Delhi District Court
State vs Kunal Thapar on 12 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: DELHI
S.C. NO.: 2256/2016
FIR NO.: 59/2011
PS: Greater Kailash
U/S.: 364-A/436/435/34 IPC
CNR: DLSE010001682011
THE STATE
VERSUS
1. Kunal Thapar @ Golu
S/o Shri Mohan Lal Thapar
R/o F-56, Rajouri Garden,
Delhi
2. Nitin Chopra
S/o Shri Rakesh Chopra
R/o 280, Milansar Apartments,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi
3. Sahil Malhotra
S/o Shri Vipin Malhotra
R/o C-2/C, Pocket 12,
Flat no. 96, Janakpuri, Delhi ...ACCUSED
Date of Institution : 07.12.2011
Order reserved on : 29.01.2026
Order delivered on : 12.02.2026
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:19:59
+0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 1 of 61
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Kunal Thapar, Nitin Chopra
and Sahil Malhotra are facing trial for the offence punishable U/s.
364-A/436/435/34 IPC.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of prosecution is that on 09.05.2011 on the receipt
of PCR call vide DD no. 37-A regarding fire in a vehicle SI Pankaj
Kumar along with Ct. Ramgopal reached at the spot and found one
burnt car no. DL-CAJ-5183 and Crime Team also reached at the spot.
Later on complainant Shri Sandeep Kapoor handed over a written
complaint to him regarding said incident and FIR u/s. 435 IPC was
registered. During the course of investigation he prepared the site
plan, seized the burnt car and a burnt plastic bottle from the spot and
recorded the statement of witnesses including the statement of eye
witness Ashwini S/o Shri B.N. Joshi who had seen the accused
persons; that a request regarding inspection of vehicle
no.DL-3CAJ-5183 was sent to FSL Rohini. Later on the investigation
was transferred to SI Krishan Kumar who recorded the statement of
complainant’s brother namely Sanjeev Kapoor who stated that on
13.05.2011 he received a threatening call from mobile no.
9873587334 and the caller also claimed that he had set the above car
on fire. SI Kishan Kumar obtained the CDR of the said number and
examined Shri Deepak Vohra S/o Shri Baljraj Vohra. Later on the
investigation of the case was transferred to Inspector Ritesh Kumar,
Crime Branch who examined complainant Sandeep Kumar at length,
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:20:37
+0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 2 of 61
recorded his supplementary statement u/s. 160 Cr.PC and section
364/120-B IPC were added in the present FIR. On the basis of said
complaint, IO Inspector Ritesh Kumar prepared rukka and handed
over the same to the Duty officer for registration of the FIR. On the
basis of statement of Shri Sandeep Kapoor, FIR u/s.
435/436/364A/120B IPC was registered against accused Kunal
Thapar, Nitil Chopra and Sahil Malhotra and after completion of the
investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court.
3. On the basis of charge-sheet so submitted before Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance was taken by the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate and after compliance with the provisions of
Section 207 Cr.PC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions
and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a
prima facie case against accused Kunal Thapar, Nitin Chopra and
Sahil Malhotra requisite charges u/s. 364-A/436/34 IPC was framed
against them and additional charge u/s. 435/34 IPC was also framed
against accused Kunal Thapar and Nitin Chopra to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as
Digitally signed
many as twenty witnesses. by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:20:44
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 3 of 61
CHART OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecutio Name of the Description.
n witness witness
no.
PW-1 Shri Sandeep He is the complainant in the present
Kapoor case and is the one who received
ransom calls
PW-2 Inspector Vijai Pal He is the In-charge, Mobile Crime
Singh Kasana Team, South District and inspected
the spot i.e. N-83, GK-1 on
09.05.2011 along with his team
where they found one car lying in
burnt condition.
PW-3 Ms. Anshu Kapoor She is the mother of the victim and
eye witness to the incident of
kidnapping.
PW-4 Shri Sanjeev He is the brother of the complainant
Kumar and is also the one who received
ransom calls.
PW-5 Shri Sunil Kapoor He is the brother of the complainant
and is corroborating the testimony
of the complainant.
PW-6 Master "S" He is the one who was kidnapped
in the present case.
PW-7 Shri Deepak He is the public witness who called
Thakur at 100 number regarding the
incident of kidnapping.
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:20:50
+0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 4 of 61
PW-8 Shri Uma Kant He is the guard who informed the
Singh parents of master "S" about his
presence outside the office of
Thomas Cook.
PW-9 Shri R.K. Yadav He was the In-charge Fire brigade,
Nehru Place and reached at the spot
upon receipt of call regarding fire
in a car at N-81, G.K Part-I at 21.30
hours and controlled the fire. He
prepared his report which is Ex.
PW9/A and also proved the
detailed report from their head
office at Connaught Place which is
Ex. PW9/B.
PW-10 Shri Suresh Kumar He is also the guard at Amba-bi
wheelers, Rohtak road and is the
first one who noticed fire in the car
of the complainant.
PW-11 Shri Dinesh He has proved the detailed fire
Kumar, Sub- report no. 201041780 which is Ex.
officer Head PW11/A
Quarter, Delhi Fire
Services
PW-12 ACP Vijay Kumar He was the the SHO, PS Greater
Singh Kailash and reached at the house of
complainant on the receipt of
information regarding kidnapping
of his son.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:20:55
+0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 5 of 61
PW-13 Shri Tajinder He is the public witness and was
Singh produced in order to prove the CAF
of sim bearing no. 9999959838 in
the name of accused Nitin Chopra
but he did not support the case of
Prosecution regarding the same.
PW-14 Shri Gaurav He is the public witness and the
Chopra first one who noticed fire in the
godown of the complainant.
PW-15 Inspector Pankaj He is the police witness who
Kumar reached at N-83, Greater Kailash on
the receipt of information qua the
incident of fire in the car and he
also did the initial investigation qua
the said incident.
PW-16 Shri Ajay Kumar He is the Nodal Officer from Bharti
Airtel Ltd. and has proved the CDR
and CAF of mobile nos.
9810577315, 9871907908 and
9971124233.
PW-17 Shri Satish Verma He is the Alternate Nodal Officer
from Vodafone Idea Ltd. and has
proved the CDR and CAF of
mobile nos. 9999959838,
9811544533, 8447721884,
8447937262 and 9873587334
PW-18 Sh. Sri Narain, He is the FSL expert and has
Assistant Director proved his report which is Ex.
(Chemistry), FSL PW18/A.
Rohini, Delhi
PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash He joined the IO during the
investigations and was part of the
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:21:01 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 6 of 61
team who arrested and personally
searched accused namely Kunal
Thapar, Sahil Malhotra and Nitin
Chopra vide memos Ex. PW-19/1
to Ex. PW-19/6. He also proved the
seizure memo of mobile phone
make Blackberry recovered from
accused Kunal. He further proved
the seizure memos LG and Sony
mobile handsets recovered from
accused Nitin Chopra, Nokia and
Reliance LG recovered from
accused Sahil Malhotra which are
Ex.PW19/7 to Ex.PW19/9,
disclosure statements of all the
accused persons which are
Ex.PW19/10 to Ex.PW19/12,
pointing out memos of the place of
incident which are Ex.PW-19/13 to
Ex.PW19/15, pointing out memo of
place of incident where car make
Innova caught fire which are
Ex.PW19/16 and Ex.PW19/17 and
pointing out memo of the place
where godown of the complainant
and his car were fired which are
Ex.PW19/18 to Ex.PW19/20 and
pointing out memo of the place
where son of complainant was kept
after kidnapping which are Ex.
PW19/21 to Ex.PW19/23.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:21:09
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 7 of 61
PW-20 Inspector Ritesh He is the main Investigating Officer
Kumar of the case.
Documents produced on behalf of the Prosecution.
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ attested by
Ex.PW1/A Complaint dated PW-1 Shri Sandeep
10.05.2011 qua incident Kapoor
dated 09.05.2011
Ex.PW1/B DD no. 18-A dated PW-1 Shri Sandeep
10.03.2010 Kapoor
Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of empty PW-1 Shri Sandeep
bottle Kapoor
Ex.PW1/D Seizure memo of burnt car PW-1 Shri Sandeep
Kapoor
Ex.PW1/E Complaint dated PW-1 Shri Sandeep
16.05.2011 made to the Kapoor
Crime Branch
Ex.PW9/A Report of In-charge, Fire PW-9 Shri R.K. Yadav
Brigade
Ex.PW9/B Detailed report qua fire PW-9 Shri R.K. Yadav
incident obtained from
Head Office, Connaught
Place
Ex.PW11/A Detailed fire report PW-11 Shri Dinesh
Kumar
Ex.PW13/A CAF of sim no. PW-13 Shri Tajinder
9999959838 Singh
Ex.PW15/A Rukka PW-15 Inspector
Pankaj Kumar
Ex.PW15/B Site plan prepared at the PW-15 Inspector
instance of the Pankaj Kumar
complainant
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:21:17
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 8 of 61
PW16/A CDR of sim no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
9810577315 w.e.f. Kumar, Nodal Officer,
07.3.2010 to 12.03.2010 Bharti Airtel, Ltd.
