Delhi High Court
Vikram Yadav vs State on 29 May, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 6th May, 2009
Judgment Pronounced on: 29th May, 2009
+ CRL.A.147/2008
VIKRAM YADAV ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Brijesh K.Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate
CRL.A.208/2008
NEERAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Advocate with
Mr.Sumit Arora, Advocate.
Mr.Sulaiman Khan, Advocate and
Ms.Meera Kaura Patel, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate
CRL.A.209/2008
RAJENDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Manoj Kohli, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? Yes
Crl.Appeal Nos.147, 208, 209/2008 Page 1 of 41
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. On the intervening night of 21st and 22nd November 2001,
Mosami Roy PW-1, received a call around 9 PM from Shri T.K.
Roy PW-3, the elder brother of Ratan Roy, enquiring whether
Ratan Roy was back from office or not. On being told that
Ratan Roy had not returned, T.K.Roy informed Mosami that he
had received a call on the mobile phone of Ratan Roy. First
Ratan Roy spoke to him and thereafter a kidnapper spoke to
him and he learnt that Ratan Roy has been abducted and
ransom in sum of Rs.10 Lacs would have to be paid to secure
his release. Mosami Roy contacted Harmeek PW-2, who was a
subordinate to Ratan Roy in his office, and was told that Ratan
Roy had left the office at around 6.30 PM. On being told that
Ratan Roy had been abducted, Harmeek reached the house of
Ratan Roy. Sometimes later she received a call from Romy
Chopra PW-5, who was a senior to Ratan Roy in his office i.e.
Schnieder Electric India Ltd. Romy informed her that he had
received a call from Ratan Roy who told him that he needed
Rs.10 Lacs and that the call got suddenly disconnected. He
contacted Mr.Deepak Sahni who was the immediate superior
of Ratan Roy and told him of his conversation with Ratan Roy.
Deepak Sahni contacted him after a few minutes and told him
that Ratan Roy had been probably abducted.
2. Mosami Roy rang up police station Dilshad Garden and
informed the duty officer that her husband had been abducted
and ransom calls were received by his brother and his friend.
Said information was noted vide DD No.17A, Ex.PW-14/A, at
12.29 AM and a copy of the same was given to SI Brij Mohan
PW-14. Accompanied by Const. Ashok Kumar PW-15 and
Const. Vijender, SI Brij Mohan reached the house of Ratan Roy
i.e. C-60/2 Dilshad Garden, where he met Mosami Roy and
Harmeek Singh. He informed PS Badarpur about the incident,
since the place from where Ratan Roy was abducted, fell under
the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur. At PS Badarpur, DD No.29A,
Ex.PW-12/A, was recorded at 1.15 AM pertaining to the
abduction of Ratan Roy.
3. A copy of DD No.29A was handed over to SI Rahul Sahni
PW-26, who along with Const. Ashok PW-24 went to the office
premises of Ratan Roy i.e. P-1/A-11, Mohan Cooperatives,
Mathura Road and finding nobody in the office SI Rahul Sahni
made an endorsement Ex.PW-26/A on the copy of the DD
No.29A and sent the same for registration of an FIR through
Const. Ashok PW-24. At the police station, HC Vijay Singh PW-
12 registered the FIR Ex.PW-12/B under Section 364-A IPC.
4. Thereafter the officials of both the police stations i.e. PS
Dilshad Garden and PS Badarpur co-ordinated with each other
and decided to meet at Maharajpur Chowk. SI Brij Mohan,
Const. Ashok Kumar and Const. Vijender from PS Dilshad
Garden, accompanied by Harmeek Singh left from the
residence of Ratan Roy and reached Maharajpur Chowk. From
PS Badarpur, Inspector S.S. Malik PW-32, SI Rahul Sahni PW-
26, Const. Ashok Kumar PW-24 and Rohit Kumar Bansal, a
colleague of Ratan Roy, left for Maharajpur Chowk. On the way
they met Romy Chopra who handed them his mobile phone on
which the ransom calls were being received. The two police
teams met at Maharajpur Chowk. As per their plan SI Brij
Mohan, two constables and Harmeek Singh were to be seated
in the car of Harmeek Singh. The rest of the officials were to
follow the car of Harmeek Singh in two other cars.
5. Needless to state, the police team had to await for a call
to be made by the abductors, who were expected to disclose
the place where the ransom had to be paid. This would have
enabled the police officers to lay a track. A call was received
through the mobile phone of Ratan Roy by Harmeek Singh on
the mobile phone of Romy Chopra since Romy Chopra had
handed over his mobile phone to Harmeek Singh. The caller
directed that Harmeek Singh should reach Seemapuri Border
and bring with him the ransom money. In two cars, the police
team trailed the car driven by Harmeek Singh to Seemapuri
Border. Another call was received by Harmeek Singh directing
that he should reach GTB Hospital Shahdara. Proceeding
towards GTB Hospital, Harmeek Singh spotted a gold coloured
car at Deepak Automobile Petrol Pump. Since Ratan Roy had a
car of said colour, he reversed his car up to the petrol pump
and stopped his car behind the said gold coloured car. He
identified the car as the car of Ratan Roy. It was a gold
coloured Ford Ikon bearing registration No.DL 3CS 9438. SI Brij
Mohan told his staff to surround the said car and he himself
went to the left side window of the car. However, before he
could make any enquiries, the persons inside the car opened
fire. SI Brij Mohan fired back, as a result of which, the front left
side window pane of the car broke. The car sped away in the
direction from which it had come. SI Brij Mohan and the
constables got back into the car of Harmeek Singh and chased
the car. The Ford Ikon hit a street cart being pushed by a
vendor. The abductors thereafter threw somebody out of the
car. This led the police team to give a short break in the chase
to pick up the person who was thrown on the road. He was
none other than Ratan Roy. Leaving HC Munsi Lal of PS
Dilshad Garden behind to remove Ratan Roy to the hospital, SI
Brij Mohan and Harmeek Singh continued the chase; however,
they lost track of the car.
6. The police personnel in the other cars were informed
over the phone and they reached Deepak Petrol pump and
from there back to GTB hospital where Ratan Roy was
admitted. SI Brij Mohan also returned with Harmeek Singh to
GTB hospital. He collected MLC Ex.PW-35/A of Ratan Roy which
declared the patient unfit to make any statement. He prepared
a statement of brief facts (RUKKA) Ex.PW-14/B about the
incident of firing at the petrol pump and sent the same to PS
Seemapuri for registration of an FIR, as the place where the
incident took place fell within the jurisdiction of PS Seemapuri.
