State Vs Shalini Rawat Ors SC No On 30 March 2013

State vs . Shalini Rawat & Ors. - Sc No. ...
on 30 March, 2013
Delhi District Court

State vs . Shalini Rawat & Ors. - Sc No. ... on 30 March, 2013
Author: Sh. V.K. Khanna
ID No. 0
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 AND SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 65/2012

Unique ID No.02403R0519372006
FIR No. 653/1995

U/s. 364-A, 120-B, 368, 411, 383 r/w 34 IP
PS : Lajpat Nagar
State
Versus
Shalini Rawat
D/o Sh. J. S. Rawat,
R/o Block A3-Flat No. 57,
Second Floor, Sun0.60"shine Apartments,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi ..........Accused No. 1
Devender
S/o Sh. Dal Chand Singh,
R/o Village Hazratpur, Khurja,
Bullandsher, UP .........Accused No. 2
Dinesh @ Umesh,
S/o Sh. Govind Singh, 01
R/o Village Roni Saloni,
Distirct Bullandsher, UP .........Accused No. 3
Rajinder Kumar,
S/o Sh. Bir Singh,
R/o Village Khadilpur,
PS Kakode, Bullandsher, UP .........Accused No. 4
Kamlesh Kumari, Devender

W/o Sh. Davender Singh,
R/o Village Hazratpur, Khurja,
Bullandsher, UP .........Accused No. 5
Instituted on : 17th April, 2013

Arguments concluded on : 30th March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 1

Decided on : 30th March, 2013
State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012

ID No. 02403R051937
JUDGMENT
1. In brief, case of the prosecution is that accused Shalini Rawat (A-1) alongwith Devender Singh
(A-2), Dinesh Kumar Bhati (A-3), Rajender Kumar (A-4), Kamlesh Kumari (A-5) and Udai Pratap
(JCL), entered into a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Harsh Gupta for demand of ransom and
pursuant to the conspiracy they kidnapped him on 16.09.1995 and confined him for 20 days. They
threatened the family members of Harsh Gupta, demanded and extorted Rs.15 lacs as ransom and
on 05.10.1995, Harsh Gupta was released.
2. Case set up by the prosecution as per charge sheet is as follows : on 16.09.1995, at 11:00 am, one
boy Harsh Gupta s/o Sh.Mohan Gupta r/o W-2 Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, aged about 19 years,
height 5'8", thin built, long face, black complexion, wearing T-Shirt of green colour, blue jeans and
brown shoes had gone by his Car No. HR-29-3302, white colour to purchase stationery items at
Rama Book Depot, Daya Nand Colony, Lajpat Nagar to purchase stationery items. He did not return
till 12 noon. His father, Sh. Mohan Gupta, the complainant made a telephone call to the shopkeeper,
who told him that Harsh Gupta had already left his shop 45 minutes earlier with folders and files.
Complainant made efforts to trace his son. At about 04:00 pm, a telephone call was received at his
house, which was heard by his wife Ms. Sangeeta Gupta. Caller informed her, that Harsh Gupta was
in his custody and made a demand of ransom of Rs. 15 lacs. His wife became nervous and handed
over receiver to her relative, Smt. Manjula Dilwali, who told them that father of Harsh was not at
home and asked them to make a telephonic call after one hour. Till the time of making State Vs.
Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 2/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 complaint, no second call
was received.
3. On the allegations that Harsh s/o Sh. Mohan Gupta had been kidnapped in order to extort Rs.15
lacs, a FIR under Section 364 IPC was registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar. Efforts were made
to trace the victim and the kidnappers. Telephone number 6460902 installed at the house of
complainant was kept under observation. Different police teams were constituted to trace the victim
Harsh Gupta. Kidnapper made another telephonic call for demand of ransom at telephone number
4628274 installed at the house of Ashok Dilwali at 22, Jor Bagh, New Delhi on 18.09.1995,
19.09.1995 and on 20.09.1995. On 21.09.1995, two telephone calls at different times were made on
telephone number 4628274 and it was instructed that Mohan Gupta should bring Rs.15 lacs in the
form of old currency notes, in order to release the victim from their custody. It was stated that police
should not be informed and he should come alone. Mohan Gupta was worried about the safety of his
child. As per instructions, Mohan Gupta kept Rs. 15 lacs in which Rs. 12 lacs were in the
denomination of Rs. 500/-; Rs 2.5 lacs in the denomination of Rs.100/- and Rs.50,000/- in the
denomination of Rs.50/-. As per the case of prosecution, IO/SI Kulbir Singh and Sh. Mohan Gupta

had put their initials on four-five notes in each bundle of notes, randomly for the purpose of
identification. Sh. Mohan Gupta alongwith Sh. Gurudev, Manager in his company, took those Rs. 15
lacs for delivering to the kidnappers in Maruti Van no. DL-3CC-2578. As per instructions, Mohan
Gupta found a chit (a written paper) kept at mile stone, near Bulandsher on which further
instructions were written to pick another written chit lying near Dhankaur Railway Station. On the
second chit, Mohan Gupta was instructed to drive his Maruti Van slowly and to hand over Rs.
State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 3/40

ID No. 02403R05193720
15 lacs to the person, who would show wrist watch of his son Harsh Gupta to him.
4. It is alleged that kidnappers got the Maruti Van stopped. They had with them, watch of Harsh
Gupta and also a country made pistol. They took away money and also the chits and told the
complainant that Harsh Gupta would reach at his house of his own. They took away the ransom
amount on a two wheeler scooter of cream colour, whose complete number was not visible to the
complainant and who could read only DH 802. It is alleged that despite receiving ransom amount,
victim was not released. On 22.09.1995 and on 25.09.1995, kidnapper made a telephonic call at 22
Jor Bagh and demanded Rs. 15 lacs again and stated that ransom amount was to be taken in two
installments. Both these calls were alleged to be made from new Kondli and new Ashok Nagar area,
but still no clue about the identity of kidnapper was found.
5. On 29.09.1995, kidnapper made a call at telephone number 6839741 at the house of Gautam
Handa, relative of complainant and informed that they had parked Maruti Car No.HR-29-3302,
near Haldiram Bhujia Wala, Mathura Road, Badarpur, main road. As per the instructions given by
kidnapper, Police found the car parked at the said place, which was taken into possession by the
police. Kidnapper continued to put pressure on Mohan Gupta to demand ransom and kept on
making telephonic call. They made calls on 01.10.1995 and then, on 03.10.1995. Since, Mohan Gupta
had given Rs.15 lacs and was not in a position to make arrangement for a further sum of Rs. 15 lacs,
therefore, it was decided that this time, Mohan Gupta would not go alongwith ransom amount, but
he would take a bag filled with the papers and with proper security cover at the time of giving
ransom to apprehend the kidnappers.

ID No. 02403R05193
6. On 03.10.1995, complainant Mohan Gupta alongwith Gurudev his manager went in Van No.
DL-3CC-2578 along with a bag filled with the papers, towards Bulandashehar. On the way, after six
kilometers Milestone, Mohan Gupta picked up a chit, on which instructions were mentioned that
Mohan Gupta would obtain petrol of Rs. 50/- in his van from a petrol pump and would open the
side window of the van. This time, Mohan Gupta did not follow the instructions of the kidnappers.
Further, instructions were to pick up another slip lying near barrier chungi and to open the side
window of the van, but Mohan Gupta did not follow the instructions. He kept on moving the Car
towards Jhajhar at the speed of 20-30 km, but as per the instructions, no person having wrist watch
met him. This time, kidnapper asked him to come on a road which was isolated and was not having
any traffic. It is alleged that there was hardly any traffic in order to provide security cover to Mohan
Gupta. It appeared that the kidnapper had come to know about the presence of police, due to which
they did not come forward to obtain the amount of ransom. Kidnapper did not came and Mohan
Gupta returned back to Delhi after waiting. Mohan Gupta handed over shits (piece of written paper),
given by the kidnappers to the police.
7. Case of prosecution as unfolded further is that due to pressure of the police, on 05.10.1995, Harsh
Gupta was released near Shipra Hotel. He was wearing black colour goggles. Harsh Gupta revealed
that kidnappers were five males and two females kidnappers. House No. C-3/159, Sector-36, Noida
(UP), where kidnappers had been confined was traced and later on, identified by victim. It was
found abandoned. On inspection of the house, four exercise books on which Vikram Singh was
written and Class KG, Vishnu Kumar, Father Davender Singh, State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC
No. 65/2012 5/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 Class-II, Udaipratap Singh Solanki and exercise book
of Rashtriya Shiksha Niketan (recognized) Sector-39, Sector-42, Sadarpur, Noida (UP) on which
Vijay Laxmi was written and one poly bag of Rama Book Depot, A-178, Dayanand Colony having
three folders of black colour and one blue colour file were recovered, which was stated to be the
same item which was allegedly purchased by Harsh Gupta from Rama Book Depot; driving licence
of Harsh Gupta, one steel chain with lock by which victim was allegedly tied and three set of maruti
cars, number plates allegedly used by the kidnappers were recovered. These articles were seized by
the police. Then, House No. A-131, Sector 39, Noida was raided, which was also found abandoned
and locked. It was revealed that Dinesh Singh Bhati along with his wife Shalini Rawat and one child
were residing there on rent. On checking the room, one bag in which Mohan Gupta had allegedly
kept Rs.15 lacs on 21.09.1995 having initials of Kulbir Singh and Mohan Gupta was found and also
one Identity card of Country Club, one poly bag on which Rama Book Depot, A-178, Dayanand
Colony, Lajpat Nagar was printed having two folders of black colour and one of Unique Detectives
and Securities Company, on which office address 737, Sector-29, Noida was printed; three
pay-in-slips Bank of Rajasthan branch C-191, G. K. -I, New Delhi bearing a/c no. 83064 and A/c
No.3824 belonging to Vijay Singh were found and seized. On search of documents, accused Dinesh
Singh Bhati, Shalini Rawat, Udaipratap Singh and Devender Singh were identified and traced. On
08.10.1995, an information was received that some members of gang were residing at C-6/123,
Sector-31, Noida, from where accused Shalini Rawat w/o Dinesh Singh Bhati and Kamlesh Kumar
w/o Devender Singh were arrested. On pesonal search of Shalini Rawat, cash amount of Rs.

