Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Gaurav @ Sunny on 21 April, 2025

      IN THE COURT OF MS.SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
           ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, WEST,
                TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.

                                  CNR No. DLWT01-005963-2016
                                    Sessions Case No. 58004/2016
                                                FIR No. 278/2016
                                                  PS - Patel Nagar
                                       Under Section 302/ IPC

State

Vs.

Gaurav @ Sunny,
S/o Late Sh. Gulab Singh,
R/o H. No. 648, Baba Farid Puri,
West Patel Nagar, Delhi.
Also at: H. No. 205, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 9,
Jain Road, Mohan Garden, Dwarka More,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.

Date of Institution                 23.07.2016

Date of Committal                   24.08.2016
Charge framed Under Section         302/ IPC
Date of conclusion of final        08.04.2025
arguments and reserving
judgment
Date of Pronouncement of           21.04.2025
Judgment
Final Judgment                     Accused Gaurav @ Sunny is
                                   convicted for the offence under
                                   Section 302/ IPC.

Case No. 58004/2016                               Page 1 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
                            JUDGMENT

Brief Facts of the case:

1. Accused Gaurav @ Sunny has been facing trial of the Charge under Section 302/201 IPC for committing murder of Ms. Nikita D/o Sh. Amar Singh with knife on 22.03.2016 between 03:30 PM and 07:36 PM at H.No. T-398, Second Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi and thereafter, he had concealed the material evidence i.e. weapon of offence, so that he may avoid prosecution and had also attempted to burn the face of deceased, so that her identification may not be established.

Case of the Prosecution; registration of the FIR and investigation conducted:

2. As per the prosecution, on 22.03.2016, on receipt of DD no.

47A, SI Kishore Kumar alongwith Ct. Deepak went to the spot i.e. H.no. T-405, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi where they came to know that one dead body was lying in H.No. T-398, 2nd Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, they went to the spot where they found one dead body of a girl aged about 19-20 years, soaked in blood. The face of dead body was upside, her head was in North direction and feet were in South direction. Two sharp injuries on the stomach of dead body; injuries on her neck as well as on her left side shoulder and palm were found. There were burn injuries also on stomach, back and on the right hand of the dead body. The blood was scattered in the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 2 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny room. The dead body was found to be worn Jeans/Pants of blue colour and one top which was also semi burnt. One Student Identity Card of National Institute of Open Schooling on which her name as Nikita, her parents name as Amar Singh & Rajwati, her date of birth as 07.10.1997 and address 642-C, Baba Faridpuri, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi alongwith one photograph was lying near the dead body. Thereafter Senior officers came at the spot and Crime team was called. Ct. Deepak called the father of deceased Nikita, who reached the spot and identified the dead body as of his daughter Nikita. Crime team reached the spot and the spot was photographed by the photographer. Exhibits were lifted by the crime team on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, which were taken into possession by him. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Mortuary, DDU hospital through Ct. Deepak.

3. Thereafter, statement of father of deceased namely Sh. Amar Singh was recorded, wherein he has stated that he is doing the work of Plumber and having two daughters namely Anju & Nikita and one son namely Ajay. His elder daughter Anju got married and his son Ajay is doing the work of Technician. His younger daughter Nikita was studying in 12th class. He has further stated that on 22.03.2016, at about 08:00 AM, his daughter Nikita went to Uttam Nagar for giving 12th class examinations but she did not return. At about 03:00/03:30 PM, he made a call to his son Ajay and asked him to call Nikita. Ajay made a call to Nikita on phone number Case No. 58004/2016 Page 3 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny 9711433616 and Nikita informed him that she is coming back after giving her exams. But when Nikita did not return to house till 05:00 PM, Ajay again made a call to Nikita but she did not pick up the phone. He again made a call to Nikita but the phone was 'switched off'. Thereafter, they made search for Nikita. He has further stated that at about 08:30 PM, police informed him that some incident had happened with his daughter. He alongwith police staff reached at H. No. T-398, 2nd Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, where he found the dead body of his daughter Nikita, smeared with blood in a room. Injury marks were found on her stomach, neck, left side shoulder and palm. There were also burn marks on the stomach, back and right hand of the dead body. Blood was also scattered in the room.

4. He has further stated that about six months ago, his daughter Nikita had friendship with one boy namely Sunny and 4-5 months prior to the incident, Sunny had abducted Nikita and he had reported the same at PS Anand Parbat. Thereafter, he Counseled Nikita and while agreeing, she made distance from Sunny. When Nikita did not talk to Sunny on phone, he used to make call on their phone and harassed Nikita. Nikita told her sister Anju many times that Sunny had threatened Nikita to kill her and stated that " अगर तू मेरी नहीं हुई तो किसी की भी नहीं होगी व तुझे जान से मार दूंगा." He has further stated that accused Sunny had also followed Nikita a day prior to the incident and Anju had witnessed the same and therefore, she made Nikita sit in her office.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 4 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny

5. On the statement of complainant, the present case bearing FIR no. 278/2016, u/s 302 IPC was registered and investigation was conducted. During investigation, IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Sh. Amar Singh. Exhibits were lifted from the spot, out of which one mobile phone make Nokia without battery was also found on the spot.

6. Thereafter, during investigation, statement of one Sh. Hemant who was also present at the spot, was recorded wherein he has stated that he is residing on rent with Naveen and Sunder Singh, who belonged to his native place and he is doing a private job in 'Book a bus travels'. On 21.03.2016, Naveen did not return to his room. On 22.03.2016, at 11:00 AM, he and Sunder Singh went to their job and at about 03:00 PM, Sunny who was residing somewhere in Baba Farid Puri, made a call to him (Hemant) from mobile number 7053242002 and asked him as to where he is. He responded that he is in the office. Sunny informed him that his girl friend Nikita alongwith her one friend would come at Shadi Pur Metro Station and asked him to come there so that he would make friendship with them however, he refused for the same. Sunny asked to call him later. Thereafter, at about 03:45 PM, Hemant made a call to Sunny and asked him as to which is the metro station prior to Rithala Metro Station, as he has to deliver tickets of Tour and Travels there. Sunny informed that there is Rohini Metro Station prior to Rithala Metro station.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 5 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny

7. He has further stated that thereafter, at about 07:00 PM, after completing his duty, he reached at his room and found the lock at the gate on ground floor, however, he locked his room with the said lock in the morning. He inquired from the neighbours as to who had locked the gate but they told that they do not know about the said lock. Thereafter, he broke open the said lock with the help of hammer; went to 2nd floor and found the door of his room unlocked however the same was slightly closed. He entered in the room and saw that one girl was lying in a pool of blood on the floor and there were injury marks on her body. Thereafter, he identified her as the girl friend of Sunny namely Nikita. He made a call to the police, who made inquires from him and conducted the investigation. He has further stated that except all three of them i.e. Hemant, Naveen and Sunder Singh, only accused Sunny had knowledge about the keys of the room. Accused Gaurav @ Sunny had also brought Nikita to his room prior to this incident, while he was alone and a scuffle had taken place between Gaurav @ Sunny and Nikita on the issue of talking with some other girl. He checked his room and his one T.shirt was found missing.

8. During further investigation, dead body was sent to mortuary for postmortem examination. Dead body of deceased got identified and handed over to her father Sh. Amar Singh. The postmortem proceedings got photographed by photographer Sanjay. The vaginal swab, clothes and blood in gauge piece of the deceased was sealed Case No. 58004/2016 Page 6 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny and taken into possession vide seizure memo. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded.

9. During further investigation, Investigating Officer came to know that accused Gaurav @ Sunny is in J.C. in case FIR No. 636/2015 PS Anand Parbat u/s 363 IPC. Thereafter, after seeking due permission of the concerned Jail Supdt., accused Gaurav @ Sunny was arrested from Tihar Jail in the present case and his disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he disclosed his involvement in the present case. He also disclosed in his disclosure statement that he after committing murder of Nikita, he also tried to set her on fire so that she could not be identified. After his disclosure statement, section u/s 201 IPC was added in the present FIR.

10. Thereafter, during further investigation, on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Gaurav, he led the police party to Ramjas Ground and from the bushes adjacent to the wall of Ramjas Ground, he got recovered one polythene and on checking the same, one knife and one shirt of light yellow and sand colour containing blood stains were recovered. IO took measurement of the knife, prepared sketch of the same; sealed it and took into possession vide seizure memo. Pointing out memo was also prepared by the IO at the instance of accused. Thereafter, accused led the police party to parking of Railway station and got recovered one motorcycle bearing no. DL-10S-E-2012, Pulsar 220, black colour and disclosed Case No. 58004/2016 Page 7 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny that he had used the said motorcycle while commission of the present offence. Thereafter, medical examination of accused got conducted; his blood in gauge and blood in liquid was taken into possession. The subsequent opinion of the doctor qua the nature of injury was obtained, wherein the doctor had mentioned that injury no. 1 to 7 mentioned in the postmortem report no. 434/16 are possible by the examined weapon i.e. knife. The knife was deposited with the malkhana. Exhibits were sent to the FSL for expert opinion. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC was filed against accused Gaurav @ Sunny before the concerned Court.

Charge:

11. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC was framed against accused Gaurav @ Sunny by the Ld. Predecessor Court on 13.10.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The Trial Prosecution evidence :

12. To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution had examined 32 witnesses in total, which are PW-1 Sh. Amar Singh (father of deceased), PW-2 HC Balbir (Spl. messenger), PW-3 Ct. Arun Kumar (Photographer, crime team), PW-4 HC Udaiveer Singh Case No. 58004/2016 Page 8 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny (duty officer), PW-5 Sh. Ajay (brother of deceased), PW-6 Smt. Anju (sister of deceased), PW-7 Dr. Jatin Bodwal (conducted the postmortem examination of deceased), PW-8 Ct. Deepak (witness of investigation), PW-9 Hemant (public witness/tenants of the spot), PW-10 Naveen Singh Bisht (public witness/tenants of the spot ), PW-11 Ct. Sachin Kumar (witness of investigation); PW-12 Sh.Rajesh Vashisht (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel), PW-13 Sh. Naveen Kumar Singh (Public witness), PW-14 Sh. Lokesh Kumar (public witness/cousin of accused), PW-15 Sh. Pawan Singh (Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea ), PW-16 Sh. Surender Singh Bisht, (Assistant Manager, Aircel Ltd.), PW-17 SI Kishore Kumar (witness of investigation), PW-18 L/HC Indu Bala (DD Writer), PW-19 SI Ummed Singh (proved the PCR form), PW-20 Insp. Pankaj Kumar (witness of investigation), PW-21 Sh. Manish Gupta (Chemical Examiner, FSL), PW-22 Sh. Santosh Tripathy (Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL, Rohini), PW-23 Insp. Mahesh Kumar (Draughtsman), PW-24 Insp. Joginder Singh (Witness of investigation), PW-25 Ct. Pawan Kumar (witness of investigation), PW-26 W/Ct. Som Lata (witness of investigation), PW-27 Ct. Vipin Kumar (witness of investigation), PW-28 HC Rajesh Kumar (witness of investigation), PW-29 Ct. Manoj Kumar (witness of investigation), PW-30 Sanjay Kumar (Private photographer), PW-31 Insp. Nitesh Singh (filed the supplementary charge sheet), PW-32 retired Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya (Investigating officer), PW-33 ASI Case No. 58004/2016 Page 9 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Ashok Kumar (proved the copy of FIR). The relevant portion of their testimony is discussed in the following paragraphs.

13. PW-1 Sh. Amar Singh, father of deceased had deposed that he is working as a plumber and often visits Mumbai in relation to his work. He is married and blessed with three children. His eldest daughter namely Anju is presently about 31 years old. His son namely Ajay is about 29 years old and his another daughter namely Nikita (since expired) was aged about 19 years. At the time of her death, his daughter Nikita was pursuing class 12th Examination through National Open School. She was murdered by accused Sunny, on 22.03.2016. On the date of incident, his daughter Nikita had left home at about 08:00 AM for appearing in examination scheduled, to be held in Uttam Nagar. She had not returned till 03:00 PM, therefore, he told his son Ajay to contact Nikita and find out as to where she is. His son Ajay informed him that he had spoken to Nikita and she is on her way back to home. At that time, Ajay was at his work place in Vasant Kunj. He had given a missed call to Ajay as balance in his phone was not sufficient. Till 05:00 PM, Nikita had not returned. He again tried to contact Nikita through his son Ajay by making a missed call on his phone. Ajay informed him that Nikita's phone was responding "Switched off". Thereafter, they initiated searching Nikita. 13.1. This witness has further deposed that at about 08:00 or 08:30 PM, on the same day i.e. 22.03.2016, police came to him at his Case No. 58004/2016 Page 10 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny house and informed that his daughter had met with an incident. He accompanied police officials to PS Patel Nagar, from where he was taken to H.No. 398, Second floor, Baljit Nagar, Delhi, where he found his daughter Nikita lying dead in a room. Her body was lying in pool of blood. She was having burning signs on her arms, hands and hairs. She was apparently murdered with knife, as she was having deep wounds on her stomach and other parts of the body. He identified body of his daughter Nikita and informed the police that accused Gaurav @ Sunny was regularly calling his daughter Nikita. He further informed the police that in the year 2015, accused Gaurav @ Sunny had kidnapped his daughter Nikita. A case FIR regarding kidnapping of his daughter Nikita was also registered in PS Anand Parbat. His daughter Nikita was recovered by the police in that case and was subjected to counseling Sessions thereafter. Eventually she stopped meeting Gaurav @ Sunny but accused continued trying to contact his daughter Nikita. On some occasions, accused Gaurav @ Sunny had called his daughter Nikita which is within his knowledge. At his instance, Nikita had told Gaurav on phone that she is not interested in continuing with any sort of relations with him, but Gaurav was adamant and continued calling and following Nikita. His daughter Anju informed him that a day before the incident, accused was following Nikita. Anju further informed him that she (Anju) had made Nikita to sit in her office in Patel Nagar, as to avoid further complications. He informed the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 11 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny police that Gaurav @ Sunny had killed his daughter Nikita. Police had recorded his statement. He has further deposed that at the spot, where his daughter was found lying, one mobile phone was found lying which was not of his daughter. He later on came to know that the phone covered from the spot, was of accused Gaurav @ Sunny. His daughter's (Nikita) phone had been taken by the accused and was not found near the dead body of his daughter Nikita. Police had got conducted postmortem examination of the body of his daughter Nikita. Before that, he had identified her body vide statement, proved as Ex.PW-1/A. His daughter Nikita was using mobile phone number 9711433616. PW-1 has identified the case property i.e. clothes of deceased as Ex.P.1/1; mobile phone of deceased as Ex.P.1/4 and carbon copy of receipt vide which the dead body of deceased was handed over to him as Ex.PW-1/C. This witness has also correctly identified the accused Gaurav @ Sunny before the Court.