At PS Seemapuri FIR No. 261/2001 was registered.
7. Thereafter SI Raj Kumar PW-36 of PS Seemapuri also
joined the investigation. He prepared a rough site plan Ex.PW-
36/A at the instance of SI Brij Mohan pertaining to the place
where the exchange of fire took place. He got photographed
the place of the incident vide photographs marked A1 to A6.
Broken pieces of glass and a used cartridge were seized from
the place of the occurrence as recorded in memo Ex.PW-6/A.
Const. Ashok Kumar PW-14 handed over two empty cartridges
from his service revolver which were seized as recorded in
memo Ex.PW-15/A.
8. SI Rahul Sahni recorded the statement of Rajbir PW-6,
the gunman at Deepak Petrol Pump, who had witnessed the
incident. On returning to GTB hospital, SI Rahul Sahni learnt
that the injured Ratan Roy had been shifted to Apollo Hospital.
9. Efforts were made to search the car of Ratan Roy in
which the abductors had fled and at about 2.30 PM on
22.11.2001, information was received from PP Indirapuram of
PS Loni, Ghaziabad, that a car bearing registration No.DL 3CS
9438 was found abandoned near Carbon Factory on Arya
Nagar Road. SI Rajkumar proceeded to the said spot and got
the car photographed as per photographs marked A-7 to A-14.
The left side front window of the car was found broken. Two
deformed bullets were found in the car and were seized as
recorded in memo Ex.PW-36/D. There were blood stains on the
steering wheel of the car which were lifted and seized as
recorded in memo Ex.PW-36/C. The car was taken into
possession as recorded in memo Ex.PW-36/B. From the car, a
mobile phone without a SIM card and a diary were also
recovered. Said recovery was recorded in the seizure memo
Ex.PW-36/B. It is noted in the seizure memo that a black
coloured leather bag having some registers and papers was in
the car. But we note that the same i.e. the bag, the registers
and papers have not been produced at the trial and even an
inventory of the contents of the bag has not been prepared,
save and except to broadly note, as noted hereinbefore. SI Raj
Kumar took possession of the pistol used by SI Brij Mohan and
the revolver used by Const.Ashok Kumar when there was an
exchange of fire at the petrol pump the previous day as
recorded in the memo Ex.PW-14/C.
10. On the same day, i.e. 22.11.2001, another FIR No.276/01
under Sections 279/337 IPC, was lodged at PS Dilshad Garden
pertaining to the injuries suffered by Ram Sharan, the hand
cart vendor; the injuries being the ones resulting when the
Ford Ikon of Ratan Roy, being driven by the abductors had hit
the hand cart.
11. On 23.11.2001 SI Rahul Sahni obtained the call records,
Ex.PW-11/B, from Airtel Company pertaining to the mobile
number 9810158032 which belonged to Ratan Roy for the
obvious reason the abductors had been making the ransom
calls on the mobile number of T.K.Roy and on the mobile
number of Romy Chopra through said mobile number. On
pursuing the call records, it was learnt, that on the night
intervening 21.11.2001 and 22.11.2001 i.e. the night in which
Ratan Roy was abducted and the night when ransom calls
were received, the SIM card pertaining to the mobile
No.9810158032 i.e. the mobile number of Ratan Roy was used
on a handset bearing No.449125550757180 and after around
12:00 midnight, the said SIM card i.e. the SIM card pertaining
to mobile No.9810158032 was used on a handset having IMEI
No.449269200615380. Further inquiry pertaining to the
handset having IMEI No.449269200615380 revealed that the
SIM card pertaining to mobile No.9810590104 was being used
on the said handset, till the said handset was used on the SIM
card pertaining to the mobile number of Ratan Roy in the night
when Ratan Roy was abducted. The said mobile number as
also the handset pertaining to IMEI No.449269200615380 was
directed to be kept under surveillance.
12. Ratan Roy expired on 29.11.2001. Post-mortem of the
body of the deceased was conducted and the post-mortem
report Ex.PW-23/A recorded the cause of death as comma due
to head injury caused by blunt force.
13. On 30.11.2001, i.e. immediately after the death of Ratan
Roy, the investigation of the case was handed over to Insp.
S.S.Malik PW-32. After a few days, information was received
from Airtel Mobile Company that the handset having IMEI
No.449269200615380 was being used again.
14. Acting under the instructions of Insp. S.S.Malik, SI Rahul
Sahni obtained the details of calls respecting instrument
bearing IMEI No.449269200615380. The details, Ex.PW-11/DA,
revealed that a few landline numbers pertaining to the
telephone exchange at Ram Nagar, Ashok Nagar and Shahdara
were in contact through the said instrument. On 14.12.2001
at around 8.15 PM a call was received on the instrument
having the aforementioned IMEI number. The mobile number
traced was 9810590104. Call details Ex.PW-26/C1-C6
pertaining to the said mobile number were obtained for the
period 3.12.2001 to 14.12.2001. Call details were also
obtained of a mobile number 9810691713 which was used to
call at the aforementioned mobile number i.e. mobile
No.9810590104 on 14.12.2001. From the said call records, a
landline number 2111031 was revealed as being in frequent
contact with the said mobile number.
15. On 15.12.2001 a police party raided the house where the
landline number 2111031 was installed. The house was in
Ashok Nagar and was in the occupation of Sandeep Sharma
PW-7. Sandeep Sharma was asked regarding the mobile
number 9810691713 to which he informed that it was his
mobile number. He was further questioned regarding mobile
number 9810590104. He informed that the said mobile
number belonged to appellant Rajender. Sandeep Sharma
gave the address of Rajender where the police party headed
by Inspector S.S.Malik met Rajender and apprehended him
around 12:30 noon. They recovered a mobile instrument Ex.P-
5 having IMEI number 449269200615380, lying on the table.
