19. Mr. Jethmalani having concluded his argument on behalf of Manu Sharma,left the remaining arguments to be concluded by Pt. R.K. Naseem, learnedAdvocate who addressed arguments on the importance of Tata Safari at QutubColonnade and thereafter its recovery from Noida. Counsel stressed that thevehicle was not present at the Qutub Colonnade in the first instance and therecovery of this vehicle from Noida was a 'plant'. He contended that theownership is not in dispute. He also did not dispute that Sidhartha Vashishta @Manu Sharma is a director of the Company, but went on to contend that thevehicle in question was allotted to Harvinder Chopra which has been amply provedby the statement of PW-25, Manoj Kumar, as also PW-26, Balbir Singh. He alsocontended that the vehicle was not being used by Sidhartha Vashisht @ ManuSharma which is evident from the deposition of PW-44, Shankar Mukhia, and PW-98,Babu Lal. In view of the above, counsel contended that there is no evidence onrecord to show that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was either using thevehicle or was in possession thereof on the night of the occurrence.
Advertisement
20. Advancing his argument further, counsel submitted that the presence ofTata Safari at the Qutub Colonnade has not been proved. PW-83, Head ConstableDevi Singh of the PCR reached the spot at 2.17 a.m. and his statement in courtis contrary to the statement made to Police and, therefore, he is not atrustworthy witness. PW-78, Shri Sarad Kumar Bishoi does not talk about the TataSafari in his statement to the police but has improved his statement in court.He too is not reliable and, in fact, a plant as he was supposed to be performinghis assigned duty rather than be present at the Qutub Colonnade.
Advertisement
21. PW-100, SI Sunil Kumar, does not talk about Tata Safari in exhibit PW-2/Aand, therefore, cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution. PW-30, HomeGuard Constable Sarvan Kumar's testimony does not find corroboration from S.I.Sarad Kumar nor from PW-86, Jagannath Jha as also finds no support from PW-47,Jatender Raj, Manager. In other words, there is nothing on record to show withcertainty that the Tata Safari was at the Qutub Colonnade on the night of29/30.4.1999. He supported the findings of the trial court in paragraphs 257,258 and 259.
22. Attacking the recovery, counsel submitted that there is evidence onrecord to show that the Tata Safari was recovered from Karnal. This fact havingcome on record, the assertion by the Prosecution that Tata Safari was recoveredfrom Noida is a manipulation to further the Prosecution's case by plantingevidence. The recoveries effected from Tata Safari do not further the case ofthe Prosecution regarding the broken pieces of glasses. Counsel also severelycriticized PW-30 Constable Sarvan Kumar, as being a planted witness who hasimproved his statement considerably in court. Counsel also contended that thephone calls alleged to have been made by some of the accused persons amongstthemselves is no indication that they were involved in any crime. TheProsecution has not placed on record any conversation to suggest such aninvolvement. Summing up his arguments, counsel strongly relied upon the judgmentof the trial court and argued that the Prosecution has miserably failed to bringhome the guilt of the accused.
23. Learned counsel arguing on behalf of Shyam Sunder Sharma submitted thatalthough this accused has been charged for an offence under Section 212 IPC,namely, harbouring Ravinder Krishan Sudan, but there is no incriminatingevidence to suggest that Shyam Sunder Sharma ever harboured Ravinder KrishanSudan. Similarly, Harvinder Chopra has been charged for arranging stay ofSidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma at the house of PW-52, Chander Prakash Chopra,but there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a charge.
24. Counsel arguing for Yog Raj Singh submitted that the Prosecution in orderto prove their case against this accused pressed into service PW-53, AbhijitGhosal, PW-64 Ravinder Singh Gill and PW-65, Kulvinder Singh but have failed tobring home any evidence in support of the allegation that Yog Raj Singh arrangedfor Sidhartha Vashisht to be taken to Khera in Muktsar, Punjab. Similararguments were made in the case of Vikas Gill who was alleged to have takenSidhartha Vashisht to Panchkula from Delhi. There is no evidence to this effecton record.
Advertisement
25. Learned counsel arguing on behalf of Amardeep Singh Gill stated that theallegation against him is that he drove the Tata Siera car to Qutub Colonnadeafter the incident to enable Vikas Yadav to remove the same and, therefore, wasalleged to have committed an offence under Section 201/120-B IPC is baseless.Counsel argued that the only evidence against Vikas Yadav is him beingidentified by PW-30, Sarvan Kumar who is not a reliable witness. His presence atQutub Colonnade is doubtful. Besides, Tata Safari was not reported to be parkedat Qutub Colonnade in the first instance. Sarvan Kumar has been a plantedwitness to prove the events which have got no bearing with the actual crime. Inany event, the car which Amardeep Singh Gill is stated to have driven was a TataSiera belonging to Alok Khanna being car No. MP-04-2634. This is in spite of thefact that Amardeep Singh Gill had his own Tata Siera. Counsel also went on tostress that presuming the Tata Safari was removed by Vikas Yadav with the aid ofAmardeep Singh Gill, no offence has been committed since the Prosecution hasfailed to prove any destruction of evidence by Amardeep Singh Gill or VikasYadav.
Advertisement
26. Arguing on behalf of Vikas Yadav, counsel pointed out that even if forthe sake of arguments, and without conceding, Vikas Yadav had removed the TataSafari car from Qutub Colonnade after the incident, the same did not amount toan offence under Section 201 IPC since the accused did not cause any evidence ofcommission of an offence to disappear nor is it proved that there was anyintention to screen the offender from legal punishment. The Tata Safari was notused in the commission of the offence and its removal could not be said to becausing any evidence of commission of an offence to disappear with intention ofscreening the offender. There is no evidence on record to show that the TataSafari removed by Vikas Yadav was got repaired. Merely because Vikas Yadavobtained pre-arrest bail or stayed in hotel under an assumed name or that hisbail was canceled, has got no relevance with the offence under Section 201 IPCfor which he is charged. Counsel also contended that the identification of VikasYadav through photographs when he was in fact present, is of no consequence. Inany event, there is no evidence to show that Vikas Yadav stayed in a hotel underan assumed name. PW-54, Varun Shah, PW-55 Mukesh Saini, PW-72 Lal Singh andPW-77 Gajender Singh, who were examined in this respect, do not support theProsecution's case. Counsel relied upon AIR 2004 SC 4965, AIR 1956 Madras 536and AIR 1956 SC 527, but pressed on the point that photographic identificationwas a weak piece of evidence specially when the accused is present, and TestIdentification Parade could be held. Counsel, therefore, concluded that thematerial on record does not prove the charge under Section 201 IPC against VikasYadav.
Advertisement
27. Raj Chopra is charged for driving the car to enable Sidhartha Vashisht @Manu Sharma to go to Chandigarh. Counsel also submitted that there is ampleevidence on record to show that the car so used was already under transfer priorto the occurrence. Raj Chopra had no hand in the use of such a car. There is noevidence on record to show the involvement of Raj Chopra nor any evidence toprove the charge under Section 201 IPC against this accused.
