Delhi District Court
State vs Sumit@Dabba on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010005572021
SC No. 47/2021
CNR NO. DLSE01-000557-2021
State
Vs.
1) Sumit @ Dabba
S/o Shri Ramesh
R/o House No. 696, A Block,
Gautampuri Phase-1,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
(Proceedings qua him abated vide order dated 07.02.2024)
2) Kartik @ Vijavasan
S/o Sundram,
R/o House No. A-1300,
Gautampuri Phase -1,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
FIR No. 343/2020
PS: Sarita Vihar
U/s: 392/302/34 IPC &
411/201 IPC
Instituted on : 04.12.2020
Committed on : 11.01.2021
Reserved on : Not reserved
Decided on : 08.04.2026
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.1 of 31
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Kartik @ Vijavasan has been sent to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 392/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2020, at about 8:00 PM, at Kachcha Rasta from Sarita Vihar, Mathura Road towards Lal Mandir, Ali Vihar, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, the accused, along with co-accused Sumit @ Dabba (since deceased), in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of a mobile phone belonging to the deceased Sani Dayal, namely VIVO 1718, black in colour, and during the course of the said robbery, murdered him by stabbing.
2. Brief facts: The case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2020, at about 8:00 PM, witnesses Sanjay Singh and Rohan were traveling by motorcycle through Aali Vihar jungle, they heard cries for help and saw a group of boys fleeing and discovered Sani Dayal lying on the ground with multiple stab wounds. The witnesses told about the same to patrolling police officers, who transported the victim to Apollo Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.
2.1) The police registered a murder case and found that the victim's mobile phone was missing, however, traced the location of the missing phone to the Gautampuri area, which led them to accused Sumit alias Dabba, who revealed that he used a social networking app ("Gay Blued App") to lure the victim to a meeting. Accused Sumit disclosed that he alongwith his accomplice Kartik, took the victim into the jungle on a SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.2 of 31 borrowed scooty and that when the victim resisted their attempt to rob him of his money and phone, Kartik held him down, while he stabbed him in the chest.
2.2) Thereafter, the police recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife, victim's stolen mobile phone, the scooty used during the incident and the blood-stained clothes of the accused. During arrest of co-accused Kartik, an illegal country-made pistol was also found in his possession. Forensic evidence, including blood samples and post-mortem reports, confirmed that the cause of death was "hemorrhagic shock due to stab wounds."
3. The investigation culminated in the filing of a final report/ chargesheet under section 173 CrPC against the accused persons Sumit @ Dabba and Kartik @ Vijavasan for the offence punishable u/s 302/201/394/397/411/34 IPC.
4. Upon completion of investigation and after compliance with the necessary legal formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Vide order dated 18.08.2022, charge for offences punishable under Sections 392/302/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused Sumit @ Dabba (since deceased) was, in the alternative, also charged for the offences punishable under Sections 411 IPC and 201 IPC.
5. During course of trial, a report dated 09.01.2024 was received from Jail Superintendent, Central Jail - 11, Mandoli, Delhi, mentioning SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.3 of 31 that accused Sumit @ Dabba was found brought dead as per MLC No. BD/2614/01/24 & CR No. 7975 and in view of the said report, the proceedings against accused Sumit @ Dabba stood abated.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. In support of its allegations, prosecution produced 29 witnesses. A summary of the witnesses produced and their connection with the incident is as follows :
Witness Witness Name Purpose
No.
PW1 Dr. Karthi Vignesh He conducted the postmortem
Raj of deceased Sani Dayal vide
report Ex. PW1/B.
PW2 ACP Mukesh Kumar He proved scaled site plan
Jain Ex.PW2/A of the spot i.e.
Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar.
PW3 Sanjay Singh Material witness.
PW4 Rohan Material witness.
PW5 Dr. Rupam, Apollo He proved the MLC of
Hospital. deceased Sani Dayal
Ex.PW5/A.
PW6 Vinod Kumar Family members of deceased
and and who identified his dead body
PW7 Sunil Dayal vide identification memo
Ex.PW6/A.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.4 of 31
PW8 Arjun Kumar He is owner of mobile Oppo
company Ex.M1 allegedly
used by accused Sumit @
Dabba (since expired).