The same was seized as recorded in memo Ex.PW-10/F. An I-
card, Ex.P-1, of Delhi police in the name of Const.Neeraj Kumar
(with his number allotted by the Delhi Police) but with
photograph of Rajender thereon was also taken into
possession as recorded in Ex.PW-10/G. Rajender was
interrogated by Insp. S.S.Malik, who recorded his disclosure
statement Ex.PW-10/B wherein inter alia he stated that
appellant Neeraj and Vikram were also involved in the crime
and that he could get recovered a country made pistol used in
the commission of the crime which he had hidden in the
bushes near GTB Hospital. On 20.12.2001, Rajender led the
police party to the bushes near GTB Hospital and got a country
made pistol Ex.P-2 recovered along with an empty cartridge
Ex.P-3; a sketch Ex.PW-32/D of the pistol was prepared by
Insp. S.S.Malik. As recorded in the seizure memo Ex.PW-32/E,
the pistol and the cartridge were taken into possession.
16. At the instance of appellant Rajender, on 15.12.2001,
appellant Neeraj was apprehended; the time of Neeraj‟s arrest
is not on record, but since Rajender was apprehended at
around 12:30 noon and it was on his disclosure statement that
involvement of Neeraj was disclosed, followed by his arrest, it
is apparent that Neeraj was arrested after 2:00 PM. Neeraj
was interrogated by Insp. S.S.Malik. In his disclosure
statement, Ex.PW-10/C, he disclosed that he was driving the
car of the deceased when the firing took place at Deepak
Petrol Pump and that a bullet had grazed the jacket and a wind
sheater at the shoulder worn by him at the time of the offence
and had grazed his chin. He disclosed that he could get
recovered the jacket and the winder sheater which he had
hidden. Neeraj produced from within his house a police jacket
and the wind sheater which were seized as recorded in the
seizure memo Ex.PW-32/H. The jacket and the wind sheater
were damaged at the top of the left sleeve and at the top of
the left shoulder. On 19.12.2001 Neeraj led SI Rahul Sahni to
Murti Nursing Home in Barot (UP) where Dr.Narender Kumar
PW-19 had treated him pertaining to the injury on his shoulder
and chin. Appellant Neeraj was taken to AIIMS Hospital on
26.12.2001, where he was examined by Dr.Varun Dixit who
prepared the MLC Ex.PW-38/A recording the following injuries
on his person :-
"1. Old healed stitched wound over the chin on the
right and the left side size about 2cm on left and 1cm
on right. (Stitches already removed)
2. Healed wound on the left shoulder two in number
about 1cm each."
17. The wounds were opined to be more than two weeks old.
It was further opined that the possibility of the wounds on the
shoulder due to a firearm cannot be ruled out.
18. Appellant Vikram Yadav was arrested on 15.12.2001 at
3.45 PM, at the instance of appellant Rajender and Neeraj.
Vikram Yadav got recovered two cheque books Ex.P-7 and
Ex.P-8 from an almirah in his house, issued in the name of
Ratan Roy by ICICI Bank and Canara Bank which were taken
into possession as recorded in Ex.PW-10/N.
19. On 24.12.2001 the appellants were produced before Shri
R.B.Singh learned Metropolitan Magistrate Kakardooma Court
for Test Identification Parade, but all three refused to
participate in the Test Identification Parade. The Ld.MM
prepared a report Ex.PW-34/A in this regard.
20. Insp. S.S.Malik sent the exhibits of the case to FSL
Malviya Nagar. The FSL report Ex.PW-37/A records that the
marks on the cartridge test fired from the country made pistol
recovered at the instance of appellant Rajender were found to
be identical with the cartridge recovered from the said pistol.
Pertaining to the pistol and the revolver used by SI Brij Mohan
and Const.Ashok respectively, when the firing took place at the
petrol pump, the second report Ex.PW-37/B, opined that the
empty shell recovered from the petrol pump where the
exchange of fire had taken place, were fired from the revolver
used by Const.Ashok and the two deformed bullets recovered
from the Ford Ikon car of the deceased were also fired through
the said revolver. The Report Ex.PW-37/B also opines that an
empty cartridge found at the spot was fired from the pistol
used by SI Brij Mohan. That the two empty cartridges seized
from the revolver of Const. Ashok were fired from the same
revolver. That one of the two deformed bullet recovered from
the car was fired from the pistol of SI Brij Mohan. However, the
individual characteristic striations found on the other bullet
were found insufficient for comparison. The wind sheater and
police jacket recovered from the house of accused Neeraj and
seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-10/K were also examined and
no gunshot residue particles were detected on the same. Vide
FSL report Ex.CW-1/X the blood stains lifted from the car of the
deceased were opined to be of human origin and of group „A‟,
however it would be pertinent to mention that the blood group
of the blood sample of appellant Neeraj could not be detected
at that stage and a fresh sample of the blood of appellant
Neeraj was taken and the blood in the fresh sample was
detected to be of Group „A‟, vide Report Ex.PW-32/K dated
24.1.2003 of the serologist.
21. The appellants were charged for the offence of abducting
for ransom Ratan Roy and murdering him. They were also
charged for the offences punishable under Section 186, 302,
307, 353, 364-A, 384 and 419 IPC; needless to state with the
aid of Section 34 IPC as also for the offence punishable under
Section 120-B IPC.
22. At the trial, the prosecution examined 38 witnesses. To
summarize, the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Judge
from the testimony of the said witnesses and the documentary
evidence, the learned Trial Judge has accepted the testimony
of SI Brij Mohan PW-14 and Const.Ashok PW-15 who identified
the appellants as the occupants of the car belonging to the
deceased in which he was abducted. As per the testimony of
the said police officers appellant Neeraj was driving the car.
Appellant Vikram was sitting in the front, next to the driver‟s
seat and appellant Rajinder was sitting in the rear seat with
the deceased when the firing took place at Deepak Petrol
Pump. As the left side front glass window pane of the car in
which the appellants were sitting got shattered, the said two
police officers claimed to have had an occasion to see the
accused. Against appellant Rajinder, the learned Trial Judge
has opined that the recovery of the handset having IMEI
No.449269200615380 was further incriminating evidence
because the call details of mobile number 9810158032
belonging to the deceased showed that on 21.11.2001, in the
night calls were made from said number using the handset in
question demanding ransom i.e. Rajinder was present in the
car with his handset and used the SIM card of the mobile
number of the deceased on his handset. The recovery of a
fake identity card having the photograph of Rajinder, but the
name and other particulars of Neeraj from his house i.e. the
house of Rajinder was held to be further incriminating
evidence against him. Against appellant Neeraj, apart from his
being identified by SI Brij Mohan and Const.Ashok, it has been
held that his blood group being „A‟ and blood of same group
being lifted from the steering of the car in which the deceased
was abducted as also the fact that he had bullet grazing
injuries on his left shoulder and the chin established his being
injured inside the car when the firing took place at Deepak
Petrol Pump. Needless to the state the police jacket and the
wind sheater recovered at the instance of Neeraj and claimed
by him to be worn at the time of the shooting were also found
to be damaged by a projectile from a firearm, which has been
held to be corroborative of the fact that he was injured at the
exchange of fire which took place at Deepak Petrol Pump. Qua
appellant Vikram Yadav, apart from his being identified by SI
Brij Mohan and Const.Ashok the incriminating evidence held
established is the recovery of the cheque books issued by ICICI
Bank and Canara Bank in the name of the deceased which
were recovered from his house. Inference drawn by the
learned Judge is that being in possession of a part of the fruits
of the crime, Neeraj‟s involvement was apparent. Lastly,
against all three accused, their refusal to join in the TIP has
been held to be further incriminating evidence against them.
