Delhi District Court
State vs Sohanvir And Anr on 1 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN-1: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
SC : 27508/2016
FIR No. : 445/2014
PS : Burari
U/s : 302/201/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. SOHANVIR
Son of Sh. Ram Dass
R/o H.No. 18, Gali no. 6, B-Block,
West Kamal Vihar, Burari, Delhi .....Accused No. 1
2 Lal Chand @ Lale (Since P.O)
Son of Late Sh. Banarsi Lal
R/o H.No. RZ-77, D Block,
Nihal Vihar, Nagloi, Delhi. ....Accused No. 2
Date of committal : 15.09.2014
Date on which order reserved : 18.08.2025
Date on which order pronounced : 01.12.2025
Final Order : Acquitted
J U D G M E N T :-
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.1 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:45:24 +0530
1. Criminal law was set into motion, on 06.06.2014 when a call was received in police station Burari regarding two dead bodies lying in house no. 18, block no. 6 West Kamal Vihar, the said information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 9 A. The said DD entry was handed over to Sub Inspector Vishwanath. Message was also sent to Inspector Paramjeet Singh. Inspector Paramjeet Singh reached at the spot where he met SI Vishwanath, Ct. Sudhir, Ct. Hari Ram, Ct. Ashok and SHO. Police officials found two dead bodies of male in a vacant plot, out of which one body was completely naked and the other had only a underwear on it.
2. On the spot they met caller Sohanvir who identified one of the dead bodies as that of his (Samdhi) Sansarpal Singh but could not identify the dead body of the other person. Crime team reached at the spot, on removal of dead body which was lying on the upper side, one burnt mobile phone and wire were found. No eye witness was available at the spot. On the basis of DD entry FIR bearing no. 445/2014 u/s 302 IPC PS Burari was registered.
3. On the spot, apart from Sohanvir, his minor son 'R' and daughter Pooja were also present. The son appeared to be FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.2 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:45:36 +0530 alarmed and was unable to tell anything and was handed over to daughter Pooja. Sohanvir was unable to give satisfactory answers and he was called at the PS. On 06.06.2014, the very same day, he disclosed about his involvement in the present case. He was arrested, at his instance, five empty liquor bottles were recovered. One plastic polythene containing two purse of deceased, along with various articles were recovered. The purse also contained two railway tickets from Baraut to Delhi. Four empty plastic glass, Empty packet of Snacks, peels of cucumber, onion, two empty bundles of bidi, 3 empty matchbox were recovered and taken into possession. Accused also got recovered wire and a bed sheet. On 09.06.2014, statement of 'R' was recovered u/s 161 Cr.P.C. who described the incident and implicated his father i.e. accused Sohanvir and Lale (since P.O.) as the accused who had cause the death of Sansarpal Singh and Manoj. On the very same day his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. During course of investigation, co-accused was arrested, post mortem of the deceased was got conducted, CDR of mobile number was obtained. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused Sohanvir and Lal Chand.
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.3 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed
by ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:45:58 +0530
4. Accused were produced from judicial custody before the Ld. Magistrate and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. as offence u/s 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions the case was committed.
5. Vide order dated 22.09.2014 charge u/s 302/201/34 IPC was framed against the accused by the Ld. Predecessor of this court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Lal Chand was granted interim bail but thereafter he did not appear and vide order dated 11.04.2023 was declared P.O.
6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses.
7. PW-1 is Rajvir Singh who identified the body of his son Manoj Kumar vide memo Ex. PW1/A.
8. PW-2 is Inspector Mahesh Kumar who on the request of IO prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW2/A.
9. PW-3 is Parveen the brother of the deceased Manoj who identified the body of his brother and also deposed that he was told by his brother that he is going to Delhi with Sansarpal Singh.
10. PW-4 is Anuj Solanki who stated that on 05.06.2014 his father left for Delhi and told him that he is going to the house of accused Sohanvir who is his father-in-law to obtain SIM of FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.4 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:46:40 +0530 phone. On the next morning he received the information about death of his father. He went to the Mortury and identified the body of his father vide memo Ex. PW4/A.
11. PW-5 is 'R' the minor child who was eye witness of the case (the name of the witness is being withheld, in order to protect his identify). He deposed that no guest or relative had visited their house. He was declared hostile and was duly cross examined by the Ld. Addl.PP for the State. He admitted his signatures on the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. at point A. the same was exhibited as Ex. PW5/A.
