You are on page 1of 158

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj

In the Court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Addl. Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge (CBI) Haryana at Panchkula.
Case No.6 of 2008.
Code No.203600011972013
Filing No.1197/2013.
Date of Institution: 19.08.2008.
Date of Decision: 23.10.2015.
CBI

Versus

Vijay Bhardwaj son of Shri Khushi Ram, age-52 years,


resident of House No.829, Sector-14, Gurgaon.
----Accused.

RC No. 4(S)/2008/CBI/SCB.I/New Delhi dated 02.06.2008.


Under Section: 302 IPC and 25/27 of Indian Arms Act.
Police Station: CBI/SCB/New Delhi.
Present:-

Sh. Rajan Dahiya, Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI.


Accused in custody represented by Shri Anil Kaushik,
Advocate.

JUDGMENT :Stately, accused Vijay Bhardwaj S/o late Sh. Khushi Ram R/o
H.No. 829, Sector-14, Gurgaon was a property dealer and was
maintaining his shop-cum-office on Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon. The
accused was having business relations with Rajbir Singh, ACP in Delhi
Police (since deceased). On 24.03.2008, ASI Pradeep Kumar (PW-16)
received a telephonic call from accused, who informed him that he had
shot a person (ACP Rajbir Singh) dead and wants to surrender. On
statement of ASI Pradeep Kumar (PW-16), FIR was registered vide FIR
117 dated 24.03.2008 (Ex.PW-16/1). Thereafter, ASI along with Shri

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


2

Krishan Dev, Sub-Inspector (PW-17), Head Constable Sher Singh


proceeded to the place of occurrence i.e. shop-cum-office of accused,
situated at Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon. On reaching there, the aforesaid
police personnel found shutter of the aforesaid office half open, it was
dark and nobody was there. On entering into the office, they found a
person dead, lying with face downwards, in pool of blood, on floor of the
office-cum-shop. Sub-Inspector Krishan Dev (PW-17) inspected the spot.
In the meanwhile, Shri Tahir Hussain (PW-19) SHO PS Civil Lines
Gurgaon, Shri Ram Kalan ACP City Gurgaon and Shri Rakesh Arya, DCP
West, Gurgaon reached at the spot. An information was received by them
that accused had reached PS City Gurgaon and thus ASI Pradeep Kumar
(PW-16) along with Shri Krishan Dev (PW-17) and Head Constable Sher
Singh reached PS City Gurgaon, where accused Vijay Bhardwaj, already
present, was formally arrested in this case.
At the instance of accused, one Car make Verna, having
Registration Number DL-3C-AL 5456 issued by the Registration
Authority Delhi, was recovered and from car 11,320/- (Ex.P-21 to Ex.P54), one mobile phone (Ex.P-55) was recovered and these articles
including the car was taken into possession vide seizure memo dated
24.03.2008 (Ex.PW-16/2). The cash amount and mobile Nokia-73 were
converted into sealed parcel with seal impression of DS. Thereafter, the
accused was taken to Police Station Civil Lines, where shirt stained with
gun powder residue and shoes of the accused having blood-stains were

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


3

taken into police possession by the Investigating Officer Shri Krishan Dev
(PW-17) vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-16/3). The shoes and shirt was
converted into separate parcels, which was sealed by the Investigating
Officer. Thereafter, the aforesaid police officials again went to the place of
occurrence i.e. office-cum-shop of accused Vijay Bhardwaj.
2.

On place of occurrence at different point of time blood-

stained newspaper (Ex.P-135 to Ex.P-138), one broken calculator (Ex.P134), two pieces of bullet lead (Ex.P-70), one chair (Ex.P-63), two glass
tumblers (Ex.P-67 to Ex.P-68), two soda water bottles (Ex.P-64 & P-65),
one packet of Lehar Namkeen (Ex.P-66) were taken into police
possession vide seizure memo

Ex.PW-16/4. Mobile phone of deceased

Rajbir Singh ACP Delhi Police was taken into possession vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW-17/3), handbag of deceased Rajbir Singh was taken into
possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-17/5) and belongings of Rajbir
Singh were taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-17/1). The
scene of crime was preserved by the Investigating Officer till arrival of
Ballistics team. It is also a case of the prosecution that Sub Inspector
Krishan Dev (PW-17) when earlier had entered into the office of accused
and found a man lying on the floor. He brought out wallet from right side
back pocket of the trouser worn by the deceased in presence of police
officials. On opening the wallet, one Identity Card having photograph of
Rajbir Singh ACP Delhi and another Identity Card of Special Crime
Branch Delhi and another Identity Card of Government of India Ministry

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


4

of Home Affairs (Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-4) were recovered. In the meanwhile,


Head Constable Lilu Ram (PW-27) and ASI Jawahar Singh (PW-28)
reached there, who were part of the PSO's of ACP Rajbir Singh of Delhi
Police and they also identified the dead body to be that of Rajbir Singh
ACP of Delhi Police. A sum of 1,130/- was also found in the said wallet
(Ex.P-1) besides coins worth 26/- (Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-17) and the same
were converted into sealed parcel with the seal impression of 'DS' and
taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW17/1). In addition to
aforesaid case property, Card of Chemsford Club Limited (Ex.P5), Card
of South Delhi Club (Ex.P6), Driving Licence of deceased (Ex.P-7), UTI
Bank Card (Ex.P8) and another card of deceased (Ex.P-9), medical slip
(Ex.P10) and two gold coins (Ex.P-18 & Ex.P-19) were taken into
possession and sealed with the seal of DS. Thereafter, inquest proceedings
under Section 174 Cr.P.C was conducted and a site plan of place of
occurrence was prepared as (Ex.PW17/2) {during investigation scaled
site plan (Ex.PW15/A) was drawn by Manoj Kumar, Draftsmen (PW15)}. Inquest report (Ex.PW12/3) was prepared and dead body of ACP
Rajbir Singh deceased was sent to Civil Hospital with request of
postmortem examination (Ex.PW13/1). The accused was produced in the
court and the court granted two days police remand of the accused for the
purpose of investigation.
3.

Dead body was shifted to GH, Gurgaon for post mortem. A

team of doctors was constituted to conduct postmortem upon deceased

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


5

Rajbir Singh ACP, consisting Dr. Mukesh Rampal(PW12) and Dr.


S.K.Sharma(PW13),

M.D.

Forensic

Medicines

General

Hospital,

Gurgaon. Postmortem was conducted and thereafter post mortem report


(Ex.PW-12/1) was prepared with pictorial diagram (Ex.PW-12/2)
showing the seat of injuries. The doctors also appended their signatures on
inquest report (Ex.PW-12/3). Before conducting postmortem examination
the dead body was radiologically examined and skiagrams (Ex.PW-12/4
to Ex.PW-12/14) were prepared.
4.

After postmortem, the doctors handed over the sutured dead

body, original PMR, 12 police papers, a sealed parcel containing socks


and shoes, a cloth parcel containing clothings, 8 X-ray sheets etc. etc as
detailed in PMR. It is also to be noted here that during postmortem
examination wrist watch and one golden ring was taken off from the dead
body of the accused and was handed over to police which was taken into
possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-14/1).
5.

On 25.03.2008 at about 1:30 p.m., team from FSL visited the

place of occurrence i.e. shop-cum-office of accused and prepared report


(Ex.PW17/13) about scene of crime dated 09.05.2008 along with rough
sketch (Ex.PW60/1) of relative positioning of fittings and furnishings and
a relevant material object including bullets, chairs, pool of blood etc. etc.
and pointed out two bullet projectiles, out of them one was found
embedded in head rest of chair placed across the table and another
projectile bullet lying on the glass top of table. During visiting scene of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


6

crime, photographs (Ex.PW-60/2 to Ex.PW-60/16) were taken and the


print out of the photographs taken were made part of the report of scene of
crime. On 25.03.2008, an application (Ex.PW-12/12) was moved to MO,
General Hospital Gurgaon to seek his opinion regarding entry and exit
wound and in pursuance of that Dr. S.K.Sharma (PW-13) gave report
dated 25.03.2008 (Ex.PW-12/13).
6.

On 26.03.2008 accused Vijay Bhardwaj suffered disclosure

statement (Ex.PW-16/5) stating therein that he has kept concealed the


revolver, with which he had fired shot (committing murder of ACP Rajbir
Singh), in the bushes near Japanese Hotel situated on the road which leads
from South City Chowk to MDI Chowk Gurgaon and that he alone has
knowledge of the weapon and can get the same recovered. In pursuance of
aforesaid disclosure statement accused led the policy party and got one
revolver recovered from the bushes with his own hands. It was found that
the chamber of revolver was studded with two empty cartridge cases and
two live cartridges. The revolver, cartridge cases and the live cartridges
were taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PW-16/6). Sketch of revolver
was prepared vide memo (Ex.PW-16/7) and site plan of the place, from
where recovery of revolver was affected, was prepared as Ex.PW-16/8.
The revolver and the cartridges were converted into sealed parcel with the
seal of 'DS'. The sample seal impression 'DS' was taken on a piece of
cloth (Ex.P-72).
7.

On 28.03.2008, on further interrogation accused Vijay

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


7

Bhardwaj suffered another disclosure statement (Ex.PW-17/6), disclosing


therein, that he had written a suicide note, which is kept in envelope and
lying in register and he can get the same recovered. In pursuance of
disclosure statement of accused, the accused lead the police party at that
place and got recovered one envelope containing some written material
and the same was found lying in the register. He also got recovered letter
heads of his office-cum-shop under name and style of M/s Vijay and
Associates Property Consultants and other relevant material which was
taken into possession by police vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-17/9).
8.

On 04.04.2008, cassette which was prepared during

postmortem of deceased Rajbir Singh was taken into police possession


vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-17/10).
9.

During investigation information was received from Manoj

Shikarwar, JWM/CT (Ex.PW-17/11) mentioning

therein the revolver

No.A-1031 is one amongst 100 revolvers issued to Commandant 2 nd


Batalion, HAP, Madhuban, Karnal as per their record.
10.

On 16.05.2006 Dharambir Sharma (PW-51), Editor Zee

News provided CD of interview of accused to the police as (Ex.PW17/12). During investigation, the case property was sent to FSL
Madhuban for Ballistic opinion and in this regard report dated 02.06.2008
(Ex.PW-60/17) was received by Investigation Officer as well as report
from FSL (Ex.PW-56/1) Madhuban Serology Department was also
received during investigation the material got recovered. At the instance

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


8

of accused along with specimen signature and handwriting of the accused


was sent to FSL Madhuban and in this regard report (Ex.PW-58/16) was
received. Subsequently, investigation of this case was transferred to CBI
vide notifications dated 1.4.2008 and 27.5.2008 of Govt. of India.
11.

Learned Area Magistrate vide order dated 19.08.2008

committed the case as offence was punishable under Section 302 of


Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of Indian Arms Act, which is exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions.
CHARGES
12.

Vide order dated 09.09.2008, the accused was charge-sheeted

for the offences punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and
25/27 of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
13.

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW-1

Jasbir Singh son of Shri Ram Niwas. This witness has deposed that
accused was known to him for the last about three years. He came into his
contact through one Naresh Kumar. He used to invest money in property
dealing with accused. Others also used to invest money with accused and
the accused used to return the money after a period of 15 days to one
month. On one occasion, he had invested money to the tune of 7.00 lacs
with accused in 2-3 properties. He had also invested a sum of 12.5 lacs
in a plot through Vijay Bhardwaj. When he demanded back his money, a
receipt Ex.PW1/1 was executed by accused and the same was handed

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


9

over to CBI during investigation. Memo in this regard is Ex.PW1/2.


Earlier accused was having good reputation but he had started demanding
one or two days time for return of money.
14.

The prosecution has further examined PW-2 Purshottam

son of Shri Mam Chand. This witness has deposed that he was running a
business of property under the name and style of Vaishno Properties,
Gurgaon and he along with Jasbir Singh were partners. He had advanced
16.00 lacs to accused for purchase of a plot and it was agreed that profit
will be equally divided between him and accused. Accused had given a
blank cheque as security or guarantee. The accused returned 10.00 lacs
to him within 2 months. On the day of incident, he had given a blank call
to the accused and Accused sent SMS that he will call him within 10
minutes. The accused gave him a call at about 3.00 pm informing that he
was out of station, he will get the sale deed executed and return the
money. An amount of 6.00 lacs was outstanding against the accused as
principal sum. On 25.03.2008 he came to know that accused had
borrowed money from others. The blank cheque Ex.PW2/2 signed by
accused was handed over by him to CBI vide memo Ex.PW2/1 and the
amount of cheque was 20 lacs.
15.

The prosecution has further examined PW-3 Anil Malik son

of Shri Amar Singh Malik. This witness has deposed that he knows
accused since 2000. He came into contact with accused at the residence of
his brother-in-law (Sadhu) Bhupender Singh who was in the business of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


10

property dealing in Gurgaon. He was deputed with HUDA office in the


year 2000 till March 2005 and during this period he met with accused
who used to visit HUDA office at Gurgaon for about 15-20 times. He was
searching for small plot measuring 200-250 Sq. Yards at Gurgaon and in
this regard he requested the accused. The accused demanded sum token
amount and he paid 6.00 lacs to the accused. After arranging the
amount by mortgaging

the jewellery of his wife with Muthoot Group,

the accused could not locate any suitable plot for 2-3 months. He was
demanding return of money and the accused assured to return the same.
On one occasion, in the month of December 2007 when he went to the
office of accused and found him in a happy mood, on inquiry the accused
told that ACP Rajbir Singh is posted in Special Cell as written in Times of
India Newspaper. The accused also told that he knew ACP Rajbir Singh
since he was studying with him. On 24.03.2008 accused told him to
return the amount. He tried to contact and also sent SMS to him. On this
Vijay Bhardwaj informed him that the money would be returned within a
week or 10 days positively. On 25.03.2008 he came to know from TV
telecast that ACP Rajbir Singh was murdered by accused.
16.

The prosecution has further examined PW-4 Om Parkash

Yadav son of Shri Amar Singh. This witness has deposed that he was
dealing in transport business under the name and style of Amar travels
since 1996 as was also doing car's business. He knew Vijay Bhardwaj.
Vijay Bhardwaj was dealing with the property business and his office was

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


11

located near his house. Accused used to take money from him for
investing in his property business ranging from 1.00 lac to 5.00 lac and
used to return the money after 4-5 days. Lastly in the beginning of 2008,
accused borrowed 4 lacs from him. He did not return the money and
kept on putting off him on one pretext or the other. He do not know about
the reputation of the accused. Lastly on 21st and 22nd March, 2008, he had
asked the accused to return the money and the accused assured he would
return the amount within 2-3 days. Accused used to say that ACP Rajbir
Singh was his friend and told him if there is any problem, he can help him
out.
17.

The prosecution has further examined PW-5 Jaibir Singh

son of Shri Chhatbir Singh. This witness has deposed that he was
working as a property businessman under the name and style of Jatin
Properties for the last 4-5 years. Earlier he was running business of car
sale and purchase in the name of JMD Motors, Delhi Road, Gurgaon. He
knew accused for th last 3-4 years through Mr. Jaggu of Ekta Motors.
Accused had borrowed an amount of 5.00 lacs from him with the
assurance to return the same. He returned 3.5 lacs but did not return rest
of the amount. He had contacted accused Vijay Bhardwaj on his telephone
No.9811444999.
18.

The prosecution has further examined PW-6 Ashok Kumar

son of Shri S.P.Sharma. This witness has also deposed that he was
property dealer, knows accused Vijay Bhardwaj for the last 15-20 years.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


12

Accused was doing property business. There was a business transaction


between him and accused. The accused did not pay his commission
pertaining to purchase of plot by Joginder Singh. The accused did not pay
commission as property dealer to him regarding aforesaid plot. His elder
brother Shri Rajinder Sharma had purchased a plot through accused Vijay
Bhardwaj. At the time of execution of sale deed, accused gave 3.5 lacs
less amount to the vendor which remained unpaid by the accused.
Thereafter, there was a collaboration with a company named MRMGF for
sale of two acres of land which belongs to him and Vijay Bhardwaj was
the mediator in all dealings. To clear the commission accused issued a
blank cheque. The total commission of deal was 7.5 lacs and out of that
3.75 lacs was his share and rest of the share was of accused.
19.

The prosecution has further examined PW-7 Anshul

Maheshwari son of Shri Arun Kumar Maheshwari. This witness has


also deposed that he was running business of distribution of mobile sets
and jewellery under name of M/s Alankar Jewellers , Sadar Bazaar,
Gurgaon. He knew accused. The accused came into his contact. His father
retired from State Bank of India, situated just in front of shop of accused.
His father had purchased plot through accused Vijay Bhardwaj. He had
provided Mobile No.9811444999, a Postpaid connection to accused.
20.

The prosecution has further examined PW-8 Bhagwan

Prasad Gupta son of Shri Mukut Bihari Lal. This witness has deposed
that he was working as Accoounts Assistant in HUDA, Division No.1,

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


13

Sector -15, Part II, Gurgaon. The witness was declared hostile and was
cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor.
21.

The prosecution has further examined PW-9 Mukesh Yadav

son of Shri Jaswant Singh. This witness has deposed that his brother-inlaw Shri Jagpal Singh's office under the name and style of M/s Ekta
Motors is located at Mehrauli Road,Gurgaon. He was running business
with Sanjay Bhardwaj. Sanjay Bhardwaj brother of Vijay Bhardwaj
accused. He learned from a newspaper that ACP Rajbir Singh has been
murdered and Vijay Bhardwaj has been arrested by the police. This
witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Special PP.
22.

The prosecution has further examined PW-10 Mukesh

Kumar son of Daya Chand. This witness has deposed that he was
running business of property dealing under the name of Riya Properties
and knows accused from last 8-10 years. He knows Ramesh Malik. The
accused had purchased a Santro Car from from Ramesh Malik for a
consideration of 50,000/- plus installments through him. He was
interested to purchased a plot and advanced 2.00 lacs as earnest money
to accused, however, the deal was cancelled and the accused returned
money to him. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined
by the Special PP.
23.

The prosecution has further examined PW-11 Ramesh

Katariya son of Daulat Ram. This witness has deposed that he was
Sarpanch of Village Basai and was contractor of liquor shop. He was not

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


14

having financial dealings with accused. This witness was declared hostile
and was cross-examined by the Special PP.
24.

The prosecution has further examined PW-12 Dr. Mukesh

Rampal, Medical Officer General Hospital, Rewari. This witness has


deposed that on 25.03.2008 he along with members of Board Dr.
S.K.Sharma, Forensic Expert conducted postmortem examination on the
dead body of ACP Rajbir Singh, OSO, Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony,
New Delhi. The Board noted down the following:
Body was of a well built male wearing blood soaked white
background stripped/lined shirt, black trouser, black socks and black
leathered shoes. Shirt was drenched in blood all over except front of left
shoulder. Pant too was moist with blood on its front. Face was smudged
with blood. The inner of the left eye showed black eye. Rigor mortis
was present. The shirt and pant were cut open. The whole body was Xrayed. X-rays did not show any bullet. Eight X-ray films had been handed
over to the police.
During postmortem following firearm injuries were
found:
1.

There was triradiate, star shaped firearm entry wound


in the upper middle front of the forehead. Upper half of
the wound was hidden in the hairy area. There was no
effect of gun powder like burning; tattooing etc. it was
1.5 x .5 cm and 6.5 cm above the middle of both

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


15

eyebrows.
2.

A horizontally placed lacerated (Grazed wound) in the


left side of the head. Its front end was 4.5 cm above the
upper part of left pinna.

3.

A circular firearm exit wound in the upper middle back


of the head. It was 1 cm in dia and was 1 cm to the left
of midline.
There was bright red extravasation of blood underneath

the scalp. There was crater like hole in the frontal area underlying
injury No.1. A fissured fracture starting from here extends backwards and
then to the right, it ends at about 7 cm above the right ear area. The skull
showed a circular hole underneath the injury No.3. There was extradural
haematoma. The left cerebral hemisphere was lacerated in the area of
crater hole. There was blood filled communicating track between injuries
No.1 and 3. Frontal base of the skull was fractured.
The board had given following opinion:
Death in this case was due to shock and hemorrhage as
a result of cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon firearm injuries.
Injury No.1 & 3 were firearm entry and exit wounds respectively and
caused by smooth bored firearm ammunition discharge at close range
(most likely tight contact). The injury No.2 was grazed wound.
He also deposed after the postmortem following were
handed over to the police:

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


16

1.

Sutured dead body after PM.

2.

Postmortem report in original.

3.

Twelve police paper dully signed by board member.

4.

A sealed clothed parcel containing the clothings of the


deceased.

5.

A sealed clothed parcel containing shoes of the


deceased.

6.

Eight X-Ray films.


He has also deposed that the probable time between

injury and death was few minutes to one hour and between death and
postmortem within 24 hours. This witness has proved postmortem report
as Ex.PW12/1. Pictorial diagram showing seat of injuries as Ex.PW12/2.
Inquest report signed by the board as Ex.PW12/3. Skiagrams as
Ex.PW12/4 to Ex.PW12/11. This witness has further proved application
Ex.PW12/12 moved by police and report of Dr. S.K.Sharma as
Ex.PW12/13. This witness has annexed affidavit Ex.PW12/A containing
material facts of postmortem examination.
25.

The

prosecution

has

further

examined

PW-13

Dr.

S.K.Sharma, retd. Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Gurgaon. This


witness has deposed that on 25.03.2008, he along with PW-12 Mukesh
Rampal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon had conducted
postmortem examination on the dead body of Rajbir Singh Yadav. This
witness has deposed in same tone and tenor observations details of
injuries handed over to police as deposed by PW-12 Mukesh Rampal.
The witness has further deposed in addition that the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


17

application Ex.PW12/12 was moved by the police and on basis of that


application he had given his report to the police as Ex.PW12/13 in his
own handwriting, showing clarification of the injuries.
He gave further opinion that on perusal of the autopsy report,
it had been noticed that an error had crept inadvertently, in recording the
concluding portion of opinion. As was clear from the detailed report, these
injuries were caused by the passage of a rifled firearm ammunition
discharge and not by smooth bore ammunition discharge. It had been
requested that opinion may please be read accordingly.
As regards their query regarding entry and exit of the
projectile, a firm inference owing to the nature and location of the wounds
could not be drawn. Since the exit wound on the forehead could be
strellate in shape and also for the reason of absence of effect of
gunpowder around the injury on forehead it had been agreed that the
possibility of its entry from wound No.3 and exit from wound number he
could not be ruled out. However an opinion in that regard may please be
had from ballistics experts.
This witness has identified shoes and socks of the deceased as
Ex.MO/1, Ex.MO/2 and Ex.MO/3 and Ex.MO/4. He has also proved
pant of deceased as Ex.MO/5, belt as Ex.MO/6 and the shirt of deceased
as Ex.MO/7.
26.

The prosecution has further examined PW-14 Sobha Ram,

Sub-Inspector CIA West, Gurgaon. This witness has deposed on

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


18

25.03.2008, while he was posted in Police Post, Sector-14, Gurgaon,


Doctor handed over him belongings of the deceased and the same was
deposited by him Shri Krishan Dev, Sub-Inspector, Investigating Officer
of this case vide memo Ex.PW14/1.
27.

The prosecution has further examined PW-15 Manoj

Kumar, Draftsman, office of Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon. This


witness has deposed on 22.04.2008, after visiting the place of occurrence,
he has prepared site plan as Ex.PW15/A duly signed by him.
28.

The prosecution has further examined PW-16 Pradeep

Kumar No.517G, ASI PS Sector-5, Gurgaon. This witness has deposed


that in the month of November 2007, he was posted ASI in Civil Lines
Gurgaon. He had received an application moved by Dharamvir Sagar and
his brother Ranbir Sagar R/o 72, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon.

As per

complaint it was disputed wherein one plot was sold by accused Vijay
Bhardwaj to the complainant after receipt of 32/33 lacs and committing
of cheating by accused. This application was handed over to him for
enquiry. Both parties were called in Police Station. Vijay Bhardwaj had
agreed to return the amount to the complainant and sought time for
making payment. During aforesaid enquiry he was having mobile number
of both the parties i.e. complainant and Vijay Bhardwaj. When payment
was not made by the accused Vijay Bhardwaj, FIR No.390 dated
19.12.2007 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC was lodged at PS
Civil Lines, Gurgaon against Vijay Bhardwaj accused. He conducted raid

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


19

at house and office of the accused Vijay Bhardwaj but to no effect.


