Delhi District Court
State vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya Alias Sompal on 5 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON:
ASJ-04: SW DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
SC No. 288/2025
CNR No. DLSW01-003987-2025
State Vs. (1) Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal
S/o Late Sh. Raj Singh @
Bhagwan Das
Permanent Address:-
R/o Village Dera,
Ambala District,
Haryana
(2) Saroj
(since Proclaimed Offender)
FIR No. : 704/2000
Police Station : Uttam Nagar
Under Sections : 365/302/201/120B/174A
IPC & 27 Arms Act
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 06.05.2025
Date on which judgment was reserved : 05.12.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 05.01.2026
Final order : Accused is acquitted for the
offences under Section
365/302/201/120B/174A IPC
& 27 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case:
1. Smt. Krishna Sethi registered a missing report dated SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 1 of 46 01.07.2000 qua her son Ashwani Kumar Sethi @ Gore, wherein she stated that on 09.06.2000, her son left with his articles / luggage along with his three daughters went to the house of his wife namely Saroj whose maternal address was Savitri Devi w/o Bihari Lal Mohan Garden, H.No. 54, Block L-2, B-54. It was further stated in the complaint that her son and daughter-
in-law did not get along well, due to which Saroj was having illicit relationship with a person namely Ajay Kumar Dahiya. It was further stated in the complaint that on 01.07.2000, her daughter-in-law, Saroj left all the three girls on the road. It was further stated in the complaint that she had suspicion that Saroj and her brothers namely Pradeep, Kuldeep and Ajay Kumar Dahiya would have killed her son and thrown him somewhere. Accordingly, on the above said complaint, on 08.08.2000, case FIR No.704/00 was registered under Section 365 IPC at PS Uttam Nagar, but, the son of the complainant could not be traced out.
2. However, on 09.06.2000 at about 07:00 a.m, Sh. Dalbir Singh, the President of Gram Panchayat / Village Birdhana, came to know through the boys of his village that an unidentified dead body of a person was lying near a water tank on the way between his village and Jhajjar upon which he along with Chowkidar Raghuvir and Panchayat Member Azad Singh reached at the place where dead body was lying, where he saw a dead body lying (upside down with front portion of the body towards the earth) there and blood was oozing from the body and said body sustained a gun shot injury near left arm. The clothes worn were torn from where the bullet was pierced in the body of deceased and was found wearing a lining shirt, slaty colour pant and designer Jutti. The body looked young aged near about 25 SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 2 of 46 to 26 years old and it seemed that the dead body was dumped there, after committing murder. Thereafter, he rushed to Police Chowki after leaving Chowkidar Raghuvir and Azad Singh there and came back along with police officials and dog squad also reached there. Then police official took a cap of bullet (which was found near the dead body) and blood stained earth in police possession. The police also took personal search of body. Thereafter, the police official took the dead body in the Village with the help of a Tractor Trolley and the dead body was kept at the Chaupal of the village for the purpose of identification. Police official also prepared inquest (panchnama) and recorded his statement. Thereafter, an FIR no. 201/2000 dated 09.06.2000 under Section 302/201 IPC & 25/54 Arms Act was also registered at PP Dujana, PS Jhajjar, Haryana. In the said case, closure report was also filed by In-charge PP Dujana as Ex. PW-14/D1 as accused could not be traced out.
3. Thereafter, on 09.11.2000, SI Rajbir along with ASI Subodh Kumar, Ct. Jagdish, Ct. Sasion Singh, and Ct. Karambir reached at Dujana Chowki, where, they found a notice on a notice board of deceased Ashwani Kumar Sethi and after seeing said notice, SI Rajbir identified him and informed the family member of Ashwani Kumar Sethi and after that family members of deceased Ashwani Kumar reached at Dujana Chowki where, they correctly identified the deceased Ashwani Kumar Sethi in the photographs. Thereafter, SI Rajbir collected the document of case FIR No. 201/2000 as one case already registered at Dujana, PS Jhajjar. After collecting the documents, they returned to Police Post Matiala.
SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 3 of 464. It is a matter of record that accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya@Sompal & Saroj Sethi were declared proclaimed offender in the year 2008. After the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya and Saroj Sethi was filed before the court for the offences under Section 365/302/201/120B IPC. Thereafter, Ld. MM took cognizance of the case and as both the accused persons were already declared proclaimed offenders, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence under Section 299 Cr.P.C.
5. PW-1 is Smt. Krishna Sethi, W/o Late Sh. Diwan Chand Sethi, R/o C-140 Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. She deposed that her son, namely Ashwani Kumar Sethi, was residing at H. No. 54, Block L-2, B-54, Mohan Garden, along with his three daughters and his wife Saroj since 09.06.2000. She further deposed that there was a misunderstanding between her son and his wife as his wife had an illegal relation with Ajay Kumar Dahiya. She further deposed that on 01.07.2000, Saroj left her three daughters in the way. She further deposed that her son had been missing for about six months. She further deposed that thereafter, she filed a complaint in the Police Station as Ex. PW-1/A. She further deposed that she had suspicion that Saroj, her brother Pradeep Kumar, one Kuldeep, and her 'Jar' Ajay Kumar Dahiya had killed her son and after committing the murder, they had dumped his dead body. This witness was not cross-examined as the accused persons were already declared Proclaimed Offender.
6. PW-2 is Sh. Dalbir Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh Rio Village and post office Birdhana District Jhajjar, Haryana. He deposed that he was the SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 4 of 46 President of Gram Panchayat of Village Birdhana and on 09.06.2000 at about 7:00 a.m., he came to know through some boys of his village that an unidentified dead body of a person was lying near a water tank on the way between his village and Jhajjar. He further deposed that upon receiving this information, he reached the spot where Chowkidar Raghuvir and Panchayat Member Azad Singh were present and a dead body was found lying upside down with the front portion of the body towards the earth. He further deposed that blood was oozing from the body and the said dead body had sustained a gunshot injury near the left arm and the clothes worn were torn from the place where the bullet had pierced into the body of the deceased. He further deposed that they also noticed that the dead body was wearing a lining shirt, a slaty-coloured pant and designer Jutti. He further deposed that the dead body appeared to be of a young man aged about 25 to 26 years and it seemed that the body had been dumped there after committing the murder. He further deposed that thereafter, he rushed to the Police Chowki after leaving Chowkidar Raghuvir and Azad Singh at the spot. He further deposed that he came back to the place where the dead body was lying along with the police officials and the dog squad also reached there. He further deposed that the police officials took into possession a bullet cap found near the dead body and also blood-stained earth vide seizure memos Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that the police also conducted the personal search of the dead body vide memo Ex. PW2/C. He further deposed that thereafter, the police officials took the dead body into the village with the help of a tractor-trolley and the body was kept at the Chaupal of the village for the purpose of identification. He further deposed that the police officials also prepared the inquest (panchnama), which was SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 5 of 46 signed by him, and the same is Ex. PW2/D. He further deposed that the police officials also recorded his statement in this regard, as Ex. PW2/E. The witness after seeing the photographs of the dead body of the deceased along with the negatives, correctly identified the same as the body which was lying near his village and about which he had informed the police officials. This witness was not cross-examined as the accused persons were already proclaimed offenders.
