Delhi District Court
State vs Lakhan Dubey @ Laxman Prasad And Anr on 26 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
EAST DISTRICT, DELHI
Session Case No.: 361/2018
State Vs : Lakhan Dubey @ Laxman Prasad & Anr.
FIR No. : 432/2017
U/s : 302/201/120B IPC
PS : Gandhi Nagar
CNR No.: DLET01-001087-2018
Date of Institution : 23.12.2017
Date of Judgment reserved on: 27.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 26.12.2025
Brief Details Of The Case
Details of accused persons: (i) Lakhan Dubey @ Laxman Prasad
S/o Nand Kishore,
R/o Vill. Mukhrai, Post Radha Kund,
PS Goverdhan, Distt. Mathura, U.P.
(ii) Kamlesh
W/o Lakhan Dubey
R/o Vill. Mukhrai, Post Radha Kund,
PS Goverdhan, Distt. Mathura, U.P.
(iii) Ram Dubey
S/o Nand Kishore,
R/o Vill. Mukhrai, Post Radha Kund,
PS Goverdhan, Distt. Mathura, U.P.
(Discharged on 15.05.2018)
Offences complained of : 302/201/120B IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 1 of 39
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26
15:11:10
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The nub of the prosecution case is as follows:-
(a) On 27.09.2017 at about 5:50 am on receipt of PCR call, DD No.6A was made at PS Gandhi Nagar. It was recorded in the DD that at Gali No.4, Kailash Nagar inside the temple, a person had been burnt to death by someone. SI Rahul and HC Dinesh were entrusted with that DD for necessary action. They reached at the spot and in the meantime, ASI Narender and Ct. Deepak also reached there. At the spot they met Dwarka Prasad (the owner of Property No.9/1972 wherein the temple was situated) and Lakhan Dubey @ Laxman Prasad (the priest/pujari of the temple). There was a room situated on the first floor of the temple which could be accessed by going through the stairs located adjacent to the temple. The shutter of the room was open and the burnt body of a person was lying on the floor along with burnt kaleen (carpet) and charpai (cot). Stench and smoke were spread inside and outside the room. The face was burnt to such an extent that it was not recognizable. Dwarka Prasad and Lakhan Dubey told that they did not know the dead person.
Lakhan Dubey stated that somebody killed him outside, put him there, burnt the body and fled away. Dwarka Prasad told that the room upstairs was used by Lakhan Dubey and an iron gate was installed at the entry of stairs which was kept locked at night. He further told that the key of that lock was kept by Lakhan Dubey, so he must be knowing who the burnt person was, how the fire started and who started the same. No eye-witness was found.
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 2 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:11:21 +0530 Crime team was called at the spot and the photographs were taken. The dead body was sent through ASI Narender and HC Dinesh to Sabzi Mandi mortuary for preservation. SI Rahul prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Deepak for registration of FIR.
(b) After lodging the FIR, the investigation was handed over to Inspector Rajesh Sah. During investigation, it came to light that the temple was built on half of a 100 sq. yard plot and the remaining half was a residential portion which had a separate entry from the back alley. Lakhan Dubey resided with his wife Kamlesh and kids nearby at Plot No.1969 and took care of the temple. There was one store room beside the room where the dead body was found. Some burnt articles were lying near the dead body and same were seized. Blood, earth control, cot, one empty bottle of five litre, plastic kaleen, nylon rope, burnt articles i.e. durrie, plastic mat, underwear and one gamcha, three medicine strips and Thums-up 1/2 litre bottle were seized. Upon sustained inquiry, Kamlesh broke down and disclosed that the dead body was of one Chander Shekhar who was their neighbour in village. She and her husband Lakhan Dubey had killed him and to hide his identity, they burnt him. Lakhan Dubey also told the same story remorsefully. Kamlesh further told that she got married to Lakhan Dubey in the year 2009 and had two children.
Her husband worked as a priest in Mansi Ganga Temple at Govardhan. The income there fell short to feed a family of four, so he came to Delhi to explore better employment opportunities. At that time, she got into an illicit relation with her neighbour FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 3 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:11:32 +0530 Chander Shekhar. Her father-in-law scolded her upon knowing about the same and warned her not to meet Chander Shekhar in future but their relation continued. Three months prior to the incident, her father-in-law told about her illicit relation to her husband and he brought her to Delhi. She confided in her husband that initially the relation between her and Chander Shekhar was consensual but later on Chander Shekhar forced her to continue the same, by threatening to kill the children. One day she saw Chander Shekhar cross the street while staring at her but as her husband was inside the temple, so he did not talk to her. Since that day, she and her husband were in mental trauma as Chander Shekhar belonged to an influential family of the village. About ten days ago, they planned to kill Chander Shekhar. In pursuance of that plan, three-four days ago she called Chander Shekhar from mobile number 8750920567 and told him to come at Kailash Nagar, Delhi stating that her husband was going outstation. She also asked him to bring sleeping pills to put the kids to deep sleep. On 25.09.2017 Chander Shekhar called her saying that he had reached Delhi and would reach the temple at Kailash Nagar in a while. Her husband hid inside the small room on first floor. She asked Chander Shekhar for the pills and went to bring food. She mixed those sleeping pills in Chander Shekhar's food. After having the food he fell asleep. Her husband then attacked him with daab brought from the village but Chander Shekhar could not be killed and he moved towards her, she then wrapped the rope used for hanging clothes (kept handy by them in room after cutting the same) around his neck FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 4 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:11:46 +0530 and they both strangulated him to death. They then changed their clothes and started their day as usual.
(c) She further confessed that on 26.09.2017 Ram Dubey (brother of Lakhan Dubey) came to meet them. Kamlesh and Lakhan narrated the whole incident to him and showed him the body of Chander Shekhar. He advised them to dispose of the dead body else they would be in trouble. On the intervening night of 26/27.09.2017, they removed the white shirt and black pant (containing mobile phone) from the dead body. They put durrie and folding cot on the dead body and set it on fire by using kerosene and camphor (lying in temple). They closed the shutter of the room and left the temple. They threw daab and the lock in the drain near temple. They threw the clothes worn by Chander Shekhar in the vacant plot near their tenanted premises.