On 24.03.2008, he was present in the Court at Gurgaon in
connection with a bail matter. At about 11.00 a.m., he received a mobile
phone call from Vijay Bhardwaj. Vijay Bhardwaj stated that he wants to
surrender in the above stated case. He had asked him to come to P.S. but
Vijay Bhardwaj did not come for surrendering. Same day at about 9:20
pm accused Vijay Bhardwaj inquired about the jurisdiction of the Police
Station under which his office falls. He informed that the jurisdiction of
aforesaid place was under jurisdiction of P.S Civil Lines. The call was
disconnected. Again he received call from Vijay Bhardwaj accused.
Accused disclosed that he had shot a person in his office and his dead
body is lying in his office. He further stated that he wanted to surrender
before the police. On this, he told him to surrender before SHO of the P.S.
and he will call him in this regard. He had informed the SHO from
mobile phone. After waiting for the accused Vijay Bhardwaj for some
time and after disclosing the fact to SI Krishan Dev, who was present in
the Police Station at that time, he got an FIR registered in this respect vide
FIR No.117 dated 24.03.2008 in P.S. Civil Lines Gurgaon as Ex.PW16/1.
Thereafter, he along with Shri Krishan Dev, HC Sher Singh and Constable
Jaspal left for the place of occurrence at Mehrauli Road. There was no
electricity at that time. Shutter of the office was open. On entering it was
found that a man was lying with faced downwards on the floor of the
office and there was a pool of blood. SI Krishan Dev inspected spot and in

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


20

the meantime, Shri Tahir Hussain SHO PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon, ACP
City Gurgaon Shri Ram Kalan and Shri Rakesh Arya DCP West reached
there. Information was received that accused Vijay Bhardwaj had reached
P.S. City Gurgaon. He along with Shri Krishan Dev, HC Sher Singh
reached P.S. City Gurgaon where accused was arrested in this case.
At the instance of the accused one car make Verna having
registration number issued by the Registration Authority, Delhi was
recovered along with 11,320/- in cash, one mobile set and the
same was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW16/2.
Cash and mobile Nokia-73 were kept in to sealed parcels vide memo
Ex.PW16/2. From there, they reached P.S. Civil Lines along with the
accused and shirt and the shoes of the accused stained with blood were
taken into possession by IO Shri Krishan Dev vide recovery memo
Ex.PW16/3. The same was attested by him. The case property was
converted into sealed parcels. From there they again went to the place of
occurrence and IO took into possession, the blood stains some newspaper,
one broken calculator, two pieces of bullet lead, one chair, two glasses,
two soda water bottles, one packet of Lehar Namkeen etc. vide seizure
memo Ex.PW16/4 and the same was attested by him as well as HC Sher
Singh and Shri Tahir Hussain SHO P.S.Civil Lines Gurgaon. Except
glasses and chair, the case property was converted into sealed parcels and
recovery memos Ex.PW16/2 to Ex.PW16/4 were prepared and signed by
SI Krishan Dev. Later on they came to know that dead body recovered

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


21

was of ACP Rajbir Singh of Delhi Police.


On 26.03.2008, in pursuance of disclosure statement of
accused Ex.PW16/5, the accused led the police party in the bushes near
Japanese Hotel situated on the road leading from South City Chowk to
MDI Chowk and got recovered the revolver which was taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW16/6 and the same was attested by him and
HC Madan Kumar. Along with revolver two live cartridges and two
empty cartridge cases were recovered. The case property was sealed. The
rough sketch of recovered revolver was prepared and the site plan of the
place of recovery of revolver was prepared vide memo Ex. PW16/7 and
Ex.PW16/8. The witness identified sealed parcels Ex.P70, Revolver
ExP71, sealed impression DS Ex.PW72, Parcel containing three
envelopes containing the seal of FSL Ex.P73 to Ex.P75. Rough site plan
with correct marginal notes Ex.PW17/2 was prepared by IO. This witness
has further deposed that scene of crime till arrival of Ballistics Experts
Team and Photographer Satish Kumar was summoned from police line
and he took the photographs of the scene of crime. Shri Tahir Hussain,
Inspector SHO PS Civil Lines Gurgaon and Shri Ram Kalan ACP City
Gurgaon informed that Vijay Bhardwaj accused has surrendered and the
IO should go to PS City Gurgaon. The witness identified chair as Ex.P63,
Soda water bottles as Ex.P64 and Ex.P65 and packet of Lehar Namkeen
and empty tumblers as Ex.P66 to Ex.P68, calculator as Ex.P134,
newspapers as Ex.P135 to Ex.P138.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


22

29.

The prosecution has further examined PW-17 Krishan Dev

retd. SI resident of House No.E-634 SGM Nagar, Faridabad. This


witness has deposed that on 24.03.2008, he was posted in Civil Lines
Gurgaon. On receipt of information from ASI Pradeep Kumar, he had
registered FIR No. 117 dated 24.03.2008 under Section 302 IPC and
25/54/59 of Arms Act as Ex.PW16/1 and sent special report. Thereafter,
he along with ASI Pradeep Kumar, HC Sher Singh, Constable Jaspal left
the Police Station to reach the place of occurrence. The place of
occurrence was office-cum-shop under the name and style of Vijay &
Associates. This witness further deposed that he brought out a wallet
from the right side back pocket of the trouser worn by the deceased in the
presence of ASI Pradeep Kumar and other police officials. This witness
deposed that vide memo Ex.PW17/1 belongings of deceased of ACP
Rajbir Singh were taken into possession and were attested by HC Leelu
Ram and ASI Jawahar Singh and identified the same as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20.
He has also proved rough site plan Ex.P17/2. This witness has also
identified the case property Ex.P21 to Ex.P54 (the case property which
was recovered by the police from the place of occurrence). This witness
has also proved Nokia N-73 and Nokia 6300 and recovery of car from the
accused. This witness has proved that after postmortem report Shri
Shobha Ram ASI produced clothes and shoes of deceased along with gold
ring and wrist watch and the same were taken into possession vide
recovery memo Ex.PW14/1. This witness has also proved pair of shoes of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


23

accused as Ex.P56. The cloth in which the shoes were wrapped as Ex.P57
vide seal impression Ex.P57/1 to Ex.57/9. This witness has also proved
shirt as Ex.P58 recovered from accused Vijay Bhardwaj and the cloth in
which it was sealed as Ex.P59 and the sealed impression as Ex.P59/1 to
Ex.59/5. This witness has further proved plastic container as Ex.P62 in
which two pieces of lead were there Ex.P60 and Ex.P61 and the same
were taken into possession from the place of occurrence. This witness has
further proved recovery of memo Ex.P17/3 vide which mobile phone
Nokia 6300 stained with blood was taken into possession and proved the
Nokia Phone as Ex.P62. This witness has further proved recovery of
memo Ex.PW16/4 and the same was converted into a sealed parcel. The
blood was lifted from the glass lying on the table, which was also
converted into a sealed parcel. He has also proved chair as Ex.P63, which
was taken into possession. The chair has a torn portion from where the
lead of the bullet was recovered by the Ballistic Expert at the scene of the
crime. This witness has also proved other material objects recovered from
the place of occurrence as Ex.P64 to Ex.P68. He has also proved
recovery of memo

Ex.PW17/4. This witness has also proved a bag

containing 25,000/-, one mobile Nokia 6300, one comb, two keys and
some medicines, one pen and photocopy of D.L. of Basant Kumar, one
statement about principal return and piece of paper having some accounts,
piece of paper with lines having date 30.06.2007 written and the same
were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW17/5 and was signed by

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


24

HC Leelu Ram and ASI Jawahar Singh. The aforesaid articles were
identified to be belongings of deceased Rajbir Singh by HC Leelu Ram
and ASI Jawahar Singh. The bag containing articles proved as Ex.P69.
This witness has further deposed that he had prepared scaled
site plan as Ex.PW15/A through Manoj Kumar Draftsman and recorded
the statement of witnesses Dharamvir Sharma, Editor Zee News Gurgaon.
This witness also deposed that accused Vijay Bhardwaj suffered
disclosure statement Ex.PW16/5 and in pursuance of his statement
accused led the police party to the place and got recovered one revolver in
the bushes with his own hands. It was found that the chamber of revolver
contained two empty cartridge cases and two live cartridges and the same
were sealed. The aforesaid property were taken into possession vide
memo (Ex.PW-16/6). The sketch of the revolver was prepared. This
witness identified the revolver as Ex.P71 and sketch of revolver as
Ex.PW16/7. The rough site plan as Ex.PW16/8. This witness has proved
the case property recovered as Ex.PW71. He has also deposed on return,
the case property was deposited with the MHC of Police Station. He also
deposed that he wrote an application to the office of DCP West to know
about real owner of the revolver. The said application along with covering
letter was sent to Kanpur Ordinance Factory to know about the real owner
of the revolver. He had recorded the statement of servant of accused Vijay
Bhardwaj namely Krishana Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has
deposed that accused Vijay Bhardwaj was produced in the court of Illaqa

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


25

Magistrate, Gurgaon and police remand was sought which was accorded
for three days.
On 28.03.2008, he interrogated accused Vijay Bhardwaj, who
suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW17/6 and got recovered his
confession note running into 3 pages. The attested copy is Ex.PW17/8.
The same were taken into police possession and were sealed in an
envelope. This witness has proved recovery of material as Ex.P76 to
Ex.P85. All the aforesaid material were taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW17/9 attested by HC Satish Kumar and Constable Rajesh Kumar.
He also deposed the case property was deposited with MHC PS Civil
Lines, Gurgaon. This witness has also deposed that on 30.03.2008, he
produced the accused Vijay Bhardwaj before Illaqa Magistrate and was
sent to judicial custody. On 31.03.2008, Constable Satish Kumar
produced 14 negatives and 28 photographs of the place of occurrence
which are Ex.P86 to Ex.P127. This witness has deposed that EHC
Kanwar Singh produced one CD containing the videography of the
proceedings of the postmortem examination on the dead body of the ACP
Rajbir Singh. The CD was taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW17/10. He produced CD as Ex.P128.
On 05.04.2008, he had received report from Kanpur from the
office of DCP

West regarding the ownership of the revolver opined by

Shri Manoj Shikarwar JWM/CT that Revolver No. A1031 is one among
the 100 revolvers issued to Second Battalion HAP Madhuban Karnal and

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


26

issued on 26.02.1993 as per their record. On 16.05.2008 Mr. Dharamvir


Editor Zee News produced a CD which was taken into possession vide
memo Ex.PW17/12 and was sealed. He identified the CD as Ex.P129.
This witness has also deposed that he had recorded Shri Bhagwan who
attested the memo Ex.PW17/12 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On
25.03.2008 he had taken into possession some traces of blood which
were scratched from the glass lying on the table of the office-cum-shop of
the accused and the same was taken into police possession and identified
the wrapping cloth as Ex.P130 and the plastic container as Ex.P131. He
had also taken into possession the plastic container from the office-cumshop of the accused and proved container as Ex.P133 and a piece of cloth
in which it was wrapped as Ex.P132. This witness has proved material
objects recovered from the place of occurrence as Ex.P134 to Ex.P138.
He also deposed that the same were taken into police possession vide
Ex.PW16/4. He deposed that the report of Ballistic Expert Ex.PW17/13
running into six pages were obtained by him.
The special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate on
24.03.2008 which was received by Duty ACJM on 6.15 am on 25.03.2008
which is Ex.PW17/14. He received postmortem report during
investigation. Afterwards the investigation was handed over to CBI. This
witness identified the accused in the court.
30.

The prosecution has further examined PW-18 Manmohan

son of Late Dr. B.M.Sharma, who has deposed that on 07.06.2008, he

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


27

was working as a bar man in Hotel Park Plaza at Gurgaon and he has seen
Vijay Bhardwaj and Rajbir Singh coming to Hotel Park Plaza in the bar.
He used to serve them the whisky. Both of them used to take black label.
On one occasion, Vijay Bhardwaj accused came alone. It was Indiapakistan Match and he enjoyed Whisky while sitting in the bar. India won
the match and he had opened 'Champagne'. He has proved statement
Ex.PW18/A.
31.

The prosecution has further examined PW-19 Tahir

Hussain, ACP Crime Gurgaon, who has deposed that on 24.03.2008 he


was posted as SHO in police station Civil Lines, Gurgaon. At about 11.45
p.m./12.00 midnight, he received information in the police station
regarding murder. The information was received by him telephonic ally
when he was patrolling the area and the same was given by ASI Pardeep
Kumar. It was informed to him that accused Vijay Bhardwaj committed
murder in his office at Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon. He reached at the spot
and SI Krishan Kumar and other police officials were present on the spot.
On 25.03.2008, he had inspected the spot. The Ballistic Expert was
summoned at the spot. Dr.R.K.Kaushal, the Ballistic Expert collected two
leads of bullets from the spot, one from the table and one from the chair.
He further deposed that both the leads of bullets given to him by Dr.
R.K.Kaushal were handed over by him to SI Krishan Kumar and the same
were put in a container and sealed with the seal 'DS'. In this regard,
seizure memo Ex.PW16/4 was prepared which bears his signature. Other

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


28

witnesses from the place of occurrence was taken into possession vide
seizure memo Ex.PW16/4.
32.

The prosecution has further examined PW-20 ASI Sheesh

Pal son of Shri Mohan Lal. This witness has deposed that on
25.03.2008, he was posted in Special Staff Sector 10, Gurgaon as
computer Incharge. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Inspector was the Incharge of the
said Special Staff. He further deposed that call details statements
Ex.PW20/2 to Ex.PW20/5 pertaining to mobile phone No. 9873919999
(three pages) of ACP Rajbir Singh, accused Vijay Bhardwaj
(9811444999),

Pardeep Kumar (981832454)

and Lilu Ram PSO

(9891181899) for a period of February and March, 2008 was supplied to


him which were taken into police possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PW20/1. On 29.03.2008, he gave details of SMS (eight pages) for a
period from 15.3.2008 to 24.03.2008 sent by Rajbir Singh ACP from the
mobile phone No.9873919999 to accused Vijay Bhardwaj on his mobile
phone No.9873919999 of Rajbir Singh ACP which details were taken into
possession of the police by Sanjeev Kumar Incharge Special Staff vide
recovery memo Ex.PW20/6. This witness has also proved details of SMS
as Ex.PW20/7 to Ex.PW20/14.
33.

The prosecution has further examined PW-21 ASI Davender

Singh No.16 CIA Sector-17, Gurgaon. This witness has deposed that on
25.03.2008, he was posted as MHC at Police Station Civil Lines,
Gurgaon. On that day, SI Krishan Dev after returning to police station at

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


29

about

5.30

p.m. after conducting investigation of FIR No.117/08

accompanied with accused Vijay Bhardwaj after producing him before the
Illaqa Magistrate came and handed over case property which he had kept
in safe custody in malkhana after making entry in register No.19. In this
regard, this witness has proved DDR No.17 as Ex.PW21/A and entry in
register No.19 as Ex.PW21/A-1. This witness has further deposed that
on 26.3.2008, SI Krishan Dev returned to the police station after
conducting further investigation and handed over one revolver of .32 bore
along-with two live cartridges and two cartridge cases/empty shells to him
and same was kept by him in safe custody. In this regard, DD entry No.20
dated 26.03.2008 was proved as Ex.PW21/B and entry in register No.19
as Ex.PW21/B-1. This witness has proved that on 28.03.2008, SI Krishan
Dev returned to the police station after conducting further investigation
of the above-stated case and one confession note of the accused alongwith
7 letter pads papers and visiting cards were deposited with him and he
kept the same in safe custody in the malkhana. He has proved the entry
entry No.19 dated 28.3.2008 in this regard in the DDR register as
Ex.PW21/C and the relevant entry in the register No.19 as Ex.PW21/C1. This witness has further proved that on 4.4.2008, ASI Kanwar Singh
deposited one video cassette of the videography prepared at the time of
conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead-body was deposited
with him and he kept the same in safe custody in the malkhana. He
proved relevant entry No.28 dated 4.4.2008 in this regard in DDR

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


30

register as Ex.PW21/D and the relevant entry in the register No.19 as


Ex.PW21/D-1. This witness has further deposed that on 12.04.2008, SI
Krishan Dev deposited the specimen signatures of accused Vijay
Bhardwaj and he kept the same in safe custody in the malkhana. He
proved the relevant entry No.15 dated 12.4.2008 in this regard in the DDR
register No.19 as Ex.PW21/E-1. He further deposed that on 16 .5.2008,
he deposited one CD prepared by ZEE News with him and entry in this
regard in the DDR register bearing No.31 and the same is Ex.PW31/F
and the relevant entry in the register No.19 as Ex.PW21/F-1.
34.

The prosecution has further examined PW-22 Constable

Satish Kumar No.1205, Gurgaon. This witness has deposed that SI


Krishan Dev, SI of Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon called him to the
spot and he had taken photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P14, the negatives of
which are Ex.P15 to Ex.P28.
35.

The prosecution has further examined PW-23 Vishal son of

Shri Chander Prakash, resident of 854/27, Madanpuri, Gali No.10,


Gurgaon. This witness has deposed that he had never used mobile
No.9811444999 and do not know who is Vijay Bhardwaj and Ansul
Maheshwari. He has further deposed that application form in the name of
Vishal Kumar does not bears his signature and was never filled up by him
nor the documents were annexed by him. He has further deposed that
documents Ex.PW23/1 and Ex.PW23/2 were never submitted by him to
the ESSAR Cellphone, Delhi.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


31

36.

The prosecution has further examined PW-24

Rajinder

Singh, retd. SI, resident of House No.359, Sector-10, Gurgaon. This


witness has deposed that he was posted in PS Cvil Lines, Gurgaon. On
28.3.2008, MHC Devender Singh of PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon had handed
over to him sealed parcels bearing seal impression DS and one sample
seal of mortuary of General Hospital, Gurgaon for depositing the same in
FSL vide road challan No.130 dated 28.3.2008. He further deposed that he
took the samples to the FSL Madhuban on the same day and deposited the
said parcels etc. in FSL Madhuban with seals intact and on his return, he
deposited the receipt with MHC. He further deposed that during the
period the case property/parcels of this case remained with him, he did not
allow anybody to tamper with the same nor those samples/case property
was tampered by him and till the deposit of the same in the FSL
Madhuban, he kept the case property in his safe custody.
37.
Singh,

The prosecution has further examined PW-25 EHC Kanwar


office of DCP Crimes, Gurgaon, who has deposed that on

25.3.2008, he was posted in the office of DCP Crimes Gurgaon. He has


deposed that he had videographed the proceedings of the post mortem
examination of ACP Rajbir Singh of Delhi Police which was conducted at
General Hospital, Gurgaon. He further deposed that after the proceedings
were over, he handed over one cassette to Krishan Dev SI which was
taken into police possession by him vide recovery memo dated 4.4.2008
which was signed by him. He has seen the recovery memo Ex.PW17/10

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


32

and he identified his signatures on the same. He further deposed that the
cassette handed over by him to SI Krishan Dev was without any touching.
38.

The prosecution has further examined PW-26 C. Shibu K. P.

No. 9799, South East posted at PS Greater Kailash-I, Delhi, who has
deposed that he joined Delhi police in the year 1995 and in the year 200506, he was posted in Security Police and was deputed as one of the PSOs
with Shri Rajbir Singh, ACP Delhi and he used to keep one pistol with
him during the period he used to remain on duty with Rajbir Singh. He
further deposed that he had visited the residence of Rajbir Singh and had
accompanied office of Vijay Bhardwaj. He further deposed that prior to
the occurrence of this case, he had accompanied Rajbir Singh ACP on
duty and had accompanied to Park Plaza Bar. He further deposed that the
money which was received by ACP Rajbir Singh from Vijay Bhardwaj in
the polythene bag, the same was taken by ACP Rajbir Singh to his
residence Andrews Ganj by putting the same in a briefcase. He identified
accused Vijay Bhardwaj.
39.

The prosecution has further examined PW-27 HC Lilu Ram

No.431 Traffic, KHC Circle, New Delhi, who has deposed that he joined
Delhi police on 21.10.1986. He further deposed that in the year 1993, he
was posted in 9th Battalion for security duty and he was deputed as PSO
to ACP Rajbir Singh, Delhi police in the month of January, 2007.
40.

The prosecution has further examined PW-28 Jawahar

Singh No.3851/D, presently posted at Crime Branch Sunlight Colony,

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


33

New Delhi. This witness has deposed that he joined Delhi police on
7.12.1989. He was deputed as driver with ACP Rajbir Singh in the year
1999. During the month January or February 2006, ACP Rajbir Singh was
transferred to Special Operation Squad Sunlight Colony, near Ashram
Chowk Delhi. Accused Vijay Bhardwaj used to meet ACP Rajbir Singh
frequently. The office of Vijay Bhardwaj was situated at Mahrauli Road,
Guargaon. ACP Rajbir Singh used to visit the office of accused Vijay
Bhardwaj frequently. On 24.3.2008, he accompanied ACP Rajbir Singh to
police HQ and in the afternoon session they returned to the office. At
about 6.45/7.00 pm ACP Rajbir Singh directed him to accompany him to
Gurgaon and he along with PSO Lillu Ram drove him to Gurgaon. An
escort of one HC and three constables also accompanied them. ACP
Rajbir Singh directed Lillu Ram to ask accompanying escort to stay at
IFFCO chowk. At about 8.00/8.15 pm they reached at the office of Vijay
Bhardwaj and parked their vehicle in front of the office of Vijay
Bhardwaj. After some time servant of Vijay Bhardwaj came and told
them that ACP Rajbir Singh has directed them to park the vehicle near the
petrol pump and then he parked the vehicle at nearby petrol pump. He
further deposed that at about 9.25/9.30 pm SI Davender Singh of SOS
crime branch asked about the position of ACP Rajbir Singh from him on
his mobile phone and it was told by Davender Singh ASI that ACP Rajbir
Singh was not picking his phone. Then Davender Singh gave a message
that ACP Rajbir Singh be asked to talk to DCP Crime Sh.Anil Shukla.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


34

Then he went to the office of Vijay Bhardwaj, but there was no response
from inside the office, then he noted down the number of Vijay Bhardwaj
which was written/displaced at the entrance door of the office of accused
Vijay Bhardwaj and then he contacted Vijay Bhardwaj on that mobile
phone and asked as to convey the message to ACP Rajbir Singh to contact
DCP Crime. Then the accused Vijay Bhardwaj asked them to go to the
residence of ACP Rajbir Singh situated at Sushant Lok and that he along
with ACP Rajbir Singh is coming there. He along with Lillu Ram came to
the vicinity of Sushant Lok where residence of ACP Rajbir Singh is
situated and waited for him there. At about 11.00 pm SI Davender Singh
contacted him on his mobile phone and asked why ACP Rajbir Singh has
not contacted DCP. SI Davender Singh directed them to reach the place
where they had left ACP Rajbir Singh. He informed SI Davinder Singh
that ACP Rajbir Singh is not picking his mobile phone and that Vijay
Bhardwaj had asked him to reach at Sushant Lok but none of them have
turned up at the residence of ACP Rajbir Singh. In the meantime, SHO
police line contacted him on his phone and PSO Lillu Ram and asked
them to reach at the place where they had left ACP Rajbir and they
immediately reached the office of accused Vijay Bhardwaj where they
saw a huge crowd. Till that time they were not aware that ACP Rajbir
Singh had been murdered. PSO Lillu Ram immediately contacted the
escort and called them to arrive at Vijay Bhardwajs office-cum-shop. He
further deposed that on one occasion Vijay Bhardwaj had given money in

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


35

a polythene bag to hand over the same to ACP Rajbir Singh, but he do not
know the exact figure of amount. ACP Rajbir Singh never carried his
weapon with him to the office of Vijay Bhardwaj. He used to keep his
pistol in his briefcase and used to leave the same in the vehicle with the
PSO. Five-seven days prior to the festival of Holi in the year 2008 Rajbir
Singh ACP had visited the office of Vijay Bhardwaj at about 1.00/1.30
pm. While on the way he told Vijay Bhardwaj on his mobile in anger that
he is coming to his office and will see him. ACP Rajbir Singh stayed at
the office of Vijay Bhardwaj for about one and half hour. ACP Rajbir
Singh had a private office at C42 Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi and he used
to sit in his office for long hours. He identified accused Vijay Bhardwaj
present in the Court today who was a frequent visitor to the office of ACP
Rajbir Singh and vice-versa. His statement was recorded.
41.

The prosecution has further examined PW-29 Dharminder

Sachdeva son of late Shri Daya Nand Sachdeva, who has deposed that
he was having distributorship of Hutch mobile company at Gurgaon and it
remained with him for the year 1998 to 2002. He further deposed there
were about 150 dealers with whom he used to carry on his business of
distributorship. He further deposed that one of the dealer was M/S Cellco.
Shri Anshul Maheshwari was the Proprietor of the said firm M/S Cellcom.
On the receipt of consumer application form from M/S Cellcom, the
company used to issue cell numbers. He had received an application form
from Mr. Sunil Modi, who was the then his employee which was collected

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


36

by him from M/S Cellco for issuance of mobile cell number. He further
deposed that the company had issued mobile No.9811444999. He further
deposed that in the year 2002, there was no much requirement of
verification of the particulars of the applicant for issuance of the SIM
card. The application form used to accompanying photograph of the
applicant with ID proof.
42.

The prosecution has further examined PW-30 Shyambir

Singh, Advocate, who has deposed that he is practicing as an Advocate


since 1989 at District Court Complex, Gurgaon. He know accused Vijay
Bhardwaj as he was conducting his two cases. He further deposed that on
23.3.2008, he contacted accused Vijay Bhardwaj and he told him that he
wants to meet him. He called him at his residence and accordingly came
to his office at 8.45 a.m. On 24.3.2008. He discussed some matter with
him and left. At that time, accused Vijay Bhardwaj was looking tense.
He further deposed that on 24.3.2008, he received a telephonic call from
accused Vijay Bhardwaj at about 11.00 p.m. from his mobile phone
No.9811444999 on his mobile phone No.9810429995 and accused Vijay
Bhardwaj informed him that a murder had taken place. He seemed to be
very nervous while he was talking with him. He asked him about the
person killed but he did not name the said person murdered. Accused
Vijay Bhardwaj told him that he wanted to surrender and asked him to
make arrangement of his surrender. He suggested him to come to him in
the morning. Thereafter, he disconnected the phone. He further deposed

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


37

that his statement was recorded.


43.

