Delhi District Court
State vs Dharmapal @ Dhankad on 8 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
EAST DISTRICT, DELHI
Session Case N2o.: 821/2017
State Vs : Dharampal @ Dhankad & Anr.
FIR No. : 240/2017
U/s : 364/302/34 IPC
PS : Mayur Vihar
CNR No.: DLET01-013400-2017
Date of Institution : 03.10.2017
Date of Judgment reserved on: 03.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.12.2025
Brief Details Of The Case
Details of accused persons : (i) Dharampal @ Dhankad
S/o Nekshu, R/o House of
Ved, Village:- Chaprouli,
Bangar, PS Bisrakh,
District- Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.
Permanent Address:-
Village:-Kasumra,
PS Anola, District Bareilly,
Uttar Pradesh.
(ii) Sandeep Kumar Sharma
S/o Ramvir Sharma,
R/o Village Darabnagar,
PS Anola, District Bareilly,
Uttar Pradesh.
Offences complained of : 364/302/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Dharampal Convicted u/s
302 IPC but acquitted u/s
364 IPC
Sandeep acquitted u/s 302
& 364 IPC
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 1 of 41
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08
16:24:29
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The nub of the case of the prosecution is as follows:-
(a) On 11.02.2017, one Manju w/o Naresh Kumar came to PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I and lodged a report that her husband on 18.01.2017 at about 04:00 p.m. left his house no.21/422, Trilok Puri, Delhi, and since then, he had not returned back. All efforts made to trace him could not fructify. She gave description of her husband and therefore, missing report vide a DD No.27A dated 11.02.2017 was lodged. This DD was marked to SI Vijay Kumar for necessary action.
(b) Strenuous efforts were made to trace Naresh Kumar. The details of Naresh Kumar were sent to police control room at 100 number. A wireless message was flashed across India qua the missing person, details of Naresh were uploaded on Zip-Net and his complete details were also sent to Missing Person Cell, NCRB, CBI and Doordarshan. Additionally, hue and cry notices were published and displayed at public places. The photographs and details of Naresh Kumar were also published in Newspapers Jansatta and Hindustan Times on 24.02.2017 but he could not be traced.
(c) On 02.07.2017, complainant Manju came to PS and informed that she suspected that her husband had been abducted and killed by one Dharampal @ Dhankad s/o Nekshu (who is also a resident of the same village as her husband). Statement of Manju was recorded in that regard by SI Vijay Kumar and on the basis of the same, the present FIR u/s 364 Indian Penal Code, FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 2 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:25:01 +0530 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was registered and investigation was taken up.
(d) During investigation, one Prem Sagar s/o Ram Kishore (friend of Naresh Kumar) told that on 18.01.2017, Dharampal @ Dhankad was with Naresh Kumar and he was pressurizing him to return Rs.1,00,000/- taken by Naresh Kumar from him.
Naresh had withdrawn Rs.4,000/- from his bank account on that day and given the same to Dharampal @ Dhankad. Naresh Kumar could not withdraw more amount as due to demonetization there was a limit on withdrawal of money.
(e) On 04.07.2017 at 08:30 p.m., HC Anil posted at Anti- Snatching & Robbery Cell, Gokalpuri, informed qua arrest of Dharampal @ Dhankad in FIR No. 338/17 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS Seelampur. He also informed that in disclosure of that case Dharampal @ Dhankad had disclosed about commission of offence in the present case. This information was recorded at DD No.42B and was marked to SI Vijay Kumar for necessary action. SI Vijay Kumar collected various papers pertaining to FIR No. 338/17 PS Seelampur. On 05.07.2017, Dharampal @ Dhankad was produced before court in FIR No. 338/17 and after seeking permission from court, the accused was interrogated and arrested in the present matter by SI Vijay Kumar. During interrogation, he disclosed that he along with one Jagpal Prajapati had killed Naresh on 18.01.2017 as he was not returning his money. Police remand of accused Dharampal @ Dhankad was taken to arrest co-accused Jagpal @ Jagdish Prajapati.
(f) During investigation Dharampal @ Dhankad took police FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 3 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:25:19 +0530 to Lalu Ka Dhaba, JS Roop Singh Bhati Market, Village Bisrakh, Noida, U.P. and stated that on 18.01.2017, he and Jagpal Prajapati had dinner with Naresh Kumar and thereafter, they killed him. Shri Kant Rai @ Lalu i.e. owner of Lalu Ka Dhaba identified Dharampal @ Dhankad during investigation. Pointing out memo of Lalu Ka Dhaba was prepared. Shri Kant Rai stated that Dharampal @ Dhankad was also known as Lambu and in January 2017, he had come with two persons at Dhaba to have dinner. He identified the photograph of Naresh Kumar as one of those persons accompanying Dharampal @ Dhankad in January 2017.
(g) Dharampal @ Dhankad pointed out a place 300 meters away from Lalu Ka Dhaba where he along with co-accused had killed Naresh. In the meantime, one Uday Singh Bhati @ Tauji also came there and stated that in January 2017, an injured male was found there about which he had informed police at 100 number and thereafter, police had taken away that injured. He also told that Dharampal @ Dhankad had come after 3-4 days of that incident and inquired about that injured. Pointing out memo as well as site plan of place of offence was prepared.
(h) Inquiry was made at PS Bisrakh wherein it was revealed that on 19.01.2017, dead body of an unknown male was found in respect of which inquest proceedings were conducted by SI Attar Singh. Photographs, inquest papers, postmortem report and clothes of deceased were collected from PS Bisrakh.
Photographs of dead body were shown to complainant who identified the same as that of her husband Naresh Kumar. In the FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 4 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:25:39 +0530 PM Report, the doctor had opined that the cause of death was 'shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem head-injury.
(i) Account statement of bank account of deceased maintained with Bank of India, Mayur Vihar was collected which showed that Rs.4,000/- were withdrawn by him on 18.01.2017 and Rs.20,000/- had been withdrawn on 13.01.2017.
The record of mobile number 9811271983 (used by Dharampal @ Dhankad) was obtained and perused which confirmed his presence in the area of Trilok Puri on 18.01.2017 at about 11:00 a.m till about 13:30 p.m and also in the area of village Ethbada, Sector-4, Greater Noida from 15.10 p.m onwards.
