help of the digital recorder in presence of independent witnesses. The recorded conversation was heard which confirmed the directions of accused R. K. Tiwari to complainant to pay the bribe amount to accused Gulshan Kumar. During telephonic conversation, accused R. K. Tiwari assured Sh. Sudhir Gupta that if he would pay the bribe amount to accused Gulshan Kumar then no demolition action would be taken against him. After sometime, a telephonic call was received on mobile phone of Sh. Sudhir Gutpa from accused Gulshan Kumar which was also recorded with the help of DVR. During conversation, Sh. Sudhir Gupta informed accused Gulshan Kumar that he had arranged the money as demanded. At about 2:45 PM, Sh. Sudhir Gupta again received a call on his mobile phone from accused R. K. Tiwari and during conversation, accused R. K. Tiwari instructed Sh. Sudhir Gupta that he should ensure the presence of accused Manoj Kumar Gutpa at the time of handing over of the bribe amount to accused Gulshan Kumar otherwise Manoj Gutpa would create problem in future. This telephonic conversation was also recorded in DVR. The data of recorded conversation was transferred into the blank audio cassette in which the specimen voices of both the independent witnesses were also recorded. The said audio cassette was sealed with the seal of CBI.

10 PW11 Sh. Inderjit Singh was working as Assistant Director in Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. He deposed almost on the lines of complainant and PW3 Sh. Ajit Topo and supported the prosecution case on the vital facts pertaining to pre trap and post trap proceedings and deposed about the preparation of documents as well as transcripts and admitted his signatures.

10.1 It was submitted by Ld. defence counsels that as per charge­sheet some technical arrangement was made in the mobile phones so that conversation inside the car may be simultaneously heard by PW11. But PW11 did not state anything on this aspect and prosecution has not declared him hostile. It was also submitted that, as per prosecution case, complainant could not switch on the DVR at the spot and no conversation was recorded pertaining to the alleged transaction at the spot. Still PW11 stated that DVR was played and conversation was heard pertaining to the conversation inside the car which discredit his testimony. He deposed contrary to the admitted facts of the prosecution case. 10.2. It was also submitted by Ld. defence counsel that as per prosecution case PW11 took his position near the TLO and they were at a distance from the car and therefore, PW11 Sh. Inderjit Singh was in not position to hear the conversation inside the car or to observe the transaction. 10.3 Careful perusal of testimony of PW11 Sh. Inderjit Singh­ reveals that he deposed almost on all the facts pertaining to pre trap and post trap proceedings in natural and consistent manner except few minor aspects where his deposition is contrary to the testimony of other witnesses.

10.4 PW11 deposed in his examination in chief or cross examination in response to the questions put to him. It appears from his testimony that no question was put to him pertaining to hearing of conversation going on inside the car through mobile phone provided to him after technical arrangement. When no question was put to PW11 in respect of technical arrangement and hearing of direct conversation by him, it cannot be said a lapse on his part or the testimony cannot be treated false on this ground. It is true that as per prosecution case, conversation could not be recorded at the spot as complainant could not switch on the DVR and therefore, there could have been no possibility for PW11 to hear the conversation. PW3 has deposed about the technical arrangement and the mobile provided to PW11. It appears that PW11 might have heard the conversation on the mobile phone through technical arrangement. But, at the time of his testimony, he narrated about the conversation as if recorded through DVR. If these portions of his testimony are excluded, his remaining testimony does not suffer from any material contradiction or the improvement on material facts and appears to be natural, consistent and reliable. 11 In respect of testimony of PW3 Sh. Ajit Topo and PW11 Sh. Inderjit Singh it was submitted by Ld. defence counsel that being the government officials they were under pressure to depose in support of the CBI case as there are certain circulars in this regard.

22.1 PW 15 further deposed about conversation between PW2 and accused R. K. Tiwari and accused Gulshan Kumar, recording of conversation in DVR, transfer of data in blank audio cassette, recording the specimen voices of the witnesses, sealing of cassette in the cloth wrapper with seal of CBI after marking it as Q­1 and signatures of PW3 and PW11. He also stated that DVR recording was transferred in another blank audio cassette for the purpose of investigation. 22.2 PW15 supported the prosecution case in respect of technical arrangements by inserting the sim card of mobile phone of PW2 in another phone so that the conversation may be simultaneously heard by PW11 and about practical demonstration of the technical arrangement. He further proved handing over memo Ex. PW2/C and tape recording hading over memo Ex. PW2/D. 22.3 PW15 further deposed that PW2 alongwith PW3 were asked to sit in Evergreen Sweet House and to contact accused Gulshan Kumar, the arrival of accused Gulshan Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta in Maruti Zen car and that accused Gulshan Kumar took complainant with him and sat in the car. 22.4 PW15 deposed that trap team including himself and witness saw the transaction of bribe amount from Sh. Sudhir Gupta to accused Gulshan Kumar and then to Manoj Kumar Gupta as they were near the car. He stated that accused Gulshan Kumar ran away from the spot and accused Manoj Kumar Gupta was apprehended and amount of Rs. 30,000/­ (thrown by the accused Manoj Kumar Gupta on the mat of the car just near to the front seat) was recovered by the PW11. He also stated that PW3 compared the number of GC notes from the numbers already mentioned in handing over memo. He stated about hand washes of accused Manoj Kumar Gupta and sealing of hand washes. He stated that complainant Sh. Sudhir Gupta informed about the acceptance of bribe by accused Gulshan Kumar and assurance of accused Manoj Kumar Gupta that his house would not demolish by accused R. K. Tiwari. He also stated that complainant informed that accused Manoj Kumar Gupta made a telephonic call to accused R. K. Tiwari and told about the payment of Rs. 30,000/­ by complainant and made a request to accused R. K. Tiwari not to take any action against complainant. He also corroborated the version of PW11 Inderjit Singh that he was listening the conversation through mobile phone. PW15 stated that conversation at the spot could not be recorded as complainant failed to switch on the DVR at the spot. He proved the site plan Ex. PW3/D and stated that thereafter, further proceedings were shifted and carried out at Sartaj Hotel. 22.5 He also deposed that accused Gulshan Kumar and R. K. Tiwari were brought to hotel Sartaj by the other members of the trap team and they were interrogated about the demand and acceptance of bribe from complainant. He supported the prosecution version in respect of arrest of all the three accused, hand washes of accused Gulshan Kumar in hotel Sartaj and sealing of the hand washes.