Sie sind auf Seite 1von 86

INTHECOURTOFMS.POONAMCHAUDHARY ASJ(CENTRAL01):DELHI SCNo.68/09 CENTRALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATION(CBI) VERSUS 1. SatyaPalSingh S/oMadanPalSingh Sub.Inspector StationOfficer PS.Sector20,Noida Disst.Ghaziabad.R/o R/oVillageGwalara POSahashram, Aligarh 2. Sh.

RajaVats(Deceased) S/oSh.MunshiSingh Sub. Inspector, PS Kavi NagarGhaziabad,R/oVillage Dharar, POBarranDisst.Hardoi. 3. Sh.AjayKumarSingh S/oSh.HariharSingh SectorOfficer CBCID,Meerut R/oVill.Faridabad POBalwarganj AjaunpurUP 4. Sh.SukhpalSingh
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page1/

ConstableNo.300CP PSKaviNagar, Ghaziabad R/oVill.KhedaMastan POPhugana,Bulandshahar 5. Sh.SatyavirSingh ConstableNO.1179CP S/oSh.BighnaSingh PSKaviNagar,Ghaziabad R/OVill.Kalarhedi PSGangoh,Sharnpur 6. Smt.DuijaYadav D/oSh.RamPrasad LadyHeadConstableNo.206 CP PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad R/oVill.Ajmali, PSBaharganj,Gorakhpur 7. Ms.PromilaJ.Masih D/oSh.JhangirMesih LadyConstableNo.673CP Mahila Cell, O/O Sr. Supdt. OfPolice,Ghaziabad R/oMissonCompound, Khatauli,MuzaffarNagar 8. Smt.GeetaAhuja D/oKhemRajAhuja R/o2/68,RajNagar Ghaziabad(Pvt.) 9. Sh.KhemRajAhuja(Deceased)
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page2/

S/oSh.JawaharLalAhuja R/o2/68,RajNagar Ghaziabad(Pvt.)

Argumentsheardon Judgmentsreservedfor Judgmentsannouncedon

:20.05.2010 :24.05.2010 :24.05.2010

JUDGMENT 1. Thecaseofprosecutioninbriefisthaton12.08.94atRajNagarGhaziabad

accusedSatyapalSingh,RajaVats(sincedeceased),AjayKumarSingh,Sukhpal Singh, Satyavir Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy with K. R. Ahuja (deceased)andotherpersonstowrongfullyconfine,atKaviNagarPoliceStation andphysicallytorturecomplainantRajPalDhall,SanjayDhall,DeepakMalik, andSmt.AnuDhall toextortconfession/informationfromthemaboutGeeta Ahuja(coaccused)andAtulDhall(complainant'sson)andtherebycommittedan offencepunishableu/s120Br/wsection348/330IPC. 2. It is also the case of prosecution that in pursuance of the aforesaid

conspiracyalltheabovenamedaccusedwrongfullyconfinedatKaviNagarpolice stationcomplainantandhisfamilymembersnamedaboveandphysicallytortured themtoextortconfession/informationfromthemabout GeetaAhujaandAtul Dhallandtherebycommittedoffencepunishableu/s348/330IPC. 3. Thecaseofprosecutionisalsothaton13.08.94atRajNagarGhaziabad

PSKaviNagarallaccusedenteredintoacriminalconspiracy tofabricatefalse evidenceagainstcomplainantRajPalDhall andhis familymemberswith the intentiontousethatevidenceagainsttheminthecasepertainingtoFIRno.408/94

SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page3/

u/s363/366/376IPCPSKaviNagar gotregisteredaccusedKhemRajAhuja (deceased)andtherebyalltheaccusedcommittedanoffencepunishableu/s120B IPCreadwithsection195IPC. 4. It is also the case of prosecution that in pursuance of the aforesaid

conspiracyaccusedSatyaPalSingh,RajaVats(deceased),SukhpalSingh,Satyvir Singh,DuijaYadav,PromilaJ.MasihandGeetaAhujapreparedafalserecovery memo dated 13.08.94 showing recovery of Geeta Ahuja from the custody of RajpalandhisfamilymembersincludingAtulDhallfromGhaziabadRailway stationon13.08.94forbeingusedintheaforesaidcaseFIRno.408/94PSKavi NagarGhaziabadfrosecuringtheirconvictioninthatcaseandtherebyallthe accusedcommittedanoffencepunishableu/s195IPC. 5.

Aftercompletionoftheinvestigationchargesheetwasfiledagainsttheall

accusedfortheoffences under section 342,218,323,330,352,193 and 195r/w 120BIPCinthedesignatedcourtofLd.SessionsJudgeDehradun.Thereafterin pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9.01.98 case was transferredtothecourtsofLd.DistrictandSessionsJudgeDelhi. 6. During the pendency of the case accused Raja Vats and K. R. Ahuja

expiredandproceedingsagainstthemstoodabated. 7. ItissubmittedbyLd.Spl.PPCBIthatcasewasregisteredon19.11.94

undertheorderofHon'bleSupremeCourtdated7.11.94.Itisfurthersubmittedby Ld.Spl.PPCBISh.AnilTanwarthatasperthecaseofprosecutionaccusedGeeta AhujawaslivingintheneighbourhoodofPW2complainant,RajpalDhalin Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad at the time of incident. It is further the case of prosecution that accused Geeta Ahuja fell in love with Atul Dhall son of complainantandtheywantedtogetmarriedbutparentsofGeetawere against theirmarriage.Henceon12.08.94accusedGeetaAhujaandAtulDhalcameto
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page4/

Delhiwithoutinformingtheirfamiliesandgotmarriedon12.08.94.Itisfurther thecaseofprosecutionthatK.R.AhujafatherofGeetaAhujaoncomingtoknow that his daughter had gone with Atul Dhall on 12.08.94 called the police. ComplainantRajPalDhallandhisfamilymemberswerearrestedandtortured badly by the police officials at PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad to extract information/confessionfromthemaboutthewhereaboutsofGeetaAhuja. 8. Itis furtherthe caseofprosecutionthat inthe morning of13.08.94

accusedGeetaAhujaandAtulDhallcametothePSKaviNagarandinformedthe policeofficialthattheyhadgotmarried.However,thepoliceinsteadofleaving complainantRajPalDhalandhisfamilymembersarrestedAtulDhallandhis familymembersincaseFIRno.408/94,registeredatPSKaviNagaron12.08.94 u/s363/366IPConthecomplaintofaccusedKhemRajAhuja(deceased)fatherof accusedGeetaAhuja.Thecomplainantandhisfamilymemberswereproduced beforethecourtandremandedtojudicialcustodyandtheywerereleasedonbail on19.08.94.Thereafteron20.08.94complainantRajpallodgedacomplaintwith District Magistrate Ghaziabad that he and his family members were brutally torturedbythepoliceofficialsof PSKavi Nagar ontheintervening night of 12/13.08.94 and requested for taking action against erring police official. However,asnoactionwastakenonthecomplaint,AtulDhallfiledawritpetition beforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaforgettingmatterinvestigatedbyCBI. InthesaidwritpetitionHon'bleSupremecourtofIndiaorderedinvestigationof allegationsoftortureofpetitionerandhisfamilybyCBI.Hon'bleSupremeCourt ofIndiaalsoorderedthatfurtherinvestigationofcaseFIRno.408/94u/s363/366 IPCregisteredatPSKaviNagarwouldremainstayed.CBIthenregisteredthe presentcasevideFIRno.RC28(5)94DADandinvestigatedthematterandafter completionoftheinvestigationfiledchargesheetagainst7policeofficialsnamely
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page5/

SISatyapalSingh,SIRajaVats,(deceased)CircleofficerAjayKumarSingh,Ct. SukhpalSingh,Ct.SatyavirSingh,HCDuijaYadavandCt.PromilaJ.Meshihas well as Geeta Ahuja and Khem Raj Ahuja for the offence punishable u/s 342/218/323/330/352/193/195r/w120BIPC. 9. ChargewasframedagainstaccusedSatypalSingh,RajaVats(deceased),

AjayKumarSingh,SukhpalSinghandSatyavirSinghfortheoffenceu/s120B r/w348/330IPCandsection330/348IPCandagainstaccusedSatyaPalSingh, RajaVats(deceased),AjayKumarSingh,SukhpalSingh,SatyavirSingh,Duija Yadav,PromilaMessieh andGeeta Ahujafortheoffence u/s120BIPCr/w section195IPCand195IPC. 10. 11. CBIexamined25witnessesinsupportofitscase. PW1AtulDhalldeposedthathehadloveaffairwithaccusedGeetaAhuja

andsheofferedtomarryhim.HealsostatedthatparentsofGeetaAhujawere opposedtotheirmarriage.Hefurtherdeposedthatinpursuanceoftheoffermade byaccusedGeetaheandGeetacametoDelhibytaxiandgotmarriedatArya SamajMandirJungpuraon12.08.94.Heprovedthedocumentsofmarriagei.e. applicationsubmittedbyhimatthetempleEx.PW1/A.Hestatedthataccused GeetaalsogaveconsenttomarryhimvideapplicationEx.PW1/B.Hefurther statedthatreceiptMarkBwasgivenbyAryaSamajMandirintokenofhaving received of Rs. 250/ from him and Geeta Ahuja for performance of their marriage.HealsodeposedthathesubmittedanaffidavitEx.PW1/CintheArya SamajMandirwhichbearshissignaturesatpointA,BandaffidavitofGeetawas Ex.PW1/DexecutedinhispresenceandgiveninAryaSamajMandir.Healso statedthatphotocopyoftheregistermaintainedbyAryaSamajMandirwasmark D, photographs of marriage were markC1 to C 7. He further stated that his marriagewasattendedbyhisfriendsPW11AmanAnandandPW12AnilWalia.
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page6/

HefurtherstatedthataftertheirmarriagehehadhiredaroominMDInternational InnNewDelhiandtheystayedthereovernight. 12. PW1furtherstatedthaton13.08.94herangupathishouseandtalkedto

hisauntMamiManoramaMalikwhoinformedhimthathisbrotherSanjay,his fatherRajpalDhall,bhabhiAnilDhall,MamajiDeepakMalikhadbeenarrested bypoliceofficialofPSKaviNagarGhaziabad.Onhearingthesamehecalleda taxiat6.30AMandhealongwithGeetareachedPSKaviNagaratabout8.00 PM.HefurtherstatedthatGeetainformedthepoliceofficialsthatshehadmarried him outofherownwillbutherfatherandpoliceofficialsdidnotlistentoher plea.Hefurtherdeposedthatatabout3.00PMthepoliceofficialarrestedhim,his father,hisbrotherSanjay,hisbhabhiAnuandhismamajiDeepakMalikinacase FIRno.408/94u/s363/366/376IPCandproducedthembeforetheMagistrateand theywereremandedtoJC.Hefurtherstatedthattheywerereleasedonbailon 19.09.94.Hefurthertestifiedthataftercomingoutofjailacomplaintwasmade by his father to SSP and District Magistrate about false case having been registeredagainstthembutnoactionwastakenontheircomplainthencethey movedtheHon'bleSupremecourtandinpursuanceoftheorderpassedbyHon'ble SupremecourtinvestigationhandedovertoCBI.HefurtherstatedthatGeeta Ahujafiledasuitfordeclarationoftheirmarriageasnullandvoidinthecourtat Delhi. 13. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedGeetahestatedthatonthe

nightof12.08.94hehadmadeentryintheregisterofMDInternationalInn,New Delhiregardingtheirstayinroomno.301ofthesaidInn.Hefurtherstatedthat entryintheregisterEx.PW1/DAwasinhishandwritingandbearshissignature. HefurtherstatedthathehadmentionedhisnameasRajinderKothariresidentof5, KhaitanHouseVilleyParley,WestBombaywhichwastheaddressofhisfriend.


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page7/

He further stated that he had given his name as Rajinder Kothari as he apprehendedarrest. 14. PW1furtherstatedthatheandGeetareachedPSKaviNagarGhaziabadin

themorningof13.08.94Geetaaskedthepolicepersonneltoreleasehimandhis familymembersandGeetaevenfoughtwithherfatherK.R.Ahujaregarding detention of his family member in PS and requested her father to get them released. He also stated that police official of PS Kavi Nagar obtained their signaturesonmanypapersbuthecouldnottellthenumberofpapersonwhichhis signatureswereobtained.HealsostatedthatrecoverymemoEx.PW1/DBbears hissignatureatpointA.Hefurtherdeposedthathedidnotrememberwhetherit wasblankorwrittenwhenhewasmadetosignit.Healsostatedthatitwassigned byhisfamilymembersaswellasGeeta. 15. PW 1 further testified that he did not get himselfmedically examined

neither his family members got themselves medically examined after being releasedfromjail.Hefurtherdeposedthatneitherhenorhisfamilymemberwere medically examined in jail and they had approached jail doctor for medical examinationbutheaskedforabribeofRs.300/formedicalexaminationofeach ofthem.Hefurtherstatedthathecouldnottellthenameofthedoctor.Healso statedthattheydidnotmakeanycomplaintofthedoctortothejailsuperintendent neithertoanyhigherauthorityaftertheirreleasefromjail. 16. PW1furtherstatedthatallofthemwereproducedbeforetheMagistrate

together.Thereafterhestatedthatallofthemwereoutsidethecourtandwerenot producedbeforetheMagistrate,thepolicepersonswentinsideandobtainedtheir judicialremand.Healsostatedthattheyhadengagedacounselonthedaywhen theywereproducedbeforetheMagistratebutthelawyerdidnotmeetthemand hisimpressionwasthatashemayhavebeeninfluencedbyK.R.Ahuja.Healso


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page8/

statedthathedidnotrememberthenameoftheadvocate. 17. ThecontentionofLd.CounselforaccusedSh.B.S.Sharmaisthatatthe

timeofsurrenderbyPW1AtulDhallatPSKaviNagarhehadnottoldthethen SO PS Kavi Nagar accused Satyapal Singh that he and Geeta had married. Howeverin his regard it ispertinent tomention thatPW 1 hadstated inhis examinationinchiefthatGeetahadtoldthepoliceofficialofPSKaviNagarthat shehadmarriedAtul of herownwill, histestimony in thisregardhad gone unchallenged.Itwasfurthercontendedonbehalfofaccusedpoliceofficialthat PW1admittedinhiscrossexaminationthatinhisstatementEx.PW1/D1was notmentionedthathetoldtheSOhismarriagewithGeeta.Itwascontendedby Ld.counselforaccusedSh.B.S.SharmathatPW1hadalsostatedinhiscross examinationthathedidnothavethemarriagecertificatewhenhesurrenderedin PSandinhisstatementEx.PW1/D1itwasnotmentionedthathetoldtheStation Officer that he had marriedGeeta as such when no certificate was shown to StationOfficerandAtuldidnotshowanyproofmarriagewithGeeta,thethenSO PSKaviNagarwasjustifiedintakingactionasperlawashewasdutyboundto investigatethecaseFIRno.408/94registeredonthecomplaintoffatherofGeeta regardingacognizableoffence. Itwassubmittedthatthecomplainantandhis family members had levelled false allegations against them merely to create defenceagainsttheirarrestandagainstthecriminalcaseregisteredagainstthem videcrimeno.408/94.Ld.Spl.PPCBISh.AnilTanwarcontendedthatnoarrest couldhavebeenmadebecauseitwaslawfultodosoandtheaccusedpolice official i.e. Station Officer and Circle Officer and other staff were bound to investigatetofindoutwhetherthecomplaintwasgenuineandbonafidebefore arrestingthecomplainantandhisfamilymembers. 18. It was also submitted on behalf of accused police officials that PW 1

SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page9/

further stated in hiscross examination thathecould not recollectwhether he mentionedinthewritpetitionEx.PW1/D2thattheirsignatureswereobtained onblankpapersbypoliceinPSbutaftergoingthroughthewritpetitionhestated thatitwasnotmentionedthereinthattheirsignatureswereobtainedonblank papers.HoweverthiscontentionofLd.counselforaccusedwaswithoutmeritsas itwasmentionedinthewritpetitionthattheywereframed.Itwasalsoarguedon behalfofaccusedpoliceofficialthatPW1alsoconfrontedwithhisstatementPW 1/D1whereinitwasnotrecordedthatPW1/DBwasaforgeddocumentneitherit wasmentionedinthewritpetitionthatpoliceobtainedtheirsignaturesofsome papers.HoweverinthisregarditwouldbepertinenttonotethatPW1hadstated inhiscrossexaminationthatpoliceofficialobtainedtheirsignaturesonsome papers andhesignedEx.PW1/DBwithoutknowingthecontentsofthesame. ThecopyofEx.PW1/DBwasobtainedbyhimafterbeingreleasedfromjail. 19. HoweverLd.Spl.PPCBIhadcontendedthatAtulDhallhadmentionedin

hisstatementEx.PW1/D1thatpoliceobtainedtheirsignaturesonsomepapers, hencetheversionofPW1thattheirsignatureswereobtainedonEx.PW1/DBdoes notsufferfromanyinfirmityandtheversionofPW1thatGeetahadtoldthe policeofficialthatshehadmarriedhimwentunchallenged. 20. ThecomplainantPW2RajPalstatedthathissonPW1Atulandaccused Geetawereresidinginfrontoftheirhouseattherelevanttime.Healsostatedthat heknewthefatheroftheaccusedGeeta,accusedKhemRajAhujasince1966and theirrelationswerecordial.Hefurtherstatedthatintheyear1994,accusedGita requestedhimtonegotiateforhermarriagewithhissonAtul,accordinglyhe disclosedtoaccusedKhemRajAhujatheintentionofhisdaughtertomarryAtul butaccusedMr.Ahujadidnotgiveanyreply.HealsostatedthataccusedGeeta waskeptunderthehousearrestbyherparents.
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page10/

21.

Hestatedthaton12/08/94,hehadgoneathisinlawshouseontheTehrvi

ofthemotherinlawwherehiswifetoldhimthatGitaandAtulhadgonetoDelhi togetmarried.HefurtherstatedthatbrotherinlawtoldhimtoinformMr.Ahuja aboutthesame,accordinglyhewenttothehouseofK.R.Ahujaandinformhim ofthesamewhere PeeussonofK.R.Ahuja,cameand toldhisfather,tocall KakaKohliafriendandbusinesspartnerofK.R.Ahujaandaskhimtobringthe policeasKakaKholiandMr.AhujaweregivinglacsofRupeestothepolice. KakaKohliandK.R.AhujabeingaliquorkingofGhaziabad.Hefurtherstated that Kaka Kohli arrived alongwith police official i.e. Station Officer Satyapal Singh,SatyavirSingh, SukhpalSinghandRajaVats(deceased),allofwhom werecorrectlyidentifiedbyPW2.AccusedSatyapalSinghcaughtholdhimand broughthimoutofthehouseofMr.Ahujaandslappedhim.Hefurtherstatedthat whenaccusedRajaVats(sincedeceased)wasgoingtohithimwithhisfistbut wasstoppedbyaccusedSatyapalSinghandaccusedSatyapalSinghalsoasked, Ct. SatyavirSingh and Sukhpal Singh not to hit him. He further stated that accusedSatyapalSinghescortedhimtotheroadoutofthehouseofK.R.Ahuja whenhewasbeingmanhandledinthehouseof .R.Ahuja. K 22. HefurtherstatedthatthereafterhewasbroughttoTisHazariCourt,Delhi

inaCaralongwithpoliceofficialsandPeussonofK.R.AhujawhereasKaka Kohli, Ahujacameinanothercar.Hefurtherdeposedthat Ct.SukhpalandCt. SatyavirSinghslappedhimonthewaytoDelhi.OnreachingTisHazariCourt, KakaKohli,KhemRajAhujaandRajaVats(deceased)checkedthecourtregister wheremarriageswereperformedbutthenamesofGeetaandAtulwerenotfound intheregister.Hefurtherstatedthathewasalsoaskedtoenquire aboutthe whereaboutsofGeetaandAtulfromhisrelativeontelephone.Accordingly,he calledhisrelativesontelephoneandaskedaboutwhereaboutsofGeetaandAtul
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page11/

buttheyhadnonews.TheythenreturnedtoGhaziabadandonthewaythey stopped at the house of some of his some relatives but even they had no informationofGeetaandAtul. 23. PW2furtherdeposedthatthereafterpoliceofficialstookhim,hisbrother