23. We need not note the testimony of all the witnesses
examined for many of them are formal witnesses. Needless to
state, we need to note the testimony of such witnesses which
establish that Ratan Roy was abducted in the early hours of
the night of 21st November, 2001; ransom calls were received
through the mobile number of Ratan Roy and that the handset
recovered from appellant Rajinder was used for making the
calls using the SIM card of the mobile number of the deceased;
the disclosure statements of the appellants and the recoveries
effected pursuant thereto; the incident of firing which took
place at Deepak Petrol Pump. Needless to state it was not
seriously disputed during trial and during appeal that the post-
mortem report of the deceased evidencing that the deceased
died when he was thrown out of a running car is seriously not
in dispute. We also note that the recovery of the Ford Ikon car
of the deceased with recovery of two bullets and blood stains
on the steering of the car as also the fact that cross firing took
place at the petrol pump with the abductors of Ratan Roy
being inside the Ford Ikon car is also not a matter in dispute.
The dispute is, not whether the crime was committed in the
manner as alleged by the prosecution. The dispute is whether
the appellants were the offenders.
24. At the trial, Mosami Roy PW-1, deposed that her husband
Ratan Roy was working in Schneider Electricals India Ltd. at
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road. He used to
travel in his Ford Ikon car and that he used to ordinarily return
from his office by 8.30 PM or 9.00 PM. On 21.11.2001 around
9.00 PM she received a telephone call from T.K.Roy, the elder
brother of Ratan Roy, enquiring whether Ratan Roy had
returned from office. She informed him that Ratan had not
returned. He told her that he had received a call that Ratan
Roy had been abducted and ransom has to be paid for his
release. On learning this, she called up Harmeek Singh, a
colleague of Ratan Roy, who came to her house. That she
received a call from Romy Chopra informing her that her
husband Ratan Roy had contacted him on the phone and told
him that the abductors were demanding Rs.10 Lacs. She
lodged a report with PS Dilshad Garden about the abduction of
her husband.
25. Harmeek Singh PW-2, deposed that he works in
Schnieder Electric India Ltd. and Mr.Ratan Roy was his
immediate boss. That on 21.11.2001 he received a call from
Mosami Roy wife of Mr.Ratan Roy informing him about the
abduction of Mr.Ratan Roy. She requested him to come to her
house. He reached the house of Mr.Ratan Roy at about 10:15
PM. Mrs.Mosami Roy had been informed about the abduction
by Mr.T.K.Roy, the brother of Mr.Ratan Roy and Mr.Romy
Chopra who had both received calls from Ratan Roy. The
abductors had contacted Mr.Romy Chopra PW-5, the boss of
the deceased and demanded a ransom in sum of Rs.10 lakhs
from him. They had called Romy Chopra alone with the
amount but on the insistence of Romy Chopra the abductors
allowed him i.e. Harmeek Singh to deliver the ransom amount.
Thereafter, he accompanied SI Brij Mohan PW-14 and Const.
Ashok Kumar PW-15 of PS Dilshad garden to Maharajpur
Chowk at around 2:45-3.00 AM where they met Rohit Bansal
who was present there with Insp. S.S.Malik PW-32 and SI Rahul
Saini PW-26 from PS Badarpur. Rohit Bansal handed him the
mobile phone of Romy Chopra, the phone on which the
abductors were contacting them. The abductors called at said
number when they were at Maharajpur Chowk and directed
that the ransom be delivered at Mohan Nagar. They reached
Mohan Nagar but remained clueless till another call was
received directing to reach Shahdra Border. Insp.S.S.Malik, SI
Rahul Saini and Rohit Bansal from PS Badarpur moved ahead
in their cars while he, along with SI Brij Mohan, Const. Ashok
and Const. Vijernder from PS Dilshad Garden followed in his
Maruti car. At Shahdra also, no one came to collect the ransom
and another call was received asking them to come to Guru
Tegh Bahadur Hospital. On the way to the hospital while the
police cars were moving ahead of the Maruti car driven by him,
on the turn towards Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital he saw a gold
coloured Ford Ikon car on the road and he told SI Brij Mohan
that probably it was the car of Mr.Ratan Roy. The Sub-
Inspector asked him to reverse the car as the Ford Ikon
entered a petrol pump. He drove his Maruti car into the petrol
pump on the instructions of the Sub-Inspector and parked the
car near the Ford Ikon. Thereafter the police officials got down
from the car and fired, he ducked inside the car and could only
hear the sound of the shots being fired. After sometime the
police officials again sat in the car and asked him to chase the
Ford Ikon. The Ford Ikon hit a rehri at some distance and a
person was thrown out of the car. Thereafter, the Ford Ikon car
sped away and could not be traced. The person thrown out of
the car was Ratan Roy who was admitted to a hospital and he
expired on 29.11.2001.
26. We may note here that Harmeek Singh did not identify
any one of the appellant; needless to state the reason being
he claimed to have ducked inside his car and as a result could
not see who were the occupants of the Ford Ikon car in which
Ratan Roy was abducted.
27. T.K.Roy PW-3, deposed that he received a phone call
from Ratan Roy, his younger brother, at about 8:30-9.00 PM on
21.11.2001 who told him that some CBI officials had caught
him and were demanding bribe to release him. His brother
handed over the phone to the persons with him, who informed
him i.e. T.K.Roy that they were not from the CBI and that his
brother had been abducted by them. He told them that they
were a service class family and what could the abductors
expect from them. He kept on receiving calls from the mobile
phone of his brother who told him that he was alright.