PW9 Sonu He is the registered owner of
scooty No. DL-3SEQ-8944
allegedly used in alleged
incident by accused Sumit @
Dabba (since expired).
PW10 Sunny He is brother of Sonu, who
denied giving the scooty of
his brother to accused Sumit
@ Dabba.
PW11 Pankaj His testimony is not relevant
for adjudication of present
trial.
PW12 ASI Virender He delivered the copy of FIR
to Sr. Police officials and to
the concerned Area
Magistrate.
PW13 SI Ved Prakash He is witness to the
investigation. He is also a
witness to the alleged
recovery of scooty no.
DL3SEQ8944 at instance of
accused Sumit and its seizure
by IO vide memo
Ex.PW13/A.
PW14 HC Amit Kapasiya Material witnesses who
and and reached to the spot
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.5 of 31
PW16 HC Ombir immediately after the
incident.
PW15 ASI Adesh Kumar Concerned MHC(M).
PW17 HC Vikram Witness to investigation. He
deposed about taking the dead
body of victim to mortuary
and also producing accused
persons to AIIMS hospital for
their medical examination.
PW18 SI Kulbir He took complainant to Tihar
jail for identification of
accused persons who refused
to participate in test
identification proceedings.
PW19 ASI Yadvir The concerned Duty Officer,
he proved copy of DD No.
83A Ex.PW19/A regarding
arrival of victim as brought
dead in Apollo Hospital.
PW20 Insp. Neeraj He filed FSL result
Ex.PW20/A by way of
supplementary chargesheet.
PW21 HC Mahesh He took the exhibits of
present case to FSL.
PW22 Insp. V.S. Rana He is the Investigating
Officer/IO.
PW23 Dr. Kapil Dev He proved his report
Mudgil, FSL Expert Ex.PW20/A.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.6 of 31
from Chemistry
Division.
PW24 Dr. Sarabjit Singh, He proved his report
FSL expert from Ex.PW24/A.
Biology Division
PW25 Insp. Subhash Kumar He filed the CDRs of mobile
Mishra number 9990784978 and
9315468774 by way of
supplementary chargesheet.
He also filed the FSL report
Ex.PW24/A by way of
another supplementary
chargesheet.
PW26 ASI Ravi Kumar He is the Incharge District
Crime Team and he proved
Crime Scene Inspection
Report Ex.PW26/P7.
PW27 Praveen Kumar, the He proved the CDR / CAF /
Nodal Officer from Cell ID Chart and requisite
Reliance Jio. certificate under Indian
Evidence Act Ex.PW27/A of
mobile no. 9990784978 and
9315468774 for the period
15.08.2020 to 07.09.2020.
PW28 Retired SI The concerned Duty Officer,
Sh. Rajender Singh. who proved copy of FIR
Ex.PW28/A and endorsement
on rukka Ex.PW28/B.
PW29 HC Amit Singh The concerned Photographer
of Mobile Crime Team and
took photographs Ex.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.7 of 31
PW29/A1 to A6 of the scene
of crime.
7. MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD: The testimony of material witnesses is being discussed hereinunder, whereas brief of remaining testimonies has already been given in the preceding paragraph.
8. PW3 Mr. Sanjay Singh is the material witness and his testimony is reads as under:
"I am residing at the aforesaid address with my family on rent. I am Driver by profession. I can write and read Hindi Language. I belong to village Gopalpura, PS Bhind, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. Sh. Rohan is my friend. It was the date 5-6.09.2020, I along with my friend Rohan were going to our house on bike DL-3SCN8071 make Honda Dream after taking the petrol from Sarita Vihar, Mathura Road, Petrol Pump. While going to our house when we entered in the forest of Aali Vihar where we found one person was lying in a injured condition on the way in the jungle towards Lal Mandir.
