Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Kumar on 11 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF PRANJAL ANEJA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
(SC-RC), SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLCT020094542020
FIR No.213/2020
U/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC
PS Wazirabad
SC No.288/2020
STATE Through:
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
Versus
(1) Pawan S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
(2) Dharamwati W/o Sh. Balbir Singh
(3) Rinki @ Meenakshi W/o Sh. Naveen
(4) Preeti W/o Sh. Laxman.
All R/o Gali No.4, Jagat Pur village, Wazirabad, North, Delhi.
...accused persons.
Through:
Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Mr. R.K.
Bedi & Mr. Vineet Hans, Ld.
Counsels for all the accused
persons.
Date of Institution : 10.09.2020
Date of Final Arguments : 20.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons in this case are facing trial for the offence punishable U/s 302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing the murder of a 2½ year old girl child Digitally signed by namely Kinjal @ Guddo on 16.04.2020. Accused No.1 is PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:33:07 the father of the deceased girl child, accused no.2 is the +0530 grand mother and accused no.3 & 4 are the Bua of FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 83 deceased i.e sisters of accused No. 1.
2. Present FIR came to be registered on 20.05.2020 on the basis of the statement of the complainant i.e. mother of the deceased girl child alleging that the accused persons together killed her 2 ½ year old girl child namely Kinjal @ Guddo.
3. The events unfolding in the case are as follows :- On 16.04.2020 at 10:06:14 a PCR call recorded as GD No.12A PS Wazirabad reported the murder of a 2 ½ year old girl in which the lady caller specifically named Pawan S/o Balbir as the offender. The call was assigned to ASI Prem Ram, who visited the spot i.e. the house at Gali No.4, Village Jagatpur, Delhi. There he found a 2 ½ year old girl child lying dead in the house at the given address and many persons including neighbours were present. The accused Pawan Kumar was found present, who stated that he has two children, one boy aged 4 years namely Vansh and the other one is a girl aged 2 ½ years namely Kinjal @ Guddo. Pawan Kumar further stated that the girl child has fallen from the bed and was taken to Divine Hospital, where she has been declared brought dead. Upon enquiry, it was further revealed that the mother of the deceased girl child had left her husband Pawan and has been living at her parental house at Meerut. The ASI Prem Ram called the mother Smt. Lokesh to Delhi. Crime Team was called at Digitally signed by PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA the spot which inspected the scene of crime and took ANEJA Date:
photographs. The body of the deceased girl child was sent 2025.07.11 18:33:18 +0530 to mortuary where the postmortem was conducted on the same date i.e. 16.04.2020.FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 83
4. ASI Prem Ram recorded the statements of Pawan, Dharamwati, Rinki and Preeti on the same date i.e. 16.04.2020. In his statement (Ex.PW14/A), Pawan Kumar stated that he resides with his family in his house in gali no.4, Village Jagatpur, Delhi and runs a dairy in Gali No.20, Jagatpur Extension, Delhi. He further stated that his wife Smt. Lokesh left the house on 28.11.2019 due to quarrel between them and since then she has been residing at her parental house at Meerut. He further stated that he has two children, a boy aged 6 years and a girl aged 2 ½ years and both children reside with him. He further stated that he daily resides at his dairy in the night and in the intervening night of 15-16.04.2020 also he was at his dairy when he received call from his sister Rinki at about 7:00 am on 16.04.2020 that his daughter Kinjal @ Guddo had fallen from the bed and has been taken to Divine Hospital, where he reached, however, the child had expired. Pawan Kumar further stated that there is no doubt upon anyone and they do not want any legal action.
5. Statement of Dharamwati (Ex.PW14/B) was also recorded in which she stated that she had gone to the temple in the early morning and was informed by a child that Kinjal @ Guddo had fallen and has been taken to the hospital by her Bua. Dharamwati further stated that there is no doubt upon anyone and they do not want any legal action.
PRANJAL 6. Statement of Rinki (Ex.PW14/C) was also recorded in ANEJA which she stated that she is married in Faridabad, but has Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 been residing at her parental house in Gali no.4, Village 18:33:25 +0530 Jagatpur, Delhi since December 2019. She further states FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 83 that on 16.04.2020 at about 7am, she was in the toilet and her younger sister was rinsing clothes at the terrace, the mother had gone to the temple, the brother Pawan had gone to the dairy and his daughter Kinjal @ Guddo was sleeping in the room. When she heard a thud sound she came and saw Kinjal @ Guddo has fallen on the floor and then she took the child to a Bengali Doctor who referred the child to hospital and then she took the child to Divine Hospital, where she was declared dead. Rinki further stated that there is no doubt upon anyone and they do not want any legal action.
7. Statement of Preeti (Ex.PW14/D) was also recorded wherein she stated that she has been residing at her parental house for last one month. She further stated that she alongwith her sister and mother had given bath to Kinjal @ Guddo and had made her sleep after giving milk. Thereafter, the mother had gone to the temple and Kinjal @ Guddo was sleeping on the bed and she had gone to rinse clothes at the terrace at that time her sister Rinki heard the sound of falling of the child and crying and she took the child to the Bengali Doctor and thereafter to Divine Hospital, where she was declared dead. Preeti further stated that there is no doubt upon anyone and they do not want any legal action.
8. When Smt. Lokesh the mother of the deceased child was called to Delhi by ASI Prem Ram, her statement / PRANJAL complaint was also recorded on the same date i.e. ANEJA Digitally signed by 16.04.2020. The present FIR came to be registered on the PRANJAL ANEJA basis of said complaint. In her complaint dated 16.04.2020 Date: 2025.07.11 18:33:31 +0530 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 83 (Ex.PW3/A), the mother of the deceased girl child stated that she got married to accused Pawan Kumar in the year 2014 and has two children, one son aged 5 - 5 ½ years and one daughter 2 ½ years old. She alleged in her complaint that her father had given Santro Car at the time of marriage but her husband used to say that he wanted Scorpio vehicle and there was dispute in this regard, due to which the Santro Car was given to the brother-in-law by her husband and on several occasions he had beaten up the complainant for failure to fulfill the demand of Scorpio Vehicle. It is further alleged in the complaint that the husband Pawan Kumar had beaten up her and her children about six months ago. She further alleged that when her brother came to take her to his house at Meerut, she also wanted to take along her minor children but they were snatched away by her husband and he did not allow to take them with her. Further alleged that her husband never loved the minor daughter and whenever she used to fall sick he would not even get medicines for her. The complainant also made allegations that her husband Pawan Kumar had also damaged her ear by beating her, but she did not take any action.
9. The complainant further states in her complaint that her elder sister resides in the same village Jagatpur and through her she came to know that her 2 ½ year girl child Digitally had died due to fall from the second floor, however, there signed by were no injuries on her body, while later it came to be PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:33:37 +0530 known that the child died due to fall from the bed. The complainant makes allegations that her husband alongwith FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 83 his mother and two sisters have killed her 2 ½ year girl child namely Kinjal @ Guddo.
CHARGE-SHEET:
10.The postmortem report was collected on 02.05.2020 and the present FIR came to be registered on 25.05.2020 and investigation was handed over to IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta. During the course of investigation, the accused Pawan Kumar was arrested from his house & he was interrogated. During police interrogation, accused Pawan confessed to his guilt and disclosed that he had disputes with his wife and while she was at her parental house, he killed his 2 ½ years old daughter by smothering and at that time his two sisters namely Rinki and Preeti as well as his mother Dharamwati were also present. The IO further concluded that the conduct of accused persons present at the home at the time of offence is in itself doubtful as they did not inform the mother of the deceased about the incident. The complainant/mother came to know about the incident only through her Jija (Hardeep) who lives in the same village Jagatpur & who came to know about the incident from his villagers/neighbours which confirms the fact that the accused persons wanted to perform the last rituals of the deceased without informing her mother or PRANJAL police by portraying her death as accidental (by falling ANEJA from the bed) to destroy the evidences & to avoid her Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:33:43 +0530 postmortem so that her exact cause of death could not be known. Moreover, the distance between the bathroom in which accused Rinki was stated to be inside & the room in FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 83 which bed is kept from where the deceased has been stated to have fallen, is about 35 feet and the location of the bathroom is at the extreme corner of the house alongwith the street & from such place, it is not possible to hear the sound of fall of a child from the bed with such a meager height. Further to notice that there is another door on the gallery also in addition to door of the said room. Thus, both the sisters of accused Pawan Kumar i.e. Preeti & Rinki & his mother Dharamwati tried to mislead the police by giving false statements during the inquest proceedings.
11.Call details of the accused were obtained for the day of incident i.e. 16.04.2020 and as per charge-sheet all the accused were present at home/place of offence at the time of death of Kinjal @ Guddo. Charge sheet further states that as per CDR analysis there was a mobile call to accused Preeti by accused Pawan Kumar in the morning & a call by accused Rinki to accused Pawan Kumar thereafter in the early morning on the date of incident. IO further concluded that it is also surprising that if the accused Dharamwati was in temple at that time as per her statement during inquest proceedings, why didn't any one inform her on her mobile about the incident of falling of the child Kinjal @ Guddo from the bed. IO concludes in the charge- PRANJAL sheet that in view of the disclosure statement of accused ANEJA Digitally signed by Pawan Kumar, it is clear that all of the accused persons are PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:33:48 +0530 involved in the conspiracy of murder of deceased Kinjal @ Guddo. Accordingly, section 120B/34 IPC were added in the case.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 8312.During the course of investigation, the site plan with and without scale has been prepared. It is further mentioned in the charge-sheet that the maximum height of the bed without and with mattress is 19" & 22" respectively from the ground and it seems quite impossible to get injuries as mentioned in the PM report by mere fall from the bed with such meager height. In the supplementary statement it is mentioned that the complainant has further stated that her accused mother-in-law & Nanads were in the mood of remarrying accused Pawan Kumar after evicting her from the house & they used to bring new marriage proposals for her husband & instigated him for remarrying after throwing her & children out of the house. They always empoisoned her husband against her & children.
13.During the course of investigation, the viscera of the deceased preserved during the Postmortem was deposited in the FSL, Rohini for chemical analysis & as per report filed with the supplementary charge-sheet no poisoning could be detected.
14.It is further stated in the charge-sheet that there is one lady Neelam to whom accused Pawan tried to befriend with her & come close to her by making calls on her mobile multiple times in a day & even during late night hours. The statement of PW namely Umesh has also been recorded who is landlord of Neelam & friend of accused Pawan. He has also stated that accused Pawan told him many times to PRANJAL help him in befriending & making physical relations with ANEJA Neelam by convincing her somehow. As per charge-sheet Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 the CDR of accused Pawan reflects that he used to call 18:33:54 +0530 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 83 Neelam multiples times a day & even in odd hours in night. This behavior of him shows that he was eager to get re-married.
15.During investigation, accused Pawan Kumar was arrested while other co-accused persons were absconding, however, later they were also arrested.
16.The charge-sheet concluded that all accused persons in conspiracy with each other murdered the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo as they wanted the accused Pawan Kumar to remarry in which the girl child was a hindrance. It has been further concluded that even though there is no eye witness of the crime, from the facts it is clear that the girl child died under mysterious circumstances and the false story created by the accused persons that the child fell from the bed which is contrary to the injuries reflected in postmortem report clearly raises suspicion. Since the danda used in beating the deceased was not recovered, section 201 IPC has also been added. Therefore, in view of the circumstantial evidence the accused persons have been charge-sheeted u/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC. CHARGE :-
17.On completion of necessary formalities, matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under sections 302/201/34 IPC were framed upon all four accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and PRANJAL ANEJA claimed trial.
Digitally signed by PRANJALPROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:34:05 +053018. Before beginning to note the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it would be apt to note, for convenience, the FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 83 prosecution witnesses and their role in the case. The same has been tabulated as under :-
Witness Name of the witnesses Role
No.
PW-01 HC Dharmendra Singh To prove the registration of
(Duty Officer at PS FIR Ex.PW1/A.
Wazirabad on
25.05.2020)
PW-02 Ct. Naveen To prove the scaled site plan
(Assistant Draftsman) Ex.PW2/A prepared by him as
he joined investigation
alongwith IO Inspector
Gulshan Gupta.
PW-03 Smt. Lokesh To prove her complaint / FIR
(Complainant /Mother Ex.PW3/A and facts /
of the deceased girl) allegations therein.
PW-04 Ct. Praveen Kumar To prove the photographs
(Photographer in Mobile Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A22 Crime Team) taken by him at his visit to the spot on the date of incident i.e 16.04.2020.
PW-05 Sh. Mange Ram To prove the facts of the case.
(Mama of the deceased) PW-06 Sh. Hardeep @ Pintu To prove the facts of the case.
(Jija of the complainant) PW-07 Smt. Neelam (Tenant of Umesh -
friend of accused Pawan Kumar) PW-08 Sh. Umesh To prove the prosecution case (Friend of the accused that accused Pawan Kumar Pawan Kumar) wanted to have physical relation with Neelam and used to make mobile calls to her.