28. Romy Chopra PW-5, deposed that he was the Vice-
President of Schnieder Electric India Ltd. That on 21.11.2001
he received a phone call from Mr.Ratan Roy at about 9:30 PM
asking him to arrange an amount in sum of Rs.10 Lakhs on
urgent basis. He called the residence of Ratan Roy, where it
was confirmed by the wife of Ratan Roy, that he i.e. Ratan Roy
had been abducted. Thereafter, he kept on receiving regular
phone calls from Mr.Ratan Roy at an interval of every 10-15
minutes, while he tried to arrange as much money as he could.
He met Rohit Bansal and the police at Delhi-Noida border at
about 2.00 AM and handed over his mobile to Rohit Bansal
since all the calls from Ratan Roy were being received on his
mobile phone and he returned home. Rohit Bansal further
handed over the phone to Harmeek Singh. His mobile number
on which the calls were received was 9810089860.
29. Rajbir PW-6, a gunman at Deepak Petrol Pump, deposed
that on 22.11.2001 at about 6 AM a longish car came to the
petrol pump followed by a white Maruti car; some police
officials got down from the Maruti car and firing took place.
The rear wind screen and the left side window glass of the long
car were broken in the course of the firing. The firing
continued at the petrol pump for a period of about 5-6
minutes. After that, the long car sped away from the petrol
pump followed by the Maruti car. On being cross-examined,
Rajbir stated that the police persons did not go up to the long
car. That the glasses of the long car were tinted and were
rolled up when the car stood at the petrol pump and nothing
was visible. That he had seen one country made pistol, glasses
and cartridges being picked up from the spot. That he could
not say if the bullets fired by the police had hit any of the
occupants, as he had immediately run for his own safety.
30. We may note that even Rajbir did not identify the
appellants as he claims to have run for his safety when the
firing started.
31. Sandeep Sharma PW-7, deposed that he had a mobile
phone bearing No.9810691713. He had made two calls to
appellant Rajinder on 14.12.2001 at about 8.15 PM. When he
called for the first time the conversation with the appellant
Rajinder did not go beyond „Hello! Hello!‟. The second time
someone else received the call and told him that he had dialed
a wrong number. That the police visited him on 15.12.2001
and that he gave them the residential address of accused
Rajinder who had a mobile phone, but could not recollect the
number thereof.
32. R.K.Singh PW-11, from Airtel mobile company deposed
that the documents viz. the call details Ex.PW-11/B of mobile
number 9810158032 for a period from 20.11.2001 to
23.11.2001; the call details Ex.PW-11/D of IMEI number
449269200615380 and cell ID location chart Ex.PW-11/E have
been issued by his company, being computer generated print
outs, showing that the same instrument was used on the SIM
card of mobile No.9810158032 (deceased‟s number) which
was used on the SIM card of mobile No.9810590140.
33. Dr.Narender Kumar PW-19, deposed that appellant
Neeraj had come to his clinic about 8 to 12 months ago for
getting treatment for injuries on his chin and shoulder. The
accused told him that the injuries were caused to him in a fight
with his brother and hence he did not lodge any report about
the same. On being cross-examined by the counsel for
appellant Neeraj he stated that he could not comment as to
whether the injury was caused by a bullet as he had looked at
the injuries only in a casual manner.
34. Dr.Manish Kumar PW-38 deposed that Dr.Varun Dixit had
left the hospital i.e. AIIMS and that he could identify the
handwriting and signatures of Dr.Varun Dixit and that the
report Ex.PW-38/A and the opinion thereon were in the
handwriting of Dr.Varun Dixit.
35. Ashish Hariok PW-20 deposed that he was employed as
the Manager of ICICI Bank. That the ATM card account record
Ex.PW-20/B of deceased Ratan Roy showed that an amount of
Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn from Preet Vihar branch of the
bank at 22:58 hours on 21.11.2001 and an additional amount
of Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn from B-1, Krishna Nagar Lal
Quarter on 22.11.2001 at 00:36 hours.
36. Shri S.K.Khanna PW-21, an employee of Canara Bank
deposed that as per Ex.PW-21/B, the copy of a register
maintained, recorded the issuance of cheque books, and that
the cheque book having cheque No.902531 to 902540 was
issued to Mr.Ratan Roy on 14.7.2001.
37. Shri R.B.Singh PW-34, the Metropolitan Magistrate
working in Delhi deposed that appellant Neeraj, Rajender
Singh and Vikram Yadav were produced before him with
muffled faces for test identification parade and the accused
refused to join the test identification parade stating that they
had already been shown to the witnesses.
38. SI Brij Mohan PW-14, deposed that on the intervening
night of 21st and 22nd November 2001 he received DD No.17-A
concerning the abduction of a person and he went to C-60/2,
Dilshad Garden i.e. the residence of Mosami Roy and met
Harmeek Singh and Mosami Roy and was told that Ratan Roy,
working at Mohan Cooperatives, Badarpur had left the office at
around 6:00 PM in his car and had not reached home and his
brother T.K.Roy had received ransom calls. He told Mrs.Roy
that her husband had been abducted under jurisdiction of area
assigned to PS Badarpur, but he would help her. He
spoke to the SHO Badarpur as also the SHO of his police
station who then spoke to each other. His SHO instructed that
he should go to PS Badarpur with two constables and work
according to the instructions of the SHO Badarpur. He and
Harmeek went to his police station. Const.Ashok and Vijender
joined him. They also got issued arms and ammunition. He
spoke to the SHO Badarpur who told him to meet at
Maharajpur Chowk. He along with the police officers and
Harmeek reached Maharajpur Chowk where they met the
police personnel of PS Badarpur. Harmeek was having the
mobile phone of Romy Chopra with him and on his mobile
phone ransom calls were received. When they were at
Maharajpur Chowk a ransom call was received by Harmeek
directing to reach Mohan Nagar Chowk. Harmeek, two
constables and he sat in Harmeek‟s maruti car. The SHO
Badarpur and his staff sat in a gypsy and another car. The
convoy proceeded to Mohan Nagar Chowk where Harmeek
stationed his maruti car and the other police personnel
concealed their vehicles and took possession. They waited for
sometime but none came. Another call was received directing
to reach Apsara Border. They reached Apsara Border and
waited, but none came. Another call was received directing to
reach GTB Hospital. They proceeded to GTB Hospital with
Harmeek‟s car forming the tail. On the way when
they took a turn from Deepak Automobile Petrol Pump, a
gold coloured car came from the opposite direction which was
recognized by Harmeek as that of Ratan Roy. When this fact
was told to him by Harmeek, he told Harmeek to stop the car.