We had reached near the injured. I had tried to ask him but he could not respond and blood was oozing from the chest of the injured. After seeing the same we reached near the Police Post and told the police official that one person in injured condition in the jungle. On which 3-4 police official accompanied me. One auto was arranged and injured was put up in the auto and police officials along with Rohan took the injured to the hospital in the auto. Thereafter, I had gone at my house. Rohan after returning from hospital informed me that SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.8 of 31 injured had expired on the way to the hospital. I had not seen anyone near the spot of incident where I had saw a person lying in injured condition. Police official had made inquiry from me and my statementwas recorded by the police. The statement is Ex.PW-3/A which bears my signatures at point A. On 15.09.2020, I was called by the police on which I reached at Tihar Jail for the identification of the accused persons arrested in this case by the police, but the accused persons had refused to join their TIP proceedings. I had not gone to PS thereafter for the identification of accused persons. I cannot identify the accused persons if shown to me.
At this stage, witness is asked to identify the accused persons namely Sumit @ Dabba and Kartik present in court today but he could not identify them.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP seeks to cross-examine the witness as he is resiling from his earlier complaint and statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Heard. Allowed.
XXXXX by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
At this stage, statement Ex.PW-3/A is shown to the witness. After going through the same, witness states that date was 5 th of the month but due to lapse of time I could not recall the same. It is wrong to suggest that we had reached at about 8:00 pm and when we were passing from Aali Vihar jungle, Mathura Road towards Lal Mandir on a road of the jungle where we had heard the noise of bachao bachao. It is wrong to suggest that thereafter I along with Rohan reached towards the same on the motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that in the light of motorcycle I had seen some boys running towards Aali Vihar Jungle.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.9 of 31 It is correct that later on I came to know that name of injured was Sunny Dayal who had expired due to stab injury at Apollo Hospital. It is wrong to suggest that I am having suspicion upon those boys to whom I had seen running from the spot in the jungle. It is wrong to suggest that those boys had murdered the injured with a knife. It is wrong to suggest that I had told the police in the statement that I can identify those boys if produced before me.
At this stage, the supplementary statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC dt.17.09.2020 Mark X is shown to the witness on which he denied having so made to the police. It is wrong to suggest that on 17.09.2020 I came to know that accused persons who had murdered the deceased on 05.09.2020 in Aali Vihar Jungle had been brought in the PS Sarita Vihar. It is wrong to suggest that I had visited PS Sarita Vihar where I had identified two boys in the office of IO of the case by stating that these are the boys to whom I had seen running from the spot of incident from Aali Vihar Jungle. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not deposing the true facts of the case. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not identifying the accused persons Sumit @ Dabba and Kartik present in the court today and trying to save them as I have been won over by them.
(emphasis supplied)
9. PW4 Rohan is the other material public witness examined by prosecution and his testimony is reads as under:
"I am residing at the aforesaid address with my parents on rent. Sh. Sanjay Singh is my friend. On 05.09.2022, I along with my friend Sanjay Singh were going to our house on bike no.DL-3SCN8071 make SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.10 of 31 Honda Dream after taking the petrol from Sarita Vihar, Mathura Road, Petrol Pump. While going to our house when we entered in the forest of Aali Vihar in between 6-7 pm where we found one person was lying in a injured condition on the way in the jungle towards Lal Mandir. We had reached near the injured. I had tried to ask him but he could not respond and blood was oozing from the chest of the injured. After seeing the same, I along with Sanjay Singh reached at the Police Post and met some police official. We told them that one person in injured condition is lying in the jungle. On which 3-4 police official accompanied us.
One auto was arranged and injured was put up in the auto and police officials along with me took the injured to the Apollo hospital in the auto. Thereafter, Sanjay Singh had gone to his house. I returned from hospital and informed Sanjay Singh that injured had expired on the way to the hospital. I had not seen anyone near the spot of incident running towards Aali Vihar Jungle. Police official had made inquiry from me and my statement was recorded by the police.
On 15.09.2020, I was called by the police on which I reached at Tihar Jail for the identification of the accused persons arrested in this case by the police, but the accused persons had refused to join their TIP proceedings. I had not gone to PS for the identification of accused persons. I cannot identify the accused persons if shown to me.