PRANJAL PW-09 Sh. Pawan Singh To prove CAF / CDR etc. ANEJA (Nodal Officer, (Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/G) of Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 Vodafone Ltd.) mobile no.8588070662 and 18:34:10 +0530 9643044967 for the period 05.04.2020 to 16.04.2020.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 83PW-10 Sh. Surender Kumar To prove CAF / CDR / (Nodal Officer, Bharti Location Chart etc. Airtel Ltd.) (Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C) of mobile no.7428706907 for the period 15.04.2020 to 16.04.2020.
PW-11 Dr. Sandeep Kumar To prove postmortem report, Garg Ex.PW11/A. (Conducted postmortem of deceased) PW-11 SI Inderjeet Singh To prove his report (even (Incharge Crime Team) though Ex.PW11/A of the scene of PW-11 is the doctor, crime.
inadvertent ly this witness has also been given the same number) PW-12 HC Sachin To prove the facts and (joined investigation evidence gathered during with Inspector Gulshan investigation and also to prove Gupta) the arrest of accused Pawan Kumar.
PW-13 Sh. Pankaj Sharma To prove CAF / CDR etc. Nodal Officer, Reliance (Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/H) Jio. of mobile nos. (1) 8700328528, (2) 8700530456 and (3) 8076276986 for the period 16.04.2020 to 17.04.2020.
PW-14 ASI Prem Ram To prove facts of the case, (Police personnel from statements of the accused PS Wazirabad who persons (Ex.PW14/A to reached at the spot in Ex.PW14/D), documents response to the PCR call relating to inquest proceedings PRANJAL vide GD No.12A dated (Ex.PW14/E to Ex.PW14/J), ANEJA 16.04.2020) tehrir (Ex.PW14/K).
Digitally signed by PRANJALPW-15 Inspector Gulshan Gupta To prove the facts and ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 (IO of the case who evidence collected during 18:34:16 +0530 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 83 conducted investigation investigation such as site after registration of FIR) plans Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B, notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C Ex.PW15/C, Ex.PW15/D and Ex.PW15/E, arrest and personal search memos of three accused persons Ex.PW15/F to Ex.PW15/K and their disclosure statements Ex.PW15/L to Ex.PW15/N, seizure memo of bed Ex.PW15/O, FSL result Ex.PW15/P, Corrigendum Ex.PW15/Q, status report filed in anticipatory bail application Ex.PW15/R. PW-16 Sh. Amit Rawat. To prove his report (Assistant Director, Ex.PW15/P pertaining to Chemistry, FSL, Rohini, examination of viscera and Delhi) blood sample of deceased child.
PW-17 HC Sangeeta To prove the facts and
(joined investigation evidence gathered during
with IO Inspector investigation.
Gulshan Gupta)
PW-18 Ct. Basanti To prove the facts and
(joined investigation evidence gathered during
with IO Inspector investigation.
Gulshan Gupta)
PW-19 HC Sujata To prove the PCR call i.e GD
(Duty officer at PS entry no.12A dated
Wazirabad on 16.04.2020, Ex.PW19/A.
16.04.2020)
PRANJAL PW-20 W/Ct. Saraswati To prove GD entry no.56 A
ANEJA (CCTN operator at PS dated 16.04.2020 at 21:23:35,
Wazirabad on Ex.PW20/A recorded by her
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
16.04.2020) vide which ASI Prem Ram
Date: 2025.07.11 lodged his arrival in the PS in
18:34:21 +0530
connection with this case.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 83
PW-21 Mahipal To prove facts of the case
(neighbour of accused such as he alongwith Nitish @ Pawan Kumar) Akash, S/o Raj Kumar took the girl child on a bike to Divine Hospital, upon checking doctor declared her dead.
19.PW1/Duty Officer/HC Dharmendra Singh, deposed that on 25.05.2020, he was posted at PS Wazirabad as Head Constable / Duty Officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 Night. On that day, at about 05:30PM, ASI Prem Ram brought Rukka prepared by him for registration of FIR. Accordingly, the present case FIR No.213/2020 was registered by him which is Ex.PW1/A and endorsed rukka vide DD no.25A, Ex.PW/B and issued certificate U/S 65B Indian Evidence Act regarding computerized registration of FIR, Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that on recording of the FIR, he also lodged Kymi DD entry number 25A with regard to registration of case FIR no.213/2020 and after recording of the FIR, DD entry no.26A was also lodged to the effect that the further investigation of this case was handed over to Insp. Gulshan Gupta and copy of FIR was also sent to the Learned MM and to the senior official through special messenger. PW1 exhibited both DD entries as Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E respectively.
20. PW2/Ct. Naveen, deposed that on 02.06.2020, he was PRANJAL ANEJA posted in Mapping Section Outer North District as Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Assistant Draughtsman. PW2 further deposed that he Date: 2025.07.11 18:34:26 +0530 joined investigation with IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta and reached at the spot i.e. house of Pawan Kumar, Gali No.4, FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 83 Jagat Pur Village, Delhi alongwith IO. PW2 further deposed that IO narrated entire incident to him and he took measurement and finally prepared scaled site plan, Ex.PW2/A.
21. PW3/ Smt. Lokesh, deposed that she was residing at Village Gangol, PS Parta Pur, Meerut since last two years and she is housewife and 10th class pass. She got married with accused Pawan Kumar in the year 2014, R/o Village Jagat Pur, Delhi. After marriage, PW3 started living at her matrimonial home and has two children from this wedlock, one son and one daughter. PW-3 further deposed that during her stay at her matrimonial house, she was not having cordial relations with her husband because quarrel used to take place between them. PW3 then deposed that she left her matrimonial house on 28.11.2019 after leaving her both children at her matrimonial home and at that time her son namely Vansh was four years old and her daughter namely Kinjal @ Guddo was about two years old. Thereafter, PW3 started residing at her parental house situated in Meerut, UP.
22. PW3 further deposed that on 16.04.2020, her sister Savita, who was residing in Jagat Pur Village, Delhi telephonically informed her that she has heard that her daughter Kinjal @ Guddo had expired due to fall from stairs from second PRANJAL ANEJA floor of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she alongwith Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA her brother namely Mange Ram reached at her Date: 2025.07.11 18:34:32 +0530 matrimonial house i.e. Jagat Pur Village, Delhi where she saw dead body of her daughter Kinjal @ Guddo. Thereafter, she alongwith her brother Mange Ram went to FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 83 PS Wazirabad where her statement, Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the police. PW3 further deposed that after postmortem examination, dead body of her daughter was received by her husband vide dead body handing over memo, Ex.PW3/B. PW-3 further deposed that she does not know anything else.
23. As PW-3 resiled from her earlier statement, she was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state with permission of the Court. In such cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that her parents had given Santro Car to her husband at the time of marriage, but denied that her husband/accused Pawan Kumar was demanding Scorpio car and over the issue of the same, there was a dispute between them. PW-3 further denies that she has stated in her statement that her husband had given his Santro car to her brother-in-law and that he will drive only Scorpio car due to which her husband/accused Pawan Kumar had beaten her several times. PW-3 was then confronted with relevant portions of her statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is so recorded. Similarly, PW-3 further denied that the facts of her complaint as to beatings given by her husband to her and her children about six months ago, her husband not providing medicines to her daughter whenever she used to PRANJAL fall ill, husband beating to her damaging her ear etc. PW-3 ANEJA was then confronted with relevant portions of her Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is so recorded. PW-3 further Date: 2025.07.11 18:34:40 +0530 denied her complaint statement that when she was leaving her matrimonial home alongwith her brother and children, her husband did not allow her to take her children with her FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 83 and snatched them from her. PW-3 was then confronted with relevant portion of her statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is so recorded. PW-3 further denied her complaint statement to the effect that her daughter Kinjal was killed by her husband, mother-in-law and two sisters of her husband. PW-3 was then confronted with relevant portion of her statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is so recorded.
24.However, PW-3 admitted that neither her husband nor her in-laws informed her about the incident that had happened with her daughter Kinjal on 16.04.2020.
25.PW-3 denied to other suggestions put to her regarding her sister-in-law Rinki having abused her brother and Jija when they came in matrimonial house for giving marriage card of the brother of jija. PW-3 also denied that her in- laws wanted re-marriage of her husband to have more dowry and therefore, they killed her daughter to remove hindrance in his remarriage with another girl.
26.PW4/Ct. Praveen Kumar is the photographer in the Mobile Crime Team which inspected the spot on 16.04.2020. PW-4 proved the 22 photographs of the spot clicked by him as Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A22, its CD Ex.PW4/B and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/C.
27. PW5/Sh. Mange Ram is the Mama of the deceased girl child i.e the brother of Smt. Lokesh (mother of deceased). He deposed that he is residing at Meerut and Smt. Lokesh PRANJAL ANEJA is his youngest sister. PW-5 further deposed that the Digitally signed marriage of his sister Smt. Lokesh was solemnized with by PRANJAL ANEJA accused Pawan, R/o Village Jagat Pur, Delhi in the year Date: 2025.07.11 18:35:11 +0530 2014 and her marriage was mediated by his brother-in-law FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 83 namely Hardeep and after marriage she started residing at her matrimonial home and has two children, one son and one daughter. PW-5 further deposed that he came to know through his sister that there was a minor dispute between her and her husband / accused Pawan Kumar on the account of working in early morning to care cattles as accused Pawan Kumar was running a milk dairy. PW-5 further deposed that due to dispute in respect of day to day work between his sister Smt. Lokesh and her husband, she started residing at her parental house situated in Meerut about 2-3 months prior from the incident. PW-5 further deposed that in the morning of 16.04.2020, he came to know that baby Kinjal had fallen from roof of the second floor, where they used to sleep by putting bed on the roof, thereafter she expired. PW-5 further deposed that he alongwith his sister Lokesh and father went to Jagat Pur village, Delhi at her matrimonial house and came to know that postmortem of the dead body of baby Kinjal has been done. Thereafter, dead body of baby Kinjal was handed over to her father/accused Pawan Kumar.
28. As PW-5 resiled from his earlier statement, he was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state with permission of the Court. In such cross-examination, PW-5 denied his previous statement as to dowry demand by the in-laws of Smt. Lokesh, the beatings given by accused Pawan to her PRANJAL ANEJA sister Lokesh, the remarriage talks of accused Pawan Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Kumar, misbehavour of Dharamwati and Rinki with him Date: 2025.07.11 18:35:17 +0530 and brother-in-law, the holding of panchayat and refusal of in-laws of Smt. Lokesh for any settlement, the intentional FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 83 killing of baby girl by accused persons to facilitate re- marriage of accused Pawan Kumar. However, PW-5 admitted that his sister Lokesh left her matrimonial home on 29.11.2019 without her both kids due to resistance of accused Pawan and Dharamvati and came back at my house. PW-5 also admitted that neither accused Pawan Kumar nor his mother or sister informed him about the death of baby girl Kinjal.
29. PW6/Sh. Hardeep @ Pintu is the jija (brother-in-law) of Smt. Lokesh (mother of the deceased) i.e the husband of Lokesh's sister Savita. PW6 Hardeep and Savita are resident of the same village and reside in Gali No.2 near by the house of accused Pawan. PW-6 deposed that he got the marriage of Lokesh and Pawan Kumar solemnized in the year 2014, thereafter, Smt. Lokesh started residing at her matrimonial home and has two kids i.e one son aged about 5 years and one daughter aged about 2.5 years. PW-6 further deposed that he does not know whether there was any dispute between Lokesh and her husband Pawan. PW6 further deposed that on 16.04.2020, in the morning time, uncle of accused Pawan came at his house and he asked mobile number of his brother-in-law namely Mange Ram by stating that baby girl Kinjal had died due to fall from bed on floor. He further deposed that he also came to know Digitally signed by PRANJAL through villagers/neighbours that baby girl Kinjal had died PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:35:23 due to fall from the roof of second floor of her house as +0530 she was sleeping on the bed put on the roof of second floor in the intervening night of 15/16.04.2020. PW6 correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 83
30. As PW-6 resiled from his earlier statement, he was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state with permission of the Court. In such cross-examination, PW-6 denied his previous statement as to dowry demand by the in-laws of Smt. Lokesh, the beatings given by accused Pawan to her sister Lokesh, the remarriage talks of accused Pawan Kumar, misbehavior of Dharamwati and Rinki with him and brother-in-law, the intentional killing of baby girl by accused persons to facilitate re-marriage of accused Pawan Kumar. However, PW-6 admitted that Smt. Lokesh left her matrimonial home on 29.11.2019 without her both kids due to resistance of accused Pawan and Dharamvati and came back at my house. PW-6 also admitted that neither accused Pawan Kumar nor his mother or sister informed him about the death of baby girl Kinjal.