(j) On 01.10.2017 accused Jagdish Prajapati was arrested and his mobile phone was seized. His disclosure was recorded wherein he stated that he had not come to Noida on 18.01.2017. Both Dharampal @ Dhankad and Jagdish Prajapati were confronted with each other qua their claims. At that time, accused Dharampal @ Dhankad disclosed that one Sandeep Kumar Sharma was involved in the murder of Naresh Kumar. Jagdish Prajapati was taken to Lalu Ka Dhaba but he was not identified by the owner of Lalu Ka Dhaba. CDR of mobile phone of Jagdish Prajapati was analyzed which revealed his presence at his native village on 18.01.2017 and not at village Bisrakh, Greater Noida. Since no material was found against Jagdish Prajapati, therefore, he was got released from the case.
(k) On 09.10.2017, accused Sandeep Kumar Sharma was arrested, he confessed regarding his involvement in murder of Naresh Kumar. He refused to participate in TIP. He also pointed FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 5 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:26:04 +0530 out the place where Naresh Kumar was killed. CDR of his mobile number 7835969388 was scrutinized which showed the presence of Sandeep Kumar Sharma at the place of offence on 18.01.2017. Chargesheets were filed against both the accused persons for offence punishable u/s 302/364/34 IPC.
2. The court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. After supply of copy of charge sheet (both main and supplementary) to accused persons and upon completion of necessary legal formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Pursuant to order of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, East, the matter was fixed for hearing on point of charge. The charge for offence punishable u/s 302/364/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 09.05.2018 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined Thirty Three (33) witnesses which are tabulated as under:-
Sr. No. Name of Witenss Substance of Examination PW-1 Manju ➢ Made complaint qua disappearance (wife of deceased) of Naresh, expressed suspicion on Dharampal and got the FIR lodged. ➢ Identified the photograph and clothes of unknown male as that of her husband Naresh.
➢ Deposed qua financial dealings between Naresh and Dharampal.
➢ Also told that Dharampal went to her village and told them to perform katha for Naresh.
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 6 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:26:28 +0530 PW-2 HC Vijay Pal ➢ Recorded DD No.27A dated (DO, PS Mayur 11.02.2017 about a missing person Vihar) namely Naresh.
PW-3 Neeraj Bhati ➢ Dharampal was his tenant since (Landlord of 2016 but suddenly left in January Dharampal) 2017 without telling any reason for vacating the premises.
➢ Naresh sometimes came to meet Dharampal.
PW-4 Kalawati ➢ Naresh borrowed money from
(Mother of Dharampal at time of death of his
deceased) daughter Mona.
➢ Money was repaid in cash and
bricks but Dharampal kept
demanding more money.
➢ Dharmapal asked her to offer food to Brahmins in name of Naresh as he was no more.
➢ Dharampal demanded Rs.20,000/-
from her for disclosing the whereabouts of Naresh.
PW-5 ASI Kulbeer Singh ➢ Registered present FIR, made (DO, PS Mayur endorsement on Rukka, recorded Vihar) DD No.14A qua registration of FIR. PW-6 Prem Sagar ➢ Naresh told him about taking loan (Friend of of Rs.70,000/- @ 3% monthly deceased) interest from Dharampal.
➢ On 18.01.2017 saw Dharampal and Naresh together, went with them to bank from where Naresh withdrew Rs.4,000/-.
➢ Saw Dharampal and Naresh boarding an RTV bus at about 01:30 pm on 18.01.2017.
PW-7 Udai Singh Bhati ➢ Called 100 No. on finding an (PCR caller) injured during his morning walk at Village Bisrakh.
➢ Identified Dharampal as the person who made inquiry about injured 2-3 days later PW-8 W/Ct. Sadhana ➢ Recorded DD No.42B dated (DD writer, PS 04.07.2017 about disclosure made Mayur Vihar) by Dharampal in FIR No. 338/17 PS Seelampur about involvement in FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 7 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:26:43 +0530 this case, transmitted the information to SI Vijay.
PW-9 Shri Kant Rai ➢ Told police that Dharampal came (Owner of Lalu Ka and had dinner with two other Dhaba) persons in January, 2017. Identified one of those persons as Naresh and other as Sandeep Sharma.
PW-10 Ct. Deepak Kumar ➢ Went to KKD court with SI Vijay, (Police witness) witness to arrest of Dharampal & disclosure made by him, got him medically examined, went to Lalu Ka Dhaba with accused.
➢ Told that Dhaba owner revealed name of Dharampal as Lambu.
➢ Witness to arrest of Jagpal Prajapati and disclosure made by him.
PW-11 HC Shesh Pal Singh ➢ Went to Mortuary with SI Attar (Police witness) Singh, was present at time of postmortem, took photographs of dead body.
PW-12 Ajay Kumar Saini ➢ On duty at PCR-53, reached
(Part of UP PCR Bisrakh, shifted unknown injured
Team) male to govt. hospital.
PW-13 Insp. Mahesh ➢ Inspected surrounding area of Lalu
Kumar Ka dhaba on 26.09.2017, prepared
(Draughtman) scaled site plan.
PW-14 SI Deepak Kumar ➢ On duty at PCR-53, reached
(Part of UP PCR Bisrakh, shifted injured male to
Team) govt. hospital, sector-37, Noida
where injured was declared brought dead.
PW-15 Krishan Nath Rai ➢ Produced record of Bank of India (Bank witness) a/c of Naresh from 01.01.2017 to 31.01.2017.
PW-16 Dr. Kapil Kumar ➢ Conducted postmortem of unknown (Sr. Medical male, noted down injuries, prepared Officer, Noida) PM report and gave opinion qua cause of death.
PW-17 HC Anil Kumar ➢ Gave information to PS Mayur (Police witness) Vihar about disclosure made by Dharampal in FIR No.338/17 PS Seelampur about involvement in the FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 8 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:27:04 +0530 present case.
PW-18 HC Irfan Ahmed ➢ On 04.07.2017 was part of team that (Police witness) apprehended Dharampal with desi katta and cartridge from in front of Gurudwara, Seelampur.
➢ Witness to arrest, disclosure and personal search of Dharampal in FIR No.338/17 PS Seelampur PW-19 Mahesh Chander ➢ Contractor under whom Dharampal (Employer of both and Sandeep Sharma worked accused) immediately before 18.01.2017.
➢ Produced his phone diary containing contact details of both accused, witness to arrest, disclosure and personal search of Sandeep.
PW-20 HC Maan Singh ➢ On 11.09.2017 went to PS Bisrakh (Police witness) and brought pullanda and inquest papers and PM report.
➢ Handed over these articles and papers to IO who seized the same. PW-21 Dharmender Kumar ➢ Brought casefile/chargesheet of FIR (Ahlmad in court) No.338/17 PS Seelampur. PW-22 HC Sarwan ➢ On 04.07.2017 was part of team that (Police witness) apprehended Dharampal with desi katta and cartridge from in front of Gurudwara, Seelampur, took rukka to PS Seelampur and got FIR lodged.