7. PW-3 is Sh. Ashok Sethi, S/o Late Sh. Dewan Chand Sethi, Rio C-146, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that he had three brothers including himself and one deceased namely Ashwani Kumar Sethi. He further deposed that in the year 1988-89, his brother Ashwani Kumar Sethi got married to one Saroj Kumari and that they had three daughters and one son. He further deposed that Saroj Kumari was having an illicit relationship with one person namely Ajay Dhaiya, who was residing at Bhagwati Vihar as a tenant. He further deposed that on 01.06.2000, Saroj left the home and shifted to Patel Garden in the house of one landlord namely Vinod and that she had taken the children along with her. He further deposed that on 07.06.2000 Saroj made a telephone call to Ashwani and asked him to come to her house. He further deposed that Ashwani went there and started residing with Saroj. He further deposed that on 01.07.2000, Saroj and Ajay Dhaiya left the three daughters at Raja Puri Mod and only the son remained with her. He further deposed that they tried to search for his brother Ashwani Sethi but he could not be found. He further deposed that Saroj and Ajay Dhaiya also left the aforesaid house at Patel Garden. He further deposed that they made a police complaint SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 6 of 46 regarding the missing of his brother Ashwani Sethi and on that complaint FIR No. 704/00 was registered at PS Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that the elder daughter of his brother Ashwani, namely Nisha, told him that her father had been taken in a Maruti Van by force by Ajay Dhaiya with the help of another person on 08.06.2000 and thereafter her father never came back home. He further deposed that he had seen the photograph of the dead body of his brother Ashwani on an "Ishtahar Shoro Goga". He further deposed that thereafter he went to PS Uttam Nagar to enquire about his brother and the police officials showed him the photograph of the dead body of his brother Ashwani, which he identified. He further deposed that he had put his signature on the seizure memo and identification memo vide memos Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. This witness was shown 12 photographs of the deceased, Saroj, as well as of the accused, were lying in the judicial file, and the same were shown to him, which he correctly identified. The photographs were collectively exhibited as Ex. P1. This witness was not cross-examined as the accused persons were already proclaimed offenders.
8. PW-4 is Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh. Tara Chand, R/o B-60, Patel Garden, Kakrola Mor, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that he was engaged in the business of a printing press in the year 2000. He further deposed that Ashwini Kumar and his wife, namely Saroj Bala, along with Dr. Ramesh and one other person, approached him for renting accommodation, i.e one room. He further deposed that Dr. Ramesh was running a clinic under the name of 'Janhit Clinic' at the main road, Kakrola. He further deposed that he rented one room in his house at B-60, Patel Garden, Kakrola Mor, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, to the said lady and her SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 7 of 46 husband for Rs. 500/-. He further deposed that Saroj Bala, along with her husband and children, shifted to the said room on the same day. He further deposed that they remained in his house for about 10 days and during this period, he never saw the couple quarreling with each other. He further deposed that one boy, who hailed from Jhajjar, used to visit the said room in which Saroj Bala was residing, but he did not know his name. He further deposed that Saroj Bala later left the room along with her children, stating that her husband had got a job in Jhajjar. He further deposed that thereafter, he did not see Ashwini Kumar and his wife Saroj Bala again. He further deposed that the police recorded his statement on 01.09.2000. This witness was not cross-examined as the accused persons were already proclaimed offenders.
9. It is a matter of record that during the proceedings, on 18.08.2012, death verification report of witness Krishnawati received.
10. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 23.03.2013, the file was consigned to the Record Room with a direction to be revived as and when the accused would be apprehended.
11. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 08.01.2025, accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal, who had earlier been declared a Proclaimed Offender, was arrested in a Kalandra bearing DD No. 90A dated 08.01.2025 and produced before Ld. JMFC, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Pursuant thereto, notice was issued to the SHO, PS Uttam Nagar for information and necessary action, and the file was recalled SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 8 of 46 from the Record Room (Criminal), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi.
12. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.01.2025, an application was moved for interrogation and formal arrest of the accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal, which was allowed. After interrogation, another application was moved for for seeking 02 days judicial custody remand of the accused, which was also allowed and the matter was accordingly fixed for 16.01.2025.
13. On 16.01.2025, the Investigating Officer, Inspector Kuldeep Singh, moved an application before the Ld. JMFC-08, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, seeking 04 days police custody remand of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal on the grounds of effecting the arrest of co-accused Saroj, recovery of the weapon of offence, and for detailed interrogation. The said application was allowed. Thereafter, upon completion of police custody, the accused was remanded to judicial custody.
14. On 07.04.2024, the Investigating Officer filed a supplementary charge sheet in respect of the commission of offences under Section 174A IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act before the Court of Ld. JMFC-08, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Thereafter, the Ld. JMFC took cognizance of the said offences and directed that the main charge sheet be restored to its original number.
15. After compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 9 of 46 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 06.05.2025.
16. After hearing arguments, charge was framed on 30.05.2025 against accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal for the offences punishable under Section 365/302/120B/201 IPC & 27 Arms Act. A separate charge was also framed against accused for the offence punishable under Section 174 A IPC to which accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial, accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
17. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused persons.
18. It is pertinent to mention that on 01.07.2025, it came on record that there appeared to be a clerical error in the charge framed against the accused on 30.05.2025. Accordingly, the charge was amended and framed against the accused, to which he pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial. It is a matter of record that on the same day, a statement of accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he admitted certain documents i.e DD no. 40 A dated 08.01.2025 as Ex. A-1, Kalandra under Section 35.1 (d) BNSS as Ex. A-2, DD no.29A dated 05.01.2025 as Ex. A-3, DD no.90A dated 08.01.2025 as Ex. A-4, DD no.9 dated 07.01.2025, police Chowki Kala Amb as Ex. A-5, arrest memo of accused Ajay Dahiya @ Sompal under Section 35.1 (d) BNSS as Ex. A-6, personal search memo in kalandra under Section 35.1 (d) BNSS as Ex. A-7, copy of FIR no.704/2000 as Ex. A-8, copy of PO order in case FIR no.704/2000 as Ex. A-9, copy of MLC SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 10 of 46 no.197 of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya as Ex. A-10, DD no.14 dated 06.08.2000 as Ex. A-11, DD no.25 dated 01.08.2000 as Ex. A-12, copy of FIR no.201/2000 as Ex. A-13, form 25.35 (1) (b) as Ex. A-14, hue and cry notice as Ex. A-15 and DD no.5 dated 17.08.2001 as Ex. A-16. Accordingly, the witnesses mentioned at serial no.6 in new charge sheet and witness mentioned at serial no.18 in the old charge sheet were dropped from the list of witnesses. It is also a matter of record that on the same day, on the submissions of the IO, witnesses namely Ashok Sethi, Krishna and Ashwani Kumar Kalra were dropped from the list of witnesses as they had expired.
