Delhi District Court
Fir No. 373/2014 5 State vs . Amit Gupta & Anr. 1 Of 91 on 25 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NE), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CNR No. DLNE01-000441-2014 SC No. 44924/2015 FIR No. 373/2014 PS: New Usmanpur U/s 363/302/201/34 IPC State Versus 1. Amit Gupta @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta R/o House No. N-23, Gali No. 14 (IInd), Braham Puri, Delhi. 2. Rehman S/o Sh. Shamshul Islam R/o House No. 1632, Gali no. 48/2, Zafrabad, Delhi. Date of Institution / Committal : 16.08.2014 Date of Arguments : 20.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 1 of 91 JUDGMENT:
1. Prosecution case: It is case of the prosecution that on 24.04.2014, at about 8.02 pm, a DD No. 30A was received by PS through PCR that one child namely Vasu Gupta was missing for the last 4-5 hours. DD was assigned to SI Vineet Kumar, who visited the house of complainant Ram Chander Gupta and recorded his statement. It was further stated that Vasu Gupta was missing since 6:30 pm and was wearing black colour T-Shirt and Cream colour pant and went to play outside, but did not return. On the basis of this statement, FIR u/s 363 IPC was lodged. On 25.04.2014, dead body of child was recovered from the area of PS Gokal Puri vide DD No. 11A. ASI Ram Kishore of PS Gokal Puri informed concerned PS vide DD No. 17A about recovery of dead body resembling of missing boy, which was removed to the mortuary of GTB Hospital, where dead body was identified by his parents and postmortem was conducted. During investigation, father of the deceased namely Mukesh Gupta doubted accused Amit Gupta @ Monu whose activities were found suspicious. Police verified his CDR which revealed that he was in constant touch of his friend Rehman. Both were apprehended and confessed that they kidnapped the deceased in greed of money and confined him in the house of Amit Gupta. They administered sleeping pills to the deceased to keep him silence, killed and threw his dead body. Police seized Santro car of accused Amit Gupta @ Monu and one button of shirt of the deceased was recovered from this Santro car, whereas one hair, sleeping pills, mobile tab, mobile phones, strip of tablets, Coca Cola bottle containing liquid and blood-stained pillow cover were sized FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 2 of 91 from the house of accused Amit Gupta by FSL team. Both the accused were charge-sheeted u/s 302/363/201/34 IPC.
2. This charge-sheet committed to this court after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Charges u/s 363/302/201/34 IPC were framed against both accused vide order dated 29.01.2015 and they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the charges, prosecution has examined PW1 Ram Chander Gupta, PW2 HC Raj Kumar, PW3 Smt. Bhawna Gupta, PW4 Ct. Sachin Khokhar, PW5 HC Sonu Kaushik, PW6 SI Suman Kumar, PW7 Mukesh Gupta, PW8 Deepak Gupta, PW9 Jagjit Singh, PW10 Sunil Kumar Rathi, PW11 Anil Kumar Gupta, PW12 ASI Ram Kishore, PW13 HC Sonu Rathi, PW14 Ct. Pawan, PW15 Ct. Sachin, PW15(A) Dr. Neha Gupta, PW16 HC Sanjay, PW17 Ct. Lovesh, PW18 HC Pramod Kumar, PW19 ASI Narender Kumar, PW20 Ct. Devender, PW21 Inspector Mahavir Singh, PW22 SI Pankaj Tomar, PW23 Dr. Sachin, PW24 SI Vineet Kumar, PW25 Amit Rawat from FSL, PW26 Dr. Subhra Kumar Paul, PW27 Ms. Seema Nain, PW28 Dr. Aditya Chauhan, PW29 Dr. Debashish Mukherjee, PW30 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj, PW31 SI Dev Kumar and PW32 Inspector Jitender Singh. No other PW has been examined by prosecution and closed PE.
5. After PE, entire incriminating evidence was explained to both accused under Section 313 CrPC and their statements were recorded. Both FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 3 of 91 accused have not led any DE.
6. To prove the case, prosecution has examined many witnesses including family members of the deceased. The evidence led by the prosecution is as under: -
6.1. PW1 Ram Kumar Gupta, grandfather of the deceased has deposed that on 24.04.2014 at about 7.00 pm, he received a call regarding missing of deceased since 6.30 pm and he rushed to his home where came to know that deceased had gone to the house of his uncle Monu @ Amit Gupta and did not return. He alongwith his relatives and neighbours searched the deceased, but could not succeed and ultimately informed PCR. After informing PCR, he went to PS New Usmanpur and lodged a missing report.
At about 8.30/8.40 pm, police officials visited his home and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He alongwith his family members and daughter-in- law Bhawana Gupta also visited the house of accused Monu @ Amit Gupta, but he assured to search Vasu himself. They searched the deceased in the area, but in vain. At about 12.30 AM (night), they went to PS New Usmanpur and thereafter searched the deceased in the area of ISBT, Shahdara, Railway station and Bus Stand Anand Vihar and accused Monu was with them.
6.1.2. PW1 has further deposed that in Street No. 10, one truck was being unloaded and they showed the photograph of deceased to labourers unloading truck and they informed that the boy shown in the photograph FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 4 of 91 was seen accompanied with two persons in the area in Macca Masjid. It is further deposed that they inquired in the area of Macca Masjid, but peoples disclosed that no such boy was brought there. On next day, dead body of deceased Vasu Gupta was recovered and he along-with his relatives identified the dead body vide statement Ex.PW1/B. Dead body was handed over after postmortem vide handing over memo Ex.PW1/C. Accused Amit Gupta also attended funeral of the deceased Vasu Gupta. It is further deposed that the father of deceased Mukesh Gupta got suspicious about the conduct of Amit Gupta and he advised to inform police.
6.1.3. During cross examination, he has admitted that he neither mentioned the name of accused in DD No. 30A nor suspected anyone in FIR and rather name of accused Amit Gupta was not disclosed to police till 26.04.2014. It is further admitted that on 24.04.2014, deceased Vasu did not leave house for playing in his presence, but he saw him alive on 24.04.2014 when he was going to school and thereafter his dead body was seen in mortuary of GTB Hospital on 24.04.2014. It is further admitted that in morning on 24.04.2014, deceased was not wearing black colour T-Shirt and cream colour pant. It is further admitted that public persons informed that two persons accompanied with one boy were going towards Macca Masjid and he disclosed this fact to police verbally. It is further admitted that he did not personally search the neighborhood houses and even police officials also did not search the house of accused. It is denied that he pressurized the accused many times to sale out his house to him.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 5 of 91 6.1.4. PW1 has further admitted that police officials questioned his elder Son Saurav, but did not make any inquiry from Mithan Lal, Keshva Kumar Gupta, Deepak Gupta, Raghunandan Das, Vikram Gupta, Imran, Jagjit Singh Saini, Saurav Gupta or Gaurav Gupta in his presence. It is further admitted that the description of clothes of the deceased was given to him by mother of deceased Smt. Bhawana Gupta, but he had no suspicion on accused Amit Gupta regarding his involvement, whereas police had suspicion on his both sons of their involvement. It is further admitted that the persons unloading truck did not disclose in his presence after seeing the photograph of child that two persons were taking him with them towards Macca Masjid.
6.2. PW2 HC Raj Kumar has proved DD No. 30A as Ex.PW2/A. On the same day, at about 9.00 pm, he received a rukka from Ct. Lachhi Ram sent by SI Vineet Kumar and made his endorsement Ex.PW2/B on rukka and got registered FIR which is Ex. PW2/C. 6.3. PW3 Smt. Bhavna Gupta is the mother of the deceased and has deposed that on 24.04.2014, she along-with deceased returned back from school and on the way deceased disclosed her that 'Monu Chacha ne mujhu tab dene ka promise kiya hai', but she did not pay attention. Thereafter, deceased went to take his tuition and returned back at about 5.20 pm. He left house by stating that 'main Monu chacha ke yahan khelna jaa raha hoon' and left his house. It is further deposed that she came out of her house to check where he was going and noticed that the deceased entered into the FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 6 of 91 house of accused Monu @ Amit Gupta. At about 6.30 pm, her father-in-law came back and enquired about Vasu, but she informed him that he had gone to the house of Monu for playing. She also sent her daughter Prerna to the house of Monu for calling of the deceased, but accused Monu did not open door and informed her from first floor that deceased was not there. She also personally visited the house of Monu but he opened the door after about 4-5 minutes of knocking and stated that Vasu aaya tha lekin chala gaya'. In the meanwhile, Rehman came down stairs and greeted her and stated that they were watching TV at first floor. It is further deposed that Rehman also informed her that deceased had come but had left. It is further deposed that Monu stated her that deceased might have gone to Mandir and accompanied her to Mandir, but he was not there. Accused was constantly talking to someone on mobile when they were returning back from Mandir. On 25.04.2014, her husband received information regarding recovery of dead body of her son and he went to GTB Hospital. It is further deposed that on 27.04.2014, she was called to PS Usmanpur where accused Amit Gupta was in police custody and she asked him as to why he did so, but he stated that 'mere upar bahut karza ho gaya tha isliye maine uske kidnapped kiya', on it, she replied 'tu ek bar batata ki tujhe paiso ki jarurat hai' and she slapped him twice or thrice.
6.3.1. During cross examination, she has admitted that she did not disclose the police about the description of the clothes and footwear worn by the deceased when he left house, as police did not ask her. It is further admitted that police did not get conducted TIP of the clothes / footwear of the FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 7 of 91 deceased through her. She also did not accompany with Ram Chander to PS for lodging of report and even Ram Chander also did not tell or ask anything about the description of the clothes and footwear worn by the deceased before leaving to Police Station. Police recorded her statement first time on 24.04.2014, but she did not tell to the police in her statement that accused Monu had promised to give Tab to her son or that she did not pay any heed. It is further admitted that she did not tell the police that she had seen her son entering into the house of Monu. She was not aware whose houses the police visited on that day, but it is admitted that relations between her family and Monu's family were cordial and they used to attend functions of each other. It is further admitted that she did not enter into the house of accused Monu when she visited him and was not aware as to who was present inside the house, but only Rehman came out and greeted her.
6.3.2. PW3 has further admitted that she did not inform her husband about missing of her son and someone else might have informed him, as she received call of her husband at about 9.30 pm, but he reached home at about 10.00 pm. She did not disclose all the facts to her husband on that day as she did not speak him and also did not get opportunity to talk him on 25.04.2014 also, as they received call of recovery of the dead body in the morning itself and entire family remained busy in the hospital. She talked to her husband before recording of her statement on 26.04.2014, but she was not accompanied with police to search the deceased on 26.04.2014, whereas accused Amit Gupta was accompanied her to Moni Baba's Mandir to search deceased whereas deceased never used to go. It is admitted that she did not FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 8 of 91 enter into the house of accused with her husband, parents-in-law, police or anybody else, whereas there was no reason for her to suspect accused Monu and even her parents-in-law or husband also did not lodge any complaint against accused till the time her statement was recorded by the police, as they believed that accused Amit was innocent. She knew accused Rehman for the last 4-5 months prior to this incident, but she never talked to him, however she saw him in the house of Amit Gupta when she visited his house. It is admitted that Rehman used to park his car in the house of accused Amit and on 24.04.2014, she went to the house of accused Amit Gupta to make inquiry about her son, but did not enter into his house due to cannot say as to who one else was present in the house or that his family members were present there or not.
6.4. PW4 Ct Sachin joined investigation on the intervening night of 27/28.08.2014 with IO SI Vineet Kumar. He witnessed the arrest of both accused and they were brought to PS, where they confessed their crime. IO recorded disclosure statements of both accused Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. Accused Amit Gupta led the police team to Yamuna Bridge and got recovered Sandals of deceased and thereafter, a Santro car from his house was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. Again on 28.04.2014, he joined investigation and accused pointed out the spot where dead body was thrown vide pointing out memo Ex.PW4/D. During police remand, both accused led the police team to DDA Park, in front of Jag Parvesh Hospital, wherefrom Amit Gupta got recovered one dibbi of Musa ka gul from the bushes, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/E. Thereafter, FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 9 of 91 accused Amit Gupta led the police team to his house wherefrom a Nokia mobile was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/F. Tablets strip having two tablets was also seized from the house of Rehman vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/G besides Mobile Phone which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/H. Rehman disclosed that he brought sleeping tablets strip from one Abdul Wahid being having sleeping trouble. Thereafter, accused Amit Gupta pointed out Gupta General Store wherefrom Musa ka gul was purchased by him and Anil Kumar Gupta identified him to be purchaser of Musa ka gul about 5-6 days back.