14. PW-2 HC Balbir/Spl. messenger has deposed that on 23.03.2016 at about 01:30 AM, duty officer HC Udaibeer had handed over to him print outs of FIR no. 278/2016 PS Patel Nagar for serving a copy to Ld. Magistrate and Superior Officers. He had delivered the print outs of FIR to Ld. Magistrate as well as Superior Officers including DCP and ACP.

15. PW-3 Ct. Arun Kumar, Photographer of Crime Team has deposed that on 22.03.2016, he had accompanied Crime Team Case No. 58004/2016 Page 12 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Incharge, SI Pankaj to H.No. T-398, Second Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi for inspecting the crime scene. One lady namely Nikita was found murdered at the spot. At the directions of Incharge Crime Team, he had clicked 35 photographs, using his official Camera, which are marked as Mark PW-3/P.1 to Mark PW-3/P.35. The said photographs were not proved on record for want of negatives. However, PW-3 specifically deposed that the Camera was having film which were got developed in the official Lab and no photographic trick was applied, so as to cause any error in the images clicked in the photographs. He further deposed that the negatives were handed over to Ct. Sachin by him. 15.1. During cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that he handed over the negatives to Ct. Sachin on 02.07.2016 and obtained receiving from him at the time of handing over the negatives.

16. PW-4 HC Udaiveer Singh, Duty officer has proved the print outs of present FIR as Ex.PW-4/A; Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-4/B; DD no. 2A as Ex.PW-4/C; DD No. 5A as Ex.PW-4/D and his endorsement on the Tehrir at red encircled portion as Ex.PW-4/E.

17. PW-5 Sh. Ajay, brother of deceased has deposed that he is working in a private firm for last 08 years and was having two sisters namely Anju and Nikita (present deceased). He further deposed that his sister Nikita had expired on 22.03.2016. On that day, she left the house in the morning for appearing in the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 13 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Examination for 12th class as she was pursuing her studies from National Open School. Nikita had carried her mobile phone bearing no. 9711433616 with her while leaving the home in the morning at about 08:00 AM. Her examination was expected to be over by 01:30 PM hence, he called her at around 02:00 PM to ask about her status. Nikita told him that she had taken the exam and was proceeding towards her study Centre situated at Shadi Pur. After some time, he was informed by his father that Nikita had not returned home, so he attempted to call her again on her mobile phone but the same was found 'switched off' after one bell. He alongwith his father started searching for Nikita and went to Patel Nagar Metro Station and Shadi Pur Metro Station but could not find her. In the evening at about 08:00 PM, he received call from his father, who informed him that police had visited their house and stated that Nikita had met with an accident. He returned home and he alongwith his father accompanied police to H.No. T-398, Second Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that his father had gone upstairs and told him that Nikita has been murdered. However, he did not enter the said room as he could not gathered courage to see his sister in such a condition.

17.1. PW-5 has correctly identified accused Sunny @ Gaurav in the Court while stating that he is residing in the vicnity of their residence. His deceased sister Nikita was having friendship with accused Gaurav @ Sunny, who had kidnapped his sister about 8-9 Case No. 58004/2016 Page 14 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny months prior to her death. In this regard, a case was registered at PS Anand Parbat. They had made Nikita understand about her welfare and accordingly she decided not to continue her relations with accused Gaurav @ Sunny. Deceased Nikita had stopped talking to the accused but the accused continued to contact Nikita. His deceased sister Nikita informed him that the accused was torturing her on phone and also follows her when she goes to her study Centre. Even his other sister namely Anju had informed him that on 21.03.2016, accused had followed Nikita till the office of Anju in Patel Nagar. Therefore, Anju was compelled to escort her till her house.

17.2. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he got a complaint registered in PS Anand Parbat regarding torture given to his deceased sister by the accused, however, he does not have copy of the same but he informed the same to the Investigating Officer of the present matter.

18. PW-6 Smt. Anju, Sister of deceased has deposed that Nikita was pursuing Class 12th from Open School. On the day of incident i.e. 22.03.2016, Nikita had visited her house in the morning at 08:30 AM and from there she proceeded to take her practical exams at Uttam Nagar. At about 05:00 AM on the same day, her brother Ajay informed her over telephone that Nikita was not picking her mobile call. She also made a call on the mobile phone of Nikita but the phone of Nikita got switched off after two rings, therefore, she Case No. 58004/2016 Page 15 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny could not talk to her. Even her brother was not able to talk to Nikita therefore, she made a call to her friends to inquire about her but could not know her whereabouts. At about 08:30 PM, her father told her over telephone that police had come to their house and informed him that some incident had happened with Nikita. After 15 minutes, she reached at her parental house where she came to know that her father had gone to PS Patel Nagar. She also reached at PS Patel Nagar where she was informed that her sister Nikita had been murdered at Baljeet Nagar.

18.1. She further deposed that about 8-9 months ago from the date of incident, accused Sunny had taken away her sister, for which a report was lodged at PS Anand Parbat. They counseled Nikita whereupon she agreed not to have any kind of relation ship with accused Sunny. Still accused Sunny used to call Nikita on her mobile phone and whenever Nikita did not attend his phone call, he used to call on the mobile phone of other family members and used to harass them. Accused Sunny used to follow her sister whenever she went to her classes. Her deceased sister used to share/confide things with her and hence, she told her that accused Sunny had threatened to kill her. Nikita also told her that accused had threatened her specifically "अगर तू मेरी नहीं हुई तो मैं तुझे किसी और की नहीं होने दूंगा".

18.2. PW-6 further deposed that a day prior to the murder of her sister Nikita, Nikita had come to her office at West Patel Nagar after Case No. 58004/2016 Page 16 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny her coaching classes. The accused had followed her and was found present outside her office on his motorcycle. As soon as she came out from her office, accused Sunny ran away after seeing her. Therefore, she took Nikita with her to her parental house and left her there at 06:00 PM. She has revealed her mobile number used at that time as 9958xxxx80 and used by deceased Nikita as 9711xxxx16. (The entire mobile number is not mentioned to secure privacy of the witness).

18.3. During cross-examination, PW-6 deposed that she knows accused Sunny for the last two years as he had become friends with her deceased sister Nikita from her school time. She further deposed that she suggested Nikita that accused Sunny is not upto her standard. She further deposed that Nikita was not insisting to marry accused Sunny, however she told her family members that she wanted to marry him. She admitted that family members had made a complaint to Police at PS Anand Parbat regarding elopement of Nikita by accused Sunny. However, she deposed that no complaint was lodged with the police regarding threats given by the accused to Nikita. She voluntarily stated that Nikita had told her that accused Sunny was forcing her for marriage but she refused. She even volunteered that she can produce the date sheet of examination which were taken by deceased Nikita during the period of said incident.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 17 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny

19. PW-7 Dr. Jatin Bodwal, Specialist Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU hospital has deposed that on 23.03.2016, he had conducted postmortem examination on the body of Nikita, a lady aged about 19 years. Her body was sent by Insp. Ranjeet Singh and was identified by Amar Singh, her father and Ajay, her brother. As per PW-7, the following external injuries were observed on the body of deceased:

(1) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm, was present on the left side of front of neck, 4 cm from mid line and 4 cm above clavicle. Both the edges of the wound were sharp, one angle of the wound was sharp and other angle was blunt. On dissection of the wound a track was found which traverse through skin, subcutaneous tissue and neck muscle. Effusion of blood was present underlying neck structures. The track of wound was directed to downwards, backwards and towards right.

(2) Incised wound of size 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm was present on the front of left shoulder, 5 cm below acromion process. Both the edges of the wound were sharp.

(3) Incised wound of size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present on the inner aspect of left arm, 3 cm below injury no.3. Both the edges of the wound were sharp.

(4) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm was present on the left side of front of chest, 6 cm below Case No. 58004/2016 Page 18 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny injury no.3. Both the edges of the wound were sharp, one angle of the wound was sharp and other angle was blunt. On dissection of the wound a track was found which traverse through skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle. Effusion of blood was present in the underlying chest muscles. The track of wound was directed to downwards, backwards and towards right.

(5) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 5 cm was present on the left side of front of chest, 4 cm below injury no.5. Both the edges of the wound were sharp, one angle of the wound was sharp and other angle was blunt. On dissection of the wound a track was found which traverse through skin, subcutaneous tissue, 4th intercostals space and enter into the pleural cavity where it injured left lung, track terminates here. Effusion of blood was present in the entire track. About 500 ml of blood was present in the left pleural cavity. The track of wound was directed to upwards, backwards and towards right.

(6) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 2 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm was present on the left side of front of abdomen, 2 cm from mid line. Both the edges and angles of the wound were sharp.

On dissection of the wound a track was found which traverse through skin, subcutaneous and abdominal muscles. Effusion Case No. 58004/2016 Page 19 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny of blood was present in the entire track. The track of wound was directed to upwards, backwards and towards right. (7) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.8 cm x2 cm x 2 cm was present on the right side of front of abdomen, 2 cm below umblicus. Both the edges and angles of the wound were sharp. On dissection of the wound a track was found which traverse through skin, subcutaneous and abdominal muscles. Effusion of blood was present in the entire track. The track of wound was directed to upwards, backwards and towards left.

19.1 PW-7 further deposed that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock via Injury no.5, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries are antemortem in nature and fresh in duration. Time since death was 12 hours prior to postmortem examination. PW-7 has proved his detailed PM report as.

19.2. PW-7 has further deposed that after the P.M. examination, he had handed over all the documents pertaining to the PM Examination to the IO after signing the same i.e. P.M. report proved as Ex.PW-7/B, brief facts, proved as Ex.PW-7/C, Carbon copy of application preserving the dead body, proved as Ex.PW-7/D, Form no. 25.35, proved as Ex.PW-7/E, Identification statements of the dead body, proved as Ex.PW-7/F (already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A). After the P.M. examination, he had sealed a separate pullanda blood Case No. 58004/2016 Page 20 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny in gauze, clothes of deceased, her Vaginal swab. The seal of hospital was of PM DDUH, its sample was also handed over to the IO. 19.3. PW-7 has further deposed that on 03.06.2016, Insp. Ranjeet Singh from PS Patel Nagar had submitted an application for seeking subsequent opinion along with sealed Weapon of offence, copy of Seizure Memo of Knife and copy of Sketch of Knife. He had found the seal of RSD intact on the Pullanda of the weapon of offence. He opened it and examined it. Blood stains were present at places on the Knife. He had opined that injuries no.1 to 7 in P.M.Report, proved as Ex.PW-7/A were possible with that Knife. The Knife was re-sealed with the seal of PM DDUH and was handed over to the IO with Sample seal. He has proved his subsequent opinion as Ex.PW-7/G. He had also signed on the photographs of the knife, Mark PW-1/1, at point A. PW-7 has also identified the case property i.e. the Gauze as Ex.P.7/2 and knife Ex.P.7/3.

20. PW-8 Ct. Deepak has deposed that on 22.03.2016, at about 07:36 PM, DD No. 47A was received at PS regarding lying of dead body of a girl in House No. T-405, Baljeet Nagar. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Kishore went to the spot where it was revealed that the house number was not T-405 but it was T-398, where the dead body of a girl was lying. They reached at House no. T-398, Baljeet Nagar. The dead body of a girl was lying inside the room of the above house and she was wearing blue coloured jeans and top. There were injuries on her abdomen and other parts of the body. There were Case No. 58004/2016 Page 21 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny some Card. As per the photo affixed on the I. Card, the face of dead body was appearing similar to that photo. The address of Baba Farid Puri, Baljeet Nagar was appearing in the I. Card. However, the witness not able to recollect the house number mentioned in the I. Card. He has further stated that on the directions of IO, he went to the address mentioned in the I.Card and returned to the spot with father of deceased. One mobile phone, one vegetable cutting knife, some clothes, shoes, bag etc were lying at the spot. About 12-13 articles were lying at the spot including of above said articles and blood. IO prepared parcels of these articles and sealed the parcels. The father identified the dead body as of his daughter Nikita. Senior police officials also came at the spot. Then on the directions of IO, he took the dead body to the Mortuary of DDU Hospital. 20.1. He further deposed that on the next day, IO/SHO PS Patel Nagar and SI Kishore came to Mortuary, where he was already on duty at the Mortuary of DDU Hospital. SHO P.S Patel Nagar conducted the inquest proceedings and got conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Nikita. The doctor handed over 3-4 sealed exhibits to the IO after the postmortem examination and the same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-8/A. After the postmortem examination, the dead body of Nikita was handed over to the relatives. He came to PS and his statement was recorded by the IO/SHO. This witness has also identified the articles seized by the IO vide seizure memo Case No. 58004/2016 Page 22 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Ex.PW-8/B. He has also identified the case property i.e. Shoe as Ex.P.8/1; blood on gauze as Ex.P.8/2; Knife as Ex.P.8/3; I.Card issued in the name of deceased Nikita as Ex.PW-9/2; one Metro Card as Ex.PW-8/4 (earlier marked as Mark PX); one Lock Ex.PW-9/1; Jeans/ Pant as Ex.PW-8/5; one white colour mobile phone make Nokia, having two Sim Cards as Ex. PW-1/4; ladies shoe as Ex.PW-8/6 (earlier marked as P.1/2); bed sheet as Ex.PW-8/7; one broken bottom part of pet Plastic water bottle as Ex.PW-8/8; one partially burnt single Gents shoe with blue & white strip design and red colour laces as Ex.PW-8/9; ladies shoe (Belly) as Ex.PW-8/10 (earlier marked as Mark P.1/3); container having hair strand as Ex.PW-8/11.