(d) Lakhan Dubey also confessed on the same lines as his wife. During interrogation, Ram Dubey stated that he had no involvement in death of Chander Shekhar. Subsequently, the daab, shoe of deceased, iron lock, clothes of deceased, mobile of deceased, phone charger, clothes worn by accused Lakhan and Kamlesh at the time of incident etc. were seized. Postmortem of the dead body was got conducted. CDRs of mobile phones of Lakhan Dubey, Chander Shekhar and Kamlesh were analyzed which corroborated the disclosure statements. Exhibits were sent to FSL for forensic examination. On completion of investigation IO filed the charge sheet against accused Lakhan and Kamlesh for commission of offence punishable u/s 302/201/120B IPC and accused Ram Dubey for commission of offence punishable u/s FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 5 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:11:59 +0530 201/120B/176 IPC. Upon receipt of FSL result, supplementary charge-sheet was filed.
2. The court of jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. After completion of necessary formalities u/s 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Pursuant to the order of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (East), the matter was fixed for hearing arguments on point of charge. Vide an order dated 15.05.2018 accused Ram Dubey was discharged and charge u/s 302/201/120B IPC was ordered to be framed against accused Lakhan Dubey and Kamlesh. On 29.05.2018 charge was framed against the accused Lakhan Dubey and Kamlesh for offence punishable u/s 302/201/120B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined twenty one (21) witnesses. The role of each prosecution witnesses is specified hereinafter.
S. No. Name Nature of evidence
PW-1 ASI Sonu Kaushik ➢ Went to spot on 29.11.2017.
(Draughtsman) ➢ Prepared scaled Site plan.
PW-2 HC Manmohan ➢ Received rukka from Ct. Deepak,
(Duty Officer at PS recorded FIR, made endorsement on
Gandhi Nagar) rukka, made DD entries qua starting of
recording of FIR and completion of
FIR.
➢ Gave certificate u/s 65B Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
PW-3 ASI Manoj Kumar ➢ Took 14 photographs of the crime
(Photographer, scene.
Crime Team) ➢ Brought and exhibited negatives of the
photographs.
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 6 of 39
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26
15:12:14
+0530
PW-4 Pawan Singh ➢ Provided attested copy of CAF
(Nodal-Officer, (Customer Application Form), CDRs
Vodafone Idea Ltd.) (Call Detail Record) from 01.06.2017
to 30.09.2017 of mobile number
8750920567.
➢ Gave certificate u/s 65B Indian
Evidence Act,1872.
PW-5 Surender Kumar ➢ Provided attested copy of CAFs and
(Nodal-Officer, CDRs from 01.06.2017 to 30.09.2017
Bharti Airtel Ltd.) of mobile No.(s) 8171429284 and
8477905565.
➢ Gave certificate u/s 65B Indian
Evidence Act,1872.
PW-6 Dr. S.K. Verma ➢ Part of the medical board that
(Director Professor conducted post-mortem of deceased
at UCMS and GTB Chandra Shekhar
Hospital, Delhi) ➢ Prepared post-mortem report
No.1589/17.
➢ Opined that cause of death was
'Asphyxia due to ante-mortem
pressure on neck by firm two hard
objects'.
➢ Handed over viscera, blood, burnt scalp hair & burnt vest of deceased to police.
PW-7 Mukesh ➢ Identified dead body of Chander (Brother of Chander Shekhar and received the same. Shekhar) ➢ Lakhan had taken Rs.1,00,000/- from deceased and accused Kamlesh had illicit relation with deceased.
➢ Deceased told him in morning of 25.09.2017 that he would go to Delhi on that day.
PW-8 Dwarka Prasad ➢ Employed Lakhan as priest in 2016, (Owner of Temple) Lakhan resided at 9/1969 at time of incident.
➢ Key of lock of door of stairs used to be hanged in temple during day but at night the door used to be locked and the key was kept by Lakhan Dubey.
➢ One burnt dead body was found in room on 1st floor of temple, room was filed with smoke, some clothes and other burnt articles were also there. ➢ He asked Lakhan to call police, photographs of spot were taken by police, dead body was taken away by police, Kamlesh and Lakhan Dubey FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 7 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:12:29 +0530 were taken to PS. PW-9 Rakesh ➢ Knew Lakhan since birth, Ram and (Cousin of Deceased) Lakhan used to work as priests along with deceased at Goverdhan temple, both Ram and Lakhan were residents of village Mukhrai.
➢ Identified dead body of Chander Shekhar at mortuary.
PW-10 HC Sovinder ➢ Witness to seizure of CD (containing (Police Witness) video recording of postmortem of decease conducted by Medical Board). PW-11 Rahul Malan ➢ Reached the spot on receipt of DD (First Policeman to No.6A, conducted initial inquiry at reach the spot of spot from Dwarka Prasad and Lakhan, incident) entered the room where burnt dead body was lying, called Crime Team at spot and got photographs clicked.
➢ Sent dead body to mortuary, prepared the rukka and sent the same through Ct. Deepak for registration of FIR. ➢ Was witness to seizure of articles like Coat, Darri, plastic mat, gamcha, underwear, nylon rope, blood earth control, plastic kaleen, three medicine strips, Thums-up bottle, five liter empty can, two nylon ropes used for hanging clothes, farsa, mobile phone, mobile charger, two sims, off white pajama, yellow colour t-shirt and Saree.
➢ Witness to arrest of accused persons (Kamlesh and Lakhan Dubey), their personal searches and disclosures, preparation of pointing out memos at instance of accused persons.
➢ Was present at time of postmortem and handing over of samples by doctor to IO, filed supplementary charge- sheet containing the FSL result.
PW-12 W/HC Shivamma ➢ Joined investigation with IO, took (Police Witness) custody of Kamlesh.
➢ Witness to arrest of Lakhan and Kamlesh, and their disclosures.
➢ Conducted personal search of Kamlesh, present at the time of recovery of articles at instance of Kamlesh and Lakhan.
➢ Witness to site plan of recoveries and FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 8 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:12:41 +0530 pointing out memos at instance of both accused.
PW-13 W/HC Sushila ➢ Attended call at 05:48 a.m. on (Channel Operator, 27.09.2017 wherein it was informed PHQ) that 'mandir ka tala tod kar ander ek aadmi ko maar kar aag laga rakhi hai'.
