ANNEXURE-‘Y’

ADVOCATE’S CHECK LIST (TO BE CERTIFIED BY ADVOCATE-ON-

RECORD)

1. SLP(C) has been filed in Form No. 28 with Certificate. Yes

2. The petition is as per the provisions of Order XV Rule 1. Yes
3. The papers of SLP have been arranged as per Order XXI, Rule Yes
(3) (1) (f).
4. Brief list of dates/events has been filed. Yes
5. Paragraphs and pages of paper books have been numbered Yes
consecutively and correctly noted in Index.
6. Proper and required number of paper books (1+1) have been Yes
filed.
7. The contents of the petition, applications and accompanying Yes
documents are clear, legible and typed in double space on one
side of the paper.
8. The particulars of the impugned judgment passed by the Yes
Court(s) below are uniformly written in all the documents.
9. In case of appeal by certificate the appeal is accompanied by
judgment and decree appealed from and order granting
certificate.
10. If the petition is time barred, application for condonation of Yes
delay mentioning the no. of days of delay, with affidavit and
court fee has been filed.
11. The Annexures referred to in the petition are true copies of the Yes
documents before the court(s) below and are filed in
chronological order as per List of Dates.
12. The annexures referred to in the petition are filed and indexed Yes
separately and not marked collectively.
13. The relevant provisions off the Constitution, statutes, Yes
ordinances, rules, regulation, bye laws, orders etc. referred to
in the impugned judgment/order has been filed as Appendix to
the SLP.
14. In SLP against the order passed in Second Appeal, copies of No
the orders passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court
have been filed.
15. The complete listing proforma has been filed in, signed and Yes
included in the paper books.
16. In a petition (PIL) filed under clause (d) of Rule 12(1) Order No
XXXVIII, the petitioner has disclosed:
(a) his full name, complete postal address, e-mail address,
phone number, proof regarding personal identification,
occupation and annual income, PAN number and
National Unique Identity Card number, if any;

(b) the facts constituting the cause of action;

(c) the nature of injury caused or likely to be caused to the
public;
 (d) the nature and extent of personal interest, if any, of the
petitioner(s);
(e) Details regarding any civil, criminal or revenue
litigation, involving the petitioner or any of the
petitioners, which has or could have a legal nexus with
the issue(s) involved in the Public Interest Litigation.
17. If any identical matter is pending/disposed of by the Hon’ble No
Supreme Court, the complete particulars of such matters have
been given.
18. The statement in terms of Order XIX Rule 3(1) of Supreme
Court Rules 2013 has been given in the Petition of appeal.
19. Whether a Bank Draft of Rs.50,000/- or 50% of the amount, No
whichever is less, has been deposited by the person intending
to appeal, if required to be paid as per the order of the
NCDRC, in terms of Section 23 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986.
20. In case of appeals under Armed Forces Tribunal, 2007, the No
petitioner/appellant has moved before the Armed Forces
Tribunal for granting certificate for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court.
21. All the paper books to be filed after curing the defects shall be Yes
in order.

I hereby declare that I have personally verified the petition and its contents and it is in
conformity with the Supreme Court Rules 2013. I certify that the above requirements
of this Check List have been complied with. I further certify that all the documents
necessary for the purpose of hearing of the matter have been filed.

(AMARJEET SINGH)
Advocate on Record
for Petitioner(s)
Date: 0403.03.2022 Code: 2690
Mob. No. 9911111950
1 Particulars of Document Page No. of part to Remarks
which it belongs
Part 1 Part II
(Contents (Contents
of Paper of file
Book) alone)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
Court Fees
1. Office Report on limitation A
2. Listing Proforma A1 - A2

3. Cover Page of Paper Book A3

4. Index of Record of A4
Proceedings
5. Limitation Report prepared A5
by the Registry
6. Defect List A6
7. Note Sheet NS1-
8. Synopsis B–N
9. Impugned order Against the 1-2
interim order dated
02.09.2020 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Criminal
Appeal No. 419 of 2020
10. SLP alongwith Affidavit 3 -22
11. Appendix -23-
Section 372 CrPC
12. ANNEXURE P-1: 24-26
True copy of case FIR No.
121 of 2013 registered at P.S.
Vasant Kunj (South), New
Delhi dated 26.03.2013
13. ANNEXURE P-2: 27-32
True copy of the testimony
of Mr. Hitesh Bhardwaj
 dated 27.11.2015

14. ANNEXURE P-3: 33-244

True copy of the final
judgment and order dated
25.11.2019 passed by the
court of the Additional
Sessions Court, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi in
Sessions Case No. 271 of
2018 dated 25.11.2019
15. ANNEXURE P-4: 245-266
True copy of criminal appeal
bearing No. 419 of 2020 filed
by Respondent No. 2 before
the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi dated
29.08.2020
16. CRL. M. P. NO. OF 2022 267-269
APPLICATION SEEKING
PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL FACTS AND
DOCUMENTS
17. ANNEXURE P-5: 270-278
True copy of will dated
14.07.2014
18. ANNEXURE P-6: 279-280
True Copy of the cremation
slip with typed copy dated
09.03.2020 with regard to the
death of Ramesh Kumari
Bhardwaj
19. ANNEXURE P-7: 281-282
True copy of the hand
written MoU along with
typed copy dated 09.06.2020

20. ANNEXURE P-8: 283-286

True copy of order dated
30.07.2020 passed by the
 Office of Senior
Superintendent of Police
Batala

21. ANNEXURE P-9: 287-302

True copy of the Test Case
No. 18 of 2020 dated
14.08.2020 filed by the
Petitioner before the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi
22. ANNEXURE P-10: 303-304
True copy of order dated
18.08.2020 passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Test Case
No. 18 of 2020
23. ANNEXURE P-11: 305-308
True copy of order dated
27.08.2020 passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in CS(OS) No.
232 of 2020
24. CRL. M. P. NO. OF 2022 309-310
APPLICATION FOR
EXEMPTION FROM FILING
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
IMPUGNED ORDER
25. F/M -311-
26. Vakalatnama -312-
27. FIR Formate -313-
28. Memo of Parties 314-315
 A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 2(1)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._________OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:-

NITESH BHARDWAJ …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Special Leave Petition(s) is/are within time.

2. The Petition (s) is/are barred by time and there is delay of ____ days
in filing the same against the impugned final order dated
23.04.2019
02.09.2020 and Application for Condonation of _____ days

delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of ___ days in re-filing the petition and application

for condonation of ___ days delay in re-filing has been filed.

DATED: 04
03.03.2022 BRANCH OFFICER
 A1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION: II-C
 Central Act: (Title) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
1973
 Section:
 Central Rule: (Title) 372
 Rule No(s): NA
 State Act(Title) NA
 Section: NA
 State Rule: (Title) NA
 Rule No(s): NA
 Impugned Interim Order: (date) 02.09.2020
 Impugned Final NA
Order/Decree(Date)
 High Court: (Name) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi
 Names of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
 Tribunal/Authority: (Name) NA
1. Nature of matter CRIMINAL

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1: NITESH BHARDWAJ

(b) e-mail ID: NA
(c) Mobile phone number NA

3. (a) Respondent No. 1 STATE NCT OF DELHI

(b) e-mail ID NA
(c) Mobile phone number NA

4. (a) Main category classification

(b) Sub classification
5. Not to be listed before NA
6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with No similar matter Disposed of
citation, if any & case details:
(b) Similar pending matter with No similar matter Pending
details:

7. Criminal Matters YES

A2
 A2
(a) Whether accused/convict has Accused was acquitted by Trial Court,
surrendered Appeal pending in HC
(b) FIR No. and date: 121 dated 26.03.2013
(c) Police Station Vasant Kunj South. District South, Delhi
(d) Sentence Awarded Acquitted
(e) Sentence Undergone Accused Acquitted
8. Land Acquisition Matters: NA
(a) Date of Section 4 notification NA
(b) Date of Section 6 Notification NA
(c) Date of Section 17 notification NA

9. Special Category NA
(first petitioner/appellant only):
 Senior Citizen NA
 SC/ST
 Women/Child
 Disabled
 Legal Aid Case
 In Custody
10. Vehicle Number (in case of NA
Motor Accident Claim matters):
11. Decided cases with citation NA

DATED: 04
03.03.2022

FILED BY:-

(AMARJEET SINGH)
ADVOCATE ON RECORD FOR
PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
B-252. 3RD FLOOR, PRIYADARSHINI
VIHAR, NEAR LAXMI NAGAR,
DELHI - 110 092
CODE: 2690
MOB:-9911111950
EMAIL:- AMARJEETSINGHADV@GMAIL.COM
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 2(1)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.__________OF 2022

(AGAINST THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED 02.09.2020

PASSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2020)

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEFS)

IN THE MATTER OF:-

NITESH BHARDWAJ …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRL.M P. No. OF 2022

APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
FACTS AND DOCUMENTS

WITH

CRL.M P. No. OF 2022

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED
COPIES OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER

PAPER BOOK
(FOR DETAILED INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS: AMARJEET SINGH

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1. Court order dated

2. Court order dated
3. Court order dated
4. Court order dated
5. Court order dated
6. Court order dated
7. Court order dated
8. Court order dated
9. Court order dated
10. Court order dated
11. Court order dated
12. Court order dated
 B
SYNOPSIS

Whether an appeal can be filed against an order of acquittal by

the private party under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 without seeking leave to appeal from the Hon’ble High Court is
core question which is sought to be placed before this Hon’ble Court for
adjudication. This Hon’ble Court has held in the case of Satya Pal
Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 15 SCC 613 that
any person filing an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section
372 of the CrPC has to necessarily obtain leave of the Hon’ble Court
under the terms of Section 378 of the CrPC.

Further, whether a daughter-in-law of a deceased would fall

within the ambit of the definition of the term “victim” under Section 2
(wa) of the Cr.P.C. to entitle her to file an Appeal against acquittal under
the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., when admittedly she is neither
a guardian of the victim nor a legal heir in terms of Hindu Succession
Act is also placed before this Hon’ble Court. Since a daughter-in-law is
not covered under any of the categories of ‘legal heir’, is she entitled to
maintain an appeal against acquittal of the deceased father-in-law is the
spinal question that arises for consideration by this Hon’ble Court in the
present Special Leave petition. Even the extended meaning of the term
“heir” as held in a four Judges Bench judgment of this Hon’ble Court
in the case of Augurbala Mullick vs Debabrata Mullick (AIR 1951
SC 293) does not go beyond persons who are entitled to the property of
another under the law of inheritance and a three Judges Bench of this
Hon’ble Court has, as recently as in the year 2014 in the case of Shimbu
vs State of Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 318 has held as under:-
 C
“The power under the proviso should not be used
indiscriminately in a routine, casual and cavalier manner for the
reason that an exception clause requires strict interpretation.”

Another issue that this Hon’ble Court has commented on time and
again is that bogus litigation has to be shot down at the earliest stage by
imperatively examining the party at the first hearing, as held by this
Hon’ble Court in the case of T. Arivanandam vs T.V. Satyapal (1977)
4 SCC 467.

The Hon’ble High Court, in the instant case, while dealing with
an appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. without
first considering the legal issue that no leave has been sought and
without further ascertaining as to the locus of the Respondent/daughter-
in-law of the deceased to file the Appeal admitted the appeal by a non-
speaking order, which order is the subject matter of challenge before
this Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble High Court also failed to appreciate
the motive behind filing the appeal by the Appellant. In Satya Pal’s
case this Hon’ble Court has held that Section 372 Cr.P.C. has to be read
with Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. and thus grant of leave was necessary
even when filed by a victim. Thus, without a petition seeking leave to
appeal, the Hon’ble High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and
admit the appeal.

Further, the question as to who would fall within the ambit of the
definition “victim” under Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. has yet not been
 D
settled by this Hon’ble Court and this Special Leave Petition presents
interesting and complex and intricate facts to deal with such an issue.

Facts of the case with terse sufficiency: In the year 2013 tragedy
struck the Petitioner when his father was murdered by unidentified
assailants. The inability of the police to crack the case led the police to
charge the Petitioner with the murder of his own father. Thus, the
grieving petitioner was struck twice firstly with the murder of his father
and secondly with the burden of a charge which was unprecedented and
without any basis. The trial which continued till 2019 ultimately resulted
in an honorable acquittal of the Petitioner and thus truth prevailed.

Tragedy struck again when the Petitioner’s mother died on

08.03.2020 in Punjab. A post mortem was conducted on her to find out
the cause of death which showed that she died a natural death on account
of a cardiac arrest. After the performance of the religious rites and
obsequies, a registered will executed by the mother of the Petitioner
surfaced as per which majority of her estate was bequeathed to the
Petitioner. The same not being to the taste of the brother of the
petitioner, i.e., Mr. Hitesh Bhardwaj, he started a spate of ugly,
unnecessary and compulsive litigation against the Petitioner to coerce
him to accede to his illegal demands in respect of the family property.

The Petitioner, in order to avoid the internecine squabbles

amongst the siblings, agreed to give 50 % of the property to his brother,
but his brother’s avarice for the property saw no boundaries. Thus, he
filed a false complaint against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner
had killed their mother. A thorough investigation by the Punjab Police
 E
revealed that the death was natural and there was no evidence of any
foul play in the same, instead, the words, “After the funeral ceremony
when he Hitesh Bhardwaj came to know that their mother had made a
will of the property in the name of Nitesh Bhardwaj he started filing
complaints.” Expose the malafide intention of the brother of the
petitioner who is also the husband of the Respondent No. 2 herein.

Since the Petitioner’s brother wanted the entire family property

to the exclusion of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was forced to file three
cases, two for grant of letters of administration for the estate of the
deceased mother and the deceased father of the Petitioner),and one for
partition of the HUF joint family properties. In the suit for partition and
application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C, the counsel for
Petitioner’s brother appeared and raised the preliminary objection under
Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act claiming that a murderer had
no right in the estate of the deceased. The Hon’ble High court of Delhi
consequently recorded in its order in para 7 that the Petitioner had been
acquitted and went ahead to grant interim orders in favour of the
Petitioner herein. During oral arguments in the court, it was observed
that no appeal had been filed against the acquittal of the Petitioner and
thus, the embargo of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act would not
apply.

Taking cue from the oral observation of the Hon’ble Court, the
Petitioner’s brother got the appeal filed by his wife who is a proxy
Appellant in the case against the acquittal of the Petitioner in order stake
claim to all the family properties. It is to be noted that the appeal filed
 F
against the acquittal of the Petitioner was filed without obtaining the
leave of the Hon’ble Court.

A family feud and the greed of the Petitioner’s brother is the cause
of filing the appeal through his wife who has absolutely no ‘locus standi’
to file the appeal. When a person is not a party in the judgment of the
Trial Court, the basic requisite while filing an appeal against the
judgment as a third party is to establish necessary locus to file the
appeal, which in this case is conspicuously missing. There was not a
single asseveration in the appeal as to how the Appellant therein is
covered by the term “victim” of the crime. Nevertheless, the Hon’ble
High Court without ensuring the existence of locus to file appeal by
crossing the hurdle of locus, straightway admitted the appeal even
without hearing the Petitioner.

As such, the Hon’ble High Court has fallen into a grave error
when it had admitted the appeal without the Respondent No. 2 having
sought for appeal against the order of acquittal as mandated under the
CrPC and further without examining the locus of the respondent herein
to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of IPC
read with Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Hence the present special leave petition.

 G
LIST OF DATES

Date Particulars

26.03.2013 The father of the Petitioner Shri. Deepak Bhardwaj was

shot by unknown assailants at Nitesh Kunj Hotel Complex,
Rajokri, New Delhi. Case FIR No. 121 of 2013 was
registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj (South) under Sections
302/201 etc. IPC. True copy of case FIR No. 121 of 2013
registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj (South), New Delhi dated
26.03.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE P-1 (pages 24 to 26).

10.04.2013 While the Petitioner was still mourning the death of his
father, he was arrested by the Police of P.S. Vasant Kunj
(south) and slapped with the allegation of killing his own
father.

Nil Charge sheet filed against the Petitioner and other co-
accused persons.

01.10.2013 Charges framed against the Petitioner and other accused

persons.

14.07.2014 The mother of the Petitioner executed a will bequeathing

her properties in favour of the Petitioner herein. Copy of
the will is annexed to the Application for filing additional
documents.
 H
27.11.2015 The brother of the Petitioner herein as also the husband of
Respondent No. 2 herein i.e., Mr. Hitesh Bhardwaj was
examined in the case as PW-56. As per his testimony, the
Petitioner herein and his late father had good relations with
each other. He also stated that the police had tortured
Nitesh. True copy of the testimony of Mr. Hitesh Bhardwaj
dated 27.11.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-2 (pages 27 to 32). Pertinently, when the
Petitioner was granted bail/interim bail, Mr. Hitesh
Bhardwaj had also stood surety for the Petitioner herein in
the trial Court.

Till 109 prosecution witnesses were examined in support of

08.07.2019
their case.

08.07.2019 After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons

to
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they
12.07.2019
denied their complexity in the crime.

23.07.2019 8 defence witnesses were examined in support of their case

to
by the accused persons.
25.07.2019

25.11.2019 After facing the ordeal and trauma of the trial that lasted
more than 7 years in addition to having been operated for
brain tumor while in custody, the Petitioner was finally
exonerated by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. True copy of the final
judgment and order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the court
 I
of the Additional Sessions Court, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 271 of 2018 dated
25.11.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-3 (pages 33 to 244).

08.03.2020 Unfortunately, the mother of the Petitioner died at village

Batala, Punjab due to heart attack on 08.03.2020.

09.03.2020 The body of the mother of the Petitioner was brought back
to Delhi and the information with respect to the death was
recorded in the death register by the brother of the Petitioner
i.e., Mr. Hitesh Bhardwaj. As per the same the mother of
the Petitioner died due to heart attack. A true translated
copy of the death certificate issued by the cremation
ground, Dwarka, New Delhi is annexed along with the
application for placing on record additional documents.

Till Everything went on well between the Petitioner and his

30.05.2020
brother until the registered will of the mother of the
Petitioner surfaced wherein she had bequeathed all her
properties to the Petitioner. The brother of the Petitioner
was very upset on account of such will executed by their
mother. Thus, he initiated a spate of false and frivolous
litigation against the Petitioner herein including as many as
25 police complaints and many court cases. He inter-alia
filed a complaint with the police of P.S. Batala, alleging
there in that the Petitioner had murdered his mother. The
 J
brother of the Petitioner filed a CRM-M – 16384 of 2020
before the Hon’ble High court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh and vide order dated 25.06.2020, the Hon’ble
High Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Batala to consider and decide the complaint of the brother
of the Petitioner and pass speaking orders. The office of the
Senior Superintendent of Police thus passed a speaking
order observing therein as under: -
“As per PMR No. HPS/CH/BTL/104 dated 8.3.2020
in respect of deceased Ramesh Kumari no injury has
been found. The petitioner/complainant Hitesh
Bhardwaj has attended the funeral ceremony of her
mother late Ramesh Kumari on 9.3.2020 along with
his brother Nitesh Bhardwaj and had performed all
the rituals with his own hand and had also got
recorded the cause of her mother death as heart attack
in the register there. After the funeral ceremony when
he Hitesh Bhardwaj came to know that their mother
had made a will of the property in the name of Nitesh
Bhardwaj he started filing complaints.
During the inquiry neither any evidence has comes
into notice which can prove that deceased Ramesh
Kumari was murdered nor any concrete evidence was
produced. The concerned doctors have given their
reports that the cause of death of deceased Ramesh
Kumari was “Sudden Cardiac Arrest can be there”.
 K
The inquiry officer has recommended to file the
representation Annexure P-8 of the Petitioner.”
A copy of the speaking order passed by the Superintendent
of Police, Batala is annexed along with the application for
placing on record additional documents.
09.06.2020 Appreciating that his brother has some greed, the Petitioner
magnanimously agreed to enter into a settlement with him
and agreed to give him much more than was his brother was
entitled under the will vide his meeting with his brother on
09.06.2020. A copy of the handwritten notes and the typed
minutes of the meeting between the Petitioner and his
brother dated 09.06.2020 are annexed along with the
application for placing on record additional documents.

The brother of the Petitioner backed out of the agreement

and thus, the agreement could not go ahead.

14.08.2020 Having no other recourse, the Petitioner filed Test Case 17

of 2020 and 18 of 2020 seeking grant of letters of
administration of the will left by his late mother and father.
Copies of the Test Cases are annexed to the application for
placing on record additional documents. Pertinently, in
these cases, the brother of the Petitioner has raised the bar
of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act to counter the
claim of the Petitioner herein.

18.08.2020 The Test. Cases came up for hearing before the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi and the Hon’ble High Court passed
 L
interim orders restraining the parties from creating any third
party interest in the properties left by the mother of the
Petitioner. Copies of the order in the test cases are annexed
to the application for placing on record additional
documents.

22.08.2020 The Petitioner also filed a partition suit against his brother
seeking partition of the properties in the HUF of M/s.
Deepak Bhardwaj & sons HUF. A copy of the C.S. (OS)
filed by the Petitioner is annexed to the application for
placing on record additional documents.

27.08.2020 The civil suit for partition came up for hearing before the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon’ble High court was
pleased to issue notices in the civil suit. The Petitioner’s
brother appeared on advance notice through a counsel who
during the course of oral arguments raised the plea that the
Petitioner was not entitled to any property due to the bar
contained in Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act i.e.,
“Murdered disqualified”. When the counsel for the
Petitioner pointed out that he had been acquitted of the
charges, then the court put it to the counsel for the
Petitioner’s brother that the embargo of the said section
would not apply as the Petitioner had been acquitted and till
then no appeal had been filed. The Hon’ble High Court thus
recorded about the acquittal of the Petitioner in para 7 and
granted interim relief in favour of the Petitioner and against
 M
the Petitioner’s brother. A copy of the order of the Hon’ble
High Court in the civil Suit is annexed to the application for
placing on record additional documents.

29.08.2020 Taking cue from the hearing, the Petitioner’s brother filed
a criminal Appeal through his wife i.e. Respondent No. 2
challenging the order of acquittal whereby the Petitioner
was acquitted. Pertinently, no leave under Section 378
CrPC was sought for by the Respondent No. 2 before filing
the appeal. Further, the said appeal does not contain any
stipulation that the Petitioner’s brother’s wife was a victim
as she was neither a guardian nor a legal heir of the
deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. The said appeal was filed
merely to non-suit the Petitioner in the Civil Suit and to
raise the defence of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act
against the Petitioner. Thus, the criminal appeal was
motivated to achieve a specific purpose. True copy of
criminal appeal bearing No. 419 of 2020 filed by
Respondent No. 2 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi dated 29.08.2020 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-4 (pages 245 to 266).

02.09.2020 Vide the impugned order, the Hon’ble High Court admitted
the Appeal in limine without even hearing the Petitioner or
without seeking leave of the Hon’ble High Court to prefer
the appeal. Further, the issue of whether the Respondent
No. 2 therein qualified as a complainant / victim was not
 N
even decided. The Hon’ble High Court also did not
examine how and whether any averment had been made in
the entire petition in respect of the Appellant therein
qualifying as a victim. (Impugned Order)

Aggrieved by the admission of the said appeal in limine

without grant of leave to the Respondent No. 2, the
Petitioner is moving the present Special Leave Petition.

03.03.2022
04 Hence, the present Special Leave Petition
 1

IMPUGNED ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.A. 419/2020

SAMITA BHARDWAJ .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Ajay Marwah and
Mr. C. M. Sangwan,
Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the
State. Insp. Sanjay Rawat, P.S.V.K.South.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

ORDER
02.09.2020

Crl. M.A. 12088/2020

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

Crl. M.A. 12087/2020

Issue notice. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State accepts notice.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 57 days in filing the
appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

 2

CRL.A. 419/2020

ADMIT.

Trial court record be requisitioned. Paper books be got prepared. In the

meantime, let notice be issued to all the respondents except the State, returnable on
22.10.2020.

Notice be served through the SHO concerned.

VIPIN SANGHI, J
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J

SEPTEMBER 2, 2020/

//True Copy//
 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 2(1)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.________OF 2022

(Against the impugned interim order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
419 of 2020)

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

BETWEEN :- POSITION OF PARTIES

Trial High This

Court Court Hon’ble
Court
1. Nitesh Bhardwaj Accused No. Respondent Petitioner
05 No. 06
S/o Late Deepak
Bhardwaj,
R/o- A-91, M.K.
Residency, Sector-11,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
VERSUS

1. State of NCT of Delhi Prosecution Respondent Contesting

No.1 Respondent
Through The Chief
No.1
Secretary,
Home Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, ITO,
New Delhi. 110002

2. Samita Bhardwaj, Not a Party Appellant Contesting

W/o Shri. Hitesh Bhardwaj, Respondent
R/o 311, NAV Sansand No. 2
Vihar, Plot No. 04, Dwarka,
 4
New Delhi- 110075

3. Rakesh@ Nanha, Accused No. Respondent Proforma

S/o Shri Krishan, 01 No. 02 Respondent
R/o House No. House no. No. 03
407, Bahri Gali, Khera
Kalan Village, Delhi-82

4. Purshottam @ Monu, Accused No. Respondent Proforma

S/o Sh. Prem Chand, 02 No. 03 Respondent
R/o House No. 316, No. 04
Brahmin Mohalla, Village
Khera Kalan, Delhi

5. Sunil Singh@ Jai Sunil Accused No. Respondent Proforma

Mann 03 No. 04 Respondent
S/o Sh.Surat Singh Mann No. 05
R/o House No. 1075, Near
Chhotta, Shiv Mandir,
Alipur, Delhi

6. Amit Maan @Bhola Accused No. Respondent Proforma

S/o Sh. Ran Singh 04 No. 05 Respondent
R/o House No. 522 No. 06
Alipur Village, New Delhi

7. Baljeet Singh Accused No. Respondent Proforma

S/o Shri Chand 06 No. 07 Respondent
R/o D-5, Nangal, Dewat No. 07
Village, New Delhi

8. Machindernath Namdev Accused No. Respondent Proforma

@Swami Partibhanand 08 No. 08 Respondent
@Vichitra Yogi No. 08
S/o Namdev Chormai
@Devrath Yogkrit Swami
R/o Chakilamba, Distt.
Beed, Maharastra

Only Respondent No.1 and 2 are contesting Respondents

 5

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. The petitioner is filing the present Special Leave Petition against

the impugned Interim order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 419
of 2020 whereby the Hon’ble High Court has admitted the
Criminal Appeal filed by the Respondent No. 2, without grant of
leave to appeal against the order of acquittal and even without
examining her locus to file the Appeal.

1A. The Name of Respondent No. 1 in High Court is merely

mentioned as “State” in Impugned Order. The State is NCT of
Delhi mentioned in SLP which is same.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW: -
The present Special Leave Petition raises the following
questions of law of general importance:

2.1. Whether a victim is required to seek leave of the Hon’ble

High Court under Section 378 of the CrPC before preferring
an appeal as per the ratio of this Hon’ble Court in Satya Pal
Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 15 SCC
613?
 6

2.2. Whether the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC could be

read to grant a right which has been expressly disallowed by
the governing provision?
2.3. Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal can be
admitted without grant of leave and without issuance of
notice to the individuals whose acquittal is being challenged?
2.4. Whether a daughter-in-law of a deceased would fall within
the ambit of the definition of the term “victim” under Section
2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C?
2.5. Whether a daughter in law of a deceased is entitled to file a
criminal Appeal against acquittal under proviso to Section
372 of the Cr.P.C.?
2.6. Who all would fall within the category of the definition of the
term victim as defined in Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C.?
2.7. When admittedly a daughter in law of a deceased is neither a
guardian of the victim nor a legal heir in terms of Hindu
Succession Act, would she be covered under any of the
categories of ‘legal heir’ entitling her to file an appeal
against acquittal especially when she is a stranger to the
proceedings?
2.8. Whether bogus litigation has to be shot down at the earliest
stage by imperatively examining the party at the first hearing,
as held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of T. Arivanandam
vs T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467?
2.9. Whether the locus of a daughter-in-law to file an appeal
against acquittal has to be decided first before admitting the
criminal appeal against acquittal?
 7

2.10. Whether a criminal appeal against acquittal could be

admitted even without hearing the acquitted respondents?
2.11. Whether a criminal appeal could be entertained by a person
without a locus standi but has vested interest in the admission
of the appeal in order to achieve malafide motives?
2.12. Whether a criminal appeal against acquittal could be filed to
settle personal scores and to achieve ulterior motives and
whether the same is not an abuse of process of law?
2.13. Whether a criminal appeal against acquittal should contain a
prayer for grant of leave to appeal and without such
averment, the appeal itself would not be maintainable?
2.14. Whether a criminal appeal against acquittal should contain an
averment that a person is a victim and how he falls within the
ambit of the definition of the term victim and without such
averment, the appeal itself would not be maintainable?
2.15. Whether the Hon’ble High Court could condone the delay in
filing the Criminal appeal even without hearing the
Respondents whose presumption of innocence had been
cemented by an order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court and the delay in filing of the Criminal Appeal had
resulted in a vested right accruing in their favour?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2 (2):

The petitioner states that he has filed no other petition seeking

leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and Interim
 8

order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at

New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2020.

4. DECLALRATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4:

The Annexure P-1 to P-4 filed along with the Special Leave
Petition are true copies of the pleadings/documents that formed
part of the records of the case in the courts/tribunal below
against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in the
petition.

5. GROUNDS
Special Leave to Appeal is sought for on, inter alia, the
following grounds:

A. FOR THAT the impugned order is bad in law and on the

facts of the case.
B. FOR THAT it is settled law that if a person is claiming
themselves to be a victim within the ambit of Section 2(wa)
of the CrPC, a leave to appeal is required to be taken before
approaching the competent court in an appeal against the
order acquitting the accused person. As such, and assuming
without admitting that the Respondent No. 2 could be
considered a victim under the definition appended thereto in
the CrPC, the Respondent No. 1 ought to have approached
the Hon’ble High Court to seek leave to appeal against the
order of acquittal, passed in favor of the Petitioner.
 9

C. FOR THAT without having obtained the leave of the

Hon’ble High Court, the appeal against the order of acquittal
dated 25.11.2019 cannot be maintained.
D. FOR THAT it has been made clear by the judgment of this
Hon’ble Court in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 15 SCC 613, which has been
concurred with in another judgment of this Hon’ble Court
passed in Roopendra Singh vs. State of Tripura (2017) 13
SCC 612, that the right of questioning the correctness of the
judgment and order of acquittal by preferring an appeal to
the High Court is conferred upon the victim including the
legal heir and others, as defined under Section 2(wa) of
Cr.P.C., under proviso to Section 372, but only after
obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under sub-
Section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C.
E. FOR THAT there is no averment in the entire criminal
appeal that the Respondent No. 2 herein is a victim as
defined under Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. In the absence
of such an averment, the Hon’ble High Court erred in
admitting the appeal. The Respondent No. 2 is the daughter
in law of the deceased and as such does not fall within the
ambit of the definition of the term ‘victim’ as defined in
Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C.
F. FOR THAT proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was added to the
Cr.P.C. to allow a victim to file an appeal against acquittal.
Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. was also in the Cr.P.C. to
include the definition of the term victim. Section 2 (wa)
 10

Cr.P.C. provided that a victim would include a Guardian and

legal heirs. Normally the victim would be a person who is
aggrieved party to whom some injury is caused. For
example in the case hurt, the person to ‘whom’ hurt is
caused. In the case of theft, the person whose things were
stolen so on and so forth. However, the section clarifies that
it includes two persons i.e., guardians and Legal heirs.
These two inclusions i.e., Guardian and Legal heirs were
made in the section in context of minors/persons of unsound
mind and deceased victims. Thus, in case of minors who
have been injured and are victims, their guardians would be
considered victims. And in case of persons who have been
murdered their legal heir would be considered the victim to
enable him/her to file the Criminal Appeal against the
acquittal of the accused under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
Admittedly, Respondent No. 2 herein is a daughter in law.
She does not qualify or come within the ambit of the term
legal heir as per the Hindu Succession Act. Thus, she was
not legally entitled to file or maintain a criminal appeal
against the acquittal of the Petitioner herein. Thus, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
G. FOR THAT Respondent No. 2 has filed the criminal appeal
although she does not qualify as a legal heir/guardian of the
deceased to enable her to file the criminal Appeal. Section
372 of the Cr.P.C. provides that no appeal shall lie from any
judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for
in the code or any other law for the time being in force.
 11

Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides that a victim shall

have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by
any court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser
offence or imposing inadequate compensation and such
appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies
against the order of conviction of such court. A victim is
defined by Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. and it reads as
under: -
“2 (wa) “victim” means a person who has suffered any
loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for
which the accused person has been charged and the
expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal
heir.”

H. FOR THAT the use of the term “injury” or “loss” in Section

2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C refers to the injury or loss which is
personal to the victim and a direct consequence of the act of
the accused which he is charged with. Thus, it cannot extend
the interpretation of the term “victim” to include persons
who are not proximate losers due to such acts. For example,
in a case of murder of a person, a neighbor with whom the
deceased used to go for morning walks could also qualify as
a victim if the loss or injury were to be seen. However, that
was not the intent of the legislature. Thus, the section goes
on to state that victim includes a guardian or a legal heir.
Thus, where the victim is a child/minor or a person of
unsound mind then it would include its guardian. When the
 12

victim has died as a result of the act of the accused then the
victim would include its legal heir. In other words a person
who is not a legal heir has no right to file an appeal against
the order of acquittal. Criminal law requires strict
interpretation and such strict interpretation leads us to the
inference that the intent and purpose of using the words
“guardian”/ “legal heir” is to ensure that no third parties or
other persons who do not qualify as legal heirs are entitled to
file an appeal in case of death of the victim. Admittedly,
Respondent No. 2 is not a legal heir of any class as per the
Hindu Succession Act and thus, she is not entitled to
maintain a criminal appeal.
I. FOR THAT the Petitioner respectfully submits that even the
extended meaning of the term “heir” as held in a four Judged
Bench judgment in the case of Augurbala Mullick vs
Debabrata Mullick (AIR 1951 SC 293) does not go beyond
persons who are entitled to the property of another under the
law of inheritance and thus, the Criminal appeal could not
have been maintained by Respondent No. 2.
J. FOR THAT even otherwise, the husband of the Respondent
No. 2 has already come in appeal against the order of
acquittal passed in favor of the Petitioner being CRL A
19/2021, and considering the right of the Respondent No. 2,
if any, originates from her husband, the continuation of the
criminal appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 will cause an
avoidable multiplicity of proceedings and a burden on the
judicial system. As such, Respondent No. 2 cannot be
 13

allowed to pursue the appeal in view of the fact that not only
her husband, but the State as well as filed a leave petition
against the order of acquittal passed in favor of the
Petitioner.
K. FOR THAT a three Judges Bench of this Hon’ble Court has,
as recently as 2014 in the case of Shimbu vs State of
Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 318 has held as under:

“The power under the proviso should not be used

indiscriminately in a routine, casual and cavalier manner
for the reason that an exception clause requires strict
interpretation.”
Strictly interpreting the provision of Sections 372 Cr.P.C.
read with Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C., Respondent No. 2
had no locus standi to file the appeal against acquittal,
especially without seeking leave of the Hon’ble High Court
and thus, the Hon’ble High Court erred in admitting the
appeal in limine.
L. FOR THAT Bogus litigation has to be shot down at the
earliest stage by imperatively examining the party at the first
hearing, as held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of T.
Arivanandam vs T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467. In the
present case, the Hon’ble High Court was not even given the
background in which the criminal appeal was filed which
would have shown the malafide of Respondent No. 2 and her
motive to file the Criminal Appeal.
 14

M. FOR THAT Respondent No. 2’s husband had an eye on the

family property. Upon the demise of the mother of the
Petitioner’s mother, the property left by her was devolving
upon the Petitioner as per the registered will executed by her.
This was not to the liking of the brother of the Petitioner who
is also the husband of Respondent No. 2. However, since the
brother of the Petitioner had given statements during the trial
establishing the cordial relations between the Petitioner and
his late father, therefore, he could not have filed the criminal
appeal against acquittal. However, he raised a proxy litigant
to file the case through Respondent No. 2 who was not even
falling within the definition of the term victim as defined
under Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. Hence the Hon’ble High
court erred in admitting the appeal against acquittal filed by
a person who neither had the locus standi nor the power to
file the said appeal.
N. FOR THAT the Hon’ble High Court, in the instant case,
while dealing with an appeal filed under the proviso to
Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. without first ascertaining as to
whether leave ought to have been obtained or determining
the locus of the Respondent/daughter-in-law of the deceased
to file the Appeal admitted the appeal by a non-speaking
order, which order is the subject matter of challenge before
this Hon’ble Court.
O. FOR THAT the Petitioner’s brother wanted the entire family
property to the exclusion of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was
forced to file three cases (two for grant of letters of
 15

administration in respect of the estate of his deceased mother

and father respectively) and one for partition of the HUF
joint family properties. In the suit for partition and
application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C, the counsel
for Petitioner’s brother appeared and raised the preliminary
objection under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act
claiming that a murderer had no right in the estate of the
deceased. The Hon’ble High court of Delhi consequently
recorded in the order in para 7 that the Petitioner had been
acquitted and went ahead to grant interim orders in favour of
the Petitioner herein. During oral arguments in the court, it
was observed that no appeal had been filed against the
acquittal of the Petitioner and thus, the embargo of Section
25 of the Hindu Succession Act would not apply. Taking cue
from the oral observation of the Hon’ble Court, the
Petitioner’s brother got the appeal filed by his wife who is a
proxy Appellant in the case against the acquittal of the
Petitioner in order take all the family properties. A family
feud and the greed of the Petitioner’s brother is the cause of
filing the appeal through his wife who has absolutely no
‘locus standi’ to file the appeal. When a person is not a party
in the judgment of the Trial Court, the basic requisite while
filing an appeal against the judgment as a third party is to
establish necessary locus to file the appeal, which in this
case is conspicuously missing.
P. FOR THAT the motive to file the criminal appeal is also
apparent from the fact that the brother of the Petitioner
 16

(whose wife had filed the appeal) had filed as many as 25

police complaints against the Petitioner and had also filed
many court cases against the Petitioner/for action against the
Petitioner. However, all his efforts went in vain and he
could not achieve his ulterior motives. Further, during trial
of the criminal case against the Petitioner (when it was
pending in Patiala House Courts, New Delhi), the brother of
the Petitioner had deposed as PW-56 and had stated that the
Petitioner and his deceased father were in good terms with
each other. In such circumstances, he chose not to file the
appeal as the same would have been contrary to his own
version in the trial. Thus, he chose his wife as a proxy
litigant to file the criminal appeal against the Petitioner.
Thus, the criminal appeal against acquittal filed by
Respondent No. 2 is vitiated by malafide motives and filed
to achieve ulterior motives and to harass the Petitioner to
give up his claims in respect of the estates of the deceased
family members. Having failed to achieve their motives in
the civil litigations and the police complaints filed by him,
the brother of the Petitioner filed the present criminal appeal
against acquittal before this Hon’ble Court in order harass
the Petitioner to accede to his illegal demands.
Q. FOR THAT the Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 2 is
a complete stranger to the entire criminal trial before the
learned Trial Court. She was neither a witness nor a party to
the litigation before the learned Trial Court. She was neither
a party nor a victim as per the definition of the term victim
 17

as defined under Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. Yet with

malafide motives, and in utter disregard to the established
procedure, she has filed the present criminal appeal against
acquittal although she was not even affected by the death of
her father in law. Now she has filed the appeal as her
husband could not have filed the appeal and she and her
husband are greedy to obtain the entire estate of the deceased
parents of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention over here
that the husband of Respondent No. 2 (brother of the
Petitioner herein) has filed numerous litigations against the
Petitioner. Since his own testimony and conduct precluded
him from filing the present appeal, therefore, he has chosen
his wife to file the criminal appeal. Thus, the filing of the
criminal appeal against acquittal is an abuse of the process of
law and should not have been entertained by the Hon’ble
Court.
R. FOR THAT the Hon’ble High Court has fallen into a grave
error when it had admitted the appeal without directing the
Respondent No. 2 to first seek leave to appeal and further
without examining the locus of the respondent herein to file
an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of
IPC read with Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
S. FOR THAT the Petitioner respectfully submits that the
Hon’ble High Court has condoned the delay even without
issuing notices to the acquitted persons. It is respectfully
submitted that the presumption of innocence in favour of
 18

accused persons had been cemented by a reasoned

order/judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court. In such circumstances, after the expiry of the period
of limitation, a vested right had accrued in favour of the
acquitted persons including the petitioner. Thus, the Hon’ble
High court erred in condoning the delay even without notice
to the Petitioner and other acquitted persons.

6. GROUND FOR INTERIM RELIEF

The Petitioner submits that the appeal has been admitted even
without giving the Petitioner a hearing to establish to the
Hon’ble High Court that the same was filed with malafide
motives by a stranger to the proceedings who had not locus to
file the appeal and who has further not sought for leave to appeal
against the order of acquittal. The Petitioner has a prima facie
good case, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
Petitioner and irreparable loss would be caused to the Petitioner
in case the operation of the impugned orders are not stayed.
Hence, it is prayed that the operation of the impugned orders be
stayed during the pendency of the present special leave petition.

7. MAIN PRAYER:
In the light of the above, the Petitioner herein most humbly
submits that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Grant Special Leave to appeal against the impugned interim

order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2020;
 19

(b) Pass any other order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

In the light of the above, the Petitioner herein most humbly

submits that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Stay the operation of the impugned interim order dated

02.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
in Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2020 during the pendency of
the present special leave petition;

(b) Pass such other further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts of the case and in the
interest of justice.

DRAWN BY:-
HARPREET SINGH POPLI,
ADVOCATE
FILED BY:-

(AMARJEET SINGH)
Advocate for the Petitioner
DRAWN ON: 03.03.2022
FILED ON: 04
03.03.2022
NEW DELHI
 20
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 2(1)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

NITESH BHARDWAJ …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the Court whose Order is challenged and the
documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts,
documents or grounds have been taken or relied upon in the Special
Leave Petition except Annexure P-5 to P-11. It is further certified that
the copies of the documents/annexure attached to the Special Leave
Petition are necessary to answer the Question of Law raised in the
Petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for
consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given by the
Petitioner/person authorized by the Petitioner whose Affidavit is filed in
support of the Special Leave Petition.

(AMARJEET SINGH)
AOR FOR PETITIOENR
NEW DELHI
04
Date: 04.03.2022
 21

3 22

B N
22
 23
APPENDIX
Section 372.

No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.

No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as

provided for by this Code by any other law for the time being in force:

1
[Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any

order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser

offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the

Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of

such Court.]

1. Ins. by Act 5 of 2009, s. 29 (w.e.f. 31-12-2009).

//TRUE COPY//
 ANNEXURE P-1
24
ANNEXURE P-1
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
(Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.)
1. District: SOUTH DELHI P.S: VASANT KUNJ SOUTH
YEAR:2013 FIR NO- 121 DATE:26.3,2O13
2. Act(s): IPC IPC 1860 Section(s):
302/34 IPC READ WITH
SECTION 27 OF ARMS ACT
2. Occurrence of Offence: a)
Day; Date From : Date To:
TUESDAY 26.3.2013 26.3.2013
Time Period Time From: Time to:
09.00HRS 09.00 HRS
b) Information Date: 26.3.2013 Time :
received at P.S. 14,20 HRS hrs.
c) General Diary Entry: 19A Entry: 19A
Reference: 14.20 HRS.
4. Type of Information : WRITTEN
5. Place of occurrence
a Direction and distance from P.S. Beat
At a Distance of 7.0. KM towards No: 11
west
b Address: Nitesh Kunj Hotel
Complex, Nh-8, New Delhi,
Rajokari, New Delhi
c In case, outside the limit of the
police station:

Name of P.S.; District

6 Complainant /Informant;
A Name; Shri Krishan Singh Son of Shri Birju Singh
B Birth year : Nationality : INDIA
C Passport No.: Date of Issue:
Place of issue:
D Occupation:
E Address: Shani Mandir Plot, Kapashera Border, Kapashera, New Delhi
7. Details of known/Suspect/Unknown accused with full:
9. Particulars of the properties stolen /involved (attach separate sheet if necessary):
SI No. Proptery type Est, Status
 25
(Description) Value (Rs.)
10 Total Value of Property Stolen:
11. Inquest Report/U-D. Case No., if any:
12. Statement of Shri Krishan Singh Son of Shri Birju Singh R/o Village and Post Nimod
Tehsil Neem Ka Thana 1, District Sikar Rajasthan, aged about 22 years, present address
Shani Mandir Plot, Kapashera Border, Kapashera, New Delhi.Stated that, I am
residing at the above address and I am working as as Guard in SSS Security Co. (Kataria
Chowk) Gurgaon (Haryana). Since last 2 months, my security company has deputed me
at Nitish Kunt NH-8, Rajokari for working as a guard there. Today on 26.3.2013 my
duty hours in the Kothi in Gali no.3 of Nitish Kunj were from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. While I
was standing inside Gali no.3 today at around 9.00 a.in., I heard sound of firing and
screaming from Lawn no.2 on the back side and thereafter I immediately ran towards
that side and saw 2 boys aged about 25-30 years whose height were approx. 5'-9" and
one of the boy was wearing light green colour lower and a white T-shirt and the other boy
was wearingblack lower and a white t-shirt. Both the boys were armed with pistols and
both of them were ■ running towards the main gate from the small gate and my boss
Deepak Bhardwaj was lying on the passage in front of the lawn and he was bleeding
from behind his head and chest. I ran after the above said boys, but both of them managed
to run away from the main gate in a grey colored Skoda car. no. DLS3CJ- 7062.
In the meanwhile PSO Satish and P.A. Deepak and other workers also reached near
my boss who was lying at the spot and someone of them informed police on 100 number and
thereafter a PCS Jeep came to the spot Thereafter P.A. Deepaka and PSO Satishtook my
boss Deepak Bhardwaj to a hospital in the PCR Van. Later on I was informed that my boss
Deepak Bhardwaj has died in the hospital. I can recognize both the above said boys if they
are brought before me. Both these boys have shot and killed my boss Deepak Bhardwaj.
This incident has been witness by many other persons also, Please take strict legal action
against the boys. I have heard my statement It is correct: Sd/.-in Hindi Krishna Singh.
Attested Inspector Neeraj Choudhary, D-986 PIS No. 16950155. • To, The Duty Officer,
Police Station Vasatit Kunth South. Sir, It is submitted that I the undersigned inspector
immediately reached Nitish Kunj NH-8 on receipt of information Vide DD no. 11 A, After
reaching there I met Sub Inspector Harish at the Spot. On checking, I found blood lying on
the road on the back side of the office Block of Nitesh Kunj and I was informed that injured
Deepak Bhardwaj has been taken to hospital in a PCR Van. I met eye witness, of this incident,
namely, Shri Krishan Singh, S/o Birju Singh who gave his statement which was recorded
by me. In the meanwhile was I was informed by the PCR that injured has been admitted in a
Hospital in Delhi Gantt. Thereafter I instructed Sub Inspector Satyendra Gulia to keep a
vigil at the spot and FSL team, Crime team and photographer were called to inspect scene
of crime. Thereafter I the undersigned along with Sub Inspector Harish reached R & R
Hospital and collected M LC No. 697 of injured Deepak Bharwaj R/o Nitish Kunj Hotel
Complex, NH-8 New Delhi, aged 62 years from the doctor on which doctor had Written
injured found dead. In the meanwhile DD No.l7A was given to me by IHC Krishan Kant
no.332/SD Offence under Sections 302/34 I PC read with Sections 27/54/59 - of the Anns
Act is made out from the above statement, MLC and circumstances. Therefore this
report is being sent to Police Station through HC Krishan Kant no.332/SD for
 26
registration of a case, Kindly register the ■fl case and intimate number of the case to me.
MM and Senior officers be also informed about this incident through a special
messenger. I am busy at the spot. Date and time: 26,3,2013 at about 9 a.m. .Place of
occurrence: Nitish Kunj Hotel Complex, NH-81, New Delhi. Date and time of dispatch of
the report: 26.3.2013 at 1.40 p.m. Sd/O English 26.3.2013. Inspector Neeraj Choudhary, PIS
No. 16950155 ATO/ PS Vasant Kunj South. Police proceedings: Case registered at the
Police station tody on receipt of the above report for offences under Section 302/34
IPC read with Section 27/54/59 the Arms. Report has been typed word by word in the
Computer CIPA. A , Computerized copy of the FIR is being sent to 10 Inspector Neeraj
Choudhary, A.T.O,
Vasant Kunj (South) who is busy at the spot in the
investigation of the case through Head Constable
Krishan Kant, no.332/SD. Copies of FIR are also being
sent to Metropolitan Magistrate, Joint CP South West
Range, DCP/SD, Additional DCP/SD, ACP/V.Vihar
through Special Messenger Constable Shri Jai Prakash
no. 1329/5D on Motor cycle no, DL1SS-1191. FIR has been checked by the D.O. Sd/-
HC/DO,
13. Action taken (since the above information reveals commission of offence (s) u/s as
mentioned as item no. 2.
i. Registered the case and took up the
Investigation OR
ii. TRUE
Directed (Name of the 1.0); COPY
Neeraj
Chaudhary RANKInspector No: 16950155
iii. Refused investigation due to : OR
iv. Transferred to P.S. (name):
District:
On point of jurisdiction.
F.I.R. read over to the complainant/informant, admitted to be
Correctly recorded and a copy given to the •
Complainant/informant, free of cost;

R.O.A.C: 14. Signature/Thumb Impression Signature of Officer

Of The Complainant/Informant: Name: Kailash
RANK: Head Constable
No.28891502
15. Date and Time of dispatch to the court:
///TRUE TYPED COPY///
 27
ANNEXURE P-2

State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors.

FIR No. 121/13
PS : Vasant Kunj (South)
u/s: 302/201/212/120Bf482/420/468/471/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59A Arms
Act

27.11.2015

PW56 : Sh. Hitesh Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, R/o Flat
no. 311, Plot no. 4, Nav Sansad Vihar, CGHS Sector-22, Dwarka, Delhi.

On SA

On 26.03.2013 I had received a phone call from one of my staff,

who told me that some unknown person fired on my father Deepak
Bhardwaj and killed him at about 9/9:15 am. Again I received a call after 15
minutes that they have called the PCR and they are going to R&R Hospital.
After about half an hour I also reached the hospital and about 2 and half
hour thereafter the doctor declared my father dead. Then I came back to
Nitesh Kunj where the police persons were making inquiries from our staff
and had also taken the 2-3 cell phones of the employees, including one Sh.
Praveen Bhardwaj which the police has not returned till date.

On 27.3.2013 I along with my brother Nitesh visited the mortuary of

Al IMS hospital where I and my brother identified the dead body of my
father Deepak Bhardwaj vide separate dead body identification statement. I
identified the dead body vide memo now Ex.PW56/A bearing my signature
at point A. I had also signed the form 25.35 which on record is now
Ex.PW56/B bearing my signature at point A.

