Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Raja Ram on 14 May, 2025
CBI V. Raja Ram 1 CC No. 258/2019
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE:
PC ACT (CBI) - 04, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW
DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT11-001036-2019
CC No.258/2019
R.C-DAI-2017-A-0025
CBI/ACB/Delhi
Under Section 7 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
VERSUS
RAJA RAM
S/o Lalu Singh
R/o House No. 195, Gali No. 10, G-Block, Sitapuri
Part-II, New Delhi-45
Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI), Delhi Police
(PUBLIC SERVANT)
Date of Institution 15.11.2017
Date of Start of 26.11.2024
Arguments
Date of Conclusion of 22.04.2025
Arguments
Date of Judgment 14.05.2025
1 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 2 CC No. 258/2019
INDEX
Sl. Title Pages
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF CASE 3-4
(i) Verification of Complaint 4-5
(ii) Investigation After Registration of Case 5-11
II. CHARGE 11
III. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE (P.E) 12
(i) Formal Witnesses 12
(ii) FSL Witnesses 12-14
(iii) Material Witnesses 14-36
IV. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED (S.A) 36-37
V. ARGUMENTS OF CBI 37-39
VI. ARGUMENTS OF ACCUSED 39-45
VII. REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS OF CBI 45
VIII. VALIDITY OF PROSECUTION SANCTION 46-54
IX. DEMAND & ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE 54-65
(i) Demand of Bribe dated 19.06.2017 65-68
(ii)Demand of Bribe dated 20.06.2017 68-72
(iii)Demand of Bribe dated 29.06.2017 72-91
(iv) Demand of Bribe dated 30.06.2017 91-102
X. ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE 102-121
XI. ADMISSIBILITY OF AUDIO RECORDINGS 121-130
XII. CONCLUSION 130
2 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 3 CC No. 258/2019
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
1. The present case was registered by the Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) on the basis of written complaint dated
19.06.2017 lodged by Sh. Naveen Nischal (hereinafter referred to
as ‘Complainant’). It was alleged in the said written complaint that
accused Raja Ram, ASI posted at Police Station Dabri, Delhi had
demanded bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from him for giving relief in a case
registered against him (complainant) vide FIR No. 87/2017 under
Section 498A/406 IPC at PS Dabri .
2. It was further alleged that Naveen Nischal got married
with Ms. Sunita R/o Vijay Enclave, Dabri, Delhi in January 2016.
Soon after the marriage, there were conflicts between the
complainant and his wife due to which his wife left him on
13.03.2016 and started living with her parents. She lodged FIR
against him and his family members. The investigation of the said
case was marked to accused ASI Raja Ram who summoned the
complainant and his family members ( accused in FIR 87/17) in the
police station.
2.1 It was further alleged that ASI Raja Ram asked the
complainant to co-operate with him on which he asked him
3 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 4 CC No. 258/2019
(accused) as to what was required to be done on which ASI Raja
Ram said “Dus Hazaar Rupiye Lagenge”. ASI Raja Ram also told
him that the complainant would be in trouble if the amount was not
paid. As the complainant did not wish to pay the bribe money, he
filed the present complaint with Superintendent of Police, CBI,
ACB, Delhi against accused Raja Ram.
Verification of the Complaint
3. The complaint dated 19.06.2017 lodged by Shri
Naveen Nischal (complainant) was verified by Inspector C.M.S
Negi in the presence of independent witness namely Manish Kumar,
Draftsman MTNL on 19.06.2017 & 20.06.2017 .However the
verification remained incomplete and again on 29/06/20217 the
verification was done in the presence of Narinder Kumar, Senior
Superintendent HR-SG, Airport Authority of India. During the
verification process, complainant met accused Raja Ram at the
Police Station and conversation was recorded. The verification
revealed that demand of bribe money being made by accused ASI
Raja Ram for not implicating the complainant and his family
members in the case being investigated by him. The bribe amount
was settled for Rs.6000/- after negotiation from amount of
Rs.10000/-.
During the verification proceedings, memory cards
containing the said conversation were duly sealed and marked as
Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 and verification memos dated 19.06.2017,
4 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 5 CC No. 258/2019
20.06.2017 and 29.06.2017 were also prepared. As the verification
of complaint revealed demand of bribe by accused Raja Ram, the
present RC/FIR was registered.
Investigation After Registration of the Case
4. After the registration of the case, the case was entrusted to
Inspector Arjun Singh for laying the trap. Accordingly, one trap
team was constituted which also included independent witnesses
namely Narender Kumar Sr. Superintendent (HR), Airport Authority
of India and Sh. Hemant Panrui, Assistant Engineer, CPWD. After
introduction, the purpose of assembly for laying trap for the accused
was explained and pre-trap proceedings were carried out. The
complainant had brought produced the amount of Rs. 6000/-
comprising of G.C notes of Rs.500/- denomination each and the
numbers of GC notes were mentioned in the handing over memo.
The significance and use of phenolphthalein powder and its
chemical reaction with sodium carbonate and water was also
explained. The GC notes produced by the complainant were treated
with phenolphthalein powder by Inspector Sanjay Upadhayay.
4.1 The personal search of complainant was conducted and he
was not allowed to keep anything else except his mobile phone. The
complainant was directed not to touch the said tainted bribe amount
and was asked to hand over the same to accused ASI Raja Ram on
5 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 6 CC No. 258/2019
his specific demand. Independent witness Narender Kumar was
asked to act as shadow witness and try to overhear the conversation
and see the transaction of bribe amount. He was also directed to
give signal by giving missed call at TLO’s mobile or by rubbing his
face by both of this hands after transaction was over. Thereafter, a
new duly packed 8 GB Sandisk micro SD card was arranged in
which the introductory voice of both the independent witnesses was
recorded.
4.2 Thereafter the CBI team left for the spot and reached
the vicinity of Police Station Dabri at about 1450 hours. The
complainant then made a call from his mobile phone no.
9911221849 to accused ASI Raja Ram on his mobile phone no.
8920845007. The accused told the complainant that he was in the
police station and asked him (complainant) to come there after 10
minutes. The said conversation was simultaneously recorded in
memory card through DVR. Thereafter, the complainant and
independent witness Narender Kumar went inside the police station
Dabri where one man in police uniform rank ASI ( later on
identified as ASI Raja Ram) was seen standing at the entrance who
took the complainant to first floor. The team members took their
positions nearby the main gate of P.S Dabri in clandestine manner.
4.3 The investigation revealed that after a while, the
complainant gave pre-decided signal by giving missed call to TLO .
6 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 7 CC No. 258/2019
The TLO alongwith some team members moved to the room of
accused which was found locked. It was noticed that the accused
was walking down from stairs alongwith the complainant. The
accused went towards his scooty parked at PS Dabri and hurriedly
tried to leave the spot. The other team members rushed to the
accused and he was challenged by Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay
regarding his demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.6000/-
from the complainant. The accused was then caught by Inspector
Sanjay Upadhyay and Sub-Inspector T.K. Singh. DVR was taken
back from the complainant and given to independent witness
Hemant Panuri. The accused was taken to nearby guard-room at the
entrance of P.S Dabri where right hand wash and left hand wash of
accused were taken separately in clean fresh bottles. The said
bottles were sealed and marked as “RHW in RC-25(A)/2017” &
“LHW in RC-25(A)/2017” respectively.
4.4 The investigation further revealed that thereafter the
complainant was asked to narrate the whole incident. He informed
that accused took him to his room at the first floor of the building .
Thereafter, accused gave the difference list of dowry items to him
and demanded the bribe amount by making a gesture with his
hands. The complainant handed over the bribe money which was
accepted by the accused. He kept the said amount in black colour
purse and put in his right side back pant pocket. Thereafter,
7 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 8 CC No. 258/2019
complainant came outside the room and gave the signal by giving a
missed call.
4.5 The investigation further revealed that independent witness
Hemant Panrui recovered the tainted amount from the black purse
of accused. The said recovered GC notes were tallied by both the
independent witnesses. The recovered notes were kept in a brown
colour envelope by the witnesses which was sealed and marked as
“Trap Money”.
4.6 Thereafter, the purse wash was also taken with the help of a
piece of cotton cloth. The colour of the solution turned pink. Then,
the said pink solution was transferred into a clean glass bottle
alongwith said cotton cloth. The bottle was capped, covered with
white cloth tied with green colour tag, sealed and marked as “Wallet
Wash in RC 25 (A)/2017.
4.7 Thereafter, in the presence of Additional SHO Vijay Senwal,
room of the accused was also searched. Nothing incriminating was
found there except the original investigation file of FIR No. 87/2017
in the almirah of the accused. The said file was paginated by Vijay
Senwal, Additional SHO who joined in the investigation and the file
was certified by the SHO and taken into possession.
8 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 9 CC No. 258/2019
4.8 Thereafter, the complainant also produced copy of difference
list of dowry items which was given by the accused to him that day.
The said list was also signed by the independent witnesses and the
complainant.
4.9 Two rough sketches of the spot i.e PS Dabri showing
location of room of accused where he demanded and accepted the
bribe and other place where the accused was intercepted and caught
by the CBI team, were prepared. Thereafter, it was decided to leave
the spot and conduct further proceedings in CBI Headquarters. The
CBI team left the spot at about 18:35 and reached the CBI office at
about 19:50 hrs. On reaching the CBI office, DVR was played
which confirmed demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused
from the complainant. The memory card of the DVR was also
sealed in an envelope which was marked as Q-4.
5. The accused was then arrested at 2000 hrs on
30.06.2017 vide separate arrest-cum-personal search memo.
Thereafter, the accused the specimen voice was taken in new
memory card . Thereafter, the same was sealed in an envelope and
was marked S-1.
5.1 During the investigation, three sealed glass bottles marked
LHW, RHW and Wallet Wash, sealed envelope marked Black Purse,
Trap Money, Q-4 and S-1 were seized and taken into possession
9 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 10 CC No. 258/2019
vide recovery memo. Exhibits LHW, RHW, Wallet Wash of the
accused as well as exhibits Q-1, Q-2, Q-3, Q-4 and S-1 containing
conversations between the accused and the complainant and
specimen voice of the accused were sent to CFSL for expert
opinion.
5.2 The investigation further revealed that FIR No. 87/2017
dated 18.02.2017 was being investigated by accused ASI Raja
Ram. During the investigation of the said FIR, statements of
complainant’s wife and mediator were recorded and notices too
were issued to the accused persons. This established the motive of
the accused for demanding the illegal gratification from the
complainant for giving relief to him in the said case.
5.3 Further, the investigation revealed that mobile number 89208
45007 was issued in the name of son of the accused, but the same
was being used by accused only. CDR for the period from
19.06.2017 to 30.06.2017 also established the fact that conversation
took place between mobile number no. 89208 45007 ( used by
accused) and 99112 21849 (used by the complainant). The CCTV
footage of the main gate of P.S Dabri dated 30.06.2017 was
extracted in a pen-drive which was sealed and marked with ‘CCTV
Footage in RC-25(A)/2017’ . The said pen-drive was forwarded to
CFSL for preparing copies and opinion on tampering. The sanction
10 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 11 CC No. 258/2019
for prosecution of accused has been obtained from competent
authority.
6. On the basis of above investigation, the chargesheet
has been filed wherein it is alleged that accused Raja Ram
demanded and accepted Rs.6000/- from the complainant as bribe for
giving relief in a case bearing FIR No. 87/2017 registered against
him which was being investigated by accused . The accused was
caught red-handed on 30.06.2017. Thus, these facts disclose the
commission of offence punishable under Section 7 & 13 (2) r/w 13
(1) (d) of P.C Act on the part of accused Raja Ram, ASI ,Delhi
Police, Police Station Dabri, Delhi.
CHARGE
7. Ld. Predecessor took cognizance of the offences on
22.01.2018 and accused was, accordingly, summoned to face the
trial. After supplying the copies and hearing the arguments on
charge, charge was framed against the accused on 18.08.2018 for
the offences punishable U/s 7 & Section 13 (2) read with Section
13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which the
accused Raja Ram pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 21
witnesses following which statement of accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C was recorded on 20.01.2024.
11 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 12 CC No. 258/2019
Prosecution Witnesses
Formal Witnesses
8. PW-1 Sh. Kamal Kumar, Nodal Officer, Reliance JIO
and PW3 Pawan Singh Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd.
provided the original CAF of mobile No. 8920845007 and
9911221849 respectively alongwith the CDR ,certificate under
Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Cell I.D Chart . PW1
proved the documents as Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-1/2 ( collectively)
and PW3 proved the documents as Ex.PW-3/1 and Ex.PW-3/2
( collectively).
FSL Witnesses
9. PW-2 V.B Ramteke is the Principal Scientific Officer
(Chemistry)-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL. He
examined the three sealed glass bottles forwarded to laboratory for
examination and expert opinion. He further stated that he received
the said bottles on 07.07.2017 which were intact and tallied with
specimen seal impression. He carried out the examination of the
bottles marked Ex.RHW, LHW, Wallet Wash on 18.07.2017 and
19.07.2017. All the said exhibits gave positive test for the presence
of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate. He prepared
detailed chemical examination report dated 19.07.2017 Ex.PW-2/1.
12 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 13 CC No. 258/2019
He also exhibited the said bottles Ex.PX1, PX2, PX3, three cloth
pieces Ex.PX4, PX5, PX6 and the envelope Ex.PX7.
10. PW-12 Mahesh Kumar Jain is the Sr. Scientific
Officer, CFSL/ Voice Expert . He deposed that on 11.08.2017, five
sealed parcels and specimen seal impressions of P.K. Gottam,
CFSL, CBI were received in their office alongwith the copy of the
transcript of the recorded conversation with exhibits Q1, Q2, Q3,
Q4 and S1. The seal of the parcels were tallied and were found
intact.
10.1 PW-12 further deposed that on 18.12.2018 he opened
the exhibits and examined them. After transferring all the voice calls
in a computer, the original memory cards were then kept separately.
Thereafter, the transferred voice was examined with the help of
2-3 applications. He further deposed that in the present case, he
conducted both auditory and voice spectrographic examination.
Thereafter, he gave his detailed opinion vide Ex. PW12/1. He
found the specimen voice contained in micro SD Card S1 was the
probable voice of the questioned voices in Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 of
the person Sh. Raja Ram. He found the audio recordings were
continuous and there was no tampering with the same.
10.2 PW12 also identified signatures of Director, CFSL on
letter ( D-14) which was sent to SP CBI intimating regarding
completion of preparation of copies. He proved the said letter as
Ex.PW12/18.
13 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 14 CC No. 258/2019
11. PW-14 A.D Tiwari, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL,
deposed that he received request letter no.
DAI-2017-A-0025/DLI/10899 whereby it was requested that the
opinion be given whether any of the data/CCTV footage in pen-
drive had been tampered with or not and regarding preparation of 4
copies of CCTV footage in pen-drive. The pendrive contained two
video-clips which he gave mark as Q1 and Q2. After examining the
said video-clips, he gave his detailed report on 08.05.2018 Ex.PW-
14/1.
He further deposed that he prepared four copies of the videos
contained in the said pendrive in four DVDs.
Material Witnesses
12. PW-4 Krishan Kumar is the elder brother of
complainant. He deposed that his brother Naveen Nishal got
married with Ms. Sunita on 31.01.2026. Thereafter, Sunita went
back to her parental home. On 20.03.2016, she came back with her
parents and other family members visited their house and levelled
false allegation. One case bearing FIR No. 87/2017 under Section
498A/406/34 IPC was registered against him, his brother and other
family members on 18.02.2017 at Police Station Dabri. ASI Raja
Ram was the IO of the said case who called all the six family
members to the police station. He further deposed that they were
made to sit there for about 3 hours and thereafter, ASI Raja Ram
14 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 15 CC No. 258/2019
called his brother Naveen Nishal on first floor of P.S Dabri and
demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/-. On the next day, he alongwith his
brother went to CBI office to lodge complaint against ASI Raja
Ram. On 30.06.2017, accused Raja Ram was arrested by CBI
officers.
13. PW-5 Deewan Singh is an official from DDA who
deposed that on 01.09.2017, in his presence at the CBI office, one
mobile phone Make Fly Model No. QIQ +Black in colur with silver
back cover, having IMEI No. 911434551029944 alognwith battery
and its SIM No. 9911221849, was seized seizure memo Ex.PW-5/1.
14. PW-6 Harinder Singh deposed that on 30.06.2017, he
was posted as SHO at P.S Dabri. On that day, he was on PM route
duty and after coming to the police station he came to know that
accused ASI Raja Ram was caught red-handed and apprehended by
the CBI in a trap for demanding and accepting Rs.6000/- from the
complainant in case FIR No. 87/2017. Thereafter, CBI obtained
copy of the FIR as well as copies of entire case file of the said FIR.
He accordingly handed over the certified copies of copy of FIR and
entire case file. PW-6 proved the certified copy of the FIR and
entire case file of FIR No.87/2017 as Ex.PW6/1 (collectively).
15. PW-7 Shibesh Singh is the Sanctioning Authority who
deposed that he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police,
15 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 16 CC No. 258/2019
South-West District, New Delhi in 2017. He received a request
from CBI to accord sanction for prosecution of ASI Raja Ram who
was posted at PS Dabri ,as he was the competent authority to
remove him from his service. He further deposed that he had gone
through the material sent by the CBI alongwith request i.e copies of
FIR, Complaint, Verification Memo, Handing Over Memo,
Recovery Memo and Statement of Witnesses etc. After going
through the said material, he was satisfied that it was a fit case to
accord sanction for prosecution of ASI Raja Ram. Therefore, he
accorded sanction under Section 19 of PC Act 1988.
15.1 PW-7 proved the forwarding letter dated 25.10.2017 to SP
CBI alongwith sanction under Section 19 of PC Act as Ex.PW-7/1
and Sanction Order is Ex.PW-7/2.
16. PW-8 SI Rajesh Kumar deposed that he was posted
at PS Dabri from 08.12.2016 to 18.02.2019. On 03.08.2017 he
handed over certain documents to CBI on he direcions of the then
SHO PS Dabri Sh. Vijay Pal Singh i.e posting order of ASI Raja
Ram, Duty Roaster of ASI Raja Ram of 30.06.2017 and documents
regarding the investigation in FIR No. 87/2017. He proved those
documents as Ex. PW8/1 to PW8/6.
16 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 17 CC No. 258/2019
17. PW-9 Naveen Nischal( complainant) deposed that he
lodged a complaint against SI Raja Ram on 19.06.2017 with CBI
for demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- from him. The said officer was
investigating the case FIR No. 87/2017 registered by his wife Sunita
against his wife and family members under Section 498A IPC at P.S
Dabri. PW9 further deposed that he had proof of his innocence in a
CD containing his recording as well as his wife. He wanted to bring
the said CD on record in the investigation of FIR No.87/2017.
17.1 PW-9 further deposed that on 15.06.2017, he alongwith his
family members were called at P.S Dabri. ASI Raja Ram asked his
family members to go downstairs and took him to his office at first
floor. There, he demanded for Rs. 10,000/- to help him in the said
case and placing on his proof.
17.2 PW-9 further deposed that on 19.06.2017, he lodged a
complaint to CBI regarding the demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- by
ASI Raja Ram. There, CBI official Mr. Negi asked him to call the
accused and he called to accused at his mobile number from his
mobile number. After the conversation, he alongwith Mr. Manish
and CBI official visited PS Dabri to verify the demand of bribe by
the accused. CBI official remained outside the police station. The
said Manish accompanied him to the police station and remained in
the corridor outside the room of ASI Raja Ram at first floor. He
went in the room where ASI Raja Ram asked him to return articles
17 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 18 CC No. 258/2019
of his wife. Thereafter, he came back. The CBI official took the
DVR from him which he had tied at his left ankle. The CBI
officials recorded the proceedings of the day at CBI office and DVR
was sealed.