31. PW7/Smt. Neelam, is a tenant of Pawan's friend Umesh and she deposed that she does not know anything about this case. She deposed that she was called by the IO in the police station in the year 2020 but does not know for what purpose she was called. As PW-7 resiled from her earlier statement, she was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state with permission of the Court. In such cross- examination, PW-7 denied to the suggestions given by Ld. Digitally signed by Addl. PP based on her previous statement. However, she PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
admitted that she belongs to Maharashtra and is residing in 2025.07.11 18:35:28 +0530 the house of Umesh and used to work as a maid for household work.
32. PW8/ Sh. Umesh is the friend of accused Pawan. PW-8 deposed that he does not know anything about this case FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 83 and does not know for what purpose he was called in the police station in the year 2020. As PW-8 resiled from his earlier statement, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state with permission of the Court. In such cross- examination, PW-8 denied to the suggestions given by Ld. Addl. PP based on his previous statement. However, he admitted that accused Pawan is his friend and he is having property in which Neelam, belonging to Maharashtra, was a tenant in the house of Umesh. PW-8 denied to the suggestion that Pawan wanted to have intimacy with Neelam.
33. PW9/Sh. Pawan Singh is the Nodal Officer from Vodafone Idea Limited. He proved CAF / CDR / Location Chart / Certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/G) of mobile no.8588070662 and 9643044967 for the period 05.04.2020 to 16.04.2020. PW-9 further deposed that the mobile phone No.8588070662 was registered in the name of Pawan and the mobile phone No.9643044967 was registered in the name of Shila Pramod.
34.PW10/Sh. Surender Kumar is the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited. He proved the CAF / CDR / Certificate u/s 65 IEA (Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C) of mobile No. 7428706907 pertaining to one Praveen S/o Dharam Singh.
35. PW11/Dr. Sandeep Kumar Garg, Specialist, Forensic Medicine, Bhagwan Mahavir Government Hospital, Digitally signed by PRANJAL Pitampura, Delhi is the doctor who conducted the PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:35:33 postmortem of deceased. He deposed that on 16.04.2020, +0530 while posted as Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, Aruna Asif Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi, upon FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 83 request of IO, he had conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Kinjal @ Guddo D/o Pawan Kumar, aged 2 years 6 months old female child. PW11 further deposed that he had examined the body of the deceased and at the time of the examination the following external injuries were found on the dead body.
1. Reddish contusion of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, present over the left side of forehead,, 1cm above left eyebrow.
2. Reddish contusion of size 2.5cm x 1.5, present over right side of forehead, 0.5 cm above right eyebrow.
3. Reddish contusion of size 1.5 cm, present over centre of forehead.
4. Reddish contusion o size 5.5 cm x 2.5 present over left side of head, 6.5cm above left ear.
5. Reddish contusion of size 4.5 x 2.5, present over back of right side of head, 7 cm above posterior hairline.
6. Reddish contusion of size 3.5 cm x 2.8 cm, present over left side of head, 8cm above left ear.
7. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x x 0.5 cm present over left ala of nose.
8. Reddish contusion of size 1cm x 1cm, present over left side of face on left angle of mandible. 9 Reddish contusion of size 1.2 c x 1cm, present over left side of face 0.5cm above injury no. 7.
10. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm, present over left side of upper part of neck 0.3cm below left angle of mandible.
11. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm, present over left side of chin.
12. Reddish contusion of size 4 cm x 2 cm, present Digitally over the left ear lobule.
signed by PRANJAL 13. Reddish contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm, present PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date: over beck of left elbow joint.
2025.07.11 18:35:38 14. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm, present +0530 over back of left forearm, 5cm above wrist joint.
15. Reddish contusion of size 1.5 cm x 1.3 cm present over back of right forearm, 3.5 cm below right elbow FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 83 joint.
16. Reddish contusion of size 2 cm x 1cm, present over front of left thigh, 4 cm above left knee joint.
17. Reddish contusion of size 2cm x 1 cm, present over front of left knee joint.
18. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5, present over front of left leg, 4cm below left knee joint.
19. Reddish abrasion of rail road pattern of size 6 cm x 1 cm, oblique present over back lower part of right side of chest.
20. Reddish abrasion of rail road pattern of size 4 cm x 1 cm, present over back of upper part of left side of abdomen.
21. Multiple reddish contusions over an area 9cm x 5cm, present over back of upper part of chest, varying from size 2cm x 1.4 cm to 1.6 cm x 1 cm.
Internal Examination A) Head Scalp: On reflection, effusion of blood is present in undersurface of whole scalp.
Skull: Intact, Brain: Thin film of subdural hemorriage is present over back of left cerebral hemisphere. B) Neck Pharynx, Larynx and Trachea: Hyoid Bone and neck cartilages showed no fractures. Thyroid gland is grossly unremarkable. Esophagus is unremarkable. Vessels are grossly normal in appearance C) Chest Ribs, collar bone and sternum: NAD, pleurae and both pleural cavity: NAD Lungs: Both lungs are congested.
Heart: NAD
D) Abdomen
Peritoneum: NAD
Liver: Congested
PRANJAL Spleen: Congested
ANEJA Kidneys: Congested
Digitally signed
Small and Large Intestines: contains fecal matter and gases.
by PRANJAL ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:35:44 +0530 Stomach: Contains about 10cc of brownish fluid.
Mucosal Walls congested FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 83 E) Pelvis: NAD F) Spinal Column: NAD After postmortem, I am of the opinion that the cause of death in the present case was due to asphyxia as a result of smothering consequent to injury no. 07 to 10.
All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to death. Injury no. 01 to 06, 11 to 18 and 21 were caused by blunt force impact. Injury no.19 to 20 were caused by cylindrical blunt weapon. Above mentioned injuries are consistent with severe beating prior to death. However, viscera was preserved to rule out any intoxication at time of death. PW10 prepared a detailed report in this regard bearing no. 444/2020 dated 16.04.2020, Ex PW1I/A. His opinion regarding cause of death is at point X.
36. PW11 is SI Inderjeet Singh. (It is noted that doctor Sandeep Kumar Garg has been examined and already numbered as PW-11, however, inadvertently this witness has also been given the same number) is the Incharge. SI Inderjeet Singh proved his report of the scene of crime as Ex.PW11/A.
37.PW12/HC Sachin is the police personnel who joined the investigation alongwith IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta on 25.05.2020. PW 12 deposed that on that day, he alongwith IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta and ASI Prem Ram reached at the residence of accused Pawan Kumar. The accused was found present at his house. The ASI Prem Ram briefed the entire facts of the case as well as the PCR information to Inspector Gulshan Gupta. At the instance of ASI Prem Digitally signed by PRANJAL Ram, Inspector Gulshan Gupta prepared the site plan. The PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta had inspected the place of 18:35:49 +0530 scene at the instance of ASI Prem Ram and also taken the measurements of the bed from which the deceased girl was FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 83 reported to have fallen. The height of the bed from the base/ground is 19 inch without mattress and the height with mattress is 22 inch. The distance of the room where the deceased was lying was about 35-40 feet. Inspector Gulshan Gupta also made inquiry from the accused Pawan Kumar and thereafter he was arrested in connection of this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/B. Disclosure statement of the accused is Ex.PW12/C.
38. PW13/Sh. Pankaj Sharma is the Nodal Officer from Reliance Jio. He proved the CAF / CDR / Cell ID Chart / Certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/H) of mobile nos. (1) 8700328528, (2) 8700530456 and (3) 8076276986 for the period 16.04.2020 to 17.04.2020.
39. PW14/ASI Prem Ram is the police personnel who visited the spot from PS Wazirabad in response to the PCR call i.e GD No.12A dated 16.04.2020. PW-14 deposed that upon receiving the GD entry for enquiry, he alongwith HC Parshu Ram, went to Gali No.4, Jagar Pur Village. Dead body of a girl aged about 2 ½ year was found lying in the gallery of the house. Many public persons were present there. Senior officers i.e. SHO and ACP also came at the spot. Crime team was called at the spot and the spot was also photographed. The dead body of deceased child was PRANJAL sent to mortuary. Father of the deceased child Pawan ANEJA Kumar, her grand-mother (Dadi) Dharamwati and her Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Buas Rinki and Preeti were present at the spot. PW14 Date: 2025.07.11 18:35:59 +0530 further deposed that he made enquiry from them and recorded their statements which are exhibited as FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 83 Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D respectively. Thereafter, PW14 went to Subzi Mandi mortuary. Mother of deceased child namely Smt. Lokesh came at the mortuary. PW14 made enquiry from her and recorded her statement which is Ex.PW3/A. PW14 prepared inquest papers and got the postmortem examination of the deceased child conducted vide his application to Medical Supdt. Aruna Asif Ali Hospital, Mortuary Subzi Mandi, Delhi, Ex.PW14/E. The dead body of child was duly identified by her father Pawan Kumar and her neighbour namely Raj Kumar vide their statements, Ex.PW14/G and Ex.PW14/H. After the postmortem examination, dead body of the child was handed over to her father vide receipt Ex.PW3/B. The exhibits pertaining to the deceased child, in sealed condition were given by the examining Doctor and the same were seized by him with the sample seal. The seizure memo of sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased with sample seal is Ex.PW14/I. The seizure memo of viscera jar alongwith blood sample and sample seal is Ex.PW14/J. The seizure memo of sealed blood in gauze of the deceased child alongwith sample seal is Ex.PW14/J. The postmortem report of deceased child was collected from mortuary on 02.05.2020. PW14 informed the senior officers regarding the facts. PW14 further deposed that on 25.05.2020, PW14 prepared Tehrir on the statement of PRANJAL ANEJA mother of the deceased child and got the present case Digitally signed by PRANJAL registered. The said Tehrir is Ex.PW14/K. The ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:36:03 +0530 investigation of case by the direction of SHO was handed over to Inspector Gulshan Gupta, Inspector Investigation.FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 83
PW14 further deposed that on 25.05.2020, he joined investigation in this case with IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta and he alongwith Ct. Sachin, went to Gali no.4, Village Jagat Pur where accused Pawan Kumar was found present at his house. IO prepared the rough site plan on his pointing out. IO had made enquiry from accused Pawan Kumar and arrested him vide arrest memo, Ex.PW12/A and his personal search was taken vide memo, Ex.PW12/B. His disclosure statement is Ex.PW12/C.
40. PW15/Inspector Gulshan Gupta is the IO deputed to the case upon registration of FIR on 25.05.2020. PW-15 deposed that on the same day, he alongwith ASI Prem Ram and Ct. Sachin reached at the spot i.e. House of accused Pawan Kumar at Village Jagatpur, where accused Pawan was found present. ASI Prem Ram had described the place of incident. PW15 prepared two site plans i.e. Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B at the instance of ASI Prem Ram. PW15 took the measurements of the alleged bed from which the deceased Kinjal @ Guddo was stated to have fallen on the day of incident. The maximum height of the bed from the floor was 19 inches without mattress. Thereafter, accused Pawan was interrogated, who confessed his crime and was then arrested. Remaining accused persons namely Dharamwati, Rinki @ Meenakshi and Preeti were not found at the house. During investigation, PW15 recorded PRANJAL ANEJA supplementary statement of complainant Smt. Lokesh and Digitally signed by PRANJAL statement of her brother Mange on 27.05.2020. Statement ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:36:09 +0530 of Sh. Hardeep, brother-in-law (Jija) of Smt. Lokesh was recorded on 30.05.2020. Search of co-accused was made.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 83During investigation, PW15 alongwith Assistant Draftsman Ct. Naveen went to place of incident and PW15 had shown place of incident to him who later prepared the scaled site plan. PW15 further deposed that during investigation he recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of other official witnesses and collected documents pertaining to them such as CD, Photographs, certificate u/s 65 B IEA, CDRs of mobile phones etc. The notices u/s 91 pertaining to CDR are Ex.PW15/C, Ex.PW15/D and Ex.PW15/E. During investigation, remaining accused who were absconding, were also arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW15/F to Ex.PW15/H, personal search memos ExPW15/I to Ex.PW15K and their disclosure statement are Ex.PW15/L to Ex.PW15/N. The seizure memo of bed with mattress is Ex.PW15/O. The FSL result (Chemical analysis) is Ex.PW15/P. The corrigendum to postmortem report of deceased is Ex.PW15/Q.
41.PW-15 further deposed that during investigation, he had visited the Divine Hospital, where he came to know that no document like ECG etc. of the deceased girl child was ever conducted in the said hospital.
42.PW16/ Sh. Amit Rawat is the Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, who proved his chemical analysis report Ex.PW15/P pertaining to viscera and blood sample of the deceased Kinjal @ Guddo. PW16 deposed PRANJAL ANEJA that he is of the opinion that on Chemical, Microscopic, Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA TLC & GC-MS examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and Date: 2025.07.11 methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, 18:36:13 +0530 barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 27 of 83 detected in exhibits '1', '2' & '3'.
