A Lucknow court acquitted Babloo Srivastava (in picture) in a 27-year-old CBI case related to extortion calls.
Arrested in Singapore and extradited to India in 1995, he was wanted in dozens of criminal cases, including murder and abduction. Pakistan had also accused him of masterminding the 2021 Lahore bombing, an allegation he denied. The agency subsequently took over a case originally registered at Cantonment police station in Allahabad and formally registered its own case in New Delhi on February 24, 1999.
Because it came from a person who personally knew the accused and would have been capable of recognising his voice, the court viewed this testimony as particularly significant. Because a caller introduced himself as Babloo Srivastava did not establish that the accused had actually made the calls, the court observed that merely. You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Lucknow | Silver Rate in Lucknow | Bank Holidays in Lucknow | Public Holidays in Lucknow | Lucknow AQI | Weather in Lucknow | Petrol Price in Lucknow | Diesel Price in Lucknow | CNG Price in Lucknow | LPG Price in Lucknow Stay updated with the latest Lucknow news.
There was no independent witness, forensic evidence or scientific material connecting him to the conversations. Several other witnesses similarly failed to establish any direct connection between Srivastava and the alleged calls. Many stated that they neither knew him personally nor could identify his voice. Holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence proving extortion, criminal intimidation or even the identity of the caller, the court concluded that the allegations remained unproven. Finding no direct, documentary or scientific evidence linking Srivastava to the alleged calls from Naini Jail, it acquitted him of all charges and extended him the benefit of doubt. Download the TOI App.
LUCKNOW: A Lucknow court on Friday acquitted underworld figure Om Prakash Srivastava alias Babloo Srivastava in a 27-year-old CBI case in which he was accused of making extortion and intimidation calls from inside Naini Jail in Prayagraj. Special judicial magistrate (Pollution/CBI) Pratibha Singh extended the benefit of doubt to Srivastava and acquitted him of charges under Sections 385, 387 and 506 of the IPC relating to extortion, fear-induced extortion and criminal intimidation. The allegations surfaced through a writ petition filed before the Allahabad high court in 1999, claiming that he was communicating with gang members and orchestrating criminal activities from prison while authorities failed to act against those facilitating him. Taking cognisance of the allegations, the Allahabad high court on February 1, 1999 directed the CBI to investigate the matter. Following investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet against Srivastava on October 9, 2001 under Sections 385, 387 and 506 IPC. Charges were framed in October 2003, setting the stage for a trial that would continue for more than two decades. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 51 witnesses. However, 13 of them, including key witnesses Nitin Shah and Nimesh Chandra Choksi, turned hostile, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case. Shah had initially claimed that he received calls in 1998 from a person identifying himself as Babloo Srivastava who demanded money and threatened him. Shah told the court that he had known Srivastava since 1992 and was familiar with his voice, yet could not identify him as the caller. Choksi alleged that a caller identifying himself as Babloo Srivastava demanded Rs 10 lakh and threatened to harm his wife and children if the money was not paid.
Babloo’s counsel, Zeeshan Alvi, said that the judgment also highlighted serious shortcomings in the investigation. No voice sample of the accused was collected for forensic examination, leaving the prosecution without any scientific evidence linking him to the alleged calls,” he said. Records did not conclusively show which SIM card was used in which device or whether any of those devices could be connected to the accused, said Alvi. Such technical evidence, the court said, must be corroborated by reliable oral testimony, documentary material or scientific evidence establishing the identity of the caller.
The court held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Srivastava had made the alleged calls, demanded money or threatened businessmen. The case stemmed from allegations that Srivastava continued to run his criminal network from inside Naini Jail using mobile phones allegedly provided with the help of jail officials. A substantial portion of the judgment focused on the testimony of Nitin Shah, the principal complainant in the alleged extortion episode. He also referred to call records showing multiple calls from a particular mobile number. However, during cross-examination, Shah stated that although the caller identified himself as Babloo Srivastava, the voice was not that of the accused. He further stated that the accused had neither threatened him nor demanded money from him. The witness also admitted that he had not lodged any FIR specifically regarding the alleged extortion calls and had not recorded the conversations. “The court noted that investigators failed to recover any mobile phone, SIM card or communication device from Srivastava. Alvi added that the court further observed that surveillance-related evidence was inadequately handled. Investigators neither seized nor properly verified the surveillance equipment allegedly used to monitor calls. Another critical weakness identified by the court was the failure to establish a technical link between the alleged phone numbers, SIM cards and mobile handsets. One of the court’s key findings related to the evidentiary value of call detail records (CDRs). The court held that while CDRs can establish that calls were exchanged between particular mobile numbers at specific times, they cannot by themselves prove who made or received the calls. In the absence of such corroboration, the court found that the call records alone were insufficient to establish that Srivastava had spoken to complainants or issued threats. The judgment also noted that the prosecution failed to prove how the SIM card allegedly used in the calls reached the accused. Evidence relating to its transfer and use was largely hearsay and unsupported by direct testimony. The testimony of businessman Nimesh Chandra Choksi also failed to support the prosecution’s case. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had never met Srivastava and had never heard him speak in person. He also conceded that he had not recorded any of the alleged calls.
Once considered one of north India’s most notorious gangsters, Babloo Srivastava was previously linked to underworld networks and was known to have had associations with Dawood Ibrahim before the two reportedly fell out. Permissions relating to surveillance were also not produced before the court.