ID No. 02403R0519372
65,152/- was recovered, which was alleged to be a portion of ransom amount of Rs.15 lacs obtained
from complainant. On 21.09.1995, one suit case pertaining to Kamlesh Kumari having Rs.26,000/-,
portion of ransom amount were recovered.

8. On interrogation of accused, it was revealed that two other persons namely, Udai Pratap Singh
(JCL) and Rajender Singh were residing there. After sometime, they were apprehended. As per the
disclosures made by accused Rajender Singh and Udai Pratap Singh (JCL), three keys of the locks of
chain with which Harsh Gupta was allegedly tied at C-3/159, Sector-36, Noida, were 05recovered.
From the diggy of scooter no DHH-8022 make Bajaj, cream colour, number plate was painted, one
black goggle, whose inside glass was painted was recovered, which was used for kidnapping. Said
scooter was used by the kidnapper on 21.09.1995 to obtain ransom amount. The black goggle was
the same which was used by Udai Pratap Singh (JCL) on 05.10.1995 and Harsh Gupta was made to
wear the said goggle. It is alleged that accused Udai Pratap Singh and Rajender Singh disclosed that
they had received Rs.10,000/- each out of the ransom amount and they had kept the same amount
with accused Kamlesh Kumari and it is alleged that accused Shalini Rawat disclosed that she had
gone with her husband Dinesh at Dehradun on 22.09.1995, where she gave Rs.6 lacs to Sh.Jagdish
her father, on the pretext that they had received the amount, after settlement of ancestral property.
Inspector Suresh Kaushik went to Dehradun and seized Rs. 5,75,000/- from Sh. Jagdish, father of
Shalini Rawat. Charge sheet further notes that said amount was part of the ransom amount received
from the kidnappers. Out of Rs.1,50,000/-, balance amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- was deposited by
Jagdish Singh in his different bank accounts after drawing from different bank.

ID No. 02403R05193720
9. On 18.10.1995, accused Dinesh Kumar Bhati surrendered in the Court. He refused to participate
in the TIP. During police custody, victim Harsh Gupta identified Dinesh Kumar Bhati @ Dinesh.
Harsh Gupta pointed out that on 16.09.1995 mechanic Dinesh Kumar Bhati alongwith his associates
had kidnapped him along with his maruti car. Accused Shalini Rawat, Kamlesh Kumari, Udai Pratap
and Rajender Singh also refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. On 21.09.1995, Sh. Mohan
Gupta identified Rajender Singh, who alongwith his one associate had come on two wheeler scooter
and took bag containing Rs. 15 lacs.
10. On 03.11.1995, accused Devender Singh surrendered in the Court. He also refused to join the TIP
proceedings. He was also identified by Mohan Gupta. During his police custody, Mohan Gupta
identified him as the person, who was driving the vehicle and was accompanied with Rajender.
Accused Devender Singh had shown a country made pistol and wrist watch of Harsh Gupta in order
to obtain ransom of Rs. 15 lacs. He took back the slips. Harsh Gupta identified Devender Singh, as
the person who was going in the other car along with his associate and was being referred by
Devender Singh and Dinesh Kumar @ Vinesh as 'Boss'. Accused Devender Singh obtained the
details of personal life, relatives and business etc. from Harsh Gupta and other members of gang
was referring him as 'Sahab'. Devender Singh got written a letter from Harsh Gupta during his
confinement and he used to show country made pistol to Harsh Gupta in order to terrorise him.
11. During police custody, accused Devender Singh made four disclosure statements. He got
recovered from a field near a tubewell at Khurja. Rs. 1 lac having some notes with initials of IO/SI
Kulbir Singh and Sh.Mohan Gupta, which State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 8/40 ID

No. 02403R0519372006 revealed that the said amount was the part of ransom. On 13.11.1995, at the
instance of accused Devender Singh, two bank account numbers 4446 and 7322, Bank of Punjab and
Sind, Khurja Branch were investigate and it was found that he had deposited amount in these bank
accounts. On 30.09.1995, Rs.1,20,000/- in account number 4446 and Rs. 60,000/- in account
number 7322 ransom amount was deposited. On 02.11.1995, Rs.48,844/- in account no. 7322
amount was deposited and had withdrawn Rs. 4,000/- from account no. 4446 and Rs. 56,000/-
from account no. 7322. From the account no. 4446 of Devender Singh, Rs. 1,21,500/- was
withdrawn on different dates by different cheques. Similarly, Rs. 68,000/- was withdrawn from
account no. 7322. On checking the statement of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Khurja Branch,
account no. 6049, Rs. One lac was deposited on 30.09.1995.
12. As per charge sheet, on the pointing out of accused Devender Singh, from the house of Beer
Singh, his father-in-law at Village Kadalpur, District Bullandshehar, UP, one suitcase was recovered
from the heap of Bajra, which contained registration certificate of Bajaj two wheeler Scooter
No.DHH-8022 in favour of Bhoop Singh, father of accused Dinesh Singh Bhati. The said scooter was
used for the demand of ransom. One visiting card of Unique Detectives and Securities Office, 737,
Sector-29, Noida, Phone-577417, on which D. Singh, Prop. was written, which showed that security
agency was of accused Dinesh Singh Bhati. One stamp paper on which agreement to sell, plot B-218,
Rampusta, Ghaziabad between Smt. Prakashwati and Shalini Rawat w/o Dinesh Singh Bhati was
written.

ID No. 02403R05193
13. On the pointing out of accused Devender Singh, Car No.DL-3- CB-6338, Maruti 1000, red
colour, which was alleged used in the commission of crime was seized. Rs.35,000/- was recovered
from one Mohd. Irfaan and Rs. 45,000/- was recovered from one Samundri w/o Surajpal Singh. It is
stated that these people were not aware that the money which they had withdrawn from the bank or
transferred, was the amount of ransom. Likewise, Rs. 2 lacs were recovered and were stated to be
given by Dinesh Singh Bhati in order to purchase a plot from Smt. Prakashwati w/o Sh. L. C.
Mishra.
14. Efforts were made to trace out accused Dinesh Singh Bhati, but he could not be traced.
Proclamation proceedings under section 82/83 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. He was declared
proclaimed offender on 16.12.1995 by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. It is alleged that
accused Dinesh Singh Bhati deposited Rs.70,000/- in account no. 38242 on 22.09.1995 in the bank
of Rajasthan, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Similarly, in ANZ Grindlays Bank, Greater Kailash in
account no. 01 SMP 2325900, he deposited Rs.73,487.70/-, out of which Rs.70,000/- was the
ransom amount. It is further stated that accused Devender Singh disclosed that the slips for demand
of ransom were written by Dinesh Singh Bhati and Devender Singh used to make telephone calls for
a demand of ransom and Dinesh Singh Bhati used to accompany him. Handwritings of accused
persons were obtained, which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and
comparison and chance prints were recovered from different places were also sent for analysis.

15. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on
06.10.1996. Case was committed to the Court of State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012
10/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 sessions by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.03.1996. On
21.01.1996, Learned Predecessor of this Court framed charges against accused Shalini Rawat (A-1),
Devender Singh(A-2) and Dinesh Kumar Bhati (A-3) under section 364-A read with section 120-B
IPC, under section 368 read with section 34 IPC against accused Rajender Kumar (A-4) and
Kamlesh Kumari (A-5). Charge for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC against accused
Shalini Rawat (A-1) and Kamlesh Kumari (A-5) charge under section 383 IPC read with section
120-B was framed against accused Rajender Kumar (A-4). Accused persons pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
16. Points, which emerges for determination in this case are :-
(i) Whether on or before 16.09.1995, accused Shalini Rawat (A-1), Devender Singh (A-2), Dinesh
(A-3) along with Dinesh Singh Bhati (PO) entered into a criminal conspiracy at house no. A-31,
Sector-39, Noida in order to kidnap Harsh Gupta s/o Mohan Gupta in order to pay ransom of Rs. 15
lacs?
(ii) Whether accused Shalini Rawat, Dinesh and Devender Singh along with Dinesh Kumar Bhati
(PO) made a demand of Rs. 15 lacs as ransom for the release Harsh Gupta from their captivity on
05.10.1995?
(iii) Whether in pursuant to conspiracy, Harsh Gupta was kidnapped on 16.09.1995 at about 11:15
am from the area of Lajpat Nagar?
(iv) Whether victim Harsh Gupta was detained and confined at C-3/159, Sector 36, Noida, UP ?
(v) Whether accused Kamlesh Kumari (A-5) alongwith, Udai Pratap (JCL) and Rajender Kumar
(A-4) during the period between 16.09.1995 till 05.10.1995, in furtherance of their common
intention, knowingly concealed and confined Harsh Gupta at house no. C-3/159, Sector 36, Noida,
UP with the knowledge that he was kidnapped by co -accused Shalini Rawat (A-1), Devender Singh,
Dinesh Kumar (A-3) and Dinesh Kumar Bhati (PO) (A-2)?
(vi) Whether on 08.10.1995,accused Kamlesh Kumari dishonestly received or
State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 11

ID No. 02403R05193
retained Rs. 26,000/- at house no. C-6/123, Sector -31, NOIDA, UP having knowledge or reasons to
believe that the said amount was part and parcel of ransom money extorted by the co accused from
Mohan Gupta father of the victim Harsh Gupta?

(vii) Whether on 08.10.1995, accused Shalini Rawat (A-1) dishonestly received or retained Rs.
65,152/- at house no. C-6/123, Sector -31, NOIDA, UP having knowledge or reasons to believe that
the said amount was part and parcel of ransom money extorted by the co accused from Mohan
Gupta father of the victim Harsh Gupta?
(viii) Whether on 10.10.1995, accused Shalini Rawat (A-1) dishonestly received or retained Rs.
5,75,000/- alongwith her husband/co-accused Dinesh Kumar Bhati (Proclaimed Offender) from the
house of her father Jagdish Singh at House No. 9, Bengali Mohalla, Karampura, Dehradun, UP
knowledge or reasons to believe that the said amount was part and parcel of ransom money extorted
by the co-accused from Mohan Gupta father of the victim Harsh Gupta?
(ix) Whether accused Devender Singh and Rajesh Singh alongwith co accused Dinesh Kumar Bhati
(Proclaimed Offender) in execution of the criminal conspiracy between them extorted Rs. 15 lacs
from Sh. Mohan Gupta father of victim Harsh Gupta, after putting him in fear of death of his son
Harsh Gupta?
17. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 45 witnesses in all:
18. Sh. Harsh Gupta, Victim appeared as PW-3. Sh. Mohan Gupta (PW-20) is father of victim Harsh
Gupta. His statement (Ex.PW20/A) was recorded by the IO. PW-20 is witness to the seizure memo
(Ex.PW20/B) of cassette; handing over memo (Ex.PW20/C) of bag containing Rs. 15 Lacs signed by
SI Kulbir Singh. He identified the writing of his son on letter received at the resident of Smt.
Manjula Dilwali. Testimony of these two material witnesses is discussed below. Sh. Gautam Hada
(PW-23) relative of Mohan Gupta.
State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 12

ID No. 02403R051937200
19. Sh. Lakkshmi Chand (PW-7) husband of Prakash Wati, owner of plot at Ramprast District
Ghaziabad, UP. PW-7 identified his signatures on the copy of agreement (Ex.PW7/A) purported to
have been executed on 27.07.1995 between Smt. Prakash Wati w/o Sh. L. C. Mishra and Smt. Shalini
Rawat w/o Sh. Dinesh Singh. PW-7 admitted that Rs. 2 lacs was received against the plot. Sh.Madan
Mohan (PW-10) son of Laxmi Chand Mishra (PW-7), identified his signatures on agreement to sell
(Ex.PW7/A) executed between Prakashwati and Shalini Rawat. PW-10 deposed that Dinesh Singh
husband of Shalini Rawat was introduced to him by his colleague B. S. Bhati and he further
introduced Dinesh Singh to his father. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by Dinesh Singh through
draft as agreement amount, as part payment. He stated that agreement was executed in the name of
Shalini Rawat and balance amount was paid by Dinesh Singh to his father in cash. Thereafter, his
father told him that Dinesh Singh took back a sum of Rupees One lac.
20. Smt. Samundri (PW-38) deposited Rs. 44,000/- with the police at Police Station Lajpat Nagar.
She did not know what dealing Suraj Pal Singh (her husband) had with Devender Singh. Sh.
Ginander Singh (PW-27) alongwith Smt. Samundri Devi (his mother-in-law) handed over Rs.

45,000/- to IO/SI Kulbir Singh, who told that money was deposited by cheque in the account of
Suraj Pal Singh husband of Smt.Samundri Devi. He is witness to the seizure of money vide memo
(Ex.PW27/A). Smt. Veena Ahuja (PW-11), owner of house no. A-31, Sector-39, Noida, District
Ghaziabad, UP stated that an agreement (Ex.PW11/A) was executed between her and Dinesh Singh
s/o Sh. Bhoop Singh on 20.05.1995, relating to letting out of the ground floor of her house to Dinesh
Singh. Agreement State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 13/40 ID No.
02403R0519372006 was taken into possession by the police vide memo (Ex.PW11/B).
21. Sh. Sant Ram (PW-6) deposed that he did not know Devender Singh (A-2). He never worked as
property dealer or arranged for buying a house by Devender Singh as property dealer. He was cross
examined by Ld. Addl. PP. PW-6 specifically denied that in the year 1995 while working as property
dealer, he had settled a deal between Devender singh and Kushal Singh Pathania for the sale of
house no. C-6/123, Sector-31, Noida, allegedly purchased by accused Devender Singh. Sh.Chander
Pal Singh (PW-4), Clerk-cum-Cashier in Punjab and Sind Bank, Khurja Branch, who handed over
documents to the police vide memo (Ex.PW4/A). Mohd. Irfaan (PW-12) deposed that he did not
know accused Devender Singh. He was having account no. 1356 in Syndicate Bank, Khurja. He was
cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP. PW-12 deposed that he never met co- accused Devender Singh. He
was having a tractor workshop at Khurja and family members of Devender Singh used to get tractor
repaired from his shop. He used to provide service to his family members on credit. He came to
know that the money was credited in his account on the same day when police met him. PW-12 did
not know who deposited the amount in his bank. He admitted that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was
credited in his account in June 1995 and the same was debited from account of co-accused Devender
on 25.06.1996. PW-12 placed on record original passbook (Ex.PW12/PX). He admitted that Rs.
35,000/- were withdrawn from his account.
22. Sh. Bharat Singh (PW-8) placed on record copy of account opening form, introduction form,
Accounts statement, account opening form of Account number 7322 in the name of Kamlesh. He
deposed that account no. 4446 was State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 14/40 ID No.
02403R0519372006 opened in the name of Devender Pal Singh s/o Dal Chand. PW-8 handed over
the attested copies of above said documents (Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW18/17) to the police vide memo
(Ex.PW4/A). Sh. Harjeet Hoon (PW-9) introduced Dinesh while opening account in Grindleys Bank,
Greater Kailash. He placed on record account opening form mark A.1 and A.2. PW-9 was cross
examined by Ld. Addl. PP. He admitted that Shalini Rawat was the wife of Dinesh, who was
introduced as an advocate to him.
23. ASI Kuldeep (PW-1) lifted chance prints from C-1-3/159, Sector -36, NOIDA UP. His report is
Ex.PW1/A in this regard. ASI Narender Singh (PW-2), inspected Maruti Car No. DL-3CC-2578. On
21.09.1995, he developed chance prints (Ex.PW2/A). Sh. Ravinder Kumar (PW-28) Finger Print
Expert. On 06.10.1995, he lifted six chance prints from A-31, Sector 39, Noida and placed on record
report (Ex.PW28/A). SI Avdesh Kumar (PW-29) received 26 chance prints and two specimen finger
prints slip on 08.0.1996. On 15.02.1996, he received specimen finger prints slip. PW-29 placed on
record report (Ex.PW29/A) regarding comparison of chance prints. He place on record developed
photograph of chance print Q-6 (Ex.PW29/B) and specimen print S-1 (Ex.PW29/C).