6.4.1. During cross examination, he has admitted that on 27.04.2014, they left PS at about 9.30 pm and sandals were recovered at about 10.15 pm. It is further admitted that public persons were present during seizure of Musa ka gul, but they were not asked to join investigation. He was not aware about the contents of Musa ka gul, but it was some powder type substance.
6.5. PW5 HC Sonu Kaushik was working as draftsman and prepared scaled plans Ex.PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B. 6.6. PW6 SI Suman Kumar was posted as In-charge, Mobile Crime team and on 25.04.2014 at about 6.00 am, he visited the spot of recovery of the dead body and prepared SOC report Ex.PW6/A. 6.7. PW7 Mukesh Gupta was the father of deceased and has deposed that on 24.04.2014 at about 6.00 / 6.30 pm, he received a call of his wife FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 10 of 91 regarding missing of his son Vasu Gupta. He asked her to search in neighbourhood and reached home at about 9.30 pm. He along-with his uncle, brother and other neighbors searched the deceased till 2.00 / 2.30 am. His uncle Ram Chander lodged a missing report and on next day, at about 6.30 am, he received a call from GTB hospital regarding recovery of dead body resembling of his son. He along-with his uncle Ram Chander and brother went to GTB Hospital, where he identified the dead body of the deceased vide statement Ex.PW7/A. After postmortem, dead body of deceased was received by him vide memo Ex.PW1/C. It is further deposed that after cremation of the deceased, her wife disclosed him that Vasu had gone to the house of Monu Gupta where she also saw accused Rehman. Monu informed her that Vasu had come there, but left. He did not remember as to whether he went inside his house or talked to his wife on reaching home and rather was not aware as to whether his was conscious or not. He did not talk to his wife so was not aware as to what clothes were worn by the deceased Vasu. It is further admitted that his wife was not accompanied him to hospital when he received information regarding recovery of dead body of his son or when he went to hospital. The dead body was cremated at about 12.00 noon, but he did not talk to his wife by that time. He was not aware as to whether he went to PS on 26.04.2014 or 27.04.2014 or that police recorded his statement in PS or that statement of his wife was recorded. It is further admitted that he did not raise any suspicion on the accused till the dead body of his son was recovered/cremated and also did not go to the house of accused after talking to his wife on 25.04.2014. On 24.04.2014, he also did not search the deceased in nearby houses, but he FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 11 of 91 saw accused Monu in police custody at 9.00 pm on 27.04.2014. It is admitted that accused Rehman used to park his car in front of the house of accused Amit Gupta as they were business partners.
6.8. PW8 Deepak Gupta was uncle of the deceased and on 24.04.2014 at about 6.30 pm, he received a call from his father regarding missing of deceased Vasu Gupta. He along-with his family member searched the deceased and was informed by someone in X-Block, Gautam Puri that two persons were taking away one child towards Macca Masjid. He went to the area of Macca Masjid, but no clue of the deceased found there. At about 4.30 am, in the area of Macca Masjid, accused Amit met him near Water Tank in Santro Car and stopped car and informed him that 'Vasu mil gaya aur GTB hospital mei hai'. Thereafter, he went to GTB hospital. It is further deposed that under the prevailing circumstances they raised suspicion on Amit @ Monu and Rehman, as both of them were friends.
6.8.1 During cross examination, he has admitted that he was not aware about the person who informed him that two persons were going with one boy towards Macca Masjid. He also did not go inside the house of accused Amit for searching Vasu. It is further admitted that Santro car was being parked in front of the house of accused Amit Gupta prior to 2-3 years of this incident. It is further deposed that Amit Gupta as alone in Santro Car when he him on the road.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 12 of 91 6.9. PW9 Jagjit Singh Negi was worker of Mukesh Gupta. On 24.04.2014 at about 9.30 pm, he visited the house of Mukesh Gupta and searched deceased Vasu. He also received information at about 11.30 pm that two persons were seen with one child of age of Vasu near Madina Masjid and at about 5.30 am, he witnessed that accused Amit @ Monu was passing there by a white Santro car. He stopped his car near him and informed that he was bringing petrol for his bike. It is admitted that he did not tell to police in his statement that Rehman was present with Amit Gupta in car when he stopped near him.
6.10. PW10 Sunil Kumar Rathi has deposed that at about 4.30 am, he was standing outside of his house and saw that one Santro car being driven by Amit Gupta came from the side of Gali No. 13, Braham Puri and went towards X-Block, whereas Rehman was sitting beside him. It is admitted that he did not enter into the house of Monu @ Amit Gupta, but Amit Gupta was present in PS along-with family members of the deceased, however he did not disclose to police that he witnessed accused Amit Gupta and Rehman at about 4.30 am in the car, but he disclosed it to Mithan Lal.
6.11. PW11 Anil Kumar Gupta has proved that accused Amit purchased a dibbi of Musa ka gul about 4-5 days prior to 28.04.2014. He was not aware about the contents of that Musa ka gul, but it is being used for reducing of toothache, but he never used it personally.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 13 of 91 6.12. PW12 ASI Ram Kishore was posted with PS Gokal Puri. On the intervening night of 24/25.04.2014, at about 5.45 am, he received DD No.11A regarding recovery of dead body of a child which is Ex.PW12/A. He along-with Ct. Satpal visited the spot and fleshed the message in the area. SI Vineet Kumar and Inspector Jitender reached the spot whereas crime team inspected the spot. Photographer clicked the photographs. The dead body was removed to GTB Hospital and got preserved in the mortuary of GTB Hospital.
6.13. PW13 HC Sonu joined the investigation with police team on 27.04.2014 and witnessed the arrest of both accused vide arrest papers Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/A1 and Ex.PW13/B1. He further witnessed the recovery of sandals at the instance of the accused Amit Gupta from the place near Yamuna Bridge vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C. Amit Gupta disclosed the use of Santro Car in disposing off the dead body and IO seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. On 28.04.2014, he again joined investigation when accused pointed out the spot of throwing of the dead body vide pointing out memo Ex.PW4/D. Accused Amit Gupta was formally arrested in PS at about 9.00 pm, whereas they reached at Yamuna Khadar at about 10.00/10.15 and parked their vehicle about a distance of about 200-250 meters away from the spot of recovery. Seal after use was kept by IO himself. He was not aware as to whether IO prepared any site plan of the recovery of sandals at the spot, but seizure memo was prepared.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 14 of 91 6.14. PW14 Ct. Pawan also joined investigation on 27.04.2014 with HC Sonu, Ct. Sachin, Ct. Mukesh and SI Vineet Kumar and also witnessed the arrest of both accused by IO and recovery of sandals at the instance of accused Amit Gupta. On 28.04.2014, he again joined investigation and witnessed the recovery of Musa ka gul at the instance of accused Monu, one Nokia phone and one strip of ten tablets from the house of accused Rehman besides mobile phone. Both the accused were apprehended from their respective houses and made their disclosure statements, but he was not aware as to how many family members of the accused Amit Gupta were present at home when they visited. Arrest memos of accused persons were not prepared at the spot. He was not aware as to whether pointing out memos were prepared at the instance of accused or not.
6.15. PW15 Ct. Sachin got conducted the medical examination of both accused from GTB Hospital on 29.04.2014 and doctor collected their samples and handed over to him in sealed condition, which were handed over to IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. 6.16 PW15A Dr. Neha Gupta (She has been examined as PW15 again inadvertently and being considered as PW15A to avoid confusion) conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Vasu Gupta and prepared postmortem report which is Ex.PW15-A/A. 6.17. PW16 HC Sanjay was photographer of Mobile Crime Team and clicked the photographs Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex. PW16/A10, of which, FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 15 of 91 negatives are Ex.PW16/B1 (colly).
6.18. PW17 Ct. Lavesh also witnessed the collection of samples of blood, semen and pubic hair of both accused in GTB hospital, which were handed over to IO in sealed condition and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A. 6.19. PW18 HC Parmod Kumar joined the investigation on 29.04.2014 and witnessed the inspection of Santro Car in PS by FSL Team. IO seized one white button from Santro Car vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. He along- with FSL team also visited the house of accused Amit Gupta and again witnessed the seizure of Coca Cola bottle from the ground floor room vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B, one yellow colour strip of tablets containing 9 tablets vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/C, one Samsung Tab seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/D, blood stained pillow cover seized after cutting of portion vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/E and one hair found in room vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/F. 6.19.1. During cross examination, he has admitted that the keys of the car were handed over to IO by MHC(R) for inspection by FSL team, but he was not aware as to whether any entry was made to this effect or not. He was not aware about the names of tablets recovered from the house of the accused, but no photography of the room was got conducted. FSL team left the spot finally from the spot itself, but it is admitted that the room of accused was not found locked, however it was searched thoroughly by FSL team, but no finger prints were lifted from there.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 16 of 91 6.20. PW19 ASI Narender Kumar was working as MHC(M) and has proved the entries of Register no. 19 regarding deposit of articles on 27.04.2014, 28.04.2014, 29.04.2014, 04.06.2014, 23.06.2014, 11.11.2014, and 13.11.2014. He received FSL result with envelopes on 05.11.2015, 02.01.2015, viscera report on 17.03.2017 vide entries Ex.PW19/A to Ex.PW19/C (colly). He has admitted that on 27.04.2014, at about 5.00 pm, Inspector Jitender came to him and informed that Santro car was parked in PS was to be deposited, but he did not hand over the keys of car nor he demanded. He was not aware in whose possession keys of the car were deposited. It is further admitted that case property like car was not to be supervised by CCTV camera, but one constable was to be deputed to look after.
6.21. PW20 Ct. Devender witnessed the medical examination of both accused in GTB Hospital on 29.04.2014 when their samples were collected. Doctor handed over the samples in sealed parcels to PW15 & PW17 in his presence which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW17/A. 6.22. PW21 Inspector Mahavir Singh collected P.M. report of the deceased alongwith inquest papers from Dr. Neha Gupta on 28.04.2014 and handed over to IO.
6.23. PW22 SI Pankaj Tomar witnessed the pointing out memos prepared at the instance of both accused on 28.04.2014. However, he did not see the FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 17 of 91 pointing out spot prior to 28.04.2014, but it was within the knowledge of IO.
6.24. PW23 Dr. Sachin collected the samples of accused Rehman vide MLC Ex.PW23/A. 6.25. PW24 SI Vineet Kumar was assigned DD No. 30A regarding missing of a child Vasu Gupta. He along-with Ct. Lachhi Ram visited the house of caller and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He prepared rukka Ex.PW24/A on the basis of said statement and got registered FIR from PS through Ct. Lachhi Ram. He interrogated the mother of child Vasu Gupta and recorded her statement and also tried to search the missing child with his family members, but in vain. He fleshed W.T. Message and uploaded the information on Zipnet. On 25.04.2014 at about 6.30 am, he heard a flesh message in DO's room regarding recovery of the dead body a child, aged about 7-8 years, at Main Wazirabad Road, near Bhagriathi Vihar Plant. He communicated this information to Inspector Jitender Singh and at about 7.30 am, ASI Ram Kishan of PS Gokul Puri informed DO of PS New Usmanpur regarding recovery of dead body vide DD No. 17A and description of the dead body was matching with missing child. He along- with inspected Inspector Jitender Singh reached the spot Crime Team informed by ASI Ram Kishan inspected the spot and photographer clicked the photographs. Dead body was removed to GTB Mortuary and filled inquest form for postmortem Ex.PW24/B and got conducted postmortem on the dead body and dead body was handed over to the father of deceased FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 18 of 91 vide handing over memo Ex.PW24/C. On 27.04.2014, he again joined investigation and witnessed the arrest of both accused by IO. During police custody, accused Amit Gupta got recovered Sandals of the deceased in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/B which were seized vide separate seizure memo. He also witnessed that accused got recovered a Santro Car bearing No. DL-4CS-5041.
