Delhi District Court
State vs Som Nath Bharti Ors on 24 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA MITTAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-03
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
State Vs Somnath Bharti
(Ex-Law Minister, GNCTD) and Ors.
DLCT12-000141-2019
CR Cases No.17/2019
FIR No.76/2014
Police Station : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of the case : 29.09.2014
Date of reserving for judgment : 17.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.04.2026
a. Serial No. of the case CC No. 17/2019
b. Date of commission of offence Intervening night of
15/16.01.2014
c. Name of the complainant Ms. "D" (Identity hidden)
d. Name, parentage and address 1. Somnath Bharti
of accused persons S/o Sh. Sita Ram Bharti
R/o Nil 26, Nil Block,
Malviya Nagar, New
Delhi.
2. Aditya
S/o Dr. Prem Kumar
R/o 801, Sector-A,
Pocket-C, Vasant Kunj,
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 1 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:00:25 +0530
New Delhi.
3. Badlu Khan
S/o Sh. Tej Khan
R/o 149, Hauz Rani,
Malviya Nagar, New
Delhi
4. Badal Khan @ Nafees
Ahmed S/o Sh. Anees
Ahmed Khan, R/o JD-
17/8, 1st Floor Left Side
Khirki Extn., Malviya
Nagar New Delhi & 265,
Hauz Rani, New Delhi.
5. Deepak Chauhan
S/o Sh. Ramprakash
R/o H.No.2, Village
Khirki Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi. (Discharged
vide order dated
02.03.2019 passed by
Ld. ASJ in Revision
Petition).
6. Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Govardhan Singh
R/o Village Khirki,
Malviya Nagar, New
Delhi (declared as
proclaimed offender
vide order dated
25.10.2018)
Digitally signed Page no 2 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:00:35 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
7. Pawan Saini
S/o Shri Kishan Saini
R/o H.No.163A/2,
Village Khirki, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi
8. Naresh Saini
S/o Lt. Jagbir Saini
R/o H.No.163A/4,
Village Khirki, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi.
9. Dharam Chand Rana
S/o Shri Dhoom Singh
Rana R/o H.No.134,
Village Khirki Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi.
10.Ved Saini
S/o Shri Balbir Saini
R/o R-65, Khirki Extn.
Malviya Nagar, New
Delhi
11.Rajesh Saini @ Bittu
S/o Shri Kishan Saini
R/o H. No. 163A/1,
Village Khirki, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi.
12. Hemant Saini
S/o Shri Inder Saini
R/o H.No.R-86A, Khirki
Digitally signed Page no 3 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:00:43 +0530
Extn., Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
13.Sanjeev Saini @ Bittoo
S/o Shri Jai Singh Saini
R/o H.No.H.No.159,
Village Khirki, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi.
14.Vijay Saini @ Bobby
S/o Shri Lt. Jagbir Saini
R/o H.No.163A/4,
Village Khirki, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi.
15.Devender Chauhan
S/o Shri Rajpal Chauhan
R/o H.No.5, Village
Khirki, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
16.Anil Saini @ Pappi
S/o Shri Raj Kumar Saini
R/o Village Khirki,
Malviya Nagar, New
Delhi.
17.Inder Saini
S/o Sh. Balbir Saini
R/o R-86A, Khirki Extn.,
Malviya Nagar, New
Delhi.
18.Shyamlal Saini
S/o Lt. Mir Singh
Page no 4 of 111
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:00:51 +0530
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
R/o H.No.160, Village
Khirki, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
e. Offence complained of U/s 323/354/354C/153A/147/
149/452/186/353/356/143/152/
506/509/ 427/ 341/342/ 34 IPC
f. Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty
g. Final Order Acquittal
h. Date of Judgment 24.04.2026
Digitally signed Page no 5 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:01:03 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
INDEX
SL.No. PARTICULARS PAGE No.
1. Brief statement of facts 8
2. Charge 10
3. Prosecution Evidence 11-35
4. Statement of accused persons 35-38
under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C.
5. Defence Evidence 38-51
6. Final Arguments
• Arguments by Ld. SPP for 51-54
the State
• Arguments on behalf of 55-56
accused persons (A-7 to A-14)
and (A-16 to A-17)
• Arguments on behalf of 57-60
Accused No.1
• Arguments on behalf of 60
Accused No.2
• Arguments on behalf of 61
Accused No.18/Shyam Lal Saini
• Rebuttal Arguments by Ld. 61
SPP for the State
7. Appreciation of Evidence
and Findings
• Admissibility of electronic 64-68
evidence vis-a-vis certificate u/s
65-B of Indian Evidence Act
• Admissibility of statements 68-71
u/s 164 Cr.P.C. without
examination of victims as
Digitally signed Page no 6 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:01:16 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
witnesses
• Identity of accused persons 71-73
vis-a-vis non-conduct of Test
Identification Parade
• Constitution of unlawful 73-79
assembly
• Identification of the Alleged 79-81
Victims
• Delay in Registration of FIR 81-83
• Defence raised by the 83-86
accused persons
• Liability for separate charges 86-110
8. Conclusion 110
Digitally signed Page no 7 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:15:34 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall proceed to decide the
instant matter emanating from the FIR no.76/2014 registered
under sections 323/354/354C/153A/147/149/452/186/353/356/143/152/
506/509/427/341/342/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC‘).
2. The present FIR has been registered in compliance of
order dated 18.01.2014 passed on an application filed under
Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) by the complainant “D”. The names of
the victims have been hidden in order to protect their identity in
compliance of directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
judgment ‘Nipun Saxena & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors‘.
However, for the convenience of the parties i.e. prosecution
and the accused persons; and the superior courts, the names
of the victims along-with their corresponding pseudo names
are mentioned on a separate sheet annexed with the
judgment, to be kept in a sealed cover, accessible only to the
aforementioned.
Brief Statement of Facts:
3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the present case, as per the
FIR, are that the complainant came to India on 03.01.2017 and
hired an accommodation in Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi. It is alleged that on the night of 15/16.01.2014 at
around 2 a.m., when the complainant was present at the aforesaid
Digitally signed Page no 8 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:15:44 +0530
address, around ten unknown persons having wooden
sticks/lathis in their hands started shouting at the complainant to
open the door. It is further stated that when she opened the door,
they entered in her room without her permission and forcefully
asked her to produce her passport and upon her resistance, one of
them slapped her and held her by neck. It is further stated that
the said persons checked the bag of the complainant on the basis
of their claim that she was hiding drugs in her bag. It is further
stated that when she tried to contact the police from her
cellphone, the said persons shouted that as the complainant is
black, the Indian police will not help her and they also said “we
are tired of blacks, why don’t you go back to your country”. It is
further stated that when the complainant showed them her return
ticket, the same was forcibly taken from her and was torn up. It is
further alleged that they threatened to kill the complainant if she
does not leave the country. It is further alleged that they
humiliated the complainant by touching her various body parts
and then they forced the complainant to come out of her house.
It is further stated that after the incident, while watching TV, the
complainant identified the aforesaid assailants and came to know
that they were from Aam Aadmi Party led by local MLA
Somnath Bharti/accused no. 1.
4. During investigation, it was revealed that there are other
victims/foreign nationals who were harassed in manner similar to
that of the complainant on the same night. Statement of
Digitally signed Page no 9 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:15:51 +0530
complainant and other victims were got recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. It was further revealed during investigation that the
accused persons firstly apprehended two Ugandian women
namely Ms. “S1” and Ms. “S2” who were coming in a taxi,
manhandled them and compelled them to sit in PCR. Thereafter,
the accused persons entered H.No.S-9, Khirki Extension,
Malviya Ngagar, New Delhi and manhandled two other women
namely S3 and S4 apart from Ms. “D” on whose complaint the
present FIR has been registered. Thereafter, the accused
persons/mob came out of the house and stopped one Ecco Car
No.DL-3CBV-2984 in which four Ugandian women were
traveling namely M, N, N@P and A@J and they all were
molested and manhandled by the mob. All the aforesaid victims
were got medically examined and their statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. were got recorded. CCTV footage of the incident
was collected and after completion of investigation, the present
chargesheet was filed.
Filing of Charge Sheet and Framing of Charge:
5. After the completion of investigation, the charge sheet in
the instant case was filed on 29.09.2014 under Section
323/354/354C/153A/147/149/452/186/353/356/143/152/506/509/
427/341/342/34 IPC. Thereafter, supplementary charge-sheet
was filed by the IO on 03.10.2015. Cognizance in the present
matter was taken vide order dated 15.07.2016.
6. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.06.2018 passed by Ld.
Digitally signed
by NEHA
Page no 10 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:15:59 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
Predecessor of this court, all the accused persons except accused
Anil (who has been declared as proclaimed offender vide order
dated 25.10.2018) were charged under Section
323/354/354C/153A/147/143/152/186/506/509/427/342 IPC read
with Section 149 IPC. Revision petition against the said order
filed by accused Shyamlal Saini was dismissed by Ld. Sessions
Court vide order dated 24.09.2018. However, the revision
petition filed by accused Deepak Chauhan S/o Sh. Krishan Pal
Singh (mentioned as Deepak Chauhan S/o Sh. Ram Prakash in
the chargesheet) was allowed vide order dated 02.03.2019 and he
was discharged of all the charges.
Evidence Led By The Prosecution:
7. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined
32 witnesses in total, who are as under:-
Prosecution Name of the Witness Role of the witness
Witness
PW-1 Dr. Abhishek Kothari Formal witness to prove
MLCs.
PW-2 Sh. Deepak Kumar Seizure witness of
CCTV footage of
AIIMS
PW-3 Sh. Dharamveer Prajapati Seizure witness of
CCTV footage of the
incident
PW-4 Sh. Aditya Kaushik Independent Eye witness
PW-5 Sh. Nitin Jain Independent Eye witness
PW-6 Sh. Kulwant Singh Independent Eye witness
PW-7 Sh. Yash Seizure witness of
Digitally signed Page no 11 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:16:05
Date: 2026.04.24
+0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
CCTV footage of the
incident
PW-8 ASI Sri Krishan Formal police witness
(Recorded DD No.6A)
PW-9 ASI Permanand Formal police witness
(Registered FIR)
PW-10 W/Ct. Kamlesh Police witness/Eye witness
PW-11 ASI Rajender Singh Police witness/Eye witness
PW-12 Ct. Sachin Police witness/Eye witnessPW-13 Sh. Sanjay Singh Photographer
PW-14 ASI Sanjay Toppo Formal police witness
PW-15 Retd. ACP Sh. B.S. Police witness/Eye witness
JakharPW-16 W/Ct. Mamta Formal police witness
PW-17 Retd. ACP Sh. Harpal Police witness/Eye witness
Singh
PW-18 Inspector S.S. Yadav Formal police witnessPW-19 Inspector Vijay Pal Police witness/Eye witness
PW-20 HC Jitender Formal police witness
(produced case property)
PW-21 Inspector Bega Ram Investigating OfficerPW-22 W/SI Mukesh Seizure witness of L
shaped iron angle and
newspaper
PW-23 Inspector Ajay Kumar Seizure witness of CD of
place of incident
PW-24 SI Amit Kumar Seizure witness of CCTV
footage
PW-25 Dr. Zameer Ahmad Formal witness to prove
MLCs.
PW-26 Inspector Raman Lamba Investigating Officer
Digitally signed Page no 12 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:16:10 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
PW-27 ASI Jitender Formal police witness
(produced case property)
PW-28 Sh. V.B. Ramteke Formal witness from CFSL
(to prove FSL report)
PW-29 ACP Pramod Singh Police witness (gave
Kushwaha complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C.)
PW-30 ACP Vijay Chandel Investigating OfficerPW-31 Sh. O.P. Mishra Formal witness (gave
sanction u/s 196 Cr.P.C.)
PW-32 Sh. V. Lakshmi Formal witness from FSL
Narasimhan (proved FSL report)
8. Further, to prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon
the following evidences/documents:
Sl. Description of Evidence Exhibits Proved By
No.
1. MLC No.408245 of Ms. Ex.PW1/A PW-1
“S1”
2. MLC No.408244 of Ms. Ex.PW1/B PW-1
“S2”
3. Seizure Memo of CCTV Ex.PW2/A PW-2
footage of main emergency
AIIMS
4. Seizure Memo of CCTV Ex.PW3/A PW-3
footage of the incident
produced by ABP News.
5. Certificate u/s 65B Indian Ex.PW3/B PW-3
Evidence Act with respect
to the footage which was
seized vide Seizure Memo
Ex.PW3/A.
6. CD which was seized vide Ex.PW3/C PW-3
Seizure Memo Ex.PW3/A.
7. Seizure Memo of CCTV Ex.PW7/A PW-7
footage of the incidentDigitally signed Page no 13 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:16:16 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
produced by ANI.
8. CD which was seized vide Ex.PW7/C PW-7
Seizure Memo Ex.PW7/A. (also exhibited
as Ex.PW24/B)
9. Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW7/D PW-7
10. DD No.6A dated Ex.PW8/A PW-8
16.01.2014, PS Malviya
Nagar
11. FIR 76/2014, PS Malviya Ex.PW9/A PW-9
Nagar
12. Endorsement on FIR Ex.PW9/B PW-9
13. Statement of PW-11 ASI Ex.PW11/A PW-11
Rajender Singh recorded u/s
161 Cr.P.C.
14. Statement of PW-12 Ct. Ex.PW12/A PW-12
Sachin recorded u/s 161
Cr.P.C.
15. Photographs of place of Ex.PW13/1 PW-13
incident. (Colly)
16. CD of the video recording Ex.PW13/2 PW-13
of the place of incident.
17. PCR Form-1 Ex.PW14/1 PW-14
18. Letter dated 12.04.2013 Ex.PW-19/ PW-19
sent to SHO, PS:Malviya A-1
Nagar issued by Mahesh
Kaushik, General Secretary,
SSMS (Regd.)
19. Letter dated 30.10.2013 Ex.PW-19/ PW-19
sent to SHO issued by A-2
Mahesh Kaushik, General
Secretary, SSMS (Regd.)
20. Case property i.e. L shape Ex.PW20/X PW-20
iron angle
21. Seizure Memo of L shape Ex.PW22/A PW-22
iron angle
22. Seizure Memo of Ex.PW22/B PW-22
NewspaperDigitally signed Page no 14 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:16:24 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
23. Case property i.e. Ex.PW22/C PW-22
Newpaper
24. Seizure Memo of CCTV Ex.PW23/A PW-23
footage of the incident
produced by TV Today
Network.
25. Covering Letter Ex.PW23/B PW-23
26. CD which was seized vide Ex.PW23/B1 PW-23
Seizure Memo
Ex.PW23/A.
27. Seizure Memo of letter Ex.PW24/A PW-24
28. MLC No. 614/14, 615/14, Ex.PW25A to PW-25
616/14 and 617/14 all dated Ex.PW25/D
16.01.2014
29. Order of DCP (South) dated Ex.PW26/A PW-26
24.04.2014
30. Statement of complainant Ex.PW26/B PW-26
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Objected to by
Ld. Counsel for
accused on the
ground that the
statement is not
in handwriting
of PW26 and
the signatory of
said statement
has not
appeared in the
court).
31. Written request for Ex.PW26/C PW-26
recording of statement of
complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
32. Statement of complainant Ex.PW26/D PW-26
u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Objected to by
Ld. Counsel for
accused on the
ground that the
statement is not
in handwriting
of PW26 and
the signatory ofDigitally signed Page no 15 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:16:30
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
said statement
has not
appeared in the
court).
33. Site Plan Ex.PW26/E PW-26
34. MLC No.809/14 of the Ex.PW26/F PW-26
complainant (Objected to by
Ld. Counsel for
accused)
35. Statement of victims Ex.PW26/G to PW-26
namely “S3”, “S2”, “S1” Ex.PW26/J
and “M” u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Objected to by
Ld. Counsel for
accused on the
ground that the
statement is not
in handwriting
of PW26 and
the signatory of
said statement
has not
appeared in the
court).
36. Written request for Ex.PW26/K PW-26
recording of statement of
four victims.
37. Statement of four victims Ex.PW26/L to PW-26
namely “S3”, “S2”, “S1” Ex.PW26/O
and “M” u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Objected to by
Ld. Counsel for
accused on the
ground that the
statement is not
in handwriting
of PW26 and
the signatory of
said statement
has not
appeared in the
court).
38. Written request for Ex.PW26/P PW-26
Digitally signed Page no 16 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:16:38 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
recording of statement of
two victims namely S4 and
N@P, and one witness
namely Balram
39. Statement of two victims Ex.PW26/Q to PW-26
namely S4 and N@P, and Ex.PW26/S
one witness namely Balram (Objected to by
u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel for
accused on the
ground that the
statement is not
in handwriting
of PW26 and
the signatory of
said statement
has not
appeared in the
court).