inlawDeepakandSanjayintocustodyandbrought themtoPSKaviNagar, Ghaziabadon12.08.94at3:30PM.Hefurtherstatedthaton12.08.94atabout 5.00PMAnilbroughtthemarriagecertificateofAtulandGitaandgavethesame tohisbrotherinlawAshokMalikatGhaziabad,thecertificatewasthensenttothe houseofaccusedK.R.Ahuja.Hestatedthattheywereagainbroughtbacktheir houseaspoliceofficialsexpectedhissonAtultocontacthisfamilybutnocallwas received.HefurtherstatedthatthereafterKakaKohliwenttothebedroomofhis daughterinlawAnnufollowedbyRajaVats(deceased),atthattimeAnnuwas feedingher childwhowasill,KakaKohliandRajaVatsthreatenedAnnuand askedhertogetup.SanjaypleadedwiththemtoleaveAnnuasherchildwasill buttheydidnotlisten.Thereafter,heAnnu,SanjayandDeepakwerebroughtto thePSKaviNagarandmadetositintheroomadjoiningtheroomofStation Officer.Hefurtherdeposedthatoneelectricmachinewaslyingonatableinthe roomandwiththesaidelectricmachineSIRanaSinghandSIH.K.Singhgave electricshocktoSanjaybymakinghimholdthewireasaresultofwhichSanjay startedshiveringashecouldnotholdthewire.HealsostatedthatSIH.K.Singh putthewiresintheearsoftheSanjayasaresultofwhichbloodstartedcoming outfromtheearsofSanjayandhefelldown.HefurtherstatedthatSIH.K.Singh alsomadeAnutouchtheelectricwirewhenAnuobjectedtotheelectricshocks giventoSanjayandsaidthattuzyadaboltihai.Anustartedcryingonbeing givenelectricshocks.HealsostatedthatSIH.K.Singhalsogaveelectricshockto DeepakwhileSIRanakeptrotatingtheelectricmachineduetowhichcurrentwas
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page12/

beingproducedandDeepakfelldownduetotheelectricshockgiventohim.He further stated that thereafter he was also asked to touch the wire but in the meantimeoneconstablecameandinformedthatCOhadcomereferringtoA.K. Singh.Hefurtherdeposedthathereceivedonlymildcurrent,thereafterSIH.K. SinghandSIRanaSinghleftthemachineandwentoutoftheroomwhereasthey weretakentotheroomofSOwhereKakaKohliandA.K.Singhwerepresent.He furtherstatedthatA.K.Singhinquiredfromthemaboutthewhereaboutsofthe gildandboy.ThereafterA.K.SinghgavebeatingstotheSanjayandDeepakwith thebaint(woodenstick).HefurtherstatedthatA.K.SinghtoldPW2thatgirland boyshouldreturnhomebymorningandleftwhileKakaKohliremainedinthe PS.HefurtherstatedthatKakaKohligavewoodensticktoaccusedCt.Satyavir Singhandaskedhimtobeathimand Ct.SatyavirSinghwhowassmellingof alcoholandhegavebeatingstohim.ThereafterSatyavirSinghwentoutofthe roomandCt.SukhpalSinghcameandgavebeatingstohimwiththewooden stick.AftersometimeSukhpalSinghandSatyavirSinghleftwithKakaKohli whileSheelaChaudharyremainedinthePSbesidesoneortwoconstablesand KakaKohliaskedSheelaChaudharytogivebeatingstothemonwhichSheela ChaudharygavebeatingstoAnu. 24. Hefurtherstatedthatinthemorningatabout7.30AMAtulandGeeta

reached the PS Kavi Nagar and K. R. Ahuja was telephonically informed whereuponhereachedthePSwithhisrelatives.K.R.Ahujaandhissistersasked GeetatoreturnhomebutGeetatoldthemsheandAtulDhalhadgotmarried however Ahuja's sisters forcibly took her out of the PS and slapped her and K.R.AhujaandhisrelativesleftthePS.Hefurtherstatedthatthereafteraccused K.RAhujacamebacktothePSatabout1.30atthattimeSatyapalSinghwas present K.R.Ahuja hadsome talks with Satyapal Singh, thereafter he, Sanjay,
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page13/

DeepakAnnuandAtulwereputinthelockupandweretheyweresenttojail.He alsostatedthaton20.08.94hewrotealettertotheDistrictMagistrateGhaziabad. 25. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedGeetaAhujahestatedthat

on13.08.94GeetaandAtulreachedPSKaviNagarbytaxiGeetaandGeetaasked thepoliceofficialinthePStoreleasethemandshefoughtwithherfatherandbua togetthemreleased. 26. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedSatyapalSingh,Sukhpal

Singh,Satyvir,PromilJ.MesihandDuijaYadavhestatedthatafterbeingreleased onbailhesentthecomplainttotheDistrictMagistrate,Ghaziabadbyordinary post.Hefurtherstatedthathekeptthecopyofthesame.Healsostatedthathe endorsedacopyofcomplainttotheSOKaviNagarandalsogaveacomplaintat PSKaviNagaragainstreceiptbuthehadnotgiventhereceiptofsametoCBI.He furtherstatedthatnoactionwastakenonthatcomplaint.Hefurtherstatedthathe didnotapproachtotheDistrictMagistratetoenquireabouttheactiontakenonthe complaintbutsentaremindertotheDistrictMagistrateandhehadfiledthecopy ofthereminderwiththewritpetition.Healsostatedthathehadnotfiledacopy ofcomplainantwiththewritpetitionasitwasstolen. 27. Hefurtherstatedthatheknewthenamesandranksofthepoliceofficial

butintthecomplainttotheDistrictMagistratehedidnotmentionthenameofthe policeofficialandinthesaidcomplaintalsodidnot mentionthenamesofthe policeofficialwhogavethebeatingsorelectricshocktotheminthePS. 28. HefurtherstatedwhenGeetaandAtulcametothePStheydidnothave

marriagecertificatesotherewasnoquestionofproducingthesamebeforethe SHOon13.08.94.NothingcouldbeelucidatedinthecrossexaminationofPW2 which would create doubt regarding complainant made to District Magistrate beingaforgeddocument.
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page14/

29.

He further stated that h is statement was recorded by Inspector P. K.

ChaudharyofCBIbuthecouldnotrememberwhetherhewasaskedtosignthe statement.HealsostatedthathehadnottoldtheIOthatheknewAhujasince 1966andthattheywereengagedinthesamebusiness,hedeniedthesuggestion thathedidnotstatesototheIOasitwasafalsestatement.Hefurtherstatedthat hehadnotmentionedinhisstatementtotheCBIthatwhenhecametothehis houseinApril1994hefoundGeetasittinginhishouseandGeetagavehimher JanmpatriaswellofAtulandrequestedhimtonegotiatehermarriagewithAtul withherparents.Hedeniedthathedeposedfalselyincourtaboutthesaidfacts andhedeniedthathedidnotstatethesamebeforeCBIasitwasfalse. 30. HefurtherstatedthathehadmentionedinhisstatementtoCBIthathis

wifetoldhimthatGeetaandAtulhadgonetoDelhitogetmarriedandhewas confrontedwithhisstatementEx.PW2/DBwhereinitwasnotsorecorded.He wasalsoconfrontedwiththestatementEx.PW2/DBwhereitwasnotrecorded thathisbrotherinlawaskedhimtoinformK.R.Ahuja.Healsotestifiedthathe informed the parents of Geeta that Atul and Geeta had gone to Delhi to get marriedandafterhearingthenewsPeusthesonofK.R.Ahuja,askedhisfatherto askKakaKohliwhowasabusinessparterofK.R.Ahujaandbothwereliquor kingsofGhaziabadtocallthepoliceasAhujawasgivinglacsofrupeestothe police.ThereafterKakaKohli,SOSatyapalSingh.Ct.SatyavirSingh,Sukhpal SinghandSIRajaVatsarrived.AccusedSatyapalSinghslappedhim.Hefurther statedthatonthewaytoDelhihewasslappedbySIRajaVats,Ct.SatyavirSingh andCt.SukhpalSingh.Hefurtherstatedthathedidnotrememberifhehadtold thepolicethatPiyushtoldhisfatherK.R.Ahujathatwhenwouldpolicebeofany helptothemasK.R.Ahujawasgivinglacsofrupeestopolice.Hewasconfronted withhisstatementEx.PW2/DBwhereinlacsofrupeeswasnotmentionedbutthe
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page15/

confrontationinmyviewisnotamaterialomissionasitwasmentionedinhis statementthataccusedK.R.Ahujausedtogivelotofmoneytothepolicemonthly. HealsostatedthathedidnotrememberwhetherhetoldCBIthatKakaKohliwas aliquorkingofGhaziabadandwassharingbusinesswithK.R.Ahuja.Hewas confronted with his statement Ex. PW2/DBwhereinitwasnotsorecorded,. Howeverthisisnotamaterialcontradictions. 31. PW2furtherstatedthatinhisstatementEx.PW2/DBithadnotbeen

stated that Satyapal Singh had slapped him. He denied that the made false statementonoathinthecourtthatSatyapalSinghslappedhimwhereasinfacthe hadnotslappedandthatiswhyitwasnotmentionedinhiscomplaintEx.PW 2/DA.HealsostatedthatcomplaintEx.PW2/DAwasinhishandwritingwhich wasreproducedbyCBIonthebacksideofFIR. Hefurtherstatedthathand writtencomplaintwasnotonjudicialfileanditwasinEnglish.Healsostatedin hiscomplaintEx.PW2/DAnamesofpoliceofficialhadnotbeenmentioned.He alsostatedthatinhiscomplainantEx.PW2/DAtoDistrictMagistratehehadnot statedthatpoliceofficialhadbeatenthemathishouse.ItwassubmittedbyLd. counselforaccusedSh.B.S.SharmathatPW2admittedthatnoneoftheaccused inthiscasehadgivenelectricshocktothem.HealsostatedthatSatyapalSingh escortedhimtillroadwhenhewasbeingmanhandledbyGeeta'sNana.Hewas confrontedwithhisstatementEx.PW2/DBwherethenamesofCt.Sukhbirand Sukhpalhadnotbeenmentionedbutitwasmentionedthat2constableshadbeaten himthereforethecontradictionarenotmaterial. 32. ItwasfurthersubmittedonbehalfoftheaccusedpoliceofficialthatPW2

statedthathehadnottoldCBIthaton12.08.94at5.00PMAnilhadbroughtthe marriagecertificateofAtulandGeetaandgaveittohisbrotherinlawAshok MailkwhosentittothehouseandK.R.Ahujacametohishouseandtoldhim


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page16/

that Maindekhtahoonsarehindustanmetujhekainbachatahai.PW2had statedthathecouldnotrememberwhetherhetoldthepolicethatKakaKohlicame tohishouseandenteredthebedroomofhisdaughterinlawAnuandRajaVats followedhimandatthattimeAnuwasfeedingherchildandRajaVatsandKaka Kohlithreatenedher,hissonSanjaypleadedwiththemnottoinsultAnuasher childwasill.ItwassubmittedthatPW2hadtakenthepleaofnotrecollectingas nothingofthissorthappened. 33. ItwasfurthersubmittedonbehalfofaccusedpoliceofficialsthatPW2had

admittedthatRanaandH.K.Singhhadnotbeenarrayedasaccusedandhecame toknowaboutitin1996.HefurtherstatedthathedidnotrememberifCBIhad investigatedtheallegationsmadeagainstSIRanaandH.K.Singhandhedidnot havegrievancesagainstRanaandH.K.Singh.Ld.Spl.PPhadsubmittedthatPW 2deniedthatentirecomplaintwasfalsethatiswhyhedidnotapproachhigher authoritytotakeactionagainstCBIfornotmakingRanaandH.K.Singhas accused.ItwasalsosubmittedonbehalfofallaccusedpoliceofficialsthatPW2 had stated that Sheela Chaudhary who was Sub Inspector had also not been arrayedasaccusedandhedidnottakeanyactionagainstCBIfornotmakinghera party.ItwasalsosubmittedonbehalfofaccusedpoliceofficialthatPW2hadtake thepleaofnotrememberingofcertainmaterialfactsasnosuchthinghappenedas allegedbyprosecution.. 34. ItwasalsoarguedonbehalfofaccusedpoliceofficialsthatPW2further

statedthatKakaKohliwasalsonotanaccusedinthiscaseandhehadnottaken anyactionagainstCBIfornotmakinghimasanaccused.Itwasalsoarguedbyall accusedpoliceofficialsthatPW2contradictedhisversionandstatedthathedid notrecollectifhetoldIOthatK.R.AhujacametoPSandhadatalkwithSatyapal Singhandthereafterhe,Sanjay,Deepak,AnnuandAtulwereputinthelockup.


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page17/

He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 2/DB wherein it was not so recordedanditwasamaterialcontradiction.Hefurtherstatedthathedidnot rememberwhetherFIRwasregisteredregardingthetheftofhiscomplaintdated 20.08.94 from his house. He also deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94apartfromKakaKohlitherewerenootherpublicpersoninthePS. Healsotestifiedthatwhentheywerereleasedfromjailtheirexternalinjurieson theirbodywerevisiblebuthedidnotvisitanydoctor.Hedeniedthatasthere werenoinjuryonhispersonthereforehedidnotgotothedoctor.Healsodenied thatnoinjurieswereinflictedonhimandhisfamilybyaccusedinthePS.He deniedthaton13.08.94he,hisfamilymembersandGeetawerearrestedbythe policefromRailwaystationGhaziabadinFIRno.408/94PSKaviNagarwhich isstillpendingbutstayedbyHon'bleSupremeCourt.Hedeniedthatoncomplaint dated20.08.94madetoDistrictMagistratewasfalseandmadeonlytobuildup defencetotheFIRNo.408/94atPSKaviNagar. Healsostatedthatpolice officialhadnothandcuffedthemwhentheyweretakentoPSKaviNagarat3.30 PMon12.08.94. 35. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedA.K.Singhhestatedthatat

12midnightoneconstablecameandinformedthatCOA.K.Singhhadcome.He furtherstatedthathecouldgivethenameanddescriptionofconstableashehad notseenhimandhehadonlyheardthevoiceofconstableashewasbeinggiven shockatthattime.HefurtherstatedthathecouldnotrecollectifhetoldtheCBI thatoneconstablehadcameandinformedthatCOSahabhadcamereferringtoA. K.Singh.HewasconfrontedwiththestatementEx.PW2/DBwherethesaidfact thatoneconstablecamewiththeinformationhasnotbeenmentioned.However thisisonlyaminorcontradictionsasPW2hadstatedinEx.PW2/DBregarding arrivalofA.K.SinghinPS.StatementEx.PW2/DBwasreadovertothewitness


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page18/

whereinithasnotbeenrecordedinhismannerandithasbeenrecordedthatSO hadcalledallthepersonstohisroom.Healsostatedthattheyremainedinthe roomforabouthalfanhour.HealsostatedthatbesidesthemA.K.Singh,Kaka Kohli,RajaVats,SukhpalandSukhbirwerepresentthere.Hefurtherstatedthat H.K.SinghandRanawerenotcalledtothatroom.Hefurtherstatedthathedid notrememberhetoldIOinhisstatementthatA.K.Singhtoldthemthathewasa strictofficerandhetoldthemtoensurethatgirlandboyreturnedtotheirhomes. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 2/DB wherein it was not so recorded.HealsostatedthatA.K.SinghwasstandingwithKakaKohli. He furtherstatedthatDeepakandSanjayhadsustainedinjuriesontheirfeetwhich werevisible.HefurtherstatedthattheywerenotproducedbeforetheMagistrate. HealsostatedthatneitherhewasproducedbeforetheMagistratenorhewassent formedicalexaminationbeforebeingsenttoJail.HealsostatedthatA.K.Singh leftthePSbefore1.00AMandA.K.SinghwassubstitutingfortheCOofPS KaviNagaronthatday.Hefurtherstatedthathecouldnotrecollectwhenhecame toknowthatA.K.SinghwassubstitutingforCOofPSKaviNagar. 36. HefurtherstatedthathehadgonewithhissonAtulwhenwritpetitionwas

filedandhenarratedallthefactsaboutA.K.Singhtothelawyerwhoprepared thewritpetition. Hefurtherstatedthathedidnotknowwhetherlawyerhad impleadedA.K.Singhasapartyornot.Healsostatedthathedidnotrecollectif their lawyer had mentioned in writ petition about the beating to Sanjay and DeepakbyA.K.Singh.HealsostatedthathedidnotknowA.K.Singh.PW2was furthercrossexaminedinpursuanceoftheapplicationofaccusedA.K.Singh beingallowedu/s311Cr.P.C.,hestatedinhiscrossexaminationthathehadfiled anaffidavitinacasefiledbyAtulagainstGeetaforrestitutionofconjugalrights theaffidavitwasEx.PW2/DX.HefurtherstatedthattheaffidavitEx.PW1/DX
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page19/

inthesaidpetitionwasfiledthroughalawyerandpertainedtothefactsofthesaid case,itdidnotcontaindetailedfacts.ThecontentionofLd.counselforaccusedA. K.SinghisthatintheaffidavitEx.PW2/DXtherewerenoallegationsofbeatings giventocomplainantandhisfamilyatPSKaviNagaron12/13.08.94.Therewere onlyallegationsregardingelectricshockshavingbeengiventocomplainantand hisfamily. Itisstatedthatinviewofthesaidomissionitwasnotprovedby prosecutionthataccusedpoliceofficialhadbeatenandbadlytorturedcomplainant andhisfamilyinPSKaviNagarontheinterveningnightof12/13.08.94. 37. and6. 38. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedGeetahestatedthatGeeta PW3SanjayDhallcorroboratedtheversionofthecomplainantPW2,5

andAtulcametothePSKaviNagarinthemorningof13.08.94 andfatherof GeetawasalsopresentatthePSatthattimeandGeetaaskedthepoliceofficialto releasethemandGeetaalsofoughtwithherfatherforgettingthemreleased.He furtherstatedthatatabout10.00AMAhujaandKohlihadleftthePSaftertelling thepolicenottoleavethemtilltheycamebackagainandtheyreturnedtoPSat about1.00PM.HefurtherstatedthatpoliceofficialofPSKaviNagarobtained theirsignatureonsomepapersbuthecouldnotsaywhethertheywereblankor written.Inhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedpoliceofficialhestatedthat electricshockweregivenforabout15minutes.HefurtherstatedthatA.K.Singh cametoPSat12midnightbutdidnotcometotheroomwhereelectricshocks beinggiven.HefurtherstatedthathecouldnotgivetheidentificationofA.K. Singhashedidnotknowhimpriortotheincidentandhehadseenhimforthe firsttimeinthecourtaftertheincident.Hefurtherstatedthathedidnotknowif COofPSKaviNagarwassomeAwdeshKumarSinghandnotA.K.Singh.He alsostatedthatA.K.SinghleftthePSatabout12.30AM.Hewasconfrontedwith
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page20/

hisstatementEx.PW3/Awherethenamesoffactoryworkerswhowerepresent intheirhousewhenpolicecamewerenotmentioned.Itiscontendedonbehalf Ld.Counselforaccusedpoliceofficialsthattheyhadnotbeatencomplainantand hisfamilyandincasetheyhadtheCBIoughttohaveexaminedtheindependent witnessesi.e.factoryworkersofcomplainantwhichwasnotdone. Hefurther confrontedwithhisstatementEx.PW3/DAwhereinitwasnotmentionedthat policeofficialabusedthemattheirhousewhileinterrogatingthemaboutAtuland Geetaandalsoregardingthefactthatpoliceofficialswantedtotakehisbhabhi Anulandhetoldthemshehadasmallchildwhichwasalsonotsorecorded.It was argued by Ld. counsel for accused that PW 3 took the plea of not rememberinghavingtoldCBIthathisbhabhiwasfeedingthechildatthattimeas nothingofthatsorthappened.Healsostatedthatnocomplaintwasmadetohigher authoritiesfornotimpleadingSIH.K.Singh,SIRanaandKakaKholiasaccused. HewasfurtherconfrontedwithhisstatementEx.PW3/DAwhereinitwasno recordedthatAhujaandKakaKohlitoldthepolicenottoreleasethemandcame backtoPSandhadatalkwithSOwhichwasalsonotmentioned.Hedeniedthat theywereproducedbeforetheMagistrateandtheirbailapplicationwasrejected. HewasconfrontedwithhisstatementEx.PW3/DAwhereitwassomentioned. 39. PW4G.PatnayakSecretaryHome,statedthathewaspostedasSecretary

HomeGovt.ofUPandpostedatLucknow.Hefurtherstatedthatduring199596 hediscussedthepresentcasewithIOandperusedtherecord,casediaryandhad approvedthesanctiontoprosecutetheaccusednamelySatyapalSingh,RajaVats, AjayKumarSingh,SukhpalSingh,SatyavirSingh,Smt.DuejaYadavandPrmila J Massy. He further stated that he was competent to issue the sanction for prosecutionu/s197Cr.P.C.onbehalfofthegovernment.Heprovedthesanction orderEx.PW4/A.
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page21/

40.