PW-12 Naval Kishore Joshi ➢ Examined exhibits and gave detail (wrongly (Sr. Scientific Officer, report dated 24.07.2018. numbered) Chemistry, FSL) PW-13 Naresh Kumar ➢ Examined exhibits and gave his report (wrongly (Sr. Scientific Officer, Ex.PW13/A, also prepared Allelic data numbered) Biology, FSL) PW-14 HC Amit Goswami ➢ On 29.09.2017 he shifted dead body of (Police Witness) Chander Shekhar from Mortuary to GTB Hospital, was present at the time of postmortem and handing over of dead body to relatives.
PW-15 SI Pramod Kumar ➢ Received 18 pullandas on 27.09.2017, (MHC(M), on 20.12.2017 sent 14 pullandas to PS:Gandhi Nagar) FSL through Ct. Neeraj vide road certificate.
➢ On 22.02.2018 received 9 yellow colour sealed envelopes and 1 khakhi colour report envelope, on 08.06.2014 five envelopes and 1 khakhi colour report envelope were received in PS. ➢ Four additional pullandas were deposited, on 29.01.2018, three pullandas, one wooden box and a sample seal were sent to FSL, on 27.07.2018 three envelopes, 1 wooden box and a khakhi colour report envelope were received in PS. ➢ He proved the road certificates of sending samples to FSL PW-16 SI Narender Pal ➢ Went to spot and participated in all Singh proceedings at the spot on 27.09.2017, (Police Witness) signed various seizure memos.
➢ Witness to arrest of Ram Dubey and disclosure made by him, was present at hospital at the time of postmortem and also at the time when exhibits were given by doctor to IO.
PW-17 HC Deepak Panwar ➢ Joined investigation on 27.09.2017 (Police Witness) and participated in all proceedings on that day.
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 9 of 39
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26
15:12:52
+0530
PW-18 ASI Dinesh Kumar ➢ Joined investigation with SI Rahul on
(Police Witness) 27.08.2017, took dead body to Sabzi
Mandi Mortuary for preservation.
PW-19 Inspector Rajesh ➢ Took over investigation upon lodging
Kumar Sah of FIR, inspected the spot and
(IO of the case) prepared site plan at instance of SI
Rahul Malan.
➢ Seized folding cot, medicine strips, plastic chhatai, brown male underwear, printed mattress, burnt nylon rope, plastic carpet, kerosene oil container and bottle.
➢ Collected spilled blood with the help of gauze, took earth control sample from the spot by breaking concrete, cut a piece of nylon rope tied around the tree and seized the same.
➢ Interrogated Lakhan and Kamlesh, recorded their disclosures, arrested them and prepared their personal search memos.
➢ Took both accused back to spot and at instance of accused Lakhan he recovered farsa, one shoe of deceased and lock of the door of staircase.
➢ At instance of Kamlesh he recovered a polythene containing saree, mobile phone, mobile charger, clothes of deceased and clothes of Lakhan.
➢ Prepared pointing out memos and site plans of places of recovery, prepared sketch of farsa, ➢ Interrogated Ram Dubey, arrested him, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure.
➢ Got application moved for constitution of medical board for postmortem of deceased, filed request letter for postmortem, got postmortem photographed, handed over dead body to relatives, received exhibits from doctor and seized the same.
➢ Got scaled site plan made, obtained CDRs of mobile numbers of accused persons and deceased, collected postmortem report, sent exhibits to FSL for examination.
➢ Prepared charge-sheet against accused and filed it in court.
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 10 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:13:04 +0530 Upon completion of examination of all witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed on 26.07.2025.
4. Statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused Lakhan @ Laxman and Kamlesh were recorded wherein all incriminating material was put to them. They stated that they were innocent, they had not committed any offence and they had been falsely implicated in this case. Furthermore, both accused claimed that they did not know any person named Chander Shekhar. They also stated that nothing was recovered at their instance and all documents are forged and fabricated. Both the accused elected not to lead defence evidence. Final arguments in the matter were heard on 19.09.2025.
5. Ld. Addl. PP for State submitted that all PWs have fully supported the case of the prosecution and their testimonies are creditworthy. He claimed that cogent documentary evidence has also been adduced to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons. He argued that even the forensic and medical evidence duly ties in with the case canvassed by the State. He claimed that the case against the accused persons is proved beyond a shadow of doubt, so the accused persons be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/201/120B IPC.
6. Per-contra ld. defence counsel submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. He stated that even no circumstantial evidence has FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 11 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:13:16 +0530 come on record against the accused persons. He canvassed that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons. He adumbrated that there was undue delay in sending the samples to FSL for examination, so the chance of tampering with the exhibits in police station cannot be ruled out. Ld. defence counsel also pointed out that no public witness was joined in the investigation at the time of making recoveries at the instance of accused persons, which raises cloud on the case of prosecution and the possibility of foul play cannot be negated. He prayed that the accused persons be acquitted of all the charges framed against them. He relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Govind vs State of Haryana, 2025/INSC/1318; and Gambhir Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025/INSC/164; etc. to buttress the submissions made. Written arguments were also filed by the ld. defence counsel to supplement his oral submissions.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides and have perused the record. In the present case, accused persons have been charged for commission of offence(s) punishable u/s 302/201/120B IPC. Relevant portions of sections 302/201/120B IPC are reproduced as under:-
302. Punishment for murder.-Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
The relevant portion of Section 300 IPC which defines 'Murder' reads as follows:-
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 12 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:13:38 +0530
300. Murder- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or -
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused , or - Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury is aforesaid. Further, the relevant portion of Section 299 Indian Penal Code which defines "Culpable homicide", having reference in the definition of 'Murder' reads as follows:-
299. Culpable homicide-Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.-Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence.-shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.-and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.-and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 13 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG THAKUR ANURAG Date:
THAKUR 2025.12.26 15:13:50 +0530 of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
In the absence of an eye-witness regarding commission of crime, the prosecution has to rely upon indirect evidence which is known as circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, though admissible in a criminal trial but the same has to be treated with caution and circumspection by the court because of the inherent subjectivity in drawing conclusions. The Apex Court in the case of Hanumant vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71; while dealing with circumstantial evidence held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. It must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by accused. In the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; the apex court propounded the following principles regarding circumstantial evidence:-
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 14 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:14:01 +0530 (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
In the light of these golden principles, the scrutiny of the evidence tendered shall be conducted.