➢ Witness to arrest, disclosure and personal search of Dharampal in FIR No.338/17 PS Seelampur PW-23 Insp. Deepak Saini ➢ Interrogated Dharampal, called (2nd IO of case) Manju and her Mausa (uncle) to PS, went to PS Bisrakh, inquired from staff of PS Bisrakh, received photograph of Naresh from SI Attar Singh.
➢ Showed photograph to Manju and her Mausa who identified the same to be of Naresh.
➢ Went to scene of crime, recorded statements of witnesses, recorded disclosure of Dharampal, took two FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 9 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:27:21 +0530 days police custody of Dharampal.
PW-24 Suresh Kumar ➢ Resided with Naresh, told about (Sadu/co-brother of loan taken by Naresh from deceased) Dharampal, went to PS Bisrakh, identified dead body in photograph to be of Naresh, identified Dharampal during trial.
PW-25 Suresh Pal ➢ Brought complete service book of
(SSA, DEMS Naresh.
Deptt.,MCD)
PW-26 SI Bangali Babu ➢ Took Dharampal to PS Amla,
(Police witness) Bareilly, UP on 07.07.2017.
➢ Went to house of Jagdeesh
Prajapati, met mother of Naresh
namely Kalawati and recorded her
statement.
➢ On 30.09.2017 again went to
Jagdeesh Prajapati, interrogated and arrested him, recorded his disclosure, took his two days PC, seized his Lava mobile phone.
PW-27 Ajit Singh ➢ Proved CDRs, CAFs and 65B IEA
(Nodal certificate of mobile no.
Officer,Vodafone 9811271983, 7351332822,
Ltd) 7088894470, 7835969388 and
7065361688.
PW-28 Insp. Vijay Kumar ➢ Inquired into missing report no.27A
(1st IO of the case) dated 11.02.2017, got issued hue
and cry notice.
➢ Recorded statement of Manju on
02.07.2017, got FIR registered,
recorded statement of Prem Sagar, arrested Dharampal and recorded his disclosure statement.
➢ Got PC of Dharampal and took him to Bisrakh, prepared pointing out memo of Lalu Ka Dhaba, recorded statement of Udai Singh Bhati and landlord of Dharampal.
PW-29 Alok Pachauri ➢ Got issued mobile No. 7835969388 (Relative of accused on his ID for use by accused Sandeep) Sandeep, stated that Sandeep used this number since the date of its issuance.
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 10 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:27:35 +0530 PW-30 Pawan Kumar ➢ Developed two photographs of dead (Photographer) body of Naresh and gave the same to police officials.
PW-31 HC Vikas Kumar ➢ Proved entries in Malkhana register (MHC (M), PS showing deposit and handing over Bisrakh, UP) of case property at PS Bisrakh.
PW-32 HC Rajesh Kumar ➢ Proved entries in Malkhana register
(MHC (M), PS showing movement of case property
Mayur Vihar) at PS Mayur Vihar.
PW-33 Insp. Manoj Kumar ➢ Examined Mahesh Bind, got
Sharma collected inquest papers, PM report
(3rd IO of the case) and clothes of Naresh from PS
Bisrakh, took draughtsman Insp.
Mahesh Kumar to Bisrakh, got
prepared scaled site plan of place of incident.
➢ Gave notice to bank to give transaction details of bank account of Naresh, collected the statement of account, simultaneously interrogated Dharampal and Jagpal Prajapati and confronted them with each other, prepared charge sheet against Dharampal and filed in court.
➢ Interrogated employer/contractor of Dharampal and Sandeep Sharma, recorded diclosure of Sandeep Sharma and arrested him, took diary of contractor into possession, moved TIP application of Sandeep Sharma, collected CDRs, CAFs etc. of mobile phones.
➢ Recorded statement of Alok Pachauri, collected service record of Naresh from MCD, got Jagpal Prajapati released from this case, filed supplementary chargesheet against Sandeep Sharma.
Upon examination of all witnesses cited in the charge sheet, the prosecution evidence was closed on 29.07.2025.
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 11 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:27:48 +0530
4. Statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused Dharampal and Sandeep Sharma were recorded wherein all incriminating materials were put to each of these accused persons. In his explanation, the accused Sandeep Sharma stated that he did not know Naresh and had never met him. He stated that he was innocent. He alleged that his signatures were taken on blank papers by the police officials. He also submitted that he had never visited Lalu Ka Dhaba for having dinner or even otherwise. Accused Dharampal in his explanatory statement said that he had an altercation with Umesh (brother of Naresh) so Naresh's family had falsely implicated him in murder of Naresh.
He also stated that he had gone to his native village during October Navratras in the year 2016 and on 18/19.01.2017 he was not in Delhi or Noida. He also informed that he had returned to Kasna, Noida only in February 2017. The accused persons elected not to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
5. Ld. Addl. PP for State submitted that all the PWs have fully supported the case of the prosecution. He claimed that cogent documentary evidence has also been adduced to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons. He stated that even the medical evidence duly ties in with the case canvassed by the State. He contended that presence of accused persons with the deceased at Lalu Ka Dhaba on the night before FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 12 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:28:00 +0530 his death has been proved but no credible explanation has been given by accused persons about their whereabouts after being last seen with Naresh. He avowed that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and the motive for committing murder of Naresh is also established. He claimed that the case against the accused persons is proved beyond a shadow of doubt, so the accused persons be convicted for the offence(s) punishable u/s 302/364/34 IPC.
6. Per-contra ld. defence counsels submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident. They further argued that the testimony of owner of lalu ka dhaba is untrustworthy as he is a planted witness. They also canvassed that the loan transaction between Dharampal and Naresh is not proved, so the motive for committing murder is not established. They pointed out that earlier one Jagpal Prajapati had disclosed that he had committed murder of Naresh but he was got released by police and the accused persons have been falsely implicated. They contended that no circumstantial evidence has come on record against the accused persons and despite presence of independent public persons at various spots where investigation was got conducted, no public person was made to join the investigation. They also contended that the weapon of offence had not been recovered, showing that the investigation is shoddy. They claimed that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 13 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:28:21 +0530 accused persons. They prayed that the accused persons be acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides and have perused the record. In the present case, accused persons have been charged for commission of offence(s) punishable under Section 302/364/34 IPC. Section 302 IPC is reproduced as under:-
302.Punishment for Murder- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
The relevant portion of Section 300 IPC which defines 'Murder' reads as follows:-
300. Murder- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or -
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused , or - Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury is aforesaid.
Further, the relevant portion of Section 299 Indian Penal Code which defines "Culpable homicide", having reference in the definition of 'Murder' reads as follows:-
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 14 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:29:07 +0530
299. Culpable homicide-Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Section 364 IPC and 34 IPC are reproduced as follows:-
364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Illustration
(a) A kidnaps Z from India, intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
In the absence of an eye-witness regarding commission of crime, the prosecution has to rely upon indirect evidence which is known as circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, though admissible in a criminal trial but the same has to be treated with caution and circumspection by the court because of the inherent subjectivity in drawing conclusions. The Apex Court in the case of Hanumant vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71; while dealing with circumstantial evidence held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. It must be such as to show FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 15 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:29:33 +0530 that within all human probability the act must have been done by accused. In the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; the apex court propounded the following principles regarding circumstantial evidence:-
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (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.
In the light of these golden principles, the scrutiny of the evidence tendered shall be conducted.
8. In January 2017, Udai Singh Bhati (PW-7) r/o Village Bisrakh, during morning walk reached Jagat Colony near his house and found public persons gathered around a severely injured person lying on the way. That person was about to die. He twice called at 100 number and after sometime police came there and took that person with them. Ct. Ajay Kumar Saini (PW-12) and Ct. Deepak Kumar (PW-14) had deposed that their FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 16 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:29:59 +0530 duties on 19.01.2017 were on PCR-53 and upon receipt of information about an injured lying at village Bisrakh, they reached there. They immediately took the injured to Government Hospital, Sector-37, Noida and admitted him there. PW-14 also testified that the doctor declared the injured as brought dead.
9. HC Shesh Pal Singh (PW-11) had deposed that on 19.01.2017 he was posted at PS Bisrakh when SI Attar Singh Meena got information about dead body of unknown male sent to mortuary for postmortem at Postmortem House situated at Sector-94, Noida. They reached at the postmortem house where SI Attar Singh called five persons as Panch (witnesses) and got the postmortem conducted. During trial, photograph (Ex.P-1) of deceased Naresh was shown to PW-11 who identified the same to be of person whose postmortem was got done on 19.01.2017.
10. Ex.P-1 was duly identified by PW-1 Manju (wife of Naresh) and PW-4 Kalawati (mother of Naresh) to be the photograph of deceased Naresh. The clothes including underwear, pant, belt, one pair of shoes with socks, black thread of hand, black thread of leg and one ring finger of yellow colour found on the person of that injured person were identified by PW-2 Manju during trial as the articles of her deceased husband Naresh. Hence, it can be inferred that the injured found at village Bisrakh, who was shifted to govt. hospital and subsequently to mortuary was Naresh. So it is proved that Naresh had died on 19.01.2017.
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 17 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:30:22 +0530
11. Dr. Kapil Kumar (PW-16) testified that on 19.01.2017 as per order of CMO he was on duty at District Mortuary, Noida.
On that day he conducted postmortem upon body of an unknown male, aged about 40 years and the PM report was Ex.PW16/A. He observed ante-mortem injuries upon the dead body which were as follows:-
(i) Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm above right eyebrow bone deep.
(ii) Abrasion and contusion 17 x 10 cm on forehead and right face.
(iii) Abrasion and contusion on back of chest 38 x 36 cm.
(iv) Traumatic swelling on scalp right side 8 x 5 cm just above right ear.
He observed haematoma in brain which reflected head injury. He opined that the cause of death was 'shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem head injury'. Thus, it is clear as noon day that Naresh did not die a natural death.
12. Suresh Pal (PW-25), the personnel from EDMC brought the service book of deceased Naresh and as per the same, Naresh was employed with EDMC from 01.04.1995 but he had not reported for duty since 16.01.2017.
13. Prem Sagar (PW-6) deposed that he was Naresh's friend. He also stated that on 18.01.2017 Naresh and accused Dharampal met him at about 10:00 am and told him that they had to go to bank for withdrawing money as Naresh had to pay FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 18 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:30:38 +0530 his debt. He also testified that he, Naresh and Dharampal went to Bank of India where Naresh had his salary account but Naresh could withdraw only Rs.4000/- as there was limit upon withdrawal due to demonetization and only Rs.24,000/- monthly were allowed to be withdrawn in cash and Naresh had already withdrawn Rs.20,000/- in that month. He also testified that at about 01:30 pm he saw Dharampal and Naresh board an RTV bus from in front of PS Mayur Vihar. In his cross-examination PW-6 also revealed that they all went to the bank on foot and the bank was about half a kilometer away from house of aunt of Naresh. He also disclosed that he had once visited the village of Naresh at UP.
14. The statement of bank account no.604310100022953 of Naresh maintained with Bank of India, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, was requisitioned for the period 01.01.2017 to 31.01.2017. Krishna Nath Rai (PW-15) from Bank of India produced the same. As per the bank account statement (Ex.PW15/A), Rs.4000/- were withdrawn on 18.01.2017 in cash and Rs.20,000/- on 13.01.2017 in cash, thereby corroborating the version of PW-6 Prem Sagar.
15. Shri Kant Rai @ Lalu (PW-9) had testified that he started a dhaba in the year 2014-15 near Roop Singh Bhati Market, village Emnabad Bisrakh, Greater Noida in name and style of Lalu Ka Dhaba. He revealed that accused Dharampal used to visit his dhaba for eating food. He also disclosed that in the year FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 19 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:30:54 +0530 2017 Dharampal alongwith two other persons came at his dhaba at 09:00/09:30 pm and they ate food and went away. PW-9 identified the photograph of Naresh as that of one of the persons accompanying Dharampal on that day.
16. PW-7 Udai Singh Bhati had also testified that after 2-3 days of the date (when he found an injured during morning walk), one person met him and inquired about the incident of that day. That person had informed PW-7 that he was searching for his missing brother. PW-7 during his testimony identified Dharampal as the person who had met him and made the aforementioned inquiry. PW-7 reiterated during cross- examination that Dharampal was the person who had come and made inquiry by saying that his brother was missing.
17. Neeraj Bhati (PW-3) testified that accused Dharampal was his tenant since 2016 at his house at village Emnabad, PS Bisrakh and he suddenly left the house in January 2017. He further submitted that one day a policeman alongwith accused Dharampal came to his house and asked him whether he knew Dharampal, to which he answered in the affirmative. Police showed him photograph of deceased Naresh and upon seeing the same, PW-3 told that he sometimes came to meet Dharampal.
18. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Dharampal was using mobile number 9811271983 and Sandeep Sharma was using mobile number 7835969388 at the time of the incident in FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 20 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:31:07 +0530 January 2017. However, the Customer Application Forms (CAFs) of these mobile numbers revealed that no. 9811271983 was issued in the name of one Puspa whereas the no.
7835969388 was in the name of Alok Pachauri (who testified as PW-29). In his testimony, PW-29 stated that he had purchased mobile no. 7835969388 in his own name for use by Sandeep Sharma because Sandeep Sharma did not possess a local ID but he required the mobile no. for his new job. He also testified that he helped Sandeep because Sandeep was brother in law of his brother Brijnandan Pachauri. He also deposed that upon issuance of number, the same was handed over to Sandeep who used it and it remained with him.
19. Mahesh Chander (PW-19) was the contractor under whom both the accused Dharampal and Sandeep Sharma were employed in January 2017. Both the accused had worked for PW-19 since the year 2015. He maintained a diary wherein he noted phone numbers. The said diary is Ex.PW19/B. At point A and B respectively in that diary the phone numbers of Dharampal and Sandeep Sharma are written. The contact number of Dharampal is mentioned as 9811271983 and that of Sandeep Sharma as 7835969388. It is not unusual or unheard of in this country for people to use sim cards issued in names of other persons. Usually there is no ulterior motive behind using a sim issued in name of someone else (a relative or an acquaintance) and it is done as the user is not able to procure the sim in his own name for want of local ID/address or for some FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 21 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:31:20 +0530 other reason. There is enough material on record which shows that these numbers were being used by accused persons in their normal course of business during January, 2017.
20. Analysis of CDR of mobile number 9811271983 of Dharampal shows that his phone was active in the area of Village Ethara/Eathda, Greater Noida till about 09:00 am on 18.01.2017. At about 10:00 am he was near Gaur City Circle, Noida and from about 11:00 am he was in Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi and from about noon he was in Trilokpuri, Delhi. He left Delhi at about 02:00 pm and remained in vicinity of Village Ethara till about 08:00 pm. At about 09:30 pm he was at Village Emnabad, Bisrakh, Greater Noida and was there till about 10:30 pm. The next call thereafter is of 19.01.2017 in morning at about 08:00 am when his location is again of Bisrakh. The various locations of accused Dharampal on 18.01.2017 match the exact sequence of events adumbrated by the prosecution. It is also apparent from the analysis of CDRs of accused persons that Sandeep Sharma had called Dharampal at about 09:28 pm on 18.01.2017 and talked to him for about 28 seconds. He had again called Dharampal on 19.01.2017 at about 07:41 pm and had a talk for about a minute.
21. Inspector Manoj Kumar Sharma (PW-33) testified that on 20.08.2017 he examined a person namely Mahesh Bind whose mobile no. 7065361688 was being reflected in CDR of phone of accused Dharampal. PW-33 further testified that Mahesh Bind FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 22 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:31:32 +0530 was colleague of deceased Naresh, and Dharampal used to call at his number in order to talk to Naresh Kumar. The CDR of phone of Dharampal shows that he did call on mobile of Mahesh Bind on 18.01.2017 at about 09:57 am and talked for about 47 seconds.
22. PW-19 Mahesh Chander testified that he gave Rs.40,000/-
to Dharampal in December, 2016 on asking of Sandeep Sharma but Dharampal did not come to work in January 2017. He also stated that he tried contacting Dharampal but his phone was switched off. PW-3 Neeraj Bhati had also testified that Dharampal abruptly left the tenanted premises without telling the reason for vacating the same.
23. PW-4 Kalawati (mother of Naresh) stated during her examination-in-chief that Dharampal reached her village and told her that she should offer food to Brahmins in the name of Naresh as he was no more in the world. She also disclosed that Dharampal also stated 'Holi me laddu khilaunga' and that if she gave him Rs.20,000/- then he would tell her about the whereabouts of Naresh. PW-1 Manju had also testified that before lodging of missing complaint Dharampal had gone to their village and met her mother-in-law. It is noteworthy that Naresh disappeared in January 2017 and information about his death did not come to light even till June end. But Dharampal met with PW-4 prior to Holi i.e. sometimes before end of March and told her that Naresh had died.
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 23 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:31:57 +0530
24. It is extremely rare to get clear cut evidence about the motive for commission of crime. The Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs State Of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC (Crl.) 1544; held as under about the evidence qua motive to commit a crime:-
21. The evidence regarding the existence of a motive which operates in the mind of the accused is very often very limited, and may not be within the reach of others. The motive driving the accused to commit an offence may be known only to him and to no other. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive may be a very relevant factor. However, it is the perpetrator of the crime alone who is aware of the circumstances that prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggests adequately, the existence of the necessary motive required to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has in fact, committed the same. (Vide: Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 733; Suresh Chandra Bahri v.
State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420; and Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205). Regarding the financial dealings between the deceased Naresh and accused Dharampal, PW-24 Suresh Kumar testified that Naresh had taken a loan from Dharampal and had subsequently repaid the same but Dharampal claimed that Naresh still owed him Rs.70,000/-. PW-1 Manju also stated that about three years prior to his disappearance, her husband had taken loan of Rs.70,000/- from Dharampal on interest @3% per month. She further stated that her husband had told her that he had repaid the said amount but Dharampal still demanded money from him. Kalawati as PW-4 also testified that Naresh had borrowed money from Dharampal at the time of death of his daughter Mona. She further stated that her son's loan was repaid by her in FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 24 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:32:21 +0530 cash and also by giving 6000 bricks (worth Rs.24,000/-) to Dharampal but he kept on demanding money from her. PW-6 Prem Sagar had categorically deposed that Naresh had told him that he had taken loan from Dharampal. PW-6 also deposed that on 18.01.2017 Naresh and Dharampal had met him and told that they had to go to bank to withdraw the money as Naresh had to pay his debt.
25. Though no loan agreement is placed on record and no repayment receipt has surfaced but considering the fact that both Naresh and Dharampal belonged to lower strata (labour class) of society where hardly anything is documented (often due to lack of literacy), it would be unreasonable to expect any written proof of the loan availed or the repayment made. Though, the testimonies of the witnesses are incongruous on the timing and quantum of loan but they all nevertheless show that money was taken by Naresh from Dharampal and there was difference of opinion on whether the loan was repaid or some amount was still repayable. PW-19 Mahesh Chander had told that on the asking of accused Sandeep Sharma, he had lent Rs.40,000/- to Dharampal in December, 2016 as Dharampal needed money for redemption of his mortgaged land. Thus, it further becomes clear that Dharampal was in need of money in January, 2017 as he owed money to PW-19. It appears that the non-repayment of loan taken by Naresh from Dharampal acted as a motive for commission of his death.