6.25.1. During cross examination, he has admitted that the mother of child disclosed that the deceased Vasu Gupta was wearing T- shirt and nikkar, but he was not aware as to whether she disclosed the colour of clothes or sandals or shoes. He also did not remember as to whether she disclosed the colour of sandals or shoes, but she disclosed that Vasu Gupta had gone to the house of accused Amit Gupta for playing. WT message was fleshed at about 12.00 midnight and dead body was recovered from a distance of about 2-2½ kilometers away from the house the complainant. He did not notice any tyre marks on the road near the dead body and even Dog Squad was also not called to the spot and no videography was got conducted. Family members of deceased did not reach the spot of recovery of the dead body, but no chance prints were lifted by the crime team from the spot. He was not aware about the clothes worn by the deceased or their colours, but there were no sandals / shoes on the foots of the deceased when dead body was recovered. It is further admitted that the parents of deceased did not disclose to IO in his presence as to whether Vasu was wearing shoes or sandals or what was the colour of those sandals. He did not remember which particular family member of the accused was present in the house FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 19 of 91 when he along with IO visited on 27.04.2014. Accused Amit Gupta was arrested at about 9.15 pm in PS, but house of the accused Amit Gupta was not searched, however he did not remember as to whether IO locked the house of the accused Amit Gupta or not. They proceeded for the recovery of sandals at about 9.45 pm, whereas disclosure statement of the accused was recorded at about 9.15 pm at PS. Police gypsy was parked over Yamuna bridge and they walked on foot for a distance about 20-30 meters to the place wherefrom sandals were recovered, but IO prepared site plan of the spot of recovery. It is admitted that nothing was recovered from Santro car during its search in his presence. It is further deposed that prior to seizure of sandals from the place of recovery, accused Amit Gupta disclosed that those belonged to Vasu Gupta. It is further admitted that when he saw the dead body of the child his clothes were not torn off and even all buttons of the shirt were not buttoned and clothes covered his entire body.
6.26. PW25 Amit Rawat, FSL Expert has proved FSL report and its forwarding letter vide Ex.PW25/A and Ex. PW25/B. 6.27. PW26 Dr. Subhra Kumar Paul has proved FSL report and its forwarding letter vide Ex.PW26A and Ex. PW26/B. 6.28. PW27 Ms. Seema Nain, DNA Expert from FSL has proved DNA report vide Ex.PW27/A. FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 20 of 91 6.29. PW28 Dr. Aditya Chauhan, Medical Officer has proved MLC of accused Amit Gupta @ Monu against which his blood, semen and other samples were collected as Ex.PW28/A. 6.30. PW29 Dr. Devashisih Mukherjee has proved medical examination/ MLCs of both accused during police custody as Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B. 6.31. PW30 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj, FSL Expert inspected the car and house of accused Amit Gupta and prepared her report Ex.PW30/A. 6.32. PW31 SI Dev Kumar collected FSL report from MHC(M) on 27.02.2022 and filed before the court with supplementary chargesheet.
6.33. PW32 Inspector Jitender Singh / IO was assigned investigation of this case. On 25.04.2014 at about 6.00 /6.30 am, SI Vineet Kumar informed him regarding recovery of dead body of a similar description of missing child Vasu Gupta and they visited the spot of recovery of dead body. Dead body of a child having similar clothes as mentioned in the FIR was found there. He informed the father of deceased and asked him to reach GTB hospital where dead body was got preserved. He recorded the statement of Mukesh Gupta and Ram Chander regarding identification of dead body and filled Form No.25:35(1)(b) (Ex. PW32/A) and also prepared request form for postmortem. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to family members. He prepared rough site plan Ex.PW32/B and also recorded the FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 21 of 91 statements of the witnesses. On 26.04.2014, he examined the father of deceased who disclosed that his wife had informed him that in the evening on 25.04.2014, deceased had gone to the house of accused Amit Gupta @ Monu, due to they had suspicion on accused Amit Gupta and Rehman. On 27.04.2014, he analysis CDRs of accused (Mark PW32/A (colly)) and cell location of accused Reman was found near the house of accused Amit Gupta and both had conversation with each other. He interrogated accused Amit Gupta, but he did not cooperate so he was brought to PS along-with Rehman and ultimately both confessed to their involvement to this crime. He arrested both accused and also recorded their disclosure statements.
6.33.1. PW32 has further deposed that he seized red and blue colour sandals of the deceased at the instance of accused Amit Gupta and also prepared site plan of the spot of recovery which is Ex.PW32/C. He also seized Santro car and brought to PS and deposited with malkhana. On 28.04.2014, accused pointed out the spot where dead body was dumped and got prepared pointing out memo. He also seized a dibbi of Musa ka gul at the instance of accused Amit Gupta from the bushes in DDA park, in front of JPC hospital. Accused Amit Gupta also got recovered mobile phone of Nokia from his house which was also seized and he also prepared site plan Ex.PW32/D. He also seized one strip of tablets containing two tablets of pink colour from the house of accused Rehman besides seizure of one Samsung mobile phone. Rehman led to one Abdul Wahid whose statement was also recorded. On 29.04.2014, FSL team from Rohini led by Dr. Bharti inspected Santro car and got recovered one button from the said car lying FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 22 of 91 between driving and back seat. FSL team also visited the house of accused Amit Gupta wherefrom one bottle of Coca Cola having liquid, one strip of tablets, one Samsung Tab of blue and pink colour and one blood-stained pillow cover were also seized. Blood-stained portion of pillow cover was also seized and all articles were sent to FSL. He seized three sealed parcels along-with MLC through Ct. Sachin and again received two sealed parcels through Ct. Lavesh and seized vide memos Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW17/A. He collected SOC report, photographs and sealed parcels from doctor who conducted the postmortem and deposited with malkhana. On 23.06.2014, Ct. Pawan collected viscera and deposited with FSL, Rohini.
6.33.2. During cross examination, he has deposed that he collected CDR of mobile connection of Rehman as per which he was in the company of Amit Gupta, but cell location of Rehman was not found nearby to the spot of recovery of the dead body or in the area of Macca Majid. On 24.04.2014, accused Rehman frequently talked to accused and also received text messages from co-accused, but no separate record of such text messages was seized. Accused Rehman did not cooperate in investigation so he was arrested. It is admitted that he could not find any document to prove ownership of Santro car as accused informed him that he had lost the documents, but he sent one police constable to Authority to get the details of the registered ownership, but statement of that official was not part of record. It is admitted that there is no document or detail about the real ownership of the car in the chargesheet. It is further admitted that no TIP of button recovered from the car was got conducted. He did not make any FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 23 of 91 inquiry as to who visited the house of accused Rehman during the period from 24.04.2014 to 28.04.2014. It is further denied that seizure memo of the car is silent about seizure of its keys due to keys were retained by him to plant the evidence against accused. It is further admitted that no videography or photography of the inspection by FSL Team was got conducted.
6.33.3. PW32 has deposed that he firstly saw the dead body of deceased at about 7.00 am on 25.04.2014 and was aware about the clothing / wearing of child through FIR when he left PS, but did not remember about the descriptions / types of footwears worn by the deceased. He inspected the dead body before removing to hospital and child was wearing shirt, but he did not remember how many buttons were tagged in the said shirt. He inspected the dead body after lifting the shirt, but could not say as to whether all the buttons of the shirt were intact. He witnessed number of injures on the dead body, but could not figure them out, however there was no bleeding and were only blue marks. It is further admitted that there were no blood marks on the clothes of the deceased and even no blood marks were present at the spot. He did not check as to whether all the buttons of the shirt were intact. It is further admitted that there was no suspect of murder till the postmortem was conducted on the dead body and even family members also did not name any suspect. It is further admitted that deceased was wearing clothes by the time family members identified him and those clothes were handed over to him on 04.06.2014. It is further admitted that he did not disclose about the wearing or types of footwears FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 24 of 91 worn by the deceased or that those were not on his body. On 26.04.2014 at about 11.30 am, he visited the house of the complainant and remained there upto 3.00 pm, but did not search the nearby houses during his stay at the house of the complainant. He did not know as to where Macca Masjid was situated, but he came to know during investigation by the statements of witnesses namely Ram Chander, Deepak Gupta and Jagjit Negi that two persons accompanied with one boy were seen in the locality near Macca masjid, but he did not make any inquiry to this effect as witnesses disclosed that boy accompanied with those persons was not the same boy whose dead body had already been recovered. It is further admitted that abovesaid both versions were given by the witnesses simultaneously and he accepted both versions without any independent investigation. It is further admitted that bus was parked at the place in early morning at about 4.00/4.30 am and by that time dead body was not there. Pappu who witnessed this body did not inform PCR, but dead body was noticed at about 5.30 am. He did not make any inquiry regarding informant of PCR call, as he did not collect PCR form. He did not remember as to whether he collected the CDR of mobile of the father of deceased. He inquired from tutor of the deceased but did not record her statement. He also did not record the statement of the grandfather of the deceased.
6.33.4. PW32 has deposed that he collected CDR of accused Amit Gupta as family members of deceased suspected him, but his cell location was not found nearby the spot wherefrom dead body was recovered or in the area of Macca Masjid. It is further deposed that both accused were together on FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 25 of 91 24.04.2014, between 16.09 hours to 18.58 hrs and from 15.48 hours to 18.58 hours. It is further admitted that cell locations of both accused was at Braham Puri, which is stretched by 250-300 meters in straight and covered by 2-3 towers. It is further admitted that he did not visit the house of accused Amit Gupta on 26.04.2014, as there was no reason. No search was conducted in the house of accused Amit Gupta on 27.04.2014 when he visited there, but he seized Santro car parked in the house. They left to Yamuna khadar to make recovery on 27.04.2014 at about 9.30 pm, but he did not mention this fact in DD. Sandals were recovered from the place about 150-200 meters away where police vehicle was parked. He neither got conducted TIP of sandals nor collected foot marks / or size of foot of the deceased. Seal after use was kept by him as pullandas had already been handed over to SI Vineet Kumar. It is further admitted that the spot of recovery of the dead body was within his knowledge much prior to pointing out by the accused. It is further admitted that scaled site plan was prepared at his instance, whereas dead body was not recovered in his presence. It is further admitted that he was not informed by the doctors that deceased was poisoned or intoxicated or was subjected to sodomy. It is further admitted that Musa ka gul was / is easily available in local market. It is further admitted that he did not record statement of any such witness who saw the deceased wearing those sandals. He firstly inspected the house of accused Amit Gupta on 29.04.2014, but he was not aware as to who visited the house of accused Amit Gupta during the period from 24.04.2014 to 29.04.2014. He did not inspect the car on 27.04.2014 when it was removed to PS, but keys were handed over by the accused from his house for its FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 26 of 91 seizure and keys with car were deposited with MHC(M). It is further deposed that MHC(M) handed over the keys of car for inspection, but it is admitted that nothing was mentioned about keys in its seizure memo, however he was also not aware whether keys were mentioned in the register of MHC(M). He saw shirt of the deceased when dead body was inspected, but no thread was recovered from the car when button was recovered. It is further admitted that he did not send the button to FSL for comparison with other buttons of the shirt and even recovery was also not video-graphed / photographed.
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Admittedly, this case is based upon circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence of any eye witness who witnessed the accused while committing the kidnapping and murder of the deceased Vasu Gupta. The principles governing a case based upon circumstantial evidence have laid down in case titled Vijay Kumar Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 2 SCC 353 as under:
16. Essential ingredients to prove the guilt of an accused by circumstantial evidence are.
16.1. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. Suspicion, however strong, cannot be allowed to take place of proof and therefore, the court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. However, it is no FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 27 of 91 derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the circumstances can not fail. Therefore, many a times it is aptly said that "men may tell lies, but circumstances do not".
16.2. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle, a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies.
16.3. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relation to the facts of the particular case.
16.4. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 28 of 91 which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is, or are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis, except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be.
16.5. 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; and where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court.
8. The abovesaid law of the circumstantial evidence again came into interpretation in a recent judgement titled Gargi v. State of Haryana, (2019) 9 SCC 738 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the entire law again as under:
17. When the present case pivots around circumstantial evidence, having regard to the questions involved, apposite it would be to take note of a few fundamental principles governing the circumstantial evidence and its appreciation.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 29 of 91
18. It remains trite that in judicial proceedings, proof is made by means of production of evidence, which may be either oral or documentary. As regards its nature, the evidence is either direct or circumstantial. The direct evidence proves the existence of a particular fact that emanates from a document or an object and/or what has been observed by the witness.
The circumstantial evidence is the one whereby other facts are proved from which the existence of fact in issue may either be logically inferred, or at least rendered more probable. [A Text Book of Jurisprudence by G.W. Paton, 4th Edn., p. 598.] 18.1. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has explained the essentials before a particular fact could be held proved by way of the proof of other fact or facts; and has expounded on the principles as to how circumstantial evidence need to be approached in a criminal case. We need not multiply on the case law on the subject; only a brief reference to the relevant decisions would suffice.
18.2. In Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan [Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 621 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 120], this Court said : (SCC p. 625, para 14) "14. It is well settled that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests. Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Secondly, these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 30 of 91 the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. That is to say, the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt."
18.3. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487], this Court laid down the golden principles of standard of proof required in a case sought to be established on circumstantial evidence with reference to several past decisions, including that in Hanumant v. State of M.P [Hanumant v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129], in the following : (SCC p. 185, paras 153-54) "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] where the observations were made : [SCC p. 807, para 19 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] '19. ... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 31 of 91 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."
