Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xi). PW -11 Sh. N. P. Kainthola is the Retired Section Officer CBSE. He deposed that on 03.02.2005, he had supplied the documents sought by the IO and same were sent by him along with covering letter no. ROD/A.I.SR./Gr.2/2005, addressed to the SHO PS Vikas Puri dated 03.03.2005 which is Ex. PW 11/A. He also identified total 84 pages of the documents sent by him to the police as Ex. PW11/B (Colly).

(xii). PW-12 Retired SI Narottam Singh was the IO in the present case. During the course of his examination in chief, he explained about the proceedings of the investigation conducted by him. His testimony is similar to that of PW-6 and hence, same is not being reproduced to avoid repetition. Through him rukka was exhibited as Ex. PW 12/A, identification memo of accused Hari State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri Nath as Ex. PW 12/B, application sent by him to CBSE for production of documents pertaining to the accused Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta as Ex. PW 12/C, letter sent to Principal Jagat Convent School for supplying the documents and information as Ex. PW 12/D, letter sent to Principal Anglo Arabic SS School, Ajmeri Gate for supplying the documents and information as Ex. PW 12/E, specimen signatures of accused Manoj Kumar as Ex. PW 12/F (Colly), sample of stamp impression of Principal of New Delhi Public School as Ex. PW 12/G. During his cross-examination, he could not state about the time of receipt of PCR Call or about the time of recording the DD entry. He could not state about the date since when he remained posted at PS Vikas Puri. He admitted that the signature of S. Mudgil were taken and sent to FSL for expert opinion. He deposed that he was not aware who had made the PCR Call. He could not state about the time when they left for the spot, however he stated of having left the spot in a government vehicle. He further stated that when he reached the spot, class 12th examination was going on however, he could not state about the subject of such examination. He could not state as to in how many rooms class, 12 th examination was conducted. He could not state about the number of persons who were present in the examination hall where the accused persons were found. He could not state whether it was the first paper/exam or subsequent paper on that day. He could not state whether the students have started writing the exam by the time when he reached at the spot or not. He admitted of having not collected the examination sheets of Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. He denied that there was a complaint against State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri one Agya Singh on the similar allegations. He deposed that he had inquired about the said Agya Singh on receiving information against him from CBSE and on inquiry, the above-named Agya Singh could not be found at the said address. He admitted that no further efforts were made by him for tracing Agya Singh. He further admitted that the address of Agya Singh was provided by CBSE. He could not state how he ascertained that the said given address as provided by CBSE was not of Agya Singh. He admitted of having never inquired about the said Agya Singh either from the person residing at the said address or from the neighborhood. He could not state about the distance between the Principal office and the examination hall. He could not state if all three students were seated in the same room or in different rooms. He stated that the Principal had checked the admits cards of all students entering in the examination hall. He admitted that the board examination was of class 12th only. He could not state if the answer sheet and question papers for 12th class comes always in a sealed cover. He could not state whether the same are opened prior to examination when students are seated. He could not state about the size of examination hall and also that as to how many students were seated in the room. He admitted that he did not inquire as to how many teachers were on duty in the said room or in the said school for the purpose of examination. He admitted of having not seized the register which can show the number of teachers present on the duty. He could not state if there were any teachers for invigilator duty or not nor any inquiry was made by him from any such teacher. He stated that the other staff officials might have been present at the examination center but he did not make any inquiry State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri from such staff officials. He admitted that he did not inquire about the present case from any other teachers, staff members or students present at the examination center. He could not state about the timing as well as duration of the examination. He could not state whether the students were taking exam paper of same subject or different subjects. He could not state about the name of school where he went for investigation. He could not state about the time taken by him for conducting investigation at the examination center. He admitted that he never inquired how and when did Ms. Kokila Prabhakar called the Principal of New Delhi Public School. He admitted that he did not seize any CCTV footage of the school/examination center nor he did make any efforts for finding the availability of any such CCTV footage. He admitted that he had not checked or visited any place except the principal room in the said premises. He admitted of having not seen the admit cards of any other students except Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. He stated to have inquired about the fees deposited