At this stage, witness is asked to identify the accused persons namely Sumit @ Dabba and Kartik present in court today but he could not identify them.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP seeks to cross-examine the witness as he is resiling from his earlier complaint and statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Heard. Allowed.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.11 of 31 XXXXX by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
At this stage, statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC Mark Y is shown to the witness. After going through the same, he denies having so made to the police. It is wrong to suggest that when I had reached near the spot at about 8:00 pm, we were passing from Aali Vihar jungle, Mathura Road towards Lal Mandir on a road of the jungle where we had heard the noise of bachao bachao.
It is wrong to suggest that thereafter I along with Sanjay Singh reached towards the same on the motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that in the light of motorcycle I had seen some boys running towards Aali Vihar Jungle. It is wrong to suggest that I am having suspicion upon those boys to whom I had seen running from the spot in the Aali Vihar jungle. It is wrong to suggest that those boys had murdered the injured with a knife. It is wrong to suggest that I had told the police in the statement that I can identify those boys if produced before me.
At this stage, the supplementary statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC dt.17.09.2020 Mark Z is shown to the witness on which he denied having so made to the police. It is wrong to suggest that on 17.09.2020 I came to know that accused persons who had murdered the deceased on 05.09.2020 in Aali Vihar Jungle had been brought in the PS Sarita Vihar. It is wrong to suggest that I had visited PS Sarita Vihar where I had identified two boys in the office of IO of the case by stating that these are the boys to whom I had seen running from the spot of incident from Aali Vihar Jungle.
It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not deposing the true facts of the case. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.12 of 31 identifying the accused persons Sumit @ Dabba and Kartik present in the court today and trying to save them as I have been won over by their family members.
(emphasis supplied)
10. PW14 is HC Amit Kapsiya and his testimony is reads as under:
"In the intervening night of 05/06.09.2020, I was posted as Constable at PS Sarita Vihar. On that day, I alongwith HC Ombir were returning after investigation of case FIR on the motorcycle and when we reached at Aali Vihar jungle, where two boys met us and informed that one person is lying in the jungle in injured condition having a stab injury. Thereafter, we reached inside the jungle and found that one person was lying on the way in pool of blood.
We took the injured to Apollo Hospital where doctor had declared the injured dead. Inspector V.S. Rana had also reached at Apollo hospital. I was left at the Apollo Hospital. Inspector V.S. Rana and HC Ombir had left for the spot. Inspector V.S. Rana returned to the hospital where he had handed over tehrir to me for registration of FIR. I reached at the PS where I handed over tehrir to duty officer. Duty officer handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to Inspector V.S. Rana. I had handed over the exhibits handed over by the doctor to Inspector V.S. Rana which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A which bears my signature at point A. Thereafter, I alongwith IO reached at the spot of incident where site plan of the spot at my instance Ex.PW14/B which bears my signature at point A was prepared by the IO. The exhibits were SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.13 of 31 lifted from scene of crime and converted into parcel and seized by the IO and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/C which bears my signature at point A. The accused Sumit @ Dabba had disclosed in his disclosure statement about presence of co-accused Kartik near Pir Baba, Aali jungle. Thereafter, we alongwith the accused Sumit @ Dabba reached near Pir Baba Aali jungle where accused Sumit @ Dabba had pointed out towards the person as to be Kartik who was apprehended by us. Thereafter, he was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW-14/D which bears my signature at point A. He was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW-14/E which bears my signature at point A. Accused Kartik was formally searched on which a country made pistol was recovered from his possession.
IO had prepared a rukka regarding the recovery of country made pistol from accused Kartik and sent me to PS for registration of FIR. I handed over the rukka to DO for registration of FIR. Thereafter, I returned at the above said spot. Thereafter, as per disclosure statement of the accused Kartik, he led us house No. 1300, Ground floor, Gautampuri Phase-I, Badarpur, New Delhi. Thereafter, he led us in a room and from beneath the bed a knife was taken out by him and handed over the same to IO.
