Delhi District Court
State vs Bhupinder Singh on 21 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 151/2016)
CNR No. DLND01-002052-2015
FIR No. 461/2014
Police Station Sagarpur
Charge sheet filed 302/307 IPC and 25/27/54/59
Under Section Arms Act
Charge framed Under 302/307 IPC and 25/27 Arms
Section Act
Bhupinder Singh s/o Sh. Jeet
State Vs. Ram r/o H. No. WZ-52,
Village Naraina, New Delhi.
Date of institution 06.01.2015
Arguments concluded on 24.12.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 21.01.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 06.10.2014 on receipt of DD No. 29A regarding quarrel, ASI Ram Karan alongwith Ct. Suresh reached at the spot i.e., H. No. RZ- 1347, Gali No. 5, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur where blood was scattered and blood stained slippers and pillow were also lying there. On inquiry, it revealed that injured SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 1 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:27:09 +0530 had been shifted to DDU Hospital by the neighbours. Senior officers also reached at the spot. After leaving Ct. Suresh at the spot, ASI Ram Karan went to DDU Hospital where injured Kaushalya Devi was declared brought dead vide MLC No. 993/14. Injured Raju, Ankur and Poonam were under treatment vide MLC No. 9896/14, 9930/14 and 9897/14 respectively and they were unfit for statement. Thereafter, ASI Ram Karan alongwith SI Madan reached at the spot and recorded statement of Smt. Pratibha Chaudhary @ Prabha, who alleged that she used to run parlour from her house. She further alleged that her husband was having four brothers and sisters. Poonam was her younger sister in law, who got married around 10 years back with accused Bhupinder. She further alleged that accused Bhupinder used to beat Poonam due to which Poonam was depressed. She further alleged that accused Bhupinder also gave beatings to Poonam last night and she informed them about the same. She further alleged that Poonam also informed that accused threatened her to kill as well as her family as they were her supporters. She further alleged that her mother in law Kaushalya told accused Bhupinder not to beat her daughter and she would be sending someone to bring back Poonam to which accused told that he himself would be coming within 15 minutes alongwith Poonam. 1.2 She further alleged that on 06.10.2014 at about 02:30 PM, when her husband, brother in law Ankur and mother in law Kaushalya Devi were watching TV in room and her father in law was in another room. She was in her beauty parlour, accused alongwith Poonam came to their house. She further alleged that as soon as accused Bhupinder and Poonam entered in the house from the room of her parlour, he bolted the room from inside. She further alleged that accused Bhupinder was holding a knife in his hands and crying sound was coming from inside the house. She further alleged that she could not go inside the house as her room was bolted by the accused. She further alleged SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 2 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:27:17 +0530 that after some time accused Bhupinder fled away from there and she herself entered the house from the main gate and saw that her husband Pankaj, brother in law Ankur, sister in law Poonam and mother in law Kaushalya were lying in the pool of blood. She further alleged that knife was plunged into the stomach of Poonam. She further alleged that she was informed by her husband that as soon as accused Bhupinder entered the house, he stabbed Poonam and when Ankur went to intervene, accused inflicted injuries to him and thereafter, he inflicted injuries to Kaushalya and her husband. 1.3 On the statement of complainant and MLC, FIR under section 307/302 IPC was registered. Crime team also called at the spot, who inspected the scene of crime. Exhibits i.e., broken piece of bangles, slippers, pillow cover, blood stained earth control, blood and earth control were seized. Blood stained clothes of Poonam and Ankur as well as knife which was taken out from the abdomen of Poonam were seized.
1.4 During investigation, an information vide DD No. 9A dated 06- 07.10.2014 was received that injured Poonam had expired. Postmortem on both the dead bodies were got conducted and dead bodies were handed over to relatives of deceased.
1.5 On 10.10.2014, accused Bhupinder was arrested, who confessed his guilt in the commission of offence. Postmortem report of deceased Kaushalya and Poonam were obtained. As per report, cause of death of Kaushalya Devi was due to cardiogenic shock as a result of tearing of the heart by infliction of sharp pointed weapon like knife etc. and manner of death is homicide. As per postmortem report, cause of death of Poonam was due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of tearing of multiple vital organs by sharp pointed weapon like knife and manner of death was homicide. Subsequent opinion also obtained. Blood samples of injured as well as mobile phone stated SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 3 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:27:24 +0530 to be having conversation recording, took place between accused and victim/injured were seized. Exhibits were sent to FSL and opinion qua nature of injury was obtained. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences under sections 302/307 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act against accused was filed in the court.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 12.02.2015, charge under sections 302/307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act was framed against the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 26 witnesses in all.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY WITNESSES S. Name of Witness Exhibit number Description of documents No.
1. PW1 HC Ramesh Ex. PW1/A FIR Chand (duty officer) Ex. PW1/B Endorsement on rukka
2. PW2 Dr. Vipin Kumar Ex. PW2/A MLC No. 9897 Jha (examined Poonam and Raju) Ex. PW2/B MLC No. 9896
3. PW3 Dr. Shashank Ex. PW3/A MLC No. 9931 Srivastava (examined Kaushalya Devi and Ex. PW3/B MLC No. 9930 SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 4 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:27:30 +0530 Ankur)
4. PW4 Pankaj, eye Ex. PW4/A Statement (also exhibited as witness/injured Ex. P9)
5. PW5 Ct. Suresh Kumar Ex. PW5/A Seizure memo of clothes of deceased Poonam Ex. PW5/B Seizure memo of knife Ex. PW5/C Seizure memo of clothes of deceased Kaushalya Devi and Blood gauge
6. PW6 Ct. Sunder (typed -
rukka on computer)
7. PW7 W/Ct. Madhu Ex. PW7/A Record pertaining to receipt Nimesh (Channel of message regarding quarrel. Operator)
8. PW8 HC Khiladi Ram Ex. PW8/A Seizure memo qua seizure of exhibits Ex. PW8/B Seizure memo of slippers and pillow cover Ex. PW8/C Seizure memo of pieces of bangles Ex. PW8/P1 (colly) Two normal pillow covers, one small pillow cover of red colour, one door mat and three pairs of blood stained slippers Ex. PW8/P2 Pieces of broken bangles
9. PW9 Ct. Satyawan Ex. PW9/P-1 Mobile Phone make Sony Xperia
10. PW10 SI Ram Karan, Ex. PW10/A Rukka Ist IO
11. PW11 HC Phool Singh Ex. PW11/A DD No. 9A (duty officer)
12. PW12 Suresh Sharma - Took injured persons to DDU SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 5 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:27:35 +0530 Hospital in maruti Omni van
13. PW13 Veer Singh Ex. PW13/A Statement Took injured persons to DDU Hospital in maruti Omni van with PW12
14. PW14 Prem Jain - Made call at number 100
15. PW15 Surender Singh Ex. PW15/A Dead body identification statement
16. PW16 Pratibha Ex. PW16/A Statement (complaint) Chaudhary, complainant
17. PW17 Ankur, injured/ Ex. PW17/A Statement eye witness Ex. PW17/B customer application form of mobile No. 9899642319 Ex. PW17/C photocopy of election ID card Ex. PW17/D photocopy of saving account passbook of SBI, JNU Branch Ex. PW17/E and customer application forms Ex. PW17/F in the name of accused Bhupinder Ex. PW17/G transcript of the audio recording Ex. PW17/ME-1 mobile phone make Sony Xperia for identification purpose Ex. PW17/ME-2 CD SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 6 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:27:40 +0530
18. PW18 Hemant Kumar, Ex. PW18/1 FSL Report of physics Junior Division Scientific/Assistant Ex. PW18/2 CD containing mobile phone Chemical Engineer recording
19. PW19 Ct. Surender - collected sealed pullanda of Kumar knife from DDU Hospital
20. PW20 ASI Virender Ex. PW20/A Entry No. 1010/14 Singh (MHC(M)) Ex. PW20/B entry No. 1017/14 Ex. PW20/C entry No. 1055/14 Ex. PW20/D entry No. 1078/14 Ex.PW20/E and RC No. 104/21/14 and Ex. PW20/F 105/21/14 Ex. PW20/G and Acknowledgment of FSL Ex. PW20/H
21. PW21 'S' daughter of Ex. PW21/PX1 Statement deceased and accused
22. PW22 Dr. Gaurav Ex. PW22/A Progress report qua surgery Bansal of Poonam
23. PW23 Dr. C. P. Singh, Ex. PW23/A Internal Forwarding note Assistant Director vide which mobile phone was (Physics), FSL sent to CFU Department Ex. PW23/B internal forwarding of case examination report (CFU) Ex. PW23/C Case opening sheet Ex. PW23/D Report
24. Inspector Madan Ex. PW24/A Arrest memo SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 7 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:27:45 +0530 Meena Ex. PW24/B Personal search memo Ex. PW24/C Disclosure statement Ex. PW24/D seizure memo of clothes and shoes worn by accused Ex. PW24/E pointing out memo of accused Ex. P24/1 Shoes and clothes of accused
25. PW25 Retd. Inspector Ex. PW25/A and Site Plans of scene of crime Sube Singh Ex. PW25/B (one rough site plan from inside and other from outside area) Ex. PW25/C and unnatural death report of Ex. PW25/D deceased Poonam and Kaushalya Ex. PW25/E and request for conducting Ex. PW25/F postmortem report Application for recording Ex. PW25/G statement under section 164 CrPC of complainant Pratibha and witness Pankaj Ex. PW25/H request for copy of statement Application for getting voice Ex. PW25/I sample of accused application for place on Ex. PW25/J record the transcription of the conversation between deceased, witnesses and accused
26. PW26 ASI Raj Kumar -
DOCUMENTS ADMITTED BY ACCUSED SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 8 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:27:50 +0530 S. No. Description of documents Exhibit Number 1. Identification statement of Virender Kumar Ex. P1 2. Seizure memo of blood samples of injured Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 Ankur and Pankaj taken by Dr. Avinash dated 22.11.2014 3 X-Ray report of Raju prepared by Dr. Ex. P4 Raman 4 Postmortem report of Kaushalya Devi and Ex. P5 and Ex. P6 Poonam prepared by Dr. B. N. Mishra 5 Subsequent opinion given by Dr. B. N. Ex. P7 Mishra 6 Proceedings under section 164 CrPC of Ex. P8 and Ex. P9 Pratibha and Pankaj conducted by Ms. Amrita Tonk, the then ld. MM 7 CDR and call details of mobile phone Ex. P10 (colly) bearing No. 9899642319 and certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 8 CDR and call details of mobile phone Ex. P11 (colly) bearing No. 9999103050 and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act 9 CDR and call details of mobile phone Ex. P12 (colly) bearing No. 9953149196 and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act 10 Scaled site plan prepared by Hardeep Singh Ex. P13 11 SOC visitation report prepared by ASI Ex. P14 Pradeep SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 9 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:27:55 +0530 12 24 photographs taken by photographer Ex. P15 (colly) 13 DD No. 29A and DD No. 36B recorded by Ex. P16 and Ex. P17 HC Anil Singh Rana 14 Statement of Ct. Pawan dated 22.11.2014 Ex. P18 and Ex. P19 and 25.11.2014 15 Incharge PCR Police control Room with CR Already Ex. PW7/A. DD No. 6 16 FSL report dated 26.06.2016 prepared by Ex. P20 Ms. Sunita Gupta, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW1 HC Ramesh Chand, being duty officer, exhibited FIR as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/B. 5.1 PW2 Dr. Vipin Kumar Jha, Senior Scientific Resident, DDU Hospital proved MLC No. 9897 of patient Poonam as Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that there was history of physical assault as told by patient. There was a clear incise wound with knife in Situ at 9 th 10th rib on right side of chest. There was another clear incised would approximately 4 cm x .5 cm with fat, subcutaneous tissue and omentum (Layer over the intestine) coming out. He further deposed that the patient was sent to surgery department with the knife still inserted in the right side of her chest.