18.4. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Sonvir [Sonvir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 8 SCC 24 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 486], this Court, after taking note of the other cited decisions, pointed out the principles as under : (SCC p. 52, para 82) "82. ... Law of conviction based on circumstantial evidence is well settled. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of this Court in Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan [Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 3 SCC 685 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 54] where in para 17 the following has been held : (SCC p. 693) FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 32 of 91 '17. Before we proceed with the matter, it has to be borne in mind that this case depends upon circumstantial evidence and, as such, as per the settled law, every circumstance would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and further the chain of circumstances should be so complete and perfect that the only inference of the guilt of the accused should emanate therefrom. At the same time, there should be no possibility whatsoever of the defence version being true.'"
18.5.Thus, circumstantial evidence, in the context of a crime, essentially means such facts and surrounding factors which do point towards the complicity of the charged accused; and then, chain of circumstances means such unquestionable linking of the facts and the surrounding factors that they establish only the guilt of the charged accused beyond reasonable doubt, while ruling out any other theory or possibility or hypothesis.
18.6. Incidental to the principles aforesaid, which are neither of any doubt nor of any dispute, profitable it would be to keep in view the caveat entered by G.W. Paton [A Text Book of Jurisprudence by G.W. Paton, 4th Edn., p. 598.] as regards circumstantial evidence thus:
"On the other hand, circumstances may mislead or false clues may have been laid by the wrongdoer to cast suspicion on another." [This has been stated with reference to ¶514 in Criminal Law by C.S. Kenny wherein, it is cautioned that: though 'circumstances cannot lie', they can mislead. They may even have been brought about for the very purpose of misleading, as when Joseph's silver cup was placed in Benjamin's sack, or when Lady Macbeth 'smeared the sleeping grooms with blood'.] FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 33 of 91 After going through the abovesaid summery of cases to deal with circumstantial evidence, it stands proved that all circumstances leading to involvement of the accused to crime must be established firmly and beyond all doubt. This case is based upon the last seen togetherness of the accused and deceased and has to be dealt with by the same law.
9. Last Live Togetherness of Deceased with Accused: The first and foremost circumstance against both accused is last live togetherness of the deceased with accused Amit Gupta. Rather, it was not last alive togetherness and rather deceased was lastly seen entering into the house of accused Amit Gupta as witnessed by the mother of the deceased. To prove this circumstance, testimony of PW3 is material. PW3 Bhavna Gupta is the mother of deceased Vasu Gupta and has deposed that on 24.04.2014, she brought her deceased son from his school and on the way he disclosed that accused Amit Gupta @ Monu promised him to give a tab, but she did not pay heed. After coming back to home deceased left to take his tuition and returned back home at about 5.20 pm, but immediately left his house to the house of accused thereby stating that 'main monu chacha ke yahan khelna jaa raha hoon''. It is further proved that at about 6.30 pm, her father-in-law asked about the deceased Vasu, but she informed that he had gone to the house of Monu for playing and also she sent her daughter Prerna to the house of accused to call the deceased, but accused did not open door and informed her from first floor itself that Vasu was not there. She personally visited the house of Monu and he opened the door after about 4-5 minutes of knocking and informed that Vasu aaya tha lekin chala gaya'. It is further FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 34 of 91 deposed that in the meanwhile, Rehman also came downstairs and greeted her and corroborated that the deceased had left and they were watching TV at first floor. She countered that Vasu did not return back, but Monu told her that he might have gone to Mandir and accompanied her to Moni Mandir to search him and on the way back he was constantly talking to someone on mobile phone and also visited her house. She informed her family members that Vasu was not traceable and all the family members and neighbors searched him, but on 25.04.2014, his dead body was recovered. On 27.04.2014, she was called by the police to PS Usmanpur where Amit Gupta was also present in police custody and she asked him as to why he did so and he replied that 'mere upar bahut karja ho gaya tha isliye maine uske kidnapped kiya'. On it, she replied, tu ek bar batata ki tujhe paiso ki jarurat hai' and slapped him twice or thrice.
10. However, during cross examination, she has admitted that police recorded her statement first time on 24.04.2014, but she did not disclose to police that Monu had promised to the deceased to give Tab or that she did not pay heed. She also did not tell police that she witnessed her son entering into the house of Monu. She has further admitted that her son used to play with other children namely Dishu and Nonu in street and their houses are also situated in front of house of Monu. She further admitted that relations between her family and family of Monu were cordial. She further admitted that she did not enter into the house of Monu and was not aware as to who was present inside the house besides Rehman. It is further admitted that her statement was recorded by the police second time on 26.04.2014 during FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 35 of 91 which she disclosed the facts mentioned in her examination-in-chief. She has further admitted that she did not inform her husband about missing of the deceased, but received call of her husband at about 9.30 pm and did not disclose all facts to her husband on the same day, as she did not talk him. She further admitted that she did not get opportunity to talk her husband on 25.04.2014 also, as the entire family was busy in hospital and she talked her husband only on 26.04.2014 before getting recorded her statement. She was not aware whether her parents-in-law searched her son, but she did not search him personally. Even she also did not accompany with police to search her son on 26.04.2014. She did not enter into the house of accused with her husband, parents-in-law, police or anybody else. It is admitted that there was no reason to suspect accused and even her parents in law or husband also did not lodge any complaint against him till the time her statement was recorded, as they believed that accused Amit @ Monu was innocent. She saw accused Rehman in the house of Amit Gupta when she visited his house on 24.04.2014 and visited twice at about 6.45 pm and after 15 minutes, but during her second visit Rehman was not there.
11. After going through the abovesaid testimony of PW3, it is clear that PW3 has taken a contradictory stand during his testimony. On the one hand, she has deposed that she witnessed the deceased entering into the house of accused Amit Gupta, on the other hand she neither searched him in his house nor disclosed to any family members or police for next two days about this fact. Even she also did not lead the police to his house nor disclosed to her husband immediately and rather informed him after two FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 36 of 91 days of missing of the deceased. This conduct of the mother of a child / PW3 was strange. Rather it has created a doubt as to whether she witnessed the deceased entering into the house of accused or not. As per her version, she informed her husband about this fact on 26/04/2014, whereas her husband Mukesh Gupta / PW7 has deposed that she informed him on 25/04/2014, when he came back after cremation of the dead body of his son. She informed her husband that deceased returned home after taking his tuition and went to play to the house of Monu Gupta, she also visited the house of Monu Gupta where Rehman was also present, but both accused informed her that deceased had come, but went away. However, PW7 has disputed this information during his cross examination by deposing that he did not remember as to whether he informed this fact to the police or not. It is very strange that such a vital information was withheld by the parents of the deceased despite knowing the consequences. Even police also did not make any inquiry from the accused or parents of deceased to this effect. Contrary to it, PW7 has admitted that he did not raise any suspicion on accused till the dead body of the deceased was handed over to him. Even after coming to know about the involvement of accused Amit Gupta, he also did not go to his home. On the other hand, PW1 has duly admitted that there was no suspicion on accused till the deceased was cremated.
12. After going through the testimonies of both parents of the deceased i.e. PW3 Bhawana Gupta and PW7 Mukesh Gupta, they have created a doubt in the story of the prosecution. PW3 witnessed the deceased entering into the house of accused Amit Gupta and she also visited his house twice, FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 37 of 91 but strangely she neither searched the deceased in the house of the accused nor asked the police officials to conduct such search. Rather she did not tell police that she witnessed her son entering into the house of accused Monu. It is beyond explanation as to why she concealed this vital information from the police. Even it is also disputed whether she informed her husband regarding missing of her son or not. PW3 has admitted during cross examination that she did not inform her husband about missing of the deceased and someone else might have informed him, but she received his call at about 9:30 pm, whereas PW7 has contradicted her that she informed him regarding missing of the deceased, but he reached home at about 9:30 pm. Not only this, they also did not talk to each other for next 2 days and even they were also not aware as to when their statements were recorded. However, initial statements of both witnesses have proved that they did not disclose anything to the police as deposed before this court and this conduct of the parents of the deceased was not natural and beyond explanation.
13. No doubt subsequent statement of PW3 recorded by the police has description of the facts that deceased entered into the house of the accused, but this statement was recorded on 3rd days of missing of the deceased and by that time, the dead body of deceased had already recovered. On the other hand, first statement of PW3 u/s 161 CrPC has proved that she only disclosed that the deceased had gone to the house of accused to play, whereas accused informed her that he went to play with Disha. As such, this testimony of PW3 did not have any such last seen entry of the deceased into the house of the accused. Further, PW3 was the mother of a child, but still FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 38 of 91 she neither remembered the descriptions of the clothes of the deceased nor visited hospital on recovery of the dead body of her son. She also did not tell regarding the last visit of the deceased to accused to her family members and had no suspicion on accused till 26.04.2014. Even entire family did not lodge any complaint against the accused till the time her statement was recorded by the police, as they believed that accused Amit Gupta was innocent. As such, the fact that the deceased lastly visited the house of the accused Amit Gupta @ Monu was doubtful.
14. Contrary to the story of PW3, PW7 has further admitted that public persons informed them that two persons were taking away one boy towards Macca Masjid and this fact has been duly corroborated by PW8 Deepak and PW9 Jagjit Negi also. They informed IO / PW32 about this fact, who has also admitted that he came to know about this fact through Ram Chander Gupta, Deepak Gupta and Jagjit Negi, but did not make any inquiry in locality nearby Macca Masjid to verify this fact. Rather he has tendered a vague explanation that witnesses informed him that the boy accompanied with those unknown persons was not the same boy whose dead body had already been recovered. It was very strangely that IO accepted different versions of the witnesses without any investigation and also did not try to locate as to whether deceased was not seen with some unidentified persons or not. On the other hand, PW1 has categorically admitted that no one suspected the accused Amit Gupta to be assailant, but he was firstly suspected by Mukesh Gupta, whereas PW8 Deepak Gupta has deposed that from the prevailing circumstances of that time, they raised suspicion upon FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 39 of 91 Amit Gupta and Rehman as they both were friends. The testimonies of PW1 and PW8 have proved that both accused were suspected by the family members without any basis and none of the witnesses had any concrete reason of suspicion against them.
15. Further, so far as the doubt on accused Amit Gupta is concerned, there seems no reason to the police to suspect and apprehend him, as police also suspected and interrogated both sons of PW1, but their interrogation is not part of record. On the other hand, PW32 has admitted that he collected CDRs of both accused Amit Gupta and Rehman, as family members of the deceased doubted them, but their cell locations were not found at the place where dead body of the deceased was recovered. IO suspected the accused on the basis of CDRs as per which they talked to each other, but it was not any material evidence as the area where the presence of accused was ascertained was spreading in the stretch of about 200-250 meters and was covered by two cell towers. In fact, both were friends and business partners and their connection to each other was not doubtful in any manner. Contrary to it, CDR and CAF of the mobile phones of both accused have not been proved by the prosecution before this court. As such, there was no reason to the family members of the deceased to have doubt on accused Amit Gupta @ Monu, but they doubted him just because deceased left his house by saying that he was going to the house of accused Monu to play, whereas there was no proof till the time the dead body of the deceased was cremated that he had actually gone to his house or not.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 40 of 91
16. Even it is assumed that the deceased went to the house of accused before gone missing, then also IO has not conducted any investigation that deceased ever visited the house of accused Amit Gupta on 26/04/2014 or 27/04/2014, whereas he visited the house of the deceased repeatedly and on 27/04/2014 he remained there from 10:30 am to 3:00 pm. PW7 also did not corroborate this fact that IO ever visited the house of the accused or he along with IO visited there. In fact, the conduct of IO was also not proper and he did not conduct any search either of Santro Car which was parked inside the house or the house of accused to collect evidence despite his two visits on two consecutive days.
17. After going through the testimonies of the family members, it is clear that all the family members were not aware firmly about the actual visit of the deceased to the house of accused Amit Gupta @ Monu before his death. They had no reason to believe that deceased was in the last company of the accused. It is beyond explanation as to why they only suspected accused Amit Gupta, whereas PW3 has also admitted that other family members of the accused Amit Gupta were also residing in the same house. If other family members of the accused were also residing in the same premises, then they also ought to be suspected and could have not been exonerated in whimsical manner.
18. Admittedly, last seen togetherness is a material circumstance and raises a presumption u/s Section 106 of Evidence Act against accused which FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 41 of 91 is to be rebutted by him, provided last togetherness must be established be- yond doubt. Section 106 of Evidence Act is as under:
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket.
