Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Kumar on 12 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02: SHAHDARA DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 710/2016
FIR No. 516/2014
P.S. Jyoti Nagar
u/s 302 IPC
State Versus Amit Kumar
s/o Sh. Anand Swaroop
r/o D-601/1, Gali no.7A,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty.
Final order: Convicted.
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 10.11.2014
Date on which Judgment reserved : 23.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Accused has faced trial for the offences under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC), on the allegations that he committed murder of his five months pregnant wife namely Savita.
2. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2.1 On 06.07.2014 at 8.27 am, DD No. 12A was registered on the basis of a PCR call regarding murder of caller's daughter, which was assigned to SI Bhagat Singh. SI Bhagat Singh, accompanied by Ct. Brijesh, reached the spot FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.1/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 16:58:35 +0530 at House No. 601/1, Gali No. 7, Ashok Nagar, Delhi, where the body of a 27-year-old female was found lying on the ground floor. Upon inquiry, the deceased was identified as Savita, who had married the accused Amit Kumar on 30.10.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple had a son of 1.5 years and Savita was 5 months pregnant at the time of incident.
2.2 It was revealed that Savita had died on the first floor of the accused's house, where she had slept with him the previous night and accused had moved Savita's body from the first floor to the ground floor. 2.3 At about 4:00-4:30 a.m., the accused Amit informed his in-laws of Savita's death, following which they arrived at his residence and made a PCR call. Deceased's brother Kuldeep gave the written complaints to police and also to concerned SDM, both dated 06.07.2014 alleging that accused used to beat the deceased on the instigation of his sister-in-law (Bhabhi).
2.4 As the marriage had not yet completed seven years, the matter was reported to the concerned SDM, and the body was sent to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. The crime team was summoned to inspect the scene and take photographs. SI Bhagat Singh, along with the relatives of the deceased, later proceeded to the SDM office. 2.5 During investigation, on 07.07.2014, the post-
mortem examination of the deceased was conducted. As per post-mortem report the deceased had external injuries and cause of death was asphyxia as a result of blocking of FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.2/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 16:58:45 +0530 respiratory passage by blunt force at the level of nose and mouth super added by compression of neck. 2.6 On 19.07.2014, the SDM recorded the statement of Kuldeep, brother of the deceased, who stated that Savita had married Amit on 03.10.2011. From this marriage, they had a son aged 1.5 years at the time of the incident, and Savita was six months pregnant. He further stated that this was Amit's second marriage. Kuldeep alleged that Amit frequently assaulted Savita at the instigation of his sister-in-law, Poonam. On one occasion, Kuldeep had intervened and advised Amit, after which the matter was temporarily resolved.
Kuldeep further stated that on 05.07.2014, just a day before the fateful day, Amit had telephonically called Kuldeep. Kuldeep's wife requested to speak with Savita, but Amit avoided the request, stating that he would arrange the call the next morning, and then disconnected. On 06.07.2014, at about 4:30 a.m., Amit again called Kuldeep and informed him that Savita had passed away. Kuldeep immediately went to Amit's house, where he found Savita lying on the bed with blood oozing from her mouth. 2.7 On the basis of above allegations, the present FIR was registered and further investigation was handed over to Inspector Narender Singh from SI Bhagat Singh. 2.8 During investigation, on 19.07.2014, accused was arrested whose disclosure statement was recorded in which he disclosed that this was his second marriage as his first wife had already expired. Savita and Amit were residing in a joint family consisting of Amit's parents, FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.3/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 16:58:52 +0530 brother, sister-in-law, their minor children, and the son born to Amit and Savita. Savita often suspected Amit of having illicit relations with his sister-in-law, Poonam, and frequently quarreled with him and also used to quarrel with on financial issues to save money. He also said that on the intervening night of 05/06.07.2014, Amit and Savita were sleeping in their bedroom on the first floor, when he pressed Savita's neck, during which Savita attempted to defend herself by scratching him with her nails. 2.9. On 19.07.2014, one pillow having blood stains was seized from the room of first floor of Amit's house which was sent FSL. As per FSL report, the blood found on the pillow has matched with the blood of Savita. 2.10. On 21.07.2014 (after 15 days of the incident), Medical examination of accused was conducted. Blood samples, blood gauze collected from the accused, and nail clippings of the deceased were sent to the FSL for comparison and analysis. As per the MLC of the accused, he had injuries over his right shoulder which were found to be 15 days old.
2.11 After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed u/s 302 IPC before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
3. Committal proceedings Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, committed the case to Sessions Court as the offence under Section 302 IPC is Sessions Triable.
Digitally signed byCHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 16:58:59 +0530 FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.4/44
4. Charge framed against accused Upon committal, after hearing both the sides on the point of charge, vide order dated 02.02.2014, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution witnesses:
In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 27 witnesses.
5.1 PW-1 W/Head Constable Poonam Rani (Duty Officer). She has stated that on 19.07.2011, she was working as duty officer at PS Jyoti Nagar. On that day at about 1.17 pm, Ct. Vedveer handed over rukka sent by Insp.
Ravi Shankar to her, on the basis of which she registered FIR of this case on computer. The FIR is Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka by her is Ex. PW1/B. 5.2 PW2 is Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, who has stated that he was working in the GTB hospital since 2002 as CMO. On, 21.07.2014 accused Amit was brought to GTB hospital by police for his medical examination who was examined by Dr. Rahul, Junior Resident vide MLC. Blood samples of accused Amit were taken and handed over to Ct. Murli Lal. Accused Amit was having multiple old scars marks over right shoulder. His MLC is Ex. PW2/A bearing the signatures of Dr. Rahul at points A and A1. He has stated that he had seen Dr. Rahul while writing and signing. Dr. Rahul has already left the hospital.
5.3 PW3 Dr. Navneet Ateriya, who has stated that on 21.07.2014 Insp. Narender Singh had moved an application for conducting medical examination of accused Amit and for FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.5/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 16:59:08 +0530 taking opinion on old injuries on his right shoulder. After examination of accused Amit, this PW gave following opinion:
(i) Recently healed, slightly pinkish incolor, linear scar of abrasion of size 2 cm x 0.3 present over anterior aspect of right arm, scar below shoulder top, soft to touch with pigmentation in between scar present.
(ii) Recently healed, slightly pinkish in colour, linear scar of abrasion of size 2.5 x 0.2 cm, soft to touch with pigmentation in between scar present over lateral aspect of right arm, scar below shoulder top.
(iii) Recently healed, slightly pinkish in colour, linear scar of abrasion of size 1.8 cm x 0.4 cm, soft to touch with pigmentation in between scar present over lateral aspect of right arm, 27 cm right elbow joint.