The IO had measured the knife and prepared the sketch memo of the knife in which details of measurement was mentioned by the IO. Sketch memo of knife is Ex.PW-14/F which bears my signature at point A. The recovered knife was kept in a transparent plastic box and taped with doctor tape and sealed by the IO with his seal. The knife was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-14/G which bears my signature at point A. The site plan of SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.14 of 31 recovery of knife was prepared by the IO which is exhibited as Ex.PW-14/H which bears my signature at point A. My statement was recorded by the IO.
He identified the knife Ex.P1 as the same knife which was recovered at the instance of accused Kartik.
11. PW16 is HC Ombir who deposed on line of PW-14.
12. PW22 is Investigating Officer V.S. Rana who deposed about investigation conducted by him. He inter alia deposed about recording of statement of PW Sanjay Singh and Rohan, arrest of both the accused and recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P1 at instance of accused Kartik. He proved following documents:-
(i). MLC and OPD card of accused Kartik @ Vijayvasan and Sumit @ Dabba - Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW22/B.
(ii) Parcel No. 1 containing clothes, shoes and shocks of deceased - Ex.P3
(iii) Parcel no. 8 containing earth control - Ex.P4.
(iv) Parcel No. 7 containing blood stain earth control - Ex.P5.
(v) Parcel no. 3 containing right hand nail clipping of deceased - Ex.P6.
(vi) Parcel no. 9 containing blodo in gauze at the spot - Ex. P7.
(vii) Parcel No. 5 containing blood gauze of deceased - Ex.P8.
(viii) Parcel no. 11 containing blood sample of accused Kartik - Ex.P9.
(ix) Parcel no. 12 containing blood sample of accused Sumit - Ex.P10.
(x) Parcel no. 4 containing right hand nail clipping of deceased - Ex.P11.
(xi) Parcel no. 2 three tubes containing of blood sample of deceased -
Ex.P12.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.15 of 31
13. Examined under section 313 of CrPC, the accused either pleaded ignorance about the incriminating evidence or denied the same as incorrect. He claimed to be falsely implicated.
14. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
15. Heard. Record perused.
16. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
17. Since the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, it would be apt to have a look on the law in this regard. Supreme Court in Anwar Ali and Another Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh, Crl Appeal No.1121/2016 dated 25.09.2020, held as under:-
"5.4 It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in catena of decisions that in case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the case of Babu (supra), it is observed and held in paragraphs 22 to SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.16 of 31 24 as under:
"22. In Krishnan v. State (2008) 15 SCC 430, this Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed as follows: (SCC p. 435, para 15) "15. ... This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351)"
23. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para
153)
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must" or "should" and not "may be" established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.17 of 31 any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 and Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259.
24. In Subramaniam v. State of T.N (2009) 14 SCC 415, while considering the case of dowry death, this Court observed that the fact of living together is a strong circumstance but that by alone in absence of any evidence of violence on the deceased cannot be held to be conclusive proof, and there must be some evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the husband and husband alone was responsible therefor. The evidence produced by the prosecution should not be of such a nature that may make the conviction of the appellant unsustainable. (See Ramesh Bhai v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 12 SCC 603)."
5.5 Even in the case of G. Parshwanath (supra), this Court has in paragraphs 23 and 24 observed as under:
"23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.18 of 31 the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court."
18. In Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 1348/2013 dated 02.03.2021 Apex Court observed as under:
"11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been very well crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
"19. .....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.19 of 31 (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
19. Further, in State of Odisha Vs Banabihari Mohapatra and Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1156/2021, dated 12.02.2021, Supreme Court held as under:-
"35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the Accused.
36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence are:
"10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established. 10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.20 of 31 the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There is a strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of the doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep. The impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817.
39. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought is to be established by circumstantial evidence."
20. Next, in Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam (2017) 14 SCC 359, it was observed:
"(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' not and 'may be' established; (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not the explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature of tendency;
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be provided; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.21 of 31 with the innocence of the accused and must shown that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (See: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashra (1984) 4 SCC 116; M G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200)."
21. The principles with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence have also been explained in Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab (2016) 13 SCC 516.