The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
19. The ingredients of the abovesaid section would show that this section deals with those circumstances where some facts are within the especial knowledge of a person and other persons would never know about it. The person within the personal and especial knowledge of those facts has to prove such facts and onus lies upon him only. In fact, it is a presumption of such facts which are within the personal knowledge of the accused and has to be rebutted by him only, as investigating agency would never know those facts. Last seen theory evolves around this presumption only. If deceased and accused were lastly seen together and something happens to one of them, the other is bound to prove as to what had happened to other, who was in his last company. He is bound to explain beyond doubt that deceased left his company alive and if he fails to prove this fact, then an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him. This law related to last seen togetherness of accused and deceased has been dealt with in case titled Nizam v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550 as under:
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 42 of 91
15. Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [(2006) 12 SCC 254 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 688], this Court held as under : (SCC p. 265, para 23) "23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categorical in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohamed, In re. [1959 SCC OnLine Mad 173 : AIR 1960 Mad 218] "
20. After going through the above said judgments, it is clear that principle of last-seen-togetherness must be proved with certainty and no other person except the accused must have opportunity to kill the deceased. Though accused should offer an explanation as to when he left the last company of the deceased to eliminate all doubts of his involvement, yet accused may not be convicted just merely because he failed to offer an FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 43 of 91 explanation, provided there is no other evidence or circumstances against him to indicate his involvement. As such, only circumstance of last-seen- togetherness is not a deciding factor to convict an accused for murder of the deceased and such observation also finds support by a case titled Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359, in which, it is observed as under:
19. The circumstance of last seen together cannot by itself form the basis of holding the accused guilty of the offence. In Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan [Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 413], this Court held that : (SCC p. 719, paras 12 & 15) "12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime.
Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.
***
15. The theory of last seen--the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 767] ."
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 44 of 91
21. A similar law has also laid down in case titled Mohibur Rahman v. State of Assam, (2002) 6 SCC 715 that;
10. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where, on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide...
As such, prosecution is duty bound to prove last-seen-together of the accused with deceased cogently and firmly, whereas accused must offer an explanation within his personal knowledge in terms of section 106 of Evidence Act, only than an adverse inference may be drawn against him. Not only this, last seen togetherness of the deceased and accused viz-a-viz time of death must be so close and narrow to rule out any involvement of anyone else to have an opportunity to kill the deceased, only then this presumption may be invoked against the accused.
22. However, in this case, PW3 was the main and only witness who allegedly saw the deceased entering into the house of the accused on 24/04/2014 at about 5:30 pm, but she has failed to prove this fact beyond doubt. Rather she failed to prove as to whether deceased entered into the house of accused or not, or that the deceased was in fact present in his house or not. She has categorically admitted that many other family FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 45 of 91 members of the accused were also residing in the same premises and it is beyond explanation as to why only accused Amit Gupta has to be suspected and not his other family members. In fact, none of the family members of the deceased or his parents ever saw or witnessed the deceased and accused together, due to it cannot be said that accused and deceased were lastly seen together to raise this presumption of section 106 of Evidence Act.
23. Further, another limb of this last seen togetherness to raise a presumption u/s 106 of Evidence Act is the time gap when deceased and accused were seen alive together viz-a-viz time of death of the deceased. PW3 has deposed that deceased went to play to the house of the accused at about 5:20 pm, whereas his dead body was found by PW12 ASI Ram Kishore at about 5:45 am on 25/04/2014 vide DD No.11A (Ex.PW11/A). Postmortem report of the deceased would show that he was subjected to as more as 22 injuries and his cause of death was - Asphyxia as a result of smothering with time of death about 12 hours. Though testimony of PW15A is silent whether this time of death of 12 hours was from the time of conducting his post mortem or from the time of missing of the deceased, but usually time of death is to be considered from the time of post mortem only, which started at 11:00 am on 25/04/2014. As per this calculation, time of death of the deceased comes to about 11:00 pm on 24/04/2014, whereas PW3 allegedly saw the deceased entering into the house of the accused at about 5:30 pm, which suggests that there was doubtful time gap of about 5.30 hours between last seen alive and death of deceased. This time gap between last seen alive and recovery of dead body was also about 12 hours FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 46 of 91 which was substantial and ought to be explained by the prosecution and has not been explained in any manner. In such situation, it cannot be said that time gap between the missing of the deceased viz-a-viz death was not so narrow to suspect accused only to raise a presumption u/s 106 of Evidence Act to seek an explanation from the accused. As such, in view of the nature of evidence against the accused, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the last seen togetherness of the accused and deceased.
24. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that PW3 & PW7 were interested witnesses being parents of the deceased due to their testimonies are liable to be discarded. No doubt both the witnesses were parents of the deceased, but related witness is not always interested witness and rather there are chances that such witnesses shall not spare the real culprits. However, testimony of any related witness must be appreciated with caution, but cannot be discarded on this ground alone. It is necessary to go through the law relating to an interested witness, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled State of AP v. S. Rayappa And Others, 2006 4 SCC 512 that "By now it is a well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 47 of 91 On the contrary it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are a harassed lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation, the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witnesses should be examined cautiously."
25. Further, in case titled Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145, it was held that without any generalization, that a related witness would ordinarily speak the truth, but in the case of an enmity there may be a tendency to drag in an innocent person as an accused - each case has to be considered on its own facts. This is what this Court had to say:
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 48 of 91 as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
In view of the above-said case laws, it stands proved that related witness is not always an interested witness. In this case, PW3 was the main witness who allegedly saw the deceased entering into the house of accused Amit Gupta @ Monu, but her testimony could not prove this fact beyond suspicion. Her testimony was full of contradictions not only withing her own testimony but also the testimonies of other PWs.
26. Admittedly, testimonies of the family members of the deceased are full of contradictions which may not be said minor to affect their credibility. It has held in State of UP v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505 and Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525 that the difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core issue of the prosecution case, may be there but that by itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. The observation of the Hon'ble Court is relevant as under: -
"24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant detail. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 49 of 91
25. It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from the previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross- examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. The material portion of the section is extracted below:
'155. Impeaching credit of witness - The credit of a witness maybe impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or with the consent of the court, by the party who calls him (1) - xxxxxxxxxx (2). xxxxxxxxxxx (3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;'
26. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to be 'contradicted' would affect the credit of the witness. Section 145 of the Evidence Act also enables the cross-examiner to use any former statement of the witness, but it cautions that if it is intended to 'contradict' the witness the cores-examiner is enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed therein. Section 162 of Code also permits the cross-examiner to use the previous statement of the witness (recorded under Section 161 of the Code) for the only limited purpose i.e. to 'contradict' the witness.
However, testimonies of PW3 and PW7 have proved that the contradictions in their testimonies were not minor in comparison to their previous statements u/s 161 CrPC. Not only their previous statements but their testimonies are also contradictory to each other. In fact, the reliability of a witness has to qualify the criteria that it should be reliable to prove a fact only then it may be relied upon.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 50 of 91
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorized the reliability of the witnesses in three categories as laid down in case titled Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 as under:
(a) Wholly reliable.
(b) Wholly unreliable. and
(c) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way, it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.
28. After going through the testimonies of PW1, PW3 and PW7, it stands proved that the testimonies of the abovesaid witnesses are covered by clause (c) "Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable" and needs corroboration which is not there. As such, the testimonies of PWs could not prove that deceased and accused were lastly seen together and PWs have miserably failed to prove this fact/ circumstance.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 51 of 91
29. Nature of Death and Involvement of Accused: To prove the nature of the death - whether it was suicidal or homicidal, medical evidence has to be seen. Though medical opinion is only advice and cannot supersede the testimony of any eye witness, yet it corroborates the mode and manner of causing injuries by the accused in the similar manner as proved by the witnesses. The object of medical evidence is corroborative as held in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484 that Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defense can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whosoever of injuries: taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged in consistency between it and the medical evidence. In fact, the medical evidence has to be interpreted in the corroborative manner to the testimony of eye witness and to give the strength to his statement or contradict him.
30. Admittedly, deceased Vasu Gupta was subjected to Post Mortem and Post Mortem Report is the main document to determine the nature of injuries as well as cause of death. PW15A Dr. Neha Gupta has proved her Post Mortem Report prepared Ex.PW15A/A which contains the following external injuries as under:
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 52 of 91 External Antemortem injuries:
1. Reddish blue contusion present over left side back, 1.5 x 1.5 cm, 3 cm from midline and 4 cm above iliac crest.
2. Reddish blue contusion 2 x 2 cm present over right side back, 1 cm from midline and 5 cm above iliac crest.
3. Reddish abrasion linear, obliquely present 18 x 1 cm present over upper back, crossing midline, left upper end is just below shoulder top, right lower end is touching inferior angle of scapula.
4. Reddish abrasion 7 x 2.5 cm present over right upper back, 5 cm below shoulder top, 2.5 cm from midline.
5. Reddish abrasion 4.5 x 1 cm present horizontally over left side back, touching midline, 4 cm below nape of neck.
6. Reddish abrasion 3 x 1 cm present horizontally over upper back, in midline, 5 cm below nape of neck.
7. Reddish abrasion 3 x 3 cm present over left acromium.
8. Reddish blue contusion 4 x 1 cm present over whole of lower lip alongwith perchmentization of lip.
9. Multiple reddish blue contusion present in all area of 4 x 2 cm over whole of inner mucosal surface of upper lip.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 53 of 91
10. Reddish abrasion, curvilinear in shape, with concavity downwards.
11. Reddish abrasion, cona shaped, 0.3 x 0.2 cm over left side face, 1.5 cm from midline upper lip.
12. Reddish abrasion, cornea shaped, 4.2 x 0.2 cm over left side face, touching the upper lip, just lateral to midline.
13. Linear Reddish abrasion 3 x 0.2 cm present over nose, 2. 5 cm below glabella.
14. Multiple Reddish abrasion present over right side face in an area of 1.5 x 1 cm, 3 in number, measuring 0.3 x 0.2 cm each, 1.5 cm below eye and 4 cm from midline.
15. Reddish abrasion 0.5 x 0.2 cm present posteriorly over nasal opening.
16. Reddish abrasion 0.3 x 0.3 cm present over left side face, 4.5 cm from midline, 2.5 cm below eye.
17. Coma shaped liner Reddish abrasion 0.3 x 0.1 cm present over left side face, 6 cm from midline, 1.5 cm below eye.
18. Reddish abrasion 0.3 x 0.2 cm present over left side face, 8 cm from midline at the level of tragus.
19. Reddish abrasion 0.2 x 2 cm present over left angle of mandible.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 54 of 91
20. Reddish abrasion, triangle shaped, 0.5 x 0.2 cm present over supra sternal notch.
21. Reddish abrasion 2 x 2 cm present over right shoulder top, 2 cm medial to acromium.
22. Reddish blue contusion 6 x 3 cm present over anterior aspect of left ear pinna.
Brain - 1290 gms, congested, patchy subarachiod hemorrhage over bilateral frontal and left parito temporal lobes.
Both lungs- are congested. Petechial hemorrhages present over base and interlobar surface of both the lungs Heart - 75 gms, Petechial hemorrhages present at the of great vessels.
Stomach - About 20 ml of yellowish mucoidal material present walls - congested External anal orifice and anal canal shows injuries - NAD Time since death- about 12 hours Cause of death - Asphyxia as a result of antemortem smothering.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 55 of 91 After going through the postmortem report Ex.PW15A/A, the cause of death stands proved that the deceased was strangulated / smothered and his death was not natural or suicidal, but was homicidal/murder.
31. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body observed external anal orifice and anal canal shows injuries, but such injuries have not been further explored by the doctor. On the other hand, PW32 Insp. Jitender Singh has admitted during cross examination that he was not informed by the doctor that deceased was not poisoned, intoxicated or was subject to sodomy. This admission of the IO has proved that deceased was not subjected to any sexual assault. Even otherwise prosecution has not brought something on record to this effect during examination of the doctor that deceased was subjected to any sexual assault.
32. Admittedly, anal swabs of deceased were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A and were sent for DNA analysis and PW27 Ms. Seema Nain has proved this report as Ex.PW27/A, as per which, human semen was detected on Exhibit 16, which was semen sample of accused Rehman seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/A and samples of Amit Gupta vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A after collecting by PW23 Dr. Sachin against MLC Ex.PW23/A, but semen could not be detected on Exhibits 13, 15, 18, 21a, 21b, 22a and 22b. The conclusion of the report is as under:
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 56 of 91 Conclusion DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the source of exbibits 14 (Blood sample Rehman), 17 (Blood sample of Amit @ Monu), 19 (Blood on gauze of deceased), 20 (Nail clipping of deceased), 21a (Anal swab of deceased), 21b( Anal smear of deceased), 22a ( Perianal swab of deceased) and 22b ( Perianal smear of deceased) is sufficient to conclude that DNA profile generated from of exhibit 19 is similar with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 20, 21a, 21b, 22a and 22b (swabs / microslides of deceased).