After the post-mortem the dead body of my father was handed over
to us vide dead body handing over memo now Ex.PW56/C bearing my
signature at point A. IO recorded my statement. We came along with the
dead body to Nitesh Kunj. Then we all went to cremation ground Nigam
Bodh Ghat and came at 8:00 pm. On 28.03.2013 some police persons have
come to Nitesh Kunj from where they took away some mobile phones of my
 28
father and accused Nitesh, along with some documents and photographs
which they have not returned till date. Thereafter the police officials of PS
Vasant Kunj (South) used to call me and my family members including my
wife and wife of Nitesh to the police station frequently at odd hours such as
10:00 pm and they used to question us and then let us off at 2:00-3:00 am.
The police officials obtained our signatures on several blank papers and on
note book paper and registers also, This continued till 11.04.2013. Nitesh
was apprehended by the police on 07.04.2013 but was shown to be arrested
on 09.04.2013. The police officials have tortured me and my family.

The police did not visit our place on 23.05.2013 and nothing happened on
the said date. Nor the police visited our place on 19.06.2013.
(Vol. The police did not visit after 11.04.2013.)

At this stage, Ld. APP for State prays for permission to cross-examine
the witness as he has resiled from his statements given to
the police.

Heard. Allowed.

XXXXX by Ld. APP for the State.

I am a graduate, I can read and write in Hindi and English. It is correct that
the documents pertaining to the hand writing of Mrs. Nishtha consisting of 6
pages now Ex.PW56/D1 to Ex.PW56/D6 bears my
signature at point A on each page. I do not recollect the date when the
specimen handwriting of my sister in law were procured by the police on
Ex.PW56/Dl to Ex.PW56/D6. (Vol. The same was procured before
11.04.2013.) The specimen hand writing of my sister in law Nishtha was
taken in the police station in my presence. It is incorrect to suggest that the
handwriting of my sister in law Nishtha was procured by the police on
23.5.2013 at Nitesh Kunj and not in the police station. The police had not
recorded my statement to this effect. At this stage, the statement now Mark
56/X is read over and explained to the witness in toto from point X to X
which the witness denies having made. It is incorrect to suggest that the
statement mark 56/X was recorded by the police at my behest or that the
contents of the same are true.
 29
I did not make any other statement to the police. At this stage, the statement
now mark 56/Y is read over and explained to the witness in toto from point
X to X which the witness denies having made. It is incorrect to suggest that
the statement mark 56/X was recorded by the police at my behest or that the
contents of the same are true. The accused Nitesh is my younger and not the
elder one. My brother Nitesh had studied in Canada and also doing Job
there. I do not recollect when my brother Nitesh came back to India. (Vol.
My father had called him for joining the family business.) I also do not
recollect when my father called him up. I cannot even tell the year what to
talk about the month and date when Nitesh came back to India. My father
used to deal in real estate. We have a joint family comprising my deceased
father, myself, my wife and kids, my brother Nitesh and his wife and kids
and my mother. I have no knowledge about any complaint having been
made by my mother Smt. Ramesh Kumari against my father about her
security. I cannot identify the signature of my mother. I have seen my
mother writing and signing several times in my life. I can identify her
signatures if shown to me.

At this stage, Ld. APP for the State put the document to the witness.
I do not think that the signatures at point A on the document mark PW56/Z
are of my mother. By saying "I do not think" I mean that the signatures can
be and also cannot be of my mother.

It is correct that my father had a licensed point 32 bore revolver. I

am not aware whether my mother had filed an application for cancellation
of the license of my father. Mrs. Sheela is my bua. It is correct that my bua
Sheela had filed a complaint against my mother at PS Dariya ganj in the
month of April, but I do not recollect the year. I am aware about the reason
my Bua filed a complaint against my mother but I do not recollect now. It is
incorrect to suggest that my mother had filed a complaint under Domestic
Violence Act against my father and thereafter at the instance of my father,
my bua had filed the above mentioned complaint at Dariya Ganj. It is
correct that my father owned a hotel by the name of Nitesh Kunj. The hotel
was being run by my father, brother and Nitesh. It is incorrect to suggest
that the hotel Nitesh Kunj was exclusively being run by my father or that
 30
there was a dispute between Nitesh and my father as Nitesh wanted to take
over the hotel. It is further incorrect to suggest that my father used to
often scold us in the public gathering in the office and for this reason
Nitesh and myself were not having healthy relation with father. It is correct
that I did not make any complaint to the police till date regarding two-three
cell phones of our employee including Sh. Praveen Bhardwaj which was
taken by the police and have not been released to our employees. It is
incorrect to suggest that I did not make any complaint because no such
phone including the phone of Praveen Bhardwaj was ever taken by the
police. I also did not make any written complaint against the police officers
to the effect that on 28.03.2013 some police persons had come to Nitesh
Kunj from where they took away some mobile phones of my father and
accused Nitesh along with some documents and photographs. It is wrong to
suggest that I did not make the said complaint because no police officer took
the mobile phones of my father, my brother Nitesh or any document
including the photographs on 28.03.2013. Neither I nor my brother Nitesh
and nor my mother ever made any complaint to the police officer in
hierarchy to the effect that the police officers had obtained our signatures on
several blank papers, note book paper and registers. Vol. Kartay kisko
saab police wale DCP level tak to wahi thay. It is correct that even till date,
I, my brother and my mother did not make any such complaint in hierarchy.
It is incorrect to suggest that we did not make any such complaint as our
signatures were never taken by the police officers on several blank papers,
note book paper and registers.

Naresh is my maternal uncle. I am not aware that the police had duly
informed my maternal uncle Naresh when my brother Nitesh was arrested
on 09.04.2013. It is correct that we did not make any complaint to the higher
police officer in hierarchy nor we made any fax etc. to the effect that the
police had apprehended my brother Nitesh on 07.04.2013. It is wrong to
suggest that we did not make any such complaint as my brother was not
apprehended on 07.04.2013. We did not even make any complaint before
the Ld. MM concerned about the apprehension of my brother Nitesh on
07.04.2013.

It is correct that accused Nitesh Bhardwaj is my real brother, it is however

incorrect to suggest that since Nitesh is my real brother, I am deposing
 31
falsely in order to screen him from legal punishment or that he had actively
conspired to get father Deepak Bhardwaj eliminated as we were not on
healthy relations with father or that Nitesh wanted to grab the family
business.

XXX by Sh. Mukesh Kalia, counsel for the accused Nitesh Bhardwaj.

Besides the family members mentioned above, my mother and

brother Nitesh were also summoned for the purpose of interrogation on the
days when we were summoned by the police at odd hours. Besides the
specimen signatures, the police had given us script and all the family
members were being asked to write on different sheets, papers, pad and
registers. Even all the family members were asked by the police to write the
script which has been written in Ex.PW56/D1 to D6. I can identify the
register, letter pad or other papers on which we were being asked to write by
the police officials.

At this stage, an unsealed envelope is opened containing one torn

letter pad and after seeing the page having the seal of CFSL I can say the
witness state that this handwriting was taken by the police in the police
station from his sister-in-law before 11.04.2013 in his presence and he can
identify the handwriting of his Bhabhi. The relevant page so identified by
the witnesses mark 56/DA.

My father had litigation with number of outsider and apprehending

danger to his life my father had also lodged different complaints against
those persons. My father was in deep love with my brother and that was the
reason that he has named his hotel in the name of my younger brother
Nitesh as Nitesh Kunj. It was a hotel. The complaint lodged by my bua
against my mother was a false complaint and for that reason and the same
was withdrawn by her. The CCTV installed at Nitesh Kunj was installed by
my brother Nitesh only. My father was enjoying cordial relation and a video
clipping was also broadcasted on the eve of Holi and it was a greeting sent
by Bhardwaj family.

XXXXXX by Sh. Karanveer Bana, Ld. Counsel for accused Baljeet Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given.
 32
XXXXXX by Sh. Nitin Vashishtha, Ld. Counsel for accused Pradeep.
Nil. Opportunity given.

XXXXXX by Sh. Vikram Singh Saini, Ld. Counsel for accused Sunil Mann
and Amit.

Nil. Opportunity given.

XXXXXX by accused Purshottam@ Monu and Rakesh.

Nil. Opportunity given.

~
RO & AC
(Reetesh Singh}
ASJ-02/FTC, New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
27.11.2015

///TRUE COPY//
 33
ANNEXURE P-3

IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR ARORA:

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02:NEW DELHI DISTRICT :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI

Sessions Case No. 271/18

Case No.8713/16

State

Vs.

1. Rakesh @ Nanha
2. Purshottam @ Monu
3. Sunil Singh @ Jai Sunil Maan
4. Amit Mann @ Bhola
5. Nitesh Bhardwaj
6. Baljeet
7. Pardeep Kumar (expired, proceedings abated)
8. Machindernath Namdev @ Swami Pratibhanad @ Vichitra Yogi.

FIR No. 121/2013

U/s 302/201/212/120B/482/420/468/471/34 IPC &
U/s 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act.
PS Vasant Kunj (South)

Date of institution of the case : 25.07.2013

Date when the case reserved for judgment : 19.11.2019
Date of announcement of judgment : 25.11.2019

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 1 of 212      
 34

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. Present is a case of contract killing of one Deepak

Bhardwaj by his son/accused Nitesh Bhardwaj who was having
strained relations with him. For this purpose, accused Nitesh Bhardwaj
had hatched a criminal conspiracy and availed the services of his
acquaintance/advocate accused Baljeet Singh who, in turn, was in
touch with accused Mahant Pratibhanand. It was through accused
Pratibhanand that contract killers namely accused Purshottam @ Rana
and Sunil Maan were arranged who in the execution of the contract
were assisted by other accused persons namely Amit Mann, Rakesh @
Nanhe and Pradeep (expired, proceedings abated).

2. The prosecution case unfolds by way of DD No.11 A

received at PS Vasant Kunj (S) on 26.03.2013 regarding some persons
having shot Deepak Bhardwaj at Nitesh Kunj Hotel Complex, Rajokri,
New Delhi. The injured Deepak Bhardwaj who was taken to the
hospital was declared as brought dead. One security guard namely
Krishan Singh (examined as PW-40) met the police team at the spot
and told that on 26.03.2013 at about 9:00 am when he was on duty at
Gate no.3 of the Nitesh Kunj Complex, he heard gunshot sound
coming from the back side of Lawn No.2. He told that when he ran
towards the said place, he noticed two boys aged about 25-30 years,
one wearing light green colour lower and black T-shirt and the other a
black lower with white T-shirt, both having pistols in their hands, coming
out of the small gate and running towards the main gate. CCTV
cameras installed at the Nitesh Kunj Complex were analyzed and the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 2 of 212      
 35

CCTV footage of the relevant time revealed that one grey colour Skoda
car was seen entering the complex at about 9:05 am and the same car
was seen heading towards the main gate at about 9:14-9:15 am and
two persons with pistols in their hands following it. Some incomplete
registration number details of the said car were provided by the
security guard Krishan Singh and based on that, identity and
registration verification of the said car was got done. The car was found
in the name of one Gaurav Kumar having registration number DL 6CJ
7062. Address of the said Gaurav Kumar was raided and on inquiry it
was found that the said car had been sold to one Rakesh and
Purshottam @ Monu (both accused in the present case) on
19.03.2013. This led to the arrest of accused Rakesh on 31.03.2013
who revealed that accused Purshottam @ Monu is his distant relative
and also a very close friend. He told that about a week before,
Purshottam had asked him to buy a car as he had a very good contract
to eliminate a well known person i.e. Deepak Bhardwaj. He further told
about the involvement of accused Sunil and of accused Amit Mann in
this contract of killing Deepak Bhardwaj. Mobile numbers of the
accused persons were traced out and their CDRs were analyzed.
Finding sufficient link, police arrested accused Purshottam @ Monu
and accused Sunil and their disclosures were recorded. It revealed the
role of other accused namely Pradeep (since expired, proceedings
abated) and accused Mahant Pratibhanand. The contract to kill Deepak
Bhardwaj was given to accused Purshottam @ Monu by accused
Mahant Pratibhanand and in this contract, accused Purshottam was
assisted by accused Sunil Maan and accused Amit Mann. As to
accused Pradeep, he provided one country made pistol to accused

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 3 of 212      
 36

Purshottam. During further investigation, the other two security guards

namely Vinod Sharma (examined as PW 58) and Brij Kishore
(examined as PW24) identified accused Amit Mann as the driver of the
Skoda Car and accused Purshottam @ Monu and accused Sunil Maan
as the two assailants. Further investigation also led to the involvement
of one advocate Baljeet Singh (also an accused in the present case)
who as per accused Purshottam was in contact with accused Mahant
Pratibhanand. CDRs of the mobile numbers of Pratibhanand, Baljeet
and Purshottam were analyzed and it led to the definite involvement of
accused Baljeet Singh in the criminal conspiracy to eliminate Deepak
Bhardwaj. It was also revealed that the contract to kill Deepak
Bhardwaj came from his son/accused Nitesh Bhardwaj who is stated to
have strained relations with him. The link thus established was that the
contract to kill Deepak Bhardwaj came from accused Nitesh Bhardwaj
which was communicated to accused Mahant Pratibhanand through
accused Baljeet and to give effect to the killing, accused Mahant
Pratibhanand engaged accused Purshottam @ Monu who, in turn, was
aided and assisted by accused Rakesh, Sunil Maan and accused Amit
Mann @ Bhola.

PROSECUTION FACTS IN DETAIL

3. Now taking up in detail the prosecution facts, it all started on

26.03.2013, when a call was received at PS Vasant Kunj (S) which
was recorded as DD no.11 A vide which it was reported that some
persons have shot Deepak Bhardwaj at Nitesh Kunj Hotel Complex,
Rajokari, New Delhi. The DD was assigned to IO/PW-93 Inspector
Neeraj Chaudhary who alongwith his staff reached the spot at Nitesh

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 4 of 212      
 37

Kunj, NH-8, New Delhi where he noticed blood on the passage

adjacent to the residence of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. On inquiry, it
was informed that deceased has been taken to a hospital by PCR Van.
One eye witness Krishan Singh (PW-40), who was working as a
Security Guard at the complex also met the IO and told that on
26.03.2013, his duty was from 8 am to 8 pm at Kothi Gate no. 3, Nitesh
Kunj and at about 9:00 am when he was guarding Gate no.3 and was
standing inside, he heard gunshot sound and cries coming from the
backside of lawn no.2. He told that when he ran towards the lawn, he
noticed two boys aged about 25-30 years, one wearing a light green
colour lower and black T-shirt with white collar and the other a black
lower with white T-shirt. Both the boys were carrying pistols in their
hands and they were running towards the main gate after coming out of
the small gate. He further told that he saw deceased Deepak Bhardwaj
lying on the passage leading to the lawn with blood coming out from the
gunshot injuries on the backside of his head and chest. He further told
that he ran towards the two boys who managed to flee away in a Skoda
car bearing no. DL 3CJ 7062. He told that in the meanwhile, PSO
Satish and PA Deepak of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj alongwith other
workers reached there and someone made a call on number 100
whereupon PCR came and took the deceased to the hospital
accompanied by PA Deepak and PSO Satish. He further told that he
came to know that his employer Deepak Bhardwaj had died in the
hospital due to gunshot injuries. He further told that he can identify the
two boys who had fired gunshots on his employer.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 5 of 212      
 38

4. IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary while leaving PW-67 SI

Satender Gulia at the spot for its preservation, left for the R&R Hospital,
Delhi Cantt where the deceased was got admitted. Upon reaching
there, he found that the deceased was admitted vide MLC no. 697 and
was declared as dead by the attending doctor. The IO got the body of
the deceased shifted to AIIMS for postmortem and made endorsement
on the statement of complainant Krishan Singh for registration of FIR.

INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE

5. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, investigation was

taken up by IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary who again reached the
spot and got the scene of crime photographed by the crime team
photographer, CFSL team and also prepared the site plan. Blood with
the earth control sample was lifted from the spot and seized through
separate seizure memos. CCTV cameras were found installed at the
main entry and exit gate of Nitesh Kunj Complex and the CCTV footage
for the relevant time was analyzed and on scrutiny, it was found that at
about 9:05 am, a grey colour Skoda car had entered the complex and
at about 9:14:44 to 9:15:04, the said car was seen heading towards the
main gate followed by two persons with pistols in their hands running
behind it. It was also seen that the two boys had pointed a pistol
towards the guard, one of them opened the gate and thereafter the
boys fled away in the said car. From the CCTV footage, details of the
car used by the assailants was found to be of grey colour Skoda car
having registration number DL 6CJ 7062. Copy of the relevant CCTV
footage was obtained in a pen drive from the CCTV operator PW-26

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 6 of 212      
 39

Rakesh. The CCTV DVR was also seized vide a separate seizure
memo and photographs of the suspected persons were got developed
and distributed to the police teams to trace them out.

6. During further investigation, two more security guards

PW-58 Vinod Sharma and PW-24 Brij Kishore who claimed themselves
to be the eye witnesses were examined and their statements were
recorded. At the instance of complainant, a site plan of the place of
incident was prepared and a scaled site plan was also prepared
subsequently on 13.05.2013 by the Draftsman/ South Western Range.
On 27.03.2013, postmortem of the deceased was conducted and the
sealed exhibits viz viscera, blood in gauze, blood stained clothes, bullet
leads were taken in possession and seized through a separate seizure
memo.

7. Regarding the registration details of the car allegedly used

by the assailants, PW-73 SI Babu Lal obtained the document from the
traffic authority and the car make Skoda Laura bearing registration no.
DL 6CJ 7062 was found registered in the name of PW-55 Gaurav
Kumar, resident of A-38, Gali No.14, Sanjay Nagar, Adarsh Nagar,
Delhi. A raid was immediately conducted at the said house where
PW57 Rajnish, brother of registered owner, met and told that on
19.03.2013 they had sold the car to one Rakesh r/o Village Khera
Khurd for a sum of Rs. 8 lacs. He further told that a payment of Rs.
1.70 lacs in cash was made by Rakesh and Purshottam @ Monu on
19.03.2013 itself and for the remaining amount, one Santro car was
tendered as security. He further told that at the time of purchase of the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 7 of 212      
 40

said car, Rakesh was accompanied by Purshottam @ Monu.

Necessary documents of sale-purchase viz. affidavit and receipt etc
signed by accused Rakesh were also shown. This led to the first arrest
in the case of accused Rakesh on 31.03.2013.

8. Accused Rakesh on interrogation disclosed that

Purshottam @ Monu, a resident of village Khera Kalan is his distant
relative and a very close friend. He told that about a week earlier,
Purshottam asked him to buy a car as they had got a good contract to
eliminate a well known person. He told that on 19.03.2013, he
alongwith Purshottam went to the shop of Rajnish at Transport Nagar
and a grey Skoda Laura Car No. DL 6CJ 7062 was purchased with Rs.
1.70 lacs tendered in cash and for the remaining payment, Santro Car
no. HR 55 MT 9141 in the name of Rakesh, was kept as security. He
also told that he had signed some documents regarding the purchase
of the said car which were kept by Rajnish since on that day, Gaurav,
the registered owner, was out of Delhi and his signatures were required
to be made on those documents.

9. Accused Rakesh further revealed that in the night of

25.03.2013, he and accused Purshottam, Sunil and Amit had met at the
house of accused Amit at Village Alipur where Purshottam had
disclosed that he has got a contract to kill Deepak Bhardwaj, a well
known person and that they will get a large amount of money for this
work. He planned that they will kill Deepak Bhardwaj in the morning of
26.03.2013. Accused Rakesh also disclosed that on 26.03.2013 i.e. on
the day of incident, accused Purshottam @ Monu called him on one of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 8 of 212
 41

his mobile number 9717457006 from his mobile number 09992925666

and told that he alongwith accused Sunil and accused Amit had killed
Deepak Bhardwaj and that he asked him to reach at the house of
Surender Jhakar in front of Mittal Petrol Pump to take the Skoda Car.
He stated that he accordingly went in his Santro Car and at about 5:00
pm, handed over his Santro car to Purshottam and Sunil and took the
Skoda car to village Baprota, Sampala, Haryana where he hid it at the
house of his in-laws.

10. Consequent to the arrest and disclosure of accused

Rakesh, one mobile having SIM no. 9717457006 which was allegedly
used in the commission of crime was recovered and was seized vide a
seizure memo. Also, the grey Skoda Laura Car without number plate
which was found parked inside the house of in-laws of accused Rakesh
was traced out on 01.04.2013. Accused Rakesh produced the key
thereof which was taken into police possession and separately seized.
Also, from the dickey of the car, two number plates of number DL 6CJ
7062 were recovered and were seized. Original RC of the car in the
name of Gaurav Kumar s/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar was also found lying in
the dashboard of the car and it was seized. The car was also got
inspected by a team of CFSL experts and exhibits i.e. hair strands were
lifted from the car and were seized by a separate seizure memo.

11. During further investigation, on 01.04.2013, accused

Purshottam and Sunil were apprehended by the teams of crime branch
and STF/SD from near Patiala House Courts and were brought in
muffled faces to the police station by the respective staff. They were

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 9 of 212      
 42

also interrogated at length and they admitted about their involvement

alongwith their associates Amit and Rakesh. They were accordingly
arrested.

12. Accused Purshottam in his disclosure statement revealed

that his cousin brother/accused Pradeep (expired, proceedings abated),
also a very good friend of his, was having good relations with accused
Mahant Pratibhanand who used to reside near VHP Birla Mandir. He
told that in December 2012, when he alongwith his wife was residing at
Jhajjar, Haryana, accused Mahant Pratibhanand came and complained
that Pradeep is threatening at the instance of some one. He told that he
got the matter sorted out between the two and this led to his frequent
talks with accused Mahant Pratibhanand. He further revealed that in
January 2013, Mahant Pratibhanand told that he will give him such a
work that all his miseries would come to an end. He told that there is
one person by the name of Deepak Bhardwaj with whom he was having
a dispute over some large amount of money and that this man is to be
killed for which he would give him a sum of Rs. 1 crore. Accused
Purshottam told that he agreed for the same and accused Pratibhanand
gave him Rs. 2 lac cash. He also gave him a SIM card and one new
number of his and told that they would talk to each other on these
numbers. Photograph of Deepak Bhardwaj was also given and recce
of Nitesh Kunj, Delhi and Kankhal, Haridwar was done where deceased
Deepak Bhardwaj used to visit. Accused Purshottam further told that
he got involved his friend Rakesh @ Nanhe and that on 19.03.2013
they had purchased one Skoda car no. DL 6CJ 7062 from Rajnish of
Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. On 25.03.2013, he visited the house

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 10 of 212      
 43

of accused Amit at Alipur and in the night, also called accused Sunil @
Sunil Maan and Rakesh @ Nanhe where they made planning to kill
Deepak Bhardwaj. It was decided that when Deepak Bhardwaj comes
out to feed cows at about 9 am, that they would kill him. It was also
decided that whereas accused Amit would drive the car and would
remain seated inside, the other two i.e. accused Sunil Maan and
Purshottam Rana would fire gunshots on Deepak Bhardwaj from their
country made pistols. Upon hearing the gunshots, accused Amit would
drive the car outside the main gate and will keep it parked on the road.
Accused Rakesh would collect the car from them at Charkhi Dadri,
Haryana and the car will be kept at his in-laws house at Village Baprota
after removing and concealing its number plates. One of the country
made pistols was procured from accused Pradeep (expired,
proceedings abated) by accused Purshottam and the other country
made pistol was already with accused Sunil Maan.

13. Accused Purshottam further revealed that after executing

their plan and coming to know from TV news of the killing of Deepak
Bhardwaj, that he alongwith accused Sunil Maan went to Chhuchukvas
Canal where the two countrymade pistols used by them in the
commission of crime were thrown after removing the empty cartridges.
Four live cartridges and one photograph of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj
was kept by accused Purshottam at his home in Jhajjar.

14. In pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused

Purshottam and of accused Sunil Maan, their associate/co-accused
Amit Mann @ Bhola was arrested from Alipur while riding a motorcycle

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 11 of 212      
 44

make Pulsar bearing no. HR 44C 5929. The number plate was found to
be a fake one since the original number of the motorcycle was DL 8S
AA 3835. During the course of investigation, accused Purshottam,
Sunil and Amit were produced in muffled faces before the Ld.
Magistrate for their TIP but they refused to participate. On 02.04.2013,
at the instance of accused Purshottam and in pursuance of his
disclosure, one empty cartridge was recovered from Nitesh Kunj
Complex which was seized by way of a separate seizure memo. On
03.04.2013, complainant Krishan Singh and the other two security
guards Vinod Sharma and Brij Kishore visited PS Vasant Kunj(S) and
identified accused Purshottam, Sunil Maan and Amit Mann who were
present at the police station while being on police remand. Complainant
identified Purshottam and Sunil as the two boys who had shot Deepak
Bhardwaj and have managed to flee away by threatening the guard and
by brandishing their pistols. The other two security guards also
identified accused Purshottam and Sunil as the assailants and accused
Amit as the driver of the Skoda car. Samples of the scalp hair and blood
sample in gauze of the three accused persons were also taken and
were seized vide separate seizure memos.

15. During further investigation, on 08.04.2013, accused

Purshottam @ Monu got recovered the two countrymade pistols/
weapons of offence from the Chhuchukvas Canal, Jhajjar.

16. Since accused Purshottam in his disclosure had made a

passing reference to the involvement of advocate/accused Baljeet
Singh, that analysis of the CDRs of mobile numbers of accused

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 12 of 212      
 45

Purshottam, Pratibhanand and Baljeet was done. It revealed that

accused Pratibhanand from his three mobile numbers viz. 9212240875,
9467897848 and 9654495294 and other numbers was in constant
touch with accused Baljeet Singh, a resident of Nangal Dewat. A call
was made by Pratibhanand to Baljeet on 28.03.2013 and it was also
found that accused Baljeet had changed his mobile handset on
26.03.2013. Accused Baljeet was accordingly interrogated and on
09.04.2013, he confessed about his involvement in the commission of
crime. He disclosed that accused Nitesh Bhardwaj was disturbed due to
the ill behaviour of his father/deceased Deepak Bhardwaj who was not
sharing good relations with the other family members and was single
handedly controlling the entire business and money to the
disadvantage of the family members. Accused Baljeet revealed that in
November 2012, accused Nitesh had requested him to get rid of his
father and it is in this context that he had a talk with accused
Pratibhanand who at that time used to live at his house. Accused
Baljeet revealed that accused Pratibhanand told that he had contact
with criminals who can eliminate Deepak Bhardwaj and for this work, he
demanded Rs. 2 crores. Accused Baljeet further revealed that he, in
turn, demanded Rs. 5 crores from accused Nitesh Bhardwaj to
eliminate his father to which Nitesh agreed and in January 2013, gave
him Rs. 50 lacs as advance, out of which Rs. 20 lacs was paid to
accused Pratibhanand.

17. Consequent to the disclosure of accused Baljeet, CDRs of

the mobile numbers of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj were analyzed and it
was found that he was in constant touch with accused Baljeet. The

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 13 of 212      
 46

mobile number of accused Baljeet Singh was 9810104550 and of

accused Nitesh was 9582724694. It was also revealed that accused
Nitesh had also changed his mobile handset on 26.03.2013 after the
murder of his father. In addition, the analysis of the CDRs of mobile
phones also established the presence of accused Baljeet, Pratibhanand
and Nitesh Bhardwaj at Palam Extension, Dwarka on 01.01.2013. This
led to the interrogation of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj who also confessed
to his involvement in the commission of crime. Both accused Baljeet
and Nitesh were arrested and their detailed disclosure statements were
recorded.

18. Accused Nitesh in his disclosure statement revealed that

his father/deceased Deepak Bhardwaj was having strained relations not
only with him but also with his mother and other family members. In
fact, his deceased father alongwith his sisters had got lodged a false
complaint against his mother with the allegations of forgery and wanted
to get his mother arrested. He further revealed that owing to the ill
treatment meted out to him and to his mother, that he and his mother
had made attempts to commit suicide. He further revealed that owing
to the strained relations, he had developed hatred against his father
and wanted to kill him. It is in this context, that he contacted advocate
Baljeet Singh, who has been in touch with him owing to some property
deals, in helping him eliminate his father. He further revealed that in
December 2012, advocate Baljeet Singh made him meet accused Baba
Pratibhanand who gave assurance that he has many boys with him
who can get the job done. He further revealed that for eliminating his
father, accused Baljeet had demanded Rs. 2 crores with Rs. 50 lacs as

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 14 of 212      
 47

advance. He told that in the first week of January, he had handed over
advance of Rs. 50 lacs in a bag to accused Baljeet outside Dwarka
Courts. He further told that he shared location and programme details
of his father with accused Baljeet. Accused Nitesh further revealed that
whenever he met accused Baljeet, they used to switch off their mobile
phones so that their location could not be traced out. He further
revealed that his father was murdered by gunshot injury in the morning
of 26.03.2013 and on that day, he had destroyed his black nokia mobile
phone and had thrown it near shiv murti. He further told that through
accused Baljeet, he engaged an advocate Manoj Singh having his
office at Malviya Nagar to deal with the propaganda being created by
the media and for this engagement, he gave Rs. 10 lac to the said
advocate on 28-29.03.2013.

19. In pursuance to the disclosure statement of accused

Baljeet and of accused Nitesh, it was revealed that they were in
constant touch with each other through mobile numbers 9810104550
(of Baljeet) and 9582724694 (of Nitesh). Also, accused Baljeet got
recovered cash amount of Rs. 11,51,000/- from his house which was
the balance amount of Rs. 50 lacs he was left with, given by accused
Nitesh as an advance to eliminate his father/deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj. Accused Baljeet also produced his Swift car bearing No. DL
9CL 9671 which he purchased on 17.01.2013 allegedly out of the
money received for the killing of Deepak Bhardwaj. The cash amount
and the car were seized vide separate seizure memos. In pursuance of
the disclosure of accused Baljeet, PW-17 Manmohan Singh was
examined who produced Rs. 10 lac cash as the amount given to him in

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 15 of 212      
 48

January 2013 by accused Baljeet which allegedly was an amount from

the advance money. Also, one photograph of the marriage of the
daughter of Manmohan Singh was also seized. In this photograph of
the marriage which was held on 17.11.2012, accused Baljeet is seen
sitting alongwith accused Pratibhanand. Manmohan Singh revealed
that both of them came together to the marriage and also left together.

20. In pursuance to the disclosure statement of accused

Nitesh and at his instance, SI Rajbir recovered a briefcase from the
house of accused Nitesh at A-91, MK Society, Sec. 11, Dwarka. It was
this briefcase in which deceased Deepak Bhardwaj had given Rs. 50
lacs to his son/accused Nitesh which was later on used by accused
Nitesh to pay it as an advance money to accused Baljeet for killing his
father. Empty boxes of mobile phones and a half torn note pad were
also recovered and seized. On this half torn note pad, it was found
written 'Bapu is taking away all the properties from mom. Not willing to
give anything, so fighting for that'. This note was in the handwriting of
PW-60 Nishtha, wife of accused Nitesh and accordingly her specimen
writing which was voluntarily offered, was taken and was sent to CFSL
for comparison and examination. Accused Nitesh had also got
recovered an invoice copy of Nokia Asha 200 mobile phone which was
purchased by him on 27.02.2012 vide bill no. 35 from Reliance Digital
Retail Ltd, Dwarka.

21. During further investigation and in pursuance to the

disclosure statement of accused Purshottam @ Monu, accused
Pradeep (since expired, proceedings abated) was also arrested with

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 16 of 212      
 49

the allegations that he had provided a country made pistol (katta) and
some live cartridges used in the commission of crime. In his disclosure,
accused Pradeep revealed that he provided the said weapon to
accused Purshottam for Rs. 5,000/-. He further disclosed that accused
Purshottam had told him about the contract to kill Deepak Bhardwaj
and of his having done reccee of Nitesh Kunj in the first week of
March,2013. Accused Purshottam was further interrogated and he
disclosed that he had concealed one photograph of deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj and four live cartridges in a room constructed in his farm at
his native village Khera Kalan. This photograph was provided to him by
accused Pratibhanand. Accused Purshottam got recovered the said
photograph and four live cartridges on 14.04.2013 from the given
location which were seized. Supplementary disclosure statements of
accused Purshottam, Amit and Sunil were recorded wherein they
disclosed that they had burned their clothes at Jhajjar, which were worn
by them on the day of killing of Deepak Bhardwaj.

22. During further investigation, one photographer Bijender

who had taken photographs of the marriage ceremony of the sister of
accused Purshottam held on 09.02.2013 at Khera Kalan, Delhi, was
also examined and three photographs wherein accused persons can be
seen displaying weapons in their hands, were produced and seized. In
these photographs, accused Purshottam @ Monu was seen wearing
the same trouser and T-shirt which he wore on the day of killing of
Deepak Bhardwaj as was seen in the CCTV footage. Statements of
witnesses including that of the security guards were recorded u/s 161
and u/s 164 Cr.PC. From the statements, the CDR records and the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 17 of 212      
 50

seized articles, it became apparent that a conspiracy was hatched by

the accused persons to kill deceased Deepak Bhardwaj.

23. The investigation thus culminated into the filing of charge-

sheet against the accused persons for the offences
u/s 302/201/212/120B/482/34 IPC & u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
Accused Nitesh and Baljeet were charge-sheeted for the offence u/s
302/201/120B/34 IPC. Accused Purshottam and Sunil Maan were
charge-sheeted for the offence u/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC and u/s
25/27/54/59 Arms Act. Accused Rakesh was charge-sheeted for the
offence u/s 302/120B/34/212 IPC. Accused Amit was charge-sheeted
for the offence u/s 302/482/120B/34 IPC. Accused Pradeep (since
expired) was charge-sheeted for the offence u/s 302/120B/212 IPC and
u/s 25 Arms Act. Accused Pratibhanand was charge-sheeted for the
offence u/s 302/120B/420/468/471 IPC. Since accused Pratibhanand
remained absconding, he was declared proclaimed offender and
consequent to his arrest by the UP Police Officials, he was sent for trial
by way of a supplementary charge-sheet.

CHARGE

24. Vide proceedings dated 26.09.2013, counsels for the

accused persons gave their no objection to the framing of charges and
accordingly, on 01.10.2013, following charges were framed against
accused Nitesh Bhardwaj, Baljeet Singh, Sunil Maan, Rakesh @
Nanhe, Purshottam @ Monu, Amit Mann and Pradeep (since expired):-

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 18 of 212      
 51

(i) Charge for the offence u/s 120B IPC against all the
accused persons.
(ii) Charge for the offence u/s 201 IPC against accused
Nitesh Bhardwaj.
(iii) Charge for the offence u/s 201 IPC against accused
Baljeet.
(iv) Charge for the offence u/s 212 IPC and for the offence u/s
25/27 Arms Act against accused Sunil Singh @ Jai Sunil
Maan.
(v) Charge for the offence u/s 201 IPC and u/s 212 IPC
against accused Rakesh @ Nanhe.
(vi) Charge for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act in respect of two
firearms, for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act in respect of four
live cartridges, for the offence u/s 27 Arms Act and for the
offence u/s 201 IPC against accused Purshottam @
Monu.
(vii) Charge for the offence u/s 482 IPC against accused Amit
Mann.
(viii) Charge for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC r/w Sec. 120B IPC
against accused Purshottam, Sunil and Amit Mann.

Charge for the offence u/s 120B IPC against all the
accused persons was amended as for the offence u/s 302 IPC r/w
Sec.120B IPC on 11.04.2017.

25. Since accused Machinder Nath Namdev @ Swami

Pratibhanand @ Vichitra Yogi was proclaimed offender and was sent

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 19 of 212      
 52

for trial later on by way of supplementary charge-sheet, charge for the

offence u/s 302 IPC r/w Sec. 120B IPC and for the offence u/s 174A
IPC was framed against him on 13.02.2018.

All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge

and claimed trial.

It is pertinent to note that when the matter was at the

stage of prosecution evidence, accused Pradeep expired and
proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 06.08.2016.

It be also noted that an application came to be filed on

behalf of accused Machinder Nath @ Pratibhanand with a plea that
certain witnesses of the main charge-sheet already examined may not
be recalled since accused does not want to cross-examine them. This
application came to be decided on the no objection of the Ld. Addl. PP
for the State vide order dated 26.02.2018 and the witnesses as
mentioned at para '6' of the said application were allowed to be recalled
for their cross-examination.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

26. In order to substantiate and prove the charge against the

accused persons, prosecution has examined as many as 109
witnesses. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the
witnesses are classified under the following categories:-

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 20 of 212      
 53

A. NODAL OFFICERS:-

Sl.No. Witness Brief Description

1. PW-4 R. K. Singh He is the Nodal Officer from Bharti
Airtel and he proved the CAF and
CDR of the mobile numbers: (i)
9910383437 as Ex. PW4/A and Ex.
PW4/B; (ii) 9717987006 as
Ex.PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D; (iii)
9717457006 as Ex. PW4/E and
Ex.PW4/F; (iv) 9717906666 as Ex.
PW4/G and Ex. PW4/H; (v)
9810506000 as Ex. PW4/I and Ex.
PW4/J; (vi) 9910086078 as
Ex.PW4/K and Ex PW4/L; (vii)
9810546665 as Ex. PW4/M and
Ex. PW4/N.

He also proved the Cell ID Charts

of the above mobile numbers as
Ex. PW4/P(colly.) and the
certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act in
respect of the CDRs as Ex.PW4/O.
2. PW-5 Deepak He is the Nodal Officer from
Vodafone and he proved the CAF
and CDR of the mobile numbers: (i)
9717906666 as Ex. PW5/A and Ex.
PW5/B with supporting certificate
u/s 65B as Ex PW5/C;(ii)
9654048105 as Ex. PW5/D and Ex.
PW5/E with supporting certificate
u/s 65 B as Ex. PW5/F; (iii)
9582724694 as Ex. PW5/G and
Ex. PW5/H with the supporting
certificate u/s 65 B as Ex. PW5/I.

He also proved the Cell ID Charts

of above-mentioned numbers as
Ex. PW5/J(colly.)
3. PW-6 Rajeev Ranjan He is the Nodal Officer from Tata
Tele Services and he proved the
CAF and CDR of the mobile

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 21 of 212      
 54

numbers:(i) 9250199962 as Ex.

PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B; (ii)
9250726562 as Ex. PW6/C and Ex.
PW6/D; (iii) 9211726562 as Ex.
PW6/E and Ex. PW6/F; (iv)
9250502662 as Ex. PW6/G and
Ex. PW6/J.

The certificate u/s 65B in support of

the CDRs of the above-mentioned
numbers was proved as Ex.
PW6/H.

He also proved the CAF and CDR

of mobile no. 9211751610 in the
name of Rajendran as Ex.PW6/K
and Ex. PW6/L with the supporting
certificate u/s 65B as Ex. PW6/M.

He also proved the CAF and CDR

of mobile number 9219991059 in
the name of Rekha as Ex. PW6/N
and Ex. PC.

He also proved the CAF and CDR

of mobile no. 9212572888 in the
name of Dev Dutt Tyagi as
Ex.PW6/O and Ex. PD with the
supporting certificate u/s 65B as
Ex. PW6/Q.

He also proved the Cell ID Chart as

Ex. PW6/I (colly.)

4. PW-35 Hayad Singh Jethi He is the Nodal Officer from Uninor

Wireless. He proved the CAF and
CDR of mobile number
8273911459 in the name of Udyav
Dass as Ex. PW35/D and Ex.
PW35/A respectively. The
certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act in
support of the CDR was proved as
Ex. PW 35/C and the Cell ID Chart
as Ex. PW35/B.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 22 of 212      
 55

5. PW-79 Saurabh Aggarwal He is the alternate Nodal Officer

from Vodafone and he deposed on
behalf of the Nodal Officer
Chandan who had since left the
job. He identified the signatures of
Nodal Officer Chandan on the
seizure memo Ex. PW79/A of the
original CAF and ID proof in
respect of mobile numbers
9654495294 and 9582724694.
6. PW-89 Pankaj Sharma He is the Nodal Officer from MTS
and he brought the CAF and CDR
of mobile no. 9136971981 in the
name of Sumit Mishra and mobile
no. 9136825221 in the name of
Purshottam Rana and proved the
copy thereof on record as Ex.
PW89/A to Ex. PW89/D
respectively. The supporting
certificate u/s 65 B of the Evidence
Act in respect of the CDRs of the
two mobile numbers was proved on
record as Ex. PW89/E.
7. PW-90 Ajit Singh He is the Assistant Nodal Officer
from Idea Cellular and he brought
the CAF and CDR of mobile no.
9812299616 in the name of Ajit
Singh s/o Dharampal and proved
the copy thereof on record as Ex.
PW90/A and Ex. PW90/B
respectively. The supporting
certificate u/s 65 B of the Evidence
Act in respect of the CDR was
proved on record as Ex. PW90/C.
8. PW-94 Surender Kumar He is the Nodal Officer from Bharti
Airtel and he brought the record of
CAF and CDR of mobile no.
9871913014 in the name of
Pradeep and of the mobile no.
9810104550 in the name of Jasbir
Panwar and proved the copy
thereof on record as Ex. PW94/A to
Ex.PW94D respectively. The
supporting certificate u/s 65B of the
Evidence Act of the then Nodal

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 23 of 212      
 56

Officer Vishal Gaurav was

identified as Ex. PW94/E.

He also clarified that the registered

consumer of mobile no.
9717987006 is not accused
Rakesh Kumar but is one Aqil
Ahmed Khan and its record being
already Ex. PW4/E.
9. PW-95 Israr Babu He is the Nodal Officer from
Vodafone and he brought the CAF
and CDR of mobile no.
9654495294 in the name of
Purshottam Rana and identified the
copy thereof on record as
Ex.PW95/A and Ex.PW95/B
respectively. He also proved the
Cell ID chart as Ex. PW95/D and
the certificate u/s 65B of the
Evidence Act in support of the CDR
as Ex.PW95/C.

B. DOCTORS AND EXPERT WITNESSES:-

Sl.No. Witness Brief Description

1. PW-7 Lt. Col.(Dr.) Pooja She had medically examined the
Singh deceased Deepak Bhardwaj at
R&R Hospital on 26.03.2013 at
about 10:05 am. She had noted
three penetrating wounds on the
body of the deceased. She
declared the patient as dead and
proved the MLC as Ex.PW7/A and
the death certificate issued by her
as Ex. PW7/B.
2. PW-21 Dr. Piyush Sharma He collected the scalp hair samples
of accused Amit Mann and Sunil
Maan on 04.04.2013. The MLC
prepared in respect of collection of
samples was proved as Ex.
PW21/A and Ex. PW21/B.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 24 of 212      
 57

3. PW-22 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary He collected the scalp hair sample
and blood in gauze of accused
Purshottam Rana on 04.04.2013.
The MLC prepared in this regard
was identified as Ex. PW22/A.
4. PW-23 Dr. Rajni Kanta Swain She was a member of the medical
board constituted for conducting
postmortem of the body of
deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. She
proved the postmortem report as
Ex. PW23/A.
5. PW-54 Kaushal Kumar He is one of the members of the
CFSL expert team which inspected
Skoda car at Auto Pond, Malviya
Nagar/Saket and recovered few
hair/fiber like material. He proved
the inspection report as
Ex. PW54/A.
6. PW-69 Harinder Prasad He is also one of the members of
the CFSL expert team which
inspected Skoda car at Auto Pond,
Malviya Nagar/Saket and had
found few hair/fiber like material.
He had clicked photographs of the
car and also of the recovered hair/
fiber like material. He prepared a
separate finger print report and
proved it on record as Ex. PW69/A.
7. PW-70 Dr. Rajesh Kumar He while posted as Junior Resident
in the Department of Forensic
Medicine at AIIMS, had medically
examined accused Rakesh Kumar
on 04.04.2013 and also collected
his scalp hair.
8. PW-74 Dr. B. K. Mohapatra He had received nine sealed
parcels in his office at CFSL, Lodhi
Road on 18.04.2013. He
conducted biological examination
of the exhibits and submitted his
report dated 28.05.2013 identified
on record as Ex. PW74/A. As per
report, hair strand recovered from
the skoda car matched with the
DNA profile of accused Sunil Maan.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 25 of 212      
 58

9. PW-77 Dr. T. Millo He was the Faculty Chairman of

the Board of Doctors which
conducted the postmortem on the
dead body of deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj. He identified on record
the postmortem report already Ex.
PW23/A.
10. PW-78 Dr. Amitosh Kumar He is also one of the members of
the CFSL expert team which
inspected Skoda car at Auto Pond,
Malviya Nagar/Saket and had
found few hair/fiber like material.
11. PW-80 Avdesh Kumar He while working as SSO at FSL
Rohini, examined specimen
signatures stamped S1 to S5 with
the questioned signatures Q1 to
Q12 and prepared his report which
on record was identified as
Ex.PW80/A.
12 PW-81 D.R. Handa He while working as SSO
(Documents) at CFSL, CBI,
examined questioned document
mark Q1/mark56/DA with the
specimen documents mark S1 to
S6 (Ex. PW56/D1 to D6) and
prepared his report which on
record was identified as
Ex. PW81/B. He opined that the
questioned handwriting was of the
one who had written the specimen
handwriting.
13. PW-82 Babita Gulia. She while posted as SSO-II
(Ballistic), CFSL, CBI examined six
sealed pullandas received at her
office on 29.04.2013. The
pullandas were containing the two
country made pistols/weapons of
offence, some live cartridges and
some used cartridges recovered
from the body of the deceased and
also recovered from the spot. She
gave her report Ex. PW82/A and
found the two country made pistols
linked with the live cartridges and

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 26 of 212      
 59

some of the used cartridges.

14. PW-83 Sudesh Kumar Singla He while working as SSO-I
(Serology) at CFSL, CBI had
received 10 exhibits on 03.05.2013
which were the blood stained
gauze, concrete and blood stained
clothes. He examined the exhibits
and gave his report Ex. PW83/A
detecting human blood group B in
all the exhibits.
15. PW-91 Gautam Roy He retired as HOD, CFD and
SSO-I, Photo and Scientific
Division at CFSL, CBI, New Delhi.
He examined the DVR sent in a
sealed condition and he extracted
photographs of the CCTV footage
for the relevant period. He also
compared the extracted
photographs with the photographs
of accused Purshottam and Sunil
Maan. He also examined the
mobile handset Samsung Galaxy
S3 for retrieval of whatsapp data.
He identified his report on record
as Ex. PW91/A. The extracted
photographs of the CCTV footage
were identified on record as
Ex. P-91/A-1 to Ex.P-91/A-51.
Photographs of accused
Purshottam were identified as Ex.
P-91/A-52 to A-56 and that of
accused Sunil Maan as Ex. P-91/A-
57 to A-61.

C. PUBLIC WITNESSES:-

Sl.No Witness Brief Description

.
1. PW-11 Ratnakar Batra He worked as a Manager at Delhi
Apartments Pvt Ltd, a company
owned by deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj. Contrary to what the
prosecution wanted him to depose,

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 27 of 212      
 60

he stated that relations between the

deceased and his son/accused
Nitesh were cordial.
2. PW-15 Ms. Parul She had worked with the deceased
Deepak Bhardwaj and was also a
friend of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj.
She did not support the prosecution
case either on the point of accused
Nitesh having used mobile no.
9582724694 in talking to her or on
the point of conduct of accused
Nitesh immediately after the
incident.
3. PW-17 Manmohan Singh He is an acquaintance of accused
Baljeet Singh and was projected by
the prosecution as the one with
whom accused Baljeet kept Rs. 10
lac cash which was part of the
contract money taken by Baljeet for
the killing of Deepak Bhardwaj.
4. PW-24 Brij Kishore Singh He is a star witness for the
prosecution as he while working as
a security guard at Nitesh Kunj
Complex is alleged to have
identified the two assailants
Purshottam and Sunil immediately
after the incident of firing of
gunshots on Deepak Bhardwaj. He
is also projected as the one who
saw accused Amit as the driver of
the Skoda car which was used by
the assailants in fleeing away from
the spot.
5. PW-28 Dev Dutt Tyagi He is the registered subscriber of
mobile no. 9212572888 which the
prosecution claims to have been
used by accused Pratibhanand in
having conversation with the other
accused during the criminal
conspiracy to kill Deepak Bhardwaj.

6. PW-34 Rahul Gambhir He is a common friend of accused

Nitesh Bhardwaj and PW15 Parul.
He is projected by the prosecution

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 28 of 212      
 61

as a witness to establish conduct of

accused Nitesh Bhardwaj
immediately after the incident in
having persuaded PW Parul not to
reveal that mobile number
9582724694 was used by accused
Nitesh in his conversations with
this witness and with PW Parul.
7. PW-40 Krishan Singh He is the complainant as he was on
duty as a security guard at Nitesh
Kunj on 26.03.2013 when the
incident of firing took place. He is
claimed by the prosecution to be
one of the three eye witnesses
who had seen the two assailants
running behind a car after firing
gunshots. He is alleged to have
provided the registration number of
the skoda car to the IO and is also
claimed by the prosecution to have
identified accused Purshottam and
Sunil as the two assailants and
accused Amit Mann as the driver of
the skoda car.
8. PW-41 Praveen He is the registered subscriber of
mobile no. 9582724694 which the
prosecution claims to have been
used by accused Nitesh in the
criminal conspiracy in having talks
with accused Baljeet to accomplish
his objective of eliminating his
father Deepak Bhardwaj. Contrary
to the claim of prosecution, this
witness in his testimony stated that
he was the exclusive user of this
mobile number.
9. PW-44 Anuj Mishra His role is of having revealed to the
IO during investigation that
accused Pratibhanand used to
operate mobile numbers
9211751610, 9212572888,
9219991059, 9654495294,
8273911459, 9871913014,
9212240875 and 8010990456 and
also that accused Pratibhanand

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 29 of 212      
 62

and accused Baljeet were known to

each other. This witness did not
stand to the claim of prosecution.
10. PW-45 Surinder Jhakhar He is a relative of accused
Purshottam Rana. As per the claim
of prosecution, it is at his house
that accused Purshottam and
accused Sunil had visited on
26.03.2013 after the incident. Their
conduct at his house was sought to
be proved by the prosecution
through him. This witness deposed
on the lines contrary to the claim of
prosecution.
11. PW-46 Ankur He is the son of PW-45 Surinder
Jhakhar and his role is the same as
that of his father. He too did not
support the prosecution case.
12. PW-47 Jasbir He is the brother-in-law of accused
Baljeet and is the registered
subscriber of mobile number
9810104550. As per the claim of
prosecution, this mobile number
was in fact used by accused Baljeet
in having talks with accused Nitesh
in the course of criminal conspiracy.
Contrary to the claim of
prosecution, this witness deposed
that he was the exclusive user of
this mobile number.
13. PW-48 Sumit Mishra He is the registered subscriber of
mobile numbers 9136971981 and
9136971982. These numbers were
alleged by the prosecution to have
been used by accused Purshottam
@ Monu, however, this witness did
not support the said claim.
14. PW-50 Deepak Kushwaha He was the Personal Assistant of
deceased Deepak Bhardwaj.
Contrary to the prosecution case,
he stated that deceased was
having cordial relations with his son
Nitesh Bhardwaj.
15. PW-51 Rajinder Dass He is the registered subscriber of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 30 of 212      
 63

mobile no. 9467897848 and is

claimed by the prosecution to have
given this number for use to
accused Pratibhanand. He is also
claimed by the prosecution to have
seen accused Pratibhanand
meeting accused Baljeet. He too
did not support the claim of
prosecution.
16. PW-56 Hitesh Bhardwaj He is the elder brother of accused
Nitesh Bhardwaj and the body of
deceased was handed over to him
vide memo Ex. PW56/C. He had
deposed against the prosecution
case by claiming that police had
harassed him and his other family
members and had falsely
implicated his brother accused
Nitesh.
17. PW-57 Rajnish Kumar He was the one whom the
prosecution claimed to have sold
skoda car no. DL 6CJ 7062 to
accused Rakesh and Purshottam.
During the course of investigation,
he had handed over to the IO the
sale-purchase documents prepared
in respect of the said car and
bearing signatures of accused
Rakesh @ Nanhe. Before his
examination could be concluded,
this witness died in an accident and
as such his part recorded testimony
cannot be read in evidence.
18. PW-58 Vinod Sharma He is also a star witness for the
prosecution as he while working as
a security guard at Nitesh Kunj
Complex is alleged to have
identified the two assailants
Purshottam and Sunil immediately
after the incident of firing of
gunshots on Deepak Bhardwaj. He
is also projected as the one who
saw accused Amit as the driver of
the Skoda car which was used by
the assailants in fleeing away from

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 31 of 212      
 64

the spot.
19. PW-59 Neeraj Bhardwaj He is a friend of accused Nitesh
Bhardwaj and also a registered
subscriber of mobile no.
9868734420. As per the claim of
prosecution, on 26.03.2013, when
accused Nitesh took him along to
the hospital upon coming to know
of his father having sustained
gunshot injury, on their way,
accused Nitesh used his number in
making calls and one of the call
made was to accused Baljeet. He
too did not support the prosecution
case.
20. PW-60 Nishtha Bhardwaj She is the wife of accused Nitesh
and is the subscriber of the
handwriting found written on the
half torn pad recovered at the
instance of accused Nitesh from his
house. She presented an
altogether different story of torture
and harassment at the hands of
police and of false implication of
her husband.
21. PW-63 Kunal Mann He is a relative of accused sunil
maan, Amit Mann and Purshottam.
He was projected by the
prosecution as a witness to the
planning being made by these
three accused a day before the day
of incident, to kill Deepak Bhardwaj.
He did not support the prosecution
case.
22. PW-96 Virender Kumar He is the husband of registered
subscriber Rekha of mobile no.
9219991059 which was given for
use to accused Pratibhanand.
23. PW-97 Smt.Rekha She is the wife of Virender Kumar
and as above noted, she is the
subscriber of mobile no.
9219991059 which was given for
use to accused Pratibhanand.
24. PW-98 Rajindran Raja He is the registered subscriber of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 32 of 212      
 65

mobile no. 9211751610 and is

claimed to have known accused
Pratibhanand since long and that
he gave to Pratibhanand his mobile
number for use by him.

