Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Gurgaon Kidney Scam Case Judgement

    Încărcat de

    Sampath Bulusu
    483 vizualizări199 pagini
    The multi-billion rupee Gurgaon kidney scandal came to light in January 2008 when police arrested several people for running a kidney transplant racket in Gurgaon, an industrial township near New Delhi, India. Kidneys from most of the victims, who were the poor hailing from the nearby western Uttar Pradesh, were transplanted into clients from United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Greece. The police raid was prompted by complaints by the locals from Moradabad about illegal kidney sales. The man accused of the scandal, Amit Kumar, was arrested in Nepal on 7 February 2008 and has denied any hand in criminal activity. On January 24, 2008, police teams from Haryana and Uttar Pradesh raided a residential building and a guest house owned by Amit Kumar. According to the Gurgaon police, the scandal at a local clinic was going on for six to seven years. The donors were lured with offerings of about Rs. 30,000 for kidney removal.First, they were lured to the clinic on the pretext of job opportunities. They were instead asked for donating their kidneys for the fee and all those who resisted this were drugged against their will and subsequently operated upon. The Haryana police, under whose jurisdiction the scandal happened, issued arrest warrants against Upendra Aggarwal, a general physician and an associate of Amit Kumar for his involvement in the scandal. However, at the time of the police raid, Kumar and his other accomplices escaped after the knowledge of possible arrests. The raid helped rescue five people and shifted them to a Gurgaon hospital. On January 25, 2008, the police detained a United States-based non-resident Indian couple and three Greek nationals, two among them being patients receiving the transplants. These accused were finally convicted

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    The multi-billion rupee Gurgaon kidney scandal came to light in January 2008 when police arrested several people for running a kidney transplant racket in Gurgaon, an industrial township near New Delhi, India. Kidneys from most of the victims, who were the poor hailing from the nearby western Uttar Pradesh, were transplanted into clients from United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Greece. The police raid was prompted by complaints by the locals from Moradabad about illegal kidney sales. The man accused of the scandal, Amit Kumar, was arrested in Nepal on 7 February 2008 and has denied any hand in criminal activity. On January 24, 2008, police teams from Haryana and Uttar Pradesh raided a residential building and a guest house owned by Amit Kumar. According to the Gurgaon police, the scandal at a local clinic was going on for six to seven years. The donors were lured with offerings of about Rs. 30,000 for kidney removal.First, they were lured to the clinic on the pretext of job opportunities. They were instead asked for donating their kidneys for the fee and all those who resisted this were drugged against their will and subsequently operated upon. The Haryana police, under whose jurisdiction the scandal happened, issued arrest warrants against Upendra Aggarwal, a general physician and an associate of Amit Kumar for his involvement in the scandal. However, at the time of the police raid, Kumar and his other accomplices escaped after the knowledge of possible arrests. The raid helped rescue five people and shifted them to a Gurgaon hospital. On January 25, 2008, the police detained a United States-based non-resident Indian couple and three Greek nationals, two among them being patients receiving the transplants. These accused were finally convicted

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    483 vizualizări199 pagini

    Gurgaon Kidney Scam Case Judgement

    Încărcat de

    Sampath Bulusu
    The multi-billion rupee Gurgaon kidney scandal came to light in January 2008 when police arrested several people for running a kidney transplant racket in Gurgaon, an industrial township near New Delhi, India. Kidneys from most of the victims, who were the poor hailing from the nearby western Uttar Pradesh, were transplanted into clients from United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Greece. The police raid was prompted by complaints by the locals from Moradabad about illegal kidney sales. The man accused of the scandal, Amit Kumar, was arrested in Nepal on 7 February 2008 and has denied any hand in criminal activity. On January 24, 2008, police teams from Haryana and Uttar Pradesh raided a residential building and a guest house owned by Amit Kumar. According to the Gurgaon police, the scandal at a local clinic was going on for six to seven years. The donors were lured with offerings of about Rs. 30,000 for kidney removal.First, they were lured to the clinic on the pretext of job opportunities. They were instead asked for donating their kidneys for the fee and all those who resisted this were drugged against their will and subsequently operated upon. The Haryana police, under whose jurisdiction the scandal happened, issued arrest warrants against Upendra Aggarwal, a general physician and an associate of Amit Kumar for his involvement in the scandal. However, at the time of the police raid, Kumar and his other accomplices escaped after the knowledge of possible arrests. The raid helped rescue five people and shifted them to a Gurgaon hospital. On January 25, 2008, the police detained a United States-based non-resident Indian couple and three Greek nationals, two among them being patients receiving the transplants. These accused were finally convicted

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 199

    1

    In the Court of Shri Najar Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, CBI, Har ana !anch"ula. CBI Case No# $% of &$$'. (ate of Institution# 1&.$).&$$'*+1.$1.&$1&. (ate of (ecision# &&.$+.&$1+. CBI Versus 1. (r. ,pender (u-lesh son of late !armanand resident of House no.1'$), Sanja Colon , Balla-hgarh, .arida-ad, Har ana permanent resident of /ohalla /unna 0al Near Shi1 /andir, 2as-a /a3ana, /eerut 4,!5. &. Amit 2umar 6 Santosh 7amesh3ar 7aut son of 7amesh3ar 7aut resident of .-18', 9ma: ;:ecuti1e .loors, Sushant 0o"-III, Sector <8, =urgaon permanent resident of >illage !aturnandur-ar, (istrict A"ola, /aharashtra. +. Jee1an 2umar 7aut son of 7amesh3ar 7aut resident of ;C-II, C-1$&, ;ssel ?o3er, =urgaon, permanent resident of >illage !aturnadur-ar, (istrict A"ola, /ahrashtra. @. (r. 2rishan 2umar Aggar3al son of Nemi Chand Jain, resident of House No.%&, Su-hash Nagar, N;B ?hana, Shi1aji !ar", (istrict Al3ar, permanent resident of ?ijara, !S ?ijara (istrict Al3ar 47ajasthan5. <. /anoj 2umar son of /aha1ir Singh resident of A-&1, =ali No.1, Aero !usta, Sonia >ihar, (elhi. 8. /s. 0inda (*9 ?utBachin resident of Nurses Hostel, 7oom No.@<, (r. 7/0 Hospital, Ne3 (elhi, permanent resident of near !/S 9ffice, (istrict Chura Chand !ur, /anipur. %. (r. Saraj 2umar 2o1ind son of Shri /a"han 0al resident of C-+*&<, Camuna >ihar, (elhi, permanent resident of 2anchausi BaBar, (istrict 2anpur (ehat, ,!. '. Jagdish son of 7oop Singh resident of >illage Jhad Senthli, ?hana Sector <<, (istrict .arida-ad permanent resident of 1illage Jhad Senthli, ?hana, Sector <<, .arida-ad. ). = asuddin son of late /ohd. 2adir resident of =ali No.1+, (a3ai Nagar, Hapur 7oad, /eerut 4,!5 permanent resident of >illage Asorada, 2as-a, Hapur, (istrict =haBia-ad.

    &

    1$. /ohd. Shahid son of 0ate A-dul /aBid, resident of B&@<, Aashiana Colon , !S Nishadi =ate, /eerut Cit . DAccused. 7C No.14;5*&$$' dated $'.$&.&$$'. ,nder Sections# 1&$-B r*3 +$%,+&8,+@&,@1%,@8<,@%+ and <$8 of I!C and 1', 1) and &$ of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@. !olice Station # CBI*;9,->II*Ne3 (elhi. !resent# Shri 7.!. >erma, !u-lic !rosecutor for the CBI. Accused Jagdish and Jee1an on -ail 3ith Shri A-hishe" Sharma Ad1ocate and Shri /.S.7athi, 0egal Aid Counsel. Accused Amit 2umar 6 Santosh 7.7aut, ,pender 2umar (u-lesh, /anoj 2umar, 2rishan 2umar Aggar3al, = asudin, /ohd. Shahid in custod represented - Shri Amit (udeja Ad1ocate, Shri /.S.7athi, 0egal Aid Counsel, Shri ?arun =upta Ad1ocate, Shri Shi1 Charan Chaudhar , Shri A-hishe" Sharma, Ad1ocate. Accused 0inda and Saraj 2umar 2o1ind on -ail 3ith Shri A-hishe" Sharma Ad1ocate.

    J,(=/;N?# Central Bureau of In1estigation 4hereinafter to -e referred as Ethe CBIF5 had filed the composite challan*complaint under Section && of ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@ against accused (r. ,pender 2umar (u-lesh 4A-15G Amit 2umar alias Santosh 7amesh3ar 7aut 4A-&5, Jee1an 2umar 7aut 4A-+5G (r. 2rishan 2umar Aggar3al4A-@5, /anoj 2umar 4A-<5, /s. 0inda 4A-85, (r. Saraj 2umar 4A-%5, Jagdish 4A-'5 and = asudin4A-)5 and during the pendenc thereof at the stage of prosecution e1idence, the CBI has filed composite challan*complaint against accused Cashpal Sharma

    supplementar

    4Since died5 4A-1$5 and /ohd. Shahid 4A-115 to face the trial for the offences punisha-le under Sections 1&$-B r*3 +$%,+&8,+@&,@1%,@8<,@%+ and <$8 of I!C and 1', 1) and &$ of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@.

    &.

    Succinctl , dilating upon the facts leading to the prosecution of the

    accused culminating into trial of the instant case are that on &@ th Januar , &$$', the /orada-ad police raided the unauthoriBed and clandestine hospital of Amit 2umar located at @+%@, Sector &+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon in connection 3ith the in1estigation of .I7 No.@' dated &@.$1.&$$' of !S Ci1il 0ines, /orada-ad, ,!. (uring the raid, three 1ictims 3hose "idne s 3ere ta"en out - operating them in recent past and certain others 3ere found l ing there. ?he 1ictims 3ere in serious condition and 3ere shifted to (istrict Hospital, =urgaon. 9n the 3ritten complaint of 7aghuraj Singh, SI, !S !2ot3ali (istrict /orada-ad 4,!5, .I7 No.&% dated &<.$1.&$$' 3as registered against accused (r. ,pender 2umar and others for offences punisha-le under Section @&$ of the Indian !enal Code and Sections 1'*1) of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act,1))@ in police Station, !alam >ihar, =urgaon and in1estigation 3as ta"en up. (uring in1estigation, Sections 1&$-B, +&8,+@& and <$8 of Indian !enal Code 3ere added. Su-seHuentl , the in1estigation 3as entrusted to the CBI and .I7 No.7C-14;5*&$$'-CBI, ;9,->II, Ne3 (elhi dated $'.$&.&$$' 3as registered. ?he CBI in1estigated the case and in1estigation esta-lished that accused (r. ,pender 2umar (u-lesh 4A-15, Amit 2umar alias Santosh 7amesh3ar 7aut 4A-&5, Jee1an 2umar 7aut 4A-+5 and certain others hatched a criminal conspirac and in pursuance thereof, an unauthoriBed hospital 3as set up - accused Amit 2umar 7aut 6 Santosh 7.7aut 4A-&5 in =urgaon at house No.@+%@, Sector &+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon 3here illegal "idne transplantation carried out from 1))) to Januar , &$$'. Su-seHuentl , accused (r. 2rishan 2umar Aggar3al4A-@5, /anoj 2umar 4A-<5, 0inda 4A-85, (r. Saraj 2umar 2o1ind4A-%5, Jagdish 4A-'5, = asudin 4A-)5, Cashpal Sharma 4A-1$5 and /ohd. Shahid 4A-115 also joined said conspirac . >ictims 3hose "idne s 3ere

    remo1ed 3ere arranged - accused (r. ,pender 2umar (u-lesh4A-15, Jagdish 4A'5, = asudin 4A-)5, Cashpal Sharma 4Since died5 4A-1$5 and /ohd. Shahid 4A115 and others through a 3ell esta-lished net3or" of touts. >ictims 3ere "ept guarded in the premises speciall hired for the purpose - Jagdish 4A-'5 and Cashpal Sharma 4Since died5 4A-1$5. In furtherance of the said conspirac , the accused got the pre-operation e:aminations of the 1ictims done in different la-oratories. After assessing the suita-ilit for transplantation, one "idne each of the poor 1ictims 3as remo1ed fraudulentl in the illegal hospital esta-lished at =urgaon and transplanted to need recipients after charging huge amount of

    mone . Ihen the 1ictims protested against the remo1al of their "idne s, the 3ere threatened 3ith dire conseHuences and pressuriBed to "eep mum. Accused Amit 2umar 6 Santosh 7.7aut 4A-&5 3ithout ha1ing reHuired Hualification laid do3n in the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans 7ules, 1))< and -eing a Huac", along3ith his accomplices 3as carr ing out "idne transplant operations in the aforesaid illegal hospital 3ithout ha1ing e:perts of rele1ant fields of medicine and necessar life sa1ing facilities, as prescri-ed in the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans 7ules, 1))< "no3ing full recipients. 9n 3ell that this act ma of caused death of the 1ictims and the CBI filed composite

    completion

    in1estigation,

    challan*complaint against accused Amit 2umar and others 4A1 to A)5 for trial for commission of offences punisha-le under Sections 1&$-B read 3ith Sections +@&,+&8,@1%,@8<,@%+,<$8 and +$% of the Indian !enal Code and Sections 1',1) and &$ of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@. After suppl ing copies of complete challan*complaint and accompan ing documents to the accused, the case 3as committed - (r. A-dul /ajid, Special Judicial /agistrate, 4CBI5, Har ana, Am-ala to the court of Sessions 1ide order dated $+.$).&$$'. ,pon consideration

    <

    of composite challan*complaint and accompan ing documents and after hearing the prosecution and the accused the court -eing of the opinion that there 3as ground for presuming as to commission of the su-ject offences - the respecti1e accused 1ide order dated +1.$'.&$1$ framed charges under Sections 1&$-B read 3ith Sections +@&,+&8,@1%,@8<,@%+,<$8 and +$% of the Indian !enal Code and Sections 1', 1) and &$ of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@ against all the nine accused, under Section 1) of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@ against accused (r. ,pender 2umar (u-lesh 4A-15, Amit 2umar 6 Santosh 7.7aut 4A-&5, Jee1an 2umar 7aut4A-+5, /anoj 2umar 4A-<5, Jagdish 4A'5 and = asudin 4A-)5 under Section 1' of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@ against (r. ,pender 2umar (u-lesh 4A-15, Amit 2umar 6 Santosh 7.7aut4A-&5, Jee1an 2umar 7aut4A-+5, (r. 2rishan 2umar 4A-@5, /s. 0inda 4A-85 and (r. Saraj 2umar 2o1ind 4A-%5, under section +@& of the Indian !enal Code against Amit 2umar 6 Santosh 7.7aut4A-&5 and Jee1an 2umar 4A-+5, under Sections +&8,+$% and <$8 of the Indian !enal Code and Section &$ of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@ read 3ith 7ule ) 4C 5 A of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans 7ules, 1))< against accused Amit 2umar 6 Santosh 7.7aut, under Section @1% of Indian !enal Code against (r. ,pender 2umar (u-lesh 4A-15, Amit 2umar 6 Santosh 7.7aut 4A-&5 and /anoj 2umar 4A-<5 and under section @%+ and @8< of the Indian !enal Code against (r. ,pender 2umar (u-lesh 4A-15 to 3hich the pleaded not guilt and claimed trial. In its e1idence, the CBI e:amined &% 3itnesses. Ihile the case 3as fi:ed for e1idence of the CBI, supplementar challan*complaint 3as filed - the CBI against accused Cash !al Sharma 4A-1$5 43ho died on 1).11.&$115 and accused /ohd. Shahid 4A115 in the court of Shri 7a"esh Singh, Special Judicial /agistrate, 4CBI5, Har ana,

    !anch"ula and after suppl ing copies of supplementar

    challan*complaint and

    accompan ing documents to the accused, the case 3as committed - Shri 7a"esh Singh, Special Judicial /agistrate, 4CBI5, Har ana, !anch"ula to the predecessor court 1ide order dated &+.$1.&$1&. >ide order dated $%.$+.&$1&, supplementar composite challan*complaint 3as ordered to -e consolidated*attached 3ith the record of the main composite challan*complaint. 9n these facts, CBI has filed this challan under Sections 1&$-B r*3 Sections +$%,+&8,+@&,@1%,@8<,@%+ and <$8 of I!C and Sections 1',1) and &$ of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@. +. @. Accused 3ere supplied copies of challan and accompan ing documents. Since, there e:isted grounds for presuming that accused had committed

    the offences 1&$-B r*3 Sections +$%,+&8,+@&,@1%,@8<,@%1,@%+ and <$8 of Indian !enal Code and Sections1',1) and &$ of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@, 1',1) and &$ of the ?9H9 Act, +$%,+&8+@&,@1%,@8<, @%1,@%+ and <$8 of Indian !enal Code, the 3ere charged accordingl , to 3hich, the guilt and claimed trial. <. CBI in order to su-stantiate its case, e:amined !I-1 (r. 7.S.(ahi a, pleaded not

    !I-& Asho" 2umar, !I-+ 7ama =arg, !I-@ Neeraj 2umar =arg, !I-< (r. (inesh 2hullar, !I-8 2halid 2amal, !I-% Anil 2umar Bansal, !I-' (inesh 2umar, !I-) (han 7aj, !I-1$ Satish Chand, !I-11 /u"esh 2umar, !I-1& Amit 2urichh, !I-1+ 7ohtas, !I-1@ (r. !rashant Sarin, !I-1< Joginder Singh, !I-18 7a"esh (ahi a, !I-1% Surinder !al Singh, !I-1' 0uc" =arg, !I-1) 7aji1 =arg, !I-&$ Na1deep Singh, !I-&1 (harmender 2umar, !I-&& (r. /amta 2o1ind, !I-&+ >.!.>ats, !I-&@ (r. >irender Bas3ana, !I-&< (r. Al"a Singh, !I-&8 Salim, !I-&% (alip, !I-&' 7ajinder, !I-&) Sanja Bharga1, !I+$ /a an" /ahesh3ari, !I-+1 >i"as Aggar3al, !I-+& (hirendra Singh (atta,

    !I-++ (r. B.B.Aggar3al, !I-+@ (r. Sanja Narula, !I-+< Sunil Besra, !I-+8 7omesh 2aundal, !I-+% >i1e" /ago, !I-+' 7am 2umar, !I+) 7ohit =upta, !I-@$ Amul a !rashad, !I-@1 Ar1inder Singh, !I-@& Bhushan Sharma, !I-@+ >ipin Cha-a, !I@@ !.S.!anchpal, !I@< 7andhir Singh, !I-@8 7amesh 2apoor, !I@% 7ashmi, !I-@' 7a1inder Singh, !I-@) Sha"il, !I-<$ Surinder 2apoor, !I-<1 Niranjan !anj3ani, !I-<& >i"as Joll , !I-<+ Adeel /urtaBa, !I-<@ Bal 2rishan Sharma, !I-<< (r. Shi1ani /ali", !I-<8 (r. Arjun 0al, !I-<% Ante 7am, !I-<' 7a"esh (utta, !I-<) (r. >andana 0al, !I-8$ (r. Harsh /ahajan, !I-81 (ata 7am, !I-8& (eepa" !uri, !I-8+ (r. B.!.John , !I-8@ A-rar 2han, !I-8< Bharat Bhushan, !I-88 !ar1een 2umar, !I-8% Sunil 2umar, !I-8' (imngaiching ?hangsingh 6 (im Ngariching Simte, !I-8) (r. !.7.Sharma, !I%$ (r. (alip ,ttam 7ao Iange, !I-%1 (r. S.S.(alal, !I-%& (r. 7ajinder 2ar3asra, !I-%+ (r. >i"ram 2alra, !I-%@ (r. >.N.Sharma, !I-%< (r. S.S.Sang3an, !I-%8 (r. 2ishore /oresh3ar !impal"ar, !I-%% (r. >.2.Bansal, !I-%' (r. 2.S.7ao, !I-%) Ba-u 7am, !I-'$ (r. I.C.>erma, !I-'1 7am Ni3as, !I-'& (r. 7ajesh Jain, !I-'+ Anjala, !I-'@ (r. Al"a Bashin, !I-'< (r. H.7./.?ripathi, !I-'8 7ajesh Chauhan, !I-'% C.0.0as"er, !I-'' 7.2.Shah, !I-') 7ohit Singh, !I-)$ Chandan Singh, !I-)1 !ar1een /angla, !I-)& 9m >ati, !I-)+ (r. Asho" 2umar, !I-)@ /anoj Jain, !I-)< !arth Sahu, !I-)8 >inod 2umar, !I-)% Amit 2umar, !I-)' 2uldeep Singh, !I-)) Cash !al Singh, !I-1$$ (e1ender Singh 7athi, !I-1$1 (e1ender Singh, !I-1$& 7.0.Cada1, !I-1$+ 2rishna Sastr , !I-1$@ 7.C.2arnata", !I-1$< Aja 2umar Bassi, !I1$8 2rishan ?uteja, !I-1$% /ahesh C.>aid a, !I-1$' Balasu-ramon , !I-1$) Satinder Bist, !I-11$ >inod 2ataria, !I-111 7ajesh 0al, !I-11& >ine /udgil, !I-11+ (a1ender Singh /aan, !I-11@ 7ajinder Singh, !I-11< !.2.=ro1er, !I-

    '

    118 S.C.Chauhan, !I-11% /.7.Atre , !I-11' 2.0./oses, !I-11) 7ajudeen, !I-1&$ /.2.(har, !I-1&1 Arun 9-eroi, !I-1&& Shahid, !I-1&+ 7aghuraj Singh, !I-1&@ Anil Singh, !I-1&< Jitesh 2umar and !I-1&8 7aji1 (3i1edi. 8. It is 3orth-3hile to mention here that the accused Amit, ,pender,

    /anoj 2umar and 2rishan 2umar Aggar3al admitted some documents and 3ere e:hi-ited as ;:.!I'8*1, (-1@&,(-&<8,(-&8<,(-&8',(-&'&,(-1+1,(-&)$, (-&)1, application for >isa contained in file (-1++,(-&'),(-&$& and (-&$+,(-1<$,(&8+,(-1'$, (-1+& contained in ;:.!I11*%, (-&1&,(-&&&,(-1+<,(-1+8,(-1@8,(&$),(-&$',(-&1@,(-1'@, application form to get the pre-paid connection in file (&+8,;:.1$<*< and ;:.!1$<*8 contained in (-1&$, !hotostat cop of cancellation letter and affida1it and statement of Home 0oan account contained in (1<&,;:.1&*1,;:.1&*& and ;:.1&*+ contained in (-&$8, document ;:.!I')*1%, ;:.!I')*1 to ;:.!I')*@ contained in (-1)8, ;:.!I1$*1 to ;:.!I1$*& contained in (-1)% to (-&$1, (-1$) and (-1&+,(-&+,(-1+',(-1<+, application for permanent residence in Canada and photographs attached in file ;:.!I11*+ 4(1&)5 and (-1+%. ?hereafter, the e1idence of the CBI 3as closed - the 0d. !! 3a of suffering his statement. %. Accused 3ere confronted 3ith the e1idence against them and their

    statements under Section +1+ Cr. !.C 3ere recorded -ut accused /anoj, = asudeen and /ohd. Shahid ha1e confessed their guilt - gi1ing ans3ers at the time of recording their statements under Section +1+ Cr.!.C. Accused 3ere afforded the opportunit to lead their e1idence in defence. In defence, accused e:amined /.7.Jindal as (I1, accused Jagdish appeared and (I-& and Saraj 2umar 2o1ind as (I-+. ?hereafter, the defence e1idence 3as closed.

    '.

    Before coming to the ri1al contentions ad1anced - 0d. Counsels for

    the parties, it 3ould -e ad1antageous to gi1e the -rief s"etch of the e1idence led - the CBI as 3ell as defence #4i5 PW-1 Dr. R.S.Dahiya stated that he 3as 3or"ing in !=I/S 7ohta" since 1)'+. He further stated that a letter 3as recei1ed in the (irector office in !=I/S, 7ohta", from Ci1il Surgeon, =urgaon. He further stated that on receipt of the letter regarding "idne scam, the (irector, !=I/S, 7ohta" constituted a fi1e mem-ers committee, (r.7.2.2ar3asra, Head of Surger (epartment. ?he committee 3as constituted to enHuire a-out the "idne scam 3hich happened in =urgaon. He further stated that he has seen the report gi1en - the committee in 3hich all the details of the 1isits and the conclusions ha1e -een recorded. ?he report is ;:.!I1*1 running into si: pages 3hich -ears his signature and signatures of the a-o1e-mentioned other mem-ers of the committee. During Cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen the documents 3hich ha1e -een referred to in the report ;:.!I1*1 and he has seen onl the said report. (ii) PW-2 Ashok Kumar arit stated that he is 3or"ing in Secretar from /arch,

    /edical Council of India as (eput

    &$$+ and still continuing the same post. He further stated that the CBI had as"ed certain information from their office regarding some record of the doctors 3hich 3as supplied him to the CBI. He has -rought the record 3ith him. He further

    1$

    stated that a .AJ letter ;:.!I&*1 dated &%.&.&$$' 3as recei1ed from Superintendent of !olice CBI*;9,->II, Ne3 (elhi see"ing certain information a-out eight doctors namel (r. Santosh 7amesh3ar 7aut 6 Amit 2umar, (r. Jee1an 2umar, (r. Saraj 2umar 2o1ind, (r. ,pender 2umar, (r. 2rishan 2umar Aggar3al, (r.N.2.Aggar3al, (r. Asho" 2umar >erma and (r. B.!.John regarding their registration details

    3ith /edical Council of India. He further stated that in repl to the said letter, he sent repl ;:.!I&*& 3hich -ears his

    signature on -ehalf of /edical Council of India 1ide letter dated $+.$+.&$$' enclosing there3ith the details regarding their registration 3ith the /edical Council of India. He further stated that he had pro1ided further information 1ide letter ;:.!I&*+ dated $@.$+.&$$' 3hich -ears his signature. He further stated that the information contained in repl ;:.!I&*& and letter ;:.!I&*+ 3as gi1en on the -asis of record a1aila-le 3ith the /edical Council of India. During !ross-examination, he admitted that in letter ;:.!I&*1, the fatherFs name, ,ni1ersit and addresses of the persons regarding 3hom the information had -een sought 3ere not mentioned. He further stated that 1ide repl ;:.!I&*&, the had sought details regarding the a-o1e-said persons that is fatherFs name, ,ni1ersit , addresses etc. He further stated that he has sent Anne:ures I to I> ;:.!I&*@ to ;:.!I&*% along3ith letter ;:.!I&*& dated $+.$+.&$$'. He

    11

    further stated that enclosure ;:.!I&*' 3as sent 3ith letter ;:.!I&*+ dated $@.$+.&$$'. He further admitted that information gi1en - the /edical Council of India in respect of (r. Amit 2umar referred to in the letter ;:.!I&*1 of Superintendent of !olice, CBI*;9,->II*Ne3 (elhi at serial No.1 3as incomplete and inconclusi1e as full particulars regarding the fatherFs name, ,ni1ersit and addresses 3ere not pro1ided. He further stated that the CBI did not furnish the details regarding fatherFs name, ,ni1ersit , addresses etc. as demanded their office through letter ;:.!I&*& dated

    $+.$+.&$$'. He further stated that as per Anne:ure ;:.!I&*', (u-lish ,pendra 2umar son of !arma Nand (u-lish 3as registered at serial No.&+<+< 3ith the State /edical Council of ,ttar !radesh 3ith /BBS Hualification. He further stated that his Hualification ear 3as mentioned as 1)%) and ,ni1ersit 3as mentioned as /eerut ,ni1ersit . 4iii5 PW-" Rama #arg $i%e o% Rohit #arg stated that she 3as married to 7ohit =arg on &8th No1em-er, &$$8. She further stated that his hus-and is a -usinessman and is running a Hotel in the name and st le of J oti (elu:. She further stated that her father Neeraj =arg is doing the -usiness of sale and purchase of tim-er. She further stated that 3hen she 3as in IJth class, she suffered from the disease of Nephrotic S ndrome. ?he doctor ga1e her medicines -ut her disease 3as not there- cured and the doctor ad1ised dial sis. She further stated that she

    1&

    under3ent dial sis procedure in /AJ Hospital, !itampura. He further stated that generall t3o dial sis procedures 3ere done e1er 3ee". Ihen he 3as returned after dial sis, one person met her in the /AJ hospital, !ritampur and as"ed her as to 3hether she 3anted to get "idne transplantation done. She further stated that her mother used to accompan her in the /a: Hospital. She further stated that the ga1e her the drip and too" her to the same da i.e. 1' th Januar , &$$8 and "idne

    transplantation 3as done on that da . Accused (r. Amit 2umar 3as present in the operation theater. She further stated that at the time of operation, she 3as unconscious under the anesthesia. She further stated that the amount of 7s.8.$$ lacs 3as paid to3ards the e:penses - her father. She further stated that accused Amit 2umar told her that "idne plantation 3as legal in Har ana as there 3as no la3 applica-le in Har ana in this regard. She further stated she can identif accused Amit 2umar, ,pender and /s. 0inda, 3ho are present in the court. She further stated that she remained in contact 3ith accused Amit 2umar e1en after "idne transplantation for medicines and injections. During !ross-examination, she stated that she has not -rought her medical record sho3ing that she 3as suffering from Nephrotic S ndrome. She further stated that the 3itness has procured the photostat copies of the record 3hich 3ere ordered to -e "ept on the file. She did not remem-er no3 in

    1+

    3hich ear she 3as in IJ th class. She further stated that she had su-mitted the record including receipts regarding her dial sis procedure done t3ice a 3ee" in /AJ Hospital. She further stated that she is JIIth passed. She, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4i15 PW-& 'eera( Kumar #arg stated that he has three children, t3o daughters 7ama =arg, Chha1i =arg and one son /ohit =arg. His 3ife Anjali =arg is a house-3ife. Ihen 7ama =arg 3as in IJth class, she had s3elling on her legs and the doctors diagnosed the pro-lem as Nephrotic S ndrome. He further stated that in the ear &$$<, his daughter 7ama =arg used to go 3ith her mother for dial sis in /AJ Hospital, !itampura. Some person met his daughter 7ama =arg at /AJ Hospital, !itampura and as"ed her to go for "idne transplantation of !alam >ihar, =urgaon if she 3anted to undergo "idne transplantation. ?hat person ga1e one mo-ile phone num-er and he tal"ed to accused (r. Amit 2umar. Accused (r. Amit 2umar as"ed him to -ring the patient and reports. ?he 3ent to !alam >ihar, =urgaon -ut he did not remem-er the num-er of the -uilding. ?he met accused (r. Amit 2umar and sho3ed him the reports. (r. Amit 2umar ad1ised for "idne transplantation and he demanded amount of 7s.'.$$ lacs -ut he refused, on 3hich the amount 3as settled at 7s.8.$$ lacs. He further stated that after matching of samples on 18 th Januar , &$$8, he recei1ed a telephone call from accused Amit 2umar,

    1@

    3ho ad1ised a-out the medicines to -e ta"en and as"ed them to come on 1'th Januar , &$$8. 9n 1'th Januar , &$$8, in the morning, he, his 3ife and his daughter 7ama =arg 3ent to !alam >ihar, =urgaon. ?here 7ama =arg 3as ta"en to the first floor and the remained sitting in the -asement. His daughter 7ama =arg remained admitted for a-out ele1en-t3el1e da s. 9n 1'th Januar , &$$8, 7ama =arg 3as gi1en a drip and ta"en to the operation theatre and operation 3as done on that 1er da . Accused Amit 2umar 3as to perform the operation -ut the 3ere not allo3ed to go into the operation theatre and

    therefore, he cannot sa 3ho actuall performed the operation. He paid the amount of 7s.8.$$ lacs to accused (r. Amit 2umar at his residence -efore the operation. ?he "ne3 (r. Amit 3ho else

    2umar, (r. ,pender 2umar and he cannot sa

    assisted accused Amit 2umar in the operation. He further stated that after "idne transplantation, the remained in contact 3ith accused Amit 2umar regarding the medicines to -e ta"en 7ama =arg. He has seen accused Amit 2umar and ,pender 2umar, 3ho are present in the court. During !ross-examination, he stated that the alleged transaction of pa ment of 7s.8.$$ lacs to accused Amit 2umar - him did not ta"e place in the presence of accused ,pender 2umar. He had seen on tele1ision the reports regarding arrest of accused persons in the alleged "idne scam. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions.

    1<

    415

    PW-) Dinesh Khu**ar stated that he is 3or"ing as Consultant in Sir =anga 7am Hospital, Ne3 (elhi since 1))%. He further stated that on &@th Januar , &$$', 3hen he had just gone -ac" home after his e1ening round at the hospital, he got a call from his junior doctor that a patient - the name of /rs. 0uc" =arg has -een -rought at the casualt department of their hospital at 11.1< p.m. and it 3as claimed that she under3ent a "idne transplantation surger at a hospital in =urgaon earlier on the same da or 3ithin &@ hours. ?he patient or the attendants 3ere not carr ing an documentar proof or an hospital record to that effect. Since the matter raised suspicion in his mind, he had instructed his doctor on dut to immediatel inform the police, get /0C registered and then proceed 3ith the treatment of the patient. ?he police 3ere informed and /0C 3as registered and thereafter, prompt treatment 3as initiated admitting the

    patient in the pri1ate 3ard. He further stated that the ultrasound e:amination of the patient re1ealed the presence of transplanted graft "idne . He further stated that the /0C 3as registered - (r. Sanja 2umar Solan"i and he identified his hand-3riting and signature as he is 3or"ing 3ith him and he has seen him 3riting and signing. He further stated that a C.?.Scan done on the patient re1ealed the presence of transplanted graft "idne . He further stated that the patient 3as admitted in the pri1ate 3ard and managed 3ith

    immunosuppressi1e therap , -road spectrum anti--iotics and

    18

    other supporti1e therap . He further pro1ed the /0C ;:.!I*& 3hich -ears signature of (r. /.2./ishira. During !ross-examination, he admitted that -oth the /0Cs ;:.!I<*1 and ;:.!I<*& 3ere not filled-in in his presence. He also admitted that in /0C ;:.!I<*1, the columns regarding the date and time of accident, date and time of arri1al and date of admission and date of discharge are -lan". He further admitted that in -oth the /0Cs, the column as to identification mar" is -lan". He further admitted that -oth the patients 3ere conscious. He further admitted that - seeing the -ed head tic"et of the patient, one can tell a-out the date of admission and discharge of the patient. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (+i) PW-, Kha*i-kama* stated that he 3or"ed in /*S 0i-ert Health Care Hospital, Sector 1@, near !a al Cinema Hall =urgaon for a-out three months as dial sis technician. He 3as inter1ie3ed, selected and appointed accused ,pender

    2umar. He can identif accused ,pender 2umar (u-lesh and he is present in the court toda . He did not remem-er the e:act dates and months -ut it 3as in and around the months of Septem-er and 9cto-er in the ear 1))% that he 3or"ed for a-out three months. Accused Jee1an 2umar 7aut used to pa him the salar . He can identif accused Jee1an 2umar 7aut and he is present in the court. He identified accused Jee1an 2umar 7aut - pointing to3ards him. No other doctor paid salar to

    1%

    him. He cannot tell the appro:imate num-er of patients, 3ho 3ere gi1en dial sis treatment - him. He cannot tell 3ho used to interact 3ith those patients, and 3ho used to recei1e the mone . 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, contents of statement ;:.!I8*1 3ere put to him 3ord 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the

    statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the police. He 3as also confronted 3ith portions A to A1, B to B1, C to C1, ( to (1, ; to ;1, . to .1 and = to =1 of his statement ;:.!I8*1, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the police. (espite length cross e:amination, learned !u-lic

    !rosecutor has failed to e:tract an thing incriminating against the accused from the mouth of this 3itness. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (+ii) PW-. Ani* Kumar /ansa* stated that he is carr ing on -usiness of distri-ution and 3holesale of medicines in the name and st le of Har ana /edicos at 1<&$-A, Bhagirath !alace, Chandni Cho3", (elhi. His elder uncle 0a:mi Narain 3as sole proprietor of the firm and he died a-out one ear -ac" and after his death, his son (eepa" Bansal is the proprietor of the a-o1esaid firm. ?he licence for sale of medicines is in his name and the account 3as operated him -ut the account 3as

    earlier in the name of 0a:mi Narain and after his death, the

    1'

    account 3as in the name of (eepa" Bansal. He had gi1en the in1oices to the CBI 9fficers, 3hich 3ere seiBed in his presence, 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I%*1, 3hich -ears his signature. He further stated that the cheHues 3ere issued from ABN-A/79, Ban" account of /*S 0i-ert Health Care Nursing Home

    =urgaon. He has seen the photo cop of the cheHue 3hich 3as recei1ed - him on dishonoured - the dra3ee -an". ?he photo cop of the a-o1esaid cheHue is ;:.!I%*&+. He further stated that some -o s used to come to purchase the medicines. Jee1an 2umar 7aut might also ha1e ta"en the medicines from their firm and since four-fi1e ears ha1e e:pired, he cannot identif no3 and cannot sa 3hether an one out of the accused persons present in the court used to come to Har ana /edicos for purchasing the medicines. During !ross-examination, he admitted that in all the in1oices ;:.!I%*& to ;:.!I%*&&, the address of the purchaser mentioned in the in1oices is /*S 0i-ert Health

    Care, BC !alace, Ne3 (elhi. ?he original of the cheHue ;:.!I%*&+ and memo 3ere 3ith him. (+iii) PW-0 Dinesh Kumar stated that he 3as posted as Su-

    Inspector, in !olice Station, 7ajender Nagar from &$$8 to /arch, &$$' and Sir =anga 7am Hospital, 7ajender Nagar, Ne3 (elhi falls 3ithin the jurisdiction of 7ajender Nagar, !olice Station. He further stated that he recei1ed the /0Cs No.&)8' of patient !a3an Anand and No.&)8) of patient 0uc"

    1)

    =arg 3hich /0Cs are alread

    e:hi-ited as ;:.!I<*& and

    ;:.!I<*1 respecti1el . ?he doctors declared -oth the patients fit for ma"ing statement. He recorded statement of patient !a3an Anand 3hich is ;:.!I'*1 and 0uc" =arg 3hich is ;:.!I'*&. He identified the signature of 0uc" =arg. He

    further stated that 0uc" =arg and !a3an Anand had disclosed in their statements that the had undergone "idne

    transplantation at some residence con1erted into hospital in Sector-&+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon and the did not "no3 a-out the donor. ?he had also mentioned the amounts paid - them to accused ,pender 2umar and (r. Amit 2umar. During !ross-examination, he stated that no medical ru""a 3as recei1ed from the concerned doctor in !olice Station, 7ajender Nagar. He further stated that there is no handing o1er memo in this regard 3as prepared - him. He further stated that there is no endorsement on statements ;:.!I'*1 and ;:.!I'*& of !olice Station, 7ajender Nagar, Ne3 (elhi sho3ing the (ail (iar 7egister num-er 3ith

    reference to 3hich the same had -een recorded. He had also o-tained certificate of doctors on the statements of the patients that the remained fit to ma"e the statements throughout the recording of their statements - him. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (ix) PW-1 Dhan Rah stated that he is under /atric educated and he came to (elhi in 1))< to learn the 3or" of dial sis technician.