33. Perusal of the above said DNA report would suggest that DNA profile was generated from of Exhibit-19 was similar to DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibits 20, 21a, 21b, 22a and 22b (swabs / microslides of deceased), but this report has not proved culpability of both accused to any sexual assault on the deceased. Even the hair recovered from the house of the accused Amit Gupta also could not be connected to the DNA of the deceased, as no DNA could be extracted from this hair, though later on this hair also could not be produced before this court.
34. However, Ld. APP for State has argued that the post mortem report of the deceased and MLC of accused Amit Gupta have corroborated that deceased was sexually assaulted by the accused and deceased also resisted which resulted into sustaining injuries by the accused as reflected in MLC of Amit Gupta. It is further argued that accused has not denied or explained FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 57 of 91 such injuries sustained on the same day of this incident and has proved the involvement of this accused beyond doubt. On the other hand, this fact has been strongly denied by Ld. Counsel for accused that there was no evidence against the accused that there was any sexual assault on the deceased and even it was not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was ever subjected to any sexual assault, due to this plea is not sustainable.
35. Admittedly, postmortem report of the deceased Ex.PW15A/A has proved that the deceased sustained external anal orifice and anal canal shows injuries and both accused were also medically examined by PW29 Dr. Debashish Mukherjee and prepared MLCs Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B. MLC of accused Amit Gupta (Ex.PW29/A) has observed the following two days old injuries as under:
1. bruises on left cheek 3 x 3 cms,
2. bruises behind right ear 2 x 2 cms,
3. bruises on both gluteal region 6 x 4 cms, and
4. bruise on right foot dorsum 2 x 1 cms.
36. The above said MLCs have been admitted by the accused during S.A. that they were medically examined against these MLCs. Admittedly, deceased got missing on 24/04/2014, whereas his dead body was recovered on 25/04/2016. Both accused were arrested on 27/04/2014 and were medically examined. MLC of Amit Gupta has proved that he was medically examined on 28/04/2014 at about 09:04 pm and doctor observed two days old injuries on his face and other body parts, which comes to dated FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 58 of 91 26/04/2014 i.e. two days or 2-3 days after the death of deceased as admitted during cross examination by PW29 as well. On the other hand, accused has not offered any explanation to such injuries due to it has to be seen, as to whether accused suffered such injuries during incident by the hands of deceased or otherwise. Accused has suffered four bruises' injuries on different parts of his body including on cheeks and ear.
37. Bruises/contusions have been defined in Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 24th Edition, Page No. 519 as under:
Bruises- Bruises or contusions are injuries which are caused by a blow form a blunt weapon, such as a club (lathi), whip, iron bar, stone, fall fingers, fist, boots or by a fall or by crushing or compression. These are accompanied by a painful swelling and crushing or tearing of the subcutaneous tissues without solution of continuity of the skin. The swelling is due to the rupture of the small subcutaneous blood vessels producing in the cellular tissues, extravasation of blood, which is known as ecchymosis. The term effusion of blood is ordinarily limited to extravasation of blood in a pleural cavity.
Abrasions- Abrasions are injuries involving loss of superficial epithelial layer of the skin, and they don not leave a scar on healing. For an abrasion to occur, there must be pressure of an object and it should move on the skin to form an abrasion. They are produced by a blow, a fall or a slide on a rough surface or bring dragged in a vehicular accident, by scratching of grazing with the finger nails, thorns, by teeth bites, or by friction and pressure of strings or roped tied around the neck or other parts of the body. Abrasions vary in size and shape and bleed very slightly. These blunt impact injuries are hardly of any significance from the point of view of loss of life but FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 59 of 91 medico-legally they are of great importance.
Abrasions resulting from friction against a rough surface during a fall are mostly found on bony parts, and are usually associated with contusions or lacerated wounds and sometimes with very serious injuries. Abrasions may also be covered with mud, and straw and their shape and pattern may indicate the type of surface on which the victim may have been impacted or dragged. The direction of the abrasion may be made out by the heaped surface layer (epidermis) or tags at one end. The grinding or sliding movement of a rough surface along the skin can also be made out. Abrasions caused by the finger nails indicate a struggle and an assault, and are usually seen on the exposed parts of the body, such as the face, neck, forearm, hands, and thighs; their form and direction may help in identification and show how the injury was caused. They may be thin, linear, crescent in shape, specially if the finger nails have been pressed with violence into the skin, or they may extent and tail off. In such cases, there will be ecchymosis in the underline tissues. Brassiere hooks may cause fine linear apprehension on breasts in cases of sexual assault so also fingernail marks on thighs and genitals.
Types of Abrasions
1. Scratch - It is caused by a sharp and pointed object like pointed end of the knife or pin or needle or finger nail. Scratches are linear in shape. It beginning is clean and the end is heaped up epithelium, which shows the direction of weapon.
2. Grazing/sliding/gliding. - it occurs in wider areas. There must be a sliding movement between the skin and the object. It occurs in road traffic accident. They are seen as multiple, parallel and longitudinal lines. Its beginning is clean and the end is serrated or heaped up epithelium which gives the direction of the object.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 60 of 91
3. Patterned or imprint or impact. - it is caused by tyre marks, and radiator grill. Pressure of the object is momentary.
4. Crushing or pressure. - it occurs in ligature strangulation of hanging and strangulation. Pressure is sustained.
A combined reading of both terms of injuries would show that bruises are usually occurred / caused by blunt weapon, such as a club (lathi), whip, iron bar, stone, fall fingers, fist, boots or by a fall or by crushing or compression, whereas abrasions are involving loss of superficial epithelial layer of the skin and occur by pressure of an object or produced by a blow, a fall or a slide on a rough surface or bring dragged in a vehicular accident, by scratching of grazing with the finger nails, thorns or by teeth bites.
38. Admittedly, accused Amit Gupta sustained only bruises and if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that bruises were sustained during some sexual assault on the deceased, then he was supposed to sustain abrasions and not bruises, as scratches/ nail marks/ bite marks etc. results abrasions and not bruises. As such, such injuries sustained by the accused may be because of some other reasons and not by sexual assault on the deceased and are not fatal to raise any adverse inference against the accused. Even otherwise it is not the case of the prosecution since beginning that deceased was subjected to any sexual assault and PW32 has also admitted that deceased was not subjected to any sodomy. It is pertinent to mention here that postmortem report has pointed out as many as 22 injuries on the body FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 61 of 91 of the deceased, but no explanation has been tendered by the prosecution as to how deceased sustained such injuries and entire record is silent about the mode and manner of such injuries. Even nothing is on record as to what weapon was used by the accused to cause such injuries and no weapon has recovered to connect the accused to such injuries. Explanation of such injuries or weapon is also not disclosed in the disclosure statement of the accused also. As such, neither medical nor oral evidence has supported the arguments of the Ld. Addl. PP for State.
39. Expert Evidence: Further, police have also seized a number of articles to prove that the deceased was administered some sedatives and one of such article was strip of tablets recovered at the instance of accused Rehman vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/G. One dibbi of Musa a Gul was recovered at the instance of accused Amit Gupta and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/E, one Coca Cola bottle containing some liquid and one strip of tablets containing tablets seized from the house of Amit Gupta by IO at the instance of FSL team vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B & Ex.PW18/C. All such seizures were sent to FSL for examination and PW25 examined all articles and prepared his report Ex.PW25/A of which result is as under:
Result of examination report On chemical, TLC, HPTLC & GC-MS examination,
(i) Exhibit '1' (Musa ka Gul) was found contain 'Nicotine'
(ii) Exhibit '2' (Two Tablets of Orange Colour) was found to contain 'Alprazolam' FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 62 of 91
(iii) Exhibit '3' (Nine yellow color tablets) was found contain 'Clonazepam'
(iv) Exhibit '4' ( Brown Colour coca cola ) was found contain 'Caffeine'
40. The above said recovery of articles suggest that either both accused were using these tablets/ articles or they purchased the same with some ulterior motives. Ld. APP for State has argued that these tablets were administered to the deceased to keep him silence, whereas accused have not offered any explanation as to why such tablets were kept by them in their houses and adverse inference is bound to be drawn against them. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for both accused have argued that recovery of the above said articles from the houses of both accused could not be connected to this case in any manner, due to no adverse inference may be drawn against accused.
41. Admittedly, prosecution has relied upon all these articles to support the version that accused used these articles to keep the deceased silent from raising any alarm, but mute question is, as to whether these articles were used during the incident in any manner or not? To ascertain this fact, it is necessary to go through viscera report of the deceased which may provide any clue or missing link as to whether such articles were administered to deceased or not. The doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased preserved viscera of the deceased and handed over it over to PW14 and IO seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A and sent to FSL. PW26 examined viscera of the deceased and prepared report Ex.PW26/A and result of the same is as under:
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 63 of 91 Result of examination report On chemical & TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits-A1, A2, A3, & A4.
42. In fact, viscera report was the only method to detect the administration of any poisonous substance or any type of chemical to the deceased, but this report Ex.PW26/A is silent about any such chemical and has failed to prove that no chemical like 'Nicotine', 'Alprazolam', 'Clonazepam' and 'Caffeine' was administered to the deceased. As such, use of any such chemicals as found in the seized tablets or Musa ka gul could not be detected or established.
43. Besides it, Ld. Addl.PP for State has over emphasized for the use of Musa ka gul by the accused to keep mum the deceased, but PW11 Anil Kumar Gupta has proved that accused purchased this Musa ka Gul, but he was not aware about the contents (nicotine as opined by FSL), but has deposed that it is used for the purpose of reducing of toothache. On the other hand, PW14 Ct. Pawan has proved that accused Rehman led the police to one Abdul Rehman, Kardam Puri who disclosed that Rehman complained of suffering from insomnia (Ninad na aane ki bimaari), due to he prescribed and provided 4-5 tablets to him with advise to have one tablet daily. Though Abdul Rehman has not been examined by the prosecution, yet there is no reason to dispute testimony of PW14 to this effect. Tablets FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 64 of 91 containing salt Alprazolam and Clonazepam are usually prescribe by doctors to cure troubled sleep and there is no reason to dispute that accused was not suffering from this ailment. Even otherwise prosecution has not examined Abdul Rehman and presumption of section 114 (g) may be raised against the prosecution that he was going to depose against it, that is why he was not examined. Coca Cola seized from the house of Amit Gupta was also found containing caffeine which cannot be considered any chemical which may be used to make someone unconscious. As such, recovery of any of the abovesaid articles could not be connected to the deceased in any manner.
44. Besides it, reports of serologist/DNA / FSL are just advices / or opinions in terms of section 45 of Evidence Act and such opinion / advice may have only corroborative value, but cannot be conclusive to base a conviction upon them. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 771 is as under:
49. One cannot lose sight of the fact that DNA evidence is also in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged in Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Undoubtedly, an expert giving evidence before the court plays a crucial role, especially since the entire purpose and object of opinion evidence is to aid the court in forming its opinion on questions concerning foreign law, science, art, etc., on which the court might not have the technical expertise to form an opinion on its own. In criminal cases, such questions may pertain to aspects such as ballistics, fingerprint matching, handwriting comparison, and even DNA testing or superimposition techniques, as seen in the instant case.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 65 of 91
50. The role of an expert witness rendering opinion evidence before the Court may be explained by referring to the following observations of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v.
Regency Hospital Ltd. [Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 840] :
(SCC p. 714, para 16) "16. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the lay person. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved is highly specialised and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed."
(emphasis supplied)
51. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of an expert witness to assist the Court effectively by furnishing it with the relevant report based on his expertise along with his reasons, so that the Court may form its independent judgment by assessing such materials and reasons furnished by the expert for coming to an appropriate conclusion. Be that as it may, it cannot be forgotten that opinion evidence is advisory in nature, and the Court is not bound by the evidence of the experts.
52. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on the facts and circumstances and the weight FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 66 of 91 accorded to other evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative. This is all the more important to remember, given that even though the accuracy of DNA evidence may be increasing with the advancement of science and technology with every passing day, thereby making it more and more reliable, we have not yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be infallible. Thus, it cannot be said that the absence of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a party, especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such party.
In view of the above said case law, it stands proved that the value of an expert evidence is just corroborative and cannot be made basis of any conviction whatsoever it may be accurate. In fact, there must be some ocular evidence to corroborate opinion/s u/s 45 of Evidence Act, which not in available this case in any manner.