The prosecution has further examined PW-31 Sandeep

Sharma son of Shri Toder Kumar, who has deposed that he know
accused Vijay Bhardwaj for the last more than 20 years. He further
deposed that on 24.3.2008, he received a telephonic call from Sanjay
Bhardwaj brother of the accused and asked him to come his residence. He
inquired from him as to what was the urgency he told him to come
immediately, then he went to his house and saw the mother, sister and
Bhabhi of the accused were found weeping. After some time, he received
a telephonic call from accused Vijay Bhardwaj on his mobile that when he
had gone to his shop then he saw the dead body of Rajbir Singh and he
further told him that he was apprehending that he may not be killed by the
police in a false encounter and that he want to surrender before the police.
This witness was declared hostile at the request of learned PP for the CBI
and was allowed to be cross-examined by him.
44.

The prosecution has further examined PW-32 Dharamvir

Sagar son of Shri Tarsem Lal, who has deposed that he is running the
business of sale of auto parts in the name and style of M/S Dharam Auto
Engineering Works since 1961. He was dealing in the business of property
dealing and the name of his concern was M/S Vijay and Associates and
his office was situated opposite State Bank of India Mahrauli Road,
Gurgaon. In the month of September, 2007, he contacted Vijay Bhardwaj
accused as he was interested in purchasing some property. Thereafter, an

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


38

agreement was executed between them for the purchase of two plots
situated at Vyapar Sadan Opposite Groovie Hotel, Mahrauli Road,
Gurgaon. He had paid a sum of 35.5 lacs as earnest money to the
accused against the purchase of said two shops. The agreement was
signed by him and accused Vijay Bhardwaj. He had agreed to return
double of the amount of earnest money in case he failed to execute the
sale deed in his favour. Thereafter, he consulted one Mr. Ashok Bhatia
who was his known and was dealing in the business of property. He told
him that the said two plots have already been sold by Vijay Bhardwaj to
somebody else. Then, he contacted the accused and asked him to return
his money and he also conveyed to him that he has committed fraud with
him and has cheated him but the accused did not return his money.
Thereafter, when the accused failed to return his money inspite of his
repeated requests, then he Shri Mohinder Lal Commissioner of Police
Gurgaon and moved a complaint against the accused and the said
complaint was sent to SHO PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon and a case under
Sections 420,467,468,471 IPC was registered against accused Vijay
Bhardwaj vide FIR No.390 dated 19.12.2007 in Police Station Civil
Lines, Gurgaon. His statement was recorded by the CBI.
45.

The prosecution has further examined PW-33 HC Padam

Singh No.5015/Security, E-Block, Security Line, Delhi. He was deputed


as Security Personnel in escort of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). On
24.3.2008, he was In-charge Escort duty of ACP Rajbir Singh (since

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


39

deceased) and police constables namely C Sudhir, C Rajiv and C


Karambir were with him in escort duty on that day. The escort party used
to move in vehicle. On 24.3.2008, at about 7.00 p.m., they left office
situated at Sunlight Colony, New Delhi in escort of ACP Rajbir Singh and
reached Iffco Chowk, Gurgaonat about 7.45 p.m. HC Lillu Ram, Civil
PSO directed them to stop and wait at Iffco Chowk only and they will be
called if thee was any need and thus, they stopped there. At about 11.30
p.m., Constable Sudhir received a mobile call from HC Lillu Ram asking
him to reach Kalayani Hospital. When they reached Kalayani Hospital,
they found crowd of Media people and police officials and there Lillu
Ram told that ACP Rajbir Singh has been murdered.
46.

The prosecution has further examined PW-34 Constable

Surender Kumar No.3544/Security, VIP Security, E. Block Security


Line, Delhi. This witness was member of escort party of ACP Rajbir
Singh(since deceased) on 24.3.2008. He has deposed that he has seen
accused present in court 8-10 times at the residence of ACP Rajbir Singh
in Sushant Lok, Gurgaon.
47.

The prosecution has further examined PW-35 ASI

Surender Pal No.1049/SB, South West Zone, Delhi. He was part of


escort of ACP Rajbir Since (since deceased). He has deposed that on
24.03.2008, he was on leave and he knows accused Vijay Bhardwaj
present in court being friend of ACP Rajbir Singh. He has seen ACP
Rajbir Singh and Vijay Bhardwaj in company of each other usually at the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


40

residence of ACP Rajbir Singh as well as as at other places including


office of accused.
48.

The prosecution has further examined PW-36 HC

Ramesh Kumar No.945/Gurgaon, Crime Branch, Gurgaon. This


witness is carrier of sealed parcel taken by him from MHC Davender
Singh, Constable Civil Lines Police Station Gurgaon to FSL, Madhuban.
49.

The

prosecution

has

further

examined

PW-37

Harbhajan Singh son of Shri Karam Singh, resident of House No.293,


Sector-14, Gurgaon, who has deposed that he was friend of Sanjay
Bhardwaj. Vijay Bhardwaj, Kapil Bhardwaj and Sanjay Bhardwaj are
brothers but he had no personal acquaintance with rest of two brothers.
Except this, this witness did not depose anything incriminating against the
accused. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned
Special PP for the CBI.
50.

The prosecution has further examined PW-38 Satpal

Singh (retd.) SI son of Shri Chain Singh, resident of Jammu. This


witness has deposed that he being Sub Inspector in Special Cell remained
posted with ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). He had worked as
Orderly with ACP Rajbir Singh. This witness did not depose anything
incriminating against the accused. He was declared hostile by learned
Special PP for the CBI and was cross-examined by him.
51.

The prosecution has further examined PW-39 Pawan

Singh son of Shri Kishan Singh. This witness is employee of Idea

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


41

Cellular Ltd. A26/5, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Area, New Delhi and
proved call details records as Ex.PW39/5 to Ex.PW39/7 of mobile phone
Nos. 981181899,9990050000 and 9891781059.
52.

The prosecution has further examined PW-40 Sumit Kumar,

DSP HQ Rohtak. This witness has deposed that he was posted as


ACP,DLF, Gurgaon. On 24.3.2008, he received a phone call from mobile
phone of Shri Dharamvir correspondent Zee News at about 11.30 a.m.
(p.m.). Shri Dharamvir informed him that he had received a call from
someone disclosing that he had killed some police personnel and wanted
to give his interview before media and he was asked by Dharamvir to
reach near Petrol Pump Signature Tower, Gurgaon. Thereafter, he reached
at Petrol Pump, Signature Tower, Gurgaon. Thereafter, he reached the
Petrol Pump Signature Tower Gurgaon and saw one person giving
interview to media person Dharamvir. He apprehended that fellow who
was giving interview and on inquiry, he disclosed his name as Vijay
Bhardwaj. He further told that he had killed Rajbir Bhai Sahib from Delhi
Police and later-on disclosed that he had killed ACP Rajbir Singh at his
office and dead body was lying in same office. He took him to the office
where police officers from City Police Station Gurgaon had already
reached and accused Vijay Bhardwaj was handed over by him to IO from
City Police Station, Gurgaon.
53.

The prosecution has further examined PW-41 Subhash

Chander Gurumaita son of Dr. B.P.Gurumaita, Chief Manager

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


42

FGMO Union Bank of India, Gole Market, New Delhi. This witness
was posted as Branch Manager in Union Bank of India, Jharsa Road,
Sector-31, Gurgaon. This witness has proved letter Ex.PW41/1 issued by
him to the IO of CBI. He has proved that vide aforesaid letter, he handed
over record Ex.PW41/2 (9 pages) which were statement of saving
account No.4744 under Banker's Book Evidence Act. He has also handed
over certified copy of account opening form Ex.PW41/3 (6 pages),
statement of account of aforesaid account Ex.PW41/4 (4 pages). He
deposed that this account was of accused and was regular. He also
deposed that from September, 2006, maximum number of cheques issued
by accused Vijay Bhardwaj to different payees were dishonoured and
amount of cheques was in crores. He has also deposed that accused Vijay
Bhardwaj was also maintaining current account in his bank.
54.

The prosecution has further examined PW-42 Sanjeev

Kumar Inspector CIA-IV, Gurgaon. In the year 2008, he was posted as


Inspector in Special Staff Sector 10, Gurgaon. He was part of the
investigating team of this case which was constituted by the Police
Commissioner, Gurgaon. He was given the task of taking on record the
call details record of mobile No. 9873919999 of deceased ACP Rajbir,
mobile No.9811444999 of accused Vijay Bhardwaj, mobile No.
9818325454 of Shri Pardeep Kumar ASI and mobile No.9891181899 of
Shri Lillu Ram PSO of ACP Rajbir and SMS pertaining to mobile number
of deceased Rajbir Singh ACP and accused Vijay Bhardwaj. After

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


43

collecting the call details record as well as SMS', he took into possession
the call details and the record of SMS' from Sheesh Pal vide seizure
memo already exhibited as Ex.PW20/1 and Ex.PW20/6 and the same
was given to SI Krishan Dev and both the seizure memos bear his
signatures. The aforesaid call details and the SMS were made over to him
by EHC Sheesh Pal 719 of the Special Staff who was deputed by him to
have the call details and SMS from the Cyber Cell. His statement was
recorded during investigation by the CBI Officer.
55.

The prosecution has further examined PW-43 Gulshan

Arora son of Shri K.C.Arora, resident of 518-F, 21-D, Faridabad. This


witness has deposed that in the year 2008, he was working with Vodafone
company as a Nodal Officer. He handed over call details of mobile No.
9811444999 in the name of Vishal Kumar, No.9873919999 of ACP Rajbir
Singh,

No.9811321030

in

the

name

of

one

shri

Jaswinder,

No.9899999900 of Atul Goel, No.9999998901 of ACP Rajbir Singh from


the period 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008 to CBI Officer vide production-cumseizure memo Ex.PW43/1 which bears his signature on its all three pages.
The bunch of call details reports of mobile No.9811444999 issued in the
name of Vishal Kumar are contained in Ex.PW43/2 which runs into 166
pages which bears the stamp of the company as well as his signatures.
Similarly, the bunch of call details reports of mobile No. 9873919999 of
ACP Rajbir Singh are contained in Ex.PW43/3 which runs into 107 pages
which bears the stamp of the company as well as his signatures.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


44

Similarly, the bunch of call details reports of mobile No.9811321030 in


the name of one Shri Jaswinder are contained in Ex.PW43/4 which runs
into 64 pages which bears the stamp of the company as well as his
signatures.

Similarly, the bunch of call details reports of mobile

No.9899999900 of Atul Goel are contained in Ex.PW43/5 which runs


into 71 pages which bears the stamp of the company as well as his
signatures. Similarly, the bunch of call details reports of mobile
No.9999998901 of ACP Rajbir Singh are contained in Ex.PW43/6 which
runs into 2 pages which bears the stamp of the company as well as his
signatures. He also handed over one bunch of Cell ID Chart of Vodafone
Essar Mobile Service containing 22 pages. It contained the seal of the
company and his signatures on each page. The same is now Ex.PW43/7.
He also handed over one customer agreement form of mobile
No.9873919999 in the name of ACP Rajbir Singh with carbon copy of the
said form and document of ID proof i.e. form No.60 duly signed by the
applicant, photo copy of identity card of ACP Rajbir Singh, photocopy of
driving licence of ACP Rajbir Singh and tariff enrolment form in the
name of ACP Rajbir Singh total pages 9 in numbers. The same are now
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW43/8. Similarly, he also handed over
photo copy of customer agreement form in the name of ACP Rajbir Singh
for mobile No.9999998901 including photo copy of ID proof documents
i.e. tariff plan and letter dated 13.12.2007 duly signed by Rajbir Singh
ACP and attested by Nodal Officer total pages 3 in numbers which are

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


45

now collectively exhibited as Ex.PW43/9. Similarly, he also handed over


one application form in the name of Vishal Kumar without
bearing/affixing photograph of the applicant for mobile No.9811444999
including photo copy of form No.60 and tariff plan of the said mobile
number total 3 pages in number which is collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW43/10.

He had also handed over one photo copy of Hutch

Customer agreement form in the name of Atul Goel for the mobile
No.9899999900 including photo copy of form No.60, photo copy of
customer declaration for local address, photo copy of driving license of
Atul Goel and photo copy of postpaid tariff plan enrollment form of above
ssaid mobile number duly attested by him contained in 5 pages which is
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW43/11.
56.

The prosecution has further examined PW-44 R.K.Singh,

Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. D-184, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi.
This witness has deposed that he is working as Nodal Officer in the
above-said company since May, 1997. He handed over certified copies of
call details record of mobile No. 9818981809 of one Shri Jitender Kumar
and mobile No.9818325454 of Pardeep Kumar Dagar pertaining to the
period 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008 vide production-cum-seizure memo dated
9.6.2008 Ex.PW44/1 which bears his signature. He also handed over cell
ID chart of the company, copies of subscriber forms and ID proof
documents through production-cum-seizure memo dated 9.6.2008 which
is now Ex.PW44/2 and bears his signature. The bunch of call details

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


46

records of mobile No.9818981809 issued in the name of Jitender Kumar


is Ex.PW44/3,which bears the stamp of the company as well as his
signatures on each page. Similarly, he also handed over the bunch of call
details records of mobile No. 9818325454 issued in the name of Pardeep
Kumar Dagar is Ex.PW44/4 and bears the stamp of the company as well
as his signatures. The Airtel prepaid enrollment form in respect of mobile
No.9818981809 of Jitender Kumar with photo copy of ID proof is now
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW44/5. The Airtel prepaid enrollment form
in respect of mobile No.9818325454 of Pardeep Kumar Dagar with photo
copy of ID proofs is now collectively exhibited as Ex.PW44/6. The bunch
of cell ID chart running into 89 pages is now collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW44/7 and it bears his signature and seal of the company on each
page.
57.

The prosecution has further examined PW-45 Pawan

Kumar Garg son of Late Shri M.L.Garg, resident of B-256, Suraj Mal
Vihar, Delhi. This witness has deposed that he was Chartered Accountant
by profession and was doing share trading business since 1996. Deceased
ACP Rajbir Singh was known to him since 2006. His office was at Lajpat
Nagar, Delhi on second floor on rent @ 40,000/- per month. The said
house was in the name of Shri Mam Chand Yadav, father of deceased ACP
Rajbir Singh. ACP Rajbir Singh wanted to invest money in the share
trading. He had invested money in the name of Ms. Rekha Sengar, his
father Mam Chand Yadav and his wife Narmada Yadav and in the name of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


47

his company M/S Ever Spring Trading Company. On one occasion, ACP
Rajbir Singh called him in his office and on showing inability, he
threatened him with dire consequences but next morning felt sorry. The
witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned Special
PP for the CBI.
58.

The prosecution has further examined PW-46 Neeraj

Thakur son of Late Shri S.R.Thakur, who has deposed that in the year
2008, he was working as Senior Special Correspondent in TV Channel
Zee News. He had joined the investigation of this case. He identified
memo Ex.PW46/1 dated 16.6.2008 which was prepared in front of him
and it bears his signature. Dharamvir Sharma, who was also working as
reporter in Zee News for Gurgaon and he was reporting to him. On the
day of incident, the exact date he do not remember, Dharamvir Sharma
had informed him about one interview he had taken and later-on, one CD
in original was seized from Dharamvir Sharma by CBI in his presence.
The other CD said to be the copy of the same was also seized for
investigation purpose. The CD was also displayed in the office and
transcript Ex.PW46/2 was also prepared in his presence which bears his
signature.
59.

The prosecution has further examined PW-47 Ashok Pal son

of Shri Jagdish Pal, resident of House No.114, Gita Enclave, New


Delhi. This witness has deposed that he was working in Import/Export
company under the name and style of Ever Spring Trading Pvt. Ltd. from

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


48

March, 2006 to January, 2008. The company was having its office at C42, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The company was having two Directors
namely Vinod and Ms. Rekha Sengar. The said company was under
effective control of ACP Rajbir Singh. Vinod was friend of ACP Rajbir
Singh and Ms. Rekha was his second wife. Vinod left the company in the
year 2007 and he was removed by ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) and
thereafter, the company almost stopped. He knows accused Vijay
Bhardwaj. Accused Vijay Bhardwaj used to visit office of ACP Rajbir
Singh situated at C-45, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. They used to meet at
second floor. In his presence also, accused Vijay Bhardwaj visited in his
office and in the absence of ACP Rajbir Singh. On both the occasions,
accused Vijay Bhardwaj handed over cash to him amounting to 30.00
lacs approx. and same was handed over to him by ACP Rajbir Singh. This
witness was declared hostile.
60.

The prosecution has further examined PW-48 Ravi Sharma

son of Late Shri Banwari Lal Sharma. This witness is brother-in-law of


accused Vijay Bhardwaj. He has deposed that Krishana was servant of
Vijay Bhardwaj. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by
learned PP for the CBI.
61.

The prosecution has further examined PW-49 Vinod Kumar

son of Shri Chander Singh resident of Hari Nagar, New Delhi. This
witness has deposed that he was partner in company of ACP Rajbir Singh.
Deceased Rajbir Singh invested money in the business and asked him to

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


49

make his father as partner. One Om Parkash was partner in the firm. He
had resigned from the firm in the year 2007. This witness was declared
hostile and was cross-examined by learned Special PP for the CBI.
62.

The prosecution has further examined PW-50 Jagpal Yadav

@ Jaggu son of Jit Ram Yadav resident of Sikandarpur Ghoshi PS


DLF Gurgaon. This witness has deposed that he knew accused present in
the court. They had money transactions. Due to the incident, accused
could not pay him back 6.00 lacs. Earlier repeatedly he had visited the
office of accused for demanding money and also used to call him for
return of amount. On 24.3.2008, he had made a call to the accused at
about 9.00/9.10 p.m. but the accused did not pick them.
63.

The prosecution has further examined PW-51 Dharambir

Sharma son of Shri Chetan Dev Sharma, resident of House No.A-12,


Sanjay Gram, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon. This witness has deposed that
he was Reporter in Zee News since August,2005. In the year 2008, he
was correspondent covering the area of Gurgaon, South Haryana and IGI
Airport. He has one brother namely Krishan Kumar, who is elder to him
and deals in building material. His brother's office was situated in Pyare
Lal Building, Mahrauli Road, Gurgaon. On 24.3.2008, at about
11.00/11.30 p.m. when he was in the area of AIIMS Flyover in Delhi, he
received a call on his mobile telephone No.9873692600 from mobile
phone No.9811444999. The caller told that murder had taken place in
Gurgaon and asked him if he would like to cover the news. Calls were

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


50

made three times by the same person from same mobile number. On third
occasion, the caller told that murder of police personnel had taken place.
He has asked the caller to surrender in front of media and wants to tell
something. He asked him to meet him at Signature Tower at Gurgaon.
Thereafter, he contacted his office situated at Noida and as per advise of
rest officers, reported the matter to the police and thereafter, he contacted
Shri Sumit Kumar, ACP DLF Gurgaon and requested him to reach
Signature Tower within the area of South City Chowk. Thereafter, he
called other press colleagues namely Sanjay Tyagi of UNI and Raj Verma
of Aaj Tak and inquired from them if some murder had taken place in
Gurgaon and they stated that they had no such information. Thereafter, no
conversation took place between him and accused Vijay Bhardwaj on
telephone. Accused informed him about his location and he told that he is
about to reach at South City Chowk. Accused told that if he want, then he
could meet him at border. He refused and conveyed that he will meet only
at South City Chowk. Thereafter, he reached South City chowk alongwith
Manoj, Cameraman. On asking, accused Vijay Bhardwaj informed that he
was coming all alone in 'Verna' car. On further asking, accused told that
the murder had taken place by firing. He asked the accused to come out
from car and would reach at Petrol Pump where there were sufficient
lights. He had no other talk with him at that time and he had not disclosed
anything else to him. Thereafter, he again made a call to ACP Sumit and
thereafter reached Petrol Pump by overtaking the car of Vijay Bhardwaj.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


51

He had asked his Cameraman to switch on the camera and further directed
him to keep on the camera running no matter what happened. When
accused Vijay Bhardwaj reached and came out of the car, he started taking
his interview, recorded in CD. When he had asked Vijay Bhardwaj what
has happened and how it happened, accused asked him to take him to
police station first. At his instance, the accused narrated the entire episode
to him first in following manner:ACP Rajbir Bhai Sahab Hain ACP Delhi Police Main Aur
Mera Aur Usaka Paise Ka Lena Dena Tha. He further told
that Kaphi Paise Ka Lain Den Tha. Mujhe Unki Aaj
Payment Deni Thi, Kaphi Pressure Tha Aur Paise Ikhathe
Ho Nahin Rahe The, Wo Bole Main Tere Ko Mar Dunga Aur
Tere Ghar Walon Ko Bhi Kar Dunga.
He has also deposed that accused Vijay Bhardwaj told him that
there was money dealing of 50-60 lacs. While the interview was
continuing, ACP Sumit came there and took away accused Vijay
Bhardwaj. He had taken him away in Wagon-R in front of the camera
itself. On asking, the senior told that ACP Rajbir Singh encounter
specialist. This fact was also confimred by ACP Sumit.
Thereafter, the team went to the office of Vijay Bhardwaj and
found police already present there. There was no light inside the office.
With use of light of Camera, he denied that dead body of well built person
was lying inside office of Vijay Bhardwaj. He had noticed that it was dead

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


52

body of same description as told by his seniors. In the mean-while, Mr.


Mohinder Lal arrived and confirmed through interview that it was dead
body of ACP Rajbir Singh. Thereafter, he informed his Head office that
news about of murder of ACP Rajbir Singh was confirmed by
Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon and they can telecast the news item.
The OB van had also arrived at the spot. He sent the interview recorded
by him of accused Vijay Bhardwaj and Commissioner of Police through
OB Van to his office for the purpose of telecast. Interview was video
recorded by camera man. Thereafter, that tape was inserted in the OB Van
and through satelite diverted to their office and it was being directly
telecast from OB Van. OB Van means out station Broad Casting Van. He
had not given any CD to Gurgaon police. CBI had contacted him in
respect of this case. He was joined in the investigation by CBI. Recording
dated 24.3.2008 on a CD was given to CBI which is Ex.PW46/1 which
bears his signature. CD was displayed by CBI official and its transcript
was prepared as Ex.PW46/2 which also bears his signature. The witness
identified CD as Ex.PW51/A after the same was taken out from sealed
parcel. His telephone number was provided by his brother
Bhardwaj and from there to Vijay Bhardwaj accused. However,

Ashok
this

witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Special PP for


the CBI. This witness has deposed that CD in court is original CD.
64.

The prosecution has further examined PW-52 Manoj

Shikarwar, Assistant Commandant, TPT BN, ITBP, Chandigarh. This

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


53

witness has deposed that in the year 2008, he was posted as Junior Works
Manager, Civil Trade, Small Arms Factory, Kanpur. He has

seen

Ex.PW17/11. In this case, a request was received vide letter No.917/W


dated 26.3.2008 from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Gurgaon for examination of one revolver. The revolver was received in
sealed condition. The said revolver was examined by him. The revolver
is the same which he had examined and after examination submitted
report Ex.PW17/11 in this regard. While examining the revolver they
opened the butt of the revolver and it was found to contain a number
bearing 1107 which is body number. As per the inquiry the detail sought
was for revolver no.E-8256 and on checking the record it was opined that
it belonged to one Davender Singh son of Dharam Singh of village
Majrai, police office Gubhana, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar,
Haryana, but the original number on the said revolver i.e P71 was missing
from the place where the original number is engraved on the revolver and
it appeared to have been tampered. After opening the butt and coming to
the know the body number i.e 1107, the record was checked and the
revolver number was found to be A-1031 as per their

record. The

revolver No.A-1031 is amongst 100 revolvers issued to Commandant 2nd


Armed Police Madhuban Karnal (Haryana) on 26.2.1993 as per their
record.
65.

The prosecution has further examined PW-53 Constable

No.1115 Siri Bhagwan, PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon. This witness has

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


54

deposed that he has joined his duty in police department on 15.10.1998.


On 16th May, 2008, while he was posted in PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon, he
remained associated in connection with ACP Rajbir Singh's murder case.
On that day, a compact disc relating to murder case of Rajbir Singh was
produced by Dharamvir Sharma and was taken into police possession vide
seizure memo Ex.PW17/12 which bears his signature. He has seen the
said seizure memo.
66.

The prosecution has further examined PW-54 Constable

Rajesh Kumar No.1632, PS SEctor-18, Gurgaon. This witness has


depsoed that he remained

posted in PS Civil Lines , Gurgaon. On

28.3.2008, accused Vijay Bhardwaj was interrogated by SI Krishan


Kumar and he suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW17/6 attested by him.
In pursuance of that disclosure statement, one register and suicide note
was recovered by Vijay Bhardwaj from his office. The recovered record
was converted into sealed parcel and sealed with the seal of 'BS' and
seizure memo Ex.PW17/9 was prepared.
67.

The prosecution has further examined PW-55 Krishan

Kumar Gupta son of Late Shri Vshaw Nath, resident of Bharti Ganj,
District Rohtas Sasaram, Bihar. This witness has deposed that in the
year 2005, he was employed at Gurgaon in a private company. On
24.3.2008, as usual he attended his duty. At that time, he was in
possession of mobile No.9818981809. Some people used to come to the
office of Vijay Bhardwaj to meet him here. Rajbir Singh came thereafter

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


55

an interval of half an hour, however, it was dark. He provided water to


him, switch on the Air Conditioner and came out from the office. After
asking Laxman to put his bicycle in the office. He had used a motocycle
Yamha to go to his house. He had just reached a katcha rasta situated at
about 20 feet from the office and he spotted two persons entering into the
office of Vijay Bhardwaj. Finally he left for his home on his motorcycle.
This witness was declared hostile at the request of learned PP for the CBI
wand was cross-examined by him.
68.