    &$

    He too" training of dial sis technician in 0NJ! Hospital, Ne3 (elhi. In Januar , &$$', /anoj came to him and as"ed him to perform dial sis procedure on some patient at his residence. He had performed dial sis procedure on 7uchi Bala. He further 3hen he tal"ed to the relati1e of 7uchi Bala, he as"ed him to shift 7uchi Bala to 2alra Hospital, 2irti Nagar, Ne3 (elhi. 7uchi Bala remained admitted in IC, in that hospital for a-out fi1e da s and 3as discharged thereafter in satisfactor condition. He has seen all the accused present in the court and thereafter stated that the -o namel /anoj 3ho came to him is not present in the court and su-seHuentl stated that he could not identif him. He further stated that then he 3ent to !alam >ihar, =urgaon 3ith /anoj for one and half hour onl and he did not meet him thereafter. During !ross-examination, he stated that he did not ha1e an diploma in dial sis procedure. He has not -rought the training certificate in the court. CBI officer had made inHuiries from him -ut he cannot sa 3hether he had recorded his statement or not. He denied the suggestion that he had ne1er 1isited =urgaon and had ne1er met 7uchi Bala as stated a-o1e. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (x) PW-12 Satish Chan- Sharma stated that he joined Canara Ban" in the ear 1)%+ as Cler" and 3as su-seHuentl promoted to 1arious posts. He 3as posted as /anager Incharge in Canara Ban", SSI IaBirpur Industrial Area -ranch from Septem-er,

    &1

    &$$1 to /a , &$$@. He has seen account opening form pertaining to current account No.1&<' in the name of /*S 0i-ert Health Care 4!5 0td. Accused Amit 2umar along3ith /s. !oonam came for opening the account 3hich 3as introduced - 9m (rishian International 4!rop.5. ?his account 3as opened on &8.$+.&$$@ at his orders. ?he account opening form contains the photograph of accused Amit 2umar. Amit 2umar, his 3ife !oonam and the introducer signed the account opening form ;:.!I1$*1 in his presence. Accused Amit 2umar also su-mitted cop of resolution of the Board of (irectors ;:.!I1$*&, copies of !AN cards of Amit 2umar and !oonam ;:.!I1$*+ and ;:.!I1$*@, self-attested cop of passport of Amit 2umar ;:.!I1$*< and cop of memorandum of

    Association ;:.!I1$*8. He can identif Amit 2umar and he correctl identified accused Amit 2umar - pointing to3ards him. He further stated that the statement of account of a-o1esaid account of /*S 0i-ert Health Care 4!5 0td. for the period from &8.$+.&$$@ to 1$.$&.&$$' is ;:.!I1$*% 3hich is certified - Shri S.2.Arora and Shri S.2.Bansal, 9fficers of the Canara Ban" as per the Ban"erFs Boo" ;1idence Act. He identified the signature of some officers on certificate ;:.!I1$*'. He further stated that accused Amit 2umar su-mitted letter of

    proprietorship ;:.!I1$*) signed - him. He has seen account opening form pertaining to current account No.1&%$ in the name of 0i-ert In1estments. ?his account 3as introduced -

    &&

    /*S 0i-ert Health Care 4!5 0td. ?his account 3as opened on 1%.<.&$$@ at his orders. Accused Amit 2umar signed the account opening form ;:.!I1$*1$ as introducer*(irector of /*S 0i-ert Health Care 4!5 0td. ?he statement of account of a-o1esaid account of /*S 0i-ert In1estments for the period from 1'.$<.&$$@ to 1$.$&.&$$' is ;:.!I1$*11. He has seen the form No.18 ;:.!I1$*1+ signed - accused Amit 2umar 3hich 3as su-mitted - him in the -an". Accused Amit 2umar had ta"en loan of 7s. &.$$ lacs from their -ranch for purchase of medical eHuipments 3hich he had su-seHuentl repaid. During !ross-examination, he admitted that letter of proprietorship ;:.!I1$*) does not -ear signature of an -an" official or seal of the -an". He further stated that he had not -rought an document to sho3 ta"ing of loan of 7s.&.$$ lacs - Amit 2umar from their -ranch for purchase of medical eHuipments as stated a-o1e. (xi) PW-11 3ukesh Kumar ea- Consta4*e stated that from

    (ecem-er, &$$% to (ecem-er, &$$', he 3as posted in !S, !alam >ihar, =urgaon. 9n &<.$1.&$$', he 3as joined in the in1estigation of the case. He further stated that in his presence, the police part raided 2othi No.@+%@, Sector-&+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon and fi1e files 3ere seiBed from 2othi No.@+%@, Sector&+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon. He has seen all the fi1e files, 3hich are ;:.!I11*1 to ;:.!I11*<. He further stated that t3o 1isiting card folders and one -o: containing 1isiting cards of

    &+

    (r. Amit 2umar ;:.!I11*8 and ;:.!I11*% 3ere also found and seiBed - Inspector Jitesh /alhotra. ?he police part raided 2othi No.(<*&), (0., =urgaon and eight files 3ere found and seiBed from the a-o1esaid "othi. He has seen three files, 3hich are the same, 3hich 3ere seiBed from the a-o1esaid "othi. He has seen three files ;:.!I11*) to ;:.!I11*11. He further stated that HC /umtaB 2han 3as also mem-er of the police part at the time of a-o1e-said raids and seiBures of documents. During !ross-examination, he stated that his statement 3as not recorded - the CBI officer. ?he documents sho3n to him 3ere not sealed - Inspector Jitesh /alhotra and he cannot tell 3hether the same 3ere su-seHuentl sealed at an point. He denied the suggestions that no reco1er 3as

    effected in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that the documents mentioned in his chief-e:amination 3ere falsel planted. 4:ii5 PW-12 Amit Kuri!hh stated that he joined as Assistant /anager Standard Chartered Ban", !arliament Street -ranch, Ne3 (elhi in the ear &$$8. He stated that he had 3ritten letter ;:.!I1&*1. Statement of account is ;:.!I1&*&, the certificate gi1en - him is ;:.!I1&*+, letter ;:.!I1&*1, statement of account ;:.!I1&*& and certificate ;:.!I1&*+ -ear his signature. He further stated that the co1ering letter is ;:.!I1&*@, the account opening form in the name of /*S 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. is ;:.!I1&*<, 3hich account 3as

    &@

    allo3ed to -e opened - the then Branch /anager, Shi1ani ?andon and he identified her signature on the account opening form. He has seen the statement of account No.<&)1$$<)$$$ in the name of Cash !al Sharma. He further stated that the for3arding letter su-mitted /s. Neeru Samson is

    ;:.!I1&*8 and the statement of account is ;:.!I1&*%. He had sent letter ;:.!I1&*' for3arding the original account opening form to the CBI 9fficer. During !ross-examination, he stated that he did not ha1e personal "no3ledge 3hat "ind of -usiness 3as -eing carried out 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. and Cash !al

    Sharma. He further stated that as per the record, the a-o1esaid compan 3as in the -usiness of manufacturing of medicines. 4:iii5 PW-1" Rohtas stated that he is 3or"ing as Iard

    Bo *compounder in A"ash Hospital, Balla-hgarh. He had joined Shri 7am Hospital, Sanja Colon , Balla-hgarh as

    compunder*Iard -o in (ecem-er, &$$1 and remained there till /arch, &$$@. Hospital 3as of (r. ,pender and his 3ife (r. Archana. ?he hospital had a la-, J-ra facilit , ,ltra-sound facilit and there 3as also 9!( and indoor patient facilit . ?here 3ere appro:imatel 1< -eds. He further stated that in file No.+'$*$', H0A No.<)<,<)8,<)% and <)' mar" ;:.!I1+*1, H0A No.%)@ mar" !I1+*&, H0A No.)&+ mar" !I1+*+, the photograph is not of him and in H0A No.'8$ mar" !I1+*@, the name of the donor is 3ritten as Harpal. 9n the reHuest of

    &<

    learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination - !! for the CBI, he stated that in the ear &$$1, 3hen he joined Shri 7am Hospital o3ned - (r. ,pender and (r. Archana, then he learned in the hospital ho3 to change the -ed-sheets and to shift the patient from one stretcher to another. He 3as not gi1en an training -ut he learnt there in the hospital as 3ard -o . He denied the suggestion that (r. ,pender 2umar 3as not doing the 3or" of group medical insurance. He denied the suggestion that on this prete:t, he has -een ta"ing photographs of the emplo ees. ?his 3itness is recorded incompletel and later-on, he 3as gi1en up - !! for the CBI. ?herefore, the testimon of this 3itness is incomplete and cannot -e considered. 4:i15 PW-1& Dr. Prashant Sarin has stated that he is /BBS and /( 47adiolog 5. He had done /BBS from Indira =andhi /edical College Shimla and /( 47adiolog 5 from 2astur-a /edical College, /anipal. He had sent repl ;:.!I1@*1,

    3hich -ears the signature of Shri >ija

    ?ha"ur, /anager

    Administration along-3ith the seal of the centre. In repl to the said letter, the had sent the letter ;:.!I1@*+ and the statement of details is ;:.!I1@*@ -ear the signatures of Shri >ija ?ha"ur, /anager Administration along3ith the seal of the centre. He further stated that the charged from the patients as per their norms. He further stated that 3ithout tissue matching

    &8

    test, there can -e no "idne transplantation and their centre 3as not doing tissue matching tests. During !ross-examination, he stated that in letter ;:.!I1@*1, the same 3as mentioned to -e in repl to the notice under Section )1 of the Cr.!.C. issued - the CBI officer in 7C No.14;5-&$$'-;9, >II-Ne3 (elhi -ut no such reference is there in letter ;:.!I1@*+. He denied the suggestion that false report ha1e -een su-mitted - them as per the directions of the CBI officers as per their suita-ilit in the case. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestion 4:15 PW-1) 5ogin-er Singh stated that he is 3or"ing as .ront 9ffice (ata ;ntr 9perator in .ocus Imaging K 7esearch

    Centre C-1$ =reen !ar" ;:tension, Ne3 (elhi and (r. !rashant Sarin is its (irector. He further stated that patients under prescriptions from Shri 7am Hospital used to come for tests. ?he prescription 3ere of (r. ,pender 2umar. He further stated that in their centre, /7I, C.?.Scan, ,ltra-sound, J-ra , ;chocardiograph 3ere conducted. ?he patients used to ma"e

    pa ment for the tests. 4:1i5 PW-1, Rakesh Dahiya, Drugs Contro* 6%%i!er, Pani7at stated that he is notified Inspector under Section &1 of (rugs K Cosmetics Act. In the ear &$$', he 3as posted as (istrict (rugs Inspector at =urgaon. 9n dated &%.$1.&$$', Ci1il Surgeon (r. S.S.(alal called him in his office and ga1e a 3ritten order ;:.!I18*1 3hich 3as signed - (r. S.S.(alal to

    &%

    (r. 2.S.7ao, (r. =ulshan Arora, (r. Satpal Bhanot and him to chec" the premises related to (r. Amit 2umar i.e. @+%@, Sector&+, =urgaon regarding illegall "ept ultra-sound machine. ?he team also prepared a spot memo regarding the sealing of the a-o1esaid ultra-sound machine ;:.!I18*&, 3hich -ears his signature along3ith all the team mem-ers. He stated that he prepared a list of 1% t pes of drugs on form-18 ;:.!I18*+, 3hich also -ears his signature as 3ell as signature of other mem-ers namel Shri 7.2.Singla, (r. =ulshan Arora and

    pu-lic 3itnesses Shri Sandeep and !unit. 9n &'.$1.&$$', he produced a-o1esaid seiBed drugs in the court of Chief Judicial /agistrate, =urgaon for their custod orders 1ide application ;:.!I18*@ and custod order is ;:.!I18*<. 9n &).$1.&$$', the same team again 1isited the -uilding No.@+%@, Sector-&+, =urgaon to help the police team e:pert in preparing list of drugs and other hospital material machines, eHuipments etc. He also sent a notice ;:.!I18*8 under Section 1'-C and 1'4A5 of (rugs and Cosmetics Act to accused Amit 2umar. He also recei1ed a letter ;:.!I18*% from State (rug Controller, Har ana to in1estigate the matter. He sent a detailed report 1ide letter ;:.!I18*' to State (rug Controller, Har ana regarding the in1estigation in this case. He further stated that as per search conducted - their team, it 3as found that a full fledged hospital 3ere -eing run 3ithout an licence or an other and

    registration certificate from the competent authorit

    &'

    3ithout in the "no3ledge of Health authorities. He further stated that all the circumstances and material reco1ered re1ealed that there 3as a pro1ision of transplantation of human "idne s. During !ross-examination, he stated that as per ;:.!I18*1, there 3as no specific orders regarding search, inspection and seiBure of house No.@+%@, Sector &+, =urgaon. He further stated that no call detail 3as demanded - the CBI regarding con1ersation -et3een him and Ci1il Surgeon. No paper 3or" 3as done 3ith the police official 3ho 3as present -efore entering into the -uilding. He denied the suggestion that he ne1er 1isited the spot nor reco1ered an thing from the -uildings. He denied the suggestion that the -uilding in Huestion used for hospital 3as a residential -uilding. He denied the suggestion that all the documents 3ere prepared - the CBI in the office and got his signatures there. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsel at the -ehest of the CBI. 4:1ii5 PW-1. Surin-er Pa* Singh stated that he is 3or"ing as A=/ 4Commercial5 3ith the Airtel. He had purchased flat No.&$@, Second .loor, >alle >ie3 ;state, =urgaon .arida-ad road, =urgaon for 7s.&&.< lacs from Ansals in the ear &$$8. He had rented out this flat through Anil Bajpai to Cash !al Sharma 4Since died5 in 9cto-er, &$$8 at the rent of 7s.<<$$*- per month. 7ent deed 3as e:ecuted and the cop of the same is mar" !I1%*A, 3hich -ears his signature as 3ell as that of Cash

    &)

    !al Sharma and /r. Bajpai. ?he rent deed 3as for 11 months and it 3as rene3ed on &1.$).&$$% for another 11 months on same terms and conditions. He has seen the original rent deed ;:.!I1%*1 dated &1.).&$$%, 3hich -ears his signature as 3ell as that of Cash !al Sharma and Anil Bajpai. 9n @.&.&$$', he had got a call from /r. =ogan, Securit 9fficer of the Societ informing him that four la-ourers 3ere residing in his flat, 3ho had undergone "idne transplant operation and the 3ere

    demanding the fare. He tried to contact Cash !al Sharma. Ho3e1er, he could not -e contacted. He contacted /r.Bajpai to 1isit the flat, 3ho after 1isiting the flat informed him the four la-ourers present at the flat 3ere demanding fare. 9n %.&.&$$', police officials 1isited his house at Chandigarh. He further stated that on '.&.&$$', he made the statement -efore the police. In /arch, &$$', CBI officers had recorded his statement. He had produced mar" !I1%*A and ;:.!I1%*1 -efore CBI 9fficers. During !ross-examination, he admitted that stamp papers of ;:.!I1%*1 are dated1'.).&$$8. He denied the suggestion that the lease deed is forged and fa-ricated and has -een prepared at the instance of the CBI. He also denied the suggestion that he had not rented out the flat to C.!.Sharma. He further stated that he had 1isited CBI office and he had not handed o1er an document regarding his o3nership to CBI. He has also not -rought an such document on that da .

    +$

    4:1iii5 PW-10 8u!ky #arg stated that she is !hd. in histor . She 3as married 3ith 7aji1 =arg on 1%.@.&$$@. She is ha1ing a fi1e ears old son. She 3as suffering from high -lood-pressure and due to high -lood-pressure, -oth of her "idne s 3ere damaged. She has to ta"e regular dial sis from /eerut. ?he doctor ad1ised her to get "idne transplant as her condition 3as

    -ecoming 3orse. She could not get "idne from her relati1es. She had no parental relati1es. No one told her regarding transplantation of "idne from an 3here against pa ment.

    (uring her 1isit to hospital at /eerut, other parents told her that there 3as a doctor in =urgaon, 3ho transplant the "idne . ?he person ga1e a mo-ile num-er to her hus-and. As such - that time, her condition 3as getting deteriorated, then her hus-and contacted 3ith the doctor at =urgaon for transplantation of "idne . ?hereafter, the 3ent (elhi and thereafter, her hus-and contacted the person. She -ecame unconscious and thereafter 3hat happened, she cannot tell. No doctor met her and her hus-and at (elhi and .arida-ad. Her hus-and -rought her for dial sis to (elhi. It 3as not in her "no3ledge that she has -een ta"en for "idne transplantation. Ihen she regained

    consciousness, she found herself in Shri =anga 7am Hospital, (elhi. 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, contents of statement ;:.!I1'*A 3ere put to her

    +1

    3ord -

    3ord -ut she refused to o3n the contents of the

    statement and stated that she ne1er made such statement to the police. She 3as also confronted 3ith portions A to A, B to B, C to C and ( to ( of her statement ;:.!I1'*A, -ut she denied ha1ing made such statement to the police. (espite length cross e:amination, learned !u-lic !rosecutor has failed to e:tract an thing incriminating against the accused from the mouth of this 3itness. She, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4:i:5 PW-11 Ra(i+ #arg stated that he did /Sc in /ath and he 3as married 3ith 0uc" =arg on 1%.$@.&$$@. He also corro-orated the stand of !I-1' 0uc" =arg his 3ife and toed the line of !I-1' 0uc" =arg. During !ross-examination, he stated that the condition of his 3ife 3as not impro1ed at the time of recording her statement also. He admitted that 3hate1er scri-ed - the CBI or the police officials, he signed the same. ?he contents of the statement 3ere not read o1er and e:plained to him. (uring cross-e:amination - !! for the CBI, he admitted that the CBI officials did not 1isit in Shri =anga 7am Hospital. He 3as full conscious 3hen he signed the statement ;:.!I1'*A. He further stated that the statement 3as not read o1er to him. He did not ma"e an complaint to an authorit regarding his

    signatures o-tained on the statement 3ithout disclosing the contents. He further admitted that all the contents recorded in

    +&

    the statement regarding treatment 3ere told police.

    him to the

    4::5 PW-22 'a+-ee7 Singh stated that his father 3as suffering from "idne pro-lem since the ear &$$8 and he 3as on

    dial sis for the last t3o ears. ?he had tried for transplantation of his "idne of Shri =anga 7am Hospital, Ne3 (elhi -ut since there 3as a hereditar pro-lem, so transplantation 3as not

    possi-le. He further stated there 3as one "no3n (entist, 3ho ad1ised them that there is one doctor namel (r. Amit, 3ho could do "idne transplantation legall after arranging donor himself and this "idne transplantation 3as 1alid in Har ana. He too" him to (0., =urgaon in the house of accused (r. Amit 2umar. (r. Amit after going through the medical papers of his father assured that their jo- 3ill -e done. He demanded a sum of 7s.1<,$$,$$$*- for the jo-. ?he agreed to his proposal as there 3as Huestion of life of his father. Accused (r. Amit told him that he 3ill inform him on telephone lateron. After a-out 1< da s, he recei1ed the telephone call from (r. Amit. He along3ith his parents reach (0., =urgaon. .rom there, the 3ere ta"en to !alam >ihar, =urgaon hospital. His father 3as ta"en inside the hospital. He remained outside the hospital. (octor told him that the operation 3as successful and his father had -een shifted in the IC, and he can see him. He further stated that in the e1ening, some staff mem-ers told them to lea1e from the clinic as there 3as a police. He sa3 one person

    ++

    in the IC,. He too" his father to 7oc"land Hospital and admitted him there. After 1<-&$ da s, his father 3as discharged. He identified accused Amit. During !ross-examination, he stated that he is ha1ing a shop in Sadar BaBar, (elhi. His father 3as also sitting on the same shop. ?he said shop is in the name of Narang Belts. ?he rent of the shop 3as appro:imatel 7s.8$$$*- to 7s.'$$$*per ear. ?he are ha1ing joint famil . He further stated that no identification of the accused persons 3as got conducted - the CBI during the in1estigation from him. He had disclosed the name and particulars of the (entist, 3ho introduced him to (r. Amit. He denied the suggestion that he is a planted 3itness and had deposed on the as"ing of the CBI. He denied the suggestion that his father 3as ne1er suffering from an "idne disease and for that reason, no medical record or statement of his father 3as recorded the CBI. He denied the suggestion that no

    transplantation of the "idne 3as e1er done of his father. He denied the suggestion that he ne1er paid an amount to accused (r. Amit or an other person. He denied the suggestion that his earlier deposition 3as under pressure of the CBI. 4::i5 PW-21 Dharmen-er Kumar stated that he had "idne pro-lem from his childhood. He 3as getting treatment from Shahjahanpur in pri1ate hospital. He had ta"en treatment from >i1e"a Nand !ol Clinic at Aliganj, 0uc"no3, ,ttar !radesh. He had approached Shri =anga 7am Hospital, 7ajender Nagar,

    +@

    Ne3 (elhi for treatment. He further stated that he had also used to go (r. 7am /anohar Hospital, (elhi for follo3 up treatment. After follo3 up treatment, no pro-lem persisted and he used to ta"e medicines. He 3as ad1ised for "idne transplantation. His -rother-in-la3 accused Saraj 2umar 2o1ind 3as 3or"ing as (octor in (r. 7am /anohar 0ohia Hospital. He further stated no one told him that there 3as some doctor, 3ho transplants "idne s. He had no telephone num-er of an ad1ised him for "idne person, 3ho

    transplantation. 9n the reHuest of

    learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, contents of statement ;:.!I&1*A 3ere put to him 3ord - 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the police. He 3as also confronted 3ith portions A to A, B to B, C to C, ( to (, ; to ; and . to . of his statement ;:.!I&1*A, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the police. (espite length cross e:amination,

    learned !u-lic !rosecutor has failed to e:tract an thing incriminating against the accused from the mouth of this 3itness. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4::ii5 PW-22 Dr. 3amta Ko+in- stated that she passed /BBS from 2anpur ,ni1ersit in the ear 1))'. She is doing pri1ate

    practice. She 3as married to accused Saraj 2umar in the ear 1))). He also passed /BBS from 2anpur ,ni1ersit . He

    +<

    completed his residenc from 7/0 Hospital (elhi in the ear &$$8. He 3as also practicing as anesthetist. His -rother (harmender 3as suffering from renal failure. He cannot tell 3hen his hus-and came to "no3 a-out one doctor of =urgaon is doing "idne transplantation. 9n the reHuest of learned

    !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, contents of statement ;:.!I&&*A 3ere put to him 3ord - 3ord -ut she refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that she ne1er made such statement to the police. She 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A of her statement ;:.!I&&*A, -ut she denied ha1ing made such statement to the police. (espite length cross e:amination, learned !u-lic !rosecutor has failed to e:tract an thing incriminating against the accused from the mouth of this 3itness. She, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4::iii5PW-2" 9.P.9ats, 5oint Se!retary, ome De7artment,

    aryana stated that in &$$', he 3as posted as ,nder Secretar , Home (epartment, =o1ernment of Har ana. 9n 1&.1&.&$$', (I= CBI had made a reHuest for see"ing some regulations regarding transplantation of human organs in pursuance to the ?9H9 Act, 1))@ notified - the =9I in connection 3ith this case 1ide (9 No.7C14;*&$$'5 ;9, >II-)<) of 1&.&.&$$'. He further stated that in response to the letter, the Home department sought information from the Health (epartment.

    +8

    After receipt of the information from the Health (epartment, the same 3as supplied to the CBI, =o1ernment of India 1ide letter dated 1@.&.&$$' addressed to Shri !i ush Anand, (I=, CBI, =9I, Ne3 (elhi enclosing there3ith notification No. 1$8*CA*@&*)@*S-1*)8 of &+.%.1))8 and notification dated &<.+.&$$& regarding the constitution of authoriBation committee to regulate the transplantation of Human 9rgans Act. ?he cop of the notification dated &+.%.1))8 is ;:.!I&+*1 and the transliteration is ;:.!I&+*&. He further stated that notification dated &<.+.&$$& is ;:.!I&+*+ and notification dated

    1$.1$.&$$< is ;:.!I&+*@. During !ross-examination, he stated that he did not ha1e an personal "no3ledge regarding the present case. He cannot sa on seeing the letter dated 1&.&.&$$' as to

    3hether the CBI has registered the .I7 at that time or not. He further admitted that he has not -rought the original record. CBI officials had ne1er met him. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4::i15 PW-2& Dr. 9iren-er /as$ana stated that he joined as /edical officer in =o1ernment Hospital, =urgoan in the ear &$$%. 9n %.&.&$$', he 3as posted in ;mergenc department of =eneral Hospital, =urgaon. 9n the said date, patient 7ajinder son of Shri /aheshnand, Shahid son of Sa-adun, Naresh son of !uran Singh, (alip son of Santosh 3ere -rought - /ohan lal ASI, !olice Station, (0., =urgaon for medico legal e:amination as

    +%

    3ell as for treatment. He accordingl e:amined all of them and prepared /07 and admitted them. !atient 7ajinder 2umar 3as e:amined - him and he o-ser1ed the follo3ing findings on his person#A dressed 3ound 3ith suture in situ of siBe a-out &<cm o1er left lum-er region. He accordingl ad1ised ,ltra Sound a-domen and Surgeon opinion. !atient had alleged histor of surger for "idne remo1al 3ithout the consent. He 3as -rought - police for e:amination and e:pert opinion. He o-tained the signature of patient 7ajinder 2umar on the /07. ?he patient 3as identified - the accompan ing police official. ?he car-on cop of /07 ;:.!I&@*1 3as handed o1er to

    police official, ASI, /ohan 0al, 3ho appended his signature as to"en on receipt of cop of the /07. He has -rought the

    original /07 7egister. Similarl , he medico legall e:amined patient Shahid son of Su-udin age &@ ear male 3ho 3as -rought - ASI, /ohan 0al, !olice Station (0., =urgaon at a-out 11.<$.!/ on %.&.&$$'. 9n e:amination, he o-ser1ed the follo3ing findings on his person#A dressed 3ound 3ith suture in situ of siBe a-out &$cm o1er left lum-er region. He accordingl ad1ised ,ltra Sound

    a-domen and Surgeon opinion. !atient had alleged histor of surger for "idne remo1al 3ithout the consent. He 3as

    -rought -

    police for e:amination and e:pert opinion. He

    o-tained the thum- impression of patient Shahid on the /07

    +'

    ;:.!I&@*& as he 3as in position to 3rite an thing. ?he patient 3as identified - the accompan ing police official. ?he car-on cop of /07 ;:.!I&@*& 3as handed o1er to police official ASI /ohan 0al 3ho appended his signature as to"en of receipt of cop of the /07. 9n the same da , he medico legall

    e:amined patient (alip son of Shri Santosh, 3ho 3as -rought - ASI /ohan 0al, !olice Station (0., =urgaon at a-out 11.<$.!/ on %.&.&$$'. 9n e:amination, he follo3ing findings on his person#1

    o-ser1ed the

    A dressed 3ound 3ith suture in situ of siBe a-out 1'cm o1er left lum-er region. He accordingl ad1ised ,ltra Sound a-domen and Surgeon opinion. !atient had alleged histor of surger for "idne remo1al 3ithout the consent. He 3as -rought police for e:amination and e:pert opinion. He o-tained the thum- impression of patient (alip on the /07 ;:.!I&@*+ as he 3as in position to 3rite an thing. ?he patient 3as identified - the accompan ing police official. ?he car-on cop of /07 3as handed o1er to police official ASI, /ohan 0al, 3ho appended his signature as to"en of receipt of cop of the /07. 9n the same da , he medico legall e:amined patient Naresh son of Shri !uran age +$ ear male, 3ho 3as -rought - ASI /ohan 0al, !olice Station (0., =urgaon at a-out 11.<$.!/ on %.&.&$$'. 9n e:amination, he o-ser1ed the follo3ing findings on his person#-

    +)

    A dressed 3ound 3ith suture in situ of siBe a-out &$cm o1er left lum-er region. He accordingl a-domen and Surgeon opinion. !atient had alleged histor of surger for "idne remo1al 3ithout the consent. He 3as -rought police for ad1ised ,ltra Sound

    e:amination and e:pert opinion. He o-tained the signature of patient Naresh on the /07 ;:.!I&@*@. ?he patient 3as identified - the accompan ing police official. ?he car-on cop of /07 3as handed o1er to police official ASI /ohan 0al 3ho appended his signature as to"en of receipt of cop of the /07. After e:amining the patients 3ere admitted for ultra sound and surgical opinion. During !ross-examination, he stated that he is orthopaedician 4/S5. He did not "no3 3hether the police officials had pro1ided an medical aid to the patients prior to conducting e:amination on their persons. He cannot tell since 3hen the patients 3ere in the police custod . He did not remem-er 3hether police official had made an 3ritten reHuest for conducting e:amination of the patients. ?he medical record he has -rought does not comprise an reHuest in 3riting the police for e:amination of the

    patient. He admitted that 3hen a patient 3ith an histor of criminal offence 3as -rought or appears in the hospital, the first thing 3hich /edical 9fficer is supposed to do is to conduct /07. If the patient reHuires an medical

    @$

    in1estigation*treatment or an opinion he is admitted in the hospital for the same other3ise discharged. ?he identit of the patients 3ere esta-lished - the police accompan ing them -ut not - an pri1ate 3itness. ;:.!I&@*1 i.e car-on cop of /07 of 7ajinder does not -ear the signature of recipient of /07. Ho3e1er it does find mention in the original /07 -rought - him. He himself did not gi1e the e:pert opinion in these four cases as the e:pert opinion 3as sought from a surgeon. He can not recogniBe those persons, 3hose /07s mentioned a-o1e, he conducted. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4::15 PW-2) Dr. A*ka Singh stated that on &8.$1.&$$', she 3as posted as /edical officer, =eneral Hospital, =urgaon. At around 1.+$ p.m., she got a reHuest in 3riting from police Station !alam >ihar to conduct the /07 of Sha"eel, Nasim and Salim 2han. She e:amined all the three. 9n e:amination of Sha"eel, she found that she had incision on left lum-er region, dressed, 1$ stitches in num-er. Injuries 3ere 3ithin four da s, "ept under o-ser1ation, ad1ised ultrasound and J-ra on 3hole a-domen including "idne , ureter and -ladder 42,B5 and he ad1ised surgeonFs opinion. She further stated that patient had alleged histor of

    nephrectom on &+.1.&$$' 4surgical remo1al of "idne 5 at un"no3n place. She had issued /07 ;:.!I&<*1. She had -rought the original /07 register. She had o-tained the

    @1

    signature of Sha"eel on ;:.!I&<*1 and had handed o1er the car-on cop to ASI, Badlu 7am, 3ho had appended his signature in to"en of receipt. 9n e:amination of Nasim, she found incision on left side lum-ar region, dressed, 1$ stitches. ?he patient 3as complaining of pain left side. Injuries 3ere 3ithin @ da s and patient 3as "ept under o-ser1ation. She ad1ised ultra-sound and J-ra of 3hole a-domen including 2,B. !atient had alleged histor of

    nephrectom on &+.1.&$$' at an un"no3n place. ?he car-on cop of /07 is ;:.!I&<*&, 3hich -ears the thum-

    impression of Nasim on ;:.!I&<*& and signatures of police official, 3ho had recei1ed the cop of /.0.7. 9n

    e:amination of Saleem 2han, he found the follo3ing injuries#9-liHue incision in lum-er region right side 3ith 1$ stitches in num-er and dressed. She ad1ised surgeonFs opinion, J-ra a-domen, speciall 2,B and ultra-sound

    3hole a-domen. Injuries 3ere 3ithin @-< da s and patient 3as "ept under o-ser1ation. !atient had alleged histor of nephrectom on &+.1.&$$' at an un"no3n place. She issued /07 ;:.!I&<*+ and handed o1er the cop of the same to ASI, Badlu 7am, 3hich -ears signature of the patient and signature of ASI Badlu 7am, 3ho had recei1ed the cop . ,ltra-sound reports of three patients 3ere produced -efore

    @&

    him and she confirmed nephrectom i.e. remo1al of one "idne of each patient. During !ross-examination, she admitted that in all the /0Cs, she had not mentioned the dimension of the incision mar" as she 3as not carr ing an scale. She

    admitted that she cannot tell the dimension of the incision mar" o-ser1ed - her on the patientFs -od . She, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4::1i5 PW-2, Sa*im stated that he is illiterate. He had -een summoned in a case pertaining to "idne . He 3as unconscious and did not "no3 3hat happened 3ith him. Ihen he regained consciousness, he found that his a-domen had -een -andaged. He did not ma"e an inHuir from an one a-out the -andage. Ihen he had regained

    consciousness, he found himself in the =o1t. hospital. He did not "no3 the place 3here that =o1t. Hospital 3as situated. He 3as discharged from the hospital after @-< da s inspite of the fact that he 3as not 3ell. It too" him more than si: months to reco1er slightl . He did not "no3 from 3here he 3as -oarded -us after discharge from the hospital as his mother had ta"en him. His mother had come to "no3 a-out the incident from ?C. He cannot tell the time ta"en in the journe from the hospital to his home as he 3as not in proper condition. He cannot sa 3hether it had ta"en one hour or ten hours in journe . He had a scuffle at Bagpath

    @+

    Bus Stand in /eerut and he along3ith se1eral others 3ere pic"ed up - the police and thereafter, he found himself in the hospital. He did not "no3 3hether his "idne 3as

    remo1ed or not. He 3as not interrogated in this regard e1er. His statement 3as not recorded - the CBI at an point of time. He had made a statement -efore a Judge at =urgaon as he 3as ta"en - the police officials in the court and 3as threatened to ma"e a statement as per their directions and 3ill. His that statement 3as not 1oluntar . 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, contents of statement ;:.!I&8*1 3ere put to him 3ord - 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the police. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A1, B to B1, C to C1, ( to (1, ; to ;1, = to =1, H to H1, I to I1, J to J1 of his statement ;:.!I&8*1, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the police. (espite length !u-lic !rosecutor has cross e:amination, learned failed to e:tract an thing

    incriminating against the accused from the mouth of this 3itness. He has seen his statement ;:.!I&8*& recorded the /agistrate on +1.$1.&$$' at =urgaon. He admitted that the /agistrate had recorded his statement correctl as stated - him. He identified his photos 3hich 3ere ta"en in the

    @@

    =o1t. hospital and the same are ;:.!I&8*+ to ;:.!I&8*8. He admitted that all the four photographs 3ere depicting the stitch mar"s and -andages on his a-domen. He admitted that he is not feeling 3ell. He further admitted that he ma -e not feeling 3ell due to remo1al of his "idne . He further stated that he had ne1er 1isited or remained admitted in an hospital or an "othi in =urgaon. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4::1ii5 PW-2. Da*i7 stated that originall he -elong to 1illage

    Badli ?andla district 7ampur, 4,!5. He had changed his name after a pu-lication in the ne3spaper. A-out @-< ears -ac", 3hen he 3as sleeping at 2oria Bridge near ISB?, &-+ policemen along3ith +-@ other officials in the plain clothes 3ere pic"ing up some persons, 3ho 3ere sleeping and ga1e them danda -lo3s. ?he had pic"ed up @-< persons. ?he had chec"ed the a-domens of se1eral persons and 3hosoe1er 3as ha1ing some mar" of surger on a-domen 3as ta"en - them and rest 3ere let off. He 3as also ta"en along - them as he 3as also ha1ing surger mar"s on his a-domen. He 3as ha1ing the pro-lem of stone in his "idne as he 3as in the ha-it of ta"ing liHuor freHuentl and he had undergone an operation for remo1al of the stone 1<$18 ears -ac". He did not remem-er 3here his operation 3as conducted as his father had got it done. He did not "no3 an person - the name of (r. Amit. CBI officer had recorded

    @<

    his statement. He had ne1er made a statement -efore the CBI 9fficer that accused had remo1ed his "idne . 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, contents of statement ;:.!I&%*1 3ere put to him 3ord 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the police. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A1, B to B1, C to C1, ( to (1, ; to ;1, = to =1, H to H1, I to I1 of his statement ;:.!I&%*1, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the police. (espite length !u-lic !rosecutor has cross e:amination, learned failed to e:tract an thing

    incriminating against the accused from the mouth of this 3itness. He further admitted that his statement ;:.!I&%*& had -een recorded - the /agistrate correctl as stated him. He further admitted that he 3as ta"en to Ci1il Hospital, =urgaon and admitted there. He identified his thum- on Bed Head tic"et mar" !I&%*A and is ;:.!I&%*+. He identified his photographs ;:.!I&%*@ and ;:.!I&%*<. He admitted that the photo ;:.!I&%*< depicts the mar" of surger on the right side a-domen. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. During !ross-examination 4y the -e%en!e !ounse*, he stated that the CBI had recorded the statement at their o3n and he did not ma"e an statement to them 1oluntaril . He

    @8

    further stated that the CBI had threatened him to ma"e statement as per their directions and 3ishes -efore the /agistrate and as he 3as under threat and duress of the CBI, he made the statement as per the stor told - them to him. He further stated the CBI 9fficers had sho3n him the accused outside the court and told their names to him and further him to name and identified them in his depositions. He 3as ne1er ta"en to an 2othi or flat in =urgaon and ne1er remained there. 4::1iii5 PW-20 Ra(in-er stated that he is &nd class passed. He 3or"ed as coo" in Jaipur and at 2al"a. He further stated that he remained in 2al"a for a-out +-@ ears and in Jaipur in the ear 1))%-)'. In &$$', he 3as residing in Balla-garh in Har ana and used to 3or" as Coo". He further stated that a-out three and a half ears -ac", he had gone to =urgaon from Balla-hgarh. He had got do3n from the -us at Bus stand =urgaon and had ta"en liHuor. He further stated that three police officials in uniform came there. ?he too" him to the police station. He 3as operated upon in his childhood and one of his "idne 3as remo1ed at that time. He did not "no3 an Shahid. He did not "no3 accused Amit, /anoj, Jee1an, Saran and (r. ,pender. 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. During !ross examination, he stated that he

    @%

    identified his signature on mar" !I&'*A. He has seen his signatures on -ed head tic"et ;:.!I&'*B. He identified the photographs tagged in the file are ;:.!I&'*& and ;:.!I&'*+. He admitted that there are mar"s of surger on his stomach. He further stated that the photographs ;:.!I&'*& and ;:.!I&'*+ 3ere ta"en forci-l at Ci1il

    Hospital, =urgaon - appl ing false -andage. He further stated that the contents of statement ;:.!I&'*@ 3ere put to him 3ord - 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the police. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A1, B to B1, C to C1, ( to (1, ; to ;1, = to =1, H to H1, I to I1,J to J1, 2 to 21,0 to 01, / to /1, N to N1, 9 to 91, ! to !1, 7 to 71, S to S1, ? to ?1, , to ,1, > to >1, I to I1, J to J1 and C to C1 of his statement ;:.!I&'*@, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the police. (espite length cross e:amination, learned !u-lic !rosecutor has failed to e:tract an thing incriminating against the accused from the mouth of this 3itness. He has also seen his statement mar" !I&'*A 3hich is ;:.!I&'*A1. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A1, B to B1, C to C1, ( to (1, ; to ;1, = to =1, H to H1, I to I1,J to J1 of his statement mar"

    !I&'*A, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the police. (espite length cross e:amination, learned !u-lic !rosecutor has failed to e:tract an thing incriminating

    @'

    against the accused from the mouth of this 3itness. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4::i:5 PW-21 San(ay /harga+ stated that he is 3or"ing as Chartered Accountant at (elhi. He got himself chec"-up in (elhi and he 3as told that -oth of his "idne s are not 3or"ing properl . He also got treatment -ut he 3as ad1ised that either there 3ill dial sis or transplantation of "idne is the onl solution. ?here 3as no proper donor in his famil . Ihen he 3ent for dial sis, one /r. =arg met him, 3ho ga1e the reference of accused (r. Amit. /r. =arg too" him to =urgaon. He told him that his daughter had got transplantation from accused (r. Amit. He met (r. Amit. He told him that the transplantation of "idne 3as possi-le in Har ana. He agreed to his proposal. He called him on &) th June, &$$%. He did not meet him -et3een the inter1ening period. He did not remem-er 3hether his signatures 3ere o-tained - the doctor on an paper or not. He further stated that no -lood sample 3as ta"en from him for an test. (ue to injection, he -ecame unconscious. He further stated that after operation, he 3as ta"en to IC,. He did not remem-er -eing he 3as semi conscious. He remained three da s in the IC,. ?hereafter, he 3as discharged from the hospital. He identified onl (r. Amit. ?hereafter, he 3as discharged from the hospital. He 3as prescri-ed medicines after his

    @)

    operation. He paid 7s.1& lacs in cash on the da of his operation. During !ross-examination, he admitted that accused Amit 3as sho3n to him in the CBI office first time and identified him in the court. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4:::5 PW-"2 3ayank 3ahesh$ari stated that he is a cloth merchant. His elder sister 7uchi Bala /ahesh3ari 3as suffering from "idne failure. She regular had pain on her -ac" after deli1er . ?he dial sis of his sister remained continued in Apollo Hospital. He identified accused /anoj and Amit. He got discharged his sister on his ris" and she 3as shifted - him in 7am /urti Hospital at Barell . At Barell also, doctor ad1ised to remo1e the transplanted

    "idne . Ihen he 3as in Barell , he recei1ed a telephone call from CBI officer. He identified onl (r. Amit and /anoj. ?hereafter, his sister e:pired. During !ross-examination, he admitted that statement 3hich 3as sho3n to him - the CBI officials outside the court -efore ma"ing statement -efore the court the same does not -ear signature of him as 3ell as signature of CBI official 3ho had 3ritten this statement. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4:::i5PW-"1 9ikas Aggar$a* stated that his mother-in-la3 /adhuli"a =upta 3as suffering from "idne failure. She had

    <$

    ta"en treatment from 1arious hospital including =anga 7am Hospital. 9ne Coga teacher told him that Neeraj =arg had ta"en treatment for her daughter "idne transplantation from doctor in =urgaon and he should contact him. He demanded 7s.' lacs for the 3hole treatment. 9ne person came to his in-la3s house for ta"ing -lood samples. Accused Amit told his father-in-la3 that the donor has -een arranged and called them for surger .