40. Written request for Ex.PW26/T PW-26
recording of statement of
two victims namely Ms.
“A@J”, Ms. “N” and two
witnesses namely Aditya
Kaushik and Suman
Chaudhary.
41. Statement of two victims Ex.PW26/U to PW-26
namely Ms. “A@J”, Ms. Ex.PW26/X
“N” and two witnesses (Objected to by
namely Aditya Kaushik and Ld. Counsel for
Suman Chaudhary u/s 164 accused on the
Cr.P.C. ground that the
statement is not
in handwriting
of PW26 and
the signatory of
said statement
has not
appeared in the
court).
42. Notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW26/Y to PW-26
Ex.PW26/Y4
43. Site Plan Ex.PW26/Z PW-26
Digitally signed Page no 17 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:16:44 +0530
44. Photocopy of Mud No.2123 Ex.PW27/A PW-27
(OSR)
45. FSL report dated Ex.PW28/A PW-28
09.10.2014.
46. Complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW29/A PW-29
47. Sanction u/s 196 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW31/A PW-31
48. FSL report dated Ex.PW32/A PW-32
28.08.2014
9. It is pertinent to mention here that despite repeated
opportunities, prosecution could not produce the witnesses
mentioned at Sl. No.1, 2 and 8 and hence, they were dropped
from the list of witnesses vide order dated 29.11.2022.
Subsequently, vide order dated 10.01.2023 witnesses mentioned
at Sl. No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 were also dropped from the list of
witnesses. Pertinently, all the aforesaid witnesses were the
victims in the present case and have not been examined by the
prosecution. Two other prosecution witnesses namely Balwant
and Balram were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order
dated 18.03.2020 as they were untraceable. PW Suman
Chaudhary was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order
dated 10.01.2020 on filing of her death verification report.
10. Before proceeding further, this court deems it
appropriate to discuss the role as well as crux and essence of the
testimonies of the prosecution witness. The witnesses examined
by the prosecution can be categorized as eye-witnesses, formal
witnesses, expert witnesses, seizure memo witnesses and
Digitally signed Page no 18 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:16:49 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
investigating officers. The relevant portion of their testimonies is
being discussed hereunder.
10.1 EYE WITNESSES
The eye-witnesses of the incident can be further categorized into
three categories i.e. private individuals, police officials and
media personnel.
10.1.1 Private Individuals
(a) PW-4 Sh. Aditya Kaushik deposed that he is resident
of S-9, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and on
15.01.2014 at around 12-12.30 AM. in the night, there was some
ruckus in the lane adjacent to his house where some Africans
were residing as tenants and crowd had gathered. He deposed
that he saw the incident from his balcony. He further deposed
that people in the crowd were wearing cap of Aam Aadmi Party.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot
identify who was present in the crowd.
10.1.2 Media Personnel
(a) PW-5 Sh. Nitin Jain from TV Today Network
deposed that in the intervening night of 15/16.01.2014, he along-
with his cameraman Kulwant reached at the place of incident
where they saw accused No.1 Somnath Bharti was standing with
3-4 local persons and police personnel including ACP Jakhar and
SHO was present. He further deposed that there was an Ecco car
Digitally signed Page no 19 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:16:55 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
in which some police personnel and few Africans were sitting
and accused No.1 Somnath Bharti was asking ACP Jhakhar to
raid some building as he was claiming that illegal activities were
going on there. He further deposed that on his inquiry from
accused No.1, he stated that prostitution racket was being
operated from the building and no action was being taken by the
police, accused no.1 was asking to call female cops. He further
stated that some verbal altercations also took place between
accused No.1 and ACP as the latter was reluctant to take action
saying it was night time whereas accused No.1 was adamant that
if no action is taken in time, those involved in prostitution and
drug racket will flee. Thereafter, the van was taken to hospital for
medical examination of African females on the orders of ACP.
He further deposed that he made the video of the incident and the
same was handed over to his office. He identified only accused
No.1 Somnath Bharti correctly. He was duly cross examined on
behalf of all the accused persons.
(b) PW-6 Sh. Kulwant Singh, Cameraman from TV
Today Network deposed that in 2014, he shot the incident on the
instructions of PW-5 and saw that there was some altercation
going on between Somnath Bharti (A-1) and ACP. He further
deposed that he saw a van parked there in which some policemen
and women were sitting. He also took the sound byte of accused
No.1 and after shooting the incident, submitted the cassette to
PW-5. He identified only accused No.1 Somnath Bharti
correctly. He was duly cross examined on behalf of all the
Digitally signed Page no 20 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:17:00
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
accused persons.
10.1.3 Police Officials
(a) PW-10 W/Ct. Kamlesh deposed that in the
intervening night of 15/16.01.2014, she along-with SHO
Inspector Vijay Pal Singh and ASI Suresh reached at Sai Baba
Mandir, Khirki Extension to attend a call where they saw that in
a PCR van, two Ugandian women were sitting and accused No.1
Somnath Bharti along-with 10-15 supporters were stopping and
checking the vehicles. She further deposed that thereafter a car
was stopped by accused No.1 and his supporters in which three
trans-gender were traveling and the accused persons asked the
SHO to verify their identity. Upon verification by police staff,
they were allowed to go. Thereafter, a male African sitting in an
auto was also stopped in similar fashion and was allowed to go
after verification. The two women sitting in PCR van were also
allowed to leave after verification. Thereafter, a person named
Captain came at the spot and took the accused persons to S-9,
Khirki Extension stating that illegal activities by African females
are carried out there. Upon reaching S-9, the accused persons
started knocking the door and asked the SHO to search the
building and it is only after persuasion by police officials and
some altercation, accused No.1 and his supporters came at some
distance from the building but accused No.1 was still adamant for
the police to search the house. In the meanwhile, an Ecco car in
which four foreigners women were traveling was stopped by the
supporters of accused No.1 and the accused no.1 asked the SHO
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 21 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:17:06 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
to frisk and search the women in front of video camera. She
further deposed that ACP Jakhar came at the spot and altercation
took place between ACP and accused no.1 on the said issue. She
further deposed that two women sitting in the car were forced to
urinate near the car as accused no.1 and his supporters did not
allow them to move from car for urination. Thereafter, ACP
Harpal Singh came at the spot who stated that female police will
search these women by taking them to side or in front of local
women to which accused No.1 did not agree and accordingly,
altercation continued. Thereafter, at about 4.30 AM., the four
females along-with SI S.S. Yadav, Ct. Sunil and two supporters
of accused no.1 were taken to AIIMS for medical examination.
She identified only accused No.1 Somnath Bharti correctly. She
was duly cross-examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(b) PW-11 ASI Rajinder Singh was the Incharge of PCR
Van E-16. He deposed that in the intervening night of
15/16.01.2014, while he was stationed along with Ct.
Sachin/PW-12 at Main Market, Malviya Nagar, accused no.1
came in Innova Car and asked him to follow his car. After
informing Eagle-1, he followed accused no.1 till Sai Baba
Mandir, Khirki Extension. Thereafter, accused no.1 alighted from
his car and asked his associates to bring two Nigro ladies who
were made to sit in the PCR van. He stated that accused no.1
asked him to call SHO on the spot upon which he informed
control room and SHO, PS Malviya Nagar along with SI Gopi
Digitally signed Page no 22 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:17:12 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
Ram reached. In the meanwhile, accused persons stopped a
vehicle in which trans-gender were traveling. Thereafter, on the
instructions of SHO Malviya Nagar, he dropped the Nigro
women sitting in PCR van at PS and handed over them to Duty
Officer. He identified only accused No.1 Somnath Bharti
correctly. He was duly cross examined on behalf of all the
accused persons.
(c) PW-12 Ct. Sachin deposed that in the intervening
night of 15/16.01.2014, his duty was on E-16. He stated that on
that day while he was stationed alongwith ASI Rajinder
Singh/PW-11 at Main Market, Malviya Nagar, accused no.1
came in his Innova Car and asked Incharge/PW-11 to follow his
car. After taking permission from control room, he followed
accused no.1 till Sai Baba Mandir, Khirki Extension. Thereafter,
accused no.1 alongwith his 7-8 associates alighted from his car
and then his associates brought two Nigerian ladies who were
made to sit in the PCR van. He stated that accused no.1 asked
Incharge/PW-11 to call SHO on the spot upon which SHO PS
Malviya Nagar alongwith SI Gopi Ram came. Thereafter, he
dropped the Nigerian women sitting in PCR van at PS and
handed over them to Duty Officer. He identified only accused
No.1 Somnath Bharti correctly. He was duly cross examined on
behalf of all the accused persons.
(d) PW-15 Retd. ACP B.S. Jhakhar deposed that on
15/16.01.2024, he reached near Sai Mandir, Khirki Extension at
Digitally
signed by Page no 23 of 111
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:17:18
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
around 2.20 a.m. on receiving information from control room and
found SHO, PS Malviya Nagar and accused no.1 Somnath Bharti
alongwith his 15-20 supporters at the spot. He saw that accused
no.1 and his supporters had surrounded an Ecco car in which four
Ugandian women were sitting and accused no.1 was claiming
that these women were involved in trafficking of drugs and
prostitution. Thereafter, SHO PS Malviya Nagar told him that
accused no.1 and his supporters are continuously pressurizing to
search these women in open in front of camera. He further
deposed that thereafter, he offered to get these ladies searched in
presence of local ladies or lady police but accused persons did
not agree. He further deposed that he requested the accused no.1
to allow these ladies to urinate in some nearby house under
supervision of ladies staff but he did not agree and stated that
they cannot be allowed to come out of the car as they can throw
objectionable items to save themselves due to which these ladies
urinated near the door of the car. Thereafter, two supporters of
accused no.1 forcibly sat inside the car upon which he also asked
Ct. Sunil to sit in the car to prevent any untoward situation. He
further deposed that he refused to search H.No.S-9, Khirki
Extension as requested by accused no.1 stating that same is
illegal upon which accused no.1 asked his supporters to trespass
into the house and conduct search themselves. However, they
were controlled and in the meantime, ACP Harpal also came at
the spot. Thereafter, it was agreed that the ladies alongwith
supporters of accused no.1 and police staff be sent for medicalDigitally signed Page no 24 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:17:23 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
examination where independent search can be taken by hospital
staff. Accordingly, at around 4.30 a.m., the ladies were sent to
AIIMS, New Delhi. He identified the accused persons by their
faces but not by their names. He was duly cross-examined on
behalf of all the accused persons.
(e) PW-17 Retd. ACP Harpal Singh deposed that on
15/16.01.2024, he reached near Sai Mandir, Khirki Extension at
around 3.20 a.m. on receiving information from control room and
found SHO, PS Malviya Nagar, ACP B.S. Jakhar and accused
no.1 Somnath Bharti alongwith his 15-20 supporters at the spot.
He saw that accused no.1 was directing the above officials for
search of four Ugandian women who were detained in an Ecco
car at the spot in public presence upon which he tried to explain
him the rules for search of ladies but accused no.1 did not listen
and rather said “I am the Law Minister and I know the rules”.
Accused no.1 was claiming that these women were involved in
trafficking of drugs and prostitution. He further deposed that
thereafter, he offered to get these ladies searched in presence of
local ladies or lady police but accused persons did not agree.
Accused no.1 was also directing to search all the houses in which
these Ugandian women were residing. Thereafter, it was agreed
that the ladies alongwith supporters of accused no.1 and police
staff be sent for medical examination where independent search
can be taken by hospital staff. Accordingly, they were taken to
AIIMS, New Delhi. He identified the accused no.1 correctly and
Digitally signed Page no 25 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:17:28 +0530
stated that he cannot identify the supporters of accused no.1 who
were present on the date of incident. He was duly cross examined
on behalf of all the accused persons.
(f) PW-19 Inspector Vijay Pal was posted as SHO PS
Malviya Nagar at the time of incident. He deposed that in the
intervening night of 15/16.01.2014, on receiving DD No.6A, he
alongwith ASI Suresh and W/Ct. Kamlesh reached at Sai Baba
Mandir, Khirki Extension where SI Gopi Ram, Ct. Sunil, Ct.
Manoj were already present. He deposed that accused no.1 and
his 15-20 supporters were checking the vehicles near Sai Baba
Mandir. He deposed that PCR E-16 Incharge HC
Rajinder/PW-11 informed him that two African ladies namely
“S1” and “S2” were forcibly taken out from some vehicle and
made to sit in PCR van. Thereafter, another vehicle was forcibly
stopped in which three trans-genders were sitting who were
forcibly taken out and they were told “Tum ilake me gandgi fala
rahi ho, is ilake ko chorkar chale jao nahi to tumhare liye bura
hoga”. Thereafter, an auto was stopped and an African boy
sitting in auto was pulled out and searched. Thereafter, a person
introducing himself as “Captain” @ Aditya S/o Prem Kumar
(Accused No.2) came at the spot in car bearing No.
DL-12CC-4217 who told accused no.1 that he knew where
African women were residing and indulging in prostitution and
drug trafficking. Thereafter, Captain took accused no.1 and his
supporters to S-9, Khirki Extension where the accused persons
Digitally signed
by NEHA
Page no 26 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:17:36 +0530
entered into the houses and started knocking the door. Efforts
were being made to remove them and request for more staff was
sent to control room. In the meanwhile, one Ecco car in which
four foreigners women were traveling was stopped by the
supporters of accused no.1 and the accused no.1 asked him to
frisk and search the women in front of video camera. He further
deposed that ACP Jakhar came at the spot. In the meanwhile, two
supporters of accused no.1 forcibly sat in the said Ecco car upon
which the witness directed Ct. Sunil to sit in the vehicle. He
further deposed that two women sitting in the car were forced to
urinate near the car as accused no.1 and his supporters did not
allow them to move from car for urination. Thereafter, ACP
Harpal Singh came at the spot and all the police officials talked
to accused no.1 regarding the search procedure. Thereafter, the
aforesaid four females alongwith SI S.S. Yadav, Ct. Sunil and
two supporters of accused no.1 were taken to AIIMS for medical
examination where accused no.1 and some of his supporters had
already reached. Thereafter, Ecco car was searched but nothing
incriminating was found. On returning to police station, he
lodged DD No.9A in this regard. He identified the accused
persons correctly by their names and faces. He was duly cross
examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
10.2 EXPERT WITNESSES:-
(a) PW-1 Dr. Abhishek Kothari deposed that on
18.01.2014, he examined two female victims namely “S1” andDigitally signed
by NEHA
Page no 27 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:17:41 +0530
“S2” vide MLCs Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B, who were brought
AIIMS Trauma Centre with alleged history of assault. He further
deposed that only “S2” had visible injury in the form of bruise
below right eye. He was cross examined on behalf of all accused
persons.
(b) PW-25 Dr. Zameer Ahmad deposed that on
16.01.2014, he medically examined four African women vide
MLCs Ex.PW25/A to Ex.PW25/D on the oral request of SI S.S.
Yadav and it was suspected to be a case of drug consumption. He
was duly cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(c) PW-28 V.B. Ramteke is Sr. Scientific Officer from
CFSL. He deposed that four sealed glass vials sealed with the
seal impression CMO AIIMS HOPT ND were examined by him
for narcotic drug and psychotropic substance and the result was
negative. He proved his detailed report dated 09.10.2014
Ex.PW28/A. He was duly cross examined on behalf of all the
accused persons.
(d) PW-32 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan is Sr. Scientific
Officer at FSL. He deposed that on 15.07.2014, four sealed
parcels with the seal of “SSY” were received and after their
examination, report dated 28.08.2014 Ex.PW32/A sealed with
the seal of “VLN” was prepared. He was duly cross examined on
behalf of all the accused persons.
Digitally signed Page no 28 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:17:47
Date: 2026.04.24
+0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
10.3 FORMAL WITNESSES:-
(a) PW-8 ASI Sri Krishan brought the original DD
Register to prove DD No.6A Ex.PW8/A(OSR) regarding handing
over of two Nigro ladies by accused No.1 to PCR Van E-16. He
was duly cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(b) PW-9 ASI Parmanand proved FIR Ex.PW9/A(OSR)
and endorsement Ex.PW9/B on the Tehrir. He was duly cross
examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(c) PW-13 Sh. Sanjay Singh, Photographer deposed that
he photographed and video graphed the entire area surrounded
S-9, Khirki Extension. He proved photographs Ex.PW13/1
(Colly) and CD of video recording Ex.PW13/2. He was duly
cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(d) PW-14 ASI Sanjay Toppo deposed that on
15/16.01.2014, he was posted at PCR, Control Room. He stated
that he received call from PCR E-16 that accused no.1 had asked
them to follow his car upon which he recorded this self call in
computer which is Ex.PW14/1(colly). He further deposed that he
was informed by PCR that near Sai Baba Mandir, two Nigerian
ladies were made to sit in PCR van. He was duly cross examined
on behalf of all the accused persons.