19. PW-1 is is Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh. Tara Chand, aged about 53 years, R/o- B-60, Patel Garden, Kakrola Mor, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that he had been engaged in the business of a printing press since the year 1994. He further deposed that Ashwini Kumar and his wife, namely Saroj Bala, along with Dr. Ramesh and one other person, approached them for renting accommodation, i.e one room. He further deposed that Dr. Ramesh was running a clinic under the name of 'Janhit Clinic' at the main road, Kakrola. He further deposed that his mother rented one room in their house at B-60, Patel Garden, Kakrola Mor, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, to the aforesaid lady and her husband for Rs.500/-. He further deposed that Saroj Bala, along with her husband and children, shifted to the said room on the same day. He further deposed that they remained in his house for about one week. He further deposed that during that period, he never saw the couple quarreling with each other. He further deposed that after about one week, the couple shifted to Haryana. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused.
SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 11 of 4620. PW-2 is Retired ASI Satya Narayan, S/o Sh. Mehar Chand, R/o Village Kaluwas, Rewari District, Haryana. He deposed that on 09.06.2000, he was posted at PS Jhajjar as a Duty Officer / ASI and on that day, ASI Hari Singh from PP Dujana had sent a Tehrir through Ct. Subhash. He further deposed that on the basis of the said Tehrir, he got FIR No. 201/2000 registered, which is already Ex. A-13. He further deposed that he also made an endorsement on the Rukka, which is Ex. PW-2/E. He further deposed that on 09.11.2000, he was posted as Chowki Incharge at Dujana, PS Jhajjar. He further deposed that on that day, Sh. Ashok Sethi, son of Deewan Chand, resident of C-140, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, identified the pamphlet of the dead body of Ashwani Kalra, resident of Milap Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, and confirmed that the dead body was of Ashwani Kumar Sethi. He further deposed that Ashok Sethi also identified the dead body in the photographs already exhibited as Ex. P-1 by reaching the police post. He further deposed that thereafter a copy of FIR No. 704/2000 under Section 365 IPC, PS Uttam Nagar, was handed over to him by Ashok Sethi, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A along with the photograph. He further deposed that thereafter he prepared the memo, i.e., Fard Shanakht Lash Napata Maloom, which is Ex. PW-2/B. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of Ashok Sethi and Ashok Kalra, which are Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW-2/D respectively. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused.
21. It is a matter of record that on 04.07.2025, the report in response to the summons issued to Ct. Jagdish Singh was received, stating SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 12 of 46 that he had expired on 04.11.2022. Consequently, he was dropped from the list of witnesses.
22. PW-3 is Dr. Sunil Narwal, Medical Officer, District Civil Hospital, Jhajjar Haryana. He deposed that he had been deputed by the Medical Superintendent to appear before the Court on behalf of Dr. J.K. Bhalla, who had already left the service long back. He further deposed that as per the hospital record, the record pertaining to the present case was not available with the hospital. He further deposed that he had also brought a letter issued by the Medical Superintendent, as per which the record with regard to the present case in the hospital was not available. He further deposed that the letter dated 04.07.2025 was taken on record as Ex. PW-3/A, bearing the signature of the Medical Superintendent, namely Dr. Naresh Dahiya, at point X. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused.
23. PW-4 is Retired ACP Sukhbir Singh, S/o Late Sh. Jhandu Ram, R/o C-272, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi. He deposed that on 08.08.2000, he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as SHO. He further deposed that on that day, he had received a complaint through proper channel. He further deposed that on receiving the complaint, already Ex. PW-1/A, he made an endorsement, the same being Ex. PW-4/A, and got registered FIR No. 704/2000 under Section 365 IPC with regard to the missing of deceased Ashwani. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, investigation was marked to ASI Ravinder. He further deposed that on 11.11.2000, they had received the case file from PP Dujana, PS Jhajjar, SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 13 of 46 and Section 302 IPC was added in the present case, and the investigation of the case was marked to him. He further deposed that on 10.02.2001, he interrogated Kuldeep, brother of accused Saroj (since PO). He further deposed that on 29.08.2001, he initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya. He further deposed that on 06.10.2001, he obtained NBWs against accused Saroj, and thereafter, he was transferred from PS Uttam Nagar and the case was handed over to MHC(R). This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused.
24. PW-5 is HC Pritam, no. 1752/DW, District Line Dwarka. He deposed that on 14.01.2025, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as Constable. He further deposed that on that day, he joined the investigation along with SI Ram Niwas and reached Dwarka Court, Court No. 309, where accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal (present in court through VC and correctly identified by the witness) was produced from the lockup. He further deposed that SI Ram Niwas moved an application regarding interrogation and formal arrest of the accused, which was allowed by the Court. He further deposed that thereafter SI Ram Niwas interrogated the accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal and, after interrogation, arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/A. He further deposed that the IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal, which is Ex. PW-5/B. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court and was sent to JC, and the IO recorded his statement. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 14 of 4625. PW-6 is SI Ram Niwas, no. D-6709, PS Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that on 08.01.2025, he received information vide DD No. 40A from Crime Branch, NR 14, regarding the arrest of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal in a kalandra under Section 31.5(d) BNSS, who had been declared a proclaimed offender in the present case. He further deposed that the said DD was marked to him by the order of SHO. He further deposed that thereafter he contacted HC Dinesh of the Crime Branch, who informed him that accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal had been produced before Dwarka Court No. 309. He further deposed that on 14.01.2025, he along with Ct. Pritam reached Dwarka Court, Court No. 309, where accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal was produced from the lockup. He further deposed that he moved an application regarding interrogation and formal arrest of the accused, which was allowed by the court, the said application is Ex. PW-6/A. He further deposed that thereafter he interrogated the accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal and, after interrogation, arrested him vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-5/A. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal, as Ex. PW-5/B. He further deposed that thereafter the accused was produced before the court and was sent to JC. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
26. On 09.07.2025, it was revealed that the statement of accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C had already been recorded on 01.07.2025, and in view thereof, the witness mentioned at serial no.4 in the list of witnesses was dropped.
SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 15 of 4627. PW-7 is HC Dinesh, No. 229 OND, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, ND. He deposed that on 04.01.2025, one secret informer came to his office and informed him about accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal, who was proclaimed offender in case FIR No. 704/2000 and had been absconding for the last 25 years, and that accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal was residing at Kala Amb, PS Naraingarh, Haryana, and if a raid was conducted, he could be apprehended. He further deposed that thereafter, the secret information was shared with Inspector Sanjay Kumar, who further shared the said information with senior officers. He further deposed that thereafter, Inspector Sanjay Kumar ordered for a raid and constituted a raiding team. He further deposed that on 05.01.2025, he along with the raiding team consisting of Ct. Vivek Rana, SI Yogesh, ASI Sandeep and ASI Virender reached at Kala Amb. He further deposed that on 05.01.2025 and 06.01.2025, they tried to trace the accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal, however, he could not be traced. He further deposed that on 07.01.2025, one known person of the secret informer met him at Kala Amb and informed him about the location of the accused, who was running his own tea stall near the petrol pump. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with the raiding team reached the tea stall, where, at the instance of the known person of the secret informer, they apprehended the accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal. He further deposed that on inquiry, the accused initially tried to hide his parentage, thereafter, they took him to Kala Amb. He further deposed that after reaching the police chowki, they inquired from Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal, on which he disclosed his parentage and involvement in the present case. He further deposed that after interrogation, he prepared Kalandra under Section 35.1(d) BNSS, the same SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 16 of 46 being Ex. A-2. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. A-6 in a Kalandra under Section 35.1(d) BNSS. He further deposed that personal search of the accused was carried out vide memo Ex. A-7. He further deposed that during the personal search, one voter card in the name of Ajay Dahiya was recovered. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused in a Kalandra, the same being Ex. PW-7/1. He further deposed that he could identify the accused and that the identity of accused was not disputed by the Ld. Defence Counsel. He further deposed that thereafter, they took the accused to Delhi and information was given to the concerned PS regarding the arrest of Ajay Kumar Dahiya. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court. He further deposed that the concerned IO from PS Uttam Nagar namely SI Ram Niwas also reached Dwarka and after taking permission from the Court, SI Ram Niwas carried out further investigation. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
28. PW-8 is Ct. Vivek Rana, No. 953 CR, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi. He was one of the member of the raiding team headed by Inspector Sanjay Kumar and deposed almost on the same lines of PW-7 HC Dinesh. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
29. PW-9 is ASI Karambir, No. 219 C, BDT Center District. He deposed that on 09.11.2000, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as Constable. He further deposed that on that day, he joined the investigation along with SI Rajbir, Ct. Jagdish, Ct. Sasion Singh, and Ct. Subodh. He further SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 17 of 46 deposed that thereafter, they reached at Dujana Chowki, where they found a notice on a notice board pertaining to deceased Ashwani Kumar Sethi, and after seeing the said notice, SI Rajbir identified him. He further deposed that thereafter SI Rajbir informed the family members of Ashwani Kumar Sethi. He further deposed that after that, the family members of the deceased Ashwani Kumar reached at Dujana Chowki, where they correctly identified the deceased Ashwani Kumar Sethi in the photographs. He further deposed that thereafter, SI Rajbir collected the documents of case FIR no. 201/2000 as one case was already registered at Dujana, PS Jhajjar. He further deposed that after collecting the documents, they returned to Police Post Matiala, and his statement was recorded by the IO. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
30. PW-10 is ASI Subodh Kumar, no. 2732, PIS No. 28932173, Security. He has joined the investigation with the Investigating Officer SI Rajbir and deposed on the same lines of PW-9 ASI Karambir. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
31. PW-11 is Sh. Dalbir Singh, S/o Sh. Ram Singh, R/o Village and post office Birdhana District Jhajjar. Haryana. He deposed that he was residing at the aforesaid address along with his family. He further deposed that at the relevant time, he was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat/Village Birdhana. He further deposed that on 09.06.2000 at about 7.00 a.m., he came to know through the boys of his village that an unidentified dead body of a person was lying near a water tank on the way between his village and Jhajjar. He further deposed that thereafter, he reached the place where the SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 18 of 46 dead body was lying, along with Chowkidar Raghuvir and Panchayat Member Azad Singh. He further deposed that they saw a dead body lying upside down with the front portion towards the ground and blood was oozing from the body. He further deposed that the said dead body had sustained a gunshot injury near the left arm and the clothes worn were torn from the spot where the bullet had pierced into the body of the deceased. He further deposed that the dead body was wearing a lining shirt, slaty colour pant and designer jutti. He further deposed that the dead body appeared to be of a young man aged around 25 to 26 years and it seemed that the body had been dumped there after committing murder. He further deposed that thereafter, he rushed to the Police Chowki after leaving Chowkidar Raghuvir and Azad Singh at the spot. He further deposed that the police officials took into possession a bullet cap, which was found near the dead body, and blood-stained earth vide seizure memos, which are now Ex. PW-11/A (previously Ex. PW-2/A) and Ex. PW-11/B (previously Ex. PW-2/B). He further deposed that the police had also conducted a personal search of the dead body vide memo Ex. PW-11/C (previously Ex. PW-2/C). He further deposed that thereafter, the police took the dead body to the village with the help of a tractor trolley and kept it at the Chaupal of the village for the purpose of identification. He further deposed that the police officials also prepared the inquest (Panchnama), which was signed by him, and the same is Ex. PW-11/D (previously Ex. PW-2/D). He further deposed that the police officials also recorded his statement regarding this incident, which is Ex. PW-11/E (previously Ex. PW-2/E). He further deposed that at this stage, after seeing the photographs of the dead body of the deceased along with the negatives, he correctly identified the same as the one lying SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 19 of 46 near his village, regarding which he had informed the police officials. He further deposed that in this regard, the photographs are Ex. P-1 (colly) (six photographs). This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
32. On 28.07.2025, the report on the summons issued to witness Ct. Jagdish received, wherein it was informed that he had expired, and accordingly, he was dropped from the list of witnesses.
33. PW-12 is HC Narender, No. 1896/DW, PS Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that on 17.01.2025, he was posted at the Police Station as Head Constable. He further deposed that on that day, he joined the investigation along with the IO Inspector Kuldeep. He further deposed that they took the custody of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal and proceeded for village Birdhana in a private car. He further deposed that after reaching village Birdhana, at the instance of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya, the IO prepared a pointing out memo of the spot i.e. 300 meters ahead from Pani ki Tanki, village Birdhana, where the accused stated that Ashwani Sethi was murdered by him by bullet fire. He further deposed that the pointing out memo is Ex. PW-12/A. He further deposed that the IO recorded his statement. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
34. PW-13 is Inspector Kuldeep Singh, D-4358, PS Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that on 14.01.2025, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as Inspector. He further deposed that on that day, the investigation of SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 20 of 46 the present case was marked to him as Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal had been arrested in the case by SI Ram Niwas, who himself had been declared a proclaimed offender in the matter. He further deposed that he collected the file from MHC(R). He further deposed that on 16.01.2025, he moved an application for PC remand of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal, which is Ex. PW-13/A, and obtained 04 days PC remand of the accused. He further deposed that thereafter, he got the medical examination of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya conducted and interrogated him in detail. He further deposed that on 17.01.2025, he along with HC Narender took custody of the accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal and proceeded to village Birdhana in a private car. He further deposed that after reaching village Birdhana, at the instance of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya, he prepared a pointing out memo of the spot, i.e. 300 meters ahead from Pani ki tanki, village Birdhana, on the way going towards village Birdhana to Jhajjar, where the accused stated that he had murdered Ashwani Sethi by firing a bullet. He further deposed that the pointing out memo is already Ex. PW-12/A. He further deposed that he was not aware whether any post- mortem report of deceased Ashwani Sethi or any FSL report was filed by the previous IO / the then SHO, PS Uttam Nagar, on 20.09.2008, as the matter pertained to the year 2000. He further deposed that thereafter, he tried to trace co-accused Saroj (already declared PO), however, she could not be traced. He further deposed that on 21.01.2025, the accused was produced before the Court and sent to JC. He further deposed that on 25.01.2025, he recorded the statements of police officials of the Crime Branch namely HC Dinesh and Ct. Vivek. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the Court SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 21 of 46 after adding Section 174A IPC. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
35. On 30.07.2025, it was submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that in the present case, the previous charge-sheet had been filed by Inspector Prakash Chand Maan, the then SHO, and therefore, prayed that his name be added to the list of witnesses and he be summoned as a witness in the present case. The request was not opposed by the Ld. defence counsel, and accordingly, the said witness was directed to be summoned through the IO. The matter was then posted for remaining prosecution evidence.
36. PW-14 is Retired SI Sassion S/o late Sh. Raghubir Singh, R/o- VPO Barahi, Jhajjar, Haryana. He has joined the investigation with the Investigating Officer SI Rajbir and deposed on the same lines of PW-9 ASI Karambir. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
37. PW-15 is Retired ACP Prakash Chander Maan, S/o Sh. Pratap Singh, R/o- H-5/55, Sec-11, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on 20.09.2008, he was posted as SHO of PS Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that on that day, SI Ranveer Singh prepared the PO charge sheet in FIR No. 704/2000 against accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya and Saroj as Ex. PW-15/A, and the said charge sheet was forwarded by him. He further deposed that as per the PO charge sheet, IO SI Randhir Singh filed a total of 23 pages with regard to inquest papers, medical documents, and PM documents of deceased SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 22 of 46 Ashwani Sethi. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
38. PW-16 is Retired SI Randhir Singh, S/o Sh. Meer Singh, R/o Village Gijhi District Rohtak Haryana. He deposed that in the month of November 2005, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as an SI and on that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further deposed that thereafter, he tried to trace out accused persons Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal and Saroj in Delhi and Haryana. He further deposed that on 24.11.2005, he moved an application for issuance of NBWs against accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya and Saroj, which is Ex. PW-16/A, on which NBWs were issued against both accused persons. He further deposed that on the same day, he also moved an application for issuance of warrants against accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya and Saroj under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C., which is Ex. PW-16/B. He further deposed that during investigation, he collected the photographs of deceased Ashwani Kumar Sethi from his father namely Raj Singh, which are Ex. PW-16/C (colly). He further deposed that thereafter, he retired and the case file was handed over to MHC(R). This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
39. PW-17 is Retired ASI Ravinder Singh, S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal, R/o Village Baliarasurd Tehsil & District Rewari. He deposed that on 08.08.2000, FIR No. 704/2000 under Section 365 IPC was registered and the investigation of the present case was marked to him by the order of the SHO. He further deposed that thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant Krishna Sethi. He further deposed that thereafter, he tried to SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 23 of 46 trace out the accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya, Saroj and Ashwani Kumar Sethi (deceased). He further deposed that during investigation, he recorded the statements of Ashok Kumar and Vinod Kumar. He further deposed that thereafter, the investigation of the present case was marked to SI Rajbir and he handed over the case file to the MHC(R). This witness was also cross- examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
40. PW-18 is Retired Inspector Hari Singh (through VC), S/o Sh. Lachhu Ram, R/o H.no. 735, Mohalla Lal Khania Jhajjar, Near Prem Mandir, Haryana, aged about 74 years. (Evidence being conducted through VC and not objected by the Ld. defence counsel as the witness was suffering from various medical aliments). He deposed that on 09.06.2000 he was posted as IC, PP Dujana/ASI and on that day he, along with HC Sube Singh and Ct. Mahender Singh and Ct. Subhash Chand, were on patrolling duty at Birdhana Mor on Rohtak-Jhajjar Road. He further deposed that at that time one person, namely Dalbir Singh, Sarpanch of village Birdhana, met them and informed them about a dead body lying in the fields outside the village. He further deposed that the deceased had sustained bullet injuries and fresh blood was oozing out from the body. He further deposed that the deceased was wearing a black checked shirt with white stripes, a white sandoz baniyan, saleti-coloured pants and jutiya with embroidery, and that the age of the deceased was approximately 25-26 years. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Dalbir Singh, Sarpanch, which is Ex. PW-11/E. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared a rukka, Ex. PW-18/A. He further deposed that the rukka was handed over to Ct. Subhash for registration of the FIR, and Ct. Subhash registered FIR No. SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 24 of 46 201/2000. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, Ct. Subhash returned to the spot and handed over to him a copy of the FIR and the original tehrir. He further deposed that thereupon he seized a sample of blood-stained earth (control) vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-11/B, which was sealed with the seal of HS. He further deposed that one round was also recovered from the spot, which was sealed with the seal of HS and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-11/A. He further deposed that the case property was thereafter deposited in the malkhana of the police station. He further deposed that after about 15-20 days he was transferred from PP Dujana and the case file was handed over to MHC(R) and charge of the investigation was given to ASI Satyanarayan. He further deposed that during the investigation at the spot he had prepared the fard jamatalashi of the deceased, but nothing was recovered from the personal search of the deceased; the fard jamatalashi is Ex. PW-11/C. He further deposed that during investigation the body of the deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, where the inquest report (mirtyu report) was prepared, which is Ex. PW-11/D. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Raghubir Singh, Chowkidar, which is Ex. PW-18/B, and the statement of Azad Singh, as Ex. PW-18/C. He further deposed that during investigation, he had prepared a report for identification of the dead body by way of posters/pamphlets in PS Jhajjar. He further deposed that he had also got photographs of the deceased and the spot taken, which are already Ex. P-1 (colly). He could not identify the case property, i.e the blood-stained earth control and led, due to his old age as the matter pertains to the year 2000. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. He denied the suggestion that he SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 25 of 46 was intentionally not identifying the case property, i.e. the blood-stained earth control, led, and clothes of the deceased, merely to save the accused. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
41. PW-19 is Sh. Ravinder, Store Keeper, Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, Haryana. He has deposed that as per their record, post mortem report no. JKB/7/2000 is not available. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
42. It is a matter of record that on 15.11.2025, an additional admission denial statement of accused (through his counsel) under Section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein accused admitted that post-mortem report number JKB/7/2000 as Ex. A-7 being post mortem report conducted on unidentified body. Subsequent to the recording of statement of witnesses, statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused in which he has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that he does not want to lead defence evidence and matter was posted for final arguments.
43. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Ld. Additional PP for the State as well as from the Ld. defence counsel and perused the record.
44. To prove the accusations against the accused, the prosecution was required to establish that on or before 08.06.2000, accused Ajay Kumar SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 26 of 46 Dahiya, along with co-accused Saroj (since declared Proclaimed Offender), hatched a criminal conspiracy to abduct and commit the murder of Ashwani Sethi @ Gore. The prosecution is also required to establish that in furtherance of the said conspiracy, on the night of 08.06.2000, near Village Birdhana, towards Jhajjar, Haryana, accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya abducted Ashwani Sethi @ Gore with the intent to commit his murder, and thereafter, committed his murder by using a desi katta and during the same night, at an unknown time, the accused threw the said desi katta into bushes located about 300 meters away from the place of occurrence, with the intention of causing disappearance of the evidence. The record reveals that on 05.04.2008, accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal was declared a Proclaimed Offender by the order of Sh. Vinod Kumar, the then Ld. MM, Rohini.
45. It is pertinent to mention here that during the period when both the accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders, PW-1 Smt. Krishna Sethi, PW-2 Sh. Dalbir Singh, PW-3 Sh. Ashok Sethi, and PW-4 Sh. Vinod Kumar were examined. It is a matter of record that subsequently, vide order dated 08.01.2025, accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal was arrested in connection with a Kalandra bearing DD No.90A dated 08.01.2025. After his arrest, the present matter was revived and, vide order dated 07.04.2025, the main charge sheet in the present FIR was restored to its original number. Thereafter, upon completion of necessary proceedings and framing of charge, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence, and the witnesses who had already been examined earlier were summoned afresh. However, the summons issued to PW-1 Smt. Krishna Sethi and SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 27 of 46 PW-3 Sh. Ashok Sethi were received back with the report that both of them had already expired. Accordingly, vide order dated 01.07.2025, they were dropped from the list of witnesses.
46. At this stage, it would be relevant to advert to the provisions of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
299. Record of evidence in absence of accused (1) If it is proved that an accused person has absconded, and that there is immediate prospect of arresting him, the court competent to try [or commit for commit for trial], such person for the offence complained of may, in his absence, examine the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of the prosecution, and record their depositions and any such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him on the inquiry into, or trial for, the offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable.
(2) If it appears that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed by some person or persons unknown, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct that any Magistrate of the first class shall hold an inquiry and examine any witnesses who can give evidence concerning the offence and any depositions so taken may be given in evidence against any person who is subsequently accused of the offence, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or beyond the limits of India.
SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 28 of 4647. The said provision empowers the Court to record the evidence in the absence of an accused person, who has been declared a Proclaimed Offender, so that such evidence may be read against him at a later stage in the event of his arrest or appearance. The underlying object of this provision is to safeguard the valuable testimony of witnesses, which may otherwise be lost due to lapse of time, death, or unavailability of such witnesses at the subsequent stage of trial. Hence, in view of the provisions of Section 299 Cr.P.C., as discussed above, the testimonies of the witnesses who were examined during the period when the accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders are liable to be read and considered as part of the prosecution evidence in the present case. It is matter of record that Smt. Krishna Sethi and Sh. Ashok Sethi could not be examined after the arrest of the accused as they expired. Hence, in view of the submissions made above, their statement recorded as PW-1 & PW-3 under Section 299 Cr.P.C are liable to be read and considered as a part of prosecution evidence.
48. The present case was initially registered under Section 365 IPC on the missing report lodged by Smt. Krishna Sethi regarding her son, Ashwani Kumar Sethi @ Gore. In her statement, she expressed suspicion that her daughter-in-law Saroj, along with her brothers namely Pradeep, Kuldeep, and Ajay Kumar Dahiya, might have killed her son and disposed of the body, as the relationship between her son and Saroj was strained. She further alleged that Saroj was having an illicit relationship with one Ajay Kumar Dahiya. As per the prosecution, on 09.06.2000 at about 07:00 a.m, Sh. Dalbir Singh, President of Gram Panchayat, Village Birdhana, came to SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 29 of 46 know about an unidentified dead body lying near a water tank on the way between his village and Jhajjar and he, along with Chowkidar Raghuvir and Panchayat Member Azad Singh, reached the spot and informed the police. Subsequently, on 09.11.2000, i.e after about five months, SI Rajbir, along with ASI Subodh Kumar, Ct. Jagdish, Ct. Sasion Singh, and Ct. Karambir, reached Dujana Chowki, where they noticed a missing person notice displayed on the notice board pertaining to Ashwani Kumar Sethi. After seeing the notice, SI Rajbir identified the deceased and informed the family members of Ashwani Kumar Sethi. Thereafter, the family members of the deceased reached Dujana Chowki and correctly identified Ashwani Kumar Sethi in the photographs shown to them. Thereafter, SI Rajbir then collected the documents of FIR No. 201/2000, as the said case had already been registered at PS Jhajjar, Dujana. PW-2 Retd. ASI Satya Narayan admitted during his cross-examination that he had recommended a closure report in case FIR No. 201/2000, PS Jhajjar, on the basis of the statements recorded by him (Ex. PW-2/C & Ex. PW-2/D) and the photographs of the deceased and all the documents of the above said case were handed over in the present case.
49. At this stage, it would be relevant to go through the testimony of PW-1 Smt. Krishna Sethi (recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C), who deposed that her son, namely Ashwani Kumar Sethi, was residing at H. No. 54, Block L-2, B-54, Mohan Garden, along with his three daughters and his wife Saroj since 09.06.2000. She further deposed that there was a misunderstanding between her son and his wife as his wife had an illegal relation with Ajay Kumar Dahiya. She further deposed that on 01.07.2000, SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 30 of 46 Saroj left her three daughters in the way. She further deposed that her son had been missing for about six months. She further deposed that thereafter she filed a complaint in the Police Station as Ex. PW-1/A. She further deposed that she had suspicion that Saroj, her brother Pradeep Kumar, one Kuldeep, and her 'Jar' Ajay Kumar Dahiya had killed her son and after committing the murder, they had dumped his dead body. This witness was not cross-examined as the accused persons were already declared Proclaimed Offender.
50. Another public witness whose testimony is beneficial for the prosecution is PW-3 Sh. Ashok Sethi (recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C), who deposed that he had three brothers including himself and one deceased namely Ashwani Kumar Sethi. He further deposed that in the year 1988-89, his brother Ashwani Kumar Sethi got married to one Saroj Kumari and that they had three daughters and one son. He further deposed that Saroj Kumari was having an illicit relationship with one person namely Ajay Dhaiya, who was residing at Bhagwati Vihar as a tenant. He further deposed that on 01.06.2000, Saroj left the home and shifted to Patel Garden in the house of one landlord namely Vinod and that she had taken the children along with her. He further deposed that on 07.06.2000 Saroj made a telephone call to Ashwani and asked him to come to her house. He further deposed that Ashwani went there and started residing with Saroj. He further deposed that on 01.07.2000, Saroj and Ajay Dhaiya left the three daughters at Raja Puri Mod and only the son remained with her. He further deposed that they tried to search for his brother Ashwani Sethi but he could not be found. He further deposed that Saroj and Ajay Dhaiya also left the aforesaid house at SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 31 of 46 Patel Garden. He further deposed that they made a police complaint regarding the missing of his brother Ashwani Sethi and on that complaint FIR No. 704/00 was registered at PS Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that the elder daughter of his brother Ashwani, namely Nisha, told him that her father had been taken in a Maruti Van by force by Ajay Dhaiya with the help of another person on 08.06.2000 and thereafter her father never came back home. He further deposed that he had seen the photograph of the dead body of his brother Ashwani on an "Ishtahar Shoro Goga". He further deposed that thereafter he went to PS Uttam Nagar to enquire about his brother and the police officials showed him the photograph of the dead body of his brother Ashwani, which he identified. He further deposed that he had put his signature on the seizure memo and identification memo vide memos Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. This witness was shown 12 photographs of the deceased, Saroj, as well as of the accused, were lying in the judicial file, and the same were shown to him, which he correctly identified. The photographs were collectively exhibited as Ex. P1. This witness was not cross-examined as the accused persons were already proclaimed offenders.