5.2 He has also proved MLC No. 9896 of Raju as Ex. PW2/B and he observed a clear incised wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm on left hypochondrium and patient was referred to surgery department.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 10 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2026.01.21
17:28:00 +0530
6.1 PW3 Dr. Shashank Srivastava, Senior Resident, DDU Hospital
deposed that on 28.05.2015 he examined patient Kaushalya Devi, who was brought to casualty in an unconscious and unresponsive state vide MLC No. 9931 which is Ex. PW3/A and declared her brought dead. 6.2 He further deposed that he also examined patient Ankur vide MLC No. 9930 which is Ex. PW3/B and referred the patient to surgery department. He proved his note dated 22.12.2014 wherein the particulars and other details of patient which as Ex. PW3/C.
7. PW6 Ct. Sunder deposed that on 06.10.2014, DO/HC Ramesh Chand handed over rukka to him and he typed the contents of rukka on the computer and took out a print out.
8. PW7 W/Ct. Madhu Nimesh deposed that on 06.10.2014, she was attending extension No. 137 on which call was received regarding quarrel and injured persons. She further deposed that she was told the place of alleged incident was tent wale school ke pass Sagarpur house no. RZ-72/1, Gali No. 7, Near Kuber Mandir. She proved the record pertaining to receipt of said message as Ex. PW7/A.
9. PW9 Ct. Sayawan deposed that on 05.11.2014, he took sealed knife from MHC(M) to DDU Hospital. He further deposed that after returning from there, he went to the spot and seized mobile make Black coloured Sony Xperia of Pankaj containing the recording vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW9/A. He exhibited black coloured phone make Sony Xperia as Ex. PW9/P1.
10. PW12 Suresh Sharma deposed that on 06.10.2014 at about 03:00-
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 11 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:28:04 +0530
03:30 PM, when he was present in his house, he heard noise of crying and quarrel from the house of Shri Bhagwan. He further deposed that he immediately rushed towards the house of Shri Bhagwan and saw that family members of Shri Bhagwan were lying in the courtyard and blood was oozing out from their injuries. He further deposed that on the asking of the public persons, who gathered there, he took Maruti Omni to the spot and with the help of public persons, he took four injured persons to DDU Hospital and got them admitted there.
11. PW13 Veer Singh deposed that on 06.10.2014 at about 02:30-
03.:00 PM, he heard cries and noise of quarrel from the house of Shri Bhagwan and on hearing the sound, he went to the house of Shri Bhagwan and saw four family members of Shri Bhagwan in injured condition, were lying in the courtyard. He further deposed that with the help of public persons, injured persons were shifted to DDU Hospital and got them admitted there. He denied that on reaching the spot, he came to know that son in law of Shri Bhagwan had caused injuries to his wife, mother in law, brother in law by giving knife blows on their person.
12. PW14 Prem Jain, deposed that on 06.10.2014, he was present at his room in H. No. RZ-1347, Gali No. 5, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur where he used to reside as tenant. He further deposed that on hearing the noise, he went to the spot i.e., ground floor of the house and saw blood was lying there. He further deposed that he made a call at number 100 from his mobile phone No. 9213958398 belonging to his son, who was working in Bajaj Insurance Company.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 12 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2026.01.21
17:28:10 +0530
13. PW15 Surender Singh deposed that on 08.10.2014, he identified the dead body of his sister in law (bhabhi) Smt. Kaushaliya Devi and niece Poonam in mortuary of DDU Hospital vide identification statement which is Ex. PW15/A. He further deposed that after the postmortem both the dead bodies were handed over to them.
14. PW18 Hemant Kumar, Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical Engineer, FSL, deposed that on 22.04.2016, mobile phone in a sealed envelope was marked to him for analysis and gave Mark MP1 to it. He further deposed that the files which could be retrieved from Mark MP1 was copied into one compact disc under the folder name 'AUDIO FILES OF MP1'. He further deposed that thereafter, he sealed mobile phone and compact disc in separate envelope and sealed the same with the FSL HK DELHI and forwarded to Physics Division. He proved his report dated 20.07.2016 as Ex. PW18/1 and CD prepared by him as Ex. PW18/2.
15. PW19 Ct. Surender Kumar deposed that on 07.10.2014 on the instructions of IO, he had gone to DDU Hospital from where he received onesealed pullanda and sample seal containing knife. He further deposed that he came back to police station and handed over the same to IO.
16.1 PW20 ASI Virender Singh proved entry No. 1010/14 in malkhana register as Ex. PW20/A vide which IO deposited on white plastic katta containing the exhibits as mentioned in seizure memo, sealed plastic container containing bangle pieces, five plastic containers and three sealed pullandas having seal of DDU Hospital.
16.2 He also proved entry No. 1017/2014 as Ex. PW20/B vide which
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 13 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:28:14 +0530
Inspector Sube Singh deposited one sealed pullanda having seal of SSR, one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of DDU Hospital containing clothes of Kaushalya Devi, one white envelope containing blood gauze having seal of DDU hospital, personal search articles of accused Bhupinder Singh on 10.10.2014.
16.3 He also proved entry No. 1055/2014 as Ex. PW20/C vide which on 05.11.2014 Inspector Sube Singh deposited mobile phone in malkhana. He proved entry No. 1078/2014 as Ex. PW20/D vide which on 22.11.2014, Inspector Sube Singh deposited three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of DDU Hospital containing blood samples and blood gauze of injured Pankaj. He also deposited three sealed pullandas having seal of DDU Hospital alongwith sample seal containing the blood samples and blood gauze of injured.
16.4 He proved RC No. 104/21/14 dated 25.11.2014 as Ex. PW20/E vide which 17 pullandas were sent to FSL through Ct. Pawan and RC No. 105/21/14 dated 21.11.2014 as Ex. PW 20/F vide which mobile phone was sent to FSL. He also proved acknowledgments of FSL as Ex. PW20/G and Ex. PW20/H.
17. PW22 Dr. Gaurav Bansal, deposed that on 06.10.2014, patient namely Poonam was referred to surgery department casualty from emergency. He alongwith Dr. Irfan and Dr. Ashish had treated the patient, who was having stab injury on the chest and abdomen. He further deposed that on local examination of patient, they observed a stab knife inside right side chest in right eleventh intercostal space in interior auxiliary line in Situ. He further deposed that there was also stab wound two centimeter below left costal margin, longitudinal 5 centimeter long, sharp edge. He further deposed that the SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 14 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:28:19 +0530 patient was treated and knife was also pulled out from the body of patient during surgical treatment. He proved progress report as Ex. PW22/A (colly). He further deposed that later on knife was handed over the duty officer Ct. Surender Kumar in sealed condition.
18.1 PW23 Dr. C. P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics) deposed that on 25.11.2014, one sealed cloth pullanda having seal of SSR was marked to him. He further deposed that upon opening the pullanda, it was found containing Sony Xperia mobile phone stated to have contained audio files. He further deposed that for the retrieval of the data in CD, the mobile phone was sent to CFU Department by sealing the mobile phone again with the seal of FSL Dr. C. P. Singh Delhi. He proved internal forwarding note vide which the mobile phone was sent to CFU Department as Ex. PW23/A. 18.2 He further deposed that thereafter the said mobile phone alongwith one CD is sealed condition having the seal of FSL HK Delhi was received by him vide internal forwarding of case examination report (CFU) which is Ex. PW23/B. He further deposed that as per the case opening sheet which is Ex. PW23/C, the sealed envelops having the seal of FSL HK Delhi was received containing one report alongwith one CD marked CD1 and one mobile phone. He further deposed that thereafter, the audio file in the CD was examined by auditory analysis and subsequent waveform and spectrographic analysis of the relevant audio recording retrieved from mobile phone Ex. 1 and he found no indication of any form of alteration in audio recordings. He further deposed that thereafter, he sealed the exhibits and prepared his report which is Ex. PW23/D. MATERIAL WITNESSES SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 15 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:28:24 +0530 19.1 PW4 Pankaj, deposed that his sister Poonam was married to accused about 9-10 years ago. He further deposed that there was strained relationship between his sister and accused Bhupinder Singh from the very inception of marriage. He further deposed that accused used to drink liquor from very beginning and also used to beat his sister Poonam. 19.2 He further deposed that on 06.10.2014 during night time, a call was received on mobile phone of his younger brother Ankur, which he saw in the morning on 06.10.2014. He further deposed that Ankur on seeing missed call of his sister Poonam, called her back in the morning of 06.10.2014 and Poonam informed Ankur that accused had beaten her up very badly the previous night and her body had turned blue due to the beatings. He further deposed that Ankur told him about the conversation with Poonam. He further deposed that he told his mother that they would not further tolerate the atrocities of accused being inflected on his sister Poonam and now they would bring her back to their house.