24. Sh. Banni Singh (PW-5) deposed that Devender Singh (A-2) was married to his niece. Police had
come to their village in 1995 and nothing was recovered in his presence. He was cross examined by
Learned Addl. PP. He deposed that Rajender and Kallu were arrested on 13.11.1995 from their
village and nothing was recovered. He admitted that his signatures on the memo (Ex.PW5/A)
prepared at village Hajrat Pur, which was the village of accused Devender. HC Ombir Singh (PW-13)
recorded FIR (Ex.PW13/A) on 16.09.1995 on State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 15/40
ID No. 02403R0519372006 receipt of rukka sent by SI Kulbir Singh. Sh. S. K. Chadha (PW-14)
Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II, in Finger Print Division, CBI, placed on record report
(Ex.PW14/A). He developed chance prints marked Q-1 to Q-4 (Ex. PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B and
Ex.PW14/C).
25. HC Khushi Ram (PW-15) joined investigation with IO. He is witness to the disclosure statement
pertaining to accused Devender. HC Harpal Singh (PW-16) is witness to the recovery of Maruti Car
bearing no. DL 3CD 6338, seized by the IO vide memo (Ex.PW16/A) from Sector - 53, Noida, UP
from a site under construction. W/Ct. Nirmala (PW-17) joined the investigation with IO. He visited
Sector-39 with the IO. She is witness to the personal search memo (Ex.PW17/A) with respect to
accused Kamlesh Kumari and (Ex.PW17/B) as regards Shalini Rawat. Ct. Rajpal (PW-18) stated that
accused Dinesh Kumar Bhati had surrendered in the Court. He is the witness to the personal search
memo (Ex.PW18/A) and disclosure statement (Ex.PW18/B) of accused Dinesh Kumar Bhati. Ct.
Vijay Bhan (PW-19) is witness to the personal search memo (Ex.PW19/A) of accused Devender
Singh.
26. Sh. Chander Bhan (PW-21) is the witness to the seizure memo Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B and
Ex.PW21/C of scooter bearing no. DNH 8022 make Bajaj, personal search of accused Rajender @
Ramesh (Ex. PW21/D) and of Udai Pratap (JCL) (Ex.PW21/E). He is witness to the recovery of Rs.
26,000/-recovered from the box in the search of house of Kamlesh and of, Rs. 65,000/- recovered
from the purse of Shalini Rawat. SI Sunil Kumar (PW-22) had gone to Nehru Place Exchange on the
request of IO and filed an application to place telephone no. 6460901 and 6460902 under
observation. Sh.Ashok Kumar Kakkar (PW-24) is State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012
16/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 voice recorder. He stated that two cassettes were brought by the
police. He accompanied the police alongwith his recording instrument and went to Kapoor Holiday,
East of Kailash. He placed on record cassette (Ex. P-20/9).
27. Sh. Jagdish Singh Rawat (PW-25), father of Shalini Rawat. On 05.10.1995, he received call at the
house of Amit Pokhiriyal. He deposed that his daughter and Dinesh Bhati, his son-n-law did not
come to his house to give the money to him. He was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP. PW-25
deposed that he had not stated to the police that he had given an amount of Rs. Five lacs seventy five
thousand to the police and out of Rs. One lac fifty thousand, some of the notes were signed. He did
not state to the police that amount of Rs. Five lac and seventy five thousand was seized vide memo
(Ex.PW25/A). He stated that he sent telegram (Ex.PW25/DA) to the District Magistrate, Gaziabad
on 06.10.1995 at 03:43 am (night) vide receipts (Ex.PW25/DB and Ex.PW25/DC). Sh. Madan
Chandra (PW-26), Senior Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Khurja, UP was inquired about
account No.6049 of Devender Singh (A-2). Devender Singh (A-2) withdraw Rs. 1 lac from the said
account. He deposed that Devender Singh produced Rs. 1 lac before the police and seized vide

seizure memo (Ex.PW26/A). He is witness to the seizure of original pay-in-slip (Ex.PW26/1), saving
account form (Ex.PW26/2) and statement of account (Ex.PW26/3) vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW26/B).
28. SI Sunil Kumar Singh Pratap (PW-30) received information regarding kidnapping of victim. He
joined the investigation with Inspector Rajesh Kaushik. He was cross examined by Learned Addl.
PP. SI Om Prakash (PW-31) is witness to the disclosure statements (Ex.PW31/A, Ex.PW31/B and
Ex.PW31/C) of accused State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 17/40 ID No.
02403R0519372006 Devender. Sh. Ram Prakash (PW-33) is owner of House No. C-3/159,
Sector-36, Noida. He deposed that he rented this accommodation to Devender Singh (A-2) on lease
for 11 months w.e.f. 01.01.1995 @ monthly Rent of Rs. 1800/-. He placed on record copy of lease
deed (Ex.PW32/A). SI Narender Singh (PW-34) joined the investigation alongwith Inspector Suresh
Kaushik and SI Rakesh Dixit. He went to Dehradun at the house of Jagdish Singh at Bengali
Mohalla and recovered Rs. 5,75,000/-. He deposed that Rs. 1,50,000/- was recovered in cash which
was handed over by Dinesh to Jagdish Singh. Inspector Anand Sagar (PW-34) member of raiding
party was witness to the disclosure statements (Ex.PW34/A to Ex.PW34/D) of Udai Pratap (JCL),
Devender Kumar, Kamlesh Kumari and of Shalini Rawat.
29. Inspector Rakesh Dixit (PW-35) incharge police post New Friends Colony was deputed for 10-15
days at telephone exchange, Jor Bagh where telephone number 4628274 was under observation. SI
T. P. Singh (PW-36) is witness to the recovery of maruti 1000 bearing no. DL 3CB 6338 vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW36/A). Sh. Girish Chand (PW-37) stated that he used to bring milk from Devender
Singh. He stated that he had no dealing with Devender Singh (A-2) and no signed cheques were
handed over to him by Devender Singh and he had not handed over any cheques to Om Raj. Sh. S. S.
Handa, Metropolitan Magistrate (PW-39) conducted TIP of accused Shalini Rawat, Udai Pratap
Singh (JCL), Kamlesh Kumari and Rajender. He placed on record TIP proceedings (Ex.PW39/A,
Ex.PW39/D, Ex.PW39/G and Ex.PW39/J), statements (Ex.PW39/B, Ex.PW39/E, Ex.PW39/H and
Ex.PW39/K) and certificates (Ex.PW39/C, Ex.PW39/F, Ex.PW39/I, Ex.PW39/L) of aforesaid
accused persons. In cross State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 18/40 ID No.
02403R0519372006 examination, he admitted that the order dated 12.10.1995 was not recorded as
to whether accused persons were produced in muffled or unmuffled face.
30. Ct. Jai Pal (PW-40) special messenger, on the directions of SHO, he delivered the copy of FIR
No. 653/95 u/s 364-A IPC to Metropolitan Magistrate, DCP, Addl. DCP at their residences on
16.09.1995,. Sh. Ram Kishan (PW-41) owner of Book and Stationery at A-178, Lajpat Nagar-IV,
placed on record photocopies of the bills to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW41/A). Inspector/IO Suresh Kaushik (PW-42) alongwith SI Narender Singh and SI Rakesh
Dikshit went to Dehradun. He recorded statement of witnesses and deposited the case property in
malkhana. In cross examination, he admitted that entry (Ex.PW42/DA) in the Hotel at Dehradun
was made on 07.10.1995 at about 05:00 pm. PW-42 deposed that they had gone to Dehradun on
07.10.1995 in the evening and had started their work on 08.10.1995. He admitted that no public
person joined the investigation at Dehradun. Smt. Sunita Gupta (PW-43), the then Metropolitan
Magistrate, conducted TIP of accused Devender Singh at Central Jail, Tihar. Accused Devender
Singh refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. PW-43 placed on record proceedings

