Delhi District Court
State vs Vinay Kumar @ Vikcy on 25 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-01WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
Vinay Kumar @ Vicky FIR No.65/16
Police Station: Uttam Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No.56378/16
2. CNR no. DLWT01-000410-2016
3. Date of Institution 16.04.2016
4. Date of Commission of 19.01.2016 offence
5. Name of the accused Vinay Kumar @ Vicky S/o Sh. Sombir Singh R/o B1/33, Street no.7, Bharat Vihar Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 302 IPC, Section 404 IPC & 411 IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 06.03.2026 judgment POOJA
9. Final order Acquitted TALWAR
10. Date of such judgment 25.03.2026 Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.03.25 14:23:13 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 1 of 41 Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that vide DD no.28A an information was received through PCR call regarding a woman lying unconscious. Pursuant to which HC Vijay Kumar went at the spot and found that at property no.L-2/C-51, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar a lady lied dead on the floor near the bed. The blanket was smeared with blood and splashes of blood were also found on the wall of the room. The deceased was identified as Munni Devi. Crime Team reached the spot and inspected the same. Dead body was sent to DDU hospital for postmortem.
2. During investigation no eye witness was found, however CCTV camera was found installed at the house of one Ram Kishore. Footage was checked. Sunita, daughter of the deceased reached the spot alongwith her son. After seeing the CCTV footage it was found that physical appearance as well as the shoes of the boy who was seen in the CCTV footage appeared similar to Vinay Kumar @ Vicky, son of Sunita (Daughter of deceased).
3. Vinay Kumar admitted to his guilt and stated that on 18.01.2016 at about 8 pm he went to his Nani's house and demanded amount of Rs.4000/- which she refused. He decided to take revenge. He woke up early in the morning when his Naani was asleep, he attacked on the head of his Naani with one wooden thapi. She fell down and he hit 4-5 times and strangulated her with her shawl. After taking Rs.4200/- from the POOJA TALWAR almirah he went out. At his instance amount of Rs.4200/-, Digitally signed wooden thapi were recovered from his house. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 2 of 41 14:23:22 +0530
4. FIR under Section 302/394/411 IPC was registered against the accused.
Charge
5. Charge was framed against the accused Vinay Kumar @ Vicky under Section 302 IPC, 404 IPC and 411 IPC vide order dated 19.04.2018.
Prosecution evidence
6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined witnesses as under :-
Material Witnesses:
(i) PW1: Raj Kumar deposed that:
"On 19.01.2016, at about 10.30 am. I received the telephone call of my wife to the effect that her mother was lying on the ground in injured condition and the blood was oozing out from her head. At that time, my wife was hopeless and she requested me to reach at house immediately. On receiving the above mentioned information, I immediately rushed towards the house of my mother in law. There, 1 saw my mother in law lying in injured condition and the blood was oozing out from her head. The blood was also found strewed in the house. I also came to know that first of all, my mother in law was seen in injured condition by her neighbour namely Smt. Suman. Smt Suman at first informed my wife about the incident. Smt. Suman had also POOJA made telephone call at 100 number through the mobile phone of TALWAR my wife) (The PCR police officials reached there. The local Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 3 of 41 14:23:36 +0530 police officials also reached there. My mother in law was taken to DDU hospital. At DDU hospital, the postmortem over the dead body of my mother in law was conducted Prior to conducting the postmortem, I identified the dead body of my mother in law Smt. Munni Devi vide identification statement Ex.PWI/A which bears my signature at point A. After the postmonem, the dead body of my mother in law was handed over to me vide receipt Ex.PW1/B which bears my signature at point A. (Later on, I came to know that police officials arrested the accused who is present in the court today. Accused was Naati (son of Sma. Sunita Devi, daughter of deceased) of deceased.) I did not come to know as to how my mother in law sustained injuries. Smt. Lakshmi, neighbour of my mother in law, was found present at the spot. However, she did not tell anything about the incident."
(ii) PW2: Nisha deposed that:
"The accused Vinay Kumar @ Vicky, who is present in the court today, is the son of my elder sister Sunita Devi. I am illiterate and therefore, do not properly remember about the date of incident.
On 19th day of the month of January, the year of which, I do not remember, Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Suman, the neighbours of my deceased mother, came at my house and informed me that my mother was killed by some person. The house of my mother was in the same locality. On receiving the POOJA aforementioned information, I immediately went to the house of TALWAR my mother alongwith Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Suman. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 4 of 41 14:23:44 +0530 On reaching at the house of my mother Smt. Munni Devi, I saw that my mother was killed by someone and she was having injuries on her head. I informed about the incident to my husband Sh. Raj Kumar on telephone. After some time, my husband also reached at the spot/house of my mother. The information about the incident was also given to the police through my mobile phone. However, I do not remember as to by whom, the call was made to the police. The police officials reached at the spot. My mother was alone living at her house. Smt. Lakshmi told me that on the previous night of the day of incident, accused Vinay @ Vicky visited the house of my mother. I do not know if accused Vinay @ Vicky stayed overnight at the house of my mother or not on the previous day of the day of incident. The accused occasionally used to visit the house of my mother. I never came to know that at any point of time, the accused ever committed theft from the house of my mother at the time of his visiting to the house of my mother. I did not raise any suspicion against any person including the accused in committing the murder of my mother."
(iii) PW3: Suman deposed that:
"About three years ago, on the day of incident, I went to give the Prashad to one of my neighbour whom I used to call Amma Ji. Amma Ji was residing at some distance from my house in the same locality. I was accompanied with my son. I saw her lying on the floor. I called four ladies from the locality.
POOJA Thereafter, we entered inside and saw that the Amma Ji was TALWAR lying in the pool of blood. Thereafter, I went to call her daughter Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 5 of 41 14:23:50 +0530 who was residing near Balaji Chowk in the same area, I do not know the name of said Amma Ji or her daughter. I came back at the spot alongwith daughter of said Amma Ji. I was accompanied with Ms. Lakshmi who is my friend and residing in the same locality."