of said Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta in New Delhi Public School on the same day and that the Principal of New Delhi Public School denied that they were the students of her school. He admitted that he had not verified the aforesaid facts by seeing any school records. He admitted that Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were taken to police station on the basis of version narrated by Ms. Kokila Prabhakar and Principal of New Delhi Public School without verification of the school records. He admitted that he had never inquired from any other person either from New Delhi Public Schoolor Oxford Public School except the said two principles. He could not state whether State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta were having mobile phones with them or not. He could not state about the distance between PS Vikas Puri and Oxford Public School. He could not state about the distance between New Delhi Public School and Oxford Public School. He could not state about the distance between PS Vikas Puri and New Delhi Public School. He could not state about the mode of conveyance used by Principal of New Delhi Public School when she traveled to PS Vikas Puri. He admitted that of having not checked any fees deposit documents of the above-named students. He also admitted of having not checked or inquired about the procedure prescribed for deposition of fees. He admitted of having not inquired about the procedure of filling the forms for CBSE. He stated to have obtained the record pertaining to the above-named students from Principal of New Delhi Public School by way of a written correspondence. He could not state about date of sending such correspondence. He could not state about the approximate days after which such correspondence was sent. He could not state about the date or about the days after which such reply from New Delhi Public School was received by him. He stated that the reply was sent by New Delhi Public School through one of their staff member. He could not state about the name of or designation of that staff member. He could not state who all accused persons were carrying the mobile phones or that if they were having mobile phones or not. He could not state about the date, place and time which was disclosed by accused persons regarding receipt of admit cards by them. He admitted of having not recorded any statement of Manoj Tiwari. He denied that the accused persons State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri never disclosed about handing over admit cards to them by Manoj Tiwari or that due to such reason he never recorded statement of Manoj Tiwari. He admitted that he had not inquired as to how the accused persons managed to receive the question papers and answer sheets despite the fact that they were not enrolled with CBSE. He admitted that he had not collected the question papers and answer sheets pertaining to accused persons during the aforesaid investigation. He stated of having not tallied/matched the admit cards of accused persons with the admit cards of other students. He stated that the investigation was conducted by him on the basis of information given by the Principal of Oxford Public school. He stated that on 02.03.2005, he along with three students, HC Jai Bhagwan and SI J. K. Bhardwaj went to J-3/187, Rajouri Garden. He stated that he had collected the pamphlets pertaining to the said academy. He admitted that he had not collected any documentary records to verify the aforesaid fact. He stated to have not made any inquiry about the teachers who were visiting the Asian Academy nor he did made inquiry about the classes, their timings etc. at such academy. He admitted that no bank account statements or any of the documents pertaining to the Asian Academy were obtained by him. He could not state about the sitting capacity of gypsy in which he went to Asian Academy. He then stated that at around 5-6 persons could comfortably sit in the gypsy. He stated that Asian Academy was being run from top floor. He could not remember about the number of rooms in Asian Academy. He could not state about the number of floors in said building. He denied that the pamphlets and stamps were not recovered from the office of Asian Academy. He stated that at the State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri time of seizure of the pamphlets and stamps, only HC Jai Bhagwan and accused Amit Kapoor were present with him and that SI J. K. Bhardwaj was present along with the students in the same room. He could not state about the time for which he remained in the office of Asian Academy. He could not state about the articles which were lying in the said room. He stated that public persons were asked to witness the search proceedings but they refused to join the proceedings citing valid excuses. He could not state whether any laptop/computers were also lying in the said room. He stated that the stamps pertained to Anglo Arabic School and one other school at Paschim Vihar. He admitted that he did not conduct any investigation regarding the vendor by whom said stamps were prepared. He admitted that no stamps pertaining to New Delhi Public School were found from Asian Academy. He admitted that no documents relating to CBSE were recovered from Asian Academy. He admitted that no documents relating to New Delhi Public School were recovered from the Asian Academy. He admitted that no documents relating to Oxford Public school were recovered from Asian Academy. He admitted that the copies of admit cards of accused Varun, Ashish and Rajat were not recovered from Asian Academy. He admitted that no other documents pertaining to accused