21. PW-9 Sh. Hemant, tenant of the spot/premises, has deposed that he used to reside on the second floor of the premises i.e. H.No. 398, T Point, Shadipur, Delhi, which is the spot of crime. He further deposed that he and Naveen were working with 'Tour & Travels Company'. On 21.03.2016, Naveen left the house for his work and did not return that night. On the day of incident, i.e. on 22.03.2016, he and his other roommate Surender left the house at around 10/11:00 AM for their work. On that day, in the afternoon, he received a call on his mobile number 705xxxx002 (number withheld to protect the privacy of the witness) from Sunny from his mobile number 8586906533. He knew Gaurav @ Sunny who is the present accused and was correctly identified by the said witness in the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 23 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Court, as he was residing on the upper floor of H.No. 398, T.Point, Shadipur, Delhi, prior to his coming to Delhi i.e. about two months from the date of incident and had met him once or twice when he came to their house. He further deposed that during the conversation on mobile phone, accused Gaurav @ Sunny told him that he is coming to Shadipur Metro Station with his friend Nikita (deceased). He also informed him that one girl who is friend of Nikita is also with them, therefore, accused asked him to come at the Metro Station so that he can introduce him to the friend of Nikita for friend-ship. However, he informed the accused that since he is in office, he is not in a position to come to the Metro Station. 21.1. He further deposed that on the same day, his employer Mr. Ranjeet Jha instructed him to go to Rithala Metro Station to deliver tickets to some customer and therefore, he made a call on the mobile number of accused Gaurav to inquire about the location of Rithala Metro Station. After knowing the location, he disconnected the phone of accused Gaurav @ Sunny. He went to Rithala Metro Station and after handing over the tickets, he returned to his office. 21.2. He further deposed that in the evening at about 07:00 PM, he returned to his house and found the main door at the ground floor of the premises locked. Normally the main gate remained open but that day, it was found locked with the same lock which they used to put on their flat at the second floor. Despite inquiry from neighbourhood, he could not gathered any clue as to who had locked Case No. 58004/2016 Page 24 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny the door, therefore, he went to the house of his landlord namely Mr. Chawla. The Landlord told him that he had not locked the door and asked him to break it open. While he was breaking open the lock, the resident of third floor of the premises also returned from his duty. He entered the premises and when had reached at the second floor, he found the door of his flat was closed but not bolted. On opening the door, he found a girl lying on the floor and under shock, he came downstairs. Then he made a call at number 100 and proceeded to the police station, however, he met the police on the way. He also informed Naveen over call. He then went inside his flat alongwith the police and found that the girl had already died. He identified the girl as Nikita who had come to their flat once with accused Gaurav, He informed the police about the call made by the accused to him in the afternoon and that Nikita was with the accused alongwith one of her friends. He asked police to make call on the mobile number of accused Gaurav but his mobile phone was switched off. One Identity Card of deceased Nikita was also lying near her dead body. In the meantime, his friend Naveen also came at the spot.

21.3. He further deposed that on earlier occasion, when accused came to their flat with Nikita, he objected to the same. Then he asked accused to call his flat mate Naveen to talk over the said issue and accused spoke to Naveen. However, on asking of Naveen, he left the flat for 5-10 minutes so that accused could talk to Nikita.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 25 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny However, he heard some loud voices of accused and Nikita from his room.

21.4. He admitted that on the day of incident, he found that his T.shirt was missing from his room. He identified the lock put on the main door of the premises on 22.03.2016 as Ex.PW-9/1 and the Identity Card issued in the name of deceased Nikita by National Institute of Open Schooling which was found lying near the dead body on 22.03.2016 as Ex.PW-9/2. However, he could not identify the Metro Card hence it was marked as Mark PX. He lastly deposed that the mobile Sim used by him at the time of incident was purchased on the I/D of his friend Naveen having number as 705xxx002.

21.5. During his cross-examination by the defence, he deposed that there was only one set of Keys of the lock Ex.PW-9/1 which used to remain in the bathroom of the said flat, which was outside the said room/flat. In the Court observation, it has been mentioned that the lock Ex. PW-9/1 can be opened without help of Key. The witness also proved the scaled site Plan prepared by the draftsman as Ex. PW-9/DA.

22. PW-10 Sh. Naveen Singh Bisht has deposed that in the year 2016, he was residing at H.No. 398, 2nd Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi which is the spot of Crime. He further deposed that he used to reside in the above flat alongwith Mr. Hemant and Mr. Surender. Accused Gaurav @ Sunny was residing on the upper floor in the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 26 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny same premises. He correctly identified the accused Gaurav @ Sunny in the Court.

22.1. PW-10 further deposed that at the time of incident, he was working in a Tour & Travels Company at R.K.Ashram, Palika Bazar, Delhi. On 22.03.2016, between 07:00 to 07:30 PM, he received a call of Hemant who informed him that some incident had taken place in their flat. However, he could not explain the details of the incident over phone. When he reached at the flat, the police was already present alongwith Hemant. He did not go inside the flat but could see from outside that some one was lying in the flat. He came to know the name of deceased as Nikita. He further deposed that Nikita was girl friend of accused Gaurav @ Sunny and on some occasions, he had seen accused Gaurav taking Nikita to his flat. He further deposed that there was only one set of Key of the lock which they used to put on the door of their flat, which used to be kept in the bathroom and accused Gaurav @ Sunny knew about the same. 22.2. During his cross-examination by defence, he deposed that none other than him, Surender, Hemant and accused Gaurav @ Sunny knew about the Keys kept in the bathroom.

23. PW-11 Ct. Sachin Kumar has deposed that on 27.04.2016, he took accused Gaurav @ Sunny to Lady Hardinge hospital for his medical examination. The blood sample of accused was taken by the doctor in the hospital and handed over the same in sealed condition to him. Thereafter he alongwith accused returned to PS and handed Case No. 58004/2016 Page 27 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny over the sealed parcel containing the blood sample of accused and MLC to the IO/Insp. Ranjeet Singh Dahiya. The blood sample of accused was seized by the IO vide seizure memo, proved as Ex. PW-11/A. This witness has correctly identified the accused before the Court.

24. PW-12 Sh. Rajeev Vashisht, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved the original Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW-12/A alongwith the attested CDR of Mobile number 8527846928 for the period from 01.10.2015 to 31.03.2016 running into five pages, Ex.PW-12/B alongwith Location Chart, as Ex.PW-12/C and attested copy of Customer Application Form as Ex.PW-12/D as well as ID Proof of the customer as Ex. PW-12/E. He has further deposed that the said mobile number was issued in the name of Om Bahadur S/o Sh. Shashi Bahadur.

25. PW-13 Sh. Naveen Kumar Singh @ Shashi Bhushan has deposed that he is working as attendant in parking located at Railway Station, Samai Pur Badli. That on 23.03.2016, one motorcycle make Pulsar having number xxxx2012 was parked by one person regarding which he made entry in the register maintained by him. The copy of the said record seizeed vide memo is proved as Ex.PW-13/A. 25.1. He further deposed that on 27.04.2016, police with one person came to the said parking and the accused Gaurav (correctly identified in the Court) pointed towards motorcycle having number Case No. 58004/2016 Page 28 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny xxxxx2012 stating that the motorcycle belongs to him. He also proved four pages annexed in the Court file which is record of vehicle parked in the said parking lot, proved as Ex.PW-13/B to Ex.PW-13/B.4. He also proved two documents of the register (partially smudged as per Court observation) as Ex.PW-13/C.1 and Ex.PW-13/C.2. He lastly deposed that the said vehicle no. xxxx2012 was taken by the police from the parking lot at about 01:00 PM on 27.04.2016.

25.2. During cross-examination of PW-13, he deposed that the register entry of only those vehicle is made which remained parked during night. He further deposed that he did not inform local police or any other authority that the vehicle in question was parked in the parking lot for 34 days.

26. PW-14 Sh. Lokesh Kumar/cousin of accused has deposed that accused is son of his Paternal uncle and correctly identified him. He further deposed that on 22.03.2016, accused Sunny came at his work place situated at CNG Station- II, Rohini, Delhi on a Pulsar motorcycle and it was the day near Holi festival. Thereafter, accused went to his house with him and stayed there overnight. On the next day, i.e. on 23.03.2016, accused left his house on the same motorcycle. After almost a month, he was called to Police station Patel Nagar vide a telephonic call and he informed the entire facts to the police. He further deposed that the motorcycle used by accused was of black colour of make Pulsar.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 29 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny

27. PW-15 Sh. Pawan Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Limited has proved the certified copy of CDR of mobile number 8447337227 for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 as Ex.PW-15/A; certified copy of CAF as per which this number was issued in the name of Smt. Rajwati Devi w/o Sh. Amar Singh as Ex.PW-15/B; certified copy of I. Card proof of Smt. Rajwati Devi as Ex.PW-15/C and Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-15/D. 27.1. PW-15 has also proved the certified copy of CDR of mobile number 9711433616 for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 as Ex.PW-15/E; certified copy of CAF as per which this number was issued in the name of Smt. Rajwati Devi w/o Sh. Amar Singh as Ex.PW-15/F; certified copy of I. Card proof of Smt. Rajwati Devi as Ex.PW-15/G and Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-15/H. 27.2. PW-15 has also proved the certified copy of CDR of mobile number 8586906533 for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 as Ex.PW-15/I; certified copy of CAF as per which this number was issued in the name of Sh. Thakur Singh S/o Sh. Bakhtawar Singh, as Ex.PW-15/J; certified copy of I.Card proof of Sh. Thakur Singh as Ex.PW-15/K and Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-15/L.

28. PW-16 Sh. Surender Singh Bisht, Assistant Manager, Aircel Ltd. has deposed that he could not produce the summoned record Case No. 58004/2016 Page 30 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny i.e. CDR of mobile no. 7053242002 for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 as the company was declared bankrupt and the record is not available in the office of the company. However, he has proved the signatures of Sh. Shishir Malhotra, the then Nodal Officer on the certified copy of CDR of abovesaid mobile number alongwith its Location, Ex.PW-16/A; copy of CAF (as per which this number was issued in the name of Sh. Naveen Singh Bisht S/o Sh,. Bahadur Singh Bisht), Mark PW-16/1 and certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act at point A, Ex.PW-16/B, which were already on record, as Sh. Shishir Malhotra had resigned from the company in the year of 2019. He has further deposed that he can identify the signatures of Dr. Shishir Malhotra as he had seen him writing and signing during his official course of duty. He has also proved the D/L of Sh. Naveen Singh as Mark PW-16/2.

29. PW-17 SI Kishore Kumar has deposed that on 22.03.2016, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar and was on emergency duty. At about 07:40/07:45 PM, he received a telephonic information about DD no. 47A that one girl was lying dead in the house number T-405, Baljeet Nagar. Accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Deepak proceeded towards the said flat, however, on reaching there, public gathered at the spot informed that incident had taken place at Flat No. T-398, 2 nd Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. He went to the spot and saw that dead body of a girl was lying in the room of said flat. Blood was scattered near the dead body; head of the dead body was towards North direction Case No. 58004/2016 Page 31 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny and her foot were towards South direction; face of the dead body was towards the roof; some wounds on the body were apparent to be caused with sharp object; there were injuries on neck, left shoulder and left palm of the deceased; there were also burn marks on the hand & abdomen on the dead body; the deceased was wearing blue colour Jeans and top having burnt marks; one Identity Card of Open School was found lying near the dead body reflecting the name as Nikita, her father's name as Amar Singh and address as C-642, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. The photo appearing on the Identity Card was matching with the face of deceased. Meanwhile, SHO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya, Insp. Joginder Singh and Ct. Pawan also reached at the spot. Insp. Joginder Singh informed the crime team through wireless set and PW-17 sent Ct. Deepak to the address mentioned on the I.Card.

29.1. He further deposed that after some time, Ct. Deepak came to the spot with the father of deceased namely Sh. Amar Singh, who identified the dead body of his daughter Nikita. The crime team comprising of Incharge/SI Pankaj and photographer reached at the spot and while inspecting the scene of crime and lifting the exhibits from the spot, certain photographs were also clicked. As per directions of Incharge/SI Pankaj, he also lifted a Metro card, the Identity Card of Open School and one passport photo of the deceased lying near the dead body. There were blood stains on the abovesaid Cards. A parcel of these Cards and photos was prepared, Case No. 58004/2016 Page 32 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny which was sealed with the seal of KK and it was given serial number S1.

29.2. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted one plastic bottle partially burnt lying near the dead body and having yellow colour label mentioning the words "कच्ची घानी का तेल". Parcel of this bottle was also prepared and sealed with the seal of KK and it was given serial number S2.

29.3. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted blood in gauze from the spot and kept it in transparent plastic Jar, parcel of which was sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S3. 29.4. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted gents shoe partially burnt from the spot which were of red & white colour having blue colour strips. Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S4.

29.5. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted female belly shoe from the spot and Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S5.

29.6. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted another gents shoe from the spot which were of red & white colour having blue colour strips. Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S6.

29.7. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted female belly shoe from the spot which was lying under the bed and Parcel of same was Case No. 58004/2016 Page 33 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S7.

29.8. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted one bed sheet, partially burnt which was spread on the bed from the spot and Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S8.

29.9. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted a blue colour Jeans with logo 'Hilfiger Denim' lying on the bed from the spot and Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S9.

29.10. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted Lock of black colour having yellow colour strip having key hole on its bottom from the spot and the lock appeared broken. Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S10. 29.11. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted mobile phone without battery of Nokia company having dual Sim from the spot and Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S11.

29.12. PW-17 also deposed that there was hair strand in the left hand of the dead body, which was photographed by the Crime team and was kept in a transparent Jar. Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S12. 29.13. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted vegetable cutting knife, which was slightly bend from the spot and Parcel of same was Case No. 58004/2016 Page 34 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S13. However, during his cross-examination by the defence, he deposed and clarified that a knife was recovered at the instance of accused from the bushes of Ramjas Ground vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-17/G. He even identified the said knife as already exhibited as Ex. PW-7/3.

29.14. He further deposed that all the 13 exhibits were seized by him vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW-8/B. The dead body of Nikita was sent to mortuary of DDU hospital through Ct. Deepak. He proved the statement of Sh.Amar Singh recorded by him which is already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/B and his endorsement on the same as Ex.PW-17/A. He then handed over rukka to Ct. Pawan for registration of the FIR. Further, investigation of this case was then taken up by the then SHO/Insp. Ranjeet Singh Dahiya. Thereafter, the 2nd IO/Insp. Ranjeet Singh Dahiya prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Sh.Amar Singh and in the meanwhile, Ct. Pawan returned to the spot with the copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, search for accused Gaurav was started but he could not be traced.

29.15. He further deposed that on 23.03.2016 in the morning, he alongwith the second IO went to the mortuary, DDU hospital where father of deceased identified the dead body of Nikita and second IO prepared the Inquest proceedings, after which postmortem examination of the body of deceased was conducted. Thereafter, the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 35 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny dead body was handed over to the relatives vide receipt already proved as Ex.PW-1/C. The doctor handed over three sealed parcels containing vaginal swab, clothes of deceased and blood sample of deceased alongwith specimen seal which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW-8/A. 29.16. He further deposed that he again joined the investigation of the present matter with Insp. Joginder Singh on 25.04.2016 and he went with the IO to Central Jail as accused Gaurav was arrested in another case registered with PS Anand Parbat. IO interrogated the accused in Jail no.7 and arrested him vide Arrest memo, proved as Ex.PW-17/B and recorded his disclosure statement, proved as Ex.PW-17/C. The witness correctly identified the accused in the Court.