The prosecution has further examined PW-56 Dr. Sahib

Singh Chandana, Assistant Director Serology, Forensic Science


Laboratory, Madhuban Karnal. This witness has deposed that he is
Assistant Director Serology, FSL, Madhuban, Karnal. He deposed that on
02.05.2008, eight sealed parcels were received in serology division. He
opened these parcels and put the exhibits for examination for
determination of blood origin etc. and report was prepared. He has seen
report Ex.PW56/1which bears his signature.
69.

The prosecution has further examined PW-57 Rajiv Mishra

PS Amar Colony, New Delhi. This witness has deposed that earlier he
was posted in 3rd Batalion Vikas Puri in the year 1997-98. Thereafter, he
was transferred to SD and remained posted there up to 2004. He remained
posted as Uniform PSO with Shri Rajbir Singh, ACP for about 2 years.
As per rule, he had to accompany the officer for whom he was employed.
Shri Rajbir Singh always like to have another PSOs with him. As and

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


56

when called, he used to accompany him. One Civil PSO always used to
accompany Shri Rajbir Singh, ACP. Usually, he along-with other uniform
PSOs accompany the escort. As and when directed any uniform PSO
accompany ACP Rajbir Singh, Shri Rajbir Singh used to visit his house at
Shivaji Nagar, Gurgaon, where his old parents used to reside. He used to
attend office, police Headquarters and courts. He also used to visit
Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, where his house was under construction. Vijay
Bhardwaj accused used to visit his residence. ACP Rajbir Singh might
have been visiting Vijay Bhardwaj. He came to know from news sources
that ACP Rajbir Singh had been murdered by Vijay Bhardwaj. No
encounter had taken place with the criminals in his presence. This witness
has declared hostile at the request of learned PP for the CBI and was
cross-examined by him.
70.

The prosecution has further examined PW-58 Shri Gulshan

Rai, Deputy Director, Forensic Science Lab, Haryana Madhuban


Karnal. He further deposed that in this case, he had examined Hindi and
English writings and English signatures which were marked by him as Q1 to Q-6 on page Nos.193 to 196, 203 and 204 in loose folders of page
Nos. 193 to 204 of a long register Ex.PW58/1 to Ex.PW58/6. He had
also examined the serrations in holes of folders of page Nos. 193 to 204
marked by him as R-1. He had also examined the remnants of pages
marked R-2 against folders of page Nos.192, 205 in a long register
marked R Ex.PW58/7 and of Sanjay Bhardwaj, Vijay and Associates. He

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


57

had also examined the specimen writings and signatures which were
marked by him as S-1 to S-5 and S-1/1 to S-3/1 stated to be of Shri Vijay
Bhardwaj and now Ex.PW58/8 to Ex.PW58/12 and Ex.PW58/13 to
Ex.PW58/15. He further deposed that after the careful and thorough
scientific examination of all the standards and disputed writing and
signatures as well as serrations, he had submitted his opinion FSL H
No.08/DOCS-2068 dated 5th June,2008 which is Ex.PW58/16, which runs
into three pages and bears his signature on all the pages. His report
contained the detailed reasons upon which he had formed his opinion. He
further deposed that in his opinion, (i) the standard writings/ signatures
stamped and marked S1 to S5, S1/1 to S3/1 Ex.PW58/8 to Ex.PW58/15
(stated to be of Vijay Bhardwaj) and questioned writings/signatures
marked Q-1 to Q-6 Ex.PW58/1 to Ex.PW58/6 all have been written by
one and the same person; (ii) Based upon the observations (a) the size of
the holes of folders of page No.s 193 to 204 (loose pages) marked R1
Ex.PW58/1 to Ex.PW58/6 and size of the remnants of pages marked R2
against folder of pages No.192, 205 in the register marked R Ex.PW58/7
fit with each other (b) the size of the sheets in folders bearing Nos. 193 to
204, their thickness, tint, UV fluorescence and rulings are similar to that
of rest of the sheets in register marked R, he is of the opinion that the
sheets in the folders bearing Nos. 193 to 204 (Ex.PW58/1 to Ex.PW58/6)
had formed part of the register marked R (Ex.PW58/7).
71.

The prosecution has further examined PW-59 Sultan Singh,

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


58

retd. IPS resident of House No.727, Sector-8, Karnal. This witness has
deposed that on 29th March, 2008, he was posted as Commandant of 2nd
Batalion HAP, Madhuban. He further deposed that on that day,a
confidential letter was received from DCP (West) Gurgaon asking
information regarding .32 bore revolver No.A1031/SAF made. He
checked the record and found that that revolver was issued to Ashok
Kumar Shorean, DSP along with 30 live cartridges on 10th September,
1998 from DGP, Kot Madhuban. He sent the information to the DCP vide
letter Ex.PW59/1 which bears his signature.
72.

The prosecution has further examined PW-60 Dr.

R.K.Kaushal, Assistant Director Ballistics FSL Haryana Madhuban.


He is working as Assistant Director Ballistics at FSL, Haryana Madhuban
from April, 2005 and Senior Scientific Officer Ballistics from January ,
1986. He had examined and reported about 7000 firearms and explosive
cases of Haryana and neighbouring States during this period and visited
number of scenes of crime and appeared as expert witness in various
courts of Haryana, Delhi and neighbouring States. He has about 16
publications in Indian and Foreign Journals. He further deposed that in
this case, on 25.3.2008, he visited the place of occurrence alongwith his
team at about 1.30 p.m. Following observations were made at the place
of occurrence.
(1) A pool of blood was lying present in shop Vijay
Associates.

Rough

sketch

of

the

place

of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


59

occurrence was also prepared by him and is shown


in Appendix-I of his

report. Rough sketch is

Ex.PW60/1, which bears his signature at point A.


The place of occurrence was also photographed and
the photographs are Ex.PW60/2 to Ex.PW60/16,
which bear his signatures on each page. ACP Shri
Rajbir was stated to be sitting on chair at place A in
my sketch and fell down after bullet injuries.
(2) A .32 fired deformed and mutilated bullet was
recovered lying on the table glass near the hole on
the table glass.
(3) The table glass was found damaged and a hole was
found present in the table glass. Radial and
concentric fractures were found present in the glass
sheet.
(4) Another bullet of lead (.32 revolver bullet) was
recovered from the head rest of the chair lying on
the other side of the table at place B shown in the
sketch.
(5) The shop was thoroughly searched for any fired
cartridges

case/bullet

etc.

but

no

more

cartridge/bullet could be recovered.


(6) The bullets recovered from the spot were handed

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


60

over to Shri Tahir Hussain, Inspector SHO Civil


Line, Gurgaon.
Observations from the examination of post-mortem report of
the deceased are as follows:(1) As per the PMR of Shri Rajbir Singh, a tri-redially
star shape firearm wound was found present on
upper medial front of the forehead. No blackening,
tattooing or powder effect was found present on the
injuries of size 1.5 X 1.5 cm.
(2) A circular wound of size 1 cm. dia. was found
present on the upper middle back of the head.
(3) A horizontally placed lacerated/grazed wound was
also present on the left side of the head 4.5 cm.
above the upper part of the left pinna.
(4) The wounds were also examined in video film of
the autopsy of Shri Rajbir Singh, ACP.
Observations from examination of clothes of accused Vijay
Bhardwaj are as follows:(1) The shirt of accused Vijay Bhardwaj was examined
for the presence of gun shot residues in the
Laboratory. Nitrite was found positive on the front
side of the shirt of accused Vijay Bhardwaj.
Inference:
as under:-

Based on the above observations, his inferences were

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


61

(1) The wounds on the deceased person have been


caused by bullet projectiles fired from back side of
the deceased, fired out of blackening range.
(2) Gun shot residues were found positive on the shirt
of accused Vijay Bhardwaj.
IO was also advised at the scene of the crime to send clothes
of the deceased persons, revolver, fired cartridge cases, bullet, blood etc.
to Madhuban for further examination and report. Report Ex.PW17/13 in
this regard was submitted by him on 9.5.2008, which bears his signature.
He further deposed that in this case, 12 sealed parcels were received in
the laboratory on 28.3.2008 vide ACP/City Gurgaon forwarding memo
No.135-D dated 28.3.2008, RC No.130 dated 28.3.2008 through ASI
Rajender Singh No.354. The seals on the parcels were found intact and as
per the specimen seals of forwarding authority.
Based on the examinations carried by him in the laboratory,
the result were as under:(1) The firing mechanism of .32 revolver marked W/1
by me was found in working order.
(2) The .32 fired cartridge cases marked C/1 and C/2
and .32 fired bullets marked BC/1 and BC/2 have
been fired from .32 revolver marked W/1 and not
from any other firearm even of the same make and
bore/caliber, because every firearm has got its own
individual characteristic marks.
(3) The holes on the newspaper and calculator
contained in parcel No.III have been caused by lead

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


62

projectile.
(4) Nitrite was detected from the shirt of accused Vijay
Bhardwaj contained in parcel No.VII.
After examination, the exhibits were resealed alongwith the
original wrappers with the seal of A.D (Ball) FSL (H). His report in this
case is Ex.PW60/17, which bears his signature.
73.

The prosecution has further examined PW-61 Layak Ram

son of late Shri Umar Singh, retd. Inspector CBI resident of Village
& Post Office Karala Delhi. This witness has deposed that in the year
2008, he was posted as Inspector CBI SCB, New Delhi. He was part of
the investigating team which was investigating this case. During
investigation, he had also recorded the statements of witnesses Sanjeev
Kumar, Inspector, Pradeep Kumar ASI, Sheesh Pal Singh HC, Shiv
Kumar HC, Shibu KP Constable, Rajinder Kumar Meena Driver, Jai
Bhagwan HC, Rajiv Mishra, a police official correctly without any
addition and alteration as stated by them.
74.

The prosecution has further examined PW-62 Mr. R.K.Jha

son of Shri Chander Shekhar Jha, resident of Flat No.66-C, Pocket-2,


Sector-6, DDA Flats, Dwarka, Delhi. This witness has deposed that
during June, 2008, he was posted as Inspector of Police in CBI Special
Crime Branch, New Delhi. After registration of this case on 2 nd of June,
2008, a team of officers including he was attached for assistance of Shri
Nirbhay Kumar, ASP, who was Chief IO of the case. On the next day of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


63

registration of the case i.e. on 3rd of June, 2008, as per instructions of


Shri Nirbhay Kumar CIO, he received documents and articles from Shri
Kishan Dev, Sub Inspector who was investigating Officer of this case
vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 3.6.2008. He further deposed
that this memo is Ex.PW62/1, which bears his signature. After receipt of
these documents, he handed over the same to the CIO of the case. Shri
Krishan Dev has also signed on each page simultaneously with him. He
also received a chair vide production-cum-receipt memo Ex.PW62/2
dated 3.6.2008 from Shri Krishan Dev, Sub Inspector PS Civil Line,
Gurgaon. This memo also bears his signature as well as of Krishan Dev,
Sub Inspector. After receipt of the same, this chair was also handed over
to the CIO of the case. On the instructions of the CIO, he had also
examined Shri Krishan Dev, Sub Inspector PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon and
recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. correctly as per the
version of the witnesses without any addition or omission on his part on
the same day i.e. on 3.6.2008. He also visited the scene of crime i.e.
office of the accused Vijay Bhardwaj situated at Mehrauli Road, opposite
SBI, Gurgaon. He also prepared the seizure-cum-observation memo
Ex.PW62/3, which bears his signature as well as the signature of CIO
and other officers and independent witness.
75.

The prosecution has further examined PW-63 D.M.Sharma,

DSP Interpol CBI New Delhi. This witness has deposed that during
June, 2008, he was posted as Inspector in Special Crime Branch, CBI,

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


64

New Delhi. A team was constituted by DIG, SCR-III for investigation of


this case as Chief IO of the case was Shri Nirbhay Kumar, Addl. SP. On
his instructions, he seized documents from Shri R.K.Singh, official of
Bharti Airtel Ltd. New Delhi in respect of mobile No.9818981809 vide
production-cum-seizure memo dated 9.6.2008 Ex.PW44/1, which bears
his signature. The details of the documents are mentioned in the memo
Ex.PW44/1.

He also seized documents pertaining to mobile

No.9818325454 from Shri R.K.Singh, official of Bharti Airtel Ltd. New


Delhi in respect of mobile No. 9818325454 vide production-cum-seizure
memo dated 9.6.2008 Ex.PW44/2, which bears his signature. The details
of the documents are mentioned in the memo Ex.PW44/2. He further
deposed

that

he

Nos.9811444999,

had

seized

9873919999,

documents

pertaining

9999998901,

to

9899999900

mobile
and

9811321030 from Shri Gulshan Arora, official of Vodafone, New Delhi


vide production-cum-seizure memo dated 10.6.2008 Ex.PW43/1, which
bears his signature. The details of the documents are mentioned in the
memo Ex.PW43/1. He further deposed that he also seized documents
pertaining to mobile Nos.9891181899, 9990050000 and mobile
No.9891781059 from Shri Rajesh Joginder Khana, official of Idea
Cellular Ltd. New Delhi vide production-cum-seizure memo dated
9.6.2008 Ex.PW39/1, which bears his signature. The details of the
documents are mentioned in the memo Ex.PW39/1. He also recorded the
statements of S/Shri R.K.Singh, Gulshan Arora and Pawan Kumar under

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


65

Section 161 Cr.P.C. correctly without any addition or omission on his part.
76.

The prosecution has further examined PW-64 Shri Pawan

Kumar, Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial


Magistrate, District Courts, Sirsa. This witness has deposed that on
11.6.2008, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Gurgaon. On
that day, one Krishan Kumar Gupta son of Lt. Shri Vishav Nath Shah was
produced before him by Inspector Sat Pal. An application was moved for
recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He was identified by
Inspector Satya Pal. A question was posed by him to Krishan Kumar
Gupta to ascertain voluntarily nature of his statement. In this regard, an
hour was given to think over. Presence of learned Public Prosecutor Shri
Atul Vashishth and Inspector Satya Pal was excluded. He further deposed
that after an hour, he further asked questions to Krishan Kumar Gupta if
he wants to make any statement and he replied in affirmative. It was
ascertained by him that he is making statement out of his own free will
without any threat, inducement or promise. After his satisfaction, he had
recorded his statement in his own hand-writing. After recording his
statement, his signatures were obtained by him and his statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. also bear his signature. It took about 40 minutes for
him to record his statement.The said statement is Ex.PW55/B. He had
passed order Ex.PW55/C which bears his signature. On left margin of his
aforesaid order, there is identification of Krishan Kumar duly identified
by Sat Pal, Inspector CBI. This margin also contained signature of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


66

Krishan Kumar, which were taken in his presence. On request of Inspector


Satya Pal, certified copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was
provided to him and the original was sealed by him in an envelope and
was sent back to learned CJM, Gurgaon.
77.

The prosecution has further examined PW-65 Shri Ram

Chander Garvan, DSP CBI Special Crime-III, Delhi. This witness has
deposed that in June, 2008, he was posted as Inspector CBI SCB, Delhi.
He received order from the SP, CBI to assist Shri Nirbhay Kumar, the then
Addl. SP CBI in investigation of RC No.4(S)/2008, SCB, Delhi. He
further deposed that during investigation, he recorded the statements of
Shri Ashok Kumar Paul Ex.PW47/1, Shri Vinod Kumar Ex.PW49/1 and
Pawan Kumar Garg Ex.PW45/1. He had recorded the above statements
correctly, without any addition or alteration as stated by them. He had also
correctly recorded the marked portions in Ex.PW47/1, Ex.PW49/1 and
Ex.PW45/1.
78.

The prosecution has further examined PW-66 Shri Arvind

Jaitley, Inspector CBI SC-II, New Delhi. This witness has deposed that
he was member of the investigation team of case RC No.4(S)/2008 and he
partly investigated the case as and when directed by the IO Shri Nirbhay
Kumar. During investigation, he recorded statements of Shri Sandeep
Sharma Ex.PW31/A and SI Sat Pal Singh of Delhi Police Ex.PW38/1
correctly as per the narration of the witnesses without any addition or
alteration.

He had also correctly recorded the marked portions in

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


67

Ex.PW31/A

and

Ex.PW38/1.

He

further

deposed

that

during

investigation, he also seized the CD pertaining to the interview of accused


Vijay Bhardwaj from Dharamvir Sharma, reporter Zee News on
16.06.2008. He further deposed that the memo pertaining to
seizure/handing over/taking over memo contained his signature. The CD
was played and a transcript of the interview was also prepared before
seizing and sealing the same. He further deposed that the transcript
Ex.PW46/2 contained his signature.
79.

The prosecution has further examined PW-67 Sat Pal,

Inspector CBI, New Delhi. This witness has deposed that in the year
2008, he was posted as Inspector in Special Crime Branch, CBI Delhi. He
further deposed that he was member of the investigation team and he
recorded the statements of Dr. Mukesh Ram Pal, HC Lillu Ram and
Sanjay Bhardwaj correctly without addition and alteration as told by
them. He also inspected the spot on 3.6.2008 along with other team
members and CFSL CPWD . He proved the seizure-cum-observation
memo Ex.PW62/3. He further deposed that he also got recorded the
statement of Shri Kishan Kumar Gupta under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He
further deposed that the application for getting the same recorded is
Ex.PW67/1 which is signed by him. He also identified Shri Kishan
Kumar Gupta and his signature in Ex.PW65/C.
80.

The prosecution has further examined PW-68 K.S.Negi,

Dy.SP CBI SC-III, New Delhi. This witness has deposed that in the year

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


68

2008, he was posted as Inspector in CBI, SCB-I branch, New Delhi. He


was part of the team which was formed to investigate the present case.
During investigation, he examined witnesses namely Kapil Bhardwaj son
of late Khushi Ram, shri Manmohan, Shri Jagpal Yadav @ Jaggu, Ravi
Sharma, Subhash Gurumata,

Suresh Setia, Vishal Nagra and Satish

Kumar and recorded their statements as told by them without any addition
or alteration. He also received one Union Bank of India cheque and two
slips regarding return of said cheque as unpaid due to insufficient funds
vide receipt memo Ex.PW68/1 from Mr. Ramesh Chand, which bears his
signature. He further deposed that the cheque NO.149872 dated 10.7.2007
is mark PW68/A and memos of insufficient funds are mark PW68/B and
PW68/C.
81.

The prosecution has further examined PW-69 Deepti

Umashankar, Joint Secretary, Services and Vigilance Deptt. of


Personnel & Training Govt. of India, New Delhi. This witness has
deposed that in August, 2008, she was posted as District Magistrate,
Gurgaon. She further deposed that in this case, a request was received
from Superintendent of Police, CBI for grant of sanction for prosecution
under Section 39 of the Arms Act against accused Vijay Bhardwaj for
commission of offence under Section

25/27 of Arms Act. She

had

perused the records including documents and statements of witnesses as


well as FSL report and also their official record and proved sanction
order Ex.PW69/1 which bears her signature.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


69

82.

The prosecution has further examined PW-70

Kumar, SP Economic Offences-II, CBI, Delhi.

Nirbhay

This witness has

deposed that in June, 2008, he was posted as Additional Superintendent


of Police in Special Crime Branch, CBI, Delhi. He further deposed that in
June, 2008, he was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police in
Special Crime Branch, CBI, Delhi. Pursuant to the notifications issued by
Govt. of Haryana under Section 6 of DSPE Act and Govt. of India under
Section 5 of DSPE Act, the FIR bearing no.4(S)/2008 dated 2.6.2008 was
registered in SCB-1 CBI New Delhi and the investigation was entrusted to
him. He recognized the signatures of the then SP Shri SJM Gillani on FIR
which is Ex.PW70/1. After the registration of the case, a team was
constituted for assisting him during the course of investigation and it
comprised of S/Shri Inspector K.S.Negi, Ramesh Kumar, Layak Ram,
Satpal, R.K.Jha etc. etc. for the inspection of scene of crime by forensic
experts, services of CFSL experts, independent witnesses and CPWD
officials were requisitioned. On 3.6.2008, the scene of crime was
inspected and at the instance of CFSL team, blood samples found at the
scene of crime were collected. The seizure-cum-observation memo
regarding this inspection and seizure was prepared and the same is
Ex.PW62/3. He recognized his

signature. On the same day, it was

informed that HC Sher Singh has collected the opinion and the exhibits of
FSL experts related to this case and accordingly, he was directed to report
to him in the office. The said FSL report and exhibits were seized vide a

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


70

production-cum-receipt memo which is Ex.PW70/2. He recognize his


signature on the last page of memo. The case property of this case which
was seized from the local police was sent to CFSL vide letter dated
5.6.2008 on which he identified the signature of the then SP. The letter is
Ex.PW70/4. During the course of inspection of scene of crime, the
CPWD experts prepared a scaled site plan of the scene of crime which is
Ex.PW70/3 which bears his signature. Vide letter dated 6.6.2008
addressed to Director FSL, Madhuban Karnal (Haryana), the pending
opinion of the experts were sought by the then SP Shri S.J.M.Gillani. This
letter is Ex.PW70/5. During the course of investigation, the statements of
various witnesses which included the friends and family members of the
accused, the local police officials who had conducted the investigation of
this case, those who were aware of the business and monetary dealings of
the accused with the deceased and other persons etc. were recorded. The
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Shri Krishan Kumar,
servant of accused Vijay Bhardwaj was also got recorded during the
course of investigation. The FSL reports were also collected and taken on
record in this case. After the collection of relevant material, the CBI
findings were placed before the Deputy Commissioner, District Gurgaon,
Haryana vide letter dated 18/19.6.2008 by Shri SJM Gillani, the then SP
CBI whose signature he recognize of this letter which is Ex.PW70/6.
Vide this letter, the sanction for prosecution in respect of commission of
offences under Arms Act was sought. The sanction so received was

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


71

submitted later-on in the court. On the basis of material collected in this


case, a charge-sheet was filed against accused Vijay Bhardwaj which is
Ex.PW70/7 on which he recognize his signature. Inspector Ramesh
Kumar who was part of the team and had partly investigated the matter.
He had recorded the statements of witnesses namely S/Shri Lakhan Pal,
Anil Kumar, Purushotam, Jaivir, Ashok Kumar, Anshul Maheshwari,
Bhagwan Dass, Mahesh Kumar, Ramesh Kataria, Harbhajan Singh,
Dharambir Sharma, Krishan Kumar Gupta, Shambir Singh, Dharmender
Sachdev, Dharamvir Sagar, Sumit Kumar, ACP, ASI Sobha Ram, Jawahar
Singh ASI, Rajender Singh, Kanwar Singh, HC Satish Kumar, Manoj
Kumar, Constable Bhagwan, Rajesh Kumar, Ramesh Kumar etc. etc.
correctly and without any addition or alteration. He identified his
signature on all the statements recorded by him and referred here-inbefore. He had also taken in possession documents vide memo dated
4.6.2008 Ex.PW70/8, memo dated 9.6.2008 Ex.PW2/1 and memo dated
11.6.2008 Ex.PW70/9. He recognized the signature of Shri Ramesh
Kumar on these memos.
83.

After closing the evidence of the prosecution, statement of

accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.


84.

Calling upon to lead defence evidence, the accused examined

DW-1 Shri Suresh Kumar, Constable No.3666, PS Civil Lines,


Gurgaon. This witness has deposed that he has brought the FIR register
of Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon containing FIR No.390 dated

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


72

19.12.2007 under Sections 420,467,468,471 IPC. After investigation, the


charge-sheet was filed in the court at Gurgaon. The accused was acquitted
vide order dated 1.7.2009 passed by the court of Shri D.N.Bhardwaj,
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon. The true photo copy of the FIR
and result thereof is Ex.DW1/A which is correct as per the register which
he has brought. As per record, no appeal was filed against the judgment
dated 01.07.2009.
85.

Accused has examined DW-2 Vikram Paul Senior

Executive Legal Department ABP News Network Pvt. Ltd. Noida.


This witness has deposed that he is working in ABP News since 26th
February, 2014. Earlier ABP News was known as Star News. He further
deposed that in the year 2012, Star News was changed to Media Content
& Communications Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and now again, since
January 2015,it is now known as ABP News Network Pvt. Ltd. In the year
2008, Star News covered and telecast footage relating to murder of ACP
Rajbir Singh. It was telecasted on 25.3.2008. Whatever was covered the
same is contained in CD Ex.DW2/1. This CD has been prepared from
their computer system and its contents are true re-production of the
original. He further deposed that certificate under Section 65B(4) of The
Evidence Act, 1872 duly signed by him is Ex.DW2/2.
86.

Accused has further examined DW-3 Hem Raj Negi son

of Shri Hari Singh, Chief Librarian, Zee News, Film City Noida. This
witness has deposed that he has brought the recording of case pertaining

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


73

to murder of ACP Rajbir Singh and this recording pertains to 25.3.2008.


He further deposed that initial recording was made at 3.00 a.m. on
25.03.2008 and thereafter, it continued whole day. He further deposed that
they retained the clipping of news telecast broad-casted on Zee News and
rest of the recording has been destroyed. He further deposed that the
recording which was in his library has been brought by him. He proved
the aforesaid CD as Ex.DW3/A. He further deposed that the aforesaid CD
is truly reflecting the recording of events and has not been tampered with.
87.

Accused has further examined DW-4 Shri Ram Swaroop,

SI Office of DCP Special Cell Lodhi Road, New Delhi. This witness has
deposed that no departmental inquiry is pending in their office against
ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). He has also brought letter dated
25.3.2015 from Vigilance office of Deputy Commissioner Delhi. He
further deposed that no complaint, application and inquiry was ever
initiated against ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). He produced the
relevant record relating to record summoned by him. He further deposed
that the record before the year 2010 has been destroyed and he is deposing
as per the record available from record 2011 onwards. He has also brought
the record pertaining to destruction of record prior to 2010.