(iv) Recently healed, slightly pinkish in colour, linear scar of abrasion each measuring 2.5 cm x 0.2 cm, 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm making a inverted V ("^") shape by meeting at upper end, soft to touch with pigmentation in between scar present over right shoulder top 29 cm above right elbow joint.
His report is Ex. PW3/A. 5.4 PW4 Smt. Kamini is sister-in-law (Bhabhi- brother's wife) of the deceased who has stated that the deceased got married with accused Amit on 03.10.2011. It was second marriage of both of them. The first wife of accused Amit had expired as informed by Amit. Amit and deceased were having one son. Immediately after the marriage, quarrels started between deceased and Amit due to latter's illicit relations with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi-
FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.6/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
16:59:16 +0530
brother's wife) Poonam which used to be objected by the deceased. On 15.06.2014, Amit and deceased both had visited the parental house of deceased when deceased informed her family about Amit's illicit relations which was strongly objected by Amit saying ' mere ladke ki kasam, esa kuchh sambandh mere aur bhabhi ke beech nahi hai'. ( I swear upon my son, I and my sister-in-law have no such relations). At that time Savita was six months pregnant. After convincing the deceased, she was sent back to her matrimonial house. She has further stated that on 05.07.2014 at about 10.30 pm, accused Amit made a phone call to this PW when she requested him to make her talk with Savita but Amit replied that there is problem in his phone and therefore, she can talk to her on the next day morning. On insistence of this PW, Amit handed over the phone to Savita but at that time, Savita did not respond on which Amit took phone from her and said that 'speaker kharab hai'(speaker is out of order) and thereafter he disconnected the phone. In the morning at about 4/4.30 am, accused Amit made a phone call to husband of this PW to inform that 'S avita khatam ho gai Ashok Nagar aa jao' (Savita has expired, come to Ashok Nagar) and thereafter he disconnected the call. This PW along with her family members reached at Amit's house and found the dead body of Savita on the ground in the lobby and blood was oozing from her nose. Seeing Savita, this PW became unconscious.
5.5 PW5 is Kuldeep Singhal, brother of deceased who has stated that on 03.10.2011, his sister Savita was married with accused Amit. It was second marriage of both FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.7/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 16:59:26 +0530 of them. Immediately after the marriage, Savita informed her family that there was minor quarrel between her and Amit due to latter's illicit relations with his widow sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Poonam. On 15.06.2014, Amit and deceased Savita and their son had visited the parental house of deceased when she informed her family that she had seen accused Amit and his Bhabhi in compromising condition which was strongly objected by Amit saying ' mere ladke ki kasam, esa kuchh sambandh mere aur bhabhi ke beech nahi hai' ( I swear upon my son, I and my sister-in-law have no such relations). At that time Savita was six months pregnant. After convincing the deceased, she was sent back to her matrimonial house. He has further stated that on 05.07.2014, accused Amit made a phone call to wife of this PW when his wife requested accused Amit to make her talk with Savita on which Amit handed over phone to Savita, but wife of this PW was unable to hear the voice of Savita. Thereafter, Amit took phone from her and said that ' speaker kharab hai'(speaker is out of order) and thereafter he disconnected the phone. On the same night, at about 4/4.30 am, accused Amit made a phone call to this PW to inform that S avita khatam ho gai hai Ashok Nagar aa jao, (Savita has expired, come to Ashok Nagar), on which this PW along with his family members and wife reached at Amit's house and found the dead body of Savita on the ground in the lobby and blood was oozing from her nose. After discussion with other family members, police were called at the spot who reached there along with crime team. The dead body was shifted to GTB Hospital. On the next day, post mortem was conducted.
FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.8/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
16:59:35 +0530
Written complaint Ex. PW2/A was made by this PW to police. He identified dead body of his sister, after post mortem dead body was handed over to this PW. This PW also made a written complaint Ex. PW2/D to concerned SDM on 06.07.2014. On 19.07.2014, concerned SDM recorded statement (Ex. PW2/E) of this PW. Accused was arrested in the presence of this PW.
5.6 PW6 is Anil Kumar Singhal, uncle of deceased Savita. He has also deposed regarding the marriage of deceased with accused Amit and also that for 5-6 months of the marriage, Savita never made any kind of complaint against her husband, however, later on she started having suspicion of her husband's having illicit relations with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Poonam and on Savita's objection, accused Amit used to quarrel with her. Savita had also informed this PW and her other family members that she had seen Amit and his Bhabhi in compromising position and on her objection, she was being beaten by Amit. On 06.07.2014, deceased's brother Kuldeep received a phone call from Amit regarding death of Savita and called them at his house at Ashok Nagar on which this PW along with all other family members of deceased reached at Ashok Nagar where they found dead body of Savita and blood was oozing from her mouth.
5.7 PW7 is HC Narayan Singh who has stated that on 06.07.2014, he was working as Channel Operator, channel no. 155. On that day at about 8.16 am, he received a call in which caller was saying ' meri beti ka sasural walon ne murder kar diya'.(my daughter has been murdered by her FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.9/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 16:59:54 +0530 in-laws) This PW has brought the PCR form (Ex. PW7/A) and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex. P W7/B).
5.8 PW-8 is Ct. Brijesh who has stated that on 06.07.2014, he was on emergency duty at PS Jyoti Nagar. On that day on receipt of DD No. 12A Mark PW-8/A, he along with SI Bhagwat reached at the spot i.e. D-601/1, Gali No. 7A, Ashok Nagar, where they found public was gathered and dead body of one lady was lying in the room of ground floor. During enquiry, they came to know that name of deceased was Savita and accused was also present there. Some blood marks were there on the mouth and nose of the dead body which was covered with bed sheet. In the meantime, SHO Insp Narender Singh also reached there. Crime Team and SDM were also called at the spot and on the directions of SDM, dead body was sent to mortuary. Crime team inspected the place of occurrence and took the photographs. Bed sheet with which dead body was covered was taken into possession vide Ex. PW-8/A. On 15.07.2014, this PW along with IO went to GTB Hospital where exhibits, pulanda and sample seals were taken by the IO from the Doctor and seized by IO vide Ex. PW-8/B. On 18.07.2014, SI Bhagwat received one envelope with seal of DC which was taken into possession by him vide Ex. PW-8/C. On 29.03.2016, this PW was partly examined in his chief examination and his further examination-in-chief was deferred, however, he could not be examined further due to his death. Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:00:18 +0530 FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.10/44 5.9 PW9 is HC Jile Singh, who on 06.07.2014 was working as photographer in North East District. He has stated that on the request of IO he reached at the spot i.e. D- 601/1, Gali no.7A, Ashok Nagar, Delhi along with crime team where they found one dead body. This PW took the photographs of the dead body from different angles. The photographs are Ex. PW9/P1 to P12 and negatives are Ex. PW9/13.