(e) PW-16 W/Ct. Mamta deposed that on 22.01.2014,
Digitally signed Page no 29 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:17:52
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
she went alongwith IO and three witnesses to Saket Court for
getting their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded. She
was duly cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(f) PW-18 Inspector S.S. Yadav deposed that on
receiving court order dated 18.01.2014, he prepared rukka
Ex.PW9/B and sent the same to Duty Officer for registration of
FIR. He was duly cross examined on behalf of all the accused
persons.
(g) PW-20 HC Jitender produced the case property i.e.
L shape iron angle Ex.PW20/X in unsealed condition. He was
duly cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(h) PW-22 W/SI Mukesh proved seizure memo of L
shape iron angle Ex.PW22/A and seizure memo of newspaper
Ex.PW22/B. She deposed that she recorded the statements of
victims under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She identified L shape iron
angle Ex.PW20/X and newspaper Ex.PW22/C. She was duly
cross-examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(i) PW-24 SI Amit Kumar deposed that he assisted
Inspector Raman Lamba in the investigation of the present case.
He deposed that he collected the CD and letter pertaining to the
case from Sh. Dharamveer Prajapati, ABP News and seized the
same vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and PW24/A respectively.
He identified CD Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW24/B. He was duly cross
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 30 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:17:57 +0530
examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(j) PW-27 ASI Jitender Singh proved the photocopy of
Mud No.2123 Ex.PW27/A (OSR). He was duly cross-examined
on behalf of all the accused persons.
(k) PW-29 ACP Pramod Singh Kushwaha proved his
complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW29/A. He was duly
cross-examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(l) PW-31 Sh. O.P. Mishra, Secretary to Minister,
GNCTD proved the sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW31/A. He was duly cross examined on behalf of all the
accused persons.
10.4 WITNESSES TO PROVE SEIZURE MEMOS OF
CDs:-
(a) PW-2 Sh. Deepak Kumar, Deputy Chief Security
Officer, AIIMS deposed that he handed over the CCTV footage
of Main Emergency AIIMS for the intervening night of 15-
16.01.2014 which was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW2/A. He
was duly cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(b) PW-3 Sh. Dharamveer Prajapati from ABP News
deposed that he gave video footage of the incident in the form of
CD Ex.PW3/C in PS Malviya Nagar which was seized vide
Seizure Memo Ex.PW3/A. He also identified the signatures of
his officer Sh. Vikram Paul on certificate u/s 65-B of Indian
Digitally signed Page no 31 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:18:02 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
Evidence Act Ex.PW3/B. He was duly cross-examined on behalf
of all the accused persons.
(c) PW-7 Sh. Yash from ANI deposed that he received
notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW7/D from the
Investigating Officer upon which he handed over the CD
Ex.PW7/C to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide
Seizure Memo Ex.PW7/A. He was duly cross examined on
behalf of all the accused persons.
10.5 INVESTIGATING OFFICERS:-
(a) PW-21 Inspector Bega Ram is the first investigating
officer. He deposed that on 19.01.2014, investigation of the
present case was marked to him and on the same day, it was
transferred to Inspector Raman Lamba. He was duly cross
examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(b) PW-26 ACP Raman Lamba is the investigating officer
who deposed that investigation of the present case was marked to
him vide order Ex. PW26/A. He further deposed that statement
of complainant Ms. D was recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC by W/SI
Mukesh on his direction. Thereafter, statement of complainant
U/s 164 Cr.PC was got recorded. He further deposed that he
seized newspaper Ex. PW22/C vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/B
in which the complainant had identified accused No.1 from his
photograph to be the assailant leading the mob on the interveningDigitally signed
by NEHA Page no 32 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:18:08 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
night of 15/16.01.2014 and prepared site plan Ex. PW26/E,
seized L shaped angle iron frame broken by the mob in order to
gain entry into the complainant’s house vide seizure memo Ex.
PW22/A. He further deposed that the scene of crime was
inspected by the crime team which took photographs Ex.
PW13/1(colly). Thereafter, the complainant was got medically
examined vide MLC Ex. PW26/F.Thereafter, on 21.01.2014, on his directions, statement of
four other victims were recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC as they had
come to PS. Malviya Nagar for lodging their complaint with
respect to the same incident. The statement of these victims were
also got recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC. Thereafter, again on
22.01.2014, two more victims alongwith one Mr. Balram had
come to PS and their statement U/s 161 and 164 Cr.PC were
recorded. Thereafter, again on 23.01.2014, two more victims
alongwith one Ms. Suman Chaudhary and Aditya Kaushik had
come to PS and their statement U/s 161 and 164 Cr.PC were
recorded.
Thereafter, he gave notices U/s 91 Cr.PC Ex. PW26/Y to
Ex. PW26/Y4 for obtaining media coverage of ABP news, Aaj
Tak and Zee News pertaining to the incident and also to Medical
Superintendent AIIMS Hospital to provide CCTV footage of
emergency area. The relevant DD entries, complaints, PCR calls,
MLC etc., were collected from the concerned PS in connection
with the incident in question. The statement of police officials
namely ACP B. S. Jhakhar ACP DIU Harpal Singh, Inspector
Digitally signed
by NEHA
Page no 33 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:18:14 +0530
Vijay Pal Singh and W/Ct. Kamlesh were recorded U/s 161
Cr.PC and site plan Ex. PW26/Z of the spot where the series of
the incident happened was prepared at the instance of SI
Surender Yadav in presence of Inspector Vijay Pal. One private
photographer Sanjay Singh took photographs Ex. PW13/1(colly)
and made video Ex. PW13/2 while the place was being inspected
by the IO.
He further deposed that the relevant video recordings were
provided by ABP news alongwith certificate U/s 65B Indian
Evidence Act on 30.01.2014 and one CD was produced by the
office of ANI News on 07.02.2014. TV today network provided
the relevant CD on 11.02.2014. The CCTV footage of the
emergency area of AIIMS was seized on 11.03.2014. Thereafter,
the investigation was transferred to Inspector Vijay Pal Singh. He
was duly cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(c) PW-23 Inspector Ajay Kumar deposed that he seized
the CD and the covering letter provided by TV Today Network
vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A. He identified the covering letter
Ex.PW23/B and CD Ex.PW23/B1. He was duly cross-examined
on behalf of all the accused persons.
(d) PW-30 ACP Vijay Chandel deposed that he being
the investigating officer, tried to search all nine victims and
complainant at their correspondence address and came to know
that they all had left the premises just after the incident, he
recorded the statement of police personnel of PCR units of Delhi
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 34 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:18:20 +0530
police. He filed the charge-sheet after completion of the
investigation. Thereafter, he obtained address of three witnesses
only from FRRO and the same was submitted in the court. Upon
receiving CFSL result and permission U/s 196 Cr.PC, he filed
supplementary charge-sheet. He identified accused Somnath
Bharti, Devender Chauhan and Badlu Khan by their names and
identified the remaining accused persons by their faces only. He
was duly cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
11. Thereafter, PE was closed on 23.04.2024 and the matter
got listed for recording of statement of accused persons u/s 313
of Cr.P.C.
Examination of accused persons u/s 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973:
12. As mandated u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons
were given due opportunity to personally explain the
circumstances appearing against them in evidence in the matter at
hand. Statement of accused persons namely Shyam Lal Saini,
Pawan Saini, Ved Saini, Rajesh Saini @ Bittoo, Hemant Saini,
Dharamchand Rana and Vijay Saini @ Bobby were recorded on
dated 25.08.2023 wherein all the aforesaid accused persons
except accused Shyam Lal Saini opted to lead defence evidence.
Thereafter, statement of accused persons namely Naresh Saini,
Inder Saini, Anil Saini and Sanjeev Saini were recorded on dated
26.08.2023 wherein they opted to lead defence evidence.
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 35 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
Date:
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:18:25
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
12.1 Thereafter, vide order dated 26.10.2023, applications
u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of accused persons namely
Somnath Bharti, Badlu Khan, Badal Khan, Aditya and Devender
Chauhan were dismissed. Statement of accused persons namely
Badlu Khan, Badal Khan, Aditya and Devender Chauhan were
recorded on dated 10.11.2023 wherein they opted not to lead
defence evidence. Statement of accused Somnath Bharti was
recorded on 25.01.2024.
12.2 All the incriminating facts, circumstances and
evidences were put to the accused persons as appeared in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the corresponding
documents.
12.3 Accused Ved Saini has stated in his statement u/s
313 Cr.P.C. that though he was present at the spot on the day of
incident but he was not involved in any of the offences and that
he did not obstruct the police. He stated that he was standing
there only as a mute spectator. He further stated that he saw
accused No.1 telling the police officials to call female police staff
so as to check the African nationals as they were suspected to be
involved in prostitution and drugs trade. Same defence was taken
by accused Naresh Saini in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
12.4 Accused persons namely Rajesh Saini, Pawan Saini,
Vijay Saini, Hemant Saini, Sanjeev Saini @ Bittoo, Anil Saini @
Pappi, Inder Saini, Dharam Chand Rana, Badlu Khan have stated
Digitally signed Page no 36 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:18:29 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
that they were present at the spot only as a mute spectator and
they were not part of unlawful assembly. It is further stated that
they do not know anything about the conversations that
transpired between accused No.1 and police officials as they
were standing at some distance. They also stated that they came
to know about the FIR only after receiving the summons from the
Court.
12.5 Accused Devender Chauhan has stated that he came
to the spot when he came to know that crowd had gathered there
and he was not a part of the crowd which was standing
peacefully. He further stated that he does not know about the
conversations between accused No.1 and police officials.
Accused Badal Khan @ Nafees Ahmad stated that he stopped on
his way at the spot for about 40 minutes and was standing there
as a mute spectator. He stated that the crowd that had gathered
there was not creating any ruckus.
12.6 Accused Kumar Aditya Singh has stated that while
he was coming back from Saket mall, he stopped out of curiosity
on seeing the crowd and stayed there for about one hour. He
further stated that he was not a part of unlawful assembly and
was only standing there as a mute spectator. He stated that he
went to AIIMS Hospital out of curiosity and was asked by 2-3
persons in Khaki uniform to drop them to AIIMS. He denied
taking accused No.1 to S-9 Khirki Extension.
12.7 Accused Somnath Bharti had stated that all the
Digitally signed Page no 37 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:18:33 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
allegations against him are false and that the police had
deliberately not investigated the persons who are involved in
human trafficking and drug peddling as the area police was hand
in gloves with drug peddlers and human traffickers. It is further
stated that the area residents including other co-accused persons
have complained against the activities of drug peddling and
human trafficking going on in the area right under the nose of the
police. He further stated that on being elected on 08.12.2013, he
started getting these complaints as no other official was taking
any action. It is because of this reason that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case.
12.8 Accused Shyam Lal Saini stated that he was not
present at the spot on the day of the incident.
Defence Evidence Led By The Accused Persons:
13. Application u/s 315 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of accused
persons namely Pawan Saini, Naresh Saini, Dharam Chand Rana,
Ved Saini, Rajesh Saini, Hemant Saini, Sanjeev Saini, Vijay
Saini, Anil Saini and Inder Saini was allowed vide order dated
27.02.2024. Different applications filed on behalf of the accused
persons for summoning witnesses in defence were allowed vide
order dated 10.04.2024.
14. Ultimately, 27 witnesses were examined in total in
defence evidence. The details of the witnesses examined by the
accused persons are as under:-
Digitally signed Page no 38 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:18:39 +0530
Defence Witness Name of the Witness Role of the witness
DW-1 Ved Saini Accused/Local Resident –
Khirki Extension, New
Delhi.
DW-2 Naresh Saini Accused/Local Resident –
Khirki Extension, New
Delhi.
DW-3 Mahesh Kaushik Member & General
Secretary of Shri Shiv
Mandir Sanstha, Khirki
Extension
DW-4 SI Umesh Tiwari Record Clerk in the O/o
Commissioner of Police,
Delhi.
DW-5 HC Sunil Kumar Record Clerk, O/o DCP,
Hauz Khas, Delhi.
DW-6 HC Kanhaiya Lal Record Clerk,
PS:Malviya Nagar,
Delhi.
DW-7 K C Rana General Secretary,
Khirki Village Residents
Welfare Association.
DW-8 Koshal Kumar Satija Assistant Section
Officer, Lieutenant
Governor Office, Delhi
DW-9 S A Sikandar General Secretary, Vikas
Samiti, EJT Blocks, Khirki
Extension.
DW-10 Shyam Lal Gangia President, Resident
Welfare Association,
Khirki Extension.
DW-11 Pawan Kumar Local Resident - Khirki
Extension, New Delhi.
DW-12 Intezar Hussain Local Resident - Khirki
Extension, New Delhi.
DW-13 Tilat Ahmad President, Resident
Welfare Association,
Khirki Extension.
DW-14 Atishi LOP, Delhi Assembly and
Digitally signed Page no 39 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:18:45 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
Member of the Meeting
dated 31.01.2014 chaired
by Accused No.1.
DW-15 Tarun Kumar Kardam Local Resident – Khirki
Extension, New Delhi.
DW-16 Saraswati Kalyan Secretary, Defence Advisor
in Uganda Embassy/High
Commission.
DW-17 Javed Hussain Local Resident – Khirki
Extension, New Delhi and
Member of the Meeting
dated 31.01.2014 chaired
by Accused No.1.
DW-18 Prabodh Raj Gaur Local Resident – Khirki
Extension, New Delhi –
Member of the Meeting
DW-19 Anita Sharma Managing Editor, India TV
Broadcast Centre
DW-20 Rupashree Nanda Reporter, CNN NewsDW-21 Meenakshi Kandwal Consultant Editor, NDTV
DW-22 Ankit Tyagi Resident Editor, NDTV
DW-23 Sayeed Ansari Managing Editor, TV
Today Network, (AajTak
Channel)
DW-24 Himanshu Mishra Deputy Editor, TV Today
Network, (AajTak Channel)
DW-25 Jacqueline Martens Head of Business, BBC
News India
DW-26 Retd./ACP Virender Last IO/SHO, PS: Malviya
Jain Nagar
DW-27 ACP Ved Prakash 1st IO/SHO, PS: Vasant
Kunj
15. The defence witnesses have relied upon the following
documents in their evidences as under:-
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 40 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:18:49 +0530
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved
by/Attest
ed by
1. Ex.DW-3/1 (OSR) Letter dated 02.12.2013 DW-3
addressed to CP, Delhi
written by Shri Shiv
Mandir Sanstha
2. Ex.DW-3/2 (OSR) Two Post Office Receipts DW-3
dated 05.12.2013 at 10:52
AM.
1. E RD345447247IN
2. E RD345447255IN
3. Ex.DW-3/3 (OSR) Letter dated 26.11.2013 DW-3
addressed to DCP, South
on the letter head of Shri
Shiv Mandir Sanstha
written by Sh. Kishan Saini
4. Mark-A Letter dated 24.11.2013 DW-1
addressed to SHO,
PS:Malviya Nagar on the
letter head of Shri Shiv
Mandir Sanstha written by
Sh. Kishan Saini
5. Ex.DW-7/1 Letter dated 14.01.2014 DW-7
addressed to Somnath
Bharti (A-1) on the letter
head of Khirki Village
RWA.
6. Ex.DW-4/1 Report dated 25.04.2024 DW-4
received from the O/o the
Asstt. Commissioner of
Police Sh. Atul Kalia,
Delhi.
7. Ex.DW-4/2 (OSR) Copy of Diary Register DW-4
(running into 4 pages)
Digitally signed Page no 41 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:18:54 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
8. Ex.DW-5/1 Office Order dated DW-5
27.06.2023 regarding
destruction of record upto
2019 (running into 11
pages)
9. Ex.DW-6/1 (OSR) Copy of Daily Diary DW-6
Register No.II having DD
No.74B dated 23.11.2013.
10. Ex.DW-8/1 Attested copy of complaint DW-8
dated 18.01.2014 by the
Khirki Village Residents
Welfare Association.
11. Ex.DW-8/2 Attested copy of letter DW-8
dated 11.02.2014 issued by
OSD to Hon’ble LG.
12. Ex.DW-8/3 Attested copy of Letter DW-8
Monitoring System.
13. Ex.DW-9/1 Complaint dated DW-9
27.06.2013 addressed to
SHO, PS:Malviya Nagar
bearing DD No.52B dated
27.06.2013.
14. Ex.DW-9/2 Complaint dated DW-9
(Mark-M) 28.12.2013 addressed to
DCP, Hauz Khas, bearing
complaint reference
No.R481.
15. Ex.DW-9/3 Certificate of Registration DW-9
of Vikas Samiti Hauz Rani
under Societies
Registration Act of XXI,
1860. Registration No.
58797/2007 dated
31.05.2007.
16. Mark-N Copy of Memorandum of DW-9
Association of Vikas
Samiti Hauz Rani, EJT
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 42 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:18:59 +0530
Block, Delhi
17. Mark-O Complaint to Dy. DW-10
Commissioner, Excise
bearing reference
No.RWA:CE:28 dated
05.01.2014.
18. Mark-P Complaint to SHO, DW-10
PS:Malviya Nagar bearing
reference No.RWA:DP:24
dated 20.011.2013.
19. Mark-Q Certificate of registration of DW-10
Block J4-J3 RWA Khirki
Extension.
20. Mark-R Letter addressed to DW-10
Registrar of Society
21. Mark-S Copy of rules and DW-10
regulations of association
namely Block J4-J3, RWA
22. Ex.DW-26/A Certified copy of DW-26
chargesheet in FIR
No.131/14 PS:Malviya
Nagar
16. Accused Ved Saini examined himself as DW-1 who
deposed that illegal and immoral activities were taking place in
Khirki Village about 5-7 months prior to the date of incident. He
further deposed that African national ladies used to stand on the
road side at night and used to make obscene/indecent gestures to
the passersby, and African national men were engaged in drug
peddling. He further deposed that apart from numerous oral
complaints, he gave a written complaint to SHO, PS Malviya
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 43 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
Date:
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:19:04
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
Nagar and concerned DCP but no action was taken upon which
the members of RWA Khirki Village and members of Shiv
Mandir Sanstha met the area MLA i.e. accused No.1 regarding
the aforesaid illegal activities. He relied upon letter dated
24.11.2013 Mark-A submitted to SHO, PS: Malviya Nagar vide
DD No.74B, letter dated 26.11.2013 Mark-B received in the
office of DCP, South, Hauz Khas vide Diary No.5095, letter
dated 02.12.2013 Mark-C addressed to Commissioner of Police,
receipt Mark-D for sending the letter by speed post to the then
Home Minister and letter dated 14.01.2014 Mark-E addressed to
accused No.1 (the then area MLA and Law Minister).
He further deposed that accused No.1 visited Shiv
Mandir, Khirki Village and assured to look into the issue of
immoral and illegal activities. Thereafter, on 15/16.01.2014, at
around 01:30 AM, he saw accused No.1 speaking to a police
official asking him to search the African ladies who were sitting
in the car and to call lady police constable to search the African
women. He further stated that the then SHO, Sh.Vijay Pal knew
him by name because of his frequent visit to the police station for
filing complaints on behalf of Shiv Mandir Sanstha and RWA
Khirki Village. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. SPP for
the State.
17. Accused Naresh Saini examined himself as DW-2. He
deposed about the immoral and illegal activities prevailing in the
Khirki Village on the same lines as DW-1. He further deposed
Digitally signed Page no 44 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:19:08 +0530
that on one occasion, upon receiving a message from Rajesh
Saini regarding the above mentioned illegal activities, DCP BS
Jaiwal reached at the spot but prior to him the concerned SHO
and ACP had already reached and were trying to hush-up the
matter. Upon warning of the DCP, the illegal activities stopped
for 2-3 days but resumed thereafter. Being aggrieved, the
members of Shiv Mandir Sanstha and members of RWA Khirki
Village met the then area MLA i.e. accused No.1.
He further deposed that on 15/16.01.2014, accused
No.1 came along with police and his supporters at Shiv Mandir.
And he also reached there and saw a huge crowd had gathered,
media persons were present and police officials were present in
large numbers. He further deposed that there was a van in which
some ladies of African origin were sitting and accused No.1 was
asking the police officials to call lady police to conduct their
search. He further deposed that the police officials were being
asked to conduct the search of African ladies and one building
situated in S-Block, however, they were not inclined to do so. He
deposed that he was standing there as mute spectator and did not
interfere in the proceedings of the police at the spot. He further
stated that the then SHO, Sh.Vijay Pal knew him by name
because of his frequent visit to the police station for filing
complaints on behalf of Shiv Mandir Sanstha and RWA Khirki
Village. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. SPP for the
State.
Digitally signed Page no 45 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:19:12 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
18. DW-3 Mahesh Kaushik is a member of Shiv Mandir
Sanstha. He brought the duplicate copy of complaints already
Mark-B and Mark-C and copy of speed post receipt already
Mark-D and proved them as Ex.DW-3/3 (OSR), Ex.DW-3/1
(OSR) and Ex.DW-3/2 (OSR) respectively. He was duly cross-
examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
19. DW-4 SI Umesh Tiwari proved letter issued from ACP
bearing No.867/Record Branch/PHQ dated 25.04.2024
Ex.DW-4/1 and complaint received from Sh. Mahesh Kaushik
through speed post as Ex.DW-4/2 (OSR). He was not cross-
examined by Ld. SPP for the State despite opportunity.
20. DW-5 HC Sunil Kumar proved destruction letter dated
27.06.2023 as Ex.DW-5/1. He was not cross-examined by Ld.
SPP for the State despite opportunity.
21. DW-6 HC Kanahiya Lal proved the entry in Daily
Diary Register No.II pertaining to the complaint received from
Shiv Mandir Sanstha vide DD No.74B dated 23.11.2013 as
Ex.DW-6/1 (OSR). He was not cross-examined by Ld. SPP for
the State despite opportunity.
22. DW-7 KC Rana proved letter dated 14.01.2014
Ex.DW-7/1 written by him in the capacity of General Secretary
of Khirki Village, RWA addressed to accused No.1 regarding the
immoral and illegal activities being carried out in the area by
people of African origin. He was cross-examined by Ld. SPP for
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 46 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:19:17 +0530
the State.
23. DW-8 Sh. Koshal Kumar Satija proved the attested
copy of complaint dated 18.01.2024 of Khirki Village RWA
which was received by the office of LG on 22.01.2014 vide
Diary No.3239 along with letter dated 11.02.2014 sent to CP by
the OSD to LG and attested copy of letter monitoring system as
Ex.DW-8/1 to Ex. DW-8/3 respectively. He was cross-examined
by Ld. SPP for the State.
24. DW-9 S.A Sikander is the General Secretary of Vikas
Samiti, EJT Blocks, Khirki Extension. He proved the copy of
complaint dated 27.06.2013 addressed to SHO, PS:Malviya
Nagar as Ex.DW-9/1 and copy of complaint dated 28.12.2013
addressed to DCP Hauz Khas Ex.DW-9/2. He was cross-
examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
25. DW-10 Shyam Lal Gangia (President of RWA, Khirki
Extension) proved the copy of complaint to Deputy
Commissioner Excise Mark-O, copy of complaint addressed to
SHO, PS: Malviya Nagar Mark-P, copy of certificate registration
Mark-Q. He was cross-examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
26. DW-11 Sh. Pawan Kumar deposed that he is a resident
of Khirki extension and the meeting shown in the video having
file name “First meeting of Indo-African Coordination
Committee held in Sai Baba Mandir, Khirki Extn.MP4” was
Digitally signed
Page no 47 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:19:23 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
organized by him to address the concerns and the feeling of
insecurity of the Africans in the wake of incident which took
place in the intervening night of 15th and 16th January, 2014. He
deposed that the locals of Khirki Extension and Khirki Village
were affected by the problem of drug trafficking and sex rackets
that were running in the said area and as their complaints
remained unaddressed, they approached accused No.1 as he was
the area MLA and Law Minister of Delhi. He was duly cross
examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
27. DW-12 Intezar Hussain, DW-13 Tilat Ahmed, DW-14
Ms. Atishi, DW-15 Tarun Kumar, DW-16 Saraswati Kalyan,
DW-17 Javed Hussain and DW-18 Prabodh Raj Gaur deposed
on the same lines as DW-11. They all had attended the above
mentioned meeting which was organized to address the concerns
of locals and Africans against each other. They all were cross
examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
28. DW-19 Ms. Anita Sharma, upon seeing one video from
YouTube link “https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Jiv9OMa1qOs.MP4”, deposed that the said video was aired on
their Channel-India TV around 11 years ago. The news reader in
the video is Ms. Meenakshi Kandwal and she was working as a
news reader at that time. She was duly cross-examined by Ld.
SPP for the State.
29. DW-20 Ms. Rupashree Nanda deposed that she
Digitally signed
by NEHA
Page no 48 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:19:27 +0530
interviewed the woman shown in the video having file name
“videoplayback.MP4”. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. SPP
for the State.
30. DW-21 Ms. Meenakshi Kandwal, deposed that she is
the News reader in the video shown to her from YouTube link
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jiv9OMalqOs.MP4”. She
was duly cross-examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
31. DW-22 Sh. Ankit Tyagi deposed that he was working as
field reporter with Headlines Today when the video having file
name “Ugandan women allege they were forced into prostitution
(1).mp4” was aired on the News channel. He deposed that the
video pertains to a news that 3 Ugandian women approached
Delhi Government with their grievance that they have been
forced into prostitution and their passports have been confiscated
by the people running this prostitution racket. The concerned
area was Khirki Extension. He deposed that he was told by his
sources from the Delhi Government that the girls were asked to
go to police station to get their FIR registered but they refused
for the same out of fear. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. SPP
for the State.
32. DW-23 Mr. Sayeed Ansari deposed that he is the news
reader in the video having file name “Women from Uganda
forcefully brought to India.mp4”. He deposed that this video is a
true and correct video which was broad casted on their channel.
Digitally signed Page no 49 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:19:32
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
33. DW-24 Mr. Himanshu Mishra deposed that he is the
Field reporter in the video having file name “Women from
Uganda forcefully brought to India.mp4”. He was duly cross-
examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
34. DW-25 Ms. Jacqueline Martens deposed that the video
having file name “Imported for my body_The African women
trafficked to India for sex – BBC Africa Eye documentary.mp4”
was published at the behest of BBC Africa, whereas she works
with BBC News India which is a different entity altogether. She
was not cross-examined by Ld. SPP for the State despite
opportunity.
35. DW-26 Retd./ACP Virender Jain deposed that the main
IO in FIR No.131/2014, PS Malviya Nagar was Inspector Ved
Prakash, SHO PS: Vasant Kunj at that time. He proved the
certified copy of chargesheet Ex.DW-26/A (colly). He was duly
cross-examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
36. DW-27 ACP Ved Prakash deposed that further
investigation in FIR No.131/2014 was transferred to him. The
allegations in that case were that three Ugandan women appeared
before office of DM, South and alleged that they were forcibly
kept in the area of Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. He
deposed that he recorded the statement of these girls u/s 161
Digitally signed Page no 50 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:19:37 +0530
Cr.P.C. and also got recorded their statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Accused lady Ireni was also arrested in the said case. Scene of
the crime was also visited and pointing out memos were also
prepared. Concerned Embassy was also informed. He was duly
cross-examined by Ld. SPP for the State.
37. Thereafter, DE was closed on 23.12.2025 and the
matter was listed for final arguments.
Final Arguments:
38. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. SPP for the
State and Ld. Defence Counsels. The final arguments were heard
at length on behalf of both the parties. Further, written
submissions were filed on behalf of State, A-1/Somnath Bharti
and A-18/Shyam Lal Saini. Same have been perused.
Arguments by Ld. SPP for State:
39. It has been argued by Ld. SPP for the State that PW-5 and
PW-6 are eye witnesses to the incident of altercation between
accused No.1 and ACP and no cross-examination on the said
portion of their testimony has been conducted implying thereby that
the said portion of their testimony stands admitted. It has further
been argued by the Ld. SPP for the State that PW-11 was
accompanied by PW-12 and both of them have consistently
deposed that the supporters of accused No.1 had forcibly brought
two Negro ladies and made them sit in the PCR van at the instance
of accused No.1.
Digitally signed
Page no 51 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:19:41 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
40. It has further been argued that PW-15 is also an eye-
witness to the entire event, who has clearly deposed that accused
No.1 obstructed in the discharge of public functions of the police
officials as he was constantly criticizing them by asking them to
search the female victims in front of the camera. It has further been
argued that PW-19 was the SHO, PS-Malviya Nagar at the time of
incident and was present on the spot from 01:30 AM till the end. It
has further argued that the suggestion given by on behalf of accused
persons to the witness that S-9 is not a house but a street has
demolished the defence of the accused persons.
41. It has been further argued that as per FSL report Ex-
PW-32/A, all the CDs having the CCTV footage of the incident in
question are found to be genuine without any alteration. CDs
Ex.PW-4/C, Ex.PW-3/C & PW-7/C were played and seen in the
Court.
42. Ld. SPP for the State has relied upon following
judgments:-
(a) Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3652 – In
this case, the identification of the accused for the first time in the
Court was relied upon as the witnesses knew the accused before
and they both were acquainted with each other. Simultaneously, it
has been held that ordinarily identification of the accused for the
first time in the Court by a witness should not be relied upon for the
purpose of passing order of conviction without a definiteDigitally signed
by NEHA
Page no 52 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:19:47 +0530
corroboration.
(b) Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(6) SCC 716 – It
was held that in case question is not put to the witness in cross-
examination who could furnish explanation on a particular issue,
the correctness or legality of the said fact/issue could not be raised.
(c) Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Appeal No.1910 of 2010 decided on March 29, 2023 – It
was held that in case, answers given by the witness to the
suggestions given by the defence counsel incriminate the accused in
any manner, then the same would be binding and could be taken
into consideration along with other evidence. Further, the principles
of appreciating the oral evidence and evidence of injured eye-
witnesses were summarized.
(d) Nitya Nand Vs. State of UP & Anr, Criminal Appeal No.1348
of 2014 decided on September 04, 2024 – The principle of vicarious
liability embodied u/s 149 IPC was discussed.
(e) Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse & Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.1755/2011 decided by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India – The principle of vicarious liability
embodied u/s 149 IPC was discussed.
(f) Ram Dular Rai Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 1043 – The
principle of vicarious liability embodied u/s 149 IPC was discussed.
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 53 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:19:52 +0530
(g) Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1 - The
interpretation of Section 153A IPC was discussed.
(h) Devender Kumar Vs. State & Anr., SLP (Cri) No. of 2025
decided Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – The ingredients of
Section 186 IPC and the necessity of compliance of Section 195
Cr.P.C. were discussed.
(i) State through Inspector of Police Vs. Lali @ Manikandan &
Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 1424 – In this case, the accused was
convicted on the basis of sole testimony of eye-witness despite the
non-examination of the original complainant.
Arguments on behalf of accused persons (A-7 to
A-14) and (A-16 to A-17)
43. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons (A-7 to
A-14) and (A-16 to A-17) has argued that the accused persons
were present on the spot merely because of the fact that on
hearing the noise/ruckus, they came out of their houses to see as
to what was happening. It has further been argued that they have
been falsely implicated as they used to regularly meet the area
SHO/PW-19 Inspector Vijay Pal Singh in PS: Malviya Nagar,
being office bearers of Shiv Mandir Sanstha and RWA, in respect
of the problem of drug peddling and human trafficking and gave
complaints Ex.PW-19/A1, Ex.PW-19/A2 and Ex.PW-19/A3.
Another argument raised is that accused persons have neither
been named in the complaint nor have they been identified by
Digitally signed Page no 54 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:19:56 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
any of the eye-witnesses except PW-15 and PW-19.
Identification of the accused persons by these two witnesses is
meaningless as they both have failed to assign any role to the
accused persons in their testimonies and have just vaguely used
the term ‘supporters’ of Somnath Bharti.
44. It has further been argued that the FIR details are not
mentioned on the seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A and that the CD
which was seized vide the said seizure memo has not been
exhibited and there is no certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act
with respect to the said CD. Similarly, the CD Ex.PW-7/C
produced by PW-7 is also not supported by the requisite
certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act. Other lacunas in the
investigation that have been highlighted by the Ld. Counsel are
that the site plan Ex.PW-26/E and Ex.PW-26/Z do not bear the
signatures of any police official who is stated to have
accompanied the IO to the spot, no copy of passport or visa of
the alleged victims have been filed in the chargesheet. It has been
argued that a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Ex.29/A given by PW-29
and sanction u/s 196 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-31/A given by PW-31 have
been given without looking into the charge-sheet.
45. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following judgment in
support of his arguments:-
(a) Zainul Vs. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal
No.1187 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
Digitally signed Page no 55 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:20:01 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
(b) Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap Vs. State of
Maharashtra AIR Online 2025 SC 58.
(c) Kundan Singh Vs. State, Criminal Appeal
No.711 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi.
(d) Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga Vs. State, Criminal
Appeal No.527 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi.
(e) Arif Vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
2015 SUPREME (DEL) 2368.
(f) Dana Yadav @ Dahu and Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar, 2002 (7) SCC 295.
Arguments on behalf of accused No.1
46. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused No.1
that all the charges have been framed with the aid of Section 149
IPC and in case of failure of the prosecution to establish the
constitution of unlawful assembly u/s 141 IPC, all the charges
against the accused persons will fail. It has further been argued
that PW-19 is the star witness of the prosecution as he is stated to
to be the first one to have reached the spot of incident at about
01:30 AM and that it can be culled out from his testimony that no
unlawful assembly was constituted by the accused persons on the
alleged date and place. It has further been argued that the defense
taken by the accused persons regarding the prevalence of
unlawful activities of drug peddling and human trafficking stands
admitted by PW-19 in his cross-examination. Further, it has been
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 56 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
Date:
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:20:05
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
argued that the delay in the registration of the FIR also goes
against the case of the prosecution as there was nothing which
stopped PW-19 to register FIR on the date of offence itself, he
being physically present at the spot and witness to the alleged
offences.
47. Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 had also argued that on
account of non-examination of the alleged victims, charges u/s
354/354C/452/506/509 IPC are bound to fail. He has rather
argued to the extent that the prosecution has failed to establish
the identity of the alleged victims. Validity of complaint u/s 195
Cr.P.C. Ex.-PW-29/A has also been challenged by the Ld.
Counsel on the ground that the complaint was given on
24.09.2014 i.e. prior to the preparation of charge-sheet on
27.09.2014.
48. Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 has relied upon the
following judgment in support of his arguments:-
(a) State of Punjab vs. Devender pal Singh Bhullar & Ors.,
(2011)14 SCC 770 – In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Court
quashed the entire proceedings as the very birth of the FIR,
which was the direct consequence of the impugned order was
found not having any lawful existence. There is no such scenario
in the present case. Hence, this judgment is not applicable.
(b) Tomaso Bruno vs State of UP, (2015)7 SCC 178 – In this
Digitally signed
by NEHA
Page no 57 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:20:09 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
case, the Hon’ble Apex Court raised serious doubts about the
prosecution case because of its omission to produce the CCTV
footage, which was the best evidence.
(c) Vijay @ Chinee vs State of MP, (2010)8 SCC 191 – The
weight to be attached to the testimony of the victim of sexual
assault has been discussed. Since none of the victim has been
examined in the present case, the said judgment is inapplicable.
(d) Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushan Rao
Gorantyal and Ors. 2020 Supreme (SC) 446 – It pertains to the
admissibility of electronic evidence and shall be discussed at
relevant stage.
(e) C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2010)9 SCC 567 –
To support the argument that the provision of Section 195
Cr.P.C. is mandatory.
(f) Sunil Kandu vs State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422 – To
support the argument that if the prosecution is not able to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt, it cannot take advantage of the
fact that the accused has not been able to probabilise their
defence. The said judgment also discussed the effect of shoddy
investigation.
(g) Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab (2005)6 SCC – This
Digitally signed Page no 58 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:20:15
Date: 2026.04.24
+0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
judgment deals with the issue of criminal negligence in medical
cases and hence, it is inapplicable in the present case.
(h) Naresh Aneja vs State of U.P., (2025)2 SCC 604 – The
ingredients for commission of offence punishable u/s 354 & 506
IPC has been discussed.
(i) Manik Taneja vs State of Karnataka, (2015)7 SCC 423 –
The ingredients for commission of offence punishable u/s 506
IPC have been discussed.
(j) Shaik Sajid Sajju vs State of Telangana, decide on
31.01.2025 by Hon’ble High Court of Telangana – In this case,
the proceeding was quashed for non-compliance of Section 195
Cr.P.C.
(k) State of Maharashtra vs Babu Bhaga Zore & Ors, (2020)
SCC OnLine Bom 325 – In the said judgment, the principles
regarding power of Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal
against an order of acquittal were summarized. The same is
clearly inapplicable to the present case.
(l) B.N. John vs State of U.P., 2025 INSC 4 – The mandatory
compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was discussed.
(m) A. Sreenivasa Reddy vs Rakesh Sharma & Anr, (2023)8
Digitally signed Page no 59 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:20:19
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
SCC 711 – The consequence of refusal of sanction u/s 19 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upon prosecution of a person
for an offence under IPC was discussed. Since PC Act is not in
question before this Court, this judgment is not of much help.
Arguments on behalf of accused no. 2
49. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for A-2 that the
actual name of A-2 is Kumar Aditya but his name has been
mentioned as Aditya in the chargesheet. It has further been
argued that A-2 is not a resident of Khirki Extension and that he
was just passing by when he stopped upon seeing the commotion
in the area. It has further been argued that no specific allegations
have been leveled against him and that nothing incriminating can
be seen against him in the videos relied upon by the prosecution.
Another arguments raised on his behalf is that none of the
accused persons have been medically examined.
Arguments on behalf of accused No.18
50. Ld. LAC for accused Shyam Lal Saini has argued that
there is not a single footage on record in which the accused can
be seen as he was not present at the spot on the alleged date and
time. It has further been argued that neither any specific role has
been assigned to him nor his identity has been established by the
prosecution. It has further been argued that no opportunity was
given to the accused during investigation to explain his defence
as no notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. was given to him. Ld. Counsel has
further argued that the identification of the accused by PW-15 is
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 60 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:20:24 +0530
meaningless as he has failed to name the accused and has
vaguely stated that he identifies them by their faces. Similarly,
identification of the accused by PW-19 is also not trustworthy as
the name of the accused is not mentioned in identification by
faces by the witness.
Arguments in Rebuttal by Ld. SPP for the State
51. In rebuttal, Ld. SPP for the State has argued that the
confusion in the name of one of the victims stands clarified from
the statement of Inspector Vijay Pal recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as
well as from the service report dated 12.10.2022 received from
Ministry of External Affairs. With respect to the TIP, it has been
argued that there was no need to conduct TIP as Inspector Vijay
Pal/PW-19 has identified all the accused persons in his statement
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. With respect to the requirement of certificate u/s
65-B Indian Evidence Act, it has been submitted that its absence
is merely an irregularity and not illegality. Further, the delay in
the medical examination of S-1 and S-2 has been attributed to the
fact that they were scared to step out of their homes.
Appreciation of Evidence and Findings :
52. For the sake of convenience, the alleged incidents that
took place on the day of offence shall be referred to as under:-
(a) Alleged incident pertaining to victims S-1 and S-2
(they were allegedly made to sit in PCR van)-
hereinafter referred to as ‘1st incident’.
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 61 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:20:29 +0530
(b) Alleged incident pertaining to victims M, N@P,
A@J, N (they were traveling in Ecco car) – hereinafter
referred to as ‘2nd incident’.
(c) Alleged incident pertaining to victims D, S-3 and
S-4 (they are residents of S-9, Khirki Extension) –
hereinafter referred to as ‘3rd incident’.
53. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused
persons were members of the unlawful assembly and they
committed the offences punishable u/s
143/147/153A/186/323/342/354/354C/427/ 452/506/509 IPC r/w
Section 149 IPC. All the accused persons except accused Shyam
Lal Saini have admitted their presence on the spot on the day of
incident. The defence raised on behalf of accused No.1 is that he
went to the spot of incident as he was regularly getting
complaints, being the local MLA, regarding drug peddling and
human trafficking from the local residents of Khirki Extension. It
is further stated that no civil or criminal wrong took place till the
time accused No.1 remained at the spot and the police officials
were deliberately not investigating the persons involved in drug
peddling and human trafficking as they all were hand in gloves
with each other. Remaining accused persons have taken the
defence that they went to the spot on hearing loud police siren to
see what was happening and that they were present at the spot
merely as mute spectators and had not participated in any
unlawful activity/checking/trespassing.
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 62 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:20:33 +0530
54. Having considered the rival submissions and after
wholesome perusal of the record and appreciating the evidence
on record, this Court deems it fit to first deal with the issues
pertaining to the admissibility of following evidence as
objections in this regard have been raised by the accused
persons:-
(i) Admissibility of electronic evidence vis-a-vis
certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
(ii) Admissibility of statements u/s 164 Cr.PC.
without examination of victims as witnesses.
(iii) Identity of accused persons vis-a-vis non-
conduct of Test Identification Parade.
(I) Admissibility of electronic evidence vis-a-vis certificate u/s
65-B of Indian Evidence Act
55. Arguments have been raised on behalf of accused
persons regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence i.e.
CD/DVD of the CCTV footage of the incident in question on the
ground that there is no certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act or
that the certificate is not in compliance with the conditions
mentioned in the Section 65-B(4) of the Act. Reliance has been
placed upon judgments “Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap Vs. State
of Maharashtra AIR Online 2025 SC 58″ and “Jagdeo Singh
@ Jagga Vs. State, decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Crl. A. No.527/14”.
Digitally signed
by NEHA
Page no 63 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:20:39 +0530
56. There is little room for doubt regarding the fact that the
judgment relied upon by accused no. 1 i.e. “Arjun Pandit Rao
Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal and Ors. 2020
Supreme (SC) 446” dominates the field regarding the
admissibility of electronic evidence. Hence, a reference to the
same shall answer all the questions raised in the present case
pertaining to the electronic evidence produced by the
prosecution. It has been held in the said judgment that the
certificate required u/s 65-B(4) Indian Evidence Act is a
condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of
electronic record, as correctly held in Anwar PV Vs. PK Bashir.
The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) makes it clear that
when it comes to information contained in an electronic record,
admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section
65-B, which is a special provision in this behalf. The judgment
further clarifies that the certificate u/s sub-section (4) can be
given either by a person occupying a responsible official position
in relation to the operation of the relevant device or a person who
is in the management of relevant activities and that it shall be
sufficient for such matter to be stated to the “best of the
knowledge and belief of the person stating it”. Hence, production
of the certificate u/s 65B of the Act is a prerequisite for the
admissibility of electronic evidence and not raising any objection
in regard to non-production of the certificate is immaterial.
57. In the present case, the prosecution has sought to rely
Digitally
signed by
Page no 64 of 111
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:20:43
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
upon four different CDs produced by four different witnesses i.e.
PW-2, 3, 7 & 23.
58. The CCTV footage of the Main Gate, Emergency,
AIIMS was sought to be proved in the testimony of PW-2. Qua
this, it has been argued on behalf of accused persons that the CD
produced by PW-2 has not been exhibited and hence, the same
cannot be read in evidence. Perusal of record shows that PW-2
has deposed that the CD provided by him to the Investigating
Officer was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. However,
the CD was not brought from the police malkhana and hence,
was not exhibited in the testimony of the witness. As per settled
law, marking of a document as an exhibit is only for the purpose
of identification and does not amount to proof of its contents
which must be established in accordance with the provisions of
the Evidence Act (reliance placed upon Sudhir Engineering
Company Vs. Nitco Roadways 1995 SCC OnLine Del 251). Thus,
it is not the non-exhibition of the CD which is adverse to the case
of prosecution, but it is rather the non-production of the
mandatory certificate u/s 65-B which makes the CD inadmissible
in evidence. Even though, no question with regard to the
certificate u/s 65-B was put to the witness during his cross-
examination, the same does not amount to waiver as the absence
of the certificate hits at the very admissibility of the electronic
record as evidence.
59. Similarly, the CD Ex.PW-7/C, purported to be the
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 65 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:20:49 +0530
CCTV footage of the incident recorded on behalf of Asian News
International, produced by PW-7 is not supported with the
requisite certificate u/s 65-B. The objection in this regard has
been raised during the examination-in-chief of the witness.
Further, it is pertinent to note that IO/Inspector Raman Lamba
had asked the Editor, ANI to produce the CCTV footage along
with the certificate u/s 65-B of the Act vide notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW-7/D. Despite this, neither the certificate was given on
behalf of ANI nor any subsequent request/demand for the same
was made by the IO. Hence, the said CD also suffers from the
same infirmity.
60. PW-23 Inspector Ajay Kumar has deposed that he
seized CD Ex.PW-23/B1 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-23/A. The
certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act with respect to the said CD
is stated to be the letter Ex.PW-23/B. A perusal of the said letter
shows that a line “this communique may also please be
considered as the certificate u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act” has
been written towards the end of the letter. The remaining
contents of the letter are responses to the questions asked by way
of notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the said letter finds no
mention of the essential conditions enumerated u/s 65-B(4) of the
Evidence Act. Thus, the said letter fails to fall within the
category of the certificate u/s 65-B of the Act. Hence, CD Ex.
PW-23/B1 is inadmissible in evidence.
61. On behalf of ABP News, PW-3 had produced DVD
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 66 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:20:53 +0530
Ex.PW-3/C and certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.PW-3/B.
It has been contended on behalf of accused persons that the
certificate u/s 65-B is not in proper order as it has been given on
the basis of “information available” and that PW-3 has stated in
his cross-examination that he cannot guarantee whether any other
person had made any tampering in the CD. In the opinion of this
Court, the objection with respect to the certificate Ex.PW-3/B is
merit less as it has been clearly held in Arjun Panditrao’s Case
(supra) that it shall be sufficient to state the matter in certificate
under sub-section (4) on the basis of “best of the knowledge and
belief of the person stating it”. Thus, it is not necessary to give
the certificate on the basis of personal knowledge only and
hence, the certificate Ex.PW-3/B is valid in law. After passing
the test of admissibility u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act, the next
question is of the genuineness thereof. In the present case, the
CCTV footages were sent to FSL for examination. As per FSL
report Ex.PW-32/A, the relevant video files in DVD exhibit 1
were examined using Video Analysis System and it was found
that all the video files were found containing one identified video
shots and there was no indication of alteration in any of the
identified video shots on the basis of frame by frame
examination. The credibility of PW-32 could not be shaken nor
any lacuna in the process of examination undertaken by him
could be brought on record despite detailed cross-examination of
the witness. The mere fact that PW-3 has failed to assure the
Court of the genuineness of the CD is immaterial as there isDigitally signed
by NEHA Page no 67 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:20:58 +0530
otherwise on record strong and clinching evidence in the form of
FSL report. Hence, the DVD Ex.PW-3/C is admissible in
evidence.
62. In view of the above discussion, none of the electronic
evidence produced by the prosecution except DVD
Ex.PW-3/C is admissible in evidence for want of certificate u/s
65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
(II) Admissibility of statements u/s 164 Cr.PC. without
examination of victims as witnesses-
63. Question has also been raised on behalf of accused
persons with respect to the admissibility of the statement of victims
recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as none of the victims have been
examined in the Court as witness.
64. Statement of victims S-1, S-2, ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘N@P’, ‘A@J’,
‘D’, S-3 and S-4 were recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and same have been
exhibited as Ex.PW-26/M, Ex.PW-26/N, Ex.PW-26/O,
Ex.PW-26/R, Ex.PW-26/U, Ex.PW-26/V, Ex.PW-26/D,
Ex.PW-26/L and Ex.PW-26/Q respectively. All these victims have
described in detail the alleged offences that were committed with
them.
65. The said statements have been sought to be proved by
PW-16/W/Ct Mamta who has deposed regarding the production of
the witness for getting their statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded and
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 68 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:21:03 +0530
also by PW-26 who proved the written requests for recording of
statement of the complainant and other victims.
66. Objections were raised on behalf of accused to the
exhibition of the statement of victims recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on
the ground that the statement is not in the writing of the
deponent/PW-26 and the signatories of the said statements have not
appeared in the Court. The said objections were kept pending at that
stage and hence, are being taken up at the time of passing the
present judgment.
67. Admittedly, none of these victims have been examined
by the prosecution in its evidence as they were untraceable and
hence, have been dropped from the list of witnesses vide orders
dated 29.11.2022 and 10.01.2023. The fact of recording of their
statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has been deposed by IO/PW-26 who had
moved the application before the concerned Magistrate for
recording of the statements. However, the same is insufficient to
prove the contents of the statements in view of the settled legal
position with respect to the evidentiary value of the statements u/s
164 Cr.P.C.
68. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence,
as substantive oral evidence is one which is deposed before the
Court and is subjected to cross-examination. A statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. is not subjected to the constraints attached with the
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and hence, the vigour of Section 162
Digitally signed Page no 69 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:21:08 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
Cr.P.C. does not apply and hence, it is considered on a better
footing. Such statements can only be used to corroborate the
statement of witness or to contradict him. However, relevancy and
admissibility are distinct concepts in the realm of law of evidence.