12. PW-6 is Sanjay Gautam deposed that he had purchased a mobile phone from accused Lal Chand, he was called at the PS Burari and he handed over the mobile phone to the police who took the same into possession vide memo Ex. PW6/A.
13. PW-7 is Pooja who is the daughter of accused and deposed that her father along with younger brother were residing at West Kamal Vihar. In the summer of 2014 his father made a call on her mobile phone which was not attended by her. Subsequently his father made another call to her husband's phone. Thereafter she made a call to her father who asked them to come to Burari as the dead body of the father-in-law of her sister Priya was FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.5 of 31 Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:46:54 +0530 found. She went to the house where she could not meet her father, they were asked to come to PS Burari, her younger brother accompanied her. She was also declared hostile and was duly cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for State.
14. PW-8 is Amit Kumar Gangwar Nodal Officer of Uninor who had produced the Customer application form in respect of mobile number 8868967479 which was in the name of Manoj. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW8/A. He has produced the CDR for the period 25.05.2014 to 06.06.2014 which was exhibited as Ex. PW8/C.
15. PW-9 is Dr. Asitesh Bajwa who conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased Sansarpal Solanki and Manoj Kumar and gave his report Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B and after examining the wire gave subsequent opinion which was exhibited as Ex. PW9/C.
16. PW-10 is Israr Babu, Nodal Officer from Vodafone who had produced the CDR of mobile number 9759983633 as Ex. PW10/A, the customer application form was Ex. PW10/C. He also produced the CDR of mobile number 9759174784 as Ex. PW10/D, the customer application form was Ex. PW10/F. Both the number were issued in the name of Sansarpal. He also FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.6 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:47:14 +0530 produced the CDR of mobile number 8860501804 as Ex. PW10/G, the customer application form was Ex.PW10/G. Mobile No. 8860501804 was in the name of Pooja.
17. PW-11 is Women Ct. Nirmala Kumari who produced the Computerized PCR Form along with Certificate from Nodal Officer which were exhibited as Ex. PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B.
18. PW-12 is Ct. Irshad Ahmad who was posted as photographer with mobile crime team and took 10 photographs of the spot and dead bodies. The photographs were Ex. PW12/A1 to A10 and negatives as Ex. PW12/B-1 to B10.
19. PW-13 is Ct. Ashok who stated that on 06.06.2014 he along with IO and Ct. Hari Ram went to the spot where SI Vishwanath and Ct. Sudhir were already present. Two dead bodies of male persons were lying on top of each other. The body which was lying on the upper side had only an underwear whereas the body which was lying below was completely naked. Accused Sohanvir, who was the caller had identified the dead body of the person lying naked as that of his Samdhi. Crime team reached at the spot and took the photographs. When the dead body lying on the top was removed one mobile phone and a piece of wire were found in burnt condition. IO prepared rukka FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.7 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:47:28 +0530 and sent Ct. Hari Ram to the PS to get the FIR registered. The younger son of the accused along with Pooja were found at the spot but on inquiry they did not tell anything. Accused also did not disclose anything. Ct. Hari Ram returned at the spot after getting the FIR registered and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to IO. IO took into police possession the burnt mobile phone, remnants of the burnt wire clothes, battery, speaker vide memo Ex. PW13/A. IO took into possession broken piece of brick, one piece of stone and other articles vide memo Ex. PW13/B. On making inquiry from Sohanvir accused admitted his guilt and disclosed that he along with his friend Lale had consumed liquor together and he along with his friend Lale had killed the deceased. Accused also produced 5 liquor bottles which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW13/C. Accused was arrest vide arrest personal search memo Ex. PW13/D and Ex. PW13/E. Disclosure statement Ex. PW13/F was recorded. He along with IO, SI Vishwanath came to the house of accused where accused pointed out the place of incident which is Ex. PW13/G. Wallets of both the deceased were recovered containing the ID proof of the deceased which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW13/I. IO also seized the envelope of a FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.8 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:47:43 +0530 mobile company which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW13/J. Accused also led to the roof of his house from where he produced one pant shirt of co-accused Lale which was seized vide memo Ex. PW13/K. Accused also led them inside the roof from where he got recovered one red colour wire which was seized vide memo Ex. PW13/M. Accused also got recovered one bed sheet which was seized vide memo Ex.PW13/N. Accused also pointed out the house of the co-accused vide memo Ex. PW13/O.