InhiscrossexaminationhestatedthatapplicationwasmovedbyCBIfor

grantofsanction.HealsostatedthattherewereordersofHon'bleSupremeCourt inthismatterandalsostatedthatthevideordersoftheHon'bleSupremeCourt weretotheeffectthatCBIwasdirectedtoinvestigatetheallegationsoftorture andillegalconfinement.Hedeniedthatheaccordedthesanctiontoprosecute againsttheordersofHon'bleSupremeCourt. 41. HealsostatedthatGovernorwastheappointingauthorityofthecircle

officer,A.K.Singhagainstwhomhehadgrantedsanction.Hefurtherstatedthat hehadsentthefiletoGovernor,UPforapprovalandafterapprovalhegranted sanctionagainstA.K.Singh.Healsostatedthathecouldnotrememberwhenthe Governorgavetheapproval. HedeniedthathegrantedsanctionagainstA.K. SinghwithoutanypowerandmechanicallyatthebehestofCBI. 42. PW5ManojDhalcorroboratedtheversionofthecomplainantPW2and

PW3regardingmarriageofPW1AtulwithGeetaandthebeatings,manhandling ofhisfather,brotherSanjay,mamaDeepalMalikbypolieofficialandthepolice officialstakingawayhisfather,brotherSanjay,MamaDeepak.Hestatedthathe hadseentheabovefromtheroofofadjoiningtheirhouse.Healsostatedthatwhe hemadeaphonecalltohishouseRajaVatsattendedthesameandaskedhimto return home. He corroborated the version of PW 2, 3, 6 and 7 regarding manhandlingandbeatingsgiventotheminPS. 43. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedA.K.Singhhestatedthathis

statementwasrecordedbyCBIwhereinhehadnotstatedthathisfatherwastaken tothePSon12.8.94.Healsostatedthathecouldnotrecollectifhegavethename ofRajaVats,SukhbirandSukhpalinhisstatementtotheCBI.Hefurtherstated thatimmediatelyafterDeepak,Sanjayandhisfatherweretakenbythepolicehe had got downformterraceandran away and went to thehouse of one Anil
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page22/

Chaudhary how livedbehindtheir houseand thereaftertothehouse of Sunil SabbarwalfromwherehelearntthathiswifewasalsotakentothePS. 44. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedSukhbir,Sukhpal,Satbirand

DurejaandPromilahestatedthattherewasnoothercriminalcasependingagainst himexceptcaseFIRno.408/94.HealsostatedthatapartfromRajaVatshedid notknowthenameofotherpoliceofficialsbuthereadtheirnamesontheirname plates.HedeniedthathehadnotgiventhenameofSatbirandSukhpalinis statementtotheCBIasnosuchincidenttookplace. 45. PW6AnuDhallcorroboratedtheversionofthecomplainantPW2,PW3,

andPW5regardingmarriageofPW1withGeetaandtheillegalconfinement, beatingsandelectricshocksgiventoherandherfamilymembersatPSKavi NagarandtheversionofPW1regardinghisarrivalwithGeetaatPSKaviNagar on13.08.94ataround8.00AMinataxitogetthemreleased.Shealsostatedthat on12.08.94shewasattheresidenceofAshokmamaontheaccountoftehrvi whenataround9.30AMshelearntthatAtulandGeetagonetoDelhitoget married.Shefurtherstatedthatatabout2.30shealongwithherhusbandSanjay, ManojandDeepakmamiManoramaMalikreachedhomeandataround3.00PM police official came there with her father in law and inquired about the whereaboutsofGeetaandAtulandpoliceofficialRajaVats,SukhbirandSatyapal tookawaySanjayDeepakandRajpalDhaltothePS.Thereafteratarount7.00PM policeofficialcametotheirhousealongwithSanjay,DeepakandRajPalDhall andinquiredaboutGeetaandAtulandtheykeptwaitingforphonecalls. 46. Shefurtherstatedthatatabout10.00PMwhenshewasfeedingherchild

onherbedroomKakaKohliaccusedSatyavirSinghandSukhpalSinghcame insideandtoldhertoaccompanythemtoPS.Shecorrectlyidentifiedaccused SatyavirSingh,SukhpalSinghandstatedthattheyabusedherandforciblytook


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page23/

hertothePS.ShealsostatedthatSanjayDeepakandherfatherinlawRajPal Dhal were also taken to the PS. She further stated that police official kept inquiringaboutGeetaandAtul.Shealsostatedthatpoliceofficialgavebeatingsto Sanjay,DeepakandRajpalDhalwithdandaandalsogiveelectricshockstothem bymakingthemholdlivewire.Shealsodeposedthattheyalsogaveelectric shocksintheearofSanjaywhereuponbloodstartedcomingout.Shealsotestified thatat12midnightonepoliceofficialwhowastheCO namelyA.K.Singh whomshecorrectlyidentified,tookDeepakSanjayandherfatherinlawtoaroom andgavebeatingstoSanjay,Deepakwithadanda.Shealsostatedthatshepleaded withthemtolethergoasherchildwasnotwellbuttheydidnotpayanyheedto therequestmadebyher.ShefurtherstatedthatatthattimeKakaKohliwasalso sittingandlaterinthenightoneladyInspectorSheelaChaudharywhowasnot postedinthePSKaviNagarwascalledandaskedtositwithher.Shealsotestified that Sheela Chaudhary had beaten her with danda and asked about the whereaboutsofGeetaandAtul.Shealsostatedthatshewasalsoaskedherto makephonecalltoherrelativesandenquireaboutthewhereaboutsofGeetaand Atul.Shefurtherdeposedthatinthemorningatabout77.30AMAulandGeeta camethreeinataxiandatthattimerelativesofGeetawerealsopresentinthePS andGeetatoldtoeveryonethatshehadmarriedAtuloutofherfreewill.The relativesofGeetahowevertookhertooneside.Thereaftershe,Sanjay,Deepak andherfatherinlawweresenttoMeerutJailincaseFIRno.408/94andthey werereleasedonbailon19.08.94.SheprovedthedateofbirthofherchidEx.PW 6/Aandstatedthatherchildwas2yearsoldatthattime. 47. Shefurtherstatedthatwhenpoliceofficialcametotheirhousetherewere

somerelativespresentbesidestheirmaidaswellassomefactoryworkerswhose nameshealsocouldnotremember.Shedeniedthatshedidnotgivethenamesof
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page24/

theworkersandmaidinherstatementtotheCBIassuchnosuchpersonswere presentatthetimewhenpoliceofficialcameandnosuchincidenttookplace.She furtherstatedthatshedidnotknowKakaKholipriortotheincident. 48. PW6alsostatedthatafterbeingreleasedfromjailherfatherinlawlodged

acomplaint.ShealsostatedthatshehadgrievanceagainstKakaKohliasshehad plededbeforehimbutshecouldnotstatewhetherthenameofKakaKohliwas mentionedinthecomplaintEx.PW2/DA,shedeniedthatnocomplaintwasmade againstKakaKohliastheyhadnogrievanceagainsthim.Shealsostatedthatshe couldnotrecollectifshehadstatedbeforeCBIthatshewasfeedingherchildin herbedroomwhenKakaKohli,SatyavirSingh,SukhpalSinghcameandforcibly tookhertothePSinspiteofherpleas.Shedeniedthataidfactswereisnot mentionedinherstatementasnothingofthissorthappened. 49. ShealsostatedthatInspectorH.K.SinghandSIRanawerepresentinthe

room when electric shocks were given. She also stated that she could not rememberastohadactuallyadministeredtheelectricshocks.Shealsostatedthat shecouldnotrememberifshestatedbeforeCBIthatInspectorH.K.SinghandSI Ranagaveelectricshock toDeepakandSanjaywithsmallmachine.Shewas confrontedwithherstatementEx.PW6/DAwhereinitwasnotsorecorded.This confrontation was not a material omission as witness stated she could not rememberaboutthesame.Shealsostatedthatshedidnotknowifherfatherin lawhadlodgedanycomplaintwithanyhigherauthorityfornotimpleadingSIH. K.SinghandSIRanaasaccusedbutshehadnotlodgedanycomplaint.She deniedthatnosuchcomplaintwaslodgedwithanhigherauthorityastheyhadno grievanceagainstthem.Shealsostatedthatshecouldnotrecollectifshestatedto CBIthatInspector SheelaChaudhary gavebeatingsto her witha danda. She deniedthatshewasdeliberatelystatingthatshecouldnotrememberthesaidfact
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page25/

asnothingofthissorthappened.ShewasconfrontedwithherstatementEx.PW 6/DAportionBtoBwhereonlyslapshavebeenmentionedandnodadahasbeen mentioned.Inmyviewthe confrontationwasnotregardingmaterialomission. Shealsostatedthatherfamilymemberswerebeateninherpresence.Shedenied thatSatyavirSinghandSukhpaldidnotbeatSanjayDeepakandherfatherinlaw inherpresencewithdandaneithertheygaveanyelectricshockstothem. 50. ShefurtherstatedthatshehadtoldCBIthatAtulandGeetahadcomein

thetaxi.ShewasconfrontedwithherstatementEx.PW6/DAwhereinitwasnot sorecorded.Howeveritthisregarditisrelevanttoementionthatthedepositionof PW1andPW2thatGeetaandAtulcameon13.08.94andGeetatoldpolice officerthatshehadmarriedAtulhadgoneunchallenged. Shestatedthatthey werenotproducedbeforetheMagistrate.Shedeniedthattheywerearrestedfrom RailwayStationon13.08.94. 51. InhercrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedA.K.Singhhestatedthathe

didnotknowA.K.Singhpriortotheincident.Shealsostatedthatshecameto knowthenameofA.K.SinghonthesamedayashewasbeingreferredtoasCO bythestaff,andaftertheincident,sawhimincourt.Ld.counselforaccusedA. K.SinghstatedthatintheabsenceofhisTIPhisidentitywasnotestablishedbutI amoftheviewthatnonholdofidentificationparadeofaccusedA.K.Singhisnot fatalashehadinhisstatementu/s164Cr.P.C.statedthatthewenttoPSKavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94. She also stated that Deepak, SanjaywerebeatenbyA.K.Singhfor10minutesinherpresence.Shefurther statedthatsheandherfatherinlawwerepresentintheroomwhenDeepakand Sanjaywerebeaten.ShefurtherstatedthatshetoldCBIinherstatementthatshe hadrequestedA.K.Singhtolethergohomeasherchildwasnotwellbuthedid notlethergo.ShewasconfrontedwiththestatementEx.PW6/DAwhereinitwas
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page26/

notsorecorded.Theconfrontationinthisregarddoesnotdiscreditherversionas sheprovedthebirthcertificateofherchildEx.PW6/AandaccusedA.K.Sinjgh's presenceinPSisprovedbyhisstatementu/s164Cr.P.C. 52. PW7DeepakMalikcorroboratedtheversionsofPW2,3,6andcorrectly

identified accused Satyavir Singh, Sukhpal Singh and also corroborated the versionoftheabovewitnessesregardingbeatingsgivenbyA.K.SinghinPSKavi NagarandenquirymadebyhimaboutGeetaandAtul. 53. Hefurtherstatedthaton13.08.94AtulandGeetareachedthePSand

GeetatoldthepoliceofficialsthatshemarriedAtuloutofherfreewillbutthe familymembersofGeetadidnotlistenandtookhertohome.Hefurtherstated thaton13.08.94atabout1.30PMK.R.AhujareachedthePS,thereafterthe policeofficialobtainedhissignaturesandsignaturesoffamilymembersofAtul onsomepapers.HeidentifiedhissignatureonEx.PW1/DB.Hefurtherstated thatthereaftertheyweresenttoMeerutjailincaseFIRno.408/94. 54. InhiscrossexaminationPW7statedthathecouldnotrecollectifany

neighbourswerecomingandgoingatthetimewhenpolicecametothehouseof PW2andhedidnotknowifanyworkeroffactoryofPW2waspresentatthe houseofPW2whenpolicecame.Healsostatedthatafterbeingreleasedfrom MeerutjailhisbrotherinlawPW2movedHon'bleSupremecourt.Healsostated thathehadseenaccusedA.K.SinghonceinthePSandthereafterincourt.He furtherstatedthathehadtoldCBIinhisstatementthatA.K.Singhslappedhim. HewasconfrontedwithhisstatementExPW7/DAwhereslapshadnotbeen mentionedbutbeatingswithdandahasbeenmentioned.Inviewthereofinmy opiniontheomissiondoesnotdiscredithisversion.Healsostatedthatnoneofthe accusedpoliceofficialofthiscasegaveelectricshockstothem.Hedeniedthathis signatureonEx.PW1/DBwerenottakenatRailwayStation.Healsostatedthat
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page27/

theywerenottakeninsidecourtroom.Healsostatedthattheyhadnotengaged anylawyer.Hewasalsoconfrontedwithhispreviousstatementregardingsome omissionswhichwerenotmaterial. 55. PW8SatyaPrakashShastriwasapriestofAryaSamajMandirBhogal

JungpuraDelhi.HeprovedthedocumentsofmarriageofAtulDhalandGeeta.He furtherdeposedthatthemarriageofAtulDhalandGeetawasperformedoutof freewilloftheparties.Heprovedtheapplicationofmarriagegiveninthetemple bybrideandgroomon12.08.94Ex.PW1/AandPW1/B.Hefurtherstatedthat theaffidavitweregivenbypartiesi.e.AtulDhalandGeetawhichareEx.PW1/C andPW1/DandreceiptofRs.250/wasEx.PW8/Aandbearshissignature.The highschoolcertificateofGeetaregardingproofofheragewassubmittedwhich wasmarkXandthephotostatewasacceptedbythetemple.Hefurtherstatedthat hesolemnizedtheirmarriagethereafterentriesweremadeinthemarriageregister whichisEx.PW8/BandbearsthesignaturesofAtulandGeeta.Healsoproved themarriagecertificateEx.PW8/Dissuedbyhim. Hefurtherstatedthatthe abovedocumentswerehandedovertoCBIon29.01.95andwereseizedvide seizurememoEx.PW8/E. 56. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofGeetahestatedthatmarriagewere

performedinthetemplebetween1111.30AMto66.30PM.Healsostatedthat AtulandGeetacametothetempleformarriageatabout1112Noonalongwith5 6personsandtheyhadbroughtthenecessarydocumentsfortheperformanceof themarriage.Hefurtherstatedthattheydidnotaskthebrideandgroomtocall theirparents.HealsodeposedthatthecontentsoftheapplicationsEx.PW1/A and PW1/B were not filled in his presence. He also stated that he himself performedthemarriageofGeetaandAtul.Healsostatedthathedidnotknow whoperformedthekanyadanceremonyhefurtherstatedthatfriendofbrideand
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page28/

groomgaveRs.250.HefurtherstatedthathecouldnotreadthecontentsofEx. PW1/CandPW1/Dwhichweretheaffidavitsbroughtbythepartiesandwerenot preparedinthetemple.Hefurtherstatedthat affidavitsbearthesignatureand stampofSh.K.S.MeenaExecutiveMagistrateTisHazaricourtDelhibutdate wasnotmentionedunderthesignatureofExecutiveMagistrateandtheaffidavits were dated 4.08.94. The contention of Ld,. Counsel for accused Geeta that affidavitsweredated4.08.94andGeetaandAtulhadgotmarriedon4.08.94as pertheaffidavitsiswithoutmeritsinviewofthetestimonyofPW8,PW11and PW12.Hedeniedthattherewerenophotographontheaffidavitwhenthesame weresubmittedtothem.Hestatedthatmarriagecertificatedoesnotbeartheseal oftempleortemplemanagement.Hefurtherstatedthattwocopiesofmarriage certificateweregotpreparedandEx.PW8/Dwasthephotocopyofthemarriage certificate.TheoriginalofthesamewasgiventoAtulandnocopywasgivento Geetaandcertificatewasgivenonthedateofmarriageatabout3.004.00PM, howeverinregisterEx.PW8/C,entryno.at1022itwasnotmentionedthatthe copyofmarriagecertificatewasgiventoanyone. Hedeniedthatheissuedthe certificateunderthepressureofpartiesofAtulandCBI.Healsodeniedthathe hadnotperformedthemarriageandthemarriagerecordshavebeenmanipulateda theinstanceofparentsofAtulandCBI. 57. PW9Dr.UshaJaindeposedthaton13.08.94shehadexaminedaccused

GeetaandpreparedthereportwhichisEx.PW9/A..Shealsostatedthattwo slidesofvaginalsmearweresentthroughforwardingletterEx.PW9/Bwhich bears her signature at point A and RTI of Geeta. She also stated that the supplementaryreportpreparedbyheronpathologicalreportandXrayreportwas Ex.PW9/CwhichbearshersignatureatpointA.Inhercrossexaminationon behalfofaccusedGeetashestatedthatGeetawasinthecustodyofpolicewhen
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page29/

shecametoherformedicalexamination. 58. PW10Smt.Shaifalididnotsupportthecaseoftheprosecution. She

statedthatshedidnotknowwhetherherstatementwasrecordedornotbyCBI. ShestatedthatshehadnotmadestatementMarkPW10/AtoCBI. 59. PW11AmanAnandwasafriendofPW1Atulandcorroboratedthe

testimonyofPW1insofarasPW1statedthatheandGeetawerehischildhood friendandtheyhadaloveaffairandtheygotmarriedinAugust1994.Hefurther stated that he attended their marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir Delhi and took photographs.HealsostatedthatheandhisanotherfriendAnilWaliaaccompanied AtulandGeetatoDelhiinaMaruticarTaxi.HefurtherstatedthatGeetawas wearing college uniform at that time. He further stated that marriage was performed at the Arya Samaj Mandir between Ashram and Nijamuddin New Delhi.HefurtherstatedthatGeetaandAtulwerehappyaftermarriageandheand AnilWaliareturnedtoGhaziabadwhereasGeetaandAtulstayedatDelhi.He furtherstatedthathegotthethephotographsdevelopedfromSuryaColourLabat Ghaziabad.Hefurtherstatedthathehadtakenthephotographsinhiscameraand therollwaswithhim,thenegativesandphotographswerehandedoverbyhimto somerelativeofAtul.HefurtherstatedthathehadsignedasawitnessonEx.PW 1/A.Healsostatedthatphotographsonrecordweretakenbyhim.Photographs were provedas PW 11/1 to 8 and negatives of the same were Ex. PW 11/9 Collectively. 60. InhiscrossexaminationhedeniedthatphotographsEx.PW11/7and11/8

werenottakenatthetemple.Healsostatedthatsomephotographsweretaken beforethemarriageandsomeduringmarriage ceremony.Hefurtherstatedthathe hadnotsignedanyotherdocumentapartfromEx.PW1/A.Healsostatedthathe didnotrememberthenameoftherelativeofAtultowhomhehandedoverthe


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page30/

photographs.HefurtherstatedthathecouldnottellifGeeta'sfatherwasaware aboutherwhereaboutsonthedateofmarriageandhehadnotenquirefromGeeta andAtulabouttheirparentsconsenttotheirmarriage.Hedeniedthathewasnota witnesstothemarriageneitherhesignedtheEx.PW1/A.Hedeniedthathehad nottakenphotographathespot. 61. PW12AnilWaliaalsocorroboratedtheversionofPW11andstatedthat

hehadsignedthetheEx.PW1/AandEx.PW1/B.HealsostatedthatEx.PW1/A andPW1/Bwerewritteninhispresence.Ex.PW1/AwaswrittenbyAtulandPW 1/BwaswrittenbyGeetaandhissignatureappearsonEx.PW1/BatpointC. 62. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedGeeta,hestatedthatAtul

toldhimabouthisloveaffairwithGeeta.Hefurtherstatedthatontheintervening nightof11/12.08.94Atulhadstayedathishouseandtheyhadreachedthecollege ofGeetaat7.00AMon12.08.94.HealsostatedthatTaxiwascalledathishouse byhim. 63. PW13ManoramaMalikmami(aunt)ofPW1Atulstatedthaton12.08.94 shehadgonetoLohiyaNagartoattendthetehriofhermotherinlaw.Shealso statedthatAtulhadnotgonetoattendtehrviceremonyofhisNaniMaternalgrand mother.Shefurtherstatedthatatabout910.00AMon12.08.94AMshecameto knowthatAtulandGeetahadlefttogetmarriedandsheknewthattheyhadlove affair.ThereafterRajpalDhallwenttothehouseofGeetatoinformfatherof Geeta.HoweveraftersometimefatherofGeetacamealongwithpoliceofficial InspectorRajaVats(deceased),SatyavirandSukhpalinsearchofGeeta.She correctly identified accused Satyavir and Sukhpal. She also stated that PW 2 RajpalDhallalsojoinedthepolicetosearchforGeetaandAtul.Shefurtherstated thatat2.30PMpoliceofficialSatbir,SukhpalandRajaVatsreachedthehouseof Rajpal Dhal and made enquries about the whereabout of Geeta and Atul and
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page31/

harassedthemandoneofthepoliceofficialhadslappedSanjayDhall. 64. Shefurtherstatedthatatabout3.00PMtheabovesaidpoliceofficaltook

awayherhusbandDeepak,RajpalDhallandhissonSanjayDhalltoPS.Shealso statedthatManojDhallbeingafraidofpoliceofficialranaway.Shealsostated thatthefamilyofGeetaincludingherparentswerestandingoutsidethehouseof RajpalDhall.Shefurthertestifiedthatatabout7.00PMpoliceofficialbrought backRajpalDhall,SanjayandDeepakMailktothehouseastheythoughtthey Atul may contacted his parents. She further stated that she requested police officialtoleaveherhusbandashewasmerelyaguestandhadcametoattendthe tehrviofhismotherbutpoliceofficialdidnotlistenher.Shefurtherstatedthattill 11.00PMpoliceofficialstayedinthehousetoseeifAtulcontactedhisparents butAtuldidnotcontacthisparents.ThereafterpoliceofficialtookawayRajPal Dhall,DeepakMalik,SanjayDhallandAnuDhalldespitetheirrequestnottotake AnuDhallasshehadasmallchildof2yearsandtherewasnoonetolookafter thechild.Shefurtherstatedthatduringwholenightshereceivedphonecallsfrom Annu Dhal informing her that police official were torturing them and giving electricshock. 65. Shefurtherstatedthat atabout6.00amshereceivedaphonecallfrom