Varun, Ashish and Rajat were recovered from Asian Academy. He stated that accused Amit Kapoor was identified first by the students and thereafter, the remaining proceedings were conducted at the Asian Academy. He could not state about the distance between PS Vikas Puri and Asian Academy Rajouri Garden. He stated that the branch of Asian Academy was also located at AL-138, Pitam Pura, Delhi and State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri he came to know about the said branch of the academy from the documents found at the Asian Academy office at Rajouri Garden. He admitted that no investigation was conducted qua the person incharge of said branch office at Pitampura. He stated to have visited the branch office of Asian Academy at Pitampura on 03.03.2005. He could not state about the number of floors of the building where the branch office was located. He could not state about the distance between the branch office of Academy at Pitampura and PS Vikas Puri. He stated that certain pamphlets were also found at the branch office of the academy which were also seized by him. He stated that he had not conducted the videography or photography proceedings at the branch office. He stated to have asked public persons to join the proceedings but they denied to do so. He admitted that he had not served any notice in writing upon any such public person. He could not state about the distance between house of Harinath and branch office of Asian Academy at Pitampura. He could not state about the time which took place at branch office of Asian Academy for conducting the investigation. He admitted that he had not searched anything at the house of Harinath and only arrested him. He stated that thereafter, he returned to the PS and with him, SI J. K. Bhardwaj, HC Jai Bhagwan, three students, Hari Nath and Amit Kapoor were there in the said jeep. He could not state about the date when the specimen handwriting/signatures of Manoj Tiwari were taken. He volunteered that same were taken after obtaining permission from the Court. He admitted that he did not confirm the procedure for filling the form of class 12 th. He also admitted to having not obtained any documents qua the practice or procedure of board State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri exams. He could not state whether it was a prescribed procedure that the list of students eligible for appearing in board examination of CBSE is prepared by the school itself or that such list is sent to the CBSE by the school only. He could not state about the person from school who took the list of the students to CBSE. He admitted that he had not seized the dispatch register reflecting the entry qua the sending of the list of students by school to CBSE. He could not state whether the list from the school is sent to CBSE along with the covering letter from the Principal or not. He further stated that he had not inquired from the concerned class teacher of New Delhi Public School as to whether the students actually studied in the school or not and that was not aware about the receipt register maintained at CBSE in which the entries qua the receipt of the list from the school are reflected. He could not state that when the list is sent from school to CBSE, proper entries in the register are made or not. He could not state that who made the entries regarding sending of list to CBSE in the present case. He could not state that the lists are sent to the school for verification of the details of the students including their date of birth, name, parentage and the subject or that such details are checked by the students themselves and thereafter sent by the school to the CBSE. He could not state that the lists after rectifications if any are sent by the Principal of the school to the CBSE. He could not state about the date when rectified list was sent by school to CBSE. He could not state whether any such rectified list was seized by him or not. He could not state about the officials who signed the rectified final list of students. He state to have not verified the final list of students sent by New Delhi Public School State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri and that no such such list was seized by him. He could not state about procedure followed by the CBSE once the final list was received from the school. He could not state whether the admit cards are issued by CBSE on the basis of the final list which was sent by the school under the signatures of Principal concerned. He could not state about the name/designation of the persons at the school who was authorized to receive the admit cards sent by the CBSE. He admitted that he had not seized any register reflecting the transmission of the final list to CBSE or reflecting the entry qua the receipt of the admit cards from CBSE during the investigation. He could not state whether the photographs of the students were affixed on the lists sent by the New Delhi Public School to CBSE. He could not state as to who used to collect the photographs from the students when the lists are prepared. He could not state when and by whom were the photographs collected in the present case. He could not state who affixed the photographs on the admit cards. He could not admit or deny the fact that the class teacher of the concerned class affixes the photographs of the students on the admit card. He stated that all the records maintained by New Delhi Public School were under Manoj Tiwari. He admitted of having not seized the joining letter of Manoj Tiwari. He could not state about the designation of Manoj Tiwari. He could not state if any persons namely A. K. Kaushal or A. N. Sharma or any other person was there