43.PW-17/HC Sangeeta is the police personnel who joined investigation alongwith IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta, Ct. Basanti and Ct. Preseta on 10.09.2020 and assisted in the carrying out of investigation and arrest of accused persons and also seizure of bed with mattress.
44. PW-18/Ct. Basanti is the police personnel who joined investigation alongwith IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta, Ct. HC Sangeeta and Ct. Preseta on 10.09.2020 and assisted in the carrying out of investigation and arrest of accused persons and also seizure of bed with mattress.
45. PW-19/ HC Sujata is the duty officer who was posted at PS Wazirabad. PW-19 deposed that she received the information at about 10:06 am regarding the murder of two and half year old girl stating that ' Lady caller bol rahi hai ki yanha par ek 2.5 saal ki ladki ka murder kar dia h... jisne kia h uska naam Pawan S/o Balbir h' and this information was recorded to GD No.12A which is Ex.PW19A, the same was marked to ASI Prem Ram to attend the call.
46.PW-20 W/Ct Saraswati deposed that on 16.04.2020, she was posted as W/Ct/CCTN operator at PS Wazirabad. On that day, his duty hours were from 02:00pm to 10:00 pm. On that day at about 09:23 pm, ASI Prem Ram has lodged Digitally signed by PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA his arrival in the police station in connection of this case ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:36:19 +0530 and the same was typed by her in the computer vide DD no. 56A. The attested copy of the DD entry number 56 A, Ex.PW20/A bearing the signatures of the then DO/ASI Kanwar Singh at point A. FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 28 of 83
47. PW-21/Shri Mahipal is the neighbour of accused Pawan.
He deposed that on 16.04.2020, he was living along with his family in the Jagat Pur Village and was having house at Gali No. 4. On that day at about 7:00 AM, when he was present in his house, he heard some noises coming from his neighbourhood and when he came out from his house to see what was happening, he saw 2/3 neighbourers were also present near the house of accused Pawan. He also reached there and found that the mother of the accused Pawan namely Smt. Dharamwati was having the daughter of Pawan in her lap. PW21 further deposed that he inquired about the girl child from accused Dharamwati who told him that the child has fallen from the first floor of the house through stairs and she became unconscious. PW21 further deposed that he took the girl child to Divine Hospital on his motorcycle and the child was attended by the doctor and after checking, her ECG was done and then they declared that the child has already expired. Thereafter, PW21 brought back the child to the house of Pawan.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C
48.Examined under Section 313 of CrPC, accused persons either pleaded ignorance about the incriminating evidence or denied the same as incorrect. Accused Dharamwati stated that she had gone to the temple at the time of PRANJAL ANEJA incident. The accused Rinki and Preeti stated that they Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 were at their in-laws at the time of incident.
18:36:24 +053049. Accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence. The matter then proceeded for final arguments.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 29 of 83ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE :
50. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the state that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused persons and therefore they deserve to be convicted for offence u/s 302/201/34 IPC.
51.Ld. Addl. PP further argued that the matrimonial discord between the accused Pawan Kumar and his wife Smt. Lokesh has been duly proved. The fact that both the children were retained by accused Pawan Kumar with him while Smt. Lokesh was leaving for her parental home is also duly established. Ld. Addl. PP also argued that the mother and two sisters of the accused Pawan Kumar wanted to remarry him with a suitable match, so as to fetch more dowry and therefore, all the accused persons in conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of their common intention, killed the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo, so as to remove the hindrance in the remarriage.
52. As regards the delay in lodging FIR, it was argued that the incident occured during the 1st lockdown of COVID-19 and furthermore the postmortem report was not received in time afterwhich it was clear that the case is that of homicide and not an accident.
Digitally signed by PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
ARGUMENTS OF LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL :
2025.07.11 18:36:29 +0530
53. Ld. Defence Counsel (LAC) for accused argued on various aspects of the matter. He argued that there is an inordinate FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 30 of 83 delay of about more than a month and the case has ben falsely imputed upon the accused persons. Ld. Counsel further arged that the cause of death of the girl child in merely accidental as she fell from the cot lying on the 2 nd floor i.e. terrace where she was sleeping and when she fell down and came rolling through the staircase to the ground floor sustaining injuries. Ld. Counsel also argued that the post-mortem report is not correct and the same was prepared during ist lockdown of the covid-19 period. Ld. Counsel further argued that the crime team or IO did not inspect the 2nd floor and did not take possession of the cot being case property while they have falsely impounded the bed as case property just to falsely implicate the accused persons. Ld. Counsel further argued that accused Rinki and Preeti were at their in-laws' homes at the time of incident and accused Dharamwati was in the temple. He stated that the accused persons are God-beleivers and they have even built a temple in their house and therefore they could not have committed any offence of this kind.
54. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
For appreciating the rival contentions, it would be apt to analyse the evidence brought on record in detail to adjudicate if the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts or whether accused PRANJAL ANEJA deserves to be acquitted in the present case?
Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11ANALYSIS:
18:36:34 +053055. Facts of the case reveal that there is no direct evidence with respect to the offence committed. A girl child aged 2 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 31 of 83 ½ yrs old died in her house in mysterious circumstances. As per prosecution, the girl child has been killed by the accused persons while the defence taken is that the child died due to fall from the cot lying on 2 nd floor on which she was sleeping and came down rolling through the staircase, having no railing, to the ground floor where construction material was kept as the house was under
construction. As per prosecution case, the following circumstances exist and are proposed to be proved against the accused persons in the present case:
1. There were matrimonial disputes between the parents of the deceased girl child due to which the mother of the child had left the matrimonial house in November 2019 leaving behind both her children and started residing at her parental house;
2. The deceased girl child was in the custody of accused persons before her death and she was found dead in the house where accused persons were residing and present at the time of incident;
3. Cause of death is homicidal in nature;
4. Identification of the deceased girl child and accused PRANJAL persons is not disputed.
ANEJA Digitally 56. While appreciating the evidence on record, this court shall signed by PRANJAL now proceed with the case in hand and shall give findings ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:36:39 +0530 with respect to each of the circumstance which can help in arriving at a just decision of the case.FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 32 of 83
Circumstance no.1:
There were matrimonial disputes between the parents of the deceased girl child due to which the mother of the child had left the matrimonial house in November 2019 leaving behind both her children and started residing at her parental house.
57. It is not in dispute that the mother of deceased girl child left her matrimonial house at Delhi and had gone to her parental house at Meerut (U.P.) in November 2019 and record does not suggest that she ever visited the matrimonial home thereafter till the time death of the child was reported. The mother Smt. Lokesh in her complaint Ex. PW3/A as well as in her testimony as PW3 stated that she got married with accused Pawan in the year 2014 and started living in her matrimonial house at Gali No.4, Village Jagatpur, Delhi. She further deposed that from the wedlock she had two children i.e. a son who was 4 yrs old and daughter namely Kinjal @ Guddo who was about 2 yrs old when she left the matrimonial house on 28.11.2019.
The girl child Kinjal @ Guddo was about 2 ½ years old when she died. These facts are not under challenge.
58. Regarding matrimonial disputes, the complainant stated in her complaint Ex. PW3/A that her parents gave Santro car Digitally signed by PRANJAL however her husband wanted Scorpio car resulting which PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA dispute arose and the husband never used that Santro car Date:
2025.07.11 18:36:44 +0530 and gave it to his brother-in-law. She further made allegations in the complaint that about 6 months ago her FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 33 of 83 husband had beaten her and her children and then she called her brother to take her and while she was leaving with her brother along with both the children, her husband did not allow her to take the children. Complainant also made allegations that her husband did not used to love their daughter and also never used to provide medicines to her whenever she used to fall ill. Complainant also stated that once her husband had beaten her so much that her ear got damaged but she did not take any action.
59. However, in her testimony in the Court PW3 did not support the abovesaid allegations of her complaint. Without going into any details, she simply deposed in her examination-in-chief that she was not having cordial relations with her husband because of quarrel between them.
60. As PW-3 resiled from her earlier statement, she was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State with permission of the Court. In such cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that her parents had given Santro Car to her husband at the time of marriage, but denied that her husband/accused Pawan Kumar was demanding Scorpio car and over the issue of the same, there was a dispute between them. PW-3 further denied to all other allegation made in her complaint.
PRANJAL
61.However, PW-3 admitted that neither her husband nor her ANEJA in-laws informed her about the incident that had happened Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:36:48 +0530 with her daughter Kinjal on 16.04.2020.
62. In cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW3 admitted to a suggestion that the quarrel between her and FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 34 of 83 her husband was over petty issues such as not cooking food and not waking up early morning.
63. The fact remains that there were no cordial relations between the complainant/PW3 and her husband. Even though PW3 deposed that she had quarrel with her husband over petty issues, it does not appear so in view of the fact that she took the bold step of leaving her matrimonial house and going to her parents' house with her brother. It is also worth noting that neither did she return back nor was there any effort for calling her back to the matrimonial house despite both children having been retained by her husband Pawan Kumar with him for last about 6 months prior to the death of the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo. This reflects the gravity of the dispute between them. It is further fortified by the fact that information about the incident i.e. death of her infant daughter was not given to her being mother. It is the case of defence that the information was given to complainant's sister Savita. However, death of a 2½ years girl child in mysterious circumstance is a very serious matter and not informing the same directly to the mother of the deceased child cannot be viewed lightly in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
64. In any case, it can be safely concluded that ceratinly there was matrimonial discord between the parents of the PRANJAL deceased girl child as a result of which mother of the ANEJA deceased child left the matrimonial house on 28.11.2019 Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: and started residing at the house of her parents at Meerut 2025.07.11 18:36:53 +0530 (U.P.). The complainant in her complaint states that while FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 35 of 83 she was leaving the matrimonial house with both of her children, her husband snatched both of them from her and did not allow her to take them along with her. Though the complainant/PW3 in her testimony simply states that both the children were left at the matrimonial house, however the abovenoted matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband and the manner in which she has resiled from her complaint, speaks more than what appears a routine affair. With the given ages of the children at that time i.e. about 4 - 4.5 years and 2 years respectively, they would have been more likely to be attached with the mother, especially the younger one i.e. infant daughter in the age zone of breast-fed, however she was not allowed to take them. Notably, there is no suggestion from the accused persons during cross- examination of the complainant or any other witness to the effect that both the children were more attached with the father and therefore on insistence of the children they remained with their father and did not accompany their mother. It is also noted that one of the witness PW 6 / Hardeep @ Pintu who happens to reside in same locality and is the husband of complainant's sister Savita i.e. Complainant's jija, deposed in his testimony that the Digitally complainant could not take both the kids with her due to signed by PRANJAL the resistance of accused Pawan and Dharamwati. Thus, PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 what clearly comes out is that the children could not 18:36:58 +0530 accompany their mother due to the resistance of accused Pawan and Dharamwati and Pawan forcefully retained both the children with them.FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 36 of 83
65. As the complainant/PW3 resiled from her complaint, the denial to the suggestions put by Ld. Addl. PP during cross- examination, based on the allegations in her complaint, cannot be taken without a pinch of salt in these very given fasts and circumstances of the case.
66. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the both the children including the deaceased girl child remained at Pawan's house when his wife i.e. complainant left the matrimonial house. This circumstance no.1 therefore stands proved.
Circumstance no. 2:
The deceased girl child was in the custody of accused persons before her death and she was found dead in the house where accused persons were residing and present at the time of incident.
67. It is the case of prosecution that all four accused persons were at the house in Gali No.4, Jagatpur Village, Wazirabad, Delhi where the death of the child occurred on 16.04.2020. All four accused persons have been chargesheeted for the murder of the deceased girl child with the hypothesis that they all committed it in common intention of all in order to eliminate her thereby facilitating the remarriage of accused no. 1/ Pawan Kumar.