45. Arrest and Recoveries: Now the further recoveries made at the instance of both accused have to be seen. Accused Rehman was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex. PW13/A and Ex.PW13/A1 and also made his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A. Accused Amit Gupta was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/B1 and made his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/B. Recoveries made at the instance of both accused were i.e. Santro Car bearing No. DL-4CS-5041 seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C, mobile phone Samsung vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/H, mobile phone Nokia vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/F, Sandals of the deceased seized at the instance of Amit FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 67 of 91 Gupta vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C, Tab Samsung vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/D and one button recovered from Santro Car vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. Though some recoveries were made in the absence of accused persons and at the instance of by FSL team, yet such recoveries are admissible either u/s 8 or 27 of Evidence Act.
46. Admittedly, recovery or discovery of a new fact in pursuance of disclosure statement of an accused is admissible u/s 27 of Evidence Act. The law to this effect has laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 621 as under;
"The essence of the proof of a discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act is only that it should be credibly proved that the discovery made was relevant and material discovery which proceeded in pursuance of information supplied by the accused in the custody. How the prosecution proved it, is to be judged by the court but if the court finds the fact of such information having been given by the accused in custody is credible and acceptable even in the absence of the recorded statement in pursuance of that information some material discovery has been effected than the aspect of discovery will not suffer from any vice and can be acted upon." In view of the above said law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the recovery of the weapons and other articles is very relevant as well as admissible against the accused persons.
47. Further, it is held in case titled Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 192 that:
23. An objection was raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-accused that recovery of firearm at the instance of the appellant-accused was planted by the police and it could not FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 68 of 91 have been relied upon. This Court, in a number of cases, has held that the evidence of circumstance simpliciter that an accused led a police officer and pointed out the place where weapon was found hidden, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of whether any statement made by him contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
In view of the abovesaid law, it stands proved that both the accused were duly arrested by the police and led to the recovery of many articles, especially Sandals of the deceased. Accused Amit Gupta led to this recovery made by IO in the presence of SI Vinit Kumar and Ct Sonu. One pair of 9 number sandals was recovered from Yamuna Khadar, having description Angry Birds. Accused Amit Gupta disclosed in his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/B that he had thrown these sandals near lohe ka pul on 25/04/2014 and this recovery was made on 27/04/2014 at about 9:30 pm at his instance. PW32/IO has proved the spot of this recovery vide site plan Ex.PW32/C prepared by him.
48. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that this recovery was of no use as there was no proof that deceased was wearing such sandals when he left his home and there sandals were also not subjected to any TIP due to this recovery cannot be connected to the accused. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State has argued that this recovery has duly proved before this court by police officials and recovery is legally admissible under section 27 of Evidence Act, due to both accused are liable for this murder.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 69 of 91
49. Before connecting this recovery to the deceased, it is necessary to ascertain as to whether such sandals belong to the deceased or not. This investigation was started by lodging DD No.30A (Ex.PW2/A) got lodged by PW1 and the dead body of deceased was recovered vide DD No11A (Ex.PW12/A). W.T. massage was flashed to all SSP's and DCP's of India and all SHOs of Delhi by PW24 SI Vineet Kumar in the late night of the same day. This massage was flashed before recovery of the dead body due to the contents of this massage are relevant. This massage contains description of the clothes of deceased as - Black T-Shirt, Cream Color pant and red color Sandals. However, there was no description of such sandals in the statement of the complainant Ram Chander Gupta (Ex.PW1/A). On the other hand, missing information was uploaded on Zipnet software which did not contain any description of sandals. Even initial statement of PW3 Smt. Bhawana Gupta was also silent about such description of the sandals. PW3 Smt. Bhawana Gupta was the only witness who lastly seen the deceased when he left the home. She has identified the sandals recovered at the instance of accused i.e. red and blue colour with description Angry Birds on the strap as Ex. P5. Contrary to it, she has admitted that she did not provide any description of last wearing or footwears of the deceased to the police. PW32/ IO has also admitted that details of the sandals were not mentioned in DD entry or FIR and also not provided by the mother of deceased. PW13 Sonu Rathi also witnessed this recovery with PW24 SI Vineet Kumar, but PW24 has admitted that he did not remember as to whether mother of the deceased disclosed about the shoes or sandals of the deceased.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 70 of 91
50. Not only this, police officials have also proved their different versions regarding description of the spot of recovery of these sandals. PW24 has proved that the distance between two sandals about 1 meter, whereas PW13 has proved this distance about 200-250 meter. PW13 has further admitted that accused Amit Gupta was arrested first and then led to the house of Rehman wherefrom they proceeded to Yamuna Khadar for this recovery of sandals and reached there at about 10:00/10:15pm, whereas PW24 SI Vineet Kumar has deposed that they left to the spot of recovery from the PS itself at about 9:45 PM. In fact, both the versions were altogether different. Contrary to it, PW32 / IO has proved that they left PS at about 9:30 pm to make this recovery of the sandals which was a distance about 150-200 meters away from the spot where gypsy was parked. On the other hand, IO has neither proved any DD entry nor collected foot marks or foot size of the deceased before his postmortem to corroborate that this pair of sandals really belonged to the deceased or not. Even number 9 inscribed on the sandals also not proved to be belonged to the deceased only. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Amit Gupta was arrested on 27/04/2014 at about 9:15 pm from his residence and was taken to PS, interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded, whereas still this recovery of the sandals was made at about 9:30 pm itself, which has again doubted this recovery. PW24 has admitted that no document was prepared before this recovery which has proved that even disclosure statement of the accused was not recorded by the police and such recovery cannot be brought within the ambit of section 27 of Evidence Act. As such, the testimonies of the recovery witnesses as well as family members have FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 71 of 91 proved that there was no clear description of the sandals worn by the deceased when he got missing, but still this recovery has been shown at the instance of accused. In the absence of any description of sandals worn by the deceased, TIP of the sandals, having different description in comparison of WT massage, was necessary to rule out any doubt regarding genuineness of the sandals, but it was not got conducted for the reasons best known to the IO. As such, all facts suggest that it may not be ruled out that this recovery might have been planted upon the accused, especially in the absence of any connecting evidence that these sandals belonged to the deceased only. On the other hand, police officials have admitted that IO retained his seal after its seizure and sealing of the sandals, which was quite possible to be misused or exhibits could have been tempered with. In fact, any doubt of tempering with is sufficient to disown such recovery which is in this case.
51. Next recovery is of Santro Car bearing No. DL-4CS-5041. This Santro Car was being used by accused Amit Gupta and this fact has been proved by PW1 Ram Chander Gupta, PW3 Bhawana Gupta, PW7 Mukesh Gupta, PW8 Deepak Gupta, PW9 Jagjit Singh Negi and PW10 Sunil Kumar Rathi. Even police officials i.e. PW4 and PW14 Ct. Pawan have also proved this recovery. However, it could not be proved that this car legally belonged to any of the accused. Prosecution has not proved any document on record that this car actually belonged to accused Amit Gupta or Rehman. IO/PW32 has admitted that he did not seize any document pertaining to the ownership of this car. He deputed one person to verify the particulars of ownership FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 72 of 91 from Transport Authority, but no document was seized or proved nor that person has been examined to prove this fact. As such, there is nothing on record except oral evidence of some witnesses that this car belonged to accused persons. Even it is also disputed as to whether car belonged to Amit Gupta or Rehman, as father of the deceased Mukesh Gupta has admitted that Rehman used to park this car at the house of accused Amit Gupta, whereas car has been shown to be recovered from accused Amit Gupta. As such, it could not be proved that this car belonged to both or one of the accused or someone else.
52. Further, recovery of this car and its inspection after its seizure is also doubtful. IO / PW32 has deposed that he seized this car on 27/04/2014, but did not inspect it and deposited keys with MHC(M), whereas MHCM / PW19 has disputed this fact and also admitted that IO did not deposit keys of this car with him. The testimony of PW32 is also disputed on the point of search of this car, as he has deposed that he did not search this car after its seizure, whereas PW24 SI Vineet has admitted during cross examination that nothing was recovered from the search of this car in his presence, which has proved that car was duly searched soon after its seizure. In fact, both the facts are fatal to this case. IO did not verify the ownership of the car, but still shown it to be seized at the instance of accused Amit Gupta, retained its keys despite depositing of car with MHC(M) and also searched unauthorizedly and above the all, he concealed all such facts from this court.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 73 of 91
53. Though the connection of the car with accused was doubtful, yet FSL team inspected and searched this car again at the instance of IO after the arrest of the accused. During this search, by FSL team recovered one button and prosecution has connected this button to the shirt of the deceased, but this recovery was also not beyond doubt. This button was seized by IO at the instance of FSL team vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A on 29/04/2014, whereas this car was seized on 27/04/2014 and there was delay of about 2 days in this recovery from a car which was in the sole possession of IO who unauthorized retained the keys of the car despite depositing car with MHC(M). As such, manipulation of evidence in car may not be ruled out.
54. PW30 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj along with her team of FSL experts visited PS New Usman Pur at the instance of IO and inspected the car and seized the above said button which was found near foot mat having muddy stains at back seat of the car. Ld. APP for the State has argued that this recovery was connected to the deceased, as it was the button of the shirt of deceased and might have been left behind when accused transported the dead body of the deceased to the spot of its recovery by this vehicle. However, it is very strange that vehicle was seized on 27/04/2014, but was got inspection on 29/04/2014 (wrongly typed in statement of PW30 as 30/10/2014 but seizures made on 29/04/2014 itself), whereas car had already been inspected by IO and nothing was found. This recovery has also been falsified by the disclosure statement of the accused also, as per which, vehicle was cleaned instantly by accused Rehman vide Ex.PW4/C. As such, this delayed recovery was of no use. Contrary to it, prosecution has not FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 74 of 91 sought any FSL opinion regarding this button, as to whether it was connected to other buttons of the shirt of the deceased or not. No TIP of button was got conducted and rather connection of this button to the clothes worn by the deceased, as disclosed in missing report or WT massage or Ex. PW1/A, could not be proved. PW1 and PW3 coupled with WT massage have proved that the deceased was wearing Black T-Shirt, but his body was recovered in a printed shirt which was beyond explanation and was totally different. Photographs of the deceased have proved this fact beyond doubt. It is pertinent to mention here that FSL team inspected this vehicle, but still neither blood stains nor finger prints or other marks of deceased could be detected inside the car to prove that deceased was ever transported by this vehicle. Even recovery of the other articles by IO at the instance of PW30 from the house of accused also could not be connected to this offence in any manner. It is patient to mention here that mobile tab / mobile phones were also not sent to FSL and rather their relevancy also not proved except the mobile phones of both accused which were allegedly used for the purpose to connect both accused to each other during this incident and thereafter. However, CDRs of these mobile phones have not proved before this court and even Nodal Officers have not been examined to prove it. Contrary to it, IO has admitted that cell locations of both accused were not found at the spot where dead body was dumped or recovered. Both accused stated to be talking to each other, but it was not unusual as it is the admitted case of the prosecution that both accused were business partners and friends. Even Rehman also used to park his vehicle at the house of co-accused and their locations or conversation was obvious, especially when prosecution has FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 75 of 91 failed to point out as to what was unusual in their conversations.
55. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that PW3 has deposed that accused lured the deceased on the pretext of giving him a Tab due to this recovery of Tab has relevancy, but merely this statement is not sufficient to prove the connection of the accused to this Tab. There is no evidence that accused ever lured the deceased on the pretext of giving of this tab. FSL team also found a hair in the house of the accused and prosecution has alleged that it belonged to the deceased Vasu Gupta, but DNA report has failed to prove any connection of this hair to this crime. Rather no DNA could be extracted from this hair, which also later on gone missing. As such, no recovery from the house of the accused Amit Gupta by PW30 could be connected to this offence.
56. Further, one pillow cover cutting was also seized by PW30 from the house of accused Amit Gupta vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/E, as she observed some blood stains over it. However, blood stains could be detected on this pillow cover cutting and even DNA also could not be extracted. As such, it could not be proved that pillow cover contained any blood stains of the deceased or accused or someone else. Even otherwise, it was not the case of the prosecution that blood of someone oozed out during this incident, due to recovery of blood stains was out of question. As such, neither recovery of any exhibits nor their connection to this crime could be proved.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 76 of 91
57. Identity of Accused Persons: The identity of both accused was not disputed in any manner as both were duly known to the complainant and other family members being neighbors and relatives, due to identity of accused stands proved, but their connection to this crime could not be proved beyond doubt.