on 01.03.2005 when he reached at Oxford Sr. Secondary School. He admitted of having not inquired as to how many schools does Amit Kapoor have links with. He could not state as to when how many times or where Amit Kapoor has met the Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. He could not state when State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta had made payment to Amit Kapoor. He further stated that he had not inquired from the parents if they had given the cash or not. He then stated that he had verified from the parents of Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta who admitted to have given the cash to them. He admitted that he had not collected the bank statement and ITRs of the parents of such students nor he had verified from where such money was obtained by parents. He also admitted that he had not verified what were the occupations of parents of Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta. He admitted of having not collected the bank statements and ITRs of accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Kumar, Anand and Harinath. He further stated that Harinath was clerk at school at Kirti Nagar but he had not verified the said fact. He admitted that he had not collected the appointment letter of Harinath. He admitted that he had not taken any statement of any person from Happy Public School and that does not even know where Happy English School is situated. He could not state what work was assigned to Harinath as clerk. He admitted that Harinath had received the money. He could not state when did he get the money. He stated that Harinath received the money from Amit Kapoor. He admitted that he had not inquired when and how the said money was given to Harinath. He stated that Manoj Tiwari, Amit Kapoor and Harinath used to contact each other telephonically and Anand also used to connect telephonically. He stated that Harinath had given money to Anand. He could not state when the said money was given to Anand. He further stated that he had not collected the CCTV footage of CBSE office. He could not state where, how and when did Amit Kapoor used to meet State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri Harinath, Anand and Manoj Tiwari. He could not state where, how and when did Harinath used to meet Amit Kapoor, Anand and Manoj Tiwari. He could not state where, how and when did Anand used to meet Harinath, Amit Kapoor and Manoj Tiwari. He could not state where, how and when did Manoj Tiwari used to meet Amit Kapoor, Harinath and Anand. He stated that Anand was working at CBSE at the post of clerk but he could not state what was the role and responsibilities of Anand at CBSE office. He admitted that he had never seized the appointment letter of Anand during investigation. He admitted of not knowing about name and designation of Reporting Authority of Anand. He could not state whether any disciplinary proceedings relating to the present case were initiated against Anand or not. He could not state whether accused Anand was exonerated in such disciplinary proceedings or not. He further deposed that accused Anand and Manoj Tiwari met at PVR Vikas Puri prior to examination. He could not state about exact date of their meeting. He admitted that he had not collected any CCTV footage of PVR Cinema, Vikas Puri. He stated that he had never seized the mobile phones of accused persons during investigation and that same might have been seized in the jamatalashi. He admitted that no mobile phones were sent by him to FSL. He admitted that no application was ever filed by him with CBSE or school for seeking preservation of records. He could not state as to whom the mobile phone number 9810204998 belongs. He could not state about the date when he obtained the details of the aforesaid mobile phone number. He admitted that he had not sought CDRs of any of the accused persons during the investigation of the present case. He admitted that no CDRs or State Vs Varun Sharma and others FIR No: 111/2005 U/s 120B/420/511/120B/468 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri mobile phone locations were received by him. He admitted that he had not conducted any investigation with respect to the identity related documents which were submitted at the time of issuance of the aforesaid mobile phone numbers. He admitted that he has never received any documents reflecting that Manoj Tiwari was responsible for conducting the class 12th examination. He admitted that he had not obtained any documents qua the exchange messages between the accused Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari, Anand Kumar and Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta or qua the exchange of messages between the parent of Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta and accused persons namely, Amit Kapoor, Manoj Tiwari, Anand Kumar. He admitted that he had not obtained any details regarding the calls or any sort of communications between Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta, their parents and the accused persons. He stated that the cheating was done against the Varun Sharma, Rajat Kohli and Ashish Gupta, who were also charge-sheeted as accused persons in the present case. He admitted that he never received any complaint from the students against the accused persons. He could not state about the usage of the stamps for Jagat Convent and Anglo Arabic S. S. School by the accused persons. He denied that the stamps were never recovered from the office of accused Amit. He stated that he was not informed about the holders of the said mobile phone numbers and that the details of the holders of the numbers were never verified by him.