Atulandsheapprisedhimoftheentireincidentandrequestedhimtocontacthis motheratLohiaNagar,heaccordinglycontactedhismotherandAulandGeeta returnedtoGhaziabad. 66. Inhercrossexaminationshestatedthatherhusbandwasarrestedinthe

saidcaseandwaskeptintheMeerutjailfor4days. Shealsostatedthat her husband had not complained about the torture and wrongful confinement by police.ShealsostatedthatshewenttomeetherhusbandatMeerutJailshefainted onseeinghisconditionashewasbadlybeatenup. Shefurtherstatedthather
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page32/

husbandhadtakenthetreatmentfromadoctorbutshedidnotrememberthename ofthedoctor.ShefurtherstatedthatshehadnottoldCBIthatshehadfaintedon seeingtheconditionofherhusbandatjailorthathehadtakenthetreatmentfrom thedoctor.Shedeniedthatnothingofthissorthappenedthatiswhyshehadnot statedthesaidfacttoCBI.Shefurtherstatedthatshedidnotrememberwhether shetoldCBIthatsherequestedpoliceofficialnottotakeawayherhusbandashe wasaguest.ShewasconfrontedwiththestatementEx.PW13/DAwhereinitwas notsorecorded.ShealsostatedthatshedidnotknowfromwhichphoneAnu DhallcalledherandwhetherthecallwasmadefromPSoroutsidethePS.She furtherstatedthatshetoldCBIthatAnuDhalltoldherthatpoliceofficialwere torturing them and were giving electric shocks. She was confronted with her statementEx.PW13/DAwhereinitwasnotsorecordedbutitwasrecordedthat policepareshankarrahihai.ThereforethecontentionofLd.Counselforaccused that there were no averments regarding harassment cannot be accepted and confrontationwasnotverymaterial.Shefurtherstatedthatthedistancebetween LohiaNagarandRajNagarwasabout15minutesbycar.Shealsostatedthat GeetaDhallwifeofRajPalDhallalsoknewtheentireepisode.Shedeniedthatno suchincidentoccurredandhaditoccurredGeetaDhallwouldhavereachedher houseimmediately. 67. PW 14 Sh. Vinod Kumar is the owner of photo studio where the

photographsweredeveloped.HestatedthatEx.PW11/9weredevelopedinhis lab.HeidentifiedthephotographsbythestickerofSuryacolourLabbearingno. 1784.Inhiscrossexaminationhestatedthatheusedtopurchasethestickerwhich startedfromserialno.1to5000.Healsostatedthatstickersweretakenoutfrom therollaspertheserialnumberandaffixedonthenegativeswhichcamefor developing. He further stated that he did not remember if CBI recorded his
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page33/

statement.HefurtherdeniedthathehadhandedoverthenegativesEx.PW11/9to CBI. 68. PW15SukhbirSinghwasateavendorofGhaziabadRailwaystation.He

did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. The contentionofLd.Spl.PPforCBIisthatPW15haddeposedunderthepressureof localpolice.InhiscrossexaminationbyLd.Spl.PPforCBIhestatedthathedid nothaveanylicencetorunateashop.Hedeniedthathewasrunningateashop withoutlicenceundertheprotectionofpolice. 69. PW16NavinKumarbookingclerkpostedatNewGhaziabadRailway

Stationstatedthaton13.08.94hewasondutyatthebookingofficefrom6.00am to2.00PMatNewGhaziabdRailwayStation. Hefurtherstatedthatasperhis knowledge no arrest was made by the local police on 13.08.94 from New GhaziabadRailwayStationnorsuchincidentcametohisknowledge.Inhiscross examinationonbehalfofaccusedhestatedthatthreewere2bookingclerkatNew GhazibadRailwaystationintheyear1994andtheyusedtositintwoshifts.He alsostatedthattherewasnowrittenorderastowhowouldworkinthefirstshirt andwhowouldperformdutyinthesecondshiftanditwasdecidedamongthe officialsthemselves. 70. PW17ChhoteyLalVermadeposedthathewaspostedasstationincharge

atNewGhaziabdRailwayStationon13.08.94andhisdutyhourswerefrom9.00 AMto5.00PM.HefurtherstatedthattohisknowledgeGhaziabadpolicehadnot arrestedanypersonfromNewGhaziabdRailwayStationandhadsuchincident occurreditwouldcometohisknowledgeasduring1994NewGhaziabdRailway Stationwassmallhaving2platformsi.e.platformno.1and2.Hefurtherstated thatonplatformno.1thetrainscomingfromDelhitoMeerutandfromplatform no.2trainscomingfromMeeruttoDelhi.


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page34/

71.

PW 18 Vijay Sherwat stated that PW 1 Atul Dhall was know to him

throughcommonfriendVirenderRana. Hefurtherstatedthaton11.08.94he cametoknowfromVirenderRanathatAtulandGeetawantedtogetmarriedon 12.08.94afterrunningaway. HefurtherstatedthatattherequestofAtuland GeetahearrangedtheaccommodationatMDInternationalHauzKhas.Healso statedthatinhispresencePW1AtultooktheroomforhimselfandGeetaand filleduptheregisterinthenameofMr.andMrs.Kothariasbothofthemwere afraidofGeeta'sfather.HefurtherstatedthatGeetaappearedtobehappywiththe marriage.HecorrectlyidentifiedtheentrymadebyAtulinthenameofMr.and Mrs.Kothariintheregisterofthehotel.Healsostatedthaton13.08.94theycame toknowthatfatherofGeetahadgotAtul'sfatherliftedfromhishousebylocal policeandonhearingthesameAtulandGeetareturnedtoGhaziabad. 72. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedGeetahestatedthathetold

CBIthathemetVirender,AtulandGeetaBristoatRestaurantinHauzKhas. ConfrontedwiththestatementEx.PW18/Awherethenameoftherestaurant Bristowasnotmentioned.Hefurtherstatedthathedidnothaveanyacquaintance atMDInternationalhotelbutitwasthenearesthotelsotheywentthere.Healso statedthatallthefriendswhowerepresentdecidedthatAtulwouldmentionfalse nameintheregister.HefurtherstatedthathedidnotrememberifhetoldCBIthat GeetawasappearingtobehappyaftermarriagewithAtul.Hewasconfronted withthestatementEx.PW18/DAwheretheexactwordappearingtobehappyis notmentionedbutitismentionedthatGeetawentwithAtultoahotelbutherown will.HealsostatedthathehadnotmentionedthenameofMr.andMrs.Kothariin hisstatementEx.PW18/DA. 73. PW19Sh.C.M.Duggalstatedthatintheyear1994DeepakMalikwas

residinginhisneighbourhoodandon12.08.94DeepakMalikandhisfamlyhad
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page35/

gonetoLohiaNagartoattendthetehrviofhismother.Healsostatedthathouse ofDeepakMalikwaslockedon12thand13thAugust1994.Hefurtherstatedthat on12.8.94atabout10.30PMhereceivedacallfromMrs.MalikfromGhaziabad requestinghimtointimatedatherofficethatshewouldnotattendtheofficeon 13.08.94assomepolicecasehadbeenregisteredatGhaziabad. 74. PW20OmPrakashisthetaxidriverwhodrovethetaxino.DEV1807

fromHauzKhastoGhaziabad.Hestatedthatheusedtoplytaxino.DEV1807at HauzKhastaxistandwithM/sSatnamTaxiService.HealsostatedthatinAugust 1994hewascalledatMDInternationalHauzKhas,NewDelhiandaskedtotake passengeri.e.oneboyandonegirltoGhaziabad.Hefurtherstatedthatitwas earlymorningandhedroppedthetwopersonsatthegateofPSGhaziabad.He furtherstatedthathecouldnotrecollectifhedroppedanyothertwopersonsat Ghaziabadintheyear1994.HefurtherstatedthatheinformedMDInternational thathehaddroppedthepassengersinfrontofgateofPSGhaziabad.Healso statedthathecouldnotidentifythepassengers. 75. AswitnesswasresilingfromhispreviousstatementtherequestofLd.APP

tocrossexaminehimwasallowed.InhiscrossexaminationbyLd.APPhestated that he was called by CBI official at Dehradun and they showed him the photographsbuthecouldnotidentifythepersonsduetolapseoftime. 76. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedGeetahestatedthatSatnam

Texibelongstothehiselderbrother.Healsostatedthatnorecordwasmaintained atthetaxistandregardingbookingandsendingoftaxioutsideDelhi.Healso statedthatTaxino.DEV1807wasaprivatecarandnotataxi. 77. PW 21 Inspector Tara Chand stated that he was a Radio Maintenance

officeratGhaziabadUPandusedtorecordmessagereceivedfromwirelessset. HefurtherstatedthatlogbookofCityControlRoom,Ghaziabadwasseizedby
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page36/

CBIvideseizurememoEx.PW21/AwhichbearshissignatureatpointAand relevantpageoflogbookwereEx.PW21/B1toB2whichalsobearshissignature atpointA.HeprovedtheentriesinthelogbookrelatingtothepositionofAlpha5 whichwaswiththecircleofficer(City1)Ghaziabadandasperthelogbookat 12.20midnightthepositionofAlpha5wasshownatKaviNagarandat1.12AM thepositionofAlpha5wasshownatDBlockShastriNagarGhaziabad. 78. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedA.K.Singhhestatedthat

accusedAjayKumarSinghwastheCOofCity1atthattimeandPSKotwaliand PSVijayNagarwereunderhim.HealsostatedthatAwdeshKumarSinghwasthe COofPSKaviNagar.HealsostatedthattheinthelogbookpositionofAlpha5 wasnotshownasPSKaviNagar.HefurtherstatedthatA.KSinghwasnotthe supervisoryofficerofPSKaviNagarontherelevantdate.HefurtherstatedthatA. K.SinghwasresidingatPoliceLineHarsaunatthattimeandwhilegoingfrom KotwalitoHarsaunonehadtocrossKaviNagaranditofficeisatPSlogbook wouldreflectitasThana/PS. 79. PW22Sh.K.S.MeenastatedthataffidavitEx.PW1/BandPW1/Cwere

attestedbyhimandbearhissignature.Healsostatedthatatthetimeofattestation oftheaffidavitphotographofthedepodentswerenotaffixedonthesameorwere notattestedbyhim. 80. IOPW23P.K.ChaudharyDSPstatedthaton19.11.94caseRCNo.

88(S)/94DehradunwasregisteredCBIDehradunbranch.HeprovedtheFIREx. PW2/DAregisteredonthedirectionsofHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia,passed in writ petition no. 317 of 1994. He further stated that he had recorded the statementofwitnessesandcollecteddocumentsfromtheconcerneddepartments videseizurememoEx.PW23/A,PW8/E,PW23/B,PW23/C,PW23/D,PW 23/E,PW23/FandPW23/G,PW23/G1, PW23/G2, PW23/G3. Hefurther
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page37/

deposedthatthestatementofaccusedA.K.SinghwasgotrecordedbyACJM Ghaziabadundersection164Cr.P.C.andheobtainedacopyofsameExPW23/ H.HefurtherstatedthatduringinvestigationGDofPSKaviNagaratrelevant datesalongwithcasediaryofcaseno.408/94wereseizedvideseizurememoEx. PW23/G1toG3andthedocumentGDentriesareEx.PW23/J.Hefurtherstated thatheseizedthearrestmemoEx.PW1/DBpreparedbyA.K.Singh.Healso statedthathealsoseizedthephotocopyofstatementofaccusedGeetarecorded undersection164Cr.P.C.Ex.PW23/KbyACJMGhaziabad,(themodeofproof ofthesamewasobjectedto.)Hefurthertestifiedthathepreparedtheinspection memoofHouseno.1116D,DilshadGardenEx.PW23/L.Healsostatedthathe seizedfivedocumentsi.e.agecertificateofAtul, thebirthcertificateofGeeta, copyofvoterlist,SchooltransfercertificateofGeetandAtulEx.PW23F1F5, themodeofproofofsamewasobjectedto. Healsostatedthatthereafterhe soughtsanctionfor prosecution against policeofficial namely Satyapal Singh. RajaVats(deceased),AjayKumarSingh,SukhpalSingh,SatyavirSingh,HC DuijaYadavandCt.Promila.Herecordedthestatementofwitnesses. 81. InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedA.K.SinghhestatedthatHe

alsostatedthathecollectedthecopyofwritpetitionEx.PW1/D2andfurther statedthatA.K.Singhwasnotaparty.Hefurtherstatedthathehadnotseizedthe thelogbookspertainingtotheofficialvehicleofCOCityII,COCityIandSHO PSKaviNagarHealsostatedthatwithoutseeingthepolicefilehecouldnotstate whetherherecordedthestatementofMagistrateofGhaziabadcourtoranyofhis stafftotheeffectthaton13.08.94thecomplainantandwitnessesAnu,Sanjay DeepakwhowereaccusedincaseFIRno.408/94werenotproducedbeforethe Magistrate. Healsostatedthatwithoutseeingthepolicefilehecouldnotstate whetherheseizedthecopyofjudicialremandapplicationofaccusedincaseFIR
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page38/

no.408/94registeredatPSKaviNagar.Healsostatedthathedidnotrecordthe statement of constable who escorted the accused at the time of their judicial remand. Hefurtherstatedthatwithoutseeingthepolicefilehecouldnotstate whetherhesoughtacopyofhisbailapplicationmovedbyaccusedincaseFIRno. 408/94registeredatPSKaviNagar.Hedeniedthesuggestionthathedidnot seizedthecopyofbailapplicationastherewerenoallegationsoftorturemade therein.HefurtherstatedthathehadnoknowledgeifAwdeshSinghwastheCO (City2)atthattime.HealsostatedthathedidnotgettheTIPofaccusedA.K. Singhconducted.HealsostatedthatherecordedthestatementofaccusedA.K. Singhu/s164Cr.P.C.asawitnessandnotanaccused.Hefurtherstatedthatifa person is sent to JC ininjured conditionheisnot permitted entry inthe jail withoutfirstgettinghimmedicallyexamined. 82. Healsostatedthatasthere wasnoevidenceagainstKakaKohlihewasnot

madeanaccusedinthepresentcase.HealsostatedthatKakaKohliwasalsonot citedasawitnessinthepresentcase. HedeniedthataccusedA.K.Singhwas made an accused in the present case as he did not depose against the police official/accusedwhlemakinghisstatementu/s164Cr.P.C. 83. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Geeta he stated before

startingofinvestigationhehadreadtheorderdated7.11.94passedby Hon'ble SupremeCourtandvidethesaidorderHon'bleSupremeCourthaddirectedCBI toinvestigatetheallegationsoftorture.Healsostatedthathadseentheorderof Hon'ble Supreme court dated22.07.96 which was passed after completion of investigationandfilingthechargesheet.Hestatedthatvideorderdated22.07.96 Hon'bleSupremecourthaddirectedCBItomakeinvestigationintotheallegation oftorture.Healsostatedthatintheorderdated22.07.96Hon'bleSupremeCourt hadobservedthatthequestionofgrantingsanctionforperjuryallegedtohave
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page39/

beencommittedbysomeofthepoliceofficialwouldbetakenintoconsiderationat alaterstage.HefurtherstatedthatarrestcumrecoverymemoEx.PW1/DBwas signedbyAtul,RajpalDhall,SanjayDhall,DeepakMalikandAnuandaccused policeofficialexceptaccusedA.K.Singh.HealsostatedthatEx.PW1/DBwas notpreparedbyaccusedA.K.Singhasdeposedbyhiminhisexaminationin chief.Healsostatedthatitcouldnotbeascertainedduringinvestigationasto whenthismemowasactuallypreparedandwhetheritwaswrittenatonetimeorat intervals.Itcouldalsocouldnotbeascertainedastowhetherallthesignatoriesto thememohadsigneditatonetimeoratintervals.Onbeingquestionastowhy onlyGeetaandK.R.AhujaweremadeaccusedforsigningthememoEx.PW 1/DBalthoughcomplainantandhissonsAtulandthreeotherpersonsnamely DeepakMalik,SanjayandAnuwhohadalsosignedthememotowhichhereplied thathefoundevidenceagainstGeetathatshehadarrivedatPSKaviNagarina TaxifromDelhitoGhaziabadanditwaswithintheknowledgeofGeetaand Geeta'sfatherthatthismemowasnotpreparedattheNewGhaziabadRailway StationandAtulandhisfamilymemberswerenotarrestedat NewGhaziabad RailwayStation.Hefurtherstatedthatinthisconnection,taxidriverOmPrakash deposedthatGeetaandAtulcamefromDelhiinhistaxiandhedroppedthem outsidethePS. 84. Hefurtherstatedthatduringinvestigation hecametoknowthatAtul

madefalseentryintheregisterofMDInternationalHotelinDelhibuthedidnot takeanyactionagainsthim.Hefurtherstatedthathecouldnotstatewhetherhe interrogatedandrecordedthestatementofRajinderBatraandKhairatiLalwho statedtheyhadseenAtultakingawayGeetaon12.08.94. 85. OnbeingquestionedthatalthoughHon'bleSupremeCourtdirectedCBIto

investigateintotheallegationsoftorture,.CBIinvestigateothermattersincluding
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page40/

perjurywhichwasnotthedirectionofHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia,hestated thatcompleteinvestigationwasbroughttotheknowledgeofHon'bleSupreme Courtthroughvariousinterimreportsandfinalreport.Hedeniedthathefalsely implicatedGeetainconnivancewiththefamilymemberofAtul. 86. In his cross examinationon behalf of other accusedpoliceofficial,he

statedonbeingaskedastowhetherinvestigationwasconductedtofindoutwho gavetheelectricshockstothecomplainantPW2andhisfamilymembers,that investigationreveledthatelectricshocksweregiventofamilymemberofAtulby SIH.K.Singh,SIRanaandSISheelaChaudhary.Hedeniedthathefiledthe chargesheetagainsttheaccusedcontrarytothedirectionsofHon'bleSupreme Court.HewasfurtheraskedwhetherheinformedHon'bleSupremeCourtabout theobtainingofsanctionforprosecutionofaccusedpersonsinreplybestatedthat itwasmentionedinthefinalreportsubmittedbeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourt. HealsostatedthatfinalreportwasfiledintheHon'bleSupremeCourtbythethen JointDirector Sh. B. R. Lal. He further stated that he was not present when Hon'bleSupremeCourtpassedtheorder'MarkB'dated22.07.96andhedidnot haveanydocumenttoshowthatfinalreportwassubmittedbefore'orderMarkB' waspassed. 87. HefurtherstatedthatpoliceofficialisdutyboundtoregisteranFIRifan

complaintismadeinrespectofcommissionofacognizableoffence.Healso statedthathehadcheckedthenumberofstaffpostedatPSKaviNagaratthe relevanttime.Healsostatedthathecheckedthepersonsinlockupontherelevant datebutdidnotpreparealistofsuchpersons.Hefurtherstatedthathetriedto findsomeindependentwitnessbutcouldnotgetanyone.Healsostatedthathe askedwitnessesaboutthedocument showinginjuryontheirpersonsbut they statedthattheyhadnotgoneformedicalexamination.Healsostatedthathedid


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page41/

nothavepracticalknowledgehowelectricshocksweregiven.Hefurtherstated thathecouldnotrecoveranyitemfromPSKaviNagarusedforgivingelectric shock.HealsostatedthatFIRno.408/94waspendingbuthewasnotawareif investigationof the same had been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme court. He furtherstatedthatSI.H.K.Singh,SIRanaandSISheelaChaudharyagainst whomallegationsofgivingelectricshocksweremadebythewitnesshadnotbeen madeanaccusedinthiscase.Hedeniedthathedidnotinvestigatethecaseasper thedirectionsofHon'bleSupremeCourt. 88. PW24Sh.B.C.Saxenadeposedthaton12.10.94hewaspostedasACJM

IIIGhaziabadandonthatdayherecordedthestatementofGeetaundersection 164Cr.P.C.onapplicationmovedbyIOon15.10.94.Heprovedtheapplication Ex.PW24/Aandstatementu/s164Cr.P.C.Ex.PW24/1. 89. PW25Sh.GajenderaKumarstatedthaton10.05.95hewasasSpecial

JudicialMagistrateCBIDehradun UP andonthatInspectorP. K. Chaudhary moved an application Ex. PW 25/A before CJM Dehradun for getting the statementofA.K.Singhrecordedundersection164Cr.P.C.andherecordedthe statementofA.K.Singhu/s164Cr.P.C.whichisEx.PW25/A1. 90. Thestatementsofallaccusedwerethereafterrecordedu/s313Cr.P.C.All

theaccuseddeniedtheallegationsofprosecutionwitnessesandstatedthattheyare innocentandhadbeenfalselyimplicated. 91. IntheirdefenceaccusedSatyapalSingh,SukhapalSingh,SatyavirSingh,

A.K.Singh,DuijaYadavandPromilaMesihexaminedtwowitnesses. 92. DW1SINoorMohammadstatedthaton13.08.94hewaspostedatPS

KaviNagarasHeadConstableandhisdutywasfrom8AMto8PMandGDNo. 15Ex.PWDW1/Adated13.08.94waswrittenbyCt.RavinderSinghatabout 7.25AMandhecouldidentifyhiswritingashewasworkingwithhim.Healso


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page42/

statedthatitrelatetodepartureofSISatyapalSinghSOfromPS.Hefurtherstated thatDDno.21dated13.08.94wasrecordedbyhimat9.20AManditrelatedto arrivalofSISatyapalSinghSOandthesamewasEx.PW23/J.HedeniedthatDD no.21wasantedated. 93. DW2RamCharanstatedthaton13.08.94hehadatailoringshopnear

NewGhaziabadRailwayStationandhisworkinghourswerefrom7.308.00AM to7.00PMandonthatdayhesawapolicejeepatabout8.15amandsomepolice officersgotdownandwenttowardsrailwaystationtheyreturnedafterabouthalf anhourhavingapprehendedfourmalesandtwofemales.Healsostatedthathe cametoknowfromthepublicpersonstherethataboyandgirlwereelopingand wereapprehended. 94. InhiscrossexaminationhedeniedthathemadeanystatementMarkAEx.