Identification of deceased
8. PW-7 Mukesh (brother of deceased) and PW-9 Rakesh (cousin brother of deceased) have identified the dead body to be that of Chander Shekhar. Their statements to that effect are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW9/A respectively. The dead body after postmortem was handed over to PW-7 and PW-9 vide handing over memo Ex.PW7/B. Neither PW-7 nor PW-9 have been cross-examined by the accused persons on the aspect of identity of the deceased. No suggestion denying the identity of the deceased was put to either of these witnesses. Therefore, the identification by aforesaid witnesses has sufficiently established that the dead body found at the temple was of Chander Shekhar.
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 15 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:14:14 +0530 Death of Chander Shekhar was homicidal in nature
9. Prosecution has examined PW-6 Dr. S.K. Verma, who was part of the medical board that conducted the postmortem upon the body of Chander Shekhar. He exhibited on record the postmortem report Ex.PW6/A. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death is 'Asphyxia due to ante mortem pressure on neck by firm to hard object.' The time of death was given as about 4 days prior to the date of postmortem which corresponds to the time when the deceased was last seen alive. Hence, the death of Chander Shekhar is proved to be a homicidal.
Spot of incident being in occupation of accused persons
10. PW-8 Dwarka Prasad has categorically testified that since 2016 accused Lakhan Dubey was employed as pujari (priest) in the temple situated in the premises No.9/1972 (in municipal record 9/1973), Kailash Nagar. He deposed that initially Lakhan resided in a room built on roof of temple. He further stated that 3-4 months prior to incident, Lakhan started residing with his family at 9/1969 and kept working as pujari in the temple. He also deposed that a door was installed on the stairs which led to the roof of the temple and a lock used to be put on the said door. As regards the keys to the lock, he deposed that there was only one key of lock and in daytime the key used to be hanged in temple for use by devotees (as some of them used to go to the roof of temple to offer water to plants like banana, tulsi and peepal) but in evening hours lock was put on the door by FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 16 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:14:26 +0530 accused Lakhan Dubey who kept the key with himself. He also disclosed that some goods of the temple used to be kept in room upstairs. The testimony of PW-8 has remained unscathed on the aforementioned facts deposed by him.
11. Accused persons have not disputed the fact that Lakhan was pujari in the temple. They have not been able to shatter the testimony of Dwarka Prasad on the aspect of possession of key of door that leads to the roof of temple. Hence, the spot of incident being in occupation of Lakhan Dubey at the time and date of the incident, being an important circumstance stands duly established.
Identification of accused
12. PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 had correctly identified the accused persons during their depositions before the court. The accused persons too, at no point of time disputed their identities. Thus, identities of the accused persons as Lakhan Dubey and Kamlesh have been duly proved on record.
Call Detail Record
13. PW-4 Pawan Singh provided CDR (Call Detail Record) from 01.06.2017 to 30.09.2017 of mobile number 8750920567 (issued in the name of Laxman Dubey). PW-5 Surender Kumar provided CDR from 01.06.2017 to 30.09.2017 of mobile No. 8477905565 (issued in name of Chander Shekhar). PW-7 Mukesh has deposed (after checking from his mobile phone) that FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 17 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:14:37 +0530 Chander Shekhar was also using mobile number 9149170079 and even in his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that No.9149170079 was not used by his brother. The CDR of the 8477905565 shows a call of 73 seconds being made from 8750920567 to 8477905565 on 16.06.2017. Another call lasting 258 seconds was made from 8750920567 to 8477905565 on 22.06.2017. A call of 553 seconds was made from 8750920567 to 8477905565 on 16.09.2017. Within seconds of termination of the aforementioned call, a call was made from 9149170079 to 8750920567 on 16.09.2017 which continued for 2964 seconds.
Then there are a series of calls made from 9149170079 to 8750920567 till 25.09.2017 (the day when Chander Shekhar was murdered). It is notable that on 25.09,2017, in toto nine calls were made from 9149170079 to 8750920567, out of these calls about 7 calls were made after 02.00pm when the deceased was in or about Delhi. In fact, 4 calls were made after 7:00pm when the deceased was in the vicinity of the spot of incident. The calls from both numbers of the deceased ceased after about 10:00pm on 25.09.2017.
14. In their respective statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C Lakhan has clearly stated that he did not know any Chander Shekhar and Kamlesh replied that she had nothing to do with any Chander Shekhar, without any plausible explanation. They could not explain why were they calling a person who was found murdered at the place which was in their occupation. Firstly, it seems unfathomable that being neighbours in the same village, FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 18 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:14:49 +0530 the accused persons did not know the deceased. Secondly, there were a number of calls made from the number issued in the name of accused Laxman to the number issued in the name of deceased Chander Shekhar. An accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C may chose to remain silent i.e. he may not offer any explanation but he ought not take the court for a ride by making false statement and if he does so, then an adverse inference may be drawn against him.
15. The Supreme Court in case titled as Ganeshlal vs State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106; (where the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house) held that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In the case of Chetan vs State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 793; the Apex Court opined as under:-
10.15.1 In this regard, we may also refer to the decision in this Court rendered in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 it was held that where the circumstantial evidence is the basis for any case, where no eyewitness account is available, and when the incriminating circumstances are put to the accused, if the accused does offer any explanation or the explanation that is found to be false, it provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances as observed in para 21 of the aforesaid decision which is reproduced herein below: -
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 19 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:15:00 +0530 "21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 40] (SCC para 6);
State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] (SCC para 39 : AIR para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 263] (SCC para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 1 SCC 731 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 247] (SCC para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. [(1995) 3 SCC 574 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 552] (SCC para 4).] 10.16 We may not also lose sight of the significance of the provision of Section 313 of the CrPC in the case. As a trial comes to a conclusive phase and all the evidence are adduced by the prosecution, the veracity and credibility of which are tested with the tool of cross examination and when a certain clear picture emerges based on the incriminating materials on evidence, as a procedural safeguard, the court draws the attention of the accused to these incriminating evidence to enable the accused to explain these facts and circumstances which point to his guilt. While the accused is not obligated to answer the questions put to him and still can maintain his silence or deny the evidence, yet silence or evasive or wrong answers to the questions put by the court provides a perspective to the court in properly evaluating the incriminating materials which have been brought forth by the prosecution by drawing necessary inference including an adverse one. [See, Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 310].
The fact that the accused persons chose to give evasive and prevaricating answers to the evidence put to them in their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC and they even refused to acknowledge that they knew the deceased Chander Shekhar, provides this Court with additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused persons.