    Accordingl , he, father-in-la3, mother-in-la3 and sister-in-la3 3ent to the hospital at =urgaon. 9n that da , the paid 7s.@ lacs in ad1ance. After surger , his mother-in-la3 3as "ept in the hospital for @-< da s. After a-out a 3ee", she 3as discharged and the made the pa ment of remaining amount of 7s.@ lacs in cash. He identified onl (r. Amit. During !ross-examination, he admitted that onl after seeing the medical record, it can -e ascertained as to 3hether an person has -een treated for "idne or not at an point of time. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4:::ii5 PW-"2 Dhiren-ra Singh Datta stated that he has seen the photo cop of the agreement to sell e:ecuted -et3een himself and Amit 2umar in respect of House No.(-<-&), (0. Cit !hase-I, =urgaon 1ide 3hich he had agreed to sell out the aforesaid house to accused Amit 2umar for a sale consideration of 7s.1.%' crore. ?he photocop of agreement to sell is mar" !I+&*A, 3hich -ears his signature as 3ell as the signature of purchaser Amit 2umar. 9n the -asis of said agreement, he had

    <1

    sold the said house to Amit 2umar for sale consideration of 7s.1.%' crore 1ide registered sale deed. He has not -rought the cop of the sale deed. ?he total sale consideration 3as recei1ed from Amit 2umar through different cheHues*-an" instrument. He has seen photocop of some of the cheHues issued - Amit 2umar to3ards sale consideration and the same are mar" !I+&*B to !I+&*;. ?he cop of receipt issued to purchaser to3ards full and final pa ments is mar" !I+&*., 3hich -ears his signatures. During !ross-examination, he stated that a sum of 7s.1.8 crore 3as paid to him to3ards sale consideration of the a-o1esaid house - 3a of -an" draft issued - Hong 2ong and Shenghai Ban"ing Corportion 0imited4HSBC5 dated

    &+.&.&$$<. ?he photocop mar" !I+&*(1 of -an" draft 3as handed o1er to CBI. 4:::iii5 PW-"" Dr. /./.Aggar$a*, Senior 3e-i!a* 6%%i!er,

    Ra-io*ogist, # , #urgaon stated that he had done /BBS and /( in 7adiolog from /edical College, =3alior. He joined as /edical officer in =o1ernment Hospital, =urgaon in the ear 1)'8. Since then, he has -een 3or"ing as /edical 9fficer-cum7adiologist in the said hospital. In the said hospital, his duties 3as mainl related to radiolog department 3hich includes Jra , ultra-sound and /7I. In the mid-night of &<.$1.&$$', at around 1.$$ a.m., he conducted ultra-sound e:amination of 3hole a-domen on the persons of Naseem son of Ba-u, Salim

    <&

    son of 7asid and Sha"il son of A-dula, 3ho 3ere -rought Consta-le 9m !ar"ash No.&&< of !S !alam >ihar, =urgaon. He has seen the -ed head tic"et No.Cr-1&1@ of Naseem, the same is ;:.!I++*1. His opinion in the file is ;:.!I++*& dated &<.1.&$$'. 9n &8.$1.&$$', he also conducted /7I on the said patient and the /7I film is ;:.!I++*+. He pro1ed his opinion ;:.!I++*@ dated &8.1.&$$'. He has seen the patient file ;:.!I++*< and -ed head tic"et No.Cr-1&1+ of Salim son of 7asid. His opinion in the file is ;:.!I++*%. He also pro1ed his opinion ;:.!I++*' dated &8.1.&$$' in the patient file ;:.!I++*). He further pro1ed his opinion in the file 3hich is ;:.!I++*1$ dated &<.$1.&$$', the /7I film is ;:.!I++*11 and his opinion dated &8.1.&$$' is ;:.!I++*1&. 9n '.&.&$$', he also conducted ultra-sound on the persons of Shahid son of Sha-udin, 7ajender son of /aheshanand, Naresh son of !uran and (alip son of Santosh, 3ho 3ere admitted in =H, =urgaon. He has seen the patient file ;:.!I++*1+ in respect of Cr. No.1'8@ of patient Shahid and pro1ed his opinion ;:.!I++*1@. /7I 3as conducted - him and the /7I film is ;:.!I++*1<. 9n the -asis of /7I, he opined left "idne 3as not 1isualiBed in left renal part and his opinion in this regard is ;:.!I++*18. He has seen patient file ;:.!I++*1% in respect of Cr. No.1'88 of patient 7ajender and on ultra-sound e:amination, he opined that right "idne of the patient 3as normal and left "idne 3as not 1isualiBed in left renal area and 3hole a-domen 4a-sent left

    <+

    "idne 5. His opinion in file ;:.!I++*1% is ;:.!I++*1'. He further stated that no /7I 3as conducted as patient had refused to undergo the /7I test. He has seen the patient file ;:.!I++*1) in respect of Cr. No.1'8+ of patient (alip and his opinion is ;:.!I++*&$. /7I 3as also conducted - them and the /7I firm is ;:.!I++*&1. 9n the -asis of /7I, he opined that left "idne 3as not 1isualiBed in left renal part. His opinion in this regard is ;:.!I++*&&. He has seen the -ed head tic"et of patient Naresh Cr. No.1'8<, the same is ;:.!I++*&+ and his opinion is ;:.!I++*&@. /7I 3as also conducted - him and the /7I film is ;:.!I++*&<. 9n the -asis of /7I, he opined that left "idne 3as not 1isualiBed in left renal part. His opinion in this regard is ;:.!I++*&8 and the receipt memo is ;:.!I++*&%. He also identified his signatures on ultra-sound report ;:.!I++*&' of Naseem, ;:.!I++*&) of Saleem, ;:.!I++*+$ of Sha"il, ;:.!I++*+1 of Naresh, ;:.!I++*+& of (alip. He also identified his signatures on /7I reports in respect of patients Shahid, (alip, Saleem, Naseem, Sha"il and Naresh and the same are ;:.!I++*++ to ;:.!I++*+'. He further stated that on +.+.&$$', he had also handed o1er the documents mentioned in production-cum-receipt memo dated +.+.&$$', 3hich 3ere ta"en into possession - Anil Singh, (S!, CBI 1ide the said memo. He identified his signatures thereon. He further stated that the receipt memo is ;:.!I++*+).

    <@

    During !ross-examination, he admitted that he had no 3here mentioned in his reports related to ,ltra sound and /7I of all the patients regarding the time period of remo1al of the "idne or that the 3ere ha1ing "idne 3hich 3as remo1ed lateron that since -irth the patients 3ere ha1ing onl one "idne . He further admitted that in surgeries li"e

    adrenal tumour, retroperitoneal, ureterolithotom , p elopart , spenectom 4left side5, lum-ar s mpathectom a-cess etc. other than "idne remo1al 4nephrectom 5 complications li"e mildl dilated fe3 small -o3el loops, mild pleural left and right effusion can occur. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestion. 4:::i15 PW-"& Dr. San(ay 'aru*a, S36, #enera* os7ita*,

    #urgaon stated that he joined =eneral Hospital, =urgaon as /edical officer in the month of (ecem-er, 1))&. He e:amined all the four patients namel 7ajinder, Shahid, (alip and Naresh. He has seen patient indoor file ;:.!I++*1%, in 3hich had recorded that patient ga1e histor of nephrectom done on

    &&.1.&$$'. ?he -ed head tic"et is ;:.!I+@*1. ?he -lood uria and securcretine report is ;:.!I+@*& and the admission slip is ;:.!I+@*+. 9n the -asis of ultra-sound report recei1ed ;:.!I++*1', he concluded that the patientFs left "idne 3as not there and his ad1ise on -ed head tic"et is ;:.!I+@*1 at point B. He further stated that all the stitches 3ere remo1ed on 11.&.&$$' - him and su-seHuentl , his 3ound 3as dressed regularl . 9n 1'.&.&$$', his -lood uria and serumcretine 3as

    <<

    repeated 1ide ad1ise note, in response thereof report ;:.!I+@*@ 3as recei1ed, 3hich re1ealed that -oth these 1alues 3ere 3ithin normal limits and the patient 3as discharged on 1).&.&$$' and handed o1er to police 3ith ad1ise to get his dressing done regularl and "eep him in follo3 up 1ide

    discharge note at point ; of ;:.!I+@*1. 9n the same date, patient Shahid 3as also e:amined - him 1ide admission slip ;:.!I+@*<. As per -ed head tic"et ;:.!I+@*8, the patient ga1e histor of nephrectom 4"idne remo1al5 -eing done on 1'.1.&$$'. 9n e:amination, patient had a dressed nephrectom 3ound 3ith multiple stitches Lin situM. He has gi1en his ad1ise note on ;:.!I+@*%. He ad1ised ultra-sound e:amination, serum creatinine and -lood uria e:amination 1ide his ad1ise of ;:.!I+@*'. ?he ultra-sound report ;:.!I++*@ recei1ed, 3hich re1ealed that left "idne 3as a-sent and /7I ;:.!I++*1' also re1ealed the same finding. His stitches 3ere remo1ed on '.&.&$$' and patient 3as "ept under o-ser1ation in the 3ard. ?he report is ;:.!I+@*) 3hich re1ealed that the reports 3ere 3ithin normal limits. He further stated that the patient 3as discharged on 1).&.&$$' and handed o1er to accompan ing policemen 3ith ad1ise to get him periodicall e:amined from a hospital. He further stated that he has seen patient file ;:.!I++*1) in respect of patient (alip admitted on '.&.&$$', 3ho ga1e the histor of nephrectom 4"idne remo1al5 done on 1'.1.&$$'. He further stated that he recei1ed report ;:.!I+@*'.

    <8

    He ga1e his opinion ;:.!I+@*) that all the patients namel (alip, Shahid and 7ajinder 3ere fit to ma"e statement. He identified his 3riting and signature in an encircled portion in ;:.!I+@*1$. He further stated that the refer slip is ;:.!I+@*11, 3hich is in his hand-3riting and -ears his signature. He has also seen the -ed head tic"et ;:.!I++*&+. He had recei1ed the report from the 0a-, 3hich is ;:.!I+@*1&. He has seen the ultra-sound report ;:.!I++*&@ and /7I report ;:.!I++*&8. During !ross-examination, he admitted that in their hospital, 3hen such patients come in emergenc , medico legal e:amination is usuall done first and simultaneousl , the treatment of the patient 3as started. He admitted that the ultrasound and /7I reports mentioned the a-sence of one of the "idne s in all the patients. 4:::15 PW-") Suni* /esra stated that he is illiterate. A-out )*1$ ears ago, he came to !unja- at .atehgarh through some Contractor for 3or"ing as la-ourer 3ith him. He 3or"ed there for a-out three ears. He did not identif the accused present in the court. He further stated that he did not "no3 3hether his "idne 3as remo1ed or not. ?he cut mar"*incision mar" on his left side a-domen is due to the injuries, 3hich he sustained 3hile fi:ing an iron gate in !unja-. His "idne 3as not remo1ed -

    an -od . 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor

    <%

    3as

    allo3ed

    to

    cross

    e:amine

    this

    3itness.

    During !ross examination, the contents of statement ;:.!I+<*1 3ere read o1er and put to him 3ord - 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the same and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the CBI. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A, B to B, C to C and ( to ( of his statement ;:.!I+<*1, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI. (espite length cross e:amination, learned !u-lic

    !rosecutor has failed to e:tract an thing incriminating against the accused from the mouth of this 3itness. 4:::1i5 PW-", Romesh Koun-a* stated that he joined the a-o1e-said compan in the ear 1))&. In the ear &$$%, he 3as posted as Assistant /anager in the said compan . He had -rought the record file pertaining to .lat No..-18', & nd .loor, Sector-<8, Sushant 0o", !hase-II, ;:tension =urgaon. As per the record, Shri Amit 2umar is the o3ner of the said flat. He further stated that he has -rought the -ill ;:.!I+8*1 issued in the name of Amit 2umar in respect of aforesaid flat dated 1.%.&$$% 1ide 3hich an amount of 7s.)&$1*- 3as charged from the o3ner. He further stated that he has -rought the cop of the electricit -ill ;:.!I+8*& dated &8.11.&$$% in respect to the aforesaid flat 1ide 3hich an amount of 7s.+81$*- 3as reco1ered from the o3ner Amit 2umar. He has also -rought the photo cop of possession certificate mar" !I+8*A 1ide 3hich the 9/AJ compan had informed their compan regarding the handing

    <'

    o1er the said flat. He had handed o1er the attested copies of ;:.!I+8*1 and ;:.!I+8*& to the CBI, during in1estigation of the case. During !ross-examination, he stated that in ;:.!I+8*1 and ;:.!I+8*&, the name of father of the customer 3as not mentioned. He further stated that he did not "no3 as to ho3 the pa ment of said flat has -een made and - 3hom. 4:::1ii5 PW-". 9i+ek 3ago stated that he has -een one of the (irectors in the said firm since 1))1 along3ith his father and his sister. His father had e:pired. He has seen in1oice ;:.!I+%*1 dated April ',1))), 1ide 3hich one dial sis machine !HJ &11$ 3as supplied to Star (iagnostics @*<&, Iea 2arol Bagh, Ne3 (elhi after importing the same from 2a3asumi 0a-ortories ?o" o Japan for ,S (ollar 1$,'%$*-. ?he said machiner 3as imported on -ehalf of Star (iagnostics @*<&, Iea 2arol Bagh, Ne3 (elhi. ?he -ill of entr for home consumption is ;:.!I+%*& and Ban" challan-cum-=ate !ass is ;:.!I+%*+. ?he -ill issued - the custom clearing agent is ;:.!I+%*@. ?he compan Huestion as the compan had imported the machiner in

    has I;C code for import of such

    eHuipments from outside India. He identified Ji3an 2umar 3hom he had met &-+ times. He has correctl identified (r. Ji3an 2umar, 3ho is present in the court. He had seen seiBure memo ;:.!I+%*< dated 1'.&.&$$' 1ide 3hich custom clearing in1oice ;:.!I+8*@ in1oice ;:.!I+%*1, Ban" challan-cum-

    <)

    =ate !ass ;:.!I+%*+ and -ill of entr for home consumption ;:.!I+%*& 3ere ta"en in possession - Inspector CBI 3ho seiBed the same, 3hich -ear his signature. During !ross-examination, he stated that the documents sho3n to him in the court i.e. custom clearing in1oice ;:.!I+%*@, in1oice ;:.!I+%*1, Ban" challan-cumgate pass ;:.!I+%*+ and -ill of entr for home consumption ;:.!I+%*& 3ere not e:ecuted in his presence. He admitted that he had not produced an proof of pa ment 3ith regard to

    suppl of goods to Star (iagnostics. He further admitted that he had not produced an proof of pa ment from his firm to

    2a3asumi 0a- Japan. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4:::1iii5 PW-"0 Ram Kumar, Assistant 6%%i!e o% :state 6%%i!e-1, ;DA, #urgaon stated that in the ear &$$%, he 3as posted as Cler" in H,(A 9ffice, =urgaon. He further stated that as per the record of H,(A allotment file of plot No.@+%@, Sector &+, =urgaon 3as initiall allotted to Smt. S.2.Aggar3al, 3ho

    purchased the same in an open auction on 1'.@.1)''. ?he photo cop of the re-allotment letter dul attested - ;state officer is ;:.!I+'*1 and conditions of re-allotment is ;:.!I+'*&. ?he possession certificate is ;:.!I+'*+, sanction of -uilding plan is ;:.!I+'*@, the o-jection raised - ;state 9fficer regarding completion of -uilding is ;:.!I+'*< and permission to mortgage in fa1our of Standard Chartered Ban" issued - the ;state officer H,(A =urgaon in respect of -uilt up house

    8$

    No.@+%@ is ;:.!I+'*8. ?he true cop of the said seiBure memo is ;:.!I+'*%. He further stated that as per the record of the H,(A, Ameet 2umar is the o3ner of the house No.@+%@, Sector-&+, =urgaon. During !ross-examination, he admitted that 3hen permission to mortgage 3as sought from the office of H,(A, it is onl for the purpose of o-taining loan from the -an". He admitted that there is no complaint regarding an commercial acti1ities in the said house No.@+%@, Sector &+, =urgaon -efore &).1.&$$' and <.+.&$$' in the file. He further admitted that one J; is deputed H,(A in order to regularl chec" an

    1iolation and commercial acti1ities in residential area and 1ice1ersa. He further stated that the seiBure memo ;:.!I+'*% 3as neither prepared in his presence nor the same -ear his signatures. 4:::i:5 PW-"1 Rohit #u7ta stated that the letter ;:.!I+)*1 got scri-ed - the CBI officers in the CBI office 3hich -ears his signature. ;:.!I+)*& is discharge slip of his father issued Shri =anga 7am Hospital. (ischarge slip ;:.!I+)*+ 3as supplied Shri =anga 7am Hospital. ;:.!I+)*A is the doctor of Shri =anga 7am

    prescription slip gi1en -

    Hospital. He further stated that no medical e:amination of his father 3as got conducted - the CBI to ascertain as to 3hether the "idne of his father 3as transplanted or not. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions.

    81

    4J05

    PW-&2 Amu*ya Prasa- stated that the plot 3as originall allotted to Shri (hirender Singh (utta 1ide their allotment letter dated &1.<.1)'1, photo cop of 3hich is mar" !I@$*A, and of the sale deed is mar" !I@$*B. >ide letter dated ).11.1)'@, the original sale deed dul registered in fa1our of Shri (hirender Singh (utta 3as sent to him. ?he photo cop of for3arding letter is mar" !I@$*C. ?he photocop of the sale deed dated 1$.+.&$$< e:ecuted in fa1our of (hirender Singh is mar" !I@$*;. ?he photo cop of the .orm +%-= is mar" !I@$*( and of the sale deed dated 1$.+.&$$< e:ecuted in fa1our of Amit 2umar is mar" !I@$*;. He further stated that a stamp dut of 7s.1,@+,''&*- has -een paid - accused Amit 2umar at the time of e:ecution of sale deed. ?he photo cop of allotment letter dated &@.1.&$$@ is mar" !I@$*.. He further stated that on &%.+.&$$', he had handed o1er t3o files mentioned in seiBure memo dated &%.+.&$$' to Anil Singh, (S!, CBI, Ne3 (elhi, 3ho seiBed the same 1ide the said seiBure memo and he identified his signature. ?he true cop ;:.!I@$*1. During !ross-examination, he stated that as per their record plot No.(<*&), !hase-I (0. Cit , =urgaon 3as o3ned - (hirender Singh (utta as on date. He further stated that the pa ment of 7s.)$<1$*- 3as made - (hirender Singh (utta through cheHues for 3hich ele1en receipts of different amounts 3ere issued to him. He further stated that a sum of of seiBure memo is

    8&

    7s.&$ lacs 3as paid 1ide (( No.1%%%&8 dated 1<.8.&$$@ dra3n on Standard Chartered Ban", !arliament Street Ne3 (elhi against the propert No.C-1B$1)@ Carlton ;state !hase > (0. Cit =urgaon. 4J0I5 PW-&1 Ar+in-er Singh stated that on 1@.1.&$$', he 3as posted as /anager, /ehrauli 7oad -ranch State Ban" of India, =urgaon 9n that da , an account 3as opened - one /r. Joseph !alatt . He has seen the original account opening form ;:.!I@1*1, and the original de-it slip ;:.!I@1*&, 1ide 3hich Joseph !alatt had authoriBed the -an" to de-it his account of 7s.),%8,)$'*-. ?he photostat cop of credit 1oucher is mar" !I@1*A. He has -rought the !hotostat cop of statement of account of Joseph !alatt 3hich is mar" !I@1*B. He further stated that 3hile opening the account, Joseph !alatt had

    su-mitted a !hotostat cop of telephone -ill of Amit 2umar, 3hich is mar" !I@1*C. During !ross-examination, he stated that as per the account opening form ;:.!I@1*1, on the right hand side on the first page the account opening date is mentioned as 1$.%.&$$'. He further stated that ;:.!I@1*& neither -ear his signature nor it 3as prepared in his presence. 4J0II5 PW-&2 /hushan Sharma state- that he 3or"ed as a Ser1ice ;ngineer in >ed /ediser1e !1t. 0td. from Jul , &$$% to /arch, &$$' and the said compan is located at 1$1, &$1, ;:press Building, H-Bloc", Asho" >ihar, !hase-I, (elhi. He further

    8+

    stated that this compan used to pro1ide ser1ice of 1entilators multi-parameter monitors, s ringe pump etc. In Januar , he had gone to .lat No.@+%@, !alam >ihar, =urgaon on the directions of the compan for repairing of 1entilator model Ser1o +$$, ho3e1er, he could not repair the said 1entilator as it 3as -e ond his capa-ilit . During !ross-examination, he admitted that a jocard is prepared for an ser1ice or complaint made in the

    compan . He further admitted that in that jo- card, signatures of the customer is also o-tained as 3ell as the person to 3hom the said complaint has -een for3arded for compliance put his signature. 4J0III5PW-&" 9i7in Cha4a stated that he is partner of /*S A>/ Surgicare Inc. 1<%&-A, Bhagirath !alace, (elhi-8. His father is also one of the partners of the firm. Ho3e1er, he loo"ed-after the entire -usiness. He further stated that he has seen the original retail in1oices 1ide 3hich the eHuipments 3ere sold to /*S 0i-ert Health Care Bi"aji Cama !alace, (elhi. He has seen the retail in1oices ;:.!I@+*1 to ;:.!I@+*', 1ide 3hich the eHuipments*articles 3ere supplied to /*S 0i-ert Health Care during the ear &$$%-$'. He has also seen the photo cop of cheHue dated &1.1.&$$', issued - the authoriBed signator for 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. for 7s.1,&),8&'*- and the same is mar" !I@+*A. He further stated that on 1).&.&$$', he had handed o1er the aforesaid in1oices ;:.!I@+*1 to ;:.!I@+*'

    8@

    along3ith summar of in1oices ;:.!I@+*) to Inspector, CBI, Ne3 (elhi, 3ho seiBed the same 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I@+*1$, 3hich -ears his signature. He further stated that he still ha1e to recei1e -alance pa ment of 7s.1,&),8&'*- from 0i-ert Health Care as the cheHue mar" !I@+*A could not -e encashed as the account of /*S 0i-ert Health Care had -een seiBed in connection 3ith a criminal case. During !ross-examination, he admitted that prior to &$$', there 3as no transaction 3ith Jee1an 2umar. He admitted that no document 3as signed as 3ell as stamped their office or him prior to handing o1er the same to the CBI. He further admitted that the originals of these in1oices are in his custod and the same has not -een -rought - him. He further admitted that no plot num-ers ha1e -een mentioned in the in1oices. He admitted that the in1oices in Huestion are computer generated documents. He admitted that the retail in1oices ;:.!I@+*1 to ;:.!I@+*) does not -ear recei1ing of an part . He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4J0I>5 PW-&& P.S.Pan!h7a*, 3otor 8i!en!ing 6%%i!er, West <one-=, 5anak7uri 'e$ De*hi stated that on 1@.&.&$$', on -eing as"ed the CBI officials, he had produced t3o original files

    pertaining to registration of 1ehicle No.(0-'C-NB-$$1$ 4Honda Cit 5 and (0-&.(B-$$1) 4/ercedes BenB5 -efore 7ajesh 2umar, Inspector, CBI, 3hich 3ere ta"en into possession - him 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I@@*1, 3hich -ears

    8<

    his signature. He further stated that the aforesaid t3o 1ehicles 3ere registered 3ith 7egistering and 0icencing Authorit , North Aone, /all 7oad, (elhi and the original files are ;:.!I@@*& to ;:.!I@@*+ respecti1el . As per the documents contained in file ;:.!I@@*&, -oth these 1ehicles stands registered in the name of /*S 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. B1*<+, &nd .loor, /al1i Nagar, Ne3 (elhi and as per the record, -oth the 1ehicles 3ere financed ICICI -an". He further

    stated that in respect of 1ehicle No.(0-'C-NB-$$1$ 4Honda Cit 5 the letter of allotment num-er is ;:.!I@@*@. He further stated that form No.&$ is ;:.!I@@*< 3hich -ears the signature of Inspecting Authorit . ?he sale certificate is ;:.!I@@*8, form No.&@ is ;:.!I@@*%, photo cop of !AN card is mar" !I@@*A and cop of telephone -ill is mar" !I@@*B. He further stated that in respect of 1ehicle No.(0-&.(B-$$1) 4/ercedes BenB5, fanc num-er allotment slip is ;:.!I@@*', form No.&$ is

    ;:.!I@@*) 3hich -ears the signature of Inspecting Authorit , form No.&& is ;:.!I@@*1$, form No.+@ is ;:.!I@@*11, cop of return of income is mar" !I@@*C, form No.18 is mar" !I@@*(, photo cop of certificate of incorporation is mar" !I@@*; and cop of co1er note is mar" !I@@*.. During !ross-examination, he admitted that on documents of the file ;:.!I@@*& does not -ear the seal of their office and document from page No.< to 1+ neither -ear seal as 3ell as signature of an official of his office nor the same 3ere

    88

    attested. He further admitted that photograph stapled on ;:.!I@@*&, is not attested nor cross-signed an one. He

    further stated that in file ;:.!I@@*+, no photo of the applicant is there. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. 4J0>5 PW-&) Ran-hir singh stated that he is one of the (irectors of /*S ?7I?9N /edical Ser1ices !1t. 0td. %*&$& 4IInd .loor5, Ne3 (elhi. He further stated that this compan 3as esta-lished in the ear 1))$ and deals in sale and ser1ices of medical dial sis eHuipment and accessories of

    eHuipments mainl

    1arious -rands. He further stated that the had sold the said machine to man hospitals including 0i-ert Health Care ''%@, Sector &+, !alam >ihar =urgaon. He further stated that the sale in1oices are ;:.!I@<*1 and ;:.!I@<*&. He has seen the seiBure memo mar" !I@<*A dated &$.&.&$$', 1ide 3hich the in1oices dated &<.%.&$$< and 1+.1&.&$$% issued their

    compan had -een handed o1er to Inspector, CBI, Ne3 (elhi - /r. Bhupinder Saro a. He had identified his signature on seiBure memo as he had seen him 3riting and signing the documents. During !ross-examination, he admitted that addresses in -oth the in1oices in Huestion are different. ?he signatures appearing on ;:.!I@<*1, might -e signed (eepa", 3ho 3as an emplo ee of the compan . He admitted that on in1oices in Huestion, mode of pa ment does not find mention. He further admitted that doctors as 3ell as indi1iduals

    8%

    approached him for the purpose of purchase of eHuipments of dial sis normall . He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions.

    4J0>I5

    PW-&, Ramesh Ka7oor stated that he is one of the partners of /*S 9/AJ ;ngineering Ior"s, <-B, =ali No.%, Anand !ar-at Industrial Area, Ne3 7ohta" 7oad, Ne3 (elhi and his copartner is /r. Naresh 2apoor. He further stated that he has seen the in1oices dated 1+.%.&$$<, ).'.&$$<, 1+.'.&$$<, <.11.&$$< and &1.1.&$$8. He further stated that 1ide the aforesaid in1oices, he had sold the eHuipments mentioned therein to 0i-ert Health Care, (-<*&) (0. !hase-1, =urgaon as as"ed - (r. Amit 2umar, 3ho 3as "no3n to him. He had handed o1er the car-on copies of si: retail in1oices issued - him, 1ide 3hich the eHuipments 3ere sold to /*S 0i-ert Health Care and one to /*S 0i-ert Health Care !lot No.@%)+, Sector-&+, =urgaon to Inspector, CBI, 3ho seiBed the same 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I@8*1 3hich -ears his signature. He further stated that 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I@8*&, operation theatre light, Auto Cla1e, 9peration ta-le manual 3as sold to /*S 0i-ert Health Care for 7s.@<,+&$*- and similarl , 1ide in1oices ;:.!I@8*+ to ;:.!I@8*8, one operation ta-le major 3ith radiolucent top 3ith mattress and accessories, t3o in1alid 3heel chairs, operation ta-le general, -ed side loc"er S.S.top, -ed IC, 3ere sold to /*S 0i-ert Health Care (-<*&) (0. !hase-I =urgaon. He further stated that 1ide in1oice

    8'

    ;:.!I@8*%, one 9*? light mo-ile 3as sold to /*S 0i-ert Health Care plot No.@%)+, Sector &+, =urgaon. He identified his signatures on ;:.!I@8*& to ;:.!I@8*% as the same ha1e -een issued - him. He further stated that the pa ments 3ere made - accused Amit - cash as 3ell as - cheHue. He rightl identified accused Amit. During !ross-examination, he admitted that in that statement, all the orders regarding 3hich all the in1oices, 3hich ha1e -een sho3n to him in the court, orders for such purchase of goods 3ere made onl through telephone. He

    admitted that all the orders 3ere placed through telephone. He further admitted that as per retail in1oices sho3n to him in the court, pa ment 3as supposed to -e recei1ed from the part either through cheHue*-an" draft or account pa ee cheHue onl as mentioned in retail in1oices. He further admitted that this condition does not find mention in these retail in1oices. 4J0>II5 PW-&. Rashmi -aughter o% Shri Ra+in-er Singh stated that he has done /.!hil in ;nglish. He 3as suffering from S0; due to 3hich his "idne 3as damaged. He 3as ta"ing treatment in AII/S, Ne3 (elhi from (r. Aggar3al, Nephrologist. (r. Aggar3al ad1ised him that ultimate treatment is "idne transplantation and it is -etter that the same -e done immediatel -efore dial sis. He further stated that (r. !ardeep 2umar 3as loo"ing after his dial sis. (uring that period, he had reduced his 3eight from @$ "gs. to &8 2gs. and 3as under

    8)

    depression. His father too" him for "idne some3here in (elhi. He cannot identif conducted his "idne

    transplantation the doctor, 3ho

    transplantation. He did not meet an

    doctor, 3ho conducted his "idne transplantation. In IC,, some nurses 3ere present -ut he could not identif an one. 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, the contents of statement mar" !I@%*A 3ere put to her 3ord 3ord -ut she refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that she ne1er made such statement to the CBI. She 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A, B to B, C to C, ( to ( and ; to ; of his statement mar" !I@%*A, -ut she denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI. (>89===) PW-&0 Ra+in-er Singh ?omar state- that his daughter 7ashmi ?omar 3as suffering from "idne pro-lem. She 3as on dial sis in Jas3ant 7ai Hospital due to her deteriorate condition. 9ne Iard -o in Jas3ant 7ai Hospital told him that one 7ajesh had got "idne transplanted from (elhi. He

    contacted him in the hospital. He and his daughter accompanied him in his car. He 3ent to /ehrauli, (elhi. He did not "no3 an doctor namel ,pender. 7ajesh told him that the total

    e:penses for "idne transplantation is a-out 7s.&,$$,$$$*-. 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to

    %$

    cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, the contents of statement mar" !I@'*A 3ere put to him 3ord 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the CBI. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A of his statement mar" !I@'*A, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI. (>8=>) PW-&1 Shaki* stated that he has seen his statement ;:.!I1*1 recorded - the /agistrate, 3hich -ears his signature. He stated that he 3as ta"en to Ci1il Hospital for treatment at the Ci1il Hospital 3here !ress and !olice people 3ere present. His photographs are mar" !I@)*A to !I@)*(. He identified his 3riting and signature, 3hich is ;:.!I@)*& on -ed head tic"et mar" !I@)*;. He further stated that on that da , he "ne3 that his "idne 3as remo1ed - (r. Amit as it has appeared on the paper and on ?>. He had seen (r. Amit on the tele1ision for the first time. He further stated that the man, 3ho administered him injection is not present in the court. He did not see (r. Amit in the hospital 3herein his "idne 3as remo1ed. 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, the contents of statement mar" !I@)*. 3ere put to him 3ord - 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the CBI. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A1 and B to B1of his statement mar" !I@)*.,

    %1

    -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8) PW-)2 Smt. Surn-er Ka7oor stated that she did B.Sc and diploma in /edical 0a- ?echnolog . In the ear &$$%, she 3as 3or"ing as 0a- ?echnician in Batra Hospital, Ne3 (elhi. ?his la- is specialiBed in tissue t ping test and (r. /.C.>aid a is the Head of the 0a- and this la- is controlled - Batra Hospital. (r. /.C.>aid a is the Honourar Consultant. He used to recei1e -lood samples of the recipients and donors along3ith the H0A form. Ihene1er, he used to recei1e the H0A form along3ith samples, he used to get an endorsement signed from the person, 3ho -rings the sample and get his signature in his presence. H0A forms are ;:.!I<$*1 to ;:.!I<$*&+@. He used to recei1e these H0A forms and the samples, onl after -eing the pa ment 3as deposited in the Batra Hospital and receipts for the same 3ere -eing produced. ?he pa ment receipts are ;:.!I<$*&+< to ;:.!I<$*@+<. 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, she admitted that form ;:.!I<$*1$@ 3as recommended - (r. B.!.John for H0A test and as per record, she had made an endorsement in her o3n hand-3riting that the -lood sample is collected and deli1ered in the la- - one person namel /anoj on 1<.8.&$$% and she had o-tained her signature on ;:.!I<$*1$@ to ;:.!I<$*&$$,

    %&

    ;:.!I<$*&$8 to ;:.!I<$*&+@ and she had recei1ed the report 3hich also -ears her signature. ?he H0A forms ;:.!I<$*1$@ to ;:.!I<$*&+@ ha1e -een signed and -ear the seal of (r. B.!.John , on 3hose prescriptions, these samples 3ere tested in their la-. She has also seen the H0A forms ;:.!I<$*1, ;:.!I<$*&, ;:.!I<$*1$ to ;:.!I<$*1+ in 3hich -lood samples 3ere -rought in the la- /r. 2edi 7am on

    1$.1$.&$$% at 1$.+$ a.m. She further stated that she had also made an endorsement on the H0A form ;:.!I<$*+ to ;:.!I<$*8, ;:.!I<$*), ;:.!I<$*1@ to ;:.!I<$*&$,

    ;:.!I<$*&& to ;:.!I<$*@<, ;:.!I<$*<@, ;:.!I<$*<' to ;:.!I<$*8$, ;:.!I<$*8@, ;:.!I<$*8<, ;:.!I<$*%),

    ;:.!I<$*'$, ;:.!I<$*'%, ;:.!I<$*'', ;:.!I<$*)1 to ;:.!I<$*1$& that the -lood samples had -een deli1ered in the la- - /r. 2an3aljit on '.'.&$$%. She also stated that in H0A form ;:.!I<$*@8 to ;:.!I<$*<+, ;:.!I<$*<< to

    ;:.!I<$*<%, ;:.!I<$*81 to ;:.!I<$*8+, ;:.!I<$*88 to ;:.!I<$*%', ;:.!I<$*'1 to ;:.!I<$*'8, ;:.!I<$*') and ;:.!I<$*)$, samples ha1e -een deli1ered - (r. ,pender and report 3as also recei1ed - (r. ,pender and prescriptions 3ere also made (r. ,pender as Consultant. In H0A form

    ;:.!I<$*&1, one ,mesh had deli1ered the samples -ut no report 3as gi1en as it 3as not prescri-ed Consultant.

    ;:.!I<$*' is prescription slip of (r. ,pender and H0A form ;:.!I<$*% had -een signed - (r. ,pender as Consultant. She

    %+

    further stated that in H0A form ;:.!I<$*< samples had -een deli1ered - 2an3aljit Singh and report recei1ed - 2edi 7am on the prescription of (r. ,pender. She admitted that as per record, the a-o1esaid H0A forms recommended - one (r. ,pender 3hich -ear his seal and signature. She admitted that she 3as attached 3ith the la- from &$$+ to &$$) and the reHuisition forms 3ere a1aila-le free of costs in their la-. She had handed o1er the H0A forms to the CBI officer. ?he contents of statement ;:.!I<$*A 3ere put to her 3ord - 3ord -ut she refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that she ne1er made such statement to the CBI. She 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A, B to B and C to C of her statement ;:.!I<$*A, -ut she denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI. She, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8=) PW-)1 'iran(an Pan($ani stated that he is 3or"ing as a (irector of Ba-ler /ar"eting Compan . He had his first "idne transplant in 1))@ in St. Johns /edical College, Hospital, Banglore. ?his "idne lasted onl for some time and he again de1eloped the pro-lem in &$$%. He contacted his relati1es, friends and some-od ga1e the telephone num-er of (r. Amit 2umar. He contacted him on telephone and he ga1e his e-mail I(. (r. Amit as"ed him to send his medical reports to him through his e-mail I(. He 3ent to (elhi along3ith his medical reports. He handed o1er the medical reports including the -lood test report to (r. Amit. He further stated that (r. Amit told him

    %@

    that his life choice is onl 1$N and he ad1ised him to undergo ne3 "idne transplantation. He told him that total e:penses for the "idne transplantation 3ill -e 7s.%.< lacs and (r. Amit told him that he 3ill do e1er thing. He told him that he do not ha1e that much amount and to reduce the amount. ?hen, he agreed for 7s.@.< lacs. He also agreed for that amount. Ne:t morning, (r. Amit called for dial sis. He further stated that operation 3as conducted in the second house 3here he 3as e:amined - (r. Amit. He did not "no3 the e:act name of the place or localit 3here he 3as operated. ?he operation too" a-out three hours. He 3as there in the hospital for a-out @-< da s under the super1ision of (r. Amit. He further stated that he 3as discharged after fi1e da s from the hospital. (r. Amit did not demand an mone from him. He met one more person, 3ho had supposed to ha1e operated for "idne transplantation. He cannot identif accused Amit in the court. He further stated that he handed o1er the pre1ious treatment record of his "idne transplantation to the CBI 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I<1*1 dated 8.8.&$$' and the files are ;:.!I<1*& to ;:.!I<1*<. No receipt 3as gi1en - the accused regarding pa ment. During !ross-examination 4y *earne- PP, he stated that his statement 3as recorded - the CBI and he had gone through the same. ?he contents of statement ;:.!I<1*A 3ere put to him 3ord 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the

    contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such

    %<

    statement to the CBI. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A and B to B of his statement ;:.!I<1*A, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI. He further stated that he had seen the report dated &1.1.&$$' part of ;:.!I<1*& and the same is a photo cop and lateron stamped and signed - (r. (.!.Sarsa3at, /edical (irector and C99. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8==) PW-)2 9ikas 5o**y stated that his father (haram1ir Joll is the proprietor of /*S Joll ?echnocrats, Sur a !laBa, 21'<*1, Sarai Jolaina .riends Colon , Ne3 (elhi. He further stated that since his father is old and infirm, he used to carr -usiness. He has seen deli1er on the said

    challan ;:.!I<&*1 dated

    &).$8.1))) issued under the signature of his father, 1ide 3hich, one !hilips !hililu: /inor (uo 9? 0ight 3as supplied to 0i-ert Hospital =urgaon. He further stated that the purchase order recei1ed from (r. Amit 2umar is ;:.!I<&*& and against the said deli1er , he recei1ed 7s.1,1$,$$$*- from (r. Amit 2umar through cheHues. 9n 1<.$1.&$$', he had handed o1er the documents ;:.!I<&*1 and ;:.!I<&*& to Inspector, CBI, Ne3 (elhi, 3ho seiBed the same 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I<&*+ 3hich -ears his signature. 9n -eing as"ed the 3itness has rightl identified (r. Amit 2umar present in the court to 3hom the 9? lights 3ere supplied - the compan Joll ?echnocrats.