DW2/AtoCBI.Healsostatedthathenotseenorheardanypoliceofficers arresting34malesandfemalefromNewGhaziabadRailwayStation.Healso deniedthatwhateverwasrecordedbyCBIinhisstatementportionMarkAtoA wascorrect. 95. 96. IhaveheardtheLd.Counselforpartiesandperusedtherecord. In order to prove offence u/s 120B IPC, It was incumbent upon the

prosecution to prove that all the accused entered into criminal conspiracy to wrongfully confine and physically torture complainant Raj Pal Dhall ,Sanjay Dhall,DeepakMalikandAnuDhalltoextortconfession/informationfromthem aboutGeetaandAtulandtherebycommittedoffencepunishableu/s120Br/w section 348/330 IPC. Secondly in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy all accusedwrongfullyconfinedatKaviNagarpolicestationaforesaidpersonsand physicallytorturedthemtoextortconfession/informationfromthemaboutGeeta AhujaandAtulDhallandtherebycommittedoffencepunishableu/s348/330IPC.
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page43/

97.

Itisalsoincumbentupontheprosecutiontoprovethaton13.08.94all

accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to fabricate false evidence against complainantRajPalDhallandhisfamilymemberswiththeintentiontousethat evidenceagainsttheminthecasepertainingtoFIRno.408/94registeredatPS KaviNagartherebyalltheaccusedcommittedanoffencepunishableu/s120B IPCreadwithsection195IPCandinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracyallthe accused prepared a false recovery memo dated 13.08.94 showing recovery of GeetaAhujafromthecustodyofRajpalandhisfamilymembersincludingAtul DhallfromNewGhaziabadRailwaystationon13.08.94forbeingusedincase FIR no. 408/94 PS Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad and thereby committed an offence punishableu/s195IPC. 98. The basic principle which underlines section 120 B IPC is theory of

agency,everyconspiratorisanagentofhisassociatesincarryingouttheobjectof conspiracy. To bring home the charge of conspiracy the evidence led by the prosecutionshouldbeofsuchcompellingnature asmustnecessarilyleadtoa finding of guilt. The evidence must show common concerted plans so as to excludeareasonablepossibilityoftheactoftheconspiratorshavingbeendone separatelyorconnectedonlybycoincidence.Theknowledgeofindulgencein illegalactorlegalactsbyillegalmeanshastobeestablished. 99. Inthisregardithasbeenheldin AIR1981SC1062 Md.UsmanMohammadHussainMainiyarandanr. Vs. TheStateofMaharastra asfollows: PenalCode (45of 1860). S. 120 B Offence under
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page44/

Evidenceandproof.Forandoffenceundersection120B the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetratorsexpresslyagreedtodoorcausetobedone theillegalact;theagreementmaybeprovedbynecessary implication.Inthiscase,thefactthattheaccusedperson werepossessingandsellingexplosivesubstanceswithout avalidlicenseforaprettylongtimeleadstoheinference thattheyagreedtodoand/orcausetobedonethesaid illegalact,for,withoutsuchanagreementtheactcould nothavebeendoneforsuchalongtime.

100.

Theoffenceofcriminalconspiracyiscompleteassoonasanagreementto

commitanoffenceismadebetweentheconspirators.Butsection120Bdoesnot limititsoperationtoonlythosewhoarepartiestotheagreementatthetimeofits formationbutalsoappliestothosewhocontinuetobepartiesduringtheentire periodduringwhichconspiracycontinued. 101. Personwhojoinstheconspiracywhileitisonandeventhepersonwho

backoutoftheconspiracywouldbeliablefortheconspiracy.Theagreement betweentwoormorepersonsinordertoconstituteacriminalconspiracymustbe totodoanillegalactorlegalactbyillegalmeans. 102. Mereevidenceofassociationisnotsufficienttoinferconspiracy.Inorder

topermitareasonableinferenceofconspiracytheremustbeproofnotonlyof associationbutalsoofsomethingsuspiciousinsuchassociation.Aconspiracyis alwayshatchedinsecrecyanditisimpossibletoadducedirectevidenceofthe same.Theoffencecanbeonlybeprovedfrominferencedrawnfromtheactsor illegalomissioncommittedbytheconspiratorinpursuanceofcommondesign.


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page45/

Criminalconspiracyattractssection10oftheEvidenceactwhichprovidesas follows: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design where there is reasonable ground to believethattwoormorepersonshaveconspiredtogether tocommitanoffenceoranactionablewrong,anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in referencetotheircommonintention,afterthetimewhen suchintentionwasfirstentertainedbyanyoneofthem,is arelevantfactasagainsteachofthepersonsbelievedto besoconspiracy,aswellforthepurposeorprovingthe existenceoftheconspiracyasforthepurposeofshowing thatanysuchpersonwasapartytoit. 103. Thuseveryconspirator is aagent of hisassociatesin carryingout the

objectofconspiracy.Asheldin2000(6)SCC269 StateofMaharahtra Vs. SamuS/oGopinathShindeandors. whereinithasbeenheldasfollows: EvidenceAct.,1872S.10Conditionforapplicabilityof ProvisionbasedonprincipleofagencyWhenonthebasis ofconfessionmadebyoneofthefouraccusedthereappear reasonablegroundstobelievethatalltheaccusedpersons hadconspiredtogethertocommittheallegedoffence,then whateverthecoaccusedsaidandidinreferencetotheir
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page46/

commonintention,asstatedintheconfessionalstatement, would be relevant under section 10 as against the co accusedalso.

104.

Ld.CounselforaccusedGeetasubmittedthatasfarasaccusedGeetais

concerned,shehasbeenchargedwiththeoffenceu/s120BIPCr/w195IPCand also 195 IPC for having signed the recovery memo Ex. PW1/DB . But for prosecutionforoffenceu/s195IPCcriminalintentionisanessentialingredients. ItissubmittedbyLd.CounselforaccusedofGeetathatsection195(1)(b)IPC prohibitsthetakingofcognizanceexceptoncomplaintofanoffencecommittedin orinrelationtoanyproceedinginanycourt.Itwassubmittedthatasastherewas no complaint by the court, therefore bar of section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. was applicable. He furthersubmittedthat Geeta was notcharged for making false statementu/s164Cr.P.C..HoweverIoftheviewthatthebarofsection195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.isnotapplicableastherecoverycumarrestmemowasnotpreparedinor inrelationtoanyproceedingsofcourt,thusSection195(1)(b)Cr.P.C.didnot precludetheMagistratefromtakingcognizanceofoffencewithoutacomplaintof courtastheoffencewasnotcommittedinorinrelationtoanyproceedingsof court.InthisregardLd.Spl.PPplacedrelianceupon 1994AIRSC1549 MahadevBapuji Vs. StateofMaharastra whereinithasbeenheldasfollows: CriminalCode1973.Section195(1)(b)Forgeryofdocument committed before starting proceedings before the Revenue
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page47/

CourtInthatcasecomplaintbytherevenuecourtbefore which document was produced is not necessary. The contention that the absent of a complaint by the Revenue Courtwasabarfortakingcognizancebythecriminalcourtin respect of their offence which were committed before the Revenuecourtnotaccepted. 105. InthepresentcasecognizanceoftheoffencewastakenbyLd.Spl.Judge

Dehradun.Iamoftheviewthatastherewasnocomplaintbythecourtregarding thefalsestatementmadebyGeetaandtheoffencewascommittedinorinrelation toanyproceedinginthecourt,theprohibitionofsection195(1)(b)Cr.P.C.is applicablebutasfarastherecoverymemoEx.PW1/DBwasconcernedthebarof Section195(1)(b)Cr.P.C.wasnotapplicable. 106. ItwasalsoallegedLd.CounselfortheaccusedGeetathatnomalafide

intentioncouldbeattributedtoGeetaforsigningrecoverymemoEx.PW1/DBas shesigneditattheinstanceofpoliceofficialsasstatedbyherinherstatementu/s 313Cr.P.C.Inherstatementu/s313Cr.P.C.Geetastatedthatshewasmadeto signedthememoEx.PW1/DBbythepoliceofficialsandthememowasalso signedAtulDhallandhisfamilymembers.Shealsostatedthatshewasalsonot allowedtoreaditnoritwasreadovertoher.Shefurtherstatedthatshewasin stateofshockandcouldnotsta tewhatpaperwerepreparedbywhomandwhere. 107. IamoftheviewthatconspiracyofGeetawiththeotheraccusedpolice

officialstofabricatethedocumentcouldnotbeestablishedbeyonddoubtaslike other offences criminal conspiracy may be proved direct or circumstantial evidence. InthepresentcaseantecedentsandsubsequentconductofGeetaand surroundingcircumstancesshowthatshewasnotinconspiracywiththeaccused policeofficialstofabricatetherecoverymemoEx.PW1/DB.Itispertinentto
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page48/

mentionthatPW1AtulDhallandPW2RajpalDhall,PW3SanjayDhall,PW6 AnnuandPW7DeepakMalikhadallstatedthatwhenGeetacametoP.S.Kavi NagarwithAtulon13.08.94fromDelhi,sheaskedpoliceofficialstorelease familymembersofAtulandevenfoughtwithherfather.Itisthusevidentthat therewerenoconspiracybetweenGeetaandaccusedpoliceofficialstofabricate therecoverymemoEx.PW1/D3.ThusthecomplicityofGeetaintheoffenceof conspiracytofabricateEx.PW1/DBcouldnotbeestablishedbeyondreasonable doubt. 108. OnbehalfofA.K.SinghitwassubmittedthatHon'bleSupremeCourthad

videorderdated7.11.94directedCBItoinvestigatetheallegationoftorturetothe complainantPW2andhisfamilymembersbypoliceofPSKaviNagar.Itwas alsoallegedthatproceedingsofcaseFIRno.408/94registeredatPSKaviNagar had been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme court and were not quashed as such expressionofanysuchopiniononEx.PW1/DBwouldamounttoexpressing opiniononthemeritsofthecaseofFIRno.408/94whichispendingandmay prejudiceeithersideasinvestigationofsamewasstillpending.Itisalsoalleged thatbyfilingchallanu/s193/195IPCagainstthepoliceofficial,IOindirectly helpedtheaccusedpersonsofcaseFIRno.408/94registeredatPSKaviNagar.It isalsocontendedthatsanctionorderisillegalandsamewasgivenmechanically byPW4withoutapplyinghismind.Isissubmittedthatsanctionorderdoesnot mentionasinglewordaboutthefactsofthecaseFIRno.408/94. 109. HoweverthesaidcontentionofLd.CounselforaccusedA.K.Singhis

withoutmerits.Inthisregarditwouldbepertinenttonotethatinthesanction orderEx.PW4/AthefactsofcaseFIRno.408/94hadbeenmentioned. Itis further alleged that accused A. K. Singh was Gazetted officer against whom governorsanctionswasrequiredbutthesanctionwasgrantedbythesecretary
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page49/

withoutobtainingtheapprovalofthegovernor.Thereforesanctionwasillegal. HoweverinthisregarditwouldbepertinenttonotethatthesanctionorderEx. PW4/AwassignedbytheSecretaryatthedirectionofGovernor.Hencethe contentionofLd.CounselforaccusedA.K.Singhthattherewasnosanctionby Governorisrejected. 110. ItisfurtherallegedthataccusedA.K.Singhhasnotbeenchargedu/s195

Cr.P.C.asforprosecutionu/s195IPCnocourtshalltakecognizanceexcepton complaintinwritingofthatcourt. 111. Itisallegedthatinthepresentcasethereisnocomplaintbytheconcerned

courtregardingfabricationofrecoverymemoEx.PW1/DBandEx.PW1/DB wasproducedbeforetheLd.MMwhentheaccusedofcaseFIRno.408/94were producedbeforetheLd.MMforjudicialremandbuttheLd.MMdidnotmakea complaint u/s195IPC againstthe accused. However I donot agreewith the contentionofLd.CounselforaccusedasneitherPW2norhisfamilymembers knew at the time of the production before Ld. Magistrate that arrest memo mentionedtheplaceoftheirarrestatNewGhaziabadRailwayStation Inthis regardPW1statedthattheyweremadetosignsomepapersinthePSandinhis crossexaminationhedeniedthathesignedPW1/DBafterknowingthecontents mentionedtherein.HealsostatedthathewasPW1/DBafterreleasefromjail whenheobtainedacopyofthesamefromcourtthroughhisadvocate.PW7 DeepakMalikcorroboratedtheversionofPW1andstatedthatinthePSpolice officialsobtainedhissignatureandaswellassignaturesoffamilymembersof Atulonsomepapers.HeidentifiedhissignatureonPW1/DB,Inviewthereofthe Ld.MagistrateatGhaziabad,hadnooccasiontoconsiderwhetherthememoEx. PW1/DBwasfabricatedasnosuchavermentwasmadebeforehim. 112. ItisnextcontendedonbehalfofaccusedA.K.Singhthatsanctionorder

SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page50/

wasillegalandhadfromthetestimonyofPW4itisevidentthatsanctionorder wasgivenwithoutapplyingmind.ItisfurtherallegedthataccusedA.K.Singh was Gazetted officer against whom governor's sanction was required but the sanctioninthepresentcasewasgrantedbythesecretarywithoutobtainingthe approvalofthegovernor.Thereforesanctionisillegal. 113. ItisfurthercontendedthatonbehalfofaccusedA.K.Singhthataccording

tothecaseofprosecutionA.K.Singhenteredintocriminalconspiracywithother accusedpersonson13.08.94atPSKaviNagartofabricatefalseevidenceagainst RajPalDhallandhisfamilymemberswithintentiontousethesameagainstthem incaseFIRno.408/94buthehadnoroleinpreparingofthearrestmemoEx.PW 1/DBandGDentries. 114. ItwasalsoarguedthattheHon'bleSupremeCourtalsodidnotdirectthe

prosecutionofaccusedpoliceofficialforperjuryandHon'bleSupremeCourtvide order dated 22.07.96 had observed that the question of granting sanction for perjuryallegedtohavebeencommittedbythepoliceofficialswouldbetakeninto considerationatalaterstage.Itwasalsoallegedthattherewasnoevidenceon record to show that accused A. K. Singh was in conspiracy with accused to fabricatingfalseevidence.Itisfurtherstatedthattheevidenceproducedincourt thattheFIR,DDandRojnamchaentriesseizedfromtheofficeofCOCityIIby theIOshowthatA.K.SinghdidnothaveanysupervisorycontroloverPSKavi NagarnorhetalkedwiththeaccusedatthetimeofpreparationofarrestmemoEx. PW1/DB.ItwasalsoarguedthatthesanctionorderEx.PW4/Aalsodidnot contain the sanction for the offence punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w 195 IPC. Sanctionwasgivenonlyfortheoffence323/330/342/352/218/120BIPCandnot fortheoffenceu/s195readwithsection120BIPC.Itisalsoallegedthatatthe relevanttimeoneAwdeshKumarSinghwastheCircleofficerofCityIIofPS
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page51/

KaviNagarandaccusedA.K.SinghhadbeenimplicatedwhenCBIcouldnotfind evidenceagainstAwdeshSinghandfoundthepositionofAlphaVvehiclewhich wasofaccusedA.K.SinghinKaviNagarat12.20AM.Itwasfurtherallegedthat A.K.SinghnevervisitedPSKaviNagarontheinterveningnightof12/13.08.94 andattherelevanttimehewasresidingatPolicelinesHarsaonGhaziabadandhis officewasatPSKotwaliandwhilegoingfromKotwalitoHarsawanonehadto crossKaviNagarcolonyandSharstirNagar.HealsostatedthatPW21hadinthis regardstatedthaton12/13.08.94hewaspostedasRadioMaintenanceofficerat GhaziabadUPandontheinterveningnightof12/13.08.94thepositionofAlpha5 wasatBigChowkGhaziabadat12.20midnight,thisvehiclewaswiththecircle officerCityIGhaziabadandat1.12AMthepositionofAlpha5wasshownatD BlockShastriNagarGhaziabadandhadthepositionofAlfaVbeenatPSKavi Nagarat12.20AMthelogbookwouldhavereflectitasThanaKaviNagar. 115. OntheotherhanditisarguedbyLd.Spl.PPSh.AnilTanwarthatsection

1951(b)Cr.P.C. prohibitstakingcognizanceofoffenceallegedtohavebeen committedinorinrelationtoanyproceedingsinanycourtexceptoncomplaint, onlyifoffencementionedthereinareallegedtohavebeencommittedinorin relation to any proceedings in any court. The prohibition is not absolute prohibitionanddoesnotprecludetheMagistratefromtakingcognizanceofthe offencewithoutacomplaintiftheoffenceare'not'allegedtohavebeencommitted inorinrelationtoanyproceedingsinanycourt.Thereforeprohibitiondoesnot bartakingcognizanceofoffencewhicharecommittedoutsidethecourt. 116. ThenextcontentionofLd.CounselforaccusedA.K.Singhisthathewas

notinconspiracywiththeotheraccusedpoliceofficialtofabricateEx.PW1/DB orGDEntriesEx.PW23/JashewasnotthesupervisoryofficerofPSKaviNagar andhadnooccasiontotalkwiththepoliceofficialsofP.S.KaviNagaratthetime


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page52/

ofpreparingofthememosEx.PW1/DBandotherGDentries. 117. InordertobringhomethechargeofconspiracyagainstaccusedA.K.

Singhitwasincumbentupontheprosecutiontoshowthattherewasanagreement between A. K. Singh and other accused police officials to fabricate false documents. This envisages meeting of mind resulting in decision taken by conspiratorsregardingcommissionofoffenceoffabricationofdocuments.Insuch casesitisdifficulttogetdirectevidenceofconspiracybutconspiracycanbe inferredfromthecircumstancesgivingrisetoconclusiveorirresistibleinference ofanagreementbetweentheaccusedtocommitanoffence. Thesurrounding circumstance and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constituterelevantmaterial. 118. InthisregarditissignificanttomentionthataccusedA.K.Singhinhis

statementrecordedu/s164Cr.P.C.Ex.PW25/A1,statedthatontherelevantdate i.e.interveningnightof12/13.08.94hewasnotthecircleofficerofP.S.Kavi NagarandasthecircleofficerofPSKaviNagarwasoutofstationoronleave,in hisabsencehehadtolookaftertheadministrativeworkofPSKaviNagarbeing thelinkasseniorofficerexpectedhimtolookafterthedailyroutineworkofthe area.Hefurtherstatedthatontheinterveningnightof12/13.08.94whilehewas onpatrollingdutyandpassingfromP.S.KaviNagar,hesawacrowdandentered into P.S.KaviNagarandinquiredfromthethen SO.SatyapalSinghwhotold himthatitwasacaseofkidnappingofagirl.Hefurtherstatedthatheremainedin theP.S.KaviNagarforabout45minutesandgavedirectionsforrecoveryofthe missinggirlandonenquirywhethercasewasregisteredtheSOtoldhimthatcase hadbeenregistered. 119. InmyopinionasaccusedA.K.Singhwasnotthesupervisoryofficerof

PSKaviNagarhecannotbesaidtohavecontrolovertheP.S.KaviNagaratall
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page53/

timesandcriminaldeedscommittedbypoliceofficialsofP.S.KaviNagarcannot besaidtohavebeendeemedtohavebeencommittedwithhisconnivance.Thus, as far as accused A.K.Singh is concerned his complicity in the offence of fabrication of false recovery memo and DD entries has not been established beyonddoubts. 120. AccusedA.K.Singhwasthusnotactivelyinvolvedinthefabricationofthe

saiddocumentsashewasnotthesupervisoryofficerofP.S.KaviNagarassuch hewasnotexpectedtoknowallwhatwashappeningwithinthefourwallofP.S. KaviNagarinrelationtoinvestigationofthatcaseFIRno.408/94.PW21hadalso statedinhiscrossexaminationthatAwdeshKumarSinghwastheCircleofficerof PSKaviNagarattherelevantdate.MoreovertherecoverymemoEx.PW1/DB alsodoesnotbearhissignatures. 121. It was also contended by Ld. Counsel Sh.B. S.Sharma on behalf of

accusedSatyapalSingh,A.K.Singh,SukhpalSingh,SatyavirSingh,DuijaYadav andPromilathatundersection1951(b)Cr.P.C. prohibitstakingofcognizance exceptonacomplaintinrelationtooffencecommittedundersection195Cr.P.C. but his argument was already been dealt and is decided against all accused accordingly. 122. Ld.CounselforaccusedSatypal,Satbir,Sukhpal,Duija,PromilaandA.K.