D. FORMAL & OTHER WITNESSES :-

Sl.No Witness Brief Description

.
1. PW-1 Pratap Singh He proved the registration record of
Skoda Laura Car no. DL 6CJ 7062
in the name of PW Gaurav as
Ex. PW1/A.
2. PW-2 Om Parkash He proved the registration record of
Maruti Swift car no. DL 9CL 9671 in
the name of accused Baljeet as
Ex. PW2/A.
3. PW-3 HC Kailash Chand He is the Duty Officer and he
proved DD no.11A as Ex. PW3/A,
DD no.17A as Ex.PW3/B,
DD no.19A as Ex. PW3/C, copy of
FIR as Ex.PW3/D, DD no.21A as
Ex. PW3/E, endorsement on rukka
as Ex. PW3/F and DD no.37A as
Ex. PW3/G.
4. PW-8 Manoj Singh He is the advocate who was
engaged by accused Nitesh on
30.03.2013. He was paid legal fees
of Rs. 10 lacs which he handed
over to the IO and it was seized
vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A. He
proved the vakalatnama dated
30.03.2013 signed by accused
Nitesh as Ex. PW8/B.
5. PW-9 Ct. Jai Prakash He as a special messenger took
the report regarding registration of
FIR and delivered it to the Illaka
MM and higher police officials.
6. PW-10 Ct Jaiveer Singh He had clicked photographs of the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 33 of 212      
 66

place of incident at Nitesh Kunj on

26.03.2013 while working as a
photographer in the mobile crime
team, south district. He identified
the photographs as Ex. PW10/A1 to
Ex. PW10/A6 and the negatives as
Ex. PW10/B1 to Ex. PW10/B6.
7. PW-12 Ct. Vinod Kumar He took accused Purshottam to
AIIMS on 04.04.2013 for medical
examination. The MLC with two
exhibits in sealed condition were
handed over to the IO who seized it
vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A.
8. PW-13 Ct. Sombir He took accused Rakesh to AIIMS
on 04.04.2013 for medical
examination. The MLC with two
exhibits in sealed condition were
handed over to the IO who sealed it
vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/A.
9. PW-14 Ct. Hitender He took accused Sunil Maan to
AIIMS on 04.04.2013 for medical
examination. The MLC with two
exhibits in sealed condition were
handed over to the IO who sealed it
vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/A.
10. PW-16 Ct. Hardeep Singh He while working as Draftsman,
Mapping Section, PS Sec.9 Dwarka
had visited Nitesh Kunj Complex on
15.05.2013 with the IO for taking
rough notes and measurements for
preparing scaled site plan. He
proved the plan as Ex. PW16/A.
11. PW-18 Abhishek Kumar He had brought the invoice copy
dated 27.12.2012 regarding one
mobile phone make Nokia Asha
200 which the prosecution alleges
to have been used by accused
Nitesh for mobile no. 9582724694
and that this mobile handset was
destroyed by accused Nitesh
immediately after the incident. Copy
of the invoice was proved as
Ex. PW18/B which was seized vide
seizure memo Ex. PW18/A.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 34 of 212      
 67

12. PW-19 Shankar Olli He proved the record of registration

of vehicle no. DL 1YC 4135 in the
name of Rajesh Kumar as
Ex. PW19/A.
13. PW-20 Ms. Jasjeet Kaur She as a Link Magistrate conducted
TIP proceedings of accused
Purshottam, Sunil and Amit Mann
which were concluded with the
refusal of the accused persons. The
TIP proceedings on record were
identified as Ex. PW20/B to
Ex. PW20/D.

She had also recorded statements

u/s 164 Cr.PC of the following
witnesses: (i) PW Brij Kishore. His
statement was identified as
Ex. PW20/G; (ii) PW Vinod Sharma.
His statement was identified as
Ex. PW20/I; (iii) PW Rajinder Dass.
His statement was identified as
Ex. PW20/L; (iv) PW Neeraj
Bhardwaj. His statement was
identified as Ex. PW20/O; (v) PW
Parul Sharma. Her statement was
identified as Ex. PW20/R and (vi)
PW Kunal Mann. His statement was
identified as Ex. PW20/U.
14. PW-25 Ct. S.N. Ashraf He was posted as a Constable at
Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar/Saket
and it is in his presence that the
CFSL team inspected the skoda car
on 02.04.2013.
15. PW-26 Rakesh He is claimed by the prosecution as
the Operator of CCTV system at
Nitesh Kunj Complex. He is claimed
to have handed over CCTV footage
of the relevant period to the IO in a
pen drive. He also handed over the
DVR and the adapter of the CCTV
to IO which was seized vide seizure
memo Ex. PW26/A.
16. PW-27 Virender Kumar He was working as a Supervisor at
Grand Noting Hills which was

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 35 of 212      
 68

engaged in organizing functions at

Nitesh Kunj. On coming to know
that deceased Deepak Bhardwaj
has been shot, that he made a call
to PCR on number 100 from his
mobile phone no. 9650394479.
17. PW-29 Ct. Satish Kumar He was posted as a Constable at
PS Vasant Kunj(S) on 26.03.2013
and on the directions of the IO, he
took the dead body to AIIMS
Mortuary where it was identified by
the sons of the deceased. He also
handed over six sealed parcels to
the IO seized vide seizure memo
Ex. PW29/A.
18. PW-30 Ct. Sube Singh He took accused Amit Mann to
AIIMS Hospital for medical
examination on 04.04.2013. He
handed over to the IO two sealed
parcels given to him by the doctor
which the IO seized vide seizure
memo Ex. PW30/A.
19. PW-31 HC Shambhu Dayal He while being on duty at PCR Van
Eagle 48, shifted the deceased to
R&R Hospital on 26.03.2013.
20. PW-32 Arvind Sharma He is a witness projected by the
prosecution as the one to whom
accused Nitesh sold his Samsung
Galaxy S3 phone on 12-13.02.2013
for a sum of Rs. 21,000/-. This
phone was used by the witness for
about two months and then it was
sold to PW Rubina. He
accompanied Rubina to the PS in
the month of June 2013 and in his
presence, the mobile phone Ex.
PY1 and the empty box Ex. PY2
were handed over by Rubina to the
IO which were seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW32/A.
21. PW-33 Ms. Rubina She had purchased Samsung
Galaxy S3 phone from PW Arvind
Sharma, brother of her colleague
Atul Sharma. She used this handset

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 36 of 212      
 69

for her two mobile numbers and in

June 2013, she on being called by
the IO handed over to him the
mobile phone with bill etc which
were seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW32/A.

22. PW-36 Raman Chawla He had sold Samsung Galaxy S3

mobile phone to accused Nitesh for
a sum of Rs. 34,000/- vide retail
invoice/bill dated 03.10.2012.
Carbon copy/office copy of the bill
was identified as Ex.PW36/A.
23. PW-37 Ct. Ram Swaroop On the instructions of IO Ins.
Neeraj Chaudhary, he took the
Samsung Galaxy mobile phone
from MHC(M), PS Vasant Kunj (S)
and deposited it in the office of
CFSL, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.

24. PW-38 Ct. Surender On the instructions of IO Ins.

Neeraj Chaudhary, he collected one
sealed parcel and six sheets having
specimen handwriting of Ms.
Nishtha marked S1 to S6 vide RC
no. 78/21/13 from MHCM(S) PS
Vasant Kunj(S) and deposited the
same in the office of CFSL, Lodhi
Colony.

25. PW-39 Ct. Sandeep On the instructions of IO Ins. Neeraj

Chaudhary, he collected five
photographs of accused
Purshuttom @ Monu marked P1 to
P5 and five photographs of accused
Sunil Maan marked P6 to P10 from
MHC(M), PS Vasant Kunj(S) vide
RC no. 88/13 and deposited the
same in the office of CFSL, Lodhi
Colony.
26. PW-42 Sh Bijender He had handed over three
photographs mark P1, P2 & P3 to
the police which were seized vide
seizure memo Ex. PW42/A. These

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 37 of 212      
 70

photographs were from the

marriage ceremony of the sister of
accused Purshottam Rana which
took place on 09.02.2013.
27. PW-43 Satish Kumar He was working as a private PSO
of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj
and on coming to know that
deceased has been shot at Nitesh
Kunj, he reached the spot and
removed his employer/deceased to
R&R Hospital in a PCR Van. He
also handed over attendance
register of security guards to the IO
on 23.04.2013 showing attendance
of security guards Krishan Singh,
Vinod Sharma and Brij Kishore on
the date of incident. The register
was seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW43/A.
28. PW-49 Veer Bhan He is the father-in-law of accused
Rakesh @ Nanhe as he married his
daughter Seema to him. He did not
support the case of prosecution that
it was at his house that accused
Rakesh had hidden the skoda car
or that the accused got it recovered.
29. PW-52 Kishan Kumar On the instructions of SI Rajbir, he
clicked five photographs each of
accused Purshottam Rana and
accused Sunil Maan when they
were produced in custody at Patiala
House Courts.
30 PW-53 Ct. Amit Kumar He brought the record of complaint
entered vide diary no. 376 dated
12.07.2012, PS Darya Ganj. This
complaint was against Ramesh
Kumari, wife of deceased and was
lodged by Sheela Devi, sister of
deceased.
31. PW-55 Gaurav He is the registered owner of Skoda
Laura Car bearing no. DL 6CJ 7062
which the prosecution claims to
have been purchased by accused
Rakesh and accused Purshottam

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 38 of 212      
 71

from his brother Rajnish.

32. PW-61 Satish Dubey He is the proprietor of M/s Bazz
Security Services and the security
guards Brij Kishore and Vinod
Sharma were his employees who
were assigned duties as security
guards at Nitesh Kunj.
33. PW-66 Ct. Baby Yadav She was posted at PHQ on
Channel No. 109 on 26.03.2013
and she had received a call on
number 100 at about 9:24 am
regarding firing on Deepak
Bhardwaj at Nitesh Kunj Complex.
She proved the information
recorded in Part-I of PCR form as
Ex. PW66/A.

34. PW-68 HC Kishan Kant He handed over DD no.17A to the

IO at R&R Hospital on 26.03.2013.
He also took the rukka prepared by
the IO for registration of FIR to PS
Vasant Kunj(S) and after
registration of FIR, he handed over
the copy of FIR and endorsed
rukka to the IO at Nitesh Kunj.
Besides this, he also took some
exhibits to be deposited at CFSL
CBI on two occasions.
35. PW-72 ASI Om Parkash He while working as a Reader to
SHO, PS Vasant Kunj(S) in the year
2012, had received a complaint of
Smt. Ramesh Kumari on
17.04.2012. He entered the same in
complaint register and proved the
copy of the relevant entry at Sl.
no.297 as Ex.PW72/A. He handed
over the same to the IO on
18.06.2013.
36. PW-73 SI Babu Lal On 26.03.2013 on the instructions
of IO, he went to Traffic Line Teen
Murti for verifying the complete
particulars of Skoda car. He got it
verified and found it to be having
registration number DL 6CJ 7062 in

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 39 of 212      
 72

the name of Gaurav Kumar. He

had handed over the computer
printout in this regard to the IO
which on record was identified by
him as mark 73/A.
37. PW-84 ASI Dharmender He was posted as MHC(M) at PS
Vasant Kunj(S) and he proved on
record various entries in the
malkhana register no.19 regarding
deposit and taking of case
property/exhibits of the present
case.
38. PW-86 P.S. Kushwaha He while working as Additional
DCP, South District, New Delhi, had
accorded sanction u/s 39 of Arms
Act on 25.08.2015 for prosecution
of accused Purshottam and Sunil
Maan for the offence u/s 25 of Arms
Act. He identified his sanction order
on record as Ex. PW86/A.
39. PW-88 Insp. Arun Dev Nehra On 01.04.2013, he while posted as
SI in the AEC Crime Branch, had
apprehended accused Purshottam
Rana @ Monu from outside the
Patiala House Courts. He had
handed over the custody of the said
accused to the IO Insp. Neeraj
Chaudhary who effected the arrest
of accused in his presence.
40. PW-92 Rajesh Kumar He is the registered owner of
Santro Car bearing no. DL 1YC
4135.
41. PW-99 SI Mahesh Kumar He was a member of the raiding
Mishra team of UP Police that had arrested
accused Pratibhanand from
Ghaziabad Railway Station on
15.09.2017.
42. PW-100 HC Manoj Kumar He was assigned with the execution
of process u/s 83 Cr.PC against
accused Pratibhanand. He proved
his report in this regard as
Ex. PW100/A.
43. PW-101 HC Amit Kumar He while working as Duty Officer at

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 40 of 212      
 73

PS Vasant Kunj had received an

information at about 3:40 am in the
night of 15-16.09.2017 from Ct. Tola
Ram of PS Sihani Gate,
Ghaziabad, UP regarding arrest of
accused Pratibhanand in FIR no.
1383/17, PS Sihani Gate. He
prepared DD No. 21A in this regard
and proved its copy on record as
Ex. PW101/A.
44. PW-102 HC Arvind Kumar He had accompanied SI Pankaj to
PS Sihani Gate on 16.09.2017 and
in his presence, SI Pankaj procured
the documents in respect of arrest
of accused Pratibhanand in FIR no.
1383/17, PS Sihani Gate. The
documents were identified as
Ex. PW102/B to Ex. PW102/E.
45. PW-103 SI Pankaj Kumar On the directions of IO Insp. Ved
Prakash, he alongwith HC Arvind
went to PS Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad
on 16.09.2017 and collected
documents Ex.PW102/B to
Ex. PW102/E related to arrest of
accused Pratibhanand in FIR no.
1383/17, PS Sihani Gate. He
handed over these documents to IO
which were seized vide seizure
memo Ex. PW102/A.
46. PW-106 ASI Harish He was entrusted with the
execution of process u/s 82 Cr.PC
against accused Pratibhanand. He
identified his report in this regard as
Ex.PW106/F.
47. PW-108 Akash Tomar On 15.09.2017, he was working as
SP(City), Ghaziabad, UP and was a
member of the raiding team which
had effected arrest of accused
Pratibhanand from Ghaziabad
Railway Station and FIR no.
1383/17 stood registered in this
regard at PS Sihani Gate.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 41 of 212      
 74

E. WITNESSES TO INVESTIGATION:-

Sl.No Witness Brief Description

1. PW-53 Ct. Suraj Prakash He is a witness to the investigation
(inadvertently he was conducted by SI Rajbir on the
examined as PW-53 when he instructions of IO Insp. Neeraj
was to be examined as Chaudhary. It is in his presence
PW-54) that accused Nitesh is alleged to
have taken SI Rajbir, firstly to
Vodafone store and then to his
house at MK Society from where a
briefcase and a half torn note pad
was got recovered and seized.
2. PW64 HC C.M.Meena He is a witness to the investigation
conducted in respect of recoveries
effected at the instance of accused
Baljeet from his house. He is also a
witness to the recording of
disclosure statements of accused
Nitesh and Baljeet on 09.04.2013.
3. PW-65 SI Vishal Chaudhary He has been in the investigation
with IO Ins. Neeraj Chaudhary on
almost all the material aspects viz
recovery of the skoda car at the
instance of accused Rakesh,
interrogation of accused Baljeet
and Nitesh on 09.04.2013,
recovery of Rs. 11,51,000/- cash
and a swift car from the house of
accused Baljeet at his instance and
of examination of some material
public witnesses u/s 164 Cr.PC.
4. PW-71 SI Harish Kumar On 26.03.2013 on receipt of DD
No. 11A, he alongwith SI Satender
Gulia reached the spot at Nitesh
Kunj. In his presence, IO recorded
the statement of complainant/
security guard Kishan Singh. He
also went to R&R Hospital
alongwith the IO where in his
presence, IO directed for the
preservation of the dead body in
the mortuary of AIIMS Hospital.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 42 of 212      
 75

5. PW-75 SI Rakesh Kumar He had participated in the

investigation with IO Insp. Neeraj
Chaudhary and on 01.04.2013 on
the instructions of IO, he took the
skoda car from the police station
and got it deposited at Auto
Pond,Saket/Malviya Nagar. In his
presence, CFSL team visited the
Auto Pond and inspected the car.
The hair/fiber like material
recovered from the car was sealed
and handed over by the team to
him which he seized vide seizure
memo Ex. PW75/A.
6. PW-85 ASI Jagpal Singh He had participated in the
investigation with IO Insp. Neeraj
Chaudhary on 31.03.2013 when in
his presence, accused Rakesh @
Nanhe was interrogated and
arrested by the IO. He also
participated in the investigation on
13.04.2013 and 14.04.2013 when
in his presence, IO SI KP Singh
who was conducting investigation
on the directions of IO Insp. Neeraj
Chaudhary, recovered four live
cartridges and one photograph of
Deepak Bhardwaj at the instance
of accused Purshottam.

He again participated in the

investigation on various dates.
7. PW-87 ASI Mahavir He had participated in the
investigation with the IO Insp.
Neeraj Chaudhary on various dates
beginning from the date of incident
i.e. 26.03.2013.
8. PW-104 SI Vivek Malik He had participated in the
investigation with IO Insp Ved
Prakash in respect of accused
Pratibhanand.
9. PW-105 HC Vinod Kumar He also participated in the
investigation with IO Insp. Ved
Prakash in respect of accused

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 43 of 212      
 76

Pratibhanand.

F. INVESTIGATING OFFICERS:-

Sl.No Witness Brief Description

.
1. PW-62 SI Rajbir Singh As per instructions of the IO Insp.
Neeraj Chaudhary, he had conducted
investigation on 14.04.2013 in
respect of recoveries effected at the
instance of accused Nitesh. He had
also got recorded statements u/s 164
Cr.PC of PW Neeraj Bhardwaj,PW
Parul Sharma and PW Kunal Mann.
2. PW-67 SI Satender Gulia He has played a dual role by
participating in investigation
conducted by Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary
and had also conducted investigation
himself on the directions of the IO.
His role of investigating officer is
concerning the recovery of the
weapons of offence/ two country
made pistols from Chhuchakvas
canal at the instance of accused
Purshottam.
3. PW-76 Insp. Upender He filed the supplementary charge-
Singh sheet on 26.08.2015 in respect of two
FSL results of documents and
sanction u/s 39 of the Arms Act.
4. PW-93 Insp. Neeraj He is the main IO of the case.
Chaudhary.
5. PW-107 Ins. Ved Prakash He conducted investigation in respect
of accused Pratibhanand who was
arrested by the officials of UP Police.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS

27. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement

of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded wherein they

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 44 of 212      
 77

denied the incriminating evidence put to them and pleaded innocence

and false implication. Their additional replies in their statements are
given hereunder:-

(i) Of accused Purshottam Rana: He stated that he has

been falsely implicated by the investigating officer and was illegally
lifted from the premises of Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on
01.04.2013 where he had gone to surrender in the present case after
coming to know that police officials of Vasant Kunj(S) wanted to falsely
implicate him in the present case. He stated that his counsel Sh.
J.P.Singh Advocate met him at Patiala House Courts and he had
already moved an application before the concerned Illaka Magistrate
but before he can appear in the court alongwith Sunil Maan, they both
were lifted by the police and this incident was reported in the print
media with their photographs which are already on record. He stated
that as the police was sure about their innocence, therefore, in order to
create false and fabricated evidence, all this illegal proceedings was
done by the police despite having knowledge of the fact that
application for their surrender was pending before the court of Illaka
Magistrate on the said date. He stated that thereafter police had
planted on him two countrymade pistols alleged to have been
recovered from Chhuchakvas canal and four cartridges with a
photograph of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj allegedly shown recovered
from the house of his father at Khera Kalan, Delhi when he was
already disowned by his father much prior thereto and he was also not
residing there. He stated that police also planted on him one empty
cartridge allegedly recovered from the premises of Nitesh Kunj. He

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 45 of 212      
 78

stated that all the documents pertaining to him were prepared in the
police station and his signatures were obtained on blank papers after
giving him severe torture and harassment.

(ii) Of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj: He stated that he is innocent and

police falsely implicated him in the present case at the instance of the
then SHO Gagan Bhaskar and that police did not look for the real
killers of his father. He stated that he comes from an educated and
decent family and after doing software engineering, he was working in
a software company. He stated that his father loved him so much that
he named his biggest property in his name. He stated that his
closeness with his father could be seen in their family photo and huge
number of calls between the family members. He stated that his father
was defending many cases pertaining to their company and land and
any of such person could have been behind the murder of his father.
He stated that police had withheld the evidence actually collected by
them and fabricated the evidence in order to falsely implicate him. He
stated that witnesses were coerced to make false statements and
family members were forced to write lines under pressure. He stated
that he loved his father and there is neither any proof of motive nor any
incriminating evidence against him. He stated that there is no
connection between him and the other accused persons and the
alleged recoveries are not incriminating and the case is one of no
evidence. He stated that he is innocent and prays that he be
acquitted.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 46 of 212      
 79

(iii) Of Machinder Nath @ Pratibhanand: He stated that he

has been falsely implicated by the investigating officer and police had
forcibly obtained his signatures on blank papers and converted it into
various documents to use the same against him. He stated that he
was illegally lifted from Ghaziabad by the Ghaziabad police and a
pistol with four cartridges was planted upon him. He stated that he had
renounced the world and he strongly believes in God, prayers and
spirituality. He stated that he frequently travelled to holy places like
Haridwar, Kashi, Rishikesh, Mathura etc. He stated that he does not
have any greed for materialistic world and does not know any of the
co-accused. He stated that he had never spoken to any of the co-
accused on any mobile number. He stated that the proceedings u/s
82/83 Cr.PC were nothing but an eye wash and that he had never
concealed himself from the proceedings of the case since he had no
role to play in the present case.

(iv) Of accused Amit Mann: He stated that it is a false case

against him and he was falsely implicated by the investigating officer
by fabricating documents. He stated that he was summoned to PS
Vasant Kunj(S) on 01.04.2013 by IO Insp.Neeraj Chaudhary and on
his reaching there, he was falsely implicated. He stated that IO also
forcibly took his signatures on blank papers and used the same
against him. He stated that the present case was widely circulated in
the print and electronic media and that there was lot of pressure on the
IO from the higher police officials as well as the media to workout the
case. He stated that on 26.03.2013 from 6 am till 10:45 am, he was
with Kunal Mann at his residence at Alipur and has nothing to do with

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 47 of 212      
 80

the present case.

(v) Of accused Sunil Maan: He stated that he was falsely

implicated by the investigating officer. He stated that as soon as he
came to know regarding registration of the present case and the fact
that the investigating agency was suspecting his involvement in it, that
he immediately contacted his lawyer at Patiala House Courts and
sought his assistance as he was being roped in the present case
falsely just on the basis of suspicion. He stated that his lawyer advised
him to surrender before the Illaka Magistrate and apprised the court
regarding the above facts. He stated that in pursuance of the advise of
his lawyer, he moved an application for surrender before the
concerned court on 31.03.2013 and the said application came up for
hearing in the afternoon of 01.04.2013. He stated that on 01.04.2013
during the noon time when he was coming to surrender to Patiala
House Courts that several police officials in plain clothes assaulted him
on the road just outside the court complex and abducted him to some
unknown place where third degree methods were used and he was
physically assaulted by them and they also kept him in illegal custody
and did not permit him to surrender before the court. He stated that
during the course of his illegal and unwarranted detention, his
signatures/thumb impressions were forcibly obtained by the police on
various blank as well as printed pages and his scalp hair as well as
hair from his legs were cut/ plucked and were kept in a piece of paper.
He stated that thereafter, the investigating agency manipulated and
fabricated various memos/documents/exhibits/statements and falsely
implicated him in this case.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 48 of 212      
 81

(vi) Of accused Baljeet: He stated that he has been falsely

implicated in the present case by the investigating officer by fabricating
documents and statement of witnesses. He stated that in fact, he was
a resident of Village Nangal Devat, New Delhi-37 and the said village
was acquired by government for the expansion of international airport.
He stated that the residents of the village were provided with
alternative residential plots in the residential scheme at Rangpuri
which was also named as Nangal Devat, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He
stated that more than 10,000 inhabitants of the village were evicted
and only 316 plots were alloted as joint allotment on the basis of
revenue records. He stated that the property dealers and land
grabbers taking advantage of the innocence of villagers and the fact
that there were interse disputes between the family members, started
grabbing the plots at very cheap rates. He stated that this was being
done in collusion with the local police and other officials. He stated that
he reasoned with the villagers and gave them advise and it was on his
advise, that many complaints were made at PS Vasant Kunj in this
regard by the villagers. He stated that as such, he became an eye sore
for the local police and land mafia which was active in the area. He
stated that in fact, on 14.11.2008, he had made a complaint to SHO,
PS Vasant Kunj regarding one of the incidents against the senior
government officials and others which was recorded vide DD no.15 A
dated 14.11.2008 at PS Vasant Kunj and the copy of the same is Ex.
DX1. He stated that he was falsely implicated in order to remove him
from their way of land grabbing. He further stated that his wife
alongwith other shareholders had sold agricultural land in the revenue
estate of Bhoda Kalan, Tehsil Pataudi, Haryana on 20.06.2012 and

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 49 of 212      
 82

that his wife had received substantial amount of cash i.e. 10,73,076.92
in cash and Rs. 35 lacs by cheque. The certified copy of the registry
was placed on record as Ex. DX2. He further stated that his wife had
sold residential property measuring 120 sq. yds at Village Maidan
Garhi, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- on 08.11.2012 vide
GPA, agreement to sell etc and she received a sum of Rs. 4.5 lac in
cash in the said transaction. He placed on record copies of documents
as Ex.PW/DX3 (colly). He stated that his wife at present is suffering
from mental ailment and is not in a position to depose. He further
stated that his wife had also sold a residential property of 70 sq. yds at
Village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi to Smt. Geeta Yadav for a sum of Rs.
4.8 lac on 10.12.2012 and the said payment was received in cash. He
placed on record documents in respect of the said transaction as Ex.
DX4(colly.). He stated that his wife had also sold a residential plot to
Smt Chanderkanta Gaur for a sum of Rs. 4.5 lac on 08.11.2012.
Copies of the documents in respect of the said transaction were
placed on record as Ex. DX5 (colly.). He stated that his wife Urmila had
also sold a car no. DL 9CL 3035 to Mr.Azad Singh in March 2012 and
received Rs. 2 lac in cash as consideration. Certified copy of the
transfer certificate issued by the transport department, NCT of Delhi
was placed on record as Ex.DX6. He stated that as such he had
sufficient amount in cash at home. He stated that he is also a lawyer
by profession and also receiving income from rent and agriculture. He
stated that police had falsely implicated him in the present case by
fabricating evidence. He stated that his wife was forced to bring a sum
of Rs. 12 lac out of which amount a sum of Rs. 11,51,000/- was
planted in the present case. Similarly, other witnesses were also

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 50 of 212      
 83

planted and evidence was fabricated against him. He stated that he

does not have anything to do with the mobile phone of his brother-in-
law Jasbir which he was using for his own personal use. He stated that
he also had sufficient amount to make certain cash payments for his
car. He stated that neither he gave any disclosure statement nor got
any recovery effected.

(vii) Of accused Rakesh @ Nanhe: He stated that he was falsely

implicated by the investigating officer by illegally lifting him from his
house on 27.03.2013 and subjecting him to torture and third degree
methods by the police. He stated that police also forcibly obtained his
signatures on blank papers and converted it into various documents to
use the same against him. He stated that he had never gone to Village
Baprota on 31.03.2013 and did not lead the police to the house of Bir
Bhan. He stated that he also did not get recovered Skoda car with its
keys. He stated that the said car was already in possession of police
and his signatures and handwriting obtained by the police on
documents during custody were used by the police allegedly claiming
to be the sale documents of the car. He stated that he never arranged
any car allegedly used in the present case and has nothing to do with
the present case.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

28. Following witnesses were examined in the defence of

accused persons:-

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 51 of 212      
 84

(i) DW-1 Vikas: He is the record clerk, Sub-Registrar Office, Tehsil

Pataudi, District Gurugram, Haryana. He brought the record of original
sale deed executed by Smt. Geeta, Smt. Urmila w/o accused Baljeet
and Anita with regard to sale of certain land in village Bhoda Kalan,
Tehsil Pataudi on 20.06.2012 in favour of one Ram Mehar Munshi Ram.
The certified copy of the registered sale deed was identified as Ex.
DX2. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, DW-1 stated that the
transaction as per their record took place on 20.06.2012 and he cannot
comment if the date of incident/recovery in the present case is of
09.04.2013. He admitted that as per record, the sellers were three
persons namely Geeta, Urmila and Anita. He stated that he had not
brought the copy of the DDs or pay orders as shown in the record.

(ii) DW-2 Smt. Babita Gupta: - She is the one who had
purchased a plot from Smt. Urmila, wife of accused Baljeet on
08.11.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/- vide various
documents and the payment was made as Rs. 4.5 lacs paid in cash
and the rest paid through cheques. She identified her photographs on
the GPA and Agreement to Sell as already Ex. DX3 and copies of the
sale-purchase documents as Ex. DW2/A (colly.) with the original thereof
having been brought by her and shown and returned.
In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, DW2 admitted
that documents Ex.DW2/A(colly) are not registered documents. She
also admitted that she had not brought any documents with her
showing Urmila to be the owner of the above-mentioned plot, however,
she voluntarily stated that she has the complete chain of documents.
She admitted that the alleged date of transaction is 08.11.2012. She

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 52 of 212      
 85

denied that the transaction shown between her and Urmila is a

concocted one and the documents Ex. DW2/A(colly) are fabricated
documents.

(iii) DW-3 Smt. Geeta Yadav: She had purchased the plot
from Urmila, wife of accused Baljeet on 10.12.2012 for a consideration
of Rs. 4.8 lac paid in cash. She brought the copies of the documents viz
GPA, Affidavit, Agreement to sell, Will etc and identified them on record
as mark DW3/A.
In her cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State,
DW-3 admitted that documents mark DW3/A are not registered
documents and that she had not brought any document to show that
Urmila was the owner of the given plot. She admitted that the date of
alleged transaction is 10.12.2012. She admitted that in the column of
the consideration amount in agreement to sell and receipt, the same is
blank in numerics and words, however, she stated that the same has
been mentioned in the column of consideration. She admitted that in
the receipt and in the possession letter, the date of alleged transaction
is blank. She denied that the stamp papers which were purchased by
her in the month of December 2012 were subsequently used in creating
false evidence in connivance of accused Baljeet. She denied that mark
DW3/A is a fabricated document.

(iv) DW-4 Smt. Chanderkanta: She had purchased a plot from

Urmila, wife of accused Baljeet on 08.11.2012 for a consideration of Rs.
4.5 lacs paid in cash. She identified the copy of GPA, affidavit,
agreement to sell, Will, possession letter etc as mark DW4/A. She

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 53 of 212      
 86

stated that since she had sold this property to someone else, therefore,
the original of mark DW4/A are not with her and were handed over to
the buyer. She stated that the transaction of property was through one
of her acquaintance Jai Ganga.
In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, DW-4 admitted
that mark DW4/A are unregistered documents and that she had not
brought any document with her to show that Smt. Urmila was the owner
of the plot. She admitted that the alleged transaction is dated
08.11.2012 and that she does not remember the denomination of
currency notes of the consideration amount of Rs.4.5 lacs. She
admitted that the date of purchase of stamp papers is 06.10.2012 but
the transaction in question is of 08.11.2012. She denied that documents
mark DW4/A are fabricated documents.

(v) DW-5 Jai Ganga: He stated that his wife Smt. Katora Devi
was the owner of a plot of land ad-measuring 10,000 sq. yds bearing
Khasra no. 101,102 & 154, Village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi and he
brought the original Khasra Khatoni in this regard, copy of which was
identified as Ex. DW 5/DA. He stated that Smt. Katora Devi executed a
GPA in his favour for 7000 sq. yds of the land as above-mentioned.
Copy of the said GPA dated 21.11.2002 was identified as Ex. DW5/DB.
He stated that his wife cannot move due to illness and is unable to
appear before the court. He stated that on the basis of said GPA, he
sold 300 sq. yd of the land to accused Baljeet, 300 sq. yd to Smt.
Urmila, wife of Baljeet and 200 sq. yd to one Rekha Sehrawat. He
brought the copies of the registered GPA, registered will, agreement to
sell and purchase, receipt and possession letter executed by him in

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 54 of 212      
 87

favour of accused Baljeet, his wife Urmila and Smt. Rekha Sehrawat as
mark DW5/DC (colly., running into 42 pages). He stated that Rekha
Sehrawat sold her 200 sq.yds to Urmila, wife of accused Baljeet on
03.02.2011 and since he knows both of them, he can identify their
signature. He identified their signatures on the documents viz. GPA,
registered will, agreement to sell etc as mark DW5/DD. He also
identified their photographs thereon. He stated that later on, he helped
Smt. Urmila in selling her plots to Smt. Babita Gupta, Geeta Yadav and
Chanderkanta vide documents Ex. DW2/A, mark DW3/A and mark
DW4/A respectively. He also identified the photographs of Babita Gupta,
Geeta Yadav and Chanderkanta on these documents at point X,Y and Z
respectively and also his signatures as a witness to the transactions on
these documents at point D. He stated that Smt. Babita Gupta made a
payment of Rs. 4.5 lacs in cash and the balance was paid through
cheque for purchase of plot of 120 sq. yds, Smt. Geeta Yadav paid Rs.
4.8 lac in cash for purchase of plot of 70 sq yds and Smt. Chanderkanta
paid Rs. 4.5 lacs in cash for purchase of plot of 120 sq.yds to Urmila at
the time of execution of the above-mentioned documents.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, DW-5 stated that
he cannot produce original of mark DW5/DC(colly). He volunteered that
he had handed over the originals of the said documents to accused
Baljeet and his wife Urmila. He admitted that original thereof has not
been produced by the accused.

These witnesses have been examined by accused Baljeet

to establish his defence that he had the means and the money with him
at the relevant time when the investigating agency allegedly recovered

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 55 of 212      
 88

Rs. 11,51,000/- from his house as claiming it to be part of the contract

money which accused Nitesh handed over to him for killing his father.

(vi) DW-6 ASI Kailash Chand: He was working as Duty Officer at PS

Vasant Kunj(N) and he brought the record of DD register pertaining to
DD no.15A dated 14.11.2008, PS Vasant Kunj which is in respect of
submission of a complaint by Baljeet Singh s/o Shrichand. He identified
copy of DD No.15A as Ex. DW6/A. He stated that the record i.e. the
complaint register and the complaint given by accused Baljeet Singh
has been destroyed under the orders of DCP and the relevant order is
Ex. DW6/C, however, on being shown complaint filed by Baljeet Singh,
he identified the seal of PS Vasant Kunj and identified the complaint as
Ex. DW6/D.

(vii) DW-7 Jai Prakash: He is a practicing advocate at Delhi

Courts with Enrollment No. D/482/2000. He stated that on 30.03.2013
accused Purshottam and Sunil came to him expressing their
apprehension of being arrested by police officials of PS Vasant Kunj(S)
in case FIR no. 121/13 and requested to file an application for their
surrender before the Ilaka Magistrate. He stated that he drafted an
application and filed it before the court of Ld. MM Sh. Prashant Sharma
on 30.03.2013 but the same was not taken on record as the court
insisted on the appearance of the applicants in person at the time of
filing of the application. He stated that the next day i.e. 31.03.2013 was
Sunday, therefore, he came to the court in the morning of 01.04.2013
in two different cars. In one of the car, he alongwith his 2-3 three
associates and accused Sunil Maan were present and in the other car,

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 56 of 212      
 89

his associate Hemant Sharma with 2-3 advocates and accused

Purshottam Rana were seated. He stated that at about 10:15/10:30 am
when they were about to enter Patiala House Courts from gate no.3,
their cars were surrounded by 25-30 police officials. He stated that
whereas accused Purshottam Rana was immediately apprehended by
them, he managed to rush accused Sunil Maan to the court of Ld. MM
Sh. Prashant Sharma and produced him before the court with the
application. He stated that while the matter was in process,10-15 police
officials entered the court room and took away Sunil Maan. He stated
that this was even brought to the notice of Ld. MM who immediately
passed an order on the application to be put up on the same day at 2
pm while also calling a report from the concerned SHO. He stated that
he had also requested the court to record the presence of Sunil Maan in
the order who at that time was present in the court. He stated that when
he reached the court in the afternoon, he was told that the matter has
been adjourned for 02.04.2013. He stated that in the meantime, media
persons had also reached and he gave a detailed account of the
incident to them and the matter was also reported in the print media. He
identified the application on record as Ex. DW7/A. He also relied on
newspaper photographs already Ex. PW65/D1.
In his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, DW-7
admitted that the application Ex. DW7/A has not been signed by
accused Purshottam, however, he stated that at the time when he
reached Patiala House Courts in a car with accused Sunil Maan,
accused Purshottam was in another car with his associate advocate
Deepak Chaudhary and before his signature could be taken, he was
arrested by Delhi Police in the court complex itself. He admitted that

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 57 of 212      
 90

there is no order of the Ld. MM of 31.03.2013 showing that any

application was filed or any proceedings took place on the said date. He
also admitted that there is no separate order passed by Ld. MM on
01.04.2013 showing that accused Sunil and Purshottam have appeared
before the Ld. MM, however, he stated that he made a submission in
this regard at that time. He admitted that as per endorsement made by
Ld. MM on 01.04.2013, application Ex. DW7/A was moved before the
Ld.MM on the said day only and the report was called from concerned
SHO for the same day at 2:00 pm. He admitted that from the
proceedings before the Ld. MM on 31.03.2013 or 01.04.2013, it is clear
that neither accused Sunil Maan and Purshottam appeared nor they
surrendered before Ld. MM. He voluntarily stated that he had already
explained the facts in his examination-in-chief. He admitted that the
fact that 10-15 police officials apprehended Sunil Maan does not find
mention in any proceedings before the Ld. MM concerning application
Ex. DW7/A. He admitted that there is no application or complaint which
he had made about the alleged conduct of the police officials either to
the court or to the higher police officials. He volunteered that since the
matter was already brought to the notice of the concerned Ld. MM, he
had not felt the necessity to file any separate application.

SUBMISSIONS OF LD.ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE AND LD.

COUNSELS FOR THE ACCUSED PERSONS

29. Ld. Addl. PP for the State did not argue much and his
submission was that owing to the material witnesses having turned
hostile, the link in the chain of circumstantial evidence has not been
established by the prosecution.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 58 of 212      
 91

30. Contrary to negligible submissions of the Ld. Addl. PP, ld.

Counsels for the accused persons filed detailed written arguments with
supporting citations. I will first take up the submissions of the counsel
for accused Nitesh Bhardwaj. In the written submissions, following
points have been urged:-

(i) that accused Nitesh has been charged for the offence
u/s 201 IPC; for the offence u/s 120B IPC and for the offence u/s 302
r/w Sec.120B IPC. It has been submitted that the charge u/s 201 IPC
which is in respect of destruction of evidence, is a vague charge as
there is no description of the mobile phone which the accused is
alleged to have destroyed. In this regard, reliance has been placed on
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hasan Ali vs. State
of M.P.(1983) 2 SCC 66. It has been further submitted that in addition
to the charge being vague, there is also no evidence in respect of the
destruction of the mobile phone and even no recovery of the alleged
phone was effected and except of the alleged disclosure of accused
Nitesh which in the absence of any consequential recovery is
inadmissible, the prosecution fails to prove the charge u/s 201 IPC. In
this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in Mohd. Harun Faraji & Anr. vs. State of NCT of Delhi,
2009 SCC OnLine Del 241. It has been further submitted in the written
submissions that there is also no evidence on record that any mobile
instrument was used by the accused in the commission of the alleged
offence. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in V. L. Tresa vs. State of Kerala,

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 59 of 212      
 92

(2001) 3 SCC 549 wherein it was observed that following ingredients

are essential for the offence u/s 201 IPC: (i) committal of an offence; (ii)
person charged with the offence u/s 201 must have the knowledge or
reason to believe that the main offence has been committed; (iii)
person charged with the offence u/s 201 IPC should have caused
disappearance of evidence or should have given false information
regarding the main offence; and (iv) the act should have been done
with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. It
has been submitted that as per the alleged disclosure of accused
Nitesh, he had destroyed Nokia Asha Phone. It is submitted that
nothing was recovered upon such disclosure and in terms of Sec. 27 of
the Indian Evidence Act, disclosure is inadmissible unless
accompanied by the discovery of any new fact and in the present case,
no new fact was discovered upon the disclosure of accused Nitesh. It
has been further submitted that even otherwise, the said Nokia Asha
Phone was owned and was in exclusive use of PW-41 Praveen who
had himself admitted about the same in his deposition. It has been
further submitted that the SIM number 9717906666 was admittedly
having no connection with the number of co-accused Baljeet or with
any of the other accused. It is submitted that in such circumstances,
there is no evidence that the phone was used in the commission of the
alleged offence. In this regard, testimony of the IO has also been
referred to the extent of his admission that the phones could not be
connected to the offence. It has been submitted that the change of
instrument in no manner incriminates a person and as such, there is no
evidence substantiating or connecting accused Nitesh with the alleged
offence. It has been submitted that it was for this reason for want of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 60 of 212      
 93

any incriminating evidence, that no question was put to accused Nitesh

in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. It has been further submitted that as
per the testimony of PW Praveen and PW Nishtha, various mobile
phones were taken away by the police during investigation. It has been
thus submitted that there is no evidence to sustain the charge u/s 201
IPC against accused Nitesh Bhardwaj.

(ii) On the point of charge u/s 302 r/w Sec. 120 B IPC, it has
been submitted that the investigating officer had relied completely on
the CDR to prove the conspiracy and in this regard, a chart was placed
on record through which the conspiracy was sought to be established.
It has been submitted that the CDRs are neither admissible on facts
nor on law for many reasons. First of the reason is of inadmissibility of
the CDRs and in this regard, reference has been made to the CDR of
mobile no. 9582724694 and 9810104550. It has submitted that as per
CDR of 9582724694, a message is shown having been sent from
9582724694 to 9810104550, however, in the CDR of mobile no.
9810104550, the message is shown from this number to the other
number. There is also no corresponding entry in the receiver's CDR. It
has been further submitted that in respect of some mobile numbers,
the service provider claims to have activated the mobile number at a
later date but the CDRs as provided are of earlier dates. Reference is
made to letter dated 14.06.2013 Ex.6/DA in respect of mobile no.
9212572888 which shows that number was not active from 01.11.2012
to 10.06.2013, however, in the CDR of D.D. Tyagi, the said number
shows calls between these dates. There are also overlappings in
respect of same time duration of calls. It has been submitted that the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 61 of 212      
 94

nodal officers PW4 and PW5 also admitted in their testimonies that
CDRs can be edited. It has been submitted that fabrication of the
CDRs cannot be ruled out and in this regard, reliance has been placed
on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ravi Kant Sharma
vs. State, (2011) 183 DLT 248 (DV). Reference has also been made to
the judgment cited as Parminder Singh Sethi vs. State, 2011 SCC
OnLine Del 2273, Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
(2018) 2 SCC 801; Tukaram S Dighole vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate,
(2010) 4 SCC 329; Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors, (2014) 10 SCC
473 and Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570.

It has been further submitted that PW-59 Neeraj

Bhardwaj was examined by the prosecution to prove that accused
Nitesh Bhardwaj made a call to accused Baljeet on 26.03.2013 from
the mobile no. 9868734420 belonging to this witness. It has been
submitted that this witness in his testimony had stated that he was the
owner of two phones, one belonging to MTNL SIM in a Blackberry
Handset and the other a TATA SIM in a TATA Handset. This witness
claims to have given SIM of Blackberry Handset to accused Nitesh
Bhardwaj to make calls, however, in his cross-examination, this witness
claims that mobile no. 9868734420 belongs to his friend Ashwani. It
has been submitted that there is no call record of such number and
thus, there is no corroboration to the CDR of 9810104550. It has been
submitted that police did not seize the said MTNL number and also did
not examine the subscriber Ashwani. It has been submitted that in
such circumstances, the call records are inconsequential in respect of
PW Neeraj Bhardwaj and, therefore, his testimony has no relevance. It

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 62 of 212      
 95

has been further submitted that there is no valid certificate u/s 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act and many of the Nodal officers like PW-4,
PW-5, PW-6, PW-35, PW-89, PW-90 and PW-94 have admitted that
they have no personal knowledge of CAF or CDR and they also were
never in-charge of the servers where the CDRs were kept. It has been
further submitted that CDR of mobile no. 9810104550 was exhibited by
PW-94 Surender as Ex.PW94/C, however, the mandatory certificate
u/s 65B of the Evidence Act was not given by him but was given by
Vishal Gaurav and about this person, PW-94 had deposed that he
cannot vouchsafe for the credibility of certificate issued by Vishal
Gaurav. It has been submitted that CDRs being unreliable and their
authenticity having been demolished, prosecution has failed to
establish the link or the connection in respect of the offence of criminal
conspiracy. It has been further submitted that the link through phone
which has been alleged against accused Nitesh Bhardwaj is only with
accused Baljeet and with no other accused and the mobile numbers
shown to have been linked between the two are 9582724694 (linked
with accused Nitesh) and 9810104550 (linked with accused Baljeet). It
has been submitted that accused Nitesh is not the subscriber of the
mobile no. 9582724694 and as per the admitted case of prosecution,
its registered subscriber is PW-41 Praveen who in his testimony had
stated that he had used this number for himself and had never given it
to anyone. Similarly, the mobile no. 9810104550 is in the name of
PW-47 Jasbir who too had stated in his deposition that he had used
this number exclusively. It has been argued that as per the
documentary evidence and as per the oral testimonies of PW-41
Praveen and PW-47 Jasbir, the mobile numbers 9582724694 and

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 63 of 212      
 96

9810104550 were exclusively used by them and as such prosecution

failed to connect accused Nitesh and accused Baljeet with these
numbers. It has been further submitted that IO had not carried out
proper investigation and in this regard, reference has been made to the
statement u/s 161 Cr.PC as well as u/s 164 Cr.PC of PW41 Praveen
who in his testimony had stated that police did not record his statement
in the present case. It has been argued that once the connectivity
between the present accused and accused Baljeet stand snapped,
there cannot be any presumption of conspiracy without any evidence
and in this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgments cited as
State of M.P. vs. Paltan Mallah & Ors, (2005) 3 SCC 169; S Arul Raja
vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2010) 8 SCC 233 and P.K. Narayanan vs.
State of Kerala, (1995) 1 SCC 142. It has been further submitted that
prosecution has alleged that the phone record of accused Nitesh on
01.01.2013 was having the same location as that of accused Baljeet
and Pratibhanand. It has been submitted that prosecution has failed to
establish even the said link as it came in the testimony of Nodal
Officers that even if the Call Cell Towers are same, they may be
separated by a distance of 5 kms. It has been submitted that the call
records shows that such same location was for a short duration of less
than a minute. It has also been submitted that the call location of
mobile numbers 9582724694 and 9717906666 would have been same
as the number 9582724694 belongs to Praveen who was working in
the school and the other number belongs to accused Nitesh who was
the General Secretary of the School. It has been further submitted that
the Cell ID shows change in the cell ID of one of the numbers, thus,
showing that the person carrying one of the phone numbers was on the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 64 of 212      
 97

move and as such there could not have been meeting of minds in such
a circumstance. It has been submitted that even the IO did not mention
anywhere in his testimony that there was any evidence to prove such a
meeting of minds. Even otherwise, one of the mobile number
9810104550 which has been attributed to accused Baljeet is of
PW Jasbir who had stated that it was exclusively used by him. The
other number 9211751610 attributed to accused Pratibhanand belongs
to PW-98 Rajendran @ Raja who had stated that he had exclusively
used the said number. In this regard, it has been submitted that PW-44
Anuj Mishra during his first examination before the court had attributed
the mobile no. 9211751610 to accused Pratibhanand. At that time, the
accused was not arrested and the subscriber of the said number was
not examined as a witness u/s 161 Cr.PC, therefore, this witness
PW-44 at the instance of police had attributed the mobile no.
9211751610 to accused Pratibhanand. However, before the recall of
PW-44 for his cross-examination after the arrest of accused
Pratibhanand, PW-98 Rajendran who is the subscriber of the said
number had already been examined and he stated that this number
was exclusively used by him. Consequently, PW-44 Anuj Mishra upon
his recall on 10.10.2018 and 26.10.2018 told the truth and did not
attribute the number 9211751610 to accused Pratibhanand and he
stated that he had lied upon police pressure. Reliance was also placed
on the judgment cited as John Pandian vs. State, (2010) 14 SCC 129.
It was thus submitted that there was no meeting of minds and as such,
there is no evidence of conspiracy.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 65 of 212      
 98

(iii) On the point of arrest of accused Nitesh, it has been

submitted that as per prosecution, accused Nitesh was arrested on
09.04.2013, however, the fact is that he was illegally detained by the
police from 07.04.2013 and the case diary in this regard substantiates
the said fact and that there is no bar to the court perusing the case
diary for the purpose of doing substantial justice. In this regard,
reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in Sanjay Mishra vs. State, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2994. It has been
further submitted that during his cross-examination, the investigating
officer deliberately refused to peruse the case diary or to refresh his
memory as the same would have otherwise established illegal
detention of the accused on 07.04.2013. Even the medical examination
of accused was deliberately not placed on record and was also not
produced before the concerned Ld. Magistrate. There is also no entry
in the Roznamcha regarding detention of accused Nitesh at the PS on
09.04.2013 and reliance in this regard has been placed on the
judgment cited as Deepak Mahajan vs. The Director of Enforcement &
Anr, ILR (1990) I Delhi; Khatri and Ors (V) vs. State of Bihar & ors,
(1981) 2 SCC 493 and Satyajit Ballubhai Desai vs. State of Gujarat
(2014) 14 SCC 434. It has been further submitted that PW-53 Ct.
Suraj Prakash had stated that during investigation, one Ajay met at
Vodafone Store who promised to give the ID proofs of the person who
had purchased SIM number 9582724694 and 9717906666 to the
police. It has been submitted that neither this person was examined by
the police u/s 161 Cr.PC nor did he give any ID proof to the police. It
has been submitted that the witness has been deliberately withheld as
otherwise it would have established that the mobile no. 9582724694

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 66 of 212      
 99

was actually purchased by Praveen and not by Nitesh as claimed by

the prosecution. It has been submitted that the IO deliberately did not
make Ajay as a witness and also did not collect the details of the ID of
the person who purchased the said mobile number. It has been
submitted that an adverse inference in terms of Sec. 114 illustration (g)
of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn against the prosecution.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment cited as Habeeb
Mohd. vs. State of Hyderabad, 1954 Crl LJ 338 (SC) and Suresh
Kumar Singh vs. State of UP, (2009) 17 SCC 243.