(iv) PW4: Laxmi Devi deposed that:
"On 19.01.2016, 1 was present at my house. My friend Suman who is residing in the same locality came to my house. She told me that one of our neighbour whom we used to call 'Amma Ji' is lying on floor in her house. I told him that it would not be possible to lift her alone therefore, lets call some more ladies. We four ladies went to the house of Amma Ji. The door was lying opened and Amma Ji was lying on the floor in the pool of blood. We did not enter inside the house seeing the condition. Thereafter. I alongwith Suman went to call the daughter of Amma Ji who was residing near Balaji Chowk in the same locality. We went to the house of daughter of Amma Ji and told her about the incident. Thereafter, we came back at the spot alongwith daughter of Amma Ji. When we returned back, many public persons had gathered there at the house. Thereafter, (police reached at the spot. Police made inquiry from me and I have told them about the incident. I did not tell anything else to the police apart from the statement made by me today. The POOJA accused Vinay @ Vicky is present in the court (correctly TALWAR identified) by the witness)."Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:25:07 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 6 of 41
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW6: Sh. Ram Kishore deposed that in the year 2013-14, he installed CCTV camera outside his house, focus of which was towards the road and house of Munni Devi. On 19.01.2016, when he came back from his duty, he came to know that Munni Devi had been murdered. Police met him and he saw the CCTV footage with the police. They found that at about 05.00-06.00 am on 19.01.2016, accused Vinay Kumar, maternal grand son of Munni Devi was seen coming out of the gate of house of Munni Devi. He handed over the DVR to the police which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at pt. A. After seeing the DVR produced by the MHCM he stated that he had handed over the DVR however, he did not remember the number mentioned there upon. He handed over the DVR of same shape, size and color. He also handed over the supply and lead to the police but the same were returned to him.
(ii) PW12: Dr. Jatin Bodwal, Specialist Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital, Delhi deposed that on 20.01.2016 IO/Inspector Bhagwan Singh moved an application for conducting postmortem examination of deceased Munni Devi alongwith inquest papers running into 18 pages.
During postmortem examination, he found ten external injuries on the dead body. He prepared detailed postmortem report of the dead body of deceased as Ex.PW12/A bearing his signatures at point A. He opined that cause of death was head POOJA injury via injuries 3rd to 10th, which were sufficient to cause TALWAR death individually and collectively. The injury mentioned at Sr. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:25:20 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 7 of 41 No.3-Contused lacerated wound of size 15cm x 1 cm x 1cm, bone deep was present on the right parietal region, 5cm above from right mastoid process. Injury No.4- Contused lacerated wound of size 10cm x 1 cm x 1cm, bone deep was present on the vertex, 2cm from the injury no. 2. Injury No.5- Contused lacerated wound of size 8cm x 1 cm x 1cm, bone deep was present on the vertex, Icm above from the injury no.3. Injury No.6- Contused lacerated wound of size 8.9cm x 1 cm x 1cm, bone deep was present on the left frontal region, 1cm from the injury no.4. Injury No.7- Contused lacerated wound of size 5cm x 1 cm x 1cm, bone deep was present on the right parietal region, 2cm from the injury no.2. Injury No.8-Contused lacerated wound of size 18cm x 1 cm x 1cm, bone deep was present on occipital region, 2cm above nape of neck. Injury No.9- Contused lacerated wound of size 3cm x 1 cm x 1cm, bone deep was present on the left side of forehead, 2 cm above left eye-brow and Injury No.10- Contused lacerated wound of size 2.5cm x 0.5 cm x 1cm, bone deep was present on the occipital region, Icm below the injury no.8. All the injuries are fresh in duration, ante mortem in nature and caused by blunt force trauma. The manner of death is homicidal. Time since death approximately 24-48 hours prior to preservation. On 30.03.2016, Inspector KP Malik moved an application with PM report dated 20.01.2016, seizure memo, FIR copy, RC No.46/21/16 and sought subsequent opinion regarding injuries sustained on the body of deceased mentioned above. He POOJA also produced parcel in white cloth sealed with the seal of BS, TALWAR checked and found seal was intact. Upon opening parcel, one Digitally signed Thapki taken out, on the examination of same, it is made of by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:25:28 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 8 of 41 wooden like material having weight of 500 grams, blood stains was found present on lower half of Thapki. A photograph of weapon of offence was also found enclosed with the application. After examination of aforesaid, he opined that injury No.1 to 10th mentioned in the PM report are possible by examined weapon (Thapki). After examination, Thapki was re-sealed with the seal of 'PM DDUH' and handed over the same to the IO. His subsequent opinion is Ex.PW12/B and photograph of weapon of offence is Ex.PW12/C both bearing his signatures at point A.
(iii) PW18: Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer Biology, FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 31.03.2016, her office FSL, Rohini received 15 sealed parcels in the present case. The same were assigned to her for examination by the division head. The seals on the parcels were intact as per order. She opened the parcels after breaking of seals and on examining the exhibits, she gave an opinion i.e. the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the source of exhibits '1' (gauze cloth piece), 4' (gauze cloth piece), '7" (foot mat), "8" (shawl), '10' (rajai with cover), '12c' (pants of accused), '13' (blood stained gauze of deceased), 14a (lady's shirt), "146" (salwar) &'15' (thapi)is sufficient to conclude that the biological stains i.e. blood stains present on the source of exhibits '1'(gauze cloth piece), '4' (gauze cloth piece), '7' (foot mat), '8' (shawl), '10' (rajai with cover), '12c (pants of accused), '13' (blood stained gauze of deceased), '14a' (lady's shirt), '14b' (salwar) & '15' (thapi) are POOJA TALWAR from the same source. The said FSL. Report no.2016/B-2421 dt.22.11.2016 bearing her signatures at point A, and C. The said Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:26:07 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 9 of 41 report is Ex.PW18/A. She prepared the said report based on the allelic data which is annexed with the report bearing her signature and stamp on point A and B. The allelic date is Ex.PW18/B.