68. There is no dispute over the fact that the deceased girl PRANJAL ANEJA child was in the house of her father i.e. accused Pawan at Digitally signed Gali No.4, Jagatpur Village, Wazirabad, Delhi before her by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:37:08 +0530 death as she was retained there when her mother Smt. Lokesh left the matrimonial house. The same has also been FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 37 of 83 discussed under circumstance no.1 above. In fact, both the children were in the custody of the father i.e. accused Pawan. Being father he is also the natural guardian of the child as per law i.e. Section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Even though by this law the custody of a minor child under 5 years is ordinarily with the mother, in this case admittedly the father i.e. accused Pawan also took the custody of the girl child when the mother Smt. Lokesh left the matrimonial house. Thus, the father i.e. accused Pawan is not only the legal guardian of the deceased girl child but was also having her custody. In this scenario, the presence of accused Pawan in the house at the time of incident cannot be ruled out. Therefore, greater onus lies upon him to explain his non-presence in the house at the time of incident. It is important to note that nowhere in the entire evidence it has come on record that accused Pawan was not present in the house at the time of incident. There is no plea of alibi taken by the accused Pawan. The incident occurred within the four walls of the house. When neighbours had gathered at the house hearing about the death of the child, accused Pawan was present. He was also there when the police had arrived upon the PCR call. He was also present in the mortuary and even received the dead body of his girl child. PRANJAL ANEJA 69. PW 14 ASI Prem Ram had reached the spot upon the PCR Digitally signed call. He found the deceased girl child lying in the gallery by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:37:13 of the house. There he recorded statement of accused +0530 Pawan and also of other 3 accused persons which are Ex. PW14/A to Ex. PW14/D. It has come in these statements FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 38 of 83 that accused Pawan was at his dairy at the time of incident. However, these statements precede the FIR & the investigation. Moreover, they have turned out to be of the accused persons chargesheeted by the police. Therefore, stricto sensu, as per law, these statements (Ex. PW 14/A to 14/D) cannot be relied upon in evidence. Although PW14 / ASI Prem Ram has tendered the same in his deposition, but the accused persons have disowned them by putting suggestion to PW 14 during his testimony that the statements of accused are fabricated after registration of the case. Even in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused Pawan denied having made any such statement and stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police. So, it is no one's case that the accused Pawan was at his dairy or elsewhere at the time of incident. It is again noted that accused Pawan has not taken any plea of alibi during the entire trial. Additionally, prosecution has also relied upon CAF (consumer application form) and CDR (call detail record) with chart location of the mobile number 8588070662 of accused Pawan and examined the concerned nodal officer from Vodafone Idea in this regard as PW 9 who exhibited these documents as Ex. PW 9/A (CAF), Ex. PW9/D (CDR) and Ex. PW 9/E (location chart). Admittedly, the said mobile number belongs to the PRANJAL ANEJA accused Pawan. There is nothing disputed during the cross-
Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJAexamination of PW 9 as regards the cell tower location Date: 2025.07.11 18:37:21 +0530 with regard to accused Pawan.
70. It is worth noting that neither PW14 / ASI Prem Ram nor any other witness in cross-examination has been asked FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 39 of 83 about the presence of accused Pawan at the time of incident. No suggestion has been put from defence side to any of the prosecution witness that the accused Pawan was not present inside the house or that he was at the dairy or elsewhere at the time of incident. Surprisingly, in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. also the accused Pawan nowhere denied about his presence inside the house at the time of incident. Infact, when the question concerning evidence led by IO /PW15 regarding measurements of the bed & mattress was put to the accused Pawan in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he answered that it is incorrect and further explained that they used to sleep at the second floor i.e. terrace on a charpai. Thus, accused Pawan himself indicated his presence inside the house at the time of incident. Nowhere he took the defence that he was at his dairy or elsewhere at the time incident. No evidence has been led in defence to deny his presence at the spot at the time of incident. Thus, it can safely be concluded that accused Pawan was present inside the house at the time of incident.
71. As regards accused Dharamwati, it is noted that she is the grandmother of the deceased girl child. As such she is a natural resident of the house. Except for a bald statement made by her u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that she had gone to the PRANJAL temple where she came to know about the death of her ANEJA Digitally signed by grand daughter Kinjal @ Guddo, there is no stand taken or PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:37:25 +0530 suggestion given to any of the prosecution witness that she was not present at the spot and that she had gone to the temple when the incident occurred. Various questions have FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 40 of 83 been asked to many witnesses regarding the temple and the religious beliefs and sentiments of the accused Dharamwati and Pawan, however no defence has been built during the cross-examination so as to show her non- presence at the spot during the incident. Admittedly, the temple has been built on the ground floor inside the house itself. This makes the presence of accused Dharamwati all the more plausible inside the house at the time of incident even if her aforesaid plea during the examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is taken at its face value. As discussed in the preceding para qua accused Pawan, the statement of accused Dharamwati Ex. PW 14 / B recorded by PW 14 ASI Prem Ram cannot also be relied upon and the same has even otherwise been disowned by the defence. It is recorded in such statement that accused Dharamwati had gone to the temple at the time of incident. As already noted, no positive evidence has been led by the defence to deny the presence of accused Dharamwati inside the house at the time of the incident. There is also no negative suggestion put to any prosecution witness concerning the presence of accused Dharamwati. Merely a bald plea taken during the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that she was in the temple will not help her establish the plea of alibi. She was PRANJAL also present when ASI Prem Ram reached the spot in ANEJA Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA response to the PCR call. The above discussion thus leads Date: 2025.07.11 18:37:31 +0530 to the conclusion that accused Dharamwati was also present in the house at the time of incident.
72. Now coming to the aspect with regard to the presence of other two accused persons namely Rinki and Preeti at the FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 41 of 83 spot during the incident. These two accused persons are the bua of the deceased girl child i.e. her father's sisters. As per record, both are married with their in-laws at Faridabad (Haryana). The IO charge sheeted these two accused persons on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused Pawan. In that disclosure statement Ex. PW 12/C of accused Pawan it is recorded that on 15.04.2020 he came home drunk and out of frustration due to matrimonial discords he had beaten both his children after which he went to his diary and he had mobile conversation on 16.04.2020 at 4 am with his sister Rinki who told that Kinjal @ Guddo was not amenable with the beatings after which he came home and saw that both her sisters (Rinki & Preeti) were insisting Kinjal @ Guddo to have milk but she was not drinking it, then out of anger he had beaten her and upon instigation of all other three accused persons present there, he killed the girl child by smothering i.e. by choking her nose and mouth. However, this confession statement does not have any evidentiary value and there is no discovery out of this statement so as to cover it u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the same cannot PRANJAL ANEJA be relied upon. There are also statements of these two Digitally signed accused persons recorded by ASI Prem Ram as Ex. PW by PRANJAL ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:37:37 +0530 14/C and Ex. PW 14/D when he visited the spot on 16.04.2020 in response to the PCR call. In the statement Ex. PW 14/C of accused Rinki it is recorded that on 16.04.2020 at about 7 am while she was in the toilet she heard a thud sound and crying of child and when she came to the room where Kinjal @ Guddo was sleeping on the FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 42 of 83 bed she saw the girl child had fallen on the floor. Then she took the girl child alone to a Bengali doctor who referred the child to Divine Hospital and upon taking the child there, she was declared dead. Similarly, the statement Ex.
PW 14/D of accused Preeti records that the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo was sleeping on the bed inside the room while she was on the terrace to rinse the clothes. As already noted, these statements cannot be relied upon in evidence. The prosecution also relies upon the CDR connection amongst accused Pawan and these two accused persons in the early morning of 16.04.2020 to establish the presence of these two accused Rinki and Preeti in the house at the time of incident. For this, the prosecution relied upon CAFs, CDRs and location charts Ex. PW 10/A, Ex. PW 10/B and Ex. PW 10/C exhibited by PW10 (Nodal Officer - Bharti Airtel) with respect to mobile No. 7428706907 and also Certificate u/s 65B IEA, CAFs, CDRs and Cell ID charts exhibited as Ex. PW 13/A to Ex. PW 13/H exhibited by PW 13 (Nodal Officer - Reliance JIO) with respect to mobile numbers 8700328528, 8700530456 and 8076276986. However, none of the CAFs (customer application form) of the above-mentioned four mobile numbers were found to be that of accused Rinki or Preeti. There is no other evidence brought on record to show that those mobile numbers were used by them either. PRANJAL ANEJA Thus, the Cell ID chart alone cannot be relied upon to Digitally signed establish that mobile communication occurred between by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 two certain persons. It could not be thus established that 18:37:43 +0530 those mobile numbers were used by accused Rinki and FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 43 of 83 Preeti. Both of these accused persons in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were at the house of their in-laws at the time of incident. Even though this may merely be seen as a bald plea of alibi, the prosecution also could not properly establish the presence of these two accused - Rinki and Preeti at the spot at the time of incident. It is also not the case of prosecution that these two accused persons namely Rinki and Preeti were already residing at the house of Pawan when the complainant had left the matrimonial house and that they have been since then residing here at their brother's house in Vill. Jagatpur, Delhi, so as to undoubtedly infer their presence at the spot at the time of incident. The benefit of doubt therefore accrues in favour of the accused Rinki and Preeti as to their presence at the spot at the time of incident.
73. As to the child having died in the house, it is neither the case of prosecution nor of the defence that the child died elsewhere. The incident, which is termed as 'accident' by the defence and 'murder' by the prosecution, occurred inside the house of Pawan only and then the child was found dead.
74. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded under this circumstance no. 2 that the deceased girl child Kinjal @ Guddo was in the custody of accused persons Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati before her death and she was PRANJAL ANEJA found dead in the house where these accused persons were Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA residing and present at the time of incident.
Date: 2025.07.11 18:37:49 +0530Circumstance no. 3:
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 44 of 83Cause of death is homicidal in nature
75. The accused persons have tried to built up a defence that the death of the girl child has occured due to fall from the cot lying on 2nd floor i.e. terrace on which she was sleeping as she came down rolling through the staircase, having no railing, to the ground floor where construction material was kept as the house was under construction. It is their defence that this was an accident.
76. To the contrary, the post-mortem report opines the death to be homicidal in nature. The post-mortem was conducted on the same day of the ocurrence of the incident. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem was examined as PW11 who proved his PM report Ex. PW 11/A and opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of smothering consequent to certain injuries i.e. reddish contusions all present over left ala of the nose, left side of face on the left angle of mandible and over left side of face above injury on the nose. It is also opined that certain injuries are caused by blunt force impact and some injuries are caused by cylindrical blunt weapon and all injuries are consistent with severe beating prior to death. The said opinion of PM report Ex. PW 11/A is reproduced as under:
"OPINION:
PRANJAL Death is due to asphyxia as a result of smothering ANEJA consequent to injury no. 07 to 10. All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA death. Injury no. 01 to 06, 11 to 18 and 21 are caused Date: 2025.07.11 18:37:53 +0530 by blunt force impact. Injury no.19 to 20 are caused by cylindrical blunt weapon. Above mentioned injuries are consistent with severe beating prior to death. However, viscera has been preserved to rule out any intoxication at time of death.FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 45 of 83
Manner of Death: Homicide Time since death: Within 12 hours. Body preserved in cold storage prior to autopsy"
In order to properly appreciate the PM opinion, it would also be profitable to reproduce the various injuries recorded in the PM report:
"EXTERNAL INJURIES:
1. Reddish contusion of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, present over the left side of forehead,, 1cm above left eyebrow.
2. Reddish contusion of size 2.5cm x 1.5, present over right side of forehead, 0.5 cm above right eyebrow.
3. Reddish contusion of size 1.5 cm, present over centre of forehead.
4. Reddish contusion o size 5.5 cm x 2.5 present over left side of head, 6.5cm above left ear.
5. Reddish contusion of size 4.5 x 2.5, present over back of right side of head, 7 cm above posterior hairline.
6. Reddish contusion of size 3.5 cm x 2.8 cm, present over left side of head, 8cm above left ear.
7. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x x 0.5 cm present over left ala of nose.
8. Reddish contusion of size 1cm x 1cm, present over left side of face on left angle of mandible. 9 Reddish contusion of size 1.2 c x 1cm, present over left side of face 0.5cm above injury no. 7.
10. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm, present over left side of upper part of neck 0.3cm below left angle of mandible.
11. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm, present over left side of chin.
12. Reddish contusion of size 4 cm x 2 cm, present over the left ear lobule.
PRANJAL 13. Reddish contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm, present ANEJA over back of left elbow joint.
14. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm, present Digitally signed over back of left forearm, 5cm above wrist joint. by PRANJAL ANEJA 15. Reddish contusion of size 1.5 cm x 1.3 cm Date: 2025.07.11 18:37:58 +0530 present over back of right forearm, 3.5 cm below right elbow joint.
16. Reddish contusion of size 2 cm x 1cm, present FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 46 of 83 over front of left thigh, 4 cm above left knee joint.
17. Reddish contusion of size 2cm x 1 cm, present over front of left knee joint.
18. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5, present over front of left leg, 4cm below left knee joint.
19. Reddish abrasion of rail road pattern of size 6 cm x 1 cm, oblique present over back lower part of right side of chest.
20. Reddish abrasion of rail road pattern of size 4 cm x 1 cm, present over back of upper part of left side of abdomen.
21. Multiple reddish contusions over an area 9cm x 5cm, present over back of upper part of chest, varying from size 2cm x 1.4 cm to 1.6 cm x 1 cm. INTERNAL EXAMINATION A) Head Scalp: On reflection, effusion of blood is present in undersurface of whole scalp.
Skull: Intact. Brain: Thin film of subdural hemorriage is present over back of left cerebral hemisphere.
B) Neck Pharynx, Larynx and Trachea: Hyoid Bone and neck cartilages showed no fractures. Thyroid gland is grossly unremarkable. Esophagus is unremarkable. Vessels are grossly normal in appearance C) Chest Ribs, collar bone and sternum: NAD. Pleurae and both pleural cavity: NAD Lungs: Both lungs are congested.