17.3 PW-9 further deposed that on 20.6.2017, he again visited
CBI office where at the instance of CBI official, he again made a
call to accused Raja Ram from his mobile no. 9911221849. The
accused asked him to visit him at PS. Thereafter, he alongwith two
CBI officials and one witness went to P.S Dabri. At the police
station, he alongwith the said witness went to the room of accused.
He went inside the room of the accused while the witness remained
outside the P.S Accused Raja Ram took him to a lobby outside his
room and demanded bribe from him. He told the accused that he
had no money. Thereafter, he came back and the DVR which was
fastened in his left ankle was taken by the CBI official. On
checking, the said DVR was found to be switched off and there was
no recording in it.
17.4 PW-9 further deposed that he again reported to the CBI
office on 29.06.2017 where he met Inspector C.M.S Negi,
independent witnesses Manish and Narinder. Inspector CMS Negi
arranged for one memory card which was inserted in the DVR and
introductory voice of Mr. Narinder Kumar was recorded. Thereafter,
he made a call to the accused to know whether he was in the office
18 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 19 CC No. 258/2019
or not. The accused told him that he would be available after 5:00
p.m. They reached PS Dabri at about 16:45 hours. The DVR was
tied to his left arm . He alongwith independent witness went in the
police station where accused met them in civil dress at the
reception. The accused took him to his room at first floor. Accused
showed him list of dowry articles given by his wife. Thereafter, they
came downstairs and then the accused demanded money from him
through gesture by rubbing his right thumb with fingers and also
said “boln a kitne le ke aaya hai”. He further deposed that he
replied that he had not brought any money and would bring
Rs.6000/- the next day. After that, they returned to CBI office
where the recorded conversation was played. Inspector Negi asked
him to come again on 30.06.2017 with bribe amount. The DVR and
CBI brass seal was handed over to independent witness Narinder
Kumar.
17.5 PW-9 further deposed that on 30.06.2017, he again went to
CBI office where one trap team was constituted. He had brought the
bribe amount of Rs.6000/- in denomination of Rs.500/- GC notes.
The serial numbers of GC notes were recorded in a memo. The
demonstration of phenolphthalein powder was done with the treated
currency notes. His personal search was conducted by independent
witness Narender Kumar to ensure that he was not carrying any
other article except the mobile and tainted bribe amount. He was
directed not to touch the tainted amount until the same is demanded
19 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 20 CC No. 258/2019
by the accused. The trap kit was thereafter was prepared by the I.O
and they then all left for PS Dabri. Mr. Narender Kumar was
directed to remain as close to him as possible. A new blank
memory card was inserted in the DVR which was produced by
witness Narender Kumar and sample voice of both the independent
witnesses were recorded. The DVR was then tied on his left arm
and he was directed to give the missed call as and when the accused
demands the bribe amount. He alongwith Narender Kumar moved
towards P.S Dabri and entered the police station. The accused was
sitting in the cabin at the entrance gate and on seeing him, he called
him and took him to the first floor room of the building. The
independent witness remained on the ground floor. After some
conversation, the accused demanded bribe by gesture and he took
the bribe amount and kept it on the table. The accused picked up the
money and started counting, but got suspicious. PW-9 told him that
he had the money in drawer and therefore, the currency notes are a
bit dirty. The accused got satisfied and kept the bribe amount in the
black purse which was then kept in the right side pant pocket. He
further told the accused that he could only arrange Rs.6000/- and
the balance will be given later on. While coming downstairs, he
gave the signal to CBI team by giving missed call.
17.6 The accused was accordingly apprehended by the CBI team
and was taken in the cabin at the entrance of the P.S. The right and
left hand wash were collected which turned pink. Independent
20 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 21 CC No. 258/2019
witness Hemant searched the accused and found the black purse
having bribe amount from the right side back pant pocket of the
accused. The distinctive numbers were tallied with the memo and
the numbers tallied. The wash of the purse was also taken which
also turned pink. The washes were separately sealed in three
separate bottles. Thereafter, the accused was taken to his room at the
first floor from where the original file FIR No.87/2017 was
recovered from the almirah. The certified copies of the same was
prepared. The rough sketch of the spot was also prepared by the
CBI officials. The DVR was taken from him after the apprehension
of the accused.
17.7 Thereafter, the entire team returned back to the CBI office
where the remaining proceedings were carried out. The separate
specimen voice of the accused was taken in the new memory card
which was also then sealed with CBI seal. The CBI seal was then
handed over to witness Narender Kumar. The purse of the accused
was also seized. Thereafter, he again joined the investigation after
few days, when the transcript of the conversation between him and
the accused was prepared. The voice recording was played and
heard by him and the independent witness. He identified his
signatures on complaint Ex.PW9/1 (D-2), Verification Memo dated
19.06.2017 Ex.PW9/2 (D-3), Verification Memo dated 20.06.2017
Ex.PW9/3 (D-4), Verification Memo dated 29.06.2017 Ex.PW9/4
(D-5) and copy of FIR Ex.PW5/5 (D-1). He also identified his
21 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 22 CC No. 258/2019
signature on the handing over memo Ex.PW9/6 (D-6), recovery
memo Ex.PW9/7 (D-7), voice-cum-transcription memo dated
10.08.2017 Ex.PW9/8 (colly) (D-19) and voice-cum-transcription
memo dated 10.08.2017 Ex.PW9/9(colly) (D-20). He also proved
the CCTV extraction and identification proceedings vide
Ex.PW9/10 (D-24).
He also proved the difference list of dowry articles given by
accused to him on 30.06.2017 vide Ex.PW-9/11 (D-26). Then, he
identified the recovered currency notes, purse of the accused, his
own mobile phone and the memory cards Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 used
for recording the conversation during verification proceedings and
trap proceedings. He also identified his own voice and the voice of
accused in the said conversation.
18. PW-10 Vishesh Gautam is the son of accused Raja
Ram who deposed that SIM No. 8920845007 was issued in his
name by service provider Reliance JIO and was being by his father
Raja Ram in the year 2017.
19. PW-11 Manish Kumar( independent witness), deposed
that on 19.06.2017, he attended CBI office to witness one
verification . He was introduced to the complainant by Mr. Negi, a
CBI Officer. He was told that one police official was demanding
bribe from the complainant in relation to a criminal case between
complainant Naveen and his wife. Thereafter, one DVR was
22 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 23 CC No. 258/2019
arranged by Mr. Negi and after ensuring the blankness of the DVR,
a new sealed Memory Card was arranged. His introductory voice
was recorded in the Memory Card through DVR. Thereafter, the
complainant was asked to make a call to the police official from his
mobile number with speaker mode on. In that conversation, the
complainant had inquired from the police official as to whether he
could come and meet him. The said police official replied that he
had not met the bride side and would call the complainant only
after meeting the bride side. He further deposed that as the police
official had refused to meet the complainant on that day, it was
decided to not to proceed further with the verification on that day.
One verification memo Ex. PW9/2 on 19.06.2017 was prepared.
19.1 PW-11 again on 20.06.2017, went to CBI office for further
verification and a new sealed memory card was arranged and was
inserted in the DVR in his presence. The complainant made a call
to the police officer who replied that he could not meet the bride
side. However, it was decided to go to the police station.
Thereafter, he alongwith complainant and verifying officer reached
P.S Dabri in the afternoon. The DVR with Memory Card was fixed
in the leg of the complainant below his knee in switch on mode. He
as well as complainant were directed to go inside the police station
to meet the police official. He was also directed to remain close to
the complainant. Thereafter, they went to the 2 nd floor of the police
23 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 24 CC No. 258/2019
station and he remained in the gallery. The complainant went inside
the room of said police official.
19.2 PW-11 further deposed that he could not overhear any
conversation between them. After some time, the complainant
came out from the said room and they returned to the CBI vehicle.
The complainant was asked to narrate the sequence of event on
which he told that the police officer had asked the complainant
“kuch kam jayada kar lenge” . Thereafter, they returned back to CBI
office. The DVR was taken back from the complainant. The
Memory Card was taken out from the DVR and the Memory Card
was played. He identified his signature on verification memo
dated 20.06.2017 Ex. PW-9/3. The CBI brass seal after use was
handed over to him.
20. PW-13 Sh. Narender Kumar, ( independent /shadow
witness of verification and trap ) deposed that in the end of June
2017 he attended CBI office and met one Mr. Negi, CBI Officer
who informed him that there was a complaint regarding demand of
money in a dowry case by Investigating Officer, at PS Dabri. He
was asked to accompany the raiding team. After reaching PS Dabri,
the complainant was instructed to go and to meet the said police
official. He was asked to go and stand near the reception of the
police station Dabri. After about 10 minutes, the complainant came
out from the police station. The complainant informed Mr. Negi
24 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 25 CC No. 258/2019
that the suspect police official had demanded money from him.
Thereafter, the CBI team returned to CBI office, where some
documents were prepared in his presence. He identified his
signature on Verification Memo dated 29.06.2017 Ex. PW9/4.
20.1 PW-13 further deposed that he went to CBI office on
30.06.2017 being under threat from Mr. Negi. On that day, 10-12
CBI team members, the complainant and one more independent
witness namely Mr. Hemant from CPWD were there. He was
informed that the raid was to be conducted on the suspected official
at PS Dabri. The complainant brought Rs.6000/- in the
denomination of Rs.500/-. Demonstration of some powder after
being applied on the currency notes was given. The details of the
currency notes were noted in Handing Over Memo. The currency
notes were given to the complainant. The complainant was
instructed to give money to the suspect after reaching PS Dabri. He
identified his signatures on Handing Over Memo Ex. PW9/6.
20.2 PW13 further deposed that thereafter, they reached near PS
Dabri in two CBI vehicles. The complainant was asked to go inside
PS Dabri and hand over the money to the suspect. He alongwith the
independent witness were directed to follow the complainant while
maintaining some distance. The other CBI team officials took their
25 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 26 CC No. 258/2019
position in discreet manner. He alongwith witness Hemant
remained at the guard room of PS Dabri.
20.3 PW-13 further deposed that he did not see the complainant
handing over the money to the accused, but the said amount was
recovered from the pocket of the suspect by the CBI official. The
said amount was taken by CBI team. He identified the currency
notes kept in envelope Ex.P1. He further deposed that after recovery
of tainted amount, the hand washes of the accused were taken.
Thereafter, CBI team alongwith the accused came to main building
of PS Dabri and file pertaining to investigation was recovered. He
identified his signature on recovery memo Ex.PW9/7, arrest-cum-
personal search memo of accused Ex.PW13/1 and rough site plans
Ex.PW13/2 (colly).
20.4 He further deposed that on 29.06.2017, he remained at the
reception. The recording device given to the complainant was taken
back by Mr. Negi after reaching CBI office. He was not able to
overhear the conversation between the accused and complainant as
he was sitting at a distance of about 4-5 feet. He denied the case of
the prosecution that the complainant met middle aged person in
civil dress at the reception of PS Dabri on 29.06.2017. He also
denied that DVR was handed over to him on 29.06.2017. He also
denied some of the proceedings part of handing over memo
Ex.PW9/6. He denied that he was instructed by CBI officials to
26 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 27 CC No. 258/2019
enter the PS building with the complainant after they reached there.
Some of the trap proceedings too were denied by him .On the
remaining proceedings carried out in the guard room of the
building, he partly supported the case of the prosecution.
He further deposed that he again joined the proceedings on
17.7.2017 where Veer Jyoti Madam asked him to sign certain typed
documents. He denied that his statement was recorded by Inspector
Veer Jyoti.
21. PW-15 Sh. Malkeet Singh is an officer from Airports
Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New
Delhi who accompanied Inspector Veer Jyoti for extraction/sealing
of CCTV footage at P.S Dabri. The technician Vikram Chand played
the CCTV footage of 30.06.2017 of Camera No.4 installed at the
main gate of PS Dabri of the duration from 16:45 hrs. to 18:15 hrs.
He informed that the timing shown in the monitor is 2 hours 30
minutes ahead of the real time .CCTV Footage Identification Memo
was prepared by Inspector Veer Jyoti. Thereafter, the CCTV footage
was extracted from the said DVR and copied into two pen drives of
8 GB each of Kingston by the technician. PW-15 also proved the
sealing memo of DVR Ex. PW15/A, brown envelope containing
pendrive Ex.PW15/B, original cover Ex.PW15/C, pullanda
containing DVR and Adapter Ex.PW15/D, DVR Ex.PW15/E and
CCTV footage identification memo Ex.PW15/F.
27 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 28 CC No. 258/2019
22. PW-16 Vikram Chand is the technician working with
BSPA Security Systems who extracted the recording of the CCTV
footage of a particular day. The CCTV footage of the camera
installed outdoor was extracted. His signatures were obtained on the
memo prepared in respect of sealing of those DVR and pen drive(s).
PW-16 identified his signatures on DVR sealing memo dated
16.08.2017 (Ex.PW15/A), CCTV Footage identification Memo
(Ex.PW15/F) brown envelope containing pendrive (Ex.PW15/B),
original cover (Ex.PW15/C), pullanda containing DVR
(Ex.PW15/D), DVR ( Ex.PW15/E). He also proved the certificate
U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW16/1.
23. PW-17 ASI Dharamvir Singh deposed that in the year
2017, while being posted as ASI PS Dabri as Malkhana Govt.
Property, he handed over the DVR of the CCTV footage system of
the PS Dabri to the CBI.
24. PW-18 Inspector C. M. S. Negi,( Verifying Officer)
deposed that the complaint Ex.PW9/1 was marked to him for
verification by the S.P on 19.06.2017. He carried out the
verification proceedings in the presence of independent witness
Manish . The complainant was introduced to the witness and the
purpose of assembly was explained to them. He arranged the DVR
and sealed memory card. The said memory was put into a DVR and
its blankness was ensured. The complainant was asked to make call
28 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 29 CC No. 258/2019
to the accused on his mobile phone. Accused informed him that on
that day, he had called the bride and her family members and will
inform the complainant after meeting them. The said call was
recorded in the memory card. The memory card after the
conversation was taken out and sealed by putting the same in the
plastic cover. The memory card was given marking Q1. It was then
sealed with CBI brass seal and verification memo Ex.PW9/2 was
prepared. The CBI brass seal was handed over to independent
witness Manish and instructed to bring the same on the next day.
24.1 The verification proceedings were again carried on
20.06.2017 in the presence of complainant and independent witness
Manish. Again, new memory card was arranged and the same was
inserted in the DVR. Its blankness was also ensured. At around
11:45 AM, the complainant was again asked to make the call to the
suspect officer. The suspect officer informed that the bride family
could not come to the PS on the previous day and has been again
called for 20.06.2017. The complainant sought time from the
suspect to meet him at the police station. Further verification was
carried out PS Dabri. After reaching the vicinity of PS, at about
12:45 PM, the vehicle was stopped and the complainant was briefed
to meet the suspect and have normal conversation. The independent
witness was also briefed to stay close to the complainant and try to
overhear. The DVR was handed over to the complainant with
switched on condition and he left towards PS Dabri. After about an
29 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 30 CC No. 258/2019
hour, he returned back and it was found that the DVR was already
switched off. No conversation could be got recorded. In the
narration, the complainant though claimed that he negotiated the
bribe amount with the suspect and the suspect stated to him that
“Kuch Nahi, Kuch Kam De Dena” . The memory card was
accordingly taken out and marked as Q2. The said memory card
was also sealed. The verification memo ExPW9/3 was also
prepared. The complainant was briefed not to pick up the call of
suspect as and when received and report to CBI office as and when
he receives the call.
24.2 He further deposed that on 29.06.2017, the
complainant came to CBI office and informed receiving missed call
from different number of the suspect. Thereafter, he deposed about
the sequence of events concerning verification proceedings dated
29.06.2017 which were carried out in the presence of complainant
and independent witness Narender Kumar. The conversation
between the complainant and suspect officer which took place at PS
Dabri was recorded through DVR in memory card Q3. The said
conversation revealed the demand of bribe to be negotiated to
Rs.6000/- which was to be paid the next day. Accordingly, the
verification memo Ex.PW9/4 was prepared and the complainant
was directed to report to CBI office on 30.06.2017 alongwith
demanded bribe amount. Thereafter, he put up his report for
registration of the case to SP, CBI. On 30.06.2017, he was directed
30 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 31 CC No. 258/2019
to report to Inspector Arjun Singh who was deputed as Trap Laying
Officer. Accordingly, he became member of the trap team.
PW-18 thereafter deposed about sequence of events
concerning trap proceedings dated 30.06.2017. He also deposed
about the conversation between accused and the complainant being
recorded in DVR in new memory card.
25. PW-19 Hemant Panrui,Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Nirman
Bhawan (second independent witness ) deposed that on 30.06.2017
he attended CBI office in connection with present case on direction
of his office. He met one CBI Inspector and the complainant
Naveen, independent witness Narender and other persons. He was
informed about the trap to be laid at PS Dabri on the complaint of
complainant regarding demand of money against one suspect.
Thereafter he deposed about the sequence of events which took
place during the trap or thereafter .
25.1 He identified his signatures on rough sketch of the site
(Ex.PW-13/2) prepared there. He also identified his signatures on
arrest-cum-personal search memo (Ex. PW13/1) and recovery
memo (PW9/7). Thereafter, he identified his signatures on the
sealed envelope having memory card Q4. He also identified
signatures on sealed envelope having DVR Make Sony which was
used for recording. He again joined the proceedings on 17.07.2017
wherein his statement was recorded. He again joined the
proceedings on 10.08.2017 wherein the recordings were played in
31 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 32 CC No. 258/2019
the presence of Narender, accused and the CBI official. He
identified his signature on voice-cum-identification memo
Ex.PW9/9.
26. Arjun Singh (PW-20) is the Trap Laying Officer
(TLO). He deposed that the present case was entrusted to him on
30.06.2017 by the then S.P., CBI, ACB, Delhi. He was introduced
to the complainant and handed over the copy of FIR. A trap team
was constituted comprising himself, Inspector Sanjay Upadhaya,
Inspector Shitanshu Sharma, Inspector C.M.S Negi, Inspector
Kamal Singh, SI T.K Singh and independent witnesses namely
Narender Kumar and Hemant. The team members were explained
about the purpose of assembly. Thereafter he explained in detail
about the proceedings of pre trap memo Ex.PW9/6 which was
prepared and signed by him.
26.1 PW-20 further deposed that thereafter, they left for PS
Dabri and on the way, one call was made by the complainant from
his mobile phone to the accused to ascertain whether he was present
in the office or not. The accused replied in affirmative. The said
conversation was recorded in the memory card through DVR. After
reaching PS Dabri, the complainant was directed not to touch the
tainted amount and to give the same on specific demand of suspect
officer. He was also asked to give missed call or designated signal
32 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 33 CC No. 258/2019
after completion of the transaction. The DVR in switched on mode
was tied on the left hand of the complainant.