ARGUMENTS OF LD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


88.

It was argued by learned PP, quite vehemently, that during

trial, it was not disputed by the accused that the dead body of deceased

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


74

ACP Rajbir Singh was found in shop-cum-office of the accused. It is also


admitted during trial that the offence i.e. murder of ACP Rajbir Singh was
committed in the aforesaid office-cum-shop owned by the accused.
89.

He further argued that the prosecution has examined PW-55

Krishan Kumar, servant of accused. This witness has categorically


deposed that deceased ACP Rajbir Singh had visited the shop-cum-office
of the accused on 24.3.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. In this regard, no crossexamination was conducted by counsel for the accused and thus, this fact
is admitted by the accused that the deceased visited the place of
occurrence as claimed by the prosecution. In order to fortify the aforesaid
facts, the learned PP further pointed out that the prosecution has examined
PW-27 HC Lillu Ram, who was PSO of deceased. By the statement of
aforesaid witness, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that on
24.3.2008, PW-27 Lillu Ram was accompanying him and after leaving
ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) at the office of accused, PW-27 Head
Constable Lillu Ram had parked the vehicle at some distance.
90.

He further argued that the prosecution has examined PW-51

Dharambir Sharma, a correspondent from Zee News TV. This witness has
deposed that the accused had contacted him and informed him that murder
of ACP Rajbir Singh has been committed in his office and the accused
want to surrender. Thus, it is clear that accused had contacted PW-51
Dharambir Sharma, a correspondent of Zee News. In order to fortify the
aforesaid fact, the prosecution has produced call details of mobile

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


75

No.9811444999 which in fact was used by accused. This fact is clear from
the photographs produced by the prosecution that sign board of shop of
accused found mentioned aforesaid mobile number. Thus, the contact of
accused with PW-51 Dharambir Sharma is fortified by record.
91.

Learned PP further argued that in order to succeed, the

prosecution has examined numerous prosecution witnesses as to what was


the motive available with the accused to commit murder of ACP Rajbir
Singh. He argued that there was money dealings between accused and
deceased. In this regard, the prosecution has examined various witnesses
namely PW-28 Jawahar Singh, PW-32 Dharamvir Sagar, PW-52 Manoj
Shikarwar, PW-26 Constable Shibu, PW-51 Dharambir Sharma, PW-40
Sumit Kumar, DSP, PW-30 Shyambir Singh, Advocate, PW-16 Pardeep
Kumar. All of them have categorically deposed that accused was in arrears
of huge amount and he was not in a position to repay the same. As far as
money dealings between accused and ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased)
is concerned, the prosecution has produced clinching evidence. The
prosecution has proved a CD Ex.PW46/1, the transcript of which is
Ex.PW46/2, in which accused was admitting that he had to pay around
50-60 lacs to the deceased. This version came just after the occurrence.
He also argued that suicide note Ex.PW17/8, which was proved to be in
handwriting of accused, goes to reflect that he was in arrears of money.
This suicide note also refers to RB and this RB is Rajbir Singh (since
deceased). He also argued that statement of account of accused Vijay

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


76

Bhardwaj clearly established that he was running in losses. Thus, the


admission of the accused in this regard is sufficient to conclude that ACP
Rajbir Singh was demanding lacs of rupees from the accused. Another
fact which adds fuel to the fire in this case is that the deceased was
considered as encounter specialist. He was in Delhi police. In these
circumstances, accused wants to get rid of deceased ACP Rajbir Singh
and it was relevant and strong motive available with the accused to
commit murder of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). Learned PP has
pointedly drawn attention of the court on the statement of PW-47 Ashok
Pal and argued that statement of this witness is clear enough to establish
money dealings between ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) and accused.
He also argued that in view of the statement of PW-28 ASI Jawahar
Singh, it is clear that ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) had threatened
accused 5-6 days earlier to the date of occurrence as the accused was not
returning back money.
92.

Learned PP further urged that by previous and subsequent

conduct of accused, his involvement in the crime is established. In this


regard, he emphatically argued that just after and before commission of
crime, accused had contacted PW-16 Pardeep Kumar. The prosecution has
examined PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar, a police official of Gurgaon police.
This witness has deposed that at about 11.00 a.m. on 24.3.2008 accused
contacted him and showed his willingness to surrender in a case
pertaining to the previous FIR in which PW-16 Pardeep Kumar was

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


77

Investigating Officer. As per testimony of PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar, he


was investigating a criminal case filed against present accused by PW-32
Dharambir Sagar. He has deposed that in the year 2007, he was posted at
Police Post Civil Lines, Gurgaon. In the month of November, 2007, a
complaint was received in his police station moved by PW-32 Dharamvir
Sagar. As per contents of complaint, accused Vijay Bhardwaj cheated
Dharamvir Sagar PW-32 and amount involved was Rs.32-33 lacs. After
filing of FIR, he had called both the parties but no compromise was
affected. During the aforesaid investigation, the accused as well as
complainant were given mobile number of this witness. Thus, the mobile
phone of PW-16 Pardeep Kumar ASI was available with accused. This
witness has also deposed that he had received a telephonic call from
accused at about 9.20 p.m. and accused had inquired about jurisdiction of
his police station in which his office-cum-shop falls. On this, PW-16
Pardeep Kumar informed that the shop of accused falls within the
jurisdiction of Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon and phone was
disconnected thereafter. He has also deposed that he again received a call
from accused and it was disclosed by accused that he had shot a person
and his dead body was lying in his office and he wants to surrender before
the police. On receipt of this information, PW-16 Pardeep Kumar lodged
FIR No.117 dated 24.3.2008 and thereafter the investigation started.
93.

Learned PP further contended that the accused was arrested

in this case and during interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


78

Ex.PW16/5 on 26.3.2008. In his disclosure statement, accused disclosed


that revolver which was being used in the crime, was kept concealed by
him in bushes near Japanese Hotel and he can get the same recovered. The
weapon of offence revolver along with two live cartridges and two
cartridge cases were got recovered by the accused which was taken into
police possession by SI Krishan Dev PW-17. The recovery of weapon of
offence is admissible in evidence.
In addition to that, learned PP further contended that scene of
crime team had visited the place of occurrence on 25.3.2008 at about
3.00/4.00 p.m. From the scene of crime, two projectile bullets were
recovered. During investigation, the revolver recovered at the instance of
accused as well as bullets were sent to CFSL and in this regard, the
prosecution has proved report of expert Ex.PW60/1. This fact is
established by the aforesaid report that projectile bullets recovered from
the place of occurrence were fired from the revolver got recovered by the
accused. By the aforesaid circumstantial evidence, the involvement of
accused is proved. Learned PP also argued that after the occurrence, the
accused was arrested by the police and during investigation, his shoes and
shirt were recovered. The shoes and shirt were taken into police
possession and were sent to FSL Madhuban and in this regard, report of
expert Ex.PW56/1 was produced on court file. From the aforesaid report,
it is clear that shoe of accused was found to be stained with human blood.
This is also a factor to establish that shoe of accused was stained with

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


79

human blood and there is no evidence on part of the accused that there
was any chance of staining shoe of the accused by other means. No injury
on the person of accused was found or claimed. Therefore, from the
aforesaid fact, the presence of accused on the scene of crime is
established. He also argued that as per aforesaid report, it is clear that shirt
of accused was found to be stained with gun powder residue and it is
established beyond reasonable doubt that accused in fact used a gun and
this fact clearly establish that the offence was committed only by the
accused. In these circumstances, no different probable opinion can be
framed.
94.

Learned PP furthermore argued that as far as cause of death

of Rajbir Singh ACP is concerned, the prosecution has examined PW-12


Dr. Mukesh Rampal and PW-13 Dr. S.K.Sharma, who had conducted
autopsy. As per postmortem report Ex.PW12/12, it is clear that ACP
Rajbir Singh died on account of gun shot injuries. As far as probability of
use of weapon is concerned, no doubt initially the concerned doctor had
given opinion that weapon used was of smooth bore but subsequently on
further probe it was opined by the doctor that arm used was rifle and not
smooth bore. He also argued that court can come to independent
conclusion by perusal of observations of the doctor, who had conducted
autopsy. If the injuries are considered, it is clear that the entry wound was
from back side of the head and exit wound was from the front side of the
head. The nature of injuries found clearly establish that the same was

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


80

caused by rifled weapon. Thus, it is also clear that deceased died of the
injuries caused by rifled arm .32 bore revolver which was recovered from
the accused.
95.

Learned PP also argued that even though, the defence has

tried to create a scene that some unknown persons had entered into the
office of accused and chances of deceased being murdered by those
persons may be there. However this fact has not been proved by the
defence by cross-examination or by examining defence witnesses. He also
argued that PW-55 Krishan Kumar, servant of the accused was in toe with
the accused and claimed in his statement that he had seen two persons
entering into office of the accused but this statement of PW-55 Krishan
Kumar is not reliable. If act and conduct of this witness is to be
considered, it is clear that he is inclined to support the accused by all
means. In case this witness found two visitors entering into the office of
the accused, why he did not inform accused is quite strange. Except this
witness, there was no person to say that any one other than the accused
entered into the office of accused who could be instrumental in killing
ACP Rajbir Singh.
96.

Learned PP also contended that the accused has relied upon

CD Ex.DW2/1. This CD contains statement/ interview of the accused and


relied upon by the accused. It is clearly visible and audible from the
statement of accused that he has committed murder. In aforesaid CD,
accused is admitting that he was in debt to deceased Rajbir Singh and was

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


81

not in a position to pay back the money. Being afraid, he hit upon a plan
to eliminate ACP Rajbir Singh. With aforesaid motive, he fired two shots
on ACP Rajbir Singh and caused his death. Therefore, the aforesaid
evidence is sufficient in nature to convict the accused.
97.

He argued that the prosecution has tried to create an impression

by cross-examination of witness that in fact accused had not committed


the crime, rather by seeing the dead body, he was under fear as well as
threat to his life and therefore, he wanted to give his interview and to be
confined in jail. But this defence is not plausible. Had the accused being
not perpetrator of the crime, he could have informed the police or the
security personnel employed in escort duty of Rajbir Singh (since
deceased). As well as not hearing gun shot is concerned, the place of
occurrence is situated at busy road. Gurgaon is a place where many
vehicles ply on the road causing great noise. In addition to that, officecum-shop of accused was having glass panes, therefore the sound of the
gun shot might not have been heard by PSOs, who were in the vehicle
parked near petrol pump as well as not joining the family persons of the
deceased is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that any one of
them were present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, they were not
necessary witnesses. He also argued that at the fag end of trial, when PW55 Krishan Kumar Gupta, the then servant of accused, was examined. It
was cross-examined with him to show that there are chances of some
person other than the accused to visit the place of occurrence. During trial,

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


82

no such question was ever asked by any of the material witnesses. Even
though, PW-55 Krishan Kumar Gupta has turned hostile but his statement
is to be seen in its entirety. His statement clearly reveals that he had
improved the version to show that there were chances to visit another
person to office-sum-shop of accused. If statement of PW-55 Krishan
Kumar Gupta is considered, he has deposed that he was instructed by
accused to leave the office. It is quite strange that he could not give any
description of the person, who were allegedly visitor of the shop-cumoffice. It is quite strange that as per statement of this witness, accused had
directed him not to leave the office but he left the office as per his
statement given in the court. This witness has catapulted to support the
accused. Even other wise, this witness has deposed that after taking
permission from the accused, he left the office leaving ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased) there. While going, he saw two persons going to the
shop. But strange enough he did not ask any person as to why they have
visited the shop-cum-office of accused. There, they were overpowered by
accused. This witness has lost his credibility. This witness resiled from his
statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The only reason given by him
to resile from his statement is that he was tutored by CBI and was taken in
illegal detention. Therefore, such type of witness could not be believed
regarding the facts deposed by him in favour of the accused.
98.

Learned PP pointedly drawn attention of the court towards

the fact that accused and deceased were found together in office-cum-

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


83

shop of the accused at any time. As per statement of PW-27 HC Lillu


Ram, he had noticed that accused was entering into his office-cum-shop.
The prosecution has also proved that the deceased had received a call on
his mobile phone at about 8.46 p.m. and this fact is proved by call detail
Ex.PW43/7. Thus, it is clear that accused entered into his office-cum-shop
at 8.30 p.m. and from 8.30 p.m. to 8.46 p.m., the accused and deceased
were in company of each other and thereafter at about 9.20 p.m., accused
himself for the first time claimed that dead body of ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased) was found in his office-cum-shop. He also argued that
the aforesaid denying completely turns onus upon deceased to prove that
how ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) died in his office being shot dead.
99.

He also argued that the aforesaid theory is duly fortified by

the fact that weapon with which the deceased was shot dead was
recovered at the instance of accused. As per report of Ballistic Expert, the
bullet used which caused death of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was
fired from the revolver which was got recovered from the accused.
Consequently, the last seen found theory in company of each other is duly
fortified by recovery of weapon used in the crime. Therefore, this
evidence is sufficient enough to convict the accused. Learned PP also
argued that even if last seen found theory does not appeal to the courts the
recovery of weapon at the instance of accused, which was used for the
crime is a scientific circumstantial evidence, which unerringly points
towards the guilt of accused and therefore also on basis of this piece of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


84

circumstantial evidence, accused may be held guilty. To buttress his


contentions, learned PP relied upon

Nisar Khan Vs. State of

Uttaranchal (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 386; Rajasthan Housing


Board through its Chairman Vs. Shivraj Singh Bhandari (2006) 9
Supreme Court Cases 390; State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and
another (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 652; Federal Bank Ltd. Vs.
V.M.Jog Engineering Ltd. and others (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases
663 and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh (1999) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 370.

ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE COUNSEL


100.

To the contrary, learned defence counsel staunchly argued

that there was no motive available with the accused to commit murder of
ACP Rajbir Singh. He argued that there is not an iota of evidence
available on file, by which it may be inferred by the court that deceased
Rajbir Singh in his lifetime had given money to the accused. PWs
examined in this regard did not support the case of the prosecution.
Statements of PW-2 Purshottam, PW-3 Anil Malik, PW-4 Om Parkash,
PW-5 Jaibir Singh, PW-6 Ashok Kumar, PW-8 Bhagwan Prashad, PW-9
Mahesh Yadav, PW-10 Mukesh Kumar, PW-11 Ramesh Kataria does not
support the case of the prosecution. The aforesaid witnesses were
examined by the prosecution to prove that the accused was in arrears of
money. However, some of the witnesses did not support the case of the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


85

prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. The aforesaid


witnesses have helped the accused because some of them have stated that
the accused was taking money from them and was returning periodically
without any fault. These witnesses have also deposed that accused was
having good reputation in business circle and he was giving high return to
his investors and his dealings were fair. In these circumstances, no motive
was available with the accused to commit murder of ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased). He on the basis of his aforesaid arguments, urged that in
absence of motive evidence based upon circumstantial evidence lost its
significance. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any motive
was available with the accused to commit murder of ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased).
101.

He also argued that as per statement of PW-17 SI Krishan

Dev, there was a street light at the place of incident when he was visiting
the office-cum-shop of the accused in the intervening night of 24.03.2008
and thus, he was able to see that blood was oozing from office-cum-shop
of the accused. Contrary to it, other witnesses have deposed that there was
no electricity at that time. This goes to reflect that PW-17 SI Krishan Dev
or PW-16 Pardeep Kumar were telling lies and they were got up
witnesses. He also argued that as per inquest proceedings started at 3.00
a.m. In presence of PW-27 HC Lillu Ram and PW-28 ASI Jawahar Singh.
However, when both of them have appeared in the witness-box, they have
deposed that from midnight to 7.00 p.m. on 25.03.2008, they were in PS

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


86

city Gurgaon. This clearly reveals that both of them are got up witnesses.
He also argued that none of the prosecution witnesses have proved a fact
that accused was in arrears. Nothing has been brought on file that after
bouncing of alleged cheque, any suit or criminal complaint was filed. PW51 Dharambir Sharma did not support the case of the prosecution. PW-32
Dharamvir Sagar did not support the case of the prosecution. Both the
aforesaid witnesses were arrayed by prosecution to prove a fact that
accused was in arrears of huge amount. He also argued that statement of
PW-28 ASI Jawahar Singh that Rajbir Singh (since deceased) had given
threat to accused is an after thought improvement because no such fact
found mention in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
102.

Learned defence counsel staunchly argued that medical

evidence completely belies involvement of accused in this case. The


weapon alleged to be recovered in this case was having rifled barrel,
whereas autopsy report shows that weapon used was smooth bore
weapon. As per statement of PW-12 Dr. Mukesh Rampal and PW-13 Dr.
S.K.Sharma, the entry wound was on forehead and exit wound was on
back side. Later on, PW-13 Dr. S.K.Sharma has changed his opinion and
as per his subsequent opinion, the weapon used was rifled barrel and entry
wound was on back side and exit wound was on front side. In this regard,
he argued that the reason of divergent opinion in this case was on account
of the reason that weapon has been planted by the police or the weapon
recovered was not in fact used for the crime. He also argued that as per

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


87

statement of PW-13 Dr. S.K.Sharma and PW-60 Dr. R.K.Kaushal, the


weapon was used with point blank range. In such type of firing, it is
highly improbable that cloths of person firing does not found stains of
blood. As per report of CFSL, no blood stains were found on shirt of the
accused. He also argued that as per contention of prosecution, two bullets
were fired. Out of those, two bullets, one missed and second hit. It is quite
improbable that in case one fire is missed, the deceased who was in such a
profession, his attention will be attracted but in this case there was no
resistance on part of deceased ACP Rajbir Singh. Learned defence counsel
further argued that as per photographs, taken on scene of crime, blood was
found on walls. Thus, it is clear that the position of accused when he
would have fired from behind, he will in between the chair occupied by
deceased Rajbir Singh and the wall behind. Thus, certainly in such
circumstances, the shirt of accused was to be stained with blood but
strange enough no stains were found on shirt of the accused. Similarly,
learned defence counsel argued that as per evidence available on file,
there was distance of approx. 2 and 2 ft. between the chair and the wall.
As per statement of PW-60 R.K.Kaushal, the blood stains were found on
the wall at the height of 4-5 ft. and in such circumstances, when a person
was sitting on a chair and was fired at from behind, certainly the person
holding the weapon must be effected with sprinkling of blood. In light of
aforesaid arguments, it was emphatically argued by learned defence
counsel that theory of recovery of weapon, tallying of weapon with

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


88

injuries is crude plantation by the police.


103.

It was argued by learned defence counsel that the basis of

present case is pure concoction. PW-16 ASI Pradeep Kumar has stated
that at about 11.20 pm, he received phone from accused and it was
disclosed by the accused that he has committed murder. But by no stretch
of imagination this witness is reliable. He is a got-up witness and used as
author of FIR. He argued that as per statement of PW-27 Lillu Ram and
PW-28 Jawahar Singh, they came to know about this incident at about
10.30 pm and reached at the place of occurrence within 10-15 minutes
and found police there. If these two witnesses are to be believed, the
police was already having knowledge of commission of crime, much prior
to 10.30 pm. Therefore, the contention of PW-16 ASI Pradeep Kumar that
he received information of commission of crime at 11.20 pm and
thereafter FIR was lodged is pure concoction.
104.

Learned defence counsel furthermore argued that the

investigating team has fabricated the facts. No doubt some embroidery is


natural by the witnesses which may be allowed. However, in this case
while making embroidery the prosecution witnesses have torn the cloth
even. He further argued that as per statement of SHO Tahir Hussain (PW19) he was present in the Police Station itself before 12.00 night.
However, PW-12 ASI Mukesh Ram Pal and PW-17 SI Krishan Dev have
categorically deposed that at the time of recording FIR, PW-19 SHO Tahir
Hussain was not present in the Police Station and came later on.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


89

Therefore, the prosecution has come with two versions and consequently,
by the court the version which is favourable to the accused is to be
considered. He also argued that the statement of PW-16 ASI Pradeep
Kumar and PW-17 Krishan Dev Sub-Inspector are so inconsistent with
each other that complete story of prosecution has becomes doubtful. He
further argued that as per statement of PW-16 ASI Pradeep Kumar, at the
time of his visit, he found that there was light in the shop of the accused
which is the place of occurrence and he found a man lying on the floor.
At about 12.40 night, accused Vijay Bhardwaj surrendered in PS City
Gurgaon and subsequently, he was taken into custody by the PS Civil
Lines Gurgaon. As far as arrest of accused is concerned, PW-17 Krishan
Dev Sub-Inspector has deposed that he did not go to Police Station City
Gurgaon in night and went there at 6.00 am and then accused was arrested
by him. Contrary to it, PW-40 Sumit Kumar DSP has deposed that the
accused was apprehended by him and from there he had taken the accused
to place of occurrence and handed over to the police. If the arrest of
accused is false, the place of arrest of accused is false. It is a factor which
leans towards the accused and accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
105.

It was also urged by learned defence counsel that there is

material contradictions between statement of PW-16 Pardeep, PW-17 SI


Krishan Dev and PW-40 ACP Sumit Kumar. In the light of aforesaid
arguments, learned defence counsel pointedly argued that as per statement
of PW-40

ACP Sumit, accused was arrested at 11.00 p.m. on 24.3.2008

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


90

by him and from that point of time, the accused was taken to the place of
occurrence and handed over to the police. Contrary to it, PW-17 Krishan
Dev, PW-16

Pardeep Kumar deposed that accused was arrested on

25.03.2008 at about 6.00/7.00 a.m. in PS City Gurgaon. In view of the


aforesaid contradictions, the time and place of arrest is highly doubtful
and if it is so, the fact of further investigation conducted by the police
becomes doubtful.
106.

He also argued that as per statement of PW-16 ASI Pradeep

Kumar, the car of accused was taken into possession in evening hours
whereas the statement of PW-17 Krishan Dev Sub-Inspector, the car was
taken into possession at 7.00 am. It is claimed by the prosecution that
shoe of accused was stained with blood which was taken into possession
but strange enough, the car used by the accused was not subjected to any
analysis to unearth that there was any blood-stains in the car. No footprint
of shoe of accused was found in the shop or stains. No mould was taken.
Therefore, the story of shoe of accused being stained with blood is an
afterthought version of the police to create evidence. He further argued
that PW16 ASI Pradeep Kumar has deposed that the recoveries were
affected from the place of occurrence before team of Forensic reached
there whereas PW-17 Sub-Inspector Krishan Dev deposed that recoveries
were affected after arrival of team of scene of crime. Therefore, also the
story of prosecution becomes unreliable.
107.

Learned defence counsel also argued that the prosecution

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


91

has claimed that shirt and shoe of the accused were taken into possession
on 25.03.2008 whereas first police remand does not show that any
recovery from the accused was affected. He also argued that alleged
recovery of weapon is from an open place accessible to common public
and recovery from such a place does not inspire confidence. Regarding
recovery of weapon learned defence counsel pointed out that as claimed
by the prosecution the accused had surrendered himself and thus, there
was every occasion to produce the weapon at the time of surrender.
Learned defence counsel pointed that in fact the recovery memo of gun
was prepared on 25.03.2008 by making alteration in recovery memo, it is
shown to have been affected on 26.03.2008. He also argued that PW-16
ASI Pradeep Kumar had deposed that he received numerous calls from
the accused but fact of receiving call was not incorporated in DDR. He
further argued that in view of statement PW-40 Sumit Kumar DSP
Headquarter, the accused was apprehended by him when he was giving
interview to press on 24.03.2008 at about 11.30 pm and from there he was
taken to shop-cum-office and there he was handed over to

the

Investigating Officer after few minutes. Thus, accused was already


arrested at 11.30 pm on 24.03.2008 but the police had shown false arrest
of accused on 25.03.2008 at 7.00 am and this exercise was conducted by
the police to show that the shoe of accused was stained with blood.
Contrary to the statement of PW-40 DSP Sumit Kumar, PW-17 Krishan
Dev Sub-Inspector has deposed that information was received from the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


92

side of DSP Sumit Kumar at 6.30 am and it was informed that the accused
was present at Police Station City Gurgaon. Learned defence counsel
further argued that there are material omissions in the statement of PW-16
ASI Pradeep Kumar and PW-17 SI Krishan Dev and these material
omissions amounts to material improvement. If the statement of PW-16
ASI Pradeep Kumar is considered in its perspective, it is clear that he had
not visited the place of occurrence at any point of time. The statement
given by him in the court, does not found any reference in his statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C and therefore, statement of this witness could
not be believed. He also argued as per statement of PW-16 ASI Pradeep
Kumar, the team of Ballistic Expert (scene of crime) reached at the place
of occurrence and thereafter, the case property was seized from the place
of occurrence at 4.00 pm on next day. Contrary to it, PW-17 Krishan Dev
Sub-Inspector and Tahir Hussain SHO (PW-19) reached at the place of
occurrence at about 12.00 midnight and thereafter, seizure was affected.
He also urged that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the
accused ever used car. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the fact
raises a finger on recovery of revolver in question. Probability is that
alleged weapon of offence was taken into possession from the spot of
murder and subsequently, the documents were prepared to show that
recovery was affected from the accused.
108.