Heart: NAD D) Abdomen Peritoneum: NAD Liver: Congested Spleen: Congested Kidneys: Congested PRANJAL Small and Large Intestines: contains fecal matter and ANEJA gases.
Digitally signed byPRANJAL ANEJA Stomach: Contains about 10cc of brownish fluid.
Date: 2025.07.11 18:38:03 +0530Mucosal Walls - congested E) Pelvis: NAD F) Spinal Column: NAD"
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 47 of 8377. It is seen from the above report that there are in as much as 21 external injuries on the body of the deceased. Except two injuries (injury no. 19 & 20) which are abrasions of rail road pattern present over lower back part of right chest and over upper back part of left abdomen, all other injuries are reddish contusions all over the body including the face. Important to not that all the injuries are stated to be consistent with severe beatings prior to death and the cause of death is opined to be asphyxia as a result of smothering consequent to injuries no. 7 to 10 i.e. reddish contusion over left ala of the nose, reddish contusion over left side of face on the left angle of mandible and reddish contusion over left side of face above injury on the nose, respectively.
78. Upon analysing the cause of death taken in the defence by the accused perons in light of the above-discussed post- mortem report, it gives a clear picture that the defence taken by the accused persons as to cause of death is highly inconsistent with the nature of injuries sustained on the body of the deceased girl child.
79. There are photographs Ex. PW4/A-1 of the house taken by the crime team where the incident ocurred. In one of the photograph the stairs are visible and the same are seen unplastered i.e. in a raw form. It is the case of defence itself that the house was under construction and PRANJAL ANEJA construction material was also lying at the ground floor. In Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA such a senario, a fall of the child from the 2 nd floor to the Date: 2025.07.11 18:38:07 +0530 ground floor by rolling down through those raw & unplastered stairs would certainly bring lots of bruises over FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 48 of 83 the face and body with blood oozing out and may also cause fractures. But the Post-mortem Ex. PW 11/A records no injury of such kind. Rather, the PM report opines the cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of smothering consequent to injuries no. 7 to 10 i.e. reddish contusion over left ala of the nose, reddish contusion over left side of face on the left angle of mandible and reddish contusion over left side of face above injury on the nose, respectively. In smothering, a person is killed by covering his/her face so that he/she cannot breathe. As per the medical opinion, the reddish contusions over the nose, mandible and face have occurred due to smothering. Such injury could not have occurred upon a fall through the stairs. Though in cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel it was suggested to the doctor / PW11 that as per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence injuries no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, 20 & 21 may be possible due to fall from cot and rolling through stairs, no proper reference has been produced in support of this bald suggestion which is vague in nature. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that in order that an object falling from 2nd floor reaches the ground floor, ordinarily it has to take minimum three turns which come in between the 4 sets of staircase between 2 nd floor and ground floor. It is highly improbable in this situation that the girl child would freely fall uninterrupted PRANJAL ANEJA right from the 2nd floor till the ground floor though the Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA staircase taking note of the fact that the staircase have Date: 2025.07.11 18:38:12 +0530 turns and are even in an unplastered/raw form and not at all slippery. The absence of railing on the staircase, as FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 49 of 83 suggested by the defence, even poses more danger of a free fall directly from any of the turns in the staircase and such fall is likely to bring skull or bone breakages or even more visible injuries, both external & internal, with blood oozing out given the circumstance as suggested by defence that construction material was kept lying at the ground floor. Such construction material may generally consist of bricks, stones, cement, iron etc. and may thus pose threat of a greater bodily injury. But the PM report does not suggest such injuries consistent with the above-said situation of a fall from the 2nd floor.
80. As regards asphyxia, the Ld. Defence counsel raised various suggestions to the doctor/PW11 stating that generally during the time of asphyxia the eyes will be open and tounge protrudes out, right side of chest may be full of blood and left side empty, kidney gets distended and brain gets oedematous and there should be lesser number of oxygen particles in the blood and there might be swelling on the lips. It is noted that in all these suggestions the word 'generally' has been used. The doctor / PW11 in reply to all these suggestions stated that these findings are not correct in all the cases and they differ from case to case. No particular medical reference was given by the defence in support of these bald suggestions. The doctor / PW11 clearly denied to these suggestions and categorically Digitally deposed in the end that none of the injuries mentioned in signed by PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
the post-mortem report Ex. PW 11/A could be possible by 2025.07.11 18:38:19 +0530 fall from cot on the roof through rolling on stairs. There have been also some suggestions in the cross-examination FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 50 of 83 to the doctor that postmortem was conducted by his supporting staff and that he himself had never examined the body and that the report was prepared only on the observations of the supporting staff. Those have been denied by the doctor. It is seen that there is no denial by the defence in the entire cross-examination as to the nature of the injuries, while only their cause has been questioned, that too unsuccessfully. The post-mortem report is a detailed report which has minutely recorded the external injuries which are too many in number i.e. 21. There is therefore no basis to put these bald suggestions as aforesaid. Resultantly, the challenge of the defence to the post-mortem report Ex. PW 11/A remains unsuccessful.
81. Analysing independently, the defence taken by acccused persons that the girl child died due to fall from the cot lying on 2nd floor i.e. terrace on which she was sleeping as she came down rolling through the staircase, having no railing, to the ground floor where construction material was kept, numerous questions arise on this line of defence.
Firstly, whether the girl child was sleeping alone on the terrace (2nd floor), if yes, then it is highly questionable as to how a just 2½ year infant, and that too a girl child, was left to sleep alone on the terrace with risk that the child may just not able to climb down the stairs without human support or railing, as there was no railing also. And if she Digitally was sleeping with accused Pawan and Dharamwati, then signed by PRANJAL questions naturally arise as to what attempts were made to PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:38:23 +0530 save the girl child from rolling down the stairs and ultimately falling down on the ground floor. Were both FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 51 of 83 accused sleeping or were already awoke at that time? Naturally, as the child would have fallen from the cot, she would have cried or atleast made some noise either at that moment or soon therafter when she started rolling down the staircase. This would have awaken Pawan and Dharamwati in case they were asleep. If the stand taken by Dharamwati is believed that she was at the temple and Pawan was at the Dairy at the time of incident, then who saw the child falling from the cot on the terrace by rolling through the staircase down to the ground floor. Why the face/body/clothes of the deceased child was not got dirty or filthy with earth as she had fallen down from the 2 nd floor to the ground floor where construction material was kept ? All these questions remained unresolved as there is nothing on record to suggest answer to any of these questions which remains only a mystery. Nothing whatsoever is stated or explained by the accused persons in their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on these aspects.
82. This analysis and finding leads to an irresistable conclusion that the death of the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo is homicidal in nature and the defence plea of accident taken by the accused persons that the girl child died due to fall from the cot lying on 2nd floor i.e. terrace on which she was sleeping as she came down rolling through the staircase, having no railing, to the ground floor where construction material was kept as the house was under
Digitally signed by PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA construction is a sham & false defence which is discarded. ANEJA Date:
This circumstance no.3 thus duly stand established, that 2025.07.11 18:38:28 +0530 the death is homicidal in nature.FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 52 of 83
Circumstance no. 4:
Identification of the deceased girl child and accused persons.
83. There is no dispute over the identity of the deceased girl child namely Kinjal @ Guddo. The accused Pawan signed the death report Ex. PW 14/F and also identified the dead body of his girl child in the mortuary vide dead body identification memo Ex. PW 14/G. The complainant / mother of deceased girl child Smt. Lokesh also deposed that she signed on the dead body handing over memo when the body was handed over to her husband Pawan after the post-mortem. There is also no dispute over the identities of the accused persons as they are all family members.
FURTHER ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
84. Having discussed the above mentioned circumstances being proved on record, it becomes imperative to now discuss their resultant effect in view of the law as applicable.
85. In heinous crimes like murder, it becomes difficult to have an eye-witness. Under criminal law, the deposition or the oral testimony of an eye-witness is called direct evidence.
But where the witness has not directly seen the commission of the offence, the case becomes that of a Digitally signed by PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA circumstantial evidence also known as indirect evidence, ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:38:33 deduced from the existing facts and is an inference drawn +0530 from proved facts. This kind of evidence though an FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 53 of 83 admissible evidence in a criminal trial, it has to be treated with a lot of caution and circumspection by the Criminal Court because of the inherent subjectivity in drawing the conclusions by the Court concerned. The law regarding the nature and character of proof of circumstantial evidence has been settled by several authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts in India. The locus classicus of the decision was rendered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahajan of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hanumant V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1953 Crl.L.J 129, who expounded the concomitants of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence by holding:
"The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. It must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
86. In the celebrated judgment of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the nature and character of proof of circumstantial evidence, reiterated its decision rendered in the aforesaid case of Hanumant (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court had propounded five golden principles regarding circumstantial evidence. The said golden principles of Sharad Birdhichand (supra) have been recently reiterated in an Apex Court judgment in Nusrat PRANJAL ANEJA Parween Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2024 INSC 955 [Criminal Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 Appeal No. 458 of 2012] under para 7 as follows:
18:38:38 +0530"7. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 54 of 83 involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably to the accused person's guilt. The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. In other words, from the chain of incriminating circumstances, no reasonable doubt can be entertained about the accused person's innocence, demonstrating that it was the accused and none other who committed the offence. The law with regard to conviction based on circumstantial evidence has been crystalised by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held:
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] "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, (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 Digitally signed by PRANJAL not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 consistent with the innocence of the accused and must 18:38:43 +0530 show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
(emphasis supplied)
87. The aforesaid five cardinal principles have been reiterated FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 55 of 83 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in numerous judgments. 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.
88. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a plethora of cases. In Bodhraj @ Bodha And Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kahsmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh V. State of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99, Eradu V. State of Hydrabad, AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330, State of U.P. Vs. Sukhbasi (1985) Suppl. SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., Digitally 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 560) The circumstances from which an signed by PRANJAL inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be 18:38:48 +0530 closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 56 of 83 AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.
11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy V. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21) "21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the 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 and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence."
89. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"10. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence."
90. In light of the aforesaid guiding principles of law, turning to the case in hand it is observed that the four Digitally signed by circumstances discussed above have been duly proved and PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA established by the prosecution viz. there were matrimonial ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:38:53 +0530 disputes between the parents of the deceased girl child due FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 57 of 83 to which the mother of the child had left the matrimonial house in November 2019 leaving behind both her children and started residing at her parental house; the deceased girl child was in the custody of accused Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati before her death and she was found dead in the house where these two accused persons were residing and present at the time of incident; cause of death being homicidal in nature; and there being no dispute as to identification of deceased girl child and accused persons.
91. As per the precedents discused above, it is settled law that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. As noted above, the four circumstances lined out in this case are so connected in a way and have been fully established by the prosecution that there is no impediment in moving further towards drawing the conclusion as regards guilt in this case.
92. The warps and wefts of the weave in the fabric of aforesaid circumstantial evidence are so cogent and firm that they have left no gaps in them. They cumulatively form a complete chain unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused persons and there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by them. The proven circumstances in this case are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused persons and totally inconsistent with their innocence.
93. The stage is now set for invocation of Sec. 106 of Indian Digitally signed by Evidence Act, 1872.
PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:38:57 +0530 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 58 of 83 INVOCATION OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF U/S 106 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872:
94. Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 embodies the rule with respect to the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of any person. The provision reads as under:
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
95. The expression 'Burden of Proof' is used in two senses in the Indian Evidence Act, firstly, as the burden of proving an issue, also termed as 'Legal Burden' and secondly, the burden of adducing evidence, also termed as 'Evidential Burden'. The difference between the two is that 'Legal Burden' never shifts and 'Evidentiary Burden' keeps on shifting during the trial. In criminal cases the 'Legal Burden' is on the prosecution. It is trite law that prosecution has to stand on its own legs and burden of proving the case lies upon it only, the same is inflexible. The elementary rule of burden of proof is embodied in Sec. 101 Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:
"101. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of Digitally signed by PRANJAL facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date: When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, 2025.07.11 18:39:02 it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. +0530 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 59 of 83 Illustrations A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime. 2. ...."
96. The 'Evidential Burden' remains shifting during the various stages of trial. This rule is embodied in sec. 102 Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:
"102. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side."
97. As per sec. 102, the initial onus is always on the prosecution and if the initial onus is discharged and a case is made out entitling it for relief, the onus shifts to the accused to prove those circumstances which would disentitle the prosecution of the relief. Thus, the two terms 'Burden' and 'Onus' are distinguishable when we take a conjoint reading of sec. 101 & 102 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
98. As a general rule, the burden of proving facts asserted by the prosecution lies upon it only as per sec. 101 Indian Evidence Act. However, sec. 106 is an exception to this general rule of legal burden. Recently, in a 3 Judges Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT, 2024 INSC 368 it has been observed as follows:
"36. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means facts that are pre- PRANJAL ANEJA eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of Date: 2025.07.11 18:39:06 +0530 the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 60 of 83 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience".