The gold coloured car turned into the petrol pump. Harmeek
Singh reversed his car and drove it inside the petrol pump and
parked his car behind the gold coloured car and re-identified it
to be the car of Ratan Roy. He asked his staff to surround the
car while he went to the left side of the car. However, before
he could enquire anything, the people inside the car fired
towards them. He fired back and a window glass of the
car broke. He saw the driver of the car wearing a blue
coloured jacket. The Ford Ikon sped away. The first two
rounds of his firing had struck the driver of the car. They
joined Harmeek Singh in his car and started chasing the
gold coloured Ford Ikon. The Ford Ikon met with an
accident with a hawker and after sometime, somebody
was thrown out of the car. Harmeek Singh identified the
person to be Ratan Roy. They resumed the chase but
lost track of the car after some time. Ratan Roy was
removed to GTB Hospital. PS Seemapuri was informed as
the place where the firing took place fell within the
jurisdiction of said police station. SI Raj Kumar from
PS Seemapuri joined the investigation. That appellant
Rajinder was sitting on the back seat next to Ratan
Roy in the car and appellant Neeraj was driving the car and
appellant Vikram was sitting in the front next to the driver‟s
seat.
39. On being cross-examined, he stated that the firing
incident took place within a few seconds. He could not say
whether the glass panes of the Ford Ikon car were tinted or
not. He stated that the left window pane of the car was 1/4th
open. He denied that a country made pistol was recovered
from the petrol pump. He admitted that the accused persons
were arrested on 15.12.2001 and that their photographs were
telecasted on the TV and newspapers on 16.12.2001.
40. Const. Ashok Kumar PW-15, deposed pari materia the
same facts as were deposed to by SI Brij Mohan till they
reached the petrol pump where the firing took place and
hence we need not note said part of his testimony. Pertaining
to the firing which took place at the petrol pump, he deposed
that he took position a little behind SI Brij Mohan at the petrol
pump. Two shots were fired from the car when SI Brij Mohan
went up to the left front side window of the car to ask the
occupants of the car to get down. A bullet fired by SI Brij
Mohan, broke the glass of the front left window of the car.
When the accused were trying to escape from the petrol pump
in the car, he fired at the tyres of the car but he missed his
aim and the bullet hit the body of the car instead. That
Rajinder was sitting in the right side at the rear seat and that
Neeraj was driving the car and that appellant Vikram was
sitting on the seat next to the driver‟s seat.
41. On being cross-examined he stated that their car was at
a distance of about 5-6 meters from the car of the appellants.
That the glasses of the car in which the appellants were sitting
were not tinted and that the entire incident took place within
15-17 seconds.
42. SI Rahul Sahni PW-26 deposed that on the intervening
night of 21st -22nd November 2001 he received copy of DD
No.29A regarding the abduction of Mr.Ratan Roy. That a
report had also been lodged at PS Dilshad Garden by Mosami
Roy wife of Ratan Roy as Ratan Roy was a resident of Dilshad
Garden. Therefore, he got in touch with SI Brij Mohan of PS
Dilshad Garden who was also investigating the matter. SI
Rahul Sahni along with SHO and Rohit Kumar Bansal, a
colleague of Ratan Roy who had lodged the report, left the
police station and met Romy Chopra at Delhi-Noida Border.
Romy Chopra handed over his mobile phone to Rohit Bansal as
the abductors were calling on his number. Romy Chopra did
not accompany them. They reached Maharajur Chowk and
met SI Brij Mohan who had reached there with Harmeek Singh
and two constables. The abductors called Harmeek Singh
alone at Mohan Nagar. It was decided that SI Brij Mohan and
two constables were to accompany Harmeek Singh in his car
while the others were to follow in two other cars. They
reached Mohan Nagar but nobody came there to collect the
money. They were instead called at Seemapuri border. There
also nobody came. Finally they were called at GTB Hospital. It
was decided that the police cars would lead and car of
Harmeek Singh would be the last. When the two cars with
police officers in front were on the way SI Rahul Sahni was
informed by Harmeek Singh over the phone that firing had
taken place at Deepak Petrol Pump. They reached Deepak
Petrol Pump and learnt that firing had taken place between the
occupants of a Ford Ikon car and occupants of Maruti car in
which Harmeek Singh and three police officers were travelling
and that both cars had gone towards the border. They learnt
that the Ford Ikon had met with an accident with a vegetable
hawker and had thrown out somebody from the car. The
injured was identified as Ratan Roy and was shifted to GTB
Hospital. At the hospital SI Brij Mohan, the two constables and
Harmeek Singh also reached and informed them that the Ford
Ikon had escaped. SI Brij Mohan got FIR No.261/2001
registered at PS Seemapuri regarding the incident, and SI Raj
Kumar from PS Seemapuri joined the investigation. On
23.11.2001 he obtained call records pertaining to the mobile
number of Ratan Roy from Airtel wherefrom it was revealed
that on the night of the incident after midnight, the IMEI
number had been changed. That the subsequent IMEI number
was not currently in use. On 29.12.2001 Ratan Roy expired
without making any statement and the investigation of the
case was handed over to Inspector S.S.Malik PW-32.
43. SI Raj Kumar PW-36 deposed that on 22.11.2001 he was
posted at PS Seemapuri and was handed over the
investigation of the case. He prepared site plan Ex.PW-36/A at
the petrol pump where the firing took place. He got the place
of occurrence photographed. He seized broken pieces of glass
and an empty shell recovered from the spot. At about 2:30 PM
he received information about car No.DL-3CS-9438 being
found stationed at Arya Nagar Road. He inspected the spot
and took possession of the car. The left window pane whereof
on the front was broken. He lifted blood sample found on the
steering wheel of the car and two bullets from the car. He
seized a pistol and a revolver which were used by SI Brij
Mohan and Const.Ashok at the time of the incident. On
20.12.2001 he formally arrested the 3 accused persons. The
accused were taken for TIP proceedings, however, they
refused to participate.