    %8

    During !ross-examination, he admitted that ;:.!I<&*1 does not -ear his signature and not e:ecuted in his presence. He further stated that his father is old and infirm no3 and cannot attend the -usiness regularl . He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8===) PW-)" A-ee* 3urta@a stated that he is carr ing on -usiness of the sale and purchase of medical eHuipment in partnership since, &$$< in the name and st le of >ital Sign /edical Incorporation. He further stated that on the -asis of order ;:.!I<+*1, he had sold patient /onitors, ;C= machines, o: gen concentrator for around 7s.+,$$,$$$*-. He has seen in1oices ;:.!I<+*& dated 1$.$).&$$< and ;:.!I<+*+ dated &).1$.&$$<, 1ide 3hich, the aforesaid eHuipments and one 1entilator 3ere sold to /*S 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. !alam >ihar 7oad, =urgaon. He further stated that the car-on cop of in1oice issued in this regard is ;:.!I<+*@. He

    further stated that he has seen seiBure memo ;:.!I<+*< dated 1<.&.&$$', 1ide 3hich, he had handed o1er the documents mentioned therein to CBI official, 3hich -ears his signature and remaining pa ments 3ere also recei1ed through cheHues. ?he same 3ere collected - their staff. During !ross-examination, he admitted that the in1oices ;:.!I<+*& to ;:.!I<+*@ 3ere not in fa1our of Star /a: 0ife Care. He also admitted that on ;:.!I<+*& and ;:.!I<+*+, the sale ta: num-er of their firm 3as not

    %%

    mentioned or printed. He stated that he had not handed o1er an document 3hich sho3s the mode of pa ment against in1oices in Huestion. He further admitted that address mentioned in ;:.!I<+*&-+ and ;:.!I<+*@ are different addresses. He admitted that on seeing the retain in1oices in Huestion, it cannot -e re1ealed 3ho had made the pa ment and 3ho had recei1ed the goods. He further admitted that on seeing the retail in1oices in Huestion through 3hich mode the deli1er 3as made to the destination. He admitted that the part in 3hose fa1our the retail in1oices 3ere issued, their complete addresses are not mentioned therein. He admitted that goods mentioned in the in1oices in Huestion are easil a1aila-le in the mar"et. (8=9) PW-)& /a* Krishan Sharma has stated that he has -rought the original record -eing maintained - the ;ssel Housing !rojects !1t. 0td. pertaining to apartment No.;C-II*C-1$& 3hich is in the name of /r. Jee1an 2umar ;ssal ?o3er has -een -uilt on a-out +@ acres land o3ned /*S Indian

    Airlines !ilots, Cooperati1es House Building Societ 0imited. ?he aforesaid apartment 3as sold to /r. Jee1an 2umar 1ide sale deed*con1ince deed dated +$.$&.&$$% dul registered 3ith the Su- 7egistrar 1ide deed No.&%@++. ?he aforesaid apartment 3as sold to accused Jee1an 2umar for a consideration of 7s.+@,81,&&$*- 3hich does not include the court fee. He had handed o1er the photo cop of sale

    %'

    deed*con1ince deed to Shri Cash !al Singh, Inspector, CBI on 1&.&.&$$' 1ide for3arding letter ;:.!I<@*1, 3hich -ears his signature. ?he photo cop of the sale deed*con1ince deed including Anne:ure I to >I is mar" !I<@*A. During !ross-examination, he stated that Jee1an 2umar has -oo"ed the a-o1e-said apartment on 1$.8.&$$+. He further stated that a sum of 7s.& lacs 1ide cheHue dated &).<.&$$+ dra3n on ICICI -an" had -een paid as earnest mone *-oo"ing amount and the amount of 7s.+$ lacs 3as paid - Jee1an 2umar - o-taining loan of 7s.+$ lacs from Standard Chartered Ban", Ne3 (elhi. He further stated that the original sale deed of a-o1e-said apartment 3as l ing in the Ban" and this apartment 3as under mortgaged of Ban". (89) PW-)) Dr. Shi+ani 3a*ik, Consu*tant, Ra-io*ogist has pro1ed her reports ;:.!I<<*1 to ;:.!I<<*@, 3hich -ears her signature and she also identified the signature of (r. Anu-ha1 Sari"3al another Consultant 7adiologist in her centre 3ith 3hom, she did 3or". She further stated that ;:.!I<<*< to ;:.!I<<*' are her reports and ;:.!I<<*) to ;:.!I<<*11 are the reports of (r. S ed Aama Ali as Consultant 7adiologist and she identified his signature as she 3or"ed 3ith him. She further stated that the CBI 9fficer had ta"en in possession the original consent forms 1ide memo ;:.!I<<*1&.

    %)

    During !ross-examination, she admitted that all the tests conducted - their hospital including mentioned in e:amination-in-chief are used for multiple purposes. (89=) PW-), Dr. Ar(un 8a* Chan-ani has stated that he did /( in patholog from Banaras Hindu ,ni1ersit in 1)%) and he is running C!C, Blood Ban", Ne3 (elhi from the ear 1)'8. He further stated that his -lood -an" had supplied -lood to 0i-ert Health Care 4!5 0td. on recei1ing -lood samples

    along3ith reHuisitions slip -earing name of the patients, age, hospital registration num-er for suppl of -lood. ?he

    supplied -lood after grouping and cross-matching along3ith cross-match slip 3hich indicating patient particulars and donor -lood group. He further stated that most of the reHuisitions had come from rotar -lood -an" to them. He further stated that the had supplied -lood to 18 patients -et3een the ear &$$+ to &$$' on receipt of pa ment. ?he had supplied data for eight patients including reHuisition slips and cross-matching slips signed - their technical staff Anita, /oll , Ansuia and he identified his signatures. 9ne of the reHuisitions ;:.!I<8*@ is from Starma: 0ife Care 3hich 3as signed - (r. Amit. During !ross-examination, he admitted that the -lood supplied - their -lood -an" are used for multi purpose applications and 1arious surgeries.

    '$

    (89==) PW-).Ante Ram stated that he did not join Shri 7am Hospital as a Super1isor. He "no3 Shri 7am Hospital and (r. ,pender is o3ner of that hospital. He has -een sho3n the H0A form ;:.!I<%*1 -ut his photo is appended on it. His photo 3as demanded for completing the form for medical insurance. He handed o1er his photo to (r. Johar. He did not hand o1er an photo to accused ,pender for conducting the H0A test. He identified (r. ,pender present in the court. During !ross-examination, he stated that his shop and house is situated near Shri 7am Hospital. His 3ife 3as treated - (r. ,pender in his 1er hospital so, he used to 1isit that hospital and thus "no3 to him. (89===) PW-)0 Rakesh Dutt has stated that he is graduate and is running a printing press at (elhi. He is dia-etic patient and 3as suffering from "idne ailment since Septem-er, &$$%. He recei1ed a S/S on his phone No.)'1$+$$$$' in (ecem-er, &$$%, in 3hich there 3as a message to contact on that num-er for "idne transplantation. He further stated that after some da , he contacted on that telephone num-er and he 3as gi1en the address in =urgaon near Bristol Hotel. He further stated that (r. Amit did not disclose the place of operation and Hualit of hospital. He as"ed for some ad1ance. (r. Amit told that he is 3or"ing in some hospital in Canada and he remained for si: months in India and si: months in some hospital at Canada. (r. Amit also told that "idne

    '1

    transplantation is legal in Har ana. He further stated that the -rother of his 3ife is in Canada and she inHuired from her -rother 3hether (r. Amit is 3or"ing there in the hospital 3hich 3as disclosed - him to them -ut it 3as found that there 3as no such doctor 3or"ing in the hospital record. He further stated that this created a dou-t in his mind and the decided not to go ahead 3ith this operation. ?he 3ere called once or t3ise again on their telephone num-er -ut he told that the are not interested and the closed the su-ject in all manners and no further contract too" place after that. He further stated that he is under the care and treatment of (r. 0ai3 of /ount ;liBa-ath Hospital, Singapore. During !ross-examination, he stated that the CBI officials met him at his residence a-out + O ears -ac" for the first time. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8=>) Dr. 9an-ana 8a*, stated that she did /BBS and /( in !atholog . She is the ;:ecuti1e (irector of 0al !ath 0aha1ing office of ;s"a House, Ne3 (elhi. She further stated that the are ha1ing 1$$ la-s and o1er &<$$ collection

    centres and pic"-up points all o1er India. ?he had e:amined some -lood samples. In (ecem-er, &$$8, the made a

    complaint ;:.!I<)*1, against (r. ,pender 2umar to SH9 for issuing fa"e reports on their names -ut the .I7 3as not lodged - the police. She further stated that in response to the letter of AC!, Crimes, =urgaon mar" !I<)*A, she had sent

    '&

    the letter ;:.!I<)*&, gi1ing the details of fa"e reports of the patients 3hich is in her hand-3riting and -earing her signature. She further stated that the handed o1er all the record pertaining to tissue t pe test and cross-matching test referred to - accused ,pender to CBI. ?he had gi1en the summar record of the tests referred to - ,pender 2umar to their la-. ?his summar 3as gi1en to the I9 in a C( form. She had gi1en the co1ering letter dated 1+th .e-ruar , &$$' to /r. S. Bala Su-ramon (S!, CBI, Ne3 (elhi along3ith the C( and the letter is ;:.!I<)*+, 3hich -ears her signature. During !ross-examination, she stated that she has seen document ;:.!I<)*+. She admitted that she did not personall conducting an test -ut the technician 3as doing this jo-. She further admitted that summar record 3hich she has seen does not -ear the signature of an person or an doctor of their la- or an certificate of its authenticit and correctness. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestion. (8>) PW-,2 Dr. arsh 3aha(an stated that he did /BBS from

    /aulana ABad /edical College, Ne3 (elhi and /( in radio diagnosis from !=I, Chandigarh. He conducted different tests of radiolog and imaging including J-ra , ultra-sound,

    colour (oppler, C.?.Scan, /7I etc. He further stated that in the ear &$$%-$', (r. Amit 2umar had referred 1@ persons for different tests to his centre. He has gi1en the details ;:.!I8$*& to ;:.!I8$*@@ of 1@ persons to CBI in letter

    '+

    ;:.!I8$*1, 3ho 3ere referred to him and this letter -ears his signature. ?he detail is :x.PW,2A2 to :x.PW,2A&& 3hich -ears his signature and initials. He further stated that these tests are general tests and are not conducted specificall for "idne transplantation -ut can -e -roadl used to

    determine pre-operati1e status and fitness for surger of an ailment. During !ross-examination, he admitted that the name of the doctors as mentioned in ;:.!I8$*& to ;:.!I8$*@@ ha1ing different spellings of names ma -e of different persons. (8>=) PW-,1 Data Ram has stated that he is 3or"ing as Senior ?echnical Assistant in the office of 7egistrar of Compan (elhi. He did not remem-er a-out the letter of CBI recei1ed in their office. Ho3e1er, the same 3as handed o1er - their official namel 7.2.Shah Assistant 7egistrar of Companies, NC? of (elhi and Har ana to the CBI. He had 3or"ed 3ith Shri 7.2.Shah and is con1ersant 3ith his signature. ?he documents are ;:.!I81*1 to ;:.!I81*+'. ?he detail and information 3hich are reHuired has -een gi1en in ;:.!I81*1 to ;:.!I81*+'. He further stated that the certificate of incorporation ;:.!I81*& is of 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. and ;:.!I81*+ is memorandum of registration and ;:.!I81*@ is article of registration of hospital and the

    '@

    remaining documents are relating to the reHuirements of incorporation. During !ross-examination, he admitted that their department ne1er 1erifies 3hether the firm is in e:istence or not. (8>==) PW-,2 Dee7ak Puri has stated that their compan namel N.2.Jain Instrument !1t. 0td. ha1ing trade mar" 0a-omed manufacture different "inds of microscope. He is 3or"ing as Salesman in this compan . He further stated that a-out fi1e ears -ac", t3o persons 3ho 3ere carr ing a 1isiting card in the name of Jee1an 2umar came to their factor purchasing microscope and the for

    as"ed for purchasing a

    /icroscope and the ga1e them catalogs of all the products and the selected one In1erted /icroscope, the cost of 3hich 3as 7s.1,1%,&<1*- as per record. ?he production-cum-receipt memo is ;:.!I8&*1 and the in1oice is ;:.!I8&*& 3hich -ears his signature. During !ross-examination, he stated that he had not -rought an -ill -oo"*in1oice -oo" from his office pertaining to ;:.!I8&*&. He further stated that from their office, in1oice No.8'& ;:.!I8&*& dated &'.1&.&$$% has -een supplied through dealer Continental Instruments 0uc"no3. He cannot identif the persons, 3ho had purchased this eHuipment from his office. ?his eHuipment 3as also used in 7easearch and ;ducation Institutions generall .

    '<

    (8>===) PW-," Dr. /.P.5ohny has stated that he is /BBS, (/7( and /(. He 3as running a clinic at 2aparshera. He further stated that in -et3een the ear 1))<-1))', he 3as offered a part-time jo- - (r.,pender at 0i-ert Hospital for a fe3 months. He identified (r. ,pender 2umar correctl 3ho is present in the court. He further stated that the H0A form ;:.!I<$*1$@ to ;:.!I<$*&+@ ha1e -een seen - him. He further stated that in these H0A forms, the stamp and signature as Consultant are not of him. He has also not filled the forms. He further stated that he ne1er ha1e -een associated 3ith Batra Hospitral and /edical 7esearch Centre, Ne3 (elhi nor 3ith Sir =anga 7am Hospital, Ne3 (elhi. He further stated that he ne1er ga1e an suggestion for -lood collection or for an in1estigation as sho3n in the record of H0A forms. He further stated that he 3as not consultant during the period 1))< to 1))', neither he 3as ha1ing /( degree in modern medicines at that time. During !ross-examination, he admitted that the record sho3n to him in the court pertained to Batra Hospital /edical 7esearch Centre, Ne3 (elhi. He admitted that there is no reference of (r. ,pender on the documents sho3n to him in the court. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8>=9) PW-,& A4rar Khan stated that he is 3or"ing as (ial sis technician since 1))' at /odi Hospital Sa"et, Ne3 (elhi. He

    '8

    further stated that in the

    ear &$$&, he had met Jee1an in

    general as friend. (r. Jee1an told that he 3as running a hospital for dial sis. He has also gi1en him his mo-ile num-er 3hich he did not remem-er. As a friend, he used to tal" to him on his mo-ile num-er freHuentl in general. 9nce or t3ice, the had the reHuirement of technician for dial sis, then the had

    contacted him -ut he is regular emplo ee of =/ /odi Hospital, Ne3 (elhi. He had conducted ' to 1$ dial sis in the ear &$$+, 3hen he 3as called - accused Jee1an at dial sis Centre, Sector-&+, =urgaon. He further stated that there 3ere t3o dial sis machines in the dial sis centre. ;1er thing 3as a1aila-le 3hich 3as reHuired for dial sis for a patient in the dial sis centre. He did not "no3 3ho is the /anager of that dial sis Centre. No -lood sample 3as e1er ta"en in his presence. ?here used to -e no doctor. 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination !!, the contents of

    statement ;:.!I8@*A 3ere put to him 3ord - 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the CBI. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A, B to B, C to C, ( to ( and ; to ; of his statement ;:.!I8@*A, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI.

    '%

    (8>9)PW-,) /harat /hushan stated that he is 3or"ing as Administrati1e officer in (r. 7am /anohar 0ohia Hospital, Ne3 (elhi since 1st 9cto-er, &$1$. He 3as ne1er associated in the in1estigation of the CBI in this case. He further stated that the CBI had not ta"en in possession an record from him -ut the same 3as ta"en in possession from his predecessor Shri Anil 2umar. He had 3or"ed 3ith Shri Anil 2umar, ;:. (eput (irector Administration and he is con1ersant 3ith his signature. He further stated that the memo regarding details of lea1e*dut of /s. 0inda Chinneihoih Staff Nurse is ;:.!I8<*B ha1e -een issued - Anil 2umar and also -ears the stamp of Anil 2umar and (r. Beena Namshum, the then Addl. /edical

    Superintendent (r. 7am /anohar 0ohia Hospital, Ne3 (elhi. He had also -rought the office record of these documents. During !ross-examination, he stated that as per record in Januar , &$$' /s. 0inda 3as emplo ed in (r. 7am /anohar 0ohia Hospital and she had joined this hospital on 1% th 9cto-er, &$$8. As per record sho3n to him in the court, earned lea1e application on the -asis of 3hich the same 3as allo3ed 3as not attached 3ith the documents ;:.!I8<*A and ;:.!I8<*B. He has -rought the official record in 3hich that application is there, cop of 3hich is ;:.!I8<*A. He further stated that as per this application, the reHuest 3as made applicant 0inda mentioning therein the seriousness of her father. He further stated that this application 3as mo1ed - her

    ''

    on %.1.&$$', 3hich 3as allo3ed upto &&.$1.&$$' as per record. It 3as not in his "no3ledge as to 3hether father of /s. 0inda had e:pired on %.1.&$$' and for that reason, she had applied lea1e and for that reason, she had gone to her nati1e place at /anipur 4;ast State5. (8>9=)PW-,, Par+een Kumar 3itta* stated that he is 3or"ing as Account Assistant at Sad-ha3na Hospital, Balla-hgarh in the ear &$$% for t3o months and 1% da s. (r. Archana 3ife of (r. ,pender 3as the proprietor of this hospital. (r. Archana along3ith famil used to reside on the second floor of the said hospital. He 3as doing the jo- of deposit of electricit and other -ills etc. He used to recei1e the telephone of (r. ,pender -ut he did not "no3 3hether (r. ,pender had o-tained an loan from an -an" or not. He "ne3 !ar1een /angla, Jas3ant Singh, (r. Archana as emplo ed in Sad-ha3na Hospital. (r. ,pender had called in the ca-in of (r. Archana and he had gi1en him -lan" H0A forms and as"ed him to fill-up the name and addresses of the patients. (r. ,pender had ta"en out a spiral diar from 3hich he had dictated the names and addresses of the recipients and donors. ?he H0A forms ;:.!I<$*1+, ;:.!I<$*%' to ;:.!I<$*'8 ha1e -een filled up - him. He had got de1eloped +-@ copies of each photograph. He 3as not instructed to 1isit =oel Studio at Am-ed"ar Cho3", Balla-hgarh - an person. He used to 1isit one (arpan Studio

    ')

    for ma"ing copies of the photographs and handed o1er the same to (r. ,pender. He identified (r. ,pender present in the court. During !ross-examination, he stated that the CBI officer did not o-tain his signature and hand-3riting for comparison. He did not remem-er all the 3or"s did 3ith Sad-ha3na Hospital. He is 3or"ing 3ith the !ropert (ealer. !rior to this jo-, he had furnished his -io-data 3ith regard to his ser1ice record and histor to his pre1ious emplo er. He had no 3here disclosed in his -iodata furnished for getting the jo- that he 3as e1er emplo ed 3ith Sad-ha3na Hospital or (r. ,pender. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8>9==)PW-,. Suni* Kumar has stated that he did BSc and diploma in (/0? and is 3or"ing as technician in AI/S, Ne3 (elhi since 1))). He further stated that he had conducted the H0A tests of &$ patients*donors. He further stated that he 1isited onl &-+ times and used to go to the la- on the as"ing of ,mesh. He further stated that onl the reports mentioned in ;:.!I8%*1 to ;:.!I8%*&$ 3ere prepared - him. He had not recei1ed an mone 3ith regard to this 3or" -eing the raid 3as conducted - the police. He cannot identif an of the accused present in the court. During !ross-examination, he stated that there might -e num-er of petrol pumps in Sector-&+ =urgaon -ut he can recogniBe onl one petrol pump, in case, he 1isited the spot. He accompanied CBI officers t3ice in the -uilding, 3here he

    )$

    had 3or"ed. He further stated that his specimen hand3riting*signature*thum--impressions 3ere o-tained - the CBI 9fficers -ut no record is a1aila-le 3ith the CBI. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestion. (8>9===) PW-,0 Dimngai!hing ?hangsing B Din 'gari!hing Simte stated that she completed her three ears diploma in =eneral Nursing and /id3ife from Assam in the ear &$$+. She further stated that she 3or"ed as a Nurse at Ioodland Hospital, Shillong for a-out si: months. She further stated that thereafter, she shifted to (elhi 3here she 3or"ed at Sood /edical Centre, (elhi Cantonment Area for a-out three ears. ?hereafter, she 3or"ed in ?hialand. She further stated that she ne1er 3or"ed in Starma: Hospital, !alam >ihar, Sector-&+ =urgaon. She "ne3 accused 0inda present in the court as the are from the same nati1e place i.e. /anipur. /s. 0inda is*3as 3or"ing at 7/0 Hospital, Ne3 (elhi as Staff Nurse. She did not "no3 after 7/0 hospital 3here she had 3or"ed. 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, the contents of statement mar" !I8'*A 3ere put to her 3ord - 3ord -ut she refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that she ne1er made such statement to the CBI. She 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A of her statement mar" !I8'*A, -ut she denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI.

    )1

    (8>=>) PW-,1 Dr.P.R.Sharma, Se!retary Centra* Coun!i* o% =n-ian 3e-i!ines, 'e$ De*hi stated that he is 3or"ing as 7egistrarcum-Secretar and their office maintained central register of Indian /edicines. He further stated that the CBI 9fficer had made an inHuir from him regarding registration of accused 7aut Santosh 7amesh3ar and he had gi1en his information 1ide letter ;:.!I8)*1, 3hich -ears his signature. He had also gi1en the e:tract of the register cop of 3hich is ;:.!I8)*& and the name of accused 7aut Santosh 7amesh3ar figured at serial No.%%'<. He had also recei1ed the letter ;:.!I8)*+ from CBI officer. (8>>) PW-.2 Dr. Da*i7 ;ttam Rao Wange, Registrar,

    3aharashtra Coun!i* o% =n-ian 3e-i!ines, 3um4ai stated that he is posted as 7egistrar /aharashtra Council of Indian /edicines, /um-ai. He had gi1en the cop of the =aBette notification of /aharashtra ;:.!I%$*1 running in t3o pages and receipt ;:.!I%$*&. (8>>=) PW-.1 Dr.S.S.Da*a* stated that he 3as posted as Ci1il Surgeon, =urgaon since +.@.&$$%. ?he notification ;:.!I&+*1 4alread e:hi-ited5 3as also issued - the Health (epartment, =o1ernment of Har ana. He also pro1ed the notifications ;:.!I&+*+ and ;:.!I&+*@ 4alread e:hi-ited5. 9n the reHuest of =urgaon police, he along3ith (r. Ashrudeen /edical Superintendent of =H, =urgaon, (r. S.!.Bhanot, (r. S.!.Cada1 of !ushpanjali Hospital, =urgaon 1isited the hospital of (r.

    )&

    Amit in the night of &@th Januar , &$$' and three operated patients namel Naseem, Saleem and Sha"il 3ere found in the hospital, 3hich 3ere shifted to =eneral Hospital, =urgaon under the care of (r. S.!.Bhanot Surgeon for further in1estigation, the information of 3hich 3as sent to (=HS, Har ana 1ide letter ;:.!I%1*1, 3hich -ears his signature. ?hen on &%.$1.&$$', he constituted a team of doctors namel (r. 2.S.7ao, the then .amil Ielfare 9fficer. =urgaon, (r. =ulshan Arora, Senior /edical 9fficer, =H, =urgaon, (r. Sat !al Bhanot, =eneral Surgeon, =urgaon and Shri 7a"esh (ahi a, (istrict (rug Inspector, =urgaon to 1isit for the inspection and search and seiBure of the machine under the !N(? K (rugs and Cosmetics Act. ?he letter is ;:.!I%1*&, 3hich -ears his signature. During !ross-examination, he admitted that as per notification dated &<.+.&$$&, appropriate authorit 3as

    appointed as per Section 1+ of ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@. He admitted that the appropriate authorit 3hich 3as formed or appointed under Section 1+ of the ?9H9 Act 1ide this notification, is the onl authoriBed -od , to

    in1estigate an complaint of -reach of an of the pro1isions of ?9H9 Act or an of the rules made thereunder and to ta"e appropriation action. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8>>==) PW-.2 Dr. Ra(in-er Kar$asra, Senior Pro%essor, ea-

    De7artment o% Surgery, P#=, 3S, Rohtak s tated that he is

    )+

    3or"ing as Surgeon in 7ohta" /edical College, since 1)''. He further stated that the =o1ernment of Har ana had notified (irector, !=I, /S, 7ohta" as appropriate authorit for districts 7ohta", Bhi3ani, Sonepat, Jhajjar, 7e3ari, =urgaon and .arida-ad 1ide notification dated &<.+.&$$& ;:.!I%&*1. He along-3ith (r. 7.S.(ahi a, (r. Nit a Anand, (r. Santosh 2umar Singh, (r.H.2.Singal 3ere made mem-ers of the e:pert committee under the ?9H9 Act - the (irector, !=I, /S, 7ohta" and the letter is ;:.!I%&*&. He further stated that on %.&.&$$', he along-3ith team 1isited .arida-ad and =urgaon. He has seen the report gi1en - the committee in 3hich all the details of 1isit and conclusions ha1e -een recorded and the report has -een signed - him as 3ell as other mem-ers of the committee. He further stated that the seiBure memo 3as also prepared 3hich is ;:.!I%&*+, 3hich -ears his signature, 1ide 3hich the documents ;:.!I%&*@ to ;:.!I%&*'1 3ere ta"en into possession. He further stated that on ).&.&$$', patient Naresh 2umar 3as also referred to the !=I, 7ohta" from Ci1il Hospital, =urgaon. He further stated that after e:amination of the patient, it re1ealed that he 3as operated t3o da s -ac" in the hospital Sector &+, =urgaon and his left "idne 3as

    remo1ed. (uring /7I test, it 3as confirmed that left side "idne 3as a-sent. After treatment, the patient 3as discharged. During !ross-examination, he admitted that the articles are not present in the court and the documents are not

    )@

    sealed 3hen produced -efore this court. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8>>===) PW-." Dr. 9ikram Ka*ra stated that in the ear &$$', he 3as 3or"ing in 7oc"land Hospital, Ne3 (elhi since &$$<. He further stated that one patient !ritam Singh, resident of J-<*@) (, 7ajori =arden, Ne3 (elhi 3as admitted on &@.1.&$$' at 1$.$$ p.m. ?he patient 3as reported undergone 7enal ?ransplant at !a"istan on &&.1.&$$' -ut later-on patient told that he had undergone at a Centre at =urgaon. He further stated that the patientFs "idne function 3as normal and he 3as

    treated for minor chest infection and 3as discharged 3ith normal "idne function on '.&.&$$'. He further stated that he under3ent 1arious in1estigations for "idne function and chest infection and 3as seen - transplant surgeon (r. S.!.2ot3al also. He pro1ed the letter ;:.!I%+*1 and ;:.!I%+*& -earing the signature of (r. 7aji1 /alhotra, >ice !resident of the 7oc"land Hospital. He identified his signature in the file containing !hotostat copies of documents regarding treatment mar" !I%+*A1 to mar" !I%+*A1&'. 9n 1).1.&$$' at <.$$ a.m., he recei1ed a telephonic call from 2alra Hospital, 2irti Nagar that the patient namel 7uchi /ahesh3ari of 7enal

    ?ransplantation 3as admitted there. He further stated that patient had undergone a transplant at a centre in =urgaon and 3as in1estigated and discharged on &8.1.&$$' against medical ad1ice.

    )<

    During !ross-examination, he stated that as per the record of the first patient !ritam Singh, there 3as no histor that from 3here he got his "idne transplanted, he might got transplanted his "idne from !a"istan. He has not seen medical treatment record of /s. 7uchi /ahesh3ari in the court and 3ithout record, he cannot sa as to 3hether she 3as e1er

    treated for "idne transplant or not. (8>>=9) PW-.& Dr. 9.'.Sharma stated that he is Chairman, AntiHuac"r , I/A, HP (elhi. CBI had as"ed to furnish information as to 3hether accused are competent prescri-ed and practice the surger as 3ell as the modern s stem of

    allopath or not. He has gi1en the information in the form of letter ;:.!I%@*1, 3hich -ears his signature and also the signature of (r. (.7.7ai. He further stated that a judgment deli1ered - full court of HonF-le Supreme Court in case of /u"htiar Chand >s. State of !unja- and others in the CA No.') of 1)'% and also a gaBette notification dated 8.@.&$$& 3ere also gi1en to the CBI 9fficers. During !ross-examination, he stated that he has not seen an of the accused practicing the surger as 3ell as the modern s stem of allopath. (8>>9) PW-.) Dr. S.S.Sang$an, 9i!e Chan!e**or, ;ni+ersity o% ea*th S!ien!es, Rohtak stated that he 3as (irector, !=I /S, 7ohta" in the ear &$$'. He further stated that the notification appointing (irector, !=I/S, 7ohta" as a appropriate authorit

    )8

    for the (istricts 7ohta", Bhi3ani, Sonepat, Jhajjar, Narnaul, 7e3ari, =urgaon and .arida-ad 3as made on &<.+.&$$&, 1ide ;:.!I%&*1 4alread e:hi-ited5. He further stated that in the capacit of appropriate authorit under the ?9H9 Act, he had constituted the committee to inHuire the matter in this case and to su-mit the ;:pert report. He pro1ed letter 3hich is

    ;:.!I%&*& 4alread e:hi-ited5, 3hich -ears his signature. He has -rought the original. He had recei1ed the enHuir report ;:.!I1*1 4alread e:hi-ited5 su-mitted - the Committee. During !ross-examination, he admitted that the functioning, rules and regulations, enforcement of procedure to -e adopted for transplantation of human organs are to -e go1erned as per the ?9H9 Act. He admitted that there is no pro1ision, notification or an official order in 3ritten that under the pro1ision of ?9H9 Act, po3ers for rules and regulations and its enforcement and procedure can -e delegated in fa1our of an other indi1idual or committee or in1estigating agenc , the appropriate authorit appointed 1ide notification the is

    =o1ernment. He admitted that the appropriate authorit

    competent to in1estigate the matter relating to ?9H9 Act and further after completion of in1estigation, file a complaint -efore the court, on 3hich cogniBance can onl -e ta"en - the court. (8>>9=) PW-., Dr. Kishore 3oresh$ar Pim7a*kar, Prin!i7a*, R? Ayur+e- 3aha+i-ya*aya, Ako*a, 3aharashtra stated that earlier he 3as lecturer in 7? A ur1ed /aha1id ala am A"ola,

    )%

    /aharashtra and thereafter, he 3as posted as !rincipal since &$11. He has seen letter sent - the CBI to the earlier !rincipal namel (r. Sudha (eshpande and the earlier !rincipal had issued lea1ing certificate of accused Santosh son of 7amesh3ar 7ao. He has -rought the original register and the photo cop of the same is ;:.!I%8*1. During !ross-examination, he admitted that the a-o1e-said record 3as ne1er issued in his presence. (8>>9==) PW-.. Dr.9.K./ansa*, A--itiona* Pro%essor o% Surgery, A==3S, 'e$ De*hi, stated that he is posted as Additional !rofessor of Surger , AII/S, Ne3 (elhi. (irector, AII/S had constituted a committee, in 3hich he, (r. Sanjee1 0al3ani and (r. (.Bho3mic" 3ere mem-ers. He further stated that this committee 3as constituted in order to assist the CBI in in1estigation of the case relating to the case of accused Amit 2umar regarding "idne transplantation. He further stated that the had 1isited the hospital of accused Amit 2umar at House No.@+%@, Sector &+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon and (<*&), (0. Cit !hase-1, =urgaon. ?he had mentioned in their report all the details of the items and drugs etc. 3hich 3ere found there. ?heir report is ;:.!I%%*1, 3hich -ears his signature and the signatures of (r. Sanjee1 0al3ani and (r. Bho3mic". He further stated that the list attached 3ith his report regarding the articles and drugs 3as supplied to the CBI 9fficers, 3hich -ear his signature and are ;:.!I%%*& to ;:.!I%%*1+.

    )'

    During !ross-examination, he admitted that 3ith regard to surger , there is a difference -et3een practical "no3ledge and -oo"ish "no3ledge. He further stated that during their inter1ie3, no practical demonstration 3as done. He did not ha1e an "no3ledge as to 3hether accused Amit 3as in custod or not at the time of his 1isit. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8>>9===) PW-.0 Dr. K.S.Rao stated that on &%.1.&$$', 3hen he 3as posted as (istrict .amil Ielfare 9fficer in the office of Ci1il Surgeon, =urgaon. He 3as made a mem-er of a team under the !C and !B(? Act constituted - appropriate authorit -cumCi1il Surgeon, =urgaon for inspecting ultrasound clinics and other unregistered places. (r.=ulshan 2umar Arora, (r. Satpal Bhanot and /r. 7.2.(ahi a, (istrict (rug Inspector 3ere the other mem-ers of the team. ?he team inspected house No.@+%@, Sector-&+, =urgaon, 3hich 3as 1er-all pointed Ci1il

    Surgeon, =urgaon on &%.$1.&$$'. He further stated that this house, as told the team, 3as o3ned - accused Amit. 9n search of the -uilding, the team found an ultrasound machine of ?oshi-a compan 3hich 3as not registered 3ith the appropriate authorit , =urgaon. Similarl , the place 3here this machine 3as placed 3as also not registered 3ith the appropriate authorit under !C and !N(? Act. ?he machine 3as seiBed and sealed in the presence of the team, including t3o independent 3itnesses and a Head Consta-le /r. /ohtaB. He further stated

    ))

    that this machine 3as ta"en in possession after o-taining permission from the court of learned ACJ/, =urgaon on &'.1.&$$'. He further stated that on the ground floor, there 3as a reception and adjacent to reception, there 3as an office of accused Amit. 9n the first floor, there 3ere t3o operation theaters eHuipped 3ith all the instruments, e.g. 9? lights, -o le apparatus, defi-rillator, suc"tion machine, o: gen c linder and c linders of Nitro:ide 3hich are used for gi1ing anesthesia to the patients for operation. He further stated that ultrasound machine is used for in1estigation of the patients -efore and after operation and for other purposes also, -ut, it can onl -e "ept after proper registration 3ith the Appropriate Authorit under !C and !N(? Act, 3hich 3as not in this case. 9n &).1.&$$', in1entor of all the medicines, instruments and

    logistics 3ere prepared for the help of the police, 3ho ultimatel seiBed and sealed all the instruments and logistics. He further stated that house No.@+%@, Sector &+, =urgaon and house No.(-<*&), (0. !hase-1, =urgaon 3ere eHuipped 3ith camera*CC?> at the main gate and in inner parts. He pro1ed the letters ;:.!I%'*1 and ;:.!I%'*& and letters mar" !I%'*A to !I%'*; 3hich -ear his initials. He also identified his signature on spot memo ;:.!I18*& 4alread e:hi-ited5. During !ross-examination, he stated that on seeing document ;:.!I%'*&, he cannot state, 3ho had for3arded the same to (irector =eneral Health Ser1ices, Har ana, !anch"ula

    1$$

    or to the office of Ci1il Surgeon. He further stated that letters ;:.!I%'*1 and ;:.!I%'*& 3ere recei1ed him as an

    Authorit to in1estigate the case in1ol1ing pre-conception and pre-natal (iagnostic ?echniHue 4!CK!N(?5 Act. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8>>=>) PW-.1 /a4u Ram stated that a-out fi1e and half ears -ac", in /eerut near Begumpur, there is a =anga !laBa and near to that, there is a Nursing Home, 3here a -o in the name of A"sha used to 3or". He 3as acHuainted 3ith one Shahid and Shahid 3as acHuainted 3ith A"sha . He had donated his -lood to Shahid on &-+ occasions. He had de1eloped pain in the stomach and he had informed a-out this to Shahid, 3ho had told him that he 3ill ta"e him to (r. A"sha for treatment. After t3o da s, Shahid too" him to (r. A"sha . 9utside the Nursing Home, (r. A"sha told him that he 3ill get him treated from a doctor of (elhi, 3ho is "no3n to him, free of costs. (r. A"sha told him to come after <-8 da s. A"sha told him that he sa3 him at ;> Chorah near Begumpur in /eerut. As told, he 3ent to ;> Chorah 3here (r. A"sha met him. In his presence (r. A"sha told someone from his mo-ile and thereafter told him to 3ait there as some persons 3ould -e coming there. ?hereafter, one person came there on a 3hite /aruti car. He 3as as"ed to occup the rear seat of the car and (r. A"sha occupied the seat along 3ith the seat of dri1er. ?he too" him to /a3ana Adda. ?here 3as a -ig Nursing Home near

    1$1

    /a3ana Adda. ?he car entered in that Nursing Home. After reaching there, he 3as as"ed to sit on a platform under the tree 3hich 3as at the rear of the Nursing Home. His -lood samples 3ere ta"en - the person, 3ho had ta"en him and (r. A"sha to the Nursing Home on a 3hite /aruti car, 3hom he can

    identif . ?he 3itness pointed to3ards accused ,pender and stated that this person had ta"en his -lood sample and had ta"en him on the car from ;> Chorah to the Nursing Home. His -lood samples 3ere ta"en into t3o glass 1ials. After his -lood sample 3as ta"en, ,pender left on the car and (r. A"sha ga1e him 7s.<$*- as ric"sha3 fair. (r. A"sha told him that after t3o-four da s, he 3ill get the reports and he 3ill -e gi1en the treatment. After a-out 1$ da s, he contacted A"sha on the phone and inHuired a-out the report, 3ho informed that he 3ill get the report 3ithin one or t3o da s. A"sha also told him to contact him after t3o da s. After three da s, he 3ent to the Nursing Home 3here A"sha 3as 3or"ing. Ho3e1er, A"sha told him that the report has not -een recei1ed so far. A"sha also ga1e him 7s.1$$*- and as"ed him to lea1e. A"sha also told him to come da after tomorro3. Again 3hen he met him da after tomorro3 A"sha too" him in ric"sha3 to /a3ana Adda in a -ig Nursing Home 4mentioned a-o1e5. He 3as as"ed to lie on the -ed and some cream 3as applied on his stomach. Some instrument 3as also applied on the stomach and he could see it

    1$&

    on the ?> screen. ?hereafter, he 3as ta"en to the galler of the hospital. He 3as as"ed to ta"e off his clothes. He 3as as"ed to lie on the machine 3hich 3or"s automaticall . ?here 3as some spea"er installed on the machine. After 1<-&$ minutes, he 3as as"ed to come out of the machine. 9utside the room, A"sha met him 3ho told him that m medical e:amination is o1er and as"ed him to meet Shahid after < da s. He does not "no3 the name of the doctor, 3ho had conducted his medical chec" 3ith the help of machine. He used to sleep at /etro /ar"et at Baghpath. At a-out '.+$ p.m., Shahid informed him that the reports of his test ha1e -een recei1ed and also as"ed him to accompan him to the doctor. Shahid too" him on a ric"sha3 to Begumpur. He tal"ed to some one on the phone. After some time, he told him that the 1ehicle has come to ta"e him. ?hree persons 3ere in that 1ehicle, one 3as A"sha , dri1er and there 3as another person, to 3hom, he cannot identif . He as"ed to occup the 1ehicle. He occupied the 1ehicle and A"sha told him that he 3ill -e ta"en to (elhi for treatment. Ihen the 3ere near Shahdra, A"sha started getting phone calls inHuiring a-out their location. Ihen the reached (elhi, he sa3 a 1ehicle par"ed there. A"sha as"ed him to occup that 1ehicle. He 3as ta"en to3ards =urgaon. ?he dri1er of the 1ehicle started running fast inHuiring a-out their location and also as"ed him to reach at the earliest. He 3as ta"en to a "othi at =urgaon 3hich 3as situated in front of !etrol !ump. ?he "othi 3as three

    1$+

    storied. ?here 3as a staircase from outside. After clim-ing the staircase, he sa3 four persons 3ho 3ere doctors. 9ne of those persons is present in the court toda . ?he 3itness pointed out to3ards (r. Amit and started that he 3as one of those persons. (r. Amit inHuired him 3hether he had ta"en the meals. ?o this, he stated that he had ta"en the meals. ?hereafter, (r. Amit as"ed him to accompan a Nepali -o to room No.&$@. ?he Nepali -o as"ed him to ta"e off his clothes and as"ed him to 3ear a green coloured go3n. He 3as as"ed to lie on the -ench 3here alread a patient 3as l ing. An injection 3as

    administered to him. He -ecame unconscious. After t3o hours, he regained consciousness. He 3as finding it difficult to -reathe. He 3as gi1en o: gen. He 3as shifted to another room. He cannot identif the man, 3ho had administered the injection to him as he 3as 3earing a mas". Ne:t morning, 3hen he 3o"e up, he found that the right side of his stomach 3as -andage. He 3as ha1ing acute pain. Ihen he cried, a Nurse named Sushma came there and she administered an injection to him. He again -ecame unconscious. A -o came there, 3ho told him that he and 7ajinder 3ith 3hom he is acHuainted, 3ere there for the last @-< da s. He also informed him that their "idne s ha1e also -een remo1ed. ?he -o also told him that the 3ill lea1e the hospital after &-+ da s. After &-+ da s, he 3as shifted to another Nursing Home, 3hich 3as in -asement. He remained in that -asement for 11 da s.

