Contents

Doubt regarding the date of registration of FIR ........................................................................................... 1

Latches in the Chargesheet ........................................................................................................................... 2
Depositions of the prosecution Witnesses ................................................................................................... 4
P.w. 1 – Hukum Singh ............................................................................................................................... 4
P.w. 2 – Swarnima Sehgal ......................................................................................................................... 4
p.w. 3 - Hemant Kumar ............................................................................................................................ 5
p.w. 4 – Ramesh Shrivastava..................................................................................................................... 5
p.w. 5 Prakash Gaitonde ........................................................................................................................... 6
p.w. 6 Mr. Gonsalves................................................................................................................................. 6
p.w. 7 Dr. Mann ........................................................................................................................................ 7
p.w. 8 Dr. Martinez. .................................................................................................................................. 7
Spot Panchnama ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Doubt regarding the date of registration of FIR

 According to the FIR, date of lodging of FIR – 16th July, 2016

 According to Gaitonde, date of registration of FIR – 16th July, 2016 (Which was after
NIA was delegated the duty of investigation of the present case.)
 According to the Charge sheet and Notification of Govt. date of handing over of the case
to the NIA - 19th July, 2016

There is a lack of clarity regarding the date of filing of the FIR.

There is an inherent uncertainty regarding the date of lodging of the FIR, as the NIA’s
official delegation of duty to Prakash Gaitonde was on 19th , whereas he says that he
did the same on 16th.

1
 There is a lack of description on the part of Inspector Ramesh Shrivastava, as he did
not get the FIR lodged, and also got Guddu Singh’s 161 statement recorded before the
registration of the FIR (as per his own 161 statement).
According to the chargesheet, the FIR was lodged on 19th July, 2016 (RC – 01/2016/
NIA , MVB). The delay is inordinate, and has no supplement of any reasoning
attached, to explain the delay.
According to the NIA, it was Ramesh Shrivastava who acted in the capacity of
complainant/informant to get the FIR registered. Then why has Guddu Singh been
named as the informant and why has his signature been taken on the concerned FIR.
In his 161, Guddu Singh mentions no instance where he was even asked to go for 161
or FIR by the investigating authorities.
In the FIR’s list of accused persons, 5 persons have been named. But in the story of
the FIR, there are only two persons, namely, Tejas and Veerbhadra, who have been
mentioned.

Latches in the Chargesheet

In Paragraph 16.2 of the Chargesheet, the author of the same asserts that A1 and A3 have
been previously involved in the execution of various unlawful activities. According to
the Character Certificate of Ramadhir Singh in Exhibit 11, it has been stated that he has
pending cases against him. But in the chargesheet, in the slot of pending cases, it has
been stated that he has no pending cases against him. In both the documents, he has no
previous convictions whatsoever. As far as Tejas is concerned, he too has no previous
convictions, nor does he have any pending cases against him. Even so, the chargesheet,
on materials not on record asserts that they have indulged in the execution of various
unlawful activities.

