Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Brief facts of the case are that Amit Kumar and Nitin Sharma submitted a joint complaint alongwith a CD and transcript of the sting operation conducted by them against the accused in which it was stated that Amit Kumar was undergoing a case of negligent driving under section 279 IPC at PS Shakarpur and his car bearing no. DL­3CBS­9699 was impounded in PS Shakarpur for one month. He further stated that whenever he tried to meet IO, he used to give lame excuses. Thereafter, on 01.02.2014, finally he was called by the accused to come and meet him on 02.02.2014 for his bail and when he reached the PS, he was asked to sign some official documents required for bail and a demand of Rs.10,000/­ was made by the accused to get bail finally. Amit Kumar further submitted that he was not in a condition to pay the bribe amount. Thereafter, accused threatened him with dire consequences and stated that his work would not be done without bribe. He further told the accused that he was having Rs.2,000/­, then the accused forcefully took that money from Amit Kumar. Amit Kumar further stated that he was having the recording of taking bribe by accused in his mobile phone. Statement of Amit Kumar was also signed by Nitin Sharma and on that statement, the present FIR was registered. During investigation, the statement of witnesses were recorded and the CD/DVD of the sting operation, transcript as well as the original instrument i.e. apple i­phone 5 was seized. Voice sample of accused Vinod Kumar and Nitin Sharma were taken at CFSL, Lodhi Road and same were sent alongwith original instrument to CFSL, Lodhi Road for examination and it was opined that there was no alteration or editing in the footages contained in CD/DVD. Regarding voice matching, it was opined that the voices are probable voices of Nitin Sharma and accused Vinod Kumar. Thereafter, prosecution sanction was obtained from the competent authority and after conclusion of the investigation, the present chargesheet was filed.

4. PW­1 ASI Dalip Singh is the duty officer who has registered the FIR no. 8/14 Ex.PW1/B on the basis of Rukka Ex.PW1/A, on 14.02.2014.