19.3 He further deposed that his mother called Poonam, who told that for the sake of her children, she was willing to live in the house and thereafter, she disconnected the phone. He further deposed that his mother again called Poonam in the afternoon and told Poonam to tell accused Bhupinder that she would not tolerate further beatings and she was going to her parents house. He further deposed that after sometime, accused Bhupinder made a call on mobile phone of Ankur and asked him as to who all family members were present in the house to which Ankur replied that all family members were present in the house. Thereafter, accused Bhupinder told Ankur that he was coming to the house in five minutes and thereafter, Bhupinder disconnected the phone. 19.4 He further deposed that at about 02:45 PM, when he alongwith his mother and younger brother was watching TV in the room, he saw that accused SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 16 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:28:30 +0530 alongwith Poonma was present at the door of the room and all of sudden Poonam turned and begged for forgiveness falling at the feet of accused. He further deposed that accused Bhupinder lifted her and attacked her with knife on her stomach (abdomen). He further deposed that his mother got up after seeing the incident, accused Bhupinder gave knife blow on the front side chest/stomach of his mother. He further deposed that his brother Ankur also saw the incident and tried to go towards door, accused also inflicted knife blow on his younger brother Ankur. He further deposed that when he approached the door, accused also gave him a knife blow on left side of his chest/abdomen. 19.5 He further deposed that they all struggled and came towards courtyard and accused kept on stabbing them and during the incident his brother Ankur caught hold the knife being carried by accused. He further deposed that accused Bhupinder told that he would not stab further and his hand should be left free. He further deposed that as soon as hands of accused became free, he inflicted another life blow on the chest of Poonam. He further deposed that as a result of knife blow, knife got stuck into the chest of Poonam.
He further deposed that accused tried to take out the knife from the chest of Poonam but he was unable to do so and thereafter, after leaving the knife in the chest of Poonam, he ran away from there. He further deposed that he alongwith his mother, his younger brother and sister fell down in the courtyard and they all were bleeding profusely. He further deposed that on hearing their cries, their neighbours reached their house and tried to save them and shifted them to hospital in maruti van.
19.6 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that relationship between his sister Poonam and accused was normal. He admitted that some altercation took place between him and his brother Ankur on 05.10.2014 and he told about the said altercation to his sister on 05.10.2014, SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 17 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:28:34 +0530 who came to their house on the same day. He admitted that his sister had called Bhupinder on 06.10.2014 from her parental house. He stated that on the day of incident his wife was not at home and he was watching TV alongwith his mother and brother at the time of incident. He stated that an unknown person stabbed his sister, who was tall and was medium built and had tied handkerchief on his face, covering only the lower part of the face upto the nose.
19.7 He admitted that unknown person had also stabbed him, his mother and brother. He admitted that main gate and doors of their house was opened and all of a sudden the incident took place. He admitted that accused Bhupinder had not caused that injuries to them. He further admitted that his father, who was suffering from paralysis, was present at their house. 19.8 During re-examination done on behalf of State with regard to his contradictory statements, he stated that he had given his statement at the instance of police officials.
20.1 PW16 Pratibha Chaudhary deposed on the lines of PW4 Pankaj.
In addition, she deposed that her youngest sister in law was married with accused Bhupinder. She further deposed that accused Bhupinder used to beat her sister in law Poonam. She further deposed that about one year ago of the incident, a dispute had taken place between Poonam and Bhupinder. They made understand both of them. Sister of accused Bhupinder also made him understand. She further deposed that she asked Poonam as to whether there was everything right to which Poonam told that there was no change in behaviour of Bhupinder and he would not change himself. She further told that jaisa pehle tha waise hi rahega and she was residing with accused Bhupinder for the sake of children.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 18 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:28:39 +0530
20.2 She further deposed that on 05.10.2014 in the night, Poonam
called Ankur but he could not attend the call. She further deposed that on 06.10.2014 at about 11:00-11:30 AM, Ankur made a call to Poonam and she told that she was beaten by accused Bhupender on previous night and she was again beaten in the morning. She further deposed that deceased Poonam further told that when accused was beating her, he was saying that he would kill her and her family members as her family members were favouring her " aaj tujhe or tere gharwalon ko jaan se khatam kar dunga kyonki tere ghar wale himayati bante hain." She further deposed that her mother in law Kaushalya Devi also talked to accused Bhupinder and told him not to beat Poonam. She further deposed that her mother in law told accused Bhupinder that she was sending someone to take Poonam from her matrimonial home upon which accused Bhupinder told that he himself was coming with Poonam within 15 minutes. 20.3 She further deposed that on 06.10.2014, at about 02:30 PM, accused Bhupinder and her sister in law Poonam came at their house and at that time, she was in her beauty parlor. She further deposed that her husband, brother in law Ankur and mother in law Kaushalya Devi were watching TV and her father in law was in another room. She further deposed that accused Bhupinder did not take entry from the main gate and he entered in his parlor and bolted the gate of parlor from outside and thereafter, he entered into the house.
20.4 She further deposed that after entering into the house, accused Bhupinder bolted another gate of the parlor which used to be open in the house from outside. She further deposed that accused Bhupinder was having a knife in his hands. She further deposed that after about 1-2 minutes, she heard noise of her family members. She opened the gate which used to open on the roadside and came outside the house of the road. She further deposed that she SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 19 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:28:44 +0530 saw accused Bhupinder had taken the exit from main gate and ran away from there. She further deposed that she went into the house from the main gate and saw that her husband Pankaj, brother in law Ankur, sister in law Poonam and her mother in law Kaushalya Devi were lying in the courtyard in the pool of blood. She further deposed that a knife was inserted inside the right side abdomen of Poonam. She further deposed that her husband Pankaj told him that after entering into the house, accused Bhupinder had firstly caused stab injury to Poonam and when her mother in law came there, she was also stabbed by accused Bhupinder by the knife.
20.5 She further deposed that her husband further told her that then accused Bhupinder caused stab injury to Ankur and lastly caused injury to her husband. She further deposed that her husband further told her that Ankur caught hold of the knife on which accused Bhupinder asked Ankur to leave the knife and gave assurance that he would not cause any other injury. She further deposed that as soon a Ankur left the knife, accused Bhupinder gave a blow in the abdomen of Ankur. She further deposed that after that accused Bhupinder again caused knife injury on the person of Poonam but this time the knife could not be taken out from the abdomen of Poonam by accused Bhupinder. She further deposed that after that accused left their house and fled away. She further deposed that she tied the part of the injuries by different chunni so that blood could be stopped from the injuries of the injured persons. She further deposed that neighbours also reached at the spot and someone had made a call at number 100. She further deposed that she also made call at number 100. Injured persons were removed to DDU Hospital by the help of neighbours. She further deposed that police reached at hospital and her statement was recorded by the police which is Ex. PW16/A. She further deposed that in the hospital her mother in law was declared brought dead and her sister in law Poonam also SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 20 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:28:50 +0530 expired on the same day due to the knife injuries caused by accused. 20.6 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, she stated that her sister in law Poonam was married to accused Bhupinder Singh and after marriage they were residing at House No. WZ-52, village Naraina, New Delhi. She stated that financial condition of accused Bhupinder was good and no demand was made by accused Bhupinder or his family members from them after the marriage. She stated that accused and deceased used to come to their residence to celebrate functions and festivals. She stated that there were cordial relations between accused Bhupinder and her sister in law Poonam till her murder. She stated that she had not seen any quarrel between accused Bhupinder and Poonam. Poonam never made any complaint against Bhupinder in her presence.
20.7 She admitted that on 05.10.2014, a dispute had taken place between her husband Pankaj and her brother in law Ankur on account of regular expenditure of the family and they stopped talking to each other. She stated that on the same day, Poonam came for resolving the dispute, however, dispute could not be resolved and she went back on the same day. 20.8 She stated that on 06.10.2014, Poonam again came alone and she did not tell as to where accused Bhupinder had gone. She stated that Poonam had two mobile phones having number 9999103050 and 9953149196. She stated that accused was not keeping any mobile phone and whenever they had to speak to accused, they used to call on the mobile phone of Poonam. She stated that she was in the market when she received a phone call from their tenant about the incident at about 02:30-03:00 PM. She stated that the police officials, who had brought them to the court, had told them to give statement as per their dictation or else they would implicate her husband and Ankur.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 21 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:28:56 +0530
21.1 PW17 Ankur deposed that his sister Poonam married with accused
Bhupinder and they were residing happily. He further deposed that on 06.10.2014 at about 02:15 PM, his sister in law Pratibha had gone to Gandhi Market to purchase articles for her beauty parlour. He further deposed that his sister Poonam was working in the beauty parlour of his bhabhi Pratibha and he alongwith his elder brother and mother were watching TV in the room. He further deposed that at about 02:4 PM, his sister entered into their room while screaming and one person, who had covered his face with a handkerchief, was chasing her. He further deposed the said person attacked on his sister with a knife. He alongwith his elder brother Pankaj and his mother intervened into the matter to save his sister, however, the said person also attacked them by the knife. He further deposed that when his sister screamed, the said person again stabbed in the abdomen of his sister by the knife and the knife could not come out from the abdomen of his sister.
21.2 He further deposed that on hearing their cries, neighbours came inside their house within ten minutes and they took them to hospital. He further deposed that after the incident, he became unconscious and regained his consciousness in the hospital. He further deposed that he came to know that his mother and elder sister had expired due to the injuries caused by the said person.
21.3 During cross examination done on behalf of State, he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW17/A and he denied that accused Bhupinder was a habitual drunker and used to harass his sister and also used to beat his sister Poonam. He denied that accused was having enmity with them and he used to threaten to kill them as well as his sister. He denied that accused used to threaten them that he would leave his sister at their house and his sister was tolerating the act of accused for the sake of her children.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 22 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:29:00 +0530
21.4 He denied that in the night of 05.10.2014, accused Bhupinder
gave beatings to his sister and he and his family talked to his sister. He further denied that his sister told them that accused Bhupinder had given beatings to her and she was having swelling on her eye due to the beatings. He further denied that Poonam asked them to come to her matrimonial house to see her and his mother advised her and asked Poonam to come to their house. He further denied that Poonam told them that when she requested Bhupinder that she would come to their house, accused Bhupinder threatened that he would kill her and her children, if she went to their house. He further denied that accused Bhupinder used to threaten them to kill his family members as they were favouring Poonam.
21.5 He further denied that he made call to accused Bhupinder and he asked him as to who were present in their house to which he replied that all the family members were present at home. He further denied that accused Bhupinder told him that he would be reaching their house within 10-15 minutes.