The contents of statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. need to be proved by the
victim as victim is the sole person who can vouch for the veracity
of the contents. In State of Delhi vs Shri Ram Lohia, AIR 1960 SC
490, it was held that statements recorded under Section 164 of the
Code are not substantive evidence in a case and cannot be made use
of except to corroborate or contradict the witness.
69. In R. Shaji versus State of Kerala 2013 (14) SCC 266, it
has been held in Para 28 that Section 157 of the Evidence Act
makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements
made by witnesses in the committal court or even to contradict the
same. As the defence had no opportunity to cross examine the
witnesses whose statements are recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.,
such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
70. In view of the above discussed legal position, the
statement of the victims recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in the present
case remains unproved due to non-examination of these victims
as witnesses in the Court and hence, cannot be relied upon.
(III) Identity of accused persons vis-a-vis non-conduct of Test
Identification Parade
Page no 70 of 111
Digitally signed
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:21:12 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
71. Ld. Counsel for accused No.5-12 & A-15 to A-16 has
challenged the dock identification of the accused persons in the
absence of any proceedings in the form of test identification
parade. He has relied upon judgments “Arif Vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, 2015 SUPREME (Del) 2368″ and “Dana Yadav @ Dahu
& Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (7) SCC 295″.
72. However, all the accused persons except accused
Shyam Lal Saini have admitted their presence at the spot and
hence, their objection with respect to their identification in the
Court for the first time is groundless. The fact whether they were
merely mute spectators or a member of unlawful assembly shall
be dealt with in the latter part of this judgment, on the basis of
evidence available on record. Thus, it is only the admissibility of
evidence with respect to the identification of accused Shyam Lal
Sani which is in question.
73. Perusal of record shows that despite the claim of the
prosecution regarding the presence of number of police officials
on the spot of incident, only PW-15 has identified accused
Shyam Lal Saini. Remaining eye-witnesses i.e.
PW-4,5,6,10,11,12 &17 have failed to identify all the accused
persons except accused No.1 Somnath Bharti. PW-19 has
probably failed to identify accused Shyam Lal Saini as his name,
though mentioned in testimony of PW-19, but is missing in the
portion wherein accused persons have been identified by the
Page no 71 of 111
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:21:16 +0530
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
witness in the Court.
74. It is material to note that PW-15 has identified the
accused in the Court after a period of almost 7 years from the
date of incident. Admittedly, no TIP proceedings were carried
out in the present case. Identification of an accused by a witness
for the first time in the Court has been consistently held to be
evidence of weak character, incapable of forming the base for
conviction. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW-15
already knew the accused and hence, there is no reasonable
ground for not conducting TIP. Rather it has been stated by
PW-19 in his examination-in-chief that he came to know the
names of the supporters of accused No.1 at the spot itself.
Despite this, their names do not find any mention in DD No.9-A
Ex. PW-19/A-4.
75. The fact of non-identification of the accused by the
only independent witnesses present at the spot i.e. PW-5 and
PW-6 also assumes importance as the police officials identifying
them appear to be interested witnesses as the accused persons
have proved on record number of complaints made by them to
the area SHO/PW-19 and area ACP/PW-15 and non-action
thereon. It is because of this reason that Sarwan Singh’s
judgment (supra) which has been relied upon by the prosecution
is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the credibility
of the police witnesses has not been established beyond.
Digitally signed Page no 72 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:21:21 +0530
76. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of
identification of the accused Shyam Lal Saini in the Court by
witnesses is not inherently inadmissible but has weak
evidentiary value.
Constitution of Unlawful Assembly:-
77. The next question is regarding the discharge of onus of
proof by the prosecution qua constitution of unlawful assembly
by the accused persons. This question assumes importance as all
the charges have been framed against the accused persons with
the aid of Sec 149 IPC.
78. Section 141 of IPC defines an unlawful assembly to be
an assembly of five or more persons, where the common object
of the persons comprising that assembly is to commit any of the
acts enumerated in the five clauses of that section. Before
proceeding further, it would be apt to reproduce the definition of
Unlawful Assembly:-
‘Unlawful Assembly – An assembly of five or more
persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the
common object of the persons composing that assembly
is –
(i) to overawe by criminal force, or show of
criminal force, the Central or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any
public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of
such public servant; or
(ii) to resist the execution of any law, or of any
legal process; orDigitally
signed by
Page no 73 of 111
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:21:26
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
(iii) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass,
or other offence; or
(iv)by means of criminal force, or show of criminal
force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any
property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a
right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal
right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to
enforce any right or supposed right; or
(v) by means of criminal force, or show of
criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is
not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is
legally entitled to do.’
79. Only when the assembly fits into any of the above
circumstances, it could be construed as unlawful. The crucial
question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five
or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or
more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141 IPC.
80. The ‘common object’ of an assembly is to be
ascertained from the acts and language of the members
composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding
circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct
adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common
object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the
incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined,
keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by
the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the
scene of the incident. Thus, it is trite law that not every
gathering/ assembly of people can be termed as unlawful
assembly unless five or more people have gathered with one of
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 74 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
Date:
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:21:31
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
the common objects as enumerated in Section 141 IPC.
81. Constitution of unlawful assembly is a question of fact
and the prosecution is required to prove constitution of unlawful
assembly and its common object. Mere presence as a stranger,
by passer or gathered on the spot to see quarrel or the incident
would not make the person liable for formation of unlawful
assembly or liable for the commission of offence.
82. While dealing with the question of formation of
unlawful assembly, the Apex Court in the matter of Masalti v.
State of U.P.16,1 has held as under:-
“17. …What has to be proved against a person who is
alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly is that he
was one of the persons constituting the assembly and he
entertained along with the other members of the assembly
the common object as defined by Section 141 IPC. Section
142 provides that whoever, being aware of facts which
render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally
joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a
member of an unlawful assembly. In other words, an
assembly of five or more persons actuated by, and
entertaining one or more of the common objects specified
by the five clauses of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly.
The crucial question to determine in such a case is
whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons
and whether the said persons entertained one or more of
the common objects as specified by Section 141. While
determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider
whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were
merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a
matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the
common object of the assembly.”
(emphasis supplied)
1 (1964) SCC OnLine SC 30
Digitally
signed by Page no 75 of 111
NEHA NEHA
Date:
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:21:35
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
83. While dealing with same question, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sherey and others Vs.
State of U.P., has held as under:-
“4. …But when there is a general allegation against a
large number of persons the Court naturally hesitates to
convict all of them on such vague evidence. Therefore we
have to find some reasonable circumstance which lends
assurance. From that point of view it is safe only to
convict the abovementioned nine accused whose presence
is not only consistently mentioned from the stage of FIR
but also to whom overt acts are attributed…”
(emphasis supplied)
84. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of
Chandra Bihari Gautam & Ors. v. State of Bihar,2 has held as
under:-
“6. ….. Section 149 is an exception to the criminal law
whereunder a person can be convicted and sentenced for
his vicarious liability only on proof of his being a member
of the unlawful assembly, sharing the common object,
notwithstanding as to whether he had actually
participated in the commission of the crime or not.
Common object does not require prior concert and a
common meeting of minds before the attack. An unlawful
object can develop after the accused assembled. The
existence of the common object of the unlawful assembly
has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of
each case. It is true that the mere presence of the accused
is not sufficient to hold them guilty for the sharing of
common object as the prosecution has to further
established that they were not mereby-standers but in fact
were sharing the common object. When a concerted attack
is made by a large number of persons, it is often difficult
to determine the actual part played by each of the accused
but on that account, for an offence committed by a
member of the unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the
common object or for an offence which was known to be
likely to be committed in prosecution of the common
object, persons provide to be members cannot escape the
consequences arising from the doing of that act which2 (2002) 9 SCC 208
Digitally Page no 76 of 111
signed by
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar Date:
MITTAL 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:21:39
+0530
amounts to an offence. There may not be a common object
in a sudden fight but in a planned attack on the victim, the
presence of the common object amongst the persons
forming the unlawful assembly can be inferred.”
(emphasis supplied)
85. Thus, mere presence of the accused persons at the spot
will not make the accused persons members of the unlawful
assembly. Much less a common object to do a criminal act can be
attributed to the accused persons. Same is the ratio of the
judgments relied upon by the prosecution.
86. In the present case, all the accused persons except
accused Shyam Lal Saini have admitted their presence at the spot
on the alleged date and time. However, the burden remains on the
prosecution to prove that they were members of the unlawful
assembly. The presence of five or more persons at the spot is not
disputed. What the prosecution is required to prove is that these
persons entertained one of the five common objects enumerated
in Section 141 IPC.
87. From the case of the prosecution and allegations made,
it is clear that the prosecution does not allege that the assembly
of the accused persons was formed with the common objects
mentioned in sub-section (1), (2), (4) & (5). Thus, this Court is
required to conduct a scrutiny only with respect to the common
object mentioned in sub-section (3).
88. The assembly of the accused persons, in the present
Digitally
signed by
Page no 77 of 111
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:21:44
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
case, can be termed as unlawful only if the prosecution is able to
establish that the common object of the persons comprising the
assembly was to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or
other offence. It has to be borne in mind, while dealing with the
admitted presence of the accused persons at the spot, that they all
are residents of Village-Khirki/Khirki Extension and hence, their
presence at the spot is not to be looked with suspicion outrightly.
Rather their presence is a natural consequence of the events that
took place in their residential area, obviously out of curiosity.
Thus, the seemingly innocuous presence of the accused persons
at the spot needs to be proved to be tainted with criminality by
the prosecution with a heavier responsibility. The accused
persons were admittedly unarmed and not carrying any weapons.
The only allegation of carrying wooden sticks/lathis has been
made by the complainant in her application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
but the same has remained unproved in view of the non-
examination of the complainant in the Court as a witness.
Further, PW-17 has stated in his cross-examination that he did
not see any of the persons present at the spot carrying any lathi or
sword or any other weapon.
89. No overt act has been attributed to any of the accused
persons except A-1. Though it is not necessary for every member
of the unlawful assembly to do some act in pursuance of the
common object, but the fact that no overt act has been attributed
to anyone but A-1 assumes importance in the facts and
Digitally signed Page no 78 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:21:50
Date: 2026.04.24
+0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
circumstances of the case for determining the very existence of
unlawful assembly.
90. The prosecution has also failed to prove the
commission of any of the offences by the assembly of the
accused persons as discussed in the latter part of this judgment.
On the contrary, the accused persons have been able to prove the
reasons for their presence at the spot on the alleged date and
time. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has
failed to prove the constitution of unlawful assembly.
Identification of the Alleged Victims:-
91. A major focus of the defence, while addressing the final
arguments, was on the failure of the prosecution to establish the
identity of the alleged victims. It is a matter of record that none
of the victims appeared in the witness box and hence, the Court
had no opportunity to verify their identity.
92. Perusal of record shows that there is not even a single
document in the entire charge-sheet which could have established
the identity of the victims. PW-10 W/Ct Kamlesh was amongst
the first batch of police official to have reached the spot on
receiving the call from Khirki Extension. However, she has
stated in her cross-examination that she does not know who are
the complainants in this case and she cannot identify them.
PW-11 ASI Rajender, another police official, has deposed in his
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 79 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:21:55 +0530
cross-examination dated 16.02.2019 that even if the video of the
spot is shown to him, he cannot identify the African females
(alleged victims). PW-15 ACP B.S. Jhakkar has stated in his
examination-in-chief that he did not see the identification proof
of the African females (alleged victims). It is further pertinent to
note that PW-26 ACP Raman Lamba/IO has stated in his cross-
examination dated 21.03.2023 that he had taken copy of passport
and visa of the complainant during investigation and handed over
the same to the second IO. However, the same are admittedly not
on record and he further admits not having prepared any seizure
memo of the said documents, forcing this Court to doubt if any
such documents were ever collected.
93. PW-19 Inspector Vijay Pal, who was posted as SHO
Malviya Nagar at the time of incident, has stated in his cross-
examination that the fact of nationality of the victims as
Ugandian nationals was verified by SI Gopi Ram. However, for
reasons best known to the prosecution, SI Gopi Ram has not been
examined as a witness by the prosecution.
94. All the Investigating Officers have failed not only in
collecting the copy of passports of the alleged victims but also
did not make any attempt to verify whether they were actually
residing as tenants at the given addresses. The total absence of
efforts on the part of investigating agency to put on record any
document pertaining to the identity of the alleged victims rather
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 80 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:21:59 +0530
forces the Court to believe that there is more to hide than to
reveal and hence, the shielding of alleged victims from the Court.
These facts, in toto, raise a reasonable doubt on the fact of
identity of the alleged victims.
Delay in Registration of FIR:-
95. One of the arguments raised on behalf of accused
persons is that the delay in registration of the present FIR clearly
indicates the mala-fide of the investigating agency. Perusal of
record shows that the alleged incident took place in the
intervening night of 15th-16th January, 2014 whereas the present
FIR was registered on 19.01.2014 after passing of order dated
18.01.2014 by the then Ld. MM on an application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. filed on 18.01.2014.
96. It is the case of the prosecution that many police
officials including senior officers i.e. the area SHO, ACP/DIU
South District and ACP Hauz Khas were present at the spot on
the date of alleged incident. As per the testimony of PW-19/area
SHO, he reached at the spot on receiving DD No.6A at 01:30
AM and all the alleged offences took place in his presence.
Though PW-15 ACP B.S. Jhakkar and PW-17 ACP Harpal Singh
reached at the spot a little later i.e. at 02:20 AM and 03:20 AM
respectively, but some of the offences allegedly did take place in
their presence too. However, to the utter surprise of this Court,
they all chose not to take any action or initiate any legal
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 81 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:22:03 +0530
proceedings against the accused persons, for reasons not
explained to the Court. No explanation is forthcoming as to why
the police officials despite being eye-witnesses to the alleged
offences did not register the FIR immediately. On being aware of
the alleged commission of cognizable offences, the police
officials were duty bound to register FIR but the same was not
done.
97. It is further pertinent to note that PW-19 has stated in
his cross-examination dated 16.09.2021 that he had not read the
complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant before
submitting the status report in the Court. Hence, the
circumstances surrounding the registration of FIR are shady. The
manner of filing the status report by PW-19 without going
through the contents of the complaint forces this Court to believe
that the police officials were indeed using the complainant as a
pawn to do their dirty work. Probably this is the reason as to
why certain allegations against the accused persons are not
recorded in DD no. 9A and have been mentioned for the first
time in the complaint/application u/s 156(3) CrPC.
98. In view of the above discussion, prosecution case is
further weakened by the unexplained delay in the
registration of FIR.
Defence raised by the accused persons:-
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 82 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:22:08 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
99. The crux of the defence raised by the accused persons
is that illegal activities of drug-peddling and sex trafficking were
prevalent in the area of Khirki Extension and the local residents
were aggrieved by the non-action on the part of the police on the
said issues and hence, they had approached A-1 for redressal of
their grievances as he was the then MLA of the area.
100. To prove their defence, accused Ved Saini and Naresh
Saini have examined themselves as witnesses besides
summoning other official witnesses to prove various complaints
filed by the RWA of Khirki Extension with various authorities.
A-1 has also examined many news reporters, news readers, field
reporters etc., to prove the videos of clipping of news reports,
interviews broad-casted on news channel and a meeting
organized by Indo-African Coordination Committee held in Sai
Baba Mandir, Khirki Extension.
101. A perusal of the various complaints relied upon by the
accused persons shows that the issues of drug peddling and
human trafficking by the Africans living in the area of Khirki
extension were sought to be redressed by them. All these
complaints are prior to the date of alleged incident, thereby
corroborating the defence of the accused persons. The fact of
receiving of these complaints has also been admitted by PW-19
in his cross-examination dated 16.09.2021.
102. A-1 has also examined a number of news reporters,
Digitally signed Page no 83 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:22:13 +0530
journalists and field reporters to prove the news clippings,
documentary etc. in support of his defence. The first question
that arises is the admissibility of news reports in evidence.
Reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Laxmi
Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu shall be helpful in this regard.
In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has considered the
question of admissibility of the news-items appearing in a press
report in the newspaper and opined as follows:
“We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a
news-item being in the nature of hearsay secondary
evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a
newspaper is only hearsary evidence. A newspaper is not
one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the
Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be
proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under
Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report
cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.
It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in
a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible
in evidence in absence of the maker of the statement
appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the
fact reported. Since, the maker of the report which formed
basis of the publications, did not appear in the court to
depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts
contained in the published reports were clearly
inadmissible.”