26.2 He further deposed that the complainant alongwith
independent witness Narender Kumar went inside the Police Station
Dabri and it was seen one man in police uniform of ASI rank was
standing near entrance gate, who took the complainant with him
towards first floor. He alongwith other team members followed
them in discreet manner and some took position nearby main gate of
P.S Dabri. After some time, he received a missed call which was the
designated signal. He alerted all the trap team members. He found
the suspect officer walking down the stairs and proceeding towards
his scooty. PW-20 further deposed that before he could reach there,
Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay and SI T.K. Singh caught hold of
suspect officer. The DVR was taken back from the complainant and
switched off. The same was given to independent witness Hemant
Panuri. Thereafter, the washes i.e RHW and LHW of the accused
were taken separately in fresh colour-less solution of sodium
carbonate and the solution turned pink. The said solution was
transferred in glass bottles. PW-20 identified his signatures on glass
bottles marked LHW (Ex.PX2) and RHW (Ex. PX1).
26.3 PW-20 further deposed that thereafter he made inquiries from
the complainant who told about the sequence of the events that after
reaching the room of the suspect officer, he sat in front of the
33 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 34 CC No. 258/2019
suspect officer. The suspect officer gave him dowry list and
demanded bribe by way of a gesture. The complainant handed over
the tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- to the suspect officer who
accepting the said amount asked whether it was twenty. The
complainant further told though the suspect officer had demanded
Rs.20,000/- but he informed him that he was having only Rs. 6000/-
with him today and will give the rest of the amount later on.
Thereafter, the suspect officer kept the tainted amount in his black
purse and kept the same in his right side pant pocket.
26.4 Thereafter, PW-20 directed independent witness Hemant
Panuri to recover the tainted bribe amount. The GC notes were
tallied with serial number mentioned in the handing over memo.
Thereafter, wash of purse was taken and the pink colour solution
was transferred in a glass bottle which was sealed with a piece of
cloth. PW-20 identified his signature on said bottle (Ex.PX3). He
further identified the said purse (Ex.P2).
26.5 PW-20 further deposed that thereafter the case file of FIR
No.87/2017 pertaining to dowry case of the complainant was
found . In the meanwhile, SHO Harinder Singh and ACP Rajender
Kumar also joined the proceedings. The certified copy of the case
file was given by SHO. The dowry list given by the accused to the
complainant was also taken in possession. PW-20 proved the rough
site sketch No.1 and 2 Ex.PW13/2 . Thereafter, further proceedings
34 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 35 CC No. 258/2019
were conducted at CBI office. The DVR was played which
confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the
accused.
26.6 The accused Raja Ram was arrested vide arrest-cum-personal
memo ( Ex.PW-13/1). The specimen voice sample of the accused
was also taken in the blank memory card. The said memory card
was also thereafter sealed and marked as S1. Thereafter, he
identified his signatures on envelope containing memory card S1,
envelope containing DVR Ex.PW13/3. All the washes, questioned
voices, specimen voice, trap money, wallet were seized and taken
into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW9/7 (D-7).
27. Inspector Veer Jyoti (PW-21),( Last Investigating Officer )
deposed that the investigation of the present case was handed over
to her on 07.07.2017 .She forwarded the washes to CFSL for expert
opinion. The questioned voices in the recorded conversations and
the specimen voices were also forwarded to the CFSL for making
the investigation copy. She also recorded the statements under
section 161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses. She further deposed that after
receiving the investigation copy of Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4, voice
identification proceedings were conducted. The questioned voices
in the recorded conversations and the specimen voices were again
forwarded to the CFSL for expert opinion.
35 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 36 CC No. 258/2019
27.1 PW-21 further deposed that on 30.06.2017, she alongwith
independent witness went to PS Dabri to obtain the CCTV footage.
Technician namely Vikram Chand took the relevant CCTV footage
in two pendrives.She further deposed that during the investigation
she also collected the postings orders, duty roaster, copy of FIR no.
87 dated 18.02.2017 and copies of case diaries.
27.2 PW-21 further deposed that after completion of the
investigation, she applied for sanction for prosecution of accused
Raja Ram. After obtaining the Sanction Order, she filed the charge-
sheet. PW-21 further identified her signatures on production-cum-
seizure Memo dated 19.07.2017 (Ex. PW3/1). She also proved
forwarding Letter dated 10.08.2017 (Ex.PW1/1) through which she
received the CAF copy, CDR, Certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act and Cell ID Chart of mobile no. 8920845007.
She also proved the Voice Identification-cum-Transcription Memos
(Ex. PW9/8 (colly) & Ex.PW9/9),CCTV Footage Identification
Memos dated 16.08.2017 (Ex.PW15/F) and dated 17.08.2017
(Ex.PW9/10), Seizure Memo of HIKVISION 4 Channel DVR
(Ex.PW15/A).
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED (S.A)
28. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein he
denied the case of prosecution and claimed false implication.
36 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 37 CC No. 258/2019
28.1 He further claimed that he has been falsely implicated
in the present matter by the complainant as he was the Investigating
Officer (I.O) in case FIR No. 87/2017 under Section 498A/406/34
of IPC got registered by wife of the complainant against the
complainant and his family members. He further stated that he was
not paying any heed to the complainant and his family members and
got their anticipatory bails dismissed. They had grudge against him
and due to which the present case was got registered against him.
28.2 The application was then moved on behalf of the accused
under Section 311 read with 91 of Cr.P.C. The said application was
allowed vide order dated 05.11.2024. The plea of accused for
placing on record his promotion order dated 28.10.2016 issued by
Commissioner of Police thereby promoting him to the rank of ASI
(Exe.) (Special Grade) was taken on record. The said document
being admitted document was accordingly marked as Ex.C1.
Arguments of CBI
29. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that the
present case was registered on the basis of the complaint dated
19.06.2017 lodged by complainant PW9 Naveen Nischal. The
allegations of demand of bribe by the accused who was the
Investigating Officer (I.O) in the FIR No. 87/2017 were
levelled .The verification of the complaint was got conducted on
37 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 38 CC No. 258/2019
19.06.2017 and 20.6.2017 and lastly on 29.06.2017. The demand of
bribe got verified during the last verification conducted on
29.06.2017 wherein the demand of Rs.10,000/- was negotiated to
Rs.6000/- . Accordingly, the FIR was got registered . Thereafter the
trap was laid on 30.6.2017 wherein the accused was caught red-
handed demanding and accepting of bribe of Rs.6000/- from the
complainant PW9 Naveen Nischal.
29.1 Ld. SPP further argued that the said proceedings be it
verification or trap proceedings were got recorded through Digital
Voice Recorder (DVR) and the transcript of the same has been filed
on record. The reliance is placed upon the Voice Identification
Memo Ex.PW-9/8 and PW-9/9. The said voice recordings too
proves their case beyond reasonable doubt regarding demand of
bribe and acceptance thereof by the accused thereof on 30.06.2017.
29.2 It is further argued that they have also proved on record the
CDR of the mobile phone of the complainant as well as accused
which too proves the regular conversion between them during the
relevant period. It is further argued that the corroborative piece of
evidence i.e Chemical Examination Report of the hand washes and
Wallet Wash too proves the acceptance of bribe as the GC Notes
were treated with phenolphthalein powder. It is further argued by
placing reliance upon the FSL report qua recorded conversation
Ex.PW-12/1 too proves that the recorded conversation contains the
38 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 39 CC No. 258/2019
voice of accused and audio recordings not having any kind of
tampering.
29.3 It is further argued that the independent witness PW19
Hemant Panrui too proves the factum of recovery of bribe amount
from the possession of the accused. It is further argued by placing
reliance upon the cross-examination of PW9 Naveen Nischal that
the accused admitted about receiving Rs.6000/- from him though it
is claimed to be in lieu of alleged dowry articles. No such defence
has been proved on record by the accused. Lastly, it is thus argued
that the accused is liable to convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act 1988.
29.4 Written arguments too has been filed by the prosecution
and reliance is placed upon the following judgments:
(i) Inder Singh and Anr. V. State (Delhi Administration) 1978
Crl. L.J 766.
(ii) Neeraj Dutta V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731
(iii) Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753.
(iv) Poonam Chandraiah V. State of A.P, AIR 2008 SC 3209
(v) Hazari Lal V. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 873
(vi) Prakash Chand V. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 400.
Arguments on behalf of Accused
30. Per contra, Sh. Rajiv Mohan Ld. Counsel for the accused
argued that prosecution in the present case has miserably failed to
prove the essentials ingredients of offence punishable under Section
39 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 40 CC No. 258/2019
7 & 7 (1) (d) of P.C Act 1988 i.e Demand and Acceptance of Bribe.
The proving of both demand and acceptance of bribe is sine qua non
for holding the accused guilty in the present case.
30.1 It is argued that as far as the demand of bribe is concerned,
the first aspect is delay in lodging of complaint Ex.PW-9/1. The said
complaint was lodged on 19.6.2017 despite it being the case of the
complainant that the demand was made by accused for the first time
on 15.06.2017. No explanation is offered as to the said delay.
Further, it is argued that as far as the verification of the said
complaint is concerned, the verification proceedings dated
19.06.2017 and 20.06.2017, failed as no such demand for bribe was
raised. The recorded conversation Q-1 is of the verification
proceedings dated 19.06.2017, which is completely silent in this
regard. As far as the verification proceedings dated 20.06.2017 is
concerned, no conversation could be got recorded and the reasons
furnished by the prosecution are false.
30.2 It is further argued that lastly, the prosecution has placed
reliance upon the verification proceedings dated 29.06.2017
wherein it is claimed that a missed call was received by the
complainant from the mobile no. 98992 77407 belonging to the
accused. The said missed call was taken to be that of accused and
accordingly the verification proceedings were conducted on
29.06.2017. But no evidence has come on record connecting the
40 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 41 CC No. 258/2019
said mobile phone no. 98992 77407 with the accused. The
prosecution themselves have placed reliance upon the CDR of
mobile no. 8920845007 stating it to be that of accused. It is the
same number on which the complainant had regular conversation
with the accused. No investigation has been conducted with respect
to the claim of the complainant regarding the other number 98992
77407 from which the alleged missed call was received and was
taken to be that of the accused. Thus, the basis of conducting the
verification on 29.06.2017 itself has remained unproved.
30.3 As far as the conversation in Q3 is concerned, it is
completely silent with respect to the negotiation of alleged bribe to
be Rs.6,000/- from initial demand of Rs.10,000/-.
It is further argued that the said verification proceedings and
claim of PW9 Naveen Nischal has remained uncorroborated as the
shadow witness PW13 Narender Kumar clearly deposed that he was
not given any instructions before leaving the CBI office. He even
in the cross-examination conducted by CBI further did not agree to
the suggestion that he was directed to overhear the conversation.
Thus, the claim of demand of bribe of PW9 on 29/06/2017 has
remained uncorroborated.
30.4 It is further argued that as far as the demand of bribe on
the day of trap i.e 30.06.2017 is concerned, again the entire
conversation recorded in SD Card Q-4 is silent in this regard. The
41 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 42 CC No. 258/2019
complainant/PW9 deposed that the demand was raised by gesture
and thereafter the accused asked whether it was twenty. Both the
said facts are missing in the transcript Ex.PW9/9. Therefore, the
crucial aspect of demand of bribe has remained unproved .The
solitary version of PW-9 which is not corroborated by any other
independent witness or other corroborating material cannot be
relied upon herein.
30.5 On the other aspect of “acceptance” of alleged bribe of
Rs.6000/-, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the said fact too
has remained unproved. It is the admitted case of prosecution that
the alleged amount was recovered from wallet from the possession
of the accused. But surprisingly, the said wallet had no other
amount or article except the alleged amount of bribe of Rs.6,000/-.
The reliance is also placed upon the arrest-cum-personal search
memo Ex.PW13/1 which reflects that the I.Card and some cash was
recovered from the personal search of the accused . Those articles
and currency amount were not found in the wallet which makes
recovery to be dubious.
30.6 It is further argued that the material witnesses to the
recovery i.e Inspector Sanjay Upadhaya and SI T.K. Singh who
firstly caught hold the accused after receiving the designated signal
have not been examined by the prosecution. It is further argued that
the alleged search of the accused was done at the guard room of PS
42 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 43 CC No. 258/2019
Dabri, but the guard who was present was not even asked to join the
investigation. The independent witnesses PW13 and PW19 too
came at the guard room subsequent to the arrival of CBI officials.
Therefore, the possibility of planting of recovered alleged bribe
amount or misuse of phenolphthalein powder by CBI cannot be
ruled out.
30.7 With respect to non-examination of material witnesses, Ld.
Counsel for the accused has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Khatri Hemraj Amalukh vs. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 671
(ii) Deny Bora vs. State of Assam (2014) 12 SCC 22
(iii) Takaji Hiraji vs. Thakore Kubersingh Chamansingh (2001) 6 SCC 145
30.8 No explanation has been furnished by the CBI as to why
the demand of Rs.20,000/- was made during the trap when the
initial demand was Rs.10,000/- only which was further negotiated
to be Rs.6000/- as has been claimed. Even the said alleged demand
of Rs.20,000/- is missing in the recorded conversation.
30.9 It is further argued on behalf of the accused that FSL
report qua the recorded conversation too cannot be considered
herein as only the opinion of probable voice of accused has been
given. The specimen voice sample is faulty as no incriminating
words were taken therein. The original device through which the
recorded conversation was made i.e Digital Voice Recorder was
43 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 44 CC No. 258/2019
never sent to FSL for opinion to find out whether the recorded
conversation was made through the said DVR or not. In the said
backdrop, the recorded conversation too cannot be looked into in
the present case.
30.10 In support of his arguments qua proof of demand, time and
place of receiving the bribe as well as acceptance, Ld. Counsel has
relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Madan lal vs state of Rajasthan SLP(Crl.) No 6895 of 2022
(ii) Mir Mustafa Ali Hashmi vs. State of AP. SLP (Clr.) No. 9091 2022.
(iii) Neeraj Dutta v. State (Gov. Of NCT Of Delhi) (2023) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 731
(iv) Soundarajan v. State rep. by the inspector of Police Vigilance
Anticorruption Dindigul (Crl. Appeal no. 1592/2022)
(v) K. Santhama v. The State of Telangana (Cr. Appeal no. 261/2022)
(vi) Mukhtiar Singh v. State Of Punjab (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 136
(vii) P.Parasurami Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 12 SCC 294
31. Lastly, it is argued that the sanction for prosecution of
the accused Ex.PW7/2 too is defective. It is argued that the said
sanction has been accorded by PW7 Shivesh Singh the then Deputy
Commissioner of Police, South-West District, New Delhi . Per
contra the Appointing Authority of the accused to the rank of
Assistant Sub Inspector, was Commissioner of Police as has been
proved by them through admitted record Ex. C1. Therefore, the said
sanction is contrary to the mandate of Article 311 of the
Constitution.
44 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 45 CC No. 258/2019
31.1 Further, it is argued that the sanction is also invalid as the
transcript of recorded conversation or FSL report thereon was never
considered by the Sanctioning Authority.
Rebuttal Arguments of CBI
32. In rebuttal, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI argued that
Sanction in the present case is legally valid as the accused was
given only an Adhoc promotion or a functional rank as reflected
from the order Ex. C-1 relied upon by the accused. He continued
to hold the substantive rank of Head Constable only and therefore,
the sanction accorded by Deputy Commissioner of Police is valid.
32.1 Ld. Sr. PP for CBI further argued that as far as delay in
lodging of the complaint is concerned, the circumstances under
which the complaint was filed has to be considered. The accused
was holding rank of ASI in police and it is not easy for common
man to lodge a complaint against a police official. Further, it is
argued that there is no reason to discard the version of PW9 Naveen
Nischal as no evidence has been brought by the accused to show
any kind of enmity or ill-will between them. He had no reason to
falsely implicate the accused herein. It is also argued that the
recorded conversation has to be read holistically and the inference
of demand and acceptance of bribe is clearly proved through its
contents.
45 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 46 CC No. 258/2019
33. Heard the parties and perused the record.
VALIDITY OF PROSECUTION SANCTION
34. The first and foremost issue to be considered before
proceeding to the discussion on the merits of the case , is the issue
of validity of prosecution sanction as mandatorily required under
Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Admittedly, in
the present case in hand, the accused herein is a public servant and
therefore, only in case of valid prosecution sanction, the case of the
prosecution can succeed against him.
35. Ld. Counsel for the accused has questioned the validity of
the prosecution sanction Ex.PW-7/1 dated 25.10.2017 primarily on
two accounts. Firstly, it is argued on behalf of the accused that the
said sanction has been accorded without due application of mind. It
is further argued that the sanction has been accorded in a
mechanical manner without considering the entire material
presented to the Sanctioning Authority. PW-7 Shibesh Singh, the
then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), South-West , New
Delhi who is the Sanctioning Authority, in the cross-examination
admitted to the fact that he never considered the intercepted
conversation as well as transcript while according the sanction.
Thus, it is argued that the most crucial purported piece of adverse
material against the accused was not even considered. In case, the
46 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 47 CC No. 258/2019
said material had been considered, the decision would have been
otherwise.
35.1 On the second account, it is argued on behalf of the accused
that the sanction accorded by PW-7, then DCP, South-West, New
Delhi, is invalid on account competency of Sanctioning Authority. It
is argued that the accused here was promoted to the rank of ASI by
the order of Commissioner of Police dated 28.10.2016 Ex.C-1.
Therefore, as on date of commission of offence, the accused was
occupying the post of ASI and therefore, the Sanction accorded by
the Authority subordinate to the Appointment Authority is invalid
being violative of Article 311 of the Constitution.
35.2 In support of his pleas on the issue of validity of sanction,
Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the following
judgments :
(i) CBI V. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295
(ii) Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed V. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 4 SCC 172.
(iii) State of Karnataka V. Ameerjan (2007) 11 SCC 273
(iv) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan V. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622
(v) State of Tamil Nadu V. MM Rajendra (1998) 9 SCC 268
36. Per contra, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has argued that the
Sanction is valid one. The reliance placed upon the promotion order
is misplaced as only a functional promotion rank was given .It is
47 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 48 CC No. 258/2019
clear that no substantive benefits were given as reflected from the
promotion order Ex.C-1.
37. Firstly, coming to the issue of the competency of
Sanctioning Authority, PW-7 Shibesh Singh, the then DCP, South-
West, New Delhi. The PW7 being the DCP (South West) in the
Sanction Order Ex.PW-7/2 made a categorical averment that he is
the ‘Competent Authority’ to remove the accused from service and
therefore, has accorded the Sanction after considering the entire
material produced by CBI.
But, the accused has placed reliance upon the promotion order
Ex.C-1 dated 28.10.2016 whereby he was promoted the rank of ASI
(Exe.) (Special Grade). The said order has been issued by the office
of Commissioner of Police and it came into force w.e.f 11.11.2016.
But the contents of the said order reflects it to be not a regular
promotion order. The relevant part is reproduced herein for the sake
of convenience :
“They will be considered for promotion to the grade
of ASI (Exe.) as and when their turn comes in the
regular line of promotion. They will not affect the
regular sanction strength of ASIs (Exe.) and the
regular promotion to the sanctioned posts will
continue to be made as per Delhi Police (Promotion &
Confirmation) (Amendment), Rules, 2015 on the basis
of seniority cum-merit from amongst the Head
Constables. The ASI (Exe.) (Special Grade) will only
be the personal rank of the person so designated. They
will be eligible to wear the uniform of ASI (Exe.) and
exercise the duties assigned to them with immediate48 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 49 CC No. 258/2019effect. They will undergo a specialized training of 30
days as per Circular No. 33/2016 issued vide this
Hdqrs.’ No. 5308-5438/Record Branch (AC-I)/PHQ
dated 04.11.2016.
They will not be eligible for higher pay and
allowances by the grant of this rank of ASI (Exe.)
(Special Grade). Their seniority will not be changed in
the cadre of Head Constable on the grant of this rank
of ASI (Exe.) (Special Grade).”
38. It is, thus, apparent from the contents of the said order
relied upon by the accused that it was not a regular promotion to the
grade of ASI (Exe.) and the beneficiaries were to be considered for
regular promotion as and when their turn came. A special
designation was only granted without any substantive benefits i.e
higher pay or allowances. Thus, for all practical purposes, the
beneficiaries remained on their substantive rank of Head Constable
despite the issuance of the said order Ex.C-1. In these
circumstances, not much worth can be attached to the said order
Ex.C-1 as it cannot be termed as regular promotion or appointment
order in terms of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation)
(Amendment), Rules, 2015 as has been clarified in the order itself.
In these circumstances, the argument of the accused qua the
competency of the Sanctioning Authority PW-7 is liable to rejected.
Even otherwise, on the said aspect no question mark has been put in
the cross-examination of PW-7 on behalf of the accused. Thus there
is admission on the part of the accused qua the averments of PW7
regarding his authority .
49 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 50 CC No. 258/2019
39. Now, coming to the issue of validity of the Sanction and
whether the same has been accorded after due application of mind
by the sanctioning authority or not.
39.1 The Sanction Order Ex.PW-7/2 dated 25.10.2017 in detail
records the process of sanction and the material considered
thereupon. It has been specifically averred in the Sanction Order
itself that the allegations of demand and acceptance of negotiated
bribe amount of Rs.6000/- from the complainant were there and
after considering the entire material placed before the Sanctioning
Authority, the Sanctioning Authority found it fit to accord the
sanction against the accused under Section 19 of Prevention of
Corruption Act,1988. Thus the sanctions order itself records the
reasons which led to the passing of the same .
39.1 Though it is apparent from the records that as on date of
issuance of the Sanction Order, the FSL report concerning the
recorded conversations in memory cards Q-1,Q-2, Q-3 and Q-4
was not available. The result on the same came later on 23.04.2019.
But, as per the contents of the Sanction Order Ex.PW-7/2 all the
material available and forwarded to it, were considered by the
sanctioning authority . The mere non-consideration of the audio
conversation or the FSL result thereupon cannot be said to be non-
consideration of material evidence having any bearing on the
50 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 51 CC No. 258/2019
merits. Even otherwise this court cannot sit in as appeal as to the
adequacy of material before the sanctioning authority . In this
regard, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar
Garg V. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020 (2) SCC 88 is relevant and
addresses the issue in hand. The relevant para is reproduced
hereunder for the sake of convenience:
“25. On the said aspect, the later decision of this Court in
State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) Part 8 SCC
119 has referred to several decisions to expound onthe
following principles of law governing the validity of
sanction:
14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to
prove that the valid sanction has been granted
by the sanctioning authority after being
satisfied that a case for sanction has been made
out.
4.2. The sanction order may expressly show
that the sanctioning authority has perused the
material placed before it and, after
consideration of the circumstances, has granted
sanction for prosecution.
14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing
the evidence that the material was placed before
the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction
was arrived at upon perusal of the material
placed before it.
14.4. Grant of sanction is only an
administrative function and the sanctioning
authority is required to prima facie reach the
satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute
the offence.
14.5. The adequacy of material placed before
the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into
by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the
sanction order.
14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused
all the materials placed before it and some of
51 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 52 CC No. 258/2019
them have not been proved that would not
vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as
it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public
servant against frivolous and vexatious
litigants, but simultaneously an order of
sanction should not be construed in a pedantic
manner and there should not be a
hypertechnical approach to test its validity.”
The contention of the appellant,therefore, fails
and is rejected.
28. This Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of
Sikkim, (2011) 4 SCC 402 referring to the earlier
precedents has observed that a defect or irregularity in
investigation however serious, would have no direct
bearing on the competence or procedure relating to
cognizance or trial. Where the cognizance of the case has
already been taken and the case has proceeded to
termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation
does not vitiate the result, unless a miscarriage of justice
has been caused thereby. Similar is the position with
regard to the validity of the sanction. A mere error,
omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to
be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has
been occasioned thereby. Section 19(1) of the Act is
matter of procedure and does not go to the root of the
jurisdiction and once the cognizance has been taken by
the court under the Code, it cannot be said that an invalid
police report is the foundation of jurisdiction of the court
to take cognizance and for that matter the trial.”
40. Thus, the legal position is quite well settled that the grant of
sanction is only an administrative function and the Court cannot sit
in appeal over the issue of adequacy of material placed before the
Sanctioning Authority while granting sanction. The said issue also
needs to considered keeping in view the object behind seeking
prosecution sanction under the PC Act . The object is to provide a
52 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 53 CC No. 258/2019
shield to the honest public servants against frivolous and vexatious
litigants. The said shield though cannot be used as tool by
dishonest public servant to their advantage.
41. In the present case in hand PW-7 Shibesh Singh, the
Sanctioning Authority in categorical terms deposed that he
considered before according the sanction, the FIR, Complaint,
Verification Memo, Handing Over Memo, Recovery Memo and
Statement of witnesses etc. Only after that, it was found to be a fit
case to accord sanction. The mere non-consideration of the
intercepted conversations cannot be said to be having any material
bearing upon the said grant of sanction. The recorded conversation
is only a corroborative piece of evidence to the allegations and the
statements of witnesses. The other substantive material collected by
the Investigating Authority was duly considered by the Sanctioning
Authority before according the sanction and there is no question
mark over the same. A mere omission or irregularity in sanction is
not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of
justice. The complaint of the complainant coupled with version of
independent witnesses was their before the competent authority and
the authority was only supposed to take a prima facie opinion on
the same. The issue of appreciation of their testimonies vis-a-vis
the recorded conversation is ultimately a matter of trial . In the said
backdrop, it cannot be concluded that sanction has been accorded
in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The
53 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 54 CC No. 258/2019
arguments of the accused on the said issue are accordingly liable to
be rejected.
42. The judgments relied upon by the accused on the said
issue viz; CBI V. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), Mohd. Iqbal
Ahmed (supra), State of Karnataka V. Ameerjan (supra),
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra) and State of Tamil Nadu
(supra) are distinguishable on facts .In those cases the averments
were that only the S.P Report was forwarded by the Investigating
Authority and the same was considered by the Sanctioning
Authority which is not the case herein.
DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE
43. Now coming to the factual matrix of the case in hand .It is
well settled position of law that in a case under Section 7/13 of
Prevention of Corruption Act “demand and acceptance of bribe”
are sine-quo-non. The said legal requirement has been discussed in
the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police,
State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 152 and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court summarised the well-settled position of the law on
the subject as under:
“23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is
the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)
(i) and(li) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably
the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any
amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery54 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 55 CC No. 258/2019thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus
not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two
sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the
prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification
would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the
person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the
Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.”
43.1 Recently, again the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court explained about the essential ingredients of an
offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act in Neeraj
Dutta V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, as under:
“68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a
sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the Accused
public servant Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the
Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of
fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence
which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary
evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by
circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and
documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant,
the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without
there being any demand from the public servant and the latter
simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification,
it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a
case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
55 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 56 CC No. 258/2019
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a
demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders
the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the
public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates
from the public servant. This is an offence Under Section
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the
bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively
have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In
other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
gratification without anything more would not make it an
offence Under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii)
respectively of the Act. Therefore, Under Section 7 of the Act,
in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer
which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the
public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a
prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the
bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is
received by the public servant, would be an offence of
obtainment Under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and
acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be
made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the
foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and
documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the
basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to
raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact
of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of
course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the
Accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died
or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of
illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence
of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either
orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can
prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not
abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the Accused
public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof
of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a
presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose
of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The
56 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 57 CC No. 258/2019
said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal
presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said
presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not
apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of
the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above
in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while
the latter is discretionary in nature.”
43.2 The amendment in the provision under Section 7 of PC Act
w.e.f 18.06.2018 also does not make much difference as the
heading of the offence still remains “Offence relating to public
servant being bribed”. Therefore, in view of the said well settled
legal proposition, the first and the crucial aspect which needs to be
considered herein is the ” factum of demand of bribe or illegal
gratification by the public servant .”
44. Another factor which is connected the issue of said
demand of bribe/illegal gratification is the stage of such demand .
The said stage has been explained by the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras in case K.P Kolanthal V. State, 2019 (3) MLJ (Crl) 713.
The said position of law is also squarely applicable in the resent
case . The said legal position as summarized in Para-12 and 13 is as
under :
“12.At the outset, the legal position, which emerges
regarding appreciation of evidence in a trap, can be
summarized as under:-
(i) To succeed in such a case, the Prosecution is obliged
to prove the demand of bribe before and at the time of57 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 58 CC No. 258/2019trap, its acceptance and the recovery of tainted
money.
(ii)The demand can be proved by testimony of the
complainant as well as from the complaint made by him
and other witnesses if proved in accordance with law and
if it is corroborated in material particulars.
(iii)A presumption as to the demand of bribe can also be
drawn if the tainted money i.e. the money tendered as
bribe money is recovered from the possession of the
accused, which presumption, of course, is rebuttable
under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
(iv)If the accused gives some defence, that can be
scrutinized by the test of preponderance of probability,
while the Prosecution must prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt.
v) The genesis of a trap lies in the previous demand of
bribe made by the accused from the complainant, which
becomes the basis of laying a trap by the investigating
agency. Then, it is for the prosecution to, again, prove
the demand at the time when the trap was laid and
thereafter, the question of acceptance and recovery of
bribe money also is required to be proved beyond all
reasonable doubts.”
45. Now coming to the factual matrix of the present case
vis-a-vis the ‘factum of demand’.The connected issue to the said
fact is as to whether the said demand of illegal gratification was
with the motive or reward as defined u/s 7 of the Act .The onus is
upon the prosecution to prove the said factum of demand of bribe
against the accused.
45.1 In the present case as far as the demand of bribe before the
trap is concerned, the prosecution has primarily placed reliance
58 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 59 CC No. 258/2019
upon the version of PW9 Naveen Nischal and the recorded
conversation in memory cards Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 placed on record
alongwith the transcript Ex.PW9/8 (collectively). Apart from that,
the reliance is also placed upon the version of independent witness
PW13 Narender Kumar and Verifying Officer PW18 Inspector CMS
Negi. As for the Verifying Officer CMS Negi is concerned, it is
admitted fact that he was never present along-with PW-9 Naveen
Nischal at the time of alleged demand of bribe made on 20.06.2017
or 29.06.2017.
46. The case of the prosecution is that the demand of bribe
was made by the accused herein on 15.6.2017, 20.06.2017 and
lastly on 29.06.2017. The last two demands being raised during the
verification proceedings.
46.1 Before proceedings upon the discussing qua factum of
demand of bribe, the circumstances and sequence of events which
led to raising of alleged demand of bribe also needs to be discussed
herein.
47. It has been proved on record by the prosecution that the
FIR bearing No.87/2017 P.S Dabri came to be registered by Ms.
Sunita under Section 498/406/34 IPC on 18.02.2017 against the
PW9 Naveen Nischal (husband) and his five family members as
reflected vide FIR Ex.PW8/5. The investigation of the said FIR
after its registration was handed over to Raja Ram (accused herein)
59 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 60 CC No. 258/2019
who posted as ASI at P.S Dabri. The case diary concerning the said
investigation file has also been proved on record by the prosecution
as Ex.PW5/6 and the last case diary is CD No.4 dated 15.05.2017.
There is no dispute with respect to the contents of the said case
diaries recorded by the accused herein.
48. After being handed over the investigation of the above-
noted case, the accused recorded the first case diary on 18 th Feb.
2017 itself . Thereafter the investigation was for all the practical
purposes was taken by him on 01.03.2017. The notice under Section
91 Cr.P.C was issued to the complainant in the said FIR namely Ms.
Sunita (wife of PW9 Naveen Nischal) and her mother Ms. Jayanti.
Their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein
they reiterated their allegations regarding demand of dowry,
retaining of Istridhan articles etc. The Case Diary No.3 was
recorded on 15.04.2017 wherein again Ms. Sunita, complainant in
the said FIR alongwith mediator through whom the marriage was
got performed Sanjeev Kumar joined the investigation and provided
the documents concerning marriage and expenses thereof.
49. The last Case Diary is that of 15.05.2017. It is on said date
when for the first time notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C was issued
to accused persons (in that FIR ) asking them to join the
investigation on 03.06.2017. Thus, no steps were taken by the
accused herein being the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 87/2017
60 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 61 CC No. 258/2019
against the accused in that case (complainant PW9 herein or his
family ) from 18.02.2017 till June 2017. It is also proved on record
that the accused in the said FIR ( including PW9) for first time came
in contact with ASI Raja Ram ( accused hereinafter) only on
15.06.2017 i.e after about three months of the registration of the
case.
50. The record further reflects that immediately after receiving
the said notice for joining the investigation, the proposed accused
approached the Court of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Dwarka, by
moving the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The said bail
applications were taken upon 05.06.2017 and the same were
dismissed being not maintainable. The relevant part of the said
order (Part of Ex.PW6/1 Collectively, D-27) is reproduced
hereunder for the sake of convenient :
“I.O states that the matter is under investigation and
permission to arrest the applicant/accused has not been
obtained from the competent authority as yet.
In the facts and circumstances, since permission
to arrest the applicant is yet to be obtained, therefore,
there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicant at this
stage, hence, there is no ground for passing orders for
anticipatory bail and the application is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.”
51. It is thus, apparent that the accused herein made a
submission before the Court that the matter was still under
61 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 62 CC No. 258/2019
investigation and no permission to arrest the accused persons has
been obtained by him from the Competent Authority. As there was
no apprehension of arrest, the applications for anticipatory bail were
dismissed.
51.1 The said file Ex.PW-6/1 (colly, D-27) further reflects
that the investigation was again taken up and notice under Section
160 Cr.P.C was issued to PW9 Naveen Nischal and his other family
members for appearance on 15.06.2017 at 11:00 AM at P.S Dabri.
The said notices were duly received by the suspects/accused persons
in that case and in pursuance of the said notices only, they came in
contact with the accused herein at P.S Dabri for the first time on
15.06.2017 which ultimately led to the registration of the present
case. Thus said sequence of events reflects that their was no tearing
hurry shown by the accused ( IO in FIR 87/2017) in taking any
coercive steps against PW9 or his family members . The said
sequence of events also at this reflect upon the veracity of the claim
of PW9 in the complaint.
52. It is the case of the prosecution herein that when PW9
joined the investigation on 15.06.2017 before the accused at PS
Dabri, the demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- was raised. The first
aspect as raised by the accused in this regard is delay in lodging the
complaint Ex.PW9/1 with CBI regarding the said first demand by
complainant. The said complaint was lodged by PW9 on
62 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 63 CC No. 258/2019
19.06.2017. The entire complaint Ex.PW9/1 is completely silent
concerning the said delay. It is also not clear from testimony of
PW9 Naveen Nischal as to the reasons for the said delay. But the
court cannot loose sight of the circumstances under which the
complaint came to be lodged by PW9. It has to be kept in mind as to
how the things work when a common man is forced to lodge a
complaint of bribe against a public servant occupying the high
position. Therefore no adverse inference is drawn against the
prosecution in this regard.
52.1 PW9 while deposing claimed that he alongwith his parents
and sisters went to P.S Dabri on 15/06/2017 and met accused herein
at his office located at the first floor. His parents were sent
downstairs and the accused then asked him if they co-operate with
him, he would also co-operate with them. PW9 further asked as to
what is to be done, upon which the demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/-
was raised to help PW9 in the case and to place on record his proof.
Thereafter, they returned back from the Police Station. So, the
motive as per PW9 for raising the demand of bribe was to help him
in the case registered against him and his family at PS Dabri as
well as placing on record his proof in defence.
53. As far as the second motive for raising of the demand
of bribe in order to place on record the proof/evidence is concerned,
the complaint Ex.PW9/1 is completely silent. The only
63 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 64 CC No. 258/2019
motive/reward of bribe as alleged in the complaint is helping them
in the case or else they will get implicated. It is matter of record as
observed above that the accused was the Investigating Officer in
FIR No.87/2017 since Feb.2017 and he never asked any of the
accused named in the FIR to join the investigation for around four
months. None of them was summoned till 3rd of June
2017.Therefore, in the said backdrop, the claim of the PW9 and the
allegations in complaint ExPW9/1 of raising of demand of bribe as
a means of cooperation by the accused herein or else they will be
implicated does not inspire confidence.
54. The case file record Ex.PW6/1 (collectively, part of D-27)
in FIR No.87/2017 further puts a question mark over the version of
PW9 regarding the sequence of events which took place on
15.06.2017 at PS Dabri when they joined the investigation. It is
matter of record that PW9 and his family members were directed to
join the investigation after notices u/s 160 CrPC were issued by
accused. As per the record the admitted list of Istridhan articles
Ex.PW9/D2 was submitted on 15/06.2017 itself by all the accused
summoned by ASI Raja Ram (accused herein). They all under their
signatures submitted the said list of Istridhan articles. The said list
of Istridhan articles was subsequently handed over to complainant
Sunita on 20.06.2017 against acknowledgment.
64 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 65 CC No. 258/2019
55. The accused in the aforesaid FIR were also served
with the notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C on same day under the
signatures . The said notices though are unfilled and only names
therein are mentioned. However said admitted documents of the
prosecution i.e admitted list Ex. PW9/D2 of istridhan articles and
notices itself raises a question mark over the truthfulness over the
version given by PW9 Naveen Nischal qua the proceedings which
took place on 15.06.2017 at P.S Dabri when ASI Raja Ram (accused
herein) called him and his family members for joining the
investigation. Rather, the said notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C
reflect that in terms of the mandate of law as enunciated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar, (2014 )
8 SCC 273, the Investigating Officer ( accused herein ) was very
clear of not arresting the accused and thus, there was no occasion to
advance any favour to them while seeking bribe. The said notices
further put a question mark over the contents of complaint
Ex.PW9/1 wherein the complainant alleges that the accused
threatened that they will be implicated in case demanded bribe is
not paid. In the said backdrop, not much credence can be attached
to the said solitary version of PW9 qua demand of bribe as well as
the events of 15th June ,2017.
Demand of Bribe dated 19.06.2017
56. Now coming to the next demand of bribe raised during
verification proceedings. After lodging of the said complaint
65 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 66 CC No. 258/2019
Ex.PW9/1, the verification proceedings were marked to PW18
Inspector CMS Negi by the S.P., ACB, New Delhi. PW18 ensured
the presence of independent witnesses PW11 Manish Kumar,
Draftsman from MTNL. In his presence, the verification of the
demand was got conducted by making a call to accused through the
mobile phone of PW9 Naveen Nischal on 19/06/2017. The said call
was recorded through DVR and has been proved on record vide
Ex.PW9/A. Though the question mark has been raised qua its
admissibility, however at this stage without going into the aspect
of admissibility of the recorded conversation , it is being considered
The admissibility of same will be discussed in the later part of the
judgment.
56.1 The first call was recorded vide file No. 160619_1245
in SD Card Q-1 and transcript of the same is proved herein as
Ex.PW9/B (D-19). In the said conversation, the accused informed
the PW9 Naveen Nischal that he had called Sunita (the complainant
in FIR No.87/2017) in the evening and he will be able to discuss the
same with him only after meeting her . He further informed the
complainant / PW9 Naveen Nischal that the response of Ms. Sunita
has to be taken with respect to the list of admitted articles submitted
by them on 15.06.2017. In case, she receives the said admitted
articles, the allegations under Section 406 IPC will be removed.
56.2 As far as completeness of list of articles is concerned, the
accused kept on insisting that he will be able to discuss about the
said issue only after meeting complainant Ms. Sunita or her family.
66 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 67 CC No. 258/2019
He further informed that as far as the visit of PW9 Naveen Nischal
alongwith one witness to the Police Station is concerned, he will
inform about the same after meeting Ms. Sunita. The conversations
thereafter ended.
56.3 The crux of the said conversion is that there was no
eagerness shown by the accused to meet PW9 Naveen Nischal.
Rather, the eagerness for meeting was shown by PW9 who was
goading the accused to call him. Further, it also reflects that there
was no denial of opportunity of producing the evidence, as PW9
offered that he will bring one witness whenever he meets ASI Raja
Ram. The said offer was never tried to be put down or any counter-
offer being raised by seeking illegal gratification for the
cooperation before any such evidence is taken on record .The said
conversation is also corroborated by the investigation record of FIR
87/2017 , as the admitted list Ex. PW9/D2 was indeed handed over
to Ms. Sunita on 20.06.2017.
56.4 As no conclusive evidence emerged in the conversation,
the verification proceedings were kept open by PW18 CMS Negi
and rightly so. The verification memo Ex.PW9/2 was prepared and
PW9 was again directed to report on the next day i.e 20.06.2017 for
further verification . So, as per the case of the prosecution itself, as
no demand of bribe came to be raised on 19.06.2017, the
67 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 68 CC No. 258/2019
verification proceedings remained unsubstantiated qua the demand
of bribe.
Demand of Bribe dated 20.06.2017
57. The verification proceedings were again taken on
20.06.2017 by PW-19 Inspector C.M.S Negi in the presence of
complainant PW-9 Naveen Nischal, and PW-11 Manish. The case
of the prosecution is that the call was made from the mobile number
of complainant to the accused at 11:45 a.m. The said call got
disconnected and again call was made at 11:53 a.m. As per the
contents of verification memo Ex.PW9/3(D-4), it is the complainant
who sought time from suspect officer to meet him and accordingly,
it was decided to proceed to Police Station Dabri for carrying out
the verification proceedings. At around 12:45 p.m., PW-9
alongwith shadow witness Manish entered P.S Dabri. PW9 was
given DVR with switched on mode to record the conversation so as
to verify the allegations. At about 13:40 p.m., the complainant
came out from P.S Dabri towards CBI vehicle, but unfortunately, the
DVR taken from him was found to be switched off mode.
Accordingly, the narration was sought from PW11 Manish Kumar
who was not able to overhear the conversation as he was at some
distance from the room where they both met.
57.1 On the other hand, the complainant claimed that the
accused during the conversation by drawing his hand towards him
68 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 69 CC No. 258/2019
said “Laa” to which the complainant informed that he had come
with some work of LIC. The complainant further narrated that the
suspect officer agreed to lower his demand by saying that “Koi Nahi
Dedena, Kuch Kaam Dedena”. He further narrated that the suspect
officer said that he would call on his mobile phone in 3-4 days and
intimate him when to come with money. As the version of
complainant was un-corroborated , the verification proceedings
were kept open and rightly so.
57.2 However, as per the contents of verification memo
Ex.PW9/3 (D4), the complainant was directed to report on next day
for further verification. Manish Kumar was directed to bring seal
on the next day for further proceedings. The said contents of
verification memo in the middle and end contradicts the case of the
prosecution, as on one hand it stated that PW9 and Manish Kumar
were directed to come on the next day. Per contra, in the end of
Ex. PW9/3 it is claimed that verification was kept open and it was
decided wait for few days till the suspect officer calls the
complainant for bribe. However the said sequence again goes on to
show that their was no eagerness on the part of the accused to meet
PW9, which raises a question over his claim of demand of bribe. If
indeed the bribe was demanded and motive of the same was to
protect the accused named in FIR, then why the accused who was
the Investigating Officer was not keen to meet PW9 whenever he
69 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 70 CC No. 258/2019
called him. Rather it was other way around as PW9 kept on goading
accused for meeting.
57.3 Even the version of PW9 Naveen Nischal qua the sequence
of events which took place on 20.06.2017 does not inspire
confidence. He while deposing in the court claimed that on reaching
P.S Dabri, he went to the office of accused at the first floor and one
witness accompanied him. So, as per the version of PW9, shadow
witness PW11 Manish Kumar accompanied him which is in
apparent contradiction of case of the prosecution. He further
deposed that accused took him to the lobby outside his room on the
left side and then demanded bribe from him. So, as per version of
PW9, the demand of bribe on 20.06.2017 was raised by the accused
in the lobby outside his room.
57.4 PW11 on the contrary, claimed that he did not enter the
room of the officer and remained in the gallery. He was not able to
overhear any conversation between them when they kept coming
out or getting in from the room and also moving towards the gallery.
His version regarding the narration given by the complainant to CBI
officials is also in contradiction to the contents to verification memo
Ex.PW9/3 (D4). He further expressed ignorance as to whether the
conversation recorded in the memory card was got recorded or not.
Thus, the version of PW11 is of no help to the prosecution.
70 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 71 CC No. 258/2019
58. It is the case of prosecution only that the entire
proceedings of verification on 20.06.2017 took place in the presence
of PW11 Manish Kumar who was the independent witness . It is in
his presence only when the DVR was checked, but it was found to
be having only 53 seconds of sound tracks with no conversation.
But PW11 claimed ignorance as to whether their any was
conversation recorded in the memory card. No explanation was
given by PW11 as to why he did not try to overhear the
conversation between the accused and complainant despite being
directed to do so by Verifying Officer PW-19 CMS Negi. In the
cross-examination, he claimed as under:
“I cannot comment as to why I remained in the
gallery and did not enter the room with the
complainant.”
59. So, in the said backdrop, it has to be concluded that
there is no corroboration to the version of PW9 Naveen Nischal
with respect to demand of bribe raised on 20.06.2017.The
prosecution has also failed to explain about the conduct of PW 11 as
to why he did not try to overhear the conversation despite being
directed to do so.
59.1 Though the reasons for keeping the verification proceedings
open as recorded in verification memo Ex.PW9/3 are quite
different .It is claimed that accused informed PW9 that he would
himself call him about the date of delivery of bribe . The said
71 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 72 CC No. 258/2019
reasons are admittedly in contradiction to the version qua narration
given by PW9.Thus no value can be attached to the version of PW9
qua the allegations of demand of bribe on 20.06.2017.
Demand of Bribe dated 29.06.2017
60. The verification proceedings qua demand of bribe were
lastly taken up on 29.06.2017 in continuation of earlier proceedings
conducted on 20.06.2017. It is the case of the prosecution that it
was decided to wait for telephone call of the accused to the
complainant and only after receiving the call from the accused, the
complainant was directed to report to the CBI office. As per the
verification memo Ex.PW9/4 (D5), the complainant PW9 Naveen
Nishcal reported to the CBI office on 29.06.2017 at 10:30 hours
and claimed that the accused had called on his mobile at 21:17
hours from his mobile number 9899277407. Accordingly, the
verification proceedings were initiated by ensuring presence of
another independent PW13 Narender Kumar, Sr. Superintendent,
Airport Authority of India.
60.1 The call was made by the complainant/PW9 through his
mobile phone to the mobile number 8920845007 of accused at
11:10 hours. The accused informed the complainant that the list of
dowry items submitted by bride side is available with him and is to
be given to the complainant. The complainant was asked to come.
72 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 73 CC No. 258/2019
The call was again made at 11:16 hours on the same number
wherein the accused informed that he was in Court and the
complainant can visit the P.S Dabri at 5:00 p.m. Accordingly, the
CBI team led by PW-19 CMS Negi reached the vicinity of PS
Dabri at 16:45 hours. The complainant was given the DVR and
PW13 was directed to act as shadow witness. At about 17:20 hours,
they came back and complainant/PW9 narrated that accused
through gesture demanded bribe and further asked “Bol Kitne
Leyke Aaya Hai”. The recorded conversation was also heard
wherein the accused was heard saying “Bol Kitne Leyke Aaya Hai”
and at other spot of the conversation, he was heard saying “Sahab
Se Nikalwaunga Naam”. As the verification corroborated that the
bribe was negotiated to Rs.6000/- for helping the complainant in the
case and removing the names of his family members, the present
case was got registered under Section 7 of P.C Act.
60.2 The prosecution in order to prove the said factum of demand
of bribe as raised on 29.06.2017 during verification proceedings has
placed reliance upon the version of PW9 Naveen Nischal and PW13
Narender Kumar . The reliance is also placed upon the conversation
recorded in memory card Q-3.
61. The first and foremost aspect which puts a question
mark over the claim of PW9 Naveen Nischal concerning the
demand of bribe raised during verification proceedings dated
73 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 74 CC No. 258/2019
29.06.2017 is the claim of receiving the missed call from the
accused at 21:17.The said fact has remained unproved.
61.1 It is the admitted case of the prosecution that while
concluding the verification proceedings on 20.6.2017. It was
decided that they will wait for the call of the suspect officer who
had sought time from PW9 so as to meet the bride’s family. He had
further asked that he will inform about the date of delivery of bribe .
As per PW9 Naveen Nischal, the said wait ended when he received
a missed call at 21:17 hours on 28.06.2017 from mobile number
98992 77407. The said number is claimed to be the second number
of accused. But surprisingly, no evidence has been brought forth by
the prosecution connecting the above-referred mobile number to the
accused. The mere reference of said mobile number in the personal
search articles Ex.PW13/1 does not connect it to the accused in
absence of CAF and CDRs. It cannot be assumed that accused was
indeed using the said mobile number.
61.2 The prosecution itself has placed on record the CAF and
CDR of only one mobile number 8920845007 Ex. PW1/2 which is
in the name of Vishesh Gautam, the son of accused herein. It is the
very same number on which the entire conversation took place
between complainant and accused right from 15.06.2017 till
30.06.2017. So, in the said backdrop, when the regular conversation
was happening between the accused and the complainant on the
74 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 75 CC No. 258/2019
above-referred number, then how PW9 was able to connect the
mobile number 98992 77407 with accused . PW-9 further in cross
examination clarified wherein he deposed that the accused himself
had given his mobile number as 89208 45007. He further claimed
that he did not disclose to CBI that any other number of the accused
is saved in his mobile.
62. So, the only conclusion which can be drawn from the
cross-examination of PW9 Naveen Nischal is that he was having
only one mobile number of accused as provided by him i.e 89208
45007. If that was the scenario how he assumed that the missed call
received at 21:17 hours from mobile number 98992 77407 was
that of accused. The said missed call is also not reflected in the
CDR of the complainant’s mobile Ex.PW3/2 (colly). Thus, the very
basis of case of the prosecution which led to the initiation of the
verification proceedings on 29.06.2017 is itself in the dock and has
remained unproved. It also falsifies the conclusion of verification
memo Ex. PW9/3 that accused had asked PW9 that he will call and
inform about the date of delivery of bribe.
63. Now, coming to the claim of the prosecution regarding
demand of bribe raised during physical conversation between PW9
and accused on 29.06.2017 when they met at P.S Dabri in the office
of accused at about 5:00 p.m. On the said aspect, PW9 Naveen
Nischal deposed as under:
75 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 76 CC No. 258/2019“The accused showed me the list of dowry articles
submitted by my wife and thereafter, accused and me
came downstairs. The accused demanded money from
me through gesture by rubbing his right thumb with
other fingers and also said “bolna kitne le ke aaya hai”. I
said that I have not brought any money today as I have
come from Pitam Pura office and I will bring Rs.6000
tomorrow.”
64. So, as per PW9, the said demand was raised firstly by
gestures by rubbing the right hand thumb with other fingers and
then also through words “bolna kitne le ke aaya hai”. Another
crucial aspect is the exact place where the said demand was raised.
As per PW9, he alongwith accused came downstairs after the list of
dowry articles was shown to him and probably downstairs only, the
said demand was raised. In the cross-examination, he contradicted
himself by claiming that on 29.06.2017 the accused did not make
any demand of money in words. He volunteered by claiming that it
was through gestures. Thus, as per his version in the cross-
examination only, no demand was raised by utterance of words “Bol
Na Kitne Lakar Aaya Hai” as is claimed by the prosecution in
verification memo Ex.PW9/4. It is only the gesture as per PW9
through which the demand was raised.
65. In the said scenario, the version of shadow witness
PW13 becomes the most crucial one who was supposed to witness
the entire occurrence as well as try to overhear the conversation
76 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 77 CC No. 258/2019
between accused and the complainant. PW13 on his role claimed
that after reaching PS Dabri, the complainant was instructed to go
and meet the police official, whereas he was directed to go and
stand near the reception of the police station. So, his version
concerning his role as shadow witness has been put into dock by
the witness itself. He kept on waiting at the reception and even did
not know on which floor the complainant went to meet the accused.
He only saw the complainant coming out of the police station after
10 minutes. He never saw PW9 with accused either coming
downstairs or near the reception. He further contradicted the case
of prosecution by claiming that he did not hear any recording on
that day pertaining to demand of money by the suspect officer. He
further contradicted the version of prosecution by deposing that he
did not even hear the conversation after the complainant had
returned from P.S while the inquiries were being made by the
Verifying Officer PW19 CMS Negi. In the cross-examination
conducted on behalf of prosecution, even a suggestion of his role to
act as shadow witness or try to overhear the conversation between
complainant and accused is missing. Thus, it has to be concluded
that the version of PW9 is not at all corroborated by alleged shadow
witness /independent witness PW13 Narender Kumar. Rather it put
a question mark as he was never directed to follow the complainant
and try to overhear the conversation.
77 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 78 CC No. 258/2019
66. The next aspect to be considered is as to whether the
version of PW9 qua the demand of bribe raised on 29.06.2017 is
corroborated by the recorded conversation in memory card Q-3 or
not. The prosecution has also placed on record the transcript of the
recorded conversation dated 29.06.2017 Ex.PW9/9 (colly). That
without going into the issue of admissibility of the recorded
conversation it is considered herein for the limited purpose of
corroboration . The memory card Q-3 has five files, out of which
first two files No. 160629-1104 and 160629-1105 are not relevant.
The third file No. 160629-1112 is the telephonic conversation of
duration 2:01 minutes. In the said conversation, there is no iota of
talk regarding demand of bribe. Another crucial aspect which again
emerges from the said conversation as was case in earlier
conversations that no eagerness was shown by the accused to meet
the complainant in connection with the investigation pending with
him. In case indeed accused had given a missed call to PW9 asking
for delivery of bribe then, he should have readily called PW9 after
receiving the call from him , which is not the case herein .It is the
PW9 who requested and took time for meeting and not other-way
around .The relevant part of the conversation is reproduced
hereunder:
ए हा़ं कौन
सी नवीन बोल रहा था मै
ए अरे नवीन हा़ं हा़ं आज आके अपनी डिफरेस
लिस्ट है जो वो ले जाना।
78 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 79 CC No. 258/2019
67. The fourth file bearing No. 160629-117 is also the
telephonic conversation, though the same is not relevant herein. The
last file bearing No.160629-1652 of duration 33.02 minutes
concerns the physical meeting between the accused and
complainant at Police Station Dabri which is relied upon by the
prosecution with respect to their case of verification of demand of
bribe. The portion relied upon by the prosecution during the
arguments is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience and
clarity :
सी कल आउ छ: ही लाउ
ए पागली है क्या तु
सी ज्यादा
ए जितना गुड डालोगे उतना मीठा ही लगेगा
सी छ: ही ले लेना छ: ही ले लेना
68. To get into the context of the said conversation, the
entire case on the said issue needs appreciation vis-a-vis the
conversation. The case of the prosecution is that during the
verification proceedings dated 29.06.2017 (Ex.PW9/4) the alleged
demand of bribe got verified as the accused in the recorded
conversation used the following words apart from gestures while
demanding the bribe “Bol na kitne le ke aaya hai ?”. It is further
claimed that in the other part of the conversation he is saying
“Sahab Se Nikalwaguna Naam”. The last piece of conversation
79 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 80 CC No. 258/2019
relied upon is “Uske Khilaaf ….(not clear)…. Jail bhej denge, teri
complaint le lenge.” On the basis of said conversation, it has been
concluded by the prosecution that the initial demand of bribe was
Rs. 10,000/- which got negotiated to Rs.6000/- and the motive of
the demand was to help to the complainant PW9 Naveen Nischal.
69. The holistic reading of the said recorded conversation
(File No.160629-1652) reflects that the major part of the
conversation revolves around the istridhan articles. The accused
raised the issue of return of the same before the chargesheet is to be
filed by him being the Investigating Officer (I.O). The initial part
of the recorded conversation is the exchange of istridhan articles list
and thereafter the conversation revolves around the differences
therein. The relevant discussion concerning the list of articles is as
under:
ए हां उनके इकतीस आइटम थे सीरियल नंबर
ठीक है, ये लिस्ट इकतीस — से इकतीस और तुम्हारी
लिस्ट के है अठारह — तो इसमें कोई ऐसा सामान नहीं
है — अच्छा दूसरी बात अलमारी, माइक्रोवेव, गीजर,
सिलाई मशीन, फ्रीज, एसी, गददा, डबल वाशिंग मशीन,
बैडशीट दो, सोफाकवर, टीवी सोनी और बरतन स्टील
सी बाकी तो वो बैग ले के चली गई थी लास्ट ही
80 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 81 CC No. 258/2019
ए अब इसमें बरतन स्टील के क्या क्या है –
अच्छा — वो मना कर रही है कह रही है मैं तो सारा
सामान लूंगी
ए अस्पष्ट
70. The context of the said discussion is also cleared from
the documents which are part of the investigation file Ex.PW6/1 (D-
27). The talk of 31 items in the list of bride side is reflected vide
list Ex.PW9/D3 submitted by Ms. Sunita (complainant in FIR
No.87/2017) on 18.11.2016. The said list has all the household
articles claimed to be delivered as “istridhan” during marriage apart
from valuable gold/silver articles. In response to the said list of 31
articles, PW9 herein submitted his first admitted list on 16.12.2016
listing only 4 articles i.e one suit, one saree, one sweater and one
shawl vide list Ex.PW9/D1. Both the said lists were submitted
during the proceedings before the CAW Cell i.e precursor to the
registration of FIR No.87/2017, Police Station Dabri. The admitted
list of PW9 came to be modified and he submitted a new list on
15.06.2017 Ex.PW9/D2 listing 18 articles. The said list came to be
supplied by the accused during investigation of the case was with
him to Ms. Sunita (complainant in FIR No.87/2017) on 20.06.2017.
71. The said three lists throw light over the context of
recorded conversation as reproduced above in memory card Q3. It
is in the said context of the number of items listed in the two lists
81 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 82 CC No. 258/2019
exchanged by the parties that the entire conversation took place in
File No. 160629-1652. The accused being the Investigating Officer
kept on interrogating PW9 qua the items missing in his admitted
list Ex.PW9/D2. He continued to interrogate the PW9 with respect
to the value or custody of jewellery articles and motorcycle. If
indeed the object of the accused was to seek illegal gratification
from PW9 in order to help him the case, then why he kept on
interrogating PW9 qua the disputed items. The prosecution has
failed to furnish any explanation in this regard.
71.1 Further PW9 during the conversation claimed that the
motorcycle had no connection with Ms. Sunita and it belonged to
him. The said version of PW9 was apparently an attempt to mislead
the Investigating Officer( accused herein ) . The investigation file
Ex.PW6/1 (colly D-27) has the documents concerning the said
motorcycle. The delivery challan dated 15.10.2015 though in the
name of PW9, but the column of customer’s signature and the
address mentioned therein reflects it was also a dowry article. Mr.
Amit Sagar who is the brother of Ms. Sunita signed the said
delivery challan and mentioned his address below the signatures.
Similarly, the receipt concerning the said motorcycle purchased
from M/s Singhla Automobiles probalise the version of Ms. Sunita
that it was Istridhan article. The address of the aforesaid dealer is
located at main Palam Dabri Road, Dwarka, Delhi which is near to
residence of Ms. Sunita. Thus, the said record reflects that PW9
82 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 83 CC No. 258/2019
during his conversation with accused tried to mislead the
investigation qua return of motorcycle by claiming it to be his self
purchased property despite it being a istridhan article.
72. On the issue of return of jewellery articles PW9 in
recorded conversation claimed that few of the articles mentioned
were never brought by Ms. Sunita and rest articles have already
been taken by her when she left the matrimonial home. The articles
claimed to be not brought or not given during marriage , is also a
false claim when seen in the light of series of bills which are part of
Ex.PW6/1 (D-27). So, in the said backdrop, it has to be concluded
that during the discussion between PW9 and accused herein when
they met at Police Station Dabri , PW9 was confronted by accused.
It also puts a question mark over the conduct of PW9 as built his
case on falsehood/denial from the beginning by submitting first list
having 4 items as istridhan before CAW cell vide Ex. PW9/D1. Per
contra accused kept on confronting him qua the missing articles.
There was no favour shown to PW9 despite the claim of payment
of bribe.
72.1 The accused further explained during the conversation that
in case the istridhan articles are returned, the offence under Section
406 IPC will go by stating as under:
“ए 411 हल्की हो जाएगी — 406”
83 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 84 CC No. 258/2019
73. Thereafter the discussion continued and the discussion relied
upon by the prosecution concerning their claim of demand of bribe
initiates at about 27:25 minutes. The prosecution has claimed that
there were use of words “bol na kitne le ke aaya hai” which are also
reproduced in verification memo Ex.PW9/4. PW-9 too while
deposing in the Court claimed that these very words were spoken
by the accused , coupled with the gesture by rubbing his right thumb
with other fingers, while making demand of bribe. The above claim
of the prosecution as well as PW9 concerning use of the above-said
words is not corroborated by the recorded conversation. The words
“तो बोल न तू” are only available which somewhat connects with the
claim of the prosecution with words”bol na kitne le ke aaya hai” .
The said conversation starting form 27:25 minutes is reproduced
hereunder:
सी कितने मांग रही है
ए तुम कितने दे दोगे
सी एक वहीं दे सकता हूं
ए जिसमे तेरह लाख
सी तेरह तो कही नहीं कहे
ए तू बता क्या करना है
सी आप के लिए कह रहे थे
ए तो बोल न तू
सी छः तक कह रहे थे अरे छः तक हम आ गए
ए अस्पष्ट84 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 85 CC No. 258/2019सी अभी नहीं लाया मैं तो एलआईसी के काम से
आया था मैं वो यही पीतमपुरा है न ब्रांच
लिस्ट —- लिस्ट कह रहे थे न आप
ए नहीं नहीं लिस्ट उसको कह रखी है बिल वैरीफाई
करा रही है
सी लिस्ट ले आई है तो मैं ले लेता हूं
ए चालान बन जाएगा वो मेरे हाथ में नरहीं रह
जाएगा इसलिए मैं चालान न बना रहा जैसे तू
बोलेगा वो ही वाली बात है जो मैं जितना संभव
हर ची वो कर दूंगा
सी सही तो है छः
ए काहे के छः क्या छः छः लाख
सी नहीं छः हजार
ए घत
सी अरे सही है सारे तो वाले के चली गई
ए रगडे का है रगडे का है
सी गहने तो ले के चली गई सारे वो
ए तो हमने कु छ कही है तेरे से
सी कहने तो लगे
ए अस्पष्ट – – – उसके खिलाफ जेल भेज देगे उसे तेरी
कम्पलेंट ले लेगे हम
सी अस्पष्ट
ए संभव है तू उसे जेल करा देगा
सी जेल तो नहीं होएगी बाकी ये है बात तो पता लग
जाएगा
ए बावलेपन की बात क्यू करता है85 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 86 CC No. 258/2019सी अस्पष्ट
ए अस्पष्ट – – (शाम साहब से निकलवाउं गा नाम
अस्पष्ट — अफसर – – – अस्पष्ट बैठे बैठे — बैठे —
अस्पष्ट — – चुपचाप
सी कल ही आउं छः ही लाउ
ए पागली है क्या तू
सी ज्यादा
ए जितना गुड डालोगे उतना मीठा ही लगेगा
सी छः ही ले लेना छः ही ले लेना
ए और उसका कु सुम का नाम निकलवाने के लिए
सी उसका तो बताना पडेगा न अलग
ए जो मैं लिख दूंगा
74. It is apparent from the context of the said conversation that
words ” Tou Bol Na Tu'” were used in context of demand of Rs.13
lacs raised by the girl’s family for settling the matter. The said
words have been clearly misinterpreted by the prosecution by
stating it to be in reference to the demand of bribe of
Rs.10,000/- .It also reflects upon falsity of the version of PW9. It is
in context of the demand of bride’s family, the accused countered
the same with his offer of “छ:” . The said offer “छ:” was got
explained by putting a counter question :-.
ए काहे के छः क्या छः छः लाख
सी नहीं छः हजार
86 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 87 CC No. 258/2019
ए घत
सी अरे सही है सारे तो वाले के चली गई
ए रगडे का है रगडे का है"
74.1 So, offer of Rs. 13 lacs was responded by PW9 by
agreeing to pay Rs.6000/- . He justified his offer by claiming it to be
the the entire value of all other non returned articles as the valuable
jewellery articles had already been taken by Sunita. Therefore, the
claim of the prosecution that there was demand of bribe by use of
words “bol na kitne le ke aaya hai” is clearly not corroborated by
the recorded conversation in Q-3.
75. The next part of the conversation which the prosecution has
relied starts at duration 29.50 in file no. 160629-1652 as under :
ए अस्पष्ट – – (शाम साहब से निकलवाउं गा नाम अस्पष्ट
— अफसर – – – अस्पष्ट बैठे बैठे — बैठे — स्पष्ट — – चुपचाप
सी कल ही आउं छः ही लाउ
ए पागली है क्या तू
सी ज्यादा
ए जितना गुड डालोगे उतना मीठा ही लगेगा
सी छः ही ले लेना छः ही ले लेना
76. As far as the reliance upon the favour being spoken by
accused of getting the work done from his senior is concerned, the
said part of the conversation is obviously having many gaps and is
87 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 88 CC No. 258/2019
not clear. In the said backdrop, not much reliance can be placed
upon the said isolated sentence imputed against the accused being
against the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in landmark
judgment concerning tape-recorded conversation in Ram Singh &
Ors. V. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 611.
The relevant paragraph of the judgment in this regard is reproduced
hereunder for the sake of convenience:
“a tape-recorded statement is admissible in
evidence, subject to the following conditions:-
(1) The voice of the speaker must be identified by
the maker of the record or other persons recognizing
his voice. Where the maker is unable to identify the
voice, strict proof will be required to determine
whether or not it was the voice of the alleged
speaker.
(2) The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement
must be
proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory
evidence: direct or circumstantial.
(3) Possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any
part of, the tape-recorded statement must be totally
excluded. The tape-recorded statement must be
relevant.
(4) The recorded cassette must be sealed and must
be kept in safe or official custody.
(5) The voice of the particular speaker must be
clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by
other sounds or disturbance.”
77. As far as the remaining conversation regarding offer
being made by the complainant by using the words “कल ही आउं छः ही
लाउ” too cannot relied upon being the offer of bribe. The claimed
88 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 89 CC No. 258/2019
offer cannot be read in isolation from the previous part of the
conversation wherein the figure of “छ:” was quoted by PW9 in the
context of settlement amount with the bride’s family qua the non-
returned items. Even otherwise the immediate previous part of
conversation to the said alleged offer is having many gaps and
inaudible part, therefore the context of the said conversation cannot
be presumed. Further, the said figure of ‘six’ is not having any
connect or reference to the earlier demand of Rs.10,000/-. The said
conversation is rather explained by PW9 in cross examination
wherein he admitted to the fact that accused used to ask us to hand
over the admitted items to my wife and to pay cash for the disputed
items.
78. The last part of the conversation which has been relied
upon by the prosecution by claiming that the demand of bribe was
raised by the accused by extending favour to PW9 by ensuring
removal of names his family members. Firstly, the said case of
the prosecution is contradicted in its entirety by PW9 while
deposing in the Court. PW9 in the cross-examination in categorical
terms explained the motive/reward of bribe by deposing as under:
“It is correct that in those meetings, accused used
to ask us to hand over the admitted items to my
wife and to pay cash for the disputed items. (Vol.
Accused also raised demand of bribe for taking
my CD on record.)”
89 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 90 CC No. 258/2019
79. Thus, as per PW9, the alleged motive or the favour
which was to be shown to him was allowing him to place on record
some CD as evidence in the case pending with the accused.
Admittedly, no such conversation is there in the entire recorded
conversation proved on record . Even the original complaint lodged
by PW9 Ex.PW1/1 too is silent concerning the demand being
raised for allowing him to place on record some CD. Thus, in the
said backdrop, it has to be concluded that the said alleged motive
relied upon by the prosecution in recorded conversation in Q-3 is
put into dock by PW9.
80. In light of the above discussed reasons, it has to be
held that the sole version of PW9 concerning demand of bribe of
Rs.6000/- by the accused during meeting on 29.06.2017 is not
corroborated by recorded conversation and hence, cannot be relied
upon. The context of the conversation qua the said figure is too
ambiguous and it cannot be assumed that it concerns the demand of
bribe.In the said back drop the issue is whether the sole
uncorroborated version of PW9 can be relied when he is a
interested/ partisan witness.The answer lies in negative as has been
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Panna Damodar Rathi vs.
State of Maharashtra (1979)4 SCC 526.The sole uncorroborated
version of PW9 on the issue of demand of bribe raised on
29.06.2017 cannot be believed specially when it is proved on record
that he kept on repeatedly raising false claims concerning custody
90 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 91 CC No. 258/2019
of istridhan articles and accused was confronting him in this
regard .
Demand of Bribe on 30.06.2017
81. The next factual aspect concerning demand of bribe
concerns the day of trap i.e 30.06.2017 when PW9 was directed to
pay the alleged bribe amount only on the demand of accused or as
per direction to some one else.
82. It is the case of the prosecution that on the day of trap too,
the demand was raised as recorded in recovery memo Ex.PW-9/7
(D-7). It is claimed that narration of the incident was given after
the trap by the complainant /PW9 Naveen Nischal. He informed that
the accused gave difference list of dowry articles to him and then
demanded bribe amount by way of gesture through his hands and
also told “Kya”. The complainant took out the bribe amount on
which the accused asked whether it is “20”. The complainant
further narrated that the accused demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe and
when he gave Rs.6000/- while he (accused) was counting, he told
that he would give the rest amount to satisfy the accused.
82.1 So, as per the case of the prosecution on the day of trap too,
the demand of bribe was raised firstly by way of gestures by the
accused to PW9 and thereafter uttering the word “Kya”. It is
91 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 92 CC No. 258/2019
further claimed that the demand raised by the accused on that day
was of Rs.20,000/-.
82.2 The prosecution in order to prove the said case of demand
of bribe raised on 30.06.2025 has again primarily placed reliance
upon the version of PW9 Naveen Nischal. He while deposing in the
Court came up with altogether different story and deposed that after
having some initial conversation at the first floor room of the
accused at Police Station Dabri, the accused demanded the bribe
amount through gestures , upon which he took out and kept it on the
table. So as per PW9, no words for ‘demand’ of bribe were uttered.
No figure of 20 was ever demanded by him . Thus, his version is in
contradiction to the narration earlier given by him which is the
basis of the allegations in the recovery memo Ex.PW9/7 (D-7).
82.3 Further PW9 claimed that after having received the bribe
amount and having counted it, the accused kept it in his black purse.
PW9 further told the accused that he could arrange only Rs.6000/-
and the balance he will be given later on. So as per PW9, after
counting the alleged bribe currency notes, there was conversation
regarding negotiated amount of Rs.6000/- and assurance being
given by him to pay the remaining at later on.
82.4 The said part of the testimony of PW9 is admittedly in
contradiction to the case of prosecution as brought forth in the
92 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 93 CC No. 258/2019
verification memo Ex.PW9/4. It is the case of the prosecution only,
that the original demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- was negotiated and
settled at Rs.6,000/- on 29.06.2017. If that was the scenario, then
why the further demand was again raised by the accused on
30.06.2017, when it was negotiated and settled one day earlier only.
Further, no explanation is furnished by prosecution as to demand of
bribe of Rs.20,000/-,
83. It is also admitted case of prosecution that on
30.06.2017, PW13 Narender Kumar was directed to act as shadow
witness. He was directed to try to overhear the conversation
between the complainant and the accused. But whether the said role
was performed by PW13 , the answer to the same lies in negative.
83.1 As per the recovery memo Ex.PW9/7 (D7), PW13 was
directed to move towards Police Station Dabri after the CBI team
reached near the vicinity of the police station. He was directed to
move towards the police station alongwith the complainant. They
both had together moved towards the police station. The PW9 too
claimed that he alongwith independent witness PW13 Narender
Kumar entered the police station Dabri and at that point of time, the
accused was found sitting in the cabin at the entrance gate of police
station.
93 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 94 CC No. 258/2019
83.2 However, PW13 contradicted the entire case of
prosecution as well as PW9 on above-referred material facts. He
first of all discarded the case of prosecution that he was given any
instructions before leaving the CBI office. Rather, he claimed that
the complainant alone was asked to go inside the police station. He
alongwith other independent witness PW19 Hemant Panuri were
directed to follow the complainant while maintaining some distance.
PW13 alongwith other independent witness remained sitting at the
guard room of police station Dabri when the complainant was
entering the police station. He never saw the complainant (PW9)
meeting the accused at the entrance of the building of police station
Dabri, as is the case of the prosecution.
83.3 He further in the cross-examination conducted by Ld.
Public Prosecutor for CBI claimed that he was never instructed to
enter the building of police station Dabri after reaching there on
30.06.2017.
83.4 The version of PW13 as to his position on 30.06.2017 at
the time of trap , is also corroborated second independent witness
PW19 Hemant Panuri. He too deposed that he alongwith PW13
Narender Kumar remained outside the police station Dabri when the
complainant entered the police station. Thus, the versions of both
the independent witnesses PW13 Narender Kumar and PW19
Hemant Panuri are consistent on the issue of their position at the
94 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 95 CC No. 258/2019
time when the trap was laid on 30.06.2017. They both remained at
the entrance and it is PW9 alone who entered the police station
Dabri and met the accused. Rather, they never saw PW9 meeting
the accused at the entrance despite being present in the Guard
Room. Thus, the version of claimed shadow witness PW13
Narender Kumar too does not help the case of prosecution. Rather,
it has to be concluded that CBI failed to depute anybody to act as
shadow witness despite being well aware of the mandate of law that
in the trap case, it is always favorable to have an independent
corroboration through the shadow witness to the version of
interested witness i.e the complainant. To support this view I am
guided by the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Joginder Singh Malik vs CBI 2022/DHC/00541 and the relevant
para is reproduced hereunder:-
“41.A shadow witness, in any given case, must be
in a position to depose not only about the passing
of money but also about the conversation which
takes place between a complainant and an
accused so as to find out the basis for the
exchange of money/bribe. As expressed by
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Meena v. State of
Maharashtra (2000) 5 SCC 21, law always
favours the presence and importance of a shadow
witness in the trap party, who is supposed to be
there not only to see but to overhear what
happens and how it happens also.”
84. The next crucial aspect to be considered is as to
whether the sole version of PW9 qua alleged demand of bribe raised
95 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 96 CC No. 258/2019
by accused on 30.06.2017 is corroborated through recorded
conversation Q-4 or not.
84.1 The memory card Q-4 has four files. The first two files are
the introductory voices of independent witnesses PW13 Narender
Kumar and PW19 Hemant Panuri. The third file no.160630-1500
concerns the telephonic call made by PW9 to accused when he
sought time to meet him at the police station. The fourth file
no.160630-1509 is the recorded conversation when he physically
meets the accused at police station Dabri. The duration of the said
recorded conversation is 20.09 minutes.
84.2 The initial conversation between PW9 and the accused
relates to the inquiry being made by PW9 concerning bride’s family
having joined the investigation and produced the evidence. At the
duration 4.14 minute, they entered the room of the accused which is
claimed to be located at the first floor of police station Dabri.
Thereafter, again the conversation revolves around istridhan articles
and they being required to be returned . Again there is no iota of
discussion regarding the favour being sought by PW9 from the
accused in lieu of which the demand of bribe was raised.
84.3 The further conversation concerns the difference list of
istridhan articles which is supplied to the accused having 11 items.
The said list is proved on record as Ex.PW9/11 . The receiving of
96 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 97 CC No. 258/2019
handing over the said difference list is taken by the accused from
PW9 and at duration 14:00 minutes, a telephonic call is received by
the accused. The portion A to A of the transcript Ex.PW9/9 (colly)
concerns the said telephonic conversation. The recorded
conversation after the said telephonic call is primarily claimed by
the prosecution which incriminates the accused and it concerns the
demand of bribe being raised on 30.06.2017 . The said conversation
is reproduced as under:
ए क्या है
सी लाया हूं - - - हें गिनो --- ज्यादा ही है
कम थोड़े ही है---नही
85. The above-said conversation again reflects that there
are many gaps in the conversation as the recording is inaudible at
said important junctions. In the said backdrop, when there are
crucial gaps in the conversation whether it is safe to rely upon such
piece of recorded conversation. The answer to the same lies in
negative in view of the settled position of law concerning recorded
conversation as discussed above in the judgment of Col. Ram Singh
(supra) case.
86. Apart from that the narration of PW9 that the demand
of Rs.20,000/- was raised after he had handed over Rs.6000/-as
recorded in Ex. PW9/7 is not at all present in the said conversation.
The said recorded conversation is also silent concerning handing
97 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 98 CC No. 258/2019
over Rs.6000/- as claimed by him. Thus, on the said two crucial
aspect again, the version of PW9 concerning demand of bribe is not
corroborated by recorded conversation in Q4 Ex.PW9/9 (colly).
86.1 It has already been observed that it is the case of the
prosecution only as recorded vide verification memo Ex.PW9/4 that
the demand of bribe came to be negotiated at Rs.6000/- from
Rs.10,000/- on 29.06.2017. If that was the scenario , there is no
explanation as to why Rs 20000/- was sought by the accused on
30.06.2017 after receiving Rs.6000/- which was the agreed demand
of bribe. In the end it has to be observed that the recorded
conversation points out towards few uncontroverted conclusions :
(a) Firstly, it is the complainant PW9 only who kept
on calling and goading the accused for meeting in
connection with alleged demand of bribe. There was
no initiative or promptness on the part of accused to
call the complainant with the alleged bribe amount or
for its delivery .
(b) Secondly, there was prior fixed no day or time
fixed for delivery of the alleged bribe amount.
(c) Thirdly, the entire conversation be it Q1, Q3 and
Q4 being silent with respect to the motive/reward of
the gratification as claimed by the prosecution and
PW9. There is no iota of talk regarding favour to be
shown to PW9 in the case pending against him by the
accused. There is no talk of placing of any evidence in
the form of CD by PW9 in the case which is stated to98 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 99 CC No. 258/2019be the sole motive for giving of bribe as deposed by
PW9.
(d) Fourthly, the entire conversation is mixed with the
various aspect of investigation and consequences
thereof. The discussion of investigation also involved
delivery of money qua the missing istridhan items .
Therefore, there is every likelihood of
misinterpretation of the conversation which seems to
be the case herein.
87. The context of earlier reproduced conversation with respect
to the alleged demand being raised on 30.06.2017 which is relied
by the prosecution , cannot be read with certainty that it concerns
demand of bribe only. Rather, the said conversation could possibly
be also in conjunction to the earlier conversation held on
29.06.2017 wherein there was talk of settlement and certain amount
to be paid to the bride’s family in lieu in respect of certain non-
returned istridhan articles. Thus, the sole uncorroborated version of
PW9 having many contradictions and embellishments cannot be
relied upon. It has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to
prove the case of Demand of Bribe raised by the accused on
30.06.2017.
87.1 On the said issue of corroboration to the sole testimony
of PW9/Complainant on the aspect of demand of bribe, Ld. Sr.PP
for CBI argued by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Inder Singh & Anr. V. Delhi Administration,
99 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 100 CC No. 258/2019
1978 CRLJ 766, In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V. State of
Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753 and Ponnam Chandraiah V. State of A.P
AIR 2008 SC 3209 that even the uncorroborated version of
complainant can be relied upon. Further, the testimony of the said
witness has to be read in its entirety which shows that he is a
reliable witness.
88. The issue of acting upon the sole testimony of
PW9/Complainant being the interested/partisan witness in the
present case, has to be seen in the context of the factual matrix of
the present case. It has already been discussed above that there are
several discrepancies and contradictions in his version on the
material aspect concerning sequence of events which took place
right from 15.06.2017 till 30.06.2017. His conduct even prior to
the said period right from the lodging of the complaint in
November 2016 by Ms. Sunita (wife of PW9) against him also
reflects upon the truthfulness of his version. It has already come on
record that right from the lodging of the complainant in November
2016 before CAW Cell, PW9 played hide and seek in the
proceedings on the aspect of return of Istridhan articles. Even in the
FIR No.87/2017 pending investigation with the accused, PW9 again
tried to play mischief on the said aspect qua return of motorcycle
and valuable jewellery articles. Rather the accused being the
Investigating Officer kept on pushing for the recovery of the same
from PW9. Therefore, in the said backdrop the issue of
100 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 101 CC No. 258/2019
corroboration to the version of PW9 on the aspect of bribe becomes
relevant as admittedly he is the sole witness to all the alleged
demands of bribe raised on 15.06.2017, 20.06.2017, 29.06.2017 and
lastly on 30.06.2017. It is not the incident which took place all of
sudden and therefore the prosecution being not able to arrange for
any other witness. Rather it was planned event and despite that no
shadow witness to the incident has been brought forward .Even the
recordings are of not much help as discussed above . In this regard,
the recent judgment which addresses the issue in hand qua the
corroboration to the version of complainant in a trap case is that of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Gupta V. State (through CBI)
Criminal Appeal No. 1769/2014 DOD 29/03/20222 and the
relevant para of the same is reproduced hereunder for the sake of
convenience:
“16. In view of the above discussion, except for the
testimony of PW3 Madhu Bala (complainant),there
is no corroborative evidence of demand, either on
7.3.2000 or 9.3.2000. The law is well settled by the
judgments of this Court in Panna Damodar Rathi
vs. State of Maharashtra (1979)4 SCC 526 and
Ayyasami vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1992)1SCC304,
whereby it has been clarified that the sole
testimony of the complainant, who is the interested
witness, cannot be relied upon without having
corroboration with the independent evidence.”
89. In light of the said well settled legal proposition on the
aspect of corroboration to the version of complainant in a trap case,
it has to be concluded that the sole uncorroborated version of PW9
101 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 102 CC No. 258/2019
on the aspect of demand cannot be relied upon in the present case
against the accused.
89.1 The judgments relied upon by prosecution on the
above-said aspect by the prosecution are distinguishable on facts.
The judgment of Hon’ble SC in Ponnam Chandriah (supra) is not
applicable herein being the judgment delivered in the context of
offences under IPC wherein the relative of the deceased was the
sole witness . It was not pre-arranged incident and therefore the sole
testimony of interested witness was found to be credible.
Acceptance of Bribe
90. It is well settled proposition of law that in case of
prosecution of a public servant under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) of P.C
Act, demand and acceptance of bribe are sine qua non to hold him
guilty .Though it has been already held above that the demand of
gratification by the accused on 29.06.2017 or 30.06.2017 is not
proved on the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In the said
backdrop, the mere acceptance of bribe amount or illegal
gratification without preceding demand or offer is inconsequential
as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as in
P. Sathyanarayana Murthy ( Supra ). Still the factual aspect as to
delivery/acceptance of bribe is being considered and whether the
prosecution has been able to prove the factum of acceptance of
alleged bribe amount.
102 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 103 CC No. 258/2019
91. The issue herein is as to whether the alleged bribe
amount which is stated to be Rs.6000/- was accepted by the accused
with the consenting mind and knowledge of the same being the
illegal gratification/bribe . The said issue has been discussed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Vijaykumar v. State of Tamil Nadu,
AIR 2021 SC 766, the relevant para-12 of the same is reproduced
hereunder for the sake of convenience :
“12. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by
itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution
against the accused. Reference can be made to the
judgments of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish
Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3
SCC 779 and in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC55. In the aforesaid
judgments of this Court while considering the case
under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated
that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted
money knowing it to be
bribe……………………….”
92. In the present case in hand, the sole witness relied by
prosecution for proving the factum of acceptance or delivery of
bribe is again complainant PW9 Naveen Nischal herein. The CBI
before proceeding for the trap though had specifically assigned
independent witness PW13 Narender Kumar the role as a “shadow
witness” with the complainant. But, PW13 as already discussed on
the said very said aspect turned hostile and discarded the entire case
of prosecution. Rather his version on his position during trap has
been found to be credible . Therefore, in the said backdrop the sole
103 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 104 CC No. 258/2019
version of PW9 Naveen Nischal on the issue of acceptance and
delivery of bribe requires to be scrutinized in depth.
93. There are certain facts which are not in dispute
concerning the sequence of events which took place on
30.06.2017 .The presence of accused at Police Station Dabri is not
disputed, though he was on official rest. It is also not disputed that
PW9 had called the accused on his mobile number at around
03:00 PM seeking time to meet him at the P.S. The prosecution has
proved on record the CDRs (Ex.PW3/2 & PW1/2 ) of complainant
as well as accused which proves the exchange of calls between
them at around 3:00 p.m. when PW9 sought information about his
availability at the police station. However the subsequent events
which took place after the said call are disputed, when PW9 went to
Police Station to meet accused.
93.1 PW9 on the said aspect deposed that after reaching PS
Dabri, he alongwith PW13 Narender Kumar moved towards the P.S
and they together entered the police station. The accused was sitting
in the cabin at the entrance gate of the P.S who took him to the first
floor of the building through rear entrance. PW9 further deposed
that independent witness remained at the ground floor. So, as per the
version of PW9 he alongwith PW13 Narender Kumar who was to
act as shadow witness together entered the police station Dabri and
PW13 was with him when accused met him while sitting in the
104 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 105 CC No. 258/2019
cabin at the entrance gate . Further, as per his version the
independent witness saw him proceeding towards the first floor of
the building where the room of accused was located.
93.2 However, PW13 contradicts the entire case of the
prosecution on the said two crucial aspects. Firstly, he discarded the
claim of the prosecution that he was directed to act as shadow
witness. Rather, he in categorical terms claimed that after reaching
near PS Dabri, he was directed to go and stand near the reception of
the police station while the complainant was directed to meet the
police official (accused herein). He further elaborated about his
position that he alongwith other independent witness (PW19
Hemant Panuri) remained at the guard room of P.S Dabri . Further
he did not see PW9 meeting the suspect officer when he entered the
building. He further in the cross-examination by Ld. P.P for the
CBI denied the suggestion that he was instructed to enter the PS
building with the complainant after reaching there. He also denied
that he had seen the police person taking the complainant alongwith
him to the first floor of the building. So, on both two material
aspects, the purported shadow witness of the prosecution contradicts
the entire case of the prosecution regarding the manner in which
PW9 entered the building and met the accused for the first time on
30.06.2017.He also contradicts the version of PW9.
105 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 106 CC No. 258/2019
93.2 The said version of PW13 Narender Kumar is corroborated
by the second independent witness PW19 Hemant Panuri. He too
deposed that he alongwith PW13 Narender Kumar remained outside
the PS premises when the complainant was asked to enter the police
station. In the cross-examination by the Ld. PP for the CBI, he too
denied the suggestion put to him that PW13 Narender Kumar had
entered the police station Dabri alongwith complainant or PW13
having remained with him outside the police station. In the cross-
examination on behalf of the accused, PW19 again reiterated the
fact that he alongwith PW13 never entered the main building of the
P.S when purportedly the complainant went there to meet the
accused on 30.06.2017. Thus, both the independent witnesses
corroborate each other as to their position during the alleged trap
proceedings. Both of them never saw the complainant entering the
police station and meeting the accused at the entrance before being
taken to the office room of the accused situated at the first floor of
the police station.
94. Now, coming to the subsequent events after PW9 had
entered the police station and having met the accused. PW9 further
deposed that he was taken to the first floor room and after some
conversation, accused demanded the bribe amount by gesture. He
took out the tainted bribe amount and kept it on the table. The
accused started counting it and got suspicious having something
smeared on the currency notes. The explanation was given by PW9
106 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 107 CC No. 258/2019
and the accused got satisfied and kept it in his black purse ,which
was kept in his right side back pant pocket. PW9 further claimed
that he could arrange only Rs.6000/- and balance will be given later
on.
95. So, the crucial aspect as deposed by PW9 after meeting the
accused at his office on 3.06.2017 that the demand was raised by
gesture and secondly, he having told the accused he could arrange
only Rs.6000/- and balance will be given later on. However, on the
said two crucial aspects the contemporaneous document prepared
by the CBI reflect it otherwise. Recovery memo Ex.PW9/7 (D7)
records the entire sequence of event. As per the contents of
Ex.PW9/7, the complainant informed the CBI officials after the
apprehension of the accused that when the complainant took out the
tainted bribe amount, the accused asked whether it is “20”. The
complainant further informed that the accused demanded
Rs.20,000/- as bribe and when he gave Rs.6000/-while he was
counting, the complainant told him that he would give the rest
amount to satisfy the accused. So, as far as the allegations of
demand of Rs.20,000/- as bribe is concerned, it is already discussed
that PW9 remained silent and rather gave a altogether new story
that there was no utterance of words for the bribe. Second crucial
aspect is delivery of remaining amount later on when it is the case
of the prosecution only that amount was settled at Rs. 6000. There
is no explanation on the part of the prosecution with respect to the
107 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 108 CC No. 258/2019
said material contradictions on the aspect of demand and manner in
which the alleged bribe amount was delivered by PW9.
96. As has already been observed above that during the
said alleged meeting between the accused and PW9, no other
witness was in picture. Rather the alleged shadow witness( PW13)
discarded the case of the prosecution that he was ever deputed to act
so. It was a pre-decided event and despite that none was deputed to
witness the proceedings between PW9 and accused .
96.1 Therefore, in the said backdrop, the only corroboration
to the version of PW9 has to be seen in context of the alleged
recorded conversation in memory card Q4. The transcript of said
alleged conversation has been proved on record as Ex.PW9/9
(colly). The recorded conversation has four files, out of which first
two files are introductory voice recordings of the witnesses PW13
Narender Kumar and PW19 Hemant Panuri. The third recorded file
No.160630-1500 is the telephonic conversation which took place
between accused and PW9 when the call was made at around 3:00
p.m. As far as the said conversation is concerned, there is not much
dispute as has already been discussed above.
97. The fourth file is the most crucial one which records the
conversation which allegedly took place between accused and
complainant when they met at the police station consequent to the
108 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 109 CC No. 258/2019
telephonic call. The total duration of said recorded conversation file
No.160630-1509 is 20:09 minutes and the relevant conversation
starts at 2.38 minutes. The major part of the conversation till about
14 minutes concerns the istridhan articles. The said conversation is
in way continuation of earlier conversation recorded in 29.06.2017
vide memory card Q-3. The difference list of Istridhan articles is
handed over to the accused and receiving qua handing over the said
difference list of istridhan articles is taken. The said difference list
has been proved on record as Ex.PW9/11 having 11 items in all.
After 14 minutes, a phone call is received by the accused and the
conversation for the said phone call is part of said transcript from
portion A to A of Ex.PW9/9 (colly). The later part of the
conversation is relied upon by the prosecution which is claimed to
be in the context of the earlier demand and delivery of said alleged
bribe. The relevant part of the recorded conversation is reproduced
hereunder:
ए हां अभी कमरे में हूं हो गया तैयार मेन गेट पे पहुच रहा
हूं मेन गेट पे
ए क्या है
सी लाया हूं – – – हें गिनो — ज्यादा ही है कम थोड़े ही
है— नही
ए पाउडर लगा हुआ है
सी बैग में ये न बैग में थे अरे इसमें थे दराज मे थे दराज
से लाए है ये वो है न अलमारी सी लकडी की अलमारी है
ए अच्छा109 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 110 CC No. 258/2019सी बाद की ले लेना बाद में —अभी तो— मेरे पास थे कहा
ए अस्पष्ट
सी अभी ये ले लो ले लो अब जभी मैं आउं गा जब ले लेना
ए अभी ये ही है
सी दे दूंगा थोडा खर्चे भी होते है अब उनका नाम कटवा दो
ए वो रख लिया ना कागज
सी हां रख लिया
ए हो जाएगा करवा दूंगा
मिली जुली आवाजे ———-
97.1 Firstly, it is apparent that there is no demand of bribe raised
in the said alleged conversation and the said conversation starts withthe words “क्या है” In response to the said question, the
complainant/PW9 responds- लाया हूं – – – हें गिनो — ज्यादा ही है कम
थोड़े ही है— नही”
98. It is apparent from the said response that the entire
conversation attributed to the complainant towards delivery of
alleged bribe is full of gaps and inaudible parts and thus, running
foul to the strict principles of admissibility of recorded
conversation as discussed above by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case titled Col. Ram Singh V. Ram Singh (supra).
110 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 111 CC No. 258/2019
99. In the said backdrop, nothing much can be deciphered
from the said conversation concerning as to whether the said
conversation was regarding delivery of said bribe amount or it
concerned delivery of amount concerning items listed in difference
list of istridhan articles as was being discussed a day earlier . The
said amount could also be in a way continuation of the discussion
earlier recorded on 29.06.2017 in memory card Q-3. Secondly, in
the said conversation there are no words used with respect to the
amount being delivered to be Rs.6000/- and it being said to be
inadequate as has been deposed by PW9. Rather, the claim of PW9
that more bribe amount was demanded by the accused when he
delivered Rs.6000/- runs contrary to the case of the prosecution as
pleaded by him in verification memo Ex.PW9/4 (D-5). It is the case
of the prosecution that after the negotiation, the bribe amount was
settled to be Rs.6000/- and if that is the scenario, then how the
further amount was being sought as deposed by PW9. The recorded
conversation too in a way points out towards more amount being
sought which again raises a question mark as to whether the said
amount was towards the bribe amount or towards the items listed in
the difference list. In the said backdrop, it has to be observed that
the recorded conversation too does not corroborate the sole version
of PW9 on the material aspects of delivery and acceptance of bribe.
Therefore, it has to be concluded that the sole version of PW9 on
the fact of delivery of alleged bribe amount cannot relied upon
without corroboration in view of the settled principle of law in cases111 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 112 CC No. 258/2019of trap as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Gupta Vs. State
(supra).
Apprehension and Recovery of Alleged Bribe Amount
100. Now coming to the next sequence of events which
concerns the events post delivery of alleged bribe to the accused by
PW9. It is the case of the prosecution that after delivery of bribe by
PW9 while he alongwith accused were coming down from the room
of accused at the first floor, the missed call was made by PW9 to
TLO which led to the apprehension of the accused. Subsequent
proceedings, be it recovery or the washes being taken were done at
the guard room situated at the entrance police station Dabri,where
the accused was taken after being apprehended.
101. It is also the case of the prosecution that after receiving the
missed call from PW9, TLO Arjun Singh (PW20) alerted all the
team members. Thereupon Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay and SI T.K.
Singh apprehended the accused in the compound of police station
Dabri building which is reflected in the site-plan Ex.PW13/2 (colly)
at point A. So, the important limb of the case of the prosecution
concerning the apprehension of the accused consequent to the
receipt of designated signal is the factum of apprehension in the
compound of P.S Dabri . The said act was performed by trap team
112 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 113 CC No. 258/2019
members i.e Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay and SI T.K. Singh. But
both of them were never named as prosecution witnesses.
101.1 Be that as it may be, the issue is firstly the position of all
the trap team members when the accused was apprehended as
reflected in site plan Ex.PW13/2 (colly). The position of Inspector
Sanjay Upadhyay and SI T.K. Singh immediately prior to
apprehension is shown outside the P.S building near the main gate
as well as around Axis Bank ATM. The position of PW13 Narender
Kumar who was supposed to act as shadow witness and other
independent witness PW19 Hemant Panuri is also around at that
spot though appears to just adjoining the outer boundary wall of PS
Dabri. So, as per the case of the prosecution itself, the said two
independent witnesses were nearer to the place of apprehension of
the accused as compared to Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay and SI T.K.
Singh. But surprisingly, the first persons to reach and apprehend the
accused after alert were the CBI officials who were outside the main
compound of PS Dabri building.
101.2 PW-13 Narender Kumar who was supposed to act as a
shadow witness , on the aspect of apprehension of the accused,
claimed that after receiving the missed call by the TLO, the CBI
officials rushed towards the room of the accused, while PW19
Hemant Panuri remained with him. He further deposed that he did
not see the complainant and the accused coming to the downstairs
113 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 114 CC No. 258/2019
on the ground floor of PS building. Though he was able to see the
accused going towards his scooter parked in the parking of main
compound of PS Dabri. He further did not notice Inspector Sanjay
Upadhyay challenging the accused regarding demand and
acceptance of bribe or they having caught hold the accused by his
right and left hand. So, on the crucial aspects as to the manner of
apprehension, PW13 did not support the case of the prosecution and
rather put a big question mark over the same.
101.3 On the aspect of recovery of bribe amount which was done
at the guard room situated at the ground floor of PS Dabri building
compound, PW13 deposed that the said amount was recovered from
the pocket of accused by the CBI official. He denied the suggestion
that the recovery of tainted amount was done by the independent
witness PW19 Hemant Panuri. So, on two of the crucial aspects i.e
apprehension of accused by Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay and SI T.K.
Singh by holding the accused right and left hand wrist or
confronting the accused regarding the acceptance of demand of
bribe as well as the factum of recovery of the bribe amount from the
possession of the accused, the independent witness PW13 has
deposed in complete contradiction to the case of the prosecution .
102. Another crucial witness concerning the said sequence
of events after the apprehension of the accused at PS Dabri building
is PW-18 Inspector CMS Negi who was the part of the trap team.
114 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 115 CC No. 258/2019
As per the site-plan Ex.PW13/2 (colly), his position prior to the
apprehension is reflected at point ‘H’. It is outside the main
building complex near the auto works shop. He alongwith Inspector
Raman Kumar were persons who were the farthest from the main
PS Dabri building. So, admittedly they must have reached the spot
after the apprehension of the accused at last, but as per the case of
the prosecution the recovery proceedings as well as the hand
washes were done in their presence. On the aspect of hand-washes,
PW18 deposed that the same were taken at the first floor room of
the accused. He further claimed that the bribe amount was
recovered from the wallet kept in the front right side pant pocket of
the accused. Though he remained silent as to the place of the said
recovery. However the only logical conclusion which can be drawn
from the holistic reading of said part of testimony of PW18 is that
after the hand-washes were taken, the recovery too was effected at
the first floor room of the accused and thereafter, wallet wash being
taken. Thus, the version of PW18, on the said two crucial aspects of
recovery as well as hand-washes, is again in contradiction to the
case of the prosecution. The prosecution did not even care to seek
any clarification from him by seeking permission to conduct cross
examination.
102.1 The second independent witness PW19 Hemant Panuri
on the said sequence of events has too deposed in consonance with
the version of PW13 Narender Kumar. He was present alongwith
115 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 116 CC No. 258/2019
PW-13 Narender Kumar outside the PS Dabri premises only when
complainant and other CBI officials entered the PS building. He
deposed that after sometime they received the phone call from CBI
officials asking them to come inside the building, but again another
call was received where they were asked to come outside the
building in the compound of PS premises. He saw in the compound
two CBI officials holding the accused and thereafter he was taken to
the guard room which was situated at the main gate. Again, on the
said aspect of apprehension, the story presented by PW19 puts a
question mark over the story of prosecution. If indeed, the
complainant PW9 had delivered the bribe amount to the accused
and thereafter having given the designated signal while they were
both coming downstairs from first floor of the building, how come
PW13 and PW19 were not able to notice the accused coming
downstairs and going in the compound of the building. Rather, they
both were able to notice the accused only after he was apprehended
by CBI officials. It has already been observed above that the
position of both PW13 and PW19 was the closet to the place of
apprehension but despite that they never noticed the accused in the
compound before being apprehended by CBI officials.
103. On the connected aspect of recovery, PW19 deposed
that he was asked to take out the wallet from the pocket of the
accused which he took out from the back pocket and thereafter he
took out bribe amount of Rs.6000/-. So as per his version, he was
116 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 117 CC No. 258/2019
never asked to carry out the personal search of the accused, rather
he was directed to take out the wallet by the CBI officials which
raises a finger of suspicion over the conduct of trap proceedings. No
answer is provided by the prosecution as to how the CBI officials
who were part of trap team were aware about the exact place where
the bribe amount was kept by the accused despite the fact that they
never witnessed the factum of delivery of alleged bribe amount by
PW-9 to accused. PW-19 reiterated in his cross-examination that
he was only asked to take out wallet which contained the alleged
bribe amount of Rs.6000/-. Thus, the testimonies of both the
independent witnesses on the aspect of manner of apprehension of
the accused in the compound of PS Dabri building and subsequent
recovery of bribe amount puts a big question mark over the fairness
of the trap team . The independent witnesses were missing during
crucial part of the proceedings and were asked to witness the
proceedings as per wishes and convenience of CBI Officials .
104. The next issue which raises a serious question mark over
the aspect of recovery of alleged bribe amount from the wallet/purse
kept in the pant pocket of the accused are the contents of the wallet
itself. It is a matter of record that apart from the said alleged treated
currency notes amounting to Rs.6000/-, no other article or currency
notes were there in the wallet found from the possession of accused
herein. The Trap Laying Officer (TLO) PW-20 Inspector Arjun
Singh admitted to the said fact that purse Ex.P-2 contained only
117 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 118 CC No. 258/2019
Rs.6,000/- i.e the alleged bribe amount. The recovery memo
Ex.PW-9/7 too records the said fact that no other article was found
in the said purse except the bribe amount. So, the contents of the
said purse Ex.P-2 itself raise a question mark and its connect with
the accused herein.
105. The said issue becomes more pronounced when seen in
the context of personal search articles recovered during arrest-cum-
personal search of the accused. The arrest-cum-personal search
memo Ex.PW-13/1 dated 30.06.2017 reflect that during the personal
search of the accused, three things were recovered which are as
under:
11. Whether personal search Yes.
of the accused carried (i) Delhi Police I/Card in the
out/if yes description of name of Raja Ram PIS No.
Articles seized. 28871587
(ii) Cash Rs.740/-
(iii) Mobile Make “MI” bearing
IMEI No. 861429034991322 &
8611429034991330 having SIM
Card Vodafone No.9899277407 &
Jio No. 8920845007.
106. So, the I.Card and the cash currency recovered in the
personal search of the accused were surprisingly not there in the
alleged wallet Ex.P-2 . The wallet only contained the alleged bribe
amount. The said conduct of the accused is admittedly unnatural
118 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 119 CC No. 258/2019
one . Any reasonable person would keep his personal belongings
like I.Card and other articles in the wallet if he is carrying the
same , which is not the case herein. Thus, the contents of the wallet
Ex.P-2 which allegedly contained only the bribe amount and no
other article of the accused being present, itself raises a big
question mark over its belonging or connect with the accused.
107. One another issue which raises a question mark over
the entire post trap proceedings is the place of the said proceedings .
The entire proceedings took place inside the guard room , but a
curcial witness to the said proceedings has been suppressed by the
prosecution. It is admitted case of the prosecution that after the
apprehension of the accused in the main compound of PS Dabri
building, he was taken to nearby guard room situated within the
main building. The handwashes and recovery of bribe was made
therein . PW-20 Inspector Arjun Singh was cross-examined on the
said aspect by the accused wherein he admitted to the fact that he
did note down the name, designation or the belt number of the
Sentry/Guard posted at the post where entire proceedings took
place. PW-19 Hemant Panuri, on the other hand, expressed his
ignorance as to whether the guard was available or not. Similarly,
PW-13 Narender Kumar too expressed his inability to disclose as to
whether the guard was available at the gate/guard room of PS Dabri
on 30.06.2017 or not. Thus, from the testimonies of TLO and
independent witnesses, an issue is raised with respect to the
119 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 120 CC No. 258/2019
availability of the guard at the Guard Room or the main gate where
the post trap proceedings were carried out. If indeed, he was
available, then why he was not joined in the post trap proceedings
despite being the best independent witness to the events .
107.1 In this regard, the duty roaster of PS Dabri Ex.PW-8/3
dated 30.06.2017 is relevant and throws light over the said issue.
The Column-3 of the said Duty Register concerns the said Sentry
duty. Three police officials were deputed on that day for three time
slots i.e. 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m to 12:00 a.m. and lastly
12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Admittedly, as per the case of the
prosecution, the trap proceedings took place after 5:00 p.m., when
Constable Arvind (No.1416) was on the Sentry duty on that day and
it has to be presumed that he was available on the guard duty.
Despite his availability, he was never joined in the post trap
proceedings nor was examined as to the sequence of events despite
being the best witness by the Investigating Officer PW-21 .
108. It is a matter of common knowledge that the police
officials are deputed on the Sentry duty round the clock at the police
station as is reflected from the Duty Register Ex.PW-8/3. Therefore,
in the said backdrop the onus was upon the Investigating Authority
to examine and produce the said witness concerning such a crucial
event which took place inside the main compound PS Dabri
building. But surprisingly, he was neither joined in the investigation
120 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 121 CC No. 258/2019
nor examined during trial . In the said backdrop, an adverse
inference has to be drawn against the prosecution for suppressing
the material evidence.
Admissibility of the Audio Recordings.
109. Though the relevance and the context of the audio
recording especially that of proceedings dated 29.06.2017 and
30.06.2017 in memory card Q-3 and Q-4 respectively has already
been discussed, but the issue of admissibility of the said recorded
conversations also requires consideration herein.
110. Ld. Counsel for the accused has questioned the veracity of
the said of recorded conversations by arguing that the original
voice recording device was never sent for FSL examination. It is
further argued that the tampering the the case property too cannot be
ruled out as the FSL report Ex.PW-12/1 records the impression of
the sealed pullandas to be “P.K.GOTTAM * CFSL/CBI”. On the
said aspect as to particulars of specimen of the seal, no explanation
has been furnished on behalf of CBI.
111. It is the case of the prosecution that the proceedings of
verification dated 29.06.2017 as well as that of trap dated
30.06.2017 were recorded by using recording device i.e DVR. Two
separate memory cards were used for recording the conversation
121 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 122 CC No. 258/2019
between PW-9 Naveen Nischal and the accused vide memory card
Q-3 and Q-4 respectively. The said memory cards have been
proved on record as Ex.Q-3 and Ex.Q-4 respectively.
112. The legal position of law qua the admissibility of said
recorded conversation was enunciated way back in the year 1985 in
the landmark judgment of Ram Singh V. Col. Ram Singh (supra)
already discussed above while the discussing the issue of demand.
The said issue regarding admissibility of recorded conversation has
been further elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nilesh
Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra 2011 (4) SCC 143 wherein
the landmark judgments of England and U.S on the very said issue
too have been discussed. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced
hereunder for the sake of convenience:
“In America, similar safeguards have been evolved through a
series of judgments of different Courts. The principles evolved
have been summed up in American Jurisprudence 2d (Vol. 29)
in regard to the admissibility of tape recorded statements,
which are stated as under:-
“The cases are in general agreement as to what
constitutes a proper foundation for the admission of a
sound recording, and indicate a reasonably strict
adherence to the rules prescribed for testing the
admissibility of recordings, which have been outlined
as follows:
(1) a showing that the recording device was capable
of taking testimony; (2) a showing that the operator
of the device was competent;
122 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 123 CC No. 258/2019
(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness
of the recording; (4) a showing that changes,
additions, or deletions have not been made;
(5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of
the recording; (6) identification of the speakers; and
(7) a showing that the testimony elicited was
voluntarily made without any kind of inducement. …
However, the recording may be rejected if it is so
inaudible and indistinct that the jury must speculate
as to what was said. (emphasis supplied)”
113. It is thus apparent from the said discussion that no
doubt the tape-recorded conversation is admissible in evidence but a
strict proof of the same on certain parameters have to be fulfilled by
the party placing reliance upon the same. One such crucial
parameter is the showing the capability of the original recording
device to record the conversation. In the present case in hand, it is
the case of the prosecution that the recorded conversation proved
herein as Ex.Q-3 and Ex.Q-4 respectively was done by using Sony
DVR. However, the said recording device was not even forwarded
to the CFSL for examination by seeking the response of the
capability of said recording device to record the conversation found
in Ex.Q-3 and Q-4. The recorded conversation was forwarded to
CFSL for expert opinion vide forwarding letter Ex.PW-21/4 dated
11.08.2017 of SP CBI, ACB, New Delhi. Only two queries were
put to the CFSL with respect to the exhibits sent i.e the specimen
voice contained in memory card S-1 with the questioned voice
contained in Q-1 to Q-4 and give the opinion whether the specimen
123 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 124 CC No. 258/2019
voice tallies with the questioned voice. The second query was with
respect to the tampering etc in the memory card or not. Thus, the
question of original recording device and vis-a-vis its capability was
never raised by the CBI to the CFSL and therefore, no evidence has
come on record which satisfies the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as discussed above.
114. Another crucial aspect which raises a question mark
over the admissibility of questioned recordings Ex.Q-3 and Q-4 is
the issue of preservation of the record. As has already been
discussed that the party placing reliance upon the recorded
conversation apart from other conditions also has to satisfy the
Court that it was carefully sealed and kept in safe official custody as
stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh V. Col. Ram
Singh (supra) and subsequently reiterated in Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar
(supra).
115. In the present case in hand, it is the case of the
prosecution that the recorded conversation Q-3 was sealed after
completion of verification proceedings on 29.06.2017. The said fact
is recorded in verification memo Ex.PW9/4. The said parcel was
sealed with CBI brass seal and the same was handed over to
independent witness PW-13 Narender Kumar. Though the
verification memo Ex.PW9/4 is silent as to whether the said sealed
parcel was deposited in the Malkhana or not on that day.
124 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 125 CC No. 258/2019
115.1 On the said aspect, the testimony of Verifying Officer
PW-18 CMS Negi is relevant which throws light over the said issue.
He deposed that on 30.06.2017, he handed over the sealed envelope
Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 to TLO PW-20 Inspector Arjun Singh. Thus, the
only inference which can be drawn from the said three sealed
pullandas remained in his personal custody till 30.06.2017 when he
handed over to the TLO.
116. Now, the issue to be seen is the custody of the said
sealed pullandas i.e Q-1 to Q-3 and Q-4 which had the conversation
of the entire trap proceedings after the completion of the trap. The
recovery memo Ex.PW9/7 is silent with respect to the further
custody of Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 , though it is claimed that Q4 and S-1
were seized after being sealed. No document has been proved by
the prosecution with respect to the subsequent movement and
custody of the said sealed pullands having recorded conversation Q-
3 and Q-4 from 30.06.2017 till 07.07.2017 when the same were
forwarded for preparation of copies vide forwarding letter
Ex.PW21/2. The copy of seal specimen was also forwarded
alongwith the sealed pullandas while seeking preparation of five
copies. No evidence has come on record as to when the said five
copies were prepared by the CFSL and came to be returned to CBI
for further investigation. The only other relevant document is
forwarding letter dated 11.08.2017 Ex.PW-21/4 vide which the
125 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 126 CC No. 258/2019
original memory cards Q-1 to Q-4 alongwith specimen S-1 were
forwarded to CBI for again seeking expert opinion qua the identity
of the voice. So, on the crucial aspect of safe or official custody of
recorded conversation right from 30.06.2017 till 07.07.2017 and
thereafter when the same was returned after preparation of copies
till 11.08.2017, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution
despite onus upon them in terms of mandate of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ram Singh V. Col. Ram Singh (supra). It has
also not been proved on record as to whether when the recorded
conversation was forwarded for preparation of copies alongwith
specimen seal affixed at the spot on 29.06.2017 and 30.06.2017 ,
the seal was intact or not. Therefore,it has to be concluded that the
chain of custody of the seal pullanda’s having recorded coversation
and the sanctity of the same being not disturbed has remained
unproved. In the said backdrop, no reliance can be placed upon
recorded conversation Q-3 and Q-4 when the prosecution has failed
to fulfill the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh V.
Col. Ram Singh (supra).
117. Now, coming to the last piece of corroborating
evidence relied upon by the prosecution i.e. forensic report
concerning hand washes and wallet washes. The said report has
been proved on record Ex.PW2/1 dated 19.07.2017 (D-12) . As far
as the finding qua wallet wash having the presence of
phenolphthalein powder is not material as already discussed the
126 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 127 CC No. 258/2019
connect of the accused with the said wallet in view of contents of
the same is already doubtful and discarded.
117.1 Now, coming to the hand-washes of the accused taken
in the guard room of PS Dabri after his apprehension, the result of
the said hand washes as per the chemical examination report
Ex.PW2/1 dated 19.07.2017 (D-12) is positive showing the
presence of phenolphthalein. But the issue in hand is firstly
whether the mere presence of phenolphthalein in the hand washes is
sufficient to draw any conclusion qua acceptance of bribe or not.
The answer to the same lies in negative as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Meena (Smt) w/o Balwant Hemke vs. State of
Maharashtra (2000)5 SCC 21. The said proposition of law is more
so applicable in the present case when seen in light of the facts
proved on record concerning the events which took place after the
alleged delivery of bribe amount by PW9 on 30.06.2017. The
sequence of events which took place after PW9 alerted TLO PW-20
has been put in dock by both the independent witness PW-13 and
PW-19. They both entered the guard room when the accused had
already been taken their by CBI officials i.e Inspector Sanjay
Upadhyay and SI T.K. Singh. The proceedings which took place
right from the moment of apprehension and he being taken to guard
room cannot be relied upon and it raises a finger of suspicion over
the hand wash proceedings too.
127 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 128 CC No. 258/2019
118. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI on the said aspect argued by placing
reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled
Hazari Lal V. State ( Delhi Administration) AIR 1980 SC 873 that
even non corroborated version of police officials can be acted upon
if it is truthful.
119. No doubt, the version of police officials cannot be
discarded only because it is non- corroborated, but the issue in hand
is that the trap team led by PW20 themselves joined two
independent witnesses before starting the proceedings of laying of
trap. Both the said independent witness i.e PW-13 and PW-19 were
part of the proceedings right from the beginning till end. The
purpose of their joining was to ensure fairness of the proceedings .
But surprisingly, they were not able to witness the crucial events of
PW9 meeting the accused at the entrance of police station or
apprehension of accused by CBI official in the compound despite
their position being the closet to the place of apprehension. In the
said backdrop, the version of police officials on the aspect on the
aspect of apprehension and hand washes being taken in the guard
room becomes suspicious. The said fact becomes more pronounced
when seen in the context that one of the most crucial witness to the
said proceedings i.e the guard Sentry on duty at the said guard room
of PS Dabri was not even asked to join the proceedings which took
place in the guard room. In the said backdrop, not much weight
can be attached to the chemical examination report Ex.PW-2/1
128 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 129 CC No. 258/2019
regarding the presence phenolphthalein powder on the hands of
accused.
120. The court in the end cannot lose sight of the golden
principle which runs through the entire criminal justice system of
burden upon the prosecution of proving their case on the standard of
beyond reasonable doubt against accused . The prosecution is
required to complete the journey of their case by showing that the
proved material shows that accused must have committed the
offence and not merely may have committed the offence . The
Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case under
Prevention of Corruption Act in P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs
Dist.Insp. of Police ( Supra ) held that the prosecution cannot
afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to
upgrade it to the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of
any possible surmise or conjecture. It was further held that if in the
facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of
doubt must be given to the accused.
121. In the present case in hand too the journey of the case
of prosecution when seen in light of sole uncorroborated version of
PW9 only presents their case on the scale of “may be true” . The
said issue becomes more pronounced when seen in light of the fact
the sole motive or reward of the illegal gratification as deposed by
PW9 is in clearly in contradiction to the case presented by the
129 of 130
CBI V. Raja Ram 130 CC No. 258/2019
prosecution. The CD even now has not come on record in FIR No.
87/2017 PS Dabri . Thus two views are clearly possible in the case
in hand.
CONCLUSION
122. In view of the above discussed findings, it has to be
concluded in the end that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the foundational facts of demand and acceptance
of bribe before the mandatory presumption under Section 20 of PC
Act can be raised against the accused. Accordingly, it is concluded
the prosecution has failed to prove their case on the standard of
beyond reasonable doubts. The case of the prosecution has several
gaps concerning the events of 29.06.2017 and 30.06.2017. The
benefits of the said doubts has to be given to the accused.
Accordingly, the accused Raja Ram S/o Lalu Singh stands acquitted
of offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988. His bail bonds are cancelled, surety stands
discharged.
Accused to furnish bail bond under Section 481 BNSS 2023.
Digitally signed
by GAGANDEEP
GAGANDEEP SINGH
SINGH
Announced in the Open Court on Date: 2025.05.14
17:17:31 +0530
14 May 2025.
th
(GAGANDEEP SINGH)
Special Judge, PC Act, CBI-04
Rouse Avenue District Courts,
New Delhi
130 of 130
[ad_1]
Source link