29.17. He further deposed to have joined further investigation of the present case on 27.04.2016 alongwith Insp. Ranjeet Singh, when accused Gaurav was already in police custody and was kept in lock- up of PS Patel Nagar. The accused was taken out from the lock-up and after interrogation, his second disclosure statement was recorded, proved as Ex.PW-17/D. Thereafter, he alongwith the IO, Ct. Mehtab and accused Gaurav left the police station for further investigation in the official vehicle in which driver and operator were also present. Accused Gaurav took them to the parking of Samai Pur Railway Station and pointed out towards one black colour Pulsar 220 CC Motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-10S Case No. 58004/2016 Page 36 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny E-2012 parked in the parking of abovesaid railway station and stated that this motorcycle was used by him in fleeing away from the spot after committing the offence. This motorcycle was seized by the IO vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-17/E. IO prepared site plan of place of recovery of this motorcycle. There was a parking attendant namely Naveen, who met them in the parking. He checked the record and informed that said motorcycle was parked on 23.03.2016 in the said parking and till then, no one came to take that motorcycle. IO took copy of relevant record, proved as Ex.PW-13/B1 to Ex.PW-13/B4, maintained by the parking attendant and seized the same vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-13/A. Thereafter, they visited to house of accused situated near Dwarka Mor and also visited the place where uncle of accused was allegedly working i.e. a petrol pump located in Rohini, to make inquiry from uncle of accused as accused disclosed that he had stayed overnight in the house of his uncle after committing the offence. However, the uncle of accused was not available at his work place. Thereafter, they came to the place of incident i.e. T-398, where accused pointed out the place of incident. IO prepared pointing out memo, proved as Ex.PW-17/F. 29.18. He has further deposed that accused disclosed that he had thrown knife and his wearing clothes (worn up by him at the time of incident) in Ramjas Ground, Anand Parbat. He led us to the Ramjas Ground. He took out a polythene lying in the bushes of above Case No. 58004/2016 Page 37 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny ground. IO checked that polythene which was found to contain one knife and one shirt. IO prepared sketch of the knife after taking its measurement. Total length of knife was 29 cms. Length of its blade was 16 cms and length of its handle was 13 cms, which was of purple (Baingani) colour of plastic. There were some blood stains appearing on the blade of knife. IO prepared two parcels of this knife and shirt and marked it as A-1 and A-2, sealed both the parcels with the seal of RSD and seized vide memo, proved as Ex.PW17/G. There was a label sticked on the shirt. There were some words perhaps same were "L HUMAN BEING". There was a black colour stripe on the front, its collar and its cuff. IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of shirt and knife. Thereafter, they returned to PS and accused was got medically examined through Ct. Sachin in Lady Hardinge Hosptal. Ct. Sachin produced one sealed parcel containing the blood gauze of the accused. IO seized the same vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-11/A. This witness has identified the case property i.e. Knife having brown colour handle as Ex. PW-7/3. This witness has deposed that the colour of handle of knife as per his knowledge is 'Baingani' and it was the same knife which was recovered at the instance of accused. However, in Court Observation, it has surfaced that there are some brown stains appearing on the knife. Towards sharp end of the blade, stains appears to be of rust whereas towards middle and non-sharp end of the blade, they appears to be blood. He has also identified the shirt Case No. 58004/2016 Page 38 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny which was got recovered by accused by stating that it was worn by him at the time of incident as Ex.P.17/1; photographs of motorcycle as Ex.PW-17/G (colly.) and motorcycle as Ex. P.17/2.

30. PW-18 L/HC Indu Bala, DD writer has proved the DD No. 47A, copy of which is proved as Ex.PW-8/DA, which was recorded by her on 22.03.2016 at about 07:36 PM and the same was received through wireless operator to the effect that one girl was lying dead in H.No. T-405, Baljeet Nagar.

31. PW-19 SI Ummed Singh has deposed that on 13.07.2016, on the request of IO/Insp.Ranjeet Dahiya, he obtained the print out of PCR form dated 22.03.2016 by which call received at 07:35:47 PM was received i.e. one girl was lying dead in room of H.No. T-405, Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar. He handed over the PCR form alongwith his certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, proved as Ex. PW-19/A and Ex.PW-19/B respectively.

32. PW-20 Insp. Pankaj Kumar has deposed that on 22.03.2016, a call regarding the present case was received at about 8.30 PM from control room. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Arun, photographer and ASI S.M. Pandey, Finger Prints Expert, went to the spot i.e. Flat No. T-398, Second Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar, Delhi. SI Kishore from PS Patel Nagar, SHO and other staff from the PS met them at the spot. Dead body of one girl was lying in the above-said flat. There were injuries on the body of the deceased. There were some burn injuries on the right hand and back portion of right side of the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 39 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny deceased. The injuries in detail are mentioned in his report. There was one hair strand in the finger grips of left hand of the deceased. Several articles like mobile phone, I-card, metro card, shoes, bed- sheet in burnt condition etc. were found lying at the spot. The photographer took photographs of the crime spot. No chance prints could be lifted from the spot. After inspecting the spot, he prepared his detailed report, proved as Ex.PW-20/A and handed over the same to SI Kishore. During late night hours in the night of 22/23.3.2016, he and photographer Ct. Arun were called in the PS by IO/Insp. Ranjit Dahiya. His statement was recorded by IO in the PS.

33. PW-21 Sh. Manish Gupta, Jr. forensic Chemical Examiner, FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 27.6.2016, 13 sealed parcels in connection with the present case were received in the office of FSL from PS Patel Nagar and same were marked to him for examination. The seal of parcels was tallying with the specimen seal and it was intact. All the parcels were opened and examined by him. Blood was detected on all the parcels except parcel at serial No. 6 and 8, containing hair collected from the spot and vaginal swab of deceased Nikita. Semen could not be detected on Ex.Nos. 8, 9a, 9b, 9c and 9d (vaginal swab and clothes of deceased Nikita). DNA was isolated from all other exhibits on which blood was detected. The DNA could not be isolated from Ex.1A (photograph), 1c (ID card), 9a, 9b, 9d (clothes of the deceased) and 13b (gauze cloth piece of Case No. 58004/2016 Page 40 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny accused). After examination, he opined that the alleles from the source of exhibits 1b (metro card), 2 (gauze cloth piece from the spot), 3 (shoe), 4 (jeans), 5 (mobile phone), 7 (knife), 9c (jeans pant), 11 (knife), 12 (shirt of accused) are accounted in the alleles from the source of Ex. 10 (gauze cloth piece of deceased). He prepared his detailed report dated 01.05.2017, proved as Ex. PW-21/A (comprising of 2 pages). He also gave details of genotype analysis of allelic data comprising of two pages, proved as Ex. PW-21/B and Ex.PW-21/B1.

34. PW-22 Sh. Santosh Tripathy, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini has deposed that on 10.06.2016, four sealed parcels in connection with the present case were received in the office of FSL from PS Patel Nagar and same were marked to him. All the parcels were opened and same were containing one partially burnt plastic bottle, partially burnt shoe, partially burnt ladies' footwear and partially burnt multi coloured bed sheet. On chemical TLC and GC examination, no inflammable substance like petrol, diesel or kerosene could be detected on any of the exhibit. He prepared his detailed report, proved as Ex.PW-22/A.

35. PW-23 Insp. Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman has proved the scaled site plan as Ex.PW-9/DA, which was prepared at the instance of IO/Insp. Ranjeet Singh on 09.05.2016 at the spot i.e. 2 nd Floor of H.No. T-398, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 41 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny

36. PW-24 Insp. Joginder Singh/ arresting officer has deposed that on 22.04.2016, on his directions, ASI Hari Bhushan had moved an application before the concerned Court for production of accused Gaurav @ Sunny as he was arrested in case FIR No. 636/2015 PS Anand Parbat, which was allowed. He has further deposed that on 25.04.2016, he alongwith SI Kishore had visited Jail no. 7, Tihar Jail, Delhi and had shown order of Ld. Court and requested to Jail Staff to allow him to interrogate accused Gaurav @ Sunny and accused was produced before him at Tihar Jail. He made inquiries from accused and during interrogation, he disclosed about his involvement in the present case. He had proved the arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW-17/B and his disclosure statement as Ex. PW-17/C. Thereafter, he had moved an application to the Jail Superintendent and informed him about the arrest of accused Gaurav @ Sunny and requested him to produce him before the concerned Court. This witness has correctly identified the accused before the Court. He has further deposed that on 26.04.2016, the investigation of the present case was handed over to SHO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya and case file was handed over to him.

37. PW-25 Ct. Pawan Kumar has deposed that on 22.03.2016, he was present at his beat and in the meantime, he had received an information that one girl has been murdered in the area of Baljit Nagar and he was directed to reach at the spot. After receiving the said information, he reached at the spot i.e. T-398, Second floor, Case No. 58004/2016 Page 42 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, where SI Kishore Kumar, Ct. Deepak and Insp. Jogender Singh alongwith other staff were present there. He had noticed that body of one lady aged about 19-20 years, smeared with blood, was lying in the room. The back portion of the body of said lady was on the floor. (सीधे पीठ के बल पड़ी थी). SI Kishore had asked him to control the gathering of the public and not to allow to anyone to enter in the said room. SI Kishore had prepared rukka and handed over the same to him at about 11:55 PM for getting registration of the FIR. He went to PS and handed over rukka to duty officer HC Udaibir Singh for getting registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, the duty officer handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him to hand over the same to Insp. Ranjeet Singh. Thereafter, he returned back to the spot alongwith copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to Insp. Ranjeet Singh.

38. PW-26 W/Ct. Som Lata has deposed that on the directions of the IO, she had collected 13 sealed pullandas and FSL form from the MHC(M) HC Rajesh through RC no. 71/21/16 to deposit the same in FSL, Rohini. She went to FSL, Rohini and deposited the same against receipt. She had handed over copy of RC and acknowledgment to the MHC(M). No alteration or addition had taken place in the exhibits and FSL form during her possession.

39. PW-27 Ct. Vipin Kumar has deposed that on 03.06.2016, on the direction of IO, he had handed over sealed pullanda of recovered Case No. 58004/2016 Page 43 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny knife duly sealed with the seal of RSD to the IO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya. IO took the same to the subsequent opinion from the DDU hospital and after getting subsequent opinion, IO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya had deposited the said pullanda of knife duly sealed with the seal of 'PM DDUH' with him at malkhana and made entry in register no. 19.

40. PW-28 HC Rajesh Kumar has deposed being MHC(M) (CP) that on 23.03.2016, SI Kishore Kumar deposited 13 sealed pullandas duly sealed with seal of KK through seizure memo, which is mentioned in register no.19 at Srl.no. 2737/16 and copy of same is proved as Ex.PW-28/A (OS&R).

40.1. He further deposed that on the same day i.e. 23.03.2016, Insp. Ranjeet Singh Dahiya, the then SHO PS Patel Nagar had deposited 03 sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of 'PMDDUH' through seizure memo. He had mentioned the same in register no. 19 at srl.no. 2738/16, copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW-28/B (OS&R).

40.2. He further deposed that on 27.04.2016, Insp. Ranjit Singh Dahiya, the then SHO PS Patel Nagar had deposited 02 sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of 'RSD' and 01 pullanda duly sealed with the seal of 'CMO LHMC & SSK Hospital' through seizure memo. Insp. Ranjit Dahiya had also deposited one motorcycle of black colour Pulsar bearing registration no. DL-10- Case No. 58004/2016 Page 44 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny SE-2012. He had mentioned the same in register no. 19 at srl.no. 2906/16, copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW-28/C (OS&R). 40.3. He further deposed that on 10.06.2016, he had handed over 04 sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of KK to Ct. Manoj to deposit the same to FSL, Rohini through RC no. 42/21/16, copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW-28/D (OS&R). He had also mentioned the same in register no.19 at point X against entry no. 2737. After depositing the same, Ct. Manoj had handed over copy of RC and acknowledgment of FSL Rohini to him. The copy of acknowledgment of FSL, Rohini is proved as Mark PW-28/A. 40.4. He further deposed that on 27.06.2016, he had handed over 13 sealed pullandas alongwith FSL form to W/Ct. Som Lata to deposit the same to FSL, Rohini through RC no. 71/21/16, copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW-28/E (OS&R). Out of said 13 sealed pullandas, 07 pullandas were sealed with the seal of KK and four pullandas duly sealed with the seal of PMDDUH and one pullanda duly sealed with the seal of RSD and another one pullanda duly sealed with the seal of CMO LHMC & SSK HOSPITAL. He had also mentioned the same in register no. 19 at point Y against entry no. 2737. After depositing the same, W/Ct. Som Lata had handed over the copy of RC and acknowledgment of FSL, Rohini to him. Copy of acknowledgment of FSL, Rohini is proved as Mark PW-28/B.

41. PW-29 Ct. Manoj Kumar has deposed that on 10.06.2016, on the directions of the IO, he had collected four sealed exhibits along Case No. 58004/2016 Page 45 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny with FSL form from MHC(M) HC Rajesh vide RC no. 42/21/16 to deposit the same at FSL, Rohini. He went to FSL, Rohini and deposited the same there. He had collected receiving from FSL and returned to PS Patel Nagar and handed over the copy of RC and acknowledgment to the MHC(M). No alteration or addition had taken place in the said exhibits and FSL form during his possession.

42. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-30 Insp. Joginder Singh was earlier examined as PW-24 in the present case and inadvertently, he was again examined as PW-30. Therefore, vide order dated 14.03.2022 of the Ld. Predecessor of the Court, his evidence as PW-30 was cancelled.

43. PW-30 Sh. Sanjay Kumar has deposed that he is running a photo studio in the name & style of M/s Sanjay Studio at his residence. On 23.03.2016, he was called by the IO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya at mortuary DDU hospital for taking photographs of postmortem proceedings, postmortem no. 443/16 in the present case. He had clicked 42 photographs of the postmortem on the body of a woman, proved as Ex.PW-30/A (Colly.). After developing the same, he had handed over the same to the IO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya.

44. PW-31 Insp. Nitesh Singh has deposed that in the present case, the main charge sheet was filed by Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya and at that time, FSL result was pending. He has further deposed that on 19.01.2017, FSL result (Chemistry), FSL No. 2016/C-4412 dated 12.07.2016 was received at PS and he had prepared supplementary Case No. 58004/2016 Page 46 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny charge sheet regarding filing of FSL result (Chemistry) and filed before the concerned Court. He has further deposed that on 03.05.2017, another supplementary charge sheet was filed by him after receiving another FSL result (Biology), FSL no. 2016/B-4861 dated 01.05.2017. He had prepared supplementary charge sheet regarding filing of abovesaid FSL result (Biology) and filed before the concerned Court.