44. Inspector S.S.Malik PW-32 deposed that on 30.11.2001
investigation of the case was handed over to him. That on
basis of secret information accused Rajender Singh was
arrested on 15.12.2001. On the same day accused Neeraj and
accused Vikram Yadav was also arrested by him. He deposed
that he recorded the disclosure statements of the appellants
and that pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant
Neeraj his police jacket Ex.P-13 and the wind sheater Ex.P-15
were got recovered by Neeraj from inside his house which
were seized by him and that he seized the mobile phone Ex.P-
5 having IMEI No.449269200615380 and the identity card
Ex.P-1 in the name with particulars of Neeraj, but with the
photograph of Rajinder thereon when Rajinder was
apprehended. That the cheque books Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8 issued
by ICICI Bank and Canara Bank in the name of the deceased
were seized by him after appellant Vikram made a disclosure
statement that he had the same in his possession and
produced the same from within his house. That the recovery
memos pertaining to the seizures aforenoted were drawn up
by him.
45. Neeraj led defence evidence. To summarize the defence
evidence, through the testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 he proved
certified copies of the testimony of Ram Sharan, the vegetable
vendor who was injured when the Ford Ikon of the deceased
hit his handcart, in respect whereof a separate FIR was
registered as also the decision pertaining to the said offence.
The same evidence that Ram Sharan deposed that a Sikh was
driving the Ford Ikon car and as a result thereof the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted Neeraj of rash and negligent
driving and causing injury by a rash and a negligent act. But,
it may be noted that only Ram Saran and HC Mool Chand, the
duty officer PS Dilshad Garden were the only two witnesses
examined at said trial. The other witnesses proved certain
telegrams which were sent to various officers at around 11:20
AM on 15.12.2001 informing that Neeraj had been picked up
by police personnel.
46. Needless to state, if the testimony of SI Brij Mohan PW-14
and Const.Ashok Kumar PW-15, pertaining to the identification
of the appellants is accepted by this Court, that would be the
end of the fate of the appellants, at least in this Court. Thus,
we take up for consideration the testimony of said two
witnesses pertaining to the said witnesses identifying the
appellants as occupants of the car of Ratan Roy.
47. We note at the outset that learned counsel for the
appellants did not dispute that the Ford Ikon, occupants
whereof had an exchange of fire with SI Brij Mohan and
Const.Ashok, was proved to be the car at Deepak Petrol Pump
and that the said car sped away after the fire was exchanged
and that the evidence establishes that the deceased was
thrown out of the said car and that the car belonged to the
deceased. Learned counsel restricted submissions by making
pleas that the testimony of SI Brij Mohan and Const.Ashok,
pertaining to they identifying the appellants as the occupants
of the car was shaky and hence could not be believed. It was
urged that the acquittal of Neeraj for the offence of rash and
negligent driving and causing hurt by rash and negligent
driving to Ram Saran, conclusively established that the driver
of the Ford Ikon was a Sikh gentleman as stated in Court by
the injured Ram Saran. Thus, it was urged that the issue as to
who was driving the Ford Ikon stood concluded by a judicial
decision, which had attained finality and hence could not be
re-agitated at a separate trial. Alternatively, it was urged that
as admitted by SI Brij Mohan and Const.Ashok, their encounter
with the occupants of the Ford Ikon car lasted less than 20
seconds. There was cross-firing and hence even said police
officers would be shooting and ducking; it was urged that it
was not possible for the said two officers to have had more
than a fleeting glimpse of the occupants of the car, thereby
rendering it highly improbable that they could identify the
appellants as the occupants in the car while deposing in Court,
more so for the reason, urged the counsel, the Ford Ikon had
tinted glasses. It was urged that from the testimony of DW-3
to DW-5, it was apparent that Neeraj was picked up by the
police at around 05:00 AM on 15.12.2001 and that there was
no question of Neeraj being apprehended pursuant to the
disclosure statement of Rajender which was recorded after
12:30 PM on said date.
48. We find no evidence of the Ford Ikon having tinted
glasses. SI Brij Mohan and Const.Ashok have categorically
refuted the suggestion that the said car had tinted glasses.
49. That the driver of the Ford Ikon was injured is apparent
from the fact that human blood of group „A‟ has been lifted
from the steering wheel of the said car. It is apparent that the
bullet fired by either SI Brij Mohan or Const.Ashok had hit the
driver of the car. The testimony of SI Raj Kumar PW-36
establishes that the left front side window pane thereof was
broken. His testimony also establishes that he picked up
broken pieces of glass from the petrol pump where the firing
took place in the night of 21.11.2001. It is apparent that the
left front side window of the Ford Ikon got broken when a
bullet hit the same. In their testimony, SI Brij Mohan and
Const.Ashok have deposed that they fired from the left side of
the Ford Ikon. As per their testimony, the firing lasted for
about 20 seconds. Even if the two officers, shot and ducked, it
is apparent that they had sufficient opportunity to have, more
than a glimpse, of at least the front two occupants of the car
i.e. appellant Neeraj and Vikram. It has to be kept in mind that
both of them are police officers and were aware of the
seriousness of the crime they were investigating. Finding
being fired upon by the occupants of the Ford Ikon car and
being police officers it would certainly be at the back of their
mind that they should try and have the picture of the accused
etched in their memory so that they could identify the accused
if and when required to do so. We find that the testimony of
the said two police officers on said fact in issue inspires
confidence and there is no reason for us to doubt their
testimony. Thus, we hold that on the basis of eye-witness
account alone, qua appellant Vikram, Neeraj, the prosecution
has successfully established that they were present in the Ford
Ikon car of Ratan Roy who was abducted and was thrown out
of the car after the firing incident took place. Thus, the
prosecution has successfully established the charges against
said two appellants.
50. We ignore the incriminating circumstance against said
two appellants of refusing to join at the test identification
parade for the reason SI Brij Mohan PW-14 has admitted that
the photographs of all the accused were telecasted and
printed in newspapers on 16.12.2001 i.e. the features of the
appellants were made know to all and sundry and hence the
test identification parade which was scheduled for 24.12.2001
was an idle formality.
51. We ignore the incriminating evidence of recovery of the
cheque books of the deceased pursuant to the disclosure
statement of Vikram and at his instance from within his house
as we agree with the submission of his counsel that since SI
Raj Kumar PW-36 has not entered the contents of the bag
recovered from the Ford Ikon car, there is every possibility of
the two cheque books issued by ICICI bank and Canara bank in
the name of the deceased being planted on Vikram.