22. Therefore, the principle, as laid down in aforesaid judicial dicta, is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The various circumstances in the chain of events must be such so as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of accused. The missing of important link snaps the chain of circumstances and the other circumstances cannot in any manner establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
23. As to the law on circumstance of last seen, Apex Court in Nizam & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, Crl. Appeal No. 413/2007, decided on 04.09.2015, discussed the law regarding last seen theory. It was observed: -
"Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:- "23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.22 of 31 fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad
218)" The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319."
24. Further, in Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (Crl.) 997 of 2005 Apex Court held as follows:
"It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. [See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. (2005) 7 SCC 603].
The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration."
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.23 of 31
25. In case of State of U.P. v. Satish, Appeal (Crl.) 256-257 of 2005, with regard to last-seen theory following was held:
"The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses."
26. The other cases of Supreme Court based on last-seen theory is tabulated below for ease of appreciation and understanding:
1 Bodh Raj @ Bodha v.
State of Jammu and The last seen theory comes into play where the Kashmir, (2002) 8 time gap between the point of time when the SCC 45; accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility ...............
2 Tipparam Prabhakar v. State of Andhra 8. The last-seen theory comes into play where Pradesh, (2009) 13 the time-gap between the point of time when the SCC 534; accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility ..................
3 Rishi Pal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 18. Finally in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab 12 SCC 551; (2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court held that it is not possible to convict Appellant solely on basis of 'last seen' evidence in the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court gave benefit of doubt to accused persons.
4 Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 24. In Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.24 of 31 12 SCC 279;
SCC 438, this Court held that in absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "last seen together" even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed.
5 Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2015) 14. From the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 10, 11 SCC 178; prosecution has thus established that Anjali was last seen alive in the company of first appellant Kiriti Pal on the evening of 11.11.2008 and that at about 10.00/10.30 p.m., first appellant Kiriti Pal came alone. The theory of "last seen alive"
comes into play when the time gap between the way the accused and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased was found dead was so small, the possibility of any other person committing the murder becomes impossible.
.................
6 State of Karnataka v.
Chand Basha, (2016) 14. The prosecution story relies upon the 'last 1 SCC 501; seen together' theory, which resulted into the death of Ganesh. This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove the 'last seen together' theory. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not, may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. However, while doing so, it must be borne in mind that close proximity between the last seen evidence and death should be clearly established. Yet, the prosecution has failed to prove the evidence which establishes the 'last seen together' theory beyond reasonable doubt ............
7 Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12. In the present case as noticed above the
12 SCC 251; Sessions Court as well as the High Court convicted the appellant/ accused No.2 on the basis of last seen evidence, the correctness of which is also doubtful. The High Court had SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.25 of 31 failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and erred in affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court. We are satisfied that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in law and liable to be set aside.
8 Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, 21. It is clear from the above that in a case 2017 (6) SCALE 556 where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. .............................
27. Having discussed the settled legal position governing cases based on circumstantial evidence and the "last seen" theory, this Court now proceeds to examine whether the prosecution has been able to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances against accused Kartik @ Vijavasan?
28. PW3 Sanjay Singh was cited as a material witness by the prosecution to establish the circumstance of last seen and identification of the accused persons allegedly seen fleeing from the spot. However, upon careful scrutiny, it emerges that PW3 did not support the prosecution case on material particulars. He deposed that while passing through Aali Vihar jungle along with PW4 Rohan, he found an injured person lying on the road and informed the police. He categorically stated that he did not see any person near the spot, did not hear any cries for help, did not see any boys running from the scene, could not identify the accused persons, denied having identified the accused at the police station, and further SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.26 of 31 denied making any incriminating statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even during cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW3 denied the entire incriminating portion of his earlier alleged statements.
29. In view of the above, the testimony of PW3 fails to establish the presence of the accused at the spot, the circumstance of last seen, identification of the accused, or any suspicious conduct attributable to them. Consequently, the testimony of PW3 does not advance the prosecution case and rather demolishes the very foundation of the "last seen" theory.