(Ex.PW43/A).
31. Inspector Gobind Sharma (PW-44), deposed that on 03.10.1995 three calls came on the
telephone number of complainant. He noted down the source of telephone and informed the IO
immediately. He is witness to seizure memo of rent agreement Ex.PW11/A, seizure memo of scooter
Ex.PW21/B and seizure memo of goggles Ex.PW21/C. Inspector Kulbir Singh (PW-45),
Investigating Officer of the case prepared several documents during investigation. He deposed that
on 16.09.1995, on receipt of information vide DD No. 13-A, PS State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC
No. 65/2012 19/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 Lajpat Nagar, he alongwith HC Ravinder reached at
Police Station GK, where complainant Mohan Gupta met them. PW-45 recorded his statement vide
memo Ex.PW20/A and made his endorsement Ex.PW45/A and handed over the same to HC
Ravinder for registration of FIR. PW-45 deposed that he interrogated Ram Kishan, owner of Rama
Book Depot, who produced three photocopies of the bills, which he seized vide memo Ex.PW41/A.
He is witness to the bills of Rama Book Depot mark PW45/P1, handing over memo of cash, which
was handed over to Mohan Gupta Ex.Pw20/C, memo of letter Ex.PW20/E, chance prints memo
Ex.PW20/F, slips memo Ex.PW20/G, memo of scooter and goggle Ex.PW21/C, disclosure
statements Ex.PW34/A, personal search memo of accused Devender Ex.PW19/A, disclosure
statement of accused Devender Ex.PW15/A. Cash memo Ex.PW20/H and seizure memos of 6
cassettes Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW45/F, Ex.PW45/G, Ex.PW45/H, & Ex.PW23/A.
32. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. R. S. Negi, Learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh.
Tahkur Karan Singh as well as Sh. Kanwal Nain, Learned Counsels for accused persons and have
perused material on record carefully.
33. Learned Addl. PP submits that PW-3 and PW-20 Sh. Mohan Gupta, the complainant have
proved the allegations. PW-3 had narrated the incident in detail as to how, he was kidnapped and
confined from 16.09.1995 to 05.10.1995, then he was dropped near Shipra Hotel by one of the
accused. PW-20 Sh. Mohan Gupat, father of the victim and complainant stated that there was a
demand of ransom amount of Rs.15 lacs and he had gone to pay that amount and once he had paid
the ransom amount then ransom was again demanded. PW-20 was not State Vs. Shalini Rawat &
Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 20/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 ready to payed that amount. He sought
police cover and then on 05.10.1995 victim was released. He submits that ransom amount was
recovered from the accused persons. They identified the accused persons in the Court.
34. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused argued that as per the case of the prosecution,
accused Kamlesh Kumari, Shalini Rawat, Udai Pratap and Rajender were arrested on 08.10.1995.
PW-5 admitted that he came to know that address of Shalini Rawat at Dehradun, after her arrest on
08.10.1995 whereas, record shows that police team reached at Dehradun on 07.10.1995. Learned
Counsel argued that Sh.Mohan Gupta (PW-20) father of victim stated that he had found chit placed
under a half brick on the ground which was near Milestone of 15 km. He picked up the chit which
was in Hindi but no said chit was seized or placed on record.
35. Learned Counsel contended that prosecution has withheld prosecution witnesses. It is submitted
that Sh. Ram Kishan alleged shopkeeper, who was having shop from where the victim allegedly had

purchased stationery material, is not examined and Smt. Sangeeta Gupta (mother of the victim) as
well as Smt.Manjula Dilwali (Mausi of victim), who allegedly received ransom call on several dates
were not examined. It was contended that evidence of Sh. Mohan Gupta (PW-20) in this regard is
only hearsay.
36. Learned Counsel argued that, as per the story of prosecution Gurudev, Manager of Mohan Gupta
(PW-20), who had allegedly accompanied him, when allegedly he had gone to hand over ransom of
Rs.15 lacs has not been examined by the prosecution and there is no explanation at all for not
examining him. He pointed out that victim had allegedly given a tooth bite to one of the State Vs.
Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 21/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 accused, who has not
been medically examined in order to prove the tooth bite injury on the said accused.
37. Next, Learned Counsel contended that as per the story of prosecution, Sh.Mohan Gupta (PW-20)
found two chits/slips, while he was going to deliver the ransom amount at Bulendsehar. In his
examination in chief, he deposed that he handed over the chits/slips vide memo Ex.PW20/G. It is
submitted those chits have not placed & proved on record and only photocopies Mark-A & B were
placed on record. There is nothing on record to show that these chits were returned to any of the
accused.
38. Learned Counsel pointed out that as per the charge sheet, 14 currency notes (Ex.PW17/B) were
recovered from accused Shalini Rawat, 30 currency notes (Ex.PW21/B) were recovered from
Kamlesh, 30 currency notes (Ex.PW21/B) were recovered from Kamlesh and 32 currency notes were
recovered and nine notes were recovered from Devender. As per the charge sheet, 68 currency notes
were having signatures of Sh. Mohan Gupta (PW-20) and IO/SI Kulbir, whereas only 62 currency
notes were produced in the Court, which are Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/62 in the testimony of PW-20.
There is no explanation and whereabouts of these notes, if at all those were recovered.
39. It was argued that prosecution has failed to establish that at Telephone No. 4628274 installed in
the house of Gautam Handa and of the accused had made call at this number on 16.09.1995,
18.09.1995, 19.09.1995 & 21.09.1995. Learned Counsel submits that it has not been established that
any of the accused had made any such call. Sh. C. K. Jain, Senior Scientific Officer, whose report
(Ex.PW45/PX) was placed on record in the testimony of IO does not State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. -
SC No. 65/2012 22/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 establishes that any of the accused had made
any such ransom calls and he has not appeared in the witness box. Even otherwise no permission of
the Court was taken before obtaining specimen voice of any of accused. Sh. Mohan Gupta (PW-20)
has deposed that he could not recognize the voice of the caller.
40. Now, I shall discuss the evidence adduced by the alleged victim (PW-3). He deposed in his
examination in chief that he bite finger of Dinesh and resisted himself. Accused Dinesh was not
medically examined. Allegations of the victim in this regard is not proved. Harsh Gupta (PW-3)
deposed that whenever he had to go to attend the call of nature or to ease himself, Udai Pratap (JCL)
used to take him outside a room which was adjoining the room. Harsh Gupta (PW-3) deposed after
sometime that the glasses painted in the black colour on his face were covered. Harsh Gupta (PW-3)
deposed that he was tied with chain of the box but the said box has not been seized by the police to

show that whether there was anything or any hook with which chain could be tied. It has come in
evidence on record that on 01.10.1995, Udai Pratap (JCL) left the house in the morning leaving him
alone and he raised alarm and noise, accused Kamlesh Kumari, who was stated to be cooking food
for him and washed his clothes bolted the door and took him to the bathroom. This shows that
Harsh Gupta (PW-3) clearly had an opportunity to escape when Kamlesh Kumari allegedly offered
him to go to bathroom. Furthermore, PW-3 stated that Kamlesh Kumar told him that she was
having key of the chain. How could she take him to the bathroom without opening the chain, is not
clear. Perusal of order dated 12.08.1997 and 13.08.1997 shows that a duplicate key of the lock of the
chain was got prepared and order dated 13.08.1997 notes that without removing the handkerchief
from the wrist of PW-3, State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 23/40 ID No.
02403R0519372006 chain could not be taken out from his wrist. However, it could be taken out
from the wrist with little force. On 21.07.1997, the story of tying handkerchief before tying the chain
was introduced. This fact was put forth for the first time and it was not mentioned in the statement
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C or in examination in chief of Victim (PW-3).
41. Harsh Gupta (PW-3) deposed that on 05.10.1995, Udai Pratap (JCL) told him to go. He
unchained him and put the same black painted glasses on his face and asked him to sit on a vehicle
make Bajaj, cream colour and accused Udai Pratap dropped him near Shipra Hotel. The scooter was
being driven at a very fast speed and after ten minutes, scooter was stopped. Harsh Gupta (PW-3)
was kept in dark place where he was confined. He did not know the place, where victim was
allegedly confined at C-3/159, Sector 36, Noida UP, but prosecution has failed to explain the fact
that till the time none of the accused was arrested, how the police reached there, despite the fact that
victim did not know about the said place. Victim(PW-3) further deposed that on 21.09.1995, accused
Kamlesh Kumari had opened the door of the room and that he had never seen Kamlesh Kumari
before 05.10.1995. PW-3 stated that he stated to the police that accused Udai Pratap left him near
Shipra hotel. He was confronted with statement (Ex.PW3/DA) dated 05.10.1995 wherein name of
accused Dinesh was mentioned.
42. PW-3 in his deposition stated that he must have cried or shouted when he was confined on the
backside of the car at the time of kidnapping on 16.09.1995. PW-3 admitted that the said place was a
residential area. Witness has not given any satisfactory answer to the questions put to him. PW-3
cried or shouted, it being the residential area, people would have come to his rescue.