(iv) On the point of recovery of the briefcase which as per the

prosecution case was the one in which deceased Deepak Bhardwaj
gave Rs. 50 lacs to the accused, it has been submitted that the alleged
recovery of the briefcase from the house of accused Nitesh holds no
significance in terms of the celebrated judgment of the Privy Council in
Pullukori Kottaya vs. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 wherein the rules
with regard to admissibility of disclosure statement were reiterated. It
has been submitted that the recovery of broken briefcase has no
significance as there is no witness who had stated that he saw Deepak
Bhardwaj giving Rs. 50 lacs to accused in the said briefcase. There is
also no witness who had stated that he saw the accused breaking the
lock of the briefcase or of taking money from the said briefcase into a
bag and giving it to accused Baljeet. It has been submitted that even
otherwise the alleged recovery of the briefcase cannot be believed as
neither any independent witness was joined nor any search warrant
was obtained. Also, no photographs were clicked, no site plan was
prepared, no lady constable was joined and no neighbour or the guard

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 67 of 212      
 100

of the society was joined in the investigation in this respect. Even the
briefcase and empty mobile boxes were not sealed, thus, raising a
doubt about its recovery. It has been submitted that there are
contradictions in the testimony of PW-53 and PW-62 in respect of the
place from where the briefcase was allegedly recovered. It has been
submitted that with the alleged recovery of briefcase, prosecution has
also alleged recovery of a note pad. In this regard, it has been
submitted that the note pad was not recovered upon the disclosure
statement of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj and in its absence, the recovery
becomes meaningless. Reliance has been placed on the judgment
cited as Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur vs. State of Karnataka, 1993
Supp (3) SCC 449. It has been further submitted that even otherwise,
PW-60 Nishtha Bhardwaj had duly explained about the alleged
recovery by deposing that she was coerced to write by the police. Also,
the MHC(M) Dharmender did not mention that he received note pad in
his custody on any date. There was no corresponding entry having
been made in the society entry register, thus, again doubting the
alleged recovery of the note pad.

(v) On the point of seizure of the copy of invoice of Nokia

Asha 200 mobile phone, it has been submitted that the said invoice
was neither signed by the cashier nor by the customer and without any
signature of the author or its maker, the said document is inadmissible.
The bill being an electronic record was also not supported by a
certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and as such cannot be
relied upon. There is also no evidence as to who had purchased this
mobile phone.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 68 of 212      
 101

(vi) On the point of recovery of Samsung Galaxy S3 Mobile

Phone, it has been submitted that nothing incriminating was found
therein and the formating or deletion of data from an old phone is a
convention which is done by everyone and the witness PW Rubina and
PW Arvind also admitted that the phones are normally sold after
erasing its memory. Thus, even if there is any allegation of deletion of
data, the same being normally done, cannot be said to have been done
for any motive.

(vii) On the point of statement of witnesses recorded u/s 164

Cr.PC, it has been submitted that the same is not a substantive
evidence and in this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment
cited as State of Delhi vs. Shri Ram Lohiya, (1960) Crl. LJ 67(SC). It
has been submitted that the witnesses whose statements were got
recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC have stated in their respective deposition that
they were either pressurized under the threat of false implication or
were beaten up to give tutored statements to the Magistrate.

(viii) On the point of motive, it has been submitted that

prosecution has alleged that accused Nitesh did not enjoy good
relations with his father/deceased Deepak Bhardwaj and in this
respect, prosecution had relied upon the testimony of PW-53 who
allegedly proved complaint of one Sheela Devi against Ramesh Kumari
which was filed after inquiry. It has been submitted that the fact that the
said complaint stood closed shows that the matter was amicably
resolved and it in any case does not show any connection of relation

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 69 of 212      
 102

between accused Nitesh and deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. It has been

submitted that on the contrary, there is positive evidence through the
testimony of prosecution witnesses that relations between accused
Nitesh and his father were good and in this regard, reference was
made to the testimony of PW-11 Ratnakar Batra, PW-34 Rahul Gambir,
PW-41 Praveen, PW-43 Satish Kumar, PW-50 Deepak Kushwaha,
PW-56 Hitesh Bhardwaj and PW-60 Nishtha Bhardwaj. It has been
submitted that the prosecution, thus, fails to attribute any motive to the
accused to eliminate his father.

31. Now taking up the written submissions filed on behalf of

accused Baljeet, it has been submitted that the evidence against
accused Baljeet has been mentioned in detail by the prosecution in
para '76' of the charge-sheet and it is primarily on the following counts:
(i) that the accused was socially active and wanted to contest MCD
Councilor Elections with respect to which during the discussion with
accused Nitesh to kill Deepak Bhardwaj, accused Nitesh offered to
fund his elections and the deal was settled for Rs. 5 crores; (ii) that
accused Baljeet Singh was a conduit between accused Nitesh and
accused Swami Pratibhanand in having frequent communications with
them. Accused Baljeet through his mobile no. 9810104550 had
communications with accused Nitesh on his mobile nos. 9582724694
and 9717906666 and with accused Swami Pratibhanand on his mobile
numbers 8273911459, 9219991059, 9871913014 and 9467897848; (iii)
that CDR of mobile no. 9810104550 also proves that accused Baljeet
had destroyed his mobile phone after the commission of crime as the
IMEI number in respect of the given mobile number was changed on

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 70 of 212      
 103

26.03.2013 i.e. on the date of incident; (iv) that accused Baljeet in

pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered cash of Rs.
11,51,000/- from his residence, there was a further recovery of Rs. 10
lac cash from his acquaintance Manmohan Singh and a Swift car no.
DL 9CL 9671 was also got recovered by accused Baljeet from his
house which was purchased out of the contract money; (v) that in a
photograph of the marriage of daughter of Manmohan Singh, accused
Baljeet and Pratibhanand are seen sitting together; and (vi) that the
conspiracy and meeting of minds is also established from the fact that
the mobile no. 9810104550 of accused Baljeet, mobile no.
9582724694 and 9717906666 of accused Nitesh and mobile no.
9211751610 of accused Pratibhanand were having the same location
on 01.01.2013 as that of Palam Extension where Shiksha Bharti
School of Nitesh Bhardwaj is situated.

32. Reference in the written submissions is then made to the

testimony of some of the prosecution witnesses and the defence
witnesses to bring home the point that there is no evidence either direct
or circumstantial against accused Baljeet Singh. Rest of the written
submissions were a reiteration of the submissions made on behalf of
accused Nitesh Bhardwaj and are accordingly not repeated herein.

33. Ld. Counsel for the accused Amit Mann @ Bhola in his
written submissions referred to para '75' of the charge-sheet wherein
the evidence against accused Amit Mann has been detailed and it is
primarily on the following counts: (i) that accused Amit Mann was
driving the Skoda car at the time of incident and was present with

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 71 of 212      
 104

accused Purshottam @ Monu and Sunil ; (ii) that accused Amit Mann
refused to join the TIP proceedings and was later on identified by the
complainant and security guards Brij Kishore and Vinod Sharma; (iii)
that the CDRs of the mobile numbers 9250746562 and 9211726562 of
accused Amit Mann shows his communication with his associates
including Purshottam @ Monu; (iv) that accused Amit Mann can be
seen present alongwith accused Purshottam @ Monu, Sunil and
Rakesh in the wedding photograph of the sister of accused Purshottam
which is dated 09.02.2013 at Village Khera Kalan; (v) that at the time of
his arrest, accused Amit was riding a Pulsar Motorcycle with a fake
number plate of registration no. HR 44C 5929 instead of its original
number plate of registration no. DL 8SAA 3835. It has been submitted
that the three security guards namely complainant PW-40 Kishan
Singh, PW-24 Brij Kishore and PW-58 Vinod Sharma did not support
the prosecution case on any material aspect and they were declared
hostile. Even in their detailed cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP,
the witnesses did not support the prosecution case. They also failed to
identify accused Amit Mann as the driver of the Skoda car. Another
witness examined by the prosecution is PW-66 Kunal Mann. He too did
not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Testimony
of the IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary has also been referred insofar
as it relates to the arrest of accused Amit Mann to bring home the
defence that the accused was falsely implicated. It has been, thus,
submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to either
connect the accused with the offence u/s 302 r/w Sec. 120B IPC or
with the offence u/s 482 IPC.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 72 of 212      
 105

34. In the written submissions filed on behalf of accused

Purshottam Rana, it has been submitted that the prosecution evidence
so far as it relates to accused Purshottam Rana is of the testimony of
the three security guards namely PW-24 Brij Kishore, PW-40 Kishan
Singh and PW-58 Vinod Sharma who were alleged to be posted at
Gate no. 2 & 3 of Nitesh Kunj on 26.03.2013 at the time of alleged
incident. It has been submitted that these three witnesses when
examined in the court did not support the case of the prosecution and
did not identify accused Purshottam and co-accused Sunil Maan or any
other person as the persons who had entered into Nitesh Kunj
premises from Gate no.2. They also did not identify any of the vehicle
nor did they state about any vehicle in which the assailants came. It
has been submitted that PW-24 Brij Kishore had stated that the
persons who had entered the premises were aged between 18-20
years and were of short stature. PW-58 Vinod Sharma also deposed
on the same lines. It has been submitted that the statement of these
three star witnesses of prosecution fails to establish that accused
Purshottam Rana ever came to the premises as he is a person aged
about 28 years and has a height of 5'10” to 5'11”. It has been submitted
that the next evidence the prosecution relied upon was the use of
Skoda car by the assailants and in this regard, it examined PW-55
Gaurav and PW-57 Rajnish Kumar. As to PW-55 Gaurav, he had
stated that he had not sold his car to co-accused Rakesh @ Nanhe
and as to PW-57 Rajnish, he could not be completely examined even
by the prosecution since he died in an accident, thus, giving no
opportunity to the defence to cross-examine the witness and as such
his part recorded testimony cannot be read in evidence. Reference

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 73 of 212      
 106

has also been made to the testimony of PW-73 SI Babu Lal who was
entrusted by IO/PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary to procure the
information in respect of Skoda Car no. DL 7062. It has been submitted
that as per the prosecution case, this witness brought a list of cars
which is mark 73/A showing that Skoda car belongs to PW-55 Gaurav.
It has been submitted that the testimony of this witness cannot be
believed as no authority letter was proved on record concerning mark
73/A nor any statement of any concerned officer or of procuring
certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was placed on record in
support of mark 73/A. Also, as per mark 73/A, the colour of Skoda car
is C-Beige colour and is not grey colour which is mentioned in other
documents filed with the charge-sheet. Hence, the involvement of the
said Skoda car in the present case is highly doubtful. Further,
testimony of expert PW-91 Gautam Roy gave the death knell to the
prosecution case inasmuch as he had stated that he had not
mentioned in his report the model of the car as Skoda because it was
mentioned in the forwarding letter of the IO. He also admitted that he
cannot tell the model of the car from the photographs of CCTV footage
and he also admitted that the cars like Verna, Honda City etc were
having the appearance of Skoda car. He stated that he had not found
any logo of the car in the photograph taken from the DVR. He had also
admitted that the enlarged photograph from the DVR for the purpose of
perusal was very poor in its resolution, visibility and texture. It has been
submitted that reading together the statement of PW-24, PW-40,
PW-58 alongwith the statement of PW-73 and PW-91 makes it amply
clear that even the make, model or texture/colour of the car cannot be
elicited from the CCTV footage.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 74 of 212      
 107

35. On the point of arrest of accused Purshottam Rana, it has

been submitted that as per the testimony of PW-93 IO Insp. Neeraj
Chaudhary, accused Purshottam was apprehended from outside the
Patiala House Courts on 01.04.2013 by PW-88 Insp. Arun Dev Nehra.
It has been submitted that though the IO showed ignorance of filing of
an application by accused Purshottam for his surrender which was
already fixed before the court for 01.04.2013, the defence by
examining advocate J.P.Singh proved on record the falsity of the claim
of the IO. It has been further submitted that as per the admissions of
the IO PW-93, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused
Purshottam Rana on 01.04.2013 and the accused was also produced
before the concerned Ld. MM on the same date, however, surprisingly
the signature of Ld. MM on the said disclosure statement is of
12.04.2013. The IO also admitted that the supplementary disclosure
statement dated 13.04.2013 does not bear the signatures of Ld. MM,
thus, putting to doubt the disclosure statements.

36. On the point of recovery of two countrymade pistols at the

instance of accused Purshottam Rana on 08.04.2013 from
Chhuchakvas canal, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of
PW-67 SI Satender Gulia. It has been submitted that both PW-67 SI
Satender Gulia and PW-93 IO/Insp.Neeraj Chaudhary admitted that
they had not reported to the concerned police station of the place of
recovery of Chhuchakvas, District Jhajjar nor did they seek any
permission from the concerned Irrigation Department for search of two
countrymade pistols from the canal. It has been submitted that PW-67

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 75 of 212      
 108

also admitted that he did not take any photograph from the mobile
phone, though he stated that videography of the proceedings was
done, however, no such videography was found on record meaning
thereby that an important piece of evidence was concealed by the
prosecution and an adverse inference u/s 114 (g) of the Evidence Act is
required to be drawn. Reference has been made to the judgment cited
as Samadhan Dhudaka Koli vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 [1] CAR
[SC] 140 and Jaffar @ Raju vs. State, 2013 [2] JCC 1175. It has been
submitted that owing to the lacunaes as pointed above, the alleged
recovery cannot be free from being planted. It has also been submitted
that the report Ex. PW82/A of the expert PW-82 Ms. Babita Gulia is
also not reliable as she is not a ballistic expert, she having admitted
that she is not in possession of any qualification nor has any such
expertise. Some of the portions of her cross-examination have been
referred to submit that the report cannot be believed and relied upon.
Reliance has also been placed on the judgment cited as State of
Himachal Pradesh vs. Jai Lal, AIR 1999 SC 3318. It has been further
submitted that tampering of the case property is also writ large in the
present case as the malkhana in-charge PW-84 ASI Dharmender
admitted in his cross-examination that IO had never handed over any
FSL form at the time of deposit of case property and, therefore, no FSL
form was sent by him to CFSL. Coupled with this fact, PW-82 Babita
Gulia had stated that she received the parcels on 29.04.2013 and she
is not aware as to who had received the said parcel in the CFSL and
also with whom the parcels remained from 29.04.2013 till 16.05.2013,
the date of alleged examination of parcels by her. Reliance in this
regard has been placed on the judgment cited as Valsala vs. State of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 76 of 212      
 109

Kerala, 1993 SCC (Crl.) 1082.

37. On the point of recovery of empty cartridge at the pointing

out of the accused from the place of incident on 02.04.2013, it has
been submitted that this recovery appears to be a planted one as
PW-67 SI Satender Gulia, PW-75 SI Rakesh Kumar and PW-93
IO/Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary have admitted that the place was
thoroughly searched including the search of bushes by the crime team,
by the local police as well as by the CFSL team on 26.03.2013 but no
incriminating article was found. It has been submitted that no public
witness was also associated at the time of seizure of empty cartridge.

38. On the point of recovery of four cartridges and a

photograph of the deceased from a room in an open plot on
14.04.2013, it has been submitted that though the recovery was stated
to be at 8:30 pm and it was also admitted by PW-85 ASI Jai Pal that
there was no electricity at the said place and the door of the said room
was found lying opened, the alleged recovery in the absence of joining
of any public witness from the nearby houses or of calling the owner
Prem Chand Rana to the spot or of even not joining the driver of the
innova car who was a private driver and an independent witness, is
rendered unbelievable and cannot be said to be free from being a
planted one. It has also been submitted that SI K.P. Singh was not
examined in the present case even though as per the admission of IO
PW-93 that this case belongs to PS Vasant Kunj(S) and SI K.P. Singh
was posted at PS Vasant Kunj(N) and there was no authority on record
to show as to how SI K.P.Singh was made to go for the alleged

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 77 of 212      
 110

recovery on 14.04.2013.

39. On the point of CDR of mobile nos. 9136971981 and

9136971982, it has been submitted that admittedly, as per the
prosecution case, these mobile numbers were in the name of PW-48
Sumit Mishra who admitted that he was using these phones and one of
his number 9136971981 had become dysfunctional due to fall in water
after Holi i.e. after 26.03.2013 and about the second number
9136971982, it was in fact given by him to his friend Sunita who was
using the same. It was submitted that the other witnesses namely
PW-45 Surender Jhakhar, PW-46 Ankur and PW-63 Kunal relied upon
by the prosecution also did not support its case and they were declared
hostile. It has been submitted that the investigation has been unfair,
biased and tainted as is evident from the testimony of the IO. It has
been further submitted that PW-50 Deepak Kushwaha admitted that
two of the workers namely Veena and Aarti had cried that they had
seen somebody firing on the deceased Deepak Bhardwaj and that this
witness also saw one lathi, one cap and two firearms lying on the
ground on 26.03.2013 and on this aspect, he was corroborated by
PW-40 Kishan Singh who deposed about his having seen two pistols
lying at the spot. Also, presence of Aarti being the eye witness is
mentioned in the PCR form which the IO admitted in his cross-
examination but did not assign any reason why she was not examined.
It has been submitted that no recovery of any mobile phone took place
from accused Purshottam Rana to show that he was having the mobile
numbers 9136971981 and 9136971982. It has been, thus, submitted
that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt against the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 78 of 212      
 111

accused.

40. In the written arguments filed on behalf of accused

Rakesh @ Nanhe, reference has again been made to the testimony of
the three security guards who had turned hostile and of there being no
convincing evidence on record to link the accused with the Skoda car.
It has also been submitted that the mobile no. 9717457006 as per the
testimony of PW-4 R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Airtel, was not in the
name of accused but in the name of one Akil Ahmed Khan who has
deliberately not been examined or joined as a witness. Mere recovery
of the mobile handset from the accused is not sufficient when the SIM
card of the given number was never produced for inspection before the
court.

41. Written submissions on behalf of accused Sunil Maan are

also on the similar lines as to that of accused Purshottam and as such
are not repeated herein.

42. In the written submissions filed on behalf of accused

Machinder Nath @ Pratibhanand, it has been submitted that call detail
records of seven mobile numbers viz. 8010990456, 9467897848,
9212572888, 92129991059, 9871913014, 8273911459 and
9211751610 which have been attributed to the present accused in the
chart Ex. PW93/DY, IO PW-93 in his cross-examination had admitted
that none of these numbers are registered in the name of accused
Pratibhanand and that there is no evidence to show that any of these
numbers was used by the accused. PW-107 Insp. Ved Prakash also

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 79 of 212      
 112

admitted that there was no recovery of any mobile phone or SIM card
at the instance of accused Pratibhanand. It has been submitted that in
respect of mobile no.8010990456, no CAF and no CDR has been
produced or proved in this case and the only evidence brought by the
prosecution in respect of the user of this number was the initial
examination of PW-44 Anuj Mishra when accused Pratibhanand was
not sent for trial. It has been submitted that when PW-44 was recalled
pursuant to the arrest of present accused, he completely turned hostile
and did not support the prosecution case at all. As to the mobile no.
9212572888, it has been submitted that its CAF and CDR was proved
as Ex. PW6/O and Ex. PD even though PW-6 Rajeev Ranjan was
neither its author nor the same were filled in his presence. Also,
PW-28 Dev Dutt Tyagi who is the registered user of this connection did
not support the prosecution case. As to the mobile no. 9871913014, its
CAF and CDR were proved on record by PW-94 Surender Kumar,
Nodal Officer as Ex. PW94/A and Ex. PW94/B. Admittedly, the
supporting certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act was not given by this
witness but by the earlier Nodal Officer Vishal Gaurav who was not
examined. Also, as per the CAF Ex. PW94/A, this mobile number was
issued to one Pradeep son of O.P. Singh, however, he has not been
examined by the prosecution. As to mobile no. 9467897848, again no
CAF or CDR has been proved and the only evidence is of PW-44 Anuj
Mishra who as already mentioned did not support the prosecution
case. As to the mobile no. 9219991059, the same belongs to
PW-97 Rekha and not only this witness but even her husband
PW-96 Virender Kumar did not support the prosecution case that this
number was given for use to accused Pratibhanand. As to the mobile

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 80 of 212      
 113

no. 8273911459, it was in the name of one Udhav Dass who again has
not been examined and the CAF and CDR record as proved by PW-35
Hayat Singh Sethi is not believable for want of complete information in
the supporting certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act regarding the
CDR. As to the mobile no. 9211751610, the same is in the name of
PW-98 Rajendran @ Raja who had again turned hostile and had stated
that he never gave this number for use to accused Pratibhanand.
Reliance has also been placed on the judgment cited as CBI vs. Bibi
Jagir Kaur, 2019 Cri LJ 452. As to the pointing out memos prepared at
the instance of accused Pratibhanand, the same are stated to be
fabricated documents since these were not in pursuance of the
disclosure of accused Pratibhanand and about these facts, there was
already a disclosure statement dated 09.04.2013 of accused Baljeet.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment cited as Vinod Kumar
Vaidh vs. State, 1992 JCC 297. It has been submitted that the alleged
disclosure statement of accused Pratibhanand was recorded in the
case diary of the Arms Act case registered at PS Sihani Gate,
Ghaziabad and it has no value. Reliance has been placed on the
judgments cited as Indra Dalal vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC
31; Mohd. Ankoos & Ors Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 94; and Abbas vs. State of Haryana, Crl.
Appeal No. S-1244-SB of 2006 decided by High Court of Punjab and
Haryana on 04.07.2013. Lastly, on the point of Sec. 174A IPC, it has
been submitted that both PW-99 and PW-107 have acknowledged that
accused Pratibhanand was not residing at Village Titarmani, District
Beed, Maharashtra for the last more than three decades and as such
the process u/s 82/83 Cr.PC was merely an eye wash.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 81 of 212      
 114

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, POINTS FOR DETERMINATION,

CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE CONCLUSION

43. The present case as is apparent is of the murder of

Deepak Bhardwaj under a criminal conspiracy alleged to have been
hatched by the accused persons. Insofar as the cause of death of
deceased Deepak Bhardwaj is concerned, it is beyond dispute that it
was not a natural death but a homicidal one and in this regard,
testimony of the doctors may be noted which also throws light on the
nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and of the nature of the
weapon of offence. Following are the relevant witnesses:-

(i) PW-7 Lt. Col.(Dr.) Pooja Singh: She was on emergency

duty at R & R Hospital on 26.03.2013 when at about 10:05 am
deceased Deepak Bhardwaj was brought by HC Shambhu Dayal and
Ct. Satpal Singh of PCR Eagle-48. She had noticed three penetrating
wounds on the body of the deceased, the first of approximately 4x5 cm
over right oxipeto-parietal region, the second of 3cm size near right
nipple and the third over right back in posterior axillary line near 7th
intracostal space. She declared the patient as dead and proved on
record MLC prepared by her as Ex. PW7/A and the death certificate
issued by her as Ex. PW7/B.

(ii) PW23 Dr. Rajani Kanta Swain: She while serving as a

Junior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology,
AIIMS, New Delhi on 27.03.2013, became a member of the Medical
Board constituted for conducting the post mortem of the body of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 82 of 212      
 115

deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. She proved on record the post mortem

report as Ex. PW23/A. She stated that the dead body was found having
three gunshot ante wounds. One was present 2.5cm below and middle
to right nipple, the second was present on right lateral aspect of chest
and the third over right parietal region 13cm above right tragus. Five
abrasions, one on the lower lip, one on the upper lip, one on the left
eye, one on the left arm and one on the tip of the nose were also
noticed. She stated that as per injury no.1 to 3, the same were
separately and collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature with the cause of death being shock due to firearm
injuries. In her cross-examination, PW-23 stated that she cannot tell
the exact distance from where the gunshot was fired on to the
deceased but it could be from a close range. She stated that she
cannot say even with approximation as to what could be the distance
whether one feet, two feet or three feet. She admitted that the burning
and singeing of hair would mean that the shot was fired from a very
close range near to the body.

(iii) PW-77 Dr. T. Millo: He was working as Additional

Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS and on
27.03.2013, he was the Faculty Chairman of the Board of Doctors
comprising of Dr. Shashank Punia, Senior Resident, Dr. Rajnikanta
Swain, Junior Resident and Dr. Kartik Krishna who conducted the
postmortem on the dead body of Deepak Bhardwaj and submitted their
detailed postmortem report already Ex.PW23/A. In his cross-
examination, PW-77 stated that though there is a mention of tattooing
around the entry wound in the chest injury no.1, however, it varies from

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 83 of 212      
 116

firearm to firearm. He stated that he was not shown the weapon of

offence in this case to obtain opinion with regard to the firing range and
similar is his reply to injury no.2. He stated that as per his opinion, the
weapon of offence used in this case was a rifled firearm.

44. Now the question is whether the murder of Deepak

Bhardwaj was committed by accused Purshottam Rana and Sunil
Maan acting in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons Amit
Mann, Rakesh, Pradeep (since expired), Baljeet, Pratibhanand and
Nitesh. So far as the act of committing murder is concerned,
prosecution was relying heavily on the testimonies of the three security
guards PW-24 Brij Kishore Singh, PW-40 Krishan Singh and PW-58
Vinod Sharma who were admittedly on duty as security guards at the
spot i.e. at Nitesh Kunj on the date of incident and at the relevant time.
Presence of these three security guards at Nitesh Kunj on the date of
incident has been established by the prosecution through the testimony
of PW-43 Satish Kumar and PW-61 Satish Dubey. Whereas, PW-43
Satish Kumar who was the private PSO of the deceased, submitted the
attendance register of the security guards with the IO on 23.04.2013
seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW43/A showing their attendance on
the date of incident, PW-61 Satish Dubey being the proprietor of M/s
Bazz Security Services stated that security guards Brij Kishore and
Vinod Sharma were his employees who were assigned duties as
security guards at Nitesh Kunj. Besides the testimony of three security
guards who as per the claim of prosecution have identified accused
Purshottam and Sunil as the two assailants and accused Amit Mann as
the driver of the Skoda car which was used on the date of incident for

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 84 of 212      
 117

the commission of crime, the other corroborating evidence the

prosecution has placed reliance upon is the CCTV footage of the
CCTVs found installed at the spot and which are alleged to have
captured the footage of the two assailants fleeing away from the spot in
the skoda car.

45. Before I take up the issue whether or not the CCTV

footage establishes the identity of the two assailants as that of accused
Purshottam and Sunil and of the vehicle used in the commission of
crime as Skoda car bearing registration no. DL 6CJ 7062, I deem it fit
to first refer to the testimony of the three security guards. Since PW-40
Krishan Singh is the complainant, his testimony is taken up first for
consideration.

46. PW-40 Krishan Singh in his examination-in-chief stated

that he was employed as a Security Guard with SSS Security
Company (Kataria Chowk), Gurgaon, Haryana and in the month of
January- February 2013 he was posted as a guard at Nitesh Kunj,
NH-8, Rajokari. He stated that on 26.03.2013, he was on duty at gate
no.3, Nitesh Kunj with his duty hours from 8 am to 8 pm. He stated that
on the same day at about 9:00 am when he was on duty standing
inside gate no.3, he heard noise of firing by firearm (goli chalne ki
awaz suni) from the back side of lawn no.2 and he also heard some
noise (chillane ki awaz suni). He stated that he went towards the
backside where he saw Deepak Bhardwaj, owner of Nitesh Kunj, lying
in a pool of blood with his face towards the ground. He stated that he
also saw Aarti, a sweeper, present over there. He stated that soon

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 85 of 212      
 118

after, PSO of Deepak Bhardwaj namely Satish, Deepak Kushwaha and

other staff of Nitesh Kunj reached there and someone from them made
a call on number 100. He stated that after sometime, ambulance and
PCR van came and Deepak Bhardwaj was removed from the spot in
the ambulance. He stated that the police officials also came and
recorded his statement. He stated that thereafter he was asked to go
away. He stated that the statement Ex. PW40/A bears his signature. He
again stated that it was blank when he signed it. He stated that he does
not know anything else. Since PW40 did not support the prosecution
case on material aspects, he was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP.
In his cross-examination, PW40 stated that he knows that Deepak
Bhardwaj, deceased of this case, died due to gunshot injuries. He was
shown photographs mark PW40/A1 to A16. He stated that these
photographs are of outgate no.2 which he knows as he is familiar of
that area. However, he stated that at that time he was on duty at gate
no.3. He admitted that there are CCTV cameras installed at outgate
no.2 of Nitesh Kunj. He stated that CCTV camera is installed on a pole
about 50 feet from the outgate and that it appears to him that the
photographs mark PW40/A1 to A16 are of the said camera. He denied
the suggestion that when he went towards the backside, he saw two
persons of age around 25-30 years who were appearing around 6 ft tall
with one of them wearing light green lower and black T-shirt with white
collar and the other wearing black lower and white T-shirt and both
carrying pistols in their hands or that they came out from the small gate
and were running towards main gate. He also denied the suggestion
that he had made the above statement in his statement Ex.PW40/A to
the IO wherein it is so recorded. He admitted that deceased Deepak

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 86 of 212      
 119

Bhardwaj was lying in front of the lawn having a gunshot injury on the
back of his head and on the chest and he was bleeding from the said
portions. He denied the suggestion that he had given a chase to those
two assailants who after sitting in a grey colour Skoda car bearing
registration no. DL 3CJ 7062 fled from the main gate. He also denied
that this fact was stated by him in his statement Ex.PW40/A wherein it
was so recorded. However, PW40 stated that he had told the IO in his
statement about the injury and gunshot sustained by Deepak
Bhardwaj. He also admitted that PSO Satish and PA Deepak
accompanied the deceased to the hospital in PCR Van. He stated that
however this fact has not been told by him to the police in his
statement Ex.PW40/A where it is so recorded. He stated that he came
to know about the death of his employer Deepak Bhardwaj in the
hospital which he had stated in his statement Ex.PW40/A. He denied
the suggestion that he had claimed that he can identify those two
assailants, if shown to him, who had killed Deepak Bhardwaj by firing
with firearm. He was confronted with statement Ex.PW40/A where it
was so recorded. He stated that he is not aware as to who else
witnessed the incident of firing by the two assailants on Deepak
Bhardwaj. He admitted that he had shown the place of incident to the
IO. He again stated that thereafter police had cordoned of the spot and
they were asked to go away. He stated that he knows his fellow
security guards Vinod Sharma and Brij Kishore but he had not gone
with them to the police station. He stated that he alone went to the
police station, however, he is not aware if at that time police was
making inquiry/interrogation from the assailants of this case. He denied
the suggestion that on 03.04.2013 when he visited the police station,

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 87 of 212      
 120

IO was interrogating accused Purshottam @ Monu and Sunil and that

he had identified them as the assailants who had killed Deepak
Bhardwaj by firing at him or that they managed to flee away. He
volunteered by stating that as a matter of fact he was asked by police
officials to sign on 8-10 blank pages and he had signed. He denied the
suggestion that he had visited police station with his friends Vinod
Sharma and Brij Kishore or at that time IO was interrogating accused
Purshottam and Sunil whom he identified as the two assailants. He
was confronted with the relevant portion of the statement u/s161 Cr.PC
mark PW40/PX. In his further cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP,
PW-40 stated that he is 12th pass and he came for work to Delhi in
those days i.e. at the time of incident and thereafter he returned to his
home town in Rajasthan. He stated that he is aware that if any person
commits wrong then he can lodge a complaint by calling on number
100. He stated that he knows that forcing him to sign blank papers is a
wrong act. He admitted that he did not make a call to number 100 for
this wrong act allegedly committed upon him. He stated that he is
aware that police case was registered after the incident and Nitesh
Bhardwaj, son of the deceased was arrested. He admitted that he did
not make a complaint before any court of law or before any higher
police official or any authority for the alleged wrong act of obtaining his
signature on blank papers. He denied the suggestion that he did not
make any such complaint as he was never asked to sign on blank
papers or that he did not sign on any blank paper. He denied the
suggestion that he had signed the complaint Ex.PW40/A on the basis
of which FIR was registered after knowing the contents thereof and
after it was read over to him by the IO. He denied the suggestion that

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 88 of 212      
 121

he is deliberately not identifying accused Purshottam and Sunil or that

he had identified them in the police station on 03.04.2013.
In his cross-examination by the counsels for the accused
persons, PW-40 stated that he was called to the police station in the
evening of 26.03.2013. He admitted that he was beaten up in the police
station and was forced to sign on blank papers. He also admitted that
senior police officials had threatened him of false implication, if he did
not obey their directions. He admitted that out of fear of police officials
that he did not make any complaint against them before any authority.
He stated that police never called him to the police station after
26.03.2013. He stated that when he reached the spot, he found PSO
Satish, Secretary Deepak and Sweeper Aarti already present. He
stated that he had seen blood at the spot and two pistols lying there.
He stated that police had left the spot after about 1½-2 hours. Ld. Addl.
PP on his request that the witness had introduced some new facts was
permitted to again cross-examine PW-40. In his cross-examination,
PW-40 admitted that he is the complainant of the case. He stated that
he had never moved an application or protest petition before any court
or authority against police officials for not recording his statement
correctly or giving him beatings or obtaining his signatures on blank
papers. He admitted that it is the first time that he had disclosed before
any authority regarding recovery of two pistols. In his cross-
examination by the defence counsels, PW-40 admitted that all persons
present at the spot including the police officials saw two pistols lying at
the spot.
As is apparent, complainant PW-40 Krishan Singh did not
support the prosecution case on the point of his having seen accused

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 89 of 212      
 122

Purshottam and Sunil on the date of incident as the two assailants

fleeing from the spot. He also did not support the prosecution case on
the point of identification of the car used in the commission of crime as
the Skoda car bearing registration no. DL 6CJ 7062. The other security
guard examined on these points is PW-24 Brij Kishore Singh.

47. PW-24 Brij Kishore Singh: He was working as a Security

Guard in Bazz Security Company, Kapashera in the year 2013 and on
26.03.2013 i.e. the date of incident he was on duty at Nitesh Kunj,
NH8, Rajokri, Delhi as a Security Guard with his duty hours from 8 am
to 8 pm and place of his duty at Gate No.2. In his examination-in-chief,
PW-24 Brij Kishore stated that in the year 2013 he was working as a
Security Guard in Bazz Security Company, Kapashera and was posted
as a Security Guard for last about 5-6 months at Nitesh Kunj. He stated
that on 26.03.2013, his duty as a security guard was at gate no.2 of
Nitesh Kunj with his duty hours from 8 am to 8 pm. He stated that no
entry in the register was being made because of movement of several
vehicles from gate no.2. He stated that at about 9:00 am he heard
some noise and saw some workers running towards the gate of Nitesh
Kunj and one worker informed that someone has fired gunshot on
sahab. He stated that he went behind the bushes to hide himself and
saw two persons coming towards the gate with one having a firearm in
his hand. He stated that he cannot say by which mode those boys left
Nitesh Kunj and he also cannot say whether CCTV was installed in the
premises or not. He stated that he does not know by which mode these
two persons came inside, however, he improved upon by stating that
the boys came in a vehicle. He stated that he cannot say how many

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 90 of 212      
 123

persons were sitting in that car and he also does not know the number
of the vehicle in which the assailants came to Nitesh Kunj. He stated
that his duty was to get the vehicles parked at appropriate places and
not to interfere in the coming and going of the vehicles. He stated that
gate no.2 usually remains open throughout the day. He further stated
that earlier he had appeared before the court of Magistrate to give his
statement and he identified his signature at point C on statement
Ex.PW24/A. He stated that he cannot identify those persons who were
seen by him running towards the gate on that date. He stated that none
of the accused persons present in the court was seen by him running
towards the gate. Since the witness was resiling from his previous
statement, Ld. Addl. PP was permitted to cross-examine him. In his
cross-examination, PW-24 denied the suggestion that on 26.06.2013,
he was called by the police and on that day, he was shown a marriage
photograph. He further denied that after seeing the photograph, he
identified accused Purshottam Rana as the one seen by him running
towards the gate. He volunteered by stating that he was called by the
police and given beatings in the police station. Two marriage
photographs mark P1 & P2 were shown to PW-24 to identify the person
shown in the photograph whom he identified on 26.06.2013 as
Purshottam Rana. PW-24 replied that none of these photographs were
shown to him and he never identified any person in these photographs
as Purshottam Rana on 26.06.2013. He denied the suggestion that
gate no.2 remains closed. He also denied that as and when any vehicle
used to arrive, the gate was opened for making entry of the vehicles.
He also denied the suggestion that he told the number of the vehicle to
the IO as DL-7062. He also denied the suggestion that there were

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 91 of 212      
 124

three persons in the vehicle. He further denied that when the vehicle
arrived near the gate, the occupant told him that they have come to
book Nitesh Kunj for marriage purpose and thereafter the gate was
opened. He admitted that Nitesh Kunj is being booked for marriage
purposes. He denied the suggestion that both the persons seen by him
running towards the gate after the incident of firing, were having
firearms. He volunteered by stating that only one was having the
firearm. He denied the suggestion that one vehicle was moving ahead
of those two persons. He also denied that he had seen one person out
of those boys opening the gate and thereafter both sat in the said
vehicle and ran away from the spot. Attention of the witness was also
drawn by the Ld. Addl. PP towards accused Purshottam and Sunil
present in the court and the witness was suggested that these were the
two persons who were seen by him running towards the gate. PW-24
after seeing the accused persons, replied that they were not those
persons. He denied the suggestion that accused Purshottam and Sunil
were the persons who were seen by him running towards the gate with
weapons. He also denied that he had stated to the police that gate of
Nitesh Kunj was closed when vehicle no. DL 7062 arrived. He also
denied that he opened the gate when occupant of the vehicle told him
that they have come to book Nitesh Kunj. He also denied that after the
incident, one of the two persons running towards the gate opened the
gate and after opening it, both the persons ran in the same vehicle in
which one person was seated on the driver seat. PW-24 denied having
given any statement Ex. PW24/B. He also denied having stated to the
police after seeing the marriage photographs that one of the assailant
is seen in these photographs. He also denied having made any

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 92 of 212      
 125

statement Ex. PW24/C. He also denied having made the statement

before the police after seeing accused Purshottam and Sunil in the
police station that these were the persons who were seen by him. In
this regard, he also denied having made any statement Ex.PW24/D.
The witness was confronted with the statement Ex. PW24/B,
Ex.PW24/C and Ex. PW24/D. He denied the suggestion that he had
been won over by the accused and for this reason he is deliberately not
identifying both of them. On being asked by the court that deposing
falsely in the court is an offence for which he can be punished, PW-24
replied that he knows the consequences. In his cross-examination by
the counsel for accused Purshottam Rana, PW-24 admitted that the
two boys who were seen by him were of the age group of 18-20 years.
He also admitted that he was given physical torture and beatings by
the concerned official in the police station before giving of his statement
to the Magistrate and that he was threatened to depose whatever the
police had told him or otherwise he would be falsely involved. Ld. Addl.
PP was permitted to further cross-examine PW-24 and in his cross-
examination, PW-24 admitted that when his statement was recorded by
the Magistrate, only he and the Magistrate were in the chamber. He
also admitted that he had not told the Magistrate about any threat or
torture. However, he volunteered by stating that he did not do so as the
police was sitting outside the chamber and he was under the threat and
duress of police.
Thus, even PW-24 Brij Kishore Singh did not support the
prosecution case on the lines he was expected to depose. The last of
the three security guards to be examined by the prosecution was
PW-58 Vinod Sharma. His testimony is now taken up in detail.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 93 of 212      
 126

48. PW-58 Vinod Sharma: He was working as a Security

Guard with M/s Bazz Security Company, Kapashera and was assigned
by the said company to do the job of a security guard at Nitesh Kunj.
He was posted at gate no.2 in the parking when the incident dated
26.03.2013 happened. In his examination-in-chief, PW-58 stated that
he was posted as a security guard at gate no.2 in the parking of Nitesh
Kunj for last about 6-7 months prior to the incident. He stated that two
ladies coming from the side of lawn no.2, were crying that 'sahab ko
kisi ne maar ke bhag raha hai'. He stated that he saw three persons
running towards gate no.2, one was flaring knife and the other two who
were ahead were having nothing in their hands. He stated that they
were aged about 18-20 years having fair complexion and short
structure. He stated that thereafter they ran towards outside. He stated
that about 500-1000 vehicles visit Nitesh Kunj and the gate remains
open. He stated that after about 2-3 days of the incident, he was taken
to the police station where he was beaten up and police obtained his
signature on 5-7 ordinary papers. He stated that he was brought to the
court after about 15 days and police personal asked him to tell
whatever was told by the police and also intimidated that if he does not
act to their dictates, they will again beat him up. He stated that he was
produced before a madam to whom he narrated the incident as told by
the police. He stated that thereafter he came back home and then went
to his native place. Since he did not support the prosecution case, he
was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW-58 stated
that he does not know Smt. Ramesh Kumari, wife of deceased Deepak

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 94 of 212      
 127

Bhardwaj and, therefore, cannot tell whether she ever visited Nitesh
Kunj or not. He stated that deceased was staying alone in the house
inside Nitesh Kunj. He further stated that no lady ever came to the gate
and introduced herself as the wife of Deepak Bhardwaj. He stated that
the house inside Nitesh Kunj where Deepak Bhardwaj was staying was
visible from gate no. 2 and was 70-80 steps away. He was shown
photographs already mark PW40/A-1 to PW40/A-16 which he identified
as the photographs of gate no.2. He stated that he does not know
accused Nitesh, son of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj and as such
cannot say whether during his employment as security guard, accused
Nitesh ever visited Nitesh Kunj. He stated that police made inquiries
from him about this case, however, did not record his statement. He
stated that police had brought him to the police station where inquiries
were made after 2-3 days of the incident. He admitted that in the
statement before the Ld. Magistrate when he was asked about his
qualification, he had told that he was 7th class pass. He denied having
told the Magistrate that he was staying with a distant relative at
Kapashera. He volunteered that he told that he was staying at his own
rented room. He stated that he had not told the Magistrate before
making his statement that he was intimidated by the police to make
statement on its lines. He volunteered that police had told him not to
tell the same to the Magistrate. He stated that he had not given any
application and had not apprised the court that his statement
Ex.PW20/I was made under intimidation of the police. He stated that
he did not report to any higher police authority. He admitted that when
inquired by the Magistrate, he told that he had come to make the
statement voluntarily and no one had threatened him to make the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 95 of 212      
 128

statement Ex.PW20/I. He voluntarily stated that he had so stated

because he was intimidated by the police.
In his further cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW-58
stated that he had seen the persons who after firing were coming
towards gate no.2 and they were at a distance of 50-60 metres. He
denied that he came to know about their names as Amit, Purshottam
and Sunil. He was shown photographs of gate no.2 which were marked
as Mark PW58/A1 to Mark PW58/A17 in which a guard can be seen
opening the door and having words with the occupants of a skoda car.
He stated that he is not the said guard who is talking to the occupants
of the said car and the said photographs are not of his. He stated that
on the day of incident, he and the other guard namely Brij Kishore were
on duty at gate no.2. He stated that he is not the person seen in
photographs mark PW58/A1 to A17 and he also cannot say whether
that person is Brij Kishore. He stated that the face of the person in the
photographs is not clearly visible to him. He stated that he does not
know at what time the car had entered the premises. He stated that he
cannot say whether he is one of the two guards in the photograph mark
PW58/B. He stated that the faces in this photograph are not clearly
visible. He denied that he ran behind the vehicle in question on the day
of incident or that he also gave description of the physical appearance
of any of the accused to the police. He stated that he did not see
accused persons running from the gate. He stated that he cannot say
what the person has in his hand who was running behind a vehicle in
photograph mark PW40/A5 and PW40/A6. He stated that he cannot
say that the said person had a firearm/revolver in his hand. He stated
that he cannot say whether the person seen in photograph

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 96 of 212      
 129

mark PW58/C to PW58/J running behind the vehicle had long hair or
had a firearm in his left hand. He admitted that guard is visible at
point A in photograph mark PW58/K, however, cannot say whether the
said guard is Brij Kishore or him. He replied similarly to the guard seen
in photograph mark PW58/L1 to L4. He stated that he only used to
remain at gate no.2 and never visited the house of Deepak Bhardwaj.
He stated that he does not know any lady by the name of Parul
Sharma and no woman at the gate ever disclosed her name to him as
Parul Sharma. He stated that the two ladies running behind were
employed at Nitesh Kunj and were the construction workers working at
a site inside Nitesh Kunj. He stated that it will take about 3-4 minutes to
reach lawn no.2 from the house of the deceased. He stated that he
remained stationed at the gate where two persons came running with
knife in their hands. He stated that police came after about 15-20
minutes. He stated that neither he nor Brij Kishore called the police and
the police came from gate no.2. He stated that he was not standing at
the gate no.2 when police came as he was in the parking. He stated
that he does not know where Brij Kishore was. He stated that there are
high bushes in the parking and one cannot see from there. He stated
that he did not try to catch those two persons as they were having
knives in their hands. In his further cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP,
PW-58 was shown the CCTV footage from the DVR played on a LED
screen arranged by the IO. The CCTV footage was of entry gate no.2
of the time 8:54:59 am onwards to 8:55:32 am of 26.03.2013. He
stated that he is not the person who is seen in this footage opening
entry gate no.2 from which one skoda laura vehicle had entered and
the person manning the gate had a brief conversation with the driver of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 97 of 212      
 130

the car which thereafter proceeded inside the complex and the person
at the gate closed it. There was a court observation that there appears
to be a considerable distance between the person and the car seen in
the footage and the camera and as a result, the face of the person
manning the gate is not clearly visible, though from the physical
appearance and physique of the person manning the gate and as seen
in the footage, resembles the witness. In his further cross-examination
regarding recording of statement by the Magistrate, PW-58 stated that
he did not cry before the Magistrate and did not tell that he was under
any threat of police. He stated that at that time he was terrorized by the
police. He stated that he did not make any statement mark PW58/X to
the police on 26.03.2013. He also denied that he had partly noted
down the number of the skoda car entering from gate no.2 of Nitesh
Kunj as DL 7062 which he told to the IO of this case or that which was
recorded in statement mark PW58/X. He denied that he had stopped
the grey colour skoda car no. DL 6CJ 7062 after opening the entry gate
no.2 and had seen three persons sitting inside or that he made inquiry
from one of the occupant of the car who told that they had come for
booking and want to meet the owner or that for this reason, he had
opened the gate and had let them inside. He also denied that at about
9:15 am, he had seen the said skoda car returning to exit gate no.2
and two persons who were earlier seen sitting inside, were following
the said car with pistols in their hands and that they intimidated him
and the other security guard Brij Kishore to stay away otherwise they
threatened to kill them. He also denied that thereafter one of the said
person who was wearing black lower and white T-shirt opened the exit
gate no.2 or that he and Brij Kishore chased them for some distance,

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 98 of 212      
 131

however, the three persons managed to escape in the skoda car.