Ex.PW16/B CDR of sim no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
9810577315 w.e.f. Kumar
05.12.2010 to 12.12.2010
Ex.PW16/C CDR of sim no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
9810577315 w.e.f. Kumar
05.05.2011 to 15.05.2011
Ex.PW16/D and CDR of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
Ex.PW16/E 9971124233 w.e.f. Kumar
05.12.2010 to 12.12.2010
and 05.05.2011 to
15.05.2011 and
Ex.PW16/E is bearing the
seal of the company and
signature of PW-16
Ex.PW16/F CDR of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
9871907908 w.e.f. Kumar
05.12.2010 to 12.12.2010
Ex.PW16/G and CDR of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
Ex.PW16/H 9871907908 w.e.f. Kumar
07.03.2010 to 12.03.2010
and 05.05.2011 to 15.05
2011
Ex. PW16/I Certificate u/s. 65-B Indian PW-16 Shri Ajay
Evidence Act for CDR of Kumar
mobile no. 9810577315
9871907908 and
9971124233
Ex.PW16/J CAF of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
(colly.) 9871907908 and voter ID Kumar
of Sahil
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:21:23
+0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 9 of 61
Ex.PW16/K CAF of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
(colly.) 9971124233 and passport Kumar
of Anu
Ex.PW16/L CAF of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
(colly.) 9810577315 and ration Kumar
card of Gurcharan Singh
Ex.PW16/M Certificate u/s. 65-B Indian PW-16 Shri Ajay
(colly.) Evidence Act for CAF of Kumar
mobile no. 9810577315
9871907908 and
9971124233
Ex.PW17/A and CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
Ex.PW17/B 9999959838 w.e.f Verma, Alternate Nodal
05.12.2020 to 12.12.2020 Officer, Vodafone Idea
and 05.05.2011 to Ltd.
15.05.2011
Ex.PW17/C and CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
Ex.PW17/D 9811544533 w.e.f Verma
05.12.2020 to 12.12.2020
and 05.05.2011 to
15.05.2011
Ex.PW17/E CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
8447721884 w.e.f Verma
01.01.2011 to 17.07.2011
Ex.PW17/F CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
8447937262 w.e.f Verma
01.06.2011 to 17.07.2011
Ex.PW17/G CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
9873587334 w.e.f Verma
10.11.2010 to 13.05.2011
Ex.PW17/H Certificate u/s. 65-B Indian PW-17 Shri Satish
Evidence Act for CDR of Verma
mobile no. 9999959838,
9811544533, 8447721884,
8447937262 and
9873587334
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:21:28
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR
+0530 & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 10 of 61
Ex.PW17/I Cell ID chart PW-17 Shri Satish
Verma
Ex.PW17/J CAF of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
8447721884 Verma
Ex.PW17/K CAF of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
8447937262 Verma
Ex.PW17/L CAF of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
9873587334 Verma
Ex.PW17/M, Certificates u/s. 65-B of PW-17 Shri Satish
Ex.PW17/N, the Indian Evidence Act Verma
Ex.PW17/O and
Ex.PW17/P
Ex.PW18/A FSL report PW-18 Shri Sri Narain,
Sr. Scientific Officer
(Chemistry)
Ex.PW19/1, Arrest memos of accused PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/2 and Kunal Thapar, Nitin
Ex.PW19/3 Chopra and Sahil Malhotra
Ex.PW19/4, Personal search memos of PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/5 and accused Kunal Thapar,
Ex.PW19/6 Nitin Chopra and Sahil
Malhotra
Ex.PW19/7 Seizure memo of PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Blackberry phone
recovered from possession
of accused Kunal Thapar
Ex.PW19/8 Seizure memo of two PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
mobile phones make LG
and Sony recovered from
possession of accused
Nitin Chopra
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:21:33
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 11 of 61
Ex.PW19/9 Seizure memo of two PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
mobile phones make Nokia
and Reliance LG recovered
from possession of accused
Sahil Malhotra
Ex.PW19/10, Disclosure statements of PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/11 and accused Kunal Thapar,
Ex.PW19/12 Nitin Chopra and Sahil
Malhotra
Ex.PW19/13, Pointing out memos of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/14 and place of incident prepared
Ex.PW19/15 at the instance of accused
Kunal Thapar, Nitin
Chopra and Sahil Malhotra
Ex.PW19/16 and Pointing out memos of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/17 place where car make
Innova caught fire
prepared at the instance of
accused Kunal Thapar and
Nitin Chopra
Ex.PW19/18, Pointing out memos of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/19 and place in front of Liberty
Ex.PW19/20 Cinema where the godown
of the complainant
prepared at the instance of
accused Kunal Thapar,
Nitin Chopra and Sahil
Malhotra
Ex.PW19/21, Pointing out memos of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/22 and place where son of the
Ex.PW19/23 complainant was kept after
kidnapping prepared at the
instance of accused Kunal
Thapar, Nitin Chopra and
Sahil Malhotra
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:21:39
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 12 of 61
Ex.PW19/24 Seizure memo of burnt PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
portion of the car lifted at
the instance of FSL team
Ex.PW19/25 Seizure memo of copy of PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
DD entry, statement of
witnesses etc.
Ex.PW19/X-1 Seizure memo of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
ownership documents of
the burnt car
Ex.PW19/26 Seizure memo of car make PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Santro used in the
commission of present
offence
Mark 20/A RC no. 21/2411 for PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
sending exhibits to FSL, Kumar
Rohini for scientific
examination
Mark 20/B Acknowledgment of PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
acceptance of case Kumar
property at FSL
Ex.PW20/1 Original superdarinama PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
dated 07.10.2011, copy of Kumar
order dated 05.10.2011 and
11 photographs of Santro
car bearing no.
DL-4CAG-3981
Ex.PW20/2 Photographs of Santro car PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
bearing no. Kumar
DL-4CAG-3981 along
with its negatives
List of Material Objects.
Material Description of exhibit Proved by / attested by
object no.
Ex.P-1 Car bearing no. PW-4 Shri Sanjeev Kapoor
DL-3CAJ-5183
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:21:45 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 13 of 61
Ex. P-1, Four mobile phones make PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
Ex.P-2, LG, Sony Ericsson, Kumar
Ex.P-3 and Reliance and Nokia
Ex.P-4
Ex.P-5 and Residue of burnt car PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
Ex.P-6 Kumar
Ex.P-7 Mobile phone make PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
Blackberry Kumar
5.1 During the prosecution evidence, statement of all the
accused persons was recorded u/s.294 Cr.PC whereby they admitted
FIR no. 59/2011 as Ex.A-1, TIP proceedings dated 01.05.2011 as
Ex.A-2 and statement of master ‘S’ recorded u/s. 164 Cr.PC recorded
by Ld. M.M. as Ex.A-3. Accordingly, witnesses namely PW HC Anil
Kumar and Shri Munish Markan, Ld. MM were dropped vide order
dated 08.10.2025 and prosecution evidence was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the
incriminating material was put to all the accused persons under
Section 313 Cr.PC. They pleaded innocence and accused Kunal
Kapoor stated that family of complainant were having good relations
with his family; that in the financial year 2010-11 some inquiry was
initiated by Sale Tax/VAT/Excise department with respect to over
sale of goods without bill on the firm of the complainant namely
Amba Bi-Wheelers Pvt. Ltd and in pursuant to same a raid was also
conducted by the Central Excise Department on their godown at
Liberty Cinema, Karol Bagh and since then the relations of family of
complainant were not cordial with their family which resulted into
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:21:59
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 14 of 61
some dispute; that Mr. Sandeep Kapoor and his family also had
suspicion that accused Kunal Thapar has relationship with his wife
and due to the said reason he was falsely implicated in the present
case. Accused Nitin Chopra and Sahil Malhotra stated that family of
complainant Sandeep Kapoor and accused Kunal Thapar were known
to their family since last several year; that due to some personal
family reasons the relations of family of complainant and accused
Kunal Thapar became hostile which resulted in their false implication
as well as that accused Kunal Thapar. They opted to lead defence
evidence and examined DW-1 Shri Manish Kumar, Deputy Manager
(Operations), Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and DW-2 Shri
Rajan Jha, Inspector CGST, Delhi North Commissionerate in her
defence.
ARGUMENTS
7. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld.
counsel for the complainant that complainant i.e. PW-1 Shri Sandeep
Kapoor, PW-3 Ms. Anshu Kapoor, PW-4 Shri Sanjeev Kapoor and
PW-6 master “S” have fully supported the case of the Prosecution;
that during cross examination PW-1 Shri Sandeep Kapoor has
specifically stated that on 10.03.2010 his son couldn’t go to school as
he was kidnapped; that the testimony of PW-3 Ms. Anshu Kapoor
clearly established that master “S” was kidnapped by accused Kunal
along with accused Nitin and Sahil who demanded ransom for his
release and master “S” has also categorically deposed about his
kidnapping and correctly identified the accused persons; that
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:05 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 15 of 61
deposition of master “S” cannot be doubted as the Ld. MM put some
questions to him to ascertain whether he is capable for understanding
the question or not and after being satisfied, his testimony was
recorded before the Court and placed reliance on judgement titled as
Pancchi & Ors., National Vs. State of UP & Ors (AIR 1998 SCC
2726); that motive in the present case has also been established by the
prosecution witnesses; that call details of mobile of accused persons
have also showing their presence at the place of incident at the
relevant time which established their involvement in the commission
of present offence; that complainant withdrawn his insurance claim
when he got to know about the involvement of accused persons in the
incident of fire in his godown; that no plausible explanation came
from the side of accused persons for their false implication in the
present case; that the delay caused in registration of FIR has also been
duly explained by the prosecution witnesses that it was due to
sequence of offence one after another and family of accused Kunal
Thapar and that of complainant Shri Sandeep Kapoor were known to
each other; that the defence witnesses produced on behalf of the
accused failed to prove the defence theory that fire in the godown was
set by the complainant Sandeep Kapoor himself or at his instance; that
it is crystal clear that accused persons were involved in kidnapping of
master “S”; that besides denying the allegations the accused persons
have not been able to prove anything concrete in their defence; that no
substantive contradictions or omissions have been duly established by
the ld. defence counsels during the course of examination of
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:11 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 16 of 61
prosecution witnesses. In view of the same, it has been prayed before
this Court that accused persons be convicted for the offences charged.