Singhalsoallegedthatthepresentcasewasregisteredagainsttheaccusedonthe directionofHon'bleSupremeCourtvideRCno.28(S)194dated18.11.94.Itis further stated that Hon'ble Supreme court passed the order in the above said criminalwritpetitionfiledbyPW1on7.11.94wherebytheproceedingsofcase FIRno.408/94registeredatPSKaviNagarwerestayedtilldecisionofthepresent case.Itisallegedthatquestionofgrantingsanctionforperjuryallegedtohave beencommittedbysomeofthepoliceofficialwastobeconsideredatthelater
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page54/

stage as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Courtvideorder dated 7.11.94. It is submittedthataspertheorderofHon'bleSupremeCourtitisevidentthatorderof Hon'bleSupremecourtwasonlyinvestigatetheallegationoftortureofthe the complainantPW2andhisfamilymembersatthehandsofpoliceofficialPSKavi NagarGhaziabadandCBIexceeded its jurisdiction byfilingcharge sheetu/s 120Br/wsection195IPCand195IPC. 123. ItwasalsoallegedthatinvestigationwashandedovertoCBIasallegation

weremadeinthewritpetitionEx.PW1/D2thatofelectricshocksgiventothe complainantPW2andhisfamilymemberswhentheywereillegallyconfinedat PSKaviNagarandbadlybeatenbythepoliceofficialofPSKaviNagar.Itwas averredinthewritpetitionthat familymemberofpetitionerweresubjectedto thirddegreetortureincludingelectricshocksinsidethePSKaviNagarGhaziabad onaccountofmarriageofpetitionerwithdaughterofrespondentSh.K.R.Ahuja against the wishes of family members of girl side and the entire family of petitioner including wife of his elderbrother of petitioner PW 1 were put to variouskindofthirddegreetorturesbythepoliceunderthedictatesandinfluence offatherofgirlwhowasaliquorbaroninthecityofGhaziabad. Itwasalso allegedthatpolicesnatchedthemilkfedboyfromAnuwifeofelderbrotherof petitionerPW1andgavehermercilessbeatingsinthePSandelectricshockswere alsogiventoher.InviewtherofHon'bleSupremecourtvideorderdated7.11.94 orderCBItoinvestigateintotheallegationoftortureofpetitionerandhisfamily membersgivenbypoliceofficialofPSKaviNagarontheinterveningnightof 12/13.08.94atPSKaviNagar. 124. Ld. counsel for accused Sh. B.S.Sharma further stated that specific

questionwasputtotheIOastowhetherinspiteoftheorderofHon'bleSupreme Courtdated7.11.94CBItoinvestigateonlytheallegationsoftortureofpetitioner
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page55/

andhisfamilybypoliceofficialofPSKaviNagarGhaziabad,CBIinvestigated the matter regarding perjury which was not covered by the order of Hon'ble Supremecourt.InreplytheretoIOstatedthatitwasincorrectandfurtherstated thatcompleteinvestigationwasbroughttotheknowledgeofHon'bleSupreme Courtthroughvariousinterimreportsandfinalreport.Ld.Counselforaccused furtherallegedthatIOhadstatedinhiscrossexaminationthatInterimreportsand final report hadnot been filed before this court. Ld. counselfor accused Sh. B.S.SharmaalsostatedthatIOcouldnotshowanydocumenttotheeffectthat finalreportwassubmittedbeforeorderdated22.07.96ofHon'bleSupremecourt waspassed.ItiscontendedbyLd.counselforaccusedthatCBIexceededits jurisdictionbyinvestigatingtheallegationofperjuryandfilingthechargesheet u/s193and195r/w120BIPC. 125. However,IdonotagreewiththecontentionofLd.Counselforaccused.In

thisregarditispertinenttomentionedthatchargewasframedagainsttheaccused SatyapalSingh,RajaVats,A.K.Singh,SatyvirSingh,SukhpalSingh forthe offence punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w section 348/330 IPC as well for the substantivechargefortheoffenceu/s330/348IPCandchargewasalsoframed againstalltheaccusedfortheoffencepunishableu/s120Br/w195IPCaswell asforthesubstantiveoffenceu/s195IPC.AccusedSatyapalSingh,RajaVats,A. K.Singh,Sukhpal,Satyvir,DuijaYadav,Promilafiledthethecriminalrevision petitionagainsttheorderframingchargeagainstthem.Revisionpetitionwasalso filedbytheaccusedA.K.Singhwhchwasdismissedvideorderdated16.04.2007. theotheraccuseddidnotplaceanyorderofHon'bleHighcourtonrecordsetting asidetheorderframingofchargeagainstthem.Hencetherewasnoinfirmityin theorderframingofchargeagainsttheaccusedfortheoffenceu/s120Br/w195 IPCandsection195IPC.Accusedhadbeenavailedtheremedyagainstframing
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page56/

ofchargeu/s120Br/w195IPCand195IPChencetheycannotagitatethesame now. 126. Moreover Ld. Spl. PP Sh. Anil Tanwar stated that vide order dated

19.04.96 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that pursuant to the directionsgivenbycourtinquiryhadbeenheldbyCBIandchargesheethadbeen filedagainstnumberofpersonspersons.Itwasfurtherobservedthatcaseinitiated againstthemwouldproceedinaccordancewithlawanditwouldbeopentothe partiesinvolvedinthesaidchargesheettohavesuchactionasmaybeavailable inlaw.Assuch,IagreewiththecontentionofLd.Spl.PPthatasallaccusedhad availedtheremedyavailabletothembyfilingrevisionpetitionagainsttheorder onchargetheycannotagitatethesame eforethiscourt. b 127. InthepresentcaseaccusedSatypalSingh,SukhpalSingh,SatyvirSngh,

DuijaYadav,PromilaJ.Mesihhadsignedthearrestcumrecoverymemodated 13.08.94whichleadstotheinferencethattheyhadagreedtodothesaidillegalact andintentionallyfabricatedthedocumentforbeingusedintheproceedingsof caseFIRno.408/94.Inthisregarditispertinenttomentionthattheaccused SatyapalSingh,Sukhpal,Satyavir,DuijaYadav,Promilaintheirstatementu/s313 Cr.P.C.statedthattherecoverycumarrestmemoEx.PW1/DBwasnotafalse document,whereasaccusedGeetahadstatedthatpoliceofficialhadmadeherto signthememoandshewasnotallowedtoreaditnoritwasreadovertoher.Asa conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and direct evidence is seldom available but thingsdonebytheconspiratorsinreferencetotheircommonintentionafterthe intentionwasfirstentertainedisarelevantfacthencethereisreasonablegroundto believefromtheconduct ofaccused Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal, Satyavir,Duija Yadav,Promila thattheyconspiredtofabricateEx.PW1/DBforbeenusedin caseFIRno.408/94registeredatPSKaviNagaratthebehestofK.R.Ahuja,the
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page57/

liquorbaronofGhaziabad. 128. SHO PS Kavi Nagar Satyapal Singh and other police official had

fabricatedtheGDentryno.15,21and50Ex.PW23/JforbeingusedincaseFIR no. 408/94 against the complainant and his family members for the offence punishableu/s363/366/376IPC.ItwasmentionedinGDno.50thatat22.50hrs. on12.08.94Sh.K.R.AhujacametoPSandhandedoverawrittencomplaintthat accusedpersonshadrunawaywithhisdaughterGeetaafteralluringher.Onthe basisofthecomplaintFIRwasregisteredagainstRajpalDhal,AtulDhal,Anu Dhall,SanjayandManoj.ItwasalsomentionedthatSIRajaVatswassentfrom PSinsearchofthekidnappedgirlandaccusedpersonsat10.50PMwhereasat thattimethecomplainant PW2andhisfamilymembershadalreadybeenin custodyofpoliceofPSKaviNagarasPW2statedthatpoliceofficialtookhim, hissonandDeepakincustodyon12.08.94at3.30PMandtookthemtoPS.The testimonyofthecomplainantPW2inthisregardwentunchallenged.Hencefalse entryno.50wasfabricatedbythethethenSHOPSKaviNagarinconnivance with the other police official Raja Vats, Sukhpal, Satyvir, Duija Yadav and PromilatobeusedincaseFIRno.408/94. 129. GD entry no. 15 Ex. PW 23/J was recorded at 7.25 AM on 13.08.94

accordingtowhichpoliceofficialthethenSHOSatyapalSinghandotherpolice officialaccuseddepartedfromPSat7.25insearchofGeetaandaccused.Itwas recordedthereinthatSOSatypalSinghhadreceivedinformationthat4persons and2ladieswrestandingatNewGhaziabadRailwayStationwaitingforatrain andwerealluringagirl,accordinglypolicepartyreached GhaziabadRailway stationat8.30AMandfoundthatthepersonspresentwerewantedincaseFIRno. 408/94andarrestedthemandalsorecoveredkidnappedgirlGeeta. 130. ProsecutionalsoprovedthatGDentryno.21dated13.08.94recordedat

SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page58/

9.20AMEx.PW23/Jwasalsofabricatedbythepoliceofficialtobeusedinthe caseFIRno.408/94.GD21wasregardingarrivalofSOwiththeraidingteama PSKaviNagarafterarrestofaccusedi.e.RajpalDhallandothers. 131. InsupportsofitscasethatnoarrestsweremadefromNewGhaziabad

Railway Station prosecution examined PW 16 Naveen Kumar was posted as bookingclerkatNewGhaziabadRailwayStationon13.08.94andhehadstated thathewasondutyfrom6amto2PMandonthesaiddatenoarrestwasmadeby localpoliceon13.08.94tohisknowledgeneitherhadheheardfromanyother person that some persons were arrested by localpolice from New Ghaziabad RailwayStation.Inhiscrossexaminationnothingcouldbeelicitedwhichmay castdoubtnohistestimonyinthisregard.Ld.Spl.PPSh.AnilTanwarfurther submittedthatPW17ChotteyLalVermahadstatedthaton13.08.94hewas postedasstationinchargeatNayaGhaziabadRailwaystationandhisdutywere from9.00AMto5.00PMandasperhisknowledgeGhaziabadpolicehadnot arrested any person from New Ghaziabad Railway Station and had any such incidentoccurredatNewGhaziabadRailwayStationitwouldhavecamewithin hisknowledgeasintheyear1994NewGhazibadRailwayStationwasverysmall havingonly2platformsi.e.platformno.1and2.ThetestimonyofPW17had goneunchallenged,hence,prosecutionprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatno arrests were made by local police from Naya Ghaziabad Railway station on 13.08.94 at 8.30 AM and the recoverycumarrest memo Ex. PW 1/DB was fabricatedbyaccusedSatyapalSinghthethenSOPSKaviNagarinconspiracy withK.R.Ahuja, RajaVats,SukhpalSingh,SatyavirSingh,DuijaYadavand Promila J. Mesih for being used in the proceedings of case FIR no. 408/94 registeredatPSKaviNagar. 132. Ld.Spl. PP submitted that from the conductof accused conspiracy to

SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page59/

fabricatedocumentandwasprovedbeyonddoub t.Ithasbeenheldin: AIR1971SC885asfollows: Aconspiracyfromitsverynatureisgenerallyhatchedin secret.Itistherefore,extremelyrarethatdirectevidencein proof of conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholly disinterested quarters or from utter strangers. But, like other offence, criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantialevidence.Indeed,inmostcasesofproof of conspiracyislargelyinferentialthoughtheinferencemust befoundedonsolidfacts.Surroundingcircumstancesand antecedentandsubsequentconduct,amongotherfactors, constitute relevant material. In fact because of the difficultiesinhavingdirectevidenceofcriminalconspiracy, oncereasonablegroundisshownforbelievingthattwoor more person have conspired to commit an offence then anything done by anyone of them in reference to their common intentionafterthe sameis entertainedbecomes, accordingtothelawofevidence,relevantforprovingboth conspiracyandtheoffencecommittedpursuantthereto. 133. Section10oftheEvidenceactprovidesthatanythingsaid,doneorwritten

byoneoftheconspiratorinreferencetothecommonintentionisarelevantfact notonlyisagainsteachotherbutalsoforprovingexistenceofconspiracy. 134. Inthepresentcasethereisreasonablegroundtobelievethattheaccused

SatyapalSingh,Sukhpal,Satyavir,DuijaYadav,Promilaconspiredtofabricate Ex.PW1/DBandGDentries15and21Ex.PW23/Jasinspiteofbeingawareof
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page60/

thefactthatGeetacamewithAtultoPSon13.08.94at8.00AMandstatedthat shehadmarriedAtulandpreparedafalsearrestmemoEx.PW1/DBforbeing usedintheproceedingsofcaseFIRno.408/94registeredatPSKaviNagar. 135. It was further argued on behalf of accused Satyapal Singh, Sukhpal,

Satybir,PromilaMesihandDuijathatinthewritpetitionfiledbythePW1ithad notmentionedthatpoliceofficialhadforciblyobtainedthesignatureofAtuland hisfamilymembersontherecoverycumarrestmemoEx.PW1/DBneitheritwas mentionedinthestatementofPW1totheCBIthattheirsignatureswereobtained forciblyonEx.PW1/DB,hencethedepositionofPW1isnotcredible.Iamofthe viewthatthoughitwasnotmentionedinthewritpetitionthatpoliceofficialhad forciblyobtainedthesignatureofAtulandhisfamilymembersontherecovery cumarrestmemoEx.PW1/DB.ButAtulDhallandDeepakMalikdeposedthat policeofficialhadobtainedtheirsignaturesonsomepapers.Thedocumentswere fabricatedwiththeintentiontoleadthejudgehearingthecasetoformerroneous opinionregardingmaterialfactsofthecaseFIRno.408/94u/s363/366/376IPC thepunishmentforwhichwasupto7years,10years.TheGravityoftheoffence istobeseenfromthefactthatitwascommittedbypoliceofficialsandwhoareto protecttherightsandlibertyoftheindividualandnotimplicatetheminfalsecases andviolateHumanRightsbecauseofindiscriminatearrestandfabricationoffalse document. 136. Thusithasbeenprovedbysatisfactoryevidencethattherewasmeetingof

mindofthe accusedpersons whichresulted the preparationof Ex.PW 1/DB which was an illegal act done in furtherance of the conspiracy entered into betweenaccusedSatyapalSingh,SukhpalSingh,SatyavirSingh,DuijaYadav, PromilaJ.Mesih. 137. Thesaidcircumstancehadnotbeenexplainedbyaccused.Intheabsence

SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page61/

ofanyreasonableexplanationbyaccusedtheinferencefromtheprovedfactsand circumstances is that they had entered into the criminal conspiracy to falsely implicatedAtulandhisfamilymembersintheoffenceofabduction,kidnapping andrapeofGeeta.Hencetheoffencehasbeendulyprovedfromtheillegalacts committedbyaccusedinpursuanceofthecommondesign. 138. Ld. Spl. CBI further submitted that Geeta was major at time of his

marriage with Atul as per document proved on record i.e. her date of birth certificateMarkXandshehadelopedwithAtultogetmarriedoutofherownwill andbothofthemgotmarriedatAryaSamajMandirJungpuraNewDelhi.PW8 Sh.SatyaPrakashShastripriestofAryaSamajMandirperformedtheirmarriage andPW8supportedthecaseofprosecutionandstatedthatAtulandGeetahad reachedthetempletogetmarriedandtheyhadgivenapplicationEx.PW1/Aand PW 1/B and their affidavits in the temple for performance of marriage on 12.08.94.Hefurtherstatedthathehadperformedtheirmarriageandhehadissued themmarriagecertificateEx.PW8/D.Healsostatedthatbothpartieswerewilling fortheperformanceofthemarriageandtherewasnopressureoneitherside.He also stated that family members of either side were not present. In his cross examinationonbehalfofaccusedGeetathetestimonyofPW8regardingher marriagebeingperformedwithherconsentwasnotchallenged. 139. ThereforeCBIhadsucceededinprovingbeyondreasonabledoubtthat

Geetawas majorathetimeofhermarriagewithAtul andhermarriagewas solemnizedwithAtuloutofherfreewillwithoutanypressurefromthesideof Atul. PW 8 had further deposed that family member of either side were not present.InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedGeetaPW8statedthat besidesbrideandgroom57personsaccompaniedthemandtheyhadbrought necessary documents for performance of the marriage. PW 22 Executive
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page62/

MagistratestatedtheaffidavitsEx.PW1/BandPW1/Cwereattestedbyhim.PW 11AmanChandafriendofAtulDhallwasawitnesstomarriagestatedthathe hadaccompaniedGeetaandAtulforperformanceoftheirmarriageatAryaSamaj Mandir,BhogalJungpuraDelhiandtheirmarriagewasperformedatthetemple andhehadtakenphotographsofthemarriage.HealsostatedthatbothGeetaand Atulwerelookinghappywiththemarriage.Inthisregarditwouldbepertinentto mentionthatinthephotographsPW11/1toPW11/8bothAtulandGeetaappear happy with their marriage. He stated that he had given the photographs for developmentatSuryaColourlabandthephotographsandnegativeswerehanded overtosomerelativesofAtul.Healsostatedthathehadsignedasawitnesson Ex.PW1/AwhichwastheapplicationformarriagegivenbyAtulinthetemple. HeprovedthephotographsEx.PW11/1toPW11/8and31collectivelyEx.PW 11/9.Inhiscrossexaminationhestatedthaton12.08.94AtulandGeetapersuaded himtojointheirmarriageceremonyalthoughhewasrecoveringfromtyphoid. Nothingcouldbeelucidatedinhiscrossexaminationwhichmaycreateadoubt regarding his being present at the time of the marriage and having taken photographsofthemarriage.PW14ownerofColourLabstatedthatnegatives Ex.PW11/9weredevelopedinhislab. 140. PW12AnilwaliacorroboratedtheversionofPW11andstatedthathehad

accompaniedGeetaandAtultoDelhitothetemplefortheirmarriage.Hefurther statedthatEx.PW1/AandPW1/BwerewritteninhispresenceandPW1/Bbears hissignatureatpointB.InhiscrossexaminationhestatedAtultoldhimthathe had a loveaffairwithGeetaandGeetausedtoinsist formarriage with him. However he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 12/DA where the insistenceofGeetaisstatedtohavebeenmadeon12.08.94.HoweverIamofthe viewthatthisisnotacontradictionasPW12hadmentionedinhisstatementmade
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page63/

toCBIthatGeetahadinsistedformarriagewithAtul. 141. PW18VijaySherwatstatedthatheknewPW1AtulDhallthroughhis

friendVirenderRanaandattherequestofAtulandGeetahearrangedforthe accommodationatMDInternationalHotelatHauzKhas.Healsostatedthatin hispresencePW1AtulbookedtheroomforhimselfandGeetaandfilledupthe registerinthenameofMr.andMrs.Kothari,histestimonyinthisregardwasnot challenged.Thusprosecutionsucceededinprovingbeyondreasonabledoubtthat AtulandGeetastayedatM.D.Internationalhotelonthenigh tof12/13.08.94. 142. ItisfurthersubmittedbyLd.Spl.PPforCBIthataccusedSatypalSingh,

RajaVats(sincedeceased),AjayKumarSingh,SukhpalandSatvirenteredinto thecriminalconspiracytowrongfullyconfineofthecomplainantPW2hisfamily members Sanjay, Deepak and Anu to extract information/confession about whereaboutsofGeetaand Atul.Inpursuanceofthe conspiracyalltheabove personswerewrongfullyconfinedatKaviNagarPSandphysicallytorturedto extract information about Geeta and Atul. In this regard it is pertinent to mentionedthatPW2statedthathehadgonetothehouseofaccusedK.R.Ahuja toinformhimthatAtulandGeetahadgonetoDelhitogetmarried,uponwhichK. R.AhujaaskedhimtositandthereafterK.R.Ahuja'ssonPeeyushcameand askedhisfathertomakeaphonecalltoKakaKohliandaskhimtobringpolice andalsostatedthatwhenwouldpolicebeofanyhelpthemashewasgivinglacs ofrupeestopolice.KakaKholiwasalsoaliquorbaronofGhaziabad.PW2stated thataftersometimeKakaKohlicamewithpoliceofficer.SOSatyapalSingh,Ct. SatyavirSinghandCt.SukhpalandRajaVatsandSatypalSinghslappedthethe complainantPW2.ThereaftercomplainantPW2wasbroughttoTisHazaricourts Dellhitocheckthemarriageregister.ThecontentionofLd.Counselforaccusedis thatthereisnoprovisiontochecktheregisterwithoutdueprocedure andthe
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page64/

depositionofthecomplainantPW2inthisregardcannotbebelieved.However nothingwaselucidatedinthecrossexaminationofPW2whichmaycreatea doubtwithregardtohistestimonythathewasbroughttoDelhi. 143. PW9Dr.UshaJainprovedthemedicalexaminationreportofaccused

