Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10:22:16 +0530 2 of 34 3.Apeal.1112.2013.doc

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5 th April 2010 the complainant was confronted by the police and taken to RCF Police Station. The accused was P.S.O at Police Station. Enquiry was made with the complainant about one C.R.Yadav. The complainant was assaulted by Police and threatened that if he did not assist in arrest of C.R.Yadav, he would be implicated in the case of theft of diesel and petrol. The accused demanded Rs.50,000/- for his release. The demand was then reduced to amount of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant contacted his relative and friend Ashok Nishad and Dinesh Yadav on mobile phone and told them to come to RCF Police Station. They arranged an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was paid to accused. The balance of Rs.15,000/- was decided to be paid on 6 th April 2010. The complainant was allowed to go at 11.30 p.m. He approached ACB on 6th April 2010. He lodged the complaint with ACB. On the same day at about 9.35 pm, the complainant received a call from the accused. Conversation took place between them. It was recorded in DVR and CD was prepared. The conversation indicated that the accused had told the complainant to remain present before him on the following day for giving attendance. Verification panchanama was recorded. It was decided that again verification would be recorded on 7th April 2010. The raiding party proceeded to RCF Police Station on 7th April 2010. Complainant and pancha Rasam entered RCF Police Station. DVR was attached on the person of the complainant. The complainant and Rasam went inside RCF Police Station. After returning complainant informed Police Inspector Ratnaparkhi that the accused had told him to pay the amount on the same day in the evening. At about 10.20 pm, the complainant visited ACB. Panchas were there. Currency notes for the purpose of raid were arranged. Anthracene powder was applied.

8. Learned APP relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court :

7 of 34 3.Apeal.1112.2013.doc
(i) S.Kasi Vs. State delivered in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.2433 of 2020;

(ii) Mrs.Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) delivered in Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009.