99. As regards the meaning and import of the word "especially", the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anees (supra) observed as follows:
"37. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404, this Court while considering the word "especially" employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under: "11. ... The word "especially" stresses that it means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that that cannot be the intention & the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. The King, 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R. 1936-3 All ER 36 AT P. 49 (B).
38. The aforesaid decision of Shambhu Nath (supra) has been referred to and relied upon in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725, wherein this Court observed as under: "22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts PRANJAL which are within the special knowledge of the accused.
ANEJA When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the Digitally signed by existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on 18:39:10 +0530 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 61 of 83 circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused." (Emphasis supplied)"
100. The Hon'ble Supreme Court then went ahead to observe that until a prima facie case is established by evidence led by prosecution, the onus does not shift to the accused. The relevant excerpt from Anees (supra) is as follows:
"44. Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused."
101. Further, the Hon'ble Court in Anees (supra) also explained the meaning of prima facie case or foundational facts as under :
Digitally signed by PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA "ii. What is "prima facie case" (foundational facts) in the context ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 of Section 106 of the Evidence Act?
18:39:15 +0530 49. The Latin expression prima facie means "at first sight", "at first view", or "based on first impression".FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 62 of 83
....
...
50. Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused.
51. The presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved.
52. To explain what constitutes a prima facie case to make Section 106 of the Evidence Act applicable, we should refer to the decision of this Court in Mir Mohammad (supra), wherein this Court has observed in paras 36 and 37 respectively as under: "36. In this context we may profitably utilize the legal principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: "When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him." 37. The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference."
102. It would be worthwhile to also mention the further observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case of Anees (supra), as follows:
"55. If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a PRANJAL ANEJA house and in such circumstances where the accused has all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at a Digitally signed time and in the circumstances of his choice, it will be by PRANJAL ANEJA extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead direct Date: 2025.07.11 18:39:46 +0530 evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. It is to resolve such a situation that Section 106 of the Evidence Act exists in the statute book. In the case of Trimukh FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 63 of 83 Maroti Kirkan (supra), this Court observed that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. The Court proceeded to observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
103. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anees (supra) has held that section 106 would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in bringing out a prima facie case i.e. proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. The Hon'ble Court observed that once the foundational facts are duly proved, the Courts are justified in invoking the principles enshrined under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
104. Applying to the case in hand the aforesaid principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it follows that the circumstances or the foundational facts have duly proved by the prosecution. As noted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anees (supra) observed that if an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the accused has all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at a time and in the circumstances of his choice, it PRANJAL ANEJA will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead direct Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: evidence to establish the guilt of the accused and it is to 2025.07.11 18:39:50 +0530 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 64 of 83 resolve such a situation that Section 106 of the Evidence Act exists in the statute book. Hon'ble Supreme Court futhre observed that the situation is apt to invoke sec. 106 Indian Evidence Act. In the present case also the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo died inside the four walls of the house. Thus, the situation and chain of established circumstances as dicussed, call for invocation of section 106 of Indian Evidence act, 1872 here.
105. As already observed, the deceased girl child was under the gurdianship and custody of the father i.e. accused no.1 as the mother / complainant had left the matrimonial house without the children. It has been also observed under circumstance no.2 above that the grandmother Dharamwati/accused no.2 being a natural resident was also present in the house at the time of incident. However, the presence of accused no.3 and 4 i.e. Rinki and Preeti could not be established.
106. The cause of death of the girl child has clearly been found to be homicidal in nature. The prosecution relied upon the initial statements Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D of the accused persons recorded on the date of incident in which a plea was taken that the girl child was sleeping on the bed from where she fell and the thud sound was heard by accused Rinki who was in the toilet at the time and who came to the room and saw the child fallen on the ground whereafter she took the Digitally signed by child to a Bengali doctor who referred the child to be taken PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date: to hospital and accused Rinki took the child to Divine 2025.07.11 18:39:56 +0530 Hospital where the child was declared dead. On the basis of such reliance, the IO/Inspector Gulshan Gupta seized the bed and the mattress of the room and as per the FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 65 of 83 measurement the maximum height of the bed was found to be 19 inches without mattress and 22 inches with mattress from the ground. This is how, the IO concluded that the death of the girl child could not have occured by mere fall from the bed of such meager height. However, this seizure of the bed and mattresses and the drawing of this conclusion is solely based upon the above said initial statements Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D of the accused persons which are inadmissible under law, as already observed in forgoing paras of this judgment. On the other hand, the defence which has been tried to be built up by the accused persons is that the girl child was sleeping on the cot lying on the second floor from where she fell and came down rolling through the stair case, having no railing, at the ground floor where construction material was kept as the house was under
construction. The said defence / theory has also been found to be sham and clearly displaced by the nature of injuries as per the post mortem report, as discussed under circumstance no. 3 above.
107. There is no dispute with respect to the identification of the deceased girl child as well as the accused persons. As discussed under circumstance no.2 above, the presence of accused Rinki and Preeti at the spot at the time of incident has been doubted and thus they have been given benefit of doubt, however, the same is not in the case of accused PRANJAL Pawan and Dharamwati. In these very circumstances of the ANEJA case having been fully established, onus lay upon the Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 accused Pawan and Dharamwati to reasonably explain or 18:40:01 +0530 present cogent reason for the death of the girl child Kinjal @ FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 66 of 83 Guddo in order to dispel the inference drawn against them. The girl child having died inside four walls of the house and the chain of established circumstances as dicussed being complete, this stage calls for invocation of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 here.
108. The accused persons were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which all incriminating evidence were put to them. To almost all the questions / incriminating evidences, the accused persons simply replied by stating 'incorrect' and 'false'.
109. It is pertinent to note that in his entire examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused no.1 / Pawan Kumar nowhere stated/explained about his whereabouts at the time of incident. Notably, when it was put to him that he was present at his house upon visit of ASI Prem Ram there on 16.04.2020 on receipt of call regarding murder of child and ASI recorded statements of Pawan and other 3 accused persons, the accused Pawan Kumar specifically denied recording of any such statements stating that signatures were obtained on blank papers by police, but did not specifically deny his presence at his house at that time however he specifically ensured to state that his sister was not present.
110. Similary, in examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Dharamwati when it was put to her that she was present at her house upon visit of ASI Prem Ram there on 16.04.2020 on receipt of call regarding murder of child and ASI recorded statements of her and other 3 accused persons, the PRANJAL accused Dharamwati specifically denied recording of any ANEJA Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA such statements stating that signatures were obtained on Date: 2025.07.11 18:40:06 +0530 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 67 of 83 blank papers by police, but she did not specifically deny her presence at the house at that time however she specifically ensured to state that her daughters were at their in-laws' homes. As to her presence at the time of incident, accused no. 2 / Dharamwati in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that at the time of incident she had gone to the temple and it was told to her that Kinjal @ Guddo had fallen from the cot on which she was lying on the terrace and had fallen through the stairs.
111. To the statements Ex. PW14/A & Ex. PW14/B recorded by ASI Prem Ram on 16.04.2020, both the accused Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati denied that no statement was recorded and their signatures were obtained on blank papers by police.
112. When the medical evidence i.e. Post-mortem report, opining severe beatings and cause of death as smothering, was put, both the accused Pawan and Dharamwati simply stated that it is a false report prepared by doctor during covid-19 period.
113. Further, when asked why this case has been filed against them, both accused Pawan and Dharamwati simply stated that it is a false case and has been tried to work out the case and interested witnesses deposed against them without any reason. Here, it be worth noting that a suggestion was put to the IO/PW 15 that the present case has been falsely PRANJAL registered against accused persons at the instance of Mr. Raj ANEJA Kumar as there was property dispute between them. Nothing Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA of this sought as to property dispute is mentioned anywhere Date: 2025.07.11 18:40:13 +0530 in their entire examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 68 of 83114. Similarly, in their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the other two accused persons Rinki and Preeti responded to the evidences & questions put to them in the same manner as answered by accused Pawan and Dharamwati. As regards their presence at the time of incident, both accused Rinki and Preeti stated that they were at their in-laws' home.
115. While the examination of accused persons u/s section 313 Cr.P.C. gives them a valuable opportunity to personally explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against them and this is what the purpose of 313 Cr.P.C. carries, however, it is observed that the accused persons did not explain/comment or even answer anything on the most vital aspect of the case i.e. the cause of death of the girl child. They simply gave a vague reply that the post-mortem report is a false one prepared by doctor during covid-19 period. The evidence as to the post-mortem has been put to the accused persons in detail clearly mentioning the opinion of the doctor that the death occurred due to asphyxia as a result of smothering consequent to injury no. 07 to 10 and that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to death and also that injury no. 01 to 06, 11 to 18 and 21 were caused by blunt force impact while injury no.19 to 20 were caused by cylindrical blunt weapon. It is also put to the accused persons that as per PM opinion the above mentioned injuries are consistent with severe beating prior to death. Despite the medical evidence being elaborately put, PRANJAL ANEJA there is no reasonable answer coming from the accused Digitally signed by persons. The answer given by them that the report is false PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:40:18 +0530 and prepared by doctor during covid-19 period does not FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 69 of 83 appeal to a reasonable mind. Here, the accused persons not even stated their defence that the girl child died due to fall from the cot lying on 2nd floor on which she was sleeping and came down rolling through the staircase, having no railing, to the ground floor where construction material was kept as the house was under construction. Only the accused Dharamwati stated that she came to know that her grand- daughter Kinjal had fallen from the cot lying on the terrace and had fallen through the stairs while at that time she had gone to the temple. The accused persons kept silent giving no explanation at all on the points of medical evidence as to numerous injuries i.e. totalling 21 sustained on the body of the deceased girl child, severe beatings consistent to those injuries and death being caused due to asphyxia as a result of smothering consequent to injury no. 07 to 10 i.e. reddish contusions all present over left ala of the nose, left side of face on the left angle of mandible and over left side of face above injury on the nose, respectively.
116. The accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
117. Several questions have been put to the accused persons in their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. encompassing all incriminating evidence on record, but they answered almost all of them simply in words such as "It is incorrect", "It is a PRANJAL ANEJA matter of record", "I do not know". As already noted, on the Digitally signed by PRANJAL medical evidence they gave an evasive reply and on the ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:40:23 +0530 reason for registration of this case they did not reply that this case is falsely registered against them at the instance of Mr. Raj Kumar as there was property dispute between them, FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 70 of 83 which was the defence taken by them during the evidence. Accused Pawan Kumar miserably failed to utter any word regarding his whereabouts at the time of incident, thus prompting a clueless situation which leads to drawing an adverse inference.
118. In Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912, the Hon'ble Court held that it is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him and the court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence so as to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. The same view was taken in the case of Mushir Khan v. State of M.P., AIR 2010 SC 762. In Munish Mubar case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "circumstantial evidence is a close companion of actual matrix, creating a fine network through which can be no escape for the accused, primarily, because such facts when taken as a whole, do not permit us to arrive any other inference but one, indicating the guilt of accused.". In this case of Munish Mubar (supra), the accused/appellant and deceased both were having illicit relation with co-accused lady, the car of accused/appellant was found parked at Airport where the deceased was to arrive and the car was moved out of parking area after arrival of the flight, PRANJAL ANEJA presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence was proved by his telephonic records. Articles recovered on Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:40:28 +0530 disclosure made by the appellant were found to contain human blood, the appellant gave no explanation as to the FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 71 of 83 parking of his car at the Airport or about the recoveries made at his instance. Circumstance clearly connected the appellant with crime. And merely making the bald statement under section 313 by the accused that he was innocent and recoveries had been planted and the call records were false and fabricated documents, was found not enough as none of the said allegations made by the appellant could be established. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the accused/appellant was expected to explain the reason for which he had gone to Airport and why the car had remained parked there for several hours.
119. In the case of Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 1256, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an accused has the right to maintain silence during examination or even remain in complete denial when his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. is being recorded. But in such an event adverse inference could be drawn against him.
120. In Sanatan Naskar & Another v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3507, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simplicitor denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. Further held that this is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him, however, if the statements made are Digitally signed by PRANJAL false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and PRANJAL ANEJA ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:40:33 pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in +0530 accordance with law.