ID No. 02403R0519372006
PW-3 deposed that it was single story, where he was confined. Then, he stated that he could not tell
how many stories, the building was having and thereafter at another point he stated that building
was having more stories. On asking about the photographs Mark-DA, PW-3 could not identify the
said house. On showing, photographs mark X-1, PW-3 stated that out of 3-4 houses shown therein,
there might be one room of the said houses, but he could specifically say so. On showing,
photographs, PW-3 could not identify the house. PW-3 was not able to give the description of the
house or the adjoining area of the place, where he was allegedly confined. PW-3 could not say if the

front door of the said house was of the iron or wooden. PW-3 could not identify the photographs
regarding the location of the road. He also could not identify the photographs of house no. C-3/159,
Sector -36, NOIDA UP shown to him. PW-3 could not tell if he ever visited the aforesaid house.
PW-3 deposed that before going to identify the house where he was held captive, police did not
record his statement. How, then the police could reach at the said place. PW-3 in his deposition
stated that he was asked to put the black goggles (Ex.P-10) on his face. After putting goggles, PW-3
stated that he could see from the sides. PW-3 again stated that he could see very slightly see from
the sides. There are material contradictions and improvements in the testimony of alleged victim
(PW-3) which make him unworthy of credence.
43. Harsh Gutpa (PW-3) deposed that on 06.10.1995, his statement was recorded around 03:00am.
On 19.10.1995 his statement was recorded at about 04:00pm and on 21.10.1995, his statement was
recorded at about 04:00pm. After 21.10.1995, his no other statement was recorded. He stated that
he had tried to park his car towards left side of the road for parking. PW-3 was confronted with State
Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 25/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 statement
(Ex.PW3/DA) where it was not so recorded. He stated that accused were resembling as motor
mechanic having screw driver etc in their front pocket. PW-3 was confronted with statement
(Ex.PW3/DA) wherein it was mentioned that out of those persons, one of them was wearing clothes
of like a mechanic and was having a plass and screw driver in his hand. PW-3 could not recollect if
he had stated in his statement that first of all they helped him in parking the car. PW-3 deposed that
he had stated in his statement that accused Dinesh while putting his arm around his neck pushed
him towards the rear seat. PW-3 was confronted with statement (Ex. PW3/DA) wherein it was
mentioned that the person who was sitting on the rear seat pressed his throat.
44. When the car reached at Noida near the house where he was detained, PW-3 could not tell, if at
that time the glass panes of the car were put down or not. Before vehicle was started for the test
drive, the glasses of the car were already up. PW-3 voluntarily stated that when he left from book
shop, he had started the car and put on the AC. He had not stated the aforesaid fact in his statement
to the police. PW-3 did not recollect if on the way, while driving the car, accused had put down the
glasses of the car or not. PW-3 deposed that when he was kidnapped, he could not see if there was
any body near the car or anybody passed the said car or not. Before the black glasses were put on his
eyes, he could see a little bit while lying on the rear seat of the car outside the glasses. On
05.10.1995, he returned back to his house at about 07:00/07:30 pm and it was dark at that time.
PW-3 could not tell after how much time of his reaching the house, police arrived there. He even
could not tell approximate time. PW-3 did not know the names of police officers who came and with
whom, he went to Noida to State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 26/40 ID No.
02403R0519372006 identify the house where he was kept. PW-3 stated that police officers had told
him that they had located the house and he was to identify the same. PW-3 did not remember the
number of police officers with whom he went to Noida. He could not tell name of vehicle by which
he went with them. PW-3 did not remember if besides him any other person also signed the said
seizure memo. PW-3 did not know who prepared the said memo. PW-3 could not admit or deny, if
the seizure memo and site plan were prepared by the same person or not. PW-3 did not know if in
the house where he was there was garrage or not. He could not tell whether the said car was parked
in a garage or in the compound.

45. PW-3 could not recollect who accompanied him back to his house. From the side of the black
glasses which were put on his eyes, some time he was able to see from the sides of the glasses. He
stated in his statement to the police that on the last day, accused Udai Pratap came in the room in
the afternoon PW-3 was confronted with the statement (Ex. PW3/DA) wherein it was mentioned
that accused Udai Pratap came in the room in the noon PW-3 did not recollect, if there were houses
adjoining to the house, where he was kept. He stated that the accused used to un-tie the chain
during the day when they used to be present in the room while before leaving the room, they again
used to tie the chain. In the night, they used to tie him with the chain. According to PW-3, he had
stated in his statement regarding the showing of pistol to him in his statement dated 05.10.1995,
when his first statement was recorded. Confronted with statement (Ex. PW3/DA) wherein it was not
so recorded. The box-bed, takhat and the battery lying in the room were not taken into possession
by police.

ID No. 02403R0519372006
46. PW-3 deposed that accused Shalini Rawat was shown to him at the police station on 19.10.1995.
He was called at the police station on that day where he identified her. He did not know when
accused Shalini Rawat was arrested by the police. PW-3 stated that he was informed about his
kidnapping by the accused after reaching the place where he was kept detained. He was asked by the
accused the telephone number as well as the particulars of his family or his father where he was kept
captive. PW-3 could not tell the exact time when they had asked him about the aforesaid particulars.
PW-3 stated that he narrated about the aforesaid facts in his statement to the police. PW-3 was
confronted with statement (Ex.PW3/DA). On 05.10.1995, when accused Kamlesh came in the room,
she did not tell him, her name as Kamlesh. He did not remember what used to be the conversation
which he tried to over hear except their names. The room where he was kept, used to remain locked
most of the time. PW-3 stated that door of the room was opened only when the persons used to
come and go out the door.
47. PW-3 deposed that he had never seen accused Kamlesh before 05.10.1995. He was never told by
the accused that food was prepared by Kamlesh. PW-3 did not know the date of arrest of accused
Dinesh, Udai Pratap and Rajender. He could not tell how many crossing fell on the way, from the
place where he was kept captive up to the place where he was released by accused Udai Pratap. He
stated that accused Udai Pratap (JCL) left him near Shipra Hotel. PW-3 was confronted with
statement (Ex. PW3/DA) where in name of Dinesh was mentioned. PW-3 did not remember on
which site of the Hotel Shipra, the telephone was lying. The vehicle in which he was kidnapped was
never stopped on the road for security checkup. He did not know the telephone number of Ravi
State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 28/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 Raj Gupta, his
real uncle (mausa) at Noida. On 19.10.1995, he identified the scooter at the police station and on
that date, in his statement to the police, he had given the number of scooter DHH 8022. He did not
know if Devender and Udai Pal were the nephews of Sh. Sudesh Bhati, who used to visit their house.
PW-3 did not know if father of Sh. Sudesh Bhati as well as his brother had monetary dealing with his
father.

48. PW-3 in his deposition further stated that police never prepared any site plan in his presence in
respect of the place, he parked his Car near Rama Book Depot as well as of the place where his car
had broke down. He did not know how much far away Harijan basti was situated from the place
where his car was broke down. He could not identify the place where Harijan basti was situated. He
had not taken police party to the spot near Sapna Cinema, where they had forcibly pulled him on the
back side of the car. PW-3 stated that he must have cried or shouted when he was pulled on the back
side of the car. His answer to this question was not emphatic and clear. PW-3 admitted that the said
place was a residential area, but he could not tell if the said place was thickly populated or not. He
could not tell even if from the said place, people used to pass or not. He did not notice any weapon
of offence with those two boys at the time of kidnapping. PW-3 stated that they told him that they
were having weapon of offence. He did not recollect if he had stated in his statement to the police
whether those two boys were talking to some persons by calling them 'Boss' at that place. He did not
raise any alarm or shouted for help.
49. PW-3 could not tell, if he had stated to the police that the said place could be identified by him.
He did not recollect, if the car was stopped on the way State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No.
65/2012 29/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 to Noida due to traffic interception. He had not noticed
any truck going by the side of the car. He did not resist during the way till Noida. PW-3 stated that
he had seen a colony gate on 05.10.1995, the day on which he was released. He did not remember, if
any security personal was deputed at the gate or nor. PW-3 could not tell how much stories the
building was. PW-3 stated that the said building was having more than one story. Witness was
shown photographs of house and after seeing the photograph, PW-3 stated that he could not identify
the said house. He further stated that one of the three-four houses shown in the photographs might
be one of the room of the aforesaid houses, where he might have had been held captive but could not
specifically say so. PW-3 stated that on 05.10.1995, accused Udai Pratap opened the door two times,
once in the afternoon and second time at about 05:00 pm. PW-3 denied that he could not tell at
what time accused Shalini Rawat came before he was released prior to 05.10.1995, he had never
seen accused Shalini Rawat. SI Kulbir Singh met him three four times during investigation of the
case. PW-3 was never shown any video film by the police at the police station. He was also never
shown any video film by the police at his house. PW-3 stated that sometime Sudesh Kumar Bhatti
used to visit their house. He did not remember how many times, Sudesh Kumar Bhatti visited their
house in his presence. He did not know in which connection, he used to visit their house. He did not
know if the father-in-law of accused Shalini Rawat used to give loan to his father. PW-3 could not
tell if Rs. 21 lacs was due towards them as a loan from Dinesh Singh husband of accused Shalini
Rawat and his brother Sudesh Kumar. He did not know anything about the firm by the name of
Bhatti Investments. He did not know if Rs. Three crores was due as a loan from Sh. Hada by the
family of State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 30/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 Shalini
Rawat. Story narrated by PW-3 (Victim) as a whole seems improbable and unconvincing.
50. As per the story of prosecution, Sh. Mohan Gupta (PW-20), father of the victim had gone to
deliver Rs. 15 lacs having notes of Rs.12 lacs in the denomination of Rs.500/-, Rs.2.5 lacs in the
denomination of Rs.100/- and Rs. 50,000/- in the denomination of Rs.50/-. Number of bundles
were mentioned in the handing over memo (Ex.PW20/C), whereas PW-20 deposed that Rs.12.5 lacs
i.e. 25 bundles in the denomination of Rs.500/-, Rs.2 lacs were in denomination of Rs. 100/- i.e. 20