(iv) PW19: Sh. Mahendra Singh Niranjan, Senior Scientific Officer, Physics, FSL, Rohini deposed that on 18.08.2017, his office FSL Rohini received 1 sealed parcel in the present case. The same was assigned to him for examination by the division head. The seals on the parcels were intact as per ISI. Forwarding order. He opened the parcel after breaking of seal and the said parcel was found containing one QIIMPI. made digital video recorder which was marked as Ex.DVR1 having one western digital made hard disk bearing Sr no.WCC3FIUKND00 of capacity 1 TB marked as HDDI. Data was retrieved from Ex.IDDI and was provided in one digital versatile disk vide annexure DVD1. The annexure DVD was sealed with the seal of FSL.M.S.N Delhi and was sent to the physics division for further examination. One envelope from judicial file was opened and one WRITEX DVD-R was taken out. The said DVD Ex.PW19/A bearing his signatures at point A. He retrieved the data from the hard disk and the same was copied in the said CD Ex.PW19/A. His report bearing no.FSL.-2017/CFU6102 dated 11.12.2017 Ex.PW19/B bearing his signature and stamp at point A and B. The certificate u/s 65B with regard to said DVD is Ex.PW19/C POOJA bearing his signatures at point A. The said DVD-R was played TALWAR but the same is not supported by the Ubuntu Software. So DVD Digitally signed by POOJA Ex.PW19/A was run on the laptop brought by police officials TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:26:14 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 10 of 41 from PS Uttam Nagar but the DVD was not running in the said laptop.
Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW5: SI Devender deposed that on 19.01.2016 at about 01.30 pm, an information about the incident was received from District Control room on wireless set. On receiving the information, he alongwith staff members went to the spot. There, he met ASI Manraj and Insp. Bhagwan Singh, SHO PS Uttam Nagar. At the instance of SHO, he inspected the spot and in this regard, prepared scene of crime report no.114/W/16 vide Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. Ct. Naveen (photographer) took the photographs of the spot from different angles at his instance.
ASI C.L. Meena (finger print proficient) tried to develop the chance print at the spot but in vain. SHO was advised to lift the exhibits from the spot. He handed over his report to SHO/IO.
(ii) PW7: Ct. Naveen deposed that he was part of the crime team West District. On 19.01.2016 he alongwith SI Devender Singh, IC Crime team and SHO went to the spot at L-2/C-51, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi where he took photographs from various angles on the instructions of the IO. He handed over the 19 photographs to the IO which are Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/19. The negative of which he produced as Ex.PW7/20. SI Devender POOJA Singh also handed over Scene of Crime Report (SCR) vide TALWAR number 114/W/16 dated 19.01.2016 to the IO.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:28:17 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 11 of 41(iii) PW8: Ct. Than Singh deposed that on 19.01.2016, Duty officer handed over the copies of FIR to him. He went to the office of DCP West, Joint CP and the residence of Area MM on motorcycle and delivered the same.
(iv) PW9: ASI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 19.01.2016 he received a wireless message that one lady is lying unconscious at L-2/C-51, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. Delhi. He reached the spot and entered the house through main gate and after crossing the Verandah, he reached at one room in which dead body of one lady was lying near the wall near the bed on blanket and Chattai. One shawl was found tied around her neck and there were injuries on her head due to which blood has come out. The blood was also lying on the floor, Chattai and blanket. There were blood stains on the wall also. Her clothes were also smeared with blood. In the meanwhile, Inspector Bhagwan Singh also arrived at the spot. The name of deceased was revealed as Munni Devi. Crime team was called at the spot and inspected the spot. The dead body was sent to DDU hospital mortuary through Ct. Pushpender and Ct. Kamlesh. Inspector Bhagwan Singh prepared a Rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to PS, got the FIR registered, came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original Rukka to Inspector Bhagwan Singh.
POOJA
(v) PW10: ASI Vijay Kumar deposed that on 19.01.2016 he was TALWAR working as duty officer and his duty hours from 8.00 AM to 4.00 Digitally signed by POOJA PM. At about 4.00 PM, HC Suresh brought Rukka before him for TALWAR Date:
2026.03.25 14:28:24 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 12 of 41 registration of FIR. He got registered the FIR with the help of CIPA operator Ct. Mukesh. Copy of the same is Ex.PW10/A bearing his signatures at point A. He made endorsement on the Rukka as Ex.PW10/B bearing his signatures at point A. He also issued certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act pertaining to registration of FIR through computer Ex.PW10/C bearing his signatures at point A. After registration of FIR, copy of FIR and original Rukka handed over to HC Suresh for giving the same to the IO. He also sent copy of FIR to concerned Ilaka Magistrate and Senior police officials through special messenger Ct. Than Singh.
(vi) PW11: HC Kamlesh deposed that on 19.01.2016 he was beat in-charge of beat No.8 of PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, He received wireless message that one lady was lying unconscious at H. No.L-2/C-51, Mohan Garden, Delhi. Then he reached at the spot, i.e., H. No.L-2/C-51. Mohan Garden, Delhi. He entered into the said house and after crossing Verandah of the said house, he entered into a room and saw a female dead body was lying partially on the bed adjacent to the room wall and partly lying on the floor of the room. He noticed shawl was wrapped in the neck of said dead body and tongue of the dead body was turned out from the mouth. He also noticed blood was oozing from the head of said dead body. He also noticed blood stains on the wall of said room and Chattai and foot met lying on the floor of said room. The face of body of facing ceiling of the room. Head of POOJA TALWAR dead body was facing towards West direction whereas legs were Digitally signed in the East direction. He also noticed dead body was wearing sky by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:28:31 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 13 of 41 blue colour Salwar and lady Kurta having brown and white colour.
Dead body was also wearing socks in both feet. He also noticed blood stains on the mattress of said bed and blood stains on the wearing clothes of the dead body. Meanwhile, the then SHO, PS Uttam Nagar came at the spot alongwith other police staff. Mobile crime team also reached there. Upon inquiry, we came to know that the name of deceased female was Munni Devi W/o Kanhaiya Lal aged about 65 years old. Mobile Crime Team inspected the spot and thereafter SHO call Harsh vehicle of taking dead body of deceased to the hospital. Accordingly, Harsh Vehicle came at the spot driven by Ct. Pushpender. Thereafter, on the directions of IO/SHO, he took dead body of deceased to DDU hospital by said Harsh vehicle and preserved the same at mortuary, IO recorded his statement.