58. Motive: So far as motive of the accused persons to commit this offence is concerned, though proving of motive is not material in a case based upon direct evidence of an eye witnesses, yet it has relevancy in cases based upon circumstantial evidence, as also laid down by Nandu Singh v. State of MP 2022 Liv Law (SC) 229. In this case, the motive of the accused was to kidnap the deceased to extort money / ransom from the family members, as proved by PW3 and admitted by the accused in disclosure statements, but strangely none of the accused never raised any ransom demand from the family members and there is no evidence to the effect of such motive. On the other hand, disclosure statement of accused Amit Gupta and statement of PW3 have proved that accused Amit Gupta was in debt due to he kidnapped the deceased, but this fact is also not proved by any financial record of the accused. The other motive could have been their sexual assault on the deceased, but again there is no evidence that deceased was ever subjected to any sexual assault. Rather, PW32/IO has ruled out that deceased was ever subjected to any sexual. As such, there was no motive of the accused to commit this offence.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 77 of 91
59. In the cases based upon circumstantial evidence, explanation tendered by the accused during statement u/s 313 is also relevant. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, V (2012) SLT 508 thereby relying upon State of Maharashatra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 that when the attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have referred to the said decision only to highlight that the accused has not given any explanation whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to him under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure.
60. In view of these judgments, it is clear that explanation of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. may not be deciding factor to convict accused, but such statements may be considered against the accused to observe his conduct to connect the link of missing link of circumstances, but in this case, statements of both accused have failed to make any admission to connect them to any of the circumstances, due to these statements failed to connect them to this crime of kidnapping or murder and are of no use.
61. Offence u/s 363 IPC: Prosecution has charged both accused for this offence that they kidnapped the deceased Vasu Gupta. To prove this offence, it is necessary to establish that both accused kidnapped or abducted the deceased from the lawful custody of his parents or enticed him out of the FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 78 of 91 lawful guardianship of his parents. Kidnapping has been defined under section 360 & 361 IPC, which is punishable u/s 363 IPC and relevant sections are as under:
359. Kidnapping.--Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from [India], and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
360. Kidnapping from India.--Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of 1[India] without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from 1[India].
361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. --Whoever takes or entices any minor under [sixteen] years of age if a male, or under [eighteen] years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
Explanation. --The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
(Exception) - This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
363. Punishment for kidnapping.--Whoever kidnaps any person from 1[India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 79 of 91
62. After going through the above said sections, it is clear that there are mainly two types of kidnapping - (1) kidnapping from India (2) kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Kidnapping from India is not relevant in this case and only kidnapping from lawful guardianship is relevant, which has been defined u/s 361 IPC. Section 361 IPC came into interpretation in case titled Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat [(1973) 2 SCC 413 as follows:
"The expression used in Section 361 IPC is 'whoever takes or entices any minor'. The word 'takes' does not necessarily connote taking by force and it is not confined only to use of force, actual or constructive. This word merely means, 'to cause to go', 'to escort' or 'to get into possession'. No doubt it does mean physical taking, but not necessarily by use of force or fraud. The word 'entice' seems to involve the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This can take many forms, difficult to visualise and describe exhaustively; some of them may be quite subtle, depending for their success on the mental state of the person at the time when the inducement is intended to operate. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating after some time, in achieving its ultimate purposes of successful inducement. The two words 'takes' and 'entices', as used in Section 361 IPC are in our opinion, intended to be read together so that each takes to some extent its colour and content from the other. The statutory language suggests that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in Section 361 IPC."
In view of the abovesaid definition of kidnapping, it is necessary / mandatory that minor child must be taken away or enticed by someone without the consent of his/her lawful guardian, only then someone may be convicted for this kidnapping u/s 363 IPC. However, in this case, there is FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 80 of 91 no evidence that deceased was ever kidnapped or enticed by both accused from the lawful custody of his parents or was enticed to come out of such guardianship.
63. No doubt, there is no direct evidence with prosecution that both accused ever kidnapped or abducted the deceased from lawful custody/ guardianship of his parents, but two circumstances have been pointed out by PW3 Smt. Bhawana Gupta. Firstly, that accused lured or enticed the deceased on the pretext of giving a Samsung tab which was also recovered from the house of accused by FSL team. Secondly, accused have made their own admissions during their disclosure statements, in which, they confessed that Amit Gupta lured the deceased to his home on the pretext of providing Samsung tab. However, both the facts could not be proved. First fact that deceased was offered a tab by the accused was hearsay and it was quite possible that the accused might have stated to the deceased just to make him happy being child, whereas there is no evidence to support this version. Similarly, confession of the accused is not admissible in evidence in terms of section 25 of Evidence Act. Admittedly, statement has to be read as whole and if whole statement of the accused is considered, then he also disclosed that the deceased was playing in the street when he lured him, whereas this statement is contradictory to the testimony of PW3 who has deposed that deceased left his house for playing at the house of accused Amit Gupta or that she witnessed deceased entering into his house. As such, there is neither oral nor scientific evidence to prove the charge against the accused that they ever kidnapped or enticed or murdered him and FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 81 of 91 prosecution has failed to discharge the burden to prove this charge against the accused.
64. Offence u/s 201/34 IPC - Next charge against both accused is u/s 201/34 IPC which is related to causing of disappearance of evidence in order to save the accused. Section 201 IPC is as under:
Section -201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.--Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence.--shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.--and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.--and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 82 of 91 Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine.
65. The above said section 201 IPC came into interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 and following ingredients of the offence are laid down as under:
12. Having regard to the language used, the following ingredients emerge:
(I) committal of an offence;
(II) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed;
(III) person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence; and (IV) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
13. The impact of Section 201 thus is the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment. It is on this score that the High Court observed:
"Such intention exists or is presumed to exist in the mind of the accused when he has some interest in the person who committed the main offence. Though the identity of the person who committed the main offence is not established in evidence, there must be material to indicate that the accused knows who the FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 83 of 91 main offender was, when the accused did the act of causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information regarding the offence. The intention to screen the offender must be the primary and sole object of the accused. The mere fact that the concealment was likely to have that effect is not sufficient."
66. Perusal of above said section made it clear that mere suspicion would not be sufficient to prove this offence and there must be available on record some cogent evidence that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen another known or unknown. The foremost necessity being that the accused must have the knowledge or have reason to believe that such an offence has been committed. To make anyone liable under this sec- tion, prosecution is bound to prove intention or knowledge of the accused to furnish the false information or to cause to disappear some material evi- dence.
67. However, in this case, there is no evidence that both accused ever kidnapped or enticed the deceased or committed his murder. There is no evidence on record to prove that both accused ever caused to disappear any evidence or dead body of the deceased or disposed it off in order to save themselves or someone else. Prosecution has no evidence that both accused were ever seen with the dead body and rather they were not found nearby to the dead body. There is no evidence on record that accused had any intention or knowledge or having reason to believe that any offence had committed of which evidence they removed or furnished any false FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 84 of 91 information with this object. PW32 has already admitted that even cell locations of both accused were also not found nearby to the dead body to attribute any blame to them. As such, there is no evidence against the accused that they have committed this offence.
68. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the case of the prosecution is lacking of following evidence/ circumstances as under:
(i). After going through the entire case of the prosecution, it stands proved that prosecution has no concreate evidence that deceased and accused were last seen alive together.
(ii). That there is no evidence that the deceased was ever kidnapped by the accused persons out of the guardianship of his parents or family members.
(iii). That there is no evidence that deceased was ever confined to the house of accused Amit Gupta or was killed there by smothering as opined by doctor who conducted his postmortem.
(iv). That deceased sustained as more as 22 injuries as reflected in his postmortem report, but there was no explanation with police for such injuries, whereas police have not seized any weapon by which such injuries were inflicted. Even police have also not verified the spot where deceased was confined and killed.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 85 of 91
(v). Deceased was smothered to kill, but post mortem report was silent about the mode and manner of such smothering of the deceased. There were no sign/marks on the face of the deceased to prove any such smothering. As such, mode and manner of smothering is beyond explanation.
(vi). That IO did not search or inspected the house of the accused despite coming to know that the deceased visited the house of accused and it proved fatal to this case.
(vii). That Police have not examined family members of the accused to prove that the accused were alone at home when deceased allegedly went to the house of Amit Gupta to play.
(viii). IO has not examined neighbors to prove that deceased did not visit their house to play, especially Disha's house with whom accused was allegedly playing as per the case of Amit Gupta.
(ix). That FSL team visited the house of accused Amit Gupta after two days of the crime but still did not find out anything inside the house of the accused to connect him to this crime.
(x). There is no evidence on record that anyone saw both accused while transporting the dead body of the deceased from the house of Amit Gupta or otherwise to the spot of recovery of the body.
(xi). That there is no evidence that accused had any motive to kill the deceased.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 86 of 91
(xii). That there is no evidence that accused ever used the vehicle/ car during this crime or that it belonged to them.
(xiii) That there is no evidence that deceased worn the sandals which have shown to be recovered at the instance of accused. Even there is a dispute of colour of sandals which remained doubtful. Police also did not get conducted any TIP of those sandals to connect the accused to such sandals.
(xiv) That there is no evidence that deceased was caused injuries by the accused and there was no recovery of any weapon which could have caused such 22 injuries to the deceased.
(xv) There is doubt as to whether deceased was wearing Black T-shirt when he got missing or the shirt in which his dead body was recovered.
Even button of shirt allegedly found in the car of the accused also could not be connected to this crime.
(xvi) Further, it is not beyond explanation if deceased was wearing black T-Shirt, then how his body was found in printed shirt and how his clothes changed, but both facts remained uninvestigated.
(xvii) That IO failed to send shirt button to FSL for comparison with other buttons of the shirt and also failed to get conducted TIP of button to prove that button belonged to the same shirt or belonged to deceased.
(xviii) That button of shirt was allegedly recovered from the car, but this recovery was doubtful as keys of the car remained in unlawful custody of FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 87 of 91 IO for two days i.e. from 27/04/2014 to 29/04/2014 and no explanation has been offered to it by the prosecution and rather IO has tried to mislead this court that he deposited keys with MHC(M).
(xix) That prosecution has proved a number of recoveries at the instance of the accused or FSL team from the house of accused, but none of the recoveries could be connected to the accused.
(xx) IO did not investigate the presence of boy with two others unknown persons in the area of Mecca Masjid which was material, but IO blindly relied upon the witnesses on this aspect without investigation.
(xxi) Prosecution has not proved CDRs/ CAF of both the accused to prove their connection with each other or to this crime and also certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act of Cellular Company to prove authenticity of CDR relied upon by IO to prove the presence of both accused nearby to the spot of recovery of the dead body or at home together.
(xxii) That the Cell locations of the accused could not prove that they were nearby to the spot of recovery of the dead body as proved by oral testimony of IO.
(xxiii) That there is no evidence that accused ever removed dead body of the deceased to save themselves from legal punishment or someone else.
(xxiv) That IO did not join the family members of the deceased in investigation and also ignored the public witnesses at material stages of the FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 88 of 91 investigation.
(xxv) That IO did not investigate the offences under sections 363/201 IPC and just invoked these sections in whimsical manner.
69. In fact, these are some circumstances which could not be proved on record against the accused and most of facts / circumstances remained doubtful or unproved. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down five golden rules of evidence to prove a case based upon circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 that all conditions and circumstances should be fully established. The circumstances "must or should" and not "may be" should be established, but could not be satisfied in this case. The facts of the case must be established in consistency without leaving any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, that is to say, should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty could not be established in this case. Even circumstances should be of a conclusive nature to complete 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, also could not be proved. As such, case of the prosecution could not pass the five golden rules / principles laid down by above said judgment and could not be proved beyond doubt.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 89 of 91
70. It is settled proposition that circumstances against accused must be well established and not merely possibility of establishing as laid down by Sachin Kumar Singhraha v. State of M.P., (2019) 8 SCC 371 as under:
6. There cannot be any dispute as to the well-settled proposition that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or "should be" and not merely "may be" fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explicable through any other hypothesis except that the accused was guilty. Moreover, the circumstances should be conclusive in nature. There must be a chain of evidence so complete so as to not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and must show that in all human probability, the offence was committed by the accused.
71. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 363/302/201/34 IPC against the both accused beyond reasonable doubt and both the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt, hence acquitted.
72. Both accused are lying in Judicial Custody and be released from custody immediately, if not required in any other case. Release Warrant be issued.
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 90 of 91
73. Both the accused have furnished their Bail Bonds u/s 437A CrPC and accepted for a period of 6 months with direction to appear before the Appellant Court, in case of filing of any appeal against this judgment.
74. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DEVENDRA DEVENDRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.04.25
17:08:01 +0530
Announce in open court (Devender Kumar)
Today on 25.04.2022 Additional Sessions Judge-02
(NE): Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi
FIR No. 373/2014 5 State Vs. Amit Gupta & Anr. 91 of 91