103. In Mohet Hojai, Son of Shri Thangmai Hojai v.
National Investigation Agency (11 Aug 2023, Gau), it was held
as under:
“149. In the case of Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India &
Ors., reported in (2022) 3 SCR 471, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that Courts cannot take judicial notice of facts
stated in a news item published in a newspaper. A
statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely
hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence, unless
proved by the maker of the statement appearing in theDigitally signed
by NEHA Page no 84 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:22:17 +0530
Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported.
150. We feel that the same analogy would apply to a
report telecasted in a TV channel. Thus, the CDs of news
clipping reports sought to be proved in the testimony of
Hiteswar Medhi (PW-27) and Caushiq Kashyap
Bezbaruah (PW-70) were inadmissible as the same
tantamount to hearsay evidence. That apart, the CDs
were in form of secondary evidence and absence of
certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act ruled
out their production in evidence.”
104. It is clear from the said judgments that news reports are
hearsay evidence but can be proved by examining the news
reporter who has actually received/perceived the information. In
the present case, though A-1 has duly examined the field
reporters and news readers as DW-20, DW-21, DW-22, DW-23
and DW-24 to prove the news clippings, but there is no
certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act along with these clippings.
Hence, these reports/videos are inadmissible in evidence.
However, the same does not diminish the defence of the
accused persons which otherwise stands proved from other
ocular and documentary evidence.
105. The proving of the defence of the accused persons
creates a dent in the prosecution case as the vested interest of the
police has come on record. The accused persons are also able to
reasonably explain their presence on the spot.
Liability for separate offences:-
106. It is now to be determined whether any offence, as
charged, was committed by any or all of the accused persons
Digitally signed Page no 85 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:22:23
Date: 2026.04.24
+0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
while being present at the spot in response to the complaints
pertaining to drug trafficking and drug peddling. Let us now deal
with the liability of the accused persons for all the charges
separately. It is pertinent to note that the accused persons have been
charged for the offences with the aid of Section 149 IPC on the
principle of vicarious liability. However, it has already been
observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the constitution of
unlawful assembly. Hence, for determining the criminal liability of
the accused persons, aid of Section 149 IPC cannot be taken and the
same shall be determined on individual basis.
(I) Charge u/s 452 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC)
“That, in the intervening night of 15/16-01-2014 at
around 02:00 A.M in Khirki Extension Village, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS
Malviya Nagar, you all were members of an unlawful
assembly, some of the members of which committed the
offence of house trespass in House No. S-9, Khirki
Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi after making the
preparation for causing hurt to the residents of that
house namely, D, S-3 and S-4 in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly with the common
object of committing the offence of house trespass
which you all knew it to be committed in prosecution of
such object and all of you, are guilty of that offence
punishable under 452 read with section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), and within my cognizance.”
107. Charge u/s 452 r/w sec 149 IPC has been framed on the
basis of allegations made in the application u/s 156(3) CrPC and
statement of victims ‘D’, S-3 and S-4 recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
which are Ex.PW-26/D, Ex.PW-26/L and Ex.PW-26/Q in which
Digitally signed Page no 86 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:22:27
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
they have stated that mob of 8-10 persons led by accused No.1
forcefully entered into their house after breaking the window,
molested them by inappropriately touching them. Further, eye-
witnesses i.e. PW-10 W/CT Kamlesh, PW-15 ACP BS Jhakhar,
PW-17 ACP Harpal Singh and PW-19 Inspector Vijay Pal have
also deposed to this effect to prove the above-mentioned incidents.
108. As per the case of the prosecution, accused persons had
criminally trespassed into S-9, Khirki Extension and committed the
above-mentioned offence. However, there are material
contradictions in the testimony of the eye-witnesses qua the said
incident. PW-19 Inspector Vijay Pal has deposed that accused
Aditya came at the spot in WagonR car and led accused No.1 and
his supporters to house No.S-9, Khirki Extension where most of
them entered into the house and started thumping the doors. On the
contrary, in DD No.9A Ex.PW-19/A4 recorded and proved by the
same witness, it is stated that ‘the police kept them (the accused
persons) out of the above said house and it was informed to him
that neither the law permits to enter and search’.
109. Further, PW-10 and PW-15 have not stated in their
testimonies that accused persons entered the house of the victims.
PW-15 has rather clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that the
accused persons were somehow controlled and not allowed to enter
S-9. Without entering the house of the alleged victims, the offence
of house trespass can certainly not be committed.
Digitally signed
by NEHA
Page no 87 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:22:33 +0530
110. The statement of the victims recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., in
which allegations qua commission of offence punishable u/s 452
IPC have been made, are inadmissible in evidence, as already
discussed in para no. 69. These infirmities make the case of the
prosecution unreliable.
111. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that the
accused persons criminally trespassed into the house of the victims.
Hence, the said incident remains unproved.
(II) Charge u/s 323 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC)
“Secondly, in the intervening night of 15/16-01-2014 at
around 02:00 A.M in Khirki Extension Village, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS
Malviya Nagar, you all were members of an unlawful
assembly, some of the members of which committed the
offence of causing simple hurt to D, S3, S4, N, A@J
and S2 in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly with the common object of committing the
offence of simple hurt which you all knew it to be
committed in prosecution of such object and all of you,
are therefore guilty that offence punishable under 323
read with section 149 of IPC, and within my
cognizance.”
112. The allegations qua this offence have only been made
in the statement of victims D, S-2, S-3, S-4, A@J and N recorded
u/s 164 Cr.P.C. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that these
statements are inadmissible in evidence as none of these
witnesses have been examined in the Court. The remaining eye-
witnesses have not made even any whisper regarding inflicting of
injuries upon these victims by any of the accused persons. Mere
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 88 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:22:38 +0530
proving of MLC Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-1/B, Ex. PW-25/A to Ex.
PW-25/D does not prove the commission of the offence, in the
absence of any other evidence.
113. Further, perusal of MLC Ex.PW-25/A to Ex.PW-25/D
shows that it has been noted therein that the victims were brought
by SI SS Yadav for formal examination and consumption of
drugs. Rather all the MLCs specifically note ‘no physical
assault’. Thus, there are no allegations of infliction of any injury
upon them at the instance of the accused person.
114. No charge has been framed against the accused persons
with respect to the injury sustained by victim S-1 as mentioned in
her MLC Ex.PW-1/A and hence, the same cannot be considered
in evidence against the accused persons. Even otherwise, mere
proving of the nature of injury sustained by victim S-1 cannot
prove that the same was caused at the behest of any of the
accused persons.
115. Similarly, MLC Ex.PW-1/B of victim S-2 merely
mentions the alleged history as ‘assault’ without naming the
accused persons. Further, she was medically examined on
18.01.2014 at 08:03 PM i.e. almost after two days of the incident
which raises suspicion as to whether the injuries mentioned in the
MLC are even connected to the incident in question. Similarly,
complainant D was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW-26/F
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL Page no 89 of 111
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:22:43 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
on 20.01.2014 i.e. after 4 days of the incident and without
furnishing any reason for this delay.
116. In view thereof, the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the charge for the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w Section
149 IPC against the accused persons.
(III) Charge u/s 354/354C read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC)
“Thirdly, in the intervening night of 15/16-01-2014 at
around 02:00 A.M in Khirki Extension Village, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS
Malviya Nagar, you all were members of an unlawful
assembly, some of the members of which committed the
offence of assault with intention to outrage the modesty
of D, S-4, S-2, M and A@J and voyeurism in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly with
the common object of committing the offence of
assaulting the modesty and voyeurism of the women
which you all knew it to be committed in prosecution of
such object and all of you, are therefore guilty that
offence punishable under 354/354C read with section
149 of IPC, and within my cognizance.”
117. The charge under these Sections pertains to the victims of
all the three different incidents i.e. S-2 (victim of 1 st incident); M
and A@J (victims of 2nd incident); D and S-4 (victims of 3rd
incident).
118. With respect to the victim S-2, the allegations can only be
found in the statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of S-1 and S-2 which are
Ex.PW-26/M and Ex.PW-26/N respectively. In statement
Ex.PW-26/M, it is stated that the victim S-2 was slapped and
Digitally signed Page no 90 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:22:47 +0530
kicked in her back by accused No.1 Somnath Bharti. In statement
Ex.PW-26/N, the victim S-2 has herself stated that she was
restrained from attending the nature’s call by accused No.1
Somnath Bharti who asked him to urinate in front of the mob.
However, these statements are inadmissible in evidence as already
discussed above. Further, no allegations at all qua these offences
have been made with respect to victim S-2 by other
witnesses/police officials present at the spot. Thus, there is no
evidence on record to prove these allegations.
119. The victims of the 2nd incident i.e. M and A@J have
stated in their statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-26/O and
Ex.PW-26/U that their taxi/Ecco car was stopped en-route by a
mob and the men in the mob did not allow them to go for urination
despite request and rather asked them to urinate there itself due to
which victim A@J was forced to urinate there itself before the
public. However, as these victims were not examined in Court, their
statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C are inadmissible in evidence.
120. The other evidence that has been produced by the
prosecution to prove this incident is the testimony of the eye-
witnesses i.e. PW-10 W/CT Kamlesh, PW-15 ACP Jhakhar and
PW-19 Inspector Vijay Pal. From the line of cross-examination of
these witnesses, it is clear that the accused persons have not denied
the presence of Ecco car at the spot. Rather, their defence is that the
Ugandian women sitting in that car were indulged in drug
trafficking and other immoral activities and hence, demand was
Digitally signed Page no 91 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:22:51 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
being raised by the accused persons on behalf of local residents of
Khirki Extension to search these Ugandian women for narcotic
substances.
121. It is the testimony of PW-10, PW-15 and PW-19 which
needs to be scrutinised in detail to evaluate as to whether their
testimony can be relied upon for proving the incident in question, as
they are the only eye-witnesses who have been examined by the
prosecution. PW-17 admittedly came to the spot later on but had
seen the Ecco car at the spot.
122. Qua this incident, PW-10 had deposed that the Ecco car
was stopped by the supporters of accused No.1 and that accused
No.1 asked the SHO/PW-19 to frisk and search them for drugs. She
has also alleged that accused No.1 was demanding the search in
front of camera leading to altercation between him and PW-15 and
that the victims sitting in the Ecco car were forced to urinate near
the car itself as accused No.1 and his supporters did not allow them
to move from the car for urination. During her cross-examination,
she stated that she is not aware if accused No.1 had made call to
100 number demanding more female police. However, the fact that
accused no. 1 was demanding for ladies police is clearly mentioned
in Delhi Police Control Room Form-I Ex.PW-14/1. The said form
has been proved by prosecution witness/PW-14 himself. Her
evasive reply is also in contradiction to the testimony of PW-5 who
has stated in his examination-in-chief that accused No.1 was asking
for female cops. This Court is of the view that PW-5 is more
Digitally signed Page no 92 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:22:56 +0530
reliable being an independent witness. On the other hand, PW-10
has much to hide in order to justify the conduct of the police
authorities regarding non-action on the complaints of the local
residents regarding drug peddling and human trafficking, the same
having been proved by the accused persons by examining
themselves as witnesses in defence as well as by proving
complaints Ex.DW-3/1, Ex.DW-3/2 and Ex.DW-3/3. Further, a
large number of police force was admittedly present at the spot on
the day of incident. Hence, it is quite improbable to believe that the
Ugandian women sitting in the Ecco car were successfully stopped
by the accused persons from moving out of the car for relieving
themselves. It is further pertinent to note that the only independent
witnesses present on the spot i.e. PW-5 and PW-6 have not deposed
anything regarding the fact that women were forced to urinate at the
spot itself. These witnesses, being a part of news industry, could not
have left out such an important piece of information that too
pertaining to the then Law Minister of Delhi. This allegation,
though sensitive, would have been a sensational news for the media
houses as the Law Minister, expected to protect the legal rights of
the people was himself being a party to the violation of these rights
in the most inhumane manner.
123. For the same reasons, the testimony of PW-15 and
PW-19 also falls short of the required standard of proof to prove the
incident of forced urination by the alleged victims at the spot.
Moreover, as per the cross-examination of PW-19, he got the
Digitally signed Page no 93 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:22:59
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
information about the desire of Ugandian women to relieve
themselves through someone whose name he does not remember.
This is all the more reason to doubt the occurence of the incident, as
alleged. It is strange to note that almost all the police officials who
have been examined as prosecution witness, have stated that the
Ugandian women requested the police and the accused persons to
let them go for answering nature’s call. However, none of the
police witness has come forward to take the responsibility that it
was him/her to whom the said request was made.
124. It is also pertinent to note that nothing about the said
incident has not been mentioned in DD No.9A dated 16.01.2014
recorded by PW-19 himself, which is the most contemporaneous
document in relation to the alleged incident.
125. It is also the case of prosecution that the modesty of
victims D and S-4 was also outraged by the accused persons in
pursuance of the common object. However, allegations to this
effect made by the victims themselves in their statements u/s 164
Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence. No such allegations have been
made by the remaining eye-witnesses/police officials. Rather
PW-15 ACP BS Jhakkar has categorically stated in his
examination-in-chief that the accused persons were somehow
controlled and not allowed to enter S-9. Without entering into the
house, the alleged incident cannot possibly have taken place as the
victims were present inside the house and the accused persons did
not enter the house.
Page no 94 of 111
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:23:03 +0530
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
126. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
charges u/s 354/354C r/w section 149 IPC against the accused
persons.
(IV) Charge u/s 153A read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC)
“Fourthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, in
Khirki Extension Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, you all
were members of an unlawful assembly, some of the
members of which committed the offence of promoting
enmity between different groups on the ground of race
and done acts prejudicial to the maintenance of
harmony by calling the victims as Blacks and words
like “the victims are Blacks and you all do not want
them to stay there” and by assaulting only because they
are persons of foreign origins in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly with the common
object of offence of promoting enmity, between different
groups, which you all knew it to be committed in
prosecution of such object and all of you, are therefore
guilty of that offence punishable under 153A read with
section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and within
my cognizance.”
127. The allegations qua this offence have been made both
by the alleged victims and the other eye-witnesses. However, as
already discussed above, the allegations made by the victim in
their statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence. No
such allegations have been made by PW-10, PW-11, PW-12,
PW-15 and PW-17 despite they being the eye-witnesses of the
incident in question.
128. PW-19 Inspector Vijay Pal has made the allegation that
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 95 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:23:09 +0530
a vehicle coming from the side of Select City Mall, Saket in
which three trans-gender were sitting was forcibly stopped and
they were asked “tum ilake mein gandagi fela rahi ho, iss ilake
ko chhod kar chale jao, nahi toh tumhare liye bura hoga”.
However, he has neither named the person who stopped the
vehicle nor these trans-genders have been examined as witnesses
in the Court nor any charge qua this incident has been framed.
Apart from this, no other allegations have been made against any
of the accused persons qua this offence. As the prosecution has
failed to prove that the accused persons uttered the words in
dispute, no question arises for this Court to delve into the
discussion whether the uttering of those words would have
constituted an offence u/s 153A IPC. Hence, Amish Devgan’s
judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
129. It is further pertinent to note that sanction u/s 196 CrPC
is required for taking cognizance of offence punishable u/s 153-A
IPC. In the present case, the prosecution is relying upon sanction
Ex.PW-31/A. Perusal of cross-examination of PW-31 shows that
he neither remembers if the draft charge-sheet was prepared nor
the fact that CDs pertaining to the case were placed before him or
not, at the time of giving sanction. This casts a reasonable doubt
on the manner of grant of sanction. It appears the sanction suffers
from the vice of non-application of mind and hence, can be
termed as invalid. Hence, the accused persons are entitled to be
acquitted u/s 153A r/w Section 149 IPC.
Digitally
signed by Page no 96 of 111
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:23:15
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
(V) Charge u/s 509 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC)
Fifthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, in Khirki
Extension Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, within
the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, you all were
members of an unlawful assembly, some of the
members of which committed the offence of uttering
words and gestures intending to insult the modesty of
complainant D, N and S4 in prosecution of the common
object of that assembly with the common object of
committing the offence of assaulting the modesty of
women which you all knew it to be committed in
prosecution of such object and all of you, are therefore
guilty of that offence punishable under 509 read with
section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and within
my cognizance.
130. Allegations which form the basis for framing charge for
this offence are that the accused persons insisted for search and
frisking of Ugandian women in front of camera without regard to
their modesty and referred them as ‘prostitutes’.
131. The allegations made by the alleged victims in their
statements u/s 164 CrPC are inadmissible in evidence, as already
discussed above. No allegation of calling the alleged victims as
prostitutes has been made by any of the prosecution witnesses.