9. I have perused the evidence of witnesses and the documentary evidence on record. According to PW-1 Suresh Yadav, on 3 rd or 4th April 2010 he was distributing newspapers. He was taken to Police Station. He was assaulted. He was asked to produce one C.R.Yaav who was wanted in a case by police. He took police to the house of C.R.Yadav which was found locked. He was again taken to police station. He was kept in custody. He was threatened that if money was not paid, he would be made as accused in a case. Demand of Rs.50,000/- was made by accused. He showed his inability to satisfy the demand. The demand was then reduced to Rs.25,000/-. He gave telephone calls to some persons. Dinesh Yadav and Ashok Nishad brought the amount. He do not know to whom they paid the amount since he was in confinement. He was allowed to go. He went to the office of ACB on the next day. He received calls from the accused. His complaint was reduced in to writing. He was told that unless telephone call is received by him from accused, the ACB would not do anything. In the evening the complainant received call from accused. He was told to come on the next day. The complainant reached the office of ACB on the following day. He waited for call from accused. He was sent to RCF Police Station and instructed to hold discussion only about his work. He went to RCF Police Station and met accused. He spoke to him for a minute or 8 of 34 3.Apeal.1112.2013.doc two. He returned to office of ACB. The tape recording device installed on his person was heard. He told Ratnaparkhi that he had sought time till next day from accused. He did not know what happened thereafter. He further stated that on 7 th April 2010 he went to office of ACB. He did not remember the details of what had happened on that day. He contacted C.R.Yadav who stated that he had no money and he would not give money. He handed over currency notes to PW-5. The currency notes of Rs.10,000/- were used for investigation. He was instructed to keep the notes in his pocket. They proceeded to RCF Police Station. The recording device was concealed on his person. The complainant walked to RCF Police Station. He handed over the currency notes to accused. The accused accepted the currency notes. After handing over currency notes, he came out of cab in and the trap party went inside. Nothing else directly involving complainant took place on that day. Around 4 pm the trap party came out from RCF Police Station. He was dropped at Kherwadi. On the request of Special P.P, permission was granted to cross examine PW-1 as he has resiled from his previous statement. Cross-examination was conducted by Special P.P. In the cross- examination whatever questions were put to him in the form of leading questions were answered in affirmative by the witness. He admitted that the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- from him for his release. Dinesh Yadav and Nishad handed over Rs.10,000/- to accused. Accused told him to bring Rs.15,000/- on 6 th April 2010. Accused told him to come to RCF Police Station with amount of Rs.10,000/- in the night of 7th April 2010. Trap was arranged. He met the accused in the gallery which is outside the detection room. Thereafter talk took place between them and they went inside the police station. He was taken in a room in the police station which 9 of 34 3.Apeal.1112.2013.doc was to his left. The accused asked whether he has brought the money. The accused demanded money. He took out the amount from his pant pocket and gave it to the accused. He kept it in the right side pocket of his pant. The accused then asked him to go to the room to the right side and sit there. The accused came out of the back room had chat with some other persons outside the room and then came to the right side room where complainant was sitting and occupied his chair. Thereafter the complainant went out of the room and gave predetermined signal to the trap team. On 8 th April 2010, transcript of conversation between him and the accused was shown to him for the purpose of reading and he read it. He had stated before police while recording FIR and supplementary statement that he had contacted C.R.Yadav and he stated that he did not have money. He denied that he did not state these details before the police at any point of time and hence it does not appear in the FIR or in his supplementary statement. He had wrongly stated that on 3 rd or 4th April he was taken to RCF Police Station. This witness was cross- examined by the advocate for the accused. In the cross-examination he stated that he found that Sunil Yadav was in police lock-up on the allegation of theft of oil. On 5 th April 2010, on his mobile phone, he received number of calls from mobile phone of C.R.Yadav. He knew C.R.Yadav since 6 years prior to the incident. On 5 th April 2010 he had told C.R.Yadav that to trace his whereabouts, police have taken him to RCF Police Station. When he left RCF Police Station, accused was not there in the room where he was. On 5 th April 2010, he did not give mobile number of C.R.Yadav to police constables whenever inquiring with him. Police did not ask him about the mobile number of C.R.Yadav. He had taken mobile number of Tukaram Patil because he used to meet Yadav. In application (Exhibit-10) given by him, 10 of 34 3.Apeal.1112.2013.doc name of the accused is not mentioned. He had scribed Exhibit-10 on his own accord. He did not remember the name of accused while writing application Exhibit-10. Hence, he did not mention his name. The accused gave his mobile number and asked him to contact him on coming to know about whereabouts of C.R.Yadav. He received call from accused on 6th April 2010. One case of oil theft was registered against him at RCF Police Station. C.R.Yadav is the co- accused in that case and the said case is pending in Kurla Court and even in that case C.R.Yadav is wanted accused. He was arrested in a case of oil theft registered at RCF Police Station in which C.R.Yadav is co-accused. So far C.R.Yadav is not arrested in connection with case of oil theft in which police wanted him to disclose his whereabouts.

11. PW-3 Ashok Nandlal Nishad is the friend of complainant. He deposed that the complainant had contacted him on his mobile phone in April-2010. He do not remember the exact date. He was informed that RCF Police had taken complainant to the police station. He along with Dinesh Yadav went to RCF Police Station to meet complainant. Dinesh Yadav was also informed by the complainant. Both met accused at RCF Police Station. They made inquiry and were informed that the complainant was taken to police station in connection with some matter. The accused said that some amount will have to be paid. He had quoted figure of Rs.30,000/-. They were not having that much amount. They left the police station. They collected Rs.10,000/-. They did not give this amount to the accused. Some other officer whose name he did not remember was paid this amount. Thereafter the complainant was allowed to go. The accused told them to bring remaining amount of Rs.20,000/-. In the cross examination he stated that on 5 th April 2010 when he visited RCF Police Station, the accused was not there. His version in examination-in-chief is not correct. PW-4 Dinesh Ramanand Yadav was accompanying PW-3. His version is similar to PW-3. At the police station he was informed that complainant was arrested and to secure his release, amount will have to be paid. PW- 3 was with him. They met accused. Discussion took place at the police station and they were informed that the complainant would be released after payment of Rs.30,000/-. They arranged Rs.10,000/- as per the say of accused and the amount was paid to another officer 14 of 34 3.Apeal.1112.2013.doc who was sitting in cabin. Remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid on the following day. After payment of Rs.10,000/- complainant was released. In the cross-examination he denied that during their visit to RCF Police Station, the accused was not there. He stated before ACB officer while giving statement that on that day between 11 am to 11.30 am, he and PW-3 had been to RCF Police Station and they found that accused was not there. Although he stated before ACB officer that he and PW-3 met accused, discussion took place at the police station regarding release of complainant after payment of Rs.30,000/-, is not reflected in his statement. He had not stated before ACB Officer that accused asked them to pay Rs.10,000/- to some other police officer and not stated the name of police officer to whom they paid Rs.10,000/-.