7.1 Per contra it was argued from the side of accused persons
that the mobile number on the basis of which all the accused persons
have been chargesheeted in the present case was shown to be in the
name of accused Kunal Thapar whereas as per PW-6 the said number
is in the name of Shri Gurcharan Singh; that the mobile no. alleged to
be of accused Nitin Chopra is in the name of Shri Sumit Maggo as
deposed by PW-17; that the alleged incident of fire at godown
occurred on 08.12.2010, alleged incident of kidnapping happened on
10.03.2010 and alleged incident of fire in Innova car happened on
09.05.2011 but all the said incident reported to the police for the first
time on 10.05.2011; that it was deposed by PW-12 ACP Vijay Singh
that he met the boy on 10.03.2010 at 02.05 p.m. but no complaint of
kidnapping was reported at that time; that PW-12 ACP Vijay further
admitted the statement of PW-1 Shri Sandeep Kapoor i.e. father of the
child that there was no incident of kidnapping occurred; that PW-1
also admitted that he made statement before the police vide
Ex.PW1/B that no incident of kidnapping happened and his son went
to his friend’s house and he has further admitted that there was no
exchange of any ransom; that statement of PW-6 Master Samay
Kapoor was recorded u/s.164 Cr.PC after fourteen months of the
alleged incident and same was not put to him during his examination-
in-chief; that reply to the questions put to him casts serious doubts
about his veracity and he is apparently tutored; that there is no
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:16
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 17 of 61
independent witness to the alleged incident; that there are major
contradictions/ omissions / improvements in the statements of family
members of child i.e. PW-1 Sandeep Kapoor, PW-3 Ms. Anshu
Kapoor, PW-4 Sanjeev Kapoor and PW-5 Sunil Kapoor which
suggests that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the
present case; that recovery of child from Thomas Cook basement
contradicts the statement of PW-1 and PW-3 who stated that child was
recovered from McDonald’s Punjabi Bagh by different persons; that
Prosecution failed to produce any witness or evidence from the
Mcdonald restaurant to prove the factum of recovery of child; that
PW-5 Shri Sunil Kapoor made statement to the police that fire at
godown was caused due to spread of fire emanated from the car
parked adjoining the godown due to installation of CNG; that PW-10
Shri Suresh who is the guard of the godown denied of making any
statement to the police and has not supported the case of the
Prosecution; that DW-1 Shri Manish Kumar deposed that the insured
withdrawn their claim vide letter dated 12.02.2011 because the
complete inventory of intact stock after the loss was much more than
the insured book and insured also indicated that they do not want to
disclose this aspect or indulge themselves in scrutiny of any
Government agency; that DW-2 Rajan Kumar Jha, Inspector, CGST
produced show cause notice and panchnama including the search
memo of raid proceedings at the godown of the complainant on
18.01.2011 by Excise officials where unbilled goods were found and
thereby causing loss of the Excise duty; that the matter was reported
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:22 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 18 of 61
to the police after delay of 24 hours; that alleged eye witness namely
Shri Ashwini was not examined by the Prosecution in the present
case; that PW-9 Shri R.K. Yadav, Fire Official admitted the incident
in question vide Ex.PW9/A and same witness also admitted that they
did not conduct any preliminary investigation at the spot; that car
bearing no. DL-4CA-3981 was shown to be recovered from Shri
Vipin Malhotra however same was not identified by the victim or any
other witness; that complainant / PW-1 Shri Sandeep Kapoor stated in
his complaint that accused Kunal Thapar suspected that he had
relations with his wife and this could be the reason of false
implication of the accused Kunal Thapar by the complainant; that
Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In view
of the same it has been prayed that accused persons be acquitted of the
offences charged.
8. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for
the accused persons as well as Ld. counsel for the complainant and
perused the record.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
9. The accused persons are facing trial for the offence
punishable U/s. 364-A/436/435/34 IPC. Section 364-A IPC deals with
kidnapping for ransom. It states that:
“364A. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or
keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or
abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such
person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that such person may be put to death or
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:28
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 19 of 61
hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to
compel the Government or 4 [any foreign State or
international inter-governmental organisation or any
other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to
pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
9.1 The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case
of an offence u/s. 364-A IPC are:-
(i) That the person kidnapped was at the time of the
offence India.
(ii) That the accused conveyed him beyond the limits of
India.
(iii) That he did so without his consent or the consent of
another legally empowered to consent on his behalf.
II. For kidnapping from lawful guardianship-
(1) That the person kidnapped was then a
minor under 16 years of age, if a male and under
18 years, if a female; or that he was insane.
(2) That such person was in the keeping of a
lawful guardianship.
(3) That he did so without consent of the
lawful guardian.
9.2 Section 435 IPC deals with mischief by fire or explosive
substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or
(in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees. It states that:
“Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive
substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that
he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:34 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 20 of 61
of one hundred rupees or upwards 1[or (where the property
is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards], shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine”
9.3 Section 436 IPC deals with mischief by fire or explosive
substance with intent to destroy house, etc. It states that:
“Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive
substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that
he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which
is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human
dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be
punished with 2[imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
10. Before deliberating upon the case of the prosecution and
arguments advanced by ld. counsels for the accused, the court stands
guided by the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in Akbar Vs. State, 2009 Cri LJ 4199, wherein it has enumerated
certain principles for appreciation of ocular evidence:
“49. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a
Herculean task. There is no fixed or strait-jacket
formula for appreciation of ocular evidence. The
judicially evolved principles regarding the
appreciation of the ocular evidence in a criminal
case can be enumerated as under:-
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the
witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of
truth. Once that impression is formed, it is
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:40 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 21 of 61
undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize
the evidence more particularly keeping in view the
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out
in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find
out whether it is against the general tenor of the
evidence given by the witness and whether the
earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to
render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives
evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion
about the general tenor of evidence given by the
witness, the appellate Court which had not this
benefit will have to attach due weight to the
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and
unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it
would not be proper to reject the evidence on the
ground of minor variations or infirmities in the
matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is
quite possible for him to make some discrepancies.
But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that
the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not
touching the core of the case, hyper technical
approach by taking sentences torn out of context
here or there from the evidence, attaching
importance to some technical error committed by
the investigating officer not going to the root of the
matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the
evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere
variations falling in the narration of an incident
(either as between the evidence of two witnesses or
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:47
+0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 22 of 61
as between two statements of the same witness) is
an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to
possess a photographic memory and to recall the
details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is
replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is
overtaken by events. The witness could not have
anticipated the occurrence which so often has an
element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the
details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person
to person. What one may notice, another may not.
An object or movement might emboss its image on
one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on
the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a
conversation and reproduce the very words used by
them or heard by them. They can only recall the
main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to
expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make
their estimates by guess work on the spur of the
moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot
expect people to make very precise or reliable
estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the
time-sense of individuals which varies from person
to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events which take place
in rapid succession or in a short time span. A Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:53
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 23 of 61
witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when
interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to
be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the
piercing cross examination by counsel and out of
nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding
sequence of events, or fill up details from
imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-
conscious mind of the witness sometimes so
operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or
being disbelieved though the witness is giving a
truthful and honest account of the occurrence
witnessed by him.
11. The case of prosecution is that accused Kunal Thapar along
with co-accused Nitin Chopra and Sahil Malhotra kidnapped master
“S” in order to compel the complainant to pay ransom of Rs.1 crore
and a Honda CRV car. Apart from that all the accused also committed
mischief by causing fire in the godown / shop no. 3C/8, New Rohtak
Road, near Liberty Cinema, New Delhi-05 and the car i.e. Toyota
Innova bearing no.DL-3CAJ-5183 belonging to the complainant.
12. Coming to the first charge of kidnapping, the case put forth
by the Prosecution is that one minor boy master “S” was kidnapped
from outside his house and the incident of kidnapping was witnessed
by Ms. Anshu Kapoor and she informed her husband Shri Sandeep
Kapoor about the kidnapping who is the complainant in the present
case. Victim i.e. master “S” was examined as PW-6 and he has
deposed that “On 10.03.2010 at about 8.00 am, I was going to my
school i.e. DPS, East of Kailash, New Delhi. I was in first standard at
that time. I was going with my mamma on foot towards our car which
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:22:59
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 24 of 61
was parked at a little distance from our house. My mamma was
opening the door of the car and I was on the seat of the car and in the
process of closing the door and in the meantime, Kunal came from
behind and caught me and took out from the car towards his car
which was parked there. I was put inside the car. Two persons were
with Kunal. One was on the driving seat and other one was on the rear
seat. I was put on the rear seat of the car. Kunal sat on the passenger
seat i.e. front seat of the car. After that the car started. Kunal got
down from the car after 2-5 minutes. The other persons remained
inside the car. They took me to one place in Punjabi Bagh where they
gave me chips. It was apartment type. I was made to sit in one room
in the apartment. I played the games there even on computer. I was
taken to Mc Donald Punjabi Bagh where I was made to sit on a
bench. Those persons told me that they will be back within 2-3
minutes. I was alone there so I started weeping. Those persons did not
come back. One guard from a shop came there and consoled me and
took me to one shop from which I made a phone call to my mother.
My father came after some time to take me and we came back to our
home.”
12.1 Ms. Anshu Kapoor was examined as PW-3 and she has deposed
that “On 10.03.2010, while I was going towards my car alongwith my
son namely Samay Kapoor aged around 8 years to drop him at his
school at around 08:00 am, two persons came in a Santro Car and
snatched away my son from my custody and took him away in the
said Santro Car. Said Santro Car was bearing No. 3981 and the
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:23:05
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 25 of 61
window pans of the said car were black in colour. I rushed back to my
house in a state of shock and informed my husband about the
incident. On hearing the commotion, one of my neighbour Deepak
Thakur had called the police. Kunal Thapar also arrived at our house
soon after my reaching and disclosed that he had kidnapped our son.
He further demanded a sum of Rs. I Crore and the Car CRV Honda as
a ransom for the release of my son. Police also arrived there. After
coming to know about the arrival of police. Kunal Thapar threatened
us not to inform the police about the kidnapping by him else he will
kill my son. Sensing the gravity of danger to our son, my husband and
family members had taken the police officials on the first floor of the
house and did not disclose anything about the kidnapping.” She has
further deposed that “Kunal Thapar had told me that his associates
will call him and he will direct them to release my son and he should
be allowed to leave then from our house .” She has further deposed
that “At about 03:30 PM, a guard from McDonald Restaurant, Punjabi
Bagh had called me to inform that one boy is present there and crying.
He also gave the mobile to my son to talk to him. I alongwith my
husband and his friend Manoj went there to take back my son.”
12.2 Complainant was examined as PW-1 and he has deposed
that “On 10.03.2010, his younger son Samay Kapoor aged about 7
years was kidnapped from outside their house; that his wife was going
to drop his son to his school at around 08:00 am on 10.03.2010; that
one black colour Santro car bearing Registration No. 3981 having
black glasses; that his son was forcibly taken away from the hand of
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:23:11
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 26 of 61
his wife by Kunal Thapar and his son was made to sit in the aforesaid
Santro car in which one person namely Nitin was sitting, who was
already known to them; that one other person was also sitting in the
said Santro Car; that his wife came running to the house and narrated
the kidnapping of our son by Kunal Thapar with the help of two
persons as mentioned above (objected to being hearsay). Thereafter
Kunal Thapar came to our house and he demanded a ransom of Rs. 1
Crore and my Honda CRV Car in release of my son”. He has further
deposed that “The said incident was witnessed by drivers of locality
and some guards. The aforesaid driver/guard had informed about the
aforesaid incident to his owner namely Deepak Thakur, resident of
N-33. The said Deepak made a call to some higher police official
regarding the incident.’ He has further deposed that “After sometime
police reached at our house. Kunal Thapar was sitting inside our
house with my family members and our family was making request to
him to release my son. When the police entered in our house, Kunal
became nervous. He threatened my family members, if we want to
release my son alive, we should not tell anything to the police. Due to
aforesaid threat of Kunal, our family members took the police
officials on the first floor and did not reported the matter regarding
kidnapping of my son. Thereafter police left our house again said,
police was present at our house on the first floor” . He has further
deposed that “Accused Kunal told me and my family members that
his associates will make call to him on reaching some point, then he
will ask them to bring back my son. Accused Kunal also told us to let
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:23:18
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 27 of 61
him go from there. We did not take any action against Kunal
apprehending danger to the life of my son” . He has further deposed
that “At 03:30 pm, on the same day my wife received a call from a
Guard of Thomas Cook from Punjabi Bagh, Central Market just near
Mac Donalad forming a small child was weeping there and the child
had given his number for talking with his family members “. He has
further deposed that “My wife made a call to me informing that our
son Samay was present at Thomas Cook, Punjabi Bagh, Central
Market Just near Mac Donalds. I alongwith my friend Manoj reached
at the aforesaid place. I took my son from the aforesaid place.”
12.3 Going by the abovesaid testimonies, the victim i.e. PW-6
has deposed that on 10.03.2010 while he was going to school along
with his mother at that time accused Kunal came from behind and put
him inside the car and apart from accused Kunal two more persons
were in the car. PW-6 has specifically stated the names of other two
persons as accused Nitin and Sahil whereas PW-3 Ms. Anshu Kapoor
has deposed that her son master Samay Kapoor was snatched from her
custody by two persons who came in Santro car but she neither stated
that her son was forcibly taken away from her hands by accused
Kunal Thapar nor she uttered the names of other two accused persons
despite the fact she knew Kunal Thapar since long and the other two
accused persons were not strangers to her. Further PW-1 Shri Sandeep
Kapoor has deposed that his wife i.e. PW-3 Ms. Anshu Kapoor told
him that accused Nitin was sitting in the car in which his son was
forcibly made to sit whereas PW-3 Ms. Anshu Kapoor didDigitally
not signed
utter
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:23:25
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 28 of 61
any such name in her testimony. The said contradictions amounts to
material contradictions in the testimonies of star witnesses of the case
and go to the root of the case and render the testimony of the witness
liable to be discredited. It is settled proposition of law that in case
there are minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the
same are bound to be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as
improvements and it is likely to be so as the statement in the court is
recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the contradictions are so
material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the
trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion
about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their
depositions inspire confidence” Reliance placed on Judgment title
“Tehsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012”.
12.4 The allegations are of the kidnapping in the present case
and quite interestingly the kidnapper came to their house and asked
for ransom of Rs. One crore and Honda CRV car. Fortunately the
child was recovered safe and alive on the information given by the
guard placed outside from the Thomas Cook, Punjabi Bagh, Central
Market. Further the child came back home safely without paying any
ransom since PW-1 has admitted that he has not paid any ransom to
anyone before getting his child back or thereafter as well. In view of
the same, the charge of the Prosecution fails that the child was
kidnapped for ransom.
13. Coming to the charge u/s. 436/34 IPC, the fire incident in
godown was firstly noticed by one Mr. Gaurav Chopra who was
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:23:31
+0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 29 of 61
examined as PW-14. He has deposed that ” It was on 09.12.2010, I
used to reside with my family at the given address 3C/6, New Rohtak
Road, New Delhi. My room in the old house at New Rohtak Road
was towards the service lane and in the night at about 02:00 AM, but I
am not sure whether it was the intervening night of 09/10.12.2010 or
08/.09.12.2010, when I rushed down stairs after hearing the sirens of
the fire brigade and on coming down stairs, I came to know that a fire
had broken out in the basement of the comer building which was a
commercial one and on the back of which my car which was non-
functional car make Maruti Baleno with CNG kit (there was no
battery in car) bearing no. DL 2CAG 1916 was parked and because of
the fire that erupted from vents of the said building, my parked car
caught fire. The local police was also there besides the fire brigade
personnel and inquires were made from me as well besides the other
neighbors who had gathered over there. My burnt car was taken into
police possession.” PW-14 Shri Gaurav Chopra only noticed fire in
the shop of the complainant and apart from that he has not deposed
anything as to who caused the said fire or whether he noticed
someone running from there after the incident and henceforth, his
testimony is not helpful in fixing the guilt of accused persons.
13.1 After PW-14 Shri Gaurav Chopra, the incident in question
came in the knowledge of Shri Sanjeev Kapoor who was examined as
PW-4. He has deposed that “on 09.12.2010, a vehicle parked on the
back lane of our aforesaid showroom was burnt. There was a window
of our showroom near the said vehicle which was burnt and the
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:23:37 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 30 of 61
window of our showroom also got burnt. Our entire building was
burnt due to the said fire. It was a big fire and there was about 45 fire
brigades to control the fire. That time we thought that it was just an
incident and as such we did not report the matter to the police “. PW-4
Shri Sanjeev Kapoor thereafter informed his brother Shri Sandeep
Kapoor i.e. complainant / PW-1 about the said fire and he has deposed
that “The basement of the godown was totally damaged due to fire.
When I returned to Delhi, I was informed by my family members that
they had come to know that a car was parked near the basement
window and due to fire in the said car our godown also caught fire.”
In view of the same both PW-4 Shri Sanjeev Kapoor and PW-1 Shri
Sandeep Kapoor gave the cause of fire as fire in some vehicle parked
outside their showroom and at that time they did not raise any finger
towards the accused since PW-4 has admitted in his cross-
examination that he is not the eye witness of the incident when their
car and godown were burnt in fire. Neither he told the name of any
eye witness to the police with respect to car and godown fire incident.
The aforesaid testimony of PW-4 was put to the accused persons
while recording statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC and both the accused Sahil
Malhotra and Kunal Thapar have stated that ” the fire in the godwon
was on account of the fire emanated from the parked CNG fitted cars.
The remaining part is incorrect.” and this answer is going in
consonance with the testimony of PW-1 as well as PW-4 who have
also given the cause of fire in the godown as fire in some
Digitally
vehicle
signed by
parked outside their showroom. GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:23:43
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 31 of 61
13.2 It was only on the basis of guess work did PW-4 Shri
Sanjeev Kapoor arrive at the conclusion that accused Kunal Thapar
was behind the all incident since he has deposed that ” After this
incident of fire in our godown, once I had received a call from
accused Kunal Thapar that there is some complaint against us in the
office of customs regarding which he asked me to meet him but I
refused to meet him. When we lodged the complaint with the Crime
Branch of Delhi Police, we co-related all the above incidents (referred
above) and we could perceive that it is accused Kunal Thapar who is
responsible for all the incidents of fire, threats, kidnapping, demand
of ransom etc. which had taken place with us. In the month of June,
2011 my statement was recorded by the police officials of Crime
Branch. All the threatening calls were generally made on my mobile
phone”.
13.3 Complainant i.e. PW-1 too has deposed on the similar lines
as that of PW-4 Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor regarding the fire incident that
initially he did not suspect the role of accused Kunal Thapar rather
any of the accused in the said incident. He has deposed that ” On
09.12.2010, my godown No. 3C/8, New Rohtak Road, near Liberty
Cinema, New Delhi-05 was put on fire in the midnight around 03:00
am. At that time, I was at Shirdi, Maharastra. I came to know about
the said incident from my brother Sanjeev at around 07:00 am as
phones were not allowed in the vicinity of ‘Shirdi campus. The
basement of the godown was totally damaged due to fire. When I
returned to Delhi, I was informed by my family membersDigitally
that they
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:23:49
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 32 of 61
had come to know that a car was parked near the basement window
and due to fire in the said car our godown also caught fire. We did not
suspect any foul play in the said incident of fire at our godown. I did
not make any complaint against any person regarding the incident to
the police, at that time”.
13.4 The crux of the testimony of PW-4 Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor and
PW-1 Sh. Sandeep Kapoor is that initially they did not suspect any
mischief in the fire incident in the godown. However it was only
when PW-4 Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor had received a call from accused
Kunal Thapar telling him about some complaints against them in the
office of Customs after fire incident did they suspected the role of the
accused Kunal Thapar in the same. Though PW-4 Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor
has tried to link all the incidents with accused Kunal Thapar but failed
to do so rather the present case appears to be vindictive on the part of
the complainant in view of his admission in the cross examination.
During cross-examination, he has admitted that ” during the year
2010-11 a raid was conducted at their godown by Excise Deptt of
officials; that Income tax officials never raided his godown; at one
incident, sales tax officials have also raided their godown; that he do
not remember its date, month and year; that they suspected that
accused Kunal Thapar was behind excise raid at their godown”.
14. Coming to the charge u/s. 435/34 IPC regarding fire
incident in the car, the Prosecution has produced PW-10 Shri Suresh
Kumar as the first one who noticed the fire in the car. He has deposed
that “At about 03.15 AM, I noticed a fire in a car parked near the
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:23:58 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 33 of 61
place of my duty.” and apart from that he has not deposed anything.
During cross examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State he has denied
the suggestion that when he reached at the spot two persons who were
already present there, ran away from there after seeing him. PW-3
Ms. Anshu Kapoor is the next one who noticed the said fire incident
since she was passing from there and she has deposed that ” On
09.05.2011, when I was returning to my house at around 09.30 PM. I
noticed that our car INNOVA bearing Registration No. DL-3C-
AJ-5183, which was parked in front of House No. N-83, N-85 was
under fire. I immediately informed my husband about the fire over
telephone. My husband Sandeep Kapoor dozed the fire with the help
of neighbours and labours. Later on my husband came to know that
two persons on motorcycle had caused the fire on our car and had run
away on their motorcycle.” Thereafter PW-3 Ms. Anshu informed her
husband i.e. PW-1 Shri Sandeep Kapoor about the said incident.
14.1 Complainant i.e. PW-1 has deposed that “on 09.05.2011, at
about 09:30 PM, I was present at my house i.e. House No. N-35,
Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi. My Innova car bearing
Registration No. DL-3CAJ-5183, which was parked outside house no.
N-83, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi was put on fire. One boy,
who was happened to be passersby told me that two boys came there
on a motorcycle and they put some liquid material beneath my vehicle
and put the same on fire. My wife, who was also coming from
somewhere from the same direction had noticed the Innova Car was
on fire. She called me informing the aforesaid fact. The said fact was
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:24:13
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 34 of 61
also confirmed to me by aforesaid boy. The fire was extinguish with
help of persons of locality as well as some labours, who were doing
job there in a house. I made a complaint regarding this fact to the
police on 100 number and police reached there. I gave a written
complaint to the police regarding aforesaid fact on 10.05.2011 which
is Ex.PW1/A.”
14.2 Going by the testimony of PW-1, he came to know about
the said incident through one boy and that boy was Ashwani as
apparent from the chargesheet but why his name did not appear in the
list of witnesses is the question which the chargesheet failed to
answer. Secondly, PW-1 has deposed that he called at 100 number
about the said incident whereas he has stated in his cross examination
that he did not inform the police about the fire in his car on
09.05.2011. Thirdly, PW-1 has deposed that he came to know that two
boys came there on a motorcycle and poured some liquid beneath his
car and put it on fire, the fact which is denied by PW-10 Suresh
Kumar who was the first one to notice the fire.
14.3 PW-1 has further deposed that “on 13.05.2011, my brother
Sanjeev Kapoor received a ransom call, demanding Rs. 1 Crore, on
his mobile number 9811007172. I had mentioned the mobile number
from which said call was made in my written complaint to the police,
but I remember only few last digits of the said mobile, which are
‘334’. The caller informed my brother that “I am Mirza Bhai and I had
put your car on fire and I had caused a loss of Rs. 10 Lac”; that my
brother Sanjeev Kapoor had earlier also received two ransom calls on
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:24:18
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 35 of 61
some mobile number, which I had already mentioned in my written
complaint to the police. The said calls were made on 25.02.2011 &
27.02.2011; that the Mirza Bhai told my brother that earlier ransom
calls were to the rune of Rs.25 Lacs and said calls were made by his
‘Chhota’ and now he himself is making the ransom call for Rs.1 Crore;
that it was further informed by Mirza Bhal not to report the matter to
the police. My brother showed his inability to make payment for the
ransom call due to his financial position as we had also suffered a
great loss; that the said Mirza Bhai also told my brother that he was
having details of our family members as well as our godown, shops,
factories. He also informed my brother that if we are refused to make
payment of ransom call, hence, someone from our family would be
murdered or our godown, shops and factories would be set on fire “.
Henceforth as per the complainant the ransom calls were made to his
brother Shri Sanjeev Kapoor i.e. PW-4 and that were made pursuant
to the said fire incident. Now let’s see what PW-4 Shri Sanjeev
Kapoor has to say about the same.
14.4 PW-4 Shri Sanjeev Kapoor has deposed that ” On
09.05.2011 at about 09.00-09.30 pm our vehicle bearing registration
number DL 3CAJ 5183 make Innova was burnt by two persons who
had come on a motorcycle. They had burnt the motorcycle with a
bottle bomb in which they had filled petrol. The said petrol bomb was
thrown on our aforesaid vehicle and the same was burnt by two
motorcyclist. The aforesaid vehicle was parked by us at a some
distance from our house due to parking place problem in N-block.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:24:23
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 36 of 61
However, it was parked in N-block itself. Some local boy had had
informed the security guard or some of my family members that our
aforesaid vehicle had been burnt in a aforesaid manner and that he
had seen the said person throwing petrol bomb on our vehicle. ” He
has further deposed that “On 13.05.2011 1 had received a call on my
mobile phone number 9811007172 from mobile phone number
xxxxx87334, I do not remember the complete mobile number now
due to lapse of time by some person who introduced himself as Mirza
and he told me that the threatening call received by me on 25.02.2011
& 27.02.2011 were made by him. Again said the mobile phone
number from which I had received the above call was 9873587334.
The said person further told me that he had asked us not to approach
the police to lodge a complaint but despite that we had approached the
police and lodged the complaint regarding the incident dated
25.02.2011 & 27.02.2011 regarding the threats extended to us. On the
calls received on 25.02.2011 & 27.02.2011 on my aforesaid mobile
phone a ransom of Rs.25 Lacs was demanded from me and I was
threatened not to lodge any complaint with the police in this regard.
On the call received on 13.05.2011 (referred as above), the so called
caller Mirza had further told me that earlier this matter was being
looked into by his younger brother and now he has take over the
charge of this matter and the caller i.e. the said person namely Mirza
had demanded ransom of Rs.1 Crore from me on the call received on
13.05.2011 and the caller i.e. the Mirza threatened me by saying that
even earlier also we were asked not to lodge any complaint with the
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:24:28 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 37 of 61
police but despite that we had approached the police and that he
knows the addresses of my godown, factory and house and that any of
our godown, factory or house could be burnt by him if we dare to
lodge any complaint with the police. The caller i.e. the so called
person Mirza further threatened me that there are 14 members in our
family and any of them could be killed/murdered if the police was
informed about this ransom call. I told the said caller that I had
already suffered a huge loss and that my financial condition is not as
such that I can fulfill his demand of ransom of Rs.1 Crore. On
13.05.2011 1 had received 6-7 calls on my aforesaid mobile phone
number from the aforesaid mobile phone from Mirza and the above
conversation took place during the said calls. On 13.05.2011 the said
person namely Mirza had spoken to me for about 30 minutes during
that 6 or 7 calls. When I told Mirza about my financial condition and
my inability to fulfill his demand of ransom he disconnected the
phone.” Henceforth PW-4 is linking the said calls to some threats
extended on 25.02.2011 and 27.02.2011 but he has not elucidated
what were those threats about. Further he has no where linked the
ransom calls with the fire incident dated 09.05.2011.