45. PW-32 retired Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya, the Investigating Officer has deposed that on 22.03.2016, one DD no. 47A, proved as Ex. PW8/DA was registered at PS on the basis of PCR call and same was assigned SI Kishore. The said PCR call was related to death of a lady at T-405, Baljeet Nagar Delhi. After receiving said DD SI Kishore alongwith Ct. Deepak reached there. He also reached to the spot for the verification of DD no. 47A and on verification, it was revealed that the correct address of the spot is T-398, second floor, Baljeet Nagar Delhi. Sl Kishore, Ct. Deepak alongwith Insp Joginder were also found present there, when he reached. The body of one lady was found at the spot whose face was upside and was in pool of blood. On verification, the name of deceased was revealed as Nikita D/o Sh. Amar Singh. He had noticed two stabbing wounds on the stomach of deceased. He had also noticed injuries on shoulder, neck, arms etc. The wearing clothes of the deceased were found partially burnt. The blood was scattered in the room. Near the body of deceased, one card of National Institute of open School Case No. 58004/2016 Page 47 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny in the name of deceased Nikita, one metro card and one passport photo of the deceased were found. One pair of blood-stained gents sports shoes, one pair of blood-stained ladies belly (sandal), one blood-stained kitchen knife, one empty bottle having label of Kachi Gani, one blood-stained blue jeans pant, one blood-stained bed sheet, one hair stand in the left hand of the deceased, one NOKIA mobile phone of black and white colour without battery were recovered from the spot. Thereafter, Ct. Deepak was sent to the house of deceased and Insp. Joginder called the crime team on the spot. In the meantime, Ct. Pawan reached at the spot. Father of the deceased namely Amar Singh alongwith Ct. Deepak also reached at the spot. Crime team also reached at the spot. The body of the deceased was identified by Amar Singh as his daughter Nikita. Crime team had inspected the spot and photographs were clicked. The above said exhibits were lifted from the spot and separately sealed with the seal of KK and taken into possession through seizure memo by SI Kishore Kumar. The pullanda of the said exhibits were given Sr. no. S1 to $13. The seal was handed over to Ct. Pawan after its use. The other senior officials also reached at the spot. 45.1. He further deposed that the body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary DDU hospital through Ct. Deepak. SI Kishore Kumar had made inquiry from Amar Singh and recorded his statement proved as Ex.PW-1/B and rukka was prepared after making endorsement by SI Kishore Kumar. The rukka was handed over to Case No. 58004/2016 Page 48 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Ct. Pawan for getting FIR registered and had also directed to hand over the investigation to me after registration of FIR. He made call to duty officer and asked him about the registration number of the present case and same was informed by him. He had prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Amar Singh, proved as Ex. PW-17/DD. In the meantime, Ct. Pawan returned to the spot alongwith copy of FIR, proved as Ex.PW-4/A and original rukka, proved as Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-17/A. 45.2. He further deposed that SI Kishore had handed over sealed exhibits and seizure memos of the same which were seized by him, proved as Ex.PW-8/B to him. SI Kishore had also handed over SOC report to him, proved as Ex.PW-20/A. He had mentioned FIR number in the seizure memo, Ex.PW-8/B. Sh. Hemant, in whose room murder was committed, was also present there and he also joined the investigation. Thereafter, he alongwith police staff and Sh. Hemant returned to PS Patel Nagar. The member of the crime team also reached at PS and joined the investigation. He recorded the statement of SI Pankaj (I/C crime) and Ct. Arun (Photographer crime team) and thereafter, they were relieved. He made inquiries from Hemant and during inquiry, it was revealed that on 22.03.2016, at about 03:00 PM, he had received a telephone call from accused Gaurav @ Sunny and revealed the mobile number of accused Gaurav as 8586906533. The mobile number of Hemant was 7053242002. Hemant also informed him during interrogation that Case No. 58004/2016 Page 49 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny while making call, accused Gaurav told him that Nikita (deceased) came to Shadipur Metro Station with him. Accused Gaurav called him there in order to make him meet with Nikita, to which, Hemant replied that he is busy in his office and cannot come there to meet them. Hemant also informed him that accused Gaurav was previously residing in the same premises at third floor and accused Gaurav alongwith deceased Nikita had come to his room about 1- 1½ months prior to the date of incident. Hemant also told that due to the said reason, he knew deceased Nikita. Accused Gaurav was aware about the fact that Hemant and his room-mates used to keep the keys of their room in the bathroom under the staircase. After receiving the said information and other surrounding evidence and circumstances, accused Gaurav @ Sunny was considered as the prime suspect. Thereafter, he left Hemant at the PS Patel Nagar and he alongwith other police staff had conducted raid at the house of accused Gaurav @ Sunny at H.No. 648, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi, but accused Gaurav @ Sunny was not found there. On local inquiry there, it was revealed that Gaurav had shifted at H.No. 205, Third floor, gali no.9, Jain Road, Mohan Garden, Dwarka Mor, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, they returned to PS and recorded the statement of Hemant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, he was relieved.

45.3. He further deposed that father of deceased namely Amar Singh also came to PS Patel Nagar and joined the investigation. He Case No. 58004/2016 Page 50 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny recorded his supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, he was relieved by giving directions to reach at mortuary, DDU hospital at about 11:00 am to join the PM proceedings. The exhibits which were handed over to him by SI Kishore Kumar were deposited in the malkhana.

45.4. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Kishore Kumar, driver and operator went to mortuary, DDU hospital by govt. vehicle, where Amar Singh and his son Ajay Singh were present and they had joined the investigation. They had identified the body of deceased and their identification statements were recorded, proved as Ex.PW-7/F and Ex.PW-1/A. He had prepared inquest papers, proved as Ex.PW-7/B, Ex.PW-7/C and Ex.PW-7/E and requested the doctors for postmortem on the body of deceased. After the postmortem, the body of deceased was handed over to Amar Singh ad Ajay through handing over memo, proved as Ex.PW-1/C. 45.5. He further deposed that after the postmortem, doctor had handed over three sealed parcels alongwith one sample seal to SI Kishore, who handed over the same to him and were seized through seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-8/A. Thereafter, they returned to PS alongwith Ct. Deepak and other police staff and exhibits were deposited in the malkhana and recorded statement of Ct. Deepak, Ct. Balbir and SI Kishore Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. As the mobile numbers of deceased and accused were made available to him Case No. 58004/2016 Page 51 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny during investigation, he made call on those mobile phone numbers but both numbers were found "switched Off". Request for CDR of mobile phones of accused Gaurav @ Sunny, Hemant and Nikita (deceased) were sent to service provider by email of senior officers. The mobile phone of Nikita was 9711533616.

45.6. He further deposed that on the same day, i.e., on 23.03.2016, the uncertified CDR of abovesaid mobile numbers were received via email from service providers. He had gone through the said CDRs and analyzed the same. During analysis of said CDRs, it was revealed that there were approximately 15-16 calls between 08:00 am to about 04:30 pm between accused and deceased. It was also revealed from the said CDR that accused Gaurav had also made call to Hemant which corroborated the version of Hemant regarding receiving call from accused Gaurav @ Sunny.

45.7. He further deposed that on 24.03.2016, he prepared raiding team in the supervision of SI Arun Kumar to conduct the raid of all possible hide out places of accused Gaurav @ Sunny. The said raiding team had conducted various raids but accused Gaurav @ Sunny was not found on 24.03.2016. He has further deposed that on 26.03.2016, he again prepared raiding team in the supervision of SI Prahlad to conduct the raid of all possible hide out places of accused Gaurav @ Sunny. The said raiding team had conducted various raids but accused Gaurav @ Sunny was not found on 26.03.2016. Efforts Case No. 58004/2016 Page 52 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny were continuously made to trace accused Gaurav @ Sunny but he could not be traced.

45.8. He has further deposed that on 01.04.2016, he alongwith SI Kishore Kumar, Ct. Rakesh alongwith staff went to outstation in the search of accused Gaurav @ Sunny after obtaining permission from the senior officers and conducted the raid in Sonepat, Karnal, Panchkula, Dehradoon, Haridwar etc. which were possibly the hide out of accused Gaurav @ Sunny. Even pamphlets of search of accused Gaurav @ Sunny were also affixed. On 09.04.2016, they returned to Delhi from outstation and during the said period, accused Gaurav @ Sunny could not be traced. Continuous efforts were made to trace accused Gaurav @ Sunny. On 20.04.2016, he collected the PM report, proved as Ex.PW-7/A and copy of the said PM report was handed over to the father of deceased. 45.9. He has further deposed that on 21.04.2016, information was received that accused Gaurav @ Sunny had surrendered before the Ld. MM in case FIR no. 636/2015, u/s 363 IPC, PS Anand Parbat which was an earlier instituted FIR regarding kidnapping of deceased/victim Nikita and accused Gaurav was sent in J.C. in the said FIR. He has further deposed that since 22.04.2016 till 25.04.2016, he was on leave, the investigation during the said period was conducted by Insp. Joginder Singh, who had arrested accused Gaurav @ Sunny at Tihar Jail on 25.04.2016 in the present case after obtaining permission of the Ld. ACMM. He has further Case No. 58004/2016 Page 53 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny deposed that on 26.04.2016, he moved an application before the Ld. ACMM for obtaining PC remand of accused and two days PC remand of accused was allowed in the present case. Thereafter, he obtained the custody of accused Gaurav @ Sunny and went to PS Patel Nagar after his medical examination. Accused was interrogated and thereafter, he was sent to lock-up. He recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

45.10. He has further deposed that on 27.04.2016, accused was taken out from the lock up and was again interrogated and his supplementary disclosure statement was recorded, proved as Ex.PW-11/D. During the disclosure statement, accused had disclosed his involvement in the present case and also disclosed that the motorcycle which was used by him in the commission of offence was hidden by him in the railway parking of Samai Pur Badli and weapon of offence and his blood stained wearing clothes were hidden by him at Ramjas ground, Anand Parbat, Delhi. Thereafter, he prepared the raiding team including SI Kishore Kumar, Ct. Mehtab and other police staff to conduct the raid. Accused Gaurav @ Sunny, who was correctly identified by the witness, had led the police party to railway parking, Samai Pur Badli from where accused Gaurav @ Sunny got recovered motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-10SE-2012 make Pulsor of black colour and stated that this is the motorcycle on which he took the victim to the spot of occurrence and thereafter, after commission of offence, Case No. 58004/2016 Page 54 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny escaped from the spot on the said motorcycle. The said motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-17/E. The contractor of the said parking namely Naveen had also joined the investigation and his signatures were also obtained on the said seizure memo of the motorcycle. The parking register was also checked and entry of the said motorcycle was found in the said parking register. He seized the copy of said parking register, proved as Ex.PW-13/B.1 to Ex.PW-13/B.4 and the entry of the said motorcycle is made at point X in the said register, vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-13/A. He had also obtained a certificate from the parking contractor Naveen to keep the original records with him and produce before the Court as and when required. The said certificate is exhibited as Ex.PW-32/A. He had also prepared site plan of the recovery of said motorcycle which is exhibited as Ex.PW-32/B. Thereafter, accused led them to his house, i.e. at H.No. 205, third floor, gali no.9, Jain Road, Mohan Garden, Dwarka Mor, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, where mother of the accused was found present. She was informed about the present case and purpose of the visit. During inquiry, mother of the accused disclosed that after the incident, accused had not visited his house and came for the first time after the incident with the police. Nothing was recovered from the house of accused. Thereafter, accused led them to CNG Pump station, Sector-25, Rohini, Delhi and informed that after the execution of crime, he went to his uncle who was working at the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 55 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny said CNG Pump and from there, he went to the house of his uncle alongwith him. His uncle was not found present on the said CNG Pump as he was on leave. The mobile number of uncle of accused was collected from the CNG Pump and IO made call to him and directed him to reach at PS Patel Nagar. Thereafter, accused led them to the place of incident where accused had pointed out the place of incident. IO had prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused which is already exhibited as Ex. PW-17/F. Thereafter, accused led them to Ramjas ground, Anand Parbat, Delhi and from where, he had taken out one white colour polythene from the bushes of the Ramjas ground and handed over the same to him. IO had checked the same and said polythene bag was found containing one knife and blood-stained clothes of accused. Accused had disclosed that this is the knife by which he had committed the murder of deceased Nikita and at that time, he was wearing the said recovered clothes. Thereafter, IO took the measurement of recovered knife by putting the same on a white paper and prepared sketch of the same, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-32/C. IO prepared separate pullandas of recovered knife and wearing clothes of accused and sealed the same with the seal of RSD. The pullanda of knife was marked as Ex.Al and pullanda of cloth was marked as Ex.A2. Both the said exhibits were taken into possession through seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW. 17/G. IO had also prepared site plan of the recovered knife and clothes which is Case No. 58004/2016 Page 56 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny exhibited as Ex. PW-32/D. Thereafter, they alongwith recovered case property returned to PS, where uncle of accused namely Lokesh Kumar was found present. The exhibits were deposited in the malkhana of PS Patel Nagar. IO recorded the statement of Lokesh Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Accused was sent to Lady Hardinge hospital with Ct. Sachin for his medical examination. After the medical examination of accused, Ct. Sachin alongwith accused returned to PS and handed over the MLC of accused and one sealed parcel containing blood in gauze of the accused to him. IO had seized the same vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW-11/A and the same was also given mark B1 and deposited in the malkhana. IO recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

45.11. PW-32 further deposed that on 28.04.2016, accused was taken out from the lock up and produced before the concerned Court and remanded to JC. On 09.05.2016, IO called Insp.Mahesh, draftsman for preparing scaled site plan. He came to PS and join the investigation. Thereafter, IO alongwith Insp.Mahesh went to the spot where Insp.Mahesh had taken notes and measurements and prepared rough notes. Thereafter, they returned to PS. IO recorded the statement of Insp.Mahesh in this regard. On 03.06.2016, parcel of the recovered knife was taken out by him from the MHC(M) for obtaining subsequent opinion and IO went to DDU hospital and handed over the same to Dr. Jatin Bodwal ( who had conducted the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 57 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny postmortem examination on the body of deceased), for subsequent opinion. Dr. Jatin Bodwal had examined the knife and medical documents and had given subsequent opinion which is already exhibited as Ex.PW-7/G. Doctor had also re-sealed the said knife with the seal of "PM DDUH" and handed over the same to him. Thereafter, IO returned to PS and deposited the said sealed knife with the MHC(M). No addition or alteration took place in the said knife/pullanda, during his possession. IO had recorded the statement of the then MHC(M) Ct. Vipin u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 10.06.2016, four exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL through Ct. Manoj for examination through RC no. 42/21/16. IO had recorded the statement of Ct.Manoj and MHC(M) u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 27.06.2016, thirteen exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL through L/Ct. Som Lata for examination through RC no.71/21/16. IO had recorded the statement of L/Ct.Som Lata and MHC(M) u/s 161 Cr.P.C. 45.12 PW-32 further deposed that on 16.07.2016, brother and sister of the deceased came to PS and again joined the investigation of the present case. IO had recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 17.07.2016, Naveen and room-mate of Hemant namely Sunder had joined the investigation and IO recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. IO had also recorded the statement of Sanjay (private photographer) who had clicked the photographs of the postmortem proceedings. On 21.07.2016, IO had collected scaled site plan prepared by Insp. Mahesh Kumar, draftsman which is already Case No. 58004/2016 Page 58 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny exhibited as Ex.PW-9/DA. IO had also collected certified copy of CDR and CAF of mobile phones of accused, deceased Nikita and Hemant from service providers. IO had also collected PCR form from control room dated 22.03.2016 which is exhibited as Ex. PW-19/A alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, exhibited as Ex.PW-19/B. IO had also collected copy of FIR no. 636/2015, PS Anand Parbat which was registered against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 363 IPC for kidnapping the deceased, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-32/E. IO had also collected photographs from photographer of mobile crime team which are exhibited as Ex.PW-17/DA.1 to Ex.PW-17/DA.35. The photographs of postmortem proceedings are exhibited as Ex. PW-30/A (colly./42 photographs). After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court of ld. MM. At the time of filing of the charge-sheet, FSL result was pending and same was filed subsequently by other Ios.