20. PW-14 is Ct. Sudhir who reached the spot along with SI Vishwanath and found the body of two male persons. He took the body of the deceased to the mortuary of Subzi Mandi. On the next day post mortem on the body of deceased was got conducted and the same was handed over to the relative of deceased. The concerned doctor handed over to him 7 exhibits duly sealed which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW14/A.
21. PW-15 is Ct. Dinesh who joined the investigation on 09.06.2014 and on that day reached the house of accused Sohanvir where accused Lal Chand pointed out the vacant plot as the place where the body of deceased were thrown after committing murder. The pointing out memo is Ex.PW15/A. FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.9 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:47:56 +0530 Accused Lal Chand was taken to hospital for his medical examination, after his examination doctor handed over the sealed blood sample which was taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex. PW15/B.
22. On 04.07.2014 he received sealed viscera of deceased Sahansarpal Singh vide RC no. 87/21 vide Ex. PW15/C. Thereafter he along with Ct. Pawan took the viscera to FSL Rohini and deposited the same vide acknowledgment Ex. PW15/D. On 02.09.2014 he along with IO took the Jar containing wire from MHCM vide RC no. 125/21 and took the same to the concerned doctor for subsequent opinion. The doctor concerned gave his opinion and he deposited the same in the Malkhana.
23. PW-16 is Ct. Bhaskar who delivered the copy of the FIR to Senior police officials and concerned MM.
24. PW-17 is Ct. Hari Ram who has deposed on same lines as PW13 Ct. Ashok.
25. PW-18 is Ct. Pawan who took the viscera of deceased Manoj Kumar from MHCM vide RC no. 88/21 Ex. PW18/A and deposited the same in FSL Rohini.
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.10 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:48:16 +0530
26. PW-19 is HC Pawan who on 08.06.2014 got the accused Sohanvir medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW19/B and obtained the sealed blood sample of accused which was handed over to the IO who took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW19/C. On 09.06.2014 witnesses Pooja and minor son came to police station and handed over one SIM which was taken into possession by the IO Ex. PW19/D. He came with the IO to Tis Hazari Courts where statement of minor son was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter they went to Tuglakabad where accused Lal Chand was arrested vide arrest and personal search memo Ex. PW19/E and Ex. PW19/F. IO recorded disclosure statement Ex. PW19/G.
27. PW-20 is Mohit Kumar who was the Incharge mobile crime team, they reached at the spot along Ct. Irshad, Ct. Irshad took the photograph, he prepared his report Ex. PW20/A.
28. PW-21 is HC Devender who was posted at MHCM. Case property was deposited at Malkhana vide entry at Sr. No. 1811, 1816, 1819 same are exhibited as Ex. PW21/A, Ex.PW21/C and Ex. PW21/D. The exhibits were sent to FSL vide Road Certificate Ex. PW21/E, F, G and H. FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.11 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:48:49 +0530
29. PW-22 is Sh. R.K. Pandey the Ld. MM who recorded the statement of the younger son u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
30. PW-23 is ASI Raghubir Singh is the duty officer who recorded the FIR Ex. PW23/A, DD no. 9 A Ex. PW23/B. He make endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW23/C. He also prepared certificate u/s 65 B Ex. PW23/D.
31. PW-24 is SI Vishwanath who was the part of the investigation and his testimony is more or less similar to that of PW13.
32. PW-25 is Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo who was Senior Scientific Officer in FSL and after examining the exhibits gave his report Ex. PW25/A.
33. PW-26 is Amarpal Singh who was Assistant Director (Chemistry) FSL and after examining the exhibits gave his report Ex. PW26/A.
34. PW-27 is Inspector Paramjeet, the IO of the case and has deposed about the investigation carried out by him.
35. PW-28 is HC Rakesh Kumar who had collected the exhibits from MHCM and deposited the same in FSL.
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.12 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:49:03 +0530
36. PW-29 is Dr. Kavita Goyal who was Assistant Director FSL and after examining the exhibits gave her report Ex. PW29/A.
37. PW-30 is ASI Devender who was posted as MHC(M) and had produced register no. 19 and proved entry at Sr. No. 1815 and 1816, the same were exhibited as Ex. PW30/A.
38. PW-31 is Dr. Garima Chaudhary who was Assistant Director (DNA) FSL and after examining the exhibits gave her report Ex. PW31/A.