19 of 34 3.Apeal.1112.2013.doc

15. According to prosecution, appellant was Assistant Police Inspector attached to RCF Police Station. He was investigating an offence relating to theft of oil. The crime was registered vide CR No.16 of 2010 with RCF Police Station for offences punishable u/s 245, 379, 511 r/w 34 IPC. One Sunil Yadav was arrested in the said case. During investigation it was revealed that one C.R.Yadav was involved and investigation in that regard was in progress. He was absconding. Investigation was entrusted to the accused. On 5 th April 2010 the appellant was investigating the aforesaid crime. According to the complainant, he was picked up by the accused and his team on 5th April 2020. He was taken to RCF Police Station. He was interrogated about the whereabouts of C.R.Yadav. The complainant showed the residence of C.R.Yadav to police team. It was found locked. The complainant was again taken to RCF Police Station. He was confined. According to him amount of Rs.50,000/- was demanded with complainant as bribe for not indicting him in the crime under investigation. The demand was reduced to Rs.25,000/-. The complainant then called his relative and friend PW-3 and PW-4 and told them that he is confined at RCF Police Station. PW-3 and PW-4 then visited the police station. The accused demanded the amount. They made arrangement of Rs.10,000/- which was handed over to the police. The balance amount was to be given to the accused. The complainant approached office of ACB and submitted written application in the form of complaint on 6 th April 2010. The said application has been exhibited in evidence as Exhibit-10. On 6 th April 2010 verification was conducted. The complainant received call at about 9.35 pm from accused. The conversation between them was recorded in voice recorder. Conversation script was prepared. There was no demand of bribe amount in the said conversation by 20 of 34 3.Apeal.1112.2013.doc the accused. The conversation indicated that the complainant was summoned to attend the police station for attendance. CD of the conversation was prepared. Verification panchanama dated 6 th April 2010 was recorded from 6.30 pm to 11.00 pm which was exhibited in evidence as Exhibit-14. According to prosecution again verification was conducted on 7 th April 2010. Complainant and panch Rasam went to RCF Police Station. Voice recorder was installed on the person of the complainant. The complainant and panch witness returned to ACB. The conversation recorded in the recorder was heard and the script was prepared. The conversation indicated that the accused demanded Rs.10,000/-. Verification panchanama Exhibit-18 was recorded on 7 th April 2010. FIR was registered thereafter with RCF Police Station on the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded on the same day. The FIR was marked as Exhibit-11. Pre-trap panchanama (Exhibit-16) was recorded on 7th April 2010 between 8.20 pm to 9.00 pm. Preparation for trap was made. DVR was attached on the person of the complainant. He walked towards police station. He was accompanied by panch witness (PW-2). The panch waited outside. The accused accepted the amount of bribe. Signal was given to raiding party. Accused was apprehended. Conversation was heard. Script was prepared. Trap panchanama (Exhibit-15) was recorded on 7th April 2010. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Voice specimen of complainant and the accused was recorded vide panchanama Exhibit-19. Sanction was obtained which was granted vide sanction order dated 22nd November 2011. On completing investigation charge sheet was filed.