45.13 PW-32 identified one I-card of IGNOU having photograph of deceased as Ex.PW-9/2; one metro card as Ex.PX; photograph as Ex.MO-1; one shoe having dark brown stains as Ex.P.8/1; one Jeans Pants having dark brown stains as Ex.PW-8/5; one mobile phone having dark brown stains as Ex. PW-1/4; one bend knife having dark stains as Ex.P-8/3; one ladies top, one inner, one jeans Pants, one bra & one underwear as Ex.P1/1; one knife as Ex.PW-7/3; one shirt of accused Gaurav @ Sunny worn by him at the time of Case No. 58004/2016 Page 59 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny incident as Ex. PW-17/1; one partially burnt and melted piece of plastic bottle as Ex. PW-8/8; one partially burnt shoe of right foot as ExPW-8/9; one partially burnt lady foot wear of right foot as Ex. MO-2; one partially burnt multi coloured bed sheet as ex PW-8/7; one black colour ladies shoe of left foot as Ex.PW-8/6; one black colour lock made in China as Ex.MO-3; photograph of motorcycle as Ex. PW-17/G and motorcycle as Ex. P.17/2.

46. PW-33 ASI Ashok Kumar has produced the original FIR register containing the FIR no. 636/2015 dated 10.09.2015, PS Anand Parbat u/s 363 IPC alongwith the copy and copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW-33/A.

47. It is pertinent to mention here that on 01.02.2019, the Ld. Prosecutor had dropped the witness listed at srl.no. 6 in the list of witnesses as PW-10 has deposed on the same facts and on 08.08.2019, the Ld. Prosecutor had also dropped the witness listed at srl.no. 30 i.e. Ct. Amit as IO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya informed that his name has been inadvertently cited in the list of witnesses.

48. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 05.09.2024 on submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined.

Statement of accused Under Section 351 of BNSS (earlier Section 313 Cr.P.C.)

49. After prosecution evidence was over, on 15.01.2025, accused Gaurav @ Sunny was examined under Section 351 of BNSS Case No. 58004/2016 Page 60 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny (Earlier Section 313 Cr.PC), wherein he reiterated his innocence and deposed that he did not kidnap Nikita and also she was not recovered from his company. When she was recovered, she neither stated anything about him nor she alleges that he kidnapped her. Her father is lying because he had motive to falsely implicate him. In the past also, he lodged false FIR against him and in that case, he was acquitted by the Court as deceased Nikita stated that she was not kidnapped by him. He has further stated that PW-1 had not seen him committing any offence therefore, his identification as an accused by him is irrelevant. Naveen and Sunder were present in the house on the date of incident. He has further stated that since he had house there, there was no point for him to call Nikita at Hemant's room. Neither Nikita nor her friend was with me and if Nikita was with him then why there are phone calls. There are phone calls with Nikita on the date of incident which clearly shows that she was not with me. There is no evidence that he ever accompanied Nikita to the room of Hemant. He is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case just to solve these kinds of cases. However, accused chose not to lead evidence in his defence.

Final Arguments :

50. The Court has heard the final arguments as advanced by Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Sh.Akhil Sharma, Ld. Case No. 58004/2016 Page 61 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Counsel for accused and has gone through the entire material available on record including written submissions.

Arguments on behalf of the Prosecution by Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld.Addl. P.P. for the State :

51. At the thresh-hold, it is argued by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that the present matter is based upon the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has been able to prove on record, the connection of accused with the present crime and his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the help of ocular evidence; medical evidence; the scientific evidence in the form of FSL result and electronic evidence in the form of CDRs of the mobile phones used by the accused, deceased, brother of deceased and public witness PW-9 Hemant along with the Location Chart. Ld. Prosecutor has argued topic wise which is referred in detail in succeeding paragraphs.

Call details of PW-5, PW-9, accused and deceased:

51.1. He has further argued that as per the testimony of PW-5, he made a call to the deceased being his sister soon before the incident and the same has been proved by his CDR on record. The relevant time is 15:19 hours i.e. when the last call was connected by PW-5 to the deceased and thereafter, the phone could not respond being switched off and corroborates the entire testimony of PW-5.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 62 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny 51.2. He further argues that accused made a call to PW-9 and vice versa soon before the incident on the said date itself at around 11:38:47 hours, 15:12:49 hours and 15:39:26 hours which is proved by Ex.PW-16/A and corroborates the entire testimony of PW-9. 51.3. He further argued that as per the CDR of accused and deceased, there were exchange of 18 calls between them i.e. 16 calls were made by accused to the deceased and 2 calls were made by the deceased to him on the date of incident between 08:31 AM to 04:17 PM. The mobile phone which was used by the deceased has been proved by CAF which is in the name of her mother. The CAF of mobile phone used by accused was in the name of fictitious person namely Thakur Singh which surfaced in the investigation and proved by the IO.

51.4. It has been further argued that the PCR calls were made by PW-9 which is also reflected in the CDR and corroborates his testimony.

Location Chart:

52. It is further argued that the Location Chart of PW-9 has been filed on record which corroborates his testimony. However, Location chart of accused and deceased could not be filed on record for want of certified copy but it is a part of police file, as per which the last location of accused and deceased was at/near the spot. The oral testimony of witnesses proved the same alongwith recovery of dead body.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 63 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Recovery of weapon of offence and blood-stained clothes of accused:

53. It is further argued that as per testimonies of PW-17 SI Kishore and PW-32 Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya, blood-stained knife and blood-stained shirt of accused were recovered which were sent to FSL. It is further argued by the Ld. Prosecutor that after DNA finger printing, the blood sample of deceased matched with the exhibits lifted from the spot as well as with the knife and blood- stained shirt of the accused i.e. Ex.11 and Ex.12 respectively.

54. It is further argued that as per opinion of the doctor the injuries inflicted upon the deceased are possible with the recovered knife.

Subsequent conduct of accused:

55. It is further argued by the Ld. Prosecutor that after the incident accused did not return to his house but stayed overnight in the house of his relative examined as PW-14 Sh. Lokesh and left on the motorcycle from his house. Thereafter, he parked his motorcycle at Badli Railway Station and absconded for almost one month. After one month of the incident, he surrendered in the matter which was previously registered for kidnapping the deceased bearing FIR No. 636/2015 at PS Anand Parbat. Subsequently, he was arrested in the present matter and at his instance, motorcycle was recovered from Badli Railway Station.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 64 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Concluding arguments:

56. Ld. Prosecutor has argued that the admitted relation-ship between accused and deceased; his previous conduct of kidnapping the deceased; his preparation on the day of offence proved by PW-9;

the subsequent recovery of weapon of offence & blood stained wearing apparels of the accused; electronic evidence in form of CDR and Location Chart and subsequent conduct of the accused form a complete chain of circumstances. Hence, in the present matter, on the basis of circumstantial evidence which completes the chain, proved on record by the prosecution, the accused is proved guilty for the charge. Thus, it is prayed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that accused be convicted for all the offences for which he has been charged.

Arguments on behalf of accused Gaurav @ Sunny:

57. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused at all as there is no eye witness and it is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence.

Even there is no evidence on record to prove the presence of accused at the spot at the time of commission of offence. 57.1. Reliance is placed upon the FIR which is argued to be based on presumptions only. The FIR is argued to be concocted and the name of accused was suggested by witness Hemant which was over heard by the complainant. The spot was not the house of accused Case No. 58004/2016 Page 65 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny and he had no occasion to be present there. The Ld. Counsel for accused has also argued point wise which is as under:

Testimony of material witness i.e. PW-9:

57.2. As per testimony of PW-9 Hemant, accused called him and told him that he is coming to Shadipur metro station alongwith his girl friend Nikita and one of her friend, which shows that the deceased was in company of the accused. The said phone call was made by accused to PW-9 at 03:00 PM however, as per the CDR of Nikita, she has been continuously exchanging phone calls with the accused from 02:00 PM till 04:17 PM. ( rebuttal by the prosecution that she was in exchange of calls with accused since 08:00 AM till 04:17 PM). This falsifies the testimony of PW-9. 57.3. As per CDR of PW-9 Hemant, no phone call was made by the accused to PW-9. (rebuttal by prosecution well assisted with the IO that there are three calls exchanged between PW-9 and accused on the date of incident i.e. 11:38:47 hours (incoming call), 15:12:49 hours (incoming call) and 15:39:26 hours (outgoing call) as per the CDR of PW-9).

Recovery of weapon of offence:

57.4. No public person was made a witness at the time of alleged recovery of alleged weapon i.e. knife that too recovered in the day Case No. 58004/2016 Page 66 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny light from a place which was accessible to public, hence, it is planted one.

57.5. The knife was allegedly recovered on 27.04.2016 but was sent to FSL as lately as on 03.06.2016. Therefore, the custody was mis-

handled and the delay has not been explained by the IO. Case Laws on the said point has been filed.

57.6. The Knife was never sent to Finger Prints Expert deliberately to connect the accused with the crime, since the prosecution was aware that the accused is innocent. Hence, the chain of circumstances has been broken.

Recovery of motorcycle:

57.7. It is argued that the place from where the motorcycle was recovered was 15 Kms. away from the spot. However, it is admitted that the motorcycle was left by the accused at Samai Pur Badli Railway station and he stated to have gone to some relative thereafter while taking the train but it is argued that this does not prove his involvement with the present case.

Absence of Location Chart for proving presence of accused at the spot:

57.8. It is submitted that location/presence of the accused at the spot has not been proved by the prosecution since admittedly the location chart is not part of Judicial record and it is withheld Case No. 58004/2016 Page 67 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny deliberately as the Location of accused was never at the spot at the time of incident.

FSL result :

57.9. It is further argued that the FSL of the exhibits lifted from the spot did not match. In rebuttal, Ld. Prosecutor submits that the FSL of knife and blood stained clothes of accused have matched with the blood of deceased.

57.10. However, Ld. defence counsel has stated that knife and blood stained clothes were recovered from open space and they are planted.

No eye witness:

57.11. It is further argued by the Ld.defence counsel that the spot is a residential colony where public persons were available but no witness was examined by the prosecution qua the presence of accused at the spot or in the vicinity. No eye witness has been examined to prove the entry or exit of accused and deceased at the spot premises.

Previous enmity :

57.12. It is further submitted that in the matter of kidnapping registered against the accused at the instance of present complainant, the accused was acquitted on the basis of statement Case No. 58004/2016 Page 68 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny made by the victim (present deceased) that she went with the accused on her own with free will and consent because her parents were forcibly marrying her with some other person. Therefore, in the present matter, the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to this previous enmity.

Cordial relations between accused and deceased : 57.13. It is lastly submitted that deceased was in constant touch with the accused hence, torturing her is ruled out. On the date of incident, it was the deceased herself who called the accused to meet but the accused showed his inability and that is why the deceased might have gone to the spot in order to check the presence of accused however, the accused never visited the spot and since the deceased was his girl friend, he was falsely implicated by PW-9 Hemant.

57.14. In rebuttal, Ld. prosecutor well assisted by the IO/Insp.

Ranjeet Dahiya has stated that on 01/02/03.03.2016, there have been calls to the deceased by the accused only which is reflected in the CDR and there are total 34 calls, which corroborates the version of PWs that accused used to call the deceased for torturing her. He further submits that on the day of incident, 16 calls were made by the accused to the deceased and the first call in the morning was made by the accused to the deceased and not vice-versa i.e. at 08:31 AM.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 69 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Rebuttal final arguments by the Ld. Prosecutor :

58. Ld. Prosecutor has placed reliance upon the subsequent conduct of the accused that soon after the murder, his phone was found switched off and thereafter, he absconded for about a month and did not return to his home. Further, there is no occasion to falsely implicate him as there was no enmity between PW-9 and accused, so it cannot be said his testimony is motivated.

59. Lastly the prosecutor has argued that as per the Location chart which is in police file, the Location of accused was at/near the spot at 04:17 PM on the date of incident and the location of deceased was also found at/near the spot at the same time at 04:17 PM. The same could not be filed on record for want of certified copies of the same.

Appreciation of facts and relevant law:

60. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is established principle of law that a witness may lie but the circumstances do not lie. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The guilt of the accused can only be proved through the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated as per the established principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The standard of proof required for conviction in case of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances relied upon in Case No. 58004/2016 Page 70 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence proved by the prosecution must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

61. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (1984) 4 SCC 116 has laid down the five golden Principles for appreciation of circumstantial evidence and has termed the same as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on circumstantial evidence. The said 5 golden principles are as follows: -

(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be and not merely 'may be' fully established.

(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty.

(iii) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.

(iv) They should exclude every possible hypotheses except the one to be proved.

(v) 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 probability the act must have been done by the accused.

62. Thus, before recording the conviction of any accused the aforesaid five condition must be satisfied. The prosecution has to Case No. 58004/2016 Page 71 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny establish its case on the basis of aforesaid five golden Principles and to secure conviction of any accused, the prosecution must fulfill the following requirements: -

(i) The circumstances from which the inference of the guilt of the accused is to be drawn must be firmly established.

(ii) The established circumstances must be of such definite tendency that points out towards the guilt of accused.

(iii) The chain of the circumstances must be so complete and there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances.

(iv) The chain of circumstances must be so complete and incapable of any other hypotheses then that the guilt of the accused and same should also be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every other possible hypotheses except with the hypotheses pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.

63. Now coming to the present case, the Prosecution has to prove following circumstances to secure conviction in the present matter for the accused Gaurav @ Sunny:

(a) Relation-ship between accused and deceased;

(b) Previous conduct of accused qua kidnapping, torturing and stalking the deceased;

(c) Preparation prior to the incident by the accused;

(d) Presence of accused at the spot at the time of offence;

(e) Death of deceased Nikita caused by murder;

Case No. 58004/2016                                        Page 72 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
                 (f)       Recovery of weapon of offence and blood
                          stained shirt of accused at instance of the
                          accused;
               (g)        Subsequent conduct of absconding by the
                          accused;
               (h)        Medical and Scientific Evidence to connect the
                          accused with the crime.
                (i)       Motive behind the commission of crime;

64. Now it's important to establish every circumstance against the accused to complete the chain, hence discussing each and every circumstance separately in the preceding paragraphs.