On 31.03.2016, on the directions of IO, MHC(M), PS Uttam Nagar handed over 15 sealed pullandas alongwith sample seals and forwarding letter vide RC No. 48/21/16 for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini. Accordingly. He got deposited aforesaid pullandas/exhibits with FSL, Rohini and handed over copy of receiving acknowledgment to MHC(M)CP. Pullandas/exhibits remained intact while same were in his possession.
(vii) PW13: SI Om Prakash, deposed that on 04.04.2016 he went to PS Uttam Nagar on the call of Inspector KP Malik. He POOJA TALWAR alongwith Inspector K P Malik and SI Govind Singh reached at Digitally signed the spot, i.e., H. No.L-2C/51, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:28:38 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 14 of 41 Delhi where at the instance of SI Govind Singh, he took rough notes and measurements of the spot and thereafter, he came back to his office. On 06.04.2016, he prepared scaled site plan on the basis of rough notes and measurements taken by him. Scaled site plan Ex.PW13/A bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, he destroyed the rough notes.
(viii) PW14:ASI Manraj Singh, deposed that on 19.01.2016 upon receipt of DD No.28A, he joined investigation with IO/Inspector Bhagwan Singh PW20.
(ix) PW15: ACP K. P. Malik, deposed that on 17.02.2016, he took over the investigation of the present case. During investigation, he collected the postmortem report from the mortuary of DDU hospital. He also collected the photographs taken by Mobile Crime Team, West District. On 22.03.2016, he went to H. No.L-2/C-28, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. Delhi which was situated in front of the place of incident where CCTV Camera was installed. The owner of the house Ram Kishore met him and handed over the DVR of the CCTV recordings to him. He took into possession the DVR vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point B. On 30.03.2016, he obtained subsequent opinion from the autopsy surgeon regarding weapon of offence. On 09.04.2016, the DVR was taken to VMB Computer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. District Centre, Janak Puri where Karanjeet Singh copied the CCTV footage of the relevant time POOJA from DVR to pen-drive and he also issued certificate under TALWAR Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, in this regard. He send the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 15 of 41 14:28:44 +0530 exhibits to FSL. for forensic analysis. He got the scaled site plan prepared through the draughtsman. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same before the Court.
He identified the DVR as handed over to him by Ram Kishore. The DVR is Ex.P-15A. On 09.04.2016 the DVR was taken to VMV Computer solutions Pvt. Ltd. District Centre Janakpuri where Karanjeet Singh copied the CCTV footage of the relevant time from DVR to pendrive and he also issued certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in this regard. The said pendrive in which the relevant footage transferred from DVR is Ex.PW15/B. On opening the folder 4.avi the footage is played and at 9.24.45 accused was seen standing outside the house of the deceased. He identified the house of the deceased as he visited the same during investigation. At 9.27.56 one old lady is seen talking to the accused and they both enter the house. On opening the folder case FIR no.65.avi, at about 20.00.38 accused was seen coming out from the house.
(x) PW16: HC Inderjeet produced original register no.19 and original RC register. As per the register no.19, on 19.01.2016, Inspector Bhagwan Singh deposited the sealed parcels with copies of respective seizure memos and entry in this regard was made in the register no.19 vide serial no.4170, copy of which is Ex.PW16/A. On 20.01.2016, Inspector Bhagwan Singh deposited two sealed parcels along with sample seal with copy of seizure POOJA TALWAR memo and entry in this regard was made in the register no.19 Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 16 of 41 14:28:51 +0530 vide serial no.4171, copy of same is Ex.PW16/B. On 22.03.2016, Inspector K.P. Malik deposited one sealed parcel with copy of seizure memo and entry in this regard was made in the register no.19 vide serial no.4282, copy of which is Ex.PW16/C. On 31.03.2016, the case properties were sent to FSL Rohini vide RC no.48/21/16. Copy of RC No.48/21/16 with copy of acknowledgment of FSL Rohini is Ex.PW16/D. On 18.08.2017, the case properties were sent to FSL Rohini vide RC no.111/21/17. Copy of RC No.111/21/17 with copy of acknowledgment of FSL Rohini is Ex.PW16/E.
(xi) PW17: ASI Yadram deposed that on 19.01.2016 Inspector Bhagwan Singh deposited the sealed parcels with copies of respective seizure memos and entry in this regard was made by him in the register no.19 vide serial no.4170, copy of which is Ex.PW16/A. On 20.01.2016, Inspector Bhagwan Singh deposited two sealed parcels along with sample seal with copy of seizure memo and entry in this regard was made by him in the register no.19 vide serial no.4171, copy of which is Ex.PW16/B. On 22.03.2016, Inspector K.P. Malik deposited one sealed parcel with copy of seizure memo and entry in this regard was made by him in the register no.19 vide serial no.4282, copy of which is Ex.PW16/C. On 29.03.2016, one sealed parcel along with forwarding letter was sent to DDU Hospital for obtaining subsequent opinion as per the directions of SHO through CL Kamlesh vide RC No.46/21/16. He produced the original RC POOJA register. Copy of RC No.46/21/16 is Ex.PW17/A. On TALWAR 31.03.2016, fifteen sealed parcels and three sample seals were Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:29:01 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 17 of 41 sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Kamlesh vide RC no.48/21/16. Copy of RC No.48/21/16 with copy acknowledgment of FSL Rohini is Ex.PW16/D. Copy RC No.48/21/16 bearing his signatures at point A.
(xii) PW20: Retired Inspector Bhagwan Singh deposed that on 19.01.2016 during patrolling he received DD no.28A regarding that one dead body was lying at House no.L2, 351, near Raghubir Singh, Mohan Garden, Delhi. After that he reached at the spot where ASI Maanraj, HC Suresh and other staff members were present at the spot. The door of the house was already opened. He entered into the house and cross the veranda and when he entered into the room he saw that one lady was lying dead on bed/takhat. Upper body of lady was lying on mat/chetai and lower body was lying on takhat over the rajaai. One shawl was surrounded on her neck and some marks were visible on her neck. Her tongue was outside and pressed between her teeth. Blood oozed out from the injuries on her head and blood was also lying on mat, foot mat and part of rajaai and floor. Four broken pieces of green colour bangles were also lying near dead body and her left wrist was also smeared with blood. Blood stain was also visible on the wall. The blood was also lying on the blood. He also called crime team and photographs were taken by them. He called the Hearse vehicle and dead body sent to DDU Hospital through Ct Kamlesh and Ct Phuspender, he came to know the name of deceased lady as Munni through neighbours. Thereafter he prepared the tehrir POOJA TALWAR Ex.PW10 bearing his signatures at point B. He handed over rukka to HC Suresh for registration of FIR. Meanwhile he Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:29:08 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 18 of 41 prepared the site plan Ex.PW20/A bearing his signature at point A. He lifted the blood lying on the floor with the help of gauze in kept in plastic jar and sealed with the seal of BS. Parcel was given serial number as Al. He also broke the blood stained clothes and kept them in a plastic jar and sealed with the seal of BS. Parcel was given serial number as A2. He kept the earth control in a plastic jar and sealed with the seal of BS. Parcel was given serial number as A3. He lifted the blood from the north side of the wall and kept them in a plastic jar and sealed with the seal of BS. Parcel was given serial number as A4. He lifted the blood from the west side of the wall and kept them in a plastic jar and sealed with the seal of BS. Parcel was given serial number as A5. He lifted the four broken pieces of green colour bangles and kept them in a plastic jar and sealed with the seal of BS. Parcel was given serial number as A6. He seized the blood stain door mat and prepared pullanda and sealed with the seal of BS. Pullanda was given serial number as A7. He seized the blood stain shawl and prepared pullanda and sealed with the seal of BS. Pullanda was given serial number as A8. He seized the blood stain cheetai/mat and prepared pullanda and sealed with the seal of BS. Pullanda was given serial number as A9. He seized the blood stained rajaai and prepared pullanda and sealed with the seal of BS. Pullanda was given serial number as A10. Thereafter he prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW14/A bearing his signatures at point A. He also seized one Nokia phone which was recovered the bed and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/B POOJA bearing his signatures at point B. He inquired the rukka to TALWAR neighbours and also gone to opposite house where the incident Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.03.25 14:29:26 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 19 of 41 took place and found that one CCTV was installed. He watched the CCTV Footage of relevant time and observed that one person was coming out from the room who was similar to the accused. In the meanwhile Sunita daughter of the deceased along with the accused also came at the spot and he made inquiries from both of them. He found that the person who was visible on the CCTV Footage was the accused. Thereafter he interrogated and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW/4/C bearing his signatures at point B. Upon his personal search one Blackberry mobile phone and Rs.42 were recovered. He prepared the personal search memo Ex.PW14/D bearing his signatures at point B. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW14/E bearing his signatures at point B. In his disclosure statement accused told him that he got recovered weapon of offence and stolen amount from the place of incident. Accused took them in his house G-90, Gali no.12, Some Bazaar, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. After entering in his house he led them to the room on the left side adjacent to washroom where some clothes were lying on the bag and the bag was lying on one box. He pointed towards the one bag. He checked the bag and found that blood stained clothes, one wooden bat (thappi) which was also smeared with blood and some hairs were also stuck on the bat, the thappi was kept in the socks. Rs.4200/- (5) notes of Rs.500/-, and 70 notes of Rs.100/-) were recovered from the pocket of bag. He prepared the sketch of the thappi Ex.PW14/G1 bearing his signatures at point B. He kept the thappi in the cloth and prepared the pullanda and sealed POOJA TALWAR with the seal of BS and given serial no.R1. He kept the socks in the cloth and prepared the pullanda and sealed with the seal of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.03.25 14:29:32 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 20 of 41 BS and given serial no.R2. He kept the currency notes in the cloth and prepared the pullanda and sealed with the seal of BS and given serial no.R3. He put the blood stain jacket, pant and shirt in the bag and prepared the pullanda and sealed with the seal of BS and given serial no.R4. Thereafter he prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW14/E bearing his signatures at point B. He also prepared the recovery site plan Ex.PW14/F bearing his signatures at point A. He also seized the shoes of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/G bearing his signatures at point B. The case property was brought to the PS and kept in the malkhana. The medical examination of the accused conducted. On 20.01.2016, he went to mortuary DDU Hospital, he recorded dead body identification statement of her son Raj Kumar and her son-in-law Raj Kumar Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PWI/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. After the postmortem the dead body was handed over to her relatives. Doctor handed over him sealed envelope containing gauze of blood, one sealed envelope containing clothes of deceased along with two sample seals which he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/H bearing his signature at point B. On the same day accused was produced before Ld. MM and was sent to JC. He recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of witnesses. The further investigation of the case was marked to the other IO.
(xiii) PW21: Sh. Jatin Sharma, Incharge, Delhi Police CCTV POOJA Project, Street no.4, Mahavir Enclave, Dwarka deposed that: TALWAR "Court Question: What can be the reason for the Digitally signed difference in the date and time as reflected in the recording and by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:29:41 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 21 of 41 the actual date?
Ans. The same can occur due to malfunction in the CMOS Cell. Usually the settings of the system get affected due to malfunction in the aforesaid cell and go un-noticed since there is no disruption in the recording. This generally happens in the cameras installed at home as there is no regular maintenance in the system.
Question: What is the maximum duration for which the recording can be stored in the DVR?
Ans. The same will depend upon the size of the hard-disc. In the home setup this recording is generally stored upto week or 15 days.
I cannot comment on the difference in the time and date on the recording shown to me as I have not inspected the DVR in question."
Statement of Accused:
7. Statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 CrP.C wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police officials. He was present at his house on the day of incident. The CCTV footage was wrongly used against him as the same was of the previous year and is dated 2015 while the present incident is of 2016.