5.10 PW10 is HC Murli Lal who on 21.07.2014 joined the investigation with Insp. Narender Singh. He has stated that accused was medically examined after his arrest. During examination, concerned doctor took the blood sample of accused and handed over the blood sample and blood gouge to IO which was taken into possession by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A which was deposited by him in malkhana.
5.11 PW11 is Ct. Jai Singh who has stated that on 19.07.2014, on the directions of duty officer, he delivered the copy of FIR to the Senior Officers (Joint ACP, Additional CP & Addition DCP) and concerned MM. 5.12 PW12 is Ct. Ved Veer who has stated that on 19.07.2014, he joined investigation with Insp. Narender Singh and went to the house of accused Amit from where accused was taken to P.S. After interrogation of accused, he was arrested, his personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded.
5.13 PW13 is SI E.S. Yadav, who on 06.07.2014 was In-charge Mobile Crime Team, NE who has stated that on that day at about 9.15 am, an information was received FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.11/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:00:27 +0530 from Police control room to reach at D-601/A, Gali no.7, Jyoti Nagar, on which this PW along with photographer HC Jile Singh reached there, where SI Bhagat Singh and other police officials were already present; the dead body was lying on the ground floor whose name was disclosed as Savita, blood was oozing from her mouth. This PW inspected the spot and HC Jile Singh took the photographs. It was informed that death had taken place on the first floor, thereafter the first floor was also inspected. The crime team report is Ex. PW3/A. 5.14 PW14 is Ct. Ajay Kumar who has stated that on 10.10.2014 he took the exhibits to CFSL Rohini which were deposited by him there against acknowledgement which in return, was handed over by him to MHC(M). He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP on which he admitted that he took the pullandas to FLS, Rohini on 10.10.2014 and 13.10.2014. He has also stated that the case property was not tempered while it was in his possession. The copy of RC No. 39/21 and 41/21 were relied by him as Ex. PW14/A and Ex. PW14/B respectively.
5.15 PW15 is Ct. Manish Kumar who has stated that on 15.10.2014 he joined investigation with IO Insp. Narender Singh. He has stated that during investigation, brother namely Sanjay of accused Amit handed over one photograph depicting Amit and Savita which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/A. 5.16 PW-16 is first IO SI Bhagwat Singh (retd.) who has stated that on 06.07.2014, he was posted at PS Jyoti Nagar as SI and on receipt of copy of DD No. 12A, he along FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.12/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:00:36 +0530 with Ct. Brijesh went to the spot i.e. D-601/1, Gali No. 7A, Ashok Nagar. The attested copy of DD is Ex. PW-16/A. After reaching at the spot, they saw that dead body of one lady was lying on the floor and her face was covered with bed sheet. After removing the bed sheet, he noticed that blood was present on her mouth and nose. The name of deceased was revealed as Savita who was married to accused Amit three years back. This PW narrated the entire facts to SHO on mobile phone who reached at the spot. SHO informed SDM who also reached there. Crime Team was called at the spot which prepared the crime team report and handed over to this PW. Bed sheet was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A. Photographs Ex. PW-9/P1 to P12 were taken. The dead body was sent to GTB for postmortem. On the instance of SDM, the family members of deceased were sent to his office. SDM prepared inquest report. On 06.07.2014, this PW along with brothers namely Kuldeep and Kamal of deceased and uncle reached at the office of SDM where their statements were recorded. From the office of SDM, they all went to GTB Hospital for post mortem which was fixed for next day. The bed sheet was deposited in malkhana. On 07.07.2014, he along with deceased's brothers Kuldeep, Kamal and her uncle Anil went to GTB Hospital. The post mortem of deceased was conducted under the supervision of SDM, thereafter dead body was handed over to family of deceased. On 15.07.2014, this PW took into possession seven pullandas handed over to him by doctor which was seized by him vide Ex. PW-8/B. On 18.07.2014, this PW along with Ct. Brijesh FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.13/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:00:44 +0530 again went to GTB Hospital where concerned doctor again handed over the sealed envelope containing postmortem report and also handed over the inquest papers. This PW went to the office of SDM Shahdara. On 19.07.2014, this PW took the witnesses along with post mortem report to the office of SDM where after seeing the post mortem report, SDM recorded the statement of witnesses which were later on sealed by him in an envelope and handed over to this PW which he subsequently handed over to SHO. Thereafter, FIR of this case was got registered and further investigation of this case was assigned to Insp. Narender Kumar who arrested the accused. On 20.07.2014, this PW again joined the investigation along with Insp. Narender Kumar and Ct. Vedbir. They all had gone to the place of occurrence where site plan was prepared at the instance of accused. Accused also produced a pillow which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/D. On 30.07.2014, this PW was sent by IO to collect the crime scene report and photographs which were collected by him. This PW has identified the case property and accused in this case. 5.17 PW17 is Anand Swaroop Goel, father of accused who has stated that accused is his son. He could not disclose the exact date but said that in the 7 th month of 2014, he was sleeping in his room on the ground floor along with his wife. Amit and Savita were sleeping in a room on the first floor of the house. In the morning at about 4.00 am, Amit came downstairs and made this PW wake and stated that Savita had died. CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:00:54 +0530 FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.14/44 5.18 PW18 is ASI Rishi Pal who on 06.07.2014 was working as duty officer at P.S. Jyoti Nagar He has stated that on that day his duty hours were 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. He has stated that he has recorded DD No. 12A (Ex. PW16/A) dated 06.07.2014.
5.19 PW-19 is ASI Rajesh Kumar who on 15.07.2014, was working as MHC(M) in PS Jyoti Nagar. He has stated that on that day, SI Bhagwat Singh had deposited seven pullandas against entry no. 1120/14. On 20.07.2014, Insp. Narender Singh deposited one pulanda against entry at Sr. No. 1130. On 21.07.2014, again Insp. Narender Singh deposited one pullanda against entry at Sr. No. 1132. All the relevant details are Ex. PW-19/A and are in his handwriting. He has also stated that on 10.09.2014, he had sent one pulanda and one sample seal vide RC No. 39/21 and on 13.10.2014, he had sent five sealed pulandas through Ct. Ajay Kumar to FSL Rohini vide Ex. PW-19/B & Ex. PW19/C respectively and the same are in his handwriting.