5. PW­2 Nitin Sharma, complainant deposed that in the year 2014, his friend Amit Kumar was involved in an accident case of PS Shakarpur and he was informed by Amit Kumar regarding his false implication and the fact that his vehicle was also impounded. He further stated that Amit Kumar told him that when he spoke to the IO ASI Vinod Kumar (accused) regarding his vehicle, the IO/accused told him that first he has to obtain bail and then his vehicle would be released. But no time was fixed for bail. He further deposed that finally on 01.02.2014, Amit Kumar was called by ASI Vinod Kumar/IO/accused to come to PS for bail on 02.02.2014. He further stated that on 02.02.2014, he alongwith Amit Kumar and surety Ismail Khan went to PS Shakurpur at 10:00 am. After reaching the PS, they met the accused who took them in a room and accused asked Amit Kumar to show him the documents brought for bail and obtained signatures of Amit Kumar and Ismail Khan on certain papers. He further deposed that when paper work was going on, in the meanwhile the accused demanded Rs.10,000/­ on which Amit Kumar told that he was not in a condition to pay Rs.10,000/­, then the accused asked as to how much money he was carrying, upon which Amit Kumar told him that he was carrying Rs.2,000/­. Thereafter, accused got up and took out Rs.2,000/­ from the pocket of Amit Kumar forcefully. PW­2 deposed that he was surprised to see the conduct of the accused and then, he started recording the conversation between himself and the accused from his apple mobile phone. He further deposed that in the conversation, the accused can be heard saying that Rs.2,000/­ would be consumed in documentation work and verification of documents itself and the accused further told him to bring the balance amount or else he would leave the work pending and would return after four days leave and then would do the work. PW­2 further deposed that he called his brother Rajan Sharma but he did not respond to his call and then he told the accused to take Rs.1,000/­ and told him that he would pay the balance amount later. Thereafter, they left the PS and called the SHO, PS Shakarpur in the evening and apprised him about the incident who told that there were two officials by the name Vinod Kumar and he has to check as to who had demanded and accepted the money. PW­2 further deposed that SHO, PS Shakarpur told that he had verified and found that ASI Vinod Kumar had demanded and accepted the money and thereafter, they filed the complaint Ex.PW2/A in the Vigilance Branch, Barakhamba Road. He further deposed that the complaint was accompanied with the transcript Ex.PW2/B and CD and was signed by PW­2 as well as Amit Kumar. He further deposed that the CD was prepared on the computer and on the basis of recordings made on the apple mobile i­phone 5. He further stated that his complaint as well as transcript were examined and the conversation in the CD was heard and thereafter, the FIR was registered and the i­phone was seized vide Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that during investigation, his voice sample was also taken and the micro chip containing his voice sample was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D and the CD was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E. Certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding correctness of the recording of the mobile phone as well as the contents of the CD/DVD is Ex.PW2/F. PW­2 further deposed that the accused told him that "kisi se bhi pata kar lo ki jamanat ke kitne paise lagte hai or ye file 2000 rupaiye kha jayegi". He further deposed that the accused told him that in case the balance amount would not be paid, he would delay the proceedings as he was proceeding on leave. He further deposed that he told the accused that he was carrying Rs.1,000/­ which he could give him and the rest of the amount would be brought later, on which accused told him to bring the entire balance amount and pay it in one go. The accused also told them to do the needful at the earliest as he was proceeding on leave. He further stated that he had recorded the conversation with the accused through mobile I­ phone having SIM number 8447273252. The arrest memo of the formal arrest of Amit Kumar is Ex.PW4/A. PW­2 also identified his i­phone Ex.P1 and data cable Ex.P2. PW­2 further deposed that even after the present case, the accused has several times tried to contact him and pressurized him to take money and finish the present case and also threatened him. PW­2 also identified his voice as well as voice of the accused in the audio­video conversations contained in the mobile phone and deposed that the conversation contained in the mobile phone and played in the court is the same conversation which had taken place on the date of incident and the same are as per the transcript Ex.PW2/D. PW­2 also identified the CD Ex.P6 to be the same containing the recording contained in the I­phone and sent to the investigating agency. PW­2 also identified the micro chip Ex.PW8/S2 containing his voice sample.

28. PW­17 L.C. Yadav deposed that in the second week of February 2014, he was called by DCP, Vigilance in his office where two persons namely Amit and Nitin were present who were making complaints regarding demand of bribe by IO of an accident case of PS Shakarpur. He further deposed that the DCP asked him to verify the facts and to take appropriate action. He further deposed that Nitin and Amit gave him written complaint signed by them and also submitted a CD of the recording of conversation of Nitin and accused Vinod Kumar. He heard the recording in the computer and asked the complainant to prepare transcript of the conversation and the complainant produced the transcription of the CD and he found the transcript to be the correct version of the CD. He further deposed that after he was satisfied that a prima facie case for the offence under section 7/13(i)(d) of PC Act is made out against accused and on the verbal approval of the DCP, he wrote a rukka endorsed on the complaint Ex.PW2/A of complainant Amit and Nitin. His endorsement is Ex.PW17/A and gave the same to Duty Officer to lodge the present FIR and thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Insp. Surender Kumar. The witness also identified the CD Ex.P5 to be the same which he had seen in his office computer during verification proceedings prior to registration of FIR.

101. It is also argued that the complainant Amit Kumar stated that he had talked to accused several times but no call records have been placed on record by the IO and even CAF has not been collected by the IO. It is also argued that as per PW­2, the transcript Ex.PW2/B was given alongwith the complaint Ex.PW2/A but as per PW­3, it was given alongwith CD, therefore, the version of PW­2 and PW­3 are contrary as to when the transcript Ex.PW2/B was given. However, the court does not find any contradiction in this regard, as the CD as well as transcript were given alongwith the complaint Ex.PW2/A as per the prosecution case. Also, call records of CAF of Amit Kumar are not relevant or material to decide the present case.