21.6 He admitted that at about 03:00 PM, he alongwith his brother Pankaj and mother was watching TV in a room and his father was taking rest in another room. He denied that his sister in law Pratibha was working in her parlour. He further denied that accused Bhupinder and his sister Poonam entered into their room. He further denied that Poonam turned towards accused Bhupinder and asked her for forgiveness. He denied that accused Bhupinder threatened to kill and gave a knife blow on the person of Poonam. He further denied that when his mother tried to save Poonam, accused Bhupinder attacked on his mother as well as his mother by the said knife. He further denied that when accused Bhupinder tried to attack him by the knife, he caught the knife and his brother Pankaj caught the hand of accused. He further denied that they SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 23 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:29:05 +0530 were requesting accused to leave the knife and accused was asking them to leave his hand. He further denied that when he was catching the knife of accused, he also sustained injuries on his left hand due to which he could not hold the knife. He further denied that accused again gave a knife blow on the abdomen of his sister due to which it got stuck in the abdomen of Poonam and could not come out. He further denied that accused Bhupinder was threatening Poonam and was asking to leave the knife. He further denied that after causing injuries to them, accused Bhupinder ran away from there. He further denied that he could not understand as to why accused Bhupinder brought his sister to their house and the entire incident had taken place within a short time. 21.7 He denied that he had produced a mobile phone make Sony Xperia before the IO, who seized the same. He stated that he was using mobile phone bearing No. 9871776302 at the time of incident and it might be that he was using a mobile phone bearing No. 9899642319. He proved customer application form as Ex. PW17/B and photocopy of election ID card as Ex. PW17/C. He denied that photocopy of saving account passbook of SBI, JNU Branch which is Ex. PW17/D belonged to him. He denied that mobile phone bearing No. 9899642319 was allotted to him on customer application form Ex. PW17/B. 21.8 He admitted that customer application forms in the name of accused Bhupinder which are Ex. PW17/E and Ex. PW17/F bear photograph of accused and mobile numbers i.e., 9999103050 and 9953149196 were allotted to accused. He denied that accused Bhupinder was using mobile phone No. 9953149196 and his deceased sister were using numbers 9999103050 and 9953149196. He admitted that in Ex. P12 it is mentioned that on 06.10.2014 at about 15:13:20, location of mobile phone bearing No. 9953149196 was at RZ-14/284, Geetanjali Park, Gali No. 3, Nehru Market. He further admitted SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 24 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:29:10 +0530 that in Ex. 12, it is mentioned that on 06.10.2014 at about 15:15:08, location of mobile phone No. 9953149196 was at RZ-26K, Main Gandhi Market, Sagarpur and location of mobile number 9953149196 was at WZ-25, Vashisht Park, Near Sagarpur red light at about 15:23:27. He denied that said call details of mobile phone showed the presence of accused at their house. 21.9 He denied about the conversation took place between him and deceased Poonam on 06.10.2014 at 11:28:13, 11:37:57, 12:00:05, 12:49:25, 13:08:10, 14:28:22 and 14:30:55. He admitted that he sustained injury on his left hand and the said injury was caused as he caught hold of the knife at the time when injury was being caused on his person. 21.10 During evidence, mobile phone Ex. PW17/ME-1 was shown to witness and audio recordings were played. However, witness stated that the said mobile phone did not belong to him. CD containing audio recording is Ex.
PW17/ME-2. He proved transcript of the audio recording as Ex. PW17/G. However, he denied about any conversation took place between him, deceased Poonam and accused Bhupinder.
21.11 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he admitted that on 05.10.2014, he and his brother Pankaj had a quarrel regarding household expenditure and they stopped talking to each other. He further admitted that after knowing about the quarrel, deceased Poonam came to their house on 05.10.2014 to resolve the dispute but when the dispute could not be resolved, she returned back to her matrimonial house and again came back on 06.10.2014. He admitted that on his enquiry as to why she had come alone, deceased Poonam informed that her husband was out of Delhi and on the insistence of kids, she left them at their bua's house. He admitted that he had never handed over any telephone or call recording to the police. He admitted that he had never seen Bhupinder causing any injury either to deceased SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 25 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:29:15 +0530 Poonam or to deceased Kaushalya.
22.1 PW21 'S', who happens to be daughter of deceased, deposed that her mother was expired on 6th October 2014 and when her mother was alive, they all used to lived happily. She further deposed that relation between her mother and father was healthy and normal. She further deposed that on 05.10.2014, her mother had to visit her maternal grandmother ( nani) urgently and she went in the morning and came back by night. She further deposed that when Poonam went to meet her mother, she alongwith her father and brother were at home. She further deposed that her father had to go urgently outside Delhi so he also left at night on 05.10.2014 after her mother came home. 22.2 She further deposed that in the morning of 06.10.2014, her mother had to visit her nani again and she and her brother wanted to go to their bua's home. She further deposed that her mother left them at her bua's place and she left for the place of her nani. She further deposed that on the same day at night, her bua informed her that her nani and mother had expired and their remained with her bua for some days. She further deposed that thereafter, they went to their house with bua and bua informed them that her father has been arrested by the police in some case. She further deposed that after some days, she spoke to her mama and he informed that some gunda had killed her mother and nani. 22.3 She was cross examined on behalf of State where she stated that she had not given any statement to police. She denied that her father used to drink alcohol and used to quarrel with her mother. She further denied that one day prior to the death of her mother, her father had a quarrel with her and had hit her mother on her eye. She further denied that on the day of incident, her father took her and her brother alongwith her mother in TSR and dropped her and her brother at her bua's place. She further denied that in the same TSR, her SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 26 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:29:20 +0530 father and her mother had gone to her nani's place. She further denied that when her bua Asha asked them about their mother and father then they told her that they left them there. She further denied that one day prior to the death of her mother and nani Kaushalya, her father had not left Delhi. She further denied that they did not want to go to their bua's home rather her father and mother had left them at there.
22.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, she stated that her father used to love her mother and used to keep her happy. She stated that her father used to take her, her mother and her brother to attend all the functions and celebrations at her nani's place. She stated that the relation between her father and her nani and her family were cordial. She stated that her father used to love her and her brother. She stated that she had never seen her mother and father quarreling with each other and her father never gave beatings to her mother. She stated that her father was not using any mobile phone and mobile No. 9999103050 and 9953149196 were of her mother.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION 23.1 PW5 Ct. Suresh Kumar deposed that on 06.10.2014, on receipt of DD No. 29A, he alongwith ASI Ram Karan had gone to Gali No.7 but the place of offence was found to be in Gali No. 5, Geetanjali Park, House No. 1347, Sagarpur and accordingly, they reached there. He further deposed that they found crowd gathered outside in the gali and there was lot of blood in the courtyard of the house. He further deposed that they came to know that injured had already been taken to DDU Hospital by the public persons. Thereafter, ASI Ram Karan after leaving him at the spot, proceeded to DDU Hospital. He further deposed that later on senior officer alongwith Inspector Subey Singh also reached at the spot. Crime team was also called. He further deposed that SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 27 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:29:24 +0530 he observed that one fridge, motorcycle, three pairs of slippers lying inside and one slipper was found inside the room. He also observed blood marks on the fridge and some cushions lying there alongwith some broken bangles and washing machine.
23.2 He further deposed that IO ASI Ram Karan came back from DDU Hospital and kept two sealed pullanda under his supervision. He further deposed that ASI Ram Karan recorded statement of Pratibha and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he handed over the said two sealed pullandas to ASI Ram Karan and went to police station for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Inspector Subey Singh near Tentwala School. He further deposed that thereafter, they all returned back to police station. Constable Surender also came to police station and handed over the pullanda to the IO containing a knife from DDU Hospital and the pullanda was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW5/B. 23.3 He further deposed that on 10.10.2014, he had gone to DDU Hospital on the instructions of IO and brought the case property comprising of clothes of deceased persons vide separate pullandas and blood in gauze of deceased persons and other injured person. He handed over the same to IO which were seized vide seizure memos which are Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/C. 23.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that IO had not recorded the statement of any person in gali No. 7 as addressed mentioned in DD No. 29A. He stated that crowd was outside in the gali and not in the house of injured and only Pratibha was found inside the house at the place of occurrence. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 28 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:29:29 +0530
24.1 PW8 HC Khiladi Ram deposed that on 06.10.2014, while he was
on patrolling duty, he received message on his set regarding quarrel at Gali No. 5, Geetanjali Park, Sagarpur and accordingly, he reached there and found ATO Sube Singh Rao, Ct. Suresh and other staff present there. He further deposed that when he went inside the house, he saw two pillows were lying in the courtyard (aangan), blood stained one bolster pillow (cylindrical cushion) and three pairs of slippers were also lying there. He further deposed that there were blood stains inside the room and one blood stained slipper was also lying there. He further deposed that on the directions of ATO, he collected the blood lying on the ground with the help of chaini and hammer. He further deposed that blood was lying at four different places in courtyard and at one place inside the room. He further deposed that he collected the blood in cotton which were kept in five different pullandas i.e., Serial No. A, B, C, D and E and seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW8/A and slipper and pillow cover were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW8/B. 24.2 He further deposed that on the door mat also blood was lying. In the courtyard, pieces of bangles were lying and seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW8/C. He further deposed that thereafter, rukka was prepared by Inspector Subey Singh Rawat. He exhibited two normal pillow cover, one small pillow cover of red colour, one door mat and three pairs of blood stained slippers as Ex. PW8/P1 (colly). He exhibited broken pieces of bangles as Ex. PW8/P2.
24.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that nobody was inside the house at ground floor as he stopped them. He stated that the courtyard of the house had ceiling of iron grill. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of accused.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 29 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2026.01.21
17:29:33 +0530
25.1 PW10 SI Ram Karan deposed that on 06.10.2014 at about 03:20
PM, he received DD No. 29A regarding quarrel at tent wala school, near kuan wala mandir, he alongwith Ct. Suresh reached there. He further deposed that he saw a number of persons gathered at H. No. 1347, Gali No. 5, Geetanjali Park, Sagarpur, New Delhi. He entered the house and found blood was scattered everywhere and he came to know that injured had been shifted to DDU Hospital. He further deposed that he narrated the incident to senior officers and thereafter, they alongwith SHO had also reached the spot. He further deposed that after leaving Ct. Suresh at the spot, he proceeded to DDU Hospital where SI Madan met him. He further deposed that doctors declared Kaushalya Devi as brought dead and injured Poonam, injured Ankur and injured Raju were unfit for statement as they had sustained injuries with a sharp weapon. He further deposed that doctor handed over him blood stained clothes of Poonam and Ankur. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Madan reached the spot and recorded statement of Pratibha @ Prabha and prepared rukka which is Ex. PW10/A and handed over the same to Ct. Suresh for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he handed over pullanda of knife brought by Ct. Surender, pullanda of clothes of injured to IO.