Learned defence counsel staunchly argued that last seen

theory propounded by the prosecution has not been proved. No evidence

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


93

has been led in this regard that accused and deceased were seen alive
together before the incident. Thus, last seen theory fails. He also argued
that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused and the deceased were seen alive by any witness in
company of each other. The evidence adduced by prosecution is quite
shaky and untrustworthy. To strengthen his arguments, learned defence
counsel relied upon following authorities:
1975 CAR 264 Supreme Court of India Ram Narain, Jaggar Singh &
Ors Vs. State of Punjab; AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1924 Subhash and
Another Vs. State of U.P.; 2015(1) Criminal Court Cases 221 (S.C.)
Mahamadkhan Nathekhan Vs. State of Gujarat ; 2013(1) RCR
(Criminal) 17 Madan Lal and Another Vs. State of Punjab; 2015(3)
RCR (Criminal) 342 Indra Dalal Vs. State of Haryana; 2015(2) RCR
(Criminal) 452 Nagaraj Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Salem
Town, Tamil Nadu; 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 744 Prakash Vs. State of
Karnataka; 2015(1) RCR (Criminal) 678 Tomaso Bruno and Another
Vs. State of U.P.

FINDINGS OF COURT
109.

In order to decide this case, it is essential as well as

expedient to go in flash back to ascertain status of accused, status of


deceased, their relations inter se, as well as the mental state of accused or
deceased much prior to the date of alleged murder. In my opinion the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


94

aforesaid exercise is required to understand and to unearth as to what


were the conditions prevailing on the day of alleged murder.
110.

As far as status of deceased is concerned, it is not disputed

by the parties that he was ACP in Delhi Police. As claimed by the defence,
deceased was an encounter specialist. It is also not disputed that some
special protection was given to him by Delhi Police. This fact is clear
from the statement of PW-26 Constable Shibu, PW-27 HC Lilu Ram, PW28 ASI Jawahar Singh,

PW-33 HC Padam Singh, PW-34 Constable

Surinder Kumar, PW-35 ASI Surinder Pal and PW-57 Rajiv Mishra.
Aforesaid witnesses were employed in Delhi Police and they were
escorting and giving protection to deceased ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased). Thus to my mind, this fact is clear that ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased) was availing special status in Delhi Police. No doubt
documentary evidence pertaining to ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased)
being encounter specialist is not available on file, but the accused himself
has claimed that he was as such.
111.

As far as economic/business status of deceased ACP

Rajbir Singh (since deceased) is concerned, ample evidence is available


on file that he was dealing in some business and was residing at Delhi
with her second wife named Mrs. Rekha Sengur. The prosecution has
examined PW-45 Pawan Kumar Garg, Chartered Accountant, who has
deposed that deceased deals in business. He was dealing with property
business and company and from that business he wants to shift his money

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


95

in shares. This fact is elicited by PW-47 Ashok Pal who has deposed that
deceased was running a company. Likewise, PW-49 Vinod Kumar has
deposed that deceased had business dealings. Thus, from the aforesaid
facts, there is no doubt that deceased in addition to his professional career
as a Police Officer was dealing with various businesses for earning profit.
The deceased was having business relations with accused and this fact is
also proved by various witnesses. Especially, PW-47 Ashok Pal

has

deposed that one occasion accused Vijay Bhardwaj gave Rs.30 lacs to
deceased. The prosecution has examined PW-26 Constable Shibu from
Delhi police. This witness has deposed that ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased) and accused Vijay Bhardwaj were visiting each other very
frequently. He has also deposed that he had visited office of Vijay
Bhardwaj along-with Rajbir Singh (since deceased). On one occasion,
accused and deceased had visited the liquor bar and when they came out,
ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) handed over to him one polythene bag
which contains money and said money was carried by ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased) to his house after putting the same in briefcase. The
prosecution has also examined PW-28 ASI Jawahar Singh. This witness
has also deposed that accused Vijay Bhardwaj and ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased) had visited each other very frequently.
112.

As far as status of accused is concerned, it is not disputed

by the defence that he was not a property dealer. No cross-examination


has been conducted by defence as well as no defence witness has been

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


96

summoned to prove that accused Vijay Bhardwaj was not a property


dealer rather he was earning from any other source. It is also clear from
the evidence adduced by the prosecution that accused Vijay Bhardwaj was
running property dealing business, for that purpose he was maintaining an
office under name and style of Vijay Bhardwaj & Associates at
Gurgaon, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon. The prosecution has also examined
PW-1 Jasbir Singh , PW-2 Purshottam, PW-3 Anil Malik, PW-4 Om
Parkash, PW-5 Jaibir Singh, PW-6 Ashok Kumar, PW-9 Mahesh Yadav,
PW-30 Shambir Singh Advocate, Gurgaon, PW-32 Dharamvir Sagar, PW48 Ravi Sharma. By examining aforesaid witnesses, there are no chances
of doubt that all the aforesaid persons were having dealings with accused
Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj regarding properties of various kinds like shops,
houses, plots etc. etc. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that accused Vijay
Kumar Bhardwaj was running the said business from long time before
2008.
113.

As far as relations between accused and deceased prior to

day of occurrence is concerned, I am of the absolute opinion that the same


were cordial as both of them were doing good in their business relations.
The prosecution has examined numerous witnesses to prove the aforesaid
facts. Out of them, PW-27 HC Lillu Ra, PW-28 ASI Jawahar Singh, PW33 Padam Singh, PW-34 Constable Surender Kumar and PW-57
Constable Rajiv Mishra, all from Delhi police have collectively deposed
that accused Vijay Bhardwaj and ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) were

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


97

frequently visiting each other at his office-cum-shop and residence. They


were having money transactions with each other. By passage of time,
accused Vijay Bhardwaj started losing his grip on his business of property
dealing. Likewise, deceased Rajbir Singh was disillusioned from the
business of property dealing. The aforesaid facts are clear from
voluminous evidence led by the prosecution. PW-1 Jasbir Singh, PW-2
Purshottam, PW-3 Anil Malik, PW-4 Om Parkash, PW-5 Jaibir Singh,
PW-6 Ashok Kumar and PW-32 Dharamvir Sagar have deposed that they
were having business dealings with accused Vijay Bhardwaj and he did
not returned money which was due to him. It has also been established by
the prosecution that accused Vijay Bhardwaj was issuing cheques to
various customers which were dishonored for insufficiency of funds in
account of accused Vijay Bhardwaj. This fact is established by PW-41
Subash Chander, Branch Manager, UBI, Gurgaon. This witness has
proved Ex.PW41/2 statement of account of accused from 01.01.2005 to
05.06.2008. The aforesaid statement of account goes to reflect that
accused Vijay Bhardwaj was depositing or withdrawing various amounts
up to July 2007 and thereafter, he has not deposited any amount is his
aforesaid bank account from the month of July 2007 to month of June
2008. Contrary to it, accused Vijay Bhardwaj had issued numerous
cheques in favour of others and when the said cheques were presented for
honoring and were sent to bank of accused, the same were returned back
for insufficiency of funds because after July 2007 the amount found

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


98

balance in the account of accused was less than Rs.10,000/- and some
time it was in three digits only. PW-41 Subhash Chander also proved
another statement pertaining to the bank account of accused Vijay
Bhardwaj which is Ex.PW41/4. This statement of account shows that
accused Vijay Bhardwaj was not having any considerable amount in the
said bank account. Even though, defence has tried to create an impression
that accused Vijay Bhardwaj was fair in dealings but the aforesaid
statement of accounts completely belies this fact. In addition to aforesaid
bank accounts, the prosecution has produced Ex.PW1/1 proved by PW-1
Jasbir Singh. This receipt of earnest money goes to reflect that PW-1
Jasbir Singh has paid Rs.17,50,000/- to accused Vijay Bhardwaj. On
20.03.2008, there is no evidence adduced by the accused that this amount
was paid back by him to PW-1 Jasbir Singh. The prosecution has also
examined PW-30 Shambir Singh, Advocate from the Gurgaon who has
also proved that the accused was facing a criminal case under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act and this also adds to the evidence led by
aforesaid witnesses. From the aforesaid facts, it is clearly established that
the accused Vijay Bhardwaj was running in losses and his business was
not going smoothly.
114.

As far as business dealings of deceased is concerned, he

was having relations with accused Vijay Bhardwaj in connection with


property business. PW-26 Constable Shibu, PW-27 Lilu Ram, PW-28 ASI
Jawahar Singh, PW-33 HC Padam Singh, PW-34 Constable Surinder

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


99

Kumar, PW-35 ASI Surinder Pal, PW-47 Ashok Pal, PW-57 Constable
Rajiv Mishra have categorically deposed that deceased ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased) was frequently visiting the office of accused. The
prosecution has also examined PW-3 Anil Malik, Assistant Executive
Engineer in Civil Works Sub Div., Rewari HQ, Gurgaon and this witness
has also deposed that the accused claimed before him that ACP Rajbir
Singh (since deceased) was known to him. The prosecution has also
examined PW-47 Ashok Pal who has deposed that on one occasion in his
presence accused Vijay Bhardwaj gave Rs.30,00,000/- to deceased ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased). Likewise, PW-49 Vinod Kumar has
deposed that ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) has business dealings.
This fact is also supplemented by PW-55 Krishan Kumar was servant of
accused. This witness has deposed that the accused was doing business of
property dealing and deceased ACP Rajbir Singh was frequently visiting
the office of accused Vijay Bhardwaj. From the aforesaid facts established
on file, it is not disputed rather proved that deceased Rajbir Singh was
doing property business through accused Vijay Bhardwaj. The reason of
taking help of Vijay Bhardwaj for property business was on account of
helplessness of deceased ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) because he
was a public servant. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that in previous
years, accused Vijay Bhardwaj and ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased)
were having business relations with each other. The kind of relations were
that ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was provding money in lakhs to

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


100

accused Vijay Bhardwaj for investing the same in properties with a


motive to earn profit. Consequently previous days to the present
occurrence, the relations between these two were cordial. Now question
arises, Is the same relations continued between the two till the date of
occurrence or not. The prosecution, as held earlier, has been able to prove
that accused Vijay Bhardwaj was running in losses and was not in a
position to return the advances taken by him for the purpose of his
business and his customers were knocking his door everyday. Out of the
aforesaid customers who were common man, ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased) was employed in Delhi Police having security and was being
proclaimed as encounter specialist. ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased)
was also pressing hard accused Vijay Bhardwaj to return money which
was being advanced by him. This fact is clear from the testimony of the
statement of PW-45 Pawan Kumar Garg, Chartered Accountant who has
deposed that ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was interested to invest
in shares. This fact is also fortified by the evidence in shape of interview
of accused Vijay Bhardwaj given by him to the press on 24.03.3008. The
transcript of aforesaid interview is Ex.PW46/2 and the CD of aforesaid
transcript is Ex.PW46/1. This CD was proved by PW-46 Neeraj Thakur
from the office of Zee News Channel. This witness has deposed that the
aforesaid CD was handed over by him to CBI. The interview was taken by
PW-51 Dharamvir Sharma. The prosecution has also examined PW-51
aforesaid Dharambir Sharma who had also deposed that on 24.03.2008, he

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


101

had taken interview of accused Vijay Bhardwaj. As per transcript PW46/2 duly signed by PW-51 Dharamvir Sharma, PW-46 Neeraj Thakur, it
can be safely concluded that accused Vijay Bhardwaj has admitted that he
was having money dealings with ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) from
Delhi Police and ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was exerting
pressure upon him and due to pressure he has tried to commit suicide but
he could not commit suicide as he was consoled by his family. He has also
stated in interview that the debt was increasing day after the other and he
was not in a position to pay back debt to ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased) which amounts to Rs.50 lacs to Rs.60 lacs. The reference of
suicide note is duly corroborated by recovery affected by Investigating
Officer. During investigation, suicide note/confession note duly written
by accused Vijay Bhardwaj was recovered from his house. It is mentioned
in the said note that accused Vijay Bhardwaj was in huge arrears of debt
and he was not in a position to pay back the same to his creditors. Out of
the aforesaid creditors, one creditor was ACP Rajbir Singh (RB). The
prosecution has also produced Ex.PW47/2 a letter written by ACP Rajbir
Singh (since deceased) to accused Vijay Bhardwaj. This letter goes to
prove that there were some hot exchanges between accused and deceased
prior to the incident and the same goes to such an extent that ACP Rajbir
Singh (since deceased) wrote a letter. The letter contains apology on part
of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). Consequently, the prosecution has
been able to prove unerringly that the accused was a property dealer and

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


102

was in huge arrear of debts. ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) one of the
creditor, initially relations between accused and deceased were cordial
which become strained when accused could not gave money back to ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased). From the aforesaid facts, it is also clear
that mental state of deceased was to extract his money from the accused
and accused was trying hard to avoid this situation by going to an extent
of commission of suicide. As far as proving of suicide note EX.PW17/9
and letter of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) Ex.PW47/2 is concerned,
it has been established by the prosecution by examining expert PW-58
Gulshan Rai that the aforesaid writing on suicide note was that of accused
Vijay Bhardwaj and the handwriting on letter of apology was that of ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) coupled with report Ex.PW58/16.
Consequently, the events which would have happened on the day
of occurrence i.e. 24.03.2008 are to be seen in aforesaid scenario.

Motive:115.

In backdrop of aforesaid case, it is to be ascertained if the

accused was having any motive to kill ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased) . Initially, I have no hesitation to hold that in view of aforesaid
established facts, it is clear that accused was having business dealings
with ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). Accused was running in losses
and his customers were pressing hard to pay back their money. ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was also pressing hard to return his money.
Out of aforesaid pressure, accused once tried to commit suicide and in this

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


103

regard, he has also written suicide note Ex.PW17/6. On one occasion,


ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) had bashed the accused and accused
became afraid of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). By Ex.PW47/2
letter written by ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) clearly reveals that
ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) tendered apology on account of ill
behaviour with accused. It is also clear from statement of PW-3 Anil
Malik, Executive Engineer HVPN Ltd. that accused was showing that he
was very close to ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). In such a scenario,
the accused as businessman was claiming himself to be very close to ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) to his customers. The only reason behind
this was to give impression to his creditors to save himself from any
untoward incident. Thus, accused Vijay Bhardwaj was projecting ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) as his saviour. Eventually, when ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) himself started rebuking at accused and the
saviour of accused turned against him, he was left with no choice and thus
on one occasion, thought to commit suicide but was saved due to
intervention of his family member or relatives. However, he was not in a
position to pay back money to his most powerful creditor i.e. ACP Rajbir
Singh (since deceased). Thus, he had motive to eliminate ACP Rajbir
Singh (since deceased). Even otherwise motive is not physical element,
which can be seen or can be tested physically. The motive is always
embedded in the mind of the accused. Therefore, the motive is to be
gathered from attending facts and circumstances available on file. As held

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


104

earlier, accused was at the dead end from where he can save himself by
running away from the situation or to convert the situation to his
advantage. Naturally, if he is succeeded in eliminating ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased), he got advantage and thus, he need not to pay back any
money. Consequently, I have no hesitation to hold that motive was
available with the accused to kill ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). In
view of aforesaid observations, the argument of learned defence counsel
pales into insignificance. The argument of learned defence counsel that
chances of someone committing murder of ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased) may be there, does not appeal to reasons in facts and
circumstances of the case. Even though, defence has claimed that ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was encounter specialist. However, it has
not been brought on file that any criminal complaint of false encounter or
any departmental inquiry etc. against ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased)
was initiated. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the arguments of
learned defence counsel. I am also of the considered opinion that more
than one person may have motive to kill one person but in such
circumstances, some evidence is to be led by the parties. In this case, the
prosecution has been able to prove successfully regarding dealings
between accused and ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased), their strained
relations etc. etc. as detailed here-in-before and thus the motive is very
strong with accused to kill a man. At this stage, I will be failing in my
duty if psychological behaviour of the accused is not reflected. Accused

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


105

thus after the incident had called PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar, PW-51
Dharambir Sharma, a press reporter and by calling both of them, he
wanted to surrender to save his life. This fact clearly reveals that accused
was having an impression that in case he will not satisfy the demand of
ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased), he will be loosing his life as he was
considering ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) as encounter specialist.
116.

Before adverting to the facts of present case and any

conclusion, it is quite essential to discuss as to how last seen theory,


preponderance, presumption are interwoven with each other and how the
last seen theory came into existence and what was the reason to accept the
said theory as circumstantial evidence.
The theory of 'last seen together' is one where two
persons are 'seen together; alive and after an interval of
time, one of them is found alive and the other dead. If the
period between the two is short, presumption as to the
person alive being the author of death of the other can be
drawn. Time gap should be such as to rule out possibility
of somebody else committing the crime. Last seen
together principle is one of the latest principles which is
taken into consideration in establishing the guilt of the
accused. In the absence of eye-witnesses and tangible
evidence, it is the last resort of the prosecution in a
murder case - the person last seen with the victim is

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


106

presumed to be the murderer, thus, shifting the onus onto


the accused to prove otherwise or come up with an alibi.
The foundation of the theory is based on principles of
probability and cause and connection. Where a fact has
occurred with a series of acts, preceding or accompanying
it, it can safely be presumed that the fact was possible as a
direct cause of the preceding or accompanying acts,
unless there exists a fact which breaks the chain upon
which the inference depends.
The theory of circumstantial evidence about last seen/last
found was very well considered by Hon'ble Justice Krishna Iyer, V. R.
in V. R. Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr v. State of Maharashtra 1973
AIR Supreme Court page 2622.
It was held by him that our jurisprudential enthusiasm
for presumed innocence must be moderated by the
pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and
realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing
enhance possibilities as good enough to set the
delinquent free arid chopping the logic of preponderant
probability to, punish marginal innocents. It is the duty of
the court to adjust the balance of justice in new dealings
faced by the court in developing scenario of facts which
may be gathered from new method of collecting

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


107

evidence.
By passage of time, new piece of evidences are being
developed which are being used in day to day life like means of
communication, means of ascertaining a fact by using information and
technology etc. etc. Thus, any principle which was formulated on basis of
fact in 19th Century may be used as principle on basis of material
available in 21st Century, with pragmatic approach.
It is quite essential to reach at any conclusion as to how
theory of last seen/last found evolved and on what basis. The theory of
last seen/last found was developed with a view that investigation system
and the courts had to be little bit relieved of proof of the burden. When the
principle could be invoked, the burden of proof would be shifted to the
accused to explain any intervening facts after the last seen/last found
together with the victim of any criminal offence. The principal fact or
'factum probandum' may be proved indirectly by means of certain
inferences drawn from factum probans i.e. the evidentiary facts. To put it
differently circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but
consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated
with the facts in issue that taken together they form a chain of
circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be
legally inferred or presumed.
117.

In light of aforesaid principle, if accused was found in

company of deceased and thereafter, the accused was found alive whereas

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


108

another was found dead. It is sometimes referred to as the theory of last


seen together/last found together.
118.

It is also to be delve upon as to what is difference between

last seen together theory and last found together theory. To my mind, both
the aforesaid theories are based upon Section 8 and 106 of The Indian
Evidence Act. If both the theories are evaluated in touch stone of
aforesaid principles, it is clear that in case the deceased and accused were
found in company of each other and in close proximity of time thereafter
one of them was found dead, it is the duty of the accused to explain as to
how the events happened. So, the words seen or found may be used
interchangeably. Initially, I would like to deal with the theory of last seen
so that it may be cleared that what is principle lying behind theory of last
seen. Invariably, Hon'ble Apex Court in so many cases applied last seen
theory.
In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471, Honourable
Supreme Court observed :The accused respondent was already an accused in
another rape case of an 8 years old girl and got acquitted.
He went to the house of deceased Sneha @ Gangu 4 yrs
old. The deceased was then playing near the gate of her
house. After the respondent left the house, no one in that
house had seen Gangu alive. There was evidence that the
respondent took Gangu to the shop of Mahadeo, and later

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


109

to the shop of Motiram, and thereafter to a farm whereon


pulses and cotton were cultivated. He chose that venue for
sexually ravishing that little child and smothering her to
death. The spot was pointed out by the respondent [after
his arrest'] wherefrom the dead body of Gangu was traced
out. The accused could not give any explanation
whatsoever for the injuries on his private parts. The
Supreme Court reversed the Lower Courts judgment and
convicted the respondent basing on last seen principle as
there was other circumstantial and medical evidence.
In Ravindra Reddy v. Shaik Masthan and ors. Crl.Appeal No.1216 of
2008 decided on 4.8.2008 Honourable Supreme Court observed :"A1, A2 and the deceased were last seen together going on
a scooter by PW 9. Later the deceased was found dead. In
pursuance of A1's confession, knives were recovered from
the house of A-3 apart from seizing the Bajaj scooter from
the house of A-1 and A-3. Pursuant to the confession of A2, shirt and gold chain were recovered. There was also
evidence that the accused had purchased the two knives
used for the offence. The trial court found the evidence of
PW-9 to be cogent and credible and applying the
principles of last seen found A-1 and A- 2 guilty. The High

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


110

Court acquitted the accused but the Supreme Court


restored the judgment of the Trial Court as there was
additional evidence besides the evidence of last seen
together.
In Sk. Yusuf v. West Bengal, 2011(5) RCR Criminal 762 Honourable
Supreme Court observed : Supreme Court has reiterated its observation in State of
U.P v. Satish, that the last seen theory comes into play
where the time gap between the point of time when the
accused and deceased were last seen alive and when the
deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any
person other than the accused being the author of the
crime becomes impossible. It was held that where there is
a long time-gap between 'last seen together' and the crime,
and there is the possibility of other persons intervening, it
is hazardous to rely on the theory of 'last seen together'.
Even if time gap is less and there is no possibility of others
intervening, it is safer to look for corroboration.
In Shanmughan v. State of Kerala Honourable High Court
observed :"The victim Raji was sleeping on the fateful day in the
bed room with her husband- the appellant. There was

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


111

evidence of mal-treatment of the deceased by the


appellant. Nobody was present in the bed room where the
appellant and the deceased were sleeping as husband and
wife. The victim admittedly screamed at about 2 a.m. That
attracted the inmates of the house to rush to the bed room
to find the victim dead as a result of administering of
poison. This was not in dispute. The victim died of cyanide
poison which is a highly corrosive poison. The presence of
lacerated wounds on the lips, contusions in the ear and
abrasions in the chest clearly show that some force was
used while administering the poison. Without any force
these injuries could not be there in a case of suicidal
poison. The injuries were fresh injuries and cannot be
sustained by fall on a hard substance. PW-7 also deposed
that

the

injuries

could

be

because

of

forcible

administration of poison. At the time of his statement


under Section 313 CrPC also, the attention of the accused
- appellant was specifically drawn by the trial court to the
injuries on the deceased. To that the appellant did not give
any answer. Therefore, taking all these facts and also the
concurrent findings of the two courts, the Supreme Court
was not inclined to interfere in the appeal. The appeal
was accordingly dismissed.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


112

In Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646


Honourable Supreme Court observed :There were eye-witnesses who had seen the scuffling
between the deceased and the accused on demand of
money and the strangulation of the deceased by the
accused persons and also the loading of the mutilated
body parts of the deceased contained in gunny bags into
Maruti Van. Evidence establishing the 'last seen together'
theory and the fact that after altercation and strangulation
of the deceased which was witnessed by PW8, PW17 and
PW19, the body of the deceased was recovered in pieces in
presence of the witnesses, have been fully established. To a
very limited extent, it is a case of circumstantial evidence
and the prosecution has proved the complete chain of
events. The gap between the time when the accused
persons were last seen with the deceased and the discovery
of his mutilated body was quite small and the possible
inference would be that the accused are responsible for
commission of the murder of the deceased. Once the last
seen theory comes into play, the onus was on the accused
to explain as to what happened to the deceased after they

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


113

were together seen alive. The accused persons have failed


to render any reasonable/plausible explanation in this
regard and were therefore held liable.
In Arvind Kumar Anuplal Poddar v. State of Maharashtra
Honourable Supreme Court observed :The deceased and the accused were last seen together on
06.12.2001. Later, body of the deceased was recovered at
the instance of the appellant. The recovery of knife from
the place of occurrence, the frequent quarrels between the
deceased and the accused, the theory of the deceased
having run away from the matrimonial home not properly
explained by the appellant apart from the fact that no steps
were taken by him to trace his wife, the weapon used,
namely, the knife containing blood stains, that the nature
of injuries found on the body of the deceased, the death
was homicidal and that the injuries could have been
caused with the weapon marked in the case, that the
appellant wanted to flee from the town itself and that the
clothes seized from the appellant were found containing
human blood-- established the guilt of the appellant. The
Apex Court quoted Prithipal Singh & ors v. State of
Punjab, [an illegal detention and death case] where it has

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


114

been held that 'a fact which is especially in the knowledge


of any person then the burden of proving that fact is upon
him and that it is impossible for the prosecution to prove
certain facts particularly within the knowledge of the
accused. The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of
the accused.
From the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court and
various Honourable High Courts it is crystal clear that as and when it is
required in the interest of justice and to strike a balance between chasing
enhancing possibility as good enough to set the delinquent free arid
chopping the logic of preponderant probability to, punish marginal
innocents, is a true theory. This principle should be applied with pragmatic
approach. I am also of the considered opinion that Section 8 of the The
Evidence Act and Section 106 of the The Indian Evidence Act may be used
as binary and the result of using these Sections in binary gives wide
power to draw presumption in various set of facts.
119.