bundles and Rs.50,000/- were in denomination of Rs.50/- i.e. 10 bundles. As per the case of
prosecution PW-20 as well as SI Kulbir Singh signed 4/5 currency notes randomly in each packet.
As per Seizure memo (Ex.PW17/B, Ex.PW20/B & Ex.PW25/A), total 37 notes of Rs.100/-
denomination were seized, whereas in Court only 31 notes of Rs.100/- were produced. Sh. Mohan
Gupta (PW-20) was allegedly complying all the instructions of kidnapper and had gone at the place
without any security cover is not plausible. Till 30.10.1995, there was no clue as to the identity of the
alleged kidnappers, thus, there was no question of any alleged pressure as alleged 05.10.1995.
51. The victim was allegedly confined for 20 days and strangely all the articles i.e. Stationery items,
I-Card, Country Club Card, Black colour goggles, chian and keys of victim were kept intact by the
accused persons despite dropping the victim near Shipra Hotel, is difficult to accept and is totally
unconvincing. Now, chits found by Sh. Mohan Gupta (A-20) on the way on 03.10.1995 were
allegedly handed over to the police. There is nothing on record about the whereabouts of the said
original chits and whether these chits had the handwriting of any of the State Vs. Shalini Rawat &
Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 31/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 accused person.
52. As per the charge sheet, police raided House No. A-31, Sector-39, Noida, which was allegedly
found abandoned and was found already opened, whereas Smt. Veena Rani (PW-11), owner of the
house, deposed that the police officials had broken the main door of the drawing room and they had
told her that they entered the house by breaking the door. Shalini Rawat was allegedly apprehended
from House No. C-6/123, Sector-31, Noida on 08.10.1995 on receipt of secret information and on
raiding the said house, she alongwith Kamlesh Kumari were arrested and a sum of Rs.65,152/- was
recovered from Shalini Rawat. Out of the said amount of Rs.65,152/-, total four notes in the
denomination of Rs.500/-, five notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- and five notes in the sum of
Rs.50/- were having initials of SI Kulbir and Sh.Mohan Gupta, which showed that the said amount
was part and parcel of Rupess 15 lacs ransom, but Sh. Chanderbhan (PW-21), who is a alleged
witness to the seizure memo Ex.PW17/B, deposed that during personal search about Rs.65,000/-
were recovered from the purse of Shalini Rawat and at that time SI Kulbir and Sh.Mohan Gupta also
signed the notes. This fact throws doubt on the story of prosecution that the alleged notes, which
were allegedly recovered from accused Shalini Rawat were already having initials of SI Kulbir & Sh.
Mohan Gupta. This prosecution witness was not declared hostile and was not cross examined by
Learned Addl. PP for the State and there is no reason why his version should be disbelieved.
53. Furthermore, the aforesaid place of recovery was not within the local limit of the jurisdiction of
the Police Station, therefore, it was incumbent upon the IO to join local police i.e. Police Station
Noida at the time of search and seizure of State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 32/40 ID
No. 02403R0519372006 the said place without involving any independent witness or a neighbour.
There is failure to comply with requirement of Section 100 and 165(4) of Code of Criminal
Procedure by the IO, which creates further doubt about the alleged recovery.
54. Accused Shalini Rawat was allegedly arrested on 08.10.1995. There is nothing on record to show
as to how IO and other police officials had reached at Dheradun on 07.10.1995. There is a telegram
(Ex.PW25/DA) on record sent by Sh. Jagdish Singh Rawat, father of accused Shalini Rawat, who
appeared as PW-25. Telegram reads as under:-

"Police of Sector -39 Noida Gaziabad has taken taken my innocent daughter Saloinee
with her 2 ½ years daughter from house on 05.10.1995 at 08:30pm. Police is
harassing her, may implicate wrongfully in some case, wrongfully detained her"
55. Material on record shows that the IO recorded disclosure statement (Ex.PW30/D) of accused
Shalini Rawat on 08.10.1995. As per the disclosure statement of Shalini Rawat, she disclosed that
she could get recovered balance amount of ransom from her father Sh. Jagdish Singh Rawat and her
mother. During cross examination of Inspector Suresh Kaushik (PW-42), document (Ex.PW42/DA),
record of the Hotel Meedo's, 28, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, was placed on record, which shows that
Inspector Suresh Kaushik stayed there and made entry on 07.10.1995 at 05:00 pm and left the said
Hotel on 10.10.1995, whereas IO/SI Kulbir (PW-45) deposed that after the arrest of accused Shalini
Rawat only, he had come to know that her parents were residing at Dehradun. He admitted that
prior to 08.10.1995, he was not aware, if the parents of accused Shalini Rawat were residing at
Dehradun. This fact makes story of prosecution further doubtful.

ID No. 02403R0519372006
56. There is no independent witness to the seizure memo Ex.PW25/A and only SI Narender
(PW-33) was made a witness to the said seizure memo. Other police officials, who accompanied
Inspector Suresh Kaushik or any other independent witness was not joined at the time of
preparation of alleged seizure memo. SI Narender has shown ignorance and gave evasive answers to
most of the question in cross examination, making his testimony full of doubts. In examination in
chief, PW-33, who was only witness of seizure memo (Ex.PW25/A) stated that Rs. 11,50,000/- was
recovered in cash and said notes were having initials and all the notes were seized by the IO vide
seizure memo Ex.PW25/A. On asking, PW-33 deposed that he did not remember how many notes
were found in the bundle. Significantly, PW-33 deposed that he did not remember, if Sh.Jagdish
Singh Rawat (PW-25) was forced to withdraw the amount from the Banks, thus supporting the
version of PW-25 and showing that defence version is probable.
57. Sh. Jagdish Singh Rawat (PW-25) deposed that on 07.10.1995 four policemen lead by Inspector
Suresh Kaushik came to his house at about 08:00 am and made him forcefully withdraw about 2.75
lacs various accounts and the remaining amount of 3.50 lacs was got withdrawn forcefully on
09.10.995 under force and threat of involving the entire family in false case. The police party had
checked-in in Hotel Meedo's at Dehraddun and they checked out on 10.10.1995 from that Hotel. In
the cross examination, statements of accounts of several persons namely Vishwajit Singh, Sarla
Rawas, Shalini Rawat and Sh. Jagdish Singh Rawat, which are E.PW25/DE, Ex.PW25/DF,
Ex.PW25/DG, Ex.PW25/DH were placed on record, showing withdrawal of documents.
58. Learned Counsel pointed out that accused Shalini Rawat was State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC
No. 65/2012 34/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 produced in un-muffled face before Learned
Metropolitan Magistrate on 12.10.1995. It has come on record that victim (PW-3) as well as his
father, Sh. Mohan Gupta (PW-20) used to visit Police Station daily since 05.10.1995 onwards,