25.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that the spot was one storey building. He admitted that the doors of the said house was open and a lot of persons were present there. He stated that there was a police booth at about 500 meters away from the spot. He could not tell whether he had inspected the entire house or not when he visited the spot.
26. PW11 HC Phool Singh deposed that on 07.10.2014 at around 01:30 AM, an information was received from DDU Hospital by duty Ct. Satish. He further deposed that he entered the said information in rojnamcha SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 30 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:29:38 +0530 vide DD No. 9A which is Ex. PW11/A.
27.1 PW24 Inspector Madan Meena, deposed that on 10.10.2014, a secret information was received by HC Raj Kumar regarding the arrival of accused Bhupinder Singh at Nangal Rai between 12:00-03:00 PM. He further deposed that in pursuance of secret information, a raiding party was constituted consisting of himself, IO/Inspector Sube Singh, SHO/Richpal Singh, SI Anju, HC Raj Kumar, HC Narender, Ct. Shyamsunder, HC Chetram and other police staff alongwith secret informer. He further deposed that thereafter, they left the police station in government gypsy bearing No. DL 2CAL 8513 and private vehicles at about 11:00 AM and reached at Nangalrai near Flyover at about 11:30 AM. He further deposed that IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation, but non agreed and left without disclosing their name and address.
27.2 He further deposed that thereafter, they all took their position and at about 12:30 PM, accused was found coming from Nangalrai Flyover towards Nangalrai and he was carrying one bag ( thela) with him. He further deposed that on the pointing out of secret informer, accused was apprehended and after interrogation, he was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW24/A. His personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW24/B and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW24/C. 27.3 He further deposed that accused revealed that the clothes i.e., T- shirt of dark brown colour and LE GRAND YACVHI CLUB was written and black and red colour lower of Shiv Naresh Company and shoes i.e., blue and black colour and MARATHON was written on it sole and on the other side word SEGA was written, he was wearing at the time of his apprehension were SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 31 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:29:42 +0530 the same clothes and shoes which he were wearing at the time of incident. Thereafter, clothes and shoes of accused were taken off and were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW24/D. He further deposed that accused wore the clothes which he was carrying in his bag. He further deposed that accused also led them to the spot and IO prepared pointing out memo which is Ex. PW24/E at his instance. He exhibits clothes of accused as Ex. P24/1. 27.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that he was not carrying any weapon and he could not tell what weapons, other police officials were carrying when they left for raid. He admitted that on the way from police station Sagarpur till Nangalraya Flyover, there were many shops and residential houses. He admitted that there was traffic on the road and public persons were passing by. He stated that IO did not ask any shopkeeper and the persons residing in the residential house or passersby to join the investigation from PS Sagarpur to Nangalraya Flyover. He stated that no photography or videography was done at the time of arrest of accused in order to establish that accused was wearing clothes as seized from him. He stated that accused was interrogated at the place of arrest on the public road and no photography or videography of the proceedings conducted at the time of arrest of accused was done. He stated that no mobile phone or weapon was recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
28.1 PW25 Inspector Sube Singh, deposed that on 06.10.2014, on receipt of information from Duty officer about the murder at Gitanjali Park, Sagarpur, he went to the spot i.e., RZ-1347, Gali No. 5, Gitanajali Park, West Sagarpur where other police staff of PS Sagarpur was also present. He further deposed that he came to know that injured had been shifted to hospital by SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 32 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:29:47 +0530 public person. He further deposed that ASI Ram Karan, who was assigned call about the incident had also rushed to DDU Hospital after leaving Ct. Suresh Kumar at the spot with the direction to safe guard the spot/scene of crime. Mobile crime team also reached there. He further deposed that ASI Ram Karan returned back at the spot from the hospital at about 09:00 PM, who recorded statement of complainant Pratibha, which was converted into rukka. He further deposed that rukka was handed over to Ct. Suresh with the direction to get the FIR registered.
28.2 He further deposed that he took up the investigation of the present case as per the rukka wherein ASI Ram Karan had requested to hand over the investigation to him. He further deposed that he inspected the scene of crime and found three slippers, two pillow covers, one doormat and blood was lying in courtyard and one blood foot print and pieces of broken glass bangles were also lying on the floor. He further deposed that mobile crime team inspected the scene of crime and he seized blood stained broken glass bangles, blood stained three slippers, blood stained pillow covers, blood stained doormat pillow as well as sample blood and earth control with the help of gauze from the spot. He further deposed that he also prepared rough site plans of scene of crime i.e., one rough site plan from inside area and other from outside area which are Ex. PW25/A and Ex. PW25/B. 28.3 He further deposed that after completing investigation at the spot, when he alongwith his staff was returning back to police station, Ct. Suresh met him and handed over original rukka alongwith copy of FIR to him and then they all returned back to police station. He further deposed that ASI Ram Karan also handed over to him two sealed pullandas stated to be containing clothes of injured persons and he seized the same. He further deposed that Ct. Surender also produced one sealed pullanda stated to be containing knife used SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 33 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:29:53 +0530 in the crime and he seized the same and thereafter, deposited all case properties in the malkhana. He further deposed that ASI Ram Karan also produced MLC of injured persons and other medical documents before him. 28.4 He further deposed that both injured were declared dead and they were identified by their near relatives. He further deposed that on 07.10.2014, he got conducted postmortem of the body of deceased Shakuntala @ Kaushalya and Poonam. After postmortem, dead bodies were handed over to near relatives. He proved unnatural death report of deceased Poonam and Kaushalya as Ex. PW25/C and Ex. PW25/D and his requests for conducting postmortem are Ex. PW25/E and Ex. PW25/F. 28.5 He further deposed that on 10.10.2014, accused Bhupinder Singh was arrested, his personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. He further deposed that as the wearing clothes of accused were blood stained, he seized his t-shirt, lower and shoes. He further deposed that accused disclosed about committing murder of Kaushalya and Poonam and that after committing murder, he went to Palwal and Haridwar. He also disclosed that he bought weapon of offence i.e., knife from Mussorrie. 28.6 He further deposed that on next day, three days PC remand of accused was obtained and during PC remand, accused took the police team to Palwal where he stayed after committing the said crime. He further deposed that he collected the documents from Arya Guest House Palwal as well as Simran Guest House Haridwar where he had stayed which are Mark PW25/1 and Ex. PW25/F (colly) respectively. He further deposed that accused took the police party to Mussorrie for pointing out of shop from where he had purchased the knife but there he could not point out any shop or could not disclose source from where he had purchased the knife.
28.7 He further deposed that in the month of November, he got
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 34 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2026.01.21
17:29:57 +0530
recorded statement of complainant Pratibha and witness Pankaj under section 164 CrPC through his application which is Ex. PW25/G and obtained copy of the same vide his request which is Ex. PW25/H. He further deposed that he collected postmortem report and medical documents of deceased/injured i.e., deceased Poonam and Kaushalya, injured Ankur and Pankaj. He further deposed that during investigation, he got the place of incident inspected through draftsman, who prepared the scaled site plan and handed over the same to him.
28.8 He further deposed that after the postmortem, he also obtained subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence and injuries. He also obtained opinion on the injury of injured Ankur. He also collected CDRs and other relevant documents pertaining to the mobile phones. He further deposed that he also seized mobile phone of Ankur stated to be having conversation of accused and witnesses. He further deposed that he also filed an application for getting the voice sample of accused which is Ex. PW25/I, however, accused refused to give his voice sample. He also placed on record the transcription of the conversation between the deceased, witnesses and accused vide application which is Ex. PW25/J. 28.9 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he admitted that actual place of incident was different from the one mentioned in DD No. 29A. He stated that he had made inquiry from the caller of DD No. 29A so as to clarify the discrepancy of the spot. He admitted that no call or telephonic information was received regarding any quarrel at H. No. 1347, Gali No. 5, Gitanjali Park at the police station. He stated that he handed over seal of SSR to ASI Ram Karan, however, no handing over memo was prepared. He admitted that he had not mentioned the factum of handling over of seal to ASI Ram Karan and depositing the same in malkhana by him in the charge sheet.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 35 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:30:02 +0530 28.10 He stated that the house where the offence took place was built up upto second floor. He could not tell whether it was constructed upto third floor. He stated that there were two exit points in the said house, one was the main door and other is from the parlor shop at the ground floor. He stated that he had prepared the handing over memo of the body of deceased Shakuntala @ Kaushalya and Poonam to their near relatives after the postmortem. 28.11 He admitted that no notice to public person to join the investigation was given on the way from police station PS Sagarpur to Nagal Rai, Delhi Cantt. Flyover. He admitted that there were many shops and houses on the way from police station Sagarpur to Nangal Rai, Delhi Cantt., Flyover. He admitted that no written notice was given to any public person present at Nangal Rai, Delhi Cantt. Flyover. He admitted that in the arrest memo, he had not mentioned that house number or a specific place of arrest in the arrest memo. He stated that prior to arrest of accused, he tried to locate him at his residential address and also at his relative's house. He admitted that he had not obtained CCTV footage in the area of Nangal Rai on 10.10.2014. He admitted that disclosure statement of accused was not in his handwriting. He admitted that he had not clicked any photograph of the accused at the time of arrest showing him wearing the clothes and shoes.