Defence Evidence:
8. In defence evidence, Somveer Singh father of POOJA accused appeared in the witness box as DW1 and deposed that: TALWAR "On 18.01.2016 accused Vinay who is my son was present Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 22 of 41 2026.03.25 14:29:56 +0530 at home after returning from work. We all had dinner and I locked the house in the night. My wife received a phone call in the morning from one lady who informed her that her mother has been murdered. My wife and I went to the house of my deceased mother-in-law. Accused had already left for his work in the morning before the phone call received by my wife. My wife called accused while he was at work to inform about the incident.
After half an hour he too reach the house of my mother-in-law. When the accused arrived at the house of my mother-in-law, I was feeling unwell so I left my wife and accused there and came back home. In the evening accused and I were called to the police station. I took the accused to the police station myself. The police officials asked me to leave but the accused was held in the police station for interrogation. The next morning I came to know that accused was arrested."
9. Brother of accused Deepak also appeared in the witness box as DW2 and deposed on the same lines as deposed by DW1.
Arguments on behalf of the State
10. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that though the accused succeeded in intimidating and winning over the eye witnesses however his presence in the house of deceased is clearly visible in the CCTV footage. Accused can clearly be seen in the footage exiting the house of the deceased. Moreover, the weapon of offence as well as blood stained clothes of accused POOJA TALWAR were recovered at his instance from his house. Even the FSL Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 23 of 41 Date:
2026.03.25 14:30:02 +0530report is positive. There is ample evidence on record against the accused. Accused deserves to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
11. Ld. counsel for accused, per contra argued that there is no eye witness to the offence. None of the prosecution witness has either seen the accused entering or exiting the house of the deceased. The CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution is of some other date and time and cannot be used against the accused. Accused being the grand son of the deceased was a regular visitor to her house and in order to falsely implicate the accused the footage of some earlier date is being used against the accused. The defence witnesses have categorically proved presence of accused in his house on the night of alleged incident. There is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to connect accused with the offence. The case property i.e. the instrument of offence (Thapi) as well as the clothes have been falsely planted on the accused which is evident from the fact that none of the family members who were available at the place of incident were made the witnesses to recovery. The IO did not join any neighbour or family member while they brought the accused to his house from the place of incident. Accused deserves to be acquitted.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by all POOJA concerned and have perused the records including documents TALWAR relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:30:08 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 24 of 41Analysis of Law:
13. Murder is defined under Section 300 IPC and punishment for murder is provided under Section 302 IPC.
(a) Section 302 of the IPC provides punishment for the grave crime of murder. Murder is an act done to cause death or dangerous injury to some person, and body harm which it is known ought in all probability to cause death, or which by reckless disregard of human life would in all probability cause death. The keyword in this section is "intent" to cause death, direct or indirect.
i) Intention to Cause Death: The first pre- requisite for a criminal offense to be classified under Section 302 IPC is that the perpetrator should have an intention to kill the victim.
ii) Knowledge regarding the Possibility of Death: Although death was not intended to happen, if on the part of the perpetrator knowledge of the possibility that his act might lead to death could be proved, then the offense would come within the scope of murder.
iii) Extreme Rashness: When the act has been done with such rashness that it would cause death almost certainly, then it would be murder as per Section 302.
(iv) Sentence: The law under Section 302 provides for capital punishment or life imprisonment in cases of murder. In addition POOJA to the sentence, the fine may also be imposed based on the case TALWAR at hand. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 25 of 41 14:30:15 +0530
404. Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death.--Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of that person's decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if the offender at the time of such person's decease was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment may extend to seven years.
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.--Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Observation of the Court:
14. Proceedings in the present case were initiated upon receipt of DD no.28A about a lady being found unconscious in her house. Upon reaching the house of the said lady she was found to be dead. Since there was no eye witness to the incident CCTV footage from the house in the neighbourhood was checked. Daughter of deceased Sunita and her son Vinay reached the place of incident, the IO found the appearance of the boy seen POOJA in the footage exiting the house of deceased to be similar to TALWAR Vinay and even his shoes were similar to the boy seen in the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 26 of 41 14:30:23 +0530 footage. Upon interrogation Vinay admitted to his guilt and was accordingly apprehended. At his instance the weapon of offence i.e. Wooden thapi, cash of Rs.4200/- as well as blood stained clothes were recovered.
15. In order to prove the offence committed by the accused prosecution is required to bring on record the chain of circumstances which are complete in all respects and should conclusively establish the guilt of accused. No room for suspicion or doubt should be left which point towards the innocence of the accused.
16. Admittedly there is no eye witness to the incident hence the prosecution had to prove its case against the accused through circumstantial evidence. It has been held in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622 The Hon'ble Court has introduced the Panchsheel Test for the relevance and evaluation of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is not available. The five principles of the Panchsheel Test are:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established.
2. The facts established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
POOJA TALWAR
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one Digitally signed by POOJA to be proved. TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:30:32 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 27 of 41
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that within all human consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
17. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
18. The prosecution has brought on record the chain of circumstances which according to them point towards the guilt of the accused.
19. Prosecution through the testimony of PW12 Dr. Jatin Bodwal who conducted the postmortem of the body of deceased proved on record that death was homicidal. He opined that the cause of death was a head injury mentioned at Srl. No.3 and 10 which was sufficient to cause death individually and collectively in the ordinary course of nature. He also opined that POOJA injuries listed at Srl. No.1 to 10 could have been inflicted by TALWAR 'thapki'.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:30:41 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 28 of 4120. Prosecution examined PW1 Raj Kumar son-in-law of the deceased who deposed that he was informed by his wife about the death of her mother on 19.01.2016 at about 10.30 AM, however he was not aware as to how his mother-in-law sustained injuries. He also deposed that at times the accused stole money and utensils from the house of deceased. In his cross-examination by defence counsel he stated that he was informed by the deceased that accused used to take money from her but he did not commit any theft.
21. PW2 Nisha is the daughter of deceased. She deposed that she was informed by one neighbour Laxmi that accused visited the house of her mother on the previous night. She did not know if accused stayed over night in the house or not. In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP she categorically stated that she was not informed by Laxmi whether accused stayed in the house of her mother on the previous night but she was informed only about his visit to the house.
22. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel she stated that the house of her mother was situated in the different street than the house of Laxmi PW4 and that house of her mother was not visible from her house. POOJA TALWAR
23. PW3 Suman was a first one to find the deceased Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR lying on the floor and informed her daughter. Date:
2026.03.25 14:31:33 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 29 of 41
24. PW4 Laxmi Devi deposed that she was informed by her friend PW3 Suman about the deceased lying on the floor in the pool of blood. She admitted the suggestion given by the defence counsel that she did not see the accused committing the offence.
25. Besides the aforesaid public witnesses one Ram Kishore PW6 was examined by the prosecution outside whose house a CCTV camera was installed. He deposed that police viewed the CCTV footage on 19.01.2016 with him and they found that at 5-6AM on 19.01.2016 accused Vinay Kumar was seeing coming out of the house of deceased and that he handed over the DVR to the police.
26. In his cross-examination by the defence counsel he stated that the DVR was taken by the police on the date of incident itself. He also stated that in his DVR recording of 14-15 days can be stored. He also admitted that accused used to visit the house of deceased on earlier occasion as well. He also stated that "I cannot state that the footage captured in CCTV was of 19.01.2016. (Vol. DVR captures the recording in automated mode.)"
27. Admittedly there is no ocular evidence in the present case against the accused thus the prosecution relied upon the CCTV footage to prove the offence against the accused. In order POOJA to use the CCTV footage to make it admissible in evidence TALWAR against the accused it would be pertinent to scrutinize it minutely. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 30 of 41 14:31:48 +0530
28. Prosecution examined PW6 Ram Kishore who handed over the DVR to the IO which was got copied into a pendrive by the IO and was then sent to FSL for opinion.
29. As per the FSL report Ex.PW19/B the DVD mark DVD1 when examined it was observed that video files continuous video footages of CCTV recordings. There is no indication of alteration in the continuous video footages of CCTV recordings on the basis of frame by frame examination. It is also mentioned in the aforesaid report that the exhibit sent for examination was dated 01.11.2015 (9:20 hrs. to 20:30 hrs).
30. It is the case of prosecution that one Laxmi PW4 saw the accused entering the house of deceased a night prior to the recovery of her body. PW2 Nisha daughter of the deceased deposed that she was informed by Laxmi that accused had visited the house of her mother a night prior to the date of incident.
However, Laxmi PW4 completely denied the said fact of having seen the accused entering the house of deceased a night prior.
31. PW15 ACP K.P. Malik who was the subsequent IO deposed that at 9:24:45 accused is seen standing outside the house of the deceased, 9:27:56 one lady is seeing talking to the accused and they both entered the house. At about 20:00:38 accused is seen coming out of the house.
32. The date of incident is 19.01.2016 and that accused is seen entering in the house on 18.01.2016 in the evening and POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 31 of 41 by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:31:54 +0530 exiting the house around 5-6 AM on 19.01.2016.
33. Admittedly the date displayed on the footage is of 01.11.2015 and the time of entry and exit is between (9:20 hrs. to 20:30 hrs).
34. It is argued on behalf of the accused that since the accused was grandson of the deceased hence he was a regular visitor to his Naani's house and may have visited the house on 01.11.2015. He categorically denied his entry and exit on 18.01.2016 and 19.01.2016. He also examined his father and brother as DW1 and DW2 and himself entered into the witness box as DW3 deposing about his presence in his house with his family members on 18.01.2016 and following his daily regime having gone to his office on 19.01.2016.
35. Owing to discrepancy in the date and time reflecting in the footage it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove on record that the footage pertained to relevant date and time.
36. In his cross-examination PW15 ACP K.P. Malik stated that he was informed that as and when there was a power cut the date and time get stopped and continued from the same date and time when the power gets resumed. He did not have any written opinion from the expert to this effect.
37. Prosecution then examined one Jatin Sharma PW21 POOJA who was the incharge of Delhi CCTV Project. He deposed that TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 32 of 41 Date:
2026.03.25 14:32:03 +0530there is a possibility of malfunction in the CMOS cell. Due to this defect the date and time are usually affected and this generally happens in domestic settings as there are no regular maintenance check-ups.
38. In case the testimony of all these aforesaid witnesses including the FSL, IO and CCTV project expert, prosecution succeeded in proving that the recording in the DVR is continuous, however it failed to prove that the footage was of 18/19.01.2016 i.e. the date of the alleged incident.
39. PW6 Ram Kishore in whose house the CCTV cameras were installed and was the first one to view the footage with police himself stated that he cannot say if the footage was of 19.01.2016.
40. Entry and exit of accused in the house of the deceased cannot remotely connect accused with the offence as he was otherwise a regular visitor to the house of the victim, being his grand mother. It is also possible that the footage was actually of 01.11.2015 and the accused may have visited the house of his grand mother on the said date.
41. There is no certificate of an expert stating that the recording in the DVR was till 19.01.2016 i.e. the date of incident. It would also be relevant to state here that as per PW6 Ram Kishore the DVR was taken into possession by the police on the POOJA TALWAR date of incident itself. Per contra, as per PW15 ACP K.P. Malik Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 33 of 41 Date:
2026.03.25 14:32:11 +0530the DVR was collected by him on 22.03.2016 almost about 2 months of the incident.
42. There is no evidence on record to prove that the DVR was still functional from 19.01.2016 to 22.03.2016 or not. In that case the recording of 19.01.2016 in any case would not have been available in the DVR which could store the recording upto 14-15 days.
43. It is not the case of prosecution that PW6 Ram Kishore was asked to stop the recording on 19.01.2016 which they collected after two months on 22.03.2016. Interestingly as per PW6 Ram Kishore DVR was handed over on 19.01.2016 itself, contrary to which as per PW15 IO ACP K.P. Malik he only seized the same on 22.03.2016. This gap of two months raises suspicion and creates a possibility of tampering.
44. Prosecution thus failed to prove that the accused entered the house of the deceased on 18.01.2016 spent the entire night there and exited on 19.01.2016.
45. Prosecution also tried to connect the accused with the offence through the recovery of thapki and his blood stained clothes alongwith cash of Rs.4200/-.
46. Prosecution story is that accused was arrested after being identified as the person in the CCTV footage exiting the POOJA TALWAR house of the deceased. He was arrested in the house of deceased Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 34 of 41 Date:
2026.03.25 14:32:19 +0530when he reached the same with his mother. His disclosure statement was recorded and at his instance recovery of instrument used in commission of offence cash as well as his blood stained clothes were recovered from his own house.
47. As per PW14 ASI Manraj and PW20 IO/Inspector Bhagwan Singh accused led them to his house G-19 to a room. One box upon which some clothes were lying and under the said clothes from a bag blood stained clothes, one wooden/thapi smeared with blood and Rs.4200/- were recovered.
48. It is also the case of prosecution that the motive for commission of offence was need of money by the accused and being enraged by the refusal of the deceased he killed her. In the said process he stole Rs.4200/- from the almirah which was eventually recovered from the bag of the accused.
49. There is absolutely no ocular or documentary evidence brought on record to prove that accused stole Rs.4200/- from the house of deceased. PW1 Raj Kumar deposed that accused used to take money from the deceased at times but he never committed theft. PW2 Nisha too expressed her unawareness about theft by the accused in the past.
50. There are no photographs of the almirah from which the money was allegedly stolen by the accused. None of the POOJA witness deposed that the deceased used to keep cash at home or TALWAR suspicion against accused for theft from her house. Hence the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 35 of 41 14:32:27 +0530 motive cited by the prosecution is far fetched and stands unproved.
51. Reverting back to the fact of recovery of Thapi and blood stained clothes. Admittedly all the family members including PW1 and PW2 of the deceased, neightbours PW3, PW4 and PW6 and other public persons were present at the place of arrest of accused. In case the accused stated in his disclosure statement that he can get recovery affected from his residence then it is untenable that the family members of the deceased if asked would have refused to join the police.
52. Undeniably the FSL report as well as opinion by the doctor about possibility of offence committed by thapi is against the accused but recovery alone would not be the sole basis of conviction of the accused. Prosecution is required to prove that recovery falls under the ambit of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
53. It is settled law that only the portion of disclosure statement which leads to discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. This position of law in relation to Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act was elaborately made clear by Sir John Beaumont in Pulukuri Kottaya and Others Vs. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) wherein it was held:
POOJA "Section-27, which is not artistically worded, provides an TALWAR exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 36 of 41 14:32:33 +0530 and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved."
54. The alleged recovery of thapi is shown to be from a room of the accused. The same is stated to be inside the bag lying in open and no effort is visible hiding the same from view of other people. The place where the bag is allegedly kept is accessible to anyone in the house. In order to use the alleged recovery to bring it under the ambit of Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, the recovery should have been shown from a place which was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused.
55. In this case recovery is from open place, accessible to other members of family of accused. Accordingly the alleged recovery cannot be said to be within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. Moreover, no independent witness has been joined at the time of recovery nor any photography or videography has been done to prove the same. Hence the recovery becomes doubtful being not admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
POOJA
56. It is a cardinal principle of criminal law that case TALWAR against the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 37 of 41 2026.03.25 14:32:40 +0530 and in case two views are possible the benefit of same accrues in favour of the accused.
57. In Bhagwan Singh & Ors. V. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85, the court repeated one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court observed as under:-
7... "The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to accused should be adopted."
58. Prosecution failed to prove on record that the thapi and blood stained clothes were recovered from the possession of accused which is the basis of connecting the accused with the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of same would accrue in favour of the accused.
59. Besides the alleged recovery no other corroborative evidence has been brought on record to prove the guilt of the accused. Even the forensic evidence could be of no resort to the prosecution. IO did not lift any footprints from the spot nor did he try to lift the finger prints from the articles lying near the body POOJA TALWAR of the deceased.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWARSC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 38 of 41 Date:
2026.03.25 14:32:49 +053060. Argument of defence counsel that the recovery of thapi and other recovered articles were falsely planted holds strength and cannot be discarded altogether.
61. Accused has also been charged with offence under Section 404 IPC for dishonestly misappropriating cash of Rs.4200/- belonging to deceased.
62. In so far as the said offence is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence on record that Rs.4200/- belonged to the deceased or that the same was misappropriated by the accused. The question of misappropriation will arise when the accused had spent the said amount or used it for his own use. But as per the prosecution case Rs.4200/- was recovered in cash from the accused. It has already been discussed in preceding paragraphs that prosecution failed to prove the recovery of Rs.4200/- from the accused. Hence the question of misappropriating the same does not arise.
63. Further the accused has also been charged under Section 411 IPC for being in possession of stolen property.
64. It has been discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused stole Rs.4200/- from possession of deceased. It has also been discussed above that prosecution failed to prove recovery of POOJA said cash from the accused. Hence accused cannot be held guilty TALWAR under the aforesaid section. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.03.25 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 39 of 41 14:33:01 +0530
65. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the relevant factors of circumstantial evidence i.e. :
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
66. The prosecution has not been able to prove that all the facts so established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has not been able to establish a chain of evidence so complete so as to establish that it was only the accused and nobody else who could have murdered the victim. In view of the aforesaid discussion, prosecution failed POOJA to prove the offence with which the accused has been charged. TALWAR Accordingly accused deserves to be acquitted under Section 302 Digitally signed IPC, Section 404 IPC and Section 411 IPC. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:33:10 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 40 of 41 Conclusion:
67. In view of aforesaid findings, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly accused Vinay Kumar @ Vicky is acquitted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC, Section 404 IPC & 411 IPC.
POOJA Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR) TALWAR on 25.03.2026 ASJ-01(FTC) West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.25 14:33:22 +0530 SC no.56378/16 State Vs. Vinay Kumar @ Vicky Page 41 of 41