65. The first and foremost ingredient which has to be proved by the Prosecution is the :

(a) Relation-ship between accused and deceased :

65.1. It has been putforth by the Prosecution that the accused and deceased were having love-affair and when the deceased discontinued the relation-ship with the accused, the accused started harassing her, threatened to kill her and eventually murdered her.

The friendly relation-ship with the deceased has not been denied by the defence and the accused has specifically admitted the same in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, still in a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove on its own and for the same, Prosecution has examined many witnesses for proving the same.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 73 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny 65.2. In order to prove the love-affair between the accused and deceased, the family members of the deceased examined as PW-1 Sh. Amar Singh (father of deceased), PW-5 Sh. Ajay (brother of deceased) and PW-6 Smt. Anju (sister of deceased) have specifically deposed that in the year of 2015, accused kidnapped the deceased and she was recovered by police. The deceased was given counseling Sessions and thereafter, eventually, she stopped meeting the accused however, the accused continued contacting the deceased. PW-1 has further deposed that at his instance, the deceased had told accused over phone that she is not interested in continuing with any sort of relations with him but the accused was adamant and continued calling and following the deceased. PW-5 and PW-6 have specifically deposed that the deceased was having friendship with the accused but when they counseled her about her welfare, she decided not to continue her relation-ship with the accused and stopped talking to him but the accused continued to contact her.

65.3. Even the friends of accused examined by prosecution PW-9 Mr. Hemant and PW-10 Sh. Naveen Singh Bisht have deposed specifically that deceased Nikita was girl-friend of accused and the accused used to come with the deceased to his flat. Therefore, with these testimonies proved on record and not denied by the defence, it is proved that the accused Gaurav @ Sunny and the deceased Nikita were having love-affair, which was discontinued by the deceased.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 74 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Therefore, the first circumstance of relation-ship between accused and deceased is proved by the prosecution beyond any iota of doubt.

66. Now coming to the second circumstance that is,

(b) Previous conduct of accused qua kidnapping, torturing and stalking the deceased:

66.1. It has been putforth by the prosecution that since there was a love-affair between the accused and the deceased, the accused kidnapped her and took her away in the year of 2015 and since she was of age of minority, an FIR was registered against the accused bearing FIR no. 636/2015 PS Anand Parbat, Delhi. The deceased was recovered by the police and Counseling Sessions were given to her. After she understood her welfare, she broke up with the accused but the accused tortured her by making continuous phone calls to her and her family members and also stalked her. 66.2. PW-1 Sh. Amar Singh, father of deceased has proved the same while deposing that an FIR of kidnapping of his deceased daughter was registered in PS Anand Parbat against the accused and his daughter was recovered by the police and she was given counseling Sessions thereafter. Eventually, she stopped meeting the accused but the accused continued trying to contact his daughter/deceased Nikita. At his instance, the deceased had told accused over phone that she is not interested to continue with any Case No. 58004/2016 Page 75 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny sort of relation-ship with him but the accused was adamant and continued calling and following her.

66.3. PW-5 Sh. Ajay, brother of deceased has proved while deposing that his deceased sister was having friend-ship with accused, who had kidnapped her about 8-9 months prior to her death and a case was registered in Police Station Anand Parbat. Her sister was counseled by them about her welfare and accordingly, she decided not to continue her relations with the accused. Her deceased sister had stopped talking to the accused but the accused continued to contact her.

66.4. PW-6 Smt. Anju, sister of deceased has specifically deposed that about 8-9 months ago from the date of incident, the accused had taken away her deceased sister and a report was lodged at Police Station Anand Parbat. They all counseled the deceased whereupon she agreed not to have any sort of relations with the accused but still accused used to call the deceased on her mobile phone and whenever the deceased did not respond to his calls, he used to call on the mobile phones of other family members and used to harass them. Whenever her deceased sister used to go to attend her study classes, accused used to follow her. Even her deceased sister told her that accused had threatened to kill her as she used to confide things with her. The deceased also informed her that accused had threatened her by saying that "अगर तू मेरी नहीं हुई तो मैं तुझे किसी और की भी नहीं होने दूंगा". PW-6 even deposed that Case No. 58004/2016 Page 76 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny one day prior to her murder, the deceased had come to her office at West Patel Nagar after her coaching classes and accused had followed her and was found present outside her office on motorcycle. As soon as she came out from the office, accused ran away on seeing her and she dropped the deceased at her parental house at 06:00 PM. During her cross-examination, she volunteered and deposed that the deceased had told her that accused was forcing her to marry him for which she had refused.

66.5. The defence had admitted the factum of registration of FIR against accused for kidnapping the deceased on earlier occasion however, it is argued that the accused had been acquitted in that matter and certified copy of the Judgment has been filed alongwith written synopsis.

66.6. As per record, admittedly, FIR was registered against accused Gaurav @ Sunny under section 363 IPC for kidnapping the deceased on 10.09.2015, on the basis of complaint made by father of the victim (present deceased). In the said case, the father of deceased has deposed that after three days of kidnapping, his daughter was recovered from Sonepat/Panipat, Haryana and he accompanied the police at time of recovery of his daughter while the mother of accused was also with them at the time of said recovery. The mother of deceased examined as PW-2 has deposed that accused was their neighbour who used to tease her daughter and threatened her for which complaints were made to parents of Case No. 58004/2016 Page 77 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny accused many times. Accused used to chase her on way to her school as she was studying in 12 th class at that time. Her daughter was 17½ years of age at the time of kidnapping by the accused.

However, the victim/present deceased could not be examined in that matter since she was already murdered before recording her evidence. Reliance was placed by the Court on the statement of victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she deposed that she had gone out of house of her parents on her own and out of her will, as appearance wanted to forcibly marry her. Therefore, it is clear from this record that the deceased eloped with the accused and as per law, a case of kidnapping was registered against the accused. 66.7. The version of family members of the deceased finds corroboration with the record of the case of kidnapping against the accused as they have themselves deposed that the deceased was having friendship with the accused and after she was recovered by the police, she was counseled about her welfare and thereafter, she discontinued her relation-ship with the accused and broke up. However, the family members that is, PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6 have also emphatically deposed on Oath that after the deceased discontinued her relation-ship with the accused, the accused used to contact and stalk her. The sister of deceased has narrated the entire stalking incident of a day prior to the murder of deceased and also deposed that being sisters, the deceased used to confide things with her and told her that accused was forcing her to marry him else he Case No. 58004/2016 Page 78 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny will kill her. Even PW-1 and PW-6 have deposed about accused trying to contact the deceased despite her refusal for continuing the relation-ship. With these facts proved on record, it is clear that prosecution has been able to prove the second circumstance also with regard to kidnapping/elopement, torturing and stalking the deceased which shows that previous conduct of the accused.

67. Now coming to the third circumstance that is,

(c) Preparation prior to the incident by the accused:

67.1. PW-15 has proved the CDRs of the mobile phones used by the accused and the deceased at the time of incident. The mobile phone having number 9711433616, which was used by the deceased has been proved by CAF which is in the name of her mother and the CDR from 01.03.2016 till 31.03.2016 has been proved as Ex. PW-15/E. It has been argued by the prosecution that though the mobile phone having number 8586906533 used by accused was in the name of fictitious person namely Thakur Singh which surfaced in the investigation, however the CDR filed on record and proved as Ex. PW-15/I is of some other number and not of the mobile number used by the accused. The same is found to be rightly pointed out as per record. As per the CDR of deceased, there were exchange of 18 calls between them i.e. 16 calls were made by accused to the deceased and 2 calls were made by the deceased to him on the date of incident between 08:31 AM to 04:17 PM. The first call was made by the accused to the deceased in the Case No. 58004/2016 Page 79 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny morning at 08:31:40 hours and thereafter, there were continuous calls made by the accused to the deceased i.e. at 08:40:35, 08:40:01, 09:27:02, 09:49:03, 12:14:24, 12:46:02, 12:48:19, 12:55:22, 13:19:08, 13:25:14, 13:37:40, 13:45:18, 15:04:22 and 15:05:02 hours, that means from 08:31 AM in the morning till 03:05 PM, the accused made continuous calls to the deceased which are 15 in number. Thereafter, the deceased made a call to the accused at 16:11:40 hours and 16:17:22 hours for 03 and 14 seconds respectively. In between, the two calls made by the deceased, a call is also reflected to be made by accused at 16:11:53 hours for 225 seconds. This clearly points out towards only one fact that the accused was continuously pursuing the deceased to meet him that day as after the last call made by deceased to the accused at 16:17:22 hours from last Cell ID 404110014902573, there is no further call and as per the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 (brother and sister of deceased), the mobile phone of deceased was 'switched Off' and soon after that the deceased was found dead.

Therefore, it is clear that the accused made preparation in convincing the deceased to meet him that day.

67.2. PW-9 has deposed that on the day of incident, in the afternoon, he received a call from the accused and during the conversation, accused Gaurav @ Sunny told him that he is coming to Shadipur Metro Station with his friend Nikita (deceased). Therefore, he was with the deceased or was to meet the deceased Case No. 58004/2016 Page 80 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny soon after this conversation in order to reach the said metro station together. The spot is the room of PW-9, which is near to the Shadipur metro station.

67.3. PW-10 has deposed that there was only one set of Keys of the lock which they used to put on the door of their flat, which used to be kept in the bathroom and accused Gaurav @ Sunny knew about the same. Therefore, the accused had access to the room/spot. Both PW-9 and PW-10 have specifically deposed that accused used to come to the spot on earlier occasion(s) also with the deceased. Therefore, the accused chose a place where he has taken deceased earlier also as to gain confidence of the deceased. 67.4. Hence, both the electronic evidence and ocular evidence, point towards the preparation and circumstance that the accused called the deceased to meet him that day and went to the room/spot with her.

68. Now coming to the next circumstance, which is

(d) Presence of accused at the spot at the time of offence; 68.1. The present matter is based only circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness available with the prosecution as to the presence of accused on the spot at the time of commission of offence however, there is scientific and documentary evidence to prove the same.

68.2. The weapon of offence i.e. Knife and the blood stained shirt of the accused have been recovered at his instance which were Case No. 58004/2016 Page 81 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny hidden in bushes of Ramjas ground and the place and knowledge of the accused for the same are relevant facts admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

68.3. The weapon of offence i.e. knife and blood stained shirt of accused have been sent to FSL and as per the FSL result proved as Ex. PW-21/A, on Biological examination, blood was detected on the said knife and shirt of the accused and as per DNA examination, the alleles from the source of Exhibit '11' (the knife) and Exhibit '12' (shirt of accused) are accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit '10' (gauze cloth pieces of deceased), which proves that the blood of the deceased was found on both the recovered articles at the instance of accused i.e. the knife and blood stained shirt of the accused.

68.4. It has been argued by the defence that the blood of deceased was planted upon the knife and the shirt of the accused however, as per record both the said articles were recovered almost after a month of the murder of the deceased and as per medical sciences, the putrefaction of blood gauze starts maximum after 72 hours and it gets decomposed. Hence, there is no possibility of planting the blood gauze of the deceased upon the knife and shirt of the accused, moreso when the blood gauze of deceased along with other exhibits were not preserved as to rule out any decomposition. Therefore, the arguments of defence is without any basis and the FSL result is relied upon by the Court.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 82 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny 68.5 At this juncture, reliance is placed by this court in Kamti Devi (Smt.) and Anr. Vs. Poshi Ram reported in (2001) 5 SCC 311, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate."

68.6 The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State through CBI, Crl. Appeal No. 87/2007, decided on 06.10.2010 and held that "We must, therefore, accept the DNA report as being scientifically accurate and an exact science as held by this court in Kamti Devi (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Poshi Ram."

68.7 All the witnesses of prosecution have categorically deposed that so long as the parcels remained in their custody they were not tampered with in any manner and remained intact. 68.8 The knife and shirt of the accused were recovered at his instance, the burden to prove its possession shifted to the accused as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the accused miserably failed to discharge his burden to explain the same. The abovesaid Section is reproduced as under:

'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.' 68.9 Accordingly, as per the scientific evidence, the blood of the deceased was found on the knife and shirt of the accused but he failed to explain the presence of blood of the deceased on his shirt Case No. 58004/2016 Page 83 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny specifically and also on the knife which was recovered at his instance. This points towards only one inference that the accused was present at the spot when the deceased was murdered.

69. Now dealing with the next circumstance which is,

(e) Death of deceased Nikita caused by murder:

69.1 As per the testimony of PW-7 Dr. Jatin, the following external injuries were observed on the body of deceased during post mortem:

(1) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm, was present on the left side of front of neck, 4 cm from mid line and 4 cm above clavicle.

(2) Incised wound of size 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm was present on the front of left shoulder, 5 cm below acromion process.

(3) Incised wound of size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present on the inner aspect of left arm, 3 cm below injury no.3.

(4) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm was present on the left side of front of chest, 6 cm below injury no.3.

(5) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 5 cm was present on the left side of front of chest, 4 cm. (6) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 2 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm was present on the left side of front of abdomen, 2 cm from mid line.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 84 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny (7) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.8 cm x2 cm x 2 cm was present on the right side of front of abdomen, 2 cm below umblicus.

69.2 PW-7 Dr. Jatin opined that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock via Injury no.5, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He had further opined that injuries no.1 to 7 in P.M.Report, proved as Ex.PW-7/A were possible with the weapon of offence recovered by police which the Knife.

69.3 In view of the aforesaid medical evidence proved on record, the death of the deceased Nikita was caused by multiple stabbing resulting in her death, which is nothing but death caused by murder since the intention to cause the same is clear from multiple stabbing on the vital parts of the body ie neck, chest and abdomen. Hence this circumstance, that the death of the deceased was caused by murder also stands proved.

70. Now discussing the next circumstance,

(f) Recovery of weapon of offence and blood stained shirt of accused at instance of the accused :

70.1 At the thresh-hold, it is important to discuss the Law. The Law on the point of recovery is very clear which is reproduced below:

Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 and Section 26 of the said act. Section 27 is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The principle under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle that if any fact is Case No. 58004/2016 Page 85 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny discovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused, the discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the information given by the accused in his disclosure statement is true. Such information may be confessional or non-inculpating in nature but if any new fact is discovered from such information, it will be considered as a reliable information.

70.2 The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure of statement of accused must be relevant facts. Such information must be given by the person who is accused of an offence and the recovery of article or discovery of fact must be based upon the information given by such accused.