28.12 He admitted that neighbour of accused had not given any statement regarding any quarrel between accused and his wife. He admitted that he had not recorded statement of Asha Devi to verify the alleged visit of accused on 06.10.2014 to her house. He admitted that he had not seized any mobile phone from the possession of accused. He stated that during the investigation, he did not get any information regarding the fact that on 05.10.2014, brothers i.e., Pankaj and Ankur had an altercation between them on the issue of regular expenditure of the house and for that reason, Poonam SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 36 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:30:07 +0530 had visited the house of her brothers to get the matter resolved and when the matter could not be resolved, she went back. He stated that during investigation, he did not come to know that on 06.10.2014, Poonam again visited to their house to solve the matter and accused did not accompany her on that day as he had gone out of station in relation of his work. He admitted that no voice analysis of Ankur or Pankaj was ever got conducted to match it with the alleged recordings. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
29.1 PW26 ASI Raj Kumar, being the member of raiding team, deposed on the lines of PW24 Inspector Madan Meena. 29.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that he received secret information at about 08:00-08:30 AM at police station but neither he recorded the same in writing nor got recorded it in roznamcha register. He stated that he did not give information in writing to the IO or SHO concerned. He could not tell what all weapons, they were carrying at the time of raid. He admitted that the way from Sagarpur to Nagal Raya near Flyover, there were several shops, residential houses, public and traffic on the way. He stated that on the way, no public person was asked to join the raiding team. He admitted that at Nangal Raya where the raid was conducted, was also a congested area having several shops and residential houses. He stated that at the time of raid, IO neither requested anybody from the shops nor the residential houses to join the raiding team. He admitted that no photography or videography was done at the time of raid. He could not tell, if any mobile phone was recovered from accused. He could not tell, if any efforts were made for joining any independent witness at the time of pointing out of place of incident. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 37 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:30:12 +0530
30. Vide statement recorded on 05.08.2018, accused admitted genuineness of documents i.e., identification statement of Virender Kumar which is Ex. P1, seizure memo of blood samples of injured Ankur and Pankaj taken by Dr. Avinash dated 22.11.2014 which is Ex. P2 and Ex. P3, X-ray report of Raju prepared by Dr. Raman which is Ex. P4, postmortem report of Kaushlaya Devi and Poonam prepared by Dr. B. N. Mishra which is Ex. P5 and Ex. P6, subsequent opinion given by Dr. B. N. Mishra which is Ex. P7, proceedings under section 164 CrPC of Pratibha and Pankaj which are Ex. P8 and Ex. P9, CDR and call details of mobile phone bearing No. 9899642319 and certificate under section 65B of India Evidence Act which is Ex. P11 (colly), CDR and call details of mobile phone bearing No. 9953149196 and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. P12 (colly), scaled site plan which is Ex. P13, scene of crime visitation report as Ex. P14, 24 photographs as Ex. P15 (colly), DD No. 29A and DD No. 36B which are Ex. P16 and Ex. P17, statement of Ct. Pawan dated 22.11.2014 and 25.11.2014 which are Ex. P18 and Ex. P19 and Incharge PCR Police Control with CR DD No. 6 which is already Ex. PW7/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C 31.1 After closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.10.2023, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that he always had cordial relations with his wife Poonam and her family. He never quarreled with Poonam as he loved her a lot and also purchased a plot for her in Naseerpur in July 2008 in her name. He stated that he and his wife Poonam used to regularly visit parental house of Poonam to celebrate functions and festivals. At the time of birth of his children, he had SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 38 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:30:17 +0530 arranged functions which were even attended by family of Poonam. He stated that he always had a good financial condition.
31.2 He stated that on 05.04.2014, a dispute had taken place between his brother in law Pankaj and his brother Ankur on account of regular expenditure and they stopped talking to each other. On 05.10.2014, his wife Poona, alone went to resolve the said dispute between her brother but same could not be resolved and she came back on same day. He stated that on
06.10.2014, his wife again went alone to her parental house after dropping their children to their bua's house. He stated that on 06.10.2014, he had not accompanied his wife Poonam as he was travelling out of Delhi in relation to his work. He stated that mobile No. 9999103050 and 9953149196 were used only by his wife Poonam and he never used to keep any mobile phone with him as it was nuisance for him. He stated that even on 06.10.2014, Poonam was carrying both numbers i.e., 9999103050 and 9953149196. He stated that he did not visit parental house of his wife Poonam on 05.10.2014 and 06.10.2014.
31.3 He stated that Pratibha, Pankaj and Ankur never stated him to be assailant. He stated that since police officials came to know about dispute/quarrel between Pankaj and Ankur of 05.10.2014, they all pressurized Pratibha, Pankaj and Ankur to name him as assailant threatening to implicate Pankaj and Ankur in said case. He stated that he never caused any injury to Ankur, Pankaj, Poonam and Kaushalya.
31.4 He stated that on the alleged date of 06.10.2014 and alleged time of incident, he was not in Delhi as he was travelling to Palwal for work and after finishing his work at Palwal, he went to Haridwar for work. He stated that while he was outside Delhi, he tried to contact his wife and children from PCO but both phones of his wife were switched off. He stated that after returning SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 39 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:30:23 +0530 back from Haridwar, he was shocked to know that his wife, his brother in laws and mother in law were attacked by some unknown persons, who were muffled face and in said attack his wife and mother in law expired. On knowing about the same, he lost his senses and was in grief and could not understand what to do. He stated that police officials called him at police station and falsely arrested him in false case. He stated that at the police station, he was forcibly made to sign several blank and printed papers which were misused by police officials to fabricate false documents and he never made any disclosure statement. He stated that he never visited mussoorie nor purchased any alleged knife. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 31.5 Accused opted to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE 32.1 DW1 Asha Devi, who happens to be real sister of accused, deposed that accused had cordial relation with his wife Poonam and her family.
He loved his family and purchased a plot in her name in July 2008 at Nasirpur. She further deposed that accused and his wife Poona, used to regularly visit parental house of Poonam and even attended functions and festivals with them. She further deposed that accused never kept any mobile, as he used to consider it as nuisance and his wife Poonam used to keep two mobile phones. 32.2 She further deposed that on 06.10.2014, at about 10:00-10:30 AM, Poonam alongwith her children had come to her house to leave her children as she was going to her parental house and after leaving her children, Poonam left her house. She further deposed that deceased Poonam told her that she had to go to her parental house urgently as there had been some quarrel between her brothers. She further deposed that thereafter, Poonam left her house by the same auto in which she had come alongwith her children. Poonam also told her SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 40 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:30:27 +0530 that accused had gone out of station on previous night when she had returned from her parental house. She further deposed that Sneha (daughter of accused) told her that her father had left home for his work and was travelling outside Delhi and had left on the night of 05.10.2014. She further deposed that in the afternoon around 03:30-03:40 PM, she received a call from unknown person, who enquired about her identity. She further deposed that the very next moment, she heard cries of Poonam as she was in pain. She further deposed that she asked Poonam about the incident and Poonam told her that she, her mother and brothers had been attacked by some unknown person with a knife. Poonam also told her that knife was stuck in her stomach and she would die. She also told in crying tone 'didi ab aapne hi mere baccho ko sambhalana hai. Ab aap he unki maa ho'. She further deposed that Pranav i.e., son of deceased Poonam also talked to her and after 1-2 minutes, Pranav gave back her mobile phone and then she found that same was disconnected. She further deposed that she tried to call back on the said number as well as on the numbers of deceased but same were unreachable.
32.3 She further deposed that at around 11:30 PM, she was able to contact on the same unknown number and came to know that Poonam and her mother had expired and her brothers were hospitalized at DDU Hospital. She further deposed that she went to DDU Hospital, however, police officials did not allow her to see deceased Poonam and her family on the pretext that investigation was going on.
32.4 She further deposed that on next day i.e., 07.10.2014, she received a call from Pratibha (sister in law of Poonam), who told her about the incident that some unknown persons had attacked Poonam, her mother and her husband Pankaj and Ankur at their house and also informed that cremation would be conducted at around 04:00-04:30 PM. She further deposed that she went to SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 41 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:30:33 +0530 cremation ground where other relatives of accused Bhupinder and Poonam were present and after expressing condolence, she returned back to her house. 32.5 She further deposed that on 07.10.2014 some police officials came to her house in the late evening and inquired about the accused to which told that accused had gone outside Delhi on 05.10.2014 in connection with his work and had not returned yet. She further deposed that the police officials told her to tell accused Bhupinder to visit police station for inquiry on his arrival.
She further deposed that even on 08.10.2014 and 09.10.2014, police officials visited her house and inquired about the accused to which she informed that he had not returned till then.
32.6 She further deposed that on 10.10.2014, accused Bhupinder came back to her house and he told that he had gone to his house at Naraina Village but same was found locked and he tried to call Pooman from phone of his neighbour but same was not reachable. She further deposed that thereafter she narrated the entire incident to him and upon hearing the same, accused Bhupinder started crying and fell down on the ground. She further deposed that thereafter, she alongwith accused Bhupinder went to police station Sagarpur. After some time, she was told by police officials that they would be arresting accused Bhupinder for murder of his wife Poonam and his mother in law. She further deposed that she narrated the incident to police officials but of no avail. She further deposed that accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
32.7 During cross examination done on behalf of State, she stated that her brother Bhupinder was married with deceased Poonam on 23.11.2005 and she mostly used to talk with Poonam, however, she did not have much conversation with her brother Bhupinder. She further stated that in between 2005 to 2014, she used to visit house of his brother Bhupinder on birthdays of SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 42 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:30:37 +0530 children and Poonam. She stated that she had not given any written complaint/representation either to any higher police official or to any official regarding arrest of her brother Bhupinder in this case. She stated that she also requested husband of her younger sister and also to father of her daughter in law to help Bhupinder with legal assistance.
32.8 She admitted that she had not produced the details of plot which her brother had purchased in the name of his wife Poonam in July 2008. She stated that she had no knowledge that on the day of incident accused Bhupinder had talked with his brother in law Ankur through mobile phone and the conversation between Bhupinder and Ankur in the mobile phone of Ankur in which accused Bhupinder was found telling that " ghar per kaun kaun hai "
upon which Ankur replied that "all family members were present at the house. Thereafter, accused Bhupinder told to Ankur that " mein 10-15 minute mein pahuch raha hu, sabhi ghar per hi milna" . She denied that accused Bhupinder was using mobile phone at the time and prior to the incident. 32.9 She denied that deceased Poonam was having very close proximity with her mother and sister Pushpa and she used to visit her parental house frequently and due to that reason, frequent quarrel was taking place between Poonam and Bhupinder. She denied that on 05.10.2014, a quarrel took place between accused Bhupinder and Poonam and accused Bhuipender gave beatings to her during the said quarrel. She further denied that accused Bhupinder threatened Poonam that "tere mayake walo ko kal hi kahtam kar ke saara jhanjat khatam kar dunga". She denied that in the morning hours of 06.10.2014, accused Bhupinder again gave beatings to Poonam and thereafter, Poonam informed to her family members on mobile phone regarding the incident.
32.10 She denied that on 06.10.2014, when accused Bhupinder and
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 43 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:30:42 +0530
deceased Poonam came to her house to leave their children, she had no conversation with Poonam. She stated that on 06.10.2014 she was using mobile phone number 9990622766. She admitted that she had not produced her call details of that day by which it could be shown that she received a call from unknown person at 03:30-03:40 PM.
32.11 She denied that after commission of offence, accused Bhupinder fled from the spot and reached Palwal where he stayed in a Guest House and thereafter, he further went to Haridwar where he also stayed in a Guest House. She further denied that when accused Bhupinder stabbed his wife Poonam, the knife got struck in her stomach and accused Bhupinder thereafter, fled away from the spot. She denied that on the day of incident her brother Bhupinder was using mobile phone No. 9953149196.