2
In Para 16.4 it has been stated that 307 that Veerbhadhra allegedly committed against
Tejas came into light only during the investigation. But in the FIR, it was the basic story
with which the case began.
Para 17.1 “an attempt to carry out unlawful activities and to bring hatred towards the
Govt. of Indiana”. This is a mere assertion, as there exists no transcript or digital
evidence to suggest the same. There is no eye witness as well, who could have recounted
his speech, on the basis of which the aforementioned statement could have been asserted.
Para 17.2 “Tejas was indulged in propagating anti-governmental ideologies”. This
statement is general and omnibus. There are no specifics to reinforce the veracity of this
assertion.
In para 17.3 owing to some unauthorized campaigns organized by Tejas and his
associates in Dholakpur, there was an FIR registered, under the number
“RC45/2016/DLP” which was allegedly withdrawn when orders from Home Ministry
came. This has also been asserted in the 161 of Swarnima Sehgal, Veerbhadra Singh, and
Tejas as well. If the same was done, then the act would have been legally wrong, as an
FIR cannot be withdrawn, the only way in which an FIR can be dropped is ether in the
case of and order issued in pursuance of S. 321 of the Cr.P.C. or in the case of S. 482
quashing.
The chargesheet in Paragraph 17.8 suggests that Vasundhara knew that Veerbhadra had
an intention to kill Tejas. This is very controversial. According to the depositions of
Hukum Singh, Veerbhadra wanted to confront Tejas regarding his affair with his
daughter. According to tejas, Veerbhadra wanted to confront him for the same reason as
mentioned by Hukum Singh, which was what Vasundhara had told him. Hence, to assert
that Vasundhara warned tejas about the same is too far fetched.
The Chargesheet in Paragraph 17.9 states that, “Slogans and remarks to bring hatred
towards Govt. and Indiana and was also persuading the public to support his agenda”
There is no material on record to ascertain the same. There are no transcripts, no
recordings, no eye-witnesses who have come forward, or who have been inquired
regarding the same.
Also, in paragraph 17.9, the chargesheet suggests that the two alleged users of RPG,
namely Banwari Lal and Natra Singh fired the RPG when they heard the Gunshot. This

3
 assertion is highly absurd. A deduction can be, that if they fired upon hearing the
gunshot, the movement of Vasundhara’s car was tracked, or it’s pace was in the control
of perpetrators.
TECHNICAL EVIDENCE : even though the chargesheet hints something about the
linkage established between the accused persons by studying the call details, there is no
evidence on record to verify the same.

Depositions of the prosecution Witnesses

P.w. 1 – Hukum Singh

 According to Hukum Singh, he came to know about Tejas and Vasundhara’s

relationship when Veerbhadra Visited him.
 According to Hukum Singh, he could see anger in Veerbhadra’s eyes when he
asked for his Bike’s keys.

Why, when Hukum Singh knew that Veerbhadra was heavily drunk, and was
angry with Tejas to an extent that it was visible on his face, allow Veerbhadra to
use his bike and go to confront Tejas?

P.w. 2 – Swarnima Sehgal

 Swarnima says that it was because of Veerbhadra’s association with

Hukum Singh that the FIR was withdrawn.
 That Vasundhara didn’t like Tejas’ anti-governemental stance.
 That Veerbhadra used to get angry even at the thought of tejas.

4
p.w. 3 - Hemant Kumar

usage of the term “while returing mr. Waghela was heavily drunk and looked quite sad.”

There can be two extrapolations

 Q. Why did Hemant use the term “while returning”?

 Q. How did you come to know about his sadness and intoxication?

He also heard that Mr. Waghela had an altercation with Vasundhara.

 Q. did you physically witness the altercation? Or did someone told you
about this?
 Was she talking over the phone when she left Hukum’s?
 Did she ask you to specifically head to somewhere?
Hemant also was a victim and had injuries and was half burnt, and was apparently
sent for medical aid. There is attached document to assert the same.

p.w. 4 – Ramesh Shrivastava

The time of receipt of information reflected in FIR states that it was received at
10:00 P.M. whereas Ramesh says that it was at 10:22.
According to Ramesh he reached the site and did preliminary inquiry. In the case
of LalitaKumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC; AIR 2014 SC 187, it has been
reflected that registration of FIR is mandatory under S. 154 of the Cr.P.C. and if
the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
Ramesh says that he collected blood samples. There is no forensic report on the
same. There is no record to even suggest that the same was sent for FSL.
Time of altercation : 10:17. According to 161 of Guddu Singh, the altercation
took place at 10:00p.m.

