2.2004 And D120 Ex.Pw39/G Which Is ... vs State on 9 December, 2013
Ld. PP submitted that in chargesheet the relevant fact has been submitted at
page no.15 and 60. In substance, IO did not give benefit on the ground that no such
payment was actually proved by uncle of accused Virender Singh. Initially it was upon the
prosecution to make the investigation. After investigation IO did not find sufficient evidence
to give benefit to accused on account of surrendering his share of village house. The facts
were in the personal knowledge of accused. Accused has also not led any evidence. There
is no dispute to the law laid down in the case Jaswinder Singh (Supra) which is about the
onus of proof. Therefore, it is not proved on record that actually any payment was made to
the accused by his uncle. Moreover, any transaction of immovable property was required to
98 R.C. NO.04(A)/2002/CBI/ACB/N.D
be intimated to the department. Accused has not led any evidence to show any such
transaction or receipt of any amount was intimated by him to his department. Therefore, in
my opinion, no benefit can be given to accused on this ground.
26.21 Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused Virender Singh had informed CBI
during investigation that he received Rs.65000/ on account of surrendering his claim in his
house at Saharanpur in year 1994. PW39 did not give him benefit of this amount on the
ground that he has sold the share to his uncle Sh. Chet Ram for Rs.18000/. PW39 in her
cross examination on 09.09.2013 had stated that Sh. Chet Ram was not listed as witness.
PW39 did not give benefit of Rs.18,000/ as admitted by her.