33. Vide statement recorded on 02.04.2024 accused closed his defence evidence.
34. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
35. I have heard Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Mr. S. A. Khan, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused Bhupinder Singh.
36. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature. He used to consume liquor on regular basis and he used to beat deceased Poonam mercilessly. On many occasion he was made to understand by the relative to mend his behaviour but of no avail. He was frustrated as family of deceased Poonam used to support her and used to SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 44 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:30:48 +0530 object on the conduct of the accused. On 05.10.2014, he had beaten deceased Poonam and when she reported this fact to her family, her mother deceased Kaushalya Devi stated that she would send someone to bring deceased Poonam back from matrimonial house. Accused got furious to hear this and he stated that he would be coming to the parental house of his wife. There are audio recording of the conversations took place on 06.10.2014. Accused took deceased Poonam to her parental house around 03:00 PM and he started stabbing her with a knife carried by him. When deceased Kaushalya Devi, injured Ankur and injured Pankaj tried to save deceased Poonam, accused stabbed them mercilessly. The knife got stuck in the rib cage of deceased Poonam and thereafter, accused fled away from the spot. Prosecution has examined complainant Pratibha, injured Pankaj and injured Ankur to prove the allegations against him. The cause of death of both deceased is due to injuries suffered by them by a sharp edged weapon and the weapon of offence has been duly exhibited by the prosecution. There are mobile phone locations of accused to prove the fact that accused was present at the place of occurrence at the time and date of the incident which falsify his defence that he was out of Delhi on that day. Prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused under section 302/307 IPC and section 25/27 Arms Act.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 .
37. Per contra, Mr. S. A. Khan, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that this is a false and concocted case foisted against the accused. It is SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 45 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:30:54 +0530 submitted that prosecution has examined injured persons namely Pankaj and Ankur as PW4 and PW17 respectively and both have turned hostile. Similar is the status of complainant Pratibha, who has been examined as PW16. PW13 Veer Singh has also turned hostile. All these family witnesses have deposed that the relation between deceased Poonam and accused were cordial in nature and accused never beaten the deceased Poonam at any point of time. Their relationship is also proved by their daughter, who has been examined as a prosecution witness. Accused has been falsely implicated in this case as police had threatened that PW Pankaj and Ankur would be implicated in this case and therefore, their statements were recorded by the police implicating the accused. Both these witnesses have denied of giving any statement to the police when they appeared before the court. The CDR of the accused is of no consequence as he had gone out of Delhi and his phone was with deceased Poonam on the date of incident. As far as audio recordings are concerned, PW17 Ankur had denied that he had any such conversation with the accused. The voice sample of PW17 Ankur or any other family person was never seized by the IO to prove the fact that who were the persons conversating in said recording. It is further stated that the weapon of offence has not been shown to the injured persons during evidence and its exhibition is defective. It is further stated that IO failed to examine the staff of beauty parlour being run by PW16 Pratibha. It is submitted that the assault was done by an unknown person having a muffled face and when plice could not trace the real offender, accused has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of family members of the deceased persons. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused. Hence, accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt and he may be acquitted accordingly.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 46 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:30:59 +0530
38. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
39. The accused Bhupinder Singh is charged for the commission of offences punishable under sections 302/307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
40. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 302 IPC Punishment for murder.--Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 307 IPC Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.--2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] SECTION 25 ARMS ACT Punishment for certain offences.- Whoever(a) [manufactures, obtains, procures,] sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 47 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:31:04 +0530
(b)shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm [or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] [Inserted by Act No. 48 of 2019, dated 13.12.2019.] in contravention of section 6; or
(d)brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] [Substituted 'three years but which may extend to seven years' by Act No. 48 of 2019, dated 13.12.2019.] and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 27 ARMS ACT
27. Punishment for using arms, etc.--(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, 2[shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.]
41. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 48 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:31:09 +0530 to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved.It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.........."
42. Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Ram Gopal in "India of Vedic Kalpsutras" has stated that even under the ancient system of Administration of Criminal Justice, the benefit of doubt was always be given to the accused. So, Apasthamba laid down that the king should not punish any person in case of doubt.
43. It appears seemly to trace the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt as evolved by Superior Law Courts of England and India. In Miller Vs. Minister of Pensions, (1947) all England law reports 372 Volume 2 Lord Denning J. observed, "I ..... prove beyond reasonable doubt does not mean prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to lead only to a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence, "of course, it is SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 49 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:31:13 +0530 possible, but not in the least probable" the case is proved beyond doubt......"
44. The concept of benefit of doubt has been explained in numerous decisions which are being followed in catena of cases. A stream of rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court commencing with the M. G. Aggarwal, Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1963 2 SCR 405,491; AIR 1963 SC 200 and Climax by Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam 2013 (82) ACC 467 (SC) has settled the law wherein it was held that prove beyond reasonable doubt is not imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt. It is a fair doubt based upon reason or common sense.
45. This court cannot be oblivious that in a criminal trial suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large and divides vagues conjectures from sure conclusions.
46. In Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 7 SCC 171, it has been held that the prosecution has to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubts and cannot take support from the weakness of the defence and hence, there must be proper and legal evidence to record the conviction of the accused.
47. In this backdrop, I shall proceed to delve upon and evaluate the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution heavily relied upon:
1.) Motive,
2.) Testimony of star witnesses, SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 50 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:31:19 +0530
3.) CDR and
4.) The report of FSL with regard to audio recording.
MOTIVE
48. Motive is an important aspect as far as an offence of murder is concerned. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the motive against the accused to prove its mens rea which subsequently followed by his act. Although, the significance of motive is not so much in a case which is based upon testimony of eye witnesses but still prosecution is duty bound to prove the motive against the accused as an important ingredient to prove an offence of murder and an attempt to murder.
48.1 Let us first deal with whether the prosecution has been able to prove whether there was any motive to commit the present offence or not. The case of the prosecution as far as motive to commit the present offence is concerned, accused used to hate the family members of the deceased Poonam as given their interference in his family, the relationship between him and his wife (deceased Poonam) was strained and there was constant conflict between them due to which accused used to harass and beat deceased Poonam. It is also alleged that accused was a habitual drinker and he used to beat deceased Poonam on frequent basis which was objected by her family members. It is further stated by the prosecution that in order to get rid of her and her family members, he committed the present offence.
48.2 To prove the fact that relationship between accused and his wife was strained and he used to beat her, prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PW4 Pankaj, PW16 Pratibha Chaudhary and PW17 Ankur. PW4 as well as PW16 though, supported the version of the prosecution in their examination in SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 51 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:31:24 +0530 chief but during their cross examination, they completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution and stated that relationship of the accused and his wife was very cordial. The prosecution re-examined PW4 Pankaj and PW16 Pratibha with the permission of the court, however, nothing substantial could be extracted by the prosecution during their cross examination which could have been beneficial to prove the allegations against the accused.
48.3 As far as PW17 Ankur is concerned, he did not at all support the version of the prosecution rather in his testimony during the court, he categorically stated that the relationship between the accused and deceased was cordial. The position remained the same likewise PW4 and PW16. 48.4 Here it is also appropriate to examine the testimony of DW1 Asha Devi, who deposed that the relationship between the accused and his wife was cordial. In the form of testimony of DW1 Asha Devi, the version of PW4, PW16 and PW17 and PW21 stands corroborated regarding cordial relation of deceased Poonam and accused.
48.5 Before examining whether or not the above PW4 Pankaj, PW16 Pratibha and PW17 Ankur should be relied upon or not, it be would be pertinent to mention the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to evaluation of evidence of hostile witnesses.
48.6 In State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani and Another 2003 7 SCC 291, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that testimony from witnesses declared hostile by the prosecution can still be relied upon, provided the court carefully scrutinizes it, finds parts dependable, and seeks corroboration; the court should not reject such evidence wholesale but use it to find truth, emphasizing that SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 52 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:31:29 +0530 inconsistencies don't automatically negate a witness's credibility but require cautious evaluation, potentially upholding convictions even with mixed witness accounts.
Key Principles Established/Reinforced:
Hostile Witness Testimony: A witness declared hostile isn't automatically erased from the record; their evidence can be accepted in parts if found truthful and dependable.
Judicial Discretion: Courts must be cautious with hostile witnesses, reading their testimony as a whole and looking for corroboration, rather than rejecting it en bloc.
Appreciation of Evidence: Even with embellishments or contradictions, truthful eyewitness accounts that "clinches the case" can be accepted, potentially reversing High Court acquittals 48.7 From the above discussion, it can be inferred that the evidence of hostile witness cannot be completely defaced from the record rather the court has to cautiously evaluate the evidence of such witness in light of other corroborative evidence to decipher whether the evidence of such witness can be relied upon or not.
48.8 There are three statements of PW16 Pratibha Chaudhary, one is in the form of complaint Ex. PW16/A, another is in the form of statement under section 164 CrPC Ex. P8 and third one is in the form of testimony recorded before the court. PW16 initially in her complaint Ex. PW16/A stated that relationship between the accused and his wife was strained and accused used to beat his wife constantly. PW16 repeated the same version in her statement under section 164 CrPC which is Ex. P8 before Ld. MM and also in her SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 53 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:31:34 +0530 examination in chief recorded before the court. However, in her cross examination, she categorically stated that relationship between accused and his wife was cordial.
48.9 Similarly, PW4 Pankaj Chaudhary in his statement before the police stated that relationship between the accused and his wife was strained and accused used to beat his wife constantly. PW4 repeated the same version in his statement under section 164 CrPC which is Ex. P9 before Ld. MM and also in his examination in chief recorded before the court. However, in his cross examination, he categorically stated that relationship between accused and his wife was cordial. So is PW17 Ankur in his statement before the police Ex. PW17/A stated that relationship between the accused and his wife was strained and accused used to beat his wife constantly. However, during his deposition before the court, he categorically stated that relationship between accused and his wife was cordial.
48.10 From the above, it is clear that PW4 Pankaj, PW16 Pratibha and PW17 Ankur gave different statements before different authorities. With respect to the witnesses, who give different statements at different stages, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajender Singh (2009) 11 SCC 106 has observed as under:
16. The discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide: Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334).
48.11 The inconsistencies in the statement of PW4 Pankaj, PW16
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 54 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:31:39 +0530
Pratibha and PW17 Ankur with respect to the relationship of accused and deceased Poonam cannot be said to be 'minor' as initially they have stated that the relationship between accused and his wife was strained whereas PW4 Pankaj and PW16 Pratibha in their cross examination categorically held that their relationship was cordial and PW17 in his examination in chief itself categorically held that relationship between accused and his wife was cordial.
From the above, it can be deciphered that a witness giving different statements before different authorities cannot be relied upon and that too in an offence where an accused can be punished for life imprisonment or death. Furthermore, there is no other evidence which establishes the initial stand of PW4, PW16 and PW17 that relationship of deceased and accused was strained. Given the fact that there are major contradictions between the statement of PW4 Pankaj, PW16 Pratibha and PW17 Ankur with respect to nature of relationship between accused and deceased Poonam, who were their closed relative, they can not be said to be reliable and worthy witness. The major contradictions occurred in their deposition are fatal to the case of the prosecution as far as motive is concerned. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the fact that accused had any motive to commit the present offence.
TESTIMONY OF STAR WITNESSES
49. Now, the court delve into the issue of reliability of the star witnesses examined by the prosecution. To prove its case, prosecution heavily relied upon star witnesses i.e., PW4 Pankaj, PW16 Pratibha Chaudhary and PW17 Ankur. PW4 and PW17 are not just the eye witnesses but also the injured in the same incident and PW16 is the complainant. PW16 Pratibha Chaudhary (complainant) stated in her complaint Ex. PW16/A and in her statement under section 164 CrPC Ex. P9 that on the date of incident, accused SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 55 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:31:44 +0530 Bhupinder, who happens to be her brother in law, came to their house alongwith deceased Poonam and he crossed through her parlour, at that time, she was working in the parlour, which is situated in the front room of the house wherein the incident occurred. While passing through the parlour, accused closed the latch of the door of the said room from outside. She had also stated while she was working in the parlour, she heard hue and cry from the house. When she went inside from the front door of the house, she found her family members i.e., PW4 Pankaj (husband), PW17 Ankur (brother in law), deceased Kaushalya Devi (mother in law) and deceased Poonam (sister in law) in pool of blood while a knife was stuck inside the abdomen of her sister in law namely Poonam. She further stated that she saw accused Bhupinder was fleeing away from there. She further stated that her husband told that accused Bhupinder caused injuries to them and he fled away from there. She repeated her statement in her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC Ex. P9 and her examination in chief recorded in the court. However, she turned the table up side down in her cross examination wherein she not only described the relationship between accused and deceased Poonam as cordial but also stated that some unknown person in muffled face, who could not be recognized by her and had caused the injuries to her family members. 49.1 To avoid repetition, it would be appropriate to simply mention that similar is the situation with respect to PW4 Pankaj. Therefore, there is no need to further delve into the testimony of PW4 Pankaj as the contents of his deposition have already been considered under the head of motive in the earlier portion of the judgment.
49.2 PW17 Ankur Chaudhary also turned hostile during his deposition before the court. The only difference between the testimony of PW17 on the one hand and PW4 and PW16 is that PW17 turned hostile in his examination SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 56 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.01.21 17:31:52 +0530 in chief itself and PW4 and PW17 turned hostile during their cross examination.
49.3 The Hon'ble Apex court has discussed the evidentiary value of evidence of injured/witness in catena of judgments some of them are reproduced as under:
49.4 In Jodhan vs. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
29. From the aforesaid summarization of the legal principles, it is beyond doubt that the testimony of the injured witness has its own significance and it has to be placed reliance upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and inconsistencies. As has been stated, the injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury sustained by him as an inbuilt-guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence. Thus perceived, we really do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the evidence of the injured witnesses have been appositely discarded being treated as untrustworthy by the learned trial Judge."
49.5 In Sadakat Kotwar & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1046, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"2.....We see no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution more particularly, PW7 and PW8 who are the injured eyewitnesses. It is required to be noted that PW7 and PW8 are the injured eye-witnesses. As held by this Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 para 9, the evidence of an injured eye-witness has great evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.....
49.6 In Lakshman Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2021) 9 SCC 191, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"9.1.....It is further observed that "where witness to occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone". It is further observed that "thus, deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on basis of major contradictions and SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 57 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:31:59 +0530 discrepancies therein.
9.2. The aforesaid principle of law has been reiterated again by this Court in Ramvilas and it is held that "evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard their evidence". It is further observed that "being injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted".
49.7 The legal principle which can be deduced from the reading of above mentioned judgments is that the evidence of injured/witness is entitled to be given more weightage, however, if there are cogent and convincing grounds such as major contradictions in their testimonies then the same can be discarded as well.
49.8 From the testimonies of material witnesses i.e., PW4, PW16 and PW17, it is apparent on the face of it that there are major and material contradictions between their testimonies with respect to the identity of the accused, who had committed the present offence. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact that it was accused Bhupinder, who had stabbed the deceased ladies and injured persons Pankaj and Ankur during the incident.
Therefore, the testimonies of these eye witnesses have gone in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.
CDR CONNECTIVITY
50. The prosecution has also brought on record the CDR of the mobile numbers i.e., 9999103050 as Ex. P11 and CDR and location chart of mobile No. 9953149196 as Ex. P12 which are as per the record in the name of accused Bhupinder. Prosecution through Ex. P11 and Ex. P12 intents to prove that on the date and time of incident, accused Bhupinder was present at the place of occurrence.
50.1 The CDR location of an accused can be used to prove the fact that
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 58 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:32:05 +0530
accused was present around the spot at the time of incident. There is nothing on record to prove that exact location of above mentioned mobile number was at the place of incident. Location of accused in the same area is concerned, a mobile tower may suggest about presence of a mobile phone in a particular area. On the basis of CDR and location chart, no particular spot can be pin pointed to presume that any particular person was present at a particular spot at a given time. A mobile tower can cover an area of 2-3 kms and it will show the presence of all mobiles operating in that area. If somebody's location is appearing in a particular area on the basis of location chart then it cannot be said precisely that a person was present exactly at a given spot. The incident occurred in a densly populate area of Sagarpur and if it is considered that the mobile tower of a service provider may cover the area of 2-3 kms in its radius then at the time of incident thousands of mobile would be operative in Sagarpur.
50.2 To prove the theory of CDR and presence of accused at the spot, there has to be something more in the form of corroborating evidence against the accused, which is not placed on record by the investigating officer. Moreover, the star witnesses i.e., PW4 Pankaj, PW16 Pratibha and PW17 Ankur stated in their testimony that the offence was committed by an unknown person, who was in muffled face. Therefore, on the basis of mobile connectivity and location, an in particular in light of testimony of above stated star witnesses about the offence, being committed by some other person other than the accused, who was in muffled face, an inference cannot be drawn by the court against the accused that he was involved in the murder of the deceased persons.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 59 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur
Digitally signed
by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:32:10 +0530
RECORD OF CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DECEASED POONAM AND WITNESSES
51. Last but not the least argument on behalf of State is that accused had a telephonic conversation with PW17 Ankur and he had stated that he would be coming to the place of incident alongwith deceased Poonam. This last call got recorded in the phone of PW17 Ankur and same was seized by the IO during investigation. This audio recorded content was sent to FSL and it has been reported that the content was not altered or doctored. Therefore, by this FSL result, prosecution has proved that the conversation seized by the IO had actually took place. Now, the onus was on the prosecution to prove the identity of persons, who were conversating in the said call recording. 51.1 The prosecution has also proved a CD exhibited as Ex. PW17/ME2 and transcript of conversation between the deceased and PW17 Ankur exhibited as Ex. PW17/G. Prosecution emphasized upon Ex. PW17/ME2 and Ex. PW17/G that on the date of incident deceased Poonam called PW17 and stated that accused had beaten her and she had suffered severe injuries. However, PW17 with whom deceased Poonam is claimed by the prosecution to be having conversation turned hostile and denied the very factum of any such conversation between him and his deceased sister Poonam. He also denied the ownership of the mobile phone make Sony Xperia which is marked as Ex. PW17/ME1. There is no other evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove that Ex. PW17/G actual contained the record of conversation between PW17 and deceased Poonam. Had there been availability of FSL report qua the identification of voice of PW17 Ankur with respect to the audio recording contained in PW17/ME1 and the situation would have been different. Since there is no FSL report on record which could have proved that the audio file contained in Ex. PW17/ME1 actually contained the SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 60 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:32:15 +0530 voice of PW17 and also in light of the fact that PW17 himself denied the very factum of conversation between him and his sister on the date of incident, Ex. PW17/ME1 and Ex. PW17/G cannot provide much support the case of the prosecution.
51.2 IO could have taken the voice sample of the accused to prove the fact that one of the voice recorded in the audio recording was of the accused. If his voice sample was sent to FSL then it could have been verified whether the audio recording contained the voice of the accused or not. If there was FSL report that voice of the accused was present in the said conversation then hostile testimony of PW17 Ankur would have become irrelevant as prosecution would have succeeded to prove the fact that accused Bhupinder had threatened PW17 during the said audio conversation. As PW17 has denied his voice in the said audio recording and there was no voice sample of the accused sent to FSL by the IO for identification of the voice, prosecution has failed to prove the audio recorded conversation against the accused and the fact that he had threatened PW17 just prior to the incident.
51.3 As far as allegations under section Arms Act are concerned, same also remained unproved considering the hostile testimonies of hostile witnesses in this case.
CONCLUSION
52. In a criminal case the prosecution has strict burden of proof to prove beyond doubt that it is the accused, who had committed the offence. The burden becomes more higher when the offence is punishable with stringent punishment such as life imprisonment. In the present case the burden of the prosecution was to prove that it is the accused, who had committed the murder of deceased Poonam and Kaushalya Devi and also caused grievous injuries to SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 61 of 62 FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21 17:32:20 +0530 PW4 Pankaj and PW17 Ankur. Let alone the issue of proving that the offence was committed by accused, the prosecution even fails to prove the presence of the accused at the spot of occurrence on the date and time of the incident. All the material witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile and nothing substantial could have been deduced by the prosecution through their cross examination to establish that the accused was having strained relationship with his wife and her family members and in order to get rid of them, he murdered his wife Poonam and mother in law Kaushalya Devi and caused grievous injuries to his brothers in law Pankaj and Ankur. In view of the aforesaid findings and improvised statement of material witnesses, prosecution has failed to prove allegation against accused under section 302/307 IPC read with section 25/27 Arms Act. Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, accused Bhupinder Singh stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him for committing offences under sections 302/307 IPC and section 25/27 Arms Act. It is ordered accordingly. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.01.21
17:32:29 +0530
Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana)
Court on 21.01.2026 ASJ-07, Patiala House Courts,
(running in 62 pages) New Delhi.
SC No. 9151/2016 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Page No. 62 of 62
FIR No. 461/2014 PS Sagarpur