5.20 PW-20 is Chetan Bhatia who on 06.07.2014 was posted as SDM in Shahdara District. He has stated that on that day, upon receipt of information from PS Jyoti Nagar regarding the incident with some suspicious young lady, SHO PS Jyoti Nagar requested him to record the statement of in-laws/parents of deceased. Accordingly, complainant Kuldeep came at his office along with SI Bhagwat Singh and his uncle namely Anil. Complainant Kuldeep handed over one written complaint to him regarding mysterious death of his sister. The said complaint is Ex. PW-2/D bearing FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.15/44 CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:01:11 +0530 endorsement of this PW at point B & C. SI Bhagwat Singh recorded the statement of complainant Kuldeep in the presence of this PW on which endorsement (Ex. PW-2/A) bearing signature of this PW at point B. On next day, this PW filed a written request in GTB Hospital for conducting post mortem examination of dead body of deceased Savita. The said request is Ex. PW- 20/A. Accordingly post mortem of the dead body was conducted in the presence of this PW and in the presence of brother of deceased. This PW conducted the inquest proceedings vide Ex. PW-20/B. On 19.07.2014, complainant Kuldeep again reached at the office of this PW and requested to record his statement. Accordingly, this PW reduced his complaint/statement (Ex. PW-2/E) into written in his presence and similarly uncle Anil of deceased also gave his statement Ex. PW-6/A. 5.21 PW-21 is Kamal, brother of deceased, who has stated regarding the marriage of his sister Savita with accused in the year 2011 that after marriage, his sister started residing at the house of accused Amit at Ashok Nagar, Shahdara. He has further stated that conduct of accused Amit was very bad and he used to harass and beat her sister. He has further stated that on 06.07.2014 at about 5-5:30 am, accused made a telephonic call to this PW and informed that he (this PW) had to visit the matrimonial house of Savita along with family and on enquiry, he did not disclose anything. After 5-10 minutes, he made a call to accused to know the reason why he was calling Savita's parental family on which accused informed that Savita has expired, FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.16/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:01:20 +0530 thereafter, this PW along with his family reached at the house of accused where he saw Savita lying on the floor inside the guest room in injured condition and blood was oozing from her mouth. He has further stated that he felt some foul play on the part of accused, thereafter, he made 100 number call and informed the police. He has further stated that in the PCR Call, inadvertently, he gave wrong address of accused.
5.22 PW-22 is Sh. Ashish Mathur, who at the relevant time was working as Assistant General Manager Aircel Limited. He has stated that ASI Limited has gone into liquidation in March 2018 regarding which Mr. Vijay Kumar Iyer is appointed as Resolution Professional by National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai vide order dated 12.03.2018. He has further stated that original record of Aircel No. 7531999195 has been handed over to third party vendors namely NSB BPO Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mr. Pramod Ingle B-1/C, Sector 10, Noida M/s Vogue Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2015 by way of an agreement between the company and third party vendors.
5.23 PW-23 is Dr. Parul S.R. from Dr. Hedgewar Hospital who has stated that on 19.07.2014, she examined accused Amit Kumar vide MLC No. C-2841/2014. She preserved his blood sample for DNA Profiling and thereafter, Amit Kumar was referred to Surgery, Emergency Department. The MLC of accused Amit Kumar is Ex. PW-23/A. 5.24 PW-24 is Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited. He brought the record of mobile FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.17/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:01:27 +0530 numbers 9650771514 & 9717970506. The mobile number 9650771514 is registered in the name of Amit Goel. The said number was activated on 13.05.2012. Copy of CAF is Ex. PW-24/A. Copy of Voter ID and PAN Card of applicant Amit Goel are Ex. PW-24/B & Ex. PW-24/B1. CDRs for the period between 04.07.2014 to 07.07.2014 is Ex. PW-24/C. The Location Chart is Ex. PW-24/D. The mobile number 9717970506 is registered in the name of Hazari Lal Jain. The said number was activated on 29.04.2014. Copy of CAF is Ex. PW-24/E. The CDRs for the period between 04.07.2014 to 07.07.2014 is Ex. PW- 24/G. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-24/H. 5.25 PW-25 is Insp. Mahesh Kumar who was posted as Draftsman in Crime Branch, PHQ. He has stated that on 08.10.2014, on the request of Insp. Narender Singh, he reached at PS Jyoti Nagar and from there, he along with Insp. Narender Singh visited the house of accused Amit Kumar where he made rough notes of ground floor and first floor of the house. On 14.10.2014, on the basis of rough notes, this PW prepared the scaled site plan and handed over the same to IO. Scaled Site Plan is Ex. PW-25/A. 5.26 PW-26 is Insp. Narender Singh, second IO, who has stated that on 19.07.2014, the concerned SHO made endorsement Ex. PW-26/A on the statement of Kuldeep recorded by SDM. Thereafter, investigation of this case was assigned to this PW. He received several statements and identification statement of witnesses recorded by SDM. On 19.07.2014, accused was brought to the PS and was FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.18/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:01:43 +0530 thoroughly interrogated. After his interrogation, he was arrested. His medical was conducted. He was subjected to Forensic Examination for the injuries on his person and the report Ex. PW-3/A was obtained. In the report, it was opined that injuries no. 1 to 4 were produced by pointed object and were about two weeks old and could be produced by nails. One day PC of the accused was taken from the concerned and he was taken to the spot, thereafter, at his instance, Pointing Out Memo Ex. PW-16/E was prepared. One pillow was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW- 16/D. Site plan was prepared at the pointing out of SI Bhagwat Prasad which is Ex. PW-16/C. The Scaled Site Plan Ex. PW-25/A was got prepared and marriage photograph of the accused with deceased were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-15/A. This PW received copy of the FIR Ex. PW-1/A. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-26/B. The PCR Form is Ex. PW- 7/A and the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-7/B. Photographs of Crime Team are Ex. PW-9/P1 to P12 and negatives are E. PW-9/P13 to P24. Blood sample of Amit was taken vide Ex. PW-10/A. The Crime Scene Report Ex. PW-13/A was collected. He also obtained CDRs in respect of mobile number 9650771514 Ex. PW-26/C. The case property was deposited by him in the Malkhana and exhibits were also sent to FSL for Forensic Examination. 5.27 PW-27 is Ms. L. Babyto Devi, Asstt. Director, FSL Rohini who has stated that on 13.10.2014, five sealed parcels pertaining to this case was received in FSL Rohinit and assigned to her for biologocial/DNA Examination.
FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.19/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:01:54 +0530
Parcel No. 1 was containing Ex. 1 i.e. few nail clipping
described as nail clips of deceased Savita. Parcel No. 2 was containing Ex.2 i.e. cloth piece having brown stains described as blood in gauze of deceased Savita. Parcel No. 3 (Ex.3) was having one pillow along with pillow cover having few brown stains.
Parcel No. 4 (Ex. 4) was having one vial having dark brown liquid described as blood sample of accused Amit Kumar. Parcel No. 5 (Ex.5) was having gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood in gauze of accused Amit Kumar.
She has deposed that on examining all the five exhibits, human blood was detected. Thereafter, during DNA examination on exhibits, Female DNA Profile was generated from Ex. 1 (nails) from source of Ex. 1,2 and 3. Male DNA Profile was generated from the source of Ex. 4 & 5.