39. PE was closed on 03.05.2025. Statement of accused was recorded on 09.06.2025. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence. DE was closed on 09.06.2025.
40. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that in the present case accused along with the co-accused had committed double murder. Accused Sohanvir had intimated to the police about the body of the deceased lying in the plot, but when he could not give any satisfactory reply he was interrogated, where he confessed about the crime. It is submitted that once he was arrested he made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which he told the police officials and got recovered articles like wire, purse of deceased, bed sheet having blood stains and clothes of FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.13 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:49:15 +0530 deceased. It is submitted that during investigation, statement of minor son was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. who had categorically stated as to how the murder had taken place, however, during his testimony, he turned hostile. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand 2024 SCC Online 3510, placed reliance on the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and convicted the accused. It is argued that if statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is read independently, it is corroborated in all material particulars by independent evidence collected by the prosecuting agencies. It is thus submitted that accused is liable to be convicted u/s 302/201/34 IPC.
41. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that as per the case of prosecution accused had caused double murder. The so called eye witnesses has turned hostile. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has been unable to prove motive or as to how the murder was caused. It is argued that there is no independent or public witness to the recoveries effected by the police officials. No finger print of the accused was found from the place of incident. It is submitted that reliance FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.14 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:49:32 +0530 on the judgment of Vijaya Singh (Supra) is wholly misconceived and misplaced. It is argued that accused is liable to be acquitted.
42. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the record.
43. The accused has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 302/201/34 IPC along with his co-accused Lal Chand and Lale who has since been declared as P.O. The case of prosecution is that two dead bodies, were found lying in a vacant plot, one was of Sansarpal Singh and the other of Manoj. The case of prosecution rest on circumstantial evidence as the eye witness 'R' has turned hostile.
44. In order to convict the accused on the basis of circumstances evidence, the circumstances proved must point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused and must be incompatible with any theory of his being innocent.
45. It was held by the Apex court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, [AIR 1952 SC 343], that:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.15 of 31 Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:49:44 +0530 proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
46. In case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1984 SC 1622], the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the test which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (2) The circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established;
(3) 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; (4) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
(5) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (6) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must so that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
47. In the present case prosecution is required to prove, all the circumstances, which unequivocally point towards the guilt of accused.
48. The circumstances which according to the prosecution points towards the guilt of the accused are:-
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.16 of 31 Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:49:56 +0530
(i) Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
(ii) last seen evidence,
(iii) recovery of articles,
(iv) scientific evidence.
49. Strangely, in the present case prosecution has been unable to prove motive of the crime. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (1995) 3 SCC 228 while relying upon the judgment of State of U.P. Vs. Moti Ram & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 389 has held as under:-
"......... very often, a motive is alleged to indicate the high degree of probability, that the offence was committed by the person, who was prompted by the motive. In our opinion, in a case when motive alleged against the accused is only established, it provides a foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances. We hold that if motive is proved or established, it affords a key or pointer, to scan the evidence in the case, in that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration. It is a very relevant, and important aspect, (a) to highlight the intention of the accused and (b) the approach to be made in appreciating the totality of circumstances, including the evidence disclosed in the case".
50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Kumar (Supra) further observed that motive is a relevant factor, the proof of motive is not a necessary for conviction but if motive is proved it becomes relevant to show that the person who had the motive to commit a crime actually committed the same.
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.17 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:50:09 +0530
51. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove motive, particularly when the case rest upon circumstantial evidence. PW3 and PW4 both have stated about deceased leaving for Delhi but does not say anything pertaining to motive. In fact PW-3 in his cross examination has stated that there was no enmity between his brother Manoj and the accused. PW-4 in the cross examination pleaded ignorance about there being any enmity between his father and the accused. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that relation between the deceased and accused were strained or there was any dispute between them. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive of the accused to commit the crime.
Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., recoveries and Scientific Evidence:-
52. These three circumstances are being taken up together as they are inter-linked and inter dependent upon each other.
53. It was argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that in light of the judgment of Vijaya Singh (Supra). Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. should be relied upon as the same is corroborated in material particulars.
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.18 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed
by ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:50:30 +0530
54. Before adverting to the facts of the case, the judgment of Vijaya Singh (Supra) needs to be appreciated and to see whether the same is applicable on the facts of the present case.
55. In the case Vijaya Singh (Supra), Vijaya Singh along with his mother Basanti Devi were found guilty of murder of the wife of Vijaya Singh. The Ld. Trial convicted the accused and their conviction was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. The Ld. Trial court while convicting the accused had found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to be credible, apart from the witnesses who had retracted their statements, who were none other than the sister of appellants. It was held that the retraction was a result of tutoring and their statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. were natural and truthful. The appellants apart from making submissions on merits also challenged the reliance of the court on the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter concluded that there is very possibility that retraction is as a result of manipulation and circumstances need to be examined.
56. It was further observed that statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be discarded at a drop of hat and retraction on flimsy ground or on mere assertions would effectively negate the FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.19 of 31 Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:50:53 +0530 difference between a statement recorded by the police and the one recorded before the Magistrate. The court thereafter rejected retractions on account of non existence of reasonable grounds. The relevant para are reproduced as under:-
"29.Considering the conceptual requirement statement before investigation and the utility thereof, as prescribed in Section 157 of Evidence Act, it could be observed that statement under Section 164, although not a substantive piece of evidence, not only meets the test of relevancy but could also be used for the purposes of contradiction and corroboration. A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC serves special purpose in a criminal investigation as a greater amount of credibility is attached to it for being recorded by a Judicial Magistrate and not by the Investigating Officer. A statement under Section 104 not subjected ne constraints attached with a statement under Section 161 CrPC and the vigour of Section 162 Cr.P.C. does not apply to a statement under Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, it must be considered on a better footing. However, relevancy, admissibility and reliability are distinct concepts to such a statement (reliability thereof) is to be determined by the court on a case-to-case basis and the same would depend to some extent upon whether the witness has remained true to the statement or has resiled from it, but it would not be a conclusive factor, For, even if a witness has restraced from a statement, such restraction could be a result of manipulation and the court has to examine the circumstances which the statement was recorded, the reasons stated by the witness for retracting from the statement etc. Ultimately, what counts is whether the Court believes a statement to be true, and the ultimate test of reliability happens during the trial upon calculated balancing of conflicting versions in light of the other evidence on record.
31. Having said so, we deem it fit to observe that a statement under Section 164 CrPC cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat and an mere statement of the witness that it was not recorded correctly. For Judicial satisfaction of the Magistrate, to the effect that the statement being recorded is the correct version of the facts stated by the witness forms part of every such statement and a higher burden must be retract from the same. To permit retraction placed upon the witness by a witness from a signed statement recorded before the Magistrate on flimsy grounds FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.20 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:51:06 +0530 or on mere assertions would effectively negate the difference between a statement recorded by the police officer and that recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. In the present matter, there is no reasonable ground to reject the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and reliance has correctly been placed upon the said statements by the courts below".
57. It is also to be kept in mind that Hon'ble Supreme Court did not elevate the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C,. to substantive evidence and had clearly noted that statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. could be used both for corroborations and contradictions. It could be used to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses.
58. In light of the aforesaid judgment, firstly, it has to be seen whether the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. can be relied upon. Secondly, whether there is any other substantive evidence on record and such evidence can be corroborated by the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
59. On perusing the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. it shows that around 8:00-8:30 pm Sansarpal had called father of 'R' (accused herein) and informed that he is standing at Gali No. 4, Radha Vihar and is unable to find the way, 'R' had gone to receive him. Then both Sansarpal and Manoj consumed liquor. While they were consuming liquor, his father's friend Lale came and he was eating chowmein, after which he slept. After about 1-1½ hours FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.21 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:51:15 +0530 his father, Lale, Sansarpal and Manoj were fighting amongst themselves, while fighting his father strangulated Sansarpal with a broken wire piece, while Lale was holding his hand. Thereafter, they also killed Manoj who was lying in unconscious state. He was locked in the room, he became afraid.
60. Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded clearly suggests that Sansarpal had come to the house at around 8:00/8:30 pm. They had consumed liquor; scuffle broke out between them. His, father strangulated Sansarpal Singh and Manoj.
61. PW-5 in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. had categorically stated the manner in which the incident had taken place he had narrated as to how his father had committed the murder of his sister's father in law and one more person along with his friend Lale.
62. However, PW-5 in his examination in chief has categorically stated that on the date of incident his father had taken leave and his father had cooked meal for him, after taking the same he went to bed, no guest or relative had visited their house. His father used to take Alcohol. He admitted that earlier he had come to court, where his statement was recorded. According to him the said statement was made by him at the FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.22 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:51:27 +0530 instance of police uncle. He was declared hostile. In the cross examination he denied everything, however, he admitted his signatures on the statement Ex. PW5/A (Ex. PW22/C). The testimony of PW5 if believed leads to a conclusion that nobody had visited, the house on the day of incident.
63. Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 09.06.2014, almost three days of incident, he was residing with his sister after the incident. He was not under the custody of the police officials. It may also be noted that he was a minor unlike in Vijaya Singh (Supra) where the witnesses were major sisters of the appellant therein.
64. PW-22 is the Ld. Magistrate who recorded the statement, who had categorically deposed that PW-5 had given the statement without any pressure and there is no cross examination on this aspect.
65. PW-27 is the IO of the case, who had accompanied PW-5 in order to get his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. No such suggestion was given to PW-27 that he forced PW-5 to make statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Magistrate.
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.23 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:51:41 +0530
66. The ground taken by PW-5 is that he made the statement at the instance of the police uncle appears to be flimsy ground. There exists no reasonable ground to reject his statement.
67. It has now to be seen whether there is any substantive evidence on record, whereby the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. can be used to corroborate such evidence.
68. As per the case of prosecution, accused got recovered the red coloured wire used for strangulation, whiskey bottles which suggests that they were drinking liquor and a wet bed sheet containing blood stains which according to prosecution completes the chain of circumstances the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. believable. In order to see whether reliance can be placed on the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. the same needs to be looked into.
69. As per PW-13 accused did not get five liquor bottles recovered rather he had produced the same which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/C and thereafter made a disclosure statement Ex. PW13/D. If the testimony of PW-13 is to be read, recovery of liquor bottles were not pursuant to disclosure statement, which is contrary to the case of the prosecution as well as the seizure memo Ex. PW13/C. Moreover, FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.24 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:51:54 +0530 as the seizure memo Ex. PW13/C the whiskey bottles were recovered under the bed, the place from where the recovery was effected was not such which was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. In Trimbak Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 36 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when recovery of incriminating articles were made from an open and accessible place it is difficult to hold positively that the accused was in possession of these articles.
70. PW-24 Inspector Vishwanath has stated in his cross examination, that they remained at the spot till about 1:00 pm., they came to police station and again reached at the spot at about 3:00-4:00 pm and by that time accused Sohanvir was arrested. The arrest memo Ex. PW13/D shows the time of arrest to be 3:00 pm. It belies common sense that accused was arrested at 3:00 pm and by 4:00 pm after recording his disclosure statement and preparing documents qua the arrest, the police officials could have come back to the spot again by 4:00 pm even if the outer limit as deposed by PW-24 is to be considered.
71. PW-24 in his cross examination further states that he had reached the spot at about 7:00 am on 06.06.2014 and remained there till 1:00 pm. It is highly unlikely that from 7:00 am till FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.25 of 31 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:52:06 +0530 about 1:00 pm they would not have searched the house of the accused Sohanvir. Similarly, the red coloured wire was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/A from near the bed (palang), and the bed sheet was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/N from open courtyard which are all open and accessible places. No public witness was associated with the recoveries of any of the article. The accused cannot be attributed any special knowledge, as required u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to make these recoveries admissible.
72. It was argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that DNA on the bed sheet so recovered at the instance of accused Sohanvir from his house, contained blood stains which on DNA analysis matched with that of deceased Manoj. The recovery of bed sheet again at the cost of repetition is from an open place, accessible to all which in itself creates a doubt. Even assuming recovery of the bed sheet at the instance of the accused, is incriminating. It is the case of prosecution that the bed sheet had stains and when it was subjected to DNA examination, vide report dated 03.08.2016 Ex. PW31/A it is opined that the said bed sheet contained blood of the deceased Manoj.