121. In the present case, thus, analysis of the statement of FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 72 of 83 accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. yields nothing in their favour which could help them discharge the burden casted upon by virtue of sec. 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as discussed above. As noted, the accused persons have miserably failed to offer any explanation or plausible reason against the medical evidence i.e. post-mortem report and as regards their whereabouts at the time of incident. Adverse inference is therefore drawn against them in view of the dictum in Phula Singh (supra). As discussed under circumstance no. 3, the line of defence taken by the accused persons that the child died due to fall from the terrace has been totally discarded as the same has been found to be sham & false in light of the post-mortem repot and in view of the various unresolved questions such as whether the girl child was sleeping alone on the terrace ?; If she was sleeping with accused Pawan and Dharamwati, what attempts were made to save her while she was falling ?; Were both accused sleeping or were already awoke at that time? Were there cries of the child or noise made her while falling or after she finally fell to the ground floor ? Did those cries not wake up accused Pawan or Dharamwati or even any neighbour ? If no one was at the tearrace i.e. Dharamwati being at the temple (as per stand taken by her0 and Pawan also not there, may be gone to the diary, then who saw the child falling ? PRANJAL Why the face/body/clothes of the deceased child was not got ANEJA Digitally signed dirty or filthy with earth as she had fallen down from the 2 nd by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 floor to the ground floor where construction material was 18:40:37 +0530 kept ?These questions remain only a mystery. Nothing whatsoever is stated or explained by the accused persons in FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 73 of 83 their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on these aspects. This is a case of absolute absence of explanation which would itself be an additional link that completes the chain. Also, nothing material could be elicited out during cross-examinations of PWs which could establish any reasonable defence of the accused or could discharge their burden of sec. 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
122. On the aspect of absence of explanation or false explanation itself becoming an additional link completing the chain, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deonandan Mishra vs The State of Bihar, 1955 AIR 801 observed as under:
"It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a case which satisfies the standards requisite for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence."
123. In view of the above authority, there can be no doubt that since the accused persons have failed to set up any good PRANJAL ANEJA defence and have not offered any reasonable explanation to Digitally signed by PRANJAL discharge their burden of proof u/s 106 of Indian Evidence ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:40:42 +0530 Act, it becomes an additional link completing the chain of already proved circumstances.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 74 of 83124. Apart from the above proven circumstances, prosecution tried to bring out the motive behind the incident in this case. As per the prosecution, the mother and sisters of accused Pawan i.e. accused Dharamwati, Rinki and Preeti wanted the remarriage of accused Pawan to fetch more dowry and a better match since Pawan was having matrimonial disputes with his wife Smt. Lokesh, however the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo was a hindrance to the re-marriage of accuseed Pawan and also that the accused perons did not want to share the burden of the marriage of Kinjal @ Guddo at a later stage, therefore for these reasons all the accused persons hatched a conspiracy and killed the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo pretending it to be an accident by fall from the bed.
125. The prosecution also alleged that accused Pawan was entangled with a lady namely Neelam and wanted to get re- married. It is further alleged that the accused Pawan use to talk with said Neelam by making calls on her mobile multiple times in a day and even dring late night hours. Prosecution relied upon CDR with respect to mobile telephonic talks between accused Pawan and the said lady Neelam and examined PW 9 Nodal Officer from Vodafone in this regard who exhibited the CAF, CDR, Location chart, PRANJAL forwarding letter & certificate u/s 65B IEA of two mobile ANEJA numbers 8588070662 and 9643044967 as Ex. PW9/A to Ex.
Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJADate: 2025.07.11 PW 9/G. While the CAF (cutomer identification form) of the 18:40:47 +0530 mobile number 8588070662 is found to be of accused Pawan, the other mobile number 9643044967 is found to be in the name of one 'Shila Pramod' as per the CAF Ex. PW FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 75 of 83 9/B. There is no material on record to show that the mobile number 9643044967 belonging to or registered in the name of 'Shila Pramod' was being used by said Neelam. Furthermore, PW7 Neelam also did not suppport the case of prosecution with respect to the attempts of accused Pawan to befriend her. She deposed that she is originally resident of Maharashtra and used to reside alongwith my four years son, in the house of Umesh at 4/7 Indira Vikas Colony, Nirankari Colony, Delhi and used to work as a maid for household work and had met the accused Pawan once only. She also deposed that she used to collect the rent from the tenants of 10/12 rooms of Umesh on daily basis and from her the accused Pawan used to collect rent on day to day basis at night as per the directions of landlord/owner Umesh and therefore for this purpose Pawan used to call her on phone in the night hours for getting the information in respect of collection of rent and on his direction she used to pay the rent to the person deputed by him on the very same day of collection of rent late night as well as early morning.
126. Prosecution also examined the said Umesh as witness PW8, but he also did not support the prosecution case. He deposed that accused Pawan is his friend to whom he Digitally signed by PRANJAL PRANJAL ANEJA authorized to collect the rent through one Neelam who used ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:40:55 to collect the same from the tenants on daily basis and they +0530 both had telephonic calls with respect to the collection of rent.
127. It is thus seen that both these witnesses i.e Neelam /PW7 and Umesh / PW8 did not support the prosection case.
128. However, it is undisputed that due to quarrrels between the FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 76 of 83 complainant and accused Pawan Kumar, the complainant left the matrimonial house. It is alleged by the prosecution that the mother and sisters of accused Pawan wanted to get him re-married for which all accused persons killed the girl child considering her as an hindrance. As already observed under discussion of circumstance no.1, the matrimonial discord between the accused Pawan and his wife Lokesh were grave as she took the bold step of leaving the matrimonial house and going to her parents' house with her brother. It is also worth noting that neither did she return back nor was there any effort for calling her back to the matrimonial house despite both children having been retained by her husband Pawan Kumar with him for last about 6 months prior to the death of the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo. This reflects the gravity of the dispute between them. It is further fortified by the fact that information about the incident i.e. death of her infant daughter was not given to her being mother. It is the case of defence that the information was given to complainant's sister Savita. However, death of a 2½ years girl child in mysterious circumstance is a very serious matter and not informing the same directly to the mother of the deceased child cannot be viewed lightly in the given facts and circumstances of the PRANJAL case. This not only brings out the conduct of accused ANEJA persons relevant u/s 8 of Indian Evidence Act on surface but also hints at the motive behind the crime. This situation Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA reminds a famous quote by Shakespeare who wrote in the Date: 2025.07.11 18:40:59 +0530 play Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark" ! In the manner the complainant resiled in her FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 77 of 83 testimony from her complaint without offering any explanation when confronted with the relevant portions of her complaint by Ld. Addl. PP during her cross-examination, does makes this Court cautious and believe the allegations of her complaint to be credible. However, owing to the practical circumstances of life, she, being the wife of the accused Pawan and mother of the deceased, would also might have to suffer in case had she sustained on her complaint version fully and truly. There are serious allegations in the complaint that her husband Pawan used to beat her and her children and once her ear also got damaged in the beatings. However, simply denying them in the court testimony does not displace those facts fully especially in the given facts and circumstances of the case. However, there is no further material with regard to the allegation of re-marriage of accused Pawan. Though prosecution has not been able to fully establish the motive, the same is also not necessary in a criminal case.
129. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 2914 under para 22 observed as follows:
"In a case when the motive alleged against accused is fully established, it provides foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances. It afforts a key on a PRANJAL ANEJA pointer to scan the evidence in the case in that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration.Digitally signed by PRANJAL ANEJA
However, in a case based on circumstantial evidence Date: 2025.07.11 18:41:05 +0530 where proved circumstances complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence. The absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure that FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 78 of 83 suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof. There is no absolute legal proposition of law that in the absence of any motive an accused cannot be convicted under section 302 IPC. Effect of absence of motive would depend on the facts of each case."
130. As regards contention of the Ld. Counsel for defence that there is an inordinate delay in lodging FIR, it has already been observed from the sequence of event in this case that initially a police personnel of the rank of ASI was assigned to attend the PCR call of the incident on 16.04.2020, who at that time took possible steps in collection of the material relevant to the case such as by calling the mobile crime team, taking of photographs of the house / scene of crime and most importantly sending the body for post-mortem. The post-mortem report was collected on 02.05.2020 and thereafter a proper IO of Inspecctor rank was assignedd to the case whereupon the FIR came to be registered on 25.05.2020. It may not be forgotten that tjose were the covid-19 days particularly the 1st lockdown when the entire country was at a jerk and business was not moving as in a usual course. Moreso, the opinion that Pawan, Dharamwati, Rinki and Preeti i.e. family members were foind to be accused was formed only upon receiving the post-mortem report which opined the death as homicidal. Therefore, in all these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is an inordinate delay in lodging FIR. The delay, whatsoever, is also not seen fatal to the case of prosecution. PRANJAL ANEJA
131. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Arvind @ Chhotu Digitally signed (supra) has observed as under:
by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:41:09 +0530"28. As observed in the decisions reported as (2002) 6 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 79 of 83 SCC 715 Mohibur Rahman Vs. State of Assam, there may be cases where a single circumstance is of a kind that a rational mind is persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the deceased suffered death or should own the responsibility for homicide.
29. Thus, at the heart of the matter of a circumstantial evidence is the principle of a rational mind being persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion qua the guilt of the accused.
30. It is the quality of evidence and not the number which matters. A criminal trial is not a race at which the winner is determined with reference to the length run by the prosecution or the defence. It is also not a number game where the number of circumstances would determine the guilt or otherwise.
31. We can do no better other than to refer to an illustration, aptly illustrated in the decision reported as 2000 (8) SCC 382 State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors.
32. Debating on the issue whether the sole evidence of an accused being last seen in the company of the deceased would be sufficient to sustain a conviction, the Supreme Court held that the presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved.
Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. PRANJAL ANEJA 33. The legislative foundation to the said rule of inference was located in Section 114 of the Evidence Act which Digitally signed by PRANJAL empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact ANEJA Date: which is likely to have happened. In that process, the Court 2025.07.11 18:41:14 shall have regard to the common course of natural events, +0530 human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case."
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 80 of 83132. In Rama Nand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 AIR 738, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while enunciating the law relating to circumstantial evidence through Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sarkaria famously remarked that :
"Perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world, and absolute certainty is a myth. That is why under Section 3, Evidence Act, a fact is said to be "proved", if the Court, considering the matters before it, considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists. The corpus delicti or the fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned."
Conclusion :
133. It is noted that out of four accused persons in this case, the circumstances do not form a complete chain qua accused no. 3 & 4 i.e. Rinki and Preeti as circumstance no. 2 is not established against them and they have been given benefit of doubt as to their presence at the spot at the time of incident. Therefore, invocation of sec. 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stricto sensu does not apply qua these two accused PRANJAL ANEJA persons even though the discussion under the said provision Digitally signed has been generally made common for all accused persons.
by PRANJAL ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11134. To sum up, the circumstances establishing guilt of the 18:41:20 +0530 accused no.1 & 2 i.e. Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati, respectively, have been fully established. The facts established on record are consistent only with the hypothesis of their guilt. All the circumstances, as proved by FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 81 of 83 prosecution, are conclusive in nature. The circumstances proved on record exclude every possible hypothesis and are not explainable on any except the guilt of accused no. 1 & 2. The chain of evidence in the present case is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of these two accused persons. The circumstances proved on record in this case show that in all human probability it were the accused no.1 & 2 who had committed the murder girl child. In my considered view, the aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to form a complete chain which unerringly points towards the guilt of accused no.1 & 2 i.e. Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati, respectively, as regards the offence of committing murder of the 2½ year old girl child namely Kinjal @ Guddo punishable u/s 302 IPC, 1860 in common intention with each other as per sec. 34 IPC, 1860. The accused persons no.3 and 4 namely Rinki @ Meenakshi and Preeti are given benefit of doubt in this case.
135. As regards charge u/s 201 IPC, 1860 the same remains not proved as there is only a mention in the chargesheet about a danda by which allegedly the deceased child was beaten and which has not been recovered. No prosecution witness has uttered anything about the danda during the evidence. Merely that the IO has stated so in the chargesheet is not PRANJAL ANEJA sufficient to return a finding of guilt for the offence of causing disappearance of evidence punishable u/s 201 IPC, Digitally signed by 1860. Notably, the charge u/s 201 IPC was framed by PRANJAL ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 18:41:24 +0530 alleging that the accused persons had pretended that the girl child expired due to falling from the bed on the floor and FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 82 of 83 tried to give color of accident to the murder in order to cause disappearance of evidence with the intention to screen themselves from legal punishment for the murder of the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo. However, it is noted that no 'Evidence', as defined u/s 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has been caused to be disappeared so as to attract liability under u/s 201 IPC. The statement Ex. PW 14/A to Ex. PW 14/D of accused persons recorded by ASI Prem Ram on the date of incident when he reached there in response to PCR call cannot be relied upon in evidence as already observed in the foregoing paras of this judgment. Therefore, the latter portion of this provision i.e. sec. 201 IPC as to giving false information concerning an offence is also not applicable. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable u/s 201 IPC against the accused persons.
136. Accordingly, accused no.1 and 2 i.e. Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
137. Accordingly, accused no.3 and 4 i.e. Rinki @ Meenakshi and Preeti are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
138. Be heard on the point of sentence of accused no.1 and 2 i.e. Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati separately.
Digitally signedAnnounced in Open Court PRANJAL by PRANJAL ANEJA On 11th of July, 2025 ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11 18:32:54 +0530 (PRANJAL ANEJA) ASJ (SC-RC), South-East District, Saket Court, New Delhi/11.07.2025 FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 83 of 83