14.5 During the course of investigation the location of accused
Kunal Thapar was found near the place of incident since the
chargesheet states that “further the call details fo mobile number
8447721884, 8447937262, 9873587334 (from which the threatening
calls were coming), 9811854457, 9810577315 were sought and
analyzed. Further it was found that the position of mobile no.
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:24:33 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 38 of 61
9810577315 of Kunal Thapar in the intervening night of 8/9-12-2010
at Rohtak Road near Liberty Cinema, where the blazed at the property
of Sandeep at Rohtak Road took place.” In that series IO i.e. PW-20
Insp. Ritesh Kumar has deposed that ” During the course of
investigation, I had collected the CDR and CAF of the mobile phone
of accused Kunal Thaper and his wife as the aforesaid mobile phone
number was provided to me by the complainant. I had analysed the
CDR and CAF of the mobile phone number of accused Kunal Thaper
and thereafter it was revealed that the mobile number ending with
number 838 through which accused Kunal Thapar was in contact at
the time of happening of all the aforesaid three incident, the location
of the said mobile number ending with 838 was found in the vicinity
of aforesaid place of incident. On perusal of the CAF of the mobile
number ending with 838, it was found registered in the name of Sumit
Maggu. I went to the residence of Sumit Maggu as his residential
address was mentioned in the CAF of aforesaid mobile number. I met
with him at his residence and I made inquiry from him. During
inquiry, he informed me that he had never got issued the said mobile
number in his name. Thereafter, I called person namely Tajender who
was the owner of shop from where the aforesaid mobile number was
issued in the name of Sumit Maggu. He came to my office and upon
inquiry he informed me that the said mobile SIM card was purchased
by the accused Nitin Chopra. I had recorded his statement to the said
effect.” Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:24:40 +0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 39 of 61
14.6 Henceforth during the course of investigation connecting
the chain of events, accused Kunal Thapar was found to be in constant
touch with mobile number 9999959838 through his mobile no.
9810577315 on 09.12.2010 and mobile no. 9999959838 was said to
be purchased by accused Nitin Chopra. In order to prove that mobile
no. 9810577315 stands in the name of accused Kunal Thapar the
Prosecution examined PW-16 Shri Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti
Airtel Ltd. who instead has deposed that the said number stands in the
name of one Gurcharan Singh. In his words ” witness has produced the
certified copy of CAF of mobile no. 9810577315 and Rashan Card of
Gurucharan Singh. The above said mobile number was issued in the
name of Gurucharan Singh. The CAF and Rashan Card of
Gurucharan Singh is now exhibited as Ex. PW16/L (colly).”
14.7 The Prosecution further examined PW-13 Shri Tajinder
Singh in order to prove that sim no. 9999959838 was sold to accused
Nitin Chopra however he too did not support the case of the
Prosecution regarding the same and instead deposed that he had not
sold the sim bearing no. 9999959838 to his regular customer i.e.
accused Nitin Chopra. Secondly, the Prosecution called the record
from service provider i.e. Vodafone Idea Ltd. regarding the said sim
number and examined PW-17 Shri Satish Verma, Alternate Nodal
Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. in order to prove that mobile number
9999959838 was issued in the name of accused Nitin Chopra however
the witness has deposed that ” witness has produced a letter no. 19-
3/2012-S-1 dated 17.05.2022 as per the same CAF along with
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:24:45
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 40 of 61
supporting documents were permanently destroyed after 3 years from
the date of permanent deactivation. The above said notification/letter
is now marked as Mark X. The witness further states that the CAF of
mobile nos. 9999959838, 9811544533, 8447721884, 8447937262 and
9873587334 had already been destroyed as per the above said
notification”. In view of the same, the Prosecution has failed to prove
that sim numbers 9810577315 and 9999959838 were issued in the
name of accused Kunal Thapar and Nitin Chopra respectively.
15. PW-20 IO/Inspector Ritesh Kumar has further deposed that
“During the course of the investigation, I had given the notice to the
accused persons namely Kunal Thaper and Nitin Chopra to join the
investigation in the present case.” He has further deposed that “On
09.03.2010 accused Kunal Thapar and Nitin Chopra came in my
office i.e. AATS, Crime Branch, Nehru Place. Thereafter both the
accused persons were interrogated separately. Accused Nitin was
confronted with the CDR of his mobile number ending with 838 and
thereafter he broke down and confessed that I along with accused
Kunal Thapar and one more accused i.e. Sahil were involved in all
three incidents pertaining to the present case. Accused Sahil was also
called at my office and thereafter I had again interrogated all three
accused persons. Thereafter they all have admitted their involvements
in the commission of all three incidents of the present case. Thereafter
I had arrested all three accused persons and conducted their personal
search by way of memos already Ex.PW19/1 to Ex.PW19/6 all
bearing my signatures at point B. I had also recorded disclosure
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:24:51
+0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 41 of 61
statements of all accused persons separately which are also already
Ex.PW19/10 to Ex.PW19/11.” As per their disclosure statements,
accused Kunal Thapar as well as Nitin Chopra disclosed that since
accused Kunal Thapar had some grievance against complainant on the
issue of money plus he had also suspicion that complainant had extra
marital affair with his wife, both of them alongwith co-accused Sahil
conspired to take revenge upon him. They further disclosed that it is
under that conspiracy that they planned the kidnapping of the
complainant’s son as well as fire in his godown and of his car.
15.1 Undoubtedly, the court cannot rely upon the disclosure
statement of the accused, however, the fact remains that the same can
be relied upon U/s. 27 of Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is
deposed to and discovered in consequence of information received
from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovery
may be proved. In Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal
No. 64 of 2021 decided by Hon’ble SC on 17/04/2023, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that “19. It is a trite law that in pursuance to
a voluntary statement made by the accused, a fact must be
discovered which was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused
alone. In such circumstances, that part of the voluntary statement
which leads to the discovery of a new fact which was only in the
knowledge of the accused would become admissible under Section
27. Such statement should have been voluntarily made and the facts
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:24:57 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 42 of 61
stated therein should not have been in the knowhow of others.”
15.2 In the case of Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh Crl. Appeal 6465 of 2022 decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 13.10.2022, held that:
“27. How much of information received from accused
may be proved. Provided that, when any fact is deposed
to as discovered in consequence of information received
from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a
police officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”
64. The conditions necessary for the applicability of
Section 27 of the Act are broadly as under:
(1) Discovery of fact in consequence of information
received from accused; (2) Discovery of such fact to be
deposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custody
when he gave information; and (4) So much of
information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered is admissible – Mohmed Inayatullah v. The
State of Maharashtra: AIR (1976) SC 483 Two
conditions for application- (1) information must be such
as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information
must relate distinctly to the fact discovered
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnutuka: AIR (1983) SC
446″
15.3 In the Constitution Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya reported
in AIR (1960) SC 1125, in paragraph 71 explains the position of law
as regards the Section 27 of the Evidence Act: Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:25:03
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 43 of 61
“71. The law has thus made a classification of accused
persons into two: (1) those who have the danger brought
home to them by detention on a charge; and (2) those
who are yet free. In the former category are also those
persons who surrender to the custody by words or action.
The protection given to these two classes is different. In
the case of persons belonging to the first category the law
has ruled that their statements are not admissible, and in
the case of the second category, only that portion, of the
statement is admissible as is guaranteed by the discovery
of a relevant fact unknown before the statement to the
investigating authority. That statement may even be
confessional in nature, as when the person in custody
says: “I pushed him down such and such mineshaft”, and
the body of the victim is found as a result, and it can be
proved that his death was due to injuries received by a
fall down the mineshaft.” [Emphasis supplied]
15.4 The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were
illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kottaya and Others v. Emperor, AIR
1947 PC 67, which have become locus classicus, in the following
words:
“10…..It is fallacious to treat the “fact discovered” within the
section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact
discovered embraces the place from which the object is
produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and
the information given must relate distinctly to this fact.
Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object
produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in
which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in
custody that “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:25:09 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 44 of 61
my house” does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives
were discovered many years ago.
15.5 Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has
to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer.
In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in
custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is,
therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the
prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved
and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced
through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is the doctrine of Confirmation by subsequent events.
The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered
as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a
prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information
supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be
confessional or non inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery
of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. The “fact discovered”
envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object
was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the
information given must be relate distinctly to that effect.