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 20 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:15:25 +0530 Delay in sending samples to FSL
16. Ld. counsel for the accused persons had stated that 18 exhibits/pullandas were deposited in the malkhana of PS Gandhi Nagar on 27.09.2017 but they were sent to FSL only on 20.12.2017 (after a delay of almost three months), and also four pullandas were deposited in the malkhana on 29.09.2017 but were sent to FSL on 29.01.2018 after an even greater delay of four months. He canvassed that ample opportunities were available with the police to tamper with the samples/pullandas and the possibility of doctoring of samples cannot be ruled out.
He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Govind (supra) where among other things, the delay in sending the samples to FSL was considered as a ground for exonerating the accused. In the case at hand, the pullandas were deposited in the malkhana of the PS on the date of their preparation itself. No adverse material has come on record qua the movement of seal used for sealing the pullandas. It is also not the case that the pullandas when received by the FSL were not in properly sealed condition. In these circumstances, mere delay in sending the pullandas to FSL does not ipso facto makes the case of the prosecution unbelievable. In Govind (supra) the delay in sending samples to FSL was only an additional ground that weighed with the court while acquitting the accused but the fact remains that there were other important grounds like absence of proof of recovery of pistol, the motive projected by prosecution pertained to co- accused (who had been acquitted) and the eyewitness had not FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 21 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:15:45 +0530 supported the case of prosecution which led to acquittal of accused. The correct proposition of law qua the belated sending of samples to FSL and conclusions to be drawn qua the delay, has been explained by the High Court of Delhi in the recent judgment of T.M Zhymes vs State of NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 761/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1183/2025 decided on 18.12.2025; which reads as follows:-
18. The plea of tampering, founded on the time taken to send exhibits to the FSL, has also been urged with reference to the decision in Rahul v. State of Delhi. Indeed, the prosecution must establish the integrity of the chain of custody, and that unexplained gaps can undermine forensic reliance. The record, however, does not disclose such a break in custody.
The seizure, sealing, deposit, and dispatch are reflected in the Malkhana record and the road certificate placed on record (Ex. PW-13/A, Ex. PW-13/B and Ex. PW- 13/D). The seals were tracked. The movements were documented. The argument remains at the level of possibility, not proof. The decision in Rahul v. State of Delhi does not lay down that every delay is fatal. It underscores that courts must examine whether the delay creates a real doubt about integrity. On the material here, that threshold is not crossed. There is no break in custody of seized articles/pullandas and there are no unexplained gaps in the chain of custody of articles while they remained in possession of police. The seizure, sealing, deposit and dispatch of pullandas is clearly recorded in the register maintained at malkhana. The movement of pullandas is documented. Mere possibility of tampering cannot be a ground to throw out the otherwise credible case of the prosecution. Hence, the ground of delay coupled with other cogent material hinting at lacunae in prosecution case may benefit an accused but that credit is not available in the present FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 22 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:16:37 +0530 case. Hence, the ground of delay in sending samples to FSL does not hold water.
Non-joining of independent persons in investigation
17. Another limb of defence of accused persons is that no public person was made to join the proceedings at the time of recovery of various articles at the instance of both the accused persons, so possibility of planting of evidence cannot be ruled out, hence the accused persons be given benefit of doubt and be acquitted. The place of occurrence is located in a residential area, moreover the recoveries at instance of Lakhan Dubey and Kamlesh were made from spots near the temple (which people usually frequent), so public persons would have been available on or about the spots of recovery. It does not seem that strenuous efforts were made by the IO to join public persons in recovery proceedings but this flaw in the investigation is not fatal unless an oblique motive could be attributed to the investigating agency for this lapse. Moreover, evidence is to be weighed and not counted. This court is not oblivious of the fact that public persons generally do not agree to become witness to police proceedings as they are afraid of the inconvenience of coming to court as a witness and being subject to piercing cross-
examination. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that there is no impediment in law in convicting a person solely on the basis of testimonies of police personnel. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sathyan vs State of Kerala, 2023/INSC/703; wherein it held as follows:-
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 23 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:16:59 +0530
22. Conviction being based solely on the evidence of police officials is no longer an issue on which the jury is out. In other words, the law is well settled that if the evidence of such a police officer is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on firm ground. This Court in Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
13. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [1988 Supp SCC 686 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 48], State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652 :
2001 10 (2013) 6 SCC 588 SCC (Cri) 248] and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar [(2006) 13 SCC 229 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 626] has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 595 : 2013 AIR SCW 3102] that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence.
23. Referring to State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab this court held that: -
"23. ... That apart, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground that independent witnesses have not been examined when, on the perusal of the evidence on record the Court finds that the case put forth by the prosecution is trustworthy. When the evidence of the official witnesses is trustworthy and credible, there is no reason not to rest the conviction on the basis of their evidence."
24. We must note, that in the former it was observed:-
"21... At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature... If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 24 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:17:19 +0530 account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."
25. Recently, this Court in Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) had observed that the testimonies of police witnesses, as well as pointing out memos do not stand vitiated due to the absence of independent witnesses.
26. It is clear from the above propositions of law, as reproduced and referred to, that the testimonies of official witnesses can nay be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined. The correctness or authenticity is only to be doubted on "any good reason"
which, quite apparently is missing from the present case. No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the Appellant to challenge the veracity of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, which the courts below have found absolutely to be inspiring in confidence. Therefore, basing the conviction on the basis of testimony of the police witnesses as undertaken by the trial court and is confirmed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment, cannot be faulted with. The recoveries of farsa/daab, lock of door of staircase and one shoe of deceased were made from the nali (drain) underneath the staircase of temple. One polythene containing mobile phone, saree, mobile charger, clothes of deceased and clothes of Lakhan was recovered from vacant plot adjacent to plot no.1969 at the instance of accused Kamlesh. The IO Inspector Rajesh Kumar Sah made these recoveries, however, at that time PW-16 (SI Narender), PW-17 (HC Deepak Panwar), PW-12 (W/HC Shivamma) and PW-11 (SI Rahul Malan) were present there. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length but their testimonies have withstood the rigour of cross-examination and their testimonies qua the recoveries made at instance of accused FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 25 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:17:40 +0530 persons are cogent, fairly consistent and trustworthy. Hence, the ground of non-joining of public persons does not hold water.