Now, coming to further question as to what is a theory last

seen and last found together. Originally, the fact that the accused and
deceased were last found together and thereafter the accused was found
alive whereas his companion was found dead attract last found theory.
This theory is based upon a principle that dead body was found in custody
of the accused at the time of occurrence. At this stage, word custody has a

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


115

wide meaning and this meaning cannot be restricted. No doubt, only on


the basis of last found theory, conviction cannot be based because it is a
weak type of evidence. Consequently, in various judgments, it is
impressed upon to get corroboration by other facts and circumstances of
the case. If other circumstance suggests and strengthen the theory of last
found together, it is safer to convict the accused. The corroborative or
strengthening circumstances are like recovery of weapon, recovery of
dead body at the instance of accused, any confession of the accused and
so many facts of like nature. Before adverting to the fact of this case, it is
quite necessary to go through various judgments, in which the accused
was convicted on basis of last found theory.
In Ravindran and Another Vs State Of Kerala, 1994 CR. L. J. 3562
Honourable Supreme Court observed:What is meant by this theory? It is only this: In whose
company the victim was found together last. It may be a
company of one or more persons. The person or persons in
whose company the Victim was found together last may be
innocent and no involvement in the crime can be attributed
to him or them. The presence of 'a victim in the company
of another, may be accidental. In the ordinary course of
social life the persons may be some times faced with
strange situations and miraculous coincidences which are
difficult to explain. Therefore the 'last found' together'

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


116

theory is not an absolute rule or inflexible formula but it is


totally dependent on the facts of each case. When the
motive of a person or persons to commit an offence is
sufficiently

established

this

rule

assumes

much

importance.
In Gadai Alias Jiten Bouri vs State of West Bengal (2006) 1 CALLT 163
HC Honourable High Court observed:So far the first circumstance above is concerned, it is
undisputed that the victim Jharna who was the legally
married wife of accused Gadai was found murdered by
strangulation lying in the room of the accused on
01.08.90. There is also no dispute that the accused has a
cycle repairing shop with an adjacent room at Paprar
More. According to the defence case, as suggested to P.W.
6, his brother Gadai used to come to house daily in the
evening for taking his meal and used to pass night in his
said cycle repairing shop. Onus to prove alibi is on the
accused, as it is a matter within his special knowledge and
such plea of alibi when taken by an accused must be
proved by him and he is to substantiate and make it
reasonably possible. He must lead evidence to show that
he was so far off at the moment of the crime from the place
when the offence was committed and he could not have

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


117

committed the offence. Hence, though P.W. 12 denied that


Gadai ever stayed in his cycle repairing shop or in the
room during night, it is the evidence of her husband P.W. 1
that off and on Gadai used to reside with his wife in the
adjacent room of his cycle repairing shop. Similarly, P.W.
2 deposed that Gadai used to pass night in his cycle shop
along with his daughter and sometimes she used to reside
in her in-law's house. Occasional stay of the accused with
his wife at night in the adjacent room of the cycle
repairing shop is not the determinant factor here, but
whether the accused on the date of incident i.e. 01.08.90
stayed with the victim in his house. As it is a matter within
the special knowledge of the accused, the burden lay upon
him heavily to substantiate it by leading evidence which he
failed to discharge. No such plea was taken by him even
during his examination under Section 313 Cr PC.
Consequently, the said alibi fails and it may be concluded
that the accused passed his night on the date of incident
with the victim in his room. Ordinarily, the fact that the
accused and deceased were last found together and failure
of acused to explain disappearance is a strong
circumstance pointing to murder by the accused. The cases
of in (2005)1 C Cr LR (SC) 366 may be relied on. In

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


118

Ganeshlal case (supra) it was held that when the death


had occurred in the custody of the accused, the accused is
under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the
cause of her death in his statement under section 313 Cr
PC at least. Any sort of explanation on behalf of the
accused will not suffice. The explanation must be cogent
and reasonable. Here, no explanation was virtually offered
by the accused during his examination under Section 313
Cr PC excepting a plea of innocence. There is nothing to
suggest in the evidence that any outsider came to the
house of the accused on that date or the victim had any
enmity with other persons. Therefore, when the victim and
the accused with their minor child, aged about 9 months
or l 1/2 years, were inside the room and there was no third
person there, the fact that the victim was found dead
caused by strangulation, in the room of the accused is a
strong circumstance unerringly point to murder by the
accused and none else.
Both the aforesaid theories i.e. last seen or last found
together are based upon a principle that in case it is established by the
prosecution that accused and deceased were found in company of each
other and it is proved by reliable evidence, a presumption against accused
may be taken and thereafter, it is for the accused to prove as to how the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


119

person died or when the accused part with company of deceased. What
were the circumstances which rebut the presumption. Some time, it has
also been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that in case accused failed to
furnish any explanation or his explanation were found to be false, it is
mitigating circumstance against the accused and aforesaid two theories
are further strengthen heavily casted burden upon the accused to prove a
fact that someone else had committed the crime or there was any
circumstance, which suggests that accused was not involved in any act of
murder.
120.

Now, adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is to be

ascertained if the last found theory is applicable or not. In this case the
prosecution is relying upon some incriminating circumstances sound in
nature against the accused.
I.

Dead body was found lying in pool of blood in


shop- cum- office of accused.

II.

The behaviour of accused after the occurrence


which includes his interview to the press persons.

III.

Recovery of weapons connected with the murder


and scientific evidence.

IV.

Motive.

V.

Confession/explanation/withdrawal/no explanation.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


120

I.

As far as place of occurrence in this case is concerned, the

accused has squarely not challenged a fact that the dead body of ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was found in shop-cum-office of accused
Vijay Bhadwaj situated at Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon. Thus, from aforesaid
facts, it is clear that dead body was found in the premises of accused.
Even otherwise, there is ample evidence available on file which
unerringly proved that dead body was found at the aforesaid place. In
view of statement of PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar, PW-17 SI Krishan Dev,
PW-9 Tahir Hussain SHO, PW-27 Lillu Ram, PW-33 Padam Singh and
PW-34 Surender Kumar, it is clear that dead body was found at the
aforesaid place. In addition to that, from documents prepared during
course of investigation and blood stained objects recovered from the place
of occurrence goes to reflect that dead body was found at the aforesaid
place. In addition to aforesaid evidence, Ex.PW12/3 proceedings under
Section 174 Cr.P.C, Ex.PW17/13 report of team of scene of crime
Ex.PW17/4 recovery memo of place of occurrence, PW17/3 recovery of
mobile of deceased, Ex.PW17/4 recovery of bag of ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased), Ex.PW17/1 recovery of belongings of deceased
Ex.PW16/4 recovery of two pallets and recovery of material object vide
memo Ex.PW16/4, are sufficient which unerringly points towards fact
that dead body of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was found at
aforesaid place.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


121

II.

As far as behaviour of accused after occurrence, (as pre

occurace behaviour has already been discussed) is concerned, the


prosecution has led evidence in this regard. The prosecution has
examined PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar. This witness has deposed that at
about 9.20 p.m., accused Vijay Bhardwaj called him and asked him to
surrender as he had shot dead a person. The prosecution has also
examined PW-51 Dharambir Sharma, a correspondent from Zee News.
This witness has also deposed that accused Vijay Bhardwaj called him
and he had recorded his interview. This witness has proved that he was
contacted by accused Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj and he had recorded his
interview on 24.03.2008. This witness has proved that conversation
recorded in CD Ex.PW46/1, the transcript of which is Ex.PW46/2 is the
said material of interview. Even the accused has relied upon his interview
given to a correspondent of Zee News. This piece of evidence has been
produced by the defence as Ex.PW3/A. Gist of the conversation goes to
reflect that the accused was saying that there was money transactions
between him and ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). He was under
pressure on account of demand raised by ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased) and has tried to commit suicide. 24.03.2008 was the last day
when he had to make the payment. ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased)
has threatened him to kill. The accused was exclaiming that he wants to
surrender initially and then to come out with further facts. In addition to
that the accused has relied upon his interview given to ABP News

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


122

Network Private Limited, Noida. He has produced Ex.DW2/1 in this


regard. Contents of interview given by him to ABP News goes to reflect
that accused was in police custody and was being produced in the court
and while coming out from court he was giving interview. He had
mentioned that he was under pressure. He was quite afraid. He had taken
weapon from ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) three days earlier. He
had not taken drink

with Rajbir Singh on 24.03.2008. Threat was

extended to him regularly off and on and last day was Monday to give
money back. He was double-minded. There was no third person at the
place occurrence. Servant was sent to purchase candle. He had fired two
shots at the head of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) and PSO's of
ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) were on petrol Pump nearby. From
the context of aforesaid interview, the behaviour of accused after
occurrence points towards his guilt. From the aforesaid conversation, it
is clear that the accused was bent upon to surrender to the police. In that
conversation, the accused is also referring to the name of deceased with
reference to a fact that he was having money matter with him amounting
to 50-60 lacs and he was under pressure from the last 5 to 6 months on
account of this reason. It is also clear from the aforesaid facts that it was
the accused who for the first time had uttered that ACP Rajbir Singh
(since deceased) was shot dead and his body was lying in his office.
Thus, it is clear that the accused was the person, who for the first time
brought a fact into public that ACP Rajbir Singh was shot dead and his

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


123

dead body was lying in his office-cum-shop. The subsequent conduct of


the accused in these circumstances also becomes relevant.
1.

As far as recovery of weapon connected with murder and

medical examination and ballistic and serological report part is


concerned, the prosecution has proved disclosure statement of accused
Ex.PW16/5 vide which the accused disclosed that the weapon of offence
revolver was kept concealed by him in Keekar trees near Japanese Hotel,
Gurgaon and he can get the same recovered. In pursuance of this
disclosure statement, accused led the police party to the place indicated
by him and recovered one revolver E-8256 Revolver 32 MK 1 SAF
Kanpur 1991 with barrel embedded with No.4650 MPO 7.65 mm x 2.33
mm and having inscription 24 on chamber having inscription 1107 on
butt which was studded with two live cartridge and two cartridges cases
KF 32 SNWL. At the time of recovery the sketch of weapon of recovery
was prepared as Ex.PW16/7. This weapon is claimed by the prosecution
to be weapon of offence. The prosecution wants to prove that two empty
cartridge case studded in revolver were in fact the cartridges used by the
accused for murder of ACP Rajbir Singh.(since deceased).
121.

As far as argument of learned defence counsel that the

weapon of offence was recovered from place accessible is concerned, I


do not find favour with him. I am of the considered opinion that the
relevant fact in this regard is that the place where weapon is concealed
should be only in the knowledge of the person who got the same

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


124

recovered.

In this case the weapon of offence was recovered from

Kabuli Keekar from a place which was deserted.


122.

As far as recovery of pallets is concerned, from the place of

occurrence, two pallets projectiles were recovered and out of them, one
lead projectile was found embedded in headrest of chair which was lying
across the table and second lead projectile was found on glass top of table
from the office-cum-shop of the accused and the same were recovered by
the police and were taken into possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PW16/4.
123.

The revolver as aforesaid along with two live cartridges and

two cartridge case as well as pallets recovered from the office-cum-shop


of accused were sent to FSL in due course of investigation. The aforesaid
revolver, cartridges and pallets recovered from the place of occurrence
were examined by PW-60 Dr. R.K.Kaushal, Ballistic Expert and he has
given his opinion Ex.PW60/17. This opinion has been proved by PW-16
ASI Pardeep Kumar in the witness box. In view of statement of PW-60
Dr. R.K.Kaushal coupled with his report Ex.PW60/17, it has been proved
by the prosecution that the revolver recovered at the instance of accused
was in fact used to fire pallets which were recovered from the place of
occurrence embedded in the chair of the said office. Thus, it is crystal
clear that the revolver recovered at the instance was in fact used for firing
in his office-cum-shop. As far as missing link between recoveries affected
till it reached to FSL has not been assailed by the defence counsel.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


125

Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that there was no tampering in the


recovered articles from the time the said recoveries were affected till the
same reached to FSL, Madhuban Karnal. In addition to aforesaid facts, the
prosecution has also recovered shirt of the accused as well as shoes vide
recovery memo Ex.PW16/3. The shirt and shoes were sent to FSL
Madhuban, Karnal. In this regard, report was received during
investigation and proved on record. The prosecution has examined PW-56
Dr. Sahib Singh, who has proved his report Ex.PW56/1. The statement of
PW-56 Dr. Sahib Singh coupled his report as Ex.PW56/1 goes to reflect
that the shoes were found to be stained with human blood. This piece of
evidence goes to reflect that the shoes of accused, which were used by
him on the day of occurrence, were found to be stained with blood. To the
contrary, he accused has not explained that human blood on his shoes was
on account of injury on his part or on account of any other reason.
Therefore, this fact also establishes that the shoes of accused were stained
with human blood. This can only be happened when accused was present
at the scene of crime. As far as missing of any link evidence is concerned,
no finger was raised by the defence counsel that there was any chance of
tampering with the aforesaid case property from point of time till it
reached to FSL Madhuban.
124.

In view of the established facts, this fact is established by

the prosecution that the weapon recovered at the instance of accused Vijay
Kumar Bhardwaj was used for firing in his office-cum-shop. The pallets

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


126

recovered from the place as referred hereinbefore were in fact fired from
the aforesaid revolver. In addition to aforesaid established facts, the
prosecution has also been able to prove that the pallets were fired in the
office. The prosecution has also recovered material object like
newspapers, broken calculator, chair which were effected by firing to
prove that firing took place in shop-cum-office of the accused.
125.

As far as argument of learned defence counsel regarding

belying of involvement of accused by medical evidence is concerned, I


have already discussed this point in earlier part of the judgment and in
view of my findings given in above. I do not find any substance in
arguments of learned defence counsel. As far as the probability pointed
out by learned defence counsel that in no case accused could have fired
upon the deceased who was a Police Officer is concerned, I do not favour
with him. As held earlier, the deceased shot at from behind. As far as
argument of learned defence that shirt of accused was not stained with
blood and the wall was not sprinkled with blood just behind the deceased
is concerned, I do not find favour with him. In this regard, I am of the
considered opinion that it depends upon a fact as to where a person is shot
at. If a shot at a place which has no flash over that part, sprinkling of
blood could not be there. And thus in these circumstances, it is not
improbable that accused could have fired upon deceased while he was
sitting on a chair.
126.

As far as point of law is concerned, I am of the considered

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


127

opinion that in case any material object, in present case the revolver and
cartridge cases etc. etc. are recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement
of accused the recovery of weapon is admissible.
127.

My aforesaid view is fortified by law laid down in (2006)

9 Supreme Court Cases 386: Nisar Khan alias Guddu and others Vs.
State of Uttranchal wherein it was held,
Recovery of arm from the bank of river is pointed by
accused which was concealed under sand and covered by
stones cannot be considered as recovery from place
accessible to all as it was a common place frequented by
public.
Likewise, my aforesaid view is fortified by law laid down
in 1999 (4) Supreme Court Cases 317: State of Himachal
Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh wherein it was held,
Test is not where the place was accessible to
others but where it was ordinarily visible to others. In view
of aforesaid observation, authorities in this regard cited by
learned defence counsel are quite distinguishable on fact
and circumstances of the present case.
128.

Now, question arises as to what was the cause of death of

deceased. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW-12 Mukesh


Rampal, PW-13 S.K.Sharma, who were members of Board to examine
dead body of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). The aforesaid doctors

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


128

have proved postmortem report Ex.PW12/1, pictorial

diagram

Ex.PW12/2 showing seat of injuries. Both the aforesaid doctors have


categorically deposed that injuries were caused by firearm. Injury of
forehead was caused by firearm entry and exit wounds. They have also
given opinion that cause of death in this case was due to shock and
haemorrhage as as result of cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon
firearm injury. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the weapon of
offence in this case was a firearm and death of ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased) was caused by firearm. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that
death of ACP Rajbir Singh was caused by firearm.
Even it was hotly argued by learned defence counsel that in
view of statement of doctors, initially it was reported that wound on the
person of deceased was found to be caused by smooth bore weapon but
later on it was converted to be a wound caused by rifled arm and thus, the
arm recovered is not connected with death of ACP Rajbir Singh. But I do
not favour with arguments of the learned defence counsel on the following
reasons:
Initially, I am of the considered opinion that the medico legal
of a doctor consists of three parts:1. History told by the injured or a person who brought the dead
body, conveyed to the doctor,
2. The observation made by doctor on the basis of his examination,
3. And his opinion.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


129

129.

As far as observation made by the doctor is concerned it is

conclusive whereas the opinion given by the doctor is always subject to


scrutiny in view of other evidence brought on record or in view of any
ocular version given by witness in the court. In this case opinion of doctor
is to be scrutinized in view of wound and the report of Ballistic Expert.
130.

In this regard, statement of PW-12 Dr. Mukesh Rampal, PW-

13 Dr. S.K.Sharma who have conducted autopsy and PW-60 Dr.


R.K.Kaushal, Ballistic Expert is quite relevant. Autopsy was conducted
by PW-12 Dr. Mukesh Rampal and PW-13 Dr. S.K.Sharma on 25.03.2008
at about 11.30 a.m. When PW-12 was examined, he has proved that
autopsy was conducted by him as well as Dr. S.K.Sharma being doctors of
the Board. Likewise, PW-13 Dr. S.K.Sharma has proved that autopsy was
conducted by him along with Dr. Mukesh Rampal.
131.

From the statement of PW-13 Dr. S.K.Sharma, it is clear that

at the time of conducting postmortem, he has found two injuries caused


by one bullet. Injury No.1 was found in the upper middle front of the
forehead and injury No.3 was found in the upper middle back of the head.
Both the injuries were caused by one bullet and being exit wound and
entry wound. Initially, it was opined by the aforesaid doctors that injury
No.1 was entry wound and injury No.3 was exit wound. For ready
reference, injuries noted down by the doctors are reproduced hereinafter:1. There was tri-radiate, star shaped firearm entry
wound in the upper middle front of the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


130

forehead. Upper half of the wound was hidden


in the hairy area. There was no effect of gun
powder like burning; tattooing etc. It was 1.5 x .
5 cm and 6.5 cm above the middle of both
eyebrows.
2. A horizontally placed lacerated (grazed wound)
in the left side of the head. Its front end is 4.5
cm above the upper part left pinna.
3.

A circular firearm exit wound in the upper


middle back of the head. It is 1 cm in dia and is
1 cm to the left of the mid-line.

132.

After preparation of postmortem report Ex.PW12/1,

application was moved by Investigating Officer before the doctor PW-13


Dr. S.K.Sharma i.e. Ex.PW12/12. The question arises as to why this
application was moved. PW-60 Dr. R.K. Kaushal, Ballistic Expert had
visited scene of crime at about 1.30 noon on 25.03.2008 and he had
formed his opinion on the spot that the bullet was fired from back side of
the deceased. Thus, an ambiguity arises in postmortem report due to
opinion of PW-60 Dr. R.K.Kaushal, Ballistic Expert. In light of aforesaid
facts, an application Ex.PW12/12 was moved before PW-13 Dr.
S.K.Sharma. The Investigating Officer by aforesaid application had asked
PW-13 Dr. S.K.Sharma that as per opinion of Ballistic Expert, the entry
wound was from back side and exit wound was from front side. On
moving of aforesaid application PW-13 Dr. S.K.Sharma had given another

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


131

opinion Ex.PW12/13. It was mentioned by him in Ex.PW12/13 that the


bullet was fired from rifled arm and possibility of entry wound from back
side and exit wound from front side cannot be ruled out. The defence
counsel in backdrop of aforesaid facts argued that there is inconsistency
regarding arm being rifled or smooth as well as with regard to exit and
entry wound caused by the bullet. As claimed by the defence counsel in
such type of cases where is inconsistent opinion by two experts benefit
should be given to the accused. However, I do not find merit in his
argument on the following reason:
133.

I am of the considered opinion that the opinion given by a

doctor is not conclusive and subject to correction on basis of evidence


available on file. As far as principle behind consideration of exit and entry
wound is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that whenever a
bullet is fired, the entry wound is small whereas exit wound is larger. In
this case, as per PMR Ex.PW12/1, the size of injury No.3 was having a
diameter of 1 cm whereas the size of injury No.1 was 1.5 x .5 cms. Thus,
as per normal consideration applicable to normal cases of entry and exit
wound, I have no hesitation to conclude that in this case injury No.3
pertains to entry wound whereas injury No.1 pertains to exit wound.
My aforesaid observation is fortified by

text book of Medical

Jurisprudence and Toxicology 24th Edition 2012, Page 538, Chapter


24 wherein it is observed,
That the wound of exit is often larger than the wound of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


132

entrance, and its edges are regular and evened, but free
from scortching and tattooing. ''
134.

I am of the considered opinion that before court, there are two

opinions given by identical doctor with regard to entry and exit wound. In
such type of cases if either of the opinion is further supported by relevant
positioning of objects on the spot that opinion is to be considered and
relied upon by the court.
135.

At this juncture, arises the report of PW-60 Dr. R.K.Kaushal,

Ballistic Expert who had visited the scene of crime on 25.03.2008 at 1.30
noon. After due deliberation, he has given is opinion Ex.PW17/13. He has
also proved rough sketch of scene of crime as Ex.PW60/1. He has also
proved

photographs taken at the time of his visit as Ex.PW60/2 to

Ex.PW60/16. From his opinion the court may not bound to come to any
conclusion, however, the facts which were noticed by him at the scene of
crime may be considered to evaluate a point after the bullet was fired
from the back side of the deceased or from the front side of the deceased.
In this regard, I am of the concrete opinion that in rough sketch of scene
of crime report Ex.PW60/1, one projectile bullet 'BC' was found on the
table and another projectile BC-2 was found to be embedded in headrest
of the chair. It is the same chair which was lying opposite to the deceased
where he was found after being hit by a bullet. Naturally, the height of
table is always lesser than the chair. Likewise in photograph Ex.PW60/7,
it is shown that projectile bullet was found on the table and the calculator

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


133

lying on the table was found to be hit by the bullet as per photograph as
Ex.PW60/6. As per photograph Ex.PW60/11, bullet 'BC-2' was found
embedded in headrest of the chair. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that
the bullet 'BC' and 'BC-2' were found lying at a place which was opposite
to the chair where the deceased was sitting. Thus, from the report of the
Ballistic Export Ex.PW17/13, rough sketch of crime Ex.PW60/1, the
photographs of scene of crime Ex.PW60/2 to Ex.PW60/16, one fact is
quite clear that the chair 'A' as shown in Ex.PW60/1 was the chair upon
which ACP Rajbir Singh was sitting and the bullet 'BC-2' was found on
headrest of the chair 'B' as shown in rough sketch as Ex.PW60/1. Thus, I
am of the considered opinion that the relative positioning of objects found
or recovered from the scene of crime clearly reveals that the bullet was
fired from back side of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) which pierced
through skull of ACP Rajbir Singh and after that it was embedded in the
chair which was lying across the chair of ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased).
136.

I have no hesitation to hold that the Ballistic Expert is an

expert of fire arm mechanism and injuries caused by fire arms whereas the
doctor who has conducted postmortem of the deceased were not expert in
the field of ballistic. Thus, in my opinion PW-13 Dr. S.K.Sharma and PW12 Dr. Mukesh Rampal might have lost sight of the fact as to what are the
reasons on basis of which the opinion was given regarding entry wound
and exit wound. As far as barrel of weapon used as rifled or smooth, I am

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


134

of the considered opinion that in this regard also the opinion of ballistic
expert will found credence over the report of doctors who have conducted
postmortem.
137.

I also do not find favour with arguments of learned defence

counsel that absence of blood-stains on shirt of the accused is sufficient


enough to exonerate accused. I also do not found probabilities pointed out
by defence counsel as relevant. I am of the considered opinion that as per
postmortem report Ex.PW12/1, ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was
not drunk or intoxicated, he was able-bodied person of 5.11'' and was
well-built. He was in armed force like police, therefore, the probability of
ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) receiving injury from front side by a
bullet does not appeal to reasons. I am also of the considered opinion that
even if a bullet is fired from a distance of approximately one ft., it is not
necessary that there should be singing of hair, tattooing or charring at the
side of entry wound. It is also possible that in case some intervening soft
object is used against the barrel of a gun, the tattooing, singing etc. may
be avoided by the shooter. In this regard, statement of PW-60 Dr. R.K.
Kaushal is quite relevant who has deposed that in case the shot was fired
out of blackening range. My aforesaid observation is fortified by text
book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 24th Edition 2012,
Page 538, Chapter 24 wherein it is written
That when it fired beyond a distance of 12 inches, there
are no powder marks of soot or heat effect around the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


135

wound.
The prosecution has examined Ballistic Expert PW-60
Dr. R.K. Kaushal. However, in his cross-examination no question was put
regarding entry wound or exit wound despite the fact that he was a
Ballistic Expert. Consequently, when no cross-examination has been
conducted with regard to particular facts adverse inference is to be drawn
against accused. I am of the considered opinion that no question was
asked by defence counsel from this witness that the arm used was rifled
arm or smooth bore gun. Consequent upon my aforesaid findings, I found
no force in argument of learned defence counsel in this regard.
The revolver weapon of offence was sent to FSL, Madhuban
for analysis and it was opined by PW-60 Dr. R.K. Kaushal Ballistic
Expert that it was a rifled arm and the bullets recovered from the place of
occurrence as detailed hereinbefore were fired from rifled arm. Therefore,
also the argument of learned defence counsel

that doubt is created

regarding bullets fired from rifled arm or smooth arm entitles the accused
to benefit of doubt is of no consequence.
138.