PW58 stated that he does not recognize any of the accused persons
and also failed to identify accused Purshottam @ Monu, Sunil Maan
and Amit Mann. He denied the suggestion that he had witnessed these
three accused persons sitting in the skoda car while entering gate no.2
or that he had also seen accused Purshottam @ Monu and Sunil Maan
following the skoda car after shooting Deepak Bhardwaj or that he had
also seen accused Purshottam @ Monu wearing light green colour
lower and black T-shirt and accused Sunil Maan wearing black lower
and white T-shirt and accused Amit Mann driving the said skoda car.
PW-58 was also confronted with his statement mark PW58/X1 which
he denied having made to the police and which was in respect of his
having identified on his visit to the police station on 03.04.2013
alongwith another security guard, accused Purshottam and Sunil as the
two assailants and accused Amit as the driver who were present in the
police station in custody on the said date. He also denied having given
any statement dated 26.06.2013 mark PW58/X2. PW-58 in his further
cross-examination admitted that he was on duty from 8am to 8pm on
26.03.2013 as shown in attendance register Ex.PW43/X with the
relevant entry of his duty at Gate no.2 as Ex.PW58/Y. He denied the
suggestion that on 26.06.2013, police showed him two photographs
mark P1 & P2 of accused Purshottam Rana in green pant, black colour
T-shirt with white collar and a katta in his hand. He denied that on
seeing the photographs he told that accused Purshottam is the same
who was seen by him at entry gate no.2 alongwith his associates Sunil
Maan and Amit Mann or the one following the car carrying pistol in his
hand. In his cross-examination by the defence counsel, PW-58 stated

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 99 of 212      
 132

that police had obtained his signatures on 5-6 blank papers and that he
had not seen any person firing upon any person. He admitted that on
26.03.2013, he was on duty at the parking of Nitesh Kunj and other
security guards namely Ravi Kant and Brij Kishore are almost of the
same height and stature.
As is apparent, even PW-58 did not support the
prosecution case, however, one fact which has emerged from his
testimony and is an important one is the connected link of evidence in
the form of CCTV footage. It is in this context when the three security
guards have turned hostile on every material aspect of the prosecution
case touching upon the identity of the accused persons Purshottam,
Sunil and Amit and also of the identity of the vehicle used in the
commission of crime, reference to the linking evidence of the CCTV
footage becomes important so as to determine whether any support
can be taken therefrom. The material witness in respect of the CCTV
footage is PW-91 Gautam Roy. Though the defence did raise
considerable doubt on the veracity of the CCTV footage through the
hostile testimony of PW-26 Rakesh, however, it is not a material piece
of evidence inasmuch as even if PW-26 is not taken to be the CCTV
Operator at Nitesh Kunj, still the fact that there were CCTV cameras
installed at the spot is not a disputed fact. Veracity of the DVR and of
the CCTV footage was thus to be challenged in the testimony of the
expert witness PW-91 Gautam Roy whose testimony is vital as would
be seen that it touches on the aspect of insufficiency of the CCTV
footage photographs linking the assailants seen therein with that of the
accused persons namely Purshottam, Sunil and Amit.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 100 of 212  
 133

49. PW-91 Gautam Roy: He as an expert at CFSL, CBI was

entrusted with the work of taking out photographs from the CCTV
footage of the place of incident for the relevant period and to also give
report regarding the matching of assailants seen in the CCTV footage
with the photographs of accused Purshottam Rana and Sunil Maan. He
was also entrusted to retrieve the whatsapp data from the mobile
handset make Samsung Galaxy S3 blue colour. In his examination-in-
chief, PW-91 stated that he joined the CFSL, CBI in the year 1979 as
Scientific Assistant and in the year 2011 he being SSO-I was given the
charge of Computer Forensic Division as its Head of the Department.
He stated that on 03.04.2013, he received a sealed parcel sealed with
the seal of NK in FIR no. 121/13, PS Vasant Kunj(S) and this parcel
was found containing one DVR for the extraction and retrieval of CCTV
footage. He stated that on 14.06.2013, he received seven unsealed
parcels containing the photographs of the accused and on 18.06.2013,
received one unsealed parcel containing mobile handset Samsung
Galaxy S3. He stated that the DVR was attached to VRDMC DVD
recorder to make DVD of CCTV footage and three copies were made
concerning three aspects: (a) entry of Skoda; (b) exit of Skoda and (c)
persons running behind the car with gun at the exit gate. He stated that
the Samsung phone was attached to XRY software for retrieval of
whatsapp data. He stated that the photographs said to be of both the
accused were compared by freezing the video and taking the printout.
He stated that after examination, he gave the reply to the queries of the
IO. The conclusion given by PW-91 in his report Ex. PW91/A in the
form of his answers to the queries of the IO is reproduced as under:-

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 101 of 212  
 134

Que1: Whether CCTV Footage of dated 26.03.2013

between 08:30 AM to 09:30 AM showing entry &
exit of grey colour Skoda car. If yes, hard copy be
provided.
Ans: Yes, 17 photographs pasted on a sheet of paper
sequence wise, Annexure-I.
Ques 2: Whether CCTV Footage of dated 26.03.2013 between
08:30 AM to 09:30 AM showing Fire Arms in their hands?
If yes, photograph and hard copy of person.
Ans: Yes, 34 photographs pasted on a sheet of paper
sequence wise, Annexure-II.
Que 3: Whether CCTV Footage of 6th March 2013 between
01:00 PM to 06:30 PM to 06:30 PM regarding visit of
accused person having long hair in Nitesh Kunj. If yes,
photograph and hard copy of the person.
Ans: As such no person seen having long hair as the video is
not clear as the available light is too dim.
Que4: Whether the photographs of persons shown in CCTV
Footage having fire arms in their hands are of the same
person shown in Photographs exhibit in S No. P-1 to P-5.
Ans: Photograph of person shown in CCTV footage in
comparison to specimen photograph marked as Sl. No.
P1 to P5 are likely to be same person regarding their
body built.
Que5: Whether the photographs of persons shown in CCTV
Footage having fire arms in their hands are of the same
person shown in Photographs exhibit in P-6 to P-10.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 102 of 212  
 135

Ans: Photograph of person shown in CCTV footage in

comparison to specimen photograph marked as Sl. No.
P6 to P10 are likely to be same person regarding their
body built.
Que6: Kindly extract the date used on the exhibits till 13th of
February through whats-app application and provide copy
of the same.
Ans: Whats-App is not available in this Samsung Galaxy S-III I-
9300 Mobile Phone.
Que7: Any other relevant information.
Ans No.

In his examination-in-chief, photographs in the

supplementary challan no.3 were shown to PW-91 already mark
PW58/A1 to A17 which he stated having extracted by him from the
DVR and these were identified as Ex. P-91/A-1 to A-17. PW-91 was
also shown other 34 photographs pertaining to the exit of the car which
he identified as having extracted by him from the DVR and proved the
same as Ex. P-91/A-18 to A-51. PW-91 was also shown five
photographs of accused Purshottam and five photographs of accused
Sunil Maan which was taken out from a sealed envelope sealed with
the seal of CFSL GR SSO-II produced by the MHC(M). PW-91 stated
that these photographs were sent to him in an unsealed condition. The
photographs of accused Purshottam were identified as Ex. P-91/A-52
to Ex. P-91/A-56 and of accused Sunil Maan as Ex. P-91/A-57 to
Ex. P-91/A-61. PW-91 stated that after comparing these photographs
with the photographs extracted from the DVR, these were likely to be of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 103 of 212  
 136

the same persons regarding their body built. PW-91 also identified the
Samsung Galaxy S-3 phone as Ex. PY-1 having been sent to him in an
unsealed condition. He also identified the DVR make Ahua which was
sent to him in a sealed condition as Ex.P-87/6. In his cross-
examination, PW-91 admitted that photographs of the two accused
persons shown in the court were not having any long hair. He stated
that he had not used any microscope to come to the conclusion in his
report Ex.PW91/A. He stated that he had not taken any enlarged
photographs from the DVR for the purpose of comparison and in this
regard he voluntarily stated, which holds significance for the
present purpose, that as per resolution, visibility and texture was
very poor and if it was enlarged, the pixel would have broken. He
further stated that he had not mentioned in his report Ex. PW91/A
about the height and description of the body as the same was not
possible. He admitted that the number of persons seen by him in the
CCTV footage, there can be hundred of people of such description in
the area of Delhi NCR. He stated that he had mentioned in the
photographs Ex. P-91/A-18 to Ex.P-91/A-42, the car as Skoda from the
appearance of the car in the photograph and also as it was mentioned
in the forwarding letter sent to him by the IO. He stated that mark made
by him in the photographs mentioning the car as Skoda is not for any
other purpose except for identification by him for his official purpose.
He stated that he cannot tell the model of the said car from the
photographs and cannot say if the cars like Verna, Honda City, Swift
Dzire, Elantra are also having appearance like Skoda or not. He stated
that he also could not find out the logo of the car in the photographs
taken from DVR. PW-91 again voluntarily stated that the resolution of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 104 of 212  
 137

the CCTV footage was very poor and as such the logo cannot be seen
on the car. PW-91 stated that he had mentioned in his report that on
06.03.2013, the light was very dim by which he means to say that
camera could not catch the image properly but the reason he cannot
described at this stage. He stated that he did not clarify the said query
from the IO. He admitted that in these photographs the registration
number of the Skoda car is not visible. He also admitted that he had
not super imposed the photographs of the CCTV footage with that of
the individual photograph. PW-91 again volunteered that because the
resolution was of very bad quality and the figures of the persons
therein was very small, hence, the comparison was not possible. He
stated that he had seen something protruding from the hand of the
person appearing in the photograph and it looks like a firearm,
however, he cannot say whether the said object was a pistol, a country
made pistol, a revolver or a toy pistol or anything like that as the
resolution was of very bad quality. He admitted that he had not
enlarged the said photographs for the reasons mentioned by him
above. He denied that he had given a false report at the instance of IO/
police official. He stated that he had not handed over any other
document to the IO except his report Ex. PW91/A.
The testimony of expert witness as well as a perusal of
the extracted photographs from the CCTV footage makes it apparent
that the identity of the two assailants following the car cannot be
connected with certainty with that of accused Purshottam and accused
Sunil. Even the registration number of the car seen in the CCTV
footage/extracted photographs is not visible except of the logo on the
backside which appears to be that of Skoda car. Colour of the car i.e

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 105 of 212  
 138

grey colour is also apparent in the CCTV footage. However, in none of

the extracted photographs of the CCTV footage, accused Amit Mann is
visible as the driver of the said car. Thus, from the evidence of the
three security guards and also from the CCTV footage, prosecution has
failed in establishing that it was accused Purshottam Rana and Sunil
Maan who as the two assailants had fired gunshots resulting in the
death of Deepak Bhardwaj. Prosecution has also failed in establishing
with some degree of certainty that the car used in the commission of
crime was the Skoda car having registration number DL 6CJ 7062 and
that its driver was accused Amit Mann.

50. At this stage, some other connecting evidence may also

be noted and discussed. The first of the evidence is of the visit of
accused persons Purshottam, Sunil and Amit Mann to the residence of
PW-45 Surender Jhakhar. Prosecution wanted to establish through the
testimony of PW-45 Surender Jhakhar and of his son PW-46 Ankur that
the accused persons after having committed the crime had visited their
house in the skoda car used in the commission of crime and that after
staying briefly at their house and watching the television where news of
the killing of Deepak Bhardwaj was being flashed, that these accused
persons had left their house.

51. PW-45 Surinder Jhakhar: He identified accused

Purshottam Rana to be the brother-in-law of his brother-in-law. He
however did not support the case of prosecution and stated that he
does not know anything else regarding the present case. In his cross-
examination by Ld. Addl.PP, he denied the suggestion that he had

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 106 of 212  
 139

stated to the police that on 26.03.2013 at about 12:00 noon, accused

Purshottam Rana @ Monu alongwith accused Sunil came to his house
when he was having meal and that his wife offered lassi to them or that
accused Purshottam started watching news on television and on
reading the headline regarding murder of BSP leader Deepak
Bhardwaj, he told Sunil that 'kaam ho gaya hai'. He also denied that he
found something suspicious and asked his wife to send them out as
soon as possible or that the two thereafter left his house and he saw
one grey colour Skoda car parked in the gali or that later on, he saw
the news on TV in which accused Purshottam and Sunil were seen
opening the gate of Nitesh Kunj carrying weapons in their hands or that
he also saw the same Skoda car in the news, coming out of Nitesh
Kunj or that he came to know that Purshottam and Sunil came in the
same car to his house. He was confronted with his previous statement
u/s 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW45/A. Similarly, PW-46 Ankur also did not support
the prosecution case and in his examination-in-chief, identified accused
Purshottam Rana to be his maternal uncle and stated that on the
occasion of Holi in the year 2013, he was not present at his home since
he was suffering from Chickenpox. He stated that after 3-4 days when
he came back to his house, police came and took him, his father, his
mother and his sister to PS Vasant Kunj(S) and made inquiry from
them and except that he does not know anything about this case. Even
in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW-46 did not support the
prosecution case and denied the suggestion that he had told the police
that on 26.03.2013 at about 12:00 noon, accused Purshottam @ Monu
alongwith accused Sunil came to his house in a grey Skoda car
bearing no. DL 6CJ 7062 or that his mother offered them food or that

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 107 of 212  
 140

accused Purshottam was carrying one bag (thaila) or that the said bag
was kept by Purshottam below the bed and he started watching news
on TV or that on seeing the news of the murder of Deepak Bhardwaj,
Purshottam said “kaam ho gaya hai” or that accused Purshottam called
Rakesh @ Nanhe through the mobile number 9992925666 of his father
or that he asked him to come to Dadri bus stand or that they left the
house saying that they will return soon. He further denied having
himself seen the news on TV and having noticed accused Sunil
opening the gate and Purshottam running while both carrying weapons
or that he also saw the same Skoda car in the news or that at about 3-
3:30 pm, Rakesh @ Nanhe called on their said mobile phone and
asked regarding their address. He also denied having given any
statement Ex.PW46/A to the police.

52. As is apparent from the testimony of these two witnesses,

they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in respect
of the visit of accused Purshottam and Sunil Maan to their house
immediately after the murder of Deepak Bhardwaj on 26.03.2013. The
other evidence the prosecution has tried to link the two accused
Purshottam and Sunil with the crime is of the recovery of the two
weapons of offence/countrymade pistols which they are alleged to
have thrown in a canal at Jhajjar, Haryana. In this regard, prosecution
has examined PW-67 SI Satender Gulia who on the instructions of the
IO carried out investigation in respect of recovery of the weapons of
offence which as per the claim of prosecution was at the instance of
accused Purshottam. Testimony of PW-67 as a necessary reference is
now being discussed herein under:

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 108 of 212  
 141

53. PW-67 SI Satender Gulia: Though he had participated in

the investigation carried out by the IO on 26.03.2013, however, only
that part of his testimony which is relevant for the present purpose is
being taken up for consideration. PW-67 stated that on 08.04.2013 on
the directions of IO Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary, he alongwith ASI Anand
Prakash and other STF staff took accused Purshottam Rana @ Monu
to the canal which flows between Matanhel and Chhuchukvas village.
He stated that accused Purshottam led them towards the south
direction inside the bank of the canal at a distance of about 600 meters
from the main road and pointed out the place where he had thrown the
kattas/weapons of offence in the canal. He stated that ASI Anand
Prakash and other staff of STF searched for the kattas and after about
15-20 minutes, ASI Anand Prakash took out two countrymade pistols/
kattas smeared with mud from the canal. He stated that he cleaned
both the kattas and upon drying, measured and prepared sketch of
both the kattas which are Ex.PW67/A and Ex.PW67/B. He stated that
thereafter he seized the two kattas by converting it into two pullandas
which were sealed with the seal of SG. He stated that he filled up FSL
form and seal after use was handed over to ASI Anand Prakash. He
proved the pointing out-cum-seizure memo of the two kattas as
Ex.PW67/C and the site plan of the recovery as Ex.PW67/D. He stated
that thereafter they returned to the police station and the case property
was deposited in the malkhana. He also identified the countrymade
pistols produced in sealed parcels as Ex.PW67/P1 and Ex.PW67/P2.
Coming on to his cross-examination by the counsel for accused
Purshottam on this aspect of the matter, PW-67 stated that he does not

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 109 of 212  
 142

remember the DD entry number vide which they had entered their
departure in the police station. He stated that he is not aware if any
such DD entry has been placed on record by the IO. He stated that
they had gone in a Swaraj Mazda Tempo Traveller of Delhi Police and
he admitted that it being a government vehicle, was having a logbook
which is maintained by the driver. He stated that they are not supposed
to sign on the logbook filled by the driver and he is not aware if the
driver had made any entry in the logbook regarding the movement of
the vehicle from Delhi and its return to Delhi. He stated that he is not
aware if any copy of the said logbook has been placed with the charge-
sheet by the IO or not. He denied the suggestion that an officer going
in the vehicle is supposed to sign on the logbook after it is duly filled by
the driver of the vehicle. He stated that they reached at Chhuchakvas
canal at about 4-4:30 pm and he is not aware within the jurisdiction of
which police station the said canal falls and he also did not try to find
out about the police station. He stated that they had not gone to any
police station near Chhuchakvas canal reporting their arrival for the
purpose of investigation. He admitted that there is an office of Irrigation
Department maintaining the canal and he had not obtained any
permission or authorization from the said department to make a search
of the canal. He stated that he had not joined any officer from the said
department in the investigation proceedings. He stated that no public
person was joined since the area was aloof and some drivers of the
vehicles passing through were requested to join but they did not stop.
He stated that no local diver was hired to search for the pistols inside
the canal under water and no private diver was taken by them from
Delhi. He voluntarily stated that since the STF staff knew how to swim,

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 110 of 212  
 143

therefore, no private diver was associated. He further stated that the

proceedings at the canal were not photographed even though they had
their mobile phones with them. He voluntarily stated that the
proceedings were video recorded as they had taken a video camera
with them for this purpose. He stated that it was an official video
camera which was taken from the malkhana of PS Vasant Kunj(S) and
was deposited after use. After going through the judicial record, PW-67
stated that he is unable to state whether the said video footage is on
record or not. He stated that he does not remember the make and
model of the video camera and that the fact regarding videography was
not mentioned by him in his statement given to the IO. He stated that
he does not remember whether any entry was made in register no.19
of MHC(M). He stated that he did not record statement of MHC(M)
regarding issuance and deposit of the video camera and he also did
not record the statement of any of his team members regarding
videography of the proceedings. He stated that he had not mentioned
in writing in Ex.PW67/D about the place from where the recovery was
made, however, it is mark A in the site plan. He admitted that in
Ex.PW67/D, there is no mention that from mark A, two countrymade
pistols were recovered. He stated that he had also not shown the
position of their vehicle in the said site plan. He further stated that he
had also not shown the position of accused Purshottam regarding the
place from where he pointed out about the countrymade pistols. He
stated that he does not remember if anything is mentioned in the
disclosure statement of accused Purshottam as to how he had gone to
Chhuchakvas canal, on what date and time and with whom. He stated
that he had not obtained signature of any other team member on any of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 111 of 212     
 144

the documents prepared by him. He stated that Ex.PW67/D is in his

hand. He stated that they remained there for about 2-2½ hours. He
stated that he had not seized the piece of cloth and the sand which
was removed from the two kattas. He stated that Ex.PW67/A,
Ex. PW67/B and Ex. PW67/C are also in his hand and that the details
and contents thereof are correct and has no manipulation. He admitted
that there is a difference regarding the length of the body of the country
made pistol in Ex.PW67/B wherein it is mentioned as 10.9 cm,
however, in the memo, it is mentioned as 10.5 cm. He stated that he
had mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW67/C that his seal of SG
after use was handed over to ASI Om Parkash. He was confronted with
his statement Ex.PW67/C where no such fact was mentioned. He
stated that he had not signed register no.19 of Malkhana at the time of
deposit of case property. He denied that the weapons were planted on
the accused persons to falsely involve them in the present case.

54. As the testimony of PW-67 would show, serious doubt

has been raised on the alleged recovery of the weapons of offence at
the instance of accused Purshottam from the canal. Whenever any
police officer leaves the police station for the purposes of investigation,
he is required to make an entry in the daily diary/roznamcha. Though
PW-67 deposes about his having made such an entry, however, it is
admittedly not on record and it raises a considerable doubt on the very
visit of the police team to the canal. Another important aspect is of
PW-67 neither reporting about the visit of the police team for the
purposes of investigation to the local police station in Haryana having
jurisdiction over the area of the canal nor of having joined any of the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 112 of 212  
 145

local police in the investigation. It was not that the police team was in a
hurry or that the time used in reporting the matter to the local police
would have resulted in the disappearance of the evidence/weapons of
offence. Another serious doubt is of the non-joinder of the officials of
the Irrigation Department as the testimony of PW-67 is altogether silent
on the point what was the level of the water in the canal when they
visited it alongwith the accused on 08.04.2013. However, there must
have been some water level as otherwise the police official ASI Anand
Prakash would not have to dive in to search and to take out the
weapons of offence from inside the canal. Also, it is strange that ASI
Anand Prakash who had been instrumental in taking out the two
countrymade pistols/weapons of offence from inside the canal was
neither examined by the IO nor was produced as a prosecution
witness. Testimony of IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary also needs to
be noted as only a couple of days before, he too had visited the canal,
however, returned empty handed due to the level of water being high to
the extent of 8-10 feet. Also, PW-93 in his cross-examination stated
that it was SI Satender Gulia who when orally informed him that the
level of water was about 1 ½ – 2 feet, that he instructed him to visit the
canal with the police team. On this point, testimony of PW-67 SI
Satender Gulia is completely silent and instead his deposition that the
police officials had dived in the canal appears to be contrary to the
deposition of PW-93. The relevant portion of the testimony of the IO is
when he was partly cross-examined by the counsel for accused
Purshottam Rana on 05.08.2017. His deposition of the said date and to
the said extent is noted here under:

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 113 of 212  
 146

55. In his cross-examination, PW-93 stated that accused

Purshottam Rana had made a disclosure on 01.04.2013 that he had
thrown two countrymade pistols in Chhuchakvas canal. He stated that
on 05.04.2013, he alongwith HC Mahavir, HC Jagpal and two more
police officials whose names he does not remember, had gone to
Chhuchakvas for recovery of kattas but the water level in the said canal
was high. PW-93 admitted that before 05.04.2013, they had not visited
the canal. He stated that he had not recorded statement of any of his
team mates who had accompanied him on 05.04.2013 to the effect that
they had visited the canal but no recovery could be effected from there
as the water level was very high. PW-93 stated that he had not given
anything in writing to the officials of the irrigation department that the
water level in the canal was high or that he had not made any written
request to them to render help for recovery of the incriminating articles
from the canal. PW-93 volunteered by stating that he had orally told
them about these facts. However, on being questioned whether he
remembers the name and designation of the said official, PW-93
showed his ignorance. PW-93 stated that he is not aware that in order
to take out any article from the canal, permission is required from the
concerned department. He stated that he is also not aware that beldars
are assigned the job to watch and ward the canal throughout. He
stated that the level of the water in the canal was about 8-10 ft and this
is only his approximation and that he did not ask about it from any
official of the irrigation department. PW-93 stated that accused had
pointed out the place from where he had thrown the countrymade pistol
and also the place where it was thrown. He stated that in this regard,
he had not prepared the site plan on 05.04.2013. He stated that they

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 114 of 212  
 147

had gone there at about 1:30 pm and stayed till about 3 pm on

05.04.2013 and during this period, officials of local police station were
not contacted. He stated that he had also not made any entry in this
regard in the concerned police station. He further stated that he had
also not placed any DD entry on record of his having visited
Chhuchakvas canal on 05.04.2013. PW-93 stated that he had not
made any efforts to go to the canal till 08.04.2013, however, he
volunteered by stating that since he remained busy in the interrogation
of accused Baljeet and Nitesh on 08.04.2013, as such he did not visit
the canal himself. He stated that he had not obtained any written
information from the officials of Chhuchakvas canal about the water
level on that day. He stated that he was orally told by SI Satender
Gulia that the water in the canal was about 1½ – 2 feet. He stated
that he himself did not contact the officials of irrigation department on
or before 08.04.2013 to know about the level of water, however, he
volunteered by stating that since SI Gulia had told him about the water
level, therefore, he sent the team there. He stated that he did not
record any statement of SI Satender Gulia in this regard and also does
not remember if this fact was mentioned by him in the case diary or
not. He stated that he does not want to see the case diary. PW-93
further stated that he is not aware if any DD entry was made by SI
Satender Gulia in this regard. He stated that their team headed by SI
Satender Gulia had gone to the canal in a government Tata 407 vehicle
(mini bus) having registration no. DL 1VA 6760. PW-93 admitted that
the log book of the said vehicle is maintained which shows the visit of
the vehicle to Chhuchakvas canal. He stated that he had not placed
any copy of the log book on record nor it was given to him by SI

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 115 of 212  
 148

Satender Gulia. He stated that he had also not collected the same.

56. Thus, as can be seen from the testimony of PW-67 and of

the IO PW-93, there are serious aberrations doubting the entire
recovery proceedings concerning the weapons of offence. The
recovery so effected cannot be said to be free from taint. A further
doubt is raised on the credibility of the recovery proceedings as when
PW-67 in his deposition stated that he got the recovery proceedings at
the canal video recorded. Strangely the said video recording was
neither placed on record nor was otherwise proved. Even no
corresponding entry of the issuance and of return of the official video
camera in the police malkhana was proved by the Malkhana In-charge
PW-84 ASI Dharmender. This again raises a considerable doubt on the
veracity of the recovery proceedings and the recovery of the weapons
of offence/pistols at the instance of accused Purshottam from the
canal.

57. Another linking evidence the prosecution has placed

reliance upon is of the recovery of four live cartridges and the
photographs of the deceased from a room in a plot belonging to the
father of accused Purshottam at the instance of accused Purshottam.
In this regard, prosecution has examined PW-85 ASI Jagpal Singh
whose testimony is discussed below.

58. PW-85 ASI Jagpal Singh: Though he had participated in

the investigation carried out by the IO on 31.03.2013, however, only
that part of his testimony which is relevant for the present purpose is

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 116 of 212  
 149

being taken up for consideration. PW-85 stated that he again joined the
investigation on 13.04.2013 when he alongwith SI K.P. Singh with other
police staff and accused Purshottam @ Monu went to Sonal, Himachal
Pradesh in a private vehicle in search of accused Swami Pratibhanand
at the instance of accused Purshottam but the said accused could not
be traced. He stated that on 14.04.2013, they returned to Delhi and on
that day, accused Purshottam took the police team as above
mentioned to a plot situated at Village Khera, New Delhi which
belonged to his father Prem Chand Rana. He stated that there was
only a room in the plot and the rest of the portion was lying vacant. He
stated that from a corner of the room, accused Purshottam took out a
polythene which on checking was found containing four live cartridges
and one photograph of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. He stated that
accused Purshottam told them that on 26.03.2013, he alongwith his
associate Sunil Maan had fired gunshots on the person of deceased
Deepak Bhardwaj and they fled away in a car which was driven by
accused Amit. He stated that the photograph of deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj having a garland was seized vide memo Ex.PW85/A and the
photograph was got signed by accused Purshottam Rana @ Monu. He
identified the photograph on record as Ex.P-85/1 and the signature of
accused Purshottam at point X thereon. He stated that about the four
live cartridges, accused Purshottam told them that these live cartridges
were with him when they had fired gunshots on deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj and these cartridges remained with him after the incident. He
also told that the countrymade pistols used by him and his co-accused
Sunil Maan in firing on Deepak Bhardwaj were thrown by them in
Chhuchakvas canal and the four live cartridges remained in the vehicle

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 117 of 212  
 150

which he concealed with the photograph in the room of his plot.

PW-85 further stated that SI K.P. Singh prepared the sketch plan
Ex. PW85/B of the live cartridges and after preparing a pullanda of the
live cartridges, the same were sealed and seized vide seizure memo
Ex. PW85/C. He stated that SI K.P. Singh handed over the seal after
use to him and also filled up FSL form. He stated that site plan of the
place of recovery was also prepared by SI K.P. Singh. He stated that
thereafter they returned to PS at about 11:45 pm and the case property
was deposited with MHC(M) by SI K.P.Singh and the documents
prepared by him were handed over to IO Insp. Neeraj. In his cross-
examination by the defence counsel, PW-85 stated that SI K.P. Singh
made a DD entry while leaving the police station on 13.04.2013,
however, he does not remember the number of the said DD nor is he
aware that its copy has been placed on record or not. He stated that on
14.04.2013, they reached the plot of Prem Chand Rana at Village
Khera at about 8.30 pm and in his presence SI K.P. Singh did not
record any disclosure statement of accused Purshottam to the effect
that he can get recovered cartridges and a photograph of deceased
from his plot. He stated that IO did not call Prem Chand Rana, the
owner of the plot and also did not join any other neighbour or any
witness at the time of recovery of the mentioned articles. He stated that
there was a room constructed on the said plot having a gate which was
found opened. He stated that there were houses adjacent and near to
the plot but none was joined from the said houses. He stated that he
had not signed site plan of the plot mark PW85/X which was prepared
by SI K.P. Singh in his hand. He stated that they remained there for
about 1½-2 hours and there was no electric connection in the said plot.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 118 of 212  
 151

He stated that the local police of Village Khera is PS Samaypur Badli

and they had neither gone to the said PS nor the IO informed anyone
in the said PS.

59. Testimony of PW-85 ASI Jagpal Singh again suffers from

many vices. The first and the most important being of the witness
showing his ignorance about SI K.P.Singh having recorded any
disclosure statement of accused Purshottam in his presence. If the
disclosure statement of accused Purshottam was already recorded by
IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary and which as per record was
recorded on 01.04.2013 and therein there was a disclosure of the
accused having concealed four live cartridges and a photograph of the
deceased in a room in a plot belonging to his father, it seems strange
that SI K.P.Singh alongwith this witness instead of first effecting the
recovery of this crucial piece of evidence, would instead chose to visit
Solan, Himachal Pradesh for the search of accused Swami
Pratibhanand. There is also nothing in the testimony of the IO that
immediately after the disclosure he made any attempt to recover this
vital piece of evidence when otherwise the IO in his deposition had
narrated about his having taken the accused to the spot from where he
got recovered one empty used cartridge and also of his visit to
chhuchakvas canal on 05.04.2013 for recovery of the weapons of
offence which however could not be effected due to high water level of
the canal. Another strange thing in this regard is of the non-
examination of SI K.P.Singh who otherwise on this point was the most
important witness. There is force in the submissions of the counsel for
accused Purshottam Rana that no explanation was offered by

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 119 of 212  
 152

IO/PW93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary as to when the present case was

investigated by police station Vasant Kunj(South), then why SI K.P.
Singh of PS Vasant Kunj (North) was engaged to carry out
investigation on an important aspect of the case. No authorization was
also proved by the IO in this regard. It is also doubtful that the recovery
in the night hours would be effected from a room having no electricity
and having no lock and that too the room being in an open vacant plot.
To give credibility to the recovery in such a case where there is a
commission of heinous offence, some efforts ought to have been made
by SI K. P. Singh to have joined any neighbour from the spot or atleast
the private driver of the Innova car in which the police team was
allegedly travelling alongwith accused Purshottam. In these
circumstances, the recovery proceedings of four live cartridges and a
photograph of the deceased has been rendered not reliable.

60. Another linking evidence the prosecution has placed

reliance upon is of the recovery of one used cartridge from Nitesh Kunj
at the instance of accused Purshottam Rana on 02.04.2013 and the
relevant witnesses are the IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary and
PW87 ASI Mahavir Singh. Relevant portions of their respective
testimonies are noted and discussed herein under:-

61. PW-87 ASI Mahavir Singh: He stated that he again joined

the IO in investigation on 01.04.2013 when accused Purshottam was
produced before the IO by SI Arun Dev Nehra of Crime Branch. He
stated that after interrogation, accused Purshottam was arrested by the
IO and his disclosure statement Ex. PW87/E was also recorded by the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 120 of 212  
 153

IO regarding his involvement in the present case alongwith other

accused persons namely Rakesh, Sunil, Amit and Pratibhanand. He
stated that accused further disclosed that he had thrown the arms used
by them in Chhuchakvas canal and can get it recovered. Accused
further disclosed that he had kept four live cartridges and one photo of
deceased at his house and that one empty cartridge was thrown by him
at Nitesh Kunj. He stated that on 02.04.2013, he again joined the
investigation when accused Purshottam Rana took the police team to
southern direction of Nitesh Kunj where there were bushes near a wall
and accused took out an empty case from the said bushes which he
told to be the one having been thrown by him after firing on deceased
Deepak Bhardwaj. He stated that IO Ins. Neeraj prepared sketch of the
said empty used cartridge which is Ex. PW87/M and thereafter sealed
and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW87/N. In his cross-
examination, PW-87 stated that on 02.04.2013 at about 5:30 pm they
reached at Nitesh Kunj alongwith the accused persons and no public
witness was joined at the time of pointing out of the place of incident by
accused Purshottam Rana and of recovery of empty used cartridge. He
stated that the empty cartridge was found lying at a distance of about
50-60 meter from the place of incident towards the southern side of the
house and western side of the incident.

62. PW-93 IO Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary in his examination-in-

chief stated that on 02.04.2013, all the three accused persons were
produced with muffled faces before the concerned court and their
police remand for 10 days was obtained. He stated that during police
remand, accused Purshottam was subjected to sustained interrogation

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 121 of 212  
 154

whereupon he in pursuance of his disclosure, firstly led the police team

to Nitesh Kunj towards Southern side from where near the wall there
were bushes and the accused Purshottam took out a used cartridge
therefrom which he told to be the one which was fired on deceased
Deepak Bhardwaj and was thrown by him in the said bushes. He stated
that he prepared the sketch plan Ex.PW87/M of the said used
cartridge, converted it into a cloth pullanda and sealed it with the seal
of NK and took it into police possession by preparing seizure memo
already Ex. PW 87/N. He further stated that he also prepared site plan
of the place of recovery which is Ex. PW93/O. In his cross-examination
by the counsel for accused Purshottam Rana on the point of recovery
of empty used cartridge, PW-93 stated that he reached the spot at
about 5:00 pm on 02.04.2013 and did not ask any employee or any
other person from Nitesh Kunj to join the investigation. He also did not
call anyone from the neighbourhood to join the investigation. He stated
that he did not obtain signature of accused Purshottam Rana as well as
of HC Mahavir on the site plan Ex. PW93/O. He denied the suggestion
that the empty cartridge was planted vide memo Ex. PW87/N and that
the sketch of the said cartridge and the site plan prepared in this regard
are false and fabricated documents. He stated that he does not
remember if he filled any FSL Form on 02.04.2013.

63. The recovery of the empty used cartridge at the instance of

accused Purshottam from Nitesh Kunj is doubtful inasmuch as the spot
on the date of incident itself i.e on 26.03.2013 was thoroughly searched
not only by the police officials of PS Vasant Kunj(S) but also by the
crime team as well as by the CFSL team. To this effect, deposition of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 122 of 212  
 155

PW-67 SI Satender Gulia needs to be noted who in his cross-

examination by the counsel for accused Purshottam Rana, stated that
the crime team alongwith the IO had searched the area thoroughly
including the bushes to find any incriminating article. Similarly, PW-75
SI Rakesh Kumar who remained present at the spot with the IO on the
date of incident, in his cross-examination stated that on 26.03.2013
they had made a thorough search of the area surrounding the scene of
crime and no incriminating article was found near the place of incident.
He also stated that there were about 50-60 police officials including
many senior police officials and that he remained at the spot till 9:00
pm and did not come to know during this period that any incriminating
article was recovered by any officer at the spot. Even the IO PW-93
Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary in his cross-examination had stated that both
his teams which included SI Satender Gulia, SI Harish Kumar, SI
Rakesh and other police officials alongwith the crime team officials had
made a thorough search in and around the place in order to find out
any incriminating article pertaining to the weapon of offence but no
article was found at that time. In the light of the deposition of these
three witnesses, it is apparent that the spot and the surrounding area in
the Nitesh Kunj was subjected to thorough examination and there was
no recovery of any incriminating article including the empty used
cartridge. It is also unbelievable that the IO would not join anyone at
the Nitesh Kunj when accused Purshottam was taken there on
02.04.2013 for the purpose of alleged recovery of the empty used
cartridge. It is not that the spot was a small private place and it is an
admitted fact that the spot was a hotel which was also used for
marriage functions meaning thereby that plenty of staff must have

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 123 of 212  
 156

remained available at all times. The IO having not joined any

independent person during the investigation concerning the alleged
recovery and also taking into account that the spot was subjected to
thorough search on the date of incident itself, there is a doubt on the
recovery of the empty used cartridge on 02.04.2013 at the instance of
accused Purshottam Rana.

64. Here I may also note the testimony of the ballistic expert
PW-82 Babita Gulia who had examined the recovered weapons of
offence, the empty used cartridge recovered from the spot, the four live
cartridges and the cartridges recovered from the body of the deceased.
She had reported in her report Ex. PW-82/A that the fired cartridges
recovered from the body of the deceased were fired from the two
countrymade pistols sent to her in sealed parcels. She also reported
about the firing of the live cartridges from the said two pistols. Through
her testimony, prosecution made an attempt to establish the link
between the weapons of offence recovered at the instance of accused
Purshottam with the used cartridges/bullets recovered from the body
of the deceased during postmortem. PW-82 Babita Gulia while posted
as a Senior Scientific Officer-Grade-II (Ballistic) CFSL, CBI had
examined six sealed pullandas received in her office on 29.04.2013.
She proved her report on record as Ex.PW82/A.

65. In her examination-in-chief, PW-82 Babita Gulia stated

that on 29.04.2013 she was working as SSO-II (Ballistic) at CFSL, CBI,
New Delhi and on that day, six sealed pullandas Ex. A to F were
received in her office with the seals intact. She gave the description of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 124 of 212  
 157

the pullandas/parcels as under:

(i) Ex.A :- One country made pistol (chambered for

.315/8 mm cartridges) given mark W/1 for
examination.
(ii) Ex.B :- One country made pistol (chambered for
.315/8 mm cartridges) given mark W/2 for
examination.
(iii) Ex.C :- Four .315/8mm cartridges given mark C/1 to
C/4 for examination.
(iv) Ex.D :- One .315/8mm fired bullet stated to have
been recovered from the body of deceased
during postmortem. It was given mark BC/1.
(v) Ex.E :- Two .315/8mm fired bullets stated to have
been recovered from the body of the
deceased during postmortem. These were
given mark BC/2 and BC/3 for examination.
(vi) Ex.F :- One .315/8mm fired cartridge given mark
C/5 for the purposes of examination.

66. She stated that after conducting the forensic examination,

she found that mark W/1 and W/2 are firearms and are in working
order. She further found that the cartridges mark C/1 to C/4 are
ammunition as defined under the Arms Act and were live ones. She
further noticed that the cartridge case mark C/5 and fired bullet mark
BC1 were fired from pistol mark W/1 and the fired bullet mark BC/2 was

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 125 of 212  
 158

fired from country made pistol mark W/2. Lastly, she found that the fired
bullet mark BC/3 could not be connected with either of the two country
made pistol mark W/1 and W/2 for want of sufficient comparable
characteristic marks. She also test fired two 8 mm cartridges mark C/1
and C/2 from pistol W/1 and two 8 mm cartridges mark C/3 and C/4
from pistol W/2. The country made pistol produced during her
examination were identified as already Ex. PW67/1 and Ex.PW67/2,
the four cartridges mark C/1 to C/4 were identified as Ex. P-82/1 to Ex.
P-82/4. The fired bullet found in parcel Ex. D was identified as Ex. P-
82/5 fired from pistol Ex. P-67/1 and the two fired bullets from parcel
Ex. E identified as Ex. P-82/6 and Ex.P-82/7 were fired from pistol
Ex.P-67/2.

67. In her cross-examination, PW-82 stated that she cannot

tell name of the official with whom the six parcels remained from
29.04.2013 to 16.05.2013. She stated that the said parcels came in her
custody on 16.05.2013 and remained with her till 02.08.2013. She
stated that she had not noted down in her report that she had followed
all the procedures prescribed in the working manual issued by CFSL,
CBI. She stated that she also did not mention individual character
marks of the weapons in her report Ex.PW82/A. She stated that there
were striation marks inside the barrels of firearms Ex.P-67/1 and Ex.P-
67/2. She denied that as a general rule followed during ballistic
examination, it is considered that the barrels of country made weapons
do not have individual striation marks. She admitted that she had not
mentioned in para 8 sub-para v about which of the comparable
individual characteristic marks were not present in the exhibits. She

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 126 of 212  
 159

denied that she had deliberately not mentioned individual characteristic

marks in her report Ex.PW82/A. In her further cross-examination, PW-
82 admitted that she had not read any topic regarding use and
comparison of firearms and cartridges while studying M.Sc
(Chemistry). She stated that she did not mention anything in her report
that during her tenure in forensic lab, she had experienced with regard
to firearms. She admitted that she had not done any specialized course
in dealing with firearms and ammunitions. On being asked, what
examination she conducted with regard to seized and test fired
cartridges to determine that these have been fired from the same
firearm/country made pistol, PW-82 stated that it was on the basis of
firing pin mark, breach face mark and chamber marks. She stated that
she had not mentioned these facts in her report Ex. PW82/A. She
stated that she does not remember what was the length of the breach
mark in each of the cartridges examined by her. She stated that she
did not examine the parameters viz. the length, breadth and the
distance between the breach mark on each of the cartridges and that
she had concluded in her report on the basis of super imposition of
images. She stated that she had not given the distance from the
circumference of the cartridge to the point of impact on the cartridge by
the pin. She stated that there were no groove mark on the bullets in the
present case. She stated that she had not examined the thumb pin
mark on the cartridges formed due to the explosion of gases formed at
the time of firing of cartridges. She stated that she had taken
photographs of cartridges and bullets while making comparison and
this fact has not been mentioned in her report Ex. PW82/A and she had
also not submitted these photographs alongwith her report. She stated

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 127 of 212  
 160

that she had not taken any photographs of the cartridges/bullets before
the start of examination and after conclusion of the same. She stated
that she does not remember what was the shape i.e. oval or circular of
the firing pin. She admitted that she had not mentioned even this fact in
her report. She denied that her report Ex. PW82/A is not based on any
scientific analysis or examination and that she is not qualified to
examine firearms and ammunitions.

68. PW-82 was recalled for her examination on the

application of Ld. Addl. PP as one of the exhibits / parcel F could not be
exhibited and proved. The sealed parcel F was produced by the
MHC(M) which was opened and one fired cartridge was taken out
which was identified as Ex.P-93/1 and she stated that it was fired from
the pistol Ex. PW-67/P1. In her further cross-examination, PW-82
admitted that there were striation marks present on the fired bullet
mark BC/3 as mentioned in her report, however, she stated that the
said marks were not sufficient to form any opinion. On being asked,
how many striation marks should be present on the fired bullet to form
an opinion, she stated that number of striation marks are not relevant
to form an opinion and that opinion can be given on a particular
individual mark if it repeats in each test fire and that opinion can also
be given if few patches of striation marks are similar and matching at
different corresponding position and orientation on repeat fires. She
stated that sometimes it happens in a country made pistol that
sufficient pressure is not developed at the time of firing, therefore,
sufficient striation marks may not be there. She stated that in the
present case, both the weapons of offence which were sent to FSL

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 128 of 212  
 161

were the country made fire arms. She stated that though there were
certain striation marks present on the fired bullet mark BC/3 but these
were not sufficient to give any opinion regarding its linkage. She stated
that sufficiency of striation marks means that there should be proper
length of the striation mark to given an opinion and this length varies
from weapon to weapon. She admitted that she did not mention in her
report about the length of the striation mark on the fired bullet
examined by her in her report. She also admitted that each of the
striation mark formed by different weapon can also have its individual
depth. She stated that the microscopic examination photographs which
were taken by her at the time of comparison have not been filed by her
at the time of giving her opinion to the investigating agency and the
same have not been brought by her. She admitted that she had not
mentioned anywhere in her report Ex.82/A that it was on the basis of
comparison of striation marks that she had given her opinion.

69. Her testimony shows that the report which otherwise

would have been unimpeachable has been rendered doubtful due to
many lapses pinpointed by the defence in her cross-examination.

70. Another linking evidence in the prosecution case is of the

identification of the car used in the commission of crime as Skoda
Laura Car bearing registration no. DL 6CJ 7062 and of its recovery at
the instance of accused Rakesh @ Nanhe from the house of his in-
laws at Village Baprota, Sampala, Haryana. If one goes by the version
of the prosecution case regarding the recovery of Skoda car and also
of its consequent deposit at the Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar/Saket, there

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 129 of 212  
 162

is a considerable doubt not only in the recovery of the car but also in
the manner it was allegedly brought from the house of in-laws of
accused Rakesh to PS Vasant Kunj(S) and then having been taken
from the police station to Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar/Saket. As already
noted, complainant PW-40 Krishan Singh did not provide the IO with
the complete registration particulars of the car and the particulars
provided were of the number as DL-7062. It has already been noted in
the testimony of the expert PW-91 Gautam Roy that in the photographs
extracted from the CCTV footage, the registration number of the
vehicle was not visible, however, it could be made out that the car was
Skoda car of grey colour. Even the IO PW-93 in his cross-examination
admitted that from the scrutiny of the CCTV footage, number of the car
which entered Nitesh Kunj at 9:05 am and exited at 9:15 am could not
be deciphered and the said fact was got inadvertently recorded by him
during his examination-in-chief. With these details in hand, IO had
assigned the job of verifying the registration particulars of the said car
from the Traffic Line, Teen Murti to PW-73 SI Babu Lal. Here,
testimony of PW-73 SI Babu Lal is worth noting as he is an important
witness for the prosecution since it is through him that the IO had got
verified the complete particulars of the Skoda car as DL 6CJ-7062
registered in the name of one Gaurav Kumar resident of Sanjay Nagar,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. As his testimony would show, though he claimed
to have collected information of the given car from the Traffic Line,
Teen Murti, however, the only document submitted by him with the IO
and which became part of the charge-sheet is a computer printout of
the details of the vehicles with particulars relating to DL 7062. This
computer printout which was identified as mark 73/A could not be

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 130 of 212  
 163

proved for want of its authenticity, it being a computer generated

document without having any supporting certificate u/s 65B of
Evidence Act or any stamp or signature of any person issuing the same
and having been examined by the IO. In his examination-in-chief, PW-
73 SI Babu Lal stated that on 26.03.2013, he was working as Division
Officer of Rajokri Farm House and Rajokri Village. He stated that on
coming to know that a murder had taken place at Nitesh Kunj farm, he
reached the spot where he met the IO who directed him to collect
information / details of grey colour Skoda Laura Car bearing no. DL-
7062. He stated that he went to Traffic Teen Murti Line and came to
know the details of the car with its full number as DL 6CAJ 7062
registered in the name of Gaurav Kumar s/o Ramesh Kumar r/o A-38,
Gali No.14, Sanjay Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. He stated that he took
out the printout of the said information and telephonically passed on
the information to the IO. He stated that thereafter he went to the police
station where he handed over the said printout to IO Insp.Neeraj
Chaudhary which on record is mark 73/A. In his cross-examination by
the defence counsels, PW73 stated that his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC
was not recorded by the IO in this case. He stated that he had not
given any request letter to the concerned officer at Teen Murti Traffic
Line and he also cannot tell the name of the said officer/clerk from
whom he took the printout mark 73/A. He stated that he did not record
statement of any such person and also did not take any certificate u/s
65B of the Evidence Act from the concerned officer. He stated that he
reached the office at about 1 pm, remained there for about 10 minutes
and then reached the police station at about 3.30-4 pm. He stated that
no seizure memo was prepared by the IO when he gave him document

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 131 of 212  
 164

mark 73/A in the police station. He stated that he had not obtained
signature of the concerned officer from traffic department on mark 73/A
and he himself also did not sign the two pages of mark 73/A at the time
of handing it over to the IO. He stated that he had not obtained any
certificate that there was only one Skoda Laura Car grey colour
registered in Delhi with number DL-7062. He stated that in mark 73/A,
there is no mention that the said skoda car was of grey colour as told
by him to the IO. He voluntarily stated that the colour of the said car
was C-Beige colour. He denied that mark 73/A is a false and a
fabricated document.

71. As is apparent from the testimony of PW-73 SI Babu Lal,

the information concerning the Skoda car used in the commission of
crime has not been proved on record since the document mark 73/A in
the absence of any signature of its author/maker and also in the
absence of any supporting certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence
Act cannot be said to be anything more than a plain piece of paper.
Another contradiction to be noted from the document mark 73/A
concerning the Skoda car no. DL 6CJ 7062 is that of its colour which is
stated to be C-Beige colour and not grey colour as is visible in the
CCTV footage. No explanation was forthcoming either from the IO or
even from the registered owner that the colour of the car was changed
from its original colour to grey colour as seen in the CCTV footage. The
evidence, thus, brought on record puts to doubt the entire prosecution
story since it was with this link that the IO had apprehended the first
accused Rakesh @ Nanhe. Another contradiction in this regard needs
to be noted which further puts to doubt the prosecution case

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 132 of 212  
 165

concerning the use of Skoda car no. DL 6CJ 7062 in the commission of
crime and it is concerning the failure of the prosecution in establishing
that the said car was sold by its registered owner to accused Rakesh
@ Nanhe in the presence of accused Purshottam @ Monu. Two
witnesses in this regard were examined by the prosecution, the first
being the registered owner PW-55 Gaurav and the other being his
brother PW-57 Rajnish Kumar. So far as the testimony of PW-55
Gaurav is concerned, as already noted, he is a formal witness
inasmuch as except of his having stated that he is the registered owner
of Skoda car bearing no. DL-6CJ-7062 which he had purchased from
Krishna Motors and that his brother Rajnish Kumar having sold it to
one person in the month of March 2013 in his absence, the witness did
not utter anything either about the name of the person who had bought
the car or of his identity. As to PW-57 Rajnish Kumar, though he did
utter about his having sold the Skoda car in the name of his brother to
accused Rakesh @ Nanhe and Purshottam @ Monu, however, before
his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP could be concluded and
before he was subjected to cross-examination by the defence, this
witness unfortunately died in an accident. As such, his part recorded
testimony cannot be read in evidence either for or against the
prosecution or defence. Nonetheless, one link which the prosecution
tried to establish was of execution of sale-purchase documents
Ex.PW57/A to Ex. PW57/E having signatures of accused Rakesh @
Nanhe in respect of the Skoda car which PW-57 is stated to have
handed over to the IO on 09.06.2013. In this regard, relevant part of
the testimony of the IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary and of PW-87
ASI Mahavir needs to be noted.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 133 of 212  
 166

72. PW-93 IO Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary in his examination

stated that on 27.03.2013, police team was sent to the residence of
Gaurav, registered owner of the Skoda car, at H.No. A-38, Gali No.14,
Sanjay Nagar, Adarsh Nagar where his brother Rajnish met who was
then called for interrogation to the police station. He further stated that
during interrogation, Rajnish told that they had sold the said car on
19.03.2013 to one Rakesh of Village Khera, Delhi for Rs. 8 lac towards
which Rs. 1.5 lac was paid by Rakesh and Purshottam in cash and for
the remaining amount, one Santro car no. HR 55 MT 9141 was given
as security. He further stated that Rajnish also told that at the time of
purchase of the said vehicle, Purshottam @ Monu had accompanied
Rakesh. He further stated that he recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of
PW Rajnish, PW Gaurav and HC Mahavir on 16.05.2013. Though the
testimony of IO was silent on the point when the documents of sale-
purchase of the Skoda car bearing signatures of accused Rakesh @
Nanhe were seized in the present case, however, in his cross-
examination, he stated that he had met the witness Gaurav Kumar for
the first time after about 6-7 days of the incident when he was called to
the police station after serving him with the notice which has not been
placed on record with the charge-sheet. He stated that the witness
Gaurav Kumar was again summoned to the police station to bring the
original documents related to the sale and purchase of the said vehicle,
however, the witness did not produce any document during his second
visit to the police station despite directions and that it was on
09.06.2013 that Rajnish Kumar, brother of the registered owner,
handed over to him the original documents pertaining to the vehicle in

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 134 of 212  
 167

question in the police station which were placed on record with the
charge-sheet. If one goes by the version of the IO, then the sale-
purchase documents in respect of the Skoda car bearing signature of
accused Rakesh @ Nanhe were handed over by PW Rajnish on
09.06.2013. However, contrary to this, in the testimony of PW-87 ASI
Mahavir, it came on record that in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC
Ex. PW87/PX which as per the own admission of the IO was recorded
by him on 16.05.2013, there was a mention that sale-purchase
documents of the Skoda car were seized on 16.05.2013 itself as
against the claim of the IO that the documents were seized on
09.06.2013 when these were brought to the police station by the
witness Rajnish Kumar. Owing to this serious contradiction, the
resultant examination of these documents with the sample signatures
of accused Rakesh @ Nanhe by the expert PW-80 Avdesh Kumar has
no meaning when a question mark has been raised on the veracity of
the sale-purchase documents of the car itself.

73. Another aspect of the prosecution evidence concerning

the Skoda car no. DL6CJ 7062 is of its recovery at the instance of
accused Rakesh @ Nanhe and then its inspection by the CFSL team at
Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar/Saket which resulted in recovery of some
hair strands which on expert examination and comparison with the hair
samples of the accused persons, matched with that of accused Sunil
Maan. I will first take up the evidence in respect of the alleged recovery
of the skoda car at the instance of accused Rakesh. As per the
testimony of IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary, it was in the night
intervening 31.03.2013-01.04.2013, that he alongwith SI Vishal, HC

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 135 of 212  
 168

Jagpal and few other staff members went to Village Baprota, Sampala,
Haryana. Accordingly, testimony of PW-65 SI Vishal Chaudhary so far
as it relates to the recovery of the Skoda car at the instance of accused
Rakesh is taken up for consideration.