Motive
18. No doubt in the cases based on circumstantial evidence, existence of motive assumes significance and plays important role in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence, however, if the evidence is unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not established. In judgment rendered by Supreme Court in case of Suresh Chandra Bahari vs State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80; it was held that if motive is proved that would supply additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject prosecution's case.
19. PW-7 (Mukesh) had testified that deceased had given loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to Lakhan and he demanded back his money.
He further stated that in morning of 25.09.2017 his brother (deceased) informed him that he was going to Delhi for taking back his money from accused Lakhan. He also deposed that later on he came to know about the illicit relation between Kamlesh and his brother. However, no date or time of granting the loan is specified by PW-7. The testimony of PW-7 qua the illicit relation is hearsay as he came to know about the same from villagers, after the death of his brother. PW-9 (Rakesh) also deposed on same lines as PW-7 qua the motive for commission of offence. His testimony also lacks specifics. It is not known whether the FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 26 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:18:08 +0530 deceased was killed for avoiding the payment of loan or as revenge for illicit relations. It can be stated with certitude that the motive or motives for commission of offence are not proved.
20. In the instant case, the murder is not alleged to have been committed by an unknown person rather the allegations are against the accused persons who belong to the village of the deceased and also happen to be his neighbours therein. When an offence like murder is committed inside a room which was used and taken care of by the accused persons, it will be difficult for the prosecution to establish what actually transpired and what motivated the accused persons at that point of time to commit such a heinous crime. Thus, in view of the settled position of law in Suresh Chandra Bahari (supra), the failure to prove the motive is not fatal (as a matter of law) especially when other circumstances complete the chain to show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused persons.
Hence, the case of prosecution cannot be therefore rejected merely because the motive is not properly established. The Apex Court in case titled as Chetan (supra) held as under:-
10.11.3 The law is now well-settled that while proof of motive certainly strengthens the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal. In this regard, one may refer to G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka 2010 (8) SCC 593 in which it was held as follows:
"45. The argument that in absence of motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased benefit of reasonable doubt should be given, cannot be accepted. First of all every suspicion is not a doubt. Only reasonable doubt gives benefit to the accused and not the doubt of a vacillating judge. Very often a motive is alleged to FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 27 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:18:23 +0530 indicate the high degree of probability that the offence was committed by the person who was prompted by the motive. In a case when the motive alleged against accused is fully established, it provides foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances. It afforts a key on a pointer to scan the evidence in the case in that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration. However, in a case based on circumstantial evidence where proved circumstances complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence. The absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof. There is no absolute legal proposition of law that in the absence of any motive an accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. Effect of absence of motive would depend on the facts of each case. Therefore, this Court proposes to examine the question of motive which prompted the appellant to commit the crime in question. As observed earlier, the prosecution has not been able to establish a clear motive for commission of offence by accused persons. On the one hand, the motive is claimed to be the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- allegedly taken by Lakhan Dubey from the deceased and on the other hand, the motive is stated to be to wriggle out of illicit relationship between Kamlesh and the deceased. Hence, the additional link that the Court may have relied upon in the chain of circumstantial evidence upon establishment of motive is not available but the case of prosecution is to be evaluated on other available evidence.
Other important circumstances
21. In the postmortem report Ex.PW6/A in 'General Observations' it is mentioned that smell of kerosene was coming from the body and vest. In the FSL report Ex.PW12/A prepared by PW-12 (Naval Kishore Joshi), it is mentioned that residue of FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 28 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:18:41 +0530 kerosene was present in exhibit 4 i.e. one yellow colour plastic container. Hence, it is clear that kerosene was used for starting the fire for burning the dead body. Ex.PW12/A also mentions that exhibit 3 was found to contain 'Alprazolam'. Exhibit 3 as per FSL report was white colour turbid liquid kept in a bottle. Hence, it seems that sleeping pills were used in the incident. Furthermore, exhibit 1C as per the report Ex.PW12/A was blood sample of deceased and on testing it was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol. In postmortem report Ex.PW6/A, there were three antemortem injuries i.e. linear abrasion over front and right side of neck, reddish contusion over right side of face and reddish abrasion over left side of chest. There were 12 postmortem injuries on body of Chander Shekhar, all being heat rupture injuries. Thus, it is exceedingly clear that the deceased was attacked and assaulted prior to his death. Moreover, the heat rupture injuries present over various parts of body indicate that attempt was made to burn body of deceased after his death.
Criminal Conspiracy
22. The offence of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120B IPC is seldom capable of being proved by direct evidence. Conspiracy is usually established through circumstantial evidence, patterns of conduct and cumulative inferences drawn from interactions of accused persons. Every conspirator need not commit an overt act to be held liable and the agreement itself constitutes an offence. Conspiracy is an independent offence and is punishable even if the substantive offence contemplated by FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 29 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:18:53 +0530 conspirator does not materialize. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SC 600; the Apex Court held as follows qua the criminal conspiracy:-
"97. Mostly, conspiracies are proved by circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused (per Wadhwa, J. in Nalini case [(1999) 5 SCC 253 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 691] at p. 516).
Criminal conspiracy begins with formation of unlawful agreement and continues until the objective is achieved or abandoned. The crime is complete with formation of an agreement to do an illegal act (like murder). It is necessary to look into the overall circumstances to infer whether the accused persons had acted in pursuance of a conspiracy or not. The coordinated acts of accused persons can give rise to an inference of unlawful agreement. In the case of Ajay Aggarwal vs Union of India, (1993) 3 SCC 609; the Apex Court made following observations qua the evidence of criminal conspiracy.
"10. In Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 477 : (1981) 3 SCR 68] it was held that for an offence under Section 120-BIPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra [(1970) 1 SCC 696 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 274 : (1971) 1 SCR 119] it was held that Section 120-BIPC makes the criminal conspiracy as a substantive offence which offence postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an act by illegal means. If the offence itself is to commit an offence, no further steps are needed to be proved to carry the agreement into effect. In R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration [(1963) 1 SCR 253 : AIR 1962 SC 1821 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 805] it was further held that it is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. In FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 30 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:19:07 +0530 Shivanarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra [(1980) 2 SCC 465 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 493] this Court emphasized that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design." Both the accused persons together were involved in commission of offence. The DNA of deceased was found on the clothes of both the accused. It also seems that Kamlesh was using Lakhan Dubey's mobile phone to talk to Chander Shekhar in order to lure him to come to Delhi. A farsa was kept ready by the accused persons, they had already cut a nylon rope, Lakhan had hid himself in the small store beside the room in which the dead body of Chander Shekher was found. It also seems that the Alprazolam tablets were arranged/procured in order to administer them to Chander Shekhar, so that he could fall asleep quickly and could offer no resistance at the time of being attacked. The fact that both the accused persons did not tell anyone about arrival of Chander Shekhar and about the incident of 25.09.2017, even on 26.09.2017 also shows their tacit agreement to kill Chander Shekhar and destroy/burn his body. From circumstances established on record it can be deduced that both Lakhan and Kamlesh agreed to murder Chander Shekhar.
Commission of offence by some third person
23. Lakhan Dubey had initially stated that someone had illegally entered the room at first floor of the temple and burnt a dead body there. However, no evidence has been led by the accused to substantiate this claim. The room was in possession FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 31 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:19:20 +0530 of Lakhan Dubey, hence the burden was on him to explain as to how someone would be able to bring a body to first floor of temple and burn it there, especially when the key to lock of door of stairs going to first floor remained with him in the night and during the day he remained in the temple being its Pujari. In view of the discussion hereinbefore and the law settled by the apex court, it can safely be concluded that the accused herein failed to indicate if there was an intervention by any third person. This failure by accused enables the court to draw adverse presumption against him, which serves as a vital circumstance that completes the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
Contradictions and inconsistencies
24. In written arguments filed on behalf of accused persons, some deficiencies and gaps in the case of the prosecution have been highlighted. The written arguments have been thoroughly read and considered. Some of the statements given by the witnesses have been quoted out of context for e.g statement of IO PW-19 'Dwarka Prasad had opened the lock of stairs with a key'. An opinion of witness (PW-18) has been cited in a futile attempt to create doubt. No videography and photography of recovery proceedings is also cited as evidence of shoddy investigation. However it is worthwhile to observe that photography and videography would have served as additional material to bring home the guilt of the accused persons and its absence does not make the case against the accused persons less FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 32 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:19:33 +0530 formidable. There are bound to be inconsistencies in the testimonies of various witnesses when they depose about the same facts as each person has a different power of observation and retention of things seen. People cannot be expected to possess photographic memory and witnesses are not supposed to depose like parrots. A little embellishment here or a lapse there would not be enough to jettison the entire testimony of an otherwise reliable witness. The Apex Court in case of Sukhdev Yadav & Others vs State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 86; held as under:-
It is now well-settled that the Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence. This Court in Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and another [(1999) 9 SCC 525] relying upon an earlier decision of this Court in State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony (1985 (1) SCC 505) observed:
There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.
The testimonies of all PWs taken together appear to have a ring of truth around them. On material aspects the prosecution witness have remained steadfast. Despite lengthy and rigorous cross-examination, the case of prosecution has not wilted and FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 33 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:19:49 +0530 small deficiencies and defects are not enough to exculpate the accused persons.
25. Upon scrutiny of entire evidence, the circumstances established are; (i) The accused persons and Chander Shekhar belonged to same village in Mathura and were well acquainted with each other, (ii) There was telephonic communication between accused persons and the deceased, (iii) On 25.09.2017 before leaving Mathura the deceased had called on mobile of Lakhan, (iv) Deceased left his village in Mathura in order to come to Delhi, (v) Before leaving he told his brother that he was going to Delhi to meet Lakhan Dubey, (vi) Deceased reached Delhi at about 2:00pm on 25.09.2017, (vii) Upon reaching Delhi he repeatedly called at mobile of Lakhan and the calls became more frequent as he came near the locality where accused persons resided, (viii) The deceased became incommunicado prior to midnight of 25-26.09.2017, (ix) Partially burnt dead body of deceased was found in a room in possession of Lakhan Dubey (x) Recovery of clothes, mobile phone, charger and a shoe of deceased are made at instance of accused persons, (xi) Farsa/daab used for commission of offence was recovered at instance of Lakhan, (xii) Postmortem of deceased revealed that he was killed on 25.09.2017 and an attempt was made to burn his body, (xii) FSL analysis of exhibits shows presence of DNA of deceased on clothes of accused persons and use of sleeping pills as well as kerosene in commission of offence and, lastly FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 34 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:20:00 +0530
(xiii) Untruthful statements of accused persons about not knowing Chander Shekhar at all.
26. To sum up, the facts establishing guilt of the accused persons have been duly proved. The circumstances proved are conclusive in nature and they exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of accused Lakhan and Kamlesh. The chain of evidence in the present case is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. In all human probability it was the accused persons who conspired to kill Chander Shekhar, they murdered him and then tried to destroy evidence by burning his body as well as dumping his clothes in a vacant plot. Thus, it is hereby concluded that prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused by leading cogent evidence on record. Accordingly, the accused Lakhan Dubey and Kamlesh are convicted for offence punishable u/s 302/201/120B IPC.
Digitally
signed by
Dictated and announced ANURAG
ANURAG
THAKUR
in open court on 26th December, 2025. THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26
15:20:20
+0530
(Anurag Thakur)
Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
This judgment consists of 39 pages
and each and every page of this
judgment is signed by me.
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 35 of 39
Post Script
LIST OF PROSECUTION/COURT EXHIBITS S. Nos Exhibit Description Number
1. Ex.PW1/A Scaled site plan
2. Ex.PW2/A Copy of FIR
3. Ex.PW2/B Endorsement on rukka
4. Ex.PW2/C Copy of DD No.9A
5. Ex.PW2/D Copy of DD No.12A
6. Ex.PW2/E Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act,1872
7. Ex.PW3/A1 to Photographs of the crime scene A14
8. Ex.PW3/B1 to Negatives of the photographs B14
9. Ex.PW4/A Attested copy of CAF (Customer Application Form) of mobile No.8750920567
10. Ex.PW4/B Attested copy of complaint regarding fire
11. Mark PW4/1 Copy of Aadhar Card of applicant accused Lakhan @ Laxman
12. Ex.PW4/C CDR (Call Detail Record) of mobile No.8750920567
13. Ex.PW4/D Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act,1872
14. Ex.PW5/A Attested copy of CAF of mobile No.8171429284 in name of Murti
15. Mark PW5/1 Copy of Election I-Card of one Murti
16. Ex.PW5/B CDR of mobile No.8171429284 from 01.06.2017 to 31.08.2017
17. Ex.PW5/C CDR of mobile No.8171429284 from 01.09.2017 to 30.09.2017
18. Ex.PW5/D CDR of mobile No.8477905565 from 01.06.2017 to 31.08.2017
19. Ex.PW5/E CDR of mobile No.8477905565 from 01.09.2017 to 30.09.2017
20. Ex.PW5/F CAF of mobile No.8477905565 in name of Chander Shekhar
21. Ex.PW5/G Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act,1872 qua CDRs
22. Ex.PW6/A Detailed Postmortem Report bearing No.1589/17
23. Ex.PW7/A Dead body identification memo of deceased Chander Shekhar
24. Ex.PW7/B GTB Hospital postmortem examination receipt of dead body FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 36 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:20:45 +0530
25. Ex.PW8/A Statement of PW-8 Dwarka Prasad
26. Ex.PW9/A Dead body identification memo at instance of Rakesh
27. Ex.PW10/A Seizure memo of video CD
28. Ex.PW11/A Rukka on DD No.6A
29. Ex.PW11/B Seizure memo of coat
30. Ex.PW11/C Seizure memo of burnt articles i.e. Darri, plastic mate, underwear and one gamcha.
31. Ex.PW11/D Seizure memo of nylon rope of about 4 feet
32. Ex.PW11/E Seizure memo of blood and earth control
33. Ex.PW11/F Seizure memo of plastic kaleen
34. Ex.PW11/G Seizure memo of three medicine strips and Thumbs up 1/2 liter bottle containing some whitish liquid
35. Ex.PW11/H Seizure memo of one empty bottle of five liter
36. Ex.PW11/I Seizure memo of two nylon rope
37. Ex.PW11/J Arrest memo of accused Lakhan Dubey
38. Ex.PW11/K Personal search memo of accused Lakhan Dubey
39. Ex.PW11/L Disclosure statement of accused Lakhan Dubey
40. Ex.PW11/M Sketch memo of the farsa
41. Ex.PW11/N Arrest memo of accused Ram Dubey
42. Ex.PW11/O Personal search memo of accused Ram Dubey
43. Ex.PW11/P Seizure memo of exhibits during postmortem no.1589/17 at GTB Hospital.
44. Ex.PW11/P1 Partially burnt multi coloured darri, partially burnt (Colly.) multi coloured plastic mat, partially burnt brown coloured underwear and partially burnt brown coloured cloth piece.
45. Ex.PW11/P2 One orange colour plastic rope.
46. Ex.PW11/P3 Cotton having blackish stains.
47. Ex.PW11/P4 Cotton having blackish stains.
48. Ex.PW11/P5 Pieces of cemented material.
49. Ex.PW11/P6 Pieces of cemented material.
50. Ex.P1 Farsa.
51. Ex.P2 (Colly.) One shirt and one pant belonging to the deceased.
52. Ex.P3 (Colly.) One T-shirt and one pajama belonging to accused Lakhan.
53. Ex.P4 (Colly.) One saree belonging to accused Kamlesh.
54. Ex.P5 Shoe.
55. Ex.P6 Lock.
56. Ex.P7 Mobile phone.
57. Ex.P8 Mobile charger.
58. Ex.PW11/P7 Blood in gauze.
59. Ex.PW11/P8 Cut/torn banian (vest).
FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 37 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:21:06 +0530
60. Ex.PW11/P9 Hair strainds.
61. Ex.PW11/P10 Two empty strips of medicine/tablets and one strip (Colly.) having medicine/tablet
62. Ex.PW11/P11 Empty plastic bottle of Thumbs Up brand containing (Colly.) whitish liquid.
63. Ex.PW11/P12 Empty yellow colour plastic cane having some liquid.
(Colly.)
64. Ex.PW11/P13 Iron pipes of cot/charpai.
(Colly.)
65. Ex.PW11/P14 Burnt plastic mattress having brown stains.
66. Ex.PW11/P15 One two pieces of orange colour nylon rope.
(Colly.)
67. Ex.PW12/A Arrest memo of accused Kamlesh
68. Ex.PW12/B Personal search memo of accused Kamlesh
69. Ex.PW12/C Disclosure statement of accused Kamlesh
70. Ex.PW12/D Seizure memo of four sealed parcels
71. Ex.PW12/E Seizure memo of two sealed parcels
72. Ex.PW12/F Pointing out the place of incident vide pointing out memo
73. Ex.PW12/G Site plan of place of recoveries
74. Ex.PW13/A Copy of PCR form
75. Ex.1-A Stomach and pieces of small intestine with contents kept in a sealed jar.
76. Ex.1-B Pieces of liver, spleen and kidney kept in a sealed jar.
77. Ex.1-C Blood sample volume 50 ml approx. kept in a sealed bottle.
78. Ex.1-D Preservative sample, saturated solution of common salt kept in a sealed bottle
79. Ex.2A One hard shaped dark red colour tablet
80. Ex.2B Empty strip having one hole, printed as H drug
81. Ex.2C One empty strip having six holes
82. Ex.3 Found to contain Alprazolam.
83. Ex.4 Found to contain residue of kerosene.
84. Ex.PW12/A Detailed FSL (Chemistry) Report
85. Ex.PW13/A Detailed FSL (Biology) Report
86. Ex.PW13/B Allelic Data
87. Ex.PW15/A Relevant entries of register no.19
88. Ex.PW15/B Relevant entries of register no.19
89. Ex.PW15/C Copy of Road Certificate
90. Ex.PW15/D Copy of Road Certificate
91. Ex.PW16/A Letter regarding preservation of dead body for 72 Hrs.
92. Ex.PW16/B Site plan
93. Ex.PW16/C Disclosure statement of accused Ram Dubey FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 38 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:21:18 +0530
94. Ex.PW18/D-1 Statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of ASI Dinesh Kumar
95. Mark PW19/A Request to Deputy Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, GNCT, Delhi to constitute medical board for conducting postmortem
96. Ex.PW19/B Request to Head of Department, Forensic Medicine, GTB Hospital to constitute medical board for conducting postmortem
97. Ex.PW19/C Application to constitute medical board for conducting postmortem ____________________ FIR No.432/17 PS Gandhi Nagar State vs Lakhan Dubey & Ors. Pg. 39 of 39 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.12.26 15:21:43 +0530