GeetaEx.PW9/A,accordingtothereporttherewerenoinjurymarksonher privateparts,vaginaadmitted2fingersassuchthecasewasregisteredagainst AtulfortheoffenceU/s376IPCwithmalafideintentiontouseframeAtulDhall andhisfamilymembers.Moreover,PW19statedthathewasaneighbourofPW7 andon12.08.1994DeepakandhisfamilyhadgonetoLohiaNagarGhaziabadto attendTerhviofhismotherandhishousewaslockedon12/13.08.1994.IOhad proved inspection memo of house no. 116D, Dilshad Garden Ex. PW 23/L accordingtowhichallegationofrapeagainstAtulbyGeetainherstatementU/s 164Cr.P.C.werefalse,asthehouseofPW7DeepakMalikwaslockedonthe interveningnightof12/13.08.1994ashehadgoneforTehrviofhismotherto Ghaziabad.TheversionofPW2,3,5,6,7and13regardingthefactthatthe motherofPW7andmotherinlawofcomplainanthadexpiredandallofthe abovePWshadgoneforTehrvion12.08.94.Assuchprosecutionprovedbeyond reasonabledoubtthatDeepakMalikwasnotathishouseon12/13.08.94hencethe allegationinthestatementofGeetaU/s164Cr.P.C.isthatshewasrapedatthe houseofPW7werefalse. 144. Ld.Spl.PPfurthersubmittedthatPW1Atulstatedthathehadcalledhis

houseon13.08.94andwasinformedbyhisauntManoramaMalikthatpolice official of PS Kavi Nagar had arrested his father, brother Sanjay and Mama DeepakonhearingthisnewshecalledataxiandreachedPSKaviNagaralong withGeetaatabout8AMandGeetatoldthepoliceofficialthatshehadmarried Atuloutofherownwillbutherfatherandpoliceofficialdidnotlistentoher.PW
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page65/

1furtherstatedthatat3.00PMthepoliceofficialarrestedhim,hisfather,bhabhi Anu,mamaDeepakMalikandbrotherSanjay. 145. PW20OmPrakashtaxidrivercorroboratedtheversionofPW1regarding

the fact that he had dropped a boy and girl at the gate of PS Kavi Nagar GhaziabadinAugust1994andhewascalledatMDInternationalhotelatHauz Khasandwasaskedtotaketwopassengersi.e.oneboyandonegirltoGhazibad andhedroppedthesaidpersonsatthegateofPoliceStationatGhaziabad.He thereafterinformedMDInternationalHotelthathehaddroppedthepassengersat police station Ghaziabad. He however stated that he could not identify the passengers.InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedGeeta. 146. ThecomplainantPW2corroboratedtheversionofPW1andstatedthaton

13.08.94atabout7.30AMGeetaandAtulcameinPSKaviNagarandGeeta telephonically informed her father K.R.Ahuja upon which he reached PS and GeetatoldthepoliceofficialsandherfatherthatshehadgotmarriedAtuloutof herownwillbuttheydidnotlistentoher.Healsostatedthatthereafteratabout 1.30AMK.Ra.AhujacamebacktoPSandatthattimeSOSatypalSinghwas presentandtherewassometalkbetweenK.R.AhujandSatypalSingh.Thereafter heaswellasAtul,Sanjay,DeepakandAnuwereputinthelockupandweresent toJC. 147. The contention of Ld. counsel for all the accused is that marriage

certificatewasnotproducedbyAtulbeforethethethenSOaccusedSatyaplSingh assuchthesubmissionofAtulDhalPW1andGeetathattheyhadmarriedwere notfoundsatisfactoryandtheSOwasjustifiedintakingactionagainstAtuland hisfamilymembers. 148. ItwasnextcontendedonbehalfofaccusedthatthemarriageofGeetawith

Atulwasperformedagainstherwishesandaccusedhadabductedhercompelled
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page66/

hertomarryAtulagainstherwishesandAtulhadforciblyrapedherinthehouse of his maternal uncle Deepak Malik. It is also alleged on behalf of accused personsthatGeetahadmadestatementundersection164Cr.P.C.Ex.PW24/A1 beforePW24ADJBulandsheharUPandPW24haddeposedthaton12.10.94he waspostedatACJMIIIGhaziabadandonthatdayIOmovedanapplicationEx. PW24/AbeforeACJMGhaziabadforrecordingofthestatementofGeetaunder section164Cr.P.C.andherecordedthestatementofGeetaon15.10.94afterbeing satisfiedthatshewantedtogivestatementvoluntarily.Heprovedthestatementof GeetarecordedbyhimEx.PW24/A1whichbearshersignatureatpointAat3 places and his signatures at point B. He further stated that be appended the certificatetothesamewhichisA1toA1.Inherstatementu/s164Cr.P.C.accused Geetahadstatedthaton12.08.94at6.30AMwhileshewasonthewaytocollege Atul,ManojAnu,Sanjay,DeepakandRajPalcameintwoMarutivansandAnu Dhallinquiredfromherastowhereshewasgoingwhereuponshetoldherthatshe wasgoingtocollege.AnuDhalltoldherthattheywoulddropherathercollege andaskedhertositinthevan,firstsherefusedbutasshewasgettinglateshesat inthevanwithAtul,ManojandAnu.ThereafterAnuintoxicatedherbyputting handkerchiefonherfaceandwhensherecoveredconsciousnessshefoundherself inthehouseofDeepakMalikatDilshadGarden,Delhi.ShestatedthatAtuland hisfamilymembersscoldedherandtheywerecarryingpistol.Shealsostated that Atul forcibly married her and took her photographs. Thereafter she was lockedintheroomandattheinstanceofallhisfamilymembersAtulrapedher andshewasthenbroughtinavantoGhaziabadRailwaystationfromwherepolice officialapprehendedthem.Shealsostatedthathersignaturesweretakenforcibly onsomedocumentsatthetimeofhermarriage. 149. Offenceofconspiracyasdefinedundersection120AIPasanagreement

SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page67/

betweentwoormorepersonstodoanunlawfulactorlawfulactbyunlawful means.Saiddocumentwasfabricatedwiththeintentiontoleadjudgehearingthe casetofromerroneousopinionregardingmaterialfactsofthecaseFIRno.408/94 u/s363/366/376IPCthepunishmentfortheoffenceu/s363IPCupto7years,u/s 363IPCupto10years andundersection376thepunishmentofimprisonment shallnotbelessthan7yearsbutwhichmaybeforlifeorfortermswhichmay extendto10years. 150. ThecomplainantPW2furtherstatedthatthereafterpolicetookhim,Sanjay

andDeepakinthecustodyandtookthemtoPSKaviNagaron12.8.94at3.30PM. ThetestimonyofPW2regardingthefactthathe,SanjayandDeepakweretaken toPSon12.08.94at3.30PMhadgoneunchallenged. Complainantalsostated thatheandabovepersonswerebroughtbackhomeaspoliceofficialsexpected Atul to contact his family and thereafter PW 2 as well as Annu, Sanjay and DeepakwerebroughttothePSKaviNagarandmadetositinroomadjoiningthe roomofSO.Healsostatedthatoneelectricmachinewaslyingatthebenchona tableintheroomwheretheymadetositandSIRanaandH.K.Singhgaveelectric shocktoSanjayandalsoputwiresintheearofSanjayduetowhichbloodstarted comingfromhisearandwhenAnuaskedthemwhethertheyintendedtokill Sanjay,Anuwasalsogiven23electricshocksbySIH.K.SinghwhileSIRana kept rotating the electric machine. Electric shocks were also given to the complainantPW2andDeepak. 151. ItiscontendedonbehalfofCBIthatPW2andhisfamilymemberswere

wrongfullyconfinedatPSKaviNagartoextractinformation/confessionfrom themaboutGeetaandAtulandataround12.20AMontheinterveningnightof 12/13.08.94circleofficerA.K.SinghreachedPSandcalledthethecomplainant PW2andhisfamilymemberswhowereillegallydetainedintheroomofSOand


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page68/

A. K. Singh asked them about the whereabouts of Atul and Geeta and gave beatingstoSanjay,Deepakwithwoodenstick(baith).A.K.Singhalsotoldthem thatboyandgirlshouldreturnhomebymorningandthereafterleft. 152. ItisfurtherthecaseofCBIthataccusedK.R.Ahujawhowasaliquor

contractorofGhaziabadandhehadintimacywithaccusedA.K.Singhandother policeofficialsandhehadapproachedthepoliceafterhisdaughterelopedwith Atultoframetheminafalsecase. 153. AcomplaintoftheincidentwasgivenbyaccusedK.R.Ahujafatherof

GeetatoSHOPSKaviNagaron12.08.94at22.30hrs.butaspertheversionof PW2andhisfamilymemberstheyweretakentoPSon12.08.94at3.30PM.The testimonyofPW2inthisregardhasgoneunchallenged.Thereforeithasbeen provedbytheprosecutionthatPW2andhisfamilymembershadbeentakeninto custodybypoliceofPSKaviNagarpriortoanycomplainthavingreceivedby policeofPSKaviNagarandPW2wasbroughttoTisHazaricourts,Delhiand takentootherplacesinsearchofGeetaandAtul. 154. ItishowevercontendedonbehalfofaccusedA.K.Singhthathewasnot

thecircleofficerofPSKaviNagarattherelevanttimeandcircleofficerwasone AwdeshKumarSinghandhehadbeenfalselyimplicatedbyCBIasitcouldnot findanyevidenceagainstAwdeshKumarSinghandfoundthepositionofAlpha5 vehicleofaccusedAjayKumarSinghatPSKaviNagarat12.20midnight. 155. HoweverLd.Spl.PPforCBIhadsubmittedthataccusedA.K.Singhwas

theKingpinoftheconspiracyforwrongfulconfinementofcomplainantandhis familymembersatPSKaviNagaraswouldemergefromtheevidenceonrecord.. 156. OntheotherhandthecontentionofLd.Spl.PPisthatcomplainantandhis

familymembersandAtulwerearrestedinafalsecaseandnoinvestigationwas madetofindoutthebonafideofthecomplaintofK.R.Ahujabeforearresting
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page69/

complainant and his family as all accused police official had conspired with accusedK.R.AhujawhowasaliquorbaronofGhaziabadandtheydidnotrelease thecomplainantandhisfamilymembersevenafterGeetatoldthemthatshehad marriedPW1Atul. 157. Ld.Spl.PPalsosubmittedthatapersoncannotbearrestedonlybecauseit

islawfultodosobythepoliceandexistenceofpowertoarrestisonethingand justification for exercise of the power is another. Hence all the acts done by accusedSatypalSingh,SukhpalSingh,SatyavirSinghandA.K.Singhregarding arrestsandconfinementofcomplainantandhisfamilycanbesaidtohavebeen doneinfurtheranceoftheirconspiracyandarerelevantfactasagainsteachof themandforprovingtheexistenceofconspiracyandthatallthe accusedwere partyinit. 158. Oncarefulscrutinyoftheevidenceanddocumentsonrecord,Ifindthat

thecontentionofLd.CounselforaccusedA.K.SinghthathedidnotvisitPSKavi Nagarontheinterveningnightof12/13.08.94standbeliedfromthetestimonyof PW21whowastheradioMaintenanceofficeratGhahziabadUPstatedthatasper relevantpagesoflogbookEx.PW21/B1toB2thepositionofAlpha5whichwas withthecircleofficerCity1Ghaziabadontheinterveningnightof12/13.08.94at 12.20AMwasatKaviNagarandat1.12AMthepositionofAlpha5wasshown atDBlockShastriNagarGhaziabad.Itis thusprovedbeyonddoubtthatthe vehicleAlpha5waswiththeCOofCityA.K.SinghwhowastheCOofcity1at therelevanttimeandthevehicleAlpha5waswithhimat12.02midnightonthe interveningnightof1213.08.94andthepositionofAlpha5wasatKaviNagar. 159. ItwasallegedonbehalfofaccusedassuchaccusedA.K.Singhdidnot

conspire with other police official Satypal Singh, Raja Vats (since deceased), Satbir Sing, Sukhbir and Khem Raj Ahuja to wrongfully confine the the
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page70/

complainantPW2andhisfamilymemberstoextractinformationorconfession fromthemortorturethemashewasnotpostedatcircleofficerofPSKaviNagar andhadnosupervisorypoweroverfunctioningofPSKaviNagaranddidnothave anyoccasiontomeetthepoliceofficialofPSKaviNagarinconnectionwithcase FIRno.408/94registeredatPSKaviNagarandhehasbeenimplicatedashis namewassimilartothenameofcircleofficerofPSKaviNagarAwdeshKumar Singh.ItwasalsoallegedthatthePW2andhisfamilymembershadlevelledfalse allegations against accused A.K. Singh to save themselves from the case of kidnappinggotregisteredbydeceasedK.R.Ahujaagainstthem.HoweverPW2, PW3,PW6andPW7hadstatedthattheyhadbeencalledtotheroomofSHO when A.K. Singh came to the PS Kavi Nagar and he inquired about the whereaboutsofboyandgirlandgavebeatingstoSanjayandDeepakwithwooden stickbuthedidnottouchPW2andwarnedthemthatboyandgirlshouldreturn homebymorningandthenleftPS. 160. ThedefenceofaccusedA.K.SinghthathenevervisitedPSKaviNagaron

theinterveningnightof12/13.08.94wasalsofoundfalseinviewofhisstatement u/s164Cr.P.C.Ex.PW25/A1. ThecontentionofLd.Counselforaccused

A.K.SinghisthathewasnotthecircleofficerofPSKaviNagarattherelevant dateandhewasnotliableforthedeedsoftheotheraccusediswithoutanymerits and on close scrutiny of evidence his arguments does not stand the test of reasonableness.Inhisstatementu/s164Cr.P.C,Ex.PW25/A1,accusedA.K. SinghstatedthathewaslookingaftertheworkofPSKaviNagaraslinkof supervisoryofficerintheabsenceofcircleofficeofcity1Ghaziabadwhowason leaveandwhilepatrollingintheareahesawcrowdatPSKaviNagarandentered PSKaviNagarandoninquiryfromSHOPSKaviNagarhewastoldthatitwasa caseofkidnappingofagirlandhestatedheremainedinthePSforabout45
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page71/

minutes. IamoftheviewthatbeingthelinkofsupervisoryofficeofPSKavi Nagar,hewaslookingaftertheworkofPSKaviNagarintheabsenceofcircle officercity1andhevisitedPSKaviNagarwherePW2andhisfamilymembers hadbeendetainedbythepoliceincaseFIRno.408/94,thushisroleintheinthe conspiracy of wrongful confinement cannot be ruled out. There is positive evidence about the conspiracy and complicity against A. K. Singh regarding offence of wrongful confinement as the complainant PW 2 and his family membershadstatedthathehadcametoPSandhadbeatenSanjayandDeepakand alsowarnedallofthemthatboyandgirlshouldreturnhomebythemorning.It wasnotnecessarythatA.K.Singhoughttohavebeenphysicallypresentallthe timeduringillegalconfinementofPW2andhisfamilymembers.Moreoverthere isnoevidenceonrecordthatPSKaviNagarhadlargebuildingorthattherewas lotofbusinesstobetransactedthereonthebasisofwhichitcouldbeurgedthat illegalconfinementofPW2andhisfamilymembersmayhaveescapedfromthe noticeofaccusedA.K.SinghwhenhevisitedPSKaviNagar.Thus,Iamofthe viewthatcomplicityofaccusedA.K.Singhhasbeenprovedbeyondreasonable doubtwiththeaidofsection120B. 161. ThenextcontentionofLd.counselforaccusedA.K.Singhisthatnoneof

thewitnessesPW2,3,6and7hadknowhimearlierandPW2,3,6and7had statedintheircrossexaminationthattheyhadseenaccusedA.K.Singhforthe firsttimeinthePSandthereafterinthecourt.PW6hadstatedthatshedidnot knowaccusedA.K.Singhbeforetheincident.PW7alsostatedinhiscross examinationthataftertheincidenthehadseentheaccusedA.K.Singhinthe court,hencetheTIPofaccusedA.K.Singhoughttohavebeengotconductedto establishhisidentityashewasnotthecircleofficerofPSKaviNagaronthe relevantdate. Itwasstatedthatitisthecaseofmistakenidentityduetothe


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page72/

similarnamesofCOPSKaviNagarAwdeshKumarSinghandA.K.Singhatthe relevant time. However, I of the opinion that there was no question of any mistakenidentityofaccusedA.K.SinghandTIPofaccusedA.K.Singhwasnot necessaryinviewofhisstatementu/s164Cr.P.C.whereinhestatedthathewas presentatPSKaviNagarontheinterveningnightof1213.08.94for45minutes. Section164(2)Cr.P.C.makesthestatementofwitnessrecordedbytheMagistrate admissible in evidence against the maker of it, if it is voluntarily made. For provingthatthestatementofA.K.Singhwasvoluntarilymadeprosecutionrelied onthetestimonyofPW25whohadrecordedthestatementofaccusedA.K.Singh u/s164Cr.P.C.. 162. Hence,IamoftheopinionthatcomplicityofaccusedA.K.Singhinthe

offenceisestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt. Heasthelinkofsupervisory officervisitedPSKaviNagaronthenightof1213.08.94andtheleastexpected ofhimwastoensurethatthenoindiscriminatearrestshadbeenmadeespeciallyof awomanwhichviolatedhumanrights.ThereforeA.K.Singhcannotescapefrom the liability for wrongful confinement of complainant and his family and is equallyliablealongwithotheraccusedforwrongfulconfinementofPW2andhis familymembersatPSKaviNagarforextortionofconfession/informationfrom inconspiracywiththeothercoaccusedK.R.AhujaliquorbaronofGhaziabad (deceased),SHOPSKaviNagarSatyapal,SukhpalandSatyavirSingh. 163. TheaccusedSatyapalSinghthethenSHOPSKaviNagarwastheperson

inchargeofthePSKaviNagarandhiscomplicityintheoffencesstandsproved beyondreasonabledoubtbytheversionofPW2,PW3,PW6andPW7whohad beenillegallydetainedatPSKaviNagar. ThecomplicityofaccusedSukhpal, SatyavirSingh,alsostandsprovedbythetestimonyofthecomplainantPW2,PW 3,PW6andPW7.ThepresenceofSatyavirSinghandSukhbirhasnotbeen


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page73/

challengedinthecrossexaminationofPW2aswellasPWs3,6and7.Satyapal SinghtheStationOfficerPSKaviNagarwasliableandaccountableforallthat happenedinthepolicestationasallactsweredeemedtohavebeencommitted withhisconsentandconnivance.Itwasnotnecessaryforhimtobepresentallthe timeduring12.08.1994and13.08.1994duringtheillegalconfinementof PW2 andhisfamilymemberswhentheyweretakentoDelhiandotherplaces The complicityofCt.Sukhbir,SatyvirSinghinthecommissionofcrimestandsproved beyondreasonabledoubt. 164. Althoughduringinterrogationpolicenecessarilyhavetocallpersonsfor

investigationandtakethemsomeplacesforrecoveryofincriminatingarticlesbut wherepoliceofficialdetainpersonswhoarenotconcernedwithanyinvestigation, they are guilty u/s 348 IPC. In the present case as per the version of the complainantPW2,heandhisfamilymembersweretakenfromtheirhouseon 12.08.94at3.30PMtoPSKaviNagarGhaziabadandwereproducedbeforethe Magistrateon13.08.94.Theyhadnoconcernwiththeinvestigationofthecase FIRno.408/94but werewrongfullyconfinedinthePS,duetowhichpolice officialunderwenttomentalagonyanddisgraceandinstatedofreleasingthem whenGeetacametoPSon13.08.94withAtulDhallandtoldthepoliceofficial andherfatherthatshehadmarriedAtul,theywereputinthelockupandsentto judicialcustodyinafalsecaseofabduction,kidnappingandrape. 165. IfindthatthetestimonyofPW2,3,6and7doesnotsufferfrominherent

inconsistenciesandarecogentregardingtheirwrongfulconfinementinPSKavi Nagarontheinterveningnightof12/13.08.94andnothinghasbeenbroughton recordbyaccusedtodiscredittheirversionsregardingthesaidfact.Hence,Iamof theopinionthataccusedA.K.Singh,SatyapalSingh,SukhpalSinghandSatyvir Singhinfurtheranceofconspiracyenteredintocriminalconspiracywithaccused