30. PW4 Rohan, the other public witness examined by the prosecution, also did not lend support to the prosecution case on material aspects. He deposed that while passing through the jungle he noticed an injured person lying on the road and thereafter informed the police. However, he categorically stated that he did not see anyone running from the spot, did not hear any cries of "bachao bachao", did not identify the accused at the police station, could not identify the accused persons in Court, and denied having made any supplementary statements to the police implicating the accused.
31. In view of the aforesaid testimony, PW4 was declared hostile by the prosecution. His evidence, therefore, fails to establish that the accused were seen fleeing from the spot or that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.27 of 31 this crucial circumstance.
32. The law regarding the "last seen" theory mandates that such evidence must be reliable and must rule out the possibility of any third person's involvement.
33. In the present case:
• No witness has proved that the deceased was last seen with the accused.
• No witness has proved that the accused were seen fleeing from the spot.
• No witness has identified the accused.
34. Hence, the most crucial circumstance of last seen remains unproved.
35. PW14 HC Amit Kapasiya and PW16 ASI Ombir, the police witnesses, deposed regarding the steps taken during investigation, including reaching the spot on receiving information, shifting the injured to the hospital, seizure of exhibits, arrest of accused Kartik at the instance of co-accused Sumit, recovery of a country-made pistol from accused Kartik, and recovery of the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife at his instance. Their testimony primarily establishes the procedural aspects of investigation and the alleged recovery proceedings conducted by the police. However, in view of failure of prosecution to establish the circumstance of last seen, the mere recovery of alleged weapon of offence at instance of accused Kartik pales into insignificance.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.28 of 31
36. Be that as it may, it is settled law that the sole circumstance i.e. recovery of weapon of offence cannot result into conviction of an accused in a case based upon circumstantial evidence. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Saddak Hussain vs State (NCT Of Delhi), Crl. Appeal No. 717/2018, decided on 15 May 2019, wherein it was observed as under:-
"40. Moreover, there is no direct evidence against the appellant for upholding his conviction under Section 302 IPC. Mere recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant cannot be the sole premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC could be recorded. It is too slender an evidence to hold him guilty of such an offence. This is particularly so when the fifth accused, who as per the prosecution, is the one who had pulled out the pistol and fired at the deceased, has been acquitted by the learned ASJ. There is also no explanation as to why despite the second accused, who was arrested on 26.12.2016, three days before the appellant was arrested, stated in his disclosure statement that he could get the weapon of offence recovered from a third person, no steps were taken in that direction. In the absence of any other evidence connecting the appellant with the commission of the murder of the deceased, the trial court could not have proceeded to convict him for the offence under Section 302 IPC while proceeding to acquit the remaining accused. For the aforesaid reason too, the impugned judgment is unsustainable, being contrary to the settled legal position and is accordingly quashed and set aside alongwith the order on sentence."
37. To summarize the discussion and appreciation of evidence made hereinabove, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances against the accused. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence; however, the most crucial links in the chain remain unproved. There is no eyewitness to the incident SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.29 of 31 and the prosecution has failed to establish the "last seen" circumstance inasmuch as both the material public witnesses (PW3 and PW4) have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution on identification or presence of the accused near the spot. The accused has not been identified by any witness during investigation or in Court. The prosecution has also failed to establish any clear and convincing motive against accused Kartik. In these circumstances, the chain of circumstantial evidence remains incomplete and incapable of ruling out every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused.
38. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, it was held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture.
39. Further, in Jose vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy & Ors., (2016) 10 SCC 519, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non- existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted."
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.30 of 31
40. In light of aforesaid circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have not been fully established and they are not conclusive in nature. It is not a case where the only hypothesis of guilt of accused can be inferred from the facts brought on record. The prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm of "may be true" to "must be true" as indispensably required in law for conviction on basis of circumstantial evidences on a criminal charge. The prosecution from the quality and quantity of the evidence could not prove the chain of circumstantial evidence which could only lead to one inference i.e. the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, accused Kartik @ Vijavasan stands acquitted in the instant case of all the charges levelled against him. He is directed to furnish bail bonds in terms of section 437A CrPC.
Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.08
15:36:32 +0530
Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL)
Court on 08.04.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-03,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.31 of 31