74. PW-65 SI Vishal Chaudhary in his examination-in-chief

stated that on 31.03.2013 when he was posted as SI at PS Vasant
Kunj(S), IO Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary interrogated and arrested accused
Rakesh @ Nanhe in the police station. He stated that one mobile
phone was also recovered in the personal search of accused Rakesh
which the IO separately seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW65/C. He
stated that IO also recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW65/D of
accused Rakesh @ Nanhe and in pursuance of the said disclosure
statement, accused Rakesh led them to Village Baprota, Sampala in
Haryana in a government vehicle No. DL 1VA 6760. He stated that
accused had pointed towards a Skoda Laura Car parked inside the
gate of the house of his in-laws in the said village. Accused Rakesh
also got recovered the key of the said car from under a mattress of a
bed lying in a room. He stated that on opening the car, two number
plates were recovered from its dickey and the RC was found on the
dashboard. He stated that IO prepared the pullanda of the recovered
number plates by wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed the same with
his seal of NK. He stated that the pullanda and the RC with the car
were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW65/E and the key was seized
vide seizure memo Ex.PW65/F. He stated that thereafter the IO got the
skoda car towed and it was brought to Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar
where it was got parked under the supervision of a constable. He

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 136 of 212  
 169

stated that IO also instructed SI Rakesh to go to CFSL, Lodhi Colony

and call the CFSL team for inspection of the skoda car. In his cross-
examination, PW-65 stated that he alongwith HC Jagpal and Insp.
Neeraj left the PS for further investigation at about 1 am in the night
intervening 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 to Village Baprota, District
Jhajjar, Haryana. He stated that it took them about two hours to reach
the village and they did not visit any other place on the way. He stated
that they had gone in an official gypsy whose number he does not
remember. He stated that at Village Baprota, father-in-law of accused
Rakesh namely Bir Bhan met them at his house and there were other
family members as well but the police team had a talk only with Bir
Bhan. He stated that he does not remember whether IO recorded any
statement of Bir Bhan. He stated that he does not remember how many
entry and exit gates were there in the house of Bir Bhan but the house
was built up to ground floor. He stated that they remained in the village
for about 1½ to 2 hours and does not remember whether any
independent witness from the village or the said Bir Bhan was made as
an attesting witness to the proceedings carried out at Village Baprota.
He stated that he does not remember whether any departure or arrival
entry was recorded by the IO at PS Vasant Kunj before leaving or after
returning. He stated that he did not make any such entry himself. He
stated that he does not remember if any photography or videography of
the place in Village Baprota was done during investigation. He stated
that the vehicle was checked by the IO, however, he does not
remember whether any other police official beside the IO entered the
car but he did not enter. He stated that after completing the
proceedings at Village Baprota, the police team returned to PS Vasant

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 137 of 212  
 170

Kunj(S) at about 7 am on 01.04.2013 and the said car was brought to

PS Vasant Kunj by a police official whose name he does not remember,
who drove it from the village to the police station. He stated that the car
in question and the police gypsy returned simultaneously taking the
same route. He stated that the car was towed to Auto Pond, Malviya
Nagar from PS Vasant Kunj(S) after about one hour of their return from
the village. He stated that he does not remember whether the car was
towed to Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar by a police vehicle or any other
vehicle. He stated that the fact that the skoda car was towed and
brought to Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar and was got parked there under
the supervision of a Constable, was told to him by the IO.

75. Another witness to the recovery proceedings is PW-85

ASI Jagpal Singh (who at the relevant time was posted as Head
Constable at PS Vasant Kunj(S). However, in his deposition, PW-85 did
not utter a word that he had joined the IO and SI Vishal when they were
led by accused Rakesh Kumar to Village Baprota for the recovery of
Skoda car. This raises a doubt on the veracity of the recovery
proceedings. The other witness is the IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj
Chaudhary himself and he in his examination-in-chief stated that
accused Rakesh in pursuance of his disclosure led the police team to
Village Baprota, Sampala in a government vehicle and pointed towards
a grey Skoda Laura Car (without number plate) which was parked
inside the house of his in-laws. He further stated that accused Rakesh
took out the keys of the car from under a mattress of a bed lying in a
room. He stated that on opening the dickey of the car, two number
plates of number DL 6CJ 7062 were recovered which were kept in a

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 138 of 212  
 171

white cloth pullanda and were sealed with the seal of NK. He stated
that original RC of the car was also recovered from its dashboard. He
stated that the car, the RC and the pullanda of the number plates was
taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW65/E. He
stated that the key of the car was separately seized vide memo
Ex. PW65/F. He stated that he prepared the site plan of the recovery of
the car which is Ex. PW93/N. He further stated that the car was towed
to Delhi with the help of the government vehicle and was parked. He
stated that one constable was deputed for the safety purpose and that
he instructed SI Rakesh to get the car inspected by the CFSL team. In
his cross-examination on the point under consideration, PW-93 stated
that he alongwith SI Vishal, HC Jagpal and other staff members went to
Village Baprota, Sampala, Haryana at about 1:00 am in the night
intervening 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 in two government vehicles, a
gypsy and a mini bus. He stated that he does not know whether on the
said day, logbooks of the two government vehicle were updated by the
drivers or not. He stated that they reached Village Baprota at about
3:00 am and remained there for about two hours during which entire
proceeding was conducted. He stated that the local police was not
involved in the raid and no local independent witness or village
headman was joined by him during the recovery proceedings
conducted at Village Baprota. He stated that the seized car was towed
with the help of a towing rod through the government mini bus. He
stated that they returned to the police station with the recovered car at
about 7:00 am on 01.04.2013. He stated that the car was kept for
about half an hour in the police station. He stated that at Village
Baprota, the car was again locked by him after taking its search. He

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 139 of 212  
 172

stated that the car was taken to Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar from PS
Vasant Kunj(S) by SI Rakesh and that he does not know as to how the
car was taken by SI Rakesh to whom he had handed over the keys of
the car. He stated that he took the keys of the car from SI Rakesh in
the evening of 01.04.2013 and thereafter it was deposited in the police
malkhana. He stated that DD entries to the said effect were recorded
but have not been placed on record with the charge-sheet.

76. From the testimony of PW-65 SI Vishal Chaudhary and of

the IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary, it is again apparent that the
investigation concerning the recovery of the Skoda car at the instance
of accused Rakesh has not been carried out in a manner which can be
said to be without any taint or suspicion. The first of the issue as has
been noted on other aspects of the prosecution facts as well is of the
IO not proving the DD entries regarding the departure and arrival in
respect of the investigation carried out by him on a given day. His bald
assertion that the DD entries were recorded cannot be believed when
as per his own admissions, the said DD entries were never placed on
record with the charge-sheet. When asked for the explanation, IO has
nothing to offer and it in itself is a pointer to the nature of investigation
carried out by him. Another aspect is of neither reporting to the local
police of the other State (Haryana) nor joining any local police official or
the village headman or any other respectable member of the village in
the investigation proceedings. Once the IO got to know from the
disclosure of accused Rakesh @ Nanhe and was also aware about the
identity and details of the car prior thereto through the information
provided by PW-73 SI Babu Lal, it became imperative for the IO to

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 140 of 212  
 173

have joined some independent witness considering that this was a

case of broad daylight murder of a known personality in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy and was being under the constant vigil and
supervision of senior police officials. Though it is not a necessity that in
respect of the investigation proceedings, independent public witnesses
have to be joined all the time since it is hard to find independent
witnesses to such proceedings, however, considering the lapses in the
investigation especially in respect of not proving on record the
departure entries or arrival entries and of other contradictions,
testimony of the police witnesses who in the given facts of the case are
appearing to be motivated to proceed in a given direction, the same
cannot be believed and be said to be safe to be relied upon in the
absence of any independent corroboration . The way and the manner
the car has been shown recovered on account of the above has thus
been rendered doubtful.

77. The other linking evidence the prosecution was relying

upon is of the recovery of hair strands from the Skoda car by the CFSL
team and its matching with the DNA profile in the hair samples of
accused Sunil Maan. As would be seen from the discussion of the
evidence of the concerned witnesses, it is again doubtful and is not
free from suspicion. As already noted, PW-65 in his testimony had
stated that the Skoda car was brought to police station Vasant Kunj by
a police official whose name he does not remember, who drove it from
the village to the police station. He had further stated that the car was
towed to Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar after about one hour of their return
from the village and this fact was told to him by the IO. As per the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 141 of 212  
 174

deposition of IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary, it was PW-75 who

was entrusted with the job of taking the Skoda car to Auto Pond,
Malviya Nagar and to get it examined there by a CFSL team. In this
respect before taking up the testimony of PW-75 SI Rakesh for
consideration, relevant part of the cross-examination of the IO needs to
be noted. IO PW-93 in his cross-examination stated that the seized car
was towed with the help of a towing rod through the government mini
bus (this is contrary to the deposition of PW-65 SI Vishal Chaudhary
who in his cross-examination stated that the car was brought to police
station from the village by a police official by driving the car). The IO
further stated that the recovered car was brought to the police station
at about 7:00 am on 01.04.2013 where it was kept for about half an
hour and then was shifted to Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar by SI Rakesh.
However, the IO stated that he does not know how the car was taken
to Auto Pond by SI Rakesh to whom he had handed over the keys of
the car. He further stated that he took the keys back from SI Rakesh in
the evening of 01.04.2013 and then got it deposited in the police
Malkhana. On this point, the IO true to his conduct while making a
mention that DD entries were recorded, again stated that the same
were not placed on record with the charge-sheet. Now the relevant part
of the testimony of PW-75 SI Rakesh is taken up for consideration.

78. PW-75 SI Rakesh Kumar in his examination-in-chief

stated that on 01.04.2013 on the instructions of IO, he took one Skoda
Laura grey colour car bearing no. DL 6CJ 7062 to Auto Pond, Saket,
South District, New Delhi by getting it towed with the help of a TATA
407 vehicle. He stated that CFSL team visited Auto Pond and

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 142 of 212  
 175

inspected the vehicle. He stated that he was told by the CFSL team
that some hair on the front seat and the back seat of the said car have
been noticed and the same were lifted by the CFSL team with the help
of a plucker. The hair strands so lifted were kept in an envelope and the
said envelope was kept in a plastic container and was sealed by a
doctor tape with the seal of RK affixed thereon. The container so
sealed was seized by him by preparing seizure memo Ex. PW75/A. He
stated that whereas the CFSL team left the Auto Pond, he returned to
the PS and handed over the seizure memo with the sealed container to
the IO. In his cross-examination, PW-75 stated that he had not affixed
any seal on the small brown envelope Ex. PW75/P2 when the hair
strands were kept in the said envelope by the CFSL team. He stated
that neither he signed on the envelope nor obtained signature of any of
the member of the CFSL team or of the officer of CFSL who had lifted
the hair from the car. He stated that he also did not put any date of
seizure on the said brown envelope. He stated that he does not
remember whether CFSL team took photographs of the hair strands or
not. He stated that he did not record statement of any of the CFSL
expert who was present at the Auto Pond. He stated that his statement
was recorded by the IO on 26.03.2013 and on 03.04.2013. He stated
that the fact that he took the car on 01.04.2013 and deposited it at Auto
Pond, Saket is not stated by him in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He
stated that he cannot tell whether any statement of his was recorded
with regard to the fact that he had joined investigation concerning
examination of Skoda Laura Car. He stated that he does not remember
whether any DD entry was made with regard to his taking the car from
the police station to Auto Pond, Saket. He stated that he also does not

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 143 of 212  
 176

remember if any DD register is maintained at Auto Pond, Saket so as

to make entry of arrival and departure of any person or vehicle. He
stated that no memo in respect of taking out the car in question from
Malkhana of PS Vasant Kunj(S) was prepared by him. He stated that a
police vehicle Tata 407 was used for towing the car to Auto Pond,
however, he does not remember name of the driver of Tata 407 and
that the said driver was not associated in the investigation and was not
asked to become an attesting witness to the seizure memo
Ex.PW75/A. He stated that IO did not hand him over any document
regarding the description and details of the car which was taken by him
to Auto Pond. He voluntarily stated that IO gave verbal instructions. He
stated that the car in question was not having any number plate either
on the rear or on the front when it was taken by him to the Auto Pond.
He stated that when he took the vehicle in question to Auto Pond, he
did not check whether it was locked or not. He stated that he does not
remember if he took alongwith him the keys of the said car. He stated
that he does not remember whether he opened or unlocked the car for
inspection of CFSL team or whether the CFSL experts opened it
themselves.

79. The other witness in respect of examination of Skoda car

at Auto Pond is PW-25 Ct. S. N. Ashraf and relevant portion of his
deposition is noted here. In his testimony, PW-25 stated that on
02.04.2013 on the directions of the IO, he got inspected one Skoda Car
bearing registration no. DL 6CJ 7062 by a team of CFSL experts. In
his cross-examination by the defence counsel, PW-25 stated that his
statement in this case was recorded on 02.04.2013 and his statement

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 144 of 212  
 177

was read over to him by the IO. The statement Ex.PW25/DA was
shown to him which he stated that it is the same and is the correct
statement. He admitted that he had stated in his statement
Ex.PW25/DA that it was on 27.03.2013, that the vehicle make Skoda
no. DL 6CJ 7062 was got parked as per instructions of IO. He stated
that he is a post-graduate/M.A in Hindi. He stated that when he joined
the duty, the said vehicle was already parked and it was not deposited /
parked in the Auto Pond, Malviya Nagar in his presence. He stated that
he does not remember the name of any of the CFSL team member
who had visited the auto pond in the noon time from 11 am to 3 pm. He
stated that they were 3-4 in number but he does not know their
designation. He stated that a daily diary register (roznamcha) is being
maintained at the auto pond and on that day he was maintaining the
same. He stated that he did not mention in the Roznamcha about the
visit of the CFSL team and about any detail qua inspection. He stated
that he does not know whether the said car was locked or unlocked. He
volunteered by stating that he was instructed not to touch or allow
anyone to touch the said car. He stated that key of the said car was not
given to him by anyone when he joined the duty and he is not aware as
to how the car was opened by CFSL team at the time of inspection. He
further stated that he does not know till date as to how the Skoda car
was brought to auto pond. He stated that he did not inquire from the IO
about the bringing of the car to auto pond. He stated that he does not
remember name of other police officials who were present at the time
of inspection of car and no separate document was prepared by
anyone regarding inspection of the car on that day. He stated that no
inspection report was prepared by the CFSL team at the spot.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 145 of 212  
 178

80. As is apparent from the testimony of PW-25 Ct. S. N.

Ashraf and PW-75 SI Rakesh, there are material contradictions not
only in respect of the deposit of Skoda car at Auto Pond, Malviya
Nagar/Saket but also of its inspection by the experts. Whereas PW-75
SI Rakesh was evasive in his replies to the queries of the defence
regarding whether the car was locked or not; who had the keys of the
car; who opened the car for the inspection by the expert team and
about the recording of DD entry both at the police station of the taking
of the car and at the Auto Pond of the deposit of the car and also of the
visit of the CFSL expert team for inspection, as to PW-25 Ct. S. N.
Ashraf, he introduced an altogether new fact contrary to the
prosecution version as presented by the IO when he deposed that it
was on 27.03.2013 that the Skoda car no. DL 6CJ 7062 was got
parked at the Auto Pond as per instructions of the IO. He also did not
utter a single word about the presence of PW-75 SI Rakesh at the time
when the vehicle was inspected. Thus, the contradictions in the
testimony of PW-25 and PW-75 are major aberrations contradicting the
prosecution case on the vital aspects concerning the examination of
the Skoda car by the expert team. It may also be noted here that as per
the testimony of PW-65 SI Vishal Chaudhary, the Skoda car was
brought to the police station from the village by a police official by
driving it. Possibility of the tampering of the car, thus, cannot be ruled
out and makes the expert examination and of matching of the hair
strand sample with that of accused Sunil Maan as not reliable and
unbelievable.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 146 of 212  
 179

81. After having discussed the issues concerning the killing of

Deepak Bhardwaj, the other aspect of the prosecution case which now
needs to be discussed is of the criminal conspiracy having been
hatched by accused Nitesh Bhardwaj with accused Baljeet and
accused Swami Pratibhanand to kill deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. To
establish criminal conspiracy, prosecution has made an attempt to
establish the following links:-

(i) that accused Nitesh Bhardwaj owing to strained relations with

his father Deepak Bhardwaj had the motive to eliminate him.
(ii) that accused Nitesh Bhardwaj in order to eliminate his father
came in contact with accused Baljeet and that they were in
touch with each other through the mobile numbers 9582724694
(of accused Nitesh) and 9810104550 (of accused Baljeet).
(iii) that accused Baljeet, in turn, was in touch with accused
Pratibhanand through his mobile no. 9810104550 on the mobile
numbers 8010990456, 9467897848, 9212572888,
92129991059, 9871913014, 8273911459 and 9211751610 used
by accused Pratibhanand and that accused Pratibhanand
was in touch with accused Purshottam Rana through their
mobile numbers.

82. First of the links as above-noted was the strained

relations between accused Nitesh and his father Deepak Bhardwaj and
also the conduct of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj immediately after the
incident. In this regard, prosecution has relied upon the documentary
evidence in the form of two complaints, one lodged by the wife of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 147 of 212  
 180

deceased and the other by the sister of deceased. The record of

complaint dated 12.07.2012 by Sheela Devi, sister of deceased against
Ramesh Kumari, wife of deceased was proved through PW-53 Ct. Amit
Kumar and the record of complaint dated 17.04.2012 of Smt. Ramesh
Kumari was proved through PW-72 ASI Om Parkash. Admittedly, as
per the record of these complaints, these were mutually settled and as
such had no significance insofar as the claim of prosecution concerning
the motive with the accused Nitesh to eliminate his father is concerned.
Even the IO in his cross examination admitted that during investigation
it was revealed that the said matter was closed as compromised. Again
reflecting upon the conduct of the IO, he did not examine either Sheela
Devi in respect of her complaint against her sister-in-law/wife of the
deceased or any other witness concerning the property dispute since
serious allegations were made therein against the wife of deceased in
having forged documents. Besides this, prosecution has also relied
upon the oral testimony of the witnesses:-
(i) PW-11 Ratnakar Batra.
(ii) PW-15 Ms. Parul
(iii) PW-34 Rahul Gambhir
(iv) PW-50 Deepak Kushwaha
(v) PW-56 Hitesh Bhardwaj and
(vi) PW-60 Nishtha Bhardwaj
(vii) PW-8 Manoj Singh

83. PW-11 Ratnakar Batra: He was working as a Manager at

Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd, a company owned by deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj. He stated that so far as he remember relationship between

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 148 of 212  
 181

deceased Deepak Bhardwaj and his son/accused Nitesh Bhardwaj was

cordial. He was declared hostile by the Ld. Addl. PP and in his cross-
examination, he denied having given any statement Ex. PW11/A to the
police on 01.05.2013 to the effect that relations between the deceased
and his son/ Nitesh Bhardwaj were not normal because of business
and other related issues. Thus, as can be seen this witness did not
depose anything favouring the prosecution on the point of strained
relations between accused Nitesh and his father.

84. PW-15 Ms. Parul: She is a witness who has been

projected by the prosecution more on the point of establishing that
accused Nitesh was also using a mobile number 9582724694 in
addition to the mobile number 9717906666. Also, as per prosecution,
she was known to accused Nitesh Bhardwaj and her testimony is being
projected to show the conduct of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj post the
murder of his father /deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. She had worked as
Media Co-ordinator in DAPL, a company owned by deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj. PW-15 deposed that accused Nitesh Bhardwaj is the son
of Deepak Bhardwaj and that in the year 2008-2009, she had joined
the company DAPL of Deepak Bhardwaj as a Media Coordinator. She
stated that on 26.03.2013, she received an information in the morning
hours regarding murder of Deepak Bhardwaj at Nitesh Kunj and the
caller asked her to reach Nitesh Kunj and this information was given by
accused Nitesh Bhardwaj. She stated that after receiving the call, she
reached Nitesh Kunj and stayed there for about 30-45 minutes. She
further stated that on 25.03.2013, accused Nitesh came to her
residence to celebrate her birthday and that other invitees were also

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 149 of 212  
 182

present since she had organized a party which continued late till the
next day morning may be till 4-4:30 am. She stated that accused also
remained till that time and that she was meeting him after a gap of
about five years and he was not familiar with the other invitees,
therefore, on observing him not mixing up with the other companions,
she asked him whether he is comfortable or not to which he replied that
he is perplexed because of his family problem due to illness of his
daughter. He also told that due to illness of his daughter, he could not
celebrate her birthday which was on 19.03.2013. She stated that they
never used to discuss family problems since their relations were
professional in nature. She stated that she continued in the job of
DAPL till 2009 and from 2009 to 2013, she did not have any
conversation with accused Nitesh Bhardwaj. She stated that after
taking a break in service, she again joined DAPL at the time when
Deepak Bhardwaj had contested for lok sabha elections and she
worked as his media manager. She further stated that on 25.03.2013,
she had a talk with accused Nitesh Bhardwaj and during this
conversation that she invited him to her birthday party. She further
stated that at about 7-8 days prior to this date when she was in
Jabalpur, their common friend Rahul had arranged a talk between her
and accused Nitesh Bhardwaj and during this conversation, she told
Nitesh that she will be coming to Delhi soon. She stated that she
usually does not remember the contact numbers and she even does
not remember the mobile number being used by her. She stated that
she also does not recollect the mobile number which she was using in
the month of March 2013, however, she can confirm that she was using
only one mobile number which was in her name. She stated that she

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 150 of 212  
 183

also does not remember the cell phone number of Rahul and after her
arrival on 21.03.2013 that she conveyed information by sending group
messages and it may be possible that message might have been sent
to Rahul and Nitesh as well. She stated that after this incident in the
morning hours, she received a call from Nitesh who informed her about
this incident and she does not remember whether she received the call
from Nitesh from a mobile number fed in her mobile or from a different
number. On being asked whether she made a call on the number from
which she received a call from Nitesh regarding incident of firing at
Nitesh Kunj, she stated that she made a call on that number but it was
picked by someone else who did not disclose his name and expressed
ignorance about the date and time of cremation. She further stated
that on 26.03.2013 when she received information regarding incident,
Nitesh was not calling from the number by which he talked to her on
25.03.2013. She stated that she also made a call on the number from
which Nitesh called her on 25.03.2013 to know about the date and time
of cremation but there was no response. She further stated that Rahul
Gambhir is their common friend and after 1-2 days from 26.03.2013,
Rahul made a call to her when she was with her friend Jyoti at Lodhi
Garden. She stated that he asked her to meet him and she called him
to Lodhi Road. She stated that they had a general discussion regarding
the incident and Rahul started confirming regarding presence of
accused Nitesh at her residence and during this conversation, he
stated that “bekar main yeh lafra ho gaya hai”. She improved upon by
stating that she does not remember the exact words. She stated that
Rahul confirmed whether Nitesh was with her on 25-26.03.2013. She
further stated that they also had a discussion about news items being

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 151 of 212  
 184

telecast on different news channels telecasting different stories. She

stated that Rahul told her that she need not disclose the factum of
presence of Nitesh at her residence to anyone. He also told that he had
gone to Nitesh Kunj where several police officers were present. He
also inquired whether she had visited Nitesh Kunj or not and asked her
to leave Delhi by saying that 'tujhe toh ghar jaana hi hai toh yaha se
nikal le'. She stated that he meant to say that she should go to her
native place in Himachal and there was no discussion about the
expenses. She improved upon by stating that he asked her to leave
Delhi because different types of versions were being conveyed through
media. She stated that prior to coming to depose in the court, she had
also appeared before a lady who had recorded her statement and she
identified her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC as Ex. PW15/A. On being asked
by the Ld. Prosecutor whether Rahul had also asked her not to
disclose the number of Nitesh Bhardwaj through which he had talked
with her on 25.03.2013, she replied by stating that she does not
recollect. She was declared hostile by the Ld. Prosecutor and even in
her cross-examination, she stated that she does not recollect whether
Rahul told her on 28.03.2013 that she should not disclose the
telephone number to any police official and this information was being
conveyed through him by accused Nitesh. She was told that she made
this statement before the Ld. MM on 25.04.2013. She stated that she
does not recollect whether or not she was using mobile number
9910086078 on 26.03.2013. She stated that she had not stored this
number in her current mobile phone, however, from the record she can
confirm whether or not she was using the said number. She stated that
she is not carrying her mobile number and her memory regarding

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 152 of 212  
 185

recollection of numbers is very weak. She stated that she does not
remember both the numbers she was using in March, 2013 which were
in her name, one a cash card and the other a post paid. She stated that
she is in the habit of continuing with her phone numbers and it is
possible that the numbers she was using in March 2013 are being used
by her even as on date. She stated that she is not having any visiting
card or any other document on which any of her number is mentioned.
In her cross-examination by the counsel for accused Nitesh, she stated
that after the incident in question, she had conversation with accused
Nitesh on phone on a number of occasions. She stated that she does
not recollect that she must have conversation on phone with Praveen
who was working as Office Attendant at Shiksha Bharti School, Sec.7,
Dwarka, Delhi.

85. As can be seen from the testimony of PW-15, she too did
not support the prosecution case either on the point of accused Nitesh
having talked with her through mobile number 9582724694 or on the
point of conduct of accused Nitesh raising any suspicion. Rather,
PW15 on the point of accused Nitesh being uncomfortable during her
birthday party on 25.03.2013 gave the explanation that it was due to
the illness of his daughter that he was not appearing normal in the
night of 25.03.2013. Here, I may note that the investigating officer
ought to have taken further steps especially in taking the mobile phone
of this witness for expert examination so as to retrieve the data of
messaging and whatsapp conversation between the two and their
common friend Rahul Gambhir. It appears that the IO placed too much
reliance on the oral statement of the witness not knowing that the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 153 of 212  
 186

witness being a friend of accused Nitesh may not depose on the lines
of the prosecution case. So far as the witness speaking differently to
what she had earlier stated in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC, it is the
deposition of the witness in the court which is counted as a substantive
evidence.

86. PW-34 Rahul Gambhir: He is a friend of accused Nitesh

Bhardwaj and is stated to be privy to a conversation between accused
Nitesh and their common friend Parul Sharma regarding not to disclose
the alleged alternate number 9582724694 of accused Nitesh to
anyone. He too did not support the prosecution case as is apparent
from his testimony. PW-34 in his examination-in-chief stated that on
the day of murder of Deepak Bhardwaj which was 26.03.2013, he was
in Goa. He stated that his brother Rohan informed him of the murder
on his mobile number 9711231122. He stated that he has been a good
friend of accused Nitesh for about 22 years as they both studied in the
same school since class 10th. He stated that after receiving the
information, he called Nitesh and his elder brother Hitesh on their
mobiles but their numbers he does not recollect and both did not
answer his call. He stated that thereafter he called Parul Sharma, a
common friend of his and accused Nitesh to confirm about the incident
and she told that she is at Nitesh Kunj, a farm house belonging to the
deceased. He stated that he returned to Delhi in the evening of
28.03.2013 and went to Nitesh Kunj on the next day to pay condolence
to the family. He stated that he met the mother of accused Nitesh and
also met Nitesh for about two minutes since he was busy with his
relatives etc. He stated that he stayed there for about 45 minutes and

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 154 of 212  
 187

returned to his house. He stated that he visited Nitesh Kunj on the

following two days as well and he also met Parul Sharma at her friend
Jyoti's residence at Lodhi Colony where they discussed the case
generally as it was in news in those days. He stated that after couple
of days, he received a call from Mr. Bhasker, SHO, PS Vasant Kunj
who asked him to visit the police station for some verification purpose.
He stated that he visited the police station for 5-6 days continuously
and it may be from 6th of April to the next one week of 2013. He stated
that he used to remain there for the whole of the day and sometime till
late night may be upto 2:30 am. He stated that he was given a sheet of
paper containing some questions which he answered and thereafter
police gave him something already written and told that its contents
were his statement. He stated that he read the same and found some
parts to be incorrect. He stated that as per the statement given to him,
Nitesh had two mobile numbers whereas he was knowing only his one
number. In the statement, it was mentioned that he was in regular
touch with Parul Sharma whereas he had not talked to her frequently
and had talked to her only once in a month. Since the witness was
resiling from his previous statement, Ld. Addl. PP was permitted to
cross-examine him. In his cross-examination, PW-34 stated that Parul
Sharma was an employee of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. He stated
that on 18.03.2013, he met Nitesh at about 7:00 pm and that they took
liquor in the car. He admitted that Nitesh had not been in touch with
Parul Sharma for few years and wanted to speak to her. He stated that
he gave her number and also dialed her number from his phone and
Nitesh spoke to her for about 20 minutes. He also admitted that all the
above facts which he had stated were stated by him to the IO who had

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 155 of 212  
 188

recorded the same correctly. He stated that he is not sure about the
complete number of Nitesh and Hitesh on which he had called them on
26.03.2013 after gaining knowledge of assassination of Deepak
Bhardwaj. He stated that it may be 9717906666 of Nitesh and
9810506000 of Hitesh. He denied the suggestion that when he met
Mrs. Bhardwaj, mother of Nitesh, she told him to call Parul and meet
her and she further asked him to tell Parul to leave for Nahan
(Himachal Pradesh) and not to disclose the alternate number
9582724694 of Nitesh to anyone. He also denied the suggestion that
he had stated this fact to the IO in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He
was confronted with the said portion of his statement Ex.PW34/PA
wherein it was so recorded. He also denied the suggestion that he had
gone to the place of Parul at B.K. Dutt Colony and stated her about all
the said things or that Parul told him that she would not hide anything.
He volunteered that he had himself gone to the place of Parul. He also
denied the suggestion that Nitesh had asked him for a favour and
asked him to tell Parul to go on vacation and if she needed some
money, accused Nitesh would give her and that accused Nitesh also
told him not to discuss about his number 9582724694 with anyone. He
also denied the suggestion that he met Parul who told that she would
not go anywhere and also asked why Nitesh was trying to hide the said
mobile number or that Parul also told that she suspected Nitesh's
involvement or that he had agreed to what she said about the
involvement of Nitesh in the murder of his father as they were going to
be the main beneficiaries. He was again confronted with his statement
u/s 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW34/PA. He stated that he did not make any
complaint against the police officials who had forced him to give a

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 156 of 212  
 189

statement prepared by him. Thus, testimony of PW-34 also does not

benefit the prosecution case in any manner.

87. PW-50 Sh. Deepak Kushwaha: In the month of March

2008, he joined in the IT Department of Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd in
which deceased Deepak Bhardwaj was the Director and he became
Personal Assistant of Deepak Bhardwaj in the year 2010. On
26.03.2013 at about 9:35 am when he reached at Nitesh Kunj where
Deepak Bhardwaj used to reside, one guard told him that somebody
had shot Deepak Bhardwaj. He also went to RR Hospital where
Deepak Bhardwaj was declared dead. In his cross-examination by the
counsels for the accused persons, PW-50 stated that Deepak Bhardwaj
was having cordial relations with his son Nitesh Bhardwaj. Thus,
contrary to the projections of prosecution case, this witness deposes
about normal relations between accused Nitesh and his father. Here, I
may again note that the investigating officer did not carry out the
investigation in a manner in which it ought to have been carried out.
Rather than relying heavily on the oral statements of the witnesses,
investigating officer ought to have verified from the records of the
companies of the deceased so as to show that these were controlled in
a manner which were detrimental to the interest of accused Nitesh
and/or other family members. Strangely, the IO did not collect any such
documentary evidence and instead only took note of two complaints,
one by the wife of deceased and the other by the sister of deceased
when as per the record of these two complaints, these were mutually
settled. Even in respect of these complaints the IO did no further
investigation as such close relations filing complaints against each

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 157 of 212  
 190

other did lead to inferences of some abnormality in the relations.

88. PW-56 Sh. Hitesh Bhardwaj: He is the son of deceased

Deepak Bhardwaj and elder brother of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj. On
26.03.2013, he received a call from one of his staff that some unknown
person had fired on his father Deepak Bhardwaj and had killed him at
about 9-9:15 am. He was also told that PCR had taken his father to
R&R Hospital. He also went to R&R Hospital where his father was
declared dead. On 27.03.2013, he and his brother/accused Nitesh
visited the mortuary at AIIMS Hospital where they identified the dead
body of their father. After postmortem, the body was handed over to
them vide handing over memo Ex.PW56/C. He did not support the
prosecution case and instead alleged torture at the hands of police. He
stated that police officials had harassed him and his other family
members including his brother/accused Nitesh. He stated that on
26.03.2013, when he returned to Nitesh Kunj, police persons were
present and were making inquiries from the staff and they also took
2-3 cell phones of the employees including that of Praveen Bhardwaj
which has not been returned. He stated that on 28.03.2013, some
police officials came to Nitesh Kunj and took away with them some
mobile phones of his late father and of his brother Nitesh alongwith
some documents and photographs which have not been returned. He
stated that he and his other family members including his wife and the
wife of accused Nitesh were frequently called to police station during
odd hours and police obtained their signature on several blank papers,
on note book papers and registers as well. This continued till
11.04.2013. He stated that police had apprehended Nitesh on

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 158 of 212  
 191

07.04.2013 but he was shown arrested on 09.04.2013. He stated that

neither police visited their place on 23.05.2013 nor anything happened
on that day. He stated that the police also did not visit their place on
19.06.2013. In his cross-examination, while admitting about the
documents pertaining to the handwriting of Nishtha consisting of six
pages Ex.PW56/D1 to Ex. PW56/D6, he stated that the same were
procured on 11.04.2013. He denied the suggestion that the handwriting
of his sister-in-law Nishtha was procured by the police at Nitesh Kunj
on 23.05.2013. He denied having made any statement mark 56/X and
mark 56/Y to the police. He stated that his father used to deal in real
estate. He denied that Hotel Nitesh Kunj was exclusively run by his
father late Deepak Bhardwaj. He also denied that there was a dispute
between his brother Nitesh and father Deepak concerning the hotel as
Nitesh wanted to take it over. He also denied that his father used to
frequently scold him and his brother Nitesh in public gatherings and
even in the office or for this reason, he and Nitesh were not having
healthy relationship with their father. He admitted that his father had a
licensed .32 bore revolver, however, he stated that he is not aware that
his mother had filed an application for cancellation of license of weapon
of his father. He admitted that Smt. Sheela, his bua, had filed a
complaint against his mother at PS Darya Ganj.

89. In his cross-examination by the defence counsel, he

stated that besides the specimen signatures, police had also given him
and his other family members some script and asked to write it on
different sheets, papers, pad and registers. He also stated that the
family members were even asked to write the script which has been

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 159 of 212  
 192

written in Ex. PW56/D1 to Ex.PW56/D6. He identified the handwriting

on one torn letter pad to be of his sister-in-law which he claimed was
taken by police from his sister-in-law in the police station before
11.04.2013 in his presence. He identified the same as mark 56/DA. He
stated that his father had litigation with number of outsiders and was
apprehending danger to his life with respect to which he had lodged
different complaints against those persons. He stated that his father
was in deep love with his younger brother Nitesh and this is the reason
why he named his hotel as Nitesh Kunj. He stated that the complaint
lodged by his bua against his mother was a false complaint and for this
reason it was withdrawn. He stated that the CCTV camera installed at
Nitesh Kunj was got installed by his brother Nitesh. He stated that his
father was enjoying cordial relations and video clip was broadcasted on
the eve of Holi which was a greeting sent by Bhardwaj family.

90. Again, as is apparent from the deposition of PW-56 Hitesh

Bhardwaj, he not only did not support the prosecution case but also
spoke about the way and the manner in which the police had dealt with
him and his other family members including accused Nitesh. He too
spoke of good relations between his brother and father and as such
serves no purpose for the prosecution.

91. PW-60 Ms. Nishtha Bhardwaj: She is the wife of accused

Nitesh Bhardwaj and daughter-in-law of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj.
As expected, she too in her deposition did not support the prosecution
case and instead presented an altogether different version. She stated
that on 26.03.2013 she and accused Nitesh Bhardwaj were at home

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 160 of 212  
 193

when accused Nitesh Bhardwaj started crying after coming to know

about the incident. She also stated that accused Nitesh Bhardwaj was
lifted from Shiksha Bharti Public School at Dwarka on 07.04.2013 and
was shown arrested on 09.04.2013. On the other material aspects of
the prosecution case that accused Nitesh was not having good
relations with his father or that he got recovered a briefcase with
broken lock, three empty boxes of mobile phones and one torn slip
pad, PW-60 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution
in any manner whatsoever. As noted, it was expected of this witness,
being related to the accused and to the deceased, to have not
supported the prosecution case and to have deposed favourably for the
defence. Here again, the investigating officer did not take the pains to
collect the documentary evidence in the form of mobile number
records, their call detail records, the records of the company etc which
otherwise would have been the most material piece of evidence
concerning strained relations. Also, in respect of taking the specimen
handwriting of this witness at Nitesh Kunj, the IO considering that the
husband of this witness has been arrested and the investigation had
revolved around the role of family members of the deceased, ought to
have taken her specimen handwriting under the orders of the
concerned Magistrate as then it would have been difficult for these
family members/witnesses to dispute the credibility of obtaining
handwriting under some coercion or threat.

92. PW-8 Manoj Singh who is an advocate and who was

claimed to have been engaged by accused Nitesh on 30.03.2013, had
stated that he was given Rs. 10 Lac on 30.03.2013 as advance legal

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 161 of 212  
 194

fee by accused Nitesh Bhardwaj for engaging him as his counsel in

various matters of his companies. On the asking of police, he had
handed over the said amount to the IO which was seized by him. This
witness too did not support the prosecution case by deposing that his
engagement by accused Nitesh was for various matters of his
companies and for no other reason. Here too, the IO did no further
investigation about the nature of the pending litigations and why
immediately after the incident accused Nitesh all of a sudden felt the
need to engage an advocate for the litigations of the companies and
pay a substantial amount of Rs 10 Lacs as upfront payment towards
the advocate's fee. IO for reasons best known to him appears to have
relied too much on the disclosure of accused Nitesh and oral
statements when the documents would have been the best evidence.

93. Thus, as can be seen from above, none of the witnesses

examined by the prosecution have supported the claim of prosecution
that accused Nitesh had strained relations with his father so as to
provide him with the motive to get his father killed. This link in the
evidence thus stands not proved by the prosecution.

94. Another link in the chain of criminal conspiracy was of the

conversation of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj with accused Baljeet and of
accused Baljeet with accused Mahant Pratibhanand. In this respect, IO
during investigation to show connection between accused Nitesh,
Baljeet and Pratibhanand and also of the other accused persons had
stressed upon their call detail records. The mobile number attributed to
accused Nitesh was 9582724694 which admittedly was in the name of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 162 of 212  
 195

PW-41 Praveen and the mobile number attributed to accused Baljeet

was 9810104550 which admittedly was in the name of PW 47 Jasbir.
Thus, whether or not these mobile numbers were used by accused
Nitesh and Baljeet, it is the testimonies of PW-41 Praveen and of
PW-47 Jasbir which becomes the determining factor and deserves to
be noted and discussed. So far the discrepancies in the evidence of
the Nodal Officers as pinpointed by the defence in the written
submissions is concerned, these appears to be of not much value
owing to the examination of the registered subscribers of the mobile
numbers whom the prosecution claims that they allowed their mobile
numbers to be used by the accused persons. Now the testimonies of
PW-41 Praveen and PW-47 Jasbir are taken up for appreciation.

95. PW-41 Praveen in his examination-in-chief stated that in

the year 2013, he was working as Office Assistant at Shiksha Bhartiya
School, Sec.7, Dwarka,Delhi which was owned by deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj. He stated that accused Nitesh Bhardwaj is the son of
deceased and he alongwith Smt. Ramesh Kumari was in the
management of the school. He further stated that he had taken
/subscribed/purchased SIM no. 9582724694 from Dwarka Market in
April, 2012. He identified the customer application form Ex. PW41/A
with which signed copy of his driving licence and photograph was
submitted as identity proof. He stated that he had used this number for
himself and had never given it to anyone. He stated that police had
inquired from him and recorded his statement and that he does not
know anything else.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 163 of 212  
 196

96. As can be seen, PW-41 in his examination-in-chief did not

support the prosecution case and deposed that the mobile no.
9582724694 attributed to accused Nitesh by the prosecution, was
exclusively used by him and not by accused Nitesh. PW-41 was
subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP and even in his
cross-examination, he did not support the prosecution case and denied
having given any statement Ex. PW41/B wherein it was recorded that
the SIM of this number was purchased by him at the instance of
accused Nitesh or that after its purchase, it was handed over to
accused Nitesh who started using the same. This witness was also
confronted with his other mobile no. 8745851272 which he said that he
was using for his home purposes. Though the witness was shaky in his
deposition about the usage of mobile no. 8745851272 for not only the
purposes he disclosed but also of having given this number with his
bank for further reference purposes, nonetheless he explained that the
mobile no. 9582724694 was used by him for his official work and
communication and the mobile no. 8745851272 for his personal use.
He also deposed about his having known Jasbir, the registered
subscriber of mobile number ending with the four digit '4550' and
having talked to him who also used to deal with deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj regarding his property matters. He also deposed about
having known both Rahul Gambhir and Parul, who he claimed had
worked with Deepak Bhardwaj in his election campaign. He also
deposed about his having used mobile no. 9582724694 in a Nokia
handset. The sum and substance of his deposition is that he did not
depose on the lines of the prosecution and did not provide the link to
the prosecution to connect the mobile no. 9582724694 and its use with

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 164 of 212  
 197

accused Nitesh Bhardwaj. He also demolished the prosecution's claim

that accused Nitesh had the Nokia Asha Phone which he destroyed on
the date of incident itself. Also, the IO again did not make any efforts to
collect some positive evidence concerning accused Nitesh having
destroyed the Nokia phone which as per his disclosure was thrown by
him near Shiv Murti. Availability of any CCTV installed near the said
place was not checked.

97. PW-47 Jasbir too did not support the prosecution case
and he deposed that he is the subscriber of Airtel mobile phone no.
9810104550 which he took in the year 2011 and that he had
exclusively used this mobile number. In his cross-examination by the
Ld. Addl. PP, though PW-47 denied having given any statement Ex.
PW47/A to the police wherein it was recorded that this mobile number
was used by accused Baljeet, however, he could not explain how from
his mobile number there has been long conversation with a mobile no.
9211751610. Nonetheless, it cannot be said to be providing with the
prosecution sufficient link to connect this mobile number with accused
Baljeet or of accused Baljeet having talked to accused Nitesh and to
accused Pratibhanand from this number. Also, with respect to accused
having changed his mobile handset in respect of this number, again
there is nothing on record. As to the mobile handset recovered from the
possession of accused at the time of raid of his premises, it was not
sent for any forensic examination to verify that it was used at any point
of time by the accused in respect of mobile number 9810104550. Even
the mobile handset of PW-47 Jasbir was not sent for forensic
examination to verify whether or not it was used in respect of the given

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 165 of 212  
 198

number.

98. A brief reference here can also be made to the testimony

of PW-15 Parul and PW34 Rahul Gambhir as the prosecution through
their testimonies also made an attempt to establish that accused Nitesh
was using the mobile no. 9582724694. Their testimonies have already
been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment and it came in their
testimonies that they did not support the prosecution case on the point
that accused Nitesh used to talk to them from his said mobile number.

99. Coming on to the use of mobile numbers attributed to

accused Pratibhanand having been used in the criminal conspiracy
with the other accused persons, reference in this regard can be made
to the chart/table Ex. PW93/DY prepared by the IO wherein the mobile
numbers 9211751610, 9212572888, 9219991059, 9654495294,
8273911459, 9871913014 and 9212240875 have been shown used by
accused Pratibhanand. However, as is apparent from the testimony of
IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary, he had admitted that he collected
the CAF and CDRs of only some of the mobile numbers and not all the
numbers attributed to accused Pratibhanand in Ex. PW93/DY.
Therefore, it is only in respect of the witnesses who were the registered
subscribers of the mobile numbers attributed to accused Pratibhanand
and who have been examined by the prosecution that it can be seen
whether or not the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the link
that the mobile numbers though not in the name of accused
Pratibhanand were used by him in having conversation with the other
accused persons in the criminal conspiracy to kill Deepak Bhardwaj.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 166 of 212  
 199

Details of the witnesses having been examined by the prosecution in

this regard are as follows:

100. PW-28 Dev Dutt Tyagi: He is the registered subscriber of

mobile no. 9212572888 of TATA Tele Services. In his examination-in-
chief, PW-28 stated that he is working as a Public Relation Officer in
Hindu Mahasabha and he was having one mobile no. 9212572888 of
Tata which he had purchased about 2 ½ years ago. He stated that the
said mobile connection was disconnected in the year 2012 and prior to
that, he was using this number and none else. He stated that he had
never given his phone to any person for use temporarily or even once
or twice.

101. Thus, PW-28 in his examination-in-chief did not depose

on the lines of the prosecution case that the mobile no. 9212572888
though being in his name, was used by accused Pratibhanand. In his
cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW-28 stated that police did not
record his statement, however, he was inquired and was asked certain
questions to which he gave the reply. He denied having given any
statement mark P28/A to the police on 09.06.2013 wherein it was told
that this number after being used for about an year by him, was given
to Swami Pratibhanand for his use who was residing at Room no.16 of
Hindu Mahasabha. He also denied having told that he used to pay the
bill of the said mobile connection or that in February 2012, Swami
Pratibhanand ran away after locking Room No.16 and took away the
said phone with him and that due to non-payment of bill in April, 2012,
that the number was deactivated.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 167 of 212  
 200

102. Not only that PW-28 did not support the prosecution case,
he further demolished it when in his cross-examination by the counsel
for accused, he stated that he knows Rajenderan @ Raja since 2010
whom he had met in a programme at Hindu Mahasabha and thereafter
he started visiting the office. He also stated that he knows Anuj Mishra
since 2011 who was introduced to him by Rajenderan @ Raja. He
stated that Rajenderan and Anuj Mishra were friends and that he used
to talk to them on mobile phone. This is contrary to the claim of
prosecution that the mobile number of Rajenderan @ Raja was used
by accused Pratibhanand or that PW Anuj Mishra received call from
accused Pratibhanand from the number in the name of PW-28 Dev
Dutt Tyagi. PW-28 was shown photocopies of customer application
forms of Rajenderan and Anuj Mishra and he identified their
photographs thereon. The documents were marked Ex.PW28/DA and
Ex.PW28/DB respectively. He also admitted that as Public Relation
Officer of Hindu Mahasabha, it was natural for him to meet many
people and also to talk to them on mobile. He also admitted that for this
reason, he cannot recall the names and mobile numbers of all such
persons.

103. PW-44 Sh. Anuj Mishra: He was firstly examined on

06.07.2015 when accused Mahant Pratibhanand was PO. In his said
statement, he had stated that he knew one Mahant Pratibhanand since
2009-2010 who used to maintain several mobile phone numbers. He
had also stated that he alongwith accused Mahant Pratibhanand had
also met accused Baljeet at his house at Nangal Devat and on two-

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 168 of 212  
 201

three occasions, he had dropped Mahant Pratibhanand at the house of

Baljeet. However, when he was examined afresh after arrest of
accused Mahant Pratibhanand, PW-44 completely changed his version
and did not support the case of prosecution. He stated that he does
not know anything about the instant case and does not even know any
Mahant by the name of Pratibhanand. He thus could not provide the
link to the prosecution to establish its claim that firstly, accused Mahant
Pratibhanand used to operate mobile numbers 9211751610,
9212572888, 9219991059, 9654495294, 8273911459, 9871913014,
9212240875 and 8010990456 and secondly, that Mahant Pratibhanand
and Baljeet were known to each other and were on visiting terms. His
testimony needs to be noted in detail as this witness while initially
supporting the claim of prosecution had later on after the arrest of
accused Pratibhanand, took a complete U-turn and deposed contrary
to the prosecution case.

104. In his first deposition, PW-44 stated that he is doing the

business of sale-purchase of property and knows Mahant Pratibhanand
since 2009-2010 and his friend Raj Kumar Dubey had introduced him
to Mahant Pratibhanand. He stated that he started visiting
Pratibhanand after his introduction with him and Mahant Pratibhanand
used to have many mobile numbers as he used to visit different States.
He stated that Pratibhanand used to contact him through the said
numbers and he can tell the numbers after seeing his mobile phone
wherein he had saved the said numbers as “SW”. He identified the
mobile numbers as 9211751610, 9212572888, 9219991059,
9654495294, 8273911459, 9871913014, 9212240875 and

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 169 of 212  
 202

8010990456. He stated that he alongwith Mahant Pratibhanand also

met Baljeet at his house at Nangal Devat and he had also dropped
Pratibhanand at the house of Baljeet 2-3 times. PW44 identified
accused Baljeet who was present in the court and as the accused
Mahant Pratibhanand was not present being PO, he was not identified
by the witness. In his cross-examination by the counsel for accused
Baljeet, PW-44 stated that he came to Delhi in the year 1997 and is
staying in Delhi since then. He stated that in the year 2004, he had
started the business of property dealing, however, he is not doing it
from any office and is also not carrying any document to show that he
is into such business. He stated that he does not remember the date
when he first met Pratibhanand and he also does not remember the
dates when he met Baljeet alongwith Pratibhanand or when he
dropped Pratibhanand at the house of Baljeet. He denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of IO or that
Pratibhanand never contacted him through the afore-mentioned
numbers. He stated that he used to have mobile number 8447625105
which he had given to police. He also volunteered that he was having
another mobile number 965408105 at that time. He denied the
suggestion that he never told about this number to police and in this
regard he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW44/DA where it
was not so recorded. He stated that he is not aware regarding the
address of Pratibhanand as he used to meet him at different places as
told by him on phone. He stated that Pratibhanand used to travel on
his own vehicle. He further stated that at times Pratibhanand had also
used his vehicle. He stated that he never visited residential address of
Pratibhanand and he declined the suggestion that no such person by

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 170 of 212  
 203

the name of Mahant Pratibhanand exists.