15.6 In that series, IO PW-20 Insp. Ritesh Kumar has deposed
that “in the meantime, accused persons had handed over their
respective phones to me. Accused Kunal had handed over one mobile
phone make Blackberry. Accused Nitin Chopra had handed over two
mobile phones make LG and Sony Ericsson. Accused Sahil had
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:25:14
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 45 of 61
handed over two mobile phones make Reliance & Nokia. Thereafter, I
had taken the same in the police possession by way of three separate
seizure memo of the above said mobile phone which are already
exhibited as Ex. PW19/7 to Ex. PW19/9 all bearing my signature at
point B. Thereafter all three accused persons were produced before
the concerned Court i.e. on 10.07.2011 in the muffled place. I
requested for the custody of accused persons before the concerned
Duty MM for the PC remand and also requested for the TIP of the
accused persons. Thereafter concerned duty MM has send the accused
persons to the JC for one day and after that on the next day accused
persons were produced before the concerned Court. I had filed an
application for the TIP of accused persons namely Kunal Thapar and
Nitin Chopra. Thereafter both the accused persons have refused in
participating the TIP proceedings. After that I had obtained the
custody of all three accused persons for two days as PC remand with
the permission of the concerned Court. I had also moved an
application for the recording of statement of master Samay (victim)
u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Court. During the course of PC remand of
accused persons, all the accused persons were taken to all place of
incidents pertaining to the present case and thereafter I had prepared
the pointing out memo of the spot at their instance separately which
are already Ex. PW19/15 to Ex. PW19/23 all bearing my signature at
point B. After conducting further investigation and formalities qua the
accused persons pertaining to the present case, they were produced
before the concerned Court and after that they were sent to JC. I had
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:25:19
+0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 46 of 61
also got recorded the statement of the Master Samay u/s 164 Cr.P.C
on 15.07.2011 before the concerned Court and taken the same on
record. During the course of further investigation, I had recorded the
statement of witness namely Uma Kant, security guard in the present
case. I had also collected the documents qua the incident which was
happened near the Liberty Cinema from ASI Sukhpal by way of
seizure memo Ex. PW19/25 bears my name at point B. The
documents which have been taken by me from ASI Sukhpal which
are already Mark as PW19/X-1 (Colly). During the course of
investigation, I got conducted the inspection of the Burnt Car make
Innova by the FSL team in the PS GK. I had also taken the exhibits in
the police possession at the instance of FSL team and prepared the
pulanda and sealed the same with the seal of ‘RK’ and after that I
seized the said pulanda of the exhibits by way of seizure memo
already Ex. PW19/24 bears my signature at point B. Thereafter I
deposited the same in the Malkhana and recorded the statement of the
witnesses in the present case. During the further course of
investigation, I had also seized the vehicle/ car make Santro which
was handed over to me by father of accused Sahil namely Vipin
Chopra by way of seizure memo already Ex. PW19/26 bears my
signature at point B. I had also recorded the statement of other
concerned witnesses in the present case. Thereafter I got sent the
exhibits in the FSL, Rohini for its scientific examination by way of
Road Certificate No. 27/21/11 which is Mark PW20/A. The
acknowledgment of case acceptance of the said case property is now
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:25:25
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 47 of 61
Mark Ex. PW 20/B. Thereafter I had prepared the charge-sheet qua
the all accused persons and submitted before the concerned Court. On
the receipt of FSL result, I had prepared the supplementary
chargesheet and filed before the concerned Court also”.
15.7 In view of the same, IO seized the mobile handsets of all
the accused pursuant to their disclosure statements and thereafter
moved an application for conducting TIP of the accused persons
which they refused but the question is that whether the refusal of the
accused persons to participate in TIP proceedings can be said to be
incriminating against them and the answer is ‘NO’ since the accused
persons were known to the complainant. It has been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Matru Vs. State of U.P.
[1971 (2) SCC 406] that “identification tests do not constitute
substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of
helping the investigation agency with an assurance that their progress
with the investigation into the offence is proceeding in the right lines.
The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement
in Court. The necessity for holding an identification parade arise only
when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The
whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim
to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them
from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source.
The test is done to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main
object of holding an identification parade, during the investigation
stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:25:35
+0530SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 48 of 61
impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or
any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime.”.
15.8 It has been further deposed by the IO that the he got
conducted the inspection of burnt car and lifted the exhibits i.e. burnt
part of the engine and the bonnet and glass residues from inside the
car from the same and the sent the exhibits to FSL for scientific
examination.
15.9 The FSL expert was examined as PW-18. PW- 18 Sh. Sri
Narain, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi has
deposed that “he had been working in FSL Rohini since 1995 and on
28.07.2011, three sealed parcels were received in FSL Rohini from
PS Greater Kailash which were marked to him for forensic
examination; that seals were intact on the above said three parcels and
parcel A contains one partially burnt plastic piece and cap along with
wrapper stated to be burnt plastic bottle; that Parcel-1 contains plastic
jar containing bearing black colour burnt material along with cotton
swabs stated to be residue from/near the bonnet, car tyre of burnt car;
that Parcel-2 contains plastic jar containing black and brown colour
material along with glass pieces stated to be residue from the inside of
the burnt car; that on chemical examination, he could not detect
patrol, kerosene and diesel in the above said three parcels/exhibits and
he prepared the report which is Ex. PW18/A.” In view of the same
the FSL report ruled out burning by petrol, kerosene or diesel. Per
contra, complainant/PW-1 Shri Sanjeev Kapoor has deposed that he
came to know that the car was burnt by pouring some liquid beneath
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
16:25:41 +0530
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 49 of 61
the same. Similarly PW-4 Shri Sanjeev Kapoor has also deposed that
the car was burnt with a bottle bomb containing petrol. Resultantly the
FSL report did not corroborate the oral testimony rather contradicting
it which is enough to create holes in the Prosecution story.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I reached to the
conclusion that Prosecution has failed to establish cogently and firmly
the circumstance that it was accused persons namely Kunal Thapar,
Nitin Chopra and Sahil Malhotra in furtherance of their common
intention kidnapped master “S” and also committed mischief by
causing fire in the godown and car of the complainant Shri Sandeep
Kapoor. The chain of circumstances is not found to be complete from
which it can be concluded that within all human probability the crime
was committed by the accused persons and none else.
16.1 In these circumstances, accused namely Kunal Thapar,
Nitin Chopra and Sahil Malhotra cannot be convicted for the offences
punishable u/s. 364-A/436/435/34 IPC and accordingly they are
acquitted of charge u/s. 364-A/436/435/34 IPC.
Digitally
Typed to the direct dictation and signed by
GEETANJALI
announced in the open court GEETANJALI Date:
2026.02.12
on this 12th day of February, 2026 16:25:49
+0530(Geetanjali)
Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03
South East District,Saket Courts
New Delhi/12.02.2026Annexure: Appendix in compliance of Judgement passed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2973/2023 titled as “Manojbhai
Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat“.
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 50 of 61
AppendixCHART OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Name of the Description.
witness no. witness
PW-1 Shri Sandeep He is the complainant in the present
Kapoor case and is the one who received
ransom calls
PW-2 Inspector Vijai He is the In-charge, Mobile Crime
Pal Singh Kasana Team, South District and inspected
the spot i.e. N-83, GK-1 on
09.05.2011 along with his team
where they found one car lying in
burnt condition.
PW-3 Ms. Anshu She is the mother of the victim and
Kapoor eye witness to the incident of
kidnapping.
PW-4 Shri Sanjeev He is the brother of the complainant
Kumar and is also the one who received
ransom calls.
PW-5 Shri Sunil Kapoor He is the brother of the complainant
and is corroborating the testimony
of the complainant.
PW-6 Master “S” He is the one who was kidnapped
in the present case.
PW-7 Shri Deepak He is the public witness who called Thakur at 100 number regarding the incident of kidnapping. SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS. FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 51 of 61 PW-8 Shri Uma Kant He is the guard who informed the Singh parents of master "S" about his presence outside the office of Thomas Cook. PW-9 Shri R.K. Yadav He was the In-charge Fire brigade, Nehru Place and reached at the spot upon receipt of call regarding fire in a car at N-81, G.K Part-I at 21.30 hours and controlled the fire. He prepared his report which is Ex. PW9/A and also proved the detailed report from their head office at Connaught Place which is Ex. PW9/B. PW-10 Shri Suresh He is also the guard at Amba-bi Kumar wheelers, Rohtak road and is the first one who noticed fire in the car of the complainant. PW-11 Shri Dinesh He has proved the detailed fire Kumar, Sub- report no. 201041780 which is Ex. PW11/A officer Head Quarter, Delhi Fire Services PW-12 ACP Vijay Kumar He was the the SHO, PS Greater Singh Kailash and reached at the house of complainant on the receipt of information regarding kidnapping of his son. SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS. FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 52 of 61 PW-13 Shri Tajinder He is the public witness and was Singh produced in order to prove the CAF of sim bearing no. 9999959838 in the name of accused Nitin Chopra but he did not support the case of Prosecution regarding the same. PW-14 Shri Gaurav He is the public witness and the Chopra first one who noticed fire in the godown of the complainant. PW-15 Inspector Pankaj He is the police witness who Kumar reached at N-83, Greater Kailash on the receipt of information qua the incident of fire in the car and he
also did the initial investigation qua
the said incident.
PW-16 Shri Ajay Kumar He is the Nodal Officer from Bharti
Airtel Ltd. and has proved the CDR
and CAF of mobile nos.
9810577315, 9871907908 and
9971124233.
PW-17 Shri Satish Verma He is the Alternate Nodal Officer
from Vodafone Idea Ltd. and has
proved the CDR and CAF of
mobile nos. 9999959838,
9811544533, 8447721884,
8447937262 and 9873587334
PW-18 Sh. Sri
Narain, He is the FSL expert and has
Assistant Director proved his report which is Ex.