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 25 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:32:35 +0530
26. HC Irfan Ahmed (PW-18) had testified that on 04.07.2017 upon information given by secret informer, accused Dharampal was apprehended with a desi katta (country made pistol) and live cartridge, from in front of Gurudwara, Seelampur. He also stated that FIR No.338/17 was registered at PS Seelampur in that regard. During interrogation in that case, Dharampal disclosed that he had murdered Naresh. In his testimony HC Sarwan (PW-22) also deposed on same lines as PW-18 regarding recovery from Dharampal and disclosure made by him. The information about the disclosure made by Dharampal was given to IO of this case by HC Anil Kumar (PW-17) vide DD No.42B. Sh. Dharmender Kumar, Ahlmed in court of MM-02, North- East, Delhi (PW-21) brought the case file of FIR No.338/17 PS Seelampur and exhibited the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Dharampal in that FIR. An argument was made on behalf of Dharampal that despite availability, no public person was joined at the time of his arrest in FIR No.338/17 PS Seelampur, so those proceedings can not be relied upon. This argument does not hold water as mere non- presence of independent witnesses would not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings conducted by police. Unless glaring inconsistencies or gaps are shown in the proceedings conducted in the presence of police personnel only, no inference can be drawn that such proceedings are false. It is common knowledge that public persons are reluctant to join as witnesses in any police investigation for the fear of being harassed or put to inconvenience later on. Even conviction can be based upon the FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 26 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:32:48 +0530 testimonies of police officials only, if their testimonies are found to be reliable and trustworthy. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sathyan vs State of Kerala, 2023/INSC/703; wherein it held as follows:-
22. Conviction being based solely on the evidence of police officials is no longer an issue on which the jury is out. In other words, the law is well settled that if the evidence of such a police officer is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on firm ground. This Court in Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
13. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [1988 Supp SCC 686 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 48], State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652 : 2001 10 (2013) 6 SCC 588 SCC (Cri) 248] and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar [(2006) 13 SCC 229 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 626] has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 595 : 2013 AIR SCW 3102] that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence.
23. Referring to State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab this court held that: - "23. ... That apart, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground that independent witnesses have not been examined when, on the perusal of the evidence on record the Court finds that the case put forth by the prosecution is trustworthy. When the evidence of the official witnesses is trustworthy and credible, there is no reason not to rest the conviction on the basis of their evidence."
24..............
25. Recently, this Court in Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) had observed that the testimonies of police witnesses, as well as pointing out memos do not stand vitiated due to the absence of independent witnesses.
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 27 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:33:02 +0530
26. It is clear from the above propositions of law, as reproduced and referred to, that the testimonies of official witnesses can nay be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined. The correctness or authenticity is only to be doubted on "any good reason"
which, quite apparently is missing from the present case. No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the Appellant to challenge the veracity of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, which the courts below have found absolutely to be inspiring in confidence. Therefore, basing the conviction on the basis of testimony of the police witnesses as undertaken by the trial court and is confirmed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment, cannot be faulted with. The testimonies of PW-17, PW-18 and PW-22 qua nabbing of Dharampal from in front of Gurudwara, Seelampur are creditworthy and inspire confidence. No inadequacy or deficiency could be pointed out by the defence counsels in the various documents related to FIR of PS Seelampur to arouse any suspicion on the proceedings conducted in that case.
27. As per the version of the prosecution, both accused alongwith deceased Naresh were present at Jhuggi of Sandeep Sharma in evening of 18.01.2017 and they came to Lalu Ka Dhaba at Village Bisrakh to have dinner at about 09:00/09:30 pm. The only two links to fasten criminal liability upon accused Sandeep Sharma is the last seen statement of Shri Kant Rai i.e. owner of Lalu ka Dhaba and the CDRs of mobile phone of Dharampal and Sandeep Sharma. During his testimony as PW-9 Shri Kant Rai stated that he could not say with certainty that accused Sandeep Sharma did not come to his hotel alongwith Dharmapal and Naresh for eating food. This statement shows that PW-9 is himself unsure about the identity of the third person FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 28 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:33:19 +0530 who had dinner at his hotel on 18.01.2017.
28. Furthermore, as per dhaba owner, the accused persons were at the dhaba having dinner at about 09:00/09:30 pm, if that be so then there was no need for accused Sandeep Sharma to call on mobile phone of Dharampal at 09:28 pm and talk to him for 29 seconds as Dharampal was purportedly present with accused Sandeep Sharma himself at Dhaba. Also Sandeep Sharma did not have any motive for killing Naresh as he was neither an acquaintance of Naresh nor he had any financial transaction etc. with deceased Naresh. Also the story of prosecution that argument took place between the accused persons and Naresh while having dinner, has been negated by PW-9 who denied the suggestion given by the Ld. Addl. PP which was recorded as follows 'It is wrong to suggest that I told the IO that on that day after having food an argument took place between accused Dharam Pal @ Dhankad and the other two persons in regard to money.' It has also to be kept in mind that unlike Dharampal (who frequently visited lalu ka dhaba) and whose name to police was told by Dhaba owner as 'lambu', Sandeep Sharma did not visit that dhaba routinely for having dinner, so the dhaba owner is unsure about identity of Sandeep Sharma. Even the CDR details of mobile phone of accused Sandeep Sharma do not fully tie in with the case of the prosecution.
29. Furthermore, the conduct of Sandeep Sharma does not appear to be suspicious. There is nothing remotely unusual about FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 29 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:33:30 +0530 the CDR of his phone number on 18.01.2017. His two calls to Dharampal on 18.01.2017 and 19.01.2017 may have been made for a myriad of reasons, as they were colleagues. After the incident, he did not suddenly vacate his premises unlike Dharampal. He also did not leave his employment (unlike Dharampal) and even on the date of his arrest in this case, he was working for the same contractor for which he worked on the day when Naresh disappeared. His mobile sim was issued in the name of his relative, whereas the lady in whose name the sim card used by Dharampal was issued could not even be located during investigation.