51. Another witness whose testimony is beneficial for the prosecution is PW-1 Sh. Vinod Kumar (who was again examined as PW-1 after the arrest of the accused), who deposed that he had been engaged in the business of a printing press since the year 1994. He further deposed that Ashwini Kumar and his wife, namely Saroj Bala, along with Dr. Ramesh and one other person, approached them for renting accommodation, i.e., one room. He further deposed that Dr. Ramesh was running a clinic under the name of 'Janhit Clinic' at the main road, Kakrola. He further deposed that SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 32 of 46 his mother rented one room in their house at B-60, Patel Garden, Kakrola Mor, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, to the aforesaid lady and her husband for Rs.500/-. He further deposed that Saroj Bala, along with her husband and children, shifted to the said room on the same day. He further deposed that they remained in his house for about one week. He further deposed that during that period, he never saw the couple quarreling with each other. He further deposed that after about one week, the couple shifted to Haryana. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused.
52. Another witness whose testimony is beneficial for the prosecution is PW-11 Sh. Dalbir Singh, who deposed that he was residing at the aforesaid address along with his family. He further deposed that at the relevant time, he was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat/Village Birdhana. He further deposed that on 09.06.2000 at about 7.00 a.m., he came to know through the boys of his village that an unidentified dead body of a person was lying near a water tank on the way between his village and Jhajjar. He further deposed that thereafter, he reached the place where the dead body was lying, along with Chowkidar Raghuvir and Panchayat Member Azad Singh. He further deposed that they saw a dead body lying upside down with the front portion towards the ground and blood was oozing from the body. He further deposed that the said dead body had sustained a gunshot injury near the left arm and the clothes worn were torn from the spot where the bullet had pierced into the body of the deceased. He further deposed that the dead body was wearing a lining shirt, slaty colour pant and designer jutti. He further deposed that the dead body appeared to be of a young man aged around 25 to 26 years and it seemed that the body had been dumped SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 33 of 46 there after committing murder. He further deposed that thereafter, he rushed to the Police Chowki after leaving Chowkidar Raghuvir and Azad Singh at the spot. He further deposed that the police officials took into possession a bullet cap, which was found near the dead body, and blood-stained earth vide seizure memos, which are now Ex. PW-11/A (previously Ex. PW-2/A) and Ex. PW-11/B (previously Ex. PW-2/B), both bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the police had also conducted a personal search of the dead body vide memo Ex. PW-11/C (previously Ex. PW-2/C), which bore his signature at point A. He further deposed that thereafter, the police took the dead body to the village with the help of a tractor trolley and kept it at the Chaupal of the village for the purpose of identification. He further deposed that the police officials also prepared the inquest (Panchnama), which was signed by him, and the same is Ex. PW-11/D (previously Ex. PW-2/D), bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the police officials also recorded his statement regarding this incident, which is Ex. PW-11/E (previously Ex. PW-2/E), bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that at this stage, after seeing the photographs of the dead body of the deceased along with the negatives, he correctly identified the same as the one lying near his village, regarding which he had informed the police officials. He further deposed that in this regard, the photographs are Ex. P-1 (colly) (six photographs). This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
53. In the present case, there is no direct evidence against the accused. No eyewitness has come forward to testify regarding the commission of the murder of the deceased, Ashwani Sethi @ Gore. The SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 34 of 46 entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain of circumstances must be firmly established by cogent evidence, and all such circumstances, when taken together, must form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused and ruling out any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. However, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish a vital and essential link, namely the "last-seen" circumstance, which could connect the accused with the deceased at or around the time of occurrence. In the absence of this crucial link, the chain of circumstances is incomplete, thereby creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
54. In Sunder @ Lala and Ors. Vs. State 2009 VII AD (Delhi) 615 it was held as under:
" 29. It is settled law that circumstances play very important role in the appreciation of evidence. The conduct of witnesses is a very important facet to determine their creditworthiness. "
55. As evidence, there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The only difference is in that as proof, the former directly establishes the commission of the offence whereas the latter does so by placing circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of guilt. (Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2005 Cr LJ 749 (Raj) (DB)). The evidence has not to be considered merely as a number of bits of evidence, but the whole of it together and the cumulative effect of it has to be weighed. (Dukharam Nath V Commercial Credit Corpn Ltd AIR 1940 Oudh SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 35 of 46
35). No distinction has, therefore, to be made between circumstantial and direct evidence. {Miran Baksh V Emperor AIR 1931 Lah 529 and Thimma V State of Mysore (1970) SCC (Cr) 320}. The Court must satisfy itself that the cumulative effect of the evidence, led by the prosecution, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Shankar Bhaka Narsale V State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 1171 and Chanan Singh V State of Haryana AIR 1971 SC 1554) In Padala Veera Reddy v State of AP, AIR 1990 SC 79 it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(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 guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Shivu & Anr. v R. G., High Court of Karnataka, 2007 Cr LJ 1806 (SC)) SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 36 of 46 In Raju Vs. The State by Inspector of Police AIR 2009 SC 2171, as regards circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"7. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC
316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
8. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 37 of 46
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....".
9. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
"(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.
10. 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 SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 38 of 46 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.
11. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence"
(Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled of the right to be acquitted".
12. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.
SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 39 of 4656. From the above legal position, it is clear that all links in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused must be established and proved by the prosecution to establish his guilt. Each significant incriminating circumstance must not only be proved individually but must also collectively lead to the inference that the accused along with co- accused Saroj (since PO) / alone committed the murder of the victim.
57. The outcome of the present trial is fundamentally dependent upon the testimonies of PW-1 Smt. Krishna Sethi, on whose complaint the missing report of her son, Ashwani Kumar Sethi @ Gore, was registered, and PW-2 Sh. Dalbir Singh, the President of Gram Panchayat, Village Birdhana, who had reported the matter to the police regarding an unidentified dead body. However, it is significant to note that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is a 'last-seen' witness. Further, when the unidentified dead body was recovered, a separate case, FIR No. 201/2000, was registered at PS Jhajjar, Dujana, and the dead body was cremated thereafter. In the present case, therefore, there is no last-seen witness linking the accused with the deceased. As regards the identification of the deceased, the family members of the deceased only identified him through photographs, the negatives of which are not available on record. Moreover, PW-2 Retd. ASI Satya Narayan candidly admitted during his cross-examination that the dead body was never physically shown to Sh. Ashwani Kalra or Sh. Ashok Sethi. He further volunteered that by the time the family members were approached, the body had already been cremated by the police, treating it as an unidentified body. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, original post mortem report was not filed.
SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 40 of 46PW-3 Dr. Sunil Narwal, Medical Officer, District Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, Haryana, appeared in the witness box and deposed that he had been deputed by the Medical Superintendent to appear before the Court on behalf of Dr. J.K. Bhalla, who had long since left the service. He specifically deposed that, as per hospital records, the record pertaining to the present case was not available with the hospital. To this effect, he produced a letter issued by the Medical Superintendent, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. Accordingly, in the present case, the post mortem report of the deceased has not been found on record, however, copy of the post mortem report was admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C being conducted on unidentified dead body. As such, it is difficult to say that it was deceased whose post mortem was conducted. It also creates serious doubt in the story of the prosecution.
58. Further, in complaint made by Smt. Krishna Sethi i.e Ex. PW-1/A, she alleged that on 09.06.2000, her son Ashwani Kumar Sethi left her house along with his luggage and three daughters stating that he is going to stay with her wife, who is in illicit relationship with Ajay Kumar Dahiya There is one Ex. A-12 i.e statement of Ashwani Kalra (who could not be examined being untraceable). This statement also shows that on 09.06.2000 at about 10:00 a.m, Ashwani Sethi left the house and did not come back meaning thereby, that on 09.06.2000, the son of the complainant namely Ashwani Sethi was alive. However, in the disclosure statement of accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya Ex. PW-5/B, the accused had disclosed that on 08.06.2000, at about 10:00 a.m, he met with the deceased Ashwani Sethi near Kakrola Mor and gave him an offer of drinking and thereafter, they SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 41 of 46 went to Jhajjar and drank together and thereafter, he committed the murder of Ashwani Sethi. As per the accused, he committed the murder of deceased on 08.06.2000 and as per the complainant (as per Ex. PW-1/A), her son had left the home on 09.06.2000. Hence, it creates a serious doubt about the involvement of the accused in the murder of Ashwani Sethi. There is another lacuna in the case of the prosecution. At this stage, it would be relevant to go through the testimony of PW-3 Sh. Ashok Sethi (recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C) wherein he has deposed that elder daughter of his brother Ashwani Sethi namely Nisha told him that her father had been taken in one Maruti Van by force by accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya with the help of one another person on 08.06.2000. However, it is crystal clear from the record that Nisha was never examined during the investigation and why she has not been made a witness in the present case by the IO, which also weakens the case of the prosecution.
59. PW-1 Sh. Vinod Kumar was the tenant whose mother had rented out one room to Saroj and her husband for a sum of Rs.500/-. The couple, along with their children, shifted into the said accommodation on the same day and resided there for about one week, after which they shifted to Haryana. This witness categorically deposed that he had never seen the couple quarreling with each other. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he could not identify Saroj, deceased Ashwani, or accused Ajay @ Sompal, as the matter pertained to the year 2000. He admitted as correct that there was no quarrel between Ashwani and Saroj and that they were residing happily. He further deposed that at the time when the room was given on rent by his mother, he was not present, and no rent agreement was SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 42 of 46 executed in this regard. It is pertinent to note that the testimony of this witness runs contrary to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has alleged that there were frequent quarrels between Ashwani and Saroj owing to her illicit relationship with accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya, and this strained relationship formed the motive for the offence. However, PW-1 has explicitly deposed that no quarrel ever took place between Saroj and Ashwani and that they were living together happily. This contradiction also strikes at the very root of the prosecution's version regarding the motive for the alleged offence and weakens the chain of circumstances sought to be established.
60. Further, the prosecution has attempted to create a suspicion that the alleged murder had taken place on account of the illicit relationship/extra-marital affair of accused Saroj (since declared Proclaimed Offender) with accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya. There is also no evidence before this Court by which, it can be said that the present accused was the same person who was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased. Even otherwise, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In the present case, except for the bare allegation regarding the alleged illicit relationship, no independent evidence has been brought on record to substantiate this claim. This above said facts renders the alleged motive weak and unsubstantiated, thereby creating a serious dent in the prosecution story.
61. It is a matter of record that the present case was initially registered under Section 365 IPC on the basis of the missing report lodged SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 43 of 46 by Smt. Krishna Sethi (mother of the deceased) qua her son Ashwani Kumar Sethi @ Gore, wherein she explicitly stated that she had suspicion upon Saroj and her brothers namely Pradeep, Kuldeep, and Ajay Kumar Dahiya, alleging that they would have killed her son and thrown him somewhere. However, the entire investigation is conspicuously silent regarding any substantive action taken against the brothers of Saroj, namely Pradeep Kumar and Kuldeep. It is further noteworthy that despite these specific allegations made by the complainant herself, neither were they sent up for trial nor were they shown in Column No. 12 of the charge sheet. The omission of their names and the lack of any meaningful investigation against them raises a serious doubt about the credibility, reliability, and consistency of the complainant's statement. In this regard, PW-4 Retd. ACP Sukhbir Singh has deposed that on 10.02.2001, he interrogated Kuldeep, the brother of accused Saroj. However, no material has been placed on record to show what outcome, if any, flowed from such interrogation. This selective and incomplete investigation creates a material contradiction and shakes the very foundation of the prosecution story, as the initial suspicion projected by the complainant against Pradeep and Kuldeep has not been pursued in accordance with law.
62. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention the judgment titled as Allrakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujrat 2002 (1) CR (Cr.P.C) 748
(c) wherein it is held that 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 innocence, the view favorable to accused should be SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 44 of 46 adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.
63. Additionally, the prosecution witnesses, apart from providing formal testimony, have not presented any substantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused persons. Their testimonies primarily pertain to procedural aspects, such as the recovery of the body, and the investigative steps taken by the police. However, none of these elements conclusively link the accused persons to the commission of the offence.
64. In light of the foregoing discussion and the principles governing circumstantial evidence, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the charges against the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of crucial evidence, coupled with inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, renders the prosecution's case unreliable and unworthy of reliance.
65. Accordingly, accused Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal is acquitted of the charges under Sections 365/302/201/120B/34 IPC. Since, accused has been acquitted for major offences, I am not inclined to convict the accused for the offence under Section 174 A IPC. Accordingly, accused is also acquitted for the offence under Section 174 A IPC.
66. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond / surety bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.15,000/-. At the request of the SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 45 of 46 accused, his previous bail bond is extended in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C and shall remain in force for six months from today.
67. The file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance, with a direction that the same shall be revived as and when the said accused Saroj would be apprehended and produced before the Court.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK WASON Date: WASON 2026.01.05 11:59:35 +0530 Announced in open Court today (Deepak Wason) on 05th January, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-04: SW District: Dwarka Courts: New Delhi SC No. 288/25 State Vs Ajay Kumar Dahiya @ Sompal & Anr. Page 46 of 46