After DNA examination, she concluded that DNA Profile (STR) Analysis performed on Ex. 1,2,3,4 and 5 was sufficient to conclude that DNA Profile generated from the Ex. 2 is similar with the DNA Profile generated from the source of Ex. 1 and 3.
DNA Profile generated from the source of Ex.4 & 5 were same. FSL report was prepared by this PW. She further stated that as per the original file brought in court, the DNA Report dated 13.06.2017 along with Genotype Analysis, was handed over by her to ASI Malkhan Singh along with remnants and exhibits. She has stated that on 15.12.2023, she received one request letter from the office of FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.20/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:02:02 +0530 DCP (NE) to provide duplicate/certified copy of FSL result no. SFSL (DLH)/2014/DNA 7620 dated 13.10.2014. Accordingly, the same was provided to concerned police official. The report is Ex. A1 (colly).
The following court questions were put to her which she answered :-
Court Question : Have you compared/cross checked Ex.1 i.e. nail clipping of deceased Savita with DNA Profile of accused Amit Kumar generated from Ex. 4 and Ex.5, as per query mentioned in Forwarding Note (DNA Unit) raised by IO/Insp. Narender Singh ?
Ans. Female DNA Profile was generated from Ex.1, hence comparison could not be done with male DNA Profile of accused Amit Kumar generated from Ex. 4 and Ex. 5. 5.28 The prosecution witnesses were cross- examined by the Ld. counsel of the accused. 5.29 On 21.08.2019, accused has admitted the postmortem report Ex. P-7 as per which Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of blocking of respiratory passage by blunt force at the level of nose and mouth super added by compression of neck.
6. Statement of accused:
6.1. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded thrice on 21.10.2019, 02.05.2025 and 19.05.2025, in which the entire incriminating evidence was put to him and he pleaded his innocence and false implication in this case. 6.2. His prime statement under Section 313 Cr. PC is dated 21.10.2019, wherein accused has stated that deceased was of FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.21/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:02:16 +0530 unstable mind. She committed suicide. Her first husband had divorced her due to her mental instability. PWs have deposed against him since during the lifetime of Savita, they used to demand money from him. He has also stated that PW-5 Kuldeep used to pressurize deceased to bring money from him and once he had given Rs.70,000/- to him and on his refusal to give money further, deceased became depressed and committed suicide. 6.3. His supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr.
PC was recorded on 02.05.2025 putting FSL result to him, which inadvertently was not put to him in his prime statement recorded on 21.10.2019. In the statement dated 02.05.2025, he reiterated his false implication. 6.4. His another supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 19.05.2025 putting him a question that on the date and time of incident, he was alone with the deceased on the first floor of his house, whereas, his other family members were sleeping on the ground floor. He answered the question saying it to be 'incorrect' and incorporated a new defence that there was a tree in front his house, therefore, it was possible that someone might have entered the first floor of the house through said tree. 6.5 Defence evidence has not been led by the accused.
7. ARGUMENTS 7.1 I have heard Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Counsel for both accused and perused the written submissions filed for accused persons.
7.2 Prosecution's Submissions:- Ld. APP for the State contended that the prosecution has successfully established FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.22/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:02:26 +0530 the charge framed against the accused through a combination of ocular, medical, and scientific evidence. It was argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are consistent, credible, and inspire confidence, leaving no reason for the Court to disbelieve them. The prosecution emphasized that the chain of circumstances, supported by medical findings and corroborated by scientific reports, clearly points towards the guilt of the accused.
Defence's Submissions:- Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Cl. For accused highlighted following aspects which, according to him, create serious doubts about the prosecution's version:
• Conduct of the Accused: It was argued that the accused himself informed the parental family of the deceased about her death. This voluntary act, counsel submitted, is wholly inconsistent with the conduct of a guilty person. Had the accused been responsible for the murder, there would have been no reason for him to immediately inform the family, thereby exposing himself to suspicion. His conduct, therefore, strongly indicates innocence rather than culpability.
• Post-Mortem Report: The defence further contended that the post-mortem report is merely an expert opinion and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of guilt. In the absence of corroboration from other independent evidence, reliance solely on the medical opinion would be unsafe. Counsel stressed that opinion evidence, by its very nature, is advisory and cannot substitute for substantive proof.FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.23/44 Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:02:36 +0530
• Forensic Evidence (FSL Report): A crucial plank of the defence argument was the forensic report. It was pointed out that the DNA of the accused was not detected in the nail clippings of the deceased. This scientific finding, according to the defence, completely undermines the prosecution's theory of physical assault by the accused. If the deceased had resisted or struggled, traces of the accused's DNA would reasonably have been expected under her nails. The absence of such evidence, therefore, exonerates the accused. • Presence of Other Family Members: Counsel also emphasized that other family members of the accused were present in the house at the relevant time. In such circumstances, fastening exclusive liability upon the accused without ruling out the involvement of others is unjustified. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused alone had the opportunity or motive to commit the alleged offence. • Benefit of Doubt: Finally, the defence submitted that criminal jurisprudence mandates that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail. Since the prosecution's case is riddled with inconsistencies and lacks corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, counsel prayed for the acquittal of the accused of the offence charged.
8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by Ld. App and counsel for accused and perused the record including the written final arguments filed on behalf of accused.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:02:43 +0530
FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.24/44
9. Analysis: -
There is no eye witness of the incident. The case of the prosecution rest on the circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to case on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been crystallized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4SCC116, which reads as under:-
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973)2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.25/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:02:55 +0530
10. In the present case, from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses PW-4 to PW-6 (brother, sister-in-law, and uncle of the deceased) as well as PW-17 (father of the accused), and from the own admission of the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it stands conclusively established that the deceased Savita and accused Amit were legally married and had a son from their wedlock, who at the time of the incident was approximately 1.5 years old.
11. PW-4 and PW-5, being the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased, have categorically deposed that at the time of the incident, the deceased was six months pregnant. Their testimony finds direct corroboration in the post-mortem report (Ex. P-7) admitted by accused, which records that the deceased was carrying a male fetus of about five months' gestation. This medical evidence not only supports the oral testimony of the witnesses but also reinforces the fact that the deceased was in an advanced stage of pregnancy at the relevant time.
12. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused murdered his wife Savita by compressing her neck during the intervening night of 5/6.07.2014, when both were alone and sleeping on the first floor of the accused's house. The defence, however, claims that the deceased committed suicide.
13. PW-4 to PW-6, who are members of the parental family of the deceased, have deposed that upon receiving information about Savita's death from accused, they immediately rushed to the house of the accused. On arrival, they found the body of Savita lying there, with blood visibly FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.26/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:03:03 +0530 oozing from her mouth and nose. This fact is further corroborated by the testimony of the police officials, PW-13 SI E.S. Yadav, In-charge of the mobile crime team, and PW- 17 SI Bhagat Singh, the first Investigating Officer, both of whom were the earliest to reach the spot on receipt of DD No. 12A. They too categorically stated that blood was oozing from the nose and mouth of the deceased at the time of their arrival.