105. When accused Mahant Pratibhanand was arrested and

was sent for trial by way of supplementary charge-sheet, PW-44 was
recalled for his examination and in his part examination dated
10.10.2018, PW-44 took a somersault by stating that he does not know
anything about the instant case. He further stated that police had taken
him to police station Vasant Kunj(S) and made inquiries from him about
Baljeet and the present case. He stated that he met Baljeet 2-3 times
at Nangal Devat with respect to sale-purchase of some property and he
does not know any Mahant namely Pratibhanand. He also did not
identify accused Pratibhanand present in the court. He stated that
police took him from his home and he was detained for 5-7 days. He
also stated that police took his mobile phone and saved certain phone
numbers in it. Owing to his said deposition, PW-44 was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP wherein he admitted that on 06.07.2015, he
had appeared before the court and had deposed as PW-44. He was
shown his deposition running into two pages identified as Ex. PW44/A.
He stated that he knows his friend Raj Kumar Dubey for the last about
8-9 years and he met Pratibhanand with his friend Raj Kumar Dubey at
Connaught Place. He stated that he is still maintaining mobile number
8447625105 and is using it for the last about 7-8 years. He stated that
he cannot give the exact counting as to how many times he and
Pratibhanand had conversation on mobile phone. He stated that
whenever they spoke to each other, they had conversation regarding
property. He stated that he alongwith one Mahatma met Baljeet at
Nangal Devat but not at his home. He stated that his meeting with

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 171 of 212  
 204

Baljeet who is present in the court, was also concerning sale-purchase

of property. He stated that he never accompanied Pratibhanand to any
State where he used to go. He stated that he is not aware about the
profession/vocation of Pratibhanand. He stated that the statement
made by him on 06.07.2015 to the effect that 'he alongwith Mahant
Pratibhanand have also met accused Baljeet at his house at Nangal
Devat' was a false statement and his present statement made by him
in the court is his correct statement. He also volunteered by stating that
police had asked him 'ye bol dena ki main Pratibhanand ke saath
baljeet ke ghar nangal devat gaya tha'. He admitted that on
06.07.2015, after operating his mobile phone, he had told the court
about eight phone numbers by seeing the same in his mobile saved by
the name 'SW' and the said numbers are 9211751610, 9212572888,
9219991059,9654495294,8273911459,9871913014, 921224085 and
8010990456. He volunteered by stating that police had given him these
numbers and his mobile phone was with police for 5-7 days. He further
stated that in his deposition before the court on 06.07.2015, he had told
that 'he had also dropped Mahant Pratibhanand at the house of
accused Baljeet 2-3 times'. He stated that actually he had not taken
Mahant Pratibhanand to the house of accused Baljeet. He admitted
that the statement made by him on 06.07.2015 before the court on oath
was a false statement. He volunteered by stating that he had made the
said statement at the instance of police. He stated that he had not told
the court on that day that he had made a false statement. He
volunteered by stating that 'mein dara hua tha'. He stated that since the
said date i.e. 06.07.2015 and till date, he had not made any complaint
to this court either orally or in writing that he made the said statement

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 172 of 212  
 205

under the influence of police. He stated that he cannot tell any specific
police officer who asked him to give a false statement before this court.
He volunteered that there used to be 5-6 police personnel. He stated
that he had not made any complaint either in writing or in oral to any
higher police official against the said 5-6 police personnel. He
volunteered that when police took him, his wife had made a complaint
to NHRC. He stated that he even did not make any complaint to NHRC
that he had deposed falsely before this court at the instance of police.
He stated that he came to know about the arrest of Mahant
Pratibhanand in this case on receipt of notice of this court. He stated
that IO had apprised him that accused Mahant Pratibhanand has been
arrested and that he has to make a statement afresh in this matter.
PW-44 was read over and explained his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC
Ex.PW44/DA which he admitted to have made to the police. Accused
Mahant Pratibhanand was again produced before the witness and he
was asked to identify him but he stated that he cannot identify the
accused. He stated that he met Mahant Pratibhanand 2-3 times, on
one or two occasion he was clean shaven and on other occasions he
had a beard. He stated that he does not remember if he had stated in
his statement Ex.PW44/A that 'it is wrong to suggest that he is
deposing falsely at the instance of IO'. He denied the suggestion that
he has been won over by accused Mahant Pratibhanand and that he is
deliberately not identifying accused Mahant Pratibhanand present in
the court in order to screen him from legal punishment.

106. PW-44 was cross-examined by the defence wherein he

stated that police had kept him at police station Vasant Kunj and at

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 173 of 212  
 206

police station Pushp Vihar, Special Cell. He stated that he was first
taken to PS Pushp Vihar and the reason of his being afraid of police
was of the beatings given to him by the police. He stated that police
had also threatened him of false implication if he does not tow their
lines. He stated that police had obtained his signature on 2-3 blank
papers and he has also brought the complaint sent through fax by his
wife to NHRC with the fax report. Same was identified as Ex.PW44/DB.
He stated that he was let off by the police on 17-18.04.2013 after
having obtained his signatures on blank papers. He stated that on his
statement Ex.PW44/DA, police had obtained his signature. He stated
that he does not remember whether the Pratibhanand he knew was
also called Mahant Pratibhanand. He stated that he knows one Dev
Dutt Tyagi whom he had not met for the last 4-5 years and he also
cannot identify him in his photograph at point O in Ex. PW6/O. He
stated that since Dev Dutt Tyagi was in Hindu Mahasabha at Mandir
Marg, therefore, he had the occasion to know him. He stated that he
had talked with Dev Dutt Tyagi on mobile phone. He further stated that
he knows a person by the name of Rajinder Dass whom he had met in
connection with property transaction and that he was a native of
Karnal. He stated that he also used to talk with him on mobile phone.
He stated that he knows Rajenderan and identified him in photograph
at point A on copy of CAF Ex.PW6/K. He stated that he also used to
talk with him on mobile phone. He stated that he knows Udhav Dass
and identified him in his photograph at point A on CAF form
Ex.PW35/D. He stated that he also used to talk with him on mobile
phone. He stated that he knows these persons since the year
2009/2010 or 2011. He stated that he does not remember whether he

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 174 of 212  
 207

knows any person by the name of Sumit Mishra. He admitted that as

he used to work as a property dealer, therefore, he was in touch with
many persons and he does not remember about all of them. He
admitted that when his testimony was recorded on 06.07.2015, he had
pointed out from his mobile phone certain numbers written as 'SW'. He
stated that he does not know who had fed these numbers in respect of
the said entry. He volunteered by stating that his mobile phone was
taken by the police. He stated that he cannot say if these numbers
were entered by police officials. He stated that it was on account of
what was stated in his statement Ex. PW44/DA that he had disclosed
about the mobile numbers in respect of entry 'SW' in his testimony
recorded on 06.07.2015. He stated that he does not remember whether
in his statement Ex. PW44/DA he had stated that these numbers were
saved in respect of the name 'Swami'. He stated that he had received
statement Ex.PW44/DA from PS Vasant Kunj about 7-10 days before
his statement recorded before this court on 06.07.2015. He stated that
after reading the said statement, he had cross-checked the mobile
numbers already fed in his mobile number in respect of the said entry.
He further stated that he used to talk with the person by the name of
Swami and he had saved his mobile number in his phone under the
said name itself.

107. Though the possibility of this witness having been won

over by the defence cannot be ruled out, however, even if his testimony
initially recorded is believed and the mobile numbers told by him are
attributed to accused Pratibhanand, still in respect of some of the
mobile numbers, there is no CAF or CDR and no witness was

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 175 of 212  
 208

examined by the IO to substantiate the claim that despite the mobile

number not being in the name of accused Pratibhanand, the same was
still used by him. Also, about the other mobile numbers with respect to
which the IO collected the CAF and the CDR and the concerned
subscribers were also examined by the prosecution, as their testimony
would show they did not support the prosecution case on the point of
they having given their mobile number to accused Pratibhanand for
use. One such witness is PW-28 Dev Dutt Tyagi whose testimony has
already been noted and he did not support the prosecution case. The
other witnesses are PW-51 Rajinder Dass, PW-96 Virender Kumar,
PW-97 Smt. Rekha and PW-98 Rajendran Raja. Their testimonies are
taken up for consideration.

108. PW-51 Sh. Rajinder Dass: He has been projected by the

prosecution as the one who was in contact with accused Mahant
Pratibhanand and on one occasion had seen him meeting accused
Baljeet. He is also alleged to have given SIM Card 9467897848 to
accused Mahant Pratibhanand for his use.

109. In his examination-in-chief, PW-51 stated that in the year

2013, he had gone to Allahabad for attending Kumbh Mela alongwith
other saints of his Ashram and while coming back, he stayed at
Mathura, UP where he saw a TV News in which his name was figuring
on TV Screen in relation to news items pertaining to the murder of a
Delhi businessman namely Deepak Bhardwaj. He stated that he
contacted his Ashram at Karnal from where he got telephone number
of one Delhi police official. He stated that he contacted on that number

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 176 of 212  
 209

and the police officer called him to police station Vasant Kunj(S). He
stated that he was made to sit in the police station for about 5-6 days
and was questioned in a manner as if he is involved in the murder. He
stated that he was not permitted to talk to anyone and was made to
read a prepared statement which he initially gave before a lady DCP
and then under the pressure of the police, was made to give the same
statement to one lady Judge who was sitting in her chamber. It was
then that the police let him go. In his cross-examination, PW-51 denied
on all the aspects either of his having given for use his mobile number
9467897848 to accused Pratibhanand or having met advocate Baljeet
when he came to meet accused Pratibhanand. He was confronted with
his previous statement which he denied having made voluntarily.

110. PW96 Sh Virender Kumar: He is a witness to whom the

prosecution claims that the mobile number 9219991059 in the name of
his wife Rekha was given by him to accused Machinder Nath @
Pratibhanand for use. He turned hostile and did not support the case
of prosecution as he stated that he never gave any SIM in the name of
his wife Rekha to anyone and also that he does not know anything
about this case.

111. In his examination-in-chief, PW-96 stated that he is a

permanent resident of Village Sandi Pur, District Muzzafar Nagar and
he does not know anything about the case. He also stated that he had
never given any SIM in the name of his wife Rekha to anyone. He was
accordingly declared hostile and in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl.
PP, he stated that his wife is using mobile phone no. 9634967496 and

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 177 of 212  
 210

she had earlier used another number which he does not remember. He
stated that he also does not remember the company through which the
said SIM number was got issued and the year of its issuance. He
stated that the earlier number was used till 2013, however, cannot tell
the month in which it was disconnected. He stated that he does not
remember if his wife had got issued a SIM number 9219991059,
however, he admitted that he and his wife used to reside at Mawana,
District Meerut. He also admitted that photograph in CAF Ex. PW6/N is
of his wife and the annexed document i.e. Voter I Card is also of his
wife. He admitted that he had got issued this SIM no. 9219991059. He
stated that he does not know accused Machinder @ Pratibhanand and
denied that he had given SIM no. 9219991059 for use to accused
Pratibhanand. He denied that he had studied at Gurukul College,
Sukartal, Muzzafar Nagar in the year 1988-89 or that he met
Pratibhanand there. He also denied that accused Pratibhanand used to
visit him or that when he used to come to Mawana town he used to call
him to meet. He denied that about 10 years ago, he had handed over
the SIM issued in the name of his wife to accused Pratibhanand who
had told him that his mobile and ID has been misplaced. He denied
having given any statement u/s 161 Cr.PC mark PW96/A in this case.
He stated that he does not know any person by the name of Anuj
Mishra and cannot tell if he was using mobile phone no. 8447625105
and 9654048105. He admitted that his wife never made a call to Anuj
Mishra on his number. He stated that he knows Rajenderan whom he
met two times, once in the year 2013 at PS Vasant Kunj and for the
second time in 2017 in the court. He stated that he used to make him
calls, however, his wife did not call him.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 178 of 212  
 211

112. In his cross-examination by the counsel for accused

Pratibhanand, PW-96 stated that he visited police station in the year
2013 as he was called by police official for inquiry in the present case.
He stated that police had asked him if he had given his wife's SIM card
to anyone for use and he told them that this SIM card was not given by
him or by his wife to anyone for use and that it remained with his wife.
He stated that he cannot tell the number of mobile numbers which have
been used by his wife since the year 2012. He stated that she would
change her mobile number if any number with an economical scheme
was available. He stated that a day before, IO had called and asked
him that he should come to depose before the court. He stated that he
and his wife were called in the police station by the IO who told them
as to what they had to depose before the Magistrate. He stated that
police official had instructed him to depose before the Magistrate that
he had given the aforesaid SIM issued in the name of his wife to
accused Pratibhanand and that he was using the same. He stated that
initially he refused to give the said statement, however, later on under
the pressure of police official and on their threat that they would send
them behind bars that they agreed to give such statement under
pressure. He stated that he had made a complaint with regard to the
conduct of the police officials who had pressurized him for giving false
statement before the Magistrate and it was made by him after 2-4 days
of the recording of his statement by the Magistrate. He stated that he
was advised by Rajenderan to make such complaint and this advise
was given after recording of his statement by the Magistrate. He stated
that the application was drafted by an advocate which was brought on

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 179 of 212  
 212

record and identified as Ex. PW96/DA.

113. PW97 Smt. Rekha: She is the wife of PW 96 Sh. Virender

Kumar and as noted, the prosecution claims that SIM no. 9219991059
issued in her name was given for use by her husband to accused
Pratibhanand. She also did not support the prosecution case and
deposed on the lines of what was stated by her husband. She also
stated that her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC Ex. PW97/A was given under
the pressure of police officials and was not given voluntarily. She stated
that she gave a complaint against the police officials on the advise of
Rajenderan and in her cross-examination identified her complaint
application as Ex. PW97/DA.

114. PW-98 Sh. Rajindran Raja : He is claimed by the

prosecution to have known accused Pratibhanand for the last many
years and had given him for use a mobile no. 9211751610. He did not
support the prosecution case by deposing in his examination that he
does not know any person by the name of Pratibhanand and had not
given any SIM to any person. In his examination-in-chief, PW-98
stated that he is a permanent resident of District Trintalvalli, Tamilnadu
and is residing at Delhi since 1977. He stated that he is into the
business of property dealing and his other family members reside at
Tamilnadu. He stated that he does not know any person by the name
of Pratibhanand and he had not given any SIM card to any person. In
his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW-98 stated that he is a
graduate and knows that one can be punished for deposing falsely in
the court. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police. He

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 180 of 212  
 213

denied that he knows accused Pratibhanand for the last 25 years and
that he had met him for the first time outside a temple when
Pratibhanand told him that he gives medicines for the patients. He
denied that he also took medicine from accused Pratibhanand or that
Pratibhanand used to come to Shiv Mandir, Moti Bagh and used to call
him by sending someone. He also denied that Pratibhanand had asked
him that he was in need of a SIM and wanted a SIM to be arranged for
him. He also denied that on the asking of Pratibhanand, he took a SIM
of Tata company in his name and handed it over to Pratibhanand for
use. He denied that whenever Pratibhanand used to come to meet him,
he used to call from his number to other persons on the pretext of not
having sufficient balance in his phone. He denied that all the above
facts were stated by him to the police in his statement Ex.PW98/A. He
admitted that he is using mobile no. 9891186117 which is in his name.
He also admitted that his statement was recorded by one Judge
Sahiba. He was shown the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC Ex. PW98/B. He
admitted that this statement was given by him to the Magistrate,
however, he volunteered by stating that police officials called him to the
police station where he was confined for three days. He also stated
that police officials have threatened him to give such statement. He
stated that he wanted to give true statement to the Magistrate but could
not give it as police officials were sitting outside the chamber of the
Magistrate. He stated that however he made a complaint before the
Magistrate on the next day. He further stated that he was called by the
police officials to police station Vasant Kunj and there were 6-7 police
officials who all were in civil clothes. They used to call him in the
morning to the PS and used to leave him late in the night and for all the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 181 of 212  
 214

three days, he was threatened by the police officials. He stated that he

did not make any complaint to senior police officials or to any other
authority. He stated that out of the said police officials, one was an
Inspector and outside his door there was a plate of Inspector where the
said police officials used to sit. He stated that there was another plate
having the name of the said Inspector, however, he does not remember
his name. He admitted that mobile number 9211751610 was issued in
his name. He stated that he was using the said mobile and never gave
it to Pratibhanand. He volunteered that if any person of his family used
to come to Delhi from Tamil Nadu, he used to hand over to them the
said mobile phone for use. He stated that he knows Jasbir Singh since
the year 2012 who is residing near IIT Gate and he had met him 2-3
times, however, he used to call him many times. He stated that one of
his clients wanted to purchase a vacant plot and name of the client is
J.P. Saini. He stated that he came to know about Jasbir Singh from a
property dealer and made many calls to Jasbir Singh in order to
purchase a vacant plot of 1000 sq. yds. He stated that he does not
know any person by the name of Baljeet. He admitted that Ex. PW6/A
was filled by him at the time of issuance of the said mobile number and
the alternate mobile number given therein was 9891186117.

In his cross-examination by the counsel for accused

Pratibhanand, PW-98 reiterated that he was beaten up and harassed
by the police officials in the year 2013. He also stated that his mobile
containing SIM card no. 9891186117 was taken by the police which
was returned later on, however, the mobile containing SIM no.
9211751610 was retained and not returned. He stated that he had also

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 182 of 212  
 215

met one Virender and Rekha on the day when statement u/s 164 Cr.PC
was recorded by the Magistrate. He stated that they sought his advise
as they were also threatened to depose in the court as per their
instructions. He stated that he moved a complaint on the advise of an
advocate with regard to the conduct of the police officials. The
application was identified on record as Ex. PW98/DA. He stated that he
knows Anuj Mishra and identified his photograph on the CAF
Ex.PW5/D. He stated that he had interacted with Anuj while dealing in
property matters and knows him prior to year 2011 and used to have
telephonic conversation with him. He also stated that he knows one
Udhav Dass and identified his photograph on CAF Ex.PW35/D. He
stated that he knows Udhav Dass who used to reside around
Vrindavan and whom he met in Vrindavan sometime in the year 2011,
2012 or 2013 with respect to property which he wanted to purchase at
Vrindavan. He stated that he had spoken to him on phone. He further
stated that he knows Sumit Mishra, Dev Dutt Tyagi and Pradeep Singh
and identified them in their photographs on CAF Ex. PW89/A,
Ex.PW6/O and mark PW 98/DB respectively. He stated that he knows
all three of them and had met them in respect of property dealings and
had also spoken to them on various occasions.

115. Here, relevant part of the testimony of the Ld. Magistrate,

PW-20 Ms. Jasjeet Kaur in respect of recording of the statement of
PW-51 Rajinder Dass may also be noted. In her cross-examination,
PW-20 stated that she had not verified the identity proof including
voter- I card of PW Rajinder Dass before recording his statement u/s
164 Cr.PC. She stated that PW Rajinder Dass made his statement in

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 183 of 212  
 216

Hindi which was translated by her and after asking Rajinder Dass that
he was capable of understanding English or not. She stated that in the
initial questionnaire put to the witness Rajinder Dass, no question was
asked whether he knows English or not. She admitted that it is not
mentioned in the statement that it has been explained to Rajinder Dass
in vernacular. On being shown the statement Ex.PW20/M of
PW Rajinder Dass, PW-20 admitted that she did not ask PW Rajinder
Dass as to when and why he had approached police before recording
his statement. She volunteered by stating that at page 12 of the
statement Ex. PW 20/M, it is mentioned that the witness had explained
that after reading newspaper reports against him that he had
approached police official at PS Vasant Kunj and had told them
everything. She admitted that she had not asked the witness as to for
how many days he was in touch with the police or was in custody
before recording his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. She stated that she
cannot affirm or deny whether PW Rajinder Dass was under the
influence of the police at the time of recording of statement. She stated
that at the time of recording statement of PW Rajinder Dass, no other
question other than the questionnaire which is part of statement
Ex.PW20/M was put to him.

116. Thus, as can been seen from the deposition of the Ld.
Magistrate, it was not ascertained positively that the witness was under
some threat or coercion of the police or not. In such a given situation,
the deposition of the witness PW-51 Rajinder Dass that he was given a
prepared statement by the police which he initially gave before a lady
DCP and then under pressure of the police to a lady Judge who was

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 184 of 212  
 217

sitting in her chamber, cannot be disbelieved or discarded outrightly.

117. Since the evidence concerning accused Pratibhanand

being involved in criminal conspiracy has been discussed, it is deemed
fit to also deal here about the issue of proclamation proceedings u/s 82
Cr.PC against accused Pratibhanand with respect to which he was
charged for the offence u/s 174A IPC. In this regard, in the written
submissions filed on behalf of accused Pratibhanand, proclamation
proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC against accused Pratibhanand have been
challenged on the ground that the proclamation was carried out at the
address of Village Titarwani, District Beed, Maharashtra with respect to
which the IO already information had that accused Pratibhanand
was not residing thereat and had left the said address almost three
decades back. The said contention appears to have force as not only
the IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary in his deposition admitted that
as per his investigation, accused Pratibhanand was not found residing
at Village Titarwani for the last more than three decades, even the
process servers PW106 ASI Harish who executed the process u/s 82
Cr.PC and proved his report as Ex. PW106/F and PW 100 HC Manoj
Kumar who gave his report on the attachment proceedings u/s 83
Cr.PC and proved his report as Ex. PW100/A, have admitted that they
came to know that accused Pratibhanand had left the said village about
twenty years ago and this fact was incorporated by them in their
respective reports. Thus, the proclamation proceedings at Village
Titarwani was of no consequence and it did not give either an
opportunity or reasonable notice to accused Pratibhanand to submit
himself before the investigating officer. Perusal of the record of

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 185 of 212  
 218

proclamation proceedings also reveals that though the publication of

the process u/s 82 Cr.PC was ordered by the concerned Ld.
Magistrate, however, it was not done in the manner as prescribed and
in fact, the publications carried out in various newspapers by the IO
were of accused Pratibhanand being wanted in the present case and of
the announcement of reward on his head. Deposition of PW-28 also
needs mention as he was working as Public Relation Officer of Hindu
Mahasabha and he was confronted by the Ld. Addl. PP with his
statement mark P28/A which he gave to the police on 09.06.2013
therein stating that accused had resided at room no.16 of Hindu
Mahasabha. Though this witness denied of having given any such
statement, nonetheless it having been recorded by the IO u/s 161
Cr.PC during the course of investigation, the proclamation proceedings
ought to have been executed at this given address of the accused
which was the most recent address of the accused as revealed to the
IO during investigation.

118. Reference can also be made to the testimony of PW-85

ASI Jagpal Singh who had deposed that he had participated in the
investigation with the IO SI KP Singh on 13.04.2013 and 14.04.2013
and that on 13.04.2013, at the instance of accused Purshottam, they
left Delhi for Solan, Himachal Pradesh in search of the Ashrams where
as per the disclosure of accused Purshottam, accused Pratibhanand
had resided. This witness stated that the inquiries done from the
residents of the Ashrams were not reduced into writing, nonetheless,
the main IO must have been informed by SI K.P. Singh about the said
proceedings as well and the proclamation proceedings atleast through

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 186 of 212  
 219

publication could have been carried out in the local newspapers

circulated in the given area. Thus, the proclamation u/s 82 Cr.PC
having not been executed at the address where the accused could
have been afforded reasonable opportunity to report to police, the
charge u/s 174 A IPC cannot be substantiated and proved by the
prosecution.

119. Another link the prosecution has tried to establish is of the

part of contract money changing hands between accused Nitesh,
Baljeet, Pratibhanand and the other accused persons.

120. The very first link that part of the contract money of Rs. 50
lacs was given by accused Nitesh to accused Baljeet has not been
proved. Strangely, IO did not make any efforts to examine any witness
related to the accounts of any of the companies managed and
controlled by deceased Deepak Bhardwaj that deceased Deepak
Bhardwaj had given Rs. 50 lacs in cash kept in a briefcase to his son
Nitesh Bhardwaj to keep it in safe custody. This amount was no mean
amount and some evidence regarding the source thereof ought to have
been explored and established by the IO before claiming that this
amount was diverted by accused Nitesh Bhardwaj as a part of the
contract money to get his father eliminated. On this aspect, the IO
appears to have been swayed by the disclosure statement of accused
Nitesh. Besides this, the only link the IO tried to establish was of the
recovery of the briefcase with broken locks from the house of accused
Nitesh in pursuance of his disclosure statement. The recovery of this
briefcase as will be apparent from the testimony of PW-53 Ct. Suraj

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 187 of 212  
 220

Prakash and of PW-62 SI Rajbir is seriously doubted. Their testimonies

are accordingly taken up for consideration.

121. PW-53 Ct. Suraj Prakash (inadvertently again examined

as PW-53 when he was to be examined as PW-54). Prosecution has
claimed that it is in his presence that accused Nitesh Bhardwaj in
pursuance of his disclosure statement, had taken the police team
comprising of SI Rajbir and Ct. Suraj Prakash firstly to the Vodafone
store from where the prosecution alleges that accused had purchased
two SIM cards, one bearing no. 9582724694 and the other bearing no.
9717906666 and then to his house at Sec.11, Dwarka from where the
prosecution alleges recovery of briefcase with broken locks and a slip
pad with some writing in the hand of Nishtha Bhardwaj, wife of accused
Nitesh Bhardwaj. Testimony of PW53 Ct. Suraj Prakash also holds
significance since he had alleged in his deposition that he was lured by
one SI Vinod to give a false deposition favouring the accused persons.
As would be seen from his deposition, his allegation appears to be
motivated and at the behest of someone making an attempt to
influence or prejudice the court.

122. PW-53 Ct. Suraj Prakash in his examination-in-chief

recorded on 24.09.2015 stated that on 14.04.2013, he joined the
investigation with SI Rajbir and took accused Nitesh to Vodafone Store,
Plot no. 2, Sector 12, Dwarka where the floor supervisor Ajay met them
who on enquiry about the mobile phone numbers ending with numbers
94 and 666, the complete number he does not remember, stated that
both the SIMs were purchased by accused Nitesh from the said store.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 188 of 212  
 221

Thereafter, in his presence accused Nitesh got recovered one

briefcase and three empty boxes of mobile phones alongwith one slip
pad in half torn condition from the bedroom of his flat no.A-91, MK
Society, Sec. 11, Dwarka, New Delhi which were taken into possession
by SI Rajbir vide seizure memos Ex.PW53/A and Ex. PW53/B. He also
correctly identified the briefcase with broken locks as Ex.PX1 and three
empty boxes of mobile phones as Ex. PX2 (colly.). His further
examination for identification of the torn slip pad was held on
08.03.2016 where he identified the slip pad as already Ex.PW56/DA.
Before he could be cross-examined, the witness volunteered that he
wants to make a statement to the court. He stated that on 05.02.2016
when he was to appear as a witness in this case having received the
summons from the court, a day before i.e. on 04.02.2016 he received a
phone call on his mobile phone from SI Vinod who asked about his
whereabouts and on being told the place of posting as of church duty
at Sec.6, R.K. Puram, he told that he wanted to meet him. When SI
Vinod was asked in what context he wants to meet him, he told that he
will tell on meeting. He stated that on 04.02.2016 itself, SI Vinod came
to meet him at Mohan Singh market, Sec. 6, R. K. Puram. He further
stated that SI Vinod asked him whether he has to depose in his
examination-in-chief on 05.02.2016 in the court in respect of the
present case to which he replied that it is essentially for his cross-
examination. PW-53 further stated that SI Vinod then told him that 'kya
kuch le dekar bayan muljim ke favour mein kar loge' to which he
refused and told that he could not do so. PW-53 stated that he revealed
about this incident to SHO PS R.K. Puram Insp Neeraj and also made
a DD entry of the said incident in the police station. He stated that SHO

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 189 of 212  
 222

had forwarded his information to the area DCP and an inquiry was
ordered.

123. Owing to what the witness had deposed over and above
his deposition pertaining to the facts of the present case, he was
accordingly cross-examined by the defence counsel on both the
aspects and his cross-examination started with his alleged meeting
with SI Vinod. In his cross-examination, PW-53 Ct. Suraj Prakash
stated that he had never met SI Vinod prior to 04.02.2016 and he had
not asked him about his place of posting. He stated that he does not
remember mobile number of SI Vinod but he had saved it in his mobile
phone and on checking it, he revealed the mobile no. 9015290152
which was saved against the name 'SI'. He admitted that he had not
fed the name Vinod with respect to the said number. He stated that he
was alone when he received that call and did not record the
conversation on his mobile phone. He stated that on phone, SI Vinod
had not told him the reason why he wanted to meet and had told that
he would reveal it in person. He stated that his duty hours on
04.02.2016 were from 8 pm to 8 am and he reached the police station
at about 8:30 pm and recorded his arrival. He stated that he left the
police station within five minutes after recording his departure and
came back to the police station at about 8:15 am on the following day.
He stated that he received the call from SI Vinod at about 6 pm when
he was at home and the second call was received by him at about 8:30
pm. He stated that he met SI Vinod after about 10 minutes of receiving
of the second call. He stated that his duty was not at Mohan Singh
market but it fell on the way to his place of duty at church. He stated

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 190 of 212  
 223

that he recorded the DD entry of the incident on 04.02.2016 itself at

about 10 pm and the conversation with SI Vinod at Mohan Singh
market took place for about ten minutes. He stated that SI Vinod came
in his car and he did not call the PCR nor he tried to apprehend him
and he also did not make any call to police station from Mohan Singh
market to register any complaint. He volunteered that he directly went
to the SHO in the police station. He admitted that Insp. Neeraj to whom
he had given this information is the IO of this case. He stated that Insp.
Neeraj did not make any attempt to dial the number from which he had
received the call. Insp. Neeraj also did not call SI Vinod to the police
station. He stated that he did not meet SI Vinod after 04.02.2016 and is
not aware whether any FIR was registered against SI Vinod on his
information. PW-53 further stated that his examination-in-chief was
recorded on 24.09.2015 and on 05.02.2016 he was present before the
court. He stated that on that day, he did not give any application to the
court regarding this incident. He stated that he was also present on
08.02.2016 in the court and again did not give any information about
the incident. He stated that he had not stated this fact to the court
either orally or in writing prior to 08.03.2016. He stated that he has
been subordinate to Insp. Neeraj for the past 2 ½ years. He stated that
he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj from 2010-2014 and since 2014 he is
posted at PS R. K. Puram. He stated that Insp. Neeraj was first
transferred to PS R. K.Puram as SHO and subsequently he was
transferred. He denied the suggestion that his transfer to PS RK Puram
was due to the influence of Insp. Neeraj to whom he was loyal. He also
denied the suggestion that he alongwith Insp. Neeraj had conspired to
make false allegations against SI Vinod to settled their personal scores

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 191 of 212  
 224

with him. He also denied that he had made this false allegations on the
directions of Insp. Neeraj to prejudice any bail application which may
be filed by any of the accused persons.

124. In his further cross-examination, now on the aspect of his

role in investigation of the present case, PW-53 Ct. Suraj Prakash
stated that he came to know about the present FIR in March 2013 and
in fact all in the police station came to know about the incident just
when it happened. He stated that neither he joined the investigation nor
visited the place of incident prior to 14.04.2013. He stated that he had
also not met the accused Nitesh prior to 14.04.2013. He stated that he
was on leave between 26.03.2013 to 14.04.2013 and came to know
10-11 days prior to 14.04.2013 that accused Nitesh has been arrested
in this case. He stated that he is not aware about any aspect of the
investigation including anything involving Nitesh and the places he was
kept and taken prior to 14.04.2013. He stated that on 14.04.2013 he
reported for duty at about 9:00 am and met SI Rajbir for the first time
on 14.04.2013 at about 12:00 noon. He stated that he knew that Insp.
Neeraj is the IO of this case. He stated that he saw Nitesh Bhardwaj in
the room of SI Rajbir in the police station. He stated that they had left
the police station after about 2 ½ hours of his having seen accused
Nitesh in the room of SI Rajbir. He stated that he does not remember
whether SI Rajbir recorded any departure entry. He stated that he did
not record any departure entry. He stated that plot no.2, Sec.12,
Dwarka falls in South-West District and is a different district. He stated
that it was within his knowledge that they have to visit the said plot as
well as to Flat no. A-91, MK Society, Sec. 11, Dwarka. He stated that

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 192 of 212  
 225

he was aware that A-91 is a residential flat and that there was no other
police official except him and SI Rajbir alongwith accused Nitesh. He
stated that he is not aware if the IO had requisitioned any lady police
official to accompany them. He stated that they were not having any
search warrant. He stated that he cannot tell the distance between
police station Vasant Kunj(S) and Plot no. 12, Sec. 12, Dwarka and he
has no idea if the distance was 10 meter or 10 km. He stated that they
had gone in QRT police gypsy and it was driven by a private driver who
is often engaged to drive the gypsy. He stated that it took them about
5-6 hours in completing the proceedings on the said day. He stated that
the Vodafone store was situated in the market of Sec.12 and he does
not know who was its owner. He volunteered by stating that he knows
the supervisor. He stated that he does not remember about the
employees or their names who were employed in the store. He stated
that in his presence, IO did not collect any document showing the
employment of said supervisor. In his presence, IO also did not record
statement of any person or prepared any seizure memo. Even no
writing work was done by the IO in his presence. He stated that
supervisor of Vodafone store also did not show CAF of the mobile
phones to the IO. He stated that they remained in the store for about 1
½ -2 hours.

125. In his further cross-examination, PW-53 Ct. Suraj Prakash

stated that he is aware that logbooks are maintained regarding
movement of official vehicle, however, he himself did not make any
entries in the logbook of the said police gypsy regarding use of the
vehicle on that day. He stated that even the IO did not make any such

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 193 of 212  
 226

entry in my presence. He stated that he is not aware about the

approximate distance between A-91, M.K. Society, Sector-11, Dwarka
and Vodafone Store, Sector-12, Dwarka and cannot say whether the
distance between these places is 20 meters or 20 km. He stated that
there was a security guard at the entrance of M.K. Society but he does
not remember whether there was any visitors register at the gate. He
stated that he himself did not make any entry in any visitors register
and also does not know whether SI Rajbir did so or not. He further
stated that the security guard at A-91, M.K. Society, Sector-11, Dwarka
did not ask him where he was going and also cannot say whether he
asked SI Rajbir or not. He stated that he does not know the total
number of rooms in A-91 and cannot say whether it was a one
bedroom, two bedroom or three bedroom flat. He stated that when
they went to the flat, wife of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj and his daughter
aged about three years were present in the flat and he cannot state
how long they remained in the flat for the proceedings conducted there.
He further stated that no written notice was given to the wife of the
accused regarding search of the flat in his presence and no woman
police official was called during the time they remained there. He
stated that no site plan of the room / flat from where the recovery was
effected was made and the spot was also neither photographed nor
videographed. He stated that he does not remember whether any
disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by SI Rajbir at the
said flat, however, he had not signed as a witness on any disclosure
statement of Nitesh Bhardwaj. He stated that he does not know the
name of the manufacturing company of the briefcase and also does not
remember whether it had a numerical lock or inbuilt lock. He

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 194 of 212  
 227

volunteered by stating that the lock was broken, however, admitted that
no broken lock was found at the spot. He further stated that no crime
team was called and no attempts were made to lift fingerprints from the
said briefcase. He further stated that the briefcase which was of sky
blue colour, was found lying on the bed. He further stated that 3-4
lines were written in pencil on the slip pad and he does not remember
whether there was any name written on it or not. He stated that he
cannot say whether there was one page or there were 20 pages in the
slip pad. He volunteered that there were more than one page. He
stated that he does not remember whether there was any writing in pen
on the slip pad. He also does not remember whether all the pages
were paginated before seizing the slip pad. He stated that the slip pad
was also found lying on the bed and the empty mobile packaging
boxes were also lying on the bed. He stated that the seal after use
was handed back to him by SI Rajbir in the flat itself and he deposited
the seal in the malkhana, however, no separate handing over/returning
memos regarding the seal were prepared. He stated that his statement
was recorded by SI Rajbir at the flat in his own handwriting. He stated
that he did did not make any arrival entry in the police station at the
time of their return and also does not remember if IO had made any
such entry.

126. When the IO knew that accused is to be taken to his

house where the family members including ladies would be available,
some lady police official ought to have been sent in the team. Also no
DD entry was made either by the IO or by his deputy SI Rajbir
regarding the police team leaving the police station alongwith accused

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 195 of 212  
 228

Nitesh to his house for the purposes of investigation. Another aspect is

of neither examining the floor supervisor Ajay who met SI Rajbir at
Vodafone Store informing that he had the details of the person who had
purchased the SIM in respect of mobile no. 9582724694 and
9717906666 nor of obtaining such documents which otherwise was the
most crucial piece of evidence over and above the oral statements to
link accused Nitesh with the usage of mobile number 9582724694.
Other areas of concern raising doubt regarding the entire investigation
of the visit of the police team to the house of accused Nitesh are firstly,
of not having joined any lady official or anyone from the society either
the security guard or any other member of the executive
committee/welfare association of the society or even from the next door
neighbours. Also, no entry was made in the visitors register by the
police team to substantiate its claim that they had in fact visited the
society where the house of accused Nitesh was located. Now relevant
part of the testimony of PW-62 SI Rajbir is discussed below.

127. PW-62 SI Rajbir Singh in his examination-in-chief stated

that on 14.04.2013 when he was posted as SI at PS Vasant Kunj(S), IO
Insp. Neeraj directed him to conduct investigation and as instructed, he
alongwith PW53 Ct. Suraj Prakash, one driver and accused Nitesh
Bhardwaj went to Sec.12, Dwarka in a government vehicle where
accused led them to a Vodafone store at ground floor, plot no.2, Sec.12
where one Ajay, floor supervisor, met and told that accused Nitesh had
purchased SIM no. 9582724694 and 9717906666 from his store. The
floor supervisor further told that he will produce the record pertaining to
the purchase of the said SIM. PW-62 further stated that thereafter

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 196 of 212  
 229

accused Nitesh led them to his house at A-91, MK Society, Sec.11,

Dwarka where he took out one briefcase of sky blue colour from his
bedroom and informed that it was in this suitcase that his father had
given him Rs. 50 lacs and that he had subsequently broken open the
locks and took out Rs. 50 lacs which was paid to accused Baljeet. He
further stated that accused Nitesh also took out three empty boxes of
mobile phones (Galaxy Note-2, Arise Model A-2000 and LG GB-100).
He stated that he took into his possession the briefcase and the three
empty mobile boxes vide seizure memo Ex. PW53/A. He stated that
thereafter accused Nitesh handed over from his bedroom, one slip pad
in half torn condition on the third last page of which one mobile number,
berry uncle and a script 'Baapu mother ke naam property nahi kar rahe
hai, isliye hume fight karni padegi' written in English was seen. He
stated that he prepared the pullanda of the said slip pad in a plastic
folder and sealed it with his seal and took it into his possession vide
seizure memo Ex.PW53/B. He stated that seal after use was handed
over to Ct. Suraj Prakash and thereafter they returned to PS where the
case property was got deposited in the Malkhana. He stated that IO
also recorded his statement to this effect. In his cross-examination by
the counsel for accused Nitesh, PW-62 stated that on 14.04.2013, he
alongwith Ct. Suraj Prakash and the accused had left the police station
after about 35-40 minutes when IO had briefed them at about 8 am. He
stated that he had not gone through the police file or any document
before proceeding towards the spot. He stated that he also cannot tell
the number of entry made in daily diary register showing their
departure from the police station on 14.04.2013. He stated that he had
not collected copy of the said DD from the duty officer and he had also

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 197 of 212  
 230

not mentioned the DD number in any of his statements. He stated that

they had gone in a official gypsy and he does not remember the name
of the driver but he was a constable and that his statement was not
recorded. He stated that IO had briefed him in his room that they have
to go to the residence of accused Nitesh and that he had not made any
requisition for lady police to join the investigation and to witness the
proceedings which were to be conducted at the dwelling house of the
accused. He stated that he had not associated any public witness
throughout the day during investigation. He stated that neither he took
the photographs or got the video recording done of the places visited
by him including the house of accused and the Vodafone store at
Dwarka and that he also did not prepare any site plan of any of these
places visited on 14.04.2013. He stated that the Vodafone store was at
a distance of about 20 km from the police station and that he had not
recorded statement of any of the witness from the said store. He stated
that he had also not prepared any seizure memo of any document
during his visit to the Vodafone store and that he also did not collect
identity proof of floor supervisor Ajay. He stated that he does not know
who was the owner of the Vodafone store and he had not prepared any
list of its employees. He stated that they remained in the store for about
20 minutes. He stated that he had instructed Ajay found present at
Vodafone store to provide the relevant information and the document
within 2-3 days, however, he had not met Ajay thereafter. He further
stated that the house of the accused was at a distance of about 200-
300 meter from the Vodafone store. He stated that he had not made
any entry in the register maintained at the main gate of the society in
respect of their visit on that day. He stated that he had not noticed the

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 198 of 212  
 231

number of stories of the building where the house of accused was

located but it was a multi storey building and the flat of accused was on
9th floor. He stated that there were three other flats on the floor of the
accused and that he did not went there to request neighbours to join
the investigation. He stated that they stayed at the house of accused
for about 1½ hours and at that time wife and daughter of the accused
were present. He stated that he had not recorded statement of the wife
of accused and had also not taken search of each and every room to
explore possibility of finding other incriminating evidence against the
accused. He stated that he had not counted the number of rooms,
therefore, cannot tell how many rooms were there in the flat of
accused. He stated that the briefcase recovered by him was kept in an
Almirah but he does not remember whether it was a wooden or iron
almirah and also does not know whether it was locked or not. He stated
that he had not taken the search of that Almirah and also did not make
any effort to lift any chance print from that briefcase. He stated that
even the broken lock was not found in that room and he did not send
any requisition for the crime team to visit the spot. He stated that the
empty boxes of the mobile phone and the slip pad were kept on the
double bed kept in that room. He stated that he had not counted the
number of pages in that slip pad and does not remember whether its
pages were numbered or not. He stated that he had not prepared any
memo at the time of handing over the seal to Ct. Suraj Prakash and
does not remember when the seal was returned by him.

128. Regarding assigning of investigation by IO PW-93 Insp.

Neeraj Chaudhary to SI Rajbir on 14.04.2013, IO had stated that

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 199 of 212  
 232

instruction was not given in writing but this fact was mentioned by him
in the daily diary register, however, he admitted that he had not placed
copy of the daily diary register either on the judicial record or in the
police file. He stated that he also did not place on record the arrival
entry made by SI Rajbir in the daily diary register of 14.04.2013. He
stated that when he gave instructions to SI Rajbir, he was aware that SI
Rajbir would be required to go to the house of accused Nitesh and that
search may also be required to be conducted. He stated that he did not
obtain any search warrant from the court authorizing him or other
officer delegated by him to search the house of accused Nitesh. He
stated that he was also aware but accused Nitesh was a married man
having family and that he did not give any instruction to SI Rajbir to
associate any lady police official with him while conducting search of
accused Nitesh. He stated that he himself did not make any requisition
for a lady constable in this regard. He stated that SI Rajbir had not
taken the photograph or prepared the videography of the house of
accused Nitesh from where the recoveries are shown to have been
effected. He stated that SI Rajbir also did not prepare any site plan. He
stated that he came to know that the house of accused Nitesh was in a
residential area and in a multi storey group housing society, however,
no neighbour or public person or guard or any office bearer of the
society was associated in the investigation conducted by SI Rajbir on
14.04.2013. He stated that the briefcase with the broken lock and the
empty mobile boxes after recovery were not kept in a sealed parcel by
SI Rajbir and he too did not seal these articles when produced before
him by SI Rajbir. He stated that he did not prepare any separate
production-cum-seizure memo of these articles. He stated that SI

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 200 of 212  
 233

Rajbir did not lift any finger prints from the briefcase. He stated that he
did not make any investigation with regard to the source from where
the mobile phones of the empty boxes were procured /purchased. He
stated that he could not connect these empty boxes in any way with
this case.

129. The testimony of PW-53, PW-62 and of the IO is self

sufficient to infer that the alleged recovery of the briefcase with broken
locks and also of the half torn notepad is not free from suspicion and is
not reliable enough to be believed and acted upon. The lapses in the
investigation concerning the alleged recovery have been noted and
these lapses seriously damaged the investigation carried out on
14.04.2013 at the house of accused Nitesh. Also, even if for a
moment, recovery of the briefcase with broken locks is believed, still it
is not sufficient in itself to say that it was this briefcase in which
deceased Deepak Bhardwaj gave Rs. 50 lacs to accused Nitesh to
keep it in safe custody or this amount was diverted by accused Nitesh
for the job of contract killing of his father. Here, with regard to the claim
that Deepak Bhardwaj had given Rs. 50 lacs to accused Nitesh and
that this amount was used by accused Nitesh by giving it to accused
Baljeet, testimony of IO PW-93 deserves to be noted who had stated
that he had not recorded statement of any witness in this regard nor did
he collect any documentary evidence to support the said claim,
however, he volunteered that he came to know about these facts from
the disclosure statements of the accused persons. He stated that he
did not examine the person handling the finance of the companies of
deceased Deepak Bhardwaj or of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj or his

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 201 of 212  
 234

family members including chartered accountant, financial advisor etc.

He stated that he also did not find any money trail from any bank
account to corroborate the said claim. The deposition of the IO both in
respect of the claim of strained relations between accused Nitesh and
his deceased father and of the deceased having given Rs. 50 lacs to
accused Nitesh which the accused used towards the contract money,
shows that no proper investigation was conducted and the IO instead
placed too much reliance either on the disclosures made by the
accused persons which have no value unless leading to discovery of
any new fact or on the oral statements of the witnesses who were
known to both the deceased and the accused without realizing that
there was a strong possibility of these witnesses deposing in favour of
the defence. One of the pointers to the strained relations must have
been of the deceased keeping accused Nitesh out of the control and
management of his companies and the IO did not conduct any
investigation on this aspect which otherwise would have been a strong
link to establish the motive with the accused to enter into criminal
conspiracy to kill his father. Similarly, the IO did not feel necessary that
the trail of money which was a huge amount of Rs. 50 lacs needs to be
established so as to give a link that this amount was utilized by
accused Nitesh for the purpose of criminal conspiracy. Strangely, the
IO relied only on the disclosure statement and did not make any efforts
from the accounts of the company of the deceased to establish that the
amount of Rs. 50 lacs was handed over by the deceased to his
son/accused Nitesh. It also otherwise seems strange that when the
deceased and the accused had strained relations, the deceased would
still hand over a large sum of Rs. 50 lacs to the accused for its safe

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 202 of 212  
 235

custody.

130. The other link the prosecution made an attempt to prove

that accused Nitesh gave Rs. 50 lacs to accused Baljeet as a part
payment of the contract money to kill his father, is of the recovery of
Rs. 11,51,000/- and a car make Swift from the house of accused
Baljeet at his instance and of Rs. 10 lac having been produced by
PW-17 Manmohan. Even if the alleged recovery of Rs. 11,51,000/- and
a swift car at the instance of accused Baljeet from his house is believed
to be correct, still accused Baljeet by examining witnesses in his
defence, whose testimonies stands already noted, has been able to
demonstrate that he had sufficient means with him to keep the amount
alleged by the prosecution to be the part of the contract money. Even
the swift car which the prosecution alleges the accused to have been
purchased from the part of the contract money does not stand on any
firm ground. As to PW-17 Manmohan, he too did not support the
prosecution case and strangely the IO also did not bother to seal the
money so as to give some sanctity to its seizure. It was not that the
defence for the first time was making an attempt that some properties
were sold by accused Baljeet and/or his wife leading to availability of
the given cash with them at the relevant time, even the IO in his cross-
examination admitted that accused Baljeet during interrogation did
disclose to him about the sale of properties by him/his wife and also of
his having submitted the statement of bank accounts showing sufficient
amount being transacted even in respect of the purchase of swift car
which the IO has claimed to have been purchased from part of the
contract money. Also, regarding giving of money by accused Nitesh to

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 203 of 212  
 236

accused Baljeet, IO stated that he had not recorded statement of any

witness or collected any document in support of his claim that during
investigation the swift car produced by accused Baljeet was purchased
by him from the money given to him by accused Nitesh for eliminating
his father, however, he volunteered that his claim was based on the
disclosure of accused Baljeet. This link has, thus, not been proved
beyond doubt by the prosecution.

131. Lastly, it is deemed fit to refer to the deposition of IO

PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary which reflects poorly on the way and
the manner in which the investigation was carried out on some vital
aspects of the present case. The first is when in his cross-examination,
the IO was asked about the name of one Aarti (Sweeper) having been
mentioned in the PCR form, he stated that he is not aware about it,
however, his attention was drawn to the PCR form wherein it was
specifically mentioned and which is quoted herein that “hotel ke andar
safai karamchari aarti ne vakaya dekha hai”. It seems strange that the
IO did not think it purposeful to refer to the PCR form which was the
first information received by the police after a call on number 100 was
given from the spot. Not only that, IO PW-93 also stated that he
neither interrogated Aarti nor recorded her statement even after going
through the PCR form. When it has come on record that sweeper Aarti
had witnessed the incident, it was imperative for the IO to have atleast
examined her or to have examined the informant who had called the
police on number 100 as to on what basis the said assertion of
sweeper having witnessed the incident was made. IO had also stated
in his cross-examination that he did not make any endeavour to verify

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 204 of 212  
 237

the information contained in the PCR form from the police/PCR official
who transmitted the same to the police control room and that he also
did not inquire about the source of the said information from the
concerned police official. On the point of identity of the car used in the
commission of the crime, IO PW-93 was inquired by the defence in his
cross-examination whether he sought any clarification from
complainant PW-40 Krishan Singh about the correct number of the
Skoda car as DL 6CJ 7062 when the complainant in his statement had
disclosed the number of the car as DL 3CJ 7062, IO stated that he did
not seek any clarification and he also did not record any supplementary
statement of the complainant in this regard. He also stated that he
does not remember if he conducted any investigation with regard to
car bearing no. DL 3CJ 7062.

132. Another fact which is a pointer to the IO having not

conducted the investigation properly is when in his cross-examination,
he stated that apart from the entry and exit gates, CCTV cameras were
also installed at other places of Nitesh Kunj Complex more specifically
in the lawn area. He stated that he cannot tell the number of CCTV
cameras installed in the entire Nitesh Kunj Complex, however, he
stated that as far as his information is concerned, all the CCTV
cameras were being operated through a single operating room. He
stated that he cannot say whether in the said room there was only one
DVR installed or more than one. He on his own to clarify about the
status of CCTV Cameras, stated that on the date of incident only the
CCTV cameras at the entry and exit gate were functioning and that all
other cameras used to work only during functions, however, on being

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 205 of 212  
 238

asked whether he recorded statement of any witness to the said effect,

IO answered in negative and also stated that he did not mention this
fact in the case diary. If the CCTV cameras were also installed
elsewhere and as deposed by the IO were installed in the lawn area as
well, the footage of the said CCTV cameras ought to have been
checked for verifying whether anything incriminating concerning the
vehicle or the assailants has been captured therein and that what was
the resolution of the said cameras, when the CCTV footage of the
cameras at the entry and exit gate had poor resolution making it difficult
even for the expert to extract anything informative therefrom.

133. On the aspect of linking accused Sunil with the mobile no.
9250502662, IO PW-93 Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary in his cross-
examination was inquired about the basis on which he had mentioned
in the chart Ex. PW93/DX given in the charge-sheet that this mobile
number was used by accused Sunil Maan, he stated that he collected
the CAF and other supporting documents (proved on record as Ex.
PW6/G) during the course of investigation and found the registered
subscriber of this mobile number to be one Jagat Ram. He stated that
he had not met said Jagat Ram during the course of investigation and
that he got verified the address mentioned in the CAF through his staff
and it was reported that it was an incorrect address. However, IO
stated that he did not record the statement of any police or public
witness in this regard. The IO on being inquired that after coming to
know that the mobile no. 9250502662 was registered in the name of
one Jagat Ram and that his address was found to be incorrect, still he
mentioned the name of accused Sunil against this number, he stated

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 206 of 212  
 239

that it transpired during the course of investigation that this mobile

number was used by accused Sunil,however, on being asked whether
he recorded statement of any witness to prove this fact, the IO
answered in negative. He stated that in a similar fashion he had
mentioned the name of accused Sunil against this number in the flow
chart Ex. PW93/DY. As to the mobile no. 9250199962 which was
registered in the name of accused Sunil, IO stated that during the
course of investigation, he found that there was no conversation from
this number at any point of time to any of the mobile numbers
mentioned in Ex. PW93/DX and Ex. PW93/DY. He further stated that
during investigation, mobile phones pertaining to the mobile numbers
9250502662 and 9250199962 were never recovered by him. He stated
that he did make efforts to recover the same but this fact has not been
mentioned by him either in the charge-sheet or in the accompanying
documents. He stated that the mobile no. 9250502662 was of Tata Tele
Services and that he did not requisition any Cell ID chart in respect of
this number from the service provider. Regarding the call details of
accused Purshottam Rana, IO admitted that there was no connectivity
found from the perusal of the call details of accused Purshottam with
the present accused persons.