whereas TIP (Test Identification Parade) was conducted as late as on 13.10.1995. In the
circumstances, the possibility that accused persons were already shown to the victim (PW-3) and
PW-20 cannot be ruled out, therefore, TIP was meaningless.
59. As regard, the place where the victim was confined i.e. C-3/159, Sector - 36, Noida, U.P., Victim
Harsh Gupta (PW-3) deposed that he had not given any statement to the police regarding the place,
where he was confined, whereas IO stated that he had recorded the statement of victim in this
regard. Victim did not know the address or the description of the house and he could not identify the
photographs of the house shown to him in the cross examination.
60. To sum up, this Court finds that prosecution has withheld material witnesses namely Smt.
Sangeet Gupta (mother of the victim), Manjual Dilwali (Aunt of the victim) from whom ransom was
allegedly demanded telephonically. Prosecution has also withheld Sh. Gurdev, employee of Sh.
Mohan Gupta, Complainant, who accompanied him while he was going to pay the ransom amount.
There is no explanation as to why these witnesses were withheld. As per Section 60 of Indian
Evidence Act, Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct, if it refers to a fact which could be
heard, then it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it. Thus, very basis of the case of
prosecution regarding demand of ransom of Rs. 15 lacs has not been proved by prosecution.
61. Takhat, TV, Battery, VCP and Cards, which were allegedly used during alleged period of
detention of the victim are not seized by the IO. At one State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No.
65/2012 35/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 point victim stated that the house, where he was
detained was single storey and at the other place, he stated that it was more than one storey. PW-21
deposed that the house was in Village Chhalera and not in any Sector. Victim (PW-3) had not been
able to identity the house, which was depicted in photographs shown to him. Prosecution story
regarding ascertaining of the house where victim was confined is doubtful. According to the IO, the
house was traced and victim was taken to identify the same, but they were not able to trace the
house for 20 days. According to IO, he recorded the statement of victim (PW-3) before tracing the
house, whereas Harsh Gupta (PW-3) deposed otherwise. PW-3 stated that the police had told him
that they had located the house and he was to identify the same, whereas IO stated that they had
located the house on the basis of the statement of Harsh Gupta (PW-3). There are several versions of
dropping of the victim (PW-3) near Shipra Hotel. Complainant has failed to give any explanation as
how and from where he collected the ransom amount. There are doubts about the signatures of IO
and PW-20 on the currency notes and the bag. PW-20 gave two versions about signing the currency
notes. At one point of time, he stated that it took him 30-40 minutes in signing the notes and at
other point of time he stated that it took two hours. PW-20 stated that it was with the same pen and
ink, whereas the ink and the signatures on the notes differs. There are discrepancies regarding
number of notes. Notes produced in the Court were 62, whereas the signed notes which are allegedly
seized were 68 as per the charge sheet. It appears that the signatures on the currency notes were
obtained after their recovery. Evidence on record regarding the fact that the victim was tied with the
chain is doubtful.
State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 36/

ID No. 02403R0519

62. Evidence on record shows that victim remained in the custody of Udai (JCL), who was about 16
years of age, whereas victim was about 19 years of age. There is no satisfactory reason as to why
victim could not escape, during period between 03.10.1995 to 05.10.1995, despite the fact that
juvenile used to take him outside the room for toilet several time daily and on 05.10.1995 on which
day only Kamlesh was present there. Theory of recovery of the ransom of money from accused is
belied from the fact that the amount, which was recovered from the bank had not been deposited in
the bank during the period between 21.09.1995 to 10.10.1995. Material on record shows that the
money was deposited in the Bank much prior to the incident during June & July.
63. Prosecution version regarding arrest of accused persons is highly doubtful. According to the
prosecution, accused Shalini Rawat was arrested on 08.10.1995, whereas material on record
including hotel record shows that the police team had gone to Dheradun on 07.10.1995. IO admitted
that he had no address of the parents of Shalini Rawat before her arrest. The fact that accused
Shalini Rawat was arrested on the intervening night of 05/06.10.1998 seems probable from the the
telegram sent from her father. PW-Bane Singh stated that the accused Kamlesh and Rajender were
picked up from their houses in Khurja (UP) and Ct. Nirmala, who is witness to their personal search
memos, deposed that she signed the memo in the Police Station. PW-20 was not ready for a trap or
shadow cover, then how signatures on the notes were possible.
64. The story of prosecution is doubtful regarding recovery, arrest as well as house, where victim
was allegedly confined outside the jurisdiction of Delhi at Noida (UP). No intimation or notice as
required u/s 165(4) of the Code was given State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 37/40 ID
No. 02403R0519372006 to the local police although alleged recoveries and arrest of accused were
outside Delhi. Perusal of record shows that Sudesh Bhati, Dinesh and Bhup Singh, father of Dinesh
were having financial relations with Sh. Mohan Gupta (PW-20), father of victim. In this regard,
perusal of case diary No.25, dated 10.10.1995 shows that Sh. Mohan Gupta owed a sum of Rs.15 lacs
to Sh.Bhup Singh Bhati, father-in-law of Shalini Rawat. In cross examination, on asking, Mohan
Gupta (PW-20), father of victim deposed that he might have stated that Sh. D. S. Bhati and Sudesh
Bhati were acting as finance broker and they might have arranged a sum of Rs.15 lakhs between
1984 and 1993. Later on, Sh. Mohan Gupta (PW-20) clearly admitted that he was having financial
dealing with Sh. Bhup Singh Bhati as a financier broker. The story of prosecution as regards release
of victim Harsh Gupta (PW-3) by the kidnappers on a two wheeler scooter near Shipra Hotel on
05.10.1995 is unnatural and is not worthy of any credence. Evidence on record shows that Udai
(JCL) has allegedly brought victim at public place near Shipra Hotel. The said place where the victim
was allegedly dropped was a public place and public persons were present there. There was a police
post. Admittedly, victim had not raise any alarm or noise. At the time, when victim (PW-3) was
dropped by Udai Pratap (JCL), he could have been easily apprehended by public, if victim had made
any alarm or noise. There are several version of prosecution in this regard. IO deposed that victim in
his statement had disclosed that accused Rajinder and Udai Pratap (JCL) had brought victim on the
scooter. Scooter was being driven by Udai and accused Rajender was sitting on the back of scooter.
There is discrepancy in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as to whether it was Udai alone or
Rajender and Udai (JCL) both, who had brought the victim on scooter near Shipra Hotel.


ID No. 02403R051937
65. Prosecution cannot travel beyond the story as alleged in the charge sheet and the new case
cannot be set up during trial. Victim was allegedly given Rs.100/- by accused Udai (JCL), when he
was dropped near Shipra Hotel. The victim made no efforts to inform the police near Shipra Hotel.
There is no satisfactory evidence on record to establish that the victim was in fact brought near
Hotel Shipra. Udai Pratap (JCL) is stated to have been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Admittedly, accused Udai Pratab was a juvenile, whose age is stated to be about 16 years, whereas
victim Harsh Gupta (PW-3) was about 19 years of age, therefore, this story of the prosecution that
since 03.10.1995 till 05.10.1995, he was alone with Udai Pratap and he was also used to take the
victim to the other place outside the room and he dropped him near Shipra Hotel alone and victim
did nothing and he did not raise any hue and cry does not inspires confidence at all.
66. It is obligatory for the Court to ensure that prosecution has come up before the Court with the
whole and unvarnished truth. Analysis of evidence on record shows that in this case, prosecution
has suppressed complete facts and have withheld important witnesses. Several facts and
circumstances obtaining on record and noticed above show that incriminating circumstances have
not been established by reliable, cogent and clinching evidence. Story of prosecution seems to be
built on material placed on record which seems to be neither the truth nor wholly the truth. Benefit
of doubt must always go in favour of accused. On consideration of the evidence discussed above, this
Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to establish complete chain of circumstances and any
of the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused are entitled to State Vs.
Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 39/40 ID No. 02403R0519372006 benefit of doubt. In the
result, accused persons, namely, Shalini Rawat, Kamlesh Kumar, Devender Singh, Rajender Kumar
and Dinesh Kumar are hereby acquitted from the charges. Requisite bonds u/s 437-A shall be
furnished by the accused. Accused Dinesh Singh Bhatti is PO. File be consigned to record room as a
PO file.
announced in the
open Court
on 30th March 2013 (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
ASJ−04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South Eas
South−East, Saket Court/New Delhi
State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012

State Vs Shalini Rawat Ors SC No On 30 March 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Vs Shalini Rawat Ors SC No On 30 March 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State vs . Shalini Rawat & Ors. - Sc No. ...

Delhi District Court

IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA

Sessions Case No. 65/2012

FIR No. 653/1995

Kamlesh Kumari, Devender

Instituted on : 17th April, 2013

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 1

Decided on : 30th March, 2013

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 2

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 3/40

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 4/40

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 6/40

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 4

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 7/40

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 5

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 9/40

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 6

16. Points, which emerges for determination in this case are :-

(vi) Whether on 08.10.1995,accused Kamlesh Kumari dishonestly received or

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 11

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 7

17. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 45 witnesses in all:

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 12

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 8

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 9

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 10

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 11

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 12

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 13

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 24/40

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 14

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 15

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 27/40

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 16

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 17

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 18

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 33/4

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 19

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 36/

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 20

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 21

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012 38/40

State Vs. Shalini Rawat & Ors. - SC No. 65/2012

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140797357/ 22

You might also like