52. Though with a less incriminating value, the injury
sustained by Neeraj on his shoulder and on his chin and the
corresponding damage to his shirt Ex.P-13 and the wind-
sheeter Ex.P-15 at the shoulder top lends assurance to his
being injured at the firing which took place at the petrol pump
on 21.11.2001 and the same can always be used, and we do
use the same, as evidence to re-assure ourselves that the
testimony of the police officers i.e. SI Brij Mohan and
Const.Ashok inspires confidence. The fact that a fake identity
card with all the particulars of Neeraj, but with the photograph
of Rajinder affixed thereon, was recovered from Rajinder also
lends assurance to the fact that Neeraj was a cohort of
Rajinder and was collaborating with Rajinder. We clarify that
the incriminating value thereof is being treated by us as very
minimal and we are using the same only as evidence of re-
assuring the guilt of Neeraj, which stands conclusively
established, through the testimony of SI Brij Mohan and
Const.Ashok. The fact that the blood group of Neeraj is „A‟ and
that blood of same group was lifted from the steering wheel of
the Ford Ikon car also lends assurance to the fact that there is
a probability of Neeraj being on the driver‟s seat,
notwithstanding the fact that DNA profiling has not being got
done and by itself, blood group matching is not conclusive
evidence of involvement. But, the twin fact that Neeraj had an
injury on the top of his left shoulder and on his chin and that
his blood group was „A‟ i.e. the same blood group detected on
the blood lifted from the steering wheel of the car, co-jointly
viewed, certainly lend a degree of assurance to the testimony
of the two police officers.
53. That Neeraj has been acquitted at the trial where he was
charged for the offence of causing injuries to Ram Saran is
neither here nor there for the reason at the said trial neither SI
Brij Mohan nor Const.Ashok were cited as witnesses. Only
Ram Saran was cited as a witness. He turned hostile. Neeraj
is a constable employed by Delhi Police. Obviously, he had a
clout sufficient enough to stifle the voice of Ram Saran. Said
acquittal by a Metropolitan Magistrate, coupled with the said
trial being a shoddy affair cannot operate as a binding
precedent. As held in the decision reported as AIR 1962 SC
1211 Sunder & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, though relating to a
case where an accused was acquitted at a trial an appeal was
filed by the accused who were convicted; issue being whether
the appellate court could consider the evidence pertaining to
the acquittal of the accused notwithstanding said acquittal
having attained finality, while considering the case of the other
accused. It was held that if in dealing with the case presented
before it on behalf of the appellants it becomes necessary for
the High Court to deal indirectly or incidentally with the case
against the accused who was acquitted, there is no legal bar at
all for the High Court to consider the evidence as a whole and
come to a conclusion that the evidence which was been
discarded against the accused who was acquitted, was good
evidence, the role of the accused acquitted could be
considered by the Court with respect to the appeal. The
decision guides us that where indirectly and incidentally a case
against a person who has been acquitted is required to be
considered, it is always open for a Court to do so while
considering the evidence as a whole. Besides, the rule of res
judicata is that the matter in issue at the two trials has to be
substantially the same and that the former Court whose
decision is sought to be projected as res judicata should have
jurisdiction to try even the subsequent litigation. Thus, the
acquittal by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate in the
charge of rash and negligent driving and causing hurt cannot
bind the Court of Session where the accused has been charged
of an offence qua which the Metropolitan Magistrate had no
jurisdiction to try the same. It is no doubt true that telegrams
have been sent by the relatives of Neeraj at 11:20 AM on
15.12.2001 informing that Neeraj has been lifted at 5:00 AM.
It is true that as per the prosecution Neeraj was arrested after
Rajender was arrested and that the evidence shows that
Rajender was arrested at 12:30 noon; meaning thereby that
Neeraj was arrested after 12:30 noon. There is a hiatus
between the two situations. But that would not be fatal for the
reason it appears to be a case where the time of arrest
appears to have been incorrectly shown. We could have
appreciated the effect of said controversy, if it was argued that
the jacket and the wind-sheater has been planted on Neeraj.
In said situation, the time and place of arrest of Neeraj would
have assumed significance. No such submission was urged
during arguments of the appeals.
54. Pertaining to appellant Rajinder, the evidence on record
establishes that when he was apprehended the instrument
Ex.P-5 having IMEI No.449269200615380 was recovered from
his possession as recorded in the seizure memo Ex.PW-10/F.
The call records pertaining to mobile No.9810158032, proved
to be the mobile number of the deceased through the
testimony of Harmeek Singh PW-2, T.K.Roy PW-3 and Romy
Chopra PW-5, i.e. Ex.PW-11/B and the call details Ex.PW-11/D
pertaining to the handset having IMEI No.449269200615380
establish that the SIM card of the mobile No.9810158032 was
used on the handset having IMEI No.449269200615380 at
00:35:30 on 22.11.2001 i.e. the intervening night of 21 st and
22nd November 2001. The said call records show that on the
handset having IMEI No.449269200615380, using the SIM card
of the mobile No.9810158032, as many as 16 calls were made
to the mobile No.9810089860 belonging to Romy Chopra and
handed over to Harmeek Singh, the callers not only
demanding ransom but informing the place where the ransom
has to be delivered.
55. Rajinder has not stated that he had handed over the said
handset to any other person. Being recovered from him,
unless a satisfactory explanation was furnished by Rajinder,
the inevitable conclusion which has to be drawn is that either
Rajinder himself or somebody else who was accompanying him
made calls from the said handset using the SIM card of the
deceased as deposed to by the witnesses of the prosecution
and said evidence, standing alone by itself, is sufficient to link
Rajinder as a conspirator and an active participant in the
crime.
56. With reference to the testimony of SI Brij Mohan and
Const.Ashok, assuming that, since Rajinder was seated in the
rear seat of the Ford Ikon car, the said two police officers could
not identify him and over-stated in Court, i.e. discarding said
evidence against Rajinder, we hold that for the reasons
recorded in para 55 above, on said evidence alone, Rajinder‟s
involvement in the crime is fully established. The
circumstance of Rajinder possessing a fake identity card
issued by Delhi Police in the name of Neeraj also assumes
significance and lends re-assurance to his involvement along
with Neeraj in the commission of the crime.
57. We find no merits in the appeals.
58. The appeals are dismissed.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(ARUNA SURESH)
JUDGE
May 29, 2009
mm/dk