5
 “duly collected all the evidence” the RPG’s forensic analysis is nowhere to be
found in the material on record, the bike which was ceased hasn’t been duly
examined, no record as to ascertain its ownership is there on record.
He took Guddu Singh, after investigating, for 161. The registration of FIR was
neglected as infinitum by Mr. Ramesh.
161 of Guddu Singh was preferred over FIR, which is not even the standard way
of procedure.

p.w. 5 Prakash Gaitonde

Mr. Gaitonde came to know about the incident on 16th, and took over the case on
the same date. But according to the notification of the , the Central government in
exercise of its powers under section 6(5) r/w 8 of the NIA Act, 2008 vide order F.
No. 111/17/2016-IS.IV, dated 19/07/2016 of the Ministry of Home Affairs,
directed the NIA to investigate this case. Which means that he did not visit the
site of occurance on 16th, which means his statement regarding him asking for the
CCTV footage too is unreliable.
he says that he duly collected the evidences, but still, even the NIA missed on the
FSL of blood samples recovered from near Tejas, the RPG and the bike went even
off the NIA’s scanner.
It was Ramesh who acted as the complainant. Then why has Guddu Singh been
named as the informant and he is the one who has signed the FIR. Mr. Gaitonde
makes no statement to assert mr.. Guddu’s presence.
No seizure list was prepared regarding the items seized.
3 days delay in lodging the FIR.

p.w. 6 Mr. Gonsalves

6
 The statement of Mr. Gonsalves mentions the time of bringing of Tejas and
Veerbhadra to be 12P.M.
He doesn’t mention himself making any queries about the lodging of FIR.

p.w. 7 Dr. Mann

He makes no mention of him making any queries regarding the registration of

FIR, and he even began the autopsy without it.
The Autopsy report finds no mention of any burn marks, the degree of burns. It
doesn’t deal about any burn injuries whatsoever. Whereas, a blast had taken place,
and panchas assert that there were two bodies which were found, one was fully
burnt, which was declared dead, and the other was not fully burnt and was alive,
which was sent for medical aid.
The Autopsy report doesn’t talk about Rigor Mortis, or the time elapsed since
death of the victim.

p.w. 8 Dr. Martinez.

Dr. Martinez mentions that the seized Colt M1911A1 pistol had 6 bullets in the
magazine and one in the firing chamber, this means that no bullet left the pistol of
Veerbhadra Singh.
The other seized item that Dr. Martinez received was the cartridge of .45 ACP
bullet fired from a Colt M1911A1 pistol, similar to what had been recovered. This
was discerned on the basis of class characterization method, as it was based on the
examination of rifling marks present on the bullet cartridge and of another bullet
shot from another test Colt M1911A1 pistol. But, to ascertain whether the bullet
recovered was shot from the gun recovered, there must have been another test,
namely an Individual Characterization test, which would have examined the firing
chamber mark, the firing pin mark, the breech mark and the ejector mark present
on the cartridge in consonance with the Pistol received.. the same was not done.

7
 Also, in the ballistic report, the requirement of distance determination test and
gunshot residue test, which tests the shooter’s hand to know whether he shot the
bullet or not, both the tests aren’t on record.
Dr. Martinez also examined the explosive. And her examination is based on
evidences in the form of remains of automobiles in which the victim was
travelling, rock samples which melted, and traces of Nitroglycerin and
cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine. The photographs show that an RPG was also
recovered. But the same was not received by Dr. Martinez for examination.
(source of procurement waali baat meri clear nahi ho paayi thi)

Spot Panchnama

The Police, the arrival timing of which is still under dispute, went to Mr. Sandeep
Sharma and Mrs. Pallavi Sharma to ask them to become the Panchas. This was at
11:00 P.M. o 15th. It took 30 minutes for the Panchas and accompanying police to
reach back at the spot. According to the panchas, the distance between Tejas and
Veerbhadra was 20 to 30 mtrs, whereas according to Guddu, it was just 10 to 15
mtrs.
The panchas have stated that it was after outlining Veerbhadra and Tejas that they
were rushed to the hospital. But, there is no material on record to suggest that any
such procedure was undertaken.
The panchas have stated that a pistol, a bullet shell and a stone with blood stain
was recovered. But, no seizure list was made. From another site, bike and RPG
were found at a distance of 100 mtrs and 50 mtrs from the site of explosion,
respectively.
Mr. Hemant was found half burned and was sent to hospital. But no material on
record exists to ascertain this very fact.