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.26 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:52:20 +0530
73. The perusal of the seizure memo Ex. PW13/N shows that the bed sheet was wet while it was hanging on a wire, the colour of the bed sheet was white and beige (mutmela) containing flower design and had some spots, the same was sealed in the seal of PS on 06.06.2014 itself. The perusal of the report Ex. PW31/A shows, that when this sealed cloth parcel was opened in the FSL it is stated that it was having multiple cutting marks with few dark stains. The bed sheet when it was seized, the seizure memo does not mention that there were any cutting marks whereas when it was opened in the FSL the same was having multiple cutting mark Exhibits were sent to FSL on 11.09.2014 almost after 3 months of they being seized. It is the case of the prosecution that bed sheet was wet, the chances of finding blood stains becomes very week, particularly when PW-24 has categorically stated in his examination in chief conducted on 09.07.2019 had stated that it was taken into possession "after drying". The bed sheet was found wet, according to PW-24 they had reached the house after 3:00 pm. It is highly unlikely that the bed sheet would have been wet, as it was hot summer days. It is not the case that the same was washed in their presence as accused Sohanvir was all along with them right from the time FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.27 of 31 Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:52:31 +0530 when they reached at the spot till the time he was arrested. The testimony of PW-27 is to the said effect, if read as a whole. In such circumstances after keeping it in the Malkhana, for more than three months, the FSL was able to generate DNA from the bed sheet creates doubt and more particularly when the case property was not found in the same condition when it was opened in the FSL, tampering of the evidence cannot be ruled out. The DNA report is of no help to the case of prosecution.
74. It is the case of prosecution that Sansarpal Singh had disclosed that bodies were burnt with Tejab (Acid) whereas the report of chemical examiner Ex. PW25/A states that kerosene was found on burnt debris, which were burn cloth seized from the spot.
75. If the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is used independently then it would amount to treating it as a substantive evidence which is impermissible in law.
76. In the absence of any substantive evidence merely on the basis of the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., which the witness had retracted, it cannot form the basis for convicting the accused.
Theory of last seen
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.28 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:52:41 +0530
77. PW-4 Anuj Solanki, is the son of deceased Sansarpal who had categorically deposed that his father on 05.06.2014 had gone to the house of deceased in order to collect a SIM. Deceased was a resident of Baghpat and it would a bit strange, as to why the deceased would go all the way from Baghpat to collect a SIM, when it could have been easily available at his place of residence. The reason to go to Delhi does not appear to be genuine.
78. PW-3 who is the brother of deceased also says that his brother had informed him that he is going to Delhi along with Sahansar Pal Singh.
79. The testimony of both these witness is consistent that deceased Manoj and Sansarpal Singh had come to Delhi.
80. PW-8 is the Nodal officer of Unior and has proved that mobile number 8868967479 was issued in the name of deceased Manoj. The CAF was exhibited as Ex. PW8/A and the CDR was exhibited as Ex. PW8/C.
81. PW-10 is the Nodal officer, who proved that the CAF of mobile number 9759983633, 9759174784 and 8860501804. Mobile number 9759983633 and 9759174784 belongs to deceased Sansarpal Singh. The perusal of Ex. PW8/C shows that on 05.06.2014 deceased Manoj was in regular touch with FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.29 of 31 Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:52:51 +0530 other deceased till about 11:15 am. The perusal of the CDR shows that accused and deceased were in regular communication. Suffice it to say that CDR do suggest communication between the accused, deceased which corroborates the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4. However apart from this the CDRs do not prove anything and cannot be relied to convict the accused or even prove theory of last seen. There is no independent evidence to prove the theory of last seen.
82. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that Cell ID Location of deceased Manoj was Mukundpur which was around the house of accused. However, the same has not been proved in accordance with law and the same cannot be relied upon.
83. It was also argued by the Ld.Addl. PP for the State that in blood of both the accused liquor was found which suggest that they were drinking and lends credence to the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Undoubtedly, the chemical examination report of deceased which are Ex. PW29/A and Ex. PW26/A suggest about the presence of liquor in the blood. The MLC of Sohanvir is Ex. PW19/B, which was prepared on 08.06.2024 shows that blood sample of the accused was taken, and the same was handed over to HC Pawan, the same were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.30 of 31
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01 11:53:01
+0530
PW19/C. The said sample was never sent for chemical analysis and there is no report on record to show that there is any alcohol in the blood of Sohanvir. There is no evidence on record that accused has also consuming liquor. So even this circumstances cannot be relied upon.
84. Suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Ravishankar Tondon Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2024 SCC Online SC 526.
85. Accused is liable to be acquitted. Bail Bond u/s 437 A Cr.P.C. stands furnished. They shall remain in force for 6 months from today. Accused be released from custody if not required in any case. Copy of the order be given free of cost to the accused. Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information.
Announced on this 01st day of December 2025.
ANKUR Digitally signed
by ANKUR JAIN (ANKUR JAIN-I)
JAIN Date: 2025.12.01
11:53:09 +0530 ASJ-04/Central/Delhi.
km
FIR No. 445 of 2014 page no.31 of 31