PW18/A.
(Chemistry), FSL
Rohini, Delhi
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 53 of 61
PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash He joined the IO during the
investigations and was part of the
team who arrested and personally
searched accused namely Kunal
Thapar, Sahil Malhotra and Nitin
Chopra vide memos Ex. PW-19/1
to Ex. PW-19/6. He also proved the
seizure memo of mobile phone
make Blackberry recovered from
accused Kunal. He further proved
the seizure memos LG and Sony
mobile handsets recovered from
accused Nitin Chopra, Nokia and
Reliance LG recovered from
accused Sahil Malhotra which are
Ex.PW19/7 to Ex.PW19/9,
disclosure statements of all the
accused persons which are
Ex.PW19/10 to Ex.PW19/12,
pointing out memos of the place of
incident which are Ex.PW-19/13 to
Ex.PW19/15, pointing out memo of
place of incident where car make
Innova caught fire which are
Ex.PW19/16 and Ex.PW19/17 and
pointing out memo of the place
where godown of the complainant
and his car were fired which are
Ex.PW19/18 to Ex.PW19/20 and
pointing out memo of the place
where son of complainant was kept
after kidnapping which are Ex.
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 54 of 61
PW19/21 to Ex.PW19/23.
PW-20 Inspector Ritesh He is the main Investigating Officer
Kumar of the case.
Documents produced on behalf of the Prosecution.
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ attested by
Ex.PW1/A Complaint dated PW-1 Shri Sandeep
10.05.2011 qua incident Kapoor
dated 09.05.2011
Ex.PW1/B DD no. 18-A dated PW-1 Shri Sandeep
10.03.2010 Kapoor
Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of empty PW-1 Shri Sandeep
bottle Kapoor
Ex.PW1/D Seizure memo of burnt car PW-1 Shri Sandeep
Kapoor
Ex.PW1/E Complaint dated PW-1 Shri Sandeep
16.05.2011 made to the Kapoor
Crime Branch
Ex.PW9/A Report of In-charge, Fire PW-9 Shri R.K. Yadav
Brigade
Ex.PW9/B Detailed report qua fire PW-9 Shri R.K. Yadav
incident obtained from
Head Office, Connaught
Place
Ex.PW11/A Detailed fire report PW-11 Shri Dinesh
Kumar
Ex.PW13/A CAF of sim no. PW-13 Shri Tajinder
9999959838 Singh
Ex.PW15/A Rukka PW-15 Inspector
Pankaj Kumar
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 55 of 61
Ex.PW15/B Site plan prepared at the PW-15 Inspector
instance of the Pankaj Kumar
complainant
PW16/A CDR of sim no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
9810577315 w.e.f. Kumar, Nodal Officer,
07.3.2010 to 12.03.2010 Bharti Airtel, Ltd.
Ex.PW16/B CDR of sim no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
9810577315 w.e.f. Kumar
05.12.2010 to 12.12.2010
Ex.PW16/C CDR of sim no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
9810577315 w.e.f. Kumar
05.05.2011 to 15.05.2011
Ex.PW16/D and CDR of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
Ex.PW16/E 9971124233 w.e.f. Kumar
05.12.2010 to 12.12.2010
and 05.05.2011 to
15.05.2011 and
Ex.PW16/E is bearing the
seal of the company and
signature of PW-16
Ex.PW16/F CDR of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
9871907908 w.e.f. Kumar
05.12.2010 to 12.12.2010
Ex.PW16/G and CDR of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
Ex.PW16/H 9871907908 w.e.f. Kumar
07.03.2010 to 12.03.2010
and 05.05.2011 to 15.05
2011
Ex. PW16/I Certificate u/s. 65-B Indian PW-16 Shri Ajay
Evidence Act for CDR of Kumar
mobile no. 9810577315
9871907908 and
9971124233
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 56 of 61
Ex.PW16/J CAF of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
(colly.) 9871907908 and voter ID Kumar
of Sahil
Ex.PW16/K CAF of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
(colly.) 9971124233 and passport Kumar
of Anu
Ex.PW16/L CAF of mobile no. PW-16 Shri Ajay
(colly.) 9810577315 and ration Kumar
card of Gurcharan Singh
Ex.PW16/M Certificate u/s. 65-B Indian PW-16 Shri Ajay
(colly.) Evidence Act for CAF of Kumar
mobile no. 9810577315
9871907908 and
9971124233
Ex.PW17/A and CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
Ex.PW17/B 9999959838 w.e.f Verma, Alternate Nodal
05.12.2020 to 12.12.2020 Officer, Vodafone Idea
and 05.05.2011 to Ltd.
15.05.2011
Ex.PW17/C and CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
Ex.PW17/D 9811544533 w.e.f Verma
05.12.2020 to 12.12.2020
and 05.05.2011 to
15.05.2011
Ex.PW17/E CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
8447721884 w.e.f Verma
01.01.2011 to 17.07.2011
Ex.PW17/F CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
8447937262 w.e.f Verma
01.06.2011 to 17.07.2011
Ex.PW17/G CDR of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
9873587334 w.e.f Verma
10.11.2010 to 13.05.2011
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 57 of 61
Ex.PW17/H Certificate u/s. 65-B Indian PW-17 Shri Satish
Evidence Act for CDR of Verma
mobile no. 9999959838,
9811544533, 8447721884,
8447937262 and
9873587334
Ex.PW17/I Cell ID chart PW-17 Shri Satish
Verma
Ex.PW17/J CAF of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
8447721884 Verma
Ex.PW17/K CAF of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
8447937262 Verma
Ex.PW17/L CAF of mobile no. PW-17 Shri Satish
9873587334 Verma
Ex.PW17/M, Certificates u/s. 65-B of PW-17 Shri Satish
Ex.PW17/N, the Indian Evidence Act Verma
Ex.PW17/O and
Ex.PW17/P
Ex.PW18/A FSL report PW-18 Shri Sri Narain,
Sr. Scientific Officer
(Chemistry)
Ex.PW19/1, Arrest memos of accused PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/2 and Kunal Thapar, Nitin
Ex.PW19/3 Chopra and Sahil Malhotra
Ex.PW19/4, Personal search memos of PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/5 and accused Kunal Thapar,
Ex.PW19/6 Nitin Chopra and Sahil
Malhotra
Ex.PW19/7 Seizure memo of PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Blackberry phone
recovered from possession
of accused Kunal Thapar
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 58 of 61
Ex.PW19/8 Seizure memo of two PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
mobile phones make LG
and Sony recovered from
possession of accused
Nitin Chopra
Ex.PW19/9 Seizure memo of two PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
mobile phones make Nokia
and Reliance LG recovered
from possession of accused
Sahil Malhotra
Ex.PW19/10, Disclosure statements of PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/11 and accused Kunal Thapar,
Ex.PW19/12 Nitin Chopra and Sahil
Malhotra
Ex.PW19/13, Pointing out memos of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/14 and place of incident prepared
Ex.PW19/15 at the instance of accused
Kunal Thapar, Nitin
Chopra and Sahil Malhotra
Ex.PW19/16 and Pointing out memos of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/17 place where car make
Innova caught fire
prepared at the instance of
accused Kunal Thapar and
Nitin Chopra
Ex.PW19/18, Pointing out memos of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/19 and place in front of Liberty
Ex.PW19/20 Cinema where the godown
of the complainant
prepared at the instance of
accused Kunal Thapar,
Nitin Chopra and Sahil
Malhotra
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 59 of 61
Ex.PW19/21, Pointing out memos of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Ex.PW19/22 and place where son of the
Ex.PW19/23 complainant was kept after
kidnapping prepared at the
instance of accused Kunal
Thapar, Nitin Chopra and
Sahil Malhotra
Ex.PW19/24 Seizure memo of burnt PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
portion of the car lifted at
the instance of FSL team
Ex.PW19/25 Seizure memo of copy of PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
DD entry, statement of
witnesses etc.
Ex.PW19/X-1 Seizure memo of the PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
ownership documents of
the burnt car
Ex.PW19/26 Seizure memo of car make PW-19 ASI Jai Prakash
Santro used in the
commission of present
offence
Mark 20/A RC no. 21/2411 for PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
sending exhibits to FSL, Kumar
Rohini for scientific
examination
Mark 20/B Acknowledgment of PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
acceptance of case Kumar
property at FSL
Ex.PW20/1 Original superdarinama PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
dated 07.10.2011, copy of Kumar
order dated 05.10.2011 and
11 photographs of Santro
car bearing no.
DL-4CAG-3981
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 60 of 61
Ex.PW20/2 Photographs of Santro car PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
bearing no. Kumar
DL-4CAG-3981 along
with its negatives
List of Material Objects.
Material Description of exhibit Proved by / attested by
object no.
Ex.P-1 Car bearing no. PW-4 Shri Sanjeev Kapoor
DL-3CAJ-5183
Ex. P-1, Four mobile phones make PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
Ex.P-2, LG, Sony Ericsson, Kumar
Ex.P-3 and Reliance and Nokia
Ex.P-4
Ex.P-5 and Residue of burnt car PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
Ex.P-6 Kumar
Ex.P-7 Mobile phone make PW-20 Inspector Ritesh
Blackberry Kumar
SC no. 2256/2016, STATE Vs. KUNAL THAPAR & ORS.
FIR No. 59/2011 PS. Greater Kailash Page no. 61 of 61