134. Another pointer to the investigation having not been

carried out properly is to be found in the cross-examination of IO
PW-93 when he stated that the mobile having SIM number
9717457006 was taken into police possession on 01.04.2013 but
the mobile number was never sealed by him and it was deposited
in the Malkhana on the same day as it is. He stated that this

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 207 of 212  
 240

mobile he took in police possession at around 12 in the night of

31.03.2013-01.04.2013 and the mobile was immediately
deposited in the Malkhana. However, he stated that he does not
remember whether he had countersigned in the Malkhana
register while depositing the mobile phone. In his further cross-
examination, IO stated that he obtained the CAF of mobile no.
9717457006 during the course of investigation and when his
attention was drawn to the CAF Ex. PW4/E of the said mobile
number wherein the registered subscriber was shown as one Akil
Ahmed Khan, he stated that he never met the said subscriber
during the course of investigation.

135. Regarding his assertion that the location of mobile

numbers 9810104550, 9582724694 and 9211751610 was found
to be the same on 01.01.2013 to be at Palam Extension,
Sec.7,Dwarka where Shiksha Bharti School of accused Nitesh
Bhardwaj is situated, IO admitted that the mobile tower of network
provider has three antennas and the exact location of a particular
mobile number can be made out on the basis of the antennas. He
stated that he did not verify regarding the exact location on the
basis of antennas of mobile number 9810104550 in the name of
Jasbir, mobile no. 9582724694 in the name of Praveen and
mobile no. 9211751610 in the name of Rajendran from the
service provider to ascertain if they were at the same location. He
further stated that he cannot say if the mobile phone of Jasbir
was throughout in movement. He stated that he did not obtain
any certificate from the network provider regarding exact

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 208 of 212  
 241

locations of the phones and he also did not get the map of the
tower locations from the service providers. He stated that he also
did not seek any scientific evidence with regard to the mobile
locations.

136. Regarding the role of accused Baljeet Singh at the

time when accused Rakesh, Purshottam, Sunil and Amit were
arrested in the present case, IO stated that till 08.04.2013 he had
recorded disclosure statement of accused Rakesh, Purshottam,
Sunil and Amit and there was no reference to accused Baljeet in
any of the disclosure statements of the said accused persons.
This is a serious assertion by the IO since accused Baljeet was
arrested on 09.04.2013 and if there was nothing in the disclosure
statements of any of the accused persons arrested before that
date, it is strange as to on what basis the IO effected the arrest of
accused Baljeet. In this regard, the contention of the counsel for
accused Baljeet that as the accused was active in lodging
complaints against the land grabbers of his area who were having
the protection of the local police of PS Vasant Kunj(S), that the
accused was falsely implicated at the behest of SHO appears to
have some force. Going further, the reply of IO was evasive
when he stated that he does not remember if prior to the arrest of
accused Baljeet, he had recorded statement of any person or had
collected any other evidence regarding the number being used by
accused Baljeeet or by accused Pratibhanand. He stated that he
had supplied all the statements u/s 161 Cr.PC to the accused
persons which he recorded prior to 09.04.2013 and he admitted

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 209 of 212  
 242

that in none of those statements there was any mention regarding

the mobile numbers being used by accused Baljeet and accused
Pratibhanand. He also stated that he had not placed on judicial
record CDR procured by him from the service provider prior to
09.04.2013. He also stated that he had not placed any evidence
on the judicial record in the form of an application made by him to
the service provider, any statement u/s 161 Cr.PC in this regard
or any other documentary evidence regarding procuring of call
detail record prior to 09.04.2013. He stated that he might have
mentioned it in case diary that he had obtained CDRs prior to
09.04.2013, however, on being asked to refresh his memory by
referring to the case diary, IO refused to refer to it. IO further
admitted that in his application dated 10.04.2013 seeking police
remand of accused Baljeet, the ground cited for arrest of accused
Baljeet was further interrogation of the earlier arrested accused
persons Rakesh, Purshottam, Sunil and Amit. He also admitted
that in none of the disclosure statements of the said accused
persons, there was a mention of the name of accused Baljeet. He
also admitted that even in the application seeking police remand
of accused Baljeet, there was no mention of scrutiny of CDR
record prior to 09.04.2013. IO further stated that he had moved
an application for summoning of CDR of the mobile number
9810104550 in the name of Jasbir on 17.05.2013 and it was
received subsequently. He improved upon by adding that an
application in this regard was also preferred by him on
12.04.2013 which was forwarded by concerned ACP on
13.04.2013 and was received by the service provider on

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 210 of 212  
 243

15.04.2013.

137. Regarding accused Nitesh Bhardwaj, IO PW-93

stated that accused Rakesh @ Nanhe, who was the first to be
interrogated by him in the present case, did not disclose name of
accused Nitesh Bhardwaj. He stated that similarly accused
Purshottam, Sunil and Amit in their respective first disclosure
statement did not make any disclosure regarding accused Nitesh
Bhardwaj. He admitted that none of the accused persons who
were arrested and interrogated before 07.04.2013 made any
disclosure regarding the role of accused Nitesh Bhardwaj.
PW-93 stated that he does not know whether at the time of his
murder, deceased Deepak Bhardwaj had about 300 civil
litigations pending in various courts and authorities, however, he
volunteered that he gained the knowledge that deceased had
many litigations. He stated that he did not carry out any
investigation regarding the advocates who were pursuing the said
litigations for and on behalf of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj. He
stated that it is also not within his knowledge that there were FIRs
registered against deceased Deepak Bhardwaj in respect of
disputes concerning high stake properties or that these FIRs
were registered at PS Vasant Kunj(S), PS Mandir Marg and other
police station. He stated that during investigation, he did not
explore on the element of enmity of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj
with the persons with whom he was in litigation.

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 211 of 212  
 244

138. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that

prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused persons are
accordingly acquitted of the offences they have been charged
with.
Bail bonds / Surety bonds of accused Nitesh
Bhardwaj, Purshottam Rana (on interim bail) and of accused
Baljeet (on interim bail) stands discharged. Original documents, if
any,be released to the respective sureties.
Accused Rakesh @ Nanhe, Amit Mann, Machinder
Nath @ Pratibhanand and Sunil Maan are in judicial custody.
They be released from custody if not required for their detention
in any other case.
Bonds/ surety bonds under section 437A CrPC be
separately furnished which shall remain in force for a period of six
months.
File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open Court (SATISH KUMAR ARORA)

on 25th November, 2019 Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
25.11.2019

SC No.271/18 (Case no. 8713/16)

FIR No.121/13
State vs. Rakesh @ Nanha & Ors. Page No. 212 of 212  

////TRUE COPY///
 245
ANNEXURE P-4

419
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
 266
265A
 266

TRUE COPY
 267
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 2(1)
CRL. M. P. NO._________OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._________OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

NITESH BHARDWAJ …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

FACTS AND DOCUMENTS

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION ON BEHALF

OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWTH:

1. The petitioner is filing the present Special Leave Petition against the
impugned Interim order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2020 whereby
the Hon’ble High Court has admitted the Criminal Appeal filed by
the Respondent No. 2, without grant of leave to appeal against the
order of acquittal and even without examining her locus to file the
Appeal

2. Petitioner has taken detailed grounds in the petition and contents of

the Special Leave Petition may be read as part and parcel of this
application, same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity
 268
3. The petitioner begs to rely upon the following documents which are
extremely crucial for the just adjudication of the present petition.

a. True copy of will dated 14.07.2014 is annexed as ANNEXURE

P-5 (PAGE 270 TO 278).

b. True Copy of the cremation slip with typed copy dated

09.03.2020 with regard to the death of Ramesh Kumari
Bhardwaj is annexed as ANNEXURE P-6 (PAGE 279 TO 280)

c. Copy of hand written MoU along with typed copy dated

09.06.2020. True copy of the hand written MoU along with
typed copy dated 09.06.2020 is annexed as ANNEXURE P-7
(PAGE 281 TO 282)

d. True copy of order dated 30.07.2020 passed by the Office of

Senior Superintendent of Police Batala is ANNEXURE P-8
(PAGE 283 TO 286)

e. True copy of the Test Case No. 17 of 2020 dated 14.08.2020

filed by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi is annexed as ANNEXURE P-9 (PAGE 287 TO

302).

f. True copy of order dated 18.08.2020 passed by Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Test Case No. 18 of 2020 is
annexed as ANNEXURE P-10 (PAGE 303 TO 304).
g. True copy of order dated 27.08.2020 passed by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CS(OS) No. 232 of 2020 is
annexed as ANNEXURE P-11 (PAGE 305 TO 308).
 269

4. That, the present application has been filed bona fide and in the
interest of justice.

PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is
most respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to:
(a) Allow the present application and pass an order permitting the
Petitioners to place on record Additional Documents
(Annexure P-5 to P -11 in Support of the Special Leave
Petition.

(b) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL

FILED BY:-

[AMARJEET SINGH]
Advocate for the Petitioner
Filed on: 04.03.2022
NEW DELHI
 270
ANNEXURE P-5
270

I
' '

THI~ \\ ' ILL ~~ mad(· nl N(''' 1'r ('{) 1 1 ! 1 lll t \

DIV.AN ESTATE PliA <i\VAl'J i !\ l<ll i·,N . ! JrTAM .

IN F I\ V'OUR OF

( ~- -~~·- NIT~SH Bl-l~RDW /\ i Sf_f} LATE SH. DE~EI'AK BHARDWA.J

R/ 0 H.NO. 3. DlWAN ESTATE BHA\. vVATJ GARDEN, UTfAM NACAF<. NEW
DELHl-110059, tu the exclusion ul a ll my/our other legal hf> trs a nd
success0rs.

IN RESPECT OF

ALL MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WHEREVER EXI ST !~

INDIA, AND MY OWN COMPANY SH r\f\:ES, AND BANK ACCOUNTS ETC. ,

Life is short but God knows when it Pl ay come to an end , Hence I with my
free will and without any pressure make this WILL with my sound anc:
disposing mind .

That the aforesaid property is my self acquired property in which my heirs,

successors, family members or any ( ·t• •; c~ tse have no right ti tle ll' ' ' ' lrs · .
concern of any nature whatsoever cilcl as su ch 1 am full\ etJJnpetl' t<.
make this WI LL.
In case any one raises any objec+_ion ,,r,c hallenges i.:1is WILL the objection

shall te treated as null and void.

!,have executed th!s \\'lLL volun taril:' · ·:th oUL any outside pressure, fraud ,
force coercion or alluemenr and in : '\ fUll sences, gJod l:ealth and sound
disposing mind .
 -. '
-'·.' 271
~oNo. ! 70 1· 1 Datr U/07/2014 12:51:.'~1~\,
-~----------------------------~>~r=td==R=r~
~- nr_ta_il_ ·I
-'
\ \II ,
)eed Name WILl

Land Detail

TehsiVSuh Tf'h E! I SR 11R Janakpuri

Village/City
I
Place (Segment)
Propcr1y Type

Pmpcr1y Addrcs~
(\ ()() (} (1(1
Area of Prnpcr1~·

·d 1h:tail
1
1l l~ Paid 0.00 Rupee~
Pastin t- I ,.t: too no Ruppcs
Goven lln~: nt Duty o Hupccs
------------------- ·--------
1is document of WlLL WILL

resented~: Sb/Sml. S/o, W/o Rio

RA~ESH KUM.ARI BHARDWAJ LATE DI:F.?AK BHARD\1 \J 3. DIWAt< t:S rAT I·. HHAGWA Tl (jARI>!·S~ D

.n the office of the Sub Registrar. Delhi this 14/0712l>14 11 :53:59AM dJy Monday between the hours of
.
..
-}~ (} t
•f"'
~:~·:..,.,
,' t l
Registr~~b Registrar
SR liB Janakpuri
Signature of Presenter Delhi/New Delhi
~··
Execution admitted by the said Shri I Ms. :.. ......
RAMESH KUMAR! BHARDWAJ

and Shri I Ms.

\
.J .
~-,
~/
Who is/are identified by Shri/Smt/Km. BA!JEETSINGH MAAN E Sl.t'J GI{RJo 68-69-Ac BHAGWATI GAR.DEN,DELHI

and Shri/Smt.!Km RAGHUNATH S/o W/o D/o S.SA W Rio 130:

c·
(Marginal Witness). Witness No. II ~~n~o_,~"-
Contents of the document explaine~~ies who und itions and admit them as correct.
Certified that the left (or Right, as tl~e ~ n)ay be) h_and th i111 rression of the executant has been afT1xed in my presence

"'•;,, ..,~..;,,,.,
\
SR liB Janakpuri
[}JtC 14/07/2{: · . 18:10:15
Delhi/New Delhi

1/llllllllilll~"" (l[~-
\

14833500170
DORIS NIC-DSU
Revenue Dcpartmcul N< T uf l)clhi
 -272
Reg. No. Reg. Year . f/
170 2014·201~

l ~t Pam lind Pot1 v

1st PartY I~ AMI Sll 1\\ IMARI BHARDWAJ

llnd Part~

Witness BALJ EET SINGH MAAN. RAGI ,l 1 NA 'f H

Certificate (Sct~ lion 60)

Registration No.l70 m Book No.3 Vo(No 3 I • .

on page 38 to 39 on this date . 14/07/2ill4.;:~i-I0:49PM day Monday

•'<'i>" ~·
and left thumb impressions has/have ~en taken in Ill)' presence.
, ,....J

Sub~trar
SR liB Janakpuri
Date 14/07/2014 18:10:32 New Delhi/Delhi

. -.·_:::..)
. ~1

IIIII II~ 1111111111

Ill14839033170
Revenue Departmenl NC'r of Delhi DORIS NIC-OSU
 273
~ \' '
I
/ , ..

That is mv last A.nd finn! irt't'\'(wn t' w tll r<'F-?.ArditlR thr ab0ve mentioned

property/plot and if HnY other will l'~cntfd l.v nw prinr tq - .-.d"ution of this
will shall be canccll<"d / tTvokerl nn d >(" tr<"ntrd r~:-~ null ~nd vqir)

IN WITNESS WHF.i~EOF. I hnvc sc 1 ny l1<.tlld t r> l lJ ', ' IL 11 "!h i

presence of f hc ft""~llm:vinp; wit ncsscs .

~ 1TNESS:~

1. l ~ \~--~ -·~
SH.BAWEET'):J GH MAAN V -
S/ 0 SH. SUBE SINGH
R, 0 68-69. b?-A. B HAGWATI GARDEN
UITAM NAGAR. NEW DELHI
( 9539-8159-3815)

TESTATOR/TESTATRIX

( 2.
SH. RAGHU NATH
S/0 SH. S. SAW
R/0 130, VIJAY ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI ~~--·?-r-;;,j)-c) S7_j
_,
 274 274

TRUE TYPED COPY

WILL

THIS WILL is made at New Delhi on 14/07/2014 by SMT.

RAMESH KUMAR! BHARDWAJ W /0 LATE SH . DEEPAK

BHARDWAJ R/0 H . NO . DIWAN ESTATE BHAGWATI

GARDEN, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110059, (hereinafter

called the TESTATOR/TESTATRIX).

IN FAVOUR OF

(MY SON) SH. NITESH BHARDWAJ S/0 LATE SH. DEEPAK

BHARDWAJ R/0 H. NO. 3, DIWAN ESTATE BHAGWATI

GARDEN, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110059, to the

exclusion of all my I our other legal heirs and successors.

IN RESPECT OF

ALL MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WHEREVER

EXIST IN INDIA, AND MY OWN COMPANY SHARES, AND

BANK ACCOUNTS ETC.,

Life is short but God knows when it may come to an end,

Hence ·! with my free will and without any pressure make this

WILL with my sound and disposing mind .

That the aforesaid property is myself acquired property in

which my heirs, successors, family members or anyone else

have no right, title interest, or concern of any nature

 275
:;J3
' -, /'

.'
. '

275
whatsoever and as such I am fully competent to make this

WILL.

In case anyone raises any objection and challenges this WILL

the objections shall be treated as null and void.

I have executed this WILL voluntarily without any outside

pressure, fraud, force coercion or allurement and in my full

senses, good health and sound disposing mind.

That is my last and final irrevocable will regarding the above

mentioned property I plot and if any other will executed by me

prior to execution of this will shall be cancelled/revoked and

be treated as null and void.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand to this WILL, at

Delhi, in the presence of the following witnesses.

WITNESS:-

1. Sd/-
SH. BAWEET SINGH MAAN
S/0 SH. SUBE SINGH
R/0 68-69, 69-A, BHAGWATI GARDEN
UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI
(Q539-8159-3815)

Sd/-
TESTATOR/TESTATRIX
2. SH. RAGHUNATH
S/0 SH. S. SAW
R/0 130, VIJAY ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI
(288522170757)

Deed Related Detail

 276

Execution admitted by the said Shri/Ms.

RAMESH KUMAR! BHARDWAJ

and Shri /Ms.

'
Who is/are identified by Shri/Smt/Km. BAWEET SINGH

MAAN Sjo W jo Djo SUBE SINGH Rjo 68-69-A, BHAGWATI

GARDE, DELHI and Shri/Smt./Km. RAGHUNATH Sjo W jo

Djo S.SAW Rjo 130, Vijay Enclave, ND.

(Marginal Witness). Witness No. II is known to me.

Contents of the document explained to the parties who

understand the conditions and admit them as correct.

Certified that the left (or Right, as the case may be) hand

thumb impression of the executants has been affixed in my

presence.

Sd/-
Registrar j Sub Registrar
SR liB J anakpuri
Delhi/New Delhi
Date 14/07/2014 18:10:15

14833500170

Revenue Department NCT of Delhi DORIS NIC-DSU

 277
/_/rc)S
277 "I
I

Reg. No. 170 Reg. Year: 2014-2015 Book No. 3

Photograph Photograph
1st Party lind Party Witness

1st Party : RAMESH KUMARI BHARDWAJ

lind Party

Witness: BALJEET SINGH MAAN, RAGHU NATH

Certificate (Section 60)

Registration No . 170 in Book No. 3 Vol. No. 3 on page 38 to

39 on this date 14/07/2014 6:10:49 PM day Monday and left

thumb impressions hasjhave been taken in my presence .

Sd/-
Registrar j Sub Registrar
SR liB J anakpuri
Delhi/New Delhi

STAMP OF SUB REGISTRAR

Date: 14/07/2014 18:10:32

14839033170

Revenue Department NCT of Delhi DORIS NIC-DSU

 278

278
Reg. No.: 170 Date: 14/07/2014 12:52:35 PM

Deed Name: WILL WILL

Land Detail

Tehsil/Sub Tehsil SR liB, Janakpuri

Village I City Others Building Type

Place (Segment)

Property Type

Property Address:

Area of Property : 0.00 0.00 0.00

Money Related Detail

Consideration Value: 0.00 Rupee

Value of Registration Fee: 500.00 Rupees

Transfer Duty: 0 Rupees Stamp Duty Paid: 0.00 Rupees

Pasting Fee: 100.00 Rupees Government Duty: 0 Rupees

This document of WILL WILL

Presented by: Sh./Smt. Rakesh Kumari Bhardwaj S/o Late

Deepak Bhardwaj R/o 3, Diwan Estate Bhagwati Garden, ND

in the office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi this 14/07/2014

between the hours of 11:53:59 AM day Monday.

Sd/-
Registrar /Sub Registrar
SR liB Janakpuri
Delhi/New Delhi
Signature of Presenter

///TRUE COPY//
aS7205 T: arq
ANNEXURE P-6
:9810638865
279
9555804421
9599161016

8745029034

HYIA H-ETRI Å.-24

ya 264, vUT4 ¥4-1, 3Í. 3737R TR, Å-5, zuig, T

feoell-62
t a uUnder Section 80G(5) (VI) By Income Tax (EXEMP.) Delhi, 80G No. DIT(E) 2008-2009/N-1108/1929
Valid from 13-6-2008 to Till Date Under Section 12AA NO. Regn. No. DIT(E) /12A/2008-09/N-1108/1007
(AN ISO 9001-2008 CERTIFIED SOCIETY)

********
ils.3202o

*****

******************* ****

Vellase.. .MeDel.Al.ao.3. **************************************************************

TTE fafer d1..0A:.2ea

********************.

anjal
*************************************************************************************

*** ***********************

*************

. **************
*****************************************************************************

*******************

.m.lala.81e5s6a. ****************************.************
****

************************************* ....T5 ..

MROI -24
 280

Reg.:- S/37205 Om Namah Shivay

Mob. 9810 63 8865

9555 804421

9599 161016

87450 290 34

Cremation Ground Dwarka sector 24

Authorized by southern Delhi Municipal Corporation

Branch office Cremation ground Dwarka sector 24, New Delhi

Operated by:- New India educational and cultural societies (Reg.)

Main office :_ L 264, SHyam Bhawan Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sec.5, Dakshin
Puri, New Delhi-62

Under Section 80 G(5) (VI) by Income Tax (EXEMP.) DELHI , 80 G No. DIT
(E)/12A/2008-09/N-1108/1007

(AN ISO 9001-2008 CERTIFIED SOCIETY)

Serial number :- 2861

Dated 9th of March 2020

Name of deceased Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj Female/father of

deceased/husband of deceased Deepak Bhardwaj resident address of
deceased N.K. Farmouse Area Samalkha Village New Delhi 110037

Date of death 8th of March 2020 Date of Cremation 9th of March 2020 age 67
years place of death village Butler Punjab reason of death heart attack if that
occurs in hospital or any other reason then name of hospital MLC/FIR
number …………… name of informer/address/phone number Hitesh
Bhardwaj mobile number 9810506000 day Monday dated 9th of March 2020

Signature of informer

Note:- with this information letter photocopy of ID proof and document of the
deceased person is compulsory.

///TRUE COPY///
 281
ANNEXURE P-7
Minutes of the meeting between Hitesh and Nitesh Bhardwaj as on 09.06.2020

Date: 09.06.2020

1. JJ.V Marketing and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. With all assets and liabilities will go to Hitesh Bhardwaj
Note: DAPL will leave 2 acres of land which falls behind the property of JJ.V Hotels Known
as Lawn No-1 will be handed over by Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd. to JJ.V Marketing and
Hotels Pvt. Ltd. {Hitesh Bhardwaj).

2. The school of Sector-8 Dwarka i.e Shiksha Bharati Global School will go to Mr. Hitesh
Bhardwaj.
Note: Mr. Nitesh Bhardwaj and Mrs. Nistha Bhardwaj will resign from Shiksha Bharat
Educational Society.

3. Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd. with all Assets and liabilities will go to Mr. Nitesh Bhardwaj.

4. Property of Sec-7 (Old School) will go to Mr. Nitesh Bhardwaj.

Note: Mr. Hitesh Bhardwaj will sign the Relinquishment Deed to this effect in favor of
Mr.Nitesh Bhardwaj.

5. Green Villa will go to Hitesh Bhardwaj.

6. Delhi Apartment Pvt. Limited will shift its office from the land of JJV Marketing and Hotels
Pvt. Ltd.

Note:
• All loans over all the companies and school from HUF and Estate of Late. Deepak
Bhardwaj will be waive off by both the brothers (Hitesh and Nitesh) as per norms and
rules (Principally both are agreed to waive off these loans)
• All other properties in HUF, Estate of Late. Deepak Bhardwaj and late. Mrs. Ramesh
Kumari Bhardwaj will be divided in the ratio of 50% each between both the brothers
(Hitesh and Nitesh)
• All complaints, litigations and court cases against each other will be withdrawn by both
the brothers (Hitesh and Nitesh)
• In other than above stated companies both the brothers (Hitesh and Nitesh) will be
equal partners.
• All property papers and documents related to each other will be handed over by both
the brothers (Hitesh and Nitesh)

(Hitesh Bhardwaj) (Nitesh Bhardwaj)

(Baljeet Mann) (Kunwar Pramod) (Balbir Singh)

///TRUE COPY///
282
 283
ANNEXURE P-8
284
285
 286

///TRUE COPY///
 287
ANNEXURE P-9
I~
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELID AT NEW DELHI
ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(A Petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925)
TEST CASE NO. 18 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

NITESH BHARDWAJ,
S/0 , LATE MR. DEEPAK BHARDWAJ,
RIO, A-91, 9TH FLOOR, PLOT N0.8B
MODEST KETKI APARTMENTS,
SECTOR-11 , DWARKA, DELHI-75 ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

AT CHAMBER NO. _ __
DELHI HIGH COURT,
SHERSHAH SURI MARG,
NEW DELHI-01

2. SH. HITESH BHARDWAJ

S/0 LATE SHRI DEEPAK BHARDWAJ
RIO 311 , PLOT NO. 4,
NA VSANSAD APARTMENTS,
SECTOR-22, DWARKA
NEW DELHJ- 110075 RESPONDENTS
 288

PETITION UNDER SECTION 278 OF THE INDIAN

SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, FOR THE GRANT OF LETTER OF
ADMINISTRATION IN RESPECT OF THE ANNEXED WILL
DATED 11.05.2012 QUA THE ESTATE (MOVABLE AND
IMMOVABLE) OF LATE SH. DEEPAK BHARDWAJ

THE PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY

SHOWETH:

1. That the present petition is being filed before this Hon ' ble
Court for the grant of Letter of Administration with annexed
Will dated 11.05.2012 executed by Late Sh. Deepak
Bhardwaj (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Testator ') in the
presence of two attesting witnesses. The Petitioner, being
one of the sons and legal heirs of the deceased, is filing the
present Petition for grant of Letter of Administration w ith
annexed will dated 11.05.2012.

2. That as per the last and final testament of Late Mr. Deepak
Bhardwaj, his entire estate including movable and
immovable properties bequeathed upon his wife Late Smt.
Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj upon his death. Late Sh. Deepak
Bhardwaj was a permanent resident of N itesh Kunj Farm
House, Samalkha, New Delhi - 11 003 7. The deceased left for
his heavenly abode on 26.03.2013, leaving behind his last
and fi nal testament i.e. Will dated 11.05.2012, which was
handwritten and signed by Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj in the
 . '
289
/ \'1
presence of two attesting witnesses revoking all his previous
wi lls, codicils, etc., ever executed by him.

3. That the names of the family members and their relationship

with the deceased amongst whom the estate of the deceased
would have devolved in case of intestacy, together with their
present place of residence, is as follows:
s. Name & Addresses Relation Role in the
No. with Present
the Proceedings
Testator

a. MR. HITESH Son Respondent

BHARDWAJ no.2
RIO 311 , PLOT NO.4,
NAVSANSAD
APARTMENTS,
SECTOR-22, DWARKA
NEW DELHI- 110075
b. NITESH BHARDWAJ, Son Petitioner
RIO, A-91 , 9TH FLOOR,
PLOT N0.8B, MODEST
KETK.I APARTME NTS,
SECTOR-II , DWARKA,
DELHI - 110 075
c. RAMESH KUMAR! WIFE LEFT FOR
BHARDWAJ HER
 290

RIO NITESH KUNJ, HEAVENLY

SAMALKHA, NH-8, ABODE ON
NEW DELHI 08.03.2020

That Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj left behind only aforesaid

three heirs and there are no other legal heirs (Class I) besides
the Relatives nos. (a), (b) & (c) mentioned in para 3.

4. That to Late Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj was married to Smt.

Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj in the year 1974, who post-
deceased him on 08.03.2020. The Testator passed away on
26.03.2020 leaving behind the aforementioned legal heirs.

5. It is pertinent to mention that upon demise of the Testator,

Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj applied for the issuance of
the Succession Certificate bearing petition no. 38 of 2014
before the Ld. Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
wherein both the Petitioner and Respondent no.2
unequivocally gave their no objection for the issuance of the
Succession certificate in her favour without any protest or
demur. Furthermore, both the Petitioner and Respondent
no.2 in accordance to the last wishes of their father as well as
reposing their faith and trust in their mother, gave complete
control and authority in entirety over the entire estate
including the movables and immovable of Late Sh. Deepak
Bhardwaj in favour of Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj.
 ,.
291
fb
6. That during his lifetime, Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj was in
good health and in sound disposition of mind, not suffering
from any serious ai lment, executed the said Will in the favor
of his wife Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj in his own
handwriting and by virtue of the aforesaid Will being his last
and final testament dated 11.05.2012, Late Sh. Deepak
Bhardwaj bequeathed his entire estate in favour of Late Smt.
Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj, which was signed and executed
in the presence of the two attesting witnesses.

7. That it is pertinent to mention that Respondent no. 2 is a

habitual drinker always abdicated his duties towards the
family and his wife namely Samita Bhardwaj always had a
dishonest and deceitful disposition and harbored the secret
intention to usurp the estate of the Testator and his wife Late
Smt. Ramesh Kumari, through her husband i.e. the
Respondent no.2 and thus, was always devising devious
plans to execute the same. The Respondent no.2 along with
his wife not only treated the Testator and his deceased wife
in a disrespectful, discourteous manner and behavior but
further fai led to show love and affection towards them.

8. That even after the death of the deceased Testator on

26.03.2013, the Respondent no.2 and his wife continued
treating their deceased mother in the aforesaid manner till
the time of her death and did not mend their ways and
conducts despite the repeated pleadings and requests made
by her as well as the relatives, which is clearly evident from
 292
)1
the complaint dated 28.11.2019 made by Late Smt. Ramesh
Kumari Bhardwaj against the Respondent no. 2 besides
several PCR calls made by her owing to the serious threats to
life and property given by the Respondent no.2 to her time
and again. The Respondent no. 2 & his wife not only treated
her in utmost disgraceful and disrespectful manner but
further used to abuse her and used to pick unnecessary
quarrels with her in order to extort money from her by
threatening her to implicate her as well as the Petitioner in
false and frivolous cases.

9. That in continuation of the aforesaid conduct, the

Respondent no.2 after performing the Teharvi of their
deceased mother Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj,
started making entirely false and baseless accusations
regarding her sudden demise and further started making hue
& cry before the relatives. The Respondent no.2 & his wife
upon being informed regarding the will dated 14.07.2014
executed by their deceased mother, not only outrightly
refused to acknowledge the last wishes of Late Smt. Ramesh
Kumari in terms of the will dated 14.07.2014, but instead
chose to file entirely false, baseless and frivolous complaints
against the Petitioner and his wife and their families with the
sole intention to implicate the Petitioner and his family in a
false and frivolous case and in order to impede the Petitioner
from raising claims over the estate of the deceased mother.
 293

10. That upon seeing the unwarranted conduct of Respondent

no.2 and his wife which was against the wishes of the
deceased parents of the parties hereto, besides the other
relatives,
one of the attesting witnesses of the will of Late Sh. Deepak
Bhardwaj i.e. Sh. Ramesh Kumar (who is also the nephew of
Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj) tried intervening in order to
bring peace and also mentioned about the will dated
11.05.2012 executed by Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj in order
to prevail over and bring good sense to the Respondent no.2
to ensure that the last wishes of the deceased parents of the
parties are adhered to and fulfilled in true letter and spirit but
to no avail.

11. The upon perusal of the said will, the parties became aware
that Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj the deceased husband of
Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj had bequeathed his entire
estate including movable and immovable properties in favor
of Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj by way of the said
handwritten Will and last testament dated 11.05.2012 duly
executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses.
Moreover, the parties hereto had never raised any objection
or protest in the past with regard to the authority of their
deceased mother exercising control over the entire estate
belonging to the family.
 \ 294
I

/1
12. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid last
and fmal testament was duly signed and executed by Late
Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj who was in a sound disposing state of
mind, in good health and was not suffering from any serious
ailments. A bare perusal of the said will reveals that the said
will was made in his own hand-writing i.e. Late Sh. Deepak
Bhardwaj himself and duly attested by two attesting
witnesses.

13. That it is submitted that the said will came into effect upon
the demise of Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj on 26.03.2013 and
thereby Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj became the
sole absolute owner of the entire estate left behind by her
deceased husband. However, neither the parties nor the
deceased Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj were aware of the
existence of the said Will left behind by Late Sh. Deepak
Bhardwaj until the same was mentioned and brought to the
knowledge of the parties by the aforesaid Sh . Ramesh
Kumar and as such the aforesaid Succession Petition or any
other application/petition, etc, filed before vanous
authorities finds no mention of the existence of the said Will
left behind by Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj.

14. That the Respondent no.2 not only outrightly refused to

honor the wishes of their deceased parents but also refused
to accept the last and final testament of the Testator and their
deceased mother, which was brought to the knowledge of the
 295
295

parties to the petition i.e. the Petitioner and the Respondent

no.2 subsequently.

15. The Respondent no.2 got agitated and furious upon

becoming aware of the last and final testament of his
deceased father and started leveling serious imputations
against the Petitioner and his family under his nefarious
designs and also casted aspersions on the Petitioner with the
sole motive to smear his reputation. The Respondent no.2 &
his wife even got published slanderous and disparaging
allegations against the Petitioner in widely circulated
national daily namely Veer Arjun dated 27.03.2020 and
Dainik Bhaskar dated 28.03.2020.

16. That though Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj had

executed a Will dated 14.07.2014 in favour of the petitioner
ad bequeathed all her estate including the estate of Late Sh.
Deepak Bhardwaj in favor of the Petitioner, however, with
the intervention of the family members and other well-
wishers and in order to avoid disputes over the same, the
Petitioner had agreed to share the estate of the deceased
parents with the respondent no.2 upon the pre-condition of
withdrawing all the false and frivolous complaints made by
the Respondent no.2 besides other terms and conditions and
accordingly, a MOU dated 09.06.2020 was executed
between the parties to that effect. However, the respondent
no.2 deliberately and intentionally and with the ill motives,
 '
296

failed to adhere to it and continued under his nefarious

designs to fal sely implicate the Petitioner and his family
thereby breaching the terms and conditions of the said MOU
and rendered the same as null and void.

17. That the Respondent no.2 not only failed to acknowledge the
said gesture made by the Petitioner but on the contrary,
issued an entirely frivolous and baseless notice dated
25.07.2020 to the Petitioner demanding the partition of the
entire estate of their deceased against the last wishes and
testaments i.e. the last and final will dated 14.07.2014
executed by Smt. Ramesh Kumari as well as the will dated
11.05.2012 executed by their deceased father i.e. the
Testator which act is completely devoid of legal sanctity and
further left no scope for any amicable settlement between the
parties, hence the Petitioner is the given facts and
circumstances is left with no other option but to approach the
Hon 'ble Court by way of the present petition.

18. That, as mentioned above, the deceased Late Sh. Deepak

Bhardwaj during his life time had executed his last Will and
testament dated 11.05.2012. By virtue of the said Will, the
Testator had bequeathed all his movables and immovable
properties in favour of Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj
and thereafter Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj by virtue
of her last and final testament dated 14.07.2014 bequeathed
all her movable and immovable properties on the petitioner
 '- 297

herein to the exclusion of all her other legal heirs, successors

and successors in interest and thus, the Petitioner herein is
duly entitled to seek the Letter of Administration qua the
estate of his deceased father i.e. Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj.

19. That the said Will executed by the deceased was duly
attested and witnessed by two attesting witnesses Sh.
Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Harphool Singh Rio House no.
179/59, Pocket-A 1, Sector-6, Rohini, New Delhi and Sh.
Bijender Singh S/o Sh. Bhular Singh, Village Sedopur Seth,
PO-Mawana, Dis. Meerut, UP. Also, Shri Ramesh Kumar
being one of the attesting witnesses to the Will of Deepak
Bhardwaj has verified the present petition and also filed duly
sworn affidavit in support of the same.

That it is further pertinent to mention herein that as the last

and final testament executed by late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj,
whereby he had bequeathed his entire estate upon Late Smt.
Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj. has now seen the light of the day
and giving effect to the same would result into the entire
estate left behind by the deceased father firstly devolving
upon the deceased mother of the Petitioner and subsequently
devolving upon the Petitioner by virtue of the last and final
will of the deceased mother dated 14.07.2014, the Petitioner
is therefore entitled to seek the grant of the Letter of
Administration of the entire estate left behind by his
deceased parents in his favour. The Petitioner has also filed a
 298

petition of Letter of Administration with annexed will of

Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj. The present petition
has been filed in order to avoid any technical difficulties in
the petition of LOA qua the estate of Late Smt. Ramesh
Kumari Bhardwaj and in order to give effect to the last and
final testament i.e. the will dated 11.05.20 12 executed by
Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj.

20. That Petitioner and respondent no. 2, both sons of the

Testator are the only two legal heirs alive after the demise of
his wife Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj on 08.03.2020
and there is no other near relation of Late Smt. Ramesh
Kumari Bhardwaj/testator.

21. That Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj had signed, executed and
got the aforesaid will dated 11.05.2012 as his last and final
testament in presence of two attesting witnesses namely Sh.
Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Vijender and the said attesting
witnesses to the aforesaid Will, also signed the said Will as
witnesses in presence of each other as well as in the presence
of Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj being the testator of the said
Will.

22. That Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj has not named anyone as
the executor in the aforesaid Will dated 11.05.2012 for the
purpose of execution of the said Will.
 299

23. That no other similar petition/ appl ication as per the

knowledge of the Petitioner is pending before this Court or
any other Court seeking Probate of the said Will or for letters
of administration of the properties of Late Sh. Deepak
Bhardwaj besides the petition of Letter of Administration
filed qua the estate of Late Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj
on the basis of the Will dated 14.07.2014 and the schedule of
properties as mentioned in the present has been included in
the said petition.

24. That the cause of action for filing the present petition has
arisen when Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj has expired on
26.03 .2020 and by virtue of Will dated 11 .05.2012, Late
Smt. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj became the owner of all the
immoveable and moveable properties and subsequently by
virtue of last and final testament dated 14.07.2014 of Smt.
Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj, the entire estate of both deceased
parents got devolved upon the Petitioner. The cause of action
arose when upon the demise of the Testatrix, the Respondent
no.2 made all kinds of false claims over the estate of their
deceased parents and made entirely false and frivolous
complaints against the Petitioner in order to usurp the entire
estate of the deceased Testatrix. The cause of action arose
when the Petitioner in order to amicably resolve the disputes
entered into MoU dated 09.06.2020, however, the
Respondent no.2 resiled from the same, thus, rendering it
null and void. The cause of action lastly arose on 25.07.2020
 ' .
300

when in utter disregard to the last wishes of their deceased

parents, the Respondent no.2 issued legal demand notice
demanding partition of the entire estate left behind by the
deceased Testatrix including but not limited to the estate left
behind by the deceased father. The cause of action is still
continuing and subsisting one.

25. That the Petitioner has filed all the relevant title documents
of the properties available with him, however, there are
certain documents which the Petitioner is unable to trace out,
however, due to the constrained circumstances, the Petitioner
undertakes to file the same as and when the same would be
made available to him.

26. That the Hon 'ble Court has the pecuniary as well as the
territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition
as the deceased had a fixed place of abode with the territorial
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court besides the major portions
of properties also being situated within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.

27. That the prescribed court fee is being affixed on the petition
and the petitioner undertakes to affix further court fee as per
the directions of this Hon'ble Court.
 -- , 301

28. That the present petition is bonafide, has been presented

without any inordinate delay, and there is no impediment

in the grant of the relief as prayed for.

29. That the Petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to

reserve their right for extension of the Letter of

administration granted by this Court, as and when

additional property left behind by Late Sh. Deepak

Bhardwaj comes to the knowledge of the Petitioner.

30. That there exists no legal impediment for allowing the

present petition under Section 278 of the Indian

Succession Act for grant of Letter of Administration of

the duly executed Will dated 11.05.2012 of Late Sh.

Deepak Bhardwaj in favour of the Petitioner.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this

Hon' ble Court may graciously be pleased to Grant Letter of

Administration with the Will annexed dated 11.05.2012 of

Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj duly executed by her, in favour

of the Petitioner.
 302

Pass any other and further ordcr(s) as this Hon' blc Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

NEW DELHI P ETITIONER

DATED: I 'f · 8· )..o ?--o

AGAR,
AR & 1\SSO IATES)
ADVOCATES
CHAMBER NO: 73 1 & 733,
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELIII-110075
#9910358308,#9718248119
ENROL. NO.-D-271 /2005

VERIFICATION:

I, Nitesh Bhardwaj, the Petitioner herein do hereby verify at

New Delhi on this 13th August'2020 that the contents of paragraph
nos. 1 to 2.S of the petition are true and correct to my own knowledge
and those of paragraph nos. ltf to 3(i) arc true upon information and
legal advice received by me and believed to be true. Last para is the
prayer to this Hon' ble Court.

PETITIONER

///TRUE COPY//
 303
ANNEXURE P-10
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TEST CAS.18/2020

NITESH BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner

Represented by: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Ajay Dabas,
Ms. Priyanka Dagar &
Mr. Ravi Dagar, Advocates.
versus

STATE OF NCT & ANR. ..... Respondent

Represented by: Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
with Mr. N.P. Singh, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 18.08.2020
The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
I.A. 7034/2020 (exemption from filing certified copies/true typed copies)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.
TEST CAS.18/2020
I.A. 7035/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

1. By this petition petitioner seeks Letter of Administration under

Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in relation to the moveable
and immoveable assets left behind by Late Shri Deepak Bhardwaj, father of
the petitioner and respondent No.2.
2. Notice.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 accepts notice.

TEST CAS.18/2020 Page 1 of 2

 304

4. Notice be now issued to respondent No.2 on the petitioner taking

steps through e-mail, SMS and WhatsApp, returnable on 13th October, 2020.
5. Reply affidavit be filed within four weeks.
6. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within three weeks thereafter.
7. In the meantime, the petitioner will publish a citation in one English
and one Hindi daily newspaper having wide circulation in the areas where
the properties, as mentioned in Schedule-A of the petition, are located.
8. Valuation of the properties as mentioned at Serial No.1 to 15 in
Schedule-A of the petition will be filed by respondent No.1 before the next
date of hearing.
9. Considering the facts it is necessary to preserve the properties left
behind by the deceased during the pendency of the present petition. The
parties are restrained from creating any third party right in the suit properties
as mentioned at Serial Nos.1 to 15 of Schedule-A of the petition till the next
date of hearing.
10. Compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within one
week.
11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 18, 2020
vk

///TRUE COPY///

TEST CAS.18/2020 Page 2 of 2

 305
ANNEXURE P-11

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (OS) 232/2020
I.A. 7397/2020 (exemption from filing original/certified copies)
I.A. 7398/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

NITESH BHARDWAJ .....Plaintiff

Represented by: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.Ajay Dabas, Ms.Priyanka
Dagar and Mr.Ravi Dagar,
Advocates.

versus

M/S DEEPAK BHARDWAJ & SONS. ..... Defendants

Represented by: Dr.Atul Singh, Advocate for D1 and
D2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

ORDER
% 27.08.2020
The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
I.A. 7397/2020 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Original documents
and certified copies be filed within one week of the resumption of the
normal Court functioning.
2. Application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 232/2020
I.A. 7398/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
1. Plaint be registered as a suit.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:SANDEEP
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2020 21:12:46
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Mukta Gupta
CS (OS) 232/2020 Page 1 of 4
 306

2. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application to Karta of the
defendant No. 1 who is the defendant No. 2 as well.
3. Dr.Atul Singh, Advocate accepts summons in the suit and notice in
the application.
4. Written statements to the plaint and reply affidavits to the application
along with the affidavits of admission-denial will be filed within thirty days.
Replications and rejoinder affidavits along with the affidavit of admission-
denial within two weeks thereafter.
5. By this suit, the plaintiff seeks decree of partition, declaration,
permanent injunction and rendition of accounts in respect of the properties
of HUF i.e. M/s. Deepak Bhardwaj & Sons as mentioned in Schedule-A
annexed to the plaint.
6. Case of the plaintiff is that HUF was created by the plaintiff and
defendant No.2’s father along with their mother. . Case of the plaintiff is
that Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj executed his will bequeathing all his
moveable and immovable assets in favour of his wife Smt. Ramesh Kumari,
who also passed away on 8th March, 2020. Plaintiff pleads that by virtue of
the Will executed by Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj in favour of Smt. Ramesh
Kumari, 1/4th share in the suit property devolved on Smt. Ramesh Kumari
and as per the Will left by Smt. Ramesh Kumari, all her property is to
bequeath on the plaintiff.
7. Case of the defendant No. 2 is that the father of the plaintiff and
defendant No. 2 died on 26th March, 2013 under an unnatural death for
which the plaintiff was accused, however, after the trial, he has since been
acquitted of the said charge. Further, the death of the mother Smt. Ramesh
Kumari was also an unnatural death, however, nothing further was revealed.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:SANDEEP
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2020 21:12:46
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Mukta Gupta
CS (OS) 232/2020 Page 2 of 4
 307

The properties of the HUF, thus, need to be partitioned between the plaintiff
and defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 being the present Karta of the HUF
being the eldest son of Late Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj.
8. Considering the fact that Smt. Ramesh Kumari passed away under
unnatural circumstances and whether any Will was executed or not, needs to
be enquired into, at this stage, the endeavour is to preserve all the properties
pending disposal of the suit. Consequently, till the next date of hearing
before this Court, the parties are restrained from creating any third party
rights or disposing or alienating or selling any of the assets mentioned in
Schedule A of the properties annexed with the plaint. The parties would also
maintain status quo as to the title and possession of the properties. In respect
of the share holdings of the companies mentioned at page 41 of the plaint,
no third party rights therein will be created and status quo will be maintained
by the parties and monthly statement of accounts of the ten companies
mentioned therein will be submitted by the defendant No. 2 with this Court
who is acting as Karta of the HUF. Plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are also
restrained from altering the management or the shareholding of the ten
companies as mentioned at page 41 of the plaint.
9. In respect of the three bank accounts mentioned at page 42 of the
plaint, learned counsel for the defendant No. 2 points out that pursuant to a
letter written by the plaintiff to the concerned banks, the said bank accounts
have been frozen, resulting in ‘no activity’ therein. It is directed that till the
next date of hearing before this Court, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant
No. 2 will operate the three bank accounts mentioned at serial Nos. 1, 2 and
3 at page 42 of the plaint. Defendant No. 2 will file his monthly statement of
accounts indicating the expenses incurred by him in maintaining the ten

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:SANDEEP
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2020 21:12:46
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Mukta Gupta
CS (OS) 232/2020 Page 3 of 4
 308

companies mentioned at page 41 of the plaint and the other agricultural

properties.
10. List the suit and application on 13th October, 2020.
11. Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 27, 2020
akb

///TRUE COPY//

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:SANDEEP
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.08.2020 21:12:46
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Mukta Gupta
CS (OS) 232/2020 Page 4 of 4
 309
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 2(1)
CRL.M.P. NO.__________OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._________OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:-

NITESH BHARDWAJ …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. The petitioner is filing the present Special Leave Petition against

the impugned Interim order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2020
whereby the Hon’ble High Court has admitted the Criminal Appeal
filed by the Respondent No. 2, without grant of leave to appeal
against the order of acquittal and even without examining her locus
to file the Appeal.
 310

2. That the Petitioner has applied for the certified copy of the
Impugned orders and undertakes to file the same immediately after
receipt form copying section of the Hon’ble High Court.
3. The present application on behalf of the Petitioner is bona fide and
an order of allowing the present application of the petitioner shall
meet the ends of justice. The balance of convenience is in the
favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court

may graciously be pleased to:-

A. Exempt the Petitioner from filing certified copy of the impugned

Interim order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2020; and
B. Pass such other order or further orders as may be deemed fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL

FILED BY

[AMARJEET SINGH]
Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant

FILED ON: 03.03.2022

NEW DELHI
 311
SECTION –
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. __________OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:-

NITESH BHARDWAJ …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF FILING

S. NO. PARTICULARS COPIES COURT

FEES
1. Synopsis and List of Dates 1+3

2. Impugned final judgment order dated 1+3

02.09.2020
03.03.2021 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
Appeal NO. 6495 of 2019
3. Special Leave Petition with 1+3
Affidavit
4. Annexure P-1 to Annexure P- 1+3
5. Applications 1+3
Total

Filed on: 04
03.03.2022
New Delhi
Filed by

[Amarjeet Singh]
Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners
B-252, III Floor, Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi-110092
M: 9911111950
Email: amarjeetsinghadv@gmail.com
Code: 2690
 312

NITESH BHARDWAJ

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

NITESH BHARDWAJ Petitioner

03 March 2

(Amarjeet Singh)
Advocate for Petitioner

03.03.
 313

FIR DETAILS
DIARY No. _________OF 2022
NITESH BHARDWAJ …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

1. Diary No.
2. Date of Lodgment of FIR/Complaint FIR No. 121 of 2013 dated
26.03.2013
3. Police station address with state Vasant Kunj (South), New
Delhi
4. Date of filing charge sheet / challan
5. Whether tried by the Court of Magistrate Yes
6. Whether tried by the Court of Session No

Dated: 04
03.03.2022

(AMARJEET SINGH)
Advocate on Record
For the Petitioner
 314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2020

MEMO OF PARTIES

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Samita Bhardwaj,
W/o Shri. Hitesh Bhardwaj,
R/o 311, NAV Sansand Vihar, Plot No. 04, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075
VERSUS
1. State of NCT of Delhi
Through The Chief
Secretary,
Home Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, ITO,
New Delhi.

2. Rakesh@ Nanha,
S/o Shri Krishan,
R/o House No. House no. 407, Bahri
Gali, Khera Kalan Village, Delhi-82

3. Purshottam @ Monu,
S/o Sh. Prem Chand,
R/o House No. 316, Brahmin Mohalla,
Village Khera Kalan, Delhi

4. Sunil Singh@ Jai Sunil Mann

S/o Sh.Surat Singh Mann
R/o House No. 1075, Near Chhotta,
Shiv Mandir, Alipur, Delhi

5. Amit Maan @Bhola

S/o Sh. Ran Singh
R/o House No. 522
Alipur Village, New Delhi
6. NITESH BHARDWAJ, SON OF LATE DEEPAK BHARDWAJ, RESIDENT OF
6. Baljeet Singh
S/o Shri Chand M. K. RESIDENCY, DWARKA
R/o D-5, Nangal, Dewat Village, SECTOR11, NEW DELHI
New Delhi
7. BALJEET SINGH, SON OF SHRI CHAND, R/O D-5, NANGAL, DEWAT VILLAGE,
NEW DELHI
 315
8.7. Machindernath Namdev @Swami
Partibhanand @Vichitra Yogi
S/o Namdev Chormai @Devrath Yogkrit Swami
R/o Chakilamba, Distt. Beed, Maharastra

FILED BY:-

[AMARJEET SINGH]
Advocate for the Petitioners
04
Filed on: 03.03.2022