70.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State Of U.P. & Anr reported in 2015 (7) SCC 148, has held that "The "fact discovered" as envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act embraces the place from which the object was produced and the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect, but information given must relate distinctly to that effect and hence if the accused are denying their role without proper explanation as to the knowledge about the incriminating material recovered on the basis of their statements in police custody, would justify the presumption drawn by the Courts below as to the involvement of the accused in the Crime.

70.4. In the instant case, the weapon of offence i.e. Knife and blood stained shirt worn by the accused at the time of offence was Case No. 58004/2016 Page 86 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny recovered at his instance and the recovery memo has been proved as Ex.PW-17/G, as per which the knife and blood stained shirt was recovered from the bushes at Ramjas ground.

70.5. As per the opinion of PW-7 Dr. Jatin, the knife recovered at the instance of accused is possibly the weapon of offence by which injuries as mentioned in the PM report have been inflicted. Since it is an expert opinion therefore, the expert cannot say with 100% accuracy but it has been opined by the doctor that the injuries are possible with this weapon of offence i.e. knife recovered. 70.6. It is the Law of the land that the recovery of case property at instance of accused is relevant as to the place and his knowledge about the same, as stated above. The place of recovery is the bushes at Ramjas ground which is argued by defence to be open space however, though the ground itself is open space and accessible to public but the articles hidden in the bushes cannot be stated to be at open space which are visible and accessible to public at large. The hiding of the knife and blood stained shirt at such a place was within the knowledge of accused and has been recovered at his instance.

The accused has not tendered any plausible explanation for the same and has generally denied to be planted. Hence, adverse inference is drawn against the accused.

70.7. Accordingly, the present circumstance of recovery of weapon of offence and blood-stained shirt worn by the accused at the time of Case No. 58004/2016 Page 87 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny offence at the instance of accused is proved by the prosecution and to be circumstance which shall be read against him.

71. Coming to next circumstance, which is

(g) Subsequent conduct of absconding by the accused; 71.1. It is well settled proposition of Law that the prosecution may corroborate its case from the conduct of accused also. The previous and subsequent conduct of accused is relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act. A fact can be proved by the conduct of accused and surrounding circumstances. The conduct of accused in absconding after the commission of offence, in destroying the evidence, behaving in an unnatural way etc are relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act.

71.2. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Prithipal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anrs. Cited as (2012) 1 SCC 10 while confirming the conviction of appellant observed as under: -

"Most of the appellants had taken alibi for screening themselves from the offences. However, none of them could establish the same. The courts below have considered this issue elaborately and in order to avoid repetition, we do not want to re- examine the same. However, we would like to clarify that the conduct of accused subsequent to the commission of crime in such a case, may be very relevant. If there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused fabricated some evidence to screen/absolve himself from the offence, such circumstance may point towards his guilt. Such a view stand fortified by judgment of this Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500."

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 88 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny 71.3. Now reverting to the present matter, the cousin of accused has been examined by the prosecution as PW-14 Sh. Lokesh Kumar who has deposed specifically on Oath that on 22.03.2016 i.e. on the day of incident, the accused came to his work place on a Pulsar motorcycle and stayed with him over night. The next day, accused left his house on the same motorcycle. This clarifies that after the incident, the accused did not return to his own house due to fear of being apprehended and stayed at house of his cousin. 71.4. The next day, accused left the house of his cousin and went to Samaipur Badli, Railway Station where he parked his motorcycle, as proved by PW-13 while proving the corresponding entry in the register, copy of which has been seized vide memo and proved as Ex.PW-13/A and thereafter, absconded.

71.5. As per record, the accused could not be apprehended since absconding and he surrendered in the connected kidnapping case of deceased on 21.04.2016 i.e. after almost a month of the incident. Thereafter, on information received of his surrender, the accused was arrested in the present matter on 25.04.2016. The same has been deposed by the Investigating Officer in his testimony specifically, therefore, soon after the incident, the accused did not return to his house and absconded for a month. Such conduct of the accused of absconding also strengthens the chain of circumstances as put forth by the prosecution.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 89 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny

72. Discussing the next circumstance now,

(h) Medical and Scientific Evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

72.1. First dealing with the medical evidence which is against the accused is that as per PW-7 Dr. Jatin, the deceased has been murdered by stab injuries on vital parts of the body and the said injuries correspond with the knife recovered at the instance of accused as the weapon of offence.

72.2. The weapon of offence which is knife, recovered at the instance of accused, was sent to FSL and as per FSL result proved as Ex.PW-21/A, the said knife was received in parcel '11' which was intact having seal of 'PMDDUH'. The said knife has been numbered as Exhibit '11' having specification of 'one pointed knife having dark brown stains' and as per Biological examination, blood was detected on the said knife. As per DNA examination, the alleles from the source of Exhibit '11' (the knife) are accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit '10' (gauze cloth pieces of deceased), which reveals that the blood of the deceased was found on the knife.

72.3. The shirt of accused, recovered at his instance, was also sent to FSL and as per FSL result proved as Ex.PW-21/A, the said shirt was received in parcel '12' which was intact having seal of 'PMDDUH'. The said shirt has been numbered as Exhibit '12' having specification of 'one shirt having brown stains' and as per Case No. 58004/2016 Page 90 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Biological examination, blood was detected on the said shirt. As per DNA examination, the alleles from the source of Exhibit '12' (the shirt) are accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit '10' (gauze cloth pieces of deceased), which reveals that the blood of the deceased was found on the shirt of accused.

72.4. The FSL result regarding the other exhibits lifted from the spot is that the blood was detected on all exhibits except '6' & '8' which is one strand of hair collected from the spot and vaginal swab of deceased respectively. The DNA examination report states that DNA profile was generated by using Amp FLSTR Identifier Plus PCR Amplification Kit. STR analysis was used for each of the sample however DNA could not be isolated specifically from the source of Exhibits '6' (hair strand) and '13b' (blood gauze cloth piece of accused). Therefore, the DNA of the accused could not be matched from the hair strand collected from the spot for want of DNA Isolation.

73. Now discussing the last circumstance to be proved to complete the chain of circumstances which is,

(i) Motive behind the commission of crime;

73.1 Motive is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Motive is the moves a man to do a particular work. Generally, there can be no action without any motive. Under Section 8 of Evidence Act, several factors including preparation, previous threat, previous Case No. 58004/2016 Page 91 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny altercation, previous litigation between the accused and the victim becomes relevant.

73.2 The mere existence of motive is by itself is not an incriminating circumstance. Motive cannot be a substitute of proof however it is a corroborating factor in proving the case of the prosecution. The motive for the commission of offence is of vital importance in a criminal trial and in cases based on circumstantial evidence motive itself will be a circumstance which the Court has to consider deeply. The existence of motive which operates in the mind of perpetrator may not be known to others and hence it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of this case. 73.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr cited as (2011) 3 SCC 654 observed as under:

"15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of accused is fairly well settle by a long line of decision of this Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction between cases where the prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence on one hand and those were relying upon the testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however, recedes into background in cases where the prosecution relies upon and eye witness account of the occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a proper appraisal of Case No. 58004/2016 Page 92 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny the deposition of the eye witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely, even if the prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye witnesses."

73.4. Reverting to the present matter, the background of the present matter is that the deceased Nikita was having friend-ship with accused Gaurav @ Sunny and as per evidence surfaced on record, the deceased eloped with the accused and since she was of age of minority, a case of kidnapping was registered against the accused. However, the victim (present deceased) was recovered by the police and was handed over to her parents being her legal guardianship. After her recovery, Counseling Sessions were given to her and the family members also counseled her about her welfare. Accordingly, she gain wisdom about her welfare and broke her relation-ship with the accused. Still the accused continued contacting and stalking her. The accused even harassed and tortured her and her family members while making continuous phone calls to her and them. Even a day prior to the murder of the deceased, the accused stalked after her Case No. 58004/2016 Page 93 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny coaching classes and finding no other option, the deceased went to the office of her sister/PW-6 and told her the exact position. PW-6 the escorted the deceased to her house considering her safety from the accused, since the deceased confided to her sister/PW-6 that accused had threatened to kill her on refusal to marry him. 73.5. The very next day of the said incident of stalking, the accused made continuous calls to the deceased and conveyed to PW-9 Hemant that he is coming to Shadipur Metro Station alongwith his friend/deceased Nikita. This proved that the accused was supposed to meet or already met deceased Nikita that day. The CDR of deceased reveals that last call was made to the accused at 16:17:22 hours from Cell ID bearing no. 404110014902573 and the said location is stated to be of Baljit Nagar by the prosecution during course of arguments as per Location Chart in the police file. 73.6. The deceased sustained as many as 07 stab injuries which caused her death by the kitchen knife. It is not the case of the prosecution that she has been raped and thereafter murdered. Further, the dead body of deceased was found in the room of friends of accused, where the accused used to take the deceased earlier also. Apparently, the spot was the place where the deceased had confidence to go with the accused, since she visited the said spot with the accused while they were in relation-ship earlier. 73.7. The accused in his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted the phone calls exchanged between him and the deceased on the day of Case No. 58004/2016 Page 94 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny incident. He even admitted that he was residing on the upper floor of the spot premises for some time and therefore, he was known to PW-10 Naveen Singh Bisht. He stated that he never kidnapped Nikita and therefore, he was acquitted in that matter however, he neither denied the relation-ship between him and the deceased nor the factum of elopement. He even admitted that the deceased went to the room of Hemant to meet him but he never reached the said spot and had to return from the Metro Station. However, no reason has been putforth by the accused for returning from Shadi Pur Metro Station itself and not going to the spot, where the deceased stated to have gone to meet him.

73.8. The only motive which has surfaced on record for the present murder is refusal by the deceased to continue the relation-ship with the accused and to marry him, as confided by the deceased to her sister that accused had threatened to kill her while stating that "अगर तू मेरी नहीं हुई तो किसी की भी नहीं होगी व तुझे जान से मार दूंगा". The sister of deceased/PW-6 also deposed that the deceased told her that accused was forcing her for marriage but she refused. The motive of the accused has been scaring and pressurizing the deceased to marry him and when she did not accede to his request, the accused in a dramatical manner in order to satisfy his male ego, stabbed her multiple times and committed her murder.

73.9. On the basis of material available on record in form of ocular, medical and documentary evidence on record as well as as per Case No. 58004/2016 Page 95 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the murder of deceased was committed with the motive only of teaching the deceased a lesson for her refusal to marry the accused in order to satisfy his male ego and sadist pleasure.

Explanation by the accused about the aforesaid circumstances against him.

74. Despite opportunity granted to the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC to explain the circumstances appearing against him and he failed to tender any plausible explanation for the same. The answers given in the defence by the accused are of general denial.

Analaysis on the point of Charge under section 201 IPC :

75. The accused has been charged for concealing the weapon of offence in order to avoid prosecution after committing murder of deceased Nikita and also for attempting to burn the face of the deceased so as to hide her identity.

76. As per testimony of PW-17 SI Kishore Kumar, who is the first Investigating Officer of the present case, when he went to the spot and inspected the crime scene including the dead body, he found that hand and abdomen of the dead body had burn marks. He lifted one plastic bottle partially burnt having yellow colour label mentioning the words 'Kachi Ghani ka Tel", gents shoe partially burnt, partially burnt lady shoe and one partially burnt bed sheet Case No. 58004/2016 Page 96 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny from the spot. Even the clothes worn by the dead body were also stated to be partially burnt.

77. As per the FSL result, Parcel S2, S4, S5, S8 were found to be partially burnt however, acetone, Toluene, Hexane, Cyclohexane, Ethyl acetate, Kerosene, Diesel & Petrol could not be detected in exhibits 'S2, S4, S5 and S8.

78. The weapon of offence was not found at the spot and was recovered at the instance of accused alongwith blood stained shirt, which was hidden by the accused in the bushes at Ramjas Ground.

79. Though as per Chemical examination, the aforesaid chemicals were not found on the exhibits lifted however, attempt was made by the accused to burn the evidence at spot in order to avoid prosecution and also succeeded in hiding the weapon of offence which was lateron recovered. Accordingly, on the basis of material available on record, the Charge under Section 201 IPC has been well proved by the Prosecution against the present accused.

Final analysis:

80. It is a fundamental doctrine of criminal law that the onus to prove its case lies on the prosecution. Thus, in a criminal trial, the onus to prove the commission of offence by the accused is always upon the prosecution and the same never shifts upon the accused. The prosecution has to establish before the Court that the accused Case No. 58004/2016 Page 97 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny persons had committed the offence beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.

81. In G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 8 SCC 593, the Supreme Court of India made the following observations when considering a case hinging on circumstantial evidence:

"23. 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. 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 relations to the facts of the particular case. The Court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each Case No. 58004/2016 Page 98 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny one of 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/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. 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, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court."

82. In the present case, the prosecution has been able to prove the complicity of accused Gaurav @ Sunny in the commission of crime beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts as all the circumstances established are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of accused and the entire chain of circumstantial evidence is complete in all respects and no reasonable doubt is left which can lead to the conclusion of innocence of the accused persons and no other hypothesis is possible in the given circumstances. The prosecution has been able to prove all the ingredients of the offences for which accused have been charged and has faced trial.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 99 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny

83. Thus, keeping in view the deposition of the independent witnesses which had remained coherent, reliable and trustworthy, the forensic evidence, the medical evidence, the recovery of articles at the instance of accused, Postmortem Report of the deceased and documentary/electronic evidence in the form of CDR, it is held that the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of circumstances and has proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts that accused Gaurav @ Sunny committed the murder of deceased Nikita and also attempted to destroy evidence and hide the weapon of offence etc. in order to avoid prosecution.

84. Before parting with the present matter, the Court is constrained to state while considering the facts & circumstances of the present matter, that males in India consider women as a chattel, who should act according to their wishes and in case of refusing their proposal, the same hurts their male ego to the point of destroying/taking the life of the female irrespective of her individual identity. This is not the first case wherein the Ex-girlfriend or the female liked by the assailant has been physically assaulted in order to teach her a lesson for refusal and the same has been prevalent in India for years now including the acid attacks. The present case is also another glaring example of the said psychology growing in the mind of male youth to settle scores with the fairer sex on their refusal to accept them. The same is having a bad impact on the society at large and needs to be curbed.

Case No. 58004/2016 Page 100 of 101

State v. Gaurav @ Sunny Conclusion:

85. In view of above discussions & findings, accused Gaurav @ Sunny is hereby held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Sections 201 IPC.

86. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convict free of cost against due endorsement. The judgment be also uploaded on the official website during course of the day.

87. Let he be heard separately on the point of sentence.

Digitally signed

SHEFALI by SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date:

2025.04.21 18:29:10 +0530 Pronounced in the open (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Court on 21.04.2025 Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi (It is to certify that all 101 Pages of the judgment are duly signed.) Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date: 2025.04.21 18:29:15 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Case No. 58004/2016 Page 101 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny