Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

construction, MCD officials came there when he (PW10) was not there and the third floor of the property was punctured and demolished. As per PW10, on all three aforesaid visits or thereafter, no nearby property was demolished by MCD officials. PW10 categorically denied of having asked PW14 of his help in avoiding demolition action on his property or even having asked PW2 for such help or having gone to shop of PW2 or from the shop of PW2, PW14 and PW2 had gone to MCD office or on their return they had told that concerned official (A­1) of MCD wanted RC No. AC2/2009/A0001/SPE/CBI/NEWDELHI CC No. 20/12 31/84 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. bribe of Rs 1.25 lacs for not taking any action on his property. PW10 also categorically denied of having arranged sum of Rs 1.25 lacs or had gone to shop of PW2 or had given said sum to PW2 to be paid to A­1. PW10 also categorically denied of having ever protested to demolition squad of MCD in demolition action with regards to identity of property to be demolished. PW10 also denied presence of PW2 at the site of the aforesaid property on the third occasion of visit of MCD officials there. PW10 deposed that documents/notice Mark P­7/2 and Mark P­7/3 were the notices which were found pasted at his property under construction. Entire afore elicited version of PW10 instead of supporting the case of prosecution infact demolishes it. In terms of deposition of PW10, no action ever was taken for demolition of any construction in property nearby of his property under construction on the three visits of MCD officials elicited above or thereafter. On this count, PW10 was not cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI. In terms of deposition of PW10 accordingly, property of PW3/PW5, the adjacent property of property of PW10 was not demolished partly or fully, per contra to presented case of prosecution. Since as per version of PW10, photocopy of notice Mark P­ 7/2 (part of file D­18) (carbon copy of such notice is Ex PW6/DA); photocopy of demolition order Mark P­7/3 [carbon copy of such demolition order is at page 5 of Ex PW12/A (colly)] were both pasted at property of PW10, part of property no. 2237, Shadi Khampur, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi; such version also demolishes the prosecution version of shifting of booking of unauthorized construction of property of RC No. AC2/2009/A0001/SPE/CBI/NEWDELHI CC No. 20/12 32/84 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. PW3/PW5 to property of PW10. On no count, the deposition of PW10 can be said to be in support of version of prosecution including that of PW2. Infact, version of PW10 elicited above is at complete variance and in material contradiction with the version of PW2.

33. PW3 Ms. Alka Verma deposed that property number 2237, Shadi Khampur was their ancestral property which earlier was in occupation of her father in law, Sh. Kundan Lal Verma and his three brothers namely Raghunath Singh Verma, Jagdish Verma and third name she did not remember. As per PW3, the said property was partitioned RC No. AC2/2009/A0001/SPE/CBI/NEWDELHI CC No. 20/12 34/84 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. prior to her marriage in 1998 and share of Jagdish Verma i.e., 2237/1, Shadi Khampur was adjacent to her portion i.e., 2237/3, Shadi Khampur; aforesaid portion of Jagdish Verma i.e., 2237/1, Shadi Khampur was sold by Sh. Jagdish Verma to a builder either in the end of 2007 or 2008 and the said builder started construction there in the starting of year 2008. PW3 also stated that her portion 2237/3, Shadi Khampur was in between the portions of Sh. Raghubir Singh and Jagdish Verma which were on the right side and left side respectively of her portion. PW3 deposed that the portion of her father in law was further partitioned by her mother in law in August 2008 and since then her elder brother in law was living separately in a portion there and portion under the occupation of PW3 and her husband was of 160­170 sq. yard. PW3 stated that in September 2008 the constructions in her premises and premises of her elder brother in law of PW3 was in progress. PW3 further deposed that on 03/11/08, 04/11/08 and 05/11/08, demolition was done by MCD in the portion where builder was raising construction after purchasing said portion from Jagdish Verma; but the MCD official had not come to her during those days nor had given them any notice for demolition but PW3 panicked due to demolition and PW3 consulted her advocate who advised that since her premises was in urbanized village, so no demolition action can be taken there; PW3 was further advised to go to the MCD office for the purpose of asking the procedure for regularization. PW3 stated that on 7th or 8th September 2008, she along with her husband went to MCD office, Karol Bagh, Delhi and a lady there told them that the concerned RC No. AC2/2009/A0001/SPE/CBI/NEWDELHI CC No. 20/12 35/84 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. JE is Mr. Sehrawat i.e., A­1 and they should contact A­1 and she (PW3) inquired from the said lady about whereabouts of A­1 and the said lady told her (PW3) that A­1 was coming and said lady pointed towards A­1. PW3 further deposed that she told A­1 that she had come from 2237, Khampur where demolition action was taken few days ago and that they were doing renovation in the premises, whether they were having any problem or not in doing renovation. As per PW3, A­1 stated to her (PW3) that "Tumhari property bhi nahi bachegi" and she (PW3) inquired from A­1 the legal way out upon which A­1 told her (PW3) that "Regularize karwa leijye" and she (PW3) took mobile number of A­1 and went to Tis Hazari Court and consulted with her Advocate, who advised her for online registration of the property. PW3 further deposed that on 10/11/2008, she (PW3) was going to the address given by the advocate for online registration of her property and while they were on return, on way, she (PW3) received phone call on her mobile from her sister in law (Jethani), who told her (PW3) that MCD officials including A­1 had done demolition of her portion and police officials were also there. As per PW3, when she returned back to her home; second floor of her premises was demolished. PW3 stated that she had not received any notice from A­1 or any MCD officials and she (PW3) consulted with her Advocates and got local leader Mr. Sandeep Tanwar talk with A­1 on his mobile phone and A­1 said that demolition drive was in progress and it was in his (A­1) power, even despite notice. PW3 also deposed that on 18/11/2008, her mother in law (PW5) was alone in the house and she RC No. AC2/2009/A0001/SPE/CBI/NEWDELHI CC No. 20/12 36/84 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. (PW3) was in office and when she (PW3) returned back in evening to her home, her mother in law (PW5) told her (PW3) that A­1 with his team had come there; then PW3 had a talk 5­6 times with A­1 on phone and whenever she (PW3) panicked on account of demolition drive, she (PW3) had a talk with A­1. PW3 further deposed that in the starting of December 2008, when she was at home, MCD team in demolition drive came and members of said team threatened for demolition and she (PW3) resisted saying their property was never booked and she (PW3) had got online registration and once their property had been demolished; then JE Meena of MCD had a talk on telephone with A­1 and at that time JE Meena was at road outside her (PW3) home and A­1 was elsewhere. As per PW3, she also had a talk with A­1 on telephone at that time; thereafter MCD demolition team left. PW3 stated that since they did not receive any notice, she (PW3) had the knowledge that their property was never booked for unauthorized construction. As per PW3, in her presence no money was paid by any of her family members to any MCD official. PW3 stated that on 21/05/2009, CBI officials (including PW38 Inspector S.K Sharma) came to their house for raid and from there took a register Ex PW17/A (D­7) as well as other documents vide search list Ex PW3/A (D­6); the accounts for renovation work were detailed in said register in maximum writing of PW3. PW11 Sh H.S Kasyap and PW17 Sh Arvind Singh were witnesses of aforesaid search and the search list Ex PW3/A. PW3 deposed that page no. 15(Q­1), page no. 48 (Q­2) of register Ex PW17/A (D­7) were in her handwriting and page no. 169 (Q­3) of RC No. AC2/2009/A0001/SPE/CBI/NEWDELHI CC No. 20/12 37/84 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. register Ex PW17/A (D­7) was in the handwriting of her husband. PW3 deposed that she had written Ex. PW­3/B­1 (Q­1) and Ex. PW­3/B­2 (Q­

36. PW3 had made considerable improvements, additions in her deposition and deposed several facts in material contradictions with her previous statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C Ex P­2. In the course of her cross examination PW3 candidly admitted that in statement Ex P­2 she did not state (a) that her advocate had advised her on 10/11/2008 for online registration of her property; (b) that on 10/11/2008 when she was going to address given by her advocate for online registration of her property and while was on her way to return, she received phone call on her mobile from her sister­in­law (Jethani) who told her (PW3) that MCD officials including A­1 had done demolition of her (PW3) portion and police officials were also there. PW3 was unable to tell the description of the place where she was going for online registration of her property. Though PW3 claimed that she had got done the online registration of her property on 10/11/2008 but she failed to show any document of that fact. PW3 stated of having told in her statement Ex P­2 RC No. AC2/2009/A0001/SPE/CBI/NEWDELHI CC No. 20/12 40/84 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. that when in December 2008 MCD team came in demolition drive, she had inter alia told that that once her property had been demolished but since Ex P­2 did not contain such fact, PW3 was confronted with said statement. PW3 also elicited that CD Ex PW3/G (previously Ex.Q­1) was heard by her on 22/08/2012 during the course of her examination in chief in Court, for the first time. By such version PW3 has self contradicted her own version while she previously deposed that she was made to hear cassette having conversation between her and A­1 in CBI office. Investigating agency or prosecution did not place on record nor played any cassette in the course of deposition of PW3 but only above referred CD Ex PW3/G (previously Ex.Q­1) was displayed and PW3 was made to hear the recorded conversation therein in the course of her examination in Court.

43. PW21 Sh Rajesh Kumar, Bike Rider in Special Task Force (STF), MCD, Karol Bagh Zone, New Delhi deposed that in the course of his duty to make rounds in the area allotted to him on the bike and to ascertain about unauthorized construction in progress in the area, he had found unauthorized construction in progress at house no. 2237, Shadipur in respect of which he made entry Ex PW21/A dated 27/10/2008 at serial no. 1130 at page 173 of complaint register, copy D­17. As per PW21, on both sides of the property where he found unauthorized construction in progress, there were houses. PW8 Sh Shahbaz Anwar posted as JE in Special Task Force (STF), MCD, Karol Bagh Zone, New Delhi deposed that in respect of the unauthorized construction in progress noticed in property no. 2237, Shadipur, entered at serial no. 1130 at page 173 of complaint register, copy D­17, he (PW8) had visited the said property on 08/11/2008 and at that time brick work was in progress at second floor of said property under construction, about which PW8 made endorsement Ex PW8/A at page 173 of complaint register, copy D­17. As per PW8, the property adjacent to aforesaid property under construction, was in RC No. AC2/2009/A0001/SPE/CBI/NEWDELHI CC No. 20/12 50/84 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. built up condition at the time of his visit aforesaid. As per PW8, in document D­13 i.e., the list of Action Taken Report of complaints at serial no. 56, there is mention of demolition action already taken on 30/12/2008 and 31/12/2008 in respect of complaint of unauthorized construction of aforesaid property whose inspection he had done on 08/11/2008. PW8 claimed that he had also gone along with CBI officials to Shadipur and shown them the property from outside, whose inspection he had done as aforesaid on 08/11/2008. Entry Ex PW12/F dated 31/12/2008 in the writing of JE PW16 in demolition register D­43 was in respect of demolition action taken at property no. 2237, Shadi Khampur, Ranjeet Nagar with police aid. In said register D­43 there is no entry of any demolition action taken at property of PW3/PW5 on 10/11/2008, as was so claimed by PW3 in her deposition. Also in demolition register D­43 infact there is no entry of any demolition action taken on 10/11/2008 in any of the portions of property number 2237, Shadi Khampur, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi. From no document including unauthorized construction file for booking, monthly/weekly reports, demolition register it has been brought on record nor proved by prosecution that the property of PW3/PW5 was ever booked for unauthorized construction by A­1 or any such property of PW3/PW5 was ever demolished by A­1 or under supervision of A­1 at any point of time in the year 2008 during his tenure as JE in Karol Bagh Zone. Also PW3 herself stated that her property, part of property number 2237, Shadi Khampur, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi, was never booked by any official RC No. AC2/2009/A0001/SPE/CBI/NEWDELHI CC No. 20/12 51/84 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. of MCD for any unauthorized constructions. PW4 Ct. Gyanender Singh deposed that on 10/11/2008 he was posted in Police Post Ranjit Nagar, Police Station Patel Nagar and had accompanied HC Sunil, HC Tejveer, Ct Deendayal and MCD staff for carrying out demolition action at house number 2237, Shadi Khampur, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi where demolition was carried out at second floor under construction by MCD staff. PW4 neither named A­1 to be amongst the MCD staff, aforesaid nor on this count he was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI having not said so. PW27 Sh Magan Shekhawat, the then SHO, Police Station Patel Nagar deposed of having sent letter Ex PW27/A (D­34) dated 30/11/2009 with copies of daily diaries of Police Post Ranjit Nagar and of Police Station Patel Nagar in respect of departure and arrival of MCD officials for demolition action. Such copies of daily diaries were neither attested nor were proved in the course of prosecution evidence. Even such copies of daily diaries were stated to be got done by PW27 from the daily diary registers of Police Post Ranjit Nagar as well as from Police Station Patel Nagar but the original daily diaries were not summoned by the prosecution during the course of the prosecution evidence to prove the copies of the daily diaries on record.