14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the post-
mortem report (Ex. P-7), which has been admitted by the accused. The report records the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
(i) Reddish abrasion measuring 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm present on mid line chin 9 cm below glabella;
(ii) Reddish contusion present on left side of lower lip measuring 4 cm x 2.5 cm, 1.5 cm from mid line 7 cm below glabella;
(iii) Reddish contusion measuring 3.5 cm x 1.8 cm present on inner side of lower lip adjacent to lower canine of right side;
(iv) Reddish contusion measuring 4.8 cm x 2 cm present on inner side of lower lip adjacent to lower canine of left side.
14.1 The post-mortem further opines that the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from obstruction of the respiratory passage by blunt force applied at the level of the nose and mouth, compounded by compression of the neck. 14.2 As per FSL report, blood of Savita was found on the pillow recovered from the room on first floor of accused's house at his instance.
FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.27/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:03:11
+0530
15. It was argued by Ld. defence counsel that post-
mortem is merely an opinion and not conclusive evidence. It is correct that a post-mortem report is an expert opinion. However, it is a vital piece of medical evidence which, when read in conjunction with ocular testimony and other scientific material, provides strong corroboration. The defence's attempt to trivialize the report ignores the fact that expert medical opinion carries significant evidentiary value, especially when it aligns with the prosecution's case. The Court cannot discard such evidence merely because it is termed "opinion."
16. From the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, duly supported by the medical and scientific evidence contained in the post-mortem report and FSL result, it stands clearly established that the death of Savita was homicidal in nature and not suicidal, as claimed by the accused. The nature, location, and multiplicity of injuries, coupled with the medical opinion attributing the cause of death to asphyxia resulting from obstruction of the respiratory passage and compression of the neck, are wholly inconsistent with the theory of suicide.
17. Now, the crucial question that now arises for determination is: who was responsible for causing her death.
18. PW-4 Kamini (sister-in-law/bhabhi), PW-5 Kuldeep (brother) and PW-6 Anil (uncle) of the deceased, have categorically deposed that frequent quarrels used to take place between the deceased Savita and the accused Amit on account of the latter's alleged illicit relationship with his sister-in-law namely Poonam. PW-4 and PW-5 further FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.28/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:03:27 +0530 testified that on 15.06.2014, the deceased, accompanied by the accused, visited their house and disclosed that she had personally witnessed the accused and Poonam in a compromising position. Although the accused refuted this allegation at the time, the testimony of these witnesses is consistent, cogent, and remains unshaken in cross- examination. Nothing has emerged in their cross- examination to cast doubt upon their credibility or to weaken the reliability of their statements regarding the quarrels between the deceased and the accused over this issue.
19. Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused was confronted with the allegation that quarrels used to occur between him and the deceased on account of his suspected illicit relationship with Poonam (Q. 33 of statement dated 21.10.2019). His response was evasive: he denied the allegation and sought to attribute the quarrels to the deceased's alleged unstable mental condition, further claiming that she committed suicide. However, this plea of mental instability is wholly unsubstantiated. The accused has not produced any independent evidence, medical records, or testimony to support his assertion that the deceased suffered from any mental disorder. In the absence of such proof, his claim stands rejected.
20. Moreover, as already discussed, the plea of suicide is directly contradicted by the medical and ocular evidence on record. The post-mortem findings, corroborated by witness testimony, clearly establish that the death was homicidal in nature. The injuries sustained by the deceased are incompatible with self-infliction and point unmistakably to FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.29/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:03:57 +0530 external violence.
21. It is true that the prosecution has not succeeded in conclusively proving the existence of an illicit relationship between the accused and Poonam. However, what stands firmly established is that the deceased harbored a strong suspicion of such a relationship, which repeatedly led to quarrels between her and the accused. This fact is proved not only through the consistent oral testimony of PW-4 to PW-6 but is also implicitly admitted by the accused himself in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, wherein he acknowledged that the deceased used to suspect him of having illicit relations with his sister-in-law. Thus, the existence of frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused on this issue is firmly proved, and it provides a clear motive for the commission of the offence.
22. PW-17, the father of the accused, testified that in the 7th month of 2014, the accused and the deceased were sleeping together on the first floor of their house, while the other family members were sleeping on the ground floor. At around 4 a.m., the accused came downstairs and informed him that Savita had died. Although PW-17 did not specify the exact date of the incident, even under cross-examination by the Ld. APP, his testimony consistently refers to the occurrence by correctly identifying the month and year, as well as the circumstances in which the accused disclosed him the death of Savita. Taken as a whole, his evidence establishes that at the relevant date and time of the incident, the accused and the deceased were alone together on the first floor of their residence. It was argued by the defence that FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.30/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:04:06 +0530 other family members of the accused were also present in the room at the time of incident. However, this argument sets at rest from the testimony of accused's own father whose testimony, being that of a family member of the accused, carries significant weight and cannot be lightly discarded. On the contrary, it lends strong corroboration to the prosecution's case.
23. In view of above, the prosecution has discharged its initial burden to prove that there used to be frequent quarrels between accused and deceased on account of former's alleged illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, Poonam. The prosecution has further established, through the testimony of PW-17 Anand Swaroop (father of the accused) that accused and deceased were alone on the date and time of incident on the first floor of the house of the accused, while other family members were sleeping on the ground floor. Once these foundational facts are proved, the burden of explanation shifts upon the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, since the manner in which the deceased met with her homicidal death was a fact especially within his knowledge.
24. The law is well settled that when a person dies an unnatural death within the privacy of the matrimonial home, and the spouse is the only person present, it is incumbent upon that spouse to furnish a credible and satisfactory explanation.
25. At this stage, I deem it appropriate to rely upon Trimukh Maroti Kirkan & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 CriLJ 20. The facts of this case are somewhat similar FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.31/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:04:15 +0530 to the facts of the case at hand. Both these cases are on circumstantial evidence; and both the cases relate to the death of a woman in the dwelling house of her husband. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (Supra) the deceased Ms.Revata died in her matrimonial home; allegations were that her in- laws and husband used to ill-treat her and used to harass her and demanded Rs.25,000/-; police were informed that she was bitten by a snake and had died. The post mortem report, however, revealed that she died due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck. The Supreme Court has held that when an offence takes place inside the privacy of the house and the assailants have ample opportunity to plan and commit the offence, it would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as under:
"11. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.32/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:04:23 +0530 capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads:
(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.
15. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)].
FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.33/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:05:22 +0530
16. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill- treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.34/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:05:30 +0530 acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime."
26. Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra [2007 (10) SCC 445] the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that since the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home and the appellant had not set up a case that the offence was committed by somebody else or that there was a possibility of an outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.
27. The law, therefore, is quite well settled that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be known only to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove. These facts need to be explained by the accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts.
28. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the offence occurred within the privacy of the matrimonial home. The initial burden of proof, no doubt, rested upon the prosecution. In my considered view, this burden has been duly discharged.
FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.35/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:05:38 +0530
The prosecution has led cogent evidence through PW-4 to PW-6, who have consistently deposed that frequent quarrels took place between the accused and the deceased, owing to the deceased's suspicion of the accused's illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, Poonam. This motive evidence is further reinforced by PW-17, the father of the accused, who categorically stated that on the date and time of the incident, the accused and the deceased were alone together on the first floor of the house, while other family members were sleeping downstairs.
29. Once these foundational facts are proved, the burden of explanation shifted upon the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, since the manner in which the deceased met with her death was a fact especially within his knowledge. The accused, however, has miserably failed to discharge this burden.
30. At this stage, the defence raised by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC are appropriate to be examined.
30.1 In his prime statement under Section 313 Cr. PC recorded on 21.10.2019, accused has stated that the deceased had committed suicide due to her mental disability and for demand of money from him by deceased for her brother namely Kuldeep (PW5). As already discussed, his defence of suicide stands contradicted by unimpeachable medical evidence. The post-mortem report (Ex. P-7) clearly opines that the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from compression of the neck, coupled with obstruction of the respiratory passage at the level of the nose and mouth. The FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.36/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:05:45 +0530 deceased also bore multiple external injuries, including abrasions and contusions on her lips and chin, which are incompatible with self-infliction and point unmistakably to external violence. As per FSL report, blood of deceased was found on the pillow recovered at the instance of accused from the place of incident i.e. room. Thus, the claim of suicide advanced by the accused is inconsistent with the medical evidence and eyewitness accounts. 30.2 In his supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., recorded on 19.05.2025, he alleged that an unknown person might have entered his room through a tree situated outside. This plea is clearly an afterthought. His primary statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded much earlier, on 21.10.2019, and at that time no such defence was raised. It was only six years later, in his supplementary statement, that this theory was introduced and this clearly undermines its credibility and suggests it was crafted belatedly to escape liability.
Moreover, the accused has failed to lead any evidence to substantiate this claim. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate the existence of such a tree in close proximity to the room, or that entry through it was physically possible. Equally, there is no evidence of prior enmity between the deceased and any third party that could suggest someone would clandestinely enter the room at midnight to commit murder nor is there any indication of theft, robbery, or other motive that would justify an outsider entering the premises at midnight. In the absence of supporting evidence, the defence of entry through a tree FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.37/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:05:53 +0530 remains vague, speculative, and clearly an afterthought, lacking any credibility or probative value and hence deserves outright rejection.
31. The contradictory pleas of the accused that the deceased was of unsound mind and therefore committed suicide or someone entered his room through tree are wholly unsubstantiated rather strengths the prosecution case.
32. Significantly, the accused has offered no explanation whatsoever as to how Savita sustained these injuries or who compressed her neck while she was alone with him. He has also failed to explain the injuries found on his own person, which, as per medical opinion, were contemporaneous with the incident and consistent with having been caused by nail scratches, suggesting resistance by the deceased during the assault. His silence on these incriminating circumstances further strengthens the prosecution's case.
33. It was also argued by defence Counsel that nail clipping of the deceased has not matched with the DNA of the accused. But, this also does not exonerate him. Forensic evidence must be interpreted in context. The non-detection of DNA may be due to multiple factors such as the nature of the assault, the time elapsed, or the condition of the samples. Negative forensic findings cannot, by themselves, outweigh the positive ocular and medical evidence pointing to guilt. The defence's reliance on this aspect is misplaced.
34. The defence has sought to portray the accused's act of informing the parental family of the deceased as proof of innocence. This contention is wholly untenable. Mere intimation of death does not absolve one of criminal FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.38/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:06:02 +0530 liability. On the contrary, such conduct may well be a calculated attempt to create a façade of innocence. Criminal jurisprudence recognizes that post-offence behaviour can be motivated by self-preservation rather than truthfulness. Therefore, this argument does not weaken the prosecution's case.
35. Conclusion.
In the light of circumstances enumerated above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Savita was homicidal and that the accused alone was responsible for causing it.
36. DECISION In view of above discussion, accused Amit is held guilty under section 302 IPC to commit murder of his pregnant wife namely Savita. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 302 IPC. Accused is taken into custody.
Copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost.
List the case for arguments on sentence on 19.05.2026. Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:06:14 +0530 Announced in the open (Charu Aggarwal) Court on 12.05.2026 ASJ-02/E-COURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Annexure:-
In terms of "Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat, Crl. Appeal No. 2973/2023"
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, the tabulated charts are annexed herewith. Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:06:26 +0530 FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.39/44 Annexure 1 Specimen Chart for Witnesses Examined:
Prosecution Name of Witnesses Description
Witness No.
PW-1 W/HC Poonam Rani Duty Officer
PW-2 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram Under his supervision accused was
medically examined at GTB Hospital.
PW-3 Dr. Navneet Ateriya Medically examined the accused and
given opinion regarding old injuries on right shoulder of accused.
PW-4 Smt. Kamini Sister-in-law (bhabhi) of deceased Savita.
PW-5 Sh. Kuldeep Singhal Complainant/brother of deceased. PW-6 Sh. Anil Kumar Uncle of deceased.
Singhal PW-7 HC Narayan Singh PCR official who received message/PCR call with respect to murder of deceased by her in-laws.
PW-8 Ct. Brijesh Kumar Initially joined investigation with IO. PW-9 HC Jile Singh Photographer who took photographs of the spot and that of deadbody of deceased.
PW-10 HC Murari Lal Joined investigation with IO. PW-11 Ct. Jai Singh He delivered Special Report regarding registration of FIR at the residence of CP North-East, Additional CP North-East and Additional DCP North-East and concerned MM.
PW-12 Ct. Ved Vir Joined investigation with IO. PW-13 SI E.S. Yadav Incharge Mobile Crime Team, North-
East District.
PW-14 Ct. Ajay Kumar He deposited sealed exhibits to FSL Rohini.
PW-15 Ct. Manish Sharma Joined investigation with IO. PW-16 Retired SI Bhagwat First Investigating Officer Singh PW-17 Sh. Anand Swaroop Father of accused.
Goyal PW-18 ASI Rishi Pal Duty officer, who recorded DD No. 12A.FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.40/44 Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:06:35 +0530
PW-19 ASI Rajesh Kumar The then MHC (M) at P.S. Jyoti Nagar.