30. Upon analysis of the entire prosecution evidence against Sandeep Sharma, two equally probable versions emerge i.e. (i) after having dinner Sandeep and Dharampal killed Naresh as Dharampal was angry with Naresh for not returning his money or (ii) after eating dinner Sandeep went back to his jhuggi at Noida whereas Dharampal and Naresh went towards the tenanted premises of Dharampal located in vicinity of the Dhaba and upon finding an opportunity Dharmapal bludgeoned Naresh with a brick. Suspicion, however strong it may be, can not take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt (See Ravishankar Tandon vs State of Chhattisgarh, 2024/INSC/299).
31. During recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, Dharampal claimed that he had gone to his native village during October, 2016 and returned to Kasna, Noida only in February FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 30 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:33:39 +0530 2017, thus taking a plea of alibi. However, no evidence has been adduced by Dharampal to substantiate this claim. Moreover, several independent witnesses have debunked this assertion. PW-19 had testified that he had lent money to Dharampal in December 2016 whereas PW-3 had deposed that Dharampal vacated the tenanted premises suddenly in January 2017. On 18.01.2017, PW-6 had seen Dharampal in Delhi and PW-9 had seen him at Village Bisrakh, Greater Noida. Not only this PW-7 had seen Dharampal at his village Bisrakh about 2-3 days after 19.01.2017. There is no reason to doubt the testimonies of these independent witnesses. Moreover, the CDR of mobile phone of Dharampal show that he had gone to Delhi from Greater Noida and come back to Greater Noida on 18.01.2017. Furthermore, the last seen evidence is also against the accused Dharampal, so he ought to have given some believable explanation about his whereabouts on 18.01.2017. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144; observed as follows about the importance of last seen evidence and the duty cast upon the person last seen with the victim to explain the same:-
The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric 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 FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 31 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:33:53 +0530 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 compatiable with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The explanation given by Dharmapal that he was not in Delhi or Greater Noida on 18.01.2017, is not believable considering the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence qua his presence in Delhi and Greater Noida on that day.
32. Dharampal also claimed that the family members of Naresh had falsely deposed against him as he had a fight with Umesh (brother of deceased Naresh), so in order to take revenge they had accused him of murder of Naresh. No defence witness was examined to prove that a fight had occurred between Umesh and accused Dharampal. No date, time or occasion has been mentioned when this purported fight happened. It is noteworthy that even the FIR in this case was lodged after about 6 months of the date of incident. For those six months the hapless family of Naresh was not even sure whether he was alive or dead, what to talk of falsely implicating someone. The defence of false implication seems to be no more than a desperate, feeble and futile attempt by Dharampal to some how discredit the testimonies of wife and mother of the deceased Naresh.
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 32 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:34:05 +0530
33. The accused persons had pointed out that the weapon used for inflicting injuries upon the person of Naresh was never recovered and it is a case of shoddy investigation by police, so the benefit of the same must accrue to them. This argument does not inspire confidence, firstly because the recovery of weapon of offence is not a sine-qua-non for establishing the offence of murder and secondly it has to be kept in mind that the factum of death of Naresh came to the knowledge of his relatives and police only after about six months and till then the accused had sufficient time to hide or dispose of the weapon of offence. Moreover, Naresh was attacked on a public way at night with a stone or brick and it can not be reasonably expected from even the perpetrator of crime to identify a brick lying on a way (after six months of incident) as the same brick used by him to kill or injure someone. The non-recovery of murder weapon is not always fatal to case of prosecution and the same has to be seen in light of other evidence available on record. Reliance is placed in this regard on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gulab vs State of UP, (2022) 12 SCC 677 . As observed earlier, the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and if the chain of circumstances gets complete and points unerringly to the guilt of accused persons then the non-recovery of weapon of offence may be inconsequential.
34. The manner in which testimonies of witnesses are to be appreciated, has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 33 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:34:21 +0530 Balu Sudam Khalde vs The State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC On- line SC 355; as under:-
25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. 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.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. 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.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 34 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:34:44 +0530 VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 35 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:34:55 +0530 Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)] The testimonies of all prosecution witnesses appear to have a ring of truth. Merely because some of the prosecution witnesses (Prem Sagar and Suresh Kumar) are acquaintances or relatives of deceased Naresh, their testimonies can not be discarded on this ground alone especially when the accused persons never claimed that those witnesses had any enmity with them. Attention in this regard is invited to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Nassar vs State of Kerala & Anr., 2025/INSC/35. The testimonies of immediate family members (wife and mother) of deceased Naresh also largely believable on material aspects of the case. The evidence of independent witnesses, doctor and police witnesses also seems to be true.
35. From a threadbare analysis of evidence available on record it can be stated with certitude that, (i) On 18.01.2018 accused Dharampal was with deceased Naresh in the area of Trilok Puri, Delhi, (ii) Then money was withdrawn by Naresh from his bank account, (iii) At about 1:30 pm Naresh and Dharampal boarded RTV bus from in front of PS Mayur Vihar,
(iv) They alongwith one more person (identity not fully established) had dinner at Lalu ka Dhaba at about 9:30 pm, (v) The tenanted premises of Dharampal was in vicinity of that Dhaba, (vi) In the morning of 19.01.2017 Naresh was found in injured condition at a little distance away from that Dhaba, (vii) FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 36 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:35:09 +0530 Naresh succumbed to ante-mortem head injury, (viii) CDR of Dharampal showed that he contacted Naresh in morning of 18.01.2017 and was available in Delhi in morning and noon and thereafter at night he was at Village Bisrakh, (ix) Dharampal had met Udai Singh Bhati to know about the fate of the injured Naresh claiming himself to be his brother, (x) Dharampal hurriedly vacated his tenanted premises and also abruptly left his employment after disappearance of Naresh and (xi) he went to village and told mother of Naresh to feed Brahmins as Naresh was no more, even though Naresh's whereabouts till that time were not known. From circumstances established during trial the guilt of accused Dharampal can be inferred and it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Dharampal committed murder of Naresh. There is no evidence on record to suggest that Naresh was kidnapped or abducted in order to murder him. The evidence on record is insufficient to record a finding of guilt against Sandeep Sharma. Accordingly, accused Dharampal is convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC but acquitted of offence punishable u/s 364 IPC. Accused Sandeep Sharma is acquitted of offence(s) punishable u/s 302 IPC and 364 IPC.Digitally signed by ANURAG THAKUR
ANURAG Dictated and announced THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 th in open court on 8 December, 2025.