    1$@

    Sushma Nurse used to loo"-after him and a -o used to loo"after him there. ?he -o used to pro1ide meals there. 9ne da , he came out from the -asement. Ho3e1er, he 3as o1erpo3ered the securit guard, 3ho too" him to the doctor in the His

    hospital, 3ho also told him not to lea1e the hospital.

    -andages 3ere remo1ed and fresh -andages 3ere applied. ?he doctor a-out 3hom he had mentioned a-o1e is not one of the accused present in the court. 4?he 3itness pointed out to3ards /s. 0inda and identified her5. She 3as also present at =urgaon hospital 3here his "idne 3as remo1ed. He also found (r. Amit, (r. 2.2. Aggar3al and (r. ,pender at =urgaon hospital 4?he 3itness pointed to3ards three accused and identified them5. He has seen the photographs of petrol pump opposite 3hich the hospital, 3here his "idne 3as remo1ed, 3as located. ?he photographs is mar" !I&*A. ?he photographs of hospital 3here his "idne 3as remo1ed is mar" !I1*H 4alread

    mar"ed5. ?he photographs of the machines are mar" !I&*B, !I&*C and !I&*(. He has seen the photographs mar"

    !I&*; and !I&*., 3hich depicts the roof of the hospital. Sushma Nurse told him, 3hen he 3as in the -asement then his "idne had -een remo1ed and has transplanted to a rich person on pa ment of mone . He had ne1er consented to donate or sell his "idne . He 3as not a3are of the fact that his "idne 3ould -e remo1ed. CBI 9fficers during in1estigation of this case, had recorded his statement.

    1$<

    During !ross-examination, he stated that he has seen the accused for the first time in the court da esterda -efore

    3hen he had come to depose in this case. He,

    ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (8>>>) PW-02 Dr. =.C.9erma, Senior Consu*tant stated that he is 3or"ing in the department of =enitic /edicines, Siri =anga 7am Hospital, Ne3 (elhi since 1))%. 9n the as"ing of the CBI office (elhi, he had gi1en the information regarding H0A test on the samples recei1ed from (r. B.!.John , @+%@, Sector &+, !alam >ihar 7oad, =urgaon, Har ana. He had gi1en the reports ;:.!I'$*1 to ;:.!I'$*1', the letters mar" !I'$*A to '$*A and '$*AA to '$*A/ e:cept mar" '$*A1 along3ith consent form 3hich 3ere recei1ed from (r. B.!.John , @+%@, Sector-&+, !alam >ihar 7oad, =urgaon, Har ana for H0A test. He had gi1en the letter ;:.!I'$*1) to CBI along3ith list of patients referred - (r. B.!.John in the ear &$$8 and &$$%. He also handed o1er the reports of the Star /a: and =agan /edical Centre 1ide memo ;:.!I'$*&$ and the reports are

    ;:.!I'$*&1 to ;:.!I'$*&+, 3hich -ear his initials. During !ross-examination, he stated that there is no legal -ar in conducting the H0A test of his person at an -od reHuest. ?he said test is a 1alid test and is -eing

    uniforml performed in all o1er India 3ithout an legal -arrier. He has not seen an accused present in the court earlier. He has ne1er seen them 3or"ing 3ith (r. B.!.John .

    1$8

    (8>>>=)

    PW-01 Ram 'i$as, Assistant

    ome-1 /ran!h,

    aryana

    Ci+i* Se!retariat, Chan-igarh stated that he had 3or"ed under Shri Sant 2umar, Special Secretar to =o1t. of Har ana and is con1ersant 3ith his signatures. He further stated that he has -rought the original consent letter ;:.!I'1*1 dated +1.$1.&$$' issued under the signature of Special Secretar to =o1t. of

    Har ana. He has also 3or"ed under /s. .iroBa /ehrotra, the then .inancial Commissioner K !rincipal Secretar to =o1t. of Har ana, Home (epartment. He is con1ersant 3ith her signature as he had done 3or" under her. During !ross-examination, he stated that he did not "no3 in 3hat capacit and po3er the had signed the said documents mentioned as ;J.!I'1*1 and ;:.!I'1*&. He further stated that no letter 3as 3ritten - their department to CBI 3ith regard to ?9H9 pro1isions. He further stated that neither an recommendation regarding in1estigation 3as made their department to CBI*!olice. He has no personal

    "no3ledge 3ith regard to the present case. (8>>>==) PW-02 Dr. Ra(esh 5ain, Registrar, ;P3C, 8u!kno$(;P) stated that he had -rought the reHuisitioned record. As per record, (r. ,pender 2umar (u-lesh had passed /BBS from 007/, /edical College, /eerut in 1)%'. (r. ,pender 2umar (u-lesh is registered in the Council on 1 st August, 1)%) 1ide registration No. &+<+<. He has -rought the original registration

    1$%

    certificate and true cop of the same is ;:.!I'&*&. He has sent the a-o1e record to CBI 1ide letter ;:.!I'&*+. (8>>>===) PW-0" An(a*a $i%e o% Sho4it stated that she is residing in /eerut at !I( Colon . She has four -rothers and t3o sisters. Her ounger sister is 3or"ing as a Nurse at (ehradoon. She is )th standard passed. After her schooling, she remained in their 0adies Hospital. ?here 3as a primar school in that hospital. She 3as there to loo" after the small children 4orphan5, 3ho 3ere residing there. She did 3or" in 2anan ?a agi Clinic. Some other staff 3as also there including the Nurse. Nun sister ad1ised her to 3or" at Bhagat Hospital, (elhi. She 3or"ed there also. ?here, she 3as getting 7s.&@$$*- to 7s.&<$$*- per month. She did not remem-er that ho3 much time she 3or"ed there. ?here she met one Soli, 3ho 3as also 3or"ing as maid4A a5. In the ear &$$8, she got engaged and thereafter, she left the jo-. She along3ith some other sisters4Nurse5 joined at Star /a: Hospital, =urgaon. She 3or"ed there for a-out @*< months. Her salar 3as a-out 7s.&@$$*- per month. She had changed the -ed sheets of patients there. She cannot tell the name of other sisters 4Nurse5, 3ho 3ere 3or"ed 3ith her, -ut Suma 3as also there. She cannot identif an of the accused present in the court. She can onl mention the name of the doctor Amit and identif accused ,pender, 3ho is present in the court. 9n the reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as

    1$'

    allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. (uring cross e:amination, the contents of statement ;:.!I'+*A 3ere put to her 3ord - 3ord -ut she refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the CBI. She 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A, B to B and C to C of her statement ;:.!I'+*A, -ut she denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI. (8>>>=9) PW-0& Dr. A*ka /ashin stated that the letter ;:.!I'@*1 3as handed o1er to the CBI their Chief Administrator (r.

    (ilpreet Brar, in 3hich certified cop of medical records 3as gi1en to the CBI. She further stated that the !hotostat attested copies of patient record of /s.;leni (agiasi are ;:.!I'@*& to ;:.!I'@*+1, 3hich ha1e -een certified - (r. (ilpreet Brar and she has 3or"ed under her and she is con1ersant 3ith her signature. She further stated that the attested cop of emergenc record of Jo /athai 3as signed - (r. (ilpreet Brar and she identified the signature of (r. Brar 3hich is ;:.!I'@*+& and ;:.!I'@*++. During !ross-examination, she stated that the record 3hich has -een sho3n to her in the court that record has onl -een counter-signed - (r. Brar -eing the Administrator of the Hospital. She further stated that in these treatment record, she had no3here personall treated the patient mentioned there. She further stated that document ;:.!I'@*% 3as onl referral note on the -asis of 3hich patient 3as -rought to their hospital.

    1$)

    She further stated that the name of patient mentioned therein 3as treated her. She further admitted that the document

    ;:.!I'@*% sho3s that the treatment of the patient 3as got conducted in the presence of the police officials at /AJ Hospital,=urgaon. (8>>>9) PW-0) Dr. .R.3.?ri7athi stated that he is 3or"ing as

    !rincipal at S9H /edical College K Hospital, Chhatarpur, /adh a !radesh. He has -rought the attested copies of the summoned record. He further stated that as per record, Jee1an 7.7aut 3as the student of the college from 1)'8 to 1))1. Jee1an did diploma in Homopathic and /edicine and Surger 4(H/S5. ?he attested cop of certificate and other records are ;:.!I'<*1 to ;:.!I'<*1$, 3hich are correct as per their record. He further stated that as per their record, Jee1an is ha1ing a registration for practice 3ith State Homopathic Council, /adh a !radesh. (8>>>9=) PW-0, Ra(esh Chauhan has stated that he is 3or"ing as .ield 9fficer in 9/AJ, 0imited. It is a construction compan and the C/( of the compan is 7ohtash =o al. He had joined the compan in the ear &$$8. He had 3or"ed as .ield officer in the commercial department. !ar"ash Joshi 3as the Senior Commercial /anager. He further stated that on the instruction of !ar"ash Joshi, he handed o1er the record to the CBI regarding the sale of propert - the 9/AJ to accused Amit 2umar son of !urshotam as per details and phot gi1en in the

    11$

    document. He pro1ed the documents 3hich are ;:.!I'8*1 tripartite agreement ;:.!I'8*&, receipts of pa ment mar" !I'8*A, !I'8*B, !I'8*., !I'8*H to !I'8*J, letter is ;:.!I'8*+, pa ment plan mar" !I'8*C, !I'8*( and !I'8*;, photocop of cheHue mar" !I'8*= and other

    documents mar" !I'8*2 to !I'8*S. During !ross-examination, he stated that he has no personal "no3ledge 3ith regard to this case. He is onl 3itness to the record. He further stated that the propert mentioned in these documents 3ere purchased after ta"ing loan from Standard Charted Ban" as per record. (8>>>9==) PW-0. C.8.8asker, Registrar, Ra(asthan 3e-i!a* Coun!i*, 5ai7ur, stated that in the ear &$$', he 3as 3or"ing as Acting 7egistrar,7ajasthan /edical Council, Jaipur. ?he In1estigating officer of CBI had ta"en the record from him pertaining to accused 2rishan 2umar Aggar3al. He handed o1er the attested photocopies of the original record, 3hich are ;:.!I'%*1 to ;:.!I'%*1+ 1ide letter ;:.!I'%*1@. (8>>>9===)PW-00 R.K.Sah, Assistant Pro%essor, Shri Ram Co**ege o% Commer!e, De*hi ;ni+ersity, stated that he remained posted as Assistant 7egistrar of Companies, (elhi and Har ana in the ear &$$'. He had handed o1er the attested copies of the original documents 1ide letter ;:.!I81*1 4alread e:hi-ited5. ?he documents are ;:.!I81*& to ;:.!I81*+'. He further

    111

    stated that these documents ha1e -een attested - him and -ear his signature. During !ross-examination, he stated that he cannot tell regarding the "ind of 3or" -eing done at 0i-ert Health Care !ri1ate 0imited at /al1i Nagar, (elhi. He is deposing as per record onl . (8>>>=>) PW-01 Rohit Singh stated that he joined ABN amro Ban", Ne3 (elhi in April, &$$< as /anager. He has seen the folder containing account opening form of Account No.'%1@11 pertaining to 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. 3ith registered

    office B-1*<+ /al1i Nagar, Ne3 (elhi. ?he account 3as opened under the signature of Saura1 !ande , the then 9fficer, HauB 2has Branch. He identified the signature a1aila-le on the account opening form, 3hich is ;:.!I')*1. He further stated that the account 3as opened on 8.).&$$+ and the signature of Amit 2umar (irector of the said firm are a1aila-le on account opening form and memorandum of association etc. He further stated that the computer generated statement of account pertaining to a-o1e referred account of /*S 0i-ert Health

    Care is ;:.!I')*& and the file contains four foreign in3ard remittance, 3hich are ;:.!I')*+ and ;:.!I')*@. ?he foreign in3ard remittance certificate sho3ed transfer of ,S (ollars 8@%< to the a-o1esaid account - A-dul Hamid /ohd. through (u-ai Islamic Ban", (u-ai. Similarl , ,S (ollars +$$$ 3as transferred to the a-o1e referred account 1ide foreign in3ards

    11&

    remittances certificate - .aisal Said BinBagr"sa. He has seen the account opening forms along3ith documents of account No.'%<)+& of !oonam 2umar, account No.'%<&<$ of =iri !rashad, '%<&88 of 7aju Singh, '%<)&) of Sunani Saini, '%'+&% of Amit 2umar (himan, '%'+1+ of 7e"ha 2umari, '%'+1$ of Basanti (e1i, '%<&@% of =opal Singh, 1$8%<'$ of Sujit Jha, '%<$)% of Bishnu !rashad, )11'88 of Sher Bahadur 2hatri and ')8)+1 /anoj 2umar and the accounts 3ere opened - Saura- !ande , the then /anager of the Ban". He identified his signature and accounts opening forms are ;:.!I')*< to ;:.!I')*18. He further stated that the a-o1esaid documents 3ere ta"en into possession - the CBI 3hich 3ere handed o1er - Hari 7aj Singh -eing the emplo ee of their -an" and the same 3ere ta"en - the CBI 1ide seiBure memos ;:.!I')*1% to ;:.!I')*&$. He identified the signature of Hari 7aj Singh, -ecause he had 3or"ed 3ith him. During !ross-examination, he stated that he has no personal "no3ledge regarding the a-o1esaid accounts and the -usiness of the firm. He further stated that all these accounts are genuine accounts and no irregularit or illegalit 3as there 3ith regard to their transactions. (>C) PW-12 Chan-an Singh stated that he joined this compan in the ear &$$@ as Ser1ice ;ngineer. At that time, the name of the compan 3as /*S Ba ar (iagnostics India, 0imited. He 3as in their Health Care (i1ision. He further stated that this compan

    11+

    3as dealing in distri-ution of Bio-Chemistr eHuipments and 7eagents. He further stated that all the eHuipments distri-uted this compan in India relates to -lood testing to re1eal entered into an

    different t pe of disease. ?heir compan

    agreement 3ith Star /a: 0ife Care, =urgaon and photo cop of the agreement is mar" !I)$*A. He further stated that these tests are also used for ascertaining in proper functioning of all -od organs including the "idne , li1er, heart, lungs etc. During !ross-examination, he stated that the document 3hich sho3n to him i.e. mar" !I)$*A does not -ear signature of an person either from their compan or on -ehalf of customer name. He further stated that he ne1er 1isited the customer office in his life. (>C=) PW-11 Par+een 3ang*a stated that he 3as 3or"ing as /edical Store Assistant in Shri 7am Hospital, Bala-garh in 1))). (r. Archana and (r. ,pender 3ere the !roprietors of the hospital and small operations 3ere -eing conducted in this hospital. He further stated that the file containing production-cum-seiBure memo dated 1@.&.&$$', letter dated 1@.&.&$$' of (r. /.C.>aid a Hon . Consultant H0A 0a-, Batra Hospital and /edical Centre of Ch.Aishi 7am Batra Basic Charita-le ?rust, Ne3 (elhi and 1$+ H0A reHuisition forms ha1e -een seen him in the court. He further stated that H0A forms !I<$*1 to !I<$*', !I<$*@8, !I<$*@%, !I<$*8@ to !I<$*%% and !I<$*1$+ 4alread e:hi-ited5 3ere filled - (r. ,pender and

    11@

    3ere also signed -

    him as Consultant. He identified his

    signature as he had 3or"ed under him and another H0A form -earing page No.) to @@, @' to <@, '% to '), )@ to 1$& e:hi-ited as !I<$*) to !I<$*@@, !I<$*@' to !I<$*<@, !I<$*'% to !I<$*'), !I<$*)@ to !I<$*1$&4alread e:hi-ited5, 3hich are filled one !ar1een /ittal, 3ho 3as Accountant at Sadh

    Bha3an /edical Centre ha1e -een sho3n to him in the court. ?hese forms ha1e -een filled - !ar1een /ittal Sad Bha3na /edical Centre, 3ho 3as Accountant there and the photographs ha1e -een 1erified (r. ,pender and the column of

    Consultant has also -een signed - (r. ,pender. He further stated that the forms ;:.!I<$*<< to !I<$*81 ha1e -een filled - !ar1een /ittal Accountant and the columns referred to doctor, photographs, 1erification and signature as Consultant has -een under the hand-3riting and signature of (r. ,pender 2umar. Similarl , forms ;:.!I<$*8&, !I<$*8+, !I<$*%$, !I<$*%' to !I<$*'$ ha1e -een signed and filled (r.

    ,pender. He further stated that the forms ;:.!I<$*'1 to !I<$*'@ and !I<$*)< ha1e -een filled and signed - (r. ,pender, -ut the columns of age, se:, son of, daughter of, 3ife of and address ha1e -een filled and signed - !ar1een /ittal. He further stated that forms ;:.!I<$*'< and !I<$*'8 and photographs ha1e -een filed and 1erified - (r. ,pender and the remaining columns ha1e -een filled - !ar1een /ittal.

    11<

    During !ross-examination, he admitted that he 3as 3or"ing in Shri 7am Hospital onl . He ne1er 3or"ed in Sadh-ha3na Hospital. He further stated that no H0A forms mentioned in his e:amination-in-chief 3as e1er filled or signed in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had e1er emplo ed in Shri 7am Hospital or Sadh-ha3na Hospital, .arida-ad. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (>C==) PW-12 Smt. 6m$ati $i%e o% ari Chan- stated that she

    3or"ed in Shri 7am Hospital as Nurse and she had signed the account opening form ;:.!I)&*1. She further stated that (r. ,pender 3as the o3ner of the hospital and he had ta"en her si: photographs at that time. She 3as told that these photographs are reHuired for medical insurance. She further stated that the accounts of other staff of the hospital 3ere also opened and from them also si: photographs each 3ere ta"en. She further stated that her photographs on H0A form is ;:.!I))*&. She further stated that she did not fill in an form for -lood testing as filled in the form. She further stated that H0A form is ha1ing the name of Noor-ano. During !ross-examination, she admitted that her photo 3as not pasted on the form -ut it 3as stapled. She further admitted that her photo not ha1ing her signature. She also admitted that the photograph on account opening form and photograph on account are of different colour. She stated that si: photographs 3ere de1eloped of same siBe and colour.

    118

    She further stated that her photograph on ;:.!I)&*1 3as ta"en earlier. She, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (>C===) PW-1" Dr. Ashok Kumar 9erma stated that he is 3or"ing as Anaesthetist at 2ailash =roup of Hospital, Nodia since 1))8. He recei1ed telephone of (r. ,pender in the ear &$$@. He as"ed him to 3or" in his hospital as Anaesthetist as he is to perform the operation of "idne transplantation. He told him that in Har ana and /an other States, operation of "idne transplantation is legall 1alid and he told him that all the

    formalities ha1e -een completed. He met (r. ,pender 3ho introduced him to (r. Amit 2umar in !alam >ihar, =urgaon. He told him that (r. Amit 2umar is Specialist in "idne transplantation. ?herefore, he agreed. He had gi1en anaesthesia to %-' patients and in these cases, the operations 3ere performed (r. Amit 2umar of donor and recipient. He

    further stated that all the operations 3ere performed in his presence. He further stated that (r. ,pender told him that the are shifting the 1enue to (0., =urgaon. He 3as called - (r. ,pender and some time - (r. Amit on mo-ile phone 3hene1er his ser1ices 3ere reHuired. He 3or"ed there onl for &-+

    months. He 3as gi1en total a-out 7s.1.< lacs. He identified (r. ,pender and (r. Amit, 3ho are present in the court. He also identified accused /anoj, 3ho is present in the court. During !ross-examination, he admitted that -efore gi1ing anaesthesia patient is to -e chec"ed thoroughl

    11%

    including his -od condition, -od 3eight mass inde: and other reports -efore deciding the dose of the medicine to -e gi1en at the time of anaesthesia. He further admitted that in routine at 2ailash Hospital, he prepared post operati1e and intra operati1e notes on the patient -ed tic"et. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (>C=9) PW-1& 3ano( 5ain stated that he is doing the 3or" of cloth -usiness at 7ohta". His father late Shri J.2.Jain 3as also doing the same -usiness. He 3as suffering from "idne pro-lem.

    ?he ha1e -een ta"ing treatment for "idne dial sis at Saroj Hospital, (elhi. ?he recei1ed telephone of accused /anoj, 3ho told them that in case the 3ant to get the "idne for his father transplanted, then the should contact him. Accused

    /anoj met his father outside Saroj Hospital. He further stated that he told his father that he 3ill get the "idne transplanted and total e:penditure 3ill -e 7s.1$-1& lacs. After &-+ da s, accused /anoj again contacted his father and as"ed to -ring 7s.<$,$$$*- as ad1ance. He identified accused /anoj in the court. ?hereafter, accused /anoj too" his father and mother to his 2othi at (0. Cit , =urgaon and there accused /anoj introduced 3ith (r. Amit, 3ho is present in the court and he identified him. Accused /anoj too" -lood sample of his father and also too" 7s.& lacs. Accused /anoj told that (octor 3ill come after fe3 da s. ?hen in Januar , &$$', the 3ent to (0. Cit , =urgaon 3here the met (r. Amit. He told them that

    11'

    "idne transplantation is legall 1alid in =urgaon. ?hereafter, his father 3as shifted to =urgaon, !alam >ihar for "idne transplantation and he told that the operation 3ill -e performed in the night. His father 3as ta"en in the operation theater in the night. He also reached there and operation had started. ?he operation 3as o1er after a-out 1-1*& hours. /anoj and Amit told them that the operation is successful and his father 3as admitted in a room. ?he donor 3as arranged - the accused, -ut he did not "no3 the identit of the donor. He met his father in the IC, on the ne:t da and his condition 3as normal. He further stated that his father sta ed in the hospital for a-out +-@ da s. He further stated that the medicines 3ere also gi1en the same hospital. ?here 3ere se1eral patients in the hospital. He further stated that on &@.1.&$$', accused /anoj told them to lea1e the hospital as the police is -ehind them and /anoj too" his parents in a /aruti car and left them near the /aruti .actor and from there, his maternal uncle too" them to Sir =anga 7am Hospital. ?he refused to gi1e the treatment.

    ?hereafter, his maternal uncle too" his parents to 7ohta". During !ross-examination, he stated that no phone num-er of /anoj 3as pro1ided - them to the CBI officials, neither the had gi1en an call details of the num-ers 3hich 3ere -eing used - him or - his father to the CBI. He further stated that his father had e:pired in the ear &$$'. He further stated that his father had died natural death and 3as

    11)

    under treatment at !ushpa3ati Singhania Institute, NC?, (elhi. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions (>C9) PW-1) Parth Sahu son o% Ani* Sahu, stated that he did his graduation from (elhi ,ni1ersit . He further stated that he 3as suffering from his childhood 3ith pol c stic "idne ailment. He 3as getting treatment from 2ailash Hospital, Noida. His father too" him to some hospital for "idne transplantation. He 3as on stretcher. He did not "no3 3ho 3as attending upon him. He further stated that the persons 3ho 3ere ta"ing care of him 3ere Nepali. He 3as operated upon and thereafter, he 3as shifted to IC,. He further stated that there 3as also one more patient. He did not "no3 for 3hat purpose he 3as operated. ?he same Nepali attendants 3ho had loo"ed after him used to administer him medicines in IC,. He has seen all the persons present in the court -ut he can not identif them. He did not remem-er as to 3hether the CBI officials had sho3n him photographs. (>C9=) PW-1, 9ino- Kumar #arg stated that he along3ith his father and -rothers is doing the -usiness of import. His father (.!.=arg 3as suffering from "idne pro-lem. He further stated that a-out four ears -ac", his father de1eloped "idne

    pro-lem. His uncle /adan 0al =arg had got transplant his "idne at =urgaon. He cannot identif an of the accused 3ho are present in the court to -e the persons to 3hom his father had contacted for "idne transplantation. He cannot tell the name of

    1&$

    the hospital. He further stated one (r. /anoj had ta"en the -lood sample of his father, -ut he did not "no3 (r.Amit. the had paid 7s.11 lacs for "idne transplantation to /anoj 2umar. He does not "no3 3hether /anoj 3as doctor or not. He 3as not present at the time of "idne transplantation. 9n the

    reHuest of learned !u-lic !rosecutor, this 3itness 3as also declared hostile and learned !u-lic !rosecutor 3as allo3ed to cross e:amine this 3itness. During !ross examination, the contents of statement ;:.!I)8*1 3ere put to him 3ord 3ord -ut he refused to o3n the contents of the statement and stated that he ne1er made such statement to the CBI. He 3as also confronted 3ith portion A to A of his statement ;:.!I)8*1, -ut he denied ha1ing made such statement to the CBI. (>C9==) PW-1. Amit Kumar Dhiman has stated that he is dri1er profession. ;arlier, he 3as dri1er 3ith Cashpal Sharma. His duties as dri1er 3ere to drop the children of (r. Amit at the School and for tuition and to ta"e the 3ife of (r. Amit to mar"et for shoping. Accused /anoj had also -een collecting the -lood samples. He has seen ;mail print out ;:.!I)%*1 to ;:.!I)%*1' 3hich 3ere ta"en into possession - the CBI 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I)%*1), 3hich -ear his signature. During !ross-examination, he denied the

    suggestion that he had ne1er seen /anoj attending the patient at !alam >ihar. He further denied the suggestion that he had

    1&1

    introduced the stor regarding his 3itness to the dealing done - (r. Amit, ,pender, /anoj, Cashpal as per the as"ing of CBI officials. He denied the suggestion that he had ne1er seen (r. 2.2.Aggar3al,0inda, ,pender and /anoj treating an patient. He denied the suggestion that he is planted 3itness or that he ne1er 3or"ed 3ith an of the accused or that he is a stoc" 3itness of CBI and deposing as per their dictation. He is ha1ing no proof 3ith him regarding his emplo ment an 3here till that da . He did not ha1e an proof regarding his source of

    income*earning. He further stated that CBI had ne1er sho3n him an car at an point of time. He had ne1er met 3ith

    =urgaon police. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsel . (>C9===) PW-10 Ku*-ee7 Singh stated that his father 3as running a Handloom -usiness in Banglore and he 3as suffering from "idne pro-lem since &$$+. He 3as undergoing dial sis in the /ani !al Hospital, Banglore. His fatherFs -rother Amarjit Singh ga1e contact details of /anoj. He got in touch 3ith him o1er the phone and e1entuall "idne transplantation 3as done on his father in August, &$$'. He further stated that a pa ment of 7s.@ lacs appro:. 3as made to said /anoj. He further stated that after the "idne transplantation in =urgaon, his father

    returned -ac" to Banglore. He further stated that his condition had -ecome deteriorated and he met (r. Amit 2umar and /anoj in =urgaon. He further stated that he cannot identif (r.

    1&&

    Amit and /anoj. He further stated that e1entuall transplanted "idne

    the

    3as remo1ed in Ioc"hardt Hospital,

    Banglore and his father passed a3a in /arch, &$$). He has no information 3ith regard to donors of the "idne or the address of the hospital at =urgaon. He further stated that /anoj had met him at 7ail3a Station, Ne3 (elhi. He further stated that no -ills, medical certificate, an discharge slip or an related

    documents 3as handed o1er - (r. Amit to them. During !ross-examination, he stated that he has seen all the accused present in the court. He cannot state as to 3hether an one of them had operated his father or not. He further stated that he had not seen an record 3ith regard to "idne failure of his father or that he 3as e1er treated for

    "idne related disease. (>C=>) PW-11 Cash Pa* Singh Su4 =ns7e!tor in the office of Senior Superintendent of !olice, (istrict, Sahranpur, 4,!5 stated that he remained posted as Inspector, CBI, ;9,->II, Ne3 (elhi from Januar , &$$% to (ecem-er, &$$). He had conducted the in1estigation in this case. (uring in1estigation, he had recorded the statements of 3itnesses under Section 181 Cr.!.C. namel Shaheed, 7ajinder,Salim, Anjala, 7ashmi ?omar,7a1inder Singh and Sha"il correctl as per their 1ersion and nothing had -een added or deleted in their statements. He had read o1er and e:plained the same to them and the had admitted the same to -e correct. He had also recorded the statements of 3itnesses

    1&+

    namel 7ajesh Chauhan, Smt. Suhila Singal, Smt. /adhu, (r. !ardeep 2umar, (r. Amita-h =autam, (r. Saneep 2umar =arg, Shi1 (utt Bharga1, 9m !ar"ash, 7a"esh (utta, Nasim, 7omesh 2ondel, Amul a !rashad, 7am 2umar, Bal 2rishan Sharma, Arun Aggar3al, 7a"esh Singal, (eepa" !uri etc. under Section 181 Cr.!.C. During !ross-examination, he admitted that ?9H9 is special Act and its pro1ision 3ill pre1ail o1er the general procedural la3. He further admitted that the 3ere

    supposed to follo3 the pro1isions as mentioned in ?9H9 Act. He had not in1estigated the fact as to 3hether cases coming under =urgaon jurisdiction 3ill -e go1erned and in1estigated the appropriate authorit constituted in 7ohta" as per

    Section 1+ of the ?9H9 Act. He further stated that he recorded the statements of the 3itnesses under section 181 Cr.!.C. in the complaint filed - the CBI. He further stated that neither he had -rought nor he had -een sho3n an order*notification or an =o1t. order 1ide 3hich he 3as authoriBed or appointed - an authorit to in1estigate this case. He further stated that he had not conducted an inHuir or in1estigation after filing of this case. (C) PW-122 Da+en-er Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner o% =n!ome ?ax o%%i!e, 'e$ De*hi has stated that in the ear &$$8, he recei1ed information that one Nursing Home*Hospital is -eing run in the area of Additional Commissioner. He further

    1&@

    stated that sur1e 3as started on 1'.'.&$$' and completed on 1).'.&$$'. He further stated that the recorded the statements of the patients at the time of sur1e mar" !I1$$*A-1 to

    !I1$$*A-' and there 3ere also some emplo ees of the hospital. He had recorded these statements correctl and also o-tained the signatures of the patients. He had also signed the same and some of the statements 3ere recorded - mem-ers of their team. He had prepared a detailed report ;:.!I1$$*A-), 3hich 3as sent to Additional CI?, =urgaon. He further stated that the also prepared in1entor of -oo"s*documents 3hich is ;:.!I1$$*A-1$. He had also issued a notice to accused Amit for production of accounts of the compan , 3hich is ;:.!I1$$*A-11. During !ross-examination, he stated that all the in1estigation, search, inHuir and statements of 3itnesses 3ere done and recorded during the sur1e period. He had no personal "no3ledge 3ith regard to this case. He further stated that no-od had identified the persons 3hoseFs statement 3as

    recorded during the course of inHuir . ?he statements 3ere recorded after 1erif ing their I(s produced - them at the time of sur1e , 3hich 3as ta"en into possession. He had not seen those documents, 3hich 3ere ta"en into possession him

    during the course of sur1e . He admitted that none of their official or mem-er of the sur1e team 3as ha1ing an medical "no3ledge. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions.

    1&<

    (C=)

    PW-121 De+en-er Singh, =ns7e!tor, C/=, SC/, Chan-igarh stated that he remained posted as Inspector, CBI, ;9, >I, Ne3 (elhi during the ear &$$'. In the month of .e-ruar , &$$', he 3as attached to CBI, ;9,->II, Ne3 (elhi in this case. 9n 1).&.&$$', accused (r. ,pender 2umar 3hile in CBI custod made a disclosure statement ;:.!I1$1*1, the same has -een reduced into 3riting - him in the presence of independent 3itnesses namel S.!.?an3ar A; and Aja 2umar, A; -oth from /C(, (elhi, 3hich -ears his signature and also the signature of 3itnesses. In pursuance of disclosure statement, accused demarcated the places and spots on 1).&.&$$', &$.&.&$$' and &&.&.&$$' and the spots*demarcation memos and site plans prepared as per the demarcation 3hich are ;:.!I1$1*& to ;:.!I1$1*&+ 3hich also -ears his signature and also the signatures of 3itnesses and accused. During !ross-examination, he stated that the in1estigation of this case remained 3ith him for one 3ee". He had not ta"en an record regarding the earlier in1estigation of this case, -ut he in1estigated the case on his o3n directions. ?he in1estigation carried - him 3ere under the pro1isions of Cr.!.C. not under the pro1ision of ?9H9 Act. He further stated that the record pertaining to the in1estigation conducted - the Har ana !olice 3as 3ith the main I9. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions.

    1&8

    (C==)

    PW-122 R..8.Ca-a+, C/= AC-=, 'e$ De*hi stated that he remained posted as Inspector, CBI, ;9,, >II Ne3 (elhi during the ear 1))8 to &$1$. He further stated that in pursuance of the order, S!, ;9,->II, Ne3 (elhi, he 3as assisting Shri 7aji1 (i3edi, (S!, I9 of the case during the ear &$$'. He had recorded statement of (r. /amta 2o1ind 3ife of (r.Saraj 2umar 2o1ind on &8.&.&$$' 3hich is alread e:hi-ited as

    ;:.!I&&*A. He had recorded the statement correctl and had read o1er and e:plained the same to her and she had admitted the same to -e correct. She had put her signature on this statement. He had also seiBed documents 1ide receipt memo alread e:hi-ited as ;:.!I%*1 3hich -ears his signature and also the signature of Amit 2umar Bansal. 9n ).@.&$$', he also seiBed the documents 1ide memo ;:.!I1$&*1, 3hich -ears his signature and also the signature of /.S.!armar 3itness. 9n 1%.+.&$$', he had seiBed the documents 1ide receipt memo ;:.!I1$&*&, 3hich -ears his signature and also the signature of Surender !al Singh. During !ross-examination, he stated that as per him, the Chief I9 7aji1 (i3edi, (S! 3as competent under ?9H9 Act. He denied the suggestion that all the paper allegedl seiBed - him are false and fa-ricated documents and ha1e -een planted on the as"ing of the Chief I9. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions.

    1&%

    (C===)

    PW-12" Krishna Sastri stated that she did /Sc. Chemistr , /.?ech from Banaras Hindu ,ni1ersit and Computer .orensic from Iright State ,ni1ersit ,,SA. She joined =;P( in the ear 1))$ and ha1e e:amined a large num-er of paper -ased documents and digital documents. She further stated that the digital e1idence e:hi-ited of the case 3ere sent to her office in sealed co1ers through special messenger 1+.&.&$$' 1ide letter S!,

    No.&$&*$+*&$$@*;9,-IJ*N(

    dated

    CBI*;9,IJ*Ne3 (elhi. She further stated that the letter ;:.!I1$+*1 is addressed to =;P(, the head of the office. ?he case 3as allotted to her. She had e:amined sealed co1ers and the ac"no3ledgement 3as gi1en 1ide letter No.CCH-@8<$*&$$'*%$& dated 1<.&.&$$' ;:.!I1$+*&. She further stated that the e:hi-its are t3o C!, 4no hard disc5, three hard discs 4;:.!I1$+*P1 to ;:.!I1$+*P+5, =S/ mo-ile phone- mar"ed P@, P@-14micro S(5 4no sim card, model No"ia ;)$-1, micro S( capacit <1& /B5,=S/ mo-ile phone mar"ed P<, P<-1 4mini S(5, P< sim4sim card, model No"ia N%+-1, mini S( card, one =B capacit 5, =S/ mo-ile phone mar"ed P8 4no sim card, model No"ia 11$$5. ?he reports 3ere sent to the for3arding authorit along3ith the anne:ures 1ide their office letter No.CCH-@8-<$*&$$'*'8' dated &'.&.&$$' ;:.!I1$+*+, letter ;:.!I1$+*@ dated %.+.&$$' and letter ;:.!I1$+*< dated 1+.<.&$$'. ?he for3arding letters 3ere signed - the incharge of the office on that particular da Shri C.S.!rasad and

    1&'

    /ohinder Singh. She recogniBed the signature of Shri /.2rishna, her colleague and Assistant =o1ernment ;:aminer. She further stated that all the reports ;:.!I1$+*8 to ;:.!I1$+*', e:hi-its and anne:ures 3ere sent in sealed co1ers to the for3arding authorit . She further stated that after opening the sealed parcels, the same 3ere found containing hard discs ;:.!I1$+*P1, ;:.!I1$+*P&, ;:.!I1$+*P+ -earing case num-er and -earing stamp of the =;P(. (uring the course of preparing the report after opening the sealed parcels recei1ed from the CBI, she de1eloped the photographs of the Huestioned articles and seals as per the Hualit procedure adopted - their office 3hich are ;:.!I1$+*) to ;:.!I1$+*18. During !ross-examination, she admitted that in the computer*hard discs, an material can -e added or deleted at an point of time. She further admitted that mo-ile phone and other material li"e hard discs, computer etc. are easil a1aila-le in the mar"et. She has not seen an mo-ile phone, an sim card, C!, or S(*memor card in the court. She further admitted the material from 3hich the Huestioned photographs 3ere de1eloped is not a1aila-le in the court, -ut ;:.!I1$+*P1, ;:.!I1$+*P& and ;:.!I1$+*P+ are a1aila-le. She further stated that on seeing articles ;:.!I1$+*P1 to ;:.!I1$+*P+, it cannot -e re1ealed from 3hich computer or C!, it pertained to. She further stated that the photographs of the Huestioned articles 3ere not supplied - them to the CBI.

    1&)

    (C=9)

    PW-12& R.C.Karnatak, =ns7e!tor, C/=, 'e$ De*hi stated that he 3or"ed as Inspector and assisted (S! 7aji1 (3i1edi in the in1estigation in case 7C 1*&$$'*CBI*;9,->II*Ne3 (elhi during &$$'. He also seiBed 1arious documents regarding suppl of medical eHuipments to accused Amit 2umar and his associates. Accused /anoj 2umar suffered a disclosure statement ;:.!I1$@*1, 3hich -ears his signature and also the signature of 3itness 2ishan 0al. 9n the -asis of disclosure statement, the account of /anoj 2umar 3as accessed and printout of emails 3as ta"en out, 3hich 3ere in 18 pages and reco1er memo ;:.!I1$@*&, 1ide 3hich these documents 3ere ta"en into possession. Accused Jee1an 2umar suffered a disclosure statement ;:.!I1$@*+. He further stated that the disclosure statement ;:.!I1$@*< 3hich -ears his signature and also the signature of 3itness 2rishan 0al. 9n the -asis of disclosure statement, the account of Jee3an 2umar 3as accessed and print out of emails 3as ta"en out 3hich 3ere in @ pages and reco1er memo ;:.!I1$@*@ 1ide 3hich these

    documents 3ere ta"en into possession. 9n 1).$&.&$$', accused Jee1an 2umar in presence of 2rishan 0al independent 3itness suffered another disclosure statement ;:.!I1$@*< 3hich -ears his signature and also the signature of 3itness 2rishan 0al. 9n the -asis of disclosure statement, the account of Jee3an 2umar 3as accessed and print out of emails 3as ta"en out 3hich 3ere in @ pages and reco1er memo ;:.!I1$@*@ 1ide 3hich these

    1+$

    documents 3ere ta"en into possession. ?he reco1er memo is ;:.!I1$@*8 1ide 3hich the documents 3ere ta"en into possession. He seiBed documents ;:.!I1$@*' from /adan 0al =upta 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I1$@*% dated &1.&.&$$'. He also pro1ed seiBure memos ;:.!I<+*<, ;:.!I+%*<,

    ;:.!I@<*A, ;:.!I@+*1$, ;:.!I@8*1 and the a-o1e seiBure memos, -ear his signatures. During !ross-examination, he admitted that on all the disclosure statements names of the attesting 3itnesses are not mentioned, onl their initials ha1e -een mentioned. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (C9) PW-12) A(ay Kumar /assi, =ns7e!tor, C/=, A!a-emy #ha@ia4a-, (;P) stated that he is presentl 3or"ing as

    Inspector in CBI Academ , =haBia-ad. (uring the ear &$$', he 3as posted in CBI, ;conomic Intelligence ,nit of ;9-II Branch, Ne3 (elhi. CBI 7C-14;*&$$'5 3as registered in CBI -ranch against Amit 2umar and others and 7aji1 (e1edi, the then (S!. He further stated that as per the direction of Senior 9fficer*Chief In1estigating 9fficer, he had assisted Shri (e1edi in the in1estigation of the case. (uring in1estigation, he had recorded statement of =( 7aj !al o3ner of premises No.B1*<+ /al1i a Nagar, Ne3 (elhi, 2amaljit Singh and !ar1een /angla, -oth residents of .arida-ad and associates*/anager of (r. ,pender 2umar in .e-ruar */arch, &$$'. He further stated that during in1estigation, he had o-tained cheHues of 0i-ert

    1+1

    Health Care !ri1ate 0td. of (r.Amit 2umar from ABN Amro Ban" Haus 2has Branch, Ne3 (elhi. ?he said documents are ;:.!I1$<*1 and ;:.!I1$<*&. He had also recei1ed documents ;:.!I1$<*+ and ;:.!I1$<*@ from /*S >odafone, Ne3 (elhi and /*S 7eliance Infocomm, Ne3 (elhi. He had also seiBed Che1orlet 9ptra Car registered in the name of /anoj 2umar and /itsu-ishi 0ancer car stated to -e registered in the name of Amit 2umar from one 2uldeep Singh -rother of accused /anoj 2umar. During !ross-examination, he stated that he had assisted the Chief In1estigating officer in this matter under transplantation of Human 9rgan Act. He further stated that he 3as performing his duties as per the direction of Chief In1estigating officer. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (C9=) PW-12, Krishan ?ute(a stated that he is running a chemist shop at NaBafgarh. He "ne3 late Shri Cash !al Sharma, 3ho 3as li1ing in his street. ?here is no astha mar"eting at No.1@'@*A for some time, -ut did not do an -usiness. ?here is no medical*hospital eHuipment supplier in Saini /ohalla, NaBafgarh since the time he is 3or"ing there. During !ross-examination, he has no proof that he is running a chemist shop at NaBafgarh. He further stated that he did not "no3 the name of parents, famil mem-ers, address of Cashpal Sharma. He further stated that the CBI ne1er

    1+&

    recorded his statement at an denied the suggestion. (C9==)

    point of time. He, ho3e1er,

    PW-12. 3ahesh C.9ai-ya stated that he has completed his /BBS degree from Nagpur ,ni1ersit and he has also done his /S from All India Institute of /edical Sciences, Ne3 (elhi. He -ecame a Senior Consultant at Batra Hospital after retirement from AII/S in &$$+ and had 3or"ed there for &-+ ears. He further stated that 1ide his letter dated 1+.&.&$$', he had enclosed the photo cop of H0A reHuisition - (r. ,pender 2umar. ?here 3as also one reHuisition from (r. Amit 3ithout signature -ut the did not gi1e the report e1en though the processed the same. 9ut of the total 1$& samples recei1ed in the la-, onl && samples 3ere not processed as the had clotted -lood. >ide his letter ;:.!I1$%*1 dated 1@.&.&$$' and ;:.!I1$%*& dated &+.&.&$$', he had enclosed the reHuisition forms 3hich ha1e -een filled-in and signed - the doctor 3ho 3anted the H0A test to -e done for the donor as 3ell as the patient. He has seen 1arious H0A la-orator reHuisition forms of different patients 3hose names and addresses ha1e -een mentioned in the reHuisition forms itself. He stated that their tests 3ere conducted in their la-. During !ross-examination, he stated that on seeing the reHuisition forms, identit of the indi1idual cannot -e ascertained that 3ho had su-mitted the reHuisition forms and recei1ed the report thereof. He has seen all the accused present

    1++

    in the court -ut he cannot identif an of them. He admitted that the test for 3hich these reHuisition forms pertained to is for the purpose of transplantation of different organs of the -od and not for an specific purpose 3hich could re1eal that 3hat 3as the purpose of these tests. He has not personall 1erified regarding the referring doctor mentioned in the reHuisition forms regarding his identit or as to 3hether the same doctor had referred the same or not. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (C9===) PW-120 Shri /a*asu4ramony, A--itiona* Su7erinten-ent o% Po*i!e, C/= :6;-=> 4ran!h,'e$ De*hi, stated that during the in1estigation, he had seiBed the documents 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I1$'*1 dated 1&.&.&$$' 3hich -ears his signature. He had also seiBed documents 1ide co1ering letter ;:.!I1$'*& dated 11th .e-ruar , &$$', co1ering letter ;:.!I1$'*+ dated 1@.&.&$$', production-cum-seiBure memo ;:.!I1$'*@ dated &<.&.&$$', production-cum-seiBure memo ;:.!I')*1)

    4alread e:hi-ited5 dated 18.&.&$$', letter ;:.!I1&*8 4alread e:hi-ited5 dated 1@.&.&$$', production-cum-seiBure memos ;:.!I')*1% 4alread e:hi-ited5 dated 1@.&.&$$', ;:.!I')*1' dated 1@.&.&$$', ;:.!I<<*& dated 1<.&.&$$', ;:.!I')*&$ dated 18.&.&$$', ;:.!I1$'*< dated 18.&.&$$', co1ering letter ;:.!I1$'*8 dated 11.&.&$$', production-cum-seiBure memo ;:.!I1$'*% dated &+.&.&$$', documents alread e:hi-ited as ;:.!I<$*1$@ to &+@, production-cum-seiBure memo

    1+@

    ;:.!I1$'*' dated 1@.&.&$$' and documents ;:.!I<$*1 to 1$+ 4alread e:hi-ited5, production-cum-seiBure memo

    ;:.!I1$'*) dated &.@.&$$', production-cum-seiBure memo ;:.!I1$'*1$ dated 1).&.&$$', co1ering letter ;:.!I1$'*11 dated 1<.&.&$$', production-cum-seiBure memo ;:.!I1$'*1& dated 1).&.&$$' and production-cum-seiBure memo

    ;:.!I1$'*1+ dated 1&.&.&$$'. He had correctl recorded the statements of 3itnesses cited at serial No.!I-@$, !I-8<, !I%1, !I-)1, !I-)&, !I-)+, !I-)', !I-)), !I-1$$ and !I&<) under Section 181 Cr.!.C. as per their depositions gi1en -efore him. During !ross-examination, he stated that he is not a medical e:pert. He had not medicall in1estigated the present case to ascertain the genuineness of the statements gi1en - the 3itnesses. He had not associated an medical e:pert or doctor during his in1estigation. He had onl recorded the statements of the 3itnesses and collected the documents -ut not medicall in1estigated the present case. He denied the suggestion that his in1estigation is tainted or that the in1estigation 3as conducted as per the desire of the Chief I9 as per the suita-ilit of the case. He denied the suggestion that no such statement as mentioned in his e:amination-in-chief 3as made 3itnesses to him. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (C=>) PW-121 Satin-er /ist, De7uty SP, C/=, AC/, Chan-igarh stated that he remained posted at ;9,->II*CBI, (elhi as the

    1+<

    Inspector 3hen the a-o1e-said case 3as registered at their -ranch. Shri 7aji1 (i1edi, (eput S! 3as the Chief I9 of the case and he 3as one of the Inspector, 3ho 3as assisting him in the a-o1e-said case. (uring in1estigation, he had e:amined Shri Jo 2./athe3, /s. Susan Jo /athe3, /s. Heleni

    2itroef, /s. !anagiota =iorga, /s. Surender 2apoor, Shri S ed Aama Ali, (r. Anu-ha1 Sari"3al, (r. Si1ani /ali", Shri Arjun 0al Chandani, (r. Harsh /ahajan,(r. Al"a Bhasin, (r. 2halid !ar1ej, /s.!armesh3ari (ass and /adan 0al under Section 181 Cr.!.C. He further stated that he had recorded their statements correctl and had read o1er and e:plained the same to them and the ha1e admitted the same to -e correct and put their signatures. (uring in1estigation, he had also seiBed documents 1ide production-cum-receipt memo ;:.!I1$)*1 dated &@.@.&$$' from Shri C.7.Ar a, Senior ?echnical 9fficer, 7otar Blood Ban" 3hich -ears his signature and the signature of (r.Harshan /ahajan. He further stated that on &<.+.&$$', he had further seiBed num-er of documents 1ide production-cumreceipt memo ;:.!I1$)*& from (r. Harsh /ahajan, 3hich -ears his signature and the signature of (r. Harsh /ahajan. During !ross-examination, he stated that he did not enHuire regarding the source of pa ment as reflected in the statement of 3itnesses recorded - him. He further stated that he had assisted the Chief In1estigating 9fficer. (uring the recording of statements of the 3itnesses, he had not ta"en

    1+8

    assistance of an medical e:pert. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the in1estigation or ta"en into possession an document as stated - him in his e:amination-in-chief. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (C>) PW-112 9ino- Kataria has stated that he is 3or"ing as Chartered Accountant since 1)'%. He 3as emplo ed - accused (r. Amit 2umar. He further stated that in this case, he had prepared the -alance sheet ;:.!I11$*1 for the ear &$$8. He had prepared this -alance sheet on the -asis of records produced - accused Amt 2umar. During !ross-examination, none of the documents sho3n to him in the court 3hich re1ealed 3ho is running this compan and 3hat "ind of -usiness is -eing carriedout under the name and st le of this compan . (C>=) PW-111 Ra(esh 8a*, CA, R.K.8a* D Co. /-&), Ansa* Cham4er-1, " /hika(i, Cama P*a!e, 'e$ De*hi, stated that he is 3or"ing as Chartered Accountant since 1))+. He 3as engaged - accused (r. Amit 2umar. He further stated that in this case, he had incorporated the compan - the name of 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. and memorandum of association alread e:hi-ited ;:.!I81*+ and articles of association alread e:hi-ited ;:.!I81*@ 3hich -ears his signature on all the pages. ?his reHuires filing of form 1A, 1, 1' and +& along-3ith the memorandum of association and articles of association. He further stated that after 1etting, the compan is incorporated

    1+%

    and a certificate of incorporation 3as issued - the 7egistrar of companies. During !ross-examination, he stated that none of the documents sho3n to him in the court 3hich re1ealed, 3ho actuall operated the compan su-seHuent to its incorporation. He further stated that he had not seen the original documents. (C>==) PW-112 9iney 3u-gi*, Pat$ari a*Ea Sikri, has stated that

    he is 3or"ing as !at3ari at Si"ri, tehsil Bala-hgarh, (istrict .arida-ad. He has -rought the original record of jama-andi and mutation register of Si"ri. He further stated that as per record, Smt. !oonam 2umari 3ife of Amit 2umar is o3ner of 2hasra No.<&*& measuring 1% marlas 3hich 3as purchased from Aidal and the mutation 3as sanctioned 1ide mutation No.+)@' and it 3as further sold to Archana 7ani 3ife of ,pender 2umar 1ide sale deed dated &.@.&$$% and mutation No.+)@). He further stated that the copies of the same are ;:.!I11&*1 to ;:.!I11&*@. During !ross-examination, he stated that he has tendered the record in the court. CBI had not sho3n him an record. He further stated that record produced - him in the court re1ealed the identit of the persons, in 3hose fa1our these properties e:isted. (C>===) PW-11" Da+en-er Singh 3aan retire- DSP, C/=, stated that during his posting in CBI, he recorded the statements of Hardesh 2umar and >inod 2ataria under Section 181 Cr.!.C.

    1+'

    and same -ear his signature. He has also recorded the statements of other 3itnesses and collected the documents relating to Income ta:, 3herein it 3as mentioned regarding the profession i.e. "idne transplantation - accused Amit 2umar. During !ross-examination, he stated that he has not seen an documents mentioned in e:amination-in-chief. He further stated that he has no 3ritten order regarding authoriBation to in1estigate the case. He further stated that he is not a medical e:pert. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (C>=9) PW-11& Ra(in-er Singh, :xe!uti+e Store in '/CC 8t-. 8o-hi Roa-, De*hi, has stated that he 3as called - the CBI 9fficers. He 3as associated in the in1estigation and some articles 3ere ta"en into possession 1ide reco1er memo

    ;:.!I11@*1, 3hich -ears his signature. ?he CBI, (S! 3as Shri A.2.Singh at that time. During !ross-examination, he stated that he has not seen an of the articles mentioned in ;:.!I11@*1. (C>9) Shri P.K.#ro+er, Assistant 3anager, ( R3) '/CC 8t-., 'e$ De*hi, has stated that he 3as called - the CBI 9fficers. He 3as associated in the in1estigation and some articles 3ere ta"en into possession 1ide o-ser1ation-cum-seiBure memo ;:.!I11<*1 3hich -ears his signature. He further stated that Shri >.2.Shu"la Inspector and some other officers of the CBI 3ere also present there and the o-ser1ation-cum-seiBure memo. had also signed the

    1+)

    During !ross-examination, he stated that he has not seen an of the articles mentioned in ;:.!I11<*1. (C>9=) PW-11, S.C.Chauhan, =ns7e!tor C/=, 'e$ De*hi, has stated that he remained posted as Su- Inspector in CBI ;9-III. He 3as gi1en part in1estigation (I=, CBI, Ne3 (elhi. He

    recorded the statements of 3itnesses under Section 181 Cr.!.C. During !ross-examination, he stated that he conducted the in1estigation under the pro1ision of ?9H9 Act. He admitted that onl medical e:pert can in1estigate the matter relating to transplantation of human organs. He further stated that he is not a medical e:pert. (C>9==) PW-11. 3.R.Atrey, =ns7e!tor, C/=, 'e$ De*hi, has stated that he remained posted as Su- Inspector in the ear &$$%. He further stated that the (I=, CBI had authoriBed him to conduct part in1estigation. He had recorded the statements of 3itnesses /umtaj 2han, >inod 2umar Jain, /anoj Jain, 7uchi Bala /ahesh3ari, =irjesh /ahesh3ari, Sat en =upta, !ooja Sharma, =o1erndhan (ass 7aj !al, Ba-u, (r. 7ajat Narang, Asho" 2umar Harit, 7ohit =upta, Jai 2ishan Jeth3ani, J otish Chander /aharana under section 181 Cr.!.C. correctl as per statements made - them 3ithout an addition or omission. He had read o1er and e:plained the same to the 3itnesess and the had admitted the same to -e correct and the had put their signature -elo3 the statements. He had also ta"en in possession one -unch of treatment papers issued - lifeline diagnostics,

    1@$

    Saroj Hospital and Heart Institute, Cit (iagnostics Centre etc. and photocopies of dial sis -oo"s from /anoj Jain in the presence of ?arsem Jain, 1ide memo ;:.!I11%*1 3hich -ears his signature and the signatures of 3itnesses. He had also ta"en in possession Serolog ?est report of Star /a: 0ife Care,

    =urgaon and Serolog ?est report of =agan /edical Centre, Ne3 (elhi 1ide memo ;:.!I'$*&$ 4alread e:hi-ited5 3hich -ears his signatures and also the signature of (r. I.C.>erma. During !ross-examination, he stated that he conducted the in1estigation under the pro1ision of ?9H9 Act. He admitted that onl medical e:pert can ascertain the fact as to 3hether an transplantation of human organs had ta"en place on an indi1idual. He had not associated an medical e:pert or an mem-er of the authoriBed*appropriate authorit during the course of in1estigation, He is not a medical e:pert. (C>9===) PW-110 K.8.3oses, =ns7e!tor, C/=, :6-==, C#6 Com7*ex, 8o-hi Roa-, 'e$ De*hi, has stated that he remained posted as Inspector, CBI, ACB, =u3ahati in the ear August, &$$'. He had recorded the statement ;:.!I8'*A4alread e:hi-ited5 of /s. (imngaiching ?hangsing 6 (im Nagaiching Simte daughter of Shri Aam"holum ?hangsing, Staff Nurse, correctl and after reading o1er the same to her, she admitted the same to -e correct and she had put her signature on the statement. During !ross-examination, he denied the

    suggestion that no statement has -een gi1en - the 3itness

    1@1

    namel

    /s. (imngaiching ?hangsing 6 (in Nagaiching

    Simte. He denied the suggestion that the same 3ere facilitated on the as"ing of the senior In1estigating 9fficer of the CBI in order to toe the line of in1estigation. He denied the suggestion that he 3as not a competent authorit or 9fficer to in1estigate the case under the ?9H9 Act. (C>=>) PW-111 Ra(u-een Pat$ari has stated that in the ear &$$', he remained posted as !at3ari at 1illage Anangpur. He has -rought the re1enue record and as per record mutation No.<1<1, had -een sanctioned in the name of (r. ,pender 2umar son of !arma Nand and attested cop of the same is ;:.!I11)*1. He further stated that 1ide mutation No.<1<& Jee3at 7aut son of 7amesh3ar 7aut had purchased the share and the cop of the mutation is ;:.!I11)*&. He further stated that according to mutation N9.<1)8 (r. Amit 2umar son of !urshotam had purchased share in the land, cop of 3hich is ;:.!I11)*+. (C>>) PW-1223.K.Dhar, Senior 3R6, Shri #anga Ram os7ita*,

    De*hi, has stated that he is 3or"ing as Senior /79 in Shri =anga 7am Hospital, (elhi for the last three ears. !rior to his joining, Shri S.C.=upta 3as 3or"ing on the same post. He has 3or"ed 3ith him and is con1ersant 3ith his signature. He further stated that Shri S.C.=upta had handed o1er the record to the CBI 1ide memo ;:.!I1&$*1, 3hich -ears his signature. He further stated that the certified copies of files are ;:.!I1&$*& and ;:.!I1&$*+.

    1@&

    During !ross-examination, he admitted that he is not 3or"ing 3ith Shri S.C.=upta. He admitted that he cannot tell the facts of ;:.!I1&$*1 to ;:.!I1&$*+. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsel . (C>>=) PW-121 Arun 64eroi, 9i!e-Presi-ent, Ser+i!e De*i+ery, 'e$ De*hi, has stated that he is 3or"ing as >ice-!resident, Ser1ice (eli1er , HSBC, since Jul , &$$%. He remained associated in the CBI in1estigation in this case. He handed o1er the account statement of Cashpal Sharma 1ide letter ;:.!I1$'*8 4alread e:hi-ited5 dated 11.&.&$$'. He had handed o1er the statement of account of Ji3an 2umar 1ide letter ;:.!I1$'*& 4alread e:hi-ited5 3hich also -ears his signature. ?he statement of account of Ji3an 2umar is ;:.!I1&1*& 4containing <1 pages5 3hich is a computer generated statement. (C>>==) PW-122 Sahi- son o% Sar4u-een has stated that he had a Huarrel 3ith his 3ife a-out fi1e ears ago and he came to (elhi. He further stated that some tests 3ith machines 3ere also performed upon him. ?hereafter, he 3as ta"en to Ansal Compan and he 3as ta"en to + rd store of that compan and 3as "ept there in a room. ?hereafter, &-+ persons used to come there and gi1es some medicines. ?here 3as some another person 7ajinder !aharia, 3hoseFs "idne 3as also remo1ed. Ihen he regained conscious and had pain then, he as"ed that Nurse that 3hat had happened to him -ut she did not tell an thing to him and then he caught hold of her hair then she

    1@+

    told that her "idne

    has -een remo1ed. ?he photographs

    ;:.!I&'*& and ;:.!I&'*+ 4;:.!I+*&5 are of 7ajinder !aharia. ?hereafter, all the attendants had ran a3a from there. He as"ed 7ajinder 3ho rang to police*!C7. ?hereafter, police came there and too" them to =urgaon, Ci1il Hospital, 3here the 3ere admitted. ?here used to come &-+ Nurses, one of them 3as Nepali and other 3as of small structure, -ut he did not "no3 their names nor the 3ere called - their names in his presence, -ut he can identif them. Ihen his "idne 3as

    remo1ed, then he 3as unconscious, -ut 3hen he regained conscious, (r. Amit 2umar 3as attended him. (r. /anoj, (r. Saraj 2umar, (r.Jee1an, (r.,pender 2umar 3ere there. ?he had inHuired regarding his health. He further stated that he had also seen (alip and Naresh 3hoseFs "idne s 3ere also remo1ed 3ere "ept at Ansal Compan . He further stated that after remo1ing his "idne , he felt ill and he could not do an 3or" and he feel pain in his -od . He 3as assured - accused Amit 2umar that he 3ill -e gi1en 7s.+ lacs if he "ept silent or other3ise the 3ill "ill him. He 3as not gi1en an thing. He further stated that the photographs are ;:.!I1&&*1 and ;:.!I1&&*&. During !ross-examination, he stated that his statement 3as not recorded - the police at an point of time. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions.

    1@@

    (C>>===)

    PW-12" Raghura( Singh, no$ 7oste- at Po*i!e 8ine, Amroha, has stated that he remained in !S, 2ot3ali, /urada-ad till $1.$&.&$$'. 9ne .I7 under transplantation Human 9rgan Act and under Section @&$ I!C and SCKS? Act 3as registered in !S, Ci1il 0ine, /urada-ad and in1estigation of this case 3as carried out /s. /anBil Saini,AS!. He

    further stated that the statements of the patients 3ere recorded the AS! at =urgaon. He further stated that the also also

    pro1ided Am-ulance for shifting the patient. ?he

    informed the local police and some doctors from the =o1ernment Hospital 3ere also arri1ed there. (uring in1estigation, some medicines, medical instruments etc. 3ere seiBed. He further stated that report ;:.!I1&+*1 3as prepared, 3hich -ears his signature. 9n the -asis of report ;:.!I1&+*1, .I7 3as got registered - Jitesh 2umar. During !ross-examination, he admitted that 3hene1er the ha1e to do in1estigation out of their jurisdiction, it is mandator to join local police authorities. AS! 3as the head of the team 3ho had informed the =urgaon police. He further stated that the spot 1erification memo 3as prepared the AS! 3hen he 3as present there. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (C>>=9) !W-12& Ani* Singh, A--itiona* S.P.,C/= AC-1 <one, 'e$ De*hi has stated that he remained posted as (eput Superintendent of !olice CBI in ;9,->II Branch from /arch,

    1@<

    &$$+ to /arch,&$1$. He further stated that this case 3as registered in the ear &$$' and the in1estigation 3as entrusted to Shri 7aji1 (e1edi, (eput Superintendent of !olice against accused Amit 2umar and others. After registration of the case, a team 3as constituted of 1arious officers including him to assist the main I9 of the case. He had prepared the arrest memo 3hich is mar" !I1&@*A. As per arrest 3arrant, foreign currenc notes 3ere reco1ered from his possession is contained in en1elope ;:.!I1&@*1. He further stated that he also seiBed one cheHue -oo" of 7o al Ban" of Canada ha1ing cheHue Nos. 1$8 to $&< of series $$<-1&-$$+-<&+-1<%-8 mentioned in arrest memo mar" !I1&@*A. He further stated that the en1elope is ;:.!I1&@*&. He also seiBed t3o suit cases ;:.!I1&@*+ and ;:.!I1&@*@ mentioned in the mar" !I1&@*A 1%4%+5 4JII5 as per in1entor . He also seiBed three No"ila mo-ile along3ith sims 3hich are ;:.!I1&@*< to ;:.!I1&@*% mentioned in the a-o1e arrest memo. He had also seiBed the cheHue -oo"s and account pa ee -an"er cheHue "ept in en1elope ;:.!I1&@*& mentioned in the a-o1e arrest memo. He also recorded the statements of &$ 3itnesses under Section 181 Cr.!.C. He also prepared the pointing out memo alread e:hi-ited as

    ;:.!I1$1*+ in 3hich accused ,pender 2umar had pointed out (r. Batra Hospital 3here 1arious tests of the recipients and 1ictims 3ere conducted -efore the transplant. He also prepared the site plan of (r. 0al !ath 0a- alread e:hi-ited as

    1@8

    ;:.!I1$1*@. He also prepared the pointing out memo alread e:hi-ited as ;:.!I1$1*< in 3hich accused (r. ,pender 2umar had pointed out that 1arious "idne transplant operations 3ere conducted him along3ith (r. Amit and (r. Jee1an. He e:hi-ited as

    prepared the pointing out memo alread

    ;:.!I1$1*1), in 3hich accused (r. ,pender pointed out to3ards house No.+'$-!, Sector 1@, =urgaon 3here accused (r. Amit 3as running a hospital named 0i-ert Hospital for "idne transplantation. He had prepared the site plan of this house, 3hich is ;:.!I1$1*&1, ;:.!I1$1*&& and site plan alread e:hi-ited as ;:.!I1$1*&+. Accused /anoj 2umar had made a disclosure statement ;:.!I1&@*' under Section &% of the ;1idence Act in 3hich the said accused had gi1en his 3illingness to lead the CBI team to the place*-uilding used for -lood testing at 2arol Bagh and hospital at =urgaon 3here "idne transplantation 3as done - him and his associates. He also prepared the pointing out memo ;:.!I1&@*) and -uilding*site plan ;:.!I1&@*1$ 3hich -ears his signature and also the signature of the 3itnesses. He also prepared the pointing out memo of -uilding (0. Colon !hase-1, (-<*&) 3hich is ;:.!I1&@*11 and site plan ;:.!I1&@*1& of the same. He also prepared the pointed out memo at the instance of accused /anoj 2umar of Star /a: (iagnostic Centre*Star /a: 0ife Care, -uilding @*<$ I;A, Saras3at /arg =round ;:.!I1&@*1+ and site plan ;:.!I1&@*1@. He also recorded the

    1@%

    disclosure statement of accused 2.2.Aggar3al ;:.!I1&@*1< 3hich has -een signed accused 2.2.Aggar3al. He also

    prepared the pointed out memo at the instance of accused 2.2.Aggar3al of -uilding (<*&) (0., !hase-1, ;:.!I1&@*18 3hich also -ears his signatureHe also prepared the pointed out memo at the instance of accused 2.2.Aggar3al ;:.!I1&@*1% of hospital of accused (r. Amit and site plan ;:.!I1&@*1' 3hich -ears signature of accused 2.2.Aggar3al. He also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Jee3an

    ;:.!I1&@*1) 3hich -ears his signature. He also prepared the pointed out memo ;:.!I1&@*&$ of accused Jee3an of hospital of accused (r. Amit and site plan of the same ;:.!I1&@*&1. He also prepared the pointed out memo ;:.!I1&@*&& of accused Jee3an and site plan of the same is ;:.!I1&@*&+. He also prepared the seiBure memos ;:.!I1&@*&@ dated &%.&.&$$', ;:.!I1&@*&< dated 1).<.&$$', 1ide 3hich the

    tenant form 3as ta"en into possession. He too" in possession form No.+& and statement of account ;:.!I1&@*&% and others documents 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I1&@*&8 dated &$.+.&$$'. He also too" in possession the file of plot No.@+%@ Sector &+, &+-, =urgaon 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I+'*% 4alread e:hi-ited5. He also prepared the seiBure memo ;:.!I1&@*&' dated &$.8.&$$' 1ide 3hich he too" into possession t3o receipts. He also prepared the seiBure memo ;:.!I1&@*&) dated 11.@.&$$' 1ide 3hich account opening form of 9m3ati

    1@'

    and Bahadur Singh along-3ith photographs and form No.8$ etc. 3ere ta"en into possession, 1ide seiBure memo

    ;:.!I1&@*+$ and ;:.!I1&@*+1dated 11.+.&$$', he too" the rele1ant documents in possession, 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I1&@*+& dated &%.+.&$$', one file in the name of Amit 2umar and one file of plot No.(<.&), !hase-1, (0., Cit =urgaon and 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I1&@*++ dated %.+.&$$', one de-it slip along3ith one draft and one special term deposit in the sum of 7s.).%' lacs. During !ross-examination, he admitted that none of the articles ta"en into possession at the time of alleged arrest 3ere sealed - him and the case -eing in1estigated - the CBI 3as registered under the ?9H9 Act and other 1arious sections. He admitted that the present case 3as related to the jurisdiction of (istrict =urgaon and the =urgaon !olice could ha1e gone to the alleged places for demarcation and pointed out places as sho3n in the pointing out memos. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (C>>9) PW-12) 5itesh Kumar, S 6, Sura( Kun-, Fari-a4a- stated that he remained posted as SH9, !alam >ihar, =urgaon in the ear &$$%-$'. 9n &<.$1.&$$', he recei1ed 3ritten complaint ;:.!I1&+*1 4alread e:hi-ited5 of Inspector, 7aghuraj Singh, on the -asis of same, .I7 ;:.!I1&<*1 3as registered at !olice Station, !alam >ihar, =urgaon. ?hereafter, he 3ent to spot

    1@)

    3here Inspector, 7aghuraj Singh along3ith police officials 3ere present. ?here 3ere fi1e 1ictims namel Aja , Sanja , >ashim, Sa"il and Salim in room No.&$8 on -ed in the a-o1ementioned address. ?he "idne of these 1ictims 3ere remo1ed accused Amit and his associates as per the disclosure

    statement of accused ,pender gi1en to ,! !olice. >ictims >ashim, Salim and Sha"il 3ere admitted to the Ci1il Hospital, =urgaon and 3ere got medicall e:amined. 9n &8.1.&$$', their /0Cs mar" !I1&<*A to !I1&<*C 3ere also o-tained from the hospital. 9n &'.1.&$$' and &).1.&$$', one team of four doctors from Ci1il Hospital, =urgaon 1isited the said premises and the conducted inspection and seiBed the medicines and eHuipments 1ide seiBure memo ;:.!I1&<*& and ;:.!I1&<*+. ?he list of medicines is ;:.!I1&<*@ and ;:.!I1&<*<. ?he medicines are ;:.!I1&<*8 to ;:.!I1&<*1&. ?he statements of 7ajinder

    mar" !I+*A, Sahid ;:.!I8*&, (alip ;:.!I<*&, Naresh mar" !I1&<*(, Alo" mar" !I1&<*;, Sha"il ;:.!I1*1, Salim ;:.!I@*&, Nasim mar" !I1&<*. 4alread mar"ed and

    e:hi-ited5 under section 18@ Cr.!.C. 3ere got recorded -efore the /agistrate. He also recorded the statements of 3itnesses under section 181 Cr.!.C. and also arrested accused !ooja, ,mesh, Harpal, Suresh, 0inda and one more accused. 9n ).&.&$$', the in1estigation 3as handed o1er to the CBI.

    1<$

    During !ross-examination, he admitted that the complaint so gi1en - Inspector 7aghuraj Singh 3as on the -asis of disclosure statement suffered - accused ,pender. He further admitted that he had not interrogated or 1erified the facts from accused ,pender -efore registration of the .I7 No.&% dated &<.1.&$$' under Section @&$ I!C read 3ith Sections 1' and 1) of ?9H9 Act registered 3ith !S, !alam >ihar. He admitted that he had not o-tained an further opinion on the alleged /07s of the 1ictims. It 3as further admitted him that the machines and the articles including the medicines are a1aila-le in e1er hospital in routine and the medicines are easil a1aila-le in the mar"et. He further admitted that during his in1estigation, none of the names of the accused came to his "no3ledge. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. (C>>9=) PW-12, Ra(i+ D$i+e-i, A--itiona* SP, C/=, S7e!ia* ;nit, 3um4ai has stated that in the ear &$$', he remained posted as (eput S! in ;9,->II Branch of CBI, Ne3 (elhi. 9n the reHuest of =o1ernment of Har ana and after issuance of reHuired notifications under (S!; Act, .I7No.&%*$', !S !alam >ihar, =urgaon 3as transferred to CBI and case 7C 1;*&$$'*;9,->II 3as registered in CBI and in1estigation 3as entrusted to him. He has seen .I7 ;:.!I1&8*1, 3hich -ears the signature of Shri 7a"esh Aggar3al, the then S!, CBI, Ne3 (elhi and he identified the same. He recorded the statements of

    1<1

    3itnesses trul and correctl as stated - them and nothing 3as added or deleted. He recorded the statement of Sunil Besra ;:.!I+<*1 4alread e:hi-ited5. He further stated that the

    rele1ant documents 3ere collected and seiBed through handing o1er*ta"ing o1er memo ;:.!I1&8*&. After o-taining reHuired authoriBation from the Har ana =o1ernment, composite complaint 3as filed against accused (r.,pender 2umar, Amit 2umar, Jee3an, (r.2.2.Aggar3al, /anoj 2umar, (r. Saraj 2umar, Jagdish, = asudeen and /s. 0inda in the court of learned Special J/IC, CBI, Am-ala. Su-seHuentl , a supplementar complaint 3as filed against accused Cashpal

    Sharma and Sahid. 9n the direction of the HonF-le Court, medical e:amination of accused = asudeen lodged in Central Jail, Am-ala 3as got conducted through Jail authorities and the report of e:amination ;:.!I1&8*+ 3as sent - the concerned doctor. During !ross-examination, he admitted that as per Section 1+ of the ?9H9 Act, there is a pro1ision of appointment of appropriate authorit 3hich is onl

    competent*authoriBed to in1estigate the cases relating to the Act. He further admitted that he 3as authoriBed 1ide order ;:.!I'1*& 4alread e:hi-ited5 - /adam .eroBa /ehrotra, .inance Commissioner and !rincipal Secretar to file the

    1<&

    complaint in the present case onl and not to in1estigate the case. He, ho3e1er, denied the suggestions. In defence, the accused e:amined the follo3ing 3itnesses#4i5 (I-1 /.7.Jindal appeared and he has -rought the summoned record ;:.(I1*1 and as per record, 7.Cada1 tra1elled from (elhi to 2athimandu on )th .e-ruar , &$$'. 4ii5 (I-& Jagdish accused appeared and deposed that he 3as tortured CBI officials and further pressuriBed to depose

    -efore the Judge as per their 3ishes. He further stated that he 3as threatened - CBI officials in case he 3ill not follo3 their orders regarding ma"ing the statement as desired - them, then he and his famil mem-ers 3ill -e in1ol1ed in this case. He crammed such statement under pressure -eing the CBI officials tortured him and forced him to cram the statement. He has seen the confessional statement ;:.!S, 3hich -ears his signature. ?his statement 3as not made - him 1oluntaril , rather, the same 3as procured - the CBI officer after putting pressure upon him - detaining his famil mem-ers. He had mo1ed an application ;:.(I&*A to retract his statement. 4iii5 (I-+ Saraj 2umar accused deposed that he has seen the confessional statement ;:.!P, 3hich -ears his signature. ?his statement 3as not made - him 1oluntaril . 7ather the same 3as procured - CBI officer after putting pressure upon him -

    1<+

    detaining his famil mem-ers. He had mo1ed application on 11.1.&$1$ for retraction of confessional statement ;:.!P 3hich 3as procured - CBI officer under pressure. 1. Initiating arguments, learned !! for the CBI strenuousl argued that

    the prosecution has successfull esta-lished the charges le1eled against the accused persons - 3a of placing relia-le, con1incing and clinching e1idence - 3a of e:amining as 3ell as 1&8 3itnesses. He further argued that the accused (r. Amit, ,pender and Jee3an are the "ing-pins of 3hole episode. (r. Amit got constructed house at !alam >ihar, =urgaon as a hospital*Nursing Home in the ear 1))) 3ith the facilities for "idne transplantation operation, 3hich 3as run - him along3ith his accomplices under the -anner of /*S 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. and

    Starma: -ut to conceal the illegal acti1ities -eing carried out in the hospital and apparentl too distract la3 enforcement agencies, one painted -oard inscri-ed 3ith LJ.2.Sud and Jitender 2asana, Ad1ocates, High Court of (elhi and ,!M 3ith their mo-ile phones 3as put outside the -uilding 3ithout ta"ing appro1al from the appropriate authorit . He further argued that the accused persons had not sought an authoriBation for transplantation of an human organs including "idne

    transplantation from the appropriate authorit , 3hich sho3s that the said illegal hospital 3as -eing run - accused Amit 2umar in conspirac 3ith the other coaccused. He further argued that accused Amit 2umar and ,pender also engaged some touts for the purpose of arranging the 1ictims*alleged donors and recipients for "idne transplantation. He further argued that accused Amit 2umar and Jee1an 2umar or an other doctor 3as not Hualified surgeon as reHuired under the

    transplantation of Human 9rgans 7ules, 1))< and other prescri-ed norms 3ere also 1iolated in running the said hospital 3hich 3ere essential to sa1e the life of

    1<@

    the patients*alleged donors under operation*treatment. He further argued that accused ,pender 2umar forged the prescri-ed prforma, 3hich 3ere su-mitted for H0A tests to 1arious diagnostics la-oratories*hospitals after affi:ing the photos of fictitious persons and after appending the fa"e signatures and seals of (r. B.!.John on H0A forms. He also put his o3n signatures and seals as consultant 3hile he 3as not the Consultant. He further contended that the confessional statements of accused Jagdish ;:.!S, = asudeen ;:.!7 and (r. Saraj 2umar 2o1ind ;:.!P are sufficient to pro1e the illegal acti1ities for ta"ing out the "idne s of the 1ictims - accused Amit 2umar and others and the confessional statements of accused persons are appears to -e a pro-a-le catalogous of the e1ents and naturall fits in 3hich the rest of the e1idence and surrounding circumstances are sufficient to satisf the test of litmus -ecause the same 3as got recorded 1oluntar . He further contended that the application mo1ed - the accused persons to retract their earlier confessional statements got recorded -efore the /agistrate at (elhi is mere a 3aste paper and merel mo1ing the application, the

    confessional statements cannot -e retracted -ecause there is a corro-orati1e e1idence to support the prosecution 1ersion in the shape of the testimonies of the prosecution 3itnesses. 0earned !! for the CBI placed reliance upon Si+akumar an- another 9s. State 222" Crimina* 8a$ 5ourna* ",12 and 'ayak 9s. State o% Assam 1101 CR=.8.5 22)0. 1$. 0earned !! for the CBI further contended that there is e1idence on the em Chan-ra

    file that some of the 1ictims 3ere allured - the accused persons on the prete:t of offering some domestic jo- and the 3ere generall "ept confined at 1arious safe places and 3ithout their "no3ledge and consent, their "idne s 3ere ta"en out and

    1<<

    transplanted to the recipients after recei1ing the heft amount and the under3ent "idne transplant operations performed - accused Amit 2umar in his illegal

    hospital at =urgaon on the misrepresentation of the accused that such transplant operations 3ere legal in Har ana. He further argued that at the time of raid - the ,!*Har ana !olice, some 1ictims and recipients 3ere found in the hospital and the 3ere shifted to =eneral Hospital, =urgaon and other hospitals 3hich also strengthen the stand of the prosecution regarding the allegations le1eled against the accused persons. He further contended that accused Amit had -een sending emails and had contact 3ith co-accused /anoj and these e-mails ha1e -een placed on record, 3hich sho3s the complicit of the accused, 3ho 3as operating from Canada also and recipients from foreign countries and this fact had also -een pro1ed e:amining independent 3itnesses, 3ho used to -ring foreigner

    recipients from I=I, Airport to the illegal hospital of the accused. ?he report of the C.S0 regarding e:amination of hard discs and mo-ile phones of the accused also pro1ed the criminal conspirac and in1ol1ement of the accused in running the illegal hospital for transplantation of "idne . He further contended that the prosecution has also pro1ed that the accused Amit 3as o3ner of the illegal hospital in 3hich the alleged illegal transplantation of "idne s operations 3ere -eing conducted. He further contended that accused Amit 3as the (irector of /*S 0i-ert Health Care K Starma: 0ife 3hich 3as registered in the 7egistrar of Companies in 3hich the accused has filed memorandum of Association and Articles of Association and in that, he had mentioned a-out the running of illegal hospital and in his -an" accounts, in the column of nature of -usiness, he has mentioned the same as "idne transplantation. He further contended that the illegal hospital of accused Amit 3as also raided and reco1ered a sum of 7s.1< crores as

    1<8

    uncounted mone and in his statement made to the Income ?a: Authorities also, he and his some emplo ees ha1e admitted that the are running the -usiness of

    transplantation of "idne s. He lastl argued that some eHuipments and medicines related to "idne transplantation 3ere also reco1ered from the said illegal hospital run - the accused, 3hich transpired the actual in1ol1ement of accused person to earn ill-gotten mone in crores. Iith these su-missions, learned !! for the CBI pra ed for con1iction of the accused. 11. Per contra, Shri Amit (udeja, learned defence counsel for accused

    Amit 2umar and Shri /.S.7athi, 0egal Aid Counsel for accused ,pender 1ociferousl argued that Section && of the ?9H9 Act 4hereinafter called as Ethe ActF5 prohi-its the CBI to file the challan -ut there is onl a pro1ision to file a complaint under the Special Act -ecause ?9H9 Act pro1ides for appointment of appropriate authorit to deal 3ith the matter specified in su--Section + of Section 1+ of the Act. 0earned defence counsels further argued that an appropriate authorit has specificall -een authoriBed inter alia to in1estigate an complaint of the -reach of an of the pro1isions of the Act or an of the rules made there-under and ta"e appropriate action 3hile in this case, no appropriate authorit 3as

    appointed to in1estigate the present case 3hich is the clear cut 1iolation of the Act. ?he further contended that the in1estigating 9fficer 3as not authoriBed - an authorit to conduct the in1estigation and if there is a special statute, the ones laid under the general statute shall not -e follo3ed and in such a situation, the In1estigating 9fficer could not carr out the in1estigation in e:ercise of its

    authoriBation under Section 1+4+54i15 of the Act. He further contended that the Act contains special pro1isions for the transplantation of human organs co1er all the

    1<%

    acts and deceitful means if an adopted - the accused, so the pro1ision of Indian !enal Code 3ould not attract due to enactment of the Special Act as per Section &8 of the =eneral Clause Act. He further argued that most of the 3itnesses e:amined - the prosecution ha1e not supported the prosecution 1ersion regarding ta"ing out the "idne and such conduct of the 3itnesses re1eals that the are planted one and their testimonies cannot -e relied upon. ?he prosecution has failed to adduce an incriminating e1idence against the accused persons sho3ing their in1ol1ement in running the illegal hospital for the transplantation of "idne . Iith these su-missions, pra er is made for acHuittal of the accused. 1&. Shri A-hishe" Sharma, learned defence counsel for accused Saraj

    2umar 2o1ind and 0inda argued that the case of the prosecution against accused Saraj 2umar is -ased on his confessional statement and that confessional statement is not admissi-le against him -ecause 3ell in time the accused Saraj 2umar had also filed the application for retraction of the said confessional statement. He further argued that a retracted confession ma form the legal -asis of the

    con1iction if the court is satisfied that it 3as true and 3as 1oluntar made and that retracted confessional cannot -e the -ase of con1iction 3ithout an corro-oration. He placed reliance upon Parma 'an- Pegu 9s. State o% Asssam 222&(&) RCR (Cri.) 1)) (SC), 8am4er-ar 9s. State o% Pun(a4 222)(") RCr (Cri.) 2)1. He further argued that the testimon of !I-1&& Shahid cannot -e ta"en into

    consideration on the ground that earlier that 3itness 3as gi1en up and later-on, 3ithout see"ing the permission from the court, he 3as e:amined the

    prosecution and he also did not identif the accused -ut he merel disclosed their names. He further argued that the role attri-uted to accused 0inda is that she has pro1ided ser1ices of Nurse in the illegal hospital -eing run - accused Amit at

    1<'

    !alam >ihar, =urgaon and as per the role attri-uted - the CBI to accused 0inda is not different from one (im and Anjala to 3hom the prosecution e:amined as a 3itnesses 3hile the also pla ed the same role as pla ed - accused 0inda. Had the CBI intended to arra ed them as a 3itness, the proper procedure 3as first made them as an accused and thereafter 3ith the permission of the court made them as appro1ers and then the can appear as a 3itness against accused 0inda. Iith these su-missions, pra er is made that the in1estigation conducted - the In1estigating 9fficer against the accused is nothing -ut a -undle of lies and ma "indl -e acHuitted. 1+. Shri Amit =upta, learned defence counsel for accused Jee1an

    contended that apart from the confessional statement of accused Saraj 2umar 2o1ind, Jagdish and = asudin, there is no other other material on record against him. He further argued that accused Jee1an 3as falsel implicated -eing the

    ounger -rother of (r. Amit. He further contended that the signatures of accused Jee1an 3ere procured on a -lan" paper - the CBI 9fficer and later-on, it 3as con1erted into disclosure statement and other memos 3hen his 3ife 3as in custod and thereafter, she 3as discharged. He further contended that accused Jee1an 3as not identified - the alleged donors as 3ell as - the recipients of the "idne . He further argued that the role attri-uted to accused Jee1an is that he purchased the dial sis machines !HJ-&11$ 1ide In1oice dated '.@.1))) 3hile there is no document on the file to connect the accused that the a-o1esaid machine 3as purchased - him. /oreo1er the firm Star (iagnostics, Ne3 (elhi is not o3ned accused Jee1an and the prosecution has failed to pro1e that this firm -elongs to accused Jee1an. /oreo1er, the said dial sis machine 3as neither reco1ered - the CBI nor produced in the court during the trial of the case. He further argued that

    1<)

    the statement of !I-<) >andana 0al, 3ho recei1ed reHuisition slips along3ith photo of patients from (r.,pender merel disclosed the name of Jee1an 3hile there is no document on the file that accused Jee1an e1er referred an patient to the 0al !aths 0a-. He further contended that the testimon of !I-@+ is also not supported the prosecution 1ersion against accused Jee1an -ecause the In1oice placed on the record in fa1our of /*S 0i-ert Health Care, Bi"aji Cama !alace, (elhi does not -ear the name of -u er as Jee1an 2umar and the person 3hose name ,mesh used to recei1e the deli1er from !I-@+ and he 3as discharged the CBI. He further contended that there is not an iota of e1idence against accused Jee1an that he e1er done an act of 3rongful confinement of an person including alleged donors*recipient or 3itness, so Section +@& I!C does not attract against the accused. He further argued that Section 1) of the Act does not attract against accused Jee1an on the plea that none of the recipient and alleged donors or their related 3itnesses deposed against accused Jee1an that he 3as e1er recei1ed an pa ment from alleged recipient or offer to ma"e pa ment to the alleged donors for human organs. He lastl argued that the case 3as planted against accused Jee1an -eing the -rother of accused Amit and there is no e1idence against him and the prosecution case is -ased on the presumption against accused Jee1an and mere presumption is not sufficient for con1iction. /oreo1er, accused Jee1an 3as acHuitted in a case titled State >ersus Amit and others decided - the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, .arida-ad. Iith these su-missions, pra er is made for acHuittal of the accused. 1@. Shri /.S.7athi, 0egal Aid Counsel for accused 2.2.Aggar3al argued

    that the case of the prosecution is -ased on the testimonies of !I-%) Ba-u 7am and !I-)% Amit 2umar (himan against the accused 2.2.Aggar3al and

    18$

    testimonies of -oth these 3itnesses are not sufficient to su-stantiate the allegations le1eled in the charge-sheet against the present accused. He further argued that the role attri-uted to the accused is that his ser1ices 3ere hired - accused Amit upto &$$%, on &+.1.&$$' and &@.1.&$$' for pro1iding anesthesia to the 1ictims*patients 0uc" =arg and !a3an Anand. He further argued that !I !a3an Anand 3as not e:amined - the CBI and 0uc" =arg 3as e:amined as !I-1' and she did not support the prosecution 1ersion and she specificall stated that anesthesia 3as pro1ided to her - lad doctor 3ho 3as 3earing mas". He further contended that there is no such e1idence on the file to esta-lish that accused 2.2.Aggar3al e1er pro1ided anesthesia to the patient*1ictim or recipient prior to &$$%. He further argued that in Januar , &$$', 3hen Ba-u and 7ajinder got operated, at that time accused 2.2.Aggar3al 3as not associated 3ith accused Amit and anesthesia 3as gi1en - accused Saraj 2umar 2o1ind as per the allegations of the CBI. !I-%) Ba-u 7am specificall stated that he onl sa3 accused 2.2.Aggar3al in the

    hospital -ut he did not identif - 3hom the injection 3as injected. He further contended that mere presence of a person does not dra3 the presumption 3ith regard to conspirac . He placed reliance upon case 'an- Kishore Ram Pa* 9s. State o% 3aharashtra 2221(") RCR (CR=.) )10. He further argued that in para No.<$ of the composite complaint filed - the CBI on &).@.&$$', it is clear that Amit 2umar (himan, !I-)% along3ith other persons are 3anted in the present case and Amit 2umar (himan stated in his e1idence that his statement 3as recorded - the CBI in .e-ruar */arch, &$$'. It means this is a false statement if he had gi1en an statement in that period, then the allegation of the CBI that Amit 2umar along3ith other persons 3as 3anted in this case, is totall false -ecause there is a contrar and con1enient stand of the CBI. He further argued that the

    181

    testimon of !I-)% is merel to sa1e himself on the as"ing of the CBI. /oreo1er, !I-)% Amit 2umar (himan said in his e1idence that 2.2.Aggar3al 3as the onl anesthetist 3hile !I-)+ (r. A.2.>erma told that he ga1e anesthesia in (r. AmitFs hospital. ?he statement of !I-)% is self-contradictor and reliance cannot -e

    placed on such t pe of testimon of the 3itness -ecause he stated that he had ne1er seen an person to conduct an operation in !alam >ihar, =urgaon. He further argued that during in1estigation, fi1e accounts and one loc"er of accused 2.2.Aggar3al 3ere sealed and nothing 3as reco1ered e:cept 7s.1.$$ lacs. Had accused -een accepted the huge amount from accused Amit 2umar for pro1iding anesthesia, then certainl hea1 amount had to -e reco1ered from the possession of the accused. He further contended that apart from this case, no other case is pending against the accused. Iith these su-missions, he pra s for acHuittal of the accused. 1<. Shri /.S.7athi, 0egal Aid Counsel for accused Jagdish argued that

    there is no e1idence e:cept his o3n confessional statement against him and lateron, he retracted from his earlier confessional statement and retracted confession cannot -e the -asis of the con1iction unless the same is corro-orated. He placed reliance upon case Parma 'an- PeguGs (Su7ra) and 8am4er-ar 9s. State o% Pun(a4(Su7ra). 18. After hearing the ri1al contentions ad1anced - learned counsel for

    the parties and after scanning the e1idence, no3 the crucial Huestions, thus, arises for determination 3hether the prosecution has successfull esta-lished the charges le1eled against the accused persons - 3a of placing clear, cogent and pro-a-le e1idence or notQ

    18&

    .irstl , it 3ould -e appropriate to deal 3ith the point of conspirac among the accused persons for running a illegal hospital in the house of accused Amit 2umar constructed in Sector &+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon 3ith the facilities for the "idne transplantation under the -anner of /*S 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. ?he prosecution e:amined (r. 7.S. (ahi a, Senior !rofessor Surger (eptt. And Chief >igilant officer, !=I /S 7ohta" as !I-1 and he specificall stated that on receipt of letter regarding "idne scam, the (irector !=I /S 7ohta" constituted a fi1e mem-ers committee to inHuire a-out the "idne scam 3hich 3as happened in =urgaon. ?he committee mem-ers 1isited three places i.e. Shri 7am Hospital, Balla-hgarh and t3o places 4i5 house No.(-<*&), !hase-I, (0., =urgaon and second place 3as House No.@+%@, Sector &+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon. ?he committee collected all the rele1ant document such as medical treatment, -ed head tic"ets, in1estigation reports etc. a1aila-le in these places. ?he committee after 1isiting all these three places concluded and ga1e report ;:.!I1*1 that "idne plantation 3or" 3as feasi-le in !alam >ihar, =urgaon -uilding 3hich 3as used for carr ing out the surger and (0. =urgaon -uilding 3as used for pre or postoperati1e care and he pro1ed the report 3hich -ears his signature and signature of the committee mem-ers. !I-+ 7ama =arg stated that one person had met her in /AJ Hospital, !itampura and as"ed her as to 3hether she 3anted to get "idne transplantation. She replied that she 3anted to get the "idne transplantation done as dial sis procedure 3as 1er painful. Her father contacted on mo-ile phone 3hich pertains to accused Amit 2umar. Accused Amit 2umar told her father to come to !alam >ihar, =urgaon and to -ring all the reports relating to patients. She along3ith her father and mother 3ent to !alam >ihar, =urgaon 3here accused Amit met them and he ad1ised "idne transplantation. She full supported the

    18+

    prosecution 1ersion - disclosing that on 1'th Januar , &$$8, accused Amit 2umar too" her to the IC, on the first floor in !alam >ihar -uilding and the "idne transplantation 3as done on the same da . She identified accused Amit 2umar and (r. ,pender 3ho 3ere present in the operation theater. She further stated that amount 7s.8 lacs 3as paid to3ards the e:penses - her father and amount of 7s.8 lacs 3as paid to accused Amit 2umar. Accused Amit 2umar told her that "idne transplantation 3as legal in Har ana and there 3as no la3 applica-le in Har ana in this regard. She identified accused Amit 2umar, ,pender and 0inda. She remained in contact 3ith accused Amit 2umar e1en after "idne transplantation for

    medicines and injections. !I-@ Neeraj 2umar =arg also supported the prosecution 1ersion to the e:tent that the 3ent to !alam >ihar, =urgaon 3here accused Amit 2umar ad1ised for "idne transplantation after going through the reports. He

    demanded 7s.' lacs -ut the amount 3as settled at 7s.8 lacs. He half-heartedl supported the prosecution 1ersion. !I-8 2halid 2amal stated that he had 3or"ed in /*s 0i-ert Health Care Hospital, =urgaon. He 3as selected and appointed accused ,pender 2umar -ut this 3itness 3as declared hostile. He did not support the prosecution 1ersion. !I-' (inesh 2umar stated that 0uc" =arg and !a3an Anand had disclosed in their statements that the had undergone "idne

    transplantation at some residences con1erted into hospital Sector &+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon and categoricall stated that the ha1e paid the amount to accused

    ,pender and Amit 2umar. !I-) (han 7aj stated that his -rother /anoj is dial sis technician and he is 3or"ing in Shri =anga 7am Hospital, Ne3 (elhi. In Januar , &$$', /anoj came to him and as"ed him to perform dial sis procedure on some patients at his residence. He too" him to @+%@, Sector &+, !alam >ihar. ?here he sa3 one room 3hich appeared to -e operation theatre. He met patient 7uchi Bala,

    18@

    3ho 3as in serious condition and 3as not a-le to -reathe properl . 7uchi Bala had undergone "idne operation and there 3as stitched surger mar"s on her a-domen and she 3as co1ered 3ith green sheet. He had performed dial sis procedure on 7uchi Bala. !I-1$ Satish Chander also stated that the current account No.1&<' in the name of /*S 0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. 3as opened in the name of Amit 2umar =arg along-3ith /s. !oonam. !I-11 /u"esh 2umar Head Consta-le stated that on &<.1.&$$', police part raided 2othi No.@+%@, Sector &+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon. 9utside the a-o1e-said residence, Board of one Ad1ocate of !unja- and Har ana High Court 3as displa ed. He further stated that fi1e files ;:.!I11*1 to ;:.!I11*< 3ere seiBed from 2othi No.@+%@, Sector &+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon. ?hereafter, the police part also raided 2othi No.(-<*&), (0. =urgaon and ' files 3ere found and seiBed -ut he has seen three files ;:.!I11*) to ;:.!I11*11 reco1ered from (-<*&). !I-1@ (r. !reshant Sareen stated that accused (r. ,pender referred to them the patients for test and angiograph . 7a"esh (ahi a (rug Control 9fficer appeared as !I-18 and stated that the -uilding No.@+%@, Sector &+ is related to accused Amit 2umar ha1ing "ept ultra-sound machines illegall . ?he team inspected the premises and the found ultra-sound machines in the premises and the same 3as sealed - the team mem-ers. He further stated that some drugs 3ere also reco1ered and same 3as put in four card-oard -o:es and con1erted into sealed parcels. He further stated that he helped the team in preparing list of drugs and also in preparing of hospital material i.e. eHuipments, machines for e:ample operation ta-le, o: gen c linders, Auto Cla1e machines. All parts of the -uilding 3ere eHuipped in CC camera and ?>. He also sent his report ;:.!I18*' to State (rug Controller regarding in1estigation of this case. As per his report, it 3as found that a full fledged hospital 4in t3o -uildings5

    18<

    3ere -eing run 3ithout an licence or an other registration certificate from the competent authorit and 3ithout the "no3ledge of Health Authorit . !I-1) 7aji1 =arg stated that he remained in contract 3ith accused ,pender, 3ho ad1ised him to get the -lood test 3hich reHuired for the "idne transplantation and also told him for scanning the conditions of the "idne . Accused ,pender had seen the medical report of his 3ife and also ta"en one -lood sample of his 3ife. He remained in contact 3ith (r. ,pender and he demanded 7s. ' lacs for "idne transplantation -ut after negotiation, he agreed to operate and transplant "idne for 7s.8 lacs. He paid 7s.+ lacs in ad1ance. (ri1er of the doctor came and he and his 3ife accompanied him to the hospital. ?hereafter, treatment 3as started - the doctor. His 3ife 3as shifted to operation theater and after some time, doctor came to him co1ering their faces 3ith mas" and congratulate him for successful operation for "idne transplantation. He paid the remaining amount to the person 3ho 3as ha1ing co1ering his face - mas". ?he had got their "idne transplanted there. ?hereafter, the police personnel came and the shifted them to Shri =anga 7am Hospital -ecause the condition of his 3ife -ecame deteriorated. He pro1ed the statement of his 3ife ;:.!I1'*A. !I-&$ Na1deep also supported the prosecution 1ersion and he categoricall stated that accused Amit 2umar demanded 7s. 1< lacs for "idne transplantation of his father and he got transplanted the "idne of his father done in the hospital situated at !alam >ihar, =urgaon. He identified accused Amit. !I-&@ (r. >irender Bas3ana, /edical 9fficer, =H =urgaon, categoricall stated that he e:amined patient 7ajinder, Shahid, Naresh, (alip, 3ho 3ere -rought - /ohan 0al ASI !S (0., =urgaon for medico-legal e:amination as 3ell as for treatment at =urgaon. !I-&< (r. Al"a Singh, /edical 9fficer, =urgaon also stated that on the e:amination of Sha"il, Nasim and Salim 2han, she found that the had

    188

    incision on left lum-ar region and dressed 1$ stitches in num-er. After ultra-sound report of the a-o1e-said patients, she confirmed nephrectom i.e. remo1al of

    "idne of each patients. !I-&) Sanja Bharga1 stated that he met accused (r.Amit for "idne transplantation and doctor demanded 7s.1& lacs. He identified accused Amit. !I-+$ /e an" /ahesh3ari, !I-+1 >i"as Aggar3al and !I-@8 7amesh 2apoor deposed in the term of prosecution 1ersion and the ha1e identified

    accused Amit and /anoj. !I-%) Ba-u 7am also supported the prosecution 1ersion and identified accused Amit, ,pender, 0inda and 2.2.Aggar3al. Similarl , !I-'+ /s. Anjala identified accused ,pender and Amit. !I-1&& Shahid also

    corro-orated the prosecution 1ersion and categoricall stated that 3hen his "idne 3as remo1ed, he 3as unconscious. Ihen he regained consciousness, accused Amit 2umar attended him. Accused /anoj, Saraj and ,pender 3ere present there. No mone 3as gi1en to him for the operation -ut after operation, he 3as told - Amit that either he 3ould -e murdered or put in a drum of acid and nothing 3ill -e left and in case he acts on their ad1ice, then he 3ill -e gi1en something and 3ill -e a-le to lead a good life in future -ut nothing 3as paid to him. 1%. ?he e1idence led the prosecution is sufficient to pro1e the

    follo3ing elements of criminal conspirac i.e. 4a5 an o-ject to -e accomplished 4-5 a plan or scheme em-od ing means to accomplish that o-ject 4c5 an agreement or understanding -et3een t3o or more of the accused persons 3here- , the -ecome definitel committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the o-ject - the means em-odied in the agreement, or - an effectual means 4d5 in the jurisdiction 3here the statute reHuired an o1ert act. ?he essence of the criminal conspirac is unla3ful com-ination and ordinaril , the offence is complete 3hen the com-ination is framed. .or an offence under Section 1&$-B I!C, the prosecution

    18%

    need not necessaril pro1e that the perpetrators e:pressl agree to do or cause to -e done illegal act, the agreement ma -e pro1ed - necessar implication. ?he

    offence of criminal conspirac has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. ?he conspirac consists not merel in the intention or t3o or more -ut in the agreement of t3o or more to do an unla3ful act - unla3ful means. No-dou-t, in the case of conspirac , there cannot -e an direct e1idence. ?he ingredients of offence that there should -e an agreement -et3een the persons 3ho are alleged conspirators and the said agreement should -e for doing illegal act or for doing an illegal means an act 3hich itself ma not -e illegal. In the instant case, there is a sufficient circumstantial e1idence to pro1e that the accused persons hatched a deep routed conspirac to run illegal hospital 3ithout an permission from competent authorit for "idne transplantation . (ue to this act of the a-o1esaid accused persons, the soul of our Nation had -een sha"en 3hen the "idne transplant rac"et had -urst open. 9nce the pandoras -o: 3as opened, it led to one shoc"ing disco1er after another and e:posed the depths of the a- ss to 3hich a no-le profession 3as made to fall. It 3as under accused ,pender and Amit tutelage that the other emplo ees e:ecuted this scam. ?here is a complete chain of circumstances 3hich pind do3n accused Amit and ,pender as main conspirators. It 3as accused Amit and ,pender on 3hose -ehalf the other accused persons helped them to e:ecute the "idne scam and no-dou-t, in this case, the

    complainant, 3ho is the In1estigating officer of this case, might ha1e committed some mista"es or at some points, there ma -e some deficienc in the in1estigation -ut 3hen a case is in1estigated after num-er of ears of the incident, the

    In1estigating 9fficer has to 3or" under man limitations. Ho3e1er, at the same time, I 3ould li"e to sa that the in1estigation 3as fair and there is nothing on

    18'

    record to pro1e an -iasness against the accused. It is the common "no3ledge that the conspirac is not hatched in pu-lic and in almost all the cases, there is no direct e1idence to esta-lish the same. ?he conspirac can -e pro1ed 3a of

    circumstantial e1idence. It 3ould -e imperati1e to place reliance in case Chaman 8a* an- others 9s. State o% Pun(a4 A=R 2221 su7reme Court 21.2 3hich is as under#L.or an offence punisha-le under Section 1&$-B, the prosecution need not necessaril pro1e that the perpetrators e:pressl agreed to do or caused to -e done an alleged actG the agreement ma -e pro1ed necessar implication. ?he offence of criminal conspirac has its

    foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspirac consists not merel in the intention of t3o or more, -ut in the

    agreement of t3o or more to do an unla3ful act - unla3ful means, -ut in the agreement of t3o or more to do an unla3ful act - unla3ful means. So long as such a design rests in intention onl , it is not indicta-le. Ihen t3o agree to carr it into effect, 1er plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capa-le of -eing enforced, if la3ful, punisha-le if for a criminal o-ject or for use of criminal means. No-dou-t in the case of conspirac there cannot -e an direct e1idence. ?he ingredients of the offence are that there should -e an agreement -et3een persons 3ho are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should -e for doing an illegal act or for doing illegal means an act 3hich itself ma not -e illegal, ?herefore, the

    18)

    essence of criminal conspirac to agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can -e pro1ed either - direct e1idence or circumstantial e1idence or - -oth and it is a matter of common e:perience that direct e1idence to pro1e conspirac is rarel a1aila-le. ?herefore, the circumstances pro1ed -efore during and after the occurrence ha1e to -e considered to decide a-out the complicit of the accused.M 1'. .rom the a-o1e-said discussion, it is manifestl clear that there is a

    sufficient e1idence to pro1e that accused Amit and ,pender hatched a conspirac for the purpose forger . (r. ,pender prepared and signed the H0A forms 3ith intend to commit fraud. It is esta-lished on record - 3a of leading intrinsicall relia-le e1idence in the shape of !I-)1 !ar1een /angla, 3ho categoricall stated that accused ,pender 2umar filled and signed the H0A reHuisition forms and he identified his signatures. !I-1$% /ahesh 2umar >aid a also supported and corro-orated the stand of !I-)1. He categoricall stated that 1ide letter dated 1+.&.&$$', he had enclosed the photo cop of H0A reHuisition forms (r.

    ,pender 2umar. He further stated that there 3as one reHuisition from (r. Amit 2umar. !I-8+ B.!.John categoricall stated that H0A form ;:.!I<$*1$@ to ;:.!I<$*1+@ ha1e seen - him and in these H0A forms, the stamp and signature as Consultant are not of him. He has not filled the forms. He further stated that he 3as not the Consultant during the period 1))< to 1))' and he 3as offered a part time jo- - accused ,pender at 0i-ert Hospital for fe3 months. 1). It is imperati1e to mention here that onl accused (r. ,pender and (r.

    Amit entered into a conspirac for the purpose of forger to commit the fraud 3a of filling and sign the H0A forms for getting the H0A test to -e done for the

    1%$

    alleged donors as 3ell as for the recipients. Blood samples along3ith the H0A forms 3ere deli1ered to the la- and the la- gi1es the result in the appropriate column of the reHuisition forms. !I-1$% /ahesh 2umar >aid a has stated to the e:tent that accused (r. ,pender has come to their la- and deli1ered -lood in certain cases on different dates. ?here is a strong suspicion against -oth the accused for presuming that the ha1e committed an offence of conspirac for the purpose of forger . &$. So far as Sections @8<, @%1 and @%+ I!C are concerned, the follo3ing

    ingredients are reHuired to -e pro1ed#4i5 4ii5 4iii5 4i15 &1. /a"ing forged documents for the purpose of forger . .raudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine. 2no3ledge or reasona-le -elief on the part of a person using the document that it is not a forged one. /a"ing and possessing counter-feit seal etc, 3ith intend to commit forger .

    Section @8< I!C is applied for ma"ing false documents 3ith intend to

    commit fraud, Section @%1 I!C is intended to appl to persons other than forger himself -ut the forger himself is not e:cluded from the operation of the section and Section @%+ I!C is applied for ma"ing an impression*seal 3ith intend the same shall -e used for the purpose of committing forger . .or an offences under sections @8<, @%1and @%+ I!C, the main ingredients are preparing the documents to commit fraud, and then fraudulent and dishonest use of that document as genuine along3ith seal. ?o su-stantiate the allegations as le1eled against the accused persons, the prosecution e:amined !I-1$% /ahesh 2umar >aid a, 3ho categoricall stated that 1ide letter dated 1+.&.&$$', he had enclosed the photo cop of H0A reHuisitioned - accused (r. ,pender. ?here 3as also one reHuisition

    1%1

    from (r. Amit 3ithout signature, -ut the did not gi1e the report e1en though the processed the same. 9ut of total 1$& samples recei1ed in the la-, onl ++ samples 3ere not processed as the had clotted -lood. >ide letter ;:.!I1$%*1 dated

    1@.&.&$$', he had enclosed the reHuisition forms 3hich ha1e -een filled-in and signed - doctor 3ho 3ants the H0A test to -e done for the donor as 3ell as for the patient. He stated that accused (r. ,pender had come to their la- and deli1ered -lood in certain cases on different dates. ?he prosecution also e:amined !I-)1 !ar1een /angla 3ho categoricall stated that the H0A forms ;:.!I<$*1 to

    ;:.!I<$*', ;:.!I<$*@8, ;:.!I<$*@%, ;:.!I<$*8@ to ;:.!I<$*%% and ;:.!I1$+ 3ere filled-in accused ,pender and 3as signed him as

    Consultant. He identified his signature as he had 3or"ed under him. He further stated that another H0A forms ;:.!I<$*) to ;:.!I<$*@@, ;:.!I<$*@' to ;:.!I<$*<@, ;:.!I<$*'% to ;:.!I<$*') and ;:.!I<$*)< to ;:.!I<$*1$& 3ere filled-in - one !ar1een /ittal and the photographs 3ere 1erified - accused (r. ,pender. .orms ;:.!I<$*<< to ;:.!I<$*81 also referred - accused ,pender 2umar as Consultant 3hile he 3as not the Consultant. Similarl , forms ;:.!I<$*8&, ;:.!I<$*8+, ;:.!I<$*%$, ;:.!I<$*%' to ;:.!I<$*'@ and ;:.!I<$*)< ha1e -een signed, filled-in - accused ,pender -ut some columns ha1e -een filled-in - !ar1een /ittal. .orm No.<$*'< and <$*'8 and photographs ha1e -een filled-in and 1erified - accused ,pender and remaining columns ha1e -een filled-in !ar1een =upta. As re1ealed from the a-o1e-said e1idence,

    accused ,pender and Amit prepared, filled-in and signed the H0A forms for o-taining the test reports from the different la-s and also used the seal of (r. B.!.John . Accused ,pender also projected himself as a Consultant on the H0A forms 3hile he 3as not the Consultant. ?hese factors clearl go to sho3 that the

    1%&

    accused ,pender and Amit had sufficient "no3ledge a-out forger and the had used the documents "no3ing it to -e forged. ?he pretended ignorance stood -elied and self-condemned on the indisputa-le material on record. ?he plea of innocence as ad1anced has no su-stance. &&. So far as the offence under Section <$8 of I!C is concerned, the

    prosecution e:amined Shahid as !I-1&& and he categoricall stated that accused Amit told him that either he 3ill -e murdered or put in drum of acid if he disclosed an thing and nothing 3ill -e left or in case, he acted on their ad1ice, then he 3ill -e gi1en something and he 3ill -e a-le to lead a good life in future. ?hereafter, he 3as ta"en to Ansal compan and 3as "ept there in a room. He further stated that &+ persons used to come there to pro1ide medicines. Ihen he re-gained consciousness, he felt pain and then he as"ed the Nurse that 3hat had happened to him -ut she did not tell an thing. He further stated that all the attendants had run a3a from there and police came there and too" them to Ci1il Hospital, =urgaon. He further stated that he 3as assured - accused Amit that he 3ill -e gi1en 7s.+ lacs -ut nothing 3as gi1en and if he "ept silent, then 92 or other3ise the 3ill "ill him. ?he learned defence counsel contended that the testimon of !I-1&& is not relia-le as he 3as not identified - the I9 and he is a planted 3itness -ecause during the trial, earlier this 3itness 3as declared hostile and later-on, after filing the supplementar charge-sheet, again he 3as summoned and the ser1ing consta-le reported that this 3itness has died -ut surprisingl on 1%.1.&$1+, one person

    proclaiming himself to -e Shahid 3as got e:amined - the CBI 3hile earlier after recei1ing the report on the summon regarding death of the 3itness and this 3itness 3as gi1en up - the CBI and later-on e:amined 3ithout compl ing the pro1ision of the Cr.!.C. and so his testimon cannot -e ta"en into consideration -ut the

    1%+

    contention of learned defence counsel is merel figment of imagination -ecause this 3itness has specificall stated regarding remo1ing his "idne - the accused persons and thereafter, he 3as threatened if he disclosed this fact regarding remo1al of "idne to an -od , then the 3ill "illed him. He further stated that nothing 3as paid to him - the accused persons. After going through the statement of this 3itness, it is cr stal clear that he 3as threatened - the accused persons to "ill him in case he demanded an mone from them or disclosed the factum of remo1al of "idne . Hence, the ingredients as en1isaged under Section <$8 of I!C are clearl spelled out from the testimon of this 3itness. &+. It is 3orth-3hile to mention here that the ?9H9 Act is a Special Act.

    It deals 3ith the su-ject mentioned therein 1iB. the offences relating to human organs etc. It is 3ell settled principle of la3 that if the special statute la s do3n procedures, the ones laid do3n under the general statute shall not -e follo3ed. ?herefore, the pro1ision of ?9H9 Act pre1ails as per the la3 laid do3n in case Rahe(a ;ni+ersa* 8t-. 9s. 'RC 8t-. an- others (2212) & Su7reme Court Cases 1&0 3herein it 3as held that, LSic" Industrial Compan ies 4Special pro1isions5 Act, 1)'< is a special la3 1is-R-1is ?!A,1''&, 3hich is a general la3 and the pro1ision of the former shall pre1ail o1er the pro1ision of the latter.M In the case in hand, the pro1isions of ?9H9 Act shall pre1ail o1er the pro1isions of the I!C. ?hereafter, there is no need to flash an finding regarding Sections +$% and +&8 of I!C -ecause the offences committed - the accused persons come 3ithin the pur1ie3 of Section 1' and 1) of the Special Act. So the pro1ision of I!C 3ould not attract due to enactment of the Special Act as per Section &8 of =eneral Clauses Act and Section < of I!C.

    1%@

    &@.

    ?o su-stantiate the ingredients as en1isaged under Section 1' of the as 1&8 3itnesses and out of these

    Act, the prosecution e:amined as man

    3itnesses, !I-+ 7ama =arg, her father !I-@ Neeraj =arg, !I-%) Ba-u 7am and !I-1&& Shahid ha1e supported the prosecution 1ersion -ut !I-8 2halid 2amal, !I-1+ 7ohtas, !I-1' 0uc" =arg and !I-&1 (harmender 2umar 4-oth

    recipients5, !I-&&(r. /amta 2o1ind, !I-&8 Salim 4alleged donor5, !I-&% (alip 4>ictim5, !I-&' 7ajinder and !I-+< Sunil Besra 4-oth donors5, !I-@% 7ashmi 4recipient5, !I-@' 7a1inder Singh ?omar, !I-@) Sha"il, !I-<$ Surinder 2apoor, !I-8@ A-rar 2han, !I-'+ Anjala, !I-)< !arth Sahu and !I-)8 >inod 2umar =arg ha1e turned hostile and the ha1e not supported the prosecution 1ersion on material aspects. !I-&< (r. Al"a Singh specificall stated that on &8.1.&$$', she e:amined Salim 2han, Naseem and Sha"il on the 3ritten reHuest of the police. 9n e:amination, she found incision on left side lum-ar region dressed, 1$ stitches on all the three patients. She has also pro1ed the /07s ;:.!I&<*1 to ;:.!I&<*+. She opined that ultra-sound reports of three patients 3ere produced -efore her and she confirmed nephrectom i.e. remo1al of one "idne of each patient. Apart from this, the prosecution e:amined !I-%) Ba-u 7am. He categoricall stated that his -lood samples 3ere ta"en - accused ,pender 2umar and he had ta"en him in the car from ;> Chorah to Nursing Home. He further stated that after ta"ing his -lood samples, accused ,pender dropped him and (r. A"sha ga1e him 7s.<$*- as a ric"sha3 pair. He also identified accused Amit, 3ho as"ed him to accompan a Nepali -o to room No.&$@. Nepali -o as"ed him to ta"e off his clothes and to 3ear a green colour go3n. ?hereafter, an injection 3as administered to him. He -ecame unconscious. He further stated that his "idne 3as remo1ed and at that time, accused Amit, 2.2.Aggar3al and ,pender 3ere in =urgaon Hospital. He

    1%<

    pro1ed the photograph of hospital mar" !I@)*H, 3here his "idne 3as remo1ed. He also pro1ed the photos of machines mar" !I%)*B to !I%)*(, 3hich are l ing in the hospital. He further stated that Sushma Nurse told him that 3hen he 3as in -asement, his "idne had -een remo1ed and had transplanted to a rich person on pa ment of mone . He had ne1er consented to donate and sell his "idne . !I-1&& Shahid categoricall stated that his "idne 3as remo1ed 3hen he 3as unconscious. He further stated that 3hen he regained consciousness, accused Amit 3as attending him, accused /anoj, accused Saraj and accused ,pender 3ere present there. He further stated that he has also seen (alip and Naresh, 3hose "idne s 3ere also remo1ed and the 3ere "ept at Ansal Compan . After remo1ing his "idne , he fell ill and he could not do an 3or" and he felt pain his -od . He further stated that he 3as assured - accused Amit 2umar that he 3ill -e gi1en 7s. + lacs -ut nothing 3as paid to him. Apart from the a-o1e-said e1idence, the prosecution also e:amined !I-1 (r. 7.S.(ahi a and !I-%1 (r. S.S.(alal to esta-lish that the accused 3ere running a illegal hospital for "idne transplantation. !I-%1 (r. S.S.(alal stated that the hospital of accused Amit 2umar located at house No.@+%@, Sector &+, =urgaon 3as not registered 3ith appropriate authorit and the 3ere illegall carr ing out renal transplantation. He along-3ith (r.S.!.Bhanot, (r. S.!.Cada1 1isited the hospital of accused Amit on the night of &@ th Januar , &$$' and three operated patients namel Naseem, Salim and Sha"il 3ere found in the hospital 3hich 3ere shifted to =eneral Hospital, =urgaon under the care of S.!.Bhanot Surgeon for further in1estigation. He deposed that in /arch, &$$& 1ide notification dated &<.+.&$$&, an authoriBation committee 3as constituted under the ?9H9 Act - the =o1ernment of Har ana for e1er district. No authoriBation 3as granted - authoriBation committee for transplantation in the premises of accused

    1%8

    Amit 2umar. ?he stand of !I-%1 (r. S.S.(alal also supported and corro-orated !I-%& (r. 7ajinder 2ar3asra. He categoricall stated that he along3ith (r. 7.S.(ahi a, (r. Nit a Nand, (r. Santosh 2umar and (r. H.2.Singal 3ere made mem-ers of the e:pert committee under the Act - (irector !=I /S 7ohta" 1ide letter ;:.!I%&*&. He along3ith the team 1isited the house No.@+%@, Sector-&+ !alam >ihar, =urgaon and house No.(-<*&), !hase, (0. =urgaon and prepared inHuir report ;:.!I1*1. He stated that on ).&.&$$', patient Naresh 2umar 3as also referred to !=I 7ohta" - Ci1il Hospital =urgaon and after e:amination, it 3as re1ealed that his left "idne 3as remo1ed t3o da s -ac" in the hospital, Sector &+, !alam >ihar, =urgaon. !I-%< (r. S.S.Sang3an, !I-%% (r. >.2.Bansal, !I%' (r.2.S.7ao also supported and corro-orated the stand of the prosecution regarding remo1al of the "idne of Naresh 2umar. !I-<) (r. >andana 0al stated that accused ,pender, Amit 2umar, Jee1an, 0i-ert Health Care, Shri 7am

    Hospital at =urgaon and also at .arida-ad had for3arded some -lood samples for test in the ear &$$< and &$$8 through their collection centre. ?he had e:amined some -lood samples. In (ecem-er, &$$8, the had made a complaint ;:.!I<)*1 against accused ,pender 2umar for issuing fa"e report on their names. She had sent the letter ;:.!I<)*& gi1ing detail of fa"e reports of patients 3hich is in her hand-3riting and ha1ing her signatures. She further stated that the recei1ed

    reHuisition slips along-3ith photo of some other donors from accused ,pender. She further stated that the handed o1er all the records pertaining to tissue t pe test and cross-matching test referring - accused ,pender to CBI. !I-8% Sunil 2umar also stated that he made contact 3ith (r. Jee1an and ,mesh on telephone. He handed o1er the list of eHuipments and addresses of the compan . Amit 2umar appeared as !I-)% and he categoricall stated that 3hen accused Amit 2umar had

    1%%

    gone to Canada, then he had as"ed him to gi1e salar of his emplo ees. He further stated that accused /anoj has also -een collecting the -lood samples. Accused /anoj 2umar 3as also associated 3ith accused Amit 2umar. &<. So far as the contentions ad1anced - learned defence counsels that

    the prosecution has failed to -ring home the guilt against the accused persons 3a of leading con1incing and clinching e1idence is concerned, the same is merel a thread-are and does not hold 3ater -ecause !I-+ 7ama =arg is the recipient of "idne 3hile !I-%) Ba-u 7am and !I-1&& Shahid 4-oth alleged donors5 and their "idne 3as remo1ed - accused Amit and ,pender - pla ing fraud upon them. !I-&< (r. Al"a Singh, 3ho e:amined Naseem, Salim and Sha"il has confirmed the remo1al of one "idne of each patients. ?he testimonies of these 3itnesses apart from others are sufficient to pro1e the factum of remo1al and transplantation of "idne - the accused persons. No-dou-t, some of the recipients and alleged donors ha1e not supported the prosecution 1ersion -ut during crosse:amination, the ha1e admitted some fact of remo1al of "idne as 3ell as

    transplantation. ?he plea of learned defence counsels that the prosecution has failed to get an thing from their e:amination-in-chief and declared them hostile and cross-e:amined them and during cross-e:amination, the admitted ha1ing

    made a statement to the CBI earlier and CBI officer ha1e correctl recorded their statements. ?he ha1e admitted some fact regarding transplantation and remo1al of "idne . .rom the tenure of their testimonies, it appears that due to outcome of some outsider pressure, the ma -e reluctant in supporting the prosecution case as a 3hole and tilted their mind to3ards the accused. It is a misconcei1ed notion that merel -ecause a 3itness is declared hostile, his entire e1idence should -e

    e:cluded or rendered un3orth of consideration. So, their testimon cannot -e

    1%'

    thro3n a3a -ecause their credit ha1e not -een completel sha"en and if their testimonies 3hen read as a 3hole 3ith care and caution and corro-orated - other e1idence on those material points satisf the necessar ingredients, then their

    testimonies can -e acted upon to such an e:tent. &8. Shri A-hishe" Sharma, the learned defence counsel for accused Saraj

    2umar contended that the role attri-uted to accused Saraj 2umar is that he had pro1ided ser1ices of anesthesia in the illegal hospital -eing run at !alam >ihar at =urgaon for a short period 3hen dispute too" place -et3een (r. Amit and 2.2.Aggar3al and as per the role attri-uted - the CBI to accused Saraj 2umar is not different from !I-)+ (r. Asho" 2umar >erma, 3ho had also stated the same fact regarding pro1iding of his ser1ices Anesthetic in the illegal hospital -eing run - accused Amit 2umar -ut he 3as arra ed as a 3itness 3ithout the permission of the court. ?he further stand of learned defence counsel is that accused Saraj 2umar 3as threatened and tortured - the CBI to ma"e confessional statement in the court as per suita-ilit of the case of the prosecution and further pressure 3as put - the CBI on the accused that in case he does not fulfill their desire of ma"ing confessional statement, his 3ife and -rother-in-la3 3ill also -e made as an accused and thereafter, accused Saraj 2umar has also filed the retraction of said confessional statement. He also argued that accused Saraj 2umar has retracted the confession in the statement recorded under Section +1+ of the Criminal procedure Code and it should not -e acted upon as it is not 1oluntar in nature. He placed reliance in case 3atu Ram 9s. State o% Parma 'an- Pegu (Su7ra). &%. No-dou-t, a retracted confessional ma form the legal -asis of the aryana 2220(&) RCR (Cri.) 1,0 an-

    con1iction if the court is satisfied that it 3as true and 3as 1oluntar made and the

    1%)

    con1iction cannot -e -ased on such confession 3ithout an corro-oration. It is not a rule of la3 -ut is onl a rule of prudent. In the present case, there is no

    corro-orati1e factors that lend assurance to the truth of confession. Not a single circumstance or the fact pro1ed corro-orates the facts re1ealed in the confession. All the circumstances relied upon the prosecution accepting the judicial

    confession onl point to in1ol1e of the other accused -ut not (r. Saraj 2umar. ?he confessional statement ;:.!P of accused Saraj 2umar has not -een su-stantiated an e1idence on record 3hich is in line 3ith the confessional statement. In !arma Nand !egu 4Supra5, it 3as held - the HonF-le ape: court that, Lthe accused ma"ing a confession of offence -ut retracting. Con1iction cannot -ased solel on retracted confession 3ithout corro-oration.M .rom the e1idence -rought - the CBI against the accused Saraj 2umar in 3hich there is not e1en an iota of e1idence against the accused and the a-o1e-referred la3 is full applica-le in the present case -ecause the prosecution cannot ta"e the -enefit of retracted confessional statement 3ithout independent corro-oration against the accused 3hich is illegal and not permissi-le under the la3. &'. Another aspect in the present case is that as to 3hether the statement

    under Section 18@ Cr.!.C., 43hich is later-on refused to -e 1oluntar 5 can -e ta"en into consideration against accused Saraj 2umar. In case la3 3a-an 8a* 9s. State o% Pun(a4 221" RCR (Cri.) 1. (PD ) (D/) it 3as held as follo3s#L3here the 3itness deposed that the statement under section 18@ Cr.!.C. 3as made under compulsion and threat if she did not support the case of the prosecution, the case of opium 3ould -e planted against her the police.

    1'$

    Statement under Section 18@ Cr.!.C.is not a su-stanti1e piece of e1idence and statement not -elie1ed.M In the present case, the prosecution has e:amined as man as si: alleged

    donors*1ictims, out of 3hich fi1e ha1e not supported the case of the prosecution and the alleged donors 3hose statement under Section 18@ Cr.!.C. 3as also recorded -ut the 3hile appearing as a star prosecution 3itnesses resiled a3a from their earlier statements. In their e:amination-in-chief 3hile appearing as a prosecution 3itnesses, the deposed that the did not "no3 the accused. 9n

    turning hostile, the learned !! 3as allo3ed to cross-e:amine the 3itness and during cross-e:amination, he confronted 3ith their statement recorded under Section 181 Cr.!.C. and statement under Section 18@ Cr.!.C. ?he admitted that the statement under Section 18@ Cr.!.C. -ear their signature -ut 3ent on to e:plain on oath that it 3as police officials 3ho forced them to ma"e such statement. ?he further deposed that the made the statements under compulsion and threat. So the confessional statement recorded under Section 18@ Cr.!.C. and later-on retracted cannot -e ta"en into consideration -eing 3ea" t pe of e1idence as o-ser1ed in !arma NandFs case - the HonF-le High Court. &). In case Shankaria 9s. State o% Ra(asthan A=R 11.0 Su7reme

    Court 12&0, the HonF-le Supreme Court held that 3hen the prosecution demands the con1iction of accused primaril on the -asis of the confession recorded under Section 18@ Cr. !.C., the court must appl a dou-le test, 4i5 3hether the

    confessional 3as perfectl , 1oluntar Q 4ii5 If, so, 3hether it is true and trust3orth Q In the present case, it has come in the e1idence that the statement under Section 18@ Cr.!.C. 3as got recorded under pressure and threat. 0ater-on, the retracted from the same -ut there is no other e1idence e:cept the confessional

    1'1

    statement of the accused and 3ithout corro-oration, the retracted confession cannot -e ta"en into consideration for con1iction. ?he accused himself appeared as a defence 3itness and he categoricall stated that the confession 3as not 1oluntar made and that 3as made under pressure. He 3as innocent. /oreo1er, the confessional statement*admission of co-accused made under Section +1+ Cr.!.C. cannot -e used against the co-accused. It is 3orth-3hile to mention here that the ans3er gi1en - co-accused /anoj, Shahid and = asudeen during their statements recorded under Section +1+ Cr.!.C., is a 3ea" t pe of e1idence, and it cannot -e a -ase of con1iction as per the o-ser1ations made in case /atu 7amFs case 4Supra5. +$. So far as the case of accused Jagdish is concerned, his case is also

    -ased on his confessional Statement ;:.!S and later-on, he also retracted from his earlier statement. He also appeared as a defence 3itness and stated that his statement under Section 18@ Cr.!.C. 3as recorded under pressure and coercion. ?he retracted confession 3ithout corro-oration is not sufficient for issuance of 3arrant of con1iction. It is settled proposition of la3 that in dealing 3ith a case against an accused, the court cannot start 3ith the confession of co-accused. It must -egin 3ith other e1idence adduced - the prosecution and after forming its opinion 3ith regard to the Hualit and affect of the said e1idence, the confession ma -e referred in order to cement the conclusion 3hich the court is a-out to reach. In the present case, there is no other e1idence of an "ind to esta-lish the in1ol1ement of accused Jagdish apart from his o3n retracted confession and retracted confession of other accused. ?he confession made - co-accused under Section +1+ Cr.!.C. cannot -e used against co-accused as held in /atu 7amFs case 4Supra5.

    1'&

    +1.

    So far as the role attri-uted to accused 2.2.Aggar3al is that his

    ser1ices 3ere hired for anesthesia in the hospital -eing run - accused Amit 2umar at !alam >ihar, =urgaon. ?o su-stantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution case is -ased on the testimonies of !I-%) Ba-u 7am and !I-)% Amit 2umar (himan. ?he learned defence counsel argued 3ith 1ehemence that the tesimonies of -oth these 3itnesses are not sufficient to su-stantiate the allegations le1eled in the charge-sheet against the present accused. He further argued that the role attri-uted to the accused is that his ser1ices 3ere hired - accused Amit upto &$$%, on &+.1.&$$' and &@.1.&$$' for pro1iding anesthesia to the 1ictims*patients 0uc" =arg and !a3an Anand. After going through the testimon of !I-%), it is cr stal clear that he merel sho3n the presence of accused. !I !a3an Anand 3as not e:amined - the CBI and 0uc" =arg 3as e:amined as !I-1'. She did not support the prosecution 1ersion. She specificall stated that anesthesia 3as

    pro1ided to her - lad doctor, 3ho 3as 3earing mas". ?herefore, there is no such e1idence on the file to esta-lish that accused 2.2.Aggar3al e1er pro1ided anesthesia to the patient*1ictim or recipient prior to &$$%. He further argued that in Januar , &$$', 3hen Ba-u and 7ajinder got operated, at that time, accused 2.2.Aggar3al 3as not associated 3ith accused Amit and anesthesia 3as gi1en accused Saraj 2umar 2o1ind as per the allegations of the CBI. !I-%) Ba-u 7am specificall stated that he onl sa3 accused 2.2.Aggar3al in the hospital -ut he did not identif - 3hom the injection 3as injected. It is pertinent to mention here that in the composite complaint, Amit 2umar (himan, !I-)% along3ith other persons 3ere 3anted in the present case and Amit 2umar (himan stated in his e1idence that his statement 3as recorded - the CBI in .e-ruar */arch, &$$'. It means this is a false statement if he had gi1en an statement in that period, then the

    1'+

    allegation of the CBI that Amit 2umar along3ith other persons 3as 3anted in this case, is totall false -ecause there is a contrar and con1enient stand of the CBI. ?he testimon of !I-)% is merel to sa1e himself on the as"ing of the CBI. /oreo1er, !I-)% Amit 2umar (himan said in his e1idence that 2.2.Aggar3al 3as the onl anesthetist 3hile !I-)+ (r. A.2.>erma told that he ga1e anesthesia in (r. AmitFs hospital. ?he statement of !I-)% is self-contradictor and reliance cannot -e placed on the testimon of such a sha" 3itness -ecause he had ne1er seen an person to conduct an operation in !alam >ihar, =urgaon. +&. ?he main plan" of argument of learned defence counsel is that the

    confessional statement recorded under Section 18@ Cr.!.C. of accused Saraj 2umar ;:.!P, Jagdish ;:.!S and = asudeen ;:.!7 and later-on, the retracted from their confessional statement. It should not -e acted upon as it is not 1oluntar in nature and 3ithout corro-oration. He placed reliance upon Shi+ Kumar 9s. State 222" Crimina* 8a$ 5ourna* ",12. 9n Similar point, he also placed reliance upon Parma 'an- Pegu (Su7ra) (SC). ?he contention of learned defence counsel is meritorious -ecause the confession of the co-accused has not -een su-stantiated an other e1idence on record, 3hich is in the line 3ith the confessional statement. ?herefore, the corro-oration e1en in the limited sense does not e:ist in the case of the accused. No-dou-t, under Section +$ of ;1idence Act, the court is empo3ered to ta"e into consideration against the person ma"ing the confession as 3ell as against such other persons, 3ho ma -e jointl tried 3ith him for the same offence. ?he confession of co-accused -eing recorded 3ithout oath is no e1idence 3ithin the contemplation under Section + of the ;1idence Act. /oreo1er, the confession recorded after prosecution e1idence is completed, is 1er 3ea" as the statement under Section +1+ Cr.!.C. -eing 3ithout oath and could not -e form as part of

    1'@

    e1idence as defined in Section + of the ;1idence Act. ?herefore, the confession made - the accused under Section +1+ Cr.!.C. cannot -e used against co-accused. ?he disclosure statement ;:.!I1&@*1< and pointing out memo ;:.!I1&@*18 and ;:.!I1&@*1%of accused 2.2.Aggar3al are not sufficient to con1ict him -ecause in pursuance of the disclosure statement, nothing 3as reco1ered. ?he retracted confession of co-accused cannot -e the -ase of con1iction 3ithout an corro-oration. It must start 3ith other e1idence adduced - the prosecution and after forming its opinion 3ith regard to Hualit and affect of said e1idence, the confession ma -e referred to in order to fortif the conclusion 3hich the court is a-out to reach. So, the e1idence placed on record against accused 2.2.Aggar3al is intrinsicall unrelia-le and inherentl impro-a-le to pro1e his guilt. ++. 1er So far as the case of accused 0inda is concerned, the prosecution is much rel ing upon the testimon of !I-+ as 3ell as the confessional

    statement of co-accused Jagdish ;:.!S. As per the role attri-uted - the CBI to accused 0inda is not different from one (im and Anjala, 3ho deposed as !I-8' and !I-'+ respecti1el as prosecution 3itnesses, 3ho had also stated that the rendered their ser1ices as a Nurse in the hospital -eing run at !alam >ihar, =urgaon. It is 1er strange that the In1estigating 9fficer has -een citing them as a prosecution 3itnesses and 0inda 3as arra ed as a accused 3hile she also pla ed the same role as pla ed - !I-8' and !I-'+. ?he In1estigating officer did not e:plain the reason as to 3h he arra ed them as a 3itness and some un-e:plaina-le act 3as done - the In1estigating officer or something fish 3as done that the said person namel (im and Anjala 3ere cited as 3itnesses despite the fact that their role as per the CBI is not different from that of 0inda. Had the CBI 3anted to cite (im and Anjala as 3itnesses, the proper procedure 3as first made them as accused

    1'<

    and thereafter, 3ith the permission of the court made them as appro1ers and then the can appear as 3itnesses in a case against accused 0inda. ?his fact goes to sho3 that the In1estigating officer did not follo3 the proper procedure at the time of in1estigation and also did not collect the con1incing e1idence against accused 0inda. +@. ?he main lim- of argument of learned defence counsel is that 0inda

    3as first time identified - !I-+ in the court and first time identification in court ha1ing no 1alue in the e es of la3. ?o -uttress his contention, he placed reliance in case #ir-hari 9s. State ('C? o% De*hi) 2212(1) RCR (Cri) 1)1 3herein it 3as held that, Lidentification of accused 3as made - the 3itness for the first time in the court during recording of e1idence. ?his statement, therefore, has 1er little e1identiar 1alue.M ?he prosecution case is -ased on the confession, retracted lateron, and the ans3ers gi1en - co-accused in the statement recorded under Section +1+ Cr.!.C. are 3ea" t pe of e1idence and con1iction cannot -e -ased on such t pe of 3ea" e1idence. In the criminal case, the allegations are to -e pro1ed -e ond shado3 of reasona-le dou-t. ?here is no independent 3itness to pro1e the alleged allegations against accused 0inda. +<. So far as the case of accused Jee1an is concerned, the prosecution

    placed reliance confessional statement of accused Saraj 2umar ;:.!P and Jagdish ;:.!S. Besides this, there is not a shred of an incriminating e1idence against the accused. It has not come in the e1idence of an recipients or the alleged donors or their related 3itnesses that accused Jee1an 2umar e1er rendered an ser1ices and recei1ed an pa ment*mone from the alleged recipients or offer*promise to ma"e pa ment to alleged donors for human organs. Accued Jee1an 2umar 3as ne1er named an donor in their statements recorded under Section 181 Cr.!.C.

    1'8

    /oreo1er, all the donors appeared in the court stated that the

    made their

    statements under Section 18@ Cr.!.C. under pressure, compulsion and threat. ?he main role attri-uted to accused Jee1an is that Jee1an had purchased the dial sis machine -ut !I-+% stated that he 3as supplied a dial sis machine !HJ-&11$ to one star (iagnostic @*<&, 2arol Bagh, Ne3 (elhi 1ide in1oice ;:.!I+%*1 dated '.@.1))). No document of alleged machine or 3itness statement is on case file 3hich sho3s that the said firm Star (iagnostics 2arol Bagh, Ne3 (elhi -elongs to 3hom and 3hat "ind of -usiness 3as done - it. ?he another 3itness (r. >andana 0al appeared as !I-<) and deposed that the mainl recei1ed reHuisition slip along-3ith photo of patient from accused ,pender. She further stated that the handed o1er all the record pertaining to patient referred to - accused ,pender to the CBI in form of C( during in1estigation 1ide letter ;:.!I<)*+. She has not seen an C( in the court 3hich 3as supplied - them to the CBI. Nothing is on case file 3hich sho3s that Jee1an 2umar 3as e1er in1ol1ed in an alleged crime or for3arded an alleged sample for an test to the said 0al !aths 0a-. ?here is no document on the file 3hich sho3s that Jee1an 3as e1er referred to for an test to the said la-. !I-@+ stated that he issued the In1oices and all the In1oices are in fa1our of /*S 0i-ert Health Care, Bi"aji Cama !alace, (elhi and one ,mesh 3as used to collect the deli1er from the shop. ,mesh 2umar has alread -een

    discharged - the CBI. In1oices does not -ear the name of -u er as Jee1an 2umar nor prosecution placed an document sho3ing that the pa ment 3as made accused Jee1an 2umar. None of the 3itness e:amined - the prosecution e1er stated that Jee1an 2umar 3as rendering his ser1ices to an patient or to an hospital for the purpose of transplantation of human organs. ?he prosecution has failed to place an salar account of Jee1an 2umar li"e other emplo ees of /*S

    1'%

    0i-ert Health Care !1t. 0td. =urgaon to pro1e that accused Jee1an 2umar 3as associated 3ith accused Amit 2umar. Apart from the a-o1e-said e1idence, the prosecution also relied upon the confessional statement recorded under Section 18@ Cr.!.C. of co-accused Saraj 2umar ;:.!P, Jagdish ;:.!S and = asudeen ;:.!7. It is esta-lished on the record that all the a-o1e-said co-accused filed their retraction respecti1el against the confessional statement. ?he retracted confession is 1er 3ea" t pe of e1idence and con1iction cannot -e -ased on such t pe of e1idence 3ithout an corro-oration. In the criminal case, the allegations are to -e pro1ed -e ond shado3 of reasona-le dou-t. +8. .rom the totalit of a-o1e-said discussion, it is 1i1idl clear from the

    e1idence of the prosecution that accused Amit, ,pender, /anoj, = asudeen and Shahid ha1e rendered their ser1ices and also associated 3ith each other for remo1al of human organs i.e. "idne of the alleged donors 3ithout their consent and transplanted to the recipients for 1alua-le consideration. ?he prosecution has misera-l failed to place an credi-le e1idence to -ring home the guilt against accused 2.2.Aggar3al, Saraj 2umar, Jee1an, 0inda and Jagdish for commission of offence alleged against them under Section 1' of ?9H9 Act. ?hese accused are entitled for the -enefit of dou-t. +%. So far as offence under Section 1) is concerned, the prosecution has

    e:amined !I-+ 7ama =arg, !I-1) 7aji1 =arg, !I-&$ Na1deep Singh, !I-&& (r. /amta 2o1ind, !I-&) Sanja Bharga1, !I-+$ /a an" /ahesh3ari, !I-+1 >i"as Aggar3al, !I-+) 7ohit =upta, !I-<1 Niranjan !anj3ani, !I-)@ /anoj Jain, !I-)8 >inod 2umar =arg and !I-)' 2uldeep Singh to pro1e the necessar ingredients as en1isaged under Section 1) of the Act. !I-+ 7ama =arg specificall stated that accused Amit 2umar ad1ised "idne transplantation and he

    1''

    demanded 7s.8 lacs for suppl ing the "idne . ?he amount of 7s.8 lacs 3as paid to accused Amit for that purpose. !I-1) 7aji1 =arg stated that he contacted 3ith accused ,pender and he demanded 7s. ' lacs for "idne transplantation -ut after negotiations, he 3as agreed to operate and transplant "idne for 7s.8 lacs. He paid 7s.+ lacs in ad1ance to accused ,pender. He further stated that the dri1er of the doctor met him near =urgaon and (elhi. ?he dri1er of the doctor came. He and his 3ife accompanied him to the hospital. He further stated that he paid remaining amount to the person 3ho is co1ering his face - mas" after transplantation of "idne of his 3ife. Na1deep Singh !I-&$ stated that he met accused Amit 2umar in his house. Accused Amit 2umar after going through the medical papers of his father assured him that the jo- 3ill -e done. He demanded 7s.1< lacs for the jo-. ?he agreed to his proposal as there 3as Huestion of life of his father. His father 3as ta"en inside the hospital. (octor told him that the operation 3as successful and his father had -een shifted to IC,. !I-&& /amta 2o1ind did not support the case of the prosecution in e:amination-in-chief -ut during cross-e:amination learned !!, she stated that accused Amit demanded 7s.1& lacs from them -ut it 3as finaliBed for 7s. ).$$ lacs. 9n his demand, 7s.+.$$ lac 3as paid as ad1ance and 7s.8.$$ lacs 3as to -e paid -efore the transplantation of "idne . !I-&) Sanja Bharga1 stated that /r. =arg met him to gi1e the reference of accused Amit. /r. =arg too" him to =urgaon. He met accused Amit and he told him the total e:penses for transplantation of "idne is 7s.1&.$$ lacs. He agreed to his proposal. After operation, he 3as ta"en to IC, and later-on, he 3as discharged. He had paid 7s.1&.$$ lacs in cash on the da of his operation. /a an" /ahesh3ari !I+$ stated that she contacted /anoj 2umar. She had sho3n the treatment record to him. 9n seeing her sister and her report, he told that transplantation can -e done.

    1')

    /anoj told her the e:penditure 3ill -e a-out 7s.1&.$$ lacs. /anoj also told that the doctor is in a-road and he 3ill -e -ac" in India after some da s. She further stated that accused told them that transplantation can -e done. He told her that -lood sample is reHuired. /anoj came to them at the gi1en address and too" the sample and 7s.& lacs. After some da s, another sample 3as ta"en and at that time, 7s.&.$$ lacs 3as also paid to them. 9n 1'.1.&$$%, she paid 7s.'.$$ lacs to /anoj. ?hereafter, drip 3as done - /anoj and t3o Nurses 3ere also present there. ?hereafter, her sister 7uchi shifted to 9?. She as"ed a-out her condition -ut accused Amit told that her condition 3as 1er -ad. Amit also too" them to 9?. Her sister 3as unconscious and her -od 3as s3elled. /anoj called am-ulance and her sister 3as shifted to 2alra hospital, (elhi. /anoj got admitted her sister in (elhi -ecause she 3as not ha1ing mone 3ith her. She further stated that /anoj told them that if an -od inHuired regarding transplantation of "idne , then the ha1e told that the got the transplantation from 0uc"no3. Her sister remained in 2alra Hospital a-out 8-% da s -ut the condition -ecame deteriorated. (r. >i"ram 2alra at 2alra Hospital ad1ised them to get remo1e the "idne 3hich had -een

    transplanted, other3ise she 3ill not sur1i1e. /anoj regularl had 1isited 2alra Hospital to inHuire a-out her sisterFs health. !I-+1 >i"as Aggar3al stated that his mother-in-la3 /adhuli"a =upta 3as suffering from "idne failure. He further stated that at a-out +.$$ !/, accused Amit came to hospital and met them and -riefed them a-out the treatment. He demanded 7s. ' lacs for the 3hole treatment. As per agreement, 7s. @ lacs 3ere gi1en in ad1ance and remaining 7s.@ lacs 3as to -e gi1en at the time of operation. ?he paid 7s.@ lacs in ad1ance. He further stated that after surger his mother-in-la3 3as "ept in the hospital for @-< da s. He further stated that after a-out a 3ee", she 3as discharged and the made the

    1)$

    pa ment of remaining amount of 7s. @ lacs in cash. !I-+) 7ohit =upta stated that his father 3as suffering from "idne failure. /anoj 2umar as"ed for 7s.1<.$$ lacs for transplantation and after -argaining amount of 7s.1+.< lacs 3as settled. He further stated that he paid 7s.1+.< lacs in cash to /anoj 2umar. !I-<1 Niranjan !anj3ani stated that he met accused Amit and he e:amined him and he ad1ised him to undergo ne3 "idne transplantation. He told him that total e:penses for the "idne transplantation 3ill -e 7s.%.< lacs and accused Amit told him that he 3ill do e1er thing. After negotiations, he agreed for 7s.@.< lacs. His operation 3as conducted - accused Amit in operation theater and he 3as discharged after fi1e da s. !I-)@ /anoj Jain also supported the prosecution 1ersion and stated that accused /anoj 2umar met his father outside Saroj Hospital. He told his father that he 3ill get the "idne transplanted and total e:penses 3ill -e 7s.1$.$$ to 7s. 1&.$$ lacs. After &-+ da s, accused /anoj 2umar again contacted his father and too" 7s.<$,$$$*- as ad1ance. He further stated that accused /anoj 2umar introduced accused Amit 2umar. Accused Amit 2umar told that he 3ill get the "idne transplanted and he demanded 7s. 1$.$$ to 1&.$$ lacs. Accused /anoj too" -lood sample of his father and also too" 7s.&.$$ lacs. Accused Amit chec"ed up his father and told that he 3ill perform operation and as"ed for the -alance amount of 7s.).$$ lacs. ?he donor 3as arranged the accused and the operation 3as

    successful. He paid the remaining amount. !I-)8 >inod 2umar =arg supported the case to the e:tent that accused /anoj 2umar had ta"en the -lood sample of his father and the had paid 7s.11 lacs for "idne transplantation to /anoj 2umar. !I-)' 2uldeep Singh also stated that he contacted /anoj 2umar and pa ment of 7s.@ lacs 3as made to said /anoj 2umar for "idne transplantation. He met accused Amit and /anoj in =urgaon.

    1)1

    +'.

    After scanning the testimonies of a-o1e-said 3itnesses, it is

    manifestl clear that accused ,pender, Amit, /anoj had recei1ed the pa ment for suppl ing the human organs after negotiations 3ith the recipients. It is clear that these 3ere the commercial dealings in human organs and the ha1e 1iolated the pro1isions of the Act - remo1ing the "idne s of alleged donors. ?his is a matter of serious national concern and there is a sufficient material on the file to infer that all the t3el1e recipients 3ere treated for "idne transplantation - the accused persons after recei1ing the handsome amount. It is e:pedient to mention here that the accused persons namel Amit, ,pender, /anoj, = asudeen and Shahid 3ere in1ol1ed in illegal "idne transplantations. ?he testimonies of the prosecution 3itnesses are trust-3orth and un-impeacha-le to esta-lish that the a-o1e-said accused 3ere in1ol1ed in a "idne rac"et and such act of the accused persons is sufficient to sha"e the soul of our nation 3hen the "idne transplantation scam had -urst open. ?he offences committed - the accused are slur on our nation 3hich cannot -e easil 3ashed a3a . Being the doctors and those associated 3ith and as such, their

    medicines, the accused 3ere part of the elite of societ

    responsi-ilit 3as greater than 3hat one e:pects from a common man. ;ach and e1er human -eing reposes faith in medical fraternit and e1er one has to ta"e resort to medical help. ,ni1ersall the doctors are treated ne:t onl to =od. So the accused ha1e sha"en the faith - remo1ing the "idne of alleged donors - pla ing fraud upon them and transplanted to those persons 3ho paid heft amount to them. ?he e1idence led the prosecution is cogent, credi-le, relia-le and direct

    e1idence and repose confidence in me to accept the prosecution 1ersion as correct to -ring home the guilt against accused Amit, ,pender, /anoj, = asudeen and Shahid in this regard. Accused ,pender and Amit -eing doctors misused the

    1)&

    profession for an o-liHue moti1e, 3hich destro ed the confidence of the pu-lic in the medical profession and the accused persons committed an un-e:cusa-le sin in the societ - remo1ing the "idne of the alleged donors for their o3n -enefit and such t pe of practice should not onl -e depricated -ut should -e chec"ed 3ith an iron hand, other3ise it 3ould -e difficult to maintain confidence of the societ in the persons 3ho attached 3ith the medical profession and running hospitals. (ilutions in this respect is alread there -ut it should not -e allo3ed to further dilute. ?he pious 3or" of the doctors should -e chec"ed -ecause the life of a person is in their hands and such pious 3or" should not -e con1erted into nefarious acti1ities for their personal -enefits. ?he role pla ed condema-le rather it is reprehensi-le also. +). So far as the offence under Section &$ of the Act read 3ith rule ) C doctor is not onl

    4A5 of the transplantation of Human 9rgans 7ules, 1))< is concerned, accused Amit performed unauthoriBed acts of remo1al and transplantation of human organs 4"idne 5 "no3ing full 3ell that he did not ha1e the reHuisite Hualification,

    training and e:perience and he 3as not Hualified doctor for "idne transplantation. As per 7ule ), the reHuired Hualification for "idne transplantation must -e /S 4=en.5 in Surger or eHui1alent 3ith three ears post /S training in recogniBed centre in India or a-road. ?o pro1e this factum, the prosecution e:amined (r. >.N.Sharma as !I-%@ and he stated that he had gi1en the information in the form of letter ;:.!I%@*1 that the accused Amit 3as not ha1ing Hualification for performing the surger for the purposes of "idne transplantation and he also 1iolated the pro1isions of the Act and committed the offence. @$. ?he foremost contention of learned defence counsels is that in 1ie3 of

    the pro1isions of Section && of ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans Act, 1))@, the

    1)+

    cogniBance of offence punisha-le under the Act can onl -e ta"en on a complaint filed - the appropriate authorit or - a person dul authoriBed - the Central or State =o1ernment or appropriate authorit 3hile in the instant case, the challan 3as filed in the shape of complaint. ?herefore, the cogniBance cannot -e ta"en. ?his contention 3as 3riggled out - the counsel for the CBI on the ground that the composite complaint 3as filed - the appropriate authorit and 3hich is 3ell maintaina-le. ?he contention of learned !! for the CBI is meritorious on the ground that it has come in the e1idence that 1ide order dated 11.@.&$$', /s. .eroBa /ehrottra, .inancial Commissioner and !rincipal Secretar to =o1ernment of

    Har ana, Home (epartment in the name and on -ehalf of =o1ernor of Har ana authoriBed Shri 7aji1 (3i1edi (eput S! of ;9,->II Branch of CBI, Ne3 (elhi to file the complaint. 7aji1 (3i1edi appeared as !I-1&8. He collected the rele1ant documents through seiBure memos and also o-tained the e:pert opinions and attached 3ith the complaint. He further stated that after o-taining the reHuired authoriBation from Har ana =o1ernment, he filed the complaint against the present accused. ?herefore, there is no illegalit accused persons. @1. As an off-shot of m a-o1e-said discussion, it is ampl clear that the for filing the complaint against the

    e1idence led - the prosecution is pro-a-le, adeHuate, credi-le and 3orth of credence and repose confidence to pro1e corpus delicti against the accused persons. Hence, accused Amit and ,pender are held guilt for the offences under Sections 1&$-B read 3ith Sections @8<, @%1, @%+ and <$8 of Indian !enal Code, accused ,pender is held guilt under Sections @8<, @%1 and @%+ of I!C and accused Amit is held guilt under Section <$8 of I!C, accused Amit, ,pender, /anoj, = asudeen and Shahid are also held guilt for the offence under Section 1'

    1)@

    and 1) of the Act and con1ict them thereunder. Accused Amit is further held guilt for the offence under Section &$ read 3ith 7ule ) C 4A5 of the ?ransplantation of Human 9rgans 7ules, 1))<. Ho3e1er, accused Amit is acHuitted of the charge framed under Sections +$% and +&8 of Indian !enal Code -ecause the pro1isions of ?9H9 Act shall pre1ail o1er the pro1isions of the I!C. Accused Amit, ,pender 2umar, Jee1an 2umar and Jagdish are also acHuitted of the charge framed under Section +@& I!C. Accused Amit, ,pender 2umar, /anoj, = asudeen, Jagdish and /ohd. Shahid are also acHuitted for the offence under Section @1% of I!C. Accused 2.2.Aggar3al, Jee1an, Jagdish, 0inda, Saraj 2umar 2o1ind are also acHuitted of the charge framed against them due to insufficient e1idence. 0et the accused -e heard on the Huantum of sentence. !ronounced in open court. &&.$+.&$1+. cum4Najar Singh5 Addl. Sessions JudgeSpecial Judge 4CBI5, Har ana at !anch"ula.

    1)<

    !resent#-

    Sh. 7.!.>erma, !u-lic !rosecutor for the CBI. Accused*con1icts Amit 2umar, ,pender, /anoj, = asudeen, /ohd. Shahid along3ith Shri Amit (udeja, Shri /.S.7athi, 0egal Aid Counsel and Shri Shi1 Charan, Ad1ocate.

    6r-er on the Euantum o% senten!eHHeard the con1icts and their counsels and learned !! on the Huantum of sentence. ;ach of the con1icts has made a separate statement 3ith regard to the Huantum of sentence to -e a3arded to them. Con1ict Amit has stated that he is an old age person and remained ill. He is also ha1ing famil mem-ers including his 3ife and minor children 3ho are totall dependent upon him. ?here is no one else to loo"-after his famil . &. Con1ict ,pender stated that he is an old aged person and remained ill

    as he is a heart and dia-etic patient. He has completel lost his 1ision of right e e during custod . He has famil mem-ers including his 3ife and son 3ho are totall dependent upon him. His 3ife has undergone heart surger in Apollo Hospital, (elhi and his son 3ho 3as a medical student had to discontinue his studies due to financial crisis as he is the onl -read earner of his famil . +. Con1ict /ohd. Shahid stated that he is a poor person. He is also

    ha1ing famil mem-ers including his 3ife and one daughter. His daughter is a di1orcee and li1ing 3ith his 3ife, 3ho are totall dependent upon him. @. Con1ict /anoj stated that he is a poor person and he also has famil

    mem-ers including his parent, 3ife and t3o sons 3ho are aged % and ' ears 3ho are totall dependent upon him. ?here is no other mem-er in his famil 3ho can loo"-after them. He has alread spent four ears 1$ months in jail.

    1)8

    <.

    Con1ict = asudeen also stated that he is a poor person. He is the

    1ictim in the hands of the conspirators and he is not a pre1ious con1ict. All the con1icts ha1e also pra ed to ta"e a lenient in the matter of sentence. 8. ?he learned defence counsels for con1icts ha1e su-mitted that

    the con1icts are in custod for the last more than fi1e ears and their famil ha1e -een totall ruined and pra ed that - ta"ing a lenient 1ie3, the ma -e released from custod after a3arding the sentence alread undergone during the trial. %. ?he learned !u-lic !rosecutor for the CBI contested the

    arguments ad1anced on -ehalf of the con1icts and has pra ed that the ma -e a3arded most se1ere punishment as the ha1e indulged in a 1er heinous crime. Being doctors and those alied 3ith the medical profession, the ha1e not acted in a manner -ecoming of them. ?he had made efforts to conceal their misdeeds and the are not repentant a-out their -eha1ior. Such li"e persons, 3ho are the cream of the societ , must not -e let off easil 3hen the indulged in committing the offence deli-eratel . /erel -ecause the ha1e faced the rigours of trial is no reason to ta"e a lenient 1ie3 in the matter as the trial is the result of their o3n actions. So far as the agon faced - them and their famil is concerned, it is again the responsi-ilit of perpetators of the crimes themsel1es i.e. the con1icts. ?he seriousness of the offences does not merit that the lenienc -e ta"en. '. Ha1ing heard the ri1al su-missions made - learned counsel for

    the parties and con1icts themsel1es, this court is of the considered opinion that this court 3ould -e failing in its dut in case the con1icts are permitted to -e let off 3ith lenienc . ?he con1icts are all associated 3ith the most no-le profession i.e. medicine. ;ach and e1er human -eing reposes faith in the medical fraternit and the con1icts ha1e sha"en that faith. Being doctors and those associated 3ith

    1)%

    medicines committed un-e:cusa-le sin in the societ 3hile their responsi-ilit 3as far greater than 3hat one e:pects of a common man. ?hough the ha1e -een con1icted, all the fi1e con1icts continued to plead innocence and in the name of their famil mem-ers, 3ho are suffering 3ithout the head of the famil , it has -een pleaded - them that a lenient 1ie3 -e ta"en. ?he argument that a lenient 1ie3 ma -e ta"en as the are in custod for a long time, has -een ta"en care of 3hile a3arding the sentence. ?his Court shall al3a s s mapthise 3ith the families of 3rong doers as the also suffer 3hene1er a con1ict is punished. Ho3e1er, the la3 must ta"e its o3n course and "eeping in 1ie3 the entiret of the facts and

    circumstances of the case, the age of the con1icts, antecedents, seriousness and gra1it of the offence on 3hich the ha1e -een held guilt and that three con1icts namel Amit, ,pender and Shahid ha1e alread -een con1icted and sentenced, therefore, the con1icts are sentenced as under#Sr.No. 1 Accused Amit K ,pender Con1icted under Sections 1&$-B r*3 Sections @8<,@%1,@%+ and <$8 I!C <$8 I!C Sentence of Imprisonment*.ine imposed. 7igorous Imprsionment for % ears each and to pa a fine of 7s.<< lacs each. In default, 7igorous Imprisonment for a further period of one ear and si: months each. 7igorous Imprsionment for & ears and to pa a fine of 7s. .i1e 0acs. In default, 7igorous Imprisonment for a further period of one ear. 7igorous Imprsionment for & ears and to pa a fine of 7s.one lac and fift thousand. In default, 7igorous Imprisonment for a further period of si: months. 7igorous Imprsionment for & ears and to pa a fine of 7s.one lac and fift thousand. In default, 7igorous Imprisonment for a further period of si: months. 7igorous Imprsionment for < ears and to pa a fine of 7s. ?3o lac. In default, 7igorous Imprisonment for a further period of one ear. 7igorous Imprsionment for @ ears

    &.

    Amit

    +.

    ,pender

    @8< I!C

    @.

    ,pender

    @%1 I!C

    <.

    ,pender

    @%+ I!C

    8.

    Amit,

    ,pender, 1' of ?9H9 Act

    1)' /anoj, = asudeen and /ohd. Shahid. %. Amit, ,pender, 1) of the ?9H9 Act /ohd. Shahid, /anoj and = asudeen Amit &$ of the ?9H9 Act. each and to pa a fine of 7s.<,$$$*each. In default, 7igorous Imprisonment for a further period of one ear each. 7igorous Imprsionment for @ ears 8 months each and to pa a fine of 7s.1<,$$$*- each. In default, 7igorous Imprisonment for a further period of one ear each. 7igorous Imprsionment for & ears and to pa a fine of 7s.<,$$$*-. In default, 7igorous Imprisonment for a further period of si: months.

    '.

    ?he period of imprisonment during in1estigation and trial - the con1icts shall -e set-off against the Huantum of sentence a3arded upon them. All the su-stanti1e sentences shall run concurrentl . It is 3orth-3hile to mention here that after reco1er of fine amount, out of the same, 7s. 1$ lacs each -e paid as compensation to the 1ictims namel Ba-u 7am, Sha"eel and Shahid. Cop of judgment -e supplied to each of the con1icts free of costs. Jail 3arrants -e prepared. .ile -e consigned to the record room after due compliance. !ronounced in the open court. &&.$+.&$1+. 4Najar Singh5 Addl. Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge 4CBI5, Har ana at !anch"ula.

    1))

    S-ar putea să vă placă și