In view of aforesaid observations, I am not satisfied with

arguments of learned defence counsel who has relied upon Ram Narain,
Jaggar Singhs Case, Subhash and anothers Case (supra) and
Mahamadkhan Nathekhan (supra), I am of the considered opinion that
in case the medical evidence is totally inconsistent with the ocular version
or cause of death, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt: if medical

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


136

evidence is so inappropriate or shaky that it completely rules out the facts


of the case, if medical evidence established that there may be possibility
of a person dying due to another reason benefit of doubt can be given to
the accused. However, in this case as explained hereinbefore one fact is
clear that ACP Rajbir Singh died due to revolver shot injuries. The
revolver was recovered at the instance of accused and the ballistic expert
clearly established that the fired projectiles found at the place of
occurrence were fired from the recovered revolver. I am also of the
considered opinion that obligation upon doctor examining body during
postmortem is to deliver nature of injuries but not cause of injury as they
are not ballistic experts as held in Criminal Appeal No.973/2003 Om Pal
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and AIR 1996 Supreme Court Cases
1136 Dharma Vs. Nirmal Singh and Bitto and Another. I am also of
the considered opinion that in case there is difference of opinion between
two doctors, the said difference of opinion is to be seen in view of facts
and circumstances of the case and if court found that in view of facts and
circumstances of the case anyone opinion is correct the said opinion can
be taken into consideration and merely divergent opinion of two doctors
in itself has no material bearing on case of the prosecution. My aforesaid
view is fortified by law laid down in 2010 Cri.LJ 1659 Satyabir Singh
Vs. State of UP (supra).
IV.

As far as motive on part of accused is concerned, this

point has already been discussed in upper part of judgment. Thus, I have

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


137

no hesitation that the accused was having strong motive to commit murder
of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased).
139.

Even though, it was argued by learned defence counsel that

there is no evidence against the accused regarding motive but I do not


favour with his arguments. As discussed earlier, plethora of evidence is
available on file on basis of which it can be safely concluded that accused
was having strong motive. The prosecution has examined numerous
witnesses out of them, the witness has pointed out all the defence did not
support case of the prosecution but not supporting some of the witnesses
does not mean that the other witnesses who are supporting the case of the
prosecution are to be belied. Even otherwise, the statement of witnesses
referred by defence counsel in his arguments have at least supported that
accused was dealing in property business and he was taking advances
from them. The only fact which all the aforesaid witnesses denied is that
the accused was regularly paying them money. I am of the considered
opinion that man may lie but not the circumstances. The record in
shape of statement of accounts, receipts etc. which speaks in volumes that
accused was not making payment to his customers and numerous cheques
were dishonored for insufficiency of funds in his accounts is a clear fact
which tilt in favour of the prosecution.
V.

As far as confession made by accused/explanation/withdrawal

and no explanation is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that just


after the incident, the accused had called PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar. PW-

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


138

16 ASI Pardeep Kumar has deposed that accused Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj
was known to him earlier. He has further explained that FIR No.390 dated
19.12.2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of The Indian Penal Code
was registered against accused with the fact that accused was not
returning the money to the complainant and he was investigating the said
case. Thus, both of them were acquainted with each other. On 24.03.2008,
accused made a call to him conveying to him that he had shot dead a man
in his office and his dead body is lying in his office and he wants to
surrender before the police. This witness has also deposed that on
24.03.2008 itself, at about 11.00 a.m., he had received a mobile phone call
from Vijay Bhardwaj and Vijay Bhardwaj stated that he wants to
surrender in case pertaining to FIR No.390 dated 19.12.2007. This witness
has further deposed that accused Vijay Bhardwaj had informed about fact
of shooting a man dead by him at 9.20 p.m. After receiving the aforesaid
information, he got present FIR lodged in Police Station Civil Lines,
Gurgaon as Ex.PW16/1. Now, it is to be ascertained if this confession is
admissible or not. I am of the considered opinion that in earlier FIR,
which was lodged on 19.12.2007, PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar had not
arrested him till the day of occurrence despite passage of approximately
four months and therefore, to surrender the accused reposed confidence in
PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar. Now, it is to be ascertained if the accused
made his confession before a Police Officer is hit by Section 25 of The
Evidence Act. In this regard, I am of the considered opinion that the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


139

statement containing facts in shape of confession is inadmissible when


means of extracting any statement from the accused creates an impression
that it might be on account of undue influence, coercion or any fear.
Thus, in view of Section 25 of The Evidence Act, the mode in which the
confession is recorded, is relevant fact, which cannot lost sight of. Further,
if it is established that any confession was made by a person, in whom he
reposed confidence and that confession is without any duress, pressure,
coercion, fear etc., that is admissible. If aforesaid principle is applied to
aforesaid confession of the accused, I am of the considered opinion that in
this case the accused was talking with PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar on
mobile and thus, he was having no fear undue influence or coercion to be
exercised by PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar. Thus, the present confession
was made by the accused with a sweet will to PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar.
Mere appraising of a public servant in confession is not a ground, on
which it can be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. My aforesaid view
if fortified by law laid down in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1906 Sita
Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the aforesaid confession is a
fact which in addition to the aforesaid established facts, can be pressed in
aid of the circumstances. As held in my previous part of the judgments
and the subsequent part of the judgments, there is sufficient material
available with the court on basis of which the conviction could be
sustained.
140.

Even though learned defence counsel has relied upon

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


140

Madan Lals Case (supra) but it is not applicable to the fact of the
present case. In this case the accused himself has relied upon statement
given by him to ABP News and Zee News instead of refuting a fact that
he had not given any statement as claimed by the prosecution as well as
the interview given by him to the press person was under duress or under
any circumstances which weighs in his favour. I am of the considered
opinion that in case prosecution as well as accused is relying upon
interview given by the accused to media, the question of any duress etc.
on accused does not arise. Rather the accused himself has waived his
privilege which he can claim under Section 25 to 27 of The Indian
Evidence Act. On similar principle as discussed hereinbefore, Indra
Dalals case(Supra) is not applicable to the fact of the present case.
Likewise, law cited by learned defence counsel i.e. Pragat Singhs case
(supra) is not applicable to the fact of the present case.
141.

As far as second confession made by accused is concerned,

the accused himself has produced DW-3 Hem Raj Negi, who has proved
recording Ex.DW3/A. The accused has also relied upon interview given
by him to ABP News which is Ex.DW2/A. As far as interview the CD of
which Ex.DW3/A is concerned, the accused was not in custody and was
giving interview to press reporter. In his interview, he has admitted that he
was having money transactions with ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased).
Due to pressure of making payment, he had also decided to commit
suicide. On the day of occurrence, last date was given by ACP Rajbir

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


141

Singh (since deceased) for returning of his money and ACP Rajbir Singh
had threatened him to kill. After giving interview to the press reporter, he
was frisked away by a man who is claimed by the defence to be of police.
In aforesaid video, it is clear that on one side the press reporters are
standing and the accused is coming towards them all alone and not
escorted by any policeman. Consequently, the interview given by him to
press persons cannot be considered to be a confession given to a
policeman or given to any other person when he was in custody of police.
As far as interview, the CD Ex.DW2/A is concerned, naturally it is shown
that accused is in police custody and thus, in case accused wants to regal
out from that confession, he could have done so during trial. Not to speak
of withdrawing from the confession or to explain about said confession,
the accused himself has relied upon and produced the CD Ex.DW2/A in
his defence. In this regard, I found support with (2007) 1 RCR Criminal
468 Aloke Nath Dutta and others Vs. State of West Bengal wherein it
was held,
if the confession has come out in natural response to
stressful, stimulus of spur of the movement and found
voluntary, it is a reliable piece of evidence. It was also
held that if the court is satisfied that confession is
voluntary and truth out of any cloud of threat, inducement
or promise and is in consonance with context of the entire
prosecution case and fit into the proved facts and is not

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


142

running counter to the proved facts, the voluntary


character of confession and truth are accepted and it is
safe to rely upon it. Indeed, the confession, if it is
voluntary and true and made under any inducement or
threat or promise, it is most patent piece of evidence
against the maker.
My aforesaid view is also fortified by decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (2007) 1 RCR Criminal 724 Bishnu Prashad Sinha
and Another Vs. State of Assam wherein it was held,
The confessional statement, as is well-known is
admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. The court may
rely thereby if it is voluntary given. It may also affirmed
on the basis of conviction wherefor the court may have to
satisfy itself in regard to voluntariness and truthfulness
thereof and in given cases some corroboration thereof. A
confession not retracted and have been accepted by the
accused can be fully relied upon.
142.

To my mind by production of aforesaid CD, the accused cannot

blow hot and cold. On one side, the defence wants to take advantage of
the video portion which goes to reflect that he was wearing a shirt which
was taken into police possession whereas the accused wants to allege that
audio part was under compulsion. I am of the considered opinion if in
confession, the accused himself has relied upon he himself has waived a

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


143

privilege given to him by the law and he cannot take any advantage of
Section 25 of The Indian Evidence Act.
143.

Therefore, this part of evidence also goes against the accused.

Even otherwise the aforesaid piece of evidence is covered under


subsequent conduct of the accused when he himself has asked media
person to record his interview when he was not under compulsion to give
any such statement as he was not arrested by the police. Thus, aforesaid
statement of the accused may be considered to be voluntary and out of his
own will and volition and can be relied upon.
144.

As per cumulative appreciation of facts discussed hereinbefore

with regard to confession, I have no hesitation to hold that the accused


himself has relied upon his confession Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW2/A. From
cumulative evidence in shape of aforesaid two interviews (confessions), it
is clear that after the incident the accused came all alone and admitted
before media person that he was having money transactions with ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased). Earlier he has tried to commit suicide. It
was the last day of returning of money to ACP Rajbir Singh. ACP Rajbir
Singh has threatened him to kill in case of non-payment of money. He had
also admitted in his confession in Ex.DW2/A that he had taken weapon
from ACP Rajbir Singh and he had sent his servant to purchase candles.
He fired two shots at the head of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased).
From the aforesaid facts, I am of the absolute opinion that the confession
Ex.DW2/A as discussed hereinbefore, not to speak of retracting at any

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


144

stage of the trial has been produced by the accused himself and relied
upon the said confessional statement given by him to media person. Thus,
the confessional statement of accused as reflected in his both the
interviews contained in CD Ex.DW3/1 and Ex.DW2/1 is admissible.
145.

From the aforesaid established facts, the principle of last

seen found together theory is to be judged. The prosecution has examined


PW-27 HC Lillu Ram from Delhi Police. This witness has deposed that he
was deputed as PSO with ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) along with
others. On 24.03.2008, he along with Constable Karamabir were on PSO
duty and HC Padam Kumar, Constable Rajiv and Constable Sudhir were
in escort duty with ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). On that day, ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) along with himself and ASI Jawahar Singh
went to the office-cum-shop of accused at Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon in
Government Vehicle. They had reached at office-cum-shop of Vijay
Bhardwaj at about 7.15/7.30 p.m. After some time servant (PW-55
Krishan Kumar) of Vijay Bhardwaj conveyed message of ACP Rajbir
Singh vide which they were asked to park Qualis vehicle near petrol
pump and thus, they did so. At about 8.30 p.m., he had seen accused Vijay
Bhardwaj going upstairs in his shop. At about 9.20/9.30 p.m., when he
had tried to contact ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) on his mobile
phone but no response was received. In view of statement of this witness,
one fact is clear that ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) entered into

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


145

office-cum-shop of accused at 7.15/7.30 p.m. and thereafter, the accused


entered into the said office-cum-shop at 8.30 p.m. Thus, it is clear that
8.30 p.m. onward, accused Vijay Bhardwaj was in company of ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) in office-cum-shop of the accused. The
prosecution has proved Ex.PW43/7 call details record of telephone
number of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). As per that record ACP
Rajbir Singh (since deceased) had received a call on his mobile at 8.46
p.m. Thus, an inference can be drawn that after entering into office-cumshop of accused at 8.30 p.m., ACP Rajbir Singh was alive and thus,
received a call on his mobile at 8.46 p.m. PW-27 HC Lillu Ram has also
deposed that ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) when contacted at about
9.25/9.30 p.m., he did not respond on his mobile. PW-16 ASI Pradeep
Kumar from Haryana Police has deposed that he had received a call from
accused Vijay Bhardwaj at about 9.20 p.m. and he had asked about
jurisdiction of Police Station under which his office-cum-shop was
situated. Thus from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that in between 8.30
p.m. to 9.20 p.m., the accused was last found in company of deceased
ACP Rajbir Singh and thereafter, ACP Rajbir Singh was found dead lying
in his office. No doubt only on the basis of last found theory, conviction
cannot be based, however, in case other incriminating evidence is
available against the accused in addition to last found together, the last
found theory inspires confidence to such an extent that last found theory
can be attracted to convict the accused. In this case, accused and deceased

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


146

were found in company of each other and thereafter, the deceased was
found dead in office-cum-shop of the accused. The revolver by which
death of accused was caused was recovered at the instance of accused and
by Ballistic Expert a positive opinion was given that the same weapon
was used to commit death of deceased. It was also found that the shoe of
accused was found to be stained with human blood. Consequently, the
fact of accused and deceased found in company of each other coupled
with aforementioned other circumstantial evidence and expert evidence
unerringly points towards guilt of the accused.
146.

Even though it was argued by learned defence counsel that

PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar, PW-27 HC Lillu Ram, PW-28 ASI Jawahar
Singh are got-up witnesses and could not be believed. However, I do not
find the favour with him on the grounds that the difference of time
deposed by them in court is due to lapse of memory. Any witness cannot
be so meticulous about disclosing exact time when the said time is not
remembered by the witness in particular fact of the case. Even otherwise,
if there is some lapses on part of the Investigating Officer while
investigating a case, the prosecution cannot be thrown out. Even though
learned defence counsel has cross-examined the aforesaid witnesses
regarding a fact if police was present at the place of occurrence at about
10 p.m. or not is concerned, the defence counsel had not asked as to
police officials, which were present at the place of occurrence after the
incident were from PS City Gurgaon or from PS Civil Lines Gurgaon. It

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


147

is case of the prosecution that police official from PS City Gurgaon


reached at the place of occurrence initially at about 10.30 or 11 p.m.
Whereas case of the prosecution is police officials from PS Civil Lines
Gurgaon reached at the place of occurrence after FIR was lodged on the
statement of PW-16, ASI Pardeep Kumar. There is nothing on file to infer
that the police officials from both the police stations were having any
interaction with each other. Therefore, it cannot be said that PW-16 is a
got-up witness. Likewise, I do not find favour with arguments of learned
defence counsel that PW-19 SHO Tahir Hussain is a got-up witness. As
far as arguments of learned defence counsel that PW-16 ASI Pardeep
Kumar and PW-17 Krishan Dev are inconsistent with each other, I do not
concur with arguments of learned defence counsel. My aforesaid
observation is based upon a fact that the defence has not asked any
question from the prosecution witnesses that the police officials were
from both the Police Stations. As far as time of arrest of accused at about
6.15/7 a.m. on 25.03.2008 from PS City Gurgaon is concerned, I am of
the considered opinion that both the aforesaid police officials have
formally arrested the accused, PS City Gurgaon. Whereas the accused was
informally taken into custody by PW-40 Sumit Kumar DSP who found
accused giving statement to media through PW-51 Dharambir Sharma
from Zee News. It is also clear from the aforesaid fact that initially the
accused was informally taken into custody by DSP Head Quarter PW-40
Sumit Kumar DSP

and from there he was taken to the place of

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


148

occurrence and from there, he was taken to PS City Gurgaon.


Consequently, argument of learned defence counsel that if arrest is false,
entire case of prosecution falls flat pails into insignificance. As far as
argument of learned defence counsel that car of accused was not
subjected to chemical examination, it is not relevant because it is for the
Investigating Officer to collect evidence of his choice. In this case shoe
and shirt of the accused was taken into possession. As far as argument of
learned defence counsel that the accused might have been subjected to
entry place of occurrence when he was taken there by PW-40 Sumit
Kumar DSP is concerned, I also do not find favour with him. No crossexamination was conducted with PW-40 Sumit Kumar DSP that the
accused was taken by him inside the shop. Therefore, also no benefit can
be given to the accused. As far as argument of learned defence counsel
that first remand does not find mention that shirt and shoe was taken into
possession creates doubt is concerned, I do not find favour with him. To
my mind, relevant facts which are required taking remand of accused are
to be incorporated in police request. It is not necessary that all facts which
have come in investigation are to be required written down in remand
paper. Argument of learned defence counsel that all calls received from
accused were not incorporated in DDR, carries no weight. No doubt,
course of service numerous phone calls are received by a police official
but everyone is not required to entertain DDR. Therefore, this fact is clear
and does not create any doubt. As far as argument of learned defence

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


149

counsel that case property was taken into possession after reaching of
Ballistic Expert at 1.30 p.m. whereas PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar and
PW-17 Krishan Dev have deposed that case property was seized before
1.30 p.m. is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that in this case,
case property was seized at various points of time from place of
occurrence and from the accused. This fact is clear from the statement of
PW-17 Krishan Dev and PW-19 SHO Tahir Hussain. The defence counsel
during examination of these witnesses had not asked about recoveries
with reference to date and point of time just to create an impression that
recoveries may become doubtful. If any answer given in crossexamination is ambiguous with regard to a fact then no benefit can be
given the accused. Even though learned defence counsel has argued in
view of statement of PW-17 Krishan Dev there was street light at the
place of incident and in these circumstances PW-28 ASI Jawahar Singh
when visited the office he must have noted that the blood was oozing out
from the office. I do find favour with him because other numerous
witnesses including PW-16 ASI Pardeep Kumar, PW-28 ASI Jawahar
Singh have categorically deposed that there was no light. In view of
aforesaid facts the argument of learned defence counsel does not appeal to
my reasons.
147.

Consequent upon my aforesaid findings, I do not find favour

with arguments of learned defence counsel based upon Prakash Singhs


Case (supra), Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarnis Case (supra) and Chander

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


150

Pals Case (supra) on account of reason that in present case last found
theory is duly supported by recovery of weapon at the instance of accused
coupled with staining of his shoe with human blood which remains
unexplained and the confession made by him and relied upon by him as
well as motive available with the accused and previous and subsequent
conduct of the accused.
148.

I am also of the considered opinion that the facts as

established hereinbefore are consistent only with the hypothesis of the


guilt of accused and the same remained unexplained to arrive at any other
hypothesis: the facts are of conclusive nature and tendency. The accused
has failed to explain any other mitigating circumstance to show that there
was anyone except him to cause death of ACP Rajbir Singh. I am also of
the absolute opinion that in case as held earlier, the accused was having a
strong motive in commission of crime and thus, it is also additional factor
which give rise to a conclusion that accused is author of crime.
149.

In view of my aforesaid observations, when the defence has

failed to create any dent regarding fact that dead body of ACP Rajbir
Singh (since deceased) was found at any other place except the shop-cumoffice of the accused. The arguments advanced by learned defence
counsel in this regard carries no weight.
150.

The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable

doubt that revolver which was recovered at the instance of accused was
having found in working order as proved by PW-60 Dr. R.K.Kaushal,

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


151

Assistant Director Ballistic, FSL Haryana Madhuban. As per statement of


PW-69 Ms. Deepti Umashankar, who was posted as District Magistrate,
Gurgaon, in the month of August, 2008, accused Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj
was not having any license to carry the arm and he had issued sanction
order Ex.PW69/1 for prosecution of accused under Section 25 of the Arms
Act.
151.

Consequent upon my aforesaid findings, the prosecution has

been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused and deceased
were found in company of each other in between 8.30/9.00 p.m. in officecum-shop of accused situated in Mehrauli Road, Haryana Gurgaon.
Thereafter ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was found dead, the death
of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) was caused by rifled

armed

weapon, weapon used in offence was recovered at the instance of accused


and by the report of Ballistic report, it was found that bullets fired which
caused death of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased) were fired from the
weapon recovered at the instance of accused. The accused was having
strong motive to commit murder of ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased).
The shoes of accused were found to be stained with human blood.
Accused suffered confessional statement which was found to be reliable
and admissible in evidence. Consequently, the prosecution has been able
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 24.3.2008 at about 8.30/9.00
p.m. at the aforesaid place committed murder of ACP Rajbir Singh (since
deceased) by inflicting fire injuries on his person and thereby committed

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


152

offence under Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code and he is held guilty.
The prosecution has also been able to prove that accused
was found in possession of arm without having any license which was
found to be in working order and thus, he has committed offence
punishable under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of The Arms Act,1959. It has
already been held that aforesaid arm was used in commission of murder of
ACP Rajbir Singh (since deceased). Thus, he has committed offence
under Section 27 (1) of The Arms Act,1959 and he is held guilty
accordingly. Let the accused be heard on quantum of sentence on
28.10.2015.

Pronounced:

(Rakesh Kumar Yadav)


Addl. Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge (CBI),
Haryana at Panchkula.
23.10.2015.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


153

Present:-

Sh. Rajan Dahiya, Public Prosecutor for the State.


Convict Vijay Bhardwaj in custody represented by Shri
Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.

Order on the quantum of sentence:Heard the convict and his counsel and learned PP on the
quantum of sentence. The convict has made separate statement with
regard to the quantum of sentence to be awarded to him. Convict Vijay
Bhardwaj has stated that he has old aged mother, who is suffering from
various old age ailments. His father had expired in the year 1992. He has
three minor daughters and his wife is household lady. He has the liability
of his mother, handicapped and divorce sister, who is residing with him.
He is not a previous convict and not involved in any other criminal case.
The convict has also prayed to take a lenient in the matter of sentence.
2.

The learned defence counsel for convict has submitted that

keeping in view the age, family condition and the circumstances of


present case, lenient view be taken against the accused.
3.

To the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

contention of learned defence counsel and prayed that maximum sentence


be awarded to the convict.
4.

After having heard rival contentions raised by learned Public

Prosecutor for the CBI and learned counsel for the accused, I have come
to the conclusion that the accused had committed murder of Rajbir Singh,
who was ACP in Delhi Police. However, the court cannot lost sight of the

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


154

fact that the accused, as claimed is sole bread earners of his family and
not a previous convict and thus the sentence should be consumerate to
advance cause of justice. Facts of this case does not attract punishment
which is awarded in rarest of the rate case of murder. The circumstances
in which the accused has committed murder has background which goes
to reflect that it is not a ghastly act. Therefore, keeping in view the
aforesaid facts in mind, the convict namely Vijay Bhardwaj is sentenced
as under:-

Sr.
No.

Accused

Convicted under
Sections

Sentence of
Imprisonment/Fine imposed.

Vijay
Bhardwaj.

302 of The Indian Imprisonment for life and to


Penal Code.
pay a fine of 5000/-. In
default, Imprisonment for a
further period of two years.

2.

Vijay
Bhardwaj

25 (1-B) (a) of The Rigorous Imprisonment for two


Arms Act, 1959.
years and to pay a fine of
2,000/-. In default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of one year.

3.

Vijay
Bhardwaj

27 (1) of The Arms Rigorous Imprisonment for


Act,1959.
three years and to pay a fine of
3,000/-. In default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of one and half years.

All sentences shall run concurrently. However, sentence already


undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of The

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


155

Criminal Procedure Code subject to the provisions of Section 433-A of


The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Pronounced.
28.10.2015.

(Rakesh Kumar Yadav)


Addl. Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge (CBI),
Haryana at Panchkula.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


156

Statement of accused Vijay Bhardwaj son of Shri Khushi Ram, age- 52


years, resident of House No.829, Sector-14, Gurgaon on quantum of
sentence. W.O.
Stated that I have old aged mother, who is suffering from
various old age ailments. My father had expired in the year 1992. I have
three minor daughters and my wife is household lady. I have the liability
of my mother, handicapped and divorce sister, who is residing with me. I
am not a previous convict and am not involved in any other criminal case.
A lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence.

RO&AC.

(Rakesh Kumar Yadav)


Special Judge (CBI),
Haryana at Panchkula.
28.10.2015.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


157

Present:

Shri Rajan Dahiya, PP for the CBI.


Accused Vijay Bhardwaj in custody represented by Shri Anil
Kaushik Advocvate.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the accused has been

held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of


The Indian Penal Code, under Section 25 (1-B) (a) and 27 (1) of The
Arms Act,1959. Let the accused be heard on quantum of sentence on
28.10.2015.

Present:

(Rakesh Kumar Yadav)


Addl. Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge (CBI),
Haryana at Panchkula.
23.10.2015.
Shri Rajan Dahiya, PP for the CBI.
Convict Vijay Bhardwaj in custody represented by Shri
Sanjeev Sharma, Advocvate.
Statement of convict recorded, arguments on quantum of sentence

heard. Vide separate order of even date, the convict Vijay Bhardwaj has
been sentenced as under:Sr.
No.

Accused

Convicted under
Sections

Sentence of
Imprisonment/Fine imposed.

Vijay
Bhardwaj.

302 of The Indian Imprisonment for life and to


Penal Code.
pay a fine of 5000/-. In
default, Imprisonment for a
further period of two years.

2.

Vijay
Bhardwaj

25 (1-B) (a) of The Rigorous Imprisonment for two


Arms Act, 1959.
years and to pay a fine of
2,000/-. In default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of one year.

CBI Vs Vijay Bhardwaj


158

3.

Vijay
Bhardwaj

27 (1) of The Arms Rigorous Imprisonment for


Act,1959.
three years and to pay a fine of
3,000/-. In default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of one and half years.

All sentences shall run concurrently. However, sentence already


undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of The
Criminal Procedure Code subject to the provisions of Section 433-A of
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Fine not paid. His jail warrant
prepared and sent to District Jail, Bhondsi, Gurgaon for its due execution.
His surety stand discharged. Case property i.e. the revolver and
ammunition be confiscated to the State. File be consigned to the records
after due compliance.

Pronounced.
28.10.2015.

(Rakesh Kumar Yadav)


Special Judge (CBI),
Haryana at Panchkula.