16:35:26 +0530 (Anurag Thakur) Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi This judgment consists of 41 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 37 of 41 Post Script List of Prosecution Documents Srl. No Exhibits/Mark No. Description of documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Statement of Manju dated 02.07.2017
2. Ex.P-1 (Colly) Two photographs of deceased Naresh Kumar
3. Ex.PW2/A Photocopy of DD No.27-A dated 11.02.2017
4. Ex.PW2/B True copy of DD No.27-A dated 11.02.2017
5. Ex.PW5/A Endorsement on rukka given by SI Vijay Kumar
6. Ex.PW5/B Computerized copy of FIR
7. Ex.PW5/C DD No.14-A dated 02.07.2017 qua the FIR
8. Ex.PW7/DA Pointing out memo made at instance of PW-7
9. Ex.PW8/A True copy of DD No.42-B dated 04.07.2017
10. Ex.PW9/A Photograph of Naresh Kumar in hue & cry notice
11. Ex.PW9/B Pointing out memo of dhaba at instance of accused Dharampal
12. Ex.PW9/C Pointing out memo of dead body at instance of accused Sandeep
13. Ex.PW9/D Pointing out memo of dhaba at instance of accused Sandeep
14. Ex.PW10/A Arrest memo of accused Dharampal in this FIR
15. Ex.PW10/B Disclosure statement of Dharampal in this FIR
16. Ex.PW10/C Site plan of Lalu Ka Dhaba and its sourroundings
17. Ex.PW10/D Arrest memo of Jagpal Prajapati in this FIR
18. Ex.PW10/E Disclosure statement of Jagpal Prajapati in this FIR FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 38 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:36:00 +0530
19. Ex.PW11/A Panchnama report qua PM of Naresh Kumar
20. Ex.PW13/A Scaled site plan of the spot of incident
21. Ex.PW16/A Postmortem report no.50/17 of Naresh Kumar
22. Ex.PW19/A Seizure memo of diary of Mahesh Chander
23. Ex.PW19/B Telephone diary of Mahesh Chander
24. Ex.PW19/C Disclosure statement of accused Sandeep Sharma
25. Ex.PW19/D Arrest memo of accused Sandeep Sharma
26. Ex.PW19/E Personal search memo of Sandeep Sharma
27. Ex.PW20/A Seizure memo of pullanda given by MHC (M) PS Bisrakh
28. Ex.PW21/A Copy of FIR No. 338/17 PS Seelampur
29. Ex.PW21/B Disclosure statement of Dharampal in FIR No. 338/17
30. Ex.PW21/C Arrest memo of Dharampal in FIR No. 338/17
31. Ex.PW21/D Personal search memo of Dharampal in FIR No. 338/17
32. Ex.PW23/A Disclosure statement of accused Dharampal in this case
33. Ex.PW25/A Letter No.3144/AO/DEMS/SSZ/(S)/2017-
18 dated 21.11.2017
34. Ex.PW26/A Statement of mother of Naresh Kumar
35. Ex.PW26/B Seizure memo of Lava Mobile Phone
36. Ex.P-26 Lava Mobile Phone
37. Ex.PW27/A Reply given by Nodal Officer, Vodafone India
38. Ex.PW27/B 65-B Certificate, CAR & CDR of Mobile No.9811271983
39. Ex.PW27/C Cell ID Chart of Vodafone Idea Ltd.
40. Ex.PW27/D 65-B Certificate qua record of Mobile No.7351332822 & 7088894470
41. Ex.PW27/E CDRs & CAFs of Mobile No.7351332822 & 7088894470
42. Ex.PW27/F CAF of Mobile No.7835969388 FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 39 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:36:34 +0530
43. Ex.PW27/G CAF of Mobile No.7065361688
44. Ex.PW28/A WT Message Flashing Letter
45. Ex.PW28/B Missing Form sent to DCP Office
46. Ex.PW28/C Letter sent to NCRB qua Naresh Kumar
47. Ex.PW28/D Letter sent to CBI qua Naresh Kumar
48. Ex.PW28/E Letter sent to Doordarshan qua Naresh Kumar
49. Ex.PW28/F Print out of Zip net details of Naresh Kumar
50. Ex.PW28/G Copy of hue & cry notice in Jansatta Newspaper
51. Ex.PW28/H Copy of hue & cry notice in Hindustan Times Newspaper
52. Ex.PW28/I Endorsement on statement of Manju
53. Ex.PW28/J Application for interrogation of Dharampal
54. Ex.PW28/K Application for interrogation of Dharampal
55. Ex.PW28/L Applicaton for PC remand of Dharampal
56. Ex.PW28/M Order of MM on PC application of Dharampal
57. Ex.PW28/N Seizure memo of sternum & molar teeth of Naresh Kumar
58. Ex.PW31/A Entry at No.22/1300 in malkhana register of PS Bisrakh
59. Ex.PW31/B GD No.24/11:40 dated 11.09.2017 of PS Bisrakh
60. Ex.PW31/C DD No.30/26.09.2017 in malkhana register of PS Bisrakh
61. Ex.PW32/A Mud No. 2601 dated 11.09.2017 of register no.19 of PS Mayur Vihar
62. Ex.PW32/B Mud No. 2634 dated 26.09.2017 of register no.19 of PS Mayur Vihar
63. Ex.PW32/C Mud No. 2640 dated 03.10.2017 of register no.19 of PS Mayur Vihar
64. Ex.PW33/A Application for collection of inquest papers of Naresh Kumar from PS Bisrakh
65. Ex.PW33/B Letter to SHO PS Bisrakh for providing sealed pullanda given by doctor who FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 40 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:39:47 +0530 conducted PM.
66. Ex.PW33/C Notice to Manager, Bank of India, Trilokpuri for providing details of bank A/c of Naresh Kumar
67. Ex.PW33/D Application for issuance of production warrants of accused Dharampal @ Dhankad
68. Ex.PW33/E Application for interrogation of Dharampal @ Dhankad
69. Ex.PW33/F Application for sending Dharampal to one day JC
70. Ex.PW33/G Application for two days PC of Jagdish Prajapati
71. Ex.PW33/H Application for sending Jagdish to JC
72. Ex.PW33/I Application for TIP of Sandeep Kumar Sharma
73. Ex.PW33/J Application for one day PC of Sandeep Kumar Sharma
74. Ex.PW33/K Application for JC remand of Sandeep Sharma
75. Ex.PW33/L Application for release of Jagdish Prajapati
76. Ex.PW33/DX Application dated 07.07.2017 seeking two days PC of Dharampal
77. Ex.P-2 Articles of deceased Naresh Kumar i.e. one pair of blue, white and green colour shoes with socks, one thread, one pant of cream colour with black belt, underwear and one ring ______________ FIR No.240/2017 PS Mayur Vihar State vs Dharampal & Anr. 41 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.08 16:36:55 +0530