132. Apart from this, the police witnesses i.e. PW-10,
PW-15, PW-17 and PW-19 have deposed that accused no. 1 and
his supporters were repeatedly asking for conducting the search
of the alleged victims in open and in front of the camera. The
question is whether the consistent testimony of these witnesses is
Digitally signed Page no 97 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:23:18
Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
sufficient to discharge the burden of proof placed upon the
prosecution. The veracity of this allegation has to be adjudged in
light of the fact that PW-5 has stated in his examination-in-chief
that accused No.1 was asking for female cops. This fact is also
clearly mentioned in Delhi Police Control Room Form-I
Ex.PW-14/1. When the demand for female police made by accused
no. 1 stands established from oral as well as documentary evidence,
there remains little room for believing the version of the
prosecution. When accused no. 1 himself made efforts for ensuring
the presence of female cops at the spot, there appears hardly any
strength in the case put forth by the prosecution. Further, it is
material to note that neither any of the independent witnesses
present at the spot has made this allegation nor anything as such has
been captured in the video recordings. At this stage, it is pertinent to
note that PW-15 ACP Jhakkar has stated in his cross-examination
that the entire incident has been recorded in the mobile phone
cameras by the police officials. However, no such recordings have
been brought on record. Had any such recordings been produced in
the Court, the same would have been the best evidence to prove the
case of the prosecution. Since the recording is stated to have been
made by the police officials, the same could have been easily
procured by the prosecution. There is no explanation as to why the
proseuction has not produced the same. This raises an adverse
inference against the prosecution (reliance placed upon Tomaso
Bruno‘s Case ).
Digitally signed Page no 98 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:23:22
Date: 2026.04.24
+0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
133. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charge u/s 509 r/w section 149 IPC
against the accused persons.
(VI) Charge u/s 506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC)
“Sixthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, in
Khirki Extension Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, you all
were members of an unlawful assembly, some of the
members of which committed the offence of criminal
intimidation by threatening complainant D to kill her in
furtherance of common object of that assembly with the
common object of committing the offence of criminal
intimidation which you all knew it to be committed in
prosecution of such object and all of you, are therefore
guilty of that offence punishable under 506 read with
section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and within
my cognizance.”
134. The victim D would have been the best witness to
prove the allegations qua this offence, however, she has failed to
appear in the Court for her testimony. In the absence of her
examination, her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in her
evidence. No allegation of any such threat has been made by any
other witness. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove this
incident.
(VII) Charge u/s 342 read with section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC)
“Seventhly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, in
Khirki Extension Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, you all
were members of an unlawful assembly, some of the
Digitally signed Page no 99 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:23:27 +0530
members of which committed the offence of wrongful
confinement by confining the vehicle make Ecco Car
bearing registration number DL3CB2984 in which the
victims N, M, A@J, N@P and further confining the
victims S-1 and S-2 and other victims in prosecution of
the common object of that assembly with the common
object of committing the offence of wrongful
confinement which you all knew it to be committed in
prosecution of such object and all of you, are therefore
guilty of that offence punishable under 342 read with
section 149 of IPC, and within my cognizance.”
135. Charge under these sections has been framed with respect
to the victims of 1st and 2nd incident.
136. With respect to the assault on victims of 1st incident i.e.
S-1 and S-2, there are two eye-witnesses only i.e. PW-11 and
PW-12, who were deputed on PCR Van E-16 on the date of
incident. Remaining witnesses had come to the spot later on. Their
testimony has to be analyzed with caution as they both being police
officials have an inherent prejudice to support the case of the
prosecution.
137. These witnesses have deposed that they followed the car
of accused No.1 in their PCR van and stopped at Sai Baba Mandir
in Khirki Extension. It is further deposed that accused No.1 asked
his associates to call two Negro ladies upon which his supporters
made the two ladies sit in the PCR van. Perusal of their testimonies
shows that both of them have been able to identify only accused
No.1 Somnath Bharti and have clearly stated that they cannot
identify any other accused/ alleged supporters of accused No.1.
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 100 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:23:32 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
None of them have deposed in their examination-in-chief regarding
use of force upon these two victims at the instance of accused No.1
or his associates. Rather the use of force by the accused persons
was stated for the first time in the cross-examination by PW-11
when he was asked as to why he did not intervene as a Police
Officer. It appears that this allegation was made by the witness,
probably to justify his stance of not interrupting in between.
138. It is further pertinent to note that PW-11 has clearly
stated in his cross-examination dated 16.02.2019 that he cannot
identify the victims and supporters of A- 1 even if the video of the
spot is shown to him. PW-11 has further stated in his cross-
examination dated 16.02.2019 that these two women were not
indecently treated. These victims were the best persons to tell
whether they were wrongfully restrained but they have not come
before the Court to depose. For the reasons discussed above, this
Court is of the opinion that the testimony of PW-11 is insufficient
to prove the incident in question.
139. Similarly, PW-12 has also expressed his inability to
identify either the persons accompany A-1 or the victims, in his
cross-examination dated 13.02.2020. The witness has further stated
that he opened the door of the vehicle for these women. This
certainly creates an impression that no force was being used upon
these women by any of the accused persons else PW-12, being a
police officer, would definitely not have assisted the accused
persons by opening the door. Further, in his examination-in-chief,
Digitally signed Page no 101 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:23:36 +0530
PW-12 has stated that ‘3-4 persons who came with Mr. Somnath
Bharti brought two Nigerian ladies’. Thus, no direct or indirect
allegations have been levelled against A-1 by this witness and the
witness admittedly fails to identify those 3-4 persons.
140. These two victims would have been the best persons to
tell whether they were sitting in the van against their wishes or not
but they have not been examined. Their statements were recorded
u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and same have been exhibited as Ex.PW-26/M and
Ex.PW-26/N. They both have stated in their statement that they
were forcefully pulled out of the taxi in which they were traveling
near Sai Baba Mandir by a mob led by accused No.1. However,
these statements are inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution has
relied upon judgment “State through Inspector of Police Vs. Laly”
to support the argument that conviction can be sustained even if the
original complainant has not been examined in the Court. In the
said judgment, the accused was convicted u/s 302 IPC based on the
deposition of eye-witness who was found to be credible. However,
in the present case, though eye-witnesses have been examined by
the prosecution but material contradictions have been noted in their
testimonies, thereby making them unworthy of credit.
141. PW-10 had reached the spot at around 01:30 AM and had
found the alleged two victims sitting in the PCR van. However, she
has not deposed anything qua their restrainment at the instance of
accused No.1.
Digitally signed Page no 102 of 111
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:23:40 +0530
142. The prosecution further seeks to rely upon the
examination-in-chief of PW-19 wherein he has stated that he was
informed by PW-11 that two African ladies were forcibly taken out
from some vehicle and were made to sit in PCR van. However, this
portion of testimony of PW-19 is hearsay in nature and hence,
inadmissible. Further, PW-11 has not deposed in the Court to this
effect.
143. Statement of victims of 2nd incident i.e. ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘N@P’
and ‘A@J’ were also recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which are
Ex.PW-26/O, Ex.PW-26/R, Ex.PW-26/U and Ex.PW-26/V. They
have stated in their statements that they all were coming together in
a taxi which was stopped by a mob led by accused No.1. Racial
comments were hurled upon them and they were made to sit in the
car for about two hours and were not even allowed to step out of the
car for urination. At the cost of repetition, it is again reiterated that
these statements are inadmissible in evidence.
144. The witnesses of this incidents are stated to be PW-10
and PW-19. PW-15 and PW-17 came to the spot later on and found
the Ecco car at the spot. The testimonies of these witnesses
regarding this incident does not inspire confidence because their
over-zealousness is apparent from the extent of allegations,
contrary to record, made by them specifically against A-1. For
instance, the claim of the witnesses that A-1 was insisting for
personal search of these women in front of camera is belied by the
fact that it was A-1 who was repeatedly asking for more lady
Digitally
signed by Page no 103 of 111
NEHA NEHA
Date:
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
16:23:44
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. +0530
police. Similarly, the allegations pertaining to the incident of forced
urination in public has failed to achieve the trust of the Court for
reasons already discussed while dealing with the charge u/s
354/354C IPC. For these reasons, this Court has hesitation in
trusting upon the testimony of PW-10 and PW-19.
145. It is further pertinent to note that the only independent
witnesses present on the spot i.e. PW-5 and PW-6 have specifically
stated in their cross-examination that they have not stated the fact
‘accused Somnath Bharti and his supporters had stopped one Ecco
car’ in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. to the police implying
thereby that it is the police officials who are trying to build up a
case on these lines.
146. The videos relied upon by the prosecution have also been
played and seen in the Court. None of the accused persons can be
seen using force or manhandling any of the victims.
147. Hence, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the commission
of offence punishable u/s 342 IPC r/w 149 IPC by the accused
persons.
(VIII) Charge u/s 143/147 read with section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC)
“Eightly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, in
Khirki Extension Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, you all
were members of an unlawful assembly, the common
Digitally signed Page no 104 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:23:49 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
object of which was to commit the offences mentioned
above and committed the offence of rioting and you all
thereby committed an offence punishable under
143/147 of IPC, read with section 149 of IPC, and
within my cognizance.”
148. The existence of an unlawful assembly is a necessary
postulate for invoking Section 147 and 148 of IPC. Where the
existence of such an unlawful assembly is not proved, the
conviction under Section 147 and 148 of IPC cannot be recorded
or sustained. The failure of the prosecution to show that the
assembly was unlawful must necessarily result in the failure of
charge u/s 147 and 148 IPC.
149. In the present case, as has already been discussed, the
prosecution has failed to prove the constitution of unlawful
assembly. In view thereof, charges u/s 143/147 r/w section 149
IPC are bound to fail.
(IX) Charge u/s 186 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC)
“Ninthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, in
Khirki Extension Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, you all
were members of an unlawful assembly, some of the
members of which committed the offence of obstructing
the public servants i.e. police personals in discharging
their duties which you all knew it to be committed in
prosecution of such object and all of you, are therefore
guilty of that offence punishable under 186 read with
section 149 of IPC, and within my cognizance.”
150. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence u/s
186 IPC are as under:-
Digitally signed Page no 105 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:23:53 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
(a) There must be an obstruction.
(b) The obstruction must be by the accused.
(c) The obstruction must be voluntary.
(d) The obstruction must be of a public servant.
(e) The obstruction must in discharge of public
functions by the public servant.
151. To initiate prosecution under this section, it is
necessary that a complaint is filed u/s 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. is filed
by the concerned public servant or his superior officer to whom
he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the
prosecution has relied upon complaint Ex.PW-29/A.
Accordingly, the said requirement stands complied with.
152. The charge u/s 186 IPC stems from the general
allegations that the accused persons obstructed the police
officials in discharge of their public function. The manner of
obstruction has not been specified in the charge. Strangely, the
case of the prosecution does not reveal the public function which
was sought to be discharged by the public servants/ police
officials in which they were obstructed by the accused persons.
All the police officials except PW-11 and PW-12 reached at the
spot on receiving a call. The only allegation that can probably
come under the purview of u/s 186 IPC with respect to PW-11
and PW-12 is that they were asked by A-1 to follow his car.
However, as per the case of the prosecution itself, they followed
the car of A-1 only after seeking instruction/permission from the
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 106 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:23:57 +0530
control room and the said fact is apparent from the testimony of
these two witnesses. Thus, obstruction, if any, cannot be
attributed to the accused persons.
153. With respect to the remaining police officials present at
the spot, it is not the case of the prosecution that they were
present there to discharge any public function which was
obstructed by the accused. Rather the case of the prosecution is
that accused persons went on the spot and committed numerous
offences and they were being stopped from committing offences
by the police officials.
154. Ld. SPP for the State has relied upon Devendra
Kumar’s judgment (supra) wherein it has been observed that the
expression “obstruction” used in Section 186 IPC is not confined
to physical obstruction and neither there is any need of use of
criminal force nor the act need to be a violent one. It has further
been held in the said judgment that any act of causing
impediment by unlawfully preventing public servant in discharge
of his functions would be enough to attract Section 186 IPC. In
the present case, PW-5 has stated in his testimony that altercation
took place between ACP and A-1 regarding the action to be
taken. However, neither there are any allegations of use of any
kind of force by the accused persons on the police officials nor
anything as such can be seen in the CCTV footage of the
incident. Verbal demands were indeed made by the accusedDigitally signed Page no 107 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date: 2026.04.24
16:24:01 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
persons to conduct search of the foreign nationals. In the opinion
of this Court, the same does not fall within the purview of
Section 186 IPC as no act was being done by the police officials
in which they were disrupted and rather, demand for action on
their part was being made by the accused persons. Though use of
physical force is not necessary for a conviction under Section
186 IPC, but the obstruction must transcend mere verbal threats
or passive resistance. There must be an overt act or a credible
threat capable of preventing a public servant from executing their
duties. Same appears to be missing in the present case.
155. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence
punishable u/s 186 IPC.
(X) Charge u/s 427 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC)
“Tenthly, on the aforesaid date and time at House No.
S-9, Khirki Extension Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, you all were
members of an unlawful assembly, some of the members
of which committed the offence of mischief by breaking
the iron gate of that house and other articles which you
all knew it to be committed in prosecution of such object
and all of you, are therefore guilty of that offence
punishable under 427 read with section 149 of IPC, and
within my cognizance.”
156. The allegations qua this offence are that the accused
persons broke the window and gate of house S-9 to gain entry and
also torn the return ticket of victim D. However, the said ticket of
victim ‘D’ allegedly torn by accused persons has not been seized.
Digitally signed Page no 108 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 16:24:05
Date: 2026.04.24
+0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
Even its photographs are not on record. Further, this allegation has
been made only by victim D in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which
is inadmissible in her evidence. None other witness has deposed
qua this allegation.
157. Further, the broken iron angle Ex.PW-20/X stated to have
been broken by the accused persons was produced in the Court in
unsealed condition as observed in the testimony of PW-20. The
absence of seal on the iron angle raises cloud of suspicion on the
seizure itself. Ld. SPP for the State has argued that no cross-
examination has been done on behalf of any of the accused persons,
the same cannot be questioned now. Reliance has been placed upon
Mahavir Singh’s judgment & Balu Sudam’s judgment (supra).
Perusal of record shows that questions qua seal were put to PW-20
when the case property i.e. the iron angle was produced in the Court
for the first time. PW-22 was also cross-examined in detail with
respect to the seizure memo of the iron angle. Hence, in the opinion
of this Court, the above mentioned judgments are not applicable to
the facts of the present case. Further, while dealing with the charge
u/s 452 r/w Section 149 IPC, it has already been observed that the
prosecution has failed to prove that any of the accused persons
entered into the house of the victim.
158. These infirmities make the case of the prosecution
unreliable. Hence, accused persons are entitled to be acquitted u/s
427 r/w section 149 IPC.
Digitally signed
by NEHA Page no 109 of 111
NEHA MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
16:24:10 +0530
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
Conclusion:
159. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
on account of following discrepancies:-
(a) Statement of victims u/s 164 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in
evidence as they have not come before the Court to depose.
(b) The prosecution has not been able to establish the identity
of the alleged victims beyond reasonable doubt.
(c) There is unexplained delay in registration of present FIR
thereby weakening the case of the prosecution.
(d) Material contradictions have been noted in the testimony
of eye-witnesses.
(e) The prosecution has failed to prove the constitution of
unlawful assembly.
160. Hence, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to
the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s
323/354/354C/153A/147/143/152/186/506/509/427/342 IPC read
with Section 149 IPC and hold the accused persons not guilty of
commission of said offences. Accused persons namely Somnath
Bharti, Aditya, Badlu Khan, Badal Khan@Nafees Ahmad,
Pawan Saini, Naresh Saini, Dharamchand Rana, Ved Saini,
Rajesh Saini@ Bittoo, Hemant Saini, Sanjeev Saini, Vijay Saini,
Devender Chauhan, Anil Saini, Inder Saini and Shyamlal Saini
are acquitted of the offences u/s 323/354/354C/153A/147/143/
152/186/506/509/427/342 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
Digitally signed
Page no 110 of 111
NEHA by NEHA
MITTAL
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar MITTAL 2026.04.24
Date:
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors. 16:24:15 +0530
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
Announced in the open MITTAL Date:
2026.04.24
Court on 24.04.2026 16:24:21 +0530
( NEHA MITTAL )
ACJM-03/RADC
NEW DELHI
24.04.2026
Page no 111 of 111
FIR No.76/2014 PS:Malviya Nagar
State Vs. Somnath Bharti (Ex-Law Minister) & Ors.