PW-20 Sh. Chetan Bhatia The then SDM, Shahdara District.
PW-21 Sh. Kamal Brother of deceased.
PW-22 Sh. Ashish Mathur The then Assistant General Manager,
Aircel Limited.
PW-23 Dr. Parul She medically examined accused and
prepared MLC.
PW-24 Sh. Surender Kumar Nodal Officer at Bharti Airtel Limited.
PW-25 Inspector Mahesh He prepared site plan of the spot.
Kumar
PW-26 Inspector Narender Investigating Officer.
Singh
PW-27 Ms. L. Babyto Devi Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
(Charu Aggarwal)
ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD/Delhi/12.05.2026
Annexure-2
Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents:
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by Ex. PW-1/A Copy of FIR of present case. PW1 W/HC Poonam Rani.
Ex. PW-1/B Endorsement on rukka -do- Ex. PW-2/A MLC of accused. PW2 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram. Ex. PW-2/B Emergency Registration Card -do-
Ex. PW3/A Opinion regarding old injuries on PW3 Dr. Navneet Ateriya.
right shoulder of accused.
Ex. PW2/A Written complaint to police PW5 Kuldeep Singhal.
/statement of complainant.
Ex. PW2/B Dead body identification - do -
statement of complainant.
Ex. PW2/C Statement of complainant with - do -
respect to handover of deadbody of deceased.
Ex. PW2/D Complaint by complainant to - do -
concerned SDM.
Ex. PW2/E Statement of complainant - do -
recorded by SDM.FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.41/44 Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:06:44 +0530
Ex. PW2/F Arrest memo of accused. - do -
Ex. PW2/G Personal search memo of - do -
accused.
Ex. PW7/A PCR form. PW7 HC Narayan Singh. Ex. PW7/B Certificate under Section 65 of - do -
Indian Evidence Act regarding PCR form Ex. PW8/A Seizure memo of bed sheet by PW8 Ct. Brijesh Kumar.
which deadbody of deceased was covered.
Ex. PW8/B Seizure memo of exhibits, - do -
pullanda and sample seal handed over by doctor to IO.
Ex. PW8/C Seizure memo of one envelop - do -
containing PM report of deceased with seal of DC Ex. PW8/C. Ex. PW9/P1 12 photographs of spot and that PW9 HC Jile Singh.
to Ex. of dead body of deceased. PW9/P12 Ex. Negatives of photographs. - do - PW9/P13 (collectively)
Ex. PW10/A Seizure memo of blood sample PW10 HC Murari Lal.
and blood gauge of accused.
Ex. PW12/A Disclosure statement of accused. PW12 Ct. Ved Vir. Ex. PW13/A Scene of Crime Visit Report PW13 SI E.S. Yadav. Ex. PW14/A Road certificate no. 39/21 in PW14 Ct. Ajay Kumar respect of depositing exhibits in FSL.
Ex. PW14/B Road certificate no. 41/21 in - do -
respect of depositing exhibits in FSL.
Ex. PW15/A Seizure memo of one photograph PW15 Ct. Manish Sharma.
of accused with deceased, handed over by him to IO.
Mark 'X' Abovesaid photograph of accused - do -
with deceased.
Ex. PW16/A Attested copy of DD No. 12A. PW16 retired SI Bhagwat Singh Ex. PW16/B Application for depositing the - do -
dead body of deceased into mortuary for preservation and for postmortem examination.
Ex. PW16/C Site plan of the place of - do -
occurrence.
Ex. PW16/D Seizure memo of pillow. - do -FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.42/44 Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:06:53 +0530
Ex. PW19/A Relevant entry no. 1132 in PW19 ASI Rajesh Kumar register no.19 (Part-I) in respect of depositing case property in malkhana of concerned P.S. Ex. PW19/B Road certificate no. 39/21 dated - do -
10.09.2014 in respect of sending case property to FSL.
Ex. PW19/C Road certificate no. 39/21 dated - do -
10.09.2014 in respect of sending case property to FSL.
Ex. PW20/A Application for conducting post - do -
mortem examination of dead body of deceased.
Ex. PW20/B Inquest proceedings regarding - do -
death of deceased.
Ex. P-2 Certificate u/s 65-B of The Indian PW22 Sh. Ashish Mathur.
Evidence Act in respect of
covering letter from Aircel
Limited company regarding
mobile no. 7531999195 .
Ex. P-3 Call Detail Report in respect of - do -
mobile no. 7531999195 .
Ex. P-4 CAF (Customer Acquisition - do -
Form) in respect of mobile no.
7531999195.
Ex. P-5 Photocopy of Voter ID card of - do -
Hazari Lal Jain.
Ex. P-6 Location chart in respect of - do -
mobile no. 7531999195.
Ex. PW23/A MLC of accused. PW23 Dr. Parul.
Ex. PW24/A Customer Acquisition Form PW24 Sh. Surender Kumar.
(CAF) in respect of mobile no.
9650771514.
Ex. PW24/B Copy of Voter I card of Amit - do -
Goel.
Ex. PAN Card of Amit Goel. - do - PW24/B1
Ex. PW24/C Call Detail Report in respect of - do -
mobile no. 9650771514.
Ex. PW24/D Location charge in respect of - do -
mobile no. 9650771514.
Ex. PW24/E Customer Acquisition Form - do -
(CAF) in respect of mobile no.
9717970506 Ex. PW24/F Copy of voter ID Card of Hazari - do -
Lal.
FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.43/44 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:07:01 +0530
Ex. PW24/G Call detail report in respect of - do -
mobile no. 9717970506.
Ex. PW24/H Certificate under Section 65-B of - do -
Ex. PW25/A Scaled site plan of place of PW25 Inspector Mahesh incident. Kumar.
Ex. PW26/A Endorsement on the statement of PW26 Inspector Narender complainant Kuldeep recorded by Singh SDM.
Ex. PW26/B Certificate under Section 65-B of - do -
Indian Evidence Act in respect of copy of FIR.
Ex. PW26/C Call detail report in respect of - do -
mobile no. 9650771514.
Ex. A-1 FSL Report No. FSL 2014/DNA- Admitted by accused under
7620 Section 294 Cr. PC.
DNA No.1745/14 dated
13.06.2012.
Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
17:07:18 +0530
(Charu Aggarwal)
ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD/Delhi/12.05.2026
Annexure 3
Specimen Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals:
Material Object No. Description of the Proved by/Attested by Exhibit Clothes of deceased Ex. PW16/P1 PW16 retired SI Bhagwat Singh.
One Pillow Ex. PW16/P2 - do - One bed-sheet Ex. PW16/P3 - do - Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 17:07:31 +0530 (Charu Aggarwal) ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara KKD/Delhi/12.05.2026 FIR No. 516/2014 State Vs. Amit Kumar P.S. Jyoti Nagar Page No.44/44