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page74/

K.R.Ahuja(deceased)towrongfulconfinecomplainantPW2andhisfamily memberswithaviewtoextractconfession/informationfromthemaboutGeeta andAtul. 166. TheLd.Spl.PPfurtherarguedthatcomplainantandhisfamilymember

weretortured,beatenandgivenelectricshocksduringillegaldetentionandall accusedtherebycommittedoffenceu/s120Br/wsection330IPCand330IPC. HoweverthecontentionofLd.counselforaccusedisthattheversionofPW2,3, 6and7inthisregardarehighlytaintedwithinterestednessandarebiasedand there are deliberate exaggeration at every stage in their deposition regarding beatings,tortureandelectricshocksinordertosavethemfromcaseFIRno. 408/94registeredatPSKaviNagar,theproceedingsofwhichhavebeenstayedby Hon'bleSupremeCourtbuttheHon'bleSupremeCourthadnotquashedthesaid FIR. 167. ThecontentionofLd.counselforaccusedisthat PW2 andhisfamily

memberswhowereaccusedincaseFIRno.408/94wereproducedbeforethe Magistrateatthetimeofobtainingtheirjudicialremandandincaseiftheyhad sustainedanyinjuriesduetobeatingbypolicetheywouldhavementionedthe sametotheMagistrateortheircounselwouldhavedoneso.Hefurtheralleged thatPW1hadstatedinhiscrossexaminationthattheyhadengagedacounselat thetimewhentheywereproducedbeforetheMagistratefortheirjudicialremand. Ld.CounselforaccusedfurtherallegedthatPW1statedinhiscrossexamination that in the writ petition Ex. PW 1/D2 it was mentioned that they were not producedbeforetheMagistrate.Howeverhewasshownthewritpetitionandafter goingthroughthesamehestatedthatsaidavermentswerenotmentionedthereas suchhistestimonyinthisregardbediscarded.ItwassubmittedbyLd.Counselfor accusedthatcomplainantandhisotherfamilymembersastheywereproduced
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page75/

beforetheMagistrateandtheydidnotmakeanycomplaintregardinginjuries sustainedbythemasinfactnosuchinjurieshadbeencausedtothembythepolice official. 168. It is further alleged that PW 2 and his family members did not get

themselvesmedicallyexaminedafterbeingreleasedfromJailasnoinjurieswere sustainedbythem.Itisfurtherallegedasnoallegationsweremadeinthewrit petitionEx.PW1/D2thattheywerenotexaminedbythejaildoctorregardingthe injuriessustainedbythemassuchtheallegationsmadeagainstthejaildoctorin thedepositionofPW2areallfalse.Itisfurtherarguedonbehalfofaccusedthat IOPW23DSPP.K.Chaudharyhasalsoadmittedinhiscrossexaminationthatif apersonsenttoJCininjuredconditionheisnotpermittedentryinthejailwithout firstgettinghimmedicallyexamined. 169. ItwasfurtherallegedonbehalfofaccusedthatthePW2complainanthad

notmentionedthenamesofpoliceofficialinthecomplainttoDistrictMagistrate andneitherhehadmentionedinthecomplaintthatpoliceofficialhadbeatenhim athishouse.InthisregardLd.Spl.PPforCBIsubmittedthatSatyapalSingh, Sukhpal,Satbir,Promila,DuijaYadavhadnotchallengedtheiridentificationby PW1,PW2,PW3,PW4,andPW7.Thusalthoughinthecomplaintnamesof thepoliceofficialwhoassaultedthePW2andhisfamilymembershavenotbeen mentionedbutFIRisnotanencyclopediaofallfactsasheld: 2009XAD(SC)381 Undoubtedly, in the FIR the appellant names have not beenmentioned.TheFIRisnottheencyclopediaofallthe factsrelatingtocrime.Theonlyrequirementsisthatatthe timeoflodgingofFIR,theinformantshouldstateallthose factswhichnormallystriketomindandhelpinassessing
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page76/

thegravityofthecrimeoridentityoftheculpritbriefly.

170.

Ld.Spl.PPfurthersubmittedthatthePW1,PW2,PW3,PW6andPW7

hadfullycorroboratedtheprosecutioncaseregardingthefactthattheyweretaken tothePSbythethenSOandotherpoliceofficialSukhpal,SatyvirSingh,Raja Vats (deceased) to get clue about Geeta and Atul but despite the inhumanly behaviormetedouttothemnoinformationcouldbegatheredfromanyofthem. 171. Ld,.Counselforaccusedontheotherhandhadfurthercontendedthat

marriagecertificateofGeetaandAtulwasnotproducedbeforetheSHOandthis factwasalsoadmittedbyPW1inhiscrossexaminationandPW1statedthathe didnothavemarriagecertificatewithhimwhenhesurrenderedatPS.PW1stated thathehadgiventhemarriagecertificatetohisfriendAnilWalia,hencethepolice cannotbesaidtohavearrestedcomplainant,Atulandhisfamilymembersina falsecaseandtheactsofpoliceofficialswerelawfulastherewasacomplaintof kidnapping and abduction by father of Geeta. However this contention ofLd. CounselforaccusediswithoutanyforceasPW1andPW2statedintheircross examinationthatonreachingPSKaviNagarGeetahadtoldthepoliceofficials thatshehadmarriedAtulandaskedpoliceofficialtoreleasethemandfoughtwith herfatherontheissueofgettingthemreleased.ThetestimonyofPW1,andPW2 inthisregardwentunchallengedassuchtherewasnojustificationtodetainthem withoutbonafideinquiryregardingthecomplaintofK.R.Ahuja. 172. ItiscontendedonbehalfofaccusedthatPW2,PW3,PW6andPW7

statedintheircrossexaminationthatelectricshocksweregivenbySIH.K.Singh andSIRanahowevertheywerenotarrayedasanaccused.PW2alsostatedinhis crossexaminationthatInspectorSheelaChaudharyhadbeatenAnuandshehad alsonotbeenarrayedasanaccusedandhehadnogrievancesagainsther.Itis


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page77/

also contended on behalf of accusedthat prosecution has failed to prove that electricshocksweregivenbyanyoftheaccusedfromthetestimonyofPW2,3,6 and7.ThereforethegivingofelectricshocksbyaccusedtoPW2,PW3,PW6 andPW7hadnotbeenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt. 173. OnacarefulscrutinyofevidenceofPW2,3,6and7Ifindthattheir

depositionsregardingtheinjuriessustainedbythemduringwrongfulconfinement andsamewereatsubstantiatedasnohurtcouldactuallybeprovedonrecord.In viewoftheseveralcontradictionsinversionsofabovePWsoffenceu/s330IPC couldnotbeprovedbeyondreasonable oubt. d 174. Section54oftheCr.P.C.providesforexaminationofanarrestedpersonby

medicalpractitioneranditisarightconferredofanarrestedpersonbutoften arrestedpersonisnotawareofhisrightonaccountofhisignoranceandisunable toexercisehisrighteventhoughhemayhavebeentorturedormaltreatedby policeinpolicelockup. Hence,itisthedutyoftheMagistratetoinformthe arrestedpersonabouthisrightofmedicalexamination,incasehemakesany complaintoftortureormaltreatmentinpolicecustody. 175. The contention of Ld. counsel for accused A.K. Singh and and other

accusedpoliceofficialsisthatthecomplainantandhisfamilymemberswhowere accusedincaseFIRNo.408/94wereproducedbeforetheMagistrateandhadthey beentorturedorbeateninpolicecustody,theywouldhavemadecomplainttothe Magistrate.WhereastheLd.SpecialPPforCBIsubmittedthatPW1hadstated thattheywerenotproducedbeforeMagistrateandthepoliceofficialwentinside andobtainedtheirjudicialremand. Itwasallegedonbehalfofaccusedpolice officialsthatPW1hadstatedinhiscrossexaminationthathehadmentionedin thewritpetitionEx.PW1/D2thattheywerenotproducedbeforetheMagistrate butaftergoingthroughthecopyofthewritpetitionEx.PW1/D2itwasfoundthat
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page78/

nosuchavermentsweremadetherein.Ifindthatthereareinherentcontradictions intheversionofPW1and3asPW3inhisstatementmadetoCBIstatedthatthey wereproducedbeforetheMagistratewhodismissedtheirbailapplicationandjail doctordidnotexaminetheminspiteofinjuriesoftheirpersonandtheydidnot getthemselvesmedicallyexaminedafterbeingreleasedfromJCastheyhadno knowledgethatitwouldberequiredinthecasebutgavecontradictoryversionin court.PW1statedinhisstatementEx.PW1/DAthatjaildoctorexaminedthem buthadnotmentionedabouttheinjuriesinhisreportbutcontradictedhisversion and deposed in court the jail doctor did not examine them. In view of the contradictionsinthedepositionofPW1and3thereareinherentimprobabilitiesin theirversionandsamecannotbereliedupontoconvicttheaccusedfortheoffence U/s120BIPCr/wsection330IPCandSection330IPC. 176. OntheotherhandLd.PPforCBIstatedthatcomplainantandhisother

familymembersPWs3,5,6and7hadallcategoricallydeposedthattheywerenot onlybeatenbutelectricshockswerealsogiventotheminPSKaviNagarduring theirillegaldetentionatPSKaviNagarandthetestimonyofthecomplainantand hisfamilymembersstoodcorroboratedbytheversionofeachotherregardingthe beatingsandelectricshocksgiventothemandtheirversioncannotdiscardedonly becausethereisnomedicalevidenceregardingtheinjuriessustainedbythem duringtheirillegalconfinementinthelockupofPSKaviNagar.Insupportofhis contentionsthatevidencegivenbymedicalofficerisofadvisorycharacterhe placedrelianceupon: 2006AIR(SC)508 Vishnu@Undrya Vs. StateofMaharashtra
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page79/

Whereinitisheldasfollow s: Theopinionofthemedicalofficeristoassistthecourtas heisnotawitnessoffactandtheevidencegivenbythe MedicalOfficerisreallyofanadvisorycharacterandnot bindingonthewitnessoffact. 177. ItisfurthersubmittedbySh.AnilTanwarLd.SpecialPPforCBIthatthe

testimony of the complainant and his family membmers which were credible shouldnotbediscardedforwantofmedicalevidence.Hefurthersubmittedthat the evidence of complainant and his family members must be tested for its inherentconsistencyandinherentprobabilityofthestory.Itwasalsosubmitted byLd.SpecialPPthateyewitnessesareeyesandearsofjustice.Insupportofthis contentionheplacedrelianceon: 2004AIR(SC)77 RamakantRai Vs. MadanRai Whereinitisheldasfollows: MedicalEvidenceandEyeWitnessEvidenceEyeWitnesses areeyesandearsofJusticeWheretheEyewitnessEvidenceis foundcredibleandtrustworthyHypotheticalanswersgivenby DoctorscannotdecreasethevalueoftheEyeWitnessEvidence.

178.

The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused Satyapal, Sukhpal Singh,

SatyavirSingh,DurejaandPromilaandA.K.Singhisthatnocomplaint was lodged by complainant and his family against the jail doctor who refused to examinethemasnoinjurieswere sustainedbyPW 1,2,3,6and7 and the
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page80/

allegationsmadeagainstjaildoctorthatheaskedfrobribewerefalseandthe name of the doctor was also not disclosed neither any complaint was lodged againsthimnoranyallegationswasmadeagainstthedoctorinthewritpetition. Ld.CounselforaccusedarguedthatPW1alsostatedthattheyhadengageda counselatthetimeofbeingproducedbeforeMagistratebutthelawyerdidnot meetthemandhisimpressionwasthattheadvocatemighthavebeenunderinthe influenceofaccusedK.R.Ahuja.Hefurtherstatedthathedonotknowthename oftheadvocate.Itwassubmittedonbehalfofaccusedthathadthecomplainant andhisfamilymemberssustainedinjuries,thesamewouldhavebeenmentioned intheirbailapplicationbuttheirbailapplicationwasnotseizedbyIO,hencethe injuriesontheirpersonswerenotproved. 179. Ld.CounselforaccusedA.K.SinghstatedthatPW1statedinhiscross

examinationthatnospecificallegationsweremadeagainsthiminthewritpetition assuchthePW1andhisfamilymembershadnogrievanceagainsthimregarding beatingsandtorture.ButthiscannotbeacceptedasPW1clarifiedthisfactand stated thathe had levelled general allegations against the accused in the writ petitionandhehadimpleadedtheSHO,PSKaviNagarandSeniorSuperintendent ofPoliceGhaziabadasrespondentsbuthadnotimpleadedaccusedA.K.Singhas aparty.HealsocontendedonbehalfofaccusedA.K.Singhthatintheannexure annexedwiththewritpetitionithasbeenmentionedthataccusedA.K.Singh restrainedthepoliceofficialsfromtorturinghimandhisfamilyassuchcomplaint andhisfamilyhadnotlevelledallegationsagainsthiminthewritpetition. 180. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused police official that in the

complaintmadebyPW2totheDistrictMagistrateEx.PW2/DAthenamesofthe policeofficialswhoactuallygavebeatingsorelectricshockswasnotmentioned byPW2andthisfactwasadmittedbyhim.ThecomplaintmadetoDistrictJudge


SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page81/

wasannexedwiththewritpetitiononwhichHon'bleSupremeCourtpassedthe ordersdirectingCBItoinvestigatetheallegationsoftortureandgivingofelectric shockstothepetitionerthereinandhisfamilymembers.Howeverinthisregardit maybenotedthatFIRisnotencyclopediaofthiseventanditissufficientifit mentionsthemannerinwhichtheincidentoccurredandthegravityoftheoffence. In the present case the gravity of the offence and manhandling and beatings electricshocksgivenbypoliceofficialstothepetitionerPW1andhisfamily membershadbeenmentioned. 181. Itwasalsosubmittedonbehalfofaccusedthatalthoughitwasdeposedby

PW2,36and7thatSIH.K.SinghandSIRanaSinghgaveelectricshocktothem butSIH.K.Singh&SIRanabutthesaidpoliceofficialswerenotarrayedas accusedandPW2hadstatedthathehadnogrievanceagainstH.K.Singhand RanaSinghandhealsohadnottakenanyactionagainstCBIfornotmakingRana andH.K.Singhasaccused. 182. Ld.CounselforaccusedsubmittedthatinhiscrossexaminationIOstated

thathehadnotobtainedthecopyofthebailapplicationmovedbycomplainant andhisfamilymembersbeforetheLd.MM.Hedeniedthatacopyofthesame wasnotobtainedastherewerenoallegationsoftorturetherein.Healsostatedthat hecouldnottellwithoutseeingthepolicefilethatwhetherheseizedthecopyof JCremandapplicationofcomplainantandhisfamily.Healsostatedthathedid notrecordthestatementoftheconstablewhoescortedtheaccusedofcaseFIRno. 408/94i.e.complainantandhisfamilyatthetimeoftheirjudicialremandandalso stated that he could not state whether he had obtained the copy of the bail applicationornot.Healsostatedthathecouldnotstatewithoutseeingthepolice filewhetherherecordedthestatementofMagistrateofGhaziabadornottothe effectthatcomplainantaswellasAtul,Sanjay,DeepakandAnuaccusedofcase
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page82/

FIRno.408/94werenotproducedbeforetheMagistratebeforetheyweresentto JC.HealsostatedthatitwascorrectthatifapersonissenttoJCininjured condition he is not permitted in the jail without first getting him medically examined.Healsostatedthatelectricshocksweregiventofamilymembersof AtulbySIH.K.SinghandSIRanaandSISheelaChaudharyhadbeatenAnu.IO furtherstatedthatcomplainantandhisfamilyhadnotgetthemselvesmedically examined.HefurtherstatedthathecouldnotrecoveranyitemfromPSKavi Nagarusedforgivingelectricshock. Hefurtherstatedthat SI H.K. Singh, SI RanaandSISheelaChaudharyagainstwhomallegationsofgivingelectricshocks weremadebythewitnesshadnotbeenmadeanaccusedinthiscase. 183. Ld.Spl.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedpoliceofficialthethenSO

SatyapalSingh,wasdutyboundtogetthemmedicallyexaminedbeforetheywere produced beforetheMagistrate but he had notdone so. Ld. Spl. PP for CBI contendedthatintheabsenceofthesamepresumptiontobedrawnagainstthat accused that injuries had been inflicted on the complainant and his family membersbyaccusedpoliceofficials.Ithasbeenheldin 184. 2009VIIIADDelhi262 State Vs. ShreeGopal@ManiGopal asfollows: 185. thatadverseinferenceagainstanaccusedistheresultofapresumptive

logicandbyitsverynature,presumptivelogicisweaklogic.HoweverIamofthe viewnoadverseinferenceofthesameistobedrawnagainsttheaccused. 186. Ld.Counselforaccusedfurtherstatedthatastherewerenoinjurieson

theirpersonsPW2,3,6and7theydidnotgetthemselvesmedicallyexamined.
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page83/

187.

Itwasincumbentupontheprosecutiontoprovebeyondreasonabledoubt

that all the accused in furtherance of conspiracy entered into between them physically tortured the complainant and his family to extort information/ confessionfromthemaboutGeetaandAtul.Inviewoftheinherentinconsistency inthetestimonyofPW1,PW2,PW3,PW6andPW7theirtestimonyregarding tortureandbeatingsandgivingofelectricshockstothematPSKaviNagarduring theirwrongfulconfinementisnotworthyofcredenceasevidenceforadmissibility hastotestedforitsinherentconsistencyandprobabilityandithasfailedthesaid test. 188. FromtheevidenceofIOitisevidentthatmaterialfactswhichwouldhave

revealedtheconnectionofconspiracyoftortureandgivingelectricshockscould not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as IO did not obtain the necessary documentsinthisregard.Thusthereisnosatisfactoryevidenceonrecordfrom whichitwouldbereasonabletoconnecttheaccusedwiththeactsoftorture, beatings and electric shocks given in pursuance of the conspiracy. Therefore prosecutionhasfiledtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtthataccusedhadbeatenor tortured the complainant and PW 3, 6 and 7 in the PS Kavi Nagar on the intervening night of 12/13.08.94, hence all the accused are acquitted for the offenceu/s120Br/w330IPCandsection330IPC. 189. Theprosecutionthushassucceededinprovingbeyondreasonabledoubt

thataccusedSatyapalSingh,AjayKumarSingh,SukhpalSingh,SatyavirSingh hadenteredintoacriminalconspiracytowrongfullyconfinethecomplainantRaj Pal Dhall, Sanjay Dhall, Deepak Malik and Anu Dhall to extort information/ confessionfromthemaboutGeetaandAtulandalltheabovenamedaccusedare accordinglyheldguiltyfortheoffencepunishableundersection120Br/w348 IPC.AsaccusedSatyapalSingh,AjayKumarSingh,SukhpalSinghandSatyavir
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page84/

Singhinpursuanceoftheconspiracywrongfullyconfinedcomplainantandhis family members to extort confession/information from them about the whereaboutsofGeetaandAtulhencetheyarealsoheldguiltyforoffenceunder section348IPC. 190. Prosecutionhasalsosucceededinprovingthaton13.08.94atRajNagar

GhaziabadaccusedSatyaplSingh,SukhpalSingh,SatyavirSingh,DujjaYadav andPromilaJ.Mesihenteredintoacriminalconspiracytofabricatefalseevidence againstcomplainantRajPalDhallandhisfamilymemberswiththeintentionto use that evidence against them in the case pertaining to FIR no. 408/94 u/s 363/366/376IPCgotregisteredbytheaccusedKhemRajAhuja,accordinglyall ofthemareheldguiltyfortheoffencepunishableu/s120BIPCreadwithsection 193IPCand195IPC. 191. Prosecution has also succeeded in proving that in pursuance of the

conspiracyaccusedSatyaPalSingh,SukhpalSingh,SatyvirSingh,DuijaYadav, PromilaJ.MasihpreparedafalserecoverymemoEx.PW1/DBandfabricated falseGDentriesno.15,21and50inrespectoftheinvestigationofcaseFIRno. 408/94registeredatPSKaviNagarGhaziabadforbeingusedincaseFIRno. 408/94.Theyareaccordinglyheldguiltyfortheoffencepunishableundersection 193IPCand195IPC. 192. Prosecutionhasfailedtoproveitscasebeyondreasonabledoubtagainst

accusedGeetaAhujaandaccusedA.K.Singhfortheoffencepunishableu/s120 B IPC r/w section 195 IPC and 195 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences. 193. ProsecutionalsofailedtobringhomethechargeagainstaccusedSatypal

Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh,Sukhpal Singh and Satyavir Singh forthe offence punishableu/s120Br/wsection330IPCandsection330IPC,accordinglythe
SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page85/

abovenamedaccusedareacquittedfortheoffenepunishableu/s120Br/wsection 330IPCandsection330IPC. 194. ThebailbondofaccusedGeetaAhujaiscancelled,hersuretydischarged.

Accusedtobeheardonthepointofsentenceon28.05.2010.

Announcedintheopencourt Onthisdayof24thMay2010

(POONAMCHAUDHARY) ASJ(Central01)DELHI

SCNo